Backwards MG ammo - a simple question of weight ratios

[JasonC]

I have been bothered for a while by the wonderful bargain presented by the magical German HMG team, especially compared to the US MMG. The virtues of the HMG are well understood - high ROF, exchangable barrels, a large team of 6 to carry things, slow speed implying the men are weighted down with ammo. But the ratio of total firepower for the different MGs still makes no sense.

I do not mean the fp numbers, I have no quarrel with them. They give the HMG-42 a much higher fp rating than any other MG in the game, and the obvious reason for it is the much higher cyclic rate of fire of that gun. The problem is the ammo. A higher fp rating due to a higher ROF implies a higher rate of ammo consumption. But the HMG-42 in CM today not only throws bullets faster, it throws them for longer - which implies way more bullets to throw. Unbelievably so.

Consider firepower at 250 meters times default ammo level for the various MG types. Some differences in fp for the same bullets thrown may be believable (and certainly for bipods vs. tripod MGs). But as a first approximation, assume the ratio of raw fp numbers for the various tripod mounted 30 cals reflects sustained rate of fire. The one can calculate the implied ammo loads, their weight, add that of the guns and equipment, and arrive at an implied load per man.

First consider the comparison between the HMG-42 and the Vickers or 1917 HMG (the latter two are identical). The 42 has 1.6 times the fp, believeable from ROF. Both have the same number of men. The weight of the Vickers style weighs 93 lbs with tripod and water. The 42 weighs 84 pounds with tripod and 3 spare barrels. But the Vickers has only 1.32 times the shots, not 1.6 times. 9 lbs of ammo is only ~125 rounds boxed.

Assume (I actually think it more than an assumption, but more on that later) that one shot for the Vickers represents 25 rounds. Then the ammo load weighs around 230 lbs, perhaps a little less for some carried bandolier fashion rather than boxed. The total load per man in the team for the gun, its extras, and its ammo comes to ~54 lbs or ~ 25 kg. That is on the high side of believable, even for a slow team. With 110 ammo the weight per man would be 50 lbs, which is more realistic.

Now consider the HMG-42. Its firepower is not 1.6 times as high because its bullets are homing missles. Its firepower is higher because it is firing more bullets. They aren't any lighter. One CM shot would then reflect ~40 rounds of fire from the faster-shooting gun, if the fp per bullet were about the same. Then 95 ammo would by 3800 rounds, weighing 279 lbs boxed. The whole team would be carrying 363 lbs, or 60.5 lbs per man. Not counting personal weapons. That is above "believable". If the weight were 50 lbs per man, the ammo load carried would only be ~2950, or around 75 CM shots at the high ROF.

Now look at the US MMGs. They have 1/1.9 times the firepower of the HMG-42. Presumably the HMGs are firing straighter by about 20%, with the ROF still similar. One shot of MMG would then be 25 bullets again. Suppose with medium speed the crew are only humping 2/3rds the weight, or 33 lbs per man. How many shots should the 5 man and 3 man team then get? Even with the tripod the 1919A4 only weighs 41 lbs. They are firing cloth-linked 30-06, the same round as in the M-1 rifle, which is a somewhat lighter round than the full sized 7.92mm. It is 150 grains rather than 180, and 22.4g per full cartridge rather than 27g. It weighs ~13 lbs per 250-round belt. For the 5 man team that works out to 95 CM shots; for the 3 man airborne version to 45 shots.

The HMG-42 has 95 rather than 75 shots, or 27% more than the above calculation. The MMG has 65 rather than 95, or 2/3rds the above calculation. The 3-man version has ~3/4. Substantially, the number of shots for the different MG teams is backwards. Instead of higher ROF giving fewer shots and lower ROF more, it is the reverse. But the higher ROF does get the higher fp.

The US MMGs should be putting out their lower firepower numbers, yes. Because they are firing slower (~500 rpm when the trigger is held, vs. ~1200 rpm for the MG-42). But firing slower means you do not run out as fast. The German HMG deserves its high firepower, because of its high ROF. It still deserves a good ammo total, because it is a large and slow team.

But not the edge it has now. Firing twice as well (CM fp ratio is 1.9) for 50% longer (CM shots ratio is 1.47) implies nearly three times the ammo (2.8 times), and one extra guy can't possibly carry it. Especially when the tripod alone, for the HMG version of the 42, weighs as much as the assembled 1919A4 MMG, and it uses a heavier round.

So, what are my bottom line recommendations from the above? Scenario designers interested in realistical balancing of Allied and German MG capabilities should consider the following ammo tweaks, in addition to the small arms / squad ammo tweaks I've recommended previously.

US airborne 3 man MMG - 40 or 45 shots (+25%)

US regular 5 man MMG - 90 or 95 shots (+40%)

HMG-1917 and Vickers - 110 shots (-10%)

German HMG-42 - 75 shots (-20%)

German LMG-42 - 25 shots (as now)

For those who may not have heard my small arms / squad ammo recommendations, those are to reduce squads with all automatics to 30 shots and mostly autos to 35 shots, while increasing mostly rifle squads to 45-50 shots. A similar rational is involved. Higher ROF means greater fp per unit time, more than greater firepower until dry. Without such tweaks automatics are a "twofer" in CM today, because the abstract ammo system does not make high ROF units run dry any faster. As though they shot "straighter" rather than "faster".

For what it is worth...

[Andrew H.]

That's interesting. It occurs to me that some of the MG 42 increased FP could be due to the fact that it had optical sights in the HMG role. I know the Browning didn't. I don't know about the Vickers. I also don't know any details about the sights, or the range at which they were used.

[JasonC]

I think it pretty much has to be rate of fire for the heavies. There is a factor of about 1.2 for the heavies over the medium, which is reasonable for a steadier gun, longer streams of fire, etc. But the HMG-42 has its edge over both types and the factor is basically is independent of range.

Thus, compared to the Vickers type water-cooled, the fp ratio is 1.63-1.64-1.60-1.49-1.50 for the five range brackets. Compared to the medium the ratios are 1.85-1.89-1.93-1.93 for the four ranges the MMG can fire.

That is hardly consistent with a different due to (mythical, in my book) optics, which would be highest at the longest ranges and tiny in close. It is perfectly consistent with spitting out 1.6 times as many bullets. Which the MG-42 could easily do, even with the trigger depressed only 2/3rds as long as the others.

Besides the fact that the fp difference isn't range dependent, why do I call the optics idea mythical? Because the gunner isn't supposed to look at anything but the general direction with any of these guns. The gun commander calls the adjustments, while looking through binoculars, based on the observed "fall of shot", or tracers, or both. The gunner just nudges the barrel in the directions indicated. He is only in charge of target selection himself at the closest ranges. They aren't sniper rifles.

[Tero]

One important factor was the tripod mount itself and its inherently superior features when firing from prepared positions.

At least the Maxim mount had all sorts of elevation and azimuth regulators and handwheels. You could preassign fields of fire and point targets as needed. You could even set ranges with the regulators so if the battlefield was ranged all the HMG crew could do was select terrain features and preset ranges for the fire according to the target. The HMG could act like an artillery piece as it were.

The accuracy of the fire is uncanny IF the mount is not moved.

Once engaged all the gunner had to do was move the regulators in place and he could spray the intended target area without even physically seeing it as the movement of the gun (ie. the field of fire) was regulated by the regulators in the mount. There is no need for spraying and praying with the tripod mount if the target comes along the path it was envisioned to come and there has been time to set the position up properly.

[ 08-27-2001: Message edited by: tero ]

[JasonC]

Both types of heavies, German MG42 and Allied Vicker/M1917, have 20% more firepower for from being heavies, as well as superior range (twice). More than that is reaching, and there is no reason the Vickers/M1917 wouldn't have it as well as the HMG-42.

There is no getting around it. The HMG-42 has higher fp numbers because it was a higher ROF. It fired 1200 rpm with the trigger down, the others 500 rpm. Higher ROF means more ammo burned. The men can't magically carry more just because their gun shoots faster.

Incidentally, if anyone doubts the match up of 25 rounds per CM shot as standard for the MMGs, check the vehicle ammo loads. M3 halftrack with 4000 rounds? 160 shots. But the HMG-42 has 60% more fp from higher ROF, so its rounds per CM shot ought to be 40.

[Username]

If you check the other MG threads ongoing, I dug up BTS saying that a german could carry the boxes two per hand (the handles being designed close to one side). Concievably, 4 boxes per man. Thats a thousand rounds per ammo carrier. So a six man HMG42 could have 3 thousand boxed plus whatever is on the gun/dangling from the others. I have also seen photos of these boxes being backpacked.

In reality, the parent org the MGs belonged to would have some sort of battle resupply running forward. The game does not abstract this.

Lewis

[jshandorf]

I would gamble to say that one "shot" in CM for the HMGs atleat would be a about one second of firing. That would see "about right" to me. So...

MG42 ROF 1200rps or 20 rds a sec.

1919 MMG ROF 650rps or 10.8 rds a sec.

So, I can see why the MG42 has a FP 1.6 greater.

I really don't see why ammo capacity has anything to do with FP. The duration of fire on a target is a variable so I don't see how you can quantify a FP from that since it would chnage depending on the situation. To be mathematicly correct you need to calculate the FPs with constants thus you need to fix the time. Therefore ammo loadout has nothing to do with FP.

Jeff

[Pak40]

Jason,

I think you're over-analyzing how CM is modeled. Most things in CM are abstracted, including the ammo load and speed of the unit. Your figures of 'weight carried per man' isn't really accurate because in reality most of these crews could carry the equipment in multiple trips. For example, do you really think a 5 man AT gun team can really move a tank gun and all of its ammo in one trip? No, it can't. The AT gun team would have to move the gun and maybe some of the ammo in the first trip, and then go back and get the rest of the ammo in the second trip.

The same thing can happen for the HMG teams, just on a smaller scale. The Very Slow movement rate of the MG42 HMG in CM abstracts the the entire moving process: this includes taking down the gun, making multiple trips, and setting up the gun. In reality these teams can move faster than at a walking pace but in CM they are slower due to the abstraction.

Also, I don't see why you consider 50 pounds believable but 60 pounds unbelievable. This is only a 10 pound difference which most grown men would be able to accomodate. And, as stated by someone else, one man can carry 4 boxes of ammo. 4 men X 4 boxes X 250 rounds = 4000 rounds.

[Wilhammer]

This is very similar to the problem with the German SMG squads carrying the same ammo load as rifle squads, while they in truth expend it faster.

IIRC, BTS is correcting this with CM2:BB.

[JasonC]

HMG teams are not "very slow", they are just "slow". A full box of MG42 ammo weighs more than 18 lbs; carrying 4 of them at a time, farther than across a room or something, is unrealistic. Also, particular loads can be dialed in up to 50% above the default figures. Anyone care to explain how the team is supposed to move 6000 rounds? That is ~90 lbs per man, not counting their other equipment besides the gun itself and its ammo.

The practical load would be one box in each hand plus a couple of bandoliers (each 50 or 100 rounds at most) around the chest. And one of the men has to carry the spare barrels and tools, which weigh as much an ammo box. One man must carry the tripod and another the gun. Thus 7 boxes plus bandoliers is the realistic load. Which will still come to about 50 lbs per man for the MG equipment alone.

In reality, the section leader would be unlikely to burden himself with a full ammo load and less effective at navigating for the team, spotting things with his binocs etc if he did, so even that much for the team is being generous. Most of the men also carried personal weapons. All carried canteens, entrenching tools, grenades, field kit, packs, yada yada.

And the practical combat load limit of about 70 lbs per man for -all- equipment is well known. Attempts to get men to carry much above that result not only in slow, clusmy movements but in rapid physical exhaustion, even for picked men in peak condition.

As for AT guns, the movement of the gun itself is what is being shown and it is vastly slower than that of an HMG team. And in practice, they scarcely move at all during combat, except by being towed. The whole analogy is rather silly.

A closer one would be to a 81mm mortar team, which has the same speed and is moving a weapon of similar weight. They manage to carry loads of around 30 rounds, or 210 lbs, or the weight equivalent of 2850 rounds of MG42 ammo boxed. Which is 71 shots at 40 rounds per CM shot, right in line with my recommendation of 75.

Moreover, none of the statements offered even being to address the real issue, which is that the ammo in CM shots is higher for the weapon with the higher rate of fire. If supposedly each CM shot is a tiny number of rounds or men can carry near infinite amounts of rounds, then the ammo in CM shots of other MG types ought to be far higher.

Then there is the confusion some seem to be experiencing (or sowing, perhaps) over time spent firing and supposed uncertainty in rounds per shot etc. It is conceptually very simple. Higher ROF can increase the fp per unit time but it cannot magically produce more bullets to fire, or increase the amount a man can carry. The limit on *overall* fp thrown over the whole ammo load is set by the weight of rounds the men can carry, not by how fast they can throw them.

The MG-42 can throw them faster, which is tactically useful as a higher fp per shot (generating more suppression, needing less exposure time to inflict a given amount of damage, etc). But not as a higher fp *times* number of shots before running out. The Vickers (e.g.) shoots slower, not less straight.

How much more is the HMG-42 firing than the Vickers, on average? One fellow would pretend we can't know because it depends on how long they are firing, yada yada. Poppycock. BTS decided for us - the HMG-42 is firing 1.6 times as fast. You can tell, because it has 1.6 times the firepower at all ranges.

The cyclic rate is higher by a larger factor than that. Ergo, BTS has decided for us that the HMG-42 trigger is depressed for a smaller length of time, on average. Which makes perfect sense. But, if the men can carry the same and the HMG-42 deserves its higher fp rating because it is shooting 1.6 times more bullets, then it can't fire as long before running out, by about that factor.

Then I am told that CM is using abstractions for all of these things. I am well aware of it, and when game design abstractions do not introduce significant tactical distortions, while they do help simplicity, I am all for them. But the first proviso is important. When it doesn't apply, tweaking to remove the tactical distortions is called for.

And right now, if you take a 6-man German HMG team you get a cumulative 250-meter firepower potential of 77 fp times 95 shots equals 7315 total firepower. While a 5-man US MMG team (the historically most common US MG) will give only 40 fp times 65 shots equals 2600 total firepower.

The MMG is lighter. Its ammo is lighter. Even allowing a 20% edge for a stabler firing platform and a 50% edge in weight carried for the difference between "slow" and "medium" speed, the German team is still getting a "two-fer" on its rate of fire. By 1.6 times, which is almost exactly the ROF difference.

In other words, the BTS *ammo* numbers would be right on the money, weight wise, *if* each shot from the two teams represented the same number of bullets fired - around 25 of them as it happens. But the BTS *firepower* numbers rightly give the HMG-42 a higher fp rating because it is firing *faster*. It is just that this faster firing does not seem to be reflected in the number of rounds represented by each CM shot. It gets the fp benefit for firing more bullets, but does not pay the ammo price for firing more bullets.

I consider this an oversight introduce by the abstracted nature of the CM ammo system. The problem is that such oversights have important tactical consequences. Allied MGs not only fire slower (as they should), they run out sooner - firing 500 rpm cyclic rate MGs - than the Germans do, firing 1200 rpm cyclic rate MGs. Which is simply silly. As in Monty Python, "it is a simple question of weight ratios".

[Triumvir]

Jason,

as an ex-gunner, you should know quite well that men can carry significantly more than 60lbs of ammo across distances more than a room's length. If you've ever had to do laps of a deployment ground with round overhead (a particularly unpleasant haze), you recognize that a man can carry about 100 lbs at least 200m before onset of exhaustion.

BTS has, I believe, incoporated an abstracted ferrying system into support weapons, which may reduce that load even further.

If your assumptions are correct wrt the ammo firepower and all things are equal, then a modification to the ammo count is well justified. But if it is in fact SOP for each MG42 team member to carry approximately 4000 rounds, then things should stand.

As an interjection, I believe that 7.62x51 isn't that much lighter than 7.92x57. When I was in the GPMG section of a platoon during training, along with the tripod the No 2 gunner carried 750 rounds of MG ammo on a frame (though the frame could hold 1000 rounds.) I submit that the following breakdown for a HMG42 team is not unreasonable:

3 x ammo carrier -- 750 rds each

1 x tripod carrier -- 500 rds each

1 x MG gunner -- 250 rds each

1 x section commander -- 250 rds each

which comes to 3750 rds; not that far away from the 4000 rds you suggest.

Does this make the MG1917 underpowerd? Perhaps; but if the MG1917 accurately reflects SOP, then perhaps we should call it overpriced.

Anyone know any details about the organization of an HMG42 section? I can't find details in the Handbook of German Forces.

[John Kettler]

This is a most interesting discussion, argued with intelligence and calmness.

I would like to raise a parallel issue, which is how the .50 cal. HMG is modeled in CMBO and how the 12.7mm DshK and the .50 cal. MG will be modeled in CMBB and beyond. Here we have weapons quite capable of firing through all but the heaviest cover, yet are punished for their low ROF. The Ma Deuce is modeled as being nasty against light armor, but what I don't see represented are the weapon's tremendous intimidation and penetration factors against infantry, especially in cover.

