Underrated and Overrated Small Arms in CM

[M-8 Greyhound]

I'm new at Combat Mission and I just downloaded the demo a couple of days ago.

I have been very impressed with the game so far and I am planing to buy the full version of the game soon.

However I have noticed that some of the infantry weapons seem to be modeled incorrectly in my opinion. Specifically, it seems to me that the Mp-44 and M-2 Browning should be more powerful compared to other weapons in the game. Also I think that the K-98 is slightly over represented.

I was wondering if any of these things have been corrected in the full version of CM.

Also could someone explain the how relative power of small arms is determined in CM.

[Michael Dorosh]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by M-8 Greyhound:

Also I think that the K-98 is slightly over represented.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The K98 was the standard German long arm; just wondering why you think it is "over represented"?

[Panzer_Meyer]

Hey M-8

Welcome, I have one question, did you by any chance come from DoD? (Day of Defeat) Just wondering.

[Lars]

Been hunting with a K-98. Stamped 1943 with swastika. Nice rifle, heavy as hell though. Wouldn't want to carry one across Russia.

[M-8 Greyhound]

Sorry, Over-represented may have been a poor choice of words.

What I meant was that the K-98 should be modeled as less powerful compared to the M-1. I realize that this is already the case to some extent, however the numbers out at 500m are the same. Due to the fact that the K-98 had a bolt action and a smaller clip than the m-1, it seems that it should have less firepower than is currently depicted.

[Lars]

Why? The first bullet is usually the one that does the job.

[M-8 Greyhound]

One bullet does the job? At 500m?!

Yeah Right!

I would think that it would be a matter of volume of aimed fire at that distance. It would be really hard to hit something the size of a human at 500m. Either the m-1 should be increased a half a point of fire power or the K-98 should be decreased half a point. The increase or decrease should be even greater at 250m.

[Michael Dorosh]

I own both a K98 and an M-1. You may have a point, but I don't know much about the specific numbers CM uses.

Bear in mind most firepower in an infantry squad comes from the MG or automatic weapons; rifles are more of a security blanket for the others.

At 500 metres, I don't think you would notice any difference between the two - since no one would hit a damn thing at that range, anyway!

The K98 isn't heavy at all, either! That steel buttplate isn't pleasant, though.

[JasonC]

The M-1 has higher fp numbers at the closer ranges. At long range - where the fp is so low it hardly matters, since MGs and BARs provide most squad firepower at those ranges anyway - they are the same. The reason is the two guns are about equally -accurate-, which is the important question at very long range. Rapid fire matters at the closer ranges, but at the longer ones firing time is dominated by aiming anyway.

The M-1 gets 2x the fp of the K98 at 40m, and 4/3x at 100m. The MP44 gets about the same fp as an SMG at 40m, 2x the fp of a Lee Enfield at 100m, and 2/3rds a rifle's fp at 250 meters. Out to 200 yards it is as good or better than a rifle. I don't see anything "undermodeled" about any of them, really.

As for the relationship between SMG and rifle firepower at close range, the numbers are roughly in line with the clip sizes, with accuracy making little difference in close. The primary effect of close range fire is suppression anyway - heads are mostly down. The .45 caliber Tommy gun gets a somewhat higher rating than the 9mms (insignificant except close).

The one factor not modeled accurately enough in my opinion is the equal ammo loads - 40 rounds per squad - for all mixes of weapon type. Historically, SMG armed soldiers did carry higher ammo loads in number of bullets, but fired them faster still. This matters for the ~100m range match ups, where right now the SMGs have superior fp over rifles (fine), but also can keep it up for just as long (not realistic at that range, since SMGs would be burning 20 rounds to get those numbers, vs. ~5-8 from the rifles).

It would be more realistic if pure SMG squads got around 25 shots, mostly rifle ones more like 50, with 30-45 for intermediary mixes of weapons. This is something scenario designers can "tweak" as they see fit at the set up stage, but unfortunately it can't be changed for quick battles.

When looking at the firepower "envelope", you also have to keep in mind that rate of CM shots also increases as the range drops, once you get close enough. So the rise in fp per unit time is actually steeper than the rise per shot. Ammo use goes up slightly too, because of this.

Firepowers wind up being similar at 250 yards for different squad sizes and weapons mixes, but its composition varies from nationality to nationality. In German squads, 2/3rds of the fp at that range is the squad MG. In US squads, only 1/3rd is the BAR, the rest is the more numerous M-1s.

German squad types with 2 MGs and numerous MP44s can generate 50% more fp than average squads. But a hit to one of the MG men can reduce the fp to normal levels. Small pure or mostly SMG squads can generate enourmous fp at close range, normal levels of fp at 100m. But realistically they'd run out of ammo before rifles would, trying to fight at 100 meters.

[Slapdragon]

CM small arms are rating for two factors, ability to supress, and ability to generate casualties, both related numbers. Bolt action and semiauto rifles are similar in killing power, but the autoloaders supress better. Machineguns kill and supress better. Some weapons have unusually hi antipersonell power because the have high rates of fire (MG42) or high penetration and range (M2HB).

