Why so little ammo?

[galdermester 0]

Well something Ive allways wondered about are why the tanks have so little machinegun ammo? Only 500? Ive just got experiences from the Leopards, and they have usually got 5500 Å• 7,62mm. When I was firing with my 7,62 Ive got 1000 7,62 in one belt. But ofcourse u have too change barrel many times before uve fired away so much. With just 500 u run out just all too fast!!

[Tex -USMC- 0]

Design decision, I guess. Grunts have less ammo than they would in reality also- I mean, would you go into combat with just 4 30 round magazines? I know I wouldn't.

I guess because engagements in OFP are small scale and usually fairly short, I dont think BIS thought there was ever a reason to add so much machine gun ammo to a tank.

[jollyreaper 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Tex [uSMC] @ Oct. 02 2002,20:12)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Design decision, I guess. Grunts have less ammo than they would in reality also- I mean, would you go into combat with just 4 30 round magazines? I know I wouldn't.

I guess because engagements in OFP are small scale and usually fairly short, I dont think BIS thought there was ever a reason to add so much machine gun ammo to a tank.<span id='postcolor'>

Also provides a bit of the realism factor of needing to conserve your ammo. In real life I don't think grunts would be able to pick up enemy weapons and use them with great proficiency like they can in OFP.

[Assault (CAN) 1]

Yeah, but I would still love to see some realistic ammo loadouts for OFP. Most of them are just pathetic. I hate the default 500 rounds for every type of machine gun or cannon. Also, the 40mm rounds for the M203 are half the size of an M-67 frag grenade, yet they take up twice the space in the loadout. The minimum loadout for an M203 grenadier in the Canadian army is 36 rounds, not 3. Three M203 rounds could fit in my shirt pocket, but that is the most I can carry in OFP without sacrificing any mags.

If I knew how, I would make a realism mod for OFP.

Tyler

[acidcrash 0]

may be asking a dumb question, but has anyone asked BIS about this? cos tbh, i hate being in an engagement only to run out of ammunition and have to hide/run

[Tex -USMC- 0]

Yeah, we asked, and they told us Resistance would have an 'overhaul of the inventory interface', except that 'overhaul' turned out to have nothing to do with giving us more room. Oh well.

[rdfox 0]

Actually, the US Marines, for one, give all recruits a brief bit of training on the small arms of various potential enemies, for two reasons... first, to recognize their sounds, and secondly, just in case they need to pick up weapons from the enemy. Don't know if other forces do that, other than special forces...

[jollyreaper 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (rdfox @ Oct. 03 2002,19:33)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Actually, the US Marines, for one, give all recruits a brief bit of training on the small arms of various potential enemies, for two reasons... first, to recognize their sounds, and secondly, just in case they need to pick up weapons from the enemy.  Don't know if other forces do that, other than special forces...<span id='postcolor'>

USMC's point of view is that every marine is a rifleman. The pilots get the same basic training as the infantry. This is actually a good thing since the Marines say the job of their pilots is to support ground troops, not galavant around in the wild blue yonder likea bunch of Air Force pansies.

I think integrating tactical aviation with the ground forces is a good idea. The Air Force has always been more concerned with sexy missions rather than close air support. F-16's are sexy, A-10's aren't. The only reason why the Air Force ordered the A-10 was because the Army threatened to place the order themselves. The Air Force is jealous about it's role and the Army is actually refused permission to fly armed fixed-wing aircraft. The OV-10's in Vietnam were a major bone of contention with the Air Force and the Army was forced to remove armament from them. I don't recall if the removal was before or after the war ended.

Short answer: inter-service rivalries suck.

[Cloney 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (jollyreaper @ Oct. 04 2002,21:17)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (rdfox @ Oct. 03 2002,19:33)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Actually, the US Marines, for one, give all recruits a brief bit of training on the small arms of various potential enemies, for two reasons... first, to recognize their sounds, and secondly, just in case they need to pick up weapons from the enemy.  Don't know if other forces do that, other than special forces...<span id='postcolor'>

USMC's point of view is that every marine is a rifleman. The pilots get the same basic training as the infantry. This is actually a good thing since the Marines say the job of their pilots is to support ground troops, not galavant around in the wild blue yonder likea bunch of Air Force pansies.

I think integrating tactical aviation with the ground forces is a good idea. The Air Force has always been more concerned with sexy missions rather than close air support. F-16's are sexy, A-10's aren't. The only reason why the Air Force ordered the A-10 was because the Army threatened to place the order themselves. The Air Force is jealous about it's role and the Army is actually refused permission to fly armed fixed-wing aircraft. The OV-10's in Vietnam were a major bone of contention with the Air Force and the Army was forced to remove armament from them. I don't recall if the removal was before or after the war ended.

Short answer: inter-service rivalries suck.<span id='postcolor'>

I totally agree, the Army should have to a permanent fixed wing CAS component. Look what happened in Korea when the Army split up the 1st Marine Division and the 1st Marine Air Wing. Marines had to wait for 2 hours for air support and sometimes it never came. Imagine the frustration if you were a Marine soldier trying to hold back 8,000 Screaming Chinamen and the Fly Boys are taking their sweet time.

[Tex -USMC- 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (rdfox @ Oct. 04 2002,01:33)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Actually, the US Marines, for one, give all recruits a brief bit of training on the small arms of various potential enemies, for two reasons... first, to recognize their sounds, and secondly, just in case they need to pick up weapons from the enemy.  Don't know if other forces do that, other than special forces...<span id='postcolor'>

lmao... anyone seen Heartbreak Ridge?