The Germans hated and feared this weapon, because a) they had nothing like it mass fielded with that combination of range, hitting power and horrendous wounding potential; because even if it didn't hit you, you were sprayed and/or showered with large chunks of practically anything hit, or could be distracted or even hurt by things like falling limbs (secondary missiles); c) because it could fire right through what would otherwise be solid protection against rifle caliber projectiles, generating secondary missiles while so penetrating; d) because in enfilade or against densely massed troops frontally, the weapon was quite capable of inflicting multiple casualties with each round, and e) those big projectiles really ripped up the air, generating powerful supersonic cracks, hence strong incentive to get down and stay down.

Were these factors properly addressed, I believe that the game would be more realistic,

would facilitate real world tactics, and might help relieve real concerns I and others have that the German infantry weapons and unit weapon loads are far better handled than are those of the Allies.

Were this not true, why do so many Allied players in buy your own tourneys time and again find themselves buying airborne troops to simulate capabilities possessed IRL by line infantry and to offset the immense firepower of most of the available German squads in the game? Could it be because small arms are missing, sustained fire capabilities aren't properly shown (or included by ignoring the watercooled Browning .30 cal. MMG) and because the .50 cal HMG is pathetic compared to its RL counterpart?

There's doubtless more which could be said on this, but I want to first get the ball rolling. Besides, my brain's fading.

Regards,

John Kettler

[Vanir Ausf B]

Ok, I dug up a bit of info on how BTS modeled the MG42 HMG ammo load in this old thread.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>In CM we figure the MG42 ammo total based on the assumption that the ammo bearers are carrying 55 pounds (25 kilos) of MG42 ammo each in addition to their extra gear.

Charles<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>CM's HMG42 Teams have roughly 4000 rounds assigned to them by default. I found a pretty definate number for this somehwere almost 2 years ago (ugh... have we been working on this THAT long!!), it was backed up by at least one other source. Charles and I did the math and it checks out.

BTW, German ammo boxes were specially designed so that two could be carried in one hand. That means a single soldier could carry (with some difficulty, like we simulate) 1,000 rounds all by himself. If three men in a HMG42 Team carried such a load you get 3,000 rounds right there.

Realistically such Teams would have a variety of ammo loads depending on supply and inteneded role, and this can be adjusted +/- in the Scenario Editor. In fixed defensive positions they would have probably more than this unless they had recently been engaged in heavy fire and had not yet been resupplied.

Steve<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

[ 08-28-2001: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]

[Tero]

Originally posted by JasonC:

The MMG is lighter. Its ammo is lighter.

Are you sure about that ? Lets look at the stats:

Diffent LMG/MMG's

http://www.brengun.org.uk/

THE BREN LMG

Calibre: .303 inch British

Weight empty: 10.15kg (22.38lb)

Tripod Weight, 30 lbs.

Feed system: 30-round detachable box (see equipment page for others)

Rate of fire: 500 rounds per minute

Muzzle velocity: 731 metres per second (2,400 ft/sec)

http://www.wwiitechpubs.com/barrack/inf-deutschland/inf-de-mg-mg34-mg42/in f-de-mg-mg34-mg42-ftr.html

7.92 mm Maschinengewehr 42 (light)

Calibre/Cartridge: 7.92 mm x 57

Feed Type: 50 and 250 round continuous link metal belts

Weight with Bipod: 11.6 kg (25.6 lb)

Muzzle Velocity: 820 m/sec (2,690 ft/sec)

Rate of Fire (cyclic): 1,500 rpm

http://www.rt66.com/~korteng/SmallArms/30cala6.htm

M1919A6

Caliber .30 (".30-06") (7.62 mm)

Capacity 250-round belt

Weight 32.5lbs with bipod

Muzzle velocity 853.4 mps (2800 fps)

Rate of fire 400 to 550 rounds per minute

MMG/HMG's

http://www.vickersmachinegun.org.uk/

Vickers HMG

Calibre: .303 inches

Feed: 250 round canvas ammunition belt

Weight:

Gun, without water: 14.97kg (33lb)

Gun, with water (approx): 18.14kg (40 lb)

Tripod mount: 23.13kg (51 lb)

Muzzle Velocity, Mk. VIIz and VIIIz: 2,440 feet per second

Cyclic rate of fire: 450 to 550 rounds per minute

http://www.classicfirearms.org/

Water cooled, it could drank out 10,000 rounds nonstop without a hiccup.

http://www.wwiitechpubs.com/barrack/inf-deutschland/inf-de-mg-mg34-mg42/in f-de-mg-mg34-mg42-ftr.html

7.92 mm Maschinengewehr 42 (heavy)

Calibre/Cartridge: 7.92 mm x 57

Feed Type: 50 and 250 round continuous link metal belts

Weight of Gun: 10.6 kg (23.4 lb)

Weight of Lafette 42: 20.5 kg (45.2 lb)

Muzzle Velocity: 820 m/sec (2,690 ft/sec)

Rate of Fire (cyclic): 1,500 rpm

http://www.rt66.com/~korteng/SmallArms/30cal.htm

M1919A4

Caliber .30 (7.62 mm)

Capacity 250-round belt

Weight 18.5 kg (41 lbs) with tripod

Muzzle velocity 853.4 mps (2800 fps)

Rate of fire 400 to 550 rounds per minute

The M1917A4 MMG weight WITH the tripod is 41 lbs, the Bren 52 lbs, the MG42 68,6 lbs and the Vickers (in full combat gear) 91 lbs. I would venture to point out that the M1917A4 was the least stable of them, if we look at the physical characteristics of the mounts since the MV's are between 2400-2800 fps so the recoil of the shots is not markedly different. The MG42 ROF is 3 times greater than the ROF of the rest but they could not fire as long bursts as the rest so that evens things out there as well.

All of them are in the same cathegory when it comes to caliber so the ammo itself could not have been significantly heavier per round. The deciding factor is the belts, which seems to have been 250 rounds per belt all around, except for the Bren which came with 30 round magazines.

