Stryker and M1 machinegun misbehavior

[John Kettler]

Huntarr,

I'd never seen the armor glass shield for the loader's MG, but I'm rather surprised to see the Ma Deuce, which I consider a far more important weapon, has none. Perhaps because it can be operated while buttoned?

Regards,

John Kettler

[Huntarr]

Correct for the M1A1. The Marines didn't break their's like the Army with it's whiz bang Independent Thermal hunter killer sight. That's one of the reasons everyone is working to get RWS on top of their M1's. TUSK III (under development)

[76mm]

I was an M1A1 tank company XO in the First Gulf War and in Germany prior to that. A couple of comments, for what they are worth:

1) In my unit, loaders were exclusively the least experienced member of the crew, because they could perform their main function (loading) with little training or experience. For drivers and gunners you wanted someone with more experience.

2) I generally agree with C3k and Exel. Once the main gun was loaded, and until it needed to be loaded again (signified by a loud "boom") he's not serving any purpose whatsoever sitting down in the hole. Sure, if you're expecting to engage, or are engaged with, an armor-heavy force, you'd keep him down there so that he can reload as quickly as possible. Likewise, if you're under intense small-arms fire, you'd keep him down so he doesn't get killed. Otherwise, he's up top, looking around. This was certainly the case in a defensive situation, where'd he'd be watching the rear and flanks while the TC and gunner focused on the front. Also, "reloading the coax" was not something you did while engaged--there was a massive ammo capacity for the coax (thousands of rounds), and to reload it you would have to have the loader leave his hatch to get more ammo from the rear rack (although I don't think we even carried enough there to refill the coax bin). The loader would have to help unjam the coax every now and then, but he didn't have to sit and wait for that to happen.

[EDIT] I wanted to add that when you are engaged with an infantry-heavy force, the M1 IS basically a giant mobile MG pillbox. Yeah, HEAT rounds would be useful against bunkers or buildings, but the amount of MG fire from a single tank (coax, loader, M2) is pretty awesome and I would argue has much greater suppressive effect than a couple main gun rounds per minute. And when you have a platoon of tanks instead of a single tank, the amount of MG firepower that you can put downrange is just scary. If you have cannister rounds for the main gun (we didn't), it might be different, but without cannister I would much rather have use of the MGs against infantry than the main gun. [END EDIT]

I don't know how doctrine might have changed, but that's how I remember it. I'm surprised more current TCs or crewmen haven't jumped into this thread.

[ April 22, 2008, 06:05 AM: Message edited by: 76mm ]

[M1A1TC]

76mm

You didnt see me in this thread? Post #2?

I would like to see the loader's 240 replaced by Mk19. Now that would be sweet

[76mm]

M1A1TC,

Yup, I saw you, but you were focused on the models rather than the question which seems to have become the focus of this thread, which I'll paraphrase as "Who cares about the MGs on the M1 when you have the main gun?" Whaddya think about this question?

There have been a couple of others in this thread with M1 experience, but I'm sure tons more are lurking...

[YankeeDog]

76mm:

Thanks for the interesting comments. It's always good to hear from those w/ RL experience.

However, I'm a bit unclear as to what your overall opinion of what the loader should be modeled as doing in CM. In general, it sounds like you think he should be up, looking out of his hatch more, but you also make statements that (a) "...he'd be watching the rear and flanks while the TC and gunner focused on the front" and ( "...if you're under intense small-arms fire, you'd keep him down so he doesn't get killed."

So. . . it sounds to me like you're saying that, when he is up and exposed, he's more of rear/flank lookout, and he doesn't actually fire the MG much (unless something shows up to the flank/rear). And further, if the incoming lead gets hot and heavy, he would generally duck back down under cover, rather than braving it out to keep his MG active.

Yes? No? Yes but with refinements?

Cheers,

YD

[SpitfireXI]

On a semi-related note, can the AI be tweaked so that my unbuttoned MGS fires the ma deuce and m-240 at technicals and civvies vechicles it finds rather than use a 105 round. They carry such a small amount of 105 rounds I rather they save them.

[YankeeDog]

Originally posted by SpitfireXI:

On a semi-related note, can the AI be tweaked so that my unbuttoned MGS fires the ma deuce and m-240 at technicals and civvies vechicles it finds rather than use a 105 round. They carry such a small amount of 105 rounds I rather they save them.

