British light btln equipment quality request

[akd]

Equipment quality settings affect the vehicles used by fire support sections in British light battalions. For example, poor yields only WMIKs, fair gives a mix of MWIKs/M-WMIKs, and normal and above gives only M-WMIKs. However, the battalion's recce platoon is always equipped with M-WMIKs regardless of equipment quality setting.

If possible, I'd like to see the poor setting yield WMIKs only for the recce platoon, as well, which would be a great feature for historical scenario builders. "Fair" might yield a mix as in the fire support sections, but I'm not entirely sure that is desirable.

Another equipment quality tweak that might be useful would be to replace one of the L110s in each infantry section with a GPMG in the light role (no tripod) at higher quality settings. I believe this has been a common practice in Afghanistan for several years now.

[Jonny(FGM)]

I believe this has been a common practice in Afghanistan for several years now.

It's been common practice since Goose Green i think.

What i would like to see is 2 different infantry formations for the brits, one with th GPMG at section level and one without.

[Battlefront.com]

The Recce Platoon is setup the way it is because we were told they don't use regular WMIKs at all. Ever. Whereas the other units normally do, but if they are lucky they may be issued the better versions. So no, we aren't planning on changing this.

Swapping out the L110s with the GPMGs has never come up until now, so I'm not in a position to comment. In theory it can be done, but I'd need to see some pretty strong evidence that it isn't all that uncommon *and* the GPMGs aren't being swiped from some other source. We have no ability to have equipment dependencies between two formations (e.g. if Squad x gets Y, then Team A doesn't get .

Steve

[flamingknives]

You certainly see lots of GPMGs knocking about infantry patrol in Helmand, but that has problems as an authoritative source.

1) We don't know who is on that patrol. It could be a section, it could be a section with some guys from the fire support platoon.

2) We don't know where the soldiers got that GPMG. AFAIK they are not scaled for it (unless they are from the fire support platoon).

3) Only the period 2008 counts. At this point, everyone in Recce had Jackals.

[LongLeftFlank]

I can offer no experience more relevant than hunting whitetail in Algoma / the Laurentides, but it would seem that on patrols in the mountains you'd want the greater carrying power of the GPMG to reach out and touch folks on slopes up to a km distant. In spite of the load. It would rather suck to have moojies sniping you with Lee Enfields or Dragunovs from outside your effective reply/suppression range. Bring two, in fact.

[akd]

Most that I've read is anecdotal on forums and such, but here is one source document:

To address problems with 5.56 mm ammunition, the MoD has re-issued limited

numbers of the 7.62 mm general purpose machine gun (GPMG) and the L96 7.62

mm sniper rifle at section level2. There are also plans to introduce a lightweight

7.62 mm machine gun2. While these weapons provide a worthwhile amount of

additional on-the-ground firepower, at present they only enable two members of

an 8-man section to engage the enemy at longer ranges.

www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/btb.pdf

Regarding recce platoon WMIKs, looking at the history of Jackal procurment, is it even possible that all recce platoons were fully equipped with M-WMIKs by May 2008?

Anyways, I thought it would offer a bit of flexibility for scenario designers using assets that are already in the game.

[Elmar Bijlsma]

Meh. I don't care for the how or why. For many years now I'm seeing combat footage with the GPMG used up front by infantry foot patrols. I want to see in CM that which I'm seeing in nearly every bit of footage. Currently the Brits in CMSF are underusing the GPMG dramatically compared to their real life counterpart. If there's no TOE that allows the wider use of GPMGs that find some other way to do it. Because I, and I reckon a fair number of others, don't really care about what the TOE says. It should not overrule what is clearly fairly common practise.

[Battlefront.com]

Yeah, but going around and changing TO&E to fit perceptions vs. reality is a really bad idea.

The quote AKD put in above was in a 2009 report. It also used the word "limited". Add to that the fact Afghanistan is a VERY different environment than Syria. As we can see with Iraq and Afghanistan, what is used in one place is not necessarily used in the other and vice versa.

Even more so, you guys seem to overlook the fact that only the Germans (which you haven't got a hold of yet) have 7.62 weapons standard to their Rifle Squads. So why single the Brits out as "weak" when the other forces in Shock Force are similarly equipped?

Nope, sorry... we do not deviate from established TO&E unless we have a damned good reason to do so. "I want it" is not a good reason. Never has been, never will be

As for Jackals, the best info we have is that the Recce platoons of the frontline British units would all have had them within our timeframe. Remember that we're not talking about many vehicles. 12 per Battalion. The original purchase was for 130 vehicles, all of which were to be delivered in 2008 (as far as I can tell). That's enough for 10 battalions, which is more than what would be fielded for the Syrian scenario. At the present time the Brits have ordered a total of 530 Jackals of four different flavors. I don't know how many of those are already delivered.

As for the procurement problems AKD mentioned, this is why Jackals are pretty much limited to the Recce units and not more widespread. While it is possible that some non-Recce units may have received Jackals in our timeframe, they would be few and far inbetween.

Again, the evidence is that all frontline Recce units had the Jackal in real life during our timeframe, but few were in service outside of Recce. The game reflects that reality, so we don't see a reason to change.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

Elmar,

For many years now I'm seeing combat footage with the GPMG used up front by infantry foot patrols.

You can do this in Combat Mission right now, no problem. Since you have no idea where the GPMGs you've been seeing are coming from, or who they are being manned by, why not assume they are dedicated GPMG teams and not a Rifle Section with a non-standard GPMG? It's most likely what you're actually seeing anyway.

BTW, that report AKD linked to is quite good, but it is an unofficial and partisan anti-5.56 case maker. I'm not saying its wrong or anything, just that the intent of the authors is to build the case that the 5.56 should be replaced by 7.62 (or at least something more powerful than 5.56). Therefore it should be expected that they will highlight certain issues and practices, perhaps accurately or perhaps not so. Since this is part of a larger debate going on for about 30 years, nothing in the reports surprises me. The long range engagement issues in Afghanistan, an actual issue, is not something that can be extrapolated to all battlefield situations, despite the authors' claim. Which is the whole problem with choosing one round or the other... each has its pros and cons depending on the situation.

Steve

[Dietrich]

the Germans . . . have 7.62 weapons standard to their Rifle Squads.

"Gebt Sperrfeuer, Männer!"

*clears throat*

In the dozens of scenarios I've played in CMSF with British forces, only a handful of times has my force included GPMGs that weren't mounted on vehicles.

[Eagle2]

In the dozens of scenarios I've played in CMSF with British forces, only a handful of times has my force included GPMGs that weren't mounted on vehicles.

I'd have to agree with you there mate. I can't even remember the last time i saw a GPMG in a scenario to be honest. I understand battelfront not wanting to deviate from the standard To&E, I just wish that more mission designers would give the player more of the nasty buggers. Speaking of mission designers, how about creating a few new british battles for me to play, huh?

[Blackcat]

British Infantry sections have been equipped with a LMG since, at least, 1939. The L7A2 GPMG supplanted the Bren Gun in that role in the early sixties and remained in section service until the mid-late eighties when some bloody fool thought it could be adequately replaced by the SA80 LSW (a SA80 with a longer and heavier barrel but with the same magazine and ammo). Combat experience showed that it couldn't and in the Balkans units were scrounging up Gimpy's from anywhere they could and issuing them as widely as possible.

By the time of Iraq the situation seems to have been made more complex by the introduction of the Minimi as a SA80 LSW relacement at section level. However the use of the GPMG at sub-platoon level does seem to have been widespread and offically sanctioned (see Sniper One, by Dan Mills for the number of GPMG's available to a company sized fromation in 2004).

When it comes to GPMG at section level in Afghanistan by 2008, the documentation is fairly impressive. In fact the evidence is overwhelming, read any account you like and you'll find sections carrying a GPMG (Afghanistan also shows that the Brits do also use dismounted .5 calibre MGs as well, something I have never seen in the game, but that need not concern us here). I suppose one could argue that first-hand accounts are andecotal evidence, but it would be a stupid thing to do.

In terms of the game, so what? Battlefront have based their game on TOE's circa, I would guess, 2007 and set out to model a hot, nation on nation, combat in 2008. Were GPMGs issued at section level in the 2007 TOE for an infantry battalion of whatever stripe? No, they weren't - therefore they don't appear in the game. The fact that they were so issued in a counter-insurgency conflct that was really happening in the same time frame as the game is, I think, neither here nor there. The game models a fictional war and not a real one.

