more machinegun follies-- yet another call for a fix

[Tiger]

There is no "open ground" in CMBO though, I think is what Steve said before. Don't forget you're not seeing a visual representation with the terrain textures. You're not seeing bushes, rutts, ditches, depressions, rises, small ridges, fallen trees, rocks big and small, stumps, et. al. While I'd agree there may be room for improvement in regards to MG fire, I don't agree that all "open" terrain tiles are flat open expanses where squads should be forced to crawl anytime a lone machinegun opens up.

You're not taking into account supression of the firing MG at all by the advancing squads either.

There's probably some middle ground on this issue.

[David Aitken]

Brummbär, I think Pillar is talking about crossing a fixed line of fire. If there is a stream of bullets in front of you a couple of feet off the ground, you're going to have to crawl to get past it.

[Foobar]

Here is X-00's pic from last night. showing the grazing fire example he was using:

[Tanaka]

Hello,

Just a few "solid" numbers...

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

Speed of a regular squad over plain "open" ground ---> 100m in 28s

more or less (between 27,7s and 28,2s)

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

A frontal assault(Banzai charge) running through 400 m on a plain "open" terrain.

12 x Veteran Volksgrenadier Fusilier SMG

1 x Regular Volksgrenadier Fusilier SMG

total 1501 pts

against

2 x Veteran M26 (90mm gun 3xMG)

3 x Regular M26 (90mm gun 3xMG)

All unbuttoned and stopped (TacAi will move them after a few time)

Total of 1505 pts

result

Germans more or less 2/3 of the men KO

Allies 5 M26 KO

Facts --> In all 5 tests never the allies won

Sow some 60m PF-100 shots...good

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

Just take your conclusions ... I can assure you that I already have taken mine

PS- Don't believe on the numbers ?

The tests were to few ?

This guy (me) is a maniac !

well, do it your self and see with your own eyes... yes it is that simple

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

[StellarRat]

OK, I'm missing something here. Pillar and X-00 both say that "grazing fire" is the big advantage for the MGs. They are saying that this represents continuous fire 2 feet above the ground, but they also say this is done with six round bursts. Something isn't adding up here. Six round bursts are not what I would call "continuous". Continuous would be a gun with unlimited ammo that never gets hot and doesn't need to be realigned or several MGs aimed in the same direction firing constantly. I'm sorry but I'm just not buying this argument. If the guns are just pointed in a general direction (not aimed at some specific) they are even LESS likely to hit anything unless someone were to blunder through the burst of bullets at just the right time. Also if this is the "advantage" of MGs then it is an advantage of all small arms. If you think about it a bunch of riflemen all firing across the line of advance would create "grazing fire" too, so maybe the whole small arms aiming system should be reworked.

[BloodyBucket]

In response to the request for tests using "Hardened Marines". Ahem.

As a Marine enlisted man, I object to being experimented on by CM obsessed officers .

Seriously, X-OO and I went to the same school so we have the same opinions as to the effectiveness of talking guns, grazing fire and beaten zones. I think that there is room for disagreement, and for honorable disagreement on these issues. However, when it comes to my kiester being counted as a victory point for my side or thier side I will stick with Marine Corps doctrine.

As to X-OO's exersize, I think he left out "And while doing your 3 second rushes, be so terrified you can barely find the strength to move at all." More men have been frozen in place by fire than have become instant olympic class sprinters.

As to what the US Army said in 1943, I would be shocked for them to put out a pub that said "The Jerry machine gun is much better than what we have." Not good form or good for morale.

CM is a great game. I love it. Reasonable people can have differences of opinion on various aspects of what it simulates. When I put my professional thinking cap on, I don't say, "This is not my idea of perfect so it sucks", I say "This gets me really thinking tactics so it is great". If I could wave a wand, MG fire would be "more effective", units would be less willing to take casualties, flares and ilumination rounds would be available at night, and Santa would come every week. I have not the gall to pretend that my opinion is gospel, or that my two cents is worth more than two cents. If BTS makes CM2 without changing these things I will buy it, tell others to buy it and play it. If they made a "BloodyBucket Edition" just for me with every little thing I want (Marines and Japanese!) I would buy it, tell others to buy it and play it. If they forced everyone else to get the BB edition I would be the subject of mass protest and critical posts .

Sorry I rambled, I am giving up nicotine and it makes me jumpy :mad:

[kipanderson]

Russian frontal assaults and MG fire.

