Firing Ranges Linearity

[Guest R Cunningham]

Some comments about ranges and numbers:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Actually I would hold that a huge amount of infantry training is involved in instilling the necessary obedience in troops to get them to close to close range of the enemy and thus unleash deadly fire on them.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is not correct. Indeed the mission of the infantry is close with the enemy by means of fire and movement to defeat or capture him, or repel his assault by fire, close combat and counterattack. But most training focuses on the basic skills of individual movement, fire discipline, coordination, command and control, not simply discipline and obedience. Soldiers must be inculcated with a spirit of aggressiveness not blind obedience. The modern infantryman has to do a lot more than charge at the enemy.

The model infantry attack establishes a base of fire to suppress the enemy and this is not done at close range. The assault element maneuvers to the objective and assaults when the support element shifts fire to allow the assault to be made. The idea is not to have to have a shoot out at 40 meters. Suppress the enemy and when you assault him he will surrender or get cut down not because you're comparing the firepower of your toys, but because he is unable to respond effectively. Heavy weapons like MGs are best employed at ranges beyond 40 meters.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Look at the M16... It simply isn't designed to fire beyond 200 metres.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is also incorrect. The effective range of the M16 is 400 meters. During qualification soldiers must engage targets out to 300 meters. Rounds will travel further of course, but accuracy over iron sights is poor. At 300 meters a man-sized target is smaller than the front sight post.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Real war isn't like that all - no dang soldier, says, my gun does 50 more fp over 200m than this other gun, so I'll do this ...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Exactly. This firepower modeling encourages gamey play. Because the game has to abstract firepower this way, the sly player can use the abstraction itself to his advantage. This is the case with most, if not all wargames. In the old SL days it was "if I engage at 6 hexes my German squads have full firepower while his British troops are halved."

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Not true Col - real life training is all about effective weapons ranges, and playing to your advantages. Granted, that doesn't come down to calculating FPs, but it is the same thing in practice.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Soldiers learn the range bracket of their weapons and some info about the enemy's weapons. But no one has any quantifiable idea of how much more effective his personal firepower is at 50m versus 200m. Sure he knows that he is more likely to hit at a closer range but he doesn't have a personal firepower rating or any notion of how much better he is against close range targets. Likewise leaders do not not that they are 20% more capable at 100m than 200m. Leaders will know the general markmanship abilities of their soldiers, nothing more. Jones can't hit ****, but Jackson gets 40 out of 40 every time. Info like this is used when distributing item like night sights, assigning soldiers to scout element sniper teams etc.

CMs numbers give a false sense of battle as a very scientific and quantifiable event. It has to do this for the game to work. There has to be a mathematical representation

of the weapons of each side to approximate an engagement. There are too many variables in the real situation to deal with for the model to be anything but an approximation. Soldier fatigue, morale, training level, marksmanship ability, level of identification with the unit etc are all factors that can only be addressed superficially in a game like CM. Maybe one day in CM 5 individual soldiers can be modeled and some more of this taken into account. Imagine a CM where every soldier is tracked like tanks are now... each bullet followed from muzzle to impact. Even then though production of firepower graphs that allow you to compare your units to that of the enemy are a by product of the game design and not a representation of the reality of a battlefield. And I would argue that this goes against the seat-of-the-pants philosophy of CM as previously expressed in the debate about OOB overview screens

[Fionn]

Cunningham,

Ok, blind obedience was a bad term.. Discipline and knowledge might be a better term.

Still, I still feel the whole thing revolves around getting close to the enemy (necessitating suppression) and then unleashing fire on them.

The rifle 44 squad is weaker at close range than a US squad but I follow the same tactics because it isn't firepower alone which determines what one should do but rather it is simply if you can bring EFFECTIVE fire to bear when the enemy can't. If you have lower maximal firepower but the enemy is pinned by 3 HMGs then you should be able to close assault and win easily.

*sigh* about the M16... Ok, I shouldn't have said design.. I should have said "It can't deliver effective fire out beyond 200 metres". Same point really. My basic point is that when it was designed it was designed with a view to engaging targets within 200 metres. And THAT is simple fact.

I don't think this goes against the seat of the pants philosophy since it isn't as though anyone is advocating people looking at lists of charts during play.

We DO have people on this board who don't know the difference between an M18 and a Tiger or an LMG42 and a HMG42. Charts etc are VERY useful learning tools for these guys.

