accuracy/efficiency of machine gun fire

[Paper Tiger]

What would surely ease the frustration would be a statement by BFC including what they think about this specific issue, about what might be done about it and how long it might take. So far BFC had not responded to this important thread at all.

Absolutely. But that's beyond all of our control. Let's just say that he's a very, very busy man at the moment.

[womble]

MGs and other small arms don't go <boom> and so don't cause suppression unless the bullets actually hit someone or something in the same or adjacent action spot.

There, fixed.

The biggest problem with fixing it, it seems to me, is that it's not recognised as a problem yet.

[Paper Tiger]

There, fixed.

The biggest problem with fixing it, it seems to me, is that it's not recognised as a problem yet.

Yup. That would do it for sure. Just devise, add and test code that will do all that. Now, how are you going to convince Charles that this is more important than all the other jobs on his to do list?

[Markus86]

Yup. That would do it for sure. Just devise, add and test code that will do all that. Now, how are you going to convince Charles that this is more important than all the other jobs on his to do list?

153 posts on 16 pages could be a start

[Heinrich505]

Did you see the dirty looks the loader kept giving the gunner during those tests?

Klaus was very upset with Hans. Clearly the thief who had been dipping into the schnapps supply for the unit recently had been identified. Further, it appeared that Hans had rolled over on his spectacles in a drunken stupor and crushed them, as he was not wearing them while firing the weapon.

Those verdammt Berliners, thought Klaus, a Bavarian. Always bragging about how they can hold their liquor. He rolled his eyes as Hans happily swung the machine gun back and forth like an out-of-control see-saw while laughing maniacally.

Heinrich505

[womble]

Some more tests.

10 lanes of different lengths, starting at 368m and going up to 670. All troops on both sides regular, normal, 0 leadership. German MG42 teams behind bocage firing at US M1917 teams at the other end of grassy lanes delineated by tall bocage; lanes are 3 and 2 halves of an Action spot wide and terminated with a tall wall, which the M1917 teams are immediately adjacent to. First minute, the Amis are area firing into the hedges so they're all spotted and second minute the CAs on the Germans are replaced with a direct Target order. Results were assessed each minute for 9 minutes on:

Casualties, Cowering, Suppression meter bars, pinned or not and morale state.

Suppression at less than a quarter mile (440m; I put it as miles because sometimes we forget just how far away the firing is occurring) is fair: While the targets are active, there are casualties inflicted and the suppression meter is more than half full. As targets start cowering, the RoF of the shooters decreases and the suppression meters even out.

Beyond the 440m mark suppression effects (apart from casualty-based ones) are minimal, even with the wall catching the bullet splash. Casualties still occur slowly, even though the targets are prone (kneeling team members soon stop, keeling over from lead poisoning). By the end of the 2nd minute of firing, half the target teams have taken casualties.

Pinning was very rare at all ranges and targets were only pinned at the turn break in 1 case (so since Pinning tends to last 30s, it probably happened twice in 90 target-minutes of firing. There were plenty of cowerers though.

It takes until the 14th minute to eliminate any team entirely, and that happens in the 500m lane. A minute later, all teams have been rendered combat ineffective: they are Broken or eliminated.

By the end of the 9th minute, ammo use by the MG42s is pretty low. Less than 50rpm at the most distant targets, not 75 at the 370m ones.

For me, this represents entirely adequate performance against the targets. They were seeking microcover, and that was very effective for a small proportion of the 5 man teams; by the time the crew was reduced to a single man, he had found a very useful hollow (in order to not yet be a casualty) and wasn't going to be winkled out any time soon. "Long range" for small arms, even for tripod mounted MGs, isn't meant to be scything down soldiers in cornrows out to half a mile. As to why the gear is set up with calibrations out to 1000m ranges, well, there's all those indirect fire and massed MG fire employments that we hanker after. The lack of effect on moving targets at those ranges, raised at the beginning of the thread, is not addressed by this test.

Range in metre.

K = Casualties, wounded and killed. Only one "light wound" was inflicted.

C = number of troops cowering (of the live ones) at turn break

S = suppression meter level. 'A' = 10 for spacing's sake. B = 11, and Pinned.

