Register Register

Author Topic: Small Arms Ammunition  (Read 4085 times)

monbvol

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 11377
  • Flogging will continue until morale improves
Re: Small Arms Ammunition
« Reply #90 on: 08 August 2021, 08:24:07 »
Reload Factor I can agree as it is currently implemented is not entirely satisfying but I'd take it over actually tracking ammo.

As for small arms not damaging mechs, combat vehicles, and other heavily armored targets I would have no problem with this and it'd be really easy to solve Riflemech's concern about the family car suddenly becoming immune.  Just declare it is not actual armor on it but an abstraction of just how much shooting at it with infantry small arms is needed before it is destroyed.  There are provisions for this idea in AToW itself.

Or compromise and say Commercial Armor, Support Vehicle BAR <=5, and Battlearmor can be damaged by Infantry Small Arms.  This would be largely compliant with the novels I've read and seemingly neatly solve a lot of problems.

Daryk

  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 22017
  • The Double Deuce II/II-σ
Re: Small Arms Ammunition
« Reply #91 on: 08 August 2021, 08:45:24 »
The AP vs. BAR system solves that problem well enough, I think.  To get a single shot powerful enough to do a point of TW damage without resorting to explosive or incendiary effects or burst fire, you need at least 5AP/6BD or 6AP/5BD.  In my head canon, 5AP/5BD is the analog of 0.50 caliber ammunition.  At the very least, it's what the Support Machine Gun shoots.

Thinking about it, if you take 5/5 to be ~12.5mm, then:
5/4 or 4/5 could be ~10mm
4/5 or 5/4 could be ~7.5mm
4/4 could be ~5mm
Below that, you're using something less than rifle amounts of propellant, I think.

Going the other direction:
6/5 or 5/6 could be ~15mm
6/6 could be 20mm
7/6 or 6/7 could be ~25mm
7/7 could be ~30mm
8/7 or 7/8 could be ~35mm
8/8 could ~40mm
9/8 or 8/9 could be ~45mm
9/9 could be ~50mm
10/9 or 9/10 could be ~60mm
and 10/10 could be ~75mm (incidentally, a 30 round burst of this without splash effects gets you 5 points of TW damage; with splash effects, you only need a 25 round burst)

CVB

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 806
Re: Small Arms Ammunition
« Reply #92 on: 08 August 2021, 09:33:49 »
and 10/10 could be ~75mm (incidentally, a 30 round burst of this without splash effects gets you 5 points of TW damage; with splash effects, you only need a 25 round burst)

Interesting. How much TW damage would a single round of this hypothetical 10/10 75mm ammo cause? IIRC, bursts don't do the full amount of damage, right?
(Trying to connect your values with the 5 points from 50kg of AC/5 ammo. A 25 or 30 round burst would result in an awfully light 75mm shell...)
*"But we don't play Battletech to have Simple" - NavPoint

I'm willing to suspend my disbelief, but I'm not willing to hang it by the neck until it's dead, dead, dead!

Daryk

  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 22017
  • The Double Deuce II/II-σ
Re: Small Arms Ammunition
« Reply #93 on: 08 August 2021, 09:56:33 »
Single rounds of 10/10 would do 2 points of damage (1.75 rounding up to 2 if no splash effect, 2.25 rounding down with splash).

CVB

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 806
Re: Small Arms Ammunition
« Reply #94 on: 08 August 2021, 10:06:06 »
So ~90% of shots in a burst are wasted...
*"But we don't play Battletech to have Simple" - NavPoint

I'm willing to suspend my disbelief, but I'm not willing to hang it by the neck until it's dead, dead, dead!

Daryk

  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 22017
  • The Double Deuce II/II-σ
Re: Small Arms Ammunition
« Reply #95 on: 08 August 2021, 10:12:49 »
I daresay that tracks with reality...

CVB

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 806
Re: Small Arms Ammunition
« Reply #96 on: 08 August 2021, 10:29:23 »
With our real reality? Sure.
With a BT reality of concentrated AC bursts to single locations, rapid fire for double damage, RACs etc., I'm not so sure.
*"But we don't play Battletech to have Simple" - NavPoint

I'm willing to suspend my disbelief, but I'm not willing to hang it by the neck until it's dead, dead, dead!

Daryk

  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 22017
  • The Double Deuce II/II-σ
Re: Small Arms Ammunition
« Reply #97 on: 08 August 2021, 10:35:14 »
It all depends on how big you think various A/Cs are.  An AC/2 is technically 10AP/12BD, and doesn't make any mention of how big a burst it uses.

RifleMech

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2856
Re: Small Arms Ammunition
« Reply #98 on: 08 August 2021, 14:37:15 »
Reload Factor I can agree as it is currently implemented is not entirely satisfying but I'd take it over actually tracking ammo.

As for small arms not damaging mechs, combat vehicles, and other heavily armored targets I would have no problem with this and it'd be really easy to solve Riflemech's concern about the family car suddenly becoming immune.  Just declare it is not actual armor on it but an abstraction of just how much shooting at it with infantry small arms is needed before it is destroyed.  There are provisions for this idea in AToW itself.

Or compromise and say Commercial Armor, Support Vehicle BAR <=5, and Battlearmor can be damaged by Infantry Small Arms.  This would be largely compliant with the novels I've read and seemingly neatly solve a lot of problems.


The Reload Factor feels like is a way of tracking ammo. It also feels like it presumes all the rounds are fired per turn. In which case, why track ammo? Which would be fine except the damage is supposed to be per shot or per burst  and it isn't.

I'd be okay with ATOW damage. It does decrease as the BAR goes up. TW gives infantry damage against BAR10. I'm also okay with infantry doing small amounts of damage to mechs and tanks. I think of it as knocking out cameras, view port glass, lights, and such. Plus the number of troopers firing rifles could outnumber a burst from a machine gun so a tiny bit of damage is okay. Although, I did like the rules in TRO:3026 more. Damage with standard infantry weapons was possible but not a sure thing.

RifleMech

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2856
Re: Small Arms Ammunition
« Reply #99 on: 08 August 2021, 15:35:39 »
The AP vs. BAR system solves that problem well enough, I think.  To get a single shot powerful enough to do a point of TW damage without resorting to explosive or incendiary effects or burst fire, you need at least 5AP/6BD or 6AP/5BD.  In my head canon, 5AP/5BD is the analog of 0.50 caliber ammunition.  At the very least, it's what the Support Machine Gun shoots.

Thinking about it, if you take 5/5 to be ~12.5mm, then:
5/4 or 4/5 could be ~10mm
4/5 or 5/4 could be ~7.5mm
4/4 could be ~5mm
Below that, you're using something less than rifle amounts of propellant, I think.

Going the other direction:
6/5 or 5/6 could be ~15mm
6/6 could be 20mm
7/6 or 6/7 could be ~25mm
7/7 could be ~30mm
8/7 or 7/8 could be ~35mm
8/8 could ~40mm
9/8 or 8/9 could be ~45mm
9/9 could be ~50mm
10/9 or 9/10 could be ~60mm
and 10/10 could be ~75mm (incidentally, a 30 round burst of this without splash effects gets you 5 points of TW damage; with splash effects, you only need a 25 round burst)


How would that relate to older weapons? 
A 2 bore Elephant gun is 33.7mm.
A 4 bore Elephant gun is 26.7mm.
More modern ones are .376 in (9.6 mm) - 584-inch (14.8 mm)
Wiki says Elephant Guns were used against light armor in WWII but it didn't say what kind.
Brown Bess is .75/19mm but fires a .69/17.5mm to reduce powder fouling. The muzzle velocity is about the same as the older elephant guns but I know the damage would be less.

So ~90% of shots in a burst are wasted...

But all of Autocannons rounds hit so its a bit inconsistent.

It all depends on how big you think various A/Cs are.  An AC/2 is technically 10AP/12BD, and doesn't make any mention of how big a burst it uses.

The Warrior H7's AC/2 is 30mm and fires 10 round bursts. We can't really go by fluff though. AC/s not only vary in size in the same class but the same size can be in different classes. I just figure they're lower or higher velocity guns.

In game terms though I have AC's firing 2 round bursts, with 4 round rapid fire.

Edit
If using Solaris VII rules though the rate of fire for smaller ACs is a lot higher.
« Last Edit: 08 August 2021, 15:53:24 by RifleMech »

Daryk

  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 22017
  • The Double Deuce II/II-σ
Re: Small Arms Ammunition
« Reply #100 on: 08 August 2021, 15:49:49 »
Older weapons had less efficient propellant, so I'd penalize them on that basis.

RifleMech

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2856
Re: Small Arms Ammunition
« Reply #101 on: 08 August 2021, 16:54:27 »
Older weapons had less efficient propellant, so I'd penalize them on that basis.

I agree. The wiki page for elephant guns says that they went with bigger rounds because the rounds couldn't go faster. So size is helping to compensate for lack of penetration. So if 5B/6 is a modern elephant gun what would the 2 bore 33.7mm elephant gun be? It's just over 3.5 times the size of the smaller 9.6mm modern elephant gun. I don't think the AP should go up but the BD should have a big increase.

It's the size of the rounds that make me think that the vintage Gatling and vintage machine gun and assault rifle are too low. If the M2 .50 cal is a support machine gun and the M1917.30 cal is the portable shouldn't a Gatling gun chambered to use the same .30-06 round do the same damage per round? I can see the older .58 cal round having a lower AP but the BP should be higher. 2B/3 is just wrong. That's less than a crossbow. 


Daryk

  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 22017
  • The Double Deuce II/II-σ
Re: Small Arms Ammunition
« Reply #102 on: 08 August 2021, 17:28:13 »
I suspect TPTB were looking at the original black powder and percussion cap version of the Gatling Gun for their "Vintage" one.  2/3 totally fits for that.   If you want something more advanced, the Vintage Minigun is one row up in the table with 3/4 damage and a 50 burst (for 0.81 TW damage, which rounds up to one point against BAR 10).

RifleMech

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2856
Re: Small Arms Ammunition
« Reply #103 on: 09 August 2021, 07:51:05 »
I suspect TPTB were looking at the original black powder and percussion cap version of the Gatling Gun for their "Vintage" one.  2/3 totally fits for that.   If you want something more advanced, the Vintage Minigun is one row up in the table with 3/4 damage and a 50 burst (for 0.81 TW damage, which rounds up to one point against BAR 10).

That wouldn't surprise me but I think 2/3 is too little. It's more what I would put the Blunderbuss and older firearms at.

This link has a link to a video where a .45 Kentucky Rifle shoots through a steel plate. From the sound of things it was overcharged but it still did it.
https://www.thehighroad.org/index.php?threads/flintlock-weapons-vs-kevlar.663398/  It also talks about the blunt force trauma of being hit with a vest by a .54 maxi-ball and towards the bottom talks about a helicopter getting holes in it from crossbows and muzzle loaders.



Daryk

  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 22017
  • The Double Deuce II/II-σ
Re: Small Arms Ammunition
« Reply #104 on: 09 August 2021, 07:57:28 »
Ian at Forgotten Weapons has a good discussion on 4-Bore weapons here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MDYtxxRU_cY

He specifically mentions they were initially conceived prior to smokeless powder.

RifleMech

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2856
Re: Small Arms Ammunition
« Reply #105 on: 09 August 2021, 18:24:27 »
Ian at Forgotten Weapons has a good discussion on 4-Bore weapons here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MDYtxxRU_cY

He specifically mentions they were initially conceived prior to smokeless powder.

Very cool! Did I understand him right in that they're around 3 times as powerful as a 12 gauge shotgun and that was with a light production load?


So how do we stat these things? I'm going to guess that tripling the Double Barreled Shotgun's 1/6BS damage to 3/18BS is too simple. Still, that's a 1/4 pound of led hitting a target. The .45 Kentucky Rifle also shot through steel plate. So these weapons are still dangerous.

After watching a video of a muzzle loader vs. medieval plate armor, (sorry no link but I'll try to find it,) I think the AP/BP should fall with range for Black Powder Weapons. Up close the .58 round tore right through the armor. At a distance though it left a big dent but didn't penetrate. That .45 Kentucky was also at close range. I'm not sure it'd have done the same at a distance.


Daryk

  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 22017
  • The Double Deuce II/II-σ
Re: Small Arms Ammunition
« Reply #106 on: 09 August 2021, 18:38:20 »
Don't forget "steel plate" can be around BAR 2...

monbvol

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 11377
  • Flogging will continue until morale improves
Re: Small Arms Ammunition
« Reply #107 on: 09 August 2021, 22:56:31 »
And typical plate was no more than 2mm, possibly 3mm thick, before smiths started re-thinking how to make it so it could provide at least some protection against these new fangled guns.

There is an Elephant Gun in AToW that might make a good comparison point.

Daryk

  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 22017
  • The Double Deuce II/II-σ
Re: Small Arms Ammunition
« Reply #108 on: 10 August 2021, 03:50:43 »
The Elephant Gun is 5AP/6BD, and if it had 10 shots would do a point of TW damage.  It only has 2 though, so it does much less.

RifleMech

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2856
Re: Small Arms Ammunition
« Reply #109 on: 10 August 2021, 06:05:08 »
Don't forget "steel plate" can be around BAR 2...

Which tells me that black powder weapons should be able to damage it.


And typical plate was no more than 2mm, possibly 3mm thick, before smiths started re-thinking how to make it so it could provide at least some protection against these new fangled guns.

There is an Elephant Gun in AToW that might make a good comparison point.

That's what made me look up Elephant Guns. If the listed AP/BD is for the modern one, we can figure out Black Powder versions and work back to other black powder weapons.

If 5AP/6BD is for the modern Elephant Gun, I think the older BP versions would have a lower AP but a much higher BD. The round doesn't go as fast so lower AP but it's a really big round so higher BD. And then we scale it down to smaller caliber BP weapons.


The Elephant Gun is 5AP/6BD, and if it had 10 shots would do a point of TW damage.  It only has 2 though, so it does much less.


And there's the problem. TW damage is the same for BAR2-10. In AToW damage decreases as BAR goes up.


Just for fun. Civil War Canon vs Car.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AQn2s3zy-kI
Civil War Cannon vs Humvee window.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qYGNP1xyJAU
Thought this was cool
https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/weapons/a24033/syrian-rebels-have-a-mystery-antique-gun/

Daryk

  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 22017
  • The Double Deuce II/II-σ
Re: Small Arms Ammunition
« Reply #110 on: 10 August 2021, 09:30:20 »
Interesting videos, but very different weapons and targets.  The commercial car would have a BAR rating below the armored glass.  The guys that shot the glass also admitted to upping the charge.  That's one of the problems with black powder weapons: the charges are anything but consistent.

All that said, it only takes 8 damage points getting through the armor to kill an average human (with 4 BOD).  That's a completely different yard stick than what it takes to damage tactical armor.  To do that, you have to exploit the rounding inherent in the AP vs. BAR system.  You are correct that when using TW alone, the damage to BAR 2 through BAR 10 is the "same" (except for the critical hit effects), but that's an oversimplification of AP vs. BAR.  I haven't rebuilt the spreadsheet I made that accounted for target BAR yet (I lost the original when the USB drive it was on died).  I'll certainly post it on the forum when I get around to it.

RifleMech

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2856
Re: Small Arms Ammunition
« Reply #111 on: 10 August 2021, 14:16:52 »
Interesting videos, but very different weapons and targets.  The commercial car would have a BAR rating below the armored glass.  The guys that shot the glass also admitted to upping the charge.  That's one of the problems with black powder weapons: the charges are anything but consistent.

All that said, it only takes 8 damage points getting through the armor to kill an average human (with 4 BOD).  That's a completely different yard stick than what it takes to damage tactical armor.  To do that, you have to exploit the rounding inherent in the AP vs. BAR system.  You are correct that when using TW alone, the damage to BAR 2 through BAR 10 is the "same" (except for the critical hit effects), but that's an oversimplification of AP vs. BAR.  I haven't rebuilt the spreadsheet I made that accounted for target BAR yet (I lost the original when the USB drive it was on died).  I'll certainly post it on the forum when I get around to it.



True but they were also firing shot, which isn't all that different from a platoon firing rifles. Either way, the car is still getting shot up. I also think that overcharging is one of the nice things about BP weapons. It's kind of like going from standard to armor-piercing rounds in a way. The AP/BD gets upped a little. It can also be lowered if needed.

I know the likelihood of a civil war penetrating a Mech or Tanks armor is close to nil but BT doesn't rely on penetration. It's about knocking pieces off and if a Mechs physically hitting each other can cause damage, surely a big pierce of led will knock off a small piece of BT armor.




This was fun.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JEKyq7BxTKg
 :toofunny:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3oX2K0aDYnU

I thought this answer was interesting. Most were, "Hell no" type answers. Which I would expect. A few were it might damage the track or drive wheel. Others were yes if it were a siege cannon. This seemed to have some science to it.

Hypothetical Scenarios: Can a 1800s cannon penetrate the armor of a modern main battle tank?
Ian Holloway
, former Principal Lecturer (1997-1999)
Answered 7 months ago · Author has 1.4K answers and 3.3M answer views
It depends on the size of the gun, the type of shot and the tank target.

