French small arms 1979-1982

[Centurian52]

I *assume* that the French will not be in the fist module for CMCW (presumably that honor will go to either the British or West/East Germans). But they would have been important to the defense of West Germany (I understand they would have formed an important reserve force, despite not actually holding a sector on the West German/East German border), so I assume that they will make it into the game eventually (2nd or 3rd module perhaps?). So I'm curious about what the state of their infantry armament was like in the setting of CMCW. I understand that the FAMAS F1 entered service in 1978. But I also know that it can take a while for a new piece of equipment to completely replace an old piece of equipment, so I assume there were still some old MAS-56 rifles hanging around for a few years. What was the rate of FAMAS procurement? What would a typical French rifle squad have looked like in 1979? 1980? 1981? 1982? Would we see a mostly MAS equipped squad with the odd FAMAS here and there (like how we see the occasional STG-44 on mostly Kar-98k equipped German squads in some of the WW2 titles)? A mostly FAMAS equipped squad with the odd MAS here and there? A pretty even mix of both? Were individual units always uniformly equipped with either one or the other, with there just being more FAMAS and fewer MAS equipped units as time goes on?

I know I shouldn't wish inferior firepower on my NATO pixeltruppen, but I am morbidly curious to see the MAS-56 in action if it was still being used in large numbers during the CMCW time period. If the MAS-56 is still around in large numbers that would give us the full spectrum of 2nd half 20th century rifles, from WW2 style 10 round semi-automatic rifles in the form of the French MAS-56, to 20 round/select-fire battle rifles in the form of the British L1 and West German G3, to 30 round/intermediate caliber assault rifles in the form of the American M16 and Soviet AK-74. Could semi-auto rifle armed French infantry withstand an assault by assault rifle armed Soviet infantry? Probably not. But I am morbidly curious to see it play out.

[Bobjack1240]

It would probable play similar to a SLR. The only real difference would be a smaller magazine. For 1982 scenarios, the French would have used a mix of FAMAS or Mas 56s for 2nd line formations. This could be modelled similar to the AK-74/AKM equipment settings for the Soviets. Historically, elite formations would have been procured FAMAs rifles first sometime in 1978. As the Foreign Legion was fighting in Operation Shaba I and II at the time, they wouldn't have been part of the lucky few. 

Edited July 18, 2022 by Bobjack1240

[Bobjack1240]

Their AMX 105mm gun tanks would play simmilar to the M-60A1 variants but faster and with worse armor. They wouldn't have gotten an indigenous apfsds untill 1981. However, they could have acquired or license produced West German DM-23 as early as 1978. Atgms would have been the Milan series.

[Halmbarte]

2 hours ago, Bobjack1240 said:

Their AMX 105mm gun tanks would play simmilar to the M-60A1 variants but faster and with worse armor. They wouldn't have gotten an indigenous apfsds untill 1981. However, they could have acquired or license produced West German DM-23 as early as 1978. Atgms would have been the Milan series.

Since the M60’s armor won’t keep out anything more than a dirty look I’d take increased speed as an alternative. I think the  Germans were on to something with the Leopard 1 design criteria. I’m looking forward to trying them out in CW. 
As far as the French infantry go, I’d expect them to play similar to Brits or Germans of the same time frame. Battle rifle armed line troops supporting GPMGs and AT rockets. 
H

[Centurian52]

On 7/19/2022 at 8:52 AM, Halmbarte said:

Since the M60’s armor won’t keep out anything more than a dirty look I’d take increased speed as an alternative. I think the  Germans were on to something with the Leopard 1 design criteria. I’m looking forward to trying them out in CW. 
As far as the French infantry go, I’d expect them to play similar to Brits or Germans of the same time frame. Battle rifle armed line troops supporting GPMGs and AT rockets. 
H

