Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: "James W. Thomas" <cm5323@***.AC.UK>
Subject: guns and autofire
Date: Mon, 16 Jan 1995 19:40:07 +0000
> Date: Mon, 16 Jan 1995 13:04:40 -0500
> From: Stainless Steel Rat <ratinox@***.NEU.EDU>
> Subject: Re: New Ideas
>
> >>>>> "James" == James W Thomas <cm5323@***.AC.UK>
writes:
>
> James> Personally, i think it should be easier to hit, but less damage per
> James> round as you can't aim properly.
>
> Historically incorrect. Compare the hit ratios vs. number of rounds fired
> by US soldiers in WWII armed with semi-automatic M-1 Garand rifles with US
> Marines in VietNam armed with fully automatic M-16 rifles.
<CHOPPER> this isn't about soldiers. the closest the tactics and
weapons of Shadowrunners come to military troop types is
'Special Forces'.(in some cases special farces)
the figures are not for proper range use of the
weapon, they're for jungle war. 'Hit Ratios' and other military
statistics are not always 100% accurate. in this case, are they
comparable? what was the standard level of training? the
terrain? the average range of combat encounters? the state of
combat readiness? the number of enemy and the enemys positions?

the numbers are a guide, not a rule.
> By about the 4th
> round the recoil has pulled your aim well off the target, and anything
> beyond that is wasted. Thus, 3-round bursts.
<CHOPPER> not with the latest 5th and 6th generation weapons.
the G-11 with its caseless 3rd burst from a free barrel/bolt
system lead the way
Them came the next generation with gas venting, c. a. d. and
Rotating cam systems.
Admitedly autofire from light weapons at extended range is
inaccurate. But close in, autofire almost garentees multiple hits.
But in SR at point blank, firing a smg with a high ROF on full
auto requires TN 4 (range) + 15 (rds fired).
even with GV4 thats still a 15!
as TN 15=6+6+3 the odds are 1/6 1/6 4/6 = 4 in 216.
thats 1 chance in 54 of hitting.
But even with little experience someone could point the gun at
the targets feet, pull the trigger and walk the burst up them.
thats At Least ONE hit, if not several.

> Full auto is good for suppressing an area, but that's something completely
> different (and actually handled well by the stray shots rules).
<CHOPPER> use full auto from firing ports into crowds
=)
> --
> Rat <ratinox@***.neu.edu> | Do not taunt Happy Fun Ball.
>
CHOPPER
Message no. 2
From: Stainless Steel Rat <ratinox@***.NEU.EDU>
Subject: guns and autofire
Date: Mon, 16 Jan 1995 15:19:13 -0500
>>>>> "James" == James W Thomas <cm5323@***.AC.UK> writes:

James> Personally, i think it should be easier to hit, but less damage per
James> round as you can't aim properly.

>> Historically incorrect. Compare the hit ratios vs. number of rounds fired
>> by US soldiers in WWII armed with semi-automatic M-1 Garand rifles with US
>> Marines in VietNam armed with fully automatic M-16 rifles.

James> <CHOPPER> this isn't about soldiers. the closest the tactics and
James> weapons of Shadowrunners come to military troop types is 'Special
James> Forces'.(in some cases special farces) the figures are not for
James> proper range use of the weapon, they're for jungle war.

Training is mostly irrelevant in this particular case. It's a proven fact
that recoil throws your aim at a particular point off. I don't care what
your training is, if you're firing an M-16A1 at a particular moving target
that has cover, with the full auto selector set, your first two rounds will
hit and the rest of the clip will miss.

James> 'Hit Ratios' and other military statistics are not always 100%
James> accurate. in this case, are they comparable?

Yes. Even given a reasonable margin of error, that's easilly soaked up by
the fact that the difference is literally orders of magnitude. The US
Marines in VietNam fired more than 10 times as many rounds as the US Army
did in WWII, yet the Marines scored fewer than 1/10th as many kills.

James> what was the standard level of training?

Similar, if not better in the case of the USMC.

James> the terrain? the average range of combat encounters? the state of
James> combat readiness? the number of enemy and the enemys positions?

Difficult to compare, as I'm comparing all of the WWII ground battles,
trenches, deserts, jungles and all with VietNam. You decide.

James> the numbers are a guide, not a rule.
>> By about the 4th round the recoil has pulled your aim well off the
>> target, and anything beyond that is wasted. Thus, 3-round bursts.
James> <CHOPPER> not with the latest 5th and 6th generation weapons.

James> the G-11 with its caseless 3rd burst from a free barrel/bolt system
James> lead the way

Even the vaunted G11's 1100 rpm cyclic isn't enough. It's great for 3-round
bursts, but on full auto it will /still/ drift after 4 or 5 rounds of
consecutive automatic fire. Argue all you want, but take it up with Sir
Isaac Newton.

However, the G11 is /not/ the basis for weapons in Shadowrun, the M-16A1
and it's ilk are, and those are 25 years old today.

James> Them came the next generation with gas venting, c. a. d. and
James> Rotating cam systems.

Ummm... lots of nifty buzzwords that mean next to nothing, other than the
gas venting, which isn't really all that new, and is mostly only useful for
heavy wepons like howitzers and rocket-propelled munitions which generate
lots of gasses to vent.

James> Admitedly autofire from light weapons at extended range is
James> inaccurate. But close in, autofire almost garentees multiple hits.

Nope. Not unless you've got the muzzle braced right up against your
target's belly.

