accuracy/efficiency of machine gun fire

[Battlefront.com]

Here's the M240's technical specs:

Note that qualifications for Point, Area, and Suppression effectiveness.

Source:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/army/fm/3-22-68/c03.htm

While the M240 is not a MG42, it is more similar than it is dissimilar in terms of this discussion.

Steve

[Wodin]

Tracer burnout at 900m is telling...I'd say from common sense alone 800 m would be the range I'd start to use an HMG to any effect.

[Battlefront.com]

I do not know what the tracer burnout is for common German MG ammo, nor how reliable it was for them to have it as part of their ammo loadout. But I doubt it was greater than 900m.

By the time you get out to that range you're likely either on target laterally or you aren't. You can probably account for wind by that point as well. Therefore, the tracer has done it's job.

Where things get tricky is with bullet drop. The flatter the trajectory is after 900m the better. The gunner can adjust for drop after that only to the extent that the sights can. I don't know the limitations of the Lafette 42 in that regard.

In any case, the gunner is going to have to guess that he's hitting where he's aiming unless there's something nice to target that throws up a confirmation. For example, in the desert on a non-windy day you might be able to see dust kicked up from impact. There could be a wooden fence to aim for. That sort of thing. But the more the gunner has to guess, and the more he relies on secondary confirmation, the less likely he's going to land the bullets where they need to be.

This can be tricky enough even when that's your only target. But to effectively engage multiple, dispersed targets... the further out you go, the disproportionally harder that becomes.

And then there's the beaten zone aspect. According to the US Army FM, the M240 loses it's ability to have a beaten zone after 600m. For those who don't understand this, it means that if a target is at 700m the bullet is no longer sufficiently traveling flat enough that targets between the gun and the target are "safe" from being hit along the path of the bullet. Which means while the gunner is engaging targets beyond 600m there is no beaten zone in effect.

Just more fun facts to take into account. Hence why I say simulating HMGs sucks

Steve

[PzKfW]

Ultimately, as long as HMGs are more effective than LMGs, especially at range, and especially against infantry in the open, then the changes will be an improvement. We should hold further opinions until the new changes have been observed and evaluated. We should also be glad that Battlefront is taking this thread seriously enough to address it with meaningful and measured action.

[nimtz]

In any case, the gunner is going to have to guess that he's hitting where he's aiming unless there's something nice to target that throws up a confirmation.

Not sure if this was the case with most HMGs in ww2, but in ww1 assistant spotters with binoculars were used to spot the fall of the rounds at longer ranges (say over 900 yards). The guns were very accurate even at 1500+ yards, quickly switching between very scattered targets is a different story though.

And then there's the beaten zone aspect. According to the US Army FM, the M240 loses it's ability to have a beaten zone after 600m. For those who don't understand this, it means that if a target is at 700m the bullet is no longer sufficiently traveling flat enough that targets between the gun and the target are "safe" from being hit along the path of the bullet. Which means while the gunner is engaging targets beyond 600m there is no beaten zone in effect.

Here's a nice video of a MG34 on Bipod at 680 yards (621 meters). The beaten zone is still tight.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5G4T7kN0t68&t=3m13s

With a tripod, it would obviously be much tighter. I'd dare say a couple meters at most.

[RockinHarry]

As said, I like to compare with my original wartime sources, but they´re obviously all wrong, since 70 years later, we know it all better, do we?

Comparing M240 with MG34/42, with regard to technical specifications, doctrine and supply? Their tripods? Ammo specs? No idea if this leads closer to the truth. I "believe" not.

What exactly is that german tactics manual translated to english you mention? "German Squad in Combat"? Any of the "Reibert" series? If there´s talk about effective combat ranges of 500-1000m, then it´s surely about the bipod MG stuff.

Use of tracers? Don´t see them mentioned in my sources, but can have a look again. So far just the burst hitting the target area and "effect" on target (suppressed/silenced...) were observed/evaluated (if possible). As said, speaking of tripod heavy support ground role, not AA or other.

