Dbroe Posted January 3, 2001 Share Posted January 3, 2001 First off don't get me wrong,Ilove the game.Play it for,let just say to MUCH. But here is my problem MGs just don't live up to there real counter parts.For starts I had 5 1919's in a support by fire pos. and out come 3 German sqds about 120m away. easy work at short range,but it did not even pin them down.Plus I've had the same problem with the "feared" MG 42s. From my experience in a gun sqd in the army the mg just is not getting the grace that it should! Everybody want goto haven,nobody wants dead. screw face Mark for death [This message has been edited by Dbroe (edited 01-03-2001).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KiwiJoe Posted January 3, 2001 Share Posted January 3, 2001 Yup, they are probably the worst weapon type in the game IMO. They need to rip bursts off about twice as fast as the currently do. Also they should (be able to) pin squads within a certain radius of their line of fire. At the moment they are a waste of points. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest KwazyDog Posted January 3, 2001 Share Posted January 3, 2001 Guys, you might find some interesting topics on this one if you do a search, I know its been discussed before in depth. Dan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phil stanbridge Posted January 3, 2001 Share Posted January 3, 2001 I tend to disagree. I placed a Vickers 6 man team about a thousand meters from the target, clear line of sight, flat terrain (which was a 150mm infantry gun being towed by a truck) and the gun knocked out both units and inflicted casualties. I hadn't even seen the target, the AI spotted and fired. I have had similar results with HMG teams on both sides. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LuckyStrike Posted January 3, 2001 Share Posted January 3, 2001 Try this thread: http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/Forum1/HTML/006819.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KiwiJoe Posted January 3, 2001 Share Posted January 3, 2001 Hey if you want to buy mg's then go ahead. But I know what weapons work well in the game and what don't. Needless to say I will not be buying any mg's for my team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B M Deleted Posted January 3, 2001 Share Posted January 3, 2001 I'm having a problem, with coming to terms that a .30 cal just does not have the real-life stopping power, that it should. Everytime I have a stonghold, it's because I have 2 .30 cals where there SHOULD be 1. The reason for the 2 is, so that it can make up for the lost firepower, by overlapping the original trajectory points. So, I think that in a future patch, maybe Machine guns, or at least the .30 Cals and the MG42s should be given more power. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KiwiJoe Posted January 3, 2001 Share Posted January 3, 2001 I think the firepower is ok, its the rof that makes them ineffective. Its like they all have 10 round belts that have to be reloaded after each burst. In fact I'd be all for downing the firepower rating and drastically increasing the rof to make them a "small" amount better at hitting their targets, but a "****-load" better at pinning them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ceebee Posted January 3, 2001 Share Posted January 3, 2001 I've had squads torn apart with MG42s I was moving around my oppos flank when I was caught in the open, by two MG42s in seperate buildings! I respect these weapons! they are fantastic for supression! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wolf^ Posted January 3, 2001 Share Posted January 3, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LuckyStrike: Try this thread: http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/Forum1/HTML/006819.html <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Thank you! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aka_tom_w Posted January 3, 2001 Share Posted January 3, 2001 I don't know?....... I REALLY like the U.S. .50 cal! If you put 3 or 4 HT's with .50 cals on them together and cover them with 'zooks and three infantry squads, AND they will positively SHREAD anything smaller than an actual TANK that comes their way. I have no problem with the way that .50 cal MG works and is modeled it is deadly effective! -tom w Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tss Posted January 3, 2001 Share Posted January 3, 2001 Here's data taken from the 1936 edition of "Upseerin käsikirja" ("Officer's Handbook", the actual printing date is 1940) about MG fire: B. MG FIRE BARRAGE These figures suppose that the visible surface area of enemy soldiers is 0.5 m^2 (= standing man) and the advance speed is 3 m/s [= jogging speed]. The necessary fire densities for a 100 m front line expressed in rounds per minute are: 1. Frontal fire: Range [m] 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 ========================================= 30% losses 600 1000 1700 3200 6000 9500 50% losses 1000 1800 3200 6000 11000 18000 2. Flanking fire Range [m] 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 =================================== 30% losses 600 1200 2000 4000 7500 50% losses 1250 2300 3900 7500 