Talk:Realistic Equivalents

Battlescape Equipment

Pistol and Rifle

As a note, an MP5 is not considered a battle rifle, as it is a submachine gun. http://www.hkpro.com/mp5.htm

GazChap - I also wouldn't really consider the AK-47 to be a realistic equivalent. I've always pictured X-COM as being a very high-tech organisation. I would have thought the AK-47 would be too... raw, for X-COM. Not enough bells and whistles on it. - 21 July 2005 14:05 BST.

Not sure why would anyone use an M-16, if there is M4A1s around. Also back the reccommendation to remove the reference to MP-5, as it is just a submachine gun.--Vagabond 05:16, 1 March 2007 (PST)

I would say the US M4 was the closest equivalent - if I remember correctly that only has single/3RB burst modes; the M4A1 adds a full auto option which we dont have. It is probably the most similar looking - although not particularly close, most of the other examples dont look similar at all, even if their behaviour and usage is - obviously with modern weapons you have quite a few bullpup designs, and then stuff like the AK74 and its variants that have iconic looks and wouldnt be confused with whatever the UFO rifle would look like in real life, even by people with no knowledge of weapons. --Sfnhltb 10:04, 1 March 2007 (PST)

To me the X-Com rifle looks like a G3 or an FN, but given the hitting power/penetration is barely above a powerful pistol you have to accept the Rifle is only chambered in 5.56mm if not 4.85. Definitely not a muscular 7.62mm (Russian or NATO). Even then, given the closeness in power to the pistol you could argue the pistol must be a Desert Eagle, WinMag, or an exotic Remington, customised with an extended magazine (contributing to the lousy accuracy).

However I don't believe X-Com dallies with exotic weapons; for sound operational and logistical reasons (including a tight budget), I think they take the prudent course of using battle-proven weapons that are in wide service with member nations and familiar to commandos of many nations. So I would vote for an M4, or any 5.56 HK assault rifle, plus the SOCOM pistol or even the humble Browning 9mm.

Spike 14:14, 9 April 2008 (PDT)

Yes, definitely the Mk23 SOCOM pistol. Semi auto, no burst mode, very heavy, 12rd mag, in-service date 1996, stopping power in the submachinegun range - all these things say the X-Com Pistol is the Mk23. The artwork looks like the Mk23 and the robustness of the weapon in all environments fits with the idea of pragmatic weapon choices for X-Com. Of all the realistic equivalents, I think this is the most clear-cut. I withdraw the suggestion of the Browning and the exotic heavy pistols. Spike 14:36, 9 April 2008 (PDT)

Thanks dude - I'm glad my logic has held up all these years. :) --JellyfishGreen 12:29, 31 March 2009 (EDT)

Aw, boo... I remember seeing some customized handguns that use Rifle calibre bullets. The stopping power... and the complete inaccuracy! Ouch!

Then again guys, maybe outlandish exotic weapons explain your troops' utter incompetence at using them.

Those actually MIGHT be NATO rounds in those rifles... bloody clips cost $200... in 1999 pre-inflation prices. OUCH!

Jasonred 16:06, 31 March 2009 (EDT)

Rocket Launcher

Those are freaking cheap Rocket Launchers, considering their utility... $4000 for a multi-use rocket launcher + $900 per high yield rocket? Compared to $3000 for a rifle? Jasonred 16:06, 31 March 2009 (EDT)

Predator SRAW Antitank Missile has been suggested. But the Predator SRAW was not in service until 2002 so it's highly unlikely. It's also too heavy, both in launcher and ammo, and frankly too sophisticated - a top attack fire and forget anti tank missile. The M136 AT-4 is a disposable one-shot, so that is also ruled out.

Here is why my money is on the 84mm Carl Gustav (M3 MAAWS / RAAWS in US service). The firepower and weight (9kg empty) is about right - as is the maximum 3-4 rounds per man carry over short tactical distances. In widespread use with many Funding Nations in 1999 both in regular and Special Forces. Not strictly a guided weapon but with optical sight and laser rangefinder. The ammunition matches - light and heavy HE rounds, and incendiary rounds available (shame XCom did not also take the Illumination and Smoke rounds - or the antitank rounds which might perhaps penetrate a UFO hull). Comparing its effectiveness vs contemporary armour (HWPs), the X-Com RL is clearly inferior to a Milan or a Predator (not in service in 1999?). So the"Charlie G" fits. A typical (excellent, versatile) squad-level close assault weapon of the time. Selected by US Army Rangers and Navy SEALs. For some reason X-Com quartermasters have requested the proximity safety fuses be removed - probably for classified tactical reasons they did not want the rockets to be failsafe during the first 15-70m of flight.

Price for a similar (but perhaps "gold-plated") US weapon, the MK153 SMAW, quoted at $13,000 in 2006. Advanced dual-action hyperbaric-penetrator rounds for the MK153 quoted at $4000-$5000 in 2006. Probably the Carl Gustav launcher and much more standard rounds were a lot cheaper in 1999 dollars. The Rocket Launcher price of $4,000 and the rocket costs of $750 - $1,200 are in the right ball park for the Charlie G.

Spike 18:02, 22 February 2010 (EST)

Aircraft Weapons

Missiles

It's tempting to agree that the Stingray is the AIM-7 Sparrow and the Avalanche is the AIM-120 AMRAAM. Not only do the effective ranges, relative warhead power, and hit probabilities fit pretty well, but they begin with the same letters. I kind of suspect that we have read the developers' minds here, that they flipped open a copy of Jane's and just changed the names.

BUT, as sometimes happens, the developers were wrong!

Considering we are taking on aircraft that easily out run and out turn state of the art combat aircraft, the standard operational ranges of these missiles are not relevant. For what is normally a tail chase, XCom aircraft would have to get well inside the maximum operational range of their missiles to have a good chance of a hit.

So I think a better answer would be that the Avalanche is the ultra long range AIM-54 Phoenix, and the Stingray is the AIM-120. But honestly I suspect the developers just took the operating ranges at face value and didn't think about the problems of tail chasing super fast UFOs.

By the way, the cost of an AIM-120 in 1999 was about $386,000. For an AIM-7 it was $125,000. Actually very close to the ratio of Avalanche $9,000 :: $3,000 Stingray. Raising the price of these missiles to realistic levels would go a long way to making the Cannon more useful (since its ammo price would not change, see below)! It might even breathe some life into the Stingray. And encourage people not to always mount dual missile launchers.

Cannon

The Cannon would be a M61 20mm Vulcan cannon (used on most US fighters in 1999) or more likely a Mauser BK 27 (found on many European aircraft of the time and desired by the USAF), not the GAU-8 Avenger or GAU-12 Equaliser which are air to ground tankbusting weapons not found on air superiority aircraft. Also only a cannon on an air superiority aircraft and assisted by excellent targeting systems would have a range anywhere near 10km. 1km would be more typical. The Mauser is a closer fit as it is heavier than the M61 (27mm) and has about the right ammo capacity (180rds per cannon on a Tornado).

Vulcan cannon ammunition is about $30 per round (2006 prices) in bulk. Call it $24 in 1996. I imagine 27mm rounds are more. But you typically have a 1000 rds of 20mm in an aircraft, not just 200. Using the optimistic assumption of pricing 20mm rounds, is actually very close to XCom prices. $1190 for 50 rds, versus the XCom price of $1240. Remarkably close!

Spike 19:32, 20 February 2010 (EST)