Re: TNE: GARNETT GUN
In reply to #7752 TNE: GARNETT GUN
In Bun#617,AMN 7752, "PBJuzyk" wrote: > Any suggestions for a name for this gun? > > John Bogan [email removed] replied to me: The Garnett > > That gun was designed by Guy Garnett ([email removed]), longtime > TML member and coordinator of the TNE-Pocket sublist and admin of the GDW- > Beta sublist. > > GDW-Beta was formed to test some of the design sequences in FF&S, and > Guy tried to re-create a real-life Soviet anti-tank rifle from the 1930's > (PK something) using the small arms design rules. Upon seeing the result, > he called it the "poor man's fusion gun". POT describes its use EXACTLY > as he envisioned. The original design and description for that gun follow. > Guy also has a regular column, "House Rules", in _The Traveller Chronicle_, > a new Traveller magazine now gearing up for its fifth issue. Thanks for the plug, John! > I say give credit where credit is due. The Garnett Gun it is. Thanks! For your enjoyment, here is the original design and commentary. PLEASE NOTE that this item was written PRIOR to the publication of FF&S, and that I haven't corrected the FF&S stats for this gun from the PRELIMINARY version of FF&S, so the FF&S design IS NOT CORRECT as stated below. The gun as given in _Path of Tears_ and _RCES Equipment Guide_ *HAS* been corrected to the final version of FF&S, and is as correct as the rules allow. Personally, I prefer the "real world" stats, which are provably more correct than any of the FF&S-generated information. The second column of the design table below gives the actual values for the real-world gun, as accurately as I have been able to determine them. Feel free to use these in place of the FF&S statistics. If a lot of the following sounds familiar to purchasers of _Path of Tears_, well, this materials was used (with permission) by GDW for both POT and the _RCES Equipment Guide_. - -----8<----- The following is a post originally dated October 29, 1993: This is (yet another) small arms design; tonite I'll knock off of the small arms and see if I can design a Ilyushin Il2m3 (better known as the Shturmovik) to check out the aircraft design sequences. That plane's armor should be, um, challenging, in the FF&S system. No longer do your TL-5, xenophobic natives have to cower in fear of Reformation Coalition backed Star Vikings. Have the local warlord call up a few squads of these "poor man's fusion guns". With Ball ammunition (locally producable at TL-5), they can penetrate TL-10 Battle Dress and any Combat Armor. With DS ammunition (a TL-8 item), these weapons have damage and penetration equal to (or better than, particularly at longer ranges) the FGMP-14 and FGMP-15 and can effectively defeat all forms of personal armor, as well as the side, deck, belly, and turret armor of the G-Carrier and the Grav Tank. Given their relative low cost, particularly when compared to their high-tech opponents Battle Dress (Cr220,000) and Fusion Gun (Cr54,000), these weapons are clearly very cost-effective. Example 5: 14.5mm Protivotankovoe Ruzh'yo obr 1941g (PTRS-41) Item FF&S Value "Real-World" Value (note 1) (all values taken from published Ball DS real-world data except as noted) I. Ammunition Tech Level: 5 USSR circa 1941 Caliber: 14.5mm 14.5mm Length: 146.7mm 114mm Type: Necked Necked, AP Incendiary Overall Length: 175.7mm ? Mass: 242.25g 201g Average Energy: 31007J 31017J Price: Cr12.1 Cr24.2 ? II. Weapon Design 1. Barrel Average Barrel: 147.5cm 139cm Actual Barrel: 139cm 139cm Type: Heavy Weight: 4.17kg ? Price: Cr1668 ? Actual Energy: 30123J 31017J Damage: 12 12 * 12 Penetration: 2-2-3 1-1-2 * 2-2-3 2. Receiver Type: Light Self-Loader Semi-Automatic Length: 95.5cm ? Mass: 30.123kg ? Price: Cr6024.6 ? 3. Stocks Type: Wooden Rifle Stock Wooden stocks, carrying Length: 25cm handles, and integral bipod. Mass: 1kg Price: Cr25 Barrel Len Mod: 0.9145 * 1 Close Range: 206.3m 247.6m * 229.0m 4. Feed System Type: Box Magazine (note 2) Internal Magazine, clip loaded Capacity: 5 5 Mass: 1.308kg ? Cost Cr1309 ? Loaded Mass: 2.519kg 1.193kg 5. Options ? Total Mass: 36.601kg (w/o bipod) 22.053kg (with bipod) ? Total Length: 259.5cm 213.4cm ? Total Price: Cr9026.6 ? Recoil: 5 * 5 Bulk: 17 * 14 b. Bipod Bipod Mass: 15.062 Bipod Cost: Cr200.6 Total Mass: 51.663kg 22.053kg Total Cost: Cr9227.2 Recoil: 3 * 3 * Gaming data computed from real-world values with FF&S formulae. Notes: 1 - Whenever two figures are given, the first is for ball (an option for Armor-Piercing Incendiary would have been nice) and the second is for the "high-tech" (TL-8) Discarding Sabot round. 2 - Figuring the internal magazine as a box magazine that's permanently attached to the weapon. I'm also using the grams to kilograms "fix" that I mentioned in my first weapon design. Comments: Yes, this really was a real gun. Originally designed as a man portable, anti-tank small arms rifle by the Soviets during WWII, the gun was quickly outclassed by the rapidly improving armor protection of German tanks. The cartridge lives on as the ammuntion for the TL-6 KPV machinegun (found on many Soviet armored vehicles and anti-aircraft defenses). The gas-operated action of this rifle (scaled down, of course) found its way into the SKS rifle. All in all, I'm not really very happy with this FF&S design; the weapon came out more than twice as heavy as it should have (a hundred-and-fifteen pound rifle). I think the problem here is that the FF&S design system is too linear; if you push on the high end, you get guns that are much too big and heavy, and if you push on the low end, you get things like 10mm (cal) by 3mm (long) cartridges and guns that are much too light. I note that the two biggest contributors to the weight of this gun are the receiver and the bipod. Both of these are directly proportional to the muzzle energy of the weapon. One (probably the bipod) or both of these formulae are definitely wrong. One "fix" might be to make the bipod a multiple