Backwards MG ammo - a simple question of weight ratios

[JasonC]

That is just great giggles, PAK40. The 3000 is probably the load of the HMG, and incidentally is exactly the figure my 75 shots is based on - and the 1200 is probably that for the squad level LMG.

But to see how silly the 3000 for the squad level one as "normal" is, consider a 10 man Pz Gdr squad with 2 LMGs. 6000 rounds boxed weigh 440 lbs, which is 44 lbs per man for the MG ammo alone. The MGs themselves and one spare barrel each will raise that to 50 lbs per man in the whole squad. The eight other personal weapons are in addition to this.

So now in Pak40's fantasy role playing world, every Panzergrenadier is carrying 70 lbs of weapons and ammo alone, plus his 20+ pounds of personal gear of course, and gets "fast" movement anyway. A US MMG crewmember carries less than half that weight, and gets medium speed.

Because the Germans, relying on automatic weapons, just issued more ammo to their troops. Who then magically levitated it with their Flash Gordon anti-gravity belts, thus maintaining twice the speed of movement of the hapless ground-bound Americans, who for some reason needed 5 men to carry a mere 1600 (lighter) rounds for the 1919A4 MMG. While each 5 Pz Gdrs carried twice that many, twice as fast, on top of all their other weapons and gear, in the standard infantry squads.

If you don't check the numbers and weights, Pak40, you will apparently believe anything tending to inflate ammo for one side. Never anything about the others, of course.

Here is the real reason the German HMG team has 95 ammo - my best guess. The CM designers knew the 1200 round figure for most MG-42s, and gave the HMG twice as much ammo in return for slow speed. It is meant to be 2400 rounds, each 25 counting as 1 shot, thus 96, rounded to the nearest "5". (It is also 6-7 boxes plus 100-150 rounds/man in bandoliers). Which gives around 43 lbs per man, plus personal weapons, etc, thus in the "slow" speed category.

But that number of rounds ought to be 60 ammo, since the fp per shot is 1.6 times that of the other types. Which as endlessly repeated is the real reason for the "two-fer" ammo and fp edge given to high ROF units in CM today, untweaked - not Flash Gordon anti-gravity belts.

75 shots for the HMG-42 team, as I recommend, is a more generous allowance than the designers probably intended - 3000 rounds rather than 2400. Which is 12 boxes of the stuff; more than the men could handily carry if actually boxed. Or in more practical, portable form, 7 boxes plus 200 rounds in bandoliers per man.

[Username]

jason loves to dig in his heels.

I recently had the pleasure of going up against his recent "All tank battalions experience is about the same" thread.

When he posted a history of a US tank bn, I posted a history of a german bn. Since the ammo usage seemed about the same, he started drawing all kinds of leaping conclusions about my data supporting his premise.

When I pointed out that the numbers of vehicles werent the same, he poo-poo'd it. When I showed the number of runners wasnt the same, he did it again.

How anyone can participate in two different threads so differently is amazing. Here he wants the number of guys, their mothers maiden names, weight per bullet per man per hour per ad nauseum while in another thread its all, well, its close so its the same.

He did, however read rexford the riot act in the HE effectiveness thread that rex wishes would just go away.

Very interesting.

Lewis

[Pak40]

Jason,

You really don't have a clue as to how the squad operated. The 6000 rounds were easily carried by cart/mule/horse but when the gun actually went into action they took as much ammo with them as they could carry. And, as I stated earlier in this thread, ammo was carried in multiple trips or brought to the gun by ammo bearers operating within the company. This is reality. But your 50 pound limit per person is fictional, a made up number used only as a guide for military personell. It has no actual bearing on how much a man can or can't carry nor does it have a basis in Combat Mission - Steve or Charles, AFAIK, have never said that the weight limit per soldier is X amount.

For third time, I'm not saying that the ammo amounts in CM should be raised. I think they're fine the way they are. 95 is perfect for the German HMG, a unit that rarely moves and is usually restocked with ammo during a firefight.

[Vanir Ausf B]

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

"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?"

Simple. Unit A gets 50 fp and 4 shots. Unit B gets 100 fp and 2 shots. Either has a cumulative fp of 200. Does this mean they are equally valuable to their owners in combat? It does not. It means -if- they both get off all of their shots then they will average the same total effect, but in the first case that effect will be spread over a longer time.

The 100x2 unit only needs to get off 2 shots, not 4. It may also shoot more exposed targets on average by picking its shots, if both have enough firing opportunities to use the higher ammo total.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

First of all, it goes without saying that a unit must shoot all of its ammo in order for it to fully pay for itself. This is true for every type of unit.

