Soviet SMGs

[CarlWAW]

Ok, so the answer to my original question is that the simulation is correct but the battles usually depicted in CM would not happen that often in real life. Thus the subjective result is skewed.

 

@poesel

I don't think the argument from JasonC is valid because it focuses on what was happening more often and what not in his opinion. But the raised question was not how often situations in CM appeared in reality. Or how realistic the gaming styles of players are.

The raised question is the incredible effectivity and accuracy of Soviet SMG units compared to all others - even compared to modern infantry...

 

How do you remove insurgents or infantry from a house or from woods withpout the use of heavy weapons? According to the CMRT SMG model, just get machine pistol units (not US or German, but Soviet PPSHs are best) and every infantry in MOUT without support is toast. Perfect.

Maybe someone should email the Pentagon, that their instructors in Ukraine should demand the production of a million PPSHs to deal with the MOUT rebel problem, where the use of heavy weapons is a big problem...

Edited August 4, 2015 by CarlWAW

[Sublime]

uh Carl MP44 isa correct name for the weapon. Later once in production and use it received its later name. It was originally named the MP44 because Hitler forbade the project and so they used the name to make him believe it was a smg. You really should know more about subjects before making abject 100% statements about the validity of x or y by the game designers who spemt years reaearching this stuff.

[Sublime]

Also Poesel, I believe what you may be seeing is that as enemy troops close in yours will fire more often and more rapidly. Therefore your more likely to see an SMG with a heavy RoF and big magazine churn out bullets. And Ive seen MG42s fire near nonstop at targets when theyre within 100 m or so like near nonstop bursts

[Muzzleflash1990]

The high rate of fire can also be a drawback. In one game I had most of a platoon of pure SMG infantry move into some buildings. About 40-50m from the building was an enemy AT-gun I wanted them to take out. All the squads opened up on the AT-gun. Pretty sure that at least one soldier in each squad was shooting at any given time. They fired for about the 1½ minute I believe. I did some rough math with the time they were shooting and how the ammunition supply dropped (to almost nothing from about 2000 to 200 for each squad). The total rate of fire was just short of that of a minigun! Problem was that the shots that didn't hit the AT-gun's shield went into the ground. So one lone enemy soldier unintentionally made the better part of a platoon combat ineffective due to lack of ammunition.

Edited August 4, 2015 by Muzzleflash1990

[Baneman]

AT guns are a bit of a funny case - I've also had a squad of infantry open up on one from about 2 AS distance ( they were behind some bocage flanking it ).

Somehow, they ( 1 MP40, 1 MG42, 2-3 rifles ) managed to pour 2 turns of firing on to the trails and never hit a single crewman. Only KO'd it when someone had the bright idea of chucking a grenade.

 

Possibly something to do with the "fire at centre mass" calculation - the bit they were aiming at just wasn't near a crewman.

 

Then again, beware a sample of one  ( we all do it !  )

[CarlWAW]

uh Carl MP44 isa correct name for the weapon. Later once in production and use it received its later name. It was originally named the MP44 because Hitler forbade the project and so they used the name to make him believe it was a smg. You really should know more about subjects before making abject 100% statements about the validity of x or y by the game designers who spemt years reaearching this stuff.

uh Sublime what was the official name of this weapon?

And what was the cover name?

Why aren't for all other weapons not the numerous cover names used?

[Melchior]

Small arms fixation, rather silly.  70% plus of all casualties are caused by artillery fire, including the common medium mortars,  but heavily dominated by divisional artillery, where all the fire control and ammunition supply was concentrated.  Of casualties caused by bullets, machineguns are by far the leading cause, both infantry crew served and vehicle mounted.  Maybe 1 in 6 battlefield casualties were caused by all smaller arms combined, and perhaps less.  Those split between close range fire at broken enemies or very rapidly decided knife fights, and long range fire making up in time-extent what it lacked in specific lethality.  Meaning rifles taking isolated potshots for *hours* on end, whenever a target briefly exposed itself.

I'm convinced infantry in the game are too accurate with rifle fire. The British used to joke that it took a man's own weight in fire to actually kill him. Post-war research of both world wars revealed the joke was conservative if anything. Most weapons miss most of the time because the fact is marksmanship is an acquired skill and definitely not made an easier by the circumstances of the battlefield like artillery and weather and simple confusion. A man at 200m is a dot and if he's in modest cover he's smaller than that. This is why the machine gun was such a game changer when it came out. Other weapons at the infantry's disposal could hit a man out to 2km, theoretically. The machine gun was the only weapon that did, consistently.

 

CM players try to use infantry as an arm of decision in its own right, accepting very heavy casualties to mash like on like and trade with similar enemies, at ranges down to point blank.  That did happen occasionally in the actual war, of course, but always as a sign of a fearsome stuff up in the chain of plans and maneuvering and combined arms application.

The circumstances of the game's scenarios, which are designed to be challenging and by virtue of that-fair-are what creates this situation. Thank god they do too the game would be no fun if the only thing I had to do to win was plaster a village with a howitzer for for hours. I get that's how the war was more often than not but naturally that doesn't make for very interesting play.

 

Fight in open steppe terrain and see how important SMGs are.  Give the attacking side 12 tubes of 105mm artillery with 100 rounds per gun and see how important SMGs are.  Give one side an SMG infantry company and the other side a Panzer IVG company and see how important the SMGs are.   That war as a whole was not even knife-fights inside 100 yards between evenly matched infantry companies.  When it was - some city fighting e.g. - infantry loss rates were astronomical and SMGs were highly prized.  That just wasn't the whole war.

For a while I didn't even know why the game had modeled trucks or half tracks at all, since they're only "battlefield taxis". On any map smaller than a km or so transport assets are pointless. The German campaign in RT will really fix that perception though. You really pick on the value of those barely bulletproof Hanomags when after several consecutive bombardments by Russian mortar fire you haven't suffered one casualty. They didn't need to be totally bulletproof. Splinter proof was huge enough in war where light artillery was so ubiquitous

Edited August 4, 2015 by CaptHawkeye

[LukeFF]

uh Sublime what was the official name of this weapon?

And what was the cover name?

Why aren't for all other weapons not the numerous cover names used?

 

Like I said, both names are entirely valid. "MP44" is just as official as is "StG 44":

 

 

Edited August 4, 2015 by LukeFF

[DMS]

@poesel

I don't think the argument from JasonC is valid because it focuses on what was happening more often and what not in his opinion. But the raised question was not how often situations in CM appeared in reality. Or how realistic the gaming styles of players are.

The raised question is the incredible effectivity and accuracy of Soviet SMG units compared to all others - even compared to modern infantry...

 

How do you remove insurgents or infantry from a house or from woods withpout the use of heavy weapons? According to the CMRT SMG model, just get machine pistol units (not US or German, but Soviet PPSHs are best) and every infantry in MOUT without support is toast. Perfect.

Maybe someone should email the Pentagon, that their instructors in Ukraine should demand the production of a million PPSHs to deal with the MOUT rebel problem, where the use of heavy weapons is a big problem...

 

Weapon of Russian anitterror units:

 

 

Light recoil of 5,45x39 and large drum.

[Ts4EVER]

MP44 is valid, weapons were stamped with that name even in 1945. The following names could all be used: MP43, MP43/1, MP44, StG44 and I seem to remember some weapons were actually stamped with StG45. The prototypes were called MKB42 (short for Maschinenkarabiner).

[Melchior]

I'm pretty sure arguments like precisely what name the Germans referred to an assault rifle under are the sort of thing that drive people away from discussion forums.

[LukeFF]

I'm pretty sure arguments like precisely what name the Germans referred to an assault rifle under are the sort of thing that drive people away from discussion forums.

 

You can always skip over such discussions if they bother you.

[Melchior]

Ok ok how about this.

How many Germans can dance on the tip of a pin???

[CarlWAW]

You can always skip over such discussions if they bother you.

 

It's a distraction from the topic of this thread which is about the effectivity of SMG units.

[JasonC]

CarlWAW wrote in relevant part about "incredible effectivity and accuracy of Soviet SMG units compared to all others".  I simply don't see this.  The PPsH is a marginally more effective SMG than other SMGs, certainly, but it performs about like all other automatic weapons in most CM scale combats, if the range is short enough for SMGs to be effective.  (Full LMGs outperform at longer range etc).  The rest is just an impression created by there being plenty of them, both in full SMG squads and the 3-4 per squad in other Russian infantry types.

 

Then he asks "How do you remove insurgents or infantry from a house or from woods without the use of heavy weapons?"  Why "without the use of heavy weapons?"  The actual answer to the question how one removes infantry from a (stone) house is "use heavy weapons".  (Vs a merely wood house you can just fire at them with full MGs and such, and will hit them).  

