SMG

[jasoncawley@ameritech.net]

On the number of fausts, I find quite consistently that the VG-era ones get 4 or 5 per platoon. And they are -60 or -100s of course. The VGers aren't out yet when they are still only -30s.

You do not have to buy a schreck for every platoon with German infantry, once the better fausts are out. The fausts are quite capable weapons. The Schreck doesn't hit things beyond about 60 meters in my experience. That is better range, yes, but you get it from a vunerable and slower 2-man team. A squad does not lose its faust when 2 men are hit, it can run without quickly tiring, and it is not a fire magnet.

Schrecks are still useful, do not get me wrong. If you plan a particular ambush, or wanted to deny a particular area for an extended period of time, the 23 point cost (or 28 vet) can be well worth it. But it is nothing like necessary to protect the infantry from tanks, and to deny Allied armor close passage by your infantry.

This is in sharp contrast to the Allied infantry types. They need their zook or PIAT per platoon, and sometimes extra zooks (smaller warhead, needs flank shots, etc). For the Germans, the trade is another HMG or 20mm PAK or 81mm on-map, or perhaps 2 AT mines on defense - or a schreck? Nothing forces you to pay for them.

And the protection a platoon with 4-5 fausts get, is quite as good as that a platoon with a zook gets. The range is lower, but there are more shooters, 2-3, to cover the area. The shooters have less "ammo", but they are more robust when shot at, and 2 men cowering does not make the platoon defenseless. In all, the protection is comparable, and given a choice between them I'd take the fausts without an AT team, over an AT team without fausts.

On number of men, I meant close enough. The Brit glider and German SMG platoon are apples to apples. The Brits have 1 more man, but 4 in teams and thus 3 fewer infantry shooters. As I mentioned, to get the same FP at 40 or at 100 yards, the Brits would have to KO 5 guys in the SMG platoon.

The point is, the Brits are not getting some edge in depth or robustness, in return for their lower close-in firepower. They are buying a 2" mortar (of dubious value and with only 20 shells, 2-3 turns worth tops), and getting marginally better FP at medium range, if they fire all their squads. The Germans get better firepower close, better at 100 yards, and 80% as much FP out to 250 yards with 1/3rd the ammo expenditure.

I really don't see any contest. The basic reason is simple enough. The Germans have more SMGs where the Brits have rifles, and the Brits have men in teams that don't fire small arms, and the Germans have a better MG.

They just don't have to pay anything to get those things. As you noticed, rifles and SMGs cost the same. If 3-5 FP at 150-250 yards were actually going to do anything, then there might be some point to that, because of the rifle's range.

But against typical cover, a riflemen in CM can fire 2-4 times his ammo load before he hits anybody, at those ranges and shooting into typical cover. Which he does not have time to do.

Infantry fire can have an impact at those ranges. But it does so against men in the open for relatively brief periods, and because of the MGs in the squads. Rifle squads have one added tactical ability compared to SMG ones therefore - they can pin men in the open at 150-250 yards more easily. That is about it.

Most good CM players quickly learned that ammo conservation is quite important. This is especially so on the defense, where every defender has to account for, or break, 1.5 attackers with the same ammo load. What is the proper weapon to pin infantry in the open at 150-250 yards, taking that into account? MG teams. HMGs for the Germans, MMGs or the Vickers style for the others. They have the ammo for it, and at those ranges they have the firepower of squads or better.

Another fellow said that the motorized Pz Gdrs "are the best". I already gave a detailed comparison that suggests otherwise pretty forcefully. But they are the second best, in my opinion. And the reason is not the MP44, of which there aren't enough anyway. The reason is the whole platoon only costs 124 points and it has 6 MG-42s in it, and those are by far the best squad-level weapons in CM. They shoot at range like 10 rifles or 2 BARs, each.

The cost is only 4 points about that of a U.S. rifle platoon. And the faust-less U.S. rifle platoon needs its zook, so it costs 10 points more when both have modest AT capability. The U.S. gets more men, the Mot. Pz Gdr gets more firepower. It is a fine flexible infantry type, heavy on the ranged firepower. It doesn't need HMGs as much, so it can move faster on attack than an SMG-HMG blend.

But you pay for every one of those things, because well handled the SMGs can put out nearly 25% more combat power for the same price "invested". See the "Total fire potential" analysis above. Then count the TFP as 1/2, and the number of men as 1/2, offense and defense. I am not pulling the number out of my hat.

SMGs should cost more than rifles, by ~1/3 of a point each. Vanilla allied squads should have 2 SMGs each, for the squad leader and his second team leader or corporal. Fausts and other useful special equipment should add slightly to infantry costs, and more later on when the fausts are more capable. Demo charges should actually have large blast, not hand-grenade blast. Flamethrowers should cost about half what they do now.

In the absence of all of the above, the Allies are in poor shape for infantry. They have fewer choices and the things that are, or aren't cheap, are not cutting their way. In 1945 with the 2 BAR squads, the U.S. is a bit better off, but not enough. The airborne is somewhat better off, but not enough to balance. The British line infantry is poor compared to many German choices, and the German vanilla squads are worse than most special types.

One man's opinion...

[jasoncawley@ameritech.net]

To Martin -

We all have the data, thanks. But infantry is not bought by the squad. If you try to buy Arm. Pz Gdrs to get "even cheaper 2 LMG squads", you get to buy a flock of overpriced SPW-251/1s, too. So you pay 310 points, and get 4 vehicle MGs and 6 squad ones. For less than the same cost, you can buy a VG company. It is just an example of the innaccuracies of single unit comparisons, as opposed to the mixes one can actually buy.

The Mot. Pz Gdr is a decent second because it is cheap and well equipped. The only other type that is a similar combat-power bargain even with all its attachments, is the Sturmkompanie, assuming you can afford it in the battle you are in. Everything else pays for lots of do-dads besides the fighting infantry, many of them of dubious value or useful, but inflated in price. Flamethrowers manage to be both.

Notice that in your list, the best numbers at the 40 meter mark are the SMG sqd, and close behind it the Hvy SMG squad. While the best at the 100 meter mark you picked out, are the MG teams, and the Hvy SMG squad. Isn't somebody in this discussion recommending those items, and in particular using the HMGs for ranged fire and the SMGs for close fire?

The next best items in the list are the Arm. Pz Gdrs, which you can't buy without their overpriced halftracks, the motorized Pz Gdrs, which I have called the second best, the sturmgruppe, which is indeed a good (though large-squad, few-platoon) mix, in a large lump, with only 2x81mm on map mortars somewhat extraneous. The FJ are next, and you don't buy them alone either, but close.

You also took no account of the "two-fer" nature of price, that is does not just buy more firepower but more targets as well. In the case of the Mot. Pz Gdr and the Sturmgruppe, there is no difference in numbers for the price, so that is not misleading.

(4 SMG or 3 + 4 Hvy Wpn Team = 3 Mot Pz Gdr, 5 SMG platoon + 4 Hvy Wpn Team = Sturmgruppe, in cost and in number of men all told.)

With the FJs, it is a serious issue though, since you get fewer men for the same points spent, buying those (2 FJ vs. 3 SMG+Schreck, the later having ~20% more men). If two formations pay the same, get the same firepower, but one has 20% more men, the second is obviously a better buy. Actually, the SMG platoons get 40% more close, 10% less at 100 yards, much less at range. Which side has the edge at 100 yards, for the cost, thus depends on this factor.

Leaving the entries in your table to your more substantive comments on the earlier thread, I partially agree with the statement, that infantry acts as "body guards" to heavier weapons. I disagree that this mean they "need some range FP" to suppress things. The things they are guarding have the ranged FP, and the ammo to make it effective - HMGs, FOs, tanks, guns. What the infantry needs to be able to do, to act as bodyguards, is keep anything from getting too close to those weapons.

And I only agree partially, because in my opinion that is only about half of the role of infantry. The other half is to destroy enemies in cover. The heavy weapons can drive defenders from treelines and front upper stories and forward slopes. But most of them cannot hurt anyone who breaks LOS by "skulking" to the backsides of such cover. And those "ranged weapons" that can - the artillery only and the heavier types at that - can suppress and break, but not finish the job alone.

That is where the second task of infantry comes in. Infantry has to be able to dig enemies out of cover, and to overpower remnants of larger formations trying to rally, and groups pinned by artillery fire. If has to be able to KO guns and teams when the way to them has been cleared by fire from heavier weapons, or when they have been suppressed. And all of these tasks put the premium on point-blank firepower.

If infantry always had to act as its own "overwatch", the SMG type of infantry would still be effective for defenders, but less so on the attack. How effective for defenders? As bodyguards to teams and guns, and able to "skulk" out of LOS to the rear sides of cover. And still clobber enemies that try to enter that cover, even without catching them in the open for long approach shots.

It is exactly the presence of heavy weapons, that makes it impractical for infantry to "cover the ground ahead" with long-ranged fire. Long ranged for infantry is ~200 yards. Beyond that is burning ammo. But ranges well beyond that are not at all long for the replying enemy heavy weapons.

