| From: | Damian Robinson max.robinson@**.net.au |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Armor Penetration |
| Date: | Thu, 04 Mar 1999 18:18:34 +1100 |
>
> In article <v04011709b2fc93f6a209@[128.120.118.25]>, Adam Getchell
> <acgetchell@*******.edu> writes
> >When considering the damage potential of a weapon, there are three main
> >criteria:
> >
> >Kinetic energy, as it relates to the amount of joules the weapon can
> >deliver to the target. This relates directly to tissue damage.
>
> To an extent, but not quite "directly". As Dr Fackler says, when a
> meteorite comes through your roof, you don't care how much "energy it
> transferred", you care how big a hole it made.
PLEASE, don't get Fackler involved in this, or the M&S One Shot Stop
people will come out! I get enough of this in Glock-l!!!
This is a flame war waiting to happen!
GRIDSEC!
GRIDSEC!
Help me out here!
they're going to burn us all!
;-{>
<snip hydrostatic shock and momentum bits>
> >Finally, as far as the question of barrel length, note that there is an
> >optimal length for each round wherein the gunpowder deflagration imparts
> >maximum energy. Shorter barrels lose some of this energy transfer, while
> >longer barrels reduce the total energy with friction. An edition of Guns
> >and Ammo ran several tests with various length barrels and a ballistics
> >setup to demonstrate this point.
>
> I recall this. I also recall comments about how, due to internal
> ballisic considerations, a 3"-barreled 9mm Parabellum revolver could
> achieve more hitting power than an almost identical weapon chambered for
> .357 Magnum. While if you double the barrel the Magnum has the
> advantage, that's not an option for most backup pieces.
The Amount of difference in power between most 9 mm cal (9 mm, .38,
.357) rounds really is minuscule when you look at it, especially when
you compare to any rifle rounds.
Its not until you start getting up to .44 Magnum and 10 mm that there
is really a difference. Also the Lethality of a given round cannot
truly be compared to any other round. Ballistic Gelatin gives us a
basis for some comparison, but there is no way to convert that into
what will happen in the human body.
> >As such, Shadowrun miserably fails to tie in these factors in any sort of
> >meaningful way. For example, let's put the standard rifle in the .303 class
> >of weapon. There are two damage levels, 7S and 10S, which we'll assume
> >relate to barrel length (carbine and rifle respectively).
>
> I figured it was two different calibres, myself; say, .308 and .338, or
> something similar.
Perhaps .308 & 30.06?
But you loose about 25 Fps per inch of barrel IIRC, when you shorten
it.
> But then, FASA never made much sense on the issue. If the AK-97 even
> vaguely resembles the AK-74, then the AK-97 Carbine equates to the AKSU
> of today; and that weapon is both more lethal and more penetrative than
> any 9mm/.40cal SMG of today. Yet it's _less_ lethal than Shadowrun SMGs?
Its a glitch...
or
Perhaps the Carbine version is in 9 mm Makarov?
:-{>
> The SR2 firearms damage rules were playable, especially as they related
> to shotguns / assault rifles / pistols. They weren't _realistic_, but
> then being told "They've got automatic weapons and they outnumber you
> five to one. You've got a 9mm pistol. You die. I can't be bothered
> rolling dice when it's so obvious what will happen." isn't fun to play.
this is a roleplaying game, and who brought realism into this?
;-{>
Just look at the weapon ranges!
or the FA rules!
Or grenades!
> >Now lets take the Barret sniper rifle, .50 caliber weapon, 14D.
I looked at the Barret, and compared it to the assault cannon. I'm
assuming that the assault cannon is .50 BMG or some derivative
thereof, and the Barret 121 is a .338 Lapua or similar. They have
similar effects on people, but one is better Vs Vehicles than the
other.
> >From "Elven Fire", the "sniper rifle" is a .655 subsonic,
which makes
> more sense in some ways for such a high damage code (though offhand I'd
> make it 10D myself, and have HMGs at 15S base damage)
It makes more sense to assume that the sniper rifle and HMG use
different rounds, as I mentioned above. The .338 Lapua is more
inherently accurate than .50 BMG. I also take anything out of the SR
fiction as merely filler, rather than a canon (Cannon? ;-{>) source).
> >We may
> >attest that the increase is due to higher velocity, heavier round, and a
> >longer barrel. However (and I don't have any ballistics tables on me), I'm
> >not sure that the velocity difference between a .303 and .50 is large (by
> >which I mean it is within a factor of 2), but we'll leave that open.
>
> Assuming you mean .303 Lee-Enfield, then the "standard" ballistic table
> entry is for a 180-grain bullet at 2460 feet per second.
>
> .50 Browning Machine Gun is about 670 grains of bullet, at 2910 feet per
> second.
that sounds about right.
over 3 times the mass, at 25% faster velocity.
Probably closer to 4 times the energy.
<snip>
>
> >When I proposed the OICW Block 4, I was extremely conservative in the
> >effects of ETC propellant. Imagine an assault rifle firing rounds at 2000
> >meters per second or so. Using the examples that have been given to us in
> >FOF and elsewhere, how would one model a doubling of kinetic energy?
>
> 16M damage from an assault weapon, perhaps?
Bright red smear as the round melts or disintigrates?
If anyone is interested, I've got some stats on RL ammo, and what it
should be (IMNSHO). Drop me a line, or If I get enough people
interested, I'll post them to the list. It includes my opinion on the
.224 BOZ and the FN 5.7 round too...
> --
> Paul J. Adam
Oh, and Paul, just a quick Q, did you ever do up game stats for all
those 2057 RN ships you wrote up once?
Just curious.
--
Cheers
Damian
Home Page:
http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Dreamworld/4808/
pay a visit, and please don't forget the Guestbook...
ICQ?
#14030875
