Stryker and M1 machinegun misbehavior

[c3k]

Gents,

Both Strykers and M1's have remote fired .50 caliber machine guns. (M2's?). However, the reload algorithms are very different. One will run out of ammo and never be used again while the other will reload without user intervention.

Assume both units, an Abrams and a Strkyer, are not "Open Up". (The lack of a "Button Up" command or toggle between "Open Up" and "Button Up" is a minor annoyance in the UI.)

Next, use "Target Light" for both. They will fire off the ready ammo for the .50: 100 rounds. After that, the Stryker TC will automatically pop up and reload the ammo. The Stryker will be ready to fire another 100 rounds, whilst remaining buttoned up (oops, I mean not "Open Up").

The Abrams will never again use its .50...unless the player directly orders it to "Open Up". At that point, the TC will pop up, reload the .50, then stay up.

(Now, if you order the Abrams to "Target Light" while "Open Up" is active, the TC will use the .50 and continually reload automatically. Additionally, the loader will pop up and man his 240, adding the fire of that 7.62MG to the target. The ONLY time the loader will do so is if two conditions are met: "Open Up" AND "Target Light".)

The issue, in my mind, is the behavior of the Abram's TC. Unless you're under fire, or about to fire the main gun, why wouldn't he pop up to reload the .50? The Stryker does it. Why the dissimilar behavior?

Right now, an "Open Up" Abrams will automatically have the TC duck down prior to firing the main gun. That's great. So, there is some level of automatic behavior programmed in.

Any thoughts?

If you're interested in more details, see THIS thread.

(A graphics bug exists with Abrams tank commanders. If the Abrams is on a steep slope, the TC will clip throught the turret roof. It appears that the TC is programmed to start at his feet and then elevate straight up. If the hatch is directly above his feet, that works. If the hatch is offset due to the tank being on a steep slope, that does not work. Savegame available.)

Regards,

Ken

[M1A1TC]

I posted about the TC model and other "in-hatch gunner" models several months ago, to no response from BFC. Their hands should be leaning against the lip of the hatch in front if them for support, or, when firing, on the 50cal butterfly triggers.

Lats thing you want it when the driver slams the brakes is to hit the 50cal mount with your teeth, or hit the metal hatch lip with your gut (done both in RL)

The way I would code it in game is like this. Keep the current "attached to the floor with feet" soldier model, but then attach the hands to the hatch in fron of him. Make the elbow and shoulder joints flexible, so as the model moves back and forth, his hands stay attached to the hatch or the MG in front of him

PS. Just noticed that the M1 TC model was changed so he is leaning forward and has a hand up. It looks a lot better. The Humvee gunner model , or the M1 loader models have not been changed, they still stand up with arms at their sides

I know BFC had limited time to push the product out of the door, so I hope these and other models/animations will be improved, perhaps with CM Marines release

[ April 15, 2008, 10:30 AM: Message edited by: M1A1TC ]

[c3k]

Right.

Has NOONE else noticed this?

This has gameplay implications. I would think that tank crewmember algorithms should be a matter of high priority in an upcoming patch.

Ken

[Exel]

The fact that different "rules" for crew behaviour exist for different vehicles is a real problem that needs to be addressed. Especially when the game gives you NO information about which vehicle needs to be in what mode to reload or fire a said weapon. It's not fun guessing if I need to keep the crew of this and that vehicle "Open Up" or not to reload or fire a give weapon of theirs.

[Elmar Bijlsma]

The .50 on the Stryker is its only weapon, therefore it's a priority that it is kept supplied with ammo, hence it's done automatically when ever the need arises.

The Abrams also has the coax and the 120mm and really isn't relying on the flexible .50 for its firepower so I reckon it is better if reloading it is user controlled to prevent automatic behaviour getting the TC killed.

[MarkEzra]

Originally posted by Elmar Bijlsma:

The .50 on the Stryker is its only weapon, therefore it's a priority that it is kept supplied with ammo, hence it's done automatically when ever the need arises.

The Abrams also has the coax and the 120mm and really isn't relying on the flexible .50 for its firepower so I reckon it is better if reloading it is user controlled to prevent automatic behaviour getting the TC killed.

This makes more sense to me.

[Battlefront.com]

Question... which model of Abrams?

The M1A2's .50cal is not remote fired, so it can only be fired when the crew is unbuttoned. I'm wondering if that's what you're seeing or if there is indeed a logic issue that we need to deal with. Certainly we don't intend on there being different logic for the two vehicles.

Steve

[c3k]

Steve,

Thanks for the reply. HERE is a thread with DETAILED information. Savegames are available.

This is the same thread I referenced in the original post. Read through to the BOLD text portions. It's there that I describe the actions. (It's an M1A1SA.)

I think...(yeah, here comes an opinion)...that there are three behaviors for the Abrams crew: tight button up - they don't pop up unless I order them to; Open up - TC and Loader are up, firing at will with MG's. TacAI will determine if loader ducks back in. (Doesn't that make it sound easy?). Finally, Normal ops - Tank is buttoned, but remote fired .50 gets reloaded as needed (TacAI determination).

Again, savegames are available, but this is an easily replicated issue.

Thanks,

Ken

[Battlefront.com]

Ah... actually, Elmar might be right here. Thinking back on it, originally the TacAI never self-unbuttoned to reload a weapon. This caused a lot of frustration because the Strykers have only the one weapon and so testers (this was a long time before release) were at first reporting Strykers not firing as a bug. Then, after they all learned what was going on, that it was annoying and potentially deadly in WeGO behavior.

Based on the feedback Charles changed it so there was a semi-intelligent decision to unbutton and reload or to sit tight. I'm guessing he didn't change the behavior of the Abrams because the reason for it (as Elmar stated) simply wasn't present with the Abrams like with the Strykers.

Thinking about this again, for the first time in a LONG time, I have to say that I like the way things are now:

In general an Abrams crew, when buttoned should stay buttoned. It has plenty of internal armaments to deal with the enemy without risking getting picked off. This is not true of the Stryker. If the VC doesn't risk exposure to reload then the vehicle is defenseless, which generally isn't a good thing.

Now, if the player overrides this and unbuttons the Abrams, then by all means let it use the weapons on the roof. This is the player saying to the crew "hey, I think the risk of getting picked off is small enough that you can go topside". If something bad happens the player is to blame for it, not the TacAI. If the TacAI where to make this call on its own I am sure there would be much complaining

So I guess the way to look at this is that unbuttoning of an armored vehicle is consistent. The logic is that the crew should only unbutton itself based on need or explicit player instruction, but in general should try to stay buttoned otherwise.

Make more sense now?

Steve

[Flanker15]

The problem with the auto reload for the stryker is I abuse it allot to get cheap kills. I get the stryker's attention then take cover until it runs out of ammo and then shoot the guy when he pops up. Also it sometimes gets my stryker guy killed since he pops up to reload when there's a bagillion bad guys next to him.

Another question, why doesn't the M1A2 have a remote 50.cal turret? German and Soviet/Russian tanks have had them since WW2.

[gibsonm]

Originally posted by Flanker15:

Another question, why doesn't the M1A2 have a remote 50.cal turret? German and Soviet/Russian tanks have had them since WW2.

I don't think so.

They may have had them during the Second World War (I can't think of one though in the PzKfz series). On the Soviet side, the T-34 series and KV's didn't either (unless you class the rear turret MG in the KV as "remote"). Can't remember if the IS-I had one but I'm pretty sure the IS-II and III didn't. Maybe some of the real early multi turret ones were "remote" but I'm pretty sure they all had large crews with someone behind each weapon.

Both Leopard I and II, the only German built tanks put into production (I'm not including the "tank by committee" MBT70) since the Second World War don't have them. Indeed normally only the Loader's hatch has a MG3 on it and its not remotely operated or under armour.

The closest I can think of is the rear weapon station on the Marder.

All Soviet MBT's since the war T-55, T-62, T-64, T-72, T-80, T-90 and variants didn't / don't either. The crew commander "unbuttons" to use his 12.7mm.

Again I can only think of the BMP-3's hull mounted MG's as maybe qualifying as "remote" (i.e. not manned directly by a crewman but operated via a video link).

I think only the M-48, M-60 and now the M-1 series qualify as "remote" in terms of being able to be fired while the commander remains under armour.

