Relative Strengths of Squad Types

[GerryCMBB]

Hello:

I think we may not have a lot of variety until the modules come out, but is there anything written about the relative strengths of squads in the game? I know the US has Rifle and Airborne. How do they match up at different distances with German squad types for example?

Thanks in advance,

Gerry

[Georgie]

If you have CMBO fire it up and take a look in the editor. You can select German and US squads and by clicking on the squads in the editor map you can see the firepower of US and German squads at different distances along with the arms of each squad. Whether BF follows this exactly in CMBN is another question but it will give you an idea of the make up and firepower of each squad.

[GerryCMBB]

Thanks. Unfortunately I don't have CMBB (hence my desire to change my stupid username but it was not something they could do).

I know there were spreadsheets going around from CMBO days. Maybe they just had data for Tanks and Guns?

Gerry

If you have CMBO fire it up and take a look in the editor. You can select German and US squads and by clicking on the squads in the editor map you can see the firepower of US and German squads at different distances along with the arms of each squad. Whether BF follows this exactly in CMBN is another question but it will give you an idea of the make up and firepower of each squad.

[Georgie]

The only other way that I know of is to go into the game manual and jot down the specs of the various infantry weapons listed there and then go into the CMBN editor and select the various platoons that you want to evaluate,deploy them and note the different weapons and you can get a fairly accurate guess. BF took some big strides forward in CMBN but also took a few steps back in certain things and this, IMO, is one of them.

[FragerZ]

But... Firepower statistics wouldn't make any sense. In cmx1, either your entire squad was pinned or your entire squad would fire their weapons. CMBN is too dynamic for such a statistic to be meaningful. Sometimes the man carrying your LMG will be pinned, and sometimes he won't. Sometimes he'll have an excellent LOS, or sometimes he just won't be positioned right.

The best thing you can do is know the loadout of the squads, and make decisions based on that. If I'm not mistaken, PzG have an extra LMG - so use they will have a further optimal range. Fusileers have an extra SMG, and so I'll take them in city and ambush style roles.

[Georgie]

But... Firepower statistics wouldn't make any sense. In cmx1, either your entire squad was pinned or your entire squad would fire their weapons. CMBN is too dynamic for such a statistic to be meaningful. Sometimes the man carrying your LMG will be pinned, and sometimes he won't. Sometimes he'll have an excellent LOS, or sometimes he just won't be positioned right.

The best thing you can do is know the loadout of the squads, and make decisions based on that. If I'm not mistaken, PzG have an extra LMG - so use they will have a further optimal range. Fusileers have an extra SMG, and so I'll take them in city and ambush style roles.

But most times it does. Otherwise the Russians and Germans and British would not have upgraded the firepower of their squads during the war. The US had the jump on them with the Garand.

[Sublime]

The US doesnt necessarily have an advantage because of the garand. I prefer having the 2 MG42s in a squad myself. The US has large squads manpower wise though, with above average equipment and thats a definite strength.

The best way to really know what squads to choose is to be somewhat familiar with the weaponry at hand. You could always just play it out and pay close to attention to what units have what as well..

[Georgie]

The US doesnt necessarily have an advantage because of the garand. I prefer having the 2 MG42s in a squad myself. The US has large squads manpower wise though, with above average equipment and thats a definite strength.

The best way to really know what squads to choose is to be somewhat familiar with the weaponry at hand. You could always just play it out and pay close to attention to what units have what as well..

Yes and no, if the two mg42s are blinded they aren't of much use. Kinda like putting your eggs in one basket. But if a couple of Garands have LOF then thats a problem. They can get off 40 or so aimed rounds per min and that is effective firepower.

[Michael Emrys]

In cmx1, either your entire squad was pinned or your entire squad would fire their weapons. CMBN is too dynamic for such a statistic to be meaningful. Sometimes the man carrying your LMG will be pinned, and sometimes he won't. Sometimes he'll have an excellent LOS, or sometimes he just won't be positioned right.

True, but knowing the total firepower of different squads at different ranges would give you a base line for comparison.

Michael

[womble]

True, but knowing the total firepower of different squads at different ranges would give you a base line for comparison.

