"SMG Gap" A Proposal

[Tero]

>After reading tero's Dupey post, I think it

>is entirely possible that the US was simply

>mistaken about the effectiveness of SMGs and

>the M1 rifle. SMGs apparently did not fit

>into their philosophy of what proper

>infantry tactics were. The Germans had a

>rather different view. I don't see what

>other conclusion can be drawn.

I hope my latest batch is also useful.

>None of this alters the fact that SMGs are

>woefully under priced in CM.

I think that when you compare the cost to the potential manpower losses incurred to make it work properly I think the trade off in the lower cost is fair. You gain some more fire power but if you are not able to utilize it properly you lose the squad in long range duel with a unit that is better at it than the SMG squad.

[Jarmo]

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

But was the SMG any less deadly IRL, compared to the single shot/semi-auto rifles ? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm sure it was. Bullet for bullet.

Although it might well have been more effective while the ammo lasts.

And based on your earlier post, IRL ammo didn't run out all that often.

[Vanir Ausf B]

First of all, thanks for posting that stuff. It has been helpfull, although some of the "second batch" seems to deal with the PTO.

But, thankfully, I have found something wrong with something you said

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

I think that when you compare the cost to the potential manpower losses incurred to make it work properly I think the trade off in the lower cost is fair. You gain some more fire power but if you are not able to utilize it properly you lose the squad in long range duel with a unit that is better at it than the SMG squad.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm not sure what you mean by "the cost to the potential manpower losses incurred to make it work properly". Makes no sense to me, but if you are refering to the smaller size of VG SMG squads, it is irrelevant. British rifle and para squads are the same size, German Gerbil units are 10 man, ect.

Also as I stated before, the risk of losing a SMG squad in a "long range duel" sounds like something someone who has not spent much time playing the game against other people would say. It just doesn't happen. They are underpriced, period.

[Tero]

>First of all, thanks for posting that stuff.

You're wellcome.

For all my supposed über-Finn affiliations I do like to substantantiate my points with accessible data whenever possible.

Some of it has even backfired on me. In the MG suppression debate some pages ago I vehemently stated that all armies would have suppressed the MG with immediate hale of small arms fire. I have just proven myself wrong in that account, at least when it comes to the US Army. I rightly do not know if that is good or bad...

>It has been helpfull, although some of the

>"second batch" seems to deal with the PTO.

The only stuff I could find on the sources pertaining US Army SMG's. Sorry about that.

Kinda makes me wonder if the SMG was indeed viewed as a brutal gangster weapon which was more appropriate for use against the inhuman savages (the Japanese) than the civilized Europeans (the Germans).

>But, thankfully, I have found something

>wrong with something you said

Even we über-Finns make mistakes. Not often mind you !

>I'm not sure what you mean by "the cost to

>the potential manpower losses incurred to

>make it work properly". Makes no sense to

>me

I was referring to the fact that you need to get close to get full bonuses from the SMG. In doing so you risk casualties if your tactics suck, the terrain prevents sneaking and infiltration or the enemy just simply is better at the it.

>, but if you are refering to the smaller

>size of VG SMG squads, it is irrelevant.

>

>British rifle and para squads are the same

>size, German Gerbil units are 10 man, ect.

I think the size of the SMG heavy squads is based on real life OB's. Or then again it might be a design decision to tone down the squads firepower to a less gamey level without affecting the play balance too much. Who knows ? BTS.

>Also as I stated before, the risk of losing

>a SMG squad in a "long range duel" sounds

>like something someone who has not spent

>much time playing the game against other

>people would say.

I have played PBEM's against real people if that is what you are wondering.

>It just doesn't happen.

Has happened to me. The long range duels have usually taken place at combat ranges of 100-200 meters.

If you feel like it we can test our respective approaches in a friendly game of CM.

>They are underpriced, period.

That is a matter of taste.

[Tero]

>I'm sure it was. Bullet for bullet.

What are the muzzle velocities of the 9mm MP-40 and the 30cal M-1 ? At what range was the treshold where the M-1 became more effective, bullet for bullet ?

My point here is: a lethal shot from a single bullet from both weapons is lethal (DUH ! ). At what distance does it become pointless to try and kill your enemy with the SMG ? (kill mind you, not hit ) 50 meters ? 100 meters ? 200 meters ?

