Project Reality Forums

1. For those who don't know, the Bradley has 2 M231 Firing Port Weapons (similar to the BMP-3s) which fire 30 rounds before reloading, however it does not have a crosshair, and usually takes 10 rounds or so before it can be put on target properly. I propose either ironsights, acog, or simply a crosshair similar to the BMPs be placed over the vision periscope to put these guns to good use.

2.

Wiki wrote:The Soviets have also modified the design (of the BTR-80) and positioning of the firings ports; the ports are now round, rather than tear-shaped, and have ball mounts similar to those used on the BMP-1. The forward firing ports now sit in angled recesses which allow the individual weapons to fire to the front of the vehicle.

This essentially means that the passengers could use either AK's or G3s (don't know if they fit, will update when I get information on this) to fire outside the BTR, in fact, with the new BTR-80 being updated, it would make even more sense to have them.

Just a small suggestion, but when the infantry are stuffing around in M2's on Fallujah it could help a little.

Colonelcool125 wrote:For future reference, Wikipedia is not considered a reliable source.

I think that the Military Advisors would have had firing port weapons included if it was realistic.

Read my post again. I am not saying put weapons or anything in, just add a crosshair so it can be put to good use (if you didn't read properly, there are ALREADY these weapons in the rear ports of the Bradley) i am also asking for the option for these weapons to be ported over to the BTR-80/60, which also feature firing ports.

Firing ports have proven ineffective in combat. Its practically impossible to hit anything because you can't aim down your sites with your weapon in the firing port. You could shoot someone standing right next to the vehicle but thats about the limit of the usefulness of the port. There's a reason that the new generations of APCs don't have firing ports.

Cross hairs would be unrealistic, because you don't have a reference to aim on IRL other than the tip of your weapon and a good guess.

Firing ports have proven ineffective in combat. Its practically impossible to hit anything because you can't aim down your sites with your weapon in the firing port.

Source? Were you in the US Army? Have you had first hand experience with the matter?

You could shoot someone standing right next to the vehicle but thats about the limit of the usefulness of the port.

Again, what is your source on this? Why would they develop a 5.56mm fully automatic weapon to use with the Bradley firing ports, and still use it to this day, if it is impractical?

There's a reason that the new generations of APCs don't have firing ports.

Which is? I don't see how they would be impractical at all, other than sacrificing a small amount of armor.

Cross hairs would be unrealistic, because you don't have a reference to aim on IRL other than the tip of your weapon and a good guess.

Other than the ironsights on your weapon as well. Plus the ones on the weapon DESIGNED for shooting out of a Bradley. Perfect for killing sappers who might be trying to come up and plant an IED on you, or insurgents running behind the apc thinking that they can get to the other side while it isn't looking.

dtacs wrote:1. For those who don't know, the Bradley has 2 M231 Firing Port Weapons (similar to the BMP-3s) which fire 30 rounds before reloading, however it does not have a crosshair, and usually takes 10 rounds or so before it can be put on target properly. I propose either ironsights, acog, or simply a crosshair similar to the BMPs be placed over the vision periscope to put these guns to good use.

The only means of putting the M231 on target is by walking the tracers; the entire magazine is loaded with them. You are essentially firing the weapon from the hip, because the associated rear-facing vision block for the weapon is on the roof of the Bradley. There are no sights on the weapon, and no shoulder stock. I'm thinking these will probably be going the way of the dinosaur, if they haven't already, since they do not even use the same round as the M16A2/M4, because it is a modified M16A1 and uses the older ammunition (optimized for 1:12 twist barrel).

My source is US Army FM 3-22.1 Bradley Gunnery, which backs up everything Thermis, who has served in the Army (and is still serving), has said. And this information is also in the Wikipedia article you linked to and quoted.

We weren't even issued these with the Bradleys my unit received, nor we were trained on the use of the "firing ports".

dtacs wrote:Source? Were you in the US Army? etc

My source is US Army FM 3-22.1 Bradley Gunnery, which backs up everything Thermis, who has served in the Army (and is still serving), has said. And this information is also in the Wikipedia article you linked to and quoted.

http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/facepalm.jpg <- 4 dtacs

Is the entire mag tracers ingame though? I'm not sure it is.

Lets all give a hearty 'WELCOME!' to the M231 port firing weapon!



How are you? Good? Good.