[Guest R Cunningham]

I don't think it matters if there are players who don't know anything about Tigers and Hellcats or M2 HMGs or MG42s. I'm talking about a mathematially driven, statistical style of play that has been around as long as wargames have. This is the style that was always embraced by the old Squad Leader Clinic articles in the General where they told you the math the drives the game.

I think it would be better to let players learn for themselves what works best or maybe have some general pointers on tactics or unit strengths and weaknesses to guide them. Something like: "The German SMG squad is very powerful at short range an ineffective at long ranges. Best used in close terrain where it can use its firepower to best advantage." As opposed to a detailed diagram showing exactly how firepower drops as range increases.

The system should reward real-world tactics and not the guy with the most spreadsheets.

I dispute your "fact" regarding the M16. If the US Army trains soldiers to engage and hit targets at 300m, why then would the design spec only call for a weapon that is only effective at 200m? Before qualification, soldiers must zero their weapon by firing at a special zero target that has a scaled target silhouette that represents a target at 300m. In order to move to the qualification range, soldiers must get 5 of 6 consecutive shots within a 4 centimeter circle on that target.

Oops I was wrong. The max effective range of the M16 is 550 meters. Sorry about that.

http://w3.pica.army.mil/pmsa/weapons/M16A2fact.htm

This is the Project Manager for Small Arms for the US army fact sheet.

From FM 7-8:

For those interested, most Army FM's are available to view online at:

http://www.adtdl.army.mil/atdls.htm

[Kurtz]

Nowadays it isn´t the assault rifle´s effective range that is the limit, it´s the range of the portable anti-armour weapons. If you want to shoot at troops you generally have to get them out of their AFV first.

The practical range of, for example, the AT4(M136?) is 200 m against stationary targets.(I am aware of the fact that the theoretical Dmax is considerably more than that )

[Sten]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

CMs numbers give a false sense of battle as a very scientific and quantifiable event.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

I think it would be better to let players learn for themselves what works best or maybe have some general pointers on tactics or unit strengths and weaknesses to guide them. Something like: "The German SMG squad is very powerful at short range an ineffective at long ranges. Best used in close terrain where it can use its firepower to best advantage." As opposed to a detailed diagram showing exactly how firepower drops as range increases.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't really agree.

I think most of the guys that look repeatedley at the numbers will soon realise that this does not make them very good commanders. CM will clearly prove that that type of number crunching is artificial, to say the least.

I looked at the numbers initially, to get a feel for each units capabilities. Very quickly this becomes second nature and the exact values are no longer interesting to me.

It really doesn't matter if a player likes to calculate things in minute detail. They can try, but CM's system will punish such an attitude severly. They will lose. The only way to win is to use "realistic" tactics.

When it comes to chosing which distance to open fire on, I almost never open up with an infantry squad on the defense on anything >50m, even if I've got rifles against SMGs. The sheer numbers might be in my favour at 250m but what can I hope to acomplish? The best I can hope for is that I'll kill one guy a slow down the rest. By remaning hidden and open fire on 40m I'll almost certainly kill half a squad with my first volley and I might even kill off the rest before they realise where the fire is coming from. And this is rifles vs. SMGs. This point is even more valid he other way around.

And never forget that when fighting in terrain and under weather conditions that allows long lines of sight you (as the defender) don't ever want to give the attacker a target. Even if you do got rifles vs. SMGs. If you can see the SMG squad, they can see you, once you go out of hiding. You can count on that several more of the attackers (and his support weapons) can see you if you chose to open fire. Better then to hide, out of the attackers LOS, and wait for the first enemy infantry to appear.

As the defender, the only units I usually set up in LOS of the attacker are the arty spotters. Even a HMG will be knocked out in seconds if the attackers support weapons can see it, once they realize where it is.

Sten

[Fionn]

R Cunningham,

What you are doing in this mail is one of the mistakes people make with statistics. Through either a misunderstanding of the statistics or a willful misrepresentation statistics are used to support a flawed point...

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> I don't think it matters if there are players who don't know anything about Tigers and Hellcats or M2 HMGs or MG42s. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I can assure you that it matters to THOSE players. If YOU don't care about giving these players info in a manner they can understand and digest then that is your business. In my opinion it is important to give them information about weapons systems so that they can appreciate the abilities of those weapons systems. That we have internalised this information many years ago is of no consequence to these inexperienced players. It is NOW their turn to internalise this info.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> I'm talking about a mathematially driven, statistical style of play that has been around as long as wargames have. This is the style that was always embraced by the old Squad Leader Clinic articles in the General where they told you the math the drives the game. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That is what you are talking about but NOT what I and I think Jason are discussing. The very first time we heard the designation M16A2 we didn't know what it was.. Then we were told it was a rifle, then we were given some data about it which helped further our understanding of the weapon.