And anywhere you try to fire with a whole platoon to clobber some attacker while he is still distant, you are inviting artillery fire. That is harder to coordinate when the sides are 60 meters apart, because the beaten zone is larger than the space occupied by both sides' men combined.

Yes, occasionally some particular enemy has to be "burned" to protect the "charges". A bazooka team pops up some distance away, because the platoon is never in exactly the right spot and such teams are looking for "seams". That is what the 2xMG-42 are for. The heavy SMG team can hit such targets, while the rest conserve their ammo. If that looks like it won't be enough and you really need it dead, charge it - it will die alright.

No, the Hvy SMG squad does not have to overwatch for the other two, as their only fire support. That is what guns and tanks and HMGs are for. The Hvy SMG squad is there to pin things, and dust small teams at range, and to fire right along with the rest at the ~100 yard ranges. In "exchange" for the ammo it burns on these shots, it avoids high ammo use close combat.

One fellow said "just rush the SMGs, go to close combat, and use grenades and rifle butts" or things to that effect. You are very welcome. Anyone who wants to eat 1000 FP worth of lead moving, sometimes over less than perfect cover, especially entering the kill zone sequentially, will just run the score. Such chargers lose 3 men and hit the dirt 20 yards away, and cower there.

"Ah, but I will use plenty of suppressing fire to help get them in". How are you going to suppress them without LOS? 1000 FP is waiting at the tree line or behind the slope. The LOS doesn't have to extend out of, or over, it. Artillery is the only weapon that will do it, and that expensive solution works against all infantry. Provided you know where it is, which is harder against the skulkers than against the 2xMG blazers-from-the-woodline types.

I repeat myself. SMGs are essence of infantry. Everything that sets infantry apart from the other arms, they are like that and more so. The LMG type infantry with its ranged fire and plinking suppression, is "flexible", yes. Because it is being used much like the support weapons around it.

Are their times when a Sturmkompanie would be better, or terrain open enough to make Mot. Pz Gdr squads a natural, and are FJs powerful in their own right? Sure. But they do not have the same peak potential when handled well. They are "flatter", lower "variance" items, if you like.

But more to the point of all of my comments on this subject to date, the UK rifles, the US standard rifles in 1944 especially, and the vanilla German squad types, are much worse than all of the above. Because better weapons are underpriced. Including better MG-42s, and better fausts, and better and more SMGs. Which, you will notice, every other one of the above types also exploits, just in different mixes.

[Guest Martin Cracauer]

Jason, you raised some good points, I have lowered my negative opinion about the SMG-only squads somewhat. However, I still think your view is too positive, as you probably expect

I found that if the overall force sizes are above a certain limit, the SMG units become less and less effective, since too much fire comes from all directions. That's what I meant when I said one platoon against another is an entirely different thing than two companies + decent support for each side.

My earlier tests where I found SMG teams too vulnerable are done with attack also considered. When I'm playing, I often choose units like I had to use them over several battles of different kinds. This is as such not needed in CMBO since units are reset before the next battle. But still I think the experience I gain from using a certain unit type is worth sticking to it. Hence the more universal units like mixed-weapon squads and normal tanks have preference over things like SMG squads and thin-skinned SP guns.

As for the data, I didn't sort them like I did to prove a point, I just thought people would like to have the data without typing it in. Sorting by each field and looking at the result may reveal some interesting findings.

Also, as I said in the thread about the German infantry price, I think that for historical reasons German infantry and light support could (for the same combat value) be 10% cheaper and good weapons 10% more expensive than for the allies and looking at the sorts just mentioned I imagine BTS might have done so. The western allies couldn't trade men in combat for political reasons, the Germans had to be extra careful to preserve material-expensive units (also, the defender's abandoned equipment is more likely to be permanently lost than the attacker's). For the same reason I don't think the Halftracks are overpriced. They may be overpriced for their combat values, but they were rare and extra expensive for the Axis.

Of course, looking at this data set shows only part of the truth. As you say, you often have to take extra non-infantry units to get a given squad type. It would also be useful to show the results for entire platoons + support with different values for coverfire and close-range fire. That would do justice to the SMG platoons that have one special squad for cover fire and would allow to judge XYZ Platoon + HMG against already mixed platoons. Maybe I come around to do so.

Regarding your tests from the earlier posting, I think they are not optimal to do justice to the attacker:

Your infantry is either in foxholes or not. If it is in foxholes, it is very difficult to get them out without heavy weapons, no matter what kind of squad is attacking and defending. But when they are in foxholes, they cannot maneuver as you say in later tests without taking big risks. And if your foxholes are manned with SMG squads, you cannot do anything against that 105mm Howitzer built up in LOS even in moderate-size/opened maps.

Regarding the flamethrowers not shooting, I did some more than normal testing with flamethrowers after I found I couldn't make good use of them. One thing I found is that they are very hesitant to fire when friendly units are near. They seem to require close to 180 degrees in front of them to be free, maybe that added to the problems your attacker had.

I'm not sure about the 2 inch mortar. In theory, they could be of good value when massed in triples with a spotting HQ nearby, but in practice I couldn't exploit that yet. Also, in quickbattles you don't get the extra HQ for the mortars that come with the platoons. More practice required, I guess...

[Jeff Heidman]

Originally posted by jasoncawley@ameritech.net:

Ah, you plinkers at range at the SMGs, don't you know that is only an invitation to "skulking.

I think I spotted another ASL player...

Jeff Heidman

[Doug Williams]

All this talk of "cherry picking" units just reinforces my conclusion that I prefer computer picked forces in QBs.

My 2 cents.

-Doug

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Jeff Heidman:

I think I spotted another ASL player...

Jeff Heidman

It was conversations like these that made me stop buying The General. Reading one of Bob Medrow's articles that spewed forth die roll probablilities down to two decimal places (no fooling) never seemed to me to be the point of playing Squad Leader, but to each his own, of course.

[jasoncawley@ameritech.net]

To Martin again -

First, I find this a useful discussion and thank you for taking part in it, and reacting with substantive points. Now, I must shred your latest offering - LOL.

Range is more valuable as the scale of the battle increases, yes. It is easier to get close to a platoon than to a battalion. The battalion has more heavy weapons that can pin you at range. But a lot of the long range infantry fire in larger battles, is not doing very much. It is when the infantry gets close, that it does its work. They either use (terrain) covered approaches for this, or their supports drive the defenders from their "forward" firing positions, or wipe out some pieces of the defender's fire plan to create covered approaches, or charge while the defender's are suppressed. Until that happens, the infantry is a bystander and target. Its own fire adds little.

But SMGs are not defense-only weapons. You said, if infantry is in foxholes it is very hard to get them out without heavy weapons. Not so, unless you meant to flatter the SMGs by calling them "heavy weapons", which I doubt. SMG infantry is so powerful in close, and with ordinary attacker's small-unit tactics, it can easily smash rifle-armed infantry in foxholes. Provided only they have some way to get somewhat close, from terrain or cover fire. And all attackers need that, regardless of weapon mix, because you cannot kill infantry in wooded foxholes at 200 yards, with rifle fire.

Here was a repeat test. First, recall what happened before. When the Americans went in, they had 2:1 attacker odds in point terms, and used paras and engineers. They had 2 flamethrowers, 8 demo charges, a mortar, a bazooka, and 3 MMGs, against no support weapons at all. They have 94 men against 56, or 5:3 odds in manpower terms. They had a covered approach through scattered trees. The paras exchanged off against their target platoon, while the engineers were wiped out to a man after inflicting only 8 casualties. At the end, the German winners against the engineers were coming over to retain the other position and drive back the scattered surviving paras.

The German attack had only equal odds in point terms. The Americans had 2 rifle platoons defending, each with a zook and an MMG. For the same price, the German attackers had 3 SMG platoons and one supporting HMG-42 team. The Americans are in wooded foxholes, the ground ahead of them scattered trees with patchy clearings, some of them allowing 100-120 meter lines of sight through the "open forest". The 2 MMGs are set up on the interior flanks, and their LOS almost touch in the middle. The American squads are in patches of woods 60-100 meters long and 20-60 meters deep in places, in two platoon strongpoints. The starting German positions are ~200 yards away in their own woods, but they have to leave them to reach the 2 minor objectives in the U.S. woods areas.

Total men on the two sides is about the same, 94 Americans vs. 90 Germans. No 2:1 point odds, no 5:3 manpower odds, no foxholes for the Germans. They are in 25-30% exposed scattered trees and have to advance, the U.S. are in 10-15% wooded foxholes and can sit tight unless they prefer to do otherwise. The result? 21 German casualties and total German victory in less than 10 minutes, with the battle really decided in 5 or 6. The U.S. lost 79 men hit, 6 ran off the map, 9 broken men stayed to be captured.

The Germans sent one platoon at each position, with the other in between with the HMG. It then veered toward one of the two targets. 15 causalties were taken wiping out that U.S. position, in about 5 minutes. 13 of these occurred in the "assault" platoon, while the supporting one lost only 2 men. The other platoon, meanwhile, lost 8 men only, KO'ed the MMG on their side, shot a few men in the squads there and suppressed them. They then got one SMG squad into the MMGs wooded foxhole, and from there managed to wipe out the U.S. platoon's HQ, while the rest of the German platoon pinned the squads that could reply. Then the others rushed too. The winners from the other flank came over, but were not needed - they KO'ed a zook team and shot a few times at fleeing broken men.

How can this happen? Simple, ordinary attacker's tactics coupled with the superior close firepower of the SMGs. The attackers tried to get positions from which they had LOS to 1-2 defenders and the rest of the defenders did not. The mechanism is simple - creep just into LOS but not far into it. Several shooters soon suppress the nearest target, losing a few men in the meantime while fire ascendency is being gained. Once it is, a squad moves in and kills the cowering defender. It then draws fire from the other defender positions, being closer - certainly. But its "mates" come up beside it while it tries to reply, and by then the cover differential has mostly gone away.

When the SMGs were defending, it was not just the foxholes. It was gaining fire ascendency in the first 2 minutes. The foxholes helped that, by reducing fire taken and thus suppression. But it was just as crucial to pin some of the attackers while the terrain differential was "still" there, right at the begining. Doing so kept the terrain differential, and made fire and movement difficult or impossible for the attackers. Pinned units are poor overwatch and worse chargers. Also, the built in fire discipline of not firing until the attackers are close, works. The SMGs want engagement ranges that bring more attackers into LOS. If rifles try that, they lose on the firepower ratio, what they might pick up on the "hit 'em all" suppression front.

The overall results are striking. A 2:1 point attack by paras and engineers fails with 85% casualties. A 1:1 point attack by SMGs succeeds with 23% casualties. Undoubtedly, it was good terrain for the SMGs. But that is the type of terrain attackers like to come along regardless of weapon mix - the covered approach, wherever it is. And it is the part of a defensive scheme that infantry has to fufill. You can't easily cover such an open forest area with tanks. Against SMG attackers, you can't cover it easily with infantry either, and you will need minefields or TRP artillery just to even things out.

Next, on price, rariety and historical considerations have nothing to do with CM unit prices. Those are set exclusively by CM combat effectiveness, as the designers judged it. And incidentally, it was the Germans who had fewer men than equipment for them, as far as infantry-type equipment is concerned (including towed guns). You stated that you don't think half-tracks are overpriced, because they were rare. Actually, the Germans built 22,000 halftracks, most of them in 1943 and 1944. That compares pretty favorably with better tank types. Halftracks were more common than Pz IVs and StuGs combined.

And yes, the MG armed halftracks are vastly overpriced for their combat power, largely because passenger carrying ability is too expensive. Does anyone think 4 MG halftracks fight as well as 2 Pz IVs or Stugs? They can't take a .50 cal round, or kill a Stuart; they have the same number of MGs but no cannons. The only edge they have is they carry 4 squads rather than 2. Anyone think that is worth 2 heavy AT guns, ~100 rounds 75mm HE, and armor proof against all artillery and small arms, and even light AT weapons from the front? Or does anyone think 3 halftracks with 3 MGs, are worth a motorized Pz Gdr platoon plus an HMG, with 7 MGs all told, one of them heavy, and 40 men? Halftracks should cost about what squads do, so that mounted infantry winds up costing twice what dismounted infantry does - not 3 times as much. ~35 points is the right amount, not 52.

As for the flamethrowers, the reason they did not shoot has nothing to do with friendlies being too close. They didn't shoot because they were *dead*. From first trigger to last FT crewmember took 10-15 seconds. SMG firepower is pretty well "proof" against slow 2-man teams that need to march into their best range. And "the FTs have to be in front" hardly makes that any easier, does it? They are fire magnets as it is.

As for the 2" mortar, the shell is less powerful than a grenade, it is pretty innaccurate, and the team only has 20 of the little things, which will last them all of 2-3 minutes. If you count HE as 2x the firepower of infantry weapons, because it ignores the "concealment" portion of cover - and if you ignore the inherent lack of accuracy - you still get the result that one of these things expending its entire ammo load has less firepower than a single shot from a squad at close range. It may be more effective than 2 *rifles* - marginally, and against the right targets. That is about it. I'd happily give them up for 1-2 extra Stens per squad, in the British infantry.