Wished I´d a scanner to put it all together in ebook format, so everybody with deeper interest in the matter can make own evaluations (..after translations).

With regard to CMBN/FI, is it a technical problem, to have more than 5-7 round bursts modelled in the game? Or shorten the pause between bursts, so there´s a quicker succession? I could well "imagine" that this would be no good for RT play, unless things get more abstracted again.

Just to compare a 1 second burst of various, stabilized WW2 machine guns systems:

Mg42: 20 - 25

Mg34: ~15

Browning M1919: ~6 - 8

Vickers Mk I: ~8-10

Maxim PM1910: ~6 - 8

To me it looks "suspicious" that the bursts lengths in the game are capped around 7-8, thus making all the games HMG "firepower" the same.

I agree CM is just a game and not a sim, so certain things simply aren´t doable (yet), more so in RT, which appears to be the main focus now. WEGO surely would allow for other solutions. I do "assume" you do not intend to optimize the game for one or the other option (RT vs WEGO) and if yes, I´d "assume" it will be RT. Maybe better to be discussed for CMX3 then.

[PzKfW]

Increased ROF is the big issue but whether it can or will be addressed in the upcoming update is the question. CMx1 style abstraction of weapon effects has its advantages (but is now discarded) and BF are committed to making a dual wego/RT go of it. To fix the ROF, a target light option seems best to me as it gives the option to the player (full Rof vs half or 1/3, whatever lower amount). In a game of this complexity, that is always the safer bet. The player base obviously is dedicated to the game and will learn what needs to happen. (Nature of this beast, gentlemen, if you are interested with, and tread on, grog territory you end up dealing with grogs. Best accept it)

But maybe that is more in the realm of changing German hmgs, and less the global hmg issue. I see them as two separate but valid issues.

[John Kettler]

The beaten zone for the M1919, firing at fixed elevation and azimuth, at 1000 yards is ~12 minutes in here. Looks scarily closely spaced to me.

Regards,

John Kettler

[agusto]

I laughed so hard when i saw the video . Kinda reminded me of Monthy Python:

[John Kettler]

Can't remember where I posted this before, but it's a WW II M2 .50 Caliber gunner's rare account of what the projectiles did to the luckless recipients.

Regards,

John Kettler

[RockinHarry]

I laughed so hard when i saw the video . Kinda reminded me of Monthy Python:

...yep, already had some great fun with it during last related HMG thread, 3 month gone.

Here´s bit of a different setup:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lIHwZ4YZFFo

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LKux4VCkyJw

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=egyevu1i37E

[RockinHarry]

Bits form US Wartime sources

Tactical and Technical Trends

A German source states that the MG-42 has a close and dense cone of

fire which results in greatly improved observation. The cone of fire has

a slight ‘creep’ hence this machine gun can be held on the target for

only a short time compared with the slower-firing machine guns. This

German source states that as a result of the increase in the rate of fire

from 420 rpm with the MG-08, to 900 rpm with the MG-34 and to

1,500 rpm with the MG-42, an increase in the percentage of hits in

proportion to the length of burst should be obtained. However,

preliminary trials in this country have not produced a rate of fire above

1,200 rpm. It would appear, in any case, that a high degree of skill and

training are required to obtain the best results from the MG-42 …

a. When Used As a Light Machine Gun

Trials under battle conditions have shown that the best results are

obtained from bursts of 5 to 7 rounds, as it is not possible to keep the

gun on the target for a longer period. The destruction of the target is

therefore accomplished with bursts of 5 to 7 rounds, the point of aim

being continually checked. It is of course important that re-aiming

should be carried out rapidly, so that the bursts follow one another in

quick succession. Under battle conditions the firer can get off

approximately 22 bursts in a minute, or approximately 154 rounds.

Comparative trials under the same conditions with the MG-34 showed

that the best results in this case were obtained with 15 bursts in the minute,

each of 7 to 10 rounds, i.e. approximately 150 rounds. It will be seen from

this that the ammunition expenditure of the MG-42 is a little higher than

with the MG-34, but to balance this, the results on the target with the

MG-42 are increased up to approximately 40%. (US Army 1944a)

US Army report on MG 42 in medium machine-gun role

Long periods of sustained fire must definitely be avoided, as they do not produce the best results and lead to an unwarranted expenditure of ammunition. The reasons for this being, first, if the extraordinarily dense cone of fire of the MG-42 is on the target, then this should be destroyed in approximately 50 rounds; secondly, if the cone of fire is not on the target then the gun must be reaimed, if necessary with adjustments to the sight. In order to assess the position of the cone of fire, fire must not be opened until an observation has been obtained.

For instance, if with a range of 2,000 yards the time of flight is 4.7 seconds, then a useful observation cannot be obtained in less than six seconds. Sustained fire for a period of six seconds, however, is the equivalent of an ammunition expenditure of 150 rounds, whereas an observation of the position of the cone of fire or of the effects on the target, could have been obtained with 50

rounds.

Trials under battle conditions on the same lines as those carried out in action with the MG-34 have shown that, in general, when using the MG-42 as a medium machine gun, bursts of 50 rounds with repeated checking of the point of aim give the best results.

In this way, not only will the best results on the target be achieved, but the expenditure of ammunition will be kept within limits which will be very little in excess of expenditure with the

earlier MGs. (US Army 1944)

[altipueri]

So if troops are moving perpendicular to the line of fire they could move 20/30 yards in the time of flight of 4.7 seconds. "Why, at that range they couldn't hit an elepha..."

[RockinHarry]

So if troops are moving perpendicular to the line of fire they could move 20/30 yards in the time of flight of 4.7 seconds. "Why, at that range they couldn't hit an elepha..."

leading a moving target must be considered by every halfway trained gunner, no matter if from a HMG, tank gun or any other. The example above obviosuly is for static targets.

[Battlefront.com]

As said, I like to compare with my original wartime sources, but they´re obviously all wrong, since 70 years later, we know it all better, do we?

No, I'm suggesting that you're misapplying what is in those sources to some aspects of the game. Again, you are also comparing against what you have in front of you and I've already acknowledged we agree it needed improvement.

Comparing M240 with MG34/42, with regard to technical specifications, doctrine and supply? Their tripods? Ammo specs? No idea if this leads closer to the truth. I "believe" not.

Modern MGs and tripods for almost all "Western" nations are based on the MG42 and the Lafette 42. The tactics are also based on those developed by the Germans during WW2. So while it would be wrong to literally compare the two together, it's incorrect to think they don't have much in common. There is far more in common than not.

If you like I can probably dig up stuff based around the US Army's previous MG, the M60. Since this was a near direct copy of the MG42 maybe you would be more comfortable with that?

What I want you to do is look at the specs and see how they relate to each other internally. Notice that the expected performance is not uniform and is significantly shorter than the theoretical maximum range. The MG42 is not magical weapon that doesn't have similar patterns of behavior. The numbers might be different, but the proportions are likely internally similar.

What exactly is that german tactics manual translated to english you mention? "German Squad in Combat"? Any of the "Reibert" series?

"German Squad Tactics in WWII" by Matthew Gajkowski. It is a combination of several German tactical manuals translated into English.

If there´s talk about effective combat ranges of 500-1000m, then it´s surely about the bipod MG stuff.

See again the M240 data. This is a weapon that is just as capable as a MG42 from a ballistics standpoint. On a tripod with T&E, but no optics, it is rated 1100m for effective fire. I doubt the optics of the Lafette 42 (which is the only significant difference to discussion) makes a huge difference. 1500m seems reasonable to me.

Use of tracers? Don´t see them mentioned in my sources, but can have a look again. So far just the burst hitting the target area and "effect" on target (suppressed/silenced...) were observed/evaluated (if possible). As said, speaking of tripod heavy support ground role, not AA or other.

As I said in my previous post, the burnout range for a tracer doesn't preclude other observations. But it does make things a little more difficult without tracers. After all, if other observations were just as effective it would be dumb to have tracers at all. As the old military saying goes:

"tracers work both ways"

Meaning tracers aid the enemy in locating you as well as you locating your target.

