Why does the USS Iowa only have a 10 Defense?

[gewing]

Re: Why does the USS Iowa only have a 10 Defense?

 

Very difficult to answer given that I'm hard pressed to think of an example. We're have to be talking about two common targets (not in reality, but commonly encountered in the game) that react very differently to the same baseline real world weapon system that had real world data behind it.

 

That's frankly outside my experience. I don't believe I've ever ran or considered running a campaign where that would hold.

 

Perhaps you can provide an example?

 

 

In any case, assuming that such a thing did come up- I'd do what I do now. stick with my baseline target and determine the weapon based on that. Meanwhile I'd build the other target to represent the differences.

 

 

As an example: A 'big game' hunting campaign where any gun fire will be against animals of varying sizes instead of people. The firearms were constructed with body 10 humans in mind, so I'd build the animals to show the difference- not reconstruct the weapons.

 

I require all my construction to remain the same, no matter the campaign setting or genre.

 

 

 

 

 

No one has ever fired a rifle at a creature that weighed 2-3x that of an elephant.

 

So I don't have enough data to make a educated guess. Given the rather core disagreements I've seen aired between T-Rex experts, I don't think they have enough data either. They thing may be a wimp that would be scared off by the noise alone for all I know.

 

 

So my guess? Be safe, hit it with a 20mm cannon on full auto first from inside an good heavy APC and see what happens. I"m guessing that will drop it and from the body we can do some work and come up with a real educated guess

 

 

Actually, they have. The NW coast indians who re-started their whale hunt (Makah?) used a .50 caliber rifle to administer a coup de grace as soon as they harpooned it, to deliver a clean kill.

[Fox1]

Re: Why does the USS Iowa only have a 10 Defense?

 

Actually' date=' they have. The NW coast indians who re-started their whale hunt (Makah?) used a .50 caliber rifle to administer a coup de grace as soon as they harpooned it, to deliver a clean kill.[/quote']

 

 

Although they call the .50 cal rifles being made today 'rifles', they are in fact originally anti-tank weapons (now call anti-material as tanks have long since outgrown them).

 

As such it wasn't in the class of weapons I was thinking of (i.e. elephant guns and below). I'm almost bet upon one of the anti-material rifles stopping a T-Rex if you hit the brain.

[Vondy]

Re: Why does the USS Iowa only have a 10 Defense?

 

Although they call the .50 cal rifles being made today 'rifles', they are in fact originally anti-tank weapons (now call anti-material as tanks have long since outgrown them).

 

As such it wasn't in the class of weapons I was thinking of (i.e. elephant guns and below). I'm almost bet upon one of the anti-material rifles stopping a T-Rex if you hit the brain.

 

I think you need to do some research on big-game guns, then. The Grant & Lang came in .50 and .465, the Wetherby was a .484, and Winchester produces a .458 and a .460. The Barnett Trade Gun (a buffalo gun) was .504, and some of the rimfire bufallo guns used in the late 1800's approached .70 caliber. The common Nitro hunting rifle is a .470, but its also available in .60 caliber (and they will make - agh! - a .80 as a custom job). And in bear hunting, most people won't take less than a .450 marlin, with specialized rifled shotgun slugs that exceed .50 caliber.

 

The point being: rifles in the .50 range (some over, some at, and some under) were used for hunting before the tank became a battlefield problem that needed to be countered. Your confusing a caliber (.50) with a specific round of that caliber - the .50 BMG - the latter of which was conceived of as being an anti-tank round for heavy machine guns (not rifles).

[Fox1]

Re: Why does the USS Iowa only have a 10 Defense?

 

I think you need to do some research on big-game guns, then. The Grant & Lang came in .50 and .465, the Wetherby was a .484, and Winchester produces a .458 and a .460. The Barnett Trade Gun (a buffalo gun) was .504, and some of the rimfire bufallo guns used in the late 1800's approached .70 caliber. The common Nitro hunting rifle is a .470, but its also available in .60 caliber (and they will make - agh! - a .80 as a custom job). And in bear hunting, most people won't take less than a .450 marlin, with specialized rifled shotgun slugs that exceed .50 caliber.

 

Oh please... telling me to reseach guns is like telling a fish it needs to be wet.

