Marlow

I've been playing Cm for well over 1,000,000 years now. I've lost 2 games, 1 vs. a non-pooler (which obviously doesn't count) and 1 vs Speedy (Which obviously also doesn’t count). Never lost a single game as Allies (unless you count both of my losses). I've never been out played (unless you count almost any game I am currently playing). Are CM players all talk or have I just played the lower end of the stick? I read all these intelligent comments about game-play yet I've yet to see incorporated into actual game play. … My record is 2 loses, 1 draw, uncountable wins. Both loses are through bad luck... (and all my opponents were Gamey Bastages). I've yet to see a player any where near my skill level. NEVER have I been out played (except by all of those of you that are currently kicking my ass, and you know who you are) . Yeah Yeah... I'm an arrogant son of a bitch... true... but I'm a damn good player. (edited to remove errors in the original found on the outer boards, because even with my poor proof-reading skills, I was appalled by the mutilation of the written word.) [ 04-20-2001: Message edited by: Marlow ]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Maastrictian: Michael emrys wrote: You are of course correct (I even mentioned this was an assumption I was making in my post). I also seem to have underestimated muzzel velocities (as other's point out). But given air restance I think my calculation for a muzzel velocity of 500m/s is a reasonable lower bound for the maximum distance grazning fire is effective at. In anycase, regarding elivating the barrel. It should be noted that by elivating the barrel you no longer have a "line" of fire but rather two lines. (the dots below are placeholders and should be thought of as blank) .............--------............... ........----/........\----........ head mg ----/..................\----...|| body -------------------------------------ground ...|........|........|.........| ....effective..........effective ............ineffective Especially considering that the men under fire are likely crouching (and so presenting a smaller vertical target) fire that affects a group of men at (say) 300m may miss men at 150m. And the further away a group of men are the smaller the line of effective fire is (because the arc the bullets are taking is higher) I'm not sure how much effect this has. I don't have time to do the math now (which is not terribly nice), but if I get a chance durring the day I will.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> OK, I looked it up last night. For a 5.56 mm bullet fired from an M-16 (which does not have as flat a trajectory as a 30 cal. bullet): With the rear sight set for long range firing, the bullet rises to a maximum height of 11 inches above the shooters line of sight to the target at 225 meters, and crosses the line of sight again at 375 meters. With the rear sight set for short range firing, the bullet rises to a maximum height of 5 inches above the shooters line of sight to the target at 175 meters, and crosses the line of sight again at 250 meters.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Maastrictian: StellarRat wrote: Does anyone have any sources for MG muzzel velocities as well as down range velocities? Also, not sure about this "bullets rise in the first few yards" thing... if first few yards means ~10 yards its not going to make a difference to my calculations. If you mean that people fire at distant targets by elivating the barrel then yes, obviously I agree with you and my numbers do not factor that in. But my image of MGs is more of a "point and shoot" weapon rather than a "line up target in range calibrated sight" weapon. This could be wrong, but my impression has been that the procedure for grazing fire is to level gun at firelane and fire bursts, not really acounting much for range. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Rifles and machineguns are zeroed to take bullet drop into account. Generally, they are intended to hit the target at which the firer is aiming at a range of 250 m or so. This results in a bullet that rises for significantly more than 10 yards, and has nothing to do with elevating the barrel for long range firing. Combined with the fact that most machinegun barrels are fired from less than a meter off the ground (as noted by ASL Vet), there is a significant upward velocity that must be taken into account in any grazing fire range calculation. [ 04-16-2001: Message edited by: Marlow ]

Opps. [ 04-13-2001: Message edited by: Marlow ]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ASL Veteran: 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.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> 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 ]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Elijah Meeks: Marlow, you imbecile, edit your qoute, you've resized the whole damn page. F-ing newbie. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Blame the earless one, alfalfa breath

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by dalem: Must...fight...urge...to...post...smartass...seless...comment...to...machinegun...thread. ..Ggggggggggggaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhgg!!!!! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Shut your pie hole and send me a set up already. back in your habitrail Meeks [ 04-13-2001: Message edited by: Marlow ]

ASL Vet, I just thought of one more thing to prove my point. Do you think that the defensive positions at Normandy were ineffective? The German positions did not utilize grazing fire. To do that, they would have had to have been situated on the beach, instead of above the beach. Other considerations (better fields of fire, more distance from the beach) took precedence over grazing fire. Nevertheless, the German positions did make effective use of interlocking fields of fire.

