Jump to content

Troops Occupying Turrets Unrealistically Vulnerble To Small Arms


Recommended Posts

I never got my mitts on a Caiman to be honest, I just worked wtih MAXPROs and RG-31/33s.  For me maintenance nightmare they all were,  with their very limited mobility (you could go on the highway, and some of the larger roads, but we had a whole platoon get mobility killed by a field once (that our QRF in HMMWVs simply drove all over), and putting them into the muhallas was like watching a hippo crawl into a soupcan all made the "MRAP" as a tactical vehicle sort of marginal.  Also rollovers.  And recovery was a pain (like you needed a 10 ton wrecker, the MTV based ones we got downrange couldn't hack it).  Also getting out of one was a clownshow if you needed to do it quickly, we weren't in a "hot" spot by any stretch of the imagination, but a HMMWV convoy was spitting out dismounts like .5 seconds after it identified the need to do so.  MRAPs you just sort of sat there and waited 30 seconds before someone's boots hit the ground.

 

Also within our organization at least, it only really added two to three dismounts to your total force (we either rolled in four HMMWVs with the VC and back passengers dismounting, or three MRAPs, which eliminated the need for one HMMWV crew).  Weapons mounted were same as HMMWVs etc.

 

They're really good for taking people and small cargo up and down MSRs that are going to be seeded with IEDs, or for EOD type stuff were secondary devices are pretty likely.  But I'd go as far as to guess even the Caiman is simply really good at the previous tasks, and of less utility otherwise.  

Edited by panzersaurkrautwerfer
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 83
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Cover .. Fast move order.. Pause for 15 seconds, target briefly reverse into cover .. Repeat

I've played all the campaigns in CM-Black Sea, and I have noticed that soldiers occupying turrets in HUMMWVs are unrealistically vulnerable to small arms fire. I've had HUMMWVs engage dismounted troop

HMMWV gunners seem to survive ok the way I use them; providing covering fire and (generous) area fire from keyholed positions. I fairly frequently run them dry of ammo, in fact! In my experience, w

Posted Images

The reason you see them in Iraq and Afghanistan has to do with the fact they're designed to handle IEDs and the like.  Korea is a good illustration because of all US Brigade Combat Teams, it's the only one that realistically could be in a shooting war within the span of hours.  In a conventional shooting war (like the one portrayed in CMBS), MRAP style vehicles are pretty bad.  They're big and heavy, do not like going off road, don't carry enough cargo, don't carry weapons much better than HMMWVs, and in terms of direct fire type weapons systems, they're not really much better armored than a uparmored HMMWV.

 

So to that end the wheeled vehicles in Korea were a transitioning mix of the old unarmored HMMWVs, with the various uparmored models.  The MRAPs were again offered to replace some of the HMMWVs, but they're a really poor fit to someone who's not planning on fighting insurgents in Iraq/Afghanistan. 

You haven't assessed some of the combat damage of both vehicles, i have seen caimens  take the equivilant of 120mm EFP and send it ricotting to the dirt where a hmmv would be annilated(we had 5 hit and totaled and the crew walked away unharmed). the MRAPS and such you see in the states are not armored for combat. i will not get into specifics because of opsec but they are way better than hmmvs and they can also carry dismounts. thats really all i am comfortable giving up as far as theye capabilities but im afraid you are wrong about them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I never got my mitts on a Caiman to be honest, I just worked wtih MAXPROs and RG-31/33s.  For me maintenance nightmare they all were,  with their very limited mobility (you could go on the highway, and some of the larger roads, but we had a whole platoon get mobility killed by a field once (that our QRF in HMMWVs simply drove all over), and putting them into the muhallas was like watching a hippo crawl into a soupcan all made the "MRAP" as a tactical vehicle sort of marginal.  Also rollovers.  And recovery was a pain (like you needed a 10 ton wrecker, the MTV based ones we got downrange couldn't hack it).  Also getting out of one was a clownshow if you needed to do it quickly, we weren't in a "hot" spot by any stretch of the imagination, but a HMMWV convoy was spitting out dismounts like .5 seconds after it identified the need to do so.  MRAPs you just sort of sat there and waited 30 seconds before someone's boots hit the ground.

 

Also within our organization at least, it only really added two to three dismounts to your total force (we either rolled in four HMMWVs with the VC and back passengers dismounting, or three MRAPs, which eliminated the need for one HMMWV crew).  Weapons mounted were same as HMMWVs etc.

