A question for BTS regarding British "firepower"...

[Spook]

Through the demo, we have been able to observe the "reference" firepower values for US & German small arms like rifles & MG's. I am thus asking for what comparative values are given to British small arms and automatic weapons, particularly the Lee-Enfield & the Bren MG.

I will recognize upfront that the values shown for US/German weapons in the demo aren't supposed to represent "actual" firepower by themselves, as you have pointed out that several other factors go into determining such a thing. Again, though, they are the only numbers on hand for reference.

[This message has been edited by Spook (edited 03-02-2000).]

[Guest Big Time Software]

OK, here is some more info...

Notice that British, US, and German Rifle squads have about the same firepower at 100+ meters, but the US kicks butt at close range (thanks to the semi auto Garand and a higher head count). The real difference to note here is that the Germans maintain good FP even though they have less men. The Volksgrenadier Squads are a whole different kettle of fish, as are Panzergrenadier (not pictured).

Steve

[This message has been edited by Big Time Software (edited 03-02-2000).]

[Spook]

Excellent. Many thanks. I was kinda guessing that the British Lee-Enfield would be a notch better than the German K98, and that the Bren would fall in between the US BAR and the German MG42. It certainly helps to remove the speculation, though.

Even though I am a "Yank", my inclination for a future CM "operation" is to try it with a Commonwealth unit first. (At least with a Canadian or Irish-based unit, )

[Guest Big Time Software]

The big advantage to the Lee-Enfield vs. the Kar98k is ammo capacity. 10 rounds vs. 5 makes a big difference for a bolt action rifle in close combat condition. Anybody who has tried to speedload a Mauser Kar98k will tell you it isn't easy. Loading the Garand is much easier (not to mention the additional FP), but you have to watch your thumb like a mother hen or you will not be a happy camper

Steve

[This message has been edited by Big Time Software (edited 03-02-2000).]

[Spook]

Yup, I remember firing an M1 Garand in my younger days. I've fired a few other hunting rifles with similar caliber (30-06?), but none of those seemed to have the kick and "shock-wave" sound like that M1 did.

I also tried rapid-fire of a Colt .45-auto pistol at that same time, and didn't properly brace for the recoil. Almost blew that bugger right out of my hand.

[L.Tankersley]

I'm curious....why is the 1 MG42 of the Pattern 44 squad worth 50 at 40m range, while the 2 MG42 of the Heavy VG squad are worth only 40 at that range?

------------------

Leland J. Tankersley

[Guest R Cunningham]

I was gonna ask the same thing about the MG42 firepower. And here's one LT didn't ask: Why does the WH VG Heavy MG42 firepower increase at 100m and then decrease and the regular pattern 44 squad MG42 decreases consistently from 40m?

[Gregory Deych]

Good eye, Tankersley. Not only that, it's effectiveness increases from 40m to 100m. That doesn't sound kosher to me.

[This message has been edited by Gregory Deych (edited 03-02-2000).]

[Guest Big Time Software]

Hehe... figured someone would notice that.

The rationale is that for the MG42 to fire effectively there needs to be an assistant engaged in feeding the beast. This means the assistant isn't using his own weapon. Therefore the Firepower of teh assistant's weapon is subtracted from the MG42. In the case of the Rifle Squad this is a Kar98k, a realitively weak weapon. In the Heavy SMG unit it is a MP40, which at close range is a very powerful weaon (realitively). The BAR and Bren don't have such problems as they are not crew served.

Yes, I know the MG42 can be fired by one man, but in combat conditions this is pretty tough to do effectively. So on balance it is more fair to do it like I described above.

Steve

[DrD]

Man do these guys think of everything or what?

[L.Tankersley]

I figured there was something like that at work behind the increase in firepower from 40m to 100m (I was thinking along the lines of close-in targets requiring more weapon traversal to engage, reducing the effectivenes of a crew-served weapon) but I still don't get why 2 MG42 are worth less than ... oh. I get it now. ::bonks self on head::

I guess it would technically be a bit more accurate if you kept the Mg42 firepower constant but removed the firepower of the assistant from that of his buddies, but this is probably cleaner from a coding standpoint and should give the same results. Also, this way you would correctly penalize the MG42 firepower when it's fired without an assistant (i.e. when the unit is down to one man).

------------------

Leland J. Tankersley

[Guest Big Time Software]

Exactly, and also allow a unit down to just 2xSMGs to have full firepower from their MP40s, cleanly and easily code wise. Another benefit is that the stats are allowed to remain static (i.e. the FP ratings don't change except through direct loss). As you say, in the end it comes out the same, but the way we have it now is VERY clean from a coding and interface standpoint.

Steve

[David Stone]

As usual,

CM and BTS impress to no end!!! Thanks for the time and info Steve, and Spook for the quality question.

Stoner

[guachi]

Looking at the squad details provided by Steve highlights how similar the base squads of the British, Americans, and the Germans were (at least in 1944).

One high firepower automatic weapon backed up by rifles and the odd SMG. My understanding is that the SMG was not an "official" allocation to a squad but somebody had to use them all so giving a standard one or two per squad seems reasonable.

What the Americans lacked in the BAR (mostly due to its small clip size, I'm guessing) they more than made up for it with the outstanding M1 and its semi-auto capability.

Also highlighted is the manpower situations of the three countries. The Germans have nine men, the British ten, and the Americans twelve. And the VG squad are even smaller at eight men.

Something I haven't tried yet is to divide the American squads up on the attack. They are so large that even at half size (six men) they are still a reasonable fighting force.

Jason

[Guest Big Time Software]

The allocation of SMGs to German units was specifically noted in their TO&E. Believe it or not, there are some German squads that DID NOT have SMGs (officially). The one I can think of off the top of my head is one of the Pionier units. All rifles, no LMGs or SMGs.

As for the American units, I can't remember but I am pretty sure there was a formal policy about SMGs. I know that M1 Carbines were specifically allocated. Commonwealth units, however, seem to have been much more unorganized. Some squads of the same type had as many as 3 or 4, others one or none. We gave the paras more and the line infantry less. Personally, due to the very short range effectiveness of an SMG I would rather have more rifles (especially if they were Garands).

Yes, the BAR's most limiting feature is its ammo feed system. Bang, bang, click... give me another clip!

Steve

[Berlichtingen]

Ok, just out of curiousity, what about German squads armed with MP44's?

[Guest Germanboy]

I did a search for this but could not turn up an official answer, so apologies if this is well-trodden terrain.

The question of squad strength reminded me of something I had read in Raymond Ganter's 'Roll me over - and infantryman's account of WW II'. He joined the 1st Inf. Div. in Nov.'44 and he says that his squads were never full strength until a couple of weeks after VE day. I understand that this is not modelled in CM. Will there be a way around it by e.g. giving a player in a scenario half-squads to start with? I know you can reduce the strength of platoons, but I believe that from a tactical point there is a difference between having two full strength squads or four half-strength. Just curious, I understand that some level of abstraction is necessary, it is a game after all

------------------

Andreas

[Guest Big Time Software]

Theoretical TO&E for the last "standard" pattern rifle units had MP44s specifically allocated. Reality was that this didn't happen. Only about 1/3 of the total MP44 production actually made it into the hands of frontline troops. I think the most any squad in CM has is 2.

Andreas, yeah... this is a feature we had since the get go. Unfortunately it has been pushed aside for now as the coding was not easy. I can tell you though... it *will* go into CM sooner rather than later. It should be in 1.0 even, but this doesn't appear likely.

Steve

[Spook]

Providing the firepower "table" in your second post, Steve, actually brings up another good issue.

One might recall from the earlier Squad Leader & ASL series how the range for "normal" fire was 4-6 hexes (at 40 meters per hex) with half firepower at up to double range. And with the TalonSoft Campaign Series games, most infantry platoons were able to retain a significant portion of firepower out to 500 meters range (or 2 hexes distance, where 1 hex = 250 meters in that game system).

In contrast to both of these noted game systems, however, most CM infantry weapons have already dropped off significantly in "fire effect" at 250 meters, and more so at 500 meters.

But one should reflect for a moment what a personal target might look like at 250 meters. I think at that range & beyond, the aim sight on your weapon (non-periscope) will appear bigger than the person you're aiming at. So I believe that BTS has ultimately captured the right "effect" in how firepower is reduced with range, and that fire beyond 250 meters is more likely to cause some suppression rather than be counted on to regularly inflict physical casualties.

[Guest Big Time Software]

Thanks for pointing that out. Far too many warames have looked at firing distances calculated on firing ranges, not in battlefield conditions.

I have fired at stationary targets 100m in the wide open using normal sights (Garand and Kar98k in fact). It isn't difficult to hit the target if you spend the time aiming, but trying to hit the thing first shot with little to no prep time is difficult at best. And we are talking a big piece of paper specifically designed to be visible to the eye 100m away. Asking someone to shoot a smaller target (and a human would be smaller at that range), who is trying not to be a target, and probably moving is not easy to do. Therefore, effective range is much lower than what the books say.

And this is why in CM you see such "low" shot to hit ratios compared to some other games. CM pretty much thinks your guys are missing most of the time, which (as we have discussed here on this BBS) is in fact the norm regardless of how experienced the troops firing are.

Just for chuckles, I have my Kar98k in front of me now. I couldn't remember what the sights allowed for. 2000m The really funny thing is to see the angle of the gun when lining up a target using the sights set to 2000m. Man, I must have this thing tilted up about 30 degrees! So kiddies, is this still a rifle or is it now mortar? Seriously, you'd be lucky to hit the broad side of an industrial building at that range.

