MGs standardisation :

User avatar
frostypooky
Lieutenant General
Posts: 4334
Joined: Thu 1 Aug 2013 14:12
Contact:

Re: MGs standardisation :

Postby frostypooky » Fri 13 Feb 2015 02:31

Znail wrote:
Killertomato wrote:It's not just the bipod, it's the capacity for sustained automatic fire.

A MG doesn't have more sustained automatic fire then 10 assault rifles. More then one for sure. 2 assault rifles and it's pretty even with an MG, mostly an advantage for the MG if it got more ammo. MGs can swap barrels to cool down, but then mutiple rifles have a barrel each.


wow

everyone from the USMC to the Russian VDV must be lining up to hear your revolutionary new theories on how the MG is just an overrated part of the infantry squad.
Last edited by frostypooky on Fri 13 Feb 2015 02:34, edited 2 times in total.

Znail
Lieutenant
Posts: 1256
Joined: Wed 18 Jun 2014 01:54
Contact:

Re: MGs standardisation :

Postby Znail » Fri 13 Feb 2015 02:33

frostypooky wrote:wow

everyone from the USMC to the Russian VDV must be lining up to hear your revolutionary new theories on how the MG is just an overrated part of the infantry squad.

I am sure they are just as interested in hearing that if they gave everyone MGs so could they kill 10 times their own number without trouble.

User avatar
frostypooky
Lieutenant General
Posts: 4334
Joined: Thu 1 Aug 2013 14:12
Contact:

Re: MGs standardisation :

Postby frostypooky » Fri 13 Feb 2015 02:36

Znail wrote:
frostypooky wrote:wow

everyone from the USMC to the Russian VDV must be lining up to hear your revolutionary new theories on how the MG is just an overrated part of the infantry squad.

I am sure they are just as interested in hearing that if they gave everyone MGs so could they kill 10 times their own number without trouble.


or it could be that the machine gunner puts out FAR more effective and sustained fire than the maneuvering elements of a fireteam, and wargame is fairly abstracting it by making the MG the kinetic focal point of an infantry squad.

could be




User avatar
Dennos
Sergeant Major
Posts: 274
Joined: Wed 19 Jun 2013 21:07
Contact:

Re: MGs standardisation :

Postby Dennos » Fri 13 Feb 2015 02:44

Soviets and Americans had 2 MGs per squad (not sure about BTR squads).

Hollywood Myth
Second-Lieutenant
Posts: 810
Joined: Tue 2 Dec 2014 06:36

Re: MGs standardisation :

Postby Hollywood Myth » Fri 13 Feb 2015 02:46

If we want to be realistic, the machine gunner should be responsible for most of the squad's DPS at long range, with the specific percentage rapidly decreasing as range decreases.
Image

Znail
Lieutenant
Posts: 1256
Joined: Wed 18 Jun 2014 01:54
Contact:

Re: MGs standardisation :

Postby Znail » Fri 13 Feb 2015 02:58

Dennos wrote:Soviets and Americans had 2 MGs per squad (not sure about BTR squads).

That works for me. I don't know of any specfic example of less then 2 MGs, so I guess we can just assume that there are two MGs in each squad and that is why they do a major part of the damage.

User avatar
Dennos
Sergeant Major
Posts: 274
Joined: Wed 19 Jun 2013 21:07
Contact:

Re: MGs standardisation :

Postby Dennos » Fri 13 Feb 2015 03:25

Germany had 1 MG 3 afaik

User avatar
Bullfrog
General
Posts: 5308
Joined: Sat 11 Aug 2012 23:48
Contact:

Re: MGs standardisation :

Postby Bullfrog » Fri 13 Feb 2015 03:42

Killertomato wrote:It's not just the bipod, it's the capacity for sustained automatic fire.


A study by the MCOTE, and 2-7 Battalion combat tested it and found that, sustain fire from an unreliable inaccurate weapon system such as an M-249 looses out on suppressive capabilities vs veteran soldiers IRL, while green soldiers will get suppressed by anything.

That veteran soldiers are easier to suppress threw accurate fire, the real threat of death... suppresses.

I'm expecting to see people undermined a 7 year study with combat test that had positive results because "Gau-8 are cool" but the truth is, there isn't a damn reason to pretend that the IAR concept is worst than the LMG one.

Not to mention, typically they still do have weapons squads with MG.
Does not affiliate with members who post in #MakeAmericaGreatAgain
Image

User avatar
Fade2Gray
General
Posts: 8659
Joined: Wed 1 May 2013 23:30
Location: IED proof in Iraq
Contact:

Re: MGs standardisation :

Postby Fade2Gray » Fri 13 Feb 2015 03:53

frostypooky wrote:
Znail wrote:
frostypooky wrote:wow

everyone from the USMC to the Russian VDV must be lining up to hear your revolutionary new theories on how the MG is just an overrated part of the infantry squad.

I am sure they are just as interested in hearing that if they gave everyone MGs so could they kill 10 times their own number without trouble.


or it could be that the machine gunner puts out FAR more effective and sustained fire than the maneuvering elements of a fireteam, and wargame is fairly abstracting it by making the MG the kinetic focal point of an infantry squad.

could be





What are these videos supposed to prove? The first one especially shows mostly just guys taking unaimed pot shots at an enemy at extreme range away. There's even a comment about how they don't even know where the enemy is. These videos are horrible for how infantry firefights in Wargame tend to be at rather brutal close range.
Image
Image
Think you have what it takes to enlist into the military? You sure about that?

User avatar
FoxZz
Chief Warrant Officer
Posts: 614
Joined: Thu 27 Mar 2014 19:16
Contact:

Re: MGs standardisation :

Postby FoxZz » Fri 13 Feb 2015 03:54

The IAR is an LMG in the wargame context, similar to the RPK-74.

Anyway, the point of this topic isn't the importange of the MG (which deals a lot of dammage in a squad), but the standardisation of mgs in Wargame red dragon on the basis of what I proposed in the OP, based itself on previous works.
Last edited by FoxZz on Fri 13 Feb 2015 03:57, edited 2 times in total.

Return to “Wargame : Red Dragon”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 17 guests