Allied MMG/HMG's vs German MMG/HMG's

[Ken Talley]

Hi Steve,

I suspect these questions are right up your alley. How do the allied MMG/HMG (.30cal) weapons compare to the German heavy and medium configurations w/i CM terms. Does the German higher ROF produce a significant difference in effectiveness in CM? Or do you feel the real difference in ROF is insignificant? How does the US 50 cal HMG differ from the German HMG in CM terms of effectiveness? Is there a significant CM performance difference between the German LMG and the Bren or BAR? Are the LMG's tracked for line of fire as are guns and I believe the MMG/HMG's?

Thanks in advance,

Ken

[Los]

I'm sure Steve will fill in all the details (and I'm too lazy to run to my reference library) but...

Re: ROF. First you have to distinguish between cyclic Rate of Fire, (How fast can the MG spit out bullets in the perfect world with endless ammo and coolant), and sustained ROF, (how many rounds can the MG put down range without melting the barrel.)

When you are on the receiving end of fire, it doesn't matter if the MG is spitting out 15 rounds a second or thirty (cyclic). Either way you are supressed. It does matter if the MG can keep up these bursts uninterrupted for minutes at a time or if here are significant interruptions in fire. (to swap out magazines)

However, there are big significant differences between the german and allied machineguns. On the LMG level, the MG34/42 has it all over the BAR, BREN, imo. Weight wise, the MG42 is a little heavier though still man portable, than the BREN or BAR. But both allied weapons are box. A MG42 can squeeze off up to 15 6-9 round bursts before he has to change a belt (and even then you can simply link the belts together and keep it going), where as after 20 rounds the BAR gunner has to swap mags, and ammo portage in that fashion can be an issue. And 100 rounds of linked MG42 ammo weighs less than 100 rounds of BAR ammo in boxed magazines. More imoprtantly every German squad has an MG42, where the closest equivallent on the US side the M1919 (A3?) is a platoon weapon.

Now on the HMG side of things the equation gets worse. The German HMG is still an MG42 but mounted on a triopod which makes it more accurate at greater ranges. The US equivallent, the M2 can not even really be considered a decent infantry weapon (though a great vehicle mounted weapon). I'm stretching through memory here, but the M2 complete with receiver, barrel and tripod, weighs like a 132 pounds not including ammo! It's next to impossible to lug the thing assembled. Once you set the thing up IT STAYS THERE. Not really a useful weapon in a manuevering advance or attack type of thing. The MG42 broken down still functions as a one man carried LMG with another guy carrying the tripod.

However the M2 has decent light armor stopping power and a greater effective range than the MG42.

Oh one other important advantage to the German weapons. It has a quick change barrel system. It litteraly takes a few seconds to swap out a barrel on an MG42 (this has since been adopted by most other MGs)

It's very difficult and time consuming to do on a 30 cal, (never done it on one of those) and also on a 50 cal. After SCREWING the barrel off and screwing in a new one (The MG42 has a lever you flick then you give it a half turn and it comes off), on the fifty you also then have to pull out this little tool to set Headspace and Timing to ensure you have screwed the barrel in just enough that the firing pin will hit the primer on a fully seated round. Too much or too little and the thing won't fire right or not at all.

All this stuff translates on the battlefield to heavy rapid sustainable fire being there when you need it through out the length of the firefight without interruption.

Cheers...

Los

[Guest Big Time Software]

Los is right on the money. I'll add two smallish things:

1. The .50cal is a rock'em sock'em weapon. It isn't nimble, but it can punch through lots of stuff on the battlefield. And as Los stated, it is a very accurate weapon at longer distances.

2. There is one benefit of the high RoF of the MG42. And that is if the gunner gets the drop on somone/s, they are going to eat a whole lot of lead in just a burst or two. This is just plain deadly for infantry caught out in the open. Over time the high RoF of the MG42 can be a liability (ammo, depletion barrel changing, etc.), but used in moderation it is a terror.

Having played both sides in CM, I would certainly take the LMG/HMG 42 over either the .30 or .50 cal MGs.

