FH2 Tracer...

[foxnguyenb]

I've notice that the tracer in FH2 is little to none, what can I do about that? Is there a "good" way to add some line in the <weapon>.tweak file like doing it in BF2?

[jan_kurator]

That's because tracers were rarely used in real life too. Some MGs will get tracers added and some removed in next FH2 patch.

[foxnguyenb]

Is there anyway to manually get it back? I would like my gameplay demo to "looks" better. Not so much for the gameplay, more of a appearance beauty.

[jan_kurator]

For singleplayer use only, but I hope you're not going make a gameplay demo against bots? There is nothing beautiful in FH2 played in SP mode.

[foxnguyenb]

Sadly, no. There was a time I thought I could do sth with BattleRecorder and "Tracer upgrade" for the bots, until I made a test run and yes the demo via BattleRecorder was hopeless. Now I also know that "tracer upgrade" cannot be done to play online, all the hopes are gone. Thanks you for your helpful replies.

[jan_kurator]

We aim for realism buddy. No sane soldier would use tracers to reveal his position only because it looks cool. We stick to that, adding more tracers online can be done globally, not client side, because it would give you an edge over others, unless everyone would turn them on, but then we could just do it globally, but we don't want to. 

[Matthew_Baker]

I hope we don't mischaracterize the use of tracer ammunition to anyone. Tracers weren't a rarity in WW2 or anything, in fact they were used in a lot of different applications in both AA and ground roles throughout the war. Most stationary MGs used them for observation of fire for example, and they're still used more or less in the same roles today with the occasional instances of modernization. But we're always trying to make the game as historically accurate as possible while balancing that with the gameplay etc... so if you have any suggestions for which guns should get more or less tracers or w/e we're always open to that stuff.

Unfortunately, there's no way for you to modify tracers in your game and play online. But if you'd like to do it in single player to make an epic movie or something, I think you can do it via the weapons tweak files (I haven't really looked into it).

[Nathan Zachary]

Hi!

I am curious to see what will the new patch show us on this field of the game. I am sure you have a plan on what to modify, but let me share my ideas here.

What guns should use tracers?

Vechicle mounted MGs: coaxial, hull, anti-aircraft (on tanks), MGs which use belts
Fixed MGs: fixed MGs which use belts
Deployable MGs: lafette and tripod mounted MGs
Infantry use: MGs which work with belts containing 100 or more ammo
Light machine guns like BAR, BREN, DP, LEWIS, ZB, MG34 with the 50rnd drum and anything else like these that have an ability to fire from the hip or small ammo capacity should be left with the normal bullets

The colour of the tracer could be green for the german and soviet tracer ammo, red for the americans. For the british guns green or yellow.

The tracer geometry could be modified to look better. I know you do not want to copy other mods, but I think one nice example of tracers can be found in the BF2 mod Eve of Destruction. Tracer size could also be a bit bigger to make them more visible, as it is their purpose.

And last but not least, I have an idea about a visual detail that would be really nice to have in FH2. Bouncing tracers. It is present in the game with some cannon and autocannon tracer projectiles, but not with the rifle size tracers.  If you use any cannon or tank with armour piercing shell, you can make the visible projectile richochet of  the ground, walls, metal surfaces. The projectile will be visible too after it bounces off of something. But the small tracers just stop glow after hitting anything. I do not know, how the cannon sized tracers work, but it could be looked into.

Or there is maybe another way. Mortar shells, smoke shells, rockets can bounce off the ground too, and these projectiles also stay visible after the richochet. These projectiles are followed by a smoke trail, which follows the projectile after the richochet too. If you add this smoke trail template to the tracer tweak, you will see in the game, that if the tracer hits something that would make it bounce in real life, the smoke trail will go on the path where the bullet would fly. We know, that the tracer stops glowing on any hit in the game, but if someone could modify this smoke trail to look the same as a tracer bullet and not a countinous white line of smoke, we might get the desired effect.

That was my brainstorming for today.

[Matthew_Baker]

Thanks for the ideas! It would certainly be cool to see tracers implemented properly. I know that most every belt of US HMG ammunition was 1:5 tracer, and MG-34/42 was typically 1:4 or something similar. Tracers aren't always particularly useful in a fast paced game like FH2, but they can definitely add to the historic atmosphere and immersion.

I'd love to see tracers richochet as well, but I'm not sure how to make that possible. Adding something like a smoke trail effect to tracer bullets might have a performance impact that could cause some issues. Maybe if you can experiment with the code and look into some ways of making tracers richochet like that in game, it could be something we look into.

[jan_kurator]

What guns should use tracers?

Why should they?

Vechicle mounted MGs: coaxial, hull, anti-aircraft (on tanks), MGs which use belts

Yes, in general but not always the case in real life. In upcoming 2.56 patch, MGs in AA mounts on tanks and other MGs placed on vehicles will get tracers, while hull MGs will get their tracers removed. There is nothing as annoying as trigger happy hull MG gunner revealing your position in the game.

Documentation of actual ammo loadouts of T34s vs lend leased Valentine tanks I was looking into some time ago, proved that only small percentage of MG ammo were tracer bullets in T34s, while about 20-25% of bullets was tracers in Valentines which suggested that tracers were mainly used in coaxial and not necessarily in hull MG (Valentines had just the coaxial). There is no need for tracers in the hull, which usually had good sights and optics designed just for those MGs. Tracers are barely visible from the shooter perspective, not to mention that hull MGs were only used in close range defense anyway. Thousands of tracers flying on your screen is only an invention of gaming industry and Hollywood movies.

Exception here were American tanks, which used tracers in their hull MGs because they didn't have any aiming device for them apart from a simple periscope. Gunners used tracers to aim while looking through periscope mounted in the hatch above them.

Fixed MGs: fixed MGs which use belts

Why? You wouldn't like to reveal your position in static emplacement like that. Each ammo belt was loaded for a purpose and they varied a lot depending on a mission. You could have belts with or without tracers. Belts with AP, Incendiary or explosive ammo in them (used in Maxim guns by the Soviets sometimes). It all depends on what you actually need at the time. Tracer ammo was more commonly used at night for example, since muzzle flash of your gun already revealed your position, and often there was no other way to aim at night, while during the day, with a help of a spotter, you can still trace bullet impacts in a distance.

In game, tracer ammo will be added on the night version of Battle of Keren (32 player version), as a test. We may add it on other night maps in future too.

Deployable MGs: lafette and tripod mounted MGs

Absolutely not, for the same reason as above. On top of that, Lafette mounts were designed for accuracy and had 3x power magnification in their elaborate artillery like scopes designed for aiming your gun at bigger distances. You don't want to fire tracers to reveal you location if you have aperture designed to fire accurately from the cover.

Infantry use: MGs which work with belts containing 100 or more ammo

Again, what is this based on? Any actual data confirming why it "should" be like that?

The colour of the tracer could be green for the german and soviet tracer ammo, red for the americans. For the british guns green or yellow.

FH2 will receive historically accurate tracers colors with upcoming 2.56 patch. I've spent some time researching this subject, and I'm pretty sure green tracers for the Germans is a Hollywood myth. In reality they only used white, yellow, orange nad red. If you have any sources confirming that, please share.

All western allies used various red tracers, other colors were occasionally used in special types of ammo like AP, or API. Myth of green tracers used by the British came probably from the fact that British tracers ammo was stored in paper boxes with green labels, but unlike the German ammo, you couldn't read tracer colour from the box. I actually checked chemical composition of those to be sure. You can an example of British WW2 era tracers ammo HERE. There are some other examples online if you want to dig into the subject.

And last but not least, I have an idea about a visual detail that would be really nice to have in FH2. Bouncing tracers. It is present in the game with some cannon and autocannon tracer projectiles, but not with the rifle size tracers.

Not possible with rifle size tracers due to how are they coded. Looked into that already.

If you add this smoke trail template to the tracer tweak, you will see in the game, that if the tracer hits something that would make it bounce in real life, the smoke trail will go on the path where the bullet would fly. We know, that the tracer stops glowing on any hit in the game, but if someone could modify this smoke trail to look the same as a tracer bullet and not a countinous white line of smoke, we might get the desired effect.

Not possible, I already tried that before. You can add smoke trails to bullets, but not tracers. Tracers are being fired in intervals you can choose, smoke can't be coded that way and will follow each projectile you fire, so your method would result in MGs firing just tracers if done that way.

I like the fact you think outside the box tho.

[Matthew_Baker]

Unfortunately, some of your insinuations about the use of tracer ammunition are simply inaccurate. While loading ammunition belts could vary from mission to mission, it's more important to note that loading tracer ammunition every few rounds into belt fed heavy machine guns is standard practice both today and in World War II. Loading ammunition in a manner other to this is the exception to the rule.

Let's look at the use of tracer ammunition with some better sources instead of simple conjecture.

Here's a nice general overview of tracer ammunition and it's uses in WW2 from the Osprey Book Infantry Fire Support Tactics written by Gordon L Rottman, a man with actual military combat experience as a weapons specialist in the US Army;

All armies provided tracers for machine guns, typically every fifth round in a belt. Tracers allowed the gunner to correct his aim at long range where bullet impact was not visible. Fire could even be adjusted by “sensing” the tracer burst and making corrections before the rounds impacted.

The Osprey book MG 34 and MG 42 Machine Guns by Chis McNab touches on the belts issued to MG34 & MG42 HMGs;

An additional guidance to accuracy came in the form of SmK L’spur armour-piercing tracer rounds, which featured in the belts of sS (heavy ball) and SmK (armour-piercing rounds) at a typical ratio of 1:4. Operators had to learn to use tracer to guide their fire accurately.

Tracers would constitute roughly one in four of the rounds, the others being standard ball or armour-piercing.

In the Osprey book on Browning .30 Caliber Machine Guns again by Gordon L. Rottman, he describes how .30 caliber belts were issued;

Machine-gun ammunition was issued in 250-round web belts, normally one tracer to four ball or one tracer to four AP – often used for better penetration through trees, masonry, etc.

Which is backed up by the actual field manual for the .30 caliber weapons.

A great article on Small arms Review notes how .30 caliber belts were meant to be packed officially, both in the field and at the factory;

Early in the war (1941-43) the official belting for ground machine guns involved ordinary M2 Ball and M1 tracers with either (9 Ball + 1 Tracer) or (4 Ball + 1 Tracer); early Armor-Piercing belting ratio was 9 Armor-Piercing M2+1 Tracer M1.

Standard belting was then changed officially in July 1943 for a ratio of 4 Armor-Piercing M2 + 1 tracer M1. This change did not start to be packed out at the plants until later in 1943. This is the type of belting sequence that was the most widely produced during WW2.

The same lies true for the .50 caliber guns;

At the beginning of the war, standard belting sequence for ground use was 4 Armor-Piercing (AP) M2 + 1 Tracer (TR) M1. In early 1943, another belting sequence was adopted with 2 Armor-Piercing (AP) M2 + 2 Incendiary (INC) M1 + 1 Tracer (TR) M1. At the end 1943, with the introduction of the Armor Piercing Incendiary (API) M8, the belting sequence became 4 Armor-Piercing Incendiary M8 + 1 Tracer M1. Finally, from mid-1945 until present day, the standard ground use belting sequence is 4 Armor Piercing Incendiary M8 + 1 Armor Piercing Incendiary Tracer M20.

Also in a Soviet Small Arms Feedback report where the author "presents (his) notes and conclusions on infantry weapons, ammunition, and preparation of infantry based on experience in the Patriotic War of 1941-45."

When packing ammunition, each crate needs to have at least 25% tracer bullets.

You're right in saying that different ratios of tracer to ball ammunition could be done for mission specific purposes. And even to a higher level, specific units and even each Army in WWII had their own idiosyncrasies on how to use tracers. However, the common thread between them is that machine gun belts were packed according to standards that used tracers ever few rounds in a belt. Whether this was packed in the field or issued to the soldiers already assembled. Doing otherwise, was the exception.

Some idiosyncrasies from The Big Book of Gun Trivia again by Gordon L. Rottman.

In World War II some units loaded machine gun belts with alternating tracers (today's standard 5.56mm, 7.62mm, and .50-caliber belts are loaded with four ball to one tracer [4:1])...

In World War II the British found that machine guns firing high densities of tracers give the enemy the impression that the fire is coming directly at them (when it might actually be impacting to the flank or even going overhead), that the weapons are firing at an extemely high rate, or that there are more weapons firing than there actually are. They feel that this is valuable when using machine guns for suppressive fire.

A German trick was to fire MG bursts with tracers deceptively high overhead to lure in patrols probing the lines, while other guns fired tracerless bursts just above ground level.

Again, these are the exceptions to the rule. The use of tracers is far more wide reaching than the novel uses of seeing your shots at night or marking targets for people.

Why? You wouldn't like to reveal your position in static emplacement like that. Each ammo belt was loaded for a purpose and they varied a lot depending on a mission. You could have belts with or without tracers. Belts with AP, Incendiary or explosive ammo in them (used in Maxim guns by the Soviets sometimes). It all depends on what you actually need at the time. Tracer ammo was more commonly used at night for example, since muzzle flash of your gun already revealed your position, and often there was no other way to aim at night, while during the day, with a help of a spotter, you can still trace bullet impacts in a distance.

This characterization that "Tracer ammo was more commonly used at night... since muzzle flash of your gun already revealed your position" doesn't take into account the very real problem of muzzle flash giving away your position during the day as well. Once you've opened fire on a battlefield, any notion of stealth takes a backseat, and your concern isn't being seen by the enemy, but instead of fixing them with an overwhelming base of fire and maneuvering into a position to eventually eliminate the threat. This is the basis of almost all military doctrine. Soldiers in WW2 and today have a concern about tracers revealing their position, but this is secondary to the useful effects of tracers for the shooter.

Again, from the book on Infantry Fire Support Tactics;

It is often said that “tracers work both ways,” meaning the enemy might be able to locate a machine gun by its tracer stream. This can occur, but when multiple weapons are firing, including rifles without tracers, it is difficult to determine MG locations, and this also depends on the angle of view.

Take this anecdote from the same book as an example;

In one engagement, a US quad-.50cal AA MG battery tasked with supporting an infantry attack planned to remove the tracers to reduce the possibility of their firing positions being detected as they placed suppressive fire on the objective. Learning of this, the infantry requested they use tracer, as it had a good effect on own-troops' morale and would further demoralize the enemy; the AA unit granted this request, deciding it was worth the risk.

And exemplified again in this more famous anecdote;

“German prisoners attributed the failure of their attack on Bastogne, Belgium on the morning of 30 December 1944 in large part to the lavish expenditure of tracer bullets by the defending 101st Airborne Division. All prisoners questioned stated that the illumination caused by the tracers made every soldier feel that he could go no further without being spotted and that the morale was lowered considerably because every tracer bullet looked as if it were coming right at you. Even enemy troops who had already seen five years of combat, including the Stalingrad battle, commented that the display was more frightening than anything they had experienced previously” (Intelligence Bulletin, 1945).

The idea that "with a help of a spotter, you can still trace bullet impacts in a distance." is also unfounded. Having fired a heavy caliber fully automatic weapon myself, I can easily say that "tracing bullet impacts" is exceptionally difficult even on a sunny day at relatively close ranges. HMGs, which are designed to be fired from a great distance are loaded with appropriate ammunition to help the shooter with this task. (even if they typically engaged at ranges closer than expected, it doesn't negate the fact that they were designed to engage at long range). You can note any HMG field manual to see how the use of tracer fire is ingrained into the training of every soldier, to teach them how to fire accurately. I only have the FM-23-55 on the .30 caliber HMGs to prove this point, where there is an entire section on "Observation of flight of tracer bullets."

Documentation of actual ammo loadouts of T34s vs lend leased Valentine tanks I was looking into some time ago, proved that only small percentage of MG ammo were tracer bullets in T34s, while about 20-25% of bullets was tracers in Valentines which suggested that tracers were mainly used in coaxial and not necessarily in hull MG (Valentines had just the coaxial).

Noting that "20-25% of bullets being issued as tracers" is a perfect example of the standard of loading belt fed machine gun ammunition was typically done at 1:5 - 1:4 tracer to ball. These MGs weren't special loaded by the crew so that X amount of boxes had no tracer to be used in the hull MG and X amount of boxes had a mix to be used in the coaxial MG. The boxes needed to be used interchangeably, especially if one or the other MG ran out of ammo. Again, boxes were typically loaded at the factory, and when they weren't, the crews and soldiers would load them to a standard practice.

There is no need for tracers in the hull, which usually had good sights and optics designed just for those MGs. Tracers are barely visible from the shooter perspective, not to mention that hull MGs were only used in close range defense anyway. Thousands of tracers flying on your screen is only an invention of gaming industry and Hollywood movies.

Unfortunately this is plain wrong. Hull MGs didn't typically have "good sights and optics designed just for those MGs." Chris McNab touches on this in his book where he mentions the use of tracer in ball mounted MG34s for vehicles;

Ball-mounted MG 34s worked under tight limitations. Vision either side of the mount was poor – in the region of 15 degrees left or right – and the gun had a very slim range of elevation and traverse. For such reasons, the ball-mounted MG 34 had optical sights zeroed to only 200m, the gun having little application beyond shortrange defence against infantry, or possibly reaching out further to deliver ranging tracer fire against enemy armour before engaging with the main gun.

Also, some British tanks made it so their hull MGs could be used as backup sights for their main guns in the event that the primary main gun sight was knocked out. This is contrary to the idea that the sights were "designed just for those MGs," and especially contrary to the insinuation that the sights were so good that tracers weren't needed.

Another notion that "Tracers are barely visible from the shooter perspective" is completely untrue. In fact, the introduction of the "double-tracer" in WW2 where the tracer burned brighter in the second stage was introduced both to "make it more difficult for the enemy to detect the firer's positions and for the tracers to not dazzle the firers vision." which can be a very real problem when firing HMGs.

In conclusion, while tracer ammunition has it's downsides and side effects, the general characterization is that tracer ammunition is used first and foremost to aid the shooter of a heavy machine gun to help them in laying accurate fire onto a target, in all applications. The primary take away however, is that loading belt fed ammunition with a mix of tracer and ball (or tracer an armor piercing etc...) was and is standard practice in most every army both today and in WW2.

Therefore, when you omit tracers from all of the emplaced MGs and hull MGs in FH2, the result is going to be a battlefield with less tracers than would be historically accurate. You can claim many other reasons for omitting emplaced MG tracers, however historical accuracy can not be one of them.

In regards to gameplay, I enjoy the idea of taking away tracers from hull MG gunners who can sometimes spam it at an enemy tank and give away your position. A more ideal solution of giving the driver the ability to stop the hull MG gunner from firing for a short period of time would be better, but more than likely not possible in BF2.

However, omitting tracers from all emplaced HMGs in game is both un-characteristic of HMGs and doesn't do much to stop your position from being revealed in game anyway. The fact that all emplaced guns, with or without tracer, are targeted by people before they even fire a shot is evidence that map knowledge is much more of a factor in giving away your emplaced gun position than tracer fire will ever be. It also degrades the use of the 'look over the sights' camera that most HMGs have as standard.

While the effect in-game will be insignificant, it should be noted that the idea that these omissions are done for 'historical purposes' is contrary to the actual historical use of tracers on the battlefield.