Hi,

A few months ago I set-up a scenario in order to get some idea of how CM1 handled 1941/1942 style Soviet infantry attacks. Although I have since deleted away the scenario I remember it well both because it was hugely good fun and because of the result. The details of the scenario were roughly as follows.

German infantry company defends 400m section of tree line against attacking Soviet infantry battalion. It is spring 1942 when the Soviets were at their lowest point equipment wise and so it is very nearly a case of rifles only for the attackers. The defending Germans have the full issue of equipment one may have expected.

The attacking Soviets were represented by an elite US infantry battalion with all support/crewed weapons striped out with the exception of three 60mm mortars and the addition of two 81mm mortars, no spotters. You will notice that the Soviets had no machine guns. Realistically they probably should have had, say, six light machine guns and three medium machine guns in the battalion even at spring 1942 equipment levels. However, as I could not strip out the BARs from the US forces I excluded all additional machine guns. The reason for the mortars is that even during this phase of the war the Soviets did have some 50mm and 82mm mortars. The battalion had elite status in order to attempt to model the willingness to push on even after heavy causalities.

A standard infantry company of nine squads represented the defending Germans. With its share of battalion HMGs it hand a total of five heavy MG42s. I also gave the company an 81mm spotter with 150 rounds and a 105mm spotter with 75 rounds. Given that each spotter only models the fire of four tubes this was not over cooking things, in my view.

The map was 400m by 1000m with the northern 150m made up of woods and a small hamlet. I placed a bunch of objective flags in the hamlet to give the AI something to aim at. The terrain was largely flat with just the odd tile of scattered woods on the open ground over which the Soviets were expected to attack. I played the part of the German commander. The battle was 30 minutes long.

The tactic was to open fire using the spotters at the greatest concentrations of attacking infantry, even at every long range, but I only opened machine gun and small arms fire at under two hundred metres so as not to waste too much ammunition. The Soviets did break into the tree line on the extreme left flank and I had to use my last 30 rounds of 81mm mortar fire to clear them out. By the time I had fired my last rounds the attack was over and the few live Soviets I could see were moving back. Total causalities were as follows.

German 18

Soviet 329

The reason for this post is to illustrate that, in my view, CM can already handle 1941/1942 Soviet style attacks without any special tweaking. If you equip the forces as they are likely to have been equipped at the time the causality ratio will by realistically in favour of the Germans. There is no need to tweak up MG firepower.

For those that are looking for an explanation of the realistic possible rates of fire of MGs can I mention a topic I posted many months ago called

“MG rates of fire”. All the information was taken from textbooks written by the staff at The Royal College of Military Science so it is not my opinions that matter but the information contained therein does give an accurate account of the real world limitations on rate of fire. They are a lot, lot lower than is generally believed.

All the best,

Kip.

[Marlow]

This is a little like beating a dead horse since its been a few days since my original post, with the forum meltdown and all; however, I'm not smart enough to shut up:

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

These are EXTREME "high end" results from a single use of a MG in combat. Such examples are what are commonly called "statistical outliers". If they weren't, they would be common and pretty much every MG gunner would have kill totals like this (along with the highest awards their countries give out). Since the average gunner didn't have such success, these examples are clearly not relevant to this discussion. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

OK, I admit that I knew these were somewhat extreme examples when I wrote it, but one post asked for examples and CMH awards were the only place I could think of to look.

I understand that in most situations the modeling (as far as my limited ability to determine) is fine; however, infantry with fast move orders in the open seem a little to immune from MG fire (perhaps it is only the bias of a former gunner). I understand that the issue is being examined for CM II, so a couple of possible suggestions: increase the rate of fire in some circumstances (e.g. X number of enemy units within a certain range); add a firepower multiplier against units in the open with fast move orders; and (as has been discussed) create an assault move

Also, responses to some of your comments:

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

Muzzle climb - anybody that has fired a MG, especially on a bipod or of a very heavy calibre (like the .50) knows that after a short burst the rounds aren't going where you intended them to go. Usually higher, meaning you are over shooting. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I have had no experience with WWII era MGs, but I really didn't have that much trouble with muzzle climb from an M-60 on a bipod. Firing the standard 6-9 round (sometimes more) bursts I could put most of the rounds in the intended beaten zone. On a tripod with T&E equipment muzzle climb is not an issue. Since most of the MGs at issue are of the support team variety (bipod LMGs are mostly integrated into the squad) muzzle climb is something of a red herring.

