Theory and practice in the use of MMG

[danyzn]

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

Given your role as Prime Minister of Australia and with a federal election coming up, do you really think you have the time to discuss MMG theory?

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Political power comes out of the barrel of an MMG. Especially when you have no hope of actually winning the election.

[Hon John Howard MP LLB]

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

Did the Commonwealth countries ever field this weapon (besa) as a 'medium'? It seems that it would have been well suited to use in one of those carriers instead of the bren.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No. Besa MGs in 7.62 mm and 15 mm were used as AFV (ie coaxial, hull front or main armament) only. Ammunition was a problems (as they were no rechambered to take then British standard cartridges) as the time from introduction to start of war was too short to allow redevelopment (even if desired).

Individual weapons may have been used from damaged vehicles ("scrounged") but in general not.

(The 7.62mm Besa was as heavy as the Vickers with no appreciable gain and in fact really a loss of barrage/sustained fire capabilities)

[Herr Jung]

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

The names, light medium and heavy mean nothing really. Its semantics. The weapons are characterized by what they can do, not what they are called.

Lewis

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

An MG able to lay down a continuous volume of fire with reasonable accuracy and reliability by firing full-power rifle cartridges or above (but just below "cannon") at around 450rpm or above at some distance should be classified as an HMG. To achieve this, the MG is usually accompanied by stable mounting, good supply of ammo, cooling system, etc. Of course, not all LMG, MMG, and HMG are the same, it's just classification for convenience.

US .50 cal was first classified as an AT gun by the US Army which - like the other armies - thought of the water-cooled .30 (M1919?) as the HMG. As armor gradually thickened, .50 cal's role had to be redefined. It excelled in certain areas, but was quite a bit of overkill and not so efficient for anti-personnel work. I know it's darn heavy, but it's classification? I honestly can't say because it doesn't fit the classic HMG definition -- an MG doesn't have to fire the big bullet to become one.

The Germans also had large caliber machine guns sometimes used for the ground role. Some Germans probably even called it the Schweres Maschinengewehr (i.e., HMG).

Herr Jung

[Brian]

Originally posted by Username:

I dont speak for BTS but I would guess it is by weapon weight. That is, the whole weapon system is heavy.

[Username]

Then I would suggest that you and they are [bOLD]wrong[/bOLD]. Is BTS aiming to create an historical or ahistorical game of the period?

Again, how would you classify the Bren on a tripod? An LMG or an MMG? If we used modern classification it would be a GPMG. It would not though, qualify as an SFMG.

[/QB]

[Brian]

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

In game terms?, the Bren isnt in the game on those terms! In fact, the other thread never made it exactly clear if this is what they wanted.

Since the Bren is not belt fed, I would call this a squad automatic on a rack.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Which doesn't exist as a classification in military terminology, Lewis.

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

BTS is making a game that represent many different nations weapons systems.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'd suggest that in reality they are making the American interpretration of different nations' weapons.

They are not representing the "systems" aspects of them very well IMO nor are they utilising how the various nations themselves viewed those weapon systems.

Personally, I'd have much rather they'd have not hard coded the various weapons' data into the game engine but rather left them as "plug-in" data files which could be added to or altered very easily - to allow players/developers to extend a good system and make it better.

[Vanir Ausf B]

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

I'd suggest that in reality they are making the American interpretration of different nations' weapons.

They are not representing the "systems" aspects of them very well IMO nor are they utilising how the various nations themselves viewed those weapon systems.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Wrong.

There is no "Americanization" going on. BTS used whatever classification system the nation that used the particular weapon used. I.e. the MG42 HMG is called a HMG in the game not because the US labeled it as such, but because the Germans labeled it as such.

Now, you can argue that the Germans and the Americans used the "wrong" method of classifing MGs, but you can't pin that on the makers of the game.

Personally, I think its a silly arguement as you can apply any label you want to a weapon and it doesn't change its physical characteristics or performance. But I seem to be in the minority on that...

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Personally, I'd have much rather they'd have not hard coded the various weapons' data into the game engine but rather left them as "plug-in" data files which could be added to or altered very easily - to allow players/developers to extend a good system and make it better.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It's been suggested. The problem is the effect that would have on multiplayer games.

[Franko]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Hon John Howard MP LLB:

As apublic servant you would be aware that you do not pay tax (as this implies wealth creation) but you just get the amount less any tax at the appropriate rate.

Anyway if I paid tax - I would complain too (OOPS! Dang let the cat out of the bag - where is my Minister for Small Business when I need him ?)

So - back to the point in hand (and it is a small point indeed), if I cannot partake of a little relaxation by exercising my mind ('cos with such a great team of boot-lickers like I have who needs to strain one-self running a country).......<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Okay, I read this guys profile and I'm actually starting to get convinced that he really IS the PM of Australia.

