Logistically Viable Weapons AtE

[Minuteman37]

Originally Posted by Bengt

So it should cut into the available pre war ammo in a Fallout like setting then? The first game takes place 84 years after the war, the second 164.

Some additional information.

There was indeed a nuclear exchange that lead to the End, but there was a couple decades of build up to that point in an ever escalating cold war. Large Government ammunition caches would of been placed in areas not likely to be targeted by nuclear weapons.

As far as time frame is concerned I'm aiming for somewhere between 40 and 80 years after the End. I'm trying to research the radiation levels after bombs fall and I'm not coming up with much useful information. What's the longest an area can be contaminated with dangerous nuclear fallout? This may deserve it's own thread.

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by Minuteman37

What's the longest an area can be contaminated with dangerous nuclear fallout?

Depends on your threshold for dangerous; at typical AtE health care levels it is probably not significant after 80 years unless someone dropped a bomb on a nuclear reactor or waste site.

[Minuteman37]

Originally Posted by Anthony

Good point. Increase average hits to 4.2, or 3.1 after dodge. Note that target selection is going to be a problem, there is a high probability of multiple people aiming at the same person, which will reduce effectiveness, but it's still not good for cavalry.

Considering that Calvary rarely outnumber the subject of their charge I don't see this ending well for them.

a couple things for consideration though.

Just how does an early 19th century Musket compare? They were definitely still used to good effect back then. If the Musket data produces similar levels of lethality then we're obviously missing something.

Beyond that I'm thinking the shear mass of calvary storming at the infantry may of lead to them breaking formation and fleeing before they're able to get that final shot off? Are they taking noticeable losses before that final shot?

Also the american, Russian, and German bolt-action rifles were all 5(3), so lets trim this down to five shots to begin with for historical accuracy.

[(E)]

While doing some work for the AtE farming "out of the bunker" scenario I got 60 years for "safe" levels with the data you provided. Wind and water borne particles of radioactive material from highly radioactive sites may be another issue however.

[Ulzgoroth]

Originally Posted by Minuteman37

Considering that Calvary rarely outnumber the subject of their charge I don't see this ending well for them.

a couple things for consideration though.

Just how does an early 19th century Musket compare? They were definitely still used to good effect back then. If the Musket data produces similar levels of lethality then we're obviously missing something.

You're only getting off one shot or maybe two during the charge. And your acc is lower. So obviously you're going to produce enormously weaker results.

EDIT: On the other hand, your early 19th century troops are probably both trained and formed to present a close-order bayonet defense against such a charge after they've fired their shot(s).

Originally Posted by Minuteman37

Beyond that I'm thinking the shear mass of calvary storming at the infantry may of lead to them breaking formation and fleeing before they're able to get that final shot off? Are they taking noticeable losses before that final shot?

The reality, of course, is that whichever side fails is almost certainly doing so due to a failure of morale, not to being outright destroyed.

[Varyon]

Originally Posted by Minuteman37

Just how does an early 19th century Musket compare? They were definitely still used to good effect back then. If the Musket data produces similar levels of lethality then we're obviously missing something.

There are 40 seconds between the start of the charge and impact. A muzzleloading musket - or rifled musket if using Minie balls - takes 20 seconds to reload using paper cartridges, or 15 seconds with a successful Fast-Draw (Ammo) roll. Facing a cavalry charge with muskets means you'll need to affix your bayonet at some point, so we'll leave 4 seconds for that (firing with attached bayonet reduces skill, so you'd wait until you're done shooting). An added snag is that the bullets already in the musket when the engagement starts are likely to have been carefully loaded, for +1 Acc.

If you opt for a reload, that gives you 2 shots. You want to start affixing bayonets at the latest 5 seconds before impact (meaning bayonets are fixed and ready 1 second out, giving your soldiers enough time for Wait (Stop Thrust)). That means the second shot is 6 seconds out, when the cavalry is roughly 60 yards away (which rounds up to 70 yards). That means you start Aiming 10 seconds out, for 3 seconds of Aim* and one second to fire. Thus, your first shot was 26 seconds out if you trust your troops to reload in only 15 seconds, 31 seconds out otherwise. We'll assume 30 seconds or fewer, for 300 yards. If you don't opt for a reload, you get one shot at 100 yards.