Good point. IMHO, it shouldn't even matter if the MGS is unbuttoned or not. The M240 is coaxial with the main gun and uses the same sight. Against a completely unarmored vehicle, a few bursts of 7.62mm fire should be more than enough unless the range is really long. In fact, you can argue that the M240 is the better choice regardless of ammo load, because you can probably bring it to bear faster than the main gun. I'm not sure how quickly, on average, an MGS crew can bring the main gun to bear. But I assume that they don't usually carry a 105mm round "in the pipe", so as to be able to select the right type of round when a target is spotted. So at the least, the gunner has to wait a few seconds for the autoloader to load a round before he can fire the 105mm. In this time, he could probably get a couple dozen 7.62mm rounds downrange.

Cheers,

YD

[76mm]

Originally posted by YankeeDog:

However, I'm a bit unclear as to what your overall opinion of what the loader should be modeled as doing in CM.

Heh, you're right that I'm not sure what the CM loaders should be doing; I mainly posted in response to posts that said something to the effect of "the loader's job is to load the main gun, so that's all he should do".

This thread started with the question about why the TCs don't reload the 50 cal automatically. I think they should--as someone pointed out, if they 're using the ammo, they obviously want to use the weapon and would want to reload. If you don't want them to reload because of small arms fire, etc., a "button up" button should mean that they won't unbutton (or reload) until that order is rescinded. Isn't that how it worked in CMx1?

As to the argument that you don't need to reload the 50 cal because you've got the main gun, I don't think that makes sense if you're in an infantry-heavy fight.

But back to the loader, let's look at some facts:

--the loader was generally the least experienced crew member,

--loaders received virtually zero training on the loader's MG (at least in my day),

--the sights & fire control on the loader's MG are rudimentary (again, at least in my day), and

--the loader's MG only features a single box of ammo before needing to reload.

In my opinion, this is not a weapon system that you would generally use with much hope of hitting targets. I would use it in two circumstances:

1) loader sees immediate threat to flank or rear and wants to make them put their heads down; or

2) if the tank is in overwatch/suppress mode against an infantry target and is not under signficant small arms threat itself. In this second circumstance the loader's MG wouldn't add much to the coax and M2, but it wouldn't hurt either.

The only way to deal with loaders in CM would be to have a separate command "Loader Up" or some such, but I don't know if it would be worth it. But I think the TC M2 reload issue should be fixed.

These comments are all based on my experience with the M1A1 in the first Gulf War, based on the training we received in Germany. Would be curious to know whether changes to equipment or tactics mean that things are done differently now.

[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

Apparently not :confused:

If you recall I posted the responsibilities of each crew member earlier. That is straight out of the FM 17-15 which was updated 1996. Clearly lessons were learned about who does what.

[Battlefront.com]

So it would appear that 76mm agrees with the way we have it now regarding the Loader? It looks like that to me. I just want to be clear about that.

As for the TC automatically reloading the .50cal, as I said above I see merit to that argument. However, I don't think people would be overall happy with how the TacAI would handle this situation. What you guys picture happening in your heads may not turn out so well in reality. Therefore I think it is better to leave it exactly as it is now. But I'm open to changing that opinion.

This discussion has the Bren Tripod overtone to it. It's something I've seen over and over again in the 10 years since moving to the tactical level, and that is the loss of context when making a suggestion. Sure, we all know that the Loader is responsible for the M249. We also know that at times that is where he is supposed to be. We also know at other times it is NOT where he is supposed to be. The question is... which way should it by default be within the context of CM:SF? It can't be both.

As I've said, the context of CM:SF's environment is a firefight engagement. Quite possibly with enemy armor in the picture. By default the Blue forces have carte blanche to use their main gun and do not have to radio the Secretary of Defense to use it. Therefore it is pretty clear to me that by default the behavior as is now is the most realistic choice.

What is constantly being lost here is that this is NOT a debate about the Abrams having a weapon system which we aren't simulating. It's there and it can be used. The only thing is whether, by default, the TacAI should be allowed to man the M249 and reload the .50cal on its own. The first is a dead issue, I think, and the latter is a matter of opinion. At present Charles and I think that reloading the .50 automatically will do more harm than good so we think it should stay as is. If the player wants a mobile MG pillbox... that is something that any player can do at any time. Open it up and bingo... done.

Thanks for the contributions. Keep them coming if they are directly in opposition to the logic I've laid out, otherwise this topic should be put to bed like many other discussions about minutia that in the end aren't really all that important. God forbid this gets to the stage of Bren or MG34/42 tripod status

Steve

[ April 22, 2008, 12:12 PM: Message edited by: Battlefront.com ]

[Exel]

I don't see why the issue is so complicated, Steve.

You already have a code for tank crews automatically buttoning up.

Commanders are head out the hatch with Open Up and will use their M2 unless ordered to button up or the automatic behaviour kicks in.

Other vehicles (Stryker) automatically unbutton to load the depleted roof MG in certain situations deemed safe (they don't do it under fire, correct?).

Hence, the following:

Loaders too should man their MG when Open Up, like commanders do, and automatically button up when the commanders do or when the main gun is engaged. This is a really simple change and in line with what 76mm wrote above.

Commanders and loaders should automatically unbutton to load the roof machineguns when the condition to stay buttoned up* is not met, like the Strykers do. This is safer in WeGo than having to unbutton for a whole minute.

* Ideally that would be what I wrote earlier, ie. check for enemies in LOS and vehicle taking fire, if either is true stay shut. What is the Stryker behaviour?

[Battlefront.com]

Exel,

I don't see why the issue is so complicated, Steve.

I don't know why it is either since I've been very clear about things. About as clear as is Humanly possible. I'll try again to show what the problem is:

* Ideally that would be what I wrote earlier, ie. check for enemies in LOS and vehicle taking fire, if either is true stay shut. What is the Stryker behaviour?

Gun empty = reload. There is no other logic other than that which I am aware of. Perhaps if the vehicle is actively getting hit it might keep the guy inside, but I don't think so.

To be ABSOLUTELY CLEAR...

Charles could flip a little switch in a couple of seconds to have the Abrams TC pop out and reload the .50cal just like the Stryker TC does. It's VERY easy to do that. We just don't think it is a good idea to have it be that way. I've explained many times now why, but it basically boils down to the Stryker needing to risk life and limb to stay functional, the Abrams does not. Since we do not feel we can adequately code the TacAI to know the difference, we are going with the safer route and that is to keep the Abrams crew buttoned unless the player assumes the risk for unbuttoning.

It really is simple, as you say, so I'm not sure why it's still unclear to you.

Steve

[M1A1TC]

Originally posted by 76mm:

M1A1TC,

Yup, I saw you, but you were focused on the models rather than the question which seems to have become the focus of this thread, which I'll paraphrase as "Who cares about the MGs on the M1 when you have the main gun?" Whaddya think about this question?

There have been a couple of others in this thread with M1 experience, but I'm sure tons more are lurking...

I remember shooting the Loader's 240 on a Tank Table (3, I think), and thinking: I am not going to hit **** with this.

I then sprayed a siluette of a truck, and hit few troop targets. The damn 240 jumped around, and it was difficult to control where the rounds where going. Plus there was no sight, just point in the general direction. Also, I felt like I would be very exposed it that was a combat situation, and thought that would be the last thing I would want to do.

[Battlefront.com]

M1A1TC,

Also, I felt like I would be very exposed it that was a combat situation, and thought that would be the last thing I would want to do.

So if you were trundling through a town or what not, and you know the enemy is there and potentially close, you're saying that you'd rather be inside the most heavily armored vehicle on the battlefield than sitting exposed outside of it? Now why would you want to do that?

Steve

[ April 22, 2008, 03:59 PM: Message edited by: Battlefront.com ]

[M1A1TC]

Yeah, Steve, silly me

[Mishga]

You should be standing on the TC hatch doing a jig... I dunno, military types these days not knowing there job....Sheeesh!

[c3k]

Steve,

Thanks for the response.

I consider this a dead issue now. "Dead" in the sense that BF.C has spoken very clearly about priorities and how this issue will be handled. Thank you. What anyone else thinks about it does not matter. (No sarcasm.)

