Why in RO on a MG is tracer. In war chronicle i never see its. Only in night fight. In WW2 Machingunner masking as well. But in game after first burst of fire you are staying a dainty dish. What you think, ppl?
MG tracer
- Thread starter ha$h
- Start date
Discussed a alot in earlier threads. Use search.
And MG belts (at least factory loaded) almost always had tracers.
In RO they are too long and bright. That
And MG belts (at least factory loaded) almost always had tracers.
In RO they are too long and bright. That
Upvote
0
MG-42,34, and the Russian MG's had almost no tracer. Maybe at night, but it had almost no tracing lights at day light. I hate how you deploy, an MG, shoot 1, or 2 bullets, and every one see the dam* light. It's like if the MachinGunner was saying: "I'm right here, shoot me!".
Upvote
0
Upvote
0
From what I have read, the standard belt configuration for the German MGs was to have tracer interspersed at regular intervals. In fact real life tracer would leave a much clearly trace to and from the MG. However it is also important to remember that in real life it's much harder to pick off the head of an MG gunner concealed behind sand bags than it is in game, and also the fear of death that having tracer wizz over you head would really cause is difficult to emulate in game.
In my opinion MG tracer is one of those things that you really need to decide which part of realism you want to see in game. If you want the the game to look real then tracer for MGs is necersary. However if you want MGs that have a major impact on the batlefield and are a challenge to dislodge then the amount tracer telegraphs your location needs to be looked at.
Personaly I vote for the latter.
In my opinion MG tracer is one of those things that you really need to decide which part of realism you want to see in game. If you want the the game to look real then tracer for MGs is necersary. However if you want MGs that have a major impact on the batlefield and are a challenge to dislodge then the amount tracer telegraphs your location needs to be looked at.
Personaly I vote for the latter.
Upvote
0
Yeah. I've played with .30 and .50 cal machine guns firing tracers. I'm pretty content with the way that tracers look right now ... They're maybe a -hair- long, but it's not that far out of whack as to be a realism problem.
If your only experience with tracer rounds is watching them on old WWII film footage or on video clips on the internet, you really aren't getting the full reality of them. The shutter speed on the cameras is a lot shorter than on your eye, so they look shorter on film than they do in real life. Also, for the WWII footage, remember the film is pretty badly degraded by now, in a lot of cases.
If your only experience with tracer rounds is watching them on old WWII film footage or on video clips on the internet, you really aren't getting the full reality of them. The shutter speed on the cameras is a lot shorter than on your eye, so they look shorter on film than they do in real life. Also, for the WWII footage, remember the film is pretty badly degraded by now, in a lot of cases.
Upvote
0
I've already posted this in another thread concerning the same subject. I asked my granduncle - 93 years old - some weeks ago about the tracers. He was put in charge of 2 mg teams on the Eastern front in '44. He said that they fired tracers every now and then, but not regularly.
I don't know if they didn't get enough belts with tracers or if they removed them on purpose. Please also keep in mind that the machine guns were issued with a belt feeding machine. My grandpa once said that the gunners sometimes removed some rounds from a belt, thus creating stoppages to prevent the gun from eating too quickly through the ammo. I wouldn't say this was common practice as my grandpa served in Finland and the supply situation there might have been worse than on the rest of the Eastern front.
I would like to see the tracers removed - at least as an option - or make it harder to pinpoint their exact origin.
I don't know if they didn't get enough belts with tracers or if they removed them on purpose. Please also keep in mind that the machine guns were issued with a belt feeding machine. My grandpa once said that the gunners sometimes removed some rounds from a belt, thus creating stoppages to prevent the gun from eating too quickly through the ammo. I wouldn't say this was common practice as my grandpa served in Finland and the supply situation there might have been worse than on the rest of the Eastern front.
I would like to see the tracers removed - at least as an option - or make it harder to pinpoint their exact origin.
Upvote
0
Posted this in another thread and just copied it to this one. Don't think because there were traces in the stock belts, that they were used that often. There are situations at which they shine and some at which they suck, there are even ways to use tracers to get an advantage, e.g. ingiting straw or grass to start small fires so yes I pretty much think that the soldiers made their own belts according to what they wanted them to look like.
Upvote
0
Tracers
Tracers
Wouldn't know about WW2 but in Afghanistan Russian MGunners took away tracer rounds from mg belts. You can read alot of occounts about tracers giving away a position. (go to www.artofwar.ru you have to speak russian though) The usual number of ordinary bullets between tracers would be 5 or 6 if you put less bullets in between you get more exposed, but its harder to track your fire if you have less. Sometimes tracers are totally useless when you can see impacts anyway. In war you have time to prepare anything since actually its only 10% action and 90% waiting and preparing. The time it takes to wipe out a large amount of people is ridiculously low when **** hits the fan
Tracers
Wouldn't know about WW2 but in Afghanistan Russian MGunners took away tracer rounds from mg belts. You can read alot of occounts about tracers giving away a position. (go to www.artofwar.ru you have to speak russian though) The usual number of ordinary bullets between tracers would be 5 or 6 if you put less bullets in between you get more exposed, but its harder to track your fire if you have less. Sometimes tracers are totally useless when you can see impacts anyway. In war you have time to prepare anything since actually its only 10% action and 90% waiting and preparing. The time it takes to wipe out a large amount of people is ridiculously low when **** hits the fan
Upvote
0
Wouldn't know about WW2 but in Afghanistan Russian MGunners took away tracer rounds from mg belts. You can read alot of occounts about tracers giving away a position. (go to www.artofwar.ru you have to speak russian though) The usual number of ordinary bullets between tracers would be 5 or 6 if you put less bullets in between you get more exposed, but its harder to track your fire if you have less. Sometimes tracers are totally useless when you can see impacts anyway. In war you have time to prepare anything since actually its only 10% action and 90% waiting and preparing. The time it takes to wipe out a large amount of people is ridiculously low when **** hits the fan
It is the big site, there it is a lot of texts. It is possible a full reference?
Upvote
0