Heavy Weapon Mobility
Posted: Tue Mar 25, 2008 5:21 am
Wargame rules have lots of different ways rating heavy weapon mobility. I have a question for those of you who have had to drag heavy stuff around in the field. How would you rate the mobility of the following weapon systems?
The criteria is as follows and considers the total weapon system as well as enough ammo needed to make the weapon "effective". The move "bounds" in consideration are about 400m. So, shifting a few yards/meters is not enough to be considered "mobile". You need to be able to pack up the weapon and move it 300-500m in the context of a company to battalion level fight.
1/Heavy Weapon: perfectly ok to tote around the open and woods/fields ("rough terrain") but a little more difficult in really broken/uneven/steep terrain ("very rough terrain")
2/Man-Packed-Gun: definitely slower across open ground due to shear weight of system and ammo, still do-able in rough terrain but VERY slow in very rough terrain
3/Mobile Towed Weapon: really slow even in the open and a really tough haul in rough terrain. Simply impossible in very rough terrain
4/Static Towed Weapon: so heavy that the weapon simply can't move w/o a tow or the weapon mount lacks the wheels needed to even roll a weapon that can't be broken down and carried conveniently in man-packed pieces (or the ammo required to make the weapon effective make it "immobile".) Not that STWs might be broken down and carried by animals such as pack mules (the taliban have done this in Afghanistan with heavy mortars and RCLs).
Here is how I currently rate some weapons but this is based on what I've seen in other rules and by comparing the weights of various weapon book weights. So, I have no idea if it's right and would appreciate your comments.
1/HW: 7.62mm sustained fire MG, 60mm mortar, Dragon, Javelin
2/MPG: .50 cal. MG, 40mm GL, 81mm mortar
3/MTW: TOW?
4/STW: TOW?, 120mm mortar
note: the 7.62mm SFMG doesn't appear to be burdensome with only the extra tripod in consideration, but the idea here is that enough ammo is also carried to lay down lots and lots of fire!
Tim
The criteria is as follows and considers the total weapon system as well as enough ammo needed to make the weapon "effective". The move "bounds" in consideration are about 400m. So, shifting a few yards/meters is not enough to be considered "mobile". You need to be able to pack up the weapon and move it 300-500m in the context of a company to battalion level fight.
1/Heavy Weapon: perfectly ok to tote around the open and woods/fields ("rough terrain") but a little more difficult in really broken/uneven/steep terrain ("very rough terrain")
2/Man-Packed-Gun: definitely slower across open ground due to shear weight of system and ammo, still do-able in rough terrain but VERY slow in very rough terrain
3/Mobile Towed Weapon: really slow even in the open and a really tough haul in rough terrain. Simply impossible in very rough terrain
4/Static Towed Weapon: so heavy that the weapon simply can't move w/o a tow or the weapon mount lacks the wheels needed to even roll a weapon that can't be broken down and carried conveniently in man-packed pieces (or the ammo required to make the weapon effective make it "immobile".) Not that STWs might be broken down and carried by animals such as pack mules (the taliban have done this in Afghanistan with heavy mortars and RCLs).
Here is how I currently rate some weapons but this is based on what I've seen in other rules and by comparing the weights of various weapon book weights. So, I have no idea if it's right and would appreciate your comments.
1/HW: 7.62mm sustained fire MG, 60mm mortar, Dragon, Javelin
2/MPG: .50 cal. MG, 40mm GL, 81mm mortar
3/MTW: TOW?
4/STW: TOW?, 120mm mortar
note: the 7.62mm SFMG doesn't appear to be burdensome with only the extra tripod in consideration, but the idea here is that enough ammo is also carried to lay down lots and lots of fire!
Tim