Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: William Ashe <wmashe@***.NET>
Subject: Re: Some R2 questions ... something new
Date: Tue, 9 Jun 1998 23:11:33 -0700
<Big power snip>
wow Rigger controlled carp!!!


Actually I feel that I must weigh in the side of tanks. If one were to load
a tank with an HE or a thermal round. They have those BTW for the Abrams
A1. Any poor schlub standing near the tank would be in a world of hurt.
But, the GI in the nearby foxhole would just go a bit deaf if his tank were
hit with a sabot round or a shaped charge. AFAIK HE and shaped charge are
NOT the same thing.

I would argue that a tank weapon be regarded as a point weapon against other
vehicles (depending on the round loaded, AND a area weapon against smaller
targets ...

for example

Rat Tail dives into the M1 tank. The crew is dead,but the rig is still
live. He jacks in. He's got five guys coming at him, three have M22's, one
has an LMG's, but the last is a troll carying a MAW (medium anti tank
weapon). The topside machine guns are jammed, but the main gun is still
active. Ratty loads an HE round and targets the ground just below the
troll. He fires. Everyone is caught in the blast. The troll is dead b/c
the charge in the missle cooks off, but everyone else has to resist ... oh
I don't know ... 5D, maybe 5S if they were far away from ground zero.


just my two cents (CAS) ... that and another $1.50 will get you a nice cup
of coffee

Regards
Bright Light
Message no. 2
From: K is the Symbol <Ereskanti@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Some R2 questions ... something new
Date: Wed, 10 Jun 1998 01:57:07 EDT
In a message dated 6/9/98 11:14:46 PM US Eastern Standard Time, wmashe@***.NET
writes:

> ust my two cents (CAS) ... that and another $1.50 will get you a nice cup
> of coffee
>
> Regards
> Bright Light

Now I have no idea what this is going to come back as, but Mr. Bright Light,
if you would be so kind as to reset your type/text next time. This was
immense on my screen (which does accept multiple fonts and whatnotelse for the
fun).

Thanks ahead of time.
-K
Message no. 3
From: The Bookworm <Thomas.M.Price@*******.EDU>
Subject: Re: Some R2 questions ... something new
Date: Wed, 10 Jun 1998 13:50:15 -0500
On Tue, 9 Jun 1998, William Ashe wrote:

> Actually I feel that I must weigh in the side of tanks. If one were to load
> a tank with an HE or a thermal round. They have those BTW for the Abrams
> A1. Any poor schlub standing near the tank would be in a world of hurt.
> But, the GI in the nearby foxhole would just go a bit deaf if his tank were
> hit with a sabot round or a shaped charge. AFAIK HE and shaped charge are
> NOT the same thing.

While i agree that HE and a shaped charge are not the same thing i have to
argue with most of the rest of your statements. While the 105mm gun on
the M-1 does have HE and WP and other cool rounds the 120mm gun on the
M-1A1 and A2 has a much more limited ammo load. IIRC it is limited to a
DU Sabot round, a Tugstine Sabot, a HEAT round, and practice rounds. I
went to go check on that at the Army FactFile web site but they took it
down a few months ago to update it *sigh* So the M1-A1 is limited to its
MMGs for anti-personel use since you cant use a M2 on personel and the
HEAT has neglible fragmentation. Doesnt mean they cant develop a HE round
they just dont have any right now :(.


Thomas Price
aka The Bookworm
thomas.m.price@*******.edu
tmprice@***********.com
Message no. 4
From: Gurth <gurth@******.NL>
Subject: Re: Some R2 questions ... something new
Date: Wed, 10 Jun 1998 22:09:13 +0100
The Bookworm said on 13:50/10 Jun 98,...

> While i agree that HE and a shaped charge are not the same thing i have to
> argue with most of the rest of your statements. While the 105mm gun on
> the M-1 does have HE and WP and other cool rounds the 120mm gun on the
> M-1A1 and A2 has a much more limited ammo load. IIRC it is limited to a
> DU Sabot round, a Tugstine Sabot, a HEAT round, and practice rounds. I
> went to go check on that at the Army FactFile web site but they took it
> down a few months ago to update it *sigh*

True. There are a lot more rounds available for 105 mm rifled
guns than for 120 mm smoothbore.

> So the M1-A1 is limited to its
> MMGs for anti-personel use since you cant use a M2 on personel

Mind if I ask you what the hell you're talking about? I have this
feeling an M2 HB is very effective against personnel... Despite
popular beliefs, it is to the best of my knowledge _not_ illegal to
fire a heavy MG at people. And even if it were, I doubt that'd stop
many soldiers from doing so anyway (I was looking through a
book about the Gulf War today, and noticed a picture of a few
dead Iraqis in a truck cab; the caption said they were killed by 25
mm fire from an M2 Bradley, aimed at the cab in order to kill the
occupants).

