Assault/Battle Rifles

[Wiem1938]

I have been thinking of this subject for a while and I began to think. So having done a little research, I am asking about the ratings for the various modern rifles.
I noticed that there is no difference between the G3 and the G36 except a different picture. Both are range8, HEK3, Acc1. The same is true of the M16 and the SA80.
One might like to mention (without being disrespectful) that the G3 MAY be capable of full-auto but can rarely be fired as such owing to the recoil of 7.62mm rounds. This is the distinct advantage of the small-calibre rifles.
Also, the G36, L85, Steyr Aug, IMI Tavor, versions of the FN-FNC and SIG 550/551 series, SAR-21 and certainly the XM-8, all of these possess between 1.5x and 4x magnification battle sights, proven to radically improve the standard of shooting.
The British Army has routinely fitted such sights since the 1950s/60s as a part of their infantry doctrine. One study between the M16a1 and the L85a1 indicated that in the hands of an average shot, the M16 was sufficiently accurate out to 250m, but the SUSAT equipped L85 was so out to 400m, almost the same range as an expert firing the M16.
Given that all the 1st rank powers routinely equip their weapons with low magnification sights, as can be seen in Iraq and Afghanistan, I would propose that the accuracy and HEK ratings be adjusted.
Richard

[Mobhack]

The British Army has routinely fitted such sights since the 1950s/60s as a part of their infantry doctrine.

Now that is really amazing news to me, since my SLR only had iron sights in the 70's, as did every other one I saw even in other units. (Actually, the SA series introduced these sights, apart from the cadets version which has iron sights and no auto facility).

Plenty of rifles (such as the SA80, Steyr, XM8) already have accuracy 6 to allow for scoped sights, fitted as standard issue.

So I presume you are asking for some we may have missed to be so equipped?.

If so - then it would be handy to have a list of OOB and weapon slot ID No to have a look at, where these sights are shown to be standard issue. (which it is not, for e.g. the M16 family - in which case you may want to suggest a scoped version in a new slot, and suggest which units should be modified to use same, and/or new units created to use it, which can be a problem in crowded OOBS such as say the USA one). Also - while going through the OOBS, remember that the same weapon may have different names (e.g. stg77, Austeyer). And then, allow for some third world armies which may not have the version with such kit perhaps.

Since that may be a big list - it would probaly be best to make up a .TXT file of those change requests/suggestions , and attach it to your post rather than try to fit them into a single post.

Cheers
Andy

[Listy]

Mobhack said:

Now that is really amazing news to me, since my SLR only had iron sights in the 70's, as did every other one I saw even in other units.
Cheers
Andy

I think he's refering to the SUIT, or whater the thing was called. one of hte pictures of the FAL in the gmae has one fitted. apprently the sight picture was the same as the SUSAT but with the needle pointing downwards.

[Mobhack]

SUIT (Sight Unit Infantry Trilux ) was introduced about the same period as the SA-80. May even have been the original sight unit - and SUSAT came later on?.

It certainly was not in service in the Falklands war for example. Maybe by say 85/6, and unlikely to be issued to all SLR users, probably just specialist issue (say in NI?).

Andy

[whdonnelly]

Gentlemen,
One of my biggest complaints is that the US Army still doesn't have scopes on all their rifles. Neither M16A2 nor M4 come with them as standard issue, unless something different is happening in the combat zones.
Will

[Wiem1938]

I do apologise. I've just checked on the SA-80... I am awfully sorry to be annoying. Half my complaint is now invalidated! So glad you guys had thought about this.
The only other point I can stick to has to be that the G3 should not be rated as an assault rifle (HEK3) on grounds of 7.62mm ammunition. Possibly the bolt-action rifles remain on HEK1, SLRs on HEK3 (vast difference in firepower) and the small-calibre assault rifles at HEK4.
On the SUSAT/SUIT, yes that was what I referring to possibly the British Army began to introduce the SUIT around 1982?
Everytime I look, these designers seem to be one step ahead... and we're not paying them???
(a rather embarassed)
Richard

[troopie]

Wiem1938 said:
I do apologise. I've just checked on the SA-80... I am awfully sorry to be annoying. Half my complaint is now invalidated! So glad you guys had thought about this.
The only other point I can stick to has to be that the G3 should not be rated as an assault rifle (HEK3) on grounds of 7.62mm ammunition. Possibly the bolt-action rifles remain on HEK1, SLRs on HEK3 (vast difference in firepower) and the small-calibre assault rifles at HEK4.
On the SUSAT/SUIT, yes that was what I referring to possibly the British Army began to introduce the SUIT around 1982?
Everytime I look, these designers seem to be one step ahead... and we're not paying them???
(a rather embarassed)
Richard

It was, see my earlier post on HEKs for the R-1, a design decision. Possibly it's due to the superior ergonomics of the G-3. The G-3 and the FN-FAL and its copies (L1A1, R-1) fire the same 7.62mm NATO ammunition. And it is possible to control an R-1 on full automatic, but not for the full twenty round clip.


troopie

[harlikwin]

I think the main point is that under combat conditions most of these rifles perform very similarly, hence the similar HEK, ACC values. Frankly I Think they should be about the same for each rifle in a given caliber, and still very similar. The 7.62 round hits harder, but you can fire more rounds of 5.56 sort of argument.
I think that perhaps units equipped with optical sights might get some sort of accuracy bonus. BUT the problem is that the sights unitl very recently have not been issued en-masse. Each nation has some sort of optics that have been used on these rifles to include the russians. The problem in terms of this game is that its really a minutia and would be hard to implement (a new unit only with optical sights?)

[Mobhack]

If I was to make a new game engine from scratch, I would use the approach used in tabletop wargaming rules, (WRG, TTG's Challenger etc) where you have only "rifle", "SMG", "Assault Rifle", "SLR" etc. since in real-world terms there are really no quantifiable differences, at the batallion level other than between classes of small arms. (Different if you were programming a section-based 3-D indivudual man RTS but this game is not such). There would be no "pistol" of course, as that weapon is totally irrelevant at battlefield level.

In reality, the names given to rifles etc in SP series games are just "chrome". An AsR is an AsR. An SLR is an SLR.

But yep - any new game engine would use the generic "AsR" etc convention of tabletop 1/300 games, (with no individual naming) as that would
a) Drastically simplify OOB design and
b) stop pointless angels-dancing-on-pinheads type discussions about Assault rifle X vs Assault rifle Y, when they are the same thing in the game - an AsR.

Cheers
Andy

[Listy]

When playing around with an OOB once (UN I think) I tried that same approach.

Worked just fine. Generic named weapons which you could call whatever you wanted (IIRC I included an Advanced AsR, for the 5.56 jobbies with scopes on).

The reason? It came from the Idea was that most engaugements are limited to the range you can aim at an enemy. It's not until the scope became common on battle rifles that really changed the range of engaments very much.

The real question is why not do it for the next version of SP:MBT?