Backwards MG ammo - a simple question of weight ratios

[Username]

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.

Seems reasonable since battlefield resupply isnt modeled and the rest of the crew are not firing personal weapons.

[Pak40]

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.

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

Seems reasonable since battlefield resupply isnt modeled and the rest of the crew are not firing personal weapons.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thank you for bringing up the fact that the rest of the crew isn't firing. This means that they are doing "other duties" which include belt feeding, spotting, AND ammo fetching. They would also be defending if the enemy was close, but this isn't modeled.

[jshandorf]

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

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

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ahhh, yes! But if we included your stove how would we compute the CP (Coffee Power) rating of it against the German KampfOfen? That is considering it can make coffee at a rate of 1200 cph (Cups per hour)! Whereas the american stove is only rated at 650 cph! Imagine how much MORE coffee the typical German soldier had to carry to sustain that much coffee output! This is unbelieveable! Even Jan Valdez and his little mule would be impressed!

Jeff

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

[Marlow]

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

Ahhh, yes! But if we included your stove how would we computer the CP (Coffee Power) rating of it against the German KampfOfen? That is considering it can make coffee at a rate of 1200 cph (Cups per hour)! Whereas the american stove is only rated at 650 cph! Imagine how much MORE coffee the typical German soldier had to carry to sustain that much coffee output! This is unbelieveable!

Jeff<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Your forget, Jeff, that the German soldiers didn't have real coffee by D-Day, and so he needed his higher CPH to compensate.

[Pak40]

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

Ahhh, yes! But if we included your stove how would we compute the CP (Coffee Power) rating of it against the German KampfOfen? That is considering it can make coffee at a rate of 1200 cph (Cups per hour)! Whereas the american stove is only rated at 650 cph! Imagine how much MORE coffee the typical German soldier had to carry to sustain that much coffee output! This is unbelieveable! Even Jan Valdez and his little mule would be impressed!

[ 08-28-2001: Message edited by: jshandorf ]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oh sure, the KampfOfen had a cyclic rate of 1200 cups per hour but the practical amount is more like 500 cups per hour, even with the quick change grills.

[ASL Veteran]

As much as it makes me want to hurl, Jason's estimate about how much the MG team would carry is about right according to Alex Buchner.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Before the beginning of a battle, the "gun leader" took the machine gun's sight and a case of ammunition from the cart, the Gunner 1 took the machine gun, Gunner 2 the folded mantelet, Gunners 3 and 4 carried two ammunition cases each, making a first supply of 1500 rounds.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think he guestimated around 1700 rounds in one of those posts that were too long to completely read through. Every HMG squad consisted of 2 heavy machine guns:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Plus a two horse field wagon with driver for machine gun mantelets, equipment, ammunition, and baggage. The heavy machine gun group consisted of a leader and two crews, each with one "gun leader", gunners 1 through 4.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

So although the 'first' ammunition that would be carried by the team would be 1500 rounds they could always send a guy back to visit the horsey and grab a few more rounds.

[Tero]

As much as it makes me want to hurl, Jason's estimate about how much the MG team would carry is about right according to Alex Buchner.

Before you do hurl check out your quote:

"gun leader" a case of ammunition

Gunner 1 took the machine gun,

Gunner 2 the folded mantelet,

Gunners 3 and 4 carried two ammunition cases each, making a first supply of 1500 rounds.

I count only 5 men in the HMG team. IIRC there are 6 men in the HMG team in CM. Which is the historically correct number, 5 by your source or 6 by CM modelling ?

Plus a two horse field wagon with driver

Hmmmmmmmmm........

The heavy machine gun group consisted of a leader and two crews, each with one "gun leader", gunners 1 through 4.

I make a German HMG section consisted of 2 guns + 12 men (section leader, horse cart driver, 2 gun leaders and 8 gunners). Divide that by two you get 6 men per gun.

Approximation based on an abstraction ? Should the MG42 HMG sold only in pairs (as would be the appropriate OOB) or separate ?

IIRC Steve went over this and explained it detail not long ago.

So although the 'first' ammunition that would be carried by the team would be 1500 rounds they could always send a guy back to visit the horsey and grab a few more rounds.

Such occurances were not uncommon for the Finnish Maxim HMG squads. Check out the Unknown Soldier by Väinö Linna (also available as a movie, two versions of which IMO the one made in the -50's is better). It tells the story of a HMG company. Not really relevant in case of the German SOP but it does give a picture of how things were done and how HMG's handeled in various situations.

