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

[Andrew H.]

i fear it is more for ammo conservation... obviously one man can only carry so much weight, meanwhile they're supported by the m134 and stuff, 3k rounds/min rof:p, apparently ammo is less a concern when it's vehicle mounted, i mean who doesn't like more firepower.. but for mg42 if you fire 2 second bursts per time the basic ammo load will be gone in 20 something shots.

I think it's a combination of being able to conserve ammo *while* not being any less effective. If high ROF weapons really were more effective than lower ROF weapons, western armies (at least) would use them despite the higher cost).

I.e., over 2000 javelin missiles (@$80,000 apiece) have been fired in Afghanistan and Iraq, almost all of them at infantry targets. It's hard to see that cost is really an issue if you get increased effectiveness.

[JonS]

Jason,

a) you maths is off by an order of magnitude

the point of a barrage is not to kill anyone, but to get the enemy to dance to your tune. Killing via the barrage is a bonus, but not necessary, because the wholesale killing is done elsewhere, by other systems, once the enemy is doing what you want them to.

Doctrine is a guide for the wise, and a crutch for the weak. You'd do well to remember that, Jason, and stop using your sig as a crutch.

[JasonC]

JonS - since 70% of all casualties in both world wars were in fact caused by artillery fire, no, the wholesale killing was indeed done by barrages. Just not MG barrages wasting ammo on non-existing non targets as imaginarily important and completely temporary area denial.

Using weapons in stupid ways because you can and calling it doctrinal innovation and flexibility and cleverness is a crutch for martinet brass who want to think they are in control, when in fact they are wasting combat power and with in the lives of their men. And the idiots who excuse it after the fact because they read the brass's press release are worse...

[MikeyD]

The test does seem to be rather like testing mortality rates from dropping people on their heads from 66 meters compared to 100 meters . One might imagine dropping from the greater height would be 1/3rd more effective. But since being dropped from both heights will kill you the greater height gives only marginal benefit, if any at all. 600 men with no place to hide. Either use a MG42 or a Maxim on them, or have a group of officers casually wander through the crowd with their Nagant pistols in their hands. Technology doesn't play much of a role in the outcome.

[JonS]

JonS - since 70% of all casualties in both world wars were in fact caused by artillery fire, no, the wholesale killing was indeed done by barrages.

Wait a second. Do you not know what a barrage is? No wonder you're being your usual uppity self. An unsympathetic observer might conclude that you're working from a position of ignorance, and using your sig as a crutch to try and mask it.

A barrage is not just another name for artillery fire. It is a specific technique. The aim is to provide a barrier, and in that sense it is somewhat similar to smoke. The difference, obviously (wait, is it? I'm suddenly not sure you know anything about artillery?), is that smoke provides a barrier to observation and thus accurate fires, while a barrage creates a barrier to movement (and to some degree blocks observation as a by product of loads of dirt and dust being flung about the place).

We know that artillery did the lion's share of killing, but that does NOT mean that barrages did the lion's share of killing. Barrages were used for shaping, but shaping isn't killing, even if that shaping does lead to killing.

[MengJiaoRedux]

The test does seem to be rather like testing mortality rates from dropping people on their heads from 66 meters compared to 100 meters . One might imagine dropping from the greater height would be 1/3rd more effective. But since being dropped from both heights will kill you the greater height gives only marginal benefit, if any at all. 600 men with no place to hide. Either use a MG42 or a Maxim on them, or have a group of officers casually wander through the crowd with their Nagant pistols in their hands. Technology doesn't play much of a role in the outcome.

This is the most sensible analysis I've seen in this thread and all the more so since apparently the real benefit of the MG42 was in suppressive fire -- dominating an area so that mortar fire could kill off the enemy.

[Kauz]

All weapons produce suppressive fire......do you know why?

Because nobody wants to die....

There is a proportionality between supression and firepower....

A weapon which does not kill .....does not supress.

I only feel more supressed in case i am more close to die.

The high rate of fire increases on high distances the hitprobability and on low ranges it does too....just by swinging the gun i can dispense the rounds into an enemy group....because of this i am not only able to let more people feeling supressed ...i am also able to hit more people per time frame.

Some people do not get this simple correlation.

[sburke]

There is a proportionality between supression and firepower....

A weapon which does not kill .....does not supress.

I am betting I could suppress you with a taser.

[JonS]

I am betting I could suppress [kauz] with a taser.

I say we try it. An initial sample of 50 iterations ought to give us an initial indication as to whether a full experiment with 1,000 trials would be entertai... er, worthwhile.

[H1nd]

Considering that nothing in this world is quite as it seems but rather the "reality" is purely synthesis of our limited senses, it should not be that hard to see the power of the mind over body.

Supression is all about psychology and primeval survival insticts. It has very little to do with "actual scientific truth". In other words the technical specs of the weapon can be completely offset by the psychological impact wich has basis in the highly biased "reality" of any given individual. Then there is ofc whole field of science realed to combat psychology and stress where technical aspects are relatively minor factor in the causality equation.

Overly complicated five cents ^^

On a side note: I have found this "conversation" to be highly amusing. Please do continue.

[Skwabie]

I think it's a combination of being able to conserve ammo *while* not being any less effective. If high ROF weapons really were more effective than lower ROF weapons, western armies (at least) would use them despite the higher cost).

I.e., over 2000 javelin missiles (@$80,000 apiece) have been fired in Afghanistan and Iraq, almost all of them at infantry targets. It's hard to see that cost is really an issue if you get increased effectiveness.

actually i meant to say weight rather than cost. a high rate of fire is always preferred but obviously not everyone is arnold schwarzenegger in predator/ terminator.

apparently he dropped the ball in the last stand. but lets be honest, cold war's over for more than a decade, there's no need for overkills..

[MengJiaoRedux]

The high rate of fire increases on high distances the hitprobability and on low ranges it does too....just by swinging the gun i can dispense the rounds into an enemy group....because of this i am not only able to let more people feeling supressed ...i am also able to hit more people per time frame.

Some people do not get this simple correlation.

The simple correlation does not seem to occur, probably because it is extremely sensitive to factors not in the game because they don't happen except with fixed MGs with interlocking fields of fire and even then only if you could perfectly time the traversing of the gun with the motion of the targets.

I suspect the traversing of a fixed MG would also provide much more suppression than killing simply because it would be a situation that any observer could visualize -- ie traversing a fixed MG produces the effect of a barrage, not a death ray.

[Kauz]

Considering that nothing in this world is quite as it seems but rather the "reality" is purely synthesis of our limited senses, it should not be that hard to see the power of the mind over body.

Supression is all about psychology and primeval survival insticts. It has very little to do with "actual scientific truth". In other words the technical specs of the weapon can be completely offset by the psychological impact wich has basis in the highly biased "reality" of any given individual. Then there is ofc whole field of science realed to combat psychology and stress where technical aspects are relatively minor factor in the causality equation.

Overly complicated five cents ^^

On a side note: I have found this "conversation" to be highly amusing. Please do continue.

Sure....behaviour gets irrational. A greenhorn is not able to get an proper idea of the "real" effects.

A guy who is fanatic is more like to ignore bullets flying 10 meters away from him....until the bullets get very close to him or his next comrades are falling.

A more experienced guy is more able to get an proper idea of when he gets in danger...

A guy with more discipline is able to ignore a lot too.

In general you are right.... Still it is not wrong that a soldier has more fear facing a high rate of fire gun ....his instinct is a good way to handle the unpredictable .

The MG aiming on you (especially the HMG) and fireing a burst increases the hitprobability (2-3 times) on you while you laying down and search for cover.

A MG aiming on your assaulting group and just swing from one side to the other and brings down 2-3 times more rounds befor you can all search cover just hits 2-3 times more.

What do you do if instead of 1 guy is falling----3 guys falling in the same moment..........yes.....you feel more supressed ....

[Kauz]

....

"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..."

According to this i am going to do further test runs....with all LMG and HMGs of the game to be able to compare them.

Nevertheless i wish i could see that the devs establish long bursts for the heavy machine guns and establish a "swing" movement on shorter ranges.

Actually the MGs (especially the HMG) are just useless....

you can be happy to do 15-20 casualties in a standard game with a whole HMG unit....that is the same like a standard infantry group.....ridiculous.

I did a test with LMG42 it shoots about 100-150 rounds per minute.....that is quite close to the above quote....the behaviour of short bursts and not swinging is accurate too..... So for first moment i am OK with LMG behaviour (only the spotting could be better for all units).

But the HMG 42 only does 100 rpm more than the LMG42 (instead of 300 rpm more). There are no longs bursts and there is no gun-swinging (for shorter range and more dense enemy-concentration).

That makes the whole HMG wrong simulated.

[Lethaface]

I say we try it. An initial sample of 50 iterations ought to give us an initial indication as to whether a full experiment with 1,000 trials would be entertai... er, worthwhile.

