MGs in game don't live up to the real deal!!

[Tiger]

I know I've seen machineguns in game fire both long and short bursts. There's even 2 different .wav files for every mg in the game: one is a long burst, the other is an interrupted burst.

Machineguns do not fire continuously non-stop. They can not due to overheating of the barrel and the fact that long bursts tend to throw off your aim, meaning you have to stop and reaquire the target.

I suggest the book entitled "German Automatic Weapons of WWII" by Robert Bruce. They do present-day live fire tests of many weapons with commentary; field stripping, and histories.

john

[Flipper]

when i first played the game i thought mg's were underated but the fact is the battlefield soldier is very cognizant of it.

the fact that you charged a nest an didnt lose a man means is your guys were firing an surpressed it,try running parrallel to an mg at close range you will be cut to pieces.

[Nathman]

Ok, so this topic has been hashed and re-hashed. So what? There are a lot of newcomers to this game all the time and they are experiencing exactly the same questions and problems that we all have in the past and want to talk about them. Maybe they will shed new light on something that has been overlooked. Point is, they could do a search and probably find everything they want to know or they can post a topic like this one and engage in a lively dialogue.

I'd prefer the latter. If people are bothered that the same topic has been brought up a half dozen times, then my advice to you is: don't read them and let the newcomers experess themselves.

[Bastables]

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

Ok, so this topic has been hashed and re-hashed. So what? There are a lot of newcomers to this game all the time and they are experiencing exactly the same questions and problems that we all have in the past and want to talk about them. Maybe they will shed new light on something that has been overlooked. Point is, they could do a search and probably find everything they want to know or they can post a topic like this one and engage in a lively dialogue.

I'd prefer the latter. If people are bothered that the same topic has been brought up a half dozen times, then my advice to you is: don't read them and let the newcomers experess themselves.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

He's not a newcomer, he should have noticed just by playing the game that beaten zones were in before grazing fire and that variable HMG bursts at close range were in at 1.02 or 1.03. How about if newbies not only do a search, but also play the game. And here another one how about an argument based on more than 'I feel the HMG are to weak.' Being a newbie or a crotchety board member pre beta demo does not excuse making unsubstantiated arguments or statements. I don’t think it’s acceptable and will say so in any thread, which has riled me enough to push through my growing apathy.

[This message has been edited by Bastables (edited 01-03-2001).]

[Banshee]

I think people have the preconceived notion of MG's from movies, where a lone MG would rip apart everyone. You read your history books and you will see that MG's without infantry screens were very easily dealt with.

MG's are there to pin/suppress the enemy under heavy volumes of fire to allow infantry to either maneuver around and take care of the enemy (offensive capacity), or in the defensive, pin/suppress the enemy to prevent them maneuvering and taking care of you (also MG's were usually used in conjunction with mortars, MG's would pin the infantry, mortars would blast them to pieces).

Another reason MG's are less effective in CM than IRL is the fact that you can order your men to charge a machine gun and they will do it. But IRL usually the men tended to stop in place and return fire, which is the worst thing that they could do.

------------------

Veni, vidi, panzerschrecki

[StellarRat]

I think they work fine. I stopped an assualt from two infantry companies with 4 dug in MG 42's. They ended the game with heavy casualites.

[ASL Veteran]

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

I suggest the book entitled "German Automatic Weapons of WWII" by Robert Bruce. They do present-day live fire tests of many weapons with commentary; field stripping, and histories.

john<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Would that be Robert the Bruce from Scotland? Where is Mel Gibson when you need him!

[Roborat]

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

...Machineguns do not fire continuously non-stop. They can not due to overheating of the barrel and the fact that long bursts tend to throw off your aim, meaning you have to stop and reaquire the target...

john<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not exactly, you aim by watching the rounds hit and walking the stream towards the target, thats why the tracer rounds are inserted. The SOP for medium and heavy machine guns is a long opening burst to establish your aim.