 

 

None of those are in the same class as the .50 BMG, although they are impressive. All lack penetration in comparsion.

 

To use simple energy numbers: .50 BMG is rated at nearly 14,000 foot-pounds.

 

The Win .458 is under 5,000; the 510 Nitro is under 6,000; the 450 marlin is under 4,000; the Weatherby .460 is under 8,000.

 

Even the rather new 577 Tyrannosaur (the longest, largest case that will will function in standard-size bold-action rifle) only just hits 10,000.

 

 

 

And of those you listed used on against elephant in the field, all have failed if the shot placement wasn't on target- none are suitable for use at ranges of over 60 yards or so.

[Vondy]

Re: Why does the USS Iowa only have a 10 Defense?

 

Oh please... telling me to reseach guns is like telling a fish it needs to be wet.

 

 

And yet you said .50 calibur was designed as an anti-tank round when it was in use before the tank and only now specify the BMG round - a bullet not a caiber - that is has been pointed out to you; how is that?

 

Go do your research.

[Fox1]

Re: Why does the USS Iowa only have a 10 Defense?

 

And yet you said .50 calibur was designed as an anti-tank round when it was in use before the tank and only now specify the BMG round - a bullet not a caiber - that is has been pointed out to you; how is that?

 

Go do your research.

 

Didn't I say anti-material rifle in that post? Were any of the other options EVER called an anti-material rifle?

 

I will admit that I made an assumption that the .50 rifle in the post I was responding to was referencing this class of rifles as that what people refer to them as now days when not being specific. That may have been a bad assumption- ask the original poster for more details.

 

Oh, about that tank crack. Here's a quote and link for those telling me I should do research:

 

 

"The request, in April 1918, for a weapon with an effective range of 6,000 meters and a muzzle velocity of 2600 fps was contracted to the Winchester Repeating Arms Company. The proposed cartridge was to have both machine gun and anti-tank capabilities."

 

Bolding mine.

 

That quote references:

 

(1) - History of Modern US Military Small Arms Ammunition, Vol.1; F.W. Hackley, W.H. Woodin, & E.L. Scranton; c1967; The Macmillan Co.; New York, New York.

 

Edit: Link- http://www.fcsa.org/articles/other/brief_history.html

 

Edit #2: The rifle used in the original post is the .50 BMG. See http://www.cnie.org/NAE/docs/makahplan.html

 

.

[tinman]

Re: Why does the USS Iowa only have a 10 Defense?

 

I think it is fair to say that when Fox1 saw .50 caliber he immediately assumed that what was meant was the .50 BMG round (and I believe that was in fact the cartridge used in the whale hunt).

 

It has been my experience that when firearms aficionados mention .50 caliber it is commonly understood to refer to .50 BMG unless specified otherwise, as it is overwhelmingly the most commonly used cartridge in that caliber.

[Fox1]

Re: Why does the USS Iowa only have a 10 Defense?

 

I have found reference to Norway's hunting of minke whales (only 5-8 ton critters) here: http://www.highnorth.no/iwc2002/default.htm?url=http://www.highnorth.no/iwc2002/www_norway.htm

 

"Harpoon-cannons with explosive penthrite grenades ensure efficient and humane hunting methods. 78% of the animals are dead instantaneously. Most of the remaining animals lose consciousness and are shot with rifles with full metal jacket round-nose ammunition. A minimum calibre of 9.3 mm is used."

 

 

Tossing in some information from other sites, it seems the critter is shot after it's unconscious and with the shooter on top of it going for a direct brain shot. Even so, 10% of the attempts fail with additional number of shots ranging from 2-8.

 

There's a number of European cartridges in the 9.3 class, some rated for elephant. I won't make a guess as to which it would be, not being up to speed on that industry.

 

In any case, given the conditons under which the shot is made (point-blank, non-moving unconscious animal, brain shot likely though the less defended path, etc)- I wouldn't want to use that class of weapon on a T-Rex.

 

 

Edit: oh heck, let's guess.

 

I'll take the 9.3x72Rmm, a German cartridge on par with the 375 Flanged Magnum Nitro Express which together with the .458 Win Mag is mentioned as used by Norway in these hunts.

[Warp9]

Re: Why does the USS Iowa only have a 10 Defense?