I think the smaller magazine size of the French rifles will make some difference. I'm not really sure since I haven't seen fully battle rifle equipped infantry in action in CM before (just the odd FN FAL in CMA and FG-42 in the WW2 titles). So mostly I'm imagining my American infantry in the WW2 titles only stopping to reload around half as often to get a reference frame for how much more effective battle rifles will be than WW2 style semi automatic rifles. And considering that my American infantry do actually spend a decent chunk of their time loading, I suspect the larger magazine capacity of the G3 and L1A1 will give the German and British infantry a noteacable firepower advantage over MAS-56 armed French infantry. As far as differences between the British and French infatry that will be it, since the L1A1 was semi-auto only. But the G3 could be fired in full auto. While it definitely won't be as controllable as the Soviet AK-74 would be, that might at least somewhat narrow the firepower gap between the West German and Soviet infantry in close range engagements in buildings and forests (I assume battle rifle armed infantry won't switch to automatic fire until much closer range, and that their automatic fire will be less accurate than assault rifle armed infantry, but that still has to be better than no automatic fire at all). I think British and French infantry will perform well against Soviet infantry at long range, but will be at a hopeless disadvantage against Soviet infantry in extreme close range assaults through forests and buildings (perhaps made somewhat bearable when they have the advantage of being on the defense, but they will needs lots of machinegun and artillery support to succeed in the attack). I can just imagine my poor semi-auto only British and French infantry desperely pulling their triggers as fast as possible while Soviet infantry charge them down while blazing away with controllable full auto.

Edited July 24, 2022 by Centurian52

[chuckdyke]

1 hour ago, Centurian52 said:

but that still has to be better than no automatic fire at all).

Australian Infantry in Vietnam SLR read (FN FAL) vs AK47 NVA. They never felt at a disadvantage, they preferred the SLR above the M16 which was just introduced. With all respect I think your opinion is subjective. 

[Centurian52]

3 hours ago, chuckdyke said:

Australian Infantry in Vietnam SLR read (FN FAL) vs AK47 NVA. They never felt at a disadvantage, they preferred the SLR above the M16 which was just introduced. With all respect I think your opinion is subjective. 

I'm not sure what you mean by subjective. Certainly it isn't based on rigorous research (I'm not sure where I would even begin with that sort of research). It is not based on national preference. I don't pretend that the M16 was better than other assault rifles, and I will freely admit that I think the M14 was probably inferior to other battle rifles. My opinion is just that assault rifles are generally better than battle rifles (or at least they were 50 years ago). That isn't an opinion that I have an unshakable confidence in (in fact I will need to see it wargamed before I really gain confidence in it).

But it is based on what I believe to be sound arguments in favor of the design considerations behind the assault rifle concept. Those being, first, that the greater effective range of a battle rifle is nearly useless because almost all combat takes place within 300 meters, and a human cannot even see a human sized target at much beyond 500 meters anyway (this may no longer be the case with modern optics, but certainly was the case in the 70s/80s), and within those ranges an assault rifle is just as good. Second that the greater penetration of a battle rifle makes little difference most of the time, since body armor that was effective against rifle fire wasn't really a thing back then (greater penetration may still have been nice to have in the jungle though, where being able to penetrate deaper into the thick vegetation could be helpful). As such the bigger and more powerful rounds of a battle rifle mostly just meant more recoil, less controllable automatic fire, and less ammo, for little practicle gain.

Those were the arguments made 50 years ago in favor of the assault rifle concept, and I believe they were sound then (although, again, I will really need to see it wargamed before I gain real confidence in that opinion (certainly assault rifles have less recoil and more ammo, but does that offset their reduced range and penetration in an era before modern optics and body armor?). Note that, while I believe they were probably sound 50 years ago, those arguments may no longer be sound. Nowadays almost everyone has effective body armor, meaning that having small arms with greater penetration should provide a real advantage. And advanced optics are available to nearly everyone, meaning that a rifleman may be able to spot, identify, and engage targets well beyond 500 meters, at ranges where a battle rifle might be significantly more effective than an assault rifle. Again though, I will need to see it wargamed before I am fully convinced that the battle rifle is now the superior concept (certainly they have better range and penetration, but does that offset their increased recoil and reduced ammo now that we have modern body armor and optics?).

Edited July 24, 2022 by Centurian52

[chuckdyke]

6 minutes ago, Centurian52 said:

Again though, I will need to see it wargamed before I am fully convinced that the battle rifle is now the superior concept (certainly they have better range and penetration, but does that offset their increased recoil and reduced ammo now that we have modern body armor and optics?).

Jeff Cooper the father of practical shooting came up with a formula. He was a Marine Colonel. The formula was bullet weight in grains multiplied times the velocity in feet per second. I admit it was biased towards the .45 ACP The .45 ACP score 230 grains times 800ft/sec. 184 as the sum is divided by a 1000. Enter the 5.56 mm NATO in shock value 60X 3000ft/sec comes to 180. It has a better ballistic coefficient but up to 50 meters comparable. At 300 meters it is equal to the 9mm. Enter the AK47 150 grain at 2000 ft/sec comes to 300. It was far more efficient in jungle where pointing shooting rules the SLR and M14 nudge close to the 400 in shock value. The M16 rounds tended to deflect in the scrub the heavier slower bullets didn't. The 5.56mm NATO relies on the sock effect of its velocity to be efficient. Automatic fire needs to be controlled to 3 round bursts at the time higher is a waste of ammo. Body armor will signal the end of the NATO round in my view. In the game most troops get killed by HE and anything else which says bang. Happy gaming some jokers put an aimpoint on their 1911s that was in 1987's it took the fun out of pistol shooting competition. 

[Halmbarte]

3 hours ago, chuckdyke said:

Jeff Cooper the father of practical shooting came up with a formula. He was a Marine Colonel. The formula was bullet weight in grains multiplied times the velocity in feet per second. I admit it was biased towards the .45 ACP The .45 ACP score 230 grains times 800ft/sec. 184 as the sum is divided by a 1000. Enter the 5.56 mm NATO in shock value 60X 3000ft/sec comes to 180. It has a better ballistic coefficient but up to 50 meters comparable. At 300 meters it is equal to the 9mm. Enter the AK47 150 grain at 2000 ft/sec comes to 300. It was far more efficient in jungle where pointing shooting rules the SLR and M14 nudge close to the 400 in shock value. The M16 rounds tended to deflect in the scrub the heavier slower bullets didn't. The 5.56mm NATO relies on the sock effect of its velocity to be efficient. Automatic fire needs to be controlled to 3 round bursts at the time higher is a waste of ammo. Body armor will signal the end of the NATO round in my view. In the game most troops get killed by HE and anything else which says bang. Happy gaming some jokers put an aimpoint on their 1911s that was in 1987's it took the fun out of pistol shooting competition. 

Anyone who believes that .45 ACP and 556 NATO have similar wounding effects at close range is seriously delusional*. Col. Cooper was a great guy but he had certain biases when it came to caliber effectiveness. 

 

Back to the main subject, I'd expect the semi-auto rifle armed troops to be a a significant disadvantage in woods or towns where the fighting is close up, and less of a disadvantage at longer range. Since the majority of the team firepower comes from the GPMG (with the rifle armed troops mostly serving as ammo bearers and spare crew for the MG) I'd expect the squad to have similar longer range (>200m) firepower to what we have now. 

H

*Google image search "bullet wound xray". The pics you see where bones are shattered and have become secondary projectiles are from rifles. Bones are simply broken or have a hole punched through them are pistol wounds. 

[chuckdyke]

8 hours ago, Halmbarte said:

I'd expect the semi-auto rifle armed troops to be a a significant disadvantage in woods or towns

No argument when the range is below 300 yards. I was raised by a dad who suffered a wound from a subcaliber round. Ten years later, he was still spitting blood. After being hit he woke up a day later in the hospital ward. The bullet hit the button of his tunic and ended in the lung. I think it is mostly academic that a wound is more effective from a military point of view. It takes more resources away from the enemy and the enemy soldier is out of circulation for a long time. 

[Halmbarte]

1 hour ago, chuckdyke said:

No argument when the range is below 300 yards. I was raised by a dad who suffered a wound from a subcaliber round. Ten years later, he was still spitting blood. After being hit he woke up a day later in the hospital ward. The bullet hit the button of his tunic and ended in the lung. I think it is mostly academic that a wound is more effective from a military point of view. It takes more resources away from the enemy and the enemy soldier is out of circulation for a long time. 

Over 300m or so it's difficult to see men in drab clothing that aren't trying to be seen. Because being seen = getting shot at and most troops aren't completely suicidal they tend to hide and reduce expose times. And for those times where you do see people farther away there is always the GPMG. 

H

[chuckdyke]

53 minutes ago, Halmbarte said:

Over 300m or so it's difficult to see men in drab clothing that aren't trying to be seen. Because being seen = getting shot at and most troops aren't completely suicidal they tend to hide and reduce expose times. And for those times where you do see people farther away there is always the GPMG. 

H

Technology will catch up. Civilians do feral animal hunting with thermal sights. I just try to imagine what the military will come up with to spot camouflaged enemy units.

 

[Halmbarte]

I'd expect thermals to be deployed on key weapons 1st, then as they get smaller and cheaper to get deployed to the majority of troops. 

And it's a truism that for every measure there is a countermeasure. As thermals become ubiquitous expect decoys and spoofs to get deployed too. Not too many foxes or rabbits are going to be making hot lures or setting up thermal screens to block IR. 

H

[Centurian52]

On 7/24/2022 at 7:35 PM, chuckdyke said:

Jeff Cooper the father of practical shooting came up with a formula. He was a Marine Colonel. The formula was bullet weight in grains multiplied times the velocity in feet per second. I admit it was biased towards the .45 ACP The .45 ACP score 230 grains times 800ft/sec. 184 as the sum is divided by a 1000. Enter the 5.56 mm NATO in shock value 60X 3000ft/sec comes to 180. It has a better ballistic coefficient but up to 50 meters comparable. At 300 meters it is equal to the 9mm. Enter the AK47 150 grain at 2000 ft/sec comes to 300. It was far more efficient in jungle where pointing shooting rules the SLR and M14 nudge close to the 400 in shock value. The M16 rounds tended to deflect in the scrub the heavier slower bullets didn't. The 5.56mm NATO relies on the sock effect of its velocity to be efficient. Automatic fire needs to be controlled to 3 round bursts at the time higher is a waste of ammo. Body armor will signal the end of the NATO round in my view. In the game most troops get killed by HE and anything else which says bang. Happy gaming some jokers put an aimpoint on their 1911s that was in 1987's it took the fun out of pistol shooting competition. 

That seems like it might be a perfecty fine formula for evaluating the effectiveness of individual shots. But no one can deny that assault rifles are less effective than battle rifles on a shot for shot basis. The point is that they can put more shots in a target area more rapidly

Edited July 25, 2022 by Centurian52

[chuckdyke]

6 minutes ago, Centurian52 said:

The point is that they can put more shots in a target area more rapidly

Spray and pray is not putting more shots on target rapidly. It depends on the shooter. Here is one extreme.

 

[Halmbarte]

2 hours ago, Centurian52 said:

That seems like it might be a perfecty fine formula for evaluating the effectiveness of individual shots. But no one can deny that assault rifles are less effective than battle rifles on a shot for shot basis. The point is that they can put more shots in a target area more rapidly

I would deny that. 

Most of the battle rifle calibers used solid bullets that were relatively low velocity and very stable when traveling through a person. Basically you get a ~7mm hole in and a  ~7mm hole out. The British mk7 .303 used a light filler in the nose so that the bullet destabilized when hitting flesh, making the bullet particularly effective for a battle rifle cartridge. 

Multiple assault rifle cartridges have enhanced terminal ballistic effects, some accidentally. The original M193 US spec 556 ammo would tumble rapidly in flesh and frequently break apart at the cannelure, resulting in multiple wound tracks and enhanced performance. The Sov spec 5.45x39 was balanced so it would destabilize in flesh as well. 

The most pertinent question is: does all this make a difference? I would argue that most soldiers, when shot, seek medical aid. 

H