Wartgamer
-
Posts
939 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Never
Posts posted by Wartgamer
-
-
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.
Yes, belt fed weapons. And this supports exactly what I have been saying.
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.
Yes, funny how the enemy won't cooperate with some of the silly suggestions that have been proposed here. Also, the German tracer ammo did not light off immediately, thereby not showing exactly where it came from.
Also, water cooled MGs are just mortar magnets. No one is just going to let a stationary weapon operate unhindered.
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).
Yes, it was a silly TO&E. And having just a platoon of belt fed weapons for a Battalion was very light.
-
The US air cooled 30 cal was just advancing the idea of a belt fed tripod weapon. It only did this with a heavy barrel by the way (and lowering the cyclic rate also). The US was locked into a bullet design, and weapons had to evolve around it.Originally posted by YankeeDog:I don't think this as an issue that can be quantitatively proven. MG42s and Brens (or BAs or DPs, for that matter) didn't duke it out in isolation anywhere. They were used in concert with other weapons, by armies with different doctrines, with different supply and logistics situations, etc. Separating out the intrinsic value of the weapons from the overall environment is probably impossible.
And I'm not sure comparisons to modern TOE are really valid, because, as noted, doctrine & related equipment have changed. For the big industrialized nations, modern small arms infantry equipment and doctrine is mostly focused on a very fast, highly mobile sub-300m firefight. This was already largely true in WWII, but dramatic advances in, for example, Artillery and Air Support accuracy & response time have made it even more true today.
Nevertheless, personally I find it very hard to believe that, in totem, the Wehrmacht wasn't better off with their MG34s & 42s than the CW was with their Brens.
IOW, in some hypothetical wargame where I control the weapons development and purchasing of a WWII combatant nation, given the choice between developing along the MG34/42 line, or developing along the Bren line, I would definitely choose the former.
To my mind, it's just too important to have a lightweight, air-cooled, belt-fed MG for firepower at the company and platoon level. Indeed, the lack of such an MG is IMHO the biggest weakness in the WWII commonwealth kit. The Amis are a bit better off with the M1919A4, but it's still far inferior to the MG42.
However, this doesn't necessarily mean I think the MG34/42 was the best SAW of the war. Speaking as a complete armchair soldier, they both seem a bit too heavy, and a bit too ammo-hungry, for a squad-level weapon.
So, hypothetically, if you gave me a option of using *both* the Bren *and* the MG42 in my TOE, I would probably put the MG42s as a Platoon or Company-level support weapon (either 1-2/platoon, or 2-6/company), and the Brens as my SAWs. IMHO, this gives me the best of both worlds -- a light, mobile automatic weapon with my maneuver-element squads, but with the backing of a belt-fed, but still reasonably mobile weapon close behind.
Interesting to note that, the Germans actually could have done exactly this, since, as noted, the Bren was basically a copy of a Czech design which they certainly had access to.
In summary, IMHO, Bren wins as best SAW for best balance of firepower & mobility (until assault-weapon caliber SAWs come along). MG42 wins as best Company and Platoon-level GPMG. But since I also think the MG42 does a better job of making do as a SAW than the Bren does as a GPMG, if I have to choose one or the other, I take the MG42.
I've often wondered myself why the CW stuck with the Vickers for so long. I definitely think the water-cooled Vickers were dinosaurs by 1939. There's a reason no-one uses water-cooled MGs anymore. Anything a water-cooled MG can do direct fire, an air-cooled MG with a QC Barrel can do nearly as well, and the air-cooled weapon is lighter and more flexible. Anything water-cooled MGs can do indirect, light/medium mortars can do just as well, usually better.
But why the CW held on to their Vickers and their rather unique ideas about indirect MG fire, I don't know. The Brits especially were pretty strapped in all areas of weapons procurement and design, and I think infantry small-arms was pretty far down the list in terms of priorites -- weapons systems like tanks and aircraft taking precedence. So this may be a case of doctrine following economic realities -- they may not have had the time or the resources to develop a good air-cooled belt design.
They did have air-cooled .303 MG designs that they were using on aircraft and on AFVs, but I don't know how easily these could have been adapted for ground infantry use. It might have also been possible to license and adapt the Browning M1919A4 to .303 and produce it in lieu of the Vickers. But even just re-tooling factories would have taken time and effort. Besides, IIRC they had considerable numbers of Vickers lying around from WWI -- they were a 'freebie', so to speak.
Cheers,
YD
Charactaristics of the .30-06 Cartridge
As issued in 1906 the rimless cartridge held a 150-grain spitzer, flat-base cupronickel jacketed bullet with 2700 fps muzzle velocity. In 1926, to improve machine gun effective range, the bullet was replaced by a 172-grain 9-degree boattail design with the same 2700 fps at the muzzle, designated the "Ball, caliber 30, M1." The velocity was reduced for a time to 2640 fps, but in 1938, as the gas-operated Garand came into service, the specs returned to the flat-base 150-grain loading, called the "Ball, caliber 30, M2" round. It was the M2 that accounted for most of the ammunition expended in World War II.
The German innovation of a belt fed GPMG (tripod or bipod really) was a leap forward in some ways was in others lacking. As a tripod weapon, it was fearsome. But as a squad LMG (the MG42), it was too much to handle and its appetite for ammo a burden.
The German weapon had a lower velocity and perhaps this allowed a more innovative approach than the US 30 cal. The quick change barrel and multiuse (GPMG) being its highpoints.
The Germans did some rather sophisticated experiments with rates of fire and overheating. They determined that cyclic rate does not matter but actual rounds spent per minute matters.
So a MG34 and a MG42 that both fired a total of 200 rounds (total of all bursts) in one minute would heat up the same (given barrels of identical thickness) even though they had different cyclic rates.
The MG34 to 42 evolution , to me, actually evolved that the MG42 was a 'platoon' MG and better off having 2-3 grouped in a 'weapons' squad with the other squads having assault rifles, etc. but no LMGs.
The US air cooled 30 cal was a company weapon and was much more mobile than any water cooled MG. Taking ground, and holding it, helps when you have a belt fed MG that can keep close to the attacking infantry.
[ March 22, 2005, 02:45 PM: Message edited by: Wartgamer ]
-
Many BREN guns were mounted on the tripods that had the three wheel 'tricycle' setup. The BREN-TRIPODCycle would be rolled down a highway with the trigger depressed by using some yarn. This way, no CW soldiers were endangered.
Several German Panzer Divisions would then surrender along with whatever Corp level artillery and Luftwaffe squadrons that were in the vicinity.
-
I have the Chobham reports for several captured german tanks. They do not list any shear pins or make any mention of them (they have equipment lists). In many tanks, there is not only a primary traversing mechanism, but a backup. There are also take offs so that the commander has an indicator of turret orientation.
All of these would need a shear pin? What about elevation? It also would need a shear pin?
In an electric traverse, its really an electric motor running a gearbox and that is what is rotating the turret. If this stripped (or had a shear pin), you would more than likely just replace the whole gear-motor.
Many tanks mention a turret lock and elevation lock mechanism. The turret is rotated forward and a pin is put in place.
If nothing else, a large jolt can screw up the precision setting of the weapon or throw the gyrostabilizer off. tanks have to be careful where they go. Getting stuck or even tipped over (shermans) negates the tank for the rest of the battle.
In Italy, three Tigers were lost through basements. I forget where I read that.
-
I have read that Rocking BREN gunners could put indirect fire into German trenches while using advancing fire. They took Berlin with screaming foot races firing BRENs at full gallop.
Why have belt fed guns? (shrugs) You would have to carry ammo!
-
Dalem
A pollutant without a country
-
-
Personally, I think the clinching argument in favour of belt-fed weapons is one that one seldom hears, viz. that a hundred rounds of disintegrating link weighs less that a hundred rounds plus the mags to carry them in.
All the best,
John.
Related down-sides is maximum 'ready' ammo is magazine limited. Magazines are bulkier also. Reloading mags during a battle being more akin to riflemen than a machinegunner. And the interruption of final protective fire by magazine change.
Having a belt fed weapon at company or platoon was the advanced nature of the weapon during and after WWII.
Till the advent of smaller/HV ammo like the 5.56mm, the squad based belt fed MG was a bit of a pig.
Its amazing how this concept can not sink into CW types here.
-
Are you speaking about modern armor or WWII armor?
-
The inclination to any BREN-head is to ignore all arguments and try to steer a conversation towards the squad automatic.
The fact is, the BREN is the squad/platoon/company automatic.
-
BREN guns have now defeated the German Army single handed? How many were issued to the Soviet Army?
-
You do not need a total collapse. You want to flush out the occupants. Rushing the house, firing all MGs all along the way, blasting the house at nearly point blank range, and then taking out a corner of the house will certainly impress the occupants.
-
The lower extremity of the sweeping legs are actually very small (each lower leg diameter) combined with a rapid arc motion. This adds up to very small objects moving through the target areas at very fast speeds.
The thickness of the thigh, and its slower arc motion is much superior. Aiming at the knees means that gravity brings the bullets down. In other words, you could not be worse off trying to cover a front.
For a weapon firing at 2400 feet per second at a 0 degree 'flat' trajectory, and 1 yard off the ground, the effects of gravity will drive the bullets into the ground in less than a 1/2 second. This is only 300 yards or so. Thats where the beaten zone meets earth when firing on a flat terrain.
So the 'sweet' spot around the thighs will only be a certain gap along this grazing fire. Getting the weapon lower and firing at nearly ground level, and using some superelevation, extends the 'graze' and constitutes many heights along the way.
