BTS, .30 cal. AP for BAR & .50 cal. pen. of heavy cover

[John Kettler]

Having just watched "The Guns of World War II: U.S." on the U.S. History Channel, during which I saw some remarkable interviews and firing demonstrations, I'd like to ask whether

CMBO models the reported on the show standard use of .30 cal. AP instead of ball with the BAR? The footage showed a BAR eating a hole right through a typical farmyard stone fence. There was also footage of a .30 cal. water cooled MG chopping down a tree whose trunk was nearly a foot in diameter.

Of even greater interest to me is the modeling of the superb penetration of cover by the .50 cal. MG. Is cover treated as being less resistant when fired on by a .50 cal. MG? Are there any special morale effects to troops under fire by this weapon? My understanding is that the Germans hated and feared the Ma Deuce.

I realize that CMBO is a done deal, but I'd like to request that if currently not modeled in CMBO, these matters be addressed in CMBB and beyond.

Regards,

John Kettler

[offtaskagain]

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

Having just watched "The Guns of World War II: U.S." on the U.S. History Channel, during which I saw some remarkable interviews and firing demonstrations, I'd like to ask whether

CMBO models the reported on the show standard use of .30 cal. AP instead of ball with the BAR? The footage showed a BAR eating a hole right through a typical farmyard stone fence. There was also footage of a .30 cal. water cooled MG chopping down a tree whose trunk was nearly a foot in diameter.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Though I really wouldn't care to be hit by either round, the type of ammo isn't going to make much difference on the firepower. Therefore it's probably not modeled. The scale of wounds is likely outside the scope of the game.

Most guns of all calibers are capable of punching a hole straight through a tree. In fact many rounds will penetrate 100 inches of wood. Short of pillbox thickness, your average concrete wall isn't gonna do much to stop a 30.-06 round either.

[Username]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by panzerwerfer42:

Though I really wouldn't care to be hit by either round, the type of ammo isn't going to make much difference on the firepower. Therefore it's probably not modeled. The scale of wounds is likely outside the scope of the game.

Most guns of all calibers are capable of punching a hole straight through a tree. In fact many rounds will penetrate 100 inches of wood. Short of pillbox thickness, your average concrete wall isn't gonna do much to stop a 30.-06 round either.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

He isnt talking about the firepower. He is discussing the cover.

[gredeker]

I seem to recall reading a post by Steve saying that the program doesn't track individual wall states - just the all or nothing difference between "light building**" and an exploding pile of debris.

John, I see your point, but I don't think it's modeled - yet. It would make sense for a defender's exposure percentage to rise as the .50 cal fire eats away at the wall, but it isn't modeled yet. Maybe in the CMII engine this will be addressed.

Hmm, I wonder if this was one of the reasons that the M16 HT with the quad .50s was left out. There wouldn't be much left of a small building after a few minutes of attention from one.

[gunnergoz]

The M16 is great but the quad 20's are even more powerful.

The M16's absence from CMBO is a sore spot with many of us. This has been debated ad nauseum in the forum.

I seem to recall that the BTS guys basically forgot to include it, I don't think it was deliberately excluded, especially over a "firepower" basis because the 20mm weapons are modeled and having an explosive round, are real powerhouses.

CMBtB should model the lend-lease M-17, however, and I'll finally get to play with my meatchoppers.

[offtaskagain]

Is that the one that had two .50s and a 37mm gun? That one has a lot of fun potential.

[ 07-11-2001: Message edited by: panzerwerfer42 ]

[Gen-x87H]

Well I can tell you on one occasion an opponent shot up a whole platoon of mine who was 70 meters into heavy trees using 2 frigging US HTs. I couldnt believe my eyes.

Gen

[Username]

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

I seem to recall reading a post by Steve saying that the program doesn't track individual wall states - just the all or nothing difference between "light building**" and an exploding pile of debris.

John, I see your point, but I don't think it's modeled - yet. It would make sense for a defender's exposure percentage to rise as the .50 cal fire eats away at the wall, but it isn't modeled yet. Maybe in the CMII engine this will be addressed.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I dont think that its an erosion process he is talking about either. Its the fact that, lets say, a stone wall gives cover and concealment to a squad that is being fired on by a LMG at 500 meters. That same stone wall might just be concealment when a fifty opens up.

This would also apply to weapons like the sov 12.7mm, etc.

[Jeff Heidman]

This something that most wargames miss, and I think CM does also.

Small arms fire is generally all treated the same. They generate some amount of firepower, and then cover/concealement reduce that firepower at some ratio or another.

But this ignores the difference between different small arms in how they were effected by cover. A US .50cal was not extremely effective against infantry because that big bullet really hurts when it hits you. What difference does it makes whether you get hit by 1 12.7mm bullet and a 7.62mm bullet? In either case your toast.

The .50cal shines when it comes to its ability to laugh at cover. A stone building might deflect a decent portion of a MG42 fire, but the .50cal is just going to laugh and plow right on through.

That is what is wrong with "flat" firepower ratings. An MG42 would have significantly greater firepower than a M2 at 400m firing at a infantry target in the open due to its greater ROF. But the M2 would ahve a greater firepower firing at infantry in a building due to its greater penetration. Most games, and I think CM is included, simply give a weapon a FP number, and then cover effects those numbers the same for all weapons.

A "pen" factor would be nice to model this. Say a multiplier to modify the cover rating. A SMG would have a 1.2, a rifle a 1.0, a LMG a 0.85, a HMG a 0.75, and the mighty M2 and its cousins a 0.65.

Something like that anyway...

Jeff Heidman

[gunnergoz]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by panzerwerfer42:

Is that the one that had two .50s and a 37mm gun? That one has a lot of fun potential.

[ 07-11-2001: Message edited by: panzerwerfer42 ]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You are thinking of the M-15. The M-17 was the export International Harvester version of the M-16. IIRC, it was identical for all game purposes, the major difference was the armor was a bit thicker to compensate for it's lower ballistic tolerance (it was welded instead of riveted.)