Shadowrun
Shadowrun General => Gear => Topic started by: Orkimedes on <06-29-11/2324:30>
-
Some of the questions that have been percolating in my mind vis a vis SR firearms...
While all the assault rifles in the SRA book are depicted as having rigid stocks (as is only logical) these are not mentioned in the descriptions, nor are they calculated into their RC. In Arsenal, the rules for stocks are included, and say they provide 1 point of RC, and allow you to mount a shock pad. I shall assume this is merely an oversight, and in fact they all do come with stocks. Just want to check with everyone else.
What is the ubiquitous light rocket launcher in SR? Arsenal's description for the LAW says that it is. Like the Aztechnology Striker from the SRA, it is a one shot disposable weapon. But the most ubiquitous one in our time is the RP-7, the venerable Soviet RPG. I should think that it would actually be more popular, or its equivalent, than the LAW. Since the LAW is disposable, and you always have to buy another. IRL, the LAW is a popular and useful weapon because it's quite light and rather compact in it's storage form, so several soldiers in squad could carry one in case they need some quick rocket fire. The LAW in Arsenal also comes with its own rocket, so you don't have to buy it separate like the Striker. The MAW sounds more like an RPG though, since it fires dumb rockets from replaceable canisters. Finally, the picture in the SRA next to the Striker looks a lot like an RPG, and it appears you can reload it. So I'm confused.
Lastly, what is the purpose of an assault cannon? I know, I know, "blow things to hell". I mean, what purpose was it designed for? It is a huge and heavy weapon, seemingly designed only for troll soldiers. It blows things up really well and turns people into paste, but it seems like overkill for...everything. In an age when personal body armor seems to have a big leg up on conventional arms, it seems easy to shrug off gunfire so long as it isn't accurate, armor piercing, or high explosive. Is the assault cannon designed to blow armored soldiers apart? Or is the ubiquity of drones on the battlefield the reason for it? You can blow Dobermans pretty much straight to hell with one. Or is it supposed to be a man portable way to swiss cheese light vehicles? Its just curious to me; its basically a man portable 20 mm explosive cannon. Why do you need that?
-
1: The rules for shoulder braces are for weapons that don't normally have them equipped.
2: Fluff and Art problems. There isn't one, really, as there's no "Typical" anything any longer in Shadowrun. NATO and the Warsaw Pact are dead and gone, so there's no standardization for anything. Even tanks of the same build can have different caliber cannons (Mentioned in Fields of Fire, IIRC.). The RPG-7 is ubiquitous in the former Warsaw Pact countries, and people who want something they can teach conscripted, illiterate, drunken farmers to use, just like the Kalashnikov family of assault rifles (Which doesn't make them any less effective, BTW. Just simple.). The Carl Gustav Recoiless Rifle is fairly common for a multiple use launcher in NATO, BTW.
3: The Assault Cannon is actually your answer to number two, as it's semi-automatic usage allows for light anti-armour use while still being portable. It's used as a "Rifle" by Trolls, but can be used by strong Humans, Orks, and Dwarves on a bipod mount (Or, for high-tech infantry, Gyromount.). It's not really meant to be used against people as it makes really good chunky salsa. ... Which is why Shadowrunners love using it. :P
EDIT: This is all conjecture on my part, BTW.
-
Some really valid queries, and while I'm not a Gun Nut (although at least one forum member is...) I have some thoughts in response.
A) Gun rules in Shadowrun are meant to be a bit more abstract. Like all mechanics, they try to seperate the Crunch (rules mechanics) from the Fluff (non-rules details, descriptions or images). If you're using the description or image to indicate additional mechanics, then that's a GM's prerogative, go nuts. However nobody says that the images are 'unmodded/vanilla weaponry specification'... they're just VERY cool artwork, and should be treated as such
B) Assault Rifles and stocks - Some rifles do have them providing RC, some don't. Some allow additional mountings, some don't. House-ruling the whole group of weapons to say 'Assault Rifles have stocks that provide RC1' is a perfectly valid viewpoint, but it's not mandatory.
C) Is there a ubiquitous rocket launcher in SR4? I guess any particular campaign may utilise such weapons a lot, but given their illegality and lack of concealment, none of my campaigns would ever consider such a large weapon omnipresent (ie, ubiquitous)
D) The line between Rocket Launchers and RPG's is another abstract term in SR4 (and commented further in a thread here (http://forums.shadowrun4.com/index.php?topic=2927.msg27543#msg27543)). The general rule is: Rockets have guidance systems, RPG's do not.
Note: I say general because there are, as always, exceptions.
E) Assault cannons are cool. Do they need to serve a purpose? :) It's basically a Robocop-style anti-vehicle weapon. While it doesn't suit a sneaky-espionage-infiltration heavy campaign, who Doesn't want some big dude with an Assault Cannon watching your back? :)
-
Ninja'ed
By CanRay.
