50cal Too Effective?

[Claymore]

Although on paper 50cal will penetrate the armor found on HT and ACs I find the accuracy of the roof mounted M2 far too great. A rough analysis of a custom scenario I made resulted the following:

1. Hunting .50cal vs Stationary HT - mission kill (ABANDON or KNOCKED OUT) after 5sec of M2 fire (>300m range)

2. Hunting 50cal vs Fast HT - mission kill of HT after 10sec of M2 fire (>300m range)

3. Hunting 50cal vs Moving Puma - mission kill of Puma after aprox 15sec M2 fire (>300m range)

From personal experience with the M2 (on a stable tripod) I believe that these results need to be addressed. The M2 in automatic fire is an area suppression weapon, not a surgical strike weapon. As for game play this results in German recon vehicles being far to vulnerable to long range fire.

My 2 cents

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

he which maketh the first assault doth endanger himselfe most (sometimes)

[Jarmo]

I agree.

There've been a couple of debates of this before,

so opinions differ.

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

Now, would this brilliant plan involve us climbing out of

our trenches and walking slowly towards the enemy sir?

[Ben Galanti]

Jarmo,

Well, most of the other threads have been questioning whether a .50 cal COULD kill these vehicles. With it pretty much agreed upon that it could. Now, the question of how quickly a .50 cal can be brought to bear is one I don't remember being asked before. This might tone down the number of kills by the .50 cals (especially on moving targets...)

[Jarmo]

"How quicly" was also covered at least once. The thing in favour

of quick kill is that several bullets ricocheting inside

the vehicle are deadly enough.

I still don't buy it.

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

Now, would this brilliant plan involve us climbing out of

our trenches and walking slowly towards the enemy sir?

[aka_tom_w]

I'm not sure at all (I just don't know) if that .50 cal MG is realistically modeled or if it is modeled in CM as too destructive.

But I know on thing for sure, it is VERY good bang for the buck when it comes to buying weapons, HT's and Jeeps with one of these weapons mounted on them can be VERY deadly indeed and I like to have a .50 cal crew located on wooded hills and in the second floor of buildings.

Maybe it kills things too fast I'm not sure, but I know it is a very effective at taking out lightly skinned vehicles from a surprising distance.

Is it too deadly? I have no way of knowing that for sure?

-tom w

[Jarmo]

Hmmm... what if about 10 of us would try driving past

MG placements, the others would fire the cars with .50cal.

Then we'd just count how soon the cars would have to be abandoned.

Any volunteers?

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

Now, would this brilliant plan involve us climbing out of

our trenches and walking slowly towards the enemy sir?

[This message has been edited by Jarmo (edited 08-09-2000).]

[Claymore]

Bouncing along in a HT (in my case a M113) trying to bring a M2 on a target 300m + away is a very difficult task. Make the target BUTTON UP, yes. Repeatable mission kills after a couple of bursts, no way. These results are repeatable and their effects tilt the CM battlefield considerably.

My suggestion: Moving M2s can only fire at AREA targets or their accuracy downgraded by at least a factor of 3. I should have to lay down almost 1 min of continuous fire at an AC +300m distant before he gets killed.

The actual fix given the CM architecture is something BT will have to respond to.

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

he which maketh the first assault doth endanger himselfe most (sometimes)

[WendellM]

"Hmmm... what if about 10 of us would try driving past MG placements, the others would fire the cars with .50cal."

Isn't this everyday life in L.A.? Sorry...

[Blue Macs]

i find abandonment very common here. probably cos if i was in a HT and i heard a 50cal i would fill my pants even if it didnt hit me

BM

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

"If you see a white plane it's American, if you see a black plane it's the RAF. If you see no plane at all it's the Luftwaffe." -German soldier, Western Front, 1944

[Von Brizee]

I think they are way too effective. If this is how it was in WWII, I don't think Germans would even use halftracks or armored cars. Makes them almost useless to buy in QB's b/c if your opponent has a 50.cal, it seems more dangerous than an AT gun to lighter vehicles. I had a 50. cal take out a whole platoon of halftracks in less than a minute. They were all veteran, carrying PzGren platoon, and all Moving Fast in a diagnol direction compared to the .50 cal, at over 300 meters. The 50 cal was only regular.

[PzKpfw 1]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Claymore:

From personal experience with the M2 (on a stable tripod) I believe that these results need to be addressed. The M2 in automatic fire is an area suppression weapon, not a surgical strike weapon. As for game play this results in German recon vehicles being far to vulnerable to long range fire.

My 2 cents

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I can also speak from personel experience with fireing the 50.cal, even stationary the accuracy leaves something to be desired.

Ie, We live fired on an M4 Sherman once from the 50cal mounted on the cheep, stationary it rocked the jeep and threw off aim, moveing well, LOL that was a nightmare even at slow speed you had the problem of the terrain throwing you around & the 50cal recoil.

Also fired the 50Cal from its pod even with the legs dug in and sandbagged it moved, it realy is a powerful weapon but as Claymore pointed out your not gonna get accuracy with it, stationary or moveing, supression, definantly when a 50 speaks ppl on the end its pointed at tend to crap themselves

Regards, John Waters

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

People who can smile when things go wrong

have found someone else to blame.

[Dittohead]

Yea I have seen HT survive hits from tank guns and PZSK's. But old Ma Duece takes them out every time.

[von Lucke]

Funny you should mention this. Just finished a PBEM QB in which I lost a Puma, 250/1, and a Whirbelwind --- my entire rolling stock, actually --- to .50cal fire from an M3a1 HT.

This wouldn't be so bad, but two of these vehicles where moving Fast, and all three where taken out by single bursts of .50cal fire, snapped off through very limited fields of fire (between buildings and hills). What's so frustrating is not that these vehicles were legit Knocked Out's, but that in each instance the crews (Crack morale level, by the way) Abandoned their vehicles.

Yes, zipping along at 30mph, an unaimed snap-shot of .50cal fire comes their way, and they immediately leap from their moving vehicle to cower in the open...

[Lee]

Something does sound amiss here. I want to make it clear that I'm

not talking about the effect once hits are obtained, the .50 is an

awesome weapon both from a suppression and damage/lethality standpoint.

But the speed and regularity with which hits at longish ranges are being

gotten, as described here, just doesn't seem quite right.

If you were firing from a well dug-in position that was heavily

sandbagged, one would expect pretty good accuracy, but even then

it would take some time to get on target at longer ranges and for

the gunner to adjust to the considerable recoil of that beast.

I would think taking out several halftracks moving at high speed at

over 300 yards across the firing arc of the gun would be quite unlikely

to happen, unless you were dealing with a crack or elite crew.

And even then I don't think I'd lay too much money on the crew to take

out a whole platoon of H/T's at that range in under 1 minute.

Of course, accuracy for any machine gun mounted on a moving vehicle

is going to be less than a firmly placed ground position. Probably

even a bit more so for a gun with the recoil of a .50 cal.

[Claymore]

Yup and until it get fixed I'm thinking of asking my future PBEM to limit their use. Either

1) No roving HTs, ACs or T8s allowed in the backfield

2) Allow me 100-200 extra pts to station assets specifically to attempt interdiction of these guys. Maybe a few PShreks at specific choke points or a tank that is only energized when said 50cals venture into the

verboten areas.

[Guest Germanboy]

If you feel it is a problem (I could not possibly comment, although from the posts here, some backed by experience, it looks like one), just ask your opponent to choose the English/Canadians/Polish, et voilá, no .50cal, no problem. That sounds like a better solution than tanks dedicated or specialised Schreck teams.

One HMG42 of mine actually got a Mortar HT crew to renege on their engagement at 53m, but that was an astonishing occurence.

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

Andreas

[KiwiJoe]

If crews could remount abandoned equipment things might be a bit more even. I know there has been a lot of disscussions about it but I still think it should be included.

[fd ski]

Well, i'm the helpless victim of Claymore's M8s

Btw clay, one of your M8s drove 10 yards within my waiting schnek but it didn't fire. I guess it was going too fast

The question of 0.5 often comes up in discussions regarding the arnament of fighter plane in WWII. 0.5 was a standard arnament of the US fighters.

The fact is that all the balisitc data ( very indepth ) that i saw for 0.5 never came any closer then 1/2 of capability of 20mms ( Hispanos and Mg151 ). And those airborne cannons had lower muzzle velocity then ground based designes.

Current state allows for easy "gaming the game" sitution for any US player. Buy 5 of those. Drive them at the highest speed possible around the map and take out everything that isn't hidden or not a King Tiger.

All the HT and recon units die on first or second burst. German platyer is left with no recon, hidden and pinned infantry and tanks visable to the enemy.

Sucks..

[BV]

I would like to agree with Von Brizee's post and several others above. The .50 cal as currently modeled is way too accurate. In a recent QB I had one American HT, which was moving Fast, fire at 4 German HT's which were also moving Fast. It knocked out 3 of the 4 HT's in 40 seconds at about 400 yds. It was the only American unit in that part of the map and was later identified at a "regular" experience level. As several posts above have stated, if the German HT's and AC's were indeed knocked out that regularly and quickly by any .50cal in the neighborhood, they would have stopped making them. I would also like to see crews, in certain situations, pass a morale check etc. and re-man their vehicle or gun if it has not been too damaged. This would add realism and depth to the game. Great game.

Thanks

[Hamstersss]

This argument sounds a bit specious to me.

First off, those jeeps are soo damn vulnerable that they get abandoned when dogs pee on 'em.

Secondly, from what I understand, the old 12.7mm was originally designed as an AT gun.

Live with it, sometimes they work, sometimes they don't, just support your armor with infantry and it won't happen.

[KiwiJoe]

I find 80% of the m2's light armour kills are from abandonments. It could be balanced by allowing crews to re-mount after the threat is gone, or be making them abandon less in the first place.

[Minnesota Joe]

I dont get it though. How is a freakin .50 cal MG supposed to be both a suppression and AP weapon when it is clearly neither if compared to weapons like th MG42?

1. It fires too slowly to supress enemy infantry. IMHO id be more willing to charge a .50 cal MG nest than a .30 cal or an MG42. Why? Well the bullets for the .50 may be larger, but not by much if you compare the .50 cal bullet to the "smaller" calibres (not a huge difference). Thus the chances of getting hit would be about the same if the other two guns fired as slowly as the .50 cal. Get it? In other words, the .30 and MG42 "spread mo' lead" through the area and possibly an enemy soldier. If youre hit with either size in the same spot, you are probably dead.

2. AP weapon!? The thing could take the head off an elephant at 1000 yards dammit! If you wanted to kill infantry, youd set up a .30 cal so you get bullets off faster and so you could move around more because the 30 is much lighter and sets up quicker.

So is it possible that the M2 was designed for killing light armor? It seems kinda insane as an AP weapon.

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

Ah scheist.

[This message has been edited by Minnesota Joe (edited 08-09-2000).]

[M1A1HA]

In fact, my us tactic is almost always 3 or more MG Jeeps for recon purpose. Those damn Jeep wins everytime agaist german HT or PSWs, and it is so fast that no AT/Inf gun can hit it.

[dalem]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Minnesota Joe:

So is it possible that the M2 was designed for killing light armor? It seems kinda insane as an AP weapon.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

MJ-

Yup. That is exactly what the M2 was designed for. That and an aircraft gun for taking out observation balloons. Original design came out in 1921, I think.

-dale

[Degrees of Frost]

Contributing to the "Pumas turned into colanders" problem perhaps is that Puma crews seem to believe that they are invulnerable to .50 cal fire.

They rarely turn to present their front armour to incoming .50 cal fire and often ignore the machine gun crew and continue to engage other much less dangerous infantry targets.

In the quick battles I have played I have never killed a puma with a single burst - but have eventually got the beast after a turn or two because the vehichles crew doesn't appear regard .50 a threat.

If a 6-pounder or some other light gun engages a puma (have been playing Allies using regulars or less experienced troops so they tend to miss targets with the first couple of shots) - it heads for cover pronto - attempting to present frontal armour at the same time (admittedly usually to no great effect).

As for jeeps being wonderful HT killers - well yes they appear to be just that - but if there is the lightest of light infantry screen in front of them - the jeep is toast.