Just using a running crouch (running bent over), defeats many high rounds. Hitting the dirt is not a guaranteed shot to the head. Unless you are unlucky enough to lay down in the beaten zone, its probably a good idea to do this before actually getting into a enemy position that has grazing fire across the front.
An optimal piece of ground to use this on is NOT flat by the way. You would want a nice gentle rise along the grazing fire. Like shooting over a very gentle slope. Guns should graze both ways on either sides of the slope. The reason should be obvious.
[ March 21, 2005, 02:03 PM: Message edited by: Wartgamer ]
-
So I will not be taken out of context, I will quote myself. And explain it for the hard-of-reading.Originally posted by Wartgamer:Yes my thought was, and still is, a belt fed weapon. Not sure why its now a LMG. The US air cooled 30 cals are much lighter than a water cooled weapon or even a tripod MG34 or MG42. The fact that belt fed weapons were being used by advanced armies at squad/platoon/company levels, as organic arms, seems to have been the trend. Seems to have been the trend after the war. Seems to still be a good idea. I guess thats just ignorance on everyones part now according to some people here.
1. Belt fed weapons, post WWII, were not replaced by magazine fed weapons. Live in a fantasy land about 28 round BRENs defeating belt fed weapons but at least realize that post WWII, most armies moved towards GPMGs. And these were belt fed weapons.
2. My argument is that advanced Armies started using belt fed weapons (any type for those especially hard-of-reading) at Company or Platoon or even at the squad level (notably Germany). Most kept 'Heavy' Machine guns at the Battalion level. The US and Germany are good examples of Heavy Weapons Companies within Battalions using a tripod mounted HMG. Some US platoons, the arm inf, used belt fed MGs at the platoon level.
-
An ideal examination of the math might reveal just how powerful a technique this is in reality.
Lets take the example of a man assaulting a position that a HMG is laying down a final protective fire across. The HMG fires 600 RPM. 10 per sec. The man is about 100 yards away, and is modeled as a width of 12 inches. He is moving at 5 mph (rushing) across the MGs front.
The math breaks down to a speed of 88 in/sec for the soldier.
We will take a 'laser' approach and 10 bullets a second are forming a line that he must cross.
Since his width will be in the 'line' for a greater period of time than his speed will allow between bullets, He is virtually guaranteed being 'hit'.
I was told by a math teacher, who served in a MG unit, that they would optimally want to aim about thigh-high. The combination of the two sweeping legs, with one always 'planted' combined to make the odds very bad for anyone rushing a position.
In reality, the bullets spread out due to variations in bullets, weapon vibration. But for 100-200 yards, this is very small for a tripod mounted fast firing gun. The German HMG using a MG42 may have fearsome is properly sited and emplaced (high rate of fire). I have seen these weapons fire (when sand bagged) and they do not jump as much as many think. Likewise, a water cooled gun is 'damped' by its liquid weight and heavy tripod. Japanese wave assaults were cut to pieces by properly used MGs. Aiming was not a factor. The Japanese aimed thier bodies at the 'laser'.
Slow firing guns should be taken into account. Low velocity bullets also decrease the 'graze' range.
-
A tank can do major damage to its traversing gear by just hitting a tree. The turret is traversed by a large ring gear and motor. You can either strip the ring gear or break the motor shaft/gear.
If you want to damage a house, just ram the corner with the gun pointed away. The removal of a load bearing part of the house will cause collapse.
-
I'd call you a whore, but you are far to cheap </font>Originally posted by dalem:</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Berlichtingen:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by dalem:
Email 'em to me sir, and I'll have 'em up tonight.
-
Bullets always obey gravity. To really 'graze' you actually have some superelevation. Hopefully the majority are under the height of advancing enemy. Note: Only stupid people advance at human height. Everyone else advances at a running crouch. Exception: CW.
The 'beaten zone' also includes the amount of bullets ejected up. This can be substantial if the ground yields up these energetical projectiles.
-
PLEASE! lock up any thread that has someone saying "I'm so excited! CMX2 is gonna totally rock!!!!
-
Stopping power, or knockdown, is hotly debated. My own feelings are that a hit by a rifle, any rifle, should absolutely take someone down (not a kill yet but he is badly incapacitated), and result in long term rehabilitation.
I once fired a M1 Carbine (about 30 rounds) and decided not to buy it from someone. Pays to drive before you drive.
I like the way it feels and you could defend a home with it. But at 150 yds it was not too accurate. Its OK around 50-100 yds really. But it was an old weapon. 250 yds? Please. I have very long arms and it just feels too miniature. At 250 yds its like a SMG at 125 yds.
To knock someone down, you need velocity. To rip off limbs, etc; velocity is good. Any bone hit with nearly any weapon (under reasonable range) is a good hit. But HV is the key. I never hunt deer with canonballs. I use a HV rifle.
