PDA

View Full Version : Dismount disaster



kbluck
29 Apr 03, 23:57
Moved to a new thread, since its really a different subject.


Dismounts, in the open, walking up on enemy dismounts, dug in with overhead cover are going to die. Unless you have overwelming odds (ala D-Day) in your favor, you are in trouble.

So, *are* those enemy dismounts dug in with overhead cover? As far as I can tell, most of them aren't even defiladed.

My dismounts rarely got whacked while moving. As soon as they took fire, I sent them to ground. Despite my efforts at suppression and typically 4-1 odds, the enemy fire teams still got the better of me. (Until splash was called, that is.)

Also, when I put mortar fire on them, or failed to kill with 155, the enemies got up and moved. Why didn't my defiladed dismounts busily hosing them down then gain the upper hand and do some damage? Again, they usually couldn't even get a suppress result.

Also, a TOE question. Where are the SAWs and M60s? 40mm GLs? Those would significantly expand the range circle for fire teams. Are hand grenades and close combat in general modeled? How about in AATF?

Its all very curious. Can't wait to see how 1.02 changes the situation.

Thanks,

--- Kevin

Pat Proctor
30 Apr 03, 19:18
I acknowledge that the current small arms model is in need of repair. In fact, the model has been repaired and will be released with the v. 1.02 upgrade.


Also, a TOE question. Where are the SAWs and M60s? 40mm GLs? Those would significantly expand the range circle for fire teams. Are hand grenades and close combat in general modeled? How about in AATF?

M60's have been replaced by the M240 MG. The M203, I believe (I am again away from the database) is the 40mm GL of an infantry squad and, unless I am mistaken, is also modeled. I can not remember if the Fire Team has an M249 SAW, but I believe so. The ranges for these systems is, in my opinion, accurately modeled in ATF. They are based on the Army's doctrinal max effective ranges for these weapon systems.

kbluck
01 May 03, 02:40
M60's have been replaced by the M240 MG.

I didn't realize the MAGs were already widely in service. Shows you how out of the loop I am now.

On a hypothetical note, why is it that US companies can't seem to design a decent machine gun? How did the Belgians get to be such experts?



The ranges for these systems is, in my opinion, accurately modeled in ATF. They are based on the Army's doctrinal max effective ranges for these weapon systems.

The max effective range for M240 on tripod against area targets is listed as 1800m. M249 is 1000m for area targets. They both provide grazing fire out to 600m.

I see that the M240 coaxials have listed ranges of 1000m in vehicle specs. Bipod would be somewhat less, around 800m I'd guess against point targets. The M249 has remarkably similar performance to a 7.62mm weapon, being limited mainly by its bipod mount.

I'm pretty sure the fire team would carry a SAW. I don't know in mech whether they bother with the GPMG any more, since dismounts are in such short supply and they already have to lug the ATGM. Maybe they keep them in the PL's track and break them out for special occasions.

The database for fire teams lists only the M16A2 with a max range of 400m.

--- Kevin

kbluck
02 May 03, 18:42
I just noticed in vehicle specs that the US FDC unit is armed with a SAW. It is listed with a range of 800m. The US Fire Team does not show a SAW in vehicle specs, and the range circle on LOS fan seems to confirm that.

--- Kevin