Questioning MG effectiveness?

[Guest Big Time Software]

Talenn,

Sorry, we don't have an upload area on our site. Perhaps someone else will offer one up.

Be carefull of test scenarios because they can be done in such a way that the results are more what you expect them to be than they would be in a real game. But off the top of my head...

3xMGs firing at 72 men on the charge is not overwhelming odds in favor of the MG at such a short range. In fact, I would say it is in favor of the charging infantry. How fast can a man do a 100m dash? How fast can a MG traverse, aim, and fire effectively? I fired an MG42 on the tripod and, although easy to use, it does take time to line up and fire effectively (granted I lacked training).

One of the things that strikes me about your example is the range. MMG and HMGs are designed to be most effective at about 500-1000m with a screening of infantry inbetween them and the targets. You have removed the screening infantry and basically plopped the attacking infantry right in front of the guns. This is not ideal for the MGs in the least.

As for the human waves, they worked in real life and they work in CM. How anybody survived the WWI trench battles is beyond me, but they did. The Soviets were also very effective at this as well. And I have read more than an account or two about it happening on the Western and Italian fronts too, although more so for the Germans on the attack than the Allies. And such attacks were against combined arms defences and not lone MGs. Again, that is one of the problems with your test. Lone MGs just aren't designed to do what you are asking of them, especially at such short ranges.

Also keep in mind that what the attacker is suffering is probably not good in the "strategic" sense of the game. If I have a company and rush a few MGs, lose 1/2 my men in the process and take out the MGs, I would call that a bloody failure. And the score is likely to reflect that.

So at this time I don't see a problem that is in need of correcting. From the sounds of your test scenario I see 4 flaws...

1. Range is suboptimal for MGs to do maximum damage and suppression. It would be interesting to see how successfull the attacker is if you moved them out about 500-800m.

2. The Attacker is moving forward with 2 platoons of men vs. only 3 MGs as noted above. That is a fair number of targets at a fairly short distance to take care of.

3. You have the expectation that a MG, all on its own, can stop the infantry cold. However, I do not know what you base this on. As I have stated, MGs without supporting arms was a no-no for a reason. Combined arms tactical doctrine of both the Germans and the Allies stressed the need for infantry weapons, MGs, and light guns to all work together. Remove 2 out of the 3 elements and you undo what was found to be effective.

4. You think the human waves is an unrealistically "effective" tactic. However, I'd be curious to know what the casualty figures are for the attacker and the % succes rate of taking out an MG. Even still, it sounds like your test scenario has in fact stopped the attacker cold. This seems reasonable if it is every once and a while.

OK, well... that is my take on things I think you have in fact overlooked a few key elements in your MG test and, because of that, do not have your expectations correctly lined up with the results. As I have said, I find it pretty easy to use my MGs effectively in a combined arms setting. I can even do pretty well minus one of the key elements (other small arms or light guns), but I think it is very realistic to expect the abscence of two out of three elements to cause problems, especially at short ranges.

Steve

[guachi]

Steve mentioned in an earlier post that MGs don't have a 'go for broke' mode where they just unload on the enemy.

This thread here:

http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/Forum1/HTML/002863.html is about an MG42 I had in the beta demo that unleashed 32 units of ammo in 40 seconds. It was really cool to watch but this kind of 'feature' has apparently been fixed.

Jason

[Mostro]

Last night I tested my hypotesis in the way I'd write.

In CE I played a hotseat game. I located a MG (green or regular) team in the church (2nd floor) and some US infantry teams in the wood at the other side of the road.

Then, one per turn, the US teams ran towards the church turn at left at the road and go down to the houses.

The results:

1) the casualties per 12 men team, accounted from the US side, where from 2 to 5 in the total circuit (running down the hill, panic and running up the hill).

2) in the 8 teams experiment, only 1 casualty was done before the US team reached the road, most of them were in the move looking for cover and in the return to the wood.

3) an isolated intantry running team can be unstopable for a MG team

More experiments tonight...

[Talenn]

Steve@BTS:

Good point about the Range. Yes, I am pretty sure that optimal MG range is a bit farther out due to traverse and adjustment ability. I'll re-test at 400-500m as an exercise.

The current test, however, is barely generating casualties, and CERTAINLY not along the lines of 50%. Note that this is NOT a 'rush the MG' test, but an INTERDICTION test. The troops are running THROUGH the MG fire Zones. Picture it as a 'T' with the MGs at base and the squads running from one side the the top line to the other..ie crossing the line of fire.

If I was getting the results you describe, I would call that adequate given the limitations we are working with. Hopefully the 400-500m test will generate more substantial results. One thing here though: The 'Firepower' ratings should reflect the fact that MGs are optimized for a bit farther out if that turns out to be the case.

The other misunderstanding seems to be in what results I am expecting. I do NOT expect them to singlehandedly stop the assault. It would, however, be nice if they delayed it by even a turn or two, which also fails to happen in the current test. Most of the squads simply move unimpeded, occasionally losing a man or two.

Different, but related issue: Are there some sort of 'squad cohesion' rules in CM yet? By this, I mean that when a squad suffers 'x'% casualties, it should not be available for offensive actions. Often, I use, and see used, 'squads' of 2-3 men (out of 9-12) in late turn assaults. I would think that once half or more of the squad is killed (or combat ineffective), that the remainder would not be really interested in continuing the fight with the same gusto.

This could also go a ways to penalizing the moving in the open, accepting the casualties with little long term effects. If a 12 man squad become useless for offensive operations once 6-7 or popped, it might give people more pause before charging headlong across the open plains ; )

I'll post tomorrow with the altered test results. FWIW, I dont place 100% stock in static test results, but it should at least generate 'ball park' results. It will vary on either side in actual games, but the results of the 100-200m MG Dash (a new Olympic sport!) cant be less effective in the game as the MGs really didnt accomplish all that much.

Talenn

[howardb]

I'm currently reading a book about the British SAS and I came over some interesting numbers. An SAS officer actually bragged about killing 3 or 4 soldiers from Jemen with only 80 rounds spent in a firefight. I think this says a little about what to expect from shootouts and these guys are Crack troops. It's not the "one shot one kill" or shooting from the hip thing you see in films that's realistic. With that said I think the lethality of the mg's are a bit low.

[Talenn]

Ok, some further test results:

I moved the MG's back to about 300-400m...more than that and they often didnt even see the men running until they were half-way across. I then situated the 3 MGs (MG42, Hvy) in buildings on a hill for one test, and on level ground for another. Note that at these ranges, it is not possible to even try to use the 'Ambush' command to direct the fire. The 'targets' were 2 platoons of Ami's, (Regulars, like the MGs). They started in Buildings and had 100-110m of open ground to cover before the next terrain. Their orders were alternated in the tests between Move and Move fast. All were sent simultaneously so there was no cover fire.

Results:

10 out of 15 times: All Squads except one made it across in the first 1-2 Turns...usual losses were a total of 3-5 men.

1 out of 15 times: All squads across in first turn, 5 Casualties.

2 out of 15 times: 3-4 Squads make it across in first 1-2 turns; remaining ones Broken or pinned...total casualties 6&8

1 out of 15 times: Only command group makes it across in first 2 turns. All other squads retreated to start positions with 4 casualties inflicted

1 out of 15 times: 3 Squads and PL make it across with 1 loss, other 3 and PL are retreated to start line with 4 losses.

From these results it appears that, in general, the MGs are COMPLETELY ineffective at interdicting movement. When the infantry 'Moved' they were less likely to make it in the first few turns. When they 'ran', the vast majority of time they arrived in combat shape, with minimal losses.

In only one out of 15 tests were the Amis even delayed by a turn or two. In the majority of the runs, the MGs were barely even a factor. The Amis would have made it in the same amount of time with or without walking into the fire lanes of 3 HEAVY MG42s.

Is this REALLY correct? I just have a hard time swallowing that, I guess. After watching it THAT many time, I can see some of the issues as to why it happens. Like you said, there is no ability for the MGs to fire 'sustained' bursts or to step up the RoF in any way. In general, the individual bursts were reasonably effective, but they occured far too infrequently. The average number of bursts fired was 3-4/MG. Thats only 3-4 Bursts/minute. That seems a bit low to me, and that might indeed be the culprit. Perhaps MGs should have a variable RoF? I realize that could cause a 'command' nightmare, so let the TacAI control it, but weight the usage so that it occurs at the 'optimal' MG ranges and/or if the MG position is threatened (perhaps if enemy infantry close to a certain range?). If the number of bursts increased to two or three times the current, the MGs would be quite effective in the Interdiction role. I think this is what is missing: the number of shots taken in a given turn.

