kevyn668
May 31 2004, 11:20 PM
Whats this business about 9L damage from firing a heavy weapon? Page? Book?
Panzergeist
May 31 2004, 11:38 PM
It's basicly an anti-tank gun. They had those in WW2, though disposable rockets like the LAW are in greater use now.
Austere Emancipator
Jun 1 2004, 04:11 AM
QUOTE (kevyn668) |
Whats this business about 9L damage from firing a heavy weapon? Page? Book? |
CC, p. 99. And I couldn't find anything saying LMGs are excluded. The rules just say "heavy weapons", and LMGs are. It's actually (½Power)L Stun, and a Knockdown test against ½Power that must have (Recoil) successes not to be knocked down.
kevyn668
Jun 1 2004, 04:40 AM
**checks CC**
Huh. You're right. That's pretty lame. So if I fired a LAW rocket in SR, I could get a Stun wound? Or is it only firearms/cannons?
Either way that still sucks. I've only fired shotguns and pistols but I know some of you actually have experience w/ heavy weapons, so is there any RL corelation to this rule?
Do you guys enforce it?
About the requirements: I see the Strength 8 but I don't get Body. As I understand it, Body in SR is some nebulous conglomerate of sheer Mass and "Sturdiness". In this case it seems like Mass would be the main determing factor. So, while that Dermal Sheath 3 will stop a Preditor (10mm Auto) bullet at point blank, it wouldn't do jack to help your teeth from shaking out of your head when you go into "Rock-n-Roll" with your Stoner-Ares GPHMG. Right?
hobgoblin
Jun 1 2004, 06:29 AM
well a LAW is defined as recoil-less as it is just a open tube with a rocket in it so i dont think it will need these rules. i actualy asked myself the same question as panzergeist did, looked up the panther in the CC, then checked the heavy weapons header and finaly found the reference. i have had the book for some time and yet i have not seen it, must be the chapter its hidden in as i cant realy say i have read it except for the indirect fire rules.
most lmgs today are man portable but cant realy be fired on the go. the m60 i think is barely able to be fired on the go and its on the very lower edge of what a MG is (its more like a assault rifle with belt feed and a longer barrel from what i understand). most of them have a two man crew, one to carry the gun and one to carry the ammo and help loading when needed. basicly you dont fire these weapons standing up unless your rambo or insane. what you want do do is get down in the bipod or tripod and start spraying, this is not a sniper weapon but an area suppression weapon (i think thats the term). oh and i never have fired any of these and i hope to god i never have to, atleast not on live targets...
hmm, maybe defining the LMGs as heavy weapons is a bit of target given that you can convert a assault rifle into a LMG by giving it a longer barrel and a belt feed fireing system.
strength is for holding it, body is there to take the punishment of a kicking mule on autofire

remeber that the barret fires the same round as the classic HMG but the barret have RC, the HMG do not!
Austere Emancipator
Jun 1 2004, 04:32 PM
Any adult can fire an LMG from the standing position without any support on fully automatic indefinitely without being hurt at all, as long as someone tells them how to fire the damn thing. With an MMG, if you're
really incompetent, you could hurt yourself, but you're going to hurt yourself right away and not over time. Getting knocked over by LMGs or MMGs requires you to be a complete fucking moron. You can fire either while running, you just won't hit a god damn thing.
Like I've said elsewhere, the Body8/Str8 and Stun damage rules should only be used with Assault Cannons, HMGs and the like -- if you wish to use such rules at all. LMGs and MMGs are man-portable weapons that can be fired without support, and they should absolutely not have any such limitations.
And yes, I've fired a
LMG and a
HMG. Never a MMG, but I'm sure everybody who has will agree with me.
QUOTE (hobgoblin) |
most lmgs today are man portable but cant realy be fired on the go. |
Yes they can be.
QUOTE (hobgoblin) |
the m60 i think is barely able to be fired on the go and its on the very lower edge of what a MG is (its more like a assault rifle with belt feed and a longer barrel from what i understand). |
Not at all. You can fire an M60 from a standing position just fine and never hurt yourself, unless you're a fucking moron like I said. It's also a MMG, not an LMG. It fires 7.62x51mm NATO, a medium rifle caliber, and is not really like a modified AR -- it could perhaps be said to be like a modified battle rifle, like the
HK G3 or the
FN FAL. LMGs like
this fire assault rifle cartridges (5.56x45mm NATO, 5.45x39mm Russian) but are heavier than ARs, and will thus recoil far less than an assault rifle.
