Smaw > m136

[galzohar 31]

One soldier having a weapon better suited for a certain situation than others is not unrealistic superiority, it's the basic idea behind combined arms. You match the weapon to the situation, while everyone else plays a supporting role.

Again you are making me suspicious of your claims of service in the IDF.

If weapons had no weight, real armies would be a LOT different than they are now. IRL being the "SMAW guy" or "M107 guy" can be a real pain in the ass a lot of the time because it's f-ing heavy. In the game there's absolutely no reason to not want to be that guy, because he's way more capable of handling just about anything than a regular rifleman. IRL riflemen have some major advantages over the "specialized" loadouts. In the game they don't.

[Inkompetent 0]

And that's why we eagerly wait for ACE2 and the stamina system, so that people get punished for packing lots of heavy weapons! People will run to be first to get the M136 *instead* of the SMAW, since they won't be able to run far at all with the latter.

Edited September 20, 2009 by Inkompetent

[galzohar 31]

As long as it's not with some silly "you ran too much, sorry time to black out!" kind of system...

[AndresCL 10]

Yeah, the Kg equipment stuff was cool, but the blacking out stuff, not much

[CarlGustaffa 4]

Which is balanced by the fact there would be dozens of M136 in the field (ie everyone with a generic rifle carry it) and only a few - if more than one - SMAW teams...

Still, the issue is the free for all MP (ie Domination/Evolution/etc) and the heavy dependance on the inventory system which isnt actually required.

Not entirely true. The typical loadout iirc is two or three M136 per 12/13 man squad. You can give M136 to everyone (except SAW gunners) if you want to, but not really realistic if you ask me. SMAW is as you say used by dedicated SMAW team(s) in the company (this level?).

Personally I turn off the backpack system in my Domination system to avoid unlimited ammo exploits. The latest Domination no longer support d_limit_weapons, which means I have to find another way to limit the special weapons to special people. As for SMAW, I only let the AT specialists get this, while the rest can get M136, but even this is exceeding full realism envelope. But typically you don't want to expend your carrying capabilities to get an M136, since I've toned down the armor threat significantly. It's a more infantry based operation in my game, suitable for smaller units. Other special weapons include M240s and sniper rifles.

Hopefully, the new Params system will eventually be used in these missions so that we can set it up on game start instead of having to tweak a lot of options by de-pbo'ing the missions first. Which apparently is too much work for many mission hosters out there.

I vouch for a changing the m136. I don't care if it becomes 1 shot disposable or if it stays reloadable, either way it really shouldn't consume half your inventory.

I strongly oppose this :) Well, I could live with disposeable, but as long as the engine doesn't support it, half inventory is just fine. It is the only known method from avoiding all members becoming tank killers. Loosing half the inventory slots means you have to think twice before carrying one. You can't do all the rolling and crawling with an M136 on you back, as you can in the game. Hence there should be some kind of penalty to it. Let a dedicated M136 carry it, and let the others resupply him with rifle ammo when spent.

It is the mission designers responsibility to make the mission less dependant on these weapons. I.e. any tank threats could be in the form of unmanned tanks, until the mission sees that enough people are present in the mission to make it a real threat. Or other means of engaging them. Artillery? Lure them to a different location by a sabotage mission? The campaign is a prime example on how to do this. Sure there are armored/motorized threats around from time to time, but you don't have to engage them. You can play the campaign without ever firing a single AT round.

Edited September 22, 2009 by CarlGustaffa

[Commando84 0]

Even an RPG-7 will force helicopters to land.

not everytime, but could be due to descync in mp :D

[maturin 12]

not everytime, but could be due to descync in mp :D

And a player-piloted chopper has a much looser definition of 'disabled.' The AI are stupid pussies.

"My tank is stuck in reverse. Let's stop pulverizing their APCs and dive out of our ten inches of armor plating into enemy fire."

[galzohar 31]

... half inventory is just fine. It is the only known method from avoiding all members becoming tank killers. Loosing half the inventory slots means you have to think twice before carrying one. You can't do all the rolling and crawling with an M136 on you back, as you can in the game. Hence there should be some kind of penalty to it. Let a dedicated M136 carry it, and let the others resupply him with rifle ammo when spent.

While this is true for M136, it applies to the SMAW 3X as much. M136/RPG-18 taking half your inventory does not prevent everyone from becoming tank killers because there's SMAW/RPG-7, which are superior in both damage and space-effectiveness. This makes it so the only one who can enforce realistic loadouts is the mission maker (and even that doesn't work as soon as there are dead bodies of friendly/enemy soldiers to pick up gear from and have an unrealistic loadout again), and if you go that way then why make the M136 useless? It doesn't help anything.

It is the mission designers responsibility to make the mission less dependant on these weapons. I.e. any tank threats could be in the form of unmanned tanks, until the mission sees that enough people are present in the mission to make it a real threat. Or other means of engaging them. Artillery? Lure them to a different location by a sabotage mission? The campaign is a prime example on how to do this. Sure there are armored/motorized threats around from time to time, but you don't have to engage them. You can play the campaign without ever firing a single AT round.

I agree, for more realistic loadouts to work missions need to be designed accordingly. Every mission I played so far included some kind of armor destruction, and most included fighting an armored force that nobody in his right mind would ever send an infantry squad against. Realistic loadouts can have serious issues in unrealistic missions, solution needs to be made for both missions from the mission makers and for realism from BIS or at least modders.

Bottom line is this game needs a real weight system badly, or we'll forever have those issues with everyone wanting an unrealistic loadout and doing whatever they can to get one in every mission. That would also fix the "superweapon M107/KSVK" issue, the overall silliness of "7.62 >> 5.56", "why should I carry less than 12 slots of gear" on top of the "always carry SMAW/RPG-7 if you can help it" issue. IRL it's not anything like that, yet in the game those are pretty much facts.

[CarlGustaffa 4]

The M136 doesn't become 'useless', far from it. What if there isn't even SMAW guys in play? At least you have something to counter with. Sure, it'll demand some additional time and logistics, but the end result will be more satisfactionary: The three of us were able to defeat two tanks and a Vodnik using nothing but M136s. Sure it took some time, but it would have been too easy if all of us could get SMAW.

Although I tend to agree on the SMAWx3 issue, I don't think it is all that important. I can easily limit the number of SMAW gunners. I can also remove the SMAW from a dead friendly, simulating not everyone is trained in this (I'm clueless here about the marine training, but I for sure wouldn't know how to operate it given my engineer background). Get his ammo? Fine by me. But a pure assistant and/or ammobearing role is not "fun" from a gaiming point of view as well. An M240 assistant gunner and ammo bearer have specific roles to play in real life that can never be simulated in Arma. With the additional and unrealistic amount of ammo they can carry, you can have a 2-3 man weapons squad (army terms), instead of 7 men of which most is doing "nothing interresting".

So although I wouldn't really mind tripleslot ammo for M240, doubleslot ammo for M107/KSVK, and maybe special carrying bags for SMAW rounds (SMAW weapon or carrying bag, not both), these cases are not that much of an issue since I can control who gets what.

ACE2 will probably address some of this, including the weight thing, unless it is ruined by multishot singleshot launchers again - trust me: weight alone does little to prevent such exploits. Also it will bring back proper ballistics to the rockets. The RPG-7 is far too good in the original game; PG-7V in terms of MBT capability, and PG-7VR in terms of speed/range.

The only real problem is the singleshot launchers when they were portrayed as multishot launchers. These are weapons I want to be readily available to most regular infantry roles. What's the point of even including a SMAW team when every infantry squad member carries three or more potent anti tank rounds? Hell, there are even people in MOUT conditions carrying Javelins - because the game lets them. It's just... Anal.

I've been watching a lot of the series Shootout lately. (Discovery Channel?). There are loads of examples from Iraq and Afghanistan wars where M136 was used not against tanks or vehicles, but personell. Maybe triggerhappy AI AT personell wasn't so badly rendered ingame afterall? :D I don't know which warhead they were equipped with though. Same goes for RPG-7, although I suspect it could be a disamiguity (?) in the show that all RPGs fire coned warheads because people expect them to.

That being said, in real life there tend to be a lot more fortified positions than we ever see in Arma2 though.

There is one major pain with realistic loadouts in missions though: What happens when the server goes quiet with few players? The mission has to have builtin contingencies (?) for this as well. Maybe an option to fail that particular mission (if in a dynamic setup like Domination is) and start a new one more suitable for less players?

Another serious issue, especially for the mainstream public games like Domination, is the players themselves. When did you last see a coordinated attack, where you wait until the forces are ready? No, it's just airdrop in, get spotted, shoot some, get killed, respawn, repeat. It's just waaaay too fast for my personal liking. I don't understand why these guys even play Arma2 at all.

