AA Guns

[Lt Belenko]

Will the AA shoot at planes?

[Sequoia]

I'd like to know this myself.

[togi]

I guess AA is only for ground targets

[MikeyD]

CMFI already has an AA weapon in the form of the Breda 20mm and that doesn't engage aircraft. I believe their original intent was to hold back on AA guns until actual AA behavior was coded. But the wait grew longer than expected so they threw up their hands and decided to include the weapons beforehand. That my interpretation of events, anyway.

[Sequoia]

Shooting at planes in update 3.0 likely then?

[Lt Belenko]

Shooting at planes in update 3.0 likely then?

Maybe planes in 3.0 get shot down and start fires!!.

[Battlefront.com]

MikeyD is correct. The original intention was to hold back on AAA weapons (as a rule) until we had air to ground combat coded. However, we have continually pushed that down on our list as there are more things important since ground to air combat in the scope of a CM battle would be pretty rare in real life. Heck, even air to ground combat is pretty questionable for CM (WW2 at least).

On the use of AAA weapons against ground troops is definitely far more common. And exciting So we decided to put the AAA vehicles/guns in now without ground to air combat.

Steve

[jakla1027]

Ok so with the addition of AA guns, what are we going to see in terms of rate of fire or type of fire for these weapon platforms? Full auto continuous fire( for several seconds) or burst fire (for 1-3 seconds)? Take the M16 GMC for instance, are those quad .50's going to shoot the same type of burst fire we see already in game with the ground deployed M2 HMG? Or since the M16 is an AA weapon is it going to be able to open up with all four guns simultaneously for 5-10 (or longer) seconds of continuous fire, thus putting a massive amount/volume of fire on target?

Just thought id see what kind of firepower were talking about here. Cuz prolonged full auto fire from a quad .50 would be pretty awesome to see & devastating to use!

[jakla1027]

Opps double post

[jakla1027]

Ok so with the addition of AA guns, what are we going to see in terms of rate of fire or type of fire for these gun? Full auto continuous fire( for several seconds) or burst fire (for 1-3 seconds)? Take the M16 GMC for instance, are those quad .50's going to shoot the same type of burst fire we see already in game with the ground deployed M2 HMG? Or since the M16 is an AA weapon is it going to be able to open up with all four guns simultaneously for 5-10 (or longer) seconds of continuous fire, thus putting a massive amount/volume of fire on target?

Just thought id see what kind of firepower were talking about here. Cuz prolonged full auto fire from a quad .50 would be pretty awesome to see & devastating to use!

[jakla1027]

bump

Also sorry guys about the double post, i was posting that reply via my Android smartphone and well.....it was being much smarter than me:rolleyes:

[jakla1027]

Ok some questions regarding Self Propelled AA's.

The following are some things that i hope will be covered by BF staff sometime before release of the Gustav Line Module.

I'm going to use the American M16 GMC as an example here, other AA platforms i do not wish in anyway to degrade or complain about. The M16 is just the best that comes to mind for these potential circumstances.

So if the M16 is in battle and the quad .50 gunner gets wounded or killed by enemy fire, will other crew members take over the gunner position like tank crews do? Can Infantry enter the M16 and use the quad .50 mount? (like they can on a regular halftrack)

Now back to my earlier post about the quad .50 and it's rate of fire/type of fire. Im thinking of this in a QB setup, say i want to purchase an M16 for my QB. Now im guessing it'll cost more to purchase the M16 compared to the price of purchasing four individual M2 HMG crews. Now if the M16 GMC is shooting its quad .50 in slow meticulous well aimed bursts, that's great! However that quad. 50 & M16 GMC could be knocked out in one or two hits, to the gunner, halftrack knocked out ect. thus I've lost all four of them 50cals. Now instead of purchasing the M16, what if i would of bought four individual M2 HMG's? I could keep them spread out, but yet close enough together so they could fire at the same target. Now if they come under fire & i lose one or two gunners or one or two whole guns, i still have the other M2 HMG's in play to help in the battle.