But none of those are "remote" in the same way as the Stryker's RWS or ASLAV Type 2 RWS where the firer is able to observe, lay and fire the weapon while being some distance from it.

[c3k]

Steve,

If there's logic driving the Stryker reload behavior, why can't that be applied to Abrams? If the .50 has run out of ammo, that means I'm using it, and I'll probably want to use it some more. A quick TacAI controlled pop up and reload would help.

Playing WEGO means that a reload sequence is very poor. Potentially, I could run out of ammo in the first second of a turn. Then, a minute later, I order OPEN UP. The TC stays up for a minute. Then, I can order untoggle OPEN UP (for button up behavior).

That's a full minute of exposure after a full minute of a weapon being down for lack of ammo.

A corollary issue is the loader's weapon:

Right now, with OPEN UP, the ONLY roof weapon available to an Abrams is the TC's gun.

The only way to OPEN UP an Abrams and use the loader's machine gun is to also TARGET LIGHT.

If you command OPEN UP and hope for full machine gun use from an Abrams, you don't get it.

I'm fine with the logic that Button Up (or the untoggle state of OPEN UP) keeps the Abrams sealed. I'm sure there'd be wailing and gnashing of teeth every time a buttoned up tank's TC stuck his head up and got popped. (Hmm, early builds of CMx1 anyone?)

Right now, to me, it's a bit of a kludge. Button up seals the tank. Fine.

Open Up puts the TC heads up and allows his MG to be reloaded. But, the other machinegun on the roof doesn't get used against targets unless you specifically order it.

How can I get the loader to protect the side of the tank?

It's obvious I'd like to see the crew AI tweaked. The biggest issue would be to stay protected when ordered to button up, and that is what the game does now. It's a matter of addressing the in-between state of reloading but staying under cover in a light to medium threat environment. (And the loader. Have I mentioned the loader?)

Thanks,

Ken

[Battlefront.com]

Flanker15,

Another question, why doesn't the M1A2 have a remote 50.cal turret?

Design compromise for some reason or another. The M1A2 SEP has remote .50cal again, so obviously the powers that be figured out that they made a mistake that needed to be corrected.

c3k,

If there's logic driving the Stryker reload behavior, why can't that be applied to Abrams?

We could, but see Flanker15's previous post to see why we aren't so sure it would be an overall good thing.

As per the logic I outlined above, the Abrams should not be in a situation where its crew is bouncing back and forth trying to keep the .50cal or its loader's M249 firing and ducking for cover. Therefore, if you are in a situation where being picked off is a significant risk you should want the crew to remain buttoned. If you're in an environment where the crew isn't really under much direct threat, then unbuttoning and STAYING unbuttoned is the way to go. The loader shouldn't by default be topside AFAIK, which is why normally he isn't there.

It's asking an awful lot of the TacAI to try and figure out when it should stay buttoned and when it should unbutton based on the bigger tactical picture. It's not even easy for a Human to figure this out. Hence why we have the logic the way it is now.

Steve

[gibsonm]

Yes, unless its a road march where his job is air sentry, he should be inside the turret serving the gun.

[Battlefront.com]

Thanks Mark.

c3k, keep in mind that the Abrams is a tank, not a MG platform. It's primary purpose is to engage enemy armor and other things that a 120mm gun is better at doing than .50 or 7.62 can dream of doing. Therefore, the TacAI should be weighted towards that purpose. And that purpose is compromised, quite badly, if one of the crewmen is picked off by a couple penny's worth of metal.

This is not to say that a tank's secondary armament isn't useful, because it is. But the crew shouldn't unnecessarily risked for things which other units should be able to handle.

This discussion has been a good one because it's good to question the logic when it appears, on the surface, to be unevenly applied. However, if you look at it from the perspective I've outlined (unit function vs. weapon function) there is pretty strong logic. So strong that I don't think it would be a good idea to change what we've got in the game now.

Steve

[gibsonm]

There will of course be exceptions, something like the ROE prevents the use of main armament and the "hordes" are coming from a direction that the gunner's coax can't come to bear quickly but these certainly wouldn't be the "norm".

But the ability to move the vehicle rapidly to a new location to restore the "stand off" range so the gunner can traverse in time or otherwise mitigate the threat should limit this.

At the far end of the probability scale would be something like a M-Killed vehicle not supported by anyone else trying to defend itself but even then staying protected inside is usually the better course of action.

An example being an action with the Royal Scots Dragoon Guards where a Challenger II was immobilised (basically bogged) near Basra and the crew remained "buttoned up" overnight and withstood a hail of RPG and small arms fire.

The vehicle was recovered the next morning pitted with RPG impacts, all antennae shot off, vision blocks and sights damaged by gun fire / weapon hits, but no one hurt.

[John Kettler]

Flanker15,

The German Hetzer TD had a remote MG, as did certain

models of the StuG IV and the last run of the StuG III/G. The installation looked like this.

http://www.pzfahrer.net/hetzermgs.html

The Bundeswehr's Marder APC also had a remote MG.

Later versions had multiple remotely operated weapons fitted.

http://www.one35th.com/model/Gallery/gallerydetail1.htm

The Pakistanis, Turkish and Moroccan Armies operate the Pakistani produced Akrep (Scorpion) armored car with a remote MG mount.

http://www.pakdef.info/pakmilitary/army/tanks/akerp.html

As for the Russians, the T-64 and the T-80 can fire the 12.7mm NSVT while buttoned.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-64

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-80

Regards,

John Kettler

[gibsonm]

John,

Thanks for the links.

Pretty much as per my post of yesterday but thanks for expanding it to cover the Jagdpanzers.

I didn't include those because he said "tanks".

I stand corrected though on the T-64 and T-80 (which makes sense as the later uses the former's turret as a start point).

I'm still not certain what his definition of "remote" is though. If he means "under armour" then we are fine, if he means "well away" (as per the gunners on the B-29s who weren't located near the gun turrets), then the list of vehicles is considerably shorter.

[Exel]

The rule of thumb taught to us was the loader is up if the TC is up, and buttons up when the TC buttons up. I'm not sure if that's the American procedure too, but I would think so. At least it would make more sense game-wise.

The unbuttoned loading sequence should be automatic for all vehicles when there are no threats in sight. If there are, then the vehicle shouldn't auto-open up no matter what, be it Stryker or Abrams. The key here is to have same behaviour logic to all vehicles.

[Exel]

Originally posted by John Kettler:

As for the Russians, the T-64 and the T-80 can fire the 12.7mm NSVT while buttoned.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-64

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-80

Regards,

John Kettler

So too can the T-90. The NSVT is stabilized and is slaved to its own FCS.

[c3k]

Steve,

Thanks for the response. I continue to disagree that the loader's job is to service the gun. Yeah, sounds funny. When the main gun is going to be used or is being used, yes, that's the reason the loader is there. But using the machinegun on the roof is also one of his jobs.

Heads up spotting prior to enemy contact is also his job.

What happens after my Abrams has used its 17 HEAT rounds? If there are no enemy vehicles present, the only useful weapons are its machineguns. If I OPEN UP, the TC's .50 is running. The coax will be used. But, the loader's 240 is not. (Again, unless I OPEN UP and TARGET LIGHT.)

I think it comes down to a matter of what the procedures are that they operate under. (I'm not sure that Australian style rules would apply, regardless of gibsonm's knowledge. )

Do we have any US Abrams tankers here who would like to chime in?

Also, I am not advocating that the loader and TC time their trigger pulls or reloads in between the pinging of incoming small arms fire. It sounds like that's what you imply, above. Rather, if the .50 is out of ammo and the tank is not actively engaged, when will the TC reload? Right now the answer is never.

It's livable as is: it just adds a level of micromanagement to the Abrams which isn't present on the Stryker. And it almost completely negates the loader's roofmount.

Finally, an overarching perspective. The Abrams has, potentially, three separate weapons/target points: The main gun/coax; the TC's .50; the loader's 240. In real life, each one could fire at separate targets. They cannot do so in CMSF. Now, that may not make my life incomplete, but it does take a little away from the game.

Regardless of CMSF, what about future games? T-35's with 5 turrets may not be on the calender, but add a Sherman's bow gun, coax, roof mount and you have the same issues present with the Abrams. Multiple machineguns used on multiple targets.

Food for thought.

Thanks,

Ken

P.S. Note Exel's post, above.