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
Stop asking questions that don't matter anyway...
-> NERPS Project Leader * ShadowRN GridSec * Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/plastic.html <-
-> The New Character Mortuary: http://www.electricferret.com/mortuary/ <-

GC3.1: GAT/! d-(dpu) s:- !a>? C+(++)@ U 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. 5
From: Danyel N Woods <9604801@********.AC.NZ>
Subject: Re: Some R2 questions ... something new
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 1998 12:14:14 +1200
Quoth Guth (0909 11-06-98 NZT):

<<SLICE>>
>> So the M1-A1 is limited to its
>> MMGs for anti-personel use since you cant use a M2 on personel
>
>Mind if I ask you what the hell you're talking about? I have this
>feeling an M2 HB is very effective against personnel... Despite
>popular beliefs, it is to the best of my knowledge _not_ illegal to
>fire a heavy MG at people. And even if it were, I doubt that'd stop
>many soldiers from doing so anyway (I was looking through a
>book about the Gulf War today, and noticed a picture of a few
>dead Iraqis in a truck cab; the caption said they were killed by 25
>mm fire from an M2 Bradley, aimed at the cab in order to kill the
>occupants).

IIRC, the Geneva Convention specifically prohibits the use of
calibre-.50 and over (12.7mm and up) against personnel. Theoretically,
they're only meant to be used to shred aircraft, and they're
horrifically effective at that, but since shells from ol' Ma Deuce (M2)
will also laugh at any personal body-armour short of an inch of steel...
Well, you're right, Gurth: soldiers tend to ignore any rule that might
help get them killed, or stop them killing the enemy as fast and as
safely(!) as possible.

Danyel Woods
9604801@********.ac.nz
'God hates me, that's what it is.'
'Hate him back. It works for me.'
Message no. 6
From: The Bookworm <Thomas.M.Price@*******.EDU>
Subject: Re: Some R2 questions ... something new
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 1998 10:06:25 -0500
On Wed, 10 Jun 1998, Gurth wrote:

> The Bookworm said on 13:50/10 Jun 98,...
> Mind if I ask you what the hell you're talking about? I have this
> feeling an M2 HB is very effective against personnel... Despite
> popular beliefs, it is to the best of my knowledge _not_ illegal to
> fire a heavy MG at people. And even if it were, I doubt that'd stop
> many soldiers from doing so anyway (I was looking through a
> book about the Gulf War today, and noticed a picture of a few
> dead Iraqis in a truck cab; the caption said they were killed by 25
> mm fire from an M2 Bradley, aimed at the cab in order to kill the
> occupants).

Well IIRC the position of the US DOD is that .50 inch weapons can
only be used in an anti-material capacity. Not that would stop anyone if
you have a human wave coming over the wire but your not suposed to. I
guess i should clarrify and say any time I have read about US .50 calliber
weapons they have said they are for anti-material use only. Now the whole
is it really against the Geneva/Hauge(sp?) convention question i realy
cant answer.

Thomas Price
aka The Bookworm
thomas.m.price@*******.edu
tmprice@***********.com
Message no. 7
From: Jon Szeto <JonSzeto@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Some R2 questions ... something new
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 1998 12:06:42 EDT
In a message dated 98-06-11 11:06:36 EDT, Thomas.M.Price@*******.EDU writes:

> Well IIRC the position of the US DOD is that .50 inch weapons can
> only be used in an anti-material capacity. Not that would stop anyone if
> you have a human wave coming over the wire but your not suposed to. I
> guess i should clarrify and say any time I have read about US .50 calliber
> weapons they have said they are for anti-material use only. Now the whole
> is it really against the Geneva/Hauge(sp?) convention question i realy
> cant answer.

AFAIK, it's neither illegal nor immoral to use a caliber .50 weapon against
personnel. After all, when you think about it, they make caliber .50 sniper
rifles.

On the other hand, it is generally not a good tactical idea to use a caliber
.50 machine gun against personnel. Think about it for a moment: nowadays most
infantry forces are *mechanized* infantry, which means they will be riding or
accompanied by some sort of armored personnel carrier or armored fighting
vehicle. If I shoot at the footsloggers with my M2HB, that's caliber .50 ammo
that's not shooting at the BMP-2s accompanying the enemy grunts. It would make
more tactical sense to reserve my cal..50 machine gun for the enemy APCs, and
engage the grunts with M-16s and M-60s ^H^H^H^H^H^H M-240Bs.

