The real ACR

[Uncle Bob]

Hi guys. First off, I dom't claim to have your real-world experience, but I try to check my facts before I make a fool of myself.

A bullpup is fine in the field. Lousy in MOUT when you have to shoot around different sides of obstacles. If you are locked in to firing from only one shoulder, half the time you have to expose yourself to fire. The Israeli infantry is not happy with this aspect of the Tabor and wants to keep their M4/M16s.

The OICW is already down from 8 Kg to 7 (mostly in the fire control). They might actually get it down to 6 Kg by 2004. Still, even at 8 Kg it was lighter and handier than my father's M1918A2 BAR.

We will have to see.

 

[bryan gibson]

the new Objective Weapons.. abominations created by idiots in the lab. actually talked to a fellow who attended a test, and he maintened the test shooters only comment away from the range was that they would be a great weapon-mounted on a vehicle. vehicle.

forgive me for being unclear... the refernce wasnt made regarding to wieght, but rather that according to the shooter the OICW is unwieldy as hell... the ergonomics issue was the joke.

also, the projected 28K pricetag...
and the 14 dollar a round expense....
actually, if we disregard the common misconception that a ACR needs being a bullpup, the M4 has evolved into a very effective ACR, with all the features of one.

there are some AK bullpup variants, (the chinese field one) and I have seen and fired aftermarket AK mods that put it into a bullpup config that work really well.

Bullpup is a handy design, short, compact, and all... but the basic design must still be sound. Some are out there and are good,( I am not dismissinng it out of hand) the Steyr and FN for example, wheras the SA 80 is undergoing field evolution as did the M16-give it a few more years. The FAMAS is compact, light, easy on the eyes but has real reliability problems.

all of these designs utilize optics, which are generally the weakest technicall element, largely due to physicallity, the steyr AUG being most rugged of the bunch, ( but if you DO manage to bust the sights, yer screwed as the are a an integral part of the reciever and NOT an interchangable part)

 

[themink]

I am a huge and totally biased fan of the Steyr (That is I a fervant fan rather than I am a huge person who is a fan)

While everything is going OK with it, It's lovely. Doesn;t have quite the range of some of the long arms it competes against, but still lovely. It is reliable and can stand up to a lot of abuse.

BUT the above post about sights is spot on.

ALSO I hate not being able to adjust sights. (Yes I know you can - but it isn;t something you can do whilst aiming)

AND the ejection port into the face when fired wrong handed is a bugger (I've seen a fix for that, but it didn't work very well)

PLUS it's difficult to "clear" the weapon if you are the safety officer - It's often hard to see into the breach.

I still think it is a wonderful thing.

Mmm getting back to trav, I'm tempted to compile a list of "faults" that long arms can have and force players to choose a couple. So they can buy an ACR which "corrodes quickly" or "has a high IR signiture" or "Takes a second to switch to grenade sights" etc

Currently trav weapons don't have any "hard design choices" by the origional weapon designer. Time to add some I feel.

 

[Jame]

As Mr. Gibson pointed out, the military seems to be designing equipment for the lab as (hold on, a cat wants attention) opposed to the field. The Roman Army did something like that in the 4th and 5th centuries - and now it's dead! My reasoning is that the U.S. is facing its own barbarian invasion - but these barbarians are here to destroy!

 

[Jame]

Oh yeah, and if I could, I'd want a G-11 of my own. No cartridges to eject!

 

[Uncle Bob]

Originally posted by Jame:
As Mr. Gibson pointed out, the military seems to be designing equipment for the lab as (hold on, a cat wants attention) opposed to the field. The Roman Army did something like that in the 4th and 5th centuries - and now it's dead! My reasoning is that the U.S. is facing its own barbarian invasion - but these barbarians are here to destroy!

And what 5th Century weapons would these be? AFAIK the Roman Army at this time was going with mail shirts, spatha swords and spangle helms of well tested designs. In fact, the same arms used by the barbarians.

We will have to see about the OICW. Heckler & Koch have at least three years to get it right.

If it works what is best is the sights. Being able to engage targets (and have a chance of killing them) at 600m, engaging hidden targets in defilade at 300m, the thermal imager, the laser rangefinder, the helmet mounted display.

Also it will have "smart" fire control where if something moves in the field of view the sight will bracket it and lase it. This means a man advancing by rushes can be identified, ranged and engaged before he can drop into new cover. All that might be worth $28,000.

A new idea I rather like is the Australian Advanced Combat Weapon. This combines an Austeyr with a Metalstorm barrel where 4-6 grenade rounds stacked like as roman candle. It can even handle different rounds, say 40mm greades like an M79 close in or 20mm long range rounds like a OICW.

My idea would be an over/under metalstorm barrels, your choice of 40mm low velocity, 20mm long range or buckshot, and do away with the 5.56 part alltogether.

 

[bryan gibson]

IMHO, the modern trend seems to be to make a gun that soldiers for the soldier, and all that high tech, gun-the-size-of-a-house , multiplex ammo and gee whiz optics doesnt compare to one Afghan that can shoot a 40 year old enfield. Ask the Russians, or the 'Nam vets... they all learned better.

i dont repaeat this in an effort to be tedious, but because it is still valid.

Now, while I disagree, ( cost wise as opposed to effectiveness- I am of the firm opinion that any troop is worth an unlimited budget, BUT if you cant afford it ya cant afford it)we are talking a SF game. I think that the denominator is still the troop...too many players(just like the current establishment) seem to think that technilogical superiority has all the answers to your tactical problems... big mistake.

History has proved many times, and recently, that the issue wasnt superior technology, but rather superior PRACTICAL technology.

Those sights on a OICW , assuming they work as advertised, and until they are in the field for a year in realistic no-shit combat conditions, (not a controlled enviroment in a maryland forest)
are not reliable enough to trust.

Now, jump ahead to traveller year 1000, where the tech is there, we have all the Buck Rogers sights, and so on- all comes to naught if the enemy knows how to take cover. You can bet there will be known countermeasures, too.
the ACR, as the general issue weapon, must be rugged, perform reliably, and kill with reasonable regularity. Again, it must also be cost effective.

Example- there isn't a 5 million dollar tank anywhere in the world right now that can't be taken out with a 3000 dollar missle in the hands of an illiterate peasant with 25 hours of training-the same principle will apply in the future, be it battledress or grav tanks. Even at our current technology and projections into the future note that nothing can move with out an infantry screen (granted, BD is far more versatile, but bear with me, you will see where i am going)and any lower tech force must still be winnowed out of their cover at some point to occupy.

All of this means that the weapons will be
1. cost effective-reasonably priced

2. Have a certain element of overall versatility

3. be capable of defeating the AVERAGE anticipated threat

4. be readily trainable to the AVERAGE troop (here is where troop quality suddenly becomes an issue)

5. Truly cutting edge is almost never without its flaws, and an unproved technology will almost never be effective IN THE FIELD...after some trials it may be adopted, but we are already comming to understand that the more advanced the tech, the less rugged it is, the more difficult to maintain, the longer the training cycle.

If your game is to be realistic, it must show elements of these priciples, otherwise its just Star Trek, where they go into the field with hand phasers without sights and no pockets!(where do they put their first aid kit- or do they just have an inflate -a -doc?

 

[Uncle Bob]

Every workable, reliable technology was once bleeding-edge. It is very hard to tell which will make it without deploying it first.

British soldiers with machine-made Martini Henry breach loaders with 1000-meter precision sights and cartridge ammunition were defeated by Zulus with spears. Later troops with Lee-Enfields were defeated by Afghans with sightless, muzzle-loading Jezzails. The British did not go back to Brown Bess muskets.

