"Red Hordes"-results and impressions to the game(play)

[Apocal]

Well i could do it...

but if i would have to answer instantly i might would answer that "Hein Severloh" may be one of your candidates.

If i remember right he was part of "Widerstandsnest 62" who only had 40 men soldiers.

He had a light machine gun 42 (not six heavy one, like in my tests) and a K98.

Got equipped with 12000 rounds.

Was positioned in an open foxhole on the dune/hill and fired the first 9 hours before he fall back

(the invasion waves did not come all instantly so he might have most time breaks or tried to kill the rest of a wave with his MG42/K98 while they tried to hide behind a Czech hedgehog).

(source: http://www.atlantikwall.org.uk/wn62.htm)

WN62 had as its major armament two 75 mm cannon housed in H669 casemates. These are bizarre as it would seem that the camouflage is on the interior of the casemate and not the outside. One of the guns had been moved away from the site by D-day. They were aimed along the beach to the west and had large concrete walls protruding to the seaward side at the front to protect then from an attack directly from the front.

Although the Germans manning the guns were billeted in the village a house nearby was used to feed the troops and allowed them to rest whilst on guard here. There were two small bunkers used to house ammunition. Two larger bunkers, served to house ammunition, and in times of bombardments personnel, which the nearer D-day approached the more bombardments were received.

Various machine gun posts were also installed and it is typical of the Atlantik Wall defences that various calibre's were thought to be in use here. There was also an anti tank gun and an 50 mm mortar mounted in a Tobruk. In common with most strong points there was a small fire control post or observation bunker to keep watch over the sea.

Emphasis mine, but I'd also note that minefields were noted as a source of casualties as well, liberally employed to channel the assaults.

The lowest number of casualties i read even in allied sources were hundreds (so more than 100).

The upper-medium estimates concede him to cause up to 1000 kills.

And the highest talk about 2000-3000. These last numbres i do NOT believe either because of the total casualties on the beach and the coexistens of 2 polsih machine guns (but which got abandomed far earlier))

Casualties in the hundreds inflicted by overall defenses is probable, 2000-3000 would be more men than the totality of those who landed in that area.

[YankeeDog]

The UK National D-Day museum has done painstaking research on the number of casualties suffered on D-Day by both sides, broken down by which beach the casualties were incurred upon, and also those suffered in other places, such as inland as part of the airborne landings.

The numbers are still somewhat in flux (it's actually a remarkably hard thing to get an exact number on), but the museum's current best estimate is that *total* U.S. casualties suffered at Omaha on D-Day were around 2,000.

So.. yeah, 2000-3000 by Sverloh is impossible. Even 1,000 is completely ridiculous unless you think it's remotely possible that 50% of all U.S. casualties at Omaha were caused by one man. I'd believe over 100, maybe even over 200. But considering all of the other causes of Death at Omaha, including many that had nothing directly to do with German bullets, (mortars and artillery, mines, drowning...), I'd say not much more than that.

As far as I'm concerned, Sverloh is the exception that proves the rule. He had a nearly perfect setup. He was firing from a well-constructed, carefully selected defensive position against an enemy that was already weakened, disorganized, completely lacking heavy weapons, and showed up piecemeal so he didn't have to take on the enemy forces all on at once. He also literally had several hours and over 10,000 rounds to achieve his results. It was more like a shooting gallery than a typical combat situation.

I'm pretty sure I could design a scenario in CM that put an LMG team in a similar situation, against similar opposition, and achieve similar results.

(As a side note, for all the problems at Omaha, they still managed to land over 34,000 troops over the beach on D-Day alone. Sure, it was a broken play and a lot went wrong. But V Corps still achieved some pretty impressive things on June 6, 1944. Not everything they wanted to, but a heck of a lot more than nothing. And considering that the opposing 352nd Infantry division suffered about 1,200 casualties on D-Day, the overall casualty ratio was in the vicinity of 2:1, which actually isn't all that bad for the initial period of an assault against a well-prepared defensive line.)

[H1nd]

Some of the winter war battles might be closest to pure human slaughter by mg fire if we are looking for such cases. I could imagine but not state as fact that during the Winter War mg's might have managed to inflict some of the biggest casualty figures per mg but even in those situations Russian human wave attacks were usualy truly broken by few artillery shell's rather than the firepower of mg's since once the Finns started to run completely out of arty ammo the russians started to get results with their 39-40 -style human wave attacks (there were ofc plenty of other changes than just the arty ammo situation) Just my five cent's to mg's are not the super über weapon we might think them to be.

