American Machine Guns

[lcm1947]

I noticed that we gave up on the M1917 HMG in 11/1944. Does anybody know why we would stop using these and just go with the M1919 a MMG? I can't imagine why we would stop using a HMG and continue with a MMG. Anybody got any info or know any sites that explain it? It really bugs me as the 1917 seems to be a much better MG or at least it is in the game. I tried several tests and the HMG is a lot more gun at least in fire power then the 1917 was.

[flamingknives]

M1917's heavier and fires the same ammunition as the M1919.

The water cooled design of the M1917 means that it can fire more sustained bursts, but it adds to the weight, which cuts down on the mobility.

[Aaron]

Originally posted by lcm1947:

I noticed that we gave up on the M1917 HMG in 11/1944. Does anybody know why we would stop using these and just go with the M1919 a MMG? I can't imagine why we would stop using a HMG and continue with a MMG. Anybody got any info or know any sites that explain it? It really bugs me as the 1917 seems to be a much better MG or at least it is in the game. I tried several tests and the HMG is a lot more gun at least in fire power then the 1917 was.

The M1917 weighed 90 pounds, the M1919 weighed 40. Since by 1944 we (the US) were attacking everywhere, the ability to easily carry and setup the weapon was more important than sustained rate of fire.

Does CMBO model weapon setup times? I don't remember.

Aaron

[lcm1947]

Thanks for the reply guys. Well I guess that makes sense and can see why they wouldn't need it being on the offence most of the time but you'd think they would still need a heavy machine gun somewhere sometime wouldn't you?

[Aaron]

Originally posted by lcm1947:

... you'd think they would still need a heavy machine gun somewhere sometime wouldn't you?

They do need one and they have one. The .50 Ma-Deuce!

[lcm1947]

Well I was thinking more along the lines of the MG42 Heavy machine gun. I know the .50 cal is certainly a heavy brute weight wise and caliber wise but it sure couldn't hold a candle to the German heavy - fire wise. My real disappointment about it is in the game. I am always impressed and pissed at how effective the MG24 Heavy is against my troops so was testing out which out of the 3 guns the Americans had was the best. I thought it would be the .50 Cal. but no it was the M1917 by far. Since we don't get it after 12/45 the American's are at a big disadvantage in this area.

[Aaron]

Originally posted by lcm1947:

I thought it would be the .50 Cal. but no it was the M1917 by far. Since we don't get it after 12/45 the American's are at a big disadvantage in this area.

What criteria did you use to determine that?

[Silvio Manuel]

Americans always have the .50cal in CMBO.

Their stats differ greatly:

mg fp@100m ammo movement speed

M1919 84 65 medium

M1917 95 ~100+? slow

.50cal 110 40 slow

.50cal is powerful but has so little ammo; it can of course destroy light tanks and halftracks... from the side/rear out to as much as 1000m, and maybe 400-600 frontally, depending on if you're shooting at a SPW (thin front)or a PSW Armored Car (thick front). .50cal can even kill AFV that have the Panzer IV chassis if you're super-close and shooting directly at the rear.

Main advantage of M1919 is it's speed, and cheapness- you might as well buy two and have them just walk to keep up w/ your advance.

MG42 can kill halftracks too, out to about 300m if you are perpendicular to the target. The first time I tried that I killed two M5 HT's at 250m, which was sweet b/c my other AT assets were already dead.

[ April 03, 2003, 02:04 PM: Message edited by: Silvio Manuel ]

[lcm1947]

It wasn't anything scientific Aaron just 10 times but it told me what I needed to know and that is I'm using the M1917 against infantry. I did try it in open terrain and in wooden areas as well just to see if any different and there sure was. In the wooden areas it didn't do well at all so I'll only be using them for open terrain. Plain infantry performed best in wooded areas. All I did by the way was have a squad of German's attack them. Mon-o-Mon-o type thing. Yeah Silvo the .50 Cal. is a powerful weapon but I was needing something against infantry plus I am very unhappy with the way the .50 Cal. comes unglued when the slightest bit of fire is directed to it. At least in my experience. They panic and flee if you look at them mean. They are of course the only thing that can handle the HT's and light armor and I do use them for that - a lot. You did give me a idea however and I'll try two M1919's instead of one M1917 and see how they do. Their speed would be nice.

[Silvio Manuel]

JasonC has a neat idea (which I've yet to try) of an alternate "firebase." Take two M5A1 HT's (.30cal and .50), and use them to transport either 4 M1917 HMG's or maybe 3 w/ an HQ would be better. Drop off the HMGs/HQ at the back of some good cover, then walk them up until they get LOS to targets, then bring the M5A1's around the sides back so you have MUCHO MG firepower. The same idea would be very deadly in CMBB, though it presents a fine target in either game.

[lcm1947]

Yeah Silvo I love those M5A1's myself. They do have alot of firepower but like you state do make great targets though and don't seem to last long. I'm actually just beginning to make use of my MG's. I've always kind of just had them follow the infantry around and would move them in behind said infantry to back the infantry up if they got into a fire fight but I think I'll be using them more like my opponents seem to use their MG42's. It seems they work very well if placed in locations that have a good overall view of a given area. Course that's easier said then done but when you find that spot it causes a lot of trouble and they are hard to take out by just rifle fire. I tried the 2 M1919's together last night instead of just one M1917 and they do provide alot more firepower then just one M1917. Course they cost more then just one M1917 but sure are a lot faster and that's worth the extra money.