 

They're really good for taking people and small cargo up and down MSRs that are going to be seeded with IEDs, or for EOD type stuff were secondary devices are pretty likely.  But I'd go as far as to guess even the Caiman is simply really good at the previous tasks, and of less utility otherwise.  

Yes MAXPRO's and RG33's are a nightmare. packsled/ quick disconnects my ass <rolls eyes>. yes dismount is slower but it carries more men as well. They are good at one thing, getting blown up and living through it but survival of your combat forces is crucial. what good are dismounts in they are crispy critters.

 

Caimens are a dream to work on compared to the former. think MTV with an armored bucket. as stated in my last post i dont want to get down on specs but they are good vehicles and they do have they're weaknesses. bottom line i would roll any mrap/caimen/rg33 before a hmmv any day unless it was a recon unit or....special forces they do whatever they want lol. ohh and i do see the utility in afganistan and thats why they are still used there. the replacement for the hmmv looks interesting i havent touched them yet though. i have seen them at field problems though.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

You haven't assessed some of the combat damage of both vehicles, i have seen caimens  take the equivilant of 120mm EFP and send it ricotting to the dirt where a hmmv would be annilated(we had 5 hit and totaled and the crew walked away unharmed). the MRAPS and such you see in the states are not armored for combat. i will not get into specifics because of opsec but they are way better than hmmvs and they can also carry dismounts. thats really all i am comfortable giving up as far as theye capabilities but im afraid you are wrong about them.

 

Would you care to show me where the EFPs fall under Russian MTOE?

 

Neither an MRAP, or a HMMWV will react positively to much more than limited HMG fire.  That much is a fact, ATGMs, tank fire, autocannons all will ruin them just as hard.  Against small arms they're both about as robust.  The MRAP type of vehicles deals with IEDs quite well, but in CMBS there's no Russian Motor Rifle Regiments out placing pressure plate EFPs, or strapping 152 MM artillery shells under highway overpasses.  It just is not any more survivable against most threats, and even further it comes with appalling drawbacks in mobility and a massive size.

 

The MRAP is a great COIN vehicle.  The HMMWV is the much better choice for the majority of light truck type missions however.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

Would you care to show me where the EFPs fall under Russian MTOE?

Neither an MRAP, or a HMMWV will react positively to much more than limited HMG fire. That much is a fact, ATGMs, tank fire, autocannons all will ruin them just as hard. Against small arms they're both about as robust. The MRAP type of vehicles deals with IEDs quite well, but in CMBS there's no Russian Motor Rifle Regiments out placing pressure plate EFPs, or strapping 152 MM artillery shells under highway overpasses. It just is not any more survivable against most threats, and even further it comes with appalling drawbacks in mobility and a massive size.

The MRAP is a great COIN vehicle. The HMMWV is the much better choice for the majority of light truck type missions however.

Apparently we are getting some realistically-inspired unconventional factions such as DPR, Russian Voluteers and Ukrainian nationalists in one of the earliest modules. I'm not sure how much they use IEDs..they probably get enough better stuff donated to them to not even bother with IEDs. The US would probably still rather send HMMWVS over MRAPS for the lower profile silhouette against tanks and ATGMS.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Would you care to show me where the EFPs fall under Russian MTOE?

 

Neither an MRAP, or a HMMWV will react positively to much more than limited HMG fire.  That much is a fact, ATGMs, tank fire, autocannons all will ruin them just as hard.  Against small arms they're both about as robust.  The MRAP type of vehicles deals with IEDs quite well, but in CMBS there's no Russian Motor Rifle Regiments out placing pressure plate EFPs, or strapping 152 MM artillery shells under highway overpasses.  It just is not any more survivable against most threats, and even further it comes with appalling drawbacks in mobility and a massive size.

 

The MRAP is a great COIN vehicle.  The HMMWV is the much better choice for the majority of light truck type missions however.  

Like i said there is A LOT more armor on a mrap than a hmmv and it does not just stop efp's, RPG's are ineffective unless maybe a shot from the top. and a mrap can definatly shrug off 50 cal fire. also like i said im not getting into technical specs and being the only way i can prove my point is to show my pics and reveal what i know about them we will just have to agree to disagree. they do have a weakness but once again... =D. as far as their mobility unless some dumbass grunt drives them through a swamp (which they do for no reason what so ever all the damn time) there are no mobility issues.

