RPG Forums

Go Back   RPG Forums > Role Playing Game Section > Twilight 2000 Forum
Register FAQ Community Calendar Today's Posts Search

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1  
Old 05-21-2010, 12:51 AM
pmulcahy11b's Avatar
pmulcahy11b pmulcahy11b is offline
The Stat Guy
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 4,347
Default The EXACTO Sniper Rifle Program

http://www.time.com/time/nation/arti...891348,00.html
__________________
I'm guided by the beauty of our weapons...First We Take Manhattan, Jennifer Warnes

Entirely too much T2K stuff here: www.pmulcahy.com
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 05-21-2010, 12:57 AM
HorseSoldier HorseSoldier is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Anchorage, AK
Posts: 846
Default

Cool weapon, though I don't much like their underlying thinking that "training is hard, we need to fix it with technology" . . . since that's the kind of logic that gave us the three round burst instead of auto on the M16A2.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 05-21-2010, 03:12 AM
Ramjam's Avatar
Ramjam Ramjam is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Daventry, UK
Posts: 98
Default

Btw the piece is wrong.

British Army CoH Craig Harrison of the Household Cavalry successfully engaged two Taliban machine gunners south of Musa Qala in Helmand Province in Afghanistan in November 2009 at a range of 2,475 m (2,707 yd), using a L115A3 Long Range Rifle rifle chambered in .338 Lapua Magnum. These are the longest recorded and confirmed sniper kills in history. (wiki ftw).


But the idea of really long range sniper weapons has been around for years. The only problem I see being the power of current ammo being able to reach out to 3km and still being able to kill someone.

Now I know it sounds like sci-fi but wasn't the US Army working on gauss technology afew years back as a replacement for the current design of ammo and small arms.

Now that would have the range and the stopping power needed to be a long range sniper weapon (if they ever get it off the drawing board).
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 05-21-2010, 07:26 AM
Eddie Eddie is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 252
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ramjam View Post
Btw the piece is wrong.

British Army CoH Craig Harrison of the Household Cavalry successfully engaged two Taliban machine gunners south of Musa Qala in Helmand Province in Afghanistan in November 2009 at a range of 2,475 m (2,707 yd), using a L115A3 Long Range Rifle rifle chambered in .338 Lapua Magnum. These are the longest recorded and confirmed sniper kills in history. (wiki ftw).
Pardon the writer. He wrote it 15 APR and the article about Harrison was released 02 MAY.
__________________
Political Correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 05-21-2010, 09:20 AM
StainlessSteelCynic's Avatar
StainlessSteelCynic StainlessSteelCynic is offline
Registered Registrant
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Western Australia
Posts: 2,375
Default

I love the title, Soon Rifles That Kill From a Mile Away, I remember the safety warning on packets of .22LR bullets saying that the round can be dangerous for a distance of up to one mile...
The writer still slipped up somewhat, he says Cpl Furlong's first two shots missed but that's not correct. The first missed and the second hit the target's backpack and was thus prevented from killing him. The third shot was a killing hit
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 05-21-2010, 10:00 AM
Ramjam's Avatar
Ramjam Ramjam is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Daventry, UK
Posts: 98
Default

You are so correct Eddie.

I looked at the date on the article and swear we were still in April.

Where has the year gone?
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 05-21-2010, 09:57 PM
Raellus's Avatar
Raellus Raellus is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Southern AZ
Posts: 4,294
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by StainlessSteelCynic View Post
I love the title, Soon Rifles That Kill From a Mile Away, I remember the safety warning on packets of .22LR bullets saying that the round can be dangerous for a distance of up to one mile...
The writer still slipped up somewhat, he says Cpl Furlong's first two shots missed but that's not correct. The first missed and the second hit the target's backpack and was thus prevented from killing him. The third shot was a killing hit
I've been reading about this for years and I still wonder why the "target" didn't get behind some serious cover after the first miss. My impression is that the terrain on which which this engagement took place was rocky and mountainous, with ample cover and concealment. Was it on a narrow trail on a steep mountainside or something? Anyone know the details?
__________________
Author of Twilight 2000 adventure modules, Rook's Gambit and The Poisoned Chalice, the campaign sourcebook, Korean Peninsula, the gear-book, Baltic Boats, and the co-author of Tara Romaneasca, a campaign sourcebook for Romania, all available for purchase on DriveThruRPG:

https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product...--Rooks-Gambit
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product...ula-Sourcebook
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product...nia-Sourcebook
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product...liate_id=61048
https://preview.drivethrurpg.com/en/...-waters-module
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 05-21-2010, 07:24 AM
Eddie Eddie is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 252
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by HorseSoldier View Post
Cool weapon, though I don't much like their underlying thinking that "training is hard, we need to fix it with technology" . . . since that's the kind of logic that gave us the three round burst instead of auto on the M16A2.
Yeah, but the full auto M16 also contributed to 50,000 rounds spent per every enemy killed in Vietnam. That's the logic that gave us the 3-round burst limiter. Automatic fire really is only necessary for machineguns.
__________________
Political Correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 05-21-2010, 11:22 AM
headquarters's Avatar
headquarters headquarters is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Norways weather beaten coasts
Posts: 1,825
Default full auto

Quote:
Originally Posted by Eddie View Post
Yeah, but the full auto M16 also contributed to 50,000 rounds spent per every enemy killed in Vietnam. That's the logic that gave us the 3-round burst limiter. Automatic fire really is only necessary for machineguns.
must say I love the full auto option on my NG HK 416 - but I admit its more fun than practical.

Steady flow of single shots with either accuracy or speed is more effecient.I think the V.2.0 rules takes this into account .Bursts are only really efficient when firing at multiple targets in specific situations or if rifle skill is :1.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 05-21-2010, 03:35 PM
HorseSoldier HorseSoldier is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Anchorage, AK
Posts: 846
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Eddie View Post
Yeah, but the full auto M16 also contributed to 50,000 rounds spent per every enemy killed in Vietnam. That's the logic that gave us the 3-round burst limiter. Automatic fire really is only necessary for machineguns.
Poor training gave us the Vietnam kill ratios.

Automatic capability on an infantry carbine/rifle is rarely necessary, but when it is applicable not having that tool in the tool box because some genius decided a technical fix to a training issue was the way to go is a gross disservice to the troops.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 05-21-2010, 04:00 PM
Eddie Eddie is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 252
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by HorseSoldier View Post
Poor training gave us the Vietnam kill ratios.
That was also a contributor.

Quote:
Automatic capability on an infantry carbine/rifle is rarely necessary, but when it is applicable not having that tool in the tool box because some genius decided a technical fix to a training issue was the way to go is a gross disservice to the troops.
I'll agree with this to a point. But I also put forth that anything you need to do with automatic fire can be just as effective with aimed fire save elements of machinegun theory such as grazing fire.

An Infantry Carbine and a machinegun are two different tools. Similar to a flat-head screwdriver and a Phillips-head screwdriver. They look alike. They both put screws in things. They both do it by turning. But one is much more precise than the other one.
__________________
Political Correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 05-21-2010, 07:40 PM
HorseSoldier HorseSoldier is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Anchorage, AK
Posts: 846
Default

I agree -- I never saw much firsthand utility in burst with either the M16A2s and M4s or with auto on the M4A1 I've been issued down through the years. But, if you're going to add one option or the other to a weapon, the burst capability as implemented on the M16 series is an unnecessary mechanical complication and potential failure point that was only adopted because senior leadership lacked the will to implement meaningful combat marksmanship training.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 

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
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 04:19 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.