HMG range and rate of fire in the game

[YankeeDog]

Actually, there are number of confirmed incidents of the U.S. Army using 155mm direct fire to knock out concrete bunkers on the Siegfried line.

It all depends on the specific bunker; some are sturdier than others.

127mm Naval gun fire from destroyers firing direct also successfully knocked several of the concrete bunkers on Omaha beach.

Even more concrete fortifications near the Normandy beaches, and in other coastal areas such as Cherbourg, Walcheren Island, etc., were engaged and either destroyed or rendered combat ineffective by Allied Naval shells in the 9-15 inch range; a fair bit smaller than the 800cm Dora and Gustav shells.

It is worth noting that in some of the above citations, the projectile didn't actually fully penetrate the bunker, but the concussion and blast effects were often enough to incapacitate the crew of the bunker or otherwise render it combat ineffective. At least one fortification on Omaha was undermined by successive shells hitting the bluff just below it, causing it to collapse.

Regardless, as a blanket statement, the idea that you need an 80cm gun projectile to take concrete bunkers out of a fight is simply untrue. Perhaps if your goal is to actually turn the entire structure to rubble, you need something like this. But it usually takes far less firepower to simply render a static fortification combat ineffective, no matter how well built.

Now, if you're talking about a really thick, heavy fortification like the V-2 assembly facilities, U-boot pens or similar, and you can't get up close and personal to duel it with direct fire, then you may indeed need something really big to damage what's inside. But the most most successful weapon in WWII for this type of job wasn't supermassive railway guns, it was the Tallboy and Grand Slam bombs. Despite a few high-profile successes, the German railway guns were mostly a waste of resources.

[Fūrinkazan]

Despite a few high-profile successes, the German railway guns were mostly a waste of resources.

In fact the career on the battlefield of the Gustav was only 13 days in Sebastopol and only for 48 shots.

One shell destroyed an ammunition depot under water and went through 20 m of water and 30 m of chalk to explode in the depot.

I have been reading that the cost was 7 millions Reichsmarks about 59 Panther tanks (117 000 Reichsmarks one) or 23 Tiger I.

[YankeeDog]

In fact the career on the battlefield of the Gustav was only 13 days in Sebastopol and only for 48 shots.

One shell destroyed an ammunition depot under water and went through 20 m of water and 30 m of chalk to explode in the depot.

I have been reading that the cost was 7 millions Reichsmarks about 59 Panther tanks (117 000 Reichsmarks one) or 23 Tiger I.

Yes; exactly. And these costs don't include the cost of moving and maintaining the guns. The train that moved the guns and their associated support was 1.5km long! Part of the reason that Gustav only fired 48 shots, and Dora never actually fired a shot in anger at all is that it took so long to move the guns and prepare firing positions for them (which involved laying substantial amounts of railway track specifically for the purpose), that by the time they were in position and ready for action, the situation had changed and it was too late.

Gustav was supposed to be used at Leningrad after Sebastopol. It eventually got there, but never fired a shot at the city. Dora was supposed to be used at Stalingrad, but had to be withdrawn without firing a shot when Soviet counterattacks threatened to encircle it.

To be sure, Gustav had some great successes at Sebastopol, but considering the cost of ~150,000rm per shot, plus maintenance and transport, I think the Wehrmacht could have accomplished the job with lesser weapons. And lesser weapons would have been more useful for other jobs once the set-piece siege of Sebastopol was over.

[ArgusEye]

Only if you consider Gustaf as a field gun does it seem wasteful. It was meant as a superheavy siege gun, with a secondary research purpose. The resources used upon it, when implemented in regular weapons, would not have come close to the extra losses incurred if -for instance- Sevastopol was to have been reduced by other means. It was an expensive, highly specialized weapon, but one that did its job. The fact that it did the work with such apparent ease means that its achievements look trivial - though they weren't.

A single shot from Gustaf knocked out a casemate that had shrugged off 30 direct hits from a Karl (Gerät 040). The only alternative apart from Gustaf would have been to get sappers in there. Hardly a cost-free proposition.

[YankeeDog]

Only if you consider Gustaf as a field gun does it seem wasteful. It was meant as a superheavy siege gun, with a secondary research purpose. The resources used upon it, when implemented in regular weapons, would not have come close to the extra losses incurred if -for instance- Sevastopol was to have been reduced by other means. It was an expensive, highly specialized weapon, but one that did its job. The fact that it did the work with such apparent ease means that its achievements look trivial - though they weren't.

A single shot from Gustaf knocked out a casemate that had shrugged off 30 direct hits from a Karl (Gerät 040). The only alternative apart from Gustaf would have been to get sappers in there. Hardly a cost-free proposition.

