Stryker and M1 machinegun misbehavior

[Exel]

Originally posted by c3k:

The maingun is out of the fight. Nothing but swarms of infantry and sabot rounds.

I don't know if that's the case in CM, but sabot rounds should be effective against infantry in buildings as well. APFSDS punching through a concrete wall will send all kinds of nasty **** flying around the room, enough to give anyone inside a really bad day.

HEAT is of course even more effective, but the game should permit the use of sabot rounds as well if other ammunition is out, at least if the buildings are manually targeted. If it doesn't already that is, haven't tested.

Other than preference for HEAT, sabot rounds aren't usually used in built-up areas because they'll penetrate the target building and anything that's behind it as well, so they aren't exactly collateral damage safe.

[c3k]

Hmmm,

I've done a lot more tests.

The behavior could still, I think, be improved. The crux of the matter revolves around the TC not reloading the .50 unless specifically ordered OPEN UP. In WEGO that will result in TC exposure beyond what the .50 reload for the Stryker requires.

Now, I'm not trying to get the TC to reload while a hail of small arms fire is hitting the tank. I'd like him to automatically reload using the same behavior as the Stryker VC. (With, of course, exceptions: enemy armor in sight or being engaged;or if a new command, BUTTON UP, has been given.)

So, that leads me to the conclusion that there should be THREE states for tank crews, not two.

Right now there is OPEN UP and not-OPEN UP.

I submit an additional BUTTON UP is needed.

OPEN UP should operate the way it is now. TC heads up, automatically reloads the .50.

BUTTON UP should operate the way non-OPEN UP works now. The tank stays shut: period. No stray round will knock out the TC at the worst moment.

However, the lack of either OPEN UP or BUTTON UP should result in a modified behavior. Yeah, the TC will pop up and reload the .50 using Stryker style algorithms.

Okay, what about the loader? Well, right now with TARGET LIGHT the loader mans his machinegun and the TC buttons up to use the remote firing mechanism for the .50, reloading as needed. Otherwise the loader never comes topside - he needs TARGET LIGHT. (Sometimes the TacAI will self-initiate a TARGET LIGHT.)

With the new OPEN UP I'd maintain the loader should be up. Only popping down to reload the coax. If enemy armor is sighted, then the tank buttons up to fight the armor.

BUTTON UP would keep the loader down.

The lack of either OPEN UP or BUTTON UP would keep the loader manning the gun or the coax, unless the TacAI overrides it for a TARGET LIGHT.

Regards,

Ken

[gibsonm]

Originally posted by c3k:

With the new OPEN UP I'd maintain the loader should be up. Only popping down to reload the coax.

Regards,

Ken

Well you'd be wrong.

But it seems it doesn't matter how many times you are told. So I guess you are destined to be disappointed.

[c3k]

Ahhh, yes. Thank you gibsonm for adding constructively to this. Again.

But, since your sig shows you to have more of an armor background than I (again, in Australian service rather than U.S. with whatever differences that entails) when, if ever, do Australian Abrams loaders come up out of their hatch? Heck, do Australian Abrams even HAVE machineguns for their loaders?

As I stated, right now the TacAI will let the loader unbutton. So is that a disappointment? I am advocating allowing USER control for the same behavior the TacAI allows.

The flaw, right now, is that the OPEN UP command toggle is restrictive. I play exclusively in WEGO. To reload the Abrams .50 exposes the TC for a full minute. The loader, enabled by the TacAI to use his roofmount machinegun (despite what you say), will only do so if the user specifies OPEN UP and TARGET LIGHT. That is also restrictive.

In game I must babysit each Abrams. As the .50 shoots down each 100 rounds (the capacity of its ready ammo supply) I must OPEN UP, expose the TC for a full minute, reload, then next turn un-OPEN UP.

Bah.

Now, I haven't even mentioned the dozens of pictures of loaders manning their machinegun and scanning from 8 to 11 o'clock for targets. Nor have I mentioned the gunshields for them. Nor even the thermal sights being added. Nor have I come up with arguments about how disappointed I am that the M256 main gun ammo loadout is missing any cannister or MPAT rounds. I'm saving up for those in later threads.

