Sailor Malan2
-
Posts
303 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Sailor Malan2
-
-
For HMGs, as in real life, swinging sounds fun and effective, but in fact is rather more practiced in fiction than fact!
MG42 rof =1200/min, or 20/s.
If firing at a visible target you need to aim, or you are unlikely to hit at above point blank. To fire at a group of say 10 men spread out at 10m intervals, 250m away, for full (100%) effect, 1/2s fire needs to cover 100m at 250m range. Using Trig, tan(angle of swing)=1/2.5 so you swing over 22degrees. In half a second. Whilst keeping the gun at the same angle to the vertical, which means you have to either have the mount dead level, or have very steady hands.
Increase the range? same issue at 500m gives 11 degrees. Not going to happen. Thus 'most' of the bullets from an MG42 burst are going to go in the gaps between targets (or, if you don't swing, in to the same person).
Fire a longer burst, and the targets will all drop prone.
For a weapon with 1/2 the rate of fire (600rds/min) you get twice as long to cover the arc... but the targets get longer to drop.
Sustained fire and swinging from an HMG is for suppression/area denial not casualties (barring a turkey shoot).The best use of any HMG in a target rich environment is very rapid aimed short bursts - one every few seconds, as fast as you can re-aim (with a spotter to tell you where a group has stood up again). You do not automatically increase casualties by putting more bullets down range, especially if they are all very close to each other. The HMG increases the chance of a hit per burst above a single shot, but after the first few rounds of the burst, does little else but suppress.
Just my 2p...
-
"the British Army's 100th Company of the Machine Gun Corps fired their ten Vickers guns continuously for twelve hours. Using 100 new barrels, they fired a million rounds without a single failure."
Certainly very impressive. But did they *hit* anybody?
Interesting question, but only in terms of this thread of course. In RL, the question is 'but did it have any tactical effect?' I suggest the answer is probably 'yes- in that no one was going to pass through the beaten zone for 12 hours without losses or severe morale effect... since it sounds like the barrage was at an area behind the lines the biggest effect may well have been on things beyond CM - no ammo resupply, no hot food, no casevac, etc. Things that after 12 hours in combat would have an effect on the front line.
-
But that wasn't his argument, he does not say that no one uses MG42 anymore, but that they kept using maxim-type guns long after they could have switched to MG42 derivatives if they wanted to.
Just what I meant, thank you.
A Maxim is heavier, needs water, is harder (arguably) to emplace due to the water tank etc, was less versatile (couldn't be used as a medium/light), and still remained in service long past the availability of air-cooled rapid fire weapons. Now, this could be something like cost (I doubt it), or reliability, but I suspect that lack of fire power was not a good candidate for the reason!
-
Having read this thread, I am still at a loss about the point the original post was trying to make. I think that the poster wants to suggest that equal firing time with a higher cyclic rate should give more kills in a target rich environment. This is certainly what the discussion assumes, and no contradiction was produced. What he actually said was "The Maxim generates the same firepower per minute like the heavy MG42". I am tempted to say "yes, and...?" Other than he assumption that 'firepower' is synonymous with 'kills' (which it isn't), I am not at all surprised.
JasonC has produced arguments as bullet accuracy etc with which I have no complaints. But I always find an examination of history educational.
- Maxim derived designs (e.g. Vickers) were kept in production until 1968 (more than 20 years after the MG42 could be freely available/copied)
- Slower rate of fire weapons persisted long after all nations could have replaced them (in fact still do)
- whilst some militaries can be a bit dense sometimes, not all of them are stupid all the time.
Thus there has to be at least a possibility that, in the HMG role, Maxim derived designs have certain attractions, and the MG42 is not some sort of uber death ray.
Just my random thoughts
-
Hello together
4.
The trench is in my opinion quite useless. :mad:
Once a 122mm IS-2 tank shell (seem like AP shell and not a HE shell...but even then it was irritating ) had its impact 10-15 meters in front of a trench.
4 guys inside died immediatly ....
Even if we ignore the trench, we should keep in mind that the shrapnells fly not parallel to the soil.
With the trench you only show your head and helmet....nothing else...so why the **** this shell had any effect at this distance?:
If the shells impact were 0-1 meters in front of the trench i would agree with this effect. but not like this.
But i guess i talk about an open wound....foxholes and trenches in the new series never were very useful.
Thanks
I am sorry, but you have a completely wrong impression of the effect of a shell going off. 0-1m from a foxhole or trench would convert the hole and anything in it into a larger hole! Don't forget that the shell arrives at a shallow angle doing several hundred meters per sec. The front wall of the trench will collapse even if the shell doesnt explode. 30m away, this effect is not a problem but you still get splinters and blast. The effect will depend on the nature of the ground, but it is unlikely to 'bury' itself like off-board artillery shells (which arrive at a steeper angle). In a trench you will be fairly safe from splinters unless your head is up. The blast will effect the trench even if you cower in the bottom. Also, large lumps of whatever was in the shell crater rain down on you. 122mm shells are big - 20+kg(40+lbs). Even though a small % of that is HE (c3kg - ref more like 0.2kg from a grenade), it will still hurt. The lethal blast radius of a shell is 10's of meters and the fragments may carry over 100m
-
The other thing that hasn't been pointed out is the issue of proximity of targets attacked to the actual front line (whatever that is in mobile warfare). People have a totally misleading view of where aircraft on CAS attacked (from e.g. A Bridge too Far or Saving Private Ryan). If you are flying a CAS FB at say 5000' to avoid all the light flak, what is 'below' you. Say 45 degrees down is 'below'. That means that 'below' you is a circle of a mile radius. Thus you can easily be attacking (and would be) something off a CM map... CAS is not a super AT gun, it is not a direct fire weapon. Thus, whatever the stats say about hit effectiveness, this shouldn't be read as applying to a CM battle. If you are a dive bomber at 2 miles up, a mile on the ground is tiny (it subtends the 28deg right underneath you, and less if it is away to the front or sides). Thus the chance of a DB attack on anything smaller than a village (or an aircraft carrier
) in the front lines is tiny (not least because a tank would be difficult to see and impossible to identify).There is a fundamental tension here - some of us (like me) are historical realists and want aircraft so we can (occasionally) recreate battles with them (not too bothered by balance), some are chess players (the power to points ratio of the Panzer VIII Z is 0.00453 less than an infantry squad, so why would you buy one? Some are the KT, 155mm, tactical nuke brigade (why would anyone want to play 1941, the tanks have such silly guns?).
I think CM has already said the realistic implementation of CAS is to have no CAS... I think the current levels sound too effective, although I would accept the reports I have seen if 37mm etc were much more effective at aborting attacks (or rendering them wildly inaccurate).
And please can we have no more use of other games as primary source material? I have invented a game where a 32lb Napoleonic muzzle loader has a CEP of 1.25" at 27 miles and will punch clean through 6 IS2s in a row! But I am not going to use it as reference material...
-
Huge difference between riding to the battle on one, and attacking in battle on one
. Lots of armies would have hitched a lift, but rather less so attack on one. There are accounts of even British squad/platoon commanders standing on the back and consulting/directing armour in combat, but very much the exception.
Even more huge difference in photos. Hint: always work out the enemy view of the photographer... if he is the closest target, and standing up, unlikely to be a combat photo!
-
Cameras. You know that Tigers are endangered these days, and we shouldn't be trying to kill them;)
-
I am completely with the nay sayers here. I think the question is flawed and expects lethality of fire that just isn't realistic. We do not need a target carefully, and it would not be at all realistic.
Unless someone does a Bisley scenario
-
JS3 was only just post war - comparable in date to Pershing, 17pdr Centurion etc. Europe had more than caught up long before Jimmy Carter (105 Centurion, Leopard, Chieftain, etc)
-
I know it is strictly post war, but forget the IS2. Look at the IS3 (JS3)! You will see why the Allied tank designers had a shock...
-
I missed the smiley in the title to start and was About to post that it must be spring, as the trolls are coming out of hibernation
-
... I often forget to Right Click to release command of a unit before clicking on the next unit. Why? because clicking on another unit should automatically release the previous unit. Xept it don't. You get a new waypoint instead.
I would not want to see anything changed, because why should everybody else have to get used to a new release method for me. But it sure would be sweet to have a new option in customization setup menu to have release on next unit selection yes/no, or right click to release unit yes/no.
How would I move a unit to the same spot as another, if pointing at a unit released the first one rather than placed a way point? I do the unit shuffle quite a lot...
-
I am going to get CMRT, but my first love s the West... looking forwards to engine upgrades there
. What would the hit decal look like for a real gun? 14" direct hit anyone.Although thinking about it, I suspect we might not get that one. Less of an add on graphic to the basic model, and more of replacing the model with a few new doodads!
-
"To the best of my knowledge..." MikeyD, this is weird... You are a beta tester, and you're saying you don't really know how the game works?
How engineers function and what are the effect of marking mines is is something that should be a cut and dried rule and in the manual. In RL, one would know what one's engineers are capable of. Surely somebody at BF can definitively explain these sorts of important gameplay features once and for all?
Having Beta tested on another game, not all testers test all features... unless you have infinite time. Just because 1 tester hasn't systematically tested mines let's not get over excited. The answers given seem to address the issue. It's not like we are talking about something basic like the 'target' command...
-
Anyone see the new BMW technology they announced today?
This sounds like the makings of the next breaktrhough in total immersion home computing. Wonder if it can simulate enough g to replicate AP hitting your front armour;)
-
Yep, classic example of an 'improvement' that would cost X pounds/hours/hairpulling episodes from BTS, and give (say) 50% of purchasers 0.001X cool moments and cause 2 extra people to buy the game! If there is to be any effort spent I have a little list of things I want first
-
I respectfully disagree. It works, but you are peeling men from squads to tend to wounded or have to leave a squad in place while they tend to wounded instead of using them to fight. Having dedicated medics would free the troops up to fight. That's one of the reasons medics were on the battlefields in WWII, isn't it?
I bags I don't serve in your army! You want to list the number of times that commanders have told troops to leave their wounded and then been surprised that they are ignored? IMHO. it is gamey and unrealistic to think that troops routinely leave wounded without at least some check on how bad he is, and attempting to help. Unless they are literally sprinting across a gap under fire, most troops would try to help. Working round that is part of the game...
-
As was said, as soon as the gun stops moving the gunner has finished aiming! In the assumption here, the gunner gets on for line, (and in most WW2 sights) estimates range, elevates accordingly. As soon as the right marking on his graticule is resting on the target, he has nothing else to do but fire. What is he meant to be doing once elevated on to correct range? Take a picture? Ask the TC what he had for breakfast? He needs to get the first shot off, and at most reasonable engagement ranges, elevation isn't that critical anyway (unless you are firing a 'doorknocker' at a Char B1Bis and need to hit the engine grill!
-
I guess it´s not easy to fix (really old issue)
An autosave option could be helpful, however not a solution. Perhaps doors can be modded Admittedly I haven't done a huge amount of urban fighting in CM, but the doors issue is not a big deal for me. When your troops suddenly find they can't get in a door, I rationalise this as perfectly normal. If the building is damaged, maybe something fell across it. If pristine maybe the owner took precautions and pushed a dresser across the door and left via the window (in the vain hope they might come back without their house having been fought through). Unless a unit had been fighting in the same part of town for a day or more, you think they know where every door is? Let alone which ones are open/damaged/usable? If you are doing 'real' urban fighting (as opposed to advance to contact type stuff), you don't use doors on the whole anyway - blast though a wall (either with engineers or large HE). And any defender that's been there for more than a few hours will have loopholed the walls anyway...
As someone said, the major issue with CM is that people 'expect' stuff to happen in certain ways (WW2 as seen in the movies etc), and then are surprised when it doesn't. See what the engine does then analyse it, and often it is perfectly valid, just not what you assumed would happen.
Also, just a quick thought - when I first started I was getting massacred by the AI because I used my Squad Leader experience, assuming 1 min (WEGO) was about a turn, so fire on target for one turn (with the sort of firepower that will cause a MC in SL), rush a squad out to close, get massacred, rinse and repeat! You need to be a whole lot more patient... Spending 2-3 mins just watching and suppressing is rarely time wasted. Lots of people move too fast and get shot correspondingly fast.... (hence disparate kill rates vs AI)
-
So... in RT the player can examine, in media res, the damage inflicted on his own vehicles. Using vector analysis can he not make an informed estimate of the source and angle of the AT shot? Certainly a possibility in any engagement- theoretically. In reality, the heat and chaos of an actual battle would seem to render this kind of on the fly calculus far fetched.
Debate.
What you going to do with the answer?... you can watch the video, do trig, debate the sine of the impact angle, but in reality you still have a penetrating AT weapon with a bead on you... In those situations I pop smoke or back up... knowing where the threat is is secondary. And the hit location text gives pretty much the same info... or were you joking?
-
'General Discussion Forum
Off-topic posts go here! (NO POLITICS, NO COMMERCIAL LINKS, NO SPAM)'
From the BFC top level forums... As I said, this thread should go here. If the OT topic doesn't go here due to politics, it doesn't belong anywhere.
Personally I think it is in severe danger of crossing a line... hence '...and needs a warning prior to lock...'
-
although not so funny, when you think about it...
-
Wow, those indents didn't work at all. Sorry about that.
you didn't switch them on (only off). The format is
'{INDENT} text to indent {/INDENT}', but with {} replaced by [].
like this
) in the front lines is tiny (not least because a tank would be difficult to see and impossible to identify).
An autosave option could be helpful, however not a solution. Perhaps doors can be modded 
Test range: The Maxim generates the similar firepower per minute like the heavy MG42
in Combat Mission Red Thunder
Posted
And therein lies your problem. I do not see an issue with that... it is pretty much what they are (in fact, in the case of the MG42, exactly what they are).
HMGs have never been some scifi death ray...
Your first post cites 6-8000 rounds (c1000-1250 rounds per gun) to take out 600 men (100 per gun, c10 casualties per minute per gun)
So HMGs do not cause casualties?