"SMG Gap" A Proposal

[JasonC]

One fellow asked if CM takes stopping power into account. Well, the 9mm SMGs get only 80-87% of the firepower of the .45 caliber Thompson, so I'd say definitely yes. The Sten gets a slightly better rating for side loading mags, faster in combat than bottom loading - because you can see the opening to seat the mag in - and somewhat less likely to jam from a bad feed.

As for what they actually did in combat, others have mentioned that they suppressed. Yes. They also acted as the quail guns to grenades playing bush-beater. In close fighting, the enemies usually could not see each other, for the obvious reason that someone who was seen (for more than a split-second anyway) at very short range was already down. And LOS increases dramatically in such situations for the side that is higher up, farther from the ground. Grenades get traded and force men to move, and they are shot when they try - or they surrender. The benefit of SMGs in such situations is precisely that you don't have to aim very well, which makes them -fast-.

Jeff quoted FP numbers that aren't so. The SMGs get 9 FP at 100 meters, not 11. They are thus under the MP44 (which gets 12) and much closer to the semi-autos (carbine 8, M-1 7). I think Jeff is right that rifles are more accurate at that range, but I don't disagree too violently with the fp numbers -per shot-. The problem is the ammo, as I have said repeatedly.

An SMG may do as much suppressing at 100 meters as a rifle, and perhaps more. But it can only do so by firing off 6-9 rounds at a time, compared to 2-3 "straighter" shots from a rifle. The benefit of the rifle is superior ammo efficiency from greater accuracy, at all ranges beyond the shortest. And rate of fire is not an exact substitute for accuracy. Because ROF burns more ammo.

In FP per unit time, ROF can substitute for accuracy (remembering, of course, that a large part of what small arms fire does at range, is suppress). But in total FP over an entire ammo load, accuracy is better than ROF. These two aspects cannot be combined into one number - firepower at given ranges - but they can be modeled by two numbers - fp at given ranges and total shots allowed. SMGs are wind-sprinters. Rifles are distance runners.

In CM today, all units get 40 shots, and run out soon enough at long range that fire-fighting at long range is wasteful. It doesn't prove decisive against decent troops in any kind of cover, and it runs the units engaging in it low on ammo. A CM rifleman can run through his entire load firing into cover at ~250 yards and not put down his own counterpart in the target fired at. That the rifle has a better fp rating than an SMG at that range, therefore, has little practical effect. The edge of the rifle is not exploitable within the conztraints of the available ammo.

Worse, if a rifle-armed unit spends 1/4 of its ammo at 250 yards and then tangles in close with automatics, it has 30 shots left against 40 at the closer ranges. The autos have more fp per shot and more shots left. Typical realistic splits by range bracket are 10-20-10 for rifles and 10-30-0 for SMGs. An MP40's 40 shots can generate 630 fp that way, against 300 for an M-1. But the SMG man only carried about twice the rounds (says BTS). The superior accuracy of the M-1 has disappeared.

Now, change the total shots for the M-1 to 50, and for the MP40 to 30, and see what happens to such a total fp potential calculation. If the whole fight takes place at 100 yards, then the SMG's 9 fp per shot will give 270 total FP, vs. 350 for the M-1. In other words, at 100 meters the MP will shoot -faster- (30% higher fp per shot), but the M-1 will shoot more effectively overall (30% higher fp over the whole ammo load). In order for the SMG's fewer shots to pay off, it will need to get off a significant portion of them at close range, well under 100m, not just at 100m like today.

Mostly rifle squads should have 50 ammo, and pure SMG should have 30. Units with a majority of automatics should have 35. Units with 1/4-1/3 autos could have 45. Units with half autos could have the default 40. I've tested this idea with Brit rifles against VG, and the effect is noticable. The Germans are very dangerous but they did not have quite as much "wind" as the Enfields and Brens.

I think that is the realistic solution to the main "overmodeled SMGs" issue, rather than tweaking the fp numbers. And it is something scenario designers can do on their own; it does not need BTS to redo anything. It would be nice to have an option for quick battles to reset ammo levels by side or unit type (+1/8, +1/4, -1/8, -1/4 would do it) - for CM2. In the meantime, scenario designers can use the ammo settings to properly balance the effectiveness of SMGs, if they are so inclined.

[The_Capt]

dalem,

Again too simplistic. Every soldier in existance is going to duck when fired upon, regardless of the weapon used. The question is how long is he going to stay "Ducked". Or suppressed. It is a gross simplification to say all soldiers fired upon by any weapon are going to hide behind a wall and not move until firing stops.

Once the initial "duck" is done if no bullets are punching thru your cover, you begin to plan on how to actually get out of the situation via killing the other guy (ie shooting back, getting a gernade, calling arty). If bullets are tearing thru the cover you have selected, these coherent thoughts have a much harder time in forming because you are too worried about having large holes blown in your soft person.

We call it "Combat Shock" which has differing degrees of severity depending on exposure and level of experience of the troops. For example: Green troops are actually less likely to go into shock because the experience is "unreal", after they get bloodied their reaction becomes more sane.

So my question still stands: how deeply into the supression/cover/experience question did BTS go and could this not warrant a re-vist as to the effectivness of the all powerful SMG.

[Jarmo]

I agree SMG's are overrrated in CM. Or actually I think everything else is underrated. But SMG does have it's moments. Like when a bunch of guys are charging towards your trench 20 meters away. I'd say 2-3 times the firepower of a rifle (even garand) isn't exaggerating.

But the firepower should even out with garand around 50 meters or something. At 100 meters you wouldn't hit anything using full auto SMG, so single shots would be the only realistic choise.

Up to maybe 50 meters Garand should have about twice the firepower of a bolt lock rifle. But by 200 meters it wouldn't make too much of a difference anymore.

The weapons that are most screwed are the MG's, both HMGs and LMGs. Fire at a company of infantry all bunched up in the open a few hundred meters away. You might wound a couple of guys.

Now, I know in real life the casualties were not as high as we'd get if the firepowers were upped. But IMO that's mainly because in real life it wasn't the norm for 20 men from a shot up squad to rush 100 meters in the open to kill an MG team. Hell, they wouldn't even rush an LMG team. Something a CM player would do without a second thought. In RL, the men would make sure the MG is somehow properly suppressed before charging. They would be perfectly willing to spend the extra 2 minutes. (maybe even 5)

So more firepower to almost everything, but make the men hit the dirt more easily. And give a lot better cover bonuses to men that are pinned down or hiding. Properly balanced, these changes might even lessen the amount of casualties...

[Dunnee]

Mikey, did you, with your piercing reading comprehension skills, actually read my post? I mean really read it? An smg shoots BULLETS. Bullets are used in order that you may KILL the enemy. I was merely pointing out the one simple fact people aren't talking about, forget the firepower, forget the ratios, bullets kill people. As for me being a dog yeah, I"m an effing jersey pitbull canuck boy. I feel it's my duty to chop you off at the knees everytime you open your big, well-researched yapper. Heaven forbid anyone else has useful things to say on a subject mikey. If it didn't come from you, I guess it's not true huh? As for not getting Gyrene's post, I did, I just like annoying you because, frankly, I think your a little stiff.

[ 06-29-2001: Message edited by: Dunnee ]

[Slapdragon]

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

Mikey, did you, with your piercing reading comprehension skills, actually read my post? I mean really read it? An smg shoots BULLETS. Bullets are used in order that you may KILL the enemy. I was merely pointing out the one simple fact people aren't talking about, forget the firepower, forget the ratios, bullets kill people. As for me being a dog yeah, I"m an effing jersey pitbull canuck boy. I feel it's my duty to chop you off at the knees everytime you open your big, well-researched yapper. Heaven forbid anyone else has useful things to say on a subject mikey. If it didn't come from you, I guess it's not true huh? As for not getting Gyrene's post, I did, I just like annoying you because, frankly, I think your a little stiff.

[ 06-29-2001: Message edited by: Dunnee ]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Saying a bullet kills is like saying a car drives. The statement is idiotic on its face because the issue is not the killing power of the bullet. Robert Hienlein, in his book "Starship Troopers", made a great comment that illustrates this issue. His character commented that the major thing people were doing with their weapons seemed to be doing was trying to keep the other guys head down, since they did a lot of missing.

And it is true. Most shots were fired with no clear idea where the enemy was, aimed at an area as opposed t0o a person, and missed. Small arms needed 1000 to 1000 rounds fired to generate a casualty. This may not be true on a Jersey street corner, but is certainly true in warfare.

