Firefight ranges...

[Cdnwolf]

http://donaldmsensing.blogspot.ca/2003/06/infantry-rifle-combat-distances.html?m=1

"Almost all interviewed stated all firefight engagements conducted with small arms (5.56mm guns) occurred in the twenty to thirty (20-30) meter range. Shots over 100m were rare. The maximum range was less than 300m. Of those interviewed, most sniper shots were taken at distances well under 300m, only one greater than 300m (608m during the day). After talking to the leadership from various sniper platoons and individuals, there was not enough confidence in the optical gear (Simrad or AN/PVS-10) to take a night shot under the given conditions at ranges over 300m. Most Marines agreed they would “push” a max range of 200 m.


YET...

Long-range Afghan firefights prompt US Army rethink of reliance on workhorse M-4 rifle

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2010/05/21/long-range-afghan-firefights-prompt-army-rethink-reliance-workhorse-m-rifle/

[Cdnwolf]

http://donaldmsensing.blogspot.ca/2003/06/infantry-rifle-combat-distances.html?m=1

"Almost all interviewed stated all firefight engagements conducted with small arms (5.56mm guns) occurred in the twenty to thirty (20-30) meter range. Shots over 100m were rare. The maximum range was less than 300m. Of those interviewed, most sniper shots were taken at distances well under 300m, only one greater than 300m (608m during the day). After talking to the leadership from various sniper platoons and individuals, there was not enough confidence in the optical gear (Simrad or AN/PVS-10) to take a night shot under the given conditions at ranges over 300m. Most Marines agreed they would “push” a max range of 200 m.


YET...

Long-range Afghan firefights prompt US Army rethink of reliance on workhorse M-4 rifle

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2010/05/21/long-range-afghan-firefights-prompt-army-rethink-reliance-workhorse-m-rifle/

So the question to be asked is what range would you say most typical firefights in Twl2000 be best at.

[Tegyrius]

A couple of things jump out at me here.

First, the blog post cites AR15.com as a source. That's a red flag for me. In my experience, Arfcom has a highly unfavorable signal-to-noise ratio.

Second, the document cited in the Arfcom post seems to focus on Marine engagements in Iraq. I suspect (have not read the whole thing because of the complete bleeding lack of paragraph breaks) that this deals mainly with urban engagements. The Army concern, by comparison, are drawn from combat in Afghanistan. Of course you're going to see shorter engagement ranges in urban centers than in the Hindu Kush.

Finally, I suspect most roleplaying game gunfights are closer in nature to police shootings than military engagements. This is because combat in RPGs often breaks out as a result of failed negotiations or investigations, which by necessity occur at conversational distance. T2k is sometimes (but not always) an exception because of its military simulation functions.

- C.

[B.T.]

(...)
Finally, I suspect most roleplaying game gunfights are closer in nature to police shootings than military engagements. This is because combat in RPGs often breaks out as a result of failed negotiations or investigations, which by necessity occur at conversational distance. T2k is sometimes (but not always) an exception because of its military simulation functions.


Tegyrius' point reflects my experience as GM.
Whenever my players can influence a combat, they usually start shooting, when the enemy is in short range. Most of the PCs are armed with M16A2 with a short range of 55m. So they (stealthily) approach the enemy up to that range, or let the enemy's footwalkers get up to that "magic" distance. Shooting at vehicles is another issue – depends on circumstance. When the PCs are armed with MGs and battle rifles, they use the short range of the rifle with the shortest short range (Sounds odd, hope you know what I mean :rolleyes:).

I think, in that respect T2k is a game and far from reality in some cases.

[Cdnwolf]

Basically what I am trying to get at is if I am doing up a map for roll20.net would 500m by 500m be feasible for an encounter? Still trying to work out how to handle long distance movement on that system.

[unkated]

500m x 500 m is probably good for most encounters. This will include a several city blocks, a small village, or a large area of country side.

For movement, you could do double or triple movement at first to close. I don't know if you have something that handles line of sight ranges, so that characters can select double or triple moves and then stop if and when they come to (or enter) visual range of ... something new. Like a vehicle or person or campfire or...

Once upon a time, when I ran naval miniatures (Harpoon), the rules suggested running at a longer scale until two tracks ran into sighting range, then backtrack and play it out from the point of contact. I usually ran the two sides into proximity before they ran together and then inched them into contact to avoid backtracking. Usually, I started by having the side provide general operating orders (until contact); for example "move at 85 degrees at 15 kn."

In your case, it could be something like "walk into town paralleling the road about 20m south.

Uncle Ted

[kcdusk]

In T2K if a party is known to be hostile, my group takes shots at the longest medium range (say 110m). This is because if the group shoots at short range (say 55m or less) then by the next turn the enemy (normally in greater numbers) can run 30m and almost be "on top of" the group, and swarm them.

So my group fires earlier to get a couple of rounds of firing into the enemy in case they try to close.

[Targan]

In T2K if a party is known to be hostile, my group takes shots at the longest medium range (say 110m). This is because if the group shoots at short range (say 55m or less) then by the next turn the enemy (normally in greater numbers) can run 30m and almost be "on top of" the group, and swarm them.

So my group fires earlier to get a couple of rounds of firing into the enemy in case they try to close.

So a normal encounter in your games involves highly disciplined/fanatical enemies that are prepared to charge into the PC's fire rather than find cover and return fire? Hard core.

[kcdusk]

haha, umm, i think the enemy is normally fanatical rather than hard core! They want to close to use their clubs/bayonets/rocks!

[jester]

Who is Donald Sensing?

As for the Fox article, it mentioned the use of the Brown Bess in the 1840s? huh? So the fact checkers failed, the article is now questionable?

The article focused on US ranges for Western Europe or the urban areas of Iraq with some brief mention of A-stan.

I would like to see a discussion on the following:

1.) The doctrine of the units? Roll in in armor, troops dismount and assault at close range? Thus the M4s or Ivans AKs which almost all have folding stocks these days? Which was Ivans Doctrine from post WWII into the 90s and is the US doctrine. Remember, equipment does reflect the intended use according to doctrine.

2.) Mission at the time of the close engagements? Iraq, capturing the urban centers? Urban means close combat so of course.

3.) Patrols in the towns and villages to show a presence? Again you are now in the close quarters where if something happens it is up close and personal.

4.) WWII history in Western Europe? Close fields, wooded areas, towns and villages? Again, yep terrain dictates close range.....and what was the Armys doctrine on marksmanship? Troops will do as they are trained, 300 or 200m is the range they train at, that is what they are going to engage or less. So the bar is lowered.

I would like to see similar data for Germans vs. Russian on the Eastern Front. Will the data be similar to the German vs. American data?

Another doctrine issue that was mentioned, "RULES OF ENGAGEMENT." If the troops are not allowed to fire until fired upon, or have a full on positive ID of the target, not allowed to use supporting arms then yes the ranges will decrease.

And of course ENEMY DOCTRINE.

Lee vs. Grant, as Lee was highly mobile, Grant would as he put it, "Grab him by the belt buckle and not let go." Only then did the Confederates really start to loose.

Giap; Countering the Wests firepower, first the French and later the American, the NVA would close to such a distance that supporting fire can not be used safely.

The N. Koreans and Chinese also did this in Korea.

And in some cases, this is what has happened in the Middle East conflicts. It reduces the ability to use supporting arms and forces the PBI to go in and get close up and personal. Thus reduced ranges.

[bobcat]

in modern warfare you pretty much have to get inside the artillery shield of the enemy or you'r not in a gunfight, you're being shelled. this holds true in any theater with one exception. if your enemy cares little for the lives of their troops even at gun fighting range you're still being shelled.

[rcaf_777]

Going off my experince as a infantry grunt 440 yd was the max effective range of lone rifleman, and infantry section has effective range out to 600 yd.

However looking at man shape target on the range with iron sights. You be hard press to make a lot of details at 600 yds, not saying you could'nt hit it but you have some diffcultly.

I was taught the goal of engaging target that far was engage them with effective fire, which bullets at them that make them duck and hide maybe you get lucky at hit someone.

When I learned shooting at basic, the shooting was done at ranges from 2OO to 100 yards which the instructors said where ideal engagments in which you had a good chance of hitting a man in his center of mass and taking him down. Durring MOUNT(Urban Ops) training engagments where at ranges less than 100 yards

My Two Cents

[Cdnwolf]

Going off my experince as a infantry grunt 440 yd was the max effective range of lone rifleman, and infantry section has effective range out to 600 yd.

However looking at man shape target on the range with iron sights. You be hard press to make a lot of details at 600 yds, not saying you could'nt hit it but you have some diffcultly.

I was taught the goal of engaging target that far was engage them with effective fire, which bullets at them that make them duck and hide maybe you get lucky at hit someone.

When I learned shooting at basic, the shooting was done at ranges from 2OO to 100 yards which the instructors said where ideal engagments in which you had a good chance of hitting a man in his center of mass and taking him down. Durring MOUNT(Urban Ops) training engagments where at ranges less than 100 yards

My Two Cents

Thanks.... that was my general concensus.... about 200 max unless they are stupid and walking in an open field.

[jester]

TARGETS IN THE OPEN! 5 round HE, 5 rounds WP, charge 2!

The words echo in my ears after all these years!

[pmulcahy11b]

TARGETS IN THE OPEN! 5 round HE, 5 rounds WP, charge 2!

The words echo in my ears after all these years!

By the time I went to war (Desert Storm), I had changed from 11C to 11B, so I,ve never fired a mortar in battle.

I imagine it would be hard to square up your bubbles with all that adrenalin pumping!

[jester]

Nope, ya lay in your gun before hand and wait for the data and order to fire. Then a small deflection change and there ya go.

[copeab]

I've always wanted to run an encounter combining a mortar, a minefield and a sniper.

[Adm.Lee]

I've always wanted to run an encounter combining a mortar, a minefield and a sniper.

I've not done all 3, but I have done mortar+sniper and sniper + minefield, I think. I recall the players not being worried about the mortar when the first two shots missed, but when I started rolling lots of dice for fragments, they started to take cover!

[jester]

Minefield is awesome! It channels....the sniper needs a direct line of sight though.

How about a mortar team who are sniping. A spotter locates and plots targets by day. The mortar crew comes in after dark and fires a salvo at select targets, taking time to aim in and make sure the bubbles are really level and centered and they are doing it from behind a hill or some other obstacle.

[.45cultist]

Thanks.... that was my general concensus.... about 200 max unless they are stupid and walking in an open field.

At 450M a man sized target is obscured by the front sight post of the M16 series rifles. My uncle told me this since he used more than a 25M range. My time was spent on 25M ranges at all my bases with reduced size targets simulating 100-250M.

[rcaf_777]

How about a mortar team who are sniping. A spotter locates and plots targets by day. The mortar crew comes in after dark and fires a salvo at select targets, taking time to aim in and make sure the bubbles are really level and centered and they are doing it from behind a hill or some other obstacle.

A spotter dresed is civilans clothes might be able to do a good spoting job and might be able to get some a good distance by pacing if he not detected.

[swaghauler]

My players must make a DIFFICULT Observation check (AVERAGE with Binoculars, EASY with a Rangefinder) if they want to know the range. This has led to some interesting ranged battles in game.

[Askold]

How commonly do your players fight enemies with artillery and/or air support?

Considering that artillery is much less common (and air power almost non-existent) in TW unless the PCs are fighting against remnants of military having rifles with some long range accuracy becomes more valuable. Getting close to the enemies has advantages, like throwing a few grenades (IF you don't need to save them up for later...) or making those sniper rifles useless as the assault rifles and SMGs are much more efficient in short range firefights.

Then again if you start the firefight from long range the opponents are likely to fall back and regroup (which might be good if you simply want to avoid battles and plan to be somewhere else before they dare show up again or bad if you had plans to loot their equipment or need to worry about further attacks since they might be back.)

[swaghauler]

How commonly do your players fight enemies with artillery and/or air support?

