ASL Veteran

Indeed, I would not characterize grazing fire as a wall of death - mostly because it is not aimed. It would be more of a wall of suppression where the enemy infantry would be forced to go to ground when they encounter it - this would then allow the squad members to bring fire to bear on the suppressed attackers. Of course, if the enemy chose to run through the grazing fire people would get hurt. I should think that the firepower rating for grazing fire would be less than the firepower ratings for point fire, but I'm not going to go into the firepower rating business. BTW, I took the maximum grazing fire range for the M60 straight from the FM. They say that the .50 cal max grazing range is 1000 meters. Visual hinderances such as smoke and grain would have no effect on grazing fire, and scattered trees would have some effect, but shouldn't block it entirely. I doubt if very many maps in CM would allow a 600 meter long FPL anyway since some type of terrain or elevation change would likely limit the length of any FPL.

In the last thread that dealt with MGs I was discussing the subject from the point of view that what machine guns do is common knowledge. My discussion / disagreement with Marlowe has shown me that I may not be communicating effectively – and that some readers have no idea of the significance of what we are discussing. I am going to start with some definitions that I have taken from FM 7-7 and FM 23-7: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Cone of Fire: This type of fire is the cone-shaped pattern formed by the paths of rounds in a group or burst of rounds fired from a gun with the same sight setting. The paths differ and form a cone because of vibration, wind changes, variations in ammunition, etc. Beaten Zone: This zone is the pattern on the ground formed by the rounds in the cone of fire as they fall. Dead Space: This is an area, within the sector and range of a weapon, that can neither be hit by fire from that weapon nor seen by its gunner Grazing Fire: is fire in which most of the rounds do not rise over 1 meter above the ground Plunging Fire: is fire in which the path of the rounds is higher than a standing man except in its beaten zone. Plunging fire is attained when firing at long ranges, when firing from high ground to low ground, and when firing into a hillside. Danger Space: This is the space between a weapon and its target where the trajectory does not rise above the average height of a standing man (1.8 meters). It includes the beaten zone.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Okay, now I’m going to assume that we all know the difference between point and area fire as well as the difference between enfilade, flanking, and frontal fire. I will add those items into the discussion later in this post where necessary. For now though, let’s flesh out these definitions a little and place them in the context of CM. Specifically the beaten zone, grazing fire, danger space, and plunging fire. Right now in CM, you target an enemy squad with your MG and you place a beaten zone on that enemy unit. There is no danger space other than where your beaten zone is located. This targeted squad is then effected by the fire of your MG. If we transpose that situation in CM into reality and apply our definitions, you are basically using plunging fire on your target since there is no danger space located anywhere other than inside the beaten zone. In this instance, when the machine gunner is manipulating his machine gun by traversing and elevating it, he is moving the beaten zone around on the ground and adjusting the impact point of the cone of fire. Marlowe pointed out that a machine gunner is trained to engage any size target through the manipulation of the machine gun’s elevation and traverse mechanisms – and this is true. Simply put, if the target you are engaging is larger than your beaten zone, you can manipulate the traverse and elevation mechanisms and through that manipulation change the location of your beaten zone until you have engaged all parts of your target. The only limitation of plunging fire is that you are only able to engage a target when your beaten zone is actually on that target. The obvious result of this is that if your beaten zone is not located on a target, that target is not being engaged by your machine gun. Okay, now let’s look at grazing fire. Grazing fire, per the definition, is fire in which most of the rounds do not rise over 1 meter above the ground. What is the practical significance of this? The practical significance of this is that the danger space is extended along the entire line of fire. Where is the beaten zone with grazing fire? At the end of line of fire – the maximum range of grazing fire for the M60 machine gun is 600 meters, so ideally the beaten zone will be located 600 meters down the line of fire if you are firing an M60 machine gun. If we compare plunging fire to grazing fire then, we have plunging fire that is effective against targets located in the beaten zone only, where with grazing fire you have effective fire against targets located in the beaten zone and located within the danger space along the line of fire between the machine gun and the beaten zone. How does the machine gunner engage a target with grazing fire when the enemy enters his sector of fire? He can do one of two things really – he can move the beaten zone onto the target by manipulating his elevation mechanisms (thus shrinking his danger space down from 600 meters long to wherever the new beaten zone is located), or he can continue to fire at the beaten zone at the end of the line of fire (600 meters away) since he can engage the target by using the danger space created by said line of fire. Under what circumstances would the machine gunner do one or the other? Let’s look at the machine gun in defence as described in FM 7-7: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Machine guns and SAWs are the dismount element’s main weapons to stop infantry attacks. As a rule, all the platoon’s machine guns/SAWs are brought to the dismount elements position. The machine guns should be used on tripods with traversing and elevating mechanisms. Their positions should provide sectors of fire across the dismount elements front, interlocking with the carrier element and adjacent platoons, when possible. Machine gun positions should have frontal cover. Machine guns are most effective when delivering enfilade fire down the line of the enemy assault formation.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Common sense to most people right? Assign a weapon a sector of fire across the dismount elements front. I can easily manipulate the elevation mechanism on the machine gun to adjust the location of the beaten zone so that my enemy is engaged through the use of plunging fire along the entire front of my position. I believe Marlowe mentioned this – and that is true. However, when you are using plunging fire you are only engaging enemy units located within the beaten zone and enemy troops not located in the beaten zone are not being engaged. This leaves gaps in your coverage – not necessarily because there is dead space in front of your machine gun, but because you aren’t capable of engaging more than one target at a time. This leads us to the next paragraph: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Where it can be done, machine guns are assigned a final protective line (FPL). An FPL is a line where, with interlocking fire and obstacles, the platoon leader plans to stop an enemy dismounted assault. Generally, it is across the front of the battle position. A machine gun FPL should supply as much grazing fire as possible. Grazing fire is to be no more than 1 meter above the ground (about hip high).