Allied firepower in CMBO

[Abbott]

I play either Allied or Axis forces. It really makes no difference to me. But there are many claims that the Axis forces in CMBO are superior. After playing many PBEM games and a few hundred games verse the AI as the Allies I have come to rely on the Sherman tank and Allied artillery as the units that deliver the best firepower for the Allied buck. The Halftracks with the .50cal and the .30cal also seem to offer solid firepower. Against armor the Hellcat’s and Jackson’s seem to be the best choices. I rarely play as the British although I have faced their troops often.

Any tips or tactics folks could offer using the Allied forces? What have you found that works? What troops/equipment offer solid firepower from the British troop mix?

[ 04-30-2001: Message edited by: Abbott ]

[Dunnee]

allies are way more cost effective. .

[imported_Wildman]

Biggest difference I notice is that playing as Germans, I have to focus on a more pure infantry mindset.

Where as allied, I have infantry that I move up to hold somethings I've blown up with tanks or arty.

Just a generalization

[Fred]

Abbott,

get the Churchill! This tank is a winner. Even Panthers and Tigers will bow to it.

Quite frustrating if a Tiger/Panther gets non-penetration hit after hit...

Fred

[ 04-30-2001: Message edited by: Fred ]

[CombinedArms]

Well, all of this is common knowledge but:

Playing Americans, as I generally do, I find that, given the vulnerability of the Sherman, you generally have to lead with infantry when on the attack to flush out targets, then bring up the Shermans for support. Sweep panzerfausts out with infantry. Use mortars and arty to kill AT guns. Any heavy enemy assets (Panthers, Tigers, heavy TDs, AT Pillboxes) must be flanked by allied armor (Shermans, TDs). PzIVs and most SPs & assault guns can be attacked head on. You've got to move in a methodical, step-by-step manner, or your armor is going to get waxed. Once you've killed all Axis armor with your methodical tactics, your Sherms will rule the battlefield--if all goes well, that is.

You've generally got a lot of artillery, good, well balanced infantry squads, the .50 MG, and a good, fairly cheap infantry support tank, and fast TDs, but, with a few exceptions, your AFVs must be handled very cagily. Smoke is often essential to get into position to kill enemy tanks and AT Pillboxes. All in all, I think playing Allies teaches sound tactics, since effective combined arms skills are essential for success.

On defense, lurk with your armor until you can get a flank shot. Again, its all about the cagey use of combined arms tactics.

I guess one thing I haven't seen mentioned much is that the US forces are very consistent--essentially one kind of infantry (with the slight variations of paratroops and engineers) with a very similar weapons package from squad to squad, one main style of tank with easily understood variants, a couple of MGs, a few HT variants, a consistent TD style, etc., and the way you used TDs resembles the way you use tanks. Most units are well balanced for use on both attack and defense. So once you've got the hang of Allied forces, the same approaches will work in most situations--there aren't a lot of quirky variants to worry about (as with, say, Axis infantry.)

And, as has been said above, US forces are very cost effective. You usually get a lot of solid units for your money. If you can take out the best and most effective Axis assets with your cagey tactics, you've got a balance of forces that can win.

[Gyrene]

It's been my opinion for a while that the US Engineer squad is the best infantry unit in the game.

I like to use the Americans' superior long range firepower to wear down German units before closing in, and I also take the time to have at least one .50 cal MG in a dominating position well away from rifle fire to support my manuevering squads.

I also use the same approach with my 60mm mortars, they are quite effective in harrassing the enemy's flanks from a distance, they might not cause much damage, but they will pin down squads or distract their attention away from my assaulting squads.

The best approach I've found for using Allied armor is to use my infantry to make contact with the enemy's armor, and then manuever my tanks well away from their LOS, but still in position to systematically pick away at the opponent's outlying deffences along with my infantry. It works very well, as I can usually pull my armor away before the German armor has a chance to fire.

On the mean time, my remaining armor will attempt to gain a flanking position to get a shot at any German tanks attempting to take out my Infantry supporting tank.

Gyrene

[BloodyBucket]

Of course, for the true US army experience, get lots of artillery and plenty of it. Blast anything that moves, and run like the dickens if you can't get fire support.