It gets the fp benefit for firing more bullets, but does not pay the ammo price for firing more bullets.

Hang on. Is this a rehash of the epic SMG tread ?

Have you actually checked the amount of ammo a German unit carried ?

An edited repost from

http://www.battlefront.com/cgi-bin/bbs/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=1&t=020001&p=5

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> http://carlisle-www.army.mil/cgi-bin/usamhi/DL/showdoc.pl?docnum=352

a. AMUNITION ALLOWANCES. The initial issue (Erste Austellung) of ammunition is the total

ammunition carried by a formation in columns,

in dumps, and with the troops. The initial issue is systematically replaced as it is

expended, on the basis of reports of ammunition remaining on hand sent from the divisions through corps to army, except as operational conditions modify the system. The allowance per formation is based on the number of weapons called for in the table of organization of the unit. Each weapon, in turn, has a number of rounds which is allotted to it as ammunition quota or unit of issue (Munitions Ausstattung). Two units of issue for all weapons of the division are carried within the division, while another Unit of issue for all weapons in the army is held on army columns or trains as an army reserve. Thus each army has three ammunition quotas or units of issue for all weapons of the army.

1). AMMUNITION ISSUES Of the two ammunition units of issue that are found within the division, over one unit is found forward on the men, with the guns, and as company and battalion reserves, while less than one full unit of issue is retained as a division reserve in division columns and dumps. The exact quantity issued to each man is largely determined by the amount held by the battalion and company as their reserves. The following charts exemplify the units of issue found in infantry and artillery units of an army.

Ammunition Issues (Rounds) for a VolksGrenadier Division :

9-mm machine pistol.

Forwar issue 690

Division reserve 512

Propable Army reserve 601

7.92-mm machine pistol.

Forwar issue 540

Division reserve 630

Propable Army reserve 720

7.92-mm rifle

Forwar issue 75

Division reserve 87

Propable Army reserve 99

7.92-mm rifle (for troops other than infantry troops)

Forwar issue 25

Division reserve 20

Propable Army reserve 22

7.92-mm semi-auto rifle.

FI 159

DR 135

PAR 147

7.92.mm LMG

FI 3450

DR 2505

PAR 2977

7.92.LMG (for arty and AT troops)

FI 1350

DR 1020

PAR 1183

7.92-mm HvMG

FI 6300

DR 4750

PAR 5525

c. AMMUNITION EXPENDITURE. The unit of issue of ammunition is not to be confused with the daily expenditure amount of ammunition. The latter does not arrive at any constant figure, but varies with the type of action, the area of fighting, and the other factors mentioned in paragraph 1. By analogy with the reserve amounts reserves, while less than one full unit of issue of other expendable supplies, however, it is possible that three units of fire are judged by the Germans to be sufficient to maintain an army for a period of roughly eight to ten days.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The numbers presented are "units of issue". However, a VG division carried twice as many units of issue allocated for the HMG than was allocated to the LMG's and 84 times as much as allocated to the bolt action rifles.

The problem is that such oversights have important tactical consequences.

Are these consquences really out of step with the tactical problems the ALlied troops faced IRL ?

Allied MGs not only fire slower (as they should), they run out sooner - firing 500 rpm cyclic rate MGs - than the Germans do, firing 1200 rpm cyclic rate MGs. Which is simply silly.

What you seem to disregard compeletely is the fact that the Allied MG's could fire longer bursts more frequently than the Germans. The cyclic rates do not translate directly into practical ROF's. The ratios between the MG42 and the Allied MG's when it comes to practical ROF in terms of rounds fire per minute are not that great to make the MG42 modelling in CM that unrealistic.

The British concluded that the only real advantage of the MG42 over the Bren was in its belt feed and NOT in the rate of fire.

[ 08-28-2001: Message edited by: tero ]

[Vanir Ausf B]

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

Does this make the MG1917 underpowerd? Perhaps; but if the MG1917 accurately reflects SOP, then perhaps we should call it overpriced.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Regardless of whether it is modeled correctly or not, I don't think its overpriced.

I did a little math to compare price and total firepower.

MG42 HMG

<UL TYPE=SQUARE>77 FP x 95 ammo= 7315 total

7315/28 pts (purchase price)= 261.25 FP per point spent.

1917 HMG<UL TYPE=SQUARE>48 x 125= 6000

6000/22 pts= 273 FP/pt

Vickers<UL TYPE=SQUARE>48 x 130= 6240

6240/22= 284 FP/pt

Of course, the MG42 does have some limited anti-armor capability that may explain its lesser FP/pt figure. But overall, I think they are priced about right.

[ 08-28-2001: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]

[Vanir Ausf B]

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

The M1917A4 MMG weight WITH the tripod is 41 lbs,<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Did you mean the M1919 MMG?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I would venture to point out that the M1917A4 was the least stable of them,<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Where do you get that from?

[ 08-28-2001: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]

[Tero]

Originally posted by Vanir Ausf B:

Did you mean the M1919 MMG?

Uuuuups. A typo type error.

Where do you get that from?

Pure physics.

The tripod is the lightest of the bunch. The MV pretty much equal in all models and the ROF of the MG42 is compensated by the fact that it can not fire as long bursts as the rest. The tripod of the MG42 is heavier. The Vickers is the most stable of the lot hands down.

If all fire a 20 round burst I would venture a guess the M1919 would be the one which would be affected by the recoil the most. The MG42 burst would be the shortest but as its tripod is heavier and of different construction it should be able to handle the recoil bettern than the M1919 tripod.

[ 08-28-2001: Message edited by: tero ]

[Vanir Ausf B]

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

Pure physics.

