Real life combat experience ? - anyone ?

[cartier90 0]

I have a few question for those with real combat experience regarding ARMAs simulation and general mission design.

1) With a M16 (rifle of your choice) with optics, given a clear line of sight is it relatively simple to drop a target at 300m or do you spend half a clip doing so (assuming a steady prone target)

2) Does firing at people tend to put them off returning any meaningful accurate fire - in other words , is supressive fire a lot more effective on real people than AI in game ? (of course motivation plays a part IRL) . Could you describe the 'average' (professional soldier)s behaviour when under fire ( is it really textbook bounding overwatch or more haphazard ? )

3) What kind of advantage numerically would an attacking force (taking back ground) ideally have 2:1 3:1 ? - or is it much a case of deal with events as they arise and reassess . In ARMA , many missions have the player at a significant disadvantage numerically - IRL when such situations arise is there a 'rule of thumb' ?

The above questions are of course impossible to answer without a specific context, but your thoughts on what most often happens is greatly appreciated.

[Ollie1983 10]

Can't talk about the other stuff but I've fired an M16 and 300m is a long way away. You could hit them on a static or KD ranges if you were good, but in combat conditions, whilst being fired at? I don't know.

The individual infantryman is not really the consideration, it is collective fire that is expected to hit the enemy at range, Ie a whole section/platoon and their supporting machineguns.

It is worth noting that some firearms, particularly the good old AK, are lethal at well beyond their effective ranges, effective being the range within which you can see the target and aim at him with a chance of hitting.

The only real marksmen, certainly in the British army, are the snipers. Even if you are a very skilled and accurate shooter, the infantryman is not equipped with an individual weapon accurate enough to do them justice.

[thedudeabides 40]

8 years US Army Infantry, two combat tours in Iraq.

1)M16 at a 300 meter target is something any rifleman should be able to hit with one to two shots. Combat situation could take half a mag, especially with a M68 CCO (Aimpoint) or with a moving target.

2) Suppressive fire does work in real life and in reality easily 3/4 of rounds fired in combat are fired to suppress. It is very effective against a real person/people, a couple of examples would be using suppressive fires to cut off manuever possibilities for the enemy, or used to support friendly manuevers against an enemy position. One thing to remember is that suppressive fire is usually done with deliberate fire, meaning the individual rifleman fires one shot every 5 seconds and the automatic weapons talking (example

)

2B) We would use Traveling, Traveling Overwatch and Bounding Overwatch all the time. In cities, with vehichles. As to haphazard.... Sometimes in combat, the only move to make is one were you or a buddy could die making it. It is done because you care about your buddies, so you just say fuck it and do it.

3) In the US Army we use a acronym called METT-TC. It stands for

Mission

Enemy

Terrain and Weather

Troops and Support Available

Time Available

Civilian Considerations

The easy answer to any tactical question is always that it is METT-TC dependent.

It is part of the 8 Troop Leading Procedures and is considered during every mission planning phase by the patrol or operation leadership. But yes a commander will always prefer to have the best odds he can, but it is always METT-TC dependent

I hope that kind of answers your questions

Edited March 16, 2011 by TheDudeAbides
Changed for spelling

[Tankbuster 1733]

The level and quality of training of the enemy will influence how they react to being shot at.

Everyone's instinct is to flinch when you hear incoming, but well trained guys go into a fight mode much quicker than others. For example, a fully indoctrinated chap will instantly be trying to work out where fire came from and looking at his mates to see if they're hit and/or know where the fire came from.

On the other hand, the sonic snap you hear in the game is MUCH louder and sharper in real life and much less directional, so untrained guys tend to still be cowering in cover. In other words, they will be much more suppressed.

[Ollie1983 10]

Insurgents might not react as normal troops might. Half of them are pumped with so much drugs they don't die from shock caused by multiple gunshot wounds.

[Tankbuster 1733]

Good point. I was going to make that point too.

The insurgents often have a religious fervency that gives them a courage they wouldn't have otherwise. It doesn't make up from the training of the trained soldier, but it does affect their behaviour in contact.

I'm not sure it makes them BETTER fighters as it often has only one of two affects, they lay down their lives worthlessly for not tactical advantage or this bravery deserts them when the going gets really tough.

[Ollie1983 10]

I guess traditional soldier behavior went out the window when troops who were willing to die in suicide attacks came to the fore. Some of the hardcore Taliban, for example, remain on station even when faced by helicopters and so forth!!!:eek:

[cartier90 0]

Thanks for the answers guys. Frames what happens in gameplay that bit better.

[Tankbuster 1733]

I guess traditional soldier behavior went out the window when troops who were willing to die in suicide attacks came to the fore. Some of the hardcore Taliban, for example, remain on station even when faced by helicopters and so forth!!!:eek:

Yeah, very much so. Indoctrination can take many forms - religious fervor or effective training.

[cartier90 0]

I read of a real life account of a soldier - a contractor, that he was truly shocked at one experience he had of firing at one such 'fundamentalist' and shooting 'chunks' off him and he would not stop attempting to fire back.

I dont know how you guys were able to do what you do given the risks - or how your body didnt just curl up - spose its that damn training !

[Ollie1983 10]

More likely drugs I would say. I don't think training can teach your body how to deal with shock and trauma really.

[shay_gman 272]

1. What is it a targert? standing? prone? single? group? moving? after cardio? tense? night? day? sun in your eyes? sun in the back? 300 meters are easy on the range but as TheDudeAbides described in RL it's a long range half a mag if the taret stand still is realistic. Usally from that range a use of supressing, moving toward the enemy and indirect fire is the answer. Most fatalties from assualt guns happenening in less then 50 meters. For hand guns less then 3 meters. Taking the initiative and closing the gap is the way to go.

2. Hell yeah, TheDudeAbides described it best.

3. There is no magic rule. TheDudeAbides again described it best.

To make it short most kills are made by indirect or accurate (designated marksmans) in ranges above 100 meters. While indirect fire(GL, Mortars), rapid fire (MG/AR) and accurate fire (DM) pin the enemy the rifelmans moving for the kill.

And yes i'm talking from 6 years RL experiance.

[cartier90 0]

Shay - yours and other answers point towards the fact that OFP was a little too easy , I was able to lead a 400m target and drop them in 2 or 3 shots. Takes more like 10 now.

[thedudeabides 40]

As to guys taking punishment from rounds and living. Most of the time it due to the green tip NATO 5.56. It is designed not to tumble upon impact thus making damage not as bad. In my personal combat experience I saw guys walk off after taking a burst of 7.62 from a 240 to the chest (he died farther down the street) and then I saw guys die from a hole the size of your little finger nail through their armpits (lungs and heart). It depends on where the round hits, what it tears through and the amount of blood loss, internally and externally, the round has caused. It can take a man ten minutes to bleed out or two, what he decides to do in that time is his deal, based on what he can still function with.

So yes most of them are fanatical and will charge/hold to their death, but it doesn't make them superhuman, they just have the ideology to die for their cause. They are taught that their life is not greater than the Jihad.

US troops are also taught that the unit is more powerful than the individual and thus you see brave/crazy things done by them as well.

In reality it boils down to believing in the cause you are fighting for, whether it is religious ideology or love for your brothers in arms that causes these perceived superhuman acts.

One of the things that sticks out most from my combat tours is that you just have to be there, and witness some of these things yourself to even believe they can happen. There was nothing that prepared me for what I saw or experienced, books, movies, nothing. You just have to be there, and even then you are scratching your head going how the fuck did that guy just walk off.

[shay_gman 272]

Shay - yours and other answers point towards the fact that OFP was a little too easy , I was able to lead a 400m target and drop them in 2 or 3 shots. Takes more like 10 now.

Yes, trying to hit anything under physical strain, carrying 40 kilos of gear while bullets flying, cracking noises all around you, your palms are sweaty, your breath is hard, and dirt in your eyes. It makes your shooting skills reach almost zero chance. But then when in it it's like steel silence, all your training and focus are refined for thouse minutes.

About bullets impact 5.56 is a penetrating bullet and will most likely won't stop a man from moving, the bullet hit will stings and the internal injury can be fatal (5.56 make tiny hole when getting in, like 0.5 CM and huge hole when getting out up to 15 CM if it will get out) but the bullet hit won't make feel like a punch or a kick (unless you are wearing protecting vest) a 9mm will kick you though, 9mm is a stoping bullet that is why it used by police forces. As it less leathal, will kick to the ground a guy that runing with a knife thoward you, and will not panatrate through the target and harm civilians behind him, what is called selective fire.

[cartier90 0]

O/T a little , but I wonder if any company out there has tried to integrate the electronics/optics package of a tank or other armoured vehicle with a rifle . The way a HEAT round locks on to a vehicle could be done with a 'floating' barrell that keeps aimed precisely at a target whatever the distance. Overengineered perhaps....