Steve

[Ken Talley]

Thanks LOS for the good info. The barrel change and belt feed are important advantages of the German LMG vs the BAR or Bren. Although I have always wondered just how significant a difference there is between the German MMG vs an Allied MMG outside of mobility. As both are belt fed, I am not convinced that there is a huge difference due to ROF unless a unit is caught in the open as referred to by Steve. The .50 calibre has the penetration advantage vs the German MMG but a mobility problem. Although I would imagine a vehicle mounted .50 calibre could be pretty effective once stationary. Not to mention the morale effects of a .50 cal vs a .30 calibre. Also is there truly such a thing as a German HMG? I am guessing that HMG is really related to calibre. Thus the .50 cal is an HMG while the MG42 is a medium regardless of setup.

Steve I wanted to follow up on my questions. I was wondering about MG's w/i CM. I noticed that the screenshot showed a anti-personnel rating for the main gun of those PzIV's. I am guessing that a similiar rating exists for all weapons. How does the rating of a German MMG compare to the allied MMG's and the .50 calibre?

Do the anti-personnel figures take into consideration any of the morale effects of opposing a feared weapon such as a flamethrower ? I remember reading an extremely good book about a marine (Pvt Slaughter?) in the Pacific (unfortunately I can't remember the name of the book). Surprisingly the weapon that frightened him the most was a Japanese infantry gun(47 or 75mm) which pinned him and his unit down at close range. Perhaps it was due to the novelty of the weapon. I am not sure just how effective those smaller calibre infantry guns are at close range but it definitely made an impression on him . Perhaps this account is unusual but it wouldn't surprise me if some feared weapons had an impact beyond their physical characteristics on the morale of their opponents. Or is this too nebulous/subjective to be considered w/i CM.

Thanks in advance,

Ken

[This message has been edited by Ken Talley (edited 07-12-99).]

[Guest Big Time Software]

Ken, the rating of LMG/MMG/HMG is based on function, not caliber. The way I see it, an LMG is meant to be highly mobile and servicable by a small flexible team (i.e. 2-3 men) within a squad. The weapon is fired from a bipod, which reduces range and effectiveness, but decreases weight and crew requirements. A MMG differs from this by requiring more dedicated crew (3-4 men) and therefore it can not be a part of a squad. A HMG is even more involved with a dedicated crew of at least 4 men, quite heavy, and more importantly -> designed to engage targets at a great distance. The HMG 34/42 setup involves a really top notch tripod with optics. It is not designed to be a rapid deployment, but rather fixed firing. Thus the HMG 42 and US .50 cal are designed for the same role, even though the .50 has more punch. The Germans have no MMGs, and the US technically have no LMG (they tried with the .30cal Browning, but it failed to work out). BTW, this is similar to the way nations rate tanks. The Panther, PzIV, and PzIII were all Medium tanks, but the difference between them are huge. It is the role they played that got them the Medium designation, not their weight or gun size alone.

Small arms are not rated like large caliber weapons, so they can not be directly compared (this is in reference to "anti-personnel rating" mentioned). Small arms are assumed to be anti-personnel as that was their purpose I can't say what the difference is between the two off the top of my head, and I don't have time right now to pop into the game and check 'em out. You must also remember that the firepower rating changes over distance so it isn't a simple x vs y.

Morale is shaken up by incoming firepower. The more heavy and sustained it is, the greater the chance that morale and stance will change. The MG42 is devistating because it delivers massive firepower in small, and frequent, doses. And when you hear that sucker ripping you will not like it unless you are on the German side

Steve

[Guest Lokesa]

I had a friend who would only play the allies in cc2. whereas he came to hate the sound of the 42 I loved it. it represented the same thing for both of us, his guys getting wasted

[Los]

A few more interesting points, in the MMG vs MMG comparison, a broken down m1919 (that's the US 30cal) can not be fired, (unless you are Audie Murphy). While the MG42, with it's bipod, can.

