Noticed something remarkable on RAF Regt. and RM Commando Ma Deuces

[Noltyboy]

RAF Regt and RM Cdos are not modelled in CMSF.

Light role Btn is pretty close.

[gibsonm]

Light role Btn is pretty close.

Sure but the OP was talking about specific kit in specific units and asking if it was in the module.

JonS was just confirming that those units aren't in the module and therefore the kit specific to them isn't either.

So while they may well be "pretty close" they aren't the same.

[MikeyD]

About HMGs in game, I've really become a fan of 14.5 DshK since the Brit module came out. They'll outrange anything below autocannons and frighten off pretty much anything less than an MBT. I have no complaints about their long range accuracy, unless some clueless conscript is manning it. I haven't played as much with ground mount .50 cals on the Blue side, Blue's usually on the offensive so carefully positioned .50 in overwatch is less common.

[Noltyboy]

Sure but the OP was talking about specific kit in specific units and asking if it was in the module.

JonS was just confirming that those units aren't in the module and therefore the kit specific to them isn't either.

So while they may well be "pretty close" they aren't the same.

I cant think of any major systems that arnt covered, except maybe the more unusual vehicles the RM use. The RAF REG are exactly the same except the ranks are different.

[SSG Grymm]

Except of course with the newer QCB (quick change barrel) version, you don't need to headspace and time it when you change the barrel.

Would have loved to have one of those. Guess someone finally listened to my years of bitching about how the barrels get changed, LOL.

Edit Note: I just looked it up to see what it looked like. That is a excellent change to a nice weapon, still not sure I want to get out of a turret and change a barrel, but if needed its a heck of a lot easier. Looks like I missed it by just a few years though.

[gibsonm]

Would have loved to have one of those. Guess someone finally listened to my years of bitching about how the barrels get changed, LOL.

Well I don't think you were a lone voice in the wilderness.

Certainly there were a heap of people here whinging too.

[Pandur]

That's a flash suppressor. I don't know if it really works all that well, because the .50 cal flash can be huge at night. But it is standard issue with any m2.

I think in all my years I only saw a handful of the flash suppressors and they were laying in the back of vehicles or in arms rooms, never mounted.

ah i see, makes me wondering why they are mounted on this particular pices. after all if this is a "standard issue" thingy but they are never used, they cant be too usefull after all.

probably they added it just for good looks

About HMGs in game, I've really become a fan of 14.5 DshK since the Brit module came out.

i love to toy around with those BTR-60´s(i play lots of RED/RED QB´s) and i found the 14.5mm is a class of its own when it comes to supressing or killing guys in houses in the game. thats where you really get the difference in penetration power compared to the 12.7mm.

downside is that they did put a coax MG too, they should take that out and double the 14.5mm ammo and the BTR-60 would be even better for me

also id love to see a 14.5mm tripod version, but i guess the 12.7x110(i think its 110 )need to do on the syrians side.

[John Kettler]

gibsonm and JonS,

I cited those two formations as known examples, but, given my dazzling level of ignorance regarding the modern British Army, I was wondering whether this might be more of a standard fit, as opposed to something in very limited use.

Regards,

John Kettler

[Apocal]

I personally don't see a whole lot of point to mounting high-power glass on a crew-served weapon, unless it's to satisfy local RoE requirements. By time you got the glass back on one of those truly long-range targets and stable, your rounds have been there and you can't see where to correct and it winds up being BoT anyway. In my experience at least.

Now if you have a stabilized mount to go along with it, awesome possum. I'm sure that works just fine.

My biggest complaint with it was the 100 round ready box. We'd jerry rig something usually to hold 200, but it really needs a larger ready box. With motorized turrets on the gun trucks now, you'd think that would be coming. Nothing like trying to stuff a ammo box between a gunners legs so he can reload as rounds are impacting the side of the vehicle.

There is some new RWS setup that comes with a 500rd rdy box, protected by ESAPIs. Pretty spiff.

I think in all my years I only saw a handful of the flash suppressors and they were laying in the back of vehicles or in arms rooms, never mounted.

I've seen them mounted a handful of times over the years.

[SSG Grymm]

500 rounds would be very nice. I've been out for a few years, but I'm sure alot more people are screaming for a bigger ready box now, than were back a couple of years. The M2 being a primary support weapon now. As I said earlier, the turrets are motorized now, so weight can't really be the factor. And they just needed to make a box the size of a Mk-19's drum. I think it just finally just became a true factor of need vs want.

