Bil v C3K AAR – Germans v SMGs in Woods

[Michael Emrys]

I think what we are seeing is, like in the Elvis vs. Bil matchup, that dense forest tends to favor the side that is quietly in place against the side that is moving and creating noise. In other words it is good ambush terrain. There are ways to deal with that bias, but it does have to be taken into account.

Michael

[pnzrldr]

Heh,

I find German troops nearly invincible in more open terrain, with their plethora of MGs. Only US troops are real competition, and even with the better US squad firepower from the Garands/BAR, they still struggle to match lethality at rifle ranges. It usually takes support weapons - mortars, HMGs or armor - to really disrupt them. Biggest weakness is their lack of numbers. They lose combat power fast with only a few casualties, and if you lose a machinegunner and fail to recover his MG your squad is pretty much done. This 'in-close' thing is definitely not their forte, but Bil's tactics look solid, and when he switches to his own area fire the MGs will still be quite deadly even at close range. These woods look pretty heavy - I would argue that Russian SMG'ers would best stay in the sweet spot between 100m and grenade range for optimal employment. Terrain like this that sucks them into grenade range lets the Germans even up the odds. Light forest with fewer trees and less undergrowth might be a tougher proposition.

[GreenAsJade]

I think the premise was that c3k essentially challenged anyone to stand against Russian SMG units in woods.

I guess we didn't see the original challenge, but what Bill said at the beginning of this thread was

he had stated that the Russian SMG formations could not be beaten in the woods

I think this thread is demonstrating that. Exchanging terrain for time is not really "beating" the SMG guys is it?

And even Bil says that instead of attacking them ...

rather I'd tiptoe around them...

... all of which confirms the premise: you can't beat the Russian SMGs in the forest...

GaJ

[sburke]

I guess we didn't see the original challenge, but what Bill said at the beginning of this thread was

I think this thread is demonstrating that. Exchanging terrain for time is not really "beating" the SMG guys is it?

And even Bil says that instead of attacking them ...

... all of which confirms the premise: you can't beat the Russian SMGs in the forest...

GaJ

Ahh but that story is still being written.

[John Kettler]

I don't know whether it's modeled in-game, but full power rifle cartridges can punch through cover the Russian SMG cartridges can't . In the example on the War Department training film Infantry Weapons Effect, .30 ball from the M1 Garand goes right through a foot diameter oak tree and clear through a bucket of water behind it. Thus, what's cover for the Germans is more like concealment for the Russians firing a potent--but still not comparable in cover penetration to a 7.92mm x 57mm Mauser--7.62mm x 25mm Tokarev cartridge. If that doesn't amount to a tactical advantage, I've no idea what does.

Nor is this mere War Department hype, for I've got direct reports from two of my brothers (one ex-US Air Force, the other ex-Army) indicating that 7.62mm NATO ball went clean through cypress telephone poles during firing demonstrations on the difference between concealment and cover. It was drummed into the trainees that trees of this size were concealment, not cover. In case anyone wasn't paying attention, the M60 was then used to saw down the telephone pole section, which was set into a pipe in the ground.

As a visit to the Internet Encyclopedia of Ukraine will show, pines constitute ~35% of the tree cover there, followed by oak, ~27%, beech at ~9% and almost everything else being soft wood of multiple types. Therefore, as a general rule, trees in the region won't offer ballistic protection anywhere nearly as good as the oak in the War Department training film.

Regards,

John Kettler

[Crinius]

I don't know whether it's modeled in-game, but full power rifle cartridges can punch through cover the Russian SMG cartridges can't . In the example on the War Department training film Infantry Weapons Effect, .30 ball from the M1 Garand goes right through a foot diameter oak tree and clear through a bucket of water behind it. Thus, what's cover for the Germans is more like concealment for the Russians firing a potent--but still not comparable in cover penetration to a 7.92mm x 57mm Mauser--7.62mm x 25mm Tokarev cartridge. If that doesn't amount to a tactical advantage, I've no idea what does.

Nor is this mere War Department hype, for I've got direct reports from two of my brothers (one ex-US Air Force, the other ex-Army) indicating that 7.62mm NATO ball went clean through cypress telephone poles during firing demonstrations on the difference between concealment and cover. It was drummed into the trainees that trees of this size were concealment, not cover. In case anyone wasn't paying attention, the M60 was then used to saw down the telephone pole section, which was set into a pipe in the ground.

As a visit to the Internet Encyclopedia of Ukraine will show, pines constitute ~35% of the tree cover there, followed by oak, ~27%, beech at ~9% and almost everything else being soft wood of multiple types. Therefore, as a general rule, trees in the region won't offer ballistic protection anywhere nearly as good as the oak in the War Department training film.

Regards,

John Kettler

I have to agree. During my time in the German Army (I was a Panzergrenadier) I was drilled on the G3 Assault rifle. It fires the 7,62 × 51 mm NATO ammunition. I still remember how our instructors demonstrated how you could shoot through a 30 cm thick piece of oak. Of course in close quarters. They also said to us that we shouldnt feel save behind trees even behind house walls you gotta be cautious.

[Der Alte Fritz]

I would agree with that as well, the British Army SLR firing NATO 7.62 ball ammunition - we regularly used to shoot through walls brick and concrete block at ranges over 100m.

The SMG firing a pistol bullet could not do this.

[c3k]

I'll chime in with my DAR report later tonight or early tomorrow...

[Andrew H.]

I don't know whether it's modeled in-game, but full power rifle cartridges can punch through cover the Russian SMG cartridges can't .

John Kettler

I have to agree. During my time in the German Army (I was a Panzergrenadier) I was drilled on the G3 Assault rifle. It fires the 7,62 × 51 mm NATO ammunition. I still remember how our instructors demonstrated how you could shoot through a 30 cm thick piece of oak.

I would agree with that as well, the British Army SLR firing NATO 7.62 ball ammunition - we regularly used to shoot through walls brick and concrete block at ranges over 100m.

The SMG firing a pistol bullet could not do this.

I haven't tested tested this, but it certainly seems that area firing German MGs in forests have a lot of penetrating power when area firing. But it's hard to tell what's actually going on because area fire. I have wondered whether setting up interlocking fire lanes might slow down SMG troops, though.

Once you have LOS, though, I think the MG's weaknesses will outweigh its penetrating power - one MG vs. 5-10 SMG troops at less than 30m won't end well for the MG.

[GreenAsJade]

Entirely unscientific, but my recent experience is that the Germans can area fire all they like, but chances of hitting appear too low - you can't establsih _where_ to area fire into, and the sneaky SMGs somehow dodge away from the area fire. Once LOS is established, the Germans are dead.

Maybe I should have brought up my trucks, and been way more profligate with ammo!

GaJ

[sfhand]

My take, based on earlier CM forest fires, is that area firing is not the way to go. At least in my experience troops with LOS are much more likely to throw grenades at the enemy, and most of the casualties I have suffered in these battles has been first by grenades, the losses from which give fire superiority to the grenade lobbing side allowing for bullets doing the mop up. Area firing also gives one's position away to other enemy in LOS who hadn't spotted one's troops, leaving them free to make use of their grenades. And because LOS is so short in most forests it is almost always in grenade range.

[snarre]

in heavy forest area fire is best way to go because its hard to get los in forsest and if you move enemy gona spot you and shoot first + nades.

[Macisle]

in heavy forest area fire is best way to go because its hard to get los in forsest and if you move enemy gona spot you and shoot first + nades.

+1.

Getting the first burst in (and preferably out of grenade range) seems to be the key.

[sfhand]

The problem with area fire in forests is you give away your position to non-suppressed units and LOS is usually within grenade range

[Macisle]

The problem with area fire in forests is you give away your position to non-suppressed units and LOS is usually within grenade range

I was thinking more in terms of MG42s shooting as far ahead as possible so their fire "splashes" beyond LOS/grenade range. Of course, there are a ton of variables such as number of units area firing vs. size of woods, etc.

[Bil Hardenberger]

This turn Ken stopped his advance and conducted area fire across the line... I started to pull my 1st Platoon back to the next line so only suffered two casualties to his wild fire.

Look at all of the sound contacts in this image... it sure appears to me that Ken might have concentrated entirely on the right side of the map.. right where I also concentrated.

I am moving the squad I have on the left forward to see if that area is indeed devoid of troops. 2nd Platoon is moving forward to seek out the flank of Ken's force.. hopefully he will continue to move forward as 2nd platoon moves to the flank.

I also have my two HMGs that had been deployed very deep on the move towards the action.

[slysniper]

My take, based on earlier CM forest fires, is that area firing is not the way to go. At least in my experience troops with LOS are much more likely to throw grenades at the enemy, and most of the casualties I have suffered in these battles has been first by grenades, the losses from which give fire superiority to the grenade lobbing side allowing for bullets doing the mop up. Area firing also gives one's position away to other enemy in LOS who hadn't spotted one's troops, leaving them free to make use of their grenades. And because LOS is so short in most forests it is almost always in grenade range.

I agree with this completely along with the statement about how this battle so far is being impacted by the fact that the side on defence and not moving has a huge advantage when it comes to forest fighting.

What the Russians lack is smoke, I have found smoke is the only thing that can give the attacking side a chance to close with the enemy and make it a fair fight when in woods. Well in this case, if the Russians are able to stand toe to toe, a fair fight is weighed majorly in their favor with the short range firepower they will produce. Bill is just pointing out, that fire power does not trump terrain when it comes to this match up.

Reverse the rolls and The germans will not clear any of the woods, Gareented,

I just had a H2H battle that my opponent tried just that. I think he lost about a platoon of men in his first effort and that was coming into contact with maybe15 smg's waiting in a defensive position for him in the woods

They never had a chance, losses were like 10-1.

Without smoke, I see no way for the attacker to win this battle. The Terrain is the most important thing here.

[GhostRider3/3]

I have to say in CMRT the Soviet troops are HARD to SPOT.. Their SMG squads are like invisible men.. Not sure but I think someone mentioned spotting infantry was more difficult.. damn straight! Did alot of quick battles playing either side.. and the SMG Squads are KILLING Machines..... Even setting up German HMG which are equiped with binoculars... and scouts... they really cant see shiaaat. Maybe its just the QB.. but even the campaign.. I have to litteraly BLAST an area before I move anywhere.. rarely do I get good contacts.

If the Geramans are attacking they really need good support, Mortars, and a few MG42's..So far the German Scenario Campaign.. the German infantry is no match for engagements... Even plastering the enemy with 150mm and 120mm arty fire the Soviet Guards SMG Infantry are sometimes barely even rattled.

I guess I will keep doing some QB's and testing some diffrent tactics.. but seriously the German Infantry should be able to spot you would think a bit better to engage with their MG42's and K98' and G43's... because lets be honest.. you dont want to be within 100 or even 200m of a SMG squad.

Alot of the engagments with the Russian infantry thus far has been behind low hedges, foxholes, and buildings.. not forest. Not saying the Russians have a MOD-advantage.. but they are extremely difficult to spot.. I would think maybe Fitness would have something to do with noise discipline etc. Anyways.. just my take... but because they are extremely sneaky.. I basically have to devistate an entire area just to get them to move so I can spot them.

[db_zero]

150-200 meters is 1 1/2 to 2 football fields. I was always under the impression SMGs that used pistol ammo was effective to 50 to 150 feet in full auto mode. Accuracy beyond that range in full auto was not good or at least that what I thought.

I've seen sources that state 50 feet is the effective range of an SMG in full auto mode and 100 feet in aimed single shot mode. IDK what the effective range is in RT, but if it is 150 to 300 meters, then I would venture to say they may be overpowered. I would also guess that just about any cover would be very effective at range as pistol ammo loses penetrating power at range rapidly. Its also going to be affected by wind.

[batteran]

150-200 meters is 1 1/2 to 2 football fields. I was always under the impression SMGs that used pistol ammo was effective to 50 to 150 feet in full auto mode. Accuracy beyond that range in full auto was not good or at least that what I thought.

I've seen sources that state 50 feet is the effective range of an SMG in full auto mode and 100 feet in aimed single shot mode. IDK what the effective range is in RT, but if it is 150 to 300 meters, then I would venture to say they may be overpowered. I would also guess that just about any cover would be very effective at range as pistol ammo loses penetrating power at range rapidly. Its also going to be affected by wind.

