Are small arms rounds modelled?

[Jeff Heidman]

Does anyone know how small arms rounds are modelled as far as whether or not they ahve any area effect at all?

If I fire a HE shell at some troops, and it lands near them and some other troops, it can effect both of them. That I have seen.

What I would like to know is whether (for instance) a machine gun can hit troops behind or to the side of its target.

The reason I ask is that twice now I have had MGs be less effective than I would expect them to be. Once, I had a HMG covering an ice covered river. About 5 squads started across, and the MG engaged one of them. That one squad got blown away, but the MG continued to fire at it while it broke and ran while the other 4 strolled across unmolested.

A more extreme example was when I had a HMG covering a bridge. My opponent rushed about a dozen different units across the bridge, and again, my MG only engaged one of them. I imagine if I had set it to area fire that would have worked better, but unfortuantely the interface does not seem to allow you to set provisional orders (area fire on the bridge as soon as someone tries to cross). I had it set to ambush the bridge, which it did, but it just selected one unit.

I guess I would expect that a HMG could do a serious number on a large number of units trying to cross the bridge at once.

Maybe BTS could have a firelane option in CM2...

Does any of that make sense?

Jeff

[Jeff Heidman]

I just realized what an inane title that is. "Are small arms rounds modelled?" Duh.

Jeff Heidman

[Guest KwazyDog]

Jeff, I believe what you are refering too is called 'grazing fire'. I believe it is indeed modeled, and has been in the engine for some time. Try doing a search in this phrase and see how you go.

Also, note that 1.03 have altered kill ratios of units against MGs. I have found rushing MGs to be a very prospect since the changes.

[Jeff Heidman]

Thanks. I went ahead and did a search on grazing fire, and apparently it is modelled.

Still not sure how a couple of platoons managed toc ross that bridge looking relatively unscathed. But then, this is CM. For all I really know, they are all beat to hell and gone!

I'll have to try a test scenario, and see how many troopers get dusted...

Jeff

[IntelWeenie]

One problem with using area fire in a situation like this is that the MG will most likely switch targets on its own to a "threatening" unit (i.e. NOT a Kubelwagen! ), thus defeating your fire lane. Since grazing fire is modeled, I would hope it's not too much of a stretch to implement a fire lane or FPF line in CM2. Something like a 'VERY sticky' area fire target.

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

"Belly to belly and everything's better" - Russian proverb

[PatAWilson]

About casualties or lack thereof caused by an MG:

I have often heard it said that a good machine gunner will pick individual targets and fire short bursts rather than just spray. This was definitely true of the MG42 which had such an awful recoil that it couldn't be controlled for long bursts. Given this firing method it is not improbable that one squad would be decimated while the rest made it over.

Deadly as they were MGs did not lay down an impenetrable curtain of lead. First, even "open" ground usually has some minimal bit of cover. Second, if there is some suppressing fire on the MG the MG's accuracy will suffer. Finally, as stated before, even an MG had to be aimed. You couldn't just hold down the trigger.

The only problem that I see in the scenario is that the MG should definitely have switched targets once the first squad broke and ran. Since firing on unprotected targets has been modified with 1.03 and I haven't used the patch yet I can't really make any comments based on personal experience.

Side note: is barrel heating modeled? I know this sounds awfully nitpicky but it would be pretty damned cool if it was. It would also show one of the key advantages of the MG34 and even more so the MG42.

[coe]

I was playing a scenario last night and

a bunch of allied squads were assaulting

a bunker....well you could see that the

bunker had target lines to like 5 of the

10 or so squads, and you could see the

volleys extend out to them - what I did

notice that some of the squads in the way

"died", or some sligthly off to the side

(the squads were a bit depleted)...so

I definitely saw the grazing fire - I wonder

if that was done for the lmg's in the

german infantry squads?

[Rattus]

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

About casualties or lack thereof caused by an MG:Side note: is barrel heating modeled? I know this sounds awfully nitpicky but it would be pretty damned cool if it was. It would also show one of the key advantages of the MG34 and even more so the MG42.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Unless you have a nice water-cooled MG! (Damn shame having to (quick) change the barrel on that MG42. Of course - at least you wouldn't kill yourself trying to move that Vickers/Maxim in the first place - especially in soft ground

[Andre76]

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

About casualties or lack thereof caused by an MG:

Deadly as they were MGs did not lay down an impenetrable curtain of lead. First, even "open" ground usually has some minimal bit of cover. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think a few (dead) soldiers from WWI would disagree with you on that point...

André

[Bastables]

If only these things had occured when I was less than a member

[This message has been edited by Bastables (edited 08-09-2000).]

[Bastables]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Andre76:

I think a few (dead) soldiers from WWI would disagree with you on that point...

André

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

If you look at WW1 tactical maps you’ll notice the incredible HMG density that the western front had achieved. I don't know of any battle in WW2 that came close, although Kursk might have. Also there was the horrific idea in the British army that was predicated on the presumed inferiority of conscript troops, that these new troops could not be trusted on the assault unless moving in their company and platoon groups en-mass and in formation.

[Guest Germanboy]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Andre76:

I think a few (dead) soldiers from WWI would disagree with you on that point...

André

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

As Bastables pointed out, to compare WW I and WW II is fallacious. Higher number of HMGs, shorter engagement ranges over well-reconnoitered terrain, stupid tactics etc.pp. As Steve has stated before, the graphics of the guys slowly walking or running are just that, graphics. They are an abstraction of a squad dashing about, from cover to cover, giving covering fire etc. It is not WYSIWYG. Stated also on page 14 of the manual in general terms, IIRC.

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

Andreas

[PatAWilson]

From Andre:

"I think a few (dead) soldiers from WWI would disagree with you on that point... "

I'm willing to stand by my point. The casualties brought about in WWI were a combination of limited mobility and 19th century tactics against 20th century weapons. Soldiers attacked en masse shoulder to shoulder - talk about a target rich environment.

Once new equipment like tanks started to show up and tactics started to improve (the German's were quite successful for awhile in 1918 with their storm troop tactics) the machine gun could be defeated.

My point is this: even in the worst of conditions in any given battle MOST attackers were not shot. I am not saying that machine guns were ineffective; they were the key component of infantry warfare in WWI and WWII. What I am saying is that they were not invincible or all powerful. You shouldn't be surprised if an MG doesn't wipe out a squad.