I am trying hard to recall seeing any of the flash suppressors mounted. Maybe once for a dog and pony show. They were kind of a PITA to mount(there maybe a newer version out there now, like the barrel change). It had 4 bolts that had to be tightened with equal pressure, not difficult, just time consuming and something else we had to clean. In all honesty, how much flash suppression are you going to get out of a .50? It's not like you are position isn't going to be known once you start letting some rounds go. And like all HMG, it's going to draw alot of attention, good and bad.

[flamingknives]

While the RAF Regt may be more likely to pose for pictures, the optics are common across all .50 and 40mm mounts in the British Armed forces.

A GMG with an ACOG:

A HMG with a SUSAT:

On a ground mount with the RM

There has been some .50 cals seen with Vortex flash eliminators:

http://www.smithenterprise.com/products06.html

[YankeeDog]

I would think the primary usefulness of a flash suppressor would be in reducing flash blindness for the gunner in night/low light engagements, rather than keeping the position of a firing gun hidden. As noted, suppressor or no, I really don't think anyone in the area is going to have much difficulty figuring out where a vehicle-mounted M2 is once it starts sending lead downrange.

Similar deal with the optics. I doubt they are used much for actually aiming fire -- as noted, unless the weapon is stabilized and locked down, you're going to lose the sight picture as soon as the first round leaves the barrel, and there are better weapons for carefully aimed single shots (e.g., the Barrett). Rather, I would think that the optics are used more for scanning for targets/dangers prior to engagement. Probably easier to have the optics mounted to the weapon, rather than try to hold a spotting scope or binocs to your face while you're bouncing over rough terrain in a vehicle -- leaves both hands free for managing the weapon and/or holding on to something.

[Noltyboy]

I would think the primary usefulness of a flash suppressor would be in reducing flash blindness for the gunner in night/low light engagements, rather than keeping the position of a firing gun hidden. As noted, suppressor or no, I really don't think anyone in the area is going to have much difficulty figuring out where a vehicle-mounted M2 is once it starts sending lead downrange.

Similar deal with the optics. I doubt they are used much for actually aiming fire -- as noted, unless the weapon is stabilized and locked down, you're going to lose the sight picture as soon as the first round leaves the barrel, and there are better weapons for carefully aimed single shots (e.g., the Barrett). Rather, I would think that the optics are used more for scanning for targets/dangers prior to engagement. Probably easier to have the optics mounted to the weapon, rather than try to hold a spotting scope or binocs to your face while you're bouncing over rough terrain in a vehicle -- leaves both hands free for managing the weapon and/or holding on to something.

As i said before the mounts the brits use are very stable and accurate aimed fire is possible with rapid single shots/short bursts (or so im told by guys in the know)

But then im not sure how different the mounts the US use are.

[flamingknives]

Ah yes, the mounts:

http://www.manroy.com/html/_50__softmount.html

on every British HMG (L111A1 - has a QCB)

[JonS]

... In all honesty, how much flash suppression are you going to get out of a .50? It's not like you are position isn't going to be known once you start letting some rounds go. And like all HMG, it's going to draw alot of attention, good and bad.

That depends on who the flash is being suppressed for. Granted it's going to be tough to hide from the nme, but suppressing it - even a bit - could help the crew quite a bit, depending on lighting conditions.

[SSG Grymm]

That depends on who the flash is being suppressed for. Granted it's going to be tough to hide from the nme, but suppressing it - even a bit - could help the crew quite a bit, depending on lighting conditions.

I guess, but we never used any flash supression on ours and never had any issues, and that includes the old PVS-5's, which were old by the time I entered the service. Maybe its better with the more current thermal sights I've heard they are mounting on them?

The muzzle flash was never a issue for us, as a recon unit, if it made that much of a difference we would have used it or atleast had enough of them to use on all the guns, I'd like to think.

[gibsonm]

I guess, but we never used any flash supression on ours.

Same here.

I've been around M2HB for what 28 years now on and off and only had the flash suppressor issued to me as part of the CES maybe twice.

And when they were issued we didn't fit them.

But different armies have different SOP's.