Note that this shouldnt be taken as a general request for an increase in MG RoF. For long range targets and 'area fire' etc, the regulated bursts seem appropriate. For covering a field of fire during enemy movements, the longer sustained firings would be more appropriate.

Any thoughts on something like this? Possible? Desirable?

Thanx,

Talenn

[LuckyShot]

Hi All,

I've been reading the posts here for some time but so far hadn't posted - what could I say except this is the game I've been dreaming of for some time!

Anyways I just had a thought re: MGs that might be worth consideration for CM2.

I don't have any problems with the current modeling of MGs but as Talenn has noted it might be beneficial to have an occasional increased ROF.

Maybe MG units could have a toggle (like the Hide command) something like "Go for Broke" that would enable them to double their ROF when certain pre-determined circustances were met (like an enemy unit at optimal range who is 90% exposed or better).

In short, some sort of toggle that would basically tell your MG operators 'if you've got a sure kill lined up - give it hell'.

I realize there were very important reasons for not exceeding a certain ROF like barrel wear and ammunition depletion, but I would imagine gunners often pushed their weapons to their limits in critical situations. Perhaps giving this order could increase the chances of a jam or something to make it more risky?

Anyways, just a thought I wanted to share.

Thanks for an incredible game BTS, and keep up the great work!

[Doug Beman]

Talenn: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>10 out of 15 times: All Squads except one made it across in the first 1-2 Turns...usual losses were a total of 3-5 men.

1 out of 15 times: All squads across in first turn, 5 Casualties.

2 out of 15 times: 3-4 Squads make it across in first 1-2 turns; remaining ones Broken or pinned...total casualties 6&8

1 out of 15 times: Only command group makes it across in first 2 turns. All other squads retreated to start positions with 4 casualties inflicted

1 out of 15 times: 3 Squads and PL make it across with 1 loss, other 3 and PL are retreated to start line with 4 losses.

<snip>

In only one out of 15 tests were the Amis even delayed by a turn or two.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Seems to me that 3 out of 15 times the Amis got seriously screwed up by the MGs: 2 times a bunch of squads get BROKEN, and 1 time they don't even try to cross; instead they run back to the start area.

Also keep in mind, Talenn, that you're moving these squads with HQs present, which will go a LONG way toward keeping your Ami grunts moving. Try another group of tests whereing the HQ unit stays behind ("you schmoes cross this field and I'll join you after you've knocked out that damn MG nest". I'll bet that the incidence of squads turning around and running back, or simply dropping to cover, will climb significantly.

DjB

[Seanachai]

Regarding Talenns 'test', just a question and a couple of quick thoughts (along a common sense line, no military experience nor grog knowledge):

Talenn, in your test were the MGs firing from flank, as I think you've described before, or were they directly ahead of the oncoming units?

In any case, I figure a couple of things. If I'm heading toward an objective, and I'm getting fire from the side and nothing coming at me from where I'm heading, then why turn around and run back, where some big Sargeant's gonna kick me in the butt and make me do it again? Just keep going, as the idea is to get out from under the fire. And if the MG fire is coming at me unsupported from ahead, which is my objective, than maybe a lot of troopers, especially where the MGs fire is being spread over us, would keep going figuring 'okay, we get through this and we hammer that SOB.' Sure, green troops might halt in place from panic and take a drubbing. Better quality troops have to have it in mind that taking cover will keep them under the same fire for a longer time. And while some are turned back, it seems unrealistic to assume that several squads worth of guys would all decide it's too dangerous and quit pushing toward the objective (although obviously in some cases they would, and that seems to have occured in some of your tests). As devastating as MG fire doubtless was, is it realistic that they were never taken out by assault? Or that troops who suddenly came under fire 'usually' gave it up and allowed themselves to be 'interdicted'? I don't see how much progress could have been made if that were routinely the case.

Also, I've seen a number of threads here that point out that unit cohesion and morale are affected by 'isolation'. Several squads, charging together with their officers are far less likely, it seems to me, to break, hit the dirt, turn back, or do any of the 'interdiction' behaviours you're expecting, even if they're quality was only 'average'. 'Regular' quality troops in the game are regarded as properly trained, and have had some combat experience. They know what they 'should' do when they come under this kind of fire.

