Question; Rate of Fire and Engagement Distance

[Almac]

Hi,

 

Will the small arms rate of fire and penetrating power be consistent Shock Force 2? 

What I find neat about the WW2 games is that the squad small arms rate of fire is low enough where heavy machine guns and SAW have a real impact in engagements. They facilitate granular suppression and flanking tactics.  I noticed in SF2 that the engagement distance was shorter, and SAW had less of an impact in minor engagements. I also noticed that the SF2 weapons had less penetrating power. I understand these are the actual characteristics of the underlying firearms.

But I was wondering with the M60 and M16, would the M60 bring an effective range and penetrating power that is more in line with the WW2 games where the M16 would be consistent with SF2? 

Does anyone have any thoughts on this aspect of the titles? 

 

 

[MikeyD]

One important factor to consider is nobody on either side has body armor. Which shoves the conflict more in the WWII direct. M16A1 would match CMSF2 Marines M16A4 of course excepting they're firing over open sights, not through optics. What's the range advantage of the long rifle over the carbine, something like 150m I guess? M60 is 7.62mm so its pretty much comparable to M249 lmg. Add to that, an eleven man inf squad instead nine and M16's toggle to go full auto (M4 carbine in CMSF2 doesn't) and you've got more punch-per-squad than CMSF2. Closer to the beefy-beefy Marine squads I suppose.

[SimpleSimon]

You'll see something in between I think. After the Second World War pressure was low enough that Armies could start adopting the first and second generation Assault Rifles. The FAL, the AK-47, the M-14 etc. Despite being capable of automatic fire the thinking was still very much focused around screening the squad's "big gun" it's machine gun. And emphasis was placed on use of automatic fire from the rifle only in an emergency. Meanwhile the LMG/MMG/HMG began to be dropped in favor of the GPMG such as the RPD and M-60, although some stuff like the Bren and Vickers hung around for a surprisingly long time and the MG42 re-appeared as the MG3 because that gun was already a generation-ahead when it was developed. 

If you end up fighting distant targets you'll probably see situations develop little-different from 1945. With the squad's machine gun doing most of the heavy lifting and the rifle infantry occasionally taking pot shots at clearly visible targets. Most rifles of the day still used iron sights and the human eye did not evolve much in the years between 1805 and 1965. Inside of about 200 meters though you'll see situations which will more closely resemble Shock Force 2 though. Now that automatic firepower has been distributed throughout the squad as long as the range is close you'll see the sort of situations where mistakes made at such close ranges can be rapidly punished by a ready defender. 

Don't be surprised when you see situations that seem to fit most of the notions of 1945 but then look a bit more like 2007 in others. This is very much the in-between period of those points. 

[Erwin]

Isn't body armor more for mitigating shrapnel.  Or does one always have metal in them?  Am thinking re "Black Hawk Down" where it seemed optional.

[Rice]

It entirely depends on the specific type of body armor. The first general issue body army for the US Army and Marines was a Flak Jacket, meaning it's designed to stop debris and shrapnel. Up until the ~90s effectively body armor was just these "Flak Jackets". Recent penetration tests of old armor show that it's around level IIA (Stops 9mm and .40 cal), while new production of the same models is around level II (stops 9mm and .357). Modern US issue body armor is has plates in it that are specifically made to stop rifle rounds. It depends on the place but iirc the standard issue for infantrymen is currently level IV plates (Stops up to 30.06 AP). 

[SimpleSimon]

I just learned that the US did not dispense the M-60 to squads as a SAW but withheld it at a much lower ratio of distribution of only 2 per platoon. I think in practice most rifle squads obtained more but that puts a ridiculous cap on the direct firepower available to US infantry platoons. It seems that confidence in the M16 was extremely high and now suddenly I understand how all of the controversy emerged over the A1 model's supposed performance problems in the field. Without a GPMG the M16 would invariably be asked to play machine gun all the time, but as a Rifle it is simply not built heavily enough for sustained automatic fire. It'll overheat too fast and jam, hence all the stories of it doing so. 

The M249 didn't enter service until 1984, undoubtedly to address this problem, but scapegoating the M16A1 was a clever way to conceal the military's real mistake ie: being too damn cheap the buy enough GPMGs for 30 years...

Edited February 19, 2021 by SimpleSimon

[akd]

The US M113-based Mech Rifle Platoon had 5 M-60s, one with each squad and two held as equipment in the Platoon HQ.

Edited February 19, 2021 by akd

[Ryujin]

18 hours ago, SimpleSimon said:

The M249 didn't enter service until 1984, undoubtedly to address this problem, but scapegoating the M16A1 was a clever way to conceal the military's real mistake ie: being too damn cheap the buy enough GPMGs for 30 years...

The scape goating was to avoid talking about the army choosing to use out of spec propellant during it's introduction and the all around maintenance disaster. The M16 wasn't expected to replace an MG (except for that attempt at an LMG version). 

Edited February 20, 2021 by Ryujin

[SimpleSimon]

3 hours ago, Ryujin said:

The M16 wasn't expected to replace an MG (except for that attempt at an LMG version). 

Speaks for itself. The LMG conversion failed because ARs don't make good MGs, but as we can visibly see today politicians and the public don't see a difference. What are the chances a budget committee did in 1959?