Tow HMMV, Crewman kit required

[Riflewizard]

Crewman kit doesn't make sense. You could just assume the guy has the proper training for using a TOW. After all he is still an infantryman.

Just because an infantryman has the qualification to use a tow, it doesn't mean he is going to throw out his grenades and other infantry goodies, which he would need a lot more than say, a tank crewman.

[=]H[=CubCadet1972]

Crewman kit doesn't make sense. You could just assume the guy has the proper training for using a TOW. After all he is still an infantryman.

That's just the point, "Just infantrymen" aren't members of m1046 (TOW HMMV) crews. They are specially trained crews for that specific vehicle.

[Rabbit]

H[=CubCadet1972;1437553']That's just the point, "Just infantrymen" aren't members of m1046 (TOW HMMV) crews. They are specially trained crews for that specific vehicle.

But infantry men still know how to use it. Again as someone stated before, crewman and eng. would work best.

[=]H[=CubCadet1972]

But infantry men still know how to use it. Again as someone stated before, crewman and eng. would work best.

I agree, but it really needs to be locked out for standard Infantry kits.

[Kim Jong ill]

I'm done arguing with those in thread, I've put forth my point of view and the support evidence and I'm quite confident in the strength of my argument. Because it doesn't come down to convincing the people in this thread, but rather the devs. But to humour myself as to the other side..

Well for example it's quite obvious that several people are quite confused in their own argument, stating scenarios involving IEDs and rapidly advancing tanks.

1) This is conventional warfare, no IEDs duh.

2) If you had actually read the field manuals, you would know that TOW Humvee forces are to be deployed with overlapping fields of fire with a large stand-off often well over a kilometre. Such a scenario is unlikely. Even if it were likely, as is stated in the field manuals infantry are only required to assist in the construction of field fortification and to guard dismounted and mounted routes of advance, not to provide local security around the units themselves.

The only way this could be left how it is in on game play grounds, which would be unfortunate because it should be the special tactical thinking associated with the spirit of the crewman kit that should be encouraged not hindered.

[LithiumFox]

Why Engineer?

We can make it SL only so SL in the humvee gets a better view of the surroundings AND gets to be of use in a vehicle.

My thoughts on making it an Engineer is that the idea behind it being a trained infantryman in the art of using vehicles. Think of the engineer as crewman lite. Plus, it allows for a kit to be used that looks like a standard infantryman, but not just a random person can get on the TOW. =/

It's honestly the best compromise i think that we can come up with before KJI (the nub who is whining in this thread) starts to cry because people don't read field manuals.

First thing my dad said he did with his field manual is that he lit it on fire. XD i lol'd. Go Op. Desert Storm purple hearts FTW.

ANYWAYS


My reasons for using Engineer is as follows:

1. Gameplay: It makes the Engineer a little more useful, as the other kits are becoming more useful, the engineer needs to be able to do something other than opening DOORS =/ (and laying mines. That usually TK anyways....)

2. Realism: It makes a little more sense, since the engineer can be treated as someone who has learned how to use a T.O.W. humvee. Since we're lacking on the amount of players in a round, it's best to let an infantry squad use the TOW humvee, that way the SL can plan on mapping out and using his BINOCs to spot, rather than being the sitting duck in a TOW where he can't be revived... (hence why SL wouldn't make sense)

3. Again, just to reiterate, putting the SL at the helm of a tow missle is not smart. He should be directing his squad, not shooting with a missle launcher. He has a GLTD, so why not put that to good use and spot for his missle launcher. Hell, the SL shouldn't even be in harms way. Why put the SL in a tow where he can't be revived when he could stand outside and spot where he can? If everyone dies so be it, but sometimes you can get a tow in a good spot and TOW snipe. For realism standpoint and gameplay standpoint, the Engineer is the only one that makes sense, and the crewman kit is just there as a backup because a crewman "could" know how to use one as well =/

[LithiumFox]

I'm done arguing with those in thread, I've put forth my point of view and the support evidence and I'm quite confident in the strength of my argument. Because it doesn't come down to convincing the people in this thread, but rather the devs. But to humour myself as to the other side..

Well for example it's quite obvious that several people are quite confused in their own argument, stating scenarios involving IEDs and rapidly advancing tanks.

1) This is conventional warfare, no IEDs duh.

2) If you had actually read the field manuals, you would know that TOW Humvee forces are to be deployed with overlapping fields of fire with a large stand-off often well over a kilometre. Such a scenario is unlikely. Even if it were likely, as is stated in the field manuals infantry are only required to assist in the construction of field fortification and to guard dismounted and mounted routes of advance, not to provide local security around the units themselves.

The only way this could be left how it is in on game play grounds, which would be unfortunate because it should be the special tactical thinking associated with the spirit of the crewman kit that should be encouraged not hindered.

1) Except for when you play Insurgency where there ARE IED's. Have you even played this game? Really?

2) There's a difference between reading a field manual, and what actually ends up happening. I'll take a real soldiers take on it over what a stupid book says. It's not like any of you guys ever read a computer manual. =/

(At least, no one i know does. Usually they're the ones that know a lot =/)

[Kim Jong ill]

1) Except for when you play Insurgency where there ARE IED's. Have you even played this game? Really?

Ever used a TOW Humvee against enemy tanks in Insurgency? Have YOU ever played this game?

2) There's a difference between reading a field manual, and what actually ends up happening. I'll take a real soldiers take on it over what a stupid book says. It's not like any of you guys ever read a computer manual. =/

What the hell would some Canadian Forces vehicle crewman (an enlisted one, no less) know about the deployment of an American antiarmor weapon system designed to fit into American doctrine of warfare. No one has come forth offering first hand experience of operational deployment with a antiarmor platoon/battalion/company and not even experience of deployment in manoeuvres.

You don't seem to grasp what field manuals are for, they are the doctrinal backbone of an armed force. Unless someone stands up with first hand experience of a deployment of said forces, then there is only one place to look for an accurate outline of what their deployment would look like and that is the field manual.

The purpose of antiarmor forces, as outline in the field manual, is to remove the need to commit either tanks or infantry in the anti-tank role, allowing them to be committed in the fullest extent to the objective of manoeuvre warfare. This very concise point completely contradicts the claims that they are manned by infantry forces.

Not only this but the doctrine in relation to tactical deployment also outlines that a typical field deployment would see the TOW Humvees moving between isolated positions, far enough from the front to provide a standoff against enemy armour. With the only security provided by infantry in the form of blocking routes of advance for mounted and dismounted enemy infantry. This is counter-inuitive to the notion that nearby infantry would feel the need to employ a TOW vehicle, even in an emergency.

(At least, no one i know does. Usually they're the ones that know a lot =/)

Taking anyones word as gospel is an extremely bad habit, I would expect better from anyone trying to engage in a discussion.

Edit - Let me guess, your Dad was an Enlisted man? They give the tactical responsibility to Officers for a reason.

[mat552]

Make it a server option!

That way, hardcore and the like can restrict players based on their rules, and other servers can allow players to continue playing normally.

It's not a bad thing that you want to force them to play by your rules on your servers guys, but what about the rest of us that can handle it without bickering over assets?

If this had truly been bothering anyone prior to the rulechange over at hardcore, it would have been discussed then, and would have had the same argument. It's only being made a point now so that a hardcode can be made to mod players into playing by a specific server's set of rules.

[=]H[=CubCadet1972]

Make it a server option!

That way, hardcore and the like can restrict players based on their rules, and other servers can allow players to continue playing normally.

It's not a bad thing that you want to force them to play by your rules on your servers guys, but what about the rest of us that can handle it without bickering over assets?

If this had truly been bothering anyone prior to the rulechange over at hardcore, it would have been discussed then, and would have had the same argument. It's only being made a point now so that a hardcode can be made to mod players into playing by a specific server's set of rules.

Actually, it has nothing to do with the rule change. I has more to do with realism. M1046's were around when I was in, and they were and are still, only manned by crews SPECIFICALLY TRAINED on the use of the weapon, the tactics of the vehicles use and maintenance. Raw boots, and other troops were not, even in the rarest of worst case scenarios assigned to those vehicles. Those scenarios put forth here are equivalent to someone here claiming that because they heard driving an Abrams is like driving a motorcycle, they are qualified to operate one...in a worst case scenario. Utter bunk.

[Anderson29]

i have to back you up GX. i was in the airborne unit in alaska and i am also currently in NG and i can operate a tow. was trained by a fellow soldier and plus the ITAS (i think that is what is was called) had a simulator built into it....it became a game to simulate shooting random people in iraq while pulling guard at the OP/FB.

but on subject; i wouldnt care much if it required a crewman to operate.

[Eddie Baker]

[quote=""'="]H[=CubCadet1972;1435617']The TOW HMMV is essentially the same thing as a BRDM-2 Spandrel, a vehicle armed with a heavy Anti-Tank missle which is intended to destroy the OPFOR Armor.[/quote]

No they are not. One is a utility truck pressed into service as a lightly armored combat vehicle and the other is a purpose-built armored recon vehicle.

[quote="Hunt3r""]I say change the BRDM-2 to only require a crewman on the gunner seat, it doesn't require any more special training then the Humvees to drive.[/quote]

In addition to being on occasion driven while using periscopes, the BRDM has full, water-jet propelled swim capability and the HMMWV can ford a depth of 5' IF it has a deep water fording kit installed. It most certainly does require more training than a HMMWV.

The bottom line is that the BRDM Spandrel requires a crewman kit to operate because it is a purpose-built armored recon vehicle with full-swim capability. You want it balanced with the HMMWV? It has 5 ready missiles and 10 more in the back that are auto-loaded 5-at-a-time compared to 1 ready missile with 6 more in the back that take at least 30 seconds to load only after the first missile has detonated; and during that time the Spandrel can potentially fire two more missiles. Its gunner is also not 90% exposed. There's your balance.

Combat engineer operator requirement would make even less sense than the crewman. TOW gunners are from infantry and cavalry scout MOS. They no longer even have their own MOS in the Army; they are 11B riflemen (or 19D cavalry scouts) trained to operate the TOW as well as the .50, Mk-19 and M240. In the Marines the 0352 MOS also uses the Javelin.

[mat552]

H[=CubCadet1972']Actually, it has nothing to do with the rule change. I has more to do with realism.

The TOW humvees are a not a novel new invention. This suggestion has had months at LEAST to be made, but for some reason, it's only suggested by members of a clan who have changed rules on their servers recently. Don't pretend that this suggestion has "nothing to do" with the new rules, please. If realism was truly the primary motivation behind this, you should have suggested it as soon as you realized it, not as soon as it made your rules easier to enforce.

Also, what eddie said.

[=]H[=CubCadet1972]

The TOW humvees are a not a novel new invention. This suggestion has had months at LEAST to be made, but for some reason, it's only suggested by members of a clan who have changed rules on their servers recently. Don't pretend that this suggestion has "nothing to do" with the new rules, please. If realism was truly the primary motivation behind this, you should have suggested it as soon as you realized it, not as soon as it made your rules easier to enforce.

Also, what eddie said.

No, i have stated this in other threads as well, much earlier than this. Just because you haven't read it before now doesn't mean I haven't stated my opinion on this before. My original statement about this topic was in a thread about TOW's being overpowered.

[Bazul14]

Why the heck should the gunner of the TOW Humvee have a crewman kit?! Its a light vehicle, a jeep with a fancy rocket launcher. A BDRM-2 is not in the same class as the Humvee so don't put it in the discussion. The gunner of the Humvee should be able to have any kit, even a HAT as a backup....

[Bazul14]

As for NoobCore changing their rules to prevent all dumb asses from using the TOW Humvee as a taxi, I am all for it. At least they try to decrease the population of idiots in PR...

[Bringerof_D]

I'm done arguing with those in thread, I've put forth my point of view and the support evidence and I'm quite confident in the strength of my argument. Because it doesn't come down to convincing the people in this thread, but rather the devs. But to humour myself as to the other side..

