Stryker and M1 machinegun misbehavior

[gibsonm]

Originally posted by 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?

Don't know. That is a question for Steve / Charles. Maybe they wont be modelled?

Originally posted by c3k:

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?

During a road march or advance out of contact he assists with providing an air sentry role. This is the main reason for the Loader's MG (i.e. to fire at aircraft, helicopters and UAV's).

Now I'm not saying he will never use the MG on the roof above him against ground targets, but its a far more secondary role.

I'm sure I said this earlier.

For what its worth one of his other jobs is to load the coax MG used by the gunner, so if you like he is contributing to that stabilised and far more accurate fire instead of hose piping from the pintle mounted MG.

For what its worth whenever I've been operating my focus has been on acquiring targets for the gunner, controlling the vehicle, navigating maintaining comms both up and down and situational awareness. Firing MG's (apart from coax) never really came into it.

As for the "what do I do when I run out of HEAT?" issue

This is one of the asymmetric issues of pitting an Army designed for high intensity conventional manoeuvre warfare into a MOUT environment.

You need to ensure that Tank / Infantry co-operation is used. That there is mutual support between the arms, that the vehicles are rotated out as their main ammunition load is reduced (one of the reasons why I've suggested a "battle replen" feature elsewhere), etc.

Certainly a tank with the current ammunition load out will use those rounds quickly but that is one of the challenges that you as a commander will face.

I'm afraid though you will almost never see a tank tun up fully loaded with HEAT / HE and almost no APFSDS on board. They are loaded to support the prevailing Western doctrine (current since about 1940) that tanks are there to fight tanks and then support the Infantry after the enemy anti armour threat has been suppressed / neutralised.

Many Soviet tanks have a different ammo load as they had a slightly different view (and of course usually planned to have a numerical advantage so that a smaller number of rounds carried per tank was compensated for by having more tanks there firing).

I also think this gets back to the "Its the Invasion phase, not COIN phase, stupid" focus of CM:SF too.

During this phase ROE would probably allow the use of main armament more liberally than the later "COIN phase". So perhaps they have decided to focus on the tank working that way rather than the later psychological impact of a 70 tonne roadblock but where firing may be limited to MG's only.

Is that a direct enough answer for you?

[ April 18, 2008, 01:24 PM: Message edited by: gibsonm ]

[c3k]

Tests underway...

[gibsonm]

Sorry you have lost me.

[c3k]

Lost? Hmmm, perhaps if your loader had his head up you would've been able to spot where I was going...

Okay, that was lame, but give me points for keeping the humor going.

I'm running a bunch of tests on the Abrams in game. I'm finding some interesting stuff. A lot of my views on the Abrams have been from some limited experience in uncontrolled situations in various scenarios. I'm trying to control the variables and come up with solid results. (An ammo loadout controller in the editor would be hugely beneficial. I want full MG ammo and no main gun ammo. I'm having to burn off the HEAT by area targeting empty buildings.)

I'll post more later.

Regards,

Ken

[Battlefront.com]

Remember, there is consistent logic going on. It's just not the logic some are looking for The logic is that crew exposure is proportional to need. Strykers need to be exposed more because without exposure their offensive capability is completely neutralized after a short engagement. Abrams have internal systems which keep it capable of offensive action without any need to risk exposure. Therefore, Stryker crews risk exposure while the Abrams don't. It's the same for Syrian vehicles too. So again... it's consistent logic, though I can understand how that isn't immediately obvious.

The loader's MG position is, as Mark outlined, there for reasons that are generally outside of CM's scope. There were issues like this in CMx1 games, particularly with German tank roof mounted MGs, so it's not the first time we've done this.

Vehicles with the capability to independently target units can in fact do so. The thing is you can not specifically target two different units, rather you have to rely upon the TacAI to handle spreading the fire out. This is how we handled the same exact issue in CMx1. It's a compromise to make the game more playable and less micromanagement orientated. We are not going to change that.

Multi-turreted vehicles in WW2 were the exceptions rather than the rule and were mostly early war designs that were dropped as quickly as they could be replaced. I have no idea when we'll ever get around to simulating such vehicles since we have no immediate plans to do earlier war settings. Therefore, I can't comment on how we'd handle things like the T-35 or Grant because it really isn't relevant.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

Forgot to restate that the reason why the TacAI doesn't unbutton Abrams based on threat is because the TacAI is incapable of making that sort of decision. Picture unbuttoning when there is "no threat" only to have an unseen sniper 300m away pop your TC. Who do you think will get the blame... the player or us?

