LAV as transport for us marines

[EXTRA THICC]

it was in Airland battle but not in red dragon just asking why

[Nero]

because eugen doesn't want you to have fun.

[ThingGoBoom]

They were originally used as troop transports, but that changed in the late 80s. It can be argued that it doesn't fit the events in RD, but the most likely reason is balance.

[Peregrine]

Originally posted by ThingGoBoom:

They were originally used as troop transports, but that changed in the late 80s. It can be argued that it doesn't fit the events in RD, but the most likely reason is balance.

More like they hate US Marines.

They took away the Sidewinder from the AH1W, gave it back, and took it away again. And NO Hellfire for the W model either, to make it worse, only 1 door gun for the UH1N too. The LAV AT is nearly worthless, so is TOW 2 M966 HMMWV (enemy tanks ALWAYS close in and kill that ATGM Vic before the missile hits.) There is no LAV AD in game at all. (the 20mm gun and 8 stingers) Marine Air Wing treated like crap too. Don't get me started on the "Marines 90" UTTER BS all round. They still had the M60A3 as standard and Marine Riflemen train to 800 Meters with our rifles. Let alone that the US Marines, and the US as a whole get NO snipers at all, but many other decks do. That's unfair as all hell.

[Nero]

Originally posted by Peregrine:

Originally posted by ThingGoBoom:

They were originally used as troop transports, but that changed in the late 80s. It can be argued that it doesn't fit the events in RD, but the most likely reason is balance.

More like they hate US Marines.

They took away the Sidewinder from the AH1W, gave it back, and took it away again. And NO Hellfire for the W model either, to make it worse, only 1 door gun for the UH1N too. The LAV AT is nearly worthless, so is TOW 2 M966 HMMWV (enemy tanks ALWAYS close in and kill that ATGM Vic before the missile hits.) There is no LAV AD in game at all. (the 20mm gun and 8 stingers) Marine Air Wing treated like crap too. Don't get me started on the "Marines 90" UTTER BS all round. They still had the M60A3 as standard and Marine Riflemen train to 800 Meters with our rifles. Let alone that the US Marines, and the US as a whole get NO snipers at all, but many other decks do. That's unfair as all hell.

BECAUSE they don't want YOU to have FUN.

[Tigger]

Originally posted by Peregrine:

More like they hate US Marines.

Don't get me started on the "Marines 90" UTTER BS all round. They still had the M60A3 as standard and Marine Riflemen train to 800 Meters with our rifles. Let alone that the US Marines, and the US as a whole get NO snipers at all, but many other decks do. That's unfair as all hell.

I have seen quite a few claim USMC Riflemen do their shooting out to X range.

The UK Infantry shoot to 500m - the USMC - The firing tables in MCO 3574.2 Marine Corps Combat Marksmanship Programs, states 500yds (457m) maximum range for qualification and testing (Using M16A4).

The ranges to be used are to be qualified for 5.56mm Ball at ranges of 5 to 500 yds - no mention of training to over 500yds in MCO 3574.2 ,or MCRP 3-01A Rifle Marksmanship

The RCO has calibrations up to 800m but that does not mean it is fired out to that distance - it does state that the graduation is useful for determining range (the iron sight has a maximum setting of 600yds so could not be used out to 800m/yds).

Windage charts go up to 500yds (although at times in the manuals they write 500m/yds as though they are the same)

[Peregrine]

Originally posted by Tigger:

Originally posted by Peregrine:

More like they hate US Marines.

Don't get me started on the "Marines 90" UTTER BS all round. They still had the M60A3 as standard and Marine Riflemen train to 800 Meters with our rifles. Let alone that the US Marines, and the US as a whole get NO snipers at all, but many other decks do. That's unfair as all hell.

I have seen quite a few claim USMC Riflemen do their shooting out to X range.

The UK Infantry shoot to 500m - the USMC - The firing tables in MCO 3574.2 Marine Corps Combat Marksmanship Programs, states 500yds (457m) maximum range for qualification and testing (Using M16A4).

The ranges to be used are to be qualified for 5.56mm Ball at ranges of 5 to 500 yds - no mention of training to over 500yds in MCO 3574.2 ,or MCRP 3-01A Rifle Marksmanship

The RCO has calibrations up to 800m but that does not mean it is fired out to that distance - it does state that the graduation is useful for determining range (the iron sight has a maximum setting of 600yds so could not be used out to 800m/yds).

