M136 vs Smaw

[galzohar 31]

In this game the jog is so fast and the sprint isn't much faster that sprinting longer is not very useful. Heck I think 99% of the times I used sprint was when I knew I was having a long run so I would end up with totally drained stamina regardless, so I might as well move a little faster at the start. Reducing how long you can sprint will have little effect. What needs to be reduced is movement speed based on weight. There is no other solution that will actually serve its purpose properly.

[JackandBlood 10]

ok fine u move a percentage slower regardless. whatever, same notion, speed based on weight. You're acting like I'm about to push the button, im just brainstorming, giving BIS general ideas to chew on, they of course sort the details.

And sprinting is quite useful. Sometimes its appropriate to move slow and keep your weapon ready shouldered, sometimes its best to sprint to a good secure postion, then give yourself some time to recover your stamina and aim. Moving distances of course you should keep a reasonable pace. Sprinting cross country is your bad, not a flaw in the sprinting mechanics.

[frederf 0]

The AT4 is a M72 LAW replacement. It's very much the "Kodak disposable camera" of the battlefield. It's cheap, simple, and pretty effective. It's not all that effective against area targets until you get into the more specialized "flavors." The AT-4 is a wtf-here-comes-a-truck-with-steel-bolted-to-it-quick-take-it-out killer and maybe a small MG nest.

The SMAW is a Carl Gustav replacement. Ok it's not quiiiiite as good as a Carl Gustav but darn close, cheaper, and easier to use. The more special forces are still going to use the Carl Gustav for the slightly better range and they can afford its extra cost, maintenance, and training requirements. It's a crew serve, long range, multiple-ammunition killer. It's expensive, has a good sight, and you call in a SMAW team to deal with some light armor or an enemy emplacement.

The US Army, while I admire it, is lacking something between the AT-4 and the Javelin. As a result the Javelin is commonly used against targets that cost a tiny fraction of the missile itself. Tired grunts are lugging around these crazy heavy missiles and the American taxpayer is footing the bill for shooting wayward cars or even individuals with very expensive (nice, but expensive) equipment.

Edited August 3, 2009 by Frederf

[galzohar 31]

You're missing the point. If you sprint after a short while you will be slowed down to a jog, but you will never slow down to slower than a jog, and a jog is almost as fast as a sprint. Due to the minor difference between deciding to jog and to sprint in most situations, sprinting is rarely useful, and when you do use it it doesn't really make a noticeable difference. Anything that changes how long you can sprint isn't going to change anyone's decision about weapon choices, as having better weapons is greatly superior to a longer sprint you don't use anyway. Other stamina tweaks CAN help (get tired faster), but are not nearly as good as speed tweaks. If speed tweaks are done, then stamina tweaks are no longer needed, as you already get more tired when running the same distance due to the slower speed (assuming you currently lose stamina based on run duration and not distance).

[spec_ops_sniper 0]

As i have said many times before, ACE shall set you free.

In the ACE mod they simulate the M136 being one shot only and you have more than one person in your squad that carries ammo.

[JackandBlood 10]

Man you said it Fred. The idea of using an $80,000 guided missile, disregard the whole marvel of technology guidance system and just make it a point fire weapon (horrifying for an engineer) to take out some fixed position mg or sniper hidey hole makes me shudder. But i suppose you cant place a price on friendly casualties.

Galzohar, ok then, forget any mention of 'sprint'. You do realize we have the exact same idea right? AT 4 = light weight one shot is all you get but u get to have your choice of rifle and alot more rifle ammo and/or nades etc vs SMAW- heavy weight, so if you're going to be the SMAW operator you're main small arm will have to be an m4 or less and you carry less clips. (this is the equivalent of what your're saying, make weight a key factor in deciding your loadout). I just framed and embellished the idea with loadout examples and the notion that the SMAW guy have an official class designation as the SMAW guy (so you can add to your squad in the editor, 'SMAW operator'). No big thing, just so you dont accidentally order your sniper to take out that BMP and your SMAW guy to take out that rifleman.

