Questioning MG effectiveness?

[Fionn]

Actually I still think you must be utilising them incorrectly.

A platoon assaulting one of my dual HMG positions is going to get terribly chewed up, If it simply bursts from cover 100 metres away and charges I'd be willing to bet that unless they are crack or better I'll pin and kill them long before my position ( interlocking fields of fire and all that).

Honestly, I have no problem stopping infantry platoons cold at 100 or 150 metres with a dual HMG position.

How are you arranging your HMGs.. It sounds to me like you must be doing something wrong? Are you covering all the ground and ensuring interlocking fields of fire so that a straight charge will face fire from directly in front AND grazing fire from the side?

[John Kettler]

For some strange reason page 2 of this thread is way oversize, making it hard to read. Can this be fixed, please?

Regards,

John Kettler

[Bastables]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by John Kettler:

For some strange reason page 2 of this thread is way oversize, making it hard to read. Can this be fixed, please?

Regards,

John Kettler<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Its the screenshot John, make everything bigger.

[Talenn]

Fionn:

Would you mind taking a look at a couple of test Scens I have set up? They are tiny, but I think they illustrate the point quite well. When the MGs are DIRECTLY charged, they perform adequately, but they cant interdict lateral movement worth a darn.

I'd be very curious how you could stop the platoons with even 3 MGs. Like I said earlier, maybe there is some 'trick' to using the MGs in CM that I've missed. I certainly havent ruled out that possibility. If you can consistently gets results that I'm not getting, using the same conditions, then I'd just like to be let 'in the know' how to use them in the game. ; )

John Kettler:

Someone tacked on a rather large picture to their post and that is prolly what is screwing you up. I dont know if they can edit the post and remove it or not.

Talenn

[Zackary]

I post merely to state that I think Talenn has done a commendable and admirable job of illustrating and explaining his point. Many (not all) of his naysayers have been cursory in their review of Talenn's posts, and have therefore offered unsatisfactory responses. To date, NOT A SINGLE NAYSAYER has offered to receive Talenn's test scenarios to observe the situation first-hand.

Talenn, you have done a much better job than I would have of remaining civil, and sticking with your point. Whether or not you turn out to be correct, you have my respect.

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

Zackary

[Guest Big Time Software]

Tallen,

Again, I think this is a perception thing. You apparently don't think that 10% casualties and multiple units shook up (or worse) is that high a price to pay. In a vacuum test scenario, it isn't. But in a real game, I would think it would be. So what you are calling a success I call a failure. Dismal in some of your cases.

I am also sure that the American units are returning fire to some degree or another. This would further reduce the effectiveness of lonely MGs.

And as I have pointed out twice before, MGs were not supposed to be used as the sole guardians for a defended location. Rifle units were supposed to be the backbone, with HMGs and mortars in support roles. Your test has the HMGs in the position of primary defender with no back up.

See next message...

Steve

[Guest Big Time Software]

I just made up a quick test scenario under the conditions I described being favorable to HMGs. I tried out two cases, only one test each so far.

CASE ONE - 2 US platoons assault over 400m of open ground at 3 HMG42s in foxholes.

CASE TWO - 2 US platoons assault over 400m of oepn ground at 3 HMG42s and one 44 Rifle Squad (all in foxholes).

After three turns of play the results were...

Case One - 16 out of 80 (20%) casualties with one squad having run away early. 16 German casualties and two captured, all positions lost. Roughly a 1:1 exchange with the attacker at roughly 4.4:1 advantage.

Case Two - 56 out of 80 (70%) casualties, all others Broken and running away. Germans tookk 4 out of 48 (8%) casualties and kept all positions. Roughly a 14:1 exchange in favor of the Germans with the Americans having a 1.6:1 advantage.

Point here is very evident. Case One was a poor exchange for the Americans, but they did manage to take the positions. Any body that thinks a 20% casualty rate for such an even exchange of men is nuts. Case Two saw the US force DECIMATED. And that was having the defender only using two out of three of the prescribed ingrediants for a successful defence.

