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

[Kauz]

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.

please stop thought-terminating clichés....

In case you say BF does it now correct it means that BF did it "wrong" in the game before.

And may be in the next game they change it again....and then you will say again...."who gives a toss what they once did...bla...they know better now...bla"

You see the problem?

May be they are still wrong.....

After Normandy came out they seemed not being right either.....because they changed the HMG behaviour.....

The forum is a discussion platform...in my armor thread i just send an example which i found disturbing...nothing more.....i admit myself that it is possible....and finally after Vanir established his overmatch source i admit that the 20mm is too weak....

So no reason flame around...

As long as nobody is able to argue the same convincing way like a Vanir to this issue, there is no need for me to go rogue from my impressions and argumentation.

RockinHarry supported my opinion in this thread several times....nobody started to flame and troll around against him .....i just wonder ...

[Baneman]

I...

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).

...

Sorry, but this is a crazy comparison to make - the number of casualties an HMG causes is going to vary wildly dependant on lots of variables.

There's no way you can extrapolate that into any sort of useful assertion.

An HMG could conceivably cause more casualties with less bullets than an LMG simply due to its greater stability and thus accuracy.

Do you think that would support your argument ?

[Michael Emrys]

please stop thought-terminating clichés....

You know, you might get more traction in this discussion if you stopped telling people what to think and how to act. This paternalistic tone of yours is bound to put people's backs up, so that even if your arguments had merit (a dubious proposition on the face of it), you are placing obstacles in the way of having them seriously considered. Changing your tone won't make them right, but at least would be more likely to result in them being judged on their merits (or lack of them). It is particularly offensive when you take the stance of lecturing people who plainly know more about this topic than you do.

Michael

[Kauz]

Sorry, but this is a crazy comparison to make - the number of casualties an HMG causes is going to vary wildly dependant on lots of variables.

Do you think you can create something where you get a better performance?....Please get a bit more specified...

This way it is useless to discuss...only thought-terminating-clichés to gag someone....

There's no way you can extrapolate that into any sort of useful assertion.

An HMG could conceivably cause more casualties with less bullets than an LMG simply due to its greater stability and thus accuracy.

Do you think that would support your argument ?

I do not know if you get right what i wrote.

like you can see i need less rounds per enemy with a light machine gun on higher distance...and this despite the fact that the HMG uses the same tactic in the game like the LMG (short bursts of 5-7 rounds). So i guess the HMG is less accurate in the game ...

Additonally:

I see no need to produce and use a Tripod if i can produce only 10% more firepower with a HMG than with a LMG....

I would have had establish LMG only in the war.....

And before you argue that HMG will get better performance with higher distance you should proof this first... i guess at 500 meter the impression won´t get any better...

It is more likely that it will drop down further from 1,1 to 1 from what i saw until now....the magical limit is 800 meter for LMG.

Would be nice to see what happens if i set up scenario at 500 and 800 meters....

If it behaves like i prognosticate from the actual results...then i ask myself why i should buy a HMG if i can produce the same firepower at 800 meters with a LMG....?

Some more ammo?....A little more noise if using against targets beyond 800 meters?......i do not think i need that.....the LMG of the standard infantry is completly enough for me to do the job.

[Kauz]

You know, you might get more traction in this discussion if you stopped telling people what to think and how to act. This paternalistic tone of yours is bound to put people's backs up, so that even if your arguments had merit (a dubious proposition on the face of it), you are placing obstacles in the way of having them seriously considered. Changing your tone won't make them right, but at least would be more likely to result in them being judged on their merits (or lack of them). It is particularly offensive when you take the stance of lecturing people who plainly know more about this topic than you do.

Michael

Michael, i would immediatly support your saying...

The point is that some people just flame around and try to undermine the argumentation and gag me.....without using arguments....

I did not start talking this unpolite way....

If they start this way....i just say that i am not able to make use of this "argueing", because it is just flaming and though-terminating-clichés without the necessary background.

[Kieme(ITA)]

From an external point of view, seems to me that this Whole discussion, while having some interesting thoughts or basic ideas, it's just a "futile exercise on the field of complexity out nothing", where 1 person is willing to take verbal fights in fake tones on that very same field against all Others, instead of reasoning to get a decent closure on the matter.

[snarre]

if hmg get 10 % beter accuracy or killing spree , how you want to call it . that 10 % is huge number and difrend in combat situtation. whit my own expierement in army this gind adwance is huge number on long run.

[cool breeze]

please stop thought-terminating clichés....

In case you say BF does it now correct it means that BF did it "wrong" in the game before.

And may be in the next game they change it again....and then you will say again...."who gives a toss what they once did...bla...they know better now...bla"

You see the problem?

May be they are still wrong.....

After Normandy came out they seemed not being right either.....because they changed the HMG behaviour.....

The forum is a discussion platform...in my armor thread i just send an example which i found disturbing...nothing more.....i admit myself that it is possible....and finally after Vanir established his overmatch source i admit that the 20mm is too weak....

So no reason flame around...

As long as nobody is able to argue the same convincing way like a Vanir to this issue, there is no need for me to go rogue from my impressions and argumentation.

RockinHarry supported my opinion in this thread several times....nobody started to flame and troll around against him .....i just wonder ...

So a cliche is something that people have used so many times as to have lost meaning.

cli·ché noun \klē-ˈshā, ˈklē-ˌ, kli-ˈ\

: a phrase or expression that has been used so often that it is no longer original or interesting

: something that is so commonly used in books, stories, etc., that it is no longer effective

EasyBib

Full Definition of CLICHÉ

1

: a trite phrase or expression; also : the idea expressed by it

2

: a hackneyed theme, characterization, or situation

3

: something (as a menu item) that has become overly familiar or commonplace

— cliché adjective

Sorry that was so big.

The only cliche I'm seeing on this thread is a new one thats already one of the worst in english. Thought-terminating cliche. That is a thought terminating cliche! Everytime I read it its like running into a wall and having to reorient myself. Nobody else is using cliches.

Wombles post wasnt a thought terminating cache is was the appropriate argument to make after yours. Bringing up CMBB just can't really do anything to help your argument Kaus. for the reasons both you and womble expressed.

Even if CMBB had things right/realistic about everything (which obviously is didnt) it used a firepower number to do both suppression and killing. CMx2 is a lot more complicated than that, in that it uses actual virtual bullets and then figures out suppression and kills based on that. Trying to equate firepower to either bullets per minute or kills per minute or kills per bullets just doesnt really make sense. Especially considering the kills per minute figures your using seem so freakin high. Could you get those kinds of numbers in CMBB I dont remember it being such an mg slaughterfest. I do remember a lot of targeting every spotted enemy with 20 plus tanks from all over that couldn't possibly see it.

So Kaus please stop typing "thought-terminating cliche(s)", its the only cliche here. Wombles post was not thought terminating, it moved the discussion past being temporarily stuck in in 2002.

[Kauz]

if hmg get 10 % beter accuracy or killing spree , how you want to call it . that 10 % is huge number and difrend in combat situtation. whit my own expierement in army this gind adwance is huge number on long run.

+10% being good or bad is a philosophical discussion...

But do you think using 6 instead 2 men, using 5 extra barrles instead of 2, producing a heavy tripod and optics......i do not know if this is worth for 10% more "firepower".

This amount of material, men-hours, money i would more likely spend to establish more LMG.

If i can establish even only 2 LMG units instead of 1 HMG unit than i have 100% more firepower instead of 10%.

So i guess there must me more arguments why i should establish a HMG...and this for sure not only make some noise effects at distances beyond 800 meters.

