Backwards MG ammo - a simple question of weight ratios

[Pak40]

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

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). <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I figured out the U.S. .30 air cooled to be 19 rounds per CM shot based on a 1250 round issue and the 65 shots. 1250 was the official issue to these teams. So, based on these numbers I think you're going to get different rounds per CM shot for each MG in the game.

<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, or that has bothered to pay any attention to the numbers..... 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. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

6000 rounds for 3 days? You're kidding, right? That would typically be burned in a couple of hours of combat.

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

Pak40 mostly repeats himself.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I do not repeat myself. I do not repeat myself. I do not repeat myself.

BTW, I'm not the only person who repeats himself in this thread. And when I did repeat myself it's because I'm trying to get a point across to someone who doesn't seem to be getting it through his thick skull.

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

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.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

What the heck is "cloth rationalisation" (sic)??

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

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.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Did you just use the word "poppycock"?

You do know that there were two types of .30 rounds, right?

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

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.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Incidentally, that only come to about 17 rounds per man if you only figure the front line riflemen. Factor in mgs, officers, and non-front line men who fired rounds then you get a much lower number- probably 8 rounds per man. Not too much ammo is it?

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

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.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not true at all. Troops on the Sigfried(sp?) line were low on ammo due to streched supply lines. Read MacDonald's "Company Commander".

Also, there were instances where much of the ammo and fuel were being sent to hot spots on the front and divisions like the 106th in the Ardennes barely had any ammo.

All in all, the U.S. supply was very good but there were times when ammo was scarce and the ammo had to be rationed, even below the normal issued amounts.

[Username]

Burgett claims that they went to Bastogne with some guys carrying nothing. Some no ammo, some no weapons!

[Pak40]

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

Burgett claims that they went to Bastogne with some guys carrying nothing. Some no ammo, some no weapons!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yea, true. But I remember that there was a good bit of ammo once they got to Bastogne. The Brass knew that city would be the focal point in that area so they made sure a lot of supplies went there. I can't remember if Burgett said it was rationed out or if they let the GIs take whatever they wanted. I think it was rationed, but not too badly.

[Vanir Ausf B]

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

Jason sure loves his strawmen.

Although irrelevant, I can't help but stop to think which is the more reliable authority on German WW2 SOP: The Handbook of German Military Forces or JasonC. On the surface it seems no contest, but JasonC dismisses it. Not surprising. Pak40 correctly predicted he would do so as it does not fit his preconceived notions. But what surprises is his given reason: that it is impossible to carry 87 lbs of ammo and weapons, plus other gear.

What a laugher.

Never mind the numerous examples given here of soldiers carrying more than that for considerable distances. Anyone who thinks it is impossible to carry even 100+ lbs at a rather sluggish rate for a hundred meters or so has obviously spent too much time in front of their computer typing bombast on internet forums while their muscles atrophy. I've done it while working for a gas pipeline company and while hunting (elk quarters weigh a lot). I'm sure most people here have as well.

As I said, irrelevant to my point, but good for a chuckle.

Now, to wrap up this FP thing. Jason says the cumulative FP is flawed because it weights FP and ammo equally (note how his argument has subtly gone from "the MG42 gets its higher FP for free!" to "ok, it pays for it, just doesn't pay enough"). He is correct as far as that goes. What he ignores is that the formula used to calculate the purchase cost of the MGs clearly does weight FP higher than ammo. The 8% bonus cumulative FP the Vickers gets over the MG42 proves it. Therefore, it becomes an argument of degree rather than concept. FP is already weighed more heavily, it’s just a matter of whether that is heavy enough or if it should be slid a bit further.

In any case, I don't see that any needed adjustment is anything more than minor, and I have no interest in arguing that level of minutiae. My main reason for jumping into this was to counter Jason's remark that the MG42 gets its higher FP for free. Now that that is done there are no issues here that interest me too much. I'm also a bit tired of having words put into my mouth and having the words I did say twisted into unrecognizable forms at every turn. It make civil discussion all but impossible.

[JasonC]

"6000 rounds for 3 days? You're kidding, right?"

No I'm not. You don't seem to have much sense of the actual amount of firing done. There were around 350 MGs in a German infantry division, 1/4 to 1/3 of them the heavy varity. Do you think the average German infantry division fired 1 million rounds a day from its MGs alone? It did not, I assure you. That is high by 1 1/2 orders of magnitude.

The rear echelon figured each HMG needed 6000 and each LMG 1500 rounds for a "unit" of supply, say. Then it figured that "unit" should last the force 3 days in action, and much longer than that on a quiet sector of the front - like weeks. That comes to 1m rounds for typical MG strengths for an infantry division.

[Username]

I think the loadout should depend on what the side is doing. Suppose its a meeting engagement. Guys are humping their crap overland and meet an enemy force. Maybe then the rounds per cubic inch of muscle plays in. But for defending, or assault, plenty of ammo can be assumed to be in the vicinity.

Perhaps the game should decrease ammo load of the MG when the crew takes casualties. This is REGARDLESS if they move or not. This simulates the resupply being crimped. The game does simulate the depleted crew only taking so much. Hows that compare to the formulas so far?

I see the same trend in the detachable Bren threads as here. People want the game to simulate down into the individual weapon (bullet?) realm.

Anyone care to discuss ideas or is arguing the point of this?

Lewis

[Pak40]

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

Although irrelevant, I can't help but stop to think which is the more reliable authority on German WW2 SOP: The Handbook of German Military Forces or JasonC. . <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

JasonC, of coarse. He is the U.S Army's source for WWII weight & ammo information.

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

Never mind the numerous examples given here of soldiers carrying more than that for considerable distances. Anyone who thinks it is impossible to carry even 100+ lbs at a rather sluggish rate for a hundred meters or so has obviously spent too much time in front of their computer typing bombast on internet forums while their muscles atrophy. I've done it while working for a gas pipeline company and while hunting (elk quarters weigh a lot). I'm sure most people here have as well.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

My favorite quote of Jason's is:

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

Now either Jason is a small boy not capable of carrying his own weight or his idea of reality is blurred by some illegal substance.

[Andrew H.]

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

Now either Jason is a small boy not capable of carrying his own weight or his idea of reality is blurred by some illegal substance.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think Jason has a point here. Germans, especially, were mostly not motorized -- meaning that they didn't have to just carry this weight 100 meters or so; they had to carry it for miles and miles to get to the location of the battle to begin with.

Things were much better for US forces, but even when they were brought by truck to the battlefield, they were typically dropped off 4 miles away from the front line, and had to first walk up there before fighting.

[Pak40]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Andrew Hedges:

I think Jason has a point here. Germans, especially, were mostly not motorized -- meaning that they didn't have to just carry this weight 100 meters or so; they had to carry it for miles and miles to get to the location of the battle to begin with.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Andrew, actually we're talking about movement in combat, not cross country marching & transportation. In combat these units would be moving short distances, set up, fire for a while, then maybe moving another short distance... Any fit man could carry 90 or even 100+ pounds 50, 100, or even 150 meters. They might get tired but they get a little breather every time their gun is firing.

In cross country transportation, which you're referring to, the German Heavy Weapons Companies had horses and carts to carry most of their ammo. Also, in cross country travelling, if they did have to carry all of their ammo then they would have divided it among the entire unit(including "rear" personell). Why make 6 people carry the load when it could be spread among 10 or 12? I know this was done with U.S. paratroopers and MG ammo, I see no reason why the Germans wouldn't spread the load also.

[ 08-31-2001: Message edited by: Pak40 ]

[ 09-01-2001: Message edited by: Pak40 ]

[Wreck]

I did some testing on firepower versus infantry. All normal troops; 30 HMGs with +1 combat leaders, 30 American rifle squads with +2 morale leaders and 50% fanatical. The HMGs blazed away for ~20 turns, shooting all ammo. Range was 364 meters, so all shots had 67 firepower. Targets in pines with 17% cover.

The Americans ended up with the following troop levels: 10,9,10,9,11,12,9,10,8,9,10,10,9,9,11,8,12,9,8,10,7,11,10,10,10,12,9,10,10,9

So total casualties were 69, for 67*30*95=190950 firepower applied; that's 1 casualty per 2767 firepower applied; 1 per 470 firepower if we assume the 17% cover reduces applied firepower in a straight proportion.

Next I did a roughly similar test, but moving the targets closer. 169m firing distance, 92 firepower per shot. Some few shots at longer range as HMGs sometimes chose a target other than the squad opposite.

Ending troop levels: 8,9,9,8,10,5,9,8,10,9,9,7,9,8,11,7,8,9,9,11,5,8,7,8,9,8,6,9,10,8

So total casualties were 109, for 92*30*95=262200 firepower applied; that's 1 casualty per 2405 firepower applied; 1 per 409 firepower / cover percentage.

So it does appear that casualties are proportionate to firepower applied or firepower applied / cover.

To distinguish these, I tried the same sort of arrangement but this time placing the americans in stone buildings, dropping their exposure to 11%.

Ending troop levels: 11,10,10,9,11,9,9,6,10,10,11,10,11,10,11,10,8,7,11,10,10,8,11,7,9,10,10,7,7,6

So total casualties were 81, for 92*30*95=262200 firepower applied; that's 1 casualty per 3237 firepower applied; 1 per 356 firepower / cover percentage.

All in all the tests support the notion that damage done to infantry by firepower is solely a function of total incoming firepower as reduced for cover. To be really confident I would want to run a few more trials.

[Wreck]

As a dedicated tournamenthouse mechanic, my experience is that I almost never buy German HMGs except as part of a company. They are decent units, but not deeply out of whack. In contrast, the 75mm inf gun is huge. Since I had the testbed anyway, I decided to test this.

I used the same 30 squads of Americans as targets, still in 17% woods, range 364m. Instead of the 30 HMGs, I used 10 75mm inf. I let them target as they wanted to.

The ending troop levels for the targets: 12,x,4,12,12,9,1,12,12,3,11,12,12,x,9,12,12,0,4,9,0,x,3,5,0,9,4,4,0,12. The "x" denotes squads which panicked and fled off the field. The total casualties: 158! And recall that's for 10 inf guns -- per unit, they caused almost 7x more casualties than a HMG does. And that for 33 points, vs 28.

The HMGs never got any unit beyond pinned, and that rarely. The 75mm routed three squads and frequently had pin effects. They also cranked out their entire damage load in about 10 turns, as compared to the 16 or so it took most of the HMGs to get down to LOW. So their rate of causing casualties was about 11 times as high as the HMGs.

Of course this is one of the best units in the game, in terms of price/performance. But it still should serve to put in perspective the HMG pricing problem (if there is one).

[JasonC]

Wreck, I agree the 75mm infantry gun is underpriced - all the smaller guns are. And HE suffers lesser effects from most forms of cover, because it ignores the concealment portion.

But I think your 10 gun test probably overstated the difference, because of the number of targets you presented. HE can have area effects. Your result showed about 1 man down for each 85 blast thrown. My experience is that that is a low figure - it tends to be more like 1/150 to 1/200 blast, when firing at single targets that is. So some of the extras may have been from crowding of the targets.

You'd still expect an HMG team to do ~3 men vs. ~7 for the gun when firing into typical woods cover. The difference should be less for units in the open.

Personally, I think all the light guns are underpriced by at least a factor of 1.5, and perhaps more than that. I am talking about the 75mm infantry, 20mm flak, puppchen, 50mm ATG, 75mm recoilless - that sort. They cost what squads do and can decimate platoons.

In general, I think a gun section should cost what a platoon or tank does, or half the cost of a platoon each. In the case of heavy PAK and such, more like 2/3rd to 3/4th what vanilla tanks cost.

[Wreck]

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

I agree the 75mm infantry gun is underpriced - all the smaller guns are.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

My feeling is, all guns are, at least relatively to MGs. The German HMG is the best HMG in price/performance, and it is 7x or 11x less offensively powerful than the 75mm inf (depending on how exactly you want to measure performance). I don't think the other guns are as good as the inf, but this is not based on their offensive performance, but rather that they make increasingly juicy targets.

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

I think your 10 gun test probably overstated the difference, because of the number of targets you presented. HE can have area effects.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Each target was separated from the one to left or right by 20m. There was no spillover. There were some men in the platoon HQs killed, since they were relatively close behind one of three platoons. However, I did not count them in the casualty total.

To be sure that 20m is safe, I ran the test again but this time removed 1/3 of the squads, making separations of 40m and 20m. Then I initially fired at every other squad. The squads 20m from the targets were never affected, not even Alerted -- that is, until their turn as a target came. Total casualties this time were 176.

