jenrick

M240B running cyclic for a full minute. Had one failure to fire, and most likely was a bad round as all the rest fired without a problem. -Jenrick

If I might recommend what the official US Army position on the issue: Regarding the 249/240: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/army/fm/3-22-68/c05.htm#5_10 "(1) Sustained Fire. Sustained fire for the M249 is 85 rounds per minute in bursts of 3 to 5 rounds. The M60 and M240B are 100 rounds per minute in bursts of 6 to 9 rounds. The gunner pauses 4 to 5 seconds between bursts. The barrel should be changed after firing at sustained rate for 10 minutes. This is the normal rate of fire for the gunner. (2) Rapid Fire. Rapid fire for the M249, M60, and M240B gunner is 200 rounds per minute in bursts of (6 to 8 M249) 10 to 12 rounds. The gunner pauses 2 to 3 seconds between bursts. The barrel should be changed after firing at a rapid rate for 2 minutes. This procedure provides for an exceptionally high volume of fire, but for only a short period. (3) Cyclic Fire. Cyclic fire uses the most ammunition that can be used in 1 minute. The cyclic rate of fire with the machine gun is achieved when the trigger is held to the rear and ammunition is fed into the weapon uninterrupted for one minute. Normal cyclic rate of fire for the M249 is 850 rounds, M60 is 550 rounds, and for the M240B it is 650 to 950 rounds. Always change the barrel after firing at cyclic rate for 1 minute. This procedure provides the highest volume of fire that the machine gun can fire, but this adversely affects the machine gun, and should only be fired in combat under emergency purposes only." Regarding the M2: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/army/fm/23-65/ch52.htm#s2p10 "# Single shot. Place the gun in the single-shot mode and engage the target with aimed shots. The MG is accurate out to 1,500 meters. # Slow fire. Slow fire consists of less than 40 rounds per minute, in bursts of five to seven rounds, fired at 10- to 15-second intervals. # Rapid fire. Rapid fire consists of more than 40 rounds per minute, fired in bursts of five to seven rounds, at 5- to 10-second intervals. # Cyclic fire. Cyclic fire is when the weapon fires 450 to 550 rounds per minute. " Far as what's actually going on in the field right now (most of these have NSFW audio, it is a war zone after all): At around :40 a 240 gunner puts off a couple of bursts, some short some longer. All appear well controlled though, a mix of "slow fire" and "rapid fire." Around 2:10 the squad displaces down a street under cover from a 249, the gunner there is using text book sustained fire technique to cover the movement. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tY8U6uaXq0M&feature=related Can't tell if it's the US troops or what are possibly INA troops going cyclic, towards the end of the video a 240 runs LONG burst before the cease fire order is given. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4UIqRxzgtyo&feature=related British troops this time, around 1:41 you can listen to the cadence of fire in the battle. The GPMG are all firing fairly short bursts, a bit longer then 3-5 rounds though by the sound of it. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6nRT4rHURMY&feature=related At :30 a definitely longer then proscribe burst from a 240, he speaks to a reporter after that about what all was happening. A reasonable answer for it I'd say. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pn_B-JLHTKM&feature=related Turret gunner engauges a sniper location. First burst is defineately a longer then proscribed on, after that he settles down and begins to fire shorter bursts. So the 240's and M2 should probably use a slightly longer burst behavior as the default for a well trained crew, and have a mixture of short and longer burst as well. However note that cyclic fire is an approved method of fire if need be, and that might be an interesting addition depending on morale, suppression, etc. Now if we can just get plunging fire in, so that we can engage targets out of the LOS of the gun crew (that's what that range card is for after all...). Regarding the issue of longer bursts in specific tactical situations, I think they are warranted. The end goal of the fired rounds is to kill the enemy, suppress him so that he can not return effective fire, or break his morale and cause him to leave the field of battle. In a situation such as a perfect linear or depth ambush where it's very apparent that each bullet is striking home, I'd be yelling at my gunner to keep up the fire. Now if the rounds are hitting in the general area making the enemy grab for dirt, then I'll probably have him keep a text book sustained fire, or rapid fire if that's what it takes to keep there heads down, pace. If the enemy is able to begin to return effective fire despite accurate MG fire, I will want more lead going there direction from the MG ASAP, and if that means cyclic then so be it. Now a good gunner will gauge most of this on his own, without an NCO or officer having to tell him what to do. That's what the training is there for, is to appropriately react to the situation own their own initiative. -Jenrick

I am running the 8.20-051110a1-028793C. I'll double check to see if the High Priority Process is set to on, and if that doesn't correct the issue I'll see about the newer drivers. Thanks, -Jenrick

Currently when playing SF 1.20 w/ Marines, everything will be running fine. After a variable time frame from a minute or two to 10-15 minutes, the FPS will drop to single digits, all on screen textures and details go to mud, and the game in general barely moves along. However after another period of time of usually 10-15 minutes everything returns to normal. System: Dell Latitude D600 1.7 Ghz 768 MB Radeon 9000 mobility 32MB 30GB HD w/ 20+ gigs free Game settings are fastest/fastest and all the other graphics options turned off in an attempt to avoid the problem. Still no dice. Drivers are latest updates. -Jenrick

Posted this a while back: I'd simply split movement into a speed and a tactics options. You'd have sprint, double time, normal, and crawl. The faster they are the less attentive they are, there's no way to really hunt for a target and sprint that's as effective as moving at a normal pace and looking. Additionally they have a much more obvious profile, aren't as stealthy etc. Sprint is obvious hair on fire running (the good old fashioned 3 second rush), double time is a fast movement when not under effective fire or just needing to get there in a hurry, normal is a walking pace when you're paroling looking for trouble or administrative moving, crawl is kinda self explanatory. Then have a tactics choice assault, move to contact, scout, sneak. Assault is move to the location designated through enemy fire if neccesary, do not stop unless the unit breaks or pins. Move to contact is move forward, but if you make contact with the enemy stop and engage (the hunt command currently in use). Scout is move till you make spot an enemy, then go to ground and wait for orders do not engage initially. Sneak is move until you spot and enemy then back up till you can no longer see them, do not engage. Having these options be mixed and match creates some great options for movement. Crawl/assault under heavy fire in thick brush, great way to close. Sprint and sneak, trying to move a missile team to flank as an ambush. No point in getting them on the flank if the enemy knows they're there. Shoot you could set generic formation tactics so that all units are going to normally move in movement to contact or sneak as you want them too. Set your dismounted scout squads to Normal/Scout and have them work forward and then stop and hide when the find the enemy, no need to set the tatics on each move command. missinginreality: just saw your post. I agree if the animation protrayed a unit under "move" orders as being on patrol it would make sense. Also the description of the movement states in the manual make move sound less then useful. Right now "move" just looks like they're getting ready to load in the 5 ton to head out for their FTX, rather then in a combat zone. -Jenrick

If you've never had the experience of being in an enclosed space (ie indoors) when someone touches off a .308 (especially out of a shorter barrel), it's something. It's like being flash banged, which is not good for the rest of the good guys to be exposed to. Running suppressors would help with that quiet a bit I'll admit, but it'll still be worse then running a 5.56 platform with a suppressor. -Jenrick

The M14 is an improved Garand, no more no less. It was designed under a bunch of political red tape that led to it being less then it could have been, though more then it should have been. As a DMR rifle it works well due to the soldiers it's issued to. I would argue that give the same guys M16A4's and they'd be just as effective. The M14 is not a particularly accurate gun (we're talking factory built brand new, not reworked or tweaked) compared to say the M24. They are designed and spec'd to shoot approximately 2-2.5 MOA, just like the M16 family. Getting one down to 1 MOA or better requires at a minimum glass bedding, and often truing the receiver and fitting a new new barrel. Far as overheating/reliability the modern M16 is arguably more reliable when maintained correctly. Which contrary to all "wisdom" is almost dripping wet with lube when in a dusty or sandy environment. Will your rifle attract dirt and dust like nobodies business? Yes, but it will run just fine too. I does suck to clean later though. The M14 is a solid rifle, but it should not be consider as a direct replacement for the the M16. All of the worlds military's went to an intermediate power cartridge after WW2 due to the success it had during that conflict. Going back to a full power rifle cartridge for the main issue weapon is a step backward. -Jenrick

With a given cartridge flash is related to: Length of barrel Type of powder any muzzle device if fitted Primarily the flash is created by still burning gases exiting the barrel. A longer barrel gives the gas more time to finish combusting before venting. Certain types of powder ignite more quickly or burn more rapidly leading to less of a flash. Depending on the muzzle device fitted it can either increase or decrease the amount of flash observed. In day light small arms normally aren't going to produce a very obvious flash. There is one, but it's hard to see. At night even pistols will have a noticeable muzzle flash. Heavier caliber weapons increase the visible flash you get, making it more easily visible in day light. -Jenrick

Cipher, I likey. Gonna have to play with that this weekend. Nicely put together RadioactiveMan, without having enough HE or other assest to force a breach, that's not gonna be fun. As noted simply putting a terrain objective in the middle, and not giving blue force any CAS or artillery and the fight is on. Blue force might be able to force an entry through the back of building G, but that still leaves them open to fire form building G and E while moving to do so. Interesting positions and tactical questions presented gentleman. Good work. -Jenrick

With current capability of guided munitions the US can be slightly more precise then A&B, and only put ordinance on specific targets. The new small diameter bomb and the usage of gunships provides a CAS ability that is almost pinpoint. -Jenrick

They are 5 tons that are also amphibious. The weapons mounted on them tempt too many of us into using them as a supporting weapon. They are not. If you are in a situation where you have a .5KM+ standoff to park you AAV to utilize their firepower you MIGHT be okay. A single ATGM is going to make a lot of very unhappy grunts have to foot slog for the rest of the day. -Jenrick

Actually costard most of the discussion about the UI as far as artillery is concerned is the lack of a decent way to figure out how much ammo is left. -Jenrick

Only advantage I've seen is that an FO gets rounds in the air faster then any other blue force unit. The advantage of them being able to be more precise, call for fire more accurately out of LOS, etc. does not exist in game. An FO in a FSV should be able to do all sorts of fancy things in game that we don't have currently, shoot an FO in general should be able to do all sorts of fancy things that aren't in game. -Jenrick

No one going "+1" when they agree with a post off the top of my head. -Jenrick

For CAS I'd say you should be able to adjust the location at anytime short of ordinance being in the air. It's not like there's a physical 90 second period where the rounds been fired and it's in the air subject to nothing but physics. The aircraft may have to abort its pass and set up again if it's on a direct fire or dumb bomb run, but beyond that it shouldn't affect much. An aircraft dropping a PGM from 15k+ can change the impact point with ease even while the PGM's in the air (though I can understand not messing with that). An Apache at worst is going to have to move to onside or the other of the battlefield to have good terrain masking before launching, and that's assuming you tell it at the last minute that the target is now on the otherside of the battlefield. Actual CAS operations are going to have a running commentary on where moving targets are, where they appear to be heading, and how fast. The pilot should have a very good idea where everything is when they come in hot or pop up over a hill. -Jenrick

I'm w/ Cpl Stiener, I enjoy CMSF in spite of the interface. Playing RT w/ the current interface gets interesting and playing WEGO for me is a frustrating exercise is getting my thoughts turned into some semblance of orders (which invariably I do incorrectly somwhere around the first mouse click). RT is basically an RTS (Real Time Strategy, it's in the name right? Maybe real time tactical RTT?) focused on the units in the fight rather then creating in supporting infrastructure. Why not use conventions already in place in RTS games that have had quiet a while now to refine them? -Jenrick

In the mideast, Iraq at least the vast majority of your construction is gonna be brick or concrete. Interior furnishings might be flammable but as a structure it's not gonna go up in flames usually. -Jenrick

Historical records tend to bear out that few folks are actually wounded or killed by bayonets. Most of the time historically one unit or the other breaks and runs before contact is made. -Jenrick

