use of support weapons

The main thing, now I think on it, that people have used for a support weapon rule which I definitely do not like at all is the 400 fps limit.

You mean it should have more range than a SMG? Absolutely. We've still got the compliance / possible legality issues of the 1 Joule threshold though.

The main thing, now I think on it, that people have used for a support weapon rule which I definitely do not like at all is the 400 fps limit.

You mean it should have more range than a SMG? Absolutely. We've still got the compliance / possible legality issues of the 1 Joule threshold though.

The 1 Joule is the problem I have with them, 400 is too high. They should be 350 fps, everything should be 350 fps in my secret book of peeves, but high ROF automatic weapons with no minimum engagement range should deffo be 350 or less.

Should they have more range than an SMG? absolutely... in a perfect world. But in having to choose the lesser of two evils I will choose not being torn into painfully by a hot automatic gun over giving them an extra range.

remember an ammo drum only had 50 rounds, which would last for just seconds on full auto.

They were supposed to be fired in five round bursts, fifty rounds over the course of a minute (if that was what was directed by the gun commander).

wrt the GPMG type weapons (which is only really the MG34/43 and maybe the bipod mounted .30 cal in WW2) in the light role, they also used belted ammo as well as assault drums. I do have the manual somewhere which says how many of each.

Real steel ammo limits are certainly worth a try, which means around 1200 for an MG42 in the section LMG role. As mentioned earlier in the thread, in some ways ammo limits aren't the problem, it is the rate of resupply. You might limit SMGs to 210 rounds (7 x mags of 30ea), but if you can restock that on each and every 'life'....

Different ammo limits, resupply, regen/medic mechanisms etc are all just tools for the game designer to use. Different styles of game will use different mixes of tools and different limits.

I rather like the 'ammo has to last you all day' approach in Eagles. I am also a big fan of 'anything which goes bang kills you (even smoke) , which also saves a lot of pratting around and means people get to use their mortars

Cheers
Martin

I do hope all this flim-flam hasn't prompted Tony to sell his two MGs, thinking there are unwanted part of games now or a problem in some way. Properly used (by that I just mean not as an SMG substitute) they can form an awesome part of games - it's a real challenge to attack against well-fed defensive MGs (and I do like challenges in WW2 games) and MGs are rarely specifically catered-for in WW2 games, which is a shame.

Some good points have been raised here, I feel that tighter squad/section organisation in a 'rifle' game is the way. Most games often disintegrate into free for alls that often mean specialist weapons become un-use able! realistic squad/section dynamics should help with this. Having specific roles and responsibilities within the squad can focus players and may also help keep games on task too! I often feel lack of organisation or command leads players into making decisions for themselves and 'wandering off'. So to put it more directly - realistic squad/section (support gunner/ no 2 gunner/rifleman/medic etc) implementation, rifle dominated game play thus giving the support weapon its advantage. Otherwise it becomes a big smg! When support weapons are deployed well they can have a huge influence on a game! Just ask any one who was at Devils Hill trying to assault the bunker!! It was a proper meat grinder!!

Devils hill was me an tiny with the 42
We only had one 250 wind mag and i wound while he fired, i also used my tanaka k98 when he was reloading mags. I loved that game, and kudos to the us guys who ran in to mg fire again and again, every mag change we did the tide line of us bodys got closer, some guys still didnt see the bunker when they were dead 6 feet away

Good game

i spent half an hour lying on my back, pinned in a drainage ditch in front of that bloody bunker. every move was met with a hail of bb's 2 inches above my nose. you guys absolutely mullered us. but that was the point! a well manned, well positioned mg caused havock, made us make either rash or ill-concieved decisions or had us pinned for ages. we only got a break when you ran out of ammo. It was proberbly one of the most frustrating and realistic encounters I've had playing airsoft. commanders were arguing over how to take the gun out, soldiers were bemoaning the lack off command and orders and lots of hesitation and doubt flowed through the ranks. it was helped by the density of the trees as smg fire was no more effective than rifles or pistols as we couldnt bloody see you.

Very interesting discussion, lots of very good points made so far.

From an airsoft POV, the ONLY real advantage that a support weapon has over any other airsoft weapon is it's potentially larger ammo capacity. PERIOD!

The disadvantages are many; heavy, unweildy, must be deployed, slow to depoy, slow to bring to bear on targets, and hard to deploy effectively depending on site or terrain. Even at an open day with unlimited ammo and the ability to fire from the hip, your still likely to be owned by the kiddy with the drum-magged plastic M4!

Anyway if the ammo available to a support gun is restricted to the same or similar levels as an SMG, then it really ceases to be an effective weapon at all and is useful only as a prop or an objective.

