more machinegun follies-- yet another call for a fix

[Marlow]

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

If I haven't shed some light on this subject for you after this .. well, then I guess you either lack the fundamental knowledge required to understand the issue or you can't be convinced to change your world view on the way machine guns work.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

So glad you know it all.

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

I just happen to have FM 7-7 "The Mechanized Infantry Platoon and Squad (APC)" in front of me, and guess what? They happen to have a few things to say about machine guns. Let's see what they say: <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

OK, lets take a look, but I'll emphasize some different parts

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

Machine guns and SAWs are the dismount element's main weapons to stop infantry attacks. As a rule, all the platoon's machine guns/SAWs are brought to the dismount element's position. The machine guns should be used on tripods with traversing and elevating mechanisms. Their positions should provide sectors of fire across the dismount element's front, interlocking with the carrier element and adjacent platoons, when possible. Machine guns are most effective when delivering enfilade fire down the line of the enemy assault formation. Where it can be done, machine guns are assigned a final protective line (FPL). An FPL is a line where, with interlocking fire and obstacles, the platoon leader plans to stop an enemy dismounted assault. Generally it is across the front of the battle position. A machine gun FPL should supply as much grazing fire as possible. Grazing fire is to be no more than 1 meter above the ground (about hip high). (snip) A machine gun is always laid on its FPL or PDF unless engaging other targets. The FPL machine guns should be fired all at the same time and on signal. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Based on the forgoing I fail to see from this where you can support the statement:

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

grazing fire is the essence of what the machine gun is, and it is the primary task that the machine gun is asked to do. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is just not true. Grazing fire is not some special firing technique, it is primarily the result of positioning the gun.

Where a machinegun is positioned in a location where the bullet trajectory is more or less parallel with the ground, you will usually have grazing fire when you engage your target. The beneficial effect of grazing fire is that in addition to hitting your intended target, you may also hit others that are in back of /in front of it. If your gun is situated where grazing fire is possible, it makes engaging any target that has depth easier, as you don't need to search with the gun very much, if at all.

In any event, although grazing fire is nice, it is not necessary for most of the roles of the machinegun (aimed fire, suppressive fire, area fire at suspected positions, etc…). Where the manual says that the gun should be laid in the PDF or FPL, when not engaging targets, it does not mean that it will be firing, just that absent a target, the gun should be aimed in these directions.

Where grazing is really critical is in low visibility situations (night, fog, smoke, ext.) where the gunner may be firing at targets he cannot see. (as an aside, since CM doesn't model firing into smoke or beyond visual range in low visibility, the need for grazing fire in the game is really minimized). It is also important for fire along the FPL (i.e. the platoon is about to be overrun), and again, more so along the FPL in low vis situations.

Additionally, positioning a gun so that it can use grazing fire is easier said than done, as there are many considerations other than possible use of grazing fire that factor into machinegun placement:

1. If the terrain is hilly, grazing fire may be impossible.

2. Even when the ground is relatively flat, rarely is it the sort of pool table flat that makes grazing fire easy. There are hillocks, gullies and depressions, mounds, etc … all can create blind spots when a gun positioned so that it is at the same elevation as most of the ground over which it will be firing (which is necessary for grazing fire). Therefore, decisions will often need to be made: does the platoon leader want grazing fire, or does he want to position the gun at a higher location where it can cover that gully that runs down the middle if the field.

3. Positioning the gun so that it has grazing fire over the FPL may result in a gun location where the it does not have grazing fire over its PDF.

4. Finding the position optimum for grazing fire is not always obvious, and often takes time for scouting and test firing.

[ 04-13-2001: Message edited by: Marlow ]

[Username]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Big Time Software:

Lewis, I thought each casualty count was per turn. So that would be 2, 11, 20 = 33. However, now that I look at it I can see it is also possible JPS meant 2, 9, 9 = 20. Obviously that affects the casualty % stuff, but I would still argue that 30% is not a good exchange. There are far less costly ways to eliminate MGs or avoid them.

Steve<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It was what he meant and it really makes your observations, conclusions, math, etc wrong.

I have done multiple tests (We are doing tests to ascertain weapons effectiveness here) where 3 platoons of germans (I pick the ones with low smgs or no assault rifles) are run into a foxhole line held by:

1. US platoon

or

2. 4 MMG

US are in foxholes. The germans come running in as close together as I can get them at the start.