Seriously, I have started looking at my Shermans as infantry killers instead of tank killers. They last longer and get more done that way.

[Abbott]

I agree BB. there is nothing like the Sherman when it comes to anti-infantry firepower. A post above said it very well "Dispatch the Axis armor and Shermans rule the battlefield".

Most of the losses I have suffered while playing the US troops I have come to believe is from lack of fire support. It is difficult to dig the Axis infantry out of a village without it. Either direct HE fire from Shermans or heavy artillery fire seems to be needed every time.

I have captured many villages with axis infantry, even using rifle squads. The US infantry is just a bit underpowered to do so.

Is it the same (US) with the British troops? If so what is the best infantry support tanks (without the 150mm armored heavy Churchill). I imagine it would be the 95mm armed Churchill? Is there a British tank that works as well in a dual role as the Sherman?

British fire support artillery. What is the best (cost effective) caliber for fire support? If you have to dig Axis infantry from a town or village?

Thanks to all the above posters as well, every post has been read.

[ 05-01-2001: Message edited by: Abbott ]

[KiwiJoe]

A (reg) sherman 75mm fires 6 x 39 blast HE per turn which = 234.

A (reg) Panther G late or Panzer 4 fires 7 x 34 blast HE per turn which = 238.

So Shermans really arnt any better at anti- infantry work. They do get a lot of rounds and the flex .50 cal... but the german tanks are almost as good vs infantry. Plus they usually live longer to carry out the job.

You are much better off with 2x M8 HMCs which work out cheaper. Unless of course you buy a Jumbo 75mm and go AT gun hunting

[ 05-01-2001: Message edited by: KiwiJoe ]

[JasonC]

Yes, the Americans are underpowered. Combined arms has to make up for it. Everything becomes teamwork, because you cannot rely on any one item in the arsenal to knock down everything before it.

The tales of 50 cals being so great seem silly to me. They don't have enough ammo to sit still and blast, and are too slow to move anywhere. Flamethrowers (with engineers, too expensive unless those pay off) cost too much and die too fast. 60mm mortars can be effective, suppressing single spotted enemy weapons, HMGs and guns especially. But their ammo is severely limited. ~10 shots will land near their target all told before the mortar runs out, so they are not going to win the war for you.

The infantry units you want are squads, MMGs, and bazookas. The MMGs and Zooks are fast enough to maneuver with the squads. The MMGs have about the same firepower as a squad at range, half of one close up. Use them in pairs. 2 of them have the firepower of a German HMG, but are harder to suppress and can take higher losses. Alone they are weak. Zooks can hurt anything and are very cheap; take plenty. They will do bunkers better than flamethrowers will, as well as their primary AT role. More of them means flank shots are more likely.

The 1945 infantry is much better of course. It has the power to fight from range. The 1944 pattern is weak compared to the better German types (e.g. it can't duel at range with Pz Gdrs or FJs), and its best characteristic is staying power under losses. Both are also good in close combat / grenade duels, just using numbers.

But you do not want to match the Germans item for item. You want assymetrical match-ups or many-on-one cases of teamwork. Infantry should finish off enemy infantry only after artillery or direct HE has softened it up.

Use direct HE for infantry in buildings, indirect for everything else. Infantry can take out gun crews and teams directly, though you want to suppress guns first unless you can reach them at close range, e.g. through the side of the woods they are in or whatever.

Sherman 75mm, Sherman 105m, and Priests are the direct HE providers. Avoid the 37mm pop gun varieties, M8 and Stuart - they are not what some crack them up to be and the gun is generally inadequate.

For indirect HE, use 155mm and 105mm. 81mm mortars are fine on defense or for smoke, but lack the punch to hurt decent troops in decent cover, severely enough. The 105mm gives more ammo, but do not be fooled by "35 rounds", the 155mm is an effective artillery module, because each shot is likely to hurt something. The extra expense of VT is generally not worth it. In woods you often get the effect for free, and in the open it is often overkill.

The only other useful form of supporting anti-infantry fire I have found, is an ad hoc tactic meant to simulate AA automatic weapons. On defense you can include 40mm Bofors, but on attack do this -

Buy 2 M3A1 halftracks

Buy 4 M1917 HMG (water cooled)

Put the MGs in the HTs, run them to the back of whatever body of cover is available - scouted by the regular infantry beforehand. You want to be 250-300 yards from the target, not closer. Unload the slow MGs into the woodline or front of a building, seperated from each other enough, to not all be under one artillery footprint. Then pop the HTs around each end of the cover. Hose.

The reason it can work is that these types have very high available ammo - 150 for the HTs, 125 for this MG type. They can afford to fire 8 times a turn for half the battle. The cumulative effect of 8 MGs firing so many times can be significant. Usually, it will drive enemy back to reverse slope, behind buildings, interior of woods etc. Then you can rush. The range protects from enemy small arms, dispersion helps against arty, and the MGs can use some cover.

Such an "MG battery" costs about as much as 1 artillery module - 180 points. Think of it as a direct fire anti-infantry "battery". A side benefit is the MGs can stop infantry counterattacks rather easily.

But the hardest part is taking out the German armor, especially against humans who take impenetrable front plates. Take TDs to deal with enemy armor. Pair the vehicles with regular Shermans. The Sherman is the flanker, the TD is the shooter. 76mm Shermans cost more and are less likely to have T rounds, so they usually are not worth it. (Brits are an exception - take the Fireflies, the gun is well worth the price).

Scout for the tank-TD teams with the infantry, and keep the zook teams moving up to reduce the area available to enemy armor. When the ranges are long and no flank shots are feasible yet, stay in dead ground.

Do not skimp on the artillery. You want to spend ~25% of the points on artillery support, when attacking. And half your AFVs should be TDs (or Fireflies if British). Do not waste your TDs engaging infantry, and never lead with them.

After a first infantry company, buy platoons and extra MMG and Zook, not additional companies. The support weapons of 1 are worth it and the HQs valuable, but too much spent on numerous HQs, and 60mm mortars + 50 cals that run out of ammo too soon, will break the bank. Do not buy more than 1x81mm (for smoke etc) - it is not powerful enough to merit additional buys.

A company with added teams, a Sherman platoon, or a full battalion of supporting artillery (3 FOs 105 or 155), will each run ~650 points. A TD platoon plus an "AA battery" (as described) will cost the same amount. Build your force around two to all of those or anything between. Additional points should be spent on single added platoons, AFVs (including Sherman 105 or Priest), or multiple zooks&MMGs.

[JasonC]

"Shermans really aren't any better at anti- infantry work."

You probably aren't saying this from experience, or you would know why it is wrong. The rate of HE may be the same. But a Panther will run out of HE in 5 minutes shooting like that. The Sherman will keep it up for 11 minutes. Just a little difference there - twice as many buildings demolished.

[Gyrene]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The tales of 50 cals being so great seem silly to me. They don't have enough ammo to sit still and blast, and are too slow to move anywhere.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That is perhaps why I said to place the in an overlooking position away from rifle range...And sit still and blast? A well placed .50 or .30 crew can do damage for a full 30 turn game, if not set to "area fire"

The only people who don't like mortars are those who don't know how to use them. The best way to learn how to play every asset available to you is to play random, and not to hand pick your units, play with what you were given and don't give up the game just because your tanks are all dead already.

I agree that HT's are very effective, especially if the direct local AT threat is low.

Gyrene

[KiwiJoe]

JasonC: If u re-read my post I did point out an advanage of the Sherman is it's high ammo load out.

However they have to live for quite a while to fire off all those rounds. Panthers usally get around 40 HE rounds (81 total). Shermans get around 50-60 odd HE rounds, but I'd bet money most of the time they dont survive to fire them all off.

I'm not saying I'd rather have a Panther than a Sheramn for anti-infantry work... but I dont think the Shermans are 'that' much better at the the job.

[illo]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The extra expense of VT is generally not worth it. In woods you often get the effect for free<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hmm..I have always been under impression that thick forest gives very good cover against artillery. Trees block the shrapnel effect. Woods are full of good places to take cover, holes, stones etc.

[ 05-01-2001: Message edited by: illo ]

[Ari Maenpaa]

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

The extra expense of VT is generally not worth it. In woods you often get the effect for free, and in the open it is often overkill.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Should woods DECREASE the effect of VT? Doesn't the wood tops make VT-rounds very likely to detonate too high to be effective or are the wood crowns too thin to make VT-detonators to go off (even in the summer)?

Ari

[Ron]

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

I agree BB. there is nothing like the Sherman when it comes to anti-infantry firepower. A post above said it very well "Dispatch the Axis armor and Shermans rule the battlefield".

Most of the losses I have suffered while playing the US troops I have come to believe is from lack of fire support. It is difficult to dig the Axis infantry out of a village without it. Either direct HE fire from Shermans or heavy artillery fire seems to be needed every time.

I have captured many villages with axis infantry, even using rifle squads. The US infantry is just a bit underpowered to do so.

Is it the same (US) with the British troops? If so what is the best infantry support tanks (without the 150mm armored heavy Churchill). I imagine it would be the 95mm armed Churchill? Is there a British tank that works as well in a dual role as the Sherman?

British fire support artillery. What is the best (cost effective) caliber for fire support? If you have to dig Axis infantry from a town or village?

Thanks to all the above posters as well, every post has been read.

[ 05-01-2001: Message edited by: Abbott ]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I understand you are looking for the most cost-effective force for a QB? If that's your preference then IMO you have more flexibility selecting a British force. Some of their strengths:

1 - Cheap Infantry Coys including supporting Piats and 2" mortars.

2 - Cheap MG vehicles with the White Scout Car, Humber, and MMG Carrier.

3 - Reasonably cheap and very effective armour for both AT and Anti-infantry work with the Challenger/Firefly, Daimler and 95mm Cromwell.

4 - An excellent and effective AT gun with the 6pnder.

5 - Cheap and deadly Mortar FOs with the 3" and 4.2".

I have played the Brits a lot and such a combined arms force is very effective against the Germans, whether they are fielding Panthers, JgPzs, VG SMG/Sturmgruppe Coys or what have you. What the Germans have really doesn't matter in the end, you just have to play with your (Brit) stengths and limitations in mind and adjust your style of play accordingly.

The British squad by itself has poor firepower and can't stand toe-to-toe with anyone, supplement them with the MG vehicles and Mortar FOs, think "volume" of firepower instead of "total". The 2" mortar seems superfluous but it will keep up with the platoon and suppress a squad or MG, very handy. I like being mobile so I usually avoid the Vickers MG and stick with MG vehicles. For the same reason I like the 3" and 4.2" FOs, they have lots of ammo and are good for a fluid situation, roughly equivalent to the German 81/120mm.

The 95mm Cromwell VI is an excellent infantry support tank. With weak armour protection you need speed and at 40mph it is the fastest(IIRC) "tank" out there, I avoid the Churchill because when I see German armour outmaneuvering me then... The Cromwell usually has HC as well though the Challenger/Firefly with the 17pnder gun can and will do the AT work. My preference is the Challenger, even being a larger target and having less ammo than the Firefly, simply because it's a little faster and a little cheaper, YMMV. The Daimler's pop gun can be fun sometimes The real ace for the Brits though is the 6pnder AT gun, its regular AP can deal with most 'regular' German armour while with tungsten it can perforate the larger cats. Now only if they had a vehicle mounted version...

The Brits have other toys in their kit as well such as the Croc, Wasp, 25pnder/4.5" Arty, Archer or 40mm Bofors that can all be very effective in certain situations and/or depending on your style of play. The key, as with playing any side, is to use combined arms tactics, arty/mortars, direct fire and MGs to suppress then the infantry to mop up.

Hope that helps...

Ron

[ 05-01-2001: Message edited by: Ron ]

[Mattias]

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

Hmm..I have always been under impression that thick forest gives very good cover against artillery. Trees block the shrapnel effect. Woods are full of good places to take cover, holes, stones etc.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

illo..

The tree bursts makes a wooded area extremely dangerous when exposed to artillery shelling. Read any account you can find from the Hürtgen battles and you'll see what a nightmare it is.

The same goes for wood in CM, lethal.

M.

[Ron]

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

A (reg) sherman 75mm fires 6 x 39 blast HE per turn which = 234.

A (reg) Panther G late or Panzer 4 fires 7 x 34 blast HE per turn which = 238.

So Shermans really arnt any better at anti- infantry work. They do get a lot of rounds and the flex .50 cal... but the german tanks are almost as good vs infantry. Plus they usually live longer to carry out the job.

You are much better off with 2x M8 HMCs which work out cheaper. Unless of course you buy a Jumbo 75mm and go AT gun hunting

[ 05-01-2001: Message edited by: KiwiJoe ]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Panther and Sherman both roughly have the same ROF, ie 6 shots per minute, sometimes they will get off more. The 3 MGs for the Sherman does make a big difference. And pure numbers aside, from my experience there's no question the Sherman is better at anti-infantry work then the Panther, squads and guns stand up better and longer to the Panther's fire than the Shermans.

Agreed, anything that lives longer is usually more effective but having the "best" armour doesn't guarantee a longer life

Agree also with the M8 HMCs for QBs because in competitive QBs cheap = more = better.

Ron

[Wreck]

My experience with Americans (I rarely play British), is that they have one real asset: scads of HE. To use it, they generally need to win the tank battle and/or the gun battle. Winning the tank battle requires much more finesse with Americans than Germans. You get more tanks, but they cannot duel.

I normally buy a Jackson, a Priest, and as many M8s as there are points left. I never bother with Shermans. I prefer 2 M8s to one Sherman. Given that you cannot afford to expose yourself to just about any German gun anyway, you might as well be hiding eggshells rather than thick eggshells. I also tend to get one or two 76mm AT, and then 105 howitzers. In larger places get a truck to move these.

The Jackson generally gets assigned to some hill where it can potentially see a lot. It, and the 76mms, are your hammers. If a fully-identified enemy tank appears that they can defeat from the front, I will try it. Most of the time it is wiser to wait for a side view, to be created by maneuvering M8s.

Maneuvering, by its nature, is dangerous as anything. You will lose at least one M8 per enemy tank which you try to flank. So be prepared with mortar fire and/or artillery, or even direct HE, to remove enemy guns as they appear. If you have the points, a Jumbo can be very helpful in this role.

If you do win the tank battle, then you have a good chance to win. German infantry is still dangerous to tanks, so you have to show respect. And the enemy probably has more of it, as well (for an ME). But it is usually pretty easy to manuever your HE projectors so to eliminate the enemy. Infantry cannot take even 75mm HE for long, much less 105. And this goes triple in a villiage, with its cluster of deathtraps masquerading as buildings. Americans love villiages.

If you lose the tank battle though, you are almost certainly going to lose.

[Maximus]

If you wanna be gamey, yet very effective at both. Buy some Fireflys and some Sherman 105s. Need I prove my claim? I mean you got that nasty 17 pdr gun with Tungsten and that 105 with its HE. I've never tried this combo, but after thinking about it lately, and after continuously getting smoked in Villers-Boccage by those damned Green and Conscript Fireflys, I would think that the above combo would be the most effective armor combo for the Allies.

[ 05-01-2001: Message edited by: Maximus ]

[CombinedArms]

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

The only people who don't like mortars are those who don't know how to use them.

Gyrene<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

To add to what Gyrene has said, I'm suddenly playing a lot of scenarios as US where the Axis makes heavy used of hidden AT guns, and I'm finding that the 60mm mortar is the AT gun's natural foe.

Here's what's working for me: if you suspect from the briefing or terrain that there will be multiple AT guns to face, keep armor back--that's what the AT gun is designed to kill-- and advance infantry under available cover until the AT guns are unmasked. Have two or three mortars in cover under command of a platoon or company headquarters as advance spotter. When the AT gun is uncovered, move the HQ into LOS with it, keeping mortars covered but in command, and bring their combined fires down on the gun. You can usually knock out an AT gun in a single turn that way and still have ammo left for one or more further attacks on AT guns.

Artillery spotters will also work, of course, but it takes longer to bring down their fire. You may of course need both if there are a lot of AT guns or the gun is out of mortar range, or if a gun is esp. stubborn. Also, if you can't get LOS from your HQ, you'll need to use artillery. But the mortars really work a lot of the time.

