Test range: The Maxim generates the similar firepower per minute like the heavy MG42

[c3k]

The famous fortified position 62 had water cooled mg's from Poland. I'd call 'em Maxim clones. FWIW.

[JasonC]

"Normally just the gunner and crew leader, observing the battlefield with binocs, would be exposed to a degree"

Partly true. The bigger issue, I think, is that players don't make elaborate keyholed fire plans and the game doesn't provide field fortifications with the limited fields of fire they actually use. I mean, real MG positions don't try to cover their own front, they cover the front of the next two MG positions over, and those then interlock to cover the first ones. The whole idea is to make firepower hitting any given part of the line useless to reduce the firepower holding up advance in that area. Advance that takes out MGs helps a neighboring area, but doesn't help in the place where it happens. That makes a robust defense that the attack has to take down more like all at once, and finds it very hard to unravel piecemeal.

As for the roles, the standard is gun commander with binocs directing fire and observing the fall of shot, trigger man gunner, assistant gunner with a primary responsibility of ensuring a clean feed of the belt without twists or obstructions and clearing away falling links and brass from the gun's immediate area, and a secondary responsibility of helping the gunner with barrel changes. Then the fourth man is typically on ammo prep, meaning he is unboxing ammo from crates, attaching belts to each other end to end, clearing away spent links and brass, repairing link breaks or belting ammo if needed, and the like. The remaining members of the team are ammo runners who fetch boxed, belted ammo forward to the gun - only one of the latter would be present and only occasionally.

The AG is often exposed as much as the gunner, because he needs to be up near the feed, he has to reach the gun to do barrel changes and sweep under it etc. He may manage to be lower than the commander and gunner some of the time, though, thus my "mostly true" comment. The ammo prep man can usually be in full defilade, but is very close to the gun. The ammo runners can be far more exposed than the gun itself, but most of the time are not where the gun is at all (only there briefly as they deliver and drop off etc) - and if the position has covered routes in and out might not be exposed at all. When the gun repositions, the extra team members help carry the tripod and the ammo supply and all hands are needed for that.

[RockinHarry]

"Normally just the gunner and crew leader, observing the battlefield with binocs, would be exposed to a degree"

Partly true. The bigger issue, I think, is that players don't make elaborate keyholed fire plans and the game doesn't provide field fortifications with the limited fields of fire they actually use. I mean, real MG positions don't try to cover their own front, they cover the front of the next two MG positions over, and those then interlock to cover the first ones. The whole idea is to make firepower hitting any given part of the line useless to reduce the firepower holding up advance in that area. Advance that takes out MGs helps a neighboring area, but doesn't help in the place where it happens. That makes a robust defense that the attack has to take down more like all at once, and finds it very hard to unravel piecemeal.

As for the roles, the standard is gun commander with binocs directing fire and observing the fall of shot, trigger man gunner, assistant gunner with a primary responsibility of ensuring a clean feed of the belt without twists or obstructions and clearing away falling links and brass from the gun's immediate area, and a secondary responsibility of helping the gunner with barrel changes. Then the fourth man is typically on ammo prep, meaning he is unboxing ammo from crates, attaching belts to each other end to end, clearing away spent links and brass, repairing link breaks or belting ammo if needed, and the like. The remaining members of the team are ammo runners who fetch boxed, belted ammo forward to the gun - only one of the latter would be present and only occasionally.

The AG is often exposed as much as the gunner, because he needs to be up near the feed, he has to reach the gun to do barrel changes and sweep under it etc. He may manage to be lower than the commander and gunner some of the time, though, thus my "mostly true" comment. The ammo prep man can usually be in full defilade, but is very close to the gun. The ammo runners can be far more exposed than the gun itself, but most of the time are not where the gun is at all (only there briefly as they deliver and drop off etc) - and if the position has covered routes in and out might not be exposed at all. When the gun repositions, the extra team members help carry the tripod and the ammo supply and all hands are needed for that.

Yep, count the AG in and we have it right so far. With regard to HMG ammo bearers in the game (germans excluded), they can be positioned in hide mode nearby and still provide their ammo delivering duties. This abstraction works ok for me. Remain the extra guys in the gun team, which I´d wish to be split off and remain hidden, unless their services are needed, which in the game just means, replace the gunner if KIA.

With regard to the bigger issue, I agree as well. Proper placement of HMG´s in a defence, is key to its effectiveness and survivability. From my gaming experiences as said, it´s advantageous using them at the longer ranges (<800m), preferably in combination with a TRP. For this to work, the team needs also a binoc, as otherwise it won´t engage (spot) beyond 800m at all. Some german teams with 2 binocs have some spotting advantages, though don´t hit any better.

[Kauz]

Found it interessting:

@ 20:00 min:

HMG leader gives the order:

"Auf Wisent--- zwohundert Schuss ---Dauerfeuer"

He gives the order to take the target (Wisent) under (suppressive) fire with the order to fire 200 rounds in sustained fire.

Conclusion:

You always have the choice how to use your machine gun.

This Wehrmacht education film prooves that it is convinient to even fire extreme 200 rounds in sustained fire.

For me it is enough if the HMG(42) can fire also longer burst like 25 rounds instead of behaving like a LMG. And that the practical rate of fire increases from max 200-250 to max 400-450.

[JasonC]

Kauz - yes, and if you listen, the gunner fires successive short bursts right after, because "sustained fire" does not mean hold down the trigger until that many rounds are expended. It means fire short bursts at the same target with pauses, at the rate the gun can --- wait for it --- sustain, without over heating.

Cyclic or continuous are the terms for holding the trigger down. Sustained is the normal low rate of fire. Intense or intensive means roughly twice sustained, fast enough to run the barrel into overheating but avoiding getting to that point too fast.

[Kauz]

I know what you mean.

But "200 Schuss Dauerfeuer" means fire more or less cyclic WITHOUT any (longer) breaks ....( i do not count 100 ms or 1 seconds breaks)

it does not mean ...fire a burst of 7 rounds wait ten minutes .....fire another burst.

There are terms like:

"kurze Feuerstösse"

or

"lange Feuerstösse"

or

"Dauerfeuer"

What you mean is may be "lange feuerstösse" (longer bursts).

But "Dauerfeuer" is fireing without any important breaks to not allow the enemy lifting his head again in this time.

And about the option to fire 150-300 rounds before barrel change, 4-7 seconds barrel change time, about 6-7 minutes maximum to cool down to half temperature and about 5 extra barrels for an HMG we already talked.

200 rounds Dauerfeuer.....believe me he is not caring about the heat problem ...especially not in this moment....may be his firefight is already over after that goal.....if not....he just change the barrel...he has enough of them

[RockinHarry]

Found it interessting:

@ 20:00 min:

HMG leader gives the order:

"Auf Wisent--- zwohundert Schuss ---Dauerfeuer"

He gives the order to take the target (Wisent) under (suppressive) fire with the order to fire 200 rounds in sustained fire.

Conclusion:

You always have the choice how to use your machine gun.

This Wehrmacht education film prooves that it is convinient to even fire extreme 200 rounds in sustained fire.

For me it is enough if the HMG(42) can fire also longer burst like 25 rounds instead of behaving like a LMG. And that the practical rate of fire increases from max 200-250 to max 400-450.

That´s suppressive fire at a registered target (Wisent), which is well dug in. "Dauerfeuer" is just the standard order for engaging a particular target with a pre set amount of ammo (200 rounds at all). For the tactical purpose of just suppressing the target, the gunner is free to use this amount of ammo as he sees fit, with so many bursts on the enemy in order to keep him down. It´s pretty clear that when unleashing 200 rounds in a single burst, the suppressive effect is quite short lived.

When it was a large, uncovered target instead, the gunner could be ordered to actually unleash a single uninterupted 200 round burst (4 linked belts), for maximum effect. Same usually applied for an other HMG, may it be the Maxim or Brownings, ect.

There´s surely reasons, that BFC decided to model the various HMG´s the way we currently see. The one reason that´s surely not, is to simulate RL capabilities and tactics for this particular weapon system. I keep suspecting "balancing" and technical matters...

[Kauz]

That´s suppressive fire at a registered target (Wisent), which is well dug in. "Dauerfeuer" is just the standard order for engaging a particular target with a pre set amount of ammo (200 rounds at all). For the tactical purpose of just suppressing the target, the gunner is free to use this amount of ammo as he sees fit, with so many bursts on the enemy in order to keep him down. It´s pretty clear that when unleashing 200 rounds in a single burst, the suppressive effect is quite short lived.

When it was a large, uncovered target instead, the gunner could be ordered to actually unleash a single uninterupted 200 round burst (4 linked belts), for maximum effect. Same usually applied for an other HMG, may it be the Maxim or Brownings, ect.

There´s surely reasons, that BFC decided to model the various HMG´s the way we currently see. The one reason that´s surely not, is to simulate RL capabilities and tactics for this particular weapon system. I keep suspecting "balancing" and technical matters...

same opinion

[JasonC]

Kauz - listen to the tape. There isn't one continuous rip lasting only 10 seconds. The whole point is to keep the other guy's head down for a minute, and that is not achieved by throwing the ammo as fast as possible. It is achieved by not firing the gun faster than it can *sustain*, *indefinitely*. And it can't remotely sustain cyclic fire.

[Kauz]

Kauz - listen to the tape. There isn't one continuous rip lasting only 10 seconds. The whole point is to keep the other guy's head down for a minute, and that is not achieved by throwing the ammo as fast as possible. It is achieved by not firing the gun faster than it can *sustain*, *indefinitely*. And it can't remotely sustain cyclic fire.

did i say it fires 10 seconds continous? ...answer: nope

btw...you can not follow the further actions of the HMG, because the film focus on other things....

Rock in Harry and me are talkign about a lot of bursts and long bursts (i say 25 round bursts...RockinHarry said up to 50 round bursts)...and i talked about 400-450 rpm practical per minute ...not 1500, not 1000....but also not max 200-250 like in the game

there will be moment and situations were you fire 100-200 rounds more or less continious and there will be situation were you fire only ocassionally some shorterbursts and the rest of the round not......in the game the average maximum you can produce is 200-250 rounds......and only with ONLY short bursts ....(and without swingmovement).

[76mm]

there will be moment and situations were you fire 100-200 rounds more or less continious and there will be situation were you fire only ocassionally some shorterbursts and the rest of the round not......in the game the average maximum you can produce is 200-250 rounds......and only with ONLY short bursts ....(and without swingmovement).

kauz, you might be right, but you've pointed out the essence of the problem--you really expect Battlefront to be able to devise an AI that would correctly determine when to fire 100-200 rounds and when to fire 7 rounds? Any attempt to do so would result in an instant flood of complaints about MG42s "running out of ammo too soon."

Or should BFC allow players to "hold the trigger" for as long as the want? For better or for worse, this is not that kind of game.

[RockinHarry]

The shortish bursts are not the only one problem with the HMG34/42 in the game (other HMG as well). At longer ranges (1000m +), it overshoots targets a lot, even with TRP provided, just as if it´s just an extended range lMG, without any benfits from the tripod itself. There appears to be lots of "searching" fires going too high and the gun starts to become more accurate, when formerly moving targets went prone, no matter if suppressed or not. Odd behavior.

Two things come in mind.

1. Searching fire and target acquisition takes unusually long, with the consequence that it´s harder to hit an upright moving target, when actually it´s most vulnerable.

2. The dispersion pattern is way to narrow and does not reflect the tripods capabilities to automatically adjust for a targets width and depth.

Currently the short and inacurate bursts do not much beside "suppression" at longer ranges (1000m+) in the game, largely diminishing HMG´s usefulness at the prefered tactical ranges (beyond lMG range of 800m).

I think the HMG´s in the game are mainly modeled around the "concept" of suppression, neglecting any of the individual RL capabilities, in order to make these less lethal, the game more "balanced" and to help the AI. So if everybody incl. BFC finds this concept fits well into overall gameplay, then it´s ok. Personally I can´t find any good use for this downgraded weapon system and spend valuable points rather elsewhere. Not to mention that recreating any particular historical combat situations lead to...erm...."different" outcomes.

Btw, there´s no rock in Harry. RockinHarry is just a rock/metal guitarist, named Harry.

http://www.myspace.com/rockinharryz

[Kauz]

The shortish bursts are not the only one problem with the HMG34/42 in the game (other HMG as well). At longer ranges (1000m +), it overshoots targets a lot, even with TRP provided, just as if it´s just an extended range lMG, without any benfits from the tripod itself. There appears to be lots of "searching" fires going too high and the gun starts to become more accurate, when formerly moving targets went prone, no matter if suppressed or not. Odd behavior.

Two things come in mind.

1. Searching fire and target acquisition takes unusually long, with the consequence that it´s harder to hit an upright moving target, when actually it´s most vulnerable.

2. The dispersion pattern is way to narrow and does not reflect the tripods capabilities to automatically adjust for a targets width and depth.

Currently the short and inacurate bursts do not much beside "suppression" at longer ranges (1000m+) in the game, largely diminishing HMG´s usefulness at the prefered tactical ranges (beyond lMG range of 800m).

I think the HMG´s in the game are mainly modeled around the "concept" of suppression, neglecting any of the individual RL capabilities, in order to make these less lethal, the game more "balanced" and to help the AI. So if everybody incl. BFC finds this concept fits well into overall gameplay, then it´s ok. Personally I can´t find any good use for this downgraded weapon system and spend valuable points rather elsewhere. Not to mention that recreating any particular historical combat situations lead to...erm...."different" outcomes.

Btw, there´s no rock in Harry. RockinHarry is just a rock/metal guitarist, named Harry.

http://www.myspace.com/rockinharryz

same opinion

[Vanir Ausf B]

Not to mention that recreating any particular historical combat situations lead to...erm...."different" outcomes.

It would help your argument tremendously if you could give some specific examples.

[JasonC]

Kauz - you said, and I quote that said tape "prooves that it is convinient to even fire extreme 200 rounds in sustained fire. For me it is enough if the HMG(42) can fire also longer burst like 25 rounds". It proves nothing of the kind, and your phrasing pretended that the tape showed a 200 round burst and that you were only asking for a more moderate one, an eighth as long. The evidence you tried to cite does not support the conclusion you wish to draw from it. And your phrasing played on a misunderstanding of the technical meaning of the term "sustained" for MG fire. Sustained fire with an MG 42 is about 200 rounds per minute. Intensive might get to 400. Both are entirely independent of the evidence you presented, which flat out does not say what you pretended that it said, before I went and actually looked at it and called you on the matter.

[Kauz]

kauz, you might be right, but you've pointed out the essence of the problem--you really expect Battlefront to be able to devise an AI that would correctly determine when to fire 100-200 rounds and when to fire 7 rounds? Any attempt to do so would result in an instant flood of complaints about MG42s "running out of ammo too soon."

Or should BFC allow players to "hold the trigger" for as long as the want? For better or for worse, this is not that kind of game.

76mm i understand your point.

Normally in game ..especially at high distances or not plain or at covered area you simply do not see the enemy the whole round.

So in this case you won´t loose to much ammo, because most of the round he does not see an enemy to fight.

In case the enemy is clearly in sight ...open ground, high enemy density, short distances....your spotting ability is increasing extremly......

so in case he spots an enemy i want him to fight him with maximum efficiency.

Like i once referred .... the maximum practical rate of fire to fight targets accurate is 400-450 rpm for the HMG42 and 150-180 rpm for the LMG42.

The LMG42 in the game fires about 100-150 (average maximum) and uses short bursts for it, and this way is very close to the real life behaviour and the referred citate......

In opposite the HMG42 in the game fires only 200-250 rpm (average maximum under optimal conditions).

I asked to increase from 200-250 rpm to 400-450 rpm ....in case he spotted targets the whole round - like he was intended and did in my test scenarios-

A target who gets fighted more intense is not also suppressed for longer time it also is dieing faster...so even in case i run low on ammo faster ...the enemy in the same time gets "killed" faster

So i do not think you will run out of ammo in normal games.

Further you can use the order "fire short" (15 seconds) even for fighting a target or for supressive fire in case you are already low on ammo.

Last but not least...you always have the choice to collect ammo at a transport care or bunker or ammo dump.

Until yet i did only once take additional ammo....never need more.

When i heard that this "Hein Severloh" got equipped with a lot extra ammo and was able to use 12 000 round of it ....and this for an LMG not an HMG.....then i see that depending on situation the people always get equipped with extra ammo and are not forced to hold on with their standard ammo amount for a whole month.

BTW.: I admit it would be in general a good idea to be able giving the units on the map orders to how intensivly they shall fight a target....like it is implemented for the artillery..... They will do it their own way until i give them a specific order to eother for example fire "careful" or "intensive".

[Kauz]

... Intensive might get to 400. ...

Good to see that you finally accept the 400 rpm too.

"Refering to Colonel Butz, the "machine-gun-pope" of the Reichswehr and Wehrmacht, the MG34 with bipod (LMG) brang 120-150 rounds per minute accurate into target, with tripod (HMG ) 300-350.

Even more quick the MG42 fired: With bipod (LMG)150-180 rounds , on tripod (HMG) 400-450. The US BAR (LMG) only could reach lean 60-80 rounds. Promptly it had proved in the field, that the extreme high rate of fire not only was a big advantage for anti-aircraft purposes. The infantry got enabled to engage even for only short time appearing ground-targets with a lot of rounds. The hit probabilty increased. Crucially relevant is not only the numbres of hits, but that a high as possible numbre of hits in a short time as possible takes place..."

[cool breeze]

Good to see that you finally accept the 400 rpm too.

You've been saying 400-450 is the sustained fire he's saying thats what they go to for unsustanable intensive fire. With 12000+rpm I dont think anybody is trying to say a mg42 (heavey or light) couldn't fire over 400 rounds in a minute.

[Kauz]

I said that a HMG42 should be capable of fireing practical 400-450 rounds accurate into target(s) in case they see them whole round. And this should be possible for about minimum 3 minutes and maximum 6 minutes (depending on how often you change the barrel ...assuming you have in total 6 barrels).

After that it is possible because of the cool down rate to fire about 200 rpm for the rest of the game (because of about max. 6 minutes to cool down to half temperature for each barrel).

Some people in particular neglect either the tactical use or the possibility to generate such a practicla volume of fire.

____

About this cyclic, sustained, continous talking some short ideas:

If you start firing 1500 rpm it is cyclic and lasts the first barrelchange and ammo adding (after 10 seconds and 250 rounds). Nobody is talking about that.

If you would continue this tactic you can generate practically 1000 rpm in the first minute with using (4 barrels). Nobody is talking about that.

We actually talk about the practical rate of fire of 400-450 rpm in case i have enough targets ergo spotting (elite....and so on).

In the game under this circumstance the gun only produce 200-250 rpm.

I just want to see that the practical rpm in this case increases from 200-250 to 400-450.

One way doing this is either more bursts per minute and/or adding some longer bursts like RockinHarry and me already mentioned (were used for HMGs).

Actually the HMG only works like a LMG (short bursts at a specific target only)

[JasonC]

No, you could not keep it up for 6 minutes. You could do 400 rpm for one, then 200 rpm for 2-3, and might be able to repeat that cycle maybe twice more, then all your barrels would be overheated and your rate of fire would drop to 200 if you are lucky and still running. If you try to shoot any faster than that, the gun will just jam.

There is a reason the 200 rpm figure is the *sustained* rate of fire. It actually can be sustained. 400 rpm cannot be sustained. It can be done in a "final protective fire" emergency, but that is about it.

Since actual fire effect does not depend linearly on the gross rounds thrown regardless, this point is quite academic.

You don't hit twice as many men on the other side of the field by firing at intensive rather than sustained rates. MG fire is too aimed for that, and its actual fire effect too dependent on the detailed time-profile of target exposure.

But we have had that discussion, and in it you just ducked the fact that you lost the argument in that context. You continue to slither since, without a shred of honesty or admission of correction on any point.

[Kauz]

No, you could not keep it up for 6 minutes. You could do 400 rpm for one, then 200 rpm for 2-3, and might be able to repeat that cycle maybe twice more, then all your barrels would be overheated and your rate of fire would drop to 200 if you are lucky and still running. If you try to shoot any faster than that, the gun will just jam.

There is a reason the 200 rpm figure is the *sustained* rate of fire. It actually can be sustained. 400 rpm cannot be sustained. It can be done in a "final protective fire" emergency, but that is about it.

Since actual fire effect does not depend linearly on the gross rounds thrown regardless, this point is quite academic.

You don't hit twice as many men on the other side of the field by firing at intensive rather than sustained rates. MG fire is too aimed for that, and its actual fire effect too dependent on the detailed time-profile of target exposure.

But we have had that discussion, and in it you just ducked the fact that you lost the argument in that context. You continue to slither since, without a shred of honesty or admission of correction on any point.

In case you assume that 200 rounds in a minute lead the barrel to the limit ...okay..let us take a look....

Then you can use 2 barrels per minute...this way you can fire for 3 minutes long @ 400 rpm (in case you have 6 barrels in total fopr your HMG)....then you might have to continue with about 100-200 rpm for all other following minutes using 2 barrels also each minute.

If 100 or 200 depends on the cool down rate. My cool down rate (6 minutes to loose half the temperature) was very conservative....it might be faster.

In the game i fire in general most time a very low amount of rounds because my HMG does not see anything the whole round.

But in case the people get in range and are spotted well...then i would prefer to see 3 minutes 400 rpm and then 100-200....

May be i do not need other minutes further because the ammo is out or the enemy is dead or round is over....so i do not care if i only can produce 100-200 rpm after the 3 minutes @ 400rpm.

But even in case i have to live further with 100-200 rpm it is still a improvement if you keep in mind that actually in the game the highest rate of fire is only about 200-250. For the case of 3 minutes double firepower (in case it is needed) i will gladly pay with 100-200 rpm after that.

