accuracy/efficiency of machine gun fire

[76mm]

Steve,

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...

I prepared the "CMAK Companion", with accounts of many tactical actions in North Africa, Sicily, and Italy, and it does not seem like the .50 cals were used very extensively in a ground combat role. In account #117, it mentions that 6 .50 cals were taken from the battalion's AT platoon to support a night attack.

Other accounts, however, suggest that HMGs (and not just .50 cals) were considered "excess luggage", and that LMGs were much easier to handle and just as good with firepower (Account #94); this unit apparently kept all of its HMGs in the unit supply train and only used them at Anzio, and even then this NCO thought that LMGs would have done just as well. Another NCO, a machine gun section leader, complained that rifle unit commanders "are not thoroughly acquainted with the tactical employment of heavy weapons" and that his HMG section was often "forgotten entirely or neglected" by the supported rifle units.

The only other accounts that I noted that involved .50 cals were about: (i) a TD crewman who exposed himself (with fatal results) to fire the TD's .50 cal at waves of attacking Germans; and (ii) toward the end of the war in Italy, a US unit suppressing a German unit prior to an attack apparently wanted to give its non-combatants a good time: "even the .50 caliber machine guns were brought up, emplaced and manned by kitchen personnel."

[Sublime]

76mm do you have a link to an online version?

[Battlefront.com]

Correct about the .50cal. It didn't see widespread ground use until late in 1944 when the organic AAA guns were repurposed due to the lack of practical need. Once the grunts got a feel for what the .50 on a tripod could do, they wanted more of it. IIRC it became standard TO&E for .50s to be available to infantry units starting in 1945. It's still that way today.

Steve

[76mm]

76mm do you have a link to an online version?

Sorry, there is no online version and there will not be one, it's a provision of the movie contract...

haha, just kidding. Actually, the rights granted by the various publishers to reprint their materials did not extend to digital versions.

[JasonC]

To Steve on AAA - as to "widespread use", that may well be so, but some units were doing it considerably earlier. E.g. the 474 AAA automatic weapons battalion outside Cherbourg in Normandy - "A platoon of infantry was encountering severe opposition in D Battery's area, and asked 2nd Lieut. Anderson for help to neutralize a gun position. Lt. Anderson took some M35's to the vicinity of the enemy position, and threw a lot of 37 mm. and 50 cal. at them, after which the infantry took over without further opposition."

At least one AAA AW battalion in the south of France force was doing the same in the drive north, and especially once the fighting became positional in the Vosges later in the fall. They fired direct on ground targets as a kind of overwatch and prep fire, which also served to attract (distract really) enemy counterbattery.

In the Bulge a lot more AW formations got caught up in the general scramble and their strong position defense powers became more generally known - but they had been a useful fire support arm for the formations flexible enough to properly "task" them before then. I agree however that it wasn't (yet) widespread - their main role was guarding bridges, artillery positions, HQs and divisional supply trains - against a Luftwaffe enemy that failed to show up.

[Michael Emrys]

Lt. Anderson took some M35's to the vicinity of the enemy position, and threw a lot of 37 mm. and 50 cal. at them...

Could you have meant M15s?

:confused:

Michael

[JasonC]

He presumably did, yes. I am quoting the veteran's account. Since he mentions 37mm and 50 cal, we can assume he actually was referring to M15 multiple gun carriages. But he wrote "M35". It is what it is...

[dieseltaylor]

MikeyD

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.

Anecdote!

Incidentally does the Med anecdote relate to the Tunisian Tigers or Italy? Also is close to the enemy a suggestion that rather than fire at 2000 metres close to 1200 metres ......

Not a very useful anecdote.

Reverting to HMG rates of fire and range surely the frequency of firing should be related to number of available targets? If I have three squads to shott at 1200 metres I will fire more often than at a single squad that bites the dirt after a few seconds. After all it is firing at range to disrupt an advance and making units hit the deck is the "aim".

[Battlefront.com]

To Steve on AAA - as to "widespread use", that may well be so, but some units were doing it considerably earlier.

Absolutely, which is why we allow players to purchase ground mount .50cal teams in June 1944 even though technically they shouldn't be in a battle.

Many times official changes to TO&E happened because soldiers improvised something and proved a change would be useful. US Infantry TO&E increasing a Squad to have 2x BARs didn't just pop out of thin air. Prior to this soldiers found this to be useful and they "acquired" the extra BARs to make it a reality despite it being against TO&E. Or to put it another way, TO&E changed because of soldier behavior, not the other way around.

