Theory and practice in the use of MMG

[Hanns]

In which case the German can hand the Brit a copy of Adam Smith's "The Wealth of Nations" and say "see, we have beaten you at your own game" while the Brit is still wondering how to achieve the Socialist worker's utopia that Marx envisioned

[Username]

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

[/qb]

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.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

But the game, CMBO, is at a stage of development where most 'machineguns' behave about the same. They have firepower values and 'weight' (movement) and ammo loads.

In the future, the MGs will be differentiated because of things like go for broke, grazing fire, target switching.

So the CLUMP will be spread into shades of clumps. The 50 cal might not have swivel about very well. Its grazing fire might not be as effective as a water cooled weapon. The go-for-broke capabilities of a magazine fed weapon might be very short in duration and subject to jamming.

So lots of people are calling for change not realizing change is on the way. Also, weapons characteristics will be better defined and learnable. Realistic use of weapons and tactics should be the benefits.

Lewis

[Brian]

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

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

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Appears to be no takers. OK, here's a more connected question to the subject of the thread - what was the rifle used by the majority of the soldiers in the move Zulu?

[Hon John Howard MP LLB]

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

[/qb]

Appears to be no takers. OK, here's a more connected question to the subject of the thread - what was the rifle used by the majority of the soldiers in the move Zulu?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Probably the SMLE with some woodwork removed (other that appear include Long Lee-Enfield and/or Lee-Metford rifles).

Mistakes are helicopter and land-rover in the background of long shots up/down the valley and the wrist watch worn when standing to at the "ramparts".

[Hon John Howard MP LLB]

Anyway - to come back to something resembling the topic in question.....

No-one has yet disproved that the BritCom Forces were trained to exploit some unique features of their MMG equipment - viz long-range, sustained barrage fire.

What I have failed to see in the game is the ability for this to be used where appropriate.

I trust that the greater "Gods" of CM will allow for this in CM2. But will it happen ?

[Andreas]

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

Anyway - to come back to something resembling the topic in question.....

No-one has yet disproved that the BritCom Forces were trained to exploit some unique features of their MMG equipment - viz long-range, sustained barrage fire.

What I have failed to see in the game is the ability for this to be used where appropriate.

I trust that the greater "Gods" of CM will allow for this in CM2. But will it happen ?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not quite correct - this has been mentioned by people, amongst others me, and there is no need to disprove it, it is indeed not possible to disprove it, since it was real life use.

What you need to do is supply proof of it being used at CMBO's level. If you had examples of tactical employment of this, I would be interested in seeing them, because the only ones I have seen are in preparatory barrages (Pepperpots) which are outside CMBO's scope. It is also difficult to judge their effectiveness in that situation, since it might well be that they just got drowned in the noise ('the noise' being e.g. a Field Regiment firing into the same area).

So, if you could give some actions where the Vickers was used in that way, the likelihood of it going into CM II is much improved. Where would it be appropriate? Was it done ad-hoc or only after registering the machine-gun? How long does it take to set-up? Should all MG gunners be able to do it equally well (i.e. green as well as crack)? If it was done on the hoof, how were comms between the forward units calling it in and the MG Battalion done? Was it the 4.2" FOOs? Was it done on a regular basis, and part of doctrine, or was it a case of private Bowlby doing it one day in Italy in a desperate situation?

If you answer those questions, I am sure BTS will take notice - does not mean they will implement it, but it might make The List™.

Personally, I would rate this as a low-priority item at the moment (I may change my mind if you bring compelling evidence), compared to getting dismountable Carrier machine-guns, correct splitting of the squad, more realistic treatment of the 3" mortar, higher ROF for the 25-pdr, 8-gun FOOs, Churchill IIIs, Staghound ACs, Buffalo amphibious APCs. There is only so much that can be done for the game, even by the time of CM II.

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

[Vanir Ausf B]

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

I trust that the greater "Gods" of CM will allow for this in CM2. But will it happen ?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Rather doubtfull as there will be no BritCom forces in CM2 (its an East Front game). CM3... who knows.

[Andreas]

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

Rather doubtfull as there will be no BritCom forces in CM2 (its an East Front game). CM3... who knows.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ah, good point - I did assume he meant CM II - if anyone wants it in CMBB, question is whether the Red Army Maxims had the equipment to do this.

