CW a tougher fight?

[rocketman]

After a few missions I find that CW (or is it 1.10?) puts up a better fight. Enemies are harder to break, they get better cover in foxholes and are harder to take on in woods.

Maybe it is just my imagination, but I haven't changed the way I go about a mission since CMBN vanilla, but now I'm getting my a** handed to me on a plate on a regular basis.

[Sakai007]

I had the same thing happen. I think a lot of it has to do with the different kind of terrain we are facing in the CW missions. For the most part, gone are the tight hedgerows, replaced by open fields with minimal cover. It's more akin to CMSF then the base CMBN.

[theFightingSeabee]

Also, the British seems to have much less firepower. Even when I've got several squads targeting a unit, the volume of fire is pretty weak. I've had a single German squad with an MG42 that was being shot at by 4 British sections open fire and kill a bunch of men and suppress all 4 sections.

[Vark]

Also, the British seems to have much less firepower. Even when I've got several squads targeting a unit, the volume of fire is pretty weak. I've had a single German squad with an MG42 that was being shot at by 4 British sections open fire and kill a bunch of men and suppress all 4 sections.

Need more information, but four British sections should each have a Bren, or commonly a gun team of 3-4 Brens, out to a flank, supporting the riflemen, plus three two inch mortars and a Piat capable of engaging out to 200m. That also does not include the selected riflemen who would, if the MG was spotted, be given a "five rounds at the MG" fire order, by their NCO. The riflemen were were often selected by NCO's because of their individual proficiencies, so in this case accuracy would be the order of the day. Which ever way you look at it that is a lot of well directed 303 rounds, and should be sufficient to silence a HMG, let alone a squad.

Then again why were the Germans able to suppress all squads, it sounds as though you got caught on the hop with all three 'legs' moving. I do hope the British ahve not been nerfed, just because they do not carry semi-auto rifles (which do seem to be ahistorically effective)

[JonS]

Which ever way you look at it that is a lot of well directed 303 rounds, and should be sufficient to silence a HMG, let alone a squad.

Jary, in "18 Platoon", relatated a tale of his entire battalion being stopped in it's tracks somewhere near Mont Pinçon by about six HMGs. The battalion mortars, the 36 brens and the 600 odd rifles with all their well directed 303 rounds weren't enough to get the battalion going again, so they sat there for the whole day.

I do hope the British ahve not been nerfed, just because they do not carry semi-auto rifles (which do seem to be ahistorically effective)

No, they haven't.

[Vark]

If it's the incident I think, though it could be an incident in Italy, the HMG's (though the incident commented on was a vanilla German Squad with an LMG) were mainly unspotted and firing from at least two directions. Again, I don't know about Seabee's set up but I have just read a fascinating account of the fighting post Pegasus Bridge and there, if a German squad is encountered a platoon is sent to deal with, and often do with great success.

As for the M1's contribution to squad firepower I was most surprised in the demo to see all my squad members dutifully take aimed shots at the enemy. Thought most post war research showed that was a rare occasion, leading to a major rethink of military training, or has Mr Grossman, et al got it wrong? If he hasn't, then the US squads have significantly more firepower that they historically had, given their LMG was an automatic rifle with 20 round magazine, and no facility for a rapid barrel change.

[theFightingSeabee]

With the British sections, I'm getting maybe 1-2 rifle shots per second, sometimes less. Their Bren will fire in short bursts for a bit, and reload. So while this is going on, the German squad can decimate a squad and/or suppress them with a single burst of LMG fire. Once a Brit section is suppressed, it will stay that way for at least several seconds, giving the German squad time to target the next squad and negating their return fire in quick order as well. With each British squad suppressed, it's that much less of an already meager barrage of bullets.

While the American BAR can only fire 20 rds before having to reload, their rifles are semi-automatic and can be shot as fast as they can pull the trigger. The British men are manually chambering rounds between each shot.

[ASL Veteran]

As for the M1's contribution to squad firepower I was most surprised in the demo to see all my squad members dutifully take aimed shots at the enemy. Thought most post war research showed that was a rare occasion, leading to a major rethink of military training, or has Mr Grossman, et al got it wrong? If he hasn't, then the US squads have significantly more firepower that they historically had, given their LMG was an automatic rifle with 20 round magazine, and no facility for a rapid barrel change.

