Firing Ports

[CStock88]

I know this might sound like a really dumb question, but as someone whose primary military knowledge is the knowledge that he doesn't really know anything, I felt that it'd be good to ask to get some kind of clarification (if only to assuage my own curious mind!)...

...Firing ports on IFVs. I understand that they're there to allow the infantry being carried by the IFV to add their firepower to their vehicle without dismounting, but... how effective are they, really? Also, what would be the typical method for using them?

To be honest, ten guys blazing away through a small hole while their IFV rolls across anything rougher than, say, gently sloping hills, strikes me as kind of a... well, a silly prospect, really. Of course, I don't really know anything about it, so...

For some reason, I've always had the image in my mind that it was usually a better idea, if you're going to engage the enemy, to roll up to the engagement zone, pop smoke, dismount, and then use the infantry and the IFVs in concert to achieve the destruction / pacification of the target, whether through using the IFVs as a base of fire, or whatever method.

This particular train of thought struck me today while, in my free time on my day off, I was cooking up my next campaign for my friends and I, and I read about how the BMP-1 was such a major improvement. Of course, I also read that the M2 Bradley series has gotten rid of their firing ports...? Is this a reflection on the idea that firing ports really don't work that well?

Any clarification on this particular aspect of mechanized infantry warfare would be really appreciated!

[copeab]

Is this a reflection on the idea that firing ports really don't work that well?


They don't work that well. The soldiers firing through them have nowhere near the field of vision required for accurate fire. Additionally, vehicle motion wrecks weapon accuracy.

Using firing ports is about as useful as running through the jungle at nigfht randomly firing your gun full auto. You might accidentally hit something, but you are going to waste a lot of ammo in the process.

[Graebarde]

Well the THERORY was the added supressive fire in the assault, especially at the objective. Each IFV had enough modified (or were suppose to) M16 variants to go into each port, something like six. They were almost useless outside the port as they have no front sight from what I understand. But then the assault vehicle and mode of transport I had in the infantry were size 10 boots so what do I know eh?
Grae

[pmulcahy11b]

They don't work that well. The soldiers firing through them have nowhere near the field of vision required for accurate fire. Additionally, vehicle motion wrecks weapon accuracy.

Using firing ports is about as useful as running through the jungle at nigfht randomly firing your gun full auto. You might accidentally hit something, but you are going to waste a lot of ammo in the process.

Just to add to that, there is a significant parallax difference in the Bradley's firing ports -- you are looking through a vision block that's like a periscope so that while you are in your seat, the top of the vision block that looks outside is about 6 inches higher than your weapon. That's why the M-231's had magazines full of tracers -- you don't have a prayer of even firing in the right direction for suppressive fire any other way.

In the end, it was decided (correctly, IMHO) that having more armor was better than being able to poorly suppress enemy fire.

[Targan]

But then the assault vehicle and mode of transport I had in the infantry were size 10 boots so what do I know eh?
Same here :) Well, size 9 and a half boots but who's counting?

[pmulcahy11b]

Same here :) Well, size 9 and a half boots but who's counting?

And my tiny 8 Regular feet...

[CStock88]

Thanks for the answer, guys! It was actually pretty illuminating. I really appreciate it.

I guess it goes to show that, just because your possible enemy produces something new that looks cool super sleek, that doesn't mean it's automatically the death mobile you think it is! (Well, in the case of BMP-1, it was a death mobile... just... to the "wrong" folks, from the Soviet perspective!)

[ChalkLine]

I'd just like to say that all those publishers, authors and whatnot who made jibes about some nation's 'Battle Taxis' have been very quiet on the matter of firing ports ever since they turned out to be bloody useless. :snicker:

[ChalkLine]

Firing ports do have a use though.

Many nations brought out vehicles with firing ports long ago, back in the 60s in fact. One of my favourite vehicles; the MOWAG MR8, had a bunch of them.

What they were for seemed to be building a suppression base if the little vehicle found itself stuck in an area where it couldn't debus its troops. They blazed away as the vehicle sped off. They never actually thought the troops could fight any sort of real fight from inside though.

This is why the original M2's ports still can be useful. A soldier inside sees a figure in a window, he shouts a warning and sprinkles liberally the window with fairly unguided 5.56mm tracer. Everyone knows where the problem is, the possible RPG gunner is deterred and then you can 'make things happen' for a better outcome (ie: someone else throws a grenade though the window).

[Tegyrius]

They don't work that well. The soldiers firing through them have nowhere near the field of vision required for accurate fire. Additionally, vehicle motion wrecks weapon accuracy.

Using firing ports is about as useful as running through the jungle at nigfht randomly firing your gun full auto. You might accidentally hit something, but you are going to waste a lot of ammo in the process.
As a GM, I'm fine with anything that lets me separate my PCs from excess ammunition.

In Reflex, we model this by only allowing hip shots (the fastest but least accurate attacks) through firing ports. Vehicle movement is a separate penalty on top of the hip shot penalty, so accuracy drops off rapidly even with burst fire.

- C.