Jump to content
Kauz

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

Recommended Posts

I did a lot of tests these days ...

If someone is interessted in a detailled result....just post me.

Thesis:

The Maxim generates the same firepower per minute like the heavy MG42.

As short comparison:

Six (6) MAXIM-MG need together 6263 rounds in superb situation to take out 600 of 900 men in about 11-13 Minutes of firefight.

Under same conditions Six (6) heavy MG42 need together 8728 rounds to do the same in the same time.

superb conditions:

Elite MG, short distances to medium distances (100-340 meters), superb spotting conditions... ultra dense and running enemy concentrated on open and tiny area...only occasionaly back fireing because of dumb AI.....)

BTW.: The conditions and the set up are self-evidently for both identical ....this result is exemplary for reproducible iterations

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In RL, it would take those same 6-8 Thousands Rounds to KO one-tenth ( 60, not 600 ) that amount of men...But, this is CM we are talking about.

Joe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In RL, it would take those same 6-8 Thousands Rounds to KO one-tenth ( 60, not 600 ) that amount of men...But, this is CM we are talking about.

Joe

nope.....the conditions i set up would even cause far more casualties in real life.

In real life one up to two HMG42 would have been enough to achieve the same under these conditions i created.

In a normal game of 30-60 minutes you can be glad to achieve about 20 kills with a HMG unit. Sadly this is the same amount a standard infantry squad is achieving also in this game.

NEVERTHELESS this is not what we are talking about here ...

I just wanted to COMPARE the firepower of both guns....and the figures speak for themselves....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
superb conditions:

Elite MG, short distances to medium distances (100-340 meters), superb spotting conditions... ultra dense and running enemy concentrated on open and tiny area...only occasionaly back fireing because of dumb AI.....

Wouldn't any MG cause ridiculously high casualties in this scenario? I can't see how any measurable difference between designs would change the results here...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wouldn't any MG cause ridiculously high casualties in this scenario? I can't see how any measurable difference between designs would change the results here...

The MG42 just not only has a higher theoretical rate of fire (2-3 times higher) ...it also has a higher practical rate of fire...

The theoretical is important to spray a lot of rounds in a short time-frame on the enemy because he may search cover instantly (like some of them did while/after i send a burst on them)

The theoretical and the practical is important especially on short distances.

Just fixate the vertical elevation and fire your long burst while swing the gun in horizontal area. while doing this you despense your burst accurate in a horizontal line on a bigger area.

Even if i would try to fire extreme accurate bursts, the heavy MG42 still has practical rate of fire of 400-450 rounds per minute.

THat is close to the theoretical rate of fire of the Maxim.

In my set up i recognized two things....no matter what you do ...the MG42 will always only fire short bursts.....and the machine guns in general do not swing the gun.

And even in case the breaks between these bursts are short because of the short distance and good spotting ...the MG42 only produce the shown 30%-40% more spray than the Maxim....

AND now the most important point...... these 30%-40% more sprayed rounds do NOT cause more injuries.....

No matter how you set up the map.....i guarantee you that you always will cause a similar amount of injuries per minute with both guns at least on the distances i tried (maximum about 350 meters) .

On higher distances it will a problem to do comprehensive statistics because we all know that the MGs are worthless on higher distances (only produce noise and a movement delay of the enemy)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I did a lot of tests these days ...

If someone is interessted in a detailled result....just post me.

Thesis:

The Maxim generates the same firepower per minute like the heavy MG42.

As short comparison:

Six (6) MAXIM-MG need together 6263 rounds in superb situation to take out 600 of 900 men in about 11-13 Minutes of firefight.

Under same conditions Six (6) heavy MG42 need together 8728 rounds to do the same in the same time.

superb conditions:

Elite MG, short distances to medium distances (100-340 meters), superb spotting conditions... ultra dense and running enemy concentrated on open and tiny area...only occasionaly back fireing because of dumb AI.....)