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Let’s roll that around on our tongues for a moment … A machine gun FPL should supply as much grazing fire as possible. Why is that important? Does this mean that you use grazing fire when possible but it is no big deal if you can’t use it? No!! It means that you specifically sight your MGs to use grazing fire if it is at all possible to do. Obviously if it isn’t possible to use grazing fire then you can’t use it – you have to use plunging fire instead (with all its limitations). Why the emphasis on grazing fire? The emphasis is there because grazing fire engages enemy targets along the entire line of fire and not just those targets located within the beaten zone! The use of grazing fire leaves no gaps in the machine gun’s coverage of the FPL. The FPL, in its entirety, is covered at all times using grazing fire unless … the machine gunner specifically targets an enemy unit by moving the beaten zone onto that target. Of course, this sacrifices any coverage the machine gun has over those parts of the FPL located beyond the beaten zone. This is a bad thing because enemy troops beyond the beaten zone can bypass your assigned sector when you are engaging a closer target. Leave no gaps in your coverage lest the enemy get through! So does the machine gunner specifically target enemy troops located in his FPL? No! He just continues to fire the grazing fire along the FPL at a 1 meter height without specifically targeting anyone, yet this fire is still effective because the enemy is engaged by the danger space created by the line of fire. This gets us to a part that I snipped before, but that I will include this time: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Dead space is any area along the FPL that cannot be hit with grazing fire. Dead space is found by having a man walk the FPL. The machine gunner eyes the man walking down the line and records on his range card areas grazing fire does not cover. Dead space should be covered by fires from the grenadiers using the M203. Additionally, indirect fire, such as mortars, can be planned on dead space. Where possible, FPLs should overlap so that the loss of a machine gun will not leave a gap.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Okay, let’s roll another sentence around on our tongues. Namely, that the machine gunner eyes the man walking down the line and records on his range card areas grazing fire does not cover. It should be apparent from this passage that the machine gunner is specifically attempting to use grazing fire if at all possible for the reasons I outlined above, and that the combined arms defense is not necessary because the MG can’t get the job done by itself, but because other weapons are only needed to cover areas that the MG cannot cover with grazing fire. What if grazing fire cannot be used to cover the front of your position? <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Sometimes a gully or ditch may lead into a position. If so, a machine gun may be positioned to fire directly down the approach rather than across the team’s front. This machine gun will be assigned a principle direction of fire (PDF) down the approach.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Okay, so if the enemy has a covered approach you assign the MG a PDF instead of an FPL. What’s the difference? It assumes that the machine gunner using an FPL is firing across the front of his squad’s position and that if the gunner is not firing across the front of the position then that is described as a PDF instead. So, the normal use of a machine gun is through the use of grazing fire across the front of your position – grazing fire in enfilade. I assumed that this was common knowledge, but I guess that was my first mistake in the last thread. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> A machine gun is always laid on its FPL or PDF unless engaging other targets. The FPL machine guns should be fired all at the same time and on signal. (snip) The two SAWs should be positioned to cover gaps in the machine gun’s sector. If there are no gaps, SAWs should be assigned sectors that overlap the machine gun’s sector. This will insure coverage throughout the team’s sector.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> The parts I want to emphasize here is first that the machine guns should be fired all at the same time and on signal. This ensures that there will be no gaps in your fire that can be exploited by enemy infantry. The other part is that the two SAWs should be positioned to cover gaps in the machine gun’s sector. Once again, the supporting weapons are not necessary to support the machine gun because the machine gun can’t get the job done by itself. The supporting weapons are necessary to cover gaps that the machine gun can’t cover with its grazing fire. Okay, that about covers the basics I should think. Why not have grazing fire in a wide fan shaped arc in front of the MG rather than just a relatively narrow lane along the FPL? This gets to volume of fire and the purpose of grazing fire. The purpose of grazing fire is to exert a volume of fire along an axis (FPL) in order to prevent the enemy from getting into your defenses. If the arc is too wide, the volume of fire that the machine gun can apply to the area it is assigned will be diluted and its effectiveness will be diminished to the point of being ineffective. To be effective a certain volume of fire is necessary, and this volume is best achieved through the use of a machine gun that is firing along an FPL. Why wouldn’t I use grazing fire to fire directly at the enemy? Well, I suppose you could, but if you are firing directly at the enemy the main purpose of using grazing fire would be defeated since the purpose is to extend the danger space along the entire line of fire. You would be better off using point fire, which would be the application of your beaten zone onto the actual target itself. What does this mean to CM? Since CM only models plunging fire, the machine gun cannot be used in the way it was intended to be used. Namely, firing grazing fire along the FPL. What will happen to CM when BTS gets grazing fire into the game for CM2? This will become a completely different game. You won’t even recognize it. If your experience with machine guns is limited to CM, then all your notions of how the machine gun is properly used will be thrown out the window and you will have to learn again from scratch. Finally, for Jason, I appreciate your comments, but I think the main problem is the lack of grazing fire. This isn't some vain attempt to make the MG an uber weapon by giving it qualities it doesn't have - this is how MGs work (as I have hope I have demonstrated in this exhaustive post). Marlowe - still not convinced about the importance of grazing fire? I certainly hope not since everything I am discussing is coming straight from US field manuals. I am assuming that you know all this already and that we just had a simple misunderstanding.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Marlow: After rereading some of your past posts, I think the disconnect is in how you are defining the term "grazing fire." You seem to define grazing fire as the same as "fire lane" and "enfilade fire" This is not the case. Grazing fire is defined as (IIRC) fire where the rounds never rise above a couple of feet above the ground. This is only possible over level or uniformly sloping terrain. Enfilade fire is fire from the side or the flank. It has nothing to do whether the fire is grazing or not. A fire lane, as far as I can tell, is the gun's principle direction of fire (PDF). This represents the main direction that the gun is ordered to cover. It should cover a likely enemy avenue of approach to the defensive position (and provide mutual support to other firing positions - both machingun and rifle). It may be that you consider fire on an area target to be the same thing as grazing fire. This may or may not be the case. A machinegunner can engage an area target, depending upon its orientation and shape in a number of different ways. If it is a deep target, he uses searching fire (or grazing fire if the situation and the guns position permits). If it is a wide targer, the gunner uses traversing fire by turning the traversing handwheel. If the target has both width and depth, he uses searching and transverse fire. There is also swinging transverse fire for very wide targets, and free gun for fast moving targets. Do I feel that grazing fire should be modeled in CM? Sure, and I would like to be able to fire through smoke as well. I just don't think that it is the critical issue that you do, nor do I agree that it is the primary mode of firing for machineguns. [ 04-13-2001: Message edited by: Marlow ]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Fair enough. Yes, I am lumping several different things into one. Namely, grazing fire, and enfilade fire - and yes, area fire to an extent. I lump those together because I feel that the most effective use of Grazing Fire is to use it in enfilade. If I don't have the ability to fire at the enemy in enfilade, then I don't see any reason to use Grazing Fire - I would use point fire instead. To me, the two go hand in hand - neither as effective on its own without the other, therefore grazing fire and enfilade fire are the same (under ideal circumstances). Sorry if I did not make that distinction clear. A simple tactical misunderstanding if you will

Okay Marlowe, if you have a point then I'm missing it. Do you or do you not agree that grazing fire is a necessary addition to CM? If you do not see the need, then please state it and say why. Personally, I feel grazing fire is an extremely important aspect of sighting a machine gun - apparently you do not. Let's just leave it at that.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Marlow: This is just not true. Grazing fire is not some special firing technique, it is primarily the result of positioning the gun. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I'm glad that you have acknowledged my multi dimensional / all knowing genius when it comes to machine guns Yes, Grazing fire is primarily the result of positioning the gun. And when you are setting up a defensive position, you are looking specifically for locations where you can maximize the grazing fire capabilities of your machine guns. If you prefer to set up your machine guns to use point fire against an attacking enemy then you will suffer the consequences as illustrated by this passage from "Infantry Tactics 1939 - 1945" by Anthony Farrar-Hockley who is referring to the British army: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> The abandonment of trench lines by the infantry was a relatively trivial outcome of the new approach to tactics. More important was the recognition of the need for an all round defensive capability by every body of troops in a battalion. (snip) Machine guns conformed all too often, slit trenches being dug in such a way as to bring all three weapons in a platoon to bear on frontal arcs. It took many hard lessons to teach company and platoon commanders to maintain a potential for automatic weapon fire over 360 degrees and to interlock at least one of the arcs on each flank with those of the neighboring sub unit. The first of these measures provided the self-evident advantage of all round protection. The second promoted enfilade fire. A company, battalion, series of battalions which had interlocked their machine guns medium and light across the defensive front and in depth behind it would almost certainly resist successfully the onslaught of an enemy three or four times as strong in infantry. Analysis of the break in to any defensive position invariably shows that it was first achieved in an area where machine guns were firing frontally. In such circumstances, they were vulnerable to the direct fire of the attackers and were, moreover, leaving open lanes between the streams of fire they poured out. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> So, if you were taught to set up your machine guns to fire at oncoming point targets and not to maximize the grazing fire capabilities of your MGs, then I would be curious to know what army you learned your trade in. Grazing fire is not just useful in low visibility situations - it is useful in any defensive situation. In fact, a proper defense is built around the MG and the MG is sighted to maximize its grazing fire capabilities - at least that's how they did it when I was in.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by StellarRat: Here is my reasoning: Any weapon firing down the line of advance would have essentially the same effect even if it isn't done intentionally. There is a chance that those bullets would pass through squads down the line (other than the target squad) and could cause casualities/suppression to them. (Obviously you are more likely to hit someone when firing across the enemy line because there are likely to be more squads in the bullets path. This is also the reason it's a good idea place MGs on the enemy's flanks.) So, while your manual says "Machine guns are most effective when delivering enfilade fire down the line of the enemy assault formation." I would argue that ALL guns are most effective when delivering enfilade fire down the line of the enemy assault formation. [/QB]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Ah, well that's different. Okay, well it does make some sense to try to account for the ... call it residual effects ... of the other weapons in a squad. The problem then goes to one of volume of fire. Your standard issue bolt action rifle will not produce a volume of fire that is effective enough to have a game worthy result on any unit other than the target of that fire. Ten men all firing across an area with rifles is going to produce fire that will be more ragged (in terms of when each man chooses to fire) and less concentrated (because each man is aiming at his own target) than an MG fired by one man that is concentrated in an area that the gunner alone is aiming at. So, the area and the concentration of fire is going to be more dispersed with rifle fire, thus lessening the effects of residual fire - dispersing it to the point of making it ineffective at influencing the enemy. Sure, the enemy will be aware that random rounds are flying around, but if it isn't a burst of ten rounds all impacting at once right next to your face it probably wouldn't influence you very much. Another factor is ammunition. A standard load out for a German infantryman is between 45 and 60 rounds of ammunition. He is not very likely to be 'spraying and praying' with his precious 45 rounds of ammo - especially with the weak volume of fire that a bolt action rifle will produce. He is most likely going to be aiming at a man - or the suspected location of a man - and trying to hit him. The odds of hitting someone in between the firer and the target are just too small. It is my opinion that this would fall into the realm of random casualties that are caused because the battlefield is a dangerous place to be. However, the concentration and volume of fire from an MG creates a suppressive effect that can only be produced with grazing fire. How's that? BTW, thanks BTS for the comprehensive post about plans for CM2 and MGs. We all appreciate your efforts - heck, I appreciate your efforts everyday (by playing)

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by StellarRat: No one has proven to me why ALL small arms fire across the line of advance shouldn't have a chance to hit someone or why this should only be a magic power given to machineguns.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Why should this be a magic power given to machine guns? Because this is how machine guns work that's why. That magic power is what they do. I just happen to have FM 7-7 "The Mechanized Infantry Platoon and Squad (APC)" in front of me, and guess what? They happen to have a few things to say about machine guns. Let's see what they say: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Machine guns and SAWs are the dismount element's main weapons to stop infantry attacks. As a rule, all the platoon's machine guns/SAWs are brought to the dismount element's position. The machine guns should be used on tripods with traversing and elevating mechanisms. Their positions should provide sectors of fire across the dismount element's front, interlocking with the carrier element and adjacent platoons, when possible. Machine guns are most effective when delivering enfilade fire down the line of the enemy assault formation. Where it can be done, machine guns are assigned a final protective line (FPL). An FPL is a line where, with interlocking fire and obstacles, the platoon leader plans to stop an enemy dismounted assault. Generally it is across the front of the battle position. A machine gun FPL should supply as much grazing fire as possible. Grazing fire is to be no more than 1 meter above the ground (about hip high). (snip) A machine gun is always laid on its FPL or PDF unless engaging other targets. The FPL machine guns should be fired all at the same time and on signal.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> So you see, I'm not just making this stuff up. Grazing fire/fire lanes is what the machine gun is all about. Why not let everything create firelanes? Well, regardless of whatever firepower calculations you want to make for every other weapon as far as grazing fire goes - it just ain't Standard Operating Procedure to use those other weapons in that fashion. But grazing fire is the essence of what the machine gun is, and it is the primary task that the machine gun is asked to do. If I haven't shed some light on this subject for you after this .. well, then I guess you either lack the fundamental knowledge required to understand the issue or you can't be convinced to change your world view on the way machine guns work.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Username: If I recall, those pics showed that shells that explode at shallow angles (direct fire) have better spread than shells fired at higher angles (indirect fire and low velocity weapons). How about reposting those? Or maybe that gorilla pic?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> The gorilla pic was a classic

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WineCape: Seems to me that all this (8 pages of sifting through to find the "facts") proves one thing and one thing only: BTS has done *NOT A BAD JOB* of "simulating" MG fire - in fact I would say quite impressively, if not downright accurately! Charl Theron<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Interesting post. So after perusing 8 pages worth of posts you have come to the sweeping conclusion that the MGs in CM are perfect simulations of the real thing? Even Steve has admitted that is not the case! :eek: Now I'm going to borrow your initial phrase and add my own 'conclusion' Seems to me that all this (8 pages of sifting through to find the "facts") proves one thing and one thing only: Grazing fire is not modelled in CM. Everything else regarding firepower ratings or the effects of MG fire on enemy infantry are subject to each individual's world view on the effectiveness of MGs in combat - be that a pro BTS or anti BTS position. I'm not sure why there is such a hurry to 'wrap up' this discussion since we are merely discussing the effects of MGs in combat. I don't have any personal axe to grind or any 'theory' to prove. Grazing fire is a fact - there is nothing to prove there (although some on this thread apparently do doubt its existance which I find incredible).

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Pillar: Thanks Foobar. (Re: Where's BTS?) Every military veteran I talk to all say that the suppression and grazing fire effects need changing. They aren't just a bunch of ex-ASL players, although many of them think ASL did things quite well. Just out of curiosity -- CM being inspired by ASL, why the change?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I don't believe they ever played ASL ... and it really isn't necessary to play ASL to do a game about WW2 tactical combat so I'm not sure that knowing ASL is really relevant anyway. I would suspect that modeling grazing fire in the way described would be difficult to code - at least that's what I would suspect.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Ron: Well the "piss-poor commander" comment wasn't directed at anyone at all, just that's the conclusion I would come to if such a thing happened to me, knowing full well it(massing of troops) can be dealt with effectively beforehand. Steve has said earlier in this thread that *grazing fire* is in CM. Now perhaps a clarification of what grazing fire actually is should be made, and how it is implemented in CM. Ok, what I observed from the MG fire was as I commented before, it has an area affect, about a radius of 15m or so I believe. I didn't notice that the effects of the MG LOF extended beyond that, ie the center platoon in my example above wasn't affected by the MG fire on the wing platoons. Ron<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I didn't take any offence at the poor commander comment, but I think that it is pretty obvious that the power of the MG would be dramatically improved with 'grazing fire' included in the game (if possible). What is being described as 'Grazing fire' by Steve (your words, I haven't checked myself) sounds more like a 'Beaten zone' to me. However, I would rather leave it to Steve to explain his own comments than to try to interpret his words for him.

That is an interesting test. Now, this shows that you can successfully defend against a rush of Volksgrenadiers across 250 meters of open ground with three or four MGs placed in flanking position. Now, one thing to keep in mind about your test is that each MG is using point fire against one VG squad as it is running about in the open. Presumably switching targets when appropriate. You also state that if the distance was less, say 100 meters, they would overrun the position. Your conclusion says - well, if I let the enemy that close I'm a poor commander anyway - or something to that effect. Okay, now lets look at that example if 'Grazing fire' was included in CM. Well, each of the three or four MGs would be hitting everyVG squad that is running about in the open ... huge difference. CM now has each MG engaging each squad one to one. If you had grazing fire each MG would be hitting every squad. So, rather than one MG hitting one squad then switching to another squad you would have everysquad getting hit by every MG. So, each VG squad would be getting hit by three or four MGs all at once. How far do you think those VGs are going to get if each squad is getting hit by three or four MGs at same time? Probably not very far eh? Maybe not more than 20 meters? So while your example is interesting, it is most interesting for what it shows is lacking. Grazing Fire. Try spreading the VGs out a little too so CMs beaten zone effects are reduced and the charge will probably succeed a little more often. Naturally, spreading them out would have no effect on 'grazing fire'. One more point, grazing fire does involved moderate swinging of the MG from left to right (or vice versa) which would widen the 'firelane' into more of a triangular shape that is horizontal to the ground. It could maybe be ten or fifteen meters wide toward the end of the 'lane' hitting everything within that 'area'.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by StellarRat: "Most of my CM MG experiences have been similar to those experiments posted by Ron. They show that MGs are plenty powerful weapons when used correctly (ideally, with interlocking fields of fire, etc.). I think the firepower is pretty much exactly right, and I think that the suppression level of the troops in the open is modelled about right, too." This is exactly my opinion too. I think some of the posters have been tainted by too many years of playing Squad Leader. LOL!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I'm not going to jump on the bait that your cheap shot laid out there. I am going to say that we aren't necessarily discussing the firepower factor itself - we are discussing the means by which that firepower is projected. I explained why the MG was different from regular rifle bullets - I think that it should be fairly obvious that there is a difference between the two. This fundamental difference leads to a fundamental difference in the way these different weapons are used. Basic stuff. Grazing fire is in modern training manuals and it was SOP in armies during WW2. Grazing fire is fundamental - and it is 100% not represented in CM. CM does represent a 'beaten zone' by allowing other (nearby) units to get hit by the incoming MG fire, but there is in no way shape or form any means of using MGs in CM in a manner that does justice to the MGs ability to use grazing fire. It is just not in there. I suspect that it is a coding issue, and I can also play CM without it, but it would really change the game for the better if it could be included somehow.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Andrew Hedges: Most of my CM MG experiences have been similar to those experiments posted by Ron. They show that MGs are plenty powerful weapons when used correctly (ideally, with interlocking fields of fire, etc.). I think the firepower is pretty much exactly right, and I think that the suppression level of the troops in the open is modelled about right, too. Now it may be that there needs to be some tweaking to reflect firelanes, which would allow more than one squad to be subject to be subject to a MGs FP -- but I don't think that the firepower itself should be any stronger. In fact, IIRC, ASL had firelanes, and MG FP was halved for MG's forming firelanes. I don't think that CM should halve the FP of MGs forming FLs, though. Although the decision to set up a FL would probably preclude shooting at other targets unless there was imminent danger of being overrun. But none of this really relates to a platoon assaulting a MG, since that MG can't set up a FL to stop that platoon, and (presumably), the platoon is not attacking single file.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Actually, if you are using MGs appropriately, you are deploying them like the picture that was posted earlier - ie, in flanking positions. The only reason the 'appropriate' way to deploy MGs in CM is in such a way that you fire directly at the enemy is that CM doesn't model the MG correctly. If it was modeled correctly, then you would be deploying them in enfilade positions and utilizing grazing fire since it reduces the amount of suppressive fire the enemy can place on your MGs (since they can't fire at the MGs until they are in the MGs kill zone) - thus increasing their value to your defense.

I think a few Swiss regiments made it to the Eastern Front, but the Soviets turned them into Swiss Cheese

