ChromaTick Posted November 11, 1999 Share Posted November 11, 1999 Hello all from an infrequent poster, I'm a strategy gamer, but not a grognard. I have a degree in History, but focused on ancient civilizations not world war 2. My question has to do with the HMG squads in the Last Defense scenario. What is the reason for them moving so slowly? And why do they not have the option to run? Is it because of the weight of the equipment they are carrying and the time it takes to break down and set up again? Thanks in advance, Troy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kingtiger Posted November 11, 1999 Share Posted November 11, 1999 Have you ever carried a Heavy machine Gun? Richard Kalajian Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChromaTick Posted November 11, 1999 Author Share Posted November 11, 1999 No, obviously I have never carried a heavy machine gun. That's why I asked the question. I was hoping for a little bit more detailed response. I don't have a problem with it being modeled in the game as it is. I'm just looking for the real world reasons behind it. As I said, I suspect it has to do with equipment weight...but I would still like to know why. Pax, Troy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fionn Posted November 11, 1999 Share Posted November 11, 1999 Well Steve, Charles, Martin and I had discussions about this during the alpha in which we came up with the weights of the various weapons and basically found that MOST HMGs, personal AT weapons etc were so heavy that you couldn't run with them. SOME weapons like the bazooka can be run with and this makes the bazooka a VERY tactically mobile AT weapon. Of course, the schreck is a much more deadly AT weapon but the mobility of a zook team gives it its own deadliness. This is just another example of how correct data gets the richness of the tactical battlefield out in the open. If the game simply had a "no teams may run " rule this finesse would have been lost. Short answer: weight ------------------ ___________ Fionn Kelly Manager of Historical Research, The Gamers Net - Gaming for Gamers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guachi Posted November 11, 1999 Share Posted November 11, 1999 I don't have exact numbers handy on weight of HMGs but here are some estimates: MG42 approx. 11 Kg tripod 20 kg plus weight of extra barrel and ammunition M2 .50 cal total weight is about 38 kg plus weight of extras Jason Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guachi Posted November 11, 1999 Share Posted November 11, 1999 Multiple post deleted. Jason [This message has been edited by guachi (edited 11-11-99).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Scott Clinton Posted November 11, 1999 Share Posted November 11, 1999 ChromaTick, IMHO: I think the main difference between the heavy MG42 teams and the light MG42s in CM boils down to a tripod, a couple additional barrels and LOTS and LOTS of extra ammo. I personally don't think the tripod (esp. the one used on the MG42) or the few additional barrels would be much of an added burden. BUT, the extra ammo would be an added burden IMO. In order to keep up the higher sustained rate of fire in order to be worthy of the name "HEAVY MG" quite a bit of ammo would be needed, esp. for an MG42 with its tremendous rate of fire. The US ..30 or 50 cal MGs in contrast has a much lower rates of fire. And huge amounts of ammo would NOT be required for them, but then again they are much more difficult to transport and set up than an MG42 (and the .50 cal is just plain BIG). So all of them end up being much slower on the battlefield than their 'light' counterparts. ------------------ The Grumbling Grognard Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MOS was 71331 Posted November 11, 1999 Share Posted November 11, 1999 I remember carrying an 81 mm mortar base plate in ROTC summer camp. Run with it? Hell, the damn thing weighed about 40 kilograms. I could barely lift it. We also did bayonet training. I think a rifle plus bayonet weighed maybe four kilos. I moved at a good clip through a forty meter with five dummies course, the first time. Two more passes through the course, and I felt I was about to have a heart attack! Of course, screaming "KILL" every time I struck home took some effort as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Los Posted November 11, 1999 Share Posted November 11, 1999 I don't have my references in front of me but I'd be surprised if the MG42 weighs only 11 KGs. The M60 weighs 23 lbs empty and the MG3 weighs a more than that. (just a subjective opinion from carrying both) But that doesn't detract from tehreal point that the damn things is heavy! 81mm base plate weighing 4okg? You sure it's not 40 pounds? I have messed with those a lot and 40kg seems much x 2. Willl check all this out when I get home. Los Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gespenster Posted November 11, 1999 Share Posted November 11, 1999 11 kgs is actually pretty darn close ... the MG42 weighs 25.5 lbs. unloaded or 11.6 kgs JT ------------------ "It is well that War is so terrible, lest we grow to fond of it" Robert E. Lee [This message has been edited by Gespenster (edited 11-11-99).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slazzari Posted November 11, 1999 Share Posted November 11, 1999 I dont know the exact weights, but I do know, that one M2 .50 cal, without the barrel, is one hell of a weight to carry around. Thankfully, I was in the Cav, so we drove our tracks everywhere, but it was a CHORE to get the .50's mounted/unmounted, etc. The tripod itself weighs over 30 pounds. Carrying two barrels was a bit of a chore. If anything, even maintaining a walking speed for any distance with a .50 would be very hard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChromaTick Posted November 11, 1999 Author Share Posted November 11, 1999 Thanks for the answers all. That's exactly what I was looking for. Pax, Troy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin Peltz Posted November 11, 1999 Share Posted November 11, 1999 On the subject of being tired, I seem to end up running my units almost everywhere, and they seldom seem to reach a "tired" state. I think they don't get tired enough, as it stands now. Maybe it's the electron adrenaline response... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest L Tankersley Posted November 11, 1999 Share Posted November 11, 1999 I've found that running for 2 full turns will tire out a squad. Running for a shorter time generally just shifts them from "Rested" to "Ready." You can run everywhere you go without getting tired if you don't do it for more than about a minute at a time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fionn Posted November 11, 1999 Share Posted November 11, 1999 In one of my PBEM games a flanking platoon has been run for about 2 minutes and is now so WEARY that it can only walk.. Unfortunately it is under mortar, MG and rifle fire and can't sprint for cover.. Ah well, that's what the 3 tanks, the 4 HTs and the other 2 platoons are for... While he's distracted it's time for the deathblow ------------------ ___________ Fionn Kelly Manager of Historical Research, The Gamers Net - Gaming for Gamers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lee Posted November 11, 1999 Share Posted November 11, 1999 I can tell you from firsthand experience that just a browning .30 cal. machine gun is a load. And the MG42 with a HMG tripod and a generous supply of ammo/barrels would be one daunting amount of weight for a team to be toting around, much less running with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts