Soviet SMGs II

[Sgt Joch]

nice vid Jason

 

looking at the specs for the PPSH and MP40, one interesting point is that the rounds are fairly lightweight and muzzle velocity is on the low side which probably explains the low recoil and ease of handling at full auto.

 

mp40:

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O38a_Bx18RU

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xFrM3PXOd9g

 

so good for close in fighting, but you would expect mid-long range accuracy to suffer.

 

The STG44 OTOH seems to be designed more like a modern assault rifle, heavier round/higher velocity, probably better at longish ranges, but you can see the recoil makes it harder to handle at full auto:

 

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I3rkBE1HYgA

[JasonC]

Well the 9mm is half the mass of a 45 from the Thompson, but one third more than the lighter 7.62x25 from the PPsH. The latter more than makes up for it with higher muzzle velocity, however. Much flatter trajectory from up to 50% higher MV. Either is pretty controllable, especially in a heavy enough gun. Either is easier to hit with, using short bursts, than single shots from rifles, at 50-75 yards. Take it out to doubke that, and its still better with standing unsupported fire, but the more accurate rifle is passing it in prone or braced, careful shots. Go out to 200 or 300, and the rifke wins, no contest. At those ranges, all the machine pistol rounds are "golfing" - meaning significant drop and holdovers needed with the range estimate just right, while the full rifles are still shooting pretty much flat.

FWIW...

[John Kettler]

Have you guys looked at barrel length for the PPSh 41 vs the MP-40? If not, you may find this helpful. Also pretty cage rattling. I doubt this site existed when CMBB was being created, but what's here is pretty cool.  Be sure to check the link for the indigenous SMG, which the troops liked and found accurate, whereas they didn't like the PPSh 41, which with a barrel length of about half that of the Danuvia 39M, they found inaccurate.

 

http://www.hungariae.com/PPSh41.htm

 

http://www.hungariae.com/Danu39.htm

 

Would you believe there was a Google group MP40 vs PPSh41? There is a wealth of info here (e.g., bullet weight, MV), and some of the people have deep libraries. Other info I've come across indicates this SMG started with the usual bullets, but later standardized on a longer bullet, to make up for weight differential in the projectiles, with a steel core, somewhat like the M855's bullet in that regard. AP. There was also API. Never knew either of those facts.

 

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/soc.history.war.world-war-ii/trovm_Z3pvs

 

There's also the matter of sights. The later PPSh 41s had two settings: 100 m and 200 m. 

 

I've watched this video very carefully. In comparison the Russian SMG, the muzzle deflects far less in the vertical, which should, in theory, yield greater accuracy at a given range. Additionally, especially with the folding stock extended, the MP40 has a longer sight line, which promotes accuracy. I'd say, too, that the ergonomics are better, which aids in controllability. I tried going to Lone Sentry, but my computer labeled it a High Risk Site!

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eacxSDI56D8#t=43

 

I get over here far less often than a blue moon, but this looks quite interesting, and I'll be fascinated to see how things turn out. So far, I've had no luck trying to find some sort of images of representative shot groups for the PPSh 41 and MP40 at a given range. I did, though, find the zeroing procedure for the PPSh 41. Believe these may provide some insights. I leave you with this little gem, the DIA Small Arms Identification and Operation guide ECC (Eurasian Communist Countries). Per the table on 103, the Russian SMG has a slightly longer barrel, and both weapons are credited with effective ranges of 200 m. As noted before, the MP40 has a longer sight line, which facilitates aiming.

 

Regards,

 

John Kettler
 

Edited August 28, 2015 by John Kettler

[Migo441]

@Poesel, fair questions.  As far as the scientific method goes, I'm not sure we're at the stage of a testable hypothesis.  The bigger picture is that I'm trying to examine the conditions that delineate the dominance of SMG armed squads over typical rifle + LMG squads.

 

I'm not committing to test all 72 scenarios, but I figure I'll get started and see if anything interesting and/or useful turns up.

