British/Commonwealth Infantry weapons...poor?

[Herr Jung]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kanonier Reichmann:

WOW! Nobody else seems to have noticed but good ol' Herr Jung is still classified as a Junior Member yet has a membership number of 221! Obviously not the outgoing type.

Jim R.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

He-he. I've been coming here for several years, and love reading many of the posts and the accumulated pool of knowledge. Maybe some of my pre-release date postings may have been cut and not counted in?

:confused:

I didn't know anybody noticed. Maybe I'll just write some more from now on toward the veteran status. My qualifications: general knowledge of weaponry & vehicles, intermediate collector of uniforms and equipments, been in it since AH's 'Panzer Leader' & 'Squad Leader', etc.

:cool:

Herr Jung

[Spook]

Herr Jung is therefore duly nominated for the "BTS/CM Forum Lurker of the Year" award.

[Brian]

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

Well Brian,

I think we will have to agree to disagree here. I am afraid I do not buy that the volume of fire from a bolt action can equal that of a semi-auto on a large scale. I am sure one or two individuals were capable of astounding feats but it is a case of simple mechanics.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Proof is in the pudding. The _minimum_ standard for the 1st BEF in 1914 was 20+ rounds per minute. In 1939, the BEF was capable of 15+ rounds a minute. These were _aimed_ shots. By 1944-45, I don't doubt in many units the standard has slipped, due to inexperience, lack of time devoted to range work, etc. I also don't doubt that in some of the more experienced units, the ROF had remained at the higher level.

Whether or not these exceeded the ROF of the M1, I must admit I honestly have no idea. What was the stated ROF for "aimed shots" for the M1? 8 RPM, 16? I see little difference between the two in reality.

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

The argument is "apples to oranges" but the reality is that smemi-auto weapons are used today with emphasis being placed on volume of fire.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Perhaps in the North American continent it is but in the British, Australian and New Zealand armies, the emphasis is still upon marksmanship. Why else can you explain the proliferation of optical sights?

This isn't a new trend BTW. I can remember reading reports of the trials of a minigun equipped M113 in SVN by the Australian Army. It was rejected because it felt it offered too much firepower, which was directed at the one spot, instead of being spread out, as was felt needed. The infantry stated they'd prefer the extra six GPMG's that it represented.

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

Your Pams say the same things ours do but they do not reflect reality. The basic rifleman, in the offense and defence is there to provide protection for weapons systems which in large part do the tradition their traditional job. The only exception may be trench clearing but even in that situation the roles are slipping.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

In favour of, what exactly?

Yet again, you appear to have lost sight that it is only the infantryman, the PBI, who can undertake the role of siezing and holding ground.

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

Now infantry still control the majority of these crew weapons so they do indeed "sieze and hold the ground" but the basic riflemans job is a dying trade without much prospect for the future. I know many "old soldiers" who find that absolutely distastful but it does not change the facts.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

As long as there is a need to "seize and hold ground" there will be infantrymen undertaking that role. It has nothing to do with nostalgia. It has everything to with recognition that it is only the infantryman which can perform both tasks. Armour can do one but not the other. Artillery can do neither. Ditto for all the other arms and services.

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

I think it may be time to move on to another topic as this one really has no end or real gain at the end of it.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Each to their own. Personally I believe that like many Americans the game designers have unfairly penalised the Commonwealth forces simply because of their prejudices.

[Username]

The BAR is really a single man weapon. An auxiliary would just carry extra ammo for the weapon. The aux did not load the ammo for the BAR. He had his own weapon and used it. If teh BAR guy bought it, the aux would grap up the weapon.

The BREN gun did have a clip monkey and I have seen video of the BREN team in action. The clips were actually in a MG type box. looked kind of heavy.

The US squad was built around single man weapons.

Lewis

[Guy w/gun]

I can't help but chuckle at this thread. This reminds me of the old arguments made by the top militaries of the world in the late 19th century.

"Machine gun? What's the use of that? All it does is waste a hell of a lot of ammunition! Besides, a group of well-trained rifle infantry can easily do what it does! After all, they can acually aim and pick their targets!"

Maybe I have missed something here, but I thought that just about every military today stresses massing of firepower over careful aiming. Of course, I've only really looked at the US and Soviet armed forces (The Soviets seemed obsessed amassing HUGE amounts of firepower on a given area). To me, stressing that rifle equiped soldiers take careful aim at visual targets is rather archaic (sp?).