Re: the LMG v LMG comparison. Have any of you guys ever seen "Objective Burma"? It's one of my favorite war movies ever despite the fact it was actually made in 1945. IIRC you can see the LMG version of the M1919 in operation. (I believe).

Steve says:

"Morale is shaken up by incoming firepower. The more heavy and sustained it is, the greater the chance that morale and stance will change. The MG42 is devistating because it delivers massive firepower in small, and frequent, doses."

A great point. I don't mean to denigrate accurately aimed and placed small arms fire, but firefights, like battles and wars, are won more on defeating the enemies morale and will to stick wihth it, thean by annihlating his forces. To this end, establishing overwhelming fire superiority normally means havinga greater volume of fire. It sounds scary and it's in teh right location to keep your head down, your side starts firing back less and less, a few guys get killed, then people start pulling back or hauling ass. When all is said and done, you may have lost just a few guys, but Damn, at the time, it sounded like the whole world was coming to an end! That's fire superiority.

Los

[Guest Big Time Software]

Los, a perfect example of a weapon that was inaccurate, yet keept a soldier's head down, is the WWII mortar. The chance of getting hit was decent, but the fear of being hit was increased by the uncertainty of where the next one would land. If you saw an MG blazing away 50m to your right, you could be sure that at least that weapon wasn't going to bother you right away. But if some mortar rounds go off nearby, it is a whole nother ball of wax. Guys are going to go to ground out of fear that the Gods of War are frowning upon them, and plant the next round right on their heads, rather than going to ground with the specific knowledge that something is coming their way (like MG fire). CM simulates this fear (or should I say, caution). I have seen entire platoons hit the deck when a single mortar round went off nearby. They recovered quickly, and no serious degrading of morale happened, but they did pause. Each situation's outcome is HIGHLY variable of course (i.e. sometimes nobody hits the deck).

BTW, I saw parts of a wartime US training film that was SPECIFICALLY made to teach guys that the MG42 was "all bark and no bite" provided you knew what to do. I don't think I would go that far, but the film did make some good points. Seems they had to make this training film because too often a MG42 could keep an entire platoon, even a spread out one, hiding!

Steve

[This message has been edited by Big Time Software (edited 07-13-99).]

[CRourke]

The sound of the mg42's in the cc series always bugged me.. it never was that "canvas ripping" sound I had heard of.. I think they even had the proper sound on the game cd with the backround info stuff, don't know why it never got used in the game.

Chris

[Guest Big Time Software]

Yeah, they got it wrong. I have a video of a MG42 firing, and it sounds nothing like what CC has. Oddly enough, it does sound EXACTLY like what Combat Mission has We didn't lift the sound off the video (that would be illegal), but made a faithful reproduction of it. Can't tell the difference. Cool thing is that you can hear those suckers off in the distance and you instantly know that some Allied unit just hit the dirt!

Steve

[Pak40]

Some Questions:

1) Was the .30 cal U.S HMG (watercooled) more effective than the aircoolded version, as far not changing the barrels are concerned?

2)Didn't the BAR have a quick barrel change?

Although the CC2 MG42 may not sound like the real thing, it really had a bark when it broke the silence. The CC3 MG42 sounds a lot flatter and not so dangerous. Is the CC3 MG42 more like the real deal?

Maybe you could post a sound file?

[Guest KwazyDog]

I think one thing that makes the MG42 in CC3 sound flater is that they either forgot to put the echo on it, that most other CC3 weapons do, or it didnt come out too well on that weapon. The result of that is that it dosnt have the atmosphere that other weapons have.

Dont have a clue what the real weapon sounds like unfortunately

[Moon]

RRRRRRRRRRRRRIPP!

or something like this...

[Guest Big Time Software]

I don't know if the water cooled version was easier on the barrel. I would suspect it was.

The BAR did not, to the best of my knowledge, have a barrel change of any kind. My understanding is that it is just like a rifle and has a fixed barrel. Since it can only fire 20 rounds at a time, the barrel should be able to cool enough in practical use.

The next batch of films (whenever that will be) should have lots more infantry stuff in them. MG42s will be on the list

Steve