[Username]

The North Koreans , who used the maxims, used this indirect fire. The first post in this thread doubted that the russians would.

http://rt66.com/~korteng/SmallArms/30calhv.htm

"The North Korean armies, on the other hand, were well supplied with the Maxim heavy machine guns by the USSR, and used them in large quantities in the Pusan Perimeter battles. The NK, well trained and largely veterans of China's civil war, would site these weapons at long distances to place grazing fire on slopes we were attacking. Beyond hearing range, using smokeless powder, sighted in with great professional accuracy, the first inkling our troops would have that they were under aimed fire would be when their comrades' bodies and faces were suddenly torn and shattered."

So, I doubt that the Vickers had any advantage in this department. Ive read of german MG companys and battalions also using similar tactics. Its really outside the scale of teh game.

Lewis

[Brian]

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

So, I doubt that the Vickers had any advantage in this department.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Except range - Mk.VIIIz ammunition allowed this to occur out to ranges of 7,000 metres, Lewis. Most normal, full calibre rifle rounds only have a range of about 3-5,000 metres.

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

Ive read of german MG companys and battalions also using similar tactics. Its really outside the scale of teh game.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

How so? All that is required, as I've suggested is that the weapons be treated as pseudo-artillery. You have, as they did, a spotter forward, he calls in fire. That fire is give a beaten zone. QED.

I also have a slight problem, I've never heard the term "grazing fire" before, except in American publications. Is this the same as plunging fire?

[Username]

Grazing fire normally means flat fire against a piece of land. Here, the author seems to be refering to the effect of MG fire coming down teh back side of the hill slope. In effect, it is running parallel down the reverse slope.

The lower the velocity, the better this effect can be under certain circumstances. So having a low velocity can reach certain reverse slopes closer to your own position.

I wonder how much effect wind would have on bullets at that great a range?

Does anyone know if smokeless powder was used by the commonwealth? The US evidently didnt use it.

[Brian]

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

Grazing fire normally means flat fire against a piece of land. Here, the author seems to be refering to the effect of MG fire coming down teh back side of the hill slope. In effect, it is running parallel down the reverse slope.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Whereas with the Vickers, plunging fire was utilised - the round was fired in a ballistic trajectory so that it fell nearly vertically.

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

The lower the velocity, the better this effect can be under certain circumstances. So having a low velocity can reach certain reverse slopes closer to your own position.

I wonder how much effect wind would have on bullets at that great a range?

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, of course it does, which is to get best value out of this sort of tactic, an FO was usually provided to spot the fire. Unobserved fire is usually pretty inaccurate, no matter what the weapon being used is.

Does anyone know if smokeless powder was used by the commonwealth? The US evidently didnt use it.

[Username]

Whereas with the Vickers, plunging fire was utilised - the round was fired in a ballistic trajectory so that it fell nearly vertically.

Is this defined as being 60-70 degrees? 70-80? 80-90?

Lewis

[Andreas]

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

How so? All that is required, as I've suggested is that the weapons be treated as pseudo-artillery. You have, as they did, a spotter forward, he calls in fire. That fire is give a beaten zone. QED.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Brian do you have examples of regular use on CMBO's scale? Not as part of preparatory barrages, but in battle? How regular, who did the spotting, how were comms established? How effective was it? Same questions as the ones I asked your PM If those can be answered positively, you are on your way to having a good case - if not, not. The fact that it could do it, does not mean it did it on CMBO's scale. Tanks did fire indirectly (e.g. South Albertas at Kappelsche Veer and during Plunder), and PIATs were used as mortars (according to Bowlby) - all this is not part of the game, for various reasons.

[Username]

http://www.1914-1918.net/mgc.htm

Machine gun tactics

There are many, many instances where a single well-placed and protected machine gun cut great swathes in attacking infantry. However, it was found that multiple machine-guns, firing in interlocking fields of fire, or in coordinated barrages, were an incredibly destructive weapon. Increasingly, the infantry took advantage of this, as did the MGC.

The machine guns of the 2nd and 47th Division fired an indirect barrage over the heads of their advancing infantry, and behind the German trenches (in other words, this was an interdiction barrage, to stop German attempts to reinforce or re-supply their front, during the Battle of Loos, on 25th September 1915. This was possibly the first time an indirect fire tactic was borrowed from the artillery.

Later, and certainly by the Battle of Messines, machine gunners were also employing creeping barrages, with fire falling ahead of the artillery barrage to catch troops moving to the rear. They would concentrate fire on specific targets, or sweep the enemy ground behind his front and support positions. Machine guns for these tasks were generally placed about 1000 yards behind the advancing infantry, and were moved up as soon as the enemy positions were captured. Machine gun tactics had in fact, become more like those of the artillery than of the infantry.

This is from the website. Its WWI of course. These tactics seem to be part of set piece attacks.

[ 09-03-2001: Message edited by: Username ]