The tripod is the lightest of the bunch.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, but the 1917 tripod was heavier than the MG42s (24 kg vs. 20.5 kg), so I guess it was the most stable of the bunch (along with the Vickers)

[Andreas]

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

Yes, but the 1917 tripod was heavier than the MG42s (24 kg vs. 20.5 kg), so I guess it was the most stable of the bunch (along with the Vickers) <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

err, according to the data he posted, the whole 1917 with tripod weighed 24kg. The lafette for the HMG42 alon weighed in at 20.5kg, and then you have to add the weight of the MG, 10.6kg. Total of 31.1kg, vs. 24kg. At least that's how I understand it.

[JasonC]

Many issued raised by different folks; I have thought about each of them and will try to address them all. If I miss one remind me - LOL.

First, one fellow was discussing the relative stability of the guns. A reasonable point lies behind that thought, that HMG fp might be higher than MMG fp for reasons besides greater ammo expenditure. Which is fine. But we can tell what that ratio is, by looking at the Allied HMG (30 cal) vs. the US MMG. The ratio of fp is 1.2 times for the heavier version, with its stabler tripod etc. There is no reason to expect a larger differential than that between the HMG-42 and the MMG. And I already allowed for such a factor.

Stability - compare HMG1917 with MMG1919 - result +20% only

ROF - compare HMG-42 with HMG1917 - result +60% only.

Together those give the 1.9x factor for HMG-42 fp vs. MMG fp. All fine.

But it means the HMG-42 fp rating fully reflects firing 60% more bullets per CM shot, or in other words that an German HMG ammo point is 40 rounds, while an MMG ammo point is 25.

Next, one fellow tried to find something like enough rounds in the team load-out. In doing so, he had the tripod carrier lift 500 rounds. Problem - 500 rounds of ammo boxed weighs 37 lbs. And the tripod for the HMG version of the MG-42 weighs 45 lbs. I don't think he is humping 83 pounds, plus his rifle, entrenching tool, canteen, yada yada.

The tripod is in fact the bulkiest and most awkward load in the team, much worse than the gun itself. The man carrying it might get away with a bandolier or two, if he is in good shape, but that is going to be that. If you've done US army time, the HMG-42 tripod is more like carrying a 50 cal tripod than like one for an M-60.

Suggesting the man carrying it will also heft 37 lbs of ammo would be like an 81mm mortar team member assigned to carry the baseplate also having 5-6 mortar rounds. In reality, the men will switch who has to carry that particular item to avoid one of them gettin exhausted, or it will fall to the strongest man in the team.

You also have to remember to include the spare barrels and tool bag. The great surge firepower of the HMG-42 depends on being able to use its high ROF when it is needed, and being air-cooled only, that in turn depends on the possibility of rapid barrel changes if the gun overheats. Spare barrels for the gun weigh 4.5 lbs apiece, and it was common to carry three or more of them. The gun also needs some small items of servicing gear, not particularly heavy (like an asbestos glove for barrel changes, timing gauges, wrenches, cleaning rods, etc). Together in a kit these items can easily reach the weight of a full ammo box, and would occupy one half of a team member's load.

The man with the actual gun could carry bandoliered ammo, because the actual weight of the thing is not excessive - about 25 lbs (higher and lower figures by ~1 lb each way reflect keeping the bipod attachments or not). But it is a bulky item best carried with two hands (or if over the back, able to balance and switch). The gunner is not realistically going to carry boxed ammo.

That leaves three men to carry boxed ammo, plus one free hand for the tool and barrel man, and bandoliers potentially for all six men. 7x250 per box gives 1750. 100 per man in bandoliers raises than to 2350. If one ammo point were 25 rounds, that would give 94 ammo, and CM gives the team 95. We know CM gives 1 ammo point for 25 rounds of MG in some vehicle cases (e.g. US M3 halftrack carried 4000 rounds and gets 160 CM shots). Is this supposed to just be a coincidence? But at 40 rounds per CM shot - 1.6 times, like the fp rating - the same load should only give 60 shots.

I was more generous, and up the shots to 75, counting each as 40 bullets. That means 3000 rounds, which weigh 220 lbs. The guns and tripod weigh 70 lbs. The barrels and tools weigh 15 lbs more at least. The total load is 51 lbs per man, for just the MG equipment. They also have 5 personal weapons, a few grenades, 6 entrenching tools, etc. For comparison, a typical rifleman's personal load is only about 15 lbs for his weapon and ammo; a submachinegunner's might run 20 lbs.

But let's look at another cross check on the weight of a slow team again. An 81mm mortar weighs 136 lbs, coming in 3 parts about 45 lbs apiece (same weight at the tripod of the HMG-42). The standard rounds weigh 7 lbs. The load CM gives 6 man teams with slow speed is 27 rounds, meaning 189 lbs of ammo. Plus the weapon, gives 325 lbs, or 54 lbs per man.

That is a kind of upper bound on the believable weight for a team, therefore. And subtracting the weight of gun, tripod, and barrels that weight limit gives 3250 rounds for the team, or 81 shots at 40 bullets per, assuming they found convenient ways to carry it, loaded down the team leader, etc. If someone wants to argue that each team member could carry 70 lbs just for the main team weapon, then they have to explain why 81mm mortar teams don't have 40 rounds each as the default load.

Then there was the question whether the US MMG ammo really was lighter than that for the MG-42. The 1919A4 used the same round as the M-1 rifles and the BARs; inter-operability of the ammo was a key part of the weapons standardization.

Some confusion is apparently caused here by standard post-war 30-06 ammunition that is basically the same weight as the German round. That is 180 grain 30-06, with a full cartridge weight of 27 grams - the same weight as loose German 7.92mm for the MG-42 (or K98). But the wartime US 30-06 round was not the 180 grain, but the 150 grain or "cut down" version of the cartridge. Which weighed 22.4 grams for the whole cartridge. You can buy both types today for hunting rifles; there is no great esoteric mystery in the thing. (Incidentally, the MP44 used a shorter round still, with a 125 grain bullet).