QUOTE |
basicly you dont fire these weapons standing up unless your rambo or insane. |
True, because you won't hit much. They're often so heavy that aiming them properly without support is very difficult -- some LMGs, like
this, are light and balanced enough to be fired just fine without any support by anyone, though. They're also mostly meant to be burst-fired at rather long distances, which would be very difficult even with an AR. The fact that the weapon itself shakes quite a bit when firing (because of the heavy feed mechanism moving quickly back and forth, not recoil per se) doesn't help.
I've fired an LMG while standing. It was even from the hip, because the KK-62 (unlike almost all other LMGs) isn't designed to be fired while standing. Didn't hit shit, but I hardly even noticed any recoil. It just shakes.
QUOTE |
hmm, maybe defining the LMGs as heavy weapons is a bit of target given that you can convert a assault rifle into a LMG by giving it a longer barrel and a belt feed fireing system. |
A longer barrel isn't necessary,
this is an LMG too. And you can convert a semi-auto "Sporting Rifle" into a MMG by making it fully automatic and belt-fed.
Tzeentch
Jun 1 2004, 09:27 PM
From Jane's Infantry Weapons "The emergence of the `payload rifle'":
QUOTE |
The weapon, however, is only a part of the overall system and, at the moment, the only type of ammunition available for the 25 mm payload rifle is Target Practice (TP) ammunition. We have already discussed some aspects of the 25 × 59B mm cartridge that the rifle fires, but the lack of an explosive projectile limits the utility of the Payload Rifle. Indeed, the solid 25 mm projectile's ballistics are actually inferior to those of the .50 calibre projectiles fired from current anti-materiél rifles. OCSW ammunition is planned to be a remotely settable `smart', air-bursting munition with Point Detonating (PD) support, along with a shaped charge round. While the shaped charge round would have some utility in the payload rifle, a high explosive PD round would also be highly desirable. Moreover, the OCSW explosive ammunition is not due to enter production for several years. For the purposes of Barrett's Payload Rifle, a simple PD fuze is all that is required for the HE variant, along with a Point Initiating Base Detonating (PIBD) fuze for the shaped charge round. This round should cost significantly less than the `smart' 25mm rounds under development for the US Army's OCSW. Barrett is currently exploring the development and production of such rounds with an independent ammunition design and development corporation. If negotiations are successful and the design meets military specifications, the Barrett Payload Rifle could be in the hands of military forces within two years. Shooting the Barrett Payload Rifle using TP ammunition was essentially uneventful. Since the TP round is ballistically matched to the HE cartridge, shooting TP is a close approximation of firing actual service rounds. The writer fired the rifle at Barrett's facility in Murfreesboro, Tennessee, and at 91.5 m (100 yds), it was accurate to approximately 1.5 minute of angle. Recoil was stout, but not excessive or unpleasant. In terms of felt recoil, the Payload Rifle approximated that of a 12 gauge 89 mm magnum shotgun. The Payload Rifle was fired from the prone position using Barrett's standard bipod. The bipod mount helps attenuate felt recoil, as does firing from the prone position. After firing five rounds, we experienced no perceptible after-effects. The rifle did not leave bruises on the shoulder, but this is attributable as much to individual training as it is to the rifle's recoil management. Despite this, the US Army states that the Payload Rifle's recoil currently exceeds established limits. That said, the army's standards measure only the peak recoil impulse, not recoil as a function of time, which is a major component of felt recoil. Regardless, the excess recoil is not an insoluble problem and can be reduced by careful design. |
Shrike30
Jun 1 2004, 10:31 PM
GPMGs (like the M60, Bren, etc) really have their own niche, in my mind. They fire MMG ammo (.30 caliber range), but at the same time they're meant to be man portable and many are quite light. Ballistically they outperform SAW/LMG/LSWs, but the design lends itself more to man-portability than sustained fire... they don't handle that role very well at all (hell, the Bren takes magazines, not belts).
Now, the M240 in it's vehicular mounted configuration... THAT is an MMG. Same caliber, but it's built to handle sustained fire.
I would apply that Heavy Weapons Recoil rule to HMGs, but not MMGs. Of course, I also give HMGs a higher damage code... >:D
Beast of Revolutions
Jun 2 2004, 01:04 AM
The m249 has hella low recoil for a machine gun. It can be fired from the shoulder, standing or kneeling, almost as easily as an assault rifle. But it fired 5.56 mm ammunition, while the LMG in the core rulebook presumably fires something larger than the assault rifles fire, since it has serious damage code.