Secondly, your 100fp x 2 shots vs. 50fp x 4 shot example is correct in theory, but falls on its face in practice because all MGs in CM fire the same number of shots per turn (about 6.7, give or take a tenth). Bottom line: MG-42 HMGs do not get their higher FP per shot for free. Nice try though.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Here is the real reason the German HMG team has 95 ammo - my best guess. The CM designers knew the 1200 round figure for most MG-42s, and gave the HMG twice as much ammo in return for slow speed. It is meant to be 2400 rounds, each 25 counting as 1 shot, thus 96, rounded to the nearest "5".<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Jason, you need to read more carefully. On the first page of this discussion I posted a quote from BTS where they clearly state that MG-42 HMGs in CM are assumed to have 4000 rounds of ammo.

[ 08-30-2001: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]

[JasonC]

"Steve or Charles, AFAIK, have never said that the weight limit per soldier is X amount"

Of course they did. They said 55 lbs (25 kg), and somebody already quoted it, right in this thread. Which is the weight 81mm mortar crews carry, incidentally. You have been reading this thread, right?

Oh, and no other team that can move on its own (above "limited" speed) gets ammo limits the men can't lift themselves, so this ferrying notion is still just silly.

[Slapdragon]

I read up on this subject this morning, and took lunch off to formulate an answer.

First off -- errors in thinking and game design. The concept that there is some mythical level of mass that each man can carry is bound to create a false impression. If we decide that the average infantry load was 30 kilograms, we cannot discount the fact that some armies loaded heavier or lighter. In other words, no one started the war by passing out a book that said 52.5 kg was the maximum load for an infantryman in combat and every army filled the bottle up to the top for every battle.

Next is the assumption that mass equals speed. Maybe, but mass also means how hard it is to carry weapon, ammo, and the like -- its bulk. The MG-42 breaks into two nicely man portable parts and does it fairly quickly. Thus the weapon is easier to carry even with a lot of mass than a 1919A4, which was often moved on its tripod during combat rather than breaking it down. Mortar bombs were a pain in the ass to carry despite being fairly light, in the ages before grenade vests and 40mm GLs arrived. The Vickers and the M2HB would move very slowly because each needed two men for the gun and often two men carried the pod setup.

Next, cyclic rate of fire is the assumed standard by which FP is set against, but that is unlikely. It should be a major factor, but a higher ROF weapon would get a higher FP factor even though it would not need to use as many rounds of ammo to create the same level of suppression.

This does not shoot Jason C down, it just presents some extenuating circumstances to consider.

[Vanir Ausf B]

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

"Steve or Charles, AFAIK, have never said that the weight limit per soldier is X amount"

Of course they did. They said 55 lbs (25 kg), and somebody already quoted it, right in this thread.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The 55 lb figure is for ammo only. Here is the exact quote:

<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>

[JasonC]

Oh certainly, after the issue came up, they wanted to justify the 95 number, so they raised the amount they said it was meant for ~60%. But they also said the max weight the men can carry is 55 lbs, which is what the weapons load per man is for the 81mm mortar. And 4000 for the HMG comes to 63 lbs per man (not counting personal weapons), which is more than their own limit. The two things do not agree with each other.

BTS has chosen not to admit their abstracted ammo system involved a problem for high ROF units. Presumably because they prefer pretending everything is parfait when they know they aren't going to make any more coding changes, I suppose. That is there business. But then they've said they are planning on varying the shots per squad for CM2, instead of giving all types 40. Presumably this is not because all 40 was and is parfait.

But it is obvious to me what has really happened. They made a simple and workable abstract ammo system to address the parts of the game not covered on a shell by shell basis. It would generally be a minor enough matter with only moderate inaccuracies around the edges, so this design decision made sense. They didn't sweat how many bullets per shot each burst represented and the need for this to vary from one infantry firepower shooter to another, in line with the same rate of fire info used in their fp calculations. Essentially, they saw little gain and much micromanagement in the idea of tracking every round of 30 cal ammo.

And in the abstract, I quite agree with them. The thing is, when designers make such compromises what happens is hordes of players picking over the game to optimize and min-max it, spot the places where such approximations have been used. Then they push very hard on those particular points, seeking to maximize the "freebies" or "twofers" they get from the approximations used. Simplified ammo systems of tactical or grand tactical games are one notorious area where this is often done. CM is not alone in this respect.

An example from another genre is artillery ammo in the Battleground series. That was tracked as a pool of battery shots; each time a battery fired, the pool was reduced by 1, and when it reaches 0 no more guns can fire. Thing is, it was -1 ammo for any size battery of any type of guns. So people did things like only fire the largest batteries, or the heaviest gun types, or the ones at the closest ranges, or the highest quality shooters - about 3 times as much as they really could have. And made up for it by not shooting the smaller and worse ones at all (especially later on in a fight as the ammo gets low).

There was nothing much wrong with that system in general. But pushed hard enough by min-max-ers, it could bend enough to produce unrealistic tactical effects, big enough to become significant in game outcomes.