Again.
Tell the truth, you're a forum-squatting AI, aren't you? :P
-
Some really valid queries, and while I'm not a Gun Nut (although at least one forum member is...) I have some thoughts in response.
One forum member in name at least. Far more than one in fact. :P
E-Ghost.
-
1) The Shock pad mod costs 50 yen and takes up no mod slots. No big deal.
2) The rocket rules are so sloppy, that even a squad full of people with rocket launchers could barely hit the side of a building. That's a fundamental issue you should probably address first. Remember, rocket scatter is 4d6 meters -1 meter per net hit. That would require, on average, 7 net hits just to hit a 10-meter long, 10-meter high object. The most common missile launcher is a useless one.
3) (http://www.strategypage.com/gallery/images/xm_109_1.jpg)
-
The rocket rules really need work.
-
Lastly, what is the purpose of an assault cannon? I know, I know, "blow things to hell". I mean, what purpose was it designed for? It is a huge and heavy weapon, seemingly designed only for troll soldiers. It blows things up really well and turns people into paste, but it seems like overkill for...everything. In an age when personal body armor seems to have a big leg up on conventional arms, it seems easy to shrug off gunfire so long as it isn't accurate, armor piercing, or high explosive. Is the assault cannon designed to blow armored soldiers apart? Or is the ubiquity of drones on the battlefield the reason for it? You can blow Dobermans pretty much straight to hell with one. Or is it supposed to be a man portable way to swiss cheese light vehicles? Its just curious to me; its basically a man portable 20 mm explosive cannon. Why do you need that?
For a little more powergamey answer, it's a heavy sniper rifle that is used with heavy weapons skill ;)
-
Lastly, what is the purpose of an assault cannon? I know, I know, "blow things to hell". I mean, what purpose was it designed for? It is a huge and heavy weapon, seemingly designed only for troll soldiers. It blows things up really well and turns people into paste, but it seems like overkill for...everything. In an age when personal body armor seems to have a big leg up on conventional arms, it seems easy to shrug off gunfire so long as it isn't accurate, armor piercing, or high explosive. Is the assault cannon designed to blow armored soldiers apart? Or is the ubiquity of drones on the battlefield the reason for it? You can blow Dobermans pretty much straight to hell with one. Or is it supposed to be a man portable way to swiss cheese light vehicles? Its just curious to me; its basically a man portable 20 mm explosive cannon. Why do you need that?
Why wouldn't you need that?! :o
But seriously? Trolls. If you have Trolls on your side, you want them carrying something big and scary. If they're NOT on your side, you need something to put them down.
Shooting a big Troll with a little gun is a really good way to piss it off.
Which is a very bad idea.
-Jn-
Ifriti Sophist
-
I don't know about how shadowrun separates them but an RPG (rocket propelled grenade) and a Rocket Launcher are almost exactly the same thing... A rocket propelled unguided impact explosive warhead. A MISSILE launcher would be guided.
Rocket = dumb
Missile = not dumb.
As far as the SR universe's ubiquitous launcher? Doubt there would be one, its all about what you can get when you need one. They aren't easy to buy, and they aren't easy to hide. So personally I wouldn't carry one around unless I thought I'd need it on the next run.
-
Like Kontact depicted the Assault Cannon is actually comparable to the Anti-Tank Rifle and are still being used in smaller numbers IRL since WW2. The Anzio 20mm and the Denel-Mecham NTW are more common versions with long histories. The one depicted above is short, but their original model used a shifted-blowback pulse recoil system where the barrel was retracted for storage, so it looked shorter than it was. They usually are in the overall length range of 75-85" and weight in at around 50-70lbs.
As a side note Barret wants part of this market hence the xm109, which to my knowledge isn't off the ground yet. The US government, just bought several more Anzio's (yes, it's a very small market). The problem Barret's having with this model is that the barrel is so short that it's not accurate, which is almost damning for the purpose of the weapon. The other part is that most Anti-Tank rifles use 20x82mm Mauser, 20x102mm, 20x128mm, 20x139mm, 23x115mm, or the 23x152mm and the xm109 is using the 25 × 59mm to make the recoil near manageable and it isn't and doesn't have the same penetration capabilities of the smaller caliber. The round they are using isn't accurate and was never designed to be, it was designed for use in an experimental grenade launcher, that their engineers generously made it a hot load. So they produced a weapon that's lighter than than normal anti-tank rifles, has a LOT more recoil, is less accurate, has less penetration, and the ammo weighs more and is bigger. Not gonna be a seller, just saying...
Edit: Anzio is now making a lighter version at 39lbs, but the info punched into the recoil calculator says it's still manageable
Here's a fun picture from their site (the rifle is 6'8" notice the little scope on it) (http://www.anzioironworks.com/images/20mm022standingatangle-FP.jpg)
-
Great responses all!
To clarify; I don't mean "where are the RPGs in SR?" I'm not really sure of the technical differences between a LAW's rocket and a RPG round, or what makes an RPG round an RPG round. I mean, the RP-7 is everywhere. Former Warsaw Pact countries, and along with the AK, have flooded the world in arms since the fall of the Soviet Union. Since most SR weapons are based on or descended from whatever cool firearms exist today (note the inclusion of the Barrett weapons, which are relatively new in popular consciousness), I was wondering what replaces it in SR arsenals. The LAW and the Striker, and their equivalents, are presumably the answer. The LAW's description says it is the premier weapon of its type in the world. This makes sense when you think about it; the RP-7 was made to be simple, robust, and easy to manufacture, to arm huge numbers of conscript troops in the Sov armies. This is not a very profitable business model for arms corps in SR. So they picked a weapon system that favored their interests while fulfilling their customers need; the LAW. A one shot, cheap, disposable launcher that leaves you coming back for more once you use it.
Also, there are apparently no SR rules to differentiate an RPG from a rocket, the only distinction is dumb rocket and smart missile.
The AR stocks question has another dimension that becomes obvious when you guys answered. If the stocks are not mentioned as part of their RC or description, is it because its a no brainer that they have them, and they don't really work without one? So a stock is a requirement, and you don't get any RC for it. You can add a shockpad to it for 1, but that's all. And does anybody else feel that the shockpad is the cheapest, must have gun accessory ever?
While we're on the question of accessories; why can't you buy Gas-Vent 1's anymore? Did they just stop making them to drive up demand for Gas-Vent 2's and 3's?
Assault cannons. They're awesome. We all know this. But as has been pointed out, they're really overpowered. They're just way more than you need. And seemingly, they're more popular than their equivalents are now. I still lean towards the troll explanation. Logically though, destroying light vehicles and drones seems something they're very suited to. Also, not to quibble, but the assault cannons in SRA and Arsenal are both SS, not SA. Odd, and puts them more in the heavy rifle category. I have a terrible urge to mod one to fire FA or at least BF, and add Extended Mags to it for some truly disgusting firepower.
-
Like Kontact depicted the Assault Cannon is actually comparable to the Anti-Tank Rifle and are still being used in smaller numbers IRL since WW2. The Anzio 20mm and the Denel-Mecham NTW are more common versions with long histories. The one depicted above is short, but their original model used a shifted-blowback pulse recoil system where the barrel was retracted for storage, so it looked shorter than it was. They usually are in the overall length range of 75-85" and weight in at around 50-70lbs.
As a side note Barret wants part of this market hence the xm109, which to my knowledge isn't off the ground yet. The US government, just bought several more Anzio's (yes, it's a very small market). The problem Barret's having with this model is that the barrel is so short that it's not accurate, which is almost damning for the purpose of the weapon. The other part is that most Anti-Tank rifles use 20x82mm Mauser, 20x102mm, 20x128mm, 20x139mm, 23x115mm, or the 23x152mm and the xm109 is using the 25 × 59mm to make the recoil near manageable and it isn't and doesn't have the same penetration capabilities of the smaller caliber. The round they are using isn't accurate and was never designed to be, it was designed for use in an experimental grenade launcher, that their engineers generously made it a hot load. So they produced a weapon that's lighter than than normal anti-tank rifles, has a LOT more recoil, is less accurate, has less penetration, and the ammo weighs more and is bigger. Not gonna be a seller, just saying...
Edit: Anzio is now making a lighter version at 39lbs, but the info punched into the recoil calculator says it's still manageable
Here's a fun picture from their site (the rifle is 6'8" notice the little scope on it) (http://www.anzioironworks.com/images/20mm022standingatangle-FP.jpg)
The XM109 is an anti material rifle, not an anti-tank rifle. Its designed to do more than the .50 BMG at the same ranges to similar targets. Instead of punching several holes through a truck it blows the truck up with a 25mm high explosive grenade
-
Assault Cannon Mods are nice, but other than SA mode, BF and FA just don't give what you'd call Bang-for-Buck.
Instead of modifying the firing mode, just get some nice AV shells (-4 personal armour, -6 vs vehicles) and start Picking off Medium/Heavily armoured vehicles (instead of light vehicles and drones)
I do recall the Vigilant autocannon (maybe from 2e/3e) which was a nice piece of vehicle-weaponry.
But the major modifications required to mod an Autocannon for FA require a facility (ie not a Shadowrunner), and then there's the Belt-Feed to make it worthwhile for ammo-realoding etc...
Nope, if you want FA firepower, stick with machine guns (and again, AV rounds....you'll make those heavier vehicles ery concerned...
But for big-shot single shell firepower, the Autocannon is King :)
-
And usually something you'd want to mount on a vehicle rather than carry around.
-
And usually something you'd want to mount on a vehicle rather than carry around.
Trolls ARE vehicles...
-
The XM109 is an anti material rifle, not an anti-tank rifle. Its designed to do more than the .50 BMG at the same ranges to similar targets. Instead of punching several holes through a truck it blows the truck up with a 25mm high explosive grenade
Anything large enough to do the damage is anti-material weapon... The XM109 won't have the same punch as .50 BMG or the range for that matter. The listed range is probably based on something like an over 30 MoA figure an isn't accurate at all, time will probably show that the figure will be closer 300-500, point target and 500-700m for vehicle and suppression. Anything over and including 20 mm is at least partially explosive. The problem is that the firearms market has hit this lull due to the economy, but for some reason novelty and unpractical guns are selling well. This weapon will not make it out of experimental stage unless they change the direction they're going and make it fill a niche. The XM109 doesn't fill a place in the market and will go the way of the previous experimental weapon that tried to use this round. They probably bought out a previous contract that had links to an existing government grant to make that round viable in a platform (because the government doesn't like to find out their millions in research on a special project flops, so they throw more money at it in hopes to make it work, like hammering the square peg through the circular hole).
-
I see the XM109 as serving one main military role, namely to destroy aircraft while they are on the ground.
.50BMG is a monster round, but the 25mm explosive will tear a MiG-23/25 apart. Being able to trash an airfield with a two man gun team is pretty sweet.
Otherwise, for just light armor vehicle defense, there are far more effective weapons that just sacrifice portability for firepower.
-
I see the XM109 as serving one main military role, namely to destroy aircraft while they are on the ground.
.50BMG is a monster round, but the 25mm explosive will tear a MiG-23/25 apart. Being able to trash an airfield with a two man gun team is pretty sweet.
Otherwise, for just light armor vehicle defense, there are far more effective weapons that just sacrifice portability for firepower.
If an airplane is on the ground, even a Machine Gun is more than enough to rip holes in every wing and realistically ground every air-vehicle on the base.
An autocannon is a nastier boomstick, and who doesn't want one of those? :)
Even in today's military and weapon R&D, the number of redundant technologies and ultra-specialised firearms/ammunition just staggers me.
No no, don't use that bullet for penetrating bricks, use these ones
Errr, how about I just use three normal bullets, sir?
No no, that's inefficient. We have these new brick-busterTM rounds especially developed for the job (at a taxpayer cost of $xxx Million)
Seriously sir, I could have finished this job five times over if you'd just shut up
No no, protocol requires more efficiency
Sir, don't make me dump a cap in your @$$....
-
If an airplane is on the ground, even a Machine Gun is more than enough to rip holes in every wing and realistically ground every air-vehicle on the base.
If you're talking about a SAW, that'll never pierce a gunship's hide, and while it might rip up an engine with sustained fire, there's something to be said for toasting the whole thing with a shot. Additionally, it's much harder to pinpoint a rifle's location than a machine gun that's just chopping away at something. The rifle allows for a trained crew to infiltrate, hit and disappear with less opportunity to take return fire. The kind of solder they send on a mission like that isn't usually so disposable.
-
If an airplane is on the ground, even a Machine Gun is more than enough to rip holes in every wing and realistically ground every air-vehicle on the base.
If you're talking about a SAW, that'll never pierce a gunship's hide, and while it might rip up an engine with sustained fire, there's something to be said for toasting the whole thing with a shot. Additionally, it's much harder to pinpoint a rifle's location than a machine gun that's just chopping away at something. The rifle allows for a trained crew to infiltrate, hit and disappear with less opportunity to take return fire. The kind of solder they send on a mission like that isn't usually so disposable.
I'm all for toasting the thing in one shot *Ka-BOOM* style, and that would certainly be my preferred method. I'm just saying it's not the only method
Besides indirect fire (Mortars), direct heavy weapons (RPG/LAW), a SAW will also do the job with sustained fire.
Real life analogy.
For reference, the A-10 Warthog (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairchild_Republic_A-10_Thunderbolt_II) (my favourite military plane of ALL time. OF.ALL.TIME) is the most heavily armoured jet you'll see. It was designed specifically to soak small-arms fire (due to it's preferred strategy strike of low-speed, low-altitude strafing runs on tank convoys). The pilot sits in the cockpit (aka the 'bathtub') which is titanium plates 13 to 38 mm thick (good to soak most 23mm fire (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Kim_campbell_damage_a10.jpg), and even some 57mm strikes)
If these A-10's are what you're shooting, OK, granted, the SAW won't do the job.
HOWEVER, supersonic jet-aircraft have significantly thinner skin, and once that is penetrated any bullet can do significant damage to complex systems...
Heck, the skin of WWII bombers was only 0.04 inches (01mm) of ALUMINIUM... but SAW's will easily penetrate single brick (sometimes double brick) barriers at ranges of 100-200 yards...
-
Tactics where planes are on the ground don't involve close-range tactics. Usually a scout force spots the airfield and calls in something larger to destroy the runway and everything nearby. Unless it's been established beforehand that the airfield needs to be operable. Then weapons like anti-tank rifle are considered, but it's more likely another option that doesn't involve putting people near such destructive forces, since there's more than just aircraft going to be around (precision mortar fire comes to mind).
Most modern military aircraft can sustain multiple hits from 20-25mm rounds, depending on where it was hit. The A-10 is an anomaly in that it can withstand a direct hit from the M1 Abrams main gun, while no tank can withstand any of it's weapons, and to think they tried retiring it (I believe to date one withstood 5 anti-aircraft missiles). The 5.56mm is negligible on military aircraft. If it's lucky to penetrate then it might pierce hydraulic lines or the like, but it's survivable. The 7.62 NATO will penetrate and do more nasty stuff on the interior and still be survivable. There's a reason aircraft upgraded to larger calibers, on the off chance they are out of missiles/bombs or are doing strafing runs.
-
Most modern military aircraft can sustain multiple hits from 20-25mm rounds, depending on where it was hit. The A-10 is an anomaly in that it can withstand a direct hit from the M1 Abrams main gun, .
Could you perhaps provide a source to show that this has actually been tested? Because i find that very difficult to believe.
The 5.56mm is negligible on military aircraft. If it's lucky to penetrate then it might pierce hydraulic lines or the like, but it's survivable
During Op Iraqi Freedom, Apaches from the 101st Airborne attacking a city at night were unable to continue their mission as they had taken multiple hits from small arms fire which had shredded their rotor blades, making it too dangerous to stay in the area without risk of crashing. This wasnt luck...it was a planned method of defence against attack helicopters.
You dont need to take the whole thing out if you can ground the thing instead, thus depriving the attacker of a valuable asset.
-
Tactics where planes are on the ground don't involve close-range tactics. Usually a scout force spots the airfield and calls in something larger to destroy the runway and everything nearby.
Sure, when you're in open war, but there's a whole lot of military action that happens outside of war.
Most of the vehicles that US forces engage are going to be cold war surplus stuff from the 80s, sold to little dictators and drug lords here and there. There's room for the 25x59mm grenade round to be useful at a kilck out. At least against those targets.
-
Sir, don't make me dump a cap in your @$$....
REMFs make great target practice.
-
For reference, the A-10 Warthog (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairchild_Republic_A-10_Thunderbolt_II) (my favourite military plane of ALL time. OF.ALL.TIME) is the most heavily armoured jet you'll see.
Ah... the A-10. The gun so awesome they just had to go and build a plane around it. ;D
-
My team uses the Thunderstruck Gauss Rifle to deal with Spirits. –half and then -4 AP cuts through ItNW quite well.
-
My team uses the Thunderstruck Gauss Rifle to deal with Spirits. –half and then -4 AP cuts through ItNW quite well.
Nice. Further proof that if firepower isn't solving your problem, you aren't using enough of it.
New question!
How widespread and popular are laser weapons in your game/in Shadowrun? They're very expensive and hard to get ahold of, but they're also pretty cool. Does anybody's character use one? Do you throw corpsec at your players armed with lasers once in awhile?
-
I fear that if I let the other players or myself have lasers, we'd get nothing done because of everyone yelling "PEW PEW PEW!" at each other.
-
Some of the questions that have been percolating in my mind vis a vis SR firearms...
While all the assault rifles in the SRA book are depicted as having rigid stocks (as is only logical) these are not mentioned in the descriptions, nor are they calculated into their RC. In Arsenal, the rules for stocks are included, and say they provide 1 point of RC, and allow you to mount a shock pad. I shall assume this is merely an oversight, and in fact they all do come with stocks. Just want to check with everyone else.
What is the ubiquitous light rocket launcher in SR? Arsenal's description for the LAW says that it is. Like the Aztechnology Striker from the SRA, it is a one shot disposable weapon. But the most ubiquitous one in our time is the RP-7, the venerable Soviet RPG. I should think that it would actually be more popular, or its equivalent, than the LAW. Since the LAW is disposable, and you always have to buy another. IRL, the LAW is a popular and useful weapon because it's quite light and rather compact in it's storage form, so several soldiers in squad could carry one in case they need some quick rocket fire. The LAW in Arsenal also comes with its own rocket, so you don't have to buy it separate like the Striker. The MAW sounds more like an RPG though, since it fires dumb rockets from replaceable canisters. Finally, the picture in the SRA next to the Striker looks a lot like an RPG, and it appears you can reload it. So I'm confused.
Lastly, what is the purpose of an assault cannon? I know, I know, "blow things to hell". I mean, what purpose was it designed for? It is a huge and heavy weapon, seemingly designed only for troll soldiers. It blows things up really well and turns people into paste, but it seems like overkill for...everything. In an age when personal body armor seems to have a big leg up on conventional arms, it seems easy to shrug off gunfire so long as it isn't accurate, armor piercing, or high explosive. Is the assault cannon designed to blow armored soldiers apart? Or is the ubiquity of drones on the battlefield the reason for it? You can blow Dobermans pretty much straight to hell with one. Or is it supposed to be a man portable way to swiss cheese light vehicles? Its just curious to me; its basically a man portable 20 mm explosive cannon. Why do you need that?
1.) You buy shock pads on the stock and get your 1 RC. It's odd that you have to buy it and it doesn't come innate, but it's small enough difference that it really doesn't matter the vast majority of the time. I'm sure gun nuts on firearm message boards in the Shadowrun universe complain about the poor default stocks on the AK-97 and the Alpha though.
2.) I've gone with the Striker as the most common rocket launcher. It's fairly cheap and you can reload it. The single shot launchers such as the LAW and MAW don't have a reloading method but the striker does. I assume the disposable comment in the Striker's description is that it's disposable like an AK-97. It's cheap enough that you can get rid of it without too much pain to your pocketbook.
3.) The assault cannon exist because of Robocop (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CFgHMfEY81k&feature=related). In the movie, it's a military weapon that's capable of hurting Robocop. It also made large explosions that were fun to watch. While the assault cannons in SR don't make as large of a explosion, the ammo is still basically explosives in bullet form. In older editions, it was basically one of if not the biggest gun you could carry around. In 4th, it's a high base DV option for cracking the hardened armor of vehicles. It's a decent choice against most vehicles (armor 15 or less or 19 if you can call shot). In a military context where you can't use specialty rounds, I could also see it used as an anti-spirit weapon. It's difficult for an assault rifle or a LMG using standard rounds to hurt a Force 6 spirit without called shots (which is -4 dice and still needs 2 net hits to hurt).
4.) I haven't messed around with laser weapons much. Admittedly, it's due to a relic of older editions where it cost a lot of money. So much that taking it was a much bigger deal that whatever the real mission was. So I haven't really thought about them. Looking at them now, the Exotic Skill hurts. But -half AP isn't something you can ignore. A post-errata Gauss rifle still blows them out of the water for the vast majority of what shadowrunners need. If you can just plug it up to the local grid, I can see the argument for using it due to lack of ammo. But that's a very limited mainly NPC related concern.
Edit- Added Link to the Final Fight in Robocop where the assault cannon are used. Also note that Robocop's pistol is an Ares Predator.
-
Could you perhaps provide a source to show that this has actually been tested? Because i find that very difficult to believe.
With the A-10 I can't source that except to refer to my Air Force counterpart who's a B-52 pilot and has always wanted to fly A-10's and is a walking encyclopedia on them. Unfortunately for him he's at Barksdale AFB, which is the home of both the A-10 and the B-52 right now.
During Op Iraqi Freedom, Apaches from the 101st Airborne attacking a city at night were unable to continue their mission as they had taken multiple hits from small arms fire which had shredded their rotor blades, making it too dangerous to stay in the area without risk of crashing. This wasnt luck...it was a planned method of defence against attack helicopters.
You dont need to take the whole thing out if you can ground the thing instead, thus depriving the attacker of a valuable asset.
The thing about the attack your referring to is that "small arms" in this instance included a barrage of RPG's that connected with the 64 and yet it was still flyable. You've probably seen the video of an idiot flying the AH-64 doing some NOE flying while the copilot is warning him that the trees are too close and the pilot says we're fine and hits two trees at a very low level. The helicopter was still flying, but the rotor blades were out of sync. What's not on the video is that the pilot had autorotated in, stopped the rotors, visually inspected them, and then took took off and head home to report his lack of judgement. Lessons were learned from Vietnam about how reinforced the rotor blades had to be for combat. The amount of gun fire a rotor can take, and I'm talking about what actually connects with the rotor blades, not the disc they make while moving, is very high. To achieve it the helicopter would have to be hovering above crew-served machine guns at close range and let them unload for twenty minutes. I'm not saying that bullets don't do crap to the rotors, because they do, but military helicopter don't use the same things as civilian models do. Military helicopters can lose at least one blade, sometimes two, per disc and still produce enough lift. One of my friends was flying a 64 got hit on the main shaft above the cockpit on the right side, by something explosive that haji wasn't suppose to have (it's classified apparently because no one could tell me), and it blew off part of the cockpit. Both pilots were knocked around silly and were deaf, but the chopper was still flying in a hover and maneuverable (it did some damage to the right-side engine). The 64 is a flying tank, but it's underpowered when fully laden (it's also the only army helicopter with AC).
The military helicopters that need to be updated to modern combat roles are the Kiowa and Chinook, gun fire is more likely to kill passengers than damage needed flight components. The Kiowa has a 700lb computer from the 60's in it's back seat that a graphing calculator can outperform. The 58 has a cool mission, but it was a bad platform even in Vietnam (very under powered - it was a political deal not the result of best in class). The 47 is the only helicopter that's completely operable in the middle east. It has more power than it's airframe can handle at it's ceiling with it's maximum load and they don't upscale the armor because of it's official role, but it needs it sorely. I can go on with the pro's and con's of each frame. I'm a retired Army pilot as of '08.
3.) The assault cannon exist because of Robocop (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CFgHMfEY81k&feature=related). In the movie, it's a military weapon that's capable of hurting Robocop. It also made large explosions that were fun to watch. While the assault cannons in SR don't make as large of a explosion, the ammo is still basically explosives in bullet form. In older editions, it was basically one of if not the biggest gun you could carry around. In 4th, it's a high base DV option for cracking the hardened armor of vehicles. It's a decent choice against most vehicles (armor 15 or less or 19 if you can call shot). In a military context where you can't use specialty rounds, I could also see it used as an anti-spirit weapon. It's difficult for an assault rifle or a LMG using standard rounds to hurt a Force 6 spirit without called shots (which is -4 dice and still needs 2 net hits to hurt).
That was the Barrett M82 (as the "Cobra Assault Cannon (http://www.imfdb.org/wiki/Robocop)"), which is a .50 BMG sniper rifle.
-
Thanks for the info, Savaze! I would have pointed out the Barrett myself, but thought everyone knew that by now that the M82 is more well known.
I keep forgetting most folks aren't gun nuts like myself.
Hey, good luck to all your buddies that might be still in the sandbox, BTW!
-
Thanks CanRay I pass along that people are still thinking about them. I' have a fiend who just got back, got out, and was doing the job hunting thing to suddenly show up in Iraq with a clearance a lot higher as a civilian than what he had before. I still don't know what he's doing there, but I know what his skill sets are, so it has me wondering.
I saw this (http://www.nbc.com/The_Office/video/dwights-tribute-to-canada/1203838/) and was thinking of all my Canadian friends.
-
That was the Barrett M82 (as the "Cobra Assault Cannon (http://www.imfdb.org/wiki/Robocop)"), which is a .50 BMG sniper rifle.
I know they used a Barrett as a base for the prop, but I didn't know a .50 BMG caused huge explosions and has such little recoil to the point where fairly normal guys can fire them from the hip easily. And the way it is show in the movie mirrors its nature in SR right down to comically low recoil (besides some optional rules in older editions).
I think the .50 BMG and other similar rifles of our world are the sniper rifles in SR. With better armor, higher body targets, and cyberware enhancements, I can see an upward trend towards more powerful rounds.
-
I know they used a Barrett as a base for the prop, but I didn't know a .50 BMG has such little recoil to the point where fairly normal guys can fire them from the hip easily.
You mean like this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eka3DpP-XE4&feature=related") ;)
Ofcource for shooting .50 MBG from the hip(or anwhere else for that matter) i would much rather get Gepard GM6 Lynx (http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2011/02/09/gepard-gm6-lynx-50-caliber-rifle/)
-
Barret M82 (M107) is easily fired from the hip, you won't hit anything smaller than a tank at pretty intermediate ranges but you can sure try! The above statement is assuming you can live the thing. Anyway, no the .50 BMG doesn't cause gigantic explosions like in robocop, though the API rounds make a big flash and a small puff of smoke while boring through hardened armor steel pretty easily.
-
Barret M82 (M107) is easily fired from the hip, you won't hit anything smaller than a tank at pretty intermediate ranges but you can sure try!
For the record, I think we can all agree that firing any SS/SA weapons from the hip is the surest way to miss with every bullet
Go skeet shooting and fire from the hip.
Now fire from the shoulder.
Then come back and try to honestly tell me that the hip was preferable in any way (recoil, accuracy, comfort etc). Not going to happy.
-
Tight to the shoulder, BTW. Those shotties have a kick like two mules!
-
Tight to the shoulder, BTW. Those shotties have a kick like two mules!
There was a great line in an old SR book (Catalogue?) about Wedge requiring a new shoulder after firing an IWS with the wrong barrel attachment
I know how he feels... I didn't listen to my instructor and dislocated my shoulder during firing drills... two mules would have been mild I think!
-
Wrong shoulder brace attachment, and it was, indeed, FastJack's friend Wedge in SSC. Again, kicking myself for not getting SSC all those years ago. :'(
I miss Wedge.
-
Wrong shoulder brace attachment, and it was, indeed, FastJack's friend Wedge in SSC. Again, kicking myself for not getting SSC all those years ago. :'(
I miss Wedge.
I'll send you a scan of the cover page if you like? Recently got to unpack all my (long archived) books into a nice big bookcase in the study.. had some very contented moments going through the old SR1-SR4 book covers...