[Lethaface]

You know, you might get more traction in this discussion if you stopped telling people what to think and how to act. This paternalistic tone of yours is bound to put people's backs up, so that even if your arguments had merit (a dubious proposition on the face of it), you are placing obstacles in the way of having them seriously considered. Changing your tone won't make them right, but at least would be more likely to result in them being judged on their merits (or lack of them). It is particularly offensive when you take the stance of lecturing people who plainly know more about this topic than you do.

Michael

The one thing going for Kauz, IMO, is that it's not he who started the lecturing tone. Perhaps he was sometimes rightfully lectured , but tone is something else.

Anyway I agree with Baneman that it is not possible to extrapolate average casualties to firepower because there are many variables at work. As a scientist I would expect Kauz realizes this. To name a few: 1-1 simulation (!), random spacings of soldiers, hit chances varying, etc.

Now, I do agree it would be strange if HMG MG42's are only 10% more effective then LMG MG42's, if setup in a proper defensive position.

However, that's not my impression of them in the game. It would be very difficult to actually calculate a effectiveness percentage for any small in the game, due to the 1-1 simulation.

There are actually two subjects being discussed:

* RPM for HMG/LMG

* HMG effectiveness vs LMG

Those are very different subjects, even though there is correlation, and should be discussed separately.

Anyway apart from any tests playing the game my experience is HMG's are significantly different from LMG's and perform >10% better when deployed in a good position against close and far targets. I have little experience engaging enemy troops with small arms >1km, even only because there are few opportunities to do so in the game.

[snarre]

think that 10% on long run and yes its huge number in fire fight. plus if you 2 men lmg they can be destroy mutch more easyly than thous 6 men . longer run you can replace them longer if some one die. sou definedly worth of points plus you can use them whit out tripod if place or time is not good to set upp tripod.

[Kauz]

............

Especially considering the kills per minute figures your using seem so freakin high. Could you get those kinds of numbers in CMBB I dont remember it being such an mg slaughterfest. ....

......

I do not know if you followed the whole MG thread from the beginning.

I said several times that in normal games you are only able to produce maximum around 15-20 casualties with a HMG.

I set up a test range, to do get an idea of the maximum firepower of the several light and heavy machine guns in general and to get an idea how they perform in relation to each other.

In this thread is a download-link where you can find this set up.

In the set up you find 900 men trying to run more or less all together from some trees crossing diagonal an open field to enter the bridge.

6 machine guns were established.

-1 in about 150 meters distance to his main fire area at the left in a 3rd floor house with a relative bad field of view.

-1 in about 250 meters (if i remembe right) in a 2nd floor house to the center-right with a field of view/fire

-2 in about 100 meters in the center in a trench.

-2 in about 300 meters in the center in a trench in a slightly higher position than the 2 in 100 meters distance.

---

No doubt that 900 men more or less all togther trying to do this is fictional scenario.

But it this is not really important.

Like i mentioned i wanted to get an statistically impression of the maximum firepower (in case i spot always someone and literally have problems to miss the enemy because of the short distance and high enemy density).

And to get an idea of the performance of the Machine gun types in relation to each other.

If i have had it not done this way it would be hard to get a statistical relevant impression....because like you mentioned yourself the casualties the machine guns produce in this game are very low and not statiscally evaluable.

[Kauz]

The one thing going for Kauz, IMO, is that it's not he who started the lecturing tone. Perhaps he was sometimes rightfully lectured , but tone is something else.

Thank you.

Anyway I agree with Baneman that it is not possible to extrapolate average casualties to firepower because there are many variables at work. As a scientist I would expect Kauz realizes this. To name a few: 1-1 simulation (!), random spacings of soldiers, hit chances varying, etc.

Correct... the men-density for example in normal games will be far less....

I try to keep this in mind...

But like i mentioned once again in "http://www.battlefront.com/community/showpost.php?p=1534489&postcount=187"

i try to get closer to that problem by using this setup ...especially to eliminate big variations.

