The Best That Never Was 2 (Prototypes)

[Legbreaker]

Originally Posted by swaghauler

I agree with you that GDW needed to take into account the effective long-ranged accuracy but I think they just needed to add one more Range Band. The Maximum Effective Range band. This would allow those spectacular shots that are legendary today.

I LIKE it!
I'd be inclined to consider a max possible range also much like GURPS and their 1/2 Damage stat - anything beyond that has penalties to both accuracy and damage.
Knowing the max possible range allows for using tripod mounted machineguns in the indirect roll, something which has been done for well over a hundred years for suppressive fire and in some circles known as the poor mans artillery (unless you're the one paying the ammo bill!).

[StainlessSteelCynic]

I like it too.
My gaming group has always had a bit of a liking for the idea of adding items to gear to improve them e.g. putting better tyres on a vehicle, putting a better scope on a rifle and so on. Basically a way to let a Character improve their chances with a Skill check, especially if they are not particularly good in that Skill.

If I can con my group into any game using the 2.2 rules, I'm very much inclined to use your idea Swaghauler

[swaghauler]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

I LIKE it!
I'd be inclined to consider a max possible range also much like GURPS and their 1/2 Damage stat - anything beyond that has penalties to both accuracy and damage.
Knowing the max possible range allows for using tripod mounted machineguns in the indirect roll, something which has been done for well over a hundred years for suppressive fire and in some circles known as the poor mans artillery (unless you're the one paying the ammo bill!).

I used to give a bonus of 1 to a roll for any tripod that had Traverse and Elevation gear on it. Now I'll probably give a BOON (The Mongoose Traveller version of ADVANTAGE) because it does make a big difference in accurate fire from a tripod.

[StainlessSteelCynic]

It's an interesting idea. I like the advantage/disadvantage idea for certain circumstances but I'm not sure I like it for equipment that gives you a mechanical advantage e.g. the tripod.
The ad/disad system generally gives you an equal chance of scoring good or bad so I figure this means that if you get two lousy results for the skill check the tripod hasn't really done anything extra for you when it should.
However if it adds to your skill check in some way then the percentage chance of success is somewhat better all the time making it worthwhile to use whenever you can.
Players want to stack the odds in their favour, it's natural, they want their characters to survive & thrive. The ad/disad system feels like it completely negates the ability to shift the odds a little more in your favour when using something like the tripod in this example.

[swaghauler]

Originally Posted by StainlessSteelCynic

It's an interesting idea. I like the advantage/disadvantage idea for certain circumstances but I'm not sure I like it for equipment that gives you a mechanical advantage e.g. the tripod.
The ad/disad system generally gives you an equal chance of scoring good or bad so I figure this means that if you get two lousy results for the skill check the tripod hasn't really done anything extra for you when it should.
However if it adds to your skill check in some way then the percentage chance of success is somewhat better all the time making it worthwhile to use whenever you can.
Players want to stack the odds in their favour, it's natural, they want their characters to survive & thrive. The ad/disad system feels like it completely negates the ability to shift the odds a little more in your favour when using something like the tripod in this example.

One of the options I have been considering is a Skill Level based bonus. My players are REALLY ENJOYING my [RAW] skill-based rules for Outstanding and Exceptional Success*, so I have been considering:

Skill Level 0 = No bonus as you are not knowledgable enough to gain a bonus.
Skill Level 1 thru 6 = A bonus of 1 to the roll for tripods with T&E gear.
Skill Level 7 thru 9 = A bonus of 2 to the roll for tripods with T&E gear.
Skill Level 10 = A bonus of 3 to the roll for tripods with T&E gear.

This will give more skilled gunners a better bonus (as befits their higher experience).

* My Skill Level based bonus is designed to reward high Skill Levels (training) over high Characteristics (natural talent) and it works like this. You get an Outstanding Success if you roll under your RAW base Skill Level on an AVERAGE Task. To get an Exceptional Success, you must roll under HALF of your RAW Skill Level on 1D20. So, in practice, it looks like this:

A PC with an Attribute score of 7 and a Skill Level of 3 would succeed at an AVERAGE task on a roll of 10 or less. They would score an Outstanding Success IF they rolled a 3 or less. They would score an Exceptional Success on a roll of 1.

A PC with an Attribute score of 3 and a Skill Level of 7 would also succeed on a roll of 10. HOWEVER, they would achieve an Outstanding Success on a roll of 7 or less. They would achieve an Exceptional Success on a roll of 3 or less on an AVERAGE Task.