Shit well i have to say this last thing about sprinting (then it will disappear from my vocabulary i promise:p). If u're receiving fire and those bullets are zipping past your head and you know the unseen shooter is just zeroing in, and theres juicy piece of cover within sprinting distance. It dont matter if sprinting is just a 5% speed bonus over jogging. You're gonna take that 5% and sprint.:D

[Apocal 10]

Restricting weapons by itself is not a real solution, as like I already said it turns it to a "support the guy that did get a SMAW and follow him to take the SMAW when he dies" game. That's not realistic.

Yes, it actually is. They work in pairs, a gunner and an A-gunner. A-gunners spots for the gunner, carries extra ammunition and helps him load it. The rifle squad or platoon they are attached to lays down rounds to support them.

If you make the SMAW guy have worse movement abilities like he should have IRL, then suddenly there's a purpose to being a regular infantryman as well, as there are actually things that the regular infantryman does a lot better than the SMAW guy.

I certainly agree here. On the other hand, due to a lot of factors, there isn't as much a need for a close assault element in games; odds are you can kill everyone from way way back with supporting fires.

Restricting roles is bad if it results in some roles being more desired/useful/important than others. You don't go far when you try to encourage a realistic behavior by implementing features that only encourage that behavior in the game and not IRL.

Are you arguing realism here or gameplay? For gameplay purposes, I can see how it would suck to constantly be the supporting effort, whereas guys with belt-fed or HE win the firefights and rack up the kills. Realistically though, the biggest casualty producing weapon in the "rifle" platoon is a belt-fed (technically) light machinegun. The rifle company lives or dies on effectively employing it's machine guns and mortars. Reality is that the rifle by itself has not been decisive in warfare since around 1904-1905, and virtually all successful infantry forces have organized themselves around crew served weapons, with riflemen functioning in the close assault role and as security for the heavier weapons.

So while you could just force people to not take DMRs, the result will not be good.

Why wouldn't the result be good? And once again, are we talking realism good or gameplay good? Realistically, even if I thought I was going to have to shoot it out across 500m of pool table flat ground, they wouldn't myself and everyone under me DMRs. Gameplay wise, you have a better argument, but if the enemy has comparable capabilities, it's still interesting for the iron-sighted rifleman.

[CarlGustaffa 4]

If the mission lets me choose between SMAW and M136, then sure, SMAW it is. Mission is then by my standard unrealistic. SMAW isn't for everyone. M136 is. But then only as a one shot launcher, which sadly is done now by making the rocket big. I can live with it. But mission have to be designed so that it isn't an armor fest either.

ACE to the rescue? It depends on if you get to carry multiple M136 launchers, which you wouldn't do in a hot environment. You spread the available M136s among the troops instead of consentrating them on a few selected.

I want the M136 to be a potent anti tank weapon that cannot be exploited by massing it, but I don't like it to replace the need to bring along a proper assaultman and/or crew(s).

[galzohar 31]

Yes, it actually is. They work in pairs, a gunner and an A-gunner. A-gunners spots for the gunner, carries extra ammunition and helps him load it. The rifle squad or platoon they are attached to lays down rounds to support them.

While that is realistic, that's not what's going to happen in Arma 2 when you do nothing but restrict weapons. You're going to have the A-gunner drop his ammo to the gunner (at least until the gunner has 3-4 rounds), and you're going to have non-SMAW guys follow them around to pick it up when they die. That is, unless your mission isn't designed around destroying armor, but even then the SMAW guy is the guy everyone want to be, while IRL it's probably the last thing you want to have to tug around. There's no workaround for a proper weight system to make the different loadouts as effective as they are IRL.

I certainly agree here. On the other hand, due to a lot of factors, there isn't as much a need for a close assault element in games; odds are you can kill everyone from way way back with supporting fires.