BTW.: The conditions and the set up are self-evidently for both identical ....this result is exemplary for reproducible iterations

So in other words, the downside of higher RoF is that you use more ammo per unit of time?

Is this supposed to be bad?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Frankly it is difficult to find the motivation to even think about the results of your test and it's implication, if any, until you post the detailed set up and methodology for your test.

Off the top of my head I'm not sure that looking to see how much ammo was expended to kill 600 men proves anything particularly important--why do you contend that this important? Personally I would expect an MG with a higher rate of fire to expend more ammo.

And how many times did you run this test?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So in other words, the downside of higher RoF is that you use more ammo per unit of time?

Is this supposed to be bad?

The MG42 fires only 30-40% more rounds per minute than the Maxim.

Despite that it does NOT cause 30-40% more injuries.

That are the two problems ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The MG42 fires only 30-40% more rounds per minute than the Maxim.

Despite that it does NOT cause 30-40% more injuries.

That are the two problems ...

Uh... yes, if you send four bullets at one target and hit him, you save three bullets over the gun that uses seven to perform the same feat.

Once again, how is this wrong?

edit: if you want to see the advantage of a MG42, you probably want to see how they perform when the targets are fleeting...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If anyone is interessted in doing some iterations himself i can give him the save-games of the start for both sides.

Just do NOT give any orders...and let it just run...and watch ;)

Here the download-link: (i hope the save file is enough and that you do not need a map....because i slightly modified an existing one---ford away, bridge type changed and establish normal grass around the bridge)

http://www.file-upload.net/download-8924678/heavy-MG-TEST.zip.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Uh... yes, if you send four bullets at one target and hit him, you save three bullets over the gun that uses seven to perform the same feat.

Once again, how is this wrong?

edit: if you want to see the advantage of a MG42, you probably want to see how they perform when the targets are fleeting...

did you hear anything of dispensing the burst by swinging the gun?

Or did you hear anything about that not every bullet which hits is a kill

Or did you hear anything about bullet penetration...may be someone behind gets hit by the bullet too

About the fleeting.....they are fleeting too

btw: again the save-games....for the guys who want to know the set up or want to do their own interations and thoughts about it.

http://www.file-upload.net/download-8924678/heavy-MG-TEST.zip.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

btw: again the save-games....for the guys who want to know the set up or want to do their own interations and thoughts about it.

http://www.file-upload.net/download-8924678/heavy-MG-TEST.zip.html

I see a lot of problems with those tests. For one, it is not run in scenario author test mode so spotting is a factor. It takes a long time, 15-20 minutes, for the infantry to even move into range of the machine guns. I presume the infantry is being given it's movement orders in accordance to an AI plan, so where the infantry end up being engaged will vary from iteration to iteration. The ground the infantry are moving over is not of a uniform type or elevation. The machine guns themselves are arranged at different ranges and elevations. In short, the test has too many variables in play to prove anything except that running towards massed machine guns over open ground is a bad idea.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Kauz,

that's funny, because I did a test two days ago, to check the protection of different buildings.

My setup was the following:

A team with three men in the building. Hidden.

sMG42 at 275 m shooting area fire on the building.

Then 10 tests with a Maxim at 275 m shooting area fire on the building.

Result: no difference between the MGs! :o

Both weapons inflicted the same amount of injuries and caused the same supression.

The alliied soldiers in reality obviously feared the MG42 for no reason and the Germans didn't know that it was nothing but a ammo-waster. :rolleyes:

I also did a test at 150 m with the same results.

In fact the Maxim had achieved slightly more losses but not much (that could be statistical noise).

Especially that the MG42 with the excellent tripod at +250 m is not WAY more effective than a Maxim, I find farcical.

But it fits into the downmodelling of the other German weapons.

Btw, all losses, even with wooden buildings, occured only, when a soldier was raising. I did not register a single loss during the whole test, while they were hiding (excluding after the collapse of the wall).

So even the wooden building#1 offers excellent protection. You just must make sure, the units keep their heads down, which can be achieved with short cover arcs. Then they are quite safe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Last time I was playing a CM scenario (last night) I felt that MG42 was a very dangerous weapon indeed when the Germans opened up on my Amis. Might download this scenario to see what the complaint is or might not.

Having too much fun to whine...

Bobo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Then 10 tests with a Maxim at 275 m shooting area fire on the building.

(snip)

In fact the Maxim had achieved slightly more losses but not much (that could be statistical noise).

10 tests each consisting of 1 MG vs. 3 men equals a sample size of 30. That is way too small to show anything unless the expected difference is huge. Which begs the question to be asked (hi womble): what is the expected difference between the MG42 HMG and the Maxim?

When I was testing the effectiveness of low walls for cover a few years ago I did several different tests that each produced 2-3 thousand casualties.

EDITED to add: also, testing against men in buildings introduces bullet penetration of materials as an additional factor to muddle the interpretation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not surprised both MGs were similar - a water-cooled HMG ought to have a high rate of fire capable of killing a lot of people out in the open.

A better test would include things like accuracy, ease of deployment etc. Russian HMGs are a bugger to move around, the crews get tired very quickly, which doesn't happen with MG42s. MG42s also seem to be very accurate, although usually only when my opponent is using them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nobody died on the first day of the Somme, because there were only Maxims and similar then, and everyone knows that Maxims just can't hurt exposed infantry.

No wait...

I detect more than one flaw with the OPs several hypotheses...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Higher ROF does not do what you think it does. It does not conjure bullets from the vasty deep. It does not make them any lighter or easier to get to a forward position, to fire them at the enemy. It does not make each more accurate - it does the reverse, in fact.

It does let you concentrate you volume of fire (which is unchanged, see previous) into narrower time windows, at a cost in lower per round accuracy. Whether that trade off is worth it depends entirely on the *time profile of target exposure*, assuming you manage to exploit said ROF perfectly, to shift your available volume into the narrow time slices with highest target exposure.

When it won't help one lick is whenever the target is continuously exposed, for as long or longer than any alternative weapon needs to fire the equivalent ammo. Higher ROF is completely useless in that case. And may detract from total delivered firepower, due to lower accuracy per round.

To see how obvious this is, ignore machineguns and compete with one rifleman. The MG fires off 5000 at peak cyclic ROF at a continually exposed target. The target remains there for four days, anyway. One rifleman takes 5000 aimed single shots. It doesn't matter how long that takes him because the target is sitting there, completely exposed for days, and he can certainly fire his aimed shots within that time. Which weapon gets more hits? Speed has nothing to do with the answer. Only accuracy per shot influences that answer. And the accuracy per shot is clearly higher with the singles, each individually aimed, for rifle.

Faster is not straighter. Faster is not more. If there isn't a sea change in target exposure, that the fast shooting can exploit and the slow shooting cannot, faster isn't worth diddly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The MG42 fires only 30-40% more rounds per minute than the Maxim.

Despite that it does NOT cause 30-40% more injuries.

That are the two problems ...

Of course it doesn't.

If you fire bullets at a cyclic rate of 1000-1200 rounds per minute that means you will be wasting 4-5 bullets with each hit since you can't regulate your fire like you can with a maxim.

Say you try to shoot one single target with the MG42. You'd have to fire a burst... that burst would contain between 5-10 shots.

To take down one target.

The maxim, on the other hand, would only need 2-3 shots to hit.

The advantage of the MG42 is that it's pretty certain that you will obliterate the target with that burst. The maxim might not.

Add to that the effect on morale of having a s**t-ton of bullets thrown at you in a second or two and you'll see the benefits of the MG42.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi Kauz,

that's funny, because I did a test two days ago, to check the protection of different buildings.

My setup was the following:

A team with three men in the building. Hidden.

sMG42 at 275 m shooting area fire on the building.

Then 10 tests with a Maxim at 275 m shooting area fire on the building.

Result: no difference between the MGs! :o

Both weapons inflicted the same amount of injuries and caused the same supression.

The alliied soldiers in reality obviously feared the MG42 for no reason and the Germans didn't know that it was nothing but a ammo-waster. :rolleyes:

I also did a test at 150 m with the same results.

In fact the Maxim had achieved slightly more losses but not much (that could be statistical noise).

Especially that the MG42 with the excellent tripod at +250 m is not WAY more effective than a Maxim, I find farcical.

But it fits into the downmodelling of the other German weapons.

Btw, all losses, even with wooden buildings, occured only, when a soldier was raising. I did not register a single loss during the whole test, while they were hiding (excluding after the collapse of the wall).

So even the wooden building#1 offers excellent protection. You just must make sure, the units keep their heads down, which can be achieved with short cover arcs. Then they are quite safe.

Downmodeling of the german weapons?

Hahahaha!

Oh wait... you're serious?

...

BWAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAHAAAA!

There is no "downmodeling" of german weapons.

There is no shady behind-the-scenes modification on the MG42 that makes it do "less damage" or "hit less often".

The fact is that it is an ammo waster.

There is no arguing that it was an accurate weapon. As accurate as most other MG's of the time.

But it fired at least 5-6 bullets to do the same job as the others might do in 1-2 bullets.

Go to a firing range. Set up 10 paper targets and try to take them down with an MG42 and then an M1919 (or something else).

After that, count the number of rounds used in each gun...

As for suppression... suppression is suppression... I believe that in the game it is modeled largely by the number of bullets fired in the general direction of a unit over time.

Since the MG42 fires in short bursts while the Maxim fires in largely long bursts, this means that a relatively similar number of bullets are fired at the unit over an extended period of time.

Enough for both to cause a similar amount of supression.

Don't get me wrong, the allied (the western ones especially) were very fearful of the MG42 because of its distinct sound.

But that doesn't mean they ran away in panic every time they heard one.

And it doesn't mean that they didn't get suppressed by other MG's.

This makes me wonder, however, how far this delusion of yours stretches?

Do you consider the MP40 a vastly superior weapon compared to the Thompson, Sten and PPSh41 as well?

Do you think the Kar98k was a better weapon that the Springfield or the Enfield?

Do you say that the Garand or SVT40 was no match for the G43?

Because if you do, there is obviously something wrong with you...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
did you hear anything of dispensing the burst by swinging the gun?

Or did you hear anything about that not every bullet which hits is a kill

Or did you hear anything about bullet penetration...may be someone behind gets hit by the bullet too

About the fleeting.....they are fleeting too

I don't even understand what you're getting at here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Apocal and Oddball_E8:

refering to your last posts.

The MG in the game never fire longer bursts.

They always fire shorter bursts.

Mainly the breaks between the bursts get shorter the shorter the distance is.

And this mainly not only because of the distance itself...more because of the ability to spot always someone in my set- up.

You both argue that the MG42 just fires more rounds per burst (in game that is only slighty the case) and that these rounds just perforate the same target which already would be dead either by a shorter burst of a Maxim.

You are right in case of the HMG and short distances AND if you ignore 2 facts:

1.

I can decide if i only want to fire 2 or 25 rounds per burst....i am not forced to fire more rounds per burst than the Maxim. (i did it myself...tapping the trigger is enough option to control it))

This way i can fire a short burst of 3-5 rounds on an enemy and then switch to the next target, while the Maxim only did 1-2 rounds in the same time and may be still has to fire and loose additional time before switching to next target.

2.

In case of my scenario the Mg42 could have make use of swinging the gun.

He sees a mass or even only 1 group of enemy assaulting the bridge at 100 meters.

What a real MG42 would have done....it has already fixate an vertical elevation and just simply give a 10-25 round burst while swinging the gun in horizontal way.

The guys who did not get hit then search cover.....

The Maxim can do the same way but it only dispense 30-50% on the rounds a MG42 can do in the same time....

that way i can hit more people per time than the Maxim

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×