"SMG Gap" A Proposal

[Username]

I had suggested in another thread the following:

SMG units (those that had a predominate SMG in the squad) would start a scenario with a small loadout. Maybe 12 shots. In the course of using up the loadout and becoming LOW, they had the chance to increase out of LOW. Say 1 or 2 shot buildup chance per turn.

This reflects the shock troop nature of the SMG squad. They werent line infantryman and holding the line wasnt thier forte.

If a squad of SMGs opened up on you at 200 yards, there would be a rain of bullets. But one or two guys would be spraying and praying.

Lewis

[Mark IV]

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

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 (...snip...) In German units, it was common for riflemen to carry extra belts for the squad MG....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.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Rifle ammo isn't any harder to carry, there are just fewer shots per pound/kilo. There are only so many carry pounds/kilos per squad, and SMGs get way more shots per pound/kilo. If the MG ammo is a wash, meaning both sides had to shoulder this burden, the excess capacity for each individual soldier still allowed more "shots" per grunt if he had to carry pistol ammo. If he used more "shots" per burst, then we likely have another wash, unless you have stats on shots per burst.

Defenders didn't have unlimited qtys. of ammo, but I think they generally would have, in the time span of a CM engagement. They had shorter supply lines to begin with, as a general rule, and had fewer constraints on supply than an attacker, with all he was going to get, for the next few hours, on his back. Every situation is different and that's where the designer comes in. If they just took the hill, and are in turn defending it, they will have less ammo than if they have been on the hill all morning, getting ready for an inevitable onslaught. Even on the EF you don't hear much about units running out of ammo in 30 minutes.

Factual and anecdotal accounts do nothing to outweigh the sheer quantitative difference between the ability of a man to carry pistol ammo and the ability of the same man to carry rifle ammo. There are fewer shots, per equal and available man/load, with rifle ammo, than with SMG ammo. SMGs go through them faster. It is hard for me to picture real people in battle stripping rounds from their M1 mags to feed the MG, though the opposite could work a little, I suppose, if they were desperate.

The original hypothesis is yours: SMG squad ammo capacity should be reduced, and the game mechanics should be adjusted to reflect this. I do not see the compelling reason for that. Somewhere between 100 and 250m, the FP of a pure Reg SMG squad drops from 72, to 4. If a guy chooses to blow his ammo load on "4"s you could let him have it, without serious repercussions. The more 4s he wastes the better, no?

[ 07-01-2001: Message edited by: Mark IV ]

[Slapdragon]

What is being neglected of course is that both SMG loads and Rifle loads were pretty well balanced to last about the same amount of time in action. The same is true with the BAR and LMG in squads, who had to have extra ammo distributed around the squad. Only with the MP43/44 was this not the case, but it was later rectified when these troopers went from 6 to 12 magazines per weapon near the end of the war (the M1/M2 Carbine may have had the same problem, but I have no information on a sudden increase in ammo issue levels with these weapons).

Pretty much, without evidence, we just have to leave it alone. If evidence comes up, then maybe it can be presented again.

[Andrew H.]

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

Pretty much, without evidence, we just have to leave it alone. If evidence comes up, then maybe it can be presented again.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, there's plenty of evidence that SMGs in practice were not as effective as they are in CM. There are no instances, AFAIK, of US units demanding to be equipped with SMGs so that they could fight on even footing with German SMG-equipped infantry (and US troops were not shy about pointing out areas where they believed the Germans to be better equipped; cf. MG42s and tanks). I don't recall any instance in the Official History of the Battle of the Bulge (which I recently read and which featured a lot of SMG armed VGs) of SMG troops being particularly effective.

Given this unrealism in CM, Jason's ammo-tweaking suggestion has a lot of merit, not least because it is pretty much the *only* way that CM players can make SMG units more historically effective. That is, weaker. I mean, it's fine for players to talk about tweaking firepower and suppression, etc...but that's something that players can't change.

I suppose you could also insist that VG SMG squads be green, which was mostly the case in '44.

The real reason that SMG troops were less effective in real life than they were in CM is because -- in the ETO -- they were usually not able to close to a range where their SMGs could be used to best effect. I don't know whether this has to do with undermodelling of rifles, overmodelling of SMGs, or underestimating the suppressive effect of trying to close range with a weapon that will not be effective until you close range...or maybe, as BTS seems to suggest, it may have to do with the fact that troops generally can't fire and move as much as CMBO allows them to do.

But regardless of the reason SMGs were less effective in real life -- and ammo usage could definitely be a factor -- ammo usage is pretty much the only thing that can be tweaked by the players. So I think that players should do so because it will make the outcome of battles more realistic.

[Michael Dorosh]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Andrew Hedges:

I don't know whether this has to do with undermodelling of rifles, overmodelling of SMGs, or underestimating the suppressive effect of trying to close range with a weapon that will not be effective until you close range...or maybe, as BTS seems to suggest, it may have to do with the fact that troops generally can't fire and move as much as CMBO allows them to do. .<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

What about the undermodelling of penetrative, grazing and spraying effects of LMGs, MMGs, HMGs, and automatic rifles?

