HMG bug and small weapons behaviour

[Fūrinkazan]

I noticed a bug during a QB. Hmgs team were firing through smoke. I ordered an area target and smoke rounds fell between target and my troops. Despite lack of visibility, they kept on firing. I have a save file if Needed.

Now the main reason of my post.

First, i would like to say that i have no problems with the game or game engine. I also don't have tactical problems. I can win battles or campaings and in QBs i play with disadvanage against A.I.

I'm also an experimented wargamer and i think in know how to use my troops.

Like other players i'm thinking some adjustments is needed for some weapons,Hmgs, smgs, mmgs. This is not a huge problem but it's quiet frustrating and irrealistic i think.

If you read the MP40 effectiveness thread, you'll find other players that have the same fellings.

In order to have forceful argument, i decided to compare CMBO and CMAK with CMBN.

The games simulate similar tactical situations, with the same weapons. The way they simulate things are different but the results should be quiet the same.

CMX 1 datas :

In cmx1 the firepower is shown by an abstracted number. The higher it is, the more you'll inflict casualties and suppression to a target.

------------40 m----100 m ----250 m----500 m-----1000 m

Hmg 42-------155------125-------77-------52--------27

Hmg 34-------120-------95-------63-------47--------26

12.7 dshk-----100-------82-------58-------45--------28

Maxim--------100-------78-------48-------33--------11

Mg42 lmg------50-------45-------30-------18

Dp lmg---------30-------28-------18-------11

Bar------------34-------26-------15-------07

You'll notice the differences between hmgs and lmgs, especially at long range.

An hmg42 is 50 % more efficient at 1000 m than an lmg42 at 500.

At 500 m we are at almost 300 % in advantage of hmg 42.

This is for me logical. Hmg42 has optics, more ammo,tripod, more men allowing more firepower at long range than an lmg team of 2 men.

If you compare with other weapons you'll see that it's the case for all mmgs/ hmgs versus lmgs.

Now CMBN datas :

I counted the number of burts (the firepower) by mn for 2 weapons for comparison. 1 Bursts for hmg 42 is about 7 bullets, about 5 bullets for allied hmgs.

at :50 m--100--150--200--250--300 m--400 m--500 m--600m--700---800

hmg42--41---26---20---17---14---12------10------9------8------8------8

lmg42--26----19---18---12---12---11------10------8------8-----7

I was suggested to use TRP for better results :

Hmg 42 targeting trp at 50 m 42, 100 m26, 300 m 13, 500 m 10, 800 m 8

First, there is no improvement in firepower with or without TRP. Maybe more precision, but i did not test that.

Second, you'll notice that hmgs loose firepower faster than in cmx 1 serie.

At 250 m or more an hmg is equivalent of an lmg.

In CMX 1 hmgs have 2.56 the firepower of an lmg at the same distance : We can now consider that they should shoot something like 30 bursts against 12 for lmgs in CMBN to have an equivalence (210 rpm).

At long range, in cmx1, at 500 m : hmgs have 2.88 x the firepower of an lmg so it would be in CMBN : 8 bursts x 2.88 : 23 burts mn for hmgs ( something 160 bullets).

You may argue that ammo conservation is important and that's a point but at 500 m, firing without stop, an hmg team with a little more than 2000 rounds would fire about 12 minutes at a rate of 23 burst mn and 31 mn with the actual system.

Now that's the same with cmx 1 serie, an hmg 42 has 85 ammo points. At 500 m it will shoot 7 points mn = 12 mn of continuous shots.

I also did tests with infantry in CMBB, CMBO and CMBN. In the same situation, a company of infantry charging in open ground, Hmgs were much more effective against infantry in CMX 1 serie than in CMBN. It's logical since at long range the fp of hmgs is degraded in CMBN.

More, the effect on moral is much more higher in cmx1 than cmx2 and it's not a question of casualties inflicted. I had much better with 1 hmg42 and 1 hmg 34 in cmx1 than with 5 hmgs in cmbn, despite the fact that the mg 34 jammed 3 times (great feature) !

(i used same type of troops and same "tactic" in both tests).

Troops seems to have more self protection attitude in CMX1 ( they stop, and somtimes crawl to continue to advance).