... All of which would have been unnecessary if the Germans had put the R&D time they put into Gustav & Dora into a more worthy project like the Eurobomber. Then, they would have had a viable 4-engine bomber at the start of the war. Which they could have used to carry superheavy bombs to destroy fortifications if necessary, but would have also given them viable strategic bomber for other uses (Bombing Northern England, bombing Moscow, attacking shipping in further out in the North Atlantic, etc.). The Gustav might have to taken out some pretty hardened targets, but the Tall Boy proved much more effective at taking similar targets, and could do so much more cheaply. What's more, the Tall Boy could hit anything within range of a Lancaster bomber. Re-deploying the Gustav took months.

But perhaps this is benefiting too much from hindsight... Even ignoring this preceding point, I'm also not convinced that a weapon like Gustav was actually necessary for taking out the hardened fortifications around Stebastopol anyway. The Germans did just fine taking out or otherwise neutralizing Fort Eben Emael and the fortifications of the Maginot line in 1940, and they didn't need a railway gun to do it -- contrary to what brief histories of the 1940 France campaign might lead you to conclude, the thrust through the Ardennes was not the only element of the Germans' attack, and they did take on some of the Maginot Line defenses directly, and generally quite successfully.

And the Germans didn't really do anything with Sebastopol once they captured it anyway. They might as well have bypassed it and left it to rot. Once again, Hitler waged war without a clear strategic objective, wasting resources on capturing a propaganda prize.

The R&D time put into the Gustav was a waste. There's a reason no one has used a superheavy railway gun since 1941. It's just another example of Hitler's fascination with supermassive, flashy weaponry that cost far to much relative to its battlefield effect. Compensating for his missing testicle and impotence, if you ask me.

[JasonC]

OK, seige artillery segue there lol.

On 155ms vs. pillboxes, they worked just fine at it, but they did it by firing at the embrasures, direct, not dropping shells onto the bunkers vertically. A few 155s going off right at the parapet, even if not inside, was more than enough to drive all men away from the firing ports. It might or might not kill the men inside (depends on whether the shell actually went in, the men's positioning, how elaborately protected with shock proofed side corridors and such the bunker was inside, etc) - but they sure as heck were not firing back. Then anybody could just waltz on up to the things.

To Furinkazan - that is my test too, is the realism sufficient to reward historical tactics and reproduce the real paper-scissors-rock relations among the various combat arms? In this case, MGs are underpowered because infantry is too fire resistent, rallies too fast when taking losses, and is too morale-immune to wider losses to units besides the individual fire team or squad being targeted by each burst. They aren't taking losses too low, though, they are just walking through roughly historical losses way too unaffected.

I can understand why the game is coded that way. It would be frustrating for the player commanding his units to experience the full level of loss of coordination and control that heavy combat with serious losses brings on. Some "nerfing" of non-responsiveness of units may be required in pure gameplay terms, not for realism, but so newer players don't just give up the game as too hard. But I think cases like this one show the realism bar could and probably should move toward more brittle troops.

Notably, the game gives scenario designers pretty good controls to bring this about, by adjusting unit quality and determination levels, using lower command bonuses, and the like. If designers give their players uniform vets with +1 and +2 morale leaders everywhere as well, they should not be surprised that unrealistic superman infantry performance is the result. I'd still love to see tweaks to the morale system that spread red morale and causalty effects across units, akin to the "brigade combat effectiveness" systems some board wargames used, and I think it could address a lot of this. But in the meantime, "play green troops - more realistic" - is the scenario designer's answer.

I hope this helps.

[Michael Emrys]

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.

Okay, I'm sure you're only kidding, but the grog in me still can't resist replying.

For attacking Westwall pillboxes, Dora would be a bad choice. Reasons: (1) Far more bang than is necessary to take out a pillbox; Dora was designed to take out far heavier targets; (2) Poor mobility. Just getting it to where it could take a shot and then setting it up would slow the whole operation to a nightmare crawl; (3) Slow rate of fire. Even assuming that you could reach multiple targets from your emplacement, you would still only be able to shoot at a few of them per day. (4) Lack of versatility; Dora was pretty much useless for anything else that artillery is called on to do. The SP 155 can do whatever any 155 can do; (5) Cost of operation.

Michael

[Sublime]

In response to the 'laser beam' machine gun bullet stream comment - its not true at all.

Have a sherman, or any tank (.50 cal is good for demo purposes) and order it to area fire. I notice bullets kicking up dirt in a stream, like a path, they dont all hit the same point like a laser beam would.

[Fūrinkazan]

Ok, i promise i will never ever try to do stupid bad jokes on this forum.

even if we can have interresting discussion about artillery.

To JasonC :

I totally agree with you when you say that infantry is to fire resistent.

I also agree when you say that maybe there are too much super soldiers on the game that may give unrealistic results.

Like in the old CMBO manual i think that crack and elite troops should be very rare.

I also understand that new player may have problems with the game. Now does it mean that we should sacrifice too much realism ?

I have been reading threads about indestructible Tiger or Panther tanks. I think that we would not like developers to reduce the armor of a Tiger to make it more easy to destroy.

