Germans: Why pick the HMG?

[Cybeq]

Given that in a typical QB you can buy three MG42 LMG's for the price of one MG42 HMG is there any logical reason to buy HMG's? I'm talking PBEM, ME, 20-30 turns. You could say that you gain ammo loadout. So what? You probably won't live to use all of it anyway. Not to mention the fact that the ammo loadout of 3 LMG's very nearly equals the ammo in the HMG. You could say that you gain survivability because of the larger crew. I would argue that 3 LMG's are more survivable than 1 HMG because they present 3 seperate targets. You could say you gain firepower. But 3 LMG's firing on one target equal/ exceed the firepower of 1 HMG at all ranges but those over 500 meters. All I can see that you gain is range out to 1000 meters, but c'mon, how many of us actually open up with machine guns at 1000 meters in this game? It's rare to have a tank dual at that range let alone exchange machine gun fire. The speed on the LMG is slightly higher too allowing you to redeploy/keep up with moving platoons easier. So what am I missing? Why pick HMG's?

[Conscript Bagger]

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

You could say that you gain ammo loadout. So what?

You could say you gain firepower. But 3 LMG's firing on one target equal/ exceed the firepower of 1 HMG at all ranges but those over 500 meters. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

1/3 ammo and 1/3 firepower means that with 3 LMGs, you can either have one HMG worth of duration, or one HMG worth of firepower - not both. Those LMGs run dry pretty quickly. As for survivability, when you lose two of three LMGs (4 men), 2/3 of your firepower is gone. The HMG doesn't suffer in that regard until it's down to one man (if even then - but I think I remember reading that a single gunner will fire less frequently).

Your point is taken, though. LMGs may be a better choice in a situation where you prefer mobility.

[JasonC]

I find the LMGs far too fragile to be of much use, other than potentially confusing the enemy about where you are. They often don't last through their own mere 25 shots. But I've run HMGs down to single digits of ammo remaining in 15 minutes, and getting off 50-70 shots is quite normal.

Basically you get 2-4 times the firepower (depending on how much of the higher ammo load you manage to fire) and greater resilency in return for one target and slow rather than medium speed. The tactical role you need MGs to fufill is long range direct fire, typically 250 meters or so. That requires considerable ammo to produce a decent effect, as the hits accumulate over a long period of fire.

To get the HMGs where they are going, I just ride them on the back of a vehicle for the first 1-2 minutes. You have to pick their locations well to get many shots out of them, but they can relocate short distances to renew a LOS or what-not, on their own. Their range will usually do the rest.

If you want mobile LMG firepower to run closer, the way to get it is to buy Panzergrenadiers, not LMG teams. They have 2 per squad, fast speed not medium, 40 shots not 25, and don't die when you look at them funny. Or Fallschirmjaegers, same story.

[ 08-09-2001: Message edited by: JasonC ]

[Triumvir]

I'd rather have the HMGs move into position on their own power. The proper engagement range for the HMGs is about 300m or so, and I usually use them to initiate contact. They do a stellar job of suppression at a long range, and have enough ammo to just keep hosing an area down while the infantry advance.

Moving them up on the back of a vehicle tends to draw attention to the vehicle before you really want to do so.

[Banshee]

Ideally you place the HMG's in a position where they pore on fire over long periods of time. Sustained rate of fire is extremely important. I wouldnt trade 1 hmg for 3 LMG's, you lose out 20 shots, and you have to find 3 good firing locations that have LOS to the field of fire you wanted before. If you have a HMG with open fire lanes to exposed ground, you have a formidable position. Add a platoon of infantry to stop close in rushes, and the opponent better have a lot of arty or tanks, otherwise they will be taking massive casualties.

[ 08-09-2001: Message edited by: Banshee ]

[Holien]

I would tend to agree with the others. Buy a HMG rather than 3 LMG's.

The only time I would not do this is if I wanted some cheap forward recon on a defense game.

I would buy three LMG's and use them for picket duty. If used well you can use them to mask where you really are and the attacker might be led into thinking your main defense line is way forward and waste some of his arty in taking them out.

I have found that they die way too fast compared to the HMG unit.

H

[Jarmo]

I'm currently in the middle of a defense where I picked about a dozen LMG's and scattered them all over the place. Remains to be seen if it works to my advantage or not.

[olandt]

To ask the allied side of the question,

Do you pick American Paratroopers with 3 MGs per platoon, or

American Glider platoons that come with the 50 caliber?

(and I'm ignoring the difference of 2 extra rifles in the glider squads)

[Kanonier Reichmann]

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

I'm currently in the middle of a defense where I picked about a dozen LMG's and scattered them all over the place. Remains to be seen if it works to my advantage or not.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That wouldn't happen to be a particularly "rugged" defence style of game would it Jarmo?

Regards

Jim R.

[Warmaker]

Hands down, the HMG42 teams. Their lower mobility is of no concern to me in a defense. Even in an offensive role, a simple SPW or truck can ferry arround your support units.

I've run my HMG42 teams to the ground and wished many times they had just a little bit more ammo.

I only choose LMG42 teams for two general purposes. One is to act as flank gaurds to slow down any enemy infantry advances, or at least to warn me of them. The other more important role is to supplement the firepower of my infantry platoons, as if the Panzergrenadiers and FJ need any more help. This firepower "boost" is more essential for the plain vanilla rifle platoons, esp. the Heer'44 variety. Reinforcing one of these simple platoons with 1-2 LMG42 teams is a good compromise in cost, firepower, and mobility.

With HMG teams, you can dominate certain areas with their firepower and ammo capacity. LMG teams just don't have the staying power.

[Snake Eyes]

I find that LMG's are just too fragile and don't last long in a sustained fight. Also, they are never around at the end of a long scenario, when you need to make that final push or scrape together enough firepower to stop one.

One HMG is worth more than three LMG's, IMHO.

[Chad Harrison]

i would have to agree with the above. those two man LMG teams must of watched to many rambo movies, because judging by how fast they die and how little damage they do, they must be standing up, yelling and firing from the hip!

now, in a city battle, having more teams would be better than just one, but it would be better to buy just squads at that point.

[Wilhammer]

The only time I buy the LMGs is to fill out my purchasing.

The ammo count and crew frailty is just too low for them to have any reasonable combat staying power.

[Pak40]

Cybeq,

If you pick the 3 LMGs and one of the team dies(2 men) then you have only 2/3 of your original power. If the second team dies then you have 1/3 of the original power. Also, I think MG teams with only one man operate at half strength.

If you pick 1 HMG and two men die then you still have all your original firepower. If two more die then you still have all your firepower, although you lose some ammo.

I think it ultimately depends if you're attacking or defending, and what your strategy is.

I personally prefer the HMG veteran unit. I used to get the the LMGs but I got disgusted at how easily they died. I then bought HMG regular units but got disgusted when they paniced easily. Now I get Veteran HMG units and they usually last the entire game or they die fighting.

[Andrew H.]

I think the HMG is better for most purposes, too. I experimented for a while with using LMGs to boost the firepower of rifle platoons (essentially, I made a "shock" platoon by adding two LMGs to a platoon). In practice, this didn't work as well as I had hoped -- the additional firepower was not overwhelming, the LMGs died pretty quickly in the "shock troop" role, and the whole platoon was slowed down due to the LMG's medium speed.

I've experimented with using LMGs in other ways -- to accompany shreck squads, or as security for guns -- but the jury's still out.

I don't think that they are useful substitutes for HMGs, though.

[Silvio Manuel]

I like the M1917 HMG with 125 ammo better than the .50cal with its greater power, but only 40ammo.

I prefer Paratroops over Gliders due to the 3 .30cals instead of 1 .50

[JasonC]

The US paras are better than the gliders, certainly. 50 cals have only about half again the infantry fp of MMGs, and they don't make it up on ammo, with only 40 shots. The 3-man para MGs only have 35 it is true, but there are three of them.

The 1917 HMG has lots of ammo, 125, and if you are on defense they are a better choice than 50 cals. But they are slow (matters attacking, less so otherwise). The standard MMG has a middle 65 ammo but low fp. Used in pairs they can function like German HMG teams, and they maneuver better than the HMGs. But they aren't as good as the German HMGs individually, no question.

What the Allies have for the attack are cheap light armor types with tons of ammo - the M3A1 halftrack and scout car, the Brit MMG carrier. Those often work better than slow HMG teams, or MG teams with inadequate ammo (3 man, 50 cal). They don't go everywhere or use cover so effectively. On the other hand, small arms fire can't stop them (or easily, anyway - they can get 1 crew casualty of course).

If you want serious hosing power, take 1-2 of the halftracks and put 2 HMG-1917 in each of them - then pretend they are AA halftracks. The 'track parks behind a bit of cover, and the HMGs move up through it, while the 'track peeks around the side. Keep the range 250-300 meters to protect them from enemy reply by small arms and schrecks. They have enough ammo to fire continuously, to "recon by fire", to use area fire to suppress a target you are about to rush, etc.

[Cybeq]

Well, I did a little experimentation after posting this thread in an effort to educate myself. I found that 1 HMG targeting a single squad will cause more casualties than 3 LMG's shooting at a squad at the same range. However, the LMG's by virtue of their greater volume of fire will keep the enemy's heads down a little better (not much) than a single HMG. Both MG's seemed to be equally effective at repulsing a single squad advanced against them. So, I guess everybody is right about 1 HMG being more effective than three LMG's. However, I feel that three LMG's will give you more tactical flexability under most circumstances.

[Panther G]

I don't know if anyone has mentioned it, but the HMG can take out halftracks...

Ryan

[JasonC]

"I feel that three LMG's will give you more tactical flexability under most circumstances"

Unless those circumstances include firing more than 25 shots, or taking 2 or more casualties.

The LMGs just suck. There is no getting around it. They are good for misdirection, confusing the enemy about your numbers and strength. Take a few with leftover points to spot approaching enemies cheaply - fine. But they are a lousy way to buy additional firepower, because they just don't last (either in ammo terms or when men get hit).

[Username]

It will be interesting to see if the LMGs get any better in CMBB. A possible use, with the new covered arc, will be the final protective fire.

If the LMG can stay hidden from attackers FP and site a narrow long arc across the MLR. Perhaps they will take on a new character.

They should have been modeled around 3 men. If nothing else, to make them live longer like the FOs. Carrying a M60, I wasnt able to move much ammo by myself. It would take a couple of others to make the weapon sustainable. 2 extras would give about a thousand rounds.

Lewis

[Vanir Ausf B]

If LMGs could run, even for short distances, they might be worth it. As it is I think they are one of the more useless units in the game and never buy them. I can't think of any type of game I would not rather have a HMG.

HMGs are terrific HE soaker-uppers. Hopefully this will be fixed in CM2 by allowing them to abandon the weapon.

[KiwiJoe]

Yeah, the real value of the HMG is in soaking up enemy firepower. MGs dont tend to do much killing, unless your enemy runs across open ground in front of you, but they can be a real pain in the ass to kill. LMGs are the perfect scouts IMO. Because they are so cheap you can afford to purchase several and advance them into unknown territory to flush out ambushes. They are also good placeholders for VLs.

[Cybeq]

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

They are good for misdirection, confusing the enemy about your numbers and strength. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

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

LMGs are the perfect scouts IMO. Because they are so cheap you can afford to purchase several and advance them into unknown territory to flush out ambushes. They are also good placeholders for VLs.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is exactly what I mean regarding tactical flexability. The ability to perform more than one job. And remember, I'm talking about 3 LMG's versus 1 HMG. Not 1 vs. 1. I am currently engaged in a PBEM where I have selected a number of LMG's. We are on turn 12 out of 20 and so far I have lost 15% of my LMG force. 100% have been utilized in some fashion to advance my cause and 0% are out of ammo. This is only one experience though. I usually do not buy LMG's. I'll pass judgement on the LMG's after this game is through.