I think one of the biggest issues that I'm seeing with CM:SF is that certain aspects of the game are 1:1 WYSIWYG while others are as abstract as hexes and activation counters. I don't mind the later, I cut my teeth on Squad Leader and love ASL dearly. I think that BF needs to be very clear to the population here, what is meant to be an abstraction and what is meant to be 1:1 WYSIWYG. If I assume my targeting for a unit is WYSIWYG and all I'm doing is dropping rounds into the middle of wall rather then the window I want, it's a bug. I know that this is based of the action spot and is an abstraction of area fire, then it's working as designed. Any game or simulation requires that user be familiar with the underlying rules and mechanics to make it function in a manner they desire. I think CM:SF has enough WYSIWYG elements to make most people assume the whole game is that way. A clearly outlined listing of major features/mechanics that are not WYSIWYG would help clarify a lot of that. Some very very good wargames have had very ungranular mechanics, but the big pictured worked almost perfectly. A far larger number have had exteremly detailed mechanics and simulation elements, and failed miserably as they were unplayable. CM:SF is doing fairly well in my book, but I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt on what is meant to be an abstraction and what is supposed to WYSIWYG. -Jenrick

Why not simply have Syrian UNCONS have no movement restrictions? Let them run through walls of buildings and regular walls. Just limit their movement rate a bit for game balance and call it a day? Simulates an UNCONS ability to slink about and move all over the place with little hindrance. Sure it'd be nice to have a good formula to figure out how long it'll take the two guys with the RPG to move through that window, but the end result is they got out the window right? I know BF wants a simulation of modern warfare, but until the action spots go the whole thing is still an abstraction. -Jenrick

I like the authors argument that the rifle squad could use more organic fire power, but I also agree with everyone here that you run into the issue of ammo and weight. I think that going so far as to include a mortar and SMAW team into every rifle squad is a bit over the top. I think that the M-32 provides a substantial upgrade to the organic firepower of the rifle squad, and allows them to engage targets beyond the conventional engagement profile of a rifle squad. Perhaps having one squad carry more M-32's and SAWS? Definitely a much smaller logistics trail for a measurable increase in infantry firepower. If a US infantry force runs into an enemy that is able to withstand the organic firepower of the squad or platoon that it encounters our forces need to be able to do 3 things. 1) Fix the enemy in place to prevent him from escaping 2) Maintain fire superiority to allow units to move away from the enemy so that they can... 3) Call in air power to kill the enemy Our ability to project air power is unmatched, and allows us to fight battles in a far more efficient manner then before. Why fire off a couple thousand rounds for each enemy, when you can just sit there and call in an F-15E who drop a 2000lb bomb on his position. Probably faster, and definitely safer for the guys on the ground. A pure infantry force hasn't been the "arm of decision" for a long time. As noted it's advantages are it's mobility, and it's relative invisibility. A pure infantry force used for offensive combat operations with no combined arms support is being purposely misused. -Jenrick

If I recall they were taking rounds and had minimal ammo and a bad tactical position. Rather then get picked off in the fire fight they were going to loose they decided to assault through the ambush just like your supposed to. As a police officer, I can say that having someone charge you with an edged weapon (when they've got a real chance of sticking/cutting your) is significantly more intimidating then being shot at. Being shot at is no fun, but it's a lot less personal then someone trying to perforate your hide with a manual implement. Now when some charges you with a home made spear from 60 feet away and you're behind cover, it's not real intimidating. Makes for good video as they deploy the bean bags rounds though. -Jenrick

Angryson: What weapon mod and uniform mod is that? Looks GREAT! -Jenrick

Right with Chainsaw on this. It's a battle taxi with a good long range support weapon on it. No need to get too close. -Jenrick

Well until they get rid of action spots the lack of friendly fire is really the only option. It's not too hard in reality to tell your SAW gunner and the rest of his fire team to put their rounds into "THAT" window to keep that UNCON sniper down while the rest of the squad goes in through the side door to grenade him out. At the moment though you can really only put fire on a whole floor's as the fire is geared to the action spot. -Jenrick