RockinHarry

Yep, might have lost context somewhat and off course agree that basic offensive doctrines were virtually all the same. Where are we right now? lol ...hm..something about HMGs and their effectiveness in the game, me thinks.

The test setup was advancing german infantry vs. US infantry on "hide", backed up by two unhidden US HMG teams. German infantry, while advancing, had short frontal covererd arcs, to keep them on the move and not shooting. 2 german HMG42 teams are placed in overwatch on a hill behind german advancing infantry. Once the HMG42 spotted the US HMG shooting german infantry, they started engaging. No covered arcs set or direct orders. 600m range between german and US HMG is well within medium range. While the game just allows short burst harrassing fires (which apparently have no noticable effect as seen in the vids), in RL it would´ve been concentrated long burst fire (one belt +) by both HMGs on one target the same time, to yield any worthy "suppression" effect. Can´t tell if the game AI uses area fire under this condition, but it shows that standard (medium to long range) support role fires for HMG´s are not really working in the game. During these tests, I also figured german infantry is well capable to deal with the US HMG alone and using friendly support role HMG from behind unnecessary. This is a reverse of actual roles.

I´d like to remind of these shortish 1 game turn vids, showing how german HMGs were definitely used not. Highly inaccurate harrassing fire at best and it´s not even area fire. Has anythings changed since these vids were made in CMBN? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LKux4VCkyJw&feature=plcp http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=egyevu1i37E&feature=plcp

German HMG gunner fire orders are given in "belts" (of 50 rounds +) usually, so if long bursts are to be seen in any vids, it´s not just textbook examples, it´s simply applied practice, based on doctrine and crew training. Similar with german LMG gunners. Ammo count to be expended on given target is ordered (by squad leader) and the gunner will do as quickly and effective with it as possible (until enemy kaput or back in effective cover/suppressed) These are just the basics, with numerous adaptions to the given tactical situation, but the main purpose was to exploit the high ROFand FP of MG34/42 to do maximum damage (on attacker) or suppression (on covered defender). That means long bursts (50+) for HMGs and short bursts (5-7) in quick succession for LMGs.

as by what WW2 armies doctrine and practice? Maybe for the US in WW2, maybe yet for the british, but for germans, russians and japanese...NO. Looks like you´re very much confusing nowadays doctrines with those applied in WW2. But surely the US in WW2 could afford the way you describe.

Well...I mainly study 1930-1940 era regulations, tactical manuals, combat reports and so forth and that´s what it´s about in this discussion, right? However, I can´t derive any your named schematisms from the stuff I have and applied doctrines obviously aren´t all the same for nations involved in WW2. Not that it´s usefull for you (wished all my stuff would be available in english translations), but these are parts of resources I refer to: http://www.spwaw.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=18276

Interesting clip and bit hard to nail. That could possibly be from poland or french campaign and shown units stumbled into a city ambush? By evaluating shown equipment, it likely is part of a german heavy weapons Cpy. (HMG section). Fixed bayonets also indicate that due to the environment (town/city) and area obviously not yet combed from the enemy, close combat was to be expected anytime. Normally the shoulder shooting was trained and applied vs. low flying aircraft in emergency situations (surprise attacks), but obviously was found to be useful in other situations as well (although not officially anchored in the regulations).

Well, that could be worked out more. With the MG34 developed and invented in first half of 1930ies, the past battlefield experience still related to the less "empty" ones of WW1. In WW2 it also depended (or proofed) upon beeing either in the german (empty) or i.e russian (more crowded) part of a battlefield. :eek: Maybe germans initially had a better idea of the "empty battlefield" theory as their upcoming opponents, but I can´t tell....

Very very wrong, in particular for the MG34/42 in any the roles. The gun was designed to put maximum amount of bullets, accurately into a "good target" (infantry in the open). Off course the high ROF also provides good suppression effects on "covered" targets, but that is rather second (tactical) nature and NOT main purpose. Key features for these particular weapons was proper individual training and correct application of fire, as well as ammunition tactics for the given combat tasks. Few special terms to name is "surprise fire" (Feueruberfall), "fire concentrations" (Feuerzusammenfassung) and others, to prevent any weapons from beeing ineffective ammo wasters. Maybe little known, but due to faulty german weapon/ammo production politics in 1940/41 (production numbers for many sorts of weaponry and ammo were significantly lowered, as Mr. Hitler thought he could smash the USSR in about 3 months, with the UK begging for peace after), germans were constantly underproducing much needed ammo, of which part also was small arms (rifle/MG) one. Expenditure became much higher than expected (strategically) and neither production, nor resupply was sufficient for small arms/ammo for remainder of the war. So germans simply couldn´t afford to keep weapons in use, that is just inaccurate ammo wasters. But they did (even introduced MG42), cause when these weapons were flexibly used under given tactical doctrines and by trained personel, these weapons were used very effectively. Same off course counts for the BAR, BREN, DP ect., though with providing far less general firepower. and to forestall...no, I´m anything but a german weapons fanboi.

