The Leviathan

 

about the 3:00 minute mark. Hollywood Hind takes a RPG-7 from the ground right below the engines on an upward tragectory. Reality is that if it were a real Hind vs. an RPG-7 then insted of simply flying off like nothing happened it would be struggling to stay airborne.

OK--just watched the scene again after a 20+ year break. You got me there: low-budget 80s effects totally downplay what should have been a significant emotional event for everyone on board that Hind. Point taken!

What i don't like about Red Dawn was the way that an RPG could hit a Hind and the Hind wasn't ripped in half. They have youtube video of what happens when a Hind is hit midship by a rocket or a missile and it's just ugly as it gets.

I am actually more inclined to believe this than I might have before seeing the results of some of these engagements. Not because the Hind is a flying armored tank (that is more hype than reality), but because big helos actually have a lot of empty space inside. Most RPGs carry HEAT warheads that will fire that copper jet right through plate armor, but the effects can be fairly localized. There is no denying that RPGs are scary, cheap, ubiquitous, and effective, but hitting a helicopter with one takes some serious skill and luck in combination. In the unlikely event that one connects, the outcome is not necessarily a foregone conclusion

I know of a CH-47 Chinook that took an RPG mid-ship just after pax and cargo had exited in the LZ. Made a small entry hole on one side, ragged 5-foot diameter exit wound on the opposite, and did hardly any meaningul damage to the airframe structure in the process. The crew made a quick assessment, called it flyable, and flew it out of there. If it had taken the hit when loaded to the gills, or in a major power train component, there is no telling how ugly that might have been.

Also know of an Apache that took an RPG direct to the sensor turret on the nose. Took the whole pod clean off, but left the crew and structure virtually untouched. One foot higher and it would probably have vaporized both crew stations. Better to be lucky than good any day!

SAMs, on the other hand, are purpose-built to bring an aircraft down, usually by filling a decent volume of space with lethal debris that will sever whole components, or by going straight for the engines that keep the blades turning. Our only viable defense against these rigs is to avoid getting hit in the first place.

The problem that most Missile systems have is that unless you have lots or terrain without cover most helicopters are litterally flying around the trees so that you can't get a proper lock onto the aircraft. Thus you are stuck with Anti-aircraft guns on manual sighting or unguided rockets.

Truth! It's not even the missile's ability to track; the challenge of the firer getting that tube oriented on the target is hard in perfect conditions. Passive sensing is difficult, especially at night, in uneven terrain, or whatever. Even with highly developed early-warning networks, it's hard to truly gauge how effective these rigs are because most won't even leave the tube unless they have a positive lock on target.

Radar cueing is a major boost to getting the target helicopter in your sights, but Radar=active=HARM magnet. That being said, we stack the deck in our favor as much as possible with multiple active and passive countermeasures, and still do everything in our power to avoid putting ourselves in a position where we are rolling the dice to see if they actually come through in our moment of need.

Markc's missle is scary in theory but when one takes into account pysics of motion and the limited amount of fuel a missle can carry. It doesn't work so well unless you have those magical heavygear missiles that can turn 180 on a dime while at full speed.

I'm not saying Markc's MANPAD scenario is unlikely. In fact, I think that it is inevitable! However, Markc also talked about other countermeasures, and these are either going to keep pace with weapons development (at least they have so far), or we are going to radically change our tactics and employment methods, or the combat helo will go extinct. Radar can be jammed and/or targeted; IR can be suppressed; both can be tricked or blinded with chaff, flares, or lasers; and that's just on the technical spectrum. CM doesn't make our helicopters invulnerable by an means--a baited ambush with dime-a-dozen AKs or an information operations campaign that immediately portrays every legitimate air-ground engagement against an IED-planting terrorist as an unjust engagement against a misunderstood cucumber farmer will take a helicopter and/or crew out of the fight just as effectively as a successful missile shot. Our difficulty in countering the Big Lie is still our Achilles Heel.

I think the bigger problem here is that combat aircraft become so hard to hit that assymetrically-minded opponents will just go full-on guerilla/terrorist and use their highly effective one-man SAMs on civlian targets that are much more vulnerable. It's what I would likely do if I was an enterprising-but-morally-bankrupt Punk or a calculating and ruthless Corporate.

Funny ancidote i read while researching helicopter armaments there is an unconfirmed report that a GAU-19/A packing Littlebird got an air to Air gunkill. Personally I could see small, fast heavily armed helicopters being used in a hunter killer role against other helicopter assets. Then maybe I'm just stealing the idea from Firebirds.