Frank

[Brian]

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

It's been suggested. The problem is the effect that would have on multiplayer games.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Why? Simply have to have agreement on the various aspects of the weapons employed.

If it was done, then you'd have basically a games engine which could be utilised for all periods of the 20th century+, basically.

BTW, as for the Germans calling the MG42 a HMG, I've never seen a German reference refer to it in that way. I've seen translations and intel reports refer to it that way.

Which indicates what?

[Brian]

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

Okay, I read this guys profile and I'm actually starting to get convinced that he really IS the PM of Australia.

Frank<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, this bloke'd be using Vickers on the Tampas, if he really was the PM.

[Vanir Ausf B]

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

Why? Simply have to have agreement on the various aspects of the weapons employed.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Heh. Look around on this board and see how good people are at agreeing on this stuff. Or go reread the SMLE vs. Garand thread as a refresher

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>BTW, as for the Germans calling the MG42 a HMG, I've never seen a German reference refer to it in that way. I've seen translations and intel reports refer to it that way.

Which indicates what?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Can you actually read German or are you speculating? That's a lot of mistranslation if one were to believe your theory. I'd have to see some evidence.

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

[PeterNZer]

official designation is

Universal-Maschinengewehr Modell 34 (MG34)

and

Universal-Maschinengewehr Modell 42 (MG42)

for comparison:

Leichtes Maschinengewehr Modell 15

Leichtes Maschinengewehr Modell 17

Leichtes Maschinengewehr Modell 81

(all modified versions of aircraft MGs)

and (!): (überschwer = "super-heavy")

Überschweres Maschinengewehr Modell 131 13mm

Überschweres Maschinengewehr Modell 151/20 20mm

(all modified versions of aircraft MGs)

I have detailed information on all this Mg's and more so ask if you want some specifics.

Lindan

[Vanir Ausf B]

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

official designation is

Universal-Maschinengewehr Modell 34 (MG34)

and

Universal-Maschinengewehr Modell 42 (MG42)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Looks like they called it a GPMG, more or less. Makes sense as that's what it really was.

I found a site with some nice MG classification definitions for those who think they are important.

Heavy Machine Gun (HMG) - Originally, any machine gun designed for heavy sustained firing from a tripod and utilizing a water jacket cooling system around the barrel to dissipate heat, hence the term "heavy". Examples include the Maxim, Vickers, and Browning 1917A1. Later this term applied to machine guns that fired bullets larger than those used in the issue service rifles. The most popular example is the Browning .50 caliber M-2 series.

Medium Machine Gun (MMG) - At first this was a lighter variant of the early heavy machine guns. The barrel jacket water cooling system was dispensed with and a heavier barrel substituted. This gave the weapon greater portability but reduced sustained-fire capability. One of the best examples is the Browning 1919A4. By the advent of W.W.II, many water-cooled machine guns were reclassified as medium guns.

General Purpose Machine Gun (GPMG) - A German invention between the World Wars, its purpose was to provide a very flexible gun that could serve as light, medium, and even heavy gun by adding or subtracting features such as tripods, bipods, shoulder stocks, sights, ammo carriers, and barrels. The real secret of the concept was the quick-change barrel system that allowed a hot barrel to be replaced in seconds, thus maintaining a heavy stream of fire. Another feature of all modern GPMGs was borrowed from the Germans - heavy use of stampings, spotwelding, and simple cast or machined parts. Examples include the German MG-42, American M-60, and Belgian FN MAG.

Light Machine Gun (LMG) - A lighter weight, purpose-built machine gun, usually of original design and not converted from a heavier weapon, that fires a rifle cartridge either from a belt or large magazine. Most LMGs have shoulder stocks and folding bipods. Some have been adapted for tripod use such as the excellent British BREN gun. The current trend in LMGs favors assault rifle ammunition.

Automatic Rifle - Often this term is used interchangeably with LMG. The automatic rifle is normally a rifle caliber, shoulder fired machine gun containing a detachable magazine and folding bipod. Perhaps the most famous example is the Browning BAR. Many post-war designs were essentially existing service rifles refitted with bipods and selector switches for full automatic fire, and sometimes muzzle brakes, heavier barrels, and full pistol grips.

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

[Fishu]

Germans did do indirect fire in World War I as described in first post by the brits.

If the 'barrage' hit good area, it would been lethal as soldiers would throw in prone, which would actually make them more vulnerable to this indirect fire than standing.

This is due to bullets dropping from the sky, not coming directly.

Prone soldier can offer larger hit zone than standing soldier in this case.

