Range Modifier

[armchairviking]

After a recent TGW game, tanktop and I felt we their should be an over half range modifier for direct fire weapons. Just wondered if anyone else had come to this conclusion or had any other rule amendments?

[Justin]

I think combat experience has shown that over 300 yards most troops are unlikely to hit their targets. Within that range, cover/limited exposure has more effect than range.

So no, no good reason to have half range modifier.

[alex]

This would really only affect rifles and long range personnal weapons and it is already factored in the game. If you don't move you only shoot once over 12'', and if you move you get only one shot at 12'' or less. So distance between the shooter and the target is already factored into the game.

Let's take it the other way round. Consider that the usual rate of fire of a rifle is 2 shots. It loses 1 shot at long range (ie over 12'') due to innacuracy. It also loses one shot if it moves to reflect the difficulty of shooting while moving.

So you get your modifiers, not in the shape of a minus X but in a reduction of the rate of fire.

Other weapons are unaffected, thanks to the way they shoot, either in long burst that don't rely on accuracy (eg mgs) or to such short ranges that distance isn't revelant (eg pistols or smgs).


Hope it helps.

Alex

[tanktop]

I think combat experience has shown that over 300 yards most troops are unlikely to hit their targets. Within that range, cover/limited exposure has more effect than range.

So no, no good reason to have half range modifier.

Check out MOA: stands for minute of angle. Its a military term for weapon accuracy. Weapons quickly decrease in accuracy over fairly short ranges. NYPD data for incidents of lethal force using pistols between 1994-2000 showed that the mean hit % of trained officers was as follows: (source: T.J.Aveni, The Police Policy Studies Council)

<3 yards 38%
<7 yards 17%
<15 yards 9%
< 25 yards 4%

GW is essentially saying Pistol 8" (1/3 rifle range so lets say 300 / 3 = 100 yards) 100 yards or less = 50% chance to hit. Military Rifles typically have MAO 2 and I understand on average the % hit accuracy sharply decreases every 100 yards or so. I understand as a general rule rifles tend to increase range relative to a pistol by X10 so add a zero on the end of the above figures and youve got a crude starting point for rifle accuracy in real life threatening conditions.

We found the game a bit unusual in that one minute a unit may be a couple of inches out of range and can't be hit at all and the next minute the unit creeps over an invisible line and practically gets slaughtered. I know world war one was v.heavy on casualties but I doesn't convince me that hit probabilities should be all or nothing.

[Justin]

That seems right to me, fighting well within the effective range of the weapons, what you could see you could hit. Modern weapons with 19th century tactics.

[Guy]

The die is cast for TGW. As Alex said, it sort of works for the weapons and the system. That's 40k for you.

I personally am a fan of range modifiers. I don't buy the idea that the target is the same to hit regardless of range, cover or movement of the firer. If you were however to introduce the modifiers to Great War then you'd have to make some changes to the rates of fire, no double shooting at short range for example. There was a version based on WAB I saw at a Partizan show a good year before TGW came out (run by Dave Andrews and Aly Morrison believe it or not!).

Minute of arc is a good one (bearing in mind MoA is the measurement of a gun fired from a bench rest under ideal conditions). Hitting a stationary target at 300 yards on a range is a different ball game to trying to hit a fast moving target popping up to take a shot trying to kill you from a trenchline less than 100m away. This is reflected in the Police hit rates given, even trained professionals can empty magazines and not hit a thing.

I had a very long discussion with a friend over sniper rifles - he refused to believe that hitting a man size target at 1000 yards with a first shot was anything but very lucky. It is certainly not a case of if you can see it, you can hit it. Maybe if you send a lot of lead its way (Vickers style) one of the bullets will hit it.

Guy

[tanktop]

I agree with you guy on all counts. I would be suprised to see TGW rereleased in its 2nd edition with lots of modifiers boot strapped to the orignal game, so yes the system is what it is. I suspect the rules designers probably started with a bunch of factors and slowly stripped them out of the game as they successively playtested the rules.

I started in the hobby over 20 years ago when the rules tended to be more highly complex if not a bit "mechanical". Im all for simplification and fast play but I noticed that everybody seems bent on writing ultra simple rule systems at the moment. I think you have to be careful what you sacrifice. Weapon range is such a basic principle in any period from ancient, to horse and musket to modern.

Play any 18th Century multi Divisional / Corps level system such as Johnny Reb / Empire etc you always have a good spread of 3 or 4 basic range bands and those systems use figure scales from 1:20-1:50!. The idea that you only represent the effective range and deny the player the opportunity to shoot at long and extreme is a bit alien to me. Its removing from the player an option to sit at long range and use withering fire against a position. This is a valid tactic in any period.
Im still not convinced regarding the TGW ranges. The game just didnt play right in our experience, We played an encounter battle and the side that clearly won was the side that advanced into range first and blasted the other. That encourages the wrong kind of tactics. If range is longer and more differentaited the focus is more tactical thinking and maneuver more fluid, rather than thinking with your tape measure to see if you can shoot first.

As Einstien famously said: "Keep things simple, but no simpler".

[tanktop]

That seems right to me, fighting well within the effective range of the weapons, what you could see you could hit. Modern weapons with 19th century tactics.

I understand how your approaching this but I also think as Guy mentioned that its not quite as simple as if you can see it you can shoot it. Your right that in many cases riflemen would probably reserve fire until under 300 yards knowing that it was hard to hit targets over this range. But then they would probably pick up their targets well over 300 yards, hence would see them outside the effective range of their weapons (especially in situations like Mons where their enemy may have been advancing en-masse, or in company / battalion groups). In these situations mass volume fire would probably cause casulaties at ranges in excess of 300 yards, where as if the attacker was dispersed and advancing in rushes and using fire and movement as the french began to in mid to late 1916 they would present much more difficult targets. Imagine shooting at a battalion masse infanry attack and then imagine the same attack delivered by small fleeting targets moving from crater to crater under a curtain of supporting fire. These two situations are worlds apart. The chance to score hits would be more than slightly different, I think it would have been vastly different. Hence I'd argue modifiers for range, supression and target tactics are important in order to capture the period fully.

[Justin]

Indeed it does not need to be imagined, there is a record of a German attack by the 43rd brigade against some Russians on the 9th September 1914 at Gerdauen, one of the companies advanced in close order and suffered 50% losses, the other companies attacked in open order and suffered about 1.67% losses. So forget about weapon ranges and start thinking about the properties of the target being shot at.

Also machine guns should cover a beaten zone, rather than having a certain number of shoots (like Sweeping Fire) so that an enfilade attack is far more effective.

[Guy]

Indeed it does not need to be imagined, there is a record of a German attack by the 43rd brigade against some Russians on the 9th September 1914 at Gerdauen, one of the companies advanced in close order and suffered 50% losses, the other companies attacked in open order and suffered about 1.67% losses. So forget about weapon ranges and start thinking about the properties of the target being shot at.

Now there's an interesting 'Can O Worms'. You've just inadvertently answered an interesting query about the SMLE sights; why were they sighted for 2000 yards. For firing on dense formations of enemy troops at such ranges. Great for colonial enemies like Zulus or Fuzzy Wuzzies but it didn't quite work out against the likes of the Boers who used modern rifles and skirmishing tactics (dashed unsporting!). Some German units were still using old tactics ( you command your men better if they attack in close column) others the new skirmishing tactics. So yes closely bunched targets are easier to hit.

So target density is another part of the equation along with range. Shooting a person at 2000 yards? Luck! Shooting a group? Well you might hit one of 'em as the bullet tumbles. Modern rifles tend to have flip sights, sighted for 100 yards and 300 yards (a feature first appearing on Italian Rifles BTW, which weren't as rubbish as you'd be lead to believe). These reflect the realistic ranges target will engaged at.

Also machine guns should cover a beaten zone, rather than having a certain number of shoots (like Sweeping Fire) so that an enfilade attack is far more effective.

That's another 'Can O Worms'! Area fire by machineguns; or if you prefer area denial. There are celebrated cases Machine Gun Companies of Vickers providing area fire for days, firing millions of rounds. The idea of them sweeping through lines of troops at various ranges is a bit odd. It assumes machineguns have a straight LOS trajectory, not the parabolic one they do really have.