M = Morale state at turn break. O = OK, C = Cautious, N = Nervous, R = Rattled, S = Shaken, P = Panic, B = Broken.


   Firing turn    1          2          3          4          5          6          7         8          9

Lane | Range | K/C/S/M | K/C/S/M | K/C/S/M | K/C/S/M | K/C/S/M | K/C/S/M | K/C/S/M | K/C/S/M | K/C/S/M |

   1 |  368  | 1/2/6/R | 1/2/4/N | 2/0/4/R | 2/0/4/R | 3/1/A/S | 4/1/5/S | 4/1/5/S | 4/1/4/R | 4/1/3/R |

   2 |  409  | 1/2/7/R | 1/1/3/N | 1/1/3/R | 1/0/3/R | 2/1/4/S | 2/1/2/R | 2/1/3/R | 2/1/4/R | 3/0/7/R |

   3 |  440  | 1/1/7/R | 3/2/A/S | 3/0/3/R | 3/2/5/R | 4/0/8/S | 4/0/3/R | 4/1/3/B | 4/1/4/B | 4/1/2/B |

   4 |  470  | 0/1/2/C | 1/0/2/R | 2/1/3/R | 3/0/4/R | 3/1/4/R | 3/2/3/R | 3/2/6/S | 3/1/4/S | 3/0/3/B |

   5 |  502  | 0/0/2/O | 0/0/3/N | 1/0/3/N | 2/1/7/S | 2/1/2/B | 2/2/4/S | 3/2/4/P | 3/2/5/S | 3/1/3/B |

   6 |  535  | 0/0/2/O | 0/0/2/N | 0/0/2/N | 0/0/3/R | 0/0/1/R | 0/2/3/R | 0/1/7/R | 0/0/2/R | 0/0/1/R |

   7 |  568  | 0/0/3/C | 3/2/B/P | 3/2/5/S | 3/1/8/P | 3/1/1/B | 3/1/3/B | 3/1/2/B | 3/1/1/B | 3/1/2/B |

   8 |  599  | 0/1/1/C | 0/1/1/N | 0/0/1/N | 0/0/2/R | 0/1/2/R | 0/1/3/R | 0/0/1/R | 0/1/2/R | 0/0/3/R |

   9 |  632  | 0/0/1/C | 0/0/1/N | 0/0/2/N | 0/0/2/N | 0/0/2/R | 0/0/1/R | 0/0/2/R | 0/0/2/R | 0/1/3/R |

 10 |  672  | 0/0/3/C | 0/0/1/N | 0/0/2/N | 0/2/2/R | 0/0/1/R | 0/0/2/R | 0/0/1/R | 0/1/1/R | 0/0/3/R | 

[poesel]

Those verdammt Berliners, thought Klaus, a Bavarian.

The correct term would be 'Saupreussen' or 'Saupreissen' (in Bavarian) ('prussian pigs' - its less drastic in German than in English).

AFAIK the troops were usually not mixed as of being from different parts of Germany. My guess as to why is that they would have had a hard time understanding each other.

@womble: I've got similar results as yours. Do you really think that is realistic? The dropoff between 400 and 600m seems quite steep to me. I'm no expert - if someone tells me that is ok then I'll believe it and will have to consider that for my HMGs in the future.

[Heinrich505]

poesel71,

Right you are. Troops were drawn from generally the same geographic areas, with some exceptions, such as the Großdeutschland where they drew recruits from across Greater Germany. Nice one - Saupreissen.

I suspect the language dialects were a big reason, but more so, that men who came from common areas would feel stronger bonds of comradeship and be less likely to let their fellow soldiers down in combat - the commonality of similar towns and known families was very strong. This was also the reason why a great effort, at least through most of the war, was placed on returning the wounded men to their original units after convalescence.

Heinrich505

[womble]

@womble: I've got similar results as yours. Do you really think that is realistic? The dropoff between 400 and 600m seems quite steep to me. I'm no expert - if someone tells me that is ok then I'll believe it and will have to consider that for my HMGs in the future.

