Runnin & Gunnin

[Guest Scott Clinton]

I think the M2 as modeled, as an HMG in CM is fine, but...

I am beginning to have a problem with its accuracy and lethality when fired from a MOVING vehicle, especially one that is bouncing cross country at "FAST" speed.

I think the firepower factor for AA mounted MGs should be toned down when the vehicle is moving and toned WAY, WAY down when the vehicle is going "FAST". Frankly, I can't see an AA mounted MG doing much more than surpress (with an occasional hit) when the vehicle is buzzing "FAST" cross country.

I have just completed a game where I tried the 'Run and Gun' tactic and it works like a charm. You buy a quantity of US armored cars or jeeps mounting nothing but .50 cal MGs and proceed to plot them at 'FAST' through, behind and all around your enemy's positions (don't stop, plot reeeeeal long movement paths, all at "FAST"). 9 times out of 10 your .50 cal MGs will do a LOT more damage to the enemy then they will do to you. Not to mention the incredibly valuable recon you get back from these units. Hell, if you do it right 7 out of 10 times you will not even lose a unit because the Germans simply don't field units with fast turrets, not even their armored cars and their PBI (poor bloody infantry) with 'fausts simply can not prepare their weapon and hit you before you buzz past.

Try setting up a 'gunnery range' with US M20s (for example) moving 55mph down a road or 30+ mph across country Vs German infantry. The number of hits that M2s get while their vehicle is moving at "FAST" speed is unbelievable IMO.

I have fired a gun from a moving vehicle (more than once) and you can't hit anything worth a damn. Granted it was not a MG (a shotgun--and don't ask ). You simply can not aim a weapon accurately from an open vehicle mount while the vehicle is bouncing cross-country. Anyone have real live fire experience firing an M2 from an AA mount from a moving vehicle? If so, please speak up.

I would also like to take this opportunity to apologize to my opponent for my use of the 'Run and Gun'. You were the unknowing victim of my experiment.

Note: This is in no way a 'grumble' about/to any of my opponents. As I have stated above, I myself have used this tactic in a PBEM game, but I would like the weapon system adjusted.

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

Please note: The above is solely the opinion of 'The Grumbling Grognard' and reflects no one else's views but his own.

[Abbott]

I have fired the M2 from the cupola mount of the M-60A1 MBT. When moving across country or quickly down a dirt road or path you can deliver suppressing fire only. It can not hold a steady aiming point as your platform is bouncing up and down. Not to mention your body is thrown around (sometimes violently) while you are moving over anything other then almost flat terrain. It is actually very easy to fire a few rounds into the air at times as your body and/or vehicle bounces along.

[Guest Scott Clinton]

Thanks Abbott.

If you have the time try this tactic in a quick battle or as I did in a quick battle and hot seat against yourself with M20s on one side and German riflemen on the other side. Let me know what you think if you get a chance to do this.

I tried it against infantry prone (hiding) in the open, in cover and running. All resulted in infantry being hit with each and every pass-by of the M20. The average came out to 1.25 infantry casualties per pass for the guys in cover with the M20 moving at "FAST" with the range never < 40m. While the guys in the open were hit at about twice this rate and of course routed for the nearest cover...

The only caveats are that the guys in cover can't be in "HIDE" or the M20 will never see them while going "FAST". Just un-hide them...when they fire, the M20 will return fire. Also, the Germans did manage to hit the commander of an M20 once in the six tests I ran.

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

Please note: The above is solely the opinion of 'The Grumbling Grognard' and reflects no one else's views but his own.

[Bullethead]

I can speak for .50cals in ringmounts on trucks in the Gulf War. You couldn't even stay standing in the ringmount while holding the gun, let alone shoot it at all, when the truck was moving at anything over walking speed.

Each time the truck hit a bump or tilted slightly, you'd be thrown violently to the side. If you were holding onto the pivoting gun, you couldn't stop yourself from slamming into the ring, which really sucked even with a flak jacket (which doesn't cover elbows anyway). Sometimes you'd go face-first into the spade grips. OTOH, if you held onto the ring, you couldn't shoot, plus you had to secure the gun from flopping around, so shooting after you grabbed the gun would be delayed.

Needless to say, we quickly abandoned any idea of keeping somebody standing in the ringmount while moving. We had quite a few nasty bruises and a couple of broken noses and chipped teeth by then, however.

I don't know how representative this is of things like armored cars. 5-ton trucks are pretty tall and have very stiff springs, both of which amplify the effects of bumps on the would-be gunner. Also, it could be we were simply lacking in technique. Ringmounts were never mounted in peacetime so none of us had ever tried it before and had nobody to teach us a better way, assuming such existed. But my feeling is that the reason for the lack of ringmounts in peacetime is to eliminate a serious source of training injuries

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

-Bullethead

Visit the brand new Raider Operations message board at www.delphi.com/raiderops

Main site www.historicalgames.bizland.com/index.html

[David Aitken]

Does this thread mean anything to you guys?:

50cal Too Effective?

David

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

They lost all of their equipment and had to swim in under machine gun fire. As they struggled in the water, Gardner heard somebody say, "Perhaps we're intruding, this seems to be a private beach."

[This message has been edited by David Aitken (edited 09-16-2000).]

[Abbott]

Thanks Dave. Just read the whole thread. Seems everyone and BTS agrees on the accuracy of the .50cal. Maybe it will be addressed next patch.

[David Aitken]

As far as I know it was addressed in 1.05.

David

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

They lost all of their equipment and had to swim in under machine gun fire. As they struggled in the water, Gardner heard somebody say, "Perhaps we're intruding, this seems to be a private beach."

[Guest ACTOR]

I'll ask the "stupid" question...

David BTS's reply to the thread you mentioned was on 8-10-00 and the 1.05 patch came out on 8-25-00. Was it included? I just re-read the Readme file and I did not see mention of it.

Edited because in addition to being stupid I can't spell!

[This message has been edited by ACTOR (edited 09-16-2000).]

[Guest Scott Clinton]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>As far as I know it was addressed in 1.05<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

David, that is my point...it was not (as far as I can tell).

And although BTS made a comment that they would "look into it" in the thread mentioned, naught has been heard since.

While BTS is (of course) under no requirement to 'rule' on this publicly (or otherwise), without a 'ruling' it remains a topic worthy of a new, dedicated thread (IMO). Especially a thread more focused strictly on the accuracy and firepower factor given to M2s on the move rather than the old thread which seemed to cover several different aspects of the weapon system.

Also, I had also assumed it went without saying, but I am using the 1.05 patch.

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

Please note: The above is solely the opinion of 'The Grumbling Grognard' and reflects no one else's views but his own.

[This message has been edited by Scott Clinton (edited 09-16-2000).]

[Guest Mr. Johnson-<THC>-]

You Texicans are wacky. Do you have any road signs left in your state, or are they all dead? Was drinking and driving still legal when you where doing these "drive-bys"? Even shooting from a slow moving boat towards land a short distance away is very tricky also, one little swell an inch high can throw your aim of by a foot or more. This would not be such a problem in a PBEM game as it is versis the AI. A human might just ignore your AC's and keep their infantry hidden. and wait till your AC's slow down to take a corner then bang, a Pak takes them down. Not going to be that cost effective unless its an assult, and you can afford the waste. Plus it would be very tricky to pull off in muddy ground.

[:USERNAME:]

Totally agree.

Not only is shooting difficult, spotting anything is hard also. Driving a tracked vehicle across a road is a shaky experience. Going cross country is like being on some bad amusement ride. Most vehicle movement in battle is from cover to cover. Other vehicles overwatch and you haul ass to your next cover. I was trying to get this across in my threads concerning limiting order "linelength" but it didnt click with the civies in charge.

I remember reading that the brits did a field test shooting 2 lber tank guns while moving at destroyed german armor. They conducted the tests at different speeds and angles and compared the results to stationary shooting. Anyway, inexplicably they found that at the HIGHEST speed the moving gunnery was best! It was "best" only in that it was the least suckiest of all the moving shooting data. I believe it was when directly moving at a target also.

The conclusions were that the vehicle had a resonance point and that at a high rate of speed the vibrations (concerning the main weapon mount) were damped!

Keep in mind that the desert was flat as a pancake and had a layer of soft sand on a layer of hard rock.

So it just goes to show that you cant assume something is true all the time. But for a flexible mount MG I assure you that it is VERY difficult to do anything but hold onto the trigger. This is NOT true for helicopters! You are at an advantage moving and firing at a stationary target on the ground.

Lewis

[David Aitken]

ACTOR wrote:

> David BTS's reply to the thread you mentioned was on 8-10-00 and the 1.05 patch came out on 8-25-00. Was it included? I just re-read the Readme file and I did not see mention of it.