For a typical Acc 2 musket (Acc 3 for the first shot), that's a choice of either two shots, one at a net -6 (+3 for Acc, +2 for extra Aim, +1 for All Out, +1 SM -13 for Range) and the other at a net -3 (+2 Acc, +2 Aim, +1 AOA, +1 SM, -9 Range), or one shot at a net -2 (+3 Acc, +2 Aim, +1 AOA, +1 SM -9 Range). An Acc 3 rifled musket is the same, but at +1 in each case.

For skill 12 and a musket, that means a shot at 6 and one at 9 (~0.4675 hits between the two), or a single shot at 10 (~0.5 hits). For skill 12 and a rifle, that means a shot at 7 and one at 10 (~0.662 hits), or a single shot at 11 (~0.625 hits). When Dodge 8 comes into play, these drop to around 0.35, 0.37, 0.49, and 0.46, respectively. Cavalry is in much better shape than it was against those 7.62 bolt-actions, but with equal numbers the cavalry is potentially looking at between 35% and 50% casualties** even before having to face down bayonets set against the charge.

*Aim caps out at Acc+2, for 3 seconds of aiming. I think Anthony conflated the +1 for All Out into his Acc+3 assumption.

**3d+2 pi+, as for a Pattern 1853 Enfield (used heavily in the American Civil War, at least according to High Tech), means an average of 12.5 damage. On a hit to the Leg or Foot, that cripples the limb, causing the horse to fall. On a hit to the Torso, Neck, or Face, that increases to 18.75 Injury, calls for a roll against 11 to avoid falling down (due to being a Major Wound), and halves the horse's Move and Dodge (due to being below 30% HP). On a hit to the Vitals (which happens to one in six of the horses shot in the Torso), you're instead looking at 37.5 Injury, for a Death Check besides, and if the horse keeps charging it has to make an HT roll every second to not pass out. On a hit to the Skull, that's 42 Injury, for a roll against 1 to avoid Knockdown/Stunning, and just shy of 2 Death Checks. My 35%-50% estimate assumed every horse hit would be a casualty, which isn't quite accurate (particularly considering the possibility of low damage rolls), but it's still not looking great for the horses. Barding for the horses will make them more likely to shrug off the hit, of course.

[acrosome]

Originally Posted by Minuteman37

What's the longest an area can be contaminated with dangerous nuclear fallout?

Depends upon what level of contamination you're talking about. The large craters from ground-bursts that were set off in testing could be safely sat in for a few hours only months after the blast. You wouldn't want to build a cabin and live there, though. But people tour the Chernobyl exclusion zone all the time.

Long-term risks from long-lived isotopes are a different matter.

[tshiggins]

Originally Posted by Minuteman37

So without the US Israel could only manage a standing army made up of 0.005681818% of their population? The US is bankrolling 176,000 Israeli soldiers?

Hrm. I think I got my math wrong.

Let's take a look, though.

Israel has a population of 8.4 million, about 2.6 percent of that of the United States. It has a GDP of not quite $282 billion, or about 1.6 percent of the United States' GDP -- but still respectable for its small size.

It has a military that consists of about 176,500 active duty personnel, or about 2.1 percent of its population (with nearly three times that many available in the ready reserves). The United States has 2,363,675 active duty personnel, or about 0.73 percent of our population.

Israel spent about $23 billion on its military in 2017, or about 5.2 percent of its GDP. However, $3.1 billion of that came from the United States, in the form of military aid of one sort or another. Currently, the U.S. contributes no economic aid to Israel, but since that country's independence in 1949, we've contributed nearly $31 billion -- a big chunk of that in the 25 year period between 1975 and 2000.

The United States military budget reached $571 billion, last year, or 3.5 percent of our GDP (and 20 percent of our total federal budget, but a staggering 54 percent of our discretionary spending).

So, active duty military equals three times the percentage of Israel's total population, as compared to the U.S., and its military expenditures are half again the percentage of its total GDP, as compared to the U.S.A. However, 13 percent of Israel's military budget came from the United States.

In all, Israel's population makes it the 98th largest in the world (of 234 recognized sovereign nations), but its military expenditures are the 15th largest.

