Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Derek Hyde)
Subject: AV Ammo (Was RE: Great Dragon)
Date: Wed Aug 7 21:55:01 2002
> There are no non AV weapons that can damage a Steel Lynx (except
perhaps
> for
> very stong Trolls with melee weapons).

Ok, I think it's time someone pointed this out since a couple people
have made reference to it, there is a MASSIVE difference between a Anti
Vehicular Weapon and a regular weapon firing AV rounds, if you shoot an
AVW at a Vehicle it does regular damage, (HMG's ARE AVW's, MMG's are
questionable, everything lighter is not) if you load AV rounds into any
weapon it halves the vehicle's armor and does not reduce (I.E. AK-97 @
8M remains 8M and halves the vehicular armor rating) EVEN IF this
brings it down to a regular level a steel lynx with an armor or 12 (if
that's what it is) is STILL going to have a pretty good time staging it
down, even if it can't, it's STILL ONLY MODERATE, when you need to worry
about it is with larger weapons, lets take this to the SPAS-22 with AV
rounds and that becomes a 10S shotgun that people have no chance of
resisting cause it ignores armor and is now a drone killer in two shots
whereas before it would have done absolutely nothing.


Derek
Message no. 2
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Damion Milliken)
Subject: AV Ammo (Was RE: Great Dragon)
Date: Wed Aug 7 22:50:01 2002
Derek Hyde writes:

> Ok, I think it's time someone pointed this out since a couple people have
> made reference to it, there is a MASSIVE difference between a Anti
> Vehicular Weapon and a regular weapon firing AV rounds

Actually, there's not. CC page 36:

"AV rounds use the rules for APDS rounds (p. 116, SR3) against
nonvehicle targets, and use the anti-vehicular rules against
vehicles (p. 149, SR3)."

> if you shoot an AVW at a Vehicle it does regular damage, (HMG's ARE AVW's,
> MMG's are questionable, everything lighter is not)

Actually, no. If you shoot an anti-vehicular weapon at a vehicle, you follow
the rules on p. 149 of SR3:

"Against AV munitions (weapons that use a shaped-charge, penetrating
warhead specifically designed to take out vehicles), vehicle armour
does not reduce the Power by half and does not reduce the Damage
Level. The Power of the AV munitions is reduced by half the Armour
Rating (round down the Armour Rating before calculating the Power of
the AV munitions attack). If the AV weapon Power does not exceed the
reduced Armour Rating, the weapon does no damage."

Per the SR3 rules, the only weapons that are anti-vehicular are those that
specifically say so. This does _not_ include LMGs, MMGs, or HMGs. Nor does
it include Assault Cannons.

> if you load AV rounds into any weapon it halves the vehicle's armor and
> does not reduce (I.E. AK-97 @ 8M remains 8M and halves the vehicular armor
> rating) EVEN IF this brings it down to a regular level a steel lynx with an
> armor or 12 (if that's what it is) is STILL going to have a pretty good
> time staging it down, even if it can't, it's STILL ONLY MODERATE

A Steel Lynx has Armour 9 and Body 2. If you shoot it with an assault rifle
loading AV ammo, the drone takes 8M and only has 4 armour to resist it with.
So it's effectively taking 4M with 2 Body dice. It'll take a Light or
Moderate. So Steel Lynxes have little to worry about from 8M weapons even if
they load AV rounds. Unless they happen to be Burst fire or Fully Automatic
weapons, of course. An 11S AV burst from the same assault rifle would end up
as 7S with only 2 Body dice for the drone to resist. That's an S.

> when you need to worry about it is with larger weapons, lets take this to
> the SPAS-22 with AV rounds and that becomes a 10S shotgun that people have
> no chance of resisting cause it ignores armor and is now a drone killer in
> two shots whereas before it would have done absolutely nothing.

That's right. I completely agree. And I think that it is because of a couple
of reasons, all of which happen to collide in this particular example:

1) Vehicle Armour in SR is a bit of an "all or nothing" situation.
You either have the Power to do absolutely nothing, not even
scratch the paintwork. Or you have enough Power to do something.

2) Vehicle Bodys in SR are woefully low. As soon as a weapon has the
Power to do something against a vehicle, the odds are, with the
puny amount of Body dice that they have, they'll take whatever
damage the weapon does, even if it's only Power 2 or 3.

