HMG range and rate of fire in the game

[Fūrinkazan]

I've been reading threads about indirect fire with hmg and the comparison of allied and germand infantry and i wanted to show the results of a test i did a few weeks ago.

The test map is 250m X 2100m.

5 Hmg in bunker against on company of 125 men all regular with average moral and motivation and command.

Best conditions, no wind clear weather.

Spotting :

Bunker are spotted at 2100 m by infantry.

Hmg spot at about 1500 m for allied and german hmg.

For Lmg 42 they spot at about 1000 m (no binoculars) the Hq spotted at 1300 m

Opening of fire :

800m for hmg 750 m for lmg without order. With order hmg 42 open at 850 m

and 1200 m for us 30 cal.

Rate of fire :

Hmg 42

at 800 m 7 sec between each burst of 7 to 10 bullets :49 to 70 rounds mn

at 600 m 9 bursts : 63 to 90 shots rpm

at 300 m 12 burst : 84 to 120 shots rpm

under 300m you can expect 9 to 12 bursts by mn

Lmg 42

750 m 5 bursts : 35 to 50 rpm

300 m 10 bursts : 70 to 100 rpm

100 m 10 to 12 bursts mn : 120 rpm

US 30 cal

750 m 3 bursts of 4/5 bullets :12 to 15 rpm

550 m 8 bursts : 32 to 40 rpm

300m and less about 10 to 12 bursts mn : 48 to 60 rpm

Results on infantry after 11 mn of battle :

Hmg 42 :27 kia 25 wia about 42% loss infantry is not stopped by hmg

lmg 42 : 12 kia 13 wia 20% loss infantry is not stopped by hmg

US 30 cal : 21 kia 20 wia 42 % loss infantry is not stopped by hmg

Conclusion :

From the German field manual we can see that Germans expected lmg in infantry squads to : shoot with accuracy 50-60 bullets in 8 burst of 5 to 8 rounds in 30 seconds, so 16 bursts mn = 80 to 128 rpm in the game

I think the game represents quiet well lmg fire but not Hmg fire.

While playing i have noticed that the rate of fire of hmg 42 can be of one burst by second : 360 to 600 rmp ... but only under 100 m.

As we can see the rate of fire is linked to distance.

My guess is that mg gunner is aiming at each burst. The longer the distance the longer de delay between each burst ( 7 seconds at 800 m).

The result is a rate of fire to low. In my tests, infantry ran during 11 mn in front of 5 hmg stopped at 100m of the bunkers without pause. The hmg did not have enough suppression effect to stop them. But it's linked to the low rate of fire : the more incoming bullets = the more suppression.

My opinion is that the results for both US and German hmg are not realistic and that Hmg are not well represented in the game. In real life it would be impossible for infantry to run 1200 m in front of hmg like this.

We can compare to mortars : they don't target a particular man but a zone.

if mortars were like hmg the rate of fire would be very low since at each shot they woud have to correct the fire to hit the target.

Hmg should do the same : area fire.

In real life movies i'have seen hmg shooting without pause, moving right to left and the gunner was not aiming a particular target.

It's a problem when you want to stop infantry in the open when defending and when you need support at long range in the attack. 7 seconds between each burst is too long to pin down ennemy infantry at long range and HMg do not play their role in the game.

I'm sorry for this long post, but i think that BFC should really take a look at this. I know that they have a lot of work and that it may be a detail but i think it's important.

For exemple, when they modified the accuracy of tanks on the move, it was for me a great improvement in the game and the same with indestructible trees.

I'm not asking for more accuracy for hmg but a higher rate of fire :

longer bursts (2,3 seconds of firing) and less delay between each burst = more suppression for infantry and infantry pin down.

I know that the game cannot simulate everything, and i'm not asking for that but i think that hmg are not well moddeled in the game and that a little change, and that's possible since hmg can have a very high rate of fire in the game at - 100 m, would improve the simulation and the gaming experience.

[StellarRat]

Someone already did a test nearly exactly like this one and came to the same conclusions when CMBN was first released. I can't remember what BFC said about it. Weird.

[DMS]

In real life it would be impossible for infantry to run 1200 m in front of hmg like this.

Personally I can't see a man at distance 300 m. Did HMGs have optics?

[Karabekian]

Personally I can't see a man at distance 300 m. Did HMGs have optics?

Yes. The Deckungszielgerat fur leMG 34 u 42 was a periscope used in concealed positions (gunner was "below" the weapon).

