Obambam
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Jan 17, 2011
- Messages
- 3,646
- Reaction score
- 0
- Country
- Location
Maximum PC | Maximum Interview: We Talk Battlefield 3 with a Navy SEAL - Page 1
It's a good read but too long for me to quote, if you want to finish reading it, be sure to click on the link. I've only quoted page 1 of 2.
Maximum Interview: We Talk Battlefield 3 with a Navy SEAL
Posted 11/11/2011 at 11:37am | by Gordon Mah Ung
Video games, like movies, are more about entertainment than realism. Yet game developers spend an inordinate amount of time modeling weapons, recording the sound from actual weapon systems and calculating how much damage a bullet should do. Since firearms are such a big part of first person shooters, we wanted to get the low down on the current state of firearms in video games and how they rate in real life.
What's wrong with this picture? If you guessed, where's my rear sight, you guessed right. In real life, not having a rear sight would greatly diminish your ability to hit anything beyond 30 feet. There's no one to blame though, this Marine probably just hasn't unlocked his sights or bullets yet.
To get the view of an expert, Maximum PC magazine spoke with Craig “Sawman” Sawyer. Sawyer started his tactical life with the Marine Corp before moving to the Navy SEALS with SEAL Team One and DEVGRU. Sawyer has fired everything from pistols, to belt-fed weapons and rockets. He regularly appears on the History Channel show, Top Shot, as an expert to advise the contestants and is consulted by the news media to comment on operations by the Navy SEALs.
MPC: First, how did you get the handle Sawman?
Sawman: I first got the nickname, "SAWMAN" from my football buddies growing up back in Texas. It was just a play on my last name, Sawyer. The handle stuck and was solidified in the tactical world where I tend to prefer a "SAW" (Squad Automatic Weapon) over other options when applicable.
MPC: Modern games have shifted to highly customized loadouts for equipment and weapons. In reality, how much flexibility do individuals or units really have when selecting their own weapons and how many “pieces of flair” they can put on them? Does this change as you get to smaller specialized units such as the Navy SEALS versus a more regimented organization as the Marine Corp?
Craig "Sawman" Sawyer has served with the Marine Corp. and the elite Navy SEALS.
Sawman: In the ranks of the conventional military, a soldier carries what he's told. In the smaller, more specialized units, there's much more individual choice. A SEAL Operator can pretty much carry what he wants to for a particular mission, but the needs of the team or squad play heavily in that decision. It's the working of the different weapons in concert that really makes a small squad effective. If a small team is well-coordinated, they can have the effect of a much larger unit. So, each Operator carries the weapon system that is ultimately the most help to the team as a unit in order to accomplish the mission.
MPC: Speaking of pieces of flair, what’s an actual realistic amount of accessories that you would consider putting on a rail system and what’s actually vital?
Sawman: Every item an Operator places on his weapon system is a calculated decision. Each item adds more weight, which is a negative when it comes to weapons handling. However, certain items are needed enough to justify their added weight and bulk. If an item isn't needed for a particular mission, that item should be removed from the weapon to help streamline the weapon for sleeker and quicker handling.
MPC: Is there any advantage to going without pieces of flair on your weapon?
Sawman: There's absolutely an advantage to eliminating certain accessories that are not immediately needed on the weapon. In the real world, added weight increases fatigue on the Operator. Some of the target sites on real world ops aren't easy to get to. After a long and taxing insertion, a heavy weapon is a major liability to the Operator. If he's using the items on the weapon, then they're worth the added weight. If they're not being used, they're a liability. Competition shooters are stripping their rifles down in attempts to make them lighter and lighter for quicker target transitions. The same applies to an Operator, only the Operator must accept certain setbacks on weight, due to the function of those items, like lasers, illuminators, flashlights, pistol grips, etc.
MPC: Video game weapons often only have one setting: full auto. Is full auto really used that often? What would the proper application for automatic fire be in reality?
Sawman: I only use full auto with small sub-machine guns and heavy belt-fed machine guns. With everything else, I'm running and placing single shots on target as rapidly as necessary to effectively engage each target and eliminate the threats at hand. With a real weapon, especially those with significant recoil, full auto isn't very effective, because the weapon rises so quickly under full-auto fire that only the first couple rounds can be brought to bear on the target. All rounds after that go high and are a waste. That's why when we do use full-auto, we use controlled bursts, with the length of the burst being applicable for the weapon being fired. Some weapons can be fired effectively with long bursts, like the FN P90, and some require much shorter bursts, like the MK 48, to keep the majority of each burst on target.