[Slapdragon]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Andrew Hedges:

Well, there's plenty of evidence that SMGs in practice were not as effective as they are in CM. There are no instances, AFAIK, of US units demanding to be equipped with SMGs so that they could fight on even footing with German SMG-equipped infantry (and US troops were not shy about pointing out areas where they believed the Germans to be better equipped; cf. MG42s and tanks). I don't recall any instance in the Official History of the Battle of the Bulge (which I recently read and which featured a lot of SMG armed VGs) of SMG troops being particularly effective.

Given this unrealism in CM, Jason's ammo-tweaking suggestion has a lot of merit, not least because it is pretty much the *only* way that CM players can make SMG units more historically effective. That is, weaker. I mean, it's fine for players to talk about tweaking firepower and suppression, etc...but that's something that players can't change.

I suppose you could also insist that VG SMG squads be green, which was mostly the case in '44.

The real reason that SMG troops were less effective in real life than they were in CM is because -- in the ETO -- they were usually not able to close to a range where their SMGs could be used to best effect. I don't know whether this has to do with undermodelling of rifles, overmodelling of SMGs, or underestimating the suppressive effect of trying to close range with a weapon that will not be effective until you close range...or maybe, as BTS seems to suggest, it may have to do with the fact that troops generally can't fire and move as much as CMBO allows them to do.

But regardless of the reason SMGs were less effective in real life -- and ammo usage could definitely be a factor -- ammo usage is pretty much the only thing that can be tweaked by the players. So I think that players should do so because it will make the outcome of battles more realistic.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

But, just because a single account of a battle does not mention that the SMG was highly effective, does not make it so, no more than assuming a higher ROF means less ammo -- when that ammo is lighter. In other words, we are trying to prove something with negative data, like saying that someone has never read about a grenade killing a Tiger, thus grenades cannot kill Tigers. It is something, and might cause us to direct attention to the subject, and thus may be slightly useful, but in terms of the game, it is not data that can really be turned into meaningful numbers.

In terms of Volkstrum, making them green is part of the complex of argument about making green the default for all units in the game unless they had seen action, been through specialized training (like US Airborne and Tank Destroyers), or were lead by a particularly able leader, at whioch time they would be regular, or possibly veteran. Green units are good, and they should show up way more in CM.

[Jarmo]

Jason, in your proposal you give US and British squads the same ammo. A simple oversight? Or do you have a reson for it. US teams have higher firepower because they shoot faster with their semi-auto rifles.

About the ineffectiveness of SMG's. In finland it was the best man on the team to get the SMG. And that's because it was so effective. Of course the situation was different, as the soviets used WWI type mass charges. Closing in with the enemy was not a problem when the enemy did the closing in bit.

[Andreas]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Andrew Hedges:

The real reason that SMG troops were less effective in real life than they were in CM is because -- in the ETO -- they were usually not able to close to a range where their SMGs could be used to best effect.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That is an interesting hypothesis. Mine would have been that the VG Divisions simply did not get enough training (i.e. should be green).

[JasonC]

SMG ammo weighs at least half what rifle ammo does per round, and often more (90-125 grains vs. 150-180 grains are typical figures for 9mm MP ammo vs. 30 cal rifle ammo - incidentally the .45 cal tommy gun has far heavier rounds). BTS said long ago they considered SMG loads to be about 2x rifle ones, for MP40s vs. M-1s that is. Which was not based on the real "all you can carry" deal, but standard issue loads, incidentally.

Nobody pretends SMGs are *more* accurate than rifles. They get 3-6 times the firepower of rifles at short range because they are firing more than 3-6 times as fast. If you fire 4 times as fast and carry 2 times as many bullets, you run out in half the time. The figures I recommend for SMG vs. mostly rifle squads is 3 to 5, less than double.

As for the statement that all loads were balanced to last the same time, I think it is nonsense. There is no rule of rate of expenditure in combat, for one weapon type let alone for all to compare them. Ask any vet how long ammo lasts and he'll say "until it runs out", because it depends entirely on how much shooting is being done, which depends on what is going on.

Field loads of ammo are also way above "issue" levels. In Nam while still using M-14s, men often carried 400 rounds per man, and M-60 crews carried 5000 rounds. A 30 cal bullet weighs about 1/3rd of an ounce - 100 rounds is about 2 lbs.

And I sincerely doubt German MP men carried 20-30 clips apiece. The usual figure is more like 7, which is large mags would weigh 10 lbs (one loaded 32-round mag weighed 680 grams). And that is fewer rounds than an M-1 riflemen with standard issue cartridge belt plus 2 100-round bandoliers, though it is more than the rifleman carried without bandoliers added.

The MP man was probably carrying grenades for close-in work or extra belts for the squad MG(s), if anything beyond his own clips.

