Resolve an argument concerning the realism of a particular computer game for me.
Princhester is in a fox hole up one side of a valley. The Enemy is about 150-200 yards away across the valley with a clear line of sight to my foxhole, all set up with an M60.
I pop my head and shoulders up, and he has time to get off one half or maybe one second burst.
I dead.
How realistic? I would have thought that 150-200 yards was a pretty ambitious sort of range for a single short burst from an M60 to have much chance, but I have no experience with these things.
Not really, considering it would take you at least a full second or more to realize there’s a viable target, bring sights onto it, accurately aim, and squeeze the trigger (and that’s for a damn good soldier). Don’t forget travel time of the rounds (which would be negligible at 150-200 yds, given an effective range of 1100 meters). Also, if you’re under some sort of cover, that would cut down the effective target quite a bit.
M60s aren’t known for their precision, but for their rate of fire. Given a burst of say, 10 rounds at a full man-sized target just standing in the open, 2 or 3 would likely hit you. I can’t remember the accuracy of their cone of fire, but the sheer volume of fire at that range would most likely get you.
I may qualify on it later on this spring. I’ll let you know.
Tripler
But I missed ‘Expert’ on the M-9 by two rounds last week, dammit. :mad:
I don’t think the dynamics of any video game are particularly realistic when it comes to guns, particularly bursts on machine guns which aren’t the best for accuracy. That wouldn’t be a difficult shot in semi-auto mode, probably easier than full auto.
Sorry, my browser ‘burped’, and I accidentally posted that link in the wrong place in my post.
Given a range of 150-200 yards and an effective range of, shall we just say for simplicity 1100 yards, the cone of fire would be relatively tight. You’d get hit.
Tripler
Although “dead” instantly is relative to where you’re hit.
Anyway a lot of it depends on the shooter. The m-60 (and in the vietcong game also) is not a very accurate gun but short bursts, an awareness of the “cone of fire” and a steady hand can make up for a lot.
Try the stenII. That gun kicks ass in the jungel!
Wait… so you’re in a foxhole and the enemy is only a couple hundred meters away across a large open area??? And you pop your head up? You’re deader then shit!
You’re in a known location relatively a stone’s throw away from them by M60 standards. It’s no difficult task to have your location in the sights just waiting for a head to pop up. Plus, if they had a tripod, that makes it all that much easier. Just dial in your Fox Hole with the T&E, sit and wait. Kinda like that mole bashing game. Accept you’d know where the mole was going to pop up next. It’s not like you were out there jumping around and randomly popping up in all different places. They knew where you were. They just needed to wait for the oppurtunity to see you.
that is a good point.
Vietcong (and several other more recent games) take inot account a persons stance and movement when figuring accuracy.
An m-60 from a prone or even kneeling position is quite a bit more accurate than you will get while running around shooting from the hip.
Having actually fired one and being qualified to stand watch with one (I’m in the military), I’d find it unrealistic to be moving around with one. You’re gonna have to be pretty rip to hold that thing steady. You can fire from the hip, but, once again, you are goingt o haev to be strong and experienced.
But, as for 150-200 yds, sure, assuming a 5 round bursts with someone in prone position and the M60 tripod on the ground, you’ll get hit. The first 2 shots should be pretty close on. After that, even holding the gun down with your other arm it kicks around a bit and the bullets will wander a little.
Now, if you died due to a “head shot” the person who got you was pretty lucky.
