Sharpshooters, Reach out and touch someone Options

[Traul]

What are the rules/benefits for assisting in combat rolls? IE: A spotter for a sniper

Nothing on its own, you need to add a Tacnet to make it work. Then you can get Initiative and combat pool boosts.

[DWC]

Nothing on its own, you need to add a Tacnet to make it work. Then you can get Initiative and combat pool boosts.

WAR includes rules for directing fire, giving bonus dice on a ranged attack after a successful Leadership test. It isn't perfect, but it is the closest to spotting that SR has.

[HunterHerne]

WAR includes rules for directing fire, giving bonus dice on a ranged attack after a successful Leadership test. It isn't perfect, but it is the closest to spotting that SR has.

Isn't there a rule section that says the spotter can make a perception test and add the hits to your firearms test-6?
Edit: I've always believed it should be more of a communication test to accurately describe the details needed, maybe negotiation or leadership (haven't read War!), possibly maxed by the perception test.

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

Information Guided Targeting is in Arsenal... (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

[HunterHerne]

Information Guided Targeting is in Arsenal... (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

It's still around, and gives spotters a mechanical use before WAR!

[Traul]

That's for indirect fire. When the sniper can see his target, using indirect fire will usually cost him dice (-4 + hits on the spotting check).

[HunterHerne]

That's for indirect fire. When the sniper can see his target, using indirect fire will usually cost him dice (-4 + hits on the spotting check).

THat is true, unless the spotter is very good. But that particular question didn't specify whether or not the sniper could see the target. Both answers are legitimately useful, to their respective situation.

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

That's for indirect fire. When the sniper can see his target, using indirect fire will usually cost him dice (-4 + hits on the spotting check).

And yet, a Spotter, unless he is with the Sniper, will be seeing things from a different prespective, and therefore will be a FO for the Sniper. This is the definition of Indirect Fire. The Sniper cannot see his target directly.

If the Sniper has Direct LOS to the Target, then the Spotter can cover the Sniper, and perform some of the calculations for him? In this case, a Tacnet/Smartlink combination is the preferred method.

In the real world, the spotter is typically co-located with the Sniper, and processes most of the targeting calculations before giving them to the Sniper. Range, Movement Speed, Direction of movement, angle of shot, lead factor. These are all calculations that a competant Sniper or Spotter can calculate. Sounds an awful lot like a Tacnet in combination with a Smartlink to me.

[Traul]

If the sniper cannot see his target, he will have a hard time damaging it. Although sniping through a wall is possible with a Barrett, indirect fire was mostly meant to be used with curved trajectories that can reach their target even if the straight line of sight is blocked.

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

If the sniper cannot see his target, he will have a hard time damaging it. Although sniping through a wall is possible with a Barrett, indirect fire was mostly meant to be used with curved trajectories that can reach their target even if the straight line of sight is blocked.

This is true. I even Practiced it extensively when I crosstrained as a Machinegunner in the Corps.
But in game, with the Weapons available, Indirect Fire through walls is a viable option.

[KarmaInferno]

I am reminded of a story involving an old Soviet soldier, having to shoot at someone WAY out of range for his AK, telling his subordinate spotter to "walk me onto the target".

He then proceeded to point his rifle upwards at a high angle and rain bullets down on his target using a ballistic arc.

(IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)





-k

[Socinus]

I am reminded of a story involving an old Soviet soldier, having to shoot at someone WAY out of range for his AK, telling his subordinate spotter to "walk me onto the target".

He then proceeded to point his rifle upwards at a high angle and rain bullets down on his target using a ballistic arc.

(IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)





-k

I cant imagine that'd be very effective.

If the bullet kept a ballistic trajectory, I could see that working. But if you shoot the bullet too straight up in the air, it'll stop once it's kinetic energy runs out then drop to the ground like a penny. It'd irritate someone, but not kill them.

[Smokeskin]

I cant imagine that'd be very effective.

If the bullet kept a ballistic trajectory, I could see that working. But if you shoot the bullet too straight up in the air, it'll stop once it's kinetic energy runs out then drop to the ground like a penny. It'd irritate someone, but not kill them.

Of course it kept a ballistic trajectory. I just put the 7.62x39 through a ballistic calculator, and at 650 yards it has 1000 fps, at 1000 yards it has 800 fps, at 1300 yards it has 700 fps. It'll be more like getting shot with a low calibre pistol than a rifle, but still very much like actually getting shot.