Considering that artillery is much less common (and air power almost non-existent) in TW unless the PCs are fighting against remnants of military having rifles with some long range accuracy becomes more valuable. Getting close to the enemies has advantages, like throwing a few grenades (IF you don't need to save them up for later...) or making those sniper rifles useless as the assault rifles and SMGs are much more efficient in short range firefights.

Then again if you start the firefight from long range the opponents are likely to fall back and regroup (which might be good if you simply want to avoid battles and plan to be somewhere else before they dare show up again or bad if you had plans to loot their equipment or need to worry about further attacks since they might be back.)

In my current game, this does happen. I am running a Merc style campaign in Africa. When they call for support I roll 2D10. My support options look like this.

2. Ground Attack turboprop with rockets and guns available.
3. Helo with rockets and guns available.
4. 155mm Howitzer.
5-6. 105mm Howitzer or 122mm Rockets.
7-8. 120mm Mortars.
9-10. 81mm or 60mm Mortars.
11+ No Support available.

I roll 1D5 +5 for the number of rounds available on the call for support.

[jester]

In a past game, I lost more players to militia armed with Mosin/Nagants than AK fire from regular troops. Using its longer range and of course the higher hit dice to devastating effect.

[kcdusk]

Rough figures are OK ...

how many times has a "sniper" been eliminated/captured by a PC group?

[swaghauler]

Rough figures are OK ...

how many times has a "sniper" been eliminated/captured by a PC group?

Twice in my game. Once in my new Merc campaign and once in my old Twilight campaign in Poland. There have only been three times that they encountered a sniper who attacked. The third one escaped into the African jungle. There were others (in Poland) who could have attacked the players; But I had them slip away to warn the rest of their group instead. Knowledge is power, and advanced warning of danger trumps all other actions in my world.

[stormlion1]

Mid 90's we trained at 300 meters, and 100 meters. Then we were told we would rarely get lucky with those 300 meters because those were the lucky shots due to terrain, movement, and cover and concealment. Focus on the ones between 300 and 100. At 100 meters we were expected to have center of mass all the time. We practiced that heavily. At less than 100 meters we were told to prepare for hand to hand unless we were sure they would break. Those instructors worked us to the bone on that.

[Cdnwolf]

http://forum.juhlin.com/showthread.php?t=4167

This post gives you a visual look at what 100 metres looks like.

[Webstral]

The Soviets in Afghanistan preferred to engage at ranges longer than 300m specifically to avoid exposing themselves to small arms fire from the Mujahedeen. The Soviets would use crew served weapons to keep the enemy at arm’s length whenever possible. Obviously, this was not always possible.

A study was done after WW2 to discover the ranges at which American riflemen were actually engaging the enemy. To that point, the US Army was enamored with the idea of the universal Sgt York knocking down targets out to the maximum effective range of the rifle. The study revealed that American troops were holding their fire until the enemy was within 100m. Among other factors, this had a significant role in the adoption of the M16.

The points about how firefights start in Twilight are very interesting. I haven’t played in years and years, but the observations about firefights starting when negotiations break down rings true to me. Also, the ambush start rings true. My players, back in the day, learned the value of the close ambush early on. So it seems to me that others have uncovered the truth already. The majority of firefights would occur at point blank to short ranges, I think.

[stormlion1]

At longer ranges its harder to hit, simple as that. So troops deliberately wait for closer ranges because they can be assured of more hits. And by and large most troops don't have fancy scopes. They have to make do with iron sights.

[Olefin]

Really the range depends what you have for weapons

If you have sniper rifles then a good long range gun fight actually gives you a shot at getting some hits -but saw how hard it is even with a great rifle and good skill numbers - most recent fight we were in out of the first eight shots only two scored.

If you elect a combat shotgun and pistol then you better get in close or you have no chance at all.

[jester]

Close ambushes, yep, the closer the better, with some rules changes if its a "mechanical" using claymores. Those danger zones to the sides and back you know.

I would also point out the doctrine of the forces.

The Germans in WWII the MG was what the squad was all about and everyone supported the MG.