I don't know that it's realistic, but it feels okay to me. It has verisimilitude. I'm going to be doing some more tests: shooting Fanatics in the back to eliminate "terrain saves"; using LMG instead of HMG to see if there's a difference. With a 755m/s muzzle velocity, flight time is starting to become a serious factor at that sort of range; shooting at moving targets at fixed range.

Some of the tests are difficult to organise, because to keep the targets "fat and happy" they have to be Fanatic, which knackers the morale and suppression effects. They will still furnish lethality results though.

[womble]

Another test.

Same lane layout, ranges 370ish to 670ish m. Targets this time are Fanatic, +2 leadership, and facing away from their murderers, shooting over a low wall at a high wall 1 AS away, in order for them to present a vertical profile to the shooters rather than being prone. I only counted casualties, since the change in soft stats makes any comparison of suppression and morale with the previous test meaningless.

After 9 minutes of firing again, the total causalties incurred was 24, an increase of 20% over when the target was "naturally" seeking cover. Again, even with the high morale, once the last man of a team started crawlin' on he belleh, he was hard to eliminate.

               Casualties

Lane  | Range |  1  |  2  |

===========================

   1  |  370  |  4  |  4  |

   2  |  410  |  3  |  4  |

   3  |  440  |  4  |  4  |

   4  |  470  |  3  |  0  |

   5  |  500  |  3  |  3  |

   6  |  535  |  0  |  2  |

   7  |  570  |  3  |  2  |

   8  |  600  |  0  |  2  |

   9  |  630  |  0  |  1  |

  10  |  670  |  0  |  2  |

I did take careful note of where MG bursts were directed in this test, and it seems that only half are actually aimed at the AS where the target was (assuming, I think "realistically" that the carefully spaced-in-time aimed bursts should be able to hit an 8m wide target reliably); the other bursts were all directed to the AS on either side of the target. This is the behaviour I'd expect from an area target, and I wouldn't expect the specific "shoot at that icon" order to spray half his rounds at "possible suppression targets" to either side. Maybe it's because there "ought" to be more teams there, if there was a full squad in play, but surely a directed target should only be shooting at visible enemy (so if shooting at a squad, will fire at both/all three teams as men expose themselves)?

[poesel]

I did take careful note of where MG bursts were directed in this test, and it seems that only half are actually aimed at the AS where the target was (snip)

Exactly that is my point: between 400 and 600m distance the HMG is not shooting at the target AS anymore (most of the time). My guess is that the algorithm behind that crosses a limit somehwere in this region and starts to target the adjacent AS to create a miss. Or maybe its a rounding error - don't know. Seems starnge to me (unless someone can tell me that HMG were suppression only at >500m).

Have you ever seen a shot that actually was too short? IME I had only left, right and wide (or combination of those)

What I also miss is that the HMG would range in on the target. Looks more like every shot is like the first shot and they don't get better.

@womble: to get a better profile for the shooter I suggest you put the target on a heavy slope. Thus they can crawl as they like and still be a big target.

[Michael Emrys]

Have you ever seen a shot that actually was too short?

I don't know if this is an answer to your question, but I have seen MG bursts strike the ground short of the target quite a number of times in battles. I've also seen them start short and walk toward the target.

Michael

[womble]

Exactly that is my point: between 400 and 600m distance the HMG is not shooting at the target AS anymore (most of the time). My guess is that the algorithm behind that crosses a limit somehwere in this region and starts to target the adjacent AS to create a miss. Or maybe its a rounding error - don't know. Seems starnge to me (unless someone can tell me that HMG were suppression only at >500m).

I don't think it's anything to do with range. I saw this happening at 370m as well. I'm not going to suggest that HMGs are for suppression only at long ranges. My second test shows they do cause casualties against targets with a vertical profile. I think any expectation that they should kill all 5 members of a team in the first minute of firing (at any range) is optimistic.

Have you ever seen a shot that actually was too short? IME I had only left, right and wide (or combination of those)

Not noticeably in the shots I observed. Rifle shots went in short, but I was only watching for autofire.

What I also miss is that the HMG would range in on the target. Looks more like every shot is like the first shot and they don't get better.

Indeed, I don't believe there's any "finding the range" process for MGs. The "walking up the range" behaviour Mr Emrys has seen is likely, I'd suggest, to be an artefact of the randomiser.

@womble: to get a better profile for the shooter I suggest you put the target on a heavy slope. Thus they can crawl as they like and still be a big target.

Aha. Also, if they're facing upslope, they'll kneel to see anyway

[Michael Emrys]

The "walking up the range" behaviour Mr Emrys has seen is likely, I'd suggest, to be an artefact of the randomiser.

I would not disagree with that.

Aha. Also, if they're facing upslope, they'll kneel to see anyway

If they are on a slope, they are apt to be standing fully upright as well.

Michael

[dakuth]

Has anyone considered that this might be by design?

e.g. a Squad covers three action squares. You target the squad - thus the MG locks on to the middle action square... but let's be honest, you'd want the gunner to spread his fire left and right a little to try and suppress or kill the whole squad.

Basically "targeting" a unit is no different to area firing except that the action square you have targeted is moving. By design the gunner spreads to shots left and right to adjacent square to suppress not just what you're shooting at, but other infantry as well.

[Vanir Ausf B]

What if it's a team rather than a whole squad? Nobody keeps their squads un-split.

[JonS]

Nobody keeps their squads un-split.

I do, and I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one.

[sburke]

I do as well. Wait, does that make me nobody? :confused:

[dakuth]

I only split if I think it's tactically relevant - generally leaving them together. I'm sure it puts me at a slight tactical disadvantage, but saves on administrative work!

Also: I'm not saying the design is perfect - wouldn't it be better if the MGunner knew he was shooting at a split team and didn't spread his shots as a result? If you want to suppress a horde of incoming Ami split-teams: area target.

I'm just pointing out ... I don't think this is a bug, so much as a design decision that doesn't work out well in the given case.

[Vanir Ausf B]

I do, and I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one.

Fine. But the point stands that the game should not assume unsplit squads, if that is indeed that case.

I do as well. Wait, does that make me nobody? :confused:

...

Also: I'm not saying the design is perfect - wouldn't it be better if the MGunner knew he was shooting at a split team and didn't spread his shots as a result? If you want to suppress a horde of incoming Ami split-teams: area target.

I'm just pointing out ... I don't think this is a bug, so much as a design decision that doesn't work out well in the given case.

I see. Given the more pinpoint machine gun accuracy vs. vehicles I think you are likely correct.

[herr_oberst]

Haven't read the whole thread, but does anyone else think it could be interesting if MGs could be given "targets" like indirect weapons. 'Linear' target areas, where the MG would walk the bursts up and down the line, or circular 'area' targets with a similar aiming logic designed to spread the aiming points?

[dakuth]

Haven't read the whole thread, but does anyone else think it could be interesting if MGs could be given "targets" like indirect weapons. 'Linear' target areas, where the MG would walk the bursts up and down the line, or circular 'area' targets with a similar aiming logic designed to spread the aiming points?

So long as the interface for doing so is a little slicker than fire missions

[womble]

Has anyone considered that this might be by design?

Yes. But as someone else said, it doesn't work as intended, if it is.

Basically "targeting" a unit is no different to area firing except that the action square you have targeted is moving. By design the gunner spreads to shots left and right to adjacent square to suppress not just what you're shooting at, but other infantry as well.

It may be that way, but it's not what anyone would expect from a directed target, because that isn't aimed at an action spot, but at a visible pTruppe. It's also not how other units distribute their fire. Nor how, I believe, vehicle MGs are fired.

[poesel]

Also: I'm not saying the design is perfect - wouldn't it be better if the MGunner knew he was shooting at a split team and didn't spread his shots as a result? If you want to suppress a horde of incoming Ami split-teams: area target.

I don't think that the arguments holds that the MG spread comes from the assumption that the target may be an unsplit squad. There are a lot of valid one AS targets like HQs, mortars, HMGs, snipers and so on. And I don't think BFC made that assumption.

[Alan8325]

IIRC, MG fire was nerfed in CMSF to compensate for troops being closer together due to the action spot system than they would be in real life. Artillery was similarly reduced in lethality for the same reason. Artillery was fixed for CMBN/CMFI to be more lethal to account for historically closer troop spacing, but perhaps MG lethality has not been toned up enough, if at all.