Silent Ammunition Questions

[HANS]

Originally Posted by Kax

There are such weapons, one based on a M16 and another based on a 7.62 base (can't remember the base firearm).

No. These don't fire silent ammunition. They fire subsonic ammunition. Big difference.

Originally Posted by Kax

This gives you a semi-auto counter-sniper weapon where the most noise it makes on firing it is the click of the striker hitting the pin.

And this is usually still surprisingly loud. You can try that out yourself by dry-firing any gun at home. Also, the impact can also be remarkably loud.

Originally Posted by Kax

The Whisper 7.62 has a useful range (ie., assured-kill range--this would be 1/2 damage range) of about 3/4 mile, the Whisper 0.50 has a useful range of about a mile.

Anything that claims to have an "assured-kill range" should be taken with an entire shaker of salt. And no, Jane's Infantry Weapons isn't reliable in this regard . . .

Cheers

HANS

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by HANS

Anything that claims to have an "assured-kill range" should be taken with an entire shaker of salt.

Of course, the error might be translating 'useful range' as 'assured-kill range', since that might mean just about anything (it's probably the range at which it can reasonably hit a human-sized target).

[RyanW]

Originally Posted by Kallatari

I'm curious as to what weapons can use Silent Ammunition (GURPS High-Tech, p.165). More specifically, my players are looking for options for Silent Ammunition for weapons like the M16 and MP7.

The immediate problem I see with those is that silent ammunition traps the gas. You know what makes the M16 and MP7 cycle?

[Kallatari]

Originally Posted by Kromm

I run a secret-agents campaign with many of the same needs. Played by the rules – and that's how I roll when it comes to the tactical stuff in my game – sound-suppressed firearms simply aren't quiet enough to prevent the initial targets from alerting backup, if only by dying loudly. Most are audible to any half-competent guards, especially if they have surveillance electronics. Thus, the PCs have had to find alternative solutions.

The PCs should conduct extensive surveillance and intelligence-gathering first. As much as possible, they must strive to learn how many baddies there are, where they are, where they're keeping the objective (hostages, easily-deleted computer records, or whatever), and what gear they have. They require maps or floor plans of the area. They need schematics of any security systems. They should learn their rivals' habits, language of communication, and duty roster. Ideally, they want to nab passwords and responses, too. This calls for skills like Body Language, Cartography, Electronics Operation (Surveillance), Lip Reading, Observation, Photography, and Research, followed by Intelligence Analysis.

If the situation doesn't look like a fortress or a prison – that is, the baddies admit important associates, send people out for things, order things in, perhaps even receive visits from family, friends, hookers, or whatever – then the PCs should consider using social means to infiltrate. This won't necessarily achieve the objective in itself, but it can gather further, useful intelligence. It can sometimes get an ally inside, in a position to protect the objective, before the real raid hits. Real hotshots can even convince the enemy that they work for the same boss or cause, and arrange for the objective to be moved (vehicles are far easier to hit) or handed over! This calls for decent Acting, Fast-Talk and other Influence skills, often various Cultural Familiarities and Languages, and sometimes Disguise.

Where social means are limited or out of the question, forcing the baddies out in a way that doesn't like like an attack is useful. Sometimes a simple fire alarm will do. A real fire, in a building or a wooded area, can work. This can get quite exotic . . . the PCs in my campaign once infected people with a nonlethal intestinal virus! The key thing is to get the enemy to leave willingly without thinking it's an attack. Skills depend on the kind of ruse, but this might be anything from Electronics Repair of various kinds to tamper with alarms, through Explosives for arson, to Bioengineering for that virus. In some cases, a faux news broadcast using Performance and Propaganda, and very likely Electronics Operation (Communications and/or Media), can turn up the heat enough that the opposition decides to relocate.

If some of these tricks work, then the enemies may go on the move. This is an ideal time to hit them. Watch the doors and watch their vehicles. Once they're in the open, stealth is less relevant. Just be sure to take out the baddies nearest the objective first. If the opposition is merely moving to avoid real trouble, the "guards" on the objective are unlikely to be one Wait maneuver away from a failed mission. More likely, they'll be trying to hustle the package as quickly as possible. Taking them out with ordinary, unsilenced rifles can do the job just fine . . . Someone with Leadership and/or Tactics can be useful to coordinate the hit, and Absolute Timing is awesome.