As for not being able to imagine switching off ammo from rifles to BAR, I don't see why. If the range was long, the BAR had to do much of the firing anyway. The "lessons learned" stuff is full of comments like "the BARs and 30 cals (air cooled) do the ranged firing". CM incidentally does model the main German small arms strength, better MGs, even if one does make gamey use of overmodeled SMGs.

As for burst sizes, 6-9 round bursts is the typical "control" level for such high cyclic rate weapons. Which means ~4 bursts, maybe +/-1 for the level of control.

The idea that all squad types should have the same number of abstracted CM shots does not seem to me to have any basis whatever. It is obvious that it is simply an abstract logistical system, meant to be simple and easily comprehended and precious little else. Everything that matters, because everything that varies, is supposed to be packed off into the fp numbers, which BTS assured us quite a while ago they pulled out of their tail sections. Pretending equal squad ammo, or the numbers, or using only one number for "effectiveness", is holy writ, is just plain silly.

If an SMG has 30 shots and a rifle 50 (the extremes - some will be less far apart because of mixes, etc), then the SMG still has higher firepower at close range. MP40s to M-1s, they have 5/3rds as much fp overall if all shots are close. With around twice the ammo carried that implies the SMG is hitting 5/6 as often as the M-1, per bullet not per burst. I consider that quite generous. Of course, the firepower per unit time is higher still, by 5/3 again.

But then move out to 100m, which is twice effective range for most SMGs (the slow bullets - 1/3rd the velocity of rifles - have dropped half a foot from the aim point by then, etc), and the ammo matters. The firepower per unit time is still higher for the MP, by 4/3rds. Which again I consider quite generous, for that range. But now the overall firepower, shooting off the entire load, is higher for the rifle by 4/3.

Thus as short range the SMG shoots both faster and more overall. But at medium range it shoot faster, but has less effect for the whole ammo load than a rifle does. The issue of which one is better then turns on how important it is to fire fast (and e.g. thus suppress and avoid replies), vs. sustained fp over a longer period - as well as how close the MPs manage to get.

Nobody is talking about MPs firing at 250 yards, where they aren't going to do anything. MGs provide the fp at that range, which pins rather than kills and that only in the open, anyway. The point is that MPs should have "more" only in close, and at medium range they should only get "faster". Because the accuracy is already way down at 100 meters for an SMG, but a rifle hits easily at that range (if it has a target, naturally; that is true for both).

Someone might say that only certain knowledge of practical firing rates can address the question, but this is not remotely the case. Only relative accuracies need to be assessed. When you give fp numbers, have load estimates, and specify ammo points given to each type, you have specified a relative accuracy between the two.

Accuracy or "straightness" equals total fp generated divided by load carried. Rate of fire is irrelevant to "straightness". Fp and ammo numbers that imply MPs are more accurate than rifles are inherently unbelievable, and you don't need to know the practical ROF of either, to tell.

For example, a sten gun has 6 times the fp of a K98 rifle at 40 meters. Nobody imagines a short "bullet hose" is more accurate per bullet than a bolt action rifle, even at close range. Therefore, the fp number can only be justified by the assumption the Sten is throwing 6 times the bullets, or more.

Which is perfectly believeable, since at close range the Sten might throw anywhere from a short burst to a whole mag in a matter of split seconds, while the slow bolt action fires only 1-3 times. K98 men carried around 60 rounds, said BTS. Well then, the Sten man either carried 360 rounds (and they didn't, not in clip form certainly) or deserves fewer CM shots.

Accuracy and ROF can be modeled seperately if and only if varying firepower numbers are supplimented by varying ammo levels. You can hand wave all you want about unknowns and it will not effect the logic of that statement one iota. And everybody knows that rifles were (and are) more accurate per bullet than SMGs. Refusing the draw the obvious conclusion - that uniform ammo levels penalize what rifles are good at (accuracy) and do so unrealistically - is not reasonable.

[Mark IV]

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

SMG ammo weighs at least half what rifle ammo does per round, and often more (90-125 grains vs. 150-180 grains are typical figures for 9mm MP ammo vs. 30 cal rifle ammo - incidentally the .45 cal tommy gun has far heavier rounds).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oops... you're comparing slug weights. Unfortunately, the infantry has to carry the whole darn catridge, which includes the brass casing and powder and stuff. A loaded 7.92 cartridge is what, three times longer than a 9mm? You need the loaded weight of each cartridge, which will include a substantial amount of brass. I have the rounds here handy, but no suitable scale...

Edited to note that the full designation of each round includes the case length:

9 x 19mm is the Parabellum (Luger) SMG round,

8 x 57mm is the 8mm Mauser for rifles and MGs.

[ 07-02-2001: Message edited by: Mark IV ]

[Slapdragon]

50x .45cal (11.23x23mm) cartriges mass about 1 kg. 20x 7.62x63mm (.30 US or .30-06) masses around a kilogram or a bit more. Magazine or clip mass is additional to this. A submachinegunner can usually carry 2 to 2.5 x the ammo as a rifleman.