[Kauz]

.....

You don't hit twice as many men on the other side of the field by firing at intensive rather than sustained rates. MG fire is too aimed for that, and its actual fire effect too dependent on the detailed time-profile of target exposure.

But we have had that discussion, and in it you just ducked the fact that you lost the argument in that context. You continue to slither since, without a shred of honesty or admission of correction on any point.

RockinHarry already told too that the HMG is used with longer bursts (25-50) in contrary to the LMG.

And one citate keeps the relation between LMG34/42 and HMG34/42 HMG42: 400-450 accurate into target- LMG42 150-180 accurate into target.

On high distances you increase hit probabilty because of the higher rate of fire with these longer bursts RockinHarry and me already mentioned.

On shorter distances and higher enemy density you for sure can increase the hit probability by swinging the gun in horizontal way to dispense the rounds of the burst.

But we have had that discussion, and in it you just ducked the fact that you lost the argument in that context. You continue to slither since, without a shred of honesty or admission of correction on any point.

[JasonC]

"the case of 3 minutes double firepower"

Double rate of fire is not double firepower. You continue spreading errant horsepuckey, and there is no reason for anyone to pay the slightest further attention.

[Kauz]

"the case of 3 minutes double firepower"

Double rate of fire is not double firepower. You continue spreading errant horsepuckey, and there is no reason for anyone to pay the slightest further attention.

I am a little tired....i try it another way for you

In CM:BB the firepower relationship between a HMG42 and a LMG42 was:

@40 meters: 3,1

@100 meters: 2,8

@250 meters: 2,6

My source said LMG42 150-180 rounds accurate into target and HMG42 400-450 accurate into target. That makes a relationship of 2,6.

You see that is close/identical to CM:BB.

Now let us take a look what happens in the actual game (CM:RT)

A LMG42 @ 100 meters take out about 8,2 people per minute and use for it 131,0 rounds....

A HMG42 @ 100 meters take out 13,9 people per minute and use for it 199,6 rounds----

Rounds per person:

HMG42 :14,36 rounds per person.

LMG42 : 15,97 rounds per person.

2.

The HMG produce 1,7 times more casualties per minute than the LMG (13,9/8,2).

Related to my referred citate it should be like 2,6 times more (425/165).

Related to CM:BB it should be 2,8 (125/45).

________________________________________

Let us take a look at MG at higher distances:

A LMG42 @ 300 meters takes out 6,8 people per minute while using 101,5 rounds.

A HMG42 @ 300 meters takes out 7,8 people per minute while using 119,9 rounds.

Rounds per person:

HMG42: 15,4 rounds per person

LMG42: 14,9 rounds per person

Firepower relationship:

CM:BB tells @ 250 meters 77 for HMG and 30 for LMG.

This is a factor of 2,6 times more for a HMG (77/30).

In the game the factor is 1,14.

Let us take another MG....the right MG in my test scenario...it is one of the most sucessful positioned MG in every game with all Machine guns i tested:

This LMG42 takes out 11,3 people per minute while using 102,4 rounds.

This HMG42 takes out 12,6 people per minute while using 148,8 rounds.

Rounds per person:

HMG42: 11,8 rounds per person

LMG42: 9,1 rounds per person

Fire power relationship:

CM:BB tells about 2,6 times more for HMG.

In the game only 1,1 more for the HMG.

Are you still want to argue with me that HMG units are not weak??????????????????????????????????????????

And do not talk now about firepower is only suppression effect......

Even if would it be like this....i could not observe a relevant suppression effect....

But PLEASE do me a favor .....just do not go down this road only to save your skin.

Better you try to analyse first if the behaviour at the several distances is consistant ( for example rounds per person at higher distances....the LMG gets better with higher distances.....this is a joke)

And then you go deep inside your soul and try to find out if you really want to discuss if at 250-300 meters a HMG should only be 10 % more deadly than a light machine gun, like it is at the moment.

RockinHarry...please help me with this unreasonable guy...

[womble]

Who gives a flying toss what CMBB had as some notional abstracted firepower figures? Don't you think things change as BFC find out more and change their game model? StuG frontal protection in x2 is greatly reduced compared to some iterations of x1; does that make the current setup wrong? No. It says nothing at all about the current setup. Lots of people, including BFC (and, frankly, they know just a smidge more about all of this than you do: your "contribution" to the armour penetration discussion in another thread shows that), think it's a better reflection of the way the system operated IRL. Just like HMGs.