Yeah, I think in this respect CMBO is way more realistic than CMBN could ever be. CMBO is definitely the peak of all realism when it comes to squad level combat in WW2 and I think we are all fortunate that BFC continues to offer CMBO as a product that we can all purchase and admire.

[zmoney]

In my experience with the Brits and Canucks they give a really good showing of themselves (in game). I think the problem may lay with the level of motivation that most of the Germans have in the scenarios that have been released with the game. I have pounded German squads, teams, etc. with loads of fire power but they typically hold their ground until they are killed/over whelmed.

I really don’t have a problem though with the scenario designer giving some German units high motivation. I just played the scenario where the Canucks attacked the 12th SS in Buron (excellent scenario) and the Germans just wouldn’t give up their defensive positions until they were dead. I ended up inflicting more casualties on them in the end but still a real tough fight.

So I don’t think the problem lies with the Common Wealth troop’s equipment it’s just the Germs don’t break as easy. I’d be interested to see how a US force does in the previously mentioned scenario I don’t think it’d be much different. But just like CMSF the allies have different ideas about war so their troops are outfitted with different equipment so different tactics are needed for each.

I just can’t wait for an east front game so I can fight in towns with properly equipped SMG squads.

[PhantomApple]

How can CMBO be considered the peak of realism of squad level combat when the squads were abstracted. A 1:1 ratio is sort of a pre-req to be considered realistic IMO.. If you were talking about armor, you might have a case, but trying to argue that infantry combat is superior is a stretch (again)IMHO.

That being said, I am struggling to get out of the second mission. It seems MUCH harder than vanilla, which in turn was MUCH harder than any Shock Force module. This jump, to me, is harder than the jump from Marines to Brits.

IDK if it's just me, but I am legitimately scared of snipers...for the first time in any of the CMx2 releases to date.

[MengJiaoRedux]

In my experience with the Brits and Canucks they give a really good showing of themselves (in game). I think the problem may lay with the level of motivation that most of the Germans have in the scenarios that have been released with the game. I have pounded German squads, teams, etc. with loads of fire power but they typically hold their ground until they are killed/over whelmed.

I really don’t have a problem though with the scenario designer giving some German units high motivation. I just played the scenario where the Canucks attacked the 12th SS in Buron (excellent scenario) and the Germans just wouldn’t give up their defensive positions until they were dead. I ended up inflicting more casualties on them in the end but still a real tough fight.

I agree that running a Brit half-battalion attack (like in the Scottish Corridor scenarios) is a lot more nerve-wracking than running a similar US attack mostly because you have to position your tiny mortars and Brens very carefully. On the other hand, to me, the Brits seem more agile and dispersed and able to avoid mortar fire, but this might be because my attack sequence goes:

1) scout

2) sections up to cover observers and Brens and mortars

3) engage with Brens and mortars

4) get ready to run from enemy return mortar fire

5) and then and only then send in sections to clear out the SS

I also tend to attack on a much narrower front, sending up sections and then companies over whatever cleared approaches there are.

A lot of this could be due to the terrain though. You can pick your safe spots more easily in the denser bocage. In more open terrain you have to keep rolling or die.

[YankeeDog]

...Thought most post war research showed that was a rare occasion, leading to a major rethink of military training, or has Mr Grossman, et al got it wrong? If he hasn't, then the US squads have significantly more firepower that they historically had, given their LMG was an automatic rifle with 20 round magazine, and no facility for a rapid barrel change.

Well, I personally don't feel knowledgeable enough to state whether Grossman and his colleagues over at Killology "got it wrong" or not as a general statement. However, I do think that there have been some very well-reasoned rebuttals and responses to his ideas over the last couple of decades. At the least, I think those on the other side of the debate have shown that there are compelling data and arguments which counter, or at least qualify, Grossman's conclusions.

