HI equivalent to the ATL-7?

Aramanthus · Unread post by **Aramanthus** » Wed Dec 13, 2006 10:54 pm

I'm trying to feel good. It's been very rough today.

Aramanthus · Unread post by **Aramanthus** » Thu Dec 14, 2006 12:58 am

I'm sorry to hear that! You have my condolences!

Aramanthus · Unread post by **Aramanthus** » Fri Dec 15, 2006 12:36 am

Yes, it is.

:::Pause in memory of the dearly departed!:::

Now back to the subject at hand. Anti Tank weapons in Phase world!

Aramanthus · Unread post by **Aramanthus** » Fri Dec 15, 2006 10:38 pm

Actually a grav tank is pretty wicked! And if you say have one that weighs in at a nice 400 tons. That is a lot of armor and weapons ready to dish out a lot of hurt on an enemy!

Aramanthus · Unread post by **Aramanthus** » Sat Dec 16, 2006 3:51 am

Yes, it could to a point. You can not take and hold a planet by a ship in orbit alone. Therefore you need an army to hold it!

Aramanthus · Unread post by **Aramanthus** » Wed Dec 20, 2006 5:04 am

All you could do is blockade without any landing force.

Aramanthus · Unread post by **Aramanthus** » Thu Dec 28, 2006 8:08 pm

If the planet has the resources at it's disposal it might not surrender.

Aramanthus · Unread post by **Aramanthus** » Fri Dec 29, 2006 8:09 pm

That is very true.

Aramanthus · Unread post by **Aramanthus** » Sun Dec 31, 2006 4:00 am

It could be like WW2 Germany and/or England when it was bombed by the others.

KLM · Unread post by **KLM** » Sun Dec 31, 2006 2:22 pm

Germany did not surrender because of the bombing.

Japan, on the other hand...

Adios
KLM

KLM · Unread post by **KLM** » Wed Jan 03, 2007 8:03 am

After the Glow of Dresden I think the only thing that stood
against such a bombing was the possibility of german retaliation
with chemical warheads.

And of course the fact, that the Allied surface force did
invade the III. Reich, so that game was over, the german
surrender counted much less (in terms of casualties)
than the janapenese.

IMO.

History aside, I was just pointing out that orbital bombardment
can force the defender to choose between annihilation or surrender.

Adios
KLM

KLM · Unread post by **KLM** » Wed Jan 03, 2007 1:01 pm

True. Also (history again) Romans intentionally
razed and salted any cities which did not surrender
fast enough.

Deterrence.

Adios
KLM

Aramanthus · Unread post by **Aramanthus** » Wed Jan 03, 2007 7:03 pm

Carthage is a great example of that. Of course there were the other punic wars and Hannibal's rampage up and down the Italian pennisula that helped that on along.

KLM · Unread post by **KLM** » Thu Jan 04, 2007 7:59 am

Darkmax wrote:didn't know carthage was "done" that way....

It was, and another city-state on the other side of the
Mediterraneum too (and maybe some more, which I
am not aware of).

This event (Carthage razed+salted) made its way into
RPGs...

...like in the White Wolf's WoD, two faction of vampires
fought in that war, and the winner salted the ground, so that
any leeches hiding underground would be dessicated.

Adios
KLM[/code]

Aramanthus · Unread post by **Aramanthus** » Fri Jan 05, 2007 5:06 am

The Roman's felt it was appropriate for what they suffered at Carthage's hands.

We all know it was a terrible thing to do.

Aramanthus · Unread post by **Aramanthus** » Sat Jan 06, 2007 3:43 am

That is very true.

Aramanthus · Unread post by **Aramanthus** » Sat Jan 06, 2007 4:05 am

That is a very good idea! Who did they burn with that little trick?

Aramanthus · Unread post by **Aramanthus** » Sat Jan 06, 2007 4:19 am

Yeah, but which army did they burn there? Mongols?

Aramanthus · Unread post by **Aramanthus** » Sun Jan 07, 2007 3:55 am

That is a very cool way of dealing with your enemies. I have to remember that one.

