Jump to content

Soviet SMGs


poesel

Recommended Posts

I know this has been discussed several times but I still have to ask: is the performance of Soviet SMGs what really happened in the war?

 

Because every time I go against them it is like looking into a death ray. Somewhere a single unsurpressed hero of the Soviet Union stands and madly spray bullets in all direction merciless killing everything in its path.

That never happened to me playing the Germans even with squads with several MP40s or the like. Or having two MG42 LMGs in a squad. The amount of lead they could spit out should be somewhere equal to what the Russians can or am I wrong here?

 

Not saying anything isn't working as it should but the usefulness of Soviet SMGs (in close range of course) is so much better than anything else you can find in other armies. That feels odd. It is a trump card that (in certain situations) cannot be countered. Like an APS M1 in BS. There rarity has been adapted and house rules placed. But it is impossible to do that for the mainstay of the Soviet infantry.

 

So - is this really right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the performance is correctly modeled, but some things like moral, suppression, and movement are not modeled realistically and are much harder to model.  You also have to accept that a lot of the battles we get into wouldn't occur this way in real life.  Units would withdraw before they were overrun.  Firefights between tree-lines could last hours.  The PPSh is a very powerful weapon in Combat Mission because of the nature of the game and the fact that it was a very impressive weapon in real life.  My best advise is to fight defensively if faced with them.  Use tanks and mortars to wipe them out.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I mean the offset is that they're quite useless past 50-125m. Unless you're fighting in highly urban terrain or in a forest (in which case, you're playing to Soviet historical strengths, grit your teeth), you should ostensibly be able to establish fire superiority before closing in. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vere haf your Pantsers been? Ja, schnell, schnell. Der Panzer ist der...solution.

 

Rock, paper, scissors. The PPsh is deadly. Heavy weapon (stable), light round (low recoil), flat trajectory (to 100m or so), and lots of ammo (71 round drum), means deadly within 100m. Stay beyond 500m to deal with them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've simply learned that German troops are best at stand-off distances. You may find the PPsh tough to contend with, but i'd rather have to deal with that than be on the receiving end of the MG42/34 family of GPMGs. Beyond about 200m or so it's just no contest. German troops have as much firepower as Russian machine gun teams and can plaster the approach to a town or objective from near complete safety at range.

Inside about 200m or so conduct yourself cautiously. Use and abuse the hunt command and send small teams forward in bounding advance with most men retained back for the fire-element.

Edited by CaptHawkeye
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the performance is correctly modeled, but some things like moral, suppression, and movement are not modeled realistically and are much harder to model.

 

This answer is the closest to being right, unfortunately.

 

It's interesting that in CMx1 a typical German Squad can handle a typical Russian Squad in same circumstances..It's almost the opposite now in CMx2.

 

Joe

Edited by JoMc67
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's interesting that in CMx1 a typical German Squad can handle a typical Russian Squad in same circumstances..It's almost the opposite now in CMx2.

 

Geez, I wonder why - perhaps because things are modeled in more fidelity now? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This answer is the closest to being right, unfortunately.

 

It's interesting that in CMx1 a typical German Squad can handle a typical Russian Squad in same circumstances..It's almost the opposite now in CMx2.

 

Joe

You do realise that just because something was so in CMx1 doesn't mean it was Right, True, Accurate and Gospel, don't you? You do realise that a decade of further research and development has gone into the game since then, and that BFC wouldn't just flip things over because they thought it was time the Russkies had a chance?

 

Maybe CMx2's morale system let's Ivan make wider use of their SMGs than they historically should, but it's sure and certain that the aggregate firepower stats of Larry Curly and Moe were giving the Germans more rounds-on-target than the individual trooper modelling of CMx2. CMx2 by its nature is more prone to a single weapon in a squad or team making a larger difference, because it might be the only weapon from that team that's actually bearing at the time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Glad someone raised this topic. I have been wondering if I am the only one finding the accuracy of machine pistol units way off in CM. :huh:

 

Three main arguments come to my mind:

 

1. If I take the performance of Soviet SMG-units in CM, they obviously should have become the ULTIMATE infantry weapon for urban fighting or fighting in woods after 1945.