Guy

[Justin]

So target density is another part of the equation along with range.

Indeed far far more important. Two different methods of attack, as the same time, same conditions, yet vastly different casualty rates.

You've just inadvertently answered an interesting query about the SMLE sights; why were they sighted for 2000 yards.

Because they could (we blokes love technical statistics). After trench warfare armies looked at the ranges that armies fought at and decided that bolt action rifles were vastly over powered for the job and the Assault Rifle was born! Now down to 5.56mm and some say that round is underpowered for the job. After reading some battle reports on the (current) fighting in Afghanistan, I thought what they need is some Lee Enfields. And lo the next thing I read is that the British army is going to issue new 7.62 rifles, one per section, to be used by marksmen. Plus ca change.

[Guy]

Indeed far far more important. Two different methods of attack, as the same time, same conditions, yet vastly different casualty rates.

I'll have to agree to disagree. Range is a crutial factor as is the battlefield. The M1 Carbine did a sufficient job in WW2 but was heavily criticised in Korea for having a poor range and stopping power. Which leads us nicely onto your next point.

After trench warfare armies looked at the ranges that armies fought at and decided that bolt action rifles were vastly over powered for the job and the Assault Rifle was born! Now down to 5.56mm and some say that round is underpowered for the job. After reading some battle reports on the (current) fighting in Afghanistan, I thought what they need is some Lee Enfields. And lo the next thing I read is that the British army is going to issue new 7.62 rifles, one per section, to be used by marksmen. Plus ca change.

The Soviets... err Russians... have had the Dragunov at the platoon (and squad) level for a good two decades. The allocation was based on their Afghanistan experience where old SMLEs were used by the older Mujahideen and were outranging the Soviets' AKs. No surprise that the Brits are looking at the Designated Marksman Rifle concept.

The 5.56 is sufficient for its role, supression and wounding the enemy. You can get away with a M4 Carbine with a 14" barrel for city fighting but in the big country you need a different tool.

Guy

[Justin]

I'll have to agree to disagree.

How could one argue, with an historical example like that?

The 5.56 is sufficient for its role, suppression and wounding the enemy.

Soldiers who use it seem to disagree with various 'faults' specified; lack of stopping power and deflection of shots by light cover

see
http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/btbjdw.pdf

but I stress these 'problems' have been reported in the British army from the Falklands onwards (an SAS guy complaining that he had put 3x 5.56mm rounds into an Argentinian marine (the marine was still standing), the marine put one 7.62mm round into him and it broke his leg.

But getting back on track, range is not so much of a factor (IMHO) because even if you can see a target at long range, you have to be able to take advantage of it. In many ways my British army training was similar to that of WW2, starting with Lee Enfields and Bren guns. We were ordered when to open fire (not our choice) and long range targets would be shot at by individual marksmen. So officers get to decide when to open fire. There is a limited ammunition supply even if not firing at the 'mad minute' rate of 15 rpm, you are not going to have much more than 10 minutes firing, so why waste it at long range?

So to my mind the ranges in Great War are effective ranges (in fact it says so) and you don't improve much by getting to shorter ranges.

[tanktop]

So forget about weapon ranges and start thinking about the properties of the target being shot at.

Also machine guns should cover a beaten zone, rather than having a certain number of shoots (like Sweeping Fire) so that an enfilade attack is far more effective.

I would say all these factors are important: range, cover, target density, target movement and firer movement, training etc. Its hard to argue that any one of these shouldn't be represented in more detail than any other. TGW for example has a big list of cover types. I wouldn't have minded just 3 or 4 with more detail on on items such as range, target density and such like.

I also had the same thoughts regarding MG beaten zones. I remember researching the lewis gun about a year ago and I seem to remember there being a diagramme that showed the "Bullet fall" or beaten zone as a stretched elliptical zone. I recall speaking with an ex army soldier who also discribed MG area of effect in the same way. I have often thought that it would be more realistic to have an MG burst template, in the same way you have a shell burst template. If it was sized correctly it would encourage players to develop the interlocking arcs of fire that proved so effective. Trouble with giving "shots" is that the gun is just as effective in defilade as it is in enfilade, which contradicts everything I have read, Googled or You tubed.

