Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Kauz

"Red Hordes"-results and impressions to the game(play)

Recommended Posts

Actually I haven't seen this "lot of people" in this thread. ...

I do not want to analyse and count every post á posterio.

But here are 2 examples:

No.1 talking about accuracy:

http://www.battlefront.com/community/showpost.php?p=1528659&postcount=49

No.2 talking about accuracy and especially at longer bursts because of a pretended escalting Tripod

http://www.battlefront.com/community/showpost.php?p=1528700&postcount=59

If you then read for example the follwing in post No. 2:

"....If you put a stationary chest sized target at 100m, rounds will miss it...."

and then compare the videos......then the other thing is proofed.

So you see the videos have their reason and right to exist.

...

I think the point is that showing performance on a firing range is pointless when we are taking about combat performance.

That is a thought-terminating cliché.

But even in case i would accept that thought-terminating cliché....then we should do the next step and compare all the other weapons to the HMG.

And my opinion is that not only the HMG is in absolute undermodelled.....it is also undermodelled in relation to other weapons....

To get this idea you only just have to compare the achieved casualties of a standard squad/group to an HMG unit at short/medium ranges.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Scout teams do. So three three-man scout teams should be comparable to a 9-man SturmGrenadier squad.

Hmm, that might work... if there were any Sturmgrenadier squads in CMRT to test them against. It could be done in CMBN but the new variable ROF for automatic weapons in 3.0 would likely throw the relevance into question.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I do not want to analyse and count every post á posterio.

But here are 2 examples:

No.1 talking about accuracy:

http://www.battlefront.com/community/showpost.php?p=1528659&postcount=49

No.2 talking about accuracy and especially at longer bursts because of a pretended escalting Tripod

http://www.battlefront.com/community/showpost.php?p=1528700&postcount=59

No. 1 isn't even wrong. A machine gun's rounds do create a conical (or oval-shaped, depending) beaten zone. Have you ever fired one for real?

To get this idea you only just have to compare the achieved casualties of a standard squad/group to an HMG unit at short/medium ranges.

Short and medium range firepower are not why HMGs are employed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No. 1 isn't even wrong. A machine gun's rounds do create a conical (or oval-shaped, depending) beaten zone. ....?

The accuracy of a single bullet is high and the spread of a burst itself (no matter which burst length with the Tripod) is extreme low...

that is what i tried to tell with (laser) accuracy.

The ballistic drop of the bullet you and some other are refering to is at 100 meters 4-5 cm and at 250 meters 14-15 cm.

So the effect you are refering to is negligible at short up to medium distances.

But all that i already told in this thread....always have to repeat myself :(

...

Short and medium range firepower are not why HMGs are employed.

Not correct....

Yes, they provide the firepower on high distances (other weapons can not)

.

and yes...before you use a HMG in a distance of 50 meters you will surely take a LMG for that purpose....if you have one....

but that does not mean they got not established at distances between 100-500 meters if it was necessary or convenient.

If you have an area with only 400 meters diameter where you can shoot at. Then you WON`T hold back establishing you HMG, only because it is able to shoot at higher ranges :rolleyes:

Or in another case....the enemy approaches closer to your HMG 100-500 meters in front your position ...then you won´t stop fireing on them because somebody says....ups...we are not meant to fire on that distance (despite the fact that you are extremly deadly/effective on that distance).

If you think HMGs only got established on the battlefield if they can fire at 1000 meters then you are a little blue-eyed.

And another point in general:

The effective range of a LMG is 500-600 meters....But it is more effective on ranges below...

Same thing with a HMG...effective range is 1000-1200 meters in direct fire.....but it gets more effective on ranges below...

A HMG does NOT get ineffective with lower ranges....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If you follow the discussion you see a lot of people saying the heavy machine gun was inaccurate (especially with longer bursts and longer distance) and people who do not know that the heavy machine gun is used to be fireing especially longer burst up to 25 rounds.

So i guess the videos are information and proof at the same time for the people who do not seem have any idea of these weapons.

The 1 second, 20-25 round burst (at max) is the bipod version. For the tripod HMG 34/42 version, the tactical firing unit is 50 rounds (one belt), continuous bursts, for any destructive and also heavy suppressive fires.

I draw from these main original german sources in my possession:

http://www.spwaw.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=18276

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The 1 second, 20-25 round burst (at max) is the bipod version. For the tripod HMG 34/42 version, the tactical firing unit is 50 rounds (one belt), continuous bursts, for any destructive and also heavy suppressive fires.

The LMG ...25 round bursts....are you really sure about that....???

I was shooting the light MG3 myself and was ordered to fire short bursts of 3-5 rounds.

Even if i would have been ordered to fire longer bursts i only could imagine that this has a use if the enemy is actually running at very low distances below 50 (maximum 100 meters).

The spread after the 5th round of a LMG is increasing a lot so fighting a specific target over 100 meters would be more ineffcient.

Additionally you have to check the effect, the targets and situation whole time.

That is more easy if you do short bursts with a LMG ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Regarding the light MG3:

Then i was shooting the light MG3 on the army, i was ordered to fire short bursts

Minimum 2 rounds, Maximum 7 rounds.

Regulary 3-5 round bursts.

The first 3 rounds of a burst are quite close together, round 4-5 is spread more and 6-7 even more. For more information look at my post quite at the beginnging of the thread (Schützenschnur "bronze").

Only gunners with a higher weight or higher power could press themselves so hard into the machine gun that the accuracy could be hold for 1-2 rounds more. So not only the first 3 rounds were quite accurate (then up to 5 rounds)

If the enemy soldiers are closer or dense and you are skilled you can swing the gun from one side to the other with your longer bursts. But if you ever would fire more than 10 round bursts is very unlikely (only if a enemy horde is already assaulting your position between "0" and 20 meters.)

Fireing longer burst with MG3 and being accurate like a "Laser" you can only provide with the heavy mounting tripod.

Additional to the video at the beginning of this post you might take a look at the other links i posted in this thread.

I never shoot the heavy mounting myself. I only know that the bursts are around 25.

Shorter bursts are only useful if you fight a single hidden target, want to save ammo and want to find the right aiming first.

Longer burst on a single target i guess you use if you have the right aiming/distance or you fire on long ranges 800-1200.

Longer bursts on short or medium ranges are usefull if you swing the gun from one side to the other and so dispensing the rounds either to ensure to hit a single target or to increase hitprobability on more people running in the same area.

But i will do a research on the Bundeswehr orders for heavy machine gun to ensure i am not wrong with my guesses related to the heavy MG.

Kauz,

Thanks for the info... didn't know that before!

I set up 3 tests of LMG42/HMG42/HMG34/M1917A1 on a range of 600m. (the LMG can't shoot to 1000m obviously). From what I can observe:

The LMG42 shoots in bursts of 5-7 rounds.

The HMG42 shoots in bursts of 5-7 rounds.

The HMG34 shoots in bursts of 3-5 rounds.

The M1917 shoots in bursts of 4-6 rounds.

HMG42 has slightly better burst frequency then LMG42 but not much.

I think 2 concepts are being dealt here. 1 is burst length, the time between trigger depress and trigger release. 2 is burst volume, the rounds shot in each burst.

From what I can understand from your description of the bipod, its limiting factor is burst volume, i.e. first 3 rounds are accurate, the follow on rounds degrade. Therefore a LMG42 shooting 5-7 rounds per burst, compared to 4-6 of a lower rof LMG is somewhat correct.

The question is, does the tripod offer significant stability to counter recoil, that burst volume is no longer a big issue. If it does, then burst length comes into play. The gunner will no longer be affected by how many rounds he shoots, but will only remain comfortable, if he holds down the trigger no longer than such a length of time, say 1 second. After that he needs to regain his vision/re-adjust aim/etc etc. This 1 second should be the same for any tripod mounted MG. Then the current model CM uses would be incorrect, because MG42 would shoot twice the rounds of a M1917 in one burst (1 second) before gunner releases trigger..... So whether the tripod offers that kind of stability is what I'm wondering.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The LMG ...25 round bursts....are you really sure about that....???

I was shooting the light MG3 myself and was ordered to fire short bursts of 3-5 rounds.

Even if i would have been ordered to fire longer bursts i only could imagine that this has a use if the enemy is actually running at very low distances below 50 (maximum 100 meters).

The spread after the 5th round of a LMG is increasing a lot so fighting a specific target over 100 meters would be more ineffcient.

Additionally you have to check the effect, the targets and situation whole time.

That is more easy if you do short bursts with a LMG ...

Speaking of bipod version as said.

Actually it´s the approximately 1 second pull on the trigger and amount of bullets a burst, then may be derived from the actually assumed technical ROF (900, 1200 or 1500) for MG 34 and MG 42. So practically it can be anywhere between 15 to 25 rounds a burst.

The main targeting mode in the lMG role yet remains at delivering short successive bursts (5-7 rounds) at "point targets". A "skilled" gunner can pull the trigger a little longer at point targets, preserving control of the gun, but "sweeping" along a broad target was both unusual and impractical and instead, "point target" bursts were put beside each other. This was and is the standard, while the 1 second trigger pull, as said, was for the "skilled" and/or target rich environments, emergencies, very short range ect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kauz,

The question is, does the tripod offer significant stability to counter recoil, that burst volume is no longer a big issue.

It definitely does, though I can´t tell for every tripod mounted gun. The tripod MG34/42 at least preserves a pretty good accuracy at longe ranges and here it´s where high volume of fire in shortest time, makes the difference. It´s not hard to imagine what a pretty accurate burst of 50 rounds in ~2 seconds does to any target, compared to the pretty inacurate ones of 6-7 rounds in the game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kauz,

Thanks for the info... didn't know that before!

I set up 3 tests of LMG42/HMG42/HMG34/M1917A1 on a range of 600m. (the LMG can't shoot to 1000m obviously). From what I can observe:

The LMG42 shoots in bursts of 5-7 rounds.

The HMG42 shoots in bursts of 5-7 rounds.

The HMG34 shoots in bursts of 3-5 rounds.

The M1917 shoots in bursts of 4-6 rounds.

HMG42 has slightly better burst frequency then LMG42 but not much.

I think 2 concepts are being dealt here. 1 is burst length, the time between trigger depress and trigger release. 2 is burst volume, the rounds shot in each burst.

From what I can understand from your description of the bipod, its limiting factor is burst volume, i.e. first 3 rounds are accurate, the follow on rounds degrade. Therefore a LMG42 shooting 5-7 rounds per burst, compared to 4-6 of a lower rof LMG is somewhat correct.

....

Yes ...if a LMG wants to enage a target accurate and efficient (regulary on medium or higher distance) it trys NOT to fire more than 7 rounds.

You will get an idea of the accuracy and spread of a LMG in the following post:

http://www.battlefront.com/community/showpost.php?p=1528322&postcount=5

So the devs simulate the burst length of LMG in generally right....for all light machine guns.

You may ask, why then the high rate of fire could be in interest for a light machine gun....

The advantage of a MG42 in relation to a DP28 is that the MG42 does the work (delivering for example a 5 round burst) in only about 40% of the time a DP28 needs to.

Imagine the following situation:

A soldiers is hiding and the LMG gunner waits for him getting up again to kill him.

The soldier is getting up ...runs 2-5 meters and drop himself back to the earth searching cover...the light machine gunner may only have a short, a snapshot of time to shot on him.

This short time the MG42 can use to deliver more rounds than a DP28 gunner. That increases the hit probability.

------------

.....

The question is, does the tripod offer significant stability to counter recoil, that burst volume is no longer a big issue. If it does, then burst length comes into play. The gunner will no longer be affected by how many rounds he shoots, but will only remain comfortable, if he holds down the trigger no longer than such a length of time, say 1 second. After that he needs to regain his vision/re-adjust aim/etc etc. This 1 second should be the same for any tripod mounted MG. Then the current model CM uses would be incorrect, because MG42 would shoot twice the rounds of a M1917 in one burst (1 second) before gunner releases trigger..... So whether the tripod offers that kind of stability is what I'm wondering.

Yes it does.....that i already tried to tell and proof with a lot of video links.

The links are all in this thread....but i collect them again for you:

Related to the spread/accuracy with "infinite" long bursts:

@ 0:37 min:

--------

Related to longer bursts and swinging the gun:

@ 2:27-2:38 min:

Related to accuracy of short bursts without swinging:

same link like above

@ 1:18-1:57 min

Related to ability to aim fast and fight fast several targets without swinging and without vertical fixation of the gun:

@ 0:12-0:18 min:

Related to the doctrine to fire longer bursts instead of shorter ones:

@ 0:19-0:22 min:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It definitely does, though I can´t tell for every tripod mounted gun. The tripod MG34/42 at least preserves a pretty good accuracy at longe ranges and here it´s where high volume of fire in shortest time, makes the difference. It´s not hard to imagine what a pretty accurate burst of 50 rounds in ~2 seconds does to any target, compared to the pretty inacurate ones of 6-7 rounds in the game.

correct.

Btw: can you send me a copy of the 25 round order for light machine guns.

I could try ask the "Bundesarchiv"...but it will take time....and you seem to already have this "Heeres-Dienstvorschrift"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Speaking of bipod version as said.

Actually it´s the approximately 1 second pull on the trigger and amount of bullets a burst, then may be derived from the actually assumed technical ROF (900, 1200 or 1500) for MG 34 and MG 42. ....

That is the point....you do NOT pull the trigger 1 second with the light MG3 (light=bipod).

You just only tap the trigger to ensure that only 3-7 rounds leave the gun.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That they continue to prosecute their orders in the face of 50% casualties says more about the morale rules, I feel, than the MG's effectiveness.

Yeah...

The moral rules / suppression effect seems wrong since Shock Force, the CMx1 games have done a much better job in this field, but at least we now have better graphics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK that tripod is awesome. That was an almost 4 second burst and I can see no rounds scatter up and down, except the horizontal swing of the gunner manually! At this rate barrel overheat is gonna come first before accuracy is affected...

By the looks of it all the HMGs in game are under represented with the MG42s getting the bad end of the stick...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
...I can see no rounds scatter up and down...

Then you need to take off your rose-tinted spectacles. There is easily discernible "kick" when you watch the side view, even on those short bursts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Then you need to take off your rose-tinted spectacles. There is easily discernible "kick" when you watch the side view, even on those short bursts.

Watch the Mg34 video in the list i posted....for you again:

again....the only thing you see is a vertical movement of the rtacer line up and down due to the aiming of the gunner.

and a some richochets and breakign inceniary charges after the impact of bullets.

There is literally no significant spread..........omg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Watch the Mg34 video in the list i posted....for you again:

again....the only thing you see is a vertical movement of the rtacer line up and down due to the aiming of the gunner.

and a some richochets and breakign inceniary charges after the impact of bullets.

There is literally no significant spread..........omg

You can't see anything meaningful in that video. Have you got a video where they fire off a 50 round burst and inspect the target-end of the range to see what actual effect it had?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Two things - "why then the high rate of fire could be in interest for a light machine gun" - the answer is to deal with snap targets that are only exposed very briefly. It is not to dump lots of rounds at theoretical cycle ROF.

The second thing concerns the specific advantages of a Sturmgewehr over an MP. It is not higher FP per unit time primarily, though there may be a bit of that in the 100 to 200 yard window. It is instead lower ammo consumption per unit time to achieve that FP, and thus an ability to sustain it for longer. That is what you get from aimed shots, fairly rapidly semi auto, over short bursts - each round has a higher hit probability.

Too many people think that firepower is one optimal thing and that higher ROF directly translates to delivered FP, that FP is measured in a per unit time fashion. It isn't, per unit time and over entire ammo load are two very different things, and the latter is usually far more important because all automatic weapons can dump their entire practical ammo loads in far less time than typical firefights last.

The practical limit on firepower delivered has never been cyclic rate, from the invention of automatic weapons. Every automatic weapon ever has been able to throw all the ammo that could physically be brought up to the gun, far faster than it could practically be supplied, since necessarily these weapons are up in the forward battle zone, where everything must move by man packing, carried weights are highly restricted, movement is hazardous etc.

Since those movement abilities do not change and they set the total ammo available to be thrown by all the hoses capable of throwing it, combined, the actual delivered firepower is set by achieved accuracy per round. You cannot fire twice as much by just having a higher rate of fire, because you cannot hold the trigger down without running dry almost instantly, to begin with. You thus need to shoot *straighter*, not faster, to achieve a greater firepower effect.

There are two competing ways of shooting straighter. One is to shoot more accurately with each round, and the other is to shoot at more exposed targets. The best targets are exposed only briefly. If you move more of your total firing time into the brief windows when good targets are present, you increase your achieved accuracy, on the target exposure side. But on the other side, rapid fire throws more rounds per achieved hit when the target exposure is held constant, than aimed semi auto or shorter burst fire.

There is a trade off between those two ways of getting to the goal of greater average hits per round fired, not one optimum. And nobody gets to throw more rounds just by having different tubes to throw them - nobody is constrained on that score, to start with.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Then you need to take off your rose-tinted spectacles. There is easily discernible "kick" when you watch the side view, even on those short bursts.

in the side views you can only see the gun. i mean the first 5 seconds or so of the video where the impacts of the bullets are shown.

i admit that only video is not enough to convince everyone. for that one would need recognized data results. for example, if data exists that prove the bullets scatter pattern after 0.3 seconds of firing is on the same level compared to after 2 seconds firing, and probably something more complicated than that. so until then i think this will remain another meaningless forum debate.

however it is enough to convince myself, and provides an explanation for my past experiences. i lower my expectations accordingly. no game is perfect that much i know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You can't see anything meaningful in that video. ...

Well i can.... and i see a lot....

Have you got a video where they fire off a 50 round burst and inspect the target-end of the range to see what actual effect it had?

Not at the moment....but i will try to find more... :)

But may you try also to find something that support your opinion...just saying "no" to mine and always let me do the research work does not bring us any further.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Try this one. At 100yd, the MG42, firing short bursts is no more consistent than an iron-sights M16A2 firing single aimed shots. Simple geometry says the base of the Cone of Fire would be (a bit more than) 4 times the diameter at 400m.

Edit: Oops, forgot the URL.

That tracer vid is all sound and fury, signifying nothing. You are seeing what you want to see.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It seemed to me like she hit it way faster with the m16 than the mg and with 1/50th

bullets. Oh and a MG3 and MG42 are NOT the same. 70 years of infrastructure, materials, and production (and machinegun) technology makes a difference.

Someone should link the USA info/propaganda movie showing how much "better" and more accurate the USA weapons are than the nazi ones.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Try this one. At 100yd, the MG42, firing short bursts is no more consistent than an iron-sights M16A2 firing single aimed shots. Simple geometry says the base of the Cone of Fire would be (a bit more than) 4 times the diameter at 400m.

Edit: Oops, forgot the URL.

That tracer vid is all sound and fury, signifying nothing. You are seeing what you want to see.

I actually see that she or he is changing aiming not only between the burst...may be during the bursts too.....so this video signifying nothing....

at the MG34 video you can clearly see that the gun only elevates vertical wise and that there is no side drifting of the tracer line and no spread/ outbreak out of the tracer trajetory.

perhaps you should buy a bigger screen....use fullscreen-mode at the video...the maximum resolution of the video...increase the brightness of your screen and take off the specific glasses you recommended Skwabie.

Nevertheless...i admit that we should find data for the accuracy during fire bursts....

But no doubt for me is that the accuracy and firepower is far far far far far far far far far far better than using a light machine gun and so the HMG are clearly undermodelled

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It seemed to me like she hit it way faster with the m16 than the mg and with 1/50th

bullets. Oh and a MG3 and MG42 are NOT the same. 70 years of infrastructure, materials, and production (and machinegun) technology makes a difference. ...

That you should proof first...

The effective range in handbooks of MG42/MG34 and MG3 are still the same 1000-1200 meters.

Someone should link the USA info/propaganda movie showing how much "better" and more accurate the USA weapons are than the nazi ones.

I know that video....and it seemed more like a propaganda film....with faked results

And they for example told that MP40 fires faster than the tompson ...rofl

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought the vid was surprisingly fair for propoganda. I mean sure they downplayed the cons of the USA weapons, upplayed the pros, while doing the opposite for the nazi weapons, but I dont think the results were "fixed ". They seemed to use elite marksmen to handle both USA and nazi weapons, the shooters just had more experience with the USA guns. I dont think anyone was told not to shoot as well as they could, I imagine they were all prideful of their marksmanship. I havent watched it in a long time, but are you sure the vid talked of the mp40 having a higher rounds per minute? Orwas it saying the mp40 has a higher muzzle velocity than the thompson? because the later is true. Id also imagine that the thompson has the better shooting range characteristics from its heavier bullet and more expensive, heavier construction. Not better aim on the battlefield where flight time is critical but at targets at known and short ranges on a target range.

I thought the vidio gave me unexpected insight into some of the not obvious advantages of the m119 and BAR compared with the nazi lmg and hmg. By the numbers the 20 round clip of the BAR and slow RPM of the m119 make them seem totally inferior, but the video showed how it is an issue of pros and cons, much like the overall firepower from ammo equation JasonC was talking about. And I think it's an issue Combat Mission x2 demonstrates very well. Against highy exposed targets that are only breifly available the higher rpm of the mg42/34 shines. Maybe not quite as much as it should I dont know. But if the enemy is staying in good cover, not presenting many high exposure opertunities, and the battle last long enough for the mgs to start going dry, I think the water cooled m119s will have more kills than the mg42/34s, by being moree accurate per bullet. Also more kills than any .50 cals that ran out of ammo way earlier.

oh and one more thing is that while mgs dont dump 50 bursts at long range, they do dump ammo at what seems around their theoretical max rate of fire under the right circumstances. I know thats not whats being asked for exactly but it is cool to see that they do go full throttle. Possible SPOILER! I was just playing mission two of the Soviet campaign. I told one of my mmgs to areafire a crest about 80 meters away, and much to my surprise less than 20 seconds into the turn were already reloading second belt. unfotunatey the unsurpressed jerks in a trench eventually killed em all before I noticed but by that time they had unloaded enough rounds to route 3 foxhole positions from the one area fire order. So if you want your mgs to go crazy set up grazing fire with a crest at 80meters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...