So, yeah, Israel is rich enough to sustain its current military size which is, nonetheless, a disproportionately large burden on them -- enough so that they get significant help, every year, from the United States. As with most countries, more than half of Israel's military budget goes to salaries, which means the 13 percent or so covered by U.S. aid really helps them maintain the quality and quantity of their weapons and gear.

Originally Posted by Minuteman37

(SNIP)

As for the size of his fledgling nation state, I'm currently thinking 20,000 individuals, with a battalion sized expeditionary force? It would have about the same ratio of active military to civilians as Israel.

So, if 20,000 troops make up about two percent of the villain's available population, then he has about 1 million people under his control. Moreover, to sustain that, he needs what would count as a fairly wealthy and stable economy -- not something enjoyed by most tyrants, although it's certainly not unprecedented.

So, the guy isn't just a talented military commander, he's a talented Field Marshal-caliber officer ("Amateurs study tactics, professionals study logistics, and Field Marshals study economics...") with a flair for inspiring loyalty in others.

This guy makes Adolf look like a piker, he's clearly read every one of the Rules for Evil Overlords, and he adheres to them, scrupulously.

I say again, cut Lex Luthor a check, keep your heads down, and wait for this nightmarishly-effective warlord to kick the bucket. Once he goes, his gunpowder empire is quite likely to break like glass, because guys with his combination of natural talent and ethical bankruptcy (fortunately) only appear about once a century -- if that.

[Ulzgoroth]

Originally Posted by tshiggins

So, if 20,000 troops make up about two percent of the villain's available population, then he has about 1 million people under his control. Moreover, to sustain that, he needs what would count as a fairly wealthy and stable economy -- not something enjoyed by most tyrants, although it's certainly not unprecedented.

You're misreading - the assertion is 20,000 individuals in the AtE statelet, not 20,000 under arms.

[Tomsdad]

Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth

Wasn't much of the purpose of the scenario putting forth your claim that the infantry could support each other along the line? Not putting them along the line takes that right out of play.

Not really because as has been said when you talking about muskets with a 100 yard range and slow ROF you have to put them all in a concentrated line for effect. But once rifles improve you can disperse them a bit and still be able to concentrate their fire because of that range and ROF increase. Dispersing infantry is good anyway because at the same time we've had development in artillery and of course these rifles work on infantry as well.

The same does not happen for cavalry who (as we have been discussing) tend not to disperse when used in this role. But rather still have to concentrate against targets in the open for effect.
Basically cavalry remain a big target (as they always were), but now not only is pretty much everything better at shooting at them (can do it faster and from further away), but can be better at shooting them while being less of a target for cavalry..

Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth

There's few if any periods and certainly no modern (including early modern) period where the role of cavalry was to charge headlong into the strongest possible concentration of enemy infantry. That's a really bad strawman. They deliver concentrated strikes to weak points.

I never said strongest, as I've said many times now the problem is that "right time" you mention gets narrower and narrower, as even those "weak points" get stronger just because of the development we've been talking about. So yes if cavalry are left pursuing situations that come up less and less, and the repercussions for them getting it wrong get worse and worse, then yes that particular role for cavalry become more and more negated as an effective one on the battlefield until you reach a point where it's just not worth doing so.

Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth

If you're deployed in depth it's not so that the people in the back can somehow shoot over the ones in front (which remains a seriously problematic move when the front troops are prone) but so that you've got reinforcements and positions already in place in case the enemy breaks through the initial line.

Also, the enemy would have to be an idiot to hit you with a cavalry charge at a point where that is the case.

And as per above having these rifles makes that easier to do

Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth

The point is that it does not matter how much range the cavalry weapons do or don't have because they will be used at close range regardless. Range is a property that matters for the infantry weapon, but not for the cavalry weapon. The cavalry stat it is meaningful to compare against infantry range is charge speed.

Of course it matters because in a fight it matters what both sides are doing (especially as here it allows one side to hit the other but no the other way round, the holy grail of fighting). Also this tangent of pistol vs. rifle came up explicitly when the point about C20th cavalry pistols came up.

And yes cavalry speed is relevant as part of the comparison here, but as per link above cavalry even on the charge isn't that fast and as has been discussed it becomes less and less of an advantage as rifles get better (the whole Rof and range increase) as cavalry didn't see a equivalent boost in their speed to compensate. Basically this point has already been discussed.