comparing US vs. german infantry

[LukeFF]

I wonder if the perceived ineffectiveness of the MG34/42 has anything to do with the fact that the AI will often fire it like an assault rifle instead of with the bipod deployed?

[poesel]

I forgot to include the link to the scenarios:

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/8811801/Schiesstand%20v1_v15.zip

@akd: good to hear, better to have!

@Wreck: when I set them up I oriented them straight down the range but theres still some randomness in the positioning. Which is good IMHO since else our battlefield would look like parade grounds. So the US shots come a bit from the left but it still feels wrong that they do not spot the US faster at this distance.

[flamingknives]

I wonder if part of what is being seen here may also be down to the Germans having their firepower all in one lump - the MG42. While the MG42 is up and running, there is plenty of firepower - if it goes down for whatever reason, such as being suppressed, injured, barrel change etc. - then that's a big chunk of your firepower gone.

The US team, with their BARs and semi-automatic rifles, tend to have their firepower split up across the squad (and three action spots) so it is more difficult to reduce it in such a dramatic way.

Now where this model deviates from observations on reality (specifically S.L.A. Marshall and Lt. Col. Wignam) is the assumption that every man in a rifle squad is up and firing as much as those on the special weapons, but then this test is quite artificial anyway.

[Mad Mike]

I wonder if part of what is being seen here may also be down to the Germans having their firepower all in one lump - the MG42. While the MG42 is up and running, there is plenty of firepower - if it goes down for whatever reason, such as being suppressed, injured, barrel change etc. - then that's a big chunk of your firepower gone.

Yeah, that would be true in reality, but in CMBN it doesn't matter so much because the MG42 is hugely undermodeled in it's firing characteristics anyway .. it shoots more like an assault rifle then a Machine Gun. Mind you, the same is also true for US Machine Guns.

Also, the tendency for the MG42 to be shot from the shoulder (again, just like a rifle) has already been noted. Realistically, this gives very bad results by spraying fire all over the map (so, good modelling in CMBN). Unrealistically, it is employed much too often in this way by the german squads in CMBN, who don't seem to understand that the MG42 LMG has to be deployed on its bipod to give good results.

Maybe it is a limitation of the engine, not allowing the proper deployment of squad operated weapons.

But if the ability of the M1 Garand to not have to re-cock the rifle between a number of shots is advocated, surely it must be even better to have a MG with a 50 bullet belt ( or even extended ones, 100 to 150 bullets, which was easily doable) to put down this volume of fire into an AP or two.

[Bigduke6]

I suspect another factor in perceived MG weakness is, engagement ranges are short, which is a function more of the scenarios (bocage) not the game engine. If the field is 500 m. not 250m. across Joe will have a lot more trouble gaining fire superiority over Fritz.

Here's an idea: an area fire order for MGs that trades increased ammo expenditure for increased supression inflicted. We already have area fire "light" so I'd guess area fire "heavy" wouldn't be too hard to implement.

[Vark]

I can't help wonder why the US army specifically made a training film about the effectiveness of the MG-42, though the US MMG was shown to be superior, naturally! All the accounts I have read and heard, first hand, suggest the Allied soldiers were very respectful of the German MG's and getting involved in a one on one fire fight was not advised, outnumbering and out gunning were the rule of the day. In CMBN a US squad seems to be acting unrealistically, unless fellow CMers can come across actual combat accounts of US squads winning 1:1 firefights regularly.

[RockinHarry]

I can't help wonder why the US army specifically made a training film about the effectiveness of the MG-42, though the US MMG was shown to be superior, naturally! All the accounts I have read and heard, first hand, suggest the Allied soldiers were very respectful of the German MG's and getting involved in a one on one fire fight was not advised, outnumbering and out gunning were the rule of the day. In CMBN a US squad seems to be acting unrealistically, unless fellow CMers can come across actual combat accounts of US squads winning 1:1 firefights regularly.

Do you mean THAT training film, that compares a bipod MG42 vs. 30cal tripod?

[LongLeftFlank]

Ran a test with 2 Regular US Infantry squads + PlHQ (about 28 men) tasked with attacking into and across a 130 x 110m wide high bocage field defended by 7 Veteran Germans -- a LMG team, sniper team and 81mm spotter unit stoutly dug into foxholes in low bocage segments + heavy forest. The Amis all begin lined up behind the bocage with LOS to the Huns. Shooting starts within moments even though the Germans are hidden in good cover terrain (BFC please fix or sumfink! )

I am heartened to say that in each of 5 plays the Yanks got their butts handed to them. While they seemed to gain fire superiority and suppress German fire initially they didn't inflict casualties much so that either (a) after about 10-12 min the mortars ranged in and game over or ( a squad advanced through the one entrance and was then pinned and gunned down or mortared to death in the field by the unsuppressed enemy. On one occasion 3 GIs close assaulted the LMG and silenced it but were then too weakened to move down the row and take out the spotters. On another occasion 3 guys got to the opposite edge and ate a potato masher. So the game seems to be delivering "reasonable" (IMHO) results -- 4 to 1 odds doesn't suffice in this fiendish ground.

Relevant to the earlier discussion on MG42 effectiveness. mortars aside (they were included to place a realistic time limit on the Yanks), the availability or absence (pinned or KO) of the LMG didn't seem to matter much to German firepower (or the failure of the US to break the defence)

[Georgie]

The MG42 can only aim at one action spot at a time at close range.It has to be moved to engage a different action spot which will involve extra movement to get the bi pod seated in a new position. The other option for the MG42 is to fire at a single action spot till the Americans in this action spot are suppressed but this will allow the other two American teams to ignore the bolt action equipped Germans and concentrate on the MG42. I wonder if this is modeled in CMBN?

[Vark]

Do you mean THAT training film, that compares a bipod MG42 vs. 30cal tripod?

They actually had an MG-34 versus bipod 30 cal and tripod mounted MG-42 versus tripod 1917 Browning. Still it is so laughably skewed that it shows just how worried the US were about the firepower and morale effects of the German automatic weapons. As I said originally, why bother making such a film if the German squad was such a pushover?