more machinegun follies-- yet another call for a fix

[X-00]

Now that the temp has lowered abit I'll open fire. Some Grazing Fire

As background I'm a career Marine Officer (15 years). I've been trained extensively on the employment of Machine Guns. This doesn't make me the world's expert on Machine guns but.....

The biggest weakness in CM is the undermodelling of Machine Guns. Particularily the impact of Grazing Fire. Many people throw the term Grazing Fire around in this debate but few really understand it.

What is Grazing Fire?

The DOD definition of Grazing fire is "Fire approximately parallel to the ground where the center of the cone of fire does not rise above one meter from the ground." For Machine Guns in WWII this would extend out to at least 400m and in some instances 600m.

So what does this mean?

This picture should be familiar to those that have seen the "system" in action. It depicts 12 SMG squads rushing over 80/100m of open space.

If CM1 accurately modelled Grazing Fire: MG1 would be having effects on 5 units, MG2 on 4 units, MG3 on 3 units and MG4 on 6 units, at that moment in time.

This would be a machine gunner's dream. Since the MMGs are mounted on tripod with T and E, all the Machine Gunners would have to do is bump his gun left (mg 1/2) or right (mg 3/4) to deliver accurate flanking fire. The closer the enemy would get the more effective the fire. 0331s 0302s and 11Bs know exactly what i'm talking about.

In the test it took the 12 squads approximately 40 seconds to rush through the open. In every test the SMGs make it across with 10 to 25 casualties. In every instance the vast majority (12 to 9) of the squads make it across, and the battle is over.

Should the machine guns kill every filthy SMG toting Nazi. No. But the troubling thing is the force makes it through relatively undamaged and in a relatively high morale state every time.

Steve I'm sure my methodology is flawed in some way. After all, I'm just a dumb Marine and not a smart statistician or computer programmer. I don't have detailed stats nor do I know the standard deviation of the casualties suffered.

What I do know is that this is a fairly ideal circumstance for machine gun employment and all my training and experience tells me (1) the butcher bill would be high and more important (2) the morale state for this reinforced company would be pretty low and quite possibly turned away.

Grazing Fire is the primary reason for the Machine Gun's existence. It is terrifically effective. The inspiration for CM, Squad Leader simulated this very well. CM, though a fantastic game, does not.

Now a couple of side points.

-When rushing through areas covered with Grazing Fire it doesn't matter if you weeve and bob. The machine gunner isn't aiming at individual soldiers.

-It is accurate. If a Machine gun is dug in and sand bagged and equipped with T&E there is very little "muzzle climb".

Finally, Steve if you want to learn about machine guns from professionals arrangements could be made for you to observe firepower demonstrations and maybe even get some rudimentry instruction and familarization.

Thanks for listening. Like Pillar and others all i'm interested in is improving the game. That said I'm waiting to be chastized for criticizing one part of an overall great game.

(you and copy and paste the picture, it isn't showing up correctly on the bbs)

[ 04-09-2001: Message edited by: X-00 ]

[ 04-09-2001: Message edited by: X-00 ] IT

[ 04-09-2001: Message edited by: X-00 ]

[SenorBeef]

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

I agree. I think this would be an adequate solution, and would seperate MGs in function from simply the high-ammo squads they are now. Although the benefit should probably only be given to the defender, or at least added benefit.

[Foobar]

care-of X-OO

[Abbott]

I liked Kiwijoe's thoughts on the matter also.

[Strat]

An MG cannot be fired like a rifle. Aiming one consists of point and spray bullets. The assaulting squad you refer to was spread out. You can concentrate fire in an area for suppression but as for mowing down a squad like cutting the front lawn, it doesn't happen. I don't know what factors are in the game for causing a squad to go into a pinned state but if they were rested and regulars or veterans they would push the position to prevent being slaughtered.

Strat

[Vanir Ausf B]

If I may, I think the reason human wave attacks are so sucessfull in CM can be summed up in two points made here:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by X-00:

What is Grazing Fire?

The DOD definition of Grazing fire is "Fire approximately parallel to the ground where the center of the cone of fire does not rise above one meter from the ground." For Machine Guns in WWII this would extend out to at least 400m and in some instances 600m.

Grazing Fire is the primary reason for the Machine Gun's existence. It is terrifically effective. The inspiration for CM, Squad Leader simulated this very well. CM, though a fantastic game, does not.

Now a couple of side points.

-When rushing through areas covered with Grazing Fire it doesn't matter if you weeve and bob. The machine gunner isn't aiming at individual soldiers.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

And:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Pillar:

Perhaps the rate of speed for the "Run" command should be dropped a little? Currently it is at around 3.4 meters a second. All this speed AND they are using cover, "leaping bounding and zigzagging"?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

As Steve said, the current Run order is an abstraction. It combines "run" with an "assault" order. It gives the running unit the best of both worlds; the movement rate of an all out run, plus the cover of Assault. This would be the easiest problem to fix. Dividing Run and Assault into 2 seperate orders would be best.

As I understand it, the grazing fire problem is most likely a hardware limitation. The way CM simulates "bullets", they basicaly disappear when they are fired and reappear in an area centered on the target unit. Therefore, they cannot effect anything between. Modeling this correctly would also make friendly fire a real concern for the CM commander, which would encourage real world tactics even more. I don't know how much this would add to the CPU load, and I am sure we will see it eventually, but I would rather see it sooner than later, if feasable.

[ 04-09-2001: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]

[Thomm]

Here is my first person account:

Location: SERIOUS SAM PUBLIC TEST, TEMPLE OF KARNAK.

Armarment: Shotgun, Chaingun, Rocket Launcher, ...

Enemy: Suicidal Zombies with explosives strapped to their body.

All right, here it goes: by picking up certain items the player triggers an attack by "Suicide Bombers" in Serious Sam. Those guys attack in groups of four, basically simply running towards the player, but spreading out in the process. They do not have any long-range weapon, just "contact fuses". They have to cover a wide, flat area to cross to reach the player, who is cornered in this specific location.

I have played this situation a dozens of times. It takes two hits to take out one guy. The chain-gun had an ammo load of 300 round. So, in theory I could have taken out 150 out of those guys, right?! No way. I think my maximum was about six. By the time you have aligned the gun (Note: this in a GAME) and killed one or two enemys, the other ones are already closing in to you from the flanks, from your blind side. Grazing fire is out of the question because you do not get in your two hits in one pass and then you are out of ammo. So you have to aim, and this takes time (note again: ideal game conditions!). Also, guys that do not come directly at you are much harder to hit.

How matter how hard I tried including (shotgun close defense methods), some of the maniacs got into my weak side. It was impressive. And they were not even firing at me! And it did not take a platoon of them, one squad did the job nicely.

I found the situation in the game to be fairly realistic with respect to the subject of rushing a isolated MG position and I was impressed how little damage I could do with that mean chaingun, simply because the process of aiming over a wide field of view took to much time.

Regards,

Serious Thomm

[aka_tom_w]

First off, I have never Fired a MG and I don't know anything about MG's or HMG's, (no military experience)

so why would I comment here?

I just wanted to mention that it seems to me that units like MG and HMG's specifically target one other unit at a time. OR if you give them and area target they stick to this area target and don't "hose" the entire length of a tree line for instance.

I agree that there is something not entirely realistic happening here, but I think it is because the MG units target either a small area or ONE other opposing unit.

I'm not sure but I have never seen a MG jump from target to target if being rushed by multiple units in a sinlge one minute turn.

The "bum rush" or Mulitple infantry unit assault is VERY effective this way. I have used it effectively against the AI. If a large number of infantry units all rush a small area the opposining weapons cannot effectively target all the incoming rushing infantry units. (perhaps this is somewhat realistic)

The point here as I understand it is that the HMG's in this game should be able to "hose" or Mow down multiple incoming rushing infantry units with MUCH great leathality than is currently modeled, because MG's don't "hose" the area with fire . Grazing fire is simulated, we are told but it does not seem all that effective.

The issue here is that the bum rush is very effective against MG's because they seem to only be able to target one unit at a time.

Is this the same issue as everyone else is talking about here or am I off topic?

Thanks

-tom w

ITs STILL a GREAT game and I'm still very addicted, I enjoy TCP/IP games that BEST but I have not had much of a Chance to play lately.

[Olle Petersson]

My experience from CM:

- If you use MGs in pairs they generally will subdue most infantry trying an assault.

The most effective combination I've tried was a large heavy building with two MG42 teams on the top floor facing the enemy, and a Gebirgsjäger squad on the bottom floor near the rear wall.

Those very few enemy squads that made it to the building were promptly moved down by SMG fire...

Cheers

Olle

[The_Capt]

I will add my two cents worth. The MGs in CM are weak. Not totally ineffective but weak. I have run no tests but I have seen way too many human wave assaults suceed when they really shouldn't.

I have seen two well sighted MMGs in action and the damage done to a coy in open ground was truly horrendous. It wasn't one squad or two, the whole coy was in the dirt. Mortars finished them off.

The problem is that MGs have a "beaten zone" which is an area on the ground where the bullets will land. For the ole 1919 MG or C-5 GPMG as we refered to it the zone was (and I may be a little off it has been 10 years) an about 50x100m egg-shaped circle on the ground. Anybody in that circle when the BBs are flying is going to duck or die.

In CM there is a "beaten zone" but it is far too thin, you will catch three squads if they are line abreast (in defilade) but if they stagger forget it. The beaten zone needs to be "widened".

Lastly, crews for like mad when being close assaulted (from another first hand observation). They will burn out barrels if a squad or platoon starts charging. In CM I have yet to see an increase in fire when this happens.

An MG needs to be rendered like the area weapon it is, capable of covering an arc and beaten zone, as well as situation increased fire. Now I don't know if that is possible from a programmers point of view, I am only stating the facts from what I have been taught and seen.

Of course everybody needs to remember that this is a "game" and not everything is going to be modeled perfectly, so you need to adapt your tactics to fit.

[kmead]

Steve, the offer X-00 has put forth sounds like a great opportunity, beat down his door getting there! Regardless of whether or not what you learn from the professionals makes it into the current or even future iterations of CM (in the near future) it seems like a worthwhile way to spend some of your already overwrought time.

[JoePrivate]

There seems to be some conflicting views on what a lone MG can or cannot do. I would think once massed infantry got within 100m then a human-wave assault would succeed more often than not shouldn't it? I am not an authority, just curious about realistic behavior for CM.

Here's an excerpt of an AAR "Company G Annihilates a Russian Elite Unit(March 1942)

Before dawn on March 26, a reconnaissance patrol sent out by Coy G returned from the forest bordering Village S to the North without having encountered enemy troops. The distance from the edge of the forest to the defense perimeter measured approximately 150 yards. Half an hour after the return of the German patrol, 100 Russians suddenly emerged from the forest and attacked Coy G at the NW part of the defense ring. The Russians participating in the attack were armed with SMGs and moved on skis., which made the small force exceedingly mobile in the snow-covered terrain. In addition, every third man carried a frangible grenade in his pocket, presumably for the purpose of setting fire to the village. Several Russians literally blew up when their frangible grenades were struck by bullets and exploded. Because of the severe cold some of the German MGs failed to function, and the Russians succeeded in penetrating the German positions.

Half an hour later, Coy G counterattacked in order to eliminate the penetration. The Russians fought teneciously, and there was violent hand-to-hand combat. By 1200 Coy G had recaptured the positions. 89 Russians had been killed and 9, including two severely wounded, taken prisoner.

From this example it appears some German MGs were frozen and the remaining MGs(if any) were unable to prevent the Russian charge from penetrating the village. There are other examples in this book, "Small Unit Actions During the German Campaign in Russia", of massed assaults and what was effective(or not) in preventing them, ie well laid out defenses and combined arms.

[Wreck]

I am of the opinion that CM does not model machineguns well enough. Along with Pillar and others, I think they are generally modelled fine, with two exceptions.

First, there is grazing fire. Everyone acknowledges this as a problem, but it is also clear that fixing it will be a pretty major code upgrade. In CM2, the effect will thus be to cut down on the massed charge of infantry across a "fire lane". This will be good, in effect cutting down on the human waves somewhat. However, it will not prevent infantry from simply running through the firezone sequentially. Therefore I predict that absent further changes, the "MG problem" will still be there in CM2. (And that is the reason for continuing this ... um... discussion.) We all want CM2 to be perfect.

Second, and what the disagreement in this thread is about: the effect of MG fire on moving infantry. Pillar is clearly of the opinion, and I join him in this, that MGs should have much greater slowing effect on moving infantry. A squad simply should not be able to charge across a field into an MG. One of the problem here is that our side of things is then asked to prove a negative: find us all the instances in WWII where a commander did not charge an MG. Well, it probably happened almost continually in combat, but it would rarely if ever be documented, would it? Instead (and what you do see all the time in WWII American accounts), is units up to company size being slowed, stopped, and pinned down by MG fire. Examples of heroes charging MGs are there too, and in fact well attested I would argue exactly because they are so exceptional. Obviously, the guys who charged an MG but got ignominiously mowed down did not get written up for an award.

I think that Pillar's test is perfectly sufficient for showing the (lack of) suppressive effect that MGs had. In fact, it would be even better if he had edited the squad to remove all its ammo before the charge. So I disagree with Steve's notion that you need combined arms to fairly test MGs. At issue is the simple question: can infantry run across open ground against MG fire? The answer in CM appears to be yes. The answer in history (some of us think) was no.

The one thing I can see that should be done for testing, is multiple tests with various conditions. For a complete set of tests, here is what I would do given unlimited time:

<UL TYPE=SQUARE>

<LI> Tests with and without leaders, for both the MG (combat: {no leader, +0, +1, +2}) and the running infantry (morale: {no leader, +0, +1, +2}). For the running infantry, the leaders should be +2 command and stay hidden, so as not to take or supply any fire. (16 combinations)

<LI> Tests with green, regular, and veteran units on both sides. (9 combinations)

Obviously that makes 144 tests, each of which would have to be run say 10 times to get a statistically valid sample. Nobody has time for all that. But I think the results would be interesting even with a small fraction. We might start with the most favorable situation for the MG (with +2 leader, veteran against green w/o leader), and see if one can stop a charge. Then scale back the advantages until we find the tipping point.

[Wreck]

Here is an idea I had relative to this thread, that might be useful for CM2.

It seems to me that the CM system has a fundamental problem in modelling suppression. Suppression (pinning) is modelled as a morale effect, midway between full effectiveness and routed. There are two aspect: one is the unit has long command delays; another is that it is dangerously close to shaken or panic. For infantry in cover, this works very well IMO.

However, the "pin" status reflects two different things. One is the mental status of the squad: is the commander losing control?; is it starting to think of self preservation more than the mission? The second aspect of pinning is the literal one: a pinned squad cannot move (much) because it feels compelled to hug the earth: it has to crawl, hide behind those occasional shrubberies and folds of earth, etc. I guess this is a mental effect as well, but a different one than a man on the verge of flight.

So we can see why CM pinning works fine for infantry in cover: in cover, the second meaning of pinning (hug the earth) is a natural outcome of the first (loss of command control to self preservation). In reverse, most fire is not going to be heavy enough to make men stop moving, without causing self-preservation issues to come up. Furthermore, especially in heavier cover the entire "hug the earth" aspect may not even matter, since the better forms of cover have walls, trunks, etc that make it possible to remain standing in about as much safely as lying down. And so not modelling "hug the earth" separate from morale has no effect in good cover. (And thus, since most infantry is in good cover most of the time, the CM system in general has a great "feel" to the morale system.)

For infantry out of cover, there is a problem: there is no way to model the effect of a squad feeling forced to seek cover but otherwise fine in terms of morale. That is, you cannot have a squad that is pinned without it being one step from breaking. Instead, to get to pinned status you have to move down the morale ladder in steps. For what I mean here, think of a platoon pinning down by an MG behind a low wall. They are perfectly safe where they are, and they know it -- as long as they do not stand up. There are no self preservation issues once they realize their status, but there are mobility problems.

Looked at in this light, the problem that I and others see with MGs is that what we want is for them to very quickly (a matter of seconds) pin infantry they shoot at running in open, but for that pinning not to be one step from shaken -- for it just to be the squad slowing down to take cover, and eventually be forced into hugging the earth. There may be morale effects in addition to this, of course, but maybe not.

I think the best way to model this difference in current CM, would be to allow a "hug the earth" pin effect which would simply rewrite move orders, from Run to Walk, then to Crawl, when it happens during a turn resolution. This effect should almost never happen in buildings, sometimes in woods, frequently in open. The player could then, once per minute, revise the next waypoint from Crawl to Run, and hope for the best. The effect would be bursts of running with lesser rates of movement, which is what we want. (I have seen this effect, rarely, in current CM with infantry presumably due to morale effects.)

Anyway, that's my suggestion for a fix that should be implementable without too much fuss.

[aka_tom_w]

Just slow them Down......

I think this point here is VERY well Made:

"I think the best way to model this difference in current CM, would be to allow a "hug the earth" pin effect which would simply rewrite move orders, from Run to Walk, then to Crawl, when it happens during a turn resolution. This effect should almost never happen in buildings, sometimes in woods, frequently in open. The player could then, once per minute, revise the next waypoint from Crawl to Run, and hope for the best. The effect would be bursts of running with lesser rates of movement, which is what we want."

Squads running full speed into MG fire is one of the issues here for sure.

But don't forget the fact that in the game the MG's don't actually fire any bullets.

NO, what happens is the effect of their role or action is calculated on a narow ONE target area OR just one opposing unit. They have a firepower factor (they don't shoot bullets) and that factor is calculated as an effect on the unit the MG is targeting. So what I think we are saying is that the effect calculated is limited in that it happens to only one squad at a time AND some here would say the way the effect of the firepower of an MG is modeled on its ONE target, is NOT leathal enough, especially at close range.

-tom w

[ 04-09-2001: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

[Maastrictian]

Pillar wrote:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Perhaps the rate of speed for the "Run" command should be dropped a little? Currently it is at around 3.4 meters a second. All this speed AND they are using cover, "leaping bounding and zigzagging"?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I've been trying to stay out of this but... 3.4m/s is the quoted running speed, I can't testify to the accuracy of this in the game (at work, not going to boot up the game ) But that works out to about 7.3 miles per hour (for us Yanks), which is fast, but not *that* fast. A good athlete can do a 5 minute mile (which is 12 mph). Lets assume the average GI can do that with no gear. Now lets assume that a GI can do the same speed with full gear for 200 or 300m (about the distance it takes to get "tired", about 1/6th of a mile) So a "run" really could be running for 2/3 of the time while hiding for 1/3.

I'm not sure if my assumptions are valid, but this is a profitable vein of arguement at the very least. Steve is saying that a "running" squad isn't running all the time while everyone else (almost) is saying that a "running" squad must be running all the time.

[Treeburst155]

I've always thought MGs in CM were not potent enough. I think several contributions to this thread touch on the reasons why this is true. I would like to see BTS take a hard look at MG effectiveness.

Treeburst155 out.

[David Aitken]

The prevailing argument now seems to be that machineguns should cause more suppression. However, I am still seeing a good number of flawed ideas.