Unfortunately Hollywood has shown people like Rambo killing dozens with a sweep of an SMG, and it has sunk in deeply to many people's understanding of fighting, seemingly by your misunderstanding of Mr. Dorosh you may suffer from this. Sure, a weapon kills, but most militaries would rather generate wounded and incapacitated soidiers if they could than corpses, since these gum up supply routes with wounded and may not be back on the line in years, if ever. However, since weapons are not that specific, the weaposn used in war are designed to kill.

The whole issue of automatic weapons is their supressing power and not really killing power. Even when legal, few people hunted with automatic weapons. That is because a deer does not cower in a ditch when shot at by one. That is also why modern automatic weapons, which could shoot 1200+ rounds per minute (some designs could shoot 6000 rds a minute), shoot far less. Only aircraft carry weapons with that sort of firepower because they get one shot and thats it for a single pass.

[Dunnee]

Now you're putting words in my mouth. I'm not some pimple faced 15 yr old who saw the NBC special on pearl harbor and thinks he knows the war. I've been posting in response to my FIRST post on the original smg thread. All subsequent posts have been in response to that and jibes aimed at one Mr. Dorosh. I didn't like his dismissal of my information, or the way he put it, so I'm trying to annoy him. Slapdragon, go apply that last statement to the UT forum or something. I'm well aware of the proper usage of smg's and military hardware...Sometimes I see somethings get ridiculous and I feel the need to be a pain. Got it?

[ 06-29-2001: Message edited by: Dunnee ]

[Michael Dorosh]

In response to the good statement made on the last page - SMGs may not be three times as powerful as a rifle, but are we including perceived firepower also? Seeing wood chips flying around you is going to get you to put your head down, regardless of the calibre of the bullet or its penetrative abilities. The sound of someone going full auto is also going to make you think twice abut breaking cover.

Just an observation.

[Michael Dorosh]

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

Mikey, did you, with your piercing reading comprehension skills, actually read my post? I mean really read iti]

[ 06-29-2001: Message edited by: Dunnee ]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Why would I bother? You're clearly a moron with nothing better to do than try to irritate people. In fact, you admit it. Keep at it, I couldn't care less. I've enjoyed the discussion with Jason, Slapdragon, Gyrene and the others who have contributed to this thread positively.

No skin off my back if I ignore every fifth post. Knock yourself out.

[Slapdragon]

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

Now you're putting words in my mouth. I'm not some pimple faced 15 yr old who saw the NBC special on pearl harbor and thinks he knows the war. I've been posting in response to my FIRST post on the original smg thread. All subsequent posts have been in response to that and jibes aimed at one Mr. Dorosh. I didn't like his dismissal of my information, or the way he put it, so I'm trying to annoy him. Slapdragon, go apply that last statement to the UT forum or something. I'm well aware of the proper usage of smg's and military hardware...Sometimes I see somethings get ridiculous and I feel the need to be a pain. Got it?

[ 06-29-2001: Message edited by: Dunnee ]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

So you are merely being disruptive rather than geniunely lacking knowledge. Sort of like my five year old neice, who will stomp through her older brothers model collection because she does not want to play serious games. In this case ignoring your comments in general would be the answer.

[Gyrene]

I again agree with JasonC's notion that scenario designers should voluntarely reduce the amount of ammo available to automatic weapons, especially for regular and below troop grades.

Take the example of the M16, when it was issued to line troops in Vietnam, the US Army ran into the huge problem of soldiers running out of ammo too quickly, up until that point all soldiers had been trained on the M14, which despite its full auto capability, was never used that way due to it's vicious recoil and great lack of accuracy in that mode, it was hoped that the M16 would increase the efficiency of soldiers without any lenghty marksmanship training. It did not

Training and field experience helped to aleviate the M16 ammo problem, an full auto was an option to be used only in the confines of the jungles or other very close-in situations.

The US military has since abandoned the M16A1 in favor of the 3 round burst firing M16A2, and single shot, accurate firing is now the gospel.

It is very unrealistic to expect that a Volksstrum SMG squad should have the same fire power rating as an Allied Airborne squad of the same size. Airborne troops received far more training than the last line of defense VS troops, and yet both their firepowers are rated on the same potential of their weapons.

While many VS troops had previous combat experience in WWI, it is very doubtful that their experience would translate well to the SMG's they would now be holding.

The realistic combat range of SMG's is around 20m, in the same territory that shotguns dominate over rifles, this is when sudden snap shots happen and when the time to aim is non existant.

Look at the very elite forces of the world: When the SEALS or the SAS go to the field they take the M16A2 or the M4 carbine, when they have to take a building they go to pistols, shotguns and the MP5.

The very reason why crews and leaders were issued SMG's is because they should only have to fire when the danger is within the small effective range of those SMG's.

I made statements before about squads customizing before a mission seemed to have caused some commotion, so allow me to explain again how it worked:

TOE tweaking (Loading for Bear) was only true for troops working out of fixed bases into areas of expected enemy resistance, and usually only done when it would the weather (night, fog, etc) or terrain (jungle, city) was known.

This did happen, but like I said, it was only common in places where the battle line had become static, and when a stable base of operations was established, for example: Guadalcanal, late war DMZ fights in Korea, and Stalingrad.

Gyrene

[Dunnee]

Last time. In response to the latest comments...Yeah, I'm an irritating moron, but an irritating moron with a lesson in cause and effect. Cause: Dorosh gets all big-headed and snotty, and tries to diss a legitimate post. Effect: I become a child in order to teach him the value of considering all information. This is not a complaint form, I'm not crying, I'm trying to make a point. The funny thing is, in all of this, I 'm the moron and immature child, when it was YOU Mr. Dorosh, that STARTED it(that statement really makes me look 10 yrs old, but it's the truth). That's it, I'm done. When you're done being a hypocrite, maybe I'll consider valueing anything you have to say in the future. Because I USED to value your technical knowledge of the war.

[Andreas]

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

It is very unrealistic to expect that a Volksstrum SMG squad should have the same fire power rating as an Allied Airborne squad of the same size. Airborne troops received far more training than the last line of defense VS troops, and yet both their firepowers are rated on the same potential of their weapons.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Err, Gyrene, mefinks this is an issue for scenario designers. It is correct that they both get the same firepower rating. As the old saying goes, it is not the firepower that matters, it is what you do with it.

Volkssturm - conscript to (max) green. US paras - regular to vet/crack. As you rightly point out, it is the experience level that counts, but if the potential of the weapons is the same, I would not like to see that fudged. Now I am 100% certain that a regular US para squad will have no trouble outperforming a conscript Volkssturm squad 24/7. Which is as it should be, despite the potential of the weapons to deliver the same firepower.

[Michael Dorosh]

I have to agree with you Germanboy; with the new fitness rating in CM2, there will be even more characteristics to fiddle with to get the "feel" right - so that fudging raw firepower won't be necessary.

[lcm1947]

Written by Jeff Heidman :Wrno nations would outfit their line ifantry primarily with rifles, especially since the bulk of medium to long range firepower comes from the LMG anyway.

I think the reality that SMGs were not the primary weapon of the infantry in WW2 means that either they were not as powerful as they are shown in CM, or that the battle rifles were more powerful at moderate ranges, and hence more useful.

I can see your point but you first have to understand that a SMG is much more powerful at short to medium range than a rifle. It is a machine gun. It shoots lots of bullets whereas the rifle one at a time. True the M1 was a semi-automatic rifle but not fully automatic. The mauser was a bolt action rifle so the M1 should have more fire power then it. The range would almost be the same in the hands of a regular soldier. Most aren't good shots. You mentioned that the SMG had 3 times the fire power at close range then the M1. Well it should and also at up to 200-250. After that they are not as accurate so the M1 would start being the better choice. I do agree with you however that in CM the M1 should show greater power then what it presently shows over the other weapon like the 7mm Mauser and SMG due to it's range and being a semi-automatic vs bolt action or fully automatic machine gun. I am very disappointed myself over this because it's just not correct and since I play the American's ALL the time it sucks. As far as you stating that "no army would equip their soldiers with rifles" that really isn't true. The rifle is preferred over the machine gun according to the army if for no other reason then the amount of ammo they go throught. This really becomes a major concern when you are talking about thousands and thousands and thousands of soldiers not to mention the expense to equip every single soldier with a MG.

[JasonC]

lcm1947 imagines that an SMG is as effective as a rifle, accuracy-wise, out to 200-250 meters. Um, from this we can conclude he has never fired either. Then he makes the comment that "most soldiers aren't good shots", which would seem to imply an average soldier would have trouble hitting at 200-250 yards. Um, from this we can conclude he never passed BRM.

