Effective use of MGs?

[Ben Galanti]

I was hoping to get some pointers on the best way to use MG teams. In a majority of the games I play, most of my MG teams end the game with no kills. This is the case on both attack and defense...

I usually set my teams up in cover (woods, buildings, etc...) behind my main line of troops with good LOS to predicted trouble spots. Now, this will often have them several hundred meters away from any troops they engage. So they're pretty much reduced to just supression weapons (hence the lack of kills)

Now, whenever I try setting them up farther forward, they invariably get overrun (on the defensive) or can't keep up with the assult (on the attack). So I end up using my AFVs as mobile MG nests to do the real dirty work (hey, the Sherman may stink in the AT role against the bigger German stuff, but I love them for infantry support...)

I just feel like this is not necessarily the most effective use of these assets, and I was looking for any tips that others have found. Thanks.

[bazooka10165]

My understanding is that the kill numbers reported are only kills that the unit itself can confirm. They do not necessarily represent how many kills the squad actual had. MG's may be getting lots of kills, but are just unable to confirm it due to range to target.

My experience has been that against stationary infantry (especially if prone), an MG will rarely cause any damage at all. In a recent game, the AI insisted on firing one of my MG 42 at a prone tanks crew every turn for about 15 turns. Despite using nearly 40 rounds of ammo, I don't think the MG caused a single casualty. However, if you watch the MG firing at a moving target you can usually see it inflicting casualities (that jerky motion units make when hit). If the target is moving in the open for any extended period under MG fire you will almost certainly see it take casualties, or at least drop and seek cover.

Based on this, I try to set up my MG's in locations were they can cover an open area which I want to deny the enemy access to. If you can find a clear LOS, one or two MG's (at least German MGs) can make a stretch of open ground effectively inaccessible to enemy infantry, even from several hundred meters.

I agree that they are tricky to use well, especially if there is enemy armor nearby - which means you are pretty much limited to using them in ambush mode. But, in CE (for instance) a pair of MG 42's in ambush mode hidden in the German woods with a clear LOS over the open ground would almost certainly stop any US assault of that position in its tracks.

[This message has been edited by bazooka10165 (edited 03-31-2000).]

[dalem]

From my (light) research into firearms and their history and usage doctrine, I am under the impression that machine guns were/are *intended* for suppression, and that kills are a bonus.

I'm not saying that you can't aim an MG at a specific group or man, but I don't think you're 'supposed to' most of the time.

I realize I'm being very generic and broad.

-dale

[Lee]

dalem: Correct. Most people don't realize that MG's aren't

supposed to be particularly accurate (compared to what a good

rifle can do). They are supposed to saturate a given area with

intense fire so as to suppress the enemy and cause some casualties.

They aren't expected to be very good at picking off members

of a prone squad at 500 yards.

[Ash]

Deploy them in 'nests' to keep them from getting overrun is a good idea. I usually keep my 3 machineguns in last defense grouped up with the other one deployed on the right flank. They dont get overrun as easily and all the tracers keeps the germs from noticing A platoon deployed in the woods

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

The names Ash, Housewares

[nijis]

Re Lee's point, on the accuracy of rifles versus MGs. Is this modelled by CM? Does MG firepower have more chance of suppressing versus killing, or is all firepower the same?

This may have been answered before, but I haven't had any success with the search function. I apologize to all the forum vets if I'm going over old ground.

[Lindan]

a veteran from my home village told a different story. Being a crack shot he was selected 1st MG-gunner in his squad, fighting on the East front. Most of the time he used his MG to take down single targets (like enemy patrols) with a short burst, more like a sniper.

[Bamse]

In my time in the Swedish army my personal weapon was a AK5, which i couldn't hit jack with. But the Ksp58(FN MAG?) i hit targets at 1000 m.

Do anyone know the international name of the AK5 ? I think it's Czech originaly.

Björn "Couldn't hit a barn at point blank range" Elfström

[Lee]

I was making a general statement about the intended role of the

light and medium machine gun on the battlefield. It is

possible that a very skilled gunner or an average gunner with

an especially accurate gun could hit some pretty small targets

out to impressive ranges. But on the whole belt fed guns like this

are not expected to have the same effect as a platoon of skilled

rifle marksman taking aimed shots at individual soldiers at

long range. Some modern armies tend to lose sight of the fact that

you generally don't want your MMG's to fire like a rifle but rather

to put out a fairly generous cone of fire that will provide a

nice area of coverage for suppression of the enemy. One shouldn't

expect a small group of soldiers that are aware of the machine guns

presence and that are hugging the ground in order to avoid being

spotted/hit to take that many casualties from from long range machine

gun fire. It might happen sometimes but I wouldn't count on it as

a common occurrence.

[Guest Big Time Software]

Yes, Lee is correct.

The first burst from something like an MG42 will most likely hit the intended target if the gunner is good, the gun is in good shape, and the other combat conditions are favorable. But all of that means nothing when the MG is being used as it was designed, and that is to suppress. We can talk about the accuracy of one gun vs. another, or the skill of one gunner vs. another, but the fact is that the MG was designed (for all nations) to suppress enemy infantry. And with all that lead flying around, hits were sure to happen, but that wasn't what the gun was supposed to do as its primary function. That is what the rifle is supposed to do.

The basic tactical doctrine for the use of the machine gun, then and now, is to pin the enemy down and prevent him from moving. This then gives you lots of options. You can bring accurate small arms fire to bear, send around a group of infantry to flank, or (most effectively) hold them in place until some artillery/mortars can be brought down on them.

Note that the reason why the enemy infantry will become pinned is because if they DO move then they have a very good chance of getting killed. So the fact is that an MG can kill very well, but because any raw recruit knows that he hits the dirt to avoid the high probability of catching a bullet.

Yes, the "Kills" display only tracks casualties that you can actually spot.

For a look at the effectiveness of the MG42 in the heavy role, do a Search for a thread where I did a demonstration experiment. Key words of HMG42 and maybe the word "four" might get it to show up. In any case, the units that weren't pinned in the woods tended to suffer quite high casualties in my experiment. So the notion that MGs at close range can't hit squat simply isn't true in CM, nor in real life.

Steve

[Cormand]

Bamse

IIRC the Ak5 is the Swedish-built version of the Belgian FN-FNC

Cormand

[Herr Oberst]

IIRC, in the Battle for the Hurtgen forest, the Germans purposely sighted their MG's low to the ground in any open/trailed areas (few and far between).

When the US troops approached, a simple MP burst would get everyone to drop to the ground, where the MG would open up, with it's barrel sighted some 6-8 inches off the ground firing horizontally.

Quite nasty to get drilled through the head, or by a shot that will travel from top to bottom of your torso.

The Germans also mined not only the roads to stop tanks, but the ditches along the sides of the roads with schu (spelling anyone?) mines, small mines that were cheap, easy to hide, and just big enough to debilitate the unfortunate victim.

Let the enemy come up the road, have your troops fire a burst down the road from an MG, and count on the secondaries in the ditches to eliminate the infantry.

The MG wasn't there for the kill, but to produce the desired reaction.

[Colin]

Good post Herr Oberst.

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

Visit my webpage!

http://cm4mac.tripod.com