-
Wrong shoulder brace attachment, and it was, indeed, FastJack's friend Wedge in SSC. Again, kicking myself for not getting SSC all those years ago. :'(
I miss Wedge.
http://www.rpgnow.com/product_info.php?products_id=79202
:)
-k
-
http://www.rpgnow.com/product_info.php?products_id=79202
:)
-k
Hey, that's a good deal! +1 for the find :)
-
And on sale right now, no less. Thanks KI!
Will have to pick this up when I get that new boats e-book. Daddy wants him a Houseboat with a Pintle-Mounted Ma Deuce!
-
Could you perhaps provide a source to show that this has actually been tested? Because i find that very difficult to believe.
With the A-10 I can't source that except to refer to my Air Force counterpart who's a B-52 pilot and has always wanted to fly A-10's and is a walking encyclopedia on them. Unfortunately for him he's at Barksdale AFB, which is the home of both the A-10 and the B-52 right now.
Indeed, I'm curious on that one too.
The M1 Abrams main gun is either a 105mm or 120mm cannnon. I love the A-10 (more than any married man should ever admit o.O), but I can't find anything on it withstanding this type of punishment, especially with a direct hit.
-
I was Air Force too, and while I wasn't a pilot or an explosives guy or anything like that, I was involved in intel, rather writing computer programs for analysts and spent alot of time elbow deep in their materials so I could correctly write programs that churned out accurate data. There is no way an A-10 could take a direct hit from a 105 or 120mm cannon from an M1A1.
I mean, here are some pics from damage from small arms fire and AA guns. The story even mentions the aircraft being able to withstand fire from 23mm guns.
http://www.aircraftresourcecenter.com/Stories1/001-100/0016_A-10-battle-damage/story0016.htm
120mm main gun off a tank? Bye-bye A-10, end of story.
-
How often is a 105mm or 120mm cannon from a MBT used for anti-aircraft work, however?
-
How often is a 105mm or 120mm cannon from a MBT used for anti-aircraft work, however?
You'd have to be pretty dang desperate I'd guess. And freaking lucky as all get out.
-
How often is a 105mm or 120mm cannon from a MBT used for anti-aircraft work, however?
If all you've got is a hammer... 8)
-
How often is a 105mm or 120mm cannon from a MBT used for anti-aircraft work, however?
If all you've got is a hammer... 8)
"Don't force, get a bigger hammer." :P
-
Wouldn't that depend more on what kind of munitions that cannon is using? I mean their APDS uses like a 30mm depleted uranium dart, which would punch a clean hole through the fuselage and probably not do much "dangerous" damage to the plane. On the other hand if it was a HEAT SABOT then yeah I'm pretty sure if it hit the fuselage or more than the very tip of the wing the plane is going down... the sheer force of the explosion would cause whatever it hit to come off the aircraft. But if it was just the KE Sabot round that is literally a very fast moving dart there wouldn't be a whole lot of damage I'd imagine.
-
Wouldn't that depend more on what kind of munitions that cannon is using? I mean their APDS uses like a 30mm depleted uranium dart, which would punch a clean hole through the fuselage and probably not do much "dangerous" damage to the plane. On the other hand if it was a HEAT SABOT then yeah I'm pretty sure if it hit the fuselage or more than the very tip of the wing the plane is going down... the sheer force of the explosion would cause whatever it hit to come off the aircraft. But if it was just the KE Sabot round that is literally a very fast moving dart there wouldn't be a whole lot of damage I'd imagine.
Errr, punching a hole clean through the fuselage of a any plane flying at speed is pretty much going to let gravity take over with an earth-shattering *Ka-Boom*
The air-flow change at speed from the drag/resistance/turbulence alone would pretty much ruin your day.
-
Yeah, and the F-15 can't fly if it loses a wing.
Oh, wait... (http://youtu.be/LveSc8Lp0ZE)
Then again, I'm not a pilot, what do I know? :P
-
Yeah, and the F-15 can't fly if it loses a wing.
Oh, wait... (http://youtu.be/LveSc8Lp0ZE)
Then again, I'm not a pilot, what do I know? :P
Modern Trim can auto-adjust for a lot of things, and funnily enough, wing's are more expendable than the fuselage in a lot of instances :) Your video is one of them (and there was an F-18 hornet incident not long ago which demonstrated the same thing).
-
The A-10 can quite literally fly without wings... I'm pretty sure a big hole in the body of the air frame wouldn't cause enough drag to compare to the insane thrust to weight ratio of an A-10. And I'm sure a 3' section of the front of the wing missing thus turning the wing into a giant air brake would have more drag, and yet the A-10 can still fly with that kind of damage.
-
The IDF have the best pilots in the world! Any other pilot would have bailed... I hear talk about this from time to time over here at Luke AFB.