Why do not soldiers shoot through loop-holes in the sides of APC?

[Alex]

Why do not soldiers shoot through loop-holes in the sides of APC?

Interests a question, why in a game infantry does not shoot from the personal rifle weapon through loop-holes in the sides of the armored transporters, such as: BMP-1/2/3, BTR-60, Hammer end other.

In a game an infantry can conduct a fire only through the opened hatches of APC "Strayker" and from a course machine guns of BMP-3 (means the rendering-engine of game does not limit this possibility).

By the way it was not badly, if an infantry could use the grenade launcher of AT-4 for firing from the hatches of APC "Strayker".

[hcrof]

I want this as well. In an ambush it would be pretty awsome for the passangers of the vehicle to fire through the firing ports. Mounted assaults happen more often than not as well and this would also require the use of firing ports to do properly.

As well as that, passengers in open topped british vehicles should be able to use small arms.

I am no expert on WW2 but isn't the code going to have to go in anyway for halftracks in Normandy?

[Michael Emrys]

It's been a while since I was keeping up with modern arms development, but the last I heard was that the US Army at least had given up the practice of firing personal weapons through loopholes in the sides of APCs. I understand that such fire was found to be insufficiently effective to warrant having the armor protection compromised by the hole and its cover, so the older machines had theirs welded over and the later models produced without them. If anybody has more information on this or can correct it if it is wrong, I'd like to know.

Michael

[hcrof]

As far as I know, this is correct for US vehicles. Syrian (Soviet) vehicles however all have firing ports in the side and troops are expectected to use them.

As Steve has said many times, firing small arms out of a moving vehicle is not very effective, however Soviet doctrine calls for a massive weight of fire during the attack, even if it is not effective to suppress the enemy and bolster freindly morale.

Firing ports are also frequently used in vehicle ambushes as green troops are afraid to leave the armour protection of the carrier and instead blaze away from inside. This was noted in both the Afghan and Chechen campaigns and was seriously detrimental to survivorability.

However, since the BMP-3 has firing ports the Russians must still believe that they are effective, even after several wars so I will not say they are useless!

[Alex]

Efficiency of fire through loop-holes not necessarily must be high on all distances, but at least in the distance to 100m such fire can press tо the earth, I already do not talk about the situations of infighting in the distance the throw of hand-grenade (that in a game not rareness).

[daisy]

Firing ports in ICV's etc can be usefull, example: these were quite common in South African produced vehicles that saw extensive combat against Angolan etc forces. Some newer vehicles are even used in Afghanistan.

From veterans who fought in Angola from ICV's I have heard of some bullets penetrating the firing port holes but these bullets most shattererd while coming in and caused minor injuries to the soldiers firing from inside.

If such a feature were implemented in CMSF etc for forces that still do this it would certainly add more realism to this allready outstanding game.

[Elmar Bijlsma]

I shudder at the thought of having troops in an APC in any situation that would allow them to fire at the enemy through rifle ports.

Not against this being implemented but I don't think I could be persuaded to ever use it. I wouldn't get a loaded APC that close to the action!

[Alex]

every happens.

[Alex]

Judging by silence of developers, changes on this question it is not expected?

[Battlefront.com]

We question the value of this feature. It is a lot of work for something which we feel would do little but reduce the Squad's ammo counts. Who here has been inside a BMP-1? Who here has been driven around in the back of a tracked vehicle at significant speeds? Who here has fired a full automatic weapon out in the open without any distractions?

Now picture being crammed inside a small box that is being violently moved up, down, to and fro while your rifle is fixed to that box and you are bouncing up and down on the seat. And on top of that, you're expected to have your head pushed into a periscope which has the potential for hurting you pretty badly while you're trying to keep aim on a target.

While moving at any significant speed it's pretty obvious to us that firing from the ports would result in the most inaccurate fire of any situation in the game. The majority of the rounds would likely go into the ground around the vehicle or into the air. If the vehicle is stationary that's a different story. But how frequently would you want to keep your Squad inside and their weapons stuck into a firing port with a gas and shell extractor attached to it? Right

Has anybody here, with actual military experience with a BMP-1, tried to fire form the firing port while the vehicle is on the move? What are your experiences.

To sum up... we didn't feel it was worth the time to code. Still don't

Steve

[Alex]

You certainly rights, but why is a situation examined at once, that shooting is necessary at full speed? In a game often there are situations, when infantry into a APC, and it decides (blunts) anywhere on a road turn, and gets under the fire of opponent from small distance. Right here that and loop-holes are needed, when enemy alongside, and a APC does not ride.

I doubt by the way, that far more comfortable to fire a rifle being in the opened hatch of strayker, when that goes by speed. On me it also not effectively, but well a review is better.

And I did not shoot from firing port of BMP-1

[Michael Emrys]

...under the fire of opponent from small distance. Right here that and loop-holes are needed, when enemy alongside...

How small a distance? The US Army in Viet Nam developed a technique for dealing with roadside ambushes of its covoys. They would attach multiple Claymore mines down the side of each vehicle. If they were stopped, the driver would detonate the mines and then the infantry would deploy into the brush. Obviously, it is important to keep timing and sequence straight in that case.

In Viet Nam, the ambushers would be quite close, hidden in dense vegetation most often. In Syria I would guess that they might deploy farther from the road, out of the range of the Claymore.

Michael

[Alex]

I'm token about distance of 50-150m, at this distance fairing from the fire-ports of standing BMP will be affective.

By the way and what do course machine guns differ on BMP-3, set in the same loop-holes, from what we discuss, why it was then decided that a fire from such devices on BMP-3 deserves attention, and on other fighting machines it is not? In fact on BMP-3 there are no special aiming devices for firing from course PK.

[dan/california]

Red really does have enough ways to lose battles without being encouraged to leave its troops in thin skinned AFVs that brew up at the mere sound of many Blue weapons. For that matter RPGs move tea time right along when playing Red vs RED. If your AFV is being shot at, the infantry shouldn't be in it, period.

[noxnoctum]

What about firing from halftracks and other open-top vehicles?

[hoolaman]

How small a distance? The US Army in Viet Nam developed a technique for dealing with roadside ambushes of its covoys. They would attach multiple Claymore mines down the side of each vehicle. If they were stopped, the driver would detonate the mines and then the infantry would deploy into the brush. Obviously, it is important to keep timing and sequence straight in that case.

Lol, yeah I can see sgt goober slapping his forehead saying: "oh, so it's fire mines then dismount troops!".

[Alex]

By the way not clear, why is an infantry transported in the basket of pikup (auto without weapon) opens a fire on an opponent from the personal weapon, and an infantry is transported in UAZ is not?

[dima]

Modern russian operating procedures (as is US, I am sure) when caught in roadside ambush is either:

a) Speed up and try to escape (unlikely as enemy will try to block the road)

Dismount immediately and fight on foot.

These were standard procedures in Afghanistan and Chechnya.

Staying inside an APC in an ambush is a suicide. One RPG hit and vehicle becomes a graveyard.

[Alex]

Yes and what?

Situations are different. I have such impression, that initially developers decided with it not to romp, now all search it monumental acquittal, as though: "it is not needed, it is not effective". Dima I can cite as an example the stories of soldiers which conducted a fight inwardly BTR through loop-holes, not once saw documentary videos, where similarly soldiers conduct a fight into the fighting machines.

We now deepen in the questions of tactic, eventually it already to decide a player, he hurries the infantry or not, and I began with the discussion of the most technical feasibility of firing through the loop-holes of the armored transporters. A game must give the player of maximum possibilities, and he will choose on your own correct.

And by the way regulations by regulations, and AI brains it's something other. And AI often "forgets" to land the infantry from BMP and it simply perishes into the machines.

[hcrof]

Modern russian operating procedures (as is US, I am sure) when caught in roadside ambush is either:

a) Speed up and try to escape (unlikely as enemy will try to block the road)

Dismount immediately and fight on foot.

These were standard procedures in Afghanistan and Chechnya.

Staying inside an APC in an ambush is a suicide. One RPG hit and vehicle becomes a graveyard.

You are right of course but procedures and reality are often very different, especially in conflicts where the troops are not adiquately prepared (1st Chechnya war). I imagine it takes a lot of guts to leave a carrier when bullets are bouncing off the sides and without experienced NCO's pushing you out it might not ever happen.

I have heard of stories where troops sat there and blazed away out of their carrier untill they ran out of ammunition rather than leave and carry the fight to the enemy.

[Majorpain]

I have to agree, the amount of time necessary to code firing ports would not be worth the effort!

Soldiers in a BMP use periscopes and tracers to aim their weapons, so you can imagine you would struggle to hit anything, even at point blank range. Trying to shoot whilst moving would be the equivilant of shooting on a range during an earthquake.

[dima]

Yes, the reality indeed can be different. But in the game the human player (I hope!) will not keep his solders within the vehicle in an ambush. AI, that's a different matter but then whoever plays ambush against AI is a "cheater"

[Alan8325]

I have to agree, the amount of time necessary to code firing ports would not be worth the effort!

Soldiers in a BMP use periscopes and tracers to aim their weapons, so you can imagine you would struggle to hit anything, even at point blank range. Trying to shoot whilst moving would be the equivilant of shooting on a range during an earthquake.

It might be code that will need to be added for CM:Normandy, considering that being inside of an armored vehicle during a firefight in WWII would have been safer than it is now. I'm not familiar with all of the infantry transports available during WWII but didn't any of them have firing ports? I know APCs with firing ports like the BTR were developed shortly after WWII. There should at least be code to fire from half-tracks in CM:N.

[George MC]

Most infantry carriers in WWII were open top so no need for fire ports. e.g. SPW Sdkfz 251 and the US M3.

I'm hoping they'll add more code as I'd really love to re-do the blowtorch sereis for CMX2 - being able to use the RL tactcis would be superb! 1:1, oh man be still my beating heart

[Battlefront.com]

Firing from open topped vehicles is different than enclosed ones. At least from a programming standpoint. Passengers already have some ability to fire from vehicles, but it's from outside the vehicle. The problem with firing from inside is that the weapons have to be "secured" to the hull like the built in MGs of the vehicle. Limitations on firing arcs, angles, etc. must be enforced for both simulation and graphical needs. Thus, the weapon becomes temporarily a part of the vehicle, while passenger weapons remain in the complete control of the weapon. Not the same thing.

Normandy already has more liberal rules regarding firing from open topped vehicles, but there is still no code to have them fire from inside of one since that behavior isn't needed for WW2 (and don't get me started about the various firing ports on some AFVs ).

Steve