------------------

"With cat-like tread, Upon our prey we steal;

In silence dread, Our cautious way we feel." -G&S

[Nathman]

Bastables, I guess we have a fundamental disagreement when it comes to voicing opinions and bringing up issues. I don't know whether the person who started this post is a newcomer or not - that's not the issue as far as I am concerned. The issue to me is that there are a lot of newcomers all the time and they should be encouraged to use this forum, and if they ask a question that has already been asked, then it's your problem if it bugs you - not theirs. My question is: Why is anyone bothered that someone brings up a point that has been previously brought up? Does it make reading this forum less enjoyable? If you read the topic and it's regarding a dead horse that's already been beat to death, why is it so hard to skip it? If someone makes what is obviously a misstament of fact because that person hasn't played the game enough to know better, should that person be castigated? If you can explain to me why I should be bothered by these sort of posts, then I will gladly take up your cause and roundly criticize the next fool who should dare bring up an unsubstantiated opinion or throw out a question that has been answered a million times already. Give me a reason to be get upset over this!

[Bastables]

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

Bastables, I guess we have a fundamental disagreement when it comes to voicing opinions and bringing up issues. I don't know whether the person who started this post is a newcomer or not - that's not the issue as far as I am concerned. The issue to me is that there are a lot of newcomers all the time and they should be encouraged to use this forum, and if they ask a question that has already been asked, then it's your problem if it bugs you - not theirs. My question is: Why is anyone bothered that someone brings up a point that has been previously brought up? Does it make reading this forum less enjoyable? If you read the topic and it's regarding a dead horse that's already been beat to death, why is it so hard to skip it? If someone makes what is obviously a misstament of fact because that person hasn't played the game enough to know better, should that person be castigated? If you can explain to me why I should be bothered by these sort of posts, then I will gladly take up your cause and roundly criticize the next fool who should dare bring up an unsubstantiated opinion or throw out a question that has been answered a million times already. Give me a reason to be get upset over this!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I've been talking about or to Luckystrike, your attempts to defend the honour of these mythical newbies is irrelevant to me. If I see stupidity and am bothered enough by it I will point it out, 'newbie' or not.

[Nathman]

Sounds good to me! You've won me over. I too, will be bothered by peoples stupidity and make it known. Let us go forth together and vanquish the foe known as "stupidity" and chastise all who would dare post a topic which does not conform to your standard of "non-stupidityness"!

Ok, just having a little fun. Do whatever makes you happy, as will I.

[B M Deleted]

Hey Banshee.........

Machine guns weren't meant to mow tons of people down??? Look back at the history books.....remember World War One????

[Lacky]

Not only world war 1 Benny, but early war Eastern Front. The Russian's suffered mighty to the MG-34 in the early years.

[CATguy]

I find the mg teams to be the most powerful weapon on the board. The HMG 42 team is absolutley deadly. What these mg teams do is not cause casualties but suppress so my infantry teams can move. Any time I spot a MG I consider it a serious threat. The vickers is another nice one and the 30 cal is very rugged. Also another thing that mg's are good for is their high ammo count. this allows them to fire for long periods while saving your squads ammo. I almost always have several teams even when there is armor on the map. They are great at buttoning up vehicles. They are a tremendous value!

[CATguy]

ohh and yeah... what is a bastable????

[Guest Big Time Software]

OK, knock off the ProSearch vs. AntiSearch debate. I AM FRIGGIN SICK OF IT.

There is a wealth of information about a whole host of detailed topics. People that remember the older discussions SHOULD point it out and let the participants decide if they wish to do some research. They should not get bent out of shape that a Search was suggested, nor should they be made to feel like if they don't search they are a lesser human being. Both sides of this on-going feud are far too often petty and childish about the whole thing.

That being said, if someone is REALLY interested in knowing about something like how MGs are modeled in CM, they would be wise to do a Search and read up on what has gone on before, ESPECIALLY if someone takes the time to post a direct link to a bang-on topic thread.

The best possible new discussion would start with a full understanding of whatever previous detailed discussions have unearthed. This is the basic foundation of informed discussion. The wost possible new thread is one that rehashes the same exact discussion as before, knowing that it is most likely a rehash, and yet gets no further. Think about it...