We ALL learn about historical weapons systems through the internalisation of DATA. Presenting that data in a more effectively and beginner-friendly manner is NOT an incitement to beancounter play. it is MERELY a way to ensure that these beginners and others who have played wargames but mightn't be acquainted with all the ramifications etc at this scale can obtain the information in an easily internalised format.

If I say, the HMG42 is a great close-in weapon but provide no proof for it then this statement benefits people little. IF, on the other hand, I say it is a good close-in weappon but a better long-range weapon and show a graph of its firepower vs range which players can look at and internalise then:

a) I'll have provided some proof to back my point.

I'll have provided some raw data which these guys can internalise and use to create internal hypothetical models to test assumptions and create their own tactics and conclusions.

c) I'll have provided a graphical representation of some textual date which will help people understand and internalise it more efficiently.

That YOU mightn't need this is of no concern to me. That OTHERS do IS my concern.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> I think it would be better to let players learn for themselves what works best or maybe have some general pointers on tactics or unit strengths and weaknesses to guide them. Something like: "The German SMG squad is very powerful at short range an ineffective at long ranges. Best used in close terrain where it can use its firepower to best advantage." As opposed to a detailed diagram showing exactly how firepower drops as range increases. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

And I think that detailed graphs etc should be prefaced by general written advice yes. The graphs are simply for advanced study (since they are more precise) AND to provide a basis from which others can extrapolate more exact advice.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The system should reward real-world tactics and not the guy with the most spreadsheets. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It does. Providing people with some irrefutable data as opposed to bald-faced opinions is NOT tantamount to rewarding them for learning spreadsheets. It is simply providing evidence for statements and advice, presenting said evidence in a graphical format AND providing it to the community for further study.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> I dispute your "fact" regarding the M16. If the US Army trains soldiers to engage and hit targets at 300m, why then would the design spec only call for a weapon that is only effective at 200m? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Aye, it trains them to fire at motionless targets under perfect conditions at 300 metres. I think you're in the Army right? If you are you should know that such training bears little resemblance to combat conditions. The odds of soldiers having to aim at perfectly stationary targets exactly 300 metres away during war are laughable.

I could go back to WW2 and point out the German soldiers were expected to be able to hit a similar target at half a mile using rifles. During the war it was soon realised that units rarely fired at targets over 200 metres away and so later war German weapon designs reflected this. I could point out that the "effective range" for these rifles was on the order of 800 to 900 metres. I could show you lots of statistics and values which would mislead everyone into thinking these things habitually fired more than 200 metres. The fact is they didn't.

What the US Army uses to train is neither here not there. We're talking about war. I think most people who have been involved in a war would tell you that rifle fire at moving targets 300 metres away is highly likely to be ineffective. Just cause it is labelled as "effective range" in some FM means sweet FA. It just reinforces my view that many of the people who write FMs don't have the first clue what combat is like.

I have a pre-war German squad FM here which talks about engaging enemy infantry with rifle fire at 800 metres and using the LMG to engage enemy troops from 1.5 km away. I also have access to the mid-war rewrite of that FM which discusses the need to begin engaging infantry with rifle and SMG fire when they are no more than 200 and preferably less than 100 metres away. It also states that the LMG shouldn't be used unless the target is within 4 or 500 metres... What was close range before the war is now, philosophically, long range

So, war experience showed these FM writers that the peacetime ranges they trained at were about four times longer than the ranges they habitually encountered during war. I'd suggest that the US FM lists 300 metres either because they haven't thought it through OR, more likely in my book, because the logic runs that if they can train riflemen to hit a stationary target 300 metres away then these riflmen should be better able to hit a moving target 200 metres away than if they had only ever been trained to shoot out to 200 metres.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Oops I was wrong. The max effective range of the M16 is 550 meters. Sorry about that. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

LOL. Do you really believe what you are saying here? Do you really think that the M16/rifleman weapons system unit can be utilised to deliver effective, aimed and deadly fire out to 550 metres during battlefield conditions? I hope you don't believe that cause if you do then a lot of unlearning needs to be done. Sure I could unload a clip and have the bullets hit the ground roughly 550 metres away but I couldn't hit a moving man-sized target during the middle of a firefight at 550 metres. There's a BIG difference between quoting statistics and drawing some supportable conclusions from them.

I'm talking about combat and not something you might see in a firing range. This would be laughable if it wasn't real. I doubt anyone who has used an M16 in combat would claim to be able to hit a moving target 550 metres away under battlefield conditions.

[Guest Seimerst]

Let me jump in for a moment. The first weapon I qualfied on was the M1 Garand followed in due course with the M-14 and then the M-16. There was considerable debate within the Army as the M-16 was being developed and fielded for use in Vietnam. The old timers-- weaned on the Fulda Gap and the longer engagement ranges of Europe hated the the idea of giving up the range and the knockdown at those ranges for the "puny" 5.56mm round. It was the physical conditions of Vietnam that made the M-16 a better choice given the shorter engagement ranges in the bamboo, elephant grass, jungle, swamps, etc. Plus the smaller round let you carry more ammo-- but the full auto capability meant you burned through your basic load quicker too. <sigh> Most infantry combat veterans from WWII, Korea, and Vietnam would suggest that indeed most of their battles were fought at ranges of 200 meters or less. There were exceptions of course. Another human taking cover and shooting back at you at ranges greater than 200 meters makes an awfully small target-- what with all the adreniline pumping and such. Most would be very happy just to shoot close enough to scare the other guy into not shooting back. <grin> The old adage of "gain and maintain fire superiority".

[Fionn]

Seimerst,

Couldn't agree more with everything you say. I don't think you'd score many hits at 200 metres BUT I can certainly see the temptation to fire at the other guy just so as to keep his head down and not firing at you.

"Maintain fire superiority" as you say.

Anyways, mox nix since I got Jason's graphs and there are some VERY good lessons in there and presenting them graphically makes it easier for unexperienced people to draw the appropriate conclusions.

Cheers,

Fionn

[Guest R Cunningham]

Fionn,

I don't think I'm misusing stats to prove a flawed point. I'm merely using the documented capabilities of the weapon. You're waffling on the M16. You've changed your tack from it was only designed to hit at 200 meters to it just can't be effective beyond that 200m to in practical combat situations it can only hit moving targets out to 200m.

What it can hit depends on many factors. The 300 meter targets I and other soldiers are trained on are not static. As part of qualification targets pop up in the soldier's sector at ranges from 50 to 300 meters at 50 meter intervals. The firing soldier does not know which target will pop up next. Each target is only up for a brief time. The soldier must identify the target and engage it before it goes back down.

In combat conditions soldiers can still hit what they aim at, provided they aim. All marksmanship training is geared this way - to drill the soldier to aim instinctively. The burst capability of the weapon is never used. Obviously, soldiers under stress who do not aim aren't going to hit much. But this is largely independent of the weapon. It doesn't matter if I have an M16 or a Mauser Kar 98k, if I'm not aiming I'm not gonna hit. On the other hand I can find soldiers who can't hit targets at 50m, but I wouldn't then claim that that was the max range for the weapon. The figures for effective range are for stationary point targets. I never claimed that I could hit Jackie Chan jumping over a car at 550m!

On the other point, I understand the perspective of the range charts, but I think the detailed information that will be presented in the manual will be enough for the not-quite-ready-for-the-grognard-of-the-month-club players to get into the game and learning. I think people learn more by doing than by analyzing charts. From all indications the CM manual alone will be worth the purchase price and will go a long way in helping the inexperienced players adjust. The data in the unit screen is as detailed as I think they'd need to get the idea that firepower drops with range and the rate at which it does is dependent on the weapon. What about the info you get when you target the enemy? That is a lot of info for the player right there.

[Guest R Cunningham]

Seimerst, Fionn,

I don't disagree with anything seimerst posted about keeping heads down etc.

I just don't see any qualitative difference in a battle rifle ala M14 and an M16 in terms of accuracy at normal battle ranges out to 300 meters.

7.62mm does have the raw power advantage and better penetration of cover but it also has less of an effect on flesh when it does hit because of that power.

Besides the better wounding characteristics of 5.56mm there is the effect of reduced recoil allowing the firer to get back on target quicker.

Didn't mean to turn this thread into a small arms technology debate. What were we talking about before?

[Bullethead]

I have to agree with R. Cunningham. Fionn is dis'in' my M16 rifle WAY too much.

The M16 has changed A LOT since it was 1st introduced over 30 years ago. Almost all of these changes were intended and in fact did make the rifle MUCH more effective at longer ranges.

