KGP and American Jeeps

Orphan76

Member
Joined
Apr 24, 2012
Messages
125
Reaction score
59
Location
Houston, TX
First name
Dan
Country
llUnited States
I am confused about how to determining if the American Jeeps come with AAMG? Can someone please explain how the RF works?

Thanks,
Dan V
 

klasmalmstrom

Forum Guru
Joined
Feb 26, 2003
Messages
19,778
Reaction score
7,203
Location
Sweden
Country
llSweden
I think you make a DR for each Jeep on H1.3 AVAILABILITY TABLE.

The RF for the Jeep's AAMG are (U.S. Multi-Applicable Vehicle Note O):
"If the MG is optional, its RF is 1.3 if 4 FP or 1.1 if 2 FP."

Table looks like this:
1.3 AVAILABILITY TABLE
Current RF Availability DR

1.6 ≤ 2
1.5 3
1.4 4
1.3 5
1.2 6
1.1 7
1.0 8, 11
.9 9, 10, ≥ 12

So if the DR is a <= 5, you get the 4-FP AAMG and if the DR is a 6 or 7 you get the 2-FP AAMG. Though I guess even if the DR is <= 5 one could choose the 2-FP AAMG instead of the 4-FP AAMG, if one for whatever reason would want to do that.
 

Actionjick

Forum Guru
Joined
Apr 23, 2020
Messages
7,468
Reaction score
4,995
Location
Kent, Ohio
First name
Darryl
Country
llUnited States
Though I guess even if the DR is <= 5 one could choose the 2-FP AAMG instead of the 4-FP AAMG, if one for whatever reason would want to do that.
[/QUOTE]

I would be interested if anyone has an answer to why the 2 FP instead of the 4 FP. Portage?
 

JR Brackin

Cardboard Challanged
Joined
Sep 9, 2006
Messages
1,699
Reaction score
574
Location
North of Philly
Country
llUnited States
I am not looking at the rules, but one is scrounged as a medium and the other as a heavy MG.
 

Orphan76

Member
Joined
Apr 24, 2012
Messages
125
Reaction score
59
Location
Houston, TX
First name
Dan
Country
llUnited States
Yes on the MMG or HMG plus if the Jeeps have MG's they also have crews so I was looking at getting more infantry with the addition of extra FP.
 

Actionjick

Forum Guru
Joined
Apr 23, 2020
Messages
7,468
Reaction score
4,995
Location
Kent, Ohio
First name
Darryl
Country
llUnited States
I am not looking at the rules, but one is scrounged as a medium and the other as a heavy MG.
This all seems bizarre to me. The AAMG is 2 FP while mounted on the jeep but when removed becomes a 4 FP medium MG and the 4 FP AAMG becomes a 6 FP heavy MG. Am I missing something or just dense in the old brainpan?
 

klasmalmstrom

Forum Guru
Joined
Feb 26, 2003
Messages
19,778
Reaction score
7,203
Location
Sweden
Country
llSweden
MG when mounter on vehicles typically have less FP than their 1/2" SW equivalents.

Also the 4-FP AAMG on a Jeep is a .50-cal HMG.
 

Actionjick

Forum Guru
Joined
Apr 23, 2020
Messages
7,468
Reaction score
4,995
Location
Kent, Ohio
First name
Darryl
Country
llUnited States
MG when mounter on vehicles typically have less FP than their 1/2" SW equivalents.

Also the 4-FP AAMG on a Jeep is a .50-cal HMG.
What is the reason for less FP when mounted, do you know? Harder or more awkward to service the weapon perhaps?
 

klasmalmstrom

Forum Guru
Joined
Feb 26, 2003
Messages
19,778
Reaction score
7,203
Location
Sweden
Country
llSweden
What is the reason for less FP when mounted, do you know? Harder or more awkward to service the weapon perhaps?
Footnote 6 in Chapter D:
6. 3.5 VEHICULAR MG/IFE FIRE: A vehicular MG is not given Multiple ROF capability unless it is listed as the vehicle’s MA because of the limited vision and multiple duties of its one-man crew. This is especially true of BMG/CMG armament, which is usually secondary armament and cannot even bring fire to bear without special movement of either the vehicle or the turret (which may well be a hindrance to other tasks of the vehicle with a higher priority). Similarly, although the AAMG of many tanks is often the equivalent of a MMG or HMG in terms of equipment, it is still manned by only one man—whose other duties are usually deemed more important (and less dangerous) than the manning of an exposed MG.
 

Actionjick

Forum Guru
Joined
Apr 23, 2020
Messages
7,468
Reaction score
4,995
Location
Kent, Ohio
First name
Darryl
Country
llUnited States
Footnote 6 in Chapter D:
6. 3.5 VEHICULAR MG/IFE FIRE: A vehicular MG is not given Multiple ROF capability unless it is listed as the vehicle’s MA because of the limited vision and multiple duties of its one-man crew. This is especially true of BMG/CMG armament, which is usually secondary armament and cannot even bring fire to bear without special movement of either the vehicle or the turret (which may well be a hindrance to other tasks of the vehicle with a higher priority). Similarly, although the AAMG of many tanks is often the equivalent of a MMG or HMG in terms of equipment, it is still manned by only one man—whose other duties are usually deemed more important (and less dangerous) than the manning of an exposed MG.
Well done! Thanks!! Was feeding the hoard of felines while pondering this and didn't think to check the rules.??
 

Ric of The LBC

Elder Member
Joined
Oct 22, 2017
Messages
1,882
Reaction score
1,839
Location
Peoples Republic of California
Country
llUnited States
Footnote 6 in Chapter D:
6. 3.5 VEHICULAR MG/IFE FIRE: A vehicular MG is not given Multiple ROF capability unless it is listed as the vehicle’s MA because of the limited vision and multiple duties of its one-man crew. This is especially true of BMG/CMG armament, which is usually secondary armament and cannot even bring fire to bear without special movement of either the vehicle or the turret (which may well be a hindrance to other tasks of the vehicle with a higher priority). Similarly, although the AAMG of many tanks is often the equivalent of a MMG or HMG in terms of equipment, it is still manned by only one man—whose other duties are usually deemed more important (and less dangerous) than the manning of an exposed MG.
unless you are Brad Pitt.
 

Eagle4ty

Forum Guru
Joined
Nov 7, 2007
Messages
6,913
Reaction score
5,094
Location
Eau Claire, Wi
Country
llUnited States
What is the reason for less FP when mounted, do you know? Harder or more awkward to service the weapon perhaps?
Even in reality the range and accuracy of a ground mount weapon system is usually greater and more accurate than a vehicle mounted weapon system. To illustrate this point I will use the M2 HB .50-cal. (I was looking for my old handy-dandy whiz wheel calculator here but couldn't find it. Be advised I'm going from memory here so those with hard/better data are welcomed to correct any inaccuracies):
  • The vehicle mounted M2 has a effective engagement range of around 1280m (IIRC) with an expected first round burst (6-9 rounds) accuracy of 15-25% and a sustained accuracy rate of 25-40% of rounds falling within the target area. The reason for this is kind of counter-intuitive being that one would think the vehicle pintle mount is a more stable firing platform affording a better engagement percentage, this is simply not the case. The vehicle mount system is normally fired by a operator placing the butterfly triggers about center mass of their chest, estimating range and deflection, and walking the the impacts into the target area. Because of the height of the firers eyes above the sight of the weapon (about a foot to 18") and the rise and right hand twist caused by recoil, every time he pauses in his fire the operator must again reengage the target area by estimation and bring the fall of rounds back on target. (BTW he must pause with his bursts as well, not only to reacquire the target, but to mitigate heat build up in the system).
  • The Ground mount system by comparison has an effective engagement range of around 1800m (again IIRC) with a first burst accuracy of 30-60% and a sustained engagement rate of 40-80% falling within the engagement area. The reasons for this are varied. Firstly the weapon system mounted on a tripod mount is a much more stable firing platform, especially if given enough time to dig it in and set your target parameters. Reasons will include the use of a traverse and elevating mechanism attached to the gun and mount that allows the operator to make relatively minute adjustments to targeting and offers additional stability in to the firing platform which decreases re-engagement time and increases accuracy; The operator of a ground mount system sits (or is in a hole standing) with his face roughly aligned with the mounted sights of the piece and is better able to accurately assess the strike/fall of the rounds and make adjustments as necessary; The fact that a ground mount system is usually crew served and thus offers greater flexibility in ammo resupply, barrel change, or help in reducing stoppages, not to mention another set of eyes to assess targets of opportunity.
Add in range cards and pre-mission planning for the use of the weapon in defensive postures and the disparities noted in ASL may seem a bit understated.
 

Actionjick

Forum Guru
Joined
Apr 23, 2020
Messages
7,468
Reaction score
4,995
Location
Kent, Ohio
First name
Darryl
Country
llUnited States
Even in reality the range and accuracy of a ground mount weapon system is usually greater and more accurate than a vehicle mounted weapon system. To illustrate this point I will use the M2 HB .50-cal. (I was looking for my old handy-dandy whiz wheel calculator here but couldn't find it. Be advised I'm going from memory here so those with hard/better data are welcomed to correct any inaccuracies):
  • The vehicle mounted M2 has a effective engagement range of around 1280m (IIRC) with an expected first round burst (6-9 rounds) accuracy of 15-25% and a sustained accuracy rate of 25-40% of rounds falling within the target area. The reason for this is kind of counter-intuitive being that one would think the vehicle pintle mount is a more stable firing platform affording a better engagement percentage, this is simply not the case. The vehicle mount system is normally fired by a operator placing the butterfly triggers about center mass of their chest, estimating range and deflection, and walking the the impacts into the target area. Because of the height of the firers eyes above the sight of the weapon (about a foot to 18") and the rise and right hand twist caused by recoil, every time he pauses in his fire the operator must again reengage the target area by estimation and bring the fall of rounds back on target. (BTW he must pause with his bursts as well, not only to reacquire the target, but to mitigate heat build up in the system).
  • The Ground mount system by comparison has an effective engagement range of around 1800m (again IIRC) with a first burst accuracy of 30-60% and a sustained engagement rate of 40-80% falling within the engagement area. The reasons for this are varied. Firstly the weapon system mounted on a tripod mount is a much more stable firing platform, especially if given enough time to dig it in and set your target parameters. Reasons will include the use of a traverse and elevating mechanism attached to the gun and mount that allows the operator to make relatively minute adjustments to targeting and offers additional stability in to the firing platform which decreases re-engagement time and increases accuracy; The operator of a ground mount system sits (or is in a hole standing) with his face roughly aligned with the mounted sights of the piece and is better able to accurately assess the strike/fall of the rounds and make adjustments as necessary; The fact that a ground mount system is usually crew served and thus offers greater flexibility in ammo resupply, barrel change, or help in reducing stoppages, not to mention another set of eyes to assess targets of opportunity.
Add in range cards and pre-mission planning for the use of the weapon in defensive postures and the disparities noted in ASL may seem a bit understated.
Damn that's probably one the best answers I've ever gotten. It's nice to get info from someone who knows his sh!t. ?????

This information really reinforces the accuracy of the rule. They didn't get everything right but this is a nice example of how much they did get right.
 

von Marwitz

Forum Guru
Joined
Nov 25, 2010
Messages
14,358
Reaction score
10,208
Location
Kraut Corner
Country
llUkraine
Even in reality the range and accuracy of a ground mount weapon system is usually greater and more accurate than a vehicle mounted weapon system. To illustrate this point I will use the M2 HB .50-cal. (I was looking for my old handy-dandy whiz wheel calculator here but couldn't find it. Be advised I'm going from memory here so those with hard/better data are welcomed to correct any inaccuracies):
  • The vehicle mounted M2 has a effective engagement range of around 1280m (IIRC) with an expected first round burst (6-9 rounds) accuracy of 15-25% and a sustained accuracy rate of 25-40% of rounds falling within the target area. The reason for this is kind of counter-intuitive being that one would think the vehicle pintle mount is a more stable firing platform affording a better engagement percentage, this is simply not the case. The vehicle mount system is normally fired by a operator placing the butterfly triggers about center mass of their chest, estimating range and deflection, and walking the the impacts into the target area. Because of the height of the firers eyes above the sight of the weapon (about a foot to 18") and the rise and right hand twist caused by recoil, every time he pauses in his fire the operator must again reengage the target area by estimation and bring the fall of rounds back on target. (BTW he must pause with his bursts as well, not only to reacquire the target, but to mitigate heat build up in the system).
  • The Ground mount system by comparison has an effective engagement range of around 1800m (again IIRC) with a first burst accuracy of 30-60% and a sustained engagement rate of 40-80% falling within the engagement area. The reasons for this are varied. Firstly the weapon system mounted on a tripod mount is a much more stable firing platform, especially if given enough time to dig it in and set your target parameters. Reasons will include the use of a traverse and elevating mechanism attached to the gun and mount that allows the operator to make relatively minute adjustments to targeting and offers additional stability in to the firing platform which decreases re-engagement time and increases accuracy; The operator of a ground mount system sits (or is in a hole standing) with his face roughly aligned with the mounted sights of the piece and is better able to accurately assess the strike/fall of the rounds and make adjustments as necessary; The fact that a ground mount system is usually crew served and thus offers greater flexibility in ammo resupply, barrel change, or help in reducing stoppages, not to mention another set of eyes to assess targets of opportunity.
Add in range cards and pre-mission planning for the use of the weapon in defensive postures and the disparities noted in ASL may seem a bit understated.
Very informative post!
I was thinking the same thing up to now - pintle being more stable than ground deployment.
Now, I not only know that this is not the case but also understand why.

von Marwitz
 
Top