>Although it might well have been more

>effective while the ammo lasts.

>

>And based on your earlier post, IRL ammo

>didn't run out all that often.

I'll say.

A VG division would carry almost 10 times more 9mm SMG ammo than rifle ammo, almost 9 times more 7,92mmKurtz than regular 7,92mm ammo.

The amount reserved for LMG's/HMG's was staggering.

I was surprised to find the disparity in numbers was that huge.

[Jarmo]

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

>I'm sure it was. Bullet for bullet.

What are the muzzle velocities of the 9mm MP-40 and the 30cal M-1 ? At what range was the treshold where the M-1 became more effective, bullet for bullet ?

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'd say the treshold would be 0 meters and up.

Certainly I'd rather have an SMG if I had to fight an enemy 10 meters away, and that's because SMG would be far more effective. But still not more accurate. Nor would it have better killing power. Not bullet for bullet anyway.

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

My point here is: a lethal shot from a single bullet from both weapons is lethal (DUH ! ). <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

We've discovered a common ground.

But note, if you accidentally shoot a burst of 3 lethal shots at the same opponent with an SMG, you've wasted 2 perfectly good bullets. You bad, bad, wasteful person.

[Tero]

>I'd say the treshold would be 0 meters and

>up.

A kill is a kill is a kill. I am NOT talking about overkill.

>Certainly I'd rather have an SMG if I had to

>fight an enemy 10 meters away, and that's

>because SMG would be far more effective. But

>still not more accurate.

Lets see: at 10 meters you get X shots from a SMG, but only 1 from a rifle. You REALLY think the guy is going to sit still doing nothing while you aim for the perfect killer shot ?

>Nor would it have better killing power. Not

>bullet for bullet anyway.

Are you absolutely sure ?

>But note, if you accidentally shoot a burst

>of 3 lethal shots at the same opponent with

>an SMG, you've wasted 2 perfectly good

>bullets. You bad, bad, wasteful person.

Hmmmm.... What if you shoot and MISS with that only bullet of yours with the ultra effective rifle ? You bad, bad, DEAD person.

From:

http://www.saunalahti.fi/~ejuhola/7.62/suomi.html

The gun is capable of both automatic and semi-automatic fire. When firing full automatic this well-balanced weapon remains very easy to control thanks to its heavy

bolt. The Suomi is very reliable even in extreme conditions and its barrel can be speedily changed without special tools. The 1940 Handbook of the Officer of the

Reserve states that weapon is at its most effective at a distance of 50 to 300 meters. The bullets are lethal up to 500 meters and more but at those distances the spread of the burst begins to be too wide to ensure hitting the target. The sights were graduated up to 500 meters.

During World War II most Finnish troops were armed with bolt-action rifles. During the Winter War of 1939-40 the standard deployment of automatic weapons was two LMGs and two SMGs per platoon. In the Continuation War of 1941-44, the number of SMGs was increased to four per platoon. In the field, however,

troops who needed much firepower - such as strike units, bunker-clearing teams and long range patrols - tended to have a very high concentration of SMGs. Suomi SMGs were always issued to the most capable men and used with devastating effect during close combat in the forests.

If only I could find similar data on the other SMG's.

Anyways: the lethal (effective) range of ANY of the SMG bullets is up to 500 meters. About half of that of the rifles. Regular WWII combat ranges was around 100 meters. That is well within any SMG's lethal range. I think that negates any and all arguments about bullet for bullet effectiveness of the rifle over the SMG in lethality. The only issue that remains is the accuracy. The Suomi SMG was capable of aimed single shot fire but I think that is what made it unique. I think the rest of the WWII SMG's were full auto only.

Thinking about the supposed superior lethality of the rifle over the SMG bullet for bullet is a moot point. I think it is playing with technicalities. At 500 meters the average rifleman is not going to be able to make the shot any more reliably than the SMG man so the window for the rifle superiority in accuracy is between 50 - 100 meters. But not in lethality.

But what happens if the target is concealed and there is nothing to aim at ? Which of the weapons is better then ? OK, OK, I know, the LMG. But lets keep to this limited to the SMG and the rifle.

[Slapdragon]

The Germans appreciated the submachinegun so much that they searched for a way to have its close in firepower while having a bit more reach -- and came up with the MP-43 series of rifle. A quick check of current world battle and assault rifles will indicate no one is using semi-automatic or bolt action full sized rfiles as a primary arm, everyone is using some form of reduced size, automatic weapon.

Mentioned earlier is the issue of hitting multiple people with the same burst. This is not an issue since it was rare, more of a Hollywood thing. Military thinkers do appreciate the multiple hits on the same person issue as a way to get an incapcitation with a lower power round, but the weapon was never attempted to hit several people with one burst (unlike heavy machineguns).

[Jarmo]

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

A kill is a kill is a kill. I am NOT talking about overkill.

>Certainly I'd rather have an SMG if I had to

>fight an enemy 10 meters away, and that's

>because SMG would be far more effective. But

>still not more accurate.

Lets see: at 10 meters you get X shots from a SMG, but only 1 from a rifle. You REALLY think the guy is going to sit still doing nothing while you aim for the perfect killer shot ? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

But you wouldn't mind overkill either, would you?

Look, I'll go as far as admitting an SMG bullet can be as deadly as a rifle bullet. From a short range at least. But not more effective, not at any range.

And I'm not suggesting that a rifle is the better, more effective weapon.

What I'm suggesting, is that SMG eats up ammo more quickly. That it eats up it's ammo load more quickly.

So the rifle is the more economical choise.

[Andreas]

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

So the rifle is the more economical choise.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Which is why every army in the world is now using rifles, and none use automatic weapons.

[ASL Veteran]

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

What I'm suggesting, is that SMG eats up ammo more quickly. That it eats up it's ammo load more quickly.

So the rifle is the more economical choise.[/QB]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Interestingly enough - history is littered with Ordinance Boards who thought along those lines. I think the US adoption of the Krag Jorgensen Rifle is a good case in point. They didn't want to adopt the Mauser because they were worried that it would consume too much ammunition in combat. Alas, the Krag met an untimely demise after the Spanish American war because it couldn't produce enough firepower to compete with the Mauser the Spanish were using.

I think the consumption of ammunition would be more heavily influenced by unit experience than by the weapon itself. Hand a green unit a pile of SMGs and they will probably blow through the ammo pretty quickly. Hand a veteran unit a pile of SMGs and they will probably have enough sense to use the ammunition so it will last - and when it will count. You could even say the same thing about rifle ammunition. The ammo 'fix' is overly simplistic I think - and not really supported by the standard ammunition loadouts for the infantryman (where the SMG man carries about four or five times as much ammunition depending on how you look). Note that I said 'Standard Loadout' which doesn't go into weight etc.

Besides, I personally think the problem of the 'SMG Rush' is more due to the lack of HMG or even LMG effectiveness. The rushing SMGers shouldn't be able to cross open ground in front of an HMG using grazing fire across their route of advance. Just shouldn't happen. I think when BTS takes a hard look at the HMG / infantry in open behavior issue, the 'SMG rush' will become a thing of the past.

[Andreas]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ASL Veteran:

Besides, I personally think the problem of the 'SMG Rush' is more due to the lack of HMG or even LMG effectiveness. The rushing SMGers shouldn't be able to cross open ground in front of an HMG using grazing fire across their route of advance. Just shouldn't happen. I think when BTS takes a hard look at the HMG / infantry in open behavior issue, the 'SMG rush' will become a thing of the past.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

After doing some very simple tests last night, I would fully agree with this. Infantry and mortars against running green SMG types in the open have a nice cooling off effect.

[Jeff Duquette]

Excellent assessment ASL. Impressive your use of the Krag-Jorgensen example.

The French Army of the 1860’s had the same philosophy regarding the adoption of the bolt-action rifle as the standard infantry arm. Chief argument was that infantrymen would fire off their standard ammunition load out too quickly. During the Prusso-Austrian War, Austrian Infantry armed with muzzle loading rifles were consistently out-shot by Prussian infantry armed with the rapid firing bolt action Dreyuse Needle gun. The French Army rapidly took this lesson to heart and designed and issued the excellent Chassepot bolt action rifle.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>From: Danny Parker’s “Battle of the Bulge”.

