accuracy/efficiency of machine gun fire

[Vanir Ausf B]

Wow.

:confused:

[Killkess]

To all of u!

[Battlefront.com]

Well he could be awarded the "FANBOY OF THE YEAR" award for postings above and beyond the call of duty and complete disregard for others' opinions and real life .........

If holding an opinion that is contrary to others' is an offense here, I'd say most are guilty of it. Being wrong about something? Find me one poster that's never been wrong and then you'll have a point to make.

After taking 25 to 30 % loss in about 4 minutes the attacker reached the trench again.

I think most attackers would consider this a failure. Because after they took the generally meaningless trench, could they do anything else? Nope. Probably not even strong enough to repel a counter attack.

So while I am sure the new behavior is more realistic and would significantly change the tests you made, I do think that there's an under appreciation for the real world ramifications of the sub-optimal MG behavior currently seen in the game.

Put another way... the current behavior is not as bad compared to real life as has been stated by some. Not as accurate as it should be? Agreed. But far from useless. Especially when used as they were supposed to be with overlapping fields of fire and supporting weapons.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

If the range is 200m i am with you, if we speak about 500m+ i am not since 500m+ is well within perfect range for tripod HMG with optics while beeing out of effective range for the 30 guys.

Oo... gotta totally disagree with you there. First of all, the optics on the German MGs isn't all that great. It's a wee tiny magnified peephole. Dust being kicked up from the muzzle (a big problem for some situations) also needs to be taken into account.

Also, I don't think 500m is too far away for significant suppressive effects from unscoped rifles and LMGs.

Do i expect that the 30 guys should getting killed instantly when they stay low and hugh the ground? No, and I havent read any single reply suggesting this. But i expect that bad tactics be punished and that is simply not the case in the current situation.

Since nobody plays battles on Pool Table maps with artificially limited variables, I don't think that can be said.

And sorry to say again, but we dont talk about 30 guys capable to overcome a HMG using brilliant tactics, we talk about 10 beeing perfectly able to do and even 4 guys have a chance to do with bold tactics.

And to say again, the Pool Table test is not useful for a discussion which involves tactics.

BTW if those Pooltable situation doesnt exist we wouldnt have this conversation. They do exist with CMFI

If you can point me to a CM scenario with a 100% flat, featureless map with no supporting arms and only the scale and mix of units found in the Pool Table tests used in this thread I'd be shocked. Astonished! And a wee bit sad for the person who had some thought that he was making a useful scenario

So no, let's be clear. The Pool Table does NOT exist in any CM game at all ever. The conditions in it, therefore, are not found in any CM game at all ever. Therefore, analyzing the Pool Table results as if they are directly applicable to CM is simply wrong. It's "junk science".

What the Pool Table tests DO help with is isolating variables to example. And in that sense they are often quite useful. So long as people don't make the mistake of thinking the results are. Which is pretty much the only beef I have with this thread.

Steve

[Killkess]

Oo... gotta totally disagree with you there. First of all, the optics on the German MGs isn't all that great.

Your guess, a known fact or do u speak about personal experience?

Also, I don't think 500m is too far away for significant suppressive effects from unscoped rifles and LMGs.

OK, taking 500 meters for not beeing to far away for rifles and LMGs... up to which range do u expext supression from a HMG?

Since nobody plays battles on Pool Table maps with artificially limited variables, I don't think that can be said.

Pls feel free to provide a more realistic testing scenario which deliver reasonable results.

[Battlefront.com]

Your guess, a known fact or do u speak about personal experience?

Besides an unhealthy love of the MG42 (I have several in pieces... some day I'll get around to a Class 2 license), I have fired MG42s from a tripod before at about 200m distance through iron sights. I also have the early post war Lafete 42 tripod/optics used by the Bundeswehr. It's nearly identical to the WW2 design in almost every way. The MG3 tripod, on the other hand, has significant differences. I don't know what the optics are like on that one.

The optics are very good for adjusting fire on a specific spot. Tracking a single target, also very good. Where it doesn't do so good is quickly moving around between many targets all of which are moving. In theory there was a team leader with binoculars keeping track of targets and calling out where to redirect fire, though the gunner would of course have to get the gun on target.

Again, this isn't to say the optics are bad. As a weapons system, the HMG34/42 was superior to any other MG fielded in WWII (IMHO and the opinion of many). No small part of that was the excellent tripod.

OK, taking 500 meters for not beeing to far away for rifles and LMGs... up to which range do u expext supression from a HMG?

I'd say getting over 600m starts to get "iffy", though the more the HMG shoots the better the chances of suppressing it would be. A rifle or LMG shot doesn't have to hit. It only has to get close. And the more that get close within a given space of time, the more suppression per shot.

Pls feel free to provide a more realistic testing scenario which deliver reasonable results.

Easy! Take any "real" scenario, at all (ours or anybody else's), and tweak it so you have a situation with a platoon rushing a single MG over tactically relevant spots on the map. Any scenario. That would be a less abstract "worst case" scenario for the attacker than the Pool Table test. It's still questionable because these sorts of 1:30 battles in a vacuum weren't common, but it's not too bad.

Bottom line with tests... the more a test scenario is divorced from average CM battle conditions, the less direct conclusions you can draw from that test. Pool Table tests are about as divorced as can be. Useful in some ways, but only if you are careful about what pieces of information you glean from it.

And of course let's remember that whatever you test with today is not what you'll be playing with soon enough.

Steve

[Killkess]

I'd say getting over 600m starts to get "iffy", though the more the HMG shoots the better the chances of suppressing it would be. A rifle or LMG shot doesn't have to hit. It only has to get close. And the more that get close within a given space of time, the more suppression per shot.

Shooting over iron sights with a rifle at 500m seems to be within reasonable range... but when shooting a HMG at 600m it starts to get iffy?

While we are at effective ranges lets get off topic for a second. Is there any plan to further alter the SMG behaviour? MP40 for example seems to open fire at up to 280m. I often order troops to engage specific targets for a couple of reasons. The result is that SMG-troopers often waste their ammo on ineffective ranges.

Easy! Take any "real" scenario, at all (ours or anybody else's), and tweak it so you have a situation with a platoon rushing a single MG over tactically relevant spots on the map. Any scenario. That would be a less abstract "worst case" scenario for the attacker than the Pool Table test. It's still questionable because these sorts of 1:30 battles in a vacuum weren't common, but it's not too bad.

Out of curiosity: Do u expect a worse or better outcome for the attacker?

And of course let's remember that whatever you test with today is not what you'll be playing with soon enough.

Sure, i did not planned to do anymore testing before the correction. While we are at it: Any clue when it is going to come? Weeks or months?

[slysniper]

I on the other hand have been messing a little more with my scenario and found that placing heavy conc. Mg bunkers in my defence, just 2 of them, They did a much better job of keeping the enemy pinned and causing causualties. So for 20 minutes of combat they have lost only 7 men. 4 to a light 45 Mortar I gave the italians, three to direct fire rifle fire directed at them. Which is plenty with 160+ men with MG's and rifle.

Almost through the whole time, the two bunkers have never coward. they have been putting out a steady stream of fire and causing losses.

So without getting all caught up with how things should be. The best way presenty to getting a mg' position that is truly dangerous. It must be in a bunker, and you must design the scenario where there is not enough enemy support weapons to take out all the bunkers. If you can manage to have a few bunkers left in a battle where all the enemy has left is small arms fire. Then you have that focal point that becomes the nightmare to clear.

So just a final cap on my scenario I have been playing, testing what Hmg's can and cannot do. with 185 italians starting at 500M away in pretty open ground having to advance on entrenched American soilders with three 30 cal heavy Mg's with two placed in concrete bunkers. The Italian's with no support weapons other than one 45mm mortar and Mg's issued with the typ. squad formations the assault was on.

This time the americans held them off for 25 minutes, they had 37 men, but basically I had the two bunkers firing and the others were positioned to prevent the enemy from flanking the position and giving protected security there.

The odds were 5 to one with 37 Americans on the map. But really the odds were 18 to one since I had the 2 -5 men crews trying to hold off the enemy.

This time the italians lost 78 men compared to the Americans losing 19, so 4-1 odds. The two Mg's accounting for 43 men with the loss of 7 in return.

6-1 odds.

As a designer, I do not feel any of these numbers reflect that poorly on the Mg's or limits the ability to make the game reflect the challenges of taking one out with small arms fire.

By placing a huge scoring penalty to the attacker if he has 30% losses. And letting the attacker know this will happen and that it would likely cause the loss of the game. I think that well placed MG's can surely stop any poorly designed assault on its position.

Again I am not saying Mg's are acting correctly, I just think the game does not reflect them much different than they do with any thing else in the game.

[RockinHarry]

What´s actual the doctrinal usage for the 30cal HMG? 500m looks pretty much LMG range to me. German HMG usually weren´t deployed right at the frontlines and usually farther back (well within the main combat area) and if possible from defiladed flanking positions. Ranges to work with in this (Defense) mode are rather in the range 1000 to 2000m usually. Then there´s switch positions, so the HMG can alternate, in case they get spotted at that ranges and plastered with enemy mortar and Arty.

Not much different in offensive mode. If the HMG could overshoot, or have usable gaps between forward attacking infantry formations, supporting ranges are also more in the 1000-2000m field, unless the terrain does not offer that far fields of fire, in which case single (or pairs) of HMG were subordinated to the attacking infantry Coy.

I tried using german LMG and HMG34/42 in those situations in CMBN and figured, there´s no real advantage in using HMG´s at all. Plinking with infrequent 5-7 round bursts at usual combat ranges of upto 2000m with a HMG34/42 is a waste, the more if the big, densily packed 6 man crew makes such a good target for any return fire (mortars in particular).

Yes, HMG were "suppressive" and "area denial" weapons. Sure the MG34/42 was just build for that purpose and combined with tripod & optics, applied combat tactics, was just an expensive device to waste ammo in huge quantities. Well, who belives in Santa Claus?

One surely can discuss further about applied combat tactics and RL doctrines for those weapon systems, but it simply does not work in the game.

For my personal games I´ll avoid HMGs, offensively and defensively. LMG´s do the trick equally well, the more that usual CMBN maps aren´t big, nor open enough to invest in long range punch, that isn´t.

[Childress]

Sure, i did not planned to do anymore testing before the correction. While we are at it: Any clue when it is going to come? Weeks or months?

Steve hints as 'sooner'. Likely bundled for CMBN only with the hotfix(?) for the 2.0 deployment bug. CMFI, no idea.

[nimtz]

I would be very interested to see a poll of users/owners in which they decide if they would rather have overpowered machine guns or underpowered machine guns.

Personally I would rather have them on too powerful side, sure it may give some advantage to one side on specific maps and generally give the advantage to fortified defenders, but it would encourage much more tactical play and care when machine gun nests might be around.

[Broadsword56]

I don't want them "too" anything. Just as realistic as possible in their lethality/suppression effects. If that makes the game harder or more of a sim, so be it.

[RockinHarry]

I would be very interested to see a poll of users/owners in which they decide if they would rather have overpowered machine guns or underpowered machine guns.

Personally I would rather have them on too powerful side, sure it may give some advantage to one side on specific maps and generally give the advantage to fortified defenders, but it would encourage much more tactical play and care when machine gun nests might be around.

"Overpowered", if that means a HMG34/42 that is capable of doing more than 5-7 rounds a bursts, put on a stable platform for accurate/variable fire (tripod & optics), used at more appropiate tactical HMG range role (1000-2000m) and can also be operated from crews who can be expected to have learned their job.

All that properly adapted for the other nations HMG.

"Balancing" is adapting tactics to deal with anything and that also counts for users of "Overpowered" weapon systems. In Case of HMG34/42, germans had to use frontally covered positions (keyholes) deeper in the main combat area, switch positions, good camouflage and a good fireing plan (+ TRP).

Otherwise I do not really care about HMGs in this game. I treat them like LMG nailed on a wooden stake, beeing a larger target for return fire, carrying a whole lot of potentially unused ammo and otherwise a shadow of what they were used for in RL.

[Battlefront.com]

Shooting over iron sights with a rifle at 500m seems to be within reasonable range... but when shooting a HMG at 600m it starts to get iffy?

Ah, sorry. I misread your question. I don't have a copy of my German infantry handbook lying around within easy reach (haven't seen it in a while, come to think of it!), but I'd say HMGs (with or without optics) are good for at least 1000m+. But the rate of ammo expended to achieve the same degree of suppression disproportionally climbs as range increases.

A single MG, even without optics, is effective for suppression further out than for a single rifle at the expense of a higher consumption of ammo. Which, as the Germans found out, was a big problem with the MG42. There's a point at which more rounds into a given area doesn't have additional benefit, and the high RoF of the MG42 made it far too easy to cross that line. It's why the MG1, MG2, and MG3 post war have heavier bolts which cut the RoF down to (IIRC) 800 from 1200.

Put another way, a single bolt action rifle with iron sights can not maintain effective suppression beyond mid range. Let's just call it 500m for the Hell of it. A MG, on the other hand, can maintain effective suppression much further out by expending ever increasing amounts of ammunition. Time is a factor as well, so the more rounds expended in given space of time has more suppressive effect than fewer.

While we are at effective ranges lets get off topic for a second. Is there any plan to further alter the SMG behaviour? MP40 for example seems to open fire at up to 280m. I often order troops to engage specific targets for a couple of reasons. The result is that SMG-troopers often waste their ammo on ineffective ranges.

This will always be a problem that we will never have a good solution for. SMGs can aid in suppression at 280m, so that's why they fire. The problem for the player comes when he feels the SMG effect would be redundant or even undesirable. Since there's no way to micromanage weapon usage, CM just goes with what it feels is the best solution for most situations most of the time for most players. Can this be made more "intelligent" in the future? Sure, as with anything there is room for improvement.

Out of curiosity: Do u expect a worse or better outcome for the attacker?

Worse for the attacker, of course. This whole Pool Table distraction is because some wish to compare apples to oranges. "I see this result in a Pool Table situation so it must be directly relevant to ingame situations" is a very unstable premise for a line of argument. I've explained that several times in several different ways already.

Sure, i did not planned to do anymore testing before the correction. While we are at it: Any clue when it is going to come? Weeks or months?

We haven't started talking about v1.02 for Italy, so I don't know. Unfortunately we can't just make a change and put out a patch the next day. So there's a pretty good chunk of overhead (measuring many weeks) minimum for any patch.

As a designer, I do not feel any of these numbers reflect that poorly on the Mg's or limits the ability to make the game reflect the challenges of taking one out with small arms fire.

Thanks for that and of course that's our position as well. With the caveat that we do understand that the more a defensive line relies upon MGs as the primary means of defense AND the enemy attacks with primarily infantry, the more likely the MGs will come up "short" compared to their historical capabilities.

Though I still maintain that the average customers' expectations for what a MG can do is out of line with reality by a significant amount.

What´s actual the doctrinal usage for the 30cal HMG? 500m looks pretty much LMG range to me. German HMG usually weren´t deployed right at the frontlines and usually farther back (well within the main combat area) and if possible from defiladed flanking positions. Ranges to work with in this (Defense) mode are rather in the range 1000 to 2000m usually. Then there´s switch positions, so the HMG can alternate, in case they get spotted at that ranges and plastered with enemy mortar and Arty.

Positioning is up to the player, obviously. However, due to practical considerations I doubt HMG positions were more than a couple hundred meters behind the frontline infantry positions even under the best of circumstances. As I said above, I don't have my handbook "handy", so I can't say what doctrinal theory states.

I tried using german LMG and HMG34/42 in those situations in CMBN and figured, there´s no real advantage in using HMG´s at all. Plinking with infrequent 5-7 round bursts at usual combat ranges of upto 2000m with a HMG34/42 is a waste, the more if the big, densily packed 6 man crew makes such a good target for any return fire (mortars in particular).

Here's a perfect example of where expectations diverge from reality. 1000m-2000m is not "usual combat range" for a fixed position infantry battle without other combined arms. That's "extreme combat range". HMGs are at their limits at this range and therefore harassing fire is about all that one should expect from them. In real life. There are many practical reasons for this, the foremost being able to reasonably identify and track infantry targets at 2000m which are, most likely, under some sort of cover.

It's simple math and common sense. As the attacking element gets closer to the defending element, all else being equal the chances of the defender causing problems goes up with every meter advanced. On the other hand, the chances of the supporting MGs causing problems for the defender has not changed at all. In fact, in the real world it becomes increasingly more difficult because of the risks of friendly fire, which CM unfortunately can not portray as realistically as we would like.

So if you have your MGs back 1000m-2000m from the enemy's positions and expect them to effectively suppress an enemy it can barely see... well... then you are right... there's really no difference between HMGs and LMGs. And that's realistic.

For my personal games I´ll avoid HMGs, offensively and defensively. LMG´s do the trick equally well, the more that usual CMBN maps aren´t big, nor open enough to invest in long range punch, that isn´t.

There is a reason why artillery, mortars, and tanks are considered important elements in an attack. And that's because HMGs do not have "long range punch". They have, at best, "long range annoyance".

To sum up... we absolutely see some issues with the current MG behavior and have addressed that already and the testers have it to play with already. But our experience has been, and continues to be, that far too many players have unreasonable and unrealistic expectations for what MGs should be able to do. Therefore, we are bound to continue to disappoint some simply because we're doing our best to simulate actual real world capabilities instead of catering to perceptions which aren't solidly grounded in fact.

Steve

[dieseltaylor]

This will always be a problem that we will never have a good solution for. SMGs can aid in suppression at 280m, so that's why they fire. The problem for the player comes when he feels the SMG effect would be redundant or even undesirable. Since there's no way to micromanage weapon usage, CM just goes with what it feels is the best solution for most situations most of the time for most players. Can this be made more "intelligent" in the future? Sure, as with anything there is room for improvement.

The War Office specifically left out STens when evaluating how much firepower was required to suppress at ranges 100-200metres. Was this a mad whim or was it recognised that the bullets were effectively wasted. I do think that the current BF model is way too bolshy with SMG's.

Possibly US practice differs from the Commonwealth on ammo usage. Can there be different AI for SMG ranges and usage?

[Paul T]

Killkess, I've seen this time and time again in my games as well and don't understand how I can lose a whole company on the run from an artillery gunner or forward observer that can't even see my troops hiding at the bottom of a hill.

[Paul T]

There is a reason why artillery, mortars, and tanks are considered important elements in an attack. And that's because HMGs do not have "long range punch". They have, at best, "long range annoyance".

Interest, young man, I'll remember that.

[Killkess]

Worse for the attacker, of course. This whole Pool Table distraction is because some wish to compare apples to oranges. "I see this result in a Pool Table situation so it must be directly relevant to ingame situations" is a very unstable premise for a line of argument. I've explained that several times in several different ways already.

You expect a worse outcome for the attacker if he has cover/convealment available? How?

[Battlefront.com]

The War Office specifically left out STens when evaluating how much firepower was required to suppress at ranges 100-200metres. Was this a mad whim or was it recognised that the bullets were effectively wasted.

What date were the tests conducted? The Sten was slow to become a common weapon within a Rifle Section until fairly late in the war. In fact, British Paras used US Thompson SMGs into the beginning of 1944.

I've fired 9mm SMGs at roughly 200m (maybe more) and my guess is they aren't useless if the target is out in the open. However, I doubt it would do much if the target was tucked into fairly good cover.

I do think that the current BF model is way too bolshy with SMG's.

Possibly. It's always tricky to know when a weapon should or shouldn't engage when it is on the outside of it's most effective range. Tricky because the conditions for when it is/isn't wise is more situationally dependent than the other two extremes.

Steve

[RockinHarry]

Though I still maintain that the average customers' expectations for what a MG can do is out of line with reality by a significant amount.

Positioning is up to the player, obviously. However, due to practical considerations I doubt HMG positions were more than a couple hundred meters behind the frontline infantry positions even under the best of circumstances. As I said above, I don't have my handbook "handy", so I can't say what doctrinal theory states.

Here's a perfect example of where expectations diverge from reality. 1000m-2000m is not "usual combat range" for a fixed position infantry battle without other combined arms. That's "extreme combat range". HMGs are at their limits at this range and therefore harassing fire is about all that one should expect from them. In real life. There are many practical reasons for this, the foremost being able to reasonably identify and track infantry targets at 2000m which are, most likely, under some sort of cover.

It's simple math and common sense. As the attacking element gets closer to the defending element, all else being equal the chances of the defender causing problems goes up with every meter advanced. On the other hand, the chances of the supporting MGs causing problems for the defender has not changed at all. In fact, in the real world it becomes increasingly more difficult because of the risks of friendly fire, which CM unfortunately can not portray as realistically as we would like.

So if you have your MGs back 1000m-2000m from the enemy's positions and expect them to effectively suppress an enemy it can barely see... well... then you are right... there's really no difference between HMGs and LMGs. And that's realistic.

There is a reason why artillery, mortars, and tanks are considered important elements in an attack. And that's because HMGs do not have "long range punch". They have, at best, "long range annoyance".

To sum up... we absolutely see some issues with the current MG behavior and have addressed that already and the testers have it to play with already. But our experience has been, and continues to be, that far too many players have unreasonable and unrealistic expectations for what MGs should be able to do. Therefore, we are bound to continue to disappoint some simply because we're doing our best to simulate actual real world capabilities instead of catering to perceptions which aren't solidly grounded in fact.

Steve

Just out of curiosity, would like to know your main sources, that you base MG modelling and (heavy)MG42 in particular, so I can compare with my collection of TMs and doctrinal usage stuff here:

http://www.spwaw.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=18276

As much as the worth of HMG weapon systems is dependent on tactical situation, terrain, ammo availability and crew training, nonetheless doctrinal usage is not equal in every army of WW2, the more if the weapoin systems vary very much in technical capability and quality. A Maxim is not a 30.cal is not a Vickers, is not a MG42....

If you say a HMG is a just a nuisance at combat ranges of 1000m+ (or any other), then it´s cause you made it a nuisance in the game. HMG34/42 do not plink away with a handful of rounds to achieve any effect. Tactical ammunition units for the MG34/42 is measured in "belts" and the section commander orders targets to be engaged in this way. Example case, a "lone" (normally work in pairs/section) HMG42 in support of defending german line, engages a "point target", maybe a supporting enemy HMG at range of 1000-1500m (or any other). After figuring range, tripod would be set for accurate point fire and the target showered with 50-100 round belts, or less if ammo is at low supply. 5-7 round bursts as it´s in the game, in RL would just be a nuisance, waste of ammo and likely reveal the HMG´s position unnecessarily. That doesn´t generally coincide with german doctrinal and tactical usage for this particular weapon system.

If the game can´t handle 20-50 round bursts minimum for a reason (frame rates, RT play?), then it´s one thing that can be accepted. Same for fast succession shorter bursts. Also if "balancing" is an issue, since MG42 appear a bit "overpowered", compared to other nations MG, can be accepted to a certain degree as well, although as said, would be a matter of tactics applied to deal with it.

[Wodin]

RockinhHarry there is a big difference between the weapons range on paper..the effective range and the range used in combat as Scot mentioned in the email about the other game. Lets remember post war mock battles in West Germany the average range of a tank battle was 1200m due to terrain. Even though those Tanks could fire up to 4000m. Also I personally don't believe HMG's where firing out to 1000m to 2000m..that distance is too far really to cause any real damage plus your giving away your position. Much better to fire under 1000m. I just can't imagine combat using small arms starting up at over a mile away. Most books I've read combat even with HMG's was alot closer than 1000m. Try to picture the range your talking about and then try imagine how small people will look at that sort of range. Sometimes I think you get mixed up between max range of weapon, effective range of weapon and the actual combat range the weapon was used at. Due to the way games can't simulate real life from air pressure, wind, lighting conditions and terrain then sometimes things have to be chnaged within the game to compensate for that. The sort of ranges you want in combat in PC wargame it's unlikely anyone would actually get to within 200m.

The HMG should become really lethal the closer the enemy gets with a higher rate of fire. Again though it's very hard to emulate it. I do think the rate of fire as the enemy gets closer should increase and an HMG needs to be flanked or at least crept up on using undergrowth and terrain folds etc..which again isn't likely in this game. However I don't think it should be some sort of "bone Saw" at 1000m plus.

You also mention 5 to 7 rounds is a waste of ammo at distance...I'm sure the German soldiers where told firing out past 1000m at 50 to 100 rounds is an even bigger waste of ammo. One big issue with HMG's in WW1 and WW2 is the firer when shooting at distance always seemed to fire to high. AN HMG is most effective letting the enemy get with 800 or even 600 m or closer then opening up...far more effective firing all the ammo away at ranges over 1000m anyway. When I think of the distance we are talking about I think of running tracks..even 400m is far when you think or it..800m very far and over a thousand people would look tiny..

We agree on our games but I don't agree about the distances you feel combat took place at;)

[RockinHarry]

It´s really not about believing or imagination. I compare from numerous original german tactical and technical manuals from the war era, as well as combat reports. The statements made here simply do not coincide and if it´s about imagination or believing, why should germans teach this and that all over the war years, if it´s at last all wrong under front line conditions and in general practice? So let me ask for "sources", so one can agree on some facts at last, maybe even some generalizations. I provided mine sources in the link above, although these are not even complete, but more than sufficient.

Just with regard to HMG engagement ranges. All given combat and training examples from my books and manuals are for "effective" ranges of between 1000 to 2000m. That´s the basics. Off course frontline conditions weren´t all the same everywhere, but the main purpose of german HMG´s was to deliver a high volume of fire in shortest time at targets, that a bipod/light MG can´t deal with effectively.

