Re: DS: SAW versus APSW versus RFAC

Steve Pugh wrote:
...Snips throughout...(JTL)
> Well considering what's been said since this was written and also
> bearing in mind that we are talking SF here and thus we might be able
> to expect lighter, stronger alloys (and wouldn't caseless ammo also
> reduce the weight a bit?) I'd propose the following:
> 3-man team Normal Movement
> 2-man Encumbered Movement
> 1-man Forget it!

> > > Weapon		     Firepower	   Impact
> > > ------------------------------------------------------
> > > HMG		      D10	    D6x2
> > > Rotary HMG	      D12	    D6x2
> > > Gauss HMG 	      D12	    D8x2
> >
> > I'd be tempted to use D8x2 for the HMG also. The M2HB hits way
> > harder than the 7.62mm multi-barrell does. The Gauss is obviously
> > best of both worlds. 
> 
> I wasn't intending the Rotary HMG to be a 7.62mm equivalent. I was
> intending it to be the multi-barrelled equivalent of the HMG. Sure
> there's no way such a brute could be man-packed today, but as I said
> above this is SF and power supplies have to be smaller/lighter to
> make gauss weapons and power armour possible. Ditto coolant systems
> and caseless ammo.

>	  Steve

Steve,
     I agree completely that the better alloys of reduced weight and
increased strength.   This improvement will make the HMG more 
transportable in any form.   

     Caution; a big 'however' follows.	   
     
     HOWEVER, the HMG improved in this manner will be useless on the 
field of battle.   As a squad or platoon leader I would rather have
3 or 4 guys with the 50 cal. long range semi-auto target rifle
than the HMG that is being discussed.	The reason is simple, my
3/4 snipers will deliver more rounds on target in a shorter period
of time than the HMG.	

     Many of the people reading this will say "No, way in hades" is
that last statement true.  

     Caution; a big 'however' follows.

     HOWEVER, the reduction in weight coupled with an increase in
firepower (tri-barrel), will cause the weapon to 'walk' upwards at
an alarming rate, it is not unlikely that such a weapon would roll
over if an attempt was made to fire a sustained burst.	It is very
unlikely that more that two rounds from this weapon could have a 
chance to hit a target.   (It could justify the 'fourth man' on the
crew, he could throw himself across the gun to add weight.   The 
disadvantage here is that it will be more difficult to aim!)
     It is unlikely that a reduction in gun weight will cause a 
reduction in load for the crew.   The weapon being discussed will
have an increased rate of fire and therefore the crew will carry
more ammunition.

> >Once you go to RFACs, it is not as effective (against infantry, JTL)
> > just goes right through.
     I fear the 50 cal is in this league, as it just goes right
thru the poor grunt.
     I have read that germans used the quad 20 flak on the eastern
front, against russian infantry, with astounding success.

Sorry, I really don't mean to spoil the fun. 

Bye for now,
John L.