Steve Jackson Games - Site Navigation
Home General Info Follow Us Search Illuminator Store Forums What's New Other Games Ogre GURPS Munchkin Our Games: Home

Go Back   Steve Jackson Games Forums > Roleplaying > GURPS

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 01-30-2018, 07:30 AM   #351
Icelander
 
Icelander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Iceland*
Default Re: Grenade Launcher Acc and Granularity

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tomsdad View Post
TBH unless we increases Acc on grenade launchers full stop that going to be pretty hard. An open bin at 150 yards is going to be what -11 for range with another -1 for target? so -12. You are going to need those non combat bonuses with Acc 1!
Depending on the size of the garbage cans, they are pretty clearly smaller than an entire hex (+4 to hit), but might be easier than a human to hit at that range, on account of being fatter, so a +1 or +2 might be justified, for the large kind that is outside of houses.

This is training, not combat, so a combination of the relative lack of stress and distractions, knowing the exact range, familiarity and suchlike ought to get up to +4 or +5 TDM fairly easily.

I'd be fine with a skill level of 16-18 being required, as this is mentioned to be the result of experience and extensive training among DEVGRU operators who carry the M79. And, indeed, looks like skill 16 would be able to do it often, if not usually, and skill 18 would be able to do it routinely and even sometimes achieve this accuracy under combat conditions (especially if we allow Acc 2).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tomsdad View Post
Anyway I think your point about the M79 Sharing Acc with the Mk19 MOD 3 is fine, because as you say the latter will suffer less from the time to target rules.

So the latter will still perform better than the former at longer ranges despite sharing an Acc score.
Yes, I think it's fine. Acc 2 is still no better than many muscle powered weapons and it's the same as early muskets, or, indeed, a black powder blunderbuss of the same barrel length would get, so it's hardly unrealistic to allow a comparatively modern weapon this Acc.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tomsdad View Post
A couple of thoughts occurs regarding the M203, you could decide that it counts a unsighted shooting and not allow AoA determined (although I would allow aim maneuvers tso as not to completer neft the thing) or if you use "On target" maybe penalise aim rolls to take into account the issue with sights?
It has sights. They are just poorly regarded because they were inconveniently located and had to be zeroed every time the grenade launcher was mounted.

In any case, I don't think they need more penalties than having Acc 1, as that would make them less useful against point targets at range than snubnose .38s. Even with targeting hexes, not people, I think that further penalties to hit would make it useless at any range above minimum range for ordinary soldiers, which is not the intended effect.

And we don't want to make grenade launchers even less accurate than launching bombs with slings, which the heroic stats for muscle-powered weapons pretty much already do.
__________________
Za uspiekh nashevo beznadiozhnovo diela!
Icelander is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-30-2018, 07:41 AM   #352
Tomsdad
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Brighton
Default Re: Grenade Launcher Acc and Granularity

Quote:
Originally Posted by Icelander View Post
Depending on the size of the garbage cans, they are pretty clearly smaller than an entire hex (+4 to hit), but might be easier than a human to hit at that range, on account of being fatter, so a +1 or +2 might be justified, for the large kind that is outside of houses..
True I was thinking of something like wheelie bins, but I was also thinking dropping the grenades into the angled open top* to replicate shooting through windows and gaps!


*and now I'm thinking of "dude perfect"!


Quote:
Originally Posted by Icelander View Post
This is training, not combat, so a combination of the relative lack of stress and distractions, knowing the exact range, familiarity and suchlike ought to get up to +4 or +5 TDM fairly easily.
Well I was going with the full +10 in my mind! +5 would still need a pretty hefty Grenade launcher skill (even for JSOC, I can't see it being their primary focus, but you seem to be talking about particular chaps who have specialized so maybe?)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Icelander View Post
I'd be fine with a skill level of 16-18 being required, as this is mentioned to be the result of experience and extensive training among DEVGRU operators who carry the M79. And, indeed, looks like skill 16 would be able to do it often, if not usually, and skill 18 would be able to do it routinely and even sometimes achieve this accuracy under combat conditions (especially if we allow Acc 2).
I think I must be penalising the shot more than you I'm not sure I get that? (doesn't really matter I guess, the point is if you up the Acc to 2 you get an extra +2 and that will help weather you are firing at bins on the range or in combat)


Quote:
Originally Posted by Icelander View Post
Yes, I think it's fine. Acc 2 is still no better than many muscle powered weapons and it's the same as early muskets, or, indeed, a black powder blunderbuss of the same barrel length would get, so it's hardly unrealistic to allow a comparatively modern weapon this Acc.
I agree, TBH if your using time to target rules and the fact that such grenades will suffer really badly from it, there's little issue of people using higher Acc versions of these to snipe long range at moving targets!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Icelander View Post
It has sights. They are just poorly regarded because they were inconveniently located and had to be zeroed every time the grenade launcher was mounted.

In any case, I don't think they need more penalties than having Acc 1, as that would make them less useful against point targets at range than snubnose .38s. Even with targeting hexes, not people, I think that further penalties to hit would make it useless at any range above minimum range for ordinary soldiers, which is not the intended effect.

And we don't want to make grenade launchers even less accurate than launching bombs with slings, which the heroic stats for muscle-powered weapons pretty much already do.
Oh I was really just trying to squeeze a point of differentiation between the two platforms at a point were the acc granularity is limited. If I was going to do this, I'd increase the base Acc for both! (as you say the M203 doesn't need to be made less accurate than it is!)

Last edited by Tomsdad; 01-30-2018 at 08:13 AM.
Tomsdad is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-30-2018, 02:03 PM   #353
Icelander
 
Icelander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Iceland*
Default Re: Grenade Launcher Acc and Granularity

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tomsdad View Post
True I was thinking of something like wheelie bins, but I was also thinking dropping the grenades into the angled open top* to replicate shooting through windows and gaps!)
That would seem to describe it, but most probably with larger containers.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tomsdad View Post
*and now I'm thinking of "dude perfect"!)
I seem to have failed a roll against the relevant Current Affairs or Hobby skill.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tomsdad View Post
Well I was going with the full +10 in my mind! +5 would still need a pretty hefty Grenade launcher skill (even for JSOC, I can't see it being their primary focus, but you seem to be talking about particular chaps who have specialized so maybe?))
I use the Job Training rules from Power Ups 3: Talents for active duty special operators and commandos, allowing them fairly economical access to very high skill levels for those trained tasks that fall under their primary MOS-relevant skills (including combat skills for most SOF personnel), as long as they have access to the lavish training facilities and the time and opportunity to devote essentially their full focus to maintaining their operational edge.

Former operators quickly lose the necessary edge, functionally reducing their skill levels by 1-4 as their narrowly focused and expensively maintained operational hypercompetence in the exact tasks trained lapses into 'mere' expertise in the broader fields of generic GURPS skills.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tomsdad View Post
I think I must be penalising the shot more than you I'm not sure I get that? (doesn't really matter I guess, the point is if you up the Acc to 2 you get an extra +2 and that will help weather you are firing at bins on the range or in combat))
I'm adding +2 for extra two seconds of Aim and +1 for All-Out Attack (Determined). 150 meters is a 165 yards, for a -12 SSR penalty. With a +5 TDM, we get effective roll to hit of skill-3 if we go by Acc 1, skill-2 if we use Acc 2.

With a high skill shooter, we run up against the rule from Tactical Shooting that limits functional accuracy by mechanical accuracy. With Acc 1, the maximum effective skill before penalties is (22 + (2 x Acc) = 24) and with Acc 2 it is 26. Acc 1 would make the weapon so inaccurate that in this kind of training, user skill above 15 wasn't relevant, except to allow less time to Aim. Efective skill 12 would be a functional maximum. With Acc 2, the functional maximum effective skill would be 14 and skill levels of up to 16 would be relevant. Skill 18+ would be relevant to allow the same performance in combat as practice.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tomsdad View Post
I agree, TBH if your using time to target rules and the fact that such grenades will suffer really badly from it, there's little issue of people using higher Acc versions of these to snipe long range at moving targets!)
No more than with bows and crossbows, at least.