To hit a man sized target at 200 yards, you have to fire at the correct angle to within 1/10th of 1 degree. And with a properly zeroed rifle - provided it is a rifle - anybody can do this consistently, after a small amount of practice. The amount you get in basic training.

If instead you just sort of point in the general direction, say a 10 degree arc, and "spray and pray", and if you then fired off a 20 round clip, your chance of each bullet being in the right spot would be around 1 out of 100, and the chance of one of them being so would be less than 1 in 5 (ignoring shots too high, which would reduce it still more). With a full clip. You can't pass basic training if you can't manage to do it 70% of the time with a rifle.

Not good shots. Good shots are people that do not miss a man sized target, ever, out to 300 yards. They become "sharpshooters" in CM terms.

The effective range of SMGs is around 50 yards at best (for the Thompson, the best of the lot - Stens were -designed- to fight at pistol range, ~25 meters). The reason is the guns "climb" from recoil, and thus "bounce around" anything you are aiming at. This produces a dispersion of the bullets. If the dispersion gets too big, then you can point the gun in the right general direction and still miss with every one of 20 bullets, very easily. The dispersion grows with the range.

True MGs, and to a lesser extent weapons like the BAR, get around this problem in several ways. First, they are much heavier so they don't "climb" as easily. Second, they fire much more powerful cartrideges at much higher velocities - like rifles, not SMGs and pistols. Third, they fire industrial quantities of ammo (the only one not true of the BAR). Fourth, they use bipods from prone positions to stabilize the kicking gun. Fifth, they have someone else beside the gunner call out adjustments to the direction of fire - using binoculars if the range is long.

SMGs are not real machineguns. They fire low velocity pistol ammo from unstabilized hand-held "mounts". They are fine for sweeping rooms and trenches, and for making a number of people nearby keep their heads down. And when the range is close enough, they can eliminate the need to aim and thus make a shot at a briefly visible target, faster.

But pretending they should be effective at 200 meters is simply ludicruous - nobody with any real experience with or knowledge of them would say such a thing. CM rightly gives them 1/6 the firepower of a rifle at such ranges, and it is debatable whether they deserve that.

Now, what I would like to hear instead of this sort of silliness, is whether people agree that SMG infantry should have fewer shots in CM scenarios. A couple of people said yes. Nobody has said no.

The debate remaining seems to be stuck on the idea of one sort of "effectiveness", when my entire point in making the suggestion is that firepower *per unit time* and firepower *over whole ammo load* are *two different* things. Is that too rocket science for anybody here?

At close range, SMGs are better at the first. At medium range, they are much worse at the second, because they aren't accurate beyond short range. The way to show both, and thus to do justice to the rifle and the SMG both, is to seperate "effectiveness" into "fp times shots" (rifles good) and "fp per shot" (SMGs good if close).

If anybody has an intelligent reason to disagree with this bee in my bonnet, I am all ears. If anyone doesn't, I'd much rather hear that ("Sounds OK to me" would do LOL), than listen to people still trying to pack everything off into one number, by debating a monolithic ""effectiveness", for all the world as though I never pecked out a word.

[Michael Dorosh]

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

lcm1947 ...makes the comment that "most soldiers aren't good shots", which would seem to imply an average soldier would have trouble hitting at 200-250 yards. ..<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think lcm1947 is correct on this point. The CW troops in Britain suffered especially from a lack of ranges; for all the myth surrounding the natural Canadian backwoodsman, or the alleged super-marksmanship of the British, the reality was somewhat different.

Would be interesting to see some range figures, but of course we all know, as Pierre Berton so aptly put it, that firing a weapon in combat does not compare to "lying on your belly and banging away at stationary paper targets."

I do agree with you, of course, as any sensible person would, that the effective range of an SMG is considerably less than 200 yards.

Did we ever resolve the issue of production figures vs. front-line usage?

You do know, Jason, that the more abusive you get, the harder it is to agree with you?

I do think you are on to something, so for the sake of completeness, I will agree that FP x shots for rifles and FP per shot for SMGs makes some sort of sense.

How would you implement it?

[ 07-01-2001: Message edited by: Michael Dorosh ]

[lcm1947]

Well, JasonC I stand corrected. Not being an expert on machine guns or actually any WWII weapons I thought when the term SMG was used it meant like the .30 Cal. machine gun or the German 7.92X33 Kurz. Thanks to your description above I now know that it's what I call an Assault rifle. Like the Thompson .45 cal or grease gun. So I was all wet there. Now to answer some of your remarks about me or I should say my comments. 1. Yes, I have fired rifles. I would bet far more then yourself unless you reloaded your own ammo and shot at a firing range once or twice a week for several years. Probably not though I would think. No, never shot an assault gun only the M60 machine gun. I don't know what BRM means but I qualified Expert in the army which you may know is the best you can get. Markman was the lowest with Sharpshooter second best. What may I ask ,when you were in the service ,did you qualify as? You were in the service I assume or you getting all your knowledge from the game or books? As far as the average person being able to hit a man at 200 yards you are wrong. The average man cannot. I know this for a fact per my time in service seeing it with my own eyes and talking with the instructor when he noticed how well I shot. He had been an instructor for many years and had seen thousands of guys go thur his firing range. So, I guess that's about it except for saying I really enjoy this forum but if it had a few more individuals like you I would probably not log on. You my friend are a jerk. Have a good day.

[Andreas]

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

To hit a man sized target at 200 yards, you have to fire at the correct angle to within 1/10th of 1 degree. And with a properly zeroed rifle - provided it is a rifle - anybody can do this consistently, after a small amount of practice. The amount you get in basic training.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not quite - I went through basic training (Heckler&Koch G3), and I seriously doubt I would hit anything with a rifle at that distance, in combat or for a lark. I am just a crap shot, except with the P1. They did not throw me out of the army because of that, so I would assume that a lot of other crap shots served in various wars too.

[Michael Dorosh]

Modern armies are starting to compensate for poor marksmanship by the addition of scope for all small arms. I shot a perfect score at 200 metres last year on the range with the C7 - of course a 3x scope made the targets seem only 66 metres away....

BUT - trained infantrymen were failing to qualify (ie getting 3 or 4 inch groupings); some of them with 5 or more years of (reserve) service.

It was also a computerized range, so it wasn't a case of them mucking things up in the butts.

[Mark IV]

SMG/pistol ammo is much smaller and lighter than rifle ammo. If the SMG is your primary weapon, you are going to have a bunch of rounds stuffed in relatively bulky spare magazines, but boxed ammo can be all over the place ('course you'll have to stop and restuff mags now and then, and I don't know how CM could take this into account). Rifle ammo packaged in 5-8 round mags or stripper clips weighs more and takes up a lot more room.

It would also be difficult to justify much micro-modeling of small arms ammo load-outs when we have unlimited supplies of much heavier and bulkier grenades.

A defender should usually have all the ammo he wants, in prepared positions, regardless of weapon type. Of course, this is where the scenario designer comes in. We are only talking 30 minutes or so of action in most CM games. There are many instances of defenders running low or completely out of ammo in WWII, but usually only in siege-type combat over several hours or days.

As a tanker, I shot expert with pistol and SMG (grease gun), but only had to qualify with the M16. I am an adequate rifle shot. I have fired thousands of rounds of WWII military ammo in Mauser and Enfield (no M1 in my arsenal, but I have shot them plenty, too). I cannot say that I could hit an enemy at 200m over open sights with these weapons every time, should I be fortunate enough to find one so inclined. I would hit him more often than not.

From a bench rest I could put 'em all in paper and that's about it. With the M16 I probably could hit the guy every time, but CM doesn't have those. WWII rounds and sights weren't as good, and flinch factor is almost nonexistent with the M16. I have shot oodles of deer with a variety of rifles, at ranges from 10-160m, and pistol under 40m, and missed some, too.

Frankly I don't think an SMG should be allowed to engage much over 100m. The bullet would retain some ability to incapacitate a human over that range, but hitting would be virtually impossible, and who would expose himself to aimed rifle fire with no effective response? This would be a better solution than limiting the ammo.

[JasonC]

Mr. Dorosh asked how I'd impliment it. I'd vary shots for standard infantry squads between 30 and 50 depending on small arms mix, specifically the portion of automatic weapons in the squad type. Mixes around 50-50 (40% to 56%, 4/10 to 5/9) would have the same 40 shots as now, while less than 1/4 automatics would have 50 shots, and 3/4 or more automatics would have 30.

By infantry types, the shots would go like this -

US HQs - 50

US rifle 44 - 50

US engineer - 50

US rifle 45 - 45

US para - 45

US glider - 45

Brit rifle - 50

Brit pioneer - 50

Brit airborne - 40

Brit glider - 40

Brit HQs - 45

German HQs - 40

VG Pioneer - 50

VG SMG - 30

VG hvy SMG - 30

VG rifle - 40

VG fusilier SMG - 35

Heer rifle 44 - 45

SS rifle 44 - 40

Heer $ SS rifle 45 - 40

Heer & SS Pioneer - 50

Security - 40

Sturmgruppe - 40

Heer Motorized Pz Gdr - 40

SS Motorized Pz Gdr - 35

Heer & SS Armed Pz gdr - 35

Heer & SS Motorized Pioneer - 45

Herr & SS Armored Pioneer - 40

Heer & SS Pz. Escort - 40

Fallschirmjaeger - 35

FJ Pioneer - 35

Gebirgsjaeger - 30

BG Pioneer - 30

Volksturm - 35

To compare extremes, consider the effect on the match up between a Brit rifle squad and a VG SMG squad. The VG squad has 2 less men and costs only 76% as much (22 vs. 29 as regulars). It has 179% of the British squad's firepower at 40m and 81% as much at 100m, but only 10% as much as 250 (effectively out of range).

Right now, if the two trade shots at 100m the firepower per man is the same, the number of shots is the same, and the firepower per point spent is slightly higher for the VG (.81 fp / .76 cost). The VG squad will generate the same overall firepower (for 3/4 of the cost) if 1/8th of the shots are at 40 meters and the rest at 100m. That is with even ammo.

Change the ammo as outlined above, and the Brit squad has 50 shots to 30 for the VG squad. If both fire all of them at 100m, the Brit squad now has twice the firepower potential of the SMGs, ~3/2s the fp potential per point spent, at that range. The SMGs can counteract this and achieve the same firepower if enough of the shots are traded close. But just 5/40 will not do it - now it takes half (15/30).

Basically, the SMGs cannot match the rifles at 100 yards with ammo effects included. They need to get close, for a substantial portion of their shots. The rifle armed squads can afford to fire off some of their ammo at longer ranges (150-250m), too.

How are the adjustments made, practically speaking? By scenario designers. The ammo levels for every squad can be dialed in at set up in the unit details window. Without help from BTS, we can't make such changes in QB set ups, but designers can at their own discretion without any program changes.

If a third party referee is available to set up an otherwise QB match (as is sometimes done anyway to get a balanced map or select forces realistically), then ammo levels can be tweak for "QB" games too.

[Michael Dorosh]

I meant in a different system, not in CM. If you could redo the system, how would you do it?

Given current hardware profiles, would you track ammo types seperately?

In a perfect world, you would track every bullet and where it was among the 10 - 12 men of a squad Ie Man 1 has 4 Bren mags, 60 .303 round 2 Mills bombs, Man 2 has 2 Bren mags, a pistol with 28 rounds, including 2 loose in his hip pocket, 5 Sten mags...etc.

But how would you redo CM's system?

Or do you think your proposed ammo changes redress the problem sufficiently?

[JasonC]

On Mark IVs comments on ammo, rifle ammo is not appreciably harder to carry than SMG ammo. In the US army, the standard practice was to carry 10 M-1 magazines (each 8 rounds) in the standard issue cartridge belt, another mag in the gun. And from all I have read from vets it was common practice to add 2 bandoliers of ~100 rounds each as well, worn over the shoulders (except in light-traveling night patrols and such).

The same ammo was used by the M-1 and the BAR, which made carrying extra ammo a unit-wide task. The BAR assistant gunner carried an additional box of ammo. In German units, it was common for riflemen to carry extra belts for the squad MG. Overall ammo carried is limited by bulk and weight, and unused ability to carry is generally used for the other weapons of the unit.

Incidentally, this also does apply on defense. Defenders were far from having unlimited quantities of ammo, and the idea that defenders do not move is simply false. Almost all defenders were in action regularly, at new positions typically every day or two. And for small arms at the front, supplied by infantry humping the stuff in themselves.

Notice also that post war developments, pushing for smaller caliber lighter ammo and then for 3 round bursts instead of full auto, were all about increasing the fp over whole ammo load, even at the expense of some fp per unit time. It is definitely a real issue. ROF is a momentary substitute for, or suppliment to, accuracy. But it is not an exact trade. ROF works just fine on a time scale of tens of seconds, but accuracy is better on a scale of tens of minutes.

[JasonC]

Yes, the proposed ammo changes will address the problem. All that is necessary to seperate the two concepts "effectiveness per unit time" from "effectiveness over whole ammo load" is to use two numbers - fp and ammo - instead of trying to make do with just one - fp only, with ammo's equal.

Differing fp numbers can certainly model differences in fp per unit time. Differing ammo levels can render that number independent of the "integral", fp over whole ammo load. The distinction between shooting straighter and shooting more is fully captured by the two numbers.

Of course, anybody could quibble with the existing numbers for either variable, but that is a seperate piece of minutae, and not a design problem. The design problem with the current all-ammo-equal system is that no way exists to raise effectiveness of SMGs in one sense, while also reflecting their wastefulness compared to rifles in another sense. One number cannot make such distinctions. Two can.

A parallel case from another genre of wargame may illustrate the issue somewhat. The napoleonic Battleground series games are a case in point. Infantry firepower varies dramatically for the same number of men, depending on their formation, in that era. A 2 rank line of 450 men can bring all 450 muskets to bear, while a column 15 deep can only fire the forward 60 muskets. And the BG series properly reflected this with varying fp numbers by strength and formation type.

But then they used an overly simple infantry ammo system, in which all units had the same chance of a "low ammo" result, randomly determined with each shot. The 60 men firing from the front of the column would run out as fast as the 450 firing from the line. This made it as though the line were not shooting faster (doing more, but also more likely to run out of ammo soon), but shooting straighter. This effected play balance, formation types used, and overall casualty rates.

The point is that designers often unintentionally introduce such secondary effects when they settle on some simple abstract ammo system. Firepower per unit time looks like the more important tactical variable so it is modeled closely and pretty accurately. The ammo system is not regarded as so important, and is kept simple for playability.

The "cross" of the two produces an unintended consequence - what was meant to be a rate of fire effect unintentionally mutates into something more like a greater accuracy effect. So 2-rank (British) lines or common (German) SMGs are artififically boosted in long-term performance, while columns and rifles run out of ammo just as fast. Instead of shooting *faster*, the former types shoot just plain *more*.

An adequate solution to the BG series problem would be to tie the "ammo loss" chance to the firepower modifier of the shooting formation. If 2 rank lines get 1.5 times fp, they get 1.5 times ammo loss chance. If columns get 0.2 times fp, they get 0.2 times ammo loss chance. This example is particularly simple because the guns and loads carried are acutally the same; the only thing changing is how many of them are firing.

In the WW II CM case, the ammo loads and ROF are both different from weapon to weapon. But the same principle applies - shooting faster, straighter, and more (ammo carried) have to be distinguished from one another. Which is easily accomplished, for unit to unit comparisons, with two numbers for each unit. Faster means fp higher and ammo lower. Straighter means fp higher and no change to ammo. More means ammo higher with no change to fp.

SMG men shoot faster by a large factor, shoot less straight at medium range by a large factor but similar at close range, and carry more by a small factor - all compared to rifles. So they deserve a higher fp at close range by a large factor, a lower ammo load carried by a small factor, and similar fp at medium range.

In fp per unit time they then become better by a large amount at close range, only even at medium range. In fp over whole load they are ahead at close range (but by less than the fp per unit time) and are behind at medium range.

Accuracy, rate of fire, and load carried are all accurately modeled. You just can't do that with only one number and ammos equal. It is easy to do with two numbers and ammos unequal.

[ 07-01-2001: Message edited by: JasonC ]

[Username]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

The same ammo was used by the M-1 and the BAR, which made carrying extra ammo a unit-wide task. The BAR assistant gunner carried an additional box of ammo. In German units, it was common for riflemen to carry extra belts for the squad MG. Overall ammo carried is limited by bulk and weight, and unused ability to carry is generally used for the other weapons of the unit.

[/QB]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The same ammo, meaning cartridge was common to BAR and M1 (and 30 cals), but the M1 was a fixed 8 round device (charge). The BAR would use loose rounds that were loaded into the 20 round clips. The BAR could probably take belted MG ammo and load up its clips easily enough. The M1 garand would not share that easily.

Lewis