[ 07-02-2001: Message edited by: Slapdragon ]

[Jarmo]

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

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.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'd have posted a reply to these accuracy things sooner but I had to spend some time looking for the ranges.

Using the finnish RK-62 (an improved Kalashnikov variant) I had hard time trying to hit a target with 1 meter diameter. The distance? Tadaa! 150 meters.

I could usually put 10 rounds somewhere into the target if I took a couple of seconds to aim. Rapid fire (the kind I'd probably use in combat), shooting 2-3 shots/second, I usually hit the target once or twice with ten shots.

About 1/3 of us could do 20cm groups from 150 meters. There were some that could do the same from 300 meters.

Hitting something from such distance with full auto is right out of the question.

I blame the sights, stupid two rings system. I want my two sticks at the back and one on the front. Or a crosshair sniperscope.

[JasonC]

20 rounds of 30 cal ammo certainly does not weigh a kg, it weighs more like a pound.

Full cartridge weights vary by a bit less than a factor of 2 for SMG vs. rifle ammo. A 9mm parabellum round weighs 14 grams, 303 rounds weigh 25 grams. A 180 grain 30-06 round can run 27 grams, but the army used 152 grain rounds (the M2 cartridge) more like the 303 in weight. 45 ACP weighs 21 grams.

MP40s don't get 2x the firepower at close range of rifles. They get 3-5 times. They are not firing only twice as fast, they are firing more like 4 times as fast. But they can only carry about twice the load, as BTS said long ago and as I have repeated over and over. Which is met with every sort of dodge but never a straight answer.

Do you think MPs only deserve 1.5 times the fp at close range of rifles? Or do you think MPs are more accurate than rifles? Or do you think MP equipped men magically carry 2-3 times the weight of ammo of riflemen? I don't care which untenable proposition in the chain of the logic you pretend to believe. I just want you to say which one it is.

If SMGs get 3-6 times the fp per CM shot of rifles at close range and are less accurate per bullet than rifles, then SMGs are firing more than 3-6 times as fast as rifles per CM shot.

If SMGs are firing more than 3-6 times as fast as rifles and carry only twice the ammo, then they use up their load 1.5-3 times as fast as rifles.

If SMGs use up their ammo loads 1.5 times as fast as rifles and upward, then giving pure SMG only 2/3rds as many CM shots as rifles is realistic.

If men carry what they can into combat and men can carry about the same weights, and SMG rounds weigh half (and up) what rifle rounds weigh, then SMGs have only about twice the ammo loads of rifles.

And what is there on the other side, to argue that exactly the same shots and exactly 3-6 times close range fp is proper for SMGs? Not a gosh darn thing. But if an SMG has 4 times the fp of a rifle with only twice the ammo, and gets the same CM shots, then supposedly each bullet fired from the SMG is twice as accurate as one fired from the rifle. Which is absurd.

The extra weight of a rifle round is buying something. It is buying 3 times the muzzle velocity, which means much better accuracy. If the range is quite close, the accuracy may not matter very much and the SMG might generate twice the total fp over its larger whole ammo load, or only slightly less than that. But not 4 times.

And at any range beyond very close, the accuracy is going to "pay back", because light pistol sized rounds fired spray and pray are going to start missing. A lot. The SMG may make up for that in fp per unit time by firing a lot. But it can't make it up in fp over the whole ammo load that way.

Once each bullet coming out of the SMG is only half as accurate as one out of the rifle, the rifle (with half as many bullets) will have higher fp over the whole ammo load. ROF just does not matter for fp over whole ammo load. Accuracy does.

[ 07-02-2001: Message edited by: JasonC ]

[Andreas]

Sorry Jason, but so far you have failed to convince me - but I am sure you don't mind, because that just means I belong to the camp of 'The ones who don't agree with Jason and are either Naziworshippers or disciples of the Holy Church of the untouchable CMBO'.

The fact that you conveniently side-step the issues of marksmanship or weight (have I heard a: 'oops, I was wrong'? Thought not...) whenever it is shown that your rather firm assertions ('anyone can hit a small square at 200m after basic training') are just that, makes me wonder what else in your reasoning is flawed. And that is quite apart from the production numbers issue.

But I still fondly remember your calculations from quite a while ago, relating, based on whole war production figures, how likely it was to meet a German with an assault rifle in 1944. That made me chuckle.

It is such fun to watch you do this, a bit like watching a hamster in a wheel. Running frantically, but never getting anywhere.

[Slapdragon]

REPOST

Jeff has always, and now you have joined Jason, a group who believes critical thinking is meaningless, that rhetoric proves a point. Cognitive dissonance being full in force, there is no way to sway you both from this way of thinking, and myself, Mister Dorosh, Germanboy, and others probably are foolish to try.

For others, it is important to cut through the rhetoric. First off, no one says that the SMG is right or wrong, merely that it is coded into the game. The game is hard to change because it requires a programming effort. Thus, why would anyone want to change a possibly flawed portion of a system for what will be a possibly more flawed and untested system without good reason.

