Machine Guns

[Michael Dorosh]

Outside of Saving Private Ryan, when were machineguns deployed so as not to provide interlocking fields of fire and mutual protection? If you're going to the trouble to set up a valuable asset such as a tripod mounted MG, wouldn't the standard procedure be to deploy protection for it?

Given a scenario in which mutual support was knocked out due to combat action, you will find that many MG crews either high tailed it or surrendered rather than attempted any kind of last second defensive fire.

Lorenz (I believe) talks about "fight or flight" distances, perhaps that would be an appropriate avenue for further discussion.

[:USERNAME:]

Initially it was even worse when CM came out. You could just bum rush any old MG position. BTS then adjusted the firepower/ and/or the effect of moving in the open against said firepower.

I still say that troops (not involved in some sort of organized charge) would more than likely be pinned in many of the actions that CM models. The phenomena of troops running into the cover that protects the offending weapon is also odd.

[Croda]

Funny that this comes up today. I played a QB against the AI last night where I defended a village with 1 U.S. Heavy Weaps Co. (~9 M1919, 3 .50 cal) supported by 2 platoons of rifles (including the 1 that is innate with the HW Co.).

I set up all the MGs in buildings with interlocking fields of fire and with the rifles at suspected hot spots (the VLs). I was curious how this matchup would be able to defend.

Well the AI went infantry heavy and had what appeared to be close to 1 Co VolksGrenadier and close to 1 Co of Motorized Pioneer.

Now, I quit before the game officially ended, but the attack was definitely stopped cold. The end result was that I had lost roughly 3 or 4 MG teams, and 1 of the Rifle platoons was at about 1/2 strength. Every one of my units was on LOW ammo. But the defense held. The interlocking fields of fire allowed for good control of the area. But if a MG team got suppressed or jammed, they were in very big trouble.

Typically the MGs just kept the advancing infantry suppressed, especially at close range. At longer ranges (300m +), they just ran for cover, but didn't cower or run away. Once the AI got close, it would begin charging the MGs. The normal proceeding was that 1 or 2 squads would rush my line as squads of 8, and would run away as squads of 4.

It is interesting to note that my rifle squads got the most kills, but then again, they have 12 guns to the MG team's 1, so that makes sense. The MGs had very few confirmed kills however. This serves to prove that MGs don't kill, they suppress. There were very few kills until the AI got to extreme close range ( < 50m).

Anyway, it was an interesting engagement, but one that I would not want to play vs. a human. The AI's predictability (they ran into all 4 of my ap minefields) allowed me to win. A more aggressive human opponent who knew how to use smoke and flanks would have made this a quick exercise in futility.

Just an example that seemed pertinent to the topic.

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

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

[jasoncawley@ameritech.net]

Part of the reason the MGs have lower confirmed kills, is they do a higher portion of their hitting at range, where confirmation ismuch less likely.

To the man with no name - part of the problem with pinning not being common enough, in my opinion, is an overrepresentation of "veterans" in CM battles, and an unrepresentation of "greens". Greens get pinned a lot more easily by ranged MG fire, and find it muhc harder to navigate.

Personally, I wish the CM QB default made mixes of green and regular the standard option, instead of regular and vet. I find the vets too resilient for realism, when there are too many of them around. And their rapid responses to orders mask the excellent command-delay features and reduce the importance of all the command-control features of the game.

The other issue I think is somewhat off, in a way that hurts MGs in CM compared to in reality, is the degree of protection offered by "concealment" type cover, to moving troops. Running through woods you get % exposed numbers around 25-30%, which cuts down the FP dramatically at medium ranges. If %exposed numbers were more closely tied to movement state, not just the type of terrain the men were in, then ranged fire would pin more than it does.

You can tell this is going on, because the AI doesn't take so much care to avoid open ground, and it does get pinned by multiple MGs (as another fellow noted). But humans keep to the cover, and keep the dashes across the open short. Which is fine, they should. But they should not get quite the near-invunerability to ranged fire out of it, that is "on offer" in CM today.

I'd like to see a system where the full benefits of cover were only available to stationary troops, with crawling and sneaking guys getting most of it, moving guys maybe half, and running guys only a modest edge. Then have the %exposed improve on a sort of delay-counter when a unit slows or stops - can vary that time by troop perhaps.

I think this would give a much more realistic sense of the vunerability of movement, and why short halts, fire and movement etc were used. It would also make it rather tougher to just run close enough to defenders to evaporate them, counting on mere numbers to overwhelm the "foxhole advantage".

[Vanir Ausf B]

From the Readme file under 1.03 changes:

* Small-arms units, especially MGs, fire more rapidly at units that

are moving in the open.

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

What a bunch of horsecrap. -Steve

[Olle Petersson]

Originally posted by Croda:

I played a QB against the AI last night where I defended a village with 1 U.S. Heavy Weaps Co. ... supported by 2 platoons of rifles ...

I set up all the MGs in buildings with interlocking fields of fire and with the rifles at suspected hot spots (the VLs).

... Once the AI got close, it would begin charging the MGs. The normal proceeding was that 1 or 2 squads would rush my line as squads of 8, and would run away as squads of 4.

This is the same experience I have from a PBEM.

I was defending a small town on a hill.

My basic troop composition was one Rifle and one MG company of Gebirgsjägers.

In the town (of large, heavy buildings) I typically placed two MGs on the upper floor, facing the enemy, and one Gebirgsjäger squad on the bottom floor, close to the rear wall.

My opponent didn't use heavy HE to destroy the buildings or suppress my troops, but did a frontal infantry assault by (mostly) British troops.

Each squad that tried to assault a building was cut down to less than half by the MGs, and then finished off by the SMGs inside...

Cheers

Olle

(Posting 985)

[Olle Petersson]

Originally posted by jasoncawley@ameritech.net:

In intensive fire situations, MGs could indeed raise their firepower, sometimes enourmously, at some risk of jam or breakdown.

I've got some experience with this.

When I was in the army and we used the ksp58 (AKA FN-MAG), the routine was to use ammo belted in 250 round lengths. After firing a belt at fairly high rate, it was time to change the barrel to avoid overheating.

That MG is gas operated, and there's a valve that can be easily adjusted to get just about any cyclic ROF desired.

- Once when we were target practicing i opened it to about 20% of regulation, resulting in a ROF of about 2rps. Plenty of time to adjust the aim between each shot at full auto...

- Opening the valve much more than regulation resulted in a very high ROF, with a round fired before the previous had exited the barrel. This resulted in pretty fast overheating (and bending) of the piston that operated the mechanism, and became a problem for the rifle platoons in my company...

(The MG had to be repaired by professionals at a workshop, as opposed to simple field maintenance...)

Cheers

Olle

(Posting 986)