Trivial Stuff

For anything not in the above. Ground combat/personal combat. Anything to do with CS, but not already covered.
User avatar
PostsCOLON 1007
JoinedCOLON Thu Jan 22, 2009 10:55 pm

Trivial Stuff

Postby Thom » Thu Jan 29, 2009 10:24 pm

A point of note (not that it matters any) but these are the common nominclature ranges for Metric vs Inch bore diameters & cartridges.

5mm = .201 (.20 cal, fairly rare then)
5.45-5.5mm = .219-.224 (.22 Cal)
6mm = .243 (.24 Cal)
6.25mm = .257 (.25 Cal)
7mm = .277 (.27 or .28 Cal)
7.62/7.65mm = .308 or .30 cal
7.7mm = .311 (Roughly .31 Cal or .303 British)
8mm = .323 (.32 Cal)
9mm = .355 (.35 or .36 cal but in America called .38 cal forever)
10mm = .40 Cal
12.45 - .45 Cal
12.5mm = .50 Cal (.504 ish)
15mm = .60 Cal
17mm = .68 Cal or 20 Gauge
17.5mm = .70 Cal
18mm = .72 or 12 Gauge
20mm = .80 Cal
37mm = 1.50 Cal

Now in the firearms industry things are not always what they are called, the .38 and .44 come to mind. The .38 Special should rightly be called a .35 or .36 and the .44 Mag is really .429 so it should be called a .43. Metric cartridge nomiclature is pretty much the same as the American and English with gross deviations, particularly in Northern European cartridges. 9.3 MM Swede for example IS NOT 9.3mm, it is really 9mm and sometimes closer to 8.7mm. Also they call the .45 Auto a 12.45mm when it is really closer to a 12mm.

Ok enough lecturing!

I can envision that some nations (Texas comes to mind first) might call their 20mm guns "80 cals" "Yep, took'm outta the sky with the 80 cal"

In game fluff for Europeans you could validly call a .40 cal a 10mm. "Der Adler blazed away at the ground convoy with his twin 10mm Erma machine guns."

In practicle words a 37mm = 1.50 caliber, meaning an inch and a half bore diameter. "Well son, that there big gun is a Hunnert & fitty cal. . ."

Now really, this all adds up to nothing outside of usable story fluff details. That is why I titled this post "Trivial Stuff"!
Flying the Crimson Skies
PostsCOLON 70
JoinedCOLON Fri Jan 23, 2009 4:11 am

Re: Trivial Stuff

Postby » Thu Jan 29, 2009 10:57 pm

Carthaginian Wrote
I like the "hundred'n'fifty cal" thing... sounds perfect for a Texan caliber measurement system. After all, everything has to at least SOUND bigger in Texas. Dixie would probably go straight-up British with their caliber measurements... down to the point of printing it as '1".5 caliber' and saying it 'inch-and-a-half caliber.'

As for the 'trivial stuff,' the .38 Special (.357", actually) has a reason for being named as it is. The .38 Special is based off a blackpowder cartridge- the .38 Short Colt. The .38 Short Colt was chambered for cartridge conversion .36 Navy cap-and-ball revolvers, and thus had to fit into the bored-through cylinders of that weapon. The inside diameter of the cylinder (and the groove to groove diameter of the rifling) of that particular weapon was .375", or .38" with a bit of logical rounding. Thus, the .38 Short Colt and it's offspring (the .38 Long Colt, the .38 S&W Short, .38 S&W Long and .38 S&W Special) all have cartridge neck diameters of .38 inches, give or take.

The .44 Magnum has a similar story, but different. The original .44 S&W American was chambered for.44" bullets. When the .44 S&W Russian was designed, however, the bullet was made smaller and had lubrication grooves added to the rear of the bullet head. The design also drastically increased the operating pressure of the design- virtually doubling it- and thus necessitated some thickening of the case. The case was also altered to be longer and slightly tapered, to prevent it's use in the older revolvers chambered for the less powerful .44 S&W American; call this an early safety measure... the straight-sided .44 American would not seat in the .44 Russian cylinder, and the .44 Russian would stick out the .44 American cylinder. This arrangement was later used in the .38 Special/.357 Magnum evolution, as well as the .44 Russian's own offspring- the .44 Special round is .2" longer than the .44 Russian, and the .44 Magnum is longer than the .44 Special.

And if you really want to have fun, the .45 Long Colt was never really .45 caliber but rather .454 caliber... until after WWII, when they started using the same presses to bore the Model P barrels that were used to do the M1911 barrels during the war. The bore of the .45 Long Colt then dropped to .451 to match the .45 ACP. For this reason, many of the oldest .45 Long Colt revolvers and carbines have to have special ordered ammo in order to group well when firing. For safety sake, all manufacturers have standardized .45 caliber bullet production at .451"... to prevent some slightly less intelligent people from loading cheap .454 cast lead bullets into a modern .45 ACP case and possibly bursting a barrel (overpressure = ouch).

In the meantime, it sounds like there is a fellow gun-nut in the house!

Thom Wrote
Total gun nut! In fact I studied Gunsmithing at Lassen College 1983-1986, I also served in Arms Rooms in both the AF & Army.

USAF 1979 -1983 Security Police. 18 Months in the 20th SPS Armsroom at RAF Upper Heyford UK.

US Army 1987-1992 Military Police. 14 Months in the 2d MP Co Armsroom Camp Casey ROK.

While in Korea I was fortunate enough to actually attend Small Unit Armor's Maintence & Repair School, a rare event for someone that actually worked in an Armsroom. (Army is strange like that, units often use the prestige schools as a reward for the commanders golden boys rather than the people who are already doing the job really need the knowledge.)

That and growing up in Montana of course, made guns a major part of my life. I still do some gunsmithing though not much as I really lack shop space, though most simple repairs can be done at the kitchen table.

A confession: The real joke is that when I was in Security Police Air Base Ground Defense (ABGD) School, down at Camp Bullis Texas, my instructor was from Texas and had grown up very close by the base. During our classes he brought in some 20mm rounds which he constantly refered to as "150 Cal" and that has stuck with me all this time.

Phoenix Wrote
Well, as for funny gun names, I fly Il-2, and the 30mm cannons that hte Germans use are absolutley devastating. I can honestly claim that only one pilot has ever survived my 30mm and lived to land.

It's commonly known as the death-star cannon. Due to its sound, it was also known as the pneumatic jackhammer.

The Russian ShKAS .30-cal is known as the flamethrower, due to its high percentage of tracers.

Thom Wrote
That nasty old 30mm would be a 1.20 cal or 120 Caliber. . .

"That One-Twenty lit'em up and brought'em down in flames. . "

The 30mm GAU 8 in the A-10 Thunderbolt II may be the single nastiest gun in all of warfair. The depleted uranium slugs make damn near any hit a kill. . .

Grant Wrote

Make that three gun-nuts in the house

My largest outdoor hobby (Hunting is included of course). Very enjoyable sport and own a "Few" more guns than most 17 year olds should have ;) Although I am not into gunsmithing that much (Other than proper cleaning and maintenance, dad is one he is always tinkering with something.

Current newest toy is a .45 ACP 1911 made by Armscor. Been through 1100 rounds in 3 months and still going strong

I can easily see Texasn going "Hunnert and fifty" and "80 caliber"...H*** I can see alotta people doing that

Those 30MM's are deadly in IL-2. Never played online, but let a AI get behind me with them...ya don't last long

Cyagen Wrote
Thanks Thom! Nice table, I saved it for further use.

It actually is pretty close of the estimate I made except for the .70 that I had interpreted as a 20 mm.

Carthaginian Wrote
1100 rounds in 3 month? I envy you!
Grant, I wish I had that kinda time to shoot. I probably, counting annual weapons quals, haven't had time to put more than 300 rounds a year downrange for the last 3 years. My biggest stumbling block is that I live within a city's limits and discharging a firearm is illegal. My only option for target shooting is an hour away at a Nat'l Forrest; my only place to hunt is over 4 hours away.

The single-action .45 ACP is a jewel; possibly the perfect combat pistol IMHO. Some people will lamblast the single action semi-auto as an outdated design. I personally think that when mankind takes to the stars, the 1911 will still be merrily slapping against our hips and giving the kind of intimidation that can only be given by thumbcocking a pistol with a hole that big in the end.

Phoenix Wrote
The bigger the hole, the harder they fall.

Cyagen Wrote
Living in germany, I'm partial to german designs.

I do not know about pistols, but in a close quarter fight, the MP5 10mm SMG is the perfect weapon, if you exclude a Shotgun...and a flame-thrower...

Grant Wrote
I'm lucky :D I live out in the middle of nowhere...literally closest neighbor is 3 miles away, and I doubt we have more than 4 neighbors within 8 miles!!!!!

Carthag that sucks being in your position...Ever in Montana drop by for some shooting

That much ammo is a little expensive and I am trimmming back some now, but I first wanted to get extremely used to this gun. Where shooting it, mag reloads, etc,etc, is second nature. And dad re-loads the brass for his use so it ain't real bad.

And yeah, can't beat the 1911. As long as you keep it lubed, it is (nearly) as reliable as any other automatic....and the .45 round sure is re-assuring when you put it and a 9MM side-by-side

My personal gun in the CS universe is a 1911, and rightly so

My favorite "Series" of guns though has to be ones designed by John Browning....A absolute messiah of the arms industry, SO many designs and not just civilian or just military...He made such a fantastic collection of guns. And alot of his design principlies are still in use today and damn...the guns can plug along and function for a LONG time.

Carthaginian Wrote
Cyagen wrote:
Living in germany, I'm partial to german designs.

I enjoy some European weapons: the Steyr AUG that the Aussies carried was a sight better than our M-16A4's, and the SA80's upgraded by H&K were nice, too. The H&K USP is a good pistol and would be a nice replacement for our current Berettas... as long as they get it in .45 ACP or 10mm. Of course, my favorite (modern) European handgun is the Glock 23 (compact .40 S&W).

I'll always love Browning's designs, though.
The M1911 is the perfect combat pistol, and the M2 is the perfect heavy machine gun. How many other 100 year old designs are still in active military service?

Cyagen Wrote
Carthaginian wrote:
How many other 100 year old designs are still in active military service?

The browning HP pistol. An almost perfect design from Belgium.

As for modern assault rifle, a friend of mine that served in the Canadian army told me that the current C7 (Canadian version of the M16) is the best one out there, followed by the modern Czech version of the AK-47.

He may be partial, but he told me that when Holland and Danemark held a competition to replace their FNFAL rifle, the C7 won it, without much chanlenge, even from the original M16.

The worst one is, always according to him, the UK weapon. He told me it is so bad, it's not even funny to think that people are actually fighting with that. The brits may be the only ISAF nation that provides a weapon to its soldier that is inferior to the one used by the Talibans...

Carthaginian Wrote
The M-16 (never the best of weapons) went to pot after it was given over to FN... my apologies to the Belgians, but it's the truth. My first issue weapon was a reconditioned GM/Hydromatic made M-16A1 from Vietnam (it had a 5 digit SN) and it worked flawlessly. My FN made M-16A4 was a piece of crap; one of the happiest days I had in Iraq was when I got to swap it for an M249.

As far as American service rifles... well, I don't think you can get any closer to perfect than the M-14. A pain to do Drill and Ceremony with, but perfect for field work even if you can only carry 80 rounds for the same weight as the 120 rounds for the M-16.

Cyagen Wrote
The M14 is like the AK-47, the modernization of a very good weapon.

I read somewhere that the M14 was basically a M1 Garant (the best ww2 rifle) with a magazine.

The M16 is not a bad weapon, it just suffers from the reputation it acquired with the first batches that were bad.
PostsCOLON 70
JoinedCOLON Fri Jan 23, 2009 4:11 am

Re: Trivial Stuff

Postby » Thu Jan 29, 2009 11:04 pm

Grant Wrote
I always figured I better not form to much of an opinion on the M16 VSM14,etc,etc. simply because I had never use done in combat.

But I have known enough guys who served in the gaurd, and a few vets,etc, that the M16 is NOT the premier service rifle.

I know a couple of Vietnam vet's who seriously think the US should have retained the M-14...

Personally....I know that humans are easy to kill....But I personally want something better than a .223(5.56MM)...if only because you have to use FMJ's in the military.

Plus, I know they are "Differant", but Civilian AR-15's and M-16's are not THAT far apart, and the AR15's I know are pretty susceptible to dust...I mean, it seems that a long day riding around in a pickup,
and it needs cleaning...whereas my Mini-14(M14 copy scaled down to 5.56MM), doesn't, and neither does the AK47 .223 a friend shoots (Moderately accurately too).

I know the M16 is "Accurate"...But I don't think a service rifle should HAVE to be cleaned ever day...I mean they should be, but I don't think they should HAVE to be.

Thom Wrote
The current FN made M-16s & M-4s are made right here in the USA in the FN factory in North Carolina. None of them (not even pieces/parts) are made overseas.

By far and wide our troops are satisfied with the M-16/M-4. Though all of them complain that it needs more power, but then in EVERY conflict troops complained their rifles needed more power as they were not getting one shot kills. The reality of it is that marksmanship counts for far more than "Power" in most situations involving rifles.

It is a myth that they need to be cleaned every day, they work pretty damned fine all in all and we have few maintenence issues from the Gulf.

Having served myself I can asure you that the M-16 family is the best family of service rifles in common use today, world wide. . .

All of them have issues. The H&Ks are prone to galling (Specialy in sandy conditions) and mechanical wear, their fluted chambers destroy brass and often send hot crap out at the shooters hand & wrist.

The AKs usualy run ok but they will never achieve any real accuracy except by accident. Also stamped parts are easy to damage, but also easy to fix. You would be interested to note that thew Russian troops in Afghanistan cursed their AKs constantly.

The FN/FAL was a fine rifle but really finicky about being dirty. Sand shut them down quickly which is why NO desert nation uses them today.

Everyone has a "Favorite" *Insert brand name here* (Object here) and often they don't see the whole picture, but the bottom line is that the M-16 family of military arms are the best in service today. . .

Carthaginian Wrote
Made in NC or Belgium, it still isn't as good as my old A1. That's partly because I know the proper way to use the selector switch, though.
Another thing is that in the desert, the M-16 was a big pain to maintain- the rifle just didn't seem to feed right, even if kept clean. Turns out it was the cheap mags getting fouled... but it still made the rifle difficult to maintain.
Being as most of our missions after getting off MSR patrol were done in town, the few guys in our unit that didn't have shotguns or 249's (MP Corps has it's advantages) looked for AK's to 'appropriate' because of their low maintenance and their accuracy issues weren't a big problem at 50 yards.

I will openly admit part of my dislike for the M-16 is utter and total preconceived bigotry against the .223 round; I've despised it from day one, having been raised on .30 caliber weapons. If I want a high-powered .22, I'd pick a Ruger 10/22 in .22 Magnum. I know about the whole 'wound, not kill' philosophy of 'civilized warfare' but that has never really applied to any war me or my family was in, as no one in my family has ever been in a 'civilized war.' I'd rather have that big, heavy bullet; I've never shot a man with either round, but I've shot deer with both and while a .223 gets toted off with ease by the average whitetail, a .30-06 presents a bigger challenge. I can only assume the effect on a man is similar.