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Marlow: If ordered to do so, a gunner will fire unaimed fire in a particular direction. This is generally only done in either low visibility situations, area fire on a suspected enemy position, to suppress a known enemy position, or when the unit's position is about to be overrun (i.e. firing along the FPL). Otherwise, a (modern, I have no idea what practice was in WWII) machinegunner's general order of priority for targets is 1) aimed fire at groups of enemy soldiers within the gun's designated sector, starting with the closest group; 2) other MGs; 3) at groups of enemy soldiers outside the gun's designated sector (or in an assigned secondary sector); 4) unarmored/lightly armored vehicles. At unarmored vehicles. In your example, where a gunner (in good visibility) is assigned to deny movement across a street will fire aimed fire at anyone crossing unless it is an absolute jail break. Anything else is a waste of ammo. [ 04-10-2001: Message edited by: Marlow ]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Yes, and a squad or a platoon running across the street could be considered a 'jailbreak' I would think - if they were all going across at once or close to the same time. This is precisely the situation that you cannot prevent in CM now. You aren't going to be able to stop between 12 and 40 infantrymen from running across the street by aiming at each individual running across the street - kinda similar to ... hmmmm, an SMG squad running about in the open in CM? Now, if the squad were moving across the street in ones or twos, then it would take a lot longer to make it across the street wouldn't it? So, if I run a squad across a street in CM - with the time it takes a squad to cross a street in CM using 'Run', I would think that the movement of that squad could be construed as a 'jailbreak' across the street - hmmm? :eek:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Marlow: Rifle fire may be somewhat different; however, human reaction time does not change. All this talk about grazing fire, FPF, and firelanes is well and good for low vis situations, but when the gunner can actually see the target, he is going to use aimed fire.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I'm not sure where you are getting the assumption that the MG gunner is automatically going to use aimed fire when he can see the target. It really just depends upon what the gunner is being asked to do. For example, what if an MG is sighted to prevent the enemy from crossing a city street? If you are sighted at the end of the street and you want to keep the enemy from running across that street, you won't aim at the individual infantrymen running across the street, you will just place a large volume of fire into the street in order to deny that street to the enemy. Sure, you can see the individual infantrymen running about, but you wouldn't spend the time to actually aim at each one as he runs across with precision/aimed bursts. That would be a misuse of your MG assets. Just fill the street with lead.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by kipanderson: Hi, Just thought I would throw in some facts and figures to do with MG rate of fire. From the outset I should point out that I have no practical experience of the subject but my source is of the highest quality. Figures come from the diagrams, equations and data in Small Arms, General Design by DF Allsop and MA Toomey. ISBN 1 85753 250 3 Both Allsop and Toomey are lecturers at the Royal College of Military Science, Shrivenham, UK. The book is a textbook for use by students at Shrivenham. a) The maximum, average rate of fire of a single barrelled, air-cooled MG over fifteen minutes is 50 rounds a minute. The maximum, average rate of fire of a single barrelled, air-cooled MG over fifteen minutes but this time with the use of two spare barrels, i.e. as in a heavy MG42, is 75 rounds a minute. c) The maximum rate of fire of a single barrelled, air-cooled MG over just one minute i.e. at the end of this one minute the MG would be jammed, is normally around 250 rounds. The book is stuffed with equations and data and I could go on and on. What I find interesting about the data is that it illustrates so clearly just how meaningless the often-quoted cyclic rate of a given MG is. The MG 42 had a cyclic rate of fire of around 1200 rounds a minute but in the generation of MGs developed during the 1950s a figure around 600-700 was normally the case. My view is that MG firepower is not under-rated in CM. All the best, Kip.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Kip, I don't think too many people are complaining about the actual firepower rating of the MGs in the game. There are just some things that an MG can do that other weapons on the battlefield cannot do. These are things that the MG, and only the MG, can do. Area denial is one of them - area denial in the form of 'grazing fire' or 'firelane' as I prefer. Once again, the MG gunner is not necessarily picking out individual soldiers and trying to hit them as if the MG gunner was just another rifleman. You don't use an MG like a rifle to pick off individual infantrymen. You use it to place a volume of fire upon either a target (point fire) or an area (grazing fire). Right now, point fire seems to be modeled just fine. The only thing that is missing is the inability to use area/grazing fire. The ability to use grazing fire is entirely within the specs of the MGs represented in the game because grazing fire is within the specs of all belt fed MGs. Box fed could probably do it too (Bren), but in the case of a BAR I doubt it since it only has a 20 round mag and it is located at the bottom of the weapon (difficult to change magazines from the prone position!)

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by StellarRat: OK, I'm missing something here. Pillar and X-00 both say that "grazing fire" is the big advantage for the MGs. They are saying that this represents continuous fire 2 feet above the ground, but they also say this is done with six round bursts. Something isn't adding up here. Six round bursts are not what I would call "continuous". Continuous would be a gun with unlimited ammo that never gets hot and doesn't need to be realigned or several MGs aimed in the same direction firing constantly. I'm sorry but I'm just not buying this argument. If the guns are just pointed in a general direction (not aimed at some specific) they are even LESS likely to hit anything unless someone were to blunder through the burst of bullets at just the right time. Also if this is the "advantage" of MGs then it is an advantage of all small arms. If you think about it a bunch of riflemen all firing across the line of advance would create "grazing fire" too, so maybe the whole small arms aiming system should be reworked.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Okay, this post seems to be questioning the existance of 'grazing fire' or as I prefer to call it 'firelanes'. The reason you would not be able to create a 'firelane' with rifle fire is the simple fact that you can't get a volume of fire that is great enough to create the conditions to make an effective 'firelane'. Okay, you may ask, what about SMGs or Assault Rifles? Well, SMGs and Assault Rifles can put out a moderate volume of fire, but the range that the volume of fire can be put out to is extremely limited - maybe out to 100 - 150 meters. Plus, the volume of fire put out by a box fed SMG or Assault Rifle would still not match the volume of fire of an MG - not to mention the fact that you can't change the barrel of a hot SMG! This leaves you with a situation that onlythe MG can be effective at. That situation is the placement of a volume of fire that is effective enough to deny an area to the movement of enemy infantry. This area would extend from the barrel of the MG out to about 400 - 600 meters or so. This area denial does not need to be continuous, it merely needs to be sufficient to get the job done. If the gunner is taking a one to three second break between bursts - that should be volume sufficient enough to establish the 'firelane' since it would probably take your brain at least a second or two to register that the lead isn't flying followed by a second or two to get up from your hiding space.

Yuck, now I am forced to use cookies whenever I want to post something. The burning question that is on my mind is ... why is Steve only member #42? Shouldn't he be member #1 or #2? I don't have any big issues with the MGs as point fire weapons in CM right now ... except maybe that their suppressive characteristics could be tweaked upwards. The main thing MGs are lacking in my opinion is the inability to form firelanes and to throw effective suppressivefire through visual hinderances such as smoke or grain. The firelane thing is probably more of a coding issue than any real desire by BTS to leave it out. Since no units block LOS, I doubt there would be a way to currently have those units hit by fire if they are located between the target and the firing MG as opposed to being the target itself. Of course, troops located beyond the target would be hit as well. The effectiveness of the MG in the open would really be enhanced with firelanes as this would make flanking MG fire much more effective. The rate of fire tweaks and an increase of the suppressive effects would be nice adjustments I think. Anyway, just wanted to post on the new forum. By the way, if you wanted to set up an 'Audie Murphy' scenario you would probably want to use an 'Elite' HMG in your test. Maybe BTS can consider actually including a hero unit in CM2? He would just sort of pop out of a squad and be fanatic or something. Give him some really enhanced firepower or super accuracy with a 'zook or something . I would like to see more extreme random morale effects like ... going berzerk or heroic ... or having a squad just throw up its hands in surrender after one shot is fired at it. :cool:

The main time I have a problem with the Panzer Fausts is when I am 18 meters away from a Sexton with PanzerFaust in hand as the Sexton just pounds the snot out of my squad who just sits there and takes it for no reason. They should at least fire one off in an attempt to save themselves - regardless of how inaccurate it may be. ------------------ When we were in the Bocage country we were assaulted by them Tigers ... you know what I mean by assaulted huh? WELL I MEAN ASSAULTED!!!!

After watching Enema at the Gates I think I have discovered a new unit for CM2. I think BTS should consider including the German Propaganda/Official announcement Bullhorn unit. It is quite clear from all the movies recently made that Bullhorns were issued to German units at company level. Perhaps the Bullhorn units can just target an enemy unit with the possibility of causing immediate panic or surrender. Messages such as "The Statue of Liberty is Kaput" and "Surrender now and you can see your home again" would be heard during the movie sequence whenever the Bullhorn unit "fires". All Germans on defense should also be equipped with that alarm noise that can be heard at every German installation during World War 2 whenever they are being attacked - "Where Eagles Dare" etc. It would just sound during the first few minutes of any scenario when the Germans are defending. ------------------ When we were in the Bocage country we were assaulted by them Tigers ... you know what I mean by assaulted huh? WELL I MEAN ASSAULTED!!!!

I saw it on Saturday, and it was one of the worst movies I've ever seen. I was literally laughing during the movie with my friends as we made fun of what we were watching. What the heck was that Commissar clown doing driving around in a car with all those leaflets in the middle of the front lines? Then the Germans drive by in some tanks and spray the fountain with bullets. Not more than two minutes later some genius decides that it would be a great place to take a shower? Ha Ha Ha. Yeah, sneaking through all those pipes was a stroke of genius. They might as well be shouting "look at us, we are being sneaky" as the guys were noisily clumping along inside them pipes. Then when that guy gets injured Zaitsev tells him to go back. I was thinking "great, now that guy is going to bleed to death in the pipe and block it" What the hell was Konig thinking too when he had Zaitsev behind the stove? If he just moved a few meters to the right he could have picked him off with no trouble. But no, the genius Konig just sits there and waits for the ridiculous bombers to fly overhead and ruin the showdown once again. I almost fell out of my chair when Zaitsev was hiding amongst the dead bodies waiting for Konig to appear and my friend said "I am a stone." Oh yeah, and Konig just up and figures - well I guess it is time to get going so I'll flip up the corrugated iron and just start walking around. Whatever. Zaitsev walks into that woman's house and starts writing to all his admiring fans when that chick comes over ... "Oh, its okay, its just the neighbors coming over." said in true Leave it to Beaver fashion. Neighbors just visiting in the middle of Stalingrad - said like it was a Sunday in the middle of Indiana. The difference between Soviet HQ and the front lines was a little dramatic - and it is unclear how far back from the front they are going. From the looks of things, HQ was located somewhere 500 miles away. I guess that's enough for now ------------------ When we were in the Bocage country we were assaulted by them Tigers ... you know what I mean by assaulted huh? WELL I MEAN ASSAULTED!!!!

That has got to be the most ridiculous thing I've ever seen. I'm sure the turn radius on that thing would be ... well, ridiculous. Why combine three tanks together when you could just have three separate tanks? ------------------ When we were in the Bocage country we were assaulted by them Tigers ... you know what I mean by assaulted huh? WELL I MEAN ASSAULTED!!!!

Two of my friends played it against each other and it went down to the last turn. The Canadians concentrated their remnants in the big building in the center and ended up in Hand to Hand combat with the remaining SS troopers. It was a draw going on turn 30. I don't know what tactics were specifically used, but the Canadian player made only minor adjustments to the default set up. ------------------ When we were in the Bocage country we were assaulted by them Tigers ... you know what I mean by assaulted huh? WELL I MEAN ASSAULTED!!!!