Full auto weapons, and Rates of Fire.

[hiro]

Reading up on the Pike, according to Wiki, it's in service with Canadian SF but the same article says Raytheon have 2 successful firings. Interesting weapon mind, but one I'd say to use from a concealed position and not in the heat of a firefight. Article also seems to infer a rifle mounted designator can be used, that's handy but what's the range and you'd need a decent low or mid power scope to see the dot at range, maybe more effective at night and with IR lasers under NODS?

 

[Condottiere]

Alexa, hotshot.

 

[mike wightman]

What's needed is a smarter rifle, not bullet. Expensive bullets mean you don't shoot many of them, cheap bullets but an expensive sighting system...

Take the current tracking point sight, add some sort of AI facial recognition based target designation system (real world meaning of AI) so that you can designate targets by looking at them. This could be integrated into your helmet or goggles.

You point the rifle in the direction of the target and the rifle fires when the smart sight says the shot will hit.

 

[CaptRet]

armor and its effect on endurance

We tend to look at encumbrance as how much we can lift, discounting form fitting armour.

Then we figure out movement rates, and balance that between equipment carried, and if we're mostly mounted.

Interesting article in 2011 in LifeScience on the effects of armor on endurance (in this instance, medieval, but many of the principles probably would hold re unpowered armor and vacc suits):

"A new study that put armor-wearing volunteers on treadmills finds that wearing a full suit of armor (which might weigh up to 110 pounds, or 50 kilograms), takes more than twice the energy of walking around unencumbered. Even lugging around a backpack of equal weight is less energy-intensive than wearing armor, the study found, because wearing 17 pounds (8 kg) of steel plates on each leg requires no small amount of extra exertion. ...He and his colleagues recruited four volunteers, historical re-enactors who were accustomed to wearing their own sets of replica 15th-century armor. Each man agreed to walk and run on a treadmill (a task Askew called, "very clanky") while wearing a breathing mask to measure how much oxygen they took in and how much carbon dioxide they excelled, as well as their breathing rate. These measurements allowed the researchers to calculate the energy they used during the exercise periods."

"The modern-day knights used 2.1 to 2.3 times more energy walking with their armor on compared with walking without it. Running with armor took 1.9 times the energy as running armor-free. The result, Askew said, is that men in armor end up moving much more slowly than men without armor. This effect is only exacerbated with age: At his maximum aerobic capacity, an average 38-year-old man could cover about 5.5 feet (1.7 meters) per second, compared with 8.8 feet (2.7 m) per second for an unarmored 38-year-old. With a maximum walking speed of 4.6 feet (1.4 m) per second, an armored 55-year-old would have trouble keeping up. The research also gives a hint into how fit the knights of old must have been. Although modern soldiers lug around equipment as heavy as a knight's armor, Askew said, they expend less energy doing so because their legs are unencumbered."

"It requires a great deal of physical exertion to even perform a medium-speed walk in a suit of armor," Askew said. "I certainly don't think you'd be able to put on a suit of armor and walk around with it without suffering quite badly if you weren't used to it."

 

[Condottiere]

Encumbrance also means that the stuff doesn't get in your way when you're busy doing stuff that requires your attention, and that plate armour is considered the best protection for pre gunpowder combat, to the point that shields disappeared.

Assuming you don't enjoy the luxurious Pentagon budget, it comes down to how much it costs to get the results you want, on the micro scale, how much money and effort requires to cause one casualty.

I get the impression that it takes longer to produce and cost more arrows than crossbow bolts, and slingshot should be even cheaper.

 

[kilemall]

Interesting article in 2011 in LifeScience on the effects of armor on endurance (in this instance, medieval, but many of the principles probably would hold re unpowered armor and vacc suits):

"A new study that put armor-wearing volunteers on treadmills finds that wearing a full suit of armor (which might weigh up to 110 pounds, or 50 kilograms), takes more than twice the energy of walking around unencumbered. Even lugging around a backpack of equal weight is less energy-intensive than wearing armor, the study found, because wearing 17 pounds (8 kg) of steel plates on each leg requires no small amount of extra exertion. ...He and his colleagues recruited four volunteers, historical re-enactors who were accustomed to wearing their own sets of replica 15th-century armor. Each man agreed to walk and run on a treadmill (a task Askew called, "very clanky") while wearing a breathing mask to measure how much oxygen they took in and how much carbon dioxide they excelled, as well as their breathing rate. These measurements allowed the researchers to calculate the energy they used during the exercise periods."

