I Can "Knock Out" A Gun. Why Not An MG?

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Major Jerkov:

If they were KO'-able... they would be considered more or less worthless once again, then we'd be back where we started...

Well, it wouldn't be necessary to make them easily KOable. These things are adjustable, you know. Plus, they would still retain all the other advantages they've gained in BB. Might even gain a few more that people have been crying out for these last few ages.

Michael

[ July 14, 2003, 10:31 AM: Message edited by: Michael emrys ]

[CombinedArms]

Originally posted by Monty:

Dont forget about 10 % of all units are "fanatic"

This means they are very hard to panic and or rout.

So if you happen to meet a fanatic hmg ( you cant see if they are fanatic btw ), you have a tough nut to crack.

Monty

I think Monty is on to something here--and in general, I'm not convinced that it would, overall, be a plus to treat HMGs as crewed weapons.

Historically, there's precendent for treating them at they are in CM. For one thing, they really can be operated, once emplaced, by one person, though at reduced efficiency. And there are many historical examples of one fanatical gunner holding out against an overwhelming attack. Yet, much of the time, HMGs in CMBB down to a couple of crew members will rout and skulk away. Maybe they're the non-fanatics. Also, one man, immobilized HMGs offer attackers their best chance to capture defenders, with the attendant point bonus.

All in all, I think we shouldn't underrate the effect of direct HE fire on HMGs in trenches. Even area fire on a HMG sound contact will usually suppress and sometimes rout the HMG. A turn or two of direct tank fire on an entrenched, will, in my experience, almost always rout or kill it. The T34/76 is particularly effective in this role, giving its high ammo loads. It seems to me reasonable that direct fire is more effective vs. entrenched HMGs than mortar fire, or even heavy FO arty...

[Lady Roxanne]

What really needs to be done is to test this EXTENSIVELY so we can eliminate the outlier possibilities and get to the truth. How much ordinance does it actually take ON AVERAGE to get an entrenched HMG to leave his trench (rout) or be entirely wiped out at the various experience level/morale bonus combinations? I'm going to do this testing. It will be my small contribution to the CM community.

Troops gone fanatic had slipped my mind. That right there accounts for 10% of all my perceived problem instances. Of course, even fanatics can have their weapons destroyed. They just won't panic when it happens. The testing must take fanaticism into accout however. Perhaps setting fanaticism to Regular or Better and using Green troops with a double morale bonus (effectively Vets with no bonus) is a good way to work around the fanatic element.

A vet with no bonus would be a very common situation. If the crew routs or dies in an acceptable time (on average) according to BFCs judgment, then there is no problem with the HMGs not being KO-able.

I will test German HMGs against several typical Russian systems, the 82mm onboard mortar, the 76.2mm gun, and one big gun. I may test the small onboard mortars too.

Each weapon system will have to be tested MANY times to determine outlier results so this will take some time, perhaps a great deal of time actually. The only way to weed out the unusual is with a large number of instances.

I'm on a mission!

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by CrankyKris:

I'm on a mission!

[polite applause]

Michael

[Lady Roxanne]

PRELIMINARY Test Results

The Test: Green German MG42 in trench on open ground defends against T-34 M43 with Regular crew

The Conditions: midday, clear, breeze, cool

Details: The trench is on a plateau 7.5 meters higher than the Russian tank. The trench is placed 10 meters back from the slope between it and the tank. Range from tank to trench is 360 meters.

On opposite end of trench is a regular HQ with double morale bonus. Fanaticism is set to Regular or Better thereby excluding the Green HMG from that possibility.

A test is considered complete when the HMG crew loses all its members or leaves the trench due to broken or routed status.

A broken, immobilized crew does not meet this criteria. Broken crews were frequently observed to rally to pinned status in a matter of a few seconds. Therefore, broken crews still in trenches are still a viable threat. I haven't run across a routed & immobilized situation yet. If I did, the criteria would not be met. Immobilization benefits the defender by keeping the fully armed survivor in the trenches. He need only rally to become a problem.

Targetting was done using Area Fire. This is because with EFOW the player will only have icons to shoot at most of the time. If a unit is visible at orders time, and targetted directly, it will drop out of sight very shortly and the firing tank will sit out the rest of the turn, likely having fired only one round.

It should be mentioned that our Russian gunner is being tested here every bit as much as the toughness of the HMG. The test duplicates the conditions that I've been dealing with, which lead to this thread. To test HMG toughness alone the range should be reduced, the Russian crew made Elite, the trench placed at the same elevation as the Russian tank, and maybe even the breeze should be eliminated. I will do this test.

The current test simply gives a PRELIMINARY indication of how difficult it is to silence an entrenched German HMG on high ground with a single regular T-34. Multiple firing units, inflicting casualties at a higher rate would get results quicker, and possibly with less total ordinance fired.

Also worth keeping in mind is that broken crews who leave the trenches take with them a working weapon, and have a decent chance of rallying very soon. A crew can break without even sustaining casualties, therefore carrying with it all of its ammo.

The PRELIMINARY Results

After 10 test runs (not nearly enough) it took an average of 27.6 rounds to get the HMG crew to leave the trench or be eliminated completely.

1) 6 casualties, 30 rounds

2) zero casualties, 18 rounds, Broken (a threat that may have to be dealt with later)

3) 4 casualties, 17 rounds, Broken

4) 3 casualties, 32 rounds, Routed

5) 4 casualties, 30 rounds, Routed

6) 6 casualties, 38 rounds, immobilized

7) 4 casualties, 25 rounds, Broken

8) 6 casualties, 38 rounds, immobilized

9) 6 casualties, 15 rounds

10) 4 casualties, 34 rounds, Routed

In four tests the crews were eliminated completely. In two of those, the crew became immobilized forcing their complete destruction. Remember, broken crews can recover quickly. I was surprised at how quickly. The morale bonus is potent I think.

So, a Russian T-34 crewed with regulars can expect to expend anywhere from 1/4 to 1/2 of its HE to silence one entrenched, green, HMG with a double morale bonus, on high ground at 360 meters. The average ordinance required: 27.6 rounds. The margin of error: HUGE

What does this mean? Nothing really, but one could probably safely say that HMGs in trenches are not easy to take out with a single T-34 at typical distances.

EDIT: Imagine this test being run with a VET under the influence of a double morale bonus. They would need to be eliminated almost every time, a process that has taken 38 rounds in two test instances above.

[ July 14, 2003, 06:49 PM: Message edited by: CrankyKris ]

[CombinedArms]

CrankyKris,

These are very interesting tests. I hope you'll keep testing and I have a few suggestions for further testing:

1) Try setting up multiple test lanes on a single map: e.g. ten lanes each with one tank and one entrenched HMG, separated by double lines of trees. This will allow you to get far more results in less time.

2) try testing HQ's with different morale bonuses. How much difference is there between no bonus, one bonus or two? I'm guessing there's a big difference here...

Somehow, my experience is that about 10-15 rounds is all I need to get rid of an HMG most of the time, so the morale bonus may be critical. Also, once I've located an HMG, I'm usually shooting at it with all available weapons. Those multiple shooters may help to break the HMG faster, causing our difference in perception. Will two tanks and some small arms shooting at an HMG rout it with fewer HE rounds (and in less time) than one tank?

In the long run, remember also that HMG toughness can work to your advantage when you're the defender.

[Lady Roxanne]

Combined Arms,

Take away the high ground, close the range up a bit, cut down the morale bonus, and your 10-15 shot instances are probably consistent with my results. My 27 round average probably has a +/- 50% margin of error anyway. I will do more tests under various conditions. I will use firing lanes now for quicker results too. Thanks for the tip.

[Major Jerkov]

Originally posted by Michael emrys:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Major Jerkov:

If they were KO'-able... they would be considered more or less worthless once again, then we'd be back where we started...

Well, it wouldn't be necessary to make them easily KOable. These things are adjustable, you know. Plus, they would still retain all the other advantages they've gained in BB. Might even gain a few more that people have been crying out for these last few ages.

Michael </font>

[kenfedoroff]

Originally posted by Major Jerkov:

...Why waste an average of 27 rounds of trying to eliminate a HMG when it could be over SOOOO much quicker using CA.

Much ado bout' nothing.

Shush.. Quiet please.. I am having so much fun holding up the entire Soviet Army with a couple HMGs in a trench, and now you are going to spoil it for me.