Hopefully those factors will be fixed. Currently I agree all land in this game is pretty much designed for fighting with nothing weaker than a mark-19. There's no real cover, and while I hadn't tested all fortified stations available in the editor I doubt they can actually stop you from just doing long-range kills. Of course this could be fixed eventually, and anyway we do have forest and CQB battles, where a direct assault with lots of running is inevitable and the guy running slow / getting tired fast due to weight would be at a clear disadvantage.

Are you arguing realism here or gameplay? For gameplay purposes, I can see how it would suck to constantly be the supporting effort, whereas guys with belt-fed or HE win the firefights and rack up the kills. Realistically though, the biggest casualty producing weapon in the "rifle" platoon is a belt-fed (technically) light machinegun. The rifle company lives or dies on effectively employing it's machine guns and mortars. Reality is that the rifle by itself has not been decisive in warfare since around 1904-1905, and virtually all successful infantry forces have organized themselves around crew served weapons, with riflemen functioning in the close assault role and as security for the heavier weapons.

It's both realism and gameplay. Riflemen aren't a pure "security/carry-bots for crew-served weapons". While crew served weapons are awesome support and play a major role in assault, you still need the riflemen to put their feet down on the objective and clean them up from anyone who survived the crew served weapons. In a mission that is designed with realism in mind, crew served weapons simply aren't the end-all-be-all weapons that clean up all enemies. Then again I've also had a hard time making such missions due to the issues I mentioned above.

Why wouldn't the result be good? And once again, are we talking realism good or gameplay good? Realistically, even if I thought I was going to have to shoot it out across 500m of pool table flat ground, they wouldn't myself and everyone under me DMRs. Gameplay wise, you have a better argument, but if the enemy has comparable capabilities, it's still interesting for the iron-sighted rifleman.

Because just like with the SMAW, you'd have people run after the DMR guy to take his DMR when he dies because his weapon is plain out better. Make DMR harder to use in short ranges (like, by playing on expert difficulty), and make short range fighting as vital a part of the mission as it is IRL, and suddenly not everyone want a DMR anyway, and thus restricting it to realistic levels won't have a noticeable negative effect on gameplay.

In the end, IRL weapons aren't distributed the way they are because of weird restriction rules. They're distributed that way because that is what would make your unit the most effective for the missions it is designed to perform, while keeping costs reasonable. Restricting weapons simply won't work well without also improving those other elements.

[frederf 0]

In the end, IRL weapons aren't distributed the way they are because of weird restriction rules. They're distributed that way because that is what would make your unit the most effective for the missions it is designed to perform, while keeping costs reasonable. Restricting weapons simply won't work well without also improving those other elements.

Totally agree. This need to have restricted equipment combos is dumb. What we need is missions and stamina system such that the equipment you want to bring on the mission is also the equipment that you would bring on the mission with you IRL. Restrict the total amount of equipment due to budgetary and logistics reasons by all means but if it turns out that an M40/Javelin soldier is the smartest way to do a mission then it should be possible.

I still detest the new M136 AT4 setup since with ArmA1 I could at least say "Hey, it's silly to carry more than 1 round for this thing. I'm going to exercise self control and just bring 1-3 tubes in the whole squad." Now I can't even do that.

[Second 0]

Are you arguing realism here or gameplay? For gameplay purposes, I can see how it would suck to constantly be the supporting effort, whereas guys with belt-fed or HE win the firefights and rack up the kills. Realistically though, the biggest casualty producing weapon in the "rifle" platoon is a belt-fed (technically) light machinegun. The rifle company lives or dies on effectively employing it's machine guns and mortars. Reality is that the rifle by itself has not been decisive in warfare since around 1904-1905, and virtually all successful infantry forces have organized themselves around crew served weapons, with riflemen functioning in the close assault role and as security for the heavier weapons.

I see this to be somewhat wrong statement. [joking]Ain't it just about opposite. MG-gunners look bored thru their optics or ironsights and feed their 10th belt into LMG to blaze it at their designated target, while manly riflesquads goes thru enemy ranks like hot knife thru butter, lobbing hand grenades to left and firing deadly and accurate bursts to their right, smoking gigars and talking about ladies... Or lie in their own pools of blood shouting for medic and mom. [/joking]

To be honest i don't know about war-time statistics too much, i've seen few from ww2, but would seem reasonable to think that on defense MG's in general are main killers, given that they have enough space to use their firepower efficiently. But in offense escpaciely against dug-in enemy it's those who get close to enemy which causes most damage (and/or suffer most damage). MG's "just" burns powder so that enemy would keep their heads down, which of course is very important thing for assault element and reason why base-of-fire element is part of successful infantry unit tactic.

[james mckenzie-smith 1]

It seems that there is a bug (that I have not reported, for reasons that will become obvious) that allows the M136 to be carried more or less realistically, at least if one equips one's troops with it initially.

In the editor, if one places a Rifleman(M136), one will find that, as noted previously by many others, the soldier has only five mags and an apparently huge rocket in his inventory, as well as an M16 and an M136. Of course, this is not terrifically realistic. However, if one places the following in the soldier's 'init' field...

removeallweapons this; this addmagazine "30Rnd_556x45_Stanag"; this addweapon "M16A4_ACG"; this addmagazine "30Rnd_556x45_Stanag"; this addmagazine "30Rnd_556x45_Stanag"; this addmagazine "30Rnd_556x45_Stanag"; this addmagazine "30Rnd_556x45_Stanag"; this addmagazine "30Rnd_556x45_Stanag"; this addmagazine "30Rnd_556x45_Stanag"; this addmagazine "30Rnd_556x45_Stanag"; this addmagazine "30Rnd_556x45_Stanag"; this addmagazine "30Rnd_556x45_Stanag"; this addmagazine "HandGrenade_West"; this addmagazine "HandGrenade_West"; this addmagazine "M136"; this addweapon "M136"

...then the soldier will have 10 mags, a brace of grenades, and a loaded M136. One should be able to add an M136 to pretty much any similar load - including default ones - by adding 'this addmagazine "M136"; this addweapon "M136"' to the end, for similar results.

Unfortunately, the limitation is that, when one visits a crate and picks up a new M136, one will automatically drop about five mags to accomodate the rocket, so this solution is not perfect. However, for now, it seems to work pretty well for those missions where resupplying with M136's is not put in by the mission designer.

Edited August 3, 2009 by James McKenzie-Smith
Added a few words.

[EBass 0]

The problem is the current system doesn't serve realism OR gameplay purposes.

Its not realistic for EVERYONE to lug around SMAWs, neither is it realistic for it to have no real impact on your manuverability or survivability, hell its gotta be hard to carry 3 SMAW rounds full stop. Its not realistic that the M16 isn't a single shot disposable weapon, blah de blah de blah.

The current system doesn't serve GAMEPLAY either, most of the time you'll be facing multiple armoured targets, some light armour some heavy. With a SMAW you'll be equiped to deal with light armour with a single shot and still have ammo to take on other light armour targets or put the hurt with the other 2 rockets on heavy armour. I personally never take anything except the SMAW.

Hell its pretty useless taking an M136 cos it doesen't even have a better capability than the SMAW to one shot heavy armour, with it you can just about kill a BMP, or make a tank mildly annoyed.

Part of the problem is the hitpoints system that all vehicles use, rather than a penetration system. Its far better to be able to deal multiple chunks of smaller damage, that you can possibly distribute to different targets than a single large chunk. Remember, most of the point of heavier anti armour weapons is to PENETRATE heavy tanks in the first place. With penetration guarunteed and a kill simply being a matter of stacking up damage, theres little point in this.

A good GAMEPLAY solution would be something like this. SMAWs deal just enough damage to disable APCs, but deal little damage to real armour except perhaps in the rear. M136's take up NO inventory space (so the missile is CONTAINED within the launcher, one shot and its gone.) Can destroy APCs, damage medium tanks (T-72) frontally, disable them from the sides or destroy them from the rear. Javelin takes up large amounts of inventory space but can even disable or destroy heavies (T-90) with one hit.

[galzohar 31]

Even with the hit point system, it's simply silly that tanks will never get destroyed by a shot to the rear. Even a PG-7V should handle even the best MBTs from the rear.

[weegee_101 0]

Even with the hit point system, it's simply silly that tanks will never get destroyed by a shot to the rear. Even a PG-7V should handle even the best MBTs from the rear.

For a mobility kill yes, but at least in the case of the Abrams its designed so the engine will take the brunt of the blast in the event they get hit in the rear.

[akd42 10]

To be honest i don't know about war-time statistics too much, i've seen few from ww2, but would seem reasonable to think that on defense MG's in general are main killers, given that they have enough space to use their firepower efficiently. But in offense escpaciely against dug-in enemy it's those who get close to enemy which causes most damage (and/or suffer most damage). MG's "just" burns powder so that enemy would keep their heads down, which of course is very important thing for assault element and reason why base-of-fire element is part of successful infantry unit tactic.

Mortars actually, for WWII at least.

[Second 0]

Mortars actually, for WWII at least.

True. I took this to MG vs rifle axis, ignoring mortars. Silly me.

Ontopic: Hmm... Should SMAW guys be handled like MG-gunners :) SMAW taking both weapon slots leaving gunner with pistol :):):)

Juuuust a thought.

[Apocal 10]

While that is realistic, that's not what's going to happen in Arma 2 when you do nothing but restrict weapons. You're going to have the A-gunner drop his ammo to the gunner (at least until the gunner has 3-4 rounds), and you're going to have non-SMAW guys follow them around to pick it up when they die. That is, unless your mission isn't designed around destroying armor, but even then the SMAW guy is the guy everyone want to be, while IRL it's probably the last thing you want to have to tug around.

I don't know about the IDF, but SOP for most (all?) American forces is if a high-casualty producing weapon goes down (i.e. the gunner gets shot) you strip it and it's ammo off him and keep it in the fight. From a realism standpoint no problem with players doing that, since it's founded on the same reasoning as real life. Gameplay is more debatable, but if you want to take a purely gameplay stance, there are other games balanced more in that direction...

snip

OK, you just acknowledged that there was (generally) a very limited need for close assault in ArmA2, then you said you were against arbitrary restrictions on loadouts...

Given the game, if restrictions aren't arbitrary, or punishments exceedingly harsh, there isn't the cost to offset the benefit of wielding a rocket launcher and/or belt-fed weapon/sniper rifle where ever you go.

To be honest i don't know about war-time statistics too much, i've seen few from ww2, but would seem reasonable to think that on defense MG's in general are main killers, given that they have enough space to use their firepower efficiently. But in offense escpaciely against dug-in enemy it's those who get close to enemy which causes most damage (and/or suffer most damage).

I've never read anything that suggested this, for the most part they suggest the exact opposite, such as with the Israeli experience during the 1956 war; that assault elements of each squad could be tiny, two or three men out of eight, with the remaining five serving two LMGs. And I think we all at least have a passing knowledge of WWI and how well things went when the assault elements (pure riflemen) were 90% (or more) of the troops on the attack. Less well known is that the Germans attempted to integrate light machineguns into their storm detachments. Even back then, when a "light" machine gun was around 50lbs., they felt the advantage of having it's firepower the attack offset the penalty it's weight imposed upon the squad (half the men were dedicated to employing it).

MG's "just" burns powder so that enemy would keep their heads down, which of course is very important thing for assault element and reason why base-of-fire element is part of successful infantry unit tactic.

Which is why the we have two, preferably three supporting for every one advancing. Sometimes you don't get that luxury and have 1-1, but less than that is considered Navy Cross type stuff.

Mortars actually, for WWII at least.

Indirect fire of all sorts. I was only referring to an infantry company (that being the absolute largest formation ArmA can handle) and being quite simplistic at that. The numbers they taught us were 50/40/10 (open terrain) or 60/30/10 (closed). Mortars, machine guns, everything else combined.

But being blown apart by mortars half of the time is rather... unappealing in a game. And it's not really fun having a single unspotted or unsuppressed machine gun tear the guts out of an entire platoon either.

Ontopic: Hmm... Should SMAW guys be handled like MG-gunners SMAW taking both weapon slots leaving gunner with pistol

Juuuust a thought.

No, that's just ridiculous. It's heavy, but it's not that heavy.

Edited August 4, 2009 by Apocal
role reversal...

[Second 0]

I've never read anything that suggested this, for the most part they suggest the exact opposite, such as with the Israeli experience during the 1956 war; that assault elements of each squad could be tiny, two or three men out of eight, with the remaining five serving two LMGs. And I think we all at least have a passing knowledge of WWI and how well things went when the assault elements (pure riflemen) were 90% (or more) of the troops on the attack. Less well known is that the Germans attempted to integrate light machineguns into their storm detachments. Even back then, when a "light" machine gun was around 50lbs., they felt the advantage of having it's firepower the attack offset the penalty it's weight imposed upon the squad (half the men were dedicated to employing it).

Hmm where i said that assault element needs to be 90% or that MG's arent' needed? I very well know that LMG is vital thing to move along in squads. Yet, what LMG did , in ww1 or ww2, or even present day, was to keep enemies hidden in trenches by fire and make their movement hard while own storming unit is clearing trenches with their agile SMGs, assault rifles with high-capacity magazines and hand grenades and pile-up-charges and similar. Based on what i know, assault element was which caused lots of casualties (most others were generated by indirect fires) and ultimately drew enemy away from fortifications, there necessarily weren't many guys in assault element, but they usually were most trusted and highly esteemed soldiers of their unit, equipped well and supplied well during fire fights (full mags and hand grenades brought to them as soon as they requested).

Then again German squad tactics back in -43 (atleast by -43 squad leader's manual) were such that small team remained with LMG (SL, gunner, ammo bearer) while most of squad went on assault.

Dunno what weapons Isrealis used back in -56, but could be that they were using Bren or such which technically aren't LMGs but automatic rifles with high-capacity magazines (sounds alot ww2 era US way of dealing with insufficent firepower of BAR). German MG-42 and MG-34 were bit different beasts when it comes to firepower.

Which is why the we have two, preferably three supporting for every one advancing. Sometimes you don't get that luxury and have 1-1, but less than that is considered Navy Cross type stuff.

Yes. still MGs and rest of base-of-fire and support(supply) element, are there to support assault-element by fire. Which means that base-of-fire element mostly shoots at landscape from longer or lesser distance while assault element moves to clear enemy stronghold, firebase or what ever there is.

No, that's just ridiculous. It's heavy, but it's not that heavy.

Quite ridiculous to have one AT4 which takes half of inventory space, while with SMAW one can have several shots... Besides it was half-joke.

[galzohar 31]

I don't know about the IDF, but SOP for most (all?) American forces is if a high-casualty producing weapon goes down (i.e. the gunner gets shot) you strip it and it's ammo off him and keep it in the fight. From a realism standpoint no problem with players doing that, since it's founded on the same reasoning as real life. Gameplay is more debatable, but if you want to take a purely gameplay stance, there are other games balanced more in that direction...

IRL sure someone grabs it when the gunner goes down if they're nearby, but they don't stay back instead of assaulting because it's pointless to attack and it's better to just wait for the SMAW guy to die so you can pick up his weapon and actually be useful. I hope it's clear now how the RL behavior is extremely different than what I'm describing that would happen in-game. IRL you don't go "bleh my role is useless I'll just wait for this guy to die and take his role".

OK, you just acknowledged that there was (generally) a very limited need for close assault in ArmA2, then you said you were against arbitrary restrictions on loadouts...

Given the game, if restrictions aren't arbitrary, or punishments exceedingly harsh, there isn't the cost to offset the benefit of wielding a rocket launcher and/or belt-fed weapon/sniper rifle where ever you go.

I'm agreeing with the problem, but not with the solution. Mission and game design is what needs fixing. Weapon restrictions alone is a half-assed fix that just doesn't really fix much anyway.

[Apocal 10]

Based on what i know, assault element was which caused lots of casualties (most others were generated by indirect fires)

Where did you learn this? Because everything I've read (and I do mean, everything) or been taught says this is not true. We place much value on "closing with and killing" but's it's been reality that assault elements with individual weapons kill relatively few since 1904-1905 (widespread use of the machine gun). It doesn't make for particularly epic stories, but not much of actual combat does.

But in offense escpaciely against dug-in enemy it's those who get close to enemy which causes most damage (and/or suffer most damage).

This is what I was specifically referring to. Dunno, maybe the Finns are the sole exception of pretty much every other fighting force on Earth, but I doubt it.

---------- Post added at 07:06 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:04 PM ----------

IRL sure someone grabs it when the gunner goes down if they're nearby, but they don't stay back instead of assaulting because it's pointless to attack and it's better to just wait for the SMAW guy to die so you can pick up his weapon and actually be useful. I hope it's clear now how the RL behavior is extremely different than what I'm describing that would happen in-game. IRL you don't go "bleh my role is useless I'll just wait for this guy to die and take his role".

I've honestly never seen someone flat out hang back and wait for someone else die in-game. Especially when that person isn't likely to die in the first place...

I'm agreeing with the problem, but not with the solution. Mission and game design is what needs fixing. Weapon restrictions alone is a half-assed fix that just doesn't really fix much anyway.

How do you propose to fix it?

[galzohar 31]

Properly designed missions and matching the movement capabilities to the gear you're carrying. Not as easy as it sounds but is a lot more helpful than just making weapon restrictions.

If you were to make weapon restrictions in, say, domination, you can be sure I'd be hanging next to the SMAW guy and wait for him to die so I can grab the SMAW and actually destroy something. Of course you're not going to see it happening in missions that are incredibly easy (if he's not likely to die the mission IS easy) or missions that don't have much use for a SMAW in the firstplace (which is actually appropriate for infantry-based missions).

[Second 0]

Where did you learn this? Because everything I've read (and I do mean, everything) or been taught says this is not true. We place much value on "closing with and killing" but's it's been reality that assault elements with individual weapons kill relatively few since 1904-1905 (widespread use of the machine gun). It doesn't make for particularly epic stories, but not much of actual combat does.

This is what I was specifically referring to. Dunno, maybe the Finns are the sole exception of pretty much every other fighting force on Earth, but I doubt it.

Well, US manuals seems to also suggest that MG's and indirect fire's combined effect should result as neutralized defending enemy as they hardly ever can do more against dug-in enemy. While assault element's objective is to destroy enemy or occupying terrain (forcing enemy to evade). If enemy won't evade easily then it gets to destruction part. When we discuss about about small unit-tactics (leaving indirect fires out of the picture) base-of-fire element can mostly just suppress the enemy. True, statistics might be another thing.

About war in Finland being somekind of exception: Germans stationed here in ww2 admit this, as do Soviets. WW1-WW2 Finnish active officer who's points-of-view's i've been reading gives rather simple example abnout it: "when in south charge ends the battle, up here north charge is what starts the battle". So yes things are different, and i must admit i don't understand the "southern setting" very well for that reason.

Edited August 5, 2009 by Second