Certainly possible--there are plenty of helo-mounted weapons up to the task, and the GAU-19 is no slouch at slinging lead--but the US Air Force has cornered the market on the air superiority business to the point that the US Army continues to downsize air defense assets to all but the big Patriot missiles. They assume the fast-movers are going to take care of anything that the Patriots can't get.

The Army toyed with the idea of hunter killers--the first weapon systems mounted on the Kiowa Warrior scout were 2-pack Stinger missile launchers--but came to the conclusion that they created a niche system that had limited utility. Existing fixed-wing designs have shoot-down capability, better intercept speed, and don't take a scout pilot out of the fight by turning him or her into a poor man's Blue Max. Hellfires, rockets, and machineguns seem to be a better use for that ordnance space. While bagging an air-to-air kill from an AH would take bragging rights to an all-time high, the need for that capability is questionable.

On the other hand, the whole jet vs. helicopter proposition is still pretty much theoretical. The only real-world example that comes to mind involved Air Force F-15s shooting down what turned out to be Army Blackhawks over the Iraq Northern No-Fly Zone back in the 90s, and they certainly weren't fighting back or trying to evade. Bad business. Helicopter pilots intent on being sneaky--like the mercs in War Dog--are hard to find and harder to hit, particularly by a high-flying fast-moving jet. Perhaps the next gen hunter-killer helicopter will turn out to be the antidote to that particular problem.

Interesting point you bring up there, Rockwolf. The strange thing about the combat helicopters plying their trade these days is that they are not opposed weapon systems--they really don't counter each other. What I mean by this is that having helicopters on your side does not necessarily eliminate the advantage that your enemy gains by having helicopter support as well. Having vertical lift means that a force can rapidly counter an enemy ground-based assault, as well as conduct some vertical envelopment ops that force the other side to defend the depth as well as the breadth of their turf. On the other hand, just because you might have some helos doesn't mean that you have in any way limited your enemy's vertical lift capabilities.

It's a weird paper-scissors-rock relationship. So far, in spite of some attempts by both the U.S. Army mounting Stingers on scout helicopters and some dedicated Soviet designs, there really have not been any viable counter-helo helicopter designs let loose in any conflict. Instead, the suggested antidote for helicopters has been shoulder-fired SAMS, anti-aircraft artillery, and even massed small arms fire.

The Sierra Leone example is a poignant one. A little technology in the right place can overcome huge numerical advantages. In Afghanistan, fights stop when attack helicopters arrive on the scene. Either the aggressors rapidly become peace-loving upstanding citizens and fade into the woodwork, or they quickly take up a new occupation fertilizing next year's poppy crop. The stupid ones die quickly, but the crafty survivors go assymetric from the start and blend with the locals to counter the tech advantage. Can't say as I blame them--it would drive me crazy being so incredibly out-gunned and out-maneuvered. The prospect of going after semi-organized punks using WW2-era tactics and brave enough to wear military uniforms is an attack helicopter pilot's dream. In conflicts like those in Sierra Leone or Libya (theoretically speaking, of course) even cranky Soviet designs from the 1970s are in their element.

Which means you could have blisteringly fast small helicopters capable of mind bending acrobatics, cheap helos of contemporary equivalent performance for 1/4 the cost, or stealthier machines...or super heavy choppers with serious armour and guns.

Malek hits upon an interesting point here. The constant state of conflict over the last 10 years has really spurred innovation with the U.S. Army's helicopter fleet. We have learned how to squeeze more performance out of existing materials science using digital control, and have had the proper motivation to make the easy improvements that we just never quiet got around to before that. One never-ending problem with this, however, seems to be that as soon as we find ways to coax more powerful performance from our helicopters, we bolt on even more extras that erode any performance gains. The net result is a whole bunch of gee-wiz systems on an even more heavily-burdened airframe--all to smoke or survive against a tribal with an AK.

Don't get me wrong--some of those whiz-bang gizmos keep the low-techs from using some high-tech shoulder tubes to make our days miserable, and they are well worth the trade-offs in performance. If I were a corporate bean-counter, however, I might be much more inclined to scrimp on the heavy (and expensive) survivability gear and keep the performance surplus to allow my expendable mercenary aircrews to bring greater scunnion on the proxy force between me and my plunder. It's all risk vs. pay-off, right?

Oh man, Rockwolf--where do I start? It is as if you just hefted a forty-pound steak my way--savory to the point of being irresistible, but so enormous I don't even know where to take the first bite. There are entire professions devoted to mere aspects of the question you posed: aviation, air defense, countermeasures and counter-countermeasures, tactics, military doctrine, you name it.

Where do I start? What is our basis of comparison?

Reality, where there are very limited alternatives to helicopters for most applications, or CP2020 canon, where there are numerous alternatives and game-changing technologies in terms of offensive and defensive capabilities?