 

OK, some preliminary results to sort of test the test.  My test bed has four lanes for each of the range groupings so each "run" generates 12 events (3 scenarios * 4 iterations).  The lanes are separating by high walls so there is no LOS between them.  The idea is to set up each set of opposing teams in the leading edge of the selected terrain with the default open ground from the scenario editor between them, point them at each other, and let the Tac AI shoot it out.

 

The first terrain settings I tried is Grain Field for both the SMG and Rifle Squads so no cover or concealment differential between the sides.  Behind the leading edge of the terrain zone, I placed an additional 3 tiles of grain followed by 2 tiles of Light Woods (one with alternating single trees and saplings the next with single trees) and two tiles of Heavy Woods (one with two trees per tile and the backstop with three trees).  The effect of this is that the AI can rout units back and break contact by moving into terrain that gets thicker tile-by-tile; not instantly but after a ~ 40m movement.
 

Opposing forces were a single 10-man Soviet SMG Squad with mixture of PPS-43 and PPSh arrayed against a single 9-man Grenadier Squad with 1 MP-40, 1 MG42, and the balance with a mixture of K98k and G43.  ALL units started in command of their Platoon HQ which was placed back in the woods with a short cover arc to prevent them from engaging.

 

I immediately discovered a problem with the "targets" shooting back which is that I will be unable to precisely track the outgoing rounds.  The squad's ammo drops when rounds go down range (of course) but also when it suffers a casualty, and then Buddy Aid will subsequently add back some percentage...  The easy part is seeing how much ammo a squad ends up with, but they won't have fired the difference between the starting load and the remaining load in the case of casualties.  (More on this later.)  Someone please correct me if it's possible to precisely track the rounds.

 

I halted the test after 5 minutes at which point one side (or the other!) was either wiped out to the last man or a limited number of survivors had routed back into the woods and broken contact.

 

Run # 1 - 50m Range, Avg. Loss Ratio: 2.7 : 1

 

Lane: German Casualties - Soviet Casualties

1: 9 - 0

2: 7 (+ 2 surrenders) - 0

3: 0 - 8 (+ 2 surrenders)

4: 9 - 0

 

Run # 1 - 100m Range, Avg. Loss Ratio: 8.5 : 1

 

Lane: German Casualties - Soviet Casualties

5: 9 - 0

6: 8 - 1

7: 8 - 3 

8: 9 - 0

 

Run # 1 - 150m Range, Avg. Loss Ratio: 2.22 : 1

 

Lane: German Casualties - Soviet Casualties

9: 4 - 5

10: 6 - 2

11: 5 - 2 

12: 5 - 0

 

Now, four iterations per scenario doesn't mean a whole heckuva lot in the grand scheme of things.  The loss ratio shown for 50m is horribly skewed by the fluke event of the Grenadier squad wiping out the SMG squad.  (This appeared to be a product of the vagaries of the spotting cycle.  The Germans seem to have gotten the spot first, had a deadly accurate first salvo, and it snowballed from there.)  But I'm simply reporting what I have the data for at the moment.

 

Back to the ammo question.  Note that six of the lanes did not see any Soviet casualties.  For those, I CAN track the rounds fired.

 

Lane (range) <rounds fired>/<casualties inflicted> = <rounds per casualty>

 

1 (50m) 419/9 = 46.56

2 (50m) 224/7 = 32

4 (50m) 424/9 = 47.11

 

5 (100m) 616/9 = 68.44

8 (100m) 650/9 = 72.22

 

12 (150m) 248/5 = 49.6

 

The obvious problem with this is that the SMG squads without casualties have more shooters than ones with casualties so this may not be representative.

 

More testing to come but I wanted to continue the discussion of how to structure this attempt at a "real world" test.  What about light wounds?  How should those be treated/tracked?

 

As I conducted this first run, I took notes on a turn-by-turn basis so I know, for example, that the 8 German casualties in Lane 7 were 4-2-1-1 in minutes one through four.  However, if the ammo tracking with "friendly" casualties issue is intractable, maybe I can speed (relatively speaking) through the test and just record the end state after a fixed number of turns.

[JoMac]

Thanks for the Tests, Migo, some interesting results for sure.

Edited August 28, 2015 by JoMc67

[Bulletpoint]

Should SMGs really be this effective at 150 m range?

[JoMac]

No, Of course not...It should be; 50 meters effective, 100 meters Moderate, 100+ meters Low. 

 

I know this thread is about the actual accuracy of Soviet SMG's, but think there is another issue regarding all Small Arms (more so automatics)...I can't pin-point it directly, but it might have something to do with how pixeltruppen in CM are engaged in Combat.

I think they fire to often, and are not taking enough cover ( self-suppression if you will ) for fear of being seen or hit (not actual Suppression from being shot at).

If this was implemented more, then you will see less spotting, less fire going out, and thus less overall casualties.

Keep in mind, there is a reason why many of these Troops stay alive to become Vets as the War progresses. 

Edited August 28, 2015 by JoMc67

[Migo441]

The 150m results were a bit of an eye-opener to me too.  My vague heuristic in terms of engaging enemy SMG Troops has been:

50m - Definitely don't do it, avoid at all costs

100m - Don't do it (just regular don't do it)

150m - OK, do it.

 

But the initial* test results are showing that 150m remains a very dangerous distance for Landsers facing Soviet SMG troops.  At least in the limited cover & concealment offered by a Grain Field. 

 

* initial = "ridiculously preliminary and requiring further iterations"

[JasonC]

Yep, test not perfect but already enough to tell us the SMGs are too strong at medium ranges.

They should not be dominating the LMG and rifles at 150, and the lopsidedness seen at 100 is too much.

Would like to see better cover at the same ranges, though, to see if the relationship holds.

I expect it will. And then we know that any automatic is way stronger than any rifle, even to range - too much so.

[JoMac]

No, Of course not...It should be; 50 meters effective, 100 meters Moderate, 100+ meters Low. 

 

I know this thread is about the actual accuracy of Soviet SMG's, but think there is another issue regarding all Small Arms (more so automatics)...I can't pin-point it directly, but it might have something to do with how pixeltruppen in CM are engaged in Combat.

I think they fire to often, and are not taking enough cover ( self-suppression if you will ) for fear of being seen or hit (not actual Suppression from being shot at).

If this was implemented more, then you will see less spotting, less fire going out, and thus less overall casualties.

Keep in mind, there is a reason why many of these Troops stay alive to become Vets as the War progresses. 

To further add, there is also another Game Mechanic, and that's 'Hit Boxes' & 'Savings Rolls' and how they interact with one another...Maybe there is not enough of a 'Savings Roll per chance of hit ?

 

Then, I'm afraid BF might read this Thread and respond; "We are doing everything right Game Mechanic wise as far as we are concerned and don't know why everyone thinks SMG's or Small Arms in general are to accurate". 

Edited August 28, 2015 by JoMc67

[CarlWAW]

Migo,

cool tests. That's almost a proove that Soviet machine pistols are hitting better at 100m than rifles. Amazing. Your test numbers reflect well how it feels in game to me (=totally wrong).

 

Even when aiming in single shot mode, IMO it is almost completely impossible to hit with machine pistols a target of the size of a human at 150 m. Not to mention when the target is as tiny when it's prone or in cover or only the head is visible. A decent shooter can hit a melon at 150 m with a rifle. But not with a machine pistol and not with 1000 bullets.

 

This does CM no justice because as I understand the system, CM is very well capable to model supression and hit accuracy separately.

[Bulletpoint]

I think it's a mathematical consequence of the "saving roll" mechanic. It rewards overkill. In real life, you likely only need to hit centre of target mass with one (1) bullet. You don't get much extra benefit of hitting with bullet 2,3,4,5... but you get a benefit in the game.

 

In this game, each bullet has a risk of being deflected by invisible "micro terrain". But in real life, if you duck down behind the wall just as the enemy fires off a volley of 10 SMG bullets at you, all those bullets will go to waste.

 

If he fires just as you pop up behind cover, you will get hit by ten bullets. Which is worse than getting hit by one bullet, but not ten times worse. In either case, you're out of action.

 

In the game, each time you hit the enemy, you get another "throw of the dice", rewarding multiple hits.

[Migo441]

I'd like to go ahead and continue the testing in order to get more iterations and scenarios.  A couple things I didn't mention.  All troops were Regular and I never entered any target orders or movement orders; this is purely the TacAI's show.

 

Does it seem reasonable to halt the test after five minutes?  Or some other arbitrary amount?  Run a number of iterations and then present the results as a loss ratio so we're getting a sense of the relative effectiveness of the SMG squads vs. Rifle Squads under a given scenario?

 

Loss Ratio = 8.5 : 1, overwhelming SMG dominance as we saw in the limited sample size of 100m Grain Field vs. Grain Field.

 

Loss Ratio = 1 : 4.17, clear Rifle Squad superiority (in an unknown future scenario).

 

Something like that?  Does that distill the relationship or is there a better way?

 

What about light wounds?  Ignore them, i.e., treat them as a non-loss?

 

When a given scenario offers increased cover & concealment, presumably casualties will be reduced and suppression will be a larger proportion of the result.  Should I track the squad state at the end of each turn (Nervous, Rattled, etc...)?

 

Are we happy with the 50 / 100 / 150 range groups?  Would stepping it up to 60 / 120 / 180 (or some other set) be preferable?

 

Is there a way to track rounds fired for squads that receive casualties?  

 

What's the most interesting scenario to try next?  Grain Field (SMG) vs. Heavy Woods w/foxholes (Rifle)?

[JasonC]

Migo - on ranges, it would be useful to have a 250 meter case as well, since we have yet to see the rifles and MGs "catch up" to the SMGs.

You might just use 50, 150, 250, without the 100 meter case.  

 

On light wounds, don't worry about them, just consider those not hit.

 

On tracking bullets used, just record the reduction in ammo.  You can record it as such, with percent of the squad hit, and we can readily "correct" for ammo lost to men hit if we really need to.

 

On timing, it is fine to end after a set interval, and it doesn't really need to be even as long as 5 minutes.  3 would suffice.

Only a final morale state might be of interest, no need to record them along the way.

 

As for a next interest case to try, the cover differential being in favor of the rifles and MG would be of interest.

If SMG outperformance is wide enough to counteract any practical cover differential at 100 meters (or worse, 150 meters), Houston we have a problem...

[Sgt Joch]

I made my own quick and dirty test to see if anything is wrong, German pioneer squad equipped mostly with Kar98 rifles against Sov 44 SMG squad, both behind a low stone wall facing each other across a grass field, green/normal troops/in command, 150 meters range.

 

after 8 turns, the SMG squad fired 1890 rounds and caused 9 german casualties which works out to about 200 rounds fired for each hit.

 

I also wanted to test at 200 and 250 meters, but I see there is a hard coded limit and the PPSH cannot be fired past 200 meters. The Kar 98 though can be fired at 250 meters.

 

The results seem to be in the ballpark of what you would expect, unless we want to totally nerf SMGs past 100 meters.

[Migo441]

Yep, I added 250m lanes to test bed and found the same thing. Soviets would not fire and both sides (on leading edge of grain fields separated by open) had a lot of trouble gaining full spots. So there was some sporadic fire by Germans at that range but nothing really happened.

More testing ahead!

[MOS:96B2P]

<Snip>  I also wanted to test at 200 and 250 meters, but I see there is a hard coded limit and the PPSH cannot be fired past 200 meters.  The Kar 98 though can be fired at 250 meters.  <Snip>  

 

This is interesting and tactically useful information.  

 

Does this 200 meter hard coded limit include both the PPSh and the PPS-42?  The Red Thunder game manual pages 68 & 69 have the effective range for the PPSh at 250 meters and the PPS-42 at 200 meters.  The RT manual, page 102, has the effective range of the Kar 98 at 500 meters.

 

(I have learned that changes are made in the game after the manuals are created so the manuals are not always 100% accurate.)

 

If the PPSh and PPS-42 are hard coded to only fire 200 meters and the German Kar 98 can shoot effectively out to 500 meters (a scoped 98k shoots further yet according to the manual), I think there is a tactical solution to the Soviet SMGs in many situations.     