[JasonC]

Fine, they have 64 gazillion dudes off bringing added belts by waterslide. Why don't the US MMGs have 64 gazillion dudes off bringing added belts by waterslide? The German 81mm mortar teams? US 60mm?

You can defend 95 shots for an HMG team fifty ways, no doubt, but the ratio of its ammo to the ammo of other teams represented in the game cannot be hand-waved away. It is a simple question of weight -ratios-.

The whole attempt is rather silly. Everybody and his brother knows the HMG-42 gives more cumulative firepower for the men than anything else. There is nothing special about their ability to carry it or resupply themselves, compared to everything else.

And the reason for the discrepancy ought also to be transparent by now. The abstract CM ammo system simply doesn't reduce infantry-type shots based on the ROF of the firing weapon, while it does boost fp ratings for it.

It is an oversight, a detail. But players exploit such details, and thus make them more important tactically than they are in the real scheme of things. There is no reason for scenario designers not to tweak the issue away, with more realistic average ammo loads.

Particular units can have widely varying ammo settings for dozens of reasons anyway, entirely up to scenario designers. The point is simply to explain what a more realistic default level probably is for high ROF weapons. Then any designer who wants can make use of that information.

[Fishu]

Came into my mind that I've seen many heavy MG42 (on tripods) equipped with ZF-4 scopes (ZF-42) which are also used with sniper rifles.

You could attach ZF-42 almost any german gun except SMG's.

Seen those on MG42, can be also attached to Kar98, Gw41, Gw43, MP44/StG44...

That would really make long range firing more accurate, mixed with 20 rounds per second rate of fire.

[JasonC]

You apparently haven't read the whole thread, and who can blame you? The optics point was already raised and addressed.

CM does not give the HMG-42 higher firepower at long range, it gives it higher firepower at all ranges.

Also, all HMGs have section leaders with binoculars who observe and correct the fall of shot. Other than close by, pointing the thing is hardly left to the gunner, who is generally nudging a slightly loosened screw for traverse and elevation, not firing "free form".

[Username]

The MG42 should not get a high rate of fire after awhile.

The weapons firepower hinges on its high rate of fire and quick change barrels. The weapon sytem might have 3 barrels, 1 on the gun and two in the holder.

The weapon would then display a surge capability. That is, when firing from a cold state, it could put out a tremendous amount of firepower. It would rapidly heatup the first barrel and then be swapped a new cold one, again the drill is repeated till the third barrel is hot.

The weapon would then be back to the first barrel. It would have decreased in temp but not back to an ambient condition.

If it kept firing at the initial rate, the barrels would have to be swapped more regurlay. This would decrease the rate of fire. Eventually the 3 barrels would reach a steady state and the gun would be limited.

It is beyond the scale of the gaem to model this exactly but maybe an abstraction can be made.

In real life, since the germans always thought they would be attacking, a drill could work around this. They could support an attack, get hot, pack up, move to another position, allowing cooling, and fire again. In fixed defensive positions, perhaps a bucket of water would be handy.

So the german system is really built on surge. The watercooled weapons are built on 'continuous' 'slow' machinegun fire.

Anyway, in the future, support weapons will be bought by formation.

Lewis

[ 08-29-2001: Message edited by: Username ]

[JasonC]

I also should address Vanir's unit price issue. He compared the HMG-42 only to the 1917 (or Vickers, same gun). He noted the cumulative fp per point is about the same for both. He did not mention that that means the HMG-42 gets its higher fp per shot, with all of its greater suppression effects, less time needed, etc, for free.

He also did not compare it to the historically most common US MG, the 1919. Which gets only 55% as much cumulative fp per point. A more practical view would look at it this way.

If a US player wants the fp per unit time of an HMG-42 team, he needs two MMG teams. Fine. But this leaves him with less cumulative fp (despite 10 men "ferrying" ammo and carrying lighter guns). If he wants the same cumulative fp potential, he needs three of them. 15 men to "ferry" what 6 do, because they are studly I suppose. And this will cost him twice the points.

Now, change the ammo to the levels I have suggested, 75 for the HMG and 90 for the US MMG. Buying two MMGs then gets the US player the following -

the same fp per unit time

~20% more cumulative fp

4 extra men to take losses

medium speed

But he pays for these advantages, paying 29% more to get them (36 vs. 28). If instead the German buys 2 HMGs and the US 3 MMGs, they spend essentially the same, 56 to 54 points. What do they each get?

German gets ~30% more fp per unit time

German gets ~5% more cumulative fp

US gets 3 extra men to take losses

US gets medium speed.

