Re: SG2: Vehicles with turreted infantry weapons

Glenn M Wilson wrote:

>>>I assume it's a turreted APSW (3 cap points) 2 unused cap points for
>>>a class 1 size AFV. 
>>
>>APSWs only seem to cost 1 capacity point even when capable of all-arc
>>fire, though.
> 
>But those in DS2 are not turreted as his example was referring to but
per
>page 11 of DS2 - "This is assumed to be a Machinegun...on an external
>remote mounting."  I assume this is different from being a main or
>secondary system in a 'proper' turret.

That same "external remote mounting" reference you quote explicitly
says that the weapon is capable of all-arc fire.

The capacity requirements table on p.16 specifies that all additional
APSW cost 1 capacity point each - they don't seem to be included in the
"All direct fire weapons" category, since they have their own line in
that table.

So, as I understand the rules each extra all-arc APSW beyond the first
one costs 1 capacity point, not 3. But if you absolutely *want* to make
the APSWs three times as big as you have to, don't let me stop you ;-)

>>>House rules (If I ran that arrangement) would be to allow the GL to
>>>have AT type ammo that acted as a HVC (range as class-3, since there
>>>is nothing smaller for HVC's
>>
>>"HVC less than class/3" = "small-caliber shell-firing cannon" = RFAC
>
>Actually RFAC and HVC seem similar but I don't see the DS2 'logic'
>equating them exactly...

They have virtually identical PSB descriptions ("conventional" except
for the use of more efficient propellants), and completely identical
chit validities. Sounds like a pretty strong case for equating them,
no?

The main differences are the size classes available (no overlap between
the two types) and that RFACs are supposed to be mostly shell-firing
while the HVCs mostly fire APFSDS (though the HVCs are able to fire
shell as well, since they have a reasonable anti-infantry
capability)... that's an even better reason for calling a light grenade
launcher "RFAC", since grenades are shells and APFSDS aren't :-)

>But while that is superficially true,	I was thinking that a 40mm GL
>(his LAV example) was not exactly a RFAC but an APSW.

A 40mm GL is a small, fairly short-ranged rapid-fire shell-firing
weapon with decent effect against infantry but poor effect against all
but the lightest armour.

According to the DSII weapon description an RFAC is a small, fairly
short-randed rapid-fire shell-firing weapon. The rules gives it a
reasonable effect against infantry (though *all* DSII weapons are IMO
too weak against infantry) but poor against all but the lightest armour
- particularly the RFAC/1.

The DSII weapon description claims that RFAC/2s correspond "very
roughly" to today's 30-40mm cannon. However, since a GL is both smaller
and shorter-ranged than a 30-40mm cannon (shorter barrel gives lower
muzzle velocity gives lower recoil, which gives a light weapon) and
effectively unable to use high-velocity AP rounds so they have to use
HEAT or equivalent instead (which together with the small caliber gives
a rather unimpressive armour penetration), I'd call the GL an RFAC/1
instead of RFAC/2.

Regards,

Oerjan Ohlson
oerjan.ohlson@telia.com

"Life is like a sewer.
What you get out of it, depends on what you put into it."