accuracy/efficiency of machine gun fire

[Fernando]

There was an excerpt from the supplementary instruction appended to the typescript copy of the first (draft) manual for the MG42 (former MG39/41) dated June 3rd, 1942 (the first comprehensive official document dealing with that arm as it was labelled):

...With the increase in the rate of fire (7 shots per second) for the MG08, 15 per second for the MG34 and 25 per second for the MG42...The essential characteristics of the MG42 are:

a. The cone of fire is particularly dense and compact and this considerably heightens the possibility of observing the effects of fire.

b. The ease with which the cone of fire can be spread over any given area because the increase rate of fire. Consequently, the operator need not fear retaliation from the objetive under attack as much as he would have to if were operating a slower machinegun....

I guess they are additional advantages of the MG42 high ROF, not the main reasons for increasing MG34's already high ROF.

[dieseltaylor]

All excellent stuff. Presumably some German sources might tease out a little bit more.

[Fūrinkazan]

Hi,

I've been reading this thread with interest, and also other threads on cmbn forum about the same subject.

I'm glad i'm not the only one who think that something could be improved with hmgs.

I tried in this thread :

http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=105423

to expose my point of view.

You'll find some tests that i did with CMX 1 and CMX2 to try to make a comparison and have strong arguments.

First, i noticed while testing lmgs/hmgs in CMX2 that at about 300 m, an lmg will fire the same number of bullets than an hmg.

Then if you compare with cmx1 you'll find that the abstracted firepower of an hmg is much more important (you'll find the figures in the test ).

For exemple at 500 m lmg will fire 8 bursts minutes and hmg 9.

In cmx 1 the hmg has 52 of firepower and lmg 18.

This means that in one game the firepower is almost the same and in another, an hmg42 = 2.88 lmg 42 at 500 m.

I don't want to go in real life use of hmgs, because this would be too hard to model, but in my memories, hmgs were more effective in cmx 1.

It is less a problem at short range, like in bocage, but become more importante when the distance increase.

I think that hmgs in general are modeled like lmgs with more ammo. They have the same way to open fire.

During my talking with other players, dieseltaylor showed me a link about the use of hmg 42

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

This makes me think that the way hmgs fire should be tweaked at long range. For exemple : 1 short burst or 2 to observe the point of impacts, then 50 rounds and so on until the target is destroyed. Something like mortars do, a few shots to find the good range and then effective fire.

We can imagine that experimented shooter would only need 1 try while green troops will take 2 or 3 bursts to find the range. Trps could reduce the procedure or allow a 50 round burst immediately like for artillery support.

Now that is just a suggestion, but with this, there would be a real difference between lmgs and hmgs.

Now, hmgs can be impressive in the CMX2 , but at too short range i think.

The placement is crucial but they can have devastating effect, and i had good results in the game but only under 300 m, after it seems that it's harder to have better results even with flanking fire.

I saw in a tv show an experimented british machinegunner shooting with a vickers hmg.

First, the weapon is not precise this is why it is very important to have flanking fire. They made a test with balloons that represented a company of infantry "charging" the hmg. If the mg is on the front it is very hard to hit targets, a lot of bullets going between the ranks of infantry. During the test, the gunner had 250 bullets for 250 balloons. From the front, if i remember well he only shot 80 balloons, but from the flank 240.

The main problem for me is the difference of efficiency when comparing the 2 games. If you have CMBB or CMAK just make the test of charging in the open in front of one hmg.

In cmx2, with the 1/1 representation of troops, it's certainly much harder to model.

Now the game is getting better with each patch/module so i hope that BFC will take a look at this.

Regards

[PzKfW]

Yes, when you model lethality and suppression with actual physical intersections of trooper and bullet, it is important to have a realistic amount of lead going down range...

[LongLeftFlank]

.... And also to have said troopers take cover and stay that way for a while, except when Fanatic (in which case they're mowed down in heaps).