A game is a game, as is CM. If it comes to RL and historical facts, I´ll surely don´t take CMBN as reference. Same goes for "other" games.

Would be nice if certain original german language sources would be available in english too, but that´s obivously not the case.

[RockinHarry]

RockinhHarry there is a big difference between the weapons range on paper..the effective range and the range used in combat as Scot mentioned in the email about the other game. Lets remember post war mock battles in West Germany the average range of a tank battle was 1200m due to terrain. Even though those Tanks could fire up to 4000m. Also I personally don't believe HMG's where firing out to 1000m to 2000m..that distance is too far really to cause any real damage plus your giving away your position. Much better to fire under 1000m. I just can't imagine combat using small arms starting up at over a mile away. Most books I've read combat even with HMG's was alot closer than 1000m. Try to picture the range your talking about and then try imagine how small people will look at that sort of range. Sometimes I think you get mixed up between max range of weapon, effective range of weapon and the actual combat range the weapon was used at. Due to the way games can't simulate real life from air pressure, wind, lighting conditions and terrain then sometimes things have to be chnaged within the game to compensate for that. The sort of ranges you want in combat in PC wargame it's unlikely anyone would actually get to within 200m.

The HMG should become really lethal the closer the enemy gets with a higher rate of fire. Again though it's very hard to emulate it. I do think the rate of fire as the enemy gets closer should increase and an HMG needs to be flanked or at least crept up on using undergrowth and terrain folds etc..which again isn't likely in this game. However I don't think it should be some sort of "bone Saw" at 1000m plus.

You also mention 5 to 7 rounds is a waste of ammo at distance...I'm sure the German soldiers where told firing out past 1000m at 50 to 100 rounds is an even bigger waste of ammo. One big issue with HMG's in WW1 and WW2 is the firer when shooting at distance always seemed to fire to high. AN HMG is most effective letting the enemy get with 800 or even 600 m or closer then opening up...far more effective firing all the ammo away at ranges over 1000m anyway. When I think of the distance we are talking about I think of running tracks..even 400m is far when you think or it..800m very far and over a thousand people would look tiny..

We agree on our games but I don't agree about the distances you feel combat took place at;)

Jason, for now I´m only speaking of the MG34/42 on tripod with its special features (optics and adaptable width/depth fire settings). As you know, it wasn´t just one guy sitting at the weapon and plinking away at targets of opportunity. There´s the gun leader with his 6x or 8x binocular, scanning for targets in accordance of task given by a superior. If it´s a "mass target", there´s no difficulties to find and assign it to the gunner with his 3x scope at the tripod. Things might get more tricky, if it´s enemy "point target", but it was solved at ranges between 1000 to 1500m for sure.

I do not even dare to mention the "black art" of indirect HMG firing at ranges between 2500 to 3500m. Wasn´t likely used that much, yet it was taught and kept in the manuals.

A said, tactical ammo units was "belts" and if germans had necessary ammo at hand, the doctrine is "max amount of bullets, delivered in shortest of time accurately". That was the only purpose for the high rate of fire for MG34 and 42. The tripod with 3x zoom and a leader/spotter with 6-8x binocs gave the means to do it at those ranges AND with sufficient accuracy to provide effect (suppression or destruction).

For the ranges you say 600m to 800m and below, that´s still effective ranges for the light (german) machine guns.

In defense (and also offensive support) role and properly planned setup, german MG´s weren´t operated singly, but in sections (2xHMG), platoons (4xHMG) and up, if the terrain allowed. Other measures to raise efficiency, was to provide enfilading cross fires.

I keep saying it again, technically and doctrinally, a Maxim is not a 30.cal, is not a Vickers, is not a tripod MG34/42. And THAT´s the weapon systems to compare. Not Bren to BAR to DP to MG34/42 on bipod.

It´s also not a wonder weapon and with increasing lack of ammo and replacements in the last war years, germans surely had to "adapt". Yet the training and doctrine kept in effect til the last days, as well as developments that aimed at even higher ROF (MG45).

[Battlefront.com]

You expect a worse outcome for the attacker if he has cover/convealment available? How?

Good God I'm getting confused by all the toos and fros. Here's the only answer that matters, I think...

I expect the outcome to be worse for an attacker with the new changes that are implemented, but not in your hands. How it affects a Pool Table test... I don't care because it's an artificial situation that has no relationship to the games you guys play. If it makes it better (and it does seem to based on tester results) then that's fine with us, but it has no bearing on anything other than at least indicating we didn't make things easier on the attacker. If that had happened we'd be scratching our heads. A lot

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

It´s really not about believing or imagination. I compare from numerous original german tactical and technical manuals from the war era, as well as combat reports. The statements made here simply do not coincide and if it´s about imagination or believing, why should germans teach this and that all over the war years, if it´s at last all wrong under front line conditions and in general practice?

I haven't had a discussion about how wrong this is in many years! So I'm a bit rusty

Generally speaking the numbers presented in manuals, test results, etc. should be treated with skepticism. Some are "spot on", but very frequently they are not realistic. It's also not possible to say "they are all wrong by x amount". They should be taken on a case by case basis.

Why would they (any military, not just German) put best case numbers in their manuals? Well, you should also ask why many small arms have iron sights have ranges on them that are laughably long for even the best marksman.

So let me ask for "sources", so one can agree on some facts at last, maybe even some generalizations. I provided mine sources in the link above, although these are not even complete, but more than sufficient.

I didn't see anything in that link. Maybe you can post some actual facts here since you are the one that is saying things are wrong.

I just checked my English translation of a German tactics manual and I saw almost all ranges being discussed in the 500-1000m range. I just checked (because it was easy) a current US Army manual for the M240 on a tripod with T&E (traverse and elevation) controls. Effective range stated as 1100m.

Just with regard to HMG engagement ranges. All given combat and training examples from my books and manuals are for "effective" ranges of between 1000 to 2000m.

That's a HUGE range. And you also have to define what "effective" is. I doubt it's stopping a spread out platoon frontal attack cold at 2000m as you seem to think. Stall one out? Sure, I think that's possible.

So what exactly are you expecting a single HMG42 to do? Sketch this out for me using ranges, behaviors, conditions, etc. Because honestly, I haven't a clue what you're complaining about other than the Pool Table test which is completely and utterly without value to this discussion.

If it comes to RL and historical facts, I´ll surely don´t take CMBN as reference. Same goes for "other" games.

All of our modeling is based on real world statistics, practices, and (above all) common sense. We don't base any of our stuff on other games, ever. Worst situation is when we have to make educated guesses because accurate information does not exist. That happens fairly often, unfortunately.

Would be nice if certain original german language sources would be available in english too, but that´s obivously not the case.

Not as much of a problem now as before. We also have the benefit of German gamers making translations for us. Not to mention we have a German on staff since 2002 if we really need some help

Plus, one can make use of other resources when it is about general tactics, principles, or similar weapon effects. At the very least it helps put things in perspective.

Jason, for now I´m only speaking of the MG34/42 on tripod with its special features (optics and adaptable width/depth fire settings). As you know, it wasn´t just one guy sitting at the weapon and plinking away at targets of opportunity. There´s the gun leader with his 6x or 8x binocular, scanning for targets in accordance of task given by a superior. If it´s a "mass target", there´s no difficulties to find and assign it to the gunner with his 3x scope at the tripod. Things might get more tricky, if it´s enemy "point target", but it was solved at ranges between 1000 to 1500m for sure.

Sure, but this is largely true for other HMGs as well. Their effectiveness was, however, hindered by a lack of integrated optics and recoil compensation when compared to the HMG42.

I do not even dare to mention the "black art" of indirect HMG firing at ranges between 2500 to 3500m. Wasn´t likely used that much, yet it was taught and kept in the manuals.

And it is still taught to HMG gunners even today. I have read of a few situations where it was used, but it was pretty limited from what we can tell.

It´s also not a wonder weapon and with increasing lack of ammo and replacements in the last war years, germans surely had to "adapt". Yet the training and doctrine kept in effect til the last days, as well as developments that aimed at even higher ROF (MG45).

Which would have been a HUGE mistake. Commanders in the field were already complaining about the high RoF in 1943. By 1944 it was becoming a very big problem because training standards were in decline and ammunition supply was becoming an issue for many reasons. It was too easy to blow through a supply of ammo for a mild effect, then not have the ammo when the MG could be more effectively used.

As I've already pointed out, the direct successors to the MG42 (MG1, MG2, and MG3) all have lower rates of fire compared to the MG42. Even wartime MG42s were reissued to BW, BH, and others with a heavier bolt to lower the RoF. Obviously they felt the effects of the greater RoF was not worth the expense of ammo.

Steve