 

In any case' date=' given the conditons under which the shot is made (point-blank, non-moving unconscious animal, brain shot likely though the less defended path, etc)- I wouldn't want to use that class of weapon on a T-Rex.[/quote']

My reasons for exploring the “guessing about the T-Rex†line of questioning is to determine if there can be a “realistic†solution to a situation that one has no direct experience with.

 

Are there better/worse guesses about outcomes? Or is one justified in pulling a random answer out of a hat?

[Fox1]

Re: Why does the USS Iowa only have a 10 Defense?

 

My reasons for exploring the “guessing about the T-Rex†line of questioning is to determine if there can be a “realistic†solution to a situation that one has no direct experience with.

 

Are there better/worse guesses about outcomes? Or is one justified in pulling a random answer out of a hat?

 

 

I would say that any guess that involved a weapon that wouldn't work on an elephant would be a extremely bad guess.

 

I would say that any guess that involved anti-tank class weapons would be a good guess.

 

I would say that any guess involving elephant class weapons would be risky.

 

And that honestly, is my own guess. I think it's better than a random answer.

 

Does that answer the question?

[tinman]

Re: Why does the USS Iowa only have a 10 Defense?

 

A .458 Winchester or .460 WM (or even a .375 H&H) will shoot right through an elephant if one is using a good bullet like a Barnes Solid and no major bones are hit. I would guess that penetration from these rounds would be more than sufficient to kill a T-Rex if the placement was good.

 

I wouldn't give good odds on a brain shot though, better to go for the heart/lungs.

 

As for formulating realistic solutions to hypotheticals, isn't that what nearly every aspect of a role-playing game does? Even with relatively common and heavily studied situations like police shootings, predicting outcomes is at best educated guesswork.

[Fox1]

Re: Why does the USS Iowa only have a 10 Defense?

 

I wouldn't give good odds on a brain shot though, better to go for the heart/lungs.

 

We can play.

 

A human can continue to fight for 15 seconds after his heart has been destroyed by gun fire. The link I provided indicated that no shot at an elephant should be made at over 60 yards. Let's use the same rule for the same weapons on the T-Rex.

 

Let's assume you made it around the bones without hitting one and got your heart strike.

 

Assume a T-Rex can move at 20 mph....

 

That's about 10 yards a second. Assume he takes 4 seconds to decide to kill you after the bullet hit (what he was doing while you were aiming is anyone's guess, let's say he was eating your friend Earl).

 

That gives him 5 seconds to whale on you after he's 'dead'...

 

Lots of assumptions in that, but the resulting image is interesting.

 

This by the way, this is why brain shots are typically taken against elephant.

[tinman]

Re: Why does the USS Iowa only have a 10 Defense?

 

I won't argue that engaging a T-Rex at 60-yards or less would be extremely risky with anything other than a CNS hit or some kind of massive structural damage.

 

The problem with the brain shot on a T-Rex is that it's brain wasn't all that big, and if you're likely to miss anyway that bullet does more good through the heart instead.

 

Unfortunately this is far from an exact science. A solid vitals hit from a .375 could drop an Elephant in it's tracks one day, and fail to phase a (much smaller) Cape Buffalo the next. A heart/lungs hit on an unwary T-Rex might do the trick just fine, but be unable to reliably stop the animal in a charge.

 

I think that a decent Elephant round would kill a T-Rex. Whether that makes it practical is another matter entirely. Were I to find myself with the opportunity to hunt a T-Rex on the ground I would likely want a .50 BMG and a lot of distance. And a partner with an 84mm Carl Gustav for backup.

[Fuzzy Gnome]

Re: Why does the USS Iowa only have a 10 Defense?

 

In that case, it should be a lot harder to kill a tyrannosaur than an elephant. An elephant is one of the most intelligent animals on Earth, with a large brain. For all that it was a top predator, the tyrannosaur was just a big birdlike thing with a tiny little brain and a distributed, truss-like skull that wouldn't transmit damaging shocks to it. Just finding the brain in all that gristle would be hard... I think I'd want an explosive round.

Edit: What Tinman said.

[tinman]

Re: Why does the USS Iowa only have a 10 Defense?

 

When hunting dangerous game the animal's craftiness is usually less of a worry than it's bloody-mindedness, and I'd imagine a small brain would provide for lots of the latter.