[John Kettler]

flamingknives,

Thank you! That is exactly what I was trying to find out. Since this is standard kit, then I think BFC should, if feasible, model both the optics and the gun mounts. These are tactically significant matters with real battlefield impact because they extend the range at which the British can deliver effective fire, as opposed to similar weapons in U.S. service lacking both the optics and the damped mounts.

Regards,

John Kettler

[John Kettler]

Got a valuable .50 cal tidbit last night when Top Ten on the Military Channel mentioned that the world record for a .50 cal. sniper shot is now 2430 meters, said record obtained in Afghanistan by a Canadian sniper firing a McMillan TAC-50. See Range here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sniper

Here are two interviews with then Corporal Rob Furlong, the man who did it.

Took three shots to get the hit, the second of which may've done something militarily useful, since it hit some sort of equipment bag one of the Taliban was carrying. The point of this is to show what a .50 cal. can do in terms of extreme direct fire, but I wouldn't expect this kind of extreme range from the vehicle mounts being discussed because the optics are nowhere nearly as powerful and the gunners don't really have spotters.

Regards,

John Kettler

[Lee]

Interesting story about that shot. It should be noted that when Hathcock made his shot it was with a .50 cal Browning HMG fitted with a scope, not a precision bolt action sniper rifle like the Canadian soldier had. Still, a great shot. The interviewer in that video is an idiot, though. Asking how how he "feels", if it worries him, etc.; what, about shooting terrorist scum that are the sworn enemies of our civilization and would murder the sniper's family if they had the chance? It's a pleasure to rid the world of trash like that and a great contribution on the battlefield for a sniper to pick them off whenever an opportunity arises, so our guys don't have to walk up and empty a magazine into them from close range.

Thanks to Canada for helping us fight these arab terrorists in Afghanistan. I hear their artillery teams are quite good, as well, and have provided great support for U.S. soldiers in forward positions.

[Pandur]

honestly lee, sometimes you sound like the most brainwashed rightwing nut on this forum

nothing against you personaly(!) but your posts strongly indicate this to me.

[Wicky]

There are quite a variety of scopes from Trijicon with differing optics (1.5x to 6x). Until it can ascertained which particular spec sights were?/are fitted and practically used in the CMSF timescale, then it seems up in air as what and if any changes are needed in CMSF's LOS and target acquisitioning.

[John Kettler]

Wicky,

Fair point, but national armies are all about standardization whenever possible. Thus, if the British forces have such installations in their line units, a reasonable first conclusion would be it's based on experience derived from the frequently used specialist intervention units, which would find it easier to get unusual kit by their very nature and their relatively tiny size. This would then tend to create internal and political pressure to do the same in the line formations. At that level, the specialist units' experience becomes part of the "sell" for the mass purchase of the soft mounts and sights so successful in battle with them. This shouldn't be that hard to get data on, and I believe we have several people here who know or can find out. For example, here's the dope on the previously referenced SUSAT, a 4X scope.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SUSAT

Here's the ACOG, also 4X. Story (see Repulse post) appears to be from Jane's.

http://www.realitymod.com/forum/f22-military-technology/41094-acog-vs-susat.html

By contrast, here's the info for the 8X Unertl scope Hathcock used when sniping with a Ma Deuce firing in single shot mode.

General info

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M2_Browning_machine_gun

Scope specifics (see biglabsrule's post)

http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-45195.html

For the nitty gritty on why 8X, please see the M-1903A1-Unertl discussion here.

http://usmcronbo.tripod.com/id99.htm

Thus, to a first order we have: Vanilla Ma Deuce with no telescopic sight, SUSAT or ACOG fitted Ma Deuce (4X if using standard personal weapon sight or 6X if the bigger crew-served weapon sight) and 8X on the Hathcock sniping configured Ma Deuce.

Seems to me it wouldn't be too difficult to do something at least broadly usable with what's presented here as a starting point.

Regards,

John Kettler

[John Kettler]

Breaking News! MoD's official site lists the effective range of a soft mounted, optics equipped Ma Deuce as 2000 meters!

http://www.army.mod.uk/equipment/support-weapons/1464.aspx

Regards,

John Kettler

[gibsonm]

Wicky,

Fair point, but national armies are all about standardization whenever possible. Thus, if the British forces have such installations in their line units ...

Regards,

John Kettler

John,

Not sure you can class a RN outfit and a RAF outfit as "line units"? I mean it's not like they are line Bn's.