Guest Rhet Schmidt Posted May 13, 1999 Share Posted May 13, 1999 I was looking at the three views of a squad screen shot and was interested in what the firepower rating actually represents. What brought this up was the comparison of the 40m (approx. 131 ft.) fire power rating of the 3 StG-44 vs the MG-42. I imagine that the ability to fire more "aimed" shots from the StG-44's factors heavily vs the far superior cyclic rate of the MG-42. Anyway, does this number reflect the # of effective shots fired from these weapons for a burst, few seconds of sustained fire, full minute of combat or is this number more of an abstract comparison of battle effectiveness as weighted aginst some standard weopon? I hope this question is clear enough. ------------------ Rhet Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Big Time Software Posted May 14, 1999 Share Posted May 14, 1999 Rhet, Generally 3 full automatic weapons are going to be more powerful than one MG most every time. The reasons are aiming (6 eyes better than 2), angles (more the better), realistic rates of fire (MGs can't fire full bore more than once and a while), muzzle climb (one weapon spewing more lead isn't better here), and a bunch of other things. Obviously our numbers are subjective, and might need tweaking, but "real" effectiveness data doesn't exist. So we make do with our brains and some basic data Steve [This message has been edited by Big Time Software (edited 05-13-99).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Rhet Schmidt Posted May 14, 1999 Share Posted May 14, 1999 Upon further review of MG-42 stats I found the following: LMG Role cyclic rate (practical) 250 rounds per minute; HMG Role cyclic rate (practical) 500 rounds per minute. Comparing this with an StG44 practical cyclic rate of 195 rpm. Now the math, 3 StG44 = 585 compared to 2 LMG-42 = 500. Looks pretty good guys. Curious though, it lists the effective range of the K98 & LMG-42 as 730m (800 yds.). The effective range for the HMG-42 is listed as 1828 to 2286m (2000 to 2500 yds.). This is with the same 7.92mm cartridge. With this in mind should there be some firepower added to the 700m column for all weapons firing the rifle cartridge (say 1 for the K98 and 12 for the LMG-42)? The Lafette tripod was the best sustained fire mount of the war. It allowed the Germans to really place effective long range direct & area fire with the MG-34 & MG-42. If you take into account ranging stakes and traverse/range tables you really have a devistating weapon system. Other than bore sighting can you let us know how you guys modeled this aspect in CM? ------------------ Rhet Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Big Time Software Posted May 14, 1999 Share Posted May 14, 1999 What those figures neglect to consider are: 1. Limited ammunition, and the desire not to use a lot of it on low-odds shots. 2. Psychological factors. #1 is obvious. If you have an LMG, with a few hundred rounds of ammo at your disposal (a decent supply but not enough to waste), you're not going to spray it at targets 1000m away, even though, theoretically, you are capable of getting a few hits at that range. You're going to save those bullets for when the enemy is a lot closer, and more of a threat. #2 is most pronounced with rifles. Although the typical .30cal WW II rifle was _physically_ capable of reasonably accurate fire out to 700m, or even further, very, VERY few riflemen actually fired at that range. First, it's generally a waste of ammo. Second, it's a great way to expose your own positions and DRAW fire (usually something more powerful at long range, like artillery) while your own outgoing fire is only minimally effective. Third, without a scope, it's tough to aim at targets more distant that about 500m. Combine these factors and you can see why the average soldier wasn't too hot to fire his rifle at distant targets. It just wasn't worth it. Incidentally, the Germans were probably the first army to realize this phenomenon, and this is at least one reason why they decided to arm their troops with more automatic weapons than most armies did. The automatic weapons had poorer accuracy at longer ranges, but it was determined that riflemen just weren't using their rifles very much at those longer ranges anyway. So the disadvantage was minimized, and the advantage at closer ranges was significant. Charles Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Big Time Software Posted May 14, 1999 Share Posted May 14, 1999 One little factor in our range decision Charles forgot to mention was German doctrin. I have a US Mil. Intl. reprint of the German squad handbook. In it there are very strict rules for the use of the LMG. It wasn't supposed to open up until the targets were between 400-500m, depending on conditions. The logic given is what Charles stated about chance of hit, ammo supply, etc., but also concentration of force. The rest of the squads weapons could be brought to bare on a target ONLY if it was closer than 400m or so. The extra distance allows for straffing the targets before they get too close. A loooooooooong time ago we had German squads use 1000m as their standard engagement range (this is what the TacAI uses to engage targets). Everything that we have discussed here came into play and the German squads just gave away their positions, ran out of ammo, and caused hardly a scratch on the enemy. So we changed the standard engagement range to 500m and it is deadly. You can, of course, target out further, but it is generally a waste. This, BTW, was probably the first time we found out how well CM simulated real world stuff. Pretty cool if you ask me. Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Big Time Software Posted May 14, 1999 Share Posted May 14, 1999 Oh, forgot about the Lafette tripod question... At first we went with straight data and the HMG42 SUCKED. So we knew that was wrong To fix this we increased the accuracy and FP of the HMG42 unit, depending on the range, until if felt right. It is a trial and error kind of thing and tweaking by "feeling" is as good as it is going to get. Even if we had an HMG42 ($12k and you could...) we wouldn't be able to come up with any better results since we would need people to shoot at while they are shooting back at us! Dunno about you, but we aren't willing to go that extra mile for ANYBODY Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Big Time Software Posted May 14, 1999 Share Posted May 14, 1999 Steve! My god man, where is your commitment to customer service? I bet our competitors are out there hurling themselves upon grenades right now just so Battleyawn Vol. XXVIII can be as "accurate" as possible! Now get out there on the firing range this instant while I, uh... while I program stuff from within the safety of this brick building! Charles Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fionn Posted May 14, 1999 Share Posted May 14, 1999 Uh, guys, given your renewed commitment to testing using battlefield conditions (you know, if you lose a game you get shot etc) will this open up more slots on the beta testing team? P.s. I have it from a reliable source that Battleyawn II (note the incredibly sophisticated camouflage system I use when referring to other computer games ) allows you to pentrate a tank's armour if you use ENOUGH grenades LOL.. I wonder what real-world data they used to get THIS lovely result . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CRourke Posted May 14, 1999 Share Posted May 14, 1999 Gee, I thought that was the idea behind grenade bundles.. I was always surprised that the germans didn't take it one step further and design multibarrelled antitank guns. Think of it.. 3x50mm = 150mm equivilency. (hoping no one asks me if I'm joking) Chris R Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rhet Posted May 14, 1999 Share Posted May 14, 1999 (In response to Charles first post) Charles, thanks for the extremely lucid (clear & rational) explanation. Just goes to show that one can get so involved in the specifications and statistics that they loose sight of the logistical and human factors. quote: "Incidentally, the Germans were probably the first army to realize this phenomenon, and this is at least one reason why they decided to arm their troops with more automatic weapons than most armies did" There is also a personal psychological boost when you are armed with a weapon that is capable of totally suppressing the enemies fire. This simply cannot be achieved with a bolt action rifle. Thanks for the reality check, ------------------ Rhet Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Deych Posted May 14, 1999 Share Posted May 14, 1999 Vis a vis oodles of grenades, this is actually one of my pet peeves. In most the of the soviet war movies, the intrepid hero ties together several grenades and tosses them under the track of the oncoming panzer, thereby immobilizing it and saving his comrades (a variant of that involves him being shot by the dastardly Nazi stormtroopers, and throwing himself with the grenades under the tank). Just so you know....bunches of grenades should not be dismissed out of hand, especially when wielded by a individual skilled in dialectic materialism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moon Posted May 14, 1999 Share Posted May 14, 1999 Some time ago I have found a couple of very interesting documents on weapon's effectiveness in WW2. Unfortunately, I really don't remember the site anymore where I found them. So I have uploaded the docs in HTML to my server for you guys. If anyone knows where these are coming from, please post a link to the original source. www.online.de/home/gamesofwar/WW2eff.htm www.online.de/home/gamesofwar/WW2pen.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ben Galanti Posted May 14, 1999 Share Posted May 14, 1999 A link to the originals can be found in the thread 'Collection of penetration statistics' The copies linked from that thread are about a month or so newer, but I don't know what has been changed [This message has been edited by Ben Galanti (edited 05-14-99).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fionn Posted May 15, 1999 Share Posted May 15, 1999 CRourke, Don't give Norm any ideas . He firmly believes that on an operational level 3 x 50s = 150 (sigh).. GOD that pisses me off when I see it in a respected wargame. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts