Gaylord Focker

I understand what your saying, but using solider comfort and Stalingrad together is an oxymoron. I think i see what you mean about MG-42 performance improvements. The MG-42 was such a great design that it's basic design is still in use today as the MG-3. The MG-3 does have a slower rate of fire, and i'm sure it's for a reason.(is cost one of a few factors?) But from 1942-1945, the MG-42 was simply as good as machine guns got. The Panther was a great design but with a few tweaks and some laser guided ordinance it would have been a better tank as well. (another design that outlasted the war.) A question we have to ask is was the technology availabe to make the MG-42 perform better then in did from 42-45? Simply cutting down it's high rate of fire i don't think would have done the trick. First off i think the developers would have to start with the Optics and the Barrel,and the cartridge itself, after those were perfected, then i think you could tune down the rate of fire to make it just as or a more effective weapon. IMHO the technology was either not present, or not presented to improve on the MG-42's design. Also in the middle of a World War if you have the world best machine gun and it seems to out perform everything else the enemy has, would you put time and funds into further developement of the MG-42? Or would you put all that time money and energy into a place where your armed forces were lacking , or on par with the enemy's particular piece of equipment(s)? [ July 17, 2002, 05:41 PM: Message edited by: Gaylord Focker ]

I knew Hitler's inner circle were big into the occult, but thats just plain wrong! Hehe.

Triumvir, the MG-42 came in 50 round belts. With a 6 man crew, i don't see how this could be any more of a problem. If it were in fact a problem, would'nt the German Field Marshals have been aware and corrected this so called problem? It is still my opinion that the MG-42 was and was used to it's greatest potential in World War2. I still fail to see how you can take the best of machine gun of the war, and cut down not only it's ammo, but it's rate of fire as well, and come up with an "improved" version of the gun. The 30% less ammo would obviously make life easier for the machine gun crew who had to lug it around, i can't argue that, but at what cost? Is that worth the trade off of making life considerably more difficult for the rest of the squad out fighting in front of you? Also i'm sure the Werhmacht had an adequate enough phyisical fitness system in wich soldiers designated to machine gun crews were proficient in firing their weapon, cleaning thier weapon, maintaining their weapon, and being phyisicly fit enough to carry around the ordinance for thier weapon. Now if you want to say starved soldiers are not as strong as well fed ones, well in those cases, Stalingrad for example, soldiers on both sides had to make consessions to feats of strenght and endurance. An Mp-40 would probably get heavy realy fast after going with out food and snacking on axel grease for a couple weeks. [ July 17, 2002, 05:24 PM: Message edited by: Gaylord Focker ]

The World Famous Fionn! (in CM terms anyway) Well i think it's safe to say i've run out of questions for CMBB. I'm convinced the game is going to be a classic. Thanks again to everyone who answered my questions!

Thats great news! Thanks for the feedback JasonC.

Tirumvir, I think that it is safe to say that the Germans had an effective supply technique to feed their Machine Guns. And your right about the simplicity of supply between the heavy and light mg-42. Your theory would hold up if the average German squad was lazy and un organized, not the case. Perhaps you've watched Saving Private Ryan too often and have the scene of where the Private is incapable of bringing ammo up to the Machine Gunner in that last scene. If you can point me in the direction of some reading material about the trials and tribulations of Germans bumbling about the woods looking for ammo to load thier machine gun, then please give me a link or a book title. Also why are you refering to me as a troll when i've given no reason for anyone to think otherwise? I'm sorry but i can't carry on a logical and productive debate with someone who starts their thoughts with such an ignorant adress such as that. If you do not find my screen name amsusing, your loss, but no need of name calling, especialy when i've never even written anything to you before. I have a feeling BTS has modeled all the MG's as they should be in CMBB so this debate will probably prove trite. [ July 17, 2002, 04:31 PM: Message edited by: Gaylord Focker ]

WWB just by blindly stating that the higher rate of fire that the MG-42 had is a disadvantage does not make it so. Everything you've said is the anti-thesus of everything I've heard or read about about this weapon. Do you have any reading material to back up your statements, you have me curious now because no where have I ever seen the MG-42 get such a harsh review. The MG42 had the highest rate of fire of any infantry machine gun during World War II. In fact the German infantryman was taught to conserve on ammunition and only employ the high rate of fire when neccisary. The gun could also fire effectivly up to almost 1000 meters,max range of a litlte over 2000m with a muzzle velocity of 755m per second. The Mg-42 also had a quick barrel change. Please read a little on the Spanish-American War to see how big of an impact ROF has on the modern battlefield. [ July 17, 2002, 02:45 PM: Message edited by: Gaylord Focker ]

What made the MG-42 so great was that it did not suffer from these symptoms you mention that Ailed MG's did. No such thing as too spendy on Ammo. Thats flawed way of thinking, died during th American -Spanish War. We did'nt use Machine guns and the new rifles, because the American army thought it was a waste of ammo, and well aimed shots would be more effective then the "wasteful" high rate of firing new European weapons. Boy were they wrong, and found out the hard way. Luckily we had some dated Gatling guns laying around for that much needed ROF. Bullets are Lethal, the more bullets cutting through the air, the more dangerous that area is to move around or take aim or baiscly do anything. The MG-42 had no problem consistantly filling the air with deadly bursts of ammo. The German industry had no problem keeping up production of rounds for their guns until late war, when their factories were in flames from Allied bombing. Also as a side note, THe PPsH could sustain high volumes of fire for extended periods of time due to it's chrome lined barrel. A trend that Soviet small arms still use today. [ July 17, 2002, 11:27 AM: Message edited by: Gaylord Focker ]

Us was not Soviet Russia. Ask Patton. The Soviets were an allied enemy that the Germans happend to decalre war on. It was a temporary alliance of both convience and necessity for the US/UK/ and the Soviet Union.

