Weapons at the ready.

R-Force · Jan 25, 2001

I have a good question for the "always aim advocate". Why do you think they invented rapid fire weapons?

To shoot multiple bullets at the exact same spot?

The initial reason was spread death, much like the old musket formation (they were told to just point and shoot when ordered, the odd was very high they would hit something), only this time in a single weapon. You don't need to aim, just point and some bullets from the spread WILL hit.

Why do you think machineguns have such a high firerate and a very low accuracy ?

To carpet the area with lead! during WW1, the gunners never needed to aim, and they were instructed not to ( i seen interview of WW veterant saying that ). Just point and pull the trigger until they are all down and dead or you are out of ammos. Miniguns and Saws are meant to spread lead, not to do any kind of sharpshooting : they exist only to suppress and turn targets into swiss cheeze.

Do you need to aim to do that? No.

So why do they teach us to aim?

Well, the main reason is ammos supply. Then it's the cleanup afterward (WW1 trench were never fully cleaned from all the leads and shells that were fired, there are still tons of them left under the dirt). In the case of policemen, it's the friendly fire potential (other police or civilian cought in the fray) and the colateral damage (imagine a house full of bullets hole after a shootout), as well as they must take the criminals alive for trial. The last reason is few peoples can shoot well without sight, scope or laser beam, not that it's impossible though. I imagine them in 10-20 years telling you you cannot shoot without a lock on your vdu..

I know enough to know that I don't know enough.

Wolf Being · Jan 26, 2001

It's fine with me if we can still fire the 'Minigun' from the hip, hehehe. Fixed defensive positions are something else entirely. You also ahave a bi- or tripod, reinforced positions and lots of ammo. But even there you fire aimed bursts, and even on a MG long salvos on full auto are an absolute exception and still always aimed (Yes, I know that was different in WW1, but fire lanes and infantry tactics were a little extraordinary back then...). Especially a weapon with the fire rate of a GAU-2. It's simply too dangerous otherwise. Just because you 'hose' an area doesn't mean you aren't aiming. Aiming just becomes relative to the type of weapon employed.

The rule of thumb is: If you carry your own ammo on your own two legs, you aim your fire. Always. The other guy will, so you either get him first or wind up dead. Spray and pray is good for retreating or cover fire. And even then it's done from the shoulder as often as you can. A soldier firing unaimedly from the hip is a panicked soldier and a liability to all his squadmates.

The_Fur · Jan 26, 2001

Actually the most accurate shots are UNAIMED, i believe it was Mi5 who trained it's agents SPECIFCALLY NOT to aim, they were told to fire on instinct, and strangely enough they were quite accurate with that (not to mention a hell of a lot faster then those who had to aim).

Crosshairs are for wimps

Killing stupid people is not just a hobby, it's a way of life.

Official World War 2 Online Infiltration pimp

Visit Study and Operations Group the no1 Nam mod in the works.

R-Force · Jan 26, 2001

Wolf Being , did you EVER fired without using a sight?

I can assure you, i can shoot a gun no matter how i hold it, and i know if i'm gona hit or not when i pull the trigger. And i'm not panicked when i do it. I don't spray and pray either.

True, most of my experience is with paint gun and laser tag guns. But guns are guns, no matter what they say, be it a paint gun, a musket, a crossbow, a ring thrower, a bb gun. It's still point and shoot "interface", and the "bullet" goes mostly where you pointed it, or at least you can guess where it will go. I don't believe the crap about "you can see the bullet so it's easy to aim". If you expect to hit on first strike, you don't rely on bullet speed, bullet impact or how visible it is, you must visualise in your head where it gona hit. I know soldiers can use (and often do) grenade launcher from hip with great accuracy (shooting a grenade in a window 100m away on first shot), i don't see why you could not do it with a burst of bullets, it's a lot easier.

I wish i could make a demonstration on how accurate you can be while not using ironsight. I'm sure i could finaly prove you CAN fight this way. And you can do it MUCH faster this way. No, i don't mean ironsight are useless or unnessessary, but that you can fight without them if you need to.

I know enough to know that I don't know enough

[This message was edited by R-Force on Jan 26, 2001 at 09:40.

[This message was edited by R-Force on Jan 26, 2001 at 09:44.]

Neglous8 · Jan 26, 2001

In WWI, the machine gun was a new idea. Know one knew what it really meant on the battle. The tactics only changed on how to fight a war after they Machine gun was used. They were still fighting with Waterloo type tactic's. Long lines of men, charging the enemy in a "civilized" fashion. You have to remember this was a time, when the average person didn't know what a machine gun was. They may have heard of that gun that shoots hundreds of cartridges a minute. But not seeing them as readily as we do today. Majority of the armies were under trained troops. Being told to just to be behind the weapon and fire, so they could get men to the front line as fast as possible.

Your also not taking in to account:

Barrel wear, the longer those weapons where fired the less accurate the would becoming. From firing hundreds of rounds sometimes daily, using the same barrel. Not being able to resupply then with new parts regularly. They would become inaccurate weapons.

Then there is tripods. WWI was the first war, where the same machine gun was the majority on each side. The tripod for that weapons could become very stiff and stick easily, due to mud, dirty and another kind soft think getting jammed in it. Machine gunners had to use the palms of there hands to bang against the side of the weapon to get it to move to another location.

Tactic, in WWI it was trench warfare, a line on one side, and a line on the other side. Everyday a large force of men would go "over the top" to run acrossed no mans land to try and get the trench on the other side. For the defending force they would see a wall of men charging at that them, all they would have to do is spray there weapon from side to side. None of these weapons in WWI were carried from the hip or fired from the hip. The were heavy and large, need heavy tripods.

All of the rifles that were used were aimed, and fire that way. Granted they were also all bolt action too.

Mini Guns, again this weapon is heavy and large and cannot be shoulder. It is a buck shot principle. Mini guns being used mostly on unstable gun platforms such as door guns on helicopter. Usually the gunners can't see there targets due to tree or other kind of cover the enemy maybe shielding themselves with. So the "door gunner" would look through there site (Which looks similar to a WWI gun site off a plane) to the area of active and release so many rounds and sweep it around not knowing exactly where the enemy maybe hiding. Having enough rounds going down range that one of them has to hit something. This referred to as "Spray and Prey" tactic. Being a helicopter isn't the most stable gun platform they wouldn't aim like your shouldered weapon. Due to, the platform is always moving, to get position. The gunner isn't in control of the movements of the platform. Wind could slightly blow the helicopter a little off target, not to mention taking enemy fire. So they want to get as many rounds on to the target as they can in as short of a time while they will be one station. Before they themselves are a sitting duck.

All of these referred to are not rifle a servicemen would be carrying. There all heavy machine guns. None of them would be fired on the move, unless attached to a vehicle. A soldier would set up these weapons in a position to maximize what the roll it was intended for. Similar to a sniper tries to find an area that is out of sight to the target, but has good escape routes. With clear fields of fire. â€º

Neglous8 · Jan 26, 2001

A few years ago the US Army too proffesional ball team and pitted them against US Army Green Berets. The Green Berets using the same paint weapons the Paint Gun Team had been using for years. The Paint Gun team didn't know what hit them, in a short time t hey were all eliminated. With none of the Green Berets hit. Due to the SF teams tactics, and fire disicpline. Them aiming there weapons and not just firing to fire there weapons.

A paint gun is no where like firing a real gun. Having fired both personal ly. Paint ball drops off after a short time. Having seen many paint ball competitions, seeing them unloading as mean balls as possible to get them down range. Paint Ball gun would be more of a modern "safe" brownbess musket. Having a large round ball round trying to go throw the air.

No military weapon uses a round ball ammunition.

A gernade from a gernade launch is not a procession weapon. You just have to get near the target to get a kill. The higher you raise it, the greater range you will have. Do to it's size, low velocity and the quick drop off of it in flight. If gernade launcher didn't have a kill effect of just getting near the target, you would see personal taking the time to aim it.

When my brother was in the Marines they only shot there M203's while aiming the weapon. o

[This message was edited by Neglous8 on Jan 26, 2001 at 09:55.]

R-Force · Jan 26, 2001

Anyone know what a trench broom was? A smg. Basically they trained the soldier who used it to be storm trooper : run in (using all cover availiable), shoot everything in there, go to the next hot spot. And the best way to do it was from hip. You can't run very well with the gun aimed (at eye level with all the junk laying around), and you don't have time to bring it to eye level when the enemy you encounter may be ready to fire at you. They trained them to shoot from hip.

A a note about the minigun : it can be caried on foot and used on foot. There is an existing gear to carry the minigun. You can see it in "predator" and Terminator 2 (true it's just movies, but i'm sure they did not invent the weapon). I also know there is a paint ball version of the minigun, foot soldier style.

I know enough to know that I don't know enough.

Snakeye · Jan 26, 2001

Guess I'm with Wolf Being.

No offense intented, but hitting anything from the hip at ranges more than 50 meters(if so far) seems rather incredible to me; and I have some experience with weapons, though I mostly fire aimed.

I also think the comparison of WWI machineguns and modern ARs is a rather bad example.
In WWI infantry tactics were brought in from the napoleonic wars; machineguns were area-effect weapons and used so. The idea an automatic weapon hits because of the sheer volume of fire was not too false then.
In more modern days(Vietnam?) GIs needed an incredible ammount of ammo to kill one VC(or one pig of a farmer); this should prove, that unaimed automatic fire is unsuitable for individual soldiers.
If you want to compare it to airial weapons, I guess it would be wrong too. Helo door gunners 'spray' an area to 'keep heads down', not to hit anything. Of course if somebody is in the area sprayed, he might get hit, but then he also might survive.

In fact every individual soldier carries a limited ammount of ammo; imagine you have an M16(AK, SIG or whatever you like) and 10 mags; that equals 300rds of ammo; at a rate of 600rpm these 300rds are gone in 30 seconds effective fire time - if you spray one mag every minute you'd have 10 minutes and only shoot 3 seconds every minute.
I guess that should show how fast ammo drains in full auto.

There's a reason every sodlier is taught to aim; there's a reason the M16A2(US Army std) has 3rd burst and not full auto. Guess which..

Snakeye

anything you do can get you killed, including doing nothing

Neglous8 · Jan 26, 2001

I knew you bring up Predator and Terminator 2. I hate to burst your bubble but those Mini-Guns where made up ones, for the purpose of to have a big gun in the move. Those guns were firing blanks and from anyone that has shot a real gun before and blanks h ave hardly any engery behind them, and kick very little. It would be like shooting a cap gun compared to a bullet. Which one is going to have more engery and which one is going to kick? Those mini guns where made up from the hollywood fire arms masters. I f you think those were really issued weapons. You need to do a little more research.

WWI soldiers were also issused shot guns to clear trenchs. The Thomson Machine gun was originally designed a trench clearing weapon. It was small shot very fast (Later WWII version were turned down rate of fire) Had hand grip in front to steady the weapon. And it was intented to sweep the trench, the move on. Or shoot any poor wounded guy laying there..

R-Force · Jan 26, 2001

Neglous8 , true, paintball guns and true guns are different, but if you are proficient with a paintgun, going to a true gun would not be very hard, it's a transferable skill, just like a guy working in electronic can go in any field of electronic without much adaptation.

And about the green beret : they are much superior to any wanabe soldier, policemen, and standard soldier. Pit normal soldier against a good team of paintball players and the match would be a lot closer. Green berets are very well trained, and use superior team tactics, strategies and comunication. This has little to do with the accuracy of the players. The level of training of a green beret is far superior to any self trained paint ball player.

I know enough to know that I don't know enough

[This message was edited by R-Force on Jan 26, 2001 at 10:26.]

R-Force · Jan 26, 2001

http://www.securityarms.com/20010122/galleryfiles/314.htm

This gun look strangely like a mobile type (ie footsoldier type) minigun... True, they may not be used often this way, but they can.

I know enough to know that I don't know enough.

Neglous8 · Jan 26, 2001

I can show you a lot of concept guns that never came in to service. Sercurity arms, have a vast selection of firearms pictures. Some of them are variants of weapons but not actually used weapons. I could find you a picture of the "Robocop" pistol on a weapons site, but does that make it a real gun?

Dude, this is just a circle, in your mind your right and everyone else is wrong. No one would ever be able to prove to you anything because you wouldn't want to hear it. You have this is the way it is. No matter how it maybe in the real world.

The_Fur · Jan 26, 2001

Can we get back on topic please?

There is no reason to remove hip-shooting, as it allready has all the characteristics of RL hip-shooting... train yourself to do so and you might hit something, spraying accurately is hard and aiming is always more accurate.

You can hold and fire a gun from the hip so removing it would be a waste of time.

Crosshairs are for wimps

Killing stupid people is not just a hobby, it's a way of life.

Official World War 2 Online Infiltration pimp

Visit Study and Operations Group the no1 Nam mod in the works.

DeadeyeDan[ToA] · Jan 26, 2001

Neglous8: Technically, one person can use and carry the XM214 "micro gun"/"mini-minigun", but it's just not a very good idea. In Predator and Terminator 2 you should be able to spot wires coming out of the gun that are attached to an off-camera power source- if you want to be mobile with the XM214 you have to carry around a couple (very heavy) car batteries. And in the movies they use blank rounds, with reduced charges (since the gun doesn't need the recoil or pressure of the ammo to operate)- if they were using regular rounds the gun would be *extremely* difficult to control.

R-Force: Sure, skills gained playing paintball could help you firing a real gun, but with a real gun you would definately want to aim alot more. Paintball guns are so inaccurate that aiming is almost pointless. Most real rifles can put 2 bullets into the same hole at 30 yards, so it pays to take advantage of that accuracy.

As for taking away the hip position, I think in 3rd person the model should appear to have the gun shouldered but not aimed (in 1st person it already looks like the weapon is shouldered to me), but it's no big deal.

_______________________
In Orwell's hell, a terror era comin through,
but this little brother, is watching you too.

[This message was edited by DeadeyeDan[ToA] on Jan 26, 2001 at 17:34.]

Neglous8 · Jan 26, 2001

I know about the Mini gun, I was trying to explain that to R-Force. That it was a movie, there is no recoil in blanks as I stated in a earlier post. Sorry if I didn't state it clearly, was trying to explain to him that a mini-gun wouldn't be as simple as puting a pistol grip on it and run in the jungle.

I was think there is a three positions for your body in INF upright, crouched and prone. This could be done with the rifle aswell. Using the same key. First would be "from the hip" (Which I still believe is very unrealistic). Second position would be as the picture of posted originally. Third would be looking through the sites. Granted this would require much more animation. But I am sure, judging what INF team has done so far they could do it.

Or I had been thinking, making it like the picture of the soldier. That is how it is when your not looking through the sites, but, if you click the fire button (pull the trigger) your character would pop it up to the sights and squeeze a few rounds off. In doing it this way though your character would only be looking through the sites while they are shooting, once the fire button is released it would go back to the weapon at the ready position.

Still being able to walking around totally by looking through the sights as it is now. When it is like in the picture it would pop the weapon up to the sights only why it is firing then turning it to it's previous position.o

Col.Sanders · Jan 26, 2001

1) look at the picture on the first page:
http://www.specialoperations.com/USMC/Force_Recon/Images/Recon.jpg

Look at the buttstock of the rifle near his shoulder-- see the strap? I've seen these before, the gun is attached to the soldier. If he let go of the rifle, it would swing to point at the ground, but the stock would stay at his shoulder. This way, the wieght of the weapon is off his hands, and he can just push forward with one hand on the pistol grip and fire reflexively in an emergency. I've done it, it can work.

2) "instictive" or "point-shooting" or "hip-shooting" versus aiming with the sights.
There are so many ways to point weapons. They fall into two categories:
Physical Indeces:
Hip shooting
point shooting
instinctive shooting
...all of these methods claim to "feel" the gun on target, without using the eyes.

Visual Indeces:
Aimed fire
Rough visual indeces:
Ayoob's StressFire
Cirillo's Cylinder Silloutte
shoulder point
flash sight picture
...all of these involve seeing part of the gun in your field of vision.

The bottom line is, unless you know whether you are talking about a visual index or a physical index, "Hip shooting" is a worthless term because of the many varieties of shooting quickly without looking through the sights.

3) the M-134 7.62mm General Electric "MiniGun" can be powered from hyrdraulic, pneumatic, electric, or internal sources. The last option involves a gas recoil mechanism and a spring. When the gun is firing, the recoil turns the barrels and works the action. When the trigger is released, the spinning assembly is braked by a spring, which stores enough energy to start the barrels rotating in the opposite directiong when the trigger is pulled again. No wires.

4) a full-automatic weapon can be fired from the hip (or any other less-than-aimed posture) by watching the bullet strikes or using tracers. I know a M249 gunner in the US Army. He has confirmed that, although they calibrate the sights on the LMG's at the range with 3-round bursts, in actual operation, the weapon is adjusted onto target. The M249 is less accurate than the M-16, and is usually fired at longer ranges. They qualify at 400 and 600 m in training. So at those distances, the sights are used to get roughly on target, and the gunner adjusts his aim until he is cutting people down.

R-Force · Jan 26, 2001

I don't need convincing, i know real well that ironsighting a gun is the best way to get an accurate shot reliably. I also know that at cqb range, aiming the guy between the eyes is pretty pointless, speed is much more important than marksmanship. I also know that security arm have a lot of pictures of guns that never been produced in numbers, or that got scrapped due to cost or reliability. I also know full well that paint guns are not really accurates, but i also know you are day dreaming if you think you could put two bullets in the same hole with any gun without some kind of luck... Perfection is not of this world, and i know enough about physics, electronics, programming and enginering to know that even a machine cannot be perfect. Machines are less reliable than the humans who made them... i know also enough of the human nature that i could argue for years in this board about what life thought me and what i am currently learning, and i would hardly convince anyone unless i show them in the face, then again they would still argue me on some small issues just to get me wrong on something... I don't believe i know everything or i'm right on everything i said or you think i meant, but neither any of you.

Language is so full of quirk, you could argue me just on the words i used in this post.

I know enough to know that I don't know enough

R-Force · Jan 26, 2001

Nice post Col.Sanders

. I did not know there was so many variant of ways to shoot a gun, even if i knew a few of them already.

Good point about the minigun . I could add that the weight of the gun would also help contain the recoil, and using the released gas to spin the gun also help keeping the gun at a manageable weight... But still very few grunts would have the strenght to carry this thing around with all it's ammos, but it's still possible... But tactically there is few use for a portable minigun, unless you plan to use it against a mob of unamed/slightly armed civilans (what a butcher the guy would be...)

I know enough to know that I don't know enough.

Snakeye · Jan 26, 2001

Jesus not again..

Like R-Force said, it is nearly impossible to hit the exact same spot with two bullets from one rifle with two successing shots at 300 yards - even at 50.

Why?
Imagine some kind of indoor, wind protected shooting range(so we can at least eliminate the wind. Fix any rifle you like in a position. Fire two shots. They'll sure nor hit the same hole, because of:

- ammo fabrication tolerances: no two rounds are exactly the same. They have tolerances of the bullet, the ammount of powder, the shape of the powder.
All this influences how fast the bullet exits the barrel, thus the ballistic curve of the bullet. The bullet shape differences, though small, usually result in slightly different flight paths due to air friction.

- rifle barrel: A barrel cannot be perfect. Apart from that every barrel oscillates, which gives the bullet slightly different flight paths, since they don't exit at the same time(after the ignition).

While all these seem pretty minimal tolerances and disturbances, they affect the point of impact enough, so that it is (near)impossible to hit the same spot.

Since MOA(minute of angle)precision seems not too bad for modern rifles, here's a little example what that really means.
at 100m -> bullet impact in a circle with a 5.5cm diameter.
at 200m -> 11cm
at 300m -> 17cm
at 500m -> 29cm
at 1000m -> 58cm

This does not include the shooter or wind but only the accuracy of the rifle/ammo combination.
think about it..

Snakeye

anything you do can get you killed, including doing nothing

R-Force · Jan 26, 2001

Snakeye

I knew it was impossible to shoot 2 bullets at the exact same spot, but i laked the knowledge to explain why. I learned something

.

Years ago i believed that mass produced goods were all alike and that imperfection was pretty rare... But soon i learned just how wrong this world view was... I worked in a small factory and found just how hard it's to make 2 things exacly alike : we had to reject a lot of our goods, and we had to accept a lot of imperfections to not loose too much money... I also learned that paying more for a good is not the best way to ensure we buy a good thing : production cost/PR/profit margin vary a lot from one company to another, as the quality...

Anyway, this has little to do with INF..

I know enough to know that I don't know enough.

Weapons at the ready.

(IF)

.

Back in black

(IF)

New Member

New Member

(IF)

Mk82HD

New Member

(IF)

(IF)

New Member

Back in black

de oppresso liber

New Member

New Member

(IF)

(IF)

Mk82HD

(IF)