Austere Emancipator
Jun 2 2004, 04:08 AM
QUOTE (Shrike30) |
Now, the M240 in it's vehicular mounted configuration... THAT is an MMG. Same caliber, but it's built to handle sustained fire. |
The M240G for infantry has the same quick-change barrel and everything else, doesn't it? The difference is only that of a few extras to make it better suited for the infantry role (butt stock, pistol grip, front sight, etc). It's just as good for sustained fire as the vehicle mounted versions of the M240, and is still used in the GPMG role and can be fired from the shoulder -- although the 11kg empty weight requires a bit of muscle to keep up for a long time.
QUOTE (Shrike30) |
Of course, I also give HMGs a higher damage code. |
Higher than 9S, which is the standard Sporting Rifle damage code? Why is that?
QUOTE (Beast of Revolutions) |
LMG in the core rulebook presumably fires something larger than the assault rifles fire, since it has serious damage code. |
Presumably the game designers didn't have a clue what LMGs fire, and were probably not sure on what difference the various measurements of a cartridge actually make on the terminal ballistics. I put the higher Damage Code down to the extra Big Gun Factor.
Halbmetallmensch
Jun 2 2004, 05:22 AM
QUOTE (Shrike30) |
GPMGs (like the M60, Bren, etc) really have their own niche, in my mind. They fire MMG ammo (.30 caliber range), but at the same time they're meant to be man portable and many are quite light. Ballistically they outperform SAW/LMG/LSWs, but the design lends itself more to man-portability than sustained fire... they don't handle that role very well at all (hell, the Bren takes magazines, not belts).
Now, the M240 in it's vehicular mounted configuration... THAT is an MMG. Same caliber, but it's built to handle sustained fire. |
Historically there is no difference between the caliber of LMGs and MMGs. LMGs are MGs wich can be effectivly used by a single person, MMGs are MGs wich can be transported by a group of persons, but need to be assembeld on tripods etc.
This means, that LMGs mostly used magazines and drums instead of belted ammunition.
And hence the Bren was a LMG (and a pretty good one), while the Vickers was an MMG even though they use the same .303 calibre.
GPMG are MGs wich can be used more or less in different rules (hence the General Purpose). They can be used in the LMG-role and they can be mounted omn vehicles or tripods to fullfill the requirements for the MMG-role.
The MG34 was the first GPMG, and the FN MAG (M240), M60 or PKM are all GPMGs.
The succes of the GPMG practically killed the MMGs, and the LMG was nearly dead as well.
The classification after the caliber is a rather new trend (well it's already some years old now), and mixing the old and the new classific<tion will only give you headaches
GreatChicken
Jun 3 2004, 12:43 AM
I've never heard of a 'trend' of classing weights by calibers or by ammunition. The military has always classified it's equipment distribution by 'Squad Level' (Each sqaud gets at least 1 of X), 'Platoon Level' (Each platoon has at least 1 squad of X), 'Company Level' (Each company has at least 1 platoon of X), 'Battalion Level' (Each Battalion has at least 1 company of X) and 'Army Level' (Each Army has at least 1 battalion of X). Where X is the equipment issued.
Note that the numbers issued are represented by number of weapons issued, not by number of men. Thus whn I say Platoon level, the entire platoon can get only like 6 MGs between them. Just enough for a squad, yes? (Platoon is about 18 men)
What we call LMGs are issued at Squad or Platoon levels. They should be better known as SAWs, or Squad Automatic Weapons.
What we call HMGs are issued at Platoon or Company level. Yes, HMGs do have bigger calibers generally; above 7.62mm being the norm. Edit: Sorry. They generally use 12.7mm (0.5in) ammunition. There are many guns that use that caliber. Pfft.
GPMGs are called that, because they can either be issued on LMG terms or HMG terms, depending on situation and equipment avaliability (Yep. General enough). Their caliber is usually 7.62mm or .303in (same thing, but I had to go to WWII standards or some wouldn't recognize it). What we call MMGs belong in this category.
Although it seems like there's a distinction between calibers here, there really is none, as Russia's RPK (a toughened AK-47) counts as an LMG, and runs on 7.62mm; Neither does type of ammo or feed play a part in it, as the FN Minimi and STK Ultimax (both LMGs) can accept belted ammo, and even the Browning takes boxes.
Austere Emancipator
Jun 3 2004, 04:06 AM
QUOTE (GreatChicken) |
Although it seems like there's a distinction between calibers here, there really is none, as Russia's RPK (a toughened AK-47) counts as an LMG, and runs on 7.62mm |
7.62x39mm M43, not 7.62x51mm or anything similar. The 7.62x39 is an assault rifle caliber. I'm pretty sure you won't find a single example of a LMG (or SAW, or LSW) that doesn't fire the same ammunition as the standard assault rifle of the respective military. Likewise, I'm pretty sure you won't find an example of a GPMG (or MMG) that does fire the same ammunition as the standard AR. Thus I'm confident that LMGs can be classed by caliber. [Edit]...These days! And refrain from using 3rd world countries as examples, because those often have no "standards".[/Edit]
HMGs can't be, or at least couldn't be, because WWII HMGs often fired the same ammunition as MMGs -- they were heavy because they were carried by infantry on tripods and often water-cooled.