-- Jon
Message no. 8
From: The Bookworm <Thomas.M.Price@*******.EDU>
Subject: Re: Some R2 questions ... something new
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 1998 12:02:00 -0500
On Thu, 11 Jun 1998, Jon Szeto wrote:

> In a message dated 98-06-11 11:06:36 EDT, Thomas.M.Price@*******.EDU writes:
> > guess i should clarrify and say any time I have read about US .50calliber
> > weapons they have said they are for anti-material use only. Now the whole
> > is it really against the Geneva/Hauge(sp?) convention question i realy
> > cant answer.
>
> AFAIK, it's neither illegal nor immoral to use a caliber .50 weapon against
> personnel. After all, when you think about it, they make caliber .50 sniper
> rifles.

Ahhh like I said above when I went and read the Army FactFile entry on the
.50 sniper rifle it says its for Anti-material use only. Doesnt mean they
cant use it to take out people they just say it limited to anti-material.
Unfortunatly they Army took down the factfile for maintnence and its been
down for a few weeks :(.

Thomas Price
aka The Bookworm
thomas.m.price@*******.edu
tmprice@***********.com
Message no. 9
From: Robert Watkins <robert.watkins@******.COM>
Subject: Re: Some R2 questions ... something new
Date: Fri, 12 Jun 1998 09:06:53 +1000
The Bookworm writes:
> Ahhh like I said above when I went and read the Army FactFile entry on the
> .50 sniper rifle it says its for Anti-material use only. Doesnt mean they
> cant use it to take out people they just say it limited to anti-material.
> Unfortunatly they Army took down the factfile for maintnence and its been
> down for a few weeks :(.

Okay, now seriously, what do the US Army use the .50 calibre sniper rifles
for? Given the slow rate of fire, I can't envisage it being used to shoot up
vehicles...

--
.sig deleted to conserve electrons. robert.watkins@******.com
Message no. 10
From: John Vots <jvots@**.KO.COM>
Subject: Re: Some R2 questions ... something new
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 1998 19:31:09 -0400
>Okay, now seriously, what do the US Army use the .50 calibre sniper
>rifles
>for? Given the slow rate of fire, I can't envisage it being used to >shoot
up vehicles...

That's an easy one, they use it to shoot up equipment. Like that shiny belt
buckle, pretty ribbons, canteen, rifle, sidearm, or that helmet. It's
not the shooters fault that some shmuck was wearing it at the time it
was deemed necessary for destruction.



Jester
Message no. 11
From: Gurth <gurth@******.NL>
Subject: Re: Some R2 questions ... something new
Date: Fri, 12 Jun 1998 12:40:19 +0100
The Bookworm said on 10:06/11 Jun 98,...

> Well IIRC the position of the US DOD is that .50 inch weapons can
> only be used in an anti-material capacity.

I have a feeling that official position is based on what Jon said,
namely that rounds fired at people can't be fired against vehicles.
And since 12.7x99 mm makes a reasonable anti-BMP weapon
when fired against the vehicle's side, I think they DoD would
prefer it if the ammo is used against vehicles.

> Not that would stop anyone if
> you have a human wave coming over the wire but your not suposed to. I
> guess i should clarrify and say any time I have read about US .50 calliber
> weapons they have said they are for anti-material use only.

That would, probably, also be in part because these weapons can
be thought of by the general public as too powerful for use
against human targets, so the DoD is saying "We're humane, see?
We only use them against vehicles."

> Now the whole
> is it really against the Geneva/Hauge(sp?) convention question i realy
> cant answer.

I need to find a book about this in the library, I think.

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
Mobiel telefoneren is een vorm van incontinentie.
-> NERPS Project Leader * ShadowRN GridSec * Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/plastic.html <-
-> The New Character Mortuary: http://www.electricferret.com/mortuary/ <-

GC3.1: GAT/! d-(dpu) s:- !a>? C+(++)@ U 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. 12
From: Gurth <gurth@******.NL>
Subject: Re: Some R2 questions ... something new
Date: Fri, 12 Jun 1998 12:40:21 +0100
Robert Watkins said on 9:06/12 Jun 98,...

> Okay, now seriously, what do the US Army use the .50 calibre sniper rifles
> for? Given the slow rate of fire, I can't envisage it being used to shoot up
> vehicles...

They use them against vehicles. One instance I've heard of was
during the Gulf War, where a US Marine Corps sniper stopping
two or three Iraqi BMP-1 MICVs with about as many rounds from
a .50 sniper rifle, from a distance of around a kilometer IIRC. He
did this by shooting for the fuel tank (which is under/behind the
passenger seats in the rear center of the vehicle, BTW).