"The modern-day knights used 2.1 to 2.3 times more energy walking with their armor on compared with walking without it. Running with armor took 1.9 times the energy as running armor-free. The result, Askew said, is that men in armor end up moving much more slowly than men without armor. This effect is only exacerbated with age: At his maximum aerobic capacity, an average 38-year-old man could cover about 5.5 feet (1.7 meters) per second, compared with 8.8 feet (2.7 m) per second for an unarmored 38-year-old. With a maximum walking speed of 4.6 feet (1.4 m) per second, an armored 55-year-old would have trouble keeping up. The research also gives a hint into how fit the knights of old must have been. Although modern soldiers lug around equipment as heavy as a knight's armor, Askew said, they expend less energy doing so because their legs are unencumbered."

"It requires a great deal of physical exertion to even perform a medium-speed walk in a suit of armor," Askew said. "I certainly don't think you'd be able to put on a suit of armor and walk around with it without suffering quite badly if you weren't used to it."

Hmm that's satisfying to read, as I have armor plate causing encumbrance and double encumbrance for armored limbs, before counting equipment/weapon load. Have to look at movement speed.

 

[wellis]

Here is a powerpoint slide showing the kind of weight US troops in recent times have been carrying: https://www.scribd.com/document/109732817/Rifle-Platoon-Basic-Load-OEF-XII-1-A-2-504-PIR

If you're having issues with that link, here is a more direct link:
http://www.blackfive.net/files/rifle-platoon-weight3-w-llvi-1.pptx

After accounting for the increased range and accuracy of such weapons platforms as the ACR and then the gauss rifle, the next big leap in infantry firepower will be the smart round. This is almost within reach now. After all, if the individual round has the capability to hit the target regardless of such factors as the recoil of the firing weapon, there is a reduced need for large quantities of ammunition. During the Napoleonic Wars anc Civil War, it has been estimated that roughly 250 - 300 musket rounds were fired for every casualty inflicted. In Vietnam, the US ratio was 50,000 small arms rounds per NVA or Viet Cong casualty inflicted.

Biggest reason for this:

The reason why small arms fire has such a low hit rate in combat is not so much because guns are inaccurate, but because observation and fire are very difficult when you are being shot at. A milspec assault rifle (~4 minutes of arc) will reliably shoot a man center of mass at 300 meters first time every time, if the shooter can a) see the target and b) have the time and grace to aim carefully and fire. The problem is that in combat when you are being fired at, both seeing the enemy and shooting well are very difficult, and this will work in both directions. Your 90% accurate machine gun will fall to 1% accurate once the enemy starts shooting at it and its crew are flinching and ducking too much to observe and fire well. In fact, current guided bullets or assisted aiming devices make the problem worse, not better, because they are not "fire and forget". They require the shooter to keep a reticle over the enemy either before or after firing, which means you have to expose yourself even more, so incoming fire is even more threatening to you.

Ultimately, the problem of infantry accuracy in combat is not a weapon problem. It's the fact that the infantryman is so vulnerable and has such poor sensors. Even if you gave him a perfect death ray, it would not really help because the infantryman hardly knows where to point it while crouching in cover heaving with fatigue with bullets, smoke, dust and noise all around him. If you want steely-eyed accuracy, you put the weapon on a steely-eyed platform. The same machine gun that scores <0.1% hits in infantry hands has orders of magnitude higher hit rate as a coaxial in a tank, because the tank has computer aiming yes, but mainly because the crew has all the time and safety in the world to see you in their thermals, put the crosshair over you and fire. Same with remote weapon stations of all kinds.

 

[Condottiere]

The equation changes if the infantryman acquires more protection (Terminator Armour) and/or mobility (jet backpacks), which allows more discretion in target selection and/or close the range.

 

[whartung]

Those "smart rounds" are not guided in any way shape or form. You can't at the corner of a building and expect the round to turn the corner.

Most of these rounds are designed to work with range finding equipment. They use the range finders to tell the grenades when to explode, rather than when they hit something.

This is why the defilade grenades work. You see the assailants behind a wall, and the laser range finder says the wall is 100 meters away. So, you tell the gun to detonate the grenades at 101 meters, the grenade flies over the wall and explodes just over their heads, just behind them, in mid-air.

