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

[Vanir Ausf B]

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.

Leadership has no effect, but higher experience actually increases rate of fire, by about 10% per experience level.

[Michael Emrys]

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

IRL I wouldn't be surprised if you were right. It's not hard to imagine a green or conscript gunner panicking and holding the trigger down until he runs out of ammo or burns out his barrel.

Michael

[Kauz]

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. ....

1. "Oddball_E8" and "Michael Emry" flamed me about JasonC...not Rock in Harry.

2. "Rock in Harry" just supported what i did say. So there was no need to react:

We both said LMG fire short bursts.

We both said the Round per minute is about 150 rounds.

We both said the HMG fires long bursts.

Very interesting was that i said 25 rounds are what i want to see implemented for an HMG. And he said he want to see much longer bursts, about 50 round bursts.

VERY interesting is that the people do not react to "RockinHarry" and just flame me...why not him for the same telling ...

I guess the people do not read "Rock in Harry" posts. They just think he his argueing against me....and do not even read his posts.

[Kauz]

Ok....seems we can proceed in reasonable way....

I tried a rough approximation about the cool-down of a MG(42) barrel.

...Just to get an rough idea of the process-time.... Is it 1 second, 1 minute, 1 hour, 1 day ?

The barrel is about 565mm long, while the bullet travels in a 476mm long rifling part.

The barrel is slightly conical.

It is convinient to say that it is a cylindrical barrel of 565 mm length (L=0,565m) and a average diameter of 2,8cm (d= 0,028m...;min ~2cm max ~3,6cm). The barrel weight is about 2 kg (m = 2 kg)

I do not know what steel-alloy exactly was used for the barrel.

I chose a possible "42CrMo4"-steel alloy. The here relevant "specific heat capacity" differs anyway most time only slightly.

So we assume c= 470 J/(kg*K)

-The point that the barrel has contact to a bigger mass (the rest of the Machine gun) with its good heat-transportation and additional cool down surface (while we are shooting) i do not take in account.

- That the barrel has inside also a surface (travel area of the bullet) which is supporting the cool-down via convection is also not taken in account as well.

- The ray part of cool down (cue: blackbodyspectrum) i ignore too.

Further:

As area/surface for convection purposes i only assume the mantlet (A=2*Pi*(d/2)*L) of the hypotheticla zylinder as relevant.

So we have: A =0,0497 m²

I use a simple Newton-wise exponential relationship:

T = T(L)+(T(0)-T(L))*exp(-k/t)

with:

T is the temperature of the barrel after a cool down time t [sec] ; T(L) is the temperature of the surrounding air; T(0) is the start temperaturw of the overheated barrel; k is a "constant of proportionality"

In general you see that the cool down process is a exponentiel one. That means it is faster to cool down from high temperatures (differences) than from lower temperatures (differences).

It shows also that i should not wait till the barrel cooled down to the same temperature like my surrounding air, before i start shooting with this barrel again.

But let´s continue:

We assume here:

T(L)=25°C

T(0)=200°C (only a rough guess for a hotter barrel...here is more research to do ensuring a good approach to the whole problem)

To approach "k" we can assume:

k=(A*a)/(c*m)

with: "a" is the "heat transfer coefficient"; the other variables are already introduced above.

For non or lower wind velocity we can assume a lot for "a" between 7 and about 50 (depending especially on air/wind velocity and on geometric type and other conditions ):

My first approach would be for a low wind velocity of v = 4 m/sec with a laminar flow on a zylindric object (no matter if vertical or horizontal orientated):

a = 0,0081 * (1/d) + 3,14 * (v/d )^0,5 = 0,29+37,53 = 37,82 [J/(sec*m²*K)]

k is then:

k=(0,0497*37,82)/(470*2) [1/sec] = 0,001999632 [1/sec]

Now you can plot:

some results:

Starting point t= 0 seconds -> T=200°C

t= 1 minute → T=180,53°C

t= 2 minutes → T= 162,67°C

t= 3 minutes → T= 147,1 °C

t= 4 minutes → T= 133,3 °C

t= 5 minutes → T= 121,05 °C

t~7 minutes → T~ 100 °C

I hope that helped....

Despite the lot of things i did not in favor for the cool down rate the barrel cools down quite quickly. may be not...depending on the view

Important to notice is, that the hotter the barrel the faster the cool down rate. The more rounds i can shoot for my time i gave to cool down.

It is not convinient to wait till the barrel has 25°C again.... that takes to long.

To talk further about the continous practical rate of fire we need to know the temperature after a burst or continous fire....

May be i can get some information after some research....but it may take time.

[JasonC]

Kauz - no, you have not already answered me, even remotely.

And no, the point about range accuracy being irrelevant to combat accuracy does not stop thought, it starts it. You cannot deduce combat hits from range performance with rifles, or MGs. You must deduce combat hits from --- wait for it --- combat. What did MGs actually manage to do in actual combat, with the best targets they ever had?

We know the answer, but you continue to duck the bare math of that answer. There is no way that the over 200 MG-42s behind Omaha beach on D-Day each took out over 100 men, because 20,000 men did not fall on the beach. There is no way even the ~1000 MGs in the defending formations on the first day of the Somme (on a much wider frontage) each took out over 100 men, either, because horrible as that was, 100,000 men did not fall to all cause, let alone to the MGs exclusively.

As for your attempt to deduce barrel change procedures, it suffers from the same defect - you just completely refuse to admit that we have actual empirical evidence in these matters and do not need your half baked theorizing to make up to any suppose lack of such evidence. Barrels get a *lot* hotter than 200C.

If you feed mags through an M-16 firing full auto as fast as you can change the mags, you will *melt the gas tube* in about 500 rounds fired. Modern heavier barrels can extend that to around 900, but the barrel will still fail.