I can't see anything wrong with these figures, nor with the ones from your test. You are simply expecting too much from MGs in the condtions you set them up in.

Steve

P.S. forgot to mention that the US forces attacked abreast, evenly spaced out. This negated the grazing fire effect of the HMGs, and therefore was an even more tough test on their ability to defend.

[This message has been edited by Big Time Software (edited 07-05-2000).]

[Guest Big Time Software]

Zackary,

There really isn't anything to get upset about. Two points of view have been presented. Since thousands of people have been playing CM without complaining about MGs being "ineffective", including many vets (some with combat experience), the challenger has to make a VERY compelling case. So far this has not happened. A clinical test, which itself could be flawed, has been put forth. Counter evidence has also been put forth, from games and from my own test. That is about as rational a discussion as anybody could hope for

If you want to send me that test file, go right ahead. steve@battlefront.com I might even better help me understand where the perception problems are.

Steve

[Talenn]

Steve@BTS:

Ok, and I get similar results when the MGs are being directly assaulted. When properly supported, the MGs DO contribute and help to break up the assault. I think that by now, that is pretty established, even in the 'clinical' tests.

But it still doesnt solve the issue of area denial or interdiction. In that role, they are still inadequate. Perhaps, I AM expecting too much, but employing the MGs in the way that they were historically used and not getting any results makes me wonder. MG's do NOT interdict routes of advance unless the attacker is directly approaching the MG (more or less). Perhaps this is accurate. I dont believe that it is. Maybe we'll just have to agree to disagree.

I cant state it too many more ways. Far too many people are missing the point I am trying to make. I dont see what can be gained from much more debate. I go away from this thinking that MGs are more useful than I thought when I first posted (and that was in sheer frustration by continued late game enemy infantry Banzai's that weren't impeded by MG fire), but they still cant perform a role that they were often assigned.

Thanx for your time. If at some point you are interested in experimenting with a variable RoF, let me know. I would be happy to test it and re-test it and provide detailed results for you.

Talenn

[Jarmo]

Seems to me, the problem is,

the units in CM have absolutely no fear about running into fire. Even if a squad sees another squad in front of it being ripped to shreds the squad won't even wink. Only when they themselves come under fire, the hesitation starts.

I think that in real life the area denial effect is based on the

"We ain't going! look what just happened to Jackson's team!" -effect.

If that's the case I can't see how it could be "fixed", I don't think the "team AI" observes world around it like that.

Another thing is, the units don't seem to hit the deck without first suffering some kind of moral loss.

[Guest Big Time Software]

Tallen,

If you send me the files you tested with I can better understand what you are talking about. Up until now I thought I understood, and therefore disagreed as seen here. But perhaps I am not fully understanding what it is you say the MGs can't do realistically. I still think there is a perception error on your part, but it seems that I haven't identified it correctly. Address noted in previous email.

Jarmo, part of what you said is correct. Each unit has *no* knowledge of what *any* other unit is "thinking". This is impossible to do. But to say that the TacAI has no fear of enemy fire is simply not true. As is hitting the deck only if morale is decreased. In the test scenario I just did up one HMG42 opened up and three squads hit the dirt with no modification of morale. The key things to note is what the unit is doing at the time it is being fired upon, where the unit is, the volume of enemy fire, the directions of that fire, and of course the quality of the unit being shot at.

What I have stated above is that a unit, caught in the open, is *not* going to hit the dirt unless it has to. To hunker down with little cover and directed enemy fire is more often than not far more suicidal than making a break for cover or assaulting the enemy.

The TacAI can, and should, only do so much. If you are dumb enough to order 2 platoons to charge over an open field without adequate precautions, should the AI override you and not make the move at all? We think not as there would be little game left if the AI was always deciding if your orders were good BEFORE they were enacted upon. So all the TacAI can do is react to situations you put them in. The worse the situation you put them in, the worse the results. In war commanders make all sorts of dumb decisions. I can think of an entire US platoon (save one man) being wiped out because the Captain was stupid enough to assume some German pillboxes were abandoned. They weren't, and in a few minutes there was no more American platoon. It happens

Steve

[Ben Galanti]

I'd like to back up Talenn's tests. I set up something like I think he was describing. I had a US platoon in a patch of woods, running to a patch of woods 200 m away. I had 3 HMG42's set up perpindicular to the US Platoons path, 200 m away. The US platoon was not assulting the MGs, but just running across their field of view (and fire). At least in my tests, 2 of 3 US squads and the platoon HQ usually made it across, with at most 2 casualties. The third squad would often break back for the patch of woods where they started, with maybe 1 casualty. Now, is this 'realistic', I'll have to leave that up to those with more WW2 knowledge then I have, but I can at least see what Talenn's saying. When the MGs are assulted, I get pretty much the results that Steve said, but when they are just left there to fire at a 'shooting gallery' there doesn't seem to be many casulties...

[This message has been edited by Ben Galanti (edited 07-06-2000).]

[John-SJ]

Since the beginning of this thread I've been at a loss to understand what the point of this test, running a platoon perpendicular to MG fire toward a goal, is.

I mean, if they are running toward an important goal wouldn't you have defenders at the goal as well as the MGs? And if it's not an important goal, why waste 3 MG teams? What's their purpose? As Steve pointed out in his "test" placing the MGs at the objective, especially with an additional rifle squad is way more effective, not to mention the fact that they are actually defending. I can't believe that in real life the results would be *that* much different. maybe the results wouldn't be identical, but they'd be fairly close, I'd wager.

John-SJ

[Simon Fox]

I have read this thread with care and interest and I agree with Talenn to a certain extent. Operating against a frontal attack HMG units seem to perform pretty well but under circumstances where they are firing flanking fire to interdict possible avenues of approach I feel that the effect is not as great as I would expect. Certainly I would like to see more disruption but I would not like to see anything more than a slight increase in this effect.

I think that to a certain extent this is due to the relatively unsophisticated way CM treats HMG units. This is not a criticism, since you can't have everything in the first iteration of the game. Just something I would like to see improved down the track. HMG units were battalion level or above assets and distributed according to need/availability. Currently the HMGs in CM employ only one of the techniques used by these units. Flanking fire on fixed lines or overhead fire are not possible. I too have tried to fire fixed lines by area fire beyond the target but as soon as a specific target presents itself the unit switches often to the detriment of the effectiveness of the fire.

In the short term I think the suggestion of an increase in the MG RoF when a really 'juicy' target presented itself even at range is a good short term solution which should be explored. From some of the other posts it looks like the Vickers sustained fire ability is modelled which is good.

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

"Pink Floyd, a load of old twaddle"-John Lydon

[Fionn]

Talenn,

Please send me the files. There might be a 1 day or so delay before I get the time to look at them but I'd be more than willing to.

[Talenn]

Ben Galanti:

You hit it exactly. Three MGs placed to cover a designated area did little or nothing to impede enemy infantry movement within their Fire Zones. EXACTLY. I'm glad that someone else got the same result.

John-SJ:

There are NEVER enough MGs to go around. Often, a few are placed in important locations to deny the enemy certain critical terrain features. If I could spare a MG for every building or woodline I didnt want the enemy to move to, I'd be sitting pretty. More realistically, I set up a Platoon line to cover the important areas, and designate a MG+Squad combo to watch the flanks and keep the enemy from flanking the platoon. In this, I've failed miserably. I've used the same deployments and tactics in nearly every tactical game I've played, whether on the PC, in Miniature, or on a board. CM is the first game I've come across that I cant use MGs for 'area denial'. Are all the other games wrong? Perhaps, but in this case I tend to doubt it.