Incidentally, on the subject of on-map mortars. The 60mm U.S. should come 2 per company but with a maxed out ammo load. The total shells would be the same, but they would be more effective. This was an historical field modification of practices that first developed in Italy. The rest of the mortar men were on ammo detail to go get more. Since as they are now, the ammo does not last long enough, this modification improved supply, made tactical handling easier, and threw just as many shells at the Germans. Personally, I'd like to see the .50 cal in the U.S. company replaced by a jeep-MG too, since it is more useful mounted. But that is a quibble.

[Atlas]

jasoncawley@ameritech.net,

Wow! Well said and researched. The better players have long understood the advantages of the VG Sub Machine Gun Squads (SMGS). When placed in capable hands and on any map, save one with near zero cover, the SMGS rule. They give the best bang for the buck for the vast majority of map parameters available. (Try anything in the dark, fog, heavy, moderate woods...etc.. Forgetaboutit.) Without question, they should be more expensive.

I would not worry too much, however. It would be virtually impossible to perfectly quantify the military value of every unit in the game. Such values depend too much on the size and parameters of each map. I prefer that the cost of CM units depend entirely on the actual cost to manufacture (build, train and supply) each unit, but this would not doubt make certain units way to expensive to purchase in a QB (e.g. KT.)

[jasoncawley@ameritech.net]

Yes, Jeff, I played ASL. No, Michael, he was not referring to math of probabilities, statistical over-analysis, etc. He was referring to the term of art, "skulking". Which means simply the practice of using cover not just to defend the men sitting in that terrain type, but to break line of sight completely.

This is done in on-again, off-again fashion. The idea is to avoid much of the enemy's firepower, while still covering the open areas he must cross, often enough to make it painful for him to cross them. It also improves concealment and prevents the enemy from easily IDing all your troops.

The phasing system of ASL made such practices peculiarly effective, sometimes in somewhat "gamey" ways. But it is a useful tactic without any "gamey" added, and works fine in CM, with "we-go" resolution and no discontinuous time "blocks". Jeff easily recognized that anyone who identifies the tactic by its ASL-community "call sign", must be a past ASL player.

[Guest Andrew Hedges]

This is an interesting thread. I agree that SMGs can be very useful in a lot of circumstances, especially, but not only, on defense. But I find that in most battles, on most maps, they are not ueber-troopers, although they certainly have a role to play.

But I often find that regular rifle platoons are better choices in MEs overall because rifles, etc. are effective against troops in the open, or in light cover, out to about 250m, and at a somewhat closer range can attrit SMG squads without facing much danger themselves. This means that in many MEs, in my experience, infantry firefights take place at 150 to 250m.

It's true that HMGs/MMGs are more effective at these ranges, but these units move much more slowly than conventional infantry, and generally have to catch up to the infantry platoons.

If the SMGs have favorable terrain, however, they can be devastating. If the map had woods covering half of the area, for example, SMGs would be far superior to other units. Unfortunately, this terrain type doesn't come up too often in QBs.

I have also found SMGs to be very effective in the reserve role -- after the other units have battered each other and perhaps stabilized the front, a fresh SMG platoon will often be devastating, particularly because the other units can suppress defenders until the SMGs can close the range.

And if you can place an SMG squad on a reverse slope, they will kill anyone who comes over the hill.

Oh, and I would also disagree with Shrecks only being effective to 60m. I've often killed tanks at ranges of 180m, sometimes longer. With Pfs, even Pf 60's, I've never had a kill beyond 35m. (Because I tend to play in '44, I don't have very much experience with the Pf 100, though).

[Kanonier Reichmann]

I declare Jason Cawley the winner for consistently posting responses that "out verbalise" every other respondant by far.

Congratulations on winning the CM Verbal Diahorrea Award!

Regards

Jim R.

[tss]

SMG units were historically very effective in many situations, especially in ambush or when clearing a trench or a house.

One (quite extreme) example. On 14 February 1940 the Red Army managed to capture the Stronghold 5 of the Kirvesmäki section of the Taipale sector. The next night, Finns sent a counter-attack unit to recapture the stronghold (that was by then actually only a shallow ditch as the trenches and the sole dugout had been destroyed by artillery fire). The unit was small, at most 20 men strong but it had all SMGs of the company and several that were borrowed from other nearby units so almost all of them had SMGs. The men were hand-picked from the whole company and they also had lots of hand grenades.

The nightly counter-attack was a success. Finns lost only one wounded. The Red Army lost dozens of killed. There are conflicting accounts on the number of Soviet dead. 2nd Lt. Alpo Reinikainen who assumed the command in the section several days later states that 95 dead Soviets were counted in the trench, while some other sources state that the figure was 76 KIA. In any case, the trench was filled by dead bodies. My grandfather's company's war diary includes the following description of the event:

Few squads of the III platoon were ordered to go and clean the trenches of Stronghold 5. The said trenches were filled with dead russkies after it was recaptured.

In the forested areas of Karelia Finns used full companies that had two LMGs per platoon and otherwise only SMGs. A SMG platoon could put so much lead in the air that in ambush situations the enemy rarely had time to react at all before the combat was decided. Conversely, if a Finnish unit was ambushed, it often could survive by suppressing the ambushers with SMG fire (Soviet units had fewer SMGs and more rifles).

- Tommi

[Guest Pillar]

Jason,

I think this whole excercise was superb. You have demonstrated not only the basic advantages of an SMG Platoon but as well in the context of the role of infantry on the battlefield, which is what I was hoping to bring up.

I need not go into any further detail because you've illustrated marvelously everything I could have imagined on the topic, teaching me a few things along the way.

Thank you.

[jasoncawley@ameritech.net]

Oh gosh, I am so honored. I'd like to thank my parents, and my professors, and derf smerb whoever he is, and all the folks down at Industrial Light and Magic, don't ask why, and above all I would like to thank Xenophon for being named "Slayer of Strangers". Thank you. This means so much. Attrition is indeed the art of wearing others down with a non-stop expenditure of whatever flying scrap iron is available, and quantity has a vodka gargle all its own, especially with orange juice. I am especially touched that this prestigious award was declared by Herr Doctor Uberbansturmfuhrerundausgefreakedunterprofessorcolonel Kanonier Reichmann! To be called long winded by Germans is indeed a special honor. Oh and to all of my critics I'd just like to add... kiss my grits!

[jasoncawley@ameritech.net]

On MGs, why walk when you can ride? That is one way to keep up with infantry, at least to the back side of a piece of cover. The slow teams are the ones that should be on the backs of the tanks.

When rifles are shooting up SMGs at medium range, the SMGs do not have to stand there and take it. They can back up to the nearer side of cover, away from the shooters - or attack, as the situation warrants.

On Schrecks, it is possible to hit things at long range, but I consider it a desperation measure. I will explain why.

One thing to remember is that the LOS is often less than perfect for these shots. The schrecks are often in woods, and far enough back in them to avoid being spotted. Sneaking right to the edge of a body of woods to get the clearest shot is a hazardous enterprise. From buildings, you do not have the "branches in the way" problem, but you do have the backblast / self-suppression problem.

The clearest shots can be obtained from behind a wall, since it completely blocks LOS when you are hiding but does not obstruct it when you are shooting. One drawback to walls, though, is the terrain right next to them is always open ground. Men often do silly things when they take fire there, instead of just ducking and crawling behind the wall a ways, like sensible people.

But here are some sample hit probabilities with a shreck firing at a 100 sillouette Sherman. Various angles and sometimes a moving target, but no hull down cases or suppressed shooters. The Schreck crews are regulars -

From buildings - 200 to 175m - 10-11%, 141m - 21%, 121 to 98m - 29-30%

From near-LOS blocking depth in woods - 200 to 175m - 4-6% 90m - 19-22%

Half LOS blocking distance woods - 150m - 12%

From behind wall or very edge of woods, clear LOS - 215m - 5% 200m - 7% 172m - 15%141 to 126m - 28-29% 82m - 50% 62m - 78%

If everyone is up and firing, does it make sense to take those 15-30% shots at 125-175 meters? (or closer if deep in woods). Sure. And will you get some hits? Sure. But an exposed AT team draws fire, and can be wiped out before a second shot if the overwatch is good. Sometimes by the tank he fired at.

Sometimes he will get off 2-3 before reply, but that is good luck. And if you open up at 125 yards with a 30% to hit chance, then you are tossing a coin whether you get the tank or the tank gets you, even if you do get off 2 shots. And from buildings, you have to recover from your own suppression first.

In the 60-80 meter range, on the other hand, the to hit chances are 50-80% if the LOS is clear, and decent even when it isn't clear. You will often get the target on the first go, and if you do need and last long enough to get a second, it is much more likely to kill the blighter.

If you wait for a tank to be close enough for the 1st or 2nd shot kill, the AT team is much more likely to live. If you must kill tank A and you have 2-3 teams, then sure you can move to clear LOS locations and let fly with all of them, and you will probably get it. One AT team snuck to 60-80 yards would also do the trick.

It is mostly just a point about fire discipline. Especially opening up and revealing yourself for the first time, you want to make the first shot or two count. After that, I prefer to withdraw the team and hide, then stalk something else later.

For that it is worth.

[Kanonier Reichmann]

Originally posted by jasoncawley@ameritech.net:

I am especially touched that this prestigious award was declared by Herr Doctor Uberbansturmfuhrerundausgefreakedunterprofessorcolonel Kanonier Reichmann! To be called long winded by Germans is indeed a special honor. Oh and to all of my critics I'd just like to add... kiss my grits!

Fair enough response to my facecious comments... and remarkably brief as well!

To be honest I generally agree with Vanir in his congratulations of your postings but I still feel a hard nosed editor with a nasty disposition looking over your shoulder may encourage more people to take the time to read your posts rather than perhaps give up on them for being too long.

Just my thoughts.

Regards

Jim R.

[Vanir]

Originally posted by Kanonier Reichmann:

To be honest I generally agree with Vanir in his congratulations of your postings

Erm, I think you may have ment Pillar I do enjoy most of Jason's posts, at least the ones I make it all the way though on.

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

What a bunch of horsecrap. -Steve

[Olle Petersson]

While on the Finnish track;

I read somewhere that the Finns used to set up SMG nests in the forests, similar to MG nests in open terrain.

Here they had one gunner and one loader (that refilled the empty mags). This was very effective...

Cheers

Olle

[tss]

Olle Petersson wrote:

I read somewhere that the Finns used to set up SMG nests in the forests, similar to MG nests in open terrain. Here they had one gunner and one loader (that refilled the empty mags). This was very effective...

That was not an official practice but it was done sometimes. Most often the case was that the SMG man was the best fighter of the unit (squad or platoon) and the other men wanted to be sure that he remained effective. Losing the firepower of one rifle is not a big deal if it doubles the efficiency of your best soldier.

The most famous example of this practice was when Viljam Pylkäs stopped a Soviet attack almost single-handedly. The SMG scene of the "Unknown Soldier" was based on this event. The real event differed from the movie event somewhat.

In the movie Rokka and Lampinen were alone guarding the flank. In real life, there were also other Finnish troops in the area. Pylkäs got drum-maganizes to him via a bucket-chain that was formed by a Finnish squad. At one point his Suomi malfunctioned and he sent it back the chain and they sent another back to him. Altogether, he shot 17 or 19 drum-magazines empty, a total of ~1200 rounds.

The other Finns in the area also shot at the attacking enemy but they hadn't automatic weapons after the LMG gunner of the unit had died in the first moments of the attack. After the attack, private Rummunkainen (who was dubbed Rahikainen in the movie) collected 82 hat-badges from dead bodies. A vast majority of the dead, perhaps 80-90% were shot by Pylkäs.

Pylkäs got a Cross of Iron from Germans for that feat as well a Victory Cross (I can't remember what class) from the Finnish Army. Victory Crosses were usually awarded only to officers and it was quite unusual to hand out one to a NCO.

In Finnish army the SMGs were given to best soldiers. It was an honor to be allowed to carry one and usually there was no shortage of volunteers when one became available. However, after heavy battles there might be trouble in filling the SMG slots because of the heavy casualties of SMG men; they got sent into worst places. A similar thing happened with LMGs.

- Tommi

[X-00]

This has been a great (if a bit long) thread.

Jason thanks for confirming my thoughts about the unbalanced nature of the game. I've always thought that the German's had the advantage in this game because of their infantry.

Fionn's rules for Armor helped to balance the game but I always thought the most important issue to be addressed was the infantry cost per firepower point. Ironically, while many complained about the reduced German Armor purchasing power, I believe it actually helped the German player (more points for SMGs).

I'm curious as to way BTS hasn't commented on your analysis and your proposed remedies. I know, I know, BTS isn't going to do another patch (but cost tweaks wouldn't delay CM2 that much)

[Guest Pillar]

You guys ask Jason to be more consise, but I'd bet that there would be numerous people on this forum who would pounce on him if he was. He's wordy for a reason -- he wants to be absolutely clear on what he is saying AND provide sufficient evidence to discourage anyone from taking pop-shots at his posts.

[Kanonier Reichmann]

Originally posted by Vanir:

Erm, I think you may have ment Pillar I do enjoy most of Jason's posts, at least the ones I make it all the way though on.

Jeez... all this nitpicking! Same number of letters in the name (almost). Anyone would swear I was dealing with grogs here.

BTW, I take it all back Jason, the award should have gone to aka tom for his posting in "To gamey or not to gamey" thread. Makes Leo Tolstoy look like a bed-time story novelist.

Regards

Jim R.