Bah, this became a small rant against Domination, which is my most favoured game mode of them all :D But naturally, only if played in the right company with downsized enemies. Not sure if this can be done on the typical public servers though.

[Second 0]

(I'm clueless here about the marine training, but I for sure wouldn't know how to operate it given my engineer background)

And this makes me wonder how are you so stubborn about this. You clearly have limited knowledge how infantry platoon or squad would function, but yet time after time seems that you either don't understand or dont' care what i've told you. I think you just don't care as you seem to be pretty much concerned about balance of MP... Ofcourse this door swings in both ways, if you catch my meaning ;) . On your question: Marines 99.99% sure do train men to use SMAWs as it's one of the weapons their platoon has. Sure they aren't as good with it as are those dedicated to to use it, but at least capable to úse it.

And ArmA2 is supposed to be played also in SP, not MP.

Now about one point-of-view:

This ArmA2's m136-system breaks one fundamental use of infantry squads as would disposable launchers which one can carry only one piece. It's situations based tactics/equipment/organization and it breaks it severely! My whole squad will be tied to antitank porpuses if i expect to face more than lone BRDM or BMP.

By carrying several launchers per man, i can create small antitank-team with enough punch to halt couple armored vehicles while allowing most of my squad doing their intented role as killer of enemy's living force (=infantry). So i have two specialized teams which i can use somewhat indepently against different components which enemy wields. I find myself doing this a lot in OFP and ArmA: cutting down roads etc from enemy's armors while securing other kind terrain which is more suitable and probable for enemy infantry to use with main bulk of my men. Or sending AT-team against more or less isolated armor while keeping main part of my men focused on enemy infantry. For example, possible combinations are limitless.

Humans can counter this limitation somewhat with logistics, but what if there is no (possibility for) logistics? I don't see why squad should/could have truck ready to haul AT-team additional launchers after they have sneaked into enemy's flanks, note the word sneaked and they should remain so until they get order to take out their target. Pretty much only time they can use logistics to counter that problem is when they prepare to defend or delay, so that when fighting starts they already have those launchers with them.

Important factor: AI can't do that. And micromanaging AI to do so is worst thing i can imagine i would do while in firefight against enemy. And it's totally impossible if i'm not personally leading and supervising that antitank-team.

Sure this piles down to fact that how much armored vehicles usually can take hits from M136 or from that Russian RPG, but seems that armored vehicles can take more damage before getting destoryed that in ArmA (i only have demo).

So mostly i care that i can utilize realitic-ish tactics with my men (be them AI or humans). I'm not interested what goes on lowest levels of hell, which some call MP. I'd call it degenerated play of grotesque torsos.

Edited September 23, 2009 by Second

[Noraf 0]

just wish they added the law as well, seeing as the usmc have started using them again, as a lighter weapond than the at4 \ m136 ( and, less expencive ass well. )

I read that they had ordered a lot of them, for use in iraq and afg.

[galzohar 31]

As long as there is no reason for me to not carry a SMAW and a DMR, there will be issues. The extra 6 slots I would gain by not carrying a SMAW are not really useful for anything else (the chance you will fire more than 6 lots worth of ammo is pretty much non-existent unless you miss like mad or are fighting hordes of skill-less AI). The SMAW slot is not used for anything other than a SMAW/M136/javelin. The only way I will consider not carrying a SMAW (again, if given the option) in any mission is if it has absolutely 0 enemy armor (even a single unit would make SMAW the preferable option), or if I actually could maneuver around better without a SMAW and 3 rounds on my back.

Even if you limit loadouts, nothing stops me from picking up an unrealistic loadout once friendlies/enemies die. If you do force me to not pick stuff up via scripting, then you hurt realism even more, as IRL when someone carrying something important dies, someone else picks it up. At least in the IDF it's taught in basic training, and I bet in the US as well. What needs to motivate me to not pick the stuff up is the total weight I'm carrying (so that the squads that actually assault will want to have some maneuverability and not carry 2 tons of gear).

Weight can take care of things fine, but it needs to be done right. ACE was definitely not the right solution to this. Blacking out is not what I fear IRL when carrying heavy gear, and shouldn't be what I fear in-game. IRL when carrying heavy stuff I fear getting too tired too fast and not being able to run fast enough from cover to cover, thus getting shot and killed. Of course in the game there is little cover anyway, which is another thing that needs to be fixed in order for weight effects to truly solve this issue.

IRL nobody gets too excited about carrying something heavy like MG/MG ammo or rocket launchers (though they may get excited to shoot them, but carrying? no way). In the game I load myself up to the max whenever I get the chance to because weight has no effect.

[CarlGustaffa 4]

@Second:

Marine yes. I'm Norwegian, so US standards are a bit foreign to me. That being said, I've read and looked up a lot of useful field manuals at www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/army/fm/ and I'm probably more familiar with US Army than most norwegians here. However, those explains army only, I haven't found a similar site containing that insane amount of useful information regarding US Marines. Also, maybe we don't get trained in everything (I only test fired the M72), since we're not always at war with someone. Or maybe just because we use the conscription (?) system here, and few are really wanting to be there. Dunno the causes, but we don't get the same kind of training in "generic" hardware as you guys do I guess. Had a shitload of fun with explosives though, but that was (as combat engineer) our speciality hardware.

One thing I don't understand, is: If multi shot/carrying capability is so important to you, why don't you just take the SMAW? It's piece of cake to edit any mission to make it happen. By letting the M136 be as it is today, I get to use it in a way that can't really be exploited. I've looked forever to find pictures of Marine/Army men carry two or three M136s while fighting, but have come up with none. If you had an extra, it would be common sense to spread it among the soldiers.

About preparing against tanks. First of all, you wouldn't be fighting off 'hordes' of tanks as infantry (as we wrongly do in the game, mostly due to mission parameters). And if so happens, why not use mines, especially in the defense? Not once did I see a single mine being used in Domination, which would make perfect sense during a counter attack. No, it's always about the shooting.

One thing I think you get wrong, is the need to "always win". If you failed to handle the logistics in order to improve your defense in the event of a counterattack, then take the penalty for it. Retreat. Fail the mission. It happens. Don't ask for cheap workarounds (although legal in your case) that would be exploited like hell for the remaining 99% of the players.

I'm not saying that it is impossible to carry two M136s on our back. I'm just saying that if it was allowed in game, despite being very rare IRL, why would anyone bother to ever fight using only one? And again, what would be the point of manning a SMAW team if you have a 7 man squad with 3 M136s each (like before, SAWs excluded from the 9 man army infantry rifle squad)? Or a bigger event with 2 or even 3 rifle squads?

I'm sorry, but I think we just have to agree to disagree :) I like the current system since it prevents easy exploits as long as a true one shot system can't be implemented due to engine limitations. It's not perfect, I agree, but imho it beats all the other suggestions I have seen so far.

I have to agree with galzohar as well. I never (well, rarely) use those extra spaces for anything else than smoke and frags. Smoke for creating that cov... concealment that fail to exist in the game nature. Extra frags since I suck at aiming them :D So, even with "only" 6 rifle magazines, ammo shortage is an extremely rare issue for me on the battlefield.

I'm not sure what would be the "right" solution. Given that you can't change animation speeds/jogging speeds due to engine limitations, the blackouts proved quite effective in tearms of forcing a player to slow down.

I wouldn't mind default weight simulation. Movement carrying three M136 would be possible if only weight was the issue. But fighting with three M136 on your back (which would become the standard if allowed)? No way. That would require some kind of cumbersomeness simulation as well. Probably way out of scope for a "game". Maybe an enforced mouse lag for when you're tired? Wonder how many would complain like mad about that one :)

Sure, nobody likes to carry (trust me on that). But still, IRL the significant role for some units is to carry stuff for someone else.

[Second 0]

If you had an extra, it would be common sense to spread it among the soldiers.

To give little to all is called "equality is not tactics".

SMAW != M136.

About preparing against tanks. First of all, you wouldn't be fighting off 'hordes' of tanks as infantry (as we wrongly do in the game, mostly due to mission parameters). And if so happens, why not use mines, especially in the defense? Not once did I see a single mine being used in Domination, which would make perfect sense during a counter attack. No, it's always about the shooting.

Not horde necessarily, but Finnish squad is excpected (they have calculative firepower for it) to face and repel three-four armored vehicles (one being MBT) + their dismounted element as that is what they probably would face if they ended up in war (hopefully won't happen). As rough border value as there are tons of other factors out side squad's influence. Yup mines are there too in platoon, but mines only halt, they don't destroy. That is part of AT-weapons. Oh and AT-guys do carry several launchers, those who get stationed in expected avenues enemy armor would use gets shitloads of it, maybe even all platoon's available AT-weapons. Like said equality is not tactics.