Michael

True, it might. If the assumptions used for each weapon in x1 are the same as the assumptions made in CMBN. Does the Thompson's effectiveness/range curve in CMBN match the one used in CMBO? Does the MG42's modelling in CMBN give a similar performance curve to the figures in CMBO? I don't know they're different, but I'd be wary of assuming they were the same.

[Michael Emrys]

True, it might. If the assumptions used for each weapon in x1 are the same as the assumptions made in CMBN. Does the Thompson's effectiveness/range curve in CMBN match the one used in CMBO? Does the MG42's modelling in CMBN give a similar performance curve to the figures in CMBO? I don't know they're different, but I'd be wary of assuming they were the same.

I wanted to reinforce the part I bolded. ISTR something posted months or a year ago to the effect that those performance curves had been recalculated. At any event, the behavior of the men employing those weapons suggests it.

Michael

[Sublime]

Id be very wary of assuming the firepower ratings in CMx1 are the same. There was a lot of abstraction in CMx1 - it was 12 years ago, there had to be. Every round's trajectory is supposed to be modelled in CMBN, which changes things quite a bit.

Also on the US vs German squads, the Garands do help quite a bit. I give you that. However, my experience with CMBN has also shown me that US squads seem to be at a big disadvantage with the BAR being their squad LMG. It just doesnt stand up IMHO to MG42s or even the Browning .30 cal. When I have US Airborne troops every LMG team I get with a BAR instead of the 1919A4 I feel like I got cheated on.

Now the 1919A4, I can dig it. Too bad they never tried putting two of those in every US squad.

[womble]

Id be very wary of assuming the firepower ratings in CMx1 are the same. There was a lot of abstraction in CMx1 - it was 12 years ago, there had to be. Every round's trajectory is supposed to be modelled in CMBN, which changes things quite a bit.

Also on the US vs German squads, the Garands do help quite a bit. I give you that. However, my experience with CMBN has also shown me that US squads seem to be at a big disadvantage with the BAR being their squad LMG. It just doesnt stand up IMHO to MG42s or even the Browning .30 cal. When I have US Airborne troops every LMG team I get with a BAR instead of the 1919A4 I feel like I got cheated on.

Now the 1919A4, I can dig it. Too bad they never tried putting two of those in every US squad.

Why think small!? One per team (so three for a standard/armoured infantry squad), that'd do the trick

[Blackcat]

Why think small!? One per team (so three for a standard/armoured infantry squad), that'd do the trick

When my late father-in-law was in Korea with the RM he had one section of his platoon entirely equipped with Bren guns, the other two sections carried Garands. The firepower was amazing but ammo supply was a complete bitch.

[Georgie]

I have my doubts as to the effectiveness of an automatic weapon in the hands of one man versus the effectiveness of three men with Garands in an area of good or fair cover at a range of 200 or so yds. I think that the three men with Garands would win the day. Only the first shot of each burst from an automatic weapon is aimed and then not very well due the sights of the weapon plus its clumsy and harder to change to a different field of fire. Only if the field of fire is open and long can the mg could be employed as a "mg". If the field of fire is limited and mid or short range then the mg is just a clumsy rifle.

[Tux]

Maybe you're right but, either way, that scenario never occurred and is therefore utterly irrelevant. AIUI the machine-gunner's job is suppression of the enemy while proper destructive firepower is brought to bear (arty, direct HE or grenades from squadmates assaulting the suppressed men). It does that job far better than the Garand. I think the performance of squads in game and real-life and the real-life lack of urgency shown by any of the German, Soviet or British armies to re-equip their riflemen with semi-automatics (as opposed to the comparative rush to increase the numbers of LMGs they carried) also tends to discredit your argument.

[Georgie]

Maybe you're right but, either way, that scenario never occurred and is therefore utterly irrelevant. AIUI the machine-gunner's job is suppression of the enemy while proper destructive firepower is brought to bear (arty, direct HE or grenades from squadmates assaulting the suppressed men). It does that job far better than the Garand. I think the performance of squads in game and real-life and the real-life lack of urgency shown by any of the German, Soviet or British armies to re-equip their riflemen with semi-automatics (as opposed to the comparative rush to increase the numbers of LMGs they carried) also tends to discredit your argument.

