cassh

Some brief points. 1) I went to the same university as Tim Harrison-Place and finished my undergraduate dissertation on British Army Doctrine 1940-44 at the same time he was finishing his PhD. We both were under the tutelage of Prof. John Childs, Department of War Studies. 2) I have served as an infantry-section commander in the British Army during the period we lost our beloved Gimpies for LSWs. 3) I have experience with FN GPMG (M240), FN Minimi (M249), LSW and Bren (7.62mm). 4) The bren can be fired from the hip with ease. I have done so myself on many occasion (FIBUA assaults, clearing trenches etc). 5) The bren was often used in the assault phase of a deliberate attack. Two brens acting as fire base as third bren went in with the assaulting element on the objective. 6) The British Army's reverting to the light role Gimpy at the platoon level, as a fire-support weapon, and the adoption of the Minimi over the LSW is the wisest move possible, and long overdue. 7) WW2 British and Canadian infantry in the ETO from 1944 onward very rarely fought unsupported without AT weapons, MMGs, mortars and FOO parties, all of which were organic or near organic on what seems to have benn permanent attachment: 1 MMG platoon per rifle battalion 1 FOO party per rifle battalion (The FOO was technically 2iC of the battalion should the CO come a cropper). 8) Suppressing an MG-42 with a bren gun is entirely possible if you have located its position! The Wehrmacht's use of smokeless ammunition, their good fieldcraft, reverse slope and depth defences often made this pin-pointing the MG nests very difficult. 9) Suppressing an enemy whose position you are unsure of is better handled by a sustained fire area weapon. Hang on, didn't the CW forces have something called a Vickers Machine-Gun, that had sustained fire (water cooled to boot), fired a decent sized beaten zone, and wasn't to bad at engaging enfilade targets on the other side of the hill... hmmm 10) Burn me!

MD Some points As for the VC citations, I see no mention of anyone "shooting from the hip". I suggest you actually read the citation through, as you will see that they do indeed mention firing from the hip (see below). http://www.victoriacross.net/award.asp?vc=675 On 15 May 1945 near Wewak, New Guinea, when fire from a Japanese bunker was holding up the company's advance, Private Kenna stood up in full view of the enemy less than 50 yards away and engaged the bunker, firing his Bren gun from the hip. The enemy returned the fire and bullets actually passed between Private Kenna's arms and body. Undeterred, he remained completely exposed and went on firing until his magazine was exhausted, when he continued with a rifle. As a result of his gallantry the bunker was taken without further loss. http://www.victoriacross.net/award.asp?vc=677[/url On 28 April 1943 at Dj. Arada, Tunisia, Lance-Corporal Kenneally charged alone down the bare forward slope straight into the main body of the enemy about to make an attack, firing his Bren gun from the hip; the enemy were so surprised that they broke up in disorder. The lance-corporal repeated his exploit on 30 April when, accompanied by a sergeant, he charged the enemy forming up for assault, inflicting many casualties. Even when wounded he refused to give up, but hopped from one fire position to another, carrying his gun in one hand and supporting himself on a comrade with the other. http://www.victoriacross.net/award.asp?vc=696 On 29 August 1942 in Isurava, Papua, New Guinea, when the enemy had broken through the battalion's right flank, creating serious threats to the rest of the battalion and to its headquarters, Private Kingsbury volunteered to join a platoon which had been ordered to counter-attack. He rushed forward, firing the Bren gun from his hip and succeeded in clearing a path through the enemy and inflicting an extremely large number of casualties. He was then seen to fall, shot dead by a sniper's bullet. His superb courage made possible the recapture of a position which saved Battalion Headquarters. http://www.victoriacross.net/award.asp?vc=1022 On 22 March 1945 at Bougainville, Solomon Islands, an attack by a company of Australian Infantry on a strongly held enemy position was met by extremely heavy fire. Corporal Rattey, realizing that any advance would be halted by this fire and heavy casualties inflicted, dashed forward firing his Bren gun from the hip and completely neutralized the enemy fire from three forward bunkers. Then, having silenced a bunker with one grenade, he fetched two more with which he silenced the other two bunkers. The company was then able to continue its advance. Later Corporal Rattey captured another machine-gun and 2,000 rounds of ammunition. The VC citations are extraordinary not for the fact that British and Commonwealth soldiers fired Bren guns from the hip, but for the fact these men often carry out lone attacks rather than with the rest of their platoon – the circumstances not the method are the exception and noteworthy feature in all these case. We practice section battle drills here too - and for the most part when playing Enemy Force, can't help but notice how easy it is to pick people off pepperpotting at us because it bears no resemblance to what anyone in their right mind would do in a shooting war. Very easy to shoot at a half-section dashing forward in 5-10 metre bounds when ‘playing’ the enemy, very different in reality when actual suppressing fire is coming in from the platoons two ‘firm’ sections and the remaining half-section participating in the assault. No doubt your combat expertise means that pepper potting should no long be used by the British Army which has found it so successful for the past half-century. Like all drills, when performed poorly it does not work that well – when performed slickly it is a highly effective method of covering the last hundred metres onto an enemy position and getting maximum firepower on the target whilst going forward. A well known recent example of breaking contact using pepper potting is described in the book Bravo Two Zero. The tactic is used by the entire British Army and Royal Marines. My rule of thumb is if it is still being used effectively by UK forces in infantry battles today then it cannot be all that bad a tactical drill. As to the accuracy of firing GPMG/Bren from the hip – again, no probably not that ‘effective’ as a form of fire, but a good moral booster and enemy suppressor when closing in (30-0 yards) on their position. Clearly using the gimpy as a fire support base is much more effective, but who said soldiers always do what is prescribed. I can also vouch for the fact that the ‘FN’ GPMG or gimpy can indeed be fired from the shoulder with some degree of accuracy (300 metres Fig.11 twelve rounds from twenty in five bursts). The original point was that a two man bren team should be able to ‘assault’ and I agree they should – not a very wise use of this unit, but nevertheless it can be done. Remember the bren was akin to the LSM/Minimi (M249) C6-7-8-9 or what ever your lot call them – i.e. a section level LMG not a platoon/coy level MMG and therefore it is highly mobile – so your point about firing a .50 cal on the move is specious to say the least.

