Remarkable comparison and contrasting of the MG-34 and the improved BAR

[SelfLoadingRifle]

1) Firepower was (and still is) the name of the game. The MG34 in the hands of a well trained gun team (unlike those gents in the video) will beat the BAR every time. In the same way, much as I loved the old magazine fed LMG (Bren re-chambered to 7.62 Nato) the belt fed GPMG was the better weapon due to its higher sustained rate of fire.

Unfortunately, we Brits binned both LMG and GPMG from the section and replaced them with 2 LSWs. The LSW was a long barrelled and bipodded version of the SA80. Essentially it was an arse about face BAR (also with fixed barrel) that fired from the closed bolt. You had to be a contortionist to reload it in the prone position, you couldn't sustain a decent rate of fire and if you tried, you would a) burn the thing out and risk cook-offs as a round would always be left inside a red hot chamber. I hated the bloody thing.

After I hung up my boots, we Brits saw the error of our ways. We now have the Minimi. which of course is a belt fed open bolt weapon with a quick change barrel.

Plus ca change.

SLR

[RockinHarry]

Sorry, but that looks like what I'd expect from an Area fire order. Deliberate shots left and right of centre. Given it's at 10x mag, too, it's pretty long range, hence the low RoF.

The test setup was advancing german infantry vs. US infantry on "hide", backed up by two unhidden US HMG teams. German infantry, while advancing, had short frontal covererd arcs, to keep them on the move and not shooting.

2 german HMG42 teams are placed in overwatch on a hill behind german advancing infantry. Once the HMG42 spotted the US HMG shooting german infantry, they started engaging. No covered arcs set or direct orders. 600m range between german and US HMG is well within medium range. While the game just allows short burst harrassing fires (which apparently have no noticable effect as seen in the vids), in RL it would´ve been concentrated long burst fire (one belt +) by both HMGs on one target the same time, to yield any worthy "suppression" effect. Can´t tell if the game AI uses area fire under this condition, but it shows that standard (medium to long range) support role fires for HMG´s are not really working in the game.

During these tests, I also figured german infantry is well capable to deal with the US HMG alone and using friendly support role HMG from behind unnecessary. This is a reverse of actual roles.

[RockinHarry]

Interesting way to debate. You pull some words out of context and argue against a point I did not even raise.

A 1944 British study found that less than 10% of CW infantry casualties in NWE were caused by firearms, 66% were caused by mortars/artillery and the rest by various causes, including mines. These were casualties inflicted by the German Army against British/Canadian troops. Statistics from other fronts, including the Russian Front, were similar, namely that mortars/artillery were the main infantry killers.

Now if you want to look at doctrine, we can look at the 1944 CW infantry attack doctrine, which was elaborated before D-Day and used for the rest of the war:

1. the attack begins with a artillery barrage against known/suspected enemy positions to kill, break, rout, suppress enemy troops. As the attack begins, the barrage will lift ahead of the infantry to suppress the defenders as long as possible and prevent enemy reserves from moving up;

2. during the infantry advance, most troops stay out of LOS of enemy troops and advance from cover to cover. Scout units at the tip advance until contact is made and are the ones most likely to suffer casualties from firearms when contact is made;

3. if contact is made with a MG nest/strongpoint, tanks accompanying the infantry will advance to neutralize them (although this could also be from supporting mortars/artillery);

4. steps 2 and 3 are repeated until the unit is on the objective. At that time, troops will dig in, FOs will come up and pre-register artillery against likely avenues of German counterattack and AT guns/AFVs are brought up to deal with German AFVs. During any german counterattack, pre-registered artillery/AT guns/AFVs would provide most of the firepower.

Late WW2 U.S. Army doctrine was basically the same.

So whether you look at the CW, U.S., German or Soviet Army, the results are still basically the same, the main infantry killer is mortars/artillery and infantry firearms have a very secondary role.

Yep, might have lost context somewhat and off course agree that basic offensive doctrines were virtually all the same. Where are we right now? lol ...hm..something about HMGs and their effectiveness in the game, me thinks.

[Sgt Joch]

well, if we are discussing the effectiveness of MMG/HMGs in CMx2 vs real life, there was a long debate about that before:

http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=97252

and we had another one internally which unfortunately came to no definite conclusions.

In CM, if an MMG/HMG is part of an integrated defence with interlocking fields of fire, kill zones, mines, obstacles, TRPs, etc., as you would expect in a standard "by the book" defensive position, they will pretty much stop any attack cold.

Unfortunately, in CM, you may have a single HMG on its own trying to stop an infantry attack and not being as effective as players expect. That is where the data becomes more fuzzy. However, from the tests I had run at the time and which are in that thread, but which I reproduce below, the MG42 seemed to peform, both in terms of ROF and accuracy, as you would expect.

I have to run some more tests as well, but I think the issue is more with suppression/morale and maybe spotting.

If you look at just the performance of the MG42, it does not appear off.

The ROF is based on actual German practice, short controlled bursts.

The accuracy, from my tests also appears ok. I had the squads running directly towards the MG, so you can take aiming out of the equation.

The MGs start hitting at around 500-600 meters. Remember that past around 300 meters, the rounds are arcing up and coming down, so the gunner has to have the exact range and lead to hit. Out past 300 meters, every 2-3 bursts would hit someone.

Inside 300 meters, the trajectory is pretty flat, so you can ignore the range. in the 100-300 meters range, pretty much every burst hits 1,2, sometimes 3 soldiers. No one made it within 100 meters.

This is with a "regular" crew. The accuracy would be increased by using higher quality crews and/or TRPs.

I just ran some simple firing range test scenarios. 3 MG 42 each in a bunker to negate the suppression effect on a hard terrain map to negate the micro cover effect, all regulars. Facing them, A US infantry platoon "regular". The platoon starts out around 800 meters away with a quick order towards the front of the bunkers, each squad taking on one bunker.

I ran the scenario twice, with the same results: the squads started taking casualties between 500-600 meters, became pinned, broken and uncontrollable 200-400 meters in front of the MGs, 2 squads came within 100 meters before being broken, one being wiped out.

Results:

Test 1: 34 casualties, 5 men ok;

Test 2: 33 casualties, 6 men ok;

There may be room for some fine tuning, but on the whole the performance

of the MG42s does not seem out of whack.

As JasonC mentioned, the rate at which morale is recovered may have to be looked at again.

Now, there are two remaining issues which are still up for debate:

1. do troops recover from suppression too quickly? CM, even though it is realistic, is also skewed towards playability. Dropping the experience or motivation levels of troops one level seems IMHO to produce better results, but that is a matter of personal taste.

2. should final suppressive fire be more aggressively modeled? i.e. increasing the ROF of a HMG about to be overrun. This has been looked at as well.

[womble]

The test setup was...

Thanks for supplying the context.

[mjkerner]

In CM, if an MMG/HMG is part of an integrated defence with interlocking fields of fire, kill zones, mines, obstacles, TRPs, etc., as you would expect in a standard "by the book" defensive position, they will pretty much stop any attack cold.

I can attest to this. I've been fooling with a large scenario I made involving a Soviet human wave attack on a regimental+ scale on very large CMFI map. (Quick mods to make Italian troops/vehicles look like Russians.) When there are interlocking FOF, HMG's are pretty good at both killing and driving fanatic-level troops to ground.

'cept, the Russkies just relentlessly keep on coming, attacking and attacking (4 battalions vs less the 1 German Bn). TRP'sd, mines, trenches and wire are all helping to slow them...but Mein Gott, they just keep coming!

[RockinHarry]

Bits of a tactical example for a german HMG42 in support of infantry attack on russian entrenched position, from training video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fBXAqe9QVIc&feature=youtu.be&t=1m36s

Context runs from 1:36 to about 1:47

The HMG section leaders order sequence:

Auf Wisent (target "Wisent", bison)

200 Schuss (200 rounds)

Dauerfeuer! (contiuous fire)

The HMG now supports german infantry, already in enemy trench, to suppress russian infantry in a particular trench section, pre designated "Wisent".

"Continuous fire" is not meant literally here, but rather applied in interrupted bursts, to fulfill the tactical purpose.

[John Kettler]

RockinHarry,

The Internet's so much more useful when you know the right search terms.

Most informative, but I nearly howled over the hand grenades which sounded like incoming artillery. I love trenches that are so narrow they're actually protective and deep enough to move about in unseen. I couldn't even tell a tank was out there until the characteristic early T-34 hatch opened. I'm not sure why a burning tank had to be blown up outright. Seems like a waste of resources to me. I have to say the German training films make ours like they came out of the Ministry of Silly Walks. In theirs, there's most definitely a war on.

Regards,

John Kettler