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

Trying to reposition an MG on a new, moving target is not like Nintendo or Quake. There is a very good chance that when you pull the trigger that the rounds won't be on target. Especially for guns set up in haste and on bipods. Obviously skill and setup arrangements (firelanes, aiming stakes, etc) can greatly improve accuracy. But except for close range it isn't certain that you are going to hit your target right off. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I didn’t have too much trouble putting the first burst in the intended target area, even out to significant ranges (IIRC 850m was the longest range we usually practiced at) from a tripod mount, in what amounted to a "hasty" set-up (we just set up the tripod and gun with no special preparations when we were on the target range). Obviously low visibility situations are a different story, and prepared positions would be much more effective.

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

For all of these reasons, holding down the trigger like they do in Hollywood was to be avoided. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, but multiple bursts, with a brief stop (couple of seconds tops) to observe effects, re-aim, listen to the AG, etc… is easy to do for a couple of hundred rounds, and certainly would be an option when a squad is charging across a couple of football fields worth of (relatively) open ground towards you.

[Marlow]

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

Ok, my experience with full auto weapons is only that of an amatuer, but better than the average Joe In addition, I am also a competative shooter in both handgun and rifles.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Your competitive shooting experience is probably a drawback in firing a MG.

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

One squeeze of the trigger<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Unlike rifles, you don't "squeeze" the trigger of an MG. You instead do what no self-respecting rifleman would ever do: you pull that puppy back firmly. If you fire the way you do with a rifle, you likely squeeze off very short, (2-3 round) bursts (potentially damaging the gun BTW), and don't have effective control of the weapon.

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

So, that was a 16 or 17 foot stationary object at 100 meters, a locked down fixed tripod, and only 30% of the bullets hit the target.

Now run the same experiment with a man at that range. You won't be hitting squat, maybe one round if you are lucky. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The gunner in your video must have been piss poor. 100 m is an easy shot for an MG.

[Vanir Ausf B]

Kip:

Good points as usual. However, I would take the results of a scenario played against the AI with a grain of salt. Without seeing it I can't say for sure, but I would bet that if you put a human commander behind those "Russians", with 3-1 numerical advantage, you would have dramaticly different results.

[Vitalis]

Marlow,

Sorry bout using the term "squeeze", old habit from teaching people to shoot.

Not that it matters in this discussion one little teeny tiny bit, but in addition to competition shooting, I have also been schooled/trained in sniping, assault rifle 1 & 2, room/house clearing/CQB 1 & 2, Combat Handgun 1 & 2. If you know about schools like Gun Sight, then you know what I mean about "schooled/trained". We have one up here in Michigan that is a ball. And the instructors are good, all ex-military, all operators. But again, this has SQUAT to do with this discussion.

As for the video, as with most tests or examples, it can be shot full of holes. Here is the setup that they did. And remember, this was done by amateurs in the security biz as a test video on different statistics of rounds and weapons. Some cool stuff in the vid, but anyway, here is the setup for the test.

One Ma Duece, set up on a locked down tripod, aimed at the center of the Buick, verified by single round taps to make sure the weapon was on target.

Then the firing started, an entire 100 round belt, no let-up on the trigger for the first seventy rounds or so, just Rock and Roll. The belt was was mixed hard ball and tracer, so you could plainly see where it was hitting and missing.

Notice that I said he rocked out the first seventy rounds or so. He had to stop after that and reaquire the target. The weapon may have been locked down, but the tripod was jumping all over the place. Basically the machine gun was vibrating itself off of target.

Now, I am not saying this is law for every machine gun, just what happened in this test by people I don't even know.

The biggest decision that I have come to from reading all of these posts is that when creating a game, there has to be some generality boiled down from all the different training doctrine, all the real world facts, and all the special situations, because there are NO hard and fast rules, and discussions like this can go on forever with both sides being able to prove some correct information. But in the real world, we all know, nothing is certain.

Of course the machine guns could use tweaking, so could everything else in the game depending on how far you want to take it.

Just my .02 (again)

Vitalis

[BloodyBucket]

"Whatever happens, we have got/ The

Maxim Gun, and they have not."

[Ron]

Not out to prove anything, simply curious and thought I would share a couple *experiments* I ran. I ran something similar when the full game first came out, before the tweak to troops running in the open, needless to say things are definitely more dangerous now.

Attacking platoons are Regular, HQ has a +2 Command bonus(to keep the troops in command for as long as possible). Defending MGs are Veteran, HQs have +1 Morale/Combat, Rifle Squad is Regular. Tests are run one minute only, 10 times. Platoons given orders to run the ~250m & 200m to the woods opposite, TacAI handled targetting.

Rifle Plt/Woods

|

|

2

5

0

m___150m__MG/Woods

|

|

MG/Woods

US Rifle44 Plt vs 2 MG42s

1 - 12 US casualties: 1 sqd Broken/1 sqd Routed/1 sqd Retreated

2 - 13 US casualties: 2 sqds Routed/1 sqd Panic

3 - 12 US casualties: 1 sqd Broken/1 sqd Routed/1 sqd Shaken

4 - 14 US casualties: 1 sqd Broken/1 sqd Routed/1 sqd Shaken

5 - 8 US casualties: 2 sqds Routed/1 sqd Shaken

6 - 11 US casualties: 1 sqd Shaken/2 sqds Panic

7 - 6 US casualties: 1 sqd Retreated/2 sqds Panic

8 - 8 US casualties: 1 sqd Retreated/1 sqd Routed/1 sqd Shaken

9 - 16 US casualties: 1 sqd Broken/1 sqd Routed/1 sqd Cautious

0 - 11 US casualties: 2 sqds Broken/1 sqd Routed

GE Rifle44 Plt vs 2 1919MMGs

1 - 6 GE casualties: 2 sqds Cautious/1 sqd Shaken

2 - 4 GE casualties: 1 sqd Cautious/2 sqds Panic

3 - 5 GE casualties: 1 sqd Broken/1 sqd Panic/1 sqd Shaken

4 - 6 GE casualties: 1 sqd Retreated/1 sqd Panic/1 sqd Shaken

5 - 6 GE casualties: 2 sqds Panic

6 - 7 GE casualties: 2 sqds Panic/1 sqd Shaken

7 - 6 GE casualties: 2 sqds Panic/1 sqd Shaken

8 - 6 GE casualties: 1 sqd Retreated/1 sqd Shaken/1 sqd Cautious

9 - 7 GE casualties: 1 sqd Broken/2 sqds Panic

0 - 4 GE casualties: 1 sqd Retreated/2 sqds Shaken

Rifle Pltx2/Woods

|

|

2

0

0

m___150m__MG/Woods

|

|

MG/Rifle Sqd/Woods

2 x US Rifle44 Plts vs 2 MG42s & 1 Rifle44 Sqd

1 - 31 US casualties: 2 sqds Broken/1 sqd Routed/2 sqds Shaken/1 sqd Panic

2 - 26 US casualties: 1 sqd Retreated/2 sqds Panic/2 sqds Routed/1 sqd Broken

3 - 24 US casualties: 2 sqds Retreated/3 sqds Routed/1 sqd Panic

4 - 29 US casualties: 2 sqds Broken/2 sqds Routed/1 sqd Panic/1 sqd Shaken

5 - 27 US casualties: 3 sqds Routed/1 sqd Broken/2 sqds Shaken

6 - 31 US casualties: 2 sqds Broken/2 sqds Routed/2 sqds Panic

7 - 29 US casualties: 3 sqds Broken/1 sqd Routed/1 sqd Panic/1 sqd Shaken

8 - 30 US casualties: 2 sqds Routed/2 sqds Broken/1 sqd Retreated/1 sqd Panic

9 - 38 US casualties: 1 sqd Retreated/2 sqds Panic/2 sqds Broken/1 sqd Routed

0 - 32 US casualties: 2 sqds Retreated/3 sqds Routed/1 sqd Broken

2 x GE Rifle44 Plts vs 2 1919MMGs & 1 Rifle44 Sqd

1 - 26 GE casualties: 2 sqds Routed/2 sqds Panic/2 sqds Shaken

2 - 34 GE casualties: 3 sqds Panic/1 sqd Routed/2 sqds Shaken

3 - 18 GE casualties: 1 sqd Retreated/2 sqds Panic/3 sqds Shaken

4 - 23 GE casualties: 2 sqds Broken/1 sqd Routed/2 sqds Shaken/1 sqd Panic

5 - 29 GE casualties: 1 sqd Retreated/3 sqds Routed/1 sqd Panic/1 sqd Broken

6 - 32 GE casualties: 1 sqd Routed/3 sqds Panic/1 sqd Shaken/1 sqd Cautious

7 - 25 GE casualties: 2 sqds Broken/1 sqd Routed/2 sqds Panic/1 sqd Shaken

8 - 21 GE casualties: 1 sqd Retreated/2 sqds Broken/2 sqds Shaken/1 sqd Panic

9 - 24 GE casualties: 2 sqds Broken/1 sqd Routed/1 sqd Shaken/2 sqds Panic

0 - 37 GE casualties: 2 sqds Retreated/2 sqds KIA/2 sqds Routed

Some guys are saying troops should drop to the ground once a MG opens up, in CM the dynamics of seeking cover prevents troops from ever doing that in 'open' terrain, they will instead head for 'real' cover. From the examples above, sometimes one burst from a MG will cause a squad to retreat back to its startline if the squad hasn't gotten very far yet, but usually the affects of the MG took a little longer to accumulate and by that time the squads were at the 'point of no return'. Of note, most of the damage occurred in the last 30s of the turn. Should the suppressive affects of the MGs be happening 'sooner or quicker'? I don't know, but as you can see they are there. I thought the differences between the MG42 and 1919MMG were very telling, and how by including a US Rifle44 squad in the defense with the 1919MMG, comparable results were achieved with the Germans.

Ron

[Wreck]

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

Pillar wrote:

> I don't think it should have to be Green's > for a suppressive/stopping effect.

... 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.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

If anything I would give vets a greater chance to go to ground almost instantly upon receiving MG fire; in fact the program should reduce their exposure% for doing so. However, as I previously mentioned (and failed to communicate to you, and thus probably others), there is a difference between this effect (suppression) and a morale effect. This effect has nothing to do with the unit's willingness to fight; it is simply the smart thing to do.

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

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