 

The actual answer to the question of how one removes infantry from woods is "use artillery, and follow up the barrage with your own infantry, before the enemy can recover from the barrage".  Those are the specific combined arms counters to defending infantry in such terrain.  Asking how to do it without the proper tool is like asking how to defeat tanks without anti tank weapons, or how to deal with enemy aircraft without AA weapons.  

 

Large-ish HE is the anti good cover weapon.  It is as essential to the combined arms "kit" as anti tank weapons, and nobody expects to defeat tanks without any anti tank weapons.  They just expect any effective combine arms formation to include some sort of antitank weaponry, because it is crippled without such a capability.  There is a reason medium mortars were part of the "kit" of every infantry company in WW II - because woods and foxhole cover are everywhere, but ordinary infantry formations need to be able to attack them - which takes HE prep. There is also a reason stone buildings are considered strong positions - because the tanks or other direct fire HE weapons that counter them aren't quite as common as medium mortars.

 

Nowhere is it written that good infantry defending in stone buildings "should" be readily defeatable with nothing but normal infantry squads, if only they eat their wheaties or something.  No, they shouldn't be.  It takes the proper weapon to defeat such positions at any acceptable cost in friendly casualties.

Edited August 4, 2015 by JasonC

[LukeFF]

It's a distraction from the topic of this thread which is about the effectivity of SMG units.

 

You are the one who made an incorrect statement, so I corrected it. 

[simon21]

@

JasonC

 

What is an example of a 'realistic' scenario available to players ? 

[kevinkin]

The discussion of how weapons and combat are modeled is always fascinating. And why wouldn't be, having elements of the computer, real and historical worlds. But I wonder if we should also look at the battles and combat scenarios we fight the model in. Perhaps the length of battles is to short to accommodate the players available playing time. This produces combat with too many losses than would be tolerated in situations unless very very dire. Rushing to objectives will certainly magnify the effectiveness of all arms.  We rarely have the time to explore the map with prep fire followed by a carefully reconnoitered advance. Even in multi hour battles, are the maps too large to cross without taking huge casualties since the attacker has to rush? In large scenarios, many may not have the inclination to repeat the battle using a more deliberate pace of operations if they were mowed down in the first try.Maybe we should judge the combat model in light of what we are asking the troops to accomplish. 

 

Just another angle on the topic.

 

Kevin

[Baneman]

Agreed, kevinkin.

 

See GeorgeMC's "Der Ring der 5. Panzer-Division" scenario for an excellent example of a huge map with lots of units ( but it doesn't feel like a lot because ... huge map... ) and plenty of time to work your way (relatively) realistically across.

 

His CMBN "Schmiedestahl" is similar in scope and scale.

 

So it can be done, but a lot of people want a quick half-hour of action - and fair enough, not everyone has the time to commit to a monster battle.

So people sometimes need to rein in their perceptions/preconceptions because we're the ones using units ahistorically, not the game.

[A Canadian Cat]

Maybe we should judge the combat model in light of what we are asking the troops to accomplish. 

 

Just another angle on the topic.

 

 

So people sometimes need to rein in their perceptions/preconceptions because we're the ones using units ahistorically, not the game.

Indeed - spot on.

[JasonC]

Realistic does not mean huge.  Realistic does not require special conditions of five times as much clock time.  Green units, 30-50% more time, and less symmetric forces can all improve realism, but none is strictly required (you can have 2 out of 3 e.g.).  

 

As for loss tolerance, the game model issue is that rally is rather too rapid and too complete (which greens do help with, incidentally).  Another approach to that I will describe below.

 

There is also a scenario design issue of designers frequently putting too much into terrain objectives that are all controlled at start by one side - or similar effects with exit conditions - which basically force a push for complete victory.  The better design for loss realism is to have a moderate amount of points for terrain objectives compared to those potentially available from knock out points, and then in addition to spread the terrain objectives around, some being quite easy for the attacker to reach and hold.  So that a normal, probing or tentative attack outcome would split the terrain objective points, with perhaps the attacker getting 200 of them and the defender 300 or 400.  Not 500-600 to nothing, unless the attacker takes the entire field.

