accuracy/efficiency of machine gun fire

[RockinHarry]

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

Yep, when speaking of RT play. Think more of us WEGO preference players don´t mind if a 1 minute turn takes 2-3 minutes, or a bit more to get resolved. So that´s the bad compromise for this hybrid concept game.

[RockinHarry]

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.

I´m not a programmer, but there must be a reason to cap bursts at 7-8 rounds max currently. Maybe it´s more of a frame/slice that can compute only so many things in a given computation cycle before things get out of sync? Just when assumed that every single round is really simulated, as otherwise abstractions can and likely need to be made for particular time slices, in order to get i.e a 1 second, 20 round burst resolved from a HMG42. But I´m not a programmer and usually developers do not publicly tell about how they do code things.

[MikeyD]

First of all, at the NORMAL 1000-2000m combat ranges...

Ha ha, I was about to type "Lets not forget we're talking bocage country" - then I realized this is the CMFI forum, not CMBN. Oops!

Still, I'd take the 1-2000m combat ranges with a grain of salt. I recall Tiger I commanders in the Med. were specifically ordered NOT to engage in long range tank duels, to close with the enemy to ensure first round kills due to a scarcity of ammo. That's totally contrary to classic Tiger tactics. For hmgs I'd imagine there would be the 'ideal' tactics, then there's tactics imposed by circumstance. How you use your weapon may be more dependent on your supply chain than the tactical situation - The difference between forty boxes of ammo with more coming or just four.

[Apocal]

I´m not a programmer, but there must be a reason to cap bursts at 7-8 rounds max currently.

The developer has already outright stated it is because that is the way he believes best represents their RL use. You're better off providing sources and reasoned arguments why you think this isn't the case than speculating on programming you only see from the output end.

[RockinHarry]

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.

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.

Steve

Yep. I already have some the tech manuals and TMs for the M240 and M60. But no need to dig through all that, unless I find something that´s closer related to the german WW2 doctrine, tactical HMG usage and combined weapon concepts. As said, MG42 ROF, the tripod thingy ect. is just part of the whole concept and wartime application.

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

Found it.

http://www.battlefront.com/index.php?option=com_flippingbook&book_id=22

ok, I have the first one mentioned "German squad in combat" (german: "Die Gruppe im Gefecht" by Fritz Kuehlwein). There´s little in about HMG usage, as can be expected. Also makes bit of a difference what issue you have translated there. I know there´s an online resource available for this translated version (CARL?), but it´s from early 1930ies. I have 2, the same german orginal from early 1930ies and one issue from 1940. But as said, that´s not of concern.

"Training manual for schnelle Truppen" and "Training and Employment of the Panzergrenadier Company", I do not have these, but these obviously have a too narrow focus to have necessary details on HMG34/42 usage.

From 1940 on, usage of HMG was responsibility at Btl. level, so one either needs manuals that deal with Btl (or higher) level stuff, or very much narrowed down to specialities of the HMGs.

I have no abundance of such (HMG related) manuals, but what I have is rather exhaustive.

HDV 73 - shooting regulation for heavy machine guns.

HDV 130/3a, Employment of the machine gun coy. 1936

HDV 130/9, Leading and Combat of the Infantry, The Inf.-Btl, 1940

HDV 240, Shooting regulation for light weapons, 1937

Die M.G.-Kompanie (the machine gun coy), Hofmann/M&S, 1939, sort of "Reibert" for HMG training.

Der Feuerkampf der Schützenkompanie, OW, 2. Kriegsauflage 1940

(fire combat, employment of fire in the rifle coy)

Der Feuerkampf des s. M.G., Froböse/M&S, 1940

(fire combat, employment of fire of the HMG. Has whole lots of examples for commands, employment, tactics from single HMG, up to coy level)

Das Kommandobuch, Die Maschinengewehrkompanie, Band 2, Mars/Siwinna, 1940

(command book, the machine gun coy. Sort of summary of a number of HMG related regulations in a single book)

That´s the most important and detailed stuff. There´s a dozen or so other books that deal with Btl. tactics, combined arms and such, in my posession. Yet when it gets down to details again, it´s all the same.

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.

So far correct.

I now have to stop bugging you, since I´ve yet my CMBN urban map to finish.

[RockinHarry]

The developer has already outright stated it is because that is the way he believes best represents their RL use. You're better off providing sources and reasoned arguments why you think this isn't the case than speculating on programming you only see from the output end.

Yep, I´m speculating. Why not? It´s an interesting topic, even for non programmers like me. I also try to understand things from a developers POV (believe it or not ), even if I´m wrong with my speculations. We aren´t getting told any programming secrets here anyway, so wtf...

[Fūrinkazan]

Just a few things that i learned while testing :

The firing procedure for lmg an hmgs in the game :

The bursts are 5/7 rounds for germans and 3/5 rounds for the others.