Basically, the German gets more fp per unit time, because of the higher ROF of the HMG-42. The US gets medium speed, because of the lighter weight of the M-1919A and a few more men doing the lifting.

No magical multiplying bullets, no ammo free lunches compared to every other team in the game because of imaginary "ferrying" that somehow only HMG-42 teammembers are graced with. Instead the difference is just this.- the German MGs fire faster, the US MGs move faster.

[ 08-29-2001: Message edited by: JasonC ]

[Pak40]

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

Fine, they have 64 gazillion dudes off bringing added belts by waterslide. Why don't the US MMGs have 64 gazillion dudes off bringing added belts by waterslide? The German 81mm mortar teams? US 60mm?

You can defend 95 shots for an HMG team fifty ways, no doubt, but the ratio of its ammo to the ammo of other teams represented in the game cannot be hand-waved away. It is a simple question of weight -ratios-.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Get over it. You're arguing about a lousy 10 pound difference. There is no magical weight limit where a grown man can't carry anymore. How much a man can or can't carry depends on that individual's strength and stamina.

The whole weight ratio thing is BS anyway. Did you ever stop and think that maybe the reason why U.S. MG teams don't carry as much ammo as German HMG teams is because of issue limits???? Each soldier is issued a certain amount of personal ammo. Each MG team is issued a certain amount of ammo for their gun also. The issue limits are given not because a soldier can't carry anymore than that, it's given because of supply regulations. If they didn't have issue limits then you can bet your life that these soldiers would be carrying more ammo.

Paratroopers were issued lots more ammo than a regular infantryman before they jumped. If I'm not mistaken this was often more than 100 pounds of equipment. True, they could hardly get into their airplane but it doesn't change the fact they carried all of this equipment all over Normandy and Holland. This proves that soldiers can operate with more than 60 pounds of equipment on long marches. That's a lot more than the "across a room" distance that you said was unrealistic.

[JasonC]

tero said "What you did not allow for was the fact the HMG and the MMG are two different guns in two different platforms."

On the contrary, I explicitly covered the greater stability of the HMG-1917. And I ascribed the 20% higher fp the HMG gets to that factor. The cyclic rates of fire of the 1917 HMG and the 1919 MMG are of course the same.

"The M1917 is water cooled while the M1919 is air cooled"

Of course, and the HMG-42 is air cooled as well, but with changable barrels. Now, how much of the CM-granted +20% fp that the 17 gets over the 19 (A4) do you wish to ascribe to being water cooled (and thus presumably depressing the trigger longer or something), and how much to the greater stability of the 17 firing platform, with its much heavier tripod?

Pick anything you like, as long as you stay within the CM-given numbers for the total difference between the guns. It will only make the same issue worse.

I ascribe all the added fp of the 17 to greater stability, a non rate of fire factor it can be presumed to share with the HMG-42, since the latter also has a heavy tripod. But if you think some or all of the 17's 20% higher firepower, compared to the 19, is due to higher ROF - then that portion of the fp difference is not due to stability. Therefore the ROF difference between the 19 and the HMG-42 is even higher, up to 1.9 times instead of 1.6 times higher. Meaning each shot of the HMG-42 would represent even more bullets.

19 to 17 and 17 to 42 compound to 19 to 42. That is hard wired into the CM fp numbers. The higher fp of the 42 can have only two causes - shooting faster or shooting straighter. It is not going to shoot straighter (at all ranges) by more than the 1917 shoots straighter. ROF has to make up the difference.

So the bounds on the ROF of the 42, built in to the CM fp numbers, is 1.6 times to 1.9 times. I took the low end of that bound. If you prefer the middle, then you'd have to reduce the CM shots from the HMG-42 by a further ~10%. If you ascribe all the fp difference of the HMG-1917 to faster firing made possible by water cooling, then you'd have to reduce the HMG-42 ammo 20% from the levels I recommend. All, to get it in line with the M-1919.

Oh, if you ascribe the whole extra fp of the 17 over the 19 to ROF, then sure you can recommend a reduction to 5/6ths for the M1917 ammo load. I for one will not care very much. But I do think the +20% there is better ascribed to the greater stability of the HMGs. I don't grudge the HMG-42 all "straighter" over the 1919A4. I would grudge it more "straightness bonus" than the 1917.

It is a much tighter set of reasoning that many here seem to flatter themselves. To put together the existing fp numbers, weights of items, loads carried by other teams, etc, will really only fit one way. Because every set of ratios of this number to that, this team's weight to that, checks the others around. Just making things up for one case doesn't work; it gets all the other ducks out of line.