There was, at least, one dismounted 50 cal used in the Falklands (I have photos), it never appeared on any TOE and officially it wasn't there. British Warriors would never go into battle against infantry with a massive preponderance of AP ammo and very few HE rounds (though the game insists that they do). Battlefront cannot, I have been convinced, be expected to model reality in the British forces where pragmatism, scrounging and doing what is necessary to get the job done triumphs over dogma, policy and doctrine every time and always has done.

[Jonny(FGM)]

Even more so, you guys seem to overlook the fact that only the Germans (which you haven't got a hold of yet) have 7.62 weapons standard to their Rifle Squads. So why single the Brits out as "weak" when the other forces in Shock Force are similarly equipped?

Well not really, the marines and SBCT platoons both get 2 MGs per plt, that's almost one per section.

Personally I don't really mind that much as i've never really found myself lacking FP with the brits, but a scenario designer has to give the brits all those really fragile Jackals/Land Rovers to make up the fire support.

[akd]

Yeah, but going around and changing TO&E to fit perceptions vs. reality is a really bad idea.

The quote AKD put in above was in a 2009 report. It also used the word "limited". Add to that the fact Afghanistan is a VERY different environment than Syria. As we can see with Iraq and Afghanistan, what is used in one place is not necessarily used in the other and vice versa.

Even more so, you guys seem to overlook the fact that only the Germans (which you haven't got a hold of yet) have 7.62 weapons standard to their Rifle Squads. So why single the Brits out as "weak" when the other forces in Shock Force are similarly equipped?

Nope, sorry... we do not deviate from established TO&E unless we have a damned good reason to do so. "I want it" is not a good reason. Never has been, never will be

As for Jackals, the best info we have is that the Recce platoons of the frontline British units would all have had them within our timeframe. Remember that we're not talking about many vehicles. 12 per Battalion. The original purchase was for 130 vehicles, all of which were to be delivered in 2008 (as far as I can tell). That's enough for 10 battalions, which is more than what would be fielded for the Syrian scenario. At the present time the Brits have ordered a total of 530 Jackals of four different flavors. I don't know how many of those are already delivered.

As for the procurement problems AKD mentioned, this is why Jackals are pretty much limited to the Recce units and not more widespread. While it is possible that some non-Recce units may have received Jackals in our timeframe, they would be few and far inbetween.

Again, the evidence is that all frontline Recce units had the Jackal in real life during our timeframe, but few were in service outside of Recce. The game reflects that reality, so we don't see a reason to change.

Steve

Note that I was never arguing that it was incorrect or unlikely in our hypothetical Syria scenario, just that we have the flexibility in the equipment quality feature of the scenario editor to create scenarios +/- a few years from Syria 2008 either hypothetical or even historical, as is the case with some equipment quality setting options already in the game. To quote the Marines manual:

There are three primary LAV variants in CM:SF Marines: LAV-25, LAV-AT and LAV-C2. All three variants have recently been upgraded to "A2" standard, which includes better armor, suspension and targeting systems. The A2s are the standard model used in CM:SF, however the older versions can be selected as well.

As it stands, I believe the equipment quality setting for a British light battalion is unused above normal except possibly the effect it has on the numbers of upgraded L85s. Making use of that to create a greater range of scenarios would be a great feature, not a fix or correction.

I didn't post the Williams article to support his point. The quoted statement is footnoted and points to an MoD source that I don't have access to. It should be judged based on that, not Williams' partisan position in the caliber debate.

Here's a fun paper TO&E versus reality TO&E challenge for the forum: find a picture of an L86 LSW in use on operations in Afghanistan in 2008 (not on base or in training).

P.s. Thanks for the replies Steve.

[Jonny(FGM)]

I could be wrong, but isn't this one?

[Battlefront.com]

When it comes to GPMG at section level in Afghanistan by 2008, the documentation is fairly impressive. In fact the evidence is overwhelming, read any account you like and you'll find sections carrying a GPMG (Afghanistan also shows that the Brits do also use dismounted .5 calibre MGs as well, something I have never seen in the game, but that need not concern us here). I suppose one could argue that first-hand accounts are andecotal evidence, but it would be a stupid thing to do.

First hand accounts are considered anecdotal, but that doesn't mean they should be dismissed. The reason for that is if there is a way for TO&E to be broken, soldiers will find 10 ways to break it. What is, or isn't, fairly standard is important to establish. Without that you have people saying that all US Rifle Squads in WW2 should have captured Panzerfaust or German Rifle Squads should be packed with MP-40s and MP-44s all the time.

But I get back to my main point... Afghanistan is not necessarily relevant because the situations encountered there are quite different than Iraq or Syria. In fact, this just demonstrates why official TO&E needs to be flexible when it gets invested into a particular combat situation. Many have advocated militaries adopt a more Special Forces approach to warfare, where the organization and equipment is tailored to a specific operating environment. There are tons of practical and logistical problems to this, so we're likely to be stuck with "one size fits most" approach which is, grudgingly, altered for protracted engagements (as has happened in both Iraq and Afghanistan for every major force in it).

In terms of the game, so what? Battlefront have based their game on TOE's circa, I would guess, 2007 and set out to model a hot, nation on nation, combat in 2008.

Correct.

Were GPMGs issued at section level in the 2007 TOE for an infantry battalion of whatever stripe? No, they weren't - therefore they don't appear in the game. The fact that they were so issued in a counter-insurgency conflct that was really happening in the same time frame as the game is, I think, neither here nor there. The game models a fictional war and not a real one.

Correct. As we have said since we announced CM:SF, the game is designed to simulate a conventional war more-or-less similar to Iraq in terms of the setting.

Battlefront cannot, I have been convinced, be expected to model reality in the British forces where pragmatism, scrounging and doing what is necessary to get the job done triumphs over dogma, policy and doctrine every time and always has done.

It usually takes years for real world soldiers to overcome the constraints imposed on them by their military. But there needs to be a case made for that, which usually comes about only after prolonged engagement. It also is tailored to the specifics of that particular conflict. What is being done in Iraq isn't necessarily being done in Afghanistan, either organizationally or doctrinally. There are many practical reasons for that, therefore to say "this is what's happening in Afghanistan" is largely irrelevant unless we're simulating the same environment. Which we are not.

Look at the rejection of the US Army's ACU as a good example. It was put into service without proper testing (of the pattern) and was soundly unpopular with soldiers wearing it. In Iraq the uniform did OK. It held up OK to the rigors of combat, it's poor camouflage effect wasn't all that much of a problem because of the general urban nature of the fight. But in Afghanistan it was a disaster. It literally fell apart due to the rocky terrain and stood out like a sore thumb. It took the US military being forced by Congress to come up with a better uniform. Some 6+ years later the Army is just now starting to adopt the camouflage pattern it mysteriously rejected at the last minute back in 2003.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

AKD,

Note that I was never arguing that it was incorrect or unlikely in our hypothetical Syria scenario, just that we have the flexibility in the equipment quality feature of the scenario editor to create scenarios +/- a few years from Syria 2008 either hypothetical or even historical, as is the case with some equipment quality setting options already in the game.

We include options when there is a case to be made for that sort of variety. As far as we can tell, no such case can be made for the Recce's getting anything other than Jackals.

As it stands, I believe the equipment quality setting for a British light battalion is unused above normal except possibly the effect it has on the numbers of upgraded L85s. Making use of that to create a greater range of scenarios would be a great feature, not a fix or correction.

There are probably dozens of things we could change to offer more flexibility. But we are adamant that we only include options that we feel are "correct" for the setting. This doesn't mean 100% strict TO&E, because we have a LOT of modifications all over the place to conform to how things would likely be for our Syrian setting. What we don't have are modifications which we feel are not likely and/or not easy to accomplish. Normandy's new TO&E code makes the latter far less of an issue than is the case in CM:SF, so you will see more flexibility in future games simply because it is easier to support when there is a historical point to consider.

I didn't post the Williams article to support his point. The quoted statement is footnoted and points to an MoD source that I don't have access to. It should be judged based on that, not Williams' partisan position in the caliber debate.

Oh, I totally agree that the dislike of the 5.56 in Afghanistan is almost universal for many areas of operations. It's true of the US Army. The Marines also like to point out that they were smart to stick with the longer barreled M16, which although 5.56 it does have significantly longer range. So it's a combo of short barrel and small round that is not going over well in Afghanistan. This sort of anti-5.56 position is not happening in Iraq nearly to the same degree for very logical reasons. Since CM:SF is not based on an Afghanistan type setting, but more-or-less a 2003 Iraq type setting, clearly we should be favoring the relevant environment as a model.

Here's a fun paper TO&E versus reality TO&E challenge for the forum: find a picture of an L86 LSW in use on operations in Afghanistan in 2008 (not on base or in training).

Johny (FGM) has just done that, but didn't know it, with his above picture Those guys don't look like they are in training. And judging from the equipment they are wearing, it would appear it's a fairly recent picture too. Royal Marines as well.

Steve

[akd]

Jonny wins the award! The consensus seems to be that the LSWs are typically left behind to serve as sentry weapons, or to simply gather dust. I switched the models out with L85a2s in my game and pretend they special soldiers who don't give up all hope and pout when a target is at 501m.

I had previously only found this one of training in Afghanistan:

[Jonny(FGM)]

The L86 is in COD Modern Warfare 2 with a drum type magazine, is this made up for the game?

[flamingknives]

Just like almost everything pertaining to firearms in FPS games, yes, the drum magazine fitted to the L86 is fictional. Apart from the high liklihood of cooking the non-removable barrel, there isn't really much room in the crook of your arm for a drum magazine on a bullpup rifle.

[Battlefront.com]

Heh... yeah, FPS games hate having to conform to reality when it conflicts with fun. Running out of ammo too quickly is decidedly un-fun

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

BTW, the now cancelled XM-8 small arms program was largely based on the same underlying logic as the British SA-80 family of weapons. I'm not sure if that factored into killing the program (plenty of other reasons to kill it), but I think it should be. The range of effective uses of the L85A2 is not wide enough.

Reading about the differences in the nature of combat in Afghanistan and Iraq is really interesting. The average engagement ranges, and available support, are night and day different. The fact that short barreled 5.56 weapons are viewed so unfavorably in parts of Afghanistan is no surprise. But there are other weapons that have largely been deemed "useless" in some parts. Mortars and even larger artillery are not very effective in some circumstances because of the fighters being dug into the sides of hills. And that's when they are available at all, which is often not the case due to the vast distances being covered by so few troops. Etc. etc.

Iraq, on the other hand, is mostly about fighting in built up areas. And when the enemy is out in the open, it's more likely flat terrain broken up by ditches, fields, or other terrain. There are few opportunities for extreme long range firefights. And when encountered, the Coalition usually has the firepower handy to clobber the source of the fire. Artillery is almost always available and it is generally able to silence whatever it is fired at (provided it is aimed properly). Not to say that there aren't situations where 7.62 (or longer barreled 5.56) wouldn't do a lot better, it's just that the situations are far fewer than in Afghanistan.

Steve

[Elmar Bijlsma]

Eh? Are you perhaps thinking of the L86A2? Because any force equipped with AR 15 would probably fall on their knees and thank FSM for the L85A2.

As for it being cancelled, more to do with the rather large supply of M-4/M-16 spare parts, maintenance kits etc currently held by the US armed forces, and the cost of relacing it. Pretty much all the big contenders are still struggling to break this AR-15 addiction.

HK 416, XM-8 and SCAR (and the L85A2 for that matter) have in trails proven to be superior to the M4/16 series time and again but the US army is seeking some vague revolutionary leap in weapons technology before they commit to cleaning out their inventory.

Which means the richest army in the world is still dragging around a gun that is average to poor.

[Field Marshal Blücher]

Eh? Are you perhaps thinking of the L86A2? Because any force equipped with AR 15 would probably fall on their knees and thank FSM for the L85A2.

I might be wrong, but didn't the SAS elect to keep their ARs after the L85 was introduced?

[Elmar Bijlsma]

No, you aren't wrong.

The SA80 family had some rather large amount of issues initially. Which is why I mentioned the L85A2 quite deliberately. Mind you, even the initial run could compare favourably with the M4 during testing, iirc. I can well imagine that the SAS preferred the ARs at the time because they had lots of cool gear that could be attached, UGLs not the least of it.

I know I'm kicking against an American cultural icon here, but the AR 15 designs are outdated and kinda crappy to what's available now, be it bullpup or conventional.