Should tricks not work, then the PCs who go in should be athletic, stealthy, and technically proficient enough to enter the target area over rooftops, via service tunnels or vents, through top-story windows, etc. in order to gain access to the objective before interacting with the enemy. Then they should exfiltrate with the package, avoiding sentries where possible, hitting them from behind where unavoidable, and counting on the opposition's natural reaction to be outward-directed initially. This usually requires impressive levels of Climbing and Stealth, along with night camo, padded climbing gear, sticky-soled shoes, etc.; high levels of skills like Electronics Operation (Security), Electronics Repair (Security), Lockpicking, and Traps, along with tools and ideally schematics; and totally avoiding Forced Entry, explosives, and any interaction, however silent, with sentries.

In practice, the actual plan usually ends up using a variety of methods. For instance, bad guys who aren't susceptible to social engineering can still have, say, rivals whom they wouldn't regard as a threat worthy of shooting their hostages – maybe other terrorists, or the crime lord they stole their weapons from, or even a splinter faction. If the PCs walk the walk and talk the talk, the opposition may decide to lock up the objective and then fight them. Likewise, even if the whole team can't sneak in, a single inflitrator could get away with it, and get near enough to the objective to protect it when the raid hits. My PCs are the sorts who would have that person go in with squibs and blood capsules, doll a hostage up as dead, doll himself up as dead, and give the baddies the impression that one of their own shot the hostages and infiltrator already . . . but that's baroque.

Yeah, when my players are on what I call the "offensive" (i.e., they've been assigned to go after bad guys who aren't expecting them specifically), they take ideas along what you've provided as example, although they're not fully trained in the social engineering-type skills yet. They're for now mostly direct-action military, and are only now taking "spy" (social engineering) lessons with the CIA and MI6. This is a bit of a legacy of the campaign origin: I started this campaign specifically to playtest Tactical Shooting, and my players liked it so much we just kept playing, thus the more military than spy focus in current character skills and missions. Now I get to add the stuff from Social Engineering, so that timing of product release works out great for me ;)

That said, I haven't thought of all the examples you've given as options to use (nor have my players). I'll try to steer them to some of those ideas sometime. Thanks for those! They have used rivals, however, and solved one elimination mission by getting a rival drug gang to take out their targets.

A house rule I do use is the "clues," taking a variation from the Action and Monster Hunter, so gathering info is an important part of my game (and becoming more so as they get more "offensive" missions in enemy lands). In my games, however, rather than using a BAD and ACT and clues giving an automatic change of bonus, after the PC have made their infiltration plan and are ready to play the action, I boil it down to the contest of Tactics between the leaders of both sides to determine how they planned their defenses and methods of entry, with either side getting a +1 per "clue" they obtained relevant to the situation (enemy numbers, blueprints of area, motivations of opponent, radio frequencies, etc.). The PC get +1 for every 2 points of margin of victory, or -1 per 2 points of margin of defeat, to relevant "infiltration action skills" such as Stealth, Camouflage, Electronics Operation (Security), Lockpicking, Observation, Forced Entry, etc., representing picking the best (or worse) possible way to do so.. which of course just means everything they do is just "part of the plan."

This request for the silent guns is for when they're what I call "on the defensive" missions. It's not a bad guy base or infiltration, and there is no real time to gather "clues" through social engineering. It's when the bad guys have gone on the offensive in their countries, screwed up and got noticed, and have to be stopped. There's often not much time to plan because if they take too long, the bad guys complete their mission and get away. It often - but admittedly not always - tends to force a violent confrontation because the bad guys want to get away and don't want to surrender to a foreign government. It's in situations like this that the bad guys wind up taking convenient random people hostage. The players want the "perfect silent sentry elimination" method because there's typically no bad guy security to foil; just their first line of defense, then the back line (usually with the hostages).

I still use my Tactics contest to provide a modifier for these situations (PC often get a few free "clues" from having exact blueprints in this situation since it's their home ground), and there are sometimes back ways in and whatnot, so their Stealth and other security infiltration skills and such come in handy for that. They don't necessarily need the silent guns for these missions, but I can certainly see it as being handy. But every now and then I intentionally make their lives very difficult by having really complicated scenarios (e.g., "their leaders and the hostages have fallen back into the bank vault, with a few extra thugs guarding the entrance to the room with the vault."). I've had two such difficult missions (out of 23 over a year and a half of playing), but it seems to have been enough for my PC to start looking for "silent weapons."

Why do I create such scenarios? Because I occasionally want the PC to lose or have a no-win mission (and by this, "win" means saving all the hostages) just for roleplaying dramatic tension with a failed mission meaning dead hostages rather than PC deaths or the "end of the world." But it doesn't stop my players for trying to find ways to win. I posted here just to see what I could find for them.

[Kromm]

Originally Posted by Kallatari

They're for now mostly direct-action military, and are only now taking "spy" (social engineering) lessons with the CIA and MI6.

Typically, people in such shooting roles act after the spies have tackled intelligence-gathering and dirty tricks. It might be an idea to have their CIA or MI6 support hand them a complete intel work-up . . . or even hand them a transceiver and inform them that they have an armed infiltrator inside, listening on the other end. The secret agents in my campaign have to be technical support, intelligence analysts, dirty-tricks department, and shooters all in one because they operate autonomously and without official sanction. That isn't normal, or even a good idea – indeed, a major campaign theme is discovering how bad an idea that can be.

Originally Posted by Kallatari

I boil it down to the contest of Tactics between the leaders of both sides to determine how they planned their defenses and methods of entry

I do something very similar, actually. Meticulous intelligence-gathering gives Tactics bonuses, and winning at the Quick Contest of Tactics gives bonuses – possibly large ones – to Camouflage, Stealth, etc. vs. enemy Vision or Observation. I tend to keep these bonuses away from technical skills, which I prefer to be influenced mostly by technical concerns (tool quality vs. quality of whatever is being defeated).

Originally Posted by Kallatari

It's not a bad guy base or infiltration [...] there's typically no bad guy security to foil; just their first line of defense, then the back line (usually with the hostages).

Note that some of the elements here are essentially incompatible in reality, though. Concepts like lines of defense and securely held hostages go along with a fairly static defense of a moderately defensible position. If the bad guys screwed up and are on the move, and have merely grabbed hostages of convenience to discourage pursuit, it's very unlikely that they'll have multiple lines, sentries, etc. Also, they'll want the hostages front and center to discourage the good guys' shooters, not hidden in the back where the good guys' command may decide "We can't see them, so they're probably dead already . . . move in!" If your players are anything like mine, they might call you out on a strange situation like that one.

Originally Posted by Kallatari

The players want the "perfect silent sentry elimination" method

I don't think that anybody has really improved on the knife yet. Ranged weapons are less-than-ideal by virtue of putting the killer too far away to catch the falling body, cover the mouth, or simply check the area nearby before striking. Bullets hit loudly (especially when they pop skulls or pierce armor), and overpenetrations and misses are dead giveaways. Silencing the weapon is often the least of your worries. Knives let you restrain the target to prevent gasping, noisy falling, etc. – and there are lethal entry points that aren't as noisy as the throat.

The players in my campaign basically ignore Melee Weapon skills except for Knife, and even the lousy computer geek has Stealth-14, while those on the sharp end of the stick have Stealth at 15-18. This is why.

Originally Posted by Kallatari

But every now and then I intentionally make their lives very difficult by having really complicated scenarios (e.g., "their leaders and the hostages have fallen back into the bank vault, with a few extra thugs guarding the entrance to the room with the vault.").

If the complication is intentional, then cool!

That said, the situation you described isn't really one where sentry removal will matter much. Most of the bad guys are in a strongpoint with all their guns pointed out the one funnel. They'll almost certainly maintain visual contact with their sentries, because the sentries only really have to watch the one approach . . . Also, the bad guys have effectively cornered themselves. Sooner or later, they'll have to come out, and a smart commander will wait for that moment to strike, not try to sneak into, cut through, or assault a vault with one entrance and DR 400-800 walls.

Originally Posted by Kallatari

Why do I create such scenarios? Because I occasionally want the PC to lose or have a no-win mission (and by this, "win" means saving all the hostages) just for roleplaying dramatic tension with a failed mission meaning dead hostages rather than PC deaths or the "end of the world."

Yeah, I think the occasional failure is necessary in this sort of campaign. I don't use hostages much, because the PCs' enemies know that they're not the instrument of a government and don't have to worry about the evening news. But sometimes friendly NPCs on the squad have been grabbed or cornered. Two such NPCs have died to make this kind of point.

[Jerron]

I think the point has been amply made, you would need a complete rebuild, at least.

Why not make a whole new gun? Air guns have been metioned. Fit it with a piston firing system, slow air bleed off, and it's completely silent. You don't need to load anyhting but a projectile, it can be caseless. Basically, you're talking about a lethal paintball gun, which can fire at tremendous rates. This one, however, would need to bleed the air off slowly from some sort of accumulator tank, so the rate of fire would be horridly slow- call it a semi-auto, that'd probably be slow enough.

The velocity would need to be around 1,000 feet per second, max, though, to keep it subsonic. This is why all the current stuff you're mentioning is pistols. That velocity is going to get you pistol performance, even with a longer barrel or bigger projectile. The only thing you could do is increase the size of the projectile for more energy, and then it would lose that energy faster the further downrange it went. It would have a completely horrible ballistic curve, but this is still faster than a .45 ACP, and not much slower than a .30-30 deer rifle, so you should be able to get something lethal that fills your bill.

And after all the research and development, it should come awful close to performing about the same as that crossbow. That's why no one bother with it.

[Ulzgoroth]

Originally Posted by Jerron

Why not make a whole new gun? Air guns have been metioned. Fit it with a piston firing system, slow air bleed off, and it's completely silent. You don't need to load anyhting but a projectile, it can be caseless. Basically, you're talking about a lethal paintball gun, which can fire at tremendous rates. This one, however, would need to bleed the air off slowly from some sort of accumulator tank, so the rate of fire would be horridly slow- call it a semi-auto, that'd probably be slow enough.

If you think you need to fire silent ammo at more than 180 rounds per minute, you're probably doing something wrong.

Originally Posted by Jerron

The velocity would need to be around 1,000 feet per second, max, though, to keep it subsonic. This is why all the current stuff you're mentioning is pistols. That velocity is going to get you pistol performance, even with a longer barrel or bigger projectile. The only thing you could do is increase the size of the projectile for more energy, and then it would lose that energy faster the further downrange it went. It would have a completely horrible ballistic curve, but this is still faster than a .45 ACP, and not much slower than a .30-30 deer rifle, so you should be able to get something lethal that fills your bill.

A bigger projectile bleeds energy faster, but it generally picks up mass faster than cross section so it still carries energy farther.

Granted you've also probably got a problem if your stealth gun starts resembling a light cannon...

[Kallatari]

Originally Posted by Kromm

Typically, people in such shooting roles act after the spies have tackled intelligence-gathering and dirty tricks. It might be an idea to have their CIA or MI6 support hand them a complete intel work-up . . . or even hand them a transceiver and inform them that they have an armed infiltrator inside, listening on the other end. The secret agents in my campaign have to be technical support, intelligence analysts, dirty-tricks department, and shooters all in one because they operate autonomously and without official sanction. That isn't normal, or even a good idea – indeed, a major campaign theme is discovering how bad an idea that can be.

I do have Intel provide them info, typically who the bad guys are and their likely amount of training and equipment, often maps of areas, and sometimes of key buildings, and once even the name of a contact on the inside (an informant among the bad guys). And I've had Intel screw up and provide them with a completely inaccurate building map once; was fun to watch my players scramble to resolve that problem real quickly in the heat of action when their intended escape route didn't exist. Generally, my Intel NPC has an Intelligence Analysis skill which I just make a single flat roll against to determine how much info he can provide the players in advance. Anything missing, the PC have to then gather in the field.

The reason they're training on such skills now is they know there's an upcoming mission in the near future that will put them behind enemy lines for an extended period of time (several months) and they'll likely be cut off from most of their support and have to work on their own for a bit... so best to have some skills at doing that oneself just in case.

Originally Posted by Kromm

That said, the situation you described isn't really one where sentry removal will matter much. Most of the bad guys are in a strongpoint with all their guns pointed out the one funnel. They'll almost certainly maintain visual contact with their sentries, because the sentries only really have to watch the one approach . . . Also, the bad guys have effectively cornered themselves. Sooner or later, they'll have to come out, and a smart commander will wait for that moment to strike, not try to sneak into, cut through, or assault a vault with one entrance and DR 400-800 walls.

Yeah. They wait when they can, and do their best to stall as well, hoping fatigue and hunger - or just panic - will start to affect the bad guys, which it does when their opponent's are just mooks. But sometimes it's "give us X or we kill the hostages one per hour" (from the not too smart bad guys who don't realize this is a sure way to invite deadly retaliation) which translates for the players to a "alright, we got to move within the hour, preferably just before they shoot a hostage" if they can't stall things. Interestingly enough, the smarter and more skilled opponents are also the more likely to try and negotiate more, or at least make more plausible demands.

As to the sneak into the shooting funnel, yeah, I personally didn't see many options. That was intentional. I think my players are just looking for a few seconds delay; to get in 3 or 4 seconds worth of shooting, as silently as possible, before the opponents react to falling bodies. It's not much of an edge, but it's still and edge in these impossible situations. Guess they'll just have to rely on the standard smoke, darkness (and NVGs), and hope the first instinct of the bad guys won't be to shoot the hostages first (and lucky for them, typically it isn't).

Originally Posted by Kromm

Yeah, I think the occasional failure is necessary in this sort of campaign. I don't use hostages much, because the PCs' enemies know that they're not the instrument of a government and don't have to worry about the evening news. But sometimes friendly NPCs on the squad have been grabbed or cornered. Two such NPCs have died to make this kind of point.

Hehe. Evening news is fun for me. One screw up temporarily cost them their funding from the US Government, until they managed to capture the mole within the US government who had tipped off the bad guys.

And one PC had an uncomfortable time when he was under investigation and interrogated by authorities when recovered footage of the incident showed him "killing a hostile who surrendered." The PC was miserable but that player really enjoyed it, so that was good (not all of my players would have taken that in stride).

[Kax]

Originally Posted by HANS

No. These don't fire silent ammunition. They fire subsonic ammunition. Big difference.

The only difference is how much noise there is from the gas, and these are effectively silent gas-wise.

And this is usually still surprisingly loud. You can try that out yourself by dry-firing any gun at home. Also, the impact can also be remarkably loud.

The striker noise on an M16 is not too bad--the big thing is that it doesn't sound like a gun, so it can get away with a little volume.

Anything that claims to have an "assured-kill range" should be taken with an entire shaker of salt. And no, Jane's Infantry Weapons isn't reliable in this regard . . .

Cheers

HANS

I was deriving the "assured kill range" from the point at which it retained enough Joules to kill on a central torso shot. Janes doesn't call it that, the magazine does; I used Janes for the ballistic info.

[Kax]

Originally Posted by Kax

The only difference is how much noise there is from the gas, and these are effectively silent gas-wise.

The easy way, of course, is an electromag subsonic gun firing rounds the length and diameter of a marker pen cap. :)

10mm EM rounds out of a ultra-short barrel (set to very low power) can do the job.

In 3e I built, for a TL10 special agent game, such a pistol. 10mm EM, 10 rounds, electronic sight and a gun computer--the whole pistol could be hidden by an open hand, and did 3d+ cr damage on subsonic and 6d+ cr at full power when noise isn't an issue. For some reason, one of the players got huffy when I wouldn't let him buy APFSDSDU rounds for it. :)


The hard bit comes when you have to use chem propulsion instead.