Link to post
Share on other sites

ill share this one just to show what a armored caimen looks like. this one was a victim of that dumbass grunt i was talking about.You can see these and possibly this very one im not sure at the ft hood museum.

post-73503-0-56406400-1430442634_thumb.j

post-73503-0-89225100-1430443199_thumb.j

Edited by iluvmy88
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Like i said there is A LOT more armor on a mrap than a hmmv and it does not just stop efp's, RPG's are ineffective unless maybe a shot from the top. and a mrap can definatly shrug off 50 cal fire.

 

That's fine, but:

 

1. It still won't do terribly much against modern AT weapons.

 

2. The drawbacks of the rest of the vehicle far outweigh the improved surviability against certain threats

 

3. It's a really poor match for what HMMWVs do in the not-OIF/OEF operating environment (it's a bad scout vehicle, and it's simply too big for the weapons carrier roles, and not even worth considering for the "jeep" type missions).

 

The Army has come to a similar choice and has cut slingload on nearly the entire MRAP fleet.  There's really no place for them in CMBS unless we get into some Russian insurgents after Ukraine retakes Donbass sort of scenario.   

Link to post
Share on other sites

That's fine, but:

 

1. It still won't do terribly much against modern AT weapons.

 

2. The drawbacks of the rest of the vehicle far outweigh the improved surviability against certain threats

 

3. It's a really poor match for what HMMWVs do in the not-OIF/OEF operating environment (it's a bad scout vehicle, and it's simply too big for the weapons carrier roles, and not even worth considering for the "jeep" type missions).

 

The Army has come to a similar choice and has cut slingload on nearly the entire MRAP fleet.  There's really no place for them in CMBS unless we get into some Russian insurgents after Ukraine retakes Donbass sort of scenario.   

 i made a big reply but i just dont feel like arguing this anymore. if you want a simulation it should simulate. combat arms is about 30% of the army bottom line route security/QRF any mission where you are protecting your supplies is where the mrap shines and the hmmv is to be honest largly usless in a larger scale war which they really are in this game which is what the post was about to begin with. just take them out if they serve no purpose i can mount my scouts in a bradley since that is what 100% of the army does<sarcasm>. as it is the hmmv serves no purpose ingame if the gunner doesnt have at least realistic survive-ability against small arms. your more likely to blind the driver by shooting up his window than kill the gunner with a 7.62.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

combat arms is about 30% of the army bottom line

 

That it is.  However it is about 90% of what CMBS focuses on.  It's why we don't see the 1SG's M113 or M1068s and the supply sergeant's truck simulated in game.  

 

 

 

 route security

 

Done by MPs in M117s and HMMWVs, or FSC internal HMMWVs.  In a high intensity fight there's not time for the enemy to set up insurgent cells, start burying IEDs, etc.  You're worried about die-hard enemy leakers, bypassed small elements, or locals that would really like some of your MREs and they're not partial to "no."  HMMWV is more than good enough to do those sort of missions.  

 

 

 

QRF 

 

Our BN QRF for a shooting war with the DPRK was a tank platoon.  Just sayn' once armor enters the picture, some big truck isn't going to mean much.  They're good if you're QRFing to guys with AKs and sandals though!

 

 

 

hmmv is to be honest largly usless in a larger scale war which they really are in this game which is what the post was about to begin with. just take them out if they serve no purpose i can mount my scouts in a bradley since that is what 100% of the army does

 

HMMWVs serve the following remaining purposes:

 

1. Some scout formations.  They're a good way to move optics around, and for IBCTs, keep scouts a few terrain features ahead of the main body.  They were however always a bad match for ABCT scouts so they're rightly going away.

 

2. IBCT weapons carriers.  It's a thing that needs to be air-transportable, and generally able to follow dismounted infantry off road and into difficult terrain.  MRAPs can do neither of these things.

 

3. Battlefield mobility for small teams.  Chaplain's got to get around somehow.  

 

4. Rear area security.  Again this isn't 2003 Iraq or Afghanistan last week.  

 

 

as it is the hmmv serves no purpose ingame if the gunner doesnt have at least realistic survive-ability against small arms. your more likely to blind the driver by shooting up his window than kill the gunner with a 7.62.