"Your target ducks"... this is what I think should be modelled. Slow down highly exposed troops under heavy fire. You simply cannot run full tilt while ducking. And you cannot run full tilt while crouching behind a shrubbery, unless it is a very fast shrubbery.

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

A reading at variance with history IMO. Look, if it were so hard to hit anything firing a veritable stream of bullets flying all over the place, then how would you expect anyone ever hit anything (or pinning down troops) with mere rifles? And yet, they did.

As for what the firepower of an MG should be at very close range, that is not the question I am concerned with.

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

"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>

Way, way too high, against fire. The rate is about as fast as a man can run carrying a load. Incidentally, those testing the CM

run rate to compare against known human rates, should do their tests with infantry on a paved road, not open, as the fairest comparison to the sort of running conditions we have in the modern world. If you have ever run over an open field (not to mention a field with the occasional shrubbery), you will know that you cannot go as fast as on a track.

As for the rate being "a bit too high" -- it is way too high IMO -- that is what my suggestion was designed to do. Men running would be slowed to walking speed, then crawling, automatically as a result of coming under fire while moving about with great exposure.

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

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.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You are not imagining things. (That must be a relief to know.) However, neither are you using your imagination along with your WWII knowledge, regarding what I said. I was positing, and trying to explain, two different meanings for "pinned", only one of which is really implemented in CM.

The first meaning is a loss of command control over a squad, which has decided for whatever reason that self-preservation is now more important than the mission. This is the effect CM models. This effect is midway on a spectrum of morale effects. A pinned squad is getting close to the point of panic.

The second meaning for pinning is not about morale vs command control per se, but rather, smart responsiveness on the part of the squad. (I am calling this condition "suppressed", though I realize it is not the perfect label since suppression also has the meaning of "not returning much fire". Perhaps better would be "taking cover", but CM is already using this for a morale effect as you note.) By "smart responsiveness" I mean: the squad has perceived conditions about it that make it foolish to move or stand up. There are actually two such conditions typical of the WWII battlefield: being under artillery bombardment, and being under MG fire (especially presighted grazing fire). A suppressed man may be in somewhat worse command control, because he is prone: it is harder to give and get orders. But other than that he is fine -- he still has the mission in mind, is trying to follow orders, etc. He is not near to panic. He simply realizes that running (or in fact anything requiring standing up or even crouching), is a very bad idea in his current circumstance.

So, while it is true that CM does model suppression somewhat, as you note, it does so as a morale effect. You have to take a considerable amount of fire to get it, in other words; and the unit is thus close to panic. My whole point here is that while suppression and morale effects are related -- both being caused by fire, and both being mental states of sorts regarding willingness to take risk -- they are different.

Perhaps a clearer way to think about the difference is this: suppression should be the reaction of vets. When they are exposed due to movement, and artillery starts falling, or they receive what should be deadly MG fire, they instantly go to ground thereby saving themselves casualties they would otherwise take. You, the commander, would not want the men moving; in fact you should (usually) be happy they have gone to ground. Pinning, in contrast, is a condition more typical of green troops. They have taken fire, and are getting panicky, but for now are simply frozen, unable to do much. Green troops might even keep moving in an artillery barrage or across MG fire, simply because they don't know to get down (and they should take heavier casualties as a result).

I hope that makes clear what I am talking about.

[ 04-10-2001: Message edited by: Wreck ]

[Marlow]

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

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

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."

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

- Tommi<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Interesting quote, but as you note, he is a novelist, and as it turns out, the figures have nothing to do with reality.

Army basic rifle marksmanship, i.e. the training they give to everyone in the army, cooks, truck drivers, clerks, etc … is more demanding than the example provided.

The final qualification fire consists of firing on pop-up targets from 50 to 300 meters away. The time the targets stay up varies from between 3 and 7 seconds, depending upon range (sometimes multiple targets would pop up, with correspondingly longer engagement times). To qualify, a minimum of 23 (IIRC) out of 40 targets must be hit, average soldiers will hit about 27-30, moderately good shots 35 or so, and some people I knew would seldom miss.

The 50 meter target (silhouette of a man from the shoulders up) , which stayed up for 3 seconds was referred to as "Ray Charles" because even a blind man couldn't miss (I don't recall ever missing it in 14 years of qualification and practice shooting). All the targets out to 150 meters were basically gimeys, with most people who missed, missing at 200, 250, and 300. All of the targets from 150 in stayed up 5 seconds or less.

[ 04-10-2001: Message edited by: Marlow ]

[Kurtz]

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

Army basic rifle marksmanship, i.e. the training they give to everyone in the army, cooks, truck drivers, clerks, etc is more demanding than the example provided. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Except that the targets on the rifle range rarely fire back.

[David Aitken]

Wreck wrote:

> If anything I would give vets a greater chance to go to ground almost instantly upon receiving MG fire; in fact the program should reduce their exposure% for doing so.

But this is already modelled. A Veteran squad will not stop in the face of machinegun fire – this is what they are trained not to do. But the individual squad members are dashing from cover to cover, you just don't see it happening. A Green squad, on the other hand, will stop completely, and this is when it visually "goes to ground" in the game.

> "Your target ducks"... this is what I think should be modelled. Slow down highly exposed troops under heavy fire. You simply cannot run full tilt while ducking.

Again, this is modelled. The only issue is the overall speed of squads doing this.

> Look, if it were so hard to hit anything firing a veritable stream of bullets flying all over the place, then how would you expect anyone ever hit anything (or pinning down troops) with mere rifles? And yet, they did.

Surely this should be clear from the many examples others have submitted. Firstly, machineguns are innaccurate. They are a suppressive weapon, not intended to kill the enemy, but to pin them down to be killed by other means. A modest spread of fire is expected of a machinegun. Secondly, when you fire a machinegun, only the first couple of rounds will be near your target. Even if the gun is firmly enough fixed not to jump around, the barrel will rise and subsequent shots will be way off target. As such, the gun is most accurately used as a rifle – firing short bursts – but even then, it is far less accurate than a rifle. A rifle may be "mere" in terms of volume of fire, but a machinegun is "mere" in terms of accuracy.

> I was positing, and trying to explain, two different meanings for "pinned", only one of which is really implemented in CM.

> The first meaning is a loss of command control over a squad, which has decided for whatever reason that self-preservation is now more important than the mission. This is the effect CM models. [...]

> The second meaning for pinning is not about morale vs command control per se, but rather, smart responsiveness on the part of the squad.

Sorry, this is modelled. Look at a unit's information panel. At the extreme bottom right, the morale state. This starts at OK, then goes to Alerted, Cautious, and then I think Pinned and so downwards. But the box above it indicates the unit's attitude – whether it is Taking Cover or Hiding. In other words, whether it's hugging the ground because it's taking a lot of fire, or because you ordered it to. This is separate from morale.

[kipanderson]

Vanir, hi,

Thanks for your comments, but the point of using the AI to attack was that I knew it would use “human-wave”/1942 style tactics.

Non of us, except the first few times to see what happens, are going to use “human-wave” tactics in a serious attempt to win a scenario. I was confident that the AI would attack in the style a half-trained Soviet commander of spring 1942 might have.

By the way, I have since found the scenario, if you or anyone else wants it email me and I will send it by return.

All the best,

Kip.

[kipanderson]

Hi,

Just thought I would throw in some facts and figures to do with MG rate of fire. From the outset I should point out that I have no practical experience of the subject but my source is of the highest quality. Figures come from the diagrams, equations and data in

Small Arms, General Design by DF Allsop and MA Toomey.

ISBN 1 85753 250 3

Both Allsop and Toomey are lecturers at the Royal College of Military Science, Shrivenham, UK. The book is a textbook for use by students at Shrivenham.

a) The maximum, average rate of fire of a single barrelled, air-cooled MG over fifteen minutes is 50 rounds a minute.