If i only have produce 15 casualties per game it is somehow less meaningful than to produce 50-150 casualties.

Despite that enemy density is a problem all machine guns have. But i admit, high density could be in general a point which is getting in favor for the light machine gun. Because the spread of the burst might lead even to higher casualties if there is always a target next to the aimed target.

Nethertheless there is a good mix of shooting into the running direction of the enemy and orthogonal to its running direction. And there is a mix of running people and some who prone. All in all....while i watch these scenarios endless hours i had the feeling that it gives me a proper first impression of the behaviour and relation.

-

By the way.....

Interessting is that at close distance (100-150 meters) the HMG performs 70% better than the LMG (maybe because of K98 and MP40).

And at 250-300 meters the HMG performs 10% better than LMG.

I would have expected more like an effect in the opposite way.(if you ignore the MP40 effect)

...Hope you understand what i mean...

Now, I do agree it would be strange if HMG MG42's are only 10% more effective then LMG MG42's, if setup in a proper defensive position.

Thanks...because even that seems not to be common accepted thing like you can observe.

However, that's not my impression of them in the game. It would be very difficult to actually calculate a effectiveness percentage for any small in the game, due to the 1-1 simulation.Anyway apart from any tests playing the game my experience is HMG's are significantly different from LMG's and perform >10% better when deployed in a good position against close and far targets. I have little experience engaging enemy troops with small arms >1km, even only because there are few opportunities to do so in the game.

Well....i am open minded for your impressions or other set-up ideas.

You can not imagine how much it would be a relieve to me if you could proof the opposite of my impressions and testings.

[A Canadian Cat]

The one thing going for Kauz, IMO, is that it's not he who started the lecturing tone. Perhaps he was sometimes rightfully lectured , but tone is something else.

Thank you.

Ah, well you might have to read the other really long thread to get the answer to the question of "who hit whom back first" but I think @Kauz is triggering a lecturing tone because he started out with one and has repeatedly demonstrated a very closed mind to other peoples experiments and research. IMHO since he has not listened very well he is pretty much only going to get lectured from here on out

Now, I do agree it would be strange if HMG MG42's are only 10% more effective then LMG MG42's, if setup in a proper defensive position.

Thanks...because even that seems not to be common accepted thing like you can observe.

While I agree that if an HGM was only marginally more effective than an LMG that would be odd. However I see no actual evidence or experiments presented here that legitimately show that is the case. All I see are the same dogmatic statements repeated with no adjustments or learning. Plus the same totally flawed experiments being repeated without listening to feedback from other posters.

However, that's not my impression of them in the game. It would be very difficult to actually calculate a effectiveness percentage for any small in the game, due to the 1-1 simulation.Anyway apart from any tests playing the game my experience is HMG's are significantly different from LMG's and perform >10% better when deployed in a good position against close and far targets. I have little experience engaging enemy troops with small arms >1km, even only because there are few opportunities to do so in the game.

My impression too is that HMGs are quite useful. I have a couple doing a nice job making my opponents life difficult as we speak. I would not consider swapping them out for LMGs to be a good thing.

Well....i am open minded for your impressions or other set-up ideas.

You can not imagine how much it would be a relieve to me if you could proof the opposite of my impressions and testings.

LOL you have not demonstrated any open mindedness. Sorry we are "harshing your mellow" but it is not a discussion if one side just keeps repeating the same thing over and over.

[Kauz]

..................

LOL you have not demonstrated any open mindedness. Sorry we are "harshing your mellow" but it is not a discussion if one side just keeps repeating the same thing over and over.

Some support my impression that something is wrong...and RockinHarry in special supported my thoughts too (for instance that effectivesnes of HMG is reduced in the game and longer bursts should be established).

I did some tests....i give concrete numbres....i talk like RockinHarry about the tactical usage and possiblities of the HMG in contrary to the LMG ... i even did a calculation of the cool-down process of the barrel.

Well and what did some of the other do?.....They just take the easy way out and say...."you are wrong"....and this they "repeat, like you complain about me, "over and over".

If this show a thing then that these people (without calling names) show that they are not open-minded.

There is no need for me to follow this way of "argumentation".

My sugesstion:

Give me sources and test set ups...then we can talk in a useful way further...until these special people do not act like this and just take the easy way out by just gag me down, i see not chance for progress.

EDIT:

....very closed mind to other peoples experiments....

Please give me a hint....did i miss something?

[JonS]

Give me Give me Give me Give me Give me Give me Give me

hahaha. Not likely.

[Kauz]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kauz View Post

Give me Give me Give me Give me Give me Give me Give me

hahaha. Not likely.

and again ...balderdash.....*sigh*

Btw.: you should not do this kind of "quoting"....you just disqualifying yourself even more

[Sailor Malan2]

Muat resist urge to join. Must resist...

Oh Heck, I cant stop it...

10% difference in casualties per round average in CM is NOT the same as 10% difference in effectiveness. This is the 'In RL Sherman is rubbish and KTs rule, because that's what has best results in CM' fallacy. In RL many many more factors apply. In the same way the Sherman was a war winning tank, and the KT wasn't, HMGs and their team have other factors than CM casualties. For one, (as you have said), you have extra men to carry barrels and ammo (try firing an LMG for hours on end with only 2 men. You cant. once you have fired all your ammo, someone has to get more. The Tripod enables longer range fire etc. So, no more 'CM only makes it 10% more efficient, this cant be right or no one would use it...' rubbish.

Also please repeat after me 'it is illogical to complain about CM2 modeling of MGs and use CM1 as an authoritative reference!'

[Kauz]

Muat resist urge to join. Must resist...

Oh Heck, I cant stop it...

10% difference in casualties per round average in CM is NOT the same as 10% difference in effectiveness. This is the 'In RL Sherman is rubbish and KTs rule, because that's what has best results in CM' fallacy. In RL many many more factors apply. In the same way the Sherman was a war winning tank, and the KT wasn't, HMGs and their team have other factors than CM casualties. For one, (as you have said), you have extra men to carry barrels and ammo (try firing an LMG for hours on end with only 2 men. You cant. once you have fired all your ammo, someone has to get more. The Tripod enables longer range fire etc. So, no more 'CM only makes it 10% more efficient, this cant be right or no one would use it...' rubbish....

The behaviour of the LMG and the HMG is the whole round the same.

Barrel change or the numbre of barrels is not represented in the game in specific.

The HMG42 just fires a 250 round belt than is a reload procedure and then it fire the next 250 round belt.

The LMG42 do the same but with a 50 round belt/box. That is what i recognized.

This way you can play as long you want in this game (the numbrer of barrels are not modelled in specific)...

The HMG42 produces on distances of 250-300 meters 10%-14% more casualties per minute (like you can read here again as summary: http://www.battlefront.com/community/showpost.php?p=1534411&postcount=174 )

The only thing which is left in favor for the HMG.... (despite it has more men-which is may be not the point anymore if you have a standard infantry unit)

...is that is allowed to fire further than 800 meters (magical range limit for the LMG) and that it has double (~2,5 times ) ammo!

The LMG has the potential to cause about 85 casualties with his 1015 rounds between (250-300 meters) and the HMG in relation causes about 185 casualties with its 2510 rounds.

So yes ...you are correct.....the big difference is the ammo....

But then i ask myself why i just not only give the LMG a 6 men unit with this ammo-plus if i do not get a relevant advantage with the tripod and the extra barrels???? Why should i carry around this whole heavy crap if it does not bring a relevant advantage?

Oh yes....wait....i know the answer....i know what the advantage is....i can fire beyond the magical LMG range limit of 800 meters.

And this, like we all know, happens a lot and is needed a lot in CM:RT games.

And when this happens we all know how devasting the enemy is impressed by the noise we produce.