US, the rifleman is the key and MGs are a support weapon. I have honestly forgotten the soviet doctrine, never thought I would but I have.

Add to it, the weapons, SMGs in WWII were common with a max effective range of under 100m. And most of the time the Squad leader would have the SMGs, the man controlling the unit usualy initiates fire.

Just like Old Soviet doctrine, AKMS's and APCs to storm in and attack fast with overwhelming numbers, range wasn't a factor.

And the US now adopted a similar view with its modern "mech" tactics of Bradleys and now Strykers and M4s.

The vehicles get you in close then the troops dismount.

In a rush so down and dirty,

ASSETS of time and material.

How long does it take to train troops to shoot and engage at longer distances? More ammo, and more time. The cost benefit, is it worth it?

As I said before, doctrine and equipment imho have helped cause the reduced firefight range and training for it.

Lets remember, one of the rules of a gunfight is distance is your friend.

[kcdusk]

Something I've often overlooked is PCs/NPC's being able to spot the enemy at long distance.

Can a group spot a group at 800m+?
Can they determine friend/foe at that range?

Likely not, hence the shorter distances.

[ArmySGT.]

At longer ranges its harder to hit, simple as that. So troops deliberately wait for closer ranges because they can be assured of more hits. And by and large most troops don't have fancy scopes. They have to make do with iron sights.

It also scared the bejeezus out of opposing forces in Iraq in 03; when you are coming at them full speed to close the distance. Whether that was a dog trot in full gear or a fast dash in a humvee. Units greater in size then us would break contact and haul ass.

The second reason for closing the gap was to limit indirect fires. Neither side wants to call arty/mortars down on friendlies. In 03, the advantage was to Coalition forces with more accurate fire at close range to friendly forces. GPS positioning of the requester and the tube makes a huge difference. Coalition forces were always able to call accurate fire, then the FO and the tube could displace rapidly making counter battery less effective. Even units on the ground could shift positions fast under indirect fire, with GPS and Blue Force tracker, units were baiting indirect fires to reveal enemy tubes to coalition counter battery or CAS.

[Apache6]

A basic tactical task is to assess both your weapons and your enemies and to use terrain to maximize the effectiveness of your weapons while minimizing the effectiveness of the enemies.

If you are equipped with M16s and your enemies are armed with Ak-47s/AKMs, then you are then you want to engage with surprise at ~ 200 - 400 meters. Ideally you want to engage from well covered and concealed positions while they are crossing a exposed piece of terrain and have an obstacle (barbed wire fence...) between you and them. Combined arms is always a good idea and US squads are built to allow them to apply effective combined arms at this range, once we open up with well aimed small arms fire from M16s, and burst of automatic fire from M249s, the grenadier lofts HE rounds to destroy clusters of enemies who have hit the deck due to the small arms fire or who take cover in depressions or behind other cover.

Conversely if they have BMP-2s and T-72s and you only have AT-4 rockets, 40mm HEDP rounds, molotov cocktails and cojones of brass, you want to engage them inside of 200m, the closer the better since AFV, espescially Soviet AFVs cannot depress their weapons to aim at the ground immedietly under them creating a deadspace that can be exploited by brave defenders. You also need to be aware of the minimum arming distance of the weapons you are using (40mm HEDP rds are from memory 30M, and AT-4s are 100M but I could be wrong). Reverse slope defense and urban defenses set up in the second or subsequent blocks 'inside' of an urban area are good ways to protect yourself until they get in close enough. Again, obstacles are good to minimize the number of vehicles coming at your position at one time. In this specifc instance you are absoloutely going to look to maximize flanking shots on the AFVs sine the armor is much weaker and vision and weapon systems are not as good to the sides. Well aimed rifle fire should quickly kill or force to button up any exposed crewmenmbers and them shoot up the vision blocks.

If you only have a pistol or grenades and they have AKMs then you need to manuever to get the enemy in close before he knows you are there or can engage you, and/or set up a boobytrap with the grndades.

Beyond the wepaoneering decision of over what terrain and range to engage, the next decision is how to use fire and maneuver to destroy the defending enemy.