The most glaring issue is Pillar's attitude towards the value of experience.

Pillar wrote:

> I don't think it should have to be Green's for a suppressive/stopping effect. I don't buy the argument that veterans can jump and zig better than greens.

We are not judging a zig-zagging competition. I think experienced troops would be able to physically zig-zag more effectively than newbies, but that is not the issue. The point is, veterans will do it, and newbies will not. Veterans will understand that machineguns are not as lethal as they seem, and will keep moving using squad-level tactics. Newbies will hug the ground and stay there. Does this make sense? It's not about how you evade machinegun fire, it's about whether you have the confidence to keep moving.

Next, the idea that machineguns are a Hose O' Death at close range.

Pillar wrote:

> If by some miracle, (and it would be a miracle), the squad managed to charge the full 200m head on, the final 30m should be very lethal.

kmead provides a nice example of why this is rubbish:

kmead wrote:

> soldier A moves from one bit of cover to the next. Soldier B now moves forward in the same fashion but he is twenty yards away to the side, soldier C lays on suppressing covering fire. The further they are apart (laterally) the more difficult it is to keep track of which one is moving and having to resite the weapon on the constantly switching targets.

This also applies to the simple issue of men crossing open ground in the face of machinegun fire, as exemplified by Wreck.

Wreck wrote:

> I think that Pillar's test is perfectly sufficient for showing the (lack of) suppressive effect that MGs had. [...] At issue is the simple question: can infantry run across open ground against MG fire? The answer in CM appears to be yes. The answer in history (some of us think) was no.

It takes a couple of seconds to line up the gun before you pull the trigger. You pick your target and line it up. Your target ducks, whether in reaction to your fire or through sound tactics. Elsewhere another target gets up and dashes. You line up the new target and fire. All along, you are struggling to get in any kind of effective fire while your target is exposed. All along, there are other targets moving while you try to hit the current one. This is a constant process which repeats in the space of seconds, and your targets are rapidly closing on your position.

As we should all be aware by now, this is what CM is simulating. "Running" troops are not out for a jog. The only issue, as Steve has admitted, is that the rate of movement may be a bit too high.

Experienced troops know the problems faced by a machinegunner, and will exploit them. This is at the very root of squad-level tactics. Fire, get up, dash, hit the ground, fire, get up, dash. Ten men doing this simultaneously is a machinegunner's nightmare. This is why the only targets which can be cut down Hollywood-style are newbies. When they're moving they're vulnerable, and when they stop moving they stop for good. They don't know how to exploit the machinegunner's problems.

Lastly, I can't understand the most recent few posts...

Wreck wrote:

> For infantry out of cover, there is a problem: there is no way to model the effect of a squad feeling forced to seek cover but otherwise fine in terms of morale.

Wreck goes on at length about the lack of the ability to "take cover" as opposed to being "pinned". Sorry, but am I imagining the "Taking Cover" status in CM? Am I also imagining it when troops ordered to run across open ground, take fire, hit the ground and try to crawl to their destination? I could swear all that you're asking for is already modelled.

[Echo]

Looking at it objectivley, there is one huge difference between a rifle and an MG. That is its RATE of fire, and its volume of fire.

Indeed, the whole reasoning behind the MGs developement was based on higher rates of fire. The tactics and employment methods came later.

The modelling in the game now presents MG teams as slow moving rifle squads with a higher ammo load out, and a limited area effect ability. (And thats pretty much how I use them with good results in my games).

The firepower rating of the MGs in the game is adequate, and effective. But the one thing that seperates an MG from a rifleman is his rate of fire, and as it is, a rifle squad and an MG side by side will fire at roughly equal intervals to each other (in the game)

I'm not talking about spraying till the barell melts. A constant stacato of 3 or 6 round bursts lays down ALOT of fire, and its continuous fire until you have to change the drum or belt. I dont see continuous, pinning fire in the game from an MG thats any more effective than a rifle squad.