Also please repeat after me 'it is illogical to complain about CM2 modeling of MGs and use CM1 as an authoritative reference!'

Well....for people, who seem to insist on the correctness and sacrosanctity of (state of the art) Battlefront decisions, it might be a good way to argue with them....all other ways of argueing, i tried before, fall on deaf ears....

[JasonC]

Kauz still doesn't get that the heavy crap is the ammo.

2.5 times the fire effect comes from hauling 2.5 times the ammo to the gun, and that is what the 6 man team is for. It doesn't come from throwing it faster because it doesn't. The reason to have LMGs anyway is they are easier to move farther forward, faster, to areas it would be hard to rapidly get the HMG team. That is why WWII armies fielded many times more LMGs than HMGs.

Meanwhile, if he still thinks firepower is rate of fire, I propose an experiment. He can have an HMG-42 with 2500 rounds belted and a tripod. He just has to man it in the open himself, 100 to 200 yards away. I will use only a scoped bolt action rifle with 10 rounds of 308 (I doubt I will need even 3, but that is one mag). But I also get sandbags. Afterward (the whole thing will take less than 10 seconds, max, and will probably be over in 5) the winner can give a lecture on the relative importance of rate of fire and target exposure.

[Fūrinkazan]

hi,

Just can't resist to come back for a few precisions.

It seems that some people think that hmg=lmg and that hmg are useless. I would like to try to demonstrate that this is wrong.

I think the only way to test the firepower is in a hot seat battle on an open map using area fire. You can count the bullets at all distances without other things that would change the results. So the firepower in game of lmg42 and hmg 42 are :

at 100 m 250rpm for hmg 150 for lmg about 70 % more for hmg

at 200 m 172 rpm for hmg 116 for lmg 50% more for hmg

at 500 m 89 for hmg and 56 for lmg about 50% more for hmg

at 800 m 74 for hmg and 50 for lmg about 50 % more for hmg

No riflmen were shooting, even at 100 m so it's pure hmg firepower.

I did not test to many times but the results may vary a little. But I think this gives a good idea. so, we can say that one hmg in game = 1.5 up to 2 lmgs at all distances. I noticed some variations in the rate of fire during tests so it can happen that 1 hmg has 50% more firepower than an lmg and sometimes up to 100 %. I remember that when the changes were made, BFC said that they also increase hmg accuracy. So i don't think that lmgs and hmgs are equal in game.

During my gaming experience, i have played a lot of pure infantry battle, and each time, hmgs were key in my defense. With trench and trps, they can be devastating if well placed. On some battles, i just did not use my riflemen and inflicted more than 50 % losses to the AI just with hmgs.

To take the battle of the Somme as exemple, JasonC is right when he said that the British troops were Moving slow and with a lot of equipement, and that's the reason of the disaster. I've been reading that the french had, on the contrary, a good success. It was ordered to the troops to make short moves from cover to cover. I 've been reading that they had half less losses than the Brits. I think that's what our troops do in the game.

In game, we must not forget that : What we see is not what our soldier see.

At long range, a crawling man is certainly a very difficult target, our pixel troops are not stupid so they try to preserve their lives, it takes time for the leader of the hmg team to point the target and give the order to fire.

It's still possible to inflict 20 or more casualties in one battle for one hmg in game. I had up to 35 or 40 on some situations in QBs.

I don't know if hmgs should have more advantage on lmgs, but they have one now. I think it would be nice to have more random in the length of bursts for hmgs, but this would increase the difference with lmgs. It's difficult to find the good balance i think. Should one hmg = 3 lmgs at long range, i don't know.

One thing BFC should look at is fortifications. Trench and foxholes are hard to use sometimes. I noticed that hmgs suffer the same problem AT guns had in the past. I prepare 2 or 3 positions for my hmgs in trench if possible. I noticed that sometimes, when you go in a trench, the hmg shooter goes crazy and starts to crawl, and it can be far from the trench. Changing the fire direction is sometimes too slow i think, like AT guns. The reason is that the team starts to crawl and it can be very long.