The number of bursts is linked to distance : At 300/400 m or more expect a delay of 8 to 12 sec between bursts. Under 300 m it's more 5 sec and 2/3 sec at 200/100m. You can expect 1 burst second in shorter range under 50 m.

There is not much difference in the number of bullets/bursts shot by hmgs and lmgs above 300/400 m. Expect 10/12 bursts mn at 400 m and decreasing to 9 at longer range.

It is possible to use indirect fire up to 2000 m. Just to test use the pooltable. In game, put an outpost in front of the main line of defense to spot attacker.

The hmgs can be placed far behind. Then area target when enemy is spotted by the outpost. You can expect around 10 bursts mn or less. There is suppression and i managed to cause 1 casualty on a company of riflemen that were just stopped in the open at 1900 m with only one hmg firing this way a few minutes.

At short range, 50m or less, an hmg can shoot 1 burst sec = 60 x 7 =420 rpm for a german hmgs. you can expect 300 for allied hmgs. In real time, i noticed no slowdown while playing.

What i've learned in the book "German squad tactics in WWII" by M. Gajokowski :

For smgs : They can be used in defense up to 200 m

For lmgs : short bursts, like in the game, up to 800 m.

The distance to engage depends on the target,exemples :

"at 1500 m riflemen appear..... no fire from lmgs or riflemen....little or no prospect of effective result."

" at 500 m 3/4 individuals crawling....firing is witheld.. permit the enemy to advance at effective range"

" same situation but an hmg is closed behind riflemen...It's a paying target.... Open fire with riflemen an lmgs..."

"At 600 m 50/60 riflemen advancing on a broad front toward the gruppe....immediately open fire with entire gruppe.... The essential thing is to stop the ennemy and force him to take cover...."

the defense is organised with the cooperation of all weapons, hmgs, mortars, infantry gun. Outposts in front of the main line for resistance, and hmgs in this line with cross fire etc...

Behind this line, other supporting hmgs than can use indirect fire at long range.

Hmgs can be used up to 2000 m according to the book.

Now there is too much thing to quote everything. There are also plans and practical exemples of training for the german squad in the book.

Now, if we go back to the game, the problem for me, is not to replicate the exact rate of fire of hmgs, but to find a convincing representation of those weapons and role in the battlefield.

My opinion is that the practical range for hmgs is no more than around 1000 m, longer is harrassing fire, that is allready possible in the game.

The question is, at practical range, should hmgs and lmgs shoot the same number of bullets ? From the manuals, german and russian, hmgs can open at around 1000 m and it's better to wait at around 600 m.

Now at that range, hmgs and lmgs in the game will shoot around 10 bursts mn. I think hmgs should shoot more than lmgs. The reason is that they are more stable weapons (tripods) and for some have optics, and they have more ammos.

I think the game replicate well the way lmgs fire. Short, precise bursts up to 800 m. I would not touch this.

Now hmgs should have an advantage at longer range from 300 to 1000 m, i think. Why not reduce the delay between bursts for hmgs ?

For exemple at 400 m :

lmgs :10 bursts mn, what we have in game now, and hmgs: 20 bursts mn by reducing the pause to 3 sec between bursts. Lmgs would shoot around 70 bullets mn and hmgs around 140. The game can take 1 burst second at short range so this is possible.

The new improvement will bring more suppression and i think it 's good, but i don't think it will make a difference between hmgs/lmgs capabilities at long range, because they will shot the same number of bullets and then will have the same suppression effect.

Reduce the delay for hmgs can be a good compromise i guess. This would not cost too much ammunition, it would not require a change in the game engine with new feature.

[PzKfW]

Let's see what the update brings.

[RockinHarry]

Ha ha, I was about to type "Lets not forget we're talking bocage country" - then I realized this is the CMFI forum, not CMBN. Oops!

Still, I'd take the 1-2000m combat ranges with a grain of salt. I recall Tiger I commanders in the Med. were specifically ordered NOT to engage in long range tank duels, to close with the enemy to ensure first round kills due to a scarcity of ammo. That's totally contrary to classic Tiger tactics. For hmgs I'd imagine there would be the 'ideal' tactics, then there's tactics imposed by circumstance. How you use your weapon may be more dependent on your supply chain than the tactical situation - The difference between forty boxes of ammo with more coming or just four.

Exactly.

Germans had to throw their combat principles and doctrines overboard a million of times, for which we know is a multitude of reasons. Ammo and supply shortages is one of them.

It´s just a game, but at times it gets felt, when important weapon systems are dumbed down for this or that reason. Personally I don´t care for "balance". There´s other means to achieve that.

From personal experience I know there´s little detailed material to be found on certain WW2 topics in your own language oftentimes. Same goes for german MG34 and MG42, when you´re actually researching doctrines, tactical employment, command and that stuff. For everything else, just a short look at Wikipedia is mostly sufficient.

You can download almost every WW2 US FM from the net, but beeing non german native speaker gives you just very few, mostly incomplete translations, summaries and analyses, which also aren´t always "correct", or lack the big picture. Also makes a difference, if translated material was up to date at time of translation. There were important changes from wartime experiences in 1939/40 and then 1941, with minor changes after. I know there´s translated material available in 1944, that originates from pre war german stuff, so likely causes bits of confusion then.

There´s yet a book about german MG employment missing, similar to one for german tanks, of which the best appears to be Wolfgang Schneiders "Panzer Tactics" and Jentz Panzertruppen 1+2.

Chris McNabs "MG 34 and MG 42 machine guns" is not bad, although a bit short (80p), but has bits of everything. Some of its primary sources is also stuff freely available from the net (Lone Sentry, Carl and others).

[agusto]

Still, I'd take the 1-2000m combat ranges with a grain of salt. I recall Tiger I commanders in the Med. were specifically ordered NOT to engage in long range tank duels, to close with the enemy to ensure first round kills due to a scarcity of ammo. That's totally contrary to classic Tiger tactics.

The gun and sights of the Tiger I would allow the gunner to egage tank sized targets at 1200 meters with an almost 100% first hit propability. According to the Tigerfibel, misses at 1200 and below were always considered the gunners fault.

[dieseltaylor]

M240 Technical!

Suppression effective out to 1800 metres! I assume it means enemy troops are ducking and diving if advancing .... does this not contradict the PoolTable effect?

Giving the effective range as 1100m also suggests, at least to me, is this is where they anticipate being able to cause casualties. Sure you can nail people using suppressive fire further than 1100m but it would require the targets to remain upright or run into bullets.

Not an impossibility if there is plenty of distractions going on.

[RockinHarry]

The gun and sights of the Tiger I would allow the gunner to egage tank sized targets at 1200 meters with an almost 100% first hit propability. According to the Tigerfibel, misses at 1200 and below were always considered the gunners fault.

I think first round "kills" equals not first round "hits". Depends on target then. A Sherman is likely more easy to first shot kill, than a Churchill maybe.

[agusto]

A Churchill with its 152mm frontal armor plate could be penetrated by the Tiger IIs 88mm KwK 43 at 1000 meters with the PzGr 39/43 under ideal circumstances (90 degrees impact angle), 2000 meters with the PzGr 40.

The Tiger Is (shorter) 88 would not be able to penetarte the Churchill frontally at all with the standard APCBC PzGr 39. Using the rare APCR PzGr 40, it would be able to kill the Churchill frontally at 500m and below. The Sherman, however, could be penetrated with the standard PzGr 39 at 2000m, given ideal circumstances. At that range hit propability was way below 50% under combat circumstances but at 1200 meters it was still around 90.

[Killkess]

@RockinHarry:

Würde Dir gerne eine PM schicken, bitte Kontakt "herstellen".

Danke!

[Battlefront.com]

Catching up...

Yes, finding hard numbers to plug into equations is very difficult to do. The sources are often incomplete, contradictory, and sometimes even flat out wrong for the stated conditions. But overall, the problem is these sources are AT BEST generalized. At the worst they are propaganda to make their own forces feel better. If you look at some of the US Army training films you'll see them downplay the MG42's capabilities.

For a complex, extremely context sensitive thing such as MG fire no source, or combination, of sources can provide us with all the answers we need.

A complicating factor is MGs are like King Tigers and Panthers... there's a huge misperception of their actual fighting characteristics in general or for specific situations. This leads people to think things are either wrong when they aren't, or worse than they actually are.

Sucks to be us

Sometimes issues come up with how we've simulated things because a particular condition starts coming up more frequently than it did before. For example, the engagement ranges in Normandy are (generally) shorter and more "cluttered" than they are in Italy. So it's not totally surprising that we find ourselves looking at MG behavior different now than we did before.

The good thing for you guys is we are completely open to the possibility that as conditions change we may have to make some adjustments to the game. However, whatever changes we make are always an attempt to improve realism. We are not interested in making changes to accommodate "game balancing" or "perception" requests. Which is why CM is as good as it is now, and why it gets better with each release.

Soon you guys will have improved MG performance. Perfect? No, not even by historical standards. And I'm guessing no by some people's perception standards. But that's the way it always goes

Steve

[Killkess]

So it's not totally surprising that we find ourselves looking at MG behavior different now than we did before.

Just as a sidenote: From my observations i say that the HMG behaviour is in place since CMSF. On "bigger" CMSF maps the same behaviour showed the same problems because in the desert like lanscape u find almost perfect pooltable conditions... :eek: Ups, i did it again....

[Michael Emrys]

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.

There was also the trailer mounted M51 quad .50 (images begin about a quarter of the way down the page). Not very mobile and surely not found near the front lines. So not expected to turn up in CM, but an interesting curiosity.