The consequence is that US 30 cal ammo weighs only 5/6ths as much per cartridge as the German MG and rifle rounds. Another minor weight issue is that the US MMGs used cloth belts rather than disintegrating metal links. A belt of 250 rounds US 30 cal weighed ~12.5 lbs out of the can; a 100-round bandolier weighed ~5 lbs. Then there is the gun weight - 41 lbs with the tripod, and no spare barrels, making it essentially half the weight of the HMG-42.

Now, taking the 25 round per shot figure as appropriate for the slower-firing MMG, the 65 CM shots it gets standard corresponds to 1625 rounds. Boxed that ought to weigh around 98 lbs (belted it would be lighter, but harder to carry). The total weight for the team is then 139 pounds, with 5 men to carry it. That is only 28 lbs per man. The 3 man team gets only 35 shots or 875 rounds, which would be 31 lbs per man boxed (~10% less only belted).

Meanwhile, what does a German LMG team of two carry? Gun and one spare barrel would be 30 lbs, 625 rounds would be 37 lbs loose and 46 boxed, with the real figure somewhere between those, or about 36 lbs. Notice, I do not have to correct upward for bullets per shot, because the fp is not boosted for high sustained ROF. So I use the same 25 round per shot figure as for other MGs.

One finds the German LMG team gets medium speed and carries 2/3rd the high end estimate for the HMG and mortar weights (36 vs. 54 lbs), while the US mediums are only about half that weight, with the default ammo loads. Also notice the 28 lbs figure for the 5-man US MMG team is below the weight carried by a 2-man schreck team - 25 lb weapon plus 5 7 lb rounds, averaged 30 lbs per man - and those rate "fast" though tiring movement.

How much ammo could the US teams carry at 36 lbs per man? 180 lbs for the 5-man team minus 41 for the gun leaves 139 lbs. Which would provide 2315 rounds boxed, or 93 shots; I said use 90-95. The 3-man team? 108 lbs minus 41 for the gun leaves 67 for ammo, or 48% as much as the previous, or 45 shots. I said use 40-45.

Then one fellow suggested the HMG team is ferrying, so the men are really only carrying perhaps 25 lbs or something but making two trips. Doesn't jibe for two reasons. One, if so then the 81mm mortars with the same speed rating should have higher ammo loads than they do. Two, it doesn't explain why the same sort of trick can't boost the ammo of anything else, slow 6-man crew served weapon or not.

Then there was the attempt to conflate ammo loads carried with the logistical idea of a "unit" of supply. This strikes me as quite off, and I will try to explain why. One, up front doesn't mean being humped. Two, a unit of supply was meant to last about 3 days in typical action and was so calibrated, and does not mean "to be humped by the men without vehicle help". Three, we know the actual carrying equipment issued and used in many cases, and it does not neatly divide with the logistical units.

For instance, a K98 rifleman carried 3 5-round clips to an ammo pouch, 3 connected sets of pouches then fit into a slot in the web gear, and the men then used 1 or 2 such slots for their rifle ammo, depending mostly on how much else they were carrying. Airborne issue had a different belt with 2x6x5 rounds, and occasionally both were used by the same men. Plus a clip in the gun naturally. Or, MP clips fit into pockets in a triple ammo pouch, two issued to each MP gunner. And usually the clips were not fully packed because it put pressure on the spring and could increase the chances of a misfeed, if th mag was fully topped off.

The point is merely that these tactical practical details obviously governed what was really carried, more than rear area concerns about how many trains, trucks, or wagons would be needed to supply a formation for 10 days. The latter question is what a "unit of supply" is about, not the former.

Also, units that know they are going into combat do not stint if they can at all help it. But what they can't "at all help" is the weight limits they face humping the stuff. Thus riflemen get called upon to carry more than their own weapon and its ammo, because it isn't heavy enough on its own. So they are filled out with grenades, wire cutters if attacking, bandoliers of extra ammo for the squad LMG, a panzerfaust, water, yada yada. Carrying ability is jealously scrounged before action.

In fact, one of the items that got me interested in this whole subject was something I discovered in a set of "lessons learned" reported by US infantry forces fighting in Italy. Where limited roads (in the tactically important areas that is) and steep hills made such issues even more important than they always are. The advice of the men going into action on the subject of support weapons was noticable.

In substance, it was to take fewer support weapons and those of the lighter kind, and then bring more ammo for each one. They said bring 2 60mm mortars not 3, and have the crew of the third carry extra ammo bags on continual resupply runs. They said forget about bringing the 81s, just have them fire from a comfortable location near a road.

They said leave the water-cooled and 50 cals with the vehicles. Instead, bring only air-cooled 1919 MMGs, and not too many of those. But bring all the ammo for them you can carry, because they and the BARs will do the ranged direct-fire fighting for you, and you will never begin to have remotely enough ammo for all the hosing you will need to do.

Better to hump 2-3 light MGs but enough ammo for them, than bring up a 50 cal, wasting all that carrying power, and then run out of ammo for it, because its rounds weigh so much more. Hump the ammo - enough guns to shoot all of it through will not be hard. Then bring plenty of grenades, because they are what you will use in close.

This struck me as a highly realistic picture of the realities of infantry combat. The trade off between number of tubes and ammo for them was clearly understood. Now, higher ROF is similar in its effects to more tubes to throw the ammo through. It does deliver more of it at once, and sometimes that helps. But it does carry any more of it for you. And the clear sense the men had in those "lessons learned" was that every pound spent carrying "shoot faster" was a pound that could have carried "shoot more", in the form of more ammo for the guns they already had.

Obviously they developed this sense because they were seeing battles decided by who ran out. And in hill fighting this has an obvious additional importance, because resupply is harder, takes longer, and is mostly done on men's backs. If a flanking hill runs low on ammo, the slopes it covers become vunerable. Thus control of terrain can wind up correlating with total ammo, which in turn becomes a competition in humping the stuff. The guys with the legs and the heart to lift more tons to the high ground will win - that was the insight. And it developed a keen eye for "wasted" weight.

I hope this is interesting.

[Tero]

Originally posted by Vanir Ausf B:

Yes, but the 1917 tripod was heavier than the MG42s (24 kg vs. 20.5 kg), so I guess it was the most stable of the bunch (along with the Vickers)

You are correct of course.

Jason's original argument was The MMG is lighter. Its ammo is lighter.

That is why I excluded from the original set as the US already had a contender in the game and the issue at hand is the MG42 specs, not the M1917. The only MMG that fits in is the M1919. I took the Vickers in for reference and to deflect any "ultimate nazi biggot" claims my esteemed opponents sometimes spout when they seem to run out of facts.

The Full List (or at least a bit more eshaustive anyway )of the contenders

HMG's

Vickers HMG

Gun, with water (approx): 18.14kg (40 lb)

Tripod mount: 23.13kg (51 lb)

Total 91 lbs

M1917A1

Tripod, 53.2lb Gun, 32.6 Ib

Total 85,8lbs

7.92 mm Maschinengewehr 42 (heavy)

Weight of Gun: 10.6 kg (23.4 lb)

Weight of Lafette 42: 20.5 kg (45.2 lb)

Total 68,6 lbs

MMG

M1919A4

Tripod, 14.3lb

Gun, 30.5 lbs

Total 44,8 lbs

LMG's

THE BREN LMG

Weight empty: 10.15kg (22.38lb)

Tripod Weight, 30 lbs.

Total: 52,38 lbs

7.92 mm Maschinengewehr 42 (light)

Weight with Bipod: 11.6 kg (25.6 lb)

M1919A6

Weight 32.5lbs with bipod

The MMG is lighter (by mere ~24 lbs) but the ammo is most definitely not lighter.

[ 08-28-2001: Message edited by: tero ]

[Tero]

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

err, according to the data he posted, the whole 1917 with tripod weighed 24kg. The lafette for the HMG42 alon weighed in at 20.5kg, and then you have to add the weight of the MG, 10.6kg. Total of 31.1kg, vs. 24kg. At least that's how I understand it.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I better edit the post to correct the typo. The data in the original post is for M1919, not M1917. Sorry about the mix up.

[ 08-28-2001: Message edited by: tero ]

[Tero]

Originally posted by JasonC:

But we can tell what that ratio is, by looking at the Allied HMG (30 cal) vs. the US MMG. The ratio of fp is 1.2 times for the heavier version, with its stabler tripod etc. There is no reason to expect a larger differential than that between the HMG-42 and the MMG. And I already allowed for such a factor.

What you did not allow for was the fact the HMG and the MMG are two different guns in two different platforms. The M1917 is water cooled while the M1919 is air cooled. Thus any conclusions drawn comparing them is as irrelevant and drawing conclusions between the Vickers and the Bren.

Perhaps if you compared the M1919A4 (MMG) and M1919A6 (LMG) you would get some sort of comparable data you could then compare with the data you get when making a similar comparison between the MG42 LMG and HMG configurations.

[ 08-28-2001: Message edited by: tero ]

[Pak40]

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

A full box of MG42 ammo weighs more than 18 lbs; carrying 4 of them at a time, farther than across a room or something, is unrealistic. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You're kidding, right? I'm a small guy. I'm about 5 foot 5 inches tall and not as strong as most men. I can carry a 110 pound girl 50 yards at a faster than walking pace. I have every reason to believe that a trained & conditioned Germain soldier can carry this weight for 100 yards.

I agree that in NON-battle (marching/traveling) conditions this would be very hard on a man but then the ammo would be spread across other members of the unit wouldn't it?

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

Also, particular loads can be dialed in up to 50% above the default figures. Anyone care to explain how the team is supposed to move 6000 rounds? That is ~90 lbs per man, not counting their other equipment besides the gun itself and its ammo. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I did explain this. But you seemed to think the idea of multiple trips as silly. I suppose you're correct. It's impossible for a MG crew to carry most of their equipment in the first trip and then send one of the men to get the rest of the ammo

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

And the practical combat load limit of about 70 lbs per man for -all- equipment is well known. Attempts to get men to carry much above that result not only in slow, clusmy movements but in rapid physical exhaustion, even for picked men in peak condition.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ummm, the HMG WAS slow, clumsy and hard to move, hence the use of the lighter MG42.

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

As for AT guns, the movement of the gun itself is what is being shown and it is vastly slower than that of an HMG team. And in practice, they scarcely move at all during combat, except by being towed. The whole analogy is rather silly. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You fail to see the point of the analogy. My point proves that an entire team in CM can't move a gun and its ammo in one trip. If it's possible for members of an AT team to make a second trip to get ammo, then it's possible for members of a MG team to make a second trip to get ammo.

Since CM cannot model a single member of a team making a second trip to get the remaining ammo, it makes the overall unit speed a little slower than it would be in real life.

It is NOT a question of weight ratios, it's a question of who's going back to get the rest of the ammo.

[MoatnGator]

I love the amount of attention to detail you guys offer. It makes for great reading.

I am an old M60 gunner and had an assistant gunner and an ammo bearer. We would carry the m60,two m16s and roughly 1200 rounds of m60 ammo plus radios, rucks and whatever ungodly weight you could think of.

I liked it when my AG (asistant gunner) would go down due to weight carried and I would get to put his rucksack on top of mine and carry both just to make him feel like crap for falling out on me.

Point being, if you want to analyze great. Put don't forget to model everything down to my stove I carried for my coffee.

Instead, go with the idea that Ammo was carried throughout the platoon if need be and always brought forward by jeeps or such.