The CM default ammo levels fit all those things perfectly (so far, they are "coherent", unlike many of the one-issue stabs offered in this thread) - but only with each MG ammo point representing a constant number of bullets. About 25 of them. But they do not have room to vary by the ROF of the weapon. And the fp numbers do vary by it, so the ammo system obviously should use a varying number of bullets to represent one CM "shot".

In other words, there is a well ordered, connected set of facts here, a whole row of ducks. And only one of them is out of place - the link between ammo totals and rate of fire. Moving around one duck at a time, unrelated to this point, to try to get them to fit again while denying this patent fact, just won't work.

"They can carry more per man" gets out of line the duck "how much the other teams can carry". "It can shoot straighter" gets out of line the duck "how well the 1917 shoots". "It is optics" gets out of line the duck "rock steady ratio of fps at all ranges". "They are ferrying" gets out of line the duck "no one else is ferrying". "The 1917 is better because it is water cooled thus fires more" gets out of line the duck "the 1917 only gets +20% fp from ROF and stability combined". "At least the cost of cumulative fp is right" gets out of line the duck "higher fp per shot should not be free". "I can carry 76 lbs" gets out of line the duck "no other infantry team carries 76 lbs per member". "You'd have to include the stove" gets out of line the duck "all other mobile teams have weight limits on their ammo". "It is like a field gun" gets out of line the duck "everything the men can't lift gets 'limited' speed and thus needs a vehicle, never 'slow' and thus able to move on its own".

Why the intense need to distort any of a dozen side issues, instead of examining the patent fact itself? Higher ROF is modeled as a "twofer" in CM, because it is accurately reflected in ROF, but not accurately reflected in the abstract infantry-type "shots" system of ammo.

For guns they use individual shells and no such issue arises. For the infantry type, they used an abstract system for the sake of similicity, which was fine as a design decision. But players tax that system by making the most of high ROF infantry twofers on offer.

Tweaking the system back into line is simple and can be done without any coding changes whatever, by any designer who wants to.

The opposition to doing so shown here is rather silly. Everybody knows it is a loophole, and the arguments otherwise are so obviously "reaching" the proposers of them do not even bother trying to line up -all- the ducks. They just offer anything that comes to mind that they think might impede the plausibility of such tweaks, without thinking it through in detail themselves.

I challenge anybody who has proposed one of the "ferrying" or "I can lift a horse" type arguments, to apply them to the US MMG team and tell me exactly how many CM shots he thinks it ought to have, based on his own arguments. Don't duck it and change the subject to some other bit of spin; face the problem.

[JasonC]

No, it is not issue limits. US MG team members carried into combat as much ammo as they could carry; they were not starved for 30 cal bullets by hidebound supply sergeants like the Brits at Islandwana. It was the same ammo used for the BARs and the M-1s, so in fact everybody did.

Paratroopers board planes with 100 lbs on them because that includes their chutes. They sort of drop those when they hit the ground (along with other stuff if they can help it). That is more to keep equipment near them during the drop itself than for anything else.

Men who carry 100 lbs across country in combat (as a few picked commando units tried in the Falklands e.g.) simply exhaust themselves. The 70 lb practical limit for all equipment is well known to military personnel, myself included. And in fact, men tend to avoid carrying even that much into combat, if they can help it, because it is very cumbersome, and excessive encumbrance kills people in combat.

Moreover, I did not invent the weight limits, they are already there in CM in the ammo loads of other teams, notably the 81mm mortar teams. If you think everyone can carry 100 lbs in their weapons alone, then you ought to lobby for doubling mortar ammo supplies. Not to mention boosting MMG ammo levels even higher than I have suggested. But BTS certainly does not agree that sort of weight per man is realistic, and you are just going to have to deal with that.

People are grasping at straws here, really. Face the problem. Address the previous post, and tell me exactly how many CM shots a US MMG team deserves according to your own logic about carry limits, ferrying, etc. Line up all the ducks at once, not one of them. You won't find a hundred possible coherent solutions, I assure you.

[Marlow]

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

Paratroopers board planes with 100 lbs on them because that includes their chutes. They sort of drop those when they hit the ground (along with other stuff if they can help it). That is more to keep equipment near them during the drop itself than for anything else.

Men who carry 100 lbs across country in combat (as a few picked commando units tried in the Falklands e.g.) simply exhaust themselves. The 70 lb practical limit for all equipment is well known to military personnel, myself included. And in fact, men tend to avoid carrying even that much into combat, if they can help it, because it is very cumbersome, and excessive encumbrance kills people in combat.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

While I happen to agree with your basic premise that an MG 42 should go through ammo faster than other MGs because of its rate of fire, I have to disagree with your 70 lb weight limit. It depends on what you mean by "in combat." If you are refering to actions under enemy fire I agree that extra weight (i.e. rucksack) is dumped. But, poor Joe rifleman commonly carries a lot more than that.