Its all on flat terrain and the germans come running from 400 meters. I find the US platoon has a much greater chance of mauling the germans than the MGs. The MMGs just do not have the stopping power. I even did two tests with the 4 x US 1917 30 cal and had similar results that I find unbelievable. These are the water cooled version on a heavy tripod?

4 MMG have much more defensive stopping power than a US platoon armed with mostly rifles. Thats the value of MGs. They defend against infantry assaults in the open. A US platoon is very good at taking ground (unlike the MGs) and can split squads and fire off grenades etc but in real life, when on the defensive; my money is on the MGs to hold the ground.

Some of your points about "viable" results are startling. In fact, the test I ran where the germans ran into the US platoon and won was a total victory reported by your game. The germans had nearly 2/3rds losses. In reality, the attacking force would have waivered and gone to ground. Are the game results viable?

Running:

I like the fact that you are looking over commands, etc but for CMBO it would be nice if two fixes could be put in:

RUNNING speed limited

RUNNING moving firepower decreased

FATIGUE having debilitating effects such that these states are avoided.

I cant imagine these quick fixes destroying the very interwoven fabric of the universe but rather nicely abstracting out this "balls out" rush tactic that is abused.

So, I look forward to CM2 and I hope that you can see the value of people contributing here on the board. I wont comment on your tone but will suggest the following: Get as many opinions and as much info about anything you are designing for someone. I hope that your test people have been expanded/diversified from the origional group. Do testing from the ground up and make sure basic principles hold. Its not a good idea to start testing by using combined arms scenarios. WWII was built on WWI and the events there are not that far removed from CM2.

Relax Steve. Your games a success.

Lewis

[ 04-13-2001: Message edited by: Username ]

[Wreck]

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

Anyone who has ever fired or been fired upon by MG's I think would disagree.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Just curious: have you been fired on by both as a means to form this opinion? Anyone else? One fellow mentioned getting a .30 fired over his head in training... did they also have 20 guys line up and pepper the berm with rifle fire?

It is certainly true that different sorts of fire sound different, and so might affect people differently. But I think on the whole this effect -- that of the sound alone, that is -- will be pretty minimal, especially for troops of higher quality.

To some degree the sound of fire is correlated to its dangerousness, since the amount of sound made is a physical effect of energitically pushing around air. But this aspect of sound-scariness should be adequately subsumed in "firepower", since that same energy is the aspect of the bullet which makes it dangerous.

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

The noise alone is enough to frighten a man to the bone until he is acclimated. Small arms do notproduce the same effects.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Again, as I stated before the issue here is of "firepower", the CM abstraction. Because MGs have many times the "firepower" of rifles, they should produce many times as much of whatever effect "firepower" has. In this case, we are talking about creating fire lanes. I agreed with the original guy, who seemed to think that all small arms (i.e. things with "firepower") should create lanes. However, I pointed out that a rifle's firelane would be relatively small compared to that of an MG, so small as to be reasonably ignored.

To see the scale of this effect, consider that at 250m, an HMG42 has the firepower of ~28 riflemen. At 500m, it has the firepower of 52 riflemen. So another way to put the question, which do you think would have a greater effect: 52 riflemen blazing away at you from 500m, or a single HMG42?

[aka_tom_w]

Again I would like to suggest that we focus on how the reality of MG fire is ABSTRACTED in the game.

Don't forget the fact that in the game the MG's don't actually fire any bullets. As I understand it, 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.

Is this issue not identical to that fact that tanks fire right through other tanks both friendly and enemy to have the EFFECT of the result of a fired shot calculated ONLY on the target intended?

What (I think?) we want is for MG bullets to spray over an area, or cut down multiple squads with grazing fire at the knees. Many folks here are talking about how REAL MG's work in real combat. So my point is as long as the abstracted effect if MG fire is ONLY calculated against one target or one squad, rushing on MG with multiple squads will ALWAYS be effective as I have never seen an MG in this game attempt to effect abstracted injury from firing "bullets" at mulitple squads in one turn.

I have seen the diagrams here with mulitple squads and mulitple parallel MG bullet paths, but as I understand it, there is no effect on other squads in the LOF if they are not actually being targeted by the MG. There are no bullets flying out of those abstracted MG's ONLY project abstracted "firepower" ratings which are calculated against ONE target or one small area, so that any unit "non-targeted unit" in the LOF will not be affected at all.