So, to summarize: Abrams need tight babysitting right now. They are a high source of micromanagement. Strykers are much more capable of reasonable autonomous operation. I have pointed out what I think is missing and suggested a possible solution. If this game engine (CMx2) is the basis for BF.C in the future, I'd like it to be the best possible game engine. The binary state of Abram crews is a flaw.

Add in as many "IMHO" as you feel necessary.

But please do answer (for my curiosity if nothing else) about your experience. What equipment, what units, etc. And do RAAC Abrams have machineguns for loaders? What is their duty prior to armor engagements? What about afterwards?

Regards,

Ken

[gibsonm]

Ken,

If you go back a few posts and read what I’ve written you’ll see where I’ve already told you what the actual US doctrine is (so you don’t need to worry about how well Australian doctrine translates) on I think about three distinct instances now.

But as it doesn’t agree with your wish then I guess you wont.

[c3k]

gibsonm,

Yours is the type of response that does you, BF.C, the RAAC, and Australia a disservice. On one hand you publicly hold yourself to be a representative of all of those entities, then you reply with arrogance, defensiveness, snideness, and rudeness. I know none of the organizations would hold with that behavior.

I shall open the big can of quotes. You asked for it. All the following quotes are yours, my comments follow the bold.

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.

My comment: Here you AGREE that sometimes the loader should be up and firing his machinegun. You put conditions on it. If YOU take the time to read my postings (which I doubt you'll do) you'll see that I have postulated that the loader should be up IN CERTAIN CONDITIONS. The TacAI does this...sometimes. Regardless, let's look for the missing US doctrine you've related thrice.

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

My comment: Hmm, you posting that the loader should be up as air sentry. I agree by definition that the loader is there to load the main gun. Where does your statement support any US doctrine about the loader's duty when the main gun is not being used?

You have not told me what the actual US doctrine is.

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.

My comment: The above is the closes you've come to dicussing ACTUAL doctrine. Where, pray tell, have I tried to say that a tank should not focus on a target? (That being the gist of the relevant section quoted above.) Remove enemy armor from your preconceived notion of what the Abrams is engaging. Will the loader be up or down prior to enemy armor being spotted? Not spotted by the tank, spotted by ANYONE? How many hours of advance will a crew have prior to entering a battlespace requiring the loader to service the main gun? After entering the battlespace, if the main gun is not being used will the TC have the loader join him up top?

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.

My comment: This is a worthwhile posting. This is a good description of how to fight a tank. However, per your statement, where is this an example of US doctrine regarding a loader when the main gun doesn't need servicing? Not there...

And that exhausts all of your postings in this thread regarding the duties of loaders.

In counterpoint, the following are the postings by Exel. I do not know his experience, training, or background. He alludes to some Abrams experience, but that may be not be correct.

********

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.

*********

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.

*********

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.

**********

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.

*******(End Exel's statements)

So gibsonm, other than quips, rudeness, and short answers, you have demonstrated almost no willingness to make a positive contribution to this thread. (In fairness you have made some.) Also you've shown that you support CMSF in whatever its current state may be. I do not. I would like to see it improved. Part of that is to alleviate the micromanagement placed on players.

Since you take exception to what I've posted, both what I see as a problem and what I've suggested as a solution, when would you, in your Abrams, ever reload your remote fired .50? Do you have that gear?

Ken

[gibsonm]

When I’m out of contact, have sent the relevant reports to my superior callsign, have tasked my subordinate callsign, have assisted with adjusting ammunition stowage in the turret and have given my crew brief.

In short, in 99.9% of cases, when there is nothing else left to do. About the only thing it would take priority over is making a brew.

The Commander’s MG is a minute component of the vehicle’s combat power and is not a priority in 99.9% of cases.

[Huntarr]

Section II. RESPONSIBILITIES

The tank crew is a tightly integrated team. Though all members have primary duties, success depends on their effectiveness as a crew. They must work together to maintain and service their tank and equipment, and they must function as one in combat. Crews must cross-train so each member can function at any of the other crew positions.

