MG rates of fire.

[Guest Germanboy]

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

There is only so much a grunt can carry and be effective, you give him an extra belt of ammo and a grenade has to be left behind and so on.

Peter <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is a good point. Research has shown that this amount has stayed constant since at least the times of the Roman army at about 60lbs/legionnaire or GI, IIRC. Obviously for them that would have included personal body armour, while today it would be an extra load of MG ammo.

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

Andreas

It is amazing what you can learn from a good book...

[Guest Michael emrys]

JonS wrote:

"Michael

Commonwealth divisions continued to use the Vickers in MG Bns till near the end of the war. For eg, the 2(NZ) Div MG Bn was only disbanded in early '45 (Feb?), and then mainly to provide replacements for depleted rifle bns rather than because it had ceased to be useful.

The support bns provided long range - including indirect - suppresive fire for, well for whatever really, but often as part of an integrated fireplan. The shoots would generally be quite long (in time, as well as range) so the water cooling would be an especial advantage in this situation - and the weight not such a disadvantage."

Thanks for the info, Jon. What I was trying to say and didn't make adequately clear is that the extra weight of the water-cooled MG would have proven a hindrance once an attack had jumped off. That's why armies during the inter- and early-war years developed air-cooled guns. It's true that a really motivated MG team could have made an effort to lug their weapon around and try to keep up with the advance, but they would have tired more quickly.

One alternative would have been to assign them pack animals or some manner of motor vehicle, but that introduces its own complications. Armies used whatever came to hand to try to complete their assigned missions, so no doubt water-cooled MGs made it into the OOB in a lot of places. But I doubt they were the first choice where portability was a high priority. BTW, do you know of any instance where they were issued as the squad LMG? I can't. Seems like they were held in the battalion weapons company in the U.S. Army, and the same in the British Royal Army and were also organized in MG battalions.

[Guest Big Time Software]

Peter,

Good info from you (and others too). I think there were two reasons why that M60 round jammed. It was 100 degrees and the gun was out in the sun. Also, the quality of the ammo these guys use is often suspect since good quality ammo is much more expensive. So I would guees a combo of intense heat and substandard ammo caused the problem. The gunner was more than likely taking very good care of the weapon itself, and therefore was probably well lubed. The guy was an ex Air Cav M60 gunner and had a tattoo of an M60 from side to side across his back. And he had a BIG back, so this thing was probably 16-18 inches long and 4-5 inches high, along with other wartime designs all around it. Probably the most hard core M60 gunner in all the land

Steve

[Gary T]

On the subject of the British argument for the Bren being a superior LMG one must remember that the British Army has always considered accuracy a more important factor than firepower. Indeed when they adopted the SLR (FN-FAL) in the 50's it was only done so on the proviso it was modified to be semi-auto only (although many of the long termer's would 'adapt' it to fire auto).

On another note I read somewhere (could have been 'With British Snipers to the Reich') that the Bren was considered by the troops to be too accurate as a LMG - is spread of shot was not good for suppression. The example given was of the fighting in Norway where some German casualties were found to have been hit by the first three rounds from Bren bursts.

The same still rings true today. The SA80 is, as someone else said, unreliable and unpopular with the infantrymen who have to use it but it IS very accurate.

Another quick point is the infantryman's own view (in contrast to oficial doctrine)of firepower vs. accuracy/ammo use. Many of the infantry mourn the passing of the belt fed GPMG and the adoption of the LSW as the squad support weapon. The latter (even when there is two per squad) does not put down anywhere as near the same amount of firepower as the GPMG and, despite the the ammo incompatiblility, weight, extra ammo etc most infantryman would be much happier with GPMG as their squad level weapon.

[This message has been edited by Gary T (edited 05-24-2000).]

[Little Black Devil]

Wow! Lots of knowledgeable and experienced contributors here!

Well, I've got a (long winded) question primarily for the makers of this incredible game, but others who are in the know are welcome to sort me out.

As an MG Gunner myself I've had extensive experience with the Canadian C-6 (better known as Fabrique Nationalale's 7.62mm GPMG).

For those that are not aware, it is a belt fed weapon capeable of firing 650-1,000 rounds per minute with a quick change barrel.

As all MG Gunners should know, the best way to site MGs, is in pairs for mutual protection and more importantly to maintain a sustained rate of fire on the target. This is so one MG can be firing while the other is changing barrels,reloading or correcting I.A.s and stoppages.

To the best of my knowledge this is not a post war concept, or strictly Canadian doctrine. (To all you experts out there - correct me if I'm wrong).

Anyhow, I'm curious if it is possible to inccorporate this within Combat Mission.

I have played the Gold Demo as the Germans particularly, and have paired up some of their MG units in the attempt to practice this tactic. My experience has been that it is noticeably more effective, but it would be nice to see MG units that are actually designed for this incorporated in the game to enhance performance towards that end. (i.e. - an MG unit that has two MGs which will purposely fire at intervals with this idea in mind). I don't know if you would have to represent them as part of an MG platoon or just platoon/company assets paired together. Maybe some sort of "combine" feature could be added.

Perhaps this is to ambitious for the game engine particularly at this point in time, but I figured I'd ask.

Anyhow, I realize that the release of Combat Mission is not too far away, and that inccorporation of any changes like this now my not be feasible, but perhaps a patch or add-on may containing an idea like this is possible....yes?

Cheers

Little Black Devil

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

"Hosti Acie Nominati"

[von Lucke]

Lewis: Isn't what you suggest exactly what the Russians did with the RPK (the design equivalent of a long-barreled KG44)? In retrospect, it probably would have been a good idea, but since the Germans where mostly on the defensive at this point, the extra firepower of the MG42 was probably more appreciated.

Michael Emrys: The Soviet's solution was to mount their water-cooled Maxim guns on a wheeled carriage (complete with splinter shield), and have the crews pull them forward during an assault.

[Guest Big Time Software]

Little Black Devil,

I don't think this will be anything we will add. For this to work you would need two MG teams in very close proximity to each other. As in a handful of meters. There only communication between units, in general, was voice and hand signals. So I don't know how it would be possible for two MG teams to coordinate anything unless they were in the same foxhole so to speak. And that is not a good thing to do

von Lucke is correct, and for about $1000 you can buy one of those wheeled cart thingies complete with shield. A tad too much if you ask me! A crudload came out of Finnland a while back.

Steve

[Guest JonS]

Steve,

I've watched sections (2 guns) of SFMGs doing this, and the communication seemed to be via the gun itself:

One gun would fire a burst of, um, 3-4 seconds, there would be a pause of about the same amount of time, then the other gun would open up for 3-4 seconds. Both were firing on the same target. The only verbal communication was to start and stop the shoot, everything else was taken off the 3-4 second rhythm.

Regards

Jon

P.S. Er, this isn't a plug to include this in CM, be it via patch or whatever.

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

Ubique

[This message has been edited by JonS (edited 05-26-2000).]

[Guest Username:]

I dont think Steve realizes that you are refering to a drill. All military training is drills. The reason of course is that you will be conditioned to respond when commanded. Let the NonComs and officers think and the soldiers respond. Battle isnt a martini party with lots of discussions and lighthearted banter.

The better the troops training, the more drills become second nature. Everyone understands whats expected and it gives a unit cohesion when stressed. Yell "pull back" to a platoon of conscripts and see what happens..

The germans had MG platoons (and companys and battalions too) and there were drills for the use of MGs so as to keep meaningful firepower on the enemy. They were good at indirect MG fire as well as "ruses" such as firing tracer high (to get infantry to crawl/bound) while scalping the ground with grazing fire without tracers.

One of the first drills I learned was 2 man fire and movement. One guy covers, one guy moves, both keep the mags in the M16 so that one guy has rounds loaded whenever the other is reloading. If you are moving you "listen" for his bursts. You stop moving BEFORE he runs out of ammo. You cover him as he moves up to you. You get a feel for what a magazine from an M16 can "do".

In reality you only did this to learn the priciples. It was then brought up to a section covering section, then a squad covering a squad, etc.. gradually you get a feel for what cover fore can do.

My point is that drills are key and should be part of the game somehow.

Lewis

[Guest Big Time Software]

Well... drills themselves aren't going to be unless we can find some way of doing it without ruining the game as a game.

There is a certain level of abstraction for EVERYTHING that CM does. This is not ever going to be changed because we don't have a dozen years to put in every little thing even if the computer and/or user could handle it all. Keep in mind that trying to add some details in one place often means a chain reaction of needs being created to accomodate the one little feature.

For example, squad level fire and movement is abstracted, and abstracted it will always remain because to have it be more detailed would mean simulating each man on the map, with his own individual stats, etc. This is not doable for a lot of reasons that have been beat to death Something like tag team MG fire is also in the same boat. As it is I think two MG teams effectively do the same thing as you are talking about so I also don't see the need for it (any more than about 1000 other things that could be mentioned )

The most important question to ask is "do the results in CM, using realistic tactics (not drills), come up with a realistic and plausible outcome when looking at more than a handful of instances?" If the answer is yes, or very close to yes, then no more details need to be added even if they are absent. If the results are significantly different than what would happen in reality, then we do need to look at the issue closely. Then we get into the more practical and techincal questions to figure out if it is something we can/should do.

Steve

[This message has been edited by Big Time Software (edited 05-26-2000).]

[Los]

I can answer that question Steve. I've been playing CM extensively since the beginning of the beta process. As a soldier with 23 years experience all I need to know about playing CM is to Do my METT-T analysis and planning, then manuever and fire my units as I would for real and I get the same expected outcomes and mishaps as would occur generally in real life. I don't have to learn any gamey tactics or come up with work arounds to the basic engine to synch the outcomes of the game with what I would expect from my experience to occur properly.

I don't give a rat's ass if a grenade is suuposed to travel 29.5 meters instead of 30 on a sunny day or whether LMG X's ROF is actually 950 RPM instead of 925. All of that is below my level of focus in the game (arguably a significant factor if you were making "Combat Mission Quake I suppose. Basically the uits move shoot and act generally as they should though that's not to see there can't be more tweaks or additions to expand the engine.

In short CM is "finally" the game I've been waiting for forever. Outstanding job.

Cheers..

Los

[Guest Username:]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Big Time Software:

The most important question to ask is "do the results in CM, using realistic tactics (not drills), come up with a realistic and plausible outcome when looking at more than a handful of instances?" [This message has been edited by Big Time Software (edited 05-26-2000).]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

In the case of the AI's attacking , the answer would be "no".

It is evident that a human player uses drills like I described when attacking (or at least I do and win hands down every time with the AI).

The AI does not use cover fire very well. It will walk guys right at positions in piecemeal fashion. It will move guys into positions that are out of LOS of supporting units. Theres no way another unit can cover where its going. It doesnt seem to gain fire superiority or manuever its support weapons to use them effectively. If the AI would have platoon drills like the ones I described, then it would at least fight to a draw every now and then.

Perhaps Charles can write an article on how the AI decides to do what tactics or drills it does.

Lewis

PS Are jams on MGs dependant on how long they have been firing?

[Guest Big Time Software]

Hi Los! Thanks for the comments as always

Lewis, yes... but this is a totally different thing from what I was talking about. The StratAI and its abilities are completely, and absolutely, seperate from what the TacAI and game mechanics are about. So the question I asked is not something that should be applied to what the Computer Player does. Different questions need to be asked instead.

As we have discussed many times before, coding up a computer player that behaves like a human is only a lofty and unobtainable goal at best. However, the AI can obviously be made better. The problems with improving CM's AI has more to do with coding time and CPU usage rather than programming skill, knowledge of WWII tactics, and the desire to make the AI even better.

No AI will ever be "finished" since that implies playing as well as a human in any and all situations. And that is simply not going to happen. Rather, a game's AI is an evolving set of rules and "skill sets" that should be improved over time. That is the ONLY practical way of doing AI. And it is something we fully intend on doing too.

MG jams are based on number of times fired, so in a sense yes... the more you shoot the greater the chance of a jam. But there is no special bit of code figuring out if the gun is likely to have a heat releated jam.

Steve

[This message has been edited by Big Time Software (edited 05-26-2000).]

[Guest kip anderson]

Hi,

when it comes to war games what I am after is realism. By realism I mean that given the tactical situation and given the commands you issue the outcome is that which it's likely to have been in reality.In my view CM delivers that in bucket loads.

The combat resolution, fog of war and TacAI are stunningly good. The StratAI I also feel is great and in defence, the first time I play a given game, it can sometimes give me a beating. In attack it is not quite as good as I would expect a human to be, but I do not expect it to be. I like to play at the platoon/company commander level and because of the quality of the TacAI I can get away with it.

At present I and my friends play no war games,in fact no computer games at all, but once CM arrives all that will change.

Amongst military history nerds like my self and others on the forum there will never be 100% agreement on all matters.( I would still like to see the MG42s firepower in the LMG role reduced at long range from 18 to say 12 given the Bren's 9 rating.)But non of this puts me off, people honestly disagree about matters that can not be proven.

The realism of the game still has me in shock plus lots of what, this side of the pond, we call "boys-own-adventure" without any one being hurt.

All the best,

Kip.

PS. The way I enjoy watching artillery bombardments makes me think I may have a personality disorder, but I do not care!

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

[This message has been edited by kip anderson (edited 05-26-2000).]

[Guest Big Time Software]

Thanks for the comments Kip

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>PS. The way I enjoy watching artillery bombardments makes me think I may have a personality disorder, but I do not care!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, if it is in fact a personality disorder to watch artillery come down in force, then you are in very good company When Charles first put in the "incomming" artillery sounds I took one spotter for each of the different artillery types on the German side. Then I simply pounded the crap out of an unfortunate US Rifle Company. I mean, I hit these guys with everything from 75mm Howitzers all the way up to the largest Nebelwerfers (260? I forget). There wasn't much left of the map when the ammo was expended

Steve

[Londoner]

Kip, Brens were not in use in the British Army in the 80's m8 they woz gone by the sixties, and Michael E, the Vickers phased out in by 42? No way m8! British Paras used em 2 great effect in Operation Market Garden, the water jacket meant the gun could fire 4 almost as long as u could stay awake . I'm a BA War Studies Grad and i interviewed a bunch of paras who saw action at Arnhem, 4 a dissation. One Para told me he saw a Vickers gun team suppress a german platoon in a house 4 half n hour, they'd fired around 3000 rounds and hadn't even changed barrel!

[Pacestick]

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

Talking about surviving vicker MGs, at our land warfare centre they used vickers mgs to provide overhead fire for troops running through battle innoculation courses prior to shipping out to vietnam, the guns would regularly fire thousands of rounds at a time without any mishap and were in use until the mid seventies.

There are very few aussie soldiers who served from the mid 603 through to the mid 70s that were not familiar with the crack/thump of vickers gunfire.

For what it is worth, I have found combat mission's ai easy to beat but adequate enough to require me to use real world attention to the appreciation process and the employment of small unit tactics. My observations come form a 22 years experience base as an infantry soldier. I think it is a great game but will be superb with the internet play patch <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

[Guest kip anderson]

Hi,

I knew the Paras gave up the Bren for the FN MAG early on but thought other infantry units continued to use it into the 80s.But if that was not the case I am happy to learn from a man that knows.

I also thought the Vickers continued in British use all the way to the end of the war, interesting to hear its sustained fire ability.

I too think that internet play will be best of all.

All the best,

Kip.

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

[Londoner]

Kip, Pace u'z wonna email game? Havn't played yet but itch 2 give it a go.

[Guest kip anderson]

Londoner,Hi,

I have never played an e-mail game and sadly I don't think I have the time as it must be a bit time consuming.When the patch is out and live internet play is possible the action will be quicker and games will most likely be two or so hours, e-mail must be double that.

Thanks for the offer though.

All the best,

Kip.

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