You can get an M-60 - with *one third* the rate of fire of an MG-42 - red hot in 2 or 3 minutes on cyclic rate of fire (450 rpm). That is 700 to 800 degree C, and it will rapidly lead to a stoppage.

The US army "torture test" for the MAG-58 aka M240 machinegun, which has a cyclic rate of 850 to 900 rpm thus 2/3rds of an MG-42 but twice an M-60, uses 200 rpm as "rapid" sustained fire, and expects the gun to be able to keep that up if interleaved with minutes on 100 rpm and schedule barrel changes.

That torture test also features a cyclic rate test in which the gun must fire for 1 minute cyclic without a stoppage - they would never attempt to run the gun longer than that without changing out the barrel.

On sustained 100 rpm fire, the procedure is 5 second pauses between bursts. On 200 rpm rapid, it is 2-3 second pauses between bursts. This is purely to keep the rate of total bullets fired low enough that the gun will not rapidly overheat and stop running.

The standard equipment of an MG-42 team is 2 spare barrels, carried by the AG in a canvas bag along with a heavy wrench and an asbestos glove.

Meanwhile, if you want to know what high cyclic rate is *actually* useful for --- since it sure as heck isn't any ability to throw more rounds with the trigger continually depressed, since that leads to stoppage by barrel heat based on the barrel weight and higher ROF hurts if anything, by reducing heat dissipated in the meantime --- you might have paid the slightest attention to the comments from me and from others about brief targets, not continually exposed ones.

When men are trying to close with an MG by short rushes, they stand and run forward for less than 2 seconds and fall flat by the 2 second mark. Which man is doing this is cycling somewhat randomly. The others are down, catching their breath, repositioning slightly by crawling to make their next stand up point harder to locate, and providing cover fire to try to suppress whatever MGs bear on them.

It takes a quarter of a second for a human being to press a button with his finger when a light goes on. The MG gunner has a harder task - pick up the rusher, rotate the gun onto him, then press the trigger. There is no continuous fire for minutes involved. But if the short burst that is fired in the brief period of target exposure and MG bearing on that target, contains twice as many bullets, there are narrower gaps in its pattern and a better chance that one of them hits.

Similarly, if an MG is fired at an aircraft passing across its line of fire at 360 miles per hour, the plane moves a tenth of one mile - 528 feet - in 1 second. If the cross section of the plane passing through the line of fire is about 26 feet, then you need to be firing 20 rounds per second to have an expectation of a single bullet intersecting the plane in that period.

Moral - rate of fire matters for *very briefly* exposed targets, *not* for continuously exposed ones.

[poesel]

About temperatures: 200°C is way too low. Here is a table with colours:

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gl%C3%BChfarben

Its the table to the right. Sorry the English page hasn't got that picture.

About HMGs:

IMHO the only thing that CM does not model correctly is that in the rare cases where a gunner would put a full belt through in real life he does not in CM. Like a stationary troop transport or a bunched up clump of infantry in the open.

But how often does that happen on the battlefield? Not very. So it could be modelled better but it is not very important and works for nearly all cases that happen in the game.

[Kauz]

Kauz - no, you have not already answered me, even remotely.

And no, the point about range accuracy being irrelevant to combat accuracy does not stop thought, it starts it. You cannot deduce combat hits from range performance with rifles, or MGs. You must deduce combat hits from --- wait for it --- combat. What did MGs actually manage to do in actual combat, with the best targets they ever had?

We know the answer, but you continue to duck the bare math of that answer. There is no way that the over 200 MG-42s behind Omaha beach on D-Day each took out over 100 men, because 20,000 men did not fall on the beach. There is no way even the ~1000 MGs in the defending formations on the first day of the Somme (on a much wider frontage) each took out over 100 men, either, because horrible as that was, 100,000 men did not fall to all cause, let alone to the MGs exclusively.

As for your attempt to deduce barrel change procedures, it suffers from the same defect - you just completely refuse to admit that we have actual empirical evidence in these matters and do not need your half baked theorizing to make up to any suppose lack of such evidence. Barrels get a *lot* hotter than 200C.

If you feed mags through an M-16 firing full auto as fast as you can change the mags, you will *melt the gas tube* in about 500 rounds fired. Modern heavier barrels can extend that to around 900, but the barrel will still fail.

You can get an M-60 - with *one third* the rate of fire of an MG-42 - red hot in 2 or 3 minutes on cyclic rate of fire (450 rpm). That is 700 to 800 degree C, and it will rapidly lead to a stoppage.

The US army "torture test" for the MAG-58 aka M240 machinegun, which has a cyclic rate of 850 to 900 rpm thus 2/3rds of an MG-42 but twice an M-60, uses 200 rpm as "rapid" sustained fire, and expects the gun to be able to keep that up if interleaved with minutes on 100 rpm and schedule barrel changes.

That torture test also features a cyclic rate test in which the gun must fire for 1 minute cyclic without a stoppage - they would never attempt to run the gun longer than that without changing out the barrel.

On sustained 100 rpm fire, the procedure is 5 second pauses between bursts. On 200 rpm rapid, it is 2-3 second pauses between bursts. This is purely to keep the rate of total bullets fired low enough that the gun will not rapidly overheat and stop running.

The standard equipment of an MG-42 team is 2 spare barrels, carried by the AG in a canvas bag along with a heavy wrench and an asbestos glove.

.

Ok JasonC,

i try to answer you in specific. First some statements.

1.

i never say i need continous fire.

2.

i talked about the option to swing the gun at closer distances, establish 25 round bursts to the already existing short bursts on all distances (on short distances only in case of swinging the gun and/or area fire).

Rockinharry, said he want to see long bursts (50 round bursts) too and he supported my 150 rpm practical rate of fire for the LMG42.

3.

i talked about to establish the 400-450 rounds per minute as practical rate of fire for a heavy MG 42 unit, because the one source told me this and i never recognized another source telling the opposite. IT is obvious that i only provide this accurate practical rate of fire in case i have targets to shoot!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Did you ever see a HMG 42 having a whole minute targets to shoot in normal battles and medium/high distances????????????

Even in case the HMG42 only could provide 5-10 minutes this rate of fire with 5 barrels (and i guess it is more...but more of it later) ..i want to see that in case it is needed....most time the battles are over then.

You do not wait till barrel is in optimal conditions manual wise if you are forced to provide the needed firepower.

4.

You talk about combat accuracy. In general you are right.

But you do two mistakes:

A.)

you just say (whatever my imagination of accuracy is...i never talked about that in specific) that i am wrong.....

You just say...you hit "nothing" in combat-conditions....without getting specific yourself.

And this you say without offering any relevant evidence!

If you want to discuss this way....it is just a thought-terminating cliché

...We know the answer, but you continue to duck the bare math of that answer.

Well....again....if you "all" know the answer....then....can you tell me THE answer in specific?

B.)

When i have six ELITE HMG on a distance of 100-340 meters, only looking and fireing into a small open area, where in a short time 900 men try to run over a bridge accuracy/aiming point of a specific burst ....should not be a problem at all.

Even in case 50-70% of them after a short time are not running anymore, just proning.

If you can not support this, any further discussion is useless. We just have too different imaginations (without saying your or my own is wrong ).

5.

About the normandy invasion:

As far as i remember the most beach-areas were not defended heavily.

The most casualties of the invasion time (in total: ~2000-4500) mostly were did against omaha-strongpoints.

These strongpoints (Widerstandsnester) had big distances to each other.

And in case of the famous WN62 only 40 men crew.....a joke if you face thousands of amercan ships and soldiers trying to **** you.

So what i already said in other thread and posts is that additionally to the weakness in numbres, the germans might get killed by the ship artillery .

Often it is said that the ship artillery did not a proper work.

May be in case of WN62 ....but do we know about the artillery effects in specific ...especially on other strongpoints?

Additionally is to say that there was not only an opening fire on the beach.....the ships continued firing later while the soldiers were landed.

Then you have to keep in mind that officers always have their option to fall back on their own decission and schedule.

If you think germans do not surrender, desert OR just get the ORDER to fall by their local officer ...well....then you should keep that in mind......

Keeping that in mind it is hard to talk about the possibilities of a machine gun.

For me it is important to get the capabilities of a MG straight. To get an idea of the modelling i did the known setup.

That the gun can get killed or suppressed or surrenders is a point which is not or very late represented in the setup i did. That was intended.

The practical rate of fire will be automatically reduced in the game in case i can not spot an enemy, in case i get killed or in case i get suppressed. But i want to get the practical rate of fire in a proper way in case that happens not. I hope you now understand.....

6.

As for your attempt to deduce barrel change procedures, it suffers from the same defect - you just completely refuse to admit that we have actual empirical evidence in these matters and do not need your half baked theorizing to make up to any suppose lack of such evidence. Barrels get a *lot* hotter than 200C.

JasonC...again you talk for others...."you "all" have actual empirical evidence in these matter".

You should not speak for all people.....!

Further...if you want to go down that road...:

I am shooting myself as civilian.... was at the army myself..... was shooting the MG3 (MG42) myself....familiar with historical aspects since 10-20 years.....being a physicist.

The last point leads us to your next saying:

and do not need your half baked theorizing to make up to any suppose lack of such evidence. Barrels get a *lot* hotter than 200C.

I have to wonder about your flaming..."half baked".....

A) You did not show any more emperical evidence than me till now...

You did not call any or any reliable numbres /sources till now....while me in the opposite trying approach the problem by calculating in a proper and careful way.

C) I guess i am more "allowed" to do this approach and tell you it is proper and careful one because i am a physicist.

D)Because of A), and C)....: Tell me why i should feel motivated to listen to your posts...?

So ...i hope the trolling stops now....

7. About your numbres you just drop into the arena....for example the 800°C...

That is 700 to 800 degree C, and it will rapidly lead to a stoppage.

You should be more careful with the numbres you drop into the arena.

I did say 200°C as a first rough approach...i did NOT say if i used sustained fire or how many rounds i shot with a specific gun.

Also I said that there has to be further research work to be done.

The 700-800°C you drop into the arena...well....i do not know if you have a reliable source for that or if it is just a rough guess of you.

It naturally depends on the barrel, the rate of fire and the rounds i shoot ...that is right....

Why i could imagine that this temperature is too high, you may ask?!

Well, you should keep in mind that steel is getting worked at between glowing temperatures of 500-850°C. If you follow some glow colour charts at 800°C you will find an intensive orange or yellow.

If you follow the following video with a M60 and a theoretical rpm of 550:

...Then you see at the end a still black to brown/grey colour and not a more intensive red or orange or even yellow/white.The maximum i guess by looking the barrel and some glow charts is may be like 550 °C-600°C

But OK......let us assume we use a Mg42 and fire 250 rounds in 10 seconds sustained (that is not what a want!!!!) and then reach 800°C....in the following video a guy shoot a MG34...with about 800 rpm and fires about 250-300 rounds ( excluding the short breaks fireing about 20-24 seconds sustained). The barrel glows then... at least at night you are able to watch it....:

How fast it will cool down from 800°C with my careful calculation, which is not in favor for the cool-down process...