Other than that there were many variants of sights used with M.G. Lafette (tripod), the MGz40 with MG42, MGz34 with MG34 I believe the most common (also used post war).

These were used in combination with rangefinders etc.

Plenty of information on Google.

[flamingknives]

Personally I can't see a man at distance 300 m. Did HMGs have optics?

Begging your pardon, but being unable to see a man at 300m would imply that you have very poor vision. Scaling back, you would be unable to see a small coin on the ground at your feet, or the front post of a rifle sight.

[ASL Veteran]

Begging your pardon, but being unable to see a man at 300m would imply that you have very poor vision. Scaling back, you would be unable to see a small coin on the ground at your feet, or the front post of a rifle sight.

Let's not exaggerate here. Sure, if a man is standing stock straight and isn't wearing camouflage he can be seen at 300 meters. Modern infantry moving in a tactical manner or staying in cover could be difficult to see without optics at 300 meters though. We have to assume that modern infantry are going to be making an effort to not be seen rather than marching forward in line of battle like the French Imperial Guard at Waterloo. Here is a nice quote from the Artilleriest's Manual of 1839 - 1859

"Good eyesight recognizes masses of troops at 1700 yards: beyond this distance the glitter of arms may be observed. At 1300 yards infantry may be distinguished from cavalry, and the movement of troops may be seens; the horses of cavalry are not, however, quite distinct but that the men are on horseback is clear. A single individual detached from the rest of the corps may be seen at 1000 yards but his head does not appear as a round ball until he has approached up to 700 yards at which distance white crossbelts and white trousers may be seen. At 500 yards the face may be observed as a light colored spot; the head body, arms, and their movements, as well as the uniform and the firelock (when bright barrels) can be made out. At between 200 and 250 yards all parts of the body are clearly visible, the details of the uniform are tolerably clear, and the officers may be distinguished from the men."

[slysniper]

Still a good post, I agree with the fact, that MG's have never been right as to how they impact the battlefield within the game.

I like the concept about how at times they should be more of a area fire weapon, of course we have the ability to assign them area fire, but doubt that would give rthe results he is looking for here.

Also, I dont know about you, but a quicker rate of fire in the game is going to burn through more ammo, which I normally wish I had more than I do, so watching them area fire it at long range targets might not be my favorite way to see them use it.

[Broadsword56]

+1 to better area fire for HMGs. These were such a crucial part of German WWII infantry tactics, and have so much impact on gaining/failing to gain fire superiority, that a better representation of them in CMBN would significantly improve the realism of the whole game.

As for the ammo use -- yes, a higher ROF would burn through more ammo, but that's what was expected and planned for IRL. All the men in a German squad carried lots of ammo for the MGs, and most of their job was either protecting the MGs or helping to "feed the beast." In CMBN it would be a good and realistic challenge if the German player's advantage in ROF were offset by the need to keep more ammo flowing to it and managing the ammo-sharing more consciously.

[Sublime]

this does need to be adressed. I really feel like heavy machine guns emplaced to defend would let off a lot more fire. even with U.S. mgs like the m1917. I also feel the bursts could be randomized, 5 bullets, 8 bullets, 6, 7, etc etc.

[SlowMotion]

In CMBN it would be a good and realistic challenge if the German player's advantage in ROF were offset by the need to keep more ammo flowing to it and managing the ammo-sharing more consciously.

And it would be so much easier to keep this ammo flowing if units could share selected ammo *before* a unit runs out of ammo. If a unit could Acquire ammo from another unit, just like they now can acquire it from vehicles.

[Fūrinkazan]

In CMSF infantry could be posted at 1800 m. I had a sniper who shot a syrian at that distance when i did sniper testing.

In cmbn binoculars give you about 500 m advantage.

Lmg without optics spot less than 1000 m and hq with binoculars 1500 m.

for area target : i tested it by shooting behind the infantry. The rate of fire is the same and you don't get better results.

If a HMG has a theoric rate of fire of 1200 1600 rpm in the game we can have in average 12 bursts of 7 to 10 rounds in 1 mn = 120 rpm. This means that Hmg are limited to 10 % of their capabilities.

At first i thought it was a game engine limitation but i played a scenario were a hmg 42 was on the flank of a group. At less than 100 m the gunner started to shot about 1 burst by second at the group was destroyed in a few seconds.

So i think the game can allow a higher fire rate for Hmgs.

We don't have hmgs but lmg with more men and ammos.

The effective range of the weapons can be up to 1000m and the range about 2000 m for Hmg. At that distance i guess that they don't target but just fire in the direction of the ennemy at the level of the belly of the soldiers.

I still think that running in front of 5 hmgs and even one during 1000 m without cover smoke or support in the best conditions is a suicide.

[flamingknives]

Bear in mind that 1200rpm is cyclic rate. If you fired at that rate you would burn out the rifling in very short order and cause all manner of overheat jams.

Practical rates of fire are in the order of 100-200 rpm.

[Broadsword56]

Balkoski writes: "An MG 42 in battle would typically expend 3,000 rounds per day."

[Echo]

The trouble with HMG area fire, and direct fire in general, is that there is no bullet dispersion. A 6-10 round burst in the game results in a laser like stream, with all the bullets hitting a single point.

The mgs could be single shot, and you would get the same results in game. No real advantage to firing a burst at all.

[DMS]

Begging your pardon, but being unable to see a man at 300m would imply that you have very poor vision. Scaling back, you would be unable to see a small coin on the ground at your feet, or the front post of a rifle sight.

Yes, man at 300 m equals 6.5 mils ~ small coin at the ground. But we should consider camouflage and other factors. OK, may be I have poor vision, but 600- 1200 m distance without optics is not real even for 100% vision IMHO. If there were optics on most HMGs, this is another question.

[Fūrinkazan]

During WW British Army used vickers to avoid a counter attack of german infantry. 10 machine guns shot during 12 hours without pause except for ammo and changing the cooling water and changing the barrel every hour. They shot a little less than 1 million cartridges and only two mgs had mechanical problems.

No German soldier was able to pass on the zone defended by the Hmg.

I'm not expecting HMG42 to shoot 1200 rmp.

I'm posting because :

I have seen real life movies of combat in Normandy and East front that show Hmgs shooting long bursts (2 3 seconds) without pause.

I don't think that the result of my test are realistic.

The questions are :

- do you think that an infantry company can move on open ground, without cover and without stopping in front of 5 hmgs in bunker and stop at less than 100 m of the german positions ? (I played my test in hotseat and gave only one moving order to the infantry company in all my tests)

-Do you think that it would take 7 seconds or more between each burst in real life when ennemy is attacking in open ground ?

- do you think that bursts should be limited to 10 cartridges ?

I think this behaviour is more for Lmgs that you find in german squads or the bar or bren for the allied.

The game allows higher rate of fire but only at less than 100 m (1 burst/second). So my opinion is that if this rate of fire was applied at longer range (800 m for exemple) we would have a better simulation of Hmgs.

Lmgs would keep the same rate of fire, which is correct compare to German field manual.

For spotting :

In my exemple the infantry is on the open and the hmgs open fire between 1200 to 850 m. At that distance they don't target a man but shoot in the mass of infantry. And Hmg 34/42 had optics.

For dispersion of bullets : in real life movies you can see the barrel of the hmg42 going right and left during the 4 seconds burst. the gunner is not watching were the bullets are going. (the scene was cut and i don't know if the burst was longer). How many bullets did he shoot in 4 seconds ?

I have seen the same thing with japanese french american and british Hmgs

in those movies. much longer burst than we see in the game.

Last question : don't you think that there is not enough difference in the rate of fire between Hmgs and lmgs ?

During my testing, at the same distance, you can expect the same number of bursts and bullets from an hmg42 and a lmg 42.

[RockinHarry]

I´d assume the game can´t handle large volumes of fire per "actions thread", a presumably fixed time segment within the game code, that can handle only so many "actions", to allow the game running smoothly and with high FPS. I see more of an issue with RT play, but any such limitations should be removed for WEGO.

A "typical" situation for a "typical" german HMG unit: A platoon (or section of 2) of 4 x HMG42 = "typical" tactical fire unit.

Platoon commander: Assign target, range, depth and width dispersion (tripod setting), number of ammo for the units "fire task" = measured in BELTS (of 50 to 100 rounds or more).

Gunner does tripod, optics setting. Loader prepares ammo belt(s).

Leader "Feuer Frei" (free fire).

The whole HMG unit now does a fire concentration ("Feueruberfall") on designated target.

If tactical ammo unit was...say...a belt of 50 rounds on target, then the whole HMG42 platoon (4 guns) would expend 200 rounds in 2 1/2 seconds.