Now I am wondering why the US Army or the USSR in Vietnam never heard about this secret weapon? Why did they go the German StG44 (called MP44 wrongly in game) assault rifle route with the AK47 and the M16? Where are today's infantry units equipped with machine pistols like PPSHs?

 

2. The numbers of German losses against Soviet infantry do not indicate they were as effective as they are portrayed in the game, too. To my knowledge even until the end of the war, the Germans never had higher losses than the Soviets despite the inferiority in headcount numbers and equipment and scracity of everything.

 

3. 1st hand experience. Ever shot with a machine pistol in reality? It's a generalization, but to say that it's impossible to hit anything beyond 50 m comes quite close. :D

 

In my experience more bullets from automatic rifles do NOT automatically translate into a higher chance to hit. Quite the contrary IMO. In CM the kind of automatic fire seems not to be modelled.

In general I think that the hit probability of (machine) pistols in CM, be it PPSHs or (the sharpshooting crews with normal!) pistols, already beyond 25 m is too high and beyond 50 m is quite out of proportion.

I think the rifle based weapons (M1, K98, StG44/MP44) dramatically are undermodelled in comparison to (machine) pistols.

Edited by CarlWAW
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure why submachine guns disappeared from the armies of the world outside security forces post WWII.  The H&K MP5 though remains a very popular gun.  They are still very effective in urban combat.  It could be the rise of body armor.  It could also be the desire for a good all around weapon as opposed to a specialized weapon for city fighting.  I certainly appreciate the small size & weight of submachine guns in built up areas.

 

The game portrays the weapon correctly from the given factory specifications.  Given two superhuman armies of robotic drugged madmen they probably could have been this effective on the field.  Infantry combat has always been one of the greatest strengths of CM2, but at the same time it will always be an approximation.  

 

Try playing CM with your camera locked on one guy with a rough map of the battlefield and see how long you last.  

Edited by simon21
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. If I take the performance of Soviet SMG-units in CM, they obviously should have become the ULTIMATE infantry weapon for urban fighting or fighting in woods after 1945.

They were for the time. That's why both the Russians and Germans equipped whole Companies with them, and would've equipped even more men with them if they could have. The assault rifle's invention came earlier than people think, and was predicated on the invention of an intermediate cartridge between the power of a full rifle round and pistol round. Most nations couldn't change their standard ammunition dead in the middle of the war though. Just ask the Italians and Japanese how good that worked for them. The Russians waited until the war was past its decisive stage before they started fiddling with Kalashnikov's designs and the Germans were desperate enough to try just about anything.

 

Now I am wondering why the US Army or the USSR in Vietnam never heard about this secret weapon? Why did they go the German StG44 (called MP44 wrongly in game) assault rifle route with the AK47 and the M16? Where are today's infantry units equipped with machine pistols like PPSHs?

So you know, the Thompson was still in use with the US Army in Vietnam, and it was quite popular. The issue with the Thompson is that the ballistics of the .45ACP round are not very good beyond about 100m or so. The round loses energy too fast. It could kill someone much farther out but the trajectory falls off a lot at range. Their is a reason modern machine pistols and SMGs prefer the 9mm parabellum round. Assault rifles replaced SMGs because they offer all the advantages of a compact machine gun with none of the disadvantages of a pistol cartridge. Older ARs used to be somewhat unwieldy in tight quarters but a modern M4 is about the size of the Thompson and weighs less.

 

2. The numbers of German losses against Soviet infantry do not indicate they were as effective as they are portrayed in the game, too. To my knowledge even until the end of the war, the Germans never had higher losses than the Soviets despite the inferiority in headcount numbers and equipment and scracity of everything.

I hate hate hate these video-game esque K:D ratio statements. They totally gloss over the operational realities of the war and encourage people to remain ignorant of how fighting in a modern war works. I hope you don't frequently paint pictures of the war to laypeople like this. Really I don't because it's actually very irresponsible and unhealthy.

 

3. 1st hand experience. Ever shot with a machine pistol in reality? It's a generalization, but to say that it's impossible to hit anything beyond 50 m comes quite close. :D

You should try being shot at, half starved, and fresh out of a 200km road march if you want the truly realistic experience.

 

In my experience more bullets from automatic rifles do NOT automatically translate into a higher chance to hit. Quite the contrary IMO. In CM the kind of automatic fire seems not to be modelled.

In general I think that the hit probability of (machine) pistols in CM, be it PPSHs or (the sharpshooting crews with normal!) pistols, already beyond 25 m is too high and beyond 50 m is quite out of proportion.

I think the rifle based weapons (M1, K98, StG44/MP44) dramatically are undermodelled in comparison to (machine) pistols.

You should know that the developers are wary of "I think XYZ is too strong/too weak". Do some tests, come back with some figures, and do some research. I'm a little surprised that everyone is so befuddled with Russian SMG squads when they're no better armed than the Syrian militiamen we all played against in Shock Force. If you stumble into a killzone and don't cover sectors right than it barely matters if your men are armed with M4s or K98s, they'll get wrecked.

Edited by CaptHawkeye
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. If I take the performance of Soviet SMG-units in CM, they obviously should have become the ULTIMATE infantry weapon for urban fighting or fighting in woods after 1945.

They were for the time. That's why both the Russians and Germans equipped whole Companies with them, and would've equipped even more men with them if they could have.

 

Now I am wondering why the US Army or the USSR in Vietnam never heard about this secret weapon? Why did they go the German StG44 (called MP44 wrongly in game) assault rifle route with the AK47 and the M16? Where are today's infantry units equipped with machine pistols like PPSHs?

So you know, the Thompson was still in use with the US Army in Vietnam, and it was quite popular. The issue with the Thompson is that the ballistics of the .45ACP round are not very good beyond about 100m or so. The round loses energy too fast. Their is a reason modern machine pistols and SMGs prefer the 9mm parabellum round. Assault rifles replaced SMGs because they offer all the advantages of a compact machine gun with none of the disadvantages of a pistol cartridge. Older ARs used to be somewhat unwieldy in tight quarters but a modern M4 is about the size of the Thompson and weighs less.

 

2. The numbers of German losses against Soviet infantry do not indicate they were as effective as they are portrayed in the game, too. To my knowledge even until the end of the war, the Germans never had higher losses than the Soviets despite the inferiority in headcount numbers and equipment and scracity of everything.

I hate hate hate these video-game esque K:D ratio statements. They totally gloss over the operational realities of the war and encourage people to remain ignorant of how fighting in a modern war works. I hope you don't frequently paint pictures of the war to laypeople like this. Really I don't because it's actually very irresponsible and unhealthy.

 

3. 1st hand experience. Ever shot with a machine pistol in reality? It's a generalization, but to say that it's impossible to hit anything beyond 50 m comes quite close. :D

You should try being shot at, half starved, and fresh out of a 200km road march if you want the truly realistic experience. Maybe if you're lucky they even let you fire your weapon in training!

 

In my experience more bullets from automatic rifles do NOT automatically translate into a higher chance to hit. Quite the contrary IMO. In CM the kind of automatic fire seems not to be modelled.

In general I think that the hit probability of (machine) pistols in CM, be it PPSHs or (the sharpshooting crews with normal!) pistols, already beyond 25 m is too high and beyond 50 m is quite out of proportion.

I think the rifle based weapons (M1, K98, StG44/MP44) dramatically are undermodelled in comparison to (machine) pistols.

You should know that the developers are wary of "I think XYZ is too strong/too weak". Do some tests, come back with some figures, and do some research. I'm a little surprised that everyone is so befuddled with Russian SMG squads when they're no better armed than the Syrian militiamen we all played against in Shock Force. If you stumble into a killzone and don't cover sectors right than it barely matters if your men are armed with M4s or K98s, they'll get wrecked.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, I knew it was only a matter of time until this thread devolved into "why can't my ubermensch cut the Soviets down in droves effortlessly?"

Womble and LukeFf are wholly in the right, not sure why people are swearing by a seriously outdated engine and series of games when CMx2 is so clearly better modeled. As for all the farting on about " if SMGs were so effective how come they're no longer in use?" has it occured to you that modern service weapons attempt to combine the best of an SMG with the best of a battle rifle?

Edit: body-count trope reared its head! Everyone take a shot!

Edited by Rinaldi
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Glad someone raised this topic. I have been wondering if I am the only one finding the accuracy of machine pistol units way off in CM. :huh:

 

Three main arguments come to my mind:

 

1. If I take the performance of Soviet SMG-units in CM, they obviously should have become the ULTIMATE infantry weapon for urban fighting or fighting in woods after 1945.

Now I am wondering why the US Army or the USSR in Vietnam never heard about this secret weapon? Why did they go the German StG44 (called MP44 wrongly in game) assault rifle route with the AK47 and the M16? Where are today's infantry units equipped with machine pistols like PPSHs?

 

2. The numbers of German losses against Soviet infantry do not indicate they were as effective as they are portrayed in the game, too. To my knowledge even until the end of the war, the Germans never had higher losses than the Soviets despite the inferiority in headcount numbers and equipment and scracity of everything.

 

3. 1st hand experience. Ever shot with a machine pistol in reality? It's a generalization, but to say that it's impossible to hit anything beyond 50 m comes quite close. :D

 

In my experience more bullets from automatic rifles do NOT automatically translate into a higher chance to hit. Quite the contrary IMO. In CM the kind of automatic fire seems not to be modelled.

In general I think that the hit probability of (machine) pistols in CM, be it PPSHs or (the sharpshooting crews with normal!) pistols, already beyond 25 m is too high and beyond 50 m is quite out of proportion.

I think the rifle based weapons (M1, K98, StG44/MP44) dramatically are undermodelled in comparison to (machine) pistols.

 

I also agree with all your points ( except 1. which has already been commented on )...It's not about the PPSH alone, but still think SMGs in general are alittle more potent in CMx2 then they should be. I do, however, think Rifle based weapons seem to work fairly well. 

 

Basically, Small Arms in CMx2 uses Bullet Trajectory, Moral, Suppression, etc all being intertwined together to give a hit/casualty result...Is it to much or to little compared to reality is the big question.

Edited by JoMc67
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You do realise that just because something was so in CMx1 doesn't mean it was Right, True, Accurate and Gospel, don't you? You do realise that a decade of further research and development has gone into the game since then, and that BFC wouldn't just flip things over because they thought it was time the Russkies had a chance?

 

Maybe CMx2's morale system let's Ivan make wider use of their SMGs than they historically should, but it's sure and certain that the aggregate firepower stats of Larry Curly and Moe were giving the Germans more rounds-on-target than the individual trooper modelling of CMx2. CMx2 by its nature is more prone to a single weapon in a squad or team making a larger difference, because it might be the only weapon from that team that's actually bearing at the time.

 

Well, I think both CMx1 and CMx2 are still True, Right, and Accurate in their own right as separate games...It's not about further research ( as that's been done years ago ), but rather how that research is used to give the different approaches to wargaming.

 

It just seems that both games should coincide with one another a little more closer...But, I digress.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, I think both CMx1 and CMx2 are still True, Right, and Accurate in their own right as separate games...It's not about further research ( as that's been done years ago ), but rather how that research is used to give the different approaches to wargaming.

 

It just seems that both games should coincide with one another a little more closer...But, I digress.

Why? Why should CMx2 just produce the same results as CMx1? What makes x1 more accurate? Your logic is just screwed. I'm not saying either is perfect, simply that just because x1 produced a particular result, is no reason whatever for CMx2 to produce the same result. StuG armour, anyone?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Generally, I would imagine smgs are the weapon of choice when equipping troops poorly or hastily trained for combined arms fighting. Sure, you can't count on them move well, establish large-scale defensive positions, or handle artillery. But you can always park them somewhere and hope the enemy touches the hot oven (once) before the smg squads get taken apart from longer range by artillery. It just so happens that CM timeframes tend only to encompass that first painful moment of encountering the one-use smg squad, not the rest of tactical solution.

 

Also, try playing against smg squads if every squad on the battlefield is at low motivation/ green experience/ scarce ammo/ % 40 losses--under these conditions infantry are fragile and you will find artillery and long range machine gun fire have historical levels of usefulness. Regular squads, too me, are too good at taking losses and standing their ground.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also, try playing against SMG Squads if every squad on the battlefield is at low motivation/ green experience/ scarce ammo/ % 40 losses--under these conditions infantry are fragile and you will find artillery and long range machine gun fire have historical levels of usefulness. Regular squads, too me, are too good at taking losses and standing their ground.

This is why I only use Green Troops ( against AI or Opponents ), and use certain Bonuses ( Leadership & Motivation ) to represent Reg or Vet Troops.

 

And I'm with you in that Regs and above ( especially if having bonuses ) stand too long on the battlefield.

Edited by JoMc67
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Small arms fixation, rather silly.  70% plus of all casualties are caused by artillery fire, including the common medium mortars,  but heavily dominated by divisional artillery, where all the fire control and ammunition supply was concentrated.  Of casualties caused by bullets, machineguns are by far the leading cause, both infantry crew served and vehicle mounted.  Maybe 1 in 6 battlefield casualties were caused by all smaller arms combined, and perhaps less.  Those split between close range fire at broken enemies or very rapidly decided knife fights, and long range fire making up in time-extent what it lacked in specific lethality.  Meaning rifles taking isolated potshots for *hours* on end, whenever a target briefly exposed itself.

 

CM players try to use infantry as an arm of decision in its own right, accepting very heavy casualties to mash like on like and trade with similar enemies, at ranges down to point blank.  That did happen occasionally in the actual war, of course, but always as a sign of a fearsome stuff up in the chain of plans and maneuvering and combined arms application.

 

Normally SMGs don't kill many infantrymen because normally friendly infantrymen spend very little time within 50 meters of the enemy.  Artillery and mortars and tanks and such all plaster him at 500 to 1000 yards.  Then MGs, modestly supplemented by aimed rifle fire, mostly keeps him from getting within 200 yards - the MGs rather more effective in the 250 to 500 yard range envelope and the rifles and such kicking in from 250 down to 100 - with few ever getting that close.

 

When infantry does get that close to the enemy it is after the heavier stuff has seriously messed him up, to finish him off or force him to retreat or to take prisoners.  Sometimes it has to threaten that to reveal the defenders by the threat of close approach in far superior numbers - then it mostly gets stopped as described in the previous, and the friendly heavy stuff finds something to "chew on" and goes to work.  In all of which, infantry are targets far more than direct threats, and their firepower mostly defensive, suppressing their opposite numbers long before they can close.

 

Armies went to intermediate rather than full power cartridges after WWII because they had found that infantry only has to deal with the 300 yard and under range, because heavier stuff in the combined arms toolbox completely dominates all fighting at longer ranges.  Everyone with a carbine caliber weapon capable of full automatic fire gave all the benefits of SMGs without their limited range drawbacks, while being fully capable out to the 300 yard mark, beyond which small arms fire was tactically irrelevant.  

 

To get a realistic sense of these things in CM, you just have to play realistic scenarios that make full use of the combined arms "kit", and that reflect the "never fight fair" lopsidedness of real combat.  When instead you artificially force everything to be a short range, even odds, infantry dominated encounter, and in lots of cover, you won't get historically realistic outcomes or importance of different weapons.  You've cherry picked the occasions for automatic small arms carried by each man, to shine.

 

Fight in open steppe terrain and see how important SMGs are.  Give the attacking side 12 tubes of 105mm artillery with 100 rounds per gun and see how important SMGs are.  Give one side an SMG infantry company and the other side a Panzer IVG company and see how important the SMGs are.   That war as a whole was not even knife-fights inside 100 yards between evenly matched infantry companies.  When it was - some city fighting e.g. - infantry loss rates were astronomical and SMGs were highly prized.  That just wasn't the whole war.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok, so the answer to my original question is that the simulation is correct but the battles usually depicted in CM would not happen that often in real life. Thus the subjective result is skewed.

 

Now I'd like to ask about the behaviour of troops in CM:

That is a subjective feeling and has not been tested: IME Soviet SMGs are much more likely to really let go a spray of bullets as their German counterparts. The MP40 shoots about half the number of bullets (500/min) as a PPSh (1000/min). Also the magazine of a MP40 is roughly half as big as a PPSh. Both get to fire the same time per magazine. So there is no technical reason for one side to shoot more or less than the other.

Take a LMG42 into the equation which puts out even 50% more bullets than the PPSh. I can't remember to see a soldier using its LMG in short distance fights to spit out bullets as a PPSh wielder does.

 

What I'm trying to say here is that a PPSh user is more likely to pull the trigger than their counterparts in CM(!). Again: just subjective feeling, not tested.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...