Have MG's changed much since World War Two?

[Guest Pillar]

I have taken a liking to a recent realism based combat simulation called "Operation Flashpoint". It simulates basic level infantry combat in a hypothetical limited war clash between WP and NATO forces.

After seeing the extreme effectiveness of MG's in that simulation I've grown a greater respect for them as an small arms weapon.

Assuming they modeled it accurately (The M60 that is), is the M60 about as strong at the MG42 was in world war two? I imagine machine guns haven't gotten THAT much more powerful since. Yet the experience I get from them is MUCH different than what I get from Combat Mission. Have machine guns really changed that much? Or is one (or both) of these fine simulations modeling them incorrectly?

Thanks for any advice.

- Adam

[Bullethead]

I don't think MGs have changed that much in the last 100 years. Hell, some WW1-era things like the M2 .50cal are still in service, you know . And the M60 borrowed most of its features from a couple of German WW2 MGs.

CM undermodels MGs in several respects that add up to a large effect on battle results. The lack of sustained fire, the inability to shoot blind, not having PDFs, no long range beaten zone interdictions, for example. I think this is one of the main reasons why the force ratios in attacks and assaults were lowered recently.

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

-Bullethead

In wine there is wisdom, in beer there is strength, in water there is bacteria.

[Guest Pillar]

Thought so.

(Elbows Steve and/or Charles)

[This message has been edited by Pillar (edited 03-28-2001).]

[Shipmonkey]

The ability to shoot blind is the "area fire" command.

[Bullethead]

Originally posted by Shipmonkey:

The ability to shoot blind is the "area fire" command.

No it's not, because you still have to have an LOS to the area target point even if you see no units there. I'm talking about the inability of MGs to shoot into areas in which they have no LOS. This makes smokescreens way more effective than they should be.

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

-Bullethead

In wine there is wisdom, in beer there is strength, in water there is bacteria.

[Speedy]

The M60 was based heavily on the mg42 and was generally considered to actually be inferior to the mg42.

[X-00]

Adam,

WRT to the M2. The Machine gun itself hasn't changed. There has been some improvement with ammunition the SLAP with (increased penetration) round but thats about it. SLAP stocks are limited however and ammunition produced to WWII specifications and manufactured in the 50s and 60s is still being used.

WRT to MMGs/LMGs. The Marine Corps currently uses the M240G. There have been a number of ergonomic changes such as easier barrel change, easier to maintain, etc. The perfomance specifications however are remarkably similar to the MG42, though I think the MG42's ROF is still higher.

And as for employment. Any Marine who hit the beach in the Pacific will instantly recognize the employment techniques used and taught today. Unfortunately, in the game, these employment techniques don't work too well. That's because grazing fire applied either obliquely or from enfilade is not modelled correctly. If it were, the 40m rushes from cover to cover that are so common in our beloved game would be much much more scary.

If BTS would like a real demonstration on what Machine Guns can do it can be arranged.

[KiwiJoe]

I hope MGs are modelled better in CM2. With hordes of cheap russian squads the Jerries are gonna need decent mg34/42s to help deal with them. I think the rof needs to be increased quite a bit for a start. The mg42 currently fires 7 bursts per min (reg). Thats 1 burst every 8.5 secs. If a full platoon was running at my mg postion I'd fire bursts off like hell, damn possable barrel wear, overheating and jamming.

[CATguy]

In all fairness the M60 has some design origins from the MG42 but it radically departs from it in the receiver and the gas system. As for the M60 being inferior to the MG42 not sure on this since the M60 saw quite an extensive succesful service life and is still being used in some reserve units and a few active duty roles. I think if you could physically compare the the two side by side you would grab the M60. But on the other hand if the Date was 1944 and you had to compare a MG42 with a lets say a M1919 then the MG42 would be the choice. Just my thoughts on the MG subject...

[ScoutPL]

I couldnt play the Operation Flashpoint demo cause I dont have a bigger then 8mb graphics card. And since I refuse to go blow 150+ dollars just to play one lousy game I will probably have to miss out on the Flashpoint revolution. BUt what I gleaned from the README file was that OPFlash is basically a first person shooter with some small unit tactics thrown in (a la Rogue Spear in the woods). So let me say this. The only way OpFlash could realistically portray a M60 MG is if you could only fire it accurately from the prone, you had to change barrels (due to excessive heat and stoppages) almost as often as you had to add belts of ammo, you had two other poor SOB's who follow you around the entire time, and you had to spend hours playing just to get to where you could shoot accurately at a multitude of ranges (from a tripod, the firing from the bipod is even less accurate and takes even longer to master). I doubt flashpoint meets these standards. My bet is you're running around, keeping up with everyone else (usually everyone is waiting on the MGer's to catch up, like in CM) and shooting everything that moves with quick easy bursts. Perhaps I'm wrong, but I think you get the idea of what I'm saying.