Steve

[Secondbrooks]

Right on spot! I would order that tank to reverse at T-72s. And after T-72s have finished with it, i would feed the remaining crew to wolfs.

Simple as that, .50 cal can stay shut if that way i can keep my 120mm cannon firing as fast as it can (=loader alive).

[c3k]

BF.C,

As I stated earlier, the unexpected opening up if explicitly directed to BUTTON UP (a command missing in CMSF) was frustrating in CMx1. This is done by the absence of OPEN UP in CMSF.

Okay I've done some more tests...

If an Abrams is out of HEAT, and not ordered OPEN UP, it will only use its coax against infantry targets.

Same conditions, but ordered OPEN UP, the Abrams will use the coax. The TC will only open up to reload the .50. The loader will exhibit TacAI driven behavior and man his machinegun as incoming fire allows. (The TC ducking back down MAY be a result of incoming fire.)

This is much better behavior than I previously thought.

Back to more editor tweaking...

Ken

[Exel]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Remember, there is consistent logic going on. It's just not the logic some are looking for The logic is that crew exposure is proportional to need. Strykers need to be exposed more because without exposure their offensive capability is completely neutralized after a short engagement. Abrams have internal systems which keep it capable of offensive action without any need to risk exposure. Therefore, Stryker crews risk exposure while the Abrams don't. It's the same for Syrian vehicles too. So again... it's consistent logic, though I can understand how that isn't immediately obvious.

I'd appreciate if BFC didn't override US Army logic with their own. If the vehicle hasn't been ordered to button up and the vehicle is not engaging with its main gun, the loader should stay "topside" and man the machinegun. Likewise if either roof machinegun is empty and the vehicle is not engaging or is not immediately threatened, the crew should automatically reload the machineguns. That's standard procedure, and is the only logic that can be logically expected. You may have a different logic, but how should be players be able to anticipate what that is? Especially since you don't apply the same logic to all vehicles.

Either have automated crew behaviour in all vehicles or none. This "some vehicles are automated, some are not" is confusing to the player, especially when there is no GUI input about which vehicle follows which logic.

[c3k]

BF.C,

Is it possible for the Tank Commander to swap positions and take over the Loader's machinegun?

This seems to have occurred. The TC is black, the loader is white. Absent any other identifiers, that's what may've happened. The Loader got hit (nice scream), and fell back inside. A few seconds later the TC showed up out of his hatch. This left the .50 unmanned.

The TC only lasted a few seconds before an RPG destroyed the tank.

Is this coded? Or did I catch a bug? (Screenie may be available.)

Ken

[c3k]

Oh,

So far, the three machinegun systems target enemy units individually. Very cool!

Well done, BF.C.

(Of course, I'm still testing the open up/button up behavior...)

Thanks,

Ken

[YankeeDog]

Originally posted by c3k:

BF.C,

Is it possible for the Tank Commander to swap positions and take over the Loader's machinegun?

This seems to have occurred. The TC is black, the loader is white. Absent any other identifiers, that's what may've happened. The Loader got hit (nice scream), and fell back inside. A few seconds later the TC showed up out of his hatch. This left the .50 unmanned.

The TC only lasted a few seconds before an RPG destroyed the tank.

Is this coded? Or did I catch a bug? (Screenie may be available.)

Ken

I obviously can't speak to what's actually in the game, but my understanding is that this is how it's supposed to work IRL -- priority for the turret crew is to keep the main gun crewed, so if the gunner or loader goes down, the TC takes over their job.

Given the layout of the Abrams turret, the TC would have to physically move back to the loader's position to do his job -- there's no practical way he could hop back and forth between the loader's position and the TC's position and fill both jobs.

My guess is that the tank would probably also then take the first opportunity available to pull back, but in CMSF that's up to the player.

Cheers,

YD

[Battlefront.com]

Excel,

I'd appreciate if BFC didn't override US Army logic with their own.

I'm not aware that we are. As far as we know in a combat situation the crew remains buttoned, with the possible exception of the TC. As Gibsonm pointed out, road marches, parameter security when not in active combat, etc. aren't applicable to CM:SF.

Likewise if either roof machinegun is empty and the vehicle is not engaging or is not immediately threatened, the crew should automatically reload the machineguns. That's standard procedure, and is the only logic that can be logically expected.