"What the hell?!?!"

"It's an AK47, the principle weapon of our enemy- it makes a distinctive sound when fired at us, sir!"

[JJonth Cheeky Monkey 1]

I actually dont have a problem with the ammo, but the 40mm rounds do get on my nerves because yes they are smaller than the hand grenade and the flares that can also be fired from the M203 and the Russian Thing (BG-15 or whatever) only take up one space, but the explosive ones take 2. Also if they made them take only one space it would give me a reason to use grenade launchers instead of the rifle grenades which have nearly twice the blast radius and way more range. Just think you could have your basic M16A2 with 3 high power mortars or an M16A2/203 with 6 grenade rounds, I know its still not 36, but its getting closer, only 30 short instead of 33. Then again if you think, holding 36 grenades you could take out nearly anything, remember Delta Force 1 with double ammo load and the M4/203, hehe

[Ether Dragon 0]

Somebody lock this thread, I've seen it before.

Joking aside, I agree 100%. Especially given the total lack of accuracy they've given the tank's coaxial machinegun - another big reality error.

As to the guy that suggest your basic grunt would "realistically" be unproficient with an enemy's gun, I doubt it would be a big issue. One AR is much like another, even if they're visually different. They still have all the same basic components, magazine, trigger, iron sights, etc. Sure, if a grunt had to break a weapon down for maintenance there'd be some head scratching, but there won't be a big difference in accuracy from one AR to the next. Having said that, I'll add an exception to protect myself. =) I'm mainly considering the era weapons used in OFP - the M16, and AK's. The U.S. Army doesn't use scoped weapons like the G36 or Steyr, so any military that uses those to exclusion might have trouble adjusting to an iron sight.

[euly 0]

Don't forget about choppers with the side mounted m2. I can't believe BIS let that one slide knowing the engine can only handle a single firing position. 500 rounds is a joke. It's not exactly a sniper rifle and even the AI can run out of ammo in about 30 seconds in a stationary position. Flying....you mind as well tell the gunner to eject & shoot the guy then pick him up later.

Some of the more recent addons (eg: DMX's UH60 w/M134) carries a good ammount of ammo. Why can't the official addons have that much?

[Athos 0]

I don't see any good reason to maintain unrealistic ammo limits in Flashpoint - its pretty clear that the games popularity and endurance are grounded in its simulation quality.

Play balance has no place on the battlefield.

[edc 0]

I just made the 6G-30 and MM1 with the ammo taking up less space so you can carry more.  I also added pistols.  Download here 2kb

[Blomstermann 0]

I believe the tank MGs fire 3 rounds for each number displayed in the HUD, so the ammocount is actually 3 times what it says in tanks Hope that helps

[Kermit 0]

I do not think that they do. When I tap the mouse button once, I see one puff of dirt and one divot in the ground, and I only heard one shot.

[benreeper 0]

The reason for the little ammo might be because the game doesn't have barrel changing or jamming, so they use this to slow you down.

Ben

[Ether Dragon 0]

If the vehicle weapon's accuracy was modeled correctly, there'd be no need for barrel changing.  Gunners could use small bursts against targets rather than hosing the area down and praying "oh my god!!!   Would you just let one f***in' bullet please hit that RPG soldier???"

In real life, the gunner more often trains to engage groups of infantry at once with a spray pattern rather than an individual target.  Seldom does a gunner in OFP get to do that, however.  Two reasons:  1.) The tank commander can't target enemy soldiers that are more than 25m away and at a dead sprint across open field, and 2.) even if they could, the accuracy of the coaxial machinegun can't hit anything outside of 20m. Thus, by the time a gunner engages the enemy infantry, they're already spread out around the tank rather than at a distance where they'll easily fit into a narrow spray pattern.

[cybrid 0]

Also, I find spraying very ineffective in OFP because one bullet does not = kill most of the time. So you almost have to aim for individual targets.

[advocatexxx 0]

And it's a shame barrel jamming isn't simulated. How sad is it to hear the Vulcan blast its cannon nonstop at a fast flying Su25. Don't they fire in 3 second bursts and wait about a minute for the barrel to cool ? That would make the AA defenses less powerful.

Yes the M2 is a joke, everyone complains about its slow rate of fire and monstrous recoil but complaining is all we can do. Add that to a downhill 80mph racing T-80 (can the tracks even take that sort of speed ?) and you've got one massively ineffective armored weapon.

I guess modelling real starfields and tides was more important than actual weapon dynamics. After all, this isn't a combat sim, it's an environment sim.

[Dirt 0]

A buddy of mine that was in NAM told me he never went into the field without at least 24 mags of M-16 rounds, 4 Frags, 1 smoke (each member carried a different color) and the Thumber also carried a M-16.

[PFC_Mike 2]

yeah, the M2 is craptacular. So edit the .cpp and make it faster and more powerful.

I toned down the Ldd-kyillki realism pack m2 a little bit, I doubt a .50 can knock out a BMP

speraking of BMP's, anyone here see Behind Enemy Lines? Lotsa hardware there

[Assault (CAN) 1]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">anyone here see Behind Enemy Lines?<span id='postcolor'>

Worst movie ever.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">yeah, the M2 is craptacular. So edit the .cpp and make it faster and more powerful. <span id='postcolor'>

How do I do that? What do I open the file with?

[edc 0]

Whats wrong w/ Behind Enemy Lines?