Here the answer:

t=0 seconds: 800,00°C

t=1 minute: 712,38

t=2 minutes: 634,66

t=3 minutes: 565,73

t=4 minutes: 504,60

t=5 minutes: 450,38

t=6 minutes: 402,28

t=7 Minutes: 359,63

It looses half its temperature in 6 minutes....that means that you can fire then about 150 rounds till it is at 800°C again. (No need to let it cool down to 25°C).

I said 150-180 rpm for the LMG42 (Rockinharry said about 150) the game most time produce 100-150.

The LMG42 unit has 2 additional barrels. But the LMG is not what we are talking about............!

The HMG42 unit has may be about 5 barrels.

I would like to see 400-450 rpm as a practical rate of fire for the HMG42 that is less or same than the theoretcial rpm of the M60 machine gun firing sustained 850 rounds in the video and not starting to glow like hell after more than 1,5 minutes.

Because of this i can can imagine that i can provide the practical rate of fire of 450 rpm with a single barrel...may i can shoot even longer like the M60...with the same barrel.

Knowing that i have about 5 additional barrels and maximum need about 6-7 minutes for cool down to half its temperature (no matter if you start at 200°C or 800°C because of its exponentiel behaviour) lead me to the conclusion that i can hold 400-450 rpm at least for 6 minutes before i may have to reduce to about 200 rpm for the rest of the game.

But may be the game is over after 6 minutes engagement were my MG was in use......

Or more likely i do not need the 400-450 rpm most of the game, because i do not see any or not enough enemies...but in case i see the enemy i need the 400-450 rpm.

Meanwhile, if you want to know what high cyclic rate is *actually* useful for --- since it sure as heck isn't any ability to throw more rounds with the trigger continually depressed, since that leads to stoppage by barrel heat based on the barrel weight and higher ROF hurts if anything, by reducing heat dissipated in the meantime --- you might have paid the slightest attention to the comments from me and from others about brief targets, not continually exposed ones.

When men are trying to close with an MG by short rushes, they stand and run forward for less than 2 seconds and fall flat by the 2 second mark. Which man is doing this is cycling somewhat randomly. The others are down, catching their breath, repositioning slightly by crawling to make their next stand up point harder to locate, and providing cover fire to try to suppress whatever MGs bear on them.

It takes a quarter of a second for a human being to press a button with his finger when a light goes on. The MG gunner has a harder task - pick up the rusher, rotate the gun onto him, then press the trigger. There is no continuous fire for minutes involved. But if the short burst that is fired in the brief period of target exposure and MG bearing on that target, contains twice as many bullets, there are narrower gaps in its pattern and a better chance that one of them hits.

Similarly, if an MG is fired at an aircraft passing across its line of fire at 360 miles per hour, the plane moves a tenth of one mile - 528 feet - in 1 second. If the cross section of the plane passing through the line of fire is about 26 feet, then you need to be firing 20 rounds per second to have an expectation of a single bullet intersecting the plane in that period.

Moral - rate of fire matters for *very briefly* exposed targets, *not* for continuously exposed ones

I never said anything else....i support what you mentioned here.

As general conclusion i have to say it once again for you:

Nobody said i have to see the whole game an enemy. So in case i do not see an enemy who i can fight i do not shoot without order. So i have 0 RPM.

In case i only see 10 seconds of a minute an enemy i only have statiscally about 450/6= 75 RPM.

BUT in case i see an enemy whole round i want to see the HMG42 beeing able to provide the 400-450 rpm accurate into target ...no matter if i fight a proning enemy or a running enemy.

Like you said yourself....occasionally standing up and running targets are easier to fight with a high theoretical ROF. With a HMG the accuracy is not only better than with a LMG (no matter the burst length) it also easier to aim and correct the fireing.

In case of my set up...i would expect that the HMG s provide this firepower ...(and 400-450 are not 1500 rpm), because he will always see an enemy running and "always" hit something (if not the intended target may be the guy behind or next to him)

[Kauz]

About temperatures: 200°C is way too low. Here is a table with colours:

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gl%C3%BChfarben

Its the table to the right. Sorry the English page hasn't got that picture.

About HMGs:

IMHO the only thing that CM does not model correctly is that in the rare cases where a gunner would put a full belt through in real life he does not in CM. Like a stationary troop transport or a bunched up clump of infantry in the open.

But how often does that happen on the battlefield? Not very. So it could be modelled better but it is not very important and works for nearly all cases that happen in the game.

About the temperature i answered to JasonC in the post before this post.

But i make short conclusion for you:

:

It does not matter if you reach 200°C or 800°C while shooting for example 300 rounds in sustained fire!

In both case the barrel will loose about half its temperatur in about 6-7 minutes.

That is because the cool-down process is not a linear one....it is exponential.

Loosing half your temperature after 6-7 minutes means that you can fire again 150 rounds with this barrel in both cases.

About the HMG rate of fire.

Nobody is talking about shooting sustained a whole belt.

I try to argue for establishing 400-450 rounds per minute practical rate of fire for a heavy machine gun 42 unit.

That is not continous/sustained fire!!! Sustained fire with a HMG42 could lead to about 1000 rounds per minute practical rate of fire (at least for 1,5- 2 minutes after the last barrel is used...). Nobody wants that!

At the moment the HMG42 produced under ideal conditions in his favor only 200-250 rpm.

[Kauz]

....

T = T(L)+(T(0)-T(L))*exp(-k/t)

....

Btw.: i can not edit it anymore...the calculations and results are correct but in the written down formula is a mistake, it is:

exp(-k*t) is correct

exp(-k/t) is wrong

only if someone is wondering....

have a nice day...

