Firefight ranges...

[stormlion1]

At longer ranges its harder to hit, simple as that. So troops deliberately wait for closer ranges because they can be assured of more hits. And by and large most troops don't have fancy scopes. They have to make do with iron sights.

[Olefin]

Really the range depends what you have for weapons

If you have sniper rifles then a good long range gun fight actually gives you a shot at getting some hits -but saw how hard it is even with a great rifle and good skill numbers - most recent fight we were in out of the first eight shots only two scored.

If you elect a combat shotgun and pistol then you better get in close or you have no chance at all.

[jester]

Close ambushes, yep, the closer the better, with some rules changes if its a "mechanical" using claymores. Those danger zones to the sides and back you know.

I would also point out the doctrine of the forces.

The Germans in WWII the MG was what the squad was all about and everyone supported the MG.

US, the rifleman is the key and MGs are a support weapon. I have honestly forgotten the soviet doctrine, never thought I would but I have.

Add to it, the weapons, SMGs in WWII were common with a max effective range of under 100m. And most of the time the Squad leader would have the SMGs, the man controlling the unit usualy initiates fire.

Just like Old Soviet doctrine, AKMS's and APCs to storm in and attack fast with overwhelming numbers, range wasn't a factor.

And the US now adopted a similar view with its modern "mech" tactics of Bradleys and now Strykers and M4s.

The vehicles get you in close then the troops dismount.

In a rush so down and dirty,

ASSETS of time and material.

How long does it take to train troops to shoot and engage at longer distances? More ammo, and more time. The cost benefit, is it worth it?

As I said before, doctrine and equipment imho have helped cause the reduced firefight range and training for it.

Lets remember, one of the rules of a gunfight is distance is your friend.

[kcdusk]

Something I've often overlooked is PCs/NPC's being able to spot the enemy at long distance.

Can a group spot a group at 800m+?
Can they determine friend/foe at that range?

Likely not, hence the shorter distances.

[ArmySGT.]

Originally Posted by stormlion1

At longer ranges its harder to hit, simple as that. So troops deliberately wait for closer ranges because they can be assured of more hits. And by and large most troops don't have fancy scopes. They have to make do with iron sights.

It also scared the bejeezus out of opposing forces in Iraq in 03; when you are coming at them full speed to close the distance. Whether that was a dog trot in full gear or a fast dash in a humvee. Units greater in size then us would break contact and haul ass.

The second reason for closing the gap was to limit indirect fires. Neither side wants to call arty/mortars down on friendlies. In 03, the advantage was to Coalition forces with more accurate fire at close range to friendly forces. GPS positioning of the requester and the tube makes a huge difference. Coalition forces were always able to call accurate fire, then the FO and the tube could displace rapidly making counter battery less effective. Even units on the ground could shift positions fast under indirect fire, with GPS and Blue Force tracker, units were baiting indirect fires to reveal enemy tubes to coalition counter battery or CAS.

[Apache6]

A basic tactical task is to assess both your weapons and your enemies and to use terrain to maximize the effectiveness of your weapons while minimizing the effectiveness of the enemies.

If you are equipped with M16s and your enemies are armed with Ak-47s/AKMs, then you are then you want to engage with surprise at ~ 200 - 400 meters. Ideally you want to engage from well covered and concealed positions while they are crossing a exposed piece of terrain and have an obstacle (barbed wire fence...) between you and them. Combined arms is always a good idea and US squads are built to allow them to apply effective combined arms at this range, once we open up with well aimed small arms fire from M16s, and burst of automatic fire from M249s, the grenadier lofts HE rounds to destroy clusters of enemies who have hit the deck due to the small arms fire or who take cover in depressions or behind other cover.

Conversely if they have BMP-2s and T-72s and you only have AT-4 rockets, 40mm HEDP rounds, molotov cocktails and cojones of brass, you want to engage them inside of 200m, the closer the better since AFV, espescially Soviet AFVs cannot depress their weapons to aim at the ground immedietly under them creating a deadspace that can be exploited by brave defenders. You also need to be aware of the minimum arming distance of the weapons you are using (40mm HEDP rds are from memory 30M, and AT-4s are 100M but I could be wrong). Reverse slope defense and urban defenses set up in the second or subsequent blocks 'inside' of an urban area are good ways to protect yourself until they get in close enough. Again, obstacles are good to minimize the number of vehicles coming at your position at one time. In this specifc instance you are absoloutely going to look to maximize flanking shots on the AFVs sine the armor is much weaker and vision and weapon systems are not as good to the sides. Well aimed rifle fire should quickly kill or force to button up any exposed crewmenmbers and them shoot up the vision blocks.

If you only have a pistol or grenades and they have AKMs then you need to manuever to get the enemy in close before he knows you are there or can engage you, and/or set up a boobytrap with the grndades.

Beyond the wepaoneering decision of over what terrain and range to engage, the next decision is how to use fire and maneuver to destroy the defending enemy.