Steve

[Apocal]

US Infantry TO&E increasing a Squad to have 2x BARs didn't just pop out of thin air. Prior to this soldiers found this to be useful and they "acquired" the extra BARs to make it a reality despite it being against TO&E. Or to put it another way, TO&E changed because of soldier behavior, not the other way around.

Reading accounts like "Roll Me Over" (just the one that sticks out in my mind) part of the reason for the increase was that as companies and platoons diminished in manpower, they continued to maintain their heavy weapons as practicable, i.e. a platoon of some 40 odd men might have 3 BARs, 4 Thompsons and 2 Bazookas; on the line three months later, it'd have about 15 men but 3 BARs, 4 Thompsons and 2 Bazookas still.

[Battlefront.com]

That seems entirely plausible to me. And then when the greenhorns arrived to fill out the empty slots, they might come with BARs, Thompsons, and Bazookas. You know, because the Supply SGT said they were short some

A long time ago I read something that implied higher HQs knew about this sort of behavior and basically had the attitude of "if we don't run out of stuff, where's the harm in it?".

Steve

[noob]

Many times official changes to TO&E happened because soldiers improvised something and proved a change would be useful. US Infantry TO&E increasing a Squad to have 2x BARs didn't just pop out of thin air. Prior to this soldiers found this to be useful and they "acquired" the extra BARs to make it a reality despite it being against TO&E. Or to put it another way, TO&E changed because of soldier behavior, not the other way around.

Steve

If that's the case, why not implement Slysnipers suggestion to expand the "Aquire" function to allow individual men to pass on equipment to each other, and to pick up equipment from wounded or dead bodies (the current way soldiers retrieve weapons from casualties as part of the buddy aid function is too slow IMO)

[MikeyD]

This reminds me of the old series "Combat!" When they were first putting the show together one of the actors jumped at the chance the be the B.A.R. man. The coolest weapon in the series. Big mistake. The gun weighed a ton and his character was stuck with the gun for the series run. It was such a hassle to lug the beast around that for the show's second season the studio workshop built a wood replica for him to carry around instead. That wooden replica B.A.R. then showed up in movies and TV shows for years afterward. B.A.R. seemed to be a great weapon to get your hands on until you had to go in a twelve mile march with it slung over your shoulder.

[Battlefront.com]

If that's the case, why not implement Slysnipers suggestion to expand the "Aquire" function to allow individual men to pass on equipment to each other, and to pick up equipment from wounded or dead bodies (the current way soldiers retrieve weapons from casualties as part of the buddy aid function is too slow IMO)

Actually, the way it works now is pretty much as Apocal described. As the casualties mount the "sexy" weapons get retained disproportionally. True, picking up extra weapons isn't possible, and it might be nice to have them randomly do that, but it gets into a big can of worms. Better to leave it as it is.

BTW, much of the speed hit is stripping the ammo off the guy. This takes time, especially if being respectful of wounds

Steve

[womble]

As the casualties mount the "sexy" weapons get retained disproportionally.

And sometimes instantly. I had an MG42 gunner spec in a split 2LMG fire team get hit while running with his pistol out, and, I suppose because he wasn't "wielding" it, but it was still listed as being in the team's inventory when he died, the rest of the team ran on, and one of the loaders had the MG without any buddy aid being needed.

[Battlefront.com]

Yes, there is a chance for weapons being passed without Buddy Aid. It's a bit more than random, but from the player's perspective it will appear random. It's designed to simulate an easy weapon pickup during movement without having to write up a lot of complex AI to handle it.

If we were to strictly enforce wounded and weapons transfers, as they would happen in real life, I don't think may people would enjoy the game much any more. Unfortunately we do have to be mindful of that.

Steve

[Paulverisor64]

Yes, there is a chance for weapons being passed without Buddy Aid. It's a bit more than random, but from the player's perspective it will appear random. It's designed to simulate an easy weapon pickup during movement without having to write up a lot of complex AI to handle it.

If we were to strictly enforce wounded and weapons transfers, as they would happen in real life, I don't think may people would enjoy the game much any more. Unfortunately we do have to be mindful of that.

Steve

For the most part I like how the weapon exchange works in the game.

One thing I am curious about however is whether it is possible to weapon exchange from an empty Mortar to any other weapon that the previous owner doesn't need any more? I've had a couple games where I would have liked to make this exchange but I couldn't figure out a way to get rid of the un needed Mortar.

[Battlefront.com]

It's a bit tricky. The crews of heavy weapons were not intended to be used as infantry. They already have personal small arms in which to defend themselves, which realistically is about all they would do in real life for the majority of situations in the majority of battles for the majority of the time. Allowing an out of ammo mortar crew to pick up a LMG or heavier rifles on a regular basis would be incorrect almost always. So it is best to leave it the way it is. As with real life, specialized crews should be withdrawn from battle when they are threatened or otherwise useless, not used as cannon fodder.

Steve

[John Kettler]

Steve,

Wasn't the M1 carbine issued for exactly such people as weapon crews and truck drivers? There's a guy in this 81mm mortar crew (Bulge) armed with one.

http://www.ww2incolor.com/d/368592-4/stumpff1

Same thing in this pic of a 60mm mortar section in Germany.

http://24.media.tumblr.com/742293fdd0e8acd1be28ff1c63d727ba/tumblr_mex3abjKLZ1rfehtgo1_500.jpg

Also, there are plenty of pictures from the Eastern Front showing gun crews with full blown Mosin Nagants slung over their shoulders.

122mm M1938

http://www.flickr.com/photos/alimarante/4845223447/

Captured PaK 36s

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-SIgcv5yuQ-w/UKofS-gebwI/AAAAAAAAHrA/69KyS5PV-g0/s1600/pak40sov.jpg

It's a sad fact of war (ask our artillerymen in Korea) that gun positions do get subjected to ground attack. Sometimes, the gun crews have to stop shooting the big weapon and engage using small arms. Other times, the main weapon breaks or is damaged/destroyed by enemy action. I think the swap request is reasonable, and stupid behavior can be prevented by charging additional points for weapon crew losses and captures.

Regards,

John Kettler

[Battlefront.com]

Yes, by 1944 the standard "sidearm" for crews of all sorts was the M1 carbine. Similar for many officers, rear personnel (especially those riding around in vehicles), and others who normally were issued a pistol. It replaced the pistol, in theory.

Steve

[Brindlewolf]

Yes, there is a chance for weapons being passed without Buddy Aid. It's a bit more than random, but from the player's perspective it will appear random. It's designed to simulate an easy weapon pickup during movement without having to write up a lot of complex AI to handle it.

If we were to strictly enforce wounded and weapons transfers, as they would happen in real life, I don't think may people would enjoy the game much any more. Unfortunately we do have to be mindful of that.

Steve

Just playing through The Scottish Corridor Campaign.Top notch campaign but god is it brutal.One thing i noticed is how many times a bren goes through different hands in a battle.During the first couple of battles, i was always cursing at the amount of times my bren gunners would die.I soon realised they were always being picked up by someone by the next turn.Without them in that Campaign,you're screwed.Yeah it's a nice ingame touch.

[womble]

Just playing through The Scottish Corridor Campaign.Top notch campaign but god is it brutal.One thing i noticed is how many times a bren goes through different hands in a battle.During the first couple of battles, i was always cursing at the amount of times my bren gunners would die.I soon realised they were always being picked up by someone by the next turn.Without them in that Campaign,you're screwed.Yeah it's a nice ingame touch.

It's heartless, but sometimes you're glad when a gunner/TubeGuy dies rather than gets injured, because "Buddy Aid" (AKA looting the corpse) is going to be quicker.

[Sublime]

It's a sad fact of war (ask our artillerymen in Korea) that gun positions do get subjected to ground attack. Sometimes, the gun crews have to stop shooting the big weapon and engage using small arms. Other times, the main weapon breaks or is damaged/destroyed by enemy action.

And sometimes. just sometimes, they got to use those big weapons in direct fire over open sights in Korea...

Though annoying I agree it's best mortar crews hold the tube after the ammo's gone. In real life I'm pretty sure their CO's would be enraged if they dropped a mortar for a carbine..

[mjkerner]

In real life I'm pretty sure their CO's would be enraged if they dropped a mortar for a carbine..

Not to mention the Supply Sargeant!

[DavidFields]

It's a bit tricky. The crews of heavy weapons were not intended to be used as infantry. They already have personal small arms in which to defend themselves, which realistically is about all they would do in real life for the majority of situations in the majority of battles for the majority of the time. Allowing an out of ammo mortar crew to pick up a LMG or heavier rifles on a regular basis would be incorrect almost always. So it is best to leave it the way it is. As with real life, specialized crews should be withdrawn from battle when they are threatened or otherwise useless, not used as cannon fodder.

Steve

I like this approach a lot. This keeps the simulation, I think, from being just an arcade type of game.