 

An MRAP is just as likely to have this fate.  Again, much tougher against some threats, but not well designed for a high intensity fight.  Army recognizes this, and it's why the MRAP is going into storage for the next time it looks like Iraq all over again.

Link to post
Share on other sites

An MRAP is just as likely to have this fate.  Again, much tougher against some threats, but not well designed for a high intensity fight.  Army recognizes this, and it's why the MRAP is going into storage for the next time it looks like Iraq all over again.

 

I think the Marines came to the same conclusion: :D

 

2013-08-02-Strip_283_MRAP_web_zpsichzrtb

 

Driving an MRAP sucks. What sucks even more is trying to explain to civilians what an MRAP is. Everyone knows the infamous “humvee,” but then you're like, “Yeah I was a turret gunner in an MRAP,” and they look at you like you just pooped on a baby’s forehead, so you have to sit there and break it down, “It’s like a giant SUV covered in armor.”

 

Okay that might be an exaggeration, but back to the point, driving an MRAP sucks. I was unlucky enough to be selected to get my MRAP license during my 2nd trip to Mojave Viper prior to my 2nd deployment to Iraq. Driving an MRAP is laden with subtleties in technique; for instance, in order to stay straight along the narrow two-lane highway from Camp Wilson to Twentynine Palms mainside, you have to narrowly line up the seam of the engine vents in front of you with the lines on the road. You can't actually tell if you're in the lanes using the mirrors and especially not using the windows–which are laughably tiny for such a massive vehicle–so you have to basically pray to whatever god you worship that you're not swerving all over or off the road entirely.

 

The worst part of it was the night-time, off-road course at Camp Wilson. I basically almost killed about 5 Marines when the vehicle came about a hair away from rolling over off the side of a hill. The tall stature and top-heaviness of the vehicle causes it to sway in exponential momentum, which is especially awful when you’re a turret gunner of one of these things, which I was during the majority of my first deployment. I didn't mind, actually, I got used to it. I actually enjoyed the MRAP more than any other vehicle, it was higher up and I felt like I had my own little world in the lead vehicle; a nest of pen-flares, flags, grenades and beanie-babies.

 

http://terminallance.com/2013/08/02/terminal-lance-283-mine-resistant-ambush-protected/

Edited by LukeFF
Link to post
Share on other sites

OT

As someone with no experience and very little knowledge about this stuff I wondered if someone could tell me if MRAPs like this  [short gif of IED] are supposed to withstand that kind of explosion? Throwing 12t into the air sure looks impressive and somewhat unhealthy for the crew but I'm unsure about the actual lethality because it's a Taliban propaganda video and they included other "kicks up lots of dirt" explosions that didn't really damage anything aswell as an RPG attack on one of those things with lots of fancy hot metal flying around but according to wiki the warhead had almost no chance to penetrate.

Edited by Kraft
Link to post
Share on other sites

Partly as a result of how much of an IED our MRAPs could shrug off, and partly because of our various jammer/spoofers, the Iraqi IED cells in our AO more or less stopped trying to bomb American convoys, and instead focused on the Iraqis, as they were still rolling with like fiddy guys in the back of a F-150.  The really big IEDs are still going to do some serious damage/get kills, but placing the one similar to the one in the GIF is a major investment of time and resources, unlike the common IED which is quite a bit less impressive.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

Something I don't know. Was there any enemy ATGM action in Iraq/Afghanistan? I mean after the initial invasion. I don't recall reading of any. I remember *something* hit an Abrams during the run north to Bagdad and the Pentagon absolutely freaked. They initially thought it was a Kornet and started threatening Syria with hell & damnation for supplying the weapon to Iraq - but it turned out it wasn't and they didn't.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi guys, would you say the vulnerability bug effects all vehicles or just the HMMWV?

I am playing through the Russian campaign I am wondering if the tiger gunners are affected also, although I know the tiger gunner has no where near the amount of protection the HMMWV gunner has...

Thanks

Edited by highlandcharge
Link to post
Share on other sites

Something I don't know. Was there any enemy ATGM action in Iraq/Afghanistan? I mean after the initial invasion. I don't recall reading of any. I remember *something* hit an Abrams during the run north to Bagdad and the Pentagon absolutely freaked. They initially thought it was a Kornet and started threatening Syria with hell & damnation for supplying the weapon to Iraq - but it turned out it wasn't and they didn't.