And there were some very big guns on ships and used as siege pieces.

The effects of smoothbore artillery was extensively tested against armour in the mid 19th century by The Special Committee on Iron. Formed in 1861 by the Secretary of State for War with the concurrence of the Admiralty.

The committee consisted of Captain Dalrymple Hay, R.N. (Chairman), Major Jervois, R.E., Brevet Colonel W. Henderson, R.A., Dr. Percy of the Museum of Geology, W. Fairbairn, Esq., and W. Pole, Esq., with Captain A. Harrison, R.A., as Secretary. this committee sat until 1864 and conducted a large series of investigations and experiments. [1]

The armour tested here would not be as resistant to penetration as rolled homogeneous armour, but it gives us a starting point. RHA is 50–60% more resistant to penetration than iron, at a guess. see [2]

Field Artillery in 1800

[So discounting big guns on ships covered by other answers]

If we are talking about field artillery, so a 12 pounder being the largest gun, that being the largest deployed in the period, then with standard service cast-iron shot the penetration at 50 yards was 1.1- 1.4 inches and about 2 inches with specially treated ammunition -cast iron tending to shatter.

[I have scaled the penetration from larger guns]

This gives us a 12 pounder being able to defeat 12–22 mm of WWII tank armour. This might penetrate an APC today, but not an MBT. It is not enough for the side of a Sherman or a Panther let alone an T-72,. The shot would shatter.

With more modern steel shot, penetration would be about double so at a close range capable of defeating at 1944 medium tank side armour on a good day. Still not enough for most MBTs.

Footnotes

Harrison C A (1866) Results of Experiments with Projectiles of Different Material Against Armour Plate
Development of Warship Armour

Daryk

  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 22017
  • The Double Deuce II/II-σ
Re: Small Arms Ammunition
« Reply #112 on: 16 August 2021, 17:29:45 »
Whoa... I just watched this video about optics: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iPrIN0Gie-U

RifleMech

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2856
Re: Small Arms Ammunition
« Reply #113 on: 16 August 2021, 19:17:41 »
Whoa... I just watched this video about optics: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iPrIN0Gie-U

Very cool. My worry is that by the time I get it all programed my target has wondered away or worse, it shot me.

Daryk

  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 22017
  • The Double Deuce II/II-σ
Re: Small Arms Ammunition
« Reply #114 on: 16 August 2021, 19:20:17 »
Well, the optics are supposed to work without batteries, so I can only think they would work without programming...

RifleMech

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2856
Re: Small Arms Ammunition
« Reply #115 on: 16 August 2021, 20:11:36 »
I thought it was the scope that just worked without batteries.

Daryk

  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 22017
  • The Double Deuce II/II-σ
Re: Small Arms Ammunition
« Reply #116 on: 17 August 2021, 03:59:20 »
It is, and that still provides a significant advantage.

RifleMech

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2856
Re: Small Arms Ammunition
« Reply #117 on: 17 August 2021, 04:00:50 »
That's cool.

Daemion

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 4587
  • The Future of BattleTech
    • Never Tales and Other Daydreams
Re: Small Arms Ammunition
« Reply #118 on: 27 August 2021, 16:40:50 »
Deflective and Ablative properties do not work together because they require competing goals.

400 years of metallurgy and new practices derived from high- and low-g environments could yield something new. And, you seem to treat Magic Mech Armor as if it's one thing.  It's quoted as having two layers with different protective properties.  ^-^

And, as for your last suggestion - considered it and discarded it for how my mind visualizes things working in the BTu future.

However!  I do see armor densities driving the idea that a 20-toner can have the same outward volume as something more dense and heavier, like a 55- or 70-ton machine. And, a lot of that could be open-air under a facade.  That works great for Mechs, but when you scale that up to ships, it starts to fall apart.

(Aside: Anyway, that's the last I'm going to discuss this. I won't be checking back in on this thread, so, you need not reply to me.  If you feel others can benefit from your knowledge, then, I'm not stopping ya.   :thumbsup: )
It's your world. You can do anything you want in it. - Bob Ross

Every thought and device conceived by Satan and man must be explored and found wanting. - Donald Grey Barnhouse on the purpose of history and time.

I helped make a game! ^_^  - Forge Of War: Tactics