[BloodyBucket]

I have conflicting thoughts about the effectiveness of MG’s in CM.

I know that a properly served MG can be an extremely effective weapon. I also know that the Japanese had thousands of MG’s on Okinawa in entrenched positions and it didn’t stop the Americans.

The idea is that it is the skill of the user as much as what the gun is capable of doing, as well as the skill of the people attacking the MG.

Granted, CM could do a better job of simulating indirect (Plunging) MG fire, but that technique was not generally used during WWII. Also, fields of fire laid out in advance should not be blocked by smoke. Another use for TRP’s in CM2?

As to the M-60 issue, it speaks volumes that the MG-42 is still in service with several countries, generally rechambered in 7.62 NATO, and the M-60 is on the way out. I read that after WWII, combat GI’s said we should adopt the MG-42, but the army refused, based on the facts that the single prototype tested in 30-06 jammed and there was a general distaste for things German at the time. So we got a weapon designed by committee.

MG’s haven’t changed radically since WWII, but there are more of them on the modern battlefield.

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

"Roll on"

[Guest Rommel22]

ScoutPL,

You can't fire the M60 while up or running in Flshpoint. Well you can, but can't hit anything since the round fly EVERYWHERE.

It's more than rogue spear in woods. It's much MORE. I am sure you read the readme, but you haven't played it. Don't judge it's game by the.... readme.

When prone the m60 is much more accurate and you can actullay hit something at decent ranges.

Pillar,

Doesn't Flash point kick ass??!!

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

Rommel22s Kampfgruppe site:

http://rommel22diarys.homestead.com/MyPage1.html

"I saw 5 Germans walking down the side of the road, so I followed them for a few yard to get closer. Then I shot them! Later that day I found out the war has been over for a few weeks." - someone

[This message has been edited by Rommel22 (edited 03-28-2001).]

[Skipper]

> With hordes of cheap russian squads

Why should there be hordes of cheap russian squads???

I fully agree that MGs are underrated (that's an opinion from somebody who is losing pbem defence with an auto-picked MG company / rifle company combo ).

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by BloodyBucket:

Granted, CM could do a better job of simulating indirect (Plunging) MG fire, but that technique was not generally used during WWII.

I'm not convinced of this; I haven't read a lot about it, but I do know that for certain operations - ie VERITABLE - indirect MG fire was used to thicken barrages and interdict enemy movement behind the lines. Then again, this seems to be as out of CM's scope as preliminary barrages.

[Jarmo]

The finnish army still has Maxim's as heavy MG's. The LMG (forgot the model) is very similar to MG42, except that it uses less powerful ammo.

[BloodyBucket]

..but I do know that for certain operations - ie VERITABLE - indirect MG fire was used to thicken barrages and interdict enemy movement behind the lines. Then again, this seems to be as out of CM's scope as preliminary barrages.

Good example. The Japanese used inderect MG fire at Iwo Jima, as another example, but it is my understanding that it was regarded as a "lost art" when compared to WWI practice.

As a side note, the U.S. changed specs on the ball ammo used in the M-1919 and Garand just before WWII to help functioning problems with the Garand at the expense of extreme range performance in the MG.

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

"Roll on"

[jasoncawley@ameritech.net]

The variability in MG effectiveness in combat, is probably greater than in CM, but also probably greater than most who would like to see effectiveness revised upward, may expect. The main reason is simply the difficulty of seeing anything in combat, especially when pinned to the ground.

In most terrain, the view from 4-6 inches height is not exactly stadium-esque. Firing a bipod gun while prone and being shot at, that is about what you'd get. A lot of the firing would be blind because of it, even with a #2 to load or spot. In my opinion, CM is not far wrong in making LMGs and the squad SAWs on their own, not too formidable because of this. But the variance was probably higher than in CM - sometimes one gun would get "hot" in another sense of the term, and dominate a little firefight for 3-5 minutes. Because the gunner just happened to be able to see each of the guys that moved, and didn't get shot himself, etc.

Put a gun on a tripod with a bigger crew, nice and safe in a building with wide fields of fire, and stone or brick cover even well up off the ground and thus able to see things, and I bet the effectiveness was a darn sight better than it is in CM. For those who had no choice but to come through its LOS, that is.

How to model all of the above? It is not obvious. I mentioned that I would like to see cover give less of a benefit to moving troops, on another thread. Someone replied that MGs were more likely to fire often against troops moving in the open as of some revision. Not exactly the same thing. I'd like to see the %exposed numbers up north of 50% for anybody running (in LOS, of course). Right now, it is too easy to get through their range "envelope" if there is any kind of cover, without slowing down appreciably.

To simulate "hot" guns and also the effects of spotting problems, mebe the ROF should vary with some randomness, crew quality, and type of cover the shooter is in (building good, woods poor, over a wall good, foxhole in brush poor, etc). So sometimes a machinegun team would shoot 1-3 extra times in a turn, but often like now or one time fewer.

[Bullethead]

BloodyBucket said:

The Japanese used inderect MG fire at Iwo Jima, as another example, but it is my understanding that it was regarded as a "lost art" when compared to WWI practice.

Hmmmm. Read the chapter in CMH Pub 100-14 "Small Unit Actions" about Santa Maria Infante. Both sides, US and German, made extensive use of indirect MG fire as SOP, which it was.

As a side note, the U.S. changed specs on the ball ammo used in the M-1919 and Garand just before WWII to help functioning problems with the Garand at the expense of extreme range performance in the MG.

[BloodyBucket]

Good example, Bullethead. I think that some of the fighting lent itself to inderect MG fire, when the lines were fairly static, but most units would not have it "on call" at a small unit scale.

Still, I believe that the glory days of inderect MG fire were before WWII, at least for the combatants that had access to other fires. Not to say that it wasn't used, but if I were to design a WWII tactical game, it would not be at the top of the "must have" features list. Sure wish it could all be included, and the science of inderect fire with small arms fascinates me. Perhaps in CM2?

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

"Roll on"

[ADAman]

One thing they haven't improved on much, if at all, is making them idiot proof. I put a belt in an M-60, pulled the trigger and managed to fire one round. It turns out the belts have an "up" and "down" based on the links. If you put it in the wrong way... Maybe that's why my virtual soldiers are always looking at the enemy over their jammed MGs.

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

Air Defense: Shoot 'em down, sort 'em out on the ground (AKA - if it flies, it dies)

[Wittmann]

The Bundeswher ( sorry for the spelling! )

Currently use the MG3. This differs form the MG42 in small details only. If memory serves me correctly, It has had its rate of fire reduced from the 42's phenomenal 1200 rpm, to a more reasonable 950ish 7.62 NATO is merely a rimless metric version of the old .303 combined with 7.92 of WWII fame.

The equally famous Bren (.303 rimmed case) now serves as squad LMG in 7.62 rimless form.

It is now being replaced by the appaling SAW which is a sustained fire variant of the SA80 (Remember guys&gals, it was made by the lowest bidder )

Conclusion...the good ones are still with us. The bad ones are still in the cold dead fingers of the conquered...

[Bluefish]

I don't feel that machine guns changed much at all either. What has bothered me in CMBO is the slow rate of movement for machinegun teams. I can understand that the .50 cal would take some time setting up and aiming in but, as a former Marine, I know first hand that they would get to where their going as fast as everyone else. This is especialy true for the the .30 and all German models.

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

"C'mon you son's of bitches, do you want to live forever?"

Gysgt Dan Daly USMC

Belleau Wood, France 1918

[Barleyman]

Originally posted by Jarmo:

The finnish army still has Maxim's as heavy MG's. The LMG (forgot the model) is very similar to MG42, except that it uses less powerful ammo.

Maxims?

As in the WWI era HUGE liquid-cooled MG that's heavy with really slow ROF etc etc?

I thought that MGs are dirt cheap compared to just about everything else? You could probably buy a literal truckload of those things for the cost of one APC..

[Bluefish]

Originally posted by ADAman:

It turns out the belts have an "up" and "down" based on the links.

"Brass to the grass"

Thats how they told us to remember.

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

"C'mon you son's of bitches, do you want to live forever?"

Gysgt Dan Daly USMC

Belleau Wood, France 1918

[GriffinCheng+]

About liquid-cooled MG, iirc, I think the Soviets still used Maxim water-cooled MG during early Barbarossa, but when the water source was cut off, they used some interesting source of water supply....

Griffin.

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

"When you find your PBEM opportents too hard to beat, there is always the AI."

"Can't get enough Tank?"

Get the CMSOD at Combat Missing Command Post (CMCP) at http://www.angelfire.com/games3/CMCP/