cassh
-
Posts
297 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Never
Posts posted by cassh
-
-
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.This is your best chance at killing or wounding the foeThe 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.DOWN CRAWL OBSERVE FIREIn 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...
-
Jons wrote:-
andUm, missions/games/movies are not terribly good references, ya know?You can use MGs indoors currently in the game, you just can't set them up on the tripods. Seems a reasonable limitation to me.
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.Movies aren't a very good source of research information [big Grin] -
Jons wrote:-
andUm, missions/games/movies are not terribly good references, ya know?You can use MGs indoors currently in the game, you just can't set them up on the tripods. Seems a reasonable limitation to me.
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.Movies aren't a very good source of research information [big Grin] -
Jons wrote:-
andUm, missions/games/movies are not terribly good references, ya know?You can use MGs indoors currently in the game, you just can't set them up on the tripods. Seems a reasonable limitation to me.
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.Movies aren't a very good source of research information [big Grin] -
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.Me also thinks that the Brits in question were landing in Lebanon -
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.You appear to be under the assumption that the BMP and BTR Regiments are largely they same. They are not.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.Therefore, it seems pretty clear that one is better suited for attack than the other. But this is, as you say, a little besides the point.
Bingo! So we agree they are there.Late Soviet TO&E, as in late 1980s, shows that both BMP and BTR Companies have a platoon of 6xGPMGs (PKMs).
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.However, more recent US military "OPFOR" sample TO&E shows few, if any, GPMGs with AFV/IFV infantry forces, and lots of GPMGs with motorized/static infantry forces.
Which contradicts what you've just said.Absolutely, unless they aren't there to be used at all.
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?And that is the main point here, right?
If I haven't made my self clear I apologise. So I'll make this unambiguous.Do they have GPMGs with x formation or don't they, not are GPMGs useful for this or that tactic. The latter is dependent on the former, not the other way around.Each Rifle company of a BTR battalion should have a PKM GPMG team.
Good - that's what we all want.We never have, and never will, purposefully screw with reality (or the best approximation we have of it) in order to balance things out.
Wait one.In short... unless I see some good counter evidence to undermine the allocation of GPMGs as described by me above, things stay as is. It's the only sensible and responsible way to go, which makes it the only RIGHT way to go. -
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)Again, I think we're getting into terminology issues. Sure, for a planned "breakthrough" attack plan, the MG is a critical component of Soviet doctrine. But that isn't what Mechanized Infantry are for.
The Warsaw Pact Motor Rifle Divisions usually had two regiments of BTRs and one of BMP. The Motor Rifle Division as structured below:They are for the "exploitation" phase.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.This is not the way Western doctrine handles an attack. The same type of forces doing the breakthrough are the same type doing the exploitation.
Steve - what you're discussing here is doctrine at the operational level where the campaign is fought.To put this into Syrian context, the breakthrough would be achieved by mass firepower. Infantry Brigades would slug it out with the enemy's immediate frontline area, the Armored divisions would go in to exploit the breach. After the Reserves would fill in to hold the terrain gained.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.
andAll of this, however, is academic. The Syrians appear to understand that to attack is to be defeated.
Quite so. However, what you are describing is an operational defensive posture, not a tactical one.Therefore, they are heavily weighted towards defensive posture.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?Also keep in mind that an offensive doctrine without a complimentary defensive doctrine is going to fail.
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)Syrians should also have a professional officer class
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.So unless we find evidence that the Syrians do have GPMGs attached to a unit we won't do it in CM:SF.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?they do reflect the Soviet doctrine of MGs for defensive roles and not offensive roles.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.However, they do have 2x M240s per Rifle Platoon, usually fired from lightweight tripods (bipod is only for hasty situations). This Weapons Squad is intended to be used both offensively and defensively. They are light and can move about the battlefield in roughly the same way as a Rifle Squad. What they are not is a dedicated weapon based unit that sets up shop and blasts away at stuff while someone else closes with the enemy. Instead the Weapons Squad is seen as, basically, a bulked up Rifle Squad.That's a very big difference from the traditional notion of team based MGs coming out of WWII and the Cold War. In fact, it's why there aren't dedicated MG units like in the days of old. They simply aren't needed since the firepower is integrated into the Rifle Platoon itself.
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.No western army that I know of uses tripod mounted MMG or HMG machines in the attacking role or even the defense role.
Umm… tripod mounted MG3 GPMG.I know Germany does not
Umm… tripod mounted M240 GPMG.I know the US does not.
Umm… tripod mounted L7 GPMG.I am pretty sure Britian does not.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
andMachine guns are useless in most of those roles since they are not very usefull during the attack.
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.People who go off on others without understanding the context of what they are reading annoy meYou are talking about LMG and SAW which are MG in technical terms but not considered MGs in modern army terms.
I am talking about tripod mounted 7.62mm PKM MMGs or 12.7mm NSV
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.Don't take J Ruddy seriously.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...In some situations, SP artillery can also function as direct fire infantry support weapons. See German Hummels and Wespe's in WW2.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...
Why did MGs get so much better?
in Combat Mission Shock Force 1
Posted
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.