If one reads a previous discussion and feels there is nothing more to add, then there probably is no need for a new discussion. Therefore time and energy can saved and instead spent on other things (even if that means just playing the game ). If, however, someone reads up on the older stuff and spots some new angle to go after, all the "old hat" stuff can be skipped and we can get right into a new and potentially valuable thread right away.

So I say if there is a previous discussion, and you are REALLY interested in the topic, you should read up on it. Not because someone commands you to do it, but because it makes good sense from a productive discussion standpoint.

Thanks,

Steve

[Bastables]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Benny Manieri:

Hey Banshee.........

Machine guns weren't meant to mow tons of people down??? Look back at the history books.....remember World War One????<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hey Benny look at the concentrations of HMG’s in Bunkers and trench lines and city fortresses (never achieved post WW I, to my recollection since. Although the defensive belts at Kursk may have come close) vs. the cunning idea that you could not trust conscripted troops to attack in any other fashion other than in mass Regimental formations which took place during WW I. Contrast this to the emphasis or acknowledgement of British in the use ‘step by step’ advance or German preference for infiltration during WW II which were first used in WWI, not to say they did not pull a WW I from time to time. Also note how during WW II due to the greater dispersion practiced by most Infantry on all sides of the conflict that German mortars caused more casualties than the HMG due to the fact HMG just pinned the attack while the GrWs did the actual damage. And note how when the British practised the Step by step advance success was achieved in the opening phases of passchendale (SP) vs trench lines of German HMG and infantry or how the infiltration tactics negated the British HMG/trench lines in the German 1918 offensive.

------------------

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."

[This message has been edited by Bastables (edited 01-03-2001).]

[Guest KwazyDog]

One thing to remember though guys is that in WW1 and early on the eastern front the tactics in place were totally different than those at the end of the war. Ive been reading out the Russian wave attacks just recently and it was basically a line of troops marching straight towards the enemies postitions.

In all of the accounts Ive been reading lately I havnt yet found one that would make the MG seen like the mega weapon seen in the movies. From what I know it was employed as a suppresive weapon, and it did its job well.

[Banshee]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Benny Manieri:

Hey Banshee.........

Machine guns weren't meant to mow tons of people down??? Look back at the history books.....remember World War One????<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Remember this is WW2?

In WWI only thing that mattered was having a ton of MG's on line and a bunch of arty backing them up. There was absolutely no mobility and the battlefield was defined. Very different picture than WW2, and those MG's STILL had a bunch of infantry in the trenches alongside them for support.

With the advent of mobile warfare the positions that the enemy was fighting from were much less prepared (some notable exceptions, the beach fortifications along the coast, the Siegfried Line, etc). The MG's were used to prevent mobility, and supress, hopefully kill, but in reality the artillery and the maneuvering units got a lot more kills than the MG's. Only in places like Normandy where the mobility was restriced were the MG's more killing machines than supression machines. Even then the artillery got 75% of the kills.

If we look at DBRoe's situation that started the thread we can see he had 5 MG's (1919's) which he expected to stop a platoon of infantry. This MIGHT work, IF and only if the had a few hundred more meters between him and the enemy. But 120m's ,while it seems quite a distance, is not very far at all (so the distance can be closed very rapidly). Also look at the number of guns vs number of targets, 5 guns vs 35+ targets each firing back (some of which are LMG's as well btw). A much better tactic is to have your MG's have a screening force of infantry in front of it (even a squad does wonders). The MG's will fire from long range, attriting , suppressing the bad guys, until they get close and then the infantry would stop the ability of a close in rush. This would cause the offending party to have to maneuver more (still under MG fire), in order to suppress the position. MG's arent uber weapons (nothing in CM is) but when used properly they are amazingly powerful tools. I would rather have 1 MG covered by a SMG platoon instead of 5 MG's (same CM cost), if i was given the choice of holding a position. The longer the range the more effective MG's become (sounds incorrect dont it?). This is because the enemy units return fire and suppression factors are very low in comparison to and HMG at range.

------------------

Veni, vidi, panzerschrecki

[This message has been edited by Banshee (edited 01-03-2001).]

[Nathman]

Wow, that was a powerful statement by BTS (Steve). Sorry you are sick of it. Just thought a little lively dialogue on the subject wasn't too much of a big deal. I guess I should've done a search on "search vs

no search" before I posted on this thread. My bad. Didn't mean to upset anyone.

ps... This is a great game!

[Dbroe]

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

Remember this is WW2?

In WWI only thing that mattered was having a ton of MG's on line and a bunch of arty backing them up. There was absolutely no mobility and the battlefield was defined. Very different picture than WW2, and those MG's STILL had a bunch of infantry in the trenches alongside them for support.

With the advent of mobile warfare the positions that the enemy was fighting from were much less prepared (some notable exceptions, the beach fortifications along the coast, the Siegfried Line, etc). The MG's were used to prevent mobility, and supress, hopefully kill, but in reality the artillery and the maneuvering units got a lot more kills than the MG's. Only in places like Normandy where the mobility was restriced were the MG's more killing machines than supression machines. Even then the artillery got 75% of the kills.

If we look at DBRoe's situation that started the thread we can see he had 5 MG's (1919's) which he expected to stop a platoon of infantry. This MIGHT work, IF and only if the had a few hundred more meters between him and the enemy. But 120m's ,while it seems quite a distance, is not very far at all (so the distance can be closed very rapidly). Also look at the number of guns vs number of targets, 5 guns vs 35+ targets each firing back (some of which are LMG's as well btw). A much better tactic is to have your MG's have a screening force of infantry in front of it (even a squad does wonders). The MG's will fire from long range, attriting , suppressing the bad guys, until they get close and then the infantry would stop the ability of a close in rush. This would cause the offending party to have to maneuver more (still under MG fire), in order to suppress the position. MG's arent uber weapons (nothing in CM is) but when used properly they are amazingly powerful tools. I would rather have 1 MG covered by a SMG platoon instead of 5 MG's (same CM cost), if i was given the choice of holding a position. The longer the range the more effective MG's become (sounds incorrect dont it?). This is because the enemy units return fire and suppression factors are very low in comparison to and HMG at range. ---------------------------------------------------------- (Dbroe reply)

Hey Banshee you got me wrong.I had the 5 mg in an support by fire with an INF. sqd with them.They where in an over watch poss. covering the flank of 2 sqd in a bld.What went down was a platoon came out of wood line ran 140 to 160 meters to bld where I had 2 sqds engaged in fight with other enemy sqds to front.So is platoon ran from A to B under hvy. fire at about 120 meters ave. and not ONE sqd was pinned or slowed.

If that was the case with mg they would not use them today.I.ve been out about 100 or so live fires like clx's and just pop up ranges and never seen such lack of firepower. granted it was close but the sqd with would pick up slack.Plus guns did not come under fire.Thank you for the replies.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>" i don't think you can drop us all fat ass!" "NO but I'll get an A for effort." Above The Law

[This message has been edited by Dbroe (edited 01-03-2001).]

[This message has been edited by Dbroe (edited 01-03-2001).]

[This message has been edited by Dbroe (edited 01-03-2001).]

[Guest Big Time Software]

Nathman,

Sorry for coming on so strong. This has been a back and forth fight, and I mean fight, for at least a year now. Flair ups happen from time to time, but man... there has been a rash of them in the last week. Both sides just need to chill out

Steve

[Bastables]

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

ohh and yeah... what is a bastable????<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Bastable= equals a fav British fictional character of the early 2000 (E. Nesbits children book Oswald Bastable) . I thought he'd be so famous that the 's' was required to highlight my Bastable, I was wrong. Michael Moorcock has also used Bastable in some of his Sci-fi books, I'll have to look into that and buy em.

[Simon Fox]

Wrong!

It's Bastardable, or more precisely grumpy miserable bastardable.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>growing apathy.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>That explains a lot you miserable kiwi loafer, pull yer finger out.

[LuckyStrike]

Actually Bastables it was me who posted a direct link to an earlier thread after I did a search on MGs (the fifth post in this thread)

I wasn't however aware that beaten zones were modelled, my apologies.