Machine Guns

[Guest Muslim_Bob]

Probably the only annoying problem for me with CM is the way machine guns fire at close units (0-500m or a little greater), they seems to fire in bursts rather than going full auto. Take a look at the opening scene of Private Ryan and that MG42 is burning through ammo belts like it's nobodies buisiness. It would probably upset the balance of the game if bunkers/HMG's went full auto (no delay except reload) against close enemies but it's something to consider for CM2.

[Guest ckoharik]

IIRC, most machine gunners were taught to fire in bursts as sustained automatic fire could/would cause problems such as barrel wear, jams, and other malfunctions. In addition, bursts are more accurate.

[Abbott]

Machine guns only have one fire option that is full auto. You can vary the length of your bursts. You face two problems with firing long bursts, accuracy and heat. The longer your bursts the more heat you produce and the less accurate your point of aim becomes.

If you hold the trigger down long enough you will actually melt the barrel. You can also "cook off the rounds" with to much heat (the propellant in the cartridge being activated by heat instead of the primer). HMG crews carry replacement barrels and heavy gloves to change them to try and deal with the heat, switching to a new barrel to let the previous barrel cool.

[Guest Heinz 25th PzReg]

Originally posted by Muslim_Bob:

Probably the only annoying problem for me with CM is the way machine guns fire at close units (0-500m or a little greater), they seems to fire in bursts rather than going full auto. Take a look at the opening scene of Private Ryan and that MG42 is burning through ammo belts like it's nobodies buisiness.

First of all, lets not look at "Saving Private Ryan" when it comes to realism.

When it comes to firing the MG42 we have to take the following things in mind:

There is a big difference between a MG mounted on a tripod, and a MG mounted on a bipod. The tripod variant is much more stable and actually allows you to fire longer burst with good accuracy. The MG42 on tripod is simulated in CM with the MG42 6-man team. Within this team is also a good amount of ammo and exchangeble barrels.

In some situations it would better to fire longer bursts. Lets say you have a good field of fire and a battalion of Russian infantry comes charging at you. Hmmm, I think I would have held the trigger in as long as I could. It only takes about 10 sec to exchange the barrel, so I dont see the problem here.

Tripod mounted MG's should be able to fire longer bursts in some situations. Something to think about for CM2.

Heinz

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

"To subdue your enemy without fighting is the supreme excellence." - Sun Tzu, The Art of War

Visit my AAR site:

home.online.no/~andhess/cm/

And my Panzer Elite site:

25th-pzrgt.de

[Guest KwazyDog]

Guys, if you want an interesting perspective on this issue, give the M60 a go in the Operation Flashpoint demo. Make sure you are look through the sight whilst firing.

I dont know how accurate the sim is in term of things like accuracy (which I suspect is too high), recoil (which I suspect is too low ) round drop off, etc, but I would imagine it does give you an idea of what it is like to behind the trigger of an MG.

Apart from everything mentioned above, something I noticed is that as soon as you start firing the muzzle flash covers your target totally. Thus, firing any more than a quick burst is pointless as you loose your target and you loose where your rounds are impacting which of course drifts off of the target sue to recoil.

Basically you end up firing a couple of bursts, letting the dust settle, check the target to see if its still alive (hard to do if prone above 100m), take aim again and fire another burst. Sounds familiar

Dan

[Hurricane]

But what about suppressive fire? The MG might not hit anything after a while, but the charging infantry might be of another opinion and panic more easily.

[Warmaker]

We were taught to fire short bursts with our GPMGs. My first MG to fire was the M60E3 then the .50 Cal. In MG fire we were taught to use controlled bursts, doing Rambo s#!t is only for Hollywood or room clearing(with SAWs for example). Your fire will be more accurate in bursts over long automatic fire. In terms of the MG42 it can eat ammo quite fast mind you and can heat the barrel quickly. Hence the short bursts.