[Migo441]

So I switched over to a 60 - 120 - 180 range grouping and starting racking up a few iterations.  I figured that the higher end would perhaps let the rifles start to shine while still encouraging/allowing the SMGs to fire at all.  Again, here the opposing forces are deployed on the edge of Grain Field (No. 4) oriented towards each other with the default "open ground" from the editor between them.  I ran for five turns and recorded the end-state.

 

First up, 60m and it's no big surprise what we find.

 

 

[Migo441]

Next, 120m

 

[Migo441]

But the Rifles will surely carry the day at 180m!  Not so much...

 

[Migo441]

So I'm scratching my head.  The Rifles (and LMG) cannot seem to hold their own even at 180m...  Some fluke about the concealment offered by the grain field maybe? 

 

So then I tried 180m with the opposing squads in a trench line.  Finally -- FINALLY -- the Rifle Squads started winning.  But there was a twist; the SMGs would not fire.  I thought this was interesting.  At the same range they raked the Rifle Squads from the edge of a Grain Field, they opted to NOT fire against an enemy held trench line.  I stopped collecting data after the initial 4 runs of 180m because I didn't think there was much of a point with the SMG not firing at all.  Might be interesting to go back and look at the shorter ranges from trenches.

 

But what about foxholes?  Wait, now the Germans fare worse than they did in the Grain Field?  Note, the Fox Holes (and Trenches) were in dirt terrain type.  So the concealment has been removed and replaced with additional cover which turns out to have been a bad trade.  The Soviets lost more guys in the Fox Holes at 180m than they did in the Grain Fields too.

 

But...  180m from Fox Holes to Fox Holes = no bueno for the Rifle Squad.

 

[c3k]

Migo,

 

Great stuff...but.

 

I've been reading and I'm confused. If your targets can fire back at the shooters, then you've introduced a massive level of instability into the test. Fanatic targets, with tight covered arcs, would prevent any shoot backs. FWIW.

 

Light wounds: yeah, I'd count them. You're hitting targets. (Or, don't count them: Red/brown casualties mean you've hit a smaller target.)

 

I'm following this, but am a little confused wrt the targets. Keep the target totally consistent in order to have an apples to apples comparison.

 

Ken

[Bulletpoint]

  The Soviets lost more guys in the Fox Holes at 180m than they did in the Grain Fields too.

 

But...  180m from Fox Holes to Fox Holes = no bueno for the Rifle Squad.

 

 

That's bizarre.

[Migo441]

@c3k, yep, I understand that we're dealing with more variables and instabilities with the test compared to the fanatic-don't-shoot-back paradigm.  If I was tightly focused on how many rounds were expended per casualty caused, that would be the route to go because I could determine the precise number of outgoing rounds.  On the other hand, a unit not firing back would be less visible which could be a factor depending on the range and terrain.  I'd be willing to go back and try the fanatic-don't-shoot-back (FDSB?) method for both sides.

 

However, this test was more about observing "What happens when a Soviet SMG squad has a shootout with a Grenadier Squad under various conditions?"

 

And the answer seems to be that the SMG squad has a significant advantage in every range/terrain that I've tested (except when the Grenadiers are in a trench at 180m and the SMGs won't fire).  Is this reasonable/believable?  If not, is it because there's something screwy with the game that makes automatic fire too effective, e.g., Bulletpoint's theory about the micro-terrain saving mechanic?  Is it because our expectations are wrong and 10 SMGs really should overwhelm 9 guys with rifles and an LMG at 150 meters plus?

 

I dunno.  I don't have a particular ax to grind, I'm just interested in figuring out how the game works both because that's somewhat of a game in and of itself and also, in this case, because I want to know the difference between a good idea and bad idea when it comes to being on either side of the Soviet SMG vs. Grenadier Squad match-up in CMRT games! 

 

P.S.  For whatever reason, I'm not seeing the images I posted.  Let me know if that's an issue for anyone else and I'll address.

[JasonC]

Anyone else notice that the foxholes show higher losses to both sides than the grainfields? Proportional, pretty much, the SMGs outperforming etc. But also, just, grainfield is better by 30% higher losses, than the foxholes?

Edited August 30, 2015 by JasonC