|
Post by greenbeanie on Nov 27, 2017 21:46:18 GMT
You would think that the militaries of the world would come up with a proper bomb for the infantry. This throwing a bomb and hoping it catches on something or the "Forlorn Hope squads seems wasteful of lives. I know the Martian metal is not effected by magnets but if Tom Hanks could come up with stickey bombs to blow the treads off armored fighting vehicles in "Saving Pvt. Ryan" out of TNT, socks & tar you would think some one would come up with a bomb that sticks to a tripod foot or ankle. Even placed at man height would be enough to blow it off and trip a tripod. Hell back in the day I was a young trooper I took out armored vehicles by making a small shaped charge by poking my thumb into a wad of C4 and placing it over the gas tank. Even in the Great War explosives and bombs jumped greatly in making them better and more effective so you would think in the Great Martian War, some one would come up with better bombs to make the infantry and cavalry more effective at taking down a tripod and still have fewer fatal casualties.
|
|
|
Post by boxholder on Nov 27, 2017 22:53:47 GMT
Have faith and patience, greenbeanie. Shaped charges are coming the volume 3 of Washburns book, as are bazooka rockets.
How long were you Green Beret?
|
|
|
Post by greenbeanie on Nov 28, 2017 0:13:35 GMT
Six years with the 5th Special Forces Group (ABN) I was on an A Detachment (A Team) as Commo & Demo (Morse code radio operator, senior, and Team Engineer, senior.
|
|
|
Post by boxholder on Nov 28, 2017 0:19:10 GMT
The combination of the badge/logo and the thumbhole shaped charge spoke to a demolition background in SpecOps. Thanks for the service--especially tough
|
|
|
Post by mikedski on Nov 28, 2017 19:49:46 GMT
I’m thinking bazooka weapon in the upcoming book will only have a +2 power but with range 8 inches?
|
|
|
Post by scottwashburn on Nov 28, 2017 22:50:08 GMT
Well, obviously I don't give rules for them in the novels, but yeah, I think that's about the right stats for them. Point value would be 10 or 15. they would be added to infantry units like a forlorn hope unit. You could put an actual bazooka figure next to the infantry to denote it or use some other method of recording it.
|
|
|
Post by madmorgan on Jun 16, 2018 8:45:27 GMT
Congrats on your service - ditdahdah dit ditdahditdit ditdhaditdit dahditdit dahdahdah dahdit dit
See my infantry weapons for my take on the bazooka. I relist it here.
"Stovepipe" aka Bazooka @10pts Rng 10" +2Pow RF 1 Spec: 2 crew, if no loader RF drops to 1/2.
Infantry weapons mimic the stats for the carrier - so the above carried by regular infantry would have a Spd 6" Def 5 Arm 4 Spec Stealth and have rifles and grenades as well.
I also stated some 'sticky bombs' and lances among those and even did the recoiless rifle.
|
|
|
Post by scottwashburn on Jun 19, 2018 16:48:28 GMT
Morgan, the 20" range seems a bit much. 8"-10" would seem more reasonable.
|
|
|
Post by David N.Tanner 07011959 on Jun 20, 2018 0:27:02 GMT
Morgan, the 20" range seems a bit much. 8"-10" would seem more reasonable. I'd go so far as to say 4" - 8". Bazookas weren't long range weapons by any stretch of the imagination.
|
|
|
Post by boxholder on Jun 20, 2018 13:00:25 GMT
Brother Tanner has it right.
Because the effective range of rifles (in AQMF) is 15 inches and heavy MG is 20 inches, the bazooka needs to be held to short range. Fully evolved bazookas in WW2 had a range of a couple of hundred yards compared to a mile or more for a heavy MG. The range of these early models should be much less than 20 inches.
Eight to 10 inches sounds more nearly correct. You don't want them being used at artillery ranges.
|
|
|
Post by scottwashburn on Jun 20, 2018 15:03:17 GMT
10" seems good to me. Short enough to make it a close-in weapons, but long enough that the troops can use it from their trenches instead of charging out with their bombs. The ranges for rifles and MGs is probably deliberately kept shorter that we might expect. The weapons can probably fire accurately to much greater distances, but can't hurt the Martian armor at those ranges.
|
|
|
Post by madmorgan on Jun 20, 2018 18:24:21 GMT
Okay I'll make the adjustment right away. Ty all for the input.
|
|
|
Post by hardlec on Jun 24, 2018 21:27:27 GMT
The other thing to remember is Wicket Glue. A charge with wicket glue would adhere to the Martian Machine and remain until the crew has time to get away.
One of the reason rocket launchers had such short effective ranges is accuracy. With WWI tech, after a 100 yards of so a rocket becomes a knuckle-ball that probably won't hit anything.
|
|
|
Post by boxholder on Jun 24, 2018 23:19:13 GMT
Then again, as target of one do you dare ignore it? During the Napoleonic Wars, the British used Congreve rockets that were about as likely to come back at the firing site. However, the hissing, smoke and fire had a powerful effect on morale and order of the target. There are accounts of large formations being demoralized and broken up.
|
|
|
Post by madmorgan on Jun 25, 2018 12:14:59 GMT
All good points!
|
|