General Patton called the M-l the greatest battlefield implement ever devised. "A trained rifleman could fire off its eight-round .30 caliber clip in about twenty seconds. One minor defect of the Garand was the ejection of the eight-round clip when it was expended. Often the clip sailed through the air for several feet, striking frozen ground with a distinctive ringing sound. Alert German soldiers sometimes took advantage of such a moment to get in a free shot while the Garand owner struggled to get his new clip in place. The British rifle, the Lee-Enfield was similar to the German Mauser, although shorter and with a superior bolt action giving it a somewhat improved rate of fire, but lacking when compared with the American M-l.

The U.S. Army was a leading advocate of the semi-automatic rifle philosophy in WW II, pointing to the supply difficulties that fully automatic weapons might introduce. On the other hand, some, such as General William DePuy, were critical of this philosophy. General DePuy was a division commander in Vietnam who had previously led a battalion of the 90th Division in the Ardennes.

The M-l rifle was a precision weapon, but there were no precision targets. The rifle, coupled with the marksmanship program, worked to discourage active firing 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 a target. So, he was indisposed to shoot. The Germans, on the other hand, used machine pistols which, were area weapons. They sprayed the area ahead of them and achieved fire superiority which we now call suppression.

The Germans had learned in Russia that most infantry firefights were resolved at ranges of less than 300 meters under chaotic conditions. They also learned that the lethality of the battlefield in the 1940s had increased to the point that a rapid volume of fire counted for more than steady marksmanship — a careful rifleman might not live through the process of firing well aimed shots. This was a lesson that the Americans did not have the benefit of learning before 1943. Because of this, the Germans in 1944 enjoyed a considerable superiority in automatic weapons. The Sturmgewehr 44 assault rifle was an extremely significant development from this lesson. It had good accuracy and either semi-automatic or a high cyclic rate of fully automatic fire. The weapon fired special short 7.92mm rounds which reduced gun size and ammunition weight. It also resulted in less upward recoil when firing automatic bursts. It had an effective range of over 1,000 meters in semi-automatic fire. For the offensive, the MP-44 was provided in large numbers and was the most common German infantry weapon in the Ardennes. Such fire-arms were more appropriate to the skills of many of the inexperienced German troops in late 1944 than the old Mauser.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Agree 100% with the LMG and HMG issue you have brought up as well. Firing in CM is staggered. Every 6 to 8 seconds infantry units and crewed weapons fire bursts. Yet movement during the execution phase is continuous. Makes “mad rushes” against MG42 nests a viable, and reasonable tactic to use on a regular basis. Why not sequence LMG and HMG bursts to every 2 or 3 seconds. Or simply make firing during the execution phase continuous like movement…model realistic ROF, barrel overheating, barrel switch out etc.

[PzKpfw 1]

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

What are the muzzle velocities of the 9mm MP-40 and the 30cal M-1 ?

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

MP40 MV was 1,247ft/sec(380m/sec) M-1 MV was 2,800ft/sec(853m/sec).

Regards, John Waters

[CMplayer]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jeff Duquette:

Agree 100% with the LMG and HMG issue you have brought up as well. Firing in CM is staggered. Every 6 to 8 seconds infantry units and crewed weapons fire bursts. Yet movement during the execution phase is continuous. Makes “mad rushes” against MG42 nests a viable, and reasonable tactic to use on a regular basis. Why not sequence LMG and HMG bursts to every 2 or 3 seconds. Or simply make firing during the execution phase continuous like movement…model realistic ROF, barrel overheating, barrel switch out etc.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

In scenarios, one thing you could do is

simply let two MG's represent one. Put

two teams in every position which is

supposed to have one, and perhaps tone

down the ammo.

If you don't want to do this, another

idea, in scenarios, is to give each

MG position its own dedicated HQ unit,

as a kind of guardian angel.

These guys would pop up and begin firing

at close range as running infantry

approaches, also reducing the effect

of a charge.

This can make them quite a bit more

resistant to rushes.

--Rett

[Jarmo]

Urgh. Look guys, I already said I don't think rifles are necessarily better choise. Just more economical.

An imaginary example to better illustrate my point:

Let's take 10 riflemen. They shoot at a target for 3 seconds. 50 shots total. They hit a total of 2 times. A hit rate of 1/25 shots.

Then 10 SMG men. They shoot at a target for 3 seconds. 300 shots total. They hit a total of 5 times. A hit rate of 1/60 shots.