[Brian]

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

Looks like they called it a GPMG, more or less. Makes sense as that's what it really was.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

As I've been pointing out...

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

I found a site with some nice MG classification definitions for those who think they are important.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'll stick to my Jane's/Brassey's and other similar serious publications rather than what appears to be a gun nut website, which again, gets the definitions wrong.

"Battle Rifle" - pffft!

[Username]

Which doesn't exist as a classification in military terminology, Lewis.

I am making a point that names dont matter. Performance and functionality do.

Comparisons can be made. Compare it to a heavy-barreled M1919 air cooled 30 cal. hows it compare in weight? Surge firepower? Compare it to a HMG42. (I wouldnt.) What other weapons system would you compare it to? What names are you giving to these systems?

Its like a 10 year old girl in high heels.

Lewis

[Username]

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

Germans did do indirect fire in World War I as described in first post by the brits.

If the 'barrage' hit good area, it would been lethal as soldiers would throw in prone, which would actually make them more vulnerable to this indirect fire than standing.

This is due to bullets dropping from the sky, not coming directly.

Prone soldier can offer larger hit zone than standing soldier in this case.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, not exactly.

Prone soldiers would not be as safe from indirect fire but would still be better off than standing! The indirect fire bullet's angle is not that great.

Bullets ricochet alot. Standing would put a person in danger of those as well as catching many "on the way down".

Lewis

[danyzn]

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

Okay, I read this guys profile and I'm actually starting to get convinced that he really IS the PM of Australia.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yeah he's trying to perfect MMG tactics to give the SAS a chance against those terrifying refugees.

[Lars]

He’s either the PM or he’s pulling one of the greatest scams in board history.

Good thing he didn’t register as George Bush, Maximus would have a seizure.

[Vanir Ausf B]

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

I am making a point that names dont matter. Performance and functionality do<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is what I've been trying to say. This "proper definition" stuff is an arguement only a lawyer or bureaucrat could think was important.

The US called the M26 Pershing a "heavy" tank for moral purposes even though it was really a medium. Who cares? Calling it a heavy didn't make its armor any thicker, and calling the M1917 a MMG doesn't make it weigh any less or shoot any slower.

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

[Hon John Howard MP LLB]

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

No, this bloke'd be using Vickers on the Tampas, if he really was the PM. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Wait for it !

Remember I still believe that "Zulu" is a a valuable training resource on tactics to be emplyed whenever the "natives" get restless.......

[Brian]

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

Which doesn't exist as a classification in military terminology, Lewis.

I am making a point that names dont matter. Performance and functionality do.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Partially I agree but the problem is that then you will have _real_ problems making comparisons _and_ understanding how the weapon _was_ employed.

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

Comparisons can be made. Compare it to a heavy-barreled M1919 air cooled 30 cal. hows it compare in weight? Surge firepower? Compare it to a HMG42. (I wouldnt.) What other weapons system would you compare it to? What names are you giving to these systems?

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I made that clear, I utilise the names the combatants used, historically plus I attempt to make it clear that where they make comparison difficult, I draw upon modern classifications such as SFMG - which covers your question about functionality.

The problem is that you assume that because someone calls something a HMG, as in the case of the MG42 on a tripod, its directly comparable to a .50 cal, despite the two being very, very, different weapons which were employed in very, very, different ways.

Ditto for the Vickers and the .30 cal. The Bren and the BAR.

[Brian]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Hon John Howard MP LLB:

Wait for it !

Remember I still believe that "Zulu" is a a valuable training resource on tactics to be emplyed whenever the "natives" get restless.......<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ah, the most marvellous of Australian Army training films. I saw/showed it over 30 times in the years I was in. Can you name the three most obvious "errors" in the movie though?

At least we knew who the enemy was, after watching that.

[Hon John Howard MP LLB]

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

Ah, the most marvellous of Australian Army training films. I saw/showed it over 30 times in the years I was in. Can you name the three most obvious "errors" in the movie though?

At least we knew who the enemy was, after watching that.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes - but then let see who else can....

And they (the enemy) do not wear red coats (coz that would be unsporting) - good god sir ! Just not cricket !

An old joke:

When the West Germans beat the English in a World Cup tie a German spectator turned to an English one and said "Ve haf beeten you at your own game !". The reply was a droll "That's all right old chap. We have beaten you at yours twice...."

[Andreas]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Hon John Howard MP LLB:

An old joke:

When the West Germans beat the English in a World Cup tie a German spectator turned to an English one and said "Ve haf beeten you at your own game !". The reply was a droll "That's all right old chap. We have beaten you at yours twice...."<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yawn - old indeed. Funnily enough, that's what my English co-workers told me after the game last year, it is what they are going to tell me on Monday...