[Vanir Ausf B]

Keep in mind that one of the issues that has been brought up -- earlier in this thread IIRC -- is that bullets whizzing past soldiers don't cause suppression. Pixeltruppen are only aware of bullets that impact some object near them.* Given that departure from reality in the model it seems to me that it may be necessary to compensate by deliberately over-modeling some other aspect of machine gun performance, such as accuracy. Certainly, making machine gunners in the game purposely fire less accurately at infantry than at other types of targets seems counter-productive.

* I have not personally tested this, but other posters have mentioned it.

[LongLeftFlank]

Yeah, a real can of worms there VaB. We also have the artificial clumping of the squaddies around the Action Spots to consider.

What I think we are seeing in recent CM is some of those details moving more than others, in a mix of realism about X and design for effect about Y, with the net impact being a quirky, jarring fit, with rough spots sticking out noticably and worrying people.

If you know the end tactical relationships expected and required for the simulation to be accurate in tactics (rather than engineered representation of each detail), then design for effect can reproduce those relationships and show the main reasons for them. But as soon as that is abandoned for subsystem literalism, every subsystem is stressed, and any one of them being "off" will break tactical relationships seen in the real deal or a prior design for effect system.

I've no doubt many prefer the greater immersive atmosphere of engineering literalism. But it is not more realistic, until it is perfect. It is less realistic. Notice, several subsystems have to all get it right for the cumulative effect to be right, including the tactics, options for both sides, way it scales or interacts with odds, addition of other arms, changes to cover etc. But for pure game design, it is a solved problem to get not just one of these things right, but all of them right enough.

Last one....

I think a big part of the tuning problem comes, instead, from CM needing to break apart the engagement and its effects into many more discrete shots, and the rally into a continuous process.... In CMx2 a typical shot effect is not going to put the squad into a morale state that fails to clear before the next shot arrives, at that distance. Or there is only a modest chance that each shot drives the suppression / morale level to a new lower low.... It is harder to tune correctly the binomial or balanced rate process with 12 shot elements and 120 rally-seconds, than the process with one probabilistic binary outcome. You need to get both a likely cumulative and an instantaneous effect right, over a wider range of scale.

But in any event, the problem is not that the men don't have as much micro cover as they should, in this instance. It is instead that they don't hit the dirt and stay there, nearly fast enough, even under fire and with the absence of cover of any kind.

[John Kettler]

Some MG discussion grist, labeled as to topic.

German MG Combat Footage

Here's something I located in which there's considerable footage of MG-34s and MG-42s in combat. You can see some ammo schlepping going on and a peculiar winter HMG mod which would look great in a diorama. You can see what sort of trigger control was used and can get some idea of what was taken into action. I saw one German squad with an ammo bearer carrying two cans (one in each hand), and from what I've seen, the MG gunner habitually had a belt in the gun. That's 1250 rounds right there. You'll see some guys swathed in MG belts, too. If guys in the special ammo carrier harnesses are present, I didn't notice them.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gKaB5QkViL0

Ma Deuce vs MG-42

I think it might be worthwhile to look at two different sides of the HMG suppression issue. We're already familiar with the intimidation factor for the MG-34 and MG-42, but we haven't discussed the intimidation factor of the .50 cal and the equivalent Russian 12.7mm MGs. The Germans hated these things because they could blow through most cover with impunity and do incredible damage with a hit almost anywhere. From the CM Archives I found this very groggy discussion of the pros and cons. In turn, it refers to an earlier one, also of great depth.

http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=48448

.50 in Combat (surprisingly hard to find combat accounts, but right keyword may not be the obvious one)

Excerpt from Alex Kershaw's THE LONGEST WINTER (.50 on desperate defense--MG jeep). If I'm reading this correctly, on of the guys has the gun at least partially out of the mount and is holding it while firing! And here I thought firing an AN/M2 "Stinger" (air-to-air high ROF .30 cal MG) carried manually was pretty impressive.

http://www.thelongestwinterbook.com/excerpt.html

(Fair Use)

"The platoon again opened fire as the Germans got to the fence. This time, it was Private First Class Milosevich who let rip with the .50-caliber jeep-mounted machine gun. The armor-piercing bullets, employed by rear gunners on B-17s to bring down fighters, blew holes a foot wide in the German soldiers. But the .50 caliber’s field of fire was too narrow, and the gun was not easy to maneuver from its fixed position in the jeep. Milosevich tried to take it off its stand but burned his hand because it had become so hot. He wrapped a handkerchief over the burn and again picked up the gun so he could better traverse the pasture.

Suddenly, Milosevich saw a German paratrooper to his left only yards from Lyle Bouck’s dugout. He fired and the German fell.

The enemy fire suddenly became particularly fierce. Milosevich decided to make for his dugout. A German appeared a few yards away, wielding a "potato-masher" grenade. Milosevich let rip, cutting the German in two.80 Milosevich made it back to his dugout and began to fire again. He screamed for Slape, who dived into the dugout, bruising his ribs.

The Germans kept coming.

Slape took over on the .50-caliber machine gun.

"Shoot in bursts of three!" shouted Milosevich, knowing the gun would overheat and they would be out of ammunition if Slape kept firing away without pausing.

"I can’t!" shouted Slape. "There’s too many of them!"

Slape continued to fire, hitting dozens of men with a sweeping arc. Milosevich saw the unwieldly gun start to pour off smoke. When he looked down the hillside, it seemed that they were outnumbered by at least a hundred to one, and the Germans just kept coming."

WW II GI veteran interview (short) on his use of the .50 near St. Lo. Do NOT watch while eating!

Getting a .50 to the Battle & Feeding It Once There

USMC use of .50. Shows what it takes to get one in battle, lists scale of fire and weight thereof. Shows .50 in antipersonnel role. Specifically mentions carts!

http://www.ww2gyrene.org/weapons_M2HB.htm

Regards,

John Kettler

[PzKfW]

I've no doubt many prefer the greater immersive atmosphere of engineering literalism. But it is not more realistic, until it is perfect. It is less realistic. Notice, several subsystems have to all get it right for the cumulative effect to be right, including the tactics, options for both sides, way it scales or interacts with odds, addition of other arms, changes to cover etc. But for pure game design, it is a solved problem to get not just one of these things right, but all of them right enough.

I agree completely. However, we won't be going back to CMx1, with abstractions that make realistic results. We're stuck with the CMx2 system. So that necessitates, as you say, that every subsystem is perfect to solve the problem.

[LongLeftFlank]

Well, the constructive solution is proposed here. It just got buried in all the pages of (interesting) sidebar discussion.

I understand what Battlefront is trying to do by going for more engineering realism, and it is ambitious, but potentially a large payoff if everything can be nailed down near-perfectly. Then you don't have to put correct outcomes in, they come out naturally, and this means you can even discover things you didn't know before. Unfortunately, until you are at that theoretical perfection, 9 times out of 10 a difference between game performance and expectations is going to be due to a game detail that is "off", not to an expectation that is incorrect or a common myth.

What I'd like to see happen is for the suppression effect of MG and infantry firepower to be improved. The player community can provide reports and maybe even specs of expectations there. Even simulate some typical per shot results and suppression recover rate models and see how they scale, whether they end at the expectations we'd like to see. I'd like to see mortar fire incorporate a random "blur" of the actual point of aim off the intended point of aim, and a somewhat more random shot to shot dispersion around it. On spotting, I'd like to see length of time in view have a bigger impact, and vehicles a bit worse compared to unsuppressed squishies with more "eyes out and about".

I don't think these things are untweakable. If some benchmark desired effects are adopted and internal numbers in such routines tweaked to hit them, we could get the main benefits of design for effect without actually adopting it wholesale, or abandoning the CMx2 commitment to engineering realism. I do think there is some tuning needed on the above subjects. FWIW.