3) AV ammo is too good. Normal ammo loses a Damage Level and has its
Power halved against vehicles. AV ammo does not lose a Damage
Level, nor does it have it's Power halved. In fact, it _halves_
vehicle armour! There is no 'middle ground' where weapons neither
have their damage modified nor modify vehicle Armour (this, in my
opinion, is what AV ammo probably should have done).

--
Damion Milliken University of Wollongong
Unofficial Shadowrun Guru E-mail: dam01@***.edu.au
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.12
GE d- s++:-- a26 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. 3
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Derek Hyde)
Subject: AV Ammo (Was RE: Great Dragon)
Date: Wed Aug 7 23:45:02 2002
> Actually, there's not. CC page 36:
>
> "AV rounds use the rules for APDS rounds (p. 116, SR3) against
> nonvehicle targets, and use the anti-vehicular rules against
> vehicles (p. 149, SR3)."
>
umm.....so you're telling me that you'd have something that halves
hardened vehicular armor only half the armor rating of personnel armor?
Sorry but military experience dictates that if it's got the balls to
blow through vehicles a person has absolutely no chance.


> > if you shoot an AVW at a Vehicle it does regular damage, (HMG's ARE
> AVW's,
> > MMG's are questionable, everything lighter is not)
>
> Actually, no. If you shoot an anti-vehicular weapon at a vehicle, you
> follow
> the rules on p. 149 of SR3:
>
> "Against AV munitions (weapons that use a shaped-charge,
penetrating
> warhead specifically designed to take out vehicles), vehicle
armour
> does not reduce the Power by half and does not reduce the Damage
> Level. The Power of the AV munitions is reduced by half the
Armour
> Rating (round down the Armour Rating before calculating the
Power of
> the AV munitions attack). If the AV weapon Power does not exceed
the
> reduced Armour Rating, the weapon does no damage."
>
> Per the SR3 rules, the only weapons that are anti-vehicular are those
that
> specifically say so. This does _not_ include LMGs, MMGs, or HMGs. Nor
does
> it include Assault Cannons.
Umm....ok, once again referring to common sense and past military
experience a MMG (M240B or any other 7.62mm machinegun) would be a dual
purpose weapon, squad capable suppression and vehicle mounted
anti-personnel and anti-PC fire delivery, a HMG (M2 Browning Machine Gun
and other .50BMG or larger machineguns) is for anti vehicular combat as
well as carrying a secondary purpose of massive anti-personnel weaponry.
An assault cannon (assumedly 25mm or larger and firing HE rounds) IS by
all means anti-vehicular, period. If you're trying to fire a 25mm HE
direct fire weapon at personnel there's going to be absolutely nothing
left of the person, plain and simple, just as there would be nothing
left of someone after they got hit by a grenade from an M203 or anything
else of that size.


>
> > if you load AV rounds into any weapon it halves the vehicle's armor
and
> > does not reduce (I.E. AK-97 @ 8M remains 8M and halves the vehicular
> armor
> > rating) EVEN IF this brings it down to a regular level a steel lynx
with
> an
> > armor or 12 (if that's what it is) is STILL going to have a pretty
good
> > time staging it down, even if it can't, it's STILL ONLY MODERATE
>
> A Steel Lynx has Armour 9 and Body 2. If you shoot it with an assault
> rifle
> loading AV ammo, the drone takes 8M and only has 4 armour to resist it
> with.
> So it's effectively taking 4M with 2 Body dice. It'll take a Light or
> Moderate. So Steel Lynxes have little to worry about from 8M weapons
even
> if
> they load AV rounds.

That was my point exactly


> Unless they happen to be Burst fire or Fully
> Automatic
> weapons, of course. An 11S AV burst from the same assault rifle would
end
> up
> as 7S with only 2 Body dice for the drone to resist. That's an S.

yeah, that's the point there though, the person that said that drones
were to be afraid of regular small arms weapons was wrong and that's
what I was getting at

> 3) AV ammo is too good. Normal ammo loses a Damage Level and has
its
> Power halved against vehicles. AV ammo does not lose a Damage
> Level, nor does it have it's Power halved. In fact, it
_halves_
> vehicle armour! There is no 'middle ground' where weapons
neither
> have their damage modified nor modify vehicle Armour (this,
in my
> opinion, is what AV ammo probably should have done).