Okay, how about 1.04? The info for that, dated 8-17-00, includes the following:

* Armor penetrations by MG bullets and small AP shells are somewhat less likely to knock out the target (no change for 75mm and up). And crews of struck vehicles are less likely to bail out when no serious damage has been suffered.

* MG fire against vehicles is now less effective (i.e. less accurate) if the firer or target is moving.

David

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

They lost all of their equipment and had to swim in under machine gun fire. As they struggled in the water, Gardner heard somebody say, "Perhaps we're intruding, this seems to be a private beach."

[Red Devils]

Actually, I have employed nearly the same tactic (very effectively) w/ both German and US (more often German ) infantry in half-tracks.

I start a scenario w/ a platoon or more of infantry loaded in half-tracks. I then race them all to a desired location at fast speed and have the troops bail out and run to occupy the nearest victory location. It seams to work very well. I also feel that this is not as gamey a tactic as the .50 blazing jeeps as I have actually read accounts of troops doing this in real life (though w/ mixed results.) Infact, one comes to mind. While reading an account of city fighting in Arnhem (from "It Never Snows in September") as I recall, at least a reinforced platoon of Germans mounted in trucks tried to race for the British end of the bridge (through the city, not across the bridge). The problem was that they didn't know which buildings the Brits. occupied so they bailed out right in front of the Tommies position. Anyway, scratch one Ersatz rifle platoon.

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

I'm sorry, we haven't the

facilities to take all of you prisoner. Was there anything else?

[Bullethead]

Mr. Johnson-- said:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>You Texicans are wacky. Do you have any road signs left in your state, or are they all dead?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Pretty much all dead. Understand that in rural Texas, the only real source of entertainment is to get drunk and drive around shooting road signs.

However, it's a relatively simple matter to aim a rifle or shotgun accurately from a car or pickup moving smoothly over modern pavement on its modern, smooth, civvie suspension. The relative target speed is no higher than that of a dove, which we slaughter in great numbers every fall. This is a far cry from trying to aim a .50 cal from a bouncing ringmount off the road in a GI truck.

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

-Bullethead

Visit the brand new Raider Operations message board at www.delphi.com/raiderops

Main site www.historicalgames.bizland.com/index.html

[Guest Scott Clinton]

David...David...David...

This is why I started a NEW thread.

The issue you mention in your last post (i.e. the effect of the M2 VS armored targets) is NOT the issue I am addressing. The two issues completely different.

The issue you refer to (and was patched AFAIK) is the effect the M2 .50cal MG has on ARMORED targets.

While the other issue (the one I am addressing) is the accuracy and lethality of the M2 against INFANTRY while the M2 is mounted on top of a MOVING/FAST MOVING vehicle.

While the later issue was discussed in the first thread, it was not the focus of the discussion and has never been addressed in a patch. Neither has BTS ever voiced any intention of it ever being patched.

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

Please note: The above is solely the opinion of 'The Grumbling Grognard' and reflects no one else's views but his own.

[Guest Scott Clinton]

Red Devils:

The tactic you mention is not the same as the one I discussed above. You are using mounted infantry to race forward and seize a key location.

That is NOT the same as using fast moving jeeps and ACs to literally run rings around the German units and pepper them .50cal fire while gathering valuable recon.

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

Please note: The above is solely the opinion of 'The Grumbling Grognard' and reflects no one else's views but his own.

[Boeman]

It looks as though a few of the developers were excessively inspired by Rat Patrol.

[:USERNAME:]

Was there an option to put a 50 cal in a ring mount in a weasel?

In burgetts "seven roads.." book , he describes manning a fifty on a cross country fleeing deuce and a half truck. He never mentions it being accurate.

I think that when using these injun tactics a moving vehicle flex MG should ONLY be able to put down area fire and not target specific units.

In reality, trucks, jeeps, motorcycles make short lived weapons platforms. Bullets have a way of letting air out of tires, gas out of tanks, water out of radiators and blood out of drivers. You are very exposed and "tall" in a vehicle.

Armored cars and light tanks could and would raise hell with rear echelon infantry/support troops. Jeeps and such would be more discrete.

Lewis

[David Aitken]

Scott Clinton wrote:

> While the other issue (the one I am addressing) is the accuracy and lethality of the M2 against INFANTRY while the M2 is mounted on top of a MOVING/FAST MOVING vehicle.

Okay, I get the idea.

David

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

They lost all of their equipment and had to swim in under machine gun fire. As they struggled in the water, Gardner heard somebody say, "Perhaps we're intruding, this seems to be a private beach."

[Bullethead]

Lewis said:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Was there an option to put a 50 cal in a ring mount in a weasel?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Steve would be the guy to ask, but I think the Weasel guns were all pedestal-mounted vs. rings.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>In burgetts "seven roads.." book , he describes manning a fifty on a cross country fleeing deuce and a half truck. He never mentions it being accurate.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I doubt his adrenaline-soaked consciousness at that time allowed for careful observations as to either accuracy or the beating he no doubt was receiving I don't doubt having such a rush going would help in both matters, however, as opposed to my own tense-but-not-firefight experiences. Still, even with berserker strength and pain threshold, I'd have to say a truck's ringmount would be the worst possible thing to fire from on the move.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I think that when using these injun tactics a moving vehicle flex MG should ONLY be able to put down area fire and not target specific units.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'd refine this statement to say "treated as area fire although aimed at specific units" because area fire per se is tied to a specific spot of terrain, regardless of enemy units nearby.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Armored cars and light tanks could and would raise hell with rear echelon infantry/support troops. Jeeps and such would be more discrete.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

But how was the Ma Deuce mounted in these armored cars? Looks to me like most of them had pedestal or ring mounts, which I don't think would be too different in effect from those of trucks or jeeps.

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

-Bullethead

Visit the brand new Raider Operations message board at www.delphi.com/raiderops

Main site www.historicalgames.bizland.com/index.html

[:USERNAME:]

Bullethead

Its a lot different being behind armor than being behind a fender. I think the MGs on trucks/jeeps were mostly to be used as AA or in a defensive emergency. The real purpose was a weapons carrier.

The real point is that ANYTHING mounting a flex mount MG that was moving could only hope for at best suppression fire. And a 50 is good for that. With only 125 rounds in a box, I wonder if short bursts were the best.

As for Burgett, he has an almost unreal memory for details. he conveys those images so that I can almost feel I see them. His writing does stick in my mind.

Lewis

[This message has been edited by :USERNAME: (edited 09-16-2000).]

[Vanir]

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

I think that when using these injun tactics a moving vehicle flex MG should ONLY be able to put down area fire and not target specific units.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

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

I'd refine this statement to say "treated as area fire although aimed at specific units" because area fire per se is tied to a specific spot of terrain, regardless of enemy units nearby.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You know, those are some damn fine ideas there. I hope Steve happens upon this thread.

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

No, there will be no sequels. Charles and Steve have given up wargame design in disgust and have gone off to Jamaica to invest their new-found wealth in the drug trade. -Michael emrys

[:USERNAME:]

You know, those are some damn fine ideas there. I hope Steve happens upon this thread.

Steve has an allergy to most of my ideas. I am presently ghosting the board under another name. Someone that acts TOO polite and friendly. Using this persona, I am infiltrating the board, biding my time...

HAHAHAHA! (evil laughter)

Lewis

[Bullethead]

Lewis said:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The real point is that ANYTHING mounting a flex mount MG that was moving could only hope for at best suppression fire. And a 50 is good for that. With only 125 rounds in a box, I wonder if short bursts were the best.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Totally agree. With a flex mount of whatever type, you have nothing to steady yourself with when holding the gun, because that takes both hands and the gun pivots freely. So when the vehicle sways or jerks, so does your body, and you take the gun with you, pulling the sights way off target. I'm sure this would be the case in an AFV with a flex mount (as opposed to a cupola mount) as well as a truck or jeep.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>As for Burgett, he has an almost unreal memory for details. he conveys those images so that I can almost feel I see them. His writing does stick in my mind.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Again agreed. I was just saying that because he didn't mention severe accuracy problems or physical beating, he probably didn't notice either in the heat of the moment, with everything else going on and the high threat level. But maybe I'm unfairly judging him by the standards of my own firefight behavior .

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Steve has an allergy to most of my ideas<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hmm, I thought the whole thing about troops running was revised per your input.

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

-Bullethead

Visit the brand new Raider Operations message board at www.delphi.com/raiderops

Main site www.historicalgames.bizland.com/index.html

[This message has been edited by Bullethead (edited 09-17-2000).]

[Michlos]

Not sure how much "on the subject" this is but during my service in the field artillery we had 7.62 cal MG's mounted on APCs and we found it quite effective. Sure you couldn't do any real sniper work but it was quite effective even at high speeds.

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

< All gave some, some gave ALL>

Owner of MiNa's CMBO Page

http://www.combat-mission.com