[gibsonm]

Originally posted by c3k:

I think it comes down to a matter of what the procedures are that they operate under. (I'm not sure that Australian style rules would apply, regardless of gibsonm's knowledge. )

Do we have any US Abrams tankers here who would like to chime in?

Granted it may not be current as of "today" but the doctrine I was quoting was for US Army "tankers" (as you put it) from discussions I've had with staff from:

US Army Armour Centre - Fort Knox, Kentucky

3rd Armoured Cavalry Regiment "The Brave Rifles" - Fort Hood, Texas

and staff at The National Training Centre at Fort Irwin, California

So I think its pretty representative of US Doctrine (and is also almost an ABCA standard as it applies here in Australia, in Canada, in the United Kingdom and indeed the USA).

The crew's job is to focus on a target which is why in real life multi turreted vehicles are not around much anymore and things like the Commander's Independent Thermal Viewer (CITV) on the M1A2 and similar devices are fitted to Challenger II and Leopard II to assist with acquiring and engaging those targets in as short a time frame as possible.

Multi turreted / multi weaponed vehicles did allow you to fire at different targets but this is outweighed by the large imposition on the Crew Commander in terms of controlling the crew and directing the fire.

This is why vehicles like the Char B1, the M3 "Lee" / "Grant", T-35, Crusader Mark I, etc. were ultimately replaced by vehicles with one primary weapon system (as well as the technological advances that allowed the main gun to be moved from the hull to the turret).

A similar thing applies in the dismounted world where the Section / Squad focuses on a target at a time.

[ April 18, 2008, 05:21 AM: Message edited by: gibsonm ]

[Exel]

And yet it is the job of the loader and, in the Abrams, the TC to cover the flanks of their vehicle with their MGs. See YouTube videos of M1s advancing into Baghdad. The gunner engages priority targets while both the loader and TC fire their machineguns and handguns at secondary targets.

The loader and TC should be able to engage a nearby enemy AT team even when the gunner is busy engaging a BMP at distance.

[gibsonm]

Originally posted by Exel:

The loader and TC should be able to engage a nearby enemy AT team even when the gunner is busy engaging a BMP at distance.

That isn't possible.

Who do you think loads the rounds while "the gunner is busy engaging a BMP at distance"?

The gunner doesn't get out of his seat crawl across the turret floor, load the gun, crawl back and then fire.

The tank works because each part of the crew does their own job. This is why crew served weapons have crews.

Yes in extreme circumstances, a person would be able to do all the jobs but in far longer time and at a massive reduction in efficiency.

[c3k]

Granted, all those tanks with multiple turrets have been phased out in favor of single turret designs. Therefore, multiple turret tanks have been proved to be design failures. Yet, they were produced; they did fight. How will the CMx2 engine portray them?

Back to machineguns and tanks: if all your conversations (more than I've had) revolved around crew doctrine and the consensus is that the loader stays buttoned up, why then is there a machinegun for him? I'm sure it's not to balance the suspension. Under what conditions is the loader expected to pull a trigger? Under what conditions is a loader expected to open his hatch? Under what conditions is a loader expected to scan a sector?

The Abrams has one primary weapons system. Yet, it also has 3 machineguns. The coax is physically and systemically sistered to the primary weapon. That leaves two other weapons.

The typical loadout in CMSF is 17 sabot rounds and 17 HEAT rounds. The HEAT rounds are the only semi-useful round against soft targets. (I thought other rounds had been developed, procured, and distributed due to the shortcoming of these two ammo types. That's a different subject.) Now, after I've exhausted my 17 HEAT rounds, what good is the Abrams? The TC, IN GAME, must remain exposed for a minute at a time if I want to keep the .50 firing. (Reloading requires that in WEGO.) The loader is useless unless I have a TARGET LIGHT order.

Why can't the Abrams have 3 distinct target arcs?

So, I'm hitting the same points, yet, I'm not hearing direct answers. Well, other than, "doctrine demands the loader's machinegun is generally useless." I will grant that in many cases the loader should never leave his primary position. Please refer to my questions regarding the loader, above.

As a former Air Force member, the most contact I've had with armor is driving a few vehicles and firing the odd gun. Admittedly, I do not have first person experience with operating procedures for Abrams.

I'm trying to keep this focused on the game, not a minutiae driven argument.

Regards,

Ken