accuracy/efficiency of machine gun fire

[Apocal]

Oh, just in case any were wondering, I had a screw up with some of my latest (3 HMGs to simulate increased RoF) testing and then realized my methodology might not be sound, so I went back to the drawing board.

Plus a few games

[JasonC]

"You assume the HMG is working right"

Since I said the FP effect per shot needs to be increased, by something like 1.5 times, that is factually inaccurate, I have nowhere claimed or assumed that "the HMG is working right".

"It is not. Fix the HMG and you get your correct result"

And if suppression is left where it is, that is outright incorrect. Higher physical casualties with low suppression will still lead to bloodier than historical results and the infantry closing to rifle range successfully, far too often. Because changing only firepower (by ROF or impact per shot) without touching suppression, we know the larger units will only break and stop the attempt at an unhistorically high level of physical casualties.

The correct result is failure of the movement, while still at long range, with loss. The loss will become high only if the attempt is pressed or the exposure prolonged indefinitely. Suppression and morale have to move *as well as* (and in fact, even more than) fire effect, for that to happen.

[Fizou]

Will we see any changes with the HMG.. no official words from BFC or any beta testers? Would be great to know if this is looked at at all.

[DavidFields]

"You assume the HMG is working right"

Since I said the FP effect per shot needs to be increased, by something like 1.5 times, that is factually inaccurate, I have nowhere claimed or assumed that "the HMG is working right".

"It is not. Fix the HMG and you get your correct result"

And if suppression is left where it is, that is outright incorrect. Higher physical casualties with low suppression will still lead to bloodier than historical results and the infantry closing to rifle range successfully, far too often. Because changing only firepower (by ROF or impact per shot) without touching suppression, we know the larger units will only break and stop the attempt at an unhistorically high level of physical casualties.

The correct result is failure of the movement, while still at long range, with loss. The loss will become high only if the attempt is pressed or the exposure prolonged indefinitely. Suppression and morale have to move *as well as* (and in fact, even more than) fire effect, for that to happen.

+1 And I will likely stay on the WW1 sim until this and the mortars are improved...or until we get to 1941 in WW2.

[Sublime]

WW1 sim? you mean strategic command>?

[John Kettler]

Sublime,

No, that's not the reason. He's discovered the right side item is in and can't stop himself.

http://www.pictorialgems.com/public/upload/productimage/35256-31402-4.jpg

Ian Hogg described these things in GRENADES & MORTARS and, I believe, provided a pic of an altogether more impressive model. Still, pretty amazing!

Regards,

John Kettler

[Sublime]

Kettler - What did your post have in anyway to do with my question to someone else? I was asking what WW1 sim he was playing.

[John Kettler]

Sublime,

It's called a joke, and mine was even related to the topic, in that the link showed a WW I trench catapult. Don't know about you, but I think a fair number of people would find the notion of a strategic level player's being engrossed by an odd micro tactical level weapon to be amusing.

But since you don't care for a joke, I'm going to give you something very serious indeed.

Regards,

John Kettler

[Sublime]

I think it was more an attempt of a joke which didnt work...

Still waiting for whatever serious you.re going to give me. Btw were you disappointed the world didn't end?

[John Kettler]

A raging Arma discussion attracted the attention of a Marine combat veteran who's seen first hand the damage a single .50 shot causes and cleaned up the resulting mess, too. He's responding to a series of assertions based on tests which conclude a range of things simply can't happen when a heavy, high velocity bullet strikes flesh, in part tied to the ordnance gelatin test Mord presented. There, the bullet bored through the first block more or less cleanly, but really tore up the second. From this, experts concluded that, generally speaking, a bullet would damage only that which was directly hit or in very close proximity. Consequently, limbs not 8" thick were deemed to be largely immune to extreme terminal effects. Then, someone with direct battlefield experience chimed in.