1/3 to 1/2 half pf a platoons firepower will come from support weapons, either organic to the squads (BAR, MG42) or attached (60mm, 50mm, MMH). Although most armies did not recognize this in 1944, feeding the myth of the rifleman, it is the autiomatic and bomb throwing weapons that did most of the work in fighting.

[M-8 Greyhound]

All right, I concede the point about the K98. But what about the MP-44. It has less firepower than the BAR at 40m, yet it is lighter, easier to maneuver and has a larger ammo capacity. Perhaps the FP rating for the MP-44 should be raised by 5 or 6 points at 40m.

[Mr. Johnson--]

Don't worry Greyhound, have you looked at the list of fixes from 1.03 to 1.12? It is quite long. I don't think the STG-44 has had its firepower tweaked, but trust me the Fallscrimjager platoons have lots of firepower in the 80m-100m range with like 3K98s, 3STG44s 2MP38s and two LMGs. Its like using a chainsaw on alders, thats how fast the allies get chopped up.

[Pak40]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by M-8 Greyhound:

All right, I concede the point about the K98. But what about the MP-44. It has less firepower than the BAR at 40m, yet it is lighter, easier to maneuver and has a larger ammo capacity. Perhaps the FP rating for the MP-44 should be raised by 5 or 6 points at 40m.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You might have a point, but there are two things I'd like to bring up:

1) the BAR uses a full rifle .30 round, the same as the Garand and Browning MGs (someone correct me if I'm wrong). This makes the BAR a powerfull hitter. The MP44 uses a shortened round (not as powerfull as a K-98 or MG 42), therefore it's punch isn't as great.

2) The BAR was often used with a bipod, increasing it's accuracy in a light MG role. The MP44 never used a bipod.

As for the submachineguns, I guess they are more powerfull than the BAR and MP44 at 40m because they have a larger ammo load which means less down time due to reloading.

[Warmaker]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mr. Johnson-<THC>-:

Don't worry Greyhound, have you looked at the list of fixes from 1.03 to 1.12? It is quite long. I don't think the STG-44 has had its firepower tweaked, but trust me the Fallscrimjager platoons have lots of firepower in the 80m-100m range with like 3K98s, 3STG44s 2MP38s and two LMGs. Its like using a chainsaw on alders, thats how fast the allies get chopped up.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yup, I've had FJ platoons cut through Allied units at those ranges like there was no tomorrow. If you catch them in the open, well...

Panzergrenadier platoons are quite powerful, probably doing a little better at 500m distances since there's a couple more useless 98K's floating around.

[Mr. Johnson--]

I love the Panzergrenadier platoons, because after much over use of SMG platoons Allied players try to keep their distance from German infantry. Which is great for a squad with 2 MG42s and lots of rifles.

[Zamo]

I don't know waht you guys are talking about via the 500 yard argument. Hitting a man size target at 500 yards IS NOT THAT TOUGH. Granted, hitting a man-size target running, or lying down...not to mention shooting back at you may be somewhat difficult, but hitting a human siloette (sp?) at 500 yards is not very hard. I have done it many, many times, with an M-1, an M-14 and an M-16. You guys make it sound like it's more difficult than getting my Uncle Earl to say grace without swearing...THAT is tough!

Zamo

[PzKpfw 1]

The BAR fired an 30.cal round at 2,650fp/s with an cyclic rate of 500rpms. The MP44 fired an 7.92 x 33mm kurtz round at 2,300fp/s with an cyclic rate of 500rpms.

Regards, John Waters

[ 06-30-2001: Message edited by: PzKpfw 1 ]

[Radar]

Thank you Zamo..I think the hardest would be the lead and wind adgustment for a man sized target at 500 meters. Its not hard at all to hit a stationary target.

[Slapdragon]

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

I don't know waht you guys are talking about via the 500 yard argument. Hitting a man size target at 500 yards IS NOT THAT TOUGH. Granted, hitting a man-size target running, or lying down...not to mention shooting back at you may be somewhat difficult, but hitting a human siloette (sp?) at 500 yards is not very hard. I have done it many, many times, with an M-1, an M-14 and an M-16. You guys make it sound like it's more difficult than getting my Uncle Earl to say grace without swearing...THAT is tough!

Zamo<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

German testing before World War Two found that the average engagement range in combat was 125 meters, with 400 meters being extreme range for rifle fire. In the middle 1930s they began development of the 7.92x33mm round to reflect this. In addition, the newly adopted K98 was set for a battlesight of 150 meters from the previous 400 meters.

Again, marksmanship in combat is much more difficult that the movies or even personal experience would indicate. The German tests which led to the creation of the MP43/STG series of rfiles and would later be repeated by the US Army in the 1960s SALVO/SPIW tests.

Of course a hit on a human figure is possible, and on a range, to be expected at 400 meters with proper training. But few soldiers will have to make that shot, and those that do will need more than one shot to do so unless equipped with a special weapon.

[ 06-30-2001: Message edited by: Slapdragon ]

[PzKpfw 1]

One of the comments from Kumondorf on the MP44 was after 250m the accuracy dropped on the MP44, which was within spec paramaters & most engagements occured below 100ms anyway.

The Soviet's had specific ranges they trained their Inf for Ie, LMG's up to 800m, Rifleman 400m, SMGs 200m. They also encouraged the rifleman in the sqds with an aptitude for marksmanship, to engage out to 650m. In practice combat ranges were conducted at shorter ranges.

The US Army conducted a study after Korea that found the typical small arms engagements were under 250m.

Regards, John Waters

[lcm1947]

What's a MP44? I am guessing a MG. What caliber is it. 7mm I am guessing but may be off on this. Would somebody tell me please.

[lcm1947]

Never mind the above post of mine. I have the info. So it's an assault rifle that shoots a 7.92x33 Kurz cartridge. It was first developed in 1940-1941 for the MKB42 assault rifle also known as the Sturmgewehr rifle or Stg-44. It's actually a short version of the standard 7.92 (8mm ) Mauser cartridge. It is a medium range cartridge designed to increase infantry firepower by permitting more accurate and controlled full automatic fire. Which is not possible from lightweight shoulder weapons using full powered cartridges such as the 30-06 or 8mm Mauser. The Russia's actually copied it and brought out one of thier own. It doesn't say what it was called but I'll look and see if I can't find it. It would be interesting knowing this since CM2 should include it. The rifle weighted 10 - 11 pds and had a 16in barrel with a 30 round clip. It used a 125 gr. bullet and the MV was 2247 with a ME of 1408. The Me stands for Muzzle energy. It goes on to say that it is an excellent round for close combat. Very interesting. Boy, it sure looks ****ty. A little short, fat round. Ugly !

[Warmaker]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by lcm1947:

Never mind the above post of mine. I have the info. So it's an assault rifle that shoots a 7.92x33 Kurz cartridge. It was first developed in 1940-1941 for the MKB42 assault rifle also known as the Sturmgewehr rifle or Stg-44. It's actually a short version of the standard 7.92 (8mm ) Mauser cartridge. It is a medium range cartridge designed to increase infantry firepower by permitting more accurate and controlled full automatic fire. Which is not possible from lightweight shoulder weapons using full powered cartridges such as the 30-06 or 8mm Mauser. The Russia's actually copied it and brought out one of thier own. It doesn't say what it was called but I'll look and see if I can't find it. It would be interesting knowing this since CM2 should include it. The rifle weighted 10 - 11 pds and had a 16in barrel with a 30 round clip. It used a 125 gr. bullet and the MV was 2247 with a ME of 1408. The Me stands for Muzzle energy. It goes on to say that it is an excellent round for close combat. Very interesting. Boy, it sure looks ****ty. A little short, fat round. Ugly !<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yep Icm, the MP44/Stg.44 is the granddaddy of the modern assault rifle. The Soviet "copy" that you're thinking of is the legendary AK-47 (more common in some places than water), which was introduced in 1947 (hence the numeric designation). I wouldn't say the 'ol AK-47 was a direct copy, but legend goes that Kalashnikov(sp?) was a tanker during WWII. Supposedly, he came across a captured MP44, liked the idea, and drew inspiration. If you get into the guts of them both, they're pretty different but the fact remains is this: the MP44 was the first service weapon to fill the characteristics you've described of a controlled automatic fire capability, shorter rifle cartridge, etc. From what I understand, several well known post-war rifles have deep roots in the MP44.

If you dig around the history of it, it almost never came to be if Hitler found out about the development program early on which is why it has the MP designation at first (Machine Pistole?) like the MP38/40.

[Mark IV]

Mikhail Timofeevich Kalashnikov

Over 70 million sold!

This guy's pedestal goes into the pantheon next to John Browning and John Garand.

Sorry you find the 7.62 x 39mm unappealing. What the cartridge lacks in body styling, it makes up for with sheer functionality.

You won't find them in CM2, though, as the AK47 and this cartridge did not enter service until 1947.

The correct measure of bullet energy is foot-pounds, or the metric equivalent. The BAR would have considerably greater energy than the intermediate rounds (as used by StG44 and AK47), with the difference more pronounced at longer ranges. This would matter against vehicles or buildings, but far less against soft targets. At 300m or even 500m, all these bullets are devastating and incapacitating against humans. Anything beyond incapacitation is overkill.

[Hanns]

Actually the direct descendant of the

StG.45(M) is the CETME rifle followed by the excellant HK G3 rifle series. The designer of the StG.45 under Mauser later became the head engineer of the new Heckler&Koch facility on the same grounds of the old Mauser Werks plant in Oberndorf am Neckar. For more info check out http://www.hkpro.com/g3.htm