[Fox1]

Re: Why does the USS Iowa only have a 10 Defense?

 

The problem with the brain shot on a T-Rex is that it's brain wasn't all that big' date=' and if you're likely to miss anyway that bullet does more good through the heart instead.[/quote']

 

I agree, tiny brain and I have no idea how well protected it is. Or in my case even it's location (between the eyes is a good bet, but...). Since the weapon part of Mr. Rex is in the head however, let's assume that it's buffered and armored to heck and back.

 

I don't think a brain shot is worth the risk, and a heart shot at the ranges where a) I hit it, and the weapon will still have solid effect is too close to feel safe.

 

Best idea may be hide and fire only if hes coming after you.

 

Let's consider poison delivered from solid cover (i.e. someplace Mr. Rex can't reach).

 

 

 

I think that a decent Elephant round would kill a T-Rex. Whether that makes it practical is another matter entirely. Were I to find myself with the opportunity to hunt a T-Rex on the ground I would likely want a .50 BMG and a lot of distance. And a partner with an 84mm Carl Gustav for backup.

 

I'll take a Bradley AFV and it's 25mm cannon.

 

I like feeling safe.

[Warp9]

Re: Why does the USS Iowa only have a 10 Defense?

 

 

I would say that any guess that involved a weapon that wouldn't work on an elephant would be a extremely bad guess.

 

I would say that any guess that involved anti-tank class weapons would be a good guess.

 

I would say that any guess involving elephant class weapons would be risky.

 

And that honestly, is my own guess. I think it's better than a random answer.

 

Does that answer the question?

Yes it does.

[Kristopher]

Re: Why does the USS Iowa only have a 10 Defense?

 

A .458 Winchester or .460 WM (or even a .375 H&H) will shoot right through an elephant if one is using a good bullet like a Barnes Solid and no major bones are hit. I would guess that penetration from these rounds would be more than sufficient to kill a T-Rex if the placement was good.

 

I wouldn't give good odds on a brain shot though, better to go for the heart/lungs.

 

As for formulating realistic solutions to hypotheticals, isn't that what nearly every aspect of a role-playing game does? Even with relatively common and heavily studied situations like police shootings, predicting outcomes is at best educated guesswork.

 

Actually, when shooting the elephant or the tyranosaur, IIRC, it would do more damage if the bullet came to complete stop inside the animal instead of passing clean through. One of the reasons for using bullets that deform inside a flesh target is that they are likely to dump all of their energy into the target instead of passing through (they also make a wider wound channel and cause a more powerful shockwave, both of which are important factors in lethality).

 

Considering the thickness of steel that it will penetrate, I have little doubt that a .50BMG would easily penetrate the skin and bones of a very large animal. The question of how lethal that wound would be remains, however. I'd want to know what kind of wound channel and shockwave would be produced.

 

There are specialty rounds with high initial penetration and good "mushrooming" that, if made for the .50BMG, would probably cause a significant wound to a very large animal.

[Warp9]

Re: Why does the USS Iowa only have a 10 Defense?

 

As for formulating realistic solutions to hypotheticals, isn't that what nearly every aspect of a role-playing game does? Even with relatively common and heavily studied situations like police shootings, predicting outcomes is at best educated guesswork.

I agree, that is why I am more interested in a system that gives broad reasonably accurate "ball-park" answers to general situations, rather than one which gets too specific over a narrow range.

[tinman]

Re: Why does the USS Iowa only have a 10 Defense?

 

Best idea may be hide and fire only if hes coming after you.

 

Let's consider poison delivered from solid cover (i.e. someplace Mr. Rex can't reach).

 

I guess it all depends on why it is we find ourselves shooting at a T-Rex. If we are simply defending ourselves in a Lost World setting then I think the M203 would be a nice choice, as it can be used on smaller varmints as well. One shot with the 40mm means it would have to be a good one though. Maybe a G3 would be a better choice for the rifle than an m-16 though...

 

I'll take a Bradley AFV and it's 25mm cannon.

 

I like feeling safe.

 

That would be the safe bet without a doubt.

[Fox1]

Re: Why does the USS Iowa only have a 10 Defense?

