Jump to content
cronus111

Troops Occupying Turrets Unrealistically Vulnerble To Small Arms

Recommended Posts

Has he ever addressed Stugs?... Steve that is. I thought I was in the Red Thunder area, so I laughed when I saw this thread. When I saw what was being described, the first thing I thought of was "hmm... why hasn't someone pointed him towards the other thread?" I guess I'll just add that link here if I get the time.

 

http://community.battlefront.com/topic/118147-stug-iii-bug-commanders-opening-up-at-point-blank-range/

 

 

---

 

TLDR: A player (beta-tester? fanboi? some relative high-up) about-faces when he takes Stugs into combat, and affirms that they are "broken" for the time being.

 

---

 

Well anyways, I know this is anecdotal, but the last 5 different people I've played, no one's bought a STUG. It wasn't until I read the post that I realized that must be the reason no one buys them.

 

Perhaps you are running into the same issue with the HumVees.

Edited by fry30

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 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

 

 

And then what? See above.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In my experience, both in CMSF and CMBS, gunners will die rather quickly every time

 

I´ve always blamed me more than the game for it, since I´m not sure this vehicles are supposed to be in direct contact with an entrenched enemy, but that`s the situation in most CM scenarios

 

The game is not primary about recon/light patrol encounters, of course those can be modeled, but are not the core experience

 

Recon/light assets could be removed altogether and we could still have the same experience for the most part, but not so if tanks and IFVs are removed

 

I´ve never played the WWII titles, but for modern war, the distances in the scenarios turn light assets either into observers for indirect fire or balls of fire and hot metal, there seems to be not much middle ground

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At least in BN it's sort of important to keep in mind that the vehicles like the Hanomag, and M3 are not "fighting vehicles". They're battlefield taxis/w protection from splinters and MG fire at range. They're not meant to be directly involved in high intensity firefights. Light vehicles like HMMWVs and and Jeeps literally have no business being anywhere near the pitched battles we get most scenarios. They usually just are due to circumstance.

 

All that said, these things certainly haven't stopped me from using them in such ways before. 

Edited by CaptHawkeye

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All that said, these things certainly haven't stopped me from using them in such ways before. 

 

I've been guilty of backing waves of halftracks and other light vehicles right up to combat areas so as to deposit their cargo (usually AT-guns) a little quicker than otherwise.

 

Jeeps and other small vehicles that allow anyone to drive can be used in fantastically silly ways.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At least in BN it's sort of important to keep in mind that the vehicles like the Hanomag, and M3 are not "fighting vehicles". They're battlefield taxis/w protection from splinters and MG fire at range. They're not meant to be directly involved in high intensity firefights. Light vehicles like HMMWVs and and Jeeps literally have no business being anywhere near the pitched battles we get most scenarios. They usually just are due to circumstance.

 

All that said, these things certainly haven't stopped me from using them in such ways before. 

 

We've used MAPs during pitched battles before. Deliberately so, since they are a part of every rifle company in a IBCT and haul most of the unit's firepower.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The M1114 is nearly an APC is terms of protection and size. I can see fighting from the mount in something that is at least protected from rifle rounds as practical. By pitched battles though i'm really thinking of "the works" ie: MBTs, IFVs, etc. If you guys drilled to fighting things like that mounted i'd be interested to hear what procedure was. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The M1114 is nearly an APC is terms of protection and size. I can see fighting from the mount in something that is at least protected from rifle rounds as practical. By pitched battles though i'm really thinking of "the works" ie: MBTs, IFVs, etc. If you guys drilled to fighting things like that mounted i'd be interested to hear what procedure was

 

Not really my area, but the jist, as I understand it: basic mobile defense stuff, focus on fighting from a series of pre-planned battle positions, shoot-and-scoot, built-in as part of a rifle company's defensive scheme and not as an independent maneuver element.  The MAPs are literally the heavy weapons platoon of a rifle company, just nowadays people have stopped pretending guys are going to hump a TOW or MK19 plus ammo across broken terrain fast enough to actually be relevant or survivable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just finished a quick battle where my infantry centric force was hit by a dozen or so StuG IV's. Thought I was doomed for sure but within a few turns of contact eight of the StuG's were down to two crew members having lost their top gunner - then lost the replacement. Something is fairly strange about TacAI behaviour when dealing with gunner positions in tanks or APCs - the death rate is fantastic in such positions. Either the TacAI shouldn't be trying to man such positions under fire or the protection modelling for such positions is off.

 

It's been a problem with APCs for ages but seeing an assault gun company attack breakdown in minutes against what should be an easy opponent is highly strange. Especially when the casualties sustained were completely avoidable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just finished a quick battle where my infantry centric force was hit by a dozen or so StuG IV's. Thought I was doomed for sure but within a few turns of contact eight of the StuG's were down to two crew members having lost their top gunner - then lost the replacement. Something is fairly strange about TacAI behaviour when dealing with gunner positions in tanks or APCs - the death rate is fantastic in such positions. Either the TacAI shouldn't be trying to man such positions under fire or the protection modelling for such positions is off.

 

It's been a problem with APCs for ages but seeing an assault gun company attack breakdown in minutes against what should be an easy opponent is highly strange. Especially when the casualties sustained were completely avoidable.

The stugs presently have a issue, along with the fact that most players do not know about it. Combined to create the problem.

The only way to use them is force them to stay Buttoned up, which if I recall correctly, even the AI will override that if it has a infantry target at times. The only MG gun on the Stug is the exterior mount. So if the tank thinks it needs to use the MG, the crew man pops out. Not a good default move. Thus the reason for the Stugs issues. But for most other tanks , the programmed AI response is fine since using MG's does not require the crew to expose themselves.

That is just a programmed decision that does not take the Stug in concideration

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The stugs presently have a issue, along with the fact that most players do not know about it. Combined to create the problem.

The only way to use them is force them to stay Buttoned up, which if I recall correctly, even the AI will override that if it has a infantry target at times. The only MG gun on the Stug is the exterior mount. So if the tank thinks it needs to use the MG, the crew man pops out. Not a good default move. Thus the reason for the Stugs issues. But for most other tanks , the programmed AI response is fine since using MG's does not require the crew to expose themselves.

That is just a programmed decision that does not take the Stug in concideration

 

 

Thanks for the informative reply Slysniper. That explains my Stug issue. Hopefully it will get a fix pretty soon as at the moment it makes Stugs pretty much useless for AI or player use. That means automatic selection for quick battles is also dodgy unless a player goes for all infantry as having Stugs auto purchased is very likely a battle ruined. Good to know it is a bug and is being addressed all the same.

 

The top gunner in APCs is a less obvious problem from my point of view. Yes they do die a lot - but that is probably my fault for getting too close to incoming small arms fire. .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Unbuttoned TCs and Mg gunners should suffer the same suppression as out in the open infantry.

 

They should duck (button) with incoming small arms fire and unbutton again when the suppression lifts.

 

Atm they only button when the vehicle is hit by large caliber shells with HE explosive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tank commanders tend to dive for cover when a few rounds plink the tank. I've had shaken tank commanders I was unable to coax back out of their tank after taking fire. How quickly TCs burrow back into their vehicle is a subject of much player contention, but again seems to have far more to do with game factors like motivation and training. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 There is a kit for a top turret  armor. i had to install a few in iraq even though we never rolled the  hmmv anymore. also the infantry didnt like it much so they just ended up "taking that dumb **** off" anyway when we did roll them.which brings me to my gripe...where are the caimens/mraps RG3's buffaloes wolverines MLRS and omg i haven't seen a warthog which is an iconic close air support asset. love the BrrrrRRRrrrt. i have a bit to say about models too but im not going to nitpick too much i know they put a lot of work into this game and it is awesome regardless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't know about the others, but MLRS and Warthog have been discussed to death:

 

MLRS: not for use on the general scale of CM engagements. It's a "grid square remover" that's used against concentrations and logistical targets beyond the line of contact. Generally, it's not considered fun to have to fight on after every unit in a square kilometer has been destroyed, and the "danger close" radius means there are very few conditions indeed where the system would be employed as "fire support", even on the largest maps.

 

Warthog: is being retired and wouldn't be expected to be there any more. The environment in a high-intensity battlefield would be very unhealthy indeed for the A-10, and even if its legendary toughness allowed it to limp home after being Tunguska'ed, the air frames would be spending more time being repaired (if they weren't so badly trashed as to be junked) than flying.

 

That's the BFC position, at least, and the reasons why they're not included in the available options. I tend to agree with their assessment, FWIW (very little, I agree).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

which brings me to my gripe...where are the caimens/mraps RG3's buffaloes...

 

We left a lot of them in-country, sold a lot of them for firesale prices and stored a lot them. We didn't keep many in service.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I did some quick testing on the vulnerability of troops manning MGs in the Humvee, and I tend to agree that it looks like they are a bit too vulnerable to small arms currently. We'll look into it further, but it won't be done in time for the v1.03 patch. Just fair warning.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

We left a lot of them in-country

 

Thank god.  Terrible vehicles.

 

 

 

I did some quick testing on the vulnerability of troops manning MGs in the Humvee, and I tend to agree that it looks like they are a bit too vulnerable to small arms currently. We'll look into it further, but it won't be done in time for the v1.03 patch. Just fair warning.

 

Neat.  It was not game breaking but it did feel a bit off.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't know about the others, but MLRS and Warthog have been discussed to death:

 

MLRS: not for use on the general scale of CM engagements. It's a "grid square remover" that's used against concentrations and logistical targets beyond the line of contact. Generally, it's not considered fun to have to fight on after every unit in a square kilometer has been destroyed, and the "danger close" radius means there are very few conditions indeed where the system would be employed as "fire support", even on the largest maps.

 

Warthog: is being retired and wouldn't be expected to be there any more. The environment in a high-intensity battlefield would be very unhealthy indeed for the A-10, and even if its legendary toughness allowed it to limp home after being Tunguska'ed, the air frames would be spending more time being repaired (if they weren't so badly trashed as to be junked) than flying.

 

That's the BFC position, at least, and the reasons why they're not included in the available options. I tend to agree with their assessment, FWIW (very little, I agree).

they can be used in a single fire capacity much like artillery. the main reason they are not used in the Geneva convention since we are not in the type of war that needs them(and i see their point but if you have ever seen an MLRS fire it gives you major wood. the danger close for artillery if i remember correctly in 600m (im not a FO or anything but have been to a little training) which is just barely in scope of the maps. really the kill range on an air burst is some 250-500 meters so nobody in their right mind unless in some serious **** wants or will take a mission that is any closer than 1000m. There are several other factors such as types of munitions but im not going to comment on those since i'm not that experienced.  

 

As far as the A-10 its retirement is not official and it will be in service in 2017 even 2020. its a reliable platform that they are trying to replace with a high altitude stealth based platform. not to mention the troops love it and its a big morale boost =D. i don't think the Tunguska is that much of a threat. the a-10 can fly so low that the target window is very short and it can easily be upgraded through EW countermeasures.

 

With the others the army is really trying to move away from the hmmv platform. it mostly sees service in Afghanistan(because of the terrain) and for training. The Army is mostly focusing on MRAP based chasis' such as the cougar (also seeing service in Afghanistan) RG33 and caimen (i dont know if they are used anymore but we had a bunch in iraq. These things can take a ton of punishment and are often seen with upgraded armor kits. ive seen caimens take some nasty hits and even burn to the ground but the crew would hardly suffer a scratch. The others i mentioned are engineer platform the wolverine for bridging and the buffalo for EOD such and mines and IED's. and before they say time is a factor a wolverine can deploy a bridge in less than 5 minutes =D and span a gap about double the length of the chassis.

 

Sorry for off topic =D. i really just wanted to say that there was a top turret armor for the hmmv and it would usually be covered by a cammo net. there is also the frame above for the cammo net without the kit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

The Army is mostly focusing on MRAP based chasis' such as the cougar (also seeing service in Afghanistan) RG33 and caimen (i dont know if they are used anymore but we had a bunch in iraq.

 

It's keeping some for COIN type missions, but keeping the HMMWVs for many others.  There's supposed to be some sort of HMMWV replacement on the horizon, but for all the roles modeled in CMBS the uparmored HMMWV is correct, while MRAPs are not*  

 

 

 

they can be used in a single fire capacity much like artillery. the main reason they are not used in the Geneva convention since we are not in the type of war that needs them(and i see their point but if you have ever seen an MLRS fire it gives you major wood. the danger close for artillery if i remember correctly in 600m (im not a FO or anything but have been to a little training) which is just barely in scope of the maps. really the kill range on an air burst is some 250-500 meters so nobody in their right mind unless in some serious **** wants or will take a mission that is any closer than 1000m. There are several other factors such as types of munitions but im not going to comment on those since i'm not that experienced.  

 

Not quite.  As discussed in other threads, the salvo o' unguided rockets is usually retained for more important targets, or fired well ahead and outside of CMBS ranges.  The ATACMS type missiles, or guided rockets are also usually used on things that are higher level targets (artillery parks, C2 nodes, supply points) vs combat elements deployed forward.  Danger close is also dependent on round, so in actuality for rockets it's 2000 meters for planning purposes (which again, danger close is not a strict rule, but it is a good guide on the inherent danger of said weapons).  

 

*When I was in Korea we received a shipment of them, more or less open for any unit that felt they could use them.  After several months passed with no such takers the MRAPs disappeared to artificial reefs or something.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can still remember when they had jeeps with M-60's and TOW missiles mounted on them. Wondered if how useful they were and if ever used in combat and what their survability was.

 

I can't imagine it was very good, but probably fun to putz around in during peacetime-provided you didn't flip it or if the weather was bad.

 

Does the newer models of the BMP still have fuel tanks in the rear doors and does it still use magnesium armor? Has the concept of allowing passengers fire from within the BMP been abandoned?

Edited by db_zero

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's keeping some for COIN type missions, but keeping the HMMWVs for many others.  There's supposed to be some sort of HMMWV replacement on the horizon, but for all the roles modeled in CMBS the uparmored HMMWV is correct, while MRAPs are not*  

 

 

Not quite.  As discussed in other threads, the salvo o' unguided rockets is usually retained for more important targets, or fired well ahead and outside of CMBS ranges.  The ATACMS type missiles, or guided rockets are also usually used on things that are higher level targets (artillery parks, C2 nodes, supply points) vs combat elements deployed forward.  Danger close is also dependent on round, so in actuality for rockets it's 2000 meters for planning purposes (which again, danger close is not a strict rule, but it is a good guide on the inherent danger of said weapons).  

 

*When I was in Korea we received a shipment of them, more or less open for any unit that felt they could use them.  After several months passed with no such takers the MRAPs disappeared to artificial reefs or something.  

 

of course you wont take them in korea nobody wants more work when you dont actually need them, they are a pain in the ass to work on. just to change a filter you need to remove a 200bl plate(maybe more that thing is heavy as ****). you go to combat zones and they are all over but not as you see them in the states. they are uparmored with additional plates bracketed to the sides. also canvas hmmvs are undeployable according to the us army as they do not have frag 5 armor which is why they did not use them in iraq towards the end. if a hmmv gets hit by anything that makes a big boom (direct hit by 80mm+ mortar its toast along with everyone inside. the newer hmmvs that are in use today are the 1165's which are mostly the same with the exception of the cooling system and they have some hella good AC =D.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

of course you wont take them in korea nobody wants more work when you dont actually need them, they are a pain in the ass to work on. just to change a filter you need to remove a 200bl plate(maybe more that thing is heavy as ****). you go to combat zones and they are all over but not as you see them in the states. they are uparmored with additional plates bracketed to the sides. also canvas hmmvs are undeployable according to the us army as they do not have frag 5 armor which is why they did not use them in iraq towards the end. if a hmmv gets hit by anything that makes a big boom (direct hit by 80mm+ mortar its toast along with everyone inside. the newer hmmvs that are in use today are the 1165's which are mostly the same with the exception of the cooling system and they have some hella good AC =D.

 

The reason you see them in Iraq and Afghanistan has to do with the fact they're designed to handle IEDs and the like.  Korea is a good illustration because of all US Brigade Combat Teams, it's the only one that realistically could be in a shooting war within the span of hours.  In a conventional shooting war (like the one portrayed in CMBS), MRAP style vehicles are pretty bad.  They're big and heavy, do not like going off road, don't carry enough cargo, don't carry weapons much better than HMMWVs, and in terms of direct fire type weapons systems, they're not really much better armored than a uparmored HMMWV.

 

So to that end the wheeled vehicles in Korea were a transitioning mix of the old unarmored HMMWVs, with the various uparmored models.  The MRAPs were again offered to replace some of the HMMWVs, but they're a really poor fit to someone who's not planning on fighting insurgents in Iraq/Afghanistan. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...