And that is what has happened here too, on a moderate scale. The min-maxers have noticed the two-fer gains from high ROF infantry type weapons. That they get high fp ratings and don't run out of ammo any faster, and in fact sometimes can shoot considerably longer as well as harder each time.

Examples of this are the HMG-42 team, being discussed here; 2 LMG-42 infantry squad types, and SMG heavy infantry squad types - both addressed previously and, of course, at enourmous length. It is notorious that these particular types give more infantry firepower for the buck, without costing more or running out any sooner. Everyone who has played even "A chance encounter" three times groks this. The endless arguments against doing anything about it are not really believed even by those making them.

And the cause of this phenomenon is simple and clear. The abstract CM ammo system did not bother - and why would it have, at first? - tweaking ammo loads to exactly balance the fp over whole loads the various types get. It would not be worth their time to code changes for this, because it is just one of that endless series of min-max problems that will always arise in competitive strategy games, with fixed costs set by the game, endlessly banged on by thousands of players seeking advantage, realistic or not.

But that is exactly the sort of thing scenario designers can deal with, without burdening the programmers. It hardly mattered what the rival ammo loads were when people used whatever squad or MG type because it was the obvious historical fit for the fight they were looking at, or whatever. But once people are picking almost exclusively the two-fer types - which in addition are not available to both sides - a real balance problem, and a real variety problem, arises.

Fortunately, BTS has given players and scenario designers plenty of levers to address exactly this sort of issue. It puts the ammo totals for all units directly under the control of the scenario designer, to dial in as he sees fit. This was meant primarily to allow variations based on tactical situation, of course. But it is all designers need to address the bent ammo system, as "gamed" by competitive players these days.

Which, of course, is what I have been explaining and proposing all along. Yet for fairly obvious reasons, lots of people seem pretty freaking upset at the idea that anybody, anywhere, would entirely voluntarily tweak the ammo levels BTS gave us full control over. Presumably, they think BTS was flat stupid to allow us to tweak them, since the default levels are actually sacrosanct, and suggesting any changes to them is the gravest possible indecency.

Or so one might easily believe from all the bilge expended on the subject, without the least sign of tiring, for going on half a year now. With a general quality of argument no better than that seen here recently - appeals to holy authority, fairy tales about only one unit type ferrying ammo when no other one is allowed to, 70 lb loads for weapons alone for fast squads.

You know, I would be incredible relieved if even a single honest opponent of such proposed tweaks came right out and said he doesn't want to see them because he likes getting two bangs for the price of one. Which anyone is free to do, since anyone can dial in any ammo he likes, as long as his opponent will agree to it - and the AI always will. Why not just say that is what floats your boat? Instead everyone has to pretend it is perfectly normal for the Germans only to have Flash Gordon anti-gravs. Which is just laughable.

[JasonC]

To Vanir - Ammo only for the ammo carriers, yes. That is what we have been discussing, but averaging over the whole team. For the guys carrying the MG itself, obviously the weight of the gun is also a factor, reducing the ammo they can carry themselves.

4000 rounds of 7.92mm plus the gun means 63 lbs per man in the team for the ammo and MG alone, without their personal gear or their personal weapons. Which is above the limit quoted. If you look at just the 3 ammo bearers alone (the others being gunner, AG carrying the tripod, and section leader with sight etc), that 55 lb limit would mean 2250 rounds between them - 750 apiece.

My own 3000 for the team figure has those ammo bearers carrying 700 rounds each, in the form of 2x250 boxes + 200 bandolier, which together weigh ~50 lbs. The remainder is bandoliers on the others, and one more box for the section leader. Others have already provided quotes that that is how each typically loaded themselves - without even mentioning bandoliers, making my estimate a generous one.

[Andreas]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Pak40:

Good point. The only source I have that states how much ammo units were issued is the HANDBOOK OF GERMAN MILITARY FORCES, which Jason will probably regard as incorrect because it was published by the U.S Army. Forget the fact that much of the info in this book came from German prisoners, captured weapons, and German documents.

(this is from memory because I don't have the book in front of me)

The handbook lists the German HMG as having over 6000 rounds of ammo issued to it. And, no, this does not include company, battalion, or divisional reserves, those are listed separately.

it also lists the LMG has having over 3000 rounds or over 1200 rounds. The 3000 figure is probably the MG42 as part of a squad where the extra ammo was carried by other members of the squad.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ah well, there we go then. So unless somebody brings some other data, maybe we can just take this as some sort of agreed number? (A lot to hope for, I know)

Now, what was the standard load-out for the various US MMGs and the Vickers? Come on, some of the Commonwealth former flatfeet must know.

[Pak40]

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

[QBOf course they did. They said 55 lbs (25 kg), and somebody already quoted it, right in this thread. Which is the weight 81mm mortar crews carry, incidentally. You have been reading this thread, right? .[/QB]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ooops, my bad. That makes one misqoute on my part to 3 or 4 times you've misquoted or mis-interpreted me.

