Yup, and I wonder why you did. What was your motivation in giving me examples of successful assaults? Do you think I am so ignorant that I didn't know of any?
For the third and final time I'll say this. The issue I would like to get to resolved is whether the game models the real world capabilities of HMGs. I, and others, have run some tests that indicate that perhaps it doesn't or at least doesn't do so with sufficient fidelity. You are not offering anything that adds one way or anyother to the question in hand. Examples of assaults involving other weapons doesn't move the debate on because those other weapons will be making their own contribution.
In the game I have been able on repeated tests to walk, walk, infantry from 1000 yards out to with 200 yards of an in-cover, in-command HMG with so few casualties (and hence supression) that they could put down such fire as to overwhelm that machine gun position. Is that a reasonable representation of the effectiveness of WWII HMGs? I don't think it is. If you have some counter examples from the real word of WWII combat, then please tell me about them. Folklore about the Somme or examples of combined arms attacks against an intergrated defence, don't help.
I think you have some valid points about what levels of casaulties cause infantry to break, and, maybe, some on the duration of supression. However since an HMG seems to cause so few casualties in the first place (2 to 6 out of thirty odd men running over 800 metres in my tests and a similar level in other players tests) it is all a bit academic, ain't it.
Blackcat got a reaction from Bulletpoint in Heavy machine guns and suppressive fire