Guys also has a point re: parabolic tragectory - hence the use of plunging or indirect MG fire as the British developed with "MG barrages" which could be used against reverse slope positions. But I understand these where typically used at longer ranges. You would guess that the higher the angle of fire, and longer the range the shorter the beaten zone, but greater the width and spread of the rounds. Id love to learn more about it, I understand MG tactics are quite complex in themselves. It really is a case of the more you learn the less you realise you know.

[Guy]

How could one argue, with an historical example like that?

How could anyone argue about their words being taken out of context? If you'd only included the second part of my sentence.

That big german marching column using 19th century tactics would have been even easier to shoot at as they got closer and like hitting a barn door at close ranges. As tanktop said, its a combination of factors. Also an excellent example of a target you want to engage at long range.

but I stress these 'problems' have been reported in the British army from the Falklands onwards (an SAS guy complaining that he had put 3x 5.56mm rounds into an Argentinian marine (the marine was still standing), the marine put one 7.62mm round into him and it broke his leg.

And there's examples from Vietnam where a SF guy took a VC's arm clean off with a single short burst... The whole point of the 5.56mm round is its light weight so you can carry more ammunition. It will injure an opponent which will generally put him out of the fight. An injured man requires someone else in the squad to patch his wounds and keep him stable, a dead man requires no additional resources.

Now 7.62 vs 5.56... there is a move to look at larger calibre weapons but as I understand it, this has more to do with penetrating the current ballistic armour available.

But getting back on track, range is not so much of a factor (IMHO) because even if you can see a target at long range, you have to be able to take advantage of it. In many ways my British army training was similar to that of WW2, starting with Lee Enfields and Bren guns. We were ordered when to open fire (not our choice) and long range targets would be shot at by individual marksmen. So officers get to decide when to open fire. There is a limited ammunition supply even if not firing at the 'mad minute' rate of 15 rpm, you are not going to have much more than 10 minutes firing, so why waste it at long range?

Now there is a curious thing too. Standard allied tactics was Able, Baker, Charlie. The officer would establish a base of fire to keep the enemy's heads down while a secondary group (or groups) of riflemen would outflank the enemy position. Sure ammunition is limited but every trooper in the British squad would be carrying extra ammo for the Bren. The decision to open fire depends on the tactical situation; inexperienced troops will tend to open fire at longer ranges, potentially spoiling ambushes. The idea that troops are going to cross open ground and then only open fire when they get in close is suicidal; you'd use pepper potting, where one squad offers covering fire to the advance of the other squad.

Its also an interesting thing that quite a few modern warfare exchanges occur at extreme ranges. There's a general move to reduce casuaties, it doesen't look good in the media, so there's a tendency to engage at longer ranges to pin down the enemy and call in support.

Guy

[tanktop]

Gents,

Real_Role_of_Small_Arms_RDS_Summer_09.pdf

RE: Supression and small arms accuracy

(415.19 KiB) Downloaded 16 times

Ive attached the article above for anybody who is interested. Thought it may be of interest to the discussion on range / weapon effectiveness / small arms tactics.

Carl.

[Justin]

The idea that troops are going to cross open ground and then only open fire when they get in close is suicidal

Yes I was thinking of the defenders, seeing the attack and being told when to open fire.

Attackers fire whilst moving far less effective. The 'leap-frog' approach to attacking does not seem in much evidence. In the example I gave (of the German attack on the Russians) the idea was for the attackers to get to 300m and then engage in a fire-fight. From what I understand of German tactics, they would hope to win the fire-fight and then charge in.

The real question is, if ranges are effective ranges how much more effective are they if the range decreases. So lets say effective range is 50% chance of a hit, at what range does that chance to hit (more effective shooting) become significantly greater?

Liked the article, wrong about the Boer war of course as infantry continued to advance against enemy rifles (as shown at the beginning of WW1). Machine guns and artillery really put a stop to the open warfare.

[Guy]

Yes I was thinking of the defenders, seeing the attack and being told when to open fire.

Again entirely dependent on the tactical situation. You'd generally want to open fire as soon as they were in effective range, casualties at long or extreme range (up to the effective range of the weapon) are still casualties. There are tactical factors for why you'd hold your fire, perhaps ammunition would be one or not wishing to reveal your location until the last minute (a tactic seen in use both by the late war Germans and VC - stay close to your enemy so he cannot bring his superior firepower to bear) but these will only apply in certain circumstance. A typical tactic in Afghanistan is for a Taliban 'sniper' (a guy with a gun) to pop off a few rounds at extreme range and then leg it. It'll slow the coalition troops down as they take cover and try and work out the position of the fire, by which time the 'sniper' is long gone.

Attackers fire whilst moving far less effective.

Yes it is. That should be reflected in the rules, thus the need for 'pepper potting' tactics or establishing a base of fire. Aimed fire from a stationary position will always be more effective than a quick snapshot or trying to fire a weapon on the move.

The 'leap-frog' approach to attacking does not seem in much evidence.

Well apart from being the standard tactic in British field manuals to the present day... I've spoken with Falkland verterans and I have two friends in the 3rd Batallion Rifles. Its still very much in use.

The standard german tactic of WW2 by the way was to either rely on surprise or their support weapons so they could take a position as quickly as possible and then hold it with their machinegun. That meant the Germans were generally quicker on the assault than the Allies, their tactics echoing the Stormtrooper tactics of WW1.

The real question is, if ranges are effective ranges how much more effective are they if the range decreases. So lets say effective range is 50% chance of a hit, at what range does that chance to hit (more effective shooting) become significantly greater?

The problem with your statement is the use of the term 'effective'; once you understand what effective means in Military terms you're closer to unravelling the knot. Look at different websites and you'll find different answers, with the typical east-west bias. After you've read yet another site harping on how inaccurate Russian assault rifles are you realise they've missed the point. The Russian's design philospophy is entirely correct for their doctrine - suppression. Which leads us back into the 5.56 debate - 5.45 or 5.56 does the supression job just as well as the heavier rounds and your infantryman can carry more of them.

The effective range of a weapon is the range at which it can still do its job - incapacitate or kill the enemy. Think of it as maximum effective range the weapon is capable of killing. Now a machinegun has a larger effective range than your average rifle, why is that? Its down to the fact that it can fire a greater volume of bullets at the target and so the chances of it getting an effective hit at longer ranges is greater.

Liked the article, wrong about the Boer war of course as infantry continued to advance against enemy rifles (as shown at the beginning of WW1). Machine guns and artillery really put a stop to the open warfare.

The reasons why they advanced has much to do with the British army doctrine of the time, like the German army, some commanders were rooted in the old style tactics of grouped formations of men and volley fire (the 'mad minute' by the way was controlled volley fire). A few commanders, who'd served in the Frontier in India, had learnt to let their infantry skirmish to reduce casualties but lessons weren't learned until the Boer war.

You could argue that machineguns and artillery later opened up open warfare, as the article says the game is about preventing your enemy from firing back, supressing them. The Blitzkreig being a classic example of combined warfare to breakthrough the enemy and it should be remembered that very, very few of the German infantry divisions were mechanised in 1940.

Sorry, when it comes to guns I've done a lot of reading!

Guy

[GeorgeC]

So lets say effective range is 50% chance of a hit, at what range does that chance to hit (more effective shooting) become significantly greater?

We overestimate effectiveness of small arms fire. A quick Google shows that the Canadians fired over 4.6 million rounds in Afghanistan (2.9Mx5.56, 1.6Mx7.62 and 115,000x12.7) between Apr 06 and Dec 07. The British Army fired 1 million (as opposed to the aspiration of 'none') in their first 8 or 9 months in Helmand. Non-civilian (er Taliban?) casualties in 2007 were estimated at 6500. Now one could argue all day over what proportion other nations and other means inflicted these casualties and exactly what a 'Taliban casualty' means, but 2 of the best equipped and trained armies ever put in the field by these countries are not hitting 50% of what they shoot at, even over a period of a 'wargames turn'. No bit of military kit has ever been as lethal as range figure suggest (thank God).

It also makes me feel better about my own range performance and clay shooting prowess

[GeorgeC]

I have just re-read my last post and decided to suggest re-equiping NATO in Afghanistan as WAB slingers, that will teach the Taliban.