One thing I think you get wrong, is the need to "always win". If you failed to handle the logistics in order to improve your defense in the event of a counterattack, then take the penalty for it.Retreat. Fail the mission. It happens.

If i can't utilize tactics which i know would be used, AND i were able to use in OFP and ArmA... Well that is bad.

And again, what would be the point of manning a SMAW team if you have a 7 man squad with 3 M136s each (like before, SAWs excluded from the 9 man army infantry rifle squad)? Or a bigger event with 2 or even 3 rifle squads?

What is the point of giving so great arsenal of weaponry for squad? Sure some squad might end up hauling loads of shots but that is/should be away from the rest. They can't have stockpiles of sniper rifles and machineguns and armored vehicles either... Oh they do as it's MP they play...

Edited September 24, 2009 by Second

[CarlGustaffa 4]

I agree you would have available several ATs in your avenue example. I just fail to see how you could manouver and fight effectively while carrying several, instead of stockpiling them at your position. An AT guy is still mostly an infantryman. Store additional ones in crates or bring them with you in vehicles.

Most of these weapons are too weak to deal with MBTs front armor, and you would have to manouver to get a better shot. I dont' know anything about finnish forces, but I would spread the single launchers around for a better chance of a hit, instead of loosing too much firepower in the event of a casualty. Firing in volleys is the best method, followed by pair firing. Sequence firing from a single shooter is the least effective method of engagement.

And yes, I'm talking mainly about multiplayer, and for the most part those mainstream missions which are not too realistic. My problem is that when I try to make them realistic, it felt impossible (Arma1) because the players were used to the engine letting them do silly things (3xM136), and getting completely yelled at when trying to enforce some new rules not default to the engine. Now I don't have to make any restrictions to M136s, nor having to do removeWeapon using "fired" addEventHandler, which would crash if the AI was subject to it. Singleplayer is not much of an issue, as the feeling of exploits and impossibility to control the players are mostly an issue with multiplayer.

I have no problems restricting stuff that are kinda unique to certain units, only for non unique stuff that I don't want too much floating around of. My aim is to slow down the gameplay of the too fast mainstream missions such as Domination (at least on our own server). Wait for that SMAW guy to get into position if you're pinned down by (much less) armor. Boring? Most likely yes for some. More realistic? Hell yes.

[galzohar 31]

The problem is that no matter what loadouts you enforce, the SMAW guy still runs pretty damn fast with the SMAW and 3 rockets on his back, and has no disadvantage compared to the relatively agile rifleman (other than a few less near-useless smoke/frag grenades).

[CarlGustaffa 4]

Agreed. But having 2 fast SMAW guys is better than having 20+ 3xM136 (in Arma1) guys which also takes no penalty. Then I can reduce number of enemy armor significantly, and still have a blast of a time. Instead of having one enemy armor per friendly trooper due to everyone being tank killers.

[Red_Barron 0]

But a pure assistant and/or ammobearing role is not "fun" from a gaiming point of view as well. An M240 assistant gunner and ammo bearer have specific roles to play in real life that can never be simulated in Arma. With the additional and unrealistic amount of ammo they can carry, you can have a 2-3 man weapons squad (army terms), instead of 7 men of which most is doing "nothing interresting".

I have to take a slight issue to this point. The specific roles of the AG and Ammo Man can be modeled simply (in a simplified form) and effectively in Arma. The AG can use binoculars (or a laser designator) to spot targets from far away and help the gunner adjust his fire, even to the point where the gunner is firing at something her cannot easily see (if at all) himself and landing rounds on target. The extra set of eyes can make the medium machine gun more effective in engaging targets with effective communication. The ammo man's specific role is very simple, he carries the extra ammo for the gunner and provides security for the gun team. That is a more than sufficient simulation of their duties. Having the AG or ammo man reloading the 240 for the gunner and other such minutia is unnecessary and out of the scope of Arma.

Now granted I do not play in general public servers, and I play with the ACE mod (Arma1) on missions that are radically different in design and intent from the majority of public server missions. It takes a specific play style to make this kind of cooperation work in coop or PvP missions, but I have more fun being an Assistant Gunner on a three man 240 team (Gunner, A-Gunner, and Ammo man) when I play Arma than being a regular rifleman.

It is simplistic to say that playing the ammo bearer role (or any other ancillary role) can never be simulated in Arma, or can never be fun. It all boils down to play style, the community you play with, and the creativity of the mission maker. Also, having no respawn makes the security and cohesiveness of playing as a team much more important.

On your question: Marines 99.99% sure do train men to use SMAWs as it's one of the weapons their platoon has. Sure they aren't as good with it as are those dedicated to to use it, but at least capable to úse it.

Your number is way off. That number is far closer to the number of Marines who are trained to use the m136, and much further from those who are trained to use the SMAW. In MCT (the basic infantry course for non-infantry Marines) everyone is taught how to use the m136, and sometimes they get to fire one that shoots an orange chalk round for training purposes (it is too expensive to let every Marine shoot a real one). When I went through in 2001 we did not receive any hands on familiarization training with the SMAW (it is possible we were told about it, but none of us would be able to use it). To date, none of my Marines have received that training from MCT that I know of, and none of us have since. The SMAW is a specialized weapon that is generally used by an infantry Marine with the specific MOS for the SMAW (0351 --Infantry Assaultman ).

I did have a SMAW gunner serve with my unit (a MLB) for a little while, and I had him give some classes on the SMAW, but we never had access to one. Grunts (0311, 0317, 0321, 0331 etc) may do cross training with the SMAW and actually get to handle one, but I doubt any but a small minority will ever fire a live SMAW round in training. Those precious rounds reserved for training are reserved for 0351's.

That is not to say that any given Marine would be incapable of using one, but they definitely will not be as quick to employ or accurate as an 0351. The fact remains that the Marine Corps is primarily made up of non-infantry jobs (combat or non-combat related) that support the infantry, and that within the infantry only a few are trained to properly employ the SMAW. That being said, 99.9% of the Marine Corps being trained in the employment of the SMAW is a gross overstatement to say the least.

[Tankbuster 1746]

And a player-piloted chopper has a much looser definition of 'disabled.' The AI are stupid pussies.

"My tank is stuck in reverse. Let's stop pulverizing their APCs and dive out of our ten inches of armor plating into enemy fire."

Damn you maturin. WILL YOU STOP PROVIDING QUOTES FOR MY SIG!!!! :D

[Second 0]

Your number is way off. That number is far closer to the number of Marines who are trained to use the m136, and much further from those who are trained to use the SMAW. In MCT (the basic infantry course for non-infantry Marines) everyone is taught how to use the m136, and sometimes they get to fire one that shoots an orange chalk round for training purposes (it is too expensive to let every Marine shoot a real one). When I went through in 2001 we did not receive any hands on familiarization training with the SMAW (it is possible we were told about it, but none of us would be able to use it). To date, none of my Marines have received that training from MCT that I know of, and none of us have since. The SMAW is a specialized weapon that is generally used by an infantry Marine with the specific MOS for the SMAW (0351 --Infantry Assaultman ).

I did have a SMAW gunner serve with my unit (a MLB) for a little while, and I had him give some classes on the SMAW, but we never had access to one. Grunts (0311, 0317, 0321, 0331 etc) may do cross training with the SMAW and actually get to handle one, but I doubt any but a small minority will ever fire a live SMAW round in training. Those precious rounds reserved for training are reserved for 0351's.

That is not to say that any given Marine would be incapable of using one, but they definitely will not be as quick to employ or accurate as an 0351. The fact remains that the Marine Corps is primarily made up of non-infantry jobs (combat or non-combat related) that support the infantry, and that within the infantry only a few are trained to properly employ the SMAW. That being said, 99.9% of the Marine Corps being trained in the employment of the SMAW is a gross overstatement to say the least.

Well i don't get those MOS-codes at all, but what i ment was that every man in rifleplatoon knows how to use SMAW. Should have been more clear with that.

CarlGustaffa:

I agree you would have available several ATs in your avenue example. I just fail to see how you could manouver and fight effectively while carrying several, instead of stockpiling them at your position. An AT guy is still mostly an infantryman. Store additional ones in crates or bring them with you in vehicles.

No we weren't ballerinas or not spriting very fastly, as weren't LMG-gunners and their ammobearers. But we were infact able to fight effectively because we were hauling enough firepower to challenge enemy's armor which was our main priority. Same thing with MG-gunner.

Ofcourse our ability was tied to amount of gear we had to carry, default combat gear was 14 kg + launchers worth 12 kg (Examples: Apilas + M72 LAW or 4 M72 LAWs). We still had some degree of capacity to haul more. Some troops are having almost as heavy default combat gear so they ability to haul additional stuff is much more limited. But that ain't present in ArmA2 so it's hard to discuss of what is weight limit.