However, I would like to take a moment and point out some issues this thread has highlighted. I feel I can do that since I started this thread. Also, I was away from any internet connections for the last week, so I missed a chance as this thread wound down.

It seems that some of my viewpoints have been distorted. It also appears that there are plenty of preconceived notions regarding the situations presented here. (I.e., tanks fight tanks... that presupposes there are tanks there to be fought. Or, M1's sitting at crossroads in a town is a function of COIN or occupation; CMSF is about conventional phase of an invasion you're not grokking that; etc...)

Another data point being the screenshot I posted with a single M1 being swarmed by an entire battalion of infantry. That was NOT something I was using to advocate rewriting code. I used that situation to test the TacAI in the M1. It did well, and I stated that. It also offerred surprising depth and fidelity. Yet, BF.C posted that I was using unrealistic scenarios. Shrug.

Again, the MG/Tank behavior issue is dead.

However, the rampant miscommunication that has taken place is somewhat typical, unfortunately. Direct questions are asked and not answered. I'm not pointing only at BF.C; there's plenty of blame to go around.

As well, it seems that certain viewpoints are rated higher than others. That is normal behavior, but is not always the best way to find the truth. (Not that I think my viewpoint is "truth".)

Take this perspective for whatever it's worth: when issues pop up on this forum there is room for major improvements in how communications and ideas get exchanged.

Thanks to all who participated.

Regards,

Ken

[Elmar Bijlsma]

Within 24 hours you had an answer to the main question and a reply from the devs. I'd say you were not as hard done by as you make out.

[c3k]

Elmar Bijlsma,

Thanks for the response. Do you think this should have its own thread (dealing with communication) or continue here? I'm open either way.

Responding to what you just posted (no acrimony): My original post was April 15th at 12:11 p.m. In the next 24 hours there were a total of 4 more posts. The posters were, in chronological order; M1A1TC, c3k (myself), Exel, and Elmar Bijlsma (you).

Now, I'm not saying I was hard done. I AM saying that there was, and is, a LOT of talking past each other.

So, your statement that I had an answer to my main question and a reply from the devs within 24 hours is not quite accurate. Which of the 4 posters represents the developers?

As for an answer, I did see two opinions; one supporting present behavior and one against.

Later, within 48 hours, Steve did post a reply, but it was a question, not an answer. (I do not feel I deserve or am entitled to direct developer responses. However, I did post a link which had detailed information in my original post. That was obviously ignored.)

I don't want to beat a dead horse. I no longer care about the behavior. It is what it is.

But how do you prevent the constant lack of clear communication to and from the developers and each other?

I think a new thread may be the more appropriate. Your opinion?

Thanks,

Ken

[Elmar Bijlsma]

I reckon a thread about failures to communicate is likely to result in a failure to communicate.

While it might do some good to hear each others viewpoints on the issue and perhaps clear the air I predict a blame game that's going to get ugly. So I'm not going to voice an opinion on the value of such a thread one way or the other.

Oh, and on the 24hr response by Steve:

Your thread time stamp: 15 April, 2008 18:11

Steve's first reply: 16 April, 2008 18:31

This is, indeed, not within 24 hours. You got me. But if you are going to argue those 20 minutes I'll rename the fly buzzing my living room C3K and roll up a newspaper.

...and Elmar Bijlsma (you)

Hey now, are you talking down to me? :mad: :mad: :mad:

My €0.02 on this thread is that when presented with the reasoning behind the behaviour as modelled you didn't really acknowledge it. You pretty much went straight to re-stating your case based on what you believed are the functions of weapons and crew, seemingly ignoring or downplaying the gameplay arguments in favour of why it is the way it is.

As since to us this was the crux of the issue you thus got the repeat explanation of the earlier why and wherefore.

Do that a few times and people are bound to get testy on both sides.

It may be good to start a thread on how and why we communicate, because this reminded me that we aren't all here on quest to piss people off. It's good to be reminded of that amid some of the acrimony here. But I fear human nature being what it is we will all piss off and get pissed off anyway.

[Battlefront.com]

c3k,

Elmar summed it up well enough, but in particular with this:

My €0.02 on this thread is that when presented with the reasoning behind the behaviour as modelled you didn't really acknowledge it. You pretty much went straight to re-stating your case based on what you believed are the functions of weapons and crew, seemingly ignoring or downplaying the gameplay arguments in favour of why it is the way it is.

As since to us this was the crux of the issue you thus got the repeat explanation of the earlier why and wherefore.

Do that a few times and people are bound to get testy on both sides.

You asked a legitimate question (actually, two in one), you got a legitimate answer. You challenged that answer with more questions, which in turn were answered. The answer remained consistent throughout and was backed up by sound and detailed answers.

Direct questions were SOMETIMES asked, and when they were they were DIRECTLY answered. I haven't taken the time to reread this thread, but I am curious to know which direct questions were not answered directly. I know I tried to do that to the best of my ability and, it should be noted, asked others to chime in when it was beyond my ability.

Honestly, I'm really not sure how much better this discussion could have gone.

Put yourself in my position. I've made a prompt, clear, logical, and rational case for why the behavior is what it is. Part of your perceived problem with the game is proven to be a perception issue on your part by several tankers who actually have fulfilled the loader's position.

This did not seem to sway you from your line of reasoning, which I found to be unfortunate but I did not chastise you for. In fact, there isn't anything I feel you can point to that shows me being insulting or abusive at all. It's simply that in one situation I don't think you have your facts straight (the M249 being automatically manned) and in the other advocating for a TacAI behavior change that would probably not be welcomed after it was introduce (automatic resupplying the ammo to the .50). Plus, on top of that, there are work arounds for both issues already in the game and at your finger tips. You're not wrong to question this, but I do think you should be more accepting of the answers than you appear to be.

So at some point I have to say "that's the way it's going to be" because discussing it any further simply isn't productive.

As an aside, my position on user created "stress tests" has been consistent since the very first one was made using the CMBO demo. It's extremely easy to make situations that show the game system has a shortcoming of some sort if that is your intent. It's an entirely different thing to show that such a result is relevant to an actual game. Because the only thing we care about is what happens in an actual game, it is required by the person making the case prove that it matters. Otherwise we'd spend a couple of years solving theoretical problems that aren't really in need of fixing in the first place. Don't you agree?

Steve

[ April 26, 2008, 10:45 AM: Message edited by: Battlefront.com ]

[c3k]

Steve,

Thanks.

Let me say several things up front in this posting: I consider the issue dead...I am NOT trying to resurrect it. I am not sore or disgruntled by the outcome. I asked questions, I proposed changes, and you stated that it wouldn't be changed. With LOTS of postings in between. I appreciate the feedback - sincerely.

Also I stated that there seems to be plenty of missed communications on all sides. I specifically stated that BF.C was not solely to blame.

Now, as I stated earlier, the current behavior is FAR better than having a buttoned up tank have its commander pop up and die when I order them to stay shut. Far better.

My initial question about reloading behavior WAS answered. But then the thread morphed and I asked about OTHER behavior regarding the Abrams crew.

My questions regarding loader duties prior to armor engagements show that they should be up (see Huntarr, Exel, 76mm). That position was countered by gibsonm, and M1A1TC with, later, 76mm agreeing.

To me that seemed like a split. I asked specific questions about the loader and they went unanswered. My goal was only to see if the loader should be heads up (and spotting) at the same time as the TC being heads up. (The OPEN UP behavior.)

I interspersed this morphing conversation with the results of SOME of the tests I was running. (BTW, I was very complimentary of BF.C's coding Abrams' behavior.)

I believe I was accepting of the answers I was given - if there was SOME SORT of supporting logic.

I've just deleted about 100 lines of quotes and bolds and points and counterpoints. I have NO need to rehash this. I even quoted all the answered and unanswered questions. It won't change how this thread meandered and changed.

I agree, you were not insulting or abusive. Others were/are. Shrug.

My stress testing was quite good. I saw, and posted, on how adept the coding was with the TacAI; manning weapons; separate targeting; remanning lost crew positions.

You wrote:

So at some point I have to say "that's the way it's going to be" because discussing it any further simply isn't productive.

I absolutely agree.

Regards,

Ken

P.S. The m249 is the 5.56mm SAW. The loader's machinegun is a version of the 7.62mm M240 . I only note the difference because of the consistent use of M249 in this thread.

[ April 26, 2008, 01:51 PM: Message edited by: c3k ]