 

There were a handful of suspected shots from old weapons out of Saddam's toybox (Mulans), but I don't recall any serious threat. It wouldn't surprise me if there were a few -- some insurgents definitely got their hands on MANPADS so it isn't as if they couldn't get relatively modern and effective weapons.

Edited by Apocal
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

Would you care to show me where the EFPs fall under Russian MTOE?

 

Neither an MRAP, or a HMMWV will react positively to much more than limited HMG fire.  That much is a fact, ATGMs, tank fire, autocannons all will ruin them just as hard.  Against small arms they're both about as robust.  The MRAP type of vehicles deals with IEDs quite well, but in CMBS there's no Russian Motor Rifle Regiments out placing pressure plate EFPs, or strapping 152 MM artillery shells under highway overpasses.  It just is not any more survivable against most threats, and even further it comes with appalling drawbacks in mobility and a massive size.

 

The MRAP is a great COIN vehicle.  The HMMWV is the much better choice for the majority of light truck type missions however.  

efp is essentiallty a ghetto armor peircing round so anything with armor piercing can apply here, RPG is somewhat the same premise and actually weaker than the EFP's i have seen. I dont know why your defending the HMMv so adimitly when it too is a dead vehicle. they are all being replaced because they have NO survivability to anything beyond small arms fire AKA anything beyond 7.62 will penetrate or mobility kill the vehicle. your assumption that mraps are just lumbering beasts. the caimen especially was extremly mobile being built on the MTV chasis with a CAT 10 engine. its only limits where slopes and its driver. HMMV's will not be in serviece and see limited if any combat service now let alone in 2017.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

MRAPs are not replacing Humvees in brigade TO&E. 

 

Times infinity.  The HMMWV will remain in service until there's a replacement vehicle in the form of the JLTV.  In no unit, organization, or location is the MRAP anything but a theater issued piece of equipment.  

 

 

 

your assumption that mraps are just lumbering beasts.

 

I watched one tip over while parked, and we had a whole platoon of them get mobility killed crossing a field that supported literally every other wheeled vehicle we owned.  It's not an assumption.  They're mobile as long as there's a road. 

 

 

 

I dont know why your defending the HMMv 

 

Because using the MRAP to do what the HMMWV does in conventional organizations during conventional full spectrum operations would be moronic.  I think of if I'd had MRAPs in lieu of my HQ HMMWVs, and I'd simply have not taken them out of the motorpool, and opted to purchase a Daewoo on the economy. 

 

 

HMMV's will not be in serviece and see limited if any combat service now let alone in 2017.

 

 

Oddly enough we got fielded brand new uparmored ones to replace our unarmored ones at my last unit.  Clearly someone is putting a lot of effort into giving us new HMMWVs for twenty four months or so by your guess, especially after shipping all the MRAPs they tried to foist on us out of country.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've had my gunners in Strykers be killed by small arms fire, especially PKM's, despite the RWS. It's really weird to see a burst of small arms fire hit around the weapon mount and my gunner somehow get killed or even wounded. Anybody experience something similar? 

Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.army-technology.com/features/featureend-of-an-icon-the-rise-and-fall-of-the-humvee-4381884/

 

hmmv is being replaced by JLTV which is a mrap/hmmv crossover

 

http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/land/vehicles/2015/02/10/companies-submit-jltv-proposals/23184429/

 

and one of the competing designs, laugh it up but its comming.

 

http://www.lockheedmartin.com/us/products/jltv.html

 

 

Towards the end of the iraq war hmmvs where not used at all by the army because theyre armor cat was considered unsatisfactory (the exception possibly being the marines, but im not a marine...). they still see use in afganistan but you will never see a unarmored hmmv going out of the wire or at all really (they are used in the game). i wonder why they would take design features from the hmmv and meld them with the mrap....maybe because they both had great qaulities but alone had glaring faults, the hmmv being nearly unsurvivable to modern weapons and the mrap with its high profile.

Edited by iluvmy88
Link to post
Share on other sites

I've had my gunners in Strykers be killed by small arms fire, especially PKM's, despite the RWS. It's really weird to see a burst of small arms fire hit around the weapon mount and my gunner somehow get killed or even wounded. Anybody experience something similar?

Is it because they are reloading? They seem to always catch a bullet when they pop out to reload.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...