Support Class

BloodBane611 · Post by **BloodBane611** » 2007-12-02 04:45

I will say that while I have seen some pics of M249s with scopes, mostly I've seen a lot of iron sights. Most M249s don't even have rails for optics, which is probably most of the issue. So while I can see why the scope is preferred, it wouldn't be realistic for US forces.
I totally agree that suppressing fire is basically useless. I only use the MG on point targets, but I found that it was very effective, even at relatively long range.

CAS_117 · Post by **CAS_117** » 2007-12-02 04:46

I know the canadians have 3.7x optics on the C9 and C6. Like you put a scope on the LMGs and you'll never get one

.

Doom721 · Post by **Doom721** » 2007-12-02 04:50

The support kit is a good kit, but think of its uses limited like the HAT kit ( when not sniping infantry ) and like the sniper kit ( when its being handled in a good way.. )

Though suppressive fire doesn't really stop an enemy in PR, it does cause them to be attentive and shoot at you, it is one great decoy to just spray moving troops with it, when covered with a squad, the squad will engage and you will probably take fire - causing disarray.

In CQB no gun is better than a support gun in the right hands, you can clear buildings and guard doorways longer than any other kit can, it is merely a diversion / cqb gun at the moment.

On a side note, I hope some sort of blur gets implemented in PR to prevent the "heroes" of BF2, Though I like to play a defensive stance and hide when I get shot at ....

Sgt_carbonero · Post by **Sgt_carbonero** » 2007-12-02 06:25

i use it almost exclusively. i love it. heavy duty firepower against troops when you need it the most. tell me you aint scared when you hear that thing rattle in your direction..the idea is not to use it alone. you need your squad backing you up so you can back THEM up. its a squad thing.

Gyberg · Post by **Gyberg** » 2007-12-02 08:56

Sgt_carbonero wrote:i use it almost exclusively. i love it. heavy duty firepower against troops when you need it the most. tell me you aint scared when you hear that thing rattle in your direction..the idea is not to use it alone. you need your squad backing you up so you can back THEM up. its a squad thing.

Amen to that! A support kit and a grenadier kit is my favourite combination when it comes to distracting/suppressing the enemy whilst the rest of the squad flanks....

A-10Warthog · Post by **A-10Warthog** » 2007-12-02 09:13

the 249s with scopes (other than can adaia

) are relitivly new. as my cuz left iraq they were just getting some, or at least thats when they got to him

Post by **Masaq** » 2007-12-02 15:06

Sgt_carbonero wrote:i use it almost exclusively. i love it. heavy duty firepower against troops when you need it the most. tell me you aint scared when you hear that thing rattle in your direction..the idea is not to use it alone. you need your squad backing you up so you can back THEM up. its a squad thing.

As a virtually full-time squad leader, as soon as I hear any squad support weapon near to my guys the very next order to pass over VOIP is usually "Someone find that ******* with the LMG".

Ever since I ran over a hill with an entire squad like a n00b on a Teamwork night on Mestia and saw my entire squad mowed down within 2 seconds as I bled out, I've taken a LMG in the area VERY personally lol.

charliegrs · Post by **charliegrs** » 2007-12-02 16:27

theres been a few threads about the lack of use of support kits. its a shame too. i love the guns, but its amazing that i can always get one when i request one. of course the Ub3RR L337 SnIPZOr kit is taken the second the round starts.

one thing people need to remember about the support guns is they work best with 3 round bursts like in real life. firing at full spray looks cool but it gets very inaccurate and i think thats why alot of people probably tried it out once, couldnt hit anything, and never tried it again. you gotta crouch or go prone, fire in 3 round bursts {unless the enemy is real close} and it works much better.

markonymous · Post by **markonymous** » 2007-12-02 16:36

the thing with th MG is that if your good with it know where to lie etc you dont need a scope you mow down entire squads anyways.

suppressive fire would be more effective if you remove squadleader spawning. Then ppl would think before going jihad cause they know their squadleader is hiding in some hole so they can spawn again.

edit: could we hush this thread up a bit. (i dont want ppl to steal my MG)

Post by **Mongolian_dude** » 2007-12-02 18:05

Doom721 wrote:The support kit is a good kit, but think of its uses limited like the HAT kit ( when not sniping infantry ) and like the sniper kit ( when its being handled in a good way.. )

Though suppressive fire doesn't really stop an enemy in PR, it does cause them to be attentive and shoot at you, it is one great decoy to just spray moving troops with it, when covered with a squad, the squad will engage and you will probably take fire - causing disarray.

In CQB no gun is better than a support gun in the right hands, you can clear buildings and guard doorways longer than any other kit can, it is merely a diversion / cqb gun at the moment.

On a side note, I hope some sort of blur gets implemented in PR to prevent the "heroes" of BF2, Though I like to play a defensive stance and hide when I get shot at ....

Yah, i rekon MGs need more suppression. The bigger the round/the more deadly the weapon is, the more suppression.

For example, an M16 55.6 round going 10m from someone will just have a snap and whiz. An M16 55.6 round going 3m from someone will cause blurry vision, as they panic in the heat of the moment, making them less accurate and worse at aiming.

A 50cal round would cause suppression at 7m, as the target knows very well that there is no getting up from that one. The fear of this round that will give you one of the most painful deaths, comming at you 700times a minute is going to be one scary prospect, when you know very little can protect you.

Perhaps put these onto other projectiles, like LAT and HAT?

30m more so and 120m causes your hands to shake and you vomit with worry

...mongol...

Hotrod525 · Post by **Hotrod525** » 2007-12-02 18:13

charliegrs wrote:ok seriously people how many machine guns like the m249 SAW do you see in real life with a scope? its not a fully automatic sniper rifle. its a suppression weapon. you shoot a stream of lead in the direction of the enemy and instead of pure accuracy like a rifleman you count on the amount of lead you throw out to kill the enemy. also it keeps the enemy down so your squadmates can move. the fact that people dont know how to properly use this gun is why you dont see it used much.

Huuuuuuuuum let me think.... ALL SUPPORT WEAPON USED BY ARMY'S AROUND THE WOLRD ? I mean ALL NATO Army's got scope on thei're MG.

UK got SuSat on MINI-Mi.
Canada got Elcan on C9 and C6.
U.S. got Elcan too on M240 Para and M249.
Germany is using a G36 scope sight on he's MG4.
Spain is also using G36 scope....

PLUS all the countrie i dosent know.

Post by **Mongolian_dude** » 2007-12-02 18:18

Hotrod525 wrote:Huuuuuuuuum let me think.... ALL SUPPORT WEAPON USED BY ARMY'S AROUND THE WOLRD ? I mean ALL NATO Army's got scope on thei're MG.

UK got SuSat on MINI-Mi.
Canada got Elcan on C9 and C6.
U.S. got Elcan too on M240 Para and M249.
Germany is using a G36 scope sight on he's MG4.
Spain is also using G36 scope....

PLUS all the countrie i dosent know.

Even the army of Vatican city?

lulz

...mongol...

Viper5 · Post by **Viper5** » 2007-12-03 22:49

It would cause ridiculous overpwn4ge.

And US uses ACOG over Elcan,.

Eddie Baker · Post by **Eddie Baker** » 2007-12-04 00:22

[R-PUB]Viper5 wrote:It would cause ridiculous overpwn4ge.

And US uses ACOG over Elcan,.

Not on the machine-guns. As I mentioned earlier in the thread, the M145 MGO (used on the SAW and the M240) is a variant of the ELCAN family of sights.

Hotrod525 · Post by **Hotrod525** » 2007-12-04 00:32

[R-DEV]Eddie Baker wrote:Not on the machine-guns. As I mentioned earlier in the thread, the M145 MGO (used on the SAW and the M240) is a variant of the ELCAN family of sights.

Well is it possible to got this represent in PR ? i mean some pepole talk about "overowning" but in fact... Its USED by many force around the world...

BTW MONGOL VATICAN "SECURITY FORCE" is not a treath to world peace LOL 1km² country would take what...3 min to invade LOL.

Post by **Spec** » 2007-12-04 00:46

I think its not a bad idea.

Would it be overpowered? Yes, indeed. But thats the point of an machinegun. Maybe give the Support class less other equipment then. And its limited. The HAT is much more powerful than that. I dont think it would unbalance the game - especialy since both teams would get it.

BloodBane611 · Post by **BloodBane611** » 2007-12-04 01:06

The idea is to accurately represent the current deployed weapons of forces. For the US at least, the great majority of LGMs and HMGs are deployed without optics. As their primary use is to suppress enemy positions, rather than to destroy point targets, an optic is relatively superfluous.

I realize that canada uses optics on effectively all of its weapons, but I don't believe that most UK LMGs are optic equipped, disregarding the L85 LSW, which is not a true LMG.

Very few, if any, RPKs/PKMs are optic equipped, and it certainly isn't standard.

For the chinese, I throw my hands in the air and give up. Jane's offers no guidance, and I'm too lazy to check my other books. I would expect that they don't use optics either, as optics are very, very expensive when you have to equip such a huge amount of troops.

Eddie Baker · Post by **Eddie Baker** » 2007-12-04 01:09

Spec_Operator wrote:I dont think it would unbalance the game - especialy since both teams would get it.

Not on insurgent and militia maps.

And the constant "mirroring" of kits is more trouble than its worth, and often unbalances the game further in addition to being less realistic. For example, I think placing the ZF 4x sight on all MEC rifleman G3s was a mistake; at the height of the G3s employment not even the Bundeswehr issued all of its riflemen telescopic sights.

The QBB-95 LSW can use the same 3x sight as the QBZ-95. A ZF telescopic sight (unsure of magnification) can be fitted to the HK21. RPK and PKM- only ever seen them with night vision optics.

Hotrod525 · Post by **Hotrod525** » 2007-12-04 01:20

BloodBane611 wrote:The idea is to accurately represent the current deployed weapons of forces. For the US at least, the great majority of LGMs and HMGs are deployed without optics. As their primary use is to suppress enemy positions, rather than to destroy point targets, an optic is relatively superfluous.

I realize that canada uses optics on effectively all of its weapons, but I don't believe that most UK LMGs are optic equipped, disregarding the L85 LSW, which is not a true LMG.

Very few, if any, RPKs/PKMs are optic equipped, and it certainly isn't standard.

For the chinese, I throw my hands in the air and give up. Jane's offers no guidance, and I'm too lazy to check my other books. I would expect that they don't use optics either, as optics are very, very expensive when you have to equip such a huge amount of troops.

United Kingdom is using SUSAT scope on he's MINIMI, CANADIAN army use scope on praticly all weapon yeah its a fact... now try to think all that weapon can engage target over 500Meters

http://www4.army.mil/OCPA/uploads/large ... 093819.jpg
http://www4.army.mil/OCPA/uploads/large ... 100657.jpg
http://www4.army.mil/OCPA/uploads/large ... 122016.jpg
http://www4.army.mil/OCPA/uploads/large ... 120605.jpg

So United States is not using optics on they're support weapon huh.

BloodBane611 · Post by **BloodBane611** » 2007-12-04 04:33

Hotrod525 wrote: So United States is not using optics on they're support weapon huh.

BloodBane611 wrote:For the US at least, the great majority of LGMs and HMGs are deployed without optics.

This is not about the small number of infantrymen who got their hands on one of the new picatinny railed M249s. This is about what most US forces are issued - M249s manufactured primarily in the 1990s, M240s manufactured primarily in the 1980s and -90s, and all without the fancy rails that allow you to mount optics. While many are being equipped with rails, the great majority are do not have optics mounted on them, are not designed to be used with optics, and should not be depicted with optics.

Also, we can effectively eliminate any NV/IR scopes. They are rarely if ever mounted by US troops, mainly because switching scopes between day and night operations is a waste of time, and using one doesn't allow you to operate in lit areas.

Once again, I'm not arguing that US soldiers do not equip their weapons with non-standard optics. It's just that they are non-standard, and we shouldn't be giving every dolphin-diving noobie a chance to snipe you in the head from 600 meters, or depicting the US military as using an overabundance of optics on their support weapons.

If one of the real US infantrymen around here wants to come in and kick my butt around because I'm wrong, feel free. This post is my understanding of the way things work, and should not be construed to imply that there is any fact involved in my thought.