Actually there is a middle ground, regular weapons that are
anti-vehicular do their listed damage and handle vehicles as if they
were normal armor, there IS a very distinct difference, such as the fact
that mortars, missiles, rockets, and things of that nature are all
anti-vehicular and don't use the "AV" ammo rule of halving the armor
they're hitting, they do their listed damage, this is the case with
anything that is designed for fire against vehicles. (use common sense
and reality for a guideline of whether or not something is
anti-vehicular not whether or not a writer thought that we'd ever be
picking at what weapons are AV weapons and what ones aren't)

Derek
Message no. 4
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Damion Milliken)
Subject: AV Ammo (Was RE: Great Dragon)
Date: Thu Aug 8 20:10:01 2002
Derek Hyde writes:

> > Actually, there's not. CC page 36:
> >
> > "AV rounds use the rules for APDS rounds (p. 116, SR3) against
> > nonvehicle targets, and use the anti-vehicular rules against
> > vehicles (p. 149, SR3)."
>
> umm.....so you're telling me that you'd have something that halves
> hardened vehicular armor only half the armor rating of personnel armor?
> Sorry but military experience dictates that if it's got the balls to
> blow through vehicles a person has absolutely no chance.

Er, no, actually. I'm not telling you that, the SR rule books are ;-). I was
just quoting the appropriate rule. You may have a house rule that differs
from what is published in CC, but perhaps you might want to consider
mentioning this fact when you post about a topic.

> Umm....ok, once again referring to common sense and past military
> experience a MMG ... HMG ... assault cannon ...

I don't disagree on the real world uses of these weapons. But, the fact
remains, with the rules as published, an assault cannon is a fairly poor
weapon to select if you're planning on taking out even the most moderately
armoured vehicles. Let alone the pathetic performance of anything lighter
like HMGs or MMGs.

> Actually there is a middle ground, regular weapons that are anti-vehicular
> do their listed damage and handle vehicles as if they were normal armor,
> there IS a very distinct difference, such as the fact that mortars,
> missiles, rockets, and things of that nature are all anti-vehicular and
> don't use the "AV" ammo rule of halving the armor they're hitting, they do
> their listed damage, this is the case with anything that is designed for
> fire against vehicles.

I don't suppose that you'd be able to back this assertation up with a book
reference or quote, would you? I do sincerely believe that you're
misinformed on this fact.

For what it's worth, I have so many house rules on vehicle armour, vehicles,
vehicle combat, AV ammo, APDS ammo, and weapon damages, that if you look at
it all, I almost exactly agree with your points. But I'm not debating my
house rules, I'm discussing the SR rules.

--
Damion Milliken University of Wollongong
Unofficial Shadowrun Guru E-mail: dam01@***.edu.au
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.12
GE d- s++:-- a26 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. 5
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Paul J. Adam)
Subject: AV Ammo (Was RE: Great Dragon)
Date: Fri Aug 9 17:45:01 2002
In article <001401c23e8e$32bcfe40$6400a8c0@******>, Derek Hyde
<dmhyde@***.net> writes
>umm.....so you're telling me that you'd have something that halves
>hardened vehicular armor only half the armor rating of personnel armor?
>Sorry but military experience dictates that if it's got the balls to
>blow through vehicles a person has absolutely no chance.

One of the reasons US 'green-tip' ammo is currently much criticised is
that it's too optimised towards damaging vehicles and doesn't have
useful stopping power against personnel, especially not unarmoured
personnel.

Same reason tanks don't load APFSDS for everything.

>Umm....ok, once again referring to common sense and past military
>experience a MMG (M240B or any other 7.62mm machinegun) would be a dual
>purpose weapon, squad capable suppression and vehicle mounted
>anti-personnel and anti-PC fire delivery,

Define 'anti-vehicle'. Was the M1 Garand an 'anti-vehicle rifle'?

>An assault cannon (assumedly 25mm or larger and firing HE rounds) IS by
>all means anti-vehicular, period. If you're trying to fire a 25mm HE
>direct fire weapon at personnel there's going to be absolutely nothing
>left of the person, plain and simple, just as there would be nothing
>left of someone after they got hit by a grenade from an M203 or anything
>else of that size.