MD - I suggest you read a few VC citations as I can recall a few "lone" bren gunners going forward to take enemy positions - although not in the battle drill pamphlets or doctrine, in the field firing from the 'hip' was not at all that uncommen. http://www.victoriacross.net/award.asp?vc=1235 http://www.victoriacross.net/award.asp?vc=1179 http://www.victoriacross.net/award.asp?vc=1022 http://www.victoriacross.net/award.asp?vc=696 http://www.victoriacross.net/award.asp?vc=677 http://www.victoriacross.net/award.asp?vc=675 http://www.victoriacross.net/award.asp?vc=610 http://www.victoriacross.net/award.asp?vc=202 If you think of a platoon attack: two sections (10 rifles + 1 bren) are generally suppressing the target whilst the remaining rifle section manoeuvres. Now altough smart platoon commanders may have lumped their three brens together as an uber-gun-group, usually the assaulting section's bren group 'went in' with the other lads, often firing from the hip. Also note that 24lbs is not 'that' heavy, especially when using a shoulder sling. As an Army Cadet I was often given the bren gun (anyone remember .303 wooden blanks and the blue 'masher barrel'). Although clumbersome at times, and heavy on long tabs, I do not ever remember thinking during an assault 'Hold-up, this bren's damn heavy, better not go in with the others as I might get a wee bit tired!' The GPMG is bigger and uglier and I fired that from the hip as well in many section attacks when in the assaulting section. Why else would you require a coverted webbing pouch fixed to the gun to hold your link ammo? Note on British Army section battle drills 1940-2004): contact dash down crawl observe sights fire fire fight phase win the fire fight (i.e. enemy suppressed) fire and manoevure phase (pepper-potting) assault phase (swords on, post grenades) clear the enemy position re-org (ammo, casualties, all-round defence) Rommel (infantry attacks) and the USMC have fire ratios 3:1 - 6:1 as minimum suppression elements over manoeuvre elements - so make sure if two unsupported platoons are attacking five of the rifle sections are lamping the enemy whilst one moves in for the kill!

Joachim,I think we're on the same wave-length here. I really hope they scale up immobile SF MG ammo scales in CM2 and scale down mobile ‘unsupport’ SF ammo scales which would make these units be used and act in their historical manner/actual role. Same with mortars, especially 3"/8cm+. Try carrying more that 4 x 2 mortar bomb cases in addition to your fighting order kit and weapon and see how awkward you feel. A key part of the company/battalion level battle is resupply. The RQMS/CQMS resupply vehicle or bearers become vital to maintaining the advance, where much needed ammo is the lifeblood of momentum, tempo and not getting bogged down. I think CM2 would do well to model this ‘in-battle’ tactical resupply. Ask yourself why mortar and SF platoons have so many vehicles for what are in fact man-portable weapons? Does a single SF GPMG really need to be carried in a one-ton land rover? Is a Universal Carrier really needed to move a Vickers? No, of course not. But both these vehicles then and now are bloody handy if you need to bring up a quarter ton of ammo. Try hand balling up two hundred cases of link when the MGs go forward to secure a position against counter-attack. You’d need half a rifle company to hand ball this amount quickly verses just two or three support vehicles. The in-game mechanism of CM2 really must emphasise the bond between heavy weapons and their support vehicles as they work hand-in-glove. If a heavy weapon moves by vehicle, then de-buses and sets up within 20m or so of the vehicle, it should retain high ammo scales. If it moves by foot and is further than 20m from either its original position or its own vehicle then ammo should be severely restricted. At present it is possible in CM to advance HMGs/MMGs/medium mortars as part of the manoeuvre element of a company/battalion attack without too much trouble and with decent ammo scales. This is not how it works or worked in general and would be very much the exception and not the rule. At the company level the commander must really workout and use his support weapons in a considered fashion, moving them forward in deliberate bounds to new key terrain features once secured. Upto that point their job is fire-support and overwatch. Moving up the MGs, AT guns and mortars was and is a big deal, and the speed with which this can be done separates good and bad coys. I often move my support units up with the general advance in CM because there is no penalty for this ahistorical tactic. Anyway just a thought. I know that many CM player think vehicles other than AFV have little tactical role or utility in the time-frame/scale of the game. But I would like to see this extra dimension added to the game, because it makes the company level tactical decisions that much more realistic, involved and complex.

Just a little note on what the military consider the primary role of the MMG/sustained-fire machine gun and an observation on ammunition scales. Suppression First and foremost an SFMG is a suppression weapon – this is why beaten zone is key. The job of these weapons in the assault is not to winkle-out an enemy from cover, but to stop him moving and keep his head down whilst the rifle sections/platoons fire and manoeuvre in on top of him. You’ve seen it in CM when you have a couple of MG plugging away at some poor sap and they go prone with their face in the mud and don’t want to come out to play. In my opinion this is fair model of how things really work. A suppressed enemy cannot return ‘effective’ fire and is therefore neutralised until your assault element is right in on top of him, by which time it’s too late. In defence the SFMG’s role is area denial. You stop an enemy advancing by having firing arcs cover the ‘open bounds’ of any approach route. If an enemy wants to cross this ground to cover your forward OPs will call in SF tasking, which against dismounted infantry will be harsh at the very least. Ammunition Scales An SF GPMG with three balanced heavy barrels has a cyclic rate of about 650-800 rpm depending on each barrel’s optimum gas setting, giving an actual RoF of about 150-250 rpm. I’ve fired 12,000 rounds of 1-in-5 in a morning on the range with GPMG which equals 15 X 800 round slabs. These are large, cumbersome, very heavy cases which hold four ammo boxes of link, and are almost always broken down to carry into the gun position. So that is 60 ammo boxes for a morning shoot. Now consider that the MG-42 cyclic rate is about 1200 rpm, and has an actual RoF of about 300-450 rpm and you see why I have some reservations about its consumption rates. A six man MG-42 team would mean 1 gunner carrying MG-42, barrel bag and sight, 1 gun commander carrying the tripod and a personal weapon, and four guys in fighting order with personal weapon carrying as much gun ammo as possible ( lets over estimate and say 4-5 boxes or 800-1000 rounds each). Now you see the problem. 4000 rounds at 300 rpm equals 13 minutes of suppression. With these ammunition scales careful use of SF to shoot-in the assault must taken. There is a strong case to put that SF elements in CM start with say high ammunition scales – say 300 ammo units, but that if they move from their setup position their ammo immediately drops to 60-70 to reflect their inability to both haul ammo and move as a tactical element. This would better reflect the ammo build-up that SF units have and their over-watch rather than assault role. Also it would give SF MGs in defence a reason to hold their ground until the last so as to fire off all the ammo they cannot carry, and then bug out to the secondary position.

MD, Not sure the 8th Army had the refrigeration capacity to set-up impromptu ice-rinks in North Africa, so purely on historical ground I cannot recommend this for any future patches that effect North Africa, although clearly you have good grounds for an amendment in Italy. Will you provide the “du..du..du..duda” organ music wav file for the background noise. Otherwise I feel without the sound of the hockey game the Axis play may think you’ve given up and don’t wont to play anymore? This needs further in depth discussion… will Indian troops stop for a quick game of Kabudi?

In CMAK do the British and Commonwealth forces get an extra five minutes for a tea break in their battles? For a player who chooses commonwealth maybe in addition to 'surrender' and 'cease-fire' there should be an option for 'tea break' or 'get brew on', which temporarily halts the battle and allows routed and panicking troops to regroup! Ridiculous you say, well UKLF doctrine paper #458-BS-24 states: “ soldiers suffering from battle shock must be immediately exposed to the five stages of recovery; tea with four sugars”… lovely. Also do we get a morale bonus modifier known as 'stiff upper lip' when we do something stupid and it all goes pear-shaped? British tactics such as charging cruiser tanks headlong into DAK 88's and 75's come to mind. This SUL modify might be needed to re-capture the historical quirk of our f*%$witism and bone tactics in 1941/2.

The SUSAT is indeed an optical sight with 4x Mag if memory serves, but it is simply a replacement for iron sights and cannot record elevation/defelction readings for filling in a target reference sheet unlike the C2 used on the SF Gimpy which is the real strength. So you can lay the weapon, but not re-lay on to a known SF fire-call using SUSAT, merely lay it as you would off any range-card. I'll agree that M2 has greater range, but as you state this is against point targets - anything upto 1200m and the Mg-42 is covering a very large killing area in its beaten-zone.

Returning to the original question, of which was better MG-42 or M2 .50 cal then clearly you must ask in which role you are judging them. In the anti infantry role: The tripod mounted MG-42 is an area weapon with sustainable fire the .50 cal is not. End of story really… but read on if you can bear it. The CM HMG [sic] 6 man MG-42 squad/gun team represents MMG/sustained-fire (SF) weapon used primarily in the anti-infantry role. SF GPMGs when deployed correctly are area weapons. They fulfil functions such as denying the enemy routes of advance/forming up areas in defence and suppression/fire-support in the assault. When looked at in these roles the SF MG-42 in leagues ahead of the .50 cal. Beaten-Zone This is the elongated ellipse into which the fall of shot lands. The MG-42’s beaten-zone is far superior to that of the M2 at all ranges, i.e. is much more effective as an infantry suppression and killing weapon than that of the M2.50 cal. The shape of a machine-gun’s beaten zone and the trajectory of the rounds play a key role in its effectiveness, especially at longer ranges when conducting indirect and enfilade type shoots. And it is no mistake that the MG-42 wins in performance at both shorter rangers and longer ones. SF-Tripod Its MG-42’s SF tripod is designed to generate a very effective beaten-zone. As the gun fires the tripod’s recoil rods are compressed and then the return springs decompress the piston sending the carriage forward. Now this backward-forward stutter and high RoF means that the round does not get released at exactly the same point when firing creating varying depth of beaten-zone. Also the carriage has a wee bit of lateral play when firing giving the beaten-zone width. Combined these two elements with an optical sight, sustained fire (quick-change barrels) and a large ammunition scales and you have an awesome battlefield weapon. Optical sight The SF MG-42 almost always saw action with an optical sight fitted. These give the MMG capabilities unknown to a simple tripod mounted MG. Obviously they give the gunner better target acquisition capabilities and they also help judge range more accurately. But where they come into their own is in pre-recorded targeting. This gives the tactical commander the ability to conduct complex DF or fire-support shoots, even at night (aiming lamps anyone?). Because the optical sight can take an elevation and deflection bearing, pre-recorded shoot/laying means that a well drilled gun team are always on target, night or day in the desired killing zone. In fact, you can leave a position with just recorder pegs to mark the each foots’ position and re-lay the gun on all you target references when you re-occupy the position at a later stage. CMAK Model Don’t know how the game models types of fire exactly but I know they distinguish between plunging fire and grazing fire. As a member of a SF-GPMG platoon (M240 for our America friends) I have fired both Gimpy and .50 cal from tripod and vehicle mounts. The fact that the FN-MAG GPMG has copied almost all its firing and laying characteristics from the MG-42 save for the RoF was no accident. FN-Mag GPMG Out to about six or seven hundred meters the trajectory of the Gimpy 7.62mm ball round is fairly flat (BTS’s grazing fire) but at longer rangers you aimed quite high to arc the rounds into the targeted area (BTS’s plunging fire). Tracer round are lighter and fall to ground more quickly (less kinetic energy I suppose) but they do still give good indication of round flight and trajectory out to 1000m-1100m. Most SF ranges have the gun line on one side of a wide valley overlooking various targets (Ferret and Fox recce vehicle hulks and dry-stone walls etc.) on the other. And it is quite possible when shooting Ball in dry conditions to spot the fall of shot out to about 1000m through your binoculars as the rounds kick up dust from the ground, rocks and stones underlying any grass. Usually though you shoot 1-in-five (tracer to ball), which is a pain in the arse in summer as you can spend most of your day putting out grass fires. M2 .50 cal If you are on air defence, vehicle ambush or sanger busting then the .50 cal is your puppy. Having spent a few afternoons putting a ‘cone’ of gimpy fire up into the air from the back of a recce rover trying to shoot down a MATTs drone I can tell you GPMGs are little or no use in that role. Unless you hit the engine block the drone just kept going like a flying colander. Whereas if a .50 cal round hit the MATTs drone the wing or fuselage would come off and down it would come – nice! Firing .50 cal at ground targets (mostly rusting vehicle hulks) is loud, slow, not too reliable, with numerous stoppages. There was no optical sight to lay the gun (wonder if US Army in WWII had one as standard – doubt it from everything I’ve ever come across though). The beaten-zone is slight. What it hits it really hits hard, but it is in no way to be considered an area weapon with sustainable fire. And for me those are the two keys to an effective MG in the anti infantry role If my position were about to by over-run I know that given the choice between a SF MG-42 and an M2 .50 cal firing the final-protective-fire down the front line of my slit trench I’d go with the ’42 every time. AA/AD role: Anything over 12.7mm is in the right ballpark. In anti-vehicular/anti-aircraft fire I believe it is the weight/force of impact that historically has proven more successful than volume of fire in causing either soft or hard kills. Why is it that almost all fighter aircraft up-gunned from 7.92mm/.30 cal/.303 to .50 cal/15mm/20mm/30mm HMG/cannons during WWII? Because where you cannot be sure of attaining concentrated hits, what you do hit had better bloody count. Hence .50 cal best US AAMG and used universally by Allied forces in this role.

Matt & Lesack, Thanks for the help. I installed nVidias latest driver (God only knows why a brand new Dell would not have an up-to-date driver... :confused: ) and it is all peachy! Goes like a rocket, so one glum lad is now a very happy bunny looking forward to much desert whiz-bang action [ November 26, 2003, 05:23 AM: Message edited by: cassh ]

Matt, Thanks for getting back. The only driver settings offered were for Direct X at different resolutions (1152x86, 1024x768 etc) at various refresh rates - I've tried all of them down to 640x480 at 75Mhz but it still runs like a slug. Now I know it is not lack of RAM (1Gig), processing speed (P4 2.6Ghz) or graphic card capability (128Mb). There is nothing else running in the background, as I have turned off most unnecessary services trying to find something that may be causing this slow down. The only thing I can think of is a graphic card conflict or lack of support. The graphics card is not inherently weak and I can happily play all my other games on high resolutions/high graphic detail settings. If you think of anything please let me know as I have already pre-ordered CMAK and am now dreading not being able to play it...oh the humanity! Cheers Cass

phil stanbridge: I think we might be looking at a similar problem. My computer [see above] is fast as you like, but CMAK is crawling like a snail on mogadon with a gammy leg [sic] and I can't think what might be causing this other than a graphic conflict type thing. Not being too techie minded I would love to hear any solutions to this slow-down problem we have both observed. cheers Cass

