Pull the DAMN TRIGGER!

[SlapHappy]

No one's mentioned range.

If you successfully ambush an enemy patrol with your concealed MG at under fifty meters - are you going to fire polite 3-4 round bursts? Or are you going to lay down the lead until either the barrel melts or no one is left standing?

See, we can't simulate that right now with the fairly fixed ROF's.

[Thomm]

At the expense of sounding childish, I want to mention that you learn to use "controlled bursts" in any decent military FPS in a matter of minutes. In fact, I used the MG 42 in "Enemy Territory" as a fully-automatic single shot sniper rifle, with great success when I was still playing.

One other aspect, which should not be overlooked is that "sweeping fire" is much less personal than lining up an individual to kill him and no-one else.

Only contribution of my late grandfather (Eastern front vet, apparently also MG gunner once): "We were aiming over their heads, knowing that they were poor devils like us ..."

Best regards,

Thomm

[Dietrich]

To put it in perspective: Imagine a Bundeswehr MG3 crew in Afghanistan is firing disciplined 3- to 6-round bursts at various points along a treeline 600 meters away from which the Infanterie had been receiving sporadic small-arms fire. Suddenly they hear three or four AKs firing at them from a perpendicular treeline 60 meters to their 9 o'clock. Is this MG3 crew going to (a) continue firing 3- to 6-round bursts with pauses for careful aiming in between, or ( let fly with longer bursts with only brief pauses in between, raking the treeline with fire so as to either shred the insurgents or at least scare them away?

Commanding MG3 teams is one of the things I'm most looking forward to with the NATO module. ("Neben den Baum, ein PKM! Dauerfeuer!")

At the expense of sounding childish, I want to mention that you learn to use "controlled bursts" in any decent military FPS in a matter of minutes.

At medium range and beyond, indeed. But the closer the enemy is, the more one feels compelled to empty one's magazine at him (whether aiming down the sights or firing from the hip) until one sees him go down. That's why (in my experience) the guys who get dozens of kills in any given game tend to wield the weapons with the highest rates of fire and the highest-capacity magazines.

One other aspect, which should not be overlooked is that "sweeping fire" is much less personal than lining up an individual to kill him and no-one else.

True, but modern infantry conditioning yields a much greater degree of "shooting to kill" than in WW2 or even Vietnam.

Also, "sweeping fire" can be directed at spotted enemy personnel and it can be recon-by-fire with traversing.

[JonS]

... I sense a belief that bullets should kill. ...

Your spidey sense is failing you, then, and failing you badly. I'm down with suppression fire, totally down with it. In fact, I think suppression is a skill and technique that is misunderstood and misapplied by the vast majority. For example (direct link to PDF)

But punching holes in the clouds, and running your ammo depth dry in moments, is not suppression fire.

[Dietrich]

So . . . the point is that bursts longer than 3-4 rounds (even from machine guns) should be virtually never necessary because 60% to 70% of an entire platoon's/company's/battalion's firepower should be employed in the suppressive fire role?

[Sergei]

The balance between keeping the enemy pinned and wasting ammunition is very fine, and requires lots and lots of training. Here's a training video of a US special forces unit showing how to do it under conditions where resupply is an issue!

[costard]

Oringinally posted by JonS:

Originally Posted by Elmar Bijlsma

　

... I sense a belief that bullets should kill. ...

Your spidey sense is failing you, then, and failing you badly. I'm down with suppression fire, totally down with it. In fact, I think suppression is a skill and technique that is misunderstood and misapplied by the vast majority. For example (direct link to PDF)

But punching holes in the clouds, and running your ammo depth dry in moments, is not suppression fire.

Suppression fire does need to be aimed fire - this I can totally agree with, and see some direction toward with at least the first part of that paper. That list of questions he provides....

I know that aimed, three (or even two) round bursts from a .50cal would be highly effective against a building occupied by hidden enemy. Aimed at the far corners of the building or at likely occupied positions - this takes a skill that training seeks to provide - and the opportunity to develop it.

A good long burst on an occupied building might well be easier for a soldier firing a vehicle mounted weapon - sweep the floor with a controlled, fluid traverse of the gun. And back, and again. Meanwhile, the rest of the team is moving up and someone pops a grenade through the door, or sumfink.

Good training gives that skill to the individual as a behaviour able to be maintained under large amounts of stress. Huge - and the adrenalin is part of that. Fight and flight hormones surging, trying to maintain some semblance of mind and control to better effect the outcome of the battle. The effect can be killing, or it can be wounding, or it can be mentally incapacitating (by preciptating an overwhelming "flight" response on the part of the recipients of the available firepower), it can be suppressing, it can be mildly annoying and ruin a good days birdwatching. It can be no problem whatsoever if it is blindly wasting ammunition, pounding a lump of dirt just in front of me - provided I don't wish to raise my head. Staying cool is the secret?

Originally posted By SlapHappy

No one's mentioned range.

If you successfully ambush an enemy patrol with your concealed MG at under fifty meters - are you going to fire polite 3-4 round bursts? Or are you going to lay down the lead until either the barrel melts or no one is left standing?

See, we can't simulate that right now with the fairly fixed ROF's.

Nice point - is this training, again: knowing when to do the right thing, knowing what the weapon is capable of? A long burst might be used by a .50cal against a trenchline (or treeline) at 400+ meters, or tear a house to pieces at 20. Short bursts or single shots against multi-story buildings where there is a need to identify the target and the probability of civilian casualties arising from wild shooting. In the above scenario, bursts against an occupied building at 150 metres fired from a vehicle mounted weapon would most likely be more effective than spraying. Its all about angles.

[JonS]

... suppression is a skill and technique that is misunderstood and misapplied by the vast majority. For example (direct link to PDF)

It occurs to me that this could be misinterpreted. To be clear; I think the linked article is very good.

[jenrick]

If I might recommend what the official US Army position on the issue:

Regarding the 249/240:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/army/fm/3-22-68/c05.htm#5_10

"(1) Sustained Fire. Sustained fire for the M249 is 85 rounds per minute in bursts of 3 to 5 rounds. The M60 and M240B are 100 rounds per minute in bursts of 6 to 9 rounds. The gunner pauses 4 to 5 seconds between bursts. The barrel should be changed after firing at sustained rate for 10 minutes. This is the normal rate of fire for the gunner.

(2) Rapid Fire. Rapid fire for the M249, M60, and M240B gunner is 200 rounds per minute in bursts of (6 to 8 M249) 10 to 12 rounds. The gunner pauses 2 to 3 seconds between bursts. The barrel should be changed after firing at a rapid rate for 2 minutes. This procedure provides for an exceptionally high volume of fire, but for only a short period.

(3) Cyclic Fire. Cyclic fire uses the most ammunition that can be used in 1 minute. The cyclic rate of fire with the machine gun is achieved when the trigger is held to the rear and ammunition is fed into the weapon uninterrupted for one minute. Normal cyclic rate of fire for the M249 is 850 rounds, M60 is 550 rounds, and for the M240B it is 650 to 950 rounds. Always change the barrel after firing at cyclic rate for 1 minute. This procedure provides the highest volume of fire that the machine gun can fire, but this adversely affects the machine gun, and should only be fired in combat under emergency purposes only."

Regarding the M2:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/army/fm/23-65/ch52.htm#s2p10

"# Single shot. Place the gun in the single-shot mode and engage the target with aimed shots. The MG is accurate out to 1,500 meters.

# Slow fire. Slow fire consists of less than 40 rounds per minute, in bursts of five to seven rounds, fired at 10- to 15-second intervals.

# Rapid fire. Rapid fire consists of more than 40 rounds per minute, fired in bursts of five to seven rounds, at 5- to 10-second intervals.

# Cyclic fire. Cyclic fire is when the weapon fires 450 to 550 rounds per minute. "

Far as what's actually going on in the field right now (most of these have NSFW audio, it is a war zone after all):

At around :40 a 240 gunner puts off a couple of bursts, some short some longer. All appear well controlled though, a mix of "slow fire" and "rapid fire."

Around 2:10 the squad displaces down a street under cover from a 249, the gunner there is using text book sustained fire technique to cover the movement.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tY8U6uaXq0M&feature=related

Can't tell if it's the US troops or what are possibly INA troops going cyclic, towards the end of the video a 240 runs LONG burst before the cease fire order is given.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4UIqRxzgtyo&feature=related

British troops this time, around 1:41 you can listen to the cadence of fire in the battle. The GPMG are all firing fairly short bursts, a bit longer then 3-5 rounds though by the sound of it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6nRT4rHURMY&feature=related

At :30 a definitely longer then proscribe burst from a 240, he speaks to a reporter after that about what all was happening. A reasonable answer for it I'd say.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pn_B-JLHTKM&feature=related

Turret gunner engauges a sniper location. First burst is defineately a longer then proscribed on, after that he settles down and begins to fire shorter bursts.

So the 240's and M2 should probably use a slightly longer burst behavior as the default for a well trained crew, and have a mixture of short and longer burst as well. However note that cyclic fire is an approved method of fire if need be, and that might be an interesting addition depending on morale, suppression, etc. Now if we can just get plunging fire in, so that we can engage targets out of the LOS of the gun crew (that's what that range card is for after all...).

Regarding the issue of longer bursts in specific tactical situations, I think they are warranted. The end goal of the fired rounds is to kill the enemy, suppress him so that he can not return effective fire, or break his morale and cause him to leave the field of battle. In a situation such as a perfect linear or depth ambush where it's very apparent that each bullet is striking home, I'd be yelling at my gunner to keep up the fire. Now if the rounds are hitting in the general area making the enemy grab for dirt, then I'll probably have him keep a text book sustained fire, or rapid fire if that's what it takes to keep there heads down, pace. If the enemy is able to begin to return effective fire despite accurate MG fire, I will want more lead going there direction from the MG ASAP, and if that means cyclic then so be it.

Now a good gunner will gauge most of this on his own, without an NCO or officer having to tell him what to do. That's what the training is there for, is to appropriately react to the situation own their own initiative.

-Jenrick

[Secondbrooks]

It occurs to me that this could be misinterpreted. To be clear; I think the linked article is very good.

Yup it is.

Mostly i'm interested about seemingly long safety distance for indirect fire, 250 meters. Is this also for combat? We use minimum of 100-150 meters for 81mm mortars, which is for combat, dunno what exactly is peace time regulation but i bet it's not that short. Can understand even better why US has that much direct firepower to bear.

Hmm... How close is safe distance in CMSF? 50 meters for 81mm mortars? Atleast when i use indirect fire i move my men very close to area being under fire... Not that i would actually care so much if few guys takes hit from fragments.

[Sgt Joch]

The article Jons linked above is very interesting. It is nice to see that the tactics Rommel developped are still being applied.

In terms of application to CMSF, I was surprised about the high ratio of shooters over movers that he used. I typically use a 2:1 ratio, namely 2 units providing covering fire for each one moving, but I will experiment with Rommel's tactics to see what impact it has.

Who am I to argue with the Desert Fox?

Hmm... How close is safe distance in CMSF? 50 meters for 81mm mortars? Atleast when i use indirect fire i move my men very close to area being under fire... Not that i would actually care so much if few guys takes hit from fragments.

The problem with artillery are the spotting rounds which can be up to 100-150 meters off target and therefore can potentially hit friendly troops in that area. I personally try to keep my troops at least 200 meters away, anything closer and you risk friendly casualties. 50 meters with the rounds set to "personnel" is too close, you will definitely suffer casualties at that range if your troops are out in the open.

[Apocal]

Yup it is.

Mostly i'm interested about seemingly long safety distance for indirect fire, 250 meters. Is this also for combat? We use minimum of 100-150 meters for 81mm mortars, which is for combat, dunno what exactly is peace time regulation but i bet it's not that short. Can understand even better why US has that much direct firepower to bear.

Hmm... How close is safe distance in CMSF? 50 meters for 81mm mortars? Atleast when i use indirect fire i move my men very close to area being under fire... Not that i would actually care so much if few guys takes hit from fragments.

Danger close is six hundred meters for mortars and artillery, seven hundred fifty for naval gunfire. It's not the safe distance just the "possible danger, additional controls in place to keep from killing yourself." It's meant to err on the side of caution.

[Sergei]

Who am I to argue with the Desert Fox?

I wonder if he would take his 90 year old tricks at face value today, given how weapons, communications and everything, even the battlefield itself, have so greatly changed?

[Blackcat]

Good post by Jenrick above.

As an aside, I was struck by a tiny moment (about 2 mins 5 seconds in) in the video of the Brits. In the midst of a battle a bootneck wants to get past the camera man and says, very politely, "Excuse me". Glad to see good manners still exist in the Royal Marines.

[Apocalypse 31]

I wonder if he would take his 90 year old tricks at face value today, given how weapons, communications and everything, even the battlefield itself, have so greatly changed?

Yes, but the tactics have not.

Mass

Maneuver

Surprise

Three principals of war that Rommel played well in his victories.

It amazes me how Rommel sustained in the desert.

Serving in Iraq, we are almost crippled if the air conditioner doesnt work! (ok not THAT bad)

I cant imagine Soldiers going for months at a time without a shower and a constant sweat in the open desert.

[dan/california]

It is worth pointing out that Rommel himself eventually got quite sick, and had to go back to Germany to recover, if I remember correctly. I would assume some percentage of his command were likewise afflicted.

[Secondbrooks]

I wonder if he would take his 90 year old tricks at face value today, given how weapons, communications and everything, even the battlefield itself, have so greatly changed?

Well true is that todays tactics haven't changed pretty much at all. Ofcourse there might be "new" and better ways of doign things, but as i've let myself to be told; training-fundamentals and doctrines aren't most fast moving and adapting animals so generally they tend to lag behind progress of technology... I'm just dumbass so i wouldn't know.

Apocal: Okay thanks.

[Sergei]

I agree that the general concepts of the tactics worked out in late WWI still are very useful and the break between 1815 and 1914 was much bigger than between 1918 and 2009, but I am more sceptical in that the specifics - like the quota of maneuvre units to suppressing units - have to be re-evaluated, because the amount of firepower an infantry platoon has today and its effective combat ranges are very different, also artillery and mortars respond far more rapidly and lethally than in those days so you can't just stay there all day shooting at them, they will get airburst mortar fires on your position very quick. Also you have to consider things like anti-tank support etc.

[Secondbrooks]

I agree that the general concepts of the tactics worked out in late WWI still are very useful and the break between 1815 and 1914 was much bigger than between 1918 and 2009, but I am more sceptical in that the specifics - like the quota of maneuvre units to suppressing units - have to be re-evaluated, because the amount of firepower an infantry platoon has today and its effective combat ranges are very different, also artillery and mortars respond far more rapidly and lethally than in those days so you can't just stay there all day shooting at them, they will get airburst mortar fires on your position very quick. Also you have to consider things like anti-tank support etc.

Naturally nearly optimal setting is much more based on situation (enemy, own troops, terrain, objecitve comes to my mind first). Text-book examples to be used as they are written is for idiots ... And that probably also stands from ww1 to this day.

[Sgt Joch]

Certainly the fact that weapons now are much more deadly than in 1917 is a given, yet the principle that "overwhelming suppressive fire" is one of the key to a successful assault still holds.

What the proper ratio should be is, of course, debatable. In the article Jons linked, the U.S. army in 1976 conducted tests which showed a 88% success rate when a 2:1 ratio of base of fire elements to the maneuver element was used.

I have often used a 2:1 ratio in CMx1 and CMSF, but find that in CMSF my assault element suffers more casualties than I like. Perhaps bumping up the shooter/mover ratio to 3:1 or 4:1 is the key. One of the advantages of a simulator like CMSF is that you can easily conduct this type of experiment.

[Apocal]

Your spidey sense is failing you, then, and failing you badly. I'm down with suppression fire, totally down with it. In fact, I think suppression is a skill and technique that is misunderstood and misapplied by the vast majority. For example (direct link to PDF)

But punching holes in the clouds, and running your ammo depth dry in moments, is not suppression fire.

It occurs to me that we may actually be talking past one another; I was speaking from experience mostly with MGs mounted on vehicles and JonS was placing more emphasis on the dismount role, possibly? At least that's the impression I get from "running your ammo depth dry in moments".

The mention of the M2HB in the opening post threw me off. Cutting a ten or fifteen round Z isn't terribly unusual from a turreted M2HB, the newer ones aren't nearly as horrible with regards to recoil as the old mounts. I recall CPT Mike was/is a Stryker guy and it seems if fired from an RWS the weapon is held rock-steady. I have no firsthand experience with them, so I couldn't say.

FWIW