Test range: The Maxim generates the similar firepower per minute like the heavy MG42

[Kauz]

I think everyone knows what your fantasy is, but I think that only works with fixed MGs that are part of an entrenched defensive scheme as in the 1st world war. Even then you really need barbed wire to keep the approaching enemy in your kill zone long enough to do the proper traversing.

Why do i need to be entrenched ? and why barbed fire?

i just need a heavy machine gun ....and an enemy aproaching between 100-250 meters (could be still more....but i guess then it is most effective to swing the gun).

The light machine guns do not swing....especially on these distances.

The heavy machine gun is easy able to aim, shoot and swing and because of this it is easy able to dispense a burst accurate in an area you like. And you can decide how long your burst is and how fast you are swinging.

In real life heavy machine guns are fireing longer bursts because they can without decreasing accuracy.

No heavy machine gun is shooting 5 round bursts when it sees 40 men running 150 meters in front of him....

And imagine if you shoot a 1 second burst (20-25 rounds) out of an ambush and there are falling easily 5 guys before the rest can lay down and seach cover

[Kauz]

In the following video you can see a heavy machine gun 34 firing long burst/continous fire while swinging the gun.

Look at Minute 2:15 - 2:17 :

[MengJiaoRedux]

In the following video you can see a heavy machine gun 34 firing long burst/continous fire while swinging the gun.

Look at Minute 2:15 - 2:17 :

He's shooting suppressive fire across a river (flat). I'm sure under ideal conditions traversing would be more or less a suppresive barage. But it isn't a death ray.

[Kauz]

He's shooting suppressive fire across a river (flat). I'm sure under ideal conditions traversing would be more or less a suppresive barage. But it isn't a death ray.

So? ....what is the point?

You can swing the gun to kill running people or you can swing the gun to supress the enemy who already took cover.

Who needs to talk if it is a "death-ray" or not....

....

long bursts and gun-oscillating are not represented in the game... but it should...

it would be more realistic/historical correct...and it would increase the supressive effect ...and it would increase hit probability.

[Sailor Malan2]

For HMGs, as in real life, swinging sounds fun and effective, but in fact is rather more practiced in fiction than fact!

MG42 rof =1200/min, or 20/s.

If firing at a visible target you need to aim, or you are unlikely to hit at above point blank. To fire at a group of say 10 men spread out at 10m intervals, 250m away, for full (100%) effect, 1/2s fire needs to cover 100m at 250m range. Using Trig, tan(angle of swing)=1/2.5 so you swing over 22degrees. In half a second. Whilst keeping the gun at the same angle to the vertical, which means you have to either have the mount dead level, or have very steady hands.

Increase the range? same issue at 500m gives 11 degrees. Not going to happen. Thus 'most' of the bullets from an MG42 burst are going to go in the gaps between targets (or, if you don't swing, in to the same person).

Fire a longer burst, and the targets will all drop prone.

For a weapon with 1/2 the rate of fire (600rds/min) you get twice as long to cover the arc... but the targets get longer to drop.

Sustained fire and swinging from an HMG is for suppression/area denial not casualties (barring a turkey shoot).The best use of any HMG in a target rich environment is very rapid aimed short bursts - one every few seconds, as fast as you can re-aim (with a spotter to tell you where a group has stood up again). You do not automatically increase casualties by putting more bullets down range, especially if they are all very close to each other. The HMG increases the chance of a hit per burst above a single shot, but after the first few rounds of the burst, does little else but suppress.

Just my 2p...

[Fūrinkazan]

Kauz

I would not totally agree with you when you say that hmgs are useless now in the game. Each battle that i play, they cause the most casualties beside artillery. If you want to see useless hmgs play cmsf or cmbn 1.0 and you'll see that it's hard to have more than 10 casualties with hmgs with those versions of the game.

During the other threads on the same subject back to cmbn, i wrote that the problem would be more obvious in the east front with larges maps and open field of fire. At long range, hmgs should shine, i would say past 800 m.

The game works this way : the longer the range, the longer time it takes to aim, the less bursts you'll get. Isn't it strange that you shoot less bullets at 1500 m to hit a target than at 400 m ? I think the system works well with rifles smgs lmgs. But hmgs are different weapons. Why shoot at 250 rpm at 100 m and 90 rpmor less at 1500 m ? At that distance you target a group of men not a single target. When the enemy is close, it makes sense to shoot short bursts to change of targets fast, but at long range, longer bursts seem to be more logical. But i may be wrong.

I like to place my hmgs way behind, sometimes at 500 or 600 m behind my main line of defense, and on the flank if possible. i think that, at those distances, the rate of fire is too low. I don't think that bfc, despite the fact that they always improved the game in the past, will implement swing of the gun. But, maybe longer bursts, with some random in it, and maybe less delay to target at long range. One short to simulate range evaluation, and 2 or 3 long to simulate the fire for effect then repeat the process. when you area target, the bursts don't hit the same place, so this could simulate the swing of the gun.

For me, it's like having a mortar that would shoot at 10 rpm at 500 m and 5 rpm at 1500 and 2 rpm at 2000 m.

I'm not talking about inflicting more casualties, but to be more efficient at long range, that's all.

this would also make hmgs really different from lmgs and more in the role of collective weapons like mortars.

Now, it's also true that they are a part of a system and placement, with cross fire etc is also crucial.

[Kauz]

For HMGs, as in real life, swinging sounds fun and effective, but in fact is rather more practiced in fiction than fact!....

Any evidence for that?

MG42 rof =1200/min, or 20/s.

Between 1050 and 1500 .... ---so ~17- 25 rps....depending on source and used ammo type. BF manual says something about 1200-1500.

If firing at a visible target you need to aim, or you are unlikely to hit at above point blank.

correct.