In any case, with interviews with former and current operators under JSOC indicating that even the cut-down M79 'Pirate Gun' is preferred over pistols, SMGs and the MP7A1 for engaging targets at longer ranges than 100 yards, I'm fine with a little 'grenade sniping'.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tomsdad View Post
Oh I was really just trying to squeeze a point of differentiation between the two platforms at a point were the acc granularity is limited. If I was going to do this, I'd increase the base Acc for both! (as you say the M203 doesn't need to be made less accurate than it is!)
Indeed.
__________________
Za uspiekh nashevo beznadiozhnovo diela!

Last edited by Icelander; 01-30-2018 at 02:15 PM.
Icelander is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-30-2018, 03:28 PM   #354
Icelander
 
Icelander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Iceland*
Default Bullet forensics, how precise? In theory and practice, Mexico 2017?

I realise that an overwhelming majority of shootings in the most violent areas of Mexico today never become subject to the kind of CSI, scientific laboratory, high-tech TL8 Forensics investigation that TV has taught us to expect.

That's not to say that Mexico doesn't have advanced forensics labs, talented and highly educated forensic scientists or detectives with a thorough grounding in the practical use of the Forensics skill. They do, it's just that the resources available for each individual criminal investigation are a mere fraction of what the US, British, German, Norwegian or Icelandic police can usually manage to expend. And it's not just a question of money.

Police pay in Mexico is atrocious and the work hazardous and demoralizing. Forensics experts are often targeted by the criminal organisations they testify in court against, and in some of the worst affected areas, it is openly acknowledged that effective around-the-clock protection for evidence technicians, MEs or other police experts is functionally impossible. As a result, only the most courageous are interested in pursuing jobs in the field, with families of men who want to work in it often begging their loved ones to reconsider, or to retire if they are already working for the criminal justice system.

My research indicates that as much as nine-tenths of bullets recovered from the scenes of murders in Ciudad Juarez are never processed beyond being, theoretically, 'placed in evidence' by the responding police officers. Or, sometimes, not even being recovered, with any bullets that weren't pulled out of victims by a medical examiner just remaining in the burned out husks of the cars or the bullet riddled walls left behind at murder scenes.

One documentary I saw dramatically showed the lack of resources of the primary ballistics forensics unit of the embattled Ciudad Juarez, with targeted intimidation and corruption (Plata O Plomo) having eroded the trained personnel there to the point that not even for murders of police officers could they muster the capability to actually use tools other than Mark 1 eyeball, handheld measuring calipers and pencil to sketch the 'recovered' bullets.

Most seized guns are never fired to search for ballistics matches and, indeed, never traced or entered into a searchable database, and, sometimes, never actually properly identified by brand and model, before being transported to a military-maintained storage warehouse where no one has any investigative remit and the nominally investigating detectives have a hard time ever being allowed to see them again.

Even so, I expect that Mexican state and federal homicide detectives might have decent defaults or even hard-earned expertise in the principles of Forensics/TL8, not to mention experience in operating with more basic equipment and much less high-tech analytic support than their colleagues over the border.

And the medical examiners and whatever technicians were available to analyse evidence recovered from bodies would be nothing if not seasoned in judging gunshot wounds, as well as performing such forensics as the state of their equipment allowed. I know for a fact that the US has periodically supplied both forensic technology and training to its neighbour as part of joint anti-drug initiatives, though the levels of funding for such efforts have not always been enough to make much difference in the long run.

So, I have questions as to how this affects the evidence that PCs and their colleagues might leave behind, in the unfortunate event they were involved in a shooting incident.

I) How easy is it to tell without anything other than a handheld pocket caliper, and other contents of a field evidence kit, maybe, whether a recovered bullet is a 122-125 grain .308 caliber FMJ bullet fired from a weapon in that caliber at about 2,000-2,500 fps or a 122-125 grain FMJ bullet of .310 to .311 diameter fired from an AK style assault rifle at similar velocities?

--- Ia) Would an ME be able to tell?

--- Ib) In other words, are FMJ rifle bullets recovered from bodies usually undamaged enough to allow easily measuring their diameter with enough precision to distinguish a difference of 0.02-0.03 inch?

