Real life combat experience ? - anyone ?

[cartier90]

I have a few question for those with real combat experience regarding ARMAs simulation and general mission design.

1) With a M16 (rifle of your choice) with optics, given a clear line of sight is it relatively simple to drop a target at 300m or do you spend half a clip doing so (assuming a steady prone target)

2) Does firing at people tend to put them off returning any meaningful accurate fire - in other words , is supressive fire a lot more effective on real people than AI in game ? (of course motivation plays a part IRL) . Could you describe the 'average' (professional soldier)s behaviour when under fire ( is it really textbook bounding overwatch or more haphazard ? )

3) What kind of advantage numerically would an attacking force (taking back ground) ideally have 2:1 3:1 ? - or is it much a case of deal with events as they arise and reassess . In ARMA , many missions have the player at a significant disadvantage numerically - IRL when such situations arise is there a 'rule of thumb' ?

The above questions are of course impossible to answer without a specific context, but your thoughts on what most often happens is greatly appreciated.

[Ollie1983]

Can't talk about the other stuff but I've fired an M16 and 300m is a long way away. You could hit them on a static or KD ranges if you were good, but in combat conditions, whilst being fired at? I don't know.

The individual infantryman is not really the consideration, it is collective fire that is expected to hit the enemy at range, Ie a whole section/platoon and their supporting machineguns.

It is worth noting that some firearms, particularly the good old AK, are lethal at well beyond their effective ranges, effective being the range within which you can see the target and aim at him with a chance of hitting.

The only real marksmen, certainly in the British army, are the snipers. Even if you are a very skilled and accurate shooter, the infantryman is not equipped with an individual weapon accurate enough to do them justice.

[TheDudeAbides]

8 years US Army Infantry, two combat tours in Iraq.

1)M16 at a 300 meter target is something any rifleman should be able to hit with one to two shots. Combat situation could take half a mag, especially with a M68 CCO (Aimpoint) or with a moving target.

2) Suppressive fire does work in real life and in reality easily 3/4 of rounds fired in combat are fired to suppress. It is very effective against a real person/people, a couple of examples would be using suppressive fires to cut off manuever possibilities for the enemy, or used to support friendly manuevers against an enemy position. One thing to remember is that suppressive fire is usually done with deliberate fire, meaning the individual rifleman fires one shot every 5 seconds and the automatic weapons talking (example http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aPS2EXp59VY)
2B) We would use Traveling, Traveling Overwatch and Bounding Overwatch all the time. In cities, with vehichles. As to haphazard.... Sometimes in combat, the only move to make is one were you or a buddy could die making it. It is done because you care about your buddies, so you just say fuck it and do it.

3) In the US Army we use a acronym called METT-TC. It stands for
Mission
Enemy
Terrain and Weather
Troops and Support Available
Time Available
Civilian Considerations

The easy answer to any tactical question is always that it is METT-TC dependent.

It is part of the 8 Troop Leading Procedures and is considered during every mission planning phase by the patrol or operation leadership. But yes a commander will always prefer to have the best odds he can, but it is always METT-TC dependent


I hope that kind of answers your questions

[Tankbuster]

The level and quality of training of the enemy will influence how they react to being shot at.

Everyone's instinct is to flinch when you hear incoming, but well trained guys go into a fight mode much quicker than others. For example, a fully indoctrinated chap will instantly be trying to work out where fire came from and looking at his mates to see if they're hit and/or know where the fire came from.

On the other hand, the sonic snap you hear in the game is MUCH louder and sharper in real life and much less directional, so untrained guys tend to still be cowering in cover. In other words, they will be much more suppressed.

[Ollie1983]

Insurgents might not react as normal troops might. Half of them are pumped with so much drugs they don't die from shock caused by multiple gunshot wounds.

[Tankbuster]

Good point. I was going to make that point too.

The insurgents often have a religious fervency that gives them a courage they wouldn't have otherwise. It doesn't make up from the training of the trained soldier, but it does affect their behaviour in contact.

I'm not sure it makes them BETTER fighters as it often has only one of two affects, they lay down their lives worthlessly for not tactical advantage or this bravery deserts them when the going gets really tough.

[Ollie1983]

I guess traditional soldier behavior went out the window when troops who were willing to die in suicide attacks came to the fore. Some of the hardcore Taliban, for example, remain on station even when faced by helicopters and so forth!!!

[cartier90]

Thanks for the answers guys. Frames what happens in gameplay that bit better.

[Tankbuster]

I guess traditional soldier behavior went out the window when troops who were willing to die in suicide attacks came to the fore. Some of the hardcore Taliban, for example, remain on station even when faced by helicopters and so forth!!!

Yeah, very much so. Indoctrination can take many forms - religious fervor or effective training.

[cartier90]

I read of a real life account of a soldier - a contractor, that he was truly shocked at one experience he had of firing at one such 'fundamentalist' and shooting 'chunks' off him and he would not stop attempting to fire back.

I dont know how you guys were able to do what you do given the risks - or how your body didnt just curl up - spose its that damn training !