|
Post by insterburger on Feb 16, 2014 21:44:03 GMT -5
With new heavy machine guns cropping up on the market, and a good chance that games in my region may soon be sporting heavier weapons such as bazookas and mortars, I’ve been thinking a bit on crew-based weapons and how they should work in airsoft games.
While my initial impulse is to try to achieve “realism” by requiring teams on weapons that had them in real life, on reflection I think that in airsoft it has to come down to a situational approach with a healthy tendency to err toward fielding such weapons with the smallest crew possible, even when that constitutes a single soldier.
I came to that opinion based on several inter-related factors: The reality of the constant shortage of personnel in WWII airsoft, the limited effectiveness of the airsoft versions of these weapons relative to their historical counterparts, and the disadvantage that is created by putting multiple men on a single weapon.
It’s hard to discuss any of these factors in isolation, since each really feeds into the other two. In WWII there were personnel shortages at times in all armies, but when the scale of force was in the thousands one could generally fill the ranks with men from reserves or rear echelons and have enough personnel to crew weapons as needed. Not so in airsoft. Every man put into a special role is taken directly out of the line as an infantryman, and is lost to that role. There is no reserve to pull a new infantryman from to replace the guy you put on the heavy weapon. So then the question the commander has to ask himself is: Is it worth it? Let’s take a look at two different scenarios, one a heavy machine gun, the other a bazooka. For the purposes of making the math easy, let’s base the analysis on a ten man team or unit—a very decent turnout in the game these days. Lower than that, the numbers get much worse, higher than that, they begin to improve. But ten is a good starting point, because that is likely to be at the very high end of a typical squad size going forward. As I said, these ratios will be worse in the real world of 7, 8, or 9 man squads.
So first let’s look at a heavy machine gun, such as an MG42 or an M1919. The MG42 nominally had a three man crew, the Browning two, though both more typically involved up to four men. So let’s say we’re being “fair” and saying each one can get away with the minimal two-man team (BTW, all these lessons apply equally to the two-man BAR). What this means is that fully 20% of a team’s personnel are dedicated to this single weapon. The gunner, and the support man—even if he is allowed to maintain some fire on his own, he is still tied to the crew, and unable to fight independently. Now having a full fifth of your force tied together in this single role isn’t necessarily a bad thing, if that support weapon can make a major impact. But how big of an impact do airsoft heavy machine guns make? Well, unlike in real life where these weapons hurl high-powered rifle bullets, in airsoft they throw the same 6mm BBs that anything else fires, often at a comparable or lower rate of fire than a lighter weapon, as well as a lower FPS. So it begs the question: If I am an American commander, why should I field an unwieldy, heavy, tripod-based weapon that will suck in two of my men, when I can put a single gunner in there with a nice, high FPS Thompson and have the similar (or perhaps better) firepower without the commitment? Likewise, why should a German CO tie up two men on an MG42 when a StG44 provides a higher FPS and rate, and is much easier to field and operate (and is likely to be more dependable, too)? Even in a case where the heavy machine gun performs slightly better than the SMG or assault rifle, it still would most likely fall on the wrong side of the firepower/troop commitment scales and just not be worth the commitment of two men.
So then bazookas. I’m working on a prototype Panzerschreck/Bazooka, and have every expectation that these will be fielded (in situations where they are worth fielding, anyway) on both sides of the game before the end of the year. While these weapons have a massive cool factor and will certainly impact the way the game is played, they are hardly “god weapons.” Like their historical counterparts, they are heavy to carry, awkward to use, slow to fire, and extremely vulnerable to enemy fire. Out of necessity, any time they are fielded the other soldiers on that side will doubtless be working overtime to defend them. Here the math is even worse. While the weapons will be capable of single destructive blows (IF they hit their target), every time one is fielded, the overall BB-based firepower is falling 10%, even with a single crewman. Put a second guy into the mix, and again, the chances of whatever advantage the weapon brings to the table justifying a 20% drop in overall rifle firepower will probably not be worth it.
And those are best-case numbers. If a commander is fielding an 8-man squad, he will have a full quarter of his force tied up in a single weapon. Any slight advantage one of these weapons brings to the table could not possibly justify such a commitment.
Certainly I think that when events reach a critical mass of participants and we have more than enough soldiers in the field to create the kind of wide-ranging action we are all longing for, then creating crews for heavier weapons might make more sense. But with participation in the growing stages, I think creating artificial roles for troops where they’re not needed does nothing more than steal them from where they can be making more substantial contributions, not only to their team but to the event as a whole. And fielding those support weapons with a single man crew lets them impact the battle in a more historically accurate way—they will be allowed to represent a slight overall improvement in the striking power of the unit… which is exactly what they were when they were fielded in WWII... an MG42 was worth the 3-man commitment because it created an impact greater than having those men fighting singly. Even with only two men, that simply is not the case with the airsoft version. Likewise the Browning, and the BAR, and bazookas.
In my view, putting these in a game in a way that substantially hurts the fighting power of the unit just doesn’t make any sense, and will only serve to send these potentially interesting weapons to the sidelines. Speaking for myself, if I were in a command position I would not put either into a game if it meant reducing my fighting power. And I think that would be a shame.
I’d be very interested in hearing the thoughts of others on this.
|
|
2nd Bat
Master sergeant
Posts: 11,813
|
Post by 2nd Bat on Feb 17, 2014 14:57:07 GMT -5
The scale and range limitations of airsoft weapons means normal tactical deployment of forces and crew served weapons need to be adapted to practical realities. As mentioned above the engagement ranges are significantly closer (by an order of 20) but target mass remains 1:1. Hence a tripod mounted weapon is extremely vulnerable to enemy fire. For our local purposes we go to great lengths to insure the crew served weapons have some enhanced capability relative to the typical airsoft rifleman so the trade offs have an upside.
For our formalized events riflemen are limited to semi automatic fire and low cap magazines or very limted ammunition to encourage more judicious firing. with crew served weapons BARs or light machine guns they have much more ready ammo and can fire full auto. Squad size is much smaller then a real TO&E as ranges cannot provide mutual supporting fire above around five or six guys. This frankly is an element size that is much easier to control for the weekend warrior unit commander with minimal training who finds himself herding cats most of the time.
Crew served weapons have dedicated crews primarily asigned during movement. A dedicted assigned rilemen who carries the tripod and perhaps a spare box magazine or extra bags of ammo. The real equvalent of the airsoft machine gun is typically four times heavier then the airsoft version so the gunner is able to carry a lot of ammo and certainly much much more then an actual gunner.
For long winter we had three man machine gun teams (two such teams for a 34 man US force). The extra crewmen mostly provided security once the gun was emplaced. They also had a take over responsibility for the gun when the main gunner wa hit. We conducted gun drills so setting up and taking down the gun for movement was carefully rehearsed. These gun drills were very popular and added a nice sense of emmersion and authenticity.
For BAR teams or MG M43 teams were to guys, primary and secondary gunners. The crew served guns BY DESIGN were deployed in a way that had them firing plunging ire at the enemy from farther away which allowed them to maximize the fact tht they could afford to fire non aimed suppressive fire in the guestimated location of the enemy while riflemen had to be far more selective in engaging their weapons. That's not to say that they didn't do recon by fire or shoot to support their team mate movement but that it was calculated and avoided random shooting. The crew served weapons on the otherhand do lots of random suppressive shooting.
It primarily comes own to ammo supply as there is no other practical way to give one airsoft gun an upside over another.
|
|
|
Post by brownien on Feb 17, 2014 15:24:22 GMT -5
I think that with the limitations of semi auto rifles, and Smg's limited to full or semi, but without hopup, a 2-3 man MG crew would have the advantage of full auto, with the range of a rifle, and all the extra ammo supplied by supporting infantry. An MG would have to have a high enough fps, say 450-500, and a long tight bore barrel to give it plenty of range and accuracy at a distance. Even if an mg with these traits is out of range for direct fire, having tight enough grouping would allow for indirect fire with plenty of ammo on full auto
|
|
|
Post by LϟϟAH1944 on Feb 17, 2014 19:06:21 GMT -5
I think that ammo should be limited for other guns, but not much more. After all, most MGs have battery mags, so they can still throw a lot more fire, while normal mags need to be wound.
|
|
|
Post by brownien on Feb 17, 2014 20:50:14 GMT -5
I agree that regular infantry should have ammo restrictions. Generally modern squads emphasis limiting hi caps to 2 and midcaps to 6-8. I think doing the same thing with us. Incentivize the use of midcaps, by allowing as many as desired, but limit high caps to 1 or 2 per gun. With rifles, this would be easy, because most have midcaps, but like the stg44, where only high caps are available, semi auto should be the standard, with Smg's allowed to be full auto, but with hopup off. This would limit regular infantry's firepower at range, where an MG would be significant. Also limiting their ammo would further this by reducing infantry's willingness to recon by fire.
Also to point out insterbergers comment about MG teams limiting firepower in a team. Indeed it would limit the individual MG member's firepower, especially when moving positions, but once the MG is in place, the support gunners will be free to fire their own weapons. Yes they wont be able to go off on their own, and will need to stay with the MG gunner to provide security, while he focuses on the beaten zone. But they will be able to provide protection to the gunner, and also be able to be back ups should he be taken out
|
|
|
Post by LϟϟAH1944 on Feb 17, 2014 21:48:32 GMT -5
What do you mean by "hopup off"?
|
|
|
Post by brownien on Feb 17, 2014 22:03:23 GMT -5
I mean turning it all the way down so the BB has no backspin. This would decrease the range to simulate a pistol round rather than a much longer range rifle round. It would emphasis smg gunners importance at short range with full auto, but also make riflemen and MG gunners much more important at long range. I'm not saying Smg's would be completely inneffective, they would just need to be used with a higher muzzle elevation to give some "indirect fire" rather than straight and level with a rifle.
|
|
|
Post by patrickl29th on Feb 17, 2014 22:06:20 GMT -5
I think all smg's and rifles should only have low cap mags, it makes reloading happen more often and people with Thompsons, stgs etc. cant use their role as a mg.
|
|
|
Post by newcomer on Feb 17, 2014 22:52:37 GMT -5
no hop up and low FPS with .12's would help lower performance at range. Since recoil is nonexistent on aegs, it would be harder to fire longer bursts just like the real smg.
|
|
|
Post by tango on Feb 18, 2014 15:38:50 GMT -5
I don't like the idea of constructing the rules to force SMG players to intentionally lob .12g rounds at each other at short range. Scaled down engagement distances is already a huge problem in airsoft, and intentionally downgrading weapons would make it even worse. Instead, airsoft rifles could be upgraded to outrange SMGs and the same effect would be achieved. Upgrading is just like any other hobby, if you put in the research, time, and money to do it right you'll have quality results.
Maybe one day when the market is flooded with lots of skirmishable airsoft rifles, event organizers can restrict the number of SMGs on the field. Until then I think using blank fire rifles (if you have access to a place where you can use them) or upgraded airsoft rifles to outrange airsoft SMGs is the way to go.
|
|
|
Post by LϟϟAH1944 on Feb 18, 2014 18:09:44 GMT -5
I think all smg's and rifles should only have low cap mags, it makes reloading happen more often and people with Thompsons, stgs etc. cant use their role as a mg. Well, that's a good idea, but until someone starts makin low cap mags for STGs, it probably won't happen.
|
|
|
Post by patrickl29th on Feb 18, 2014 18:11:42 GMT -5
I think all smg's and rifles should only have low cap mags, it makes reloading happen more often and people with Thompsons, stgs etc. cant use their role as a mg. Well, that's a good idea, but until someone starts makin low cap mags for STGs, it probably won't happen. Yeah, but just use a speed reloaded and put bb's in the feeder or what ever you call it
|
|
|
Post by LϟϟAH1944 on Feb 18, 2014 18:14:42 GMT -5
I don't like the idea of constructing the rules to force SMG players to intentionally lob .12g rounds at each other at short range. Scaled down engagement distances is already a huge problem in airsoft, and intentionally downgrading weapons would make it even worse. Instead, airsoft rifles could be upgraded to outrange SMGs and the same effect would be achieved. Upgrading is just like any other hobby, if you put in the research, time, and money to do it right you'll have quality results. Maybe one day when the market is flooded with lots of skirmishable airsoft rifles, event organizers can restrict the number of SMGs on the field. Until then I think using blank fire rifles (if you have access to a place where you can use them) or upgraded airsoft rifles to outrange airsoft SMGs is the way to go. I agree with you, tango. Also, while MGs are a crucial part of WW2, there are some things that really can't be done for ww2aa. Since Mgs are limited one per squad, and we usually only have 1 squad vs 1 squad battles, It basically seems to make evreryone forcibly use poor performance guns. Thus, everyone will want MGs. So either 1 person per team will be effective, or itll be world of MGs. Thus, it might need to be overlooked until the hobby grows.
|
|
shiftysgarand
Corporal
BangbangbangbangbangbangbangbangPING
Posts: 1,165
|
Post by shiftysgarand on Feb 18, 2014 18:22:18 GMT -5
I think all smg's and rifles should only have low cap mags, it makes reloading happen more often and people with Thompsons, stgs etc. cant use their role as a mg. Well, that's a good idea, but until someone starts makin low cap mags for STGs, it probably won't happen. Mp44 mags are pretty easy to convert to midcaps : ww2aa.proboards.com/thread/6687
|
|
|
Post by LϟϟAH1944 on Feb 18, 2014 18:22:49 GMT -5
Well, that's a good idea, but until someone starts makin low cap mags for STGs, it probably won't happen. Yeah, but just use a speed reloaded and put bb's in the feeder or what ever you call it I just tried it, it doesn't work for the STG. the feeder requires a basically full mag in order to work. even so, youd need 6 mags, which at $25 a pop, will add up to $125(assuming you already have 1). So unless someone begins making cheap, plastic midcaps, I doubt many people will like it, and it might end up making more people leave the hobby than join.
|
|
|
Post by LϟϟAH1944 on Feb 18, 2014 18:23:30 GMT -5
Well, that's a good idea, but until someone starts makin low cap mags for STGs, it probably won't happen. Mp44 mags are pretty easy to convert to midcaps : ww2aa.proboards.com/thread/6687Might be so, but probably still would cost around $40 per mag. Which times 6, is $240.
|
|
shiftysgarand
Corporal
BangbangbangbangbangbangbangbangPING
Posts: 1,165
|
Post by shiftysgarand on Feb 18, 2014 18:27:15 GMT -5
Actually, Mp44 mags can be found for $15 and MP7 mags for 10, so it's not so bad.
|
|
|
Post by LϟϟAH1944 on Feb 18, 2014 18:49:18 GMT -5
Where are they $15? I see them for 425
|
|
shiftysgarand
Corporal
BangbangbangbangbangbangbangbangPING
Posts: 1,165
|
Post by shiftysgarand on Feb 18, 2014 19:14:18 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by LϟϟAH1944 on Feb 18, 2014 20:39:12 GMT -5
thanks, might need to pick up a few
|
|
|
Post by brownien on Feb 18, 2014 22:06:33 GMT -5
I think most people do want to upgrade, but some either don't have the know how, or abilities to do so. For WW2 airsoft engagements, even with my stock m14-m1's I can out range a stock thompson or mp40, but not by much at all. When it comes down to it, an smg with a fully tuned hopup, really beats the heck out of a rifle on semi, or even a bolt action! I tried out my thompson (stock internals) with .12g's with the hopup on and off, and the accuracy really is crap. The .12's really don't have tight enough groupings to even have a chance at making lob shots at a distance. Plus, with the low quality of .12, they are liable to break in the barrel. Using something like .20g, or .25g is much better at getting a nice tight grouping, with the hopup on or off. What I may consider doing, if I limit Smg's in such a way, is have them sighted in to a certain range, say 75ft. After that range BB's will start to drop off. Each smg would be sighted in and tested before fighting commences.
After hosting an event with everyone but one person on each team on full auto, I must say that it is much more authentic, but that one smg can still have the firepower and range of an mg42! Limiting that full auto Smg's range will make having an MG critical, and make wielding a rifle much more rewarding. For those who only have an smg like a thompson or mp40 as their only weapon, I would allow them to keep it on semi, and tune the hopup like the rifles. A bit gamey, but it worked for the battle of the bulge event.
|
|
2nd Bat
Master sergeant
Posts: 11,813
|
Post by 2nd Bat on Feb 18, 2014 23:43:30 GMT -5
12 grams in a quality AEG is just inviting trouble. I like the concept but practicality doesn't support it. Mgs fire the same rounds typically as main battle rifles and don't produce either greater range, lethality or accuracy other then their ability to put more rounds down range. In a perfect world it would be great to see SMGs limited to one per every 3 or four guys and restricted to 320 FPS or so with out hop up while main battle rifles and MGs could have 420 FPS with MGs capable of using box magazines and massive ammo allocation where all other weapons are limited.
This it would seem would provide the approximate trade offs for the upsides and downside tradeoffs for each weapon type. Squad size would be limited to no more then six members and a rifle platoon could be two or three rifle squads. (12-18 guys) with a weapons squad of two MGs and a squad leader (5 guys) with a platoon HQs of 3 men LT, Plt Sgt and RTO/ Runner. A platoon would hence be up to 26 guys. This is much smaller then actual combat units but is scaled to the limitations of airsoft and is a manageable number of relatively untrained folks to control.
|
|
|
Post by insterburger on Feb 19, 2014 8:52:45 GMT -5
The scenarios tango and Issah are advocating are exactly the trouble that prompted this post in the first place. I was specifically referring to instances where crewed HMGs are replaced with hopped-up SMGs, or even one hopped SMG and one semi-auto rifleman. The heavy becomes superfluous and actually a detriment, because, say an MP44 creates comparable firepower but is much easier to handle and effectively fight with.
Tango, you are right about upgrades, but so is Brownien. In a perfect world everyone would be doing upgrades, but in real life people are using stock guns. So the only realistic solution is to dumb down SMGs to reflect relative performance. Frankly, I think putting them at 75ft. is overly generous. 50ft. +/- would scale better, to give riflemen a true advantage over players with an SMG. Even that isn't quite to scale, but it's better.
2nd Bat's plan makes perfect sense (as it should, he being the voice of wisdom and experience!): Have one heavy machine gunner with massive ammo, plenty of riflemen with realistic ammo limits, and a hopped-down SMG for the unit leader, also with a realistic ammo limit. This does the best job of scaling out these weapons to somewhat reflect their historic relationship, and creates the most interesting games that actually reflect (at leat a modified version of) WWII tactics. In a sense the similarity of performance (out of the box, anyway) between HMGs and personal weapons isn't a bad thing if the rules rise to meet it, because in instances where one side or the other doesn't have a proper MG, they can simply take a high performance automatic rifle or SMG such as a StG44 or a nice high-FPS Thompson, and deploy it as though it were the MG (perhaps some fielding limitations would need to be set).
And Issah, you talk as though you weren't even at the excellent Bulge game... "either 1 person per team will be effective..." !?! Really??? As our primary gunner for the whole game you might not have noticed, but riflemen were HIGHLY effective throughout the day-- I would say I was taken out by a Garand at least twice as often as from automatic fire. Having the semi-auto rules really transformed the game from spray and pray to having to actually fire/maneuver where position and movement become part of a chess match. Ammo limits will only make that better. If you prefer full-auto free-for-alls, they throw those just about every weekend at GZA. But I think as you have more experiences with events where these kinds of rules are imposed to make the game play more sophisticated, you'll come to love this way of doing things. I'm hoping you get a chance to fight as a rifleman in the next engagement, you'll see just how effective you can be.
As for ammo limits, I don't see that as being a problem even with guns like the StG44 only having high caps. Just set an appropriate amount of ammo for that gun, and the soldier can carry it with what he has. If someone only has an SMG with low-caps to fight as a rifleman, give him enough mags to accomodate 100-120 rounds, whether all in one mag or in a few separate ones. Likewise a high-cap: Just put enough BBs in there so that you can feed a realistic combat load. As for SMGs deployed as SMGs, give them either a full complement of low-caps, or a partial load out of mid caps or high caps. Easy peasy. I do like Nate's suggestion of removing the mag to wind for high caps... it makes for an added bit of realism.
BTW, I do like the rule about the secondary gunner-- it allows the heavy to stay in the field and for a team to keep that firepower going even with a hit. From 2nd Bat's comments, it seems like apart from weapons set-up, this is the only substantive way in which the gunners are a "team." Yes, there is the cover/security role, but since good doctrine has soldiers more or less covering each other and supporting each other's fire-- especially that of the heavy MG-- having a guy on security for the gun is really just an extension of that principle. Apparently he only needs to stay close enough to take over should the gunner go down. My concern had been a kind of joined-at-the-hip, both huddled over the gun setup, which doesn't appear to be how this is done. Good.
As always ruminating over stuff, it did occur to me that there are other ways to provide for that virtual gunner "team." One possibility would be to set the gunner as his own virtual team... the first time he's hit, he has to very visibly "die," and the gun has to sit silent for a period of time-- say, 20 seconds. Then he is given one on-the-spot respawn to become the gunner's assistant who is now on the trigger. Next time he's hit, the gun is out of action until he makes an actual respawn. The downside of this would be that the heavy would be out of action no matter what the second time he is hit, whereas with a team approach, the first gunner could potentially respawn and return as a "reinforcement" to relieve the second gunner when he is hit, and thus not lose the gun even after two hits (of course if the second guy is hit before the first one respawns, the gun is knocked out completely nonetheless). I suppose these rules could be tweaked and adjusted for local play and depending on relative size of forces, but it's all worth thinking about.
|
|
2nd Bat
Master sergeant
Posts: 11,813
|
Post by 2nd Bat on Feb 19, 2014 12:42:11 GMT -5
Before there was an abundance of actual SAWs we mandated that the designated Squad automatic weapon (regardless of what was used,) had a bipod.
|
|
|
Post by insterburger on Feb 19, 2014 12:57:02 GMT -5
Before there was an abundance of actual SAWs we mandated that the designated Squad automatic weapon (regardless of what was used,) had a bipod. John, you're a regular Shell Answer Man!
|
|
2nd Bat
Master sergeant
Posts: 11,813
|
Post by 2nd Bat on Feb 19, 2014 15:25:29 GMT -5
There are inexpensive universal tripods available that we used. This of course is not the ideal but an expedient and effective means to designate and distinguish this weapon from others.
|
|