Michael

[RockinHarry]

M240 Technical!

Suppression effective out to 1800 metres! I assume it means enemy troops are ducking and diving if advancing .... does this not contradict the PoolTable effect?

Giving the effective range as 1100m also suggests, at least to me, is this is where they anticipate being able to cause casualties. Sure you can nail people using suppressive fire further than 1100m but it would require the targets to remain upright or run into bullets.

Not an impossibility if there is plenty of distractions going on.

Found this, but can´t tell if this was the wartime, or post WW2 definition:

"In the US military, the definition for effective range of a firearm is

the distance that an average soldier can be expected to hit a man-

sized target 50 percent of the time."

[altipueri]

Probably about 200 yards then. Less if you're a Brit.

I think we did pretty poorly in NATO gunnery competitions.

My dad passed his 'musketry' as it was quaintly still called in about 1942 even though he says he didn't recall actually hitting anything he was supposed to. However he claims to be one of few men still alive who know how to deploy and use a heliograph.

[poesel]

Maybe the target command for (German) HMGs could be handled similar to a mortar mission?

You give a target order and the team begins its ranging shots (as per handbook). As soon as range is determined it fires belts at max ROF (pause for changing the barrel).

Target light would work the same but would not go to max ROF.

Without orders behaviour stays like it is.

I don't know the procedures for other nations but it could probably be handled similar.

Another thing: if you change MG behaviour please also change that ammo is first taken from the ammo bearers and not the crew. So we can actually use them for their purpose. I imagine that ammo consumption will go up with the coming changes so we will need these guys more than now.

[John Kettler]

Steve,

One of the remarkable and upsetting to me discoveries from this thread is how vanishingly few WW II accounts of the .50 in ground combat there are. Worse, I can't locate an online YouTube or similar training film for the weapon. If I want a German antitank training film covering, among other things, use of the Puppchen, I'm better off.

I can get better video coverage of the all but unknown Great Panjandrum than I can of the .50 caliber in ground combat during WW II. It's absolutely baffling, but a Nam vet offered a pretty good explanation of the likely cause. Everyone thinks the matter is so old hat that no one bothers to write it up or post a vid. I think he's right and shall be contacting a number of Army divisional sites sites with a view to fixing this cavernous gap in online military history.

I've spent hours and hours poring through the Internet looking for ground combat accounts of the .50 caliber and have vanishingly little to show for it: ~two minutes of a video interview with a former GI .50 gunner at St. Lo, the Audie Murphy story, a page on Gyrene.org, which was more organizational than combat oriented. I have no doubt the U.S. military has such accounts, but they don't seem to be online. I suppose I could systematically plow through the MoH citations to see what turns up, but on balance, my massive trawl has clearly shown the Internet to be anything but encyclopedic. To me, it's a very strange world in which incredibly obscure stuff gets more coverage than the combat use of a key weapon in WW II.

Regards,

John Kettler

[Killkess]

@RockinHarry:

Würde Dir gerne eine PM schicken, bitte Kontakt "herstellen".

Danke!

Ich habe noch immer keine Erlaubnis Dir zu antworten

Schau mal woran es liegen könnte, sonst schreib mir einfach eine Nachricht über welche Mailadresse ich Dich erreichen kann.

Danke!

[dieseltaylor]

The MoH citations are probably more likely to be "iffy" on detail I would have thought!. Remeber the Fact & Fiction threads?

[Battlefront.com]

Just as a sidenote: From my observations i say that the HMG behaviour is in place since CMSF. On "bigger" CMSF maps the same behaviour showed the same problems because in the desert like lanscape u find almost perfect pooltable conditions... :eek: Ups, i did it again....

But I do agree with you that MG problems have been around since CMSF. As I've said, it's a very difficult element of combat to have working well in all situations all the time. We must also be very careful of having them work very well in one situation, but totally unrealistically powerful in another. Which is why the "middle of the road" approach is the one we follow.

We did make changes to the MG behavior between CMSF v1.0 and CMBN v1.0. Probably quite a few, actually. Which is just more evidence about how difficult this is to get "right".

Steve

[Sublime]

Steve can I ask - were MG's accuracy and shooting differences modelled or changed significantly or at all from SF to BN? What about tank AI and behavior? I've wondered since I've seen people (who wouldn't actually know) say it - is tank modelling, besides the 'soft factors' or 'variables' different from SF to BN?

Say would a tank crew react just as quickly, etc from an Abrams to a Sherman?

Finally, I've said it before but Im no programmer but you have made statements to the effect physics and somethings are easier to change than others, like AI behavior. Is there any way to randomize the bursts of bullets MG's fire? that would make it seem more realistic I think - 4 bullets, then 6, then 3, then 4. More human.

Thanks for the feedback and great games as usual.