[JasonC]

"Did you ever see a HMG 42 having a whole minute targets to shoot"

Um, yeah. I have seen HMG 42s having large targets for hours. Omaha beach, anyone?

I realize from the rest of your comments that you have only the vaguest idea of what actually happened on Omaha beach, but rest assured plenty of us know what happened there in some detail.

3000 men fell in about 4 hours on the attacking side. 1200 men fell on the defending side (about a quarter of them prisoners rather than direct casualties, to be sure). There were not 1, not 2, not 6 MG42s overlooking that beach, there were *215*. Specifically, 63 in each of 2 battalions from the 352nd infantry division, 48 in one battalion of the 716th infantry division (static), and 41 in a single "Ost" battalion. No, they were not all taken out by naval gunfire - they inflicted around half to 3/5ths of all of the US casualties taken. Artillery weapons got most of the rest - especially 42 81mm mortars, plus 12 105mm howitzers, but also over 90 smaller direct fire Flak, Pak, and infantry guns etc - and all the rifles the remainder.

Now follow grammar school math - 1500 to 1800 casualties were inflicted by 212 MG42s. Average casualties inflicted by each defending MG42 overlooking Ohama beach, one of the biggest and most continuously exposed infantry targets in the history of warfare, were 7 to 9. Not 100, not 200 - around *8*. Yes, of course those MGs were taken out over the course of the fighting - so was every MG42 ever fielded by the end of the war, since they are not still chattering away at Allied infantrymen.

This whole series of threads began with your observation that you were seeing MG teams scoring only 10-15 casualties on the enemy in single firefights, without loss, and you considered that outcome ridiculously low. It was not and it is not ridiculously low.

Others then showed you that in unrealistic continuously exposed targets, on fanatic to prevent them from exercising normal self preservation and cover seeking that is implemented in the game, each defending MG can readily, in the game, inflicted 100 casualties on the enemy in a single firefight. And rather than admit that there was no problem, and that MGs could readily *exceed* real world combat performance in CM if they were given targets more ridiculous than actually occur in real combat, you continue to allege that the figure is too low. Supported by - bumpkis, your imagination and fantasies, or range firing conditions.

I dealt with the range firing conditions. You are left with bumpkis.

Omaha was the best target for MG42s we have detailed information about, in WW II. It is not the world record for combat performance by defending machineguns against infantry, but it is close, in that league. The actual world record holder for slaughtering exposed infantry with defending MGs is the first day of the Somme, in WW I (using lower ROF MGs incidentally, not that it mattered).

60,000 British were casualties that day, 20 times the losses on Omaha. The forces engaged were much larger and the frontage much wider. The loss was inflicted not by 4 infantry battalions, but by 6 infantry divisions in the front line, plus another 4 and a half that intervened in the fighting by the end of the first day, or were in second line positions reached by the fighting. There were around 1300 defending MGs in those front line formations, and up to 2000 if all the reinforcing units are counted. Artillery and rifles against got some of the casualties inflicted. Our error bars are necessarily wider, but the achieved losses per defending MG are on the order of 20 to 35, considerably higher than the 7-9 of Omaha. The primary difference is better target - at the Somme, very green British units (carrying up to 95 pounds per man) advanced literally shoulder to shoulder into accurate, presighted MG fire.

That is literally the biggest outlier success of MGs in the history of warfare, and it is 3-5 times *less* than reported test results in this and the previous thread. The initial single firefight figures you saw and could not believe under more realistic combat conditions were 25% to 100% better than the MG42s behind Omaha beach achieved.

In your last you seem to be pleading ignorance of those numbers or that math, when it has already been presented to you.

As for what you think "should" happen when 500 men on "fanatic" run through a narrow funnel, the moon is not made of green cheese. It never happens in CM games because it never happens in real life and it is completely irrelevant to the accuracy of CMs depiction of the combat effects of MG fire. CM also doesn't match what I do with a bolt rifle every weekend, if I set up one guy with a K98 100 yards from men milling around in the open doing flat nothing. That is not a failing of the game - there is no reason why it should, since such things do not happen in the actual combat it is simulating.

What *does* happen in CM is that defending MGs routinely hit up to 15 men each over the course of a single firefight, frequently without loss to themselves. If any army actually got that performance out of its deployed MGs in the real war, it had a war winner on its hands. MGs are *not* scarce. They do not need to each stop 100 attackers to be effective. Actual tactical defensive schemes use 20 of the things, and those can and do inflict enough casualties to prevent easy frontal attack by enemy infantry, without the use of other arms to silence the MGs.

CM has MGs right, and you have yet to make a single cogent point to the contrary.

[Yeknodathon]

I get all warm and fuzzy when I hear Grog. I haven't the faintest idea what it means but I want to slip into something comfortable and nibble the tip of a carrot.

[Andrew H.]

I get all warm and fuzzy when I hear Grog. I haven't the faintest idea what it means but I want to slip into something comfortable and nibble the tip of a carrot.

That's a thread stopper...

[c3k]

Of the 215 (212? Two numbers given. I did not add up the individual components) MG42's, how many actually overlooked Omaha?

[Yeknodathon]

This Kauz pretender, he wants to be a Grog, he struts like a Grog and has all the itty-bitty Grog-like factoids that wobble on Grog-like sticks and he sort of almost sounds like a Grog.

Except he can't quite reach the Grog-like Titan heights of Grogology. No reverse-ferreting, no seamless dissembling with the agile, adept prowl of a hungry jungle kitty needing fresh non-Grog meat and quite obviously doesn't have the complete command over the subject matter that could punch holes in hard cows' cheese. AND if that wasn't enough, non-capitalisation at the start of sentences. I mean, newb Grog wannabe error or wot! Why not wave a flag, "Grog-kitty, gobble me up, I'm frying tonight"?

[JasonC]

c3k - all of them, that is the selection criterion for the units engaged. If a battalion didn't overlook Omaha I didn't count it. The number is 215, sorry for the typo 212...

[c3k]

The German 916th IR covered the coast from a point north of Isigny to Colleville sur Mer (inclusive). That means that 2/3's of Omaha lay within about 1/3 of the linear beachfront assigned to 916IR. From Colleville sur Mer, which lay along Fox Red and Fox Green's dividing line, the 726th IR had defensive duties. That part was about 1/6 of the 726IR total beachfront coverage.

In actuality, the entire Omaha landings were planned in such a way that only the right 1/3 of 916IR would be engaged, if the landing craft had accurately navigated to the beach. As it was, a decent proportion of forces ended up in front of 726IR, as well.

At most, that comes up to about a battalion, plus a company, of Germans in direct view of the beach. Add in some strongpoint units, and it still seems well short of the 215 MG42's mentioned.

Of the 215 MG42's posited, how many were HMG 42's? (I cannot locate my reference with each strongpoint annotated.)

I cannot believe that there were 215 HMG42's overlooking Omaha beach.

Part of one regiment, and a very thin sliver of another: those are the forces overlooking the waves.

Ken

[RockinHarry]

The German 916th IR covered the coast from a point north of Isigny to Colleville sur Mer (inclusive). That means that 2/3's of Omaha lay within about 1/3 of the linear beachfront assigned to 916IR. From Colleville sur Mer, which lay along Fox Red and Fox Green's dividing line, the 726th IR had defensive duties. That part was about 1/6 of the 726IR total beachfront coverage.

In actuality, the entire Omaha landings were planned in such a way that only the right 1/3 of 916IR would be engaged, if the landing craft had accurately navigated to the beach. As it was, a decent proportion of forces ended up in front of 726IR, as well.

At most, that comes up to about a battalion, plus a company, of Germans in direct view of the beach. Add in some strongpoint units, and it still seems well short of the 215 MG42's mentioned.

Of the 215 MG42's posited, how many were HMG 42's? (I cannot locate my reference with each strongpoint annotated.)

I cannot believe that there were 215 HMG42's overlooking Omaha beach.

Part of one regiment, and a very thin sliver of another: those are the forces overlooking the waves.

Ken

Agree.

Even assuming 50 to 100 german MG´s (lMG and HMG combined) overlooking Omaha, would be a bit much IMO. 215 MG´s would assume a linear defense, with all of the german forces positioned directly in view of the beaches. Hardly imaginable. There´s rather a considerable force deployed in depth, as well as held in reserve, as to the usual german doctrine. I would also assume there´s some indirectly firing german HMG´s targeting the beaches, according to pre set fire plans prepared for such a long time. That means, a number of possible kills is not just from directly firing MG´s.

If the figure 215 is taken as example, that each MG can be credited for so and so many kills (around 8) at average, then this is plain nonsense and a gross simplification, far from reality.

[cool breeze]

Hey guys, sorry this is so long. I dont know what came over me...

Hey, JasonC, I'm glad made it on board CMx2 and it's a pleasure to see you a staunch defender of the engine! There was a time it seemed like you'd never step into the uncanny valley but am happy you did. The eastern front wouldn't be the same with out you

This whole thread thing here started in such an amusing way that its a little dissapointing its gotten so bogged down in repetitiveness. Not that that isn't amusing in its own way but I like my comedy and debates moving forward. If Kaus reponds to JasonC's last post in a not too repetive way this thread will be back on track but I don't think that will happen. But hot dang this thread had a good start with the statements of fact that you couldn't get more than 15-20 kills in a test scenario with a hmg, followed by people pointing out that 15 to 20 is actually pretty darn good, but they do better regularly in non tests. Then he made a set up new test with 100+ kills and hillarity insued. Somehow the humor died down and it got a little frustrating. I guess its a language barrier thing but I don't understand how.

Kaus

"Like i said ....till now i did a lot of testing ...and never were able to produce more than 18-20 kills with HMG.

Try it yourself. Let the enemy attack a small bridge and put an HMG in a position 150meters in front of it and let them rush over it.

I would expect that an heavy MG42 with 1500 rpm theoretically and 460 rpm practically and a 250 round belt for start is easily able to kill everybody running over the bridge trying to reach the other side.

Just take the map "Town-Water Assault 079" ....try it...... you will see.

And after that please make always a screenshot in case you can achieve more than 20 kills with a HMG within 30-60 minute standard map. Till now all my trials to increase the effectiveness of (H)MG were useless.

on the other side a panther turret machine gun is a real killer....easy to achieve 60-70 kills in 10-20 rounds."

That quote set the stage with the challenge, that you cant kill more than 20 with the hmgs. But I also wanted to coment on the part about the panther. Do others agree with me that the coax mg (plus maybe the hull mg, I dunno the set up) would probably do much better than the hmg42?

To me it seems natural that the height advantage, state of the art optics, weapons control, and 45+ tons of stablility and no fear of small arms fire would make the coaxle mg much more effective.

Then once some people show Kaus that its him not the game that is holding his mgs back from getting much better than historical kill numbers he makes a better test proving himself wrong but failing to admit it. A classic move for a modern physicist making me less surprised if I ever find out he actually has is Phd.

And we get this comedy gem. My bold, on bold cue the doctor evil voice.

"The Results of the Machine guns (distances are to the center of the bridge):

MG 1: 143 "kills" (empty) 110 meter

MG 2: 22 "kills" (not empty because killed soon) 110 meter

MG 3: 44 "kills" (empty) 320 meter

MG 4: 52 "kills" (empty) 320 meter

MG 5: 76 "kills" (empty) 145 meter

MG 6: 157 "kills" (empty) 210 meter

Some people now will say.....WOW...the MGs are devasting....in my opinion it shows exactly the opposite."

lol.

Comedy Gold. Made the whole 30+ pages worth it

I also note that he's asking for higher rate of fire and for the fire to be more dispersed/ less carefully aimed via swinging/swivelling the gun overmultiple targets intead of aiming at each in turn. But hes asking for this hoping to increase the number of kills above the 100+ hes getting. But they ran out of ammo without killing them all as is and from short range. So if they had fired more bullets faster and aimed less they would have killed less. So if he gets what he wants he gets the opposite of what he wants. I think there are some other implicit wants that he isnt talking about.

Later we get an example of numbers, and, math?, being used to back up the arguement

"He opened fire at about 400-500 meters.

The lowest number of casualties i read even in allied sources were hundreds (so more than 100).

The upper-medium estimates concede him to cause up to 1000 kills.

And the highest talk about 2000-3000. These last numbres i do NOT believe either because of the total casualties on the beach and the coexistens of 2 polsih machine guns (but which got abandomed far earlier))

So let us assume that this light machine gun 42 starting its fire at about 400-500 meters and fired in 9 hours of the invasion 12000 rounds and killed about 500 men.

( guess the most got killed between 300 and 400 meters bailing out and walking into water)"

This of use of numbres and maths makes all uses and arguments suspect.

Kaus, it's not that everything you say is wrong and/or that nobody or few agree with any particular detail, it's that the nuggets of truth, like the hmg42 should probably sometimes do some 25-50 round burst, are mixed in with a bunch of bull. And by not admitting when proven wrong but instead backing yourself further into an argument corner (ala, you cant kill more than 20 guys, oh wait you can kill 100+ but its still not enough), you seem commited not to truth but to your ideas. You also come off through your writing like your probably racist not that you are but just as a warning because it makes people less inclined to go on the record as agreeing with you about anything. Sorry if that was too personal but Im trying to help. It was when you described the soviets who would be attacking the mg's in "zergling rush like waves" and presenting "meatshield" like targets. Those don't seem like accurate descriptions of real humans in WW2. and again sorry to be blunt but there are a bunch of nazi lovers out on the internets and they all describe the westfront as unfair because of the overwhelming material advantage and they only lost because it wasn't a fair fight, and the east front was mainly superiour tehtonic knights gunning down endless idiot waves of "zerglike" "meatshield" untill they finally ran out of ammo or were overwhelmed by unfair numbers of t34s or blasted by unfair levels of artillery. Maybe a general bungled or traitorized one of Hitlers brilliant strategic moves and got a giant portion of them cut off, unfairly. Sorry about all that I just said tho I really just meant it ro try and help and maybe show why your few good ideas arent getting more vocal support than they are. Im not saying you are one of these seeming multitude of nazi lovers who fit the description I gave just warning you about how they are out there so you can better avoid associating with them.

I think this last quote might explain where the disconnect between Kaus and a lot of the othr forum members is coming from. Kaus is relatively new here and probably doesnt appreciate as well as we do the abstractions BFC has had to put in in order to enable this best battle combat simulator to work on our computers. This is Pandurs quote and he says its about 1:1 not being 1:1 but I think thats a little off I think its more about What You See Is What You Get . 1:1 is there but its not quite WYSIWYG. Our computers cant handle a 3d enviroment as detailed as required to give the infantry a realistic amount of cover WYSIWYG. There is not enought granularity for all the relevant micro terrain to do it right. So some abstraction steps into the 1:1 model to make it more realistic. Similarly the pixeltroopen stay more closely packed than they sometimes would be because of proccessor power, if I understand things right. HE blasts at least but maybe bullets too are a little less powerful to try to realisticly compensate for that, or so I think.

Kaus is taking too much of a physicist approach to this I think. The game takes a physics aproach but then it wargames it to make it realistic. I think hes underappreciating that.

Pandur

"the thing with the mg´s is a problem of abstracted hidden factors for troop´s and the exact visual representation of mg fire. it doesnt fit, like some other things.

Quote:

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

sure, but do not underestimate a properly weighted down tripod or similar mount. its cone of fire is very smal.

look up the vid, its mounted mg34 with tracers viewed along the gun, starts at second 33.

i guesstimate the distance to the other slope is like 300 meters at least, yet still most real spread is by gunner input. if you would use this sort of accuracy on targets that are packed so tight like in the game, sure you would get better results, but thats why there is the abstraction we dont "see".

i guess kauz expects 1:1 representation to show 1:1, but it doesnt."

So um that was my longest post ever I hope it wasnt totally out of line um really didn't mean anything bad by it just after 30 pages or whatever wanted to have a heart to heart about it

Thanks for reading or uh not minding scrolling so far.

[H1nd]

Cool breeze, very sensible and good response! I also think that Kauz may have lost his way in differentiating wargaming simulation from real life while he also gives us a picture of him possibly having unrealistic expectations regarding real life.

[RockinHarry]

...........

look up the vid, its mounted mg34 with tracers viewed along the gun, starts at second 33.

i guesstimate the distance to the other slope is like 300 meters at least, yet still most real spread is by gunner input. if you would use this sort of accuracy on targets that are packed so tight like in the game, sure you would get better results, but thats why there is the abstraction we dont "see".

...........

Good post overall.

With regard to the YT video and guestimated distance, I´d likely go for around 800-1000m +, by just measuring visibility of individual tracers (around 1-2 seconds and MV of 755m/sec)

[cool breeze]

Aww shucks thanks guys

I had a last example of bad arguments not to mix in with the good that slipped through the forum eating part of my first attempt at writing it (I really wish it wouldn't log me out mid comment).

Kaus, another thing, you kept calling the hmg42 laser like accurate. First of all its a lot less accurate than a laser, but mainly, it makes people think you think of the mg42 as a laser MG, aka a death ray. I know laser like accuracy is not laser like but it seemed like you were calling it laserlike and if you were thats the same as calling it a deathray cause a laserblast mg is a deathray. Instead of arguing that you didn't call it a deathray just dont compare it to a laser, it isnt one and doesn't have a laser ranger finder either.

[RockinHarry]

PS: When setting up test missions for HMG´s, I´d rather go for combat ranges of between 800 to 1300m. 1300m is where you can get a HMG team start shooting, IF also setting a 1300m covered arc. Placing TRPs and use of those HMG teams that also have a binoc (not all HMG teams have binocs and some german teams have even 2), helps to evaluate in game performance at the combat range, that HMG´s where actually intended for. Below 800m, enemy infantry can return effective fire and this is also the range, where I also find it preferable to use the smaller LMG teams do the same job (the size 5-7men HMG teams are a pretty large target for return fire). Leaves a usable window of 500m (1300-800), where the HMG teams could be put to best use, any other factors left aside.

[DavidFields]

PS: When setting up test missions for HMG´s, I´d rather go for combat ranges of between 800 to 1300m. 1300m is where you can get a HMG team start shooting, IF also setting a 1300m covered arc. Placing TRPs and use of those HMG teams that also have a binoc (not all HMG teams have binocs and some german teams have even 2), helps to evaluate in game performance at the combat range, that HMG´s where actually intended for. Below 800m, enemy infantry can return effective fire and this is also the range, where I also find it preferable to use the smaller LMG teams do the same job (the size 5-7men HMG teams are a pretty large target for return fire). Leaves a usable window of 500m (1300-800), where the HMG teams could be put to best use, any other factors left aside.

The LMG advantage (or, at least, non-inferiority to HMGs) at short ranges is also what I found in my micro-scenarios. If the enemy non-MG can get an early generic contact--because of the higher soldier number and larger weapon--, and start area firing, the tactical situation turns against the MG.

[i would guess this is historically accurate?]

[JasonC]

On Omaha details, the amendments are friendlier than their posters may have meant, and I am happy to get into more detail. The details might refine the number down by 20% or so, it won't halve it, and will leave the remainder nearby enough to matter in the four hours the fight on Omaha took.

Specifically, there were 15 strongpoints on Omaha, with a platoon of infantry plus direct fire guns in each one. There were in addition 85 separate MG positions outside of the strongpoints. There were 35 pillboxes for direct fire guns, Pak and Flak and arty etc.

The 352 was equipped to a level of 2 MGs per squad, having 63 in each battalion. The 716 had 48 per battalion, slight lower in the attached Ost units, around 40. My 215 figure comes from those four units. As a cross check, 2/3rds of the fixed positions were 352 manned, and they have 6 MGs per platoon, the 716 would have around 4 per. That puts 80 in the strongpoints at one platoon in each. 85 separate brings us to 165, and our strongpoint estimates may be low, we have put nothing in the 35 pillboxes, etc.

Two companies of the Ost battalion were apparently in reserve and thus off the beach at the start of the attack, and those might have 18 (minimum) to 28 MGs. Whether they took part before the four hour mark is more than I know.

At any rate, the majority of the 215 MGs in the four battalions present are accounted for in the strongpoints and 85 IDed, separate MG nests between them. Achieved hits per MG might rise all the way to 11 on the low side estimate of MGs present. That doesn't change a word of my previous conclusions. People who think defending MGs routinely inflict 100 casualties each are wrong empirically, the right figure is of the order 10, instead.

How did the invasion succeed against a defense with 165 to 215 MGs? Some fired only a bit at the first wave and were silenced by reply fire e.g. from the destroyers offshore. Some overkilled their defended sector and then were sighted incorrectly to help vs other parts of the beach. Some were overloaded by successive waves and ran through their ammo, then falling silent. The Americans bunched into the less covered areas empirically - that is where men were alive so that is where the survivors flocked. Some had their longer lines of fire along the beach obstructed by smoke from brush fires set off by the naval bombardment, or from burning vehicles on the beach. Some were manned by men who cowered or were suppressed by naval gunfire, by the few operating DD tanks that made it ashore, and by direct rifle fire from the thousands of men on the beach below them. Some of the Ost troops might have just been looking for the first opportunity to remove themselves from the German army. Some crews just ran, perhaps after firing for a spell, or once it become clear the invasion was not going to be stopped. Some were knocked out by infantry that made it up the bluffs, with rifle fire and grenades, after putting up a fight for a while. Some probably fired too fast early and jammed their guns up beyond repair.

Not all MGs are above average. In combat, stuff happens, and the enemy tries stuff, and some of it actually works. Even with a great large target, it is an above average weapon that takes out its own number on the enemy side. Omaha was the Germans' biggest success on D-Day, and they still lost 1200 men there, taking out 3000, an exchange of 2.5 to 1.

[RockinHarry]

The LMG advantage (or, at least, non-inferiority to HMGs) at short ranges is also what I found in my micro-scenarios. If the enemy non-MG can get an early generic contact--because of the higher soldier number and larger weapon--, and start area firing, the tactical situation turns against the MG.

[i would guess this is historically accurate?]

I would think so, yes. In the game the whole HMG units are more exposed, than in RL, where usually the larger part of a HMG crew would be in full cover and better dispersed (to the rear). Normally just the gunner and crew leader, observing the battlefield with binocs, would be exposed to a degree, making the whole team a far smaller target for return fire and also spotting purposes.