The better choise of weapons: SMG's

The economical choise: rifles

And that's why the weapon of a modern army is the (assault) rifle. The best of both worlds.

[Mark IV]

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

An imaginary example to better illustrate my point:

Let's take 10 riflemen. They shoot at a target for 3 seconds. 50 shots total. They hit a total of 2 times. A hit rate of 1/25 shots.

Then 10 SMG men. They shoot at a target for 3 seconds. 300 shots total. They hit a total of 5 times. A hit rate of 1/60 shots.

The better choise of weapons: SMG's

The economical choise: rifles.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Being dead is the ultimate economy. The problem with the example is that it is purely quantitative and occurs in a non-combatant vacuum.

If the units are firing at one another, at 50m, the likelihood is that the rifle-equipped infantry will not get to fire all of their 50 rounds, due to suppression, and that is the whole point.

Another classic historical example of quantity vs. quality, or ROF vs. foot-pounds, is the Little Big Horn. US troopers, encouraged to conserve ammo, are issued the .45-70 single-shot Springfield trapdoor rifle. This great honking buffalo gun is still devastating at 800m. It's bowling ball of a slug (on the order of 375-390 gr., I forget) can flatten large animals, penetrate masonry, and volley fire with effect to 1000m and more.

The Indians bring a fair quantity of repeating Henry and some Winchester rifles, with ballistics more on the order of the MP44's ammo, or worse. Unhindered by conservative military ordnance doctrine, they create a hail of suppressive fire at intermediate ranges. This slows the tempo of return fire from the single-shot boys (who are in the open tall grass, providing concealment rather than cover), and every lucky hit permanently reduces the available "economical choices" by one, and the effect begins to multiply.

The math does its job and many of the dead troopers have boxes and bandoliers full of powerful, economical, and unexpended bullets. Had the engagement occurred at 500m, few people would today recall the Little Big Horn, just another skirmish in the Plains, with the Indians driven off with losses.

The military establishment changes slowly, and it is very difficult to change doctrines in the middle of a war, especially within a year and a half, particularly when it requires a massive reissue of equipment and retraining. Many would agree that the Sherman itself was the result of an incomplete grasp of the direction of armored warfare, based on a notion that had been proven faulty and obsolete not long after D-Day. But what are you going to do once you're in Europe with tens of thousands of the buggers, and a job to do? Find a way to use them.

The M1 rifle was in no way as wanting vs. its competition as the Sherman was, vs. German armor. However, the argument that if SMGs were superior at close range, the Army would have adopted them wholesale, ignores the practical reality of such a sudden and massive change.

SMGs are better, under 60m or so, for all-out firefights. I haven't been convinced here that they would run out of ammo any sooner. Since a good deal of the war was fought at ranges over 100m, and since the troops were already trained and armed with very good M1s, there would have been no compelling reason to scrap them and the tactical philosophies that went with them to re-arm with SMGs, even if they were demonstrably superior under the right conditions.

[Slapdragon]

Notet hat this conservatism lasted until the 1960s with the adoption of the M16 despite the adoption of automatic weapons by the eastern world for individual weapons. While the M14 was billed as an automatic rifle, it was never used as such, and the FAL / G3 complex was also never used for suppresion.

The submachine has distinct disadvantages, and untrained troops definately waste ammo, but the ROF is their when needed.

The German MP44, the AK47, and later the M16 and the AK74 all rely on controlled automatic fire to moderate ranges, but can shoot accurate single shots. Thus they filled part of the rifles' job and all of the SMGs job.

[Jarmo]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mark IV:

Being dead is the ultimate economy. The problem with the example is that it is purely quantitative and occurs in a non-combatant vacuum.

If the units are firing at one another, at 50m, the likelihood is that the rifle-equipped infantry will not get to fire all of their 50 rounds, due to suppression, and that is the whole point.

.. clip ..

SMGs are better, under 60m or so, for all-out firefights. I haven't been convinced here that they would run out of ammo any sooner. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Look:

SMG's fire a lot.

Rifles dont fire because they are suppressed.

Yet both use up ammo at the same speed.

I see a logic flaw here. You do not?

[Slapdragon]

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

Look:

SMG's fire a lot.

Rifles dont fire because they are suppressed.

Yet both use up ammo at the same speed.