I quote dpactual's reply, modified slightly for language but not for content.

http://dayzmod.com/forum/index.php?/topic/77427-50-caliber-rifles-at-some-point-we-need-to-have-a-serious-talk-about-this/

(Fair Use)

"I've seen war. I've seen people die. I've been to the deserts of Afghan as an infantry 0331 in the USMC. My platoon was over-watched by our sniper unit on multiple occasions, 100% of the time carrying their .50 cal. I've seen what those bullets do to people. They won't blow an arm off? A leg? A head? You have no idea what gruesome is till you see what a 50. caliber bullet can do to people in person. They will take limbs off, the head, cut the torso in half. I've seen it in person, I've moved the (expletive deleted) blood and gut drained bodies. I have a whole new fear and respect for that gun after afghan.

I don't ever have a desire to see what that gun can do again."

Here's my proposal for treating hits from a .50.

1. Ignore the Inconsequential Wound result in which no cross appears.

2. Make the best possible (low probability) outcome of being hit by once a .50 a Wound.

3. Make the default result an Incapacitating Wound, with a high likelihood of death attached.

I'd say the Marine Veteran's direct observations fully support this approach. Moreover, it perfectly fits the known German attitude toward the .50 and why the German soldiers felt that way.

These adjustments, theoretically speaking, would seem to be a simple matter if changing some If/Then statements in the code applying to the .50's terminal effects.

In the .50 caliber hit survival cases here (ignoring obvious ridiculous statements), the recipients were out of commission for extended periods. I'd also note that it's important to pay attention to the time frame cited. None of those saved by modern body armor may be counted directly as survival examples without first considering the likely outcome of the hit or hits sans armor.

http://www.thehighroad.org/archive/index.php/t-457132.html

For comparison, here's another account based on direct observation of .50 cal terminal effects--on a deer!

I've removed the extraneous first paragraph, since it addresses NFA and ATF policy issues)

http://www.thehighroad.org/archive/index.php/t-455698.html

(Fair Use)

"rcmodel

June 11, 2009, 03:24 PM

Anyone who doesn't think a .50 BMG will tear a limb off has obvously never shot anything live with one.

I saw a deer shot on a .50 MG range while I was in the service. One round hit it about mid-belly at 800 yards or so, and the remains looked like a bomb went of inside it.

rc"

Regards,

John Kettler

[John Kettler]

Sublime,

Please see my 6:32 p.m. post of today. It took me quite some time to put together, with a dinner break thrown in. I think it nicely characterizes the terminal effects, without resort to gore pics.

As for the world's ending, I've been saying for months that I expected no such outcome, the Maya expected no such outcome and we had solid archaeological evidence that they carried on with their calendric calculations past the end of the now defunct (YMMV, depending on time zone) baktun. Such was my confidence, that I was booked to do a radio interview this evening.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-18018343

Regards,

John Kettler

[Sublime]

Fair enough except I never even got in the debate on whether a .50 does that much damage or not. In fact I think it probably does. Shouldn't you post that in the Fact or Fiction thread?

Since I cant resist though, I will point out that the Marine you quoted may not be a Marine combat vet. He could just be a REMF. Hell he could be Coast Guard, or a 15 year old boy at home. Just because someone says something on the internet doesn't make it true. Haven't you seen the commercials? Perhaps if he had documenation or evidence to support his claim, still it's anecdotal and one man's experience, with sniper rounds in Afghanistan 70 years after the game we're playing. He may be a real combat Marine, my point is that changing our game because someone's posted on an FPS game thread is hardly up to the standards of proof we've used before to submit a change to BFC.

I'll also point out that the idea for .50 cal rounds seems reasonable to me though, and I do think that MG rounds from a .50 would do everything described. I simply do not know enough hard factual evidence to say things should be this way and this is why and post REAL EVIDENCE pointing to that.

[Battlefront.com]

This discussion is similar to one we had back in CMBO and then CMBB/AK days. MG fire is very tricky stuff to balance. Move it a wee bit one way and suddenly in some situations it's unrealistically powerful. Move it a wee bit another way and suddenly in some other situations it's under powered. Or over powered.

Part of the problem is that MG fire is generally not used the way people test for. The "Pool Table" test is a classic example. There's few real life examples to compare to such a test, so it's not directly relevant. Extrapolation from such a test can be useful, though, just not conclusive in and of itself. Think of it as a stress test that at least shows an extreme possibility, not necessarily a relevant one.

We will probably have to mess around with MG stuff for the rest of the lifespan of CM. It really is that tricky to balance correctly. Fortunately, we're interested in improvements and so there will be at least one very soon (it's being tested in CMBN 2.01 Beta now) and probably countless more as the years go on.

Steve

[John Kettler]

Steve,

What do you think of the idea I proposed regarding terminal effects for .50 caliber hits?

And I agree that the battlefield's neither flat nor featureless and have argued, quite strongly, there needs to be some depiction of the protection afforded by microrelief. Further, I've mentioned U.S. Army studies which concluded that, at any appreciable range, the tank is generally masked from the tops of the tracks down. This denies many shot opportunities against the lower hull and running gear.

Returning to MG modeling, I'd like to point out that, if we do somehow get microrelief depicted, then the German MGs should shine in the task for which they were designed, catching infantry on the hop before it can get back into cover and quickly stitching it.

Regards,

John Kettler

[Battlefront.com]

.50 cal is already be more like a 20mm cannon round than a 7.62 round in terms of suppression and morale effects. In terms of damage to a soldier, it should have a higher chance per round discharged of being lethal already. It still has a good chance of wounding, though, because of fragmentation/splinter effects.

Steve

[Broadsword56]

.50 cal is already be more like a 20mm cannon round than a 7.62 round in terms of suppression and morale effects. In terms of damage to a soldier, it should have a higher chance per round discharged of being lethal already. It still has a good chance of wounding, though, because of fragmentation/splinter effects.

Steve

Since you brought up 20mm cannon -- what are the chances we'll see this in CMBN for Market-Garden? It just seemed such an important direct fire weapon for the Germans, and particularly at this time/place.

[John Kettler]

Sublime,

Reasonably presented and well argued! I absolutely agree there is a paucity of solid information on this issue, and there's precious little on the Net. Your concern about the Marine is valid, but his MOS is 0331, Machine Gunner, so it's entirely appropriate to have a .50 sniper team in overwatch. Further, he may very well have direct .50 HMG experience himself, as seen here.

http://www.leatherneck.com/forums/showthread.php?60507-MOS-0331-(Machine-Gunner)

Here is a direct example of such overwatch in action, excerpted from the History Channel.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rx4NshMujlM

I close with the observation that what the veterans are reporting is wholly consistent with the kinds of damage reports I got from a Nam vet who saw much the same himself. Can everyone be wrong?

As to why this discussion is here, this discussion began here well before Facts and Fiction and relates directly to the effectiveness issue which is part of this thread's title. Judging from some of the master's these I've seen the U.S. Army has historical files covering all sorts of combat incidents, but they don't seem to be accessible by us. Were they, this wouldn't be so difficult. I have no doubt the Russians could go into their Soviet era combat files and produce account after account of the Dushka in battle, to, and far easier than the equivalent data for the U.S. .50 cal HMG.

Regards,

John Kettler

[Battlefront.com]

Since you brought up 20mm cannon -- what are the chances we'll see this in CMBN for Market-Garden?

Guaranteed. And not just 20mm. And not just the single barrel type. And not... well, we'll let you know more later when we make a proper press release for it

Steve

[John Kettler]

Steve,

Given what you say is true, then how is it people are reporting troops being completely unfazed by .50 HMG fire which passes through, but doesn't strike, their AS or an AS nearby. I'd think that big projectile would put people several meters away face down, never mind the ones where the fire happened to hit, for the supersonic crack would likely be impressive. That and the nearby earth spouts and dust!

As for the 2cm Flakvierling and similar in MG, outstanding!

Regards,

John Kettler

[Apocal]

Part of the problem is that MG fire is generally not used the way people test for. The "Pool Table" test is a classic example. There's few real life examples to compare to such a test, so it's not directly relevant. Extrapolation from such a test can be useful, though, just not conclusive in and of itself. Think of it as a stress test that at least shows an extreme possibility, not necessarily a relevant one.

I just used the pool table test to show that even in the one situation where a HMG should flat out dominate, it still doesn't.

We will probably have to mess around with MG stuff for the rest of the lifespan of CM. It really is that tricky to balance correctly. Fortunately, we're interested in improvements and so there will be at least one very soon (it's being tested in CMBN 2.01 Beta now) and probably countless more as the years go on.

Steve

Cool.

[Battlefront.com]

I just used the pool table test to show that even in the one situation where a HMG should flat out dominate, it still doesn't.

This is part of the discussion we've had about MG behavior since the beginning of CM. CM is a collection of many elements designed to produce a particular outcome which related to our overall goal. In this case to simulate combined arms behavior in a realistic setting.

Unfortunately, the way it works with sims is you have to code things to produce an intended effect and then test/balance so that effect is consistent with the other effects as they are intended to be. It is simply not possible to code for the world as we know it and then have the effects follow the design. There's just no practical way to do that.

Which means the more the test conditions are divorced from the intended overall design, the less reliable the coding becomes in terms of delivering an expected result. Therefore, balancing MG behavior for a Pool Table is likely different for situations where there's intermittent cover, limited fields of fire, other supporting arms, etc.

Now, if it were important to have CM's MGs function "as expected" on a Pool Table, then would spend time testing/balancing for that. And then it would be totally valid to make a Pool Table test with certain expectations. What those expectations should be, however, is difficult to pin down because the situation is so artificial there's no great way to know for sure exactly what should happen.

Still, the Pool Table tests do have some good in them. They often times can help isolate possible cause/effect problems when there's been a problem reported during general gameplay. It can't be taken as gospel (see previous comments), but it can at least be a part of the analysis process.

I am sure that the next release will not "fix" MG behavior because that would imply that we have identified (correctly) all the problems and (correctly) addressed them. That's likely never going to be the case with MGs because they are that difficult to deal with. But I can promise you improvements over time.

Steve

[Killkess]

Steve, first of all thx that u finally decided to join this thread.

Therefore, balancing MG behavior for a Pool Table is likely different for situations where there's intermittent cover, limited fields of fire, other supporting arms, etc.

Yes, u are right that the tactical influence of a HMG will even be less if u throw in more cover, limited fields of fire and other arms.

This is the point i realy cant understand. How can HMGs be balanced for a situation where u have intermittent cover, limited FOF and so on but dont produce reasonable results when shooting long range? U realy suggest that MGs produce reasonable results apart from these "Pool Tables"?

They might work somehow on CMBN maps with its short overage firing distances, there they show at least a high ROF when engaging targets at ridiculous short ranges.

But the pooltables show that the current behaviour simply fail on maps with long fields of fire which is more typical in italy and will be a real showstopper on the eastern front.

But it is good to hear finally that there are some tweaks/fixes on the way.

[Battlefront.com]

We have two fundamental problems when we start talking about MG fire:

1. It's extremely complex and difficult for even very learned individuals to agree on the emphasis of results for a given situation (though generally we can get to consensus at least).

2. The effects of MGs are wildly overestimated by most people most of the time for most situations.

Which means in a discussion this long there's probably a couple hundred posts that are, in our view, factually flawed. This sets us up for trouble when we start to try and have a discussion because we have to constantly engage in discussions which are not productive.

Let me restate this about the Pool Table problem...

I think everybody should agree that we shouldn't be wasting our time making sure a Pool Table situation works "as expected" (once again requiring us to agree on "as expected"). It simply isn't valuable to balance for ANY situation that isn't relevant to actual gameplay. Which means, theoretically, we don't care at all what the Pool Table results are in-and-of-themselves. It's no more worthy of balancing for a British Rifle Platoon fighting against another British Rifle Platooon. Excepting a situation where one is Scottish and the other English (heh), this is a nonsensical thing for us to bother with.

Add to this the unreasonable expectations for what a MG can do in such an artificial environment. Many people here, and in other discussions, seem to think a single HMG should be able to decimate 30 infantrymen (with combined arms of their own) out in the flat open. I don't agree. I'd put my money on 30 points of aimed fire on a single target in the open any day of the week against a single HMG position. While the HMG gunner is busy with the targets on the left a single rifleman, with a gun vastly more accurate than a MG, can kill or suppress the crew. A single point of fire can not be everywhere all the time. 30 points of fire can't either, but they can sure do a lot more.

However, we then have to consider realistic variables which the Pool Table tests aren't using. Keep everything the same but put the HMG in a trench/foxhole, my money starts to go towards the HMG. Put in reasonable cover (uneven terrain, foliage, etc.) for the advancing Rifle Platoon and my money goes back to the HMG. Put a 60mm or 2" mortar into the mix and the HMG again isn't where I'd risk my money. Add a single rifle Squad to the HMG side and my money switches sides again.

And as you keep adding elements you keep getting closer to a realistic combined arms battle. The type that we SHOULD be focused on making sure works right. Not a situation that is should never bee seen in any Combat Mission battles *ever*. Because of that the Pool Table Test is (at the very least) not Holy Scripture. It may be useful, but it may also be a useless distraction. It's vitally important to keep that in mind.

So what have we fixed so far?

1. The old methodology of spreading fire (which is what started this thread) has been abandoned and new "smarter" behavior created. Early tests indicate this largely fixes the problems most of you have been discussing throughout this discussion. This, actually, is where the Pool Table test helped out. NOT because of the results, but because it was easier to notice the targeting logic and understand why it needed to be adjusted.

2. Suppression effects have been increased. Not just for MGs but for small arms in general. The increases are proportional to the amount of lead being shot, which means MGs will cause proportionally more suppression than they used to.

These two things are huge when combined. MGs now are more likely to specifically target a unit. That right there increases the chances of suppressing or harming it (physically or Morale wise). On top of that the suppressive effect, which does hit Morale, is upped as well.

Will this fix all criticism of MG behavior? No. Unrealistic (not factually based) expectations will remain and we'll have to hear about them again and again. Those with realistic expectations will no doubt find situations which probably need more work. And that pretty much assures us of more debates like this in the future.

Steve

[Killkess]

1. The old methodology of spreading fire (which is what started this thread) has been abandoned and new "smarter" behavior created. Early tests indicate this largely fixes the problems most of you have been discussing throughout this discussion. This, actually, is where the Pool Table test helped out. NOT because of the results, but because it was easier to notice the targeting logic and understand why it needed to be adjusted.

2. Suppression effects have been increased. Not just for MGs but for small arms in general. The increases are proportional to the amount of lead being shot, which means MGs will cause proportionally more suppression than they used to.

Thanks for this insight of current changes, much appreciated!

Just out of interest: Taking your 30 man team against a HMG position. Which are your sources to take a look at? I am keen to know where to search for such informations.

[Paper Tiger]

2. The effects of MGs are wildly overestimated by most people most of the time for most situations

Like the planners of the Dieppe landings for example I've also been led to believe that the Omaha landings were a bit difficult too.

If you remove the combined arms from the equation, a well-sited, dug-in MG team should dominate a force of infantry advancing across a pool table. With no cover, real-life infantry would feel very vulnerable and be very frightened having a MG firing in their general direction. The whole point of combined arms was to avoid this silliness.