QUOTE (GreatChicken) |
What we call MMGs belong in this category. |
I think I was a little off-base earlier, and so is this, because the "original" MMGs in WWII were not GPMGs like Halbmetallmensch said. What I discussed all along is, in fact, a GPMG, while an MMG might well be a weapon that cannot be and was never intended to be fired without some support -- the US M1919A4 is a nice example of this.
Nowadays it's extremely rare to find a MG that fires a MMG-caliber round (7.62x51mm, 7.62x53mmR being the most common) and cannot be fired without support. It's not much of a stretch to assume that such weapons would be obsolete by the 2060s. That's why, purely in the context of Shadowrun, we can use MMGs and GPMGs almost interchangeably, the only real exception being vehicle mounted weapons.
QUOTE (GreatChicken) |
They generally use 12.7mm (0.5in) ammunition. There are many guns that use that caliber. |
In fact, I don't think there's a single modern HMG that fires a round that doesn't fit between 12.7mm and 14.5mm and a case length between ~80mm and 120mm.
GreatChicken
Jun 3 2004, 04:40 AM
QUOTE |
These days! And refrain from using 3rd world countries as examples, because those often have no "standards". |
...please. It's not as if I don't filter my information first. 3rd world countries are unlikely to distribute their equipment based on the military terms I described above anyway.
Arethusa
Jun 3 2004, 05:59 AM
Really, Chicken, the terms you described stopped applying 50 years ago, give or take a little.
GreatChicken
Jun 3 2004, 06:09 AM
By the US, maybe. Still in use on the other side of the world, Asian countries mostly. The notion of keeping each branch of the armed forces seperate from and in competition with each other...now THAT is outdated. I wonder if the US military has abandoned this view yet...
Siege
Jun 3 2004, 12:22 PM
That's a rhetorical question, right?
Hell, Law Enforcement can't learn that trick.
-Siege
Shrike30
Jun 3 2004, 04:06 PM
I've futzed with my damage codes... that's probably worth noting.
LMGs do 8M, the same as assault rifles.
MMGs/GPMGs get 8S, putting them in the middle of the sport rifle range, and just below the canon 9S damage range.
HMGs are, in my mind, HEAVY machineguns. IE, .50 caliber. They're also not exactly man-portable. I usually use 14S (sniper rifle damage) to represent this. I realize the Barret knockoff does 14D, but that's a little much for me
BitBasher
Jun 3 2004, 04:23 PM
I adjusted LMG/MMG/HMG's in my game to 8s/10s/12s But im thinking of going over that again. It rarely ever comes up. Players just dont have a place to pull out an honest to god SAW on their runs, and the places they hit aren't in the middle of BFE where they can afford to pull out heavy ordinence either.
Shrike30
Jun 3 2004, 04:46 PM
*shrugs*
It all depends on your mentality. I think one of the things that occasionally plagues shadowrunners is the belief that "low profile" is the be-all, end-all need in every situation.
Yes, SAWs are bulky, loud, and unconcealable. They get the attention of the 'Star. They run through ammo, they're expensive, they're illegal as hell. But sometimes, you need to reach into the trunk of the car, and pull something out that puts down some serious lead.
The movie Ronin features a SAW carried on a run in a way that I felt was totally appropriate. Robert De Niro, faced with multiple targets who would be inside of vehicles, picked up a weapon that he knew he'd probably be able to disable a car with, and would certainly provide enough firepower during the upcoming firefight. If you look at the layout of their ambush, it's in the classic L shape... fire coming from the long side of the L with several shooters, while the automatic can fire into the oncoming group without risking any of the shooters on the long side of the ambush, and without having the targets able to leave his field of fire by continuing to travel.
This is a game where riggers drive around vehicles loading missiles and autocannon. Obviously, getting this kind of hardware isn't impossible. Often, we've found ourselves stuck without a rigger or in a place where getting a rigged vehicle in was impossible, but smuggling in a support weapon in a container of some sort (be it a car trunk, a shipping container, or what-have-you) in case things head truly south was NOT impossible.
If everything goes well, they never realize you were there. Your fixer can send some scav in a week later to pick up the car, or your decker can edit the shipping manifest so that some bakery in Alameda doesn't find a machinegun in their flour. If things hit the fan, your side gets a serious firepower multiplier.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please
click here.