What you heard about the M-14 is true; it's basically a Garand with a detachable box mag. It's possibly the only time someone has ever improved upon perfection.

Grant Wrote
I guess that's my opinion......the .223 is only good for praire dogs and small ground animals...As said..I have nevcer used it in my opnion should be un-regarded.....

If I was allowed to use softpoints? Then yeah, the .223 would be okay.....It was made for expansion.

FoxMalcolm Wrote
Well what about more period weapons?

Personally I think the the Australian made and developed Owen Sub-machine Gun ( ) [first made in 1939] is the weapon of choice.

It is every fieldmans dream as it can easily be modified to to take many different calibers.
Sort of the AK47 of Australia but more versitile [haven't a clue how it would handle in the cold though]

Grant Wrote
Always thought the Owen was a great gun. That top-mounted magazine always looked clumsy to me, but I can't pass judgement too much seeing as how I haven't handled one.

I am using the M1941Johnson as the Empire State's newly adopted rifle (And of course huge hit on the black market). I think it was actually produced in what would be the Atlantic Coalition, but I thought it just "Fit" the ES

The [url=[M1 Garand[/url] I am saying was designed in the Atlantic Coalition and production rights are available to buyers.

Lotta good guns from that period As I get my ground campaign more completed, I will be compiling a full list of weapons and users.

Thom Wrote
The M1-Garand, is certainly valid semi auto and even the Johnson is close enough to the era to be correct. The same can be said for the Owens and the Tokarev SVT-38 & 40. (The Tokarev is the direct ancestor of the FN/FAL family of rifles) Even the M1-Carbine is plausible if you push it back a few years.

But I think the Thompson, being reliable and easy to make will likely be the single most common "Modern" combat arm encountered, at least in North America, the English were very fond of them as well so it would not be inconceivable that the Brits would be buying or making their own. While Auto Ordinance is located in New York I doubt the Empire State is gaining that many sales (Except with allies) as I doubt that most "Copy Rights & Patents" are very easy to enforce in the world of Crimson Skies. Germany will have it's own SMGs, the MP18 and their brand new MP38 (As of 1938). Italy has it's 1918 Berreta SMG. Others in the same category would include the older Lewis Gun, BAR and Britains version of the Czech designed Bren gun.

The world will still be fully of cheap and readily available arms left over from "The Great War" as well, so untill WWII comes along there really isn't much impetus to design new weapons systems. (The M1's roots actually go back to late in WWI)

There are many standard civilian arms which might make good service weapons, like the Lever Action Winchesters and Marlins, both easily cloned elsewhere. Still though, all in all, the bulk of rank and file troops around the world are likely armed with vanilla bolt action rifles. SMLEs, Springfields, Enfields, Mausers, Arisakas and Mosin-Nagant rifles will be the standard arms most commonly encountered as there are still hundreds of thousands of them out there flooding the markets and filling bunkers and warehouses.

At least thats the way I see it!

Grant Wrote
ABout what I'm thinking.

I am using that having the world in a more state of constat combat, the world development of new wepaons would be increased (FOr example the Panzer IV will be available early 37, albeit with the low velocity 7.5CM).

I think semi-auto weapons are about like they were in 1940, getting adopted but still working out a lotta kinks.

Italy for example already will have it's 1938 SMG (ALbeit just barely), and Germany will have it's Gew 43,etc,etc. But very tempermental.

Thom Wrote
Thats a plausible attitude and entirely fitting within the Crimson Skies. Germany presents a lot of problems for me as it is an amalgam of Imperialism and Nazism. With the Kaiser in power and Hitler as Chancelor things will undoubtedly be different but figuring out just how different is difficult for me. The Nazi party only has a slight majority in the Crimson Skies universe. The Jewish genocide hasn't occured (and may not occur). Hitlers second greatest hatered was for communists, could they be the main targets of German agression this time?

Grant Wrote
I sorta figurd it that way.

I assumed the country was still under a dictatorship like in real-life, but just with co-leaders, the Kaiser and Hitler. Small fights between the enlisted with differant ideolagies would occur. But overall, I think Hitler and the Kaiser can keep a decent balance, both wanting a powerful Germany.

(Although I do see backdoor deals to garner forces to their side, I doubt that it would come to outright backstabbing.......yet)

Because of Uncle William (Lol..saw that somewhere and can't remember...but it fits), I think Hitler sortof is ignoring the Jew's/disabled/retards,etc, in exchange for more emphasis on anti-communist activities. (Plus popular opinion hasn't been revved up for it)

There may still be prejudice, by both Imperials and Nazi's, but I sortof doubt it would go farther than that. Especially since Germany is needing basically all able men in this CS verse.

User avatar
PostsCOLON 1007
JoinedCOLON Thu Jan 22, 2009 10:55 pm

Re: Trivial Stuff

Postby Thom » Sat Oct 03, 2009 10:39 pm

One of the things about this game which has bothered me the most since I got to read the rulebooks, is the inverted ranges. I realize that it was intended as a game balancing mechanic, but it is completely out of whack. Smaller guns DO NOT shoot further than larger calibers, indeed it is just the opposite. In the real world, .30 cal MGs are considered maxed out in the 800-1000 yard range, while .50 cal MGs are considered good to go out one and a half miles. The 20mm & 30mm guns routinely shoot over the horizon and engage targets accurately. Now I admit that modern targeting science makes those hits real, but only because the guns reach those ranges consistently and accurately! Modern .50 Cals as well as 20mm & 30mm are ballistically pretty much the same as their WWI & WWII ancestors. So why do we have an illogical game mechanic for progressively shorter ranges?

Perhaps we need a "Rate of Fire" (RoF) modifier as the smaller guns typically have a much higher RoF than the heavy guns, this might serve as a more realistic game balancing mechanic. . .
RoF = Number of potential hits, Roll an extra attack for each additional RoF. For a RoF with 2.5 that would be two potential hits first round and three potentials the following round. (Or RoF 2/3)

For example (And remember this is untested, just a baby theory for now) using the extended calibers we might see a chart like so. From .90 Cal up the RoF would be 1 but ranges would continue to increase, perhaps around 1.50 you could consider it artilery and drop RoF to .5 (Fire only every other round). . .

.30 Cal, Range 3, RoF 4
.40 Cal, Range 4, RoF 3.5 (Or 4)
.50 Cal, Range 5, RoF 3
.60 Cal, Range 6, RoF 2.5 (Or 3)
.70 Cal, Range 7, RoF 2
.80 Cal, Range 8, RoF 1.5 (Or 2)
.90 Cal, Range 9, RoF 1
1.00 Cal (25mm) Range 10 RoF 1
1.20 Cal (30mm) Range 12, RoF 1

Anyway, just airing out some brain farts about this range thing which has been bugging the hell out of me for a long time. If you feel the extended ranges don't work, perhaps we could tweak them with a "Lead" modifier? At such long ranges when you lead your target really have to guess where that target is going to be to intersect your field of fire, maybe for every other range increment we need to introduce a new "To Hit" modifier? Remember that heavier guns already pay a weight penalty.

Like I said, just airing out some brain farts, but I think that it can be made workable!
Flying the Crimson Skies

User avatar
Site Admin
PostsCOLON 913
JoinedCOLON Thu Jan 15, 2009 5:42 pm

Re: Trivial Stuff

Postby Grant » Mon Oct 05, 2009 3:17 am

I've thought of that as well.

Around Feb 2010, I'm gonna be putting up a few level 2 rules, and ideas for a CS WW2. ALong with them will be possibly an entirely revised gunnery rules.

Ammo load is also a slight factor in it too.

PostsCOLON 83
JoinedCOLON Mon Sep 28, 2009 5:51 am
Are you a Human?COLON Yes

Re: Trivial Stuff

Postby Kaffis » Mon Oct 05, 2009 4:48 pm

Thom wroteColonOne of the things about this game which has bothered me the most since I got to read the rulebooks, is the inverted ranges. I realize that it was intended as a game balancing mechanic,

You answered your own question here.

If you like, consider it as such: your own post indicates that smaller rounds could offer better rates of fire. At progressively longer ranges, leading becomes trickier and trickier, and only the weapons with a high rate of fire can pepper the area with sufficient lead to score hits.

I don't think offering long ranges to 70 calibers and then trying to make up for it by allowing 30's and 40's to score more hits per is going to be very satisfying for gameplay. It's going to slow things down a LOT (because the bigger guns will be engaging at long ranges, and you'll be rolling and recording more small round hits at all ranges), and it's going to remove some of the tactical variation by removing the "engage at long range" options for light armament while simultaneously making everything hit brutally hard like 60's and 70's already do (since the smaller calibers will be getting more boxes by virtue of getting more shots with whatever RoF mechanism you settle on).

This is an area where Crimson Skies makes one of the compromises that defines itself -- it sacrifices some realism for pulpy style and the "cool" points that go along with it.

PostsCOLON 164
JoinedCOLON Wed Jan 21, 2009 11:16 pm

Re: Trivial Stuff

Postby Phoenix » Wed Oct 07, 2009 11:59 pm

I've found that in Il-2, the larger the gun, the closer you want to shoot with. Couple of reasons for this:

1. Ballistic Arc: Machine guns and light cannons in Il-2 have a very flat trajectory, making aiming (particularly at long range) easier. Meanwhile, the Mk 108 30mm cannon has a very arcing trajectory, making long range aiming somewhat unreliable.
2. Ammunition: Sure, CS doesn't track ammo, but in RL, the larger the gun, the less ammo it carries (typically). Thus, the range may factor this in - sure, your 30mm might outrange a .30-cal, but you have far less ammo, so you want to save your shots for closer in, where it's more sure. If you've got more ammo, you're willing to shoot from farther out.
Good judgement comes from experience. Experience comes from bad judgement.
"Is it heavy?" "Yes." "Then it's expensive - put 'em back." -Jurassic Park
With me surprises are rarely unexpected. - Any Pink Panther movie

User avatar
PostsCOLON 1007
JoinedCOLON Thu Jan 22, 2009 10:55 pm

Re: Trivial Stuff

Postby Thom » Sat Apr 27, 2013 11:21 pm

Artillery pieces and ships guns shoot accurately for miles (up to and even exceding 20 miles), small arms fall far short of that. Reason is simply mass and inertia. Bigger guns should have longer ranges as a general (though not exclusive) rule.
Flying the Crimson Skies

User avatar
PostsCOLON 223
JoinedCOLON Thu Jan 22, 2009 10:48 pm
LocationCOLON Daphne, Alabama, Confederation of Dixie

Re: Trivial Stuff

Postby Carthaginian » Sat May 04, 2013 1:42 pm

The reason that the larger calibers in Crimson Skies cannot fire as far is simple to explain.
These weapons have lower muzzle velocities, in order to be built lighter to work on an aircraft.
The lower muzzle velocity, coupled with the heavier weight of the projectile, means that range is sacrificed for power.
Southrons, hear your country call you!
Up lest worse than death befall you!
To arms, to arms, to arms in Dixie.

All my planes are made with parts from:

User avatar
Site Admin
PostsCOLON 913
JoinedCOLON Thu Jan 15, 2009 5:42 pm

Re: Trivial Stuff

Postby Grant » Mon May 06, 2013 2:37 am

Agreed, why zeppelin cannons don't have the uber-range of their naval counterparts.

Kinda like two guns, one made in 1900, one in 2000, same caliber, one is safe to fire with "hot" ammunition, one couldn't hold up to the extra pressure.

Return to

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: 2 and 0 guests