Hope this helps in this thread

regards

[Kauz]

Kauz still doesn't get that the heavy crap is the ammo.

Not completly right...

You want to go down that road?...Okay...:

The tripod weights ~ 20 kg, 3 x extra-barrels more for HMG weights together ~6 kg, the optics weight about ~2 kg.

Makes together: 28 kg

The extra ammo (~1500 rounds) weights together 48 kg.

If the 28kg for the HMG usage leads me only to 10-14% more firepower per minute at 250-300 meters range....than why i do not drop the 28kg away and carry instead extra 875 rounds.

I would gladly pay 10% less firepower each round if i get 875 extra rounds.

Imagine a LMG unit with 6 men carrying in total 3385 rounds causing

at 250-300 meters distance about 9,1 casualties per minute, but in total 283 men.

In the oppisite a HMG unit with 6 men carrying in total the only 2510 rounds causing at 250-300 meters distance about 10,2 casualties per minute, but in total only 185 men.

2.5 times the fire effect comes from hauling 2.5 times the ammo to the gun, and that is what the 6 man team is for. It doesn't come from throwing it faster because it doesn't. The reason to have LMGs anyway is they are easier to move farther forward, faster, to areas it would be hard to rapidly get the HMG team. That is why WWII armies fielded many times more LMGs than HMGs......

You are correct...the LMG is more mobile.....!

In opposite the HMG provide more firepower ...this is so far not reflected in game like i try to argue in this thread.

Why the HMG should have more firepower?

Here the answer:

1. i can observe better the enemy and the impact of the rounds and their effect because i am not bounded as gunner to the machine gun´s rattling body.

You can not imagine what a help this is...!

I did not like the LMG 42 (LMG3) in my army because you could not see "anything" while you released your burst.

2. I can spot better because of Point 1) and the additional people and gun optics.

3. The HMG accurracy is in general better than with a LMG. So i can decide in which way i want to dispense the rounds of a burst.

4. I do NOT have to care about burst lenght...because my Tripod makes my burst accurate no matter which length...in contrary to the LMG42 which has to bound to 2-7 (usually 3-5) round bursts. So i can decide when it is convinient to fire longer bursts or not and like i mentioned in Point 3) how to dispense the burst (if i do so).

For instance:

A dense assaulting russian human wave i would for example try to fight with a 25-50 round burst while swinging the gun in a horizontal way from the left to the right....

I guess i would hit a lot of people before they even had recognized that they have to search cover.

A LMG unit in contrary is bound to the short bursts aiming a specific target.....especially if the distance increases and the density decreases.

5. I have a better ammo and barrel supply than the LMG.

The barrel supply in specific allows me to increase my practical rate of fire and make use of the advantages i listes before (Points 1-4).

___

So when i read that the LMG42 is able to bring 150-180 rounds accurate into target and the HMG42 is able to bring 400-450 rounds accurate into target.....then i can easily imagine why it could be like this.....

400-450 rounds accurate into target does not mean that i spray around !!!

Spraying around would be like 1500 or 1000 rpm (which he could not hold long, because of the barrel overheating)

It means that if i spot enough targets, that i am able to fight these targets accurate with this practical rate of fire.

In my test scenario i tried ensure such conditions.

___

The most important thing i want to see in the game is that the relationship 150-180 rpm LMG42 and 400-450 HMG42 (and 120-150 rpm LMG34 and 300-350 HMG34) is represented in the game.

It is easy possible just by reducing the time of aiming for HMG and may establishing some longer bursts.

About the concrete outcome of the resulting firepower we can discuss later.

One point after the other.

And again....

A good gunner with a lot of spotted targets at shorter/medium range is able to produce this amount of accurate firepower.