OK, This is modern, and not WWII, and I'm going by memory so the actual numbers may be off a little, but I'm willing to bet it is in the ballpark.

Weapon (M 16) and basic ammo load

(7 mags. or so. This would be light in some cases) - 15 lbs

A gallon and a half of water - 10 lbs

NODs - 3 lbs

LAW (this was the old M-72, newer stuff is heavier) - 5 LBS

M 18 Claymore - 5 lbs

Grenades (frag and smoke (6)) - 7 lbs

Personal gear (personal hygene stuff,

spare socks, poncho, poncho liner, etc… - 10 lbs

MOPP gear - 10 lbs

Uniform/boots/LCE/ruck - 10 lbs

Food (5 MREs) - 5 lbs

This is probably fairly standard, and comes to about 80 lbs.

To this we add a squad member's portion of the common equipment. This could be represented by any number of things, for example: C4, radio, extra radio batteries, binoculars, field phone, roll of T1 for the field phone, MG ammo, MG tripod, barrel bag, etc ... Lets say 10 pounds to be easy on our poor rifleman, as it can easily go much higher.

This comes to about 90 lbs, and this does not include other goodies that may be necessary for a grenadier or a SAW gunner (of course they would probably not have some of the other stuff that the rifleman has to shlep about, such as the LAW and claymore).

Needless to say, when the bullets start flying, a lot of this stuff gets dropped, but it is carried by the soldier in combat conditions.

Now for the poor paratrooper. Take this load and add 60 freaking pounds for the chute and reserve IIRC. Sure you lose the chute after the jump, but we are talking about walking around with better than 150 lbs as you cross the tarmac to the plane (not always a short trip).

70 pounds as a limit seems a little low.

[JasonC]

I don't disagree with the inventory - although full MOPP gear is not always carried, depending on the threat, and of course wasn't around in WW II - but I do disagree with the weights you put on several of them. I don't disagree with the basic point that infantrymen are mules going onto a battlefield. But 70 lbs is still the working figure, as I think I can show you.

The ammo load is high by up to 3 pounds for the M-16; that was in fact the main point of it (12 rather than 15). Two canteens weigh only 2 lbs apiece full. A claymore weighs more like 2 lbs, not 5 (WW II they didn't have them, but the M-1 was heavier). 4 grenades is more common than 6. Not everyone has a LAW. Above all, all the cloth items (clothes, personal, ruck, mopp, etc) do not weigh anything like 30 lbs, which is what you have for them. 15-20 is more like it - and the excess there is also the first thing dropped when shooting starts (mopp excepted if in a threat zone for that, these days).

With those alterations to the figures I think you will find your standard inventory comes to only 45-55 lbs. Which leaves 15-25 lbs for the unit items like radios, extra MG ammo, mortar rounds, grenade launcher rounds, LAWs, etc. Which the ordinary riflemen always attracts, precisely because his load -does- typically have this room under the 70 lb "barrier".

Whereas a man carrying 30-35 lbs of heavy weapons equipment instead of a rifle and a few grenades, hits that limit without any room to spare, and without any additional extras. That includes LMG and MMG gunners, the ammo carried by their ammo bearers, 60mm mortar men, their ammo men, etc.

And the men detailed to carry a 45 lb 81mm mortar baseplate or heavy machinegun tripod will go over the limit if they do not skimp on other items, or get someone else to carry part of their load. My experience was that those heaviest items are traded off in sequence to spread the fatigue around - typically starting with the greenest guy who gets to bust his nads first.

A few people may go over the 70 lb limit, especially for limited periods. But they will become exhausted doing it, and no full unit can afford to try. When we are talking about combat loads for the weapons and ammo alone north of 50 lbs per man, we are talking extreme encumbrence already, because of this.

The guy who said he could carry his girlfriend 100 yards doesn't grok the half of it; he wasn't lifting her along with full kit, and combat humps are a lot longer than a 100 yard stroll.

Yes, vehicles to the field sometimes help, but people forget how few vehicles of any kind the Germany infantry had in 1944. The real answer to those carrying heavy weapons equipment is they drop their other gear - the stuff they can that is. (But not the helmet, entrenching tool, clothes and boots, web gear, first aid kit, water...)

[Marlow]

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

The ammo load is high by up to 3 pounds for the M-16; that was in fact the main point of it (12 rather than 15). <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

8 pounds for the rifle, a pound for each magazine, add cleaning kit. I may be high, but I'm not so sure.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Two canteens weigh only 2 lbs apiece full. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The last time I carried only two one quart canteens will be the first. Water is critical, and there is usually a two quart or two in the ruck.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> A claymore weighs more like 2 lbs, not 5 <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Just looked it up. 3 and a half without kit bag. 5 pounds seems right on.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> 4 grenades is more common than 6. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Four frags and some smoke seems the norm to me

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Not everyone has a LAW. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You are correct. The squad's grenadiers and SAW gunners don't, but most of the rifleman (what I am talking about) do. Sometimes more than one.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Above all, all the cloth items (clothes, personal, ruck, mopp, etc) do not weigh anything like 30 lbs, which is what you have for them. 15-20 is more like it - and the excess there is also the first thing dropped when shooting starts (mopp excepted if in a threat zone for that, these days). <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You are correct about dropping stuff, and I may be a little high on my estimates, but I also left some stuff out. Helmet, e-tool, any extra ammo or personal weapons that grunts like to have around, latest copy of playboy, etc…

So, I still think the total load is higher than you think.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> My experience was that those heaviest items are traded off in sequence to spread the fatigue around - typically starting with the greenest guy who gets to bust his nads first. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Except when he hurts himself, and the rest of the squad has to pick up the extras as well as his crap (been there, done that).

As far as some of this stuff not being around in WWII, true, but a lot of the stuff that was, was heavier (radio, rifle, rations, etc...)

[ 08-29-2001: Message edited by: Marlow ]

[Pak40]

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

No, it is not issue limits. US MG team members carried into combat as much ammo as they could carry; they were not starved for 30 cal bullets by hidebound supply sergeants like the Brits at Islandwana. It was the same ammo used for the BARs and the M-1s, so in fact everybody did.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Everything a G.I. carried, down the number of condoms, was issued in limits to a soldier. Contrary to what you believe, the allies did not always have hoards extra of ammo available. If they gave each soldier as much .30 cal ammo as they wanted, the U.S. Army would have run into serious supply problems.

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

Paratroopers board planes with 100 lbs on them because that includes their chutes. They sort of drop those when they hit the ground (along with other stuff if they can help it). That is more to keep equipment near them during the drop itself than for anything else..<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, the chute is left behind but after they take the chute off, here's an incomplete list of what each man still had to carry:

Gun and extra ammo (more rounds than typical)

Pistol and ammo

Paratrooper knife

extra 60mm mortar rounds

2 AT mines

Dynamite( 2 sticks I think)

Personal hygene kit

rations for 3 days

gas mask (usually abandoned)

somtimes extra MG ammo

hand grenades of several sorts

extra socks

flashlight

I'm missing some things. I'll crack open one of Burgett's books tonight when I get home and list it in full.

The point is that they carried A LOT of equipment and hiked all over with this stuff and still fought.

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

The 70 lb practical limit for all equipment is well known to military personnel, myself included. And in fact, men tend to avoid carrying even that much into combat, if they can help it, because it is very cumbersome, and excessive encumbrance kills people in combat...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

First of all, the 70 pound limit which you refer to is a limit of what each man is responsable for BETWEEN firefights, not in actual combat. Things like shovels and packs can be dropped when firefights break out. They go back and pick them up afterwards, if possible.

Second, overweighted paratroopers got tired because they marched with this equipment for hours or days. In Combat Mission WE ARE TALKING ABOUT SHORT TERM COMBAT, 30-60 MINUTES OF FIRFIGHTS. Any conditioned soldier can pick up 100 pounds of equipment and carry it 50 or 100 meters at a time, Which is what typically happens with HMGs in Combat Mission when they move.

If you don't believe this then find a girl you know who weighs 100 pounds, pick her up and walk 50 or 100 yards with her. If you can't do this then you're smaller and weaker than I am and shouldn't be servering in the military.

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

Moreover, I did not invent the weight limits, they are already there in CM in the ammo loads of other teams, notably the 81mm mortar teams. If you think everyone can carry 100 lbs in their weapons alone, then you ought to lobby for doubling mortar ammo supplies. Not to mention boosting MMG ammo levels even higher than I have suggested.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I never said that soldiers should be carrying 100 pounds of equipment or more. I'm only stating that it's possible to carry that weight for short periods of time, certainly 80 pounds.

