Did the Infantry Finally Get Glasses?

[Calvin]

Or at least open one eye?

I mean, in 1.04 (which I'll be trying out tonight), are they infantry able to spot enemy targets at least somewhere close to as well as their fully buttoned down colleagues inside Armored Vehicles?

And do they still blindly run into machine gun fire, dying to the man (all the while unable to spot the enemy unit firing at them)?

Finally, do they return fire effectively--- at least in way that might suppress the enemy?

I found infantry entirely useless in the earlier versions--- even after shredding Syrian defenses, dismounting infantry meant dead infantry.

Hope there's been some improvement!

[thewood]

There is definitly an improvement. I don't have specific answers to your questions, but I have noticed they react better to fire and drop to the ground. Many times they don't spot the firer, but I think that's pretty realistic. I haven't looked at spotting chances comparing infantry and AFVs.

I have just fought a couple of infantry heavy battles that were a ton of fun and were IMO pretty realistic.

Still a few issues for BFC to iron out, but it seems a lot more like CM to me.

[Manx]

There's been a BIG improvement. Once you've tried 1.04, why not post back and let us know whether you think it is better or not.

[Calvin]

Right on gents--- I'll try out the new version and report back. Sound like they fixed a lot of my concerns.

Thanks-

c.

[Zemke]

I think it is a much better infantry model. That said, it still does not seem to model the vastly superior American small arms accuracy IMHO.

[Calvin]

Hi all- Ok, actually about to launch and play the new version instead of just yakking about it.

But... wanted to address Zemke's point, which is a good one.

Although I have already listed the things that drove me CRAZY about the infantry in the earlier versions, Zemke got me thinking.

One, he's right, and I think anyone in the know will acknowledge that American small arms effectiveness--- both in general marksmanship, fire discipline and the number of individual soldiers actively engaging targets--- is vastly superior to the majority of other national armies. It's also far higher than it was during WWII, and not solely because small arms are more accurate and effective.

In recent years, the Army and Marines have implemented training regimens that (compared with WWII, Korea or even Vietnam) have dramatically increased the number of soldiers in a given infantry squad who will immediately shoot to kill in a combat situation.

There are aspects of this that are controversial. Essentially, the Army found a way to rapidly overcome the innate human resistance to killing in order to vastly increase the number of soldiers actively engaging in combat. Read your S.L.A. Marshall for background--- he notes that in WWII, a handful of "natural fighters" accounted for a disproportionate number of kills, and that many soldiers either did not fire there weapon or avoided picking specific targets, instead firing in the general direction of the enemy.

Myself, I'm off two minds. I have listened to enough combat vets talk about war to (truly) realize it's a filthy awful horror show to be avoided at all costs. Any war is a tragedy, necessary or otherwise.

At the same time, the business of battle is killing, and while I think we should always resort to armed conflict as a last resort knowing it for the disaster that it is, once slipped the dogs of war, they better be pit bulls.

Sorry to be so long winded. The research I've vaguely outlined above is fascinating. But my main point was to say that Zemke is correct that US Small Arms fire is exponentially more effective than that of the vast majority of other armed forces apart from those of the better trained European outfits (certainly the Brits, the French (like them or not, their paras remain among the best in the world), the Turks and select German units.

And it's strange that a game that otherwise refuses to downplay the superiority of US Arms for game balance fails to acknowledge what Zemke points out.

OK, enough bloviating. On to the game...

[Pandur]

well when i think at tigers wich shot as bad as T34´s in CMBB i really find it ok to not totaly overmodel the US side.

and to add to this, the US small arms department is allready much superiour against their syrian opposition.

after all could you pull off campain mission 1 or 2 with red infantry and have a mission end like 10 US guys KIA/WIA and 200+ Syrians KIA/WIA.

the US is allready a pretty good shot...

[Zemke]

Originally posted by Pandur:

well when i think at tigers wich shot as bad as T34´s in CMBB i really find it ok to not totaly overmodel the US side.

and to add to this, the US small arms department is allready much superiour against their syrian opposition.

after all could you pull off campain mission 1 or 2 with red infantry and have a mission end like 10 US guys KIA/WIA and 200+ Syrians KIA/WIA.

the US is allready a pretty good shot...

It may not be much fun for the insurgents, but the modern US Army TODAY trains hard to shoot at close range. I say "today", because this has not always been the case. The war has renewed emphasis on close quarters combat techniques. This started within "the Big Army", (Non-SOF) around 2000, but has become the standard for all units. The techniques were borrowed from the SOF community, and have proven very effective. The numbers I stated, (perhaps not in this post, can't remember for sure), a kill ratio of about 50 to 1 in both Afghanistan and Iraq during small arms engagements is true. While in Afghanistan I was not too worried getting shot at at ranges over 100 meters, the bad guys simple cannot shoot. They have little to no training in the most basic marksmanship. With that said there are some very good snipers out there, but if you run across one of them, well it's going to be a bad for someone... and those guys are mostly foreign fighters.

[ October 08, 2007, 03:03 AM: Message edited by: Zemke ]

[Pandur]

i didnt said anything against it...

isnt 10 vs 200 kills good enough allready!? its not 1:50, but hey.

EDIT:

i have to say that the infantry still needs galsses in the verry short ranges sometimes. they can be unbelivable blind sometimes.

[Childress]

Calvin, you sent me surfing with your allusion to SLA Marshall. His 'findings', with which I was vaguely aware, are controversial to put it mildly:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S.L.A._Marshall

(Among other sources)

[adultery]

bleh, firing in combat isnt the same as sitting on a range......hard to hit a thing actually

i was on our company shooting team for both years i was in the army (not a sniper by anymeans)

im confident i could hit a running man at 300m probably 4/5 times from a prone position blah blah blah...we did reaction shoots...the whole nine yards.

then we used to have live fire assault drills where you had to run 200m through the bush at a timed pace (not flat out but fast) then do a range where you had to fire and manover your way down the range shooting at targets from 25 to 150m away.

with the run, the 4 steps...drop to the ground, shuffle off position, fire, shuffle off position and another 3 steps......for 100m of range, most were lucky to even get a round on paper.

let alone if the targets were firing back.

[Zemke]

Pandur,

You are right it would not be that much fun. I have been experimenting with Syrian Special Forces set to Crack vs Vet US, making things a bit more interesting.

This game would be cool if there were a few more national forces to pick from, China, Russian, Iranian, British, German and so forth. Make for some very interesting battles, and a far better "Blue on Blue" battles.

There must be a ton of work building the graphic models for each national force or more would have been included, example more European forces. After all the most likely scenario would be a US lead coalition force. This would also server to stimulate sales in Europe, just a theory.

I don't mind paying for a really expansive module, but not a single force addition like US Marines. I hate to think we may get "milked" for every single new force.

[Calvin]

Childress - You are right that Marshall is at least "controversial", and at worst partially a fraud (I've read David Hackworth's memoir "About Face" so I'm familiar with some of the main critiques).

But while Marshall exaggerated and based much of his work on unsubstantiated evidence, other, more reliable researchers later confirmed at least his essential point: that most infantry soldiers were either disinclined or lacked the skills to fire effectively in combat.

The Army/Marine corp addressed this to the point where modern infantry have both the marksmanship and the mental focus to engage the enemy at levels unseen in earlier wars (and this is true even of greener formations).

Anyway, I should have included some mention of Marshall's history and sloppy, irresponsible research.

C.

[Pandur]

by Zemke

You are right it would not be that much fun. I have been experimenting with Syrian Special Forces set to Crack vs Vet US, making things a bit more interesting.

This game would be cool if there were a few more national forces to pick from, China, Russian, Iranian, British, German and so forth. Make for some very interesting battles, and a far better "Blue on Blue" battles.

There must be a ton of work building the graphic models for each national force or more would have been included, example more European forces. After all the most likely scenario would be a US lead coalition force. This would also server to stimulate sales in Europe, just a theory.

I don't mind paying for a really expansive module, but not a single force addition like US Marines. I hate to think we may get "milked" for every single new force.

well unfortunately, modules are equal to milking somehow i mean i will stay on the wagon i guess, but its allready said that the syrian theme is closed after the next 3 modules i belive.

so hopefully we get one or two euro forces partly implemented with one of those. i sure also hope that we will see the animal force in one of those. i wana have leopards, füchse, dingo´s and wiesels and stuff

i dont think we will se any other country join syrians cause. the syrians should get a equipment uprade in modules but i dont think we will see russians or chinese etc.