If you have no targets the rpm is 0.

If you only spot a target for 10 seconds within a minute the rpm is naturally not this high either.....i think i made it clear...i hope

[snarre]

i had say now but i dont get you , do you realy want heavy mg is like mix of sniper rifle and mg. sou then you get super wepon what hit whit ewery shot on multiply targets. heavy mg has all ready advance to light mg sou its good enough.

[JasonC]

LMGs with extra men carrying more ammo for them are called rifle squads. And yeah, WW II armies made rather heavier use of them than they did of HMGs. They didn't load down each man as heavily as in an HMG team because the practical speed of moving the HMG determines its battlefield role, and fewer rounds per gun but more mobility produces more combat power overall. That is why formations have 3 rifle platoons and companies to 1 HMG platoon and company, rather than the reverse.

Also, conspicuously lacking from your reasons for HMGs having more firepower is them firing any faster, because they don't, over more overall, because they don't on their own, that being purely a function of how much ammo is delivered to the gun.

Also, you continue to duck the issue of target exposure and overkill, which remains the only place you will find any kind of benefit of high ROF. You are simply looking at the wrong end of the field (the gun) as you analyze what ROF is or does. You need to be at the other end of it, the target, asking about the time profile of its exposure.

A Vickers can match the ROF you agree is the practical intensive rate for an MG-42 by just holding down the trigger, and it won't overheat or jam doing so. Meanwhile a bolt rifle (even with minimal ammo) completely suffices for continually exposed targets at close range, because the hit probability per round is practically 100%.

First you have to think through when more bullets help in the first place, and then you need to think through when more per unit time helps, and how, and how much. So far you haven't - you just naively continue to think they add linearly. They don't. Indeed, because aimed fire it not random tossing of bullets into a whole area, the bolt rifle with 2-3 rounds wins the match up I gave in my previous.

[crowbar2k]

CMRT is having to deal with the two extremes in the way infantry squad firepower was delivered in World War 2

On the one hand theres the German squads with 1 or 2 lmgs and on the other the russian ppsh squads which from 200m in are the real uber killers in this game. The german lmg 's represent 90 plus % of the squads organic firepower and if this isnt correctly represented for all the ranges and ways it might be used german squads may not only be in for a raw deal but will have to use gamey tactics like split squads etc to achieve anything close to real life results. The other gamey tactic of suppress with mg then cause casualties with mortars is to my mind an acknowledgement that mg fire is not weighted for causing casualties when sustaining fire on a target.

Where I have most problems with how CMRT plays at the moment is what happens when russian ppsh squads get 500 m in and closer. German machine guns may be able to suppress 1 or 2 squads a turn and may cause a few casualties at the start before the target squads ducks to cover, but repeated rounds of mg fire do not seem to do much else other than keep the unit suppressed - If you now turn to what happens when a ppsh squad fires from 200m at german squads you can watch the kills or wounded light up every few seconds, and most squads evaporate after 1 rounds fire - definately in 2. A german mg squad would have to fire at a suppressed unit for a large chunk of the game to get the same results.

We ve heard plenty about sustained rate of fire, realistic ammunition loads etc. Where I think the MG 42 is not being realistically weighted in the game is that it had a flexibility in extremis that lower rpm machine guns did not have. Sustained rate for an MG 42 in light configuration might well be between 100 and 200 rpm, but in real life and in the game a german squad with 2 mg 42s with its back to the wall, and looking an overrun in the face is going to burn through barrels and ammo loads and it ought to generate just as much firepower as a ppsh squad if not more (after all we are talking rifle rounds as opposed to pistol rounds so cover should affect the mg fire less)- and it ought to do more damage than the odd kill and a suppression. With this sustained mg fire Im not suggesting that there should be infinite ammo, this fire for effect ought to go through the available ammo at at least 2 or 3 times usual rate, and green units particularly might be expected to have a problem where they shoot off most of their available ammo in their first action.