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

But BTS certainly does not agree that sort of weight per man is realistic, and you are just going to have to deal with that.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Am I halucinating or something? Are you actually saying that I have a problem with the weight modeling in CM? You're the one that has a problem with the weight. That's why you started this thread

Jason, I have consistantly proven to you that is possible for a man to carry a load greater than the 50 lbs that you stated earlier in this thread. I and others have told you about the possibilities of team members fetching ammo in multiple trips. Your stubborness to accecpt the possibilities of why CM models the German HMG with 95+ ammo leaves me to believe that you're just looking for some minute CM detail to argue about rather than discuss.

[JasonC]

Direct quote from a US infantry vet -

"I was armed with an M-1 Garand semi-automatic rifle, full cartridge belt, two extra bandoliers of 30 calibre ammunition slung over my shoulders and across my chest, a bayonet and two hand grenades clipped loosely to metal rings on my pack straps. In addition, I carried the ammunition box for the Browning automatic rifle."

Think he signed a bleeding form for the bandoliers? Incidentally, a typical US division expended upwards of 50,000 rounds of 30 cal per day. Perhaps a quartermaster would like to count the brass.

"Our clothing consisted of lined pants, wool shirts, field jackets (overcoats were too clumsy as they were awkward while running), gloves and wool socks. Our boots were called arctic packs. These were all rubber feet and leather tops including felt linings...Our pack, rifle, ammunition, helmet etc. weighed about 60 pounds. This is what we lugged with us. A good thing we had a tough training schedule back at Camp Fannin."

About 60 lbs. What a surprise. Plenty of ammo, but won't go over 70 lbs for love or money.

One fellow also expressed disbelief about the weight of the US round compared to the German 7.92mm. A capsule history of the 30-06 M2 ball, 152 grain bullet can be found here -

http://www.mcrgo.org/reference_lib_30_06_hist.htm

The most relevant passage is this -

"The new round had lower recoil than the M1 (174 grain), and more rounds could be carried for a given weight of ammunition, so in 1940, the new round (with a bullet weight of 152 grains owing to a slightly different lead alloy) was standardized as the Cartridge, Ball, Caliber .30, M2. The M2 cartridge boasted a muzzle velocity of 2,805 feet per second."

That compared to 2647 fps for the previous 174 grain M1 30-06 round. Although the new round was lighter, its added velocity gave it nearly the same muzzle energy - 2656 foot pounds vs. 2675 for the heavier M1. For the M2 that is 3600 J, or 97% of the muzzle energy of the German MG round, incidentally (more than twice the energy of an MP44 round, which was 125 grains and developed 1500 J of muzzle energy).

A slightly larger AP version of 168 grains was also developed, with nearly the same muzzle velocity as the M2 ball and a slightly higher. It was especially meant for use against planes (from planes, etc).

These bullet weights compare with the 180 grain weight standardized later as the NATO 7.62x51 or ".308". The standard M2 round is basically 5/6th the size.

For what it is worth.

[JasonC]

Pak40, I consider that after the numerous and detailed answers I have given to every one of your arguments, you know owe me at least one answer to one specific argument I asked you to address. Given your beliefs about practical ammo weights, how many CM shots should a US 5 man MMG team get and why? How many rounds should a 60mm mortar team get and why? (To help on that one, the mortar weighs 42 pounds all told, in three pieces, HE rounds weigh 3 lbs and WP smoke 4 lbs each).

Line up all the ducks, Pak40, not one. If everybody can carry 60 gazillion dowits, then where are they for every team except the HMG-42? And do you insist on upping the ammo for everything else, based on the weight allegations you've advanced? Please address these specific questions, instead of yet another spin. If you won't or can't, I will take it as evidence you know your claims about carrying the world make nonsense of all the other default ammo loads.

[Marlow]

OK, here is a little more. I did a little more digging, and found accurate weights. One source is FM 21-18, Foot Marchs. This is what I used for most of the weights, supplemented by a few other FMs and TCs where necessary. Looks like I was light on my first estimate.

On the soldier (fighting load)

Helmet = 3.4 lbs

LCE (Pistol belt, suspenders, first aid pounch) = 1.6 lbs

Canteen, 1 quart, and cover with water (2 each) = 5.6 lbs

Ammo case (2 each) = 1.8 lbs

Bayonet, with scabbard = 1.8 pounds

Protective mask w/decontamination kit = 3.0 lbs

Rifle, M16A2 w. 30 rds 5.56mm in magazine = 8.8 lbs

Magazines (6) with 180 rounds 5.56mm = 6.6 pounds (note the total for rifle and ammo is 15.4 lbs)

Grenade, Fragmentation (4) = 4.0 lbs

Grenade, Smoke (2) = 2.8 lbs

BDUs 6.0 pounds

Boots 4.2 pounds

Fighting load = 49.6 lbs. This is what he has AFTER he drops his ruck.

