Deployable HMG suggestion.

[dtacs]

It used to be like that in the previous versions when they didn't have zoom either, and they sucked. Gunner would constantly be shot off and people wouldn't use them as you can't be revived if you go down.

[Vege]

The reason HMG's have a limite arc is because they are mounted on a tripod that is capable of a limited movement.

But if tripod is placed on a slope it would not be on a horizontally flat surface as it is in PR?
I'm just asking do realistic degrees of movement apply here?

[Bringerof_D]

But if tripod is placed on a slope it would not be on a horizontally flat surface as it is in PR?
I'm just asking do realistic degrees of movement apply here?

ues and lets not forget it's impractical to need to place something somewhere else to defend a position effectively. IRL i can place my tripod anyway i want instead of being forced to have it perfectly flat like it is in PR.

it needs to either:

A) be adjustable but unrealistic

or

B) a secondary menu comes up when placing the gun which sets it to the angle you find appropriate. i guess it can be a metaphor for digging a little beneath you or in front so you can lower the muzzle or something

[Kim Jong ill]

It's not even unrealistic, you can just adjust the length and angle of the front leg and the length of the rear legs so the angle of the pintle mount drops.

[chrisweb89]

What is the T&E, and how would those values change if it was used?

[Ninja2dan]

What is the T&E, and how would those values change if it was used?

The "T&E" refers to the traverse and elevation unit. The T&E allows you to lock the weapon onto a certain position and record the settings, which means you can aim the weapon at a pre-designated target even in total darkness. When the T&E is used but not locked in place, it also acts as a semi-stable firing platform.



The bar seen on the bottom with the numbers along it is part of the tripod and not the T&E. The lever on the bottom of the T&E is used to lock it in place.


Regarding the limitations of movement with the T&E in use, it's going to be quite a bit less than a free-moving platform. While the T&E is engaged, elevation is limited to +6/-14 degrees (+100/-250 mils) and rotation is limited to +8/-8 degrees L/R (400 mils).

[tommytgun]

This might be a little off topic, but I believe the Lafette mounted MG42 tripod in Forgotten Hope 2 can move on the Z-axis

[Ninja2dan]

This might be a little off topic, but I believe the Lafette mounted MG42 tripod in Forgotten Hope 2 can move on the Z-axis

Yes, FH2 does permit the Lafette tripod to be adjusted for height. But that is pretty unrealistic for a tripod that is already mounted and in use.

The Lafette tripod could be elevated in a similar manner as the M3 tripod, by extending/retracting the legs. But no soldier with a fart worth of common sense or training is going to be adjusting the tripod in the middle of combat.

But no, there was no device/mechanism that would actually raise the weapon itself. There were T&E adjustments, but those only adjust the aiming point, they don't raise/lower the overall weapon.



In general, having been a soldier myself, I would never place a gun emplacement on a slope.

[Kim Jong ill]

But no soldier with a fart worth of common sense or training is going to be adjusting the tripod in the middle of combat.

But what about a soldier who has predetermined their fields of fire and then best adjusted the envelope of fire to suite these fields?

[Ninja2dan]

But what about a soldier who has predetermined their fields of fire and then best adjusted the envelope of fire to suite these fields?

When soldiers are assigned a sector of fire, they take into consideration the terrain, weather, lighting, and supporting fires, in addition to their own weapon's capabilities.

In the case of using an M2HB, Mk 19, or other tripod-mounted weapon system, you are going to be more than aware of where your dead zones are. It is then the responsibility of the entire unit to ensure those dead zones are covered by observation and/or indirect fire.

Sure, soldiers can pick up their tripod and reposition it in an emergency. But it better be just that, an emergency. At no time would a soldier rely on covering their sector of fire by having to jury-rig their weapon system in order to do so. Having to stuff sandbags, blocks of wood, dead bodies, what ever under tripod legs while under fire is nothing less than retarded. And any NCO or officer seeing his soldiers doing so is likely to skull-fuck them instantly.


And stuffing ad-hoc materials under tripod feet or trying to figure out how to contort the tripod legs to alter min/max elevation is just asking for trouble. I'm guessing that the people who keep bringing this up have never fired a tripod-mounted HMG in their life. Otherwise they would understand just how much recoil those weapons produce and the force they exert on their tripods during firing. Those little spades on the bottom of the feet aren't just for looks, they have a specific function which is to keep the tripod from sliding all over the place during use.

In other words, cramming **** under those feet is going to present an unstable firing platform, which could lead to a completely ineffective weapon. And if those temporary supports do happen to fail while firing, it's possible that rounds might be directed into friendly forces or civilians.



I'm not here on the forums posting replies to all the various suggestions just to say "No". When I post comments regarding something it's based on my experiences, not to hurt people's feelings. I can understand why you guys want some form of adjustable tripod base, but I'm trying to make you understand that it just doesn't happen. Soldiers are required to cover those dead zones in other ways, not by simply "jacking up" their tripods as is being suggested.

[Kim Jong ill]

I completely understand where you coming from in regard to stacking objects under the feet of the tripod. But I still think I have a valid point when it comes to adjusting the legs of the tripod in order to manipulate the default level of elevation.

The feet of the tripod are designed to operate effectively at different angles, as to allow the raising and lowering of the whole assemble to facilitate different required heights, correct? One could assume from what we know that by adjusting the length and angle of the front leg you would not be compromising the performance of the front spade?

This I'm genuinely interested in, because I assume the same principle would be applied when employing the tripod on angled terrain in order to produce a level firing platform.

I understand your frustration, the only reason I'm pushing this avenue is that I'd like to know if you have any first hand experience in this specific application.

[BlackMagikz]

Hmm from what i understand that light weapons are more flexible , if people are fed up with HMG positions , then we can have LMG positions instead . Something like a sandbag pillbox

I wouldn't mind having a MG3 fixed postion with 100-200 round magazine

just a middle ground for this argument

[Ninja2dan]

I completely understand where you coming from in regard to stacking objects under the feet of the tripod. But I still think I have a valid point when it comes to adjusting the legs of the tripod in order to manipulate the default level of elevation.

The feet of the tripod are designed to operate effectively at different angles, as to allow the raising and lowering of the whole assemble to facilitate different required heights, correct? One could assume from what we know that by adjusting the length and angle of the front leg you would not be compromising the performance of the front spade?

This I'm genuinely interested in, because I assume the same principle would be applied when employing the tripod on angled terrain in order to produce a level firing platform.

I understand your frustration, the only reason I'm pushing this avenue is that I'd like to know if you have any first hand experience in this specific application.

The problem that I'm seeing with this suggestion though is that it would only be needed if a player is placing their fighting position in a location that a real soldier would not find practical or tactically sound.

If you are on a slope face that is steep enough to require you to adjust your tripod's elevation outside of "normal" limits, then you are in my opinion on a slope that you shouldn't be. In most cases, slopes of that level of steepness present many tactical dangers.


I spent a minute in photoshop to draw up some very simple diagrams to explain a point.



1) In the image above, you see the HMG emplacement on a lightly-sloping hill, along with lines representing the up/down elevation limits. As you can see, the weapon is generally capable of covering the entire sector with minimal dead space, not really enough to permit an enemy soldier to move under.

In most cases, especially on flat terrain, this is how your HMG emplacements will be situated.




2) In the image above, we now have a much steeper hill, and here you can see the weapon system is no longer capable of covering the terrain below.

This is the situation it appears people are concerned with and the reason for this topic.




3) This image is of the same terrain slope as in the #2 image, but the gun crew has been repositioned on the forward edge of the slope. As you can see, their weapon is now able to cover the terrain below, but the gun emplacement is at an odd angle in order to achieve that coverage.

Yet this is how people are currently suggesting the HMG's be changed, to permit emplacements to be positioned on slopes that are extremely steep angles.


As a soldier myself, I would never position my own gun crew onto a slope as shown in diagram #3. Not only would your fighting position need to be angled as well, but you have now placed yourself in a very dangerous spot. At that point, you are now susceptible to objects rolling downhill from above, and your rear is going to be very difficult to secure. You are also making yourself a much easier target for anyone in front of you that isn't directly below your position.

You will also need to rely much more on some kind of overhead protection in addition to your frontal protection, and will be incapable of defending against aircraft or firing at long-distance targets.


Considering the same terrain as #2, I'd keep my position along the top of the ridge (pulling it back slightly for security) and just cover the dead zone with indirect fire and/or overlap it with other positions.





The key point being that you are always aware of any limitations in your weapon systems. If you are unable to cover a specific portion of terrain, you'll need to determine another location from which you can position yourself or how to employ other weapons/positions to cover that area.

Personally, I'd rather position myself further back from any slope too steep to cover with my own HMG, and shoot the enemy as they crest the hill. If the terrain is that steep, they'll be tired as hell by the time you light em up, and they'll be easy pickins.

[mat552]

I'd like to point out that the third picture gives plenty of cover for the enemy infantry to throw grenades from, which are probably worse than simply getting shot at.

[Ninja2dan]

I'd like to point out that the third picture gives plenty of cover for the enemy infantry to throw grenades from, which are probably worse than simply getting shot at.

If you're referring to the fourth (final) image, it was not meant to be "to scale". I had tried placing the image as close to the left edge as possible, but I reused the same base terrain image so that was the limit. Again, those diagrams were made as quickly as I could and were not meant to be used literally.

[mat552]

Ah, cheers then, plenty of room for a flanking maneuver or mortar fire.

I'm just being facetious, the fourth panel is the smart way to go.

[Ninja2dan]

The problem with being on a slope, shit rolls downhill.


One thing that senior soldiers such as NCO's and officers learn is terrain analysis. When we plan our defensive positions we take into account the terrain, and find the best place to set up. We take everything possible into consideration, and do what is necessary to give our own troops the tactical advantage while providing the enemy with none.

It should be no different in PR. Players should scan the terrain and figure out where to place their FOB or other emplacements that will provide them with the best defensive positions, taking into account the limitations of their weapon systems and the fire support available. The only time you should be fighting on a slope is a hasty defense, while fighting positions such as the HMG bunkers are only placed during a planned defense.

So if your fighting positions are unable to cover an entire sector of fire and you lack proper fire support to take up the slack, you need to move to a position that does allow full coverage. If that means pulling your lines back 50m behind a slope, then you do it.


Hopefully this feedback will help players learn how to employ the weapon systems in a manner which allows them to use the terrain to their advantage while minimizing gaps in their coverage.

[tatne]

It would be great if we could aim lower.