[ 08-20-2001: Message edited by: Guy w/gun ]

[Andreas]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Guy w/gun:

[QB]Maybe I have missed something here, but I thought that just about every military today stresses massing of firepower over careful aiming. Of course, I've only really looked at the US and Soviet armed forces (The Soviets seemed obsessed amassing HUGE amounts of firepower on a given area). To me, stressing that rifle equiped soldiers take careful aim at visual targets is rather archaic (sp?).

[QB]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, just talked to my cousin on the weekend, who finished his basic training the week before. He signed up for a glorious 14 years to become a chopper pilot in the German army. He told me that they are being taught aimed shots on the G36, he was astonished when I talked to him about movement fire, massing FP and that, and the rifle has an integrated sighting device using a light spot bouncing on the target. Sounded archaic to me too, but it is what they teach them. Then again, apparently the food in the German army has become something to rave about, so the skills must have gone to the dogs...

I will inquire when they teach him to lead a squad and a platoon during the next two years.

[Vanir Ausf B]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Guy w/gun:

I can't help but chuckle at this thread. This reminds me of the old arguments made by the top militaries of the world in the late 19th century.

"Machine gun? What's the use of that? All it does is waste a hell of a lot of ammunition! Besides, a group of well-trained rifle infantry can easily do what it does! After all, they can acually aim and pick their targets!"<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hehe. Yeah. Frankly, Brian's point of view sounds like something out of a 1911 training manual. It's quite surprising to see this in 2001.

Brian:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>As long as there is a need to "seize and hold ground" there will be infantrymen undertaking that role. It has nothing to do with nostalgia. It has everything to with recognition that it is only the infantryman which can perform both tasks. Armour can do one but not the other. Artillery can do neither. Ditto for all the other arms and services.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Brian, you are confusing infantryman with rifleman. The Capt. never said that the infantry was less important, he said the individual rifleman was less important as heavy weapons now dominate the modern battlefield. No one ever said that infantry are no longer needed to take and hold ground, its how they take it and hold it that has changed.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Personally I believe that like many Americans the game designers have unfairly penalised the Commonwealth forces simply because of their prejudices.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Who are all these "many Americans" that agree with you?

During this thread you have frequenty slagged American fighting prowes, talking about them as if they were an untrained, undisciplined mob, while the Brits were all steel nerved snipers using "One shot, one kill" as their mantra (read Slapdragon's excellent post on the previous page about that). And now you are accusing the designers of having prejudices?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>What was the stated ROF for "aimed shots" for the M1? 8 RPM, 16? I see little difference between the two in reality.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

8-16 aimed shots a minute with a semi-auto? Are you serious?

[The_Capt]

Brian,

My point isn't "infantrymen" but basic riflemen. Yes, infantry do seize and hold the ground but the weapons they use are becoming more and more firepower orientated and less emphasis on the soldier. The infantry man is being pushed into a "weapons system" security role...against whom? Well other weapons systems. When sighting a coy, you start with the AT weapons because the main threat is APCs and Armour. Then you sight arty and MGs to counter dismounted infantry, THEN you sight the few remaining riflemen to protect the first three assets. You do not by sighting the basic rifleman and then work up.

The same goes for the offence. I am interested in weapons systems "Get that MG up here." "Where is my firebase and that arty?" The actual dogfight trench clearing is the last of my problems. In fact if I can get the rifleman into the trench, we've pretty much one because all of the enemies weapons systems (AT, MGS and arty) have been defeated to get the troops there. Hell Manouevre Doctrine teaches that you don't even bother with the trench clearing, just leave what is left of them (ie guard them) and charge on.

So you see, I think you are oversimplifying the battlefield. The infantry have a role but it is a pale comparison to what it used to be...now follow the curve to the end and see what you get. Infantry becoming security guards for weapon systems.

Do not start with optical sights!!

I have no idea why we (Canadians) and our UK allies are switching to them. Hell we used to use the FNC1 which had an effective fire out to 600m and a serious punch when it got there. Then we switched to the M16A2 because we finally got on the "firepower bandwagon". Then we brilliantly saddled the damn thing with a scope. Now take it from me (I have been there) trying to find a sniper and take an aimed shot from that scope while being shot at is downright silly (Hmm now which tree on that hills side did I see a flash...oh ya that's right the use covers for the flash). I would have much rather had a weapon which could keep his head down (like 6 GPMGs or a minigun) until mortars or a tank could do the job. The idea that I need a platoon full of sharpshooters is counter-productive. The only answer I can come up with is to enhance our OOTW capability, where the need for selective shooting would be an asset.

The bottom line is and will be "firepower". If you can project sufficent amounts at an enemy, accuracy ceases to really matter on the scale of an individual rifle.

It kinda blows the gun lobbys "right to bear arms against tyranny" argument all to hell doesn't it? Whoops another discussion.

I would hazard that the M1 had a very high rate of fire. The FN which has a 7.62mm round had a 30 round per minute (or one every two seconds) but you could put out twice that.

As to BTS biased, well they did a lot right and they did a lot wrong but I think the key point is that "they did something". Wargaming has somewhere to go now and CM has shown it the way.

[Spook]

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

Each to their own. Personally I believe that like many Americans the game designers have unfairly penalised the Commonwealth forces simply because of their prejudices.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You can choose to hold such a belief, Brian. Proving it will be quite the trick, however.

Invariably, I KNEW that a subject like this was going to slide into "nationalist" tangents. But let's not respond to that just yet. Rather, let's look not at INFANTRY-level handling of small arms but back to WEAPONS-level technical issues. Isn't that how the thread started?

Now, I haven't fired a Garand in ages, nor do I own one, so I can't test for myself as to what absolute rate-of-fire (ROF) I can get out of it. And ROF is being bantied around here as a defining term for "firepower."

What we do have for a recent visual reference, however, is a movie like "Saving Private Ryan" (SPR). I cite this movie because there are at least two scenes in the movie (the Omaha Beach scene & final battle) which show a soldier firing his M1 Garand as rapidly as possible until the clip ejects. These were likely rebuilt M1's, but probably comparable in their firing performance to WWII models. I think it's delusional to presume that ANY bolt-action rifle, even the Enfield, could be fired, reloaded, and fired again just as rapidly as the M1 in the SPR scenes.

Now, let's consider the point-blank range "fire values" of three rifles in CMBO:

Kar98: 6.5

Enfield: 10

Garand: 13

Those values hardly seem reflective of a pro-US/anti-UK bias on the part of BTS for this rifle firepower issue. Otherwise, a German CM player could just as well argue that the bias is instead pro-UK/anti-German.

I'm not presently able to bring up CMBO now, so anyone else can chime in about how Enfield & Garand firepower values vary with range. But my present impression is that the difference between the two at longer ranges is comparably even less.

For that matter, when concerning ALL rifles, I think that all rifles are a bit underrated at the longer ranges. But that's only a personal view.

Finally, as has been cited often before by BTS, the rifle "firepower" values are not ABSOLUTE fire values. They are "reference" values that can be varied by a host of factors. A strong factor, however, is unit experience, such that I would likely prefer a veteran UK rifle-'44 squad over a green or regular US rifle-'44 squad.

(I might have seen on occasion that UK rifle-'45 squads in CM trade one rifle for an extra Sten SMG.)

Now, back to "nationality," as some posters have invoked here the differences in training & "doctrine" as should apply to rifle squad firepower. Again, BTS has repeatedly gone on record that they are aversive to applying stock "nationality" bonuses, so don't harbor an expectation that Commonwealth troops in specific will get a special firepower bonus someday.

BTS, however, is including a new factor for infantry called "fitness" in CMBB. Thus one COULD make an argument that another generic factor, like "training" or "drill," could be added beyond unit experience & fitness in the CM II game engine. I wouldn't mind this added in as a new factor available to scenario design, but then it might be redundant when compared to giving a leader unit a +1/+2 combat bonus instead.

[ 08-20-2001: Message edited by: Spook ]

[Vanir Ausf B]

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

Whether or not these exceeded the ROF of the M1, I must admit I honestly have no idea. What was the stated ROF for "aimed shots" for the M1? 8 RPM, 16? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Found It

Rate of Fire: 25-30 (aimed) shots/minute

[Tero]

Invariably, I KNEW that a subject like this was going to slide into "nationalist" tangents.

AND NOBODY INFORMED ME !?!?

I think it's delusional to presume that ANY bolt-action rifle, even the Enfield, could be fired, reloaded, and fired again just as rapidly as the M1 in the SPR scenes.

Or in WWII, the real thing.

However, in the classic SMG tread you can find how the American "shoot only at a clear target" doctrine downplayed the RL suppressive superiority of the M1 to the extent of its use being in par with any bolt action rifle because the ROF would not exceed that of the bolt action rifles.

Those values hardly seem reflective of a pro-US/anti-UK bias on the part of BTS for this rifle firepower issue. Otherwise, a German CM player could just as well argue that the bias is instead pro-UK/anti-German.

Actually it is more of a pro-semiauto/anti-bolt action thing. While not exactly a pro-American bias as such it does become one. It is reflected in the way the squad level firing is modelled. The American squad gets a built in bonus when a regular infantry squad of ANY nationality can only target and fire at one target at a time. The Germans lose their edge in a medium range to long range squad-vs-squad fire fight as the MG42 is the only thing they get against all the M1's backed up by the BAR in an American squad. That is because the suppressive effect of the MG42 fire is greater but the Ami M1's get an edge in terms of sheer numbers and volume of fire.

Now, if the proposed CMBB MG feature of spreading the fire around to more targets was applied to ALL weapons in an infantry squads (by 2 men fire teams or half squad for example) the bolt-action rifle would show its pro's and con's vs semi/full-auto weapons againts both single and multiple targets more realistically.

Now, back to "nationality," as some posters have invoked here the differences in training & "doctrine" as should apply to rifle squad firepower.

I do not belong to that school of thought. 10 bolt-action rifles dish out less weight than X semi-auto rifles + Y bolt action rifles. No two ways about it.

However, such doctrinal issues like fire discipline, timing of opening of fire, how the positions are prepared to allow surprising the enemy with a volley of fire etc play a crusial part in determining the effects of fire under different, force specific tactics and doctrines.

Again, BTS has repeatedly gone on record that they are aversive to applying stock "nationality" bonuses, so don't harbor an expectation that Commonwealth troops in specific will get a special firepower bonus someday.

Gratuitous FP bonuses are not the answer.

BTS, however, is including a new factor for infantry called "fitness" in CMBB. Thus one COULD make an argument that another generic factor, like "training" or "drill," could be added beyond unit experience & fitness in the CM II game engine. I wouldn't mind this added in as a new factor available to scenario design, but then it might be redundant when compared to giving a leader unit a +1/+2 combat bonus instead.

That new feature will have potential, I hope. But the underlying problems of the "universal soldier" concept are not totally resolved by it.

[Vanir Ausf B]

Tero, this thread is about the British being shafted (or not), not the Germans. So go hijack another thread for your "the Allies sucked" spiel.

[StellarRat]

One thing to keep in mind when comparing bolt-action to semi-auto is that it is much harder to keep a bolt-action lined up on your target while you are attempting to cock it between shots. Not only does the rifle jerk around while your cocking it, it also interferes with your sight picture. This would be a real disadvantage firing at troops running to new cover. In combat I'd take a semi-auto anytime. The same things apply to revolvers vs. semi-auto pistols. I've shot both and there is no comparsion.

[Richard Morgan]

To quote Dr Samuel Johnson: "Sir, there is no settling the precidence between a flea and a gnat." Hello Mummy

[PeterNZer]

If I had to choose between a M1 or an Enfield I'd go for the MP44. It just looks way better.

[Michael Dorosh]

Interesting bit about the firepower of the Lee Enfield in 1914. Why then were SMLEs equipped with magazine cutoffs (requiring the SMLE to be loaded one round at a time)?

Captain, I did my basic with the FN and couldn't hit a damn thing with it. Last year I fired the Level II PWT with C7 and optical sight and got a perfect score. While the weapon is not as effective as an FN at cracking open enemy skulls, and the optical sight is at a disadvantage when on the move compared to "iron sights", I think you hit the nail on the head when you say that the rifle is just there to guard the heavier assets anyway. In the end, the optical sight DOES have aiming nubs on top, and if you are relying on your C7 gunners to kill the enemy with aimed fire, your rifle company is probably deep in **** anyhow.

[Stalin's Organ]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

Interesting bit about the firepower of the Lee Enfield in 1914. Why then were SMLEs equipped with magazine cutoffs (requiring the SMLE to be loaded one round at a time)?

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I was told this was so eth soldiers could shoot at a fairly slow "normal" rate, loading single shots, and retain 10 rounds (a full magazine) for immediate use in case of emergency.

For those not familiar with the weapon this is a simple flat plate that is hinged to cover/uncover the magazine feed - it slips out the RH side of the weapon IIRC.

Of course the rifles also had lobbing sights calibrated to 3000 yards or somethign like that too......I wonder which one got used the most?!!! :eek:

[Guest Babra]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

I did my basic with the FN and couldn't hit a damn thing with it.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Really? That's my favourite battle rifle in all its flavours, especially the para.

[ 08-20-2001: Message edited by: Babra ]

[Slapdragon]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Vanir Ausf B:

Tero, this thread is about the British being shafted (or not), not the Germans. So go hijack another thread for your "the Allies sucked" spiel.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I am sorry, but this is beautiful.

[Simon Fox]

Mmmm I am enjoying this thread. Nothing like stirring up the septics, Go Brian!

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

The US and the British designed their squads though around the concept that the rifleman was the guy who did all the damage in modern warfare. The BAR and Bren were designed to be fired by a single man who had ammunition carried by others in the squad. This weapons would suppress the enemy, allowing the squad to close to vantage points that allowed aimed fire. The leader would often carry a SMG to allow retreat and to further supress close in.

The Germans did things exactly opposite. The soldiers in a squad were there to support the LMG. Squad members pointed out targets, kept the enemy off the LMG's back, and were cannon fodder, while the LMG was the main element of the squad. Later, the squad members stopped being cannon fodder when they got SMGs and larger weapons of their own.

As to the issue of support size for automatic weapons. The ARs in the squad were normally 2 man teams, and assistant and a gunner, with the assistant expected to pick up the BAR or Bren in case the gunner was killed.

An LMG team was 2, 3, or 5 people depending on how much sustained fire was needed to give. The two man teams was often called an LMG, the 3 man team an MMG team, and the 5 man team an HMG. The British and the US of course only fielded ARs, not LMG. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> This is not beautiful. I see Lewis is ever vigilant on the Slapdragon front and has shown you the error of your ways. Kindly do not lump the Bren and the BAR in together Slappy. They are an entirely different kettle of fish. The Bren is an LMG and with a good number 2 could keep up a good rate of fire. The MG42 only barely qualifies for that tag IMO being such a profligate guzzler of ammunition. What the BAR is continues to mystify me.

[argie]

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

Really? That's my favourite battle rifle in all its flavours, especially the para.

[ 08-20-2001: Message edited by: Babra ]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I used that one in my military service. I can't hit anything with it

Plus, in some fire range I pick one from the armory which had the gas selector put in the position to fire rifle grenades and salvo, and I got a nice scratch in my cheek when I fired the first shot and the thing recoiled

OTOH, was very easy to disassemble and to maintain.

[Guest Babra]

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

I used that one in my military service. I can't hit anything with it <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Maybe it's just preference. I really liked it because it "fit". I used a thirty-round mag and it was quite handy, not nearly as long as the full-size model, and thus quite useful in an APC. I'm nothing like the world's best shot, but I could get decent groupings at all normal ranges.

[argie]

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

Maybe it's just preference. I really liked it because it "fit". I used a thirty-round mag and it was quite handy, not nearly as long as the full-size model, and thus quite useful in an APC. I'm nothing like the world's best shot, but I could get decent groupings at all normal ranges.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Then is official: I suck in the firing range

[Guest Babra]

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

Then is official: I suck in the firing range <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Or it just isn't the right rifle for you.

[Triumvir]

Brian's a good bloke, but he's right; Seppos are too easy to rile.

I disagree with those who say that sight picture is lost with a bolt-action rifle; if you lose sight picture, you're not firing it properly.

As for the inherent values of a weapon, the Enfield clearly loses out to the Garand in sheer statistics; its rate of fire will be, ceteris paribus and in the long run, inferior to a Garand. But in the short run, even with ceteris paribus, it is on par with a Garand.

I wonder what the firepower of a crack British squad is versus that of a regular American squad; since I'm at work, I can't check in the engine. Anyone?