Consider this logic: An AT gun uses a cheaper asset (the gun) to attack a more expensive asset (the tank). The ability of the gun to hide gives it cover, at least till it's spotted. Even then it's usually dug in, so it may take several tank shots to kill it. But mortar fire on AT guns reverses this equation in your favor. Now you're using a cheaper asset (60mm mortar) to attack a more expensive asset (the gun) and the indirect fire of the mortar w/(hidden) HQ spotting allows it to stay in cover against its target. Once the AT guns are spotted & KOed, you can bring up armor to hose the infantry. If by this time you've drawn out the enemy armor, you can determine how best to position your armor for a favorable angle of attack.

In general I think on-board mortars are so valuable that you should handle them with care and save their fire (give low ammo loadouts) for really worthy targets.

[Redwolf]

Comments on various points:

I agree that mortars are very useful in CMBO. It might be that MGs are not powerful enough, but I find mortars to be much more effective for supression. The 2" mortars are quite useless, supression needs two turns of fire and all your ammo and the smoke cloud is barely sight-blocking. However, I just had one kill a PaK43, so YMMV. I generally play British and make sure I get 3" mortars and APCs for them. The 3" mortars knocks out Pz IV and StuG when hit directly and it has enough HE ammunition so that it is usually not a concern.

The slower Cromwells almost have the same acceleration, just the top speed is lower that that of the thinner variants. For mixed movement on non-road ground, the thicker one is usually not much slower.

The HE from the British 95mm tank gun should be more effective against infantry in foxholes than the U.S. 105mm and the 25 pdr in the Sexton. I didn't test this combination so far, but for the German infantry guns versus howitzers it applies, CMBO models either the different shrapnel distribution or the effect of the higher angle. The HC from the 95mm is also better than the one from the 105 (the 25pdr shoots AT).

The British for late months also get 5.5" VT arty, the cheapest VT in the game. Can be useful in defense or ME.

I just began to use the cheap British MG vehicles in an assault. Works great so far, I didn't want to be in my opponents situation having to decide whether to open fire on that "carrier?" marker that might be a Wasp, but that would require having the PaK43 spotted.

I am having problems with the underpowered British rifle squads, however. Even when I am attacking with sufficient superiority, I end up -for the same losses in men- with too many too weak squads compared to an U.S. assault.

[Redwolf]

I have just run my foxholes tests with Allied units and no, the British 95mm does not get the extra foxhole clear effect that the German infantry guns seem to have. Grumble...

It seems the effectivness for the allied guns in this test (105mm, 25pdr, 95mm) is quite what the HE blast value implies. The 40mm AA gun is very good in panicing early, but not in breaking. The towed form of a gun seems to be most precise, then the SP form (Priest, Sexton), then the tank (105mm Sherman). The Sherman was noticable less effective in this test. Supression from M8 HMC is noticable lower than for the others and may not be good enough to charge the target without losses.

Another interesting observation, although not surprising, is that the first shot is very important, while the squad in not taking cover. If the first shot is precise, the squad looses men and it is much earier to break it afterwards. If you near miss first, so that they take cover without losses, you can shoot all day without effect. Implications:

- Improved precision of towed gun may be worth it

- Don't give target orders, let the gun/tank choose its own target and

hope it switches to an unsupressed one often

You probably should not read too much out of this test, it is bombing a controlled squad out of its foxhole from one single gun. Under usual circumstances, that is not a cost-effective way of taking a line.

[JasonC]

"I did point out an advanage of the Sherman is it's high ammo load out.

Fair enough. I do find the extra load useful and not superfluous do to early death. But one of the reasons is, with the high HE load of the Shermans, you can afford area fire tactics, especially against villages. Don't wait to spot things, just level the target. There will still be plenty of HE left for spotted targets.

Since the role of direct HE in combined arms is, to me, first and foremost handling infantry in buildings (where artillery is less effective), that extra ability is a dramatic improvement, not a trivial one.

[JasonC]

"A well placed .50 or .30 crew can do damage for a full 30 turn game"

A .30 cal yes. .50 cals have 24 ammo apiece and can fire all of it in a few minutes, certainly much less than a full 30 turn game. I always run out. And the firepower difference compared to a 30 cal, is not enough to make up for the difference in shots fired. To total firepower until out or end of game, is far lower for the 50 cal.

Yes, the 50 cal has a minor anti-light-armor ability, but that is not so big a deal and a few on HTs or tanks do that job adequately.