WWII Weapons CoC

[SMAY63]

CALL OF CTHULHU WWII WEAPONS:

PISTOLS:

.357 Revolver: DAM: 1D8+1D4. WT: 1.4Kg/3.1bs. ROF: 1. MAG: 6. RNG: 20yds. MAL: 00. HPs: 11

P38 (9mmP): DAM: 1D10. WT: 1Kg/2.2bs. ROF: 2. MAG: 8. RNG: 20yds. MAL: 00. HPs: 10

HP-35 (9mmP): DAM: 1D10. WT: 1.1Kg/2.4bs. ROF: 2. MAG: 13. RNG: 20yds. MAL: 00. HPs: 10

Webley MK6 Revolver (.455): DAM: 1D10+2. WT: 1.2Kg/2.6lbs. ROF: 1. MAG: 6. RNG: 15. MAL: 00. HPs: 10

M1911A2 (.45ACP): DAM: 1D10+2. DAM: 1D10+2. WT: 1.4Kg/3.1lbs. ROF: 1. MAG: 7. RNG: 15. MAL: 00. HPs: 10

RIFLES:

M1 Garand (.30-06): DAM: 2D6+3. WT: 4.3Kg/9.5lbs. ROF: 1. MAG: 8.

RNG: 100yds. MAL: 00. HPs: 12

Springfield ’03 (.30-06): DAM: 2D6+3. WT: 4.2Kg/9.2lbs. ROF: 1 / 2. MAG: 5. RNG: 110yds. MAL: 00. HPs: 12

M1 Carbine (.30): DAM: 2D6. WT: 2.5Kg/5.5lbs. ROF: 1. MAG: 15. RNG: 75yds. MAL: 98. HPs: 10

Mauser K98 (7.92x57mm Mauser): DAM: 2D6+4. WT: 4Kg/8.8lbs. ROF: 1 / 2. MAG: 5. RNG: 150yds. MAL: 00. HPs: 12.

Lee-Enfield (.303): DAM: 2D6+4. WT: 4Kg/8.8lbs. ROF: 1 / 2. MAG: 10. RNG: 150yds. MAL: 00. HPs: 12

G43 (7.92x57mm Mauser): DAM: 2D6+4. WT: 4.4Kg/9.7lbs. ROF: 1. MAG: 10. RNG: 150yds. MAL: 00. HPs: 12

AUTO-RIFLES:

Stg-44/MP-44 (7.92X33mm Kurz): DAM: 2D6+3. WT: 5.2Kg/11.4lbs. ROF: 1 or burst. MAG: 30. RNG: 80yds. MAL: 99. HPs: 10

FG-42 (7.92mmx57mm Mauser): DAM: 2D6+4. WT: 5Kg/11lbs. ROF: 1 or burst. MAG: 20. RNG: 90yds. MAL: 00. HPs: 10

BAR 1918 (.30-06): DAM: 2D6+4. WT: 9.5Kg/20.9lbs. ROF: 1 / 2 or burst. MAG: 20. RNG: 90yds. HPs: 11.

MAL: 00

SMGs:

MP40 (9mmP): DAM: 1D10. WT: 4.7Kg/10.3lbs. ROF: 1 or burst. MAG: 32. RNG: 20yds. MAL: 99. HPs: 8

Sten Mk2 (9mmP): DAM: 1D10. WT: 3.4Kg/7.5lbs. ROF: 1 or burst. MAG: 32. RNG: 20yds. MAL: 96. HPs: 8

Thompson (.45ACP): DAM: 1D10+2. WT: 5.5Kg/12.1lbs. ROF: 1 or burst. MAG: 20/30. RNG: 20yds. MAL: 96.

HPs: 8.

MGs:

MG-42 (7.92x57m Mauser): DAM: 2D6+4. WT: 11.57Kg/25.51lbs. ROF: burst. MAG: 100. RNG: 200yds. HPs: 18. MAL: 00

M1919A4 (.30-06): DAM: 2D6+4. WT: 14/31lbs. ROF: burst. MAG: 100. RNG: 150. HPs: 12. MAL: 96.

Bren Mk3 (.303): DAM: 2D6+4. WT: 9.75Kg/21.6lbs. ROF: burst. MAG: 30. RNG: 60yds. HPs: 11. MAL: 00

Lewis Gun (.303) DAM: 2D6+4. WT: 13Kg/28lbs. ROF: burst. MAG: 47. RNG: 60yds. HPs: 11. MAL: 00

SHOTGUNS:

M1897 Trench gun (12-guage): DAM: 4/2/1D6. WT: 3.6Kg/8lbs. ROF: 1. MAG: 5. Base Range: 10/20/50yds.

MAL: 00. HP-Res: 10.

Sawn-off Double-Barrel (12-guage): DAM: 4/1D6. WT: 2.3Kg/5.05lbs. ROF: 1 or 2. MAG: 2. RNG: 5/10yds.

MAL: 00. HP-Res: 14.

Double Barrel Shotgun: DAM: 4/2/1D6. WT: 3.5Kg/7.7lbs. ROF: 1 or 2. MAG: 2. RNG: 10/20/50. MAL: 00.

HP-Res: 12.

Molotov Cocktail: 2D6+Luck to burn.

Hand Grenade: 4D6/4yds

[Toadmaster]

.38 S&W and .38 Special would be far more common in WW2, than the .357 Magnum. The British issued a .38 caliber revolver as their standard sidearm in the mid 1930s which used the .38 S&W cartridge but with a heavier than standard bullet. The US military retained .38 S&W and .38 Special revolvers as alternates to the .45 ACP (mostly for aircrews and other personnel not expected to directly engage in combat).

While commercially available during the war years the .357 was not a military round, so would be difficult to obtain outside the US.

[SMAY63]

Thanks for the info. Trying to be historically accurate can be difficult sometimes, depending on the data available.

A standard .38 calibre revolver: DAM: 1D10, RNG: 15 Yds, ROF: 2, MAG: 6, HP: 10, Malf: 00.

The British .38 S&W cartridge (heavier than standard bullet) might do 1D10+1 damage?

Hope this meets everyone's approval?

[Layec]

The damage of the British load probably wouldn't be significantly (in game values) different from the .38 Special.

.38 Special - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

.38-200 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Look at the ballistic performances of the two rounds (the US military used .38 Special, 158 gr.). Pretty close for bullets. Check other loads and calibers for perspective.

[SMAY63]

Ok, so both .38 revolvers are 1D10.

[Galahad de Corbenic]

I see two minor issues:

Springfield ’03 (.30-06): DAM: 2D6+3.

Both the CoC Rulebook and Investigator Weapons give .30-06 rifles 2D6+4 damage. Whatever numbers we give them, the .30-06 and 7.92x57mm Mauser should do similar damage, as they have similar performance: they both launch 150 grain bullets at about 2800 feet-per-second.

Stg-44/MP-44 (7.92X33mm Kurz): DAM: 2D6+3.

The difference between this round and both the.30-06 and 7.92x57mm Mauser is significant: it launches a 150 grain bullet at about 2000 feet-per-second. This is similar to the 7.62x39mm AK-47 round, for which the CoC Rulebook gives 2d6+1 damage.

[Galahad de Corbenic]

A few more minor issues:

M1 Garand (.30-06):RNG: 100yds.

Springfield ’03 (.30-06): RNG: 110yds.

Mauser K98 (7.92x57mm Mauser): RNG: 150yds.

The CoC Rulebook gives the “Garand M1, M2 Rifle,” and the “.30-06 Bolt-Action Rifle” both a range of 110 yards, but then curiously gives the “.30-06 Semi-Automatic Rifle” a range of 130 yards. Isn’t the M1 Garand a .30-06 Semi-Automatic Rifle?

Conversely, Investigator Weapons gives the Springfield ’03 a 130 yard range, and the Mauser K98 a 120 yard range, but I’m not sure I agree with those figures either. All three of these weapons fire similar rounds, and have similar barrel lengths (24 inches). The WWI-era Springfield and the K98 Mauser have similar sights, a v-notch rear sight mounted on the barrel, while the WWII-era Springfield (M1903A3) and the Garand have aperture sights mounted on the receiver, which are generally regarded as more accurate. If anything, the Garand and the M1903A3 Springfield should have a slightly better range because of their better sights, but for game purposes, I would go with the same number for all three. 130 yards seems consistent with other rifles in Investigator Weapons, so I would recommend that.

Lee-Enfield (.303): RNG: 150yds.

Investigator Weapons gives the WWI-era Lee-Enfield Mk III a range of 130 yards, while the CoC Rulebook gives the “.303 Lee-Enfield” a range of only 110 yards. Since the .303 cartridge is in the same class as the .30-06 and 7.92x57mm (in that it launches a 150 grain bullet at roughly 2800 feet-per-second), and the Lee-Enfield has a barrel-length and sights similar to the equivalent American and German service rifles, the same range (I recommend 130 yards) seems reasonable.

One could argue that the .303 bullet has a lower ballistic coefficient (i.e., is not as aerodynamic) as the either the.30-06 or the 7.92x57mm, but I don’t think the difference is significant enough to warrant a shorter range in game terms.

I should note that Investigator Weapons gives the .303 cartridge only 2d6+3 damage instead of 2d6+4. However, it seems to me that similar performance should yield similar damage, so I’d stick with 2d6+4.

G43 (7.92x57mm Mauser): RNG: 150yds.

This should be the same as the K98 Mauser, which in turn should be the same as the .30-06 service rifles.

FG-42 (7.92mmx57mm Mauser): RNG: 90yds.

BAR 1918 (.30-06): RNG: 90yds.

While the CoC Rulebook gives the M1918 BAR a 90 yard range, Investigator Weapons gives it a 130 yard range. To my mind, the latter seems more reasonable: it fires the same cartridge, has the same barrel length, and has slightly better sights than the WWI-era Springfield, so range should also be similar.

The FG-42 is a bit more difficult: while it fires the same cartridge as the K98, it has a shorter barrel (about 20 inches versus 24 for the K98) but better sights (an aperture rear sight versus the v-notch rear sight on the K98). That might warrant a slight range disadvantage compared to the K98, but penalizing the range back to 90 yards seems excessive. I’d go with the K98 range with either a slight penalty or no penalty.

MG-42 (7.92x57m Mauser): RNG: 200yds.

M1919A4 (.30-06): RNG: 150.

Bren Mk3 (.303): RNG: 60yds.

Lewis Gun (.303) RNG: 60yds.

While the CoC Rulebook also gives the MG-42 a 200 yard range, I’m not sure what the logic is behind this: it fires the same 7.92x57mm cartridge as the K98, has a slightly shorter barrel (21 inches versus 24 for the K98) and similar, v-notch sights. Therefore, I recommend applying the same range as the K98. If firing from a bipod or tripod, I suggest applying the rule from Investigator Weapons that calls for doubling the weapon’s range in those circumstances.

For the M1919A4 (and M1917), the cartridge, barrel length and sights of both the M1917 and the M1919A4 are the same or similar to the M1903 Springfield, so I’d recommend using the same range. The firing from bipod/tripod rule from Investigator Weapons applies here as well.

Investigator Weapons gives a 140 yard range for the Lewis, and this increase over the Lee-Enfield Service rifle may be justified since it has a slightly longer barrel (2.5 inches longer). The Bren should get a similar range.

[SMAY63]

Wikipedia (where I get most of my weapon data from):

Karabiner 98k - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Lee-Enfield - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

M1 Garand - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

FG 42 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So, the weapon ranges from Wikipedia are: Garand: 440Yds (402m), Lee Enfield: 550Yds (503m), Mauser K98k: 550Yds (503m), FG-42: 500m.

So the Garand does have the shorter range out of the above weapons.

I also have noticed different stats from the different books, so I went to Wikipedia, and obtained the stats from there for my system, GORE, and CoC.

I hope the above links help somewhat.

I try not to get too technical with weapons in RPGs, as I find that people can either get obsessed with weapon details or a major discussion starts over weapons stats, weapon comparisons, etc.

As I try to tell my players, it's just a game.

[Galahad de Corbenic]

My apologies if I came across as over-the-top. As you may have guessed, I do enjoy discussing this sort of thing, but I realize it’s not everyone’s cup of tea.

We’ll have to agree to disagree on the range of the Garand, since in my view “Effective Range” is a subjective measurement, more a function of the skill of the shooter than anything else.

As you say, it is just a game, and the most important thing is to have fun!

[SMAY63]

True. Regarding 'effective range' (you did say agree to disagree ;-) ), I agree with you that it CAN be based on the skill of the shooter.

So, I propose this: Rifle Skill (61%-70%): +5 Yards. 71%-79%: another +5 Yards.

So when the shooter's skill has reached 79%+, he/she has gained another 10 yards on the range of the Garand (to express their skill).

When creating or listing weapons for any system (CoC, GORE, or my system), for example, there are 6 stats I give each weapon:

Weight, range, damage, Rate of Fire (RoF), magazine size, caliber (5.56mm, 7.62mm, etc).

But, most importantly, the stats for the WWII listed weapons can be changed by anyone using them (the above weapon stats are the ones I use).

Anyone is free to change ANY of the above weapon stats if they want to.

Just have fun using them :-)

[Atgxtg]

We’ll have to agree to disagree on the range of the Garand, since in my view “Effective Range” is a subjective measurement, more a function of the skill of the shooter than anything else.

Absolutely correct. IRW it is defined as the range at which an average qualified shooter can hit a man-sized target about half the time. So a more highly skilled shooter should be able to use the weapon effectely out to longer ranges. This is one reason why snipers can hit targets reliably at well beyond what is considered the effective range of some weapons. The British .303 Lee-Engfield SMLE for example.

[Toadmaster]

Absolutely correct. IRW it is defined as the range at which an average qualified shooter can hit a man-sized target about half the time. So a more highly skilled shooter should be able to use the weapon effectely out to longer ranges. This is one reason why snipers can hit targets reliably at well beyond what is considered the effective range of some weapons. The British .303 Lee-Engfield SMLE for example.

I'd say the skill system already addresses this then.

It is odd that the Garand comes in quite a bit lower than other similar weapons, but I'm guessing that comes from the source material used. Even more peculiar to me is Wiki gives the Springfield an effective range of 650 yds vs the Mauser at 550 yds. The Springfield basically a copy of the Mauser and the 8mm Mauser is very similar to the .30-06 so that wouldn't account for the difference. My guess is there were ranges determined by the respective militaries, which than became facts in later gun books.

Ultimately published ranges are good for a starting point, but as with just about every other aspect of guns in RPGs it is ultimately up to the designer / GM to fit the specs into their own world view. This of course is what most gun debates on RPG forums are, different world views of how things work.

[Atgxtg]

I'd say the skill system already addresses this then.

It is odd that the Garand comes in quite a bit lower than other similar weapons, but I'm guessing that comes from the source material used.

[Galahad de Corbenic]

I'd say the skill system already addresses this then.

I agree wholeheartedly.

Ultimately published ranges are good for a starting point, but as with just about every other aspect of guns in RPGs it is ultimately up to the designer / GM to fit the specs into their own world view.

Yes - I should mention that two excellent sources (in my opinion) for CoC firearms data are Hans-Christian Vortisch’s Investigator Weapons and John Crowe’s “Modern Weapons” chapter in Delta Green.

Possibly. It could also have to do with the design limits of the M1. The M1 is gas operated,s emi-aotumatic, while the others are bolt action. Gnerally speaking a gas operated weapon looses some power, range and accuracy because some of the bullet's energy is bled off to work the action. Also, to keep such a weapon more reliable, the tolerances for the action usually are not as tight as a bolt action weapon, causing even greater loss of accuracy.

In theory, you are correct: the most accurate rifles in the world are bolt actions. However, in this case I think the differences between bolt action and semiautomatic service rifles are too minute to matter in game terms. Consider: While semiautos cannot be made as tight as a bolt action, in practice bolt action service rifles are also relatively loose, in order to be reliable enough for military service. Also, while the gas system does bleed some gas out of the barrel, this is a very small amount, since the recoiling parts on an M1 do not even begin to move until the bullet is about 25 feet out of the barrel (source here).

Chances are the sites for the M1 were not zeroed out to as great a range as the bolt action rifles, as it was intended for use at shorter ranges.

I think you are on to something here – The source of the effective range figure in the Wikipedia article is the old Army manual for the M1, and I think 440 yards was the longest range on the qualification table from that era.

[Toadmaster]

I think you are on to something here – The source of the effective range figure in the Wikipedia article is the old Army manual for the M1, and I think 440 yards was the longest range on the qualification table from that era.

That is what I was really getting at. The respective militaries set their minimum standards and that is probably where these numbers come from. It is possible as an older weapon the Springfield fell under a different set of expectations. Between the wars there was already recognition growing that a standard issue rifle would rarely be used beyond 500 yards, and in fact the Garand was initially designed for a lower powered .276 caliber cartridge.

Reality is all of these WW2 battle rifles are capable of effective use at 1000 yards and beyond with a good shooter (sniper) and all were used at some point with a scope as an official sniper / sharpshooters rifle, even the Garand. As gamers I sometimes think we try to hard to make small differences where they may not really exist. For tech geeks it is fun, for others not so much. More and more I find myself having trouble criticising games that have "automatic pistol, 1 ea" type stats, but that will never be me. I just have to have a Glock be a little different from a Beretta, which is different from an M1911A1.

[Atgxtg]

Yeah, different standards did apply. During WWII emphasis shifted from rifles that could shoot accruatly far out (generally farther than most soldiers can) to something that was lighter and easier to handle, and could carry more ammunition. Soldiers really weren't expected to be using the newer weapons at long ranges. Not in the era of mechanized warfare.

[SMAY63]

First of all: wow! I never thought that this thread would get so much attention.

The other thread (WWII Horror CoC) had one reply.

Second: thanks for all the input; I'll keep it in mind.

As I said before, the weapon list can be amended by any of you to suit your needs.

Just have fun with them :-)

Wikipedia is the main site I use for weapon stats, but I also check other sites as well.

[Atgxtg]

Threads on firearms tend to get a lot of attention. Amd Game stats for firearms can almost alreays be challenged in some way as the game stats are by nature much more cut & dried than similar data in the real world.

[seneschal]

Besides, zombies being "cut and dried" would be even ickier than usual.

[SMAY63]

Cut & dried - ickier than usual.

True.

But so would a shotgun to the zombie's head :-); especially after watching such films like La Horde, Dead Snow, etc.

Hopefully the WWII Horror scenario thread I put here, can be 'expanded'.

See the PCs have 'fun' getting out of the area/forest where the science bunker is.

Anyway, as I said earlier, the WWII weapon stats can be 'modified' to your choice.

Whatever makes you happy.

Just have fun blowing zombies apart :-)