The 'perpendicular' test was for simplicity. Since reading many people's suggestions here, I modified the test and had angled fire, interlocking fire, and head-on fire tests. The only one that really produced results is the 'head on' fire, and that is defeating the purpose. If the enemy practically has to charge at the MG in order for them to prevent movement, they dont function as interdiction weapons.

Jarmo:

I've seen the same results that Steve@BTS mentioned with multiple units grounding when one is shot at. The problem (impossible to correct IMO) is lack of 'memory'. Those same squads are just as eager to get up and walk into the MGs time and again. They 'forget' that a particular area is dangerous. This is not something that will be modeled anytime in the near future, methinx ; ) I dont think its overly necessary either as long as the fire results are brutal enough to keep the PLAYER from wanting to repeat the effort. As currently modeled, I dont think it is unless charging the MG position directly.

Steve@BTS/Fionn:

I'm currently away from my PC that has the Test Scens on it. If I have some quick time, I'll try to and recreate them and send them to you. Failing that, set up something similar to what Ben Galanti describes. Then try moving the MGs to different positions to hit the Platoons from multiple angles, all the same side, both sides at once, or whatever. The results are largely the same. Only the 'head on' really causes significant results IMO. I generally oppose 3 Hvy MGs or a Platoon line +MG with 2 Platoons of attackers (err targets..they really arent attacking). Send both Platoons at once (moving Fast) to maximize the targets and allow no 'cover fire'. Its my firm belief that three defensive MGs should easily be able to prevent 2 unsupported platoons from crossing open ground without either fantastic troop quality, fantastic leadership, blind luck, or heavy casualties.

Talenn

[This message has been edited by Talenn (edited 07-06-2000).]

[Formerly Babra]

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

WWI proved that charging unsuppressed MGs is NOT a good idea...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually, WW1 (Well, the Russo-Japanese War really) proved that charging unsuppressed MGs pre-sited with interlocking fields of fire was a bad idea. Subtle, but important, distinction.

[Jarmo]

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

But to say that the TacAI has no fear of enemy fire is simply not true. As is hitting the deck only if morale is decreased. In the test scenario I just did up one HMG42 opened up and three squads hit the dirt with no modification of morale. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I stand corrected. From my own experience, I thought differently. But I suppose you know the internal workings of the game better.

[tar]

Actually this topic raises at least one interesting question that it would be good to get input from someone with combat experience: If you are running across an open area from cover to cover and receive flanking fire what should you do:

(a) Keep running for the covering terrain ahead of you.

( Drop to the ground and start crawling for the covering terrain.

This seems to be the crux of the argument about whether the effects seen in CM are reasonable or not. Apparently behavior (a) is what happens and the argument is mostly about whether behavior ( should occur instead.

OK. That said, I have some of my own observations (based admittedly on very little play).

One is that I find casualties to be a bit on the high side. I find it rather difficult to believe that a standard infantry squad would remain combat effective with 50% casualties. I've even seen squads with 75% casualties remain effective. It seems that such things would be rather rare.

I guess what I find rather hard to accept is that the morale effects of taking the casualties are not more severe. In that regard I don't think the lethality of the weapons is a problem as much as the (admittedly much harder to quantify) morale effects. I also think that units recover their morale a bit too easily. Some of this may be a result of designing for a game, in that having assaults bog down and take longer because all units hunker down more under fire would not necessarily change the ultimate outcome, except to make it take 2 or 3 times as long. That may be an acceptable design point, but I thought I would raise the issue.

Next topic: RoF of the machine gun units.

One perhaps simple suggestion would be to add a "Target Intensive" order option to MG units. There is already a "Target Wide" option for artillery, so perhaps something like it for the machine guns would also be appropriate. This would increase the firepower at increased ammo expenditure and some increase in the chance of the gun jamming. The latter would be in part to make the players have some disincentive for using the feature.

[Zackary]

Steve:

I am not rankled and I do appreciate all the dialog that has occurred.

My key point was that after many, many explanatory posts, people were STILL not understanding that Talenn was talking about "T" intersection fire with the targets moving from left to right in front of a machine gun. By the time I posted, the only way someone STILL could not have understood that is if they merely skimmed Talenn's posts and assumed what he meant, rather than read what he wrote.

I truly do appreciate the civil tone that has marked the dialogue, I was simply frustrated with the apparent lack of understanding.

Talenn:

Please send your scenario to BTS and Fionn. It is best that we compare apples to apples. Sending them your scenario is the ONLY way to ensure that you have not missed something and that the scenario fairly tests your hypothesis.

Thanks again to everyone.

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

Zackary

[killmore]

I do think that at times the casualty rate is way too low.

If machine gun wasted all of its ammo firing at squad at 200 meters in the woods and never hit anyone that just feels wrong.

(squad was not in a fox hole and was not lying down) Please down ask for details - trust me.

Either machine gun should be smart enough to limit ammo wasted or there should be casualties.

At times MG is effective (at range 50 meters in Arnhem scenario it got 30 kills but the infantry was just running left and right in front of it)

Other times running infantry was not scrached after running for 200 meters toward it.

[ASL Veteran]

Since understanding Talenn’s point seems to be an issue in this thread, then I would just like to briefly weigh in on this point. ASL has something called a “firelane” where an MG can take a shot at an enemy unit crossing an area then declare a firelane. When this firelane is declared, all subsequent units passing through this firelane are subject to the effects of the firelane – so if a whole company of infantry want to pass through this firelane, then the whole company gets hit. There are two advantages to this form of flanking fire (it must be flanking fire to be effective since you are making a “lane” that you want the enemy to pass through – although I suppose the enemy could run down the lane too if so desired). The first advantage is that it acts as “area denial” in the same sense that mines and wire act as area denial. An MG firelane will tend to channel an attack away from an area where the defenses may be weak to an area where the defenses are strong. The enemy would rather risk going in the ‘safer’ direction than risk getting mowed down in the firelane. Mines, wire, and MGs together can be very effective in channeling an attack.

The second, and perhaps less obvious, advantage to using firelanes is that the MG unit can be protected from incoming fire. If the MG is firing directly at the oncoming enemy, the enemy can fire directly back at the offending MG. However, if the MG is so sighted that the enemy cannot bring fire to bear on the MGs position until you have entered the “kill zone” or “firelane” while the MG is located to the flank of the enemy line of advance then you have a very tough nut to crack indeed. Not only is the MG denying an area for the enemy to advance into, but it is impossible to dislodge or even suppress the MG without entering that “killzone” or attempting to outflank it. Using several MGs who are protected from fire from the enemy’s direction and who are interlocked to the front of your own defenses makes a frontal attack very difficult since you cannot suppress or dislodge those MGs. Some of the tactics I have used in ASL would be to locate MGs behind obstacles (such as buildings or woods) so the enemy cannot bring fire to bear upon them, and then string firelanes out into open areas such as streets or wheatfields when the enemy advances. If there is no such thing as a firelane or if the area denial effects of MGs are limited in CM, then these tactics cannot be used effectively – and there is the point that Talenn is attempting to make. These tactics do not work in CM. In order for an MG to be effective in CM it must fire ‘directly at’ the enemy attackers, therefore it must always be exposed to enemy counterfire.

[ASL Veteran]

I would now like to make a direct response to one of the individuals who posted above that the MG battalion was a disappearing beast on the battlefields of WW2. Yes, that is indeed the truth, but the reason for the disappearance of the MG battalion was / is not a result of the growing ineffectiveness of the MG. In fact, if TO&Es for WW1 and WW2 are compared side by side, you will in fact note that there are really more MGs per division in WW2 than there were in WW1 – even in 1918. A British infantry division in 1918 would have 3 MG companies (Battalion MG corps) attached plus there would be a Lewis gun at platoon level. However, the TO&E of a German infantry division in 1939 included a MG company in each battalion (12 MGs per company) plus an MG with every single squad in the division. If you add this all up, the 1939 WW2 German divison would have 441 Machine Guns. Comparing apples to apples, the German infantry division in 1914 consisted of one MG company per Regiment – with four regiments per division this comes to a total of 24 MGs (six per company). In 1916 the complement of MGs per company was increased from 6 to 15 giving the division 60 MGs. A six gun company was then attached to each battalion giving the division an additional 72 MGs (three battalions per regiment with four regiments per division) for a total of 132 MGs. Further changes in the TO&Es of the German division resulted in a German division having a total of 358 MGs by 1918 with the issue of 6 LMG per company. Finally, at the end of 1918, the Germans reorganized their battalions into three rifle companies plus one MG company – which incidentally was the way the 1939 battalion was organized. My sources for this information were “The World War One Source Book” by Philip Haythornthwaite and “The German Infantry Handbook” by Alex Buchner.

So, addressing the issue of the effectiveness of the MG, the MG battalion did not disappear because of the ineffectiveness of the MG, but because of the great weight of the HMG. The HMG of World War 1 was simply not mobile enough for the non static World War 2 battlefield. There was also a desire to “decentralize” the divisional firepower assets and keep these items at the disposal of the junior officers. OK, on to the effectiveness of MGs. According to Alex Buchner “The heavy machine guns supported the attacks of the rifle companies by firing on and holding back the enemy, and provided the main defensive firepower in fighting off enemy attacks. (snip) After ranging with short bursts of fire, they generally used only sustained fire, either as pinpoint fire against small and well-established individual targets such as machine gun nests, or against bunker crews and the like, or as broad fire, swinging the gun back and forth, against open surface targets such as advancing or retreating enemy infantry, troop concentrations, etc. (snip) It was even possible for single heavy machine guns, on account of their great firepower, to dominate and block important points and sectors of terrain, such as overflight paths, narrows, passes and such.” Note that I have not mentioned whether the MGs in CM fit this description or not – I only add this evidence for the benefit of others within this discussion.

[Talenn]

ASL Veteran:

Yes, a FIRE LANE or somesuch equivalent would prolly do the trick as well. Whats missing is that interdiction ability that MGs possessed. ASL did that VERY well. For CM, I think it could work along the lines of an 'Ambush point' for MGs...anything crossing the axis of the Lane would be hit by a generous number of bursts...more than the standard 3-4 minute would be necessary though...also, an accuracy bonus would help beef up the power to simulate the 'sighting in' of a Fire Lane.

All:

I haven't sent out the Scens as I dont see a further point. By now, I'm pretty sure everyone (BTS included) understands the point I was trying to make. Now its just a matter of disagreement with whether the point is valid, and I think I've heard my answer to that. Hopefully, more people will mention the lack of Fire Lanes and Interdiction thus causing BTS to re-evaluate it as something necessary to this scale. If nothing else, I think work on the Russian Front module will make that fairly apparent.

Its definately a fine line being drawn for MG effectiveness. I understand the points that others are making, but I think many of them have just adapted their tactics to meet the MGs capabilities (or lack there of) in the game. Its become second nature to most of the long time players/supporters of CM and its Demos. To some of us who are latecomers, its a fairly obvious omission that I hope will eventually be altered.

Thanx for everyone's comments and suggestions so far. At least its now an issue that will most likely be watched more carefully.

Talenn

[Apoc]

An observation of MG's firing at a perpendicular target allowed me observe what this thread is all about. It's true, MG's are not very effective when rotating on a target. I have an opinion as to why.

1-Target starts to move, MG fires a burst.

2-Target does not go to ground and keeps moving perpendicular to the MG

3-The MG has to rotate! (I think this might be the key)

4-The MG rotation (shifting a few degrees) takes up a portion of time.

5-The MG fires, repeat.

Whereas a target coming straight at an MG position does not force the MG to rotate, thus allowing more opportunity to be mowed down.