Dont forget to swing the taser for extra effect

In all seriousness Kauz, I understand your theory of correlation. If shooting at a random number of persons, grouped in a random position, in random terrain, with similar accuracy per shot, a gun spraying more bullets will have a higher chance getting more hits on target (in absolute numbers) in a specific time window than a gun spraying less bullets.

So far so good.

However, like in RL the problems start when people try to apply theories in practice.

I bet that if CMRT offered a test laboratory with hit counters on circular practice targets you would arrive at a conclusion supporting the theory. But now you want to measure said effect in battlefield circumstances, with thousands of other variables at work, targets to be able to die only once, limited iterations and you jump to the conclusion that the game is wrong because it doesn't prove your theory?

That, my friend, is 'putting the cart before the horse'. (I just found out it is not only a saying in Dutch )

Anyhow in my experience while playing the game the MG42 is a much more potent weapon when compared to a Maxim. RoF is only a small part of why that is so. Others have already described other advantages of the MG42 and quantity is one of them.

[Lethaface]

Regarding the lack of long bursts and 'swinging': you could have a point there but all MG's in game 'suffer' from this, so I don't see how the mg42 suffers more from this than other MG's? Results should be the same, relatively.

[Lethaface]

I think it's a combination of being able to conserve ammo *while* not being any less effective. If high ROF weapons really were more effective than lower ROF weapons, western armies (at least) would use them despite the higher cost).

I.e., over 2000 javelin missiles (@$80,000 apiece) have been fired in Afghanistan and Iraq, almost all of them at infantry targets. It's hard to see that cost is really an issue if you get increased effectiveness.

The word for this concept is efficiency and this concept is the real killer in our world

[Kauz]

Regarding the lack of long bursts and 'swinging': you could have a point there but all MG's in game 'suffer' from this....,

Correct...all HMG should do like this...longer bursts (at all distances) and swinging at shorter/medium ranges.

I never said anything else.

so I don't see how the mg42 suffers more from this than other MG's? Results should be the same, relatively.

The HMG42 just should fire about 200 rpm more in case he continious spots and fight enemy units. At the moment the practical rate of fire is too low.

And in case the developer would do so....you should establish additionally longer bursts (like in real life).

And in case he establish longer bursts he should establish the swinging of the gun in case of shorter/medium ranges and more enemy units spotted.

If he is not doing the last point (swinging) the MG42 would have a disadvantage at shorter ranges. Just because the HMG42 is fireing a 25 round burst at a specific point and most rounds would not have a good use. With swinging the gun, the HMG42 can dispense controlled the 25 rounds on a wider spreaded area.

[JasonC]

MikeyD - you have it exactly, and the rest are still whistling Dixie...

[JasonC]

I have a question for Kaus. Can a hit probability of 1 be increased by raising the rate of fire?

At 100 meters, I do not miss with a bolt action rifle. Does increasing my rate of fire increase my chance of hitting the target?

In practice, in real firefights rather than on a firing range, people do fire bolt action rifles at 100 yards and the number of men who fall on the other side of the field does not track rounds fired one for one. Why might that be? Hint, rate of fire still is not part of the answer.

Is the typical fire effect of men with bolt action rifles accurately reflected in the game of CM or not? Support your argument with reasoning that parallels the case you wish to make about HMGs.

[Flanker15]

I think I had a thread like this 7 years ago lol.

CMx2 games have never had swivel fire/spraying so all the mg's shoot lines instead of ellipses. This means ROF won't increase your hit rate much.

[LukeFF]

MikeyD - you have it exactly, and the rest are still whistling Dixie...

It would do wonders if you actually quoted the post you are referring to.

[Kauz]

@JasonC:

i can not tell you how tired i get by repeating myself...

On 100 meters......i can just swing my HMG from one side to the other, in a horizontal way, to dispense accurately my burst in the way/area i like.

This way i not only supress more people i just have a higher propability to hit other enemies running in the same area.

So hard to understand?

[MengJiaoRedux]

It would do wonders if you actually quoted the post you are referring to.

I imagine it is the one about the lethality of dropping people on their heads.

[MengJiaoRedux]

@JasonC:

i can not tell you how tired i get by repeating myself...

On 100 meters......i can just swing my HMG from one side to the other, in a horizontal way, to dispense accurately my burst in the way/area i like.

This way i not only supress more people i just have a higher propability to hit other enemies running in the same area.

So hard to understand?

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.