Given the weight of 45 cal ammo and the weight of the Tommy Gun, I would probably prefer the M1 Carbine. In my opinion, the thompson holds very little advantage except in street fighting or other non-typical battles.
The M1 Garand was used with AP ammo. This has excellent penetration and 'killing' (knockdown) power. So did the 30 cal MGs the US used. The mechanism by which it really induces damage is related to the absorption of energy and the tissue expansion that results. major vessels, nervous system, and other vitals get pinched and destroyed. Men drop like rag dolls if hit in vitals. We are like big gel bags held together with kindling.
The M1 Carbine may have had a better HV round (it was turned down) but it was squelched by the same dummies that thought 45 cal was such a hit. If it had this round, the US would have rapidly had a world beater.
[ March 19, 2005, 06:45 PM: Message edited by: Wartgamer ]
-
Steve - interesting, but what exactly is a 'fighting man'? The Germans had various strength categories (Gefechtsstaerke and Grabenstaerke are probably the two most relevant here), and I am not sure you can compare those easily to US or Soviet, or whatever other countries' figures and concepts. I would be surprised about a 1:1 ratio (unless you talk 1945 doomsday formations). In 1944 you regularly see infantry divisions with very low numbers of 'fighting men', yet still strong in total numbers (the normal ratio seems to have been 1:3 before Bagration, going from memory, depending on how you count). That was a real problem for the Germans. </font>Originally posted by Andreas:</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Battlefront.com:
WWII US Divisions were on the whole quite support heavy in terms of personnel. So if people think that there are too many support guys in US TO&E, they're right
It was something US military planners neer quite got under control during the war.IIRC late war TO&E had the US units 3:1 (three support men for one fighting man), Commonwealth at about 2:1, and Germans pretty close to 1:1 (in theory, in reality they probably were less than 1:1). The late war German TO&E was actually pretty damned close to 1:1, but few units were fully reorganized or raised using the '45 formations. It was also a reflection of the German's defensive posture and limited means (mechanization was quite low, for example).
Steve
-
I could post even more tons of 'dribs'n'drabs' but any reasonable reader at this point gets the idea. Please feel free to not include yourself as a reasonable reader. The point of the thread was the US Infantry company getting modeled in 1:1. The need for CW polluters to be a vocal minority is demonstrated once again.
I suppose until the new Command&Control(&Communications) modeling gets discussed, there is no further point in this besides making another place that CW graffitti gets a venue to vent its frustrations.
-
Well, yeah. He's Lewis, back because nowhere else will tolerate his peculiar mix of objectionability and purported knowledge. He's returned more times that raw broccoli.
These remarks, besides being poorly written, make me wonder; Am I really using 'purported' knowledge? Have I not stated a case and then proceded to develop that case with actual data? Have I not shown just how lacking so called 'peacetime/modern' army 'knowledge' can be? Am I not developing a discussion towards the future of the game (and not wanting it skewed because of lack of actual knowledge or worse, CW jealosy)?
I am not sure how 'objectionability' plays into anything here. You are a miserable lot (many of you). I will say that. Certainly, some feel free to use abusive language and then cry foul later.
And could someone please let me know what the count is on how many people I am suppose to be? Could I also not be Dalem at the same time also? I might actually be someone calling for my own banishment, secretly playing you in an email game, and laughing at your obsessions with posters! Meanwhile, I am wealthy, and enjoy a stress free life.
There are more than a few people that know more about many subjects than many of you. Thats some free advice. Understand it and you will be able to tolerate many things that go on around you better.
-
Is it a 15 round mag? The later M2 had a 30 round?
http://www.gunsandammomag.com/long_guns/m1_carbine/#cont
The weapon's main feature is combination of low weight and good defensive firepower. Its an ideal weapon for patroling or a runner/clerk/cook/etc. I am sure many assistant MG personel carried the weapon considering the loads they had to hump around.
Having close to twice the ready rounds to fire semiautomatically than a M1 Garand, it was certainly a welcome addition.
But at battlefield ranges against an enemy with cover, it would come up short. As has been mentioned, its penetration of cover (or even thick concealment) is lacking. I doubt any US infantry unit carried a majority of these weapons over M1 Garands. Airborne units may have had the most and even had a special model.
But even in the present game, at 250 m, the M1 Garand should outshoot (firepower abstraction) than a M1 Carbine. The M1 Carbine is given 2/3 the firepower of a Garand at 250m? Seems charitible.
Hopefully cmx2 will delve into firepower vs cover.
[ March 19, 2005, 10:16 AM: Message edited by: Wartgamer ]
It was something US military planners neer quite got under control during the war.
Assaulting/Advancing with the Bren LMG
in Combat Mission: Afrika Korps
Posted