Because this has been abstracted into the firepower rating of the MG (70 or 80 FP is real good for just 1 gun), the continuous fire isn't manifesting itself in real time, when you have 3 or 4 seperate units (waves) moving in on your position. So your over-run, sometimes doing marginal or no damage.

If you just increase the number of bursts an MG gets off in a 1 minute turn (I'd say at least double them), you'd see a huge difference in the outcome of wave attacks, single MG vs. 1 squad, or any other test you can come up with.

This wouldnt upset the balance of MGs either. The firepower rating of the MGs would remain the same. So as long as your in adequate cover, those extra bursts are more likely than not going to pin you, but really not be any more lethal than they already are. (Unless your running around in the open).

I wish BTS would code that up on their machine and just see what it looks and feels like. Its a simple solution to a complex, abstract problem.

[Jeff Heidman]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by David Aitken:

As we should all be aware by now, this is what CM is simulating. "Running" troops are not out for a jog. The only issue, as Steve has admitted, is that the rate of movement may be a bit too high.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Excellent points David.

I am not convinced that MGs are as accurate as they could be, and hope for more from CM2, but I have seen no real reason in this thread to think that the situation now is that much of an issue.

On the point of the last 30m, I would guess that is the safest time for the rushing infantry. The MG is most effective when it can fire without traversing too much. That is going to be when the target frontage is as small as possible, which is when the target is a decent distance away.

I would guess the real "kill zone" against rushing infantry to be 70-300m or so. I think people are not appreciative enough of how hard and time consuming it is to identify, traverse, and engage point targets with a machine gun. I have done it (albeit not in anger), and it is not as easy as it sounds.

Jeff Heidman

[X-00]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by David Aitken:

It takes a couple of seconds to line up the gun before you pull the trigger. You pick your target and line it up. Your target ducks, whether in reaction to your fire or through sound tactics. Elsewhere another target gets up and dashes. You line up the new target and fire. All along, you are struggling to get in any kind of effective fire while your target is exposed. All along, there are other targets moving while you try to hit the current one. This is a constant process which repeats in the space of seconds, and your targets are rapidly closing on your position.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Dave you're missing the point about machine guns. The machine gunner isn't firing on individual targets. His mission particularily on the defense is to deliver grazing fire along a primary direction of fire (PDF).

You accurately describe the "three second" rush. But against grazing fire a soldier is defenseless if runs across the PDF when there are bullets passing thru it. He could get lucky. But if 2 or more machine guns (talking guns in Marine vernacular) are covering the area he needs to cross his odds are seriously reduced.

If he tries to cross the Final Protective Fire Line, he will be crossing essentially a steady stream of grazing fire.

My point is veteran soldiers know this and would be doing a lot of crawling. This gets to the heart of the matter you mentioned: the time it takes a squad to cross open areas covered with grazing fire.

It currently takes a squad (regardless of experience and incoming fire)about 30 seconds to cross 100 meters of open ground. This is a ludicrously short period of time if as you suggest the units are using an abstract form of the "three rush second drill" once they come under fire.

Try this experiement:

Get a buddy and go down to a football field. Start alternate 3 second rushes. You'll notice two things. One, it will take a hell of a lot longer than 30 seconds to 100m and you're not even being shot at.. And once you get there you're totally gassed. Record your time.

After that stay up for 24 straight hours. Get a backback and put 20 llbs of sand in it. Get a 10lb length of steel to simulate a rifle. Put on wet boots and socks. Go on a hike of 5 to 10 miles thusly equipped. End the march at the 100m course. Then conduct another alternate three second rush drill. Compare times. You'll be shocked at how long it takes and how completely gassed you are.

[tss]

David Aitken wrote:

It takes a couple of seconds to line up the gun before you pull the trigger. You pick your target and line it up. Your target ducks, whether in reaction to your fire or through sound tactics. Elsewhere another target gets up and dashes. You line up the new target and fire.