Windage charts go up to 500yds (although at times in the manuals they write 500m/yds as though they are the same)

I have no idea who you are, so I won't judge.

However, I am a retired US Marine 0311 Infantry Rifleman and an 8152, I am further a trained Designated Marksman.

During BASIC RIFLE QUAL (Table 1) we shoot to 500 Yards, that's correct. In Table 2 we only fire to 100 Meters, 3 and 4 are moving and night fire.

However, during regular training and during counter MG (Squad Rushes) we fire to 800 Meters accurately with M16A4, the table has not changed since they used M16A2's. (Marines 90 should have the A2 as it was standard since the mid 80's and the Marine Corps pushed for it)

Or, put another way, it's like they used to say, the M1903 has an effective range of 650 Yards, but Marines in France were killing Germans with them at 1000 yards with accurate fire. The book doesn't know everything.

[Tigger]

Originally posted by Peregrine:

I have no idea who you are, so I won't judge.

However, I am a retired US Marine 0311 Infantry Rifleman and an 8152, I am further a trained Designated Marksman.

During BASIC RIFLE QUAL (Table 1) we shoot to 500 Yards, that's correct. In Table 2 we only fire to 100 Meters, 3 and 4 are moving and night fire.

However, during regular training and during counter MG (Squad Rushes) we fire to 800 Meters accurately with M16A4, the table has not changed since they used M16A2's. (Marines 90 should have the A2 as it was standard since the mid 80's and the Marine Corps pushed for it)

Or, put another way, it's like they used to say, the M1903 has an effective range of 650 Yards, but Marines in France were killing Germans with them at 1000 yards with accurate fire. The book doesn't know everything.

The M16Ax has an effective range of 550 m/yds - seen both quoted in USMC manuals.

As a DM you will know the M14 was reintroduced to give a section accurate fire between 500 and 800m, this was replaced by the M39 and now by the M110 (although they also use the IAR I have seen), all to provide accurate fire out to 800m - now why would they bother if the bog standard booty with his M16A4 could do that anyway.

The limit with the M16 is down to the NATO 5.56mm round, which is why many nations adopted a NATO 7.62mm rifle for the DM (or their version) in each section to provide that bit of extra accurate fire.

The British used the L86 as a DM weapon for a short while even though it was 5.56mm because it could provide accurate fire out to 800-900m (much longer and heavier barrel coupled with a bipod), this was replaced though by a 7.62mm weapon.

Just because someone shoots ut to 800m with 5.56 does not mean they are capable of accurate fire - we used to shoot out to 800m but it was purely for suppressive fire, not accurate.

I have read many manuals and official USMC articles from 1988 up to 2016 all stating pretty much the same.

[Peregrine]

Originally posted by Tigger:

Originally posted by Peregrine:

I have no idea who you are, so I won't judge.

However, I am a retired US Marine 0311 Infantry Rifleman and an 8152, I am further a trained Designated Marksman.

During BASIC RIFLE QUAL (Table 1) we shoot to 500 Yards, that's correct. In Table 2 we only fire to 100 Meters, 3 and 4 are moving and night fire.

However, during regular training and during counter MG (Squad Rushes) we fire to 800 Meters accurately with M16A4, the table has not changed since they used M16A2's. (Marines 90 should have the A2 as it was standard since the mid 80's and the Marine Corps pushed for it)

Or, put another way, it's like they used to say, the M1903 has an effective range of 650 Yards, but Marines in France were killing Germans with them at 1000 yards with accurate fire. The book doesn't know everything.

The M16Ax has an effective range of 550 m/yds - seen both quoted in USMC manuals.

As a DM you will know the M14 was reintroduced to give a section accurate fire between 500 and 800m, this was replaced by the M39 and now by the M110 (although they also use the IAR I have seen), all to provide accurate fire out to 800m - now why would they bother if the bog standard booty with his M16A4 could do that anyway.

The limit with the M16 is down to the NATO 5.56mm round, which is why many nations adopted a NATO 7.62mm rifle for the DM (or their version) in each section to provide that bit of extra accurate fire.

The British used the L86 as a DM weapon for a short while even though it was 5.56mm because it could provide accurate fire out to 800-900m (much longer and heavier barrel coupled with a bipod), this was replaced though by a 7.62mm weapon.

Just because someone shoots ut to 800m with 5.56 does not mean they are capable of accurate fire - we used to shoot out to 800m but it was purely for suppressive fire, not accurate.

I have read many manuals and official USMC articles from 1988 up to 2016 all stating pretty much the same.

I won't argue with the manuals, but I will tell you that real life dictates, not a book.

Range 210 Alpha, 52 Area, Camp Horno, Camp Pendleton, California during School of Infantry, Infantry Training Battalion. We do live fire counter Machine Gun Squad Rushes and we have to put accurate fire on the MG bunker from 800 Meters, it's evaluated.

During CAX aboard 29 Palms, we have some DAMN long ranges we have to Squad Rush and counduct fire and manuver on, and they break you off if you're not ready for them.

I get what you're saying about the books, but you must understand that the book doesn't know everything and in combat you find that out in a hell of a hurry. We were taking shots (and making hits) on enemies beyond 500 if they presented a target. Nobody cared about the book in the field.

Also, the M14 was before my time, I did see some M21 DMR, but they were rare (Too expensive to mantain and required 2112 Master Armorers who were better used on building and maintaining M40 Sniper Rifles). I used the M39 EMR (a real POS we all hated) and the M110 SASS, as well as the Mk 12 SPR. I personally loved the M110 and the SPR. They're great platforms. That said. The M16A4 can do a lot more than most give her credit for. In DM school we learned a lot about that rifle and what it can really do. For example. Most of my instructors never mentioned (Maybe never learned) that you can turn an ACOG sideways and use it to correct Artillery fire, but you can. As you mentioned, the Round makes a massive difference, and I agree. The Mk 318 SOST round is very effective and hits harder than M80 Ball (147 Gr 7.62x51 NATO). The M118LR also does great work.

Let's quickly take a look at 7.62x51 NATO (.308) Some say that beyond 800 it has no accuracy and should not be used. But I've seen long range shooters take that round and hit a milk jug at 1760 Yards using 175 Gr or 168 Gr rounds. (1 Mile) BUT THE BOOK SAYS THAT CAN'T BE DONE. The book is wrong. I've seen Long Range shooters use 62 Gr and 77 Gr rounds and shoot at a torso sized steel plate (and make hits) at 1000 Yards. It's doable.

Hell, there was a laughable time where Army Sniper Manuals had no data for the M82A1 Barret beyond 1000 Yards! They were forced to ask Marines and write their own book about ELR Shots during OIF / OEF. This was well after Carlos Hathcock and other snipers used M2 Browning HMG's to make kills beyond 2000 in Vietnam.

I'm glad you have the books and you are well read, I appreciate that. But real world experience shows that sometimes the book is overly conservative, too generalistic, or incorrect.

If you prefer another example in another field, look at SCUBA Dive Tables for PADI (BOW, and AOW, with DEEP). They're VERY Conservative and have built in safety margins, with good reason, but are they super correct about Pressure Groups? No. They're general guidelines based on averages. They're a good rule to follow however.

We can also talk about "The book" for Structural or Wildland Firefighting. Ask any Crew, Nature and the real world do not care what the book says SHOULD happen, they have to face what DOES happen, and sometimes it and the book point completely different directions. (Wildland Firefighting Training fails to mention all the damn snakes BTW. They just wanna get away from the fire too, but holy crap somebody should mention those things.)

[Peregrine]

Originally posted by Tigger:

Sorry for the bit rambly WOT above, I'm not trying to make that a personal attack on you or anything. I'm just saying that we found the Manual is a good guideline, but there are a ton of times where stuff happens that the book says can't or shouldn't happen and it did and now you have to deal with it.

As far as Wargame is concerned. US forces should have a sniper unit, (I'd love it if they made it the Marine Scout Sniper Team) We should have access to the FGM 148 JAVELIN, the LAV 25 can transport 6 Marines in a Recon Unit, and the AH1W should carry AIM 9 Sidewinder (not AGM122 Sidearm) and AGM 114 Hellfire. The SH60 can carry the Sidearm for all I care, but the Cobra uses Hellfire.