"SMG Gap" A Proposal

[Tero]

>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.

Indeed.

I doubt the US Army infantry units tendency of not firing back at all because they see no target is not even properly modelled in CM at the moment. So what are you bitching about the effectiveness of German SMG's for ?

>Another classic historical example of

>quantity vs. quality, or ROF vs. foot-

>pounds, is the Little Big Horn.

Is it really true Custer declined the Gatling guns ?

>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.

Agreed. An other good example of this phenomenon is the US TD doctrine and how it played out.

>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.

Yes. And which was more appealing: charging the enemy position or pulling back a bit and calling in artillery to do the job ? How many GMOH's/VC's were awarded in ETO compared to the Pacific ?

[Andreas]

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

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.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sorry to hear that. I think it is very simple. Your example says it all - yes a bicycle is more fuel efficient than a car, but what matters is not how far you get on a unit of energy, but how you get there. In war, it does not matter how many bullets you need, but what matters is that you win. Therefore your point that the rifle is more economical is only true in the short run. In the long run it is not, because you will lose the war.

Your other points about MGs and their modelling, it matters because we are looking at combined arms battles. If MGs are undermodelled, then SMG squads have better chances to assault a position, getting close and bringing their SMGs to bear. If MGs were modelled to be more efficient, they could stop the SMG squad far out (actually, they can now, if the SMG squad is green - try it).

So there are two important points where I am convinced you are wrong. Rifles are not more economical (because all other things being equal they will lose you the war), and MGs matter.

[Jeff Duquette]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Is it really true Custer declined the Gatling guns?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

So the legend goes. To heavy, unreliable, and impractical relative to rapid movement required of light cavalry in pursing Indians into the hinterland. TO&E of a US ARMY Cavalry Regiment of that period also included a battery of horse artillery. No doubt these were not being drug around the plains and were likely left in garrisons.

[Slapdragon]

The 7th had 2 Gatling guns assigned to it, 245 kg wheeled mount weapons that fired a 13mm rimfire shell. Custer was determined to fight the Sioux on their own terms, so he opted to leave these weapons behind to be more mobile. In this day and age Indian fighting was accomplished not by direct conflict, but by destroying Indian villages.

The Infantry following up Custer were ambushed also, but fough off the Indians because they used long range rifle fire. The 10th and 11th US Colored Infantry caused significant casualties on the plains confederation, and "proved" to the US Army that the rifle was king.

[Vanir Ausf B]

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

I doubt the US Army infantry units tendency of not firing back at all because they see no target is not even properly modelled in CM at the moment.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sure it is. No unit in CM will fire at a target it can't see unless you specificaly give it an area fire order.

[lcm1947]

Just a thought. There seems to be a big difference of opinions here. I was just wondering if maybe the guys that use the German forces in the game think one way and the guys that use the American forces think the other. I know that I who play just the American side feel it's tilted in favor towards the German's. Well, that's what I was wondering. Maybe it's true?

[Tero]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Vanir Ausf B:

Sure it is. No unit in CM will fire at a target it can't see unless you specificaly give it an area fire order.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

To my knowledge not all units in CM at the moment are US Army units. Or at least they are not supposed to be.

[Slapdragon]

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

To my knowledge not all units in CM at the moment are US Army units. Or at least they are not supposed to be. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That is absolutely cryptic Tero. I think you need to reread his comment , since your reply was completely dissonant.

[Tero]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by lcm1947:

Just a thought. There seems to be a big difference of opinions here. I was just wondering if maybe the guys that use the German forces in the game think one way and the guys that use the American forces think the other. I know that I who play just the American side feel it's tilted in favor towards the German's. Well, that's what I was wondering. Maybe it's true? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I play any side.

[Battlefront.com]

Sorry folks, but I think this is probably the most boring discussion to come along in a very long time. Mostly because it has already been covered about a dozen times to death But from a design standpoint, because we have already addressed this issue but you guys haven't seen our solution yet (i.e. the current CMBB Alpha). That makes this discussion rather irrelevant in that light.

To restate our position...

SMG troops are not über, beat anything, all the time, everytime troops. They are not in any way shape or for a "magic" unit that unhinges the game. Some people kick this around as if it is Truth, but then someone comes right back and says "well, not in the PBEM games I play. I challenge you" and then the discussion moves on. Yet this "SMG troops beat everything" argument keeps popping up, even though it is not true.

They can, like any unit, be used in favorable circumstances to gain an advantage. And that is, after all, why the Germans actually made this type of unit. So that is not unrealistic in and of itself.

What is HIGHLY unrealistic is the quantity of SMG troops that some Allied players find themselves facing. Not only in and individual battle (i.e. 6 out of 6 platoons are SMG platoons) but as a whole from game to game (i.e. 10 games played, SMG troops in 8 of them). Anything, and I mean ANYTHING, that is used in a way that is substantially different than reality will distort the perception of reality resulting from the simulation. Period. Therefore, trying to compare the overall SMG effectiveness in CM is difficult if one's experience with them is totally out of whack compared to reality in terms of frequency and quantity encountered.

Kinda like saying "everytime I eat Cheerios I puke my guts out. Something must be wrong with the Cheerios."

"Ok, so how many bowls of Cheerios do you eat in one sitting?"

"The whole box of course, since everybody knows it is the best cereal available and really cheap too"

"Uhm... but you are only supposed to eat ONE, perhaps two, bowls in a sitting. No wonder why you get sick"

"But the box doesn't stop me from eating the whole thing, so I conclude that Cheerios are defective and make everybody sick because they are too cheap"

This is the same thing that is happening with SMG units Overuse is the #1 problem. Period.

The #2 problem is that infantry units, ESPECIALLY SMG TROOPS, can run too fast with too much cover while being able to lay down suppressive fire too well. Since time, distance, and enemy suppression are the three enemies of an advancing force, a SMG unit is able to shrug off some of its real world limitations in CM in some situations more than others.

The #3 problem is that firing oportunities for MGs are fixed. This does, as Jeff stated, allow enemy units (in some circumstances) to get unrealistically close. ESPECIALLY when combined with the #2 problem noted above.

The #4 problem is that long distance shooting drains ammo counts as fast as close distance shooting. Since SMG units can only fire at close distances, they get to use all their ammo at optimal range while rifle units might not (depends on circumstances). Since a strength of a rifle unit is its ability to engage the enemy at greater distances, the over consumption of ammo at such ranges can be a disadvantage if the unit spends too many turns trying to pin down enemy units.

Conclusion

The combination of unrestricted availability of SMG troops, their ability to close distances too quickly and too safely, the lack of MG ability to "let loose" at lesser distances, and the bleeding off of rifle unit ammo before the charge might create a situation that is unrealistically favorable for SMG troops. Not will, but might. The problem is that the more times SMG units are played with, the greater the chances of getting an advantage. Hence the #1 problem being overuse.

How are we fixing this for CMBB?

#1 - Rarity. If you can't buy 'em, or can't buy 'em without trading off other stuff, you can't use them unrealistically even if we make NO other changes. This means that in an individual game you won't find 6 out of 6 platoons being SMG units or 8 out of 10 games having at least some SMG troops. This feature has already been implemented.

#2 - Movement. Changing "Run" to be a minimal cover, no return fire type order means units using this order will find themselves highly vulnerable and incapable of causing enemy suppression and/or casualties. The new Assault move order has much the same function as Run does now, but without the speed. Therefore, cover is better and return fire is possible, but speed is not much better than Move. The longer it takes to close with the enemy, the worse off you are. These changes have already been made.

#3 - Variable MG fire. MGs now increase the number of times they fire in a given time period depending on range, experience, suppression, etc. Units getting right up close with an unsuppressed MG will be dead. We have also increased the effects of bullet spray (present in CMBO, but lesser) which means one MG can now better deal with a full platoon. And firelanes, which keep a unit focused on a specific line of fire, means that advancing units in such a lane will be targets, not something else 400m to the side. All of these things have already been implemented.

#4 - Ammo usage. Since we can't change the way firing and ammo usage is simulated, we have instead decided to up the standard loadout of rifle infantry to compensate for long range "plinking". When we rewrite the engine we will do a far more detailed treatment of ammo expendature. But until then, we have already upped the ammo for rifle units.

Four areas for improvement, for areas already addressed. And although we haven't had put this stuff to a wider group for testing, I can tell you that using the same stress test setup (SMG troops charging a various defenders without combined arms) with CMBO 1.12 and CMBB Alpha yields totally different results. Especially when Rarity is on and I can't buy SMG troops for a reasonable price

And this is why the discussion is rather pointless. We have fixed what needed to be fixed. The proof will be in the pudding (i.e. final release of CMBB) so might I just suggest putting this issue to bed and moving on to something different. It is a waste of time to debate the need for changes based on something that is no longer relevant.

Steve

[ 07-05-2001: Message edited by: Big Time Software ]

[lcm1947]

Well, I think that about covers it. Thank you Steve for a very interesting and well put explaination. You guys impress me more everytime you do or say something. Killer game too!!! May you all become rich.

[RCHRD]

As much as I love CM, I can't wait for CM2. Every word I hear about it just fires me up more.

[Gyrene]

Steve, thank you for addressing our concerns and for wading thru this thread.

The changes you mentioned will probably fix all or most SMG related problems, the improvements to MG's are probably the ones I'm looking forward to the most.

We'll just need to find something about CMBB to bitch about

Gyrene

[Mark IV]

Will grenade load-outs be tracked in CM2?

Damn. Before catching the fireworks, I tried a little scenario, and now Steve goes and preempts me.

3 Reg Ami infantry platoons attacking in heavy woods against 3 Reg SMG platoons. Shooting started at 100m. Ya know what? My damned Ami rifle squads ran out of ammo, plinking at 100m, treeline to treeline.

Meanwhile, my one flanking platoon closed with the uberburpers through the Tall Pines, and sort of Sneak-rushed from about 30 down to 0 meters. And lo, the SMGs gave way, and ran like dogs, and died like same. I don't know how much ammo they had left but they were mostly dead, mostly from defending in two directions.

I had to run this since I rarely use SMG squads anymore, nor Sturmkompanies, nor any of the more exotic forms of Gerbiltruppen. The rifle 44 squad is my Axis instrument of choice, since then the whiners have nothing to squawk about (and if I lose, I can point to my under-equipped rifle 44 squads ).

I have not had much trouble with opponents over-using SMG squads, and probably wouldn't recognize it if they did. They don't appear to be human chainsaws but they are nice in towns and deep forest. If I am Amis they are just more gray infantry to blast out. I try not to close with anyone unless I have to, then it's Storm City.

I love Ami rifle squads... wish they had organic AT capability. And Panthers and 3" mortars. You'd think they would have switched over to Panzerfausts, Panthers, and 3" mortars around August '44, seeing how effective they all were.

[Tero]

>Sorry folks, but I think this is probably

>the most boring discussion to come along in

>a very long time. Mostly because it has

>already been covered about a dozen times to

>death

Just sharpening our tools for upcoming events.

>But from a design standpoint, because we

>have already addressed this issue but you

>guys haven't seen our solution yet (i.e. the

>current CMBB Alpha). That makes this

>discussion rather irrelevant in that light.

So when is the Beta version going to be released ?

>They can, like any unit, be used in

>favorable circumstances to gain an

>advantage. And that is, after all, why the

>Germans actually made this type of unit. So

>that is not unrealistic in and of itself.

Care to comment on the US troops tendency of not engageing if no clear targets present themselves and if or how that is modelled into the CM TacAI presently ?

>Anything, and I mean ANYTHING, that is used

>in a way that is substantially different

>than reality will distort the perception of

>reality resulting from the simulation.

Will CMBB include historically accurate Battle Group/Kampfgruppe style OB's for purchase ?

>The #3 problem is that firing oportunities

>for MGs are fixed.

Are there any provisions for area suppression fire to suppress multiple enemy units simultaneously ? Not just a platoon but multiple platoons. For example firing on all infantry units in the MG's assigned fire lane . Or will the suppression have a ripple effect on nearby units ?

>The #4 problem is that long distance

>shooting drains ammo counts as fast as close

>distance shooting. Since SMG units can only

>fire at close distances, they get to use all

>their ammo at optimal range while rifle

>units might not (depends on circumstances).

I see no problem here.

>Since a strength of a rifle unit is its

>ability to engage the enemy at greater

>distances, the over consumption of ammo at

>such ranges can be a disadvantage if the

>unit spends too many turns trying to pin

>down enemy units.

Is that a player control or TacAI issue ?

>#1 - Rarity.

I take it (and hope) this will not affect the availability of historical OB's in specialist force types like the Red Army tank rider infantry, who were almost exclusively armed with SMG's.

>#2 - Movement.

Any chance of getting a Rush command: (short bounds ~20 meters, fairly fast, minimal or no firing, some cover) squeezed in between the Run and the Assault commands ? That can be made happen using the Run/Hide combination but the Rush command would save some mouse work and eliminate any potentially gamey command delays.

>#4 - Ammo usage. Since we can't change the

>way firing and ammo usage is simulated, we

>have instead decided to up the standard

>loadout of rifle infantry to compensate for

>long range "plinking".

Will the effectiveness of long range rifle fire be toned down at the same time ? So as not to get the current gripe reversed. "Those darn long range, eternal ammo load out rifles keep my units, including SMG's and MG's suppressed so they can not fire at the other units he is creeping up my flanks !"

>Especially when Rarity is on and I can't buy

>SMG troops for a reasonable price

Are the results historically representative so the the Red Army will still get some benefits they got from their historical production and OB decisions ?

[Andreas]

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

I love Ami rifle squads... wish they had organic AT capability. And Panthers and 3" mortars. You'd think they would have switched over to Panzerfausts, Panthers, and 3" mortars around August '44, seeing how effective they all were.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That really made me smile.

Thanks for chipping in Steve. It wasn't actually that boring, I learned a lot about General Custard.

[Holien]

Thanks Steve,

As a lurker on this thread your response has answered all.

Bits were boring yet many other posts taught me more intersting facts than I can remember.

This one post from you has swung me from not buying the next release (I am not a real fan of the Russian front) to buying it because I want you guys to have my money.

And I want to see these changes made for the WTO in a later release, or an update to CM.

Cheers chaps

H

[Jeff Heidman]

Assault Move and Firelanes.

I am happy.

Jeff Heidman

[Battlefront.com]

Hi again,

Just thought I would qualify the term "booring" that I used. I meant that to apply just to the aspects of this 7 page thread that were directed at CM's game modeling and how to fix it. This stuff has been covered to death. If someone new came here and caught up on the issues, great. For me, I've seen it all before As for the side issues, like Custer, I too found that interesting.

OK... Tero asked a lot of questions. He is a Finn, so this is to be expected I'll answer his questions here as a good way to wrap this up:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>So when is the Beta version going to be released ? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

We will not release a Beta Demo this time around. We lost almost a month's worth of productivity the last time we did this. It was necessary at the time because the game was new in so many ways that we felt it was necessary to get it out to a huge audience. This time we don't think this is necessary, and coupled with the time lost to make a specal Beta Demo release it isn't a good idea. We'd rather release the Full game and Demo a month earlier.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Care to comment on the US troops tendency of not engageing if no clear targets present themselves and if or how that is modelled into the CM TacAI presently ?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not sure what you mean. I think you are talking about straight forward logic of not engaging enemy targets unless you have a good chance of doing some damage. That is programmed into the TacAI for all unit types, although weighted differently depending on the type of unit.

There certainly isn't anything that makes US troops treated differently by the TacAI. A US Rifle Squad, a German Pattern 44 Rifle Squad, and a Commonwealth Rifle Squad should all behave the same. A SMG Squad will probably act a little differently, but only because of the range of its weapons.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Will CMBB include historically accurate Battle Group/Kampfgruppe style OB's for purchase ?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

There is no such thing as a "historically accurate" KG formation. They were all different. Generally they were organized similar to standard formations, like a Battalion. But instead of having organic, predetermined formations they had whatever might be needed (like engineers) or whatever might be around (cooks) depending on the nature of the KG. So CMBB will be just like CMBO. You can purchase whatever you want within the guidelines of the purchase options you are given (i.e. which Rarity option you are using).

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Are there any provisions for area suppression fire to suppress multiple enemy units simultaneously ? Not just a platoon but multiple platoons. For example firing on all infantry units in the MG's assigned fire lane . Or will the suppression have a ripple effect on nearby units ?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I was not very specific. I used the term "Platoon" just to illustrate "more than one single unit", not that there is some special ability of a MG to shoot at multiple units in the same organic formation more effectively. So yes, if there are three unrelated squads in a fireline, fairly bunched up, then a MG (LMG, MMG, or HMG) will have a greater chance of affecting all three units more so than happens in CMBO. The behavior already exists in CMBO but we decided it needed to be tweaked upwards a bit more.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Is that a player control or TacAI issue ? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Mostly a player issue. The Player should be able to tell a Rifle Squad to open up at 300m and not have its ammo chewed through at the same rate as if the enemy unit was at 50m. More on that below...

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I take it (and hope) this will not affect the availability of historical OB's in specialist force types like the Red Army tank rider infantry, who were almost exclusively armed with SMG's.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

We have had a very interesting discussion about these troops on the Beta Forum. We were even able to ask some questions about their use to a veteran who (somehow!) managed to surive almost 2 years of combat. Even he said their casualty rates were often 80%!! Anyway, not to worry... SMG troops will, in general, be quite inexpensive for the Soviet player after about 1942 or so. Before then they were much less common to see.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Any chance of getting a Rush command: (short bounds ~20 meters, fairly fast, minimal or no firing, some cover) squeezed in between the Run and the Assault commands ?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, we are not going to do this. Combine a Run and Assault move to achieve this if you like. The difference in this case between Run and Rush is too small to justify a new order.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Will the effectiveness of long range rifle fire be toned down at the same time ? So as not to get the current gripe reversed. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, there will be no firepower changes to rifles. We feel the FP is rated correctly, but the lack of flexibility in how ammo points are consumed means that we can't have such firing use up, for example, 0.50 Ammo Points. We had initially thought that this wouldn't be a problem, but a year's worth of playing has shown us that on average there is a need for a fix. So our choice was to either increase the FP to account for more bullets being fired or increase the ammo. Since increasing the intensity of outgoing fire at longer ranges would be unrealistic, and the ammo usage problem would remain, the obvious solution was to increase Rifle heavy unit's Ammo counts up a bit.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Are the results historically representative so the the Red Army will still get some benefits they got from their historical production and OB decisions ? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, that is the whole basis of Rarity. Take Soviet SMG infantry for example. The Soviets fielded HUGE numbers of these units after about 1942 or so. The Germans didn't start using them until 1944, and even then in rather small numbers overall. So the price of a Soviet and German SMG unit, not to mention availability, will be completely seperate from the other.

Steve

[Spook]

Kinda like saying "everytime I eat Cheerios I puke my guts out. Something must be wrong with the Cheerios."

"Ok, so how many bowls of Cheerios do you eat in one sitting?"

"The whole box of course, since everybody knows it is the best cereal available and really cheap too"

"Uhm... but you are only supposed to eat ONE, perhaps two, bowls in a sitting. No wonder why you get sick"

"But the box doesn't stop me from eating the whole thing, so I conclude that Cheerios are defective and make everybody sick because they are too cheap"

I dunno if I'd rate that as an epic in analogies, but it's pretty damn good at the least.

In my "mole" mode, I'm going to repost the four primary "revision" points at cdmag.

[PzKpfw 1]

A little background the Soviet SMG Squads & usage. The SMG was originaly classified as an Police wpn by the Soviet's it was never issued to army troops.

Experiences in the Winter War changed the Soviet opinion on the SMG. When the war broke out between Germany & Russia, their were no SMG troops in the Red army. SMG Co's were formed in late 1941.

In late 1941 early 1942 the Soviet's began forming SMG Companys & insering them into Rifle, & Mot Rifle Regt's. An Dec 1942 SMG Co consisted of 5 Officers, 1 clerk, 20 NCO's, 74 enlisted personel with 100 SMGs. With each Plt haveing an HQ Plt, & 3 Plts, with 3 Sqds of 8 men. No suport wpns were provided in the Co.