 

Actually' date=' when shooting the elephant or the tyranosaur, IIRC, it would do more damage if the bullet came to complete stop inside the animal instead of passing clean through. [b']One[/b] of the reasons for using bullets that deform inside a flesh target is that they are likely to dump all of their energy into the target instead of passing through (they also make a wider wound channel and cause a more powerful shockwave, both of which are important factors in lethality).

 

I believe you're thinking deer and not elephant. You don't use expanding bullets on elephants as a rule- brass solids are typical, heavy FMJ at least.

 

You are however correct in the general case. If you have excess penetration after accounting for the possiblity (or certainty in the case of frontal brain shot on an elephant) of hitting bone/skull- you generally will want to spend it on expansion in the target.

 

The problem here is that any expansion greatly limits penetration. You need to match bullet to prey and make certain you have enough penetration under all conditions- thus solids for shooting at elephants.

 

Oh, and shockwave isn't that important unless you hit rather limits parts of your target. Of course, with elephants that's almost exactly what we're talking about (i.e. skull hits).

[Fox1]

Re: Why does the USS Iowa only have a 10 Defense?

 

Maybe a G3 would be a better choice for the rifle than an m-16 though...

 

How about a AR10 with rails to accept the 203? And toss a muzzle break on it like used in the new M1 SOCOMM.

 

I'd still feel naked...

[Fox1]

Re: Why does the USS Iowa only have a 10 Defense?

 

I agree' date=' that is why I am more interested in a system that gives broad reasonably accurate "ball-park" answers to general situations, rather than one which gets too specific over a narrow range.[/quote']

 

Can you provide an example where "too specific over a narrow range" occurs?

 

Phoenix Command comes to mind as one example, human centered to the max (if I'm think of the right game)- however that was all it was meant to do.

[tinman]

Re: Why does the USS Iowa only have a 10 Defense?

 

Actually' date=' when shooting the elephant or the tyranosaur, IIRC, it would do more damage if the bullet came to complete stop inside the animal instead of passing clean through. [b']One[/b] of the reasons for using bullets that deform inside a flesh target is that they are likely to dump all of their energy into the target instead of passing through (they also make a wider wound channel and cause a more powerful shockwave, both of which are important factors in lethality).

 

Considering the thickness of steel that it will penetrate, I have little doubt that a .50BMG would easily penetrate the skin and bones of a very large animal. The question of how lethal that wound would be remains, however. I'd want to know what kind of wound channel and shockwave would be produced.

 

There are specialty rounds with high initial penetration and good "mushrooming" that, if made for the .50BMG, would probably cause a significant wound to a very large animal.

 

The only bullets that tend to reliably penetrate far enough into an elephant from any angle and even through leg bones if necessary are solids. Though a mushrooming bullet would form a larger permanent cavity sufficient penetration is still the most important factor. Bullet lethality is a lot like real-estate; it's all about location, location, location.

 

Karamojo Bell used (IIRC) a 7mm or 6.5mm Mauser on most of the elephants he killed, not that I'd feel comfortable doing that myself...

[Kristopher]

Re: Why does the USS Iowa only have a 10 Defense?

 

I believe you're thinking deer and not elephant. You don't use expanding bullets on elephants as a rule- brass solids are typical, heavy FMJ at least.

 

You are however correct in the general case. If you have excess penetration after accounting for the possiblity (or certainty in the case of frontal brain shot on an elephant) of hitting bone/skull- you generally will want to spend it on expansion in the target.

 

The problem here is that any expansion greatly limits penetration. You need to match bullet to prey and make certain you have enough penetration under all conditions- thus solids for shooting at elephants.

 

Oh, and shockwave isn't that important unless you hit rather limits parts of your target. Of course, with elephants that's almost exactly what we're talking about (i.e. skull hits).

 

I'm thinking of any animal target, really, from humans to dinosaurs.

 

In the part you snipped, I did mention bullets that were designed to match initial penetration with good expansion inside...evidently the materials don't expand until they're passing through softer material, somehow. They were originally designed to penetrate body armor, and then expand.

 

From what I've read, as recommended by my brother (who studied the subject extensively as part of his training), hydrostatic shockwave is evidently a major factor in the stopping power of bullets, at least against human targets. I'm trying to recall the details, but evidently the rapid pressure changes mess with the autonomic nervous system and cause a loss of conciousness.