A weapon does not allow you to disregard terrain and tactics. What it will do is give you an advantage in a wider variety of terrain and stuations. Depending on the situation, it may be worth babying along even a delicate, tempermental weapon for that advantage. Or maybe not, but you won't know until someone tries.

 

[Uncle Bob]

Hmm, I kinda got off topic talking about the OICW and the ACW.

The Advanced Combat Rifle is, first of all, a rifle. This means it is a point-target weapon and the grenades of the OICW and the ACW are not really appropriate to the discussion.

The ACR's defining capability is its ability to defeat armor. We are already seeing dody armor that can defeat full-power rifles with armor piercing bullets. This kind of armor can be defeated by magnum rounds, but not if the armor is made just a little thicker.

As improved armor becomes available (CES and Combat Armor equivalent) rifles and assault rifles will be oobsolete. APDS ammo will allow the ACR to be effective against these armors.

To date it appears that technology will bypass APDS and go to APFDS (similar to a "flechette" but optimized for armor piercing). Caseless ammo and plastic cases will probably replace brass. I think with salvo fire like the Russian AN-94 and G-11 will be important, almost as important helmet mounted sights and themal imagers.

 

[thedamnyankee]

Originally posted by bryan gibson:
IMHO, the modern trend seems to be to make a gun that soldiers for the soldier, and all that high tech, gun-the-size-of-a-house , multiplex ammo and gee whiz optics doesnt compare to one Afghan that can shoot a 40 year old enfield. Ask the Russians, or the 'Nam vets... they all learned better.

i dont repaeat this in an effort to be tedious, but because it is still valid.

Now, while I disagree, ( cost wise as opposed to effectiveness- I am of the firm opinion that any troop is worth an unlimited budget, BUT if you cant afford it ya cant afford it)we are talking a SF game. I think that the denominator is still the troop...too many players(just like the current establishment) seem to think that technilogical superiority has all the answers to your tactical problems... big mistake.

History has proved many times, and recently, that the issue wasnt superior technology, but rather superior PRACTICAL technology.

Those sights on a OICW , assuming they work as advertised, and until they are in the field for a year in realistic no-shit combat conditions, (not a controlled enviroment in a maryland forest)
are not reliable enough to trust.

Now, jump ahead to traveller year 1000, where the tech is there, we have all the Buck Rogers sights, and so on- all comes to naught if the enemy knows how to take cover. You can bet there will be known countermeasures, too.
the ACR, as the general issue weapon, must be rugged, perform reliably, and kill with reasonable regularity. Again, it must also be cost effective.

Example- there isn't a 5 million dollar tank anywhere in the world right now that can't be taken out with a 3000 dollar missle in the hands of an illiterate peasant with 25 hours of training-the same principle will apply in the future, be it battledress or grav tanks. Even at our current technology and projections into the future note that nothing can move with out an infantry screen (granted, BD is far more versatile, but bear with me, you will see where i am going)and any lower tech force must still be winnowed out of their cover at some point to occupy.

All of this means that the weapons will be
1. cost effective-reasonably priced

2. Have a certain element of overall versatility

3. be capable of defeating the AVERAGE anticipated threat

4. be readily trainable to the AVERAGE troop (here is where troop quality suddenly becomes an issue)

5. Truly cutting edge is almost never without its flaws, and an unproved technology will almost never be effective IN THE FIELD...after some trials it may be adopted, but we are already comming to understand that the more advanced the tech, the less rugged it is, the more difficult to maintain, the longer the training cycle.

Verry good points. The ACR isnt suposta be the ultamate SOTA weapon, we have plasma and laser weapons for that. the ACR fills the cheap good and easy role. How ever, a ACR built by a TL 14-15 world would have all kinds of features that if built at Tl 10-11 would be very unreliable. I can reasonably beleve that depending on the world your on anything from an m-16 with a laser sight and M203 to the rifles out of movies with digital round counters and "smart aiming" systems, would have the title "ACR" Advanced being relitive of corse.

Originally posted by bryan gibson:

If your game is to be realistic, it must show elements of these priciples, otherwise its just Star Trek, where they go into the field with hand phasers without sights and no pockets!(where do they put their first aid kit- or do they just have an inflate -a -doc?

No, its Holographic, you should know that

Christopher Schroeder

 

[RabidVargr]

Hey, don't knock it. I look foward to games of pong on my ACR when I'm in a foxhole in Iraq next year...

Now if I can only lift the dang thing... Too many gadgets.

RV

 

[Jame]

I only draw the comparison with Roma as far as discipline and training, because by the end both had broken down so completely (especially among the infantry) that equipment was moot. Besides, there's little one can change about swords, shields, spangenhelms and chainmail in an of themselves, aside from "get something else," unlike guns (pistols, rifles, cannon). Of course, the barbarians were part of the reason that Roman armies ceased functioning - the army got to be like them and then became them - eventually Roman soldiers were German warriors who took over.

 

[Skylinkdave]

Originally posted by mshensley:
Wow, I didn't know that the Pancor Jackhammer was a real gun! That was another cool gun in Fallout 2.

Nice to see "real" photos of my favorite guns from Fallout.

Hmmm, someone should do a Fallout D20 game. That would be awesome!

Well, it's not designed for d20, but there is a Pencil & Paper version of Fallout available for download and play:

http://www.falloutpnp.com/

Looks like loads of fun to play, but the "to hit" calculations seem pretty intimidating. Good thing the computer game used computers...

Dave

 

[Uncle Bob]

Originally posted by Jame, Dec 18:
As Mr. Gibson pointed out, the military seems to be designing equipment for the lab as (hold on, a cat wants attention) opposed to the field. The Roman Army did something like that in the 4th and 5th centuries - and now it's dead! My reasoning is that the U.S. is facing its own barbarian invasion - but these barbarians are here to destroy!

Originally posted by Jame, Dec 19:
I only draw the comparison with Roma as far as discipline and training

Sorry Jame, "designing equipment for the lab as (hold on, a cat wants attention) opposed to the field. The Roman Army did something like that in the 4th and 5th centuries" didn't say anything about discipline and training. I can only comment on what you say, not what you meant to say.

Originally posted by Jame Dec 19:
because by the end both had broken down so completely (especially among the infantry) that equipment was moot. Besides, there's little one can change about swords, shields, spangenhelms and chainmail in an of themselves, aside from "get something else," unlike guns (pistols, rifles, cannon). Of course, the barbarians were part of the reason that Roman armies ceased functioning - the army got to be like them and then became them - eventually Roman soldiers were German warriors who took over.

The average level of training, discipline, and professionalism in the U.S. Army in 1990 was at the highest level since the 1930s. I would compare even todays U.S. Army to the late 6th century Byzantine army, after the dismissal of Belisarius, rather than the 4-5th century armies.

Look rather at the Byzantine experiments with hand axes, sabers, lameler armor, stirrups, shock cavalry, and compound-bow archers. It worked for them...

 

[Jame]

How about this: I'm reffering to (for Roma) the Western Empire, not the Eastern - the East kept its training to some sort of standard; and (for the U.S.) isn't the averave military term now two years, with less pay for the average enlistee? In terms of weapons, one can only change a type of sword so much before it isn't what it was, whereas any type of firearm can be improved a lot more before it's a different type of firearm.
But let's not get bent out of shape over this (and I say this to myself too).

 

[Jame]

I'm sure that much of the officer and NCO corps are very professional, but that doesn't help much if you don't train your short-service troops well on standardized equipment - I may not be an expert, but I know what I think.

 

[Uncle Bob]

Originally posted by Jame:
How about this: I'm reffering to (for Roma) the Western Empire, not the Eastern - the East kept its training to some sort of standard; and (for the U.S.) isn't the averave military term now two years, with less pay for the average enlistee? In terms of weapons, one can only change a type of sword so much before it isn't what it was, whereas any type of firearm can be improved a lot more before it's a different type of firearm.
But let's not get bent out of shape over this (and I say this to myself too).

