theFightingSeabee Posted January 20, 2009 Share Posted January 20, 2009 Unfortunately the Marine Corps' budget consists of the Commandant's piggy bank that he got for Christmas last year. Just enough scrap left in there to buy a couple rounds of ammo per Marine to fight with for another month. And the Seabees get the leftover scraps from that! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homo ferricus Posted January 20, 2009 Author Share Posted January 20, 2009 And the Seabees get the leftover scraps from that! Yeah, last i heard, the Commandant was pawning off a few of his medals and ribbons to put the down payment on the next batch of MRAPs. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stoex Posted January 20, 2009 Share Posted January 20, 2009 On the plus side, an AAV holds my personal record for 40mm grenade multiburst - 9 rounds in one, and they all hit the HMG in the trench, too! Woohoo! Then it got hit by an RPG and brewed up, of course... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Itael Posted January 20, 2009 Share Posted January 20, 2009 Well guys, you are forgetting the biggest advantage of the AAV - it has protection against sea corrosion ;-) I let my marines out of that metal box ASAP. Seriously though, I use it as a support role for 40mm grenade fire - much like I did with the M7 "Priest" 105 gun in Normandy. I also make sure to keep it at least 500m distance from any threat if possible. Itai 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apocal Posted January 20, 2009 Share Posted January 20, 2009 I don't lose very many of them and I have no problem sending them into hot areas. Are you guys leaving them parked in the middle of the street or something? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stoex Posted January 20, 2009 Share Posted January 20, 2009 Are you guys leaving them parked in the middle of the street or something? Well, it IS hard to hide a barn-sized breadbox on tracks behind a bush.... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homo ferricus Posted January 20, 2009 Author Share Posted January 20, 2009 Lemme ask you this, would you have trouble hittin the Titanic if only the bow was exposed? There's no hiding those ugly son-of-a-bitch mammoths, RPGs find them like bloodhounds hunting for escaped convicts. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stoex Posted January 20, 2009 Share Posted January 20, 2009 The only thing big enough to hide an AAV behind is another AAV 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chainsaw Posted January 20, 2009 Share Posted January 20, 2009 Oh god what a bunch of sissys you are! :cool: AAV is no fecking IFV and dont use it as such and you wont loose them to the left and right! They are frigging APCs, there to move the devildogs between the fights and supplying them with ammo and supportive fire from positions further back. Sure, it hurts allot to see a AAV go up in smoke with half the platoon in it but when smartly (CORRECTLY) used you have werry little casualtys off the AAV - instead you have more lightly wounded devildogs with feet wounds from humping all the **** instead. /Thomas 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homo ferricus Posted January 20, 2009 Author Share Posted January 20, 2009 Oh god what a bunch of sissys you are! :cool: AAV is no fecking IFV and dont use it as such and you wont loose them to the left and right! They are frigging APCs, there to move the devildogs between the fights and supplying them with ammo and supportive fire from positions further back. Sure, it hurts allot to see a AAV go up in smoke with half the platoon in it but when smartly (CORRECTLY) used you have werry little casualtys off the AAV - instead you have more lightly wounded devildogs with feet wounds from humping all the **** instead. /Thomas I realize this, and have known it all along, but if you couldn't tell from the first post--I was playing CMSF one morning after getting zero sleep, and watched my AAVs spawn, fully loaded, into the LOS of a few bloodthirsty ATGM crew members. One got nailed as they scurried away, up in flames, 100% KIA. Whose fault is it? Mine? The scenario designers? The AAV's? No one knows, all i know is that i HATE WITH A PASSION when that happens. That's right, this is just one big venting thread. Do you feel the angst? Do you feel it? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cabal23 Posted January 20, 2009 Share Posted January 20, 2009 I feel your pain! A platoon of my fully loaded AAV's appeared 200m away from 3 T-72s 4 survivors, game over :eek: Maybe scenario designers could add 100m to the back of the map which has no LOS to the battlefield where reinforcements could appear. Then you could choose to bring them on/unload them or not! Or a hill or berm for the unit to start their setup in. I just had an issue with a scenario I was working on. Same problem. My map was huge and still had the problem. I played with the elevation and added some hills and Viola! no more flaming AAV's. And I personally love AAV's. Nothing like parking outside a village out of RPG range and leveling the village with the AAV grenade launchers. Too sweet. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chainsaw Posted January 20, 2009 Share Posted January 20, 2009 I realize this, and have known it all along, but if you couldn't tell from the first post--I was playing CMSF one morning after getting zero sleep, and watched my AAVs spawn, fully loaded, into the LOS of a few bloodthirsty ATGM crew members. One got nailed as they scurried away, up in flames, 100% KIA. Whose fault is it? Mine? The scenario designers? The AAV's? No one knows, all i know is that i HATE WITH A PASSION when that happens. That's right, this is just one big venting thread. Do you feel the angst? Do you feel it? oh HF, I wasnt posting to you, bad scenario design that gives that results piss me of to, I say a few "nasty" words to then. I was more posting to all the others who complains the AAV is useless and sucks and all that. However, adding a bird cage to the AAV wouldnt be totally wrong. but if those who whine actually tooked care of the AAV they wouldnt have so much to whine about (thats maybe why they waste their AAV? so they got something to whine over! ) /Thomas 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dan/california Posted January 21, 2009 Share Posted January 21, 2009 Scenario design can definitely be an issue. What the AAV needs is the FCS to use its grenade launcher in an indirect fire mode. The you could park it behind the nearest hill or shack and rain 40 mm on anything that said boo, and all you have to expose is a set of eye balls. Or better yet a mini UAV. It carries enough ammo to be truly effective in this role and the 40 mm already has a low velocity, high arc ballistic profile. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apocal Posted January 21, 2009 Share Posted January 21, 2009 Scenario design can definitely be an issue. What the AAV needs is the FCS to use its grenade launcher in an indirect fire mode. The you could park it behind the nearest hill or shack and rain 40 mm on anything that said boo, and all you have to expose is a set of eye balls. Or better yet a mini UAV. It carries enough ammo to be truly effective in this role and the 40 mm already has a low velocity, high arc ballistic profile. 1) The Mk19 already has precalculated indirect firing tables. I'm not sure if the upgun can elevate far enough to make use of them though. 2) The Mk19 is inaccurate enough in direct fire mode to make 1) mostly a waste of time and effort. Putting 40mm into dead space occassionally? Sure. Dedicated indirect fire support, no. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flanker15 Posted January 21, 2009 Share Posted January 21, 2009 Any plans on adding armor slats to them? Or would that impede aquatic movement too much? I was thinking about the pros and cons of AAVs in comparison to Strykers: Pros: Amphibious (water isn't in CM:SF though), Has both of the Strykers weapons on a single unit, can reload without unbuttoning, carries allot more people, all the benifits of tracks. Cons: No IR optics so it has trouble spotting and with smoke, a big target, no effective AT protection, often explodes when hit killing allot of infantry if loaded, all the drawbacks of tracks. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chainsaw Posted January 21, 2009 Share Posted January 21, 2009 all the drawbacks of tracks. There is no such drawback of tracks my friend YATYAS = You Aint Tracked You Aint S h i t :cool: 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dan/california Posted January 21, 2009 Share Posted January 21, 2009 1) The Mk19 already has precalculated indirect firing tables. I'm not sure if the upgun can elevate far enough to make use of them though. 2) The Mk19 is inaccurate enough in direct fire mode to make 1) mostly a waste of time and effort. Putting 40mm into dead space occassionally? Sure. Dedicated indirect fire support, no. I am thinking that accuracy might be improved a bit if the latest digital tricks were applied to the FCS. I am talking about a true mortar type FCS where the grunts call in the grid square and the computer does the whole thing from there. You could of course argue that a true mortar with the same automated fire control system would then make more sense. I am just speculating on something that could be a relatively simple retrofit as opposed to a massive new project with all of the pitfalls that go with said. The actual computation is almost trivial, I would be very curios about the cost of the actual sensors if anyone has those numbers laying about. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyD Posted January 21, 2009 Share Posted January 21, 2009 About Mk19 accuracy. I thought that was the whole point of an auto grenade launcher -that 'close enough' counts when you're playing horse shoes & hand grenades. I'm wondering about the 'giant AAV' problem. Is it real? I mean doesn't having such a big vehicle increase your liklihood of being hit by a Kornet from 100% to 100%? The U.S. used to explain-away the excessive height of the M60 series with arguments like that, and the diminutive T55 series didn't seem to benefit excessively from its small size. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cmfan Posted January 21, 2009 Share Posted January 21, 2009 About Mk19 accuracy. I thought that was the whole point of an auto grenade launcher -that 'close enough' counts when you're playing horse shoes & hand grenades. I'm wondering about the 'giant AAV' problem. Is it real? I mean doesn't having such a big vehicle increase your liklihood of being hit by a Kornet from 100% to 100%? The U.S. used to explain-away the excessive height of the M60 series with arguments like that, and the diminutive T55 series didn't seem to benefit excessively from its small size. I'd imagine the issue is not so much about a higher likely hood of getting hit, but about being spotted due to a larger silhouette. I think finding terrain to hide in or hull down positions is more of a pita. I would argue that in practical terms an APCs ability to survive an ATGM is more dependent on not being targeted in the first place than onany armor or counter measures it has. In that sense a large APC's size doesn't help its survivability. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Falconander Posted January 21, 2009 Share Posted January 21, 2009 Chiming in at the last second, If it is scenario design as has been said, don't play that scenario. If it is your own tactics, switch things around a bit. The AAV is great at saving turn times and getting your men to a point and having them fit to fight with extra ammo. Plus, I believe they have offensive/defensive smoke which I admit I need to use more. Also as had been mentioned, if they get in a good position their ability to obtain superior firepower is awesome. Now I played a scenario last night and I had them winding through city streets behind my men that had cleared the way. I had squads on rooftops and plenty of overwatch positions. I lost two like an idiot since I had them patrolling together and a car drove up a blew them both to smithereens. I lost another as it peaked around a building and was popped by an anti-armor team that i thought was subdued. Both were my errors and not that of the AAV. Playing as Red, they stick out like sore thumbs and I am always happuy when they finally start popping up. But again, they have to be used for their purpose and unloaded with the extra ammo early on. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Other Means Posted January 21, 2009 Share Posted January 21, 2009 I think of them as somewhat mobile bases. Seems to work. Might bring them up later to dislodge stubborn infantry but not until I feel safe. Thinner eggshells with bigger hammers really. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jenrick Posted January 22, 2009 Share Posted January 22, 2009 They are 5 tons that are also amphibious. The weapons mounted on them tempt too many of us into using them as a supporting weapon. They are not. If you are in a situation where you have a .5KM+ standoff to park you AAV to utilize their firepower you MIGHT be okay. A single ATGM is going to make a lot of very unhappy grunts have to foot slog for the rest of the day. -Jenrick 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.