Well for example it's quite obvious that several people are quite confused in their own argument, stating scenarios involving IEDs and rapidly advancing tanks.

1) This is conventional warfare, no IEDs duh.

2) If you had actually read the field manuals, you would know that TOW Humvee forces are to be deployed with overlapping fields of fire with a large stand-off often well over a kilometre. Such a scenario is unlikely. Even if it were likely, as is stated in the field manuals infantry are only required to assist in the construction of field fortification and to guard dismounted and mounted routes of advance, not to provide local security around the units themselves.

The only way this could be left how it is in on game play grounds, which would be unfortunate because it should be the special tactical thinking associated with the spirit of the crewman kit that should be encouraged not hindered.

For the last time kim, a TOW operator is still an infantryman with additional training which IS AVAILABLE to all infantry members who have a remote chance of encountering one on the job. an Infantry soldier isn't the bottom 20% of our high school classes with guns, they are trained to as high a level as possible. So as you've said, "Just infantry" dont get to touch the TOW, but in the modern military, there ARE NONE who are JUST INFANTRY

Crewman in PR represent armored vehicle crewman, as in APCs and Tanks. the BRDM is an Armored recce vehicle considered an APC, it's designed for a role comparable to our LAVs.

Kim I at least understand exactly where you are coming from, and i'm sure most people here do, the problem isnt that we arn't listening, it's that you simply arn't taking in the amount of reasoning we have given you that this is an unreasonable change. Many of us who actually have insight into the military world have pointed out why a TOW operator can be a rifleman. As i've stated before in a different thread about kits, if you want more separation between different types of infantry, then the kit menu would be massive and most of the equipment would remain the same.

H[=CubCadet1972;1438647']Actually, it has nothing to do with the rule change. I has more to do with realism. M1046's were around when I was in, and they were and are still, only manned by crews SPECIFICALLY TRAINED on the use of the weapon, the tactics of the vehicles use and maintenance. Raw boots, and other troops were not, even in the rarest of worst case scenarios assigned to those vehicles. Those scenarios put forth here are equivalent to someone here claiming that because they heard driving an Abrams is like driving a motorcycle, they are qualified to operate one...in a worst case scenario. Utter bunk.

they may be a different unit, but they are still considered INFANTRY as such they are all rifleman first when the shi* hits the fan. in the PR equivilent, most of these TOW operators would be sporting, you guessed it, a RIFLEMAN KIT

[Rabbit]

1) This is conventional warfare, no IEDs duh.

Yes there are, anyone whos had a good brief on IED's will tell you its an old trick of the trade going back as far "if not farther" than the civil war.

And anderson 25th?

[Kim Jong ill]

Yes there are, anyone whos had a good brief on IED's will tell you its an old trick of the trade going back as far "if not farther" than the civil war.

And anderson 25th?

Because in the operational depth of friendly lines you're most likely to be hit by an IED then by any other weapon system? Context, you seem to lack a grasp for it. It was clearly a screw up on behalf of who ever posted that remark, don't try to weasel them out of it.

[Bringerof_D]

Because in the operational depth of friendly lines you're most likely to be hit by an IED then by any other weapon system? Context, you seem to lack a grasp for it. It was clearly a screw up on behalf of who ever posted that remark, don't try to weasel them out of it.

Kim i can counter every point of yours right now.

- TOW humvee =/= BRDM2 Spandrell
- TOW humvee units are still infantry units, they do not even have their own (as far as another poster has stated) MOS ID. They're like regular infantry and the Rangers, all still infantry.
- ^ as such they would all sport something akin to the rifleman kit in game
- ^ There cannot be a distinction between every type of infantry or the PR kit menu would be messed up
- I am qualified on the M72, i have never fired a live one before. (lol budget cuts)

- IED's are everywhere insurgency or conventional war. However in the context of what the other poster said, it doesnt have to be an IED, it could be any anti vehicle/personnel mine, or some other explosive device. A lot of you civs forget that an IED is the same as a land mine, the only difference is that one is made at home as opposed to a factory.