Soviet SMGs II

[JasonC]

If in removing parameters you also remove reality, there is no way of determining whether the results are realistic or not.

Reality provides a benchmark for game outcomes, only if the typical conditions of fire are kept.

 

Yes you have to run more trials to determine the average achieved per shot accuracy of infantry fire when under fire yourself.  But the achieved accuracy when you are shooting clay pigeons on a firing range we already know - it is infinite, compared to anything that happens in real combat. Doesn't help us.

[poesel]

Jason - I think we disagree here. I'm not going to run a test if there is no exactly defined expected outcome. Doing that is just a waste of time.

 

The question that (at least I) would like to have answered is if the PPSh is too accurate in CM. To test that I need a setup that only(!) tests just that property. Then I define my expected outcome before I test. If the result is close to the expectation then nothing is wrong, if it's off then there may be a problem.

 

That test is not realistic as in 'that never happened in reality'. It still tells us something about reality because an overly accurate PPSh would also skew all 'real' battles even if it might not be obvious.

[JasonC]

You can't tell if a PPsH is too accurate in CM if you only test it under conditions that will never actually occur in a CM fight.  A massed target on a train track at 35 meters would not serve, for example.  And neither will shots at fanatics who don't take cover, nor shots delivered on shooting range conditions of perfect safety and an immobile target, in plain view, that can't fire back.  The realistic accuracy for those range conditions is close to 100%, so you won't find "too high".  Those conditions just never actually occur.  And the achieved accuracy we care about, that impacts actual CM fights, is the achieve accuracy that is actually seen in real CM fights.  Which means shots taken under far more realistic conditions, which are poorer conditions.  Nothing you find if you ignore that fact will tell us anything, one way or the other, about actual PPsH accuracy in actual CM firefights.

[Baneman]

...will tell us anything, one way or the other, about actual PPsH accuracy in actual CM firefights.

 

I still must disagree - we aren't trying to find out "actual PPsH accuracy in actual CM firefights", we're trying to determine "actual PPsH accuracy as modelled in CM".

 

If it is accurately modelled, then realistic outcomes of CM firefights will follow.

Edited August 14, 2015 by Baneman

[poesel]

You can't tell if a PPsH is too accurate in CM if you only test it under conditions that will never actually occur in a CM fight. 

 

Let's develop this:

 

'You can't tell if a <gun> is too accurate in CM if you only test it under conditions that will never actually occur in a CM fight.'

 

'a condition that happens in CM' is 'no one shoots back'. Yes, that happens.

 

That gives us:

 

'You can't tell if a <gun> is too accurate in CM if <no one shoots back>'

 

I think you would agree that this sentence is false.

 

 

I'll try again: a PPSh team consists of men and their guns. They work together. To see if he simulation is somehow wrong we test the parts first.

In my first test above we tested the men. Nothing wrong here, behaviour like other men.

 

Next test would be the gun. Since we only want to know what the gun does we have to try to eliminate all other factors.

Fanatic shooters don't flinch from the enemy so their accuracy is always the same but better than normal troops. We have to keep that in mind and test the difference later.

The targets are also fanatics because they don't run away and change target distance and they don't shoot back and mess with our shooters. Fanatics will take cover so their value as targets is not so different from regular troops.

 

Next we need a setup with an expected outcome. The expected will, after the test, compared with the measured outcome to see if our theory was right or wrong.

This is where I'm stuck as I don't know how accurate PPShs under certain circumstances were.

[JoMac]

I still must disagree - we aren't trying to find out "actual PPsH accuracy in actual CM firefights", we're trying to determine "actual PPsH accuracy as modelled in CM".

 

If it is accurately modelled, then realistic outcomes of CM firefights will follow.

Exactly !

[JasonC]

Not even remotely.

I go to a rifle range. I set an SR-1 target at 100 meters. I open a box of 20 rounds of .308. I take a bolt action rifle and fire at the target, deliberately and carefully. All 20 rounds hit within 2 inches of the target center.

Is the realistic accuracy of a bolt rifle in CM supposed to be that 20 out of 20 rounds fired at 100 meters hit their target, as long as the target is at least 4 inches across?

No. Because the conditions in my real world benchmark, and in typical real combat shooting with bolt action rifles, are not the same. They are not close. They are not off by a little smidgen. They instead have absolutely nothing to do with each other.

Edited August 16, 2015 by JasonC

[poesel]

You test a bolt action rifle at 100m. Your expected outcome is to hit 20/20 shots in a 2 inch diameter.

You go to the range and hit 20/20. Your expectation was correct - your theory is in line with reality, it seems correct (number of shots is a bit low but still).

 

Now you test a PPSh at 100m. Your expected outcome is to hit ?/600 shots in a 10cm diameter (I assume that is about the area of an enemy in partial cover).

 

Fill in the '?' and I'll go to the range.

[Rokko]

But getting the ? would not help you one bit, because under no circumstances does CM try to simulate firing range conditions. You can check that by having a bunch of riflemen target a barn 200m away. They will have trouble hitting the literal broad side of it, even with no enemies around

[Vanir Ausf B]

That's correct. Accuracy in CM always assumes combat conditions.* You can make a firing range in the editor and place pixeltruppen on it but there is  no way to make the pixeltruppen know they are on a firing range.

 

* Combat conditions does not mean being under fire at that exact moment. That is suppression.

[JasonC]

Poesel - all of them. *All* misses at typical effective ranges are caused by actual, non-ideal, firing conditions. There is nothing else to model. The degradation in accuracy due to real shooting conditions *is* the item that needs modeling in the first place.

[JoMac]

But getting the ? would not help you one bit, because under no circumstances does CM try to simulate firing range conditions. You can check that by having a bunch of riflemen target a barn 200m away. They will have trouble hitting the literal broad side of it, even with no enemies around

 

That's correct. Accuracy in CM always assumes combat conditions.* You can make a firing range in the editor and place pixeltruppen on it but there is  no way to make the pixeltruppen know they are on a firing range.

 

* Combat conditions does not mean being under fire at that exact moment. That is suppression.

Yes, this is correct...

 

It's still interesting that these 'Combat Conditions' are still having SMG's hitting a target with only 5-10 bullets at 50 meters ( far to high of a casualty rate )...even if a unit is in flat open terrain ( remember, it's suppose to be Combat Conditions, and units are taking extra cover ). Could increasing the so called 'Savings Roll' (troops moving in and out of cover, etc that Animations don't show) help with the above... I don't know.  

 

I also wonder if the settle increase of 'Small Arms' ROF in the previous engine ( MG's & Rifle ) be part of the issue ? and we didn't pay attention enough until RT came out, and then the "WOW" factor ( now that we see more SMG's in the Squads ). 

Edited August 16, 2015 by JoMc67

[Vanir Ausf B]

I also wonder if the settle increase of 'Small Arms' ROF in the previous engine ( MG's & Rifle ) be part of the issue ?. 

 

There was no small arms ROF increase. There was a machine gun ROF increase.

[JasonC]

Clarifying - it isn't easy to hit 20/20 within 2 inches at 100 yards with a bolt rifle. It takes some skill and plenty of care and attention to get that result. But the challenge is just to hit so close, so consistently. Hitting a man sized target at that range isn't hard.

20 shots is a normal string of fire in competition shooting. A match can consist of 2 to 5 strings of fire, each at a different range and stance combination (standing, kneeling, prone, 200, 300, 500 yards e.g.). The SR-1 target uses smaller rings to simulate the 200 yard target at 100 - a bit easier, actually, because it is the same angle needed or apparent size, but there is less bullet drop (none, basically, given a typical zero).

US army BRM requires only 70% hit to pass and 90% for expert qualification, in a total of 40 rounds. But the target ranges vary from 50 to 300 yards, and the biggest is they are pop ups, only briefly visible. The 50 and 75 ranges are 1/3rd man suzed, head and shoulders - the longer ones an upright man sized. They are visible for 3-5 seconds for the close ranges, about twice that at the longest ranges. Sometimes 2 come up at once, each can be left or right at all but the longest ranges. The firing positions are prone for one string, and standing supported for the other (side of a foxhole, firing step stuff).

The bits of realism in BRM are varied ranges and brief exposure. But the targets are all in a narrow assigned arc, they are stationary while they are up, the ranges are known, the firing positions are the best ones, the time available to engage is sufficient, increasing for long shots. And nobody is shooting back at you. You can qualify even if you miss all the 300 yard targets, and only those and the 250s have significant bullet drop.

The result of the bits of realism is there are some misses, but not too many. The range conditions represent an ideal of what a rifleman will be called on to do in combat - cover a narrow pencil of approach vs exposed enemy infantry within 300 yards. You wouldn't see those scores even for that ideal, because - targets are moving, firing positions can include poorer ones, fear factor and suppression and hurry, exposures are faster and less of a whole person, more cover. You would also see more ammo used in the poorest conditions, less in the better ones, because the hits aren't fired again but the misses will be.

The point of the examples, though, is that the average trained man can be expected to hit a man sized target 70% of the time or more, out to much longer ranges, and *will* hit a full manned sized target very consistently at anything as close as 100 yards. No problem. Real combat doesn't achieve that, because real combat shooting *starts* with everyone being able to do that. Of course all the shots people actually get and take are much worse, because anyone who hands the enemy a shot that good goes down in less than half a minute.

Edited August 16, 2015 by JasonC

[JoMac]

There was no small arms ROF increase. There was a machine gun ROF increase.

Don't forget there was also the M1 Garand ROF increase...So ?

Edited August 16, 2015 by JoMc67

[Vanir Ausf B]

Don't forget there was also the M1 Garand ROF increase...So ?

 

This is what you are thinking of, I assume:

 

v2.01

* Soldiers fire weapons faster at short ranges, especially Garand rifles.

[JoMac]

This is what you are thinking of, I assume:

 

v2.01

* Soldiers fire weapons faster at short ranges, especially Garand rifles.

And, Yes...

[Vanir Ausf B]

And, Yes...

 

What you said was:

 

I also wonder if the settle increase of 'Small Arms' ROF in the previous engine ( MG's & Rifle ) be part of the issue ?

 

 

I was under the impression that this thread began as a RoF comparison between two different SMGs, which are presumably affected the same, so I guess I am not sure what issue you are referring to.

[WinOrLose]

I cant claim to have done any testing on the subject but my gut feeling is that SMG's are far too accurate. Regarding the Russian SMG's I'm not sure if it is just accuracy or volume of fire but hits at 150m seem way too high.

[Bulletpoint]

I cant claim to have done any testing on the subject but my gut feeling is that SMG's are far too accurate. Regarding the Russian SMG's I'm not sure if it is just accuracy or volume of fire but hits at 150m seem way too high.

 

The SMG seems to fire too much in the way of mounted machineguns - a more or less steady, slightly curving line of bullets. I think with real life SMGs, you either fire short bursts of just 2-3 rounds, or you end up spraying wildly due to recoil. Maybe not so much at short ranges, but even small differences in firing angle add up at longer ranges like 100-150 metres.

[Migo441]

I started mucking around with a test bed according to JasonC's guidelines for "real world" SMG tests.  The first thing I realized in that we're dealing with a bunch of combinations:

 

3 Range Settings (~50m / ~100m / ~150m)

3 SMG Groups (1-3 squads)

2 SMG Cover Options (Grain Field / Wood Building)

1 Target Group (1 squad*)

4 Target Cover Options (Grain Field / Wood Building / Light Woods / Wooded Foxholes)

 

* Typical German '44 Grenadier Gruppe with Rifles, 1 MP-40, and 1 LMG

 

So...  That's 72 different scenarios.  At 20 iterations per scenario (just to throw a number out there), we're looking at 1,440 events!  Which led to the second thing I realized:

 

If scenario designers are the unsung heroes of CM, dedicated testers must be some kinda (borderline deranged) obsessive sick bastards to wade through the tedium required to gain insight and understanding to these kinds of things.  I say this affectionately and sincerely; THANK GOD for the patience and drive of the testers.

 

If I dare to dip my toe in these deep waters, I want to make sure the conditions are correct.  

 

(A quick digression, I acknowledge the concerns voiced here about limiting the number of variables and how return fire from the target will "skew" the results and so forth.  In spite of this, I'm interested to see resulting data and we can then carry on arguing about the validity or what it shows or doesn't show just like any other test.) 

 

The basic parameters are understood.  However, when I fired up the scenario editor and set up the test lanes, two questions came to mind.

 

1.) What about "in command"?  My instinct was to make all participating squads (SMG and Target) out-of-command so that HQ modifiers would not come into play.  Is that reasonable?

 

2.) JasonC says "...don't use fanatics.  Use regulars."  As such, battered squads will potentially rout away from contact.  What should I do in the sense of preventing/allowing the Target to break contact?  For example, if the Target is on the leading edge of a Grain Field do I, say, make the Grain Field 6 tiles deep so that the unit can rout backwards and cower deeper in the Grain Field?  Do I wall off their retreat and essentially force them to stay in contact?  Do I reduce the elevation a certain number of action spots away from the leading edge making it easier for them to break contact at a known point?

[JasonC]

In command.  Let them break contact if they can manage it.  Don't give them easy hiding spots 5 feet away, but do give them natural, large blocks of cover in which they are maneuvering when the firefight happens.  The goal is a natural fight of the sort that could arise readily in a real CM game.  If you are trying to force a bunch of things to happen just this way, you are doing it wrong.

 

As for the number of possible combinations, a representative mix will suffice.  Having every combination in your 72, and a sample size worth of each, would indeed help to measure the size of effect of different factors.  But just to get the ballpark range of best and worst cases, and a few intermediate ones, would already let us see the range of achieved accuracies likely to be seen in practice.  Which is all we need to gauge whether all of them as systematically too high.  You do need some spread - just knowing that 3 SMG squads into a wheatfield at 50 yards are pretty deadly wouldn't tell us very much.

[poesel]

Migo - two questions:

 

1) what is it that you are testing? (exact answer please)

 

2) what do you expect is the out come of your test?

 

You need to answer that to yourself before you start. Else you can't tell if the test failed or not.

[Sgt Joch]

thought this might be interesting.

 

firing PPSH at the range, last group at full auto.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rZ7W7BMbzMc

 

and another one firing at various targets.

 

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

 

seems easy to control and aim even at full auto, although range seems short.

[JasonC]

Sgt Joch - pretty much point blank that.  Here is going full cyclic for a 72 round drum -

 

 

Elapsed time, 5 seconds.