Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Damion Milliken)
Subject: AV Ammo
Date: Mon Aug 6 03:15:01 2001
Hi Folks!

I was looking at AV ammo, and I'm just wondering if it's a crock or not?
Sure, it costs oodles, is really really hard to find (on the street ;-)),
and weighs heaps, but the description sounds like a poor mans APDS to me.
How can a small arm using a high velocity bronze round be more effective
than a small arm using a tungsten or depleted uranium penetrator?

--
Damion Milliken University of Wollongong
Unofficial Shadowrun Guru E-mail: dam01@***.edu.au
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.12
GE d- s++:-- a25 C++ US++>+++ P+ L+>++ E- W+ N++ o@ K- w+(--) O-@ M--
V- PS+ PE- Y+ PGP-@>++ t+ 5 X+>+++ R++ !tv(--) b+ DI+++@ D G+
e++>++++$ h- r++>+++ y->+++
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Message no. 2
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Gurth)
Subject: AV Ammo
Date: Mon Aug 6 05:20:15 2001
According to Damion Milliken, on Mon, 06 Aug 2001 the word on the street was...

> I was looking at AV ammo, and I'm just wondering if it's a crock or not?
> Sure, it costs oodles, is really really hard to find (on the street ;-)),
> and weighs heaps, but the description sounds like a poor mans APDS to me.
> How can a small arm using a high velocity bronze round be more effective
> than a small arm using a tungsten or depleted uranium penetrator?

Your guess is as good as mine. Bronze isn't a particularly hard or heavy
metal, to the best of my knowledge, so it doesn't seem to make a good (or
even decent) AP round... Better than a round with an all-lead core, I
suspect, but inferior to steel, let alone metals such as tungsten or DU.

Then again, this is from the same book that makes illumination rounds burst
on the ground...

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
Tot straks en poppelepee maar weer.
-> NAGEE Editor * ShadowRN GridSec * Triangle Virtuoso <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://plastic.dumpshock.com <-

GC3.12: GAT/! d-(dpu) s:- !a>? C+@ UL P L++ E W-(++) N o? K w+(--) O V?
PS+ PE(-)(+) Y PGP- t@ 5++ X(+) R+++(-)>$ tv+ b++@ DI- D+ G+ e h! !r y?
Incubated into the First Church of the Sqooshy Ball, 21-05-1998
Message no. 3
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Zixx)
Subject: AV Ammo
Date: Mon Aug 6 06:35:01 2001
Damion Milliken wrote:

> I was looking at AV ammo, and I'm just wondering if it's a crock or
> not? Sure, it costs oodles, is really really hard to find (on the
> street ;-)), and weighs heaps, but the description sounds like a
> poor mans APDS to me. How can a small arm using a high velocity
> bronze round be more effective than a small arm using a tungsten or
> depleted uranium penetrator?

It can't. :) (I guess)
Bronze is actually rather soft and thus wouldn't perform much better
than lead (ok, it's not *that* soft :)). IIRC is doesn't have such an
impressive specific gravity either, so I guess it just sounded well.
In no case it can be as AP as an APDS round, although from a
realistic POV, it does have the advantage of being a full caliber
round. If you hit someone IRL with an APDS round, it won't do much
tissue-damage. It will just punch a little hole into your target. The
AV ammo would do much more actual damage (to both wetware *and*
hardware), but then again you could probably just take a FMJ-round
and be happy with it...

Any other thoughts?

Zixx
Message no. 4
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Derek Hyde)
Subject: AV Ammo
Date: Mon Aug 6 08:50:03 2001
my only major question on the AV ammo (coming from the cannon companion) is
what's up with the damage or am I not reading right....it halves vehicular
armor ratings??? you're telling me that I can go out and get a round that
will make my ingram smartgun a vehicle killer? I gotta be misinterpreting
this.....right?


-----Original Message-----
From: shadowrn-admin@*********.com
[mailto:shadowrn-admin@*********.com]On Behalf Of Zixx
Sent: Monday, August 06, 2001 5:47 AM
To: shadowrn@*********.com
Subject: Re: AV Ammo


Damion Milliken wrote:

> I was looking at AV ammo, and I'm just wondering if it's a crock or
> not? Sure, it costs oodles, is really really hard to find (on the
> street ;-)), and weighs heaps, but the description sounds like a
> poor mans APDS to me. How can a small arm using a high velocity
> bronze round be more effective than a small arm using a tungsten or
> depleted uranium penetrator?

It can't. :) (I guess)
Bronze is actually rather soft and thus wouldn't perform much better
than lead (ok, it's not *that* soft :)). IIRC is doesn't have such an
impressive specific gravity either, so I guess it just sounded well.
In no case it can be as AP as an APDS round, although from a
realistic POV, it does have the advantage of being a full caliber
round. If you hit someone IRL with an APDS round, it won't do much
tissue-damage. It will just punch a little hole into your target. The
AV ammo would do much more actual damage (to both wetware *and*
hardware), but then again you could probably just take a FMJ-round
and be happy with it...

Any other thoughts?

Zixx
Message no. 5
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Bira)
Subject: AV Ammo
Date: Mon Aug 6 14:05:05 2001
On Mon, 6 Aug 2001 11:00:26 +0200
Gurth <Gurth@******.nl> wrote:

> Your guess is as good as mine. Bronze isn't a particularly hard or heavy
> metal, to the best of my knowledge, so it doesn't seem to make a good (or
> even decent) AP round... Better than a round with an all-lead core, I
> suspect, but inferior to steel, let alone metals such as tungsten or DU.

You could use the following, somewhat improvised, explanation :

A while ago, whenever someone mentioned "ceramics", I'd imagine that
rather fragile type of baked clay people used to make vases and other things. Then one day
they discovered an ultra-hard material which probably doesn't have much to do with clay
and called it "ceramics", and now that's the most common usage of the word.

Perhaps you can say that the "bronze" in SR AP bullets is actually a
bizarre composite alloy that happens to look a little like bronze, but is much harder and
appropriate for AP bullets. It does have an official (very complex, very technical) name,
but laymen call it "bronze" for convenience :).

--
Bira -- SysOp da Shadowland.BR
http://www.shadowland.com.br
Redator de Shadowrun da RPG em Revista
http://www.rpgemrevista.f2s.com
Message no. 6
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Damion Milliken)
Subject: AV Ammo
Date: Tue Aug 7 00:15:03 2001
Derek Hyde writes:

> my only major question on the AV ammo (coming from the cannon companion) is
> what's up with the damage or am I not reading right....it halves vehicular
> armor ratings??? you're telling me that I can go out and get a round that
> will make my ingram smartgun a vehicle killer? I gotta be misinterpreting
> this.....right?

Nope. Hence my original question :-). BTB, an Ingram Smartgun firing a burst
of AV rounds will do 10S, not be reduced or altered, and actually _halve_
vehicle armour! Wow! Who needs AVMs anymore? It's a bit too good, I think
:-).

--
Damion Milliken University of Wollongong
Unofficial Shadowrun Guru E-mail: dam01@***.edu.au
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.12
GE d- s++:-- a25 C++ US++>+++ P+ L+>++ E- W+ N++ o@ K- w+(--) O-@ M--
V- PS+ PE- Y+ PGP-@>++ t+ 5 X+>+++ R++ !tv(--) b+ DI+++@ D G+
e++>++++$ h- r++>+++ y->+++
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Message no. 7
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Damion Milliken)
Subject: AV Ammo
Date: Tue Aug 7 00:25:03 2001
Bira writes:

> You could use the following, somewhat improvised, explanation :

Hmm. That might work, or at least cover up glaring inaccuracies. But I still
wonder how this AV ammo stuff gets to be better than APDS... APDS ammo has
much higher velocities, and already uses the hardest, densest metals
available...

> A while ago, whenever someone mentioned "ceramics", I'd imagine that
> rather fragile type of baked clay people used to make vases and other
> things. Then one day they discovered an ultra-hard material which probably
> doesn't have much to do with clay and called it "ceramics", and now that's
> the most common usage of the word.

Actually, the term "ceramic" refers to materials that are neither metallic
nor polymeric... ie, not composed of solely metal atoms in metallic bonding,
and not composed of long chained hydrocarbon based molecules in
covalent/hydrogen bonding. ie, composed of non-metallic atoms, or a mixture
of metallic and non-metallic atoms, and bonded by either covalent or ionic
bonding. Technically, ice is a ceramic... :-) The most common ceramics
people encounter are kitchen crockery, such as plates and mugs, and glass.
But there are plenty more, such as highly densified yttria stabilised
zirconia, which is practically indestructible...

> Perhaps you can say that the "bronze" in SR AP bullets is actually a
> bizarre composite alloy that happens to look a little like bronze, but is
> much harder and appropriate for AP bullets. It does have an official (very
> complex, very technical) name, but laymen call it "bronze" for convenience
> :).

Yeah, the "it's magic, it works" style of explanation <grin>. And it does
fine so long as nobody personally knows any better to contradict the BTB
description, I guess.

--
Damion Milliken University of Wollongong
Unofficial Shadowrun Guru E-mail: dam01@***.edu.au
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.12
GE d- s++:-- a25 C++ US++>+++ P+ L+>++ E- W+ N++ o@ K- w+(--) O-@ M--
V- PS+ PE- Y+ PGP-@>++ t+ 5 X+>+++ R++ !tv(--) b+ DI+++@ D G+
e++>++++$ h- r++>+++ y->+++
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Message no. 8
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Gurth)
Subject: AV Ammo
Date: Tue Aug 7 06:05:02 2001
According to Bira, on Mon, 06 Aug 2001 the word on the street was...

> Perhaps you can say that the "bronze" in SR AP bullets is
> actually a bizarre composite alloy that happens to look a little like
> bronze, but is much harder and appropriate for AP bullets. It does have an
> official (very complex, very technical) name, but laymen call it "bronze"
> for convenience :).

So why wouldn't they call it "brass," "copper," or even
"gold"? All those
have more or less the same color as bronze. Maybe not as dark, but hey,
you're basically saying that yellow metal is yellow metal, right? :)

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
Tot straks en poppelepee maar weer.
-> NAGEE Editor * ShadowRN GridSec * Triangle Virtuoso <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://plastic.dumpshock.com <-

GC3.12: GAT/! d-(dpu) s:- !a>? C+@ UL P L++ E W-(++) N o? K w+(--) O V?
PS+ PE(-)(+) Y PGP- t@ 5++ X(+) R+++(-)>$ tv+ b++@ DI- D+ G+ e h! !r y?
Incubated into the First Church of the Sqooshy Ball, 21-05-1998
Message no. 9
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Achille Autran)
Subject: AV Ammo
Date: Tue Aug 7 07:45:01 2001
>From: "Derek Hyde" <dhyde@*********.net>
>Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2001 07:55:16 -0500
>
>my only major question on the AV ammo (coming from the cannon companion) is
>what's up with the damage or am I not reading right....it halves vehicular
>armor ratings??? you're telling me that I can go out and get a round that
>will make my ingram smartgun a vehicle killer? I gotta be misinterpreting
>this.....right?

You're reading it right indeed. IMO AV ammo is a big screw-up, and I
ditched it from my game. An Ares Predator that can wreck a Steel Lynx, an
armored limo or even a jet fighter with one round is ridiculous.

I consider APDS above HMG caliber to be anti-vehicular, and only the full
vehicular armor rating (not twice) apply against it. Heck, that's what they
use today in M2 .50 rounds. Smaller caliber APDS don't get this benefit, as
bulllets do penetrate better, but are too small to cause much spalling and
damage beyond the armor (if any). The only rounds tagged as true
anti-vehicular in my game are MBT-sized (120mm and more) APFSDS, shaped
charge missiles, and railgun slugs. 20-30mm rounds like those used in A10
GAU-8 or SR Vigilant/Victory autocanon don't get this - they're good enough
to pierce most armors and cause much havoc in full-auto fire, and are not
designed to penetrate an MBT front glacis. Better strike from the
less-armored top.

Molloy

P.S.: could you please quote the message you're replying to BEFORE your
actual post, cutting the irrelevant bits? It's not easy to know what you're
talking about. At least, you're not posting in HTML, that's so nice!
Message no. 10
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Arclight)
Subject: AV Ammo
Date: Tue Aug 7 08:40:01 2001
At 14:19 07.08.2001 +1000, Damion Milliken wrote:

> > You could use the following, somewhat improvised, explanation :
>
>Hmm. That might work, or at least cover up glaring inaccuracies. But I still
>wonder how this AV ammo stuff gets to be better than APDS... APDS ammo has
>much higher velocities, and already uses the hardest, densest metals
>available...

I've begun to think of most ammo types as some kind of archetype ammo. It
has this and that effect, but the name has no real meaning for the
composition and make-up of the bullet. So maybe APDS is in RL just a FMJ,
and AV ammo has a steel penetrator? And only vehicle weapons use real
sabots and DU/tungsten? It is as hard to guestimate as the question if a FN
FAL/ M14 / G3 has 8M damage or not...

Arclight
Message no. 11
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Derek Hyde)
Subject: AV Ammo
Date: Tue Aug 7 08:40:04 2001
>>my only major question on the AV ammo (coming from the cannon companion)
is
>>what's up with the damage or am I not reading right....it halves vehicular
>>armor ratings??? you're telling me that I can go out and get a round that
>>will make my ingram smartgun a vehicle killer? I gotta be misinterpreting
>>this.....right?
>?You're reading it right indeed. IMO AV ammo is a big screw-up, and I
>ditched it from my game. An Ares Predator that can wreck a Steel Lynx, an
>armored limo or even a jet fighter with one round is ridiculous.

>I consider APDS above HMG caliber to be anti-vehicular, and only the full
>vehicular armor rating (not twice) apply against it. Heck, that's what they
>use today in M2 .50 rounds. Smaller caliber APDS don't get this benefit, as
>bulllets do penetrate better, but are too small to cause much spalling and
>damage beyond the armor (if any). The only rounds tagged as true
>anti-vehicular in my game are MBT-sized (120mm and more) APFSDS, shaped
>charge missiles, and railgun slugs. 20-30mm rounds like those used in A10
>GAU-8 or SR Vigilant/Victory autocanon don't get this - they're good enough
>to pierce most armors and cause much havoc in full-auto fire, and are not
>designed to penetrate an MBT front glacis. Better strike from the
>less-armored top.

>Molloy


ok now the other question here is if AV ammo is supposed to half vehicular
armor ratings what's it gonna do to personnel armor? I'd assume that it
would ignore it completely if the round has enough power to half the rating
of an armored vehicle's armor

Derek
Message no. 12
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Damion Milliken)
Subject: AV Ammo
Date: Tue Aug 7 11:45:03 2001
Derek Hyde writes:

> ok now the other question here is if AV ammo is supposed to half vehicular
> armor ratings what's it gonna do to personnel armor? I'd assume that it
> would ignore it completely if the round has enough power to half the rating
> of an armored vehicle's armor

It's treated as APDS when used against non-vehicular targets. Pretty nasty,
whichever way you look at it...

I think I might just use the "whatever it is, it's misnamed" philosophy, and
just use the stats (thanks, guys!). Although, the stats are waaaay too
whacked for me to want to use, so I think that I'll use these rounds to fill
a big glaring gap that exists in SR. Has anyone ever noticed that against
vehicles, normal weapon get their power halved and go against full vehicle
armour, while AV weapons use their full power against half vehicle armour?
There are no weapons that use their full power against full vehicle armour.
These might do that nicely :-).

--
Damion Milliken University of Wollongong
Unofficial Shadowrun Guru E-mail: dam01@***.edu.au
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.12
GE d- s++:-- a25 C++ US++>+++ P+ L+>++ E- W+ N++ o@ K- w+(--) O-@ M--
V- PS+ PE- Y+ PGP-@>++ t+ 5 X+>+++ R++ !tv(--) b+ DI+++@ D G+
e++>++++$ h- r++>+++ y->+++
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Message no. 13
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Bira)
Subject: AV Ammo
Date: Tue Aug 7 11:50:02 2001
On Tue, 7 Aug 2001 11:36:58 +0200
Gurth <Gurth@******.nl> wrote:

> So why wouldn't they call it "brass," "copper," or even
"gold"? All those
> have more or less the same color as bronze. Maybe not as dark, but hey,
> you're basically saying that yellow metal is yellow metal, right? :)

Right :). I can see some runners taking pride in using "gold bullets"
:).

--
Bira -- SysOp da Shadowland.BR
http://www.shadowland.com.br
Redator de Shadowrun da RPG em Revista
http://www.rpgemrevista.f2s.com
Message no. 14
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Gurth)
Subject: AV Ammo
Date: Tue Aug 7 13:35:09 2001
According to Bira, on Tue, 07 Aug 2001 the word on the street was...

> > So why wouldn't they call it "brass," "copper," or even
"gold"? All those
> > have more or less the same color as bronze. Maybe not as dark, but hey,
> > you're basically saying that yellow metal is yellow metal, right? :)
>
> Right :). I can see some runners taking pride in using "gold
bullets" :).

Why not go straight for orichalcum bullets, then? After last Friday's game
session, the group's magician player and I stood around talking for a while
and we came to the conclusion that there is no real reason why orichalcum
should be so expensive -- a single enchanter can flood the market with the
stuff, given 160,000 nuyen starting capital (less if you make your own gold
etc. radicals). In fact it's so easy that it even beats the "I buy a
million nuyen worth of trauma patches from my starting money and sell them
once my character gets into the game" scam...

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
Tot straks en poppelepee maar weer.
-> NAGEE Editor * ShadowRN GridSec * Triangle Virtuoso <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://plastic.dumpshock.com <-

GC3.12: GAT/! d-(dpu) s:- !a>? C+@ UL P L++ E W-(++) N o? K w+(--) O V?
PS+ PE(-)(+) Y PGP- t@ 5++ X(+) R+++(-)>$ tv+ b++@ DI- D+ G+ e h! !r y?
Incubated into the First Church of the Sqooshy Ball, 21-05-1998
Message no. 15
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Keith Duthie)
Subject: AV Ammo
Date: Wed Aug 8 22:55:01 2001
On Wed, 8 Aug 2001, Damion Milliken wrote:

<mucho snippage>
> There are no weapons that use their full power against full vehicle armour.

Which is why I think APDS should halve vehicle armour. Let's face it - it
may not be AV (and therefore will be half power against vehicles), but
it's still armour piercing.

Either that, or halve the power of APDS /after/ reducing it by the armour
rating...
--
Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn
http://users.albatross.co.nz/~psycho/ O- -><-
Message no. 16
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Zebulin Magby)
Subject: AV Ammo
Date: Wed Aug 8 23:10:03 2001
"Keith Duthie" <psycho@*********.co.nz> wrote:
>
> Which is why I think APDS should halve vehicle armour. Let's face it - it
> may not be AV (and therefore will be half power against vehicles), but
> it's still armour piercing.
>
> Either that, or halve the power of APDS /after/ reducing it by the armour
> rating...
>

I don't agree. I'd prefer to not see someone with an Ares Predator or any
other type of non-vehicle weaponry doing that kind of harm to a vehicle.
Come on, a vehicle is generally a pretty big item, and I don't think a .45
round (for example) is gonna do much to it, IMO. Let's keep the anti-vehicle
damage where it belongs: in cannons, missiles and PhysAd Trolls with
Composite Long Bows. [:

Zebulin




_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @*****.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
Message no. 17
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Derek Hyde)
Subject: AV Ammo
Date: Wed Aug 8 23:35:10 2001
<snippety (there....everyone happy????)>
>I don't agree. I'd prefer to not see someone with an Ares Predator or any
>other type of non-vehicle weaponry doing that kind of harm to a vehicle.
>Come on, a vehicle is generally a pretty big item, and I don't think a .45
>round (for example) is gonna do much to it, IMO. Let's keep the
anti-vehicle
>damage where it belongs: in cannons, missiles and PhysAd Trolls with
>Composite Long Bows. [:

>Zebulin

that's a good point there about everyone being able to hose your car with
ammo and chew ya up but lets look at this all realistically. you can take a
.45 pistol and pretty much screw a car over with it no matter what kind of
ammo you're using because a car isn't armored. motorcycles are even
easier...a 9mm would take one down. I've got only one gripe with your way
of looking at it and that's that you're thinking of all vehicles as types
that are hardened armor bearing such as an APC or an armored truck now days
would be. the point behind AV ammo is that it's made to penetrate (just
like the armor piercing ammo we military folk actually get to fire out of
our regular 5.56mm rifles) the size of the vehicle and the thickness of the
armor defines whether or not the armor piercing rounds would actually make
it through the vehicle and do more than the rounds of all of the foreign
tanks did to our M1 Abrams tanks during the gulf. AV ammo is simply a round
that's made to penetrate light vehicular armor it does the same damage
against a light target that APDS does however it's designed to pierce
thicker armor than what a person can wear as opposed to where APDS is only
designed to pierce personnel armor. (similar concept is taking a hollow
point round and firing it at something fleshy and then taking the same type
of round and making the pit a little deeper and "notching" it so that when
it hits it spreads faster fire this at the same type of fleshy target and
you will notice the difference...the notched round will spread out faster
and make a bigger hole as well as transfer MUCH more stopping power than the
regular hollow point will do)

sorry for going on and on again (to those who complain every time I post
because I actually make my point in one e-mail as opposed to making it over
a span of a few of them)

Derek "Triggerless" Hyde
Message no. 18
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Gurth)
Subject: AV Ammo
Date: Thu Aug 9 06:15:04 2001
According to Keith Duthie, on Thu, 09 Aug 2001 the word on the street was...

> Which is why I think APDS should halve vehicle armour. Let's face it - it
> may not be AV (and therefore will be half power against vehicles), but
> it's still armour piercing.
>
> Either that, or halve the power of APDS /after/ reducing it by the armour
> rating...

Though this is a logical thing to do, it makes APDS-firing weapons
unrealistically destructive against vehicles. When you shoot at a vehicle,
especially a civilian one, there's a major chance you're just punching holes
in it without hitting anything that will impair its functioning (OTOH when
you shoot at a living target, you're almost guaranteed to damage something
important when you hit it).

This is probably why vehicles automatically stage damage down by one level,
and halve the Power of the incoming attack on top of that. Now I agree that
APDS should be better against vehicle armor than regular ammo, so I think
your first idea is probably the better one here. At least it follows the
precedents :)

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
Tot straks en poppelepee maar weer.
-> NAGEE Editor * ShadowRN GridSec * Triangle Virtuoso <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://plastic.dumpshock.com <-

GC3.12: GAT/! d-(dpu) s:- !a>? C+@ UL P L++ E W-(++) N o? K w+(--) O V?
PS+ PE(-)(+) Y PGP- t@ 5++ X(+) R+++(-)>$ tv+ b++@ DI- D+ G+ e h! !r y?
Incubated into the First Church of the Sqooshy Ball, 21-05-1998
Message no. 19
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Martin Little)
Subject: AV Ammo
Date: Thu Aug 9 09:45:05 2001
> would be. the point behind AV ammo is that it's made to penetrate (just
> like the armor piercing ammo we military folk actually get to fire out of
> our regular 5.56mm rifles) the size of the vehicle and the thickness of the
> armor defines whether or not the armor piercing rounds would actually make
> it through the vehicle and do more than the rounds of all of the foreign
> tanks did to our M1 Abrams tanks during the gulf.

Nitpick:
5.56 Military Ball classified as AP is in fact AP vs Personal Armor ie
flack jacket/bullet proof vest, firing a 5.56 at a tank is more likely to
damage you with a ricochet.
Unless somthing has changed since 1990 when I qualified on the Canadian
version of the M16 that is.

Re: Gulf War
Putting a tank with a range of 5000 meters against a tank with a range of
2500 meters designed to fight in the forests of Europe is hardly a fair
comparison ;)


I've fired 5.56, 7.62, 50 cal, LAV Rocket and 86 MM rounds at tanks
(old tanks of course ;) ) and other than the lav and 86 I wouldn't
be trying to draw the attention of such a vehicle.

There is more to armour than just thickness, you also have to defeat the
slanted surface designed to deflect the rounds as well as the possibility
of active defense on military vehicles like reactive armour.
For example, the slant of a front windshield in any car is actualy well
designed to deflect many rounds, I remember a test where someone tried to
shoot a target inside a car with varying grades of shotgun ammo and failed
to penetrate even with 00 buckshot.

If you wanted to get technical about anti-vehicle munitions there
really are 3 effective methods that I remember.

1) Shaped charge, superheats to plasma burns a very small hole in the
vehicle and once inside super-presurizes it killing the occupants.
2) High Velocity Rounds APDS APFSDS, most nato tanks use these, it's a
long chunk of carbide or depleted uranium in a sabot, punches a hole in
the tank and the little flying pieces of metal kill the occupants because
of the kinetic energy.
3) High explosive Squash Head, cause such a hard blow to the outside of
the vehicle that pieces of metal break off inside and kil the occupants.


Just my 2cents :)

../Martin
Message no. 20
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Arclight)
Subject: AV Ammo
Date: Thu Aug 9 10:05:11 2001
At 09:59 09.08.2001 -0400, Martin Little wrote:

<snip>

>Nitpick:
>5.56 Military Ball classified as AP is in fact AP vs Personal Armor ie
>flack jacket/bullet proof vest, firing a 5.56 at a tank is more likely to
>damage you with a ricochet.
>Unless somthing has changed since 1990 when I qualified on the Canadian
>version of the M16 that is.

AFAIK any 5.56 NATO FMJ will go through flak vests... these are designed to
protect against rather slow shrapnel, not rifle bullets.

>Re: Gulf War
>Putting a tank with a range of 5000 meters against a tank with a range of
>2500 meters designed to fight in the forests of Europe is hardly a fair
>comparison ;)

And BTW, the US lost 8 tanks in Desert Storm.

>I've fired 5.56, 7.62, 50 cal, LAV Rocket and 86 MM rounds at tanks
>(old tanks of course ;) ) and other than the lav and 86 I wouldn't
>be trying to draw the attention of such a vehicle.

I fired a G3 (7,62 NATO, if you don't know) and the german "Leichte
Panzerfaust" in 66mm AFAIK. Useful against trucks and stuff, maybe useful
against APC, drek against a tank ;)

<snip>

>For example, the slant of a front windshield in any car is actualy well
>designed to deflect many rounds, I remember a test where someone tried to
>shoot a target inside a car with varying grades of shotgun ammo and failed
>to penetrate even with 00 buckshot.

I've just read an article about armored cars, and a shotgun slug will go
through most classes of civilain vehicle armor like butter. Whether through
windows or the body, doesn't matter. Same for an AK, the second burst will
rip through the window. Definitely no fun ;)

<snipped rest to leave something for the other gun folks ;) >

We europeans can soon throw in some cents too ;)

Arclight
Message no. 21
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Martin Little)
Subject: AV Ammo
Date: Thu Aug 9 10:55:01 2001
On Thu, 9 Aug 2001, Arclight wrote:

> AFAIK any 5.56 NATO FMJ will go through flak vests... these are designed to
> protect against rather slow shrapnel, not rifle bullets.

In general I'd agree, although the newer american jackets were supposed to
be kevlar lined rather than just a bulky shock absorbing pad although I
was gone before any material about what they could or could not absorb was
passed down to my level.

> I fired a G3 (7,62 NATO, if you don't know) and the german "Leichte
> Panzerfaust" in 66mm AFAIK. Useful against trucks and stuff, maybe useful
> against APC, drek against a tank ;)



> >For example, the slant of a front windshield in any car is actualy well
> >designed to deflect many rounds, I remember a test where someone tried to
> >shoot a target inside a car with varying grades of shotgun ammo and failed
> >to penetrate even with 00 buckshot.
>
> I've just read an article about armored cars, and a shotgun slug will go
> through most classes of civilain vehicle armor like butter. Whether through
> windows or the body, doesn't matter. Same for an AK, the second burst will
> rip through the window. Definitely no fun ;)
>
Well most car bodies are nearly flat which is horrible for deflecting
shots, the front window is probably the best part of the car :) Once it
takes a few shots and loses it's nice flat surface the rounds will start
pumping through, but it would proably stand up better than the rest of the
car IMHO. No unarmored vehicle would stand up to sustained autofire, I
was just pointing out that there's more to stoping bullets than just
thickness of armour :)

> We europeans can soon throw in some cents too ;)
>
Not to mention you guys get all the best guns :)
*drool H&K*

../Martin
Message no. 22
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Arclight)
Subject: AV Ammo
Date: Thu Aug 9 11:00:10 2001
At 11:06 09.08.2001 -0400, Martin Little wrote:

<snip>

>Not to mention you guys get all the best guns :)
>*drool H&K*

Try to buy one here...

Arclight
Message no. 23
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Derek Hyde)
Subject: AV Ammo
Date: Thu Aug 9 11:05:01 2001
> would be. the point behind AV ammo is that it's made to penetrate (just
> like the armor piercing ammo we military folk actually get to fire out of
> our regular 5.56mm rifles) the size of the vehicle and the thickness of
the
> armor defines whether or not the armor piercing rounds would actually make
> it through the vehicle and do more than the rounds of all of the foreign
> tanks did to our M1 Abrams tanks during the gulf.

Nitpick:
5.56 Military Ball classified as AP is in fact AP vs Personal Armor ie
flack jacket/bullet proof vest, firing a 5.56 at a tank is more likely to
damage you with a ricochet.
Unless somthing has changed since 1990 when I qualified on the Canadian
version of the M16 that is.

Re: Gulf War
Putting a tank with a range of 5000 meters against a tank with a range of
2500 meters designed to fight in the forests of Europe is hardly a fair
comparison ;)


I've fired 5.56, 7.62, 50 cal, LAV Rocket and 86 MM rounds at tanks
(old tanks of course ;) ) and other than the lav and 86 I wouldn't
be trying to draw the attention of such a vehicle.

There is more to armour than just thickness, you also have to defeat the
slanted surface designed to deflect the rounds as well as the possibility
of active defense on military vehicles like reactive armour.
For example, the slant of a front windshield in any car is actualy well
designed to deflect many rounds, I remember a test where someone tried to
shoot a target inside a car with varying grades of shotgun ammo and failed
to penetrate even with 00 buckshot.

If you wanted to get technical about anti-vehicle munitions there
really are 3 effective methods that I remember.

1) Shaped charge, superheats to plasma burns a very small hole in the
vehicle and once inside super-presurizes it killing the occupants.
2) High Velocity Rounds APDS APFSDS, most nato tanks use these, it's a
long chunk of carbide or depleted uranium in a sabot, punches a hole in
the tank and the little flying pieces of metal kill the occupants because
of the kinetic energy.
3) High explosive Squash Head, cause such a hard blow to the outside of
the vehicle that pieces of metal break off inside and kil the occupants.


Just my 2cents :)

../Martin
Message no. 24
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Derek Hyde)
Subject: AV Ammo
Date: Thu Aug 9 11:10:01 2001
<snip>

>Nitpick:
>5.56 Military Ball classified as AP is in fact AP vs Personal Armor ie
>flack jacket/bullet proof vest, firing a 5.56 at a tank is more likely to
>damage you with a ricochet.
>Unless somthing has changed since 1990 when I qualified on the Canadian
>version of the M16 that is.

AFAIK any 5.56 NATO FMJ will go through flak vests... these are designed to
protect against rather slow shrapnel, not rifle bullets.

>Re: Gulf War
>Putting a tank with a range of 5000 meters against a tank with a range of
>2500 meters designed to fight in the forests of Europe is hardly a fair
>comparison ;)

And BTW, the US lost 8 tanks in Desert Storm.

>I've fired 5.56, 7.62, 50 cal, LAV Rocket and 86 MM rounds at tanks
>(old tanks of course ;) ) and other than the lav and 86 I wouldn't
>be trying to draw the attention of such a vehicle.

I fired a G3 (7,62 NATO, if you don't know) and the german "Leichte
Panzerfaust" in 66mm AFAIK. Useful against trucks and stuff, maybe useful
against APC, drek against a tank ;)

<snip>

>For example, the slant of a front windshield in any car is actualy well
>designed to deflect many rounds, I remember a test where someone tried to
>shoot a target inside a car with varying grades of shotgun ammo and failed
>to penetrate even with 00 buckshot.

I've just read an article about armored cars, and a shotgun slug will go
through most classes of civilain vehicle armor like butter. Whether through
windows or the body, doesn't matter. Same for an AK, the second burst will
rip through the window. Definitely no fun ;)

<snipped rest to leave something for the other gun folks ;) >

We europeans can soon throw in some cents too ;)

Arclight
Message no. 25
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Derek Hyde)
Subject: AV Ammo
Date: Thu Aug 9 11:10:07 2001
<snip>

>Not to mention you guys get all the best guns :)
>*drool H&K*

Try to buy one here...

Arclight


who gets all the best guns? an M16 sucks ass so you must not be referring to
the US...LOL
Message no. 26
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Arclight)
Subject: AV Ammo
Date: Thu Aug 9 11:20:01 2001
At 10:05 09.08.2001 -0500, Derek Hyde wrote:

<snip>

If you would insert ">" when you quote something, reading the mails would
be far easier for all of us.

>who gets all the best guns? an M16 sucks ass so you must not be referring to
>the US...LOL

He refered to the ".de" of my email-address I guess.

Arclight
Message no. 27
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Arclight)
Subject: AV Ammo
Date: Thu Aug 9 11:30:01 2001
At 10:04 09.08.2001 -0500, Derek Hyde wrote:

<snip>

>ahh yes....we lost 8 tanks but they lost how many exactly?? (and are you
>referring to tanks that we accidentally shot ourselves as well in that
>count?)

18 US M1 series tanks were lost, 9 of them with non-repairable damage. But
what's more important - no crewmember was killed in these events. I don't
know how they were lost, though. But it doesn't matter anyway, because it
was just to counter your statement that M1 tanks were only scratched by
enemy weapons.

Arclight
Message no. 28
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Derek Hyde)
Subject: AV Ammo
Date: Thu Aug 9 13:10:01 2001
<snip>

>>ahh yes....we lost 8 tanks but they lost how many exactly?? (and are you
>>referring to tanks that we accidentally shot ourselves as well in that
>>count?)

>18 US M1 series tanks were lost, 9 of them with non-repairable damage. But
>what's more important - no crewmember was killed in these events. I don't
>know how they were lost, though. But it doesn't matter anyway, because it
>was just to counter your statement that M1 tanks were only scratched by
>enemy weapons.
>Arclight

now now....that just means that they shot our road wheels out and busted up
the drive train enough that we didn't feel like trying to fix them. the
other thing to keep in mind is that the fact that none of the soldiers were
killed should more than illustrate my point that they weren't actually
destroyed...they may have been irrepairably disabled but that doesn't mean
that they were distroyed

Derek
Message no. 29
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Arclight)
Subject: AV Ammo
Date: Thu Aug 9 13:20:01 2001
At 12:02 09.08.2001 -0500, Derek Hyde wrote:

<snip>

>now now....that just means that they shot our road wheels out and busted up
>the drive train enough that we didn't feel like trying to fix them. the
>other thing to keep in mind is that the fact that none of the soldiers were
>killed should more than illustrate my point that they weren't actually
>destroyed...they may have been irrepairably disabled but that doesn't mean
>that they were distroyed

The point in shooting something is to stop it from shooting you. It's not
to destroy/kill it. If you cannot use something to fight, it's useless and
the enemy reached another checkpoint in order to defeat you.

Arclight
Message no. 30
From: shadowrn@*********.com (David Post)
Subject: AV Ammo
Date: Thu Aug 9 13:35:01 2001
they may have been irrepairably disabled but that doesn't mean
>that they were distroyed
>

So, in a practical sense, how is irrepairably disabled different
from destroyed?

Both mean that you can't fix them, both mean that they are useless,
both have the same tactical and strategic loss to you and gain
to the enemy, so how again are they different?

Dave
Message no. 31
From: shadowrn@*********.com (John Smith)
Subject: AV Ammo
Date: Thu Aug 9 13:45:01 2001
Uhm... not to be a complete bastard, but could you guys get back on the
topic or chill out?

I'm a huge fan of military history, etc. but this is quickly disintigrating
into a one-upsmanship competition, and while you guys have some nice points,
it's starting to get... sad.

And we still haven't figured out what the hell they were thinking when they
came up with AV ammo. ;-)

Lepper.
seutekh@*******.com (period)
Message no. 32
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Derek Hyde)
Subject: AV Ammo
Date: Thu Aug 9 13:50:01 2001
>>they may have been irrepairably disabled but that doesn't mean
>>that they were distroyed
>

>So, in a practical sense, how is irrepairably disabled different
>from destroyed?

>Both mean that you can't fix them, both mean that they are useless,
>both have the same tactical and strategic loss to you and gain
>to the enemy, so how again are they different?

>Dave

The difference is the same as if you blow a wheel of of a steel lynx with a
vindicator minigun on it...it may be down but it can still put you out

Derek
Message no. 33
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Derek Hyde)
Subject: AV Ammo
Date: Thu Aug 9 13:55:01 2001
>Uhm... not to be a complete bastard, but could you guys get back on the
>topic or chill out?

>I'm a huge fan of military history, etc. but this is quickly disintigrating
>into a one-upsmanship competition, and while you guys have some nice
points,
>it's starting to get... sad.

>And we still haven't figured out what the hell they were thinking when they
>came up with AV ammo. ;-)

>Lepper.


ok....here's what it amounts to....they're trying to be realistic...there is
such a thing as real anti vehicular ammunition for regular guns HOWEVER it's
still limited by the fact that you can't put much power behind a rifle round
or a pistol round. while I do agree with the concept of the AV ammo I think
the rules for it are mildly flawed. I however would venutre a guess and say
that the main reason behind it is all these damned mages that cast bullet
barrier so that a gun can't do shit to them...(hence halving the barrier
rating)

Derek
(the perfect anti-mage is one who uses ammunition with anti-magic wards on
it cast by a 5th level initiate by the way)
Message no. 34
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Gurth)
Subject: AV Ammo
Date: Thu Aug 9 14:00:12 2001
According to Derek Hyde, on Thu, 09 Aug 2001 the word on the street was...

> personally if you've seen a test where a non bullet proof glass windshield
> stopped a shotgun blast I'd like to see that and would probably buy the car
> because if it'll stop 00 buckshot then it'll never crack or shatter from
> things hitting it

It's because windshields in the US are laminated, which when coupled with
the low angle at which they are typically set, will cause a lot of bullets
to simply bounce off. .38 Special is (apparently) quite easily deflected by
these kinds of windscreens; as each #00 buckshot pellet has about the same
size as a .38 bullet, as well as roughly the same energy (especially at some
range -- spherical pellets lose energy faster than slightly streamlined
pistol bullets), I wouldn't be surprised if they bounced off as well. Not
that this won't leave marks, of course :)

OTOH I've read tests of FN's P90 in which that weapon was demonstrated to
fire straight through laminated windscreens with so little deflection that
it hit head-sized targets inside the car without any trouble.

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
Tot straks en poppelepee maar weer.
-> NAGEE Editor * ShadowRN GridSec * Triangle Virtuoso <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://plastic.dumpshock.com <-

GC3.12: GAT/! d-(dpu) s:- !a>? C+@ UL P L++ E W-(++) N o? K w+(--) O V?
PS+ PE(-)(+) Y PGP- t@ 5++ X(+) R+++(-)>$ tv+ b++@ DI- D+ G+ e h! !r y?
Incubated into the First Church of the Sqooshy Ball, 21-05-1998
Message no. 35
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Keith Duthie)
Subject: AV Ammo
Date: Thu Aug 9 22:55:01 2001
On Thu, 9 Aug 2001, Gurth wrote:

> > Either that, or halve the power of APDS /after/ reducing it by the armour
> > rating...
>
> Though this is a logical thing to do, it makes APDS-firing weapons
> unrealistically destructive against vehicles. When you shoot at a vehicle,
> especially a civilian one, there's a major chance you're just punching holes
> in it without hitting anything that will impair its functioning (OTOH when
> you shoot at a living target, you're almost guaranteed to damage something
> important when you hit it).

Unrealistically destructive? Just because it goes through armour better
than normal ammo?

Let's have an example, just for the hell of it.

Joe Runner is packing an ares predator with regular ammo. He's stupid
enough to be trying to shoot an armoured (rating 3 armour) car with it.

Because he's reasonably good with the predator and going all out to shoot
the car (ie skill 4 with 4 combat pool thrown in), he manages to get four
successes. The predator, normally 9M, does 4L, reduced to 1L by armour.

The car rolls body against a TN of 2, getting four successes. The shot
does light damage to the car.


Now, Mike Runner is packing the same weapon, but he's got good enough
contacts and nuyen that he's using APDS ammo. By canon, he's in the same
situation as Joe, but using this house rule the numbers become a little
different.

Because he's reasonably good with the predator and going all out to shoot
the car (ie skill 4 with 4 combat pool thrown in), he manages to get four
successes. The predator, normally 9M, reduced by armour to 6M, does 3L.

The car rolls body against a TN of 3, getting two successes. The shot is
staged up one level, and ends up doing moderate damage to the car.

How is this unrealistically destructive against vehicles?

> This is probably why vehicles automatically stage damage down by one level,
> and halve the Power of the incoming attack on top of that. Now I agree that
> APDS should be better against vehicle armor than regular ammo, so I think
> your first idea is probably the better one here. At least it follows the
> precedents :)

To tell you the truth, after looking at it I think they both come up with
exactly the same numbers.

--
Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn
http://users.albatross.co.nz/~psycho/ O- -><-
Message no. 36
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Gurth)
Subject: AV Ammo
Date: Fri Aug 10 06:40:06 2001
According to Keith Duthie, on Fri, 10 Aug 2001 the word on the street was...

> Unrealistically destructive? Just because it goes through armour better
> than normal ammo?

It depends on the relative Power and Armor ratings.

> > This is probably why vehicles automatically stage damage down by one level,
> > and halve the Power of the incoming attack on top of that. Now I agree that
> > APDS should be better against vehicle armor than regular ammo, so I think
> > your first idea is probably the better one here. At least it follows the
> > precedents :)
>
> To tell you the truth, after looking at it I think they both come up with
> exactly the same numbers.

Not exactly. For example, take Power 8, armor 2. Halving before comparing
Power and armor gives Power 4, for a TN for the vehicle of 2.
Halving after comparison gives the vehicle a TN of (8 - 2) / 2 = 3.

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
Tot straks en poppelepee maar weer.
-> NAGEE Editor * ShadowRN GridSec * Triangle Virtuoso <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://plastic.dumpshock.com <-

GC3.12: GAT/! d-(dpu) s:- !a>? C+@ UL P L++ E W-(++) N o? K w+(--) O V?
PS+ PE(-)(+) Y PGP- t@ 5++ X(+) R+++(-)>$ tv+ b++@ DI- D+ G+ e h! !r y?
Incubated into the First Church of the Sqooshy Ball, 21-05-1998
Message no. 37
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Kal Thrax)
Subject: AV Ammo
Date: Fri Aug 10 17:10:00 2001
>ok....here's what it amounts to....they're trying to be realistic...there
>is
>such a thing as real anti vehicular ammunition for regular guns HOWEVER
>it's
>still limited by the fact that you can't put much power behind a rifle
>round
>or a pistol round.



I dont think you should bring rifles into this, there are several rifles
that are anti-tank and several that do alot of damage to armoured cars and
light vehicles. One examples is an older gun called the MKII( ithink its II)
boys, anti tank rifle, that eventualy saw action as a sniper rifle.


KaL

_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
Message no. 38
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Keith Duthie)
Subject: AV Ammo
Date: Sat Aug 11 01:40:04 2001
On Fri, 10 Aug 2001, Gurth wrote:

> According to Keith Duthie, on Fri, 10 Aug 2001 the word on the street was...
>
> > Unrealistically destructive? Just because it goes through armour better
> > than normal ammo?
>
> It depends on the relative Power and Armor ratings.

Okay, could you give a counter-example?

> > To tell you the truth, after looking at it I think they both come up with
> > exactly the same numbers.
>
> Not exactly. For example, take Power 8, armor 2. Halving before comparing
> Power and armor gives Power 4, for a TN for the vehicle of 2.
> Halving after comparison gives the vehicle a TN of (8 - 2) / 2 = 3.

Ah, the wonders of ambiguity. I meant both my suggestions. ie, halving
both the power and the armour vs reducing by armour before halving. (And
to be accurate, my statement would have to include the word "generally",
or the phrase "most of the time").

--
Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn
http://users.albatross.co.nz/~psycho/ O- -><-
Message no. 39
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Paul J. Adam)
Subject: AV Ammo
Date: Sat Aug 11 05:45:01 2001
In article <F159C6RZT26XOIRUlRW0000443e@*******.com>, Kal Thrax
<kalthrax@*******.com> writes
>>ok....here's what it amounts to....they're trying to be realistic...there
>>is
>>such a thing as real anti vehicular ammunition for regular guns HOWEVER
>>it's
>>still limited by the fact that you can't put much power behind a rifle
>>round
>>or a pistol round.
>
>I dont think you should bring rifles into this, there are several rifles
>that are anti-tank and several that do alot of damage to armoured cars and
>light vehicles. One examples is an older gun called the MKII( ithink its II)
>boys, anti tank rifle, that eventualy saw action as a sniper rifle.

.55" Boys Mark 1 (the Mark 2 was a shorter version for use by airborne
troops). 1.6 metres (64 inches) long, weighed 16kg / 36lb, bolt-action
and fed from a five-shot box magazine. The bullet had a hardened steel
core and could penetrate 21mm (about 13/16") of unsloped armour at a
range of 300 metres.

More kin to assault cannon than rifles, methinks...

--
Paul J. Adam
Message no. 40
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Gurth)
Subject: AV Ammo
Date: Sat Aug 11 06:10:33 2001
According to Keith Duthie, on Sat, 11 Aug 2001 the word on the street was...

> Okay, could you give a counter-example?

I'm thinking mainly that a high-Power weapon firing APDS ammo against a
vehicle with some armor will be a lot more destructive than that same
weapon firing normal ammo against the same vehicle. Let's see what we
actually end up with -- say, a shotgun (10S, becomes 5M vs. vehicles)
against a limousine with Body 4, armor 4, and the firer rolling 4
successes. Without the halved armor, the car would be rolling 4 dice
against a TN of 1, and so can be assumed to get 4 successes. That causes
Moderate damage to the vehicle. With halved armor, the car would need to
roll 5 - 2 = 3, and so gets an average of 2 or 3 successes -- and takes
Serious damage from the attack.

Not all that much of a difference, I agree, but my point is that IRL,
punching a hole in a car is not the same as causing plenty of damage to
that car. APDS will be better at punching holes but not necessarily at
causing more damage.

