more machinegun follies-- yet another call for a fix

[Homba]

Situation: My veteran US army 1917 HMG team waits in a heavy builing on a clear day. The building is located at the bottom of nice little dell, sheltered from enemy heavy weapons. The slopes of the dell rise up in front and to the left. To the right, I can cover a field in front of the entire right flank of my defensive line. This position is to anchor the left side of my right flank. If Enemy infantry approach from the front or left, they will have to come over the lip of the dell and there is no cover for 80m to my house-- where I plan to shred them WWI-style, as they will be unsupported in the open.

AAR: One Volks SMG SQUAD (8 men) charged my house at the beginning of a turn. I don't believe these attackers were even 'in command.' As far as the tracer-graphics show, I got off one burst at them at them as they crested the lip of the dell to my front. I proceeded to get 4 bursts in, the last coming when they were about 10m from my house. Bursts were at 90, 65, 35 and 10m- the entire time my veteran HMG team was not pinned, cautious, etc. They were OK or Alerted. Managed to pick off one enemy in the first or second salvo. Got 2 more at the 10m point. The enemy never went to ground or ceased sprinting toward my house (firing an ineffective burst or two from their SMGs) and entered the building with about 15 seconds left in the turn, where each side has lost 1 man in close combat.

I am incredulous (to put it mildly) that these 8 attackers were able to quickly, easily, unsuppressed, and at little cost, cross 90m of open ground, while under the concentrated fire of a veteran, unsuppressed HMG team firing from a heavy building-- and I believe MGs should be tweaked up until it would probably require a PLATOON of men (rather than a squad) to frontally assault and take out my position, and not without considerable loss, or possibility of being turned back.

The explanation that "open ground doesn't necessarily represent ground devoid of cover," is wholly unsatisfactory. This might explain why a squad PINNED in open ground would not be instantly liquidated by an MG. However, the attackers ran the 90m to my position without pause. They weren't seriously seeking cover. Further, we have Broken, Lt. Woods, Wheat, etc. terrain tiles to represent land "with some cover." Only the rocky Broken terrain is an impediment to vehicles. Vehicles can go full speed over "open groun"- it might as well be a parking lot. Any "hard cover" that might be useful to a squad advancing against an MG position MUST be few and far between judging by the easy at which a vehicle crosses open terrain. For those reasons, I find the argument/explanation of "limited cover" in "open terrain" to be wholly insufficient to explain the ease of the assault on my HMG position.

Maybe some members of a resourceful (and probably elite) squad of men could enter my position if they spaced out to a frontage of about 200m+, nearly a full half-arc around my position, and all rushed in at once. I could understand how one MG would have trouble stopping that kind of attack. However, I don't believe this is what is being modeled in CM when a squad rushes a building. Granted there is some spacing, but it is safe to assume the squad (to maintain cohesion) has a frontage of no more than 30m or so? I would posit that 30m is not significant, other than to reduce casualties caused by 1 burst. The 200m front I mentioned above could only be acheived by a 3-squad platoon, and here I would feel real danger to my MG house.

I have experienced these incredibly dumbed-down MGs over and over, whether they be in groups or standing alone. I have run tests with ridiculous results. I have read the complaints of countless people here on the forum. I have read about the vicious and unprecedented effect of MGs on the WWI battlefield against "human wave" attacks. I have never heard any good justification on this bb for the current state of MG effectiveness. Until we have a fix, we are going to continue to see the human wave attack used with outrageously unrealistic success. Any squad of men running at an unsuppressed MG from 100-20m range who is firing repeatedly at them have two choices: seek cover or die. Why isn't this modeled correctly in CM?

I suggest that crewed MG firepower be increased by 75-100%. Is this outrageous? If doubled, would only 2 (instead of 5) men reached my HMG house? Would the increased firepower forced the attackers to go to ground? I hope so. The attack of this SMG squad should have been suicidal- but instead was an easy success.

Are the Russians are going to be hell on wheels OR WHAT in CM2!?

Homba

[David Aitken]

But... but... in Saving Private Ryan a half-squad charged an MG42 over open ground and only took one casualty!!

Two points:

• A fast-moving squad is not just out for a jog. What you see is an abstraction.

• Vehicles cannot go at top speed over open ground. They move much faster on roads. And again, the straight-line-constant-speed you see is an abstraction.

• Machineguns in the First World War were massed, and troops were not moving over open ground, it was muddy, churned up, shell-holed ground strewn with some very nasty barbed wire. This is why they were so effective.

Anyway, it's all been said before. I assume you've read this thread, but for others' reference:

Questioning MG effectiveness?

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

"Compared to the European armies, Americans had a permissive view toward the authority of doctrine and considered blind obedience to doctrine a vice, not a virtue." – Michael Doubler's "Closing With The Enemy" in brief

[Guest Big Time Software]

Homba wrote:

I have never heard any good justification on this bb for the current state of MG effectiveness.

Then you obviously have somehow missed every single response we have put up each time this issue was discussed. Facts are facts... unsupported MGs were not über weapons. The whole concept of Combined Arms explicitely states that MGs need to be supported by other small arms, and vice versa. Remove one part from the equation and you weaken the effectiveness of the other. Otherwise, why bother having guys armed with rifles and SMGs at all? Why not just give everybody a MG if they are that effective? MGs have their limitations, and they are best seen while acting alone in unfavorable circumstances.

Comparing anything to WWI is pure folly. It also underscores a misunderstanding of how MGs were used in combat and why they were, and were not, effective in a given situation.

For the most part there are no problems with the way CM's MGs are simulated. We certainly will not be doing anything to the FP rating, since when used correctly they do their job with deadly effectiveness. So bumping up their ratings would make the people who utilize them with correct Combined Arms principles unrealistically deadly on the battlefield.

Having said all that, we are certainly looking at rate of target switching and different rates of fire depending on circumstances for CM2. The simple reason is that "human waves" require a more refined MG modeling than we have in CM1 if they are to work realistically. But I wouldn't expect that a lone MG will fare much better in CM2 as in CM1 in the situation Homba described.

Steve

[This message has been edited by Big Time Software (edited 04-05-2001).]

[Michael Dorosh]

I think maybe that answers the Human Wave question/speculation too (shudder)...

Nice to "see" you again, Steve. Hope things are going well.

[Col Deadmarsh]

My question is, if these "open" tiles represent terrain which includes shrubbery, dips, etc, then where is the tile that represents an open field with no cover that can maximize an mg's effectiveness?

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

Youth is wasted on the young.

[Guest Mr. Johnson-<THC>-]

Damn you David, I was gonna make a wise crack about Saving Private Ryan. If you had a Platoon protecting the MG and had the same results I would agree. If you remember what MGs did in the Demo, you should be very happy like me. BTS said everything else that needed to be said.

[David Aitken]

Colonel_Deadmarsh wrote:

> where is the tile that represents an open field with no cover that can maximize an mg's effectiveness?

Where would you expect to find this kind of terrain?

An "open field" would not maximise a machinegun's effectiveness anyway. Refer to my comments about the First World War above.

[Wreck]

why bother having guys armed with rifles and SMGs at all? Why not just give everybody a MG if they are that effective?

Of course, after WWII (and even during) this is the direction they moved: from 1 to 2 MGs per squad, and smaller squads. The reason why not everyone got one is casualties. If it takes two men to fire each MG, putting 4/squad would mean losing 1/4 your firepower after a single casualty.

Comparing anything to WWI is pure folly. It also underscores a misunderstanding of how MGs were used in combat and why they were, and were not, effective in a given situation.

From my understanding of the CM system, there is no reason why CM could *not* be used to sim WWI. I realize it is not designed perfectly for that, but I think it has enough there to sim it reasonably well. I think it is a wild overstatement to say such a thing is "pure folly".

All you need are rifle squads and MGs, and artillery. Put down lots of shellholes, lots of rough, lots of open, and lots of wire (leave some holes to sim pre-attack bombardment) across a generally flat no-man's land. Two lines of foxholes just above a sharp terrain rise can form the trenches. Separate them by maybe 500m.

So here is a serious question: if someone set up a scenario like that, giving realistic amount of MGs to each side and a realistic amount of attacking bodies on one, do you think it would realistically predict the outcome that happened repeatedly in WWI?

I don't know the answer to this question, but I am inclined to think it would not.

Do you think this would be a fair test of how MGs work in CM?

[StellarRat]

MGs work fine. I've held off entire companies with 4 MGs! They are very effective with open fields of fire and interlocking positions. You can pin down huge numbers of squads with just a few MGs if the infantry is trying to advance over clear terrain.

[David Aitken]

Wreck wrote:

> The reason why not everyone got one is casualties.

And nothing to do with handiness or mobility?

> there is no reason why CM could *not* be used to sim WWI.

This is not the point. Indeed machineguns would work as people like Homba expect they should in this scenario. But you are not going to find this scenario in a Second World War battle. This is why the comparison is irrelevant.

[Michael Dorosh]

I've done a WW I scenario just for kicks. Given the right weapons mix, CM could do it.

Don't buy into the Hollywood version of human wave attacks; while the first day on the Somme may have been like that, by 1917 the Germans, Canadians and Australians (especially) were pioneering the concepts that would become widespread in WW II - small parties of attackign troops, tank support, wire-cutting artillery, effective counter-battery artillery fire, and for the infantry, most importantly - the development of the platoon as the unit of maneuver rather than the squad. (EDIT - this should be "the platoon as the unit of maneuver rather than the COMPANY).

We practiced 1915 British company attacks right out of the textbook on the set of Legends of the Fall. They were literally done in waves, company strong, with the men shoulder to shoulder.

After Vimy Ridge, where Canadian platoons seized most of the feature in a single morning thanks to their new tactics (as well as innovations in artillery work), human waves were definitely on the way out.

[This message has been edited by Michael Dorosh (edited 04-05-2001).]

[Guest Big Time Software]

Some quick answers to various questions:

Yes, things are going well Except for the fact that I have about 10 more things on my plate recently than normal

There is no such naturally occuring piece of terrain, in a scale worthy of simulation (i.e. well tended decorative lawns), that is perfectly devoid of cover. So there is no 20m x 20m piece of terrain in CM that has such characteristics.

Wreck wrote:

Of course, after WWII (and even during) this is the direction they moved: from 1 to 2 MGs per squad, and smaller squads.

True, but this is not at odds with my statement about MGs having their limitations, and therefore expecting them to perform without any is not a realistic expectation to have.

MGs have practical limitations which limit their effectiveness in real combat sitations. And it isn't purely a matter of manpower itself, but also the reasons behind why more manpower is needed. Changing belts, changing barrels, need to cool down, jams, danger of "cooking off" a round, difficulty in maintaining accurate and sustained full auto fire, problems with ammo supply, etc.

I think it is a wild overstatement to say such a thing is "pure folly".

Perhaps, but only just barely. In the context that I made this statement, I still say it is "pure folly" to make such a comparison. Having one MMG firing at one squad does not make for a usefull comparison to WWI combat, and hence effectiveness, at all.

Remember that EVERYTHING in Combat Mission is the result of a deliberate coding to simulate a specific aspect of combat. We did not waste our time coding for aspects that were not relevant to WWII Western Front combat. Therefore, it is not possible to set up a WWI type scenario in CM1 and expect, with certainty, to see WWI type results. It just doesn't work that way.

So here is a serious question: if someone set up a scenario like that, giving realistic amount of MGs to each side and a realistic amount of attacking bodies on one, do you think it would realistically predict the outcome that happened repeatedly in WWI?

I think CM1 will produce a somewhat WWI type result *if* the designer really does lay out a WWI type situation as best as CM1's constraints will allow. But there are subtle differences that make a DIRECT comparison impossible. CM1 was not written to deal with Human Waves because they rarely, if ever (using WWI definitions) happened in CM1's simulated scope. As I said above, CM2's scope DOES include human waves, and therefore we do need to make sure that the cause and effects are adequately in balance.

Steve

[Guest Pillar]

Originally posted by Big Time Software:

The whole concept of Combined Arms explicitely states that MGs need to be supported by other small arms, and vice versa. Remove one part from the equation and you weaken the effectiveness of the other

Interestingly however, often the enemy can defeat the machine gun without using any form of combined arms whatsoever. I just ran a few tests.

There are two patches of trees, with a 200m open field in between. I gave the allies an 1919 Medium Veteran Machine gun and the axis a simply SMG platoon.

Firsts tests I ran the entire platoon directly at the enemy MG. Keep in mind the SMG isn't really effective until it gets close, and there was virtually NO covering fire for the run.

Test 1 -- 2 SMG casualties

Test 2 -- 5 SMG casualties

Test 3 -- 1 SMG casualty

Test 4 -- 2 SMG casualties

Ok I thought, lets try rushing a single squad up this 200m stretch headlong into the enemy MG emplacement.

Test 1 -- 4 casualties

Test 2 -- 2 casualties

Test 3 -- 1 casualty

In both tests, most casualties (if not all) occured during the last 100 meters of running. From this I conclude that even a 500m run would probably yield a marginally lower rate of increased casualties. That is, while there would be more casualties, they would be disproportionately small to the last 100m of running.

Finally, in ALL these tests the morale of my squads never dropped from "OK". Everything "hunkey dorey" rushing an MG nest. No big deal.

If this is how MG's really were in World War Two covering in European terrain, where 200m wide strectches are in themselves considered fields, why did commanders have such a respect for MG's? Why all that fancy flanking? I mean, the problem is simple enough to solve: Just rush a squad at them.

Personally, I believe a squad of Thompson armed men waiting in the woods at the end of the open stretch would be more effective - LOL.

In sum, I think a lot of people, grogs and non-grogs alike, are still unconvinced. There is something missing here.

[Michael Dorosh]

Pillar, your test proves absolutely nothing.

Please give a real world example to back up your claim. How can you say CM doesn't accurately model something if you don't provide an example of the object being modelled? Or would you simply have BTS model your imagination of what you think a war is like?

[This message has been edited by Michael Dorosh (edited 04-05-2001).]

[KiwiJoe]

I'll repost this here:

I think the major problem with the current modeling of MGs is they only fire at 1 squad at a time. From what I've seen/read/understand the MG's true strength lies in its ability to deney infantry movement to fairly large amounts of land. If any infantry don't show respect for siad MG and are brave enough to run around in front of it they will no doubt get reasonably cut up.

Thus I think MGs in CM2 should be able to area target, as they can in CM, but with 1 major difference. The area target would have a 30-50 metre circle around it (like a TRP). Any and ALL infantry squads entering that cirlce would be subject to the MGs firepower at the same time, as if each was being directly targeted. This would in effect model the MG crew spraying an area 30-50 metres wide with multple bursts of fire.

Perhaps the firepower rating of the MG would be slightly lowered in area target mode to account for the inaccurate nature of spray fire... but all squads in the area would be subject to supression from the MG AT THE SAME TIME WITH EACH AND EVERY BURST.

Thats my idea to solve the issue... what do YOU think?

[Guest wwb_99]

One thing to remeber is that in the first world war, men were not charging a single machine gun nest, or even a pair. They were charging a well planned and sited network of machine gun nests supported by rifle fire, over muddy, broken ground. Moreover, most of the casualties were taken when the attackers hit the barbed wire, not when they were advancing across no man's land. It should also be noted that in many cases, the human wave did take the first trench, but they failed to hold it against counterattacks, being unable to call in artillery support and lacking heavy weapons of most sorts.

The machine guns were sited as to have converging fire on likely points of attack and to create vicious cross-fires at the barbed-wire line. To get an idea of the Somme in CM terms, try attacking with a battalion of infantry in company waves, without direct heavy weapons support on a 500m front. Give the defenders 10 HMGs in bunkers (to represent the strongpoints where MGs were usually mounted) behind a nearly continuos line of wire 10-30m in front of the MGs. And make the ground mud or deep snow. Also, remember to site the MGs so that no less than 3 can concentrate on a particular area. You will see what the british learned at 7:28am on 1 July 1916.

WWB

[edited for idiotic omission]

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

Before battle, my digital soldiers turn to me and say,

Ave, Caesar! Morituri te salutamus.

Check out the Dogs of War CM Players Community

[This message has been edited by wwb_99 (edited 04-05-2001).]

[Michael Dorosh]

Don't forget to give the Germans plenty of ammo in your Somme scenario, and make the Allies carry 50 to 80 pounds of equipment so they can't move fast. Do not give them "run" commands, as they are ordered to move at a walk so as to keep the dressing right.

Wasn't just 7:28 am, either - the Newfoundland Regiment was one of the hardest hit, and they stepped off several hours after H. In fact, the forward trenches were so full of dead, they had to attack from supporting trenches (!)

Can you imagine?

[Guest Pillar]

Michael,

Virtually any account of battle in World War Two will talk of the danger of machine gun fire, especially over open steppe at distances of 200m. To charge an enemy HMG emplacment over 200m of open ground DIRECTLY as a single squad was not a trivial matter. All field manuals talk about the importance of smoke and flanking maneuver when attacking over such ground. They speak of mortar support, tank suppression, friendly MG bombardments, supportive artillery fire, and so on.