I would stress that weapons tech is in a constant see-saw race with countermeasures and counter-countermeasures. In the current conflicts around the world today CM seem to have the upper hand, but that is a function of many factors (of which technology is just one). MarkC's kick-ass shoulder-fired missile may happen, but the means to counter it are already under development. All I can say with certainty right now is that the weapon that can render the helicopter obsolete has not been invented yet.

There are many misperceptions about the causes and quantities of helicopters going down in combat or otherwise. Consider checking out

this site

to get a feel for the causes of US Army aviation losses. Though we still have a very healthy respect for MANPADS, they really haven't been a significant factor for years now.

Tre sweet.

Sweet Jehovah. I think I've made a mess of myself. Please let it be real, available on the PC, and something to redeem the franchise from the disappointment that was Invisible War

Welcome aboard, Cas. The members of this board tend to share an interest in the Cyberpunk genre and dark future roleplaying, and the occasional spirited debate, but the similarities pretty much end there. Diversity is a good thing! I suspect many of us take pride in defying categorization.

Glad to have you with us. Welcome! Don't mind the cranks and firebreathers. They (We?) are actually fairly harmless and likeable once you learn to get them (us?) talking about this great RPG.

I see PC relationship choices in a similar light. I think Human Perception is a key skill here as well. How many people do you know who think their Significant Other is so sweet when it's obvious to everybody else that he or she is a Grade A Loser? Of course, the person may realize that the other person is a dud, but then again we all probably know people who repeatedly get involved with people that they know are bad for them. It's not necessarily a matter of intelligence, it's just a matter of making bad choices even realizing that the consequences might involve heartbreak or worse. Sometimes the allure of hanging with that "Bad Girl/Boy" outweighs better judgement. At least it makes for plenty of hooks for making PCs' lives interesting!

It sounds like you're in luck, Whisper. Share the day with someone you love!

This message thread is the Flying Dutchman of topics: it drifts randomly without a crew, disappears for years at a time, then resurfaces just when you least expect it before sinking once again into obscurity. Boneshaker, you started something that defies all logical explanation...

Keep me, my wife, and all my troops safe while playing in the Fedayeens' sandbox for the year.  Darthmurph, me and my BROs will be the next runners behind you in this relay race, so I'm counting on you to get back to Tennessee/Kentucky with mind and body intact so me and my crew have a good example to follow.  Air Assault!

Well, Arch, Phipps, as much as you guys like to stir things up, I'm convinced that the "Jerk" archtype was wholy modelled on the infamous D. Jorgenson.  You have my profound thanks for upsetting the template by introducing a degree of wit, humor, and intelligence into your discourse.

Interested in Russia's Captive Piston silent ammunition?

Check out http://world.guns.ru/ammo/sp-e.htm

Enjoy.

Freakboy--Exactly!  They're not so much a coherent subculture of their own, but the dregs kicked out of the nomad mainstream.

Sounds like the way to go might be to keep it simple and treat autoshotguns like any other full-auto weapon.  Using them for area denial in confined spaces works as well, but I'm not sure if I understand how your proposal translates into game terms, Wilphe.  

    But it did give me an idea, which may actually be yours with a different wording.  "Area denial" pretty much sounds like suppressive fire, so I'm thinking that we should treat autoshotgun attacks as suppressive fire as normal, but treat each shotshell as the equivalent of, say, 5 bullets.  So the suppressive fire formula from FFNF would be modified for autoshots to read:

SAVE = NUMBER OF SHOTSHELLS x 5 DIVIDED BY THE WIDTH OF THE ZONE IN METERS

Targets in the fire zone failing to roll Athletics +REF+1D10 higher than the target number take 1D6 pellet hits, equivalent to the shotgun's damage at long range (2d6 for 12-gauge)

Example: 10 shotgun shells fired into a 2 meter area would require a save of 25 or higher.  10 shotgun shells fired into a 5 meter area would require a save of 10 or higher.

A target that failed its save takes 1D6 hits for 2D6 damage each, each randomly located.

    This approach makes autoshotguns a little less formidable, since the FNFF rules seem to indicate that you can't miss with one as long as place one shot per meter in confined areas, but it may serve to bring autoshotguns up on line with rules for other weapons.

    Im distrustful of the "point in space" approach, but I suppose that this is what the current FNFF autoshotgun rules equate to already, i.e. one shot per meter, cover all meters and you don't even need to roll to see if you hit.  My group did try to do something similar using grenades and grenade launchers, but we found that it was still contentious, since you're still going to have to calculate exactly where the right point in space is, and this gets difficult with moving targets.