Hello Tux, Russia did attempt to equip her troops with a semi auto rifle but for various reasons failed. The Germans also attempted to do so. Take a read on this link, very interesting. Great Britain didn't try, probably because they were already overtaxed by the time they realized that they needed one.

http://www.bayonetstrength.150m.com/Weapons/semiautomatic/semi_automatic.htm

There are several other sources but this one sums it up.

[Tux]

Hi. Yeah I know mate - I'm not saying that semi-autos aren't better for riflemen than bolt-action rifles or that people didn't try to re-equip with them at all. I'm just saying that the efforts to re-equip with them weren't as urgent as the efforts to increase numbers of squad LMGs were, which demonstrates the squad LMG's greater importance as a weapon than having a semi-auto rifle in riflemen's hands rather than a bolt-action. In fact, WWII bolt-action rifles were all very good and, in cases like the SMLE, had sufficient rof capabilities to make re-equipment with semi-autos a desirable but not a critical priority.

So, I disagree with your implication that a squad armed with Garands has a strong advantage over one with bolt-action rifles and two LMGs. I think the following quote from your source indicates that the author of that site does, too:

The volume of fire produced by the average soldier was staggering. And ironically, that was perhaps the greatest failing of the Garand. While Britain and Germany sought out new machine guns for their rifle squads, America looked at the Garand and thought they did not need such things. Yet as impressive as the M1 was, it took a great many to match the fire of a single German MG34/42, as the GIs found to their cost as they slogged across Western Europe to Berlin.

To bend the thread topic, I think it's interesting to speculate how many men and with what weapons may have constituted the ideal WWII squad configuration? Ten men with eight StG44s and two MG42s is a pretty solid template which allows for two very strong fire teams. If you had no manpower or ammunition supply issues you could even opt for twelve-man squads with nine StG44s and three MG42s, allowing up to three good fire teams.

Any thoughts?

[Georgie]

Good argument Tux, yes the stug 44 was probably the best infantry rifle of ww2 on either side and at a distance of 400yds or so over ground with little cover the mg42 would be very hard to advance against no matter what kind of rifle your troops were armed with. But I feel that under some circumstances that three men armed with Garands would have the advantage over one man armed with an mg42. Such as, medium to short distance, broken ground and the ability of the three to spread out and advance along different paths. I wonder if CMBN models the handling differences of machine guns used off the tripod versus the handling of rifles. The one man with the mg42 would be having to constantly change his field of fire as he tried to engage all three of the Garand armed men and the exposure he would get would, I believe, pretty much negate the fire power of the mg42.

[Tux]

Three men with any rifle would cause the same problems. The point is this scenario doesn't matter. Squad LMGs were always supported by lighter (and heavier) arms so that they never had to fight individually. Where is the rest of the German force in your scenario?

I could say that, at a range of 2m, five men with Colt .45s are superior to one with a Garand because they can spread out, etc. So what? It doesn't prove anything about the relative worth of arming infantry with pistols rather than Garands because it is an unrealistic scenario that no army would ever plan for.

[Sublime]

the StG, MG42 combo is of course ideal. As far as SMGs I hafta admit the Thompson seems to kill more people than MP40s. This is in my experience, with no testing besides anecdotal battle experience.

I havent seen enough of the G43 in action to really be able to tell. To be honest the StG44s are so few and far between I dont even know how great they are in the GAME either.

As far as garands over lmgs I gotta say that Tux has the point. We can discuss this endlessly, but history, men's blood, and 'the powers that be' have spent endlessly more time researching this topic. If you take the U.S. Army, all the memoirs I've read about Vietnam show that great importance was placed on the 'pig' (m60) man, and his abilities with the machine gun. In years later the M60s were fazed out with the SAW and I believe we have two of those per a squad now. The Russians obviously came to similiar conclusions, equipping men with RPDs in each squad, etc etc. My knowledge of every militaries TO&E is limited, but obviously the trend has gone in the direction that it seems the Wehrmacht was going with in WW2 - at least on paper.

On paper is what brings me to my next thought. I know the TO&E says each unit had this and that but would this be true in real life? I know theres only so much battlefront can do. I wonder if most squads did have two Mg42s, or what. I know as situations grew more chaotic you could throw things like this out of the window - but Im wondering about 'in between' As in not in the review line in front of Rommel in late May 1944, but also not on the side of the road trying to flee the Falaise pocket at the end of the summer.

Would German squads two days into the fighting have such a uniform equipment loadout? (I believe they would but Im curious)

The reason I ask is I always had the impression each squad had ONE mg 42. I was pleasantly suprised to see otherwise in CMBN. at the same time, it definitely makes sense.

Oh and the MG42 is ALSO better than the Allied LMG's because of that lovely 50 round can that can be attached to it. Only reasonable alternative to belt fed for that role IMHO. the BARs 20 round clips SUCK.

[ASL Veteran]

The reason the British weren't interested in a semi automatic rifle is as Ian Hogg points out

"There were two stumbling blocks; firstly it had to be absolutely reliable under the most unlikely conditions and in the hands of the most cretinous soldier imaginable; and secondly there was always the fear that given such a weapon, the soldiers - particularly hastily trained conscripts - would blast off every round they possessed in the general direction of the enemy during the first two minutes of the battle and thereafter sit waiting to be overrun. Moreover, the load on the supply services to deliver the vast quantities of ammunition which would be needed by these voracious weapons would be insupportable. In fact, the same sort of arguments had been advanced against the quick firing field gun in days gone by, and eventually seen to be groundless, but that didn't stop them from being offered all over again."

He then lists the (ridiculously stringent) requirements that the British War Office made for anyone who wanted to submit a semi automatic rifle design. Ian Hogg then says that "One is not very surprised to hear that the pavement outside the War Office was not thronged with inventors of automatic rifles."

So, the British didn't prefer the Enfield over a semi automatic rifle because of some decision that it would be better to have a Bren than a squad equipped with semi automatic rifles, but that the War Office simply didn't want to make the switch to a semi automatic rifle for reasons outside of tactical firepower considerations.

[Tux]

Yes, I agree. I think I've been a little unclear; I'm not trying to say people chose LMGs rather than semi-automatic rifles for prioritisation. Rather I'm saying that, as two completely separate concepts, 'semi-automatic rifles as standard for riflemen' was generally pursued with far less vigour than 'multiple reliable light machine guns for rifle squads'. This, I think, reflects the feeling then that LMGs were a more important tactical upgrade than semi-autos.

Out of interest, what would have been the possibility of equipping Commonwealth troops with Garands? Would supply and production output have coped? I'm just wondering why Garands never joined the extensive list of equipment which crossed the boundary between US-Commonwealth armies and vice-versa.

[YankeeDog]

Out of interest, what would have been the possibility of equipping Commonwealth troops with Garands? Would supply and production output have coped? I'm just wondering why Garands never joined the extensive list of equipment which crossed the boundary between US-Commonwealth armies and vice-versa.

Well, for starters, there's the reasons ASL Veteran listed above why the Brits weren't particularly interested in re-equipping their infantry with Garands, even if the Americans sent a couple of Liberty ships full of them over.

Beyond this, the U.S. was scrambling to re-equip its entire rifle infantry force with Garands for the first half of the war. IIRC, a couple of divisions than participated in the Normandy campaign didn't get their Garands until a few weeks prior to landing. So there weren't surplus Garands just lying around for the Brits to pick up if they wanted them.

Supplying the Brits with Garands also would have required re-chambering it for .303, or compelling the Brits to switch over to .30-'06 (which would mean re-chambering all those Brens and Vickers), or requiring the Brits to deal with an additional type of ammo in their supply chain for infantry units.

All this said, I'm sure that if the Brits had decided that Garands were a top priority for Lend-Lease, it could have been done, it just would have involved shunting some of America's industrial capacity elsewhere into more Garands -- in other words, if the Brits really wanted Garands they'd have to accept less Shermans, or something.

Overall, upper-level biases against semi-auto rifles aside, I think it's pretty obvious why British priorities were elsewhere. I think it was pretty clear by 1944 that the bolt-action rifle was well on its way to obsolescence as a primary infantry firearm, but the SMLE was one of the best of the type, and it served the job well enough. There was other stuff the Brits needed more urgently.