II) While cartridge cases may show evidence of different striker, direct impingement or piston impact, as well as other marks from action and ejecting, and so identify the type of weapon, are the recovered projectiles themselves marked by anything other than the specific pattern of rifling in the barrel?

--- IIa) Beyond matching the rifling mark to a certain firearm, if recovered and subjected to ballistics analysis, would the detectives, techncians or MEs be able to make any determinations about the type of weapon that fired it from the recovered bullet? Is barrel twist rate obvious? Or barrel length?

--- IIb) Would any evidence visible from a recovered FMJ bullet reveal whether the chamber, barrel and action fit to loose tolerances, like an SKS or AKM, or were precision machined, like a high quality tactical firearm chambered in .300 Blackout?

III) Specifically, then, would the Mexican police realise from just the bullets recovered on the scene of a shooting that .300 Blackout weapons had been used, and not more typical 7.62x39mm? Or would they need to recover casings for that?
__________________
Za uspiekh nashevo beznadiozhnovo diela!

Last edited by Icelander; 01-31-2018 at 01:26 AM.
Icelander is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-30-2018, 05:39 PM   #355
johndallman
Night Watchman
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Cambridge, UK
Default Re: [Modern Firepower] Technothriller gear for secret DHS team in 2017

Something they would be able to learn easily, if they took the trouble, is the number of groves in the rifling. You just need a reasonably intact bullet and a hand lens for that. If that was wrong for an AK, then the bullet wasn't fired from an AK.
johndallman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-30-2018, 05:54 PM   #356
Anthony
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Berkeley, CA
Default Re: [Modern Firepower] Technothriller gear for secret DHS team in 2017

The way GURPS does ranged combat causes excessively random behavior when a weapon is used under controlled circumstances (this also applies to many other things). You can only really justify the randomness of ranged combat (where the difference between always-hit range and always-miss range is a factor of 100) if you assume that much of the difference between hitting and missing actually comes from unspecified situational modifiers, not true randomness, and a significant part of combat shooting skill is the ability to arrange for a better situation.
__________________
My GURPS site and Blog.
Anthony is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 01-30-2018, 06:03 PM   #357
Icelander
 
Icelander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Iceland*
Default Re: [Modern Firepower] Technothriller gear for secret DHS team in 2017

Quote:
Originally Posted by Anthony View Post
The way GURPS does ranged combat causes excessively random behavior when a weapon is used under controlled circumstances (this also applies to many other things). You can only really justify the randomness of ranged combat (where the difference between always-hit range and always-miss range is a factor of 100) if you assume that much of the difference between hitting and missing actually comes from unspecified situational modifiers, not true randomness, and a significant part of combat shooting skill is the ability to arrange for a better situation.
I strongly agree with this.
__________________
Za uspiekh nashevo beznadiozhnovo diela!
Icelander is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-30-2018, 06:32 PM   #358
Icelander
 
Icelander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Iceland*
Default Re: [Modern Firepower] Technothriller gear for secret DHS team in 2017

Quote:
Originally Posted by johndallman View Post
Something they would be able to learn easily, if they took the trouble, is the number of groves in the rifling. You just need a reasonably intact bullet and a hand lens for that. If that was wrong for an AK, then the bullet wasn't fired from an AK.
Good catch!

Didn't even think of that. This is why asking the forumites is so helpful. Thanks.

Looks like the vast majority of original AK-47/AKM and related rifles come with chrome-lined barrels with four grooves and a twist rate between 1:9.5 to 1:10. I can find twist rates ranging from 1:7.6 to 1:12 or above, with lower twist rate often being intended for accuracy builds, to stabilise heavier bullets. The SKS comes in 1:7 twist rate, as well.

There are some 'match' barrels or other after-market barrels sold with six grooves, so it's not as though six grooves rule out an AK-type rifle, but it does narrow it down from the most common surplus military or economical commercial models.

The SIG MCX LVAW 'Black Mamba' in .300 Blackout comes with a very short 6.75" barrel with six grooves and a twist rate of 1:6 to stabilise the heavy subsonic rounds it can fire.