[JasonC]

And you violated the one rule I fave you, to get the forces lost from the side that lost them, not the claiming side. Total US losses on Omaha, all day, were 3000 men. Some go lower, because there is confusion about losses inland later and missings who turned up and the like, but we can be conservative.

Again, there were over 200 MG-42s covering that beach, along with 60 light cannon, about 30 81mm mortars, and 16 howitzers firing indirect. Plus 4 battalions of riflemen. The defenders lost 1200 men, and the fight took hours. There is simply no mathematical possibility that the average MG covering that beach hit 100 men, let alone the silly claims of 2000. What I suspect the last actually involves is interviewer incomprehension coupled with a vet focused on his total experience and its moral dimension in particular.

By that I mean he relates what he did and what he saw, and the latter including looking out over the beach and the total destruction he saw there, regardless of who or what inflicted it. And morally, he is thinking "I did this", and struggling with it - not boasting about it, but pained by it. The interviewer knows none of the history or tactics and misunderstands. My read of that Baron Munchausen story. At any rate, the claims are mathematically impossible.

They are also revealing, in a way that dovetails with other's comments above about expending all ammo. There was lots of overkill on that beach. There was lots of the same men already hit being hit again, and again. There was lots of five different people all thinking they were the one who shot up that particular boatload as it hit the beach. Etc.

Claims are not kills. Adhere to my rule about how to verify a loss, do the math, and try again please. And remember, you are trying to make a claim about an utterly average performance that you can count on to happen every time the circumstance arises...

[Kauz]

....

I'm pretty sure I could design a scenario in CM that put an LMG team in a similar situation, against similar opposition, and achieve similar results....

(

That is the point.....i do not think you can.....try it and then tell me your results!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

And another point in general:

-------------

...I do not want a discussion of Omaha.... i just said that i do NOT believe in the number of 2000-3000.

I SAID we should assume 500 !!!

And the talking that the germans were OP on the beach is in general bull****.

Some poor few american soldiers who tried to fight without support against massive entrenched germans...that is a story you only could get by watching soldier james ryan.

The germans had a few men on the beach in relation to the 1000´s and 1000´s of GI who got deployed at the landing beach (130 000 should get deployed in total the first waves had 34000 men)

And the americans had MASSIVE SHIP artillery support (from rocket laucher spam up to battleship artillery) and air support (23000 tons of bombs?!).

IN case of the Widerstandsnest 62 with its 40 men defenders the ship artillery may be ineffective at the beginning and may be the most air bombardments weren´t so sucessful like expected. But the airsupport did not stop...and even in case of Omaha the ship artillery later started direct fire support to destroy sucessfully the remaining strongpoints/bunkers....so please stop insinuating to me the germans had a lot and did not cause real casualties with it.

I do not want to know how many of these improvised little strongpoints with its few men crews just got overwhelmed and destroyed by so much firepower before they could start to use their machine guns or their few old french and polish captured guns.

And even in case of remaining positions....would you fire as an average single machine gunner against 100´s and 1000´s of landing american soldiers with 6500 ships in background.....may be not....may be you would just run...and abandom your position and fall back.

---------

The main conclusion i have is what i already told as answer to Steve:

"Yes there are other effects....

The biggest effect for a machine gun to fire not or ineffecient are four:

1. the enemy fired a lot to your MG position and you get supressed ...so can not fire

2. The enemy is far away and so hard to spot

3. The enemy is moving carefully or is hiding and/or is in unclear terrain (for example )bushes

4. The enemy density in the area you fire is low. (It is easier to kill someone if i squad or group is moving forward in the area you shooting at than to kill a single soldier)

In my example all these points were excluded to get an idea how the developer modelled the machine guns.

I wanted to see what they are maximum capable (so i build up these superb circumstances)

In case the maximum capability is not achieved it is obvious that the firepower under even worse circumstances will be by far not correctly modelled.

The results in my game i would guess are the maximum a player can achieve in this game under ideal circumstances.

But i guess they are far far far away what real machine guns would be achieve achieve under same circumstances in real life.

So my conclusion is that the (h)MG´s are in general underpower.

Also for you i would recommend to study the follwing videos carefully, especially the first one:

http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=...0068EB3A31A134

"

[Kauz]

Watch the following video at second 0:12 to the 0:18:

You will a see a heavy MG42 (MG3) derivate which is fighting fast 4 white targets without real aiming!!!! and WITHOUT fixating the vertical elevation (so it has more recoil).

THIS shows how fast a gunner even without vertical fixation and without a lot aiming is easy able to fight fast and accurate 4 different targets.

Watch the following video:

from 0:39-1:11:

he is fighting with vertical fixation help accurate a target ring on the earth below the right white standard target (the target is build out of stones).

from 1:22:

You will be able to see the above mentioned target when the camera man is starting to zoom

From 1:18-1:57:

he fights a black stone/box at the center of area below the white targets.

He is doing it without gun optics just by looking and using the normal iron sights.

Here you can see how accurate the gun is even with bursts.

from 2:27-2:38:

He is shooting with vertical fixation i guess.

AND he is shooting while swinging the gun.

Here you can see how accurate the gun is able to spread/dispense the burst in a horizintal line. Now imagine how easy for a gun with 25 rounds per second it is not only to suppress a forward marching/assaulting group of enemy with a single burst before they can search cover. The most of them just get hit/disabled and game over before they can even try to lay down and search cover

An even in case there are some remaining the heavy machine gunner is easy able trying to snipe the cowering rests like you can see in the other videos. If he do not hit them...they won´t get upt....and if they try to stand up the gun instantly able to aim and fire this easy target. The only thing which could help after standing up...is only to run 1-2 meters before dropping down to soil again and hoping the gunners attention and reaction time is low.

Additional to the above video i found the following video very eye-opening in terms of possible accuracy:

from 0:37:

He only changes vertical elevation while shooting....(and the to the side flying tracers are richochets/broken inceniary charges after the impact of the bullets)

[Baneman]

...I do not want a discussion of Omaha.... i just said that i do NOT believe in the number of 2000-3000.

I SAID we should assume 500 !!!

And 500 is still a ridiculous figure.

Think about it - you're saying that 1 man and his MG42 caused 1/6 of ALL the US casualties on Omaha Beach :eek:

Again, there were over 200 MG-42s covering that beach, along with 60 light cannon, about 30 81mm mortars, and 16 howitzers firing indirect. Plus 4 battalions of riflemen. The defenders lost 1200 men, and the fight took hours. ...

So the other 199+ MG42's managed 12 men each at best ( not counting artillery and rifles ).

Even if 500 casualties were true - you want the game to reflect that one MG and not the 200-odd which only managed to cause 10 or so casualties ?

[Kauz]

And 500 is still a ridiculous figure.

Think about it - you're saying that 1 man and his MG42 caused 1/6 of ALL the US casualties on Omaha Beach :eek:

So the other 199+ MG42's managed 12 men each at best ( not counting artillery and rifles ).

Even if 500 casualties were true - you want the game to reflect that one MG and not the 200-odd which only managed to cause 10 or so casualties ?

who said that the others Gunners were not already disabled/dead or abandomed before they could even try to shoot?

Do really believe that every strongpoint was so lucky to survive quite good the supporting fire of ships and air like the WN62?

Do you really believe that the remaining strongpoints not just got the order to fall back or just surrendered or deserted in sight of the incoming masses?

[sburke]

who said that the others Gunners were not already disabled/dead or abandomed before they could even try to shoot?

Do really believe that every strongpoint was so lucky to survive quite good the supporting fire of ships and air like the WN62?

Do you really believe that the remaining strongpoints not just got the order to fall back or just surrendered or deserted in sight of the incoming masses?

Okay I'll take a shot.

The air and sea bombardment was admittedly a major failing and had little effect on the defenses, but let's assume a way over the top figure that 75% of the defenses were destroyed, a figure we know is patently way off.

There was no withdrawal order. C'mon really? Hitler- withdrawal, 1st day of attack in Normandy? In fact the 352nd was struggling to push men to the coast and actually did manage a small amount. Their biggest issue was really confusion as to where to send them as there were some conflicting reports that said Omaha had driven the Americans off.

So let's take your figure of 500 and assume it is correct. That means 1 mg inflicted say 1/6th of all US casualties. With our very liberal estimate of 75% destruction that leaves some 50 other positions plus mortars, mines, drowning to account for the rest. By your own estimate then this guy is a fairly extreme outlier and yet you feel his performance should be the average. That makes absolutely no logical sense unless you deliberately want to over model the German forces based on the performance of a very few that we have been very liberal at accepting there is any truth at all to their performance.

Does that not strike you as a little off?

[Kauz]

...

Does that not strike you as a little off?

In general you are completly right!...

In fact i always wondered why there were not more casualties.

Every officer on the beach was able to decide himself when he wanted to retreat. In case of WN62 some gunners already left their positon and Severloh still fired. I do not know if they deserted or got the order.

The retreat of Severloh was later and only for the given order of his officer Bernhard Frerking.

So we have the personal decision/order of the local officer or simply desertion of the german soldiers.

The destruction itself continued even after the first bombardment...the ships may be the main causes for the take out of german gun positions.

After the landing the ships later fired again to support the troops. So it was not only the initial bombardment even in case we say this was useless in every attack sector.

But ok....if you ignore the later ship supporting and the orders and desertions then your argumentation is completly right.

[Wiggum]

How deadly a MG is in a combat situation is determined by so many factors.

- Im sure many late war german soldiers were not very well trained with the MG

- The quality of the Material (its condition) and the ammunition is questionable

- Firing a gun in a combat situation is not nearly as easy as under perfect training condition (like in Kauz videos)

- The distance is a major factor, 400m without optics is very difficult while a trained soldier will be deadly with a MG3 under 200m

If you have a trained operator, a perfect position and masses of enemys at short range, this will be the result:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/98/Bundesarchiv_Bild_101I-291-1230-13%2C_Dieppe%2C_Landungsversuch%2C_tote_alliierte_Soldaten.jpg

(You can see the MG position just above the head of the soldier standing)

[Kauz]

How deadly a MG is in a combat situation is determined by so many factors.

- Im sure many late war german soldiers were not very well trained with the MG

- The quality of the Material (its condition) and the ammunition is questionable

- Firing a gun in a combat situation is not nearly as easy as under perfect training condition (like in Kauz videos)

- The distance is a major factor, 400m without optics is very difficult while a trained soldier will be deadly with a MG3 under 200m

....

You are right , but we could discuss about the weight/impact of your single arguments on the firepower of an HMG.

Especially the range thing.

It is not only additional optics of the gun or the binoculars of the leader/operator.... (the optics weren´t in use in the videos)

The advantage of an HMG is that the gunner just could watch the impact of his rounds.

A light machine gunner could not because of the rattling/recoil/impulse/shaking transfered on the gunner himself. I shot the MG 3 myself...i now what i am talkling about.

In case of higher distances and/or infavourable soil conditions the impacts of the standard 8X57 IS sS round would NOT be visible or at least hard to spot...you are right....

For this case they could use the "b-patrone"(more uncommon) or the standard tracer/inceniary rounds (very common).

Additional the option to fire a lot of rounds per burst AND to fire one burst after the other not only increased the hit probability itself , the probability to find the right range/target increased extremly. You are fireing burst after burst till the guys or the guys fall...You can correct the fire/aiming immediatly a little ....but watching the kill effect is not all...you just can watch the tracers and correct the fire.

If you have a trained operator, a perfect position and masses of enemys at short range, this will be the result:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/98/Bundesarchiv_Bild_101I-291-1230-13%2C_Dieppe%2C_Landungsversuch%2C_tote_alliierte_Soldaten.jpg

(You can see the MG position just above the head of the soldier standing)

Correct...that i tried to simulate with my test i reported in this thread...

and i was very unhappy with the weak result.

[sburke]

In general you are completly right!...

In fact i always wondered why there were not more casualties.

I think the answer is right in front of you yet you seem unable to draw what everyone else thinks is a very very obvious conclusion.

[Baneman]

...

In fact i always wondered why there were not more casualties.

...

And the possibility that your expectations are way off was never an option ???

[Kauz]

And the possibility that your expectations are way off was never an option ???

sure it is...it is all an option...

[RockinHarry]

According to the standard german procedure, handling burst lengths and accuracy of the tripod MG34/42, US army testers came to the same results. So I still think the notorious inefficiency of the HMG34/42 in the game, comes from just using the infrequent 6-7 round bursts, combined with the inaccuracy of the gun at the longer combat ranges, for which the gun was intended for. For harassing fires beyond 800-1000m, it´s just a waste of points and for anything below, the squad LMG will more than suffice.

US Army report on MG 42 in medium machine-gun role

Long periods of sustained fire must definitely be avoided, as they do not produce the best results and lead to an unwarranted expenditure of ammunition. The reasons for this being, first, if the extraordinarily dense cone of fire of the MG-42 is on the target, then this should be destroyed in approximately 50 rounds; secondly, if the cone of fire is not on the target then the gun must be re-aimed, if necessary with adjustments to the sight. In order to assess the position of the cone of fire, fire must not be opened until an observation has been obtained.

For instance, if with a range of 2,000 yards the time of flight is 4.7 seconds, then a useful observation cannot be obtained in less than six seconds. Sustained fire for a period of six seconds, however, is the equivalent of an ammunition expenditure of 150 rounds, whereas an observation of the position of the cone of fire or of the effects on the target, could have been obtained with 50 rounds.

Trials under battle conditions on the same lines as those carried out in action with the MG-34 have shown that, in general, when using the MG-42 as a medium machine gun, bursts of 50 rounds with repeated checking of the point of aim give the best results.

In this way, not only will the best results on the target be achieved, but the expenditure of ammunition will be kept within limits which will be very little in excess of expenditure with the earlier MGs. (US Army 1944)

[JasonC]

Regarding the youtube videos, I don't need a video of someone else shooting when I just came from the range. At 100 yards, I do not miss the black with a bolt action rifle. 40/40. So if 75 men defended Omaha beach with Mausers, they should have taken out 3000 men.

I trust the point is made. Youtube videos of range conditions tell us exactly nothing about weapon effectiveness in combat.

As for the silly attempt to defend 500 per MG, it implies that if one in ten fired, the invasion was defeated with over 3 times its historical losses. Needless to say, that isn't what actually happened. What did?

Bullets caused the majority of losses on that beach, perhaps 3/4 of them, the rest being losses to shell fire from 45 indirect and 60 direct fire guns, as well as smaller numbers to grenades thrown down the bluffs, mines, and the like. MGs did not cause all of those bullet wounds, but probably did cause most of them. There were four battalions of riflemen, 1200 of them casualties by the end of the day (so they didn't just run, they fought). There were some MPs too. But between 2/3 and 4/5 of the bullet casualties probably came from the MGs. That means they took out 1500 to 1800 men.

Ergo, the average MG with that great target, an occasion that all remarked was an outlier of successful use MGs, took out between 7 and 9 men. Yes some of that is because they were silenced early in the fighting - guess what, that happens in CM too. The ones that were not taken out early probably averaged around 15 to 20.

No appreciable portion of them got 100, let alone 500.

Math is not optional.

[JasonC]

Now to explain the additional conceptual problem. Defending MGs do have a specific tactical effect, but they do not achieve that effect by having one or two of them sighted over a wide area of open ground through which enemy infantry might approach them frontally, with the expectation or hope that a couple of emplaced MGs can stop any amount of infantry attacking them frontally. MGs are not used in penny packets and they are not tasked to defend their own immediate front at short range, and they are not exposed to all enemy suppressing fire trying to achieve that wide field of fire for each of a small number of guns. That just invites a high volume of effective counterfire at each gun, which will pin it, allow it to be approached, and penetrate the defense.

Real MG defensive schemes instead looking like woven cloth. MGs in pairs or fours are located together with sight along a few assigned axes, with alternate axes they can switch to, but not a full half-compass of assigned area. These assigned axes extend to long ranges - 400 yards, 800 yards - and they cross each other. Some are aligned nearly parallel to the front line, and others cross the front line at 45 degree angles - but practically none of them cross it at a right angle. In other words, no single MG position is tasked with defending *its own front*.

Instead, to approach MG position A, you must pass through the crossing fire lanes of MGs E and F from the right, and G and H from the left. MG B is close to A and also within the "cell" described by the EF and GH lanes. MGs C and D are separated from those two, and in a different (adjacent) cell of the woven cloth, between those and the flanking MGs mentioned. The ranges to EF and GH are on the order of 400 yards, maybe 600 for the longest. Beyond them are still more MG positions that can cover the same area from longer range, but with other, closer areas of primary responsibility.