Oh, and I just looked this up for the heck of it. An M1 Carbine has a Max range of 2000m (HAHAHAHA) but its stated effective range is 300m. I lifted these numbers out of my M1 manual. This is of course not taking into account combat conditions, so the real range is likely to be lower when ammo expendature to hits are calculated. In CM M1s are rated out to 250m, which seems to be the right distance, but don't count on scoring any hits.

Steve

[Lee]

Interesting. So, in a heavy squad the assistant gunner is assumed

to grab his own weapon in a close range fight, thus lowering the

effective firepower of the MG-42 but increasing the overall

firepower of the squad at that range due to the extra personal

weapons being brought to bear? But once the range increases to 100

yards or so then the assistant gunners go back to helping the

gunners fire the mg and this causes the spike in the effectiveness of

the mg's at the longer ranges. I have that right, Steve?

[Guest Big Time Software]

Lee, this is correct. You can also think of it the other way around, and that is that we account for the guy ALWAYS helping aid the LMG but for simplicity's sake keep the FP ratings solid for SMG/Rifles and just deduct from the LMG to compensate.

It is assumed that one man, generally a guy with a rifle, is always assisting the LMG. Therefore that guy's weapon FP is subtracted from the LMG as the assistant can't possibly fire and aid the gunner at the same time. But instead of lowering the FP of the assistant's weapon type, we lower the LMG to keep things consistant in the case of the LMG being lost.

Just for the heck of it, here are some examples of how the system works. The FP for the LMG at 500m unmodified, for the Pattern 44, and VG Heavy:

IMPERICAL FP - 19

44 - 18

VG - 19

The difference is 1 FP, which is one Kar98k's FP at 500m. Since the VG's MG assistant has a MP40, which has a zero FP rating at 500m, the VG's LMG is one higher than the Pattern 44's. In other words, the LMG in the VG Heavy Squad is not penalized at all since the assistant's weapon isn't able to fire at 500m. Same works in reverse when you look at 40m range.

IMPERICAL FP - 56

44 - 50

VG - 20

The 44 Pattern MG is penalized 6 FP (FP of Kar98k at 40m) while the VG is penalized 36 (FP of MP40 at 40m). Very simple and realistic system

Steve

[Gen. Sosaboski]

Very cool. Hey, if I was a loader and some guys started running in, I wouldn't just sit there feeding ammo belts.

------------------

Sosabowski, 1st Pol. Abn.

Yes, I know my name is spelled wrong as a member!

[tss]

Asking someone to shoot a smaller target (and a human would be smaller at that range), who is trying not to be a target, and probably moving is not easy to do.

As Finnish novellist Veijo Meri wrote in 'Manillaköysi' (it seems that it hasn't been translated to English, it's also available in Swedish as 'Manillarepet'):

[This is out of my memory, so details may be wrong. The extract is from a situation where the 'Hullu Vääpeli' ('Mad Staff Sergeant') teaches his men about correct procedures for attack]

"When you rise up for a dash it takes the enemy at least one second to notice you, one second to point the barrel at you, and one second to stabilize the aim. If you run 2 meters in one second -- and no man is that slow -- you can advance six meters with no danger to yourself. Most likely it will take him two seconds to do each of the steps so you'll be relatively safe for six seconds and that's enough for a really fast man to make a baby."

- Tommi

[xguy]

Steve,

Something is not quite right with the numbers.

After looking closely at the units, doing the math, and reading your explanation... I think you are trying to say the MG42 LMG actually does 56/50/33/19 FP(approximated), what we see is the adjusted FP reflecting that a K98 rifleman is always assisting the LMG. The Heavy SMG Squad has no K98's to assist the 2 LMG's, so the numbers had to be "fudged."

If this is the case, the MG42 LMG listed under support with the 2-man "crew" has the wrong values, they should be 56/50/33/19 and the Heavy SMG squad's MG42 LMG should have an FP of 41 at 40m(more accurate by my calculations).

I may be interpreting the data incorrectly, but if so, I would appreciate an explanation in greater detail.

Originally posted by Big Time Software:

Exactly, and also allow a unit down to just 2xSMGs to have full firepower from their MP40s, cleanly and easily code wise. Another benefit is that the stats are allowed to remain static (i.e. the FP ratings don't change except through direct loss). As you say, in the end it comes out the same, but the way we have it now is VERY clean from a coding and interface standpoint.

Steve

Changing the stats of a single weapon group within the squad, while certainly easy, does not accurately represent the squad in all cases. Say my SS Pz Grenadier squad is down to 2xLMGs, it has much more FP at 40m than my Heavy SMG squad(also down to 2xLMGs). Shouldn't they both have the same FP in that situation?

I look forward to your response...

[This message has been edited by xguy (edited 03-24-2001).]

[This message has been edited by xguy (edited 03-24-2001).]