Now Smgs,

I won't go in details, but in cmbn they open regulary at 270 m wasting ammo i think.

The datas in cmx1 are :

at----40 m----100 m----250 m

mp40--36------9--------0.44

ppsh--50------11-------0.5

Conclusion : again it's logical due to higher rof, ppsh as more firepower but at 250 m both smgs are useless.

It's not the case it seems in CMBN.

More, BFC modified the behaviour of troops so that "they are less likely to open fire at long range" with smgs in the last patch but it dit not solve the problem i think, so there was something to change before the first patch.

To finish i would say that CMBN is really a great game with a lot of potential.

Only some details needed adjustment (remember tank accuracy on the move ?)

The last patch was great, improving a lot of things and making the game much better.

I really think that making troops more likely to shoot with smgs at about 100 m or less and much more likely to shoot with hmgs/mmgs at long range, to reach something like 23 bursts mn at 500 m, would be an improvement for the game. It's not logical that lmgs and hmgs are equivalent in firepower in CMBN.

I'm not asking for an exact simulation of real life, but i think there is room for improvement here.

To the members of this forum who took the time to read my post :

Just Thanks.

Feel free to criticise my point of view, i'm open minded and the opinion of others on that point is also interresting for me.

To the BFC team :

I understand that you are very busy with the new game and patch. I also understand that you don't want to modify things in your game for no good reasons. So i did my best to convince you for a future patch or future game engine.

The idea of making upgrade is simply great and i wll buy upgrades and CMFI and i can't wait to play with CMBN 2.0.

You always tried to make better games and i really appreciate that.

I think that we share the same passion for wargaming.

The only way i have to thank you is to buy your games, that's what i do since CMBO a long time ago .....

So, please, just take a look at that.

Keep your good work.

Best regards

Marc "Furinkazan"

[ASL Veteran]

It sounds to me that you are making an assumption that CMx1 is an accurate data point to base a comparison upon. I'm not sure I can share that view.

For firing through smoke - why shouldn't an MG fire through smoke? Smoke isn't going to block bullets. It just conceals troops behind it.

For HMGs and LMGs, if you play enough CMBN you will notice that at longer ranges the fire from an LMG is less accurate than that of an HMG. With an HMG you can follow the bullet arc and it's basically a steady stream from the firing weapon to the target. With an LMG you can see significant bullet scatter as the bullet stream that begins at the firing weapon actually splits up into three or four streams at the target point because of the scatter of the bullets.

At longer distances it takes a longer time to acquire a target in order to fire upon it. Every minor adjustment you make to the weapon will have a larger scattering effect at the end point the farther away from you the target is. It's perfectly normal for a weapon to be fired less frequently at longer ranges than at closer ranges.

Infantry combat feels natural to me in CMBN as it is now.

[dieseltaylor]

HMG and smoke. I had heard that if you target light before the smoke arrives the HMG continues to fire but you cannot fire through smoke once it is in existence. I have not tested this myself and I suspect this was under V 1.01

[Baneman]

Still true - if you are area firing before the smoke arrives, the weapon continues to fire through the smoke, but once the smoke is present, you can't get a Targetting Line to initiate firing.

While ASL Veteran's point about CM1 comparisons may be valid, it would still be more useful to see HMG's fire more frequent bursts at longer ranges.

Also the "Aim at Centre Mass" thing works against its effectiveness sometimes - I had a case where the enemy was manoeuvering with fully loaded trucks in view at about 700m ( I actually saw them at about 1000m, but my MG42's would not open up at that range ).

I thought I would be able to cause some serious casualties to the men in the truck, but the MG determinedly fired at the engine block for 2-3 turns, eventually immobilising the truck, but without causing a single casualty to the passengers - kinda disappointing, you'd think irl they'd have been shredded ( and/or exited the truck immediately ).

Similar thing happens with jeeps - I've had infantry squad (prone) firing at a loaded jeep ( at about 50-100m ) for several turns and the passengers (sitting/kneeling) in the jeep caused several casualties before the jeep was KO'd and then they exited ...and then they took casualties. This was primarily because the squad aimed at the jeep's engine/body and not the (highly exposed) passengers. The fact they're "in the jeep" actually gives them a bizarre super-cover because the jeep attracts all the aimed firing.

[Fūrinkazan]

It sounds to me that you are making an assumption that CMx1 is an accurate data point to base a comparison upon. I'm not sure I can share that view.

For firing through smoke - why shouldn't an MG fire through smoke? Smoke isn't going to block bullets. It just conceals troops behind it.

For HMGs and LMGs, if you play enough CMBN you will notice that at longer ranges the fire from an LMG is less accurate than that of an HMG. With an HMG you can follow the bullet arc and it's basically a steady stream from the firing weapon to the target. With an LMG you can see significant bullet scatter as the bullet stream that begins at the firing weapon actually splits up into three or four streams at the target point because of the scatter of the bullets.

At longer distances it takes a longer time to acquire a target in order to fire upon it. Every minor adjustment you make to the weapon will have a larger scattering effect at the end point the farther away from you the target is. It's perfectly normal for a weapon to be fired less frequently at longer ranges than at closer ranges.

Infantry combat feels natural to me in CMBN as it is now.

Troops should have the abilty to shoot through smoke. I may not explained myself well because of my bad english.

If you try to use the target order and target a point behind smoke it will show you no line of sight and you cannot fire. Now, in my case, i ordered an area target and the smoke rounds fell after. When the field was full of smoke they kept firing. I used the target order, it showed no line of sight, this makes me think of a but. Dieseltaylor and Baneman explained it better i think.

As i said, i'm not the only one that has the feeling that hmgs are underated in CMBN.

I had to find a way to show that there is maybe something to do about that. The same for smgs. I did not test accuracy but the firepower, the amount of bullets a weapon can put on a target.

Good point about accuracy, but, it's not a problem of casualties inflicted. It's logical that with an lmg at 500 m, a lot of bullets are missing. It can be an advantage when shooting on a group of men.

Now, should i use CMX1 for comparison ?

As i said they simulate the same tactical level, the same weapons etc...

When CMBN came out i immediatly notice the problem of tank accuracy on the move. This was not the case if i remember well in CMX1, that's why it surprised me, and BCF changed this and both games are closer in the results now.

My point is that an hmg should put more bullets on target due to tripod etc...

This is the case in CMX1. The abstract firepower of an hmg in cmx1 shows that one hmg = 2.5 to 3 lmgs in long range.

I'm not saying that it should be exactly modelled this way in CMBN.

When i replayed cmx1 i have found hmgs more efficient than in CMBN.

If i don't find an objective point of comparison, people will say that i don't know how to play the game, i have bad tactics etc....

I have no problem with the game, just want to know the way other players think.

BFC modified things for smgs in the last patch, but i still see mp40 wasting ammos at long range, this shows that sometimes a change of behaviour of our soldier is needed. I'm no counting every bullet to compare the games, but i think that if both games are accurate, we should see the same effect on target with similar weapons.

Imagine in CMBN a Stuart destroying a Tiger at 2000 m from the front every time, i think that CMAK would be a good comparison to say that there is a problem (that's an extreme exemple to i hope explain more my point of view).

Now, i feel frustrated to wait sometimes 6 seconds between bursts.

Kanonier Reichmann wrote in the mp40 effectiveness thread : quote

"it seems that HMG's appear nerfed compared with other automatic weapons."

I have the same feeling.

Infantry combat is also for me quite natural, and you're right about the time for targeting, but an hmgs is not targeting a particular man. So i don't think that it should take so long when you use area target, or when you target a group of soldiers.

It's not a game killing problem, just something frustrating....

Thanks for reply.

[Fūrinkazan]

Also the "Aim at Centre Mass" thing works against its effectiveness sometimes - I had a case where the enemy was manoeuvering with fully loaded trucks in view at about 700m ( I actually saw them at about 1000m, but my MG42's would not open up at that range ).

I thought I would be able to cause some serious casualties to the men in the truck, but the MG determinedly fired at the engine block for 2-3 turns, eventually immobilising the truck, but without causing a single casualty to the passengers - kinda disappointing, you'd think irl they'd have been shredded ( and/or exited the truck immediately ).

Similar thing happens with jeeps - I've had infantry squad (prone) firing at a loaded jeep ( at about 50-100m ) for several turns and the passengers (sitting/kneeling) in the jeep caused several casualties before the jeep was KO'd and then they exited ...and then they took casualties. This was primarily because the squad aimed at the jeep's engine/body and not the (highly exposed) passengers. The fact they're "in the jeep" actually gives them a bizarre super-cover because the jeep attracts all the aimed firing.

It's maybe similar to the sniper problem before the patch. If i remember well, they were aiming at the body of tank commanders, making them hit the turret armor, instead of the TC's head. Maybe some adjustment needed so that they target passengers too.

[Fūrinkazan]

Just something i forgot to say about the comparison CM1/ CMBN :

We can see that an hmg 42 team has about 2000 bullets ammo (including rifles)

In CMBB it's represented by 85 ammo "points".

1 ammo point is about 23 bullets.

When firing at 500 m they shoot 7 points something like 160 bullets minutes.

In cmx 2 its something like 8 bursts of 7 bullets = 56 bullets.

I know it's more complicated than that but it gives a good idea i think.

If we compare tanks for exemple, they share the same amount of ammo in both games.

It's just a question of logic. So it makes me think that i'm not far from the truth.

Now i may be wrong and only Steve or Charles could tell that.

I also think that 160 bullets mn makes something like 22 bursts mn.

So there would be a delay of 2 and a half seconds between bursts approximately, the time to approximatly target and shoot in the mass of the target (infantry, building etc...) so it's not totally crazy i think.

More, in CMX1 when a unit was low on ammo they started to shoot less if i remember well. That's also logical.

It seems that in CMBN they do the inverse, they start ammo preservation way before they're out of ammo.

Can we imagine a system were soldiers are more likely to shoot at long range more ammo and when the ammo comes to 500 or less bullets, they will go in "let's preserve bullets" mode ?

[Erwin]

In CM1, units were able to shoot less on LOW AMMO as it simulated them becoming very economical with (small arms) ammo, but they never would completely run out.

In CM2, units can and do run out of ammo 100% and be unable to shoot anything.

[Fūrinkazan]

After doing some research i found that table :

sustained rate of fire for the M240B :

100 Rounds per minute fired in 6 to 9 round bursts and 4 to 5 seconds between bursts. Barrel change every 10 minutes.

rapid rate of fire for the M240B :

200 Rounds per minute fired in 10 to 13 round bursts and 2 to 3 seconds between bursts. Barrel change every 2 minutes.

For people, like me that think that something is strange with hmgs rate of fire, i must say that Battlefront system is correct concerning the delay between bursts.

At short distance, we can consider that they switch to emergency mode and use something close to cylcic rate of fire mode (650 to 950 Rounds per minute fired in continuous bursts. Barrel change every minute for m240b)

We can see that on sustained fire (6/9 bursts) we have 100 rounds mn for the m240b heavy mg.

This is what the mg 42 is shooting at 500 m or more but, if we consider that they are on sustained fire mode at 500 m + why do we have only something like 60/70 rpm ?

We can consider that they switch to rapid fire (10/13 bursts mn) mode at 400 m to 200 m. The m240b is shooting 200 rpm in that mode, the mg 42 with 13 bursts mn will fire 90 rpm.

So if the delay between bursts is correct, i see differencies in the amount of bullets.

I have a few questions about that, if someone can answer :

what is the sustained rate of fire of hmg 42 ? I have seen from 200 to 350 rpm.

At what distance do they use rapid and sustained fire with M240b ?

Would it be possible that, in sustained fire mode, the hmg 42 is able to shoot at 100 rpm or more at 500/600 m ?

I first thought that the delay was too long between bursts, that's not the case. And it's logical that, with distance decreasing, the delay is shorter.

Now, my only question is about the amount of bullets.

The reason is the following :

- the maximum effective range of the M240B for an area target :

Tripod –1,100 meters

- the maximum effective range of the M240B for a point target :

Tripod – 800 meters

Bipod – 600 meters

If the m240b can use sustained fire at 800 m this means that it cant shoot 100 rounds mn at that distance. That's more than an mg42 in the game.

This may explain the feeling i have about the lack of power of hmgs in the game.

Before someone attacks me on that point, i'm not asking for exact rate of fire in the game. I just have questions, that other players have. I tried to explain that using CMX1. now that i have more solid datas i still have questions.

For smgs :

I found in "Soviet infantry tactics in WWII" that, in defense the soviet doctrine recomands to shoot at 100/200 m. I have no precision if it's full auto or single shot. It seems that at long range, soviet smgs are more precise that germans or other allied smgs. I think the game is not far from reality, but 270 is still to much i guess. This was reduced in the first patch but i think that a little reduction is still needed.

I will appreciate if someone with better infos could give is point of view here.

To explain my purpose in the thread :

Some people, including me, have questions about the game and in this case hmgs and smgs. There were other threads about the same subject. I just propose to answer those questions in an argumented way here. That's what i'm trying to do.

People may think that i'm complaining about the game. This is not the case.

I only post when i see something repetiting that makes me think it's strange. I'm not saying my point of view is correct, i would like to find answers. I think it can also be usefull for the game improvement.

A few weeks ago, one of my Stug was ambushing tanks, hiding under trees.

One first Sherman comes and is spotted first and destroyed. The another one comes, descending a hill at full speed. It spotted my Stug first, shot and destroyed it on the move with first round:(. More, it was a green crew . Since i have only seen it happened once, i think it was bad luck and i did not post about it.

This is how i'm thinking when i'm posting.

Thanks for answers.

Regards

[Kanonier Reichmann]

Comparing CMx1 to CMx2 with respect to MG's is valid in my view as by far the majority of the players who played CMBB & CMAK felt the representation of HMGs compared with LMGs & SMGs was pretty well spot on. Gone were the days where you could charge an emplaced HMG team with just a squad and overrun the position, as you could easily do in CMBO.

The other thing that's missing in terms of reality is the lack of jams for automatic weapons. Considering that the upcoming Sicily title will definitely see the use of the woeful Italian Breda LMG, it would be surprising if this thing isn't modelled to jam pretty frequently, especially if operated by an inexperienced crew.

The Breda LMG needed to have oiled cartridges for it to operate effectively so in the dusty conditions that existed in Sicily it would be quite unrealistic for this weapon to fire uninterrupted considering its poor reputation in such an environment.

Regards

KR

[Fūrinkazan]

Comparing CMx1 to CMx2 with respect to MG's is valid in my view as by far the majority of the players who played CMBB & CMAK felt the representation of HMGs compared with LMGs & SMGs was pretty well spot on. Gone were the days where you could charge an emplaced HMG team with just a squad and overrun the position, as you could easily do in CMBO.

The other thing that's missing in terms of reality is the lack of jams for automatic weapons. Considering that the upcoming Sicily title will definitely see the use of the woeful Italian Breda LMG, it would be surprising if this thing isn't modelled to jam pretty frequently, especially if operated by an inexperienced crew.

The Breda LMG needed to have oiled cartridges for it to operate effectively so in the dusty conditions that existed in Sicily it would be quite unrealistic for this weapon to fire uninterrupted considering its poor reputation in such an environment.

Regards

KR

I think that trying to find comparable datas is the best way to make your opinion.

Usually, when BFC publish a game this is what happens :

Someone starts a thread " tanks are too accurate "

Few days later another thread " tanks are totally inaccurate" etc...

It's the same with spotting, snipers etc...

Sometimes, people are right (tank firing on the move, pistols accuracy...) but everyone has different perception about the game. It's difficult to have an opinion basing on a few things that happened while playing the game.

When i replayed CMBB/CMAK, i didn't play it since CMSF, i was surprised by the effect of hmgs on infantry and the difference with CMBN. With 2 bunkers (6 hmgs if i remember well) i was able to block 250 soviets troops at 500 m +. Not a question of casualties only but they were more easy to pin down. Same in CMAK, with 2 hmgs against US company.

I also remember that in CMBB, a german infantry position was hard to take and i had to use all my combined weapons to eliminate them.

Now it doesn't mean that CMBN is totally wrong, but it seems there are huge differencies that i can't explain.

It was certainly more easy to have a better hmgs representation in CMX1 since it's more abstracted than in CMBN with 1/1 representation of troops.

My guess when i see M240b datas is that the weapon can use sustained and

rapid rate of fire at long distance ( at least 500 m). So the mg42 and vickers should be able to do it.

So with 100 rpm to 200 rpm for M240b we fall to something like 70 rpm for mg42 and 50 rpm for allied hmgs. Would it be correct to expect 100/200 rpm for a vickers for exemple at 500 m with 5/6 seconds pause ? This would be 4 times what we see in the game. This can explain the differencies between games. With less bullets on target, less suppression etc...

It's worse for mg 34/42 since they have higher rate of fire.

The fact that bursts are, it seems, limited to 7 bullets for german and 5 bullets or less for allied doesn't help.

If we compare M240b with allied hmgs, they can shoot up to 13 bullets by bursts compared to something like 5 max in the game almost x3.

I've been reading this on the Soviet tactics manual :

"with the beginning of the enemy infantry attack the fire of the machinegun section will increase to its maximum rate."

"a faultlessly operated machinegun cannot be approached by infantry.Thus, the machingunners increase their fire to the utmost, in every instance, even encirclement, and sacrifice themselves to it".

No indication of distances or more details, but it seems that they were very confident on their hmg teams. CMBB/CMAK were closer to this representation than CMBN i think.

I think you're right about jamming, but maybe they'll put it in a next version of the game. It will be interresting to see how hmgs do in CMFI, with longer range for firing than in bocage.

Each patch brings improvement, now snipers can be used very effectively, and most infantry combat is great. Pistols and super tank crews are still annoying but i think BFC are working on it. I just have little frustration with smgs hmgs but i hope that maybe one day....

[dieseltaylor]

1. INTRODUCTION

The cyclic rate of fire of the German MG 42 is 25 rounds per second. Most of the disadvantages, as well as the advantages, of the gun can be attributed to this single characteristic. As a result of the high rate of fire, the gun has a marked tendency to "throw off," so that its fire stays on the target for a much briefer time than does that of the MG 34, which can fire only 15 rounds per second.

This section summarizes the German Army views as to the length of bursts to be used against hostile forces when the MG 42 is employed as a light machine gun or as a heavy machine gun.

2. AS A LIGHT MACHINE GUN

The Germans are instructed to fire bursts of from 5 to 7 rounds when they employ the MG 42 as a light machine gun, since an operator cannot hold his gun on the target for a longer period. The gun must be re-aimed after each burst. To enable the bursts to fall in as rapid a succession as possible, the Germans try to cut the aiming time to a minimum.

Under battle conditions the MG 42 can fire about 22 bursts per minute—that is, about 154 rounds. Under the same conditions, the MG 34 is capable only of about 15 bursts per minute, at a rate of 7 to 10 rounds per burst, totalling about 150 rounds. Thus the MG 42, used as a light machine gun, requires a slightly higher ammunition expenditure. Although the Germans believe that when the weapon is properly employed, the compactness and density of its fire pattern justify the higher expenditure, recent German Army orders have increasingly stressed the need of withholding machine-gun fire until the best possible effect is assured. Although the German defensive trick of "lying in wait" has been adopted partly to gain the tactical advantage of surprise, it also fits in with recent German efforts to conserve, not only ammunition, but all other matériel manufactured by the hard-pressed industries of the Reich and the occupied countries.

3. AS A HEAVY MACHINE GUN

German soldiers are instructed that when the MG 42 is employed as a heavy machine gun, sustained fire must be avoided at all costs. The German Army has ruled that the results of sustained fire are disappointing and that the expenditure of ammunition involved is "intolerable."

This, and the following German observations, do not apply, however, to fire placed on large targets at short range.

The Germans believe that if the compact beaten zone of the MG 42 is on the target, a burst of 50 rounds should be effective. If the burst is not on the target, the Germans are instructed to re-aim the gun and, if necessary, to adjust the sights.

The enemy considers it wrong to fire long bursts before fire for adjustment has been undertaken and observed. At a range of 2,000 yards, for example, the time of flight is 4.7 seconds. This means that the point of impact cannot satisfactorily be observed under 6 seconds. Six seconds of sustained fire results in an expenditure of 150 rounds. The German Army tells its soldiers that if they will wait to observe the point of impact in firing for adjustment, a burst of 50 rounds should then prove adequate.