To fire at a group of say 10 men spread out at 10m intervals,

That is quite a lot. Even at the careful germans the "schützenrudels" have standard distances of 5 meter. Only on special orders the distances get changed.

And i do not know if the russians do care a lot about distances ....especially if i think of battle of "seelow hights"...

Nevertheless:

In the game they are quite close and always in a line. That is not the real battle behaviour.

That is the point why the devs definetly have statistics involved. But if they do so....the whole single person concept was for nothing...they just should have stayed with the abstract concept of CM:BB.

But this is a whole other discussion.

Let us stay with your 10 meters instead of the more likely 5 meters for a moment.

250m away, for full (100%) effect, 1/2s fire needs to cover 100m at 250m range. Using Trig, tan(angle of swing)=1/2.5 so you swing over 22degrees. In half a second. Whilst keeping the gun at the same angle to the vertical, which means you have to either have the mount dead level, or have very steady hands.

That is the whole point....with a HMG you can decide if you want to fire a long burst, if you want to swing fast or not, if you want to fix the vertical elevation or not.

In this case you just can easily swing the gun while the vertical angle/elevation is fixated. You will be able to dispense the 25 rounds in a accurate horizontal line. You do not care the vertical angle anymore...it is fix. ( that is one of the advantage of a tripod)

A thing you can not do the a light machine gun. With a light machine gun you are limited to 3-7 round bursts to keep accuracy. And because of this you mostly aim and shoot a specific target without swinging.

A HMG can work the other way.

In the video you see him fireing the HMG while the vertical angle is fix. He just oscillates the gun knowing that he will set the rounds at a specific vertical high.

Increase the range? same issue at 500m gives 11 degrees. Not going to happen. Thus 'most' of the bullets from an MG42 burst are going to go in the gaps between targets (or, if you don't swing, in to the same person).

Increasing the range is not necessary.

Despite that i already said that the use of horizontal oscillating is more on shorter ranges up to 250 meters. Like in the video you for sure can fire this way to supress....the effect will decrease with higher distance or you have to fire more rounds.

Fire a longer burst, and the targets will all drop prone.

For a weapon with 1/2 the rate of fire (600rds/min) you get twice as long to cover the arc... but the targets get longer to drop.

And now you get the answer why a HMG with 1500 rpm will be more effective than a HMG with 500 rpm.

The very moment a group gets the order to stand up and assault i can fire more rounds into this groups till they search cover again.

Sustained fire and swinging from an HMG is for suppression/area denial not casualties (barring a turkey shoot).

Like i once said....supression is a function of a lot variables....

But for sure supression is a function of the fear/probability to get hit.

The numbres of "turkey shots" increase statiscally with the numbres or rounds i send into a bunch of enemies....no matter if they are running or hiding.

The best use of any HMG in a target rich environment is very rapid aimed short bursts - one every few seconds, as fast as you can re-aim (with a spotter to tell you where a group has stood up again).

In general you are correct.....especially if you use a LMG which is limited to fire short bursts because of decreasing accuracy ....and if you fire on medium to high distances .....and if you fire single targets ......or wide spread targets.

But we talk about shorter distances with higher spotting ability and with normal or higher enemy density.

At least when i see 3-5 people running at 150 meters with 5 meters distance to each other i will be more motivated to fire my long 25 round bursts into all these guys than aiming on a single one....especially when i know that they will search cover after that burst....i will take the chance to hit more than one guy.

You do not automatically increase casualties by putting more bullets down range, ....

I did not say that.....i attached conditions to that...

On medium to higher distances and especially on proning or only occasional targets i will fire my bursts on a specific target and not osciallate my weapon then

[Kauz]

Kauz

I would not totally agree with you when you say that hmgs are useless now in the game. Each battle that i play, they cause the most casualties beside artillery.

In my experiences A HMG units achieves maximum 15-20 casulaties.

Most of them on shorter ranges....The same ranges a standard infantry group is fighting at

And very interessting is that a standard infantry group is achieveing the same amount of casulaties like the HMG units..

If you want to see useless hmgs play cmsf or cmbn 1.0 and you'll see that it's hard to have more than 10 casualties with hmgs with those versions of the game.

That is one of the main points why i did not play Normandy.

(no round-based TCP/IP, ultra spotting aimbotter tanks, useless HMGs, useless trenches, not being able to fire Panzerfausts from buildings)

When i heard that they established at least a little the round bases tcp-ip and increased HMG power i decided to buy CM:RT.

During the other threads on the same subject back to cmbn, i wrote that the problem would be more obvious in the east front with larges maps and open field of fire. At long range, hmgs should shine, i would say past 800 m.

I see the problem. there are two....

The problem to spot an enemy (at every distance) and the extreme decreasing practical rate of fire.

In my test set up i wanted to see what the HMG are at least capable to bring up ....

short ranges = high spotting ability and high practical rate of fire.

dense enemy = high spotting ability, high hit probaility and high practical rate of fire

I saw that the LMG practical rate of fire and fire behaviour is more close to the literature than the HMG.

The HMG42 should have about 100% more practical rate of fire than it has in the moment.

An this practical rate of fire should not decrease with distance that fast than a LMG does.

The game works this way : the longer the range, the longer time it takes to aim, the less bursts you'll get. Isn't it strange that you shoot less bullets at 1500 m to hit a target than at 400 m ? I think the system works well with rifles smgs lmgs. But hmgs are different weapons. Why shoot at 250 rpm at 100 m and 90 rpmor less at 1500 m ? At that distance you target a group of men not a single target.

All correct....i support your opinion.

When the enemy is close, it makes sense to shoot short bursts to change of targets fast, but at long range, longer bursts seem to be more logical. But i may be wrong.

You are right in case you can not swing the gun at shorter distances.

Long bursts are fired on all distances....but on short distance you need to dispense the long burst with an osciallating movement. If not the most rounds are ineffective.

But sure only in case that the enemy-amount/-density is worth to fire longer bursts.

I like to place my hmgs way behind, sometimes at 500 or 600 m behind my main line of defense, and on the flank if possible. i think that, at those distances, the rate of fire is too low.

I have the same opinion.

I don't think that bfc, despite the fact that they always improved the game in the past, will implement swing of the gun. But, maybe longer bursts, with some random in it, and maybe less delay to target at long range. One short to simulate range evaluation, and 2 or 3 long to simulate the fire for effect then repeat the process. when you area target, the bursts don't hit the same place, so this could simulate the swing of the gun.

Yes...good idea and compromise !

short bursts to get the right aiming /distance and longer bursts for effect.

If no swing movement implemented it would be could to see:

At shorter distances far more bursts with different aimings.

[Fūrinkazan]

I think that if you think something needs to be improved in the game, people of BFC are always listening.

Tanks were too accurate, they could fire at too short range and at too high elevation, they fixed it. the same for tank crews, spotters of snipers team who used to shoot at too long range with their smgs and hmgs firepower. But they always try to find a nice solution that will not make them rework the all game engine. This is why asking for too realistical things is not possible. Some people wanted tank gun elevation. This was not possible but they found a solution with targeting delay that is nice and works quiet well. And the effect for the player is the same in game. and all this made a new much better, more realistic game each time.

I think the hmg fix works at short range, and that's why it was efficient in CMBN. If you play in bocage, you'll notice less the problem that will rise when you'll play in big opened maps. The main difference at short distance between hmgs and lmgs is ammo and the number of men that make hmgs more resistant on the battlefield.They are also more accurate at long distance if i remember well.

The problem now is to convince developers to take a look at this. When i read last answer by Steve on your other thread, i'm not very optimistic. But, who knows, it took time and a lot of fight to have a change on hmgs the first time and having a better firepower at long range is not impossible, and should, i think, improve the game mechanics and tactics, like the first hmg patch did. I remember that some people said that we were "childish pricks" because we asked for a change on hmgs. i don't think that now, people would like to go back to the old version....

[Kauz]

....

The problem now is to convince developers to take a look at this. When i read last answer by Steve on your other thread, i'm not very optimistic. But, who knows, it took time and a lot of fight to have a change on hmgs the first time and having a better firepower at long range is not impossible, and should, i think, improve the game mechanics and tactics, like the first hmg patch did. I remember that some people said that we were "childish pricks" because we asked for a change on hmgs. i don't think that now, people would like to go back to the old version....

I see that the LMG 42´s practical rate of fire (at best conditions average of 100-150 rpm) in the game is quite close to the quote i once citated here (refering on this, it should have 150-180 rpm).

But the HMG42 only has 200-250 and should have 400-450 rpm (refering to same citate).

I do not think that the first step the devs should do is to work on the game mechanics....

If the swing movement for shorter ranges or area fire is to complicate they just should start to increase the practical rate of fire.

And this they could do by increasing the rate of bursts per minute and additionally implement some longer bursts (~25 rounds).

This should not be the problem....

At the moment the HMGs work more like more accurate LMGs.

[Sailor Malan2]

At the moment the HMGs work more like more accurate LMGs.

And therein lies your problem. I do not see an issue with that... it is pretty much what they are (in fact, in the case of the MG42, exactly what they are).

HMGs have never been some scifi death ray...

Your first post cites 6-8000 rounds (c1000-1250 rounds per gun) to take out 600 men (100 per gun, c10 casualties per minute per gun)

So HMGs do not cause casualties?

[Sailor Malan2]

....But the HMG42 only has 200-250 and should have 400-450 rpm (refering to same citate).

400-450 rds per minute sustained is 18-20 secs continuous fire (I do not accept your 1500 rds/min rate), and 1 'and a bit' barrel changes. In 3 minutes, you have at lesst 3 hot barrels, and a shortage of cool spares. There is no way 400-450 can be sustained.

I do not think that the first step the devs should do is to work on the game mechanics....

If the swing movement for shorter ranges or area fire is to complicate they just should start to increase the practical rate of fire.

Do not forget the abstarctions in the video represenations. I do not know exactly how it works, but I have had casualties and supression in an adjacent square to the target area fired at. This suggests there is already some dispersion modelled.

And this they could do by increasing the rate of bursts per minute and additionally implement some longer bursts (~25 rounds).

This should not be the problem....

...

All a longer burst should do is increase suppression. As I explained, the rest of the burst will not hit other targets (or not likely to). More rounds does not equal more hits.

[JasonC]

Kauz - on "swinging fire", asked and answered, in post #165 of the "red hordes" thread, the last in it. Which got no response from you, just another thread starting as though it hadn't been written. I also notice you are ducking my questions about rifle accuracy.

Swinging an HMG through 22 degrees of arc with the trigger down does flat nothing, it is spray and pray and might scare people I suppose, but its actual fire effect is nil. The correct way to use an HMG to cover an area is traversing fire, as I described in the thread mentioned above. But it takes *many short bursts* to cover even *a few degrees of arc* using true traversing fire at typical fire plan ranges, meaning with the adjusts between them small enough that the beaten zones of the successive bursts actually cover the area.

When you swing an HMG through 22 degrees firing at targets 250 meters away, the space you are covering downrange is 94 meters wide. At 100 meters it is 37.5 meters wide. You don't evenly spread the through that range, either, you bunch up the rounds at the beginning and end of the swing when the gun is starting to move or ending its movement; the velocity isn't a constant because the swing starts and stops, etc. The rounds have inherent dispersion as well. To cover the longer distance you would need to make that swing take about 20 seconds and fire 400 rounds in a long belt. When instead you make the swing in half a second firing a 10 round burst, you are doing "spray and pray", your coverage is almost all gap, and you will miss practically everyone in the target area, even if you had the range perfect and they had no cover etc.

It just doesn't work, and that is why traversing fire exists, because it does work. But it doesn't fire one continuous long burst, and it isn't done with an unlocked gun. It is done with a short burst, calibrated to the inherent dispersion of the gun at the chosen range even when the gun is locked on a definite deflection and elevation, which is several meters at typical MG fire plan ranges. You fire a burst long enough to have an excellent chance of hitting anyone in the beaten zone of that dispersion, which can be as little as 6-10 rounds, depending on the range.

*Then you turn the traversing screw* by just enough to move the gun by a tiny angle, like a quarter of a degree at medium range, or a half a degree at close range. And fire another burst. This gives you actual coverage, but you need multiple short bursts to cover each degree of arc. And that is one reason MGs in real fire plans are given *narrow* fire lanes, not half the compass. The other reason it to let them "keyhole" and thus reduce reply fire that can hit the gun; you want everyone who can see it and reply to it suppressed when it is firing, etc.

As already explained in the previous thread, when you have multiple exposed man targets with a wide angle of separation between each - not a degree or three, but a truly wide target - then it is a complete waste to spray and pray through the whole arc. Most of the ammo is hitting nothing. Instead you actually aim the thing - orient on one target, fire a short burst at it, orient on the next target, fire a short burst at it, and repeat.

You can do the last just as easily with an LMG as with an HMG. If the angle to traverse through is very wide, a tripod might make it marginally easier to get the second half of the targets without the firer lifting the bipod and shifting his position behind it, about the only benefit it gives. In return it also gives a much more exposed because higher target for replies, but that is another matter.

The benefit of an HMG comes when you actually can use the locking screw and do true traversing fire. Which is when you have an actual fire plan with lanes and ranges and narrow cones, not wide targets over half the compass.

Your problem, Kaus, besides the fact that you are repeating yourself instead of actually engaging the people talking to you, who know a heck of a lot more about the matter than you seem to suppose, from actually doing it in real life I might add, is that you have the true benefits of high ROF and of a tripod mount completely backwards. You think they help most when you have a large, continuously exposed target over a wide arc. In fact the high ROF helps when you have a *briefly exposed target* and doesn't help if the shot is easy for a lower ROF weapon. (Because you can't improve on very high hit probabilities by throwing more bullets, only ones that are low to begin with). And the tripod helps the most when you have industrial strength fire plans, the CM equivalent of TRP directed fire on definite aim points already plotted in advance, *not* when you are swinging quickly from target to target one after the other.

Besides those finer points backwards, you have a more general problem of unrealistic expectations of MGs in general and of the effect of ROF on their abilities specifically. I have already explained to you what the true average performance of battlefield MGs actually was on the greatest outlier successes they have ever had - Somme in WW I and Omaha in WW II as those paradigm examples of large, continuously exposed targets with lots of MGs bearing on them and able to fire at them for extended periods. You have not faced the actual hits per gun achieved in those situations, falling back instead on firing range expectations of your own, not real combat results.

I have already explained why that is hopeless, with the rifle accuracy example, which you have yet to address at all.

Second, as others moved game test conditions closer to your ideal of a unrealistic target, continuously exposed forever and endless in bodies able to be shot, the actual observed results per MG doing the shooting soared past the best real world cases above, to the level of 100 per. You then moved the goalposts and pretend that isn't enough - with "enough" set purely in your imagination. If those game test results had been achieved by the MG42s sighted on Omaha Beach on June 6, 1944, that invasion would have failed with 100% casualties, and the MGs alone would have sufficed without help from thousands of rifles, nearly 100 direct fire light guns, and over 50 indirect fire weapons, to cause 7 times the casualties actually suffered on that occasion.

In short you have not shown any reason to believe that your expectations about what MGs should do in combat are remotely realistic, or that CMs current lethality for them, under silly contrived conditions or under typical real game ones, are wrong. The fantasy between your ears of what you think you could do with an MG42 is no more important for that, than the reality of what I do every weekend with a rifle at the range.

If I extrapolated what I do with a rifle every weekend to expectations for Omaha, I would think the guys on the bluffs with K98s would have sufficed to defeat the entire invasion without a single MG to their names, let alone any artillery. In less than five minutes, in fact. I don't make that extrapolation because I know that weapons in combat do not do what weapons on firing ranges do. You should think about that thought experiment very carefully, before you try to extrapolate your expectations to combat reality.

[Kauz]

And therein lies your problem. I do not see an issue with that... it is pretty much what they are (in fact, in the case of the MG42, exactly what they are).

HMGs have never been some scifi death ray...

Your first post cites 6-8000 rounds (c1000-1250 rounds per gun) to take out 600 men (100 per gun, c10 casualties per minute per gun)

So HMGs do not cause casualties?

In case 900 men running more or less all together to a bridge in open field ....and 6 elite heavy machine guns just only have to pull the trigger on distances between 100 and 340 meter ...yes then i would expect much more casualties and/or with less rounds.

In a normal game the HMGs only produce the same amount of casualties like a standard infantry group.....about 15-20 casualties.

[Kauz]

400-450 rds per minute sustained is 18-20 secs continuous fire (I do not accept your 1500 rds/min rate), and 1 'and a bit' barrel changes. In 3 minutes, you have at lesst 3 hot barrels, and a shortage of cool spares. There is no way 400-450 can be sustained.

The manual says that you have to change the barrel after 150 rounds sustained fire.

But nobody shoots sustained.

...So it has time to cool down....

And in case of emergency you can fire 300 rounds sustained (the barrel is not in good shape after that).

The barrel change takes only about 5-7 seconds.

The theoretical Rate of fire is about 1200-1500 rpm (Battlefront manual).

And here the quote about the practical accurate rate of fire:

"Refering to Colonel Butz, the "machine-gun-pope" of the Reichswehr and Wehrmacht, the MG34 with bipod (LMG) brang 120-150 rounds per minute accurate into target, with tripod (HMG ) 300-350.

Even more quick the MG42 fired: With bipod (LMG)150-180 rounds , on tripod (HMG) 400-450. The US BAR (LMG) only could reach lean 60-80 rounds. Promptly it had proved in the field, that the extreme high rate of fire not only was a big advantage for anti-aircraft purposes. The infantry got enabled to engage even for only short time appearing ground-targets with a lot of rounds. The hit probabilty increased. Crucially relevant is not only the numbres of hits, but that a high as possible numbre of hits in a short time as possible takes place..."

Edit fast example: let us assume we do not have 1500 rpm ....just 1200 rpm....let us assume we change the barrel every 150 rounds and not 300 rounds....let us assume we need 7 seconds to change the barrel....let us assume we fire sustained and take a look.

fast example:

150 rounds (7,5 seconds) + barrel change (7 seconds)+ 150 rounds (7,5 seconds)+ barrel change (7 seconds)+ 150 rounds (7,5 seconds)+ barrel change (7 seconds)+ 150m rounds (7,5 sec) + barrel change (7 seconds) = 600 rounds in 58 seconds

to reach the 450 we can avoid the last 150 rounds and the last barrel change. So we have time left: 7,5+7+2= 16,5 seconds for firebreaks and aiming and additional cool down while these breaks....may be we avoid an extra barrel change and get additional time

[H1nd]

Hot damn! I have never seen JasonC act this civil. It must be some sort of hidden appreciation of mutual pigheadedness

[Sailor Malan2]

The manual says that you have to change the barrel after 150 rounds sustained fire.

But nobody shoots sustained.

...So it has time to cool down....

And in case of emergency you can fire 300 rounds sustained (the barrel is not in good shape after that).

The barrel change takes only about 5-7 seconds.

The theoretical Rate of fire is about 1200-1500 rpm (Battlefront manual).

And here the quote about the practical accurate rate of fire:

"Refering to Colonel Butz, the "machine-gun-pope" of the Reichswehr and Wehrmacht, the MG34 with bipod (LMG) brang 120-150 rounds per minute accurate into target, with tripod (HMG ) 300-350.

Even more quick the MG42 fired: With bipod (LMG)150-180 rounds , on tripod (HMG) 400-450. The US BAR (LMG) only could reach lean 60-80 rounds. Promptly it had proved in the field, that the extreme high rate of fire not only was a big advantage for anti-aircraft purposes. The infantry got enabled to engage even for only short time appearing ground-targets with a lot of rounds. The hit probabilty increased. Crucially relevant is not only the numbres of hits, but that a high as possible numbre of hits in a short time as possible takes place..."

Edit fast example: let us assume we do not have 1500 rpm ....just 1200 rpm....let us assume we change the barrel every 150 rounds and not 300 rounds....let us assume we need 7 seconds to change the barrel....let us assume we fire sustained and take a look.

fast example:

150 rounds (7,5 seconds) + barrel change (7 seconds)+ 150 rounds (7,5 seconds)+ barrel change (7 seconds)+ 150 rounds (7,5 seconds)+ barrel change (7 seconds)+ 150m rounds (7,5 sec) + barrel change (7 seconds) = 600 rounds in 58 seconds

to reach the 450 we can avoid the last 150 rounds and the last barrel change. So we have time left: 7,5+7+2= 16,5 seconds for firebreaks and aiming and additional cool down while these breaks....may be we avoid an extra barrel change and get additional time

Seriously? You are kidding right. So your poor No. 3 has c15 seconds to get the replacement barrel, give it to No1, collect the hot barrel, put it somewhere safe (preferably in the open barrel container), all without getting in No1 or No2's way. All whilst someone else (No 2?) is clipping extra 50 round belts on to avoid running out (having to refeed the belt would certainly dent your 'fantasy times'!). BTW, an ammo box is 250 rds (5 50rd belts I believe) so every 20-25 seconds, someone is humping a box to where No2 can reach it to retrieve the next belts.

That isn't a description of a machine gun crew in action, its more like a sped up comedy silent movie sketch!

Oh, and I am no expert, but cooling the barrels in air takes a good few minutes, so you have an impressive row of spare barrels. All whilst staying low and hoping no one shoots at you!:eek:

[Sailor Malan2]

In case 900 men running more or less all together to a bridge in open field ....and 6 elite heavy machine guns just only have to pull the trigger on distances between 100 and 340 meter ...yes then i would expect much more casualties and/or with less rounds.

So, not one of the men in your test cowered? At all? What were you using, Star Wars Storm Troopers? I must have missed that option in QB:confused:

In a normal game the HMGs only produce the same amount of casualties like a standard infantry group.....about 15-20 casualties.

You dont think you have introduced another variable now? Where is the gun positioned? Where are the enemy relative to the gun? I can beat your figures for disappointment quite easily - I routinely have HMGs score no (zero, zilch) kills - I tend to keep them safer, at the expense of fire opportunities.

You have shown kill rates of 100 per gun in a short scenario. I have quoted zero kills in a long scenario. The game must be broken, there is no way HMG effectiveness varied that much!

[Kauz]

Seriously? You are kidding right. So your poor No. 3 has c15 seconds to get the replacement barrel, give it to No1, collect the hot barrel, put it somewhere safe (preferably in the open barrel container), all without getting in No1 or No2's way. All whilst someone else (No 2?) is clipping extra 50 round belts on to avoid running out (having to refeed the belt would certainly dent your 'fantasy times'!). BTW, an ammo box is 250 rds (5 50rd belts I believe) so every 20-25 seconds, someone is humping a box to where No2 can reach it to retrieve the next belts.

