Killkess
-
Posts
166 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Killkess
-
-
If the gunner panics, with a 1400rpm fire rate, the mg42 will very easily melt the barrel from over firing. As will any air cooled MG.
"IRL", as you say, barrels DO melt. Just not from two or three 10 round bursts.
From my pov, if the barrel would begin to melt, i think the bullet will get stuck somewhere in the barrel and all pressure goes back into the champer. This would almost certainly destroy the whole mechanism, maybe even wounding the operator and as a result u dont have to change the barrel at all.
Before melting shouldnt the barrel first begin to loose its straighness and capability to withstand the pressures involved?
-
Generally speaking, yes. If anyone is having a different experience, I'd like to hear about it, there is always the possibility I'm doing something wrong.
Do u speak about that test with the height advantage and TRPs?
If not, look at my vids again, a SQUAD (which is split into teams) is enough to take care of the HMG. A whole Platoon has no problem overcoming the position.
-
Generally speaking, yes. If anyone is having a different experience, I'd like to hear about it, there is always the possibility I'm doing something wrong.
Do u speak about that test with the height advantage and TRPs?
If not, look at my vids, a SQUAD (which is split into teams) is enough to take care of the HMG. A whole Platoon has no problem overcoming the position.
Or do we mess up Squads/Platoon?
-
How are tripod MGs aimed? A left-right and up-down knob or tapping it around or what?
That largely depends on the tripod but generaly speaking they had knobs for finer adjustments. While i dont have much knowledge about the allied tripods i was always under the impression that they were not as elaborated as the german once.
But if you replace the squad with a platoon, split the platoon into a bunch of teams, and give the teams a bunch of short diagonal fast orders and apply maximum suppressive fire, the platoon wins.In the tests i´ve made (without height advantage and without TRPs) a platoon was virtualy always capable to overcome a HMG. Since the HMG cant effectively even pinn a single squad reliably u have always at least 2 functional elements for firing or moving. I see no need to split into teams, albeit the poster has not shared the testscenario.
-
WHEN A BARREL MELTED FROM FIRING, they could change it quickly and get the gun back in action...
The barrel is to be changed regularly before melting point. :eek:
I think desires along the lines of eviscerating entire squads inside a minute at 500m are somewhat overblownAnd noone asked for this.... "but "normal" troops should be hitting the dirt, and they simply don't." There u are.
@ PaperT
Pls look in your PM folder
-
It might only be my pov but the whole CM-series is not about balancing units against each other. How u want to balance a Italien unit comparable to a US one? There will always be differences in firepower/manpower/equipment between the units and it is the goal of BFC to simulate the advantages and shortcoming of it.
And if the game dont treat HMG and LMG differently that would be a design failure since their tactical use is very different.
-
I recognized that you were not suggesting that Mgs do work fine.
But still: "That MGs produce about the expected number of casualties is just an accident."
I dont agree on this one. They might produce the expected numbers of casualties under certain very unfavorable conditions for HMG deployment (short range, much cover/concealment). In many other circumstance they simply dont. And looking at FI or even Easter Front these favorable conditions will become much more common compared to fighting in confined spaces of hedgerow country.
-
When you put everything together and play a normal game, MGs are about as lethal as you'd expect them to be.
Again, this largely depends on the terrain and on which reactions on the receiving end we talk about. In reality it was impossible to charge right into MG positions across open ground as we see in CM2. Those attacks would either have been called off or faltered due to supression, if not enough cover/concealment is available, or one would have to call for support fire from heavier weapons. So in reality the cassualty numbers were lower because, as i see it, it was not SOP to charge a HMG position with a squad or with a three man team. So comparing RL numbers with the numbers we get from "unrealistic" actions within the game is problematic at least.
Therefore we find that these troops running in the open take very few hits from MGs and so the MG's kill ratio is about right when compared to history even if their historical ability to intimidate and suppress is not.Yes, the ratio cassualies vs.time might be in the realistic ballpark. But like i said cassualties vs. crossed distance, distance crossed over time and cassualties vs type of movement is way way off.
-
Which scale did u think about?
Do u have a Dropbox account?
-
Pardon,what do u mean?
-
Ah ... generally well set up MGs on tripods usually have the muzzle/barrel barely above ground level.
But those will also be very hard to hit compared to the CM2 HMG setup.
-
- No optics, no pre-ranged knowledge, no binos, no tripod, plenty of dust.
Just for the record... with the height of the "Rücklauflafette" as portrayed in CM2 u will not have much dust kick off from the ground. And what do u think, how much easier would your training have been if u had a 4x scope (which effectively let u see the same target as if it was only 200 meters away), with a steady platform and precise range/aiming controll?
I dont see much sense to compare LMG and HMG experiences if it comes to long range shooting.
-
Was any consensus ever achieved regarding machine guns in CM deliberately spraying around infantry instead of aiming at them, as demonstrated in the OP?
Nope, that argument was dropped quit quickly.
@c3k
As BFC simulates that hitting a small jeep at 1000 meters is not a big problem, hitting the area a whole platoon/squad takes shouldnt be much of a problem either. Do u realy have problems spotting 10 or more than 30 people at 1000 meters with youre own eyes running across flat ground? The magnification of the optics is 4X or 6X if remember correctly. While aiming/hitting individuals might not be to easy hitting the area should be quiet easy. I am not a ballistics expert but how much the bullet climbs and drops at 1000?
One of my points in the OP was that it looks like the gunner doesnt correct its shots. Basicly each burst have the same low chance to hit. So even if you miss, in reality u would try to correct you shot placement. The shot pattern should be visible for the gunner due to the tracers used. It looks like this never happens as the chance of hitting doesnt increase with ammount of bursts fired.
-
CM MGs are killing about the right number of people.
The question of this statement is the "base" of the killing ratio you look at. While the ratio killed people vs time might be (under the described tactical circumstances i dont agree) alright what is simply way off is the ratio killed people vs. crossed distance or killed people vs movement type or crossed distance vs. time.
And yes i think JasonC is right that we speak about different tactical situations. If the platoon has reasonable cover/concealment to close the distance within lets say 250-200m i think a platoon has enough organic firepower to take care of a single mg. But as JasonC already noted covered terrain is not the tactical situation ideal for HMGs and I would not expect it be overly effective. But this is exactly about the situation where the HMG have every trump in its hand, much ammo, high rof, tripod for area firing and in case of german troops good optics. And we dont talk abut that HMGs are not capable of stopping a platoon, we talk about that it is usually not beeing able to stop a squad or even a three man team.
If we look at open terrain, like we often see in FI or which we will see most of the time on the eastern front, i have even stronger doubts about the current behaviour.
And no, sorry, you did the statement that a HMG in the described situation is a minor tactical problem for a platoon. Trying to flip sides by wanting me to proof otherwise is a bit cheap and i will not do.
-
Sorry that i have to ask again: What are your sources for this statements?
-
A single HMG is a minor tactical problem, and as a rule of thumb shouldn't really require anything more than a platoon to take down.
I am keen to read any evidence/anectode for your personal point of view in this case. What I´ve read, as most other most likely have, suggest something very different.
Originally Posted by JonS View Post
Your latest test, Apocal, seems to be getting further into the combined arms mindet - you have the HMGs using entrenchments, TRPs, and elevation. And, quelle surprise, your HMG is getting better results.
And i would also be eager to hear what TRPs, elevation and entrenchments have to do with combined arms.
-
BFC responds to "Here is a cited example of how a single machinegun worked." And then another, and another, and another. When the body of EVIDENCE proves that they got it wrong, they will fix it.
What else do u want me to do? I´ve posted screenshots, videos, my testing scenarios. I cant realy see what is missing in regard to this specific issue. A statistic analysis?
I dont think that something like that is neccesary because what we speak about is not an outlier outcome of the event but the average/normal one.
Everyone can fire up CM2 and do the test with very little effort and get instant results.
And i advocate that comparing CM2 with different games does tell us something... It tells us that every game (at least those i played in the past 20 years) simulates the same situation dramatically different than
what we see in CM2... including BFC´s own predecessors. Its also very different to what i´ve read about WWII tactics.
I am not interested in why it is the way it is, i dont care about how they technically try to simulate something i want feasible/believable and to some extend consistent results. That is the benchmark i set to a game which tries to simulate/advertise realistic tactical gameplay in WWII: "Combat Mission: Battle for Normandy (CM:BN) faithfully recreates the experience of tactical land warfare in Western France during World War Two."