ASL Vet, Maybe you are under the impression that grazing fire is needed to engage a deep target (a target with depth, but little width. a dozen men in a line for example); however, this is not the case. Machinegunners are trained to fire at a variety of different target shapes, and do not need to rely on grazing fire to do it. When a single gun (on a tripod with T&E) engages a deep target (assuming no grazing fire) he generally starts at the middle, searches back to the end, and then searches forward. This only involves a routine manipulation of the elevation adjustment.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ASL Veteran: 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> Maybe I am missing something, but this says nothing about grazing fire. Of course interlocking fields of fire are critical, when have I said they are not. Throughout this thread, you have been focusing on a specific type of fire, grazing fire, that is completely independent on whether it is from the flank, from the front or whatever. In fact, interlocking fields of fire are defensive SOP for all small arms, not just MGs. I wonder what Army you learned in if you don't know the difference. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> 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.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> The U.S. Army, and again, the direction of the fire and grazing fire are independent. There are lots of reasons for interlocking fields of fire that do not depend on the guns being sited along level ground (or a constant slope): 1) it allows coverage of the unit's front while at the same time allowing the gun's position to be protected from enemy supporting fire; 2) it permits different positions to fire on the enemy from different angles. If the enemy finds some cover in front of the defending unit's position, overlapping fields of fire increase the chance of an unobstructed shot. 3) the psychological impact of receiving fire from more than one direction. There are probably others. [ 04-13-2001: Message edited by: Marlow ]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ASL Veteran: 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. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> So glad you know it all. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> 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: <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> OK, lets take a look, but I'll emphasize some different parts <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> Based on the forgoing I fail to see from this where you can support the statement: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> 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. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> This is just not true. Grazing fire is not some special firing technique, it is primarily the result of positioning the gun. Where a machinegun is positioned in a location where the bullet trajectory is more or less parallel with the ground, you will usually have grazing fire when you engage your target. The beneficial effect of grazing fire is that in addition to hitting your intended target, you may also hit others that are in back of /in front of it. If your gun is situated where grazing fire is possible, it makes engaging any target that has depth easier, as you don't need to search with the gun very much, if at all. In any event, although grazing fire is nice, it is not necessary for most of the roles of the machinegun (aimed fire, suppressive fire, area fire at suspected positions, etc…). Where the manual says that the gun should be laid in the PDF or FPL, when not engaging targets, it does not mean that it will be firing, just that absent a target, the gun should be aimed in these directions. Where grazing is really critical is in low visibility situations (night, fog, smoke, ext.) where the gunner may be firing at targets he cannot see. (as an aside, since CM doesn't model firing into smoke or beyond visual range in low visibility, the need for grazing fire in the game is really minimized). It is also important for fire along the FPL (i.e. the platoon is about to be overrun), and again, more so along the FPL in low vis situations. Additionally, positioning a gun so that it can use grazing fire is easier said than done, as there are many considerations other than possible use of grazing fire that factor into machinegun placement: 1. If the terrain is hilly, grazing fire may be impossible. 2. Even when the ground is relatively flat, rarely is it the sort of pool table flat that makes grazing fire easy. There are hillocks, gullies and depressions, mounds, etc … all can create blind spots when a gun positioned so that it is at the same elevation as most of the ground over which it will be firing (which is necessary for grazing fire). Therefore, decisions will often need to be made: does the platoon leader want grazing fire, or does he want to position the gun at a higher location where it can cover that gully that runs down the middle if the field. 3. Positioning the gun so that it has grazing fire over the FPL may result in a gun location where the it does not have grazing fire over its PDF. 4. Finding the position optimum for grazing fire is not always obvious, and often takes time for scouting and test firing. [ 04-13-2001: Message edited by: Marlow ]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jinxx: Why wouldnt the American and British forces trasfer easily into CM2? How many speacial rules are there for eastern combat as opposed to western? Why wouldnt you want to play American vs Russians in a 1946 scenario? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I for one have no idea why there would be special rules for the Eastern front. As far as I am aware, bullets fly the same everywhere. I would love to see backwards compatibility with CM:BO so that improvements in CM2 would apply to my beloved Yanks.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Brummbär: Yeah we all know what great bug-free games SFC and SFC II were *cough-dynaverse-cough*. You guys at Taldren could learn alot from the BTS crew, not vice-versa I hope <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Easy now, that's not the way to welcome someone to the board. Besides, I've played SFC II, and it is better than about 90% of the games out there (bugs and all). Welcome aboard Jinxx