Platoon Leader

The platoon leader is responsible to the commander for the discipline and training of his platoon, the maintenance of its equipment, and its success in combat. He must be proficient in the tactical employment of his section and of the platoon in concert with a company team or troop. He must have a solid understanding of troop-leading procedures and develop his ability to apply them quickly and efficiently on the battlefield.

The platoon leader must know the capabilities and limitations of the platoon's personnel and equipment; at the same time, he must be well versed in enemy organizations, doctrine, and equipment. He must serve as an effective tank commander (TC). Most important of all, the platoon leader must be flexible, using sound judgment to make correct decisions quickly and at the right times based on his commander's intent and the tactical situation.

Platoon leaders must know and understand the task force mission and the task force commander's intent. They must be prepared to assume the duties of the company commander in accordance with the succession of command.

Platoon Sergeant

The PSG is second in command of the platoon and is accountable to the platoon leader for the training, discipline, and welfare of the soldiers in the platoon. He coordinates the platoon's maintenance and logistics requirements and handles the personal needs of individual soldiers. The PSG is the most experienced TC in the platoon. His tactical and technical knowledge allow him to serve as mentor to crewmen, other NCOs, and the platoon leader. His actions on the battlefield must complement those of the platoon leader. He must fight his section in concert with the platoon leader's section.

Tank Commander

The TC is responsible to the platoon leader and signed equipment, the reporting of logistical needs, and the tactical employment of his tank. He briefs his crew, directs the movement of the tank, submits all reports, and supervises initial first-aid treatment and evacuation of wounded crewmen. He is an expert in using the tank's weapon systems, requesting indirect fires, and executing land navigation.

The TC must know and understand the company mission and company commander's intent. He must be prepared to assume the duties and responsibilities of the platoon leader or PSG in accordance with the succession of command. These requirements demand that the TC maintain situational awareness by using all available optics for observation, by eavesdropping on radio transmissions, and by monitoring the intervehicular information system (IVIS) or appliqué digital screen (if available).

Gunner

The gunner searches for targets and aims and fires both the main gun and the coaxial machine gun. He is responsible to the TC for the maintenance of the tank's armament and fire control equipment. The gunner serves as the assistant TC and assumes the responsibilities of the TC as required. He also assists other crewmembers as needed. Several of his duties involve the tank's communications and internal control systems: logging onto and monitoring communications nets; maintaining digital links if the tank is equipped with the IVIS or appliqué digital system; inputting graphic control measures on digital overlays; and monitoring digital displays during the planning and preparation phases of an operation.

Driver

The driver moves, positions, and stops the tank. While driving, he constantly searches for covered routes and for covered positions to which he can move if the tank is engaged. He maintains his tank's position in formation and watches for visual signals. If the tank is equipped with a steer-to indicator, the driver monitors the device and selects the best tactical route. During engagements, he assists the gunner and TC by scanning for targets and sensing fired rounds. The driver is responsible to the TC for the automotive maintenance and refueling of the tank. He assists other crewmen as needed.

Loader

The loader loads the main gun and the coaxial machine gun ready box; he aims and fires the loader's machine gun (if the vehicle is equipped with one). He stows and cares for ammunition and is responsible to the TC for the maintenance of communications equipment. Before engagement actions are initiated, the loader searches for targets and acts as air or antitank guided missile (ATGM) guard. He also assists the TC as needed in directing the driver so the tank maintains its position in formation. He assists other crewmembers as necessary. Because the loader is ideally positioned both to observe around the tank and to monitor the tank's digital displays, platoon leaders and TCs should give strong consideration to assigning their second most experienced crewman as the loader.

[SgtMuhammed]

"Because the loader is ideally positioned both to observe around the tank and to monitor the tank's digital displays, platoon leaders and TCs should give strong consideration to assigning their second most experienced crewman as the loader."

That's interesting. In actual practice isn't the loader usually the new guy with the gunner being the most experienced, other than the TC?

[Exel]

Originally posted by gibsonm:

Well you'd be wrong.

But it seems it doesn't matter how many times you are told. So I guess you are destined to be disappointed.

You maintain the loader should not man the 240 and not reload it when necessary even when the main gun or coax are not being engaged?

That is his second most important task at all times! If he's not loading the main gun, he's up manning his MG and watching out for threats with his own eyes. He has no reason to stand uselessly under a closed hatch unless the vehicle is specifically covering from incoming fire or from NBC threats. Likewise the commander has no excuse not to reload his MG when not engaging or not being engaged. If there's a lull in the battle it is the first duty of all crewmembers to make themselves and the vehicle ready to continue the fight. That includes reloading whatever armament has been emptied.

[gibsonm]

Originally posted by SgtMuhammed:

"Because the loader is ideally positioned both to observe around the tank and to monitor the tank's digital displays, platoon leaders and TCs should give strong consideration to assigning their second most experienced crewman as the loader."

That's interesting. In actual practice isn't the loader usually the new guy with the gunner being the most experienced, other than the TC?

I usually had my “senior” digger do it because he got an overview of how the crew should work before he became a crew commander himself.

If there were two potential crew commanders, one would be my loader and the other would be the TP SGT’s loader.

[Huntarr]

Originally posted by Huntarr:

"The sole purpose of the cannon on the tank is to let the tank get into where it can use it's machine gun to kill the enemy."

I know some of you will know the above

IMO when the Tank is unbuttoned both the TC and Loader should be manning MGs. They are not going to be unbuttoned in an engagement with armor so the loader will be be in position to man the Main Gun obviously and TC will be at his. This may also fix the seemingly random poping up and down of the loader when you want him to engage with the MG.

[c3k]

Thanks all.

Gibsonm, I appreciate the responses you made, above, with no anti-social overtones. Again, do the RAAC M1A1 SA AIM (did I get all that in the right order?) Abrams have a remote fired .50? If so, when would you reload it? If it were out of ammo, that implies it has been used. Wouldn't you want to have it ready again?

My intent is not to paint gibsonm into some sort of corner, nor do I think that's what's happening. Merely, I would like this game to flow more smoothly. Right now it seems that the binary status of Abram crews is an obstacle.

The ONLY way to get the loader up is OPEN UP AND TARGET LIGHT. The ONLY way to get the TC to reload an empty .50 is to OPEN UP.

BF.C, if you don't want to fix this for me, think about the children...

Regards,

Ken

[Battlefront.com]

Man... this discussion is just going around and around and around the same place like a tank with a single thrown track

c3k,

You're asking for some behavior that is unrealistic regarding the manning of MGs. It's been explained many times in many different ways. You need to accept the fact that the tank is not a massive armored MG and therefore the MGs are of secondary importance. That's what the doctrine states, that's the way CM:SF is programmed. This will not change.

Your "Custer's Last Stand" situations doesn't help build your case The chances of a situation like this happening in real life are just about next to none, so it's not a relevant test. However, in the off chance that a lone tank, without any other support in the world, found itself in this situation it would pick an exit point, button up, and drive the Hell out of the kill sack as quickly as possible. It would not sit there trying to knock out as many enemy as it could before its crew was picked off to the massive volumes of small arms fire.

In conclusion, you are asking for something that isn't realistic and therefore will never happen. So me thinks you need to drop this one and move onto something more productive

Steve

(edit to add that what I'm talking about here in this post is how the MGs are manned and when. Reloading them... that's a different issue. See next post)

[ April 20, 2008, 11:24 AM: Message edited by: Battlefront.com ]

[Battlefront.com]

Excel,

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.

That's what I'm saying is difficult to determine, from a code standpoint, in a way that will consistently mesh with player expectations. Even c3k (I think it was him) complained about the CMx1 behavior of automatic unbuttoning, and that environment was a lot easier to code for than this one.

Hey, I'll run it by Charles and see if he can tweak this. Who knows, maybe he feels he can. But I'm just telling you that this is yet another example of where it looks MUCH easier to the player, with even a half a brain, than it does to the computer on even the best of days.

Steve

[gibsonm]

Originally posted by c3k:

Thanks all.

Gibsonm, I appreciate the responses you made, above, with no anti-social overtones. Again, do the RAAC M1A1 SA AIM (did I get all that in the right order?) Abrams have a remote fired .50? If so, when would you reload it? If it were out of ammo, that implies it has been used. Wouldn't you want to have it ready again?

Regards,

Ken

Again (sorry Steve but I’ll stop after this).

The answer doesn’t change to the last time you asked and I answered (on this very page no less):

Originally posted by gibsonm:

When I’m out of contact, have sent the relevant reports to my superior callsign, have tasked my subordinate callsign, have assisted with adjusting ammunition stowage in the turret and have given my crew brief.

It has not and never will be my first priority as a Squadron Commander to stop fighting my 13 other tanks just to make sure my MG is loaded. Just like it wasn’t my first priority as a Tp Ldr.

As my SSM once quipped “Sir, if they get that close there is something seriously wrong with your plan”.

Anyway its 0500 here now and if you don’t understand what I’ve said, I’m sorry but I’m off to bed.

[ April 20, 2008, 12:08 PM: Message edited by: gibsonm ]

[Exel]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

You're asking for some behavior that is unrealistic regarding the manning of MGs. It's been explained many times in many different ways. You need to accept the fact that the tank is not a massive armored MG and therefore the MGs are of secondary importance. That's what the doctrine states, that's the way CM:SF is programmed. This will not change.

I thought it's been explained many times now that it's the job of the loader to man the mg when he's not loading the main gun or the tank is not sealed shut for other reasons. Specifically there's absolutely no reason for the loader to *not* man the mg when the vehicle is "OPEN UP".

[Childress]

Wrong thread

[ April 21, 2008, 11:44 AM: Message edited by: Childress ]

[Huntarr]

[Huntarr]

[M1A1TC]

Huntarr

You are giving me a hard-on with those photos. Thanks!

[Huntarr]

I shouldn't even begin to tell you that I had to dumb down the resolution from 4000+ to 1024. :cool:

[Battlefront.com]

Excel,

I thought it's been explained many times now that it's the job of the loader to man the mg when he's not loading the main gun or the tank is not sealed shut for other reasons.

No, it hasn't. In fact, this statement is in direct contradiction (from quote above):

Before engagement actions are initiated, the loader searches for targets and acts as air or antitank guided missile (ATGM) guard.

Note the very key word "before" ahead of "engagements". The quote goes on:

He also assists the TC as needed in directing the driver so the tank maintains its position in formation. He assists other crewmembers as necessary. Because the loader is ideally positioned both to observe around the tank and to monitor the tank's digital displays, platoon leaders and TCs should give strong consideration to assigning their second most experienced crewman as the loader.

He can't do that if he is topside manning his M249 on the off chance he might have to use it. So keep him buttoned up unless there is a need, i.e. Target Light.

As I said, the case is closed unless tankers of Abrams come forward to say we have it wrong. So far this has not happened, despite several Abrams tankers making posts here.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

Remember guys, all situations that CM:SF simulate are "hot" situations. The pics Huntarr showed, as well as the stuff from YouTube show, are tanks going around in a COIN environment. The main gun is dormant by SOP because there are no armored threats at all and higher authority usually needs to bless the 120 barking. So when things are relaxed and "safe" from armored threats... sure, the Loader is topside as per doctrine. But in a CM:SF environment? He should be inside because everything I just described doesn't exist.

It's easy to get confused between what is happening in Iraq/Afghanistan now compared to what is going on in CM:SF. We've always said, and will always say, that CM:SF is not a COIN ops simulation. It is a full up, full spectrum battlefield like the first few days/weeks of OIF. Even Fallujah I and II do not compare since there was never a threat of armor or artillery, and only a modest concern about ATGMs.

We have to be very clear about what we are and aren't simulating because the two environments are not the same.

Steve

[Huntarr]

I was trying to distract them with pretty pictures, Steve.

Umph, in getting into the spirit of the upcoming release of the USMC Module, COIN should also be Security and Stabilization Operations (SASO) the preferred term of the Marines.