M32 Grenade Launcher

[Cpl Steiner]

I hadn't heard of this weapon until I read about the Marines module on the blog page. I have a few questions:

1. How many rounds will each M32 soldier carry?

2. Will they include any "special" rounds such as the "hellhound" (twice as powerful as standard HE), thermobaric, flare or "camera" round?

3. Does the M32 soldier also have an M16 or is he reduced to using an M9 pistol when out of ammo?

Thanks in advance.

[SlapHappy]

About #2 - What do you suspect?

Although, of course, I'd like to see them just as much as you......

[Erwin.Rommel]

http://www.defensereview.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=851

[Huntarr]

http://www.flickr.com/photos/huntarr/sets/72157604631123211/

These are all HI-REZ images. 3000+

[Thomm]

M32 grenades tend to look a little bit "lonely" next to the stream of grenades from the abundant Mk19s.

Best regards,

Thomm

[Thomm]

Watched some youtube videos.

I get the feeling that these weapons will be very potent against "vertical" targets like buildings and soft vehicles, but not so much when the target is on flat ground (flat trajectory + small vertical deviation = large horizontal error).

Is there any information on this around?!

Best regards,

Thomm

[Huntarr]

The Marines had some Mil spec they needed for theirs but this is the base model.

MK32 MGL

[Battlefront.com]

The M32 in CM:SF comes with two different types of rounds; Hellhound (HE) and Draco (Thermobaric). The secondary weapon is a M4 rifle. The M16 is too bulky, the M9... useless I suspect it isn't as easy to switch from popping off 5.56 to tossing out 40mm as a standard M16/M203 or M4/203 combo. However, the Marines have 4 more men than a standard US Rifle Squad so I suppose it is not a big deal.

What we're still trying to figure out is if the Marines are seriously going to swap out the M203 completely. That's what the official TO&E calls for, however this might not be the way they actually go since the experience in combat is still rather new. Personally, I think they'll stick to the official TO&E so that's the way it is in the game now.

Steve

[Cpl Steiner]

Steve,

Thanks for the info. It will be interesting to see how the two rounds perform. Presumably the "Draco" will be reserved for enemy inside buildings and the "Hellhound" used for enemy out in the open. The rate of fire difference between the M32 and M203 will also be of interest. Presumably this advantage is most prominent at shorter ranges, as at longer ranges I imagine the M32 gunner will be taking a few seconds per shot to steady his aim. Only time will tell.

[Field Marshal Blücher]

Finally got around to looking at Huntarr's pics. In the captions, it seems that the M32 is used primarily as an indirect-fire weapon. How will this be modeled in the game? Will they primarily use their M4 for direct fire and switch to the M32 under certain circumstances?

-FMB

[Pandur]

good question, i guess they use it as they use the 203 now.

[YankeeDog]

Originally posted by Field Marshal Blücher:

Finally got around to looking at Huntarr's pics. In the captions, it seems that the M32 is used primarily as an indirect-fire weapon. How will this be modeled in the game? Will they primarily use their M4 for direct fire and switch to the M32 under certain circumstances?

-FMB

It's not intended as an indirect fire weapon, though it might be able to be used that way in a pinch -- one Marine behind a crest, lobbing M32 grenadez over, with a spotter at the crest directing the fire. It wouldn't be very accurate or effective this way, though, as it lacks the proper sights or stable base for this.

In addition, since it is a fairly low-velocity projectile with fair amount of arc, especially at longer ranges, it can also "reach" some dead zones just out of LOS -- drop rounds just over a crest, for example. But this type of thing isn't usually considered true indirect fire.

In short, high arc =/= indirect fire. Indirect fire means that the shooter does not have direct LOS to the target point. The M32 is not really designed to be used this way, and requires the shooter to have LOS to the target to be most effective.

Cheers,

YD

[Guest Guest]

deleted per user request

[Field Marshal Blücher]

YD, that makes sense. I guess I'm still wondering how often in the game M32 soldiers will use their M4s.

-FMB

[Huntarr]

They use their small arms when you give them TARGET LIGHT.

TARGET is for everything and the kitchen sink. ie JAVs, AT4s, M203, MK32, etc.

[Pandur]

hm, i play whole scenarios without manual targeting anything. so they dont switch to M4 by themself or just if they are out of 40mm granades for example!?

[Cpl Steiner]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

The secondary weapon is a M4 rifle.

I wonder how difficult it would be to show secondary weapons graphically like a lot of first person shooters do? The M32 gunner, for instance, could be shown with an M4 on his back as if slung. Likewise, when using the M4, the M32 could be shown slung. You wouldn't need to show the strap, just the weapon in the correct position. I think it would help the player know what firepower he has at any given time and also help with immersion. Apart from that it might just be cool!

[Battlefront.com]

The problem with swapping the weapons in the 3D space is the animations necessary to make it happen. Therefore, the switch will be just like you currently see with things like the Javelin or AT-4/RPG-18.

As far as I know the M203 and M32 rounds are interchangeable. Certainly their role is the same on the battlefield. As stated above, it isn't an indirect fire weapon, though it can do that under some circumstances. Basically, think of the M32 as a mega, dedicated M203.

We're evaluating how the TacAI handles the switch between the M32 and M4. In theory it should be similar to the current M4 and M203 logic.

Steve

[Pandur]

Therefore, the switch will be just like you currently see with things like the Javelin or AT-4/RPG-18.

perfectly fine with me!

thing is in most FPS you have weapons showen on your back they are just glued to your back.

you can go prone, roll left and right on the ground and jump and do anything "without" any consequnce in movement considering the 2nd weapon wich should bounce wildely around your back(i talk "Americas Army" here, as thats the only FPS i play regulary currently). if you "jump" or sprint you would even want to hold the 2nd gun in order to not poke yourself with it or others or mash it into the dirt or concrete.

when i had to carry a rifle at "work" for my 8 month army duty i didnt learned a single way to carry the gun without stabilizing it somewhow with a hand on the march.

and to have the gun bounc around your back, thats not too compftable either.

better to not have it showen at all than just have it glued to the back.

[Cpl Steiner]

Originally posted by Pandur:

Thing is in most FPS you have weapons showen on your back they are just glued to your back.

This has never been a problem with me. I just appreciate the fact that I can see what a guy's secondary is, whether or not it accurately sways around etc. I don't even mind if it clips badly, looking like it's protruding from the guy's back, which I've seen in a lot of FPSs.

Each to his own, I suppose.

[Kanonier Reichmann]

To think. This weapon only came into being after its conception was dreamt up in a Hollywood movie- Dogs of War. A case of art leading war!

Regards

Jim R.

[Battlefront.com]

I confirmed with Charles that the TacAI treats this the same as it does a rifle with a grenade launcher or something similar. When the soldier has a chance to shoot at something it decides which weapon is best for that situation and switches to it.

KR, nice to see you around again!

Steve

[MikoyanPT]

Originally posted by Kanonier Reichmann:

To think. This weapon only came into being after its conception was dreamt up in a Hollywood movie- Dogs of War. A case of art leading war!

Regards

Jim R.

In fact the hollywood guys only used an existing South African model that was already designed and produced.

[SlapHappy]

Hi Steve

That is some serious firepower from what I've witnessed from test videos. Are the Hellhound rounds going to be "compressed" in lethality the way MK 19 rounds are currently in the game?

And those thermobarics are devastating...will Syrian troops have much survivability at all in buildings? It would seem that some of the smaller buildings in the game could be destroyed outright.

[Battlefront.com]

All indirect fire weapons have a very small amount of "compressed lethality" (that's a good term for it!). This is to counteract the fact that we can only let soldiers disperse to an extent that is just a tad bit less than would typically be seen in most cases. We had to do this in CMx1 too, though for slightly different reasons (in CMx1 100% of the soldiers were technically on the point of a pin so inherently there was 0 spacing).

Note that the Mk19 and M32 rounds are not the same. The Mk19 is much more powerful.

Thermobaric is one of those things that works better on paper than it does in real life. Mind you, they are quite effective... just not the 100% casualty causer that you see bandied about on various websites. Optimal conditions are extremely important, and they rarely exist in real life. So yes... thermobaric weapons are nasty, but generally speaking an HE round of similar size would likely cause the same amount of casualties, sometimes less, sometimes more.

Steve