more machinegun follies-- yet another call for a fix

[Marlow]

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

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...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Rifle fire may be somewhat different; however, human reaction time does not change. All this talk about grazing fire, FPF, and firelanes is well and good for low vis situations, but when the gunner can actually see the target, he is going to use aimed fire.

[Marlow]

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

hehe, funny, Kurtz and Marlow in a discussion...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Don't make me come find you

[Kurtz]

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

Don't make me come find you <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Horror! The Horror!!!

[ASL Veteran]

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

Rifle fire may be somewhat different; however, human reaction time does not change. All this talk about grazing fire, FPF, and firelanes is well and good for low vis situations, but when the gunner can actually see the target, he is going to use aimed fire.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm not sure where you are getting the assumption that the MG gunner is automatically going to use aimed fire when he can see the target. It really just depends upon what the gunner is being asked to do. For example, what if an MG is sighted to prevent the enemy from crossing a city street? If you are sighted at the end of the street and you want to keep the enemy from running across that street, you won't aim at the individual infantrymen running across the street, you will just place a large volume of fire into the street in order to deny that street to the enemy. Sure, you can see the individual infantrymen running about, but you wouldn't spend the time to actually aim at each one as he runs across with precision/aimed bursts. That would be a misuse of your MG assets. Just fill the street with lead.

[Wreck]

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

[QB]David, Wreck,

I don't mean to intrude on your debate but I wanted to make sure you knew that neither X-00 nor I are arguing for MG's to be treated like highly accurate killing machines.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I cannot speak for David, but I am not arguing they should be accurate killing machines either. They should be inaccurate killing machines. Seriously, the only place I would like to see their lethality increase is against exposed infantry, and that only in conjunction with a change to make exposed troops automatically slow down (reduce exposure) when fired on.

In other words, my concern is that they do not suppress enemy infantry. This makes them fairly useless for area denial. That is not historical IMO.

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

That said, Remember these points from X-00:

We're still primarily concerned with suppression, grazing fire, and assault speeds.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I am concerned w/ grazing fire, but BTS has said they intend to deal with it for CM2. So I have little to say until I see their implementation.

What I have not seen BTS really answer to my satisfaction, is the concern about assault speed. But this is really the same as suppression, unless you are talking about suppressing units in cover (which I am not).

[StellarRat]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ASL Veteran:

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.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It seems to me that 10 guys firing rifles across the line of advance would be plenty enough bullets to create the "grazing fire effect". If each guy fired twice per minute (anybody can do this even with a bolt action rifle) that would be 200 rpm which is equilivent to cyclic MG 42 numbers, plus the shots are likely to be more accurate. Also, rifles can be fired accurately to at least 200m (I think it's much higher than this, but I'll just say 200m for the sake of argument.)

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

[StellarRat]

Just to follow up. What I'm saying is that MGs shouldn't be the only weapons that possess the grazing fire ability. Any substantial amount of small arms fire that is coming from the flanks of a target should do the same thing. Either all small arms fire has the ability or none do. Also, if I remember right BTS has already made flanking fire more effective than frontal fire.

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

[Marlow]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ASL Veteran:

I'm not sure where you are getting the assumption that the MG gunner is automatically going to use aimed fire when he can see the target. It really just depends upon what the gunner is being asked to do. For example, what if an MG is sighted to prevent the enemy from crossing a city street? If you are sighted at the end of the street and you want to keep the enemy from running across that street, you won't aim at the individual infantrymen running across the street, you will just place a large volume of fire into the street in order to deny that street to the enemy. Sure, you can see the individual infantrymen running about, but you wouldn't spend the time to actually aim at each one as he runs across with precision/aimed bursts. That would be a misuse of your MG assets. Just fill the street with lead.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

If ordered to do so, a gunner will fire unaimed fire in a particular direction. This is generally only done in either low visibility situations, area fire on a suspected enemy position, to suppress a known enemy position, or when the unit's position is about to be overrun (i.e. firing along the FPL). Otherwise, a (modern, I have no idea what practice was in WWII) machinegunner's general order of priority for targets is 1) aimed fire at groups of enemy soldiers within the gun's designated sector, starting with the closest group; 2) other MGs; 3) at groups of enemy soldiers outside the gun's designated sector (or in an assigned secondary sector); 4) unarmored/lightly armored vehicles.

In your example, where a gunner (in good visibility) is assigned to deny movement across a street will fire aimed fire at anyone crossing unless it is an absolute jail break. Anything else is a waste of ammo.

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

[ASL Veteran]

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

If ordered to do so, a gunner will fire unaimed fire in a particular direction. This is generally only done in either low visibility situations, area fire on a suspected enemy position, to suppress a known enemy position, or when the unit's position is about to be overrun (i.e. firing along the FPL). Otherwise, a (modern, I have no idea what practice was in WWII) machinegunner's general order of priority for targets is 1) aimed fire at groups of enemy soldiers within the gun's designated sector, starting with the closest group; 2) other MGs; 3) at groups of enemy soldiers outside the gun's designated sector (or in an assigned secondary sector); 4) unarmored/lightly armored vehicles.

At unarmored vehicles.

In your example, where a gunner (in good visibility) is assigned to deny movement across a street will fire aimed fire at anyone crossing unless it is an absolute jail break. Anything else is a waste of ammo.

[ 04-10-2001: Message edited by: Marlow ]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, and a squad or a platoon running across the street could be considered a 'jailbreak' I would think - if they were all going across at once or close to the same time. This is precisely the situation that you cannot prevent in CM now. You aren't going to be able to stop between 12 and 40 infantrymen from running across the street by aiming at each individual running across the street - kinda similar to ... hmmmm, an SMG squad running about in the open in CM? Now, if the squad were moving across the street in ones or twos, then it would take a lot longer to make it across the street wouldn't it? So, if I run a squad across a street in CM - with the time it takes a squad to cross a street in CM using 'Run', I would think that the movement of that squad could be construed as a 'jailbreak' across the street - hmmm? :eek:

[Marlow]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ASL Veteran:

Yes, and a squad or a platoon running across the street could be considered a 'jailbreak' I would think - if they were all going across at once or close to the same time. This is precisely the situation that you cannot prevent in CM now. You aren't going to be able to stop between 12 and 40 infantrymen from running across the street by aiming at each individual running across the street - kinda similar to ... hmmmm, an SMG squad running about in the open in CM? Now, if the squad were moving across the street in ones or twos, then it would take a lot longer to make it across the street wouldn't it? So, if I run a squad across a street in CM - with the time it takes a squad to cross a street in CM using 'Run', I would think that the movement of that squad could be construed as a 'jailbreak' across the street - hmmm? :eek:<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Depends on how wide the street is

In any event, if there is only a short distance being crossed, or a lot of men, the fire won't necessarily be un-aimed, just "less" aimed. The fire would still be most effective if directed at groups of men, and not just down the middle of the street.

[Username]

I havent read through this whole thread so ignore me if this has been mentioned. Or just ignore me if you like..

But I think that CERTAIN MGs should have a command option like the following:

FPF: Unit draws a line across terrain and set down a marker. Any enemy unit that crosses that line is fired on by MG at full rate. Enemy unit (if not crawling) is susceptible to 100% exposure but if behind smoke is 50% (but not out of LOS as is the case now). Its basically a long thin ambush marker. FPF unit is automatically put in hide mode.

The line only effects units that are at the same level/slope. If the line crosses a depressed terrain area, that area is not susceptible.

Only water-cooled and quick change barrel, tripod mounted weapons can use this option. I.e. MG42 tripod HMG, Vickers, Maxim, etc.

Flak guns, Vehicle MGs , etc are not eligible.

Unit continues firing at full rate for 15 seconds even if target unit is wiped out. Any new targets trip this again.

There is no delay between tripping the line and firing.

I know this would take alot of coding but the eastern front at times was like WWI. I think that Steve should reflect on what alot of the vets here have posted.

I have had 30 cal MG fired over my head and unless you were part of an organized assault, you get low quick.

I also think the problem is that players can abuse the command system so that every MG can be bum rushed as soon as it is found. In reality, it takes alot of coordination to effect the typical game turn in CM.

Lewis

[StellarRat]

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

I havent read through this whole thread so ignore me if this has been mentioned. Or just ignore me if you like..

I have had 30 cal MG fired over my head and unless you were part of an organized assault, you get low quick.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

OK, I can buy that someone would get "low" quick when fired at by an MG, but wouldn't someone firing a rifle at you also make you get "low"? As I pointed out in my previous posts I'm having a hard time understanding why these effects should be limited or enhanced for MGs. Do really think you could tell or care what type of weapon is firing at you? If bullets are whizzing around everywhere I'm sure I wouldn't care what was firing them.

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

[Andrew H.]

Most of my CM MG experiences have been similar to those experiments posted by Ron. They show that MGs are plenty powerful weapons when used correctly (ideally, with interlocking fields of fire, etc.). I think the firepower is pretty much exactly right, and I think that the suppression level of the troops in the open is modelled about right, too.

Now it may be that there needs to be some tweaking to reflect firelanes, which would allow more than one squad to be subject to be subject to a MGs FP -- but I don't think that the firepower itself should be any stronger.

In fact, IIRC, ASL had firelanes, and MG FP was halved for MG's forming firelanes. I don't think that CM should halve the FP of MGs forming FLs, though. Although the decision to set up a FL would probably preclude shooting at other targets unless there was imminent danger of being overrun.

But none of this really relates to a platoon assaulting a MG, since that MG can't set up a FL to stop that platoon, and (presumably), the platoon is not attacking single file.

[StellarRat]

"Most of my CM MG experiences have been similar to those experiments posted by Ron. They show that MGs are plenty powerful weapons when used correctly (ideally, with interlocking fields of fire, etc.). I think the firepower is pretty much exactly right, and I think that the suppression level of the troops in the open is modelled about right, too."

This is exactly my opinion too. I think some of the posters have been tainted by too many years of playing Squad Leader. LOL!

[ASL Veteran]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Andrew Hedges:

Most of my CM MG experiences have been similar to those experiments posted by Ron. They show that MGs are plenty powerful weapons when used correctly (ideally, with interlocking fields of fire, etc.). I think the firepower is pretty much exactly right, and I think that the suppression level of the troops in the open is modelled about right, too.

Now it may be that there needs to be some tweaking to reflect firelanes, which would allow more than one squad to be subject to be subject to a MGs FP -- but I don't think that the firepower itself should be any stronger.

In fact, IIRC, ASL had firelanes, and MG FP was halved for MG's forming firelanes. I don't think that CM should halve the FP of MGs forming FLs, though. Although the decision to set up a FL would probably preclude shooting at other targets unless there was imminent danger of being overrun.

But none of this really relates to a platoon assaulting a MG, since that MG can't set up a FL to stop that platoon, and (presumably), the platoon is not attacking single file.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually, if you are using MGs appropriately, you are deploying them like the picture that was posted earlier - ie, in flanking positions. The only reason the 'appropriate' way to deploy MGs in CM is in such a way that you fire directly at the enemy is that CM doesn't model the MG correctly. If it was modeled correctly, then you would be deploying them in enfilade positions and utilizing grazing fire since it reduces the amount of suppressive fire the enemy can place on your MGs (since they can't fire at the MGs until they are in the MGs kill zone) - thus increasing their value to your defense.

[ASL Veteran]

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

"Most of my CM MG experiences have been similar to those experiments posted by Ron. They show that MGs are plenty powerful weapons when used correctly (ideally, with interlocking fields of fire, etc.). I think the firepower is pretty much exactly right, and I think that the suppression level of the troops in the open is modelled about right, too."

This is exactly my opinion too. I think some of the posters have been tainted by too many years of playing Squad Leader. LOL!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm not going to jump on the bait that your cheap shot laid out there. I am going to say that we aren't necessarily discussing the firepower factor itself - we are discussing the means by which that firepower is projected. I explained why the MG was different from regular rifle bullets - I think that it should be fairly obvious that there is a difference between the two. This fundamental difference leads to a fundamental difference in the way these different weapons are used. Basic stuff. Grazing fire is in modern training manuals and it was SOP in armies during WW2. Grazing fire is fundamental - and it is 100% not represented in CM. CM does represent a 'beaten zone' by allowing other (nearby) units to get hit by the incoming MG fire, but there is in no way shape or form any means of using MGs in CM in a manner that does justice to the MGs ability to use grazing fire. It is just not in there. I suspect that it is a coding issue, and I can also play CM without it, but it would really change the game for the better if it could be included somehow.

[Foobar]

by Pillar:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Where is BTS?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

by Steve:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>P.S. I will be away for 4 days and likely won't check in. I'll try though. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

[StellarRat]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ASL Veteran:

[QB]Grazing fire is fundamental - and it is 100% not represented in CM. CM does represent a 'beaten zone' by allowing other (nearby) units to get hit by the incoming MG fire, but there is in no way shape or form any means of using MGs in CM in a manner that does justice to the MGs ability to use grazing fire.QB]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

OK, now I'll be serious. My understanding of grazing fire is a stream of bullets going across the enemy line of advance that has chance to hit someone that happens to walk/run/sit into them. I still maintain that this is not a special ability of MGs. Anyone firing any small arm across the line of advance creates this same effect. As I stated in my earlier post 10 guys with rifles could easily put 200 rounds per minute across the line of advance plus they could also aim at specific targets down the line. Don't you agree that this would have the same affect as one or two MGs? Perhaps it should be coded into CM2, but if it is it should apply to all small arms fire. Any squad along a bullets path should have a chance to be hit or suppressed.

[edgars]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> 10 guys with rifles could easily put 200 rounds per minute <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Just a question: is it really possible to fire 20 rounds per minute with WWII rifle? :confused:

[SimonFox]

I have been following this thread with interest. Since I have always thought MGs could be better modelled in CM. It seems to me that many people have their wires crossed. Steve has acknowledged that there are a few things which could work better to make MGs more realistic. I don't see anything fundamentally wrong with discussing possible approaches to this. The opinions voiced by wreck almost exactly mirror my own. The pinning effect of MGs is currently implemented through the morale state etc etc. MGs firing on fixed lines through obscuration (in the dark especially! also smoke), plunging fire (aka indirect), all the techniques available to "professional" MG units.

I would like to ask Kip Anderson what his publication has to say about water cooled MGs? I don't know how MG firepower is determined but I am fairly sure that BTS made some allowance for the dichotomy between sustained fire and rate of fire. Didn't the Russians have some water cooled MGs?

[ 04-11-2001: Message edited by: SimonFox ]

[Foobar]

I posted this image again, because it is VERY important that we all be discussing the same points. It does no good for anyone if we have 10 different conversations AT each other, at the same time. So bear with me. This is the point that needs to be discussed directly, as far as MG effectiveness go?

1) Do MG's in CM repel the attack shown above in a way that conforms with real life?

(My feeling is that it doesn't. I base this not on my own experience, but more on inductive reasoning. The more I see of THIS kind of aggressive attack, the more pointless combined arms defensive measures are. MG's should be at the center of infantry tactics, but when you face a player who has the yarbles to run his platoons all over the map like a cross country team, dont expect your MG's, in their current incarnation to deny them access to the open ground.

So, again, this SPECIFIC example is the reason why I think MG's have issues. When I play against Pillar, we both play it as if we'd like to survive the encounter..a little bit conservative with the digital troops. This kind of problem doesnt come up, much. But if you play someone who likes to run all over,in open ground, and you play it conservative, they will often mow you down, without being punished (enough)by your MG's.

So, if you want to respond, think about the ppicture above, an aggressive assault in open ground, maybe run your own tests. But lets all have one conversation, not 10 different ones.

[ 04-11-2001: Message edited by: *Captain Foobar* ]

[Olle Petersson]

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

Just a question: is it really possible to fire 20 rounds per minute with WWII rifle?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I'd say: For a few minutes, yes. Provided you have a prepared position (like a foxhole) with clips easily accessible in front of you.

Five rounds per clip (typical for most bolt action rifles), takes less than 10s to reload and less than 1s per shot to fire.

4 reloads @10s + 20 shots @1s = 60s

Thus, if aiming isn't a primary concern it could be done.

Cheers

Olle

[Username]

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

Originally posted by Username:

[qb]I havent read through this whole thread so ignore me if this has been mentioned. Or just ignore me if you like..

I have had 30 cal MG fired over my head and unless you were part of an organized assault, you get low quick.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

OK, I can buy that someone would get "low" quick when fired at by an MG, but wouldn't someone firing a rifle at you also make you get "low"? As I pointed out in my previous posts I'm having a hard time understanding why these effects should be limited or enhanced for MGs. Do really think you could tell or care what type of weapon is firing at you? If bullets are whizzing around everywhere I'm sure I wouldn't care what was firing them.

[ 04-10-2001: Message edited by: StellarRat ][/QB]

My point was that UNLESS you were part of an organized ASSAULT (where everyone knows what to do and hopefully will do it), you WILL react as I have described to a full auto 30 cal MG blast.

It probably has to be experienced but its like someone cracking a bullwhip 10 times a second or so over your head. It is literally a startling experience and most people just get bent knees in a hurry. Now, this was an ambush scenario in training. The bullets were at least 10 feet over our heads and coming over a berm. We all got against the berm and they sprayed the berm itself. The bullets that went over the berm were just a few feet over our heads and the disturbance in the air as they crack past is physically felt. The bullets that hit the other side of the berm could be felt and the shower of dirt was really annoying. Believe me, we were pinned and in combat, there would be very little chance of me sticking my head up over that berm. A funny effect is the CRACK_CRACK_CRACK-pop-pop-pop-pop-pop. The cracks are the supersonic sound of the bullet splitting the air about you. The pops are the delayed report from the guns firing. It doesnt take much imagination to think about one of those bullets putting its energy into you. This was a MG firing (M60) from at least 250 yards away.

Now, will 9 guys firing at that same range with bolt action rifles have that same effect? No way. An MG that has the range puts the hurt on quick with its instant feedback from tracer. A constantly reloading uncoordinated rifle team will not have the same effect. It takes a pretty good shot to hit a target at 250 yards with open sights. A MG is more forgiving in that you just adjust the hose effect. I guess you have to really fire alot of weapons to know. People here might not believe it, but I have fired bursts from M60s and every tracer round showed a skip effect (and I can imagine many of the ball rounds also did). In my opinion, it is best to fire low in most circumstances. But even if you are high theres this 'nailing down' effect.

As far as a squad of M1 garands putting down a fire lane; thats ridiculous. It boggles my mind that people come up with stuff like that. How can this distribution be anything like a constant stream from an auto weapon? If anything, everyone will probably exhaust a clip at about the same time and there will be an ominous lull in firing.

So bullets dont whizz. They crack from high velocity weapons. The full auto 10 hertz cracking is something else. You either know what I am talking about or you dont. I would guess that crack and elite (and deaf) units might get used to this and respond quickly to its effects. But other units wont.

And part of my point is that units just have so much coordination and recovery in the face of all weapons that bum rushing MGs as they present themselves becomes unrealistic. The fact that firelanes cant cut down these rushes from a supporting flank makes it worse.

I really wish that BTS investigate 'Orders Limitations. This is when units that are pinned/alerted/out-of-command/etc, CANT be given RUN orders TOWARDS known enemy positions. Lets stop the abuse of running. I like the idea of an ASSAULT command needed to get your troops within a radius of an enemy unit. I have said it before; its good that there arent any hexes but BTS threw out the baby with the bath water. Hexes nicely model the 'space' that enemy units command.

Anyway, its good to see BTS contribute to threads again (even if steve is kind of cranky) and I hope that CM2 is going to find the right quiescent point in abstractions that squelch gaminess and 'the toy soldier' syndrome.

Lewis

[BloodyBucket]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Just a question: is it really possible to fire 20 rounds per minute with WWII rifle?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, I do it all the time with an M-1 Garand, and even a turnbolt being pushed hard could do it. The real difference between rifle fire and MG fire is the platform, not the volume. A tripod mounted MG is a stable platform, and a small target. Twenty men with rifles are much less stable, harder to control, and a larger target taking up a lot of ground.

What I think some people here are trying to express is just a matter of focus. To a student of infantry tactics, the MG is "the essence of the infantry." Really, the men with rifles are there to support the MG, not the other way around. There are instances where a MG or two savaged battalions, as at Dieppe. There are also instances where one man with a rifle has wiped out MG positions. Notice that they made a film about Alvin York, but there are very few celebrations of the more numerous occasions where a MG did all the work.

I think there is an emotional reluctance to admit that a machinegun is so damn effective. It seems, well, unfair. It is unfair. The idea that valor will win out over machineguns was hard to shake during WWI. In WWII, Mg's and men had not changed much, but command and control and the tank had. It is well to remember that tanks were invented not to kill other tanks or infantry, but to silence MG positions.

Trying to balance the complexity of battle in a simulation is the devil's own task. CM does a fantastic job. I would guess that if MG power was tweeked, it might have effects on the game that I can't forsee. None of these elements exist in a vacuum. I do not pretend to have an answer, but I do know that I would not ask my people to make an unsupported rush againts a MG if there was a way around it, including waiting for a tank to show up, or for someone else to get on it's flank.

[argie]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Olle Petersson:

Originally posted by ciks:

[qb]Just a question: is it really possible to fire 20 rounds per minute with WWII rifle?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I'd say: For a few minutes, yes. Provided you have a prepared position (like a foxhole) with clips easily accessible in front of you.

Five rounds per clip (typical for most bolt action rifles), takes less than 10s to reload and less than 1s per shot to fire.

4 reloads @10s + 20 shots @1s = 60s

Thus, if aiming isn't a primary concern it could be done.

Cheers

Olle[/QB]

The BEF was trained to sustain a rate of 25 rounds by minute.