Guest Lord General MB Posted November 5, 2000 Share Posted November 5, 2000 Soldiers, OK, OK, settle down. Now I have a question for you all that seems to have gone unanswered. WHY don't tank MG's jam up? There not "Magic MGs" after all. ------------------ Cheers, Lord General Mr. Bill, 1st Army Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark IV Posted November 5, 2000 Share Posted November 5, 2000 Interesting observation. This was a big problem with the co-ax in the M60, and probably in WWII. Certainly would make a difference in CM2 with Russkis swarming the AFV. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Lord General MB Posted November 5, 2000 Share Posted November 5, 2000 Sir, Actaully I brought it up awhile ago, but got no response.... A conspircay? ------------------ Cheers, Lord General Mr. Bill, 1st Army Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sgt. Steiner Posted November 5, 2000 Share Posted November 5, 2000 Looks like you've either discovered a bug, or simply an area never addressed when the game was coded.. ------------------ "Are you Sgt. Steiner? No, I'm Lili Marlene" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Lord General MB Posted November 5, 2000 Share Posted November 5, 2000 Soldier, Sgt, I order you to get back into line! Form up! And yah, I'm pretty sure it wasn't addressed during coding. I'm hoping for a patch of some sort. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aka_tom_w Posted November 5, 2000 Share Posted November 5, 2000 Just an additional note here. The Tobruk mannual from Avalon Hill (Copyright 1974) indicates dud rates of most weapons. For instance the dud rate for the German 81 mm mortar is a remarkable 15%. In Cm is seems EVERY HE round that is fired explodes and every mortar round that drops explodes and every arty round that hits the ground goes BOOM! Maybe there is some good info somewhere for dud rates of various weapons. Avalon Hill found them for Tobruk in 1975. Are Dud rates modeled in CM at all? just curious. -tom w Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Lord General MB Posted November 5, 2000 Share Posted November 5, 2000 Sir, Tom, I have to agree with you on that! I don't think I've ever seen a dud! I keep hering stories of panzerfausts not exploding propperly, but NOOOO. In CM they work fine (every time!) ------------------ Cheers, Lord General Mr. Bill, 1st Army Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Theron Posted November 5, 2000 Share Posted November 5, 2000 Come to think of it I have never seen any vehicles MG jam, not just tanks. Maybe my vehicles are lucky or I haven't noticed, but the only JAMs I have seen are for teams. I also don't think MGs jam for platoons either. They always seem to fire as if all their wepons are working. I agree that a lot more "real world" breakage could be modeled i.e. dud rounds, misfires, tanks breaking down etc. Maybe we should just worry about JAMs being modeled correctly since the game seems to model it for some units and not others. Theron Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Lord General MB Posted November 5, 2000 Share Posted November 5, 2000 Soldiers, So... Whats BTS got to say about, jamming on tank MGs, and mabye dud shells? Any input/ideas? ------------------ Cheers, Lord General Mr. Bill, 1st Army Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slapdragon Posted November 5, 2000 Share Posted November 5, 2000 I do not know why BTS did not including jamming, but I suspect it would not effect things as much as you thin. The three weapons used on the Western front, the MG42, the 1917, and the M2HB, each had a MRBS of 5-800 rounds in testing and a MRBF of around 2000 rds, and a MRBCF high enough that it could not be recorded according to a conversation with Dockery (author of Navy Seals and an expert in small arms). MRBS is mean round between stoppage, or a jam that takes from 5-15 seconds to clear. MRBF is a jam or mechanical problem that takes upwards to 5 minutes to clear. A Catastrophic failure is one in which the weapon must be repaired by a gunsmith. The last two would result in loss of the weapon for part of the game, or all of the game. Now, assume that in battle conditions things are an order of magnitude worse (they are not or the MG42 would be jamming in battle every 50-80 rds -- the numbers are probably 1/2 to 2/3 range numbers based on tests of the MAG-58, CETME, and M-60 Machinegun), but lets talk worse case - no one in CM cares for their MGs on either side and everyone's ammo is terrible. Every belt you get an average of 2 jams that stops the MG for 5 seconds each, making the MG 1/8 less effective all the time (have to consider belt replacement time or it would be 1/6th). On the average, 200 rds of ammo generates a stoppage that holds the show for 5 minutes of so. In the worst case, far worse than we can make any case for, you have a marginal decrease in effectiveness, and the occasional loss of a tank MG. Now, lets be reasonable. If we assume the stoppages are twice as likely rather than an order of magnitude from testing, then we would reduce the firepower of a MG 1/40th to account for stoppages, and and average of 1000 rds fired in combat will generate a 5 minute stoppage. In other words, to small to really matter at all. On the Ostfront, in the cold and with poor quality MGs like the PD, the numbers may be much more compelling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slapdragon Posted November 5, 2000 Share Posted November 5, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mark IV: Interesting observation. This was a big problem with the co-ax in the M60, and probably in WWII. Certainly would make a difference in CM2 with Russkis swarming the AFV.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> The M73 used on the M60 was totally different from the 1917 variants used in WW2 on US tanks. The Canadians still use the M1917 exactly because it is one of the most study machineguns ever made. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aka_tom_w Posted November 5, 2000 Share Posted November 5, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Slapdragon: The M73 used on the M60 was totally different from the 1917 variants used in WW2 on US tanks. The Canadians still use the M1917 exactly because it is one of the most study machineguns ever made. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Canadian armed forces HAVE machineguns?? I highly doubt we ever actually fire them with intent to kill, we FAR too polite to use such a noisy weapon as an MG. (Even a GOOD one) (Total Sarcasm) -tom w Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Lord General MB Posted November 5, 2000 Share Posted November 5, 2000 Sir, (Sarcasam ON). I thought all we had were hockey sticks and those stale Tim Hortons doughnuts! You ever been hit in the eye by a powdered doughnut? ------------------ Cheers, Lord General Mr. Bill, 1st Army Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slapdragon Posted November 5, 2000 Share Posted November 5, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by aka_tom_w: Canadian armed forces HAVE machineguns?? I highly doubt we ever actually fire them with intent to kill, we FAR too polite to use such a noisy weapon as an MG. (Even a GOOD one) (Total Sarcasm) -tom w<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> They put them on damn sleds, which is why on NATO exercises you can always find the Canadians somewhere in the rear of whatever column they are in. Plus, the sleds make a terrible racket when dragged through city streets. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Andrew Hedges Posted November 5, 2000 Share Posted November 5, 2000 Looking at Slapdragon's post, it occurred to me that tank machineguns should jam less frequently than regular machine guns -- perhaps more in line with the theoretical limits -- because they are protected from the environment inside the tank. That is, an infantry machine gun team is typically crawling in the dirt, crawling through the mud, being pinned in foxholes (well, mine are ), getting rained on, etc. All of which increases the chances that they would get dirt either in the MG itself or on the ammunition belt, leading to an increased likelihood of jamming as compared to a tank machine gun, which is clean and dry. Squad MG's don't jam either (nor do MP-40s, MP-44s, BAR's, Thompsons, Garands, Stens, etc. -- I suppose to the extent this is modeled, it would be done so by means of the firepower number, though). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Lord General MB Posted November 7, 2000 Share Posted November 7, 2000 Soldiers, Quick bump... ------------------ Cheers, Lord General Mr. Bill, 1st Army Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Splinty Posted November 7, 2000 Share Posted November 7, 2000 I must say the M240C on my old Bradley would jam an awful lot,I'd say at least once every 200rds. or so. The jams were normally fairly easy to clear however,just yank the charging cable and go,normally you could resume firing in less than 10 seconds. A major jam could be problematic because you'd have to pull the weapon out of it's mount to get to the feed tray. I'd imagine WW2 tankers went through even more difficulty due to combat conditions,less time to pull through maintenance,bad weather etc. ------------------ Nicht Schiessen!! [This message has been edited by Splinty (edited 11-07-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slapdragon Posted November 7, 2000 Share Posted November 7, 2000 What you describe would be a stoppage. The M1917 / 1919 series weapons are only slightly more reliable than the excellent 240 (a MAG58 variant with a short receiver.) The M1917 though is much less likely to suffer an outright failure requiring remounting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Lord General MB Posted November 7, 2000 Share Posted November 7, 2000 Sirs, So What about, Sten and Bren? Did they jam enough to be a problem? And back to tank mg's: WHY DON"T THEY JAM? Tanks get rainned on, covered in mud, dirt ect. I think theyed jam... ------------------ Cheers, Lord General Mr. Bill, 1st Army Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chupacabra Posted November 7, 2000 Share Posted November 7, 2000 Er, I'm pretty sure I've seen vehicle MGs jam... ------------------ Grand Poobah of the fresh fire of Heh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slapdragon Posted November 7, 2000 Share Posted November 7, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Lord General MB: Sirs, So What about, Sten and Bren? Did they jam enough to be a problem? And back to tank mg's: WHY DON"T THEY JAM? Tanks get rainned on, covered in mud, dirt ect. I think theyed jam... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> The question is not if they jam, but if it has any effect on the game. This is the reason for a conspiracy of slience on the issue. However MB, weapon jamming has a large research body that can be tapped, and it could be modelled. I am sure you could come up with a system that simulated weapon jamming. As for me, I am not sure it is an issue until you get really poor weapons like the Dsk38 and PD in the game, or until you get the cold Russian winter (not that the western winter did not cause problems) into the game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Lord General MB Posted November 8, 2000 Share Posted November 8, 2000 Sir, Since MG teams jam, and since tank guns can become damged, tank MG should jam. Not so much that they become useless, but mabye for a few minutes. And ya it would have an effect: You know all those time when you try to rush a tank with a panzerfaust and your guys get gunned down? What if the gun jammed...? It happened in WWII. Thus it should be modled!! ------------------ Cheers, Lord General Mr. Bill, 1st Army Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slapdragon Posted November 8, 2000 Share Posted November 8, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Lord General MB: Sir, Since MG teams jam, and since tank guns can become damged, tank MG should jam. Not so much that they become useless, but mabye for a few minutes. And ya it would have an effect: You know all those time when you try to rush a tank with a panzerfaust and your guys get gunned down? What if the gun jammed...? It happened in WWII. Thus it should be modled!! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Then sir, create a model that can be simulated! The field is wide open. Everyone else is ignoring this issue, it is ripe for you to research and solve! While you are at it, I think we should look into the issue of gas causing food and degraded weapons performance. Army food causes gas, and everyone knows that farting causes a loss of accuracy in shooting. So, why don't unit firepowers reflect the large amount of flatulance that was going on in the field. BTS has repeatedly ignored me on this of course, and I have had to bump this subject to the top numerous times. Lets fix this error in the game. The fart factor should be taken into account. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Splinty Posted November 8, 2000 Share Posted November 8, 2000 Indeed combat flatulence has been cited as a major cause in loss of battle efficiency. See Chap.13 in Cramp's Gaseous Emissions and Their Effect on the Combat Soldier. Where he states that "the average soldier would expel gas once every five minutes,thereby disrupting both his aim and his ability to concentrate on the task at hand due to the odor and vibration of the flatus." Imagine the disruption caused by an entire platoon repeatedly farting in battle. [This message has been edited by Splinty (edited 11-07-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Lord General MB Posted November 8, 2000 Share Posted November 8, 2000 Sir, in response, I hate you all. ------------------ Cheers, Lord General Mr. Bill, 1st Army Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts