Troops Occupying Turrets Unrealistically Vulnerble To Small Arms

[cronus111]

I've played all the campaigns in CM-Black Sea, and I have noticed that soldiers occupying turrets in HUMMWVs are unrealistically vulnerable to small arms fire. I've had HUMMWVs engage dismounted troops at 400m, and had the turret gunners killed within 30 seconds, and then their replacements killed the next turn.

 

I've an active duty combat arms soldier in the US Army for 19 years, and I have had experience with using HUMMWVs downrange on combat deployments. It seems like it would be easy to pick off a turret gunner, but in reality, it is very difficult for someone to hit a guy in a turret, even back when they only had a forward facing plate (or in some cases no protection at all). The gunners in the HUMMWV turrets with 360 degree protection and bullet proof view ports are effectively invulnerable to small arms fire at anything beyond close range plunging fire (except for a one in a million round that slips in through a small gap), especially if they lay low in the turret. They actually do quite well in urban combat against fire coming from multiple directions and elevations in my experience. Gunners do occasionally get hit, but it is rare.

 

The game is fantastic. However I think this mechanic needs to be fixed to reflect reality. As it is I've found the HUMMWVs so vulnerable that they cannot even be pushed forward against realtively light resistance (which is not reality).

Edited April 23, 2015 by cronus111

[whitehot78]

I remember watching a vid in which a US convoy got ambushed by talibans down in a'stan.

The person who was recording the vid was riding in a hummer with a 50 cal mg.

As the gunner was firing the mg, he got hit in the head by sniper fire, presumably a SVD.

He was saved by the helmet but was bleeding and shocked, thankfully he got bandaged and had no severe wounds.

 

Although just a single episode, it looked clear that he has been picked by a sniper and not hit randomly. One may assume that talibans were firing from elevated positions, up in mountains around the road, so had a clear line of fire to the gunner, but anyway.

 

In game, I don't think that such vehicles are under-armoured, I normally keep them away from close encounters and if one of them gets "ambushed" by some hidden squad, I try to speed away from them and engage with the .50 or whatever weapon the vehicle mounts

[JoMac]

I've played all the campaigns in CM-Black Sea, and I have noticed that soldiers occupying turrets in HUMMWVs are unrealistically vulnerable to small arms fire. I've had HUMMWVs engage dismounted troops at 400m, and had the turret gunners killed within 30 seconds, and then their replacements killed the next turn.

 

I've an active duty combat arms soldier in the US Army for 19 years, and I have had experience with using HUMMWVs downrange on combat deployments. It seems like it would be easy to pick off a turret gunner, but in reality, it is very difficult for someone to hit a guy in a turret, even back when they only had a forward facing plate (or in some cases no protection at all). The gunners in the HUMMWV turrets with 360 degree protection and bullet proof view ports are effectively invulnerable to small arms fire at anything beyond close range plunging fire (except for a one in a million round that slips in through a small gap), especially if they lay low in the turret. They actually do quite well in urban combat against fire coming from multiple directions and elevations in my experience. Gunners do occasionally get hit, but it is rare.

 

The game is fantastic. However I think this mechanic needs to be fixed to reflect reality. As it is I've found the HUMMWVs so vulnerable that they cannot even be pushed forward against realtively light resistance (which is not reality).

Yeah, and we have that same issue in the CMx2 WWII series...

 

Joe

[Kieme(ITA)]

But the turrets in CMBS' hummers are not those used in Iraq/afghanistan in the recent years, there are no viewports etc.

 

CMBS hummer:

 

Hummer in Iraq:

 

The difference in level protection for the gunner truly is evident.

Edited April 23, 2015 by Kieme(ITA)

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

Nah.  The gunner in the top photo is standing up on a small platform to get a better view, the bottom guy is sitting in the sling.  If you're riding in the turret the way you're "supposed" to, basically your elbows are touching the sides of the turret opening.  That does give a really poor sort of situational awareness though, so standing up is kind of your way of getting that outside world.  The top cover in the bottom picture is just camo net over a wire type frame, it's there to allow someone to stand up in the turret for short stints without drawing as much fire as the shield in the top photo.  The actual protective area of the turret sides is about same, compare the size of the turret to the other objects on the respective HMMWVs, but the ballistic glass was really helpful in the actually knowing what was going on without getting shot.

 

It's still a somewhat exposed position in that you're fairly obvious, and a high value target, but it's not quite the instant death that seems to follow HMMWV and similar gunners in CM.  

Edited April 23, 2015 by panzersaurkrautwerfer

[Alexey K]

I've got different experience in CMBS. Yesterday in one QB one of my AGS was shooting at HMMWV (Mk.19 turret). It has put three long 10+ shot bursts into it with multiple grenades hitting turret ("Weapon mount"). Gunner wasn't even injured.  

[Codename Duchess]

Agreed, light vehicles aren't worth using because of this. Gunners always die in the first 20 seconds of even the lightest fire. The second Russian mission in particular suffers from this site. Even though those vehicles sfo not have the armor, it still feels unrealistic for the gunner to die so fast and severely gimps your only real fire support assets.

[Kieme(ITA)]

I wouldn't really call such kind of vehicles "support assets".

 

You can't rely on open vehicles and hope that the gunner will survive a few more seconds under fire from a number of enemy weapons, even them being light.

 

These HMG bearing wheels can be useful for sure, but don't bring them to a fist fight, because they are not heavyweights.

 

I mean, do you really think that man up there has a long life expectance in a direct confrontation?

It's not a case that more and more unmanned turrets are being developed and introduced on all vehicles of this type.

Edited April 23, 2015 by Kieme(ITA)

[Codename Duchess]

When all you have is a light platoon then yeah, they're support assets. Just like an M240 or AGS team is a support asset. This one is more mobile. I'm not expecting to survive every engagement, or long ones. But if I have my vehicle positioned well 250m behind my guys and Ukrainians still shoot the gunner in the first burst every time, something is suspect.

[Kieme(ITA)]

I would reconsider tactic there.

[Alexey K]

When all you have is a light platoon then yeah, they're support assets. Just like an M240 or AGS team is a support asset. This one is more mobile. I'm not expecting to survive every engagement, or long ones. But if I have my vehicle positioned well 250m behind my guys and Ukrainians still shoot the gunner in the first burst every time, something is suspect.

 

Gunner on top of jeep should be  highest and most visible target in this case. Quite expectably they attract fire.

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

Addenudm:

 

There's no U in HMMWV.  It's High Mobility Multipurpose Wheeled Vehicle.

 

 

 

Gunner on top of jeep should be  highest and most visible target in this case. Quite expectably they attract fire.

 

This is true.  But with a proper gun shield they stand a reasonable chance at lasting for more than a few seconds against rifle fire.  It's still a lot more exposed than say, a sandbag emplacement or a foxhole, but a little more robust gunners would be closer to reality (unless there's no gun shield).  

[slysniper]

 But if I have my vehicle positioned well 250m behind my guys and Ukrainians still shoot the gunner in the first burst every time, something is suspect.

THESE TYPE OF QUATES MEAN JACK.

 

How many enemy soldiers were shooting at him, how many rounds used before a hit

 

When you do some testing and show some actual numbers as to how quickly one of these guys get killed to how much fire is used, then maybe there is something to talk about. ( with enough runs of the test to show some realistic averages)

 

Because I can promise you, your statement does not reflect what the game is actually doing.  Not on the average anyway.

[Tux]

HMMWV gunners seem to survive ok the way I use them; providing covering fire and (generous) area fire from keyholed positions. I fairly frequently run them dry of ammo, in fact!

In my experience, when they do die, it's rarely the enemy at 12 o'clock, being engaged by the HMMWV's weapon, which kills the gunner. It's the guys off to either side who are taking their time laying accurate, unsuppressed fire on him as a priory target. Good positioning/keyholing removes that threat and means that if anyone wants to shoot your gunner they need to brave a hail of Mk19 or machine gun rounds to do so.

[agusto]

THESE TYPE OF QUATES MEAN JACK.

 

How many enemy soldiers were shooting at him, how many rounds used before a hit

 

When you do some testing and show some actual numbers as to how quickly one of these guys get killed to how much fire is used, then maybe there is something to talk about. ( with enough runs of the test to show some realistic averages)

 

Because I can promise you, your statement does not reflect what the game is actually doing.  Not on the average anyway.

 

No one has yet produced any objective and reproduceable statistical evidence. If you say "Because I can promise you, your statement does not reflect what the game is actually doing.  Not on the average anyway.", that is as worthless as what Codename Duchess said. It is a gut feeling, nothing more.

[Saferight]

I hate to use these guys for example but look at all the footage from the middle east over the past few years. Truck mounted weapons in that high threat environment are used in shoot n' scoot tactics basically popping the vehicles from cover to deliver a few bursts then quickly haul ass back to defilade.Thats how i try to use my HMMVs and Tigrs in CMBS. 

 

Whether its in a urban area or the countryside the longer they stay exposed the more chance of that gunner getting clipped or the whole vehicle blown. They are basically a very mobile soft target with a big friggin red arrow o' death on top of the gunners head. When i have my gunners killed its usually cause i drove them out into situation where i shouldn't have. Also 400m or 250m really aint that much to the small arms in CMBS or in real life.

Edited April 23, 2015 by Saferight

[antaress73]

Cover .. Fast move order.. Pause for 15 seconds, target briefly reverse into cover .. Repeat

[Battlefront.com]

We have looked into this, extensively, for WWII stuff because (as was mentioned above) it's been a bone of contention. We've had people, including testers, do extensive statistical testing under various different conditions. Occasionally we've made adjustments for specific vehicles, but generally speaking we've found no reason to make major adjustments for many years now.

It seems the primary reasons for believing the exposure is over modeled, and therefore gunners die to easily, tends to be because of the wrong tactic for a particular situation. I'm not saying that the person is employing bad tactics generally (though that is definitely a possibility), rather for the situation where the gunner was knocked off favored that outcome more than the player thinks.

One problem with anecdotal stories from Iraq and Afghanistan, as valuable as they are review, don't often involve CMBS game conditions. For example, a gunner in Iraq going up against 2 or 3 specific points of fire by poor quality gunners is a far cry from, for example, a squad of US light infantry opening up on a single vehicle. So it's difficult to compare the two as the variables are often quite different.

Having said all that, a real life gunner who is panicky will probably duck down and stay down with one close call. A really experienced soldier would likely know better when to stay up and when to duck down. The gunner's TacAI is right in the middle, which means it is more likely to stay up and fight than the panicky real world guy, but yet isn't as smart about ducking down and popping up as an real world gunner. This means that it is certainly possible that in more extreme, nuanced game circumstances the gunner's TacAI will not do what it should do and result in being hit.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

I meant to add that it is definitely possible, in theory at least, that a SPECIFIC vehicle (I mean right down to the sub variant) may have a data error which makes it more vulnerable than it should be. So for sure keep an eye out for a specific vehicle that may seem to be taking more gunner hits than others in similar conditions.

Steve

[IICptMillerII]

I know that in Vietnam the life expectancy of a helicopter door gunner once contact was made was extremely low, and support weapons such as squad machine guns and heavy machine gun emplacements (as well as other assets like AT emplacements and the like) are always singled out as a top priority for obvious reasons. These things are perceived as being capable of inflicting a lot of casualties on friendly troops quickly. Think about it, who are you going to target first, the dude with just an AK or the guy rockin a PKM, or a guy with an AK or a guy with an AK and grenade launcher. This also applies to leadership positions, and is why leaders (again, 2nd lieutenants were only expected to survive something like 13 hours of combat total in Vietnam) is due to the fact that the enemy identifies them as a higher threat. (Bugle scene from 'We Were Soldiers')

 

Could it be the case that once the TacAI identifies one of these gunners, they focus their fire and attempt to bring it down before focusing on the other dismounts? Logically it seems to follow, but I am unaware if this is an actual game mechanic. My gut tells me it is the case, but as has been stated before in this thread a gut feeling means little or nothing, especially when trying to determine and average. 

 

Does anyone have some input that could confirm/deny this theory?

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

Again, on the HMMWV especially it's not some guy strapped on and exposed to 360 degrees of fire from the ground, it's a guy in a metal box that's more or less going to stop anything short of HMG fire from all but close range.  He's going to draw more fire than average yes, and that will reflect to a higher loss rate overall, but it does feel like armor or no they're getting peeled off the top of the HMMWV about as fast as vehicles that lack gun shields at all.

 

Dunno.  I don't mess with HMMWVs enough in game, or when I have them I tend to keep them away from direct fire anyway.  It's just a passing impression.

[db_zero]

As mentioned this is an on going bone of contention going back to the WW2 games all I know is gunners die fast and I like to have a spare body or 2 as replacement gunners. It really works both ways in game terms. Whether its realistic or not I'll leave to the experts. One would think the advent of body armor and kevlar helmets behind a shield would improve survivability, but I haven't played enough Black Sea to have any opinion.

[MikeyD]

You look at the inf in the game and you see a LOT of scoped weapons. Not just sniper rifles but machine guns, carbines, you name it. These aren't conscript soldiers spraying & praying. I recall someone on this board mentioned that the Taliban was circulating rumors that captured fighter were being executed. What was happening was they were fighting behind cover, only exposing their heads during a firefight and were suffering a disproportionate number of head shots as a result

[slysniper]

No one has yet produced any objective and reproduceable statistical evidence. If you say "Because I can promise you, your statement does not reflect what the game is actually doing.  Not on the average anyway.", that is as worthless as what Codename Duchess said. It is a gut feeling, nothing more.

Your absolutely right, So smart to have picked that up. My claim is no better than his.

 

But I have on the other hand made test and have run stats in the past when I have felt something might be off in the game that I wanted changed. So I am going to stay with the attitude of get busy and show some real numbers as to what you are wanting to prove needs tweeking. Til then, you have done nothing.

[Ryujin]

It seems to me like it's an issue of everyone standing up in the hatches like they're on parade. With 1:1 hit detection, this will of course make a big difference. If the HMMWV gunner actually crouched down behind the gun shield, his life expectancy would probably triple as very little of him would be exposed. I can't imagine anyone would stay in the "up and looking around" pose the do now under fire.