Easier said than done, I'm sorry to say.

Especially since you don't apply the same logic to all vehicles.

Again, we apply the same logic to all vehicles, it's just not the logic you're looking for. Since they are mutually exclusive there can only be one or the other, not both.

Either have automated crew behaviour in all vehicles or none.

oooo... I definitely don't think that's a good idea. Blanket statements like that are really counter productive. There are vehicle/unit specific ways of handling things all over the game. That's because different things need to respond based on how they specifically should behave, not how some other thing in the game should behave.

This "some vehicles are automated, some are not" is confusing to the player, especially when there is no GUI input about which vehicle follows which logic.

Now on this point I don't disagree. So I think the real solution here is to make things more obvious, not necessarily to change the logic itself. We'll give that a think.

YD,

I obviously can't speak to what's actually in the game, but my understanding is that this is how it's supposed to work IRL -- priority for the turret crew is to keep the main gun crewed, so if the gunner or loader goes down, the TC takes over their job.

Yes, priority is to keep that gun fed and firing. I think if the loader gets hit the standard would be for the gunner to become loader and the TC to become gunner. This is because the gunner's position has most of what the TC needs to keep the vehicle in the fight from a situational standpoint. Plus, the TC's position is right behind the loader's so it would be easier for him to switch back and forth between the two spots than if he was in the loader's position.

Having said that, I'm not sure if this is official or just the most logical thing. I'm sure that an individual crew would have the better gunner in the gunner's seat and the other person in the loader's. If the TC wasn't that great of a gunner he might very well go to the loader's position.

c3k,

So far, the three machinegun systems target enemy units individually. Very cool!

Heh... told you As I said, this happens in CMx1 as well. Especially with the bow MG since it had a dedicated gunner (most of the time) and was under armor.

Steve

Steve

[M1A1TC]

Steve

You are correct - the gunner would take over the loading job, while TC can continue firing main gun, even from his usual position

[John Kettler]

gibsonm,

Yes, I did focus on the "remote" part of Flanker15's question, did drag in SPs, but semiredeemed myself with the Russian stuff. Glad you liked the links, especially since so many excoriate me for posting links! As for the B-29 setup, you read my mind. Was going to mention that and have an old book here that treats the remote weapons and other goodies. It's called NEW WEAPONS FOR AIR WARFARE. Bet you'd like it.

Exel,

Was wondering about that but stopped at the T-80. You were right, though, to look at the T-90, since we will have that.

Regards,

John Kettler

[c3k]

Whoa, whoa, whoa!

The TC took over the loader's MACHINEGUN. The maingun was out of ammo. The coax was fine. The .50 was fine. The TC left the .50 (remote fired) and its underarmor protection so he could be less protected and fire the loader's 240.

The TC did NOT take over LOADING the gun. He went to a less well protected machinegun position whereupon he was promptly wounded.

Is THAT what is supposed to happen? (Cool nonetheless.)

Regards,

Ken

[Battlefront.com]

Thanks M1A1TC. Figured that was it based on my quick experience with SIMNET at Ft. Knox. Charles, Matt, and I had fun playing tankers and getting a feel for how the inside of the tank works during combat. I was Charles was the Gunner, I was the TC, and of course we made Matt the Loader. We had a Major as Driver. heh

c3k,

Two possibilities. One, Charles has the TC acting as Loader instead of Gunner in the event that the Loader is a casualty. That's wrong if that's the case. The other possibility is that the Gunner is also black, so when the Loader was hit the black TC went into the Gunner's seat and the black Gunner went into the Loader's position. You can confirm this one way or the other by bailing the crew out and watching who comes out of each hatch.

But whatever the case may be, the TC position was vacated and the Loader position was occupied. If that tank still had ammo the guy standing up in the Loader's hatch would be the one to keep the gun loaded.

BTW, the two casualties you suffered show why you shouldn't be so focused on getting those MGs working vs. moving your tank the heck back out of the thick of it

Steve

[Exel]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

As far as we know in a combat situation the crew remains buttoned, with the possible exception of the TC. As Gibsonm pointed out, road marches, parameter security when not in active combat, etc. aren't applicable to CM:SF.

I would disagree, simply judging from all the footage from Iraq even during the 2003 war. You have plenty of videos in YouTube showing commanders and loaders actively engaging with their MGs.

From my training I can say that the TC's primary job is to keep good situational awareness and command over his unit. That requires sticking your head out the hatch. If the vehicle is taking fire, then you'd button up, but you unbutton as soon as you break contact. While the TC is unbuttoned and the gunner is not engaging with the main gun, then the loader is unbuttoned too and manning the 240. When out of contact / when not under heavy fire it's the job of the TC and loader to secure the flanks with the MGs while the gunner secures his sector with the main armament. Likewise the crew should take the first opportunity to load the MGs.

Easier said than done, I'm sorry to say.

I don't see why. Two simple rules for the TacAI: 1) the vehicle is not taking fire, 2) the vehicle has no enemies in LOS. If those conditions are met then the TacAI is safe to unbutton to load the guns if they are empty. Then button back up after reloading if that was the selected state prior.

If the prior state was "open up", then only rule 1 should be used to trigger buttoning up.

If the vehicles main systems require unbuttoning to be used, like with the Stryker, then you can have those vehicles ignore rule 2.

This behaviour should be standard for all vehicles, and I don't see any reason why it shouldn't. As it is many vehicles button up way too hastily just having seen an enemy, even when they require being unbuttoned to use their main systems. On the other hand other vehicles are too hesitant to open up when out of contact. Using the two simple rules above solves both issues, and the logic would be same for all vehicles.

It's a simple solution, and unless you can point out some flaw I don't see anything wrong with it. Cheers.

[c3k]

Steve,

First, here's what I put the tank against:

Yeah, that's a bunch of platoons of Syrians against a single tank.

Fun test.

Anyhow, the crux of the matter is the choice of the weapon the TC left. Like I posted earlier, first I fired off all the maingun HEAT.

The Abrams is left with three weapons against the horde of infantry:

a) The coax 7.62

The remote fired .50

c) The roofmount 7.62

a) is tied into the fire control system. I would think that machinegun would have the highest priority to be kept firing.

Why would the TC leave and man c)? Or, why would the gunner (if that's who it was) leave a) to man c), making the TC leave to man a)?

In both those situations is left unmanned while c) takes priority (and in this case producing more tank crew casualties).

It seems that if a choice has to be made between the loader's roofmount 7.62 or the TC's .50, the .50 should win. That didn't happen.

Regards,

Ken

[Exel]

If the loader gets it, the gunner takes his place. You need to keep loading the main gun AND the coax to keep the tank in the fight. The TC can assume the role of the gunner, but because he also needs to keep commanding the tank, he will take over the gunner's controls from his own position. His ability to aim the main gun is slightly reduced, but he can control the turret and the .50 from the TC position. Not sure if that is possible in M1A1, but it is in M1A2.

[c3k]

Exel,

Thanks. The oddity I saw was the someone manned the loader's machinegun after the loader was hit (red cross), and put out of the fight. That leaves the driver and one other...I was, and am, surprised that the loader's machinegun would be manned and not the TC's .50 or the coax. (3 machineguns, 2 men left.)

The maingun is out of the fight. Nothing but swarms of infantry and sabot rounds. Reloading the coax should not take a single individuals undivided attention. I could see a lull in firing while it's being reloaded.

Can the TC fire both the remote .50 and the coax simultaneously? (It seems doubtful to me.) At least aimed fire...

Regards,

Ken

[gibsonm]

Originally posted by c3k:

Can the TC fire both the remote .50 and the coax simultaneously?

Regards,

Ken

No.

[c3k]

Hmmm,

That means someone manned the coax and the TC's .50 was left unmanned while the other uninjured turret crew member opened up to man the loader's machinegun. I would think the TacAI logic could be tweaked a bit.

Thanks

Ken

[M1A1TC]

Originally posted by Exel:

If the loader gets it, the gunner takes his place. You need to keep loading the main gun AND the coax to keep the tank in the fight. The TC can assume the role of the gunner, but because he also needs to keep commanding the tank, he will take over the gunner's controls from his own position. His ability to aim the main gun is slightly reduced, but he can control the turret and the .50 from the TC position. Not sure if that is possible in M1A1, but it is in M1A2.

All very correct, and pretty much what I posted earlier. Yes, it is possible with M1A1, TC has over-ride control of the main gun

[c3k]

Okay,

So the TC moves forward and fires the coax. Cool.

The gunner slides to his left and loads the coax. In between loading he's free to pop up and fire the loader's machinegun?

If that's how it's done, then what I saw makes perfect sense.

Hmmm, another bow to the attention to detail shown by BF.C in this game. Well done.

Thanks,

Ken