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ASL Veteran: 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:<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Depends on how wide the street is In any event, if there is only a short distance being crossed, or a lot of men, the fire won't necessarily be un-aimed, just "less" aimed. The fire would still be most effective if directed at groups of men, and not just down the middle of the street.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ASL Veteran: 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.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> 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. 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 ]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kurtz: hehe, funny, Kurtz and Marlow in a discussion...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Don't make me come find you

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kurtz: From aimed small arms fire perhaps? (Excluding MGs) But that is not the topic of today's discussion. hehe, funny, Kurtz and Marlow in a discussion...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> 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.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by David Aitken: Surely this should be clear from the many examples others have submitted. Firstly, machineguns are innaccurate. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Depends on what you mean by inaccurate. taking down man sized pop-up targets at half a mile with the first burst doesn't seem all that inaccurate. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>They are a suppressive weapon, not intended to kill the enemy, but to pin them down to be killed by other means. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> They are either or both depending upon the situation. Where the enemy has cover, they are good at keeping heads down. Enemy soldiers caught in the open in good visibility are dead. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Secondly, when you fire a machinegun, only the first couple of rounds will be near your target. Even if the gun is firmly enough fixed not to jump around, the barrel will rise and subsequent shots will be way off target. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Where in the world are you getting this from? Maybe some MGs fired from a bipod (though not in my experience); however, certainly not a tripod mounted gun. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> As such, the gun is most accurately used as a rifle – firing short bursts – but even then, it is far less accurate than a rifle. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> A MG is certainly not intended to be fired like a rifle. With the MG I have experience with (the M-60, which is close enought to the MG-42 to be relevant), short bursts, with light pulls on the trigger, tend to wear down the sear (sp?) and damage the gun. Improper firing technique is the leading cause of runaway (constantly firing) guns. M-60s are intended to fire 6-9 bursts, at a sustained rate of about 100 rnds. a minute (with barrel changes), and much faster in a pinch. In contrast, the most effective firing mode for rifle fire is semi-automatic. When fired on automatic. 3-4 round bursts are best. [ 04-10-2001: Message edited by: Marlow ]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kurtz: Except that the targets on the rifle range rarely fire back. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Agreed, I was only refuting the idea that three second rushes are somehow going to keep you safe from small arms fire.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Joe Shaw: [QBIn any case, Mensch cease thy trolling damnit! Why the next thing you know we'll be inundated with newbies [/QB]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Ladies and GentleWorms, Children of all ages, Hurry, Hurry, Hurry, Come one, Come all, and behold the freaks of the Cesspool. See the amazing collection of semi-human abominations dalem the earless wonder and SteveTheGit Be shocked by the incomprehensible gibberish of Mensch the Addled and OBGYN Be astounded as Meeks/Hamster kisses his own ass Frighten the young'ens with the sights of Mace the SheepBoy and Wildman Enjoy hourly close order manooovering by We are Croda, and daily Elvis sightings. Win prizes at the world famous Squire Shooting Gallery. All your favorite newbie morons are here, Leeo, DishWater, DekeFentle and of course, everyone's favorite target Lawyer) … We also have Miss Kitty's Burlesque, featuring: dancing Lawyers, Hiram juggling, the disappearing Nijis, and the celebrated Mr. Kite on trampoline. Amazing sights and sounds from other 'Poolers disturbed beyond mention await within. Hurry, Hurry, Hurry.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by dalem: Hey Marlowbrow- I owe you a rematch too, don't I? Something to assuage your guilt at the Draw that so curdled the milk in your udders?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Yes you do. Get on it Bitch Boy.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by tss: However, there's one nice quote in Veijo Meri's "Manillaköysi" (in the famous "Mad Staff Sergeant"-episode) about aiming in combat: [my translation] It takes at least four seconds after moving the sights before the firer can stabilize his aim. In four seconds Jesse Owens would run 40 meters. To realize that a dash starts at a different point than expected takes at least two seconds since a man doesn't immediately understand what he sees; more often three or four seconds. So an atatcker has guaranteed safe time six seconds. He may move that long as carelessy as during a sunday stroll. A particularly fast man can make a child in that time, and even a slow man can move six meters with speed of one meter per second, though no man is that slow. According to the staff sergeant's calculations, one might go for seven seconds by taking a 10% risk. By taking a 20% risk one could go for eight seconds. But if one wants to run for nine seconds, it is already a 60% risk. If the range is short, a sudden well-conducted charge will take the platoon into enemy positions and through them without losses. "They say that the best men die in the war. I have seen more than one war and I can say that is utter rubbish. All poor men die at start." Note that Meri is a novelist and he didn't mean that the sergeant's figures should be scientifically justifiable. - Tommi<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Interesting quote, but as you note, he is a novelist, and as it turns out, the figures have nothing to do with reality. Army basic rifle marksmanship, i.e. the training they give to everyone in the army, cooks, truck drivers, clerks, etc … is more demanding than the example provided. The final qualification fire consists of firing on pop-up targets from 50 to 300 meters away. The time the targets stay up varies from between 3 and 7 seconds, depending upon range (sometimes multiple targets would pop up, with correspondingly longer engagement times). To qualify, a minimum of 23 (IIRC) out of 40 targets must be hit, average soldiers will hit about 27-30, moderately good shots 35 or so, and some people I knew would seldom miss. The 50 meter target (silhouette of a man from the shoulders up) , which stayed up for 3 seconds was referred to as "Ray Charles" because even a blind man couldn't miss (I don't recall ever missing it in 14 years of qualification and practice shooting). All the targets out to 150 meters were basically gimeys, with most people who missed, missing at 200, 250, and 300. All of the targets from 150 in stayed up 5 seconds or less. [ 04-10-2001: Message edited by: Marlow ]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Vitalis: Ok, my experience with full auto weapons is only that of an amatuer, but better than the average Joe In addition, I am also a competative shooter in both handgun and rifles.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Your competitive shooting experience is probably a drawback in firing a MG. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> One squeeze of the trigger<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Unlike rifles, you don't "squeeze" the trigger of an MG. You instead do what no self-respecting rifleman would ever do: you pull that puppy back firmly. If you fire the way you do with a rifle, you likely squeeze off very short, (2-3 round) bursts (potentially damaging the gun BTW), and don't have effective control of the weapon. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> So, that was a 16 or 17 foot stationary object at 100 meters, a locked down fixed tripod, and only 30% of the bullets hit the target. Now run the same experiment with a man at that range. You won't be hitting squat, maybe one round if you are lucky. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> The gunner in your video must have been piss poor. 100 m is an easy shot for an MG.

This is a little like beating a dead horse since its been a few days since my original post, with the forum meltdown and all; however, I'm not smart enough to shut up: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BTS These are EXTREME "high end" results from a single use of a MG in combat. Such examples are what are commonly called "statistical outliers". If they weren't, they would be common and pretty much every MG gunner would have kill totals like this (along with the highest awards their countries give out). Since the average gunner didn't have such success, these examples are clearly not relevant to this discussion. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> OK, I admit that I knew these were somewhat extreme examples when I wrote it, but one post asked for examples and CMH awards were the only place I could think of to look. I understand that in most situations the modeling (as far as my limited ability to determine) is fine; however, infantry with fast move orders in the open seem a little to immune from MG fire (perhaps it is only the bias of a former gunner). I understand that the issue is being examined for CM II, so a couple of possible suggestions: increase the rate of fire in some circumstances (e.g. X number of enemy units within a certain range); add a firepower multiplier against units in the open with fast move orders; and (as has been discussed) create an assault move Also, responses to some of your comments: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Muzzle climb - anybody that has fired a MG, especially on a bipod or of a very heavy calibre (like the .50) knows that after a short burst the rounds aren't going where you intended them to go. Usually higher, meaning you are over shooting. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I have had no experience with WWII era MGs, but I really didn't have that much trouble with muzzle climb from an M-60 on a bipod. Firing the standard 6-9 round (sometimes more) bursts I could put most of the rounds in the intended beaten zone. On a tripod with T&E equipment muzzle climb is not an issue. Since most of the MGs at issue are of the support team variety (bipod LMGs are mostly integrated into the squad) muzzle climb is something of a red herring. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Trying to reposition an MG on a new, moving target is not like Nintendo or Quake. There is a very good chance that when you pull the trigger that the rounds won't be on target. Especially for guns set up in haste and on bipods. Obviously skill and setup arrangements (firelanes, aiming stakes, etc) can greatly improve accuracy. But except for close range it isn't certain that you are going to hit your target right off. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I didn’t have too much trouble putting the first burst in the intended target area, even out to significant ranges (IIRC 850m was the longest range we usually practiced at) from a tripod mount, in what amounted to a "hasty" set-up (we just set up the tripod and gun with no special preparations when we were on the target range). Obviously low visibility situations are a different story, and prepared positions would be much more effective. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> For all of these reasons, holding down the trigger like they do in Hollywood was to be avoided. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> No, but multiple bursts, with a brief stop (couple of seconds tops) to observe effects, re-aim, listen to the AG, etc… is easy to do for a couple of hundred rounds, and certainly would be an option when a squad is charging across a couple of football fields worth of (relatively) open ground towards you.

Former gunner, although there are some days at work ...