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
Tot straks en poppelepee maar weer.
-> NAGEE Editor * ShadowRN GridSec * Triangle Virtuoso <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://plastic.dumpshock.com <-

GC3.12: GAT/! d-(dpu) s:- !a>? C+@ UL P L++ E W-(++) N o? K w+(--) O V?
PS+ PE(-)(+) Y PGP- t@ 5++ X(+) R+++(-)>$ tv+ b++@ DI- D+ G+ e h! !r y?
Incubated into the First Church of the Sqooshy Ball, 21-05-1998
Message no. 41
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Keith Duthie)
Subject: AV Ammo
Date: Sat Aug 11 06:50:00 2001
On Sat, 11 Aug 2001, Gurth wrote:

> I'm thinking mainly that a high-Power weapon firing APDS ammo against a
> vehicle with some armor will be a lot more destructive than that same
> weapon firing normal ammo against the same vehicle. Let's see what we
> actually end up with -- say, a shotgun (10S, becomes 5M vs. vehicles)
> against a limousine with Body 4, armor 4, and the firer rolling 4
> successes. Without the halved armor, the car would be rolling 4 dice
> against a TN of 1, and so can be assumed to get 4 successes. That causes
> Moderate damage to the vehicle. With halved armor, the car would need to
> roll 5 - 2 = 3, and so gets an average of 2 or 3 successes -- and takes
> Serious damage from the attack.

Which reflects the fact that the weapon actually punched through the
armour a lot more easily, with good accuracy. Whereas the normal ammo is
greatly slowed by the armour.

> Not all that much of a difference, I agree, but my point is that IRL,
> punching a hole in a car is not the same as causing plenty of damage to
> that car. APDS will be better at punching holes but not necessarily at
> causing more damage.

The amount of damage caused is a function of the type of weapon (damage
level) and accuracy of the shooter (number of successes). The effect of
APDS using the house rule idea I outlined is that the shot actually gets
through the vehicles armour better (or even just gets /through/ the damned
armour).

--
Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn
http://users.albatross.co.nz/~psycho/ O- -><-
Message no. 42
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Derek Hyde)
Subject: AV Ammo
Date: Sun Aug 12 23:05:00 2001
>>>ok....here's what it amounts to....they're trying to be realistic...there
>>>is
>>>such a thing as real anti vehicular ammunition for regular guns HOWEVER
>>>it's
>>>still limited by the fact that you can't put much power behind a rifle
>>>round
>>>or a pistol round.
>>
>>I dont think you should bring rifles into this, there are several rifles
>>that are anti-tank and several that do alot of damage to armoured cars and
>>light vehicles. One examples is an older gun called the MKII( ithink its
II)
>>boys, anti tank rifle, that eventualy saw action as a sniper rifle.

>.55" Boys Mark 1 (the Mark 2 was a shorter version for use by airborne
>troops). 1.6 metres (64 inches) long, weighed 16kg / 36lb, bolt-action
>and fed from a five-shot box magazine. The bullet had a hardened steel
>core and could penetrate 21mm (about 13/16") of unsloped armour at a
>range of 300 metres.

>More kin to assault cannon than rifles, methinks...
>--
>Paul J. Adam

Thanks for pointing out the penetration capability on that one...I'd heard
of it just wasn't very familiar with it...I might point out for the non
military people on here that the average APC has about 1" thick armor and
the average battletank of modern day is pretty close to being measured in
feet since they're more worried about the rounds from tanks penetrating when
they're firing 120mm rounds instead of worrying about a .55cal round doing
anything at all to it. an example that was there from WW2 era weaponry and
such doesn't hold true now and definatly wouldn't hold true in SR times.

Sorry if I sound condesending but I'd already thought of the Barret .50
sniper rifle when I made the post and while it'll pierce the average APC or
BRDM or stuff like that it won't do squat to a tank which is essentially
what the arguement here is that they're making rounds that'll punch holes in
actual vehicles. The other thing to keep in mind is that if you're making
an actual Main Battle Tank you're figuring that the vehicles going to weigh
around 50 Tons or more and will have an armor rating in excess of about 25
(by my estimation)cause nothing short of an AT missile, AT Mine, or another
Tank round should be able to do anything to it.

if you use that as something to put the AV ammo into perspective you'll see
that the thing isn't way off base...besides...what do you have that'll be
able to penetrate something with an armor of 25 even with AV ammo cause
here's the other thing you should probably take into account....you're not
shooting through something you can see through...I'd Highly suggest you
imposing the +8 for blind fire if you've got someone that thinks they want
to fire at someone inside a tank...if they're extremely familiar with the
vehicle I'd still impose a +4 cause you've gotta figure that the round's
gonna spend 90% of it's energy going through the armor so it's not gonna hit
too hard...

Derek
Message no. 43
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Gurth)
Subject: AV Ammo
Date: Mon Aug 13 05:45:09 2001
According to Derek Hyde, on Mon, 13 Aug 2001 the word on the street was...

> Sorry if I sound condesending but I'd already thought of the Barret .50
> sniper rifle when I made the post and while it'll pierce the average APC or
> BRDM or stuff like that it won't do squat to a tank which is essentially
> what the arguement here is that they're making rounds that'll punch holes in
> actual vehicles.

Depends on how you use it. If you try to use a .50 cal sniper rifle against
the vehicle's armor, all it'll do is scratch the paint. But if you use that
rifle to punch a hole in the gunner's optics and the commander's viewer
(and in any crewmembers who happen to poke their heads above the vehicle's
armor), you've effectively destroyed a tank -- for the moment, anyway --
with a handful of bullets costing a few cents each...

> here's the other thing you should probably take into account....you're not
> shooting through something you can see through...I'd Highly suggest you
> imposing the +8 for blind fire if you've got someone that thinks they want
> to fire at someone inside a tank...if they're extremely familiar with the
> vehicle

How so? IMHO estimating tank crew positions is pretty easy if you have a
basic familiarity with AFVs in general. The driver is under the driver's
hatch, the commander under the commander's hatch, the gunner in a tank is
in front of the commander, and so on. If you can find a hatch, I'd say
you can try to make a shot at the crewmember who uses it... Technically
it's still blind fire at +8, but IMO a bonus is in order because you can
estimate the target location fairly well, unlike when you're shooting
through an office wall to hit someone who may be anywhere along its length.

> I'd still impose a +4 cause you've gotta figure that the round's
> gonna spend 90% of it's energy going through the armor so it's not gonna hit
> too hard...

Ever seen what a tank hit by a modern AT weapon looks like? Accurate
shooting at the crew isn't necessary...

This is slightly different in SR, of course, but if you have a powerful AV
weapon you're very likely to cause Deadly damage to the vehicle, and
therefore to the crew as well.

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
Tot straks en poppelepee maar weer.
-> NAGEE Editor * ShadowRN GridSec * Triangle Virtuoso <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://plastic.dumpshock.com <-

GC3.12: GAT/! d-(dpu) s:- !a>? C+@ UL P L++ E W-(++) N o? K w+(--) O V?
PS+ PE(-)(+) Y PGP- t@ 5++ X(+) R+++(-)>$ tv+ b++@ DI- D+ G+ e h! !r y?
Incubated into the First Church of the Sqooshy Ball, 21-05-1998
Message no. 44
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Derek Hyde)
Subject: AV Ammo
Date: Mon Aug 13 10:05:01 2001
>Depends on how you use it. If you try to use a .50 cal sniper rifle against
>the vehicle's armor, all it'll do is scratch the paint. But if you use that
>rifle to punch a hole in the gunner's optics and the commander's viewer
>(and in any crewmembers who happen to poke their heads above the vehicle's
>armor), you've effectively destroyed a tank -- for the moment, anyway --
>with a handful of bullets costing a few cents each...

