Bullethead

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>the Rangers' had a lot more squad automatic weapons, organized more along the lines of a USMC squad.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Yeah, that's one reason why in the Corps we call all those army wannabes "imitation Marines"

These winter uniforms ROCK! Plus, I'm sure the troops are quite happy to finally be able to button their collars, as well as have mittens issued ------------------ -Bullethead Visit the brand new Raider Operations message board at www.delphi.com/raiderops Main site www.historicalgames.bizland.com/index.html

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>considering their is no AT trenches to cross and they can only remove 1 of the 3 obstacles given in CM I agree the usefulness is limited/non-existant and I just treat them as an infantry platoon(-1 squad)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I agree. Roadblocks, yeah, that's a bit much most of the time. But I think wire should be on their "to-do" list. I was surprised to discover, upon getting CM, that engineers can't breach wire but can breach minefields. If they can do 1, you'd think they could do the other. In fact, IIRC (too lazy to read all those old threads Banshee posted) Steve said they WOULD in fact be able to breach wire, using their sackbombs as abstracted bangalors. ------------------ -Bullethead Visit the brand new Raider Operations message board at www.delphi.com/raiderops Main site www.historicalgames.bizland.com/index.html

Steve and Charles---good choices Madmatt and Kwazy--congrats!! Looks like drinks are on you 2 Damn, guess I'll have to learn to start treating Madmatt with some respect now ------------------ -Bullethead Visit the brand new Raider Operations message board at www.delphi.com/raiderops Main site www.historicalgames.bizland.com/index.html

Jarmo said: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>A green driver, for all his basic knowledge of avoiding mudholes, would be likely to be very nervous in his first actual firefigt. Maybe even in a mild state of panic. Leading to hasty, not properly thought of decisions. A terrain he could negotiate while practising, would not be so easily negotiated now.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> There are 2 types of people in firefights: those at least mildly panicked and those already dead. As some old sweat once said, "Anyone who is not terrified doesn't understand the situation." I've been shot at many times over the last 20 years, by accident and on purpose, and I fight fires that aren't using intelligence to kill me. But I still suck a "20-minute" air tank down in about 10 minutes . Seriously, I think we are talking past each other. My position is that the CM system considers a "muddy" tile equally muddy throughout, and if a tile is "muddy", then all vehicles are at risk regardless of who is driving them. So, an experienced driver would like to avoid the whole tile and stick to the roads. But if you order him through the mud, he's going to obey your commands and maybe get stuck like anybody else. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>As for freeing the vehicle, it's a very different thing to be lectured about what to do when bogged, than to actually do it. Now I don't know if tank driver practice used to include driving a tank into a mudhole and try to get out until you've blown a track. And then do it a dozen times again, but I doubt it.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I know the World War One Brit tank school did exactly this. Of course, given the muddy moonscapes that were the norm in the Brit sector of the front, no other form of training would remotely suit requirements. ------------------ -Bullethead Visit the brand new Raider Operations message board at www.delphi.com/raiderops Main site www.historicalgames.bizland.com/index.html [This message has been edited by Bullethead (edited 09-20-2000).]

Jarmo said: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>since there's no differences between open terrain (abstraction), there'd be no need to make curves.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> It seems to me that there are 3 types of terrain: that which any tyro can negotiate, that which can bog (maybe permanently) a given model of vehicle based on its ground pressure, power, etc., and maybe a zone of moderate severity where perhaps a better driver can get through due to better control over and better knowledge of the capabilities of his vehicle. The issue of driver experience thus applies only to this middle zone, so the question is: is this zone "wide" enough to warrant special treatment? Personally, I don't think it is. Bogging, IMHO, is more a function of physical laws based on the design of the vehicle and the severity of the mud, than it is of driver skill. Driver skill, IMHO, is most important for spotting and avoiding areas that the vehicle isn't likely to negotiate. That is, better drivers don't get stuck as often because they go around bad hazards that novices plow right into. But if the expert goes into this same mudhole, he'll get stuck right beside the rookie. Now consider a 20m tile of muddy grass. In an area that small, any safer areas big enough for a vehicle to cross would be obvious to all, it would seem to me. Or there's no such area, and everybody has to hope for the best. Thus, you'd expect no difference in results due to driver experience. So I think CM's apparent method of treating a muddy tile as uniformly muddy throughout is justified--it's an equal hazard to all drivers. So, it seems to me that the only way a better driver would avoid getting bogged in such a tile is to drive through a different tile. This entails a major change of course, probably more than once, adding greatly both to the distance traveled and the risk of taking a flank or rear shot. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Isn't this already modeled to some extent by making offroad speed slower? Going straight in sparse woods doesn't really mean plonking down every tree that gets into the way, does it?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I don't think the above are analogous to weaving around mudholes. In orchards (scattered trees) you can drive tractors in almost any direction without hitting trees, so you don't have to go around the whole tile like for mud. Also, vehicles go slower offroad even in dry conditions for many reasons. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>But I still feel a good driver should have a better chance to unbog than a bad one. A bad driver would be likely to just step onto the pedal until the vehicle is sunk.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I dunno. I'm sure a large part of tank driver training is about dealing with mud. You'd think that would be as basic a skill to a tank driver as how to load a rifle is to a grunt. So even green drivers, which have received "basic training" per the manual, would be expected to have a working knowledge of unbogging procedures. ------------------ -Bullethead Visit the brand new Raider Operations message board at www.delphi.com/raiderops Main site www.historicalgames.bizland.com/index.html

109G said: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>A good driver should be able to chart a relatively dry path through wet terrain<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Don't forget that bogging isn't the only thing a good driver worries about in combat. "Picking a path" means deviating from the straight line course the player orders. Such deviation means the vehicle's facing must change. Changes of facing alter which way the armor is oriented. This in turn affects the odds of the vehicle dying, as opposed to merely becoming stuck in the mud. Imagine the howls of protest if BTS were to implement such a feature: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I told my elite King Tiger to go from Point A to Point B. But the stupid thing weaved around like a drunk, exposing flank and rear to enemy fire, until it died. Another elite KT hit a mine on a road I had told it to avoid--this wouldn't have happened had it stayed on the ordered path. WTF is up with this???? My green tanks do as I say and thus perform better in combat. They get stuck sometimes but I can plan for this. I can depend on them. The CM vehicle AI is AFU'd!!! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> And then try to explain to this guy that the above results were because of a tweak to keep more experienced vehicles from bogging as often as green vehicles ------------------ -Bullethead Visit the brand new Raider Operations message board at www.delphi.com/raiderops Main site www.historicalgames.bizland.com/index.html [This message has been edited by Bullethead (edited 09-19-2000).]

EW said: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>that's not the intent of reaction. reaction is not group reaction but each unit's immediate reaction, ie a squad or vehicle. what does each individual unit do when seeing or hearing an enemy unit or being fired on? ok, so it's 'only' up to 60 seconds, but that could be a lot of lead flying by. i see it as standing orders, what you do until some officer figures out something better<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> And here we come up against what reactions were hardwired into the troops as a result of their realworld training. Military training gets so ingrained that you find yourself doing what you've been taught automatically, despite being scared to death. Only long, bloody experience, rare natural combat ability, or utter panic lets a soldier do something else. When I was serving, the new rifleman trainee was taught that if you bumped into the enemy and started taking fire, you hit the deck and started returning fire ASAP. I believe this reaction is taught because it's the best when you're ambushed and works quite well in most other situations. The theory is you refuse to be suppressed and gain fire superiority by suppressing the badguys, even if they got off the first shot. If there's something else you should be doing instead, you have sergeants and lieutenants to tell you that. In fact, part of the reason you're trained to act this way is to buy time for your bosses to figure out what the Hell's going on and come up with a plan. Sure, a lot of lead is flying in this period, but that's why you were issued a weapon I'm not certain, but I think this doctrine has been in place a long time, including WW2. In any case, CM squads exhibit this behavior, and I find it quite realistic. I don't think it would be realistic to alter the basic reactions of units to firefights. If you did, then IMHO you'd have to limit which units could have different reactions set, based either on experience or special training. But I also think this whole thing is unnecessary because the bonuses that higher experience levels give you in combat abstract this to an adequate degree of realism. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>ah, joke, right? 'hey, all you cav guys, just ditch your vehicles and break out the beer.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Like Michael said, I was talking about bailed crews. BTS's intention is to prevent these units from being particularly useful. IMHO, the best use for such a crew is as a scout team or OP. However, because in their homeless state they are short some key mission equipment, and are not primarily infantrymen anyway, being able to use crews effectively this way is rather gamey. So if BTS ever gives us an "observe" order for OPs and scouts, I would recommend that this order not be available to bailed crews. ------------------ -Bullethead Visit the brand new Raider Operations message board at www.delphi.com/raiderops Main site www.historicalgames.bizland.com/index.html [This message has been edited by Bullethead (edited 09-19-2000).]

NOTE: you CAN do more than 2 people in a PBEM game. So it's not like PBEM limits games to just 2 players. ------------------ -Bullethead Visit the brand new Raider Operations message board at www.delphi.com/raiderops Main site www.historicalgames.bizland.com/index.html

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Im betting he may have had his "wisdom teeth" removed.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Is that your final answer? Are you sure Madmatt is capable of growing WISDOM in any form? ------------------ -Bullethead Visit the brand new Raider Operations message board at www.delphi.com/raiderops Main site www.historicalgames.bizland.com/index.html

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>attack - i'm not sure how attack actions are necessarily more than 1 turn? if a vehicle stops in place on contact, it could get killed there instead of being in the cover it's supposed to have reached. thus why this command says continue after contact. also, if you're going all out to take a position, this allows the implied priority on movement<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Put yourself in the position of the grunt platoon leader. When you make contact with the enemy, it takes some time to analyze the situation, decide on the appropriate actions to do next, and communicate these orders to your subordinate squads. This time is on the order of 1 minute. So say this attack order existed. You would issue when NOT in contact now, but expecting to be so at some point during the turn. That's less than 1 minute after contact to decide what to do. So as it stands now, your guys make contact using Move of Sneak orders, and then the turn ends. You now have the opportunity to give further orders based on what you know about the situation at present. This is all a real person in that same situation could do. And it might take several more turns to do a single envelopment, or just shoot it out to a conclusion. So, the whole action is going to take more than 1 turn. And the existing orders set, and the opportunity to use them, fully cover this type of situation, IMHO. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>defend - means shoot back but we don't need this position. this attack is probably too much so don't die or break holding in place, fall back -now-!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> So what's the difference between this and your proposed Observe order? Even if there is a differnce, however, it runs into the same situation as Attack. By the time your guys have learned enough to realize this attack is too much, the turn will have ended and you can issue new orders anyway. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>why not let crews observe?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Because crews aren't supposed to be very useful. Also, their radios just burned up in the wrecked vehicle. ------------------ -Bullethead Visit the brand new Raider Operations message board at www.delphi.com/raiderops Main site www.historicalgames.bizland.com/index.html

I'm taking bets on who punched Madmatt in the mouth, thus necessitating the surgery. Fionn, for general workplace antagonism? A TheGamers.Net enforcer, for that comment about "un-grateful vampires"? Some mod author, for saying his worked sucked? His girlfriend, in retalitation for his punching her in the nose a while back? Steve, out of jealousy over the publicity given to the MDMPs lately? A jealous husband? An unacknowledged bastard? A cop doing his duty? An altruist doing a service to humanity? Place your bets now ------------------ -Bullethead Visit the brand new Raider Operations message board at www.delphi.com/raiderops Main site www.historicalgames.bizland.com/index.html

Juardis said: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>What are you saying about mortars? That the shell spread is to the left and right of the target? I'm assuming this is for offboard mortars, correct? My tests were conducted with on board 81mm mortars and I definitely saw a N-S shell pattern (front and back of target, not left or right of target).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I was using off-map mortars. Under certain conditions as noted above, they produce E-W patterns (left-right as you see the map in the editor). IOW, ahead of and behind the target, assuming the Allies are coming from the west. This is the same type of pattern, but slightly bigger under the same conditions, as off-map guns make. So if you want to get out of the way of it, move toward the flanks, not forward or backwards, again assuming the Allies are coming from the west. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>One other question regarding the oval pattern. Was that for a area target (or wide area target) or direct fire? For FOs, I gave them heavy buildings as targets and got the e-w oval pattern. But my on-board mortar teams, when direct firing, gave me the n-s line pattern. Perhaps if you give an on-board mortar team an area target, then you get an e-w oval pattern?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I don't know. I haven't tested on-map mortars. Lack of interest, really. Being on-map just increases vulnerability and decreases flexibility. If you want 81mm mortars, get an FO and leave the tubes off the map. ------------------ -Bullethead Visit the brand new Raider Operations message board at www.delphi.com/raiderops Main site www.historicalgames.bizland.com/index.html

Very nice work, John. Only thing I can suggest is that you might want to bring out the lug nuts or spoke-flanges (depends on what type of wheel you decide to do) on the road wheels of the VVSS one on the left. OTOH, if you muddy it up some, caked mud would obscure such features anyway. ------------------ -Bullethead Visit the brand new Raider Operations message board at www.delphi.com/raiderops Main site www.historicalgames.bizland.com/index.html [This message has been edited by Bullethead (edited 09-18-2000).]

Elementalware said: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> there've been multiple threads noting that - TacAI can't know a player's intent - MG grazing fire isn't really possible - smoke completely blocks fire<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> MG grazing fire works, but only if the MG can fire in the first place. Because it can't fire into or through smoke, this robs the MGs of a lot of their grazing fire potential. So I advocate allowing MGs to area-fire through smoke. Hell, all direct fire units should be able to do this. The lack of such an ability is the biggest realism problem I have with CM. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>command 1: reaction. 4 settings for actions on contact<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I don't think we need commands for the proposed "attack", "hold", and "defend" options. The latter 2 are basically what the AI does by itself anyway. As for "attack", the actions you envision would be carried out over a time span longer than 1 minute. Thus, as is, the player has ample opportunity to give orders with the existing set for this purpose. However, I think the "observe" option is very desirable. It would be great to have this order available for your OPs, LPs, scout teams, and snipers. I would make it so you couldn't give it to crews, however. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>command 2: watch direction<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> This is a much-needed refinement. In real life, in a defensive position, you assign sectors of fire to each squad and support weapon. They are not supposed to fire in other directions. I find it highly annoying when my undisciplined troops all fire at the first enemy unit that appears, thus revealing my whole position and then being blindsided by other enemies coming up on the flank. I would not want to see the ability to target sound contact "units", however. 99% of the time at least, there is really nothing there at all. For instance, I often see vehicle sound contacts in the middle of forests where no vehicle can possibly go. The sound contact "unit" you see is just a marker indicating something is making noise within 100-200m or so. I would really be disappointed if my troops started shooting at such phantoms, revealing themselves and wasting ammo. They do that enough already. ------------------ -Bullethead Visit the brand new Raider Operations message board at www.delphi.com/raiderops Main site www.historicalgames.bizland.com/index.html

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>BTW, does CM have it correct when you're unable to adjust fire for targets out of LOS? That came as a shock in a game when I discovered I wasn't able to simply adjust fire on a target out of LOS, and instead had to start a new area fire countdown.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Hmm, I hadn't noticed this. I've been able to adjust (actually should be called shift) blind FFE with the short time as normal. FWIW, you SHOULD be able to adjust blind FFE. The fact that the FFE starts at all indicates the FO has some way to get adjust the spotter rounds on target (via sound and/or smoke). Once on for FFE, though, it's a simple matter to say "drop 100, repeat" even blind. BTW, I don't agree with the area in which "adjusted" FFE is possible. I think it should be in thin donuts at 100m and 200m from the initial point of aim, and not everywhere inside a small area around the initial target. But that's another story. ------------------ -Bullethead Visit the brand new Raider Operations message board at www.delphi.com/raiderops Main site www.historicalgames.bizland.com/index.html

Lewis said: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The real point is that ANYTHING mounting a flex mount MG that was moving could only hope for at best suppression fire. And a 50 is good for that. With only 125 rounds in a box, I wonder if short bursts were the best.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Totally agree. With a flex mount of whatever type, you have nothing to steady yourself with when holding the gun, because that takes both hands and the gun pivots freely. So when the vehicle sways or jerks, so does your body, and you take the gun with you, pulling the sights way off target. I'm sure this would be the case in an AFV with a flex mount (as opposed to a cupola mount) as well as a truck or jeep. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>As for Burgett, he has an almost unreal memory for details. he conveys those images so that I can almost feel I see them. His writing does stick in my mind.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Again agreed. I was just saying that because he didn't mention severe accuracy problems or physical beating, he probably didn't notice either in the heat of the moment, with everything else going on and the high threat level. But maybe I'm unfairly judging him by the standards of my own firefight behavior . <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Steve has an allergy to most of my ideas<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Hmm, I thought the whole thing about troops running was revised per your input. ------------------ -Bullethead Visit the brand new Raider Operations message board at www.delphi.com/raiderops Main site www.historicalgames.bizland.com/index.html [This message has been edited by Bullethead (edited 09-17-2000).]

Lewis said: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Was there an option to put a 50 cal in a ring mount in a weasel?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Steve would be the guy to ask, but I think the Weasel guns were all pedestal-mounted vs. rings. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>In burgetts "seven roads.." book , he describes manning a fifty on a cross country fleeing deuce and a half truck. He never mentions it being accurate.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I doubt his adrenaline-soaked consciousness at that time allowed for careful observations as to either accuracy or the beating he no doubt was receiving I don't doubt having such a rush going would help in both matters, however, as opposed to my own tense-but-not-firefight experiences. Still, even with berserker strength and pain threshold, I'd have to say a truck's ringmount would be the worst possible thing to fire from on the move. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I think that when using these injun tactics a moving vehicle flex MG should ONLY be able to put down area fire and not target specific units.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I'd refine this statement to say "treated as area fire although aimed at specific units" because area fire per se is tied to a specific spot of terrain, regardless of enemy units nearby. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Armored cars and light tanks could and would raise hell with rear echelon infantry/support troops. Jeeps and such would be more discrete.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> But how was the Ma Deuce mounted in these armored cars? Looks to me like most of them had pedestal or ring mounts, which I don't think would be too different in effect from those of trucks or jeeps. ------------------ -Bullethead Visit the brand new Raider Operations message board at www.delphi.com/raiderops Main site www.historicalgames.bizland.com/index.html

Michael said: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Bullethead, did you run a test on each of the seperate calibers?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Not this time. I picked 3 of each type (gun, mortar, and rocket), at each end and in the middle of the size scale. I saw no noticeable difference due to caliber or nationality within each type. This corresponds with my test of all arty types in an early version, so I didn't bother doing them all this time. However, I did not test the very biggest things like 14" NGFS, which I consider too rare to worry about anyway. Besides, with a kill radius vs. light AFVs of over 100m, who really cares what the 14" pattern is? <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I'm also a bit surprised at your observation re guns vs mortars...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> So was I. Last time I did this test, there was no difference between guns and mortars. Both gave exactly the same pattern under the same LOS/TRP conditions. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>...but for now I'm willing to take your word for it.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Well, you don't have to be. I think KIA is right, we do need a bigger sample size. So how about I send you my arty range "scenario", so both of us together can thoroughly test all types of arty. State your choice of being Axis or Allies and I'll set it up that way. Then all you have to do is change the type of FOs and their ammo. My email is jtweller@delphi.com. Let me know if you want it. ------------------ -Bullethead Visit the brand new Raider Operations message board at www.delphi.com/raiderops Main site www.historicalgames.bizland.com/index.html

I agree. There is too much difference in the QB map widths between small and medium. The medium map is too wide IMHO for most "medium-sized" forces to adequately defend. This is quite a problem for "medium-sized" AI defenders, who end up spread across the whole width and thus weak everywhere. Against a human unafraid to fight a maneuver battle on the defensive, this isn't such a problem. But it leads to a long string of attacker walkovers against the AI. ------------------ -Bullethead Visit the brand new Raider Operations message board at www.delphi.com/raiderops Main site www.historicalgames.bizland.com/index.html

David Aitken said: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I used to think pump-action shotguns were a relatively new invention, but apparently not.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> They go back at least as far as centerfire cartridges, if not before. The earliest pump I can think of off-hand was the Winchester (18)97. This one was issued to troops in WW1 as an early analog to the SMG. It had the cool feature that if you kept the trigger pulled while working the action, it would fire every time you pushed the pump forward. It differed from the civvie version in having the short, riotgun barrel with a perforated handguard, plus a bayonet lug. Very nice weapon ------------------ -Bullethead Visit the brand new Raider Operations message board at www.delphi.com/raiderops Main site www.historicalgames.bizland.com/index.html

Mr. Johnson-- said: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>You Texicans are wacky. Do you have any road signs left in your state, or are they all dead?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Pretty much all dead. Understand that in rural Texas, the only real source of entertainment is to get drunk and drive around shooting road signs. However, it's a relatively simple matter to aim a rifle or shotgun accurately from a car or pickup moving smoothly over modern pavement on its modern, smooth, civvie suspension. The relative target speed is no higher than that of a dove, which we slaughter in great numbers every fall. This is a far cry from trying to aim a .50 cal from a bouncing ringmount off the road in a GI truck. ------------------ -Bullethead Visit the brand new Raider Operations message board at www.delphi.com/raiderops Main site www.historicalgames.bizland.com/index.html

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Like I said, we were kinda rushed towards the end there...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I'm sure there are many folks within reach here both willing and able to make more 3D models for you. Like the hull for the M36B1, or an actual 90mm AA gun instead of the scaled-up 40mm? Or maybe the flat-faced, wavy-topped gunshield for the 6pdr and 57mm? So why not let some of these folks make some models for you? ------------------ -Bullethead Visit the brand new Raider Operations message board at www.delphi.com/raiderops Main site www.historicalgames.bizland.com/index.html

I have a book called "Turnip Greens and Sergeant Stripes", by an Alabama hillbilly named Grimes. He was a grunt Lt. on New Guinea. At some point, his guys took some sort of police station in a village, in which they found several cases of pump shotguns and beaucoup 00 buck. They quickly put these to good use. But I don't know if shotguns were ever issued in WW2. It would be strange if they weren't, because they were in WW1, VN, and the Gulf. ------------------ -Bullethead Visit the brand new Raider Operations message board at www.delphi.com/raiderops Main site www.historicalgames.bizland.com/index.html

I can speak for .50cals in ringmounts on trucks in the Gulf War. You couldn't even stay standing in the ringmount while holding the gun, let alone shoot it at all, when the truck was moving at anything over walking speed. Each time the truck hit a bump or tilted slightly, you'd be thrown violently to the side. If you were holding onto the pivoting gun, you couldn't stop yourself from slamming into the ring, which really sucked even with a flak jacket (which doesn't cover elbows anyway). Sometimes you'd go face-first into the spade grips. OTOH, if you held onto the ring, you couldn't shoot, plus you had to secure the gun from flopping around, so shooting after you grabbed the gun would be delayed. Needless to say, we quickly abandoned any idea of keeping somebody standing in the ringmount while moving. We had quite a few nasty bruises and a couple of broken noses and chipped teeth by then, however. I don't know how representative this is of things like armored cars. 5-ton trucks are pretty tall and have very stiff springs, both of which amplify the effects of bumps on the would-be gunner. Also, it could be we were simply lacking in technique. Ringmounts were never mounted in peacetime so none of us had ever tried it before and had nobody to teach us a better way, assuming such existed. But my feeling is that the reason for the lack of ringmounts in peacetime is to eliminate a serious source of training injuries ------------------ -Bullethead Visit the brand new Raider Operations message board at www.delphi.com/raiderops Main site www.historicalgames.bizland.com/index.html