On an Outstanding or Exceptional Success, you score a Special Manuever. My players have a great affinity for this new system and I have LOTS of positive feedback on Skill-based Success.

[StainlessSteelCynic]

Originally Posted by swaghauler

One of the options I have been considering is a Skill Level based bonus. My players are REALLY ENJOYING my [RAW] skill-based rules for Outstanding and Exceptional Success*, so I have been considering:

Skill Level 0 = No bonus as you are not knowledgable enough to gain a bonus.
Skill Level 1 thru 6 = A bonus of 1 to the roll for tripods with T&E gear.
Skill Level 7 thru 9 = A bonus of 2 to the roll for tripods with T&E gear.
Skill Level 10 = A bonus of 3 to the roll for tripods with T&E gear.

This will give more skilled gunners a better bonus (as befits their higher experience).

* My Skill Level based bonus is designed to reward high Skill Levels (training) over high Characteristics (natural talent) and it works like this. You get an Outstanding Success if you roll under your RAW base Skill Level on an AVERAGE Task. To get an Exceptional Success, you must roll under HALF of your RAW Skill Level on 1D20. So, in practice, it looks like this:

A PC with an Attribute score of 7 and a Skill Level of 3 would succeed at an AVERAGE task on a roll of 10 or less. They would score an Outstanding Success IF they rolled a 3 or less. They would score an Exceptional Success on a roll of 1.

A PC with an Attribute score of 3 and a Skill Level of 7 would also succeed on a roll of 10. HOWEVER, they would achieve an Outstanding Success on a roll of 7 or less. They would achieve an Exceptional Success on a roll of 3 or less on an AVERAGE Task.

On an Outstanding or Exceptional Success, you score a Special Manuever. My players have a great affinity for this new system and I have LOTS of positive feedback on Skill-based Success.

This I really like. Do you have a doc with all these rules on them, I'd love to read it?
Edit: Read it? I'd love to use them!

[ChalkLine]

I do love vehicles that, to put it bluntly, were no good.

If it was that they lost their raison d'être due to technological advances, if they were good ideas that were ahead of their time or in case of the vehicle coming up, they were simply a crap boondoggle, I do love my failures.

The M247 Sergeant York SPAAG could have been awesome. It's one of those vehicles that simply "looks right". It was an utter failure, but the failure was mainly due to its design criteria as much as dodgy corporate swindling and corruption.

What the US Army wanted: A ZSU-23-4 with bigger guns and a fast engine.
What the US Army asked for: an SPAAG using two heavy guns and a heavy radar on an out of date chassis that still had to keep up with the M1 Abrams, one of the world's fastest tanks.

They specified the M48A5 chassis because they had lots and they were very reliable. They also stated that it had to use off-the-shelf equipment so the radar was a repurposed air-to-air radar, not even a ground attack radar. Now, Ford Aerospace seemed to have been thinking if they got the contract the could simply deal with the issues later. Issues like making it work.
Really, the whole sorry tale is too long to go into here. I do recommend you look it up now that 35 years have passed.

What I want to do is suggest that the M247 didn't ignominiously end its days being blown to pieces on live-fire ranges but that the 50 that were made in our alternate universe languished in a boneyard simply because everyone was too embarrassed to talk about them. There they sat, essentially useless and incapable of even defending themselves until the final phase of resupply for the European campaign. By this time the Mil-24 Hinds were all gone and the USA is desperate to send its troops ground fighting vehicles. They looked at the M247s sitting there and gave them the ZSU-23-4M2 "Afghan" treatment.

The hypothetical M247A2 is purely a ground support vehicle. It has had its radar stripped out and the AN/PPS-15A(V)1 ground search radar (1,500m for personnel, 3,000m for vehicles) placed in the forward radar nacelle.

The ammunition is increased from 580 to 650 rounds.

The turret armour is given applique panels that bring it up from STANAG 4569 level 3 to level 4 armour protection, capable of resisting the KPV 14.5mm. A sliding mantlet is provided to protect the crew from direct fire of the same level. The rear of the turret is kept the same and the hull is of course the basic robust M48A5. In the European theatre ERA blocks and wire/bar armour were occasionally used by some units. This extra armour drops the road speed to a slow 40kmh, a speed demon it is not.
The turret had a large bustle rack at the rear and is still roomy after the removal of the large radar even when the extra ammunition is fitted.

The commander's cupola from the LAV-25 was fitted and has a NATO heavy mount capable of accepting the M240E1 GPMG (spade grip version), the M2HB HMG or the Mk19 AGL. Many were equipped with gunshields at various times.