[Ollie1983 10]

5.56 relies on speed/muzzle velocity to kill, it is too small really for a human target and would not really be used in hunting weapons either. All military ammo is FMJ as per geneva convention, so you're options are limited. I guess NATO reckoned a smaller round which wounds more than kills was better as troops could carry more, put more fire down and wounded men are more of a problem for the enemy than dead ones.

Pistol bullets are generally heftier and wider because of the design constraints of pistols. Compact design, easy to conceal, much shorter barrel, used in confined spaces and want minimal recoil, so the only way to deliver a mortal wound is to have a heavy bullet with a wide cross section and much lower muzzle velocity and smaller cartridge. Accuracy suffers but then you won't be using it at ranges in excess of 50m really anyway.

Interestingly the Russians adopted the smaller calibre too when the AK 74 arrived, friends of mine who were in former eastern bloc armed forces allege it is a very lethal bullet because the bullet is not balanced hence goes wild inside a target.

Speaking purely from a hunting standpoint, faster bullets have better range and accuracy and can be more effective but hunting weapons tend to be more precise and less sturdily constructed than military weapons which are meant for robust and extended use.

I do wonder if he result of NATO experience in Afghanistan will make them switch back more towards the 7.62 again, avoiding perhaps the abortion that is the SA80.

[NoRailgunner 0]

Isn't this more and more going into OT?

Has RL combat experience anything todo with A2OA "combat" experience?

[cartier90 0]

NRG - My questions have been answered, its great to hear from those who have been there and who were brave enough to do this shit for real !

.

[kireta21 13]

All military ammo is FMJ as per geneva convention, so you're options are limited

Actually it was Hague Convention.

[Ollie1983 10]

Actually it was Hague Convention.

One of the two. Forever confusing them.

Interestingly, anti-terrorist units can use whatever ammo they like as they aren't covered.:D

[Beagle 684]

Isn't this more and more going into OT?

Has RL combat experience anything todo with A2OA "combat" experience?

Speakin from manouver and training experiences only I would say: No. ArmA teaches you to use "tactics" and "drills" that are impossible to do in reality just because it works so good in game.

I noticed that most players onliebn refure to use any tactic by the book because it takes too long and why should you...you can respawn, repair, rearm everywhere and have the agility of a superhero...abnd you can watxch the horizon all the siem without bothering to stumble about something.

It's a game.

Yes you can still use the editot to make soem very close to life situations, but most features in ArmA II are game features.

It's a game in the end where you can attack a MBTs with RPG from front and still suceed.

[NoRailgunner 0]

@crt0 guess you know why there is an extra subforum called OFFTOPIC? No need to make it complicated if there is a good place to post. ;)

[Joe98 90]

M16 at a 300 meter target is something any rifleman should be able to hit with one to two shots.

Combat situation could take half a mag………

Suppressive fire does work in real life and in reality easily 3/4 of rounds fired in combat are fired to suppress.…..

As a boy, I wondered how a soldier under fire could have the courage to stick his head up and return fire.

So, from the above, I wonder if the experienced combat soldier knows it’s somewhat difficult to get hit and so sticks his head up long enough to get off aimed shots.

-

[MissionCreep 12]

One of the two. Forever confusing them.

Interestingly, anti-terrorist units can use whatever ammo they like as they aren't covered.:D

Actually, hollowpoint is not an exotic munition by any means. It is one of the most common types of ammuntion used by police forces and in the hunting of larger game. Some jurisdictions it is the only type of ammunition permitted in the hunting of large game. (eg The Deer Act 1991 in the UK prohibits the use of any type of ammunition other than soft-nose of hollow point for deer hunting). Police forces use hollow point ammunition for safety reasons. It is far less likely to pass through targets (over-penetration) or ricochet and injure or kill bystanders. Some shooting ranges ban full-metal jacket rounds and require the use of soft-point ammuntion because of its tendency to rapidly damage targets and backstops.

The fallacy that "police use hollow-point ammunition that is even illegal under the Geneva Convention" is a common saw used by activists to incite anti-law enforcement hysteria. The banning of hollow point ammunition in war is a quirk resulting from St. Petersburg Declaration of 1868, which banned exploding projectiles of less than 400 grams. This was included as a continuance in the Hague Convention of 1899. It is no more horiffic than many other military inventions introduced since 1868. New Jersey, is the only US state that has restrictions on hollow point ammunition, and that is only for carry permits. It is legal in NJ to hunt and target shoot with hollow points.

Edited March 17, 2011 by MissionCreep