So why would it better or justifiably to buy one 16 GMC compared to the four individual M2 HMG? I'm guess the M16 has more overall ammo storage, but if it takes a few hits, wham all four guns are potentially knocked out of the battle. So if the M16 isn't bringing any higher rates of fire/longer continuous burst of fire to the battle, whats the advantage of buying one M16 compared to four individual M2'S. Now granted the M16 you could move around the battlefield faster than those poor Joe's lugging a Ma Duce over their should, but yet you could tell them to get in a jeep to move about the battlefield. Like I've previously mentioned the M16 probably carries a lot more .50 cal ammo. (which can ground troop embark an M16 to pick up .50 cal ammo?)

Anywho I got to cut this short but I hope to get these questions concerns answered.

Thanks for any input.

[akd]

Or since the M16 is an AA weapon is it going to be able to open up with all four guns simultaneously for 5-10 (or longer) seconds of continuous fire, thus putting a massive amount/volume of fire on target?

Being an AA weapon confers no special ability for these units to fire continuously without consequence. An aircraft attack last a few seconds, so requires only a brief moment of continuous cyclic rate fire. However, if the system is engaging ground targets it will probably need to sustain fire over a much longer period of time. There is really no reason for it function differently than any other vehicle-mounted system. Multiple barrels will of course lead to a multiplication of rate of fire.

[Boche]

I just say think of the Shilka in Shock Force, just ofcourse less epic

[womble]

So if the M16 is in battle and the quad .50 gunner gets wounded or killed by enemy fire, will other crew members take over the gunner position like tank crews do?

I can't remember seeing whether CMBN v2 or the patch has fixed the issue where, at least in FI, the crew of SPGs won't reshuffle roles without dismounting and remounting. AIUI, they're supposed to, but that has, at least in some versions of the software, not been reliably occurring as it should.

Can Infantry enter the M16 and use the quad .50 mount? (like they can on a regular halftrack)

Most "weapon" halftracks (Stummel, T30 and the like) are like tanks in that they can only be operated by their original crew. I think. They're different to the pintle or skate ring mounted guns in the infantry's rides.

...why would it better or justifiably to buy one 16 GMC compared to the four individual M2 HMG?...

Any number of reasons: more ammo, you've mentioned; better concentration of fire (keeping 4 Ma Deuce in position to fire on the same target is likely to draw mortar fire, since they'll probably not be too well keyholed); mobility, you've mentioned (the 4 jeeps to shift the teams around will nearly triple the cost of the 4 M2s, and the M16 will not have setup and takedown times, so can scoot better when those direct lay mortars start dropping little presents nearby).

The individual M2s have other advantages too: they're harder to spot; they can go into buildings; they can go into thick woods; they can cross deep fords.

Whether you'd be "justified" in buying one on a points efficiency basis depends on two things: the context in which you're employing the system; the precise points and rarity cost of the system.

Other candidates for the role you're considering is the straight M3 halftrack with a .50cal (1 pt more than the standard M3), the White Scout car and the Jeep with .50cal. The jeep with .50cal is only 8 points more expensive than an unarmed Jeep. So perhaps an M16 GMC would be 32 points more expensive than an standard M3, which would make it cost a bit less than the 4 individual teams.

[MikeyD]

I remember initially pooh poohing the introduction of Shilka into CM as another mere 'target' vehicle. I certainly had to eat my words in that case! Shilka (in CMSF and CM:Afghanistan) vastly exceeded my expectations.

That being said, Shilka and M16 are going to share something else, they're both as porous to incoming fire as tissue paper. I use to work with an old WWII jungle fighter. He said they got into the habit of removing the gunner's armor bucket on M16 quad mounts because bullets would often pierce the plate then rattle around inside, chewing up the gunner. Better to have one clean bullet hole than that.

[Sequoia]

I'm really pleased we're getting AA guns. A question though; the Germans will be getting the sdkfz 7/1 and 7/2. I believe the sdkfz 10/4 20mm FLAK was fairly common and by appearences would be a better frontline vehicle. I think they fit the timeframe too. I know we can't have everything, but thought I'd ask.