The maximum, average rate of fire of a single barrelled, air-cooled MG over fifteen minutes but this time with the use of two spare barrels, i.e. as in a heavy MG42, is 75 rounds a minute.

c) The maximum rate of fire of a single barrelled, air-cooled MG over just one minute i.e. at the end of this one minute the MG would be jammed, is normally around 250 rounds.

The book is stuffed with equations and data and I could go on and on. What I find interesting about the data is that it illustrates so clearly just how meaningless the often-quoted cyclic rate of a given MG is. The MG 42 had a cyclic rate of fire of around 1200 rounds a minute but in the generation of MGs developed during the 1950s a figure around 600-700 was normally the case.

My view is that MG firepower is not under-rated in CM.

All the best,

Kip.

[ 04-10-2001: Message edited by: kipanderson ]

[Marlow]

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

Except that the targets on the rifle range rarely fire back. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Agreed, I was only refuting the idea that three second rushes are somehow going to keep you safe from small arms fire.

[ASL Veteran]

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

OK, I'm missing something here. Pillar and X-00 both say that "grazing fire" is the big advantage for the MGs. They are saying that this represents continuous fire 2 feet above the ground, but they also say this is done with six round bursts. Something isn't adding up here. Six round bursts are not what I would call "continuous". Continuous would be a gun with unlimited ammo that never gets hot and doesn't need to be realigned or several MGs aimed in the same direction firing constantly. I'm sorry but I'm just not buying this argument. If the guns are just pointed in a general direction (not aimed at some specific) they are even LESS likely to hit anything unless someone were to blunder through the burst of bullets at just the right time. Also if this is the "advantage" of MGs then it is an advantage of all small arms. If you think about it a bunch of riflemen all firing across the line of advance would create "grazing fire" too, so maybe the whole small arms aiming system should be reworked.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Okay, this post seems to be questioning the existance of 'grazing fire' or as I prefer to call it 'firelanes'. The reason you would not be able to create a 'firelane' with rifle fire is the simple fact that you can't get a volume of fire that is great enough to create the conditions to make an effective 'firelane'. Okay, you may ask, what about SMGs or Assault Rifles? Well, SMGs and Assault Rifles can put out a moderate volume of fire, but the range that the volume of fire can be put out to is extremely limited - maybe out to 100 - 150 meters. Plus, the volume of fire put out by a box fed SMG or Assault Rifle would still not match the volume of fire of an MG - not to mention the fact that you can't change the barrel of a hot SMG! This leaves you with a situation that onlythe MG can be effective at. That situation is the placement of a volume of fire that is effective enough to deny an area to the movement of enemy infantry. This area would extend from the barrel of the MG out to about 400 - 600 meters or so. This area denial does not need to be continuous, it merely needs to be sufficient to get the job done. If the gunner is taking a one to three second break between bursts - that should be volume sufficient enough to establish the 'firelane' since it would probably take your brain at least a second or two to register that the lead isn't flying followed by a second or two to get up from your hiding space.

[Marlow]

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

Surely this should be clear from the many examples others have submitted. Firstly, machineguns are innaccurate. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Depends on what you mean by inaccurate. taking down man sized pop-up targets at half a mile with the first burst doesn't seem all that inaccurate.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>They are a suppressive weapon, not intended to kill the enemy, but to pin them down to be killed by other means. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

They are either or both depending upon the situation. Where the enemy has cover, they are good at keeping heads down. Enemy soldiers caught in the open in good visibility are dead.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Secondly, when you fire a machinegun, only the first couple of rounds will be near your target. Even if the gun is firmly enough fixed not to jump around, the barrel will rise and subsequent shots will be way off target. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Where in the world are you getting this from? Maybe some MGs fired from a bipod (though not in my experience); however, certainly not a tripod mounted gun.

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

As such, the gun is most accurately used as a rifle – firing short bursts – but even then, it is far less accurate than a rifle. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

A MG is certainly not intended to be fired like a rifle. With the MG I have experience with (the M-60, which is close enought to the MG-42 to be relevant), short bursts, with light pulls on the trigger, tend to wear down the sear (sp?) and damage the gun. Improper firing technique is the leading cause of runaway (constantly firing) guns. M-60s are intended to fire 6-9 bursts, at a sustained rate of about 100 rnds. a minute (with barrel changes), and much faster in a pinch.

In contrast, the most effective firing mode for rifle fire is semi-automatic. When fired on automatic. 3-4 round bursts are best.

[ 04-10-2001: Message edited by: Marlow ]

[ASL Veteran]

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

Hi,

Just thought I would throw in some facts and figures to do with MG rate of fire. From the outset I should point out that I have no practical experience of the subject but my source is of the highest quality. Figures come from the diagrams, equations and data in

Small Arms, General Design by DF Allsop and MA Toomey.

ISBN 1 85753 250 3

Both Allsop and Toomey are lecturers at the Royal College of Military Science, Shrivenham, UK. The book is a textbook for use by students at Shrivenham.

a) The maximum, average rate of fire of a single barrelled, air-cooled MG over fifteen minutes is 50 rounds a minute.

The maximum, average rate of fire of a single barrelled, air-cooled MG over fifteen minutes but this time with the use of two spare barrels, i.e. as in a heavy MG42, is 75 rounds a minute.

c) The maximum rate of fire of a single barrelled, air-cooled MG over just one minute i.e. at the end of this one minute the MG would be jammed, is normally around 250 rounds.

The book is stuffed with equations and data and I could go on and on. What I find interesting about the data is that it illustrates so clearly just how meaningless the often-quoted cyclic rate of a given MG is. The MG 42 had a cyclic rate of fire of around 1200 rounds a minute but in the generation of MGs developed during the 1950s a figure around 600-700 was normally the case.

My view is that MG firepower is not under-rated in CM.

All the best,

Kip.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Kip,

I don't think too many people are complaining about the actual firepower rating of the MGs in the game. There are just some things that an MG can do that other weapons on the battlefield cannot do. These are things that the MG, and only the MG, can do. Area denial is one of them - area denial in the form of 'grazing fire' or 'firelane' as I prefer. Once again, the MG gunner is not necessarily picking out individual soldiers and trying to hit them as if the MG gunner was just another rifleman. You don't use an MG like a rifle to pick off individual infantrymen. You use it to place a volume of fire upon either a target (point fire) or an area (grazing fire). Right now, point fire seems to be modeled just fine. The only thing that is missing is the inability to use area/grazing fire. The ability to use grazing fire is entirely within the specs of the MGs represented in the game because grazing fire is within the specs of all belt fed MGs. Box fed could probably do it too (Bren), but in the case of a BAR I doubt it since it only has a 20 round mag and it is located at the bottom of the weapon (difficult to change magazines from the prone position!)

[Wreck]

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

Look at a unit's information panel. At the extreme bottom right, the morale state. This starts at OK, then goes to Alerted, Cautious, and then I think Pinned and so downwards. But the box above it indicates the unit's attitude - whether it is Taking Cover or Hiding. In other words, whether it's hugging the ground because it's taking a lot of fire, or because you ordered it to. This is separate from morale.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I had not noticed this. Thanks for the information.

Of course there is a reason why I had not noticed it: that the "taking cover" result does not seem to happen nearly as often as I think it should in the open. Or perhaps the running troops do get placed into "taking cover" mode but they don't slow down. Either way, the point here is that the mode is not working as I (and I think others) expect. A squad that is "taking cover" in the open should stop, crawl, or at least slow down to a walk.

There is simply no way to run in the open, in cover.

As for what troops are trained to do, that is often dramatically different than what they do, especially against fire. Since I have been looking for machinegun pinning incidents on the web because of this thread, I happen to have just read this that I can offer:

From http://www.thehistorynet.com/WorldWarII/articles/1998/0998_text.htm :

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

I ran up onto the beach, where I found myself among others of my company and

mortar section, all of us prone on that beach and hugging its sand. The noise of the

incoming fire made voice contact almost impossible. Japanese artillery and

small-arms fire were dealing death wholesale upon the assaulting Marines and

particularly those who chose to remain on that beach.

My fellow A/1/7 comrades and I had been instructed repeatedly in our training

exercises that the beach was the last place we would want to be. The Japanese

would have it "zeroed in." After debarking from our landing craft, getting off the

beach immediately was a must. Despite such instructions, in the face of the fire

from our front and both flanks, we remained frozen to that beach with fear.

Never before or since have I experienced such fright. Yet neither I nor any of the

people around me took any steps to avoid what was bound to happen. If we

remained in that position, we would almost certainly have been killed.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

[Kurtz]

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

Agreed, I was only refuting the idea that three second rushes are somehow going to keep you safe from small arms fire.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

From aimed small arms fire perhaps? (Excluding MGs) But that is not the topic of today's discussion.

hehe, funny, Kurtz and Marlow in a discussion...