Prev: Re: [SG2] AGL vs SAW Next: Re: [SG2] AGL vs SAW

RE: [SG2] AGL vs SAW

From: "B Lin" <lin@r...>
Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2003 14:50:35 -0700
Subject: RE: [SG2] AGL vs SAW

I don't think the correct comparison is AGL vs. SAW, it should more be
like AGL vs. .50cal HMG.  A better comparison is AR w/GL (OICW-like) vs,
SAW. Or perhaps AGL vs. light Automatic mortar, like those described in
Hammer's Slammers with a 3-round clip.

I think the stats for the AGL will be more similar to an HMG (better to
hit, but less damage) with similar ranges and uses.  IIRC the .50 can be
used against area targets up to almost 2 km which is similar to the AGL.
 Due to the high recoil, it's not as useful against point targets,
unless they are of vehicle size.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: []
> Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2003 2:06 PM
> To:
> Subject: RE: [SG2] AGL vs SAW
> >I would think the SAW is more generally useful - for instance it is
> single-man portable.	From the stats of the AGL, just the 
> weapon itself is
> 77 lbs, not counting mount, tripod or ammo.  IIRC the SAW is 
> just 1/2 that
> weight, and so can be carried by a single man.
> IIRC a 5.56mm SAW is something like 18 pounds, and a 7.62mm 
> is around 30.
> >You can carry more ammo for the SAW.  You probably get 30 
> AGL round per
> can and it's looks larger than a similar ammo can for the SAW.  In
> addition, the SAW is useful at ALL ranges.  If the AGL is 
> similar to the
> standard GL grenades, then minimum distance is about 45 feet 
> (or however
> many rotations of the shell in flight (7?)) before it arms.  
> If it hits you
> at 20 feet, you are going to have a nasty bruise, but aren't 
> going to be
> tomato sauce spread over the landscape.  The SAW on the other 
> hand will
> turn you into swiss cheese at that range.
> Okay, good points.  Now, how do we incorporate this in to SG2?
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> mail2web - Check your email from the web at
> .

Prev: Re: [SG2] AGL vs SAW Next: Re: [SG2] AGL vs SAW