I see a logic flaw here. You do not?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not a logic flaw at all. SMGs can become euppressed, rifles can also. But in a situation with all things equal, at medium range for the SMG, the rifles will become suppressed first because of the higher ROF causing people to duck their heads.

Now, suppression due to ROF does not appear to be a linear function. A rfile firing 15 rpm is not half as suppressive as one that fires 30 rpm because the human brain is not capable of poling the sky and telling how suppressed they should be.

And of course, this is a fight on a soccer picth rather than a combat example, since so many other factors are involved, including cover, concealment, experience, etc.

But the goal of a gunfight is to get the other guy to duck first and thus create a situation where your firepower is more effective than his cause he is not firing. Long range rifle fire just does not suppress, it harrasses. Only a lot of rifleman firing in the open with the enemy also in the open would have much suppresion at long range. At close range, the rifle can suppress when fired, but the SMG is much better.

Of course, the SMG is not as good at stopping the enemy if rounds hit, the ammo use can go crazy, etc, but this is why the MP44 was developed, to get the best of both worlds.

[ASL Veteran]

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

Look:

SMG's fire a lot.

Rifles dont fire because they are suppressed.

Yet both use up ammo at the same speed.

I see a logic flaw here. You do not?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

In CM, a squad that is 'Pinned' or 'Cautious' etc doesn't fire as much so it isn't using up ammo at the same speed. It is using less ammo. I'm not sure that is the point Jason is trying to make with ammo usage though.

[Tero]

>But you wouldn't mind overkill either,

>would you?

How much do you have to shoot to make the opponent dead ?

>Look, I'll go as far as admitting an SMG

>bullet can be as deadly as a rifle bullet.

>From a short range at least. But not more

>effective, not at any range.

That sounds very much like a circular statement.

>And I'm not suggesting that a rifle is the

>better, more effective weapon.

So what ARE you saying ? It is not more effective but it is more effective ?

>What I'm suggesting, is that SMG eats up

>ammo more quickly. That it eats up it's

>ammo load more quickly.

Most certainly. And this is the point where the training, tactics, doctrine and experience level steps in.

>So the rifle is the more economical choise.

I hope you are not saying the Winter War coupled with the success of the Suomi SMG was a capitalist (or better yet an über-Finn ) conspiracy to topple the Soviet economy 50 years down the line. The Red Army was hoaxed into adobting the automatic SMG among its main infantry assets and that strained the the Soviet economy so much that their entire economy collapsed at the end of the 1980's. All because they adobted and massproduced the PPSh and other SMG's during the war.

[Jarmo]

OK. I believe it's pointless to continue at this point.

I remain totally convinced I'm right.

But I'm sure I can't make you guys "see the light".

We are talking about different things, or talking about the same thing but not thinking about it the same way.

It's like I was saying: "bicycles use less fuel than cars", and someone would respond with "let's see how far you get with your bicycle after I've ran over you with my car".

I agree about the MG modeling BTW, but fail to see how improving MG performance would fix things between SMG's and rifles.

Well, that's it. I'm off the thread.

[Tero]

>Note that I said 'Standard Loadout' which

>doesn't go into weight etc.

One more noteworthy thing: in combat the SMG and semiuto ammo would usually be loaded into magazines or clips whereas the bolt action ammo could well be in combes, loose or even small cardboard boxes. The semiauto clips and bolt action combes can produce all sorts of misfeeds and jams more readily than the SMG magazine. Manually loading the bolt action rifle with single bullets is slow and it requires concentration so as not stagger the bullets the wrong way to produce jams when the ejection is blocked because of the rim of the shellcasing is staggered the wrong way.

That means that the reload cycle for SMG's is both quicker and more reliable. Not that the same stoppages can happen. But the magazines are usually pre-loaded before the battle begins.

>I think when BTS takes a hard look at the

>HMG / infantry in open behavior issue,

>the 'SMG rush' will become a thing of

>the past.

An option for sustained fire along with bursts for MG's is in order ?

[Tero]

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

MP40 MV was 1,247ft/sec(380m/sec) M-1 MV was 2,800ft/sec(853m/sec).

Regards, John Waters<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thanks.

The extreme lethal range of the MP40 bullet would be around 500 meters since the Suomi MV is only marginally greater (390-something meters, 1300 ft/s).