Most of these weapons are too weak to deal with MBTs front armor, and you would have to manouver to get a better shot. I dont' know anything about finnish forces, but I would spread the single launchers around for a better chance of a hit, instead of loosing too much firepower in the event of a casualty. Firing in volleys is the best method, followed by pair firing. Sequence firing from a single shooter is the least effective

Firing in volley is most inaccurate way when few guys firing at target (while being led by one shooter) is more accurate. Volley sure is fast way to fire launchers so it suits for "point-blank firing". Firing in leaded manner (usually couple guys firing and communicating) suits better to longer/harder shots and it's more economical way. There are pros and cons in each way.

Many times volley just is not possible due terrain limitations. We would fight mostly in forests, so it's highly likely that only 2 guys at side of the road would be able to deal with armor there, and if armors would decide move into forest then same problem remains there. Only few guys can see and engage them, better to have smaller AT-element which can move to where armors are than not.

[Tankbuster 1746]

/me quivers at the monster of a thread my simple question spawned! :)

[galzohar 31]

With the current way the game is made, while you could make use of assistant gunner for extremely long range shots, ammo bearer is simply near-pointless. You can carry 600 rounds of M240B right now - if you ran out of that you were either spraying way too much (player judgement/skill issue) or there are way too many AIs in places that make them easy kills (mission design issue). I don't remember ever having ammo issues in the game unless I was insisting on engaging targets at ranges way beyond by combat effective range, and even that not carrying AT/grenades would eliminate that problem. Also as for guiding him, that would work as long as you have absolutely no 7.62 scoped weapons (or at some ranges even 5.56 scoped weapons), or else those would dispatch any enemies much faster than your MG team, again because those weapons aren't implemented very realistically and are too easy to use.

Besides, do USMC really use 3-man teams for M240B? In the IDF they used to have it with 2-man teams and only have a 3-man team if they carry a tripod as well (as part of the "suppressive fire unit" in the company). Nowadays it's totally taken out, and M240Bs are only used as mounted/static weapons. If anyone is carrying a machinegun in the IDF on-foot, it's a 5.56 Negev LMG (similar to the M249) - and those can carry plenty of ammo by themselves (790 rounds - 4 150 round drums, 2 80 rounds linked to attach to your drum when needed and another one of 30 tracer rounds) and don't need/use an assistant gunner nor ammo bearer.

In the game, M240Bs have a similar issue to the SMAW and all other heavy gear... They're way too easy to carry, which nullifies what should have been their #1 disadvantage. Plus on top of that they're just as easy to hold steady as a 2kg paintball gun. When something is implemented with its advantages, but its biggest disadvantages are totally left out, you end up with people having loadout preferences they would never consider IRL.

Edited September 25, 2009 by galzohar

[CarlGustaffa 4]

Only few guys can see and engage them, better to have smaller AT-element which can move to where armors are than not.

Well, I can to a certain degree agree on this one. The problem is again the mainstream MP missions. With three shots as in Arma1, most will miss one or two just to get their aim straight instead of getting into a better position (or simply waiting). With only one, that single shot becomes soo much more important to get right. About my stockpiling, somehow I was restricting myself to being only in the defense. About your woods, isn't that about the worst place armor can be? I guess sometimes it is impossible to avoid though.

Don't know about marines, but US Army SBCT still operates with three guys per M240, see ref. I checked and found that in USMC the M240s is within a weapons platoon (together with SMAW) per company instead of a weapons squad per platoon. Don't know the count though.

In game it would make sense to combine ammo bearer and assistant gunner into a combined role. The assistant part is limited at best maybe doing fire direction, and the ammo bearer is as you say not needed at all unless you run ACE (for Arma1). There are no overheating barrels to be changed, no helmets to be held etc.

One of my coolest Arma1/ACe experiences was just this. I was gunning and I had a friend assisting me. That is, he carried extra (much needed) ammo, and was giving me directions where to fire. It was a realistic mission (loadout, enemy count, and no respawn). By the end of the game I topped the board at 7 kills, with two guys worth of ammo spent! Don't think I even saw most of my kills. We went for 'supression feeling' using 'spray and pray', and was ordered to do so by our leader (this was on TG). Best game ever, and I don't even usually like no respawn missions :D

A thing I often did in Domination as solo (teamwork usually lacking on public servers) MG gunner on Arma1/ACE, was directing fires using tracer rounds. I was too far away to be much effective, but enemy would engage me and be picked off by closer troops using regular rifles. Call it 'fire by deception', I have no idea if such things are done in real life. It was bloody fun though :) I felt I had to adopt to something like this as I like doing infantrywork, but my favourite mission (due to being so dynamic) was too armor infested to be infantry friendly (unless you have a ton of ATs).

[galzohar 31]

A thing I often did in Domination as solo (teamwork usually lacking on public servers) MG gunner on Arma1/ACE, was directing fires using tracer rounds. I was too far away to be much effective, but enemy would engage me and be picked off by closer troops using regular rifles. Call it 'fire by deception', I have no idea if such things are done in real life. It was bloody fun though :) I felt I had to adopt to something like this as I like doing infantrywork, but my favourite mission (due to being so dynamic) was too armor infested to be infantry friendly (unless you have a ton of ATs).

No way this would be done in real life, as in real life people are also smart enough to not fight against a machinegun at extreme ranges, and also are smart enough to not focus only on that distant machinegunner and neglect short-range threats. AI, on the other hands, loves doing both.

As for the MG teams, in the IDF in theory you do have 1-2 of those in a company, but again the 3rd guy is there for carrying the tripod, and again this is only in theory, in practice I doubt anyone would actually end up carrying an M240B on foot in an operation/war situation. In current companies there aren't even people assigned for that role, even in training they just take 1-2 M240B teams out of the platoons (which again only exist in training) and attach them to the "suppression squad" (or "weapons squad", or whatever you'd call that), and attach a 3rd guy to carry the tripod. But as said, this is on the company level. The biggest missions I've seen this game handling properly so far have been platoon level - anything bigger I've seen had been a failure (from a mission-making perspective), at least so far.

Again, the bottom line is the heavy weapons need their disadvantages implemented badly so they stop being superweapons. Currently only the advantages are simulated while pretty much all their disadvantages are completely ignored.

[Red_Barron 0]

Besides, do USMC really use 3-man teams for M240B?

Yes they do (actually the Marines use the M240G), and they still use them dismounted. .50cal machine guns and Mk19's are seldom used in dismounted roles. In the Marine Corps you have a Team Leader, Gunner, and Ammo Man. This is different from the US Army, as the TL leads the team and takes on the AG role, where in the Army the Gunner leads the team. In addition, both branches have Squad Leaders over them, who is responsible for multiple MMG teams. That squad, in turn, is part of a Machinegun Platoon that is part of a Weapons Company. The Weapons Company supports the three Rifle Companies in an Infantry Battalion.

Here's a link to a USMC training document on the subject:

http://74.125.155.132/search?q=cache:lIrxlzu05N8J:www.lejeune.usmc.mil/soi/itb/sh/0331/m_m240g/MG1305%2520SH%2520Place%2520a%2520M240G%2520Into%2520Action.doc+usmc+m240+machine+gun+team&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-a

And here is a video of them in action:

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=051_1187982642

Again, the bottom line is the heavy weapons need their disadvantages implemented badly so they stop being superweapons. Currently only the advantages are simulated while pretty much all their disadvantages are completely ignored.

In the game, M240Bs have a similar issue to the SMAW and all other heavy gear... They're way too easy to carry, which nullifies what should have been their #1 disadvantage. Plus on top of that they're just as easy to hold steady as a 2kg paintball gun. When something is implemented with its advantages, but its biggest disadvantages are totally left out, you end up with people having loadout preferences they would never consider IRL.

You are spot on there in both cases. The stamina system in ACE is the biggest counter in Arma to these statements. I get that you are not a big fan of it, but they cannot slow down the sprint/run speed of your character (an engine issue). It does prevent you from running around all over Hells creation with out any consequences what so ever (as in vanilla Arma). While in the short term it does little to affect you (except for the whole weapon sway or bullet dispersion), in the long term you have to be more conservative in your movements.

The second biggest disadvantage (which does not work for launcher weapons) would be better modeled recoil, which ACE also does. It is extremely hard to kill something with a 240 in the crouched or standing in ACE. The weapon resting feature is a great feature to counter the better modeled recoil.

So yes, to bring it a bit back on topic, the SMAW is obviously better than the m136, assuming you have access to both and there are no consequences to carrying something heavier. But when ACE2 comes out, there should be some checks and balances in regards to both of them if you use that mod. Ultimately, it is a mission design issue as to what is available (if at all) and in what quantities.

Edited September 26, 2009 by Red_Barron