RE: [SG] Crew Served Weapons???

At 7:13 AM -0400 6/27/01, Bell, Brian K (Contractor) wrote:
>An interesting weapon.
>
>Yes, I would agree that it would fall in the RFAC/1 category.
>
>It looks like they intend a man-load of about 35lbs. The weapon and
fire
>control would be carried by one man. The tripod and a small amount of
ammo
>(28 rounds) carried by another. The rounds weigh almost a pound apiece
(37
>in a 35lb case). So a team of 4 would provide 102 rounds and a squad of
8
>would provide 250 rounds. The weapon fires semi- or full automatic. The
page
>did not state the rate of fire on full automatic. How long would the
ammo
>last before the team would have to withdraw for more ammo?

 From my understanding of the weapon and the specifics on the 
logistics trail, the weapon is something of a hybrid between a direct 
fire weapon like the M2 and the semi-indirect Mk19. The Grenade 
launcher gives you nice area effect kills against troops but is hard 
to range in and has a long/high arc. The M2 is quick to range in but 
doesn't have any burst effect of appreciable nature.

The OCSW allows you to use a small amount of ammo, that has a 
semi-burst effect, on a point or area target accurately and quickly. 
ie, you lase the target's rage, fire as the fire control unit tells 
and you put a few rounds over the soldiers that are behind cover. 
Grazing fire that doesn't care about troops in defilade.

The amount of ammo needed seems to be low. Its not really a sustained 
fire weapon, but something close. More of a lay a burst here kill the 
red force grunts, lay a burst here kill the red force grunts.

Remember, its shooting the same sized rounds as the 20mm 'grenade' 
that OICW uses. Which almost makes it a direct fire mortar, minus the 
burst effect since 60mm mortars have a much
more HE in the projectile and thus a much larger burst effect....

>Also, how do you model having to set the weapon up and tear it down? In
SG,
>would this be a separate action? I think that setup falls below the
>granularity of DS.

Well, since it is a Crew Served weapon, it should work out like the 
Size 1 Heavy weapons (or mortars for that matter). I'm still thinking 
that 2-3 men should be more than enough given what the army is 
looking at for a load.

I got to looking at how effective the RFAC/1 would be and compared it 
to other weapons, its not really a multibarrel SAW (FP D10/Impact D10 
like the NAC and NSL power armour uses, but its bigger and badder... 
FP D10/Impact D12? Its supposed to take over the sustained fire 
mission roles of the other weapons, but then I wonder if it really 
has the area denial role that a sustained fire mission will have.

Still given how trench mortars supplanted machine guns[1]in the 
indirect fire role, I wonder if this new weapon would supplant 
mortars in their role of point fire suppression and kills.

1. WWI saw the penultimate use of crew served water cooled MGs in 
indirect fire just like mortars are used now...During the battle of 
the Somme (I think it was the Somme), 10 Vickers MGs were supplied 
with water and ammo by a company of infantry. The 10 MGs fired a bit 
short of 1 million rounds over 10 hours, 100,000 rounds per gun. The 
crews paused long enough (15-30 seconds) to change belts, refill 
barrels with water and change worn barrels. The mission was entirely 
indirect and was fired at the German assembly areas to prevent a 
local counter attack while a British infantry unit consolidated a 
piece of ground they took.

-- 
--
----------------------------------------------------------------
- Ryan Montieth Gill		 ----------	      SW1025 H -
-   Internet Technologies  --  Data Center Manager (3N &10S)   -
- ryan.gill@turner.com			 rmgill@mindspring.com -
-		   www.mindspring.com/~rmgill		       -
-	      I speak not for CNN, nor they for me	       -
----------------------------------------------------------------
- C&R-FFL -	  The gunshow loophole isn't		 - NRA -
-	     keep federal laws out of private lives	       -