>How so? IMHO estimating tank crew positions is pretty easy if you have a
>basic familiarity with AFVs in general. The driver is under the driver's
>hatch, the commander under the commander's hatch, the gunner in a tank is
>in front of the commander, and so on. If you can find a hatch, I'd say
>you can try to make a shot at the crewmember who uses it... Technically
>it's still blind fire at +8, but IMO a bonus is in order because you can
>estimate the target location fairly well, unlike when you're shooting
>through an office wall to hit someone who may be anywhere along its length.

>Ever seen what a tank hit by a modern AT weapon looks like? Accurate
>shooting at the crew isn't necessary...
>This is slightly different in SR, of course, but if you have a powerful AV
>weapon you're very likely to cause Deadly damage to the vehicle, and
>therefore to the crew as well.


ok.....here's my reasoning behind the whole blind fire mod for the people in
heavily armored vehicles....have you ever looked into a tank or an APC?
there's a hatch but there's also a little room inside for the people to move
around...I use that to take it into account..and if you shoot the optics out
you're inviting the gunner to use his secondary sights and find you and blow
the hell out of you....not to mention that as soon as he traverses the
turret in your direction you'll probably get lit up by the loader's MG as
well....(and if the gunner and tank commander are feeling especially sick
you'll be the target of an HEAT round....hey whatever works huh? been in an
armor unit too long I think.

oh and as a side note....if you're thinking you're gonna shoot the driver
dream on cause he's the most heavily armored person on the crew (at least in
an M1 but since you're not gonna pierce the M1 to begin with I guess you can
forget about it huh?

Derek
Message no. 45
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Gurth)
Subject: AV Ammo
Date: Mon Aug 13 14:30:11 2001
According to Derek Hyde, on Mon, 13 Aug 2001 the word on the street was...

> ok.....here's my reasoning behind the whole blind fire mod for the people in
> heavily armored vehicles....have you ever looked into a tank or an APC?

Not professionally, but let's say I've got a fairly extensive library.

> and if you shoot the optics out you're inviting the gunner to use his
> secondary sights and find you and blow the hell out of you....

Which will be a lot more difficult because the best optics are now gone,
and the gunner is looking for someone who can move and hide easily in the
terrain.

> not to mention that as soon as he traverses the turret in your
> direction you'll probably get lit up by the loader's MG as well....(and
> if the gunner and tank commander are feeling especially sick you'll be
> the target of an HEAT round....hey whatever works huh? been in an armor
> unit too long I think.

Now I'll freely admit that I have no practical experience whatsoever with
either side of this argument, but I have a feeling that finding a single
person with a powerful rifle, and bringing the vehicle's weapons to bear on
that person, is more difficult than you seem to think it is. But if you
want to continue this discussion, I suggest we do it off-list, as it's not
Shadowrun-related anymore :)

> oh and as a side note....if you're thinking you're gonna shoot the driver
> dream on cause he's the most heavily armored person on the crew (at least in
> an M1 but since you're not gonna pierce the M1 to begin with I guess you can
> forget about it huh?

I didn't say "shoot the driver in an MBT" on purpose. I'm well aware of the
armor on modern MBTs, but I'm also well aware that most lighter AFVs have a
lot less armor, which could very well be penetrated by weapons such as .50
sniping rifles. In which case you can estimate where the driver is, and hit
the vehicle there.

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
Tot straks en poppelepee maar weer.
-> NAGEE Editor * ShadowRN GridSec * Triangle Virtuoso <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://plastic.dumpshock.com <-

GC3.12: GAT/! d-(dpu) s:- !a>? C+@ UL P L++ E W-(++) N o? K w+(--) O V?
PS+ PE(-)(+) Y PGP- t@ 5++ X(+) R+++(-)>$ tv+ b++@ DI- D+ G+ e h! !r y?
Incubated into the First Church of the Sqooshy Ball, 21-05-1998
Message no. 46
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Paul J. Adam)
Subject: AV Ammo
Date: Wed Aug 15 20:40:01 2001
In article <01081319512304.00561@***************>, Gurth
<Gurth@******.nl> writes
>Which will be a lot more difficult because the best optics are now gone,
>and the gunner is looking for someone who can move and hide easily in the
>terrain.

True to a point, but it's a lot harder to hit a 12" x 6" x 6" box (the
size of a M80 MBT's thermal sight) with a rifle than it is to hit a
Puny-Fleshy-One with fragments from a 125mm HE-FRAG. One case needs a
direct hit, the other will tolerate a significant miss distance. Guess
which history favours?

Plus, tanks rarely operate alone. A troop of four poses significant
problems to these notional snipers: got to get into range unseen, got to
fire, have to hit, mustn't be noticed by the rest of the troop OR must
evade unseen after having warned all that there's enemy in the area.



--
Paul J. Adam
Message no. 47
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Gurth)
Subject: AV Ammo
Date: Thu Aug 16 05:25:02 2001
According to Paul J. Adam, on Thu, 16 Aug 2001 the word on the street was...

> Plus, tanks rarely operate alone. A troop of four poses significant
> problems to these notional snipers: got to get into range unseen, got to
> fire, have to hit, mustn't be noticed by the rest of the troop OR must
> evade unseen after having warned all that there's enemy in the area.

But that is not the point here; this is like saying, "In SR, flechette ammo
and heavy security armors suck because a large enough group of people armed
with only hold-out pistols and no armor can still kill you." AFAIC it was
simply about what you can do under the right circumstances, not what might
happen under the wrong ones.

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
Tot straks en poppelepee maar weer.
-> NAGEE Editor * ShadowRN GridSec * Triangle Virtuoso <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://plastic.dumpshock.com <-

GC3.12: GAT/! d-(dpu) s:- !a>? C+@ UL P L++ E W-(++) N o? K w+(--) O V?
PS+ PE(-)(+) Y PGP- t@ 5++ X(+) R+++(-)>$ tv+ b++@ DI- D+ G+ e h! !r y?
Incubated into the First Church of the Sqooshy Ball, 21-05-1998
Message no. 48
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Paul J. Adam)
Subject: AV Ammo
Date: Thu Aug 16 21:10:01 2001
In article <01081611162100.00567@***************>, Gurth
<Gurth@******.nl> writes
>According to Paul J. Adam, on Thu, 16 Aug 2001 the word on the street was...
>
>> Plus, tanks rarely operate alone. A troop of four poses significant
>> problems to these notional snipers: got to get into range unseen, got to
>> fire, have to hit, mustn't be noticed by the rest of the troop OR must
>> evade unseen after having warned all that there's enemy in the area.
>
>But that is not the point here; this is like saying, "In SR, flechette ammo
>and heavy security armors suck because a large enough group of people armed
>with only hold-out pistols and no armor can still kill you."

No. Tanks don't operate alone (at least, not if they want to survive)
and you have to deal with the world as it is.

Say rather "Heavy security armour sucks because one guy might wander off
by himself and take off his helmet for a cigarette and then he gets shot
in the head with needle ammo". Yes, it's possible, but it doesn't help
you handle a fireteam patrol of properly-trained troops in milspec who
are covering their arcs properly.

>AFAIC it was
>simply about what you can do under the right circumstances, not what might
>happen under the wrong ones.

Exactly. In the FRY, the Serbs evolved the tactic of using solo M80
tanks as observation points, since they had thermal sights: and the
Croats developed and fielded a 20mm sniper rifle (an assault cannon,
really) to shoot out those thermal sights.

It wasn't a particularly successful tactic: the sight is small, the tank
and its accompanying troops become irritable and fire back, and the
sniper lacks the penetration to seriously damage the tank and the rate
of fire to effectively suppress infantry.


Another case of the smart money still being on Goliath.


--
Paul J. Adam

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about AV Ammo, you may also be interested in:

Disclaimer

These messages were posted a long time ago on a mailing list far, far away. The copyright to their contents probably lies with the original authors of the individual messages, but since they were published in an electronic forum that anyone could subscribe to, and the logs were available to subscribers and most likely non-subscribers as well, it's felt that re-publishing them here is a kind of public service.

Thwap!