Thoughts?  See any snags I overlooked?

Actually, Wilphe is right using the standard shotgun rules: damage = 4D6 at close range, 3D6 at medium, and 2d6 at long.  A target at 20m is in the medium range bracket for a shotgun.

    Of course, those are the game rules, but it looks like we're all in agreement that shotguns are probably underestimated by the Interlock system.  Reality might show them to be somewhat more effective in the right circumstances.

    I was hoping that I'd hear an enlightened firepower guru help me reconcile the rules for autoshots, but I'm afraid that's unlikely to happen.  At least it's reaffirming to hear that I'm not the only one scratching my head over these rules.

    I'm still interested in hearing your house mods to better represent shotguns (auto, semi-auto, or otherwise) in game terms.  For example, Rockwolfe, your approach to autoshotguns by treating them like any other standard automatic weapon makes sense (simple is good!), but Wilphe has a point that you will still end up with a heavy, bulky, low ammo-count, mediocre-damage inflicting, lousy WA, abysmally-ranged weapon that an SMG will outperform at every turn.  My instincts tell me that shotguns are better than this.  What am I missing?

Howdy, Crew.

    I've playing CP2020 for years, and yet I realize that I still don't truly understand the Friday Night Firefight rules for automatic shotguns.  Typically, when a PC manages to get one of these bad boys in a position to actually inflict some damage, I find that we end up so overcome by our exuberance to see our enemies serrated by clouds of pelletized lead that we tend to overlook our confusion with the rules and just fudge the outcome.  

    Seriously, though--how do you interpret the rules?  VFTE states that shooters may make as many attacks as their weapon's ROF, taking a -2 penalty for every shot past the first.  This would mean that a full 10-round squeeze would incur a whopping -18 to-hit penalty!

    In the example in the book, it refers to Ripperjack hosing 5 rounds across a 5-meter hallway, taking a -8 penalty to do so, and then concludes by stating that he turns the hallway into "hamburger heaven."  Exactly what the hell does this mean?

    Does this mean that it's almost like suppressive fire?  That the key thing is ensuring I have a shot per each meter I'm covering, and that once this is assured that the die roll is basically a fumble check (e.g. anything above a 1 is a hit)?

    Do I roll for each round separately, taking the cumulative penatly for each?  Talk about dice-roll intensive!

    Do I make a single roll for the burst?  How could a weapon be worth diddly with a -18 to-hit penalty incurred?  Does this mean that we just assume the dice roll is meaningless once we place enough shot patterns into an area to cover it?  If so, how do we determine multiple hits?  It seems likeley that a full-auto shotgun firing a 10-round burst down a 2-meter wide hallway would likeley hit a target more than once, right?  But it's doubtful that a PC would get any measure of success with that huge -18 to hit.

    I'm not trying to snipe the rules, I just would really like to understand their implementation, and I'm hoping that some intelligent board reader and hardcore Cyberpunk can help me see the light.

Congratulation, SnowDog!  Best wishes to you and your new bride.

Quick note:  the Militech Military & Police shotgun is a gas-operated semi-auto with a box mag.  Sweet!

    Personally, I think the ROF for a pump/lever action weapon should be 1--I find it hardly credible that a shooter could fire a pump-action shotgun as rapidly as a semi-automatic handgun with any degree of accuracy.  It seems doubly foolish when we start referencing the Militech 25mm mini-grenade launcher.  ROF 2?  Not likely.

    Opinions?

Right on, Raptorclaw--that's what I'm talking about!  If they can't hack it, send them back to the game with the happy elves and singing birds...

Another consideration that addresses inflicting damage as a range of values instead of a constant value is that the bullet may inflict more damage based on where it strikes the body.  Specifically, the kinetic energy passed through armor that successfully stops a bullet projectile will be much more destructive if it passes directly into some relatively fragile internal organs than if it hits a major muscle group.  

    This is pretty much how I envision the whole variable damage system working.  Of course, there are plenty of other game systems that use a constant damage value by bullet type/caliber that are even more realistic (Pheonix Command or Millennium's End are good examples), but these also tend to be rules-heavy and slower in gameplay.

As i put it in my last post just kill that guy and his closest supporters. for that is how you deal with a tratorous b@stard.

McCarthy would have heartily endorsed that statement.  Try looking up the definition of "fascism" in the dictionary...

I'm not interested in arguing conspiracy theories about the supposed evil governmental agency--I still can't figure out who's left-wing, right-wing, or wingnuts in this thread--but for M8 Harry's sake, BATF stands for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms and serves as the U.S. government's federal agency responsible for regulating the listed areas.  Yes, the combination seems somewhat random to us citizens of the U.S. as well...