There is a similar system for 25mm auto cannon to avoid over penetration. Building with a room full of attackers, again, 100 meters away. Auto cannon engages the room, shoot through the exterior walls (since the rounds are designed to penetrate and not explode), and detonate all of the rounds inside the room. Shrapnel over penetrates far less than a 25mm AP round.

Pump a dozen or so of those in to a living room, and the attackers are going to feel a painful stinging sensation, but the rest of the rooms in the area will be far less affected.

The rounds use spin counters -- they know how fast and how much they're spinning from the rifling of the launcher, and they can use this to determines when to detonate.

But none of this affects accuracy. Today, we have modern integrated ballistic computers into telescopic sites that can be used to fire the weapon "at the right time". Shooter pulls the trigger, and chases a dot in the reticle. The gun goes off by itself. Providing an optimal ballistic solution to the problem, but once the round is on its way, it's all mother nature at that point.

 

[Straybow]

Interesting article in 2011 in LifeScience on the effects of armor on endurance (in this instance, medieval, but many of the principles probably would hold re unpowered armor and vacc suits):

"A new study that put armor-wearing volunteers on treadmills finds that wearing a full suit of armor (which might weigh up to 110 pounds, or 50 kilograms), takes more than twice the energy of walking around unencumbered. ..."

Wow, that's lousy armor. Even with heavier padding than most reenactors use, good mail would weight at most 80 lb, and good plate harness 60 lb. Almost all of the encumbrance is from the legs. Heck, just go hiking and swap your waffle-stompers for sneakers afterwards. You'll feel like you can float.


Marching men at arms might wear their body armor and helmets but carry leg and arm pieces on their packs. Some might leave the thigh and knee armor on if actually expecting a fight or ambush. The Romans didn't issue armor for limbs to foot soldiers. They couldn't do the standard 24 miles wearing them, and could also be impaired if carrying the extra weight. (When they did issue limb armor to cavalry, it was mail.)


The historic solution was hobilars, who would ride horses and dismount to fight.

 

[Condottiere]

The Legions evolved to deal with new threats using better technology, but horses tend to eat more than an infantryman, and cavalry costs more to maintain and equip.

Optimization depends on geography and available resources.

 

[Jame]

I wonder if the BAR would be a good use in game for the Auto Rifle.

 

[whartung]

Well, in Book 1, it says that the Auto Rifle is, essentially, a full auto M14. The BAR was a heavier rifle than the M14 (the M14 was, arguably, a pretty lousy automatic rifle). Both could fire .30 cal ammunition from a 20 round magazine, but the BAR was a 16lb rifle, while the M14 was 9lb rifle, making it much more suited to automatic fire. It had a heavier barrel and also came with a bipod.

From a game mechanic POV, they're arguably equivalent, though I'd get the M14 a negative DM (-1, -2 maybe) during auto fire that I would not give to the BAR.

 

[Condottiere]

Depends on the rules.

The Browning could be labelled bulky, which means with enough strength, you can keep it under control.

 

[Jame]

Depends on the rules.

The Browning could be labelled bulky, which means with enough strength, you can keep it under control.

I plan to use Classic, but I might either increase the weight, make it TL 5 and maybe make it need STR 9 for a bonus.

 

[whartung]

If you watch the movie Public Enemies, about John Dillinger and his contemporaries, they use the BAR during hold ups. So, you can sort of "see one in action".

 

[Spinward Flow]

they use the BAR during hold ups. So, you can sort of "see one in action".

The BAR also shows up in Kelly's Heroes, as I recall.
Predictably enough, it jams a few times ...

 

[Dragoner]

Poles used the BAR as an LMG, gave it replaceable barrel which it lacked in American service.

Browning wz. 1928 - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Since the hit table mostly tracks caliber, that is what I do, full sized rifle round, vs short, or light round.

 

[Vargr Breath]

In the USMC most M-14's were simi-auto with the happy stick given to the squad auto weapons man to make his M-14 full auto, The BAR was a 30-06 round where the M-14 was 7.62.

 

[Condottiere]

If I recall correctly, the autorifle is maximum bang for buck, especially combined with Striker technological level import export arbitrage and Mercenary quantity discount, to arm groups of militants.