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

Oh, and no other team that can move on its own (above "limited" speed) gets ammo limits the men can't lift themselves, so this ferrying notion is still just silly.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The ferrying isn't silly, it's realistic. It's realistic because it was actually done. As I said before, the ammo amounts you see in CM arn't always due to weight limitations but due to Issued limits.

Do you really believe that rifleman can only carry 40 CM shots? In reality a rifleman could carry double or triple that and stay under your 50 lb limit. The real reason why a rifleman only has 40 shots is because they are ISSUED that much.

And when you read about soldiers who have more than the typical issued amounts(like your soldier who said he grabed two extra bandoliers), it's because either

A) They were issued more ammo than normal (like the U.S. Paratroopers before jumping - 667 rounds of .30 ammo)

They scrounged up the extra ammo from dead/injured soldiers.

c) They stole it. Quite common.

[easy-v]

To weigh in on the US infantry load issue:

What I am about to say comes from 2 experiences of mine: having once belonged to a WWII re-enactment group that portrayed the US 84th Infantry Division, and having been an infantryman in a Long Range Surveillance detachment:

The field gear of a 1940's US infantryman was not designed to carry 100+ lbs of equipment. The M1928 Haversack (the backpack that the leg infantry is shown wearing in CMBO) was designed to carry rations; a blanket; a shelter-half/tent stakes; an e-tool; and perhaps a or rubberized poncho or a bayonet. They were hardly appropriate to fit anything else in them. This attached to the rifleman's belt (or cartridge belt) which had (depending on when it was manufactured) anywhere from 10-12 "pockets" that would accomodate a single 8 round en-bloc clip for a garand. They were also expected to carry 2 bandoliers of 30.06, which could accomodate another 12 8-round clips (total-on the bandoliers, bringing the grand total carried to 22-24 8-round clips or 176-192 rounds). 2 canteens were only, as a rule, carried in the pacific. The dangers of dehydration were not recognized at the time, and troops were trained to "conserve" water (for example, I have a FM 21-100, Basic Soldiers Manual from 1943 that advises that on a forced march, one should put a pebble in their mouth to prevent the desire to drink from a canteen).

The only other pouch/bag that would be availible to the average leg grunt would either be the M1936 Musette bag, which was typically issued to Officers, Paratroopers and motorized troops; and the engineer's bag (i am not sure of the nomenclature) that was handy to transport 60mm mortar and bazooka rounds.

Nothing close to a rucksack was availible to the average US infantryman of WWII (the exception being the 10th Mountain division, which were issued steel-framed rucks)

IMHO, it would be inapropriate to draw a parallel between today's US grunt and that of the '40's. I used to work with a guy that was on a M1917A1 (watercooled) team on Guadalcanal and the Phillipines. Too bad I can't ask him about this, as we could get a good insight into the SOP of the tiime.

American paratroopers were able to carry more ammo/stuff becuase they had access to their parachute riggers, who would make specialty pouches and bags to carry extra equipment.

While we are picking nits, let's not forget to factor in the additional weight of the wool uniforms!!

The paucity in carrying capacity of US field gear was due to the fact that it was pretty much turn-of-the-century design, predating WWI, adapted to WWII theory of modern warfare. The theory being that the 1940's era grunt wouldn't have to carry much stuff, as he would be supported by trucks and halftracks.

The 55lb-70lb limit for gear may be a good rule for wargaming, but in real life it does not hold up. Ever read Bravo Two Zero by Andy McNab? He cites taking a 90lb + ruck on his fateful mission. And in my experience and opinion, despite the fact that he was SAS, a 90lb+ ruck would not be unusual for the modern infantrman. In 1940's, though, highly unusual, if not outright impossible.

[ 08-30-2001: Message edited by: easy-v ]

[Vanir Ausf B]

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

4000 rounds of 7.92mm plus the gun means 63 lbs per man in the team for the ammo and MG alone, without their personal gear or their personal weapons. Which is above the limit quoted.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

One small item about the 4000 rd number: in the thread from which I pulled those BTS quotes there was some guy who quoted a sourse that stated a MG-42 HMG unit would actually have over 6000 rounds according to German SOP. Maybe I'll go pull that up later.

About the 55 lb figure. I haven't bothered to go through the math to confirm your numbers and you may well be correct that BTS was off (I'll let others argue that if they wish). But even if it does come to 63 lbs, this would not be an impossible load to lug a hundered yards or so at a slow pace. Note the BTS comment that the German ammo boxes could be carried 2 per hand, so a sturdy fellow could carry 4 boxes plus bandoliers. A hefty load, but quite doable for most men for a hundered meters or so. As someone else pointed out, if it were a road march most of that stuff would be carried in a wagon or truck. The point being, I don't see anything here that breaks with physical reality.