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

"Uncommon valor was a common virtue"-Adm.Chester Nimitz of the Marines on Iwo Jima

[Guest Heinz 25th PzReg]

We have to see the difference between a MG mounted on a bipod(2 legs), and a MG mounted on a tripod(3 legs).

I have fired a variant of the MG42, namely the MG3 in my army days.

Here is a pic of the MG3 on a tripod:

Here is a pic of a MG3 on a bipod:

There is a huge difference in stability between the two, the latter is of course not very good suited for longer bursts. I know, cause I have shot tens of thousands of rounds on this weapon. The MG3 mounted on a tripod is a totally different matter. It is quite capable of firing longer bursts with good accuracy.

In a 2 man MG team you have 1 gunner and 1 loader/observer. The loader/observer spots where the rounds hit, and tell the gunner how to adjust his fire.

Here is a pic of a 2-man MG42 team:

I really think CM should see the difference between the 2, and allow the tripod mounted weapon to deliver longer and more accurate bursts.

Heinz

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

"To subdue your enemy without fighting is the supreme excellence." - Sun Tzu, The Art of War

Visit my AAR site:

home.online.no/~andhess/cm/

And my Panzer Elite site:

25th-pzrgt.de

[This message has been edited by Heinz 25th PzReg (edited 03-23-2001).]

[Olle Petersson]

I don't see the need to differentiate between long and short bursts.

The question is how much of the total time is spent shooting.

When I was in the army we were taught to work in pairs with the MGs, taking turns to fire. One gun fired a one second burst while the other aimed, and as soon as #1 stopped #2 continued for a second, then #1 took over again...

In CM the MGs seem to fire only a few short bursts in one minute, not the 30 or so bursts that could be expected.

This might very well be a descripancy between what is shown in the "movie" and what is actually calculated for, just like the one shot from a sharpshooter actually represents several shots over a period of time.

Cheers

Olle

[Gyrene]

Another problem that machine gunners sometimes face is the "runaway gun", when you CAN'T stop shooting. The recommended procedure for the M60 (Early M60E1's were suposedly very succeptible to this) is to break the ammo belt and let it run off. Off course, on a .50 its a different story, you're likely to have your hand pinched against the gun if you try that.

[Guest Heinz 25th PzReg]

Originally posted by Olle Petersson:

I don't see the need to differentiate between long and short bursts.

I think we can agree on the following facts:

1. There is a big difference between a normal bipod mounted MG, and a tripod mounted MG. From now on lets acknowledge the difference between the two.

2. A tripod mounted MG is capable of firing longer bursts with good accuracy if needed. I think situations were this is needed occur often in CM.

I as a former MG gunner myself I would have increased the rate of fire considerable if the enemy came close or if large number of enemy troops came into my field of fire, especially over open ground. With a tripod mounted MG I would have been able to do just that with good accuracy.

I really do see a need to differentiate between long and short bursts when operating tripod mounted MG's.

Heinz

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

"To subdue your enemy without fighting is the supreme excellence." - Sun Tzu, The Art of War

Visit my AAR site:

home.online.no/~andhess/cm/

And my Panzer Elite site:

25th-pzrgt.de

[Michael Dorosh]

What evidence are we using to claim that in CM, machine gunners don't fire in longer bursts as the enemy draws near?

There are only x number of .wav files, yes?

Are we positive the game engine doesn't already calculate longer bursts?

Bear in mind the MG42 fires from 50 round non-disintegrating belts. They could in theory be linked together indefinitely, but in the LMG role, fired from an assault drum.

At 1200 rounds a minute, or 20 bullets a second, that 50 round belt (did the drums have 75, he asked, dimly remembering?) will only last 2.5 seconds.

[Guest Heinz 25th PzReg]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

What evidence are we using to claim that in CM, machine gunners don't fire in longer bursts as the enemy draws near?

There are only x number of .wav files, yes?

Are we positive the game engine doesn't already calculate longer bursts?

No, we cannot say this for certain. It would be interesting to hear this from BTS, if the increase in firepower at closer ranges is a result of higher rate of fire as well as easier aiming.

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

Bear in mind the MG42 fires from 50 round non-disintegrating belts. They could in theory be linked together indefinitely, but in the LMG role, fired from an assault drum.

B]

The MG42 was belt fed, both in the HMG and LMG role. The 50 round belts were linked together to form managable belts. The loader takes care of this. I dont think the use of ammo drums was that common. I sure would not have wanted the drums, I would have taken belts any day.

I think we need to hear from BTS if tripod mounted HMG's really increase their rate of fire substantially in suitable situations(close range, inf running in the open, etc.).

Regards,

Heinz

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

"To subdue your enemy without fighting is the supreme excellence." - Sun Tzu, The Art of War

Visit my AAR site:

home.online.no/~andhess/cm/

And my Panzer Elite site:

25th-pzrgt.de

[Croda]

I think another question to ask here is whether or not tripod mounted MGs should be available for the defender. This would obviously be cumbersome to move up on the attack, but I would think it would be fairly standard in a defense. Perhaps someone can correct me on that.

This would certainly give an added advantage to defenders as they would be able to gain more efficiency from their MGs.

To add to that, set defensive positions not only had their mortars pre-ranged, but MG fire as well. Is this taken into account, and if not, does anyone think it should be considered? There are many who claim that it the defender is at a disadvantage in the game, perhaps this could help to even things out.

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

Woot! - Maximus2k

Stick around while the clown who is sick does the trick of disaster.

You are quite correct, but sniper is an easier term to use than 'Semi-regular soldier hiding out and shooting enemies unawares.' - wwb_99

The New CessPool

I AM CRODA, ENEMY OF THE SCIENTIFIC PROCESS, EVOLUTIONARY PROCESS AND REPRODUCTIVE PROCESS. PETERNZ OWNS MY SIG FILE AND MY MEAGRE SOUL: ANY REASONABLE OFFER ACCEPTED

[Scipio]

Originally posted by Muslim_Bob:

Probably the only annoying problem for me with CM is the way machine guns fire at close units (0-500m or a little greater), they seems to fire in bursts rather than going full auto. Take a look at the opening scene of Private Ryan and that MG42 is burning through ammo belts like it's nobodies buisiness. It would probably upset the balance of the game if bunkers/HMG's went full auto (no delay except reload) against close enemies but it's something to consider for CM2.

Ehm, how have you found out that they fire in bursts??? Don't believe what your hear on the battlefield - the soundfiles are always the same, independent from the length of the burst. I must know it, cause I made them (I mean the mods, of course).

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

Keine Gefangenen!

Visit my Combat Mission Sound Mods site!

Scipiobase

Join the Blitzkrieg Wargaming Club

[Pvt. Ryan]

The MGs in CM get much more lethal as the range closes. I have an Omaha Beach scenario where the US infantry must rush the MG pillboxes to advance. Visually and audibly the rate of fire is the same, but the men drop really fast when they get within 50 meters or so. A squad of 12 can be eliminated in just a few seconds.

[JoePrivate]

Originally posted by Heinz 25th PzReg:

I think we need to hear from BTS if tripod mounted HMG's really increase their rate of fire substantially in suitable situations(close range, inf running in the open, etc.).

Regards,

Heinz

There was to change in one of the earlier patches where MGs would do exactly that IIRC.

[Leonidas]

Originally posted by Heinz 25th PzReg:

I as a former MG gunner myself I would have increased the rate of fire considerable if the enemy came close or if large number of enemy troops came into my field of fire, especially over open ground. With a tripod mounted MG I would have been able to do just that with good accuracy.

This is the thing about MGs in CM that bothers me the most. I don't see how infantry could ever succeed in a frontal charge over open ground against a MG position. Of course the MG gunner uses bursts at long range to save ammo and control the guns' temperature. But if the position is about to be overrun, I would expect the gunner to push that MG as far as it will go. If you're about to lose the gun(and probably the crew as well), who cares if the barrel melts?