While U.S. soldiers have expressed a healthy respect for the MG 42's high rate of fire, they agree that the gun's dispersion is very small—so small in fact, that they have frequently been able to make successful dashes out of the field of fire.

http://www.lonesentry.com/articles/intelligence-report/use-of-mg42.html

Notwithstanding the MG 42's high rate of fire, the Handbook of the German Army (1940) forbade the firing of more than 250 rounds in a single burst and indicated a sustained rate of no more than 300–350 rounds per minute to minimize barrel wear and overheating.

Wikipedia

Also from Wikipedia on the Vickers HMG and notice the 250 limit for continuous fire but in this case not due to damaging the gun.

Specifications

The weight of the gun itself varied based on the gear attached, but was generally 25-30 lb, with a 40-50 lb tripod. The ammunition boxes for the 250-round ammunition belts weighed 22 lb each. In addition, it required about 7.5 imperial pints of water in its evaporative cooling system to prevent overheating. The heat of the barrel boiled the water in the jacket surrounding it. The resulting steam was taken off by flexible tube to a condenser container—this had the dual benefits of avoiding giving away the gun's location, and also enabling re-use of the water, which was very important in arid environments.

.....

The gun was 3 ft 8 in long and its cyclic rate of fire was between 450 and 600 rounds per minute. In practice, it was expected that 10,000 rounds would be fired per hour, and that the barrel would be changed every hour—a two-minute job for a trained team. Firing the Mark 8 cartridge, which had a boat tailed bullet, it could be used against targets at a range of approximately 4,500 yd.

..................

The Vickers was used for indirect fire against enemy positions at ranges up to 4,500 yards. This plunging fire was used to great effect against road junctions, trench systems, forming up points, and other locations that might be observed by a forward observer, or zeroed in at one time for future attacks, or guessed at by men using maps and experience. Sometimes a location might be zeroed in during the day, and then attacked at night, much to the surprise and confusion of the enemy. New Zealand units were especially fond of this use. A white disc would be set up on a pole near the MMG, and the gunner would aim at a mark on it, knowing that this corresponded to aiming at the distant target. There was a special back-sight with a tall extension on it for this purpose. The only similar weapon of the time to use indirect fire was the German MG 08, which had a separate attachment sight with range calculator.

A British World War II Vickers MMG platoon typically had one officer in command of four guns, in two sections of two, each with a crew and a small team of riflemen whose job was to protect the gun, and keep it supplied with ammunition.

[Fūrinkazan]

Thanks for sharing informations dieseltaylor.

For lmgs it confirms what i've been reading in German squad tactics in ww2 book. In this i think the game is ok, also i guess with Bren and Bar.

I did not have infos on the hmg use.

If i understand well, they fire short burst, observe the point of impact then fire 50 rounds at long range. Then they repeat the process i guess, if the target is not destroyed. Different of what we see in the game.

I wonder if the differencies between the 2 games comes from firepower or the adjustment of psychological effect on infantry (suppression).

I've seen troops with their suppression indicator at the maximum still advancing until one man is hit.

In CMBB, infantry seems more affected, they hide or crawl as soon as they are hit by hmg fire. Was it exageratet in CMBB/CMAK ?

What is your opinion?

[dieseltaylor]

I have not spent a lot of time wondering about the HMG's so my view is unformed currently. The problem is we actually have RealLife and the game mechanics and HMG's in combat don't get much of a mention in the military books I have so I am not in any position to make a call.

I did have the feeling though that, on my slight acquaintance with the game, HMG's were not overly lethal and low firing rate may be the problem. I can juggle with thoughts whether the game AI recognises it should up the tempo of fire when your attack is going in but I have not carried out any tests. Its Just a idle thought of mine. : )

[womble]

Gone were the days where you could charge an emplaced HMG team with just a squad and overrun the position, as you could easily do in CMBO.

You can't do that in CMBN either. You might manage it from close range with three teams but a single, unsupported, unsplit squad will be pinned in short order (and then shot to pieces) trying to charge across all but the shortest patch of open ground at an HMG.

[PzKfW]

It's funny that we have a whole thread about just that, now...

[Killkess]

It's funny that we have a whole thread about just that, now...

Yeah, it seems he has not even tried to do so before posting his knowledge.

[Apocal]

Look at the dates, guys.

[Killkess]

Look at the dates, guys.

Since the HMG behaviour is what it is since CMBN 1.0/CMSF the date dont make a difference.