Patton21 Posted October 10, 2000 Share Posted October 10, 2000 Why do the machine guns fire for one second then stop for six seconds. They can't provide convering fire if they are NOT firing! Why must they stop firing after only one second!!! My men are getting killed because the support weapons are not being supportive. Also, do you guys think that the tree graphics could be replaced with real tree photos? ------------------ General Goerge Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wanderer Posted October 10, 2000 Share Posted October 10, 2000 I thought they were real tree photos ---------------------- "I love it, God help me I do love it so" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScoutPL Posted October 10, 2000 Share Posted October 10, 2000 Ever played a scenario long enough that you ran out of ammo? I have, IT SUCKS!! All the ammo is handled abstractly. BTS figured out how long it would last firing regular bursts. Just because they only fire for a second in real time doesnt mean they're not laying down fire in a good controlled manner. Actually most machineguns will only allow a 7-8 second interval for sustained rates of fire anyway. So you're 1 second of fire and 6 second lapse is good. Keep in mind that they're firing at a squad of ten to twelve. Which means they have to shoot up to 4 guys before the 3 man icon changes. Also machineguns are most effectively used for supression anyway. Its not like in the movies. In the movies they fire blanks so they fire on and on forever. Real world, you fire a machinegun like that and it'll blow up in your face after about 45-60 secs, because you'll melt the barrel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Commissar Posted October 10, 2000 Share Posted October 10, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ScoutPL: Its not like in the movies. In the movies they fire blanks so they fire on and on forever. Real world, you fire a machinegun like that and it'll blow up in your face after about 45-60 secs, because you'll melt the barrel.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Just out of curiosity, are you reffering to WW2 machine guns or does this happen to MG's today as well? ------------------ "...Every position, every meter of Soviet soil must be defended to the last drop of blood..." - Segment from Order 227 "Not a step back" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiger Posted October 10, 2000 Share Posted October 10, 2000 That's how machine guns fire. Short bursts. Here's a quote from Robert Bruce's excellent book "German Automatic Weapons of WWII": "German views on Use of the MG42": "The cyclic rate of fire... is 25 rounds per second. Most of the disadvantages, as well as the advantages, of the gun can be attributed to this single characteristic. As a result of the high rate of fire the gun has a tendency to "throw off", so that its fire stays on target for a much briefer time than does that of the slower firing MG34." "The Germans are instructed to fire bursts of from 5 to 7 rounds when they employ the MG42 as a light machine gun, since the operator cannot hold his gun on the target for a longer period. The gun must be re-aimed after each burst. Under battle conditions the MG42 can fire 22 bursts per minute- that is, about 154 rounds...." And also from the same book: "The extreme high rate of fire means that the barrel must be changed frequently in order to maintain accuracy and avoid "melt down." ...An experienced gunner can accoplish this change and be back in action in 6 seconds or less." -john Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Aitken Posted October 10, 2000 Share Posted October 10, 2000 The Commissar wrote: > Just out of curiosity, are you reffering to WW2 machine guns or does this happen to MG's today as well? Aircraft and such may be much more complex and sophisticated than they were sixty years ago, but simple slug-throwers remain the same. The German MG42 HMG is still in use as the MG3, the British Bren LMG was in use until recently (or may still be) as the L4A4, and the American .50 cal remains unchanged. A Second World War firearm is as good now as it always was. David ------------------ '...With mortar shells raining down everywhere, he said, "Come along, Padre".' When Egen showed reluctance, Tatham-Warter reassured him. 'Don't worry,' he said, 'I've got an umbrella.' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mannheim Tanker Posted October 10, 2000 Share Posted October 10, 2000 "Real world, you fire a machinegun like that and it'll blow up in your face after about 45-60 secs, because you'll melt the barrel." Not to mention that many MG's, depending on the mount, are impossible to aim after a few seconds. I've see M2HB's chew through the sandbags under their tripod from the vibration in less than 30 seconds! The gunner started inadvertantly walking rounds in on himself due to the gun suddenly depressing under the ripped-up sandbags. ------------------ "Gun damaged are rare on Shermans because they die like red shirts on Star Trek" - Slapdragon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScoutPL Posted October 10, 2000 Share Posted October 10, 2000 Modern metals allow for longer barrel life but not significantly. The best barrel perserver is still a well trained crew. The best advances in MG tech has actually been in making them simpler . Easier to produce, harder to break and lighter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KiwiJoe Posted October 10, 2000 Share Posted October 10, 2000 Ive heard of the vickers MG being fired for over 2 hours straight only being stopped to change the belts, and used as an indirect fire weapon whilst doing this to keep enemy heads down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScoutPL Posted October 10, 2000 Share Posted October 10, 2000 What you heard was most likely a war story. But if its true, was it water cooled? Water cooled guns were the only MG's capable of that kinda sustained fire. Only problem was they were extremely heavy and prone to freezing when it got cold. I've read accounts of GI's using vinegar in the winter months rather then water. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ellros Posted October 10, 2000 Share Posted October 10, 2000 Modern aircraft mg's are often in gatling configuration, which helps keep the heat down. Other aircraft cannon which are not usually have a much lower rate of fire. And you have to remember, WW2 pilots were told to fire short bursts. If they held their finger down on the trigger too long, jams were the normal result. As for man-carried mg's, virtually all of today's weapons are designed so the barrel can be changed out very quickly, since sustained fire burns barrels out quite rapidly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Lakowski Posted October 10, 2000 Share Posted October 10, 2000 In the Rheinmetall Handbook on Weaponary pp283 it states for modern machine guns " this [rhythm] consists of 144 rounds in twelve bursts of twelve rounds each , with a two second pause after each burst, a 20 second pause after each four bursts and a final cooling down following the last burst of fire.For machine gun barrels a fire rhythm of 250 rounds , in several bursts of fire is frequently chosen." It should be noted that the MG -42 is a direct desendant of the modern MG-1 & 3, infact its almost a direct copy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Madmatt Posted October 10, 2000 Share Posted October 10, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>It should be noted that the MG -42 is a direct desendant of the modern MG-1 & 3, infact its almost a direct copy.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Umm, right thought wrong order. The MG-42 CAN'T by definition be a decendent of something newer. It's the other way around. The MG-1 and MG-3 are descendents of the MG-42 and MG-34. Madmatt ------------------ If it's in Combat Mission, it's on Combat Mission HQ! Combat Mission HQ CMHQ-Annex, The Alternative side of Combat Mission CMHQ-Annex Host of the Combat Mission WebRing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phoenix Posted October 10, 2000 Share Posted October 10, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Ellros: Modern aircraft mg's are often in gatling configuration, which helps keep the heat down. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I would think an airplane flying a 20,000 feet at 350 miles per hour would have a HUGE advantage here. Why? VERY cold air temperatures and constant (cold) air flow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sgt.Morgue Posted October 10, 2000 Share Posted October 10, 2000 Any air-cooled machine gun can fire for extended periods , if the gunner uses proper burst when firing. i've seen an M73 coxial mg, using 20 to 25 round burst fire 5000 rounds in one night of fighting with no barrel exchanges and only two twisted link jams. Any machine gunner worth his salt will maintain his burst rate even in heavy combat, this ensures having his weapon to use. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Big Time Software Posted October 10, 2000 Share Posted October 10, 2000 OK, well... hopefully Patton21 learned a thing or two about MGs today There are other issues too, such as reloading, reaiming, swapping barrels (at least for those that could), etc. But the important thing here is that all small arms firing is abstracted. You wouldn't get 11 M1s and a Thompson firing all in one go, but you do in CM. So it all evens out. Also... one MG, firing in bursts, should be able to keep its targeted unit's heads down just fine if the conditions are right. But remember, a squad of infantry is 8-12 men in various positions, not all bunched up on the head of a pin. So a single MG, with no other aids, will have a hard time keeping all those guys from firing for any prolonged period of time. Sgt. Morgue, this doesn't detract from your point but an interesting tidbit came up the last time this was discussed. It was proposed that the coax uses the turret's metal like a big heatsink. So, in theory, the coax or bow MGs in a tank should have less problems with heat dispersal than an aircooled MG sitting out in the open. I don't remember what info backed up this theory, but on the face of it sounds plausible. Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chupacabra Posted October 10, 2000 Share Posted October 10, 2000 Steve, RE: the heatsink thing Out of curiosity (my interest is purely academic), how would this have worked? Unless the barrel of the MG was physically in contact with the hull of the tank, I don't see how the heat would disperse any more rapidly than any other MG. If the barrels of coax MGs were in contact with the tank hull, I can see this happening, but in the Shermans on display in the IWM, the coax MG seems to be mounted in a sort of canvas sleeve, and the barrel doesn't come in contact with the hull at all. Otherwise I guess you could say that the Earth acts as a heatsink for all MGs Once again (as I make sure to clarify in these grog-type discussions ) I have no interest in this other than that I'm curious and I like to wrangle. ------------------ Soy super bien, soy super super bien, soy bien bien super bien bien bien super super. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Germanboy Posted October 10, 2000 Share Posted October 10, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ScoutPL: What you heard was most likely a war story. But if its true, was it water cooled?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> The Vickers was water-cooled and used for delivering sustained indirect fire as part of preparatory bombardments (so-called 'peppershots'). I have read some accounts of that from British divisional histories. It could fire for as long as you have ammo to feed into it, AFAIK. ------------------ Andreas Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KiwiJoe Posted October 10, 2000 Share Posted October 10, 2000 Does any1 actually buy mgs in PBEM quick battles? I find them all but useless for the cost. They have limited movement and can't hit **** past 200 metres. I walk troops past mg42's with little fear and next to no troop loss. I laugh in the face of that ripping sound. OK... so maybe I wouldnt walk a squad out in the open past a mg42, but if its 200+ metres away I basically don't have much fear of it and focus on other targets 1st... is this how it should be? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mannheim Tanker Posted October 10, 2000 Share Posted October 10, 2000 I agree with Chupacwhatshisname The M240 MG on the M1A1 was used in both the coax and free-mounted MG (loader's MG) roles. They're completely interchangeable. As far as I could tell, where you mounted it made absolutely no difference in its ability to "stay cool". In other words, I don't think there's much validity to the theory of the tank acting as a heat sink. ------------------ "Gun damaged are rare on Shermans because they die like red shirts on Star Trek" - Slapdragon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts