cassh

Wisbech_lad said: Czechoslovakia 1938 (Czechoslovak Army) Palestine (British kicked out) Suez (British Army - a political, rather than military defeat) Aden (British kicked out) Rhodesia (Anglo-Colonial/Smith Rhodesian Army) We used L4 as an LMG in one of the section's bricks, with the Gimpy in the other to give the section better distribution of fire-power between the fire teams. Bren was ideal for COIN where background and accuracy were very important.

John Kettler said John I think you may have missed the point about GPMGs deployed at the platoon and company level. Their main role is not to engage opportunity targets but to provide suppression of the enemy, so allowing your own manoeuvre units to move. The important factors of a GPMG are sustainability of fire, spread of beaten zone and economy of fire. Most GPMG in the SF role have a ROF of about 600-900 RPM. Good GPMG crews will try and ensure their barrels are balance as near to the lowest gas regulator setting as possible, meaning they 1) don't overheat too quickly, 2) conserve ammo better, and 3) have higher settings to go up to when fowling starts to impair performance. Someone above mentioned barrel changes on a M240/GPMG taking 10-20 seconds and needing an asbestos mat? 1) it shouldn't take more than ten seconds 2) the barrel has a handle 3) when using it in the light role your forward left hand grip is the bipod legs folded back. In terms of belt vs. mag feed there is one example where only belt fed will do - final protective fire - if the OC calls in SF101 you'd better hope you've got GPMGs firing along your lines as overwise it's likely to be overrun time.

Dale - The Atomic V for Victory and World at War were corkers - just wished that something like their UI and game play had been applied to a computerised version of GDW/GDR's Europa series - i'd never have left the house again!

Doesn't time fly!

illum rounds??

Michael Dorosh said I think the Canadian reaction to effective enemy fire IA does not apply to the entire commonwealth as ours is slightly different - with a quick dash to change location so the enemy will be less likely to have a fix on you and a sights check to make sure you have the right range. In Britain it is:- dash down crawl sights observe fire Cohesion Is it worth considering cohesion? Poor cohesion after conducting an assault for example can disrupt well trained, motivated and experienced soldiers and piss poor ones alike. Well trained troops recover more quickly, but without cohesion being modelled you end up with super soldiers who can perform tasks that are impossible in the real world. For example, you may well have an excellent platoon commander, and fit, experienced soldiers with great morale, but get them to fight through and clear a trench system for 50 meters and see how much confusion, disruption and lack of control there is upon completion of the task. They’re still fit, still well led, and still got high morale - but try coordinating them to attack a second strong point immediately and you’ll find in reality the lack of cohesion makes this quite difficult - even for seasoned troops. Cohesion is distinct from other qualities as it is a temporary effect brought on by the rigours of battle and combines many of the factors already modelled plus more obscure factors that you cannot really lump together other than under cohesion - e.g. a member of a fireteam loses his comrades temporarily in a building. Is that morale, training, fitness, or command? Probably a bit of all plus the X-factor Clausewitz calls ‘friction’ that means you need another model in place - cohesion. Lack of cohesion is caused by the collective effects of tactical activity - partially tiredness, partially command, control, communications and intelligence (c3i), partially morale and partially administrative-organisational, partially experience related, and partially due to fitness. To this mix you must add luck/chance/the fog of war/friction. If you model this omnipresent factor that affects combat outcomes you start to see activities in the game that model real life such as the regroup/reorg following any assault to restore cohesion. Without doing this a unit should suffer from inertia and a weakened command rating, being less aware, less responsive and less capable. In the CMSF MOUT environment modelling cohesion becomes important. Once a platoon starts clearing houses, unless they regroup/reorganise periodically it can go to rat sh!t pretty quickly.

Another interesting BBC programme regarding chinese defence policy and growth... http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/shadowofthedragon/

Jons wrote:- and Steve wrote Sorry guys you both wrong as JasonC rightly states. In the British Army all SFMG teams carry empty sand bags as SOP to either hold the legs in place when firing off pre-registered spikes (markers on the ground recording the tripod position for night shoots and indirect fire generally) or to elevate the legs to achieve LOS on a desired arc or target. Ammo boxes filled with earth are another favourite for elevating the gun.

Jons wrote:- and Steve wrote Sorry guys you both wrong as JasonC rightly states. In the British Army all SFMG teams carry empty sand bags as SOP to either hold the legs in place when firing off pre-registered spikes (markers on the ground recording the tripod position for night shoots and indirect fire generally) or to elevate the legs to achieve LOS on a desired arc or target. Ammo boxes filled with earth are another favourite for elevating the gun.

Jons wrote:- and Steve wrote Sorry guys you both wrong as JasonC rightly states. In the British Army all SFMG teams carry empty sand bags as SOP to either hold the legs in place when firing off pre-registered spikes (markers on the ground recording the tripod position for night shoots and indirect fire generally) or to elevate the legs to achieve LOS on a desired arc or target. Ammo boxes filled with earth are another favourite for elevating the gun.

stoat said Then youthinks wrong. They're members of 29 Regiment Royal Artillery (Royal Marine gunners) and this was a training exercise in the Shat Al Arab.

Why not make it only available when paused - that way you can go to town on cpu capacity? A mild side effect - elite players cannot pause so they will just have to be 'elite'!

LAW80 has approx 600mm of penetration against RHA according to the manual, which probably puts it on a par or just behind the MBT LAW (UK AT4 CS HP variant) in terms of punch. In terms of back-blast, you need decent clearance and certainly would not consider firing from inside a confined space such as a building or bunker; otherwise, no dramas. Live fired (full-warhead) against a Ferret hulk at 200m - awesome - absolutely battered it. All relatively pointless though as the MBT LAW is now the standard issue MLAW for UK forces.

USMC uber-paintball ammo - stopped Marines 'John Wayneing' during training - you move and maneouvre tactically like you might in combat when you know some MF of a training-paintball round might tag you. Genius, but only good in close-quarter MOUT training.

Steve said - Yes, I'm quite aware of that - however BTR battalions and BMP battalions and their respective roles are significant at an operational level - not necessarily at tactical level. A BTR regiment and a BMP regiment must both fight dismounted when facing organised and effective resistance. The difference is that once enemy cohesion has been shattered the BMP regiment is then more suited to exploit (rather than as you say attack - a small but key distinction) as it possesses mechanised supporting arms and IFVs. If one is fighting a mobile battle, a weak enemy can be overrun using IFVs and AFVs. But against effective defences, BMPs are constrained by many of the limitations faced by APC borne troops and may need to fight a dismounted battle. BMP is better suited to operational manoeuvre where one exploits a breakthrough, hence the BMP regiment and Tank regiment form the OMG in a Soviet Motor Rifle Division. In open tank country, I completely agree. However, in close terrain it makes little difference. If Syrians have learnt anything for either Gulf War they will not offer battle in this way, but will seek the concealment and cover of close country such as urban terrain. In this type of engagement you fight dismounted anyway so BMP or BTR make marginal difference. A Javelin is going to make Swiss Cheese of either of these vehicles. Bingo! So we agree they are there. Bingo bingo - so we agree the GPMGs are with the BTR regiments who make up the bulk of the motorised forces rather than with the BMP "mechanised" units. Which contradicts what you've just said. Steve, call me old fashioned here, but when you say on the one hand that there are "lots of GPMGs with motorized/static infantry forces" and then say "unless they aren't there to be used at all" one can only conclude that there is some confusion here? If I haven't made my self clear I apologise. So I'll make this unambiguous. Each Rifle company of a BTR battalion should have a PKM GPMG team. Good - that's what we all want. Wait one.

Yeah, amusing boys - but as these "reserve" formations form the bulk of Syrian ground forces and they're one side of this game/simulation its kind of important to try and get it right. Even if you only ever plan to play as the Americans you might still want to adhere to the old maxim "know thy enemy"! Unlike other games companies Steve, Charles and the rest of the team want to set the bench mark high - and that means detail and trying to be as accurate as possible.

Steve, Just to clarify some points We're not talking about Mechanised infantry - we're talking about motorised infantry (BTR-series) The Warsaw Pact Motor Rifle Divisions usually had two regiments of BTRs and one of BMP. The Motor Rifle Division as structured below: 1 Tank Regiment (3x Tnk Bn, 1x BMP Bn) 1 Motor Rifle Regiments BMP (3x BMP Bn, 1x Tnk Bn) 2 Motor Rifle Regiments BTR (3x BTR Bn, 1x Tnk Bn) (some exceptions occur as always where two BMP regiments were present) Along with the Tank Division the Motor Rifle Division pretty much are the only two types of divisional size unit in the Warsaw Pact ground forces of the Western TVD (save 34th Artillery Division usually attached 3rd Shock Army). Therefore, this default infantry is responsible for all three areas of operational theory: 1.holding element (ordinary force) 2.breakthrough element 3.exploitation element (extraordinary force) The BTR regiments can fulfil each role as they see fit; when combat is to be given they dismount, otherwise they retain operational mobility via their armoured transports. There is little or no difference in Soviet structure of TO&E for these two roles, but rather a question of which Army is tasked with breakthrough and which with exploitation. So for instance, the 8th Soviet Guards Army and 3rd Soviet Shock Army might breakthrough and the 1st and 2nd Soviet Guards Tank Army might exploit. However, this operational front assigned mission does not mean these armies' divisions were structured differently. Steve - what you're discussing here is doctrine at the operational level where the campaign is fought. The use of MGs is part of tactical doctrine and can be used in any one of the major operational roles of holding forces, breakthrough forces or exploitation forces. and Quite so. However, what you are describing is an operational defensive posture, not a tactical one. For example a Motor Rifle Brigade/Regiment is deployed dismounted in a city on the operational defensive. However the dismounted infantry may launch local attacks and counter-attacks at anything up to Brigade level without severe disadvantages if the battle is MOUT and the Syrians are dismounted. Sorry Steve - not quite sure what you are getting at here? I haven't commented on defensive doctrine at all other than to say GPMGs in the MMG role can be used both offensively and defensively? Not when they only send 50 officers a year to military college in Moscow (was only 30 until 2003/4 arms deal when the Russian bled a little more money out of them as part of the deal) As I said above - we know the composition of TO&E of former Warsaw Pact armies that joined NATO. And we know they have company level PKM tripods in BTR Bns. We also fought along side the Syrians in 1991 in Kuwait so we know they try and closely model Russian doctrine and TO&E. The old adage "always get a second source" no matter how reliable you believe the first to be is one I'd recommend. I'll have a hunt around and see if I can find you some open source data that wont break the bank.

Steve, sorry have I missed something here. Where does this impression that the Russians/Soviets have a purely defensive MG doctrine come from. It that a hangover from WWII? If one sees how the Soviet/Warpact motor rifle battalions' fire-plan is "laid on" in the attack, the use of MGs is a key element. The adoption of the PKM with its Stepanov tripod over the original PK and the heavier Samozhenkov tripod mount is indicative and underscores that fact that the Soviets desired faster man-portable sustained fire weapons systems - giving them improved offensive capability. The aim being that the MG teams could keep up in the advance/attack with rifle teams. It is clear the Syrian have a defensive mindset - that said however, there should probably be a 2-man PKM SF GPMG team at company level in the BTR motor rifle infantry battalions. As the mechanised brigades of their mechanised divisions contain BTR motor rifle battalions rather than BMP mounted mechanised infantry battalions (which are in their armoured divisions' mechanised brigades) the number of these units means their structure will certainly influence game mechanics.

fytinghellfish - each inf Bn has an SF platoon within the support company - however each rifle company has two SF kits and cadre trained teams to operate them since the early 1990s when we needed to have an excuse to retain these weapons (gimpys) once the 2 fire team LSWs replaced the gun group L7 in the light role at section level in the rifle companies. The L7 buttstock is removable and is replaced with a special strengthened recoil buffer plate which is placed on the gun as you set it up in the SF role. Once you disassemble the SF GPMG to move anywhere the gunner replaces the normal buttstock to allow the gun to be used in the light role until you setup in the SF role somewhere else. We digress – the Syrians have a **** load of PKM tripods – I suggest they should have the option to use them as US air supremacy would ensure the Syrians opted for a dismounted battle – and in this type of combat you need your firepower – even if you are inept at using it.

Steve said Quite so. Now look at the TO&E of a Czech, Hungarian, Polish or former East German motor rifle company that are now part of NATO and we can see clearly each company had between two and four Stepanov lightweight PKM tripods for dismounted action... Rudel - just because the Syrian reserves are ****e and don’t know what they’re doing doesn’t mean they should be denied equipment. Let the game mechanics of conscript command and combat levels make them offensively inept, not a lack of equipment they actually have in the real world. Rudel said – Your lack of knowledge does not mean this is the case. A tripod mounted GPMG is in the SF role is a MMG. Hence the tripod, sight unit and heavy barrels for sustained fire. Umm… tripod mounted MG3 GPMG. Umm… tripod mounted M240 GPMG. Umm… tripod mounted L7 GPMG. Funnily enough the SF training of the British Army’s school of infantry at ranges such as Netheravon continues unabated even though we allegedly don’t use these weapons…strange that. And I know both German and US Army units possess these weapon systems - so what do you think the likelihood of them being in their TO&E, but not be used or having any role? Argue what you will, but these armies (US and British) possess these weapons - fact, and use them offensively in combat - fact.

rudel.dietrich said and Sorry, but you cannot make statements that tripod mounted SFMG are mostly useless in attack - this is entirely wrong and crassly inaccurate. They are integral to any infantry formations offensive capability. If the Syrians are using a modified version of Soviet doctrine as all their past combat indicates then second echelon and reserve formations are not merely designed to hold captured ground - but actively pin and hold the enemy line through offensive action to allow mobile forces freedom to exploit any breakthrough. Any even mildly proficient army will use a variety of supporting arms in the attack - down to the lowest levels - it is a basic tenet of command-arms doctrine. You think a machine gun company or platoon sits about doing nothing when it's parent battalion's rifle companies are putting in attack - of course not. Steve said Why not - he's right. It is volume of fire (and that means all support weapons - HMG, SF GPMG, LMG or SAW, RPGs, LAW, mortars, arty etc) that delivers suppression - the prerequisite of movement. You cannot attack effectively without winning the firefight - and tripod mounted machine guns are integral to that. I think we do the Syrians and the game a disservice by under playing their capabilities...

assassins... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hashshashin [ November 12, 2006, 04:45 PM: Message edited by: cassh ]

btw why does the FCS NLOS-C bod above look like a 1940's tommy - is an old skool look coming back in?

Sergei i think you deploying wit is about as likely... flame away

Sergei said Just some drunken thoughts... Unlikely use presently; although used this way ww2. Currently unless a battery position is overrun or the guns are stationed in a static FB with LOS to an opportunity target i would imagine few commanders would dream of bringing up precious 155 SP arty for direct fire support - not saying couldn't happen - but likelihood bloody rare to non-existent in modern army doctrine as they'd be too vulnerable to LAWs and ATGMs and are rare and expensive platforms. Any commander losing arty on the FEBA has cocked-up big time...