Machineguns

[Exel]

Is it not possible to code the automatic unit behaviour so that tanks would not shoot at other heavily armored vehicles with machineguns? It's futile and it's a nuisance. If you ever counted how much time it consumes during an average battle you'd be suprised. And tanks do not shoot tanks with MGs!

I really hope this gets fixed soon if it's only possible - this has bugged me since the first SP.

[narwan]

Actually, tanks do shoot tanks with mg's and it is very useful, both in the real world and in the game.

Getting hosed down with mg's forces the crew to button up, which limits their ability to observe the battlefield around them and react to events in it.
While this less of an issue in the most modern mbt's which has advanced c3i, here the advantage of using mg's (in the real world) is to damage these, often vulnerable, systems. Again to reduce the situational awareness of the crew being fired at.

Narwan

[Exel]

narwan said:
Actually, tanks do shoot tanks with mg's and it is very useful, both in the real world and in the game.

No, you do not shoot at a tank with an MG. If you do that, you will only alarm the enemy tank that they are indeed under fire (if, for example the first main gun round missed and they didn't notice it), plus you will reveal your own position had the enemy not yet seen you.

For these same reasons it is pointless, even stupid, for infantry units to fire at tanks with small arms. Suppression of the tank crew and its sub-systems is not something your average crunchie would think about if faced with an MBT - buttoning up the enemy crew or disabling the commander's periscope is not worth his life. Firing at armored vehicles with small arms that have no or very little chance of actually causing damage is something you would do in panic, from close range. So add those to the panic fire codes, but remove from standard behaviour.

Although I do admit that training, morale, etc. play a factor here. Iraqis have reportedly tried to attack M1A2s with their assault rifles. But again, that's not something you'd expect from a well-trained force that knows what they are doing.

Disabling the tank MGs is not really an option, since that would also exclude the tank from firing at soft targets (reactive fire).

[narwan]

Yes you do. Not always, I agree with that. If the enemy hasn't spotted you yet it may indeed be better not to. But when he has or you can assume he is about to, you should let loose with all you have.

Infantry was (and possibly still is) trained to fire away with all available weapons when engaging armor. Unless they are operating under the same conditions I mentioned above, ie not yet spotted or not about to be and want to 'sneak attack' the tank.
Not all shoot outs between infantry and armor are 'sneak attacks' by unspotted infantry.

Also remember that game covers the whole period from 1946 to 2020 so tactics of the earlier years should also be incorporated in the game.

[Exel]

narwan said:
Yes you do. Not always, I agree with that. If the enemy hasn't spotted you yet it may indeed be better not to. But when he has or you can assume he is about to, you should let loose with all you have.

As I said, in a "panic" situation you would still let loose with all you've got. But it's not the standard procedure for tanks to engage other tanks with MGs. If you have to do that, you're already screwed.

As a side note, many modern MBTs, like the Leopard 2 series, can't even engage with their MG when they are loading since the gun tube is raised for loading. And firing with the MG at a tank is never an alternative for loading the main gun. And once you've loaded, you will engage with your main gun, again not with the MG.

Infantry was (and possibly still is) trained to fire away with all available weapons when engaging armor.

If they are spotted and engaged, lack any cover and don't have any place to cover or hide in the vicinity, then that would make sense. Otherwise the best option for them is to disengage - and keep their heads down and hide! If they lack AT weapons that is, and what point would they have in engaging with small arms if they had true AT capability?

The best option would imo be to have the small arms fire as an option when ordered. But I doubt we can have a separate "fire with all weapons" command in SPMBT.

[Pergite]

narwan said:
Also remember that game covers the whole period from 1946 to 2020 so tactics of the earlier years should also be incorporated in the game.

...and this is the reason to much of these "bugs" in unit behaviour and weapon balance.
I agree with Exel, engaging a tank(IFV or wathever) with small arms is just silly. You dont expose your position to something that can make mincemeat of you in seconds, its just common sense.

[kevin]

The only time I've heard of tanks firing their MG on other tanks IRL is a process called "dusting" (Standard USMC doctrine, I assume the Army is the same way)

Dusting is when you fire on a friendly tank to knock-off any enemy infantry that has climbed on to it.

It game terms, I'd keep using MG due to suppression factors.

[narwan]

Pergite said:
I agree with Exel, engaging a tank(IFV or wathever) with small arms is just silly. You dont expose your position to something that can make mincemeat of you in seconds, its just common sense.

If applied to personal survival yes, if applied to formations no. Engaging tanks with whatever is available may distract them enough (through buttoning/suppressing them and drawing their fire) to give your AT assets time make the kills (for example when 3 tanks are moving at an infantry platoon without at weapons and a single antitank gun (or atgm) close behind them has to do all the 'tank killing'). By doing something against common sense they may actually end up saving their own butts!
These are valid tactics (and are used), especially for units lacking the heavy kill capacity (in quality and quantity) of modern and mostly western nations (in past, present and future).

For heavy MBT's to engage other heavy MBT's with both the main armament and coax mg's might not always make sense and sometimes even be counterproductive. I completely agree with that but that's just AI limits I guess. And while firing the mg's might increase the chance of being detected and fired upon, raking the unit with mg fire reduces the chance of them spotting you, so there's a small comfort there.

[PlasmaKrab]

Hi Exel!

This point pops up every now and then, and there are aready some easy answers:

First, you can deactivate individual weapons on individual units, so if you want a tank not to fire its cmg, turn it off and it won't. A pain to do this on a large scale, but well...

Secondly, there IS an advantage in firing small arms at 50in.-steel tanks. Even when unhurt, the crews gain suppression every time their AFV gets hit. So even if you have no AT weapons, you can pebble a tank senselessly until it takes fright and runs away! You can even expect a track hit and immobilisation.
This being why infantry squads also fire their rifles at tanks.

So shooting at over-armored units can prove useful indeed.

Anyway, I don't think you should expect any big code overhaul over this very point. I'll let the designers talk about this,so you'll see by yourself.

Mmh, talking about this, maybe twiddling in some switchable and parameterized 'no-effect' limit under which units won't fire since they don't have a chance (with input like speed, stabilizer, armor, hit prob., etc.)...

[Sewter]

The use of MGs have been used for range finding. By applying this technique for the game, you can actually improve your hitting %. This is a fun way of playing the game. Here is a quote about the use of this technique, and the site.

"The Chieftain solved the problem of ranging the main gun by using a ranging machine gun with similar ballistic characteristics as the cannon. When the machine gun rounds hit the target, the gunner could be reasonably assured that his cannon round will hit."

http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita.../chieftain.htm