[Redwolf]

I agree completely. However, we won't be going back to CMx1, with abstractions that make realistic results. We're stuck with the CMx2 system. So that necessitates, as you say, that every subsystem is perfect to solve the problem.

But there already is a mix of 3D and abstractions at work in CMx2.

[JasonC]

"we won't be going back to CMx1, with abstractions that make realistic results. We're stuck with the CMx2 system"

I'm not stuck with the CMx2 system. I am happily playing "Panzer", in paper and on VASSAL, and designing scenarios for it. Battlefront can fix machineguns (and on-map mortars) in CMx2 and I sincerely hope they will. Then maybe I'll be interested in CMx2.

[JasonC]

dt - it is fair to say militaries sometimes train for the last war and have to adapt, and even that some later standards are poor choices, though those tend to correct themselves soon enough.

I note that the most widely used and universally praised successor to the MG42 style weapon is the FN MAG 58 aka the M240 GPMG in US military terms. It learned plenty from the MG42 while also cherry picking features from other automatic weapon systems. On the rate of fire issue, it is designed to have that selectable on 3 settings, corresponding to about 750, 850, and 950 rounds per minute. And militaries normally recommend and practice that it be left on the lowest of those settings, 750 rounds per minute.

That is noticably faster than slow Maxim style water cooleds, but it is also noticably slower than the MG42. Even the high end basically only hits MG34 rates of fire, and modern militaries mostly want something slower than that, not faster, when they have a free choice in the matter without even changing the adopted gun.

Accuracy, ammo consumption, and sustained fire heat issues are the main reasons behind that standing recommendation.

Me, I'd take a M240 over an MG42 every day and twice on payday. Would the main attraction be the lower ROF? No, but I certainly wouldn't miss it. (The main attraction would be astounding figures for mean time between failures, 15-20 times as good as its predecessors. Treat it right and it will run all day - just what the doctor ordered...)

[Fūrinkazan]

If the suppression and fire power of hmgs need to be improved i guess that BFC will not make big changes or had new feature. They would do with the actual system.

At long range, let's say over 600 m you can expect 5 to 7 bursts mn for all hmgs in the game.

German will have 7 bullets bursts while allied 5 and if i remember well less for the 0.50.

This means for germans 7x7 bullets mn : around 50 rpm

and allied 5x7 bullets mn around 35

All hmgs fire this way:

first shoot / pause (in this case 10 secondes) / burst / pause etc...

Or Bfc can increase artificially the effect of bullets by increasing suppresion or let hmgs shoot more bullets. More bullets will give more suppresion on target.

Imagine they change a little the firing procedure :

Hmg 42 : short burst (to estimate range) / pause / short burst 7 bullets / 2 seconds bursts on target (around 50 bullets) / short burst / short burst / long burst etc....

with 7 burst like this we have : 7 + 7 + 50 + 7 + 7 +50 + 7 = 135 rpm at 600m +

Compare with the 50 rpm with the system we have now.

for a Vickers hmg : 5 +5 + 25 +5 + 5 +25 + 5 = 75 rpm compared to something like 35 rpm.

This is just to give an idea of the system.

I think this is possible to tweak and i see many advantages :

- more bullets = more suppression

- the ammo consomption is still reasonable

- real difference between hmgs and lmgs

- no need to had complicated new feature

More, the system simulates the time it takes to estimate the range for a shooter and can be adjusted to shooter experience : for exemple a veteran would only need 1 short burst to estimate range and fire 2 sec burst while a recruit could need 3 or more. The use of trps could also reduce the need for short bursts to find range and would make hmgs even more effective.

I noticed also this when i was testing hmgs :

I tried a company of infantry against 5 hmgs.