KLM · Unread post by **KLM** » Sun Jan 07, 2007 10:19 am

"Attack with Fire" - Sun Tzu: Art of War

KLM · Unread post by **KLM** » Sun Jan 07, 2007 11:47 am

Darkmax wrote:Hmm.....Is that the translated version?

Art of War(fare) is the title, "Attack with fire" is a section.

Adios
KLM

Aramanthus · Unread post by **Aramanthus** » Mon Jan 08, 2007 7:14 pm

That is one book I need in my collection. :oops:

KLM · Unread post by **KLM** » Tue Jan 09, 2007 12:18 pm

Also, I would recommend:

Niccolo Machiavelli: Prince
- " - : Art of War

Carl von Clausewitz:On War

Adios
KLM

Aramanthus · Unread post by **Aramanthus** » Wed Jan 10, 2007 4:32 am

I heard of all of them. I just don't own any as of this moment. I'll pick them up soon enough. Thank you all for your recommendations! :ok:

Aramanthus · Unread post by **Aramanthus** » Sat Jan 13, 2007 2:53 am

I understand. Thanks for the info though.

GhostKnight · Unread post by **GhostKnight** » Sat Jan 13, 2007 7:38 pm

Is anyone going to get back on track and discuss sniping rifles?

GhostKnight · Unread post by **GhostKnight** » Sun Jan 14, 2007 2:30 am

http://www.barrettrifles.com/rifle_99.aspx

GhostKnight · Unread post by **GhostKnight** » Sun Jan 14, 2007 12:46 pm

The .416 is even flatter shooting than the .50 and 1/3 less recoil. Plus it's legal in CA!

GhostKnight · Unread post by **GhostKnight** » Sun Jan 14, 2007 1:10 pm

The .416 bullet drops less than the .50 at long distances. Makes it a bit more accurate and easier to aim.

GhostKnight · Unread post by **GhostKnight** » Sun Jan 14, 2007 2:12 pm

The .50 isn't an actual sniping rifle. It's an anti-material rifle. People think of it and try to use it as a sniping rifle because of the "coolness" factor. It's actually not that accurate. I'd go with a bolt action 338 over a 50 any day for a regular body shot.

Jefffar · Unread post by **Jefffar** » Sun Jan 14, 2007 2:55 pm

Wow, this thread is still going.

But, yeah, until recently (when special match grade 50 rounds started to be made) scorign a hit on a mansized target with a .50 at range was a pretty daunting task. The more recent rounds have improved that (as demonstrated by a Canadian sniper team in Afghanistan) but if I was plinking people I'd still generally prefer a .338 Lapua or a .408 CheyTac.

Jefffar · Unread post by **Jefffar** » Sun Jan 14, 2007 3:25 pm

A 9mm round is higher callibre than a 5.56mm NATO round but delivers only 1/10th the energy.

The width of the wound channel, while important, is not the most important factor when it comes to how much trauma a weapon causes. Projectile weight, velocity, composition and shape all influence what happens when a round hits.

Of course making the round hit is the msot important part of the equation. The .50, even with the new match grade rounds, is still not as accurate as the .338. The .338 fits in lighter, more comfortable to shoot weapons, which also increases accuracy.

So I'd rather hit with a .338 than miss with a .50

Jefffar · Unread post by **Jefffar** » Sun Jan 14, 2007 3:44 pm

It also takes a 2 man team to carry a .50 bmg rifle for any distance in the field. That laso means you have to take it aart and put it back toegether again, making quick shots hard (not that snipers take many quick shots of course).

A .338 is manpackable by 1 without disassembly

KLM · Unread post by **KLM** » Sun Jan 14, 2007 5:29 pm

Back to topic, a laser beam - while the effect
of gravity on it is minusczule - tends to deviate
on longer distances, in atmosphere.

It is because different layers of air act as a prism
(or like light entering water or glass)...

----------
Plus given the fact, that CG rail guns might not have
a recoil (or at least it can be compensated to zero)
it might make them a viable alternative to lasers or
energy beams.

Not to mention, than one never knows, when he must snipe
at a targat, with impervious to energy.
-----------

Now, this brings us to the .338 vs. .50 debate...

If we are looking at the "higher-tech" version
of the ATL-7, we are not talking about .338 vs .50,
but more likely .50 vs. 14,5mm or even 20mm.

I mean a (Royal) Kreeghor, a Machine People
soldier is almost equal to a light APC, and
on the top of it, is ABLE TO WEAR PA.
And then there are the MBTs, giant robots,
and even strafing starfighters and landing ships.

Adios
KLM

http://www.fegyver.org/ismertet/gepard.html
(It is in Hungarian, but I gues the table is rather
international, not to mention the pix... Btw, the rifle
is credited to have a deviation of less than 25 cm
at 1300 metres... Convert it to MOA?)

GhostKnight · Unread post by **GhostKnight** » Sun Jan 14, 2007 9:40 pm

Jefffar wrote:It also takes a 2 man team to carry a .50 bmg rifle for any distance in the field. That laso means you have to take it aart and put it back toegether again, making quick shots hard (not that snipers take many quick shots of course).

A .338 is manpackable by 1 without disassembly

I carried either an M60 or a M82 for 3 years in the field. One person is fine. I usually did have someone carry additional ammo for the M60 though.

Aramanthus · Unread post by **Aramanthus** » Mon Jan 15, 2007 3:41 am

I don't remeber what friend used when he was in the service. I know he did have some practice with several rifles including the Barret 50. My friend was a sniper with the military.

Oh by the way it was a neat little Rifle. Thanks for showing it Ghost.

KLM · Unread post by **KLM** » Mon Jan 15, 2007 7:11 am

Darkmax wrote:wait .... what does an M16 fires?... Why can't I recall....

.223 Rem (alias 5.56 NATO)

Braden Campbell · Mon Jan 15, 2007 1:46 pm

So to sum up...

Because of flaws inherent to the Palladium system, a sniping laser weapon must be able to put out enough damage in one blow to deplete the MDC of most EBA helmets (on the order of at least D6x10 per shot), but should also have some killer optics and targeting (as it would have to in real life).

A laser "anti-materiel" rifle would therefore also have to be able to put out a disproportionately huge damage amount in a single blow (say, at least 3D6x10), and would most likely require a two man team of unaugmented humans.

Greyaxe · Unread post by **Greyaxe** » Mon Jan 15, 2007 1:50 pm

Two Words, shemarrian rail-gun, and probably two men to operate it.

KLM · Unread post by **KLM** » Mon Jan 15, 2007 1:53 pm

Even the Boom Gun is just barely qualifies as
an anti-material rifle...

Jefffar · Unread post by **Jefffar** » Mon Jan 15, 2007 2:12 pm

Without a change to the mechanic of the game, it's hard to have anti-anything weapons basically.

Jefffar · Unread post by **Jefffar** » Tue Jan 16, 2007 11:21 am

No, Anti-Materiel Rifles destroy targets that ar too tough to damage by conventional rifles by using a bullet powerful enough to overcome the inherent toughness of the target on the first hit.

Just like an anti-tank weapon has to be powerful enough to blast through the armour and deal signifigant damage inside th tank on the first hit - there might not be a chance to make another.

KLM · Unread post by **KLM** » Tue Jan 16, 2007 12:38 pm

Jefffar wrote:No, Anti-Materiel Rifles destroy targets that ar too tough to damage by conventional rifles by using a bullet powerful enough to overcome the inherent toughness of the target on the first hit.

In fact, the high-caliber rifles (and heavy machine guns)
were originally invented as anti-armor weapons in WWI.

Almost immediately they were used as sniping weapons
too (with not much success)...

Adios
KLM

Jefffar · Unread post by **Jefffar** » Tue Jan 16, 2007 12:43 pm

Yep, the Boy's Anti-Tank Rifle, which became unable to attack tanks after about 1940 or so, was often used to kill tukcs and engage infantry behind light cover.

The German ant-tank rifle, when it became worthless, was turned into a high powered rifle grenade launcher.

I think the Soviets kept producing their PTRS and PTRD rifles throughout the war and a few GIs had unfortunate encounters with them during the Korean War.