 

There is another way to enforce realistic loss tolerance levels by using global morale.  It requires the players to adopt the system and abide by it, rather than any change to the game engine or scenario design (though the scenario design should specify the details).  Each side is given a global morale level that is its "continue the mission" or "critical" level.  If the side's global morale is below its critical level at the start of an orders phase, that side must click the "cease fire" option.  Notice, either side *may* choose to prepare for cease fire, as usual - this global morale just sets an additional "must".  If the defender thinks he is winning, he might voluntarily choose it each turn.  If he then drives the attacker's global morale below its critical level, the attacker will be forced to choose "ceasefire" as well, the two will match up, and the scenario will end, then and there.  This represents a combat broken off, with the attacker ceasing his efforts to try again later or somewhere else or using different tactics or forces, or the defender retreating from the position.

 

This gives a much more realistic way of fighting, in the sense that the force must be kept tolerably intact, in reasonable morale state etc, or it simply will not continue the mission.  If the opponent doesn't want to let it break off, this still won't end the fight early - the other side just won't have picked "cease fire" in that case, and the combat continues.  If both sides are ragged out, however, the fight *won't* continue. So no fighting to the last man on each side, ammo exhausted, trading haymakers at 4 meters with the last dismounted tank crews, etc.

 

As for how to make more realistic scenarios, when I was designing actively for CM1 I took inspiration from operational wargames I was playing at the same time.  I would just log local battles to simulate (at greatly reduced, merely "representative" scale, of course) from the combats that occurred in the operational game.  Those tend to be rather lopsided and to feature combined arms relationships that are not symmetric or ideal.  So e.g. sometimes a full company of German tanks with a few recon infantry on motorcycles attack a pure rifle infantry defense, that has nothing more than a single 45mm ATG as AT weapon, and in open farmland terrain.  On another occasion, such a German force might be called upon to attack through a dense forest along a narrow secondary road, against prepared defenses including mines.  Very different tactical task, that.

 

The point is precisely to avoid any one formula as supposedly "typical", to say to heck with "play balance", and instead just make lots of varied situations that feature only this long suit against that one, in this type of terrain problem or another.  Both sides need to assess what they can actual accomplish in the situation in front of them - which may be only "die gloriously", lol.

 

FWIW.

Edited August 5, 2015 by JasonC

[womble]

Given that VCs can be asymmetric, as well, it's entirely possible for the designer to set up the "tanks vs infantry with limited AT" so that if the infantry manage to kill any (or any number you care to set it at) tanks and aren't wiped out, they achieve a "scored" victory. QBs are always going to be overly simplistic, because they have to be able to slot arbitrary forces in, and are understandably limited in the types of VC that can be applied. But QBs contain many inherent "unrealistic features" from the get-go, so really, it's a bit futile discussing whether any given weapon system performs "realistically" in the context.

[JasonC]

womble - making victory possible for both sides, or equally likely for both sides, is to me an afterthought.  It is much more important for the VCs to give the players the right incentives to try this or push for that or refrain from something else, than it is that they have equal chances of winning if they do so.  Bad incentives break scenarios.  More likely winners on one side or the other do not - they just counsel playing more scenarios of varied type to experience all sorts of situations.

 

In my CMx1 scenario "Crossing Guards", which featured a dozen German tanks and one recon infantry platoon against a Russian rifle company with a single 45mm ATG, the VCs included exit of all the German tanks, while their infantry and supporting weapons etc had no exit requirement.  This made victory turn on whether the Germans blew through the Russian position *fast enough* to exit more than half of their tanks.  In CMx1 exit VCs, leaving a tank that was supposed to exit on the board was as bad as getting it killed.  The Germans knew their VC and would push and could readily fight through and exit.  The Russians had an incentive to skulk away from the tanks, delay them if possible and kill any the gun could get, but try not to get their whole force killed in the process.  If, afterward, they could fight their way back to the few on board flags, and mess up any German infantry left to hold them (very small numbers provided to the German side), they could improve their performance.  They'd still likely lose, because the strong German force was likely to mess up their infantry and exit alive.  But they had things to try, realistic ones, that did not include "get everyone killed".

 

Just an example...

[womble]

I'm not asserting that it's necessary to fiddle with the asymmetric VCs to get it so that the score accurately represents the designer's intent for what constitutes "did well", just that it's possible; it's all a matter, at that point, of how much time and breadth of player base you have to playtest it and tune the points so they're "right". People like points. Plenty of people couldn't care less, though, and will happily draw their own conclusion about how they feel they did against what they fought, based on their briefing (which includes the guidance given by the VPs available).

[kevinkin]

Global Moral ... hmmm

 

http://community.battlefront.com/topic/93262-tough-question-about-global-moral/?hl=%2Bglobal+%2Bmoral

 

How could this be tracked in CMx2? Or in the future. 

 

Kevin