Trouble is, at real combat ranges you don't get many hits, you have to
rely on the fragmentation from near misses.


--
Paul J. Adam
Message no. 6
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Scott Dean Peterson)
Subject: AV Ammo (Was RE: Great Dragon)
Date: Sat Aug 10 15:00:01 2002
Derek Hyde dmhyde@***.net> writes

snip

> >Sorry but military experience dictates that if it's got the balls to
> >blow through vehicles a person has absolutely no chance.

Paul Adms rebuttle

> One of the reasons US 'green-tip' ammo is currently much
> criticised is that it's too optimised towards damaging vehicles and >
>>>doesn't have useful stopping power against personnel, especially not
>>>>unarmoured personnel.

I believe your refering ot the M855 Ball round. Yes there is a green tip on
it BUT there is also the plain no colored tipped M-193 which is likend to
the old anti personell round from the M-16 A1. So depending on your choice
of ammo you could actualy have suffiecent fire power to use against flesh
and bone.

> Trouble is, at real combat ranges you don't get many hits,
> you have to rely on the fragmentation from near misses.
>
I presume we are talking about larger weapons than a assult rifle. If so
thats correct but back in the early 90's the US Army implemented an
intensive rifle accuracy program, and the results were extreamly successful.

Scott
Message no. 7
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Paul)
Subject: AV Ammo (Was RE: Great Dragon)
Date: Sat Aug 10 21:30:01 2002
<Snip>

> but back in the early 90's the US Army implemented an
> intensive rifle accuracy program, and the results were extreamly
successful.
>
> Scott
>


They taught them how to shoot?
Message no. 8
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Scott Dean Peterson)
Subject: AV Ammo (Was RE: Great Dragon)
Date: Sun Aug 11 12:25:02 2002
Scott said,

> > but back in the early 90's the US Army implemented an
> > intensive rifle accuracy program, and the results were extreamly
> successful.

Paul said,

> They taught them how to shoot?


Sounds silly and I should have realized when I type it this would come up.
I went through initial basic in 1986 through split option training as a
junoir in high school. We were trained on the M16-A1 and the LAW. Expert
marksmenship qualification was 36 + hits out of 40 on targets out to 300
meters for the M-16A1 and familiairazation with full auto fire(3 mags full
of one in 3 tracer at anything that moved, down range that is).

I Graduated High school went back for advanced infantry training and my
reserve unit failed to send down my previous records in time so I started
back in week 3 of basic. This was 1987 if I recall and the M-16A2 and AT-4
AT weapon where being brought into use. I was the last class at Fort
Benning ot train with both A1 and LAW and the first to train on the M-16A2
and AT4.

Expert Marksmenship was still 36+ hits out of 40 out to 300 meters, BUT
instead of full auto familiarazation, we went to a new range where we afixed
a sling to the weapon and used it as a hand grip and fired 3 rd burts on
silmulated targets from 300 meters out to 800 meters. Main emphasis was to
be able to control the weapon and understand why it was used in burst mode.
Secondary reason was to be able to hit more than 75% of targtes out to 800
meters.

So yes they taught us to shoot, but it was in line with the currant doctrin.
Any student of weapons and histroy will see that starting from aproximately
the cival war trops could hit targets in the open out to 1000 meters. This
was not a common occurance due to the fact that scopes were not widely
issued. And ever since then the engagement range of fire fights has
steadily decreased. When we got to 'Nam it was down to under 300 meters.
Partly do to terrain but mostly due to the fact that the 'cong' were highly
mobile and US Tactics and troops displayed piss poor fire control.

Now when I was in the Army the 'Air Land Doctrin' was in effect and placed
hevy emphasis on air/bradly/tank mobile warfare. And whats the sense of a
soldier carrying a rifle that cant support any of those three at longer
ranges. And whats the point of dumping 8 mags of ammo in a minute durring a
'Mad Minute' as they called them in 'Nam, when your accuracy was less than
20%. So I hope this clears that up and sorry for being long winded but we
finaly hit a topic I can soap box :)

Scott

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about AV Ammo (Was RE: Great Dragon), 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.