More Pie in the sky questions about CM2:Normandy

[Apocal]

BTW As far as Your knowledge goes, could U please tell us how well would casual GI (or a casual person) operate tripod mounted M2 HMG if needed today? Would it be somewhere near trained mgunner abilities?

Burst-on-target is not rocket science. Most of a machine gunner's skill comes into play when emplacing/displacing, long range accuracy, setting up a defensive position and being the platoon's SME on supporting fires. Anybody should be able to use a machine gun effectively. That's why there are machine guns, they make it easy to kill other people.

[JonS]

Furthermore, although your average rifleman may not be skilled in the use of an HMG he could at least wield it with the skill of a conscript if the situation demanded it.

Ah, but the point is that any unit that re-mans anything, mans that second thing at the same skill level that it mans the thing it's supposed to be manning.

So, an expert AGL crew is also an expert HMG crew, an expert Abrams crew, and an expert truck driving crew. If they were allowed to re-man all those things.

Granted, an idiot AGL crew would become an idiot HMG crew, idiot M1 drivers, etc. But consider a (perhaps) mythical future in which we can 'purchase' units for QBs - you buy a moderately mixed force, with most of your guys being regular quality. You don't get too many of them, but they are all sort-of ok at what they do. I, on the other hand, buy one, maybe two, superultrauberninjapirateelite unit, and a whole *buttload* of handicapped idiots to go with them. Once my superultrauberninjapirateelite has burnt through all their ammo, or broken their ride, they hop out and take over from one of the idiots. Rinse, repeat. I get quality *and* quantity. You get neither.

In theory, I suppose, the same issue might apply to scenarios, but I wouldn't expect any semi-competent scen designer to field a wildly bi-polar force.

[JonS]

I don't see a problem with switching tank crews. Not only are you taking a risk by sending the crews out on foot, but you are in effect disabling two tanks for a turn or possibly two.

I agree with this though, and would take it further. Make the cost and risk associated with gamey behaviour high enough, and it'll only be used when it *needs* to be used, or when it makes sense to be used.

[Splinty]

Armor and ATGs aside all infantrymen should be able to reman a MG, they're all trained on how to fire one.

[Lanzfeld]

So, an expert AGL crew is also an expert HMG crew, an expert Abrams crew, and an expert truck driving crew. If they were allowed to re-man all those things.

You never saw the documentary called "Rambo"?

[akd]

Ah, but the point is that any unit that re-mans anything, mans that second thing at the same skill level that it mans the thing it's supposed to be manning.

So, an expert AGL crew is also an expert HMG crew, an expert Abrams crew, and an expert truck driving crew. If they were allowed to re-man all those things.

Why is this an assumption? I don't see why it has to be that way. Why would you have to let a truck driver crew an Abrams?

Anyways, the problem you outlined above is already present in the game. Take an MTVR crew and put them in a dismounted TOW Humvee, then watch the MTVR gunner operate the TOW launcher with perfect efficiency. (Yet, ironically, the dismounted humvee crew can't drive the MTVR.)

[Dietrich]

1. Collecting of Lugers during the war by US GIs is a confirmed historical fact, although it had mainly been done for their black market value/souvenir reasons.

I concur. I referred to the subplot of Luger-collecting in Band of Brothers because the search for a Luger was for the purpose of collecting rather than for the purpose of using it in combat.

2. I don't think that a regular GI/Soldat, even a veteran, had been able to operate MG42 HMG effectively (use of tripod installation, optics, different sights, use of the proper rate of fire not to overheat the barrel, and swapping the barrel itself, concluding with proper aiming)

If by "effectively" you mean "as good as the gunner in a heavy machine-gun team", I would concur that no, a regular GI/Soldat would not be able to operate a "heavy" MG42 effectively.

However, the situation I was thinking of was that the crew of an HMG becomes WIA/KIA, and a couple rifleman nearby hurry over to the MG and bring it back into action. The rifleman won't be able to provide accurate long-range fire like the weapon's original crew could, but they will be able to keep the MG in action and maintain fire on the enemy (assuming that the enemy is attacking and thus is getting closer, so that problems resultant from range become less and less).

As for effectively operating the MG42 on a tripod for fire within 200m or so, check out this video -- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p111nO1jIh8. As you can see from the footage, elevation is adjusted by a small hand crank, while traverse is adjusted by slewing the mount horizontally. The reenactor (Kurt Suleski) is able to deliver fairly accurate fire out to 100-150m and to adjust aim quickly.

As far as Your knowledge goes, could U please tell us how well would casual GI (or a casual person) operate tripod mounted M2 HMG if needed today? Would it be somewhere near trained mgunner abilities?

The M2 really is a heavy machine gun. A more appropriate comparison would be to the M240. Besides, the basics of operating even such a large and powerful MG as the M2 are pretty much the same as the basics of operating a "medium" MG like the M240. It's reasonable to figure that a rifleman wouldn't get behind an M2 and take aim at targets 1200m away. If the M2's gunner were WIA/KIA, it would more likely be at much closer range; and at relatively close range a rifleman could, I reckon, use an M2 with enough effectiveness to make it worthwhile.

Ah, but the point is that any unit that re-mans anything, mans that second thing at the same skill level that it mans the thing it's supposed to be manning.

Is that the point?

I've been operating under the assumption that the point is not that any given weapon or vehicle can be re-crewed and operate as effectively as with its original crew, but that a de-crewed weapon can be re-crewed to keep it in action longer, albeit with not as much effectiveness as with its original crew. An M4- or M16-armed rifleman would be able to man a de-crewed M240 on a tripod mount and put it to reasonably effective use; but (I suppose) he wouldn't be able to deliver accurate fire at extreme range like an actual machine-gunner could.

[Migo441]

Here's an example that sprang to mind on the topic:

From --> http://www.history.army.mil/html/moh/iraq.html

As the fight developed, Sergeant First Class Smith braved hostile enemy fire to personally engage the enemy with hand grenades and anti-tank weapons, and organized the evacuation of three wounded soldiers from an armored personnel carrier struck by a rocket propelled grenade and a 60mm mortar round. Fearing the enemy would overrun their defenses, Sergeant First Class Smith moved under withering enemy fire to man a .50 caliber machine gun mounted on a damaged armored personnel carrier. In total disregard for his own life, he maintained his exposed position in order to engage the attacking enemy force. During this action, he was mortally wounded. His courageous actions helped defeat the enemy attack, and resulted in as many as 50 enemy soldiers killed, while allowing the safe withdrawal of numerous wounded soldiers. Sergeant First Class Smith’s extraordinary heroism and uncommon valor are in keeping with the highest traditions of the military service and reflect great credit upon himself, the Third Infantry Division “Rock of the Marne,” and the United States Army.

Come to think of it, Audie Murphy's Medal of Honor was also awarded for an episode where (in part) he manned a .50 caliber machine gun on a knocked out tank destroyer. Another commonality is that Murphy also served with the 3rd Infantry Division.

Murphy was one of the most legendary American infantrymen of WWII and Smith was serving as Platoon Sergeant in the 11th Engineer Bn. I expect that both of them were familiar with the .50 cal, but I have no idea if either of them were ever trained specifically as a Heavy Machine Gunner.

To put it mildly, the exploits of Medal of Honor winners are not typical experiences. So I want to be clear that I don't reference these as evidence that this was common, important, etc...

I just thought it was interesting and on-topic.

[Clavicula_Nox]

I've been operating under the assumption that the point is not that any given weapon or vehicle can be re-crewed and operate as effectively as with its original crew, but that a de-crewed weapon can be re-crewed to keep it in action longer, albeit with not as much effectiveness as with its original crew. An M4- or M16-armed rifleman would be able to man a de-crewed M240 on a tripod mount and put it to reasonably effective use; but (I suppose) he wouldn't be able to deliver accurate fire at extreme range like an actual machine-gunner could.

Considering the modern infantryman receives training on these weapons, I would say they perform at less than 100% for the first few rounds fired; after that and they would already begin to compensate. Going from an M4 / M16 to an M249 or M240 isn't that hard, and they are quite a bit easier to fire and more accurate when deployed.

[JasonC]

"how well would casual GI (or a casual person) operate tripod mounted M2 HMG if needed today"

The Ma Deuce is dirt simple. Just grab the handle the only place it'll let you and push down the butterfly pads with your thumbs when you want rounds. You aim with your whole body and watch the tracers, and walk them. On the training field, raw recruits rock with them in minutes of putting mitts on 'em. Easy as pie.

Only hard part about the weapon is setting its timing and disassembly for maintenance and such. That takes training, just running the gun does not. Loading the belts, slightly in between - it isn't hard but if you've literally never seen it done you can easily screw it up or not correctly cock the weapon before firing. But the belt in the gun? A child of 12 could do it.

[Clavicula_Nox]

"how well would casual GI (or a casual person) operate tripod mounted M2 HMG if needed today"

The Ma Deuce is dirt simple. Just grab the handle the only place it'll let you and push down the butterfly pads with your thumbs when you want rounds. You aim with your whole body and watch the tracers, and walk them. On the training field, raw recruits rock with them in minutes of putting mitts on 'em. Easy as pie.

Yeah, and it only takes seeing one dumb private put their face right up behind the thing before it fires to teach the rest a valuable lesson.

[Wengart]

So, everyone would be cool with re-crewing crew served weapons as long as the guys don't bring their skills driving tanks/firing rifles with them? I guess the question then goes to our, much loved, developers, can infantry have different stats for the operation of different guns?

[JonS]

So, everyone would be cool with re-crewing crew served weapons as long as the guys don't bring their skills driving tanks/firing rifles with them? I guess the question then goes to our, much loved, developers, can infantry have different stats for the operation of different guns?

Sure, but now you're talking about a substantially more complex model that effects every unit in the game, regadless of whether they ever recrew anything or not.

[Clavicula_Nox]

it isn't hard but if you've literally never seen it done you can easily screw it up or not correctly cock the weapon before firing. But the belt in the gun? A child of 12 could do it.

Here's something I noticed while watching "To Hell and Back" during Murphy's Medal of Honor action, he racks the .50 the wrong way. Seeing it, I cringed and shouted at the tv and couldn't believe Mr. Medal of Honor did it the wrong way infront of the camera.

So, everyone would be cool with re-crewing crew served weapons as long as the guys don't bring their skills driving tanks/firing rifles with them? I guess the question then goes to our, much loved, developers, can infantry have different stats for the operation of different guns?

Honestly, it would be neat and everything, but if it never happened I wouldn't get upset, or anything.

[Gpig]

Maybe he was filmed racking the .50 the right way, but they had to flip the negative to get the screen direction right, while in editing?

How would you be able to rack a .50 the WRONG way?

[Clavicula_Nox]

No, he pulled the charging handle overhand rather than underhand.

Dammit, I'm watching the clip now and it's underhand. I could have sworn he did it the wrong way. Lol, the joke's on me!

[Michael Emrys]

Dammit, I'm watching the clip now and it's underhand. I could have sworn he did it the wrong way. Lol, the joke's on me!

Oh goody! Now we get to point and make rude comments for free.

Michael

[Clavicula_Nox]

Oh goody! Now we get to point and make rude comments for free.

Michael

Yeah, I'm wide open and accepting all comers.

[silverstars]

No, he pulled the charging handle overhand rather than underhand.

Dammit, I'm watching the clip now and it's underhand. I could have sworn he did it the wrong way. Lol, the joke's on me!

I am of the opinion that Audie Murphy can pull the charging handle any damn way he pleases. If he were around, would YOU tell him he's wrong?

[mike_the_wino]

Yeah, I'm wide open and accepting all comers.

Wow, that one is just too easy. It's not even fun.

FYI, what difference does underhand versus overhand make? Other than ergonomic?

[Battlefront.com]

To get back on topic...

The problem is that it's a slippery slope and that means we have to do all kinds of coding to get things to a state where it is overall more realistic that the way we have it now. Remember, our mantra has always been, and will always be, to strive for the best level of overall realism. Not perfect realism, since that's impractical to achieve.

Overall it is more realistic to have crews unable to man anything other than what they were assigned to at the beginning of the game than it is to have any crew be able to man anything else that they can physically fit into. Coding it to be other than black and white involves a development effort of diminishing returns. In other words, there are other things we can spend our time on that will enhance the game more for the same amount of effort.

Steve

[Dietrich]

To introduce a topic not yet discussed in this thread:

What about snipers? Will a sniper unit actually be (unlike in CMx1) a two-man team of marksman and spotter? Will soldiers in sniper teams be coded to be prone when stationary more often than other infantry?

[Battlefront.com]

Snipers in CM:SF are organized the way they are in real life. The US Army uses 3 man teams of sniper, spotter, and "security". Other teams in other nations at other times are organized differently. Piece of cake to do that. The individuals function in the game as they do in real life. No need to special code anything. If you want your Sniper Team to be prone, use HIDE.

Steve

[John Kettler]

Migo441,

While you are right that Audie Murphy won the MOH while fighting off a German regiment via a Ma Deuce on a burning TD (not the Sherman shown in the clip), you may not realize that he won the DSC as a result of an action in Southern France during which he used a German LMG to deadly effect, as depicted in this first part of the clip from "To Hell and Back."

http://www.blinkx.com/video/the-ballad-of-audie-murphy-most-decorated-wwii-us-soldier/r8B1P2I-VvcF51Xy_8l5oQ

Regards,

John Kettler

[John Kettler]

Migo441,

SFC Smith's action was covered in MilChan's "Tour of Duty" episode called Courage Under Fire. The structure into which he poured all that .50 cal. fire while so exposed was clearly shown and bore mute testimony to how seriously he took his duty. The openings of that reinforced concrete elevated firing site looking down on him and his unit all looked gnawed and pitted!

Regards,

John Kettler