I try to keep out of the MG threads since I don't have much hard data (except the Finnish officer's handbooks rule of thumb that at 1000 m range you need 700 bullets per minute per 100 meters of front to cause 50% casualties on walking targets).

However, there's one nice quote in Veijo Meri's "Manillaköysi" (in the famous "Mad Staff Sergeant"-episode) about aiming in combat: [my translation]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> It takes at least four seconds after moving the sights before the firer can stabilize his aim. In four seconds Jesse Owens would run 40 meters. To realize that a dash starts at a different point than expected takes at least two seconds since a man doesn't immediately understand what he sees; more often three or four seconds. So an atatcker has guaranteed safe time six seconds. He may move that long as carelessy as during a sunday stroll. A particularly fast man can make a child in that time, and even a slow man can move six meters with speed of one meter per second, though no man is that slow. According to the staff sergeant's calculations, one might go for seven seconds by taking a 10% risk. By taking a 20% risk one could go for eight seconds. But if one wants to run for nine seconds, it is already a 60% risk. If the range is short, a sudden well-conducted charge will take the platoon into enemy positions and through them without losses.

"They say that the best men die in the war. I have seen more than one war and I can say that is utter rubbish. All poor men die at start."

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Note that Meri is a novelist and he didn't mean that the sergeant's figures should be scientifically justifiable.

- Tommi

[Maastrictian]

I will bring this up again as people seem to be talking about how fast ground can be covered and the whether CM "running" speed can represent sprinting from cover to cover. And 'cause it seems to have gotten lost on the previous page.

Pillar wrote:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

Perhaps the rate of speed for the "Run" command should be dropped a little? Currently it is at around 3.4 meters a second. All this speed AND they are using cover, "leaping bounding and zigzagging"?

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I've been trying to stay out of this but... 3.4m/s is the quoted running speed, I can't testify to the accuracy of this in the game (at work, not going to boot up the game ) But that works out to about 7.3 miles per hour (for us Yanks), which is fast, but not *that* fast. A good athlete can do a 5 minute mile (which is 12 mph). Lets assume the average GI can do that with no gear. Now lets assume that a GI can do the same speed with full gear for 200 or 300m (about the distance it takes to get "tired", about 1/6th of a mile) So a "run" really could be running for 2/3 of the time while hiding for 1/3.

I'm not sure if my assumptions are valid, but this is a profitable vein of arguement at the very least. Steve is saying that a "running" squad isn't running all the time while everyone else (almost) is saying that a "running" squad must be running all the time.

[Tiger]

Comments quoted from the 1943 IUS Army intelligence bulletin:

"Although the german machine gun is first rate as to its firepower, its dispersion is poor. One of my friends had so much confidence in his ability to get away from it that on one occasion he made a successful dash for safety, then turned around and got the machinegunner with rifle fire."

and

"German machinegun fire is usually so low, often a foot and a half above the ground, that we call it grass cutting."

"Their machinegun fire is harassing as hell but I don't think much about the accuracy. As to height I'd say it averages two feet above the ground, often enough to let you slither out of the dispersion area. It's true a man can dodge fire in this manner, we've done it many times."

"They take the high ground and try for long grazing fire. They often use the military crest of a hill as well as the base."

"The Germans are instructed to fire bursts of from 5-7 rounds since the operator can not hold his gun on target for a longer period. The gun must be re-aimed after each burst."

[Maastrictian]

Pillar --

I read the post. Basically all that X-00 is saying is that it would take me (an out of shape hacker) a long time to run 100 meters. I have no problem with this. Its very true . But how long does it take soldier who is in shape and has the adrenilin rush of being shot at? I offer numbers to show that running 12 mph is reasonable, even in full gear. I agree that my numbers are based on some big assumptions, but does anyone else have any *numbers*? You are absolutely right in saying that we need some Marines to time themselves running football fields

[ 04-09-2001: Message edited by: Maastrictian ]