Hmm, my Father often pointed out the vast difference between five years of experience and one year of experience endured even ten times. And in any army the quality of the NCOs is more important than the quality of troops and at least as important as officers.

I would point out that the Eastern Empire suffered the disasterous defeat at Adrianople in 479 AD, and no Western Army suffered a comparable defeat in the 5th century. It is difficult to judge the intangibles of a unit that hasn't existed for 1500 years, but judging from my reading the Roman army at its best wasn't that good by modern standards.

And as for swords vs guns... I have somewhat more experience with swords than with guns, and I have to dissagree with you. A relatively small change in a swords weight, length, balance, or shape can make a substantial difference in handling, use, and lethality.

I think there is comparison with the decay of Western Armies in the 1990s and the western Roman armies in the 4th century. Both were caused by fiscal policies, largely influenced by the lack of a perceived threat.

That notwithstanding, I see no element in the latter Roman Empire that parallels the ACR or the development of the OICW (or the similar PAPOP and ACW). I don't know why you brought it up.

 

[Jame]

We seem to agree on the issues of discipline and training. My comparison between the OICW and Late Imperial Roman equipment goes only so far as "the U.S. is not designing equipment for the battlefield, and by the end neither was Western Rome." Also, perhaps a sword can be changed more than I thought, but I bring it up to point out that both the U.S. and Roma kept changing the equipment (even if the average soldier wasn't that good, at its height Roman training brought them together with good NCOs and officers), and by the end Roma _wasn't_ properly equipping its troops, which is what I see happening here in the U.S. Uncle Bob, have you read anything by Arthur Ferrell?

 

[Uncle Bob]

Originally posted by Jame:
We seem to agree on the issues of discipline and training. My comparison between the OICW and Late Imperial Roman equipment goes only so far as "the U.S. is not designing equipment for the battlefield, and by the end neither was Western Rome." Also, perhaps a sword can be changed more than I thought, but I bring it up to point out that both the U.S. and Roma kept changing the equipment (even if the average soldier wasn't that good, at its height Roman training brought them together with good NCOs and officers), and by the end Roma _wasn't_ properly equipping its troops, which is what I see happening here in the U.S. Uncle Bob, have you read anything by Arthur Ferrell?

I am afraid Arthur Ferrell doesn't ring a bell, and amazon.com has nothing on him.

But I am still puzzled: "but I bring it up to point out that both the U.S. and Roma kept changing the equipment". The US Army has not changed the infantry rifle in twenty-five years (except to shorten the barrel), the squad grenade launcher in more than thirty years, and the M249 squad machine gun is twenty. The PASGT body armor and helmet are nearly twenty years old, so a soldier or marine can retire after twenty years using the same basic equipment for his entire career.

And, AFAIK, the Romans never deployed any unproven weapons and equipment in the 4th-5th centuries. Can you give an example, please? I agree the troops of that era were not well supported or trained, but I fail to see all the parallels with contemporary US practce. After, all, Western Roman soldiers of that period often took civilian jobs or planted gardens when their pay failed.

 

[Jame]

Perhaps I could say it better. Hmm... By the end, Roma _wasn't_ equipping most of its troops beyond sword, shield and maybe helmet. The U.S. hasn't changed its equipment much, but it is still equipping its troops. As far as I'm concerned, the U.S. isn't paying its troops as well as it should - though infinitely better than Roma did at the end. My main point is that on the average, the common soldier of both governments wasn't trained nearly enough - even with the quality NCOs and officers. (Though I've made this clear, and maybe I don't have all the info.)
Arthur Ferrell wrote _The Fall of the Roman Empire: the Military Explanation_, my copy of which was purchased at Barnes and Noble Booksellers. I wouldn't know why amazon.com has nothing on him, though I wouldn't normally trust them anyway.