With regard to CMBN/FI, is it a technical problem, to have more than 5-7 round bursts modelled in the game? Or shorten the pause between bursts, so there´s a quicker succession? I could well "imagine" that this would be no good for RT play, unless things get more abstracted again.

Burst length and frequency of shots are not as flexible, nor as diverse, as they should be. I totally agree. It is the #1 problem with simulating MG fire and it is why I say that in may respects it is the most difficult thing to simulate correctly. It's better for the game to err on the side of the gunners being conservative than the other way around.

Steve

[Wodin]

Everything I've read about actual combat, field manuals and parade ground training goes out of the window. Doctrine and what it says in the manuals written in some HQ somewhere or by the Gun manufacturers probably has no relevance when actually in combat. Isn't it common sense that you should let the targets get closer before you open up? I just need to think how big Inf would be crossing undulating terrain at 2000m..and optics or not you'd wait until at least half that distance..constantly observing where the rounds fall every 50 rounds trying to get the range by the time the combat really begins you'd be out or getting low on ammo. As a commander myself I'd certainly tell them to stop firing for god sake and wasting ammo..let em get close then hit them hard.

I did read or watch something awhile ago that many modern HMG's are based on the MG42.

I was wondering though do the HMG's in game only fire short bursts or 5 to 7 rounds due to real time play and if they fired more it would start to overload the game trying to keep track of so many bullets?

[Redwolf]

I was wondering though do the HMG's in game only fire short bursts or 5 to 7 rounds due to real time play and if they fired more it would start to overload the game trying to keep track of so many bullets?

There's some abstraction or other there anyway.

[nimtz]

It's better for the game to err on the side of the gunners being conservative than the other way around.

I think this is were most people have a problem. The current system has awful point target accuracy for HMGs combined with the fact that the gunners are too conservative with ammo. The end result is sub-par performance of HMGs.

I think most people would agree that they would rather see the game err on the other side, that is your conception of "slightly overpowered" would in fact probably be much closer to reality. Even if you think this is wrong, I think the vast majority of your paying customers would agree that HMGs need not just a slight increase in combat efficiency against point targets at 500-1000 meters.

[Battlefront.com]

As a commander myself I'd certainly tell them to stop firing for god sake and wasting ammo..let em get close then hit them hard.

Especially since you're advertising your positions before you can really negatively affect the enemy. This causes the enemy to stop, bring up a tank or get some artillery, and pummel your positions before their infantry is in a place where you can really harm it.

Defenders have a choice in real life. They can either do things to keep an attack from materializing or do things to crush it after it's started. All depends on the conditions. CM simulates battles where the attacker is committed to an offensive action and the defender is obligated to defeat it. This is important to remember.

I did read or watch something awhile ago that many modern HMG's are based on the MG42.

It is easily the most influential machinegun since the Maxim. Pretty much all modern MGs have something to thank the MG42 for, if only the mass production techniques and tactical concepts developed around it.

I was wondering though do the HMG's in game only fire short bursts or 5 to 7 rounds due to real time play and if they fired more it would start to overload the game trying to keep track of so many bullets?

It's the most common way to use a MG, so that's what MGs in the game should do most of the time except when in "final defensive fire" mode. But I do agree there should be a wider array of behaviors. The problem is it is very, very tricky to get that behavior to be reasonably realistic most of the time.

I think this is were most people have a problem. The current system has awful point target accuracy for HMGs combined with the fact that the gunners are too conservative with ammo. The end result is sub-par performance of HMGs.

In some situations, agreed. We've already taken some steps to round that out.

I think most people would agree that they would rather see the game err on the other side, that is your conception of "slightly overpowered" would in fact probably be much closer to reality. Even if you think this is wrong, I think the vast majority of your paying customers would agree that HMGs need not just a slight increase in combat efficiency against point targets at 500-1000 meters.

No way I agree with this Players often ask for things without much understanding of what they would get if we did as requested. "Paying customers" buy CM because it gives them what other games don't. And one of the reasons for that is we don't cater features to whims, but to our best (professional, if you will) assessment of how best to balance the competing (and sometimes off-base) requests.