I think we are being told that "grazing fire" is somehow abstracted, but I have never seen the effect on an MG on a squad in the LOF if a more distant squad is actually being targeted.

Am I way off base on this one? Or have other folks seen mulitple squads in the LOF of a MG receive fire and injuries from one one MG in a turn?

This is an interesting thread and I have learned a great deal about MGs from keeping up with it. Thanks to all who have posted.

-tom w

[StellarRat]

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

Ah, well that's different. Okay, well it does make some sense to try to account for the ... call it residual effects ... of the other weapons in a squad. The problem then goes to one of volume of fire. Your standard issue bolt action rifle will not produce a volume of fire that is effective enough to have a game worthy result on any unit other than the target of that fire. Ten men all firing across an area with rifles is going to produce fire that will be more ragged (in terms of when each man chooses to fire) and less concentrated (because each man is aiming at his own target) than an MG fired by one man that is concentrated in an area that the gunner alone is aiming at. So, the area and the concentration of fire is going to be more dispersed with rifle fire, thus lessening the effects of residual fire - dispersing it to the point of making it ineffective at influencing the enemy.

Another factor is ammunition. A standard load out for a German infantryman is between 45 and 60 rounds of ammunition. He is not very likely to be 'spraying and praying' with his precious 45 rounds of ammo - especially with the weak volume of fire that a bolt action rifle will produce. He is most likely going to be aiming at a man - or the suspected location of a man - and trying to hit him. The odds of hitting someone in between the firer and the target are just too small.

How's that?

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Considering the number of SMGs, Rifles, Semiauto Rifles, BARs and light MGs that each squad carries I think these effects could be at least as high a single MMG or HMG at closer ranges. I think one must bear in mind there a lot of riflemen shooting compared to the number of MGs firing. (If you've ever seen a picture of Bonnie and Cylde's car after the FBI hosing it down with Tommy guns you'll get the idea.)

As far as the "spray and pray" comment I meant that they would fire where they THINK the enemy is without a lot of aiming. Most of the time you don't really see the enemy unless they are very close or very brave/dumb. Also, if you're position is about to be overrun I don't thing you're going to be careful about how many rounds you're firing. Unfortunately, I didn't write it that way in the original response.

Also, grazing fire would only be effective in locations where the firer and target were able to engage on the same geometric plane. Hills, depressions, buildings could definately screw the "grazing effect".

[Battlefront.com]

Lewis wrote:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>It was what he meant and it really makes your observations, conclusions, math, etc wrong.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

While my math was wrong (thanks JPS for clarification), I don't think my conclusions were...

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I find the US platoon has a much greater chance of mauling the germans than the MGs. The MMGs just do not have the stopping power.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

In certain situations, I agree. That is why we made several changes already and plan more. It is all a big balancing act as making something more powerfull in one place might overbalance it in another.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I even did two tests with the 4 x US 1917 30 cal and had similar results that I find unbelievable. These are the water cooled version on a heavy tripod?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

We do not have .30cal M1917s in the game. All US MMG units use the air cooled M1919A4 on heavy tripod. The only substantial difference between this and the M1917 water cooled version was the weight. It was also less common by this point for CM's timeframe and location.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>4 MMG have much more defensive stopping power than a US platoon armed with mostly rifles.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think you are really short changing the firepower of a US Platoon. Semi-auto rifles times 30 (roughly) is a serious amount of firepower at certain ranges. Then throw in 3 BARs (or 6 for Pattern 45) and a half dozenSMGs and/or carbines. At close range they also have rifle grenades and/or frag grenades. That is 40 different origins of fire, 40 different men able to be up and firing, HE capabilities, etc. Not to mention that all of this fire is at least semi auto, aimed fire. At ranges of 100m or less there are at least 6 or more full auto weapons.

Of course, range and conditions are important here. Four MMGs at 500m beat out the rifle platoon, a little less so at 250m. But at 100m and less the rifle platoon becomes more effective. I see that as being very realistic.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Some of your points about "viable" results are startling. In fact, the test I ran where the germans ran into the US platoon and won was a total victory reported by your game. The germans had nearly 2/3rds losses.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The game was not designed to play out totally abstract, unlikely situations. Name me one battle you have played since you got the Beta Demo that had a Company go up against 6 MGs, with no other units in the game. I say again, 30% casualties is not a viable tactic IN A REAL GAME situation. I also think that you would not be thought of too well by your CO if you did this in real life either. And I think the survivors of your Banzi charge would be even less happy with you.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>In reality, the attacking force would have waivered and gone to ground. Are the game results viable?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

In reality this situation would likely never exist.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I cant imagine these quick fixes destroying the very interwoven fabric of the universe but rather nicely abstracting out this "balls out" rush tactic that is abused.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Possibly. But unintended consequences are the norm, not the exception, with any significant change. Remember how much crap you and others gave us when we changed around the turret and hull logic a few version back? Seemed like a pretty simple change in theory, but that doesn't mean that it is.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>So, I look forward to CM2 and I hope that you can see the value of people contributing here on the board.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Uhmmm... yeah, that is why this BBS is up here you know. I think our track record for listening to folks sound off is second to none. It has certainly made CM much better in all respects, so we have no intention of cutting off this valuable resource. Plus, it costs us a pretty penny to keep this BBS running, so the day we decide it is to be ignored is the same day you find it no longer exists

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I hope that your test people have been expanded/diversified from the origional group. Do testing from the ground up and make sure basic principles hold. Its not a good idea to start testing by using combined arms scenarios. WWII was built on WWI and the events there are not that far removed from CM2.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Don't worry about how we do things. I think by now even you should be reassured that we know what we are doing when it comes to making CM the best out there. CM isn't perfect, but we are always working towards that goal. We have a nice track record to point to that stands on its own.

Steve

[ASL Veteran]

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

This is just not true. Grazing fire is not some special firing technique, it is primarily the result of positioning the gun.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm glad that you have acknowledged my multi dimensional / all knowing genius when it comes to machine guns

Yes, Grazing fire is primarily the result of positioning the gun. And when you are setting up a defensive position, you are looking specifically for locations where you can maximize the grazing fire capabilities of your machine guns. If you prefer to set up your machine guns to use point fire against an attacking enemy then you will suffer the consequences as illustrated by this passage from "Infantry Tactics 1939 - 1945" by Anthony Farrar-Hockley who is referring to the British army:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> The abandonment of trench lines by the infantry was a relatively trivial outcome of the new approach to tactics. More important was the recognition of the need for an all round defensive capability by every body of troops in a battalion. (snip)

Machine guns conformed all too often, slit trenches being dug in such a way as to bring all three weapons in a platoon to bear on frontal arcs. It took many hard lessons to teach company and platoon commanders to maintain a potential for automatic weapon fire over 360 degrees and to interlock at least one of the arcs on each flank with those of the neighboring sub unit. The first of these measures provided the self-evident advantage of all round protection. The second promoted enfilade fire. A company, battalion, series of battalions which had interlocked their machine guns medium and light across the defensive front and in depth behind it would almost certainly resist successfully the onslaught of an enemy three or four times as strong in infantry. Analysis of the break in to any defensive position invariably shows that it was first achieved in an area where machine guns were firing frontally. In such circumstances, they were vulnerable to the direct fire of the attackers and were, moreover, leaving open lanes between the streams of fire they poured out. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

So, if you were taught to set up your machine guns to fire at oncoming point targets and not to maximize the grazing fire capabilities of your MGs, then I would be curious to know what army you learned your trade in. Grazing fire is not just useful in low visibility situations - it is useful in any defensive situation. In fact, a proper defense is built around the MG and the MG is sighted to maximize its grazing fire capabilities - at least that's how they did it when I was in.

[Marlow]

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

The abandonment of trench lines by the infantry was a relatively trivial outcome of the new approach to tactics. More important was the recognition of the need for an all round defensive capability by every body of troops in a battalion. (snip)

Machine guns conformed all too often, slit trenches being dug in such a way as to bring all three weapons in a platoon to bear on frontal arcs. It took many hard lessons to teach company and platoon commanders to maintain a potential for automatic weapon fire over 360 degrees and to interlock at least one of the arcs on each flank with those of the neighboring sub unit. The first of these measures provided the self-evident advantage of all round protection. The second promoted enfilade fire. A company, battalion, series of battalions which had interlocked their machine guns medium and light across the defensive front and in depth behind it would almost certainly resist successfully the onslaught of an enemy three or four times as strong in infantry. Analysis of the break in to any defensive position invariably shows that it was first achieved in an area where machine guns were firing frontally. In such circumstances, they were vulnerable to the direct fire of the attackers and were, moreover, leaving open lanes between the streams of fire they poured out<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Maybe I am missing something, but this says nothing about grazing fire. Of course interlocking fields of fire are critical, when have I said they are not. Throughout this thread, you have been focusing on a specific type of fire, grazing fire, that is completely independent on whether it is from the flank, from the front or whatever. In fact, interlocking fields of fire are defensive SOP for all small arms, not just MGs. I wonder what Army you learned in if you don't know the difference.

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

So, if you were taught to set up your machine guns to fire at oncoming point targets and not to maximize the grazing fire capabilities of your MGs, then I would be curious to know what army you learned your trade in. Grazing fire is not just useful in low visibility situations - it is useful in any defensive situation. In fact, a proper defense is built around the MG and the MG is sighted to maximize its grazing fire capabilities - at least that's how they did it when I was in.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The U.S. Army, and again, the direction of the fire and grazing fire are independent. There are lots of reasons for interlocking fields of fire that do not depend on the guns being sited along level ground (or a constant slope): 1) it allows coverage of the unit's front while at the same time allowing the gun's position to be protected from enemy supporting fire; 2) it permits different positions to fire on the enemy from different angles. If the enemy finds some cover in front of the defending unit's position, overlapping fields of fire increase the chance of an unobstructed shot. 3) the psychological impact of receiving fire from more than one direction. There are probably others.

[ 04-13-2001: Message edited by: Marlow ]

[Marlow]

ASL Vet,

Maybe you are under the impression that grazing fire is needed to engage a deep target (a target with depth, but little width. a dozen men in a line for example); however, this is not the case. Machinegunners are trained to fire at a variety of different target shapes, and do not need to rely on grazing fire to do it. When a single gun (on a tripod with T&E) engages a deep target (assuming no grazing fire) he generally starts at the middle, searches back to the end, and then searches forward. This only involves a routine manipulation of the elevation adjustment.

[Marlow]

ASL Vet, I just thought of one more thing to prove my point. Do you think that the defensive positions at Normandy were ineffective? The German positions did not utilize grazing fire. To do that, they would have had to have been situated on the beach, instead of above the beach. Other considerations (better fields of fire, more distance from the beach) took precedence over grazing fire. Nevertheless, the German positions did make effective use of interlocking fields of fire.

[Hamstersss]

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!

STOP IT STOP IT STOP IT! NO MORE!!!

LEWIS, GET BACK TO YOUR CARDBOARD!

STEVE, GET BACK TO CM2!!!

ENOUGH, ENOUGH, ENOUGH!!!!!!!!

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHH!!!!

[StellarRat]

I'm with Marlow!

[ASL Veteran]

Okay Marlowe, if you have a point then I'm missing it. Do you or do you not agree that grazing fire is a necessary addition to CM? If you do not see the need, then please state it and say why.

Personally, I feel grazing fire is an extremely important aspect of sighting a machine gun - apparently you do not. Let's just leave it at that.

[JPS]

In case anyone was wondering how much luck was involved in my previous simpleminded "MMGs rushed by SMG platoons" test.

---

Map: flat, 300m wide open area between two straight lines of woods. Default scenario visibility.

US defender: 6xMMG, all regular, 30 men, 108 pts

Heer attacker: 2xVG SMG plat, all regular, both leaders +1/+1/+1/+1, 56 men, 186 pts

Placement and orders:

Defender: two groups of 3 MMGs in the treeline. Distance between the groups is 100m. No orders (i.e. ready to fire under TacAI).

Attacker: SMG platoons get a single run order over the 300m open area (squads have some 20-30m between each other). One platoon runs towards one group of 3 MMGs.

---

Attacker Casualties Turn 1 Turn 2 Turn 3

Test #1 1 16 16

#2 3 15 20

#3 3 24 29

#4 1 11 11

#5 2 22 22

#6 2 18 20

In turn 1 platoons advance some 170m. End of turn 2 involves some close combat in the treeline. All casualties are cumulative totals (i.e. the attacker lost between 11 to 29 men in total). In each test all the defenders (30 men) were defeated by the end of turn 3.

---

[Marlow]

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

Okay Marlowe, if you have a point then I'm missing it. Do you or do you not agree that grazing fire is a necessary addition to CM? If you do not see the need, then please state it and say why.

Personally, I feel grazing fire is an extremely important aspect of sighting a machine gun - apparently you do not. Let's just leave it at that.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

After rereading some of your past posts, I think the disconnect is in how you are defining the term "grazing fire." You seem to define grazing fire as the same as "fire lane" and "enfilade fire" This is not the case.

Grazing fire is defined as (IIRC) fire where the rounds never rise above a couple of feet above the ground. This is only possible over level or uniformly sloping terrain.

Enfilade fire is fire from the side or the flank. It has nothing to do whether the fire is grazing or not.

A fire lane, as far as I can tell, is the gun's principle direction of fire (PDF). This represents the main direction that the gun is ordered to cover. It should cover a likely enemy avenue of approach to the defensive position (and provide mutual support to other firing positions - both machingun and rifle).

It may be that you consider fire on an area target to be the same thing as grazing fire. This may or may not be the case. A machinegunner can engage an area target, depending upon its orientation and shape in a number of different ways. If it is a deep target, he uses searching fire (or grazing fire if the situation and the guns position permits). If it is a wide targer, the gunner uses traversing fire by turning the traversing handwheel. If the target has both width and depth, he uses searching and transverse fire. There is also swinging transverse fire for very wide targets, and free gun for fast moving targets.

Do I feel that grazing fire should be modeled in CM? Sure, and I would like to be able to fire through smoke as well. I just don't think that it is the critical issue that you do, nor do I agree that it is the primary mode of firing for machineguns.

[ 04-13-2001: Message edited by: Marlow ]

[Marlow]

Opps.

[ 04-13-2001: Message edited by: Marlow ]

[ASL Veteran]

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

After rereading some of your past posts, I think the disconnect is in how you are defining the term "grazing fire." You seem to define grazing fire as the same as "fire lane" and "enfilade fire" This is not the case.

Grazing fire is defined as (IIRC) fire where the rounds never rise above a couple of feet above the ground. This is only possible over level or uniformly sloping terrain.

Enfilade fire is fire from the side or the flank. It has nothing to do whether the fire is grazing or not.

A fire lane, as far as I can tell, is the gun's principle direction of fire (PDF). This represents the main direction that the gun is ordered to cover. It should cover a likely enemy avenue of approach to the defensive position (and provide mutual support to other firing positions - both machingun and rifle).

It may be that you consider fire on an area target to be the same thing as grazing fire. This may or may not be the case. A machinegunner can engage an area target, depending upon its orientation and shape in a number of different ways. If it is a deep target, he uses searching fire (or grazing fire if the situation and the guns position permits). If it is a wide targer, the gunner uses traversing fire by turning the traversing handwheel. If the target has both width and depth, he uses searching and transverse fire. There is also swinging transverse fire for very wide targets, and free gun for fast moving targets.

Do I feel that grazing fire should be modeled in CM? Sure, and I would like to be able to fire through smoke as well. I just don't think that it is the critical issue that you do, nor do I agree that it is the primary mode of firing for machineguns.

[ 04-13-2001: Message edited by: Marlow ]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Fair enough. Yes, I am lumping several different things into one. Namely, grazing fire, and enfilade fire - and yes, area fire to an extent. I lump those together because I feel that the most effective use of Grazing Fire is to use it in enfilade. If I don't have the ability to fire at the enemy in enfilade, then I don't see any reason to use Grazing Fire - I would use point fire instead. To me, the two go hand in hand - neither as effective on its own without the other, therefore grazing fire and enfilade fire are the same (under ideal circumstances). Sorry if I did not make that distinction clear. A simple tactical misunderstanding if you will

[jd]

Hi Mom you have exceeded your alloted space. We need this thread room for a brand new "peng" thread with high rise codos.

[Username]

"We do not have .30cal M1917s in the game. All US MMG units use the air cooled M1919A4 on heavy tripod. The only substantial difference between this and the M1917 water cooled version was the weight. It was also less common by this point for CM's timeframe and location."

I believe you do. The US units are called M1917 and the graphic looks like a water cooled weapon to me.

Heres agood website..http://rt66.com/~korteng/SmallArms/30calhv.htm

It has the maintenance manual and a story about the water cooled even being used in Korea. It was used by US troops in Europe also. Its rate of fire can be near continuous under dire needs and I remember reading how they could fire non stop in the jungle/island fighting in the east.

These were modified by some units to fire at higher rates and the author claimed that they were steadier at this rate. They lightened the bolts I think.