Behind that entire section of web is another section just like it. Physically reaching the location of MGs A and B and silencing them, leaves the men doing it smack in the middle of another cell in the woven cloth. The cloth extends backward through 3 layers of like this. and out to both sides, to the horizon.

The gun positions have firing stops set for the traverse of their MGs in their assigned lanes, and others marked out with aiming stakes on their alternative fire lines, so they can physically reposition the whole gun if necessary and know exactly where to aim it to cover their assigned lanes. These firing positions have *complete cover* to their immediate front, in directions that are *not* assigned firing lanes for *that* MG. MGs are defended locally by riflemen (with grenades in close), and by the cross fire of other MGs far away from them. They can't even see their own immediate front --- and they cannot take fire from that front, either. Any such fire hits 2 feet of rammed earth or a double layer of sandbags backed by logs.

You cannot penetrate such an MG defense by bum rushing one or two guns. You can't even get close to gun A until 4 other guns in other parts of the front, beyond easy rifleshot and certainly beyond SMG shot, are silenced - by units on your flanks, by artillery, by tanks, by something.

It is *that* sort of woven MG defense that is effectively impenetrable to frontal infantry attack. *Not* 1-2 guns aiming forward trying to cover half the compass, open to fire from the entire enemy side of the field.

These tactics were already in place by 1916 on the western front, and they were raised to a fine art by late 1917 and early 1918, by the Germans in particular. They made their later MGs to work inside such schemes. Their system of outpost lines, forward line of defense, main line of resistence, reserve line, denuded front to present as small a target to enemy artillery as possible, local counterattack to make the temporary loss of one or two cells of the woven cloth a repairable thing rather than the start of a rip or tear that would propagate to both flanks and deeper into the position --- their entire defensive doctrine, in fact, was based on such schemes, and on the power of separate MG nests in such schemes.

And incidentally, this is why the tactical accounts of their opponents are full of the heroics of so and so taking out an MG nest, and how it helped others. The MG nests people are taking out on their own part of the front are not even firing at the men closely approaching them. They are firing at the neighboring sector, 400 yards to the right. The attackers over in that neighboring sector, on the other hand, consider the brave guys who get close enough to take out the MG 400 yards away that is persecuting them, angels from heaven.

Now, again, if you think MG effects in CM are wrong, start from how they were actually used, in actual deployment densities, and with the actual tactical challenge to attackers that *correct* tactics for using them, present.

[Kauz]

According to the standard german procedure, handling burst lengths and accuracy of the tripod MG34/42, US army testers came to the same results. So I still think the notorious inefficiency of the HMG34/42 in the game, comes from just using the infrequent 6-7 round bursts, combined with the inaccuracy of the gun at the longer combat ranges, for which the gun was intended for. For harassing fires beyond 800-1000m, it´s just a waste of points and for anything below, the squad LMG will more than suffice....

You took the words right out of my mouth...

Accuracy, frequency, burst lenght...

The maximum i saw was about 10 rounds in a burst at closest ranges and never the established 25 round bursts (at the moment there is not a single one in contrary to the use of the gun in reality ).

With a 25 round burst you would have a good hit probability shooting a specific target/area on (extreme) high ranges and especially at medium and low ranges you could SWING the gun from on side to the other dispensing the rounds on an area against more than one guy. Otherwise in last case these laser accurate guns would have used their 25 rounds on only perforating a single person or area of air.

If i would start to fix the gun i would increase the numbres of 25 round bursts.

As a second thing i would establish a swing movement while shooting to dispense the rounds at short ranges.

As a third thing if necessary i would try to check if the accuracy of a burst on high ranges is any way compatible/plausible with the reality.

There could be still other things like for example frequency of the bursts.

But let us start with point 1 (burst lengths ) and point 2 (swing movement). These are the most legitime and obvious points !

[JonS]

stuff

Good post. Unfortunately something about horses and water comes to mind.

[Wiggum]

Regarding the youtube videos, I don't need a video of someone else shooting when I just came from the range.

...i wish i would live in the US, just able to go to the shooting range and fire a Carbine, a pistol or a MG !

[womble]

So if 75 men defended Omaha beach with Mausers, they should have taken out 3000 men.