14000 Note! 50% losses usually mean that the enemy attack is completely stopped. [i find it strange that flanking fire has higher ammo requirements. Can somebody tell why it is so?] C. PRACTICAL RATES OF FIRE The practical rates of fire for a machine gun [the MG in question is for Maxim/09, I don't know whether the values are with Finnish rof-accelerator or not] are: normal: 200 rounds/min, max ~1/2 hours higher: 300 rounds/min, max 10-15 min high: 400 rounds/min, max 5 min highest: 500 rounds/min, max 1-2 min [The corresponding Finnish terms are "normaali", "kohotettu", "kiivas", "suurin", so there is no danger of confusion] These figures can be used to calculate the necessary amount of MGs for achieving the desired results in a given time. --- end quote --- The figures are probably based on German WWI experiences on the West Front, but I'm not certain about that. Using those figures, it would take 12 Maxims, a full MG company, firing with rof of 400 rounds/min at 1000m range to completely stop a WWI-style attack over 500 meters front. Of course, this is not an absolute figure and in practice the firing range was much smaller. Also, MGs with higher rof can put more lead in the air. Extrapolating from the table (always a dangerous thing to do), it would seem that for 500 m range the figures for frontal fire should be about 350 and 600 rounds for 30% and 50% casualties, respectively. This would mean that about one MG is necessary for each 100 m of the front line, if we add several infantry squad LMGs to the fire density. I would guess that lowering the range from 500 m doesn't lower the density requirements any more since there's less time to fire and the enemy can suppress the MGs easier. - Tommi Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bimmer Posted January 3, 2001 Share Posted January 3, 2001 I have to say that I do not see any real problem with MGs as they are. I tend to use them in pairs firing from positions where they can cover avenues of approach at long range (up to 1000m) if possible. They frequently suppress the advancing enemy enough that I can 1) drop artillery on their heads, and 2) shift forces into better defensive positions to deal with what's left. Their ammo load and long effective range makes them ideal for this sort of work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LuckyStrike Posted January 3, 2001 Share Posted January 3, 2001 Whether or not people see no problem with how MG's are at the moment in the GAME is not the point, the point is how realistically they are modelled. And I have to agree with KiwiJoe, that they are currently lacking. They do not model: - fire lanes - variable rates of fire - beaten zones I don't really see how they are different to squads - except for some grazing fire modelling and longer range,they fire about the same number of times per turn and only at single targets. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hota Posted January 3, 2001 Share Posted January 3, 2001 My problem is with the stopping power of the ma duece. In Bruce Canfield's American Infantry Weapons of WW2 he relates a story about a grunt who fires a .50 cal at a Japanese artillery piece. Not only did he silence the gun but he also PIERCED THE BREECH at over 1000 yards! A couple of games ago I had a .50 cal shooting at a HT at a little over 500 yards, in real life that HT would be shredded in a very short time, but it just buttoned up and kept on trucking! The M2 .50 Cal is one of the most devastating heavy machine guns ever produced, but in CM it just seems to be a longer range M1919! Does anyone know if the penetration power of the bullets (not just 20mm and larger rounds) are calculated, or is a bullet just a bullet no matter if it was fired from an M2 or an MP41? ------------------ -====- Hota Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
von Schalburg Posted January 3, 2001 Share Posted January 3, 2001 The MG 42 has a firing rate of 1200 bullets a minut, if placed in a hiden position a LMG team or HMG team should stop any infantry advance and inflict heavy casulties on the advancing enemy. In the game my MG's never get more than a couple of kills. And yes I know they might have killed more, but not as much as I would expect. I have fired the Danish MG62, which is the same as the MG42, only small modifications. And it is a real good MG, terrible rate of fire, Only problem is you need to change the barrel after 250 rounds. ------------------ PanzerLeid Mit donnernden Motoren, So schnell wie der Blitz, Dem Deinde entgegen, Im Panzer geschützt. Voraus den Kameraden Im Kampfe ganz allein, Steh'n wir allein, So stossen wir tief In die feindlichen Reihn. von Schalburg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ben Galanti Posted January 3, 2001 Share Posted January 3, 2001 Hota, look at the following link: www.bigtimesoftware.com/images/mgvsht.jpg You will see that Ma Deuce can rip HTs pretty well, as long as you get a flank shot on them. The other thing to consider is that it isn't always easy to lay it on a moving target. I've see M2s rip up all sorts of HTs and Armored Cars (and Hetzers). They really can do a number on vehicles. Ben Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
L.Tankersley Posted January 3, 2001 Share Posted January 3, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by tss: [i find it strange that flanking fire has higher ammo requirements. Can somebody tell why it is so?]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> My guess would be bearing rate. For frontal fire, you don't need to shift your aim point much because the targets are coming straight at you. ("They're coming right for us!!" -- Uncle Jimbo) With flanking fire, the targets are moving across your front so you need to keep shifting your aim, which probably results in more wasted shots. ------------------ Leland J. Tankersley Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest wwb_99 Posted January 3, 2001 Share Posted January 3, 2001 The other thing they do not model is the intimidation factor. One reason SEALs love their M-60 man is that when the enemy hears that tell-tale ripping sound, he keeps his head down, even if it isn't shooting at him. I have heard that MG-42s had similar morale effects. WWB ------------------ Before battle, my digital soldiers turn to me and say, Ave, Caesar! Morituri te salutamus. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Herr Oberst Posted January 3, 2001 Share Posted January 3, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by L.Tankersley: My guess would be bearing rate. For frontal fire, you don't need to shift your aim point much because the targets are coming straight at you. ("They're coming right for us!!" -- Uncle Jimbo) With flanking fire, the targets are moving across your front so you need to keep shifting your aim, which probably results in more wasted shots. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Hmm... The average soldier is not as deep front to back as he is wide from shoulder to shoulder??? Or somefink like that... ------------------ To the last I grapple with thee; from hell's heart I stab at thee; for hate's sake I spit my last breath at thee... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hota Posted January 3, 2001 Share Posted January 3, 2001 Hey Ben, that's pretty cool, thanks for the link! What kind of armor does the Sd Kfz's towards the front? I always thought it would be easier to knock out a HT or truck from the front with a .50 cause 1) less lead (vehicle is either moving towards you or away from you or is standing still) plus 50% of your visible target is the engine (which a .50 cal round with GO THROUGH). At 500 meters the .50 will chew up a truck from any angle and should be able to easily pierce any side of a lightly armed HT. One shot through the grill and it will go through your enigne block! ------------------ -====- Hota Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gremlin Posted January 3, 2001 Share Posted January 3, 2001 Sd Kfz 251 (Ausf A,B, and C): front superstucture: 10mm/33 degrees front hull: 14.5/21 (Ausf D) front superstructure: 10/33 front hull: 15/22 Source: Chamberlain and Doyle, Encyclopedia of German Tanks of World War Two ------------------ War is cruel and you cannot refine it. --Sherman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maximus Posted January 3, 2001 Share Posted January 3, 2001 I had a .50 shooting at the ass of a 234/1 at the range of maybe 50m and couldn't get a kill shot. Then finally the thing turned sideways and my .50 finally got the kill shot in the side of the 234/1. ------------------ "Live by the sword, live a good LOOONG life!"-Minsc, BGII "Boo points, I punch."--Minsc, BGII Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doug Beman Posted January 3, 2001 Share Posted January 3, 2001 Everybody, this topic really has been hashed and rehashed dozens of times, right down to individual points (why aren't MG42s more frightening? why don't MGs fire very quickly?) and the statistics given (real-history MG training stats) Using the search engine and reading some of these old posts may answer questions you have. You may find things that lead you to new issues. Perhaps somebody stated your POV in a great way. Whatever. DjB [This message has been edited by Doug Beman (edited 01-03-2001).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bastables Posted January 4, 2001 Share Posted January 4, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LuckyStrike: Whether or not people see no problem with how MG's are at the moment in the GAME is not the point, the point is how realistically they are modelled. And I have to agree with KiwiJoe, that they are currently lacking. They do not model: - fire lanes - variable rates of fire - beaten zones I don't really see how they are different to squads - except for some grazing fire modelling and longer range,they fire about the same number of times per turn and only at single targets.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Beaten zones are modeled for Section and HMG fire, do a search or look at the game. ------------------ From the jshandorf "Why don't we compare reality to the game like Bastables likes to do all the time?" Mr T's reply "Don't touch me FOO!" (BilgeRat) synopsis= "Im a dickhead" Beaton "Smoking makes you look cool. Shoot cute dogs. Violence does not hafta make sense." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts