Full auto weapons, and Rates of Fire.

[hiro]

I think gauss rifles are subject to the same issues as ACRs - recoil and weight and the addition of a power source adds to the weight.

As has been pointed out, they represent the ultimate in slug throwers but it's an incremental improvement over the ACR.

The boring way of looking at it is to simply make a progression across TL - drop weight, increase damage and number of rounds in a magazine or whichever combination of features work for the rules/setting. What you call it becomes the way you want to dress it up for the setting.

 

[kilemall]

Basically, optimal combat gear load is around thirty kilogrammes, allocated between offensive and defensive measures, and has been for millenia, the usual formula of personal firepower, mobility and protection, subsidized by collective firepower, mobility and protection, supported by available logistics, and directed by current doctrine.

This is about as good as it gets, without improvements in material science, the addition of exoskeletons, or a jump in technological levels to utilize gauss.

Or genetically engineering people.

 

[Condottiere]

Given a choice, combat troops seem to prefer lighter firearms with more rounds, as long as the rounds are effective within the anticipated engagement zone.

At some point, the gun is going to overheat.

 

[hiro]

Given a choice, combat troops seem to prefer lighter firearms with more rounds, as long as the rounds are effective within the anticipated engagement zone.

At some point, the gun is going to overheat.

Which brings us nicely back to the stat that most infantry combat casualties are currently caused by crew served weapons and high explosives. I've read it somewhere, can't find where now so please do point out if I'm talking baloney.

CSWs are designed for sustained fire, most small arms are not. Will that change in the future? Does it need to? If your rifle won't overheat, how long will it take you to expend all the ammo you're carrying?

My, haven't I gotten way off topic...

 

[wellis]

Considering the propensity of militaries, and troops, to overload with ammunition, body armor, and equipment (especially electronic stuff nowadays), what kind of body loads do you think Third Imperium or other troops might have?

I ask this because currently modern soldiers are often wearing 80-100 pounds more stuff than prescribed.

 

[hiro]

I don't think I've seen any version of Traveller fully describe this as it's out of the remit for most aspects of an RPG, even Striker and Book 4 don't go into as much detail.

Not that that stops us taking about it

To answer I think we'd need to list what's being carried. Bit of a chore to do on my phone at lunch and might need a separate thread.

But most games don't track weight and encumbrance and it's also complicated by powered armour. How many pics of people in powered armour show anything like a combat load out?

 

[Condottiere]

We tend to look at encumbrance as how much we can lift, discounting form fitting armour.

Then we figure out movement rates, and balance that between equipment carried, and if we're mostly mounted.

 

[CaptRet]

After accounting for the increased range and accuracy of such weapons platforms as the ACR and then the gauss rifle, the next big leap in infantry firepower will be the smart round. This is almost within reach now. After all, if the individual round has the capability to hit the target regardless of such factors as the recoil of the firing weapon, there is a reduced need for large quantities of ammunition. During the Napoleonic Wars anc Civil War, it has been estimated that roughly 250 - 300 musket rounds were fired for every casualty inflicted. In Vietnam, the US ratio was 50,000 small arms rounds per NVA or Viet Cong casualty inflicted.

 

[wellis]

After accounting for the increased range and accuracy of such weapons platforms as the ACR and then the gauss rifle, the next big leap in infantry firepower will be the smart round. This is almost within reach now. After all, if the individual round has the capability to hit the target regardless of such factors as the recoil of the firing weapon, there is a reduced need for large quantities of ammunition. During the Napoleonic Wars anc Civil War, it has been estimated that roughly 250 - 300 musket rounds were fired for every casualty inflicted. In Vietnam, the US ratio was 50,000 small arms rounds per NVA or Viet Cong casualty inflicted.

That's because we have kuch, much higher rates of fire now.

Semi-auto nowadays is far faster than the majority of muzzleloaded ridles in hse in the ACW.

 

[hiro]

Or really poor trigger discipline?

 

[Timerover51]

Or really poor trigger discipline?

Probably really poor trigger discipline.

As for a combat load, assuming no powered combat armor and near-standard gravity, I will still say about 40 to 60 pounds, 20 to 20 kilograms, if you want to be able to fight at the end of a march. Select troops may be able to manage more, but I am thinking that average grunt.

 

[hiro]

Probably really poor trigger discipline.

As for a combat load, assuming no powered combat armor and near-standard gravity, I will still say about 40 to 60 pounds, 20 to 20 kilograms, if you want to be able to fight at the end of a march. Select troops may be able to manage more, but I am thinking that average grunt.

I've read accounts of the Falklands War where after the long marches with stupid loads, they dropped the packs to fight, carrying only what they needed for the task at hand.

Sometimes in Traveller you'll see stats for Battle Dress battery(?) life but I don't think it crops up in all editions. Seems to me, without logistical support to recharge powered armour, it's not well suited to prolonged fighting. And, I'd guess it's pretty hard to know how long an engagement will be and what the down time will be before the next, war doesn't happen in shifts, you don't get to clock off.

As to how fatiguing combat armour would be? It's hand waved for the most part, I get that wearing something has less of an affect than carrying a similar weight in your arms or on your back but all the same, but it isn't practical to live 24/7 sealed in armour.

 

[hiro]

the next big leap in infantry firepower will be the smart round. This is almost within reach now.

I'm not so sure it's near for small arms.

There's not a whole lot of space in a 5-8mm round.

A bullet designed to damage thru kinetic energy and get thru armour accelerates at a phenomenal rate. Having electronics that small that can endure the violence of being shot out of a barrel at 1000m/s+ is quite a feat.

Over typical ranges for infantry fighting with small arms, the flight time for a bullet is going to make larger course corrections difficult. Maybe you don't need large corrections but it's not going to be a "aiming is a thing of the past" solution.

Now, if we can make a shaped charge round small enough that might work. I think the numbers for current shaped charge rounds say that armour penetration is about 7-10 times the diameter of the round so a 10mm HEAT round might go thru 7-10cm of steel armour, not that people would be wearing steel so you need to work out how your armour of choice compares to steel.

But does the Munroe effect work when it's that small? A HEAT round would also be lower velocity - lower recoil and perhaps the flight time would make guidance more practical?

I think something that is perhaps closer in real life is point defence lasers. In Traveller, I don't see one being perched on the top of every suit of powered armour but I can definitely see them on top of a turret of AFVs supporting ground troops. Would they be able to engage multiple targets? I'd hope so!

 

[Timerover51]

I'm not so sure it's near for small arms.

There's not a whole lot of space in a 5-8mm round.

A bullet designed to damage thru kinetic energy and get thru armour accelerates at a phenomenal rate. Having electronics that small that can endure the violence of being shot out of a barrel at 1000m/s+ is quite a feat.

Over typical ranges for infantry fighting with small arms, the flight time for a bullet is going to make larger course corrections difficult. Maybe you don't need large corrections but it's not going to be a "aiming is a thing of the past" solution.

Now, if we can make a shaped charge round small enough that might work. I think the numbers for current shaped charge rounds say that armour penetration is about 7-10 times the diameter of the round so a 10mm HEAT round might go thru 7-10cm of steel armour, not that people would be wearing steel so you need to work out how your armour of choice compares to steel.

But does the Munroe effect work when it's that small? A HEAT round would also be lower velocity - lower recoil and perhaps the flight time would make guidance more practical?

I think something that is perhaps closer in real life is point defence lasers. In Traveller, I don't see one being perched on the top of every suit of powered armour but I can definitely see them on top of a turret of AFVs supporting ground troops. Would they be able to engage multiple targets? I'd hope so!

For the full effect of the Munroe Effect, you need at least 6 caliber stand-off, which would be quite tough in a very small round. The 40mm grenade launcher round for the M203 for armor-piercing is rated at 25mm/1 inch, partly due to lack of stand-off, and partly because the charge is not that large compared to the weight of the round. In addition, you need a base-initiated charge for any shaped charge round, and for best results, one that is non-rotating. Have fun making it work.

The Germans played around with quite small shaped charge rounds in World War 2, but their performance was a tad lacking. By small, I mean 20 to 30mm.

 

[hiro]

For the full effect of the Munroe Effect, you need at least 6 caliber stand-off, which would be quite tough in a very small round. The 40mm grenade launcher round for the M203 for armor-piercing is rated at 25mm/1 inch, partly due to lack of stand-off, and partly because the charge is not that large compared to the weight of the round. In addition, you need a base-initiated charge for any shaped charge round, and for best results, one that is non-rotating. Have fun making it work.

The Germans played around with quite small shaped charge rounds in World War 2, but their performance was a tad lacking. By small, I mean 20 to 30mm.

That's good to know, thanks.

At the end of the day, we each choose the hand waves we're most comfortable with to make the universe we want to play in. Small arm shaped charge rounds might be one of mine

I tweaked BTRC's 3G3 to design the ones I liked - as TL went up, smallest caliber went down, obviously with less explosive. Makes an interesting contrast, I could get higher damage, lower recoil but shorter range compared to APDS rounds. HEAP makes for good assault weapons, APDS is better to reach out and touch someone.

 

[CaptRet]

I attach a link to a 2015 Popular Military article regarding US Army's developing of a 40mm "smart round" for the M320 grenade launcher (an underbarrel attachment for the combat rifle). Also a link to the Wikipedia article regarding the XM25 Counter Defilade Target Engagement (CDTE) system (aka The Punisher), which fires "smart" 25mm grenades. And a link to China's attempts to develop a smart grenade launcher attachment for their next generation rilfe. As I said before, smart small arms ammunition is coming. (And it always bothered me that Traveler's ACRs have shoot-through grenades, a technology developed in WW 1 and used through the Korean conflict, vice under-barrel grenade launchers. Heck, even back in the 1970s when I was a Butter Bar we had the M-203.)

https://popularmilitary.com/army-devleoping-40mm-smart-grenades/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XM25_CDTE

https://nationalinterest.org/blog/b...army-has-big-plans-build-super-soldiers-41052

 

[hiro]

I attach a link to a 2015 Popular Military article regarding US Army's developing of a 40mm "smart round" for the M320 grenade launcher (an underbarrel attachment for the combat rifle). Also a link to the Wikipedia article regarding the XM25 Counter Defilade Target Engagement (CDTE) system (aka The Punisher), which fires "smart" 25mm grenades. And a link to China's attempts to develop a smart grenade launcher attachment for their next generation rilfe. As I said before, smart small arms ammunition is coming. (And it always bothered me that Traveler's ACRs have shoot-through grenades, a technology developed in WW 1 and used through the Korean conflict, vice under-barrel grenade launchers. Heck, even back in the 1970s when I was a Butter Bar we had the M-203.)

https://popularmilitary.com/army-devleoping-40mm-smart-grenades/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XM25_CDTE

https://nationalinterest.org/blog/b...army-has-big-plans-build-super-soldiers-41052

Fair enough. Not sure I'd call 25mm or 40mm small arms but certainly man carried tho the load out isn't going to be many.

It's not strictly speaking guided either, tho we didn't agree terms on what "smart" meant. A laser rangefinder sets the fuse to detonate the round over the target and as the Wiki article on the XM25 states: "The program was officially terminated on 24 July 2018". I think it was considered a failure but you got to start somewhere.

Going back to SF/Traveller, I think a laser point defence will make mince meat out of these.

The reference to shoot thru grenades is indeed seriously dated, I don't think I've used that term for them since I first played back in the 80s and have always envisioned them as either 30-40mm single shot under barrel add-ons or smaller caliber magazine fed, like the M41A from Aliens which I've seen referred to as 30mm but as it's based on a shotgun, it's 18mm!

 

[Timerover51]

Having read some of the articles put out by National Interest, I have grave doubts as to the competency of the writers on matters military.

As for "smart" grenade rounds, stop and think a minute about what has to go into one of them. I will be long buried before one appears, and then the cost per round is going to be prohibitive if a reliable one is actually developed.

 

[wellis]

Having read some of the articles put out by National Interest, I have grave doubts as to the competency of the writers on matters military.

As for "smart" grenade rounds, stop and think a minute about what has to go into one of them. I will be long buried before one appears, and then the cost per round is going to be prohibitive if a reliable one is actually developed.

Not as bad as you think. For example, guidance systems for normal artillery shells are becoming much, much cheaper.

Granted artillery shells are easier to JDAM enhance than small arms or grenades but stuff like the Raytheon Pike are real and can be fired from underbarrel grenade launchers.

 

[Timerover51]

Not as bad as you think. For example, guidance systems for normal artillery shells are becoming much, much cheaper.

Granted artillery shells are easier to JDAM enhance than small arms or grenades but stuff like the Raytheon Pike are real and can be fired from underbarrel grenade launchers.

I notice that no mention of cost is included, and it has yet to find a buyer, which means that what Raytheon considers "affordable" and what a buyer considers "affordable" are two different things. Also, 15 seconds is forever in a firefight. Is your target going to be there 15 seconds after launch? And as it requires a laser designator, that would need to be included in the cost, and then you have to have the designator where it can communicate to the firing units. Is the designator aimed at the same target as the firing unit? How long before the designator becomes the prime target to head by the opposition?