And then there's S.L.A. Marshall... suffice it to say, that even if you agree with his fundamental conclusions, there are some serious flaws in his data collection and research methods and these pretty much pull the foundation out from under his work. Whether or not he was right in his final conclusions, from an academic standpoint his flawed methods mean he didn't prove anything, really.

Some Googling on Grossman or Marshall will turn up more information than anyone would care to read on the topic. It's a hot-button issue in the Military and Law Enforcement communities.

As for the whole "is the Garand too powerful in CMBN" question, I think it's very hard to say. Looking at what was said about the weapon during period, many, including George Patton, considered the Garand to be a very effective weapon that gave American infantry a considerable advantage. At the least, I think it's fairly obvious that the M1 Garand was substantially superior to the k98 and SMLE as a basic line infantryman primary weapon (though I do think the SMLE comes off better in this regard than the k98).

But it's also certainly true that whatever advantage American infantry had from the Garand was at least partially countered, and perhaps even overwhelmed, by the relative weakness of the BAR as a SAW -- the LMG42 and Bren were certainly better suited for this role, with the Bren again being somewhere in the middle between the other two.

Where does this leave us in CMBN? Well, speaking from my own game experience, I've certainly seen American squads with Garands simply overwhelm German units of similar size with massed rifle fire. So the Garand can definitely be an advantage. But I've also seen a few well-placed bursts from an MG42 quickly push an American squad into "pinned" status, at which point the Germans again fire ascendancy and the Americans end up broken, dead, surrendered, or otherwise lose the firefight. So the MG42 seems to reign supreme at times as well. As to which happens more often, I really couldn't say -- I'm very leery of drawing any conclusions based on gameplay experience, as I think it's hard to avoid selection bias here. When I'm playing Americans, it seems that MG42s always shred my GIs. When I'm playing Germans, it seems that Garands always pick off my Landsers...

In terms of game play, the most useful conclusion I have drawn to date is that Garand-equipped American squads and the LMG42-equipped German squads require very different tactics to use to fullest effect. In my experience, the biggest advantage of the Garand-equipped Americans in CMBN is that *all* members of the squad have at least a decent amount of firepower. This can be critical in a situation where the SAW cannot see a certain enemy, and also gives an advantage when the American squad is able to engage with nearly all of its members.

Conversely, the big advantage of the the LMG42 is that it puts a lot of firepower in the hands of a single man, which, if you place the LMG well, allows the LMG42-equipped German squads to put out a lot of firepower with less manpower commitment and exposure.

So, to take fullest advantage of the American rifle squad's power, you have to put more or less the full squad "on the line" so all the rifles can fire, and it's in these kinds of situations where American infantry really shines in the game. There's a disadvantage here, though, in that putting more men up on the line means more men up and exposed where they can potentially be shot at and get hit.

Conversely a German squad can engage with just the LMG42 team and still put out a lot of firepower. This means less men exposed for a given level of firepower. The disadvantage here is that if the man firing the MG42 gets hit, suppressed, or the MG42 just happens to be in a position where it can't gain LOF to the enemy, then Germans will be at a serious disadvantage.

All this seems realistic to me. But whether the balance is exactly right, I don't know.

Turning back to the Brits, I haven't played enough with British infantry to draw any significant conclusions, but they would seem to fall somewhere in-between the American and German squads, which may require different tactics entirely. Certainly, the highly mobile 2" mortar useful tool, and it opens up tactics not available to other combatants.

It's also worth remembering that Vanilla American rifle squads are the largest in the game, so if you're compare full-strength squads on a 1:1 basis, then the Americans have an advantage in numbers which you have to factor in.

Regards,

YD

[Sakai007]

I've been playing a ton of CM since the module came out, and being a veteran of CMSF, all squad firepower seems on the low side in comparison to what is available now. The Brits are a whole different can of worms, but played closer to the germans then the US. The Bren is a vital tool, and my key has been to get as many of them on target as possible. Lets not forget the Vickers either, it's a very useful HMG and very mobile with the carriers. In fact, use of Carriers is the big British force multiplier. If you deploy them like you would infantry, you have a small arms resistant MG or Bren team at your disposal, not to mention ammo for everyone else. I pulled a 'drive by' with a Bren carrier w/scout section mounted on a german trench line the other day. I was danger close, but it was great to blast in and blast out. The squads Bren gunner was standing in the back letting loose with the Bren as they passed and drove away, great moment!!!

[kipanderson]

Hi,

Do remember that the Brits had twice the artillery and never suffered from the artillery ammunition shortage the US did. They had made more realistic assumptions about usage in planning.

If you are looking for historical accuracy where you find a battery of four 105mm in support in a US scenario in the same situation you should have a battery of eight 25pdrs, two four gun troops, in a CW scenario. Added to which the US ammunition setting should often be a click or so down from “Full...”. With 25pdrs on “Full...”. The Brits also had a slightly more flexible artillery system.

All this may make for a dull game; no one wants to play CM Stonk.... . But in the real world it mattered a lot.

Added to which the 6pdr had greater penetration than the US 57mm AT gun even when firing standard AP/APCBC rounds. Brit ammunition being better quality. The 17pdr been more powerful than even the later US 90mm gun. Brit tungsten AT ammunition being a generation ahead of US designs and available earlier and more plentiful.

The Churchill tank was also a very useable infantry support tank.

The CW could certainly hold their own when compared the US forces. They were not under-equipped.

All interesting stuff,

We are lucky to have CM....

All the best,

Kip.

[wokelly]

My only issues really are sometimes the Brit artillery seems a bit lacking compared to what I read, and also in past CM's the Brit squads tended to have 2 stens by this point. A second sten would probably help things quite a bit.

Also in past CM's the Enfield was a bigger advantage. It gave off a 10 in firepower compared to a 5 for the Kar (M1 was like a 15). The Enfield seems to operate just about the same as the Kar in game so that advantage is totally gone.

[Sakai007]

This is assuming that the old advantage was indeed correct. I would say things 'feel' better now then they did then.

[Rocky Balboa]

My only issues really are sometimes the Brit artillery seems a bit lacking compared to what I read, and also in past CM's the Brit squads tended to have 2 stens by this point. A second sten would probably help things quite a bit.

Also in past CM's the Enfield was a bigger advantage. It gave off a 10 in firepower compared to a 5 for the Kar (M1 was like a 15). The Enfield seems to operate just about the same as the Kar in game so that advantage is totally gone.

Your assumption is that Cmx1 got it right.

I try not to make comparisons to CMx1 and CMx2 like this as they really are two totally different games. Cmx1 had to used abstract things like firepower values to balance the playing field where as the CMx2 engine models the characteristics of the weapon and its ballistics so in this respect it's more of a true simulation.

Imo the Enfield and the K98 where pretty comparable weapons and any significant observation to the contrary where a result of user headspace and timing

[wokelly]

Yeah well the Enfield having double the firepower of the Kar was probably over the top. I do think the Brits need a second Sten though at this point. It is hard to track down Sten numbers is the problem, the official TOE was rather vague on the numbers. I did read British and CW divs kept a surplus of Stens to issue out when extra close range firepower was needed.

As always the game is based on official TOEs as much as possible when in reality it may have been much different. Most units tended to have more automatics than they were suppose to have. But modeling that brings in guess work that is impossible to prove one way or another.

[Sakai007]

Would be nice to have the option of issuing squads more or less in the way of automatic weapons by use of the editor.

[Sailor Malan2]

...

Imo the Enfield and the K98 where pretty comparable weapons and any significant observation to the contrary where a result of user headspace and timing

You forget the magazine difference. Lee Enfield has a 10 round magazine, the Kar only 5. Thus the 'realistic' sustained rate for a SMLE is probably 20rds per min, but the Kar is probably 10-15. Add to this the essential tactical differences - the German rifleman is effectively there to carry ammo for the MG34/42, which eats the stuff. The British tactics actually used the riflemen in a section to provide meaningful fire - a sort of close equal to the Bren. Thus the training and section fire control is aimed at getting the rounds down range in a controlled manner. The German is mostly there to support the LMG. I have done a quick calc: MG34, sustaining 125 rds/min (i.e. firing about 1 second in 6-7) gets through about 3.3kg of ammo per minute (ignoring belt and packaging). If you use a MG42 on 'normal' cyclic of 1200rds/min, and fire 200 rds (i.e. same 1 sec in 6 fire rate), you get through 5.4kg (nearly 12lb) of ammo. Those 1700 rds the German squads carry weigh 46kg (not including packaging).

For the Bren, 120 rds per min is fairly manic, and 60rpm is far more likely. Dont have the weight of a .303, but assuming as the Mauser, gives only 1.7kg per min (although the mags weigh a bit). The 1200 rds the Brits carry are are lot lighter, and last longer than the Germans.

Dont get me wrong - I have wandered off topic a little: the german squad fire power is way higher than the CW, but the SMLE should count at least double the Kar in a 'firepower' stat. Or in CMBN, the CW riflemen should fire faster/more frequently than the Germans

[wokelly]

You forget the magazine difference. Lee Enfield has a 10 round magazine, the Kar only 5. Thus the 'realistic' sustained rate for a SMLE is probably 20rds per min, but the Kar is probably 10-15. Add to this the essential tactical differences - the German rifleman is effectively there to carry ammo for the MG34/42, which eats the stuff. The British tactics actually used the riflemen in a section to provide meaningful fire - a sort of close equal to the Bren. Thus the training and section fire control is aimed at getting the rounds down range in a controlled manner. The German is mostly there to support the LMG. I have done a quick calc: MG34, sustaining 125 rds/min (i.e. firing about 1 second in 6-7) gets through about 3.3kg of ammo per minute (ignoring belt and packaging). If you use a MG42 on 'normal' cyclic of 1200rds/min, and fire 200 rds (i.e. same 1 sec in 6 fire rate), you get through 5.4kg (nearly 12lb) of ammo. Those 1700 rds the German squads carry weigh 46kg (not including packaging).

For the Bren, 120 rds per min is fairly manic, and 60rpm is far more likely. Dont have the weight of a .303, but assuming as the Mauser, gives only 1.7kg per min (although the mags weigh a bit). The 1200 rds the Brits carry are are lot lighter, and last longer than the Germans.

Dont get me wrong - I have wandered off topic a little: the german squad fire power is way higher than the CW, but the SMLE should count at least double the Kar in a 'firepower' stat. Or in CMBN, the CW riflemen should fire faster/more frequently than the Germans

I don't think the Bren average was 60.

"WO 291/474 Rate of fire of the LMG.

In trials held in 1944, the average time of Bren gunners needed to re-aim in between bursts was measured as 2.3 seconds; to change mag and re-aim, 3.8 seconds. These figures are not fast enough to maintain the official "rapid rate" of 112 rds/min, which would need 1.8 and 3.3 seconds respectively."

Doing some quick calculations the average Bren gunner was roughly 80-86% (reaiming and reaim + mag change respectively) as effective as he theoretically needed to be (say mean of 83%). That means he could practically on average get 93 rounds down range per minute, somewhat less when he needed to change the barrel (roughly 150-200 rounds per barrel so every two minutes or so).

I also get the impression, but have no proof, that the Bren was operated by one man. If so the reload speed should be somewhat better and the gunner closer to 114rpm, though probably not 114 given the loader does not help reaming.

The entire test mainly focuses on the advantages of the German guns over the Brits, and largely concluded it was the belt feed that made them more effective, not the Rate of Fire. That kinda makes sense to me, most modern GPMs and SAWs are belt fed but not near the 1200-1500 rpm of the MG42 (most are around 850rpm which is closer to the MG34's Rof). Most of the test is theoretical though, the Bren reloading and remaiming being the only actual timed aspect.

[JonS]

presumably 3.8 seconds doesn't include rooting around in pouches for another mag.

[wokelly]

Doesn't specify, it is actually a summary of a bunch of reports rather than the actual documents themselves.

Should post the link, it is really interesting stuff. Just stumbled upon it recently. The above data is on page 22.

http://mr-home.staff.shef.ac.uk/hobbies/ww2eff2.pdf

I'd rather the actual documents but this is better than the nothing I have found.

[JonS]

haha. Mr Salt still casts his shadow

[wokelly]

Must have been before my time.

Huh?