The current M16A2 has the following accuracy improvements over the older models:

1. Heavier barrel for steadier aim

2. Longer stock for steadier aim and balance of heavier barrel

3. Greatly improved sights (windage and elevation both on rear sight now) and rear sight graduated to 800m vs. 500m

4. Reduced twist rifling

5. Higher velocity, heavier ball ammo

6. New front handguards of better shape for holding comfortably in long-range firing positions

7. Redesigned flash suppressor/muzzle compensator that keeps muzzle down a lot better

8. Easier trigger pull to prevent jerking off target

All these changes make the M16A2 extremely accurate at long range. It will shoot exactly where you point the muzzle, which means, as RC says, that if you AIM, you WILL hit any target you can see. In the Marines, recruits cannot leave the rifle range until they can put 8 of 10 rounds in a human silouhette target at 500m. And before my unit deployed to the Gulf, we had to be able to put 6 of 10 in a similar target at 600m while wearing the old-style cheek filter gas mask. So regardless of how the M16 and M16A1 shot, the M16A2 is kicks ass. All it takes is proper aiming, and every Marine, at least, is trained to do that.

Is such long range accuracy really that useful? Well, ANY advantage you can muster in combat is ALWAYS useful. And in situations where the terrain gives long LOS, it's very much to your advantage to be able to bring effective rifle fire on the enemy as far as you can see. Even if you don't kill him, you force him to start moving tactically a LONG way away, greatly slowing his advance. This tires him out, saps his will to advance further, and allows supporting arms more time to help. And the fact that the US government went to the trouble and expense to redesign the M16 and its ammo shows that the importance of such long-range rifle fire is recognized.

------------------

-Bullethead

jtweller@delphi.com

WW2 AFV Photos: people.delphi.com/jtweller/tanks/tanks.htm

[Fionn]

R Cunningham,

Well, the only reason you're able to say I changed my story is that I started off just speaking very loosely because I didn't know this'd get into a major debate... As the discussion heated up I began to define my position more carefully...

Honestly, I prefer to just write generally usually since it takes much longer to write if I'm covering every option and this isn't a lawcourt (or is it hehe ).

As for the M16s... I wasn't basing my opinions on the M16A2.. I don't know much about the A2 to be honest.. The M16 and M16A1 a fair bit but not the M16A2 (although I still prefer the AK47 and ain't nobody gonna persuade me otherwise ).

Anyways , as you said, back to regularly scheduled programming. It's nice to have a disagreement which doesn't balloon every once in a while ...

BTW what's the US Army and USMC policy regarding landmine usage?

[Sten]

R Cunningham,

The issue was originally the pros and cons of CMs way of representing firepower.

As you said:

[QOUTE]

I think it would be better to let players learn for themselves what works best or maybe have some general pointers on tactics or unit strengths and weaknesses to guide them. Something like: "The German SMG squad is very powerful at short range an ineffective at long ranges. Best used in close terrain where it can use its firepower to best advantage." As opposed to a detailed diagram showing exactly how firepower drops as range increases.

[Los]

I too have to chime in here to correct a mis-conception about the M16. Max effective range is just that, the range at which you can place effective fire on targets. The A2 (and even my M4) actually has sights out to like 800 meters, though that is a stretch sans scope. But still 300 meters is well within effective range given the terrain situation. If most firefights actually take place at close range that is because of terrain, not because of range limitations. It's just so happens that many firefights by nature take place in restrictive terrain. This can aid to skew perception about battle rifle design or effectiveness.

I have experienced real firefights between company sized formations at and beyond this range band, though obviously effectiveness degrades with range and it's the MGs that really weigh in at longer ranges. Targets can and are effectively engaged out and past this range. But if targets present themselves at that range, and the tactical situation warrants it (Particularly in places like the desert, open plains or what have you.)

There is also a big difference between marksmanship training and combat training. In Marksmanship training, soldiers are learning how to operate their weapons on a fixed range against fixed targets at various distances. This is not a replacement for combat training and live fire exercises against moving, camouflage and hidden targets. Depending on the army (or marines) you are in and the unit you are in, you can get very extensive live fire training under combat conditions which stresses both maneuver, control measures and importantly combat marksmanship. This shortcoming between training on the range was identified and acted upon to some extent during WW2. Particularly SLA Marshall made some good points about how troops don't shoot because they don't see targets like on the range (Speaking to, and supporting, Fionn's point about the difference between range firing and firefights) Competent infantry forces in most western armies at least, conduct both types of training regularly. Though if you are a truck driver, or cannon cocker or signals specialist, the odds of you participating in company or battalion live fire training is minimal. And the current state of training at least in our Army is based on real world combat experience. Though, of course, safety still remains a training distracter.

Los