I can think of several reasons why this level of casualty production may overstate the case from your experience. One is, that I have a +1 combat leader with every gun (as in the HMG testing; must not vary the conditions). Sometimes in real games you cannot afford to place a leader with each gun. HMGs rarely need to operate alone.

A second minor factor, is that my targets did not move, and so the guns could acquire them and then keep pounding. In a real game, people usually attempt to deny guns and LOS to their guys. Which does not cut out all shots, but does tend to mean more reacquisition.

A third possible factor, is that in my experience most HE fire in games is area fire. Perhaps it works somewhat differently than aimed fire.

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

You'd still expect an HMG team to do ~3 men vs. ~7 for the gun when firing into typical woods cover. The difference should be less for units in the open.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

At this range, I was getting less than 2 men per HMG, as you can earlier in the thread. Of course I would probably not fire HMGs at this range, except at much more exposed targets. The gun result was consistent now up to 20 guns, averaging about 15 casualties per gun. This is consistent with my experience in games, which is they kill about 1 guy per 2-3 shells thrown.

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

Personally, I think all the light guns are underpriced by at least a factor of 1.5, and perhaps more than that. I am talking about the 75mm infantry, 20mm flak, puppchen, 50mm ATG, 75mm recoilless - that sort. They cost what squads do and can decimate platoons.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The 50mm and pupchen are not likely to decimate much infantry, but agreed that all of these guns should cost more. I suspect, however, that the larger guns are also a problem. I buy them too, and find them effective.

[Pak40]

Wreck,

I believe the reason why those lighter guns, such as the 75mm howitzer, don't cost more is because they are so vulnerable to artillery and other high explosives.

A HMG would survive an artillery attack much easier than any of these light guns. In fact, most of these light guns can be taken out from direct fire from a lone 60mm mortar. A HMG might take a casualty and some supression but could easily survive a 60mm attack.

My point is that your test proved that the 75mm gun is much more powerful than a HMG, so long as there's no HE being fired at it. But as soon as you throw that 75mm gun into a real battle where artillery presents a definit threat, then it's a whole different ball game.

Maybe you could make another test. Put 10 HMGs in a forest and drop some 81mm mortars on it. See how many of the HMGs survive.

Then, put 10 75mm guns in the same forest and drop the same 81mm and see how many survive.

[Brian]

I was under the impression that the 75mm infantry gun had been replaced by 1944 in all German formations by mortars. Which begs the question, why is it still being talked about as a common piece of equipment in the game?

[Username]

I think teh 75mm IGs were used throughout teh war. Ive read the 150mm IG might have been replaced with heavy mortars.

Lewis

[JasonC]

The 75mm infantry guns were used to the duration, although they were not always at TOE. The 150 SiG were also used through the whole war, but they were increasingly found in self-propelled for - SiG-33 assault guns, e.g. - as time went on. And 120mm mortars did sometimes fill in for them, as one fellow already stated.

In the infantry, captured Russian guns were often used, 76mm but otherwise much like the German infantry gun. Mobile divisions generally had some of their light 75mm IGs mounted on halftracks, especially in the case of the armored battalion(s), as opposed to the motorized. Sometimes you find units missing them entirely, or using mortars, or with only PAK at the regimental level. Sometimes you can't tell, not enough info is available - or a SiG company is listed by no numbers for the guns themselves.

Here are some examples from Normandy.

The following mobile divisions had 12 self-propelled 150mm SiG each, 6 per regiment: 17SS, 21 Pz, 2SS, 9SS, 12SS. 10SS must have had some because they reported 4 of them lost by mid-July, but I didn't find a total. 1SS, 2 Pz, and 116 Pz had SiG companies and were probably the same, but I can't confirm they had their authorized 150s. The following leg infantry divisions had some 150mm SiG, with the numbers they had in parens - 272 (9), 277 (6), 331 (6), 352 (6), 353 (6), 275 (2). All told there were at least 100 and probably more like 150-175 of the 150mm SiG in Normandy, with most of them in the mobile divisions are self-propelled assault guns.

The mobile divisions had varying numbers of 75mm IGs, some of them self-propelled gun halftracks ("SP" - 251/9 e.g.), some of them towed ("T"). Lehr (32SP), 17SS (8T), 2SS (18 mixed), 9SS (5SP+21T), 12SS (12SP+22T). 21 Pz did not have 75mm ones, 10SS had at least 8 because they reported that many lost at one point. The other 3 mobile divisions I couldn't find numbers on.

In the mobile divisions at this point, you find the 75mm infantry guns at the battalion level. You find motorized Panzergrenadiers with up to 4 of the 75mm per battalion, towed, and armored Panzergrenadiers with 4-8 self-propelled. The regimental level IG companies have the 150mm assault guns instead.

Meanwhile in the infantry the 75mm is still a regimental piece, with a TOE of 6 of the things per regiment. But only about 1/3rd have them, and only about 1/4 of the total are at or near TOE. Sometimes only 1 regiment in the division has its full compliment of 6. And here you find the captured Russian guns filling in, especially in divisions using captured Russian howitzer for their divisional artillery.

In the infantry, the 13-15 companies of each regiment vary, with the 14th usually present as the AT company (a few PAK plus schrecks, occasionally light flak too). The 13th is also usually present but sometimes not, usually has infantry guns but sometimes mortars. 15's are rare by comparison, and when present are sometimes flak, sometimes pioneers. Here are some examples of the 75mm or 76mm (marked as "R" for Russian) pieces that different divisions had -

2FJ (12), 3 FJ (5), 77 (8R), 243 (18R), 265 (18R), 266 (12, might be R), 272 (19), 275 (2), 277 (19), 331 (8), 352 (14), 353 (14), 709 (6R). Other divisions with IG companies but no numbers available include - 91, 326, 708 (only one regiment).

So they are definitely being used, and extensively so. The infantry is no longer at TOE in them at the time of Normandy, even with Russian pieces filling in. The mobile divisions are more likely to have them and use them self-propelled in HTs for the armored Pz Gdrs. The 150 SiG has turned into an assault gun weapon more than a dismounted one, but is still a significant presence in the newer form, mainly in the mobile divisions at this time. But only about 20% of the leg infantry divisions still have the 150 version at full TOE strength, and they are still towing them.

For what it is worth...

[Username]

The 251/9's , of course, are not the IG but the 75mmL24 KWK tank gun from early PIV, and StuG B. But they played the same role as the IG for armored infantry.

I dont think the germans used the 75mm IG's in a SP or portee type application.

Lewis

[Michael Dorosh]

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

"6000 rounds for 3 days? You're kidding, right?"

No I'm not. You don't seem to have much sense of the actual amount of firing done. There were around 350 MGs in a German infantry division, 1/4 to 1/3 of them the heavy varity. Do you think the average German infantry division fired 1 million rounds a day from its MGs alone? It did not, I assure you. That is high by 1 1/2 orders of magnitude.

The rear echelon figured each HMG needed 6000 and each LMG 1500 rounds for a "unit" of supply, say. Then it figured that "unit" should last the force 3 days in action, and much longer than that on a quiet sector of the front - like weeks. That comes to 1m rounds for typical MG strengths for an infantry division.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Does this not mistakenly assume the entire division is in the firing line all the time? Would one regiment not have been in reserve, with the other two forward? Or alternately, battalions/companies within the regiments rotated out of the forward area?

[JasonC]

No, it doesn't assume anything of the sort. A unit of supply, for the nth time, is a logistical concept, not a tactical load. 7 HMGs in a unit might on one occasion blow everything they -carried- 14 times in 3 days, having been resupplied on 2 nights, by four wagons, and 5 runs from them of a dozen men. While another 5 might slowly corrode, unfired. It makes no difference to the unit of supply, which is a ration for a large unit calculated on a per gun basis, from average rates of consumption seen in practice. Which was no more than ~30-40k rounds per division per day on average, but could easily rise by an order of magnitude for short periods in heavy action.

[JasonC]

The unit returns call them 7,5cm le.IG or 7,5cm le.IG(Sf). They don't seem to care a lick what is 18 diameters H. and what is a 24 diameters KwK. All they care about is heavy (s. for 15cm) or light (le. for 7,5cm) and towed (nothing added) or self-propelled (Sf).

[Wilhammer]

An interesting article on infantry loads:

http://call.army.mil/products/newsltrs/01-15/01-15ch11.htm

[Pak40]

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

An interesting article on infantry loads:

http://call.army.mil/products/newsltrs/01-15/01-15ch11.htm<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

cool, thanks for the link.