of the mass of the weapon (probaby 1/10th the mass of the weapon, minimum 1kg) instead of basing it on muzzle energy. Tactical Considerations: The close range of this weapon exceeds the extreme range of every fusion gun except the FGMP-14 and -15, and the short range equals or exceeds the extreme range of any of the fusion guns. The best use of these weapons would be long-range fire at the attackers, from behind cover (preferably cover strong enough to resist an extreme-range fusion gun strike) or sniping from outside the range of their weapons. If this is impossible (and it frequently is), then a series protected positions likeley to suprise the enemy are good (around a corner in a corridor, for example). Game Use: This weapon (or rather, one using the "real world" stats and not the FF&S design, which is completely impractical) could be quite useful to anti-RC forces in the New Era. A relatively low-tech design, it is quite capable of being manufactured by many worlds in the Wilds. Although the DS ammunition is probably going to be considerably harder to produce, there will probably be a number of worlds equipped with it. As Star Viking activities expand, it is very likeley that traders operating in the wilds will find a demand for this type of weapon. Several adventure plotlines are possible around this weapon; one which suggests itself to me is probably obvious. The players (RCES or 'Lancers) attempt a smash-n-grab on some TL-5 to TL-7 dictator. They expect an easy time of it. Pull this one on your players after they've done two or three of the same type of missions in a row and have had a chance to get overconfident and complacent. Suprise them with the weapon; without the DS ammunition, it shouldn't be too deadly, but should (if employed well) be able to prevent the PCs from accomplishing some or all of their objectives. Drive home to them in a practical sort of way how difficult their lives would be if lots of worlds had them. Later developments in the campaign can involve efforts to stop free traders from spreading the guns (or the designs) around the area. Another one might have to do with discovering that someone is producing DS ammunition. - -----8<----- End of original post. An interesting additional scenario or plot complication has occurred to me since then. POT and RCESEG use the FF&S stats for this weapon, which place it at over a hundred pounds - considerably heavier than the 'real thing', and severely limiting mobility with the weapon. One option would be to assume that the version of the weapon that is being distributed throughout the wilds by Free Traders has been considerably over-engineered (making it even *more* rugged, reliable, dirt-tolerant and generally idiot-proof that is usual for even a Soviet weapon). Considering that most of the metal parts are probably about twice as thick as they need to be, you could probably club someone with it and not loose accuracy. The thing should be easy to field-strip, easy to maintain, and shouldn't malfunction even under considerable provocation. Once the players think that they've got the drawbacks of this weapon identified, you can spring the 'lightweight' version on them. This would be the 'real world' weight weapon, and is considerably more portable than the FF&S version. A logical place to do this would be to decide that some world at around TL-5 or TL-6 invented this weapon on its own, for native use. It would also be a bit more fragile than the 'heavy' version, requiring some skill in its use to keep it in top working order. One final caveat when using this gun in a RC campaign (particularly in one based on scenarios in _Path of Tears_). The POT sourcebook also contains some RCES 'improved' armor, with an armor value of 6 (probably specifically designed by the RC to protect against this gun). While this is a reasonable thing for the RC to do, it's worth a second thought for a role-playing campaign. With AV-6 armor, RC troops are relatively well (although not perfectly) protected against the gun, significantly reducing the threat to your PCs. This is good, in that PCs won't die, but bad in that to increase the level of the threat you (as referee) have only one option: to introduce DS ammunition. This will unfortunately increase the amount of damage the gun can do to PC-deadly levels. The "average" damage would be 21 points (33 if you roll D10s for damage the way I do). I personally recommend AV-5 combat armor against the ball-equipped gun. This will allow 2 dice of damage through, which is a crediable threat but one unlikely to kill PCs with a single shot. Use the (rare and expensive) DS ammunition against vehicular and battle dress equipped targets with an AV of around 8 to 10. Again, the idea is to provide a credible threat without an inordinate risk killing PCs with a single lucky shot. An average of 7 (11 with d10 damage dice) points is enough to make anybody sit up and take notice, but not so much that they'll be dead before they can react. I realize that, as the referee, you can 'save' any PCs you feel like by rolling a disproportinate number of misses, assigning hits to NPCs, or even managing to throw 6 dice and not roll any number higher than a two (aren't referee screens wonderful devices?). But having to do this (or the reverse, and consistently giving all the 'breaks' to the bad guys) indicates a poor scenario design or a poor balance between the PCs and the opposition. Sooner or later the PCs will catch on, and it'll be bad for both their morale and for theis suspension of disbelief. It's better to get it right in the first place than to have to make 'fixes' for the rest of your campaign. Well, there you have it - the Garnett Gun. Enjoy! Guy Garnett, aka [email removed] - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ "I write because I am personally amused by what I do, and if other people are amused by it, then it's fine. If they're not, then that's also fine." --- Frank Zappa