What effect did the stabilized MG have on rifles?

[Guest Guest]

deleted per user request

[hoolaman]

You could use a road or pavement for a similar effect.

I completely agree with what you are saying. CMSF and CMAK have "open" terrain that fudges in cover for infantry, and more importantly an arbitrary movement order can give infantry very good cover in "open" like crawl vs run.

Really there could be an "astroturf" tile to represent terrain where a man can never hide and will be instantly and accurately cut to shreds no matter what move order is in use..

[jtcm]

If I understand correctly--

Adam: under certain conditions, all things being equal, firepower against units in open ground should be absolutely lethal. CM doesn't show this right.

JasonC: open ground is never a billiard table, and all things are never equal (defending units need only inflict some casualties for attackers to break off, defenders need to conserve ammo). CM represents things fine.

Adam: there must be some situations where open ground is "super open"; if there are "real life" reasons why people don't get slaughtered in open ground, CM should represent this, i.e. defenders must be suppressed or masked, or there should be an ammo incentive for them to keep things reasonable, or the attackers should automatically be forced to ceasefire if they take e.g. 20% casualties.

Or something like that. Personally I want a WWI game, early, with ranged rifle fire at 800m.

As an addendum to Laffargue's narrative: 1. 800 m is the longest range on the graduated sliding backsight on the Lebel; beyond that, you have to flip up a fiddly, C19th style ladder sight that goes up to 2000m. DUring long range fire fights, easier, perhaps, to shout "800m" i.e "extreme long range on your rifle sights" and let everyone blaze away (rather than shout "1100m" and have every one fiddle with the ladder sights".

2. French conscripts, rural, hunters-- might also explain good long range skills of the 1914 French infy.

[JasonC]

Any rifleman can readily fire an aimed shot every 2 seconds, but be super generous and give him 3.

He can change a mag in a couple seconds, but be generous and give him 5.

Then any rifleman can fire off 3 5 round clips a minute, easy.

Nobody can even pass basic rifle marksmenship unless he can hit 70% of the time within 300 yards.

And that is with a carbine. With a full rifle and only needing to hit 2/3rds of the time is super generous.

So every rifleman can easily shoot down 10 enemy every minute.

An LMG can readily fire at 10 round burst every couple seconds.

Such a burst is sure to hit someone, or will occasionally hit 2 men as often as it misses.

Leaving some time to change belts or large mags, any LMG can easily hit 15-20 men per minute.

So a platoon of infantry with 3 MGs and 30 rifles can easily shoot 350 men per minute

A company in the open should be shot down to the last man by a single platoon in about 40 seconds.

Since I can imagine this, it must be possible, and every game should include it as the normal thing.

Any deviation from it, the game should make dependent on lots of little details as to why my calculation isn't correct.

But it must be possible for my calculation to be correct, because I can imagine it and math says so.

The usual thing when a division attacks a single company should be for the division to die to the last man in 8 minutes.

If this isn't observed in reality, the fault lies in reality and not in my calculation, which is perfect.

All the Brits in Black Week should have been shot, 100% casualties, not 7% overall and 30% of the worst hit battalions.

All the Americans on Omaha should have died, 100% casualties not 6% overall and 50% of the worst hit companies.

The exchange ratio of the whole battle of Omaha should have been 20 to 100 to 1, not 2.5 to 1.

The exchange ratio of six months of "Somme fighting" should have been 20 to 100 to 1, not 2.5 to 1.

The exchange ratio of Spion Kop should have been the same as the rest of Black Week, at least, not 2.5 to 1.

Wars should last half an hour, not years.

The average rifleman should shoot around 50 enemy every time he is issued new ammo, say weekly.

In a single year, the average rifleman should therefore account for 2600 enemy infantrymen.

Everyone in a major war lasting 4 years should be killed 2500 times and wounded 7500 times.

Since artillery is even more effective, those should really be 10000 times and 30000 times, respectively.

My math and imagination say so, it must be true.

[Guest Guest]

deleted per user request

[Guest Guest]

deleted per user request

[dieseltaylor]

Interesting that the studies on people actually shooting to kill, rather than firing to suppress, have not been quoted. From the dregs of my memory I believe that a reasonable percentage of soldiers were found not to be natural born killers.

Possibly an English study. I suspect that the Eastern front was a lot more personal.

[jtcm]

Adam: like Diesel says, perhaps, in combat situation, people actually a lot more reluctant to fire, or a lot more prone to miss (adrenaline rush, etc) than could be expected. CM style casualties inflicted by the 10% natural killers ?

[dieseltaylor]

First, Officers and their counterparts in the Non-Commissioned Officer ranks (NCOs) approach every recruit or new boot-camp graduate with the recognition that there is, inherent within every individual, a natural abhorrence to killing another human being. Call it a “moral resistance,” “mental-wall,” or whatever you like. It is real and it must be overcome. Interesting studies have been conducted on this “natural resistance” and some even more astounding findings have been uncovered. For instance, in WWII, it is estimated that between 75%-80% of riflemen did not actually fire their rifles when an enemy was exposed and threatening. What?? Yes! When it came right down to it, most riflemen in this war were unable to fire their weapons when the “moment of truth” arrived opting instead to allow their comrades-in-arms to do it for them. These numbers were about the same for both the Civil War and World War I. While the results of this research can certainly be questioned (and many have questioned them), these wars represent, ultimately, a failure in training because these men were not able to overcome an inherent “moral” objection to killing even when their lives, or their friend’s lives, were at stake.

http://nationalsecuritypolicy.blogspot.com/2006/03/psychology-behind-killing-brief.html

[Guest Guest]

deleted per user request

[jtcm]

Yes, but I thought Marshall had been pretty discredited by now ?

[John D Salt]

Yes, but I thought Marshall had been pretty discredited by now ?

Marshall's research methods and presentation have been discredited.

His conclusions, however, are still very widely accepted; and similar observations were reported independently, though with less pseudo-science, by Wigram.

All the best,

John.

[undead reindeer cavalry]

there are a number of studies and reports on those subjects. typically it's something like 25% do most of the actual fighting, 60% just hang around, 15% are actively "missing".

the difference between results of military trials and actual combat is huge. combat lethality is about 10% of that of trials. losses are spread differently as well, in combat losses are mostly missing (temporarily) and wounded.

aimed fire at targets caught in open is lethal. usually you just don't get that kind of situation. the enemy makes use of cover and you yourself are likely to receive fire. men are also pretty scattered, so that you have only a couple of shooters at a handful of good targets. you get to fire a number of shots and then the moment passes.

the problem with CM is that it's just a game that is trying to be entertaining. battles are supposed to have interesting events and they shouldn't take too long to play. also the inner mechanics of the game are rather limited.

what comes to pavement tiles, they aren't that different from open ground.

[jtcm]

John: do you mean this man

http://mr-home.staff.shef.ac.uk/hobbies/Wignam.txt

(Lionel Wigram ?)

[dieseltaylor]

http://www.war-experience.org/collections/land/alliedbrit/forman/default.asp

the second page is also of interest.

It was indeed Wigram of whom I was thinking. I continually press for gamers to use casualties as the default setting for playing rather than perfect squads.

In Wigram's letter you note how the artillery is even used for recon patrols - and is generally very present. Given that the BF artillery allowance from 1941 for both sides and as a proportion remains the same into 1945 I cannot help but feel that the Allies get little value for their historically strongest arm.

[Guest Guest]

deleted per user request

[Vark]

Dredging the memory banks here, so some facts will be approximations. To summarise, the majority of soldiers are governed by the hind brain activities during combat as the body, under extreme stress resorts to the brains basic functions. So colour vision is reduced, takes too much processing power and fight or flight reactions kick in, though military training can obveate some of these responses. The trouble is that a defense mechanism kicks in that makes it very hard for most humans to take the life of another. Under extreme duress the brain does not see an enemy but a fellow human being and the "lets all live together and fight the sabre tooth tiger, our real enemy" kick in.

How to deal with this annoying trend? It is estimated, not just by SLA Marshall, that only 20-25% will actively aim a weapon, most will engage in demonstrative fighting (blazing away, fetching ammunition aquiring targets etc, etc). Keegan's book on war is very interesting, in that the majority of soldiers seem to replicate the ancient battles, where the aim was to intimidate your opponent not kill them. Of those quarter who do seek to take a life only 5-10% of rounds will hit anything (US studies after Normandy were shocked at how the average rifleman, proficient on the range, saw a catastrophic drop in accuracy when in combat, especially under fire). The soldiers who do actively seek to point a weapon at another human are made up of "psychos and shepherds". Psychos, is a highly inaccurate term, but it represents soldiers who are able to naturally quell their hind brains restrictive activities, or have reduced blocking mechanisms. Interestingly, soldiers who do show no reservations about killing are often treated with a shocked 'reverance' by fellow combatants. Shepherds is the far more accurate title as it covers a minority of soldiers who react lethally when soldiers, often under their care, are themselves threatened by the enemy.

Societies use all types of ways to reduce this effect, traditionally dehumanising your enemy, slope, gook, kraut, commie, tommy, nip, being a few but this then can cause problems with atrocities, if the process is carried on too far. The inculcation of regimental or unit pride can help stimulate or enhance the shepherd response, again alot of soldiers say they fight for their mates, not abstract ideas like governmental philosophies. The US army has invested heavily in reducing this hindbrain activity with expensive simunitions (think extreme paintball) and conflicts like Iraq have shown the payoff. It is why a special forces unit, sniper, long range weapon system is so lethal, all the trigger pullers normally want to hit you! As an Israeli tanker said, when talking about his experiences as a gunner in 73, it was like looking at a TV screen, it was so easy to kill people.

So using theoretical kill rates to prove a point is as accurate as an old SPI game with those bizzare morale rules. It rarely is the weapon, it is the human behind it that matters. Sorry for the ramble but it is an area that needs far more research by simulators of military conflicts.

[dieseltaylor]

Interesting stuff Vark. It would seem that divorcing the killer from his target - video killing - is a good reason for the US Army to invest $50M over the next five years in "games".

I think that there is unfortunately a counter-productive element when say Bush and Blair demonise the Iraqi's and then the troops find they are fighting not to save the Western world from mad Sadam and his weapons but are there on dubious cause. It is immaterial really on the rights and wrongs of that particular case I am just thinking that for someone to fight in a "wrong" war must be much more stressful on the soldiers involved.

Killing women and children collaterally in a foreign country cannot be easy especially as even in "good" wars most men find it hard to kill ravening Nazis.

[Dietrich]

a defense mechanism kicks in that makes it very hard for most humans to take the life of another. Under extreme duress the brain does not see an enemy but a fellow human being and the "lets all live together and fight the sabre tooth tiger, our real enemy" kick in.

What about instances where a soldier encounters an enemy soldier at point-blank range (or as near to it as makes no odds), as in urban combat? Would he 'run into' the armed enemy soldier but then consider not shooting/bayonetting him, even if he would only do so to save his own skin? Would his innate thou-shalt-not-kill defense mechanism really hold him back from killing an enemy soldier, even though he might get gutted by a bayonet or bludgeoned with an entrenching tool as a result?

Is not close-quarter battle an "extreme duress" situation? In MOUT, would not a soldier rather toss a grenade into a room which might (at best) be empty or might (at worst) contain cowering civilians, rather than risk getting shot dead by a lurking enemy? Is it only at bayonet range that the kill-or-be-killed rationale comes into play?

What about instances, such as in the case of the Germans on the Eastern Front, where the defenders are vastly outnumbered by enemy troops who they figure will kill them to a man if they are not halted and driven back by fire?

Truth be told, these questions, as well as their answers, raise yet more, but I felt they needed to be asked nonetheless.

It would seem that divorcing the killer from his target - video killing - is a good reason for the US Army to invest $50M over the next five years in "games".

My research into the nature of combat leads me to believe that (in the case of video/computer games, most notably first-person shooters like Call of Duty) no matter how 'accurate' it is, no matter how realistic the modeling of weapons or ballistics, no matter how vividly gore is depicted, no game will represent combat -- modern or otherwise -- to a reasonably realistic degree. This is not only a matter of the limitations of computing technology but of creating an experience which is not stressful and terrifying but entertaining and compelling.

For example, in Call of Duty 4 (as in practically every first-person shooter I've ever played), you can spot any enemy shooting at you within fractions of a second after hearing the shots, target him, and score a headshot. All that I've read about combat indicates that, as often as not, you don't know where the fire is coming from, and even when you determine where the fire is coming from, you may not be able to spot whoever is doing the actual shooting.

And in video games, you never take prisoners; when you hit an enemy, either he goes down more or less instantly or goes down but then struggles to get back up and keep shooting at you -- no enemy gets a serious wound and then lies down as if to say "I think I'll just sit this one out." Also, there are never any wounded, whether enemies or friendlies.

[Vark]

Ah, Dietrich have you not heard of the phrase no theory survives contact with the enemy! I'll have a go answering your questions, though the theory is just that a theory, not fact.

Case one: There are instances where soldiers meet at point blank range, assess the relative threat and decide to walk away. Or training takes over and muscle memory reacts faster than inherent compassion (300fps faster). Often though, accounts from veterans suggest sometimes these sudden encounters leave them with awful feelings of guilt. I've just read an account of a UK soldier shooting a Taliban at point-blank range and saying that the image of surprise on the mans face as he was killed and the look in his eyes, yes he was only metres way, will stay with him to the grave. I've also read an account of a Russian SMG gunner saying exactly the same thing about a German he killed, in similar circumstances in Stalingrad. So training takes over but the over ruling of the hind brain sears the conscience, perhaps. Again my response was to scenarios in which long range fire was opened on troops, not reactive situations where the threat is real and immediate, not abstract, like a long range bullet.

Case two: The soldiers brain rationalises that grenading a room is demonstrative fighting, not actively seeking to aim a weapon at a living human. Again theory, then again maybe the squads grenadier is a shepherd /psycho or this is one of the reasons urban warfare is so lethal, ranges are such that this primitive survival reaction is suppressed, or can be rationalised away.

Case three: You answered your own question, Eastern Front! Dehumanising of the enemy, illusionary racial superiority, struggle for survival. Also, German soldiers would have been terrified at the prospect of being captured by the slavic sub-humans!! Reverse the situation and change the scenario and make the attackers US, I wonder what the result would be? What, we can have real coffee and chocolate to eat, and no more Jabos and ToT's to endure! Where's that white flag?

Yes, I agree a theory should always be subjected to questioning and the answers themselves should become questions. My response though, was to respond to theoretical kill rates and actual kill rates and the conclusion that this was mainly because of micro terrain, ammunition conservation, doctrine etc and not the mind behind the gun.

If you are at all interested, Joanna Bourke's "An Intimate History of Killing" is a counter to some of these theories, as it her thesis darkly suggests that men can learn to love war.

DT, I' don't want to get political but Bush/Blair did not demonise the Iraqi's and alot of the senior rankers had fought them before and had immense sympathy for the average soldiers plight. I remember an Intelligence officer relating a tale, from the first Gulf war, about a young ****e conscript, who when asked, why are you fighting, replied, because Saddam knows where my family live! There is finally the classic speech given by the Irish Fusilliers? CO, on the eve of battle, in which he explicitly says respect this culture and respect its people.

[Vark]

Great, that should have read Shi'ite, though in truth most were ****e soldiers!!

[dieseltaylor]

You are correct, the demonisation was of the evil Sadam and his cohorts whilst the Iraqui people were OK. The reason for the war though was bogus and this is what I think makes the combat "pain" more corrosive.

Dietrich. I am not arguing that fighting games are realistic but I do believe they are useful for desensifying young soldiers. And then when you can remove them from real life gory situations:

http://gizmodo.com/5101765/ripsaw-ms1-remote-gun-tank-races-at-60mph

I don't think there is any doubt it is easier to be lethal if you are divorced from the physical scene.

[JasonC]

Adam - not remotely. Explain anything wrong with a particle of it.

[Guest Guest]

deleted per user request

[Guest Guest]

deleted per user request