The sights are upgraded. The optical sights are retained and light intensification added. The commander has no override for the gun. At least one of these vehicles was fitted with thermal sights during its war service.

Note that the 40mm twin autocannon are belt-fed, a huge improvement over the crew-intensive five round clips normally used. Its crew remains three with commander, gunner and driver, making it something of a bear for maintenance and an endurance test when keeping watch.

[Vespers War]

Originally Posted by Vespers War

Another one that I know Ian has done videos on in the past is the Volcanic pistol and carbine. In particular, the ones I have information for are the later ones produced by the New Haven Arms Company (the post-S&W one with B. Tyler Henry running the factory for Oliver Winchester). The firearms produced came in seven models, a pair of pistols firing Rocket Ball #1 (.31 caliber), and a pair of pistols and three carbines firing Rocket Ball #2 (.41 caliber).

The Rocket Ball was an early self-contained caseless cartridge, using a Burton ball with the cavity at the base filled with gunpowder and a percussion cap, sealed with a brass disc to keep out moisture. They were notably anemic due to the lack of space for powder. I don't have good information on the powder charges for these guns, but I calculated them at 4.5 grains of black powder for #1 and 8 grains for #2. I do have the prices for each of these late-1850s firearms and the ammunition. Weights are calculated per Fire, Fusion & Steel since technical data are somewhat hard to come by.

Pocket Pistol - Rocket Ball #1 (.31") - 0.64kg loaded weight, Ammo 6i. Dam 1, Pen Nil, Bulk 1, Recoil 2, Lever-Action, Range 7. $12.00

Target Pistol - Rocket Ball #1 (.31") - 0.80 kg loaded weight, Ammo 10i. Dam 1, Pen Nil, Bulk 1, Recoil 2, Lever-Action, Range 8. $13.50

Short Navy Pistol - Rocket Ball #2 (.41") - 0.91 kg loaded weight, Ammo 8i. Dam 1, Pen Nil, Bulk 1, Recoil 2, Lever-Action, Range 11. $18.00

Navy Pistol - Rocket Ball #2 (.41") - 1.07 kg loaded weight, Ammo 10i. Dam 1, Pen Nil, Bulk 1, Recoil 2, Lever-Action, Range 11. $18.00

Carbine (16" barrel) - Rocket Ball #2 (.41") - 3.01 kg loaded weight, Ammo 20i. Dam 1, Pen Nil, Bulk 5, Recoil 1, Lever-Action, Range 35. $30.00

Carbine (20" barrel) - Rocket Ball #2 (.41") - 3.33 kg loaded weight, Ammo 25i. Dam 1, Pen Nil, Bulk 6, Recoil 1, Lever-Action, Range 35. $35.00

Carbine (24" barrel) - Rocket Ball #2 (.41") - 3.66 kg loaded weight, Ammo 30i. Dam 1, Pen Nil, Bulk 7, Recoil 1, Lever-Action, Range 35. $40.00

Rocket Ball #1 - $10 per 1,000 rounds, 130 rounds per pound.
Rocket Ball #2 - $12 per 1,000 rounds, 66 rounds per pound.


Edit: on further thought, I'm not sure this is the best of anything, but it's a fascinating predecessor to the Henry and Winchester rifles.

Ian just did a video with Rocket Ball ammunition, and #2 (.41") had 6.5 grains of black powder rather than the 8 I calculated it as. This reduces the range on the Navy Pistols to 10 (instead of 11) and on all the longarms from 35 to 31.

The 16" pistol-carbine from today's video has the same stats as the carbine when the butt stock is attached. Detached, it's 1.80 kg loaded weight, Ammo 16i. Dam 1, Pen Nil, Bulk 1, Recoil 1, Lever-Action, Range 10.

[swaghauler]

Originally Posted by StainlessSteelCynic

This I really like. Do you have a doc with all these rules on them, I'd love to read it?
Edit: Read it? I'd love to use them!

I need to organize my rules a little better. They are currently HANDWRITTEN in a 3-ring binder. If you're interested in the Skill-Based Outstanding and Exceptional Success rules, I've posted them in the thread: Optional New House Rule I'm Using.

[rcaf_777]

Good Watch


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LHuD...JY19RA&index=1

[pmulcahy11b]

Originally Posted by rcaf_777

Good Watch


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LHuD...JY19RA&index=1

I actually got to go to the range with the Flash when I was in the National Guard, once in 1984, and then once in 1986. The Cowhouse IRL up in Ft Hood has an old concrete bunker filled with bats at the far end of the range, and it was fun seeing flaming bats flap their way out of the bunker.

Going to the range with the M202 gets you a qualification badge (Flamethrower, strangely enough) good for two years. When I went on active duty in 1987, everybody was like, "where do they still use flamethrowers?" But about the same time I got there, someone else augmented and he had a Flamethrower badge too, so we were able to let everyone know what it meant without repeated explanations.

While my unit in the National Guard had M202s, I never saw one on active duty. And when I was in the National Guard, we never took them to the field, even during Annual Training.

The Twilight 2000 Heavy Weapons Handbook says that there are HEAT clips for the M202. I've since discovered that in reality, while the Army experimented with using the same rockets as used in the LAW in the M202, the idea was never approved for issue or use.

Though I never saw one on active duty, I saw a photo the other day of an SF soldier using an M202 in Afghanistan. So they are at least in SOCOM's inventory, or were at that point.

[Legbreaker]

Originally Posted by pmulcahy11b

Going to the range with the M202 gets you a qualification badge (Flamethrower, strangely enough) good for two years. When I went on active duty in 1987, everybody was like, "where do they still use flamethrowers?"

I was on the first Assault Pioneer course (1993) after Australia stopped teaching flame warfare (predominantly with the M2 but other expedients such as fougasse too). I at least got to do all the theory, etc but the hands on practical never happened. #Absolutelygutted.

A mate in the same platoon had been able to play with M2's a couple of years before and he wasn't even on a proper qualification course. I believe although instruction had ceased, the M2's themselves were put into storage for possible latter use "just in case". 27 years later I wonder if they're still there and even if they'd still be serviceable without a major overhaul.

[Vespers War]

Originally Posted by pmulcahy11b

I actually got to go to the range with the Flash when I was in the National Guard, once in 1984, and then once in 1986. The Cowhouse IRL up in Ft Hood has an old concrete bunker filled with bats at the far end of the range, and it was fun seeing flaming bats flap their way out of the bunker.

Going to the range with the M202 gets you a qualification badge (Flamethrower, strangely enough) good for two years. When I went on active duty in 1987, everybody was like, "where do they still use flamethrowers?" But about the same time I got there, someone else augmented and he had a Flamethrower badge too, so we were able to let everyone know what it meant without repeated explanations.

While my unit in the National Guard had M202s, I never saw one on active duty. And when I was in the National Guard, we never took them to the field, even during Annual Training.

The Twilight 2000 Heavy Weapons Handbook says that there are HEAT clips for the M202. I've since discovered that in reality, while the Army experimented with using the same rockets as used in the LAW in the M202, the idea was never approved for issue or use.

Though I never saw one on active duty, I saw a photo the other day of an SF soldier using an M202 in Afghanistan. So they are at least in SOCOM's inventory, or were at that point.

There was also a CS gas rocket trialed for use with the M202, but it wasn't approved either.

[CDAT]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

I was on the first Assault Pioneer course (1993) after Australia stopped teaching flame warfare (predominantly with the M2 but other expedients such as fougasse too). I at least got to do all the theory, etc but the hands on practical never happened. #Absolutelygutted.

A mate in the same platoon had been able to play with M2's a couple of years before and he wasn't even on a proper qualification course. I believe although instruction had ceased, the M2's themselves were put into storage for possible latter use "just in case". 27 years later I wonder if they're still there and even if they'd still be serviceable without a major overhaul.

I can not say about Australia, but for the US Army they were still in the inventory as of 2004, with two MOS's listed as being able to draw them Combat Engineer and NBC, found this out when I was the NBC NCO for a Combat Engineer unit in Iraq and told my supply sergeant to order us one to clear brush with.

[Legbreaker]

Originally Posted by CDAT

...told my supply sergeant to order us one to clear brush with.

Hmm, bulldozer or copious amounts of flame.....
The choice is clear!

[CDAT]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

Hmm, bulldozer or copious amounts of flame.....
The choice is clear!

Both, the justification for the flame thrower was to clear the brush so we could see any obstacles that we might run into with the dozers before we leveled the bunkers and such.

[rcaf_777]

Originally Posted by pmulcahy11b

Though I never saw one on active duty, I saw a photo the other day of an SF soldier using an M202 in Afghanistan. So they are at least in SOCOM's inventory, or were at that point.

U.S. Denies Incendiary Weapon Use in Afghanistan

https://www.wired.com/2009/05/us-inc...stan-revealed/

If you look at the video and read this article you see a weapon that may or may exist. Mentioned in a lot of publications and plenty of info on its development but the weapon is never seen. So draw your own conclusions.

[Legbreaker]

That article (from 11 years ago) reads like the author didn't know anything about the subject and just referred to Wikipedia and their pacifist friends for their info.

[rcaf_777]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

That article (from 11 years ago) reads like the author didn't know anything about the subject and just referred to Wikipedia and their pacifist friends for their info.

ok this is info draw your own conclusions

[Legbreaker]

Yes it is. Credible, unbiased info though it is not.

[rcaf_777]

again draw your own conclusions

[pmulcahy11b]

One thing about the article -- it states that the M202 uses a napalm-like filler. The Flash uses a combination of aluminum-derived powder and a WP initiator for the aluminum.

[StainlessSteelCynic]

As an interesting "what if", another round suggested for the M202 that did not get past the trials stage was the XM96 RCR (Riot Control Round) with a CS gas filling.

http://www.designation-systems.net/d...m74rocket.html

[pmulcahy11b]

Originally Posted by StainlessSteelCynic

As an interesting "what if", another round suggested for the M202 that did not get past the trials stage was the XM96 RCR (Riot Control Round) with a CS gas filling.

http://www.designation-systems.net/d...m74rocket.html

Well, for huge riots it might be useful, it's definitely not a "less-than-lethal" round. Someone could die if they get hit by the rocket.

[StainlessSteelCynic]

Originally Posted by pmulcahy11b

Well, for huge riots it might be useful, it's definitely not a "less-than-lethal" round. Someone could die if they get hit by the rocket.

Apparently it was developed for use in South-East Asia, Vietnam specifically.
Read into that what you will but I'll jump to the assumption that that implies use against rioters who are potential Viet Cong

[CDAT]

Originally Posted by pmulcahy11b

Well, for huge riots it might be useful, it's definitely not a "less-than-lethal" round. Someone could die if they get hit by the rocket.

There are a fair amount of "less lethal" rounds that have the possibility of killing.
For example there are flash bang grenades (not all types, but some) that when they go off can have some parts of them flay away with enough force to kill. Rubber and wood projectiles can kill if not used as designed (most need to be skipped into the target). So it could have still been labeled less lethal.

[Vespers War]

Originally Posted by CDAT

There are a fair amount of "less lethal" rounds that have the possibility of killing.
For example there are flash bang grenades (not all types, but some) that when they go off can have some parts of them flay away with enough force to kill. Rubber and wood projectiles can kill if not used as designed (most need to be skipped into the target). So it could have still been labeled less lethal.

Even if used as designed, the various baton rounds can be lethal because their irregular shapes mean they can't reliably be targeted when skipped. The BMJ published a study in 2017 looking at 25 years of incident results that calculated rubber bullets are lethal roughly 3% of the time. Another 15.5% suffered serious injuries such as ruptured organs or permanent blindness.

[swaghauler]

Originally Posted by StainlessSteelCynic

As an interesting "what if", another round suggested for the M202 that did not get past the trials stage was the XM96 RCR (Riot Control Round) with a CS gas filling.

http://www.designation-systems.net/d...m74rocket.html

According to what I learned during my Special Weapons training, the M202's CS rocket had a truly fatal flaw. In the right concentrations, CS gas can become flammable. The first rocket fired could effectively deliver its payload but follow-on rockets' exhaust had a habit of igniting a good spread of CS gas. Nobody in the Army wanted to be the guy who set a crowd of protestors on fire. Thus the rocket was never officially adopted.

[pmulcahy11b]

Originally Posted by swaghauler

According to what I learned during my Special Weapons training, the M202's CS rocket had a truly fatal flaw. In the right concentrations, CS gas can become flammable. The first rocket fired could effectively deliver its payload but follow-on rockets' exhaust had a habit of igniting a good spread of CS gas. Nobody in the Army wanted to be the guy who set a crowd of protestors on fire. Thus the rocket was never officially adopted.

The incendiary round itself also had a fatal flaw. A clip had to be handled, let's say, carefully. the nose end had a tendency to crack if mishandled and cause the gunner to immolate himself. We always kept that in mind at the range. I can't see the Army fielding a weapon that fragile and I've seen a clip dropped and it didn't crack (though we put it in the dud pit).

[StainlessSteelCynic]

All of which makes me wonder about that article supposing that the M202 was used in Afghanistan.
Given the delicate nature of the rockets, I wonder if US forces were actually using 40mm thermobaric rounds (they started to be available from 2003) and the article writer not being familiar with military tech jumped on the M202 as the explanation?