Reminds me of the apocryphal quote from the Swiss foreign minister when unperturbed by a threatened invasion by the Germans:

German diplomat: "But our army is 5 times the size of yours!"

Swiss Foreign Minister: "I had better make sure every one of our soldiers is issued with five rounds then."

[RockinHarry]

You took the words right out of my mouth...

Accuracy, frequency, burst lenght...

The maximum i saw was about 10 rounds in a burst at closest ranges and never the established 25 round bursts (at the moment there is not a single one in contrary to the use of the gun in reality ).

With a 25 round burst you would have a good hit probability shooting a specific target/area on (extreme) high ranges and especially at medium and low ranges you could SWING the gun from on side to the other dispensing the rounds on an area against more than one guy. Otherwise in last case these laser accurate guns would have used their 25 rounds on only perforating a single person or area of air.

If i would start to fix the gun i would increase the numbres of 25 round bursts.

As a second thing i would establish a swing movement while shooting to dispense the rounds at short ranges.

As a third thing if necessary i would try to check if the accuracy of a burst on high ranges is any way compatible/plausible with the reality.

There could be still other things like for example frequency of the bursts.

But let us start with point 1 (burst lengths ) and point 2 (swing movement). These are the most legitime and obvious points !

Meat Loaf....

I find the HMG34/42 burst length (less so for the bipod versions) and the Tac AI inability of engaging targets at the required longer ranges (800m + ) properly, the most problematic issues for this weapon system in the game. These render it almost useless for the intended tactical purpose.

The 1 second, 20-25 round burst for the bipod version, would be for "skilled" gunners, but the quick succession 6-7 round bursts do the purpose quite well, particularly when engaging different targets, yet close to each other, at normal combat ranges (<400-500m).

The primary tactical ammunition unit, for engaging targets with the tripod 34/42, yet remains single bursts of 50 rounds (a belt).

My guess still is, that the game engine can´t handle slices, where this large volume of fire can be properly tracked, without either nearly halting the game (particularly in real time mode), or bringing related combat mechanics out of sync.

For the Tac AI engagement behavior at longer ranges (800-1000m +), my guess would be that the standard sighting equipment (6x30 ??? :confused: ) in the game is insufficient for finding and tracking targets at these longer ranges. Also the Tac AI might find its hitting chances at these ranges to fall below its given tresholds. From game POV it makes sense, as 6-7 rounds a burst will do little, as opposed to the required and standard 50 round bursts obviously.

From some further testing, HMGs can be encouraged to engage at longer ranges (1000m + ) more frequently by use of TRP´s, yet it´s not really more "effective" due to the insufficient burst size. This way it remains at (slightly increased) harassing level and it´s not worth to reveal a HMG position for this purpose to counter fires, particularly from enemy mortar and artillery. This IMHO degrades the HMG to LMG level, where both are pretty much equally effective at the lower combat ranges. A small LMG team then would be preferable to the 6 man HMG team, due to it´s smaller size for the inevitable return small arms fire.

[Apocal]

My guess still is, that the game engine can´t handle slices, where this large volume of fire can be properly tracked, without either nearly halting the game (particularly in real time mode), or bringing related combat mechanics out of sync.

Decided to test this, took a large QB map, placed approximately 60 HMG teams on a hill, set down a "defending" force of about two companies on an opposite hill, started a real time game and let them rip.

After five minutes did not notice any appreciable slowdown and stopped.

edit: I knew this gave me deja vu for a reason.

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

[womble]

Try this CMBN setup for size.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/79012974/X%20MG%20test.btt

It's those Sicherungsmanner again, this time crossing an open field under AI control, with an HMG42 in a house (to mitigate suppression from return fire, not that there is a fat lot). The walls are there to stop the MG crew deciding they need to reposition to deal with troops that get past the "front arc" of the house, and to give a definite ending to the Germans' trek. They have to cross about 260m of open ground, mostly outside of their own rifle range.

The times I've run it, I've scored 90-130 casualties on the running troops before they're all out of sight. They seem to be moving in Assault "bounding overwatch" which slows them down, overall, but does mean they spend their still time on their bellies, largely unharmed by the defenders. That they continue to prosecute their orders in the face of 50% casualties says more about the morale rules, I feel, than the MG's effectiveness.