Each time there is whining for immediate and unconditional change, people forget that the person who needs to make the change has to devote time to that change. This is why a change must be fully explored. Just because Jeff Hiedman, yourself, me, or anyone wakes up one night after watching an episode of Combat! and says, gee -- SMGs were not so good, does not mean Charles should spend two weeks coding a fix.

Rather than your four groups whose existance is questionable (or in some cases, as a few of us were laughing about on another list, some of the people you accuse of being "Germans always wins" types are actually quite the opposite), there are two, those that want changes to included imperical and historical reasoning, and those who want changes to "balance the game" or who work from gut feeling. We are the former, you are the later.

The good thing about you stating your thesis and trying to support it is now we can look at it from an imperical, historical, and decide does your data warrant your conclusion. We can discuss off group this issue with people who are experts in small arms employment, history, firepower, and the like, but who may not be present on this list, and we can refer to primary and secondary sources.

In addition, and more important, you are now locked down into your assertion, which was the biggest problem for Germanboy. He may have agreed with you, except your arguments were so weak at the start and varied so much, and you were so upset people pointed that out that you lost a bit of "face".

In the next 24 hours, the peer review of the board will swing into action, looking seriously at your assertion. It wont be the slavish "ditto" you desire even if people agree with you, but it will be much more useful to BTS. And I can assure you that BTS reads and digests everything that goes on here, looking for a diamond in the coal. Maybe yours is a diamond, maybe it is a peice of coal, but now we can imperically look at your issue and see if it holds water.

Germanboy, myself, and others hold you in no ill will. We just have seen so many people who cried to change the game saying that it could always be changed back, without realizing how much work that is involved, that it gets a bit tiring. Please understand that this is all for the subjects own good. If you post a whiner thread, it wont even get past first base, but if you can come up with something better than gut instinct people can and will listen to you.

[Jarmo]

Let me sum up what I believe is Jason's point.

Everybody feel free to point out where the fault is.

1. Bullet for bullet SMG's are less accurate than rifles.

2. SMG men carry about twice as many bullets as riflemen.

3. Thereby, total firepower (= firepower/"shot" x number of "shots") of SMG troops, at any range must be less than twice that of riflemen.

4. In CM, the total firepower of SMG troops is more than twice that of riflemen.

5. Something's wrong with the way CM handles ammo expenditure. (in favour of SMG's)

BTS has already said they will tweak the ammo system for CM2. I happy about it. But I believe just lowering the total amount of ammo points for SMG's would be an improvement already. (Although I don't support Jasons new point amounts 100%)

[PzKpfw 1]

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

But I still fondly remember your calculations from quite a while ago, relating, based on whole war production figures, how likely it was to meet a German with an assault rifle in 1944. That made me chuckle.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I missed that thread where can I read the calcs on encoutering an MP44? does it factor in year Ie, in Dec 1944 the Germans shipped tons of MP44s to troops participateing in the Ardennes offensive.

In fact Danny Parker claims the MP44 was the most prominent German inf SA in the Ardennes offensive. Is that reflected in the calcs?.

I found these comments from General Depuy intersting in the context of the ongoing SMG topics:

The M-1 rifle was a precision weapon, but there were no precision targets. The rifle coupled with the marksmanship program. worked to discourage active fireing in combat by the average soldier. He was trained to shoot at and hit a target, but in combat, in the attack, he rarely ever saw an target. So, he was indesposed to shoot. The Germans, on the other hand, used machine pistols which were area weapns. They sprayed the area ahead of them and achieved fire superiority which we now call supression.

Basicly the Germans believed as did the Soviet's that volume of fire was more important then marksmandship. Ie, an Rifleman might not live long eneough to accurately fire, whereas a SMG could hose an area.

We can see the increase in German automatic wpns in that in 1940 the ratio was 1 to 11, by 1944 it had reached as high as 1.3 to 1 in German Volksgrenadier Co's.

Regards, John Waters

[ 07-02-2001: Message edited by: PzKpfw 1 ]

[Andreas]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by PzKpfw 1:

I missed that thread where can I read the calcs on encoutering an MP44? does it factor in year Ie, in Dec 1944 the Germans shipped tons of MP44s to troops participateing in the Ardennes offensive.

In fact Danny Parker claims the MP44 was the most prominent German inf SA in the Ardennes offensive. Is that reflected in the calcs?. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Err no, otherwise it would not have been so amusing, but actually useful. There was no reflection of production dynamics or doctrine for use at all. Just straightforwarf 'that many were produced in total, therefore X% chance to encounter one on anyday, WW2'. Been a long while back.

Jason has a knack for asking the right questions, something that is very important for a researcher (the question of what happened with all the Allied SMGs is indeed very interesting, and I learnt a lot from the debate), but he also has a knack to give the wrong answers because he focuses almost exclusively on the numerical evidence, only using qualitative evidence to support his argument, instead of using it as evidence in its own right. That's my opinion, anyway.