Thats funny. Might i suggest using a fart .wav file for the explosion sounds?

I think you confuse high ROF with lethality. </font>

Hi, i was wondering as to how much the sound effects have been improved in CMBB. Will mortars exploding and grenades sound more like,...well a grenade going off, instead of a mild fire cracker underwater. Constructive criticism mind you, put the noose and pitchforks away!! [ July 17, 2002, 11:09 AM: Message edited by: Gaylord Focker ]

Over-emphasized?!? What kind of half-baked-chicken, giving-you-salmonella statement is that! Slow turrets are for real. German training to rotate the hull and turret at the same time to add the rotational speeds were for real. If you will please take the time to watch period movies, documentaries, read something like Panzertaktik, or even better the Tigerfibel (hope I spelled it correctly), you will see that the Germans were aware of the short comings of the tank, and what the obvious counter-measures to the deficincies (too late to spell properly) were. Uno First, sending a lone Tiger out on a Sunday afternoon romp to beat up on the local T-34 platoon is quite insane. Always stay with your Zug. Deux Advancing order: Lead points ahead at 12 o'clock, number two, left, points 9-10 o'clock, number three, right, points 2-3 o'clock, number four, center rear, keep your eyes open at the extreme flanks. Or somefink like that... Song Maintain adequate spacing between tanks in an attempt to force a large turret or hull swing to acquire the next target. etc... etc... Be careful about skating about on the surface of an issue. The water is cold underneath. And it's deep too.</font>

Thanks!! [ July 17, 2002, 08:43 AM: Message edited by: Gaylord Focker ]

Thats enough out of you Focker! Hehe.

I could'nt agree more wwb, except about the part of people like the MG-34 better. Well veterens anyway prefered the MG-42 from what i have heard and read. They did generaly practice in firing in bursts, but those bursts still shot more lead in the air then any other Machine Gun. Ever hear what a burst from an MG-42 sounds like? It's impressive. Also, the Heavy Mg-42 was alot lighter then any Allied MG and could be moved around alot easier. Worked great for the Blitz and on defense. I think the best quality of the PPsH was the ease of manufacture. They could spit out a whole gun in less time it takes me to type this out. Very durable as well, worked great in the cold. [ July 17, 2002, 01:18 AM: Message edited by: Gaylord Focker ]

I do hope that you are not presuming that a high ROF in an SMG is an unmitigated boon? Aside from making ammunition supply that much more problematic, a high ROF also makes the weapon harder to control while firing. Michael</font>

Parabellum, i did not mean that the modeling of Allied Machine guns could not be improved, I just was adding that under modeled machine guns in CMBO was more of an impact on the German side. The MG-42 sprayed significantly more lead into the air then any other allied machine gun, check your numbers per minuit, the numbers are right but the increase in rpm over the allied mg's is very significant. Point being, the PPsH , best smg of the war, sprayed 900 rounds per minuit. The MP-40, a great smg in it's own right laid down 700 rounds per minuit. 200 extra bullets being fired in a 60 second time span is very significant. Same holds true with the Machine Guns. Hope i clarified what i was trying to get across. [ July 16, 2002, 11:53 PM: Message edited by: Gaylord Focker ]

Would anyone happen to have some good reading titles for books on the Eastern Front?

I did'nt mean to come off as biased, i don't beleive it was the random German follies, or only the lend-lease program that lost the war for the silly nazi's. Alot of factors come into play why they lossed, but that would be for another thread. Also keep in mind i'm aware that the Tiger I was not the tank it was in say 1942/43. The allies caught up to the tiger in technology by 1944 for the most part. The Tiger did not even have sloped armor or anything. In my opinion if you want to talk best tank of the war, i'd choose the Panther, 2nd would be the T-34's design.

:Walks in: Hmmmm, sure smells like Peng in here. :Walks out:

Oh that's what you meant. Of course the Russians were the bad guys when they fought Finland and the good guys when they fought the Germans.</font>

"Mabe i'm jumping the gun from alot of talk i heard circualting around the tournament house of how in CMBB the Soviets are going to be favored. Hopefuly my worries go un founded" Funny that! The Russians did beat the Germans on the Eastern Front. Is it accurate to say the Russians beat the Germans at their own game? I'm not sure, but they did push them all the way back to Berlin. -tom w</font>

So, you want to have everything implemented? OK,let's wait another two years for the release. I want horses, minedogs, field kitchens, the ability to cut barb wire, indirect fire for on-map arty... So you think the Allies have an advantage in CMBO? You might elaborate on that? And you know that the problem with current MG modelling concerns all MGs?</font>

Why would you have to pay for 4000 soldiers manning the gun? Why not just the Spotters like everything else? Also there were smaller rail guns then the ones you made mention to that had a higher rate of fire. I just want to see both sides have everyhting implemented, not like in CMBO where the allies have some things i think are pretty cool modeled(wich should be) yet the Germans have some key things missing from their arsenal. (best machinegun of the war way under modeled for one example). In human verse human scenarios, will the Russian player have an advantage? I don't think may human players will simply order thier units to just plain charge. The Allies should have an advantage in CMBO considering the time frame of the game, but will the Axis be useless against PPsh squads of well led Russians? I beleive that something like 10 Russians died for everyone 1 German causaulty caused. Will we see this in the game? For some reason i doubt it. [ July 16, 2002, 01:57 PM: Message edited by: Gaylord Focker ]