If it was a good "mass target" (advancing russian infantry waves), the "ammo unit" could well be 100 round belts and width/depth dispersion tripod setting somewhat altered, the 4 x HMG42 would blaze away with 400 rounds in about 5 seconds and so on.

If the fire task (destroy, suppress) wasn´t successfull, it would likely be repeated, or target switched. A unit that does not expect an immediate fire task, would either keep watching, OR dive to full cover.

That´s what you have to derive any other tactical situation from.

[YankeeDog]

The trouble with HMG area fire, and direct fire in general, is that there is no bullet dispersion. A 6-10 round burst in the game results in a laser like stream, with all the bullets hitting a single point.

The mgs could be single shot, and you would get the same results in game. No real advantage to firing a burst at all.

While I absolutely agree with the OP and many others' opinion on this thread that the capability of HMGs on a full tripod mount vs. bipod LMGs needs to be examined, let's not wax hyperbole. This only muddies the waters and makes it more difficult to get to the truth of the matter. I have multiple times seen 2+ men taken out by a single HMG burst in the game; HMG bursts are clearly more effective than a single shot and do show at least some spread. Perhaps not enough spread, but they are not "laser like beams". Just try testing a 2-man rifle team and an HMG team firing at the same target, and tell me which one ends up being more effective. In either case, you'll have roughly the same number of trigger pulls, but I'm completely confident you'll find the HMG team far more effective.

My personal opinion is that the rate of fire and targeting behavior for HMGs in the game is about right for one type of target: when the HMG firing at a single enemy infantry team, or other similar small target like an unbuttoned enemy tank commander, at medium to long range. In this type of situation, the disciplined rate of fire and relatively narrow dispersion seems about right. The problem is that this targeting behavior is currently used for all types of targets, with only a modest increase in ROF as the range gets shorter, and whether the MG is aware of one enemy team in it's frontal arc, or a dozen. So, IMHO what is really needed is some additional firing behaviors for automatic weapons in general, and especially HMGs, when presented with multiple exposed enemy targets within a relatively narrow arc. It's not so much that the current HMG behavior is wrong, but rather that it's only part of what's needed -- right now, we've only got the color Red, or perhaps the range of Red through Yellow, when what we need is the entire rainbow.

However, it is worth noting that giving MG teams a broader range of targeting and firing behavior does bring in additional issues that need to be considered if changes are made. For example, while barrel changes do seem to be explicitly modeled in the game (if you set an HMG42 to area fire for an extended period of time, you will hear the sound file for barrel change, and a short break in firing, after ~200 rounds or so). But as far as I have been able to observe, MG jams are not modeled. This is important because jamming is an important risk factor when MGs increase their rate of fire. a trained MG42 crew might well be able to push the ROF up to an effective 400+ rpm if pressed, but the risk of jamming goes up considerably if they do this (Note that the American M1919A4/A6 is even worse of in this situation, since the crew can't quickly change the barrel. Water-cooled MGs like the M1917A1 might be a little better off in this specific area, as long as they have enough water. Water-cooled MGs real weakness is mobility).

[JasonC]

It is not the fire amount or effect that are off. It is morale.

Broadsword56 cites the most relevant fact for visions of continual MG fire.

The limiting factor on MG fire since they first appeared has never been cyclic fire rate. It has always been how much ammo could be brought to the gun. In shorter periods, it is barrel heat for sustained fire (with air cooled guns), but for any extended period of fire, ammo is going to bind tightest.

The men do not typically fire even at max sustained rates for long because they do not have 1 million cartridges. It is enourmously wasteful to throw away that much brass for nothing, and it simply was not done, as anything but a demonstration.

The actual casualties inflicted by deployed MGs over periods of hours was entirely consistent with the 40% loss rates on the company, reported in the tests. Those were the sorts of loss rates experienced by leading waves at Omaha, by infantry advancing on the first day of the Somme - which are outlier high losses. Some units lost 65%, but always due to continued exposure in the open long after the men had broken and gone to ground, and usually with artillery or mortars contributing as well as MG fire.

But here is what the game does get wrong, revealed in such (frankly, unusual in normal game play) tests and situations - a company that takes 40% losses to sustain HMG fire without cover, in a matter of minutes, will not continue its mission or remain combat effective, or even in any sense remain the military formation called a "company".