Ammo should not be unlimited of course and fire discipline and stopages to simulate belt and barrel changes really need to be in place, but I think an MG really should be able to "out-gun" other types of weapons and the only practical way of doing that is with more ammo. (I'm also not a fan of the 400fps option).

As has already been said, limits should be specific to the event and scenario and at the discretion of the organiser.

I do also like the idea of distributing ammo among the squad when possible. Also perhaps the ammo limits should be placed on the weapon itself and not "per life" of the operator!?

As people have said, the menace of an MG is a actually a good thing and has only added to the experience of those facing them. At the Il Giogo Pass game the 2 Bren guns caused total havoc with the germans the whole day, the constant shouts of "look out! Bren gun!" and "take out that bloody Bren gunner!" were brilliant and made the event all the more immersive.

In summary I think it is true to say that we all like to see support weapons at events, they are "cool" and they definitely add to the realism and immersion factor. If we take away or restrict too heavily the only advantage they have over other airsoft weapons then people just won't bother to buy, build, or bring them to events which would be a crying shame!

Here's something that happened at one of CiA's games.

We were defending a really well placed position and the entire team decided to pool all of their ammo at a central place, or to pass ammo from one to another so that we could defend all sides of the position without the need to fall back or reposition too much.

We had one support weapon, a few SMGs and a number of rifles. We ended up holding the position for aaages.

In real terms, the ammo would not have been cross-compatible amongst weapons. It didn't occur to us at the time that we were pooling ammo between incompatible weapons.

Question: Was it within the spirit of the rules to pool our ammo in that way, or were we being a bit ghey?

i don't have a problem with that,i think there is a limit to the need to think that deeply,in fact it probably really enhanced the experience of a siege situation.

At gunmans border clash game i used my maxim gun and carrage
The gun had a 300 rd wind up mag.
The steel sheild made it almost invinceable from the front , but i was flanked and killed a few times.
Also it sounded beefier than it really was a the aeg (m4) was inside a steel gun body that amplified the sound.

The reason i mention it was the fear it put into the germans.
I would be draging the gun allong ( no easy task in forrest and foot deep mud) and i would see the germans, it took about 15 seconds to get in to action ( swivel gun, get down, open ammo tin)) by that point most germans had either run away or were already moveing out to the flanks, but it did a grand job of area denial, and in defence or ambush very few tried head on attacks. So whilst i didnt kill many people, i still had a great day and fired lots of ammo, using the mg as realisticly as i could

Here's something that happened at one of CiA's games.

We were defending a really well placed position and the entire team decided to pool all of their ammo at a central place, or to pass ammo from one to another so that we could defend all sides of the position without the need to fall back or reposition too much.

We had one support weapon, a few SMGs and a number of rifles. We ended up holding the position for aaages.

In real terms, the ammo would not have been cross-compatible amongst weapons. It didn't occur to us at the time that we were pooling ammo between incompatible weapons.

Question: Was it within the spirit of the rules to pool our ammo in that way, or were we being a bit ghey?

I personally like the idea of that scenario, ok you could maybe refine it and say only people with SMG's can swap ammo and the people with rifles and MG's do like wise, but as I say sounded good.
My thought to MG ammo limits is keep it at 2000-2500 as the only real advantage to an MG in airsoft is the amount of fire it can put out over a rifle or SMG'S with limited ammo. As has been mentioned a BB does not have the same effect as a 303 or 7.92 round but being able to put out large quantities of BB's does make people keep their heads down. Maybe just a refinement of mag sizes would be better oh and in my opinion yes a MG should be a 2man team effort, I did my first WW2 game with a .30cal gunner and my cousin as loader and we loved it, just swapped round through the day.

At gunmans border clash game i used my maxim gun and carrage
The gun had a 300 rd wind up mag.
The steel sheild made it almost invinceable from the front , but i was flanked and killed a few times.
Also it sounded beefier than it really was a the aeg (m4) was inside a steel gun body that amplified the sound.

The reason i mention it was the fear it put into the germans.
I would be draging the gun allong ( no easy task in forrest and foot deep mud) and i would see the germans, it took about 15 seconds to get in to action ( swivel gun, get down, open ammo tin)) by that point most germans had either run away or were already moveing out to the flanks, but it did a grand job of area denial, and in defence or ambush very few tried head on attacks. So whilst i didnt kill many people, i still had a great day and fired lots of ammo, using the mg as realisticly as i could

that was a good day, the noise of that thing was great, the times we took the middle base, I think, and then were beaten back with the maxim giving support just made for a top day of game play.

Here's something that happened at one of CiA's games.

We were defending a really well placed position and the entire team decided to pool all of their ammo at a central place, or to pass ammo from one to another so that we could defend all sides of the position without the need to fall back or reposition too much.

We had one support weapon, a few SMGs and a number of rifles. We ended up holding the position for aaages.

In real terms, the ammo would not have been cross-compatible amongst weapons. It didn't occur to us at the time that we were pooling ammo between incompatible weapons.

Question: Was it within the spirit of the rules to pool our ammo in that way, or were we being a bit ghey?

Depends.
Even if you ignore the element of compatibility, pooling the ammo surely means that one gun has lots but others are silent. You make a choice as to what gun that's going to be and stick with it. Tag-teaming with an imaginary ammo box just so you don't have to repo a MG does sound a bit like looking for a loophole in the game rules. Again, it's all down to what sort of a game was being run tho.

Almost every army in WW2 had a squad support weapon that ran on the standard rifle cartridge for just those reasons.
Rifles are handy for some jobs but lay down some healthy lead with an MG and you are sweeping that area clean.
If you need that heavy weight of fire you give up your rifle ammo to the gun group.

yes, but that ammunition needs to be fed into the appropriate magazines or belts though. It takes a bit of time. If you're ignoring that time factor and pooling ammunition purely in order to instantly circumvent individual ammo limits for a range of different weapons, I'd consider that to not be in the spirit of the game.

yes, but that ammunition needs to be fed into the appropriate magazines or belts though. It takes a bit of time. If you're ignoring that time factor and pooling ammunition purely in order to instantly circumvent individual ammo limits for a range of different weapons, I'd consider that to not be in the spirit of the game.

Well, that's kinda what we thought afterwards. But in the heat of the game we realised people were running out of ammo and we were under attack from multiple angles. We quickly decided that the best way to defend the position was to put the ammo where it was needed rather than moving people so we had a runner in place to move it to whoever called for it. As our MG was only putting in the occasional short burst, we were able to move a large amount of that ammo and put it into SMGs and rifles elsewhere.

It wasn't a pre-determined circumvention of the rules, it was a decision made on how to ensure people had ammo quickly whilst under fire.

It takes a bit of time. If you're ignoring that time factor

Not really, especially as you have a number of riflemen not doing much as you are stuffing their ammo in MG mags/belts. I dont think time is really a factor in this equation. I have first hand experience of such a situation and with 3 mags, 1 guy shooting and two loading we were never really short of mags.
That it may not be in the spirit of the game I totally agree.

from the sounds of it the mg had the most impact (and fun) when it did not have ammo limits.

but if restricting could you not use the ratio of real steel mg's to real steel smg/rifles. so if a rifle man had 6 clips of 5 rounds, therefore 30 rounds and an mg had 4 x 50 round belts you have a ratio of 6.66 to 1.

so in an airsoft game, if rifle players were given 300 bb's then the mg would get 2000, whereby you keep the same ratio to the real thing.

works the same for an smg - if they had 6 mags of 30 rounds so 180 total rounds they had a 6:1 ratio to rifles (pretty sure riflemen had more clips but not sure of the cuff).

is that to simplistic and not really relevent? due to the volume of bb's??????

from the sounds of it the mg had the most impact (and fun) when it did not have ammo limits.

but if restricting could you not use the ratio of real steel mg's to real steel smg/rifles. so if a rifle man had 6 clips of 5 rounds, therefore 30 rounds and an mg had 4 x 50 round belts you have a ratio of 6.66 to 1.

so in an airsoft game, if rifle players were given 300 bb's then the mg would get 2000, whereby you keep the same ratio to the real thing.

works the same for an smg - if they had 6 mags of 30 rounds so 180 total rounds they had a 6:1 ratio to rifles (pretty sure riflemen had more clips but not sure of the cuff).

I was replying in a very similar manner until I got distracted.

I would say the ratios are more like 15 to 1 LMG to rifle and 3 to 1 SMG to rifle

e.g.

Rifle 50 rounds
SMG 150 rounds
LMG 750 rounds but the actual gunner probably only had 120 of those.

Although I did see this too:

WWII British 10-man rifle section armament and ammunition (official):
-8 Lee-Enfield rifles, 50 rounds each
-1 Sten SMG, 160 rounds
-1 Bren LMG, 1000 rounds (spread through the squad, around 100 for each for six riflemen, the other 400 for the three-man LMG team)
-10 grenades

My figures would give 1,300 rounds in a 10 man section and those quoted 1,560.

Personally I would weight as follows:

Rifle 100-150 rounds
SMG 200-250 rounds
LMG 1,250-1,500 rounds

I think by limiting SMG ammunition you will make the user more cautious about firing off randomly but waiting for a clearer probably closer contact, thereby stopping them being used as support weapons.