accuracy/efficiency of machine gun fire

[Apa]

Quite right. Using the M-60 (7.62mm) or M-240 (7.62mm) they have to get 7 hits from 200 rounds, which in combat translates to 3,000 rounds per hit.

Hooo ... ah?

It is obvious that machine guns would not have been so central to WWII tactics if the effectiveness is what is shown in the video.

The problem is likely that of simulated cover. There isn't enough cover in the terrain, so weapon effectiveness is reduced artificially to get a nice simulated effect. As usual, this doesn't work all that well in isolated tests. So, the men covering in open ground should be considered simulated cover.

Running directly towards machine gun fire without suppressive fire (as done in the video) isn't realistic at all. That would be 100% pure suicide. There is plenty of evidence, for example the whole of WWI.

[DavidFields]

Mortars are used like MGs in CM2--particularly when you can direct fire, and do it briefly.

I still love the game, but I am probably repeating myself, and other people.

But I think most WW2 simulation buffs, when the wander into CM2 (if there are any left who have not), are going to post a slightly perplexed first post on these boards to the effect of: strange how my killer units are the mortars not the MGs.

[Vanir Ausf B]

On-board mortars are basically rocket launchers right now.

[Apa]

One big problem for the on-board mortars is the possibility to use them under direct enemy fire. It seems abstracted cover will give the mortar operators unrealistic cover while aiming/firing the mortar. In reality, trying to put the shell into the tube of 81mm mortar under fire would be heroic, but stupid. You will be exposed for a couple of seconds, stationary. The enemy knows your exact position. Everybody is aiming at you...

[Ryujin]

From where do we know that exactly?

I am kinda certain that there is a reason why the official allied documents name numbers for the effective ranges between 600-800 meters for LMG and up to 2000 Meters for for HMG configuration.

Or they fell victim to propaganda?

Here the documents: http://cgsc.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/search/searchterm/german/field/all/mode/all/conn/and/

There is first of course the question of point vs area target for those ranges.

The second and more important point is that these are likely ideal conditions, probably from range shooting. For example the US Army considers the effective range of the M4 to be about 500m for point targets. Shooting from a bench rest on the range this holds up. However their data suggests that the hit percentage is about 5-7% at that range under stress(as opposed to around 85% firing from a bench rest).

For them to even measure that shooting under stress data, it probably wasn't combat, just stress shooting drills. Shooting in combat would probably be even worse. Shooting under fire would be magnitudes worse. So realistically, you're probably looking at hit chances less than 1% at the listed effective range of the M4 in combat.

Here's a link to that data (page 14): http://usarmy.vo.llnwd.net/e2/c/downloads/215919.pdf

Also, I'm not sure how much of a difference the tripod and optics would make, they certainly would help a bit, but the inaccuracy is coming from the gunner, not the gun.

"Regardless of the range potential for certain weapon platforms, the human factor must be considered. Studies have shown that Soldiers can only consistently hit a human-size target more than 300 meters away 50 percent of the time or less on a qualification range. The numbers are significantly lower when a Soldier is operating in high stress environments.1 Therefore, whether a Soldier is firing a 5.56mm system with an effective range of 500 meters, or a 7.62mm platform with an effective range of 800 meters, what really matters is whether he or she has the skill to hit the target to begin with. Taking the human factor into account, one could argue that the “real world” effective range of a 5.56 system is similar to a 7.62mm weapon platform because the range potential of both platforms significantly exceeds the average Soldier’s marksmanship ability. This is not to say that exceptional Soldiers such as U.S. Army Snipers and Squad Designated Marksmen with specialized training are not fully capable of firing small arms to their maximum potential. " - Same source as above

There should be more suppression in the situation ingame, but I can believe there being a pretty low chance of them actually hitting anyone until they got close.

[c3k]

First round of the burst SHOULD be close to where it is aimed. That's why benchrest shooting is more accurate than offhand: the weapon is stabilized. That's one of the purposes of the tripod. (Repeatability, firing zones, indirect fire, etc., are other purposes.)

The optics help adjust for distance by having a clinometer (a level bubble) and sight gradations. The optics, if magnified, help FIND the target and, obviously, aim a bit more accurately. (At 300m a man-sized torso is obscured by the front post; not so with a magnified optic (or some reflex style laser/dot sights).)

A steadier weapon, better aiming, better target discrimination. A tripod is lugged around because it helps. Otherwise troops would've ditched them long ago.

[Ryujin]

Yes it helps, but what my point is I don't know how much difference that actually makes if the gunner is scared and not aiming properly. Just popping his head up to the sight and letting of a quick burst or two. He may not be ranging it properly or taking time to line the bursts up well. He might not even be looking through the sight that much if he doesn't want to get his head up that high up.

The key point is like you said, the first round should be close to where it's aimed. If the shot is rushed and it's aimed 100m long and a bit to the left of target, then the bullet will precisely hit that point of aim. Actually hitting the enemy is entirely dependent on proper aim by the gunner. Scared people aren't very good at aiming. The hit percentage should of course be better than an unsupported weapon, but I don't know if it's going to be a huge improvement under stress.

[Michael Emrys]

Yes it helps, but what my point is I don't know how much difference that actually makes if the gunner is scared and not aiming properly. Just popping his head up to the sight and letting of a quick burst or two. He may not be ranging it properly or taking time to line the bursts up well. He might not even be looking through the sight that much if he doesn't want to get his head up that high up.

The key point is like you said, the first round should be close to where it's aimed. If the shot is rushed and it's aimed 100m long and a bit to the left of target, then the bullet will precisely hit that point of aim. Actually hitting the enemy is entirely dependent on proper aim by the gunner. Scared people aren't very good at aiming. The hit percentage should of course be better than an unsupported weapon, but I don't know if it's going to be a huge improvement under stress.

I don't doubt any of that. What's curious to me however is that the advancing Americans in the test at the beginning of this thread don't seem to suffer the same problems at all. I wouldn't be too surprised if the same or similar results might apply if the sides were swapped.

Michael

[akd]

This is not inaccuracy due to stress, but intentional spreading of fire. MGs do not exhibit the same behavior when firing against vehicles. Rifles/SMGs don't seem to show this behavior against any target.

[Killkess]

YHe may not be ranging it properly or taking time to line the bursts up well. He might not even be looking through the sight that much if he doesn't want to get his head up that high up.

One dont realy have to raise the head, at least with the "Erdziellafette" u can stay with a very low profile.

Just so show how exposed our CM2 gunners are.

So realistically, you're probably looking at hit chances less than 1% at the listed effective range of the M4 in combat.

In the last test they spend around 300 shots on the target. I would say that shooting with the tripod should at least mutiply this percentage. I expect at least some hits.

Yes it helps, but what my point is I don't know how much difference that actually makes if the gunner is scared and not aiming properly

My pov is that this should be simulated via the supression bar. I dont see a reason for a soldier, who is not beeing shot at, to shoot that bad like we currently see. I dont want him to shoot like beeing on the shooting lane either, but some form of usefullness against Infantry in the open would be nice.

With the current situation the attacker dont even have to think about using covered approaches since he can almost always savely close distance to rifle distance without beeing punished. And if there is abstracted cover going on, how the hell someone using cover can advance cross country 850 Meters in about 4 minutes? Heck, i struggle to do that even without gear or beeing shot at.

This is not inaccuracy due to stress, but intentional spreading of fire. MGs do not exhibit the same behavior when firing against vehicles. Rifles/SMGs don't seem to show this behavior against any target.

Thats a nice hint. Watch this video, it realy makes a big difference. How much "bigger" is a jeep compared to a group of running soldiers?

Watch for how much more efficient this shooting is. One sees much less spreading between the bursts but a bit more spread within the burst.

[womble]

One big problem for the on-board mortars is the possibility to use them under direct enemy fire. It seems abstracted cover will give the mortar operators unrealistic cover while aiming/firing the mortar. In reality, trying to put the shell into the tube of 81mm mortar under fire would be heroic, but stupid. You will be exposed for a couple of seconds, stationary. The enemy knows your exact position. Everybody is aiming at you...

While we'll have to agree to disagree about the exposure (only the team spotter has to have his eyes exposed), direct mortar fire is indeed a problem at the moment, particularly due to the issues explored here: http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=106327

[Apa]

While we'll have to agree to disagree about the exposure (only the team spotter has to have his eyes exposed), direct mortar fire is indeed a problem at the moment, particularly due to the issues explored here: http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=106327

OK, that seems like a bigger problem...

As for the "only the team spotter has to have his eyes exposed" - this assumes excellent cover. IIRC a mortar in the open firing at a rifle squad @200m succeeds usually in wiping out the rifle squad. Assuming the open ground doesn't happen to have a nice abstracted 1m ditch in it, the mortar team would be in big trouble trying to aim & fire the mortar.

[JasonC]

When mortars get more accuracy than they really had and MGs get less than they really had, true tactical relationships go out the window.

I still think the biggest issue with MGs is that rally is way too rapid once a unit takes fire and especially casualties, and the lack of morale contagion from other units taking losses (other than losing an HQ).

As for those who continue to fixate on possible rate of fire, I still think that one is a distraction. Every crew served MG could throw all the ammo it could be supplied with by man-carry to the front line, in a matter of minutes, but tactically needed to be able to stay in action for hours. The regulating principle was therefore always the team's rationing of its ammo supply, not anything mechanically about the weapon itself.

High rate of fire does not enable a weapon to throw more ammo at the enemy. It can't create more ammo to throw, and all of them can throw everything they have in way less time than they will actually be in action against the enemy.

What high rate of fire *does* do is help to concentrate the time-windows in which that available fire is delivered, to coincide with the narrow time-windows when the enemy is most exposed. In a short rush with the men up and out of defilade for a split second, an MG-42 will put more rounds downrange than a Vickers.

But if the men are by hypothesis exposed for longer periods, it doesn't help at all. Either gun can fire everything it has - and the sooner it runs through the supply, the farther the average range it probably threw the ammo away.

As for the comments about real combat accuracy vs range notions of accuracy, yes there is a huge discrepancy. Basically range accuracy tells you nothing about real battle accuracy, only real battle experience tells you anything. This is true regardless of the weapon and has been for centuries. Theoretical tests of the exposure of formed infantry to musket fire before rifling, for example, would predict 100% casualties in a Napoleonic battle on a time scale of half an hour. No machineguns required.

The long trend is not for battle lethality to increase as weapon firepower increases. Instead it falls per unit time, battles become much longer and spread out in space as well as time, as the theoretical lethality of the weapons increases.

The reason is the spread of the men and the use of cover increases even faster than firepower, and everything slows down dramatically. People don't do things as hazardous, don't get as close, as often, spread out and send tiny sub-elements into danger zones at any one time, and the like.

Yes it would be nice if game simulations got every detail of that shift perfectly correct.

What I think we are seeing in recent CM is some of those details moving more than others, in a mix of realism about X and design for effect about Y, with the net impact being a quirky, jarring fit, with rough spots sticking out noticably and worrying people.

If you know the end tactical relationships expected and required for the simulation to be accurate in tactics (rather than engineered representation of each detail), then design for effect can reproduce those relationships and show the main reasons for them. But as soon as that is abandoned for subsystem literalism, every subsystem is stressed, and any one of them being "off" will break tactical relationships seen in the real deal or a prior design for effect system.

In the present case, 4 men wouldn't run half a mile at a machinegun position, unsupported. If they did, they wouldn't stay in one tight group around an imaginary action spot. If they did, that action spot would be in full defilade - only thing people with an actual self preservation instinct would bunch up into. If instead they bunched up in the open on a billiard table, the MG would wait until they were a nice 400-500 meters, and then send 1-2 of them to the great beyond in a single long 2 second burst. The others would be on the ground calling for their mothers or trying to keep their friends alive for another 30 seconds, maybe, depending on how sadistic the MG gunner was.

The achieved accuracy in real combat was much lower because the actual firing conditions were much worse than in the modeled example. Not because the MG gunners all had the jitters and couldn't hold the gun steady.

FWIW...

[womble]

When mortars get more accuracy than they really had and MGs get less than they really had, true tactical relationships go out the window.

Quite so.

...lack of morale contagion from other units taking losses (other than losing an HQ)...

I see "morale contagion" from everything under the same Bttn HQ, and from casualties happening nearby. At least. Where are the "morale quarrantine zones" that compartmentalise the contagion, in your view?

[Baneman]

I agree with Womble on the morale thing, in fact, quite the reverse is true - morale contagion occurs even when there's no earthly way it could propagate.

I've had truck drivers panic because their mate was blown up 2km away on the other side of a mountain. Irl they'd only find out about it after the battle, but suddenly you can't give someone orders because ... "they felt a disturbance in the Force !"

[JasonC]

womble - the game has probably improved in that respect. I am going off the behavior I saw in BN. The main issue there was (is) too rapid recovery from suppression, but I'd like to see more lasting "BCE" effects (meaning, if the wider formation is ragged out, rally slows down for everyone and they all get touchier). Not just flinch, but can't climb out of the unresponsive morale states.

[JonS]

Try playing with Green troops. You'll get your wish in spades.

[womble]

womble - the game has probably improved in that respect. I am going off the behavior I saw in BN. The main issue there was (is) too rapid recovery from suppression, but I'd like to see more lasting "BCE" effects (meaning, if the wider formation is ragged out, rally slows down for everyone and they all get touchier). Not just flinch, but can't climb out of the unresponsive morale states.

I'm mostly talking about BN. I can't speak on "too rapid" recovery from suppression/rally; I've no real world figures, and it would be difficult to draw the comparisons between CM-state and RW-state. Morale contagion, though, works as you desire: as a subunit takes casualties, the "base" morale state of the other subunits in its parent TO starts to drop. I don't think I've ever seen that situation recover itself during the course of a game. If 1Plt has taken a heavy hit, 2, 3 and 4Plt will be Cautious or Nervous even if they've not yet come under fire. How heavy the hit has to be depends on the motivation levels of the troops and there's some effect from leadership, too. A well led high motivation element can find itself largely insulated from casualties "distant" in the TO, but if you've got "normal" troops, those nerves surely spread.

In some ways the reduction of the 'base' morale state will extend rally times, too, since getting back from Rattled to Nervous takes a lot longer than Nervous to Cautious.

[Erwin]

+1 re Jon's comment. Would make the game more realistic. However, the corollary is that the games would be "less fun" as one would spend a lot of time simply rallying panicked troops.

Be nice if the "Experience Level" setting had a 2nd setting that adjusted the quality of the troops. So, if you win easily at a high skill level, you could play at any level with different quality troops (ie: lower quality for an additional challenge).

[ForwardObserver]

+1 re Jon's comment. Would make the game more realistic. However, the corollary is that the games would be "less fun" as one would spend a lot of time simply rallying panicked troops.

Be nice if the "Experience Level" setting had a 2nd setting that adjusted the quality of the troops. So, if you win easily at a high skill level, you could play at any level with different quality troops (ie: lower quality for an additional challenge).

Surely that wouldn't be a setting I would be using much: I prefer to rely on the criterion of the scenario designer. All troops being Fanatic/Elite means that you're pretty much removing Morale as a factor in the game.

Regarding MG's in general in CMx2: I have observed them to be quite lethal on close quarters when approaching units haven't spotted them (i.e. night time, ambushing by using circular cover arcs).

Other than this - which is a very specific case - I would like to thank the OP for providing graphical proof of my gut feeling about 'MGs not being quite right modelled'.

[JonS]

Surely that wouldn't be a setting I would be using much: I prefer to rely on the criterion of the scenario designer. All troops being Fanatic/Elite means that you're pretty much removing Morale as a factor in the game.

Oh, I don't know. It seems like a resasonable idea.

Designers design, generally, with the 'Average Man' in mind. Aside from the slight problem that The Average Man doesn't exist, each designer's idea of average is going to be different. Allowing players a more direct way to adjust the difficulty themselves, to suit their skill, experience, and mood does seem reasonable.

[Andrew H.]

Try playing with Green troops. You'll get your wish in spades.

My favorite way to play since CMBO! :-)

+1 re Jon's comment. Would make the game more realistic. However, the corollary is that the games would be "less fun" as one would spend a lot of time simply rallying panicked troops.

With the right scenario and terrain using green troops are a lot of fun; ideally you manage it in such a way that you *aren't* rallying panicked troops. This does require a more cautious strategy, which is easier to manage in infantry only battles where you have a little more control.

[ForwardObserver]

Oh, I don't know. It seems like a resasonable idea.

Yes, it's a reasonable idea.

Designers design, generally, with the 'Average Man' in mind. Aside from the slight problem that The Average Man doesn't exist, each designer's idea of average is going to be different. Allowing players a more direct way to adjust the difficulty themselves, to suit their skill, experience, and mood does seem reasonable.

Indeed, it's all about giving options, and that might not necessarily mean that the designer has to make several versions of the same scenario nor make sure that all play equally 'interesting' with respect to his particular yardstick to measure 'interestingness'

While for me, removing morale out of the tactical equation would make the whole thing less interesting, I can see that it contributes the game to be harder to learn (same as with FOW, which can be indeed be disabled for all purposes).

Right now, difficulty level in CMx2 is directly related to the amount of information the player - and the player's units - have about their surroundings. Adding a new dimensions to the 'difficulty slider' so that one can customize Morale or Physical Condition mechanics can't be a bad thing.

[ForwardObserver]

With the right scenario and terrain using green troops are a lot of fun; ideally you manage it in such a way that you *aren't* rallying panicked troops.

Right now I'm fighting my way through the Troina campaign, and I enjoyed and could appreciate the role of HQ units rallying US green troops, shaken by those entrenched Germans, and convincing them to 'try again'

This does require a more cautious strategy, which is easier to manage in infantry only battles where you have a little more control.

Combined arms scenarios do indeed entail that one needs to do more work to ensure proper coordination between different units (e.g. tanks and infantry). But I just love when my carefully planned advance goes awry when the infantry which was supposed to support the tanks gets pinned or routed (or the tanks get blown out by well-placed AT assets out of sight, and the surrounding infantry gets pinned or routed).

[JonS]

the designer has to make several versions of the same scenario

God forbid :mad:

Actually, any player can take a scen into the editor and adjust the morale and experience levels as much as they want, with no time demands made on any already overworked scen designer, and without requiring that BFC change the game.