MPC: Some games let you carry two long arms plus a sidearm and hundreds of rounds of ammunition that would seemingly encumber you so you wouldn’t be able to walk, let alone run. I’ve read that a trooper’s load out can actually be surprisingly heavy, but what would you say is a realistic load out in weight is for equipment and weapons?
Sawman: Well, "realistic" and "real" are actually two different things in this case. I see a "realistic" load out being much lighter than what we really end up carrying. As a SEAL Sniper, my ruck was routinely 120 lbs! Now, if you add to that the 50lbs of web gear, the main weapon system (10-20 lbs) the sidearm, blow out kit and E&E items, you can see why we could barely walk when we started our missions. Swimming, sky diving, and humping this amount of gear to a target is a crusher. You have to really want to be there when you see what all is involved.
One thing's for sure, if you're carrying multiple long weapons, your speed and agility will be negatively affected. You can't just pick up more and more stuff and continue running around with zero consequence. If you pick up a weapon, it is with calculated thought for a specific application. When it's empty, it's gone!
MPC: Are there times when you really would carry a carbine or SMG, a rifle, plus a sidearm?
Sawman: Actually, yes. I have on several occasions. As an example, when I was bringing a bolt action .50 cal Sniper Rifle onto a target to bring precision fire on certain pre-designated targets, I also had to bring a weapon I could fight with, in order to be effective during contact on the way in or out. Because we always like to carry pistols as a last-ditch, Evasion & Escape weapon, or backup, I had that on, as well. So, yes, it gets cumbersome. I weighed 325 lbs lifting off for one mission and on that particular mission I didn't even have a ruck!
It's confirmed: in real life, pulling out your knife does not make you run faster. Sawyer also says only in the rarest of circumstances would you ever sling your weapon to run faster and even then only with cover fire being provided.
But for most scenarios, a typical Operator wants one versatile long weapon and a very simple and reliable sidearm as a back up. I specifically say simple and reliable for the sidearm, because some guys have gotten carried away recently with overly-complicated sidearms, which is counter-productive in a serious fight under adverse conditions. When you’re down to your sidearm, it’s usually because something is already wrong, like your primary goes down, or there isn’t time to reload it, due to there being an immediate threat right in front of you at short range. Or maybe your primary shooting hand is shot, so it’s unusable and you’re now trying to draw your pistol with your bloody weak hand.
You’re usually in close range and needing to shut someone down before he shuts you down. In that scenario, you just want your pistol to fire, EVERY time. So, simple and reliable trump all the fancy garbage people want to add to their pistols…at least for combat use.
MPC: Flashbang or stun grenades are pretty popular today in games. What’s it like getting flashbanged and how long are you impaired? Would they ever be used outdoors?
Sawman: Being “crashed” is like being blinded, deafened and punched in the nose all at the same instant. I can’t really recommend it as a past-time activity. It’s very effective when applied correctly. Only those closest to the device when it goes off are completely affected. The others further away experience somewhat less effect, depending on distance. A flashbang, or “crash” is only a tool, just like any other. It is not a miracle worker, but in the hands of trained professionals, they can be applied with deadly effectiveness.
MPC: Weapon lights are the rage in games today but the blinding effects they pose are somewhat controversial. In the game Battlefield 3, for example, the weapon lights are blinding even outside in the daylight. Would you actually count on a weapon mounted light to blind or dazzle your opponent or do does it just create the world’s biggest bullet magnet?
Sawman: When indoors, especially at night, flashlights are very effective at what they’re intended to do, which is illuminate the space the Operator is moving through. They can also be quite effective at disorienting those on the other end, under those particular conditions, but it should never be counted on.
Despite its popularity in video games, the gold, or chromed Desert Eagle AKA Deagle in .50 caliber is not a practical backup weapon in combat.
As for deploying the light outdoors during daylight, I don’t see it being effective unless it’s a specialized strobe frequency scientifically developed to physiologically incapacitate those it’s used against. Even still, I’d be far more inclined to shoot an opponent outdoors than bother with a light. Like any other new technology, I’d have to put it under serious testing before I’d deploy it in a life and death fight on a real-world mission.
It's a good read but too long for me to quote, if you want to finish reading it, be sure to click on the link. I've only quoted page 1 of 2.
