[Charybdis]

And usually something you'd want to mount on a vehicle rather than carry around.

Trolls ARE vehicles...

[savaze]

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).

[Kontact]

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.

[Charybdis]

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-buster^TM 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 @$$....

[Kontact]

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.

[Charybdis]

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 (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, 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...

[savaze]

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.

[halloweenjack]

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.

[Kontact]

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.

[CanRay]

Sir, don't make me dump a cap in your @$$....

REMFs make great target practice.

[Valashar]

For reference, the A-10 Warthog (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. 

[squee_nabob]

My team uses the Thunderstruck Gauss Rifle to deal with Spirits. –half and then -4 AP cuts through ItNW quite well.

[Orkimedes]

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?

[SirDelta]

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.

[Tsuzua]

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.  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.