SMG Co's were initialy used as the Regt HQ reserve force, & only employed on direct orders from the Regt. SMG Co's were used to either supt Regimental recon forces, or, in if an offensive role in areas where their SMG's would be effectve & only with the full supt of the Regimental artillery. SMG Co's were used on Defensive ops to seal penetrations. The SMG Co's role was to be used where speed was the essence not firepower.

Later SMG Co's would be used in the role their most faumous for, as tank 'landing' troops. T-34's, had handles welded on their bodies specificly for the SMG troops use as hand holds etc, each T-34 could carry one SMG Sqd of 8 men.

SMGs by no means replaced the rifle in the Soviet Shtat Ie, an March 1942 Rifle Co consisted of 5 Officers, 1 PO, 30 NCO's, 139 enlisted personel (9 SMGs, 12 LMGs,& 11 snipers). An Rifle Co consisted of 3 Plt's with 4 Sqds each Plt, with each Sqd consisting of 10 men (2 NCO's, 1 LMG & 8 rifles). On paper in reality Soviet Rifle Sqds only had 8 - 9 men.

Begining in May 1943 the Soviet's authorized replaceing 1/3rd of the Rifle Regt's rifles with SMGs. But the actual doing so was left to the discretion of the Regtimental Co's, basicly it wasn't done uniformaly with some Regt's forming one SMG Co, & others forming whole SMG Bn's, while some Regt's simply had a few Riflemen in the Plt's & Sqds carry SMGs.

Regards, John Waters

[thewood]

Now if BTS could only go over to the relentless armor and penetration threads and straighten them out. They have killed the horse three or four times.

[Battlefront.com]

John, also don't forget one other advantage of a SMG vs. a Rifle -> training. If you hand someone a SMG and some basic instructions, then get them into a good combat position, the chances are that soldier will do a lot better than the same soldier with a rifle.

Training, or actually the lack of it, was the main reason the Germans attempted to arm their Volksarmee units with automatic and not bolt action/semi-auto weapons. The hurried production of the Volkssturmgewehr shows the importance German planners placed on quantity of firepower vs. quality of firepower (i.e. accuracy, stopping power of the round, etc.)

Another benefit of SMG units was that a reduction in head count could better be compensated for, in terms of firepower, if the remaining members had automatic weapons. In other words, a SMG squad at 50% strength at closer range might have about the same firepower as a rifle unit at 100%. When you have untrained troops casualties will be higher, so retaining firepower in the face of expected heavy losses was important. And since Soviet "tank riders" were expected to suffer massive losses, the importance of firepower retention was critical.

Steve

[PzKpfw 1]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Big Time Software:

John, also don't forget one other advantage of a SMG vs. a Rifle -> training. If you hand someone a SMG and some basic instructions, then get them into a good combat position, the chances are that soldier will do a lot better than the same soldier with a rifle.

Steve<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oh I'm not Steve my post concerned the role of SMGs in Soviet formations & their employment. SMG Co's had no LMGs or suporting arms, they were totaly reliant on the Regt for fire support, which is why their use initialy was very limited & controlled.

The tank landing troops were created for speed & armed with SMGs because they would be operating with the tanks after the initial penetration of the MLR or within 100 - 200m of the enemy positions where their SMGs would be at optimal effectiveness. But the main emphisis in forming tank riders was speed not firepower.

And as you said SMGs were also easier to use then rifles, and were handed out to liberated territory conscripts as well as the thousands supplied to the Partisan formations.

Regards, John Waters

[Battlefront.com]

Hi John,

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>my post concerned the role of SMGs in Soviet formations & their employment.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

And you did a very good job at it too

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>But the main emphisis in forming tank riders was speed not firepower. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I guess my point was that they did not choose the SMG over the rifle by mistake. The SMG was the optimal choice for this sort of tactical unit for a couple of big reasons. Firepower was one of them.

Soviet doctrine is all about hitting hard as well as fast. Dropping 8 men with bolt action rifles off a tank 250m in front of the enemy gets you speed, but it doesn't get you the hard hitting punch necessary for the tactic to succeed against anything but a weak enemy MLR. Therefore, firepower had to have been a consideration when coming up with this tactic.

Steve