In the ruck (march load)

Ruck (Alice, medium with frame)= 6.3 lbs (large is more common, and would weigh more)

Rations, MRE (3 each) = 3.9 lbs (note I reduced this from 5)

Canteen, 2-quart and cover with water (two each) = 9.4 pounds (take away one if you want to, but I would give up a lot of stuff before I gave up my water).

Personal hygiene = 2.0 lbs

Towel = 0.2 lbs

Bag, waterproof = 0.8 lbs

E-tool with carrier: 2.5 lbs

Poncho, nylon = 1.3 lbs

Liner, poncho = 1.6 lbs

NODs = 2 to 4 lbs (without case. The case is often carried because these things are relatively fragile. Add 2 lbs.)

Ok, so basic march load, without extra goodies is 32 lbs. (I used 4 for the NODs) So far we are at 81.6 lbs, and no squad equipment yet. (notice I removed the MOPP gear except the mask. Feel free to add another 7 lbs or more)

Now lets add the goodies that a rifleman is expected to carry.

LAW (M 72, the AT 4 is 14 lbs!) = 5.2 lbs

M 18 Claymore is indeed = 5 lbs

Trip flares = 1 lb

That is 11.2 for a total of 92.8 lbs

OK, now which of the following do you want to carry?

PCR 77 (radio) w/battery = 22 lbs

Spare battery = 5 lbs (this is from memory, and my be off)

100 rnds M 60 ammo = 7 lbs

Field phone = 1.5 to 4 lbs

M 60 spare barrel and bag = 8 lbs

Tripod for M 60 = 20 lbs ?

A roll of WD 1 = 10 lbs ?

C-4

Binoculars = 3 lbs ?

Mortar round = 3.5 for 60mm more for 81 mm

Etc…

It is easy to see that at least some of soldiers are going to get another 10 to 20 lbs.

So the total for the poor grunt is in excess of 100 lbs. This is consistent with reports and articles I have read. There are reports from infantry officers in Desert Storm where entire infantry companies had loads that averaged over 100 lbs. In Panama, the Rangers jumped with loads (excluding chute) up to 120 lbs.

Now I agree that these weights are well above what should be carried for good combat efficiency, but they are what they are.

[Vanir Ausf B]

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

I also should address Vanir's unit price issue. He compared the HMG-42 only to the 1917 (or Vickers, same gun). He noted the cumulative fp per point is about the same for both. He did not mention that that means the HMG-42 gets its higher fp per shot, with all of its greater suppression effects, less time needed, etc, for free.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

How do can you say the MG-42 gets its higher FP per shot for free when the FP per shot rating was half of the equation?

FP per shot x ammo units

Its in there.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>He also did not compare it to the historically most common US MG, the 1919. Which gets only 55% as much cumulative fp per point.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

2 reasons for this. One is that my post was in direct response to Triumvers statement that the 1917 is overpriced. He did not mention the 1919.

Secondly, when you compare with the 1919 you start getting some apples to oranges problems. Specifically, the 1919 can move faster than the MG-42 and has one less crewman (less durable). Without knowing how much weight BTS put on these variables when computing purchase price a direct cost/FP comparison is difficult.

Note that I don't think your larger issue is neccesarily wrong, just that your analysis of my numbers is off.

[ 08-29-2001: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]

[JonS]

The 70lb weight limit for man-packing has been around for a while. The Romans, IIRC, were the first to formalise it, and the practicality of that limit has been shown time and again in the 2 Millenia since.

Sure, any given person can carry more on any given day, but to carry that weight in the intervening periods between our CM battles is simply not practical.

And if they didn't carry it with them before the battle, then how on earth did it get there? JasonCs' magical waterslide perhaps?

Regards

JonS

[Andreas]

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

The 70lb weight limit for man-packing has been around for a while. The Romans, IIRC, were the first to formalise it, and the practicality of that limit has been shown time and again in the 2 Millenia since.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You recall correctly. Not sure about formalise (AFAIK few documents from Roman military admin are extant - I know only of the fragments found in Corbridge, near Hexham on Hadrian's Wall), but when the specialised archeologists doing that kind of stuff started rebuilding Roman armour, weapons, and packing weights on backs and all that, they ended up with somewhere around 70lbs.

I think I read that years and years ago in a book on the Imperial Roman Army, when I should have studied for a Japanese test - God, the kind of stuff you remember...