-
Glad to see the thread came up again... Still no response from BFC? What a shame!
JasonC, since the HMG in your test is able to hold a whole platoon at bay it is a multitude more "effective" than what we see in CM2. Thx for your effort.
-
Ok, done another quick test. If given a target command MP40s will open at at 300Meters. The moment my men began to target the enemy was at 315m, the first shots at 300. And no, the MP40s dont have to be innefective at those ranges:
First cassualty happens at 250m, the second at 200 and the third at 190m. After the last hit the enemy hit the deck and got pinned. Heck, they seem more effective than what i´ve seen in the HMG tests
-
I actually don't mind too much if SMGs open up at longer ranges when the team is given a Target order by the player -- to me, this signifies a situation where a team is ordered to go "all out" against that particular target (or area), using any and all weapons that might have an effect, even if said effect is marginal.
The main reason for giving target orders, at least for me, is that A) when a unit sees multiple targets i want to target priority/important targets.. the AI dont do a realy good job at this regardless of range
even rifles and stuff will use more firepower if u give a target order so if u dont, u are wasting available firepower.Both ends in the situation that the SMGs waste their ammo at ranges well out of their effective envelop. It´s kinda funny that we had a discussion (a couple of weeks ago) about if HMGs should or should not be effective beyond 300-400m, now we have a discussion where people say shooting a SMG at 250?
-
Okay good points, I'll see if this has been raised as an issue with the team.
IIRC this issue has been raised many many times starting with CMN 1.0.
If one gives a fire command for a squad the smgs will open up until 250-270m.
-
Killkess,
I believe there's an overlooked explanation for the IV's spotting advantage while buttoned--the cupola.
Yes, i was referring to the cupola and/or the quality of the observation prisms. To be honest I A) didnt know the english term
didnt know that the Sherman only got something equal later. Do you know when exactly?Keeping this in mind i tend to say that the only valid test for the gunner-optics advantage would be to compare the numbers for unbuttoned tanks. (to eliminate the effect of better spotting from cupola) The result for unbuttoned tanks strongly suggests that there is no big difference in gunner optics between IV and M4 in CM2.
-
My test with buttoned tanks shows that when vehicle optics are the only means of spotting, the Pz IV dominates. The anecdotal evidence I have seen suggests that the Allied tanker's primary issue with Pz IV at long range isn't a lack of ability to destroy them, it was the difficulty in seeing them. There are several reasons why.
....
2) Tank optics. This is modeled in CM with regard to spotting although it doesn't seem to have any effect on accuracy as it probably should.
From my perspective the outcome, that the buttoned IV spots better than the M4, doesnt mean the IV has a advantage in gunner-optics. For me it seems like the advantage comes from better observation devices for general spotting. An advantage in gunner-optics should clearly be reflected via a better accuracy for long range shooting, for this it should make no difference if the commander hatch is closed or open.
-
Considering that people are still waiting for the Barbed Wire fix to make its appearance for the CMBN module, I can understand why folks would be a bit disappointed that something didn't get fixed in the first patch. It might be months before there is a second CMFI patch and so I understand your frustration.
What would surely ease the frustration would be a statement by BFC including what they think about this specific issue, about what might be done about it and how long it might take. So far BFC had not responded to this important thread at all.
even rifles and stuff will use more firepower if u give a target order so if u dont, u are wasting available firepower.
accuracy/efficiency of machine gun fire
in Combat Mission Fortress Italy
Posted
I just want to come back to this point because it may also be relevant for the HE argument which started lately in this thread.
I guess one can not argue if artillery caused more cassualties compared to small arms fire or not. But what i want to point out is that this was not the case because artillery was that much more lethal. Due to the lethality of small arms the once target rich battlefield changed into a mostly empty one. The enemy soldiers used extensive cover and or concealment to protect themselfs against the modern hazards.
The only mean, with which the enemy was still reachable, is by indirect fire. And thats is one of the reasons why u will find more cassualties to artillery/mortar... the average grunt doenst expose himself to direct small arms fire very often, but can´t avoid inderect fire to the same degree.
And this leads to the conclusion that comparing average RL statistics to "exceptional situation" like storming a HMG headon isnt very usefull.