|
Post by madmorgan on Jul 2, 2018 11:52:55 GMT
Well, frankly, I think this should be standard issue for some humans in AQMF! Even the lowly infantry armed with two of these things would surely have an impact on the battlefield.
|
|
|
Post by boxholder on Jul 2, 2018 12:30:24 GMT
Unfortunately, the small explosive load (compared to a satchel charge) would probably limit its effectiveness. The encyclopedia entry for No. 74 said it was only for about 1 inch of steel.
Personally, I would rather have a stovepipe bazooka.
|
|
|
Post by madmorgan on Jul 2, 2018 13:36:42 GMT
okay, strike that! btw, I'm having trouble finding the exact rule for the flooded stream in your Memphis piece - what was the roll for the Martians to get out of the bough?? I seem to recall you having a simple d10 roll for that? Sorry - bad day here at the house in our 106F degree heat wave...
|
|
|
Post by hardlec on Jul 3, 2018 15:28:23 GMT
How soon we forget the icy cold of but a few months ago.
A satchel charge with a strap can be swung around your head once or twice and hurled a great distance. If there were some wicket glue the charge would stick where it hit, making damage more likely.
Sticky bombs worked very well in certain environments. They were terrible in the open field. When the armored vehicles were coming to the infantry, the plucky trooper could prepare the bomb, jump out an stick the bomb on a vulnerable point, then jump back. It required a lot of pluck. There were plenty of vulnerable points on a tank, and many more on other armored vehicles, that a sticky bomb would work on. but sticky bombs would probably not work on tripods.
|
|
|
Post by boxholder on Jul 3, 2018 17:27:29 GMT
Yes.. A sticky bomb might work on a lower leg joint, but unlikely to have enough punch to penetrate the head. From the look of the models, those joints are pretty beefy. Plus, the legs are moving more or less continuously and could deliver a swift kick to further discourage the trooper.
|
|
|
Post by terrance on Jul 7, 2018 4:37:10 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. How do you envision putting this on the table? Is it embedded in the squad like forlorn hope? Then how do you determine if the loader is lost? Or treat them like support weapons with their own stand(s) like machine guns? I’m wanting to get these in a game soon and am trying to work out the logistics.
|
|
|
Post by madmorgan on Jul 7, 2018 8:49:48 GMT
I currently have them in my Airborne units (101st,82nd,Brit 1st) stationed aboard zeppelins that they repeal off of to the ground. I use the Command Decision figures of dug-in airborne troopers, which have BARs, SMGs, and the Bazooka figures - the Bazooka is a two-man team on a base. Note all the above dug-in are represented on their own foxhole and base, so just paint them up and your ready to go. For your purposes, you can just assume the zepps have moved off already and the guys are dug-in. Give me a few minutes and I'll dig up the scenario(s) I constructed for use of these troops. To date, I've not found any really good figures for non-"airborne" types. I suspect that if Old Glory every gets off their hands and finishes all the listings for their WW1 line, the 37mm infantry gun will be the weapon of choice in the regular units (better range, more power). The loader can be lost due to an AoE hit or other disasters like a Slicer or Blast Lobo attack. I envision the unit having two 'hits', the first being the loader. As far as putting in with regular units, I suggest a conversion of a standard infantry figure using a very small plastic straw or wooden dowel to make the 'stovepipe'. Remember this is early on in the developement of this weapon, so no flared ends or fancy sight please. Enjoy. See a follow-up post for the TO&E and OOBs I mentioned above.
For the life of me, I can't find the TO&E for the various Airborne units I mentioned above. I'll have to resort to my notebooks and recopy/post the TO&Es and OOBs for these units. Very frustrating.
|
|
|
Post by madmorgan on Jul 7, 2018 9:20:55 GMT
The "Rocket Powered Recoiless Weapon" was developed by Dr. Goodard (of the space center yep) and demonstrated at Aberdeen Testing Grounds. The demostration included Dr. Goodards assistant Dr. Hickman (of the airfield/Guadacanal) and was conducted in November 1918. The weapon was shelved due to Dr. Goodards poor health (TB) and the end of the war. Noted that a Mr. Bush later introduced the 'Stovepipe' to USA forces and so far they are limited in issue to USA & British airborne units. Attaches to an infantry unit @10pts.
"Stovepipe" aka Bazooka @10pts Rng 10" +2Pow RF 1 Spec: 2 crew, if no loader RF drops to 1/2.
The Browning Automatic Rifle (BAR) was developed as a Light Mobile machine gun. Usually issued to militia and Marines.
BAR @0pts Rng 15" -Pow RF 2 Spec: no cost to attach. May move and fire.
Thompson Submachine Gun was developed in Newport, Kentucky as the 'Anilhlator' in 1915. This weapon fired a 45 caliber round and was meant to be a trench clearer. Production IRL was slow and too late to impact WW1. No so in AQ! Made readily to boost firepower in militia and Marine units. No cost to attach to a element.
Thompson Sub Machine Gun (SMG) @0pts Rng 10" +1Pow RF 2 Spec: attached at no cost.
|
|
|
Post by boxholder on Jul 7, 2018 12:40:26 GMT
You are correct. Both the Thompson and the BAR were (and still are) beautifully machined articles. That made production relatively slow and comparatively expensive.
Germany took the opposite approach during their interwar rearmament. Using stamped steel for the majority of the gun with only the barrel and a few other pieces machined make them quick and cheap. Britain also used a similar approach for their Sten guns. The US also made the "Grease Gun" SMG using a similar approach.
Make lots of them, cheaply and get them fielded en masse.
|
|
|
Post by scottwashburn on Jul 7, 2018 13:38:38 GMT
At a living history program on July 4th I got to handle both a Thompson and a BAR, Beautiful weapons. Wow, is the BAR heavy!
|
|
|
Post by madmorgan on Jul 8, 2018 13:47:37 GMT
Hmmm, would there be any stat difference between the Sten style and the Thompson. I'd think the penetration would be much lower for the Sten style gun. Probably a POW 0 weapon. Although its not to hard to fine 15mm/18mm Thompson users, its dang difficult to fine any Stens in less than 28-30mm (WW2 commondoes(sp) & the like. Okay, I've got a lot of Airborne stuff to type.
|
|
|
Post by madmorgan on Jul 8, 2018 13:49:42 GMT
Btw you didn't answer my original question regarding the flooded streams - what was the d10 roll a Martian needed to get out of the bog in your scenario please
|
|
|
Post by boxholder on Jul 8, 2018 17:29:34 GMT
Difference in barrel length for STEN and Thompson is probably not enough to make much difference. The Sten looks like 5 or 6 inches, the Thompson looks more like 8 or 10 inches. Both fired 45 cal ACP cartridges. Both Sten and Thompson used box magazines, with the Thompson having a 50 round drum magazine as a option.
Both were high rate of fire, close range weapons by design. There is probably no real difference in the performance for factoring. Just shorten the range below "sure 'nuff" rifles. Their ammunition was pistol cartridges.
|
|
|
Post by David N.Tanner 07011959 on Jul 8, 2018 17:59:49 GMT
I thought the Sten was a 9mm?
|
|
|
Post by boxholder on Jul 8, 2018 22:58:31 GMT
Correct. My mistake on that one.
|
|