Mentioned this in the CMAK forum. Running a P4 2.6GHz 800 front side bus, 1024Mb 400Mhz dual channel DDR RAM, 128Mb nVidia GeForce FX5200. It runs CMBB at lightning speed, but barely moves the CMAK demo. Mouse move responds five to ten seconds after input, and cycling through units using +/- keys takes an age. As this is a reasonable quick and powerful rig I cannot think why it is dragging it feet so much unless it is some graphics support issue? Is this just a problem with the demo and my setup or is this likely to occur in full CMAK when it arrives on my doorstep in the not to distant future? I installed the demo last night and have yet to 'play' it as it is so frustratingly slow and unresponsive. Thought I was back on my old 233mmx system. Can anyone help at all, or at least settle my doubts regarding whether the full game will also run like this. Many thanks in advance, Cass [ November 21, 2003, 07:19 AM: Message edited by: cassh ]

P4 2.6GHz 800 front side bus, 1024Mb 400Mhz dual channel DDR RAM, 128Mb nVidia GeForce FX5200. The demo is very slow and clunky - I mean realllllllllllllllllllly slow - which is suprising as CMBB is lightning fast on this rig and even my P3 laptop with 320Mb RAM and 16Mb graphics card runs CMBB with no problems at all. I loaded CMAK demo last night and haven't fully played either battle as yet as it is effective unplayably slow... just scrolling to locate friendly forces is a nightmare, and using the +/- keys to move between units is really slow. I suspect this is a graphics conflict issue/problem, but I am nervous as I have pre-ordered the game already. I just hope it is the demo being graphic support 'lite' rather than an inherent problem.

Nice link Maus_TD. I've had a quick look using Babelfish's translator and it looks like a great site so far. Cheers Cass

Cheers Andreas, I'll have a look at the sites this evening and get as much info as possible. Cass

Many thanks von Lucke. Unfortunately that is not quite what I am looking for. But that web sites unit database is interesting. I don't know whether a web site with the 1940-43 orbat for both Axis and Allied forces exists, and I am considering building a database driven site along these lines. I thought this would be useful for CMAK players and scenario designers, and especially in managing a semi-historical campaign. I spoke to Biltong long ago about doing the campaign manager using a database driven orbat using php/mysql. I just finished teaching myself this combo. So now I know roughly what I am doing and can actually begin a project of this type. To be able to do this we would need extensive orbat data which listed not only the names of every army group, army, corps, division, brigade, regiment and battalion deployed in North Africa on both sides up to the fall of Tunisia, but also when and where they saw action. So if anyone is interested in contributing data and research material please contact me and we will get this thing underway. My email address is on my profile.

Does anyone know where one can find Orbats online for the North African campaign that show down to at least battalion level elements?

I'd love to see Gurkhas clear one of these new sandbag positions with at night with their Kukris... Chop chop sleepy DAK.

Dear BF/BTS, Does the CMAK remit cover the entire Mediterranean? Will CMAK cover Greece and the Balkans? Are there any Greek army units for the 1940 campaign or Adriatic theatre partisans (Greek and Yugoslav)for later years? If Crete and Operation Mercury are possible then I am hoping TOEs/unit data for Greece 1940 might also be possible, or will one be confined to Commonwealth units? As the threat to the eastern Adriatic was integral to the Allied "Mediterranean Strategy" I was hoping the appropriate units might have been included. Looking forward to Tunisia and Italy.

If my memory serves me correctly the element of the advance to contact Battle Drill for "Reaction to effective enemy fire" was Dash, Down, Crawl, Sights, Observe, Fire. The "sights" was to ensure you set an estimated range to the contact - no point popping off rounds that go high or fall short. If you've ever crawled in fighting-order kit with a weapon for more than 30 yards/meters cross-country you'll realise that BTS have accurately modelled the fatigue. And you tend to zigzag a lot as you usually can see sweet FA. You often find your helmet brim on the ridge of your nose when you look up as the helmet's neck cover/protection is digs into your shoulders and wont go back any further. Therefore having panicking and broken sections/squads crawl round in circles seems a little lest unreasonable to me than to some of you. Crawling back into the kill zone/beaten area is something I think we all agree needs tweaking. The CMII engine will be splendid if infantry use dead-ground for cover (i.e. breaking LOS as mention in a post above) rather than hauling arse to "better cover" when they encounter a heavy contact.