Range Modifier

[Justin]

No bit of military kit has ever been as lethal as range figure suggest (thank God).

Yes as I suggested earlier, using technical specs as a basis for rule writing is a big no, no. Particularly shown in the great air-to-air missile debate. Looking at the stats, it would have appeared that air-to-air missiles rendered guns obsolete. It proved not to be the case.

I would prefer to base rules on historical combat results, rather than technical info.

[Guy]

I would prefer to base rules on historical combat results, rather than technical info.

It depends how accurate the technical info is. You have to understand where its coming from or who they are trying to sell it to. And historical combat results, well how accurate are they? Again, you have to look at the biases and the sources. As for the air to air missiles; missiles are expensive, bullets are cheap. And believe it or not, some AA guns have been withdrawn for being too accurate (!).

We know why so many rounds were fired, apart from test shooting its for supression. It isn't about individual marksmanship but supressing the enemy so you can outflank him. Its about manoeuvre, to pin the enemy down and be in a better position to kill the enemy than facing their firepower head on.

At least we agree on our games should have some feel of 'real life' or dare I say 'historical accuracy' (depending on what the consensus is on that hot potato at the time).

Guy

[tanktop]

RE: effective range

As per the previous posts by George C and Guy I would add that a wargamers notion of "effective range" is completely different than the reality. As paddy griffiths illustrates in his assessment of Late 19th Century warfare musketry duels between close order infantry battalions could result in huge volumes of fire per sqaure yard/per min with very low hit ratios ( In the order of 0.03%). So a 600 strong battalion might loose of at 40-60 yards and perhaps hit a few dozen men.

Similarly the pdf article I posted on "real role of small arms" provides a figure drawn from combat studies that suggest that when troops are taken from a rifle range and put into combat situation where they are under fire their level of marksmanship decreases by a power of 10, and a further 10 if fired on by MGs or in the presence of enemy tanks. So that means that a riflemen who can hit a 4" non moving target at 300 yards on the rifle range 100% of the time could only hit the same real life non moving target 1% of the time if in actual combat and fired on by say MGs or automatic weapons. And thats a non moving target. So as Guy mentioned the interpretation of what constitutes effective range is probably nowhere near 50%, its probably to generous to say 5%. Its the sheer volume of bullets that allows any noticeable effect to be registered on an advancing enemy which is why artillery became so important. British troops that advanced into the German defences of the Somme unable to resume contact with their supporting batteries where easily overrun by counter attacks. Whats more German counter fire into no mans land prevented reinforcements from being able to reach forward positions.

Furthermore the casualty records for world war 1 and 2 tend to indicate approx 70% of wounds where received from artillery, with only a small portion from small arms and significantly less than 1% caused by bayonets. (incidently very similar figures to American Civil War of the 1860's). So Artillery is King (or queen if your an ardent feminist...)

[armchairviking]

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

I would still suggest that although MGs don't rely on accuracy, over a longer range their effectiveness is much reduced. I think of MG fire as a cone of bullets that becomes more and more dispersed over distance so the density is much less.

Add to this is the simple fact that a man is smaller further away than he is close up so MGs shooting at long range has to be less effective.

I accept that a range consideration has been built into the rifle shooting but surely it would have been simpler to just give every rifleman 2 shots and just have a -1 modifier over 12" and another -1 if he has moved. It works in WAB after all.

[Guy]

I accept that a range consideration has been built into the rifle shooting but surely it would have been simpler to just give every rifleman 2 shots and just have a -1 modifier over 12" and another -1 if he has moved. It works in WAB after all.

I'd agree mostly with that. Use the WAB modifiers and drop cover saves. I'd drop the two shots for the rifle unless it was a semi automatic, like the Garand or FN Fal. I'd be tempted to add an extreme range (-2 to hit, double long range) and a +1 for large targets (non skirmishing troops or those commiting the sin of buddying up). That'd also be useful for 19th century engagements (Fuzzy Wuizzies and Brit lines being shot at by skirmishing Boers).

Guy

[Justin]

Some thoughts on various calibres here (including comments from users)

http://theminiaturespage.com/boards/msg.mv?id=188989

[doobry]

given that ww1 rifles were all roughly the same range wise i feel that the rules are fine the way they are,to refine them further i feel would mean having rosters on the abilities of the troops firing them rather than range modifiers.Everybody is different when it comes to firing a weapon some are good at long ranes and stuggle at closer ones and visa versa.
The 5.56 versus7.62 debate is interesting in so far as it has taken so long to come to the obvious conclusion ,the ira were outranging our troops the minute they were issued with the 5.56 ,and history shows that the Afghans are adept at long range fighting from cover.

iain

[Justin]

given that ww1 rifles were all roughly the same range wise i feel that the rules are fine the way they are

Yep same here. No good reason IMHO to change.

[Guy]

given that ww1 rifles were all roughly the same range wise i feel that the rules are fine the way they are,to refine them further i feel would mean having rosters on the abilities of the troops firing them rather than range modifiers.Everybody is different when it comes to firing a weapon some are good at long ranes and stuggle at closer ones and visa versa.

Yep same here. No good reason IMHO to change.

Well I have a problem with the late german rifle. In the Great War rules every late german 'rifle' is a carbine. The Kar 98a was issued to assault units but standard units would have used the Gew 98.

I don't see where you get the need for new range bands, tables and modifiers Iain, it would used the same system WAB does; One number for range. Halve it, double it - easy math. I do find it odd that its defintiely necessary for WAB to consider movement and range (key factors), while for 40K since 3rd edition these are irrelevances (which modern warfare tactics show they are certainly not irrelevant).

The 5.56 versus7.62 debate is interesting in so far as it has taken so long to come to the obvious conclusion ,the ira were outranging our troops the minute they were issued with the 5.56 ,and history shows that the Afghans are adept at long range fighting from cover.

The link Justin provided is an interesting one. The British have seen the need for a designated marksman's rifle for a while now (copying what the Soviets have done for decades). The LSW was being considered at one point, now its role is taken by the Minimi. The 5.56 certainly doesen't outrange the 7.62, it just does a different job (as covered above). History does show that some Afghans are good with long range fire - with old bolt action rifles. That as I understand was part of the Soviet's reason for equipping the SVD at squad level.

I could tell you a few stories my mates have told me from their tours in 'Afghan' as they call it, including a duel between a 'sniper' and a .50 cal team in a sangar or a tale about a British sniper firing warning shots. Northern Ireland? A very different kettle of fish with very strict rules of engagement; you don't want to go letting off an L1A1 in a built up area with civilians about...

Guy

[Justin]

Well I have a problem with the late german rifle. In the Great War rules every late german 'rifle' is a carbine.

True but thats a list issue IMHO not a rule issue. Solution, change the list?

[doobry]

I don't see where you get the need for new range bands, tables and modifiers Iain, it would used the same system WAB does; One number for range. Halve it, double it - easy math. I do find it odd that its defintiely necessary for WAB to consider movement and range (key factors), while for 40K since 3rd edition these are irrelevances (which modern warfare tactics show they are certainly not irrelevant).

wab- longbow range 30" this allows a gradual whittling down of the enemy
wecw musket range24" one of the reasons I do'nt play wecw it alway ended up in a firefight at ranges where push of pike was impossible
Great war rifle range 12""movementdone to get you into an advantageous firing position as quickly as possible
Guy surely if you wanted to bring in wab thinking into the great war rifle ranges would have to be adjusted upwards so you would loose game speed.

A very different kettle of fish with very strict rules of engagement

Unless they have changed very recently rules of engagement in afghanistan are every bit as restictive as they were in ireland.

you don't want to go letting off an L1A1 in a built up area with civilians about...

No but when someone is shooting at you and you are unable to shoot back because you are outranged its more than frustating and it happened fairly regularly in bandit country.

iain

[Guy]

wab- longbow range 30" this allows a gradual whittling down of the enemy
wecw musket range24" one of the reasons I do'nt play wecw it alway ended up in a firefight at ranges where push of pike was impossible
Great war rifle range 12""movementdone to get you into an advantageous firing position as quickly as possible
Guy surely if you wanted to bring in wab thinking into the great war rifle ranges would have to be adjusted upwards so you would loose game speed.

Lose game speed? Nah. Losing cover saves increases game speed (keeping cover saves for artillery). Also I'd be thinking a rifle had a 24" range, not 12". Also bear in mind a longbow in Great War would be something like 15" maximum range, as you're firing at a skirmishing target. You cannot compare like with like on ranges, as in WAB you're firing at formed units with no penalty while in Great War you're firing at skirmishers effectively with no penalty. Rifles are more accurate.

Unless they have changed very recently rules of engagement in afghanistan are every bit as restictive as they were in ireland.

That I'll have to check. As I understood it, I think the ROE for Northern Ireland was exceptionally restrictive, less so in Afghan.

No but when someone is shooting at you and you are unable to shoot back because you are outranged its more than frustating and it happened fairly regularly in bandit country.

A Barrat .50 outranges a L1A1 (the IRA had one of these as I recall), an Armalite does not. I believe its more of a case of not wishing to open fire in heavily populated civilian areas; the frustration comes from not being able to fire back without a clear target which does not endanger civilian lives. The Russians had the ability to use different tactics in Chechnya, one time they levelled a skyscraper with an MRL direct fire just to get a sniper. A similar thing happened in the 2nd Gulf War (the Iran Iraq being technically the 1st Gulf war) when the Iraqis invaded Saudi Arabia. In Afghan they have on call aerial support (in the form of a 1000lb paveway), so definitely different ROE's.

Guy

[Guy]

one of the reasons I do'nt play wecw it alway ended up in a firefight at ranges where push of pike was impossible

I've had this discussion with a friend. He was of the opinion that with the changes brought about by Gustav Adolfus, that'd be pretty accurate. He encouraged shot to form up in lines to maximise firepower which led to the eventual decline fo the pike. Prior to that they'd tended to be in deep formations.

Guy

[alex]

Well I have a problem with the late german rifle. In the Great War rules every late german 'rifle' is a carbine. The Kar 98a was issued to assault units but standard units would have used the Gew 98.

Guy

That's why in the 1918 German list only the Stosstruppen and the Sturmtruppen get carbines as standard equipment. The Infantry Companies are equipped with rifles. Even the Assault Companies (ie the Regular infantry that was trained during the 1917-18 winter for the Friedensturm) retains their rifles as carbines were not available in quantities sufficient to equip the whole army.

Alex

[Guy]

That's why in the 1918 German list only the Stosstruppen and the Sturmtruppen get carbines as standard equipment. The Infantry Companies are equipped with rifles. Even the Assault Companies (ie the Regular infantry that was trained during the 1917-18 winter for the Friedensturm) retains their rifles as carbines were not available in quantities sufficient to equip the whole army.

Aplologies Alex, you are right! I didn't read it thoroughly enough.

Guy

[GeorgeC]

Unless they have changed very recently rules of engagement in afghanistan are every bit as restictive as they were in ireland.

That I'll have to check. As I understood it, I think the ROE for Northern Ireland was exceptionally restrictive, less so in Afghan.

Sorry to go way OT but this is an interesting circumstance. It is in the public domain, as the principles are in the Law of Armed Conflict and English Common Law, that UK ROEs in Afghanistan are influenced by 2 different considerations.

One is the absolute right to the use of reasonable force in the defence of yourself and others - self-defence as an individual - covered under UK common law which applies to UK personnel. This is judged against reasonableness of immediate actions you take when someone is shooting at you or your colleagues. This is the same test as applied in the bad old days in Northern Ireland, to an armed police officer on the street or anyone in their home faced by a burglar. Obviously, if someone is using a Barret an SLR is reasonable; an ambush backed up by HMG, mortars and 107mm rockets merits a 1000lbs LGB.

The second is the employment of lethal force against those threatening the allied, legitimate government (as seen by the UN) of Afghanistan - collective security as a nation - which is the Law of Armed Conflict. This requires actions to be proportionate, discriminate, avoid unnecessary suffering and militarily necessary. It also allows you to shoot before you are shot at but can actually require you to take more care to avoid (infamous) collateral damage where you choose to employ force rather than self-defence where you are compelled to use force when your own, or colleagues, lives are under threat.

However, the exact details of what this means in terms of ROEs isn't in the public domain for obvious reasons. On the ground, this gives the impression that ROEs are sometimes as tight as NI - don't fire until you you are shot at - and sometimes not - you can bomb a group of Taliban forming up miles away to attack - and might depend on the information you have to hand at the time. On top of all this comes the voluntary acceptance of a certain amount of risk to your own troops to avoid loosing the hearts and minds of the locals, and thus the overall war.

Sorry again for going right OT but it is a topic I have bumped up against professionally in the past, fortunatley in less extreme circumstances.

[Guy]

Sorry again for going right OT but it is a topic I have bumped up against professionally in the past, fortunatley in less extreme circumstances.

No apologies needed George. Excellent stuff!

Guy

[doobry]

just out of interest were there stict rules of engagement in wwi .I remember seeing a programme about court martials and one of them was of a soldier accused of killing a German with his clasp knife -misuse of equpmentor some other ridiculous charge.
On reading george's post I'm not surprised that its going to take years to sort out afghanistan if ever,you 've got one side with strict roe and the other side with none.

iain

[Justin]

On reading george's post I'm not surprised that its going to take years to sort out afghanistan if ever,you 've got one side with strict roe and the other side with none.

Its because one side refuses to stand up and fight 'fair' - against aircraft and artillery when they have none - sensible or cowardly depending on how you look at it. Certainly the Taliban have ROE, just being a bunch of individuals, they are loose. They have had had their nutters - as has 'our' side - and they have been told to tone it down (or been killed). The Taliban are very efficient at 'hearts and minds'. I remember being told by a British soldier that he enjoyed his NI tours as he really got to hurt people, they are out there in most armies.

Earlier I was thinking about the black propaganda used against the Germans in WW1, bayoneting babies and raping nurses. Pure fiction of course and you would wonder why anyone would believe it but they did.

[Guy]

just out of interest were there stict rules of engagement in wwi .I remember seeing a programme about court martials and one of them was of a soldier accused of killing a German with his clasp knife -misuse of equpmentor some other ridiculous charge.

'Too late chum' is sadly a more than common experience in all wars. People didn't blink an eye in the 19th century, but accounts pop up pretty much in every subsequent wars. Its hard to take a man and 'switch off' the kill instinct when his enemy (who very well may have minutes before been killing his comrades) chooses to surrender. It takes good commanders to ensure men don't get carried away with anger.

On reading george's post I'm not surprised that its going to take years to sort out afghanistan if ever,you 've got one side with strict roe and the other side with none.

Now that is a big kettle of fish! As we're in our fourth Anglo Afghan war, I'd hope we'd lean from our previous experiences. A political solution (as is being offered now) is the best way forward, militarily you'd need far, far more troops (10 to 1) and the ability to strike beyond Afghanistan; politically unacceptable. It'd also cost a lot more lives.

Guy