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Croda:

I think another question to ask here is whether or not tripod mounted MGs should be available for the defender. This would obviously be cumbersome to move up on the attack, but I would think it would be fairly standard in a defense. Perhaps someone can correct me on that.

To add to that, set defensive positions not only had their mortars pre-ranged, but MG fire as well. Is this taken into account, and if not, does anyone think it should be considered? There are many who claim that it the defender is at a disadvantage in the game, perhaps this could help to even things out.

I presume the German HMG in the game is simply an LMG set up on a tripod with optical sights and several boxes of belted ammo.

The Bren Gun also had a tripod,though by 1944 were issued one per platoon, and only used on the defense as you suggest.

For close in fighting, would the tripod not be a hindrance? I've come in close contact with a wartime MG34 and tripod mount, and it seemed to me that while traversing side to side on fixed lines was easy, it was cumbersome to elevate or depress the gun rapidly - but this is only very dimly remembered.

I think one of the main advantages of tripod mounted guns like the Vickers was its ability to fire indirectly - for Veritable, for example, indirect firing HMGs were used to thicken the "pepperpots" created as part of the preliminary barrage. For close in defence (as we see in CM), I'm not so sure as to their true effectiveness.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Heinz 25th PzReg:

The MG42 was belt fed, both in the HMG and LMG role. The 50 round belts were linked together to form managable belts. The loader takes care of this. I dont think the use of ammo drums was that common. I sure would not have wanted the drums, I would have taken belts any day.

I obviously should have said "could be fired from an assault drum." You are correct.

My point being, however, that at the end of the drum or belt, you would have to reload. You could (and they did) link many belts together - would be interested to hear from the MG3 Gunners how easy it would be to add 50 round links on to a link already in the gun while the gun is firing.

[jasoncawley@ameritech.net]

Firing bipod mebe, Kwazy Dog. But firing tripod, the gunner isn't even looking at the target. The barrel is locked in place with a pin on the tripod, slightly loosened. He taps (slaps, more like) the side of the barrel with the palm of his hand to slightly traverse the gun. An NCO with a pair of binoculars watches the "fall of shot", and tells him which way to slap. When the range needs to be changes, a few twists more or less are dialed into the elevating screw on the tripod.

The real issues are ammo consumption and heat, to a lesser extent barrel wear. An MG42 will run through a 100 round belt in about 4 seconds. You can link them one to another to make a continuous belt, certainly. If fired literally continuously, you would burn out the barrel in less than 3 minutes, assuming you didn't get a jam. Not just, "change it", but "exceeded service life in total rounds through barrel", burnt out.

In intensive fire situations, MGs could indeed raise their firepower, sometimes enourmously, at some risk of jam or breakdown. And they sometimes did. How to handle it in game terms is a tougher question.

[jasoncawley@ameritech.net]

Incidentally, it is not like the HMG 42 doesn't have 3 times the firepower of an LMG 42 already in CM. As well as nearly 4 times the ammo load. So don't assume the greater rounds being put out by the tripod mount, isn't modeled - it is. In game mechanics terms you see four "shots", but each of them is coming from the same machinegun type, but doing 3 times the damage of an LMG "shot". So they are already firing "longer bursts". The game just resolves them as more powerful discrete shots - which is not unreasonable, since the longer bursts are hitting one area with more bullets.

[Guest Martin Cracauer]

The shot in CMBO that decreases the ammo counter by one is not meant to be one bullet or one burst, it is some kind of fire engagement, which can be of varying length. The sound and the yellow bullet animation do not reflect this. The number of firings in a turn is the same for all MGs in CMBO. But what does a firing represent?

If you look at the firepower for the German LMG and HMG, you see 50:155 at 40 meters.

Since the gun is the same, this can only mean that the HMG fires bursts that are 3 times as long. And would therefore do exactly like you suggest.

Also, the open ground in CMBO is meant to represent a mixed terrain where a unit is not constanly visible and can get some amount of cover.

[Abbott]

Originally posted by Martin Cracauer:

If you look at the firepower for the German LMG and HMG, you see 50:155 at 40 meters.

Already included.

[jasoncawley@ameritech.net]

OK, some analysis on the question "can MGs ever be rushed? Doesn't the gun just shoot more and stop everybody?"

Take the ROF of the MG as 1200, for the MG42. For other MG types it is lower, both in WW II and after, with ~450-900/minute more common. 20 rounds per second in other words, while 10 +/- a handful is common with other MG types.

Now, imagine the MG gunner is using true "spray fire", sweeping the gun back and forth to cover a wide arc in front of his position. How slow do the sweeps have to be, to actually "stop everybody"?

At 100 yards range, imagine the MG is sweeping a 60 degree arc, 30 degrees to either side of the "straight ahead" direction. Then the width he is sweeping across is 105 yards (1/6th of a circle radius 100 yards). If he needs 1 bullet every 2 feet side-to-side and his spread is perfect, then he need 158 bullets. Therefore the sweep must be slow enough that it takes 8 seconds to swing through that arc.

But in 8 seconds, a man can run much of that 100 yard distance. Not all of it - world record times in the 100 meters on flat tracks are 9 seconds. As a rusher gets closer, he may leave the 60 degree front angle, to the sides. And presumably once he gets within grenade range, the MG is in trouble.

Now consider the same sort of analysis, but at 50 yards, and imagine he needs a 45 degree angle to either side, that close. Then he must sweep 1/4 of a circle or 79 yards side to side, and needs 118 bullets. So now he needs a six second "swing" through the arc. That is a long time when there are enemy within one or two short rushes of grenade range (count it out).

But also notice, that if he has targets at different ranges, the speed of the swing and the arc he has to traverse through are different. If the fire is grazing, so the bullets all carry out to longer range, the 6 second sweep through the 45 + 45 degree arc, will put out 120 bullets (obviously), which at 100 yards out will give only about "half coverage", ~ 4 feet between each bullet's flight path, side to side.

If instead he traverses rapidly (e.g. to avoid a rush and hit-the-dirt on the side away from the current "spray", garden sprinkler fashion), then he is not going to put out a "wall" of bullets but only a random chance of hitting someone.

Say he traverses 45+45 in 2 seconds, repeating the sweeps. At what range does this give a solid bullet-wall? 40 rounds, 80 feet of arc length, do the math, get 51 feet or 17 yards away. That is much closer than a grenade-lobber needs to be. Out at 30 yards, he's got perhaps a 57% hit chance. At 100 yards, spraying this fast the hit chance is only 17% (assuming "right 2 feet" equals a hit - since shots may be high or low or go through legs or by ears, not quite this high).

What does this mean for a rush by a team or squad? With the above kind of spray, it would amount to 1/6 at 100 yards, 2/6 at 65 yards, 3/6 at 30 yards. Take 2 shots at 100, 2 shots at 65, 1 shot at 35 - 10 seconds of spraying all told, as the attackers run 65 yards. Then an individual man has a 16% chance of making it to grenade range. But the cominations then kick in, because a nearly 1/6 chance is not so bad a bet with 6 or 12 men trying. The chance that at least 1 out of a team of 6 makes it that far, is 64%. One out of a squad of 12, 87%.

I am not suggesting this is what typically happens. Usually the attackers get pinned, meaning they find spots they will not be hit, in such sweeps or at all, and then they try short rushes to closer spots to throw grenades, or fail to move because they see the men that try, get hit. Morale and terrain work this way and that and something happens.

The point is simply to show, that even a high ROF MG does not have the physically ability to erect an impenetrable bullet wall out to grenade range and beyond. It may have the *moral* ability to do so, because who wants to play Russian roulette with 5 chambers filled? But if a squad of men did, most likely one would get the empty chamber and KO the MG.

Now you have some idea why they give medals to the guys that do this to help their buddies.