Accuracy is relative.

An PPSH41 in full auto mode empty his 71 rouds drum magazine in "a car door minute of angle" at 100 meters. (never tried longer distances).

Also, SMG ammo powder charge and barrel lenght are usualy greater than their pistol counterpart. this increase the effective range.

But ppsh41 is sort of an exception: very high rate of fire, heavy (but not as heavy as a thompson SMG ^^), about no recoil (thompson SMG have much!), a real full lenght rifle stock, good sight (for a SMG)... it's not a "SMG" by today standards, more a carbine that fire buffed pistols rounds.

[GhostRider3/3]

150-200 meters is 1 1/2 to 2 football fields. I was always under the impression SMGs that used pistol ammo was effective to 50 to 150 feet in full auto mode. Accuracy beyond that range in full auto was not good or at least that what I thought.

I've seen sources that state 50 feet is the effective range of an SMG in full auto mode and 100 feet in aimed single shot mode. IDK what the effective range is in RT, but if it is 150 to 300 meters, then I would venture to say they may be overpowered. I would also guess that just about any cover would be very effective at range as pistol ammo loses penetrating power at range rapidly. Its also going to be affected by wind.

Right, what I meant was.. the Soviet SMG squads are lethal in CQB.. but if your crossing any open terrain.. say a Bridge, street, or small field.. and they see you.. even at 100-150m.. they spray soo many rounds.. your squad could be litterally cut in half.. thus inneffective.

I have just noticed even at Point blank range.. the enemy infantry is very elusive and hard to spot.. albeit conditions are factors.. smoke, dust, foilage... but when they shoot at me.. they are rarely visible still even to armor facing them.. or infantry in buildings facing them. could be just my bit of luck though.. but lets face it.. Artillery.. is very nice.

[Pandur]

I have to say in CMRT the Soviet troops are HARD to SPOT.. Their SMG squads are like invisible men.. Not sure but I think someone mentioned spotting infantry was more difficult.. damn straight!

i am not sure i can see this in my game, i found no differences when spotting for infantry or smg infantry.

what makes a difference is that potential spotters are killed a lot faster on short range, means the chance to spot goes down in fact.

on medium to long range they dont open fire as likely as other troops and on long ranges not at all, they lack the range and so force you to advance closer, that alone can make you feel they are harder to spot. now your spotter gets closer and the closer he is the faster he is killed. other than that smg troops with vet status are or should be equal to other troops with vet status.

only other thing i can think off is the muzzle flash being a lot less on the PPSH compared to rilfe, and this has a effect like pistols on crews. they can plink away at you for 20 seconds at times with their pistol from like 20 meters befor you spot them. this effect could help the smg troops if their firing signature is less because of that.

but iam not sure i can see that, even if one smg shot has less signature then a rifle shot, they shoot so often in short time, i found smg troops easy to find.

the problem arises if your only or best spotter in the situation is the one first shot on and suppressed. then spotting gets difficult again.

[snarre]

bigest problem seems to be this , people move too fast and dont give to troops time to spot beter.

[slysniper]

bigest problem seems to be this , people move too fast and dont give to troops time to spot beter.

CORRECT, THERE REALLY IS NO PROBLEMS. THE GAME IS WORKING FINE.

The main thing is people trying to learn how to figth with or against smg's in the game.

When things dont go their way, the question starts coming up if its the games fault or flaw within the game. This time it is basically some comments are reflecting that, some times we as humans cannot accept the fact that we could be doing something wrong:eek:

[db_zero]

I don't have experience handling smgs so i can't say one way or another. 3 football fields does seem a bit far at least when you look at some of the sources out there.

I have never heard or see that the pistol ammo used by smgs were more powerful than normal pistol rounds. I could just be uninformed. Even on todays modern smgs I would be interested to know what the specs are. I know that a steady diet of +P and +P+ is not reccomended and in some weapons not reccomended at all. Once again I don't abt ww2 smgs.

Longer barrels in smgs could assist in accuracy in single shot mode, but in full auto mode wouldn't that be countered by the effect of firing in full auto?