In part, these weapons are a return to the anti-tank rifles of 60
years ago, that went out of favor early in WWII when the modern
tanks of the day proved too heavily armored to penetrate with
anything short of a small-caliber cannon (37 mm and up). With
the difference, of course, that modern "anti-material" rifles are
built to close enough tolerances to also function very well as long-
range anti-personnel sniping rifles.

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
Mobiel telefoneren is een vorm van incontinentie.
-> NERPS Project Leader * ShadowRN GridSec * Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/plastic.html <-
-> The New Character Mortuary: http://www.electricferret.com/mortuary/ <-

GC3.1: GAT/! d-(dpu) s:- !a>? C+(++)@ U 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. 13
From: The Bookworm <Thomas.M.Price@*******.EDU>
Subject: Re: Some R2 questions ... something new
Date: Sun, 14 Jun 1998 18:25:59 -0500
On Fri, 12 Jun 1998, Robert Watkins wrote:

> Okay, now seriously, what do the US Army use the .50 calibre sniper rifles
> for? Given the slow rate of fire, I can't envisage it being used to shoot up
> vehicles...

Ok as i understand it there are a number of uses. 1) plinking of large
deadly looking objects from safe distances. The stories i rember is of
marine snipers useing it to blow up large mines/bombs in the iraqi anti
tank obsticals from the Saudi side of the border. 2) Find a good hide
spot with a line of sight into an enemy base then plink at a few critical
systems. I doubt the Air Search Radar would work well with a nice big
hole in the main motor or the electrical box. or a few hits on the fuel
dump with incendiary rounds. 3) just general long range harasment in
fairly static situations. Ya know taking out the generals jeep whiles hes
tooling around or even just a few random tanker trucks. 4) anthing else i
cant think of now. Just be your normal creative selves and think What
would a shadowrunner do with a rifle like this:)

Thomas Price
aka The Bookworm
thomas.m.price@*******.edu
tmprice@***********.com
Message no. 14
From: Geoff Skellams <geoff.skellams@*********.COM.AU>
Subject: Re: Some R2 questions ... something new
Date: Mon, 15 Jun 1998 09:48:32 +1000
On Shadowrun Discussion, Gurth[SMTP:gurth@******.NL] wrote:
> Robert Watkins said on 9:06/12 Jun 98,...
>
> > Okay, now seriously, what do the US Army use the .50 calibre sniper
rifles
> > for? Given the slow rate of fire, I can't envisage it being used to
shoot up
> > vehicles...
> In part, these weapons are a return to the anti-tank rifles of 60
> years ago, that went out of favor early in WWII when the modern
> tanks of the day proved too heavily armored to penetrate with
> anything short of a small-caliber cannon (37 mm and up). With
> the difference, of course, that modern "anti-material" rifles are
> built to close enough tolerances to also function very well as long-
> range anti-personnel sniping rifles.

There must be some value in anti-vehicle sniper rifles. The South
African defence industry has developed a *20mm* sniper rifle. I saw a
photo of it in a Defence journal last year before I stopped working for
the Australian DoD.

You can't tell me a 20mm is designed solely for anti personnel.

cheers
G
--
Geoff Skellams R&D - Tower Software
Email Address: geoff.skellams@*********.com.au
Homepage: http://www.towersoft.com.au/staff/geoff/
ICQ Number: 2815165

"That rates about a 9.5 on my weird-shit-o-meter"
- Will Smith in "Men in Black"
Message no. 15
From: Lord Saethar <saethar@*********.COM>
Subject: Re: Some R2 questions ... something new
Date: Mon, 15 Jun 1998 07:38:57 -0500
>Ok as i understand it there are a number of uses. 1) plinking of large
>deadly looking objects from safe distances. The stories i rember is of
>marine snipers useing it to blow up large mines/bombs in the iraqi anti
>tank obsticals from the Saudi side of the border. 2) Find a good hide
>spot with a line of sight into an enemy base then plink at a few critical
>systems. I doubt the Air Search Radar would work well with a nice big
>hole in the main motor or the electrical box. or a few hits on the fuel
>dump with incendiary rounds. 3) just general long range harasment in
>fairly static situations. Ya know taking out the generals jeep whiles hes
>tooling around or even just a few random tanker trucks. 4) anthing else i
>cant think of now. Just be your normal creative selves and think What
>would a shadowrunner do with a rifle like this:)
>
> Thomas Price

Also from what I've heard it's pretty much the standard sniper rifle for
the SEALs, could be wrong on that though.

--
Lord Saethar
saethar@*********.com

http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Labs/5085

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about Some R2 questions ... something new, 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!