These tests showed that in Combat mission a single SMG squad could, repeatedly, rush an enemy MG emplacement over 200m of open ground, directly head on, in CLEAR DAYLIGHT, and still take out the MG emplacement without dropping from an "OK" status of morale, AND still remaining combat capable. All that simply because the Leutenant is behind your boys screaming "keep going"? How would you react to some 10 rounds per second being fired at you? Do you really believe over that kind of ground an average of 2 casualties (two hits effectively) was the only price to pay?

I'm not a combat veteran, and my experience studying this topic is limited to the past three years or so. I don't claim to have all the answers. I've talked to ex-military and current military officers and soldiers who play CM who also feel that MG's are not modelled correctly. It's up to you to decide, I'm not going to raise a crusade to convince you.

Can you find a few historical examples of a squad or platoon directly rushing MG nests over 200 meters of open terrain (using cover and zig zagging or not) and taking one or two casualties? And not having anyone get upset? Everything calm and collected? And is this event a regular occurence that can be relied upon and repeated time and time again?

I'd hate to think of what I'd have to do to earn a medal. - LOL

I respect your opinion and I respect BTS's decision, and I won't pursue this further if it's not welcome.

[Guest Heinz 25th PzReg]

I am looking forward to a more complex MG simulation in CM2. Different rates of fire for different situations will solve many of the issues dicussed here.

Examples:

1. 1xinfantry platoon and 1x HMG team positioned in a trench at the end of a forrest. The unit is covering a stretch of open ground. Enemy infantry is spotted 600 metres away in some woods. HMG team fires at the enemy infantry and the enemy take cover in the woods.

The HMG squad would not be in any serious danger and would probably fire short well aimed bursts. The HMG squad would probably not waste ammo.

2. The same unit is defending the same area when an enemy infantry company attacks them from a position 600 metres away. The enemy infantry can be seen running over open ground without much cover. The enemy will probably close on the position very soon, no time to retreat.

In this case I am sure the HMG team would fire longer bursts without thinking of saving ammo. It is in a situation were it can inflict casualties on the enemy if they uphold a high rate of fire. If the enemy reach their position, they would probably have to leave their tripod behind together with any remaining ammo.

2 different examples that require a more complex MG simulation than we have today in CM:BO

My thoughs on the matter.

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 Mr. Johnson-<THC>-]

Pillar I think BTS would probably agree with your combat vet friends that MGs in CMBO are not perfect. I don't recall BTS saying that all parts of CMBO were perfect. Yes MGs could be better. And BTS is trying to make them better for CM2. Plus in most situations that I'm in, my infantry don't arrive at the MLR in perfect condition. When I need them most to take out MGs. If they have had a few casualites then MGs do more to shut them up.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Pillar:

Michael,

Virtually any account of battle in World War Two will talk of the danger of machine gun fire, especially over open steppe at distances of 200m.

Can you quote one for us? Specifically, one that parrots the test situation you describe? I'm not being a smart ass, I would genuinely like to read that. Preconceived notions are something everyone has; mine is that solitary MGs are not that big a threat.

To charge an enemy HMG emplacment over 200m of open ground DIRECTLY as a single squad was not a trivial matter. All field manuals talk about the importance of smoke and flanking maneuver when attacking over such ground.

I'd like to see a quote here, too. BTS tells us that infantry smoke was a myth perpetuated by games like Squad Leader. I've seen mortar smoke referred to in first person accoutns but not smoke grenades. Flanking, definitely, but would still like to see a solid source to back this up.

They speak of mortar support, tank suppression, friendly MG bombardments, supportive artillery fire, and so on.

But what about defensive manuals that talk about interlocking fields of fire and mutually supporting positions?

These tests showed that in Combat mission a single SMG squad could, repeatedly, rush an enemy MG emplacement over 200m of open ground, directly head on, in CLEAR DAYLIGHT, and still take out the MG emplacement without dropping from an "OK" status of morale, AND still remaining combat capable. All that simply because the Leutenant is behind your boys screaming "keep going"? How would you react to some 10 rounds per second being fired at you? Do you really believe over that kind of ground an average of 2 casualties (two hits effectively) was the only price to pay?

But how does proving this is possible in CM disprove its occurence in real life? It doesn't. You raise a valid point, and I'm not being combative - but let's raise the level of discourse with first person accounts or solid sources before Cawley whips out his calculator and treats us to his Running Through The Raindrops theorem again!

I'm not a combat veteran, and my experience studying this topic is limited to the past three years or so. I don't claim to have all the answers. I've talked to ex-military and current military officers and soldiers who play CM who also feel that MG's are not modelled correctly. It's up to you to decide, I'm not going to raise a crusade to convince you.

You may need a crusade to convince BTS, though.

I'm not saying I have the answers either - in fact, I'm telling you I don't.

Can you find a few historical examples of a squad or platoon directly rushing MG nests over 200 meters of open terrain (using cover and zig zagging or not) and taking one or two casualties? And not having anyone get upset? Everything calm and collected? And is this event a regular occurence that can be relied upon and repeated time and time again?

I am tempted to try! LOL! The problem is, as I pointed out in another thread, most histories just aren't written from this level. I can tell you what I've seen as an "infantryman" (read: recruit) on exercise with modern weapons, and at some re-enactments, and that actually tends to back up what you say.

Having handled an MG34 on tripod mount, it just seems to me that a single MG crew would be hard pressed to bring effective, fatal (not suppressive) firepower to bear on fast moving targets at close range.

It bears more discussion, anyway.

I'd hate to think of what I'd have to do to earn a medal. - LOL

Amen - and me too. The one medal I have for long service is more than enough for me.

I respect your opinion and I respect BTS's decision, and I won't pursue this further if it's not welcome.

Definitely welcome - I appreciate your taking the time to investigate. I am suggesting we shift the focus now from CM to what it is actually modelling. I will try and find some info on my end.

[Marlow]

Examples of single machineguns causing significant casualties (granted these guys are CMH winners, but …)

BERTOLDO, VITO R. (Master Sergeant)

…He moved back inside the command post, strapped his machinegun to a table and covered the main approach to the building by firing through a window, remaining steadfast even in the face of 88-mm. fire from tanks only 75 yards away. One shell blasted him across the room, but he returned to his weapon. When 2 enemy personnel carriers led by a tank moved toward his position, he calmly waited for the troops to dismount and then, with the tank firing directly at him, leaned out of the window and mowed down the entire group of more than 20 Germans… In the morning he carried his machinegun to an adjacent building used as the command post of another battalion and began a day-long defense of that position. He broke up a heavy attack, launched by a self-propelled 88-mm. gun covered by a tank and about 15 infantrymen… With inspiring bravery and intrepidity M/Sgt. Bertoldo withstood the attack of vastly superior forces for more than 48 hours without rest or relief, time after time escaping death only by the slightest margin while killing at least 40 hostile soldiers and wounding many more during his grim battle against the enemy hordes

*COWAN, RICHARD ELLER (PFC)

… He maintained his position, holding off the Germans until the rest of the shattered force had set up a new line along a firebreak. Then, unaided, he moved his machinegun and ammunition to the second position. At the approach of a Royal Tiger tank, he held his fire until about 80 enemy infantrymen supporting the tank appeared at a distance of about 150 yards. His first burst killed or wounded about half of these infantrymen.

And of course Ol' Audie

…2d Lt. Murphy climbed on the burning tank destroyer, which was in danger of blowing up at any moment, and employed its .50 caliber machinegun against the enemy. He was alone and exposed to German fire from 3 sides, but his deadly fire killed dozens of Germans and caused their infantry attack to waver. The enemy tanks, losing infantry support, began to fall back. For an hour the Germans tried every available weapon to eliminate 2d Lt. Murphy, but he continued to hold his position and wiped out a squad which was trying to creep up unnoticed on his right flank. Germans reached as close as 10 yards, only to be mowed down by his fire.

I have a fair bit of experience with the M-60, and I do think that CM dramatically underestimates MG (all small arms for that matter) effectiveness against moving targets. Maybe units given move or sneak commands are using appropriate movement under fire techniques, but at the very least, close range MG fire against a fast moving unit should be more effective.

[This message has been edited by Marlow (edited 04-05-2001).]

[Marlow]

There is also that one battle in the game where in the real battle the lone .50 cal gunner kills a heap and a bunch o Jerries, and I have never been able to come close to repeating his score with CM.

[Michael Dorosh]

Outstanding, Marlow. Good to hear from a real gunner. Good examples - especially Murphy, as he was indeed acting alone.

Come to think of it, didn't one of the Marine MoH winners on Guadalcanal stop an entire Japanese attack with just his .30 cal gun? And that was in close-in terrain, too...

hmmmmmmmm

[Marlow]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

Outstanding, Marlow. Good to hear from a real gunner.

Former gunner, although there are some days at work ...