[Michael Dorosh]

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

Err no, otherwise it would not have been so amusing, but actually useful. There was no reflection of production dynamics or doctrine for use at all. Just straightforwarf 'that many were produced in total, therefore X% chance to encounter one on anyday, WW2'. Been a long while back.

Jason has a knack for asking the right questions, something that is very important for a researcher (the question of what happened with all the Allied SMGs is indeed very interesting, and I learnt a lot from the debate), but he also has a knack to give the wrong answers because he focuses almost exclusively on the numerical evidence, only using qualitative evidence to support his argument, instead of using it as evidence in its own right. That's my opinion, anyway.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Exactly. One fellow made the outstanding point "I wonder how many Allied SMGs were lost in the North Atlantic when their transports were sunk by U-Boats."

An outstanding question for which there does not appear to be a ready answer. And just one factor among many in the equation.

[argie]

I will concur with John here. If anyone has the time to read "Changing an Army", by General Depuy, will see a lot of things a bit clearer.

Although is an account from the war fro m the memories of the combat he saw when he was in Bn command or staff, is interesting t note how good concept he has about "suppressing" power of German's burp guns against rifle markmanship from US Army. He also states how he rearranged his Bn to maximize his Heavy Automatic weapons, and even which German armament was picked for use.

He participated in a lot of post war test that seems to have confirmed his views from the WWII.

Of course, all this is anecdotical, as is every doctrinary issue, as is almost impossible of quantify. But I don't remember him talking about the US Army going heavy in Thompsons, but in BARs.

I could be wrong, because I read it more than a year ago

[Slapdragon]

We need, in this discussion, to dispose of a number of fallacious arguments before we can continue.

First, we have Dupuy and Dunnigan, both of whom have done excellent research into their corners of small unit effectiveness. Add to that the German "Patrone 33" tests which anayzed great war accuracy data and started the ball rolling on a new assault rifle round, the British small arms board which put forward the .280 British cartridge after World War Two, and the SALVO/SPIW tests done in the United States.

All of these tests done in several different countries at several different times found the same thing, which makes them of great interest to use her. They found that:

1) At combat ranges traditional rifle bullets "overkilled" targets by causing to many through and through injuries. Pistol bullets often underkilled by not properly penetrating clothing at longer ranges (100 meters). In terms of stopping an enemies aggressive action multiple small hits were preferred to one high powered hit, especially if that high powered hit does not dump its energy into the body.

2) The accurate shooting range for soldiers in combat, with a few exceptions, was far shorter than expected. German studies indicated that long range for infantry action was 300 meters, and that 80% of all infantry action ocurred at 100 meters. This has caused a gradual dropping of battle sight of rifles in combat from 1900 when the Mauser 98 rifle was sighted to 400 meters for battlesight with expected use to 1000 meters in the field, to 1941 when the K98 was battle sighted at 150 meters but techniques were taught to make snap shooting of it effective at far shorter distances.

3) The average rifleman will rarely, if ever, take a paused / aimed shot at an enemy. Backing up this finding is numerous accounts of infantry service that are devoid of face to face encounters with the enemy at shooting ranges were accuracy of shooting was a factor. In fact, Ganter in Roll me Over even comments that he only took one set of shots aimed during his entire time in combat.

4) the primary power of a squad is in its automatic weapons. This includes its crew served weapons (which return fire more than five times as often in action as individual rifleman per Ezell) and its support automatics such as submachineguns and automatic carbines.

5) The primary result of a shooting match is suppression of enemy soldiers. This is because accuracy of all weapons, even automatics (except in rare, storm the beach occasions) is low and self presevation is very high.

The Germans were very impressed with their submachineguns. All of their writing says so. The Russians also like their submachineguns. For them, not only did they give great firepower when combined with tanks (which provided the long range power), but they were dirt cheap to make. The US was less impressed because their first SMG was more expensive that a Garand and way more expensive than a carbine, and they were bugaboos about rifles.

The Germans and the Russians though wanted an SMG with just a little more killing power and about twice the range (long range 300 meters) and both would develop assault rifles, the Russians Assault rifle not making it before wars end.

So many arguments fall down because of Dupuy and Dunnigan alon. Combined with most of the major Infantry histories, and the large number of studies, we can only conclude that the SMG, while supplemented and later replaced by auto carbines, was an extremely effective weapon at its designed engagement range. The US though it was such a problem that squads unofficially doubled their issue strength of this weapon

Here is the data. This data is from Kevin Dockery, a friend of mine and author of the book and television show Navy Seals. Mr. Dockery is a consultant for Fabrique Nationale, and is well respected in the military simulation field. T^he data has all been cross referenced with Hogg "Small Arms of the World" and Ezell, "Small Arms of the World" (original names, eh?) and checked against the weight of cartriges I posess.

A note. All mass figures are in kilograms or grams. For US, just figure 2.2 pounds a kilo and be done with it. Rate of fire is the maximum usable rate of fire considering recoil, targeting, and reloading. A mad minute ambush may have this sort of rate of fire. In reality, rtate of fire should be divided by a third for normal action and by a tenth for harrassing fire. When automatic weapons use bursts, as was taught to German gunners and US BAR gunners, the ROF should be halved again.

I list the higher figure, but since I list the higher figure for all weapons based on Aberdeen tests in the hands of trained soldiers, the numbers are equivilant even if they are off in one direction or another in practice. Killing power is based on a Kevin Dockery abstraction, and should be considered exactly that, an abstraction. Real wound causing depends of bullet placement, wound shock effect, energy dumped into the wound, and other factors. Range listed is long range for squad level fire. Individuals using these weapons alone will often be unable to do more that harrass at this range. Half the long range is medium range, the point at which it is possible to damage an enemy unit in the open signifcantly. A quarter long range is c lose range, the poing at which the weapon reaches the maximum of it deadlyness curve.

9x19mm ("Parabellum") had a round weight of 10.6 grams. A Sten mkII gunner carried 8 32rd box magazines, each massing .64kg. An MP 40 gunner carried 6 32rd magazines each also weighing .64kg. Later in the war both the British and the German increased this to 9 magazines for 288 rounds. Both weapons fired at 120 rpm for an ammunition usage rate of 2.4, a killing power of 1200, and a suppression power of 120.

The 7.62x25mm has a round mass of 10.8 grams. PPSH-41 gunners carried 2x 71 roundn drums massing 1.84kg each, although later in the war it became common to add several 35 round magazines with this (this is less definite that above but is included to mirror the 9x19mm above). The weapon fired at 105 rounds per minute giving it an ammunition usage rate of 2.0, a killing power of 1050 and a suppression power of 105

.

7.62x33mm (.30 Carbine) had a round mass of 12.7 grams. Front line soldiers using this weapon used 8x 15 round magazines (rarely 30 rd) basic loads, while the M1 fired at 40 `rpm and the M2 fired at 75 rpm (assuming used as an automatic weapon). Assuming the M1 we have an ammunition usage of 3, a killing power of 520, and a suppression of 40,

I will include more later, but as you can begin to see just by this, the SMG had, within its range, an excellent suppression rate for its range (numbers for the rifles will come tonight), a soldier could carry more ammo, and killing power was ok.

[Slapdragon]

Now to compare with rifles. I will choose the M1 Garand. Firing a 7.62x63mm cartidge that massed an amazing 27.2 grams. The normal M1 Rifleman carried 10x 8 round magazine for 80 rds, (although later in the war it became common to carry 4 more boxes in a cloth slings) Firing at 30 round per minute, it has a suppression factor of 30, a killing factor of 600, and an ammunition usage of 2.6 (better than the 9mm SMG but not by much).

\

Clearly the SA Rifle is not out of the running, but standing next to each other the SMG turns out to be much deadlier, which checks with real life in terms of primary source materials.

[Michael Dorosh]

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

3) The average rifleman will rarely, if ever, take a paused / aimed shot at an enemy. Backing up this finding is numerous accounts of infantry service that are devoid of face to face encounters with the enemy at shooting ranges were accuracy of shooting was a factor. In fact, Ganter in Roll me Over even comments that he only took one set of shots aimed during his entire time in combat. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is confirmed by Strome Galloway, an officer who served in North Africa with the British and then the Canadians in Sicily, Italy and Holland. He went so far as to say that the riflemen in Commonwealth platoons could have carried pitchforks instead of rifles for all the good they were doing. He personally only used his weapon once (he was a platoon commnander), to kill a barking dog that unnerved him before an attack. He was referring to his revolver, which in CM would be correct, though many seem to think that he would have scrounged a carbine or Sten gun from among the 4 million produced - because the numbers suggest it.

[JasonC]

Germanboy has a problem. First he hears things that aren't said, and then he ignores things that are. On marksmenship, I never said anything about "small squares". I said if you can't hit a man sized target at 200 yards with a properly zeroed rifle you can't pass basic rifle marksmenship, which is true. I know I did, and I'm no great shot. And nobody disputes that the accuracy of rifles is much higher than that of SMGs, nor does anyone dispute that SMGs are innaccurate at medium ranges.

The relevant facts for the claims on the thread - that rifles are more accurate than SMGs and by large amounts at medium range - are not in dispute. Germanboy needs to pretend otherwise because he needs to manufacture irrelevant disagreements about side matters to avoid engaging on the central point involved in the accuracy discussion. Which is that CM as it stands effectively gives higher accuracy to SMGs than to rifles per bullet fired, which everyone knows is off.