Steve

[John Kettler]

Am not quite sure where to put this, but I would like to note for the record the U.S. Army went to the trouble to create a special lightweight (aluminum, not steel) handcart exclusively to move the Ma Deuce about the battlefield. It's on page 439 in the Standard Catalogue of Ordnance Items, Vol. 3.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/13810984/Standard-Ordnance-Items-Catalog-1944-Vol-3

This vid gives a pretty fair idea of the Ma Deuce's capabilities against point targets under range firing conditions. Targets are 55 gallon drums. There's a lot of weapon orientation before the shooting starts. The slider is your friend.

Regards,

John Kettler

[Battlefront.com]

The .50cal was a standard AAA weapon, but only late in the war did it start to appear with the infantry in any sort of standard way. The hand cart was probably developed for that purpose since I'm pretty sure the AAA units had motor vehicles as standard TO&E.

Steve

[Apocal]

I was wondering though do the HMG's in game only fire short bursts or 5 to 7 rounds due to real time play and if they fired more it would start to overload the game trying to keep track of so many bullets?

Easy enough to test.

Take a map, put 15 MG42 teams there and have them blaze away at a house. Game works fine. There might be slowdown on some lower-end machines trying to render all the tracers and calc out the ricochets, but that really isn't the CMx2 engine's fault.

[Battlefront.com]

CM has a pretty sweet way of prioritizing resource needs when something starts to run out. Game calculations don't get dumbed down. If CM has to run at 0.00001FPS in order to keep the simulation elements happy, it will. But of course practically speaking that won't happen because CTRL-ALT-DEL would have been hit long before then

Steve

[Michael Emrys]

...I'm pretty sure the AAA units had motor vehicles as standard TO&E.

Correct. Primarily the M15 and M16 halftrack conversions. There was also a twin .50 arrangement on the back of a flatbed Deuce-and-a-half, but I forget the designation for it. I think it was only present in very small numbers anyway.

Michael

[RockinHarry]

Especially since you're advertising your positions before you can really negatively affect the enemy. This causes the enemy to stop, bring up a tank or get some artillery, and pummel your positions before their infantry is in a place where you can really harm it.

Steve

That simple?? Ok that would´ve been the least advantageable and least skilled, as well as non doctrinal use of (german) HMG.

For something better and more realistic. First of all, at the NORMAL 1000-2000m combat ranges that (german) HMG where used (otherwise you can get along quite well with LMG that usually cover the range below), the attacker would as well have a hard time spotting these well dug in and likely keyholed HMG.

Spraying an attacking infantry attacker at that large ranges has what purposes? Maybe to slow em down, or even stop them in order to get the concert of combined weapons starting. Now with a likely slowed down enemy attacker, mortars and artillery get the attacker on the move again, to again make him a target for flat trajectory weapons...

Whatever the attacker attempts to counter the defensive long range HMG fire, the HMG crew would move to a switch posititon, maybe to yet another one after, before the attacker put observed fire on the now abandoned HMG position.

The HMG34/42 were able to deliver fire with that effect (halting or slowing down) at large ranges. No idea why this is taken in doubt so stubbornly here. Maybe dig some more resources, particularly combat principles and tactics for german usage of combined weapons?

Unless deployed singly for a particular reason, german HMG were more of a tactical system, not just guns. Normally they operated in pairs as smallest tactical units with observers and technical means, not just from their own. Higher levels (platoons and up) have FO like units, similar to those for mortars and artillery, that as well have range finding equipment, 10x scissor scopes and such.

A HMG with enough time to have its position prepared, will also initiate terrain christening, writing up range tables, ranging in on spots on the enemy and near friendly part of the battlefield (TRPs).

Also why is it not a sound tactic to stop or slow down an enemy at large range already? On the defense, the tactical purpose is not quite to let an enemy come near, just in order to shred him to pieces more easily. When the attacker has a numerical advantage, this is pretty much a dangerous tactic for a defender. A numerically superior attacker must be weared down and not allowed to reach the forward frontline. When the enemy comes too close, defensive mortar and artillery fire becomes impossible as well.

If a HMG´s far range capabilities aren´t used, then the defender (attacker too) allows the enemy to come dangerously close for effective return fire, particularly from small arms. An enemy HMG at close to medium ranges of 300-800m increasingly becomes a big target and switching positions becomes more difficult then.

Same principle for Panther/Tiger like tanks. Hit & kill the enemy at range, where he can´t yet return with effective fire.

This is just few points from german combined arms concept (which surely is not much different from other WW2 armies btw) and the role german HMG played, is medium to long range employment of fire power (high ROF). That with accuracy and flexibility, not just by means of the tripod/optics, but also through unit organisation, communication, doctrine and training, just for this purpose.

So even when the HMG´s in the game are given desired long burst, quick succession burst capabilities, it´s just a frame from the big picture. If I´d be given a map with just short range LOS/LOF, I personally wouldn´t opt for purchasing HMG´s, unless I have no other choice (premade scenario setup). The inherent short range LMG FP of squads would be more than enough and quicker, as well as more felxible to be moved.

Wide open maps, just slightly broken with options to place HMG´s in some keyholed, flanking postions? Give! But not the HMG´s with the current (in-) capabilities yet in V2.0 CM.

So while HMG´s can be given more RL capabilities, just part of it would be of the plain technical kind. Others is tactical usage and possibly coding the AI to make use of it in reasonable ways. Hope you take the challenge for V3.0!

Defenders have a choice in real life. They can either do things to keep an attack from materializing or do things to crush it after it's started. All depends on the conditions. CM simulates battles where the attacker is committed to an offensive action and the defender is obligated to defeat it. This is important to remember.

Steve

Sure, if you assume an attack already has materialized with both forces already quite close...

That takes away a whole lot of options as mentioned above. So CM rather simulates the end part of an attack, where all artillery barrages have been made, switch positions already been taken and the defender failed to keep an attacker at range and so one. Just as mentioned in the CMX1 manuals. Nonetheless a large part of players would like to have bigger maps, with more options to maneuvre, counter maneuvre, make use of long range hitting power and such. Maybe even including a preparatory barrage, infantry yet in their dugouts.

Sticking to rather small maps and resolve sort of a preset endgame, is little fun and rather boring in the long run and personally I´d move away from such games in short time (like I did with various games already).

I found it particularly annoying in CMSF (which I don not have much interest in anyway) that these sort of preset endgames are also expected to be played out on rather smallish maps. What yet works for WW2 and considered as medium/long range, on modern battlefields it´s already point blanc range, thinking of M1 Abrams, Challengers, Leopard and all the russian origin stuff. I exclude plain infantry battles from this, which could be much fun off course.

I was wondering though do the HMG's in game only fire short bursts or 5 to 7 rounds due to real time play and if they fired more it would start to overload the game trying to keep track of so many bullets?

It's the most common way to use a MG, so that's what MGs in the game should do most of the time except when in "final defensive fire" mode. But I do agree there should be a wider array of behaviors. The problem is it is very, very tricky to get that behavior to be reasonably realistic most of the time.

Steve

Please part LMG from HMG (or MMG). 5-7+ bursts are for little stabilized high ROF LMG, while larger, continuous bursts are for stable HMG weapon systems. As said, tactical ammo units for german HMG is belts of 50 rounds minimum. Whether they´re applied in continuous fire mode or in quick succession bursts, largely depends on the target, not necessarily the range.

"Final defensive fire mode". Sounds like a game concept, as I never heard nor read about it before, at least not in that terms. High intensity defense fire vs an enemy that is about to break into the positions. I see that concept in action in CMBN, but it´s somewhat illogically applied. So the quick succession short bursts at close range, just diminish to the same short bursts, with longer pauses between and increasingly inaccurate. That´s the game concept, but is not true in RL. Even longer range targets would be engaged with short succession short bursts from LMG (until desired effect is achieved), while HMGs still use longer bursts, unless just bits of harrassing fire is desired.