Any proper forensic investigation in a ballistics lab will tell the difference between the rifling marks, I imagine, even between a hypothetical short barreled AK with an accurized six groove barrel and the Low Visibility Assault Weapon (LVAW).

What I don't quite know is whether a harried homicide detective combing through a crime scene full of 7.62x39mm and 5.56x45mm brass and bullets will notice that some of the 7.62mm bullets have different rifling marks.

Or, perhaps more likely, whether the ME digging two of these out of one of the hypothetical dead bodies is going to notice it.

To clarify, this is not a spoiler for Jade Serenity S2, just a concern in selecting the loadout for the forward security team. No such firefight has taken place. But, in light of the situation, it would be quite naive not to prepare for the possibility of the clandestine mission being compromised and the security team having to extract the principals back to the US.

Are bullet forensics from .300 Blackout a serious security risk or just a slight concern, in the event of kinetic contact and extraction?

Is it worth going with less effective, but sanitised, shortened, folding stock AK carbines instead?

To be clear, those will also be used, as there aren't enough LVAWs in unit stores to equip more than a couple of guys with the ultra-covert, suppressed carbine anyway, but I was wondering if the LVAW could legitimately be used with supersonic loads in a self-defence role or if the forensics made this a very bad idea, one likely to compromise OPSEC down the road.
__________________
Za uspiekh nashevo beznadiozhnovo diela!

Last edited by Icelander; 01-30-2018 at 06:46 PM.
Icelander is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-30-2018, 07:32 PM   #359
acrosome
 
acrosome's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: The Land of Enchantment
Default Re: [Modern Firepower] Technothriller gear for secret DHS team in 2017

I have a Comp-Tac Trojan Horse bag. It looks vaguely like some sort of sports equipment, like a tennis racket or something. I rather like it.
acrosome is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-30-2018, 08:41 PM   #360
Icelander
 
Icelander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Iceland*
Default Re: [Modern Firepower] Technothriller gear for secret DHS team in 2017

Quote:
Originally Posted by acrosome View Post
I have a Comp-Tac Trojan Horse bag. It looks vaguely like some sort of sports equipment, like a tennis racket or something. I rather like it.
The price point is also rather more reasonable than most of the tacti-cool covert deployment bags, guitar cases or operational briefcases.

Let alone the steep cost of buying an actual stylish name brand fashion accessory and custom-modify it with an integral scabbard, holster or claw mount as an off-body, rapid response CCW device for a compact PDW or carbine.

I imagine that any DEVGRU operators, NSW intelligence specialists and Activity/ISA/Task Force Orange/MSA intelligence support personnel not specifically established as geardos or fashion-victims might well transport their longarms to the operational environment in something very like the Comp-Tac Trojan Horse bag.

Or, of course, just the even cheaper actual gym bags, duffel bags or even rucksacks they can buy at the PX or Walmart, though absent some nifty Sewing rolls and the addition of some padding, these will not protect a fancy black rifle with expensive optics very well. They'll probably do for an AK without any frills, though.

That being said, Fast-Draw and Holdout are probably easier from a device specifically designed for concealment and rapid readying (wanting both means a compromise, of course, though one familiar to CCW users). Disguised velcro flap opening allowing easy access to the weapon would reduce Fast-Draw penalties and using an up-to-date, fashionable business case rather than a non-descript gun case looking one, as well as a design and construction that minimises printing and lacks a tell-tale weapon shape ought to be good for a bonus to Holdout or Smuggling.

For specific high-risk bodyguard/security tasks, I can see the proverbial pros from Dov... er, JSOC, having a few covert operational cases/bags for MP7A1 PDWs or any spiffy new LVAW carbines they might have access to.

And PCs are certainly the kind to pay extra (especially if it's not their money, witness Agent Rubio borrowing a hard-to-get, expensive weapon) for a +1 bonus or a slightly reduced penalty. Lots of high Holdout skills in the group, some decent to exceptional Smuggling as well.
__________________
Za uspiekh nashevo beznadiozhnovo diela!

Last edited by Icelander; 01-30-2018 at 09:31 PM.
Icelander is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
federal agencies, hans-christian vortisch, high-tech, jade serenity, modern firepower, special ops

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Fnords are Off
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 04:28 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.