Well...maybe if I get to the US anytime and working through original MG34 technical and training manuals (that are in my possession!) first! But...I´m not a knowledgable US colonel, putting a rookie at the gun, doing obvious faults and then deriving any technical or tactical results from that.

Don´t think functions in both the US/german squads were really different and as said, after the 1939 squad composition and doctrinal changes, the german one was quite flexible and there was no schematical "shoot here, flank there" approach as so oftenly propagated for US infantry squads, might that have been true or not.

Anyway...the guy operating the MG34 appears to be quite untrained on this gun, compared to his handling of the BAR (adjusting sights, bipod positioning, body/gun positioning). With regard to the odd german squad composition, it must be noted that (beside mixed up with a HMG team), the 4 man lmg troop and 7 men rifle troop was a pre war type, only used in the Poland campaign, after which it was changed (october 1939) to the type lasting through remainder of WW2. Same goes for squad movement & fire tactics and appropiate regulations.

lol...what a FAIL! Just watched til 04:00. Maybe the MG34 gunner should have considered setting the sights, when switching to the target farer away? Bipod must be set straight, perpendicular to the barrel, to allow accurate firing. And why already change the barrel, when hardly expended ~50 shots (can be at 250 rounds and high ROF) in several very short bursts, with longish pauses between? Love those "comparisons"... Wondering those guys can afford these guns, but fail to learn the "basics" from the operations manual. ..ridiculous lol...the remaining video is equally crappy.

hehe...nice hack! ...guess the guy is still blazing away with 9mm ammo at MP40 ROF though..

No fake actually, rather a skilled (or strong?) gunner showing for the PR camera guy. :eek: Normally the short, repeated burst method was applied, but could also be the shown gunner blazed away into unseen emptiness, or applies AA fire. Who knows... BF´s research ain´t wrong, but the short burst method applied for the tripod MG42 is for sure. I consider it limitation, for the probable game engines current incapability, to track long bursts in continuous manner.

at 0:52 in the video Interestingly, the german MG42 light machine gunner appears to be able to expend 2 and a half belts (120-130 rounds) in a single prolonged burst, in a very much controlled manner! :eek: Yet remains to be seen in CM, the more for the tripod version which nothing but suck in the game.

Yep, in fact it´s way more complicated and deriving data for special purposes can just least to rough estimates. My book source gives hard data on production numbers, expenditure, losses, ect. in very good detail and the author Fritz Hahn, beeing former member of "Heereswaffenamt" (army weaponry department branch) yet had lots of original data from his wartime duties to his avail. No idea if it´s available in non german languages (I guess no), I highly reccomend this book: http://www.amazon.de/Waffen-Geheimwaffen-deutschen-Heeres-1933-1945/dp/3763759158

Worth to remind, that given 1945 ammo production figures is just for january and february (as of march 1st) alone, while the others is the yearly output. Some other interesting numbers (just rifles, MG, Sturmgewehr and related ammo): Expenditure count for all of 1944: Assault rifles (Stg44): 30.454 Ammo: 164.572.600 Rifles/Carbines: 1.457.012 MGs: 157.307 Ammo: 4.168.975.300

Ok, here´s the figures from same source as given above: 7,92mm x 57 Stocks at beginning of war (in millions): 7377,84 including 588 with the Luftwaffe at this time. Production figures (not incl. the B cartridge type): 1939: 880,5 1940: 2259,4 1941: 464 1942: 317,6 1943: 2200,1 1944: 3862,3 1945: 491,7 (until march 1945) The sharp production decline in 1941/42 was a result of Hitlers planning behaviors, generally underestimating the needs for the ongoing war and large stocks yet available after the french campaign of 1940. My source has some lengthy explanation on more about this, but that´s actually it.

Production figures for the 7.92mm x 33 in millions 1942: 9,7 1943: 23,4 1944: 579,4 1945: 209,5 At the beginning of march 1945, there yet were stocks of 69,6 and 273,9 were among the troops. Source: Weapons and Secret Weapons of the German Army - 1933-1945, Fritz Hahn

Well, they just need to keep something out, in order to keep you interested purchasing next module.

Would be interesting to know if there is anything needed to "optimize" OpenGL handling of CMN for my particular GC and driver version 275.33 WHQL, in say ...Nvidia Inspectors advanced profile settings? Or is that handled automatically, so that there´s no need to tinker with that? Any probable DX settings, that mess or interfer with OGL performance?

Thanks! Quite enlightening, me beeing still a WinXP user. Assume nothing substantially has changed since the release of the article 2 years ago.

Would be interested in how does compare CMN OpenGL vs. DX11 generally, not considering realism stuff going on under the hood?

Think I count 8 dudes in your FH AS. 6 is from your 1st section HMG. Is the others corpses? I saw during my own tests, that corpses do sometimes keep FHs occupied, so that these FHs can´t be properly used by a different unit. Maybe these are marked "graves" and thus are no go.