Instead they will pin as losses hit 20% or so, and stop advancing. They will not rally back to under orders in 30 seconds, or 2 minutes. If the losses continue, as they pass 30% the formation will come apart, men will stop obeying any superiors or paying any attention to the mission, and will instead seek personal survival. Most of those still functioning will be attempting to save the wounded and get them out of the area. At 40 or 50% losses - and they can go higher after such morale failure and loss of cohesion, if the men can't individually get out of the open - the remnants will become a crawling bloody mess, and no danger to anyone on the other side of the field.

What the game doesn't depict correctly in such situations is the morale impact of losses beyond the game abstraction that is the individual squad or fire team - beyond loss of command if the platoon HQ bites it. In reality, a regular squad in a platoon that has lost 15 or 20% of its men is a green squad. And if the company has lost that heavily from all its platoons, probably more like a conscript squad. Red morale state should be more contagious than the common cold.

The ammo expenditure per unit time, the specific lethality per unit time, and the like, are all quite solid by historical standards. Naturally, in real historical fights the men are not typically on a billiard table, and they do not stay clustered in neat little sets of 10 as men drop like flies. Instead, as the Kipling poem puts it, they are "all about the shop".

FWIW...

[LJFHutch]

And it would be so much easier to keep this ammo flowing if units could share selected ammo *before* a unit runs out of ammo. If a unit could Acquire ammo from another unit, just like they now can acquire it from vehicles.

Definitely agree, though you'd need to know who you were taking it from, don't want to take all the ammo from another MG team instead of the ammo bearers.

[acrashb]

During WW British Army used vickers to avoid a counter attack of german infantry. 10 machine guns shot during 12 hours without pause except for ammo and changing the cooling water and changing the barrel every hour.

1) that example is famous partly because it was rare.

2) "cooling water". This sustained fire is absolutely impossible for air-cooled machine guns. Barrels have to be changed, and there aren't going to be enough spares.

3) ammo - an enormous amount of ammo was on hand, suggesting a prepared defence. Also, it was WWI, which had a different type of prepared defence than WWII

4) barrels. water-cooled or no, one hundred barrels were used. no WWII commander will have that many spares available in a 24-hour period.

Doctrine calls for controlled bursts to conserve ammo, barrels, and mechanisms. While HMG's should be able to do more at closer ranges, and dispersion is important, the example you cite has no relevance.

[Michael Emrys]

3) ammo - an enormous amount of ammo was on hand, suggesting a prepared defence. Also, it was WWI...

Was this an actual operational situation? The reason I ask is that it sounds an awful lot like a peacetime demonstration on a firing range that I read about once.

...the example you cite has no relevance.

I agree.

Michael

[Fūrinkazan]

I took the WW1 exemple just to show that sustained fire was possible. I'm not asking for this in the game of course.

JasonC is saying the things much bettre than i am in his post.

The units during the charge were not affected by losses. One german unit even destroyed on bunker, and that was not with fanatics veterans.

Like it is said in the Armchair general vidéo : to win you must use good tactics and real life tactics should work in the game.

If you had to attack a position of bunkers would you charge in the open or use arty, smoke, tanks etc.. To support your attack ?

I think that bad tactics should be punished in the game by very bad results.

In this case just sending infantry is enough to take the position. That made me think that something was wrong.

I don't want anything to be in this simulation but i would like to have convincing results and i don't care if the rate of fire is too low or not compare to reality.

If troops are not suppressed enough we can think that there is not enough incoming fire to pin them down. What is strange is that i had a squad who took 2 casulaties inflicted by pistols (Tank crew) they were pin down and i had problems to make them return fire. Here we have 5 Hmgs and the men keep on moving like noting (with veteran HMG i had not many more casualties but only one squad panicked).

I'm only asking for longer burst at a longer range = more suppression and open terrain very hard to cross.

For what is about the game engine, i tested in hotseat but i play RT.

1 Burst by second is possible and i had no problems playing in RT.

[Michael Emrys]

If you had to attack a position of bunkers would you charge in the open or use arty' date=' smoke, tanks etc.. To support your attack ?[/quote']

I would use an SP 155 mm gun firing over open sights.

Michael

[Fūrinkazan]

I would use an SP 155 mm gun firing over open sights.

Michael

Very poor choice.

All WW 2 studies shows that the only way to attack fortification is the 800 mm Dora or Gustav with at least the 7 tons shell.

Everything else is useless.

That's why i'm asking Bfc to put it in the game right now if we want to have a

correct simulation of WW combat.