On ammo weight, I started with two to one carried loads, which incidentally is what BTS said quite a while ago - it was disputed; I gave the weights of the projectiles in basically the same 2:1 ratio - it was disputed on the grounds that it was cartridge weight that was wanted; I then quoted the cartridge weights in the same 2:1 ratio, which incidentally shows that the projectile weights are not in the least misleading, and Germanboy just flat ignores it. Then he pretends I didn't address the issue. Four times the firepower with lower accuracy and equal CM shots would require four times the ammo carried, not twice. With only twice ammo carried, four times the firepower with lower accuracy, due to higher rate of fire alone, means running out of that ammo faster.

Slapdragon does the above "irrelevant" act one better by reposting himself without any comment on my response to his statements. Jarmo accurately condensed my main point about implied accuracies and CM ammo levels.

John Waters providesa more interesting comment in passing, when he states as fact an increase in automatics in German infantry from 1/11 early on to 1.3 to 1 in VG formations late. While I agree that was the direction certainly, there are a few problems with this. First, it would seem to be TOE information rather than weapons provided, not the same thing. Second, CM does not give 1.3 automatics per rifle in VG companies, it gives 69 automatics to 21 rifles or pistols, thus 3.3 to 1. 1.3 and 3.3 are different, last time I checked, and 3.3 is larger.

Third, the Germans issued only 1 automatic out of 6 weapons issued for the whole war average, because that is all they made. The late war average is undoubtedly above that figure just as the early war figure was probably below it. But the CM standard "rifle" infantry types with 3/9 to 4/8 automatics are a more believeable late war average (1/3 to 1/2), given that overall war-long 1/6 average as a "budget constraint", than 3.3 to 1. Particular units might still have 3.3:1 of course. I'd find it much easier to believe Mr. Water's 1.3 to 1. Which incidentally would fit with every other VG company having one SMG platoon, with the other five VG rifle - rather than 2/3 having pure automatics and the rest of the formation half automatics. In other words his 1.3 figure is more consistent with using VG rifle squads - which is one of my recommendations - than with using the CM structure of VG companies.

Fourth, we know German infantry was not equipped at TOE in small arms generally in the late war, from the MG returns, which were kept track of carefully. TOE in MG42s was two per squad for every vanilla line squad in the Heer infantry (TOE of 63 MGs per battalion). But we know for example that even the FJ only had about 1 per squad in Normandy, according to detailed returns from the divisions, in OOBs available on the web. Their average MGs per battalion was no higher than for Heer infantry. What one actually sees is MG returns varying from 50% of TOE to 90% in a few units.

If one imagines 50%-90% of TOE in automatics generally, what would one see for Mr. Waters 1.3 to 1 as TOE for VG formations? You'd see a range from the number of automatics in three platoons of rifle 44s, and the number in 3 platoons of VG rifle. What about if we applied 50-90% of TOE in automatics to the CM 3.3:1 VG structure? Then the range would be from security or rifle 45 squads on the low end, to about the existing VG structure for a few formations on the high end. With a mean of 40-50% automatics. What reason is there to think the Germans were always at TOE in MPs when we know most of them weren't, in MGs?

Last, on the subject of the idea that the U-Boats got 'em all, that hardly applies to the trip across the channel for the Stens. If half of the US ones sank (and it was certainly less than half) then the western Allied SMGs would still amount to several times what the Germans could field in the west.

You can knock off 600K for US vs. Japan (1/3), and 200K for Burma et al (Brits), and 400K for partisans (all early Mk. Stens), and a laughable 600K for U-boats (half the US production not sent to the Pacific), and you've still got 2 million left - which is more than Germany had for both fronts. Ignoring every German MP lost to similar causes on their side. Once again the mere debators fail to grapple with the numbers, and instead wave their hands about possibilities that do not explain the case.

There are two obvious possibilities that will explain the case. One, SMGs were not as effective as CM shows them to be, because of the simplifications of the CM ammo system. Then the Allies had SMGs available but preferred to use rifles even after front-line experience. (It is too much to expect everyone who has played CM three times to be smarter than the participants on the point, after all).

Or two, that the Germans were below their TOE in autos (evidence? MG returns for one) and Allied squads were above their TOE in autos (evidence? Mr. Dorosh's extra 3000 Stens in a formation of 30 infantry battalions for one).

Or both. Case one is addressed by my ammo proposal (shots per squad 30-50 instead of a uniform 40). Case two is addressed by my troop use proposal (Allied paras kosher, German types with 1 MG and rifles in each squad recommended).

I would like any of the critic chorus to address what they think would be *innaccurately* modeled if my proposals were acted upon, and how all-fired serious it would be. Just how, exactly, would an Germany FJ platoon with 35 shots instead of 40 (from 6 LMGs, 8 MP40s, 9 MP44s, and 10 rifles), grossly misrepresent the historical realities of the FJ? Just how, exactly, is it completely unbelievable that a US platoon might have 3 extra Thompsons and 6 M-1 carbines, in place of 9 of the rifles?

[JasonC]

Sure, Mr. Dorosh, and since all the infantry are really using is strong language, you won't object in the slightest if they do so with +/- 5 shots and +/- 2 weapons of this type rather than that. After all, since they don't matter, you have no reason to think changing them does.