I notice you lack a front sight, so that you may be installed in a firing port, that's interesting. How does that make you feel?

Oh, well I'm glad that you're able to find a niche in life.

Thanks for your time.

-REad

but what about BTR?
iirc it has window on firing port itself and you just put your AK/RPK/PKM into it and fire looking through its iron sights
at 2:13, 2:19, 2:30 :

The idea of firing ports on AFV/IFV's isn't new, and over the years the use of them has slowly been disappearing. As some have mentioned, vehicles like the Bradley variants have even had most or all of their ports removed or covered over in the past few years.

When I first enlisted in the Army back in 1996, I was assigned to a Mech Infantry unit that was using the Bradley. Our vehicles did have the ports, and we did have several M231's in the arms room. But those weapons were never once pulled out for training, and the only times I have seen them removed from the arms room at all were the few times when we took some out to shoot a few magazines for laughs.

When I did a visit of my old unit about 2 years ago, the ports on their M2's were gone. Their arms room no longer had the M231, and only a couple of the "old farts" even knew what those weapons were. To my knowledge, no active units are even using the M231 anymore.


While the novelty of the FPW sounds good on paper, it just doesn't work out well in the field. As others have mentioned, it's almost impossible to hit anything further than a few feet from the vehicle, especially if the vehicle is moving. Adding them to the game now would be like going back in time, adding something that is no longer being used. It would sort of be like adding the M60 in place of the M240B.

Sorry man, but the M231 is a dinosaur.

Surely a Bradly with 5 streams of tracers spewing out of all side is kinda intimidating though

[R-DEV]Ninja2dan wrote:
While the novelty of the FPW sounds good on paper, it just doesn't work out well in the field. As others have mentioned, it's almost impossible to hit anything further than a few feet from the vehicle, especially if the vehicle is moving. Adding them to the game now would be like going back in time, adding something that is no longer being used. It would sort of be like adding the M60 in place of the M240B.

Sorry man, but the M231 is a dinosaur.

We had firing port's in VBF2, and they did not even work there, Once we got are entire clan to hop in a APC and go do a drive by on a enemy base, we drove straight through gun's blazing and we only got one kill.

There absolutely positively useless.

dtacs wrote:Source? Were you in the US Army? Have you had first hand experience with the matter?
Again, what is your source on this? Why would they develop a 5.56mm fully automatic weapon to use with the Bradley firing ports, and still use it to this day, if it is impractical?

Which is? I don't see how they would be impractical at all, other than sacrificing a small amount of armor.


Other than the ironsights on your weapon as well. Plus the ones on the weapon DESIGNED for shooting out of a Bradley. Perfect for killing sappers who might be trying to come up and plant an IED on you, or insurgents running behind the apc thinking that they can get to the other side while it isn't looking.

Like the dev's have said these port's on the APC's and there weapon's proved to be quite useless in combat, and the US army are discontinuing them. And they are no longer in use with any active unit

dtacs wrote:Lol RHYS you have no idea what you're talking about half the time,

And you have a go at me, for not knowing what im talking about. Snap

[quote=""'[R-DEV"]Eddie Baker;1167689']The only means of putting the M231 on target is by walking the tracers; the entire magazine is loaded with them. You are essentially firing the weapon from the hip, because the associated rear-facing vision block for the weapon is on the roof of the Bradley. There are no sights on the weapon, and no shoulder stock. I'm thinking these will probably be going the way of the dinosaur, if they haven't already, since they do not even use the same round as the M16A2/M4, because it is a modified M16A1 and uses the older ammunition (optimized for 1:12 twist barrel).

My source is US Army FM 3-22.1 Bradley Gunnery, which backs up everything Thermis, who has served in the Army (and is still serving), has said. And this information is also in the Wikipedia article you linked to and quoted.[/quote]
Alright cheers, that makes sense then. Thanks for giving me an answer without childish insults and without being a **** about it.

[quote="Dr2B Rudd""]http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/facepalm.jpg <- 4 dtacs

Is the entire mag tracers ingame though? I'm not sure it is.[/quote]
How was i supposed to know he was in the army mate?

RHYS4190 wrote: And you have a go at me, for not knowing what im talking about. Snap

A man isn't going to be executed for talking about his job. Especially when it is public knowledge.

Would a guy from coles be executed if he showed a new breed of tomato exclusive to their store?

This thread can be locked now, i got the answer I needed.