Well. I guess somebody should MOD this MG then.

Lewis

[Tiger]

The M1919 MMG and M1917 HMG graphics are correct in game, just checked. Maybe someone switched them around in a weapons mod?

[Username]

"I think you are really short changing the firepower of a US Platoon. Semi-auto rifles times 30 (roughly) is a serious amount of firepower at certain ranges. Then throw in 3 BARs (or 6 for Pattern 45) and a half dozenSMGs and/or carbines. At close range they also have rifle grenades and/or frag grenades. That is 40 different origins of fire, 40 different men able to be up and firing, HE capabilities, etc. Not to mention that all of this fire is at least semi auto, aimed fire. At ranges of 100m or less there are at least 6 or more full auto weapons.

Of course, range and conditions are important here. Four MMGs at 500m beat out the rifle platoon, a little less so at 250m. But at 100m and less the rifle platoon becomes more effective. I see that as being very realistic."

I think you missed the point. I am not saying that I felt the US platoon mauling a german coy sized unit was modeled incorrectly. I ran it 3 times and it was as follows:

1

Germ 55 cas with 17KIA and 29 OK

US 34 cas with 8 KIA and 6 captured

German total victory

2

Germ 64 cas with 16 KIA and 20 OK

US 33 cas with 8 KIA and 7 OK

Draw

3

Germ 81 cas with 25 KIA and 3 cap

US 11 cas with 3 KIA and 29 OK

US Total victory

As you can see, the germans pay by running into the 3 US squads and its 1 HQ. These 4 shooters maul the germans and the results are not guaranteed to be a win or a loss. Very chancy for the germans considering it costs to find out. I think its modeled very well as far as small arms and a 1/3 sized defending force stopping an infantry attacking force that is running in the open.

But take 4 MMG or 4 HMG (Steve theres M1917's in the game right?) and the outcome was distinctly over running the MGs with half the casualties for the germans (compared to going against the US platoon) AND ALWAYS A WIN!!!

I dont feel that the smallarms are overmodeled but the MGs are undermodeled and thats what this thread is about. Theres plenty of real world scenarios where MGs alone have to stop an assaulting force. Whats unrealistic is that CM allows the force to just run on in. US marines had to do it many times and the russians liked it when they were behind schedule. The fact that the game allows such desperate measures to be routine is bad enough but the abuser is not punished for it IMO.

The fact that the other MG crew members firepower isnt modeled doesnt help and I am at a loss as to why you feel that is something that supports your conclusions of peoples tests. It doesnt take but two guys to fire the US MGs, the other three are cargo carriers and thier firepower can be abstracted into the short range FP of the MGs.

Take my words anyway you like but please dont consider them an expression of worry. Steve are you from Brooklyn?

HEEEYYYY, DON'WURREEABOWDITTTT!!!!

Lewis

[ 04-13-2001: Message edited by: Username ]

[NightGaunt]

ENOUGH ALREADY!! I've been reading this thread for a week and I have a couple of points.

1 BTS, i have no idea how you deal with this small minded people. I would have closed this thread about 100 posts ago when every good tthat could come of it was said.

2. If you aren't satisfied with MGs how they are, TO FRIGGIN BAD. Learn how to use them in their current setting and deal with it. BTS has said they will work on it. LEAVE THE TOPIC ALONE SO THEY CAN. Maybe bts will have the time to fix them in the future if they don't have to explain every little thing they were forced to extrapolate because of xxxxxx. THIS WHOLE GAME IS BASED ON EXTRAPOLATIONS AND LIMITATIONS>>>GUESS WHAT, I LOVE MGs HOW THEY ARE, THEY KICK ASS WHEN I USE THEM, so they don't have grazing fire, big deal, if you set up your defense right, that makes no difference in THIS GAME. In cm2 that will be very important, and GUESS WHAT THEY WILL FIX IT FOR CM2

DAMN BUNCH OF WHINY BABIES

[BloodyBucket]

Grazing Fire.

[ 04-14-2001: Message edited by: BloodyBucket ]

[Leeo]

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

Grazing Fire.

[ 04-14-2001: Message edited by: BloodyBucket ]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That is seriously funny!!

Now give it all a fricken' break! You've given your ideas, you've made the bread. Give it a rest and let it rise.

[Phillies Phan]

I agree with Nightgaunt.