If i remember well, in Cmbo, mgs had the same problem and in Cmbb it was much more difficult to attack hmg and infantry was more suppressed.

Now it seems that we agree that something should be change.

I did this test just because :

I think that 5 or 7 secondes between each burst is too long and frustrating when you are defending and the enemy is getting closer, or when you attack to suppress ennemy positions. I think that infantry is not suppressed enough and hmgs are not enough efficient in the game.

I would be very satisfied with the game if :

Hmgs were more efficient

Pistols less precise at more than 50 m

Smgs would not shoot at almost 300 m but at 100 m or less.

Snipers would be more precise against vehicules crews and more difficult to spot.

Spotter of small AT and snipers team would not shoot at too long distance and reveal the position to the enemy.

I'm not asking for new features in the game but tweaks that i think would make the game more realistic. Of course, i may be wrong and what i'm asking is based on the feelings i have when i play. When i see an mp40 spotter of a sniper team shooting at 275 m on infantry and getting the team spotted and killed i think this was just a waste of ammo and wrong behaviour of the spotter.

I take again the exemple of fire on the move for tanks.

Bfc team changed this and the game is much better and less frustrating.

Well, i think they should have lower the precision on the move a little bit more. I had one Stug hidden under trees waiting for Sherman tanks. The first one comes and it's destroyed. Then a Second one, who spots first while on the move at high speed, and destroy my Stug with is first shot.

And it was green crew ! Very frustrating.

But maybe i was just unlucky ...

[Vark]

Interesting, ran a similar scenario with CMBB repeating it five times, each with similar outcomes. Russian average company attacking against five entrenched SFMG's with platoon commander across a billiard table and given 30 mins to achieve task.

At 1600m first casualties, Russians had to use advance command as move to contact with limited arcs was not working. By the time they had closed to 1000m, and still not spotted the MG's things were desperate with troops trying to sneak closer or in short rushes. By 800m, the last turn, the Russians were either pinned, shaken or still trying to close on the still unspotted gun teams.

The average loss was 24 soldiers and the attack was stopped in its tracks at 800-900 metres.

[Wreck]

I can understand why the game is coded that way. It would be frustrating for the player commanding his units to experience the full level of loss of coordination and control that heavy combat with serious losses brings on. Some "nerfing" of non-responsiveness of units may be required in pure gameplay terms, not for realism, but so newer players don't just give up the game as too hard.

I agree with you on all of this. Here's what I don't get: unlike CMBO, CMBN has its difficulty level setting. This is already in the game. And in fact, the "Elite" difficulty level is redundant in that the only difference between it and "Warrior" is that it doesn't show the type of enemy units on their icons -- you can still see their type, but you have to click on them. So Elite causes slight extra micromanagement, but is otherwise the same as Warrior.

Why not then add some new rules in Elite to make the game more realistically simulate men under fire? Then the people that want the more terminator-like pixeltruppen can play Warrior, and those wanting WWII type pixeltruppen can play Elite.

I'd still love to see tweaks to the morale system that spread red morale and causalty effects across units, akin to the "brigade combat effectiveness" systems some board wargames used

This seems reasonable (and probably easy to implement). Although my take on the problem is that in addition to such "overall" sort of morale effects, men are still too mobile under fire. Hitting the dirt -- going prone and unmoving -- ought to be the first reaction of most infantry most of the time, even for pretty small volumes of fire.

[Fūrinkazan]

to Vark :

Thanks for your very interesting testing : (i don't have CMX1 games on my computer since cmsf so i couldn't do comparison)

First i notice the range, you say casualties at 1600 m while in cmbn you only spot at 1500 and start to shoot at 1200 for US hmgs and 800 900 m for germans.

I remember that in CMBB it was difficult to attack a position defended by hmgs.

You had to use strong support and small jumps to get closer to the enemy.

you said infantry was stopped at 800 m after 30mn of fight.

In my exemple it took 11mn to get at 100 m of the bunker and no squad was broken.

I think it's a huge difference for two games simulating the same situation.

To Wreck :

totally agree with your idea of warrior and elite settings.

Just like in flight simulation, the level of realism, in our case, suppression,or the reaction of men under fire could be adjusted.

This would allow new players to adapt to the game and then to go to harder levels.

I also suggest that for elite or iron level you don't get as much info that we have now. For infantry you would not be able to know if it's an HQ, an arty spotter, or just a reco team.

[Vark]

Just tried again, but this time gave the Russians 60 mins and made them conduct an ultra-cautious advance with pauses of a full minute to regenerate morale. First casualties at 1450m, closed to spotting range of trenches, and still failed, losing 34 casualties. The ability to recover morale is equally unrealistic (in my opinion it should be gradually chipped away with HQ units and squad leaders able to stem the flow quite easily but find it hard to replace 'lost' morale points), but the greater lethality of the MG's does compensate somewhat.

I remember playing the demo of Ost Front and being surprised at how a single Maxim pinned and savaged my Panzer Grenadier platoon.