Shooting blanks.

[semmes]

Again... sorry.

I am testing one scenario -good thing because I forgot to setup an unit in the right zone- so, after 15' I used the Cease Fire to see what was going on.

Two German coy. defending (AI, crack/normal, some in buildings, some in ditches, 90% in some cover), 14 LMG + 6 HMG in combat. They suffered 40 casualties,  39 by Su76 fire, ONE by small arms fire -not by MG.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        Four Russians coy. advancing with a lot of covering fire ("human", veteran/normal, not all the time moving, half the time under cover, providing support fire) 27 LMG + 8 HMG actually firing. 30 casualties, ALL by small arms fire.

Even if 2/3 were while moving in the open -and they were not- that's a 10-to-1, 10-to-0 regarding MG.                                                                                                                                                                              Let's say 30 MG firing for 10'... not a single one was able to kill one enemy soldier.

For some reason, it seems that every time I take a closer look I find something "funny" (yes, I know... don't look).

So my my question is:

"Human" infantry... do they shoot blanks?

 

I am still working in this scenario, I will be checking again. On the other hand,  I was using distant LMG and close SMG covering fire to get within grenade distance ro eliminate an enemy MG; it worked. I was using mortar fire to get 3 Su76 in position to knock one PzIV out; it worked. Something like the "game" part is working all the time but the "WWII" intermittently...

And yes I know -actually there is an Australian study about rounds per hit for LMG compare to SLR-  a lot of covering fire, you are likely to get hit while moving... everything else.                                    Still, 30 MG x 10' ... 0 / 30 casualties.

 

I will obey orders. A friend of mine... during a game.

[pkanarki]

That is how war is. Thats why combat mission is like that. Its all under the hood, an abstraction. There are so many million if not billions more cpu cycles/calculations going on in this game compared to other games, every bullit is accounted for. If you dont like it, its beacuse you dont know how war really is. There are no limits to what is abstracted in this game, not to forget the hilarious "we-are-so-realistic-cooperation" with the New Zealand military.

Back to your question, in regard to shooting blanks: yes they are blanks, just check your history books. There was a period during the war, when germany suffered heavily from sabotage within they're industrial production(Australia probably did as well). So as always battlefront has made this part of the game, just like the famous "you shoot at me, then I instantly charge/flee against you" thing they added.

 

[MikeyD]

I don't know all the hidden benefits of being 'crack' troops. Perhaps they do fewer stupid things to get themselves shot. If you downgraded them to 'veteran' would they start taking hits?

[Freyberg]

I pay a lot of attention to who gets kills.

Defensive fire is definitely more effective than offensive fire, which seems obvious and reasonable; Allied HMGs against troops in cover serve a mainly suppressive role; the MG42 is the most lethal, accurate weapon on the WWII battlefield; and HE is the big killer of infantry for sure (as history attests); but if you use fire-and-manoeuvre and have your troops advance to cover, within their weapons range and spend periods of time degrading the enemy with aimed fire, you generally get a fairly even mix of infantry kills on both sides.

Edited May 18, 2020 by Freyberg

[semmes]

To MikeyD

I always -even in 1944- give the Germans better quality than the Russians. Maybe a test with vet v. vet with (+1/+2) better leaders or worse Russians leaders ? Good idea thanks, I never thought of "crack" as mythical creatures.

 

To Freyberg

Yes to all.

Well... accurate automatic fire is a contradiction, I guess you mean accurate area-fire.  "The most lethal, accurate weapon on the WWII battlefield", I never read those statistics but I read that it is pretty hard to convince any GI that the Bren is better than the BAR. You read my post so you read my 2 examples of fire/movement... but I think you're missing the point. Of course at the end some -Russians MG- will kill something but 10' of an "exception"  looks beyond "exceptional".

My point is that the MG42 -and the MG34 too-  is providing suppressive fire and killing and the Maxim -and DT- only suppression.

 

 

How good sounds bad music and bad reasons when we march against the enemy. Nietzsche.

[Freyberg]

49 minutes ago, semmes said:

..it is pretty hard to convince any GI that the Bren is better than the BAR

Allied LMGs seem to do pretty well, which I figured had a lot to do with range and zero setup time. Which is the better LMG I wouldn't know (Allied LMGs seem pretty similar), but I've seldom seen Maxim or Vickers MGs used on the attack kill anyone (occasionally, but not often), although they are good at suppression. Again, I think this has to do with range. Because they need setting up, they don't get close enough for good aimed fire.

.50 cal, on the other hand, is pretty effective, because it can more easily penetrate a lot of buildings.

In a recent infantry-only QB against the AI, I had troops advance to cover, then spend about 10-15 min popping away at the enemy, in similar cover, with mainly aimed fire, not area fire. When I checked the kill stats at the end, my infantry had killed about the same number of men per squad as the enemy (and they had numerical superiority).

If the troops are making a sustained assault, not in cover, casualties will be disproportionate - and that's common when supporting fire is from AFVs. But with infantry only (probably a more common occurrance in RL), everything moves more slowly and the casualty proportions are more even.

MG42s still seem to be the deadliest weapon on the CM battlefield to me (I make no claims for the RL WWII battlefield) - and they seem very accurate, but perhaps that's just because I always play Allies, so I'm usually on the receiving end of their fire.

 

[semmes]

The preliminary conclusion would be that "crack" troops are, indeed mythical creatures.

This time the Germans had some "regular" troops on the front line, the AI was using a different plan but still buildings, cover...

After 15' the Russians had 20 casualties, all of them SAF.

The Germans 44. One by mortar fire. 28 by Su76 and 15 by small arms fire, including a few "crack" ones.

 

Pero si mañana lo fusilamos nosotros, fusilaremos a un general que ha faltado a su honor y a su palabra. Aranguren a Goded.

But if tomorrow we shoot you, we will be shooting a general who betrayed his honour and his word. Gen. Aranguren to Gen. Goded, 1936.