That isn't a description of a machine gun crew in action, its more like a sped up comedy silent movie sketch!

Oh, and I am no expert, but cooling the barrels in air takes a good few minutes, so you have an impressive row of spare barrels. All whilst staying low and hoping no one shoots at you!:eek:

- You can add your metal-clip (no matter how many rounds it have) whenever you want. You just add it to the belt which is already and still in use...while your comrade is fireing!!!!

Your no. 2 to your left is doing this....so as a gunner you have to take care only about the barrel...and not the reload procedure.

-changing the barrel does not effect the mounted belt.

You do not have to unload the gun to change the barrel....that is not necessary....

-You can easily have about 5 barrels as a HMG unit (may be more...i do not know).....barrels are "not" used in sustained fire (in our example 450 rpm are not 1500 rpm....about 60-70% of the time you do not shoot) ....and in case you would do you can fire 150-300 rounds with a barrel (300 rounds only if you do not care about the precision...the barrel gets ****ed a lot more....).

-The barrel-change you would do on your own or by a comrade.

It only takes 5-7 seconds ....and the barrel lays there to be ready to change....you do not have to fill out a formular first...

These are trained soldiers.....6 men .....and they keep the barrels ready for next change .....

The 250 ammo box weights about 8 kg ....less than the LMG 42 itself....

no problem to carry it to the point were it is needed.

And like i said ...in these 60 seconds you only fire about 22 seconds .... in the other 38 seconds of aiming and barrel changes your 2-3 barrels are already cooling down....(while a barrel can be used for 150-300 rounds alone). And then there are other new barrels......till these are used too you will have a good cool down of the 2-3 barrels before.

So it is more plausible to listen to the quote than to your interpretation:

"Refering to Colonel Butz, the "machine-gun-pope" of the Reichswehr and Wehrmacht, the MG34 with bipod (LMG) brang 120-150 rounds per minute accurate into target, with tripod (HMG ) 300-350.

Even more quick the MG42 fired: With bipod (LMG)150-180 rounds , on tripod (HMG) 400-450. The US BAR (LMG) only could reach lean 60-80 rounds. Promptly it had proved in the field, that the extreme high rate of fire not only was a big advantage for anti-aircraft purposes. The infantry got enabled to engage even for only short time appearing ground-targets with a lot of rounds. The hit probabilty increased. Crucially relevant is not only the numbres of hits, but that a high as possible numbre of hits in a short time as possible takes place..."

In the game ...despite having elite soldiers...short ranges...open field and best sight and a lot of enemies.....the HMG unit does not perform the 400-450 rpm....it usually fires only 200-250 rpm in the game....ridiculous

Btw. i shot the MG3 at the army myself (....not as a HMG...) but enough to know what a crew is capable of.

But i will do researches on the cool down rate of a 2kg barrel....i am interested in it myself....

[Sailor Malan2]

OK, its official, the MG42 was a combination death ray and magic wand, and I bow to your superior persistence as I give up. However:

- You can add your metal-clip (no matter how many rounds it have) whenever you want. You just add it to the belt which is already and still in use...while your comrade is fireing!!!!

Your no. 2 to your left is doing this....so as a gunner you have to take care only about the barrel...and not the reload procedure.

No 2 is fully occupied ensuring the existing belt feeds cleanly into the gun (have you seen how much a belt jumps around?). I do not know exactly what the length of a 50 round belt is, but say (conservatively) 10mm per round. That means the gun 'eats' a 50 round half meter belt in max 2.5 secs. So poor number 2 is trying to keep adding these length to the end of a belt that (in your model) is being swallowed at 1.5 m spurts. Unless he has a great length of belt pre-attached, he hasn't got a chance. Too long a belt makes for twists and misfeeds.

If the belt runs out, it doesn't matter who reloads the gun, someone has to (actually the gunner) and no firing will occur whilst it is done!

-changing the barrel does not effect the mounted belt.

You do not have to unload the gun to change the barrel....that is not necessary....

Who said it did/was? Not me for sure.

-You can easily have about 5 barrels as a HMG unit (may be more...i do not know).....barrels are "not" used in sustained fire (in our example 450 rpm are not 1500 rpm....about 60-70% of the time you do not shoot) ....and in case you would do you can fire 150-300 rounds with a barrel (300 rounds only if you do not care about the precision...the barrel gets ****ed a lot more....).

-The barrel-change you would do on your own or by a comrade.

It only takes 5-7 seconds ....and the barrel lays there to be ready to change....you do not have to fill out a formular first...

These are trained soldiers.....6 men .....and they keep the barrels ready for next change .....

My point is that no one can keep changing a barrel every 15 seconds for long... have you ever handled one? You need an asbertos pad to handle them when hot, and I am told that putting them on sand/soil when hot isnt a good idea. I don't know the barrel weight, but they are 1/2 m of high quality steel, not a bamboo stick.

The 250 ammo box weights about 8 kg ....less than the LMG 42 itself....

no problem to carry it to the point were it is needed.

Except some one is doing it twice a minute (almost) under your model, and under tactical conditions... "Where's the MG Sarge? Just next to that idiot running around humping ammo boxes!":)

And like i said ...in these 60 seconds you only fire about 22 seconds .... in the other 38 seconds of aiming and barrel changes your 2-3 barrels are already cooling down....(while a barrel can be used for 150-300 rounds alone). And then there are other new barrels......till these are used too you will have a good cool down of the 2-3 barrels before.

So it is more plausible to listen to the quote than to your interpretation:

"Refering to Colonel Butz, the "machine-gun-pope" of the Reichswehr and Wehrmacht, the MG34 with bipod (LMG) brang 120-150 rounds per minute accurate into target, with tripod (HMG ) 300-350.

Even more quick the MG42 fired: With bipod (LMG)150-180 rounds , on tripod (HMG) 400-450. The US BAR (LMG) only could reach lean 60-80 rounds. Promptly it had proved in the field, that the extreme high rate of fire not only was a big advantage for anti-aircraft purposes. The infantry got enabled to engage even for only short time appearing ground-targets with a lot of rounds. The hit probabilty increased. Crucially relevant is not only the numbres of hits, but that a high as possible numbre of hits in a short time as possible takes place..."

In the game ...despite having elite soldiers...short ranges...open field and best sight and a lot of enemies.....the HMG unit does not perform the 400-450 rpm....it usually fires only 200-250 rpm in the game....ridiculous

Btw. i shot the MG3 at the army myself (....not as a HMG...) but enough to know what a crew is capable of.

But i will do researches on the cool down rate of a 2kg barrel....i am interested in it myself....

It isnt the cool down rate of the barrel that is significant. It is the poor guys humping 16kg of ammo a minute, and multiple barrels all whilst someone is trying to fire effectively.

I am not discussing what the gun is capable of. Rather what actually happened in battle conditions.

Out of interest, what is the record for rate of fire of a standard British Army Lee Enfield? No?

"The current world record for aimed bolt-action fire was set in 1914 by a musketry instructor in the British Army—Sergeant Instructor Snoxall—who placed 38 rounds into a 12-inch-wide (300 mm) target at 300 yards (270 m) in one minute"

What is the fastest anyone has sustained (for more than a minute) from the same rifle in battle? No, I don't know either, but I will guess is isn't higher than 10 rounds per minute. This is what we are talking about.

Oh, and could Sergeant Snoxall have hit 38 men? Not in a month of Sundays. They take cover, they move, they observe. They don't perform like static targets.

Anyway, far too much time wasted already.

[Oddball_E8]

Kauz - on "swinging fire", asked and answered, in post #165 of the "red hordes" thread, the last in it. Which got no response from you, just another thread starting as though it hadn't been written. I also notice you are ducking my questions about rifle accuracy.

Swinging an HMG through 22 degrees of arc with the trigger down does flat nothing, it is spray and pray and might scare people I suppose, but its actual fire effect is nil. The correct way to use an HMG to cover an area is traversing fire, as I described in the thread mentioned above. But it takes *many short bursts* to cover even *a few degrees of arc* using true traversing fire at typical fire plan ranges, meaning with the adjusts between them small enough that the beaten zones of the successive bursts actually cover the area.

When you swing an HMG through 22 degrees firing at targets 250 meters away, the space you are covering downrange is 94 meters wide. At 100 meters it is 37.5 meters wide. You don't evenly spread the through that range, either, you bunch up the rounds at the beginning and end of the swing when the gun is starting to move or ending its movement; the velocity isn't a constant because the swing starts and stops, etc. The rounds have inherent dispersion as well. To cover the longer distance you would need to make that swing take about 20 seconds and fire 400 rounds in a long belt. When instead you make the swing in half a second firing a 10 round burst, you are doing "spray and pray", your coverage is almost all gap, and you will miss practically everyone in the target area, even if you had the range perfect and they had no cover etc.

It just doesn't work, and that is why traversing fire exists, because it does work. But it doesn't fire one continuous long burst, and it isn't done with an unlocked gun. It is done with a short burst, calibrated to the inherent dispersion of the gun at the chosen range even when the gun is locked on a definite deflection and elevation, which is several meters at typical MG fire plan ranges. You fire a burst long enough to have an excellent chance of hitting anyone in the beaten zone of that dispersion, which can be as little as 6-10 rounds, depending on the range.

*Then you turn the traversing screw* by just enough to move the gun by a tiny angle, like a quarter of a degree at medium range, or a half a degree at close range. And fire another burst. This gives you actual coverage, but you need multiple short bursts to cover each degree of arc. And that is one reason MGs in real fire plans are given *narrow* fire lanes, not half the compass. The other reason it to let them "keyhole" and thus reduce reply fire that can hit the gun; you want everyone who can see it and reply to it suppressed when it is firing, etc.

As already explained in the previous thread, when you have multiple exposed man targets with a wide angle of separation between each - not a degree or three, but a truly wide target - then it is a complete waste to spray and pray through the whole arc. Most of the ammo is hitting nothing. Instead you actually aim the thing - orient on one target, fire a short burst at it, orient on the next target, fire a short burst at it, and repeat.

You can do the last just as easily with an LMG as with an HMG. If the angle to traverse through is very wide, a tripod might make it marginally easier to get the second half of the targets without the firer lifting the bipod and shifting his position behind it, about the only benefit it gives. In return it also gives a much more exposed because higher target for replies, but that is another matter.

The benefit of an HMG comes when you actually can use the locking screw and do true traversing fire. Which is when you have an actual fire plan with lanes and ranges and narrow cones, not wide targets over half the compass.

Your problem, Kaus, besides the fact that you are repeating yourself instead of actually engaging the people talking to you, who know a heck of a lot more about the matter than you seem to suppose, from actually doing it in real life I might add, is that you have the true benefits of high ROF and of a tripod mount completely backwards. You think they help most when you have a large, continuously exposed target over a wide arc. In fact the high ROF helps when you have a *briefly exposed target* and doesn't help if the shot is easy for a lower ROF weapon. (Because you can't improve on very high hit probabilities by throwing more bullets, only ones that are low to begin with). And the tripod helps the most when you have industrial strength fire plans, the CM equivalent of TRP directed fire on definite aim points already plotted in advance, *not* when you are swinging quickly from target to target one after the other.

Besides those finer points backwards, you have a more general problem of unrealistic expectations of MGs in general and of the effect of ROF on their abilities specifically. I have already explained to you what the true average performance of battlefield MGs actually was on the greatest outlier successes they have ever had - Somme in WW I and Omaha in WW II as those paradigm examples of large, continuously exposed targets with lots of MGs bearing on them and able to fire at them for extended periods. You have not faced the actual hits per gun achieved in those situations, falling back instead on firing range expectations of your own, not real combat results.

I have already explained why that is hopeless, with the rifle accuracy example, which you have yet to address at all.

Second, as others moved game test conditions closer to your ideal of a unrealistic target, continuously exposed forever and endless in bodies able to be shot, the actual observed results per MG doing the shooting soared past the best real world cases above, to the level of 100 per. You then moved the goalposts and pretend that isn't enough - with "enough" set purely in your imagination. If those game test results had been achieved by the MG42s sighted on Omaha Beach on June 6, 1944, that invasion would have failed with 100% casualties, and the MGs alone would have sufficed without help from thousands of rifles, nearly 100 direct fire light guns, and over 50 indirect fire weapons, to cause 7 times the casualties actually suffered on that occasion.

In short you have not shown any reason to believe that your expectations about what MGs should do in combat are remotely realistic, or that CMs current lethality for them, under silly contrived conditions or under typical real game ones, are wrong. The fantasy between your ears of what you think you could do with an MG42 is no more important for that, than the reality of what I do every weekend with a rifle at the range.

If I extrapolated what I do with a rifle every weekend to expectations for Omaha, I would think the guys on the bluffs with K98s would have sufficed to defeat the entire invasion without a single MG to their names, let alone any artillery. In less than five minutes, in fact. I don't make that extrapolation because I know that weapons in combat do not do what weapons on firing ranges do. You should think about that thought experiment very carefully, before you try to extrapolate your expectations to combat reality.

Heh, ignored again it seems.

He made 3 posts after yours, completely ignoring you and instead chosing to reply to another poster.

I don't know why you even bother. I gave up on the guy ages ago.

I try not to discuss with fanatics any more. It never ends well.

[Michael Emrys]

I don't know why you even bother. I gave up on the guy ages ago.

Yeah, he is clearly living in a fantasy world created in his childhood by watching old war movies where the good guys never miss and the bad guys hardly ever hit. And clearly he wants desperately to continue living in that fantasy and is unhappy that CM is not allowing him to do that.

Michael

[Apocal]

In the game ...despite having elite soldiers...short ranges...open field and best sight and a lot of enemies.....the HMG unit does not perform the 400-450 rpm....it usually fires only 200-250 rpm in the game....ridiculous

Btw. i shot the MG3 at the army myself (....not as a HMG...) but enough to know what a crew is capable of.

But i will do researches on the cool down rate of a 2kg barrel....i am interested in it myself....

I'm skeptical of your machine gun training if you don't know it takes like fifteen to thirty minutes to get barrels down to air temperature once heated (not overheated).

[Kauz]

@Oddball_E8 and Michael emry:

I did not answer his specific post(s) anymore because of two things:

1. All "points" he mentioned i answered already directly/indirectly. He can find some of my answers in the answers to other members. And i am tired repeating myself.

2. It seems that he does not even recognize what i wrote...if he would have done he may not have wrote his posts anymore.

3. Some arguments like the "i am on range and hit all...and in real battle i do not hit anything"...are thought-terminating clichés.

You can talk a lot about the resulting effects without a good answer.

Nethertheless, in my case it is not important because A) there was no bigger way to miss (because short distances, elite HMGs and 900 men concentrated on a small area)

and when i talk about about a trained and expericenced elite HMG unit which is not able to perform the 400-450 rpm it is not a discussion point if i hit something in real life or not....just about the numbres of bullets i shot.

Last but not least i would be pleased if some of you guys just would stop their trolling.

I am trying my best to stay serious and discussing with arguments.

It seems to me that some of you only start proxy wars, fight against everything only because they need something to fight against and some always want to misunderstand what i say and the consequences it has.

Example: When i see that the LMG42 in the game is quite close to the behaviour in real life (100-150 rpm (game) to 150-180 (source)) and then say that i want to see the HMG42 then in relation to have the called 400-450 rpm(source) instead of the 200-250 rpm(game) it is reseaonable.

People then try to talk against it but without calling their own source which saying another thing.

The whole behaviour looks more like a allergic reaction.

I would not wonder that the same guys at the moment are the same guys fighting against the first MG patch.

Can you get the idea that i also could think some of you are not reasonable and live in their own fantasy world.

But i do not say that....i try to argue rational without getting personal and without weaving some useless Troll-posts.

[BletchleyGeek]

It seems to me that some of you only start proxy wars, fight against everything only because they need something to fight against and some always want to misunderstand what i say and the consequences it has.

There's always a bit of that. Welcome to the Internet, etc.

Yet I don't think you acknowledged the posts RockinHarry made quite early, which I think were quite clear in what were HMG operators supposed to do with that crazy rate of fire

http://www.battlefront.com/community/showpost.php?p=1530822&postcount=49

which, from what I read in that post is nothing. Seems that the standard operating procedure was "to refrain from going full auto". I wouldn't be surprised that the HMG gunner AI has been programmed to behave according to what BFC - after doing some research - established to be the norm, historically back in the 1940s, amongst operators of that particular piece of equipment.

You might agree or disagree with BFC doing that rather than just coding into the AI the limit given by technically attainable rates of fire, in firing range conditions, where there are no concerns about ammo availability, no enemies advancing on your position, and wrecking your gun due to barrel overheating is not a problem that might mean those advancing enemies to overrun your position.

EDIT: Actually, I wouldn't be suprised if Conscript/Green crews with poor leaders attain higher rates of fire than Elite crews with good leaders.