[Miri]

Of course it kept a ballistic trajectory. I just put the 7.62x39 through a ballistic calculator, and at 650 yards it has 1000 fps, at 1000 yards it has 800 fps, at 1300 yards it has 700 fps. It'll be more like getting shot with a low calibre pistol than a rifle, but still very much like actually getting shot.

I infer from the "high angle" reference that the muzzle of the gun was pointed between 45 and 89 degrees from the horizontal. So the round would travel very high up then turn over and fall and most likely hit terminal velocity before it hit the ground.

So yes, the triggerman could have done a "point the muzzle above the target so much that he can't see said target through the sights" and let bullet drop bring the round to target. Or he could have pointed the gun nigh on straight up and used a very high angle of attack path.

[Smokeskin]

I infer from the "high angle" reference that the muzzle of the gun was pointed between 45 and 89 degrees from the horizontal. So the round would travel very high up then turn over and fall and most likely hit terminal velocity before it hit the ground.

So yes, the triggerman could have done a "point the muzzle above the target so much that he can't see said target through the sights" and let bullet drop bring the round to target. Or he could have pointed the gun nigh on straight up and used a very high angle of attack path.

I'm pretty sure you infer wrong. There is absolutely no point in going above 45 degrees. You get shorter distance, lower velocity at target (you probably won't even have the bullet impacting nose first if drag can't overcome gyroscopic forces, it might even not be spinning along its length axis anymore), longer flight time over which wind will move the target so accuracy becomes even worse. A soldier will know that all weapons use flat arcs except for mortars, and I doubt there's any chance you can get any sort of consistency from high-arcing small arms fire.

High angle probably just meant much larger than what you'd normally use for shooting.

[Socinus]

I infer from the "high angle" reference that the muzzle of the gun was pointed between 45 and 89 degrees from the horizontal. So the round would travel very high up then turn over and fall and most likely hit terminal velocity before it hit the ground.

That was the impression I got from the story.

[Stahlseele]

should that sub title not be "reach out and (double)tap someone"?

[CanRay]

Nah, the double-tap was developed for the 9mm to ensure that the person stays down when shot, IIRC.

Snipers are the "One Shot, One Kill" types. I forget what one book was titled, but it was about the cost of one 7.62mm NATO round...

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

Nah, the double-tap was developed for the 9mm to ensure that the person stays down when shot, IIRC.

Snipers are the "One Shot, One Kill" types. I forget what one book was titled, but it was about the cost of one 7.62mm NATO round...

I was always partial to "93 Confirmed Kills" myself.

[Smokeskin]

That was the impression I got from the story.

So let's see.

Either the soldier actually fired his weapon in a wholly ineffective way against his better knowledge.

Or the soldier fired the weapon effectively, and either KarmaInferno heard the story wrong, or the guy who told him the story told it wrong, or KI told it wrong, or "high angle" just means high compared to normal shooting but not above 45 degrees.

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

So let's see.

Either the soldier actually fired his weapon in a wholly ineffective way against his better knowledge.

Or the soldier fired the weapon effectively, and either KarmaInferno heard the story wrong, or the guy who told him the story told it wrong, or KI told it wrong, or "high angle" just means high compared to normal shooting but not above 45 degrees.

Yeah, Sounds about right... (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

[ZeroPoint]

I was always partial to "93 Confirmed Kills" myself.

loved that book by the way

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

loved that book by the way

As A Marine, it is almost required reading material... (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

[Socinus]

So let's see.

Either the soldier actually fired his weapon in a wholly ineffective way against his better knowledge.

Or the soldier fired the weapon effectively, and either KarmaInferno heard the story wrong, or the guy who told him the story told it wrong, or KI told it wrong, or "high angle" just means high compared to normal shooting but not above 45 degrees.

Or you could, y'know, not be a dick about it.

There are A LOT of battlefield myths floating around and I simply pointed out something that struck me as odd regarding the story and questioned if it wasnt possibly one of the multitude of mythology regarding what does and doesnt happen in war.

[Mardrax]

Or you could, y'know, not be a dick about it.

There are A LOT of internet myths floating around and I simply pointed out [...] that [..] doesnt happen on the internet.

Fixed that for you. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/nyahnyah.gif)