Or you're /very/ good and the target is stationary and you're using
tracers. On a firing range. With no cover. With good light. And no wind. In
which case about half of what you fire will actually hit what you want.
That's what my dad, a top-ranked shooter and pistol and rifle instructor
for the US Army during the Korean War, averaged with a belt-fed .30 carbine
at a flour dummy at a range of 25 yards.

James> But in SR at point blank, firing a smg with a high ROF on full auto
James> requires TN 4 (range) + 15 (rds fired).

Yup. That's about right compared to the real world.

As I said, fully automatic fire is for area suppression; that's all it's
good for. Shadowrun does a reasonable job simulating it.

--
Rat <ratinox@***.neu.edu> | Caution: Happy Fun Ball may suddenly
http://www.ccs.neu.edu/home/ratinox | accelerate to dangerous speeds.
PGP Public Key: Ask for one today! |
Message no. 3
From: Luke Kendall <luke@********.CANON.OZ.AU>
Subject: Re: guns and autofire
Date: Tue, 17 Jan 1995 09:37:22 +1100
Stainless Steel Rat writes:

> The US
> Marines in VietNam fired more than 10 times as many rounds as the US Army
> did in WWII, yet the Marines scored fewer than 1/10th as many kills.

My impression has always been that the WWII troops were better soldiers
than the troops in Vietnam. I thought lack of discipline, drug abuse, etc.
were common problems in Vietnam - possibly because a lot of troops were
unable to believe that their presence there was `right'.

(This is just my opinion; and I'm saying that the percentage of poor
soldiers may have been higher - not that all were worse.)

luke
Message no. 4
From: Stainless Steel Rat <ratinox@***.NEU.EDU>
Subject: Re: guns and autofire
Date: Mon, 16 Jan 1995 17:50:14 -0500
>>>>> "Luke" == Luke Kendall <luke@********.CANON.OZ.AU>
writes:

Luke> Stainless Steel Rat writes:

>> The US Marines in VietNam fired more than 10 times as many rounds as the
>> US Army did in WWII, yet the Marines scored fewer than 1/10th as many
>> kills.

Luke> My impression has always been that the WWII troops were better
Luke> soldiers than the troops in Vietnam. I thought lack of discipline,
Luke> drug abuse, etc. were common problems in Vietnam - possibly because a
Luke> lot of troops were unable to believe that their presence there was
Luke> `right'.

Hate to break it to you, but that's not limited to VietNam. The same
problems existed during Korea, World Wars I and II, and Desert Storm.
VietNam just got more publicity because public opinion was so highly
against our presence there, moreso than in any of the others. During Desert
Storm and Korea, public opinion was roughly split; during WWI (of which the
US really only had a comparatively minor role) & II public opinion was
generally in favor. Right around VietNam the country started turning
apathetic again, and a lot of people really couldn't care less.

Regardless, it still shows that firing lots of rounds doesn't improve kill
scores. If it did, then it would stand to reason that the USMC in VietNam
would have had the best kill ratios of any US troops. As it is, the USMC in
VietNam has one of the /worst/ kill ratios of any US troops in history.

--
Rat <ratinox@***.neu.edu> | When not in use, Happy Fun Ball should be
http://www.ccs.neu.edu/home/ratinox | returned to its special container and
PGP Public Key: Ask for one today! | kept under refrigeration.
Message no. 5
From: Marc A Renouf <jormung@*****.UMICH.EDU>
Subject: Re: guns and autofire
Date: Mon, 16 Jan 1995 17:52:16 -0500
On Mon, 16 Jan 1995, Stainless Steel Rat wrote:

> James> But in SR at point blank, firing a smg with a high ROF on full auto
> James> requires TN 4 (range) + 15 (rds fired).

Your ROF is too high. Unless you're talking about hypervelocity
weapons, in which case my point is moot.

Actually, it's target #4 base, + 9 (number of rounds fired after
the first, which has no recoil) for a total of 13. With gas venting 4,
your target number drops to a nine. If you use the stock, it drops to an
8. So your odds drop from 1 in 54 to 5 in 36.
At *really* close range with no situational modifiers, this is
not too irrational. Add in a cross-breeze, poor light conditions,
movement of the shooter or target or both, cover, wound
modifications...now you're getting more to what the real world is like.
And no, you can't expect to hit with more than a few rounds, if you hit
at all.

> As I said, fully automatic fire is for area suppression; that's all it's
> good for. Shadowrun does a reasonable job simulating it.

Experience forces me to agree with Rat. Automatic weapons are
not as amazingly accurate as people seem to believe they are. By far,
the overwhelming factor in determining accuracy is the experience of the
person firing the weapon.

Marc
Message no. 6
From: Carsten Baermann <Carsten.Baermann@****.UNI-GIESSEN.DE>
Subject: Re: guns and autofire
Date: Tue, 17 Jan 1995 10:19:24 +0100
On Mon, 16 Jan 1995, Marc A Renouf wrote:

> Actually, it's target #4 base, + 9 (number of rounds fired after
> the first, which has no recoil) for a total of 13. With gas venting 4,
> your target number drops to a nine. If you use the stock, it drops to an
> 8. So your odds drop from 1 in 54 to 5 in 36.

Actually, you're not right. The first round counts to the total
recoil-mod (see the newest errata). So you'll have your TN increased by one.
That drops your odds slightly.

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about guns and autofire, 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!