Finally, your test seems flawed to me by some behaviours I've witnessed in games I've played. If I'm running troops towards an objective and they come under MG fire from the area they're heading towards, my experience is that they are much more likely to pack it in. Especially true when they're operating alone or unsupported. Also, if they're heading towards an objective, an MG opens up on them from the flank, or from ahead, and they encounter other units in the direction of their advance, they are even more likely to take cover, head back, or head off toward a 'new' objective that they've decided is less threatening. I've had two squads proceeding towards an MG who was firing on them run into a lowly FO in the trees along their way suddenly stop and take cover because of this new, suddenly perceived 'threat', and become pinned down for several turns.

I think a more realistic test would be to place a squad or so of troops in the area of the objective and move troops toward it with either flanking MG fire, or MG support from the objective, and then see how well the interdiction goes. I think you're expectation that MGs acting alone and unsupported should consistently be able to turn back assaults by multiple units that are in C&C is unrealistic. And to model such behaviour into the game would allow a defender to place a few effective MGs to cover his positions and pool his other units for use in ways that would be even more unrealistic. If MGs alone were able to pin or rollback assaults unsupported, it would open the door for all sorts of odd behaviour.

Tests like this are very interesting, and can often point up a few anomalies in coding that might need tweaking. But they're inherently unrealistic, and if considered in isolation, might lead one to change the game in ways that would completely unbalance it, as well as being ahistorical. I mean, I know that there's a residential road near my house where the lights are set for 35mph. Which should mean I could conceiveably also run the whole 2 mile length at 70 mph. However, if I tried it during 'rush hour' traffic I doubt I'd get two blocks before my experiment blew up (because I'd killed a pedestrian, biker, hit a turning car, ecountered a cop, etc). If I did it during off peak hours, I might do much better, and maybe even make it all the way. But it seems to me that tests such as you've set up would be the same as if I tried my little stunt at 3 AM on a Sunday night, with nothing between me and automotive glory except perhaps a lone racoon! If I made it, I doubt I'd go to the city and tell them they needed to rethink the speed limit on Lyndale Ave.! Although I might ask for more measures taken to safeguard our streets from stray racoons. (I know this is a gross exageration, and your test is more realistic, but I feel they tend towards the same point)

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

After witnessing exceptional bravery from his Celtic mercenaries, Alexander the Great called them to him and asked if there was anything they feared. They told him nothing, except that the sky might fall on their heads.

[Guest Scott Clinton]

Slightly off topic, but...

Allowing battles to end randomly instead of on a pre-set turn would go along way toward preventing the 'gamey-land-grab' in operations.

Just add a random number of turns (1-2,1-3,1-4??) at the end of battles and this behavior will substancially decrease, IMO.

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

Please note: The above is solely the opinion of 'The Grumbling Grognard' and reflects no one else's views but his own.

[Talenn]

Doug Beman:

Well, I guess we disagree on the concept of 'seriously screwed up' ; ) To me, taking the ground I want, after moving across the enemy's planned fields of fire with only half a dozen casualties out of 80 men is a godsend. I would have NO problems doing that again and again. There usually arent THAT many unpleasant areas of open ground to have to cover. I guess part of this is my predisposition to play the Reds in any game I can. If I've taken less than 50% casualties, everything is just peachy! ; ) I definately subscribe to the 'If you want to make an omelette, you have to break a few eggs' theory. : )

And why WOULDNT the Leaders be going if the whole platoon was charging? I see no reason to ever leave them back so, I consider this the norm. Do most folks not send their leaders along on an advance? I guess I ALSO subcribe to the 'Lead from the Front' theory as well. ; )

Seanachai:

Yes, there is a fine line between realistic and overkill. I know that. I would at LEAST like to see 3 HEAVY MGs give pause to two platoons of REGULAR Infantry more than 25% of the time. The casualties are light, and the progress is largely unimpeded the majority of the time. This is what I would expect from one or perhaps two MGs, but THREE covering the same area should be a perceived death trap that troops arent so willing to adventure through.

I definately think that the test you propose is more realistic in some cases, but the fact remains that MGs were OFTEN deployed to 'anchor' a defensive position and interdict units from moving. Look at the way the Germans cleared blocks in Stalingrad: They would isolate a block (or building) by covering the accesses with MG fire, then advance down and clear the isolated troops. I dont see how this type of assault can be modeled when the MGs can't ISOLATE anything. The enemy can blithely walk/run through the MG fire and reinforce the center with relative impunity. And THAT is where the flaw lies IMO. I think that the actual effects the MGs have is prolly not too far off, but the PSYCHOLOGICAL effect is wrong. People dont WANT to walk into the MG fire. Its more of a 'bark is worse than the bite' type of a situation, I guess. If the troops DID brave the fire, the results werent often too catastrophic, but in CM, the troops seem a little TOO eager to continue on in the face of massed MG fire.

I think the solution IMO, would be the 'rock and roll' option for the MGs. An alternate would be a bigger morale hit for MOVING while under MG fire. Either one would probably clear up the issue to my mind. Question is, would such a change screw up something else somewhere along the line?

Thanx,

Talenn

[CommanderC]

Well, here's my 2 cents.

I think these MG test results are confusing due to two factors: 1) CM is coded to have each unit's performance affected greatly by the overall tactical picture.... i.e. the MG units isolated by themselves are much less effective than MG units which are supported with accompanying infantry squads. Morale and overall effectiveness suffers when the MG unit feels isolated and is facing large numbers of assaulting enemy troops.

2) I have experienced one of the CM scenarios where I attempted to rush a German MG (containing a single MG) concrete bunker with 6 to 8 squads of airborne (highly trained but inexperienced) troops accompanied by their HQs accross open ground and in every case the attack was completely broken up with men dead, squads scattering, running for cover, retreating, etc. The way CM is coded, (and I think accurately reflecting history), infantry under fire do not just drop in place and be pinned, but seek the nearest available cover. If the nearest cover is straight ahead, that's where they will run.

I think these two factors explain the results you are seeing in the MG tests.

[:USERNAME:]

I think this whole thread is full of misconceptions and vague opinions.

In reality it became evident during modern battles that the manuver force (ie moving guys) should be in the minority to the cover force. In close terrain this was particuly true. In Normandy it was common to have everyone in a company save a squad or half squad firing and laying down a base of fire while a small element would work its way forward on a limited mission. This could be just to get close enough so that they would try to take out one OP or MG nest.

Mass wave attacks are stupid and should be avoided. MGs during WWI did mow down waves of infantry..

I think the real question should be "Does CM model infantry firepower correctly?".

Can one platoon of defending dug-in infantry stop up to twice their own numbers? Without support weaapons on the attacckers side (tanks/arty) I would expect they would usually (given good fields of fire). Can a platoon stop a company? Usually not but possible.

Steve is absolutely wrong about MGs. It is common practice to set them up to defend where grazing fire can set up kill zones about 200 meters out. A defender will usually wait till a wave attacker is well within this zone to open fire. This was standard practice on the eastern front and works very well.

You fire a MG across your defensive front so as to get the attackers to cross your fire. You aim ahead of them and allow them to walk into it. At knee level they are entering a kill zone. You setup aiming stakes so you know when to open up.

MGs in the attack support role will use the range that Steve says because they will be attacking point targets. In the defense you would not normally advertise your main line of resistance till the last moment. Its just an extension of ambushing.

In reality "running" on the battlefield entails losing alot of unit cohesion (and assumes alot of command and control). I believe the game should limit the number of running commandss given out. "group" commands can count as one or something like that. Most real "charges" are rare aaand demand alot of time to setup.

Lewis

[Talenn]

CommanderC:

Some good thoughts, but I made sure to give the MGs a decent Platoon leader who kept all three in CC radius. All three MGs are fairly close together, not isolated. Even in games where I have a whole platoon line arrayed with MGs in support, the enemy can still often move through the MGs designated field with little trouble.

Also, please note that the reason the 'clinical' test was set up in the first place was because I, and others I play with, were puzzled by the MG's lack of interdiction ability in the actual games we were playing. They were regular scenarios, using balanced forces etc., and still, the MGs failed to perform the role that I believe they should firmly be used for. No, its not a gamestopper, but I think its something that a few minor tweaks could easily handle, without making MGs the 'wonder weapon' that it is in some other games.

:USERNAME:

I wouldnt go so far as to say that Infantry firepower in general is flawed in the game. Most of the time, it feels about right IMO. I do agree that the vast preponderance of a force should be providing cover fire for a small maneuver element, and absent that cover, casualties should be high. Thats my reason for the 'issue' with the MGs. I see men moving forward by Platoon with NO cover fire, into MG firelanes and not being signifcantly affected. I seriously question that modeling in this case. Like you said, MGs were set up to 'cover' certain Zones because they proved effective at preventing any significant enemy movement while the MG remained unsuppressed. In the current CM model, this is not present at all, and the tactic of using MGs for outer cover zones leads to quick envelopment and destruction in the games I have played.

I truly feel after this whole thread that the MG 'problem' I'm seeing is due to the low number of bursts being fired/minute. Some sort of variable RoF would go MILES down the road to making MGs feel like the interdiction weapons they were used for historically.

Anyone from BTS think it could be worth a shot?

Thanx again...man I love this forum! Good replies, and devoid of the 'flames' commonly seen elsewhere!

Talenn

[This message has been edited by Talenn (edited 07-05-2000).]

[dalem]

Talenn-

I have read through the thread, and would like to reiterate a point already brought up by others:

In my opinion you are starting your thesis from a baseline of error: you believe MGs can be maximally effective when acting alone. There has never been anything I have read in all my research of the period of 1935 to 1945 to bear this out. Quite simply, if HMGs were as effective as you wish them to be, there would never have been any need for any combined arms defenses (against infantry attacks), and the period would have seen the waxing of the importance of the Machine Gun Battalion in importance instead of the waning and eclipse of that particular formation.

You state it yourself: MGs were used to "anchor" defensive postions. ANCHOR, not "operate in a vacuum". I appreciate your sincerity and your willingness to test your theory, but your theory is flawed in that it doesn't represent anything worth testing.

Others have typed it previously: in open terrain, sprinting with my head down is pretty much the optimal method of survival when hit by smallarms fire on a single axis (I've read different things about surviving artillery, but don't know enough about that). Add some fire from another direction, however and you've just transformed a live fire course into a killzone.

What is shown by your 'tests' is a lack of effective crossfires with the proper weapons at the proper ranges, not any indication of MG 'ineffectiveness'.

-dale

[Lee]

Interesting discussion. I think that one thing, which was pointed out

several times in this thread, is very important here. If you

have good solid troops under your command (regular or better) and

they come under the kind of fire in your test (a few MG's firing from

the same direction); most of them would be smart enough to know that

even though they don't like the kind of fire they are taking, it would

generally be a *lot* worse for them if they hit the dirt and stayed

in the open or tried to stop and turn around and run back. In this type

of situation, the best course of action would likely be to keep your

head low and run as fast as your legs will carry you. And I would

expect troops of regular or better quality to be aware of this fact.

Now, in this particular test the fire was coming from one way only.

If they were taking fire from ahead as well as the side I bet that would

make a world of difference most of the time.

Having said all that, I agree that one of the factors that is probably

coming into play here is the lack of variable ROF. Perhaps a way can be

found to add an optional command, as has been suggested, to account for

this. This order would apply only to MG detachments. And would give

them permission to crank up the ROF 2-3 times normal if they caught

infantry in the open under ideal/near-ideal conditions, such as the

situation in this test. As far as a MG team being charged by enemy

infantry at close range, I don't think any special order or permission

should be required for them to be able to crank up the ROF. I'm

sure they would be smart enough to hose down the hordes with an entire

belt before they were overwhelmed. Better to make your barrel hot

than get stuck with a bayonet. I'm not sure if this feature is

in yet, but hopefully it can get added soon. This would work just like

close combat with infantry squads, when the enemy get dangerously close

the troops tend to really open up with the firepower. The MG would

do the same, increase ROF to 2-3 times normal to try to keep from being

overrun. This would happen automatically as an act of self-preservation

by the tac-ai and is a separate issue from the deliberate optional order

given by the player to cover non-emergency situations, which I

mentioned earlier.

As usual with CM, the subject becomes more complicated the more you

think about it.

Other than the variable ROF issue, I think CM already does just about a

perfect job of modeling MG fire.

[Jarmo]

Another voice for variable ROF.

I don't have real knowledge about the way MG42 was used. But at least the large water cooled guns, like Maxim or Vickers were often used to fire continously, belt after belt. Especially if the firers would feel themselves endangered.

[IntelWeenie]

Regarding all this testing: has anyone tried using the MGs with an area fire command? Part of the seeming lack of sustained fire may be due to the MGs tracking then firing, tracking, firing, etc. An area fire command should make them settle into more of a sustained rate of fire. Set the firing point on the far side of the area the infantry is crossing and Viola! A fire lane for all to enjoy

(I'd try it now, but I'm "at work")

[Jarmo]

I think the MG team would simply switch to target fire mode as soon as the first team comes out.

[Pfalz XII]

Another factor which has been touched on before, but has not recieved enough attention IMO, is the experience level of the attacking force. You cannot compare Regular WWII troops with soldiers from the Great War in terms of theory and tactics regarding MG's. By 1944, a lot more was known about the foolishness of using mass human wave attacks against these weapons.

In the CM universe, I would assume that Regular troops would have had not only extensive training but also some experience in the practice of assaulting enemy positions across open terrain against dug in machine gun nests. Even green troops would at least have been trained in the theory and practice behind this. Their brothers in WWI did not have this knowledge except for what they gained in actual combat (and still, the tactics of their commanders did not change until fairly late in the war). So, before you write off MG's in CM as being ineffective, I think you should try using them against squads made up of mainly green and conscript troops. I imagine the results would be a lot different from what we have seen above.

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

Formerly known as not THE Charles from BTS

[Doug Beman]

Talenn,

I don't advance infantry completely without HQs, but I keep the HQs back from the main group of line infantry. This keeps the HQ from getting blasted with the first squad in, but it also opens the way for loss of unit cohesion.

Also, if it was SOP in WW2 to hold most of the platoon and advance only a squad (in which case I've been doing it wrong!), where would the platoon HQ be? Would they be back with the main body directing cover fire, or up with the advance? These questions may sound accusatory; they're not meant to be. I'm just curious how the advance-by-squad would be done.

DjB

[Talenn]

IntelWeenie:

Jarmo is correct-I just tried it. As soon as the MG had a better target, it shifted fire to it and ceased the area fire. The RoF was the same as before: occasional bursts, approx 3-4/minute.

dalem and others about crossfires etc:

It really doesnt make much difference in the game. I've tried placing MGs on both sides; front and side; with Infantry support; etc. It does NOTHING to increase the RoF or the effectiveness of the MG fire.

Sure, when you put a platoon of infantry (German) with MGs and put other MGs on the other flank, they can USUALLY (not always) prevent the 'd#ck in hand' move across the open. BUT then you are talking almost numerically equivalent forces. It should NOT be necessary to have Platoon AND 3 MGs to stop 2 Platoons from moving in the open. And they dont even stop them in every case. And this is with NO cover fire, NO smoke, NO additional targets anywhere on the battlefield. In actual 'game' conditions, you DO need about numerical parity in order to succeed. This is just not right, IMO. If it was, the Russians WOULD have just swept the Germans back everywhere they attacked with nothing but Infantry.

Personally, I think people are trying to read too much into the coding. I'm not trying to bash the game, or the code, but does it REALLY increase anything to have MGs near other units (other than command unit, of course)? Are there REALLY added benefits to crossfires other than simply the additional numbers of units shooting? I HAVE seen some of the effects of the 'grazing fire' in many of the tests, though. So I suppose there are some effects of proper crossfires, but certainly not to the degree to which people here seem to think. I think what people are seeing is the effects of more shooters, not that the effectiveness of any of them is enhanced by the presence of their comrades.

As a further experiment, we played a regular QB (attack) with a regular map/objectives etc. The defender (German) selected a balanced force of Platoons/support/arty etc. The attacker (US) selected hordes of infantry with some arty and support (but mainly just a pile of grunts). All troops were Regular. Result: The Germans were powerless to stop the assault. Their positions were infiltrated and overrun in a tide of infantry. Sure, the Amis DID take casualties, in some cases, fairly high, but the Germans were soundly defeated. The Germans were deployed in Platoon and Company lines, with MGs back a bit and covering the same zones as the platoons they were supporting. The Amis used essentially Human Wave and boiled up through the terrain, across the open and into the German positions. It wasnt a 'close' call for the Amis either. Even though the losses were mounting at times, it was clear that the Germans would never stop them. At the end, the Germans ended up losing as many troops all told, most of which were Captured when their positions were overrun. Note that the sides were 'point balanced' and the Ami force, while infantry heavy, was not 'abusive'. The Germans were outnumbered by a reasonable margin, but the MGs did little or nothing to help stem the tide. It was the SQUADS who contributed the most (albeit with an inherent LMG). The HMGs were minor factors in an engagement that SHOULD have shown them off..ie men moving in the open in their fields of fire. They were supported/dug-in/interlocked and not under TOO much return fire. What else can they ask for?

To be fair, a few Tanks or guns go a long way to stopping an infantry 'banzai', but this does nothing to make me think that the MGs are performing properly. An Infantry company, properly dug in, with decent LoF and proper MG support should have NO problems in stopping an Infantry charge across the open. Currently, its a good possibility that they will, indeed, not only fail, but be overrun in the process.

Doug Beman:

The questions dont sound accusatory, dont worry. ; ) They DO help to illustrate my point though. Tactics like the platoon advance by squad, with the others for cover developed because it WAS suicidal to send the whole platoon moving together in the open with no cover fire. Normally, 2 squads overwatch while one maneuvers etc. This is exactly the way I played CM the first few times and it works well...but its not necessary. A few times, one of us would surprise the other player with a hidden MG or with a platoon tucked in a treeline and catch an enemy platoon moving all together in the open. The results were VERY disappointing, hence the reason for the 'clinical' test in the first place. The 'historical' tactics for advance are often NOT necessary in CM. Try it yourself. Instead of the 'proper' advance by squad, simply pick up the whole mess and order a 'move fast' command. I think you will be surprised how easy it is to move in this way.

Ok, so after all that, its pretty much a request for the same thing: a situational increase in MG RoF..either player controlled and limited to certain ranges/targets or TacAI controlled with it weighting the fire for men moving in the open and/or closing on the MG.

Talenn

[This message has been edited by Talenn (edited 07-05-2000).]

[Zamo]

I just set up a test scenario with one MG pillbox and a couple of HMG guys covering a wheat field. Major axis victory. I think this picture shows the effectiveness of CM's MG's...

PS: Pay no attention to the picture of Ob, Gojowy...That's just some idiot I hang out with. I've been busy! -Zamo

[This message has been edited by Zamo (edited 07-05-2000).]

[Fionn]

Well, in a current PBEM game I am using my HMGs to fire out beyond 500 metres or so at US infantry advancing slowly in recon mode on my positions.

For a total of 2 HMG42 teams firing for the past 10 minutes at ranges of between 800 and 400 metres I have killed and wounded roughly 20 US soldiers out of a strength of about 120 soldiers ( I'm facing a US company).

I have used 1/3rd of my ammo and have pinned numerous squads in woods and scattered trees and forced several to turn tail and run for cover when they come under fire crossing open terrain. I'd say I have delayed the enemy by about 3 turns in 10 turns of firing.

I still have 2/3rds of my ammo and the enemy are entering my true killzones now. I confidently expect these 2 HMG42 teams to account for another 40 men by the time the enemy can close assault me.

So, in summary, these two HMG42 teams are probably going to account for HALF a company of US soldiers. It seems to me that with that lethality they must be working well enough.

I would suggest that anyone not getting proper results simply isn't using his HMG teams as effectively as he should.

[Talenn]

Zamo:

For every picture like that, I can post one that has the Ami's overrunning the poor little Germans too ; ) Plus, the Pillboxes seem remarkably effective and I have no question for them. Its the Regular Hvy MGs that dont seem to perform.

Fionn:

Yes, at the longer ranges, sniping at squads here and there, the MGs DO perform fine. I've never meant to imply otherwise. But when you are trying to prevent enemy movements between cover positions a few hundred meters away, they DONT stop (or even slow) them and dont inflict meaningful casualties. I'm not a moron, nor are my other players. We KNOW how to set up a defense using MGs. One of our players is Ex-Marine and he also commented on how easy it appears for troops to walk through MG fire unscathed.

Further, I would wager that your opponent is taking those casualties because he IS advancing slowly in Recon Mode. If he was RUNNING, I'd wager most of his troops would be intact. THAT is my issue. Doing the 'proper' tactic gets you killed, but carelessly RUNNING in front of MG fire tends to work.

This stems from the RoF issue AGAIN. As long as he slowly crawls and scrapes from position to position, he is going to get waxxed as the number of bursts that are fired add up over time and the effects of each burst seem about right. If he had just RUN though your fire, he'd most like have had to endure FAR fewer bursts and attained whatever objective he had tried for. The penalties for 'moving in the open' are far less than the penalties for 'crawling and taking tons of fire'.

Talenn