Weapon Purpose

[Cargoman]

Originally Posted by Blood Legend

Oh, that reminds me of another question. Hip Fire! Is this trained at all? Does it have a purpose? Is it really as inaccurate as some of these games portray?

Trained to shot from the hip , IME no.
Firing with a gas mask on was as close as I came in 13 years or so .

Does it have a purpose?
To shot while moving , and that should be a last resort.

Is it really as inaccurate as some of these games portray?
Yes , if not more so .

[Þorkell]

Originally Posted by Peter Knutsen

. But the point is, the military planners decided that ordinary soldiers only very rarely need more than those 270-or-so meters of range.

Comes from the realization after WWII that most infantry combat in that war took place at less than those 300m so there really was no need for those powerful rifles with the heavier bullets.

[Jabani]

...when the hell does anyone actually get shot?

When the artillery fires. Seriously, though, in WWI and WWII particularly, most casualties occurred as a result of artillery fire. I imagine the percentage has gone down quite a bit as a result of less artillery use in modern wars, but still.

Is it really as inaccurate as some of these games portray?
Yes , if not more so .

QFT.

So they get a bonus when used at PB range, and this bonus gets even bigger for sawn-off shotguns...

As per some page of High Tech, sawing off a shotgun only helps with concealment and doesn't improve its damage - in fact it decreases its accuracy as well.

[sjard]

Originally Posted by Blood Legend

when the hell does anyone actually get shot?

Originally Posted by Jabani

When the artillery fires. Seriously, though, in WWI and WWII particularly, most casualties occurred as a result of artillery fire. I imagine the percentage has gone down quite a bit as a result of less artillery use in modern wars, but still.

As I recall, the statistical values of rounds fired per casualty* was somewhere around 1,000:1 in WWII, slightly higher in Korea, and in the 3,000:1 ranges for Vietnam.

For example take this hypothetical situation. Two squads (12 members each) encounter each other at roughly 100 meters range. Both squads are identically equipped with each member carrying an M16 and six 30 round magazines (180 bullets per soldier).

Terrain is forest with moderate undergrowth for cover.

The most common result will be one or both sides disengaging when ammo starts to run low, or when/if one side starts taking casualties. Both units will start running low on ammo at about the same time.

After they have disengaged after exhausting ammo supplies, roughly 4,300 rounds will have been fired, and there will be 1-6 casualties between the two sides.

That said - Artillery is very much the king of the battlefield.

Note: This is not always the case with an encounter like that, but it seems to be the most common result from everything I've read and seen.

*Castualties include any wound, but not necessarily death.

[Icelander]

Originally Posted by Peter Knutsen

As an example, one of the playtests I'd like to run, once Modern Action RPG is ready for testing, is the same counter-terrorism scenario twice, once where the PCs are using assault rifles, and once more where they are using SMGs or shotguns (preferably some use one and the rest use the other), to see how big the difference is in a real situation.

Judging from real counter-terror teams, the difference isn't relevant.

While SMGs were designed for certain things, modern carbines are better at most of these things and can be made every bit as short and handy as typical SMGs if you want it. Yes, there are niches where SMGs are still used, but that's not because they really are better at killing the enemy, but because some other concern (primarily legal considerations and/or the ability to suppress the weapon without having to rely on a 62-grain bullet at subsonic speeds).

If effectiveness against hostiles at short range is your concern, the weapon firing rifle rounds will outperform the weapon firing pistol rounds.

And shotguns are very good weapons for close quarters, compared to pistols. Compared to assault rifles, they are not nearly as good. What they are good for is using breaching rounds and this is why modern SWAT units carry them.

[Peter Knutsen]

Originally Posted by Icelander

And shotguns are very good weapons for close quarters, compared to pistols. Compared to assault rifles, they are not nearly as good. What they are good for is using breaching rounds and this is why modern SWAT units carry them.

So the US Navy SEALs in Vietnam were wrong to carry them, during jungle patrols?

[Peter Knutsen]

Originally Posted by Jabani

As per some page of High Tech, sawing off a shotgun only helps with concealment and doesn't improve its damage - in fact it decreases its accuracy as well.

What makes you assume a bonus to skill is the same as increased accuracy, in Modern Action RPG?

[Webb]

Originally Posted by Peter Knutsen

So the US Navy SEALs in Vietnam were wrong to carry them, during jungle patrols?

That might have been clever for not strictly ballistic reasons. Bear in mind that a pump-action trench gun is a simple, brick of a weapon, compared to an assault carbine, and that the jungle was hell on the M16 and its derivatives.

In jungle warfare, the most accurate weapon is the one which still feeds.

[Icelander]

Originally Posted by Peter Knutsen

So the US Navy SEALs in Vietnam were wrong to carry them, during jungle patrols?

At TL7, modern assault rifles were mostly experimental. They were neither as reliable nor as handy as the modern examples.

Don't assume that as technology changes, all weapons retain their utility.

Also, note that there are recorded instances where a SEAL carried a shotgun on jugle patrols. On the other hand, most SEALS in Vietnam carried some form of automatic 5.56mm weapon.

Individual preferences can account for some people choosing a weapon that has inferior game stats. If we assume that most elite soldiers will choose the best weapons for their environment, we can clearly discount the shotgun entirely. At no point, in any war, have the majority of soldiers chosen shotguns as their primary weapons.

If SEALS had preferred shotguns over reliable assault carbines, you might have a point. But they didn't even prefer them over unreliable and experimental assault rifles. It just so happen that a few of them liked to carry the weapon. More liked to carry the M16.

[sgtcallistan]

In my limited (Brit armed forces) experience: Battle rifles (7.62x51mm round) are for accurate semi-auto fire over short to medium ranges (gate-guard duty to overwatch fire on things like crossroads, bridges, etc.).

Assault rifles (shorter, often lighter rounds) tend to replace this function, but with greater emphasis on suppressive fire, IME.

Pistols (small short rounds) are for officers to have in case they need them: to keep order, or to defend themselves in the last resort.

LMG's (usually using the same ammo as the rifles in the unit) are for suppressive or overwatch fire as above, and to flank fire as the rifle group moves. Greater firepower, basically.

SMG's (historically using pistol ammo, but things like the P90 are going away from this) are for officers, NCO's and others who don't have a use for a battle or assault rifle.

HMG's (7.62 and larger calibres) are for vehicles, aircraft or for sustained long-range suppressive fire.

Specialist rifles (usually using quality large-calibre ammo as for the HMG) like sniper weapons are for discriminate, accurate fire over very long, long or medium ranges.

Shotguns are for special work like removing the hinges of doors, breaching cars (slugs), jungle fighting (short visual range, lots of light cover (heavy shot)), and were put forward as a suitable weapon for defending airfields, where there are civilians just on the other side of the fence; the idea was not adopted.
Cut-down shotguns are the badge of a wasteful criminal (the gun was usually more valuable before it was cut down) and act more to intimidate the credulous than act as an effective weapon; they can still make you dead at short range; say, inside a bank, though.

Odder weapons like the DeLisle carbine or silenced pistols are for quiet sentry removal or murder at very short range.

In movies and video games, these roles tend to blur together (especially smg's and assault rifles), except for the sniper rifle, usually.

Hope this is useful.