When bullets were flying around them, the stress/ suppression indicator was full red, but they did not take cover and kept advancing but, when a man was hit by a bullet, they immediately stopped progression. So it seems that taking casualties is, in that case, what was pinning down troops not incoming bullets.

All this are few ideas, but maybe worth trying it .

Regards

[dieseltaylor]

Interersting stuff Furi

AFAIR the War Dept in its WW2 studies was of the opinion that bullets needed to pass within or presumably hit within 1 metre [yard?] to provide suppressive effect. I am sure some mathematical type will be able to construct some formula on that sort of info! : )

[Fūrinkazan]

Interresting but i have never had the opportunity to read something about the number of bullets needed to have suppression.

I think that one thing is sure, in real life or in the game, the more bullets the more suppression you have.

you can see it in the game at close range. For exemple try an hmg 42 at less than 100 m. During a QB, i ambushed a squad with one hmg (less than 80 m if i remember well).

they shot one burst second so about 7 x 60 = 420 rpm !!! this during a few seconds.

The squad was pinned immediatly and wiped out in a few seconds.

So, the game engine can handle higher rate of fire and this shows how it is important for suppression.

Now, hmgs are more long range weapon, at short range they are more vulnerable to infantry squads and the problem is that the rate of fire is decreasing with distance, making them not much more efficient than lmgs for the number of bursts.

I would suggest to keep the system at short range (less than 200 m) with short delay between bursts (2/3 seconds ) each burst of 7 bullets for germans and 5 to 3 for allied and increase rate of fire just like i explained before at longer range.

Now some players think the 0.50 cal is not efficient enough. Again, my guess it's that it's the same problem. At short range, devastating ! I had a squad taken under fire at - 100m by an half-track and they suffer heavy suppression and casualties, but if you shoot at let's say 500 m, this will mean something like 10 bursts each of about 3 to 5 bullets, so only 50 rpm.

My guess is that it's not enough to cause a lot of suppression so we have the feeling that hmgs are not efficient.

When i saw this system, already with CMSF, i thought that something was wrong at long range. In CMBN it's sometime less a problem because of bocage and shorter range, but it comes again in CMFI with longer fields of fire, and my guess is that there will be other threads about it for the eastern front if BFC does not or can't tweak things.

[ForwardObserver]

ForwardObservor -

This is my attempt to sum up in one post the items of concern, as I see them - responding to your request.

The fire effect of HMGs at infantry targets without cover at long range seems to be too low.

Visual inspection shows bursts missing by large angular deflections at range.

Bursts are evenly spaced in time and relatively infrequent, even with a highly vulnerable, continuously visible target.

Some posters would prefer seeing the gap between bursts shorten for continuously visible targets - MGs that go "hotter" in a target-rich environment.

Direct fire effect of individual bursts seem low but within a factor of 2 of correct, perhaps 1.5 times present chance of a man hit is the right ballpark.

Infantry in the open under ranged MG fire remains unsuppressed over long approach distances.

Some of the low suppression reflects lower than correct accuracy and firing rate.

But some seems to be quite limited suppression effects from even a successful burst that hits a man.

Rally seems significantly faster than is correct, up to twice as fast as seems correct.

Fast rally seems to prevent the MG from achieving a lasting suppression result, even on a single infantry target.

More realistic results have been reported using approaching infantry 2 full morale levels below the defaults.

In my own personal opinion, rally that is way too fast is the biggest single issue. But direct fire effect, especially suppression effect, is also low.

At closer range (300 yards e.g.), rifle fire back at an MG in cover suppresses it successfully in about a minute.

The overall fire effects are not too high, therefore, for targets in cover (based on the previous point).

The lower effect seen for the MG may reflect fewer individual shots too widely off.

The lower effect seen for the MG may also reflect an insufficient impact of cover differential (open too good or woods too thin, or both).

A few posters consider the ease of moving full HMG ammo loads overmodeled, and suggest a moved HMG should transport only a reduced portion of its ammo supply.

Moved ammo might use a formula based on functioning team members, with the first 2 getting less each (as moving gun and tripod), more for each additional member.

I hope that helps...

Thank you very much Jason Your answer sort of got lost under a quite literal pile of posts.

[PzKfW]

"we won't be going back to CMx1, with abstractions that make realistic results. We're stuck with the CMx2 system"

I'm not stuck with the CMx2 system. I am happily playing "Panzer", in paper and on VASSAL, and designing scenarios for it. Battlefront can fix machineguns (and on-map mortars) in CMx2 and I sincerely hope they will. Then maybe I'll be interested in CMx2.

And I am playing Flames of War.

[Childress]

Battlefront can fix machineguns (and on-map mortars) in CMx2 and I sincerely hope they will. Then maybe I'll be interested in CMx2.

It's interesting that, in this lengthy thread, no one has mentioned the efficacy of rifle fire. I submit that it's somewhat overpowered producing too many Kills, especially at medium to long range. This is reflected in the lopsided Kill to Wounded ratio even while taking into account unrecorded minor wounds and the 'Point of the Spear' character of the the typical CM battle. It renders the rifle squad unduly competitive with the MG team. One speculates that if MG fire is a bit under modeled then rifle fire is over modeled.

[LongLeftFlank]

.... I believe the problem here isn't primarily with the rifles or ballistics modeling, it's with what happens at the other end:

- Exposed infantry don't take cover from "near misses" (or other audible incoming) fast enough (as noted above, they don't seem to "notice" bullets not impacting near them).

- Part of the cover benefit of terrain (e.g. vegetation or buildings) is abstracted, which means in practice that if you fire enough shots the infantry will eventually be hit regardless of how hard it is trying to hide.

- Even when infantry take cover behind a solid bullet-intercepting object like a Fortification, wall or hedgerow bank or a terrain crest, their entire heads and a substantial portion of their bodies remain exposed for extended periods when they are not Cowering. Infantry basically behave like a hull down vehicle, but without the armour protection, instead of "sneaking and peeking" like they would in RL.

- That hard cover is treated as entirely flat-topped -- there are no narrow embrasures, leaving the infantry exposed to fire from a very broad angle.

I am getting to the point where I believe infantry Spotting ability and LOS should be delinked from the pixeltrooper's actual posture (Standing, Kneeling, Prone). Having 3 levels of spotting was a clever addition, but it's resulting in the infantry having to make itself excessively vulnerable in order to see anything, as well as odd artifacts like LMGs firing "from the shoulder" instead of propped on a bipod.

The alternative is to have infantrymen rapidly prairie-dogging up and down all the time (like the German halftrack gunners do right now), which would look a bit funny, and might not help if Spotting is a function of time spent with target in potential LOS.

[sburke]

- Even when infantry take cover behind a solid bullet-intercepting object like a trench, wall or hedgerow bank or a terrain crest, their entire heads and a substantial portion of their bodies remain exposed for extended periods when they are not Cowering.

How much of this do you think is driven by the motivation and experience levels we generally use? I have noted many including yourself have commented that lowering the quality of your troops seems to actually make them perform a little more realistically and I believe that to be the case in my experience particularly in some of the battles I have had with Broadsword in our St Lo campaign. Just kind of thinkin aloud here as I agree our pixeltruppen don't often seem to react appropriately to incoming fire at normal and above levels.

[LongLeftFlank]

But if they then spend all their time Cowering and not shooting because you've nobbled their morale, then that's a problem too. Because that behaviour applies to both sides -- what you'd get then is an overly static, quiet battlefield dominated even more by indirect fire and AFVs than it is already. Kind of the (discredited) SLA Marshall model.

Don't get me wrong: I believe that at least at Elite and Iron levels of play difficulty, the behavior of all troops below Crack should more closely resemble Green -- extensive periods of Pinning and casualties takes them rapidly to a Rattled or Broken state, from which they can be rallied but then quickly return the moment things get hairy again. That would then place a premium on Command and leadership modifiers -- leaders (HQ units or simply good squad leaders) getting their doggies up and going. "Follow me, boys!"

But moving from one extreme -- heads up guys spending most of their time partly exposed -- to the other -- unbroken troops never looking around for the enemy -- is no solution to my mind.

Real soldiers trying to fight under fire (e.g. having reached at least a Cautious pinned state) would pop up, look for telltale signs of enemies (gunflashes, helmets, obvious firing positions etc.). Then they pop up again, take a hasty shot, or maybe a few depending on their weapon ROF.

Machine gunners would probably prairie dog a little less -- making themselves more vulnerable -- but they'd also want to fight from narrow embrasures (between sandbags) to minimize the target they present, relying in part on their own outgoing fire to protect them.

[slysniper]

It's interesting that, in this lengthy thread, no one has mentioned the efficacy of rifle fire. I submit that it's somewhat overpowered producing too many Kills, especially at medium to long range. This is reflected in the lopsided Kill to Wounded ratio even while taking into account unrecorded minor wounds and the 'Point of the Spear' character of the the typical CM battle. It renders the rifle squad unduly competitive with the MG team. One speculates that if MG fire is a bit under modeled then rifle fire is over modeled.

I think you guys over analyze things that we cannot have great data on from the game.

But I agree with this statement.

I just did a little test scenario of my own a few days ago, not set up for hard numbers. Just something to see what would happen.

4 American 30 Cal heavy machine gun crews on a hill with oversight on pretty open ground, dug in with trenches that connect and unit leaders. Task was Stop approx.. 160 black shirt Italians that are approx.. 200- 250 meters away from the trench line. They have no mortars, just the other typ. Firearms found within the unit.

The desperate assault is on.

I will need to post later to get the actual results of the mission. But in general it was about 15-20 minutes to take the trench system. Lost 120 men doing it and the Americans, 33 dead or wounded & 6 survivors.

Some of the MG’s were still in action until the enemy was able to get into hand grenade range, which was a fun part of the battle.

But here is the point, there is some problem with the MG’s in general, we all know it, it’s just how we get BF to get into it and fix it. Why would I say this?

When the result were reviewed in this battle

The ammo bearers which were 3 man crews had more kills than the MG units.

Like I said, I have the data at home. But out of approx.. 120 dead or wounded.

MG’s count was under 50 (approx. average 12 per unit)

Leaders had approx.. (15 dead or wounded)

That left 55 being taken out with the ammo bearers with the carbines.

So that was odd, don’t need too much science to know something is wrong.

Second thing, sure made me miss the day when the game should have an auto route that triggers for all units when a certain level of losses accrue. Not likely to see a real unit take 75% losses and still be gung oh about assaulting into enemy trenches. But in the game you get to have such hero’s

[Childress]

Second thing, sure made me miss the day when the game should have an auto route that triggers for all units when a certain level of losses accrue. Not likely to see a real unit take 75% losses and still be gung ho about assaulting into enemy trenches. But in the game you get to have such hero’s

Yes. One problem may lie in the elevated experience- and morale- level of your typical soldier. One suspects the bulk of Allied troops (except Airborne), for example, should be designated Green until late '44. The screwy U.S. "Repple Depple" system was in part to blame. I'm seeing scenarios where most of the forces are Veteran and up. Very improbable.

BF implemented the fragile, quick to go to ground infantryman concept in CMBB. Everybody complained at the time; it was akin to herding chickens. Now it's considered brilliant.

[Fūrinkazan]

Yes. One problem may lie in the elevated experience- and morale- level of your typical soldier. One suspects the bulk of Allied troops (except Airborne), for example, should be designated Green until late '44. The screwy U.S. "Repple Depple" system was in part to blame. I'm seeing scenarios where most of the forces are Veteran and up. Very improbable.

BF implemented the fragile, quick to go to ground infantryman concept in CMBB. Everybody complained at the time; it was akin to herding chickens. Now it's considered brilliant.

Totally agree on this. I had better gaming experience with lower quality troops.

In the cmx1 manual : for cracks "you will encounter troops of this caliber only rarely" for elite " soldiers of this caliber are exceedingly rare".

To slysniper :

if i understand well the starting point of the italian attack was at 200/250 m of the US side. i think it's very short range to estimate the efficiency of hmgs, but that was certainly not the aim of your test. Did you put the hmgs in the flank or in the front of the line of attack ?

200/250 m is more the range of rifles and maybe that's why you had those results, i just guess. If your hmgs were on the front, most of the bullets may have go between ranks without too much losses.

Now i found this, that i have already quoted on another post about hmgs, it's taken from "Soviet infantry tactics in wwii" :

- "the machine gun section can give effective fire out to 1 000 m ... It's also advantageous to open fire suddenly at ranges of 600 m or less"

- "most effective is hmg fire from the flank or in echelon (on an angle)"

- "long continuous fire from the same position is forbidden ... For this reason the section leader is responsible to have, in addition to his own postition at least three alternative positions connected with trenches..."

- "with the beginning of the ennemy attack the fire of the hmg section will increase to its maximum rate"

- "a faultlessly operated machine gun cannot be approached by ennemy infantry "

with this in mind i think that :

for the russians, alternative positions for hmgs are a rule, and my guess is that it was the same for all nations.

Hmgs open fire at a range were squads cannot return fire (400/ 600 m) and from the flank.

An hmg position is an hard target for ennemy infantry without support.

Now the rate of fire taken from the same manual for exemple :

dp lmg : cyclic rof 600 practical rof : 80

7.62 MT hmg : cyclic rof 600 practical rof : 250/300

7.62 ds-39 : cyclic rof 600 practical rof :300-310

7.62 sg 43 : cyclic rof 700 practical rof : 250-300

the effective range given for all weapons is 1000 m

rifles are given 10-12 rpm or 20-25 rpm with effective range of 800 m to 400 m.

Now this means that, roughly, in terms of firepower :

- one lmg = 6 to 3 riflemen

- one hmg = 20 to 10 riflemen

- one hmg = 3 to 4 lmgs

Now just think of how many bullets fire hmgs/lmgs in the game (did not test rifles) :

at only 250 m

lmg42 :12 bursts of 7 bullets max = 84 bullets

hmg 42 :14 bursts of 7 bullets =98 bullets

now i did not test riflemen but let's assume they fire at 12/25 rpm max :

In the game :

an lmg is 7 to 3 riflemen

an hmg is 8 to 4 riflemen

an hmg is 1.16 lmg

conclusion :

for lmgs it seems correct but certainly not for hmgs. we can estimate that the fire power is at least divided by 2 and in the game an hmg = an lmg.

Now this not true for the ammo, number of men and precision of the weapon but it is in terms of firepower.

Every player can do tests again and find his own conclusion, but if you count the number of burst minute at 250 m you 'll find roughly the same numbers.

More, russians hmgs are given a practical rate of fire of 250 rpm, far from what we see in the game : at 400 m 10 bursts : 70 rpm for an hmg 42

Now if we take a look at lmgs : practical 80 rpm from the soviet infantry tactics. At 400 m for lmg 42 in the game :70 rpm . Quiet correct i think.

Think it's worse for allied hmgs because burst are only 3 to 5 bullets.

According to the excellent Armchair general videos, firepower is the key in the modern combat.

My opinion is that increasing rof for hmgs would be much more realistic.

I remember how hard it was to attack a german infantry position defended by 1 or 2 hmgs in cmbb.... needed to use support and a lot of tactics to win.

This is just my opinion, and i tried to explain with arguments how i fell about this particular part of the game.

Regards