Having said all that, my only real beef with your position is that you claim the HMG is getting something (FP or ammo) for "free". I take this to mean "not reflected in the purchase price". I just don't see it. At 28 pts the MG-42 HMG is the most expensive MG unit in the game. Regardless of whether the 95 ammo figure is correct, it seems obvious to me that it is fully figured into the price (as is the FP). So, if the ammo were to be lowered, the unit price would go down accordingly.

Now, you could argue that from a pure min/max perspective the MG42 is still a better buy than the Vickers/M1917 because the extra 35/30 ammo they get beyond 95 is very unlikely to be used during a typical CM game (non-operation). There is some merit to this, but in a recent PBEM I had several MG42 HMGs shoot all 95 ammo, so it can be done. Also, when MG units lose crew men to casualties, they lose ammo units as well if they move, so the larger ammo of the Allied MGs can be an advantage there.

I guess I just don't see any significant problem here. Perhaps BTS should make ammo units above a certain number count very little or nothing towards the unit price; for all units, not just MGs (assuming they don't do this already, I don't know). Beyond that, I don't see anything crying out for change.

[ 08-30-2001: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]

[JonS]

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

...Having said all that, my only real beef with your position is that you claim the HMG is getting something (FP or ammo) for "free". I take this to mean "not reflected in the purchase price". I just don't see it...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think Jasons point in this, and the SMG ammo thing, is that it is something that can be changed be a scenario designer to better reflect reality (well, Jasons view of reality anyway). Not that it is something to consider for QBs where purchase prices come into it.

Following is what I believe to be a summary of teh previous ### posts.

So, in a pre-made scenario price isn't an issue. What is an issue is that the germans seem to be able to carry significantly more ammo than the Allies. Now, perhaps the Germans did have horse and trolleys, etc., to carry all their gear around with them, but then the allies had access to the equivalent support as well.

Men are men, regardless of which nation they come from. You can set the nominal load-per-man where-ever you like (though I'll be sticking to the 70lbs/man as a rule-of-thumb thanks), the point is that all teams should be able to carry roughly the equivalent weight, or be penalised equally (in terms of speed) when their encumberance climbs upwards

Personal kit and personal weapons are much-of-a-muchness in terms of weight, so that leaves the heavier support weapons (MMGs, HMGs, Mortars, etc), and their ammo.

From his calculations Jason believes that the MG42 - as modeled in CM - fires less rounds per "CM burst" than other weapons, giving it an unfair advantage in terms of usefulness in a battle.

Now, in a short battle, this isn't really an issue - as has been pointed out - because no-one runs out of ammo. But, there comes a breakpoint where support weapons start to run out of ammo. Jason thinks this happens too soon for some, and/or not soon enough for others. Usually, its the germans who are able to keep fighting at full ammo strength for longer because of the way their ammo expenditure is (incorrectly) modelled.

And this could/can/does lead to exploitative behaviour with these usit types. Remember, in a QB you're paying for this with the cost of the units concerned, but in a pre-made scenario no-one pays for anything.

Um, I think that's it. IMHO I tend to agree with Jasons analysis.

Jason - have you designed any scens with your revised squad and support wpn ammo allocations? If so, I'd be interested in having a look at them. Could you email them to me please? (email in profile)

Regards

JonS

[Wreck]

I hate to pick on you Jason, because I agree with you. But this particular quote (one of 1000; you are doing great; go go go) made me wonder...

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

Unit A gets 50 fp and 4 shots. Unit B gets 100 fp and 2 shots. Either has a cumulative fp of 200. Does this mean they are equally valuable to their owners in combat? It does not. It means -if- they both get off all of their shots then they will average the same total effect

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Is it really the case that 100 fp applied once has the same effect as 50 fp applied twice? In other words, is "cumulative firepower" proportionate to effect in CM?

Has anyone tested this?

[Wreck]

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

as I stated earlier in this thread, ammo was carried in multiple trips or brought to the gun by ammo bearers operating within the company. This is reality.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Jason has asked you to line up your ducks. Well, do so. You claim that German HMG teams are modelled as having extra ammo carried by multiple trips or ammo bearers. If this is so, why are not any other units -- mortars, allied MMGs, etc -- modelled the same.

Do you claim that mortars and allied MMGs were not resupplied during battle?

Or do you advocate raising the ammo of mortars and allied MMGs considerably to an amount proportionate to the German HMG?

Or do you weasel, claiming you can resupply infititely without addressing the rest of CM?

[Edit] By the way, I agree with you that combat resupply was "reality". But over a longer time scale, generally, than CM has -- i.e., rarely did a WWII unit get resupplied within say 5-10 minutes of running low on ammo. BTS, for whatever reason, has chosen not to model resupply beyond the fact that "LOW" infantry can still fire occasionally.

[ 08-30-2001: Message edited by: Wreck ]

[Pak40]

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

From his calculations Jason believes that the MG42 - as modeled in CM - fires less rounds per "CM burst" than other weapons, giving it an unfair advantage in terms of usefulness in a battle.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually I don't think he's saying that. He stated somewhere that the MG42 HMG is getting about 40 rounds per "CM burst", which is much higher than any other mg in the game.

German HMG: 4000 rounds / 95 shots = 42 rounds

US 5 man MMG: 1250 rounds /65 shots = 19 rounds

[Pak40]

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

Jason has asked you to line up your ducks. Well, do so. You claim that German HMG teams are modelled as having extra ammo carried by multiple trips or ammo bearers. If this is so, why are not any other units -- mortars, allied MMGs, etc -- modelled the same.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Each team IS modelled that way. You can crank up the ammo for any unit far above what Jason deems as acceptable for his 55 lbs per man. As for why the defaut values arn't higher, it's because these were the normal amounts issued to most of these units. I have already stated this previously.

I have already lined up this duck and shot it down.

Also, I stated that any soldier is capable of carrying 63 lbs, especially at a slow walking rate of speed. If BTS did intend to model each man as carrying 55 lbs, then maybe they did mess up. But come on, we're only talking about 8 lousy lbs difference. Big deal.

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

Do you claim that mortars and allied MMGs were not resupplied during battle?

Or do you advocate raising the ammo of mortars and allied MMGs considerably to an amount proportionate to the German HMG?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I have already answered both of these questions. Read the previous posts.

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

Or do you weasel, claiming you can resupply infititely without addressing the rest of CM?

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I already stated that I prefer the abstraction of multiple trips.

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

By the way, I agree with you that combat resupply was "reality". But over a longer time scale, generally, than CM has -- i.e., rarely did a WWII unit get resupplied within say 5-10 minutes of running low on ammo. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not entirely correct. Companies usually had some ammo reserves. Reserves were also held at the battalion level. There were runners for each company whose sole job was to deliver messages and fetch supplies. A runner with a jeep could usually, with ease, get to battalion and pick up some supplies and return within minutes(U.S. forces obviously). But this is a discussion for a different thread.

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

BTS, for whatever reason, has chosen not to model resupply beyond the fact that "LOW" infantry can still fire occasionally.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

True. Also, the Low means that they are scrounging for ammo. I don't really have a problem with this aspect of the game.

[Brian]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Pak40:

c) They stole it. Quite common.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Why would they have to steal it?

Unless its in a time when supply is short I couldn't think of a reason as an ex CQMS why I would deny any reasonable request for ammunition.

Unless the US Army is very different "standard loads" were very much the minimum that our Standing Orders and SOP's stipulated not the maximum. That was usually a matter between the individual digger, the Section/Platoon commander and their souls.

[offtaskagain]

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

Why would they have to steal it?

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Because the U.S. quartermaster department was made up of a disproportionate amount of pricks. One big reason winter gear didn't get to U.S. troops until the middle of winter was QMs frequently stole it for themselves and for sale on black markets, same with fuel in August. Rear echelon troops had winter gear long before the frontline guys ever got any.

The general of in charge of the supply services was also quite the ass himself. After Paris was taken Eisenhower directed the hotels be kept clear for infantry whose divisions were taken off the line for rebuilding. But the SOB (can't remember his name) moved all 20,000 of his supply troops into the hotels for barracks. On another occasion back in the U.S. he walked into a dining hall and exploded when he saw a piece of bread in trash. He started ranting about waste and then ate the bread himself.

I also forget to mention, there was a bit of a black market for HVAP ammo, though that was mostly between TD and Sherman crews.

[Steven Seagal]

I know I've become a wargaming junky when I read through an entire thread like this and find it interesting. Thanks alot guys, my college career is ruined.

[Vanir Ausf B]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Steven Seagal:

Thanks alot guys, my college career is ruined.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I suppose you could give acting a second chance.

[JasonC]

Fewer new substantive points are being made now, because the other side has largely been reduced to stamping feet and repeating themselves. But there have been some useful comments, and as the latest iteration of denial and evasion needs to be addressed, yet again.

First, easy-v's comments were interesting and fit my perceptions. I see the low-slung small rucks all the time in the photos, heavy frames I don't. And I don't think it was peculiar to the US web gear or something, because I see the same tendency in other armies as well. The most obvious single reason for the difference compared to some modern infantry - especially "light" or vaguely special force infantry - is the nature of the theater they were fighting in. Europe, with plenty of supply and transportation infrastructure.

Jons has understood me and I thank him for his comments. To clarify the less-more ammo-rounds confusion (which I think is more terms and apparent than real), I think the fp levels for the HMG-42 reflect ~40 cartridges being fired per CM shot. I think the firepower levels for the other true MG types reflect ~25 being fired per CM shot (and down to ~20 for the BAR).

The discrepancy I am after in the whole discussion, is I think the CM allowed number of shots is based on a uniform 25 rounds each measure, which was expected to be close enough. I base this in the weight consideration.

The CM levels with 40 rounds for the HMG-42 do not fit the designer's own comments about weight limits. Therefore, I deduce they did not have the 40 round per CM shot standard for the HMG-42 clearly in mind when they set the default ammo level. I believe they did not see a need to adjust the "cartridges per ammo point" measure, from unit to unit, based on the rate of fire used for its firepower numbers.

This then led to the "flappy bits" hanging out at the ends of this design simplification (places where the sort of rough average involved, was farther off a realistic level), attracting min-max strategizing. This acted as a sort of amplifier of the ammo abstraction's (originally modest) deviations from realism, in terms of its in-game effect.

In case nobody knows what I mean, I will give an example of such min-max-ing. A German infantry force built around an HMG-SMG divide. Only HMG-42s fire at long range, burning their abundant ammo. Then SMG-heavy infantry fire in close, receiving their abundant fp numbers. Because the SMGs do not fire until close range is reached, while rival infantry types do try to fire at range, the SMGs have more shots left for the close range fire. As well as more fp per shot, they have more shots left for close range. Similarly, the HMG-42 not only shoot "harder" per shot than the MMGs and rifle-heavy squads they typically duel with, they can also outlast them by miles in ammo terms. The net effect of the "min-max-ing" is that the mixed force shoots not only faster, but vastly more overall. And can met or beat rifle heavy squads and MMGs at every category - ranged fire, long term ranged fire, close in fire, etc. These effects grow from particular mixes and a heavy usage of the "ammo twofer" the abstract ammo system confers on high ROF infantry weapons. That is, the fact that they shoot not only "faster", but "more overall", too. 2 LMG squads differ in some details but not in the principle.

On the subject of scenarios tweaked for the ammo levels I recommend, I am still in the process of putting together a whole series of such scenarios, stretching over the whole war, using 1/month fights to illustrate particular parts of the war that I find interesting. They aren't all done yet.

Vanir appeals to unnamed authority and wants the HMG-42 to have 6000 rounds instead of whatever he thinks it has now. This makes me wonder if I am the only one involved in this discussion that can add, or that has bothered to pay any attention to the numbers. The gun and 6000 rounds would amount to a load of more than 87 lbs per man in the team, not counting their personal weapons or their other gear. From Flash to Buck Rogers I suppose. In any event, it is 32 lbs per man above the limit set by the designers themselves. What is the likely actual origin of the figure? It is probably a unit of supply for an HMG team in an "up" position, or in other words the number of rounds they can be expected to expend in ~3 days of combat. Not the amount they can be expected to hump.

But he says his real beef is the idea there is anything "free" involved in buying HMG-42 teams. Here is what I mean. Match the combat capabilities of a company's 4 HMG-42s using Allied MG teams. Not one of those capabilities, all of them (if firepower terms). Match their fp per unit time, and match the cumulative fp too. Keep adding teams until you have "caught up" in both categories. Note how much it costs in points to do so. You will have to spend more CM points than the German company does to get that level of MG firepower. 5 Vickers will not do it - they have only 78% of the firepower per unit time.

Pak40 mostly repeats himself. But he does offer that his ferry notion should in principle apply to Allies too. He also notes in passing that resupply by vehicle might even be timely enough to occur on CM time scales (though even that is doubtful in the middle of a firefight IMO). He does not seem to notice that the -only- side he allows more ammo than they can carry because of his "preferred rationalization" (sic) is also the side (in the west) with the worst upfront logistics, the least motorized. Fully motorized allies can't get more than 100 lbs of 60mm mortar shells to 5 men, but leg infantry that is lucky if they have horses for such work can have 3 times that much because of a whole cloth rationalisation by Pak40 personally, that magically only applies to one unit in the game.

Then one fellow pretends that US units were starved of ammo compared to the Germans. Which is laughable on its face, to anyone who knows anything about the respective supply pictures of the two sides. This was ascribed to venal QMs - as though the German black market wasn't the biggest in world history for one - with an example of warm clothing in winter. I hate to break it to the fellow, but the reason warm clothing in winter was sometimes diverted before the front line is because that item was in demand among the whores of Paris. Who were not know to be avid consumers of millions of rounds of 30-06 per day.

That subject got started because one fellow said the only possible sources of ammo for US infantrymen was theft of scrounging, unless they were a paratrooper on a special op of something. This is complete poppycock. US infantry weapons were built around a standardize round, the 30-06, which was used in the rifles, the BARs, the dismount MGs, and in hordes of vehicle MGs.

The stuff was everywhere. The nearest 'track had a 4000 round supply, enough for every man in a squad to be 20 lbs worth over the base load. US divisions ran through 50,000 rounds of the stuff per day and upward, counting all the quiet days. QMs were not counting each brass at a civilian training range; they measured it in tons.

And the squad members carrying it did not bother their heads about whether it was "theirs" or the man next to them's. They carried what they could and shot it out of MMGs, or filled BAR mags, or M-1 clips, indifferently. Whatever guns were doing the firing. They were going to burn it anyway if they got into action. There was no practical limit on the stuff at any place reachable by truck. The limits came from the need to hump it forward of such places. You can find plenty of instances of front line units running low on M2 ball, but you won't find -one- of a whole division doing so, unless it is surrounded.

Last, Wreck asked about whether fire effects are additive as far as losses go. Obviously surpression is higher if the same fp is received in a shorter period of time, as the target is driven "deeper" and has less time to recover morale levels. There are also some added effects from things like - being shot from several angles, from side and rear, reciprocal suppression being different for 1 shooter or 2, etc. Those are obvious enough.

But I take it Wreck's question is a more basic one. Will the same overall fp in lots-o-littles tend to hit about as many man as few bigs? My experience is that it does, that fp is basically additive over time for actual hits. It is a randomized process, not a determininstic one, so there is plenty of "noise" present. Unit quality and command combat rating also matter. But what I typically see for regularly ranges between ~250 = fp x exposure causing 1 causalty, and up to 2x that "needed fp" figure in some trials.

So, you can't count on the 1/250 modified fp, but might get it. And you generally can count on equally or exceeding 1/500 modified fp. It is rough, but makes a reasonable rule of thumb for planning, deciding if you are close enough, etc.

[Vanir Ausf B]

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

Vanir appeals to unnamed authority and wants the HMG-42 to have 6000 rounds instead of whatever he thinks it has now. This makes me wonder if I am the only one involved in this discussion that can add,<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not only can you not add, you can't read either.

First of all, I never said I wanted the HMG-42 to have 6000 rounds. Those were words you put in my mouth (an annoying habit there). I merely stated it as a point of fact. Secondly, its not a matter of what I think they have now, but what BTS says they have now (should have been obvious). Thirdly, the "unnamed authority" is the Handbook of German Military Forces, which Pak40 pointed out in one of his posts (what did I say about reading?).

Now to your...um, "adding":

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Match their fp per unit time, and match the cumulative fp too. Keep adding teams until you have "caught up" in both categories. Note how much it costs in points to do so. You will have to spend more CM points than the German company does to get that level of MG firepower. 5 Vickers will not do it - they have only 78% of the firepower per unit time.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

In order to match the raw FP per shot of 4 MG 42 HMGs you need 6.4 Vickers. You have now spent 112 pts on MG 42s and 141 pts on Vickers.

Looks bad for the Vickers until you realize its a bogus exercise presented to win an arguement rather than as an honest comparison. Cumulative FP is the only way to compare the two as it factors in both FP per shot and ammo units (the 2 issues "discussed" in this thread).

So against 4 MG 42s it takes a whopping 4.7 Vickers to acheive the same cumulative FP. And how many points have we spent? 112 on the MG42s and 103 on the Vickers.

Now look at that. You get the same cumulative FP with the Vickers while spending 8% fewer points. Now which one is the better deal? The MG42 is only if you compare raw FP per shot to the exclusion of all other factors. So why would anyone do that...?

[ 08-31-2001: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]

[JasonC]

Notice how the absolute screamer, 87 lbs per man for the gun and MG ammo alone, just plain disappears in Vanir's recap of the 6000 round brainstorm. If he finds a total written anywhere that might mean more shots, he believes it instantly, without bothering one brain cell whether his idea about what the number means is physically impossible or not.

Then he continues the "unclear on the concept - the sequel" act, by ignoring without addressing all the arguments I already presented about why higher fp per unit time is an asset above and beyond cumulative fp. As in, try to follow this -

If the cumulative fp is the same

and the fp per unit time is higher

then you are better off.

"But that can't be so. FP is counted, and ammo is counted. That is cumulative fp, and it must therefore be everything". I will show the fallacy by applying it to an unrelated subject. The mass of a moving object contributes to its energy. The velocity of a moving object contributes to its energy. Therefore, if we were to believe Vanir's reasoning, momentum is all there is to moving objects. Energy doesn't exist. Why, that would be counting the velocity twice!

If you have a choice between 100 fp with 50 ammo, and 50 fp with 100 ammo, the first is clearly preferable. It will do all of its damage in half the time. It will do its damage sooner. It will leave fewer people firing back, and KO the ones it does KO, after fewer shots of reply. It will suppress more deeply, with less time for the target shot to recover.

ll of these advantages are real and as plain as a pikestaff. But fp x ammo is exactly the same for both. Therefore, fp and ammo do not contribute equally as factors making for combat effectiveness. Fp contributes more - just as velocity contributes more to energy than mass does. Quod Erat Demostratum.