Sincerely,

Dug-in Dummy

[Lady Roxanne]

You can't run over suppressed HMG crews with infantry if they have to run several hundred meters to do so (open field). There is another reason I explain in my test results below. Also, HMGs have buddies who are also HMGs. If there are enough buddy HMGs covering the same ground then your HE assets can be greatly depleted before it's safe to run anybody into no-man's land to finish the job. Some of these buddies will have to be eliminated first. Furthermore, if there is any cover below and in front of the high ground HMG, the smart defender would have some sort of screen to protect the HMG from Jerkov type actions.

I ran the same test described earlier 40 more times. I noticed some very interesting things. Below are the results of the last 40 tests, not including the 10 original tests above.

First the numbers:

Least rounds used - 5

Most rounds used - 68

Average rounds used - 26.85

# of crews who left trench - 17 of 40

# of crews immobilized, then killed - 21

# of crews killed without being immobilized first (last two killed with one shot) - 2

Considering the average # of rounds used in this test is very close to the preliminary test results, I'd say we're getting a fairly good picture of what it takes, about 26 rounds IN MY PARTICULAR TEST SITUATION (described earlier). I stopped the count the moment the criteria were met. If this happened early in the turn, the tank would of course fire a few more rounds before the player could cancel the target.

The most surprising thing I noticed during the testing is the resilience of the crews. I saw them go from Routed to Cautious in less than 15 seconds on several occasions. The warning labels changed frequently throughout the testing. They kept bouncing back between rounds. I saw a few very close hits that had no negative effect on morale. In fact, they improved a notch just a few seconds later.

They would Break and begin to leave the trench, but they would recover to Pinned very quickly and turn back to face the enemy. Being Broken or Routed means nothing. They bounce back fast! By the time Jerkov covered 100 meters with his inf, his boys would be cut down by the formerly broken HMG.

Hehe....those who left the trench retreated to the woods I put behind them and resumed firing in a matter of a minute or two. (They never left command radius.)

Over half the crews had to be completely annihilated in the trenches. One T34 cannot inflict casualties fast enough to keep them Broken or Routed long enough so they will leave the trench.

The problem, if there is one, involves the resilient nature of HMG crews. Do squads of the same experience/morale bonus in trenches bounce back as fast? I'll have to test to find out. It could be that trenches impart an additional morale bonus.

HMGs in trenches (maybe squads too) need to be hit very hard by multiple HE chuckers at the same time to get them to leave a trench, even when good alternative cover is less than 20 meters away. Well, at least we know this is true for GREEN HMGs with a DOUBLE morale bonus. I suspect I'll find it's true with Regulars and a single bonus, along with VETS and no bonus. I suspect Vets with a double morale bonus would never leave a trench when under attack by a single T34. The MG would never be damaged either.

Keep in mind also, the broken HMG that reaches cover will be firing again in a couple of minutes if he's still in command. In the vast majority of cases he'll have lost considerable ammo however.

If you're facing an HMG in a trench on open ground (arty ineffective), you'll need to put some serious HE to work on the problem. Otherwise, you'll still be dealing with that HMG six turns later. It only takes one left alive to operate at full effectiveness, and that ONE isn't going anywhere.

A question: In real life, how many T-34 HE rounds were usually needed to silence an MG42 in a trench? There's probably no reliable answer to that question. At least I now know what it takes in CMBB. I'll be buying lots of trenches and HMGs in the future.

[ July 15, 2003, 02:47 AM: Message edited by: CrankyKris ]

[Ligur]

For what its worth, I find the tough, entrenched HMG's tolerable compared to the ATG's and mortars that are very very easy to knock out with mortar or HE fire whether they are entrenched or not.

If entrenched MG's would be nearly as easy to knock out as the "crewed" weapons, we all could assault deeply entrenched positions with ease as it stands. Now they offer very good challenge indeed against infantry assaults and this is how it should be?

So in my opinion, if one would be able to KO HMG's, it should be a hard task requiring a few of those HE shells to accomplish.

[Major Jerkov]

Hey chris, would you have to happen to have a level 7/8 top down on your current situation(just the map and current ops, not your whole spiel)? Its intriguing that you cant bring any other guns to bear and must cross several football fields to get infantry close enough.

Assign one T34 one HMG, area fire, and cross the field with your infantry. If those HMG's got friends who are holding fire, waiting for the human wave, allocate mortars or other guns to surpress them. Sometimes you have to take a risk... I'd rather try than 30+ turns into the game have a loss due to inactivity.

Or as fedoroff put it "Holding up the entire soviet army with a few HMG's..." Heh. Good stuff.

[leakyD]

Cough... SMOKE......Splutter....

and if you didn't buy smoke (or were given by the AI/scenario setup) as the attacker, what the *hell* are you doing fixating on a few Mg's for? A Flag? ONE avenue of approach?

Bypass, flank, back off, look for another way, hell, anything son. Don't give the enemy the luxury of having your react to him. Make him react to you.

Easier said than done, but a good rule to heed nonetheless.

Unless your on the open steppe, in which case, pray for CAS or have your boys crawl!

[John O'Reilly]

I am playtesting a very enjoyable scenario at the moment involving plenty of entrenched MGs. I played first as the Russian attackers and when encountering the entrenched MGs, went on to engage each with at least 4-5 HE chuckers (all with 76mm guns). I had plenty of armor in this scenario and it proved very effective at routing the MGs out of their positions.

I had each tank area target the vicinity of the MG. While this kept him (sometimes them) pretty well supressed, I moved up Maxims with an HQ with a +2 combat bonus. The added weight ot their fire moved the enemy out quicksharp.

I am now playing as the German defenders and have pretty much avoided the above by designing my setup to make it as difficult as possible for Russian armor to get into positions where they can dominate as above without getting shot at by AT guns, shreks and some reinforcing tanks I received. In only one place was he able to achieve this local superiority and drove a squad (veteran) out in one turn with direct fire from 3 AGs. I should note that the platoon leader was giving him a +1 morale bonus too.

In general, I engaged most of these MGs from lower elevation, perhaps not in the extreme situation that you describe though. What I am trying to suggest, is that perhaps the addition of more suppresive fire, especially direct HE, is hugely and nonlinearly more effective than a single HE firer?

John

[Fly Pusher]

I would like to point out that HMG's in trenches SHOULD be very difficult to knock out. In Word War I battles litteraly millions of shells were fired in an attempt to destroy emplaced MG's - often to little effect. MG's were killers and litterally thousands of infantrymen would be cut down by just a handful of guns.

Time & again I read here of people complaining about some particular unit being 'too powerful'. What they do not seem to grasp is that is exactly the point ! Thats why striving for technical superiority is called an arms race.

As a general on the ground your job is to make life as difficult as possible for your enemy - often this is achieved by using the latest technology and / or a large excess of men and material. Thus the vast majority of battles were (and are) intrinsically NOT balanced ! In fact - the bigger the imbalance the better (at least as seen from one side)

CM is a simulation of war and the vast majority of 'balanced' scenarios represent situations that most competent officers would do their very best to avoid.

OK. Rant over....

[Dschugaschwili]

Originally posted by John O'Reilly:

What I am trying to suggest, is that perhaps the addition of more suppresive fire, especially direct HE, is hugely and nonlinearly more effective than a single HE firer?

John

Certainly. If we ignore the large amount of randomness in CM for a moment, we can look at the following scenario: You have one tank that can shoot an enemy MG. Unluckily, the MG is able to regain its morale at the same speed as your tank is lowering it. So you will never be able to break it. Now, add a second tank. Suddenly the MG's morale is dropping twice as fast as it is going up, so the MG will break eventually. Add another tank and it will break twice as fast, and so on. So yes, bringing more firepower to bear against a single target helps tremendously.

Dschugaschwili

[kenfedoroff]

Originally posted by leakyD:

...and if you didn't buy smoke (or were given by the AI/scenario setup) as the attacker, what the *hell* are you doing fixating on a few Mg's for? A Flag? ONE avenue of approach?

Bypass, flank, back off, look for another way, hell, anything son. Don't give the enemy the luxury of having your react to him. Make him react to you.

Silence... Please... Gentlemen, let my opponent figure it out for himself... He-he.

My opponent set the parameters for the QB, and he imported the map as well. Now let me have my fun. He-he...

Best regards,

Dug-in Dummy

[Lady Roxanne]

All posts read and agreed with here. I'm sure my tactics and timing are not the best, and I don't have any smoke. I guess I was just very surprised to discover that HMGs in trenches don't die nearly as easily as guns in trenches.

What I'm up against is 5 - 6 HMGs at ranges between 500 - 800 meters on two high hills who have a commanding view of half the map. I've routed 4 of them probably, but I think they're rallying and taking up new positions. The situation is really excellent for the defender, but I have Assault odds + 10%.

Unfortunately, I have no HE left to fight the battalion that awaits me. He has exhausted my expensive armor with a couple hundred points of trenches and HMGs. It's a great defense!

Making HMGs destroyable at SOME point would improve the game, but I wouldn't want to see dug in HMGs knocked out in 30 seconds like guns. Maybe guns are too easy to knock out?

The other thing I think should be looked at is the resilience of HMG crews (perhaps all units) in trenches. By definition a routed unit is in bad shape. How come they rally in the time it would take me to light a cigarette?

I'm going to be looking at how squads in trenches do against my T34. I want to see if they are as resilient.

[Ligur]

Originally posted by CrankyKris:

Maybe guns are too easy to knock out?

I often find them pretty weak in trenches, then again, they aren't expensive either.

Historically I have read many accounts of tank aces who always seem to spot the guns quickly and usually "blow up the ammo storage with the first shot" when their "veteran gunner and old friend from the beginning of the war" expertly aims at them.

But in example Beevor's Stalingrad the guns at the outskirts of Stalingrad are told to be very hard to knock out, as the Russians defending motherland refuse to run or quit.

[flamingknives]

There's precedent for MGs being knocked out. On the Western front in WWI, with both sides using water-cooled MGs, snipers were often deployed to puncture the water jackets, rendering the gun incapable of sustained fire until repaired. Obviously, this would be harder to achieve on an air-cooled MG, but in this instance, killing the crew or jamming the barrel (making it harder to swap barrels) would have much the same effect.

It should be possible to KO MGs, but harder to KO guns. Abandoned results with MGs should also be useful, but it should be possible to recrew abandoned weapons (by either side) and deliberately KO abandoned weapons.

Here's looking for CMX2

P.S. Squad MGs do go missing when casualties are taken. You can assume that this is due to it either being irretrievable or damaged. only MG teams have inviolate weapons

[Joachim]

Originally posted by Dschugaschwili:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by John O'Reilly:

What I am trying to suggest, is that perhaps the addition of more suppresive fire, especially direct HE, is hugely and nonlinearly more effective than a single HE firer?

John

Certainly. If we ignore the large amount of randomness in CM for a moment, we can look at the following scenario: You have one tank that can shoot an enemy MG. Unluckily, the MG is able to regain its morale at the same speed as your tank is lowering it. So you will never be able to break it. Now, add a second tank. Suddenly the MG's morale is dropping twice as fast as it is going up, so the MG will break eventually. Add another tank and it will break twice as fast, and so on. So yes, bringing more firepower to bear against a single target helps tremendously.

Dschugaschwili </font>

[Lady Roxanne]

Squad morale is just as resilient as HMGs in trenches. In fact, trenches probably don't add any mysterious morale bonus. I've just never examined the speed at which units step through morale states before. That's probably because my units are rarely pinned, and practically never broken.

[Halberdier]

One exception to the indestructable MG: Stick it in a bunker!

Of course only direct fire will knock it out (or close assault). If there is a gun with LOS (and enough ammo if long range), it will get knocked out and you will then wind up with a crew. Hell, it will be abandoned even if it runs out of ammo. I understand that this is because bunkers are modeled as vehicles.

I'm sure that CMX2 will refine this.

Cheers,

-gabe-

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by CrankyKris:

Squad morale is just as resilient as HMGs in trenches.

Trenches have been known as very tough for quite some time. In fact, IIRC, either the BFC staff or the playtesters passed that word even before the game was released. I think they are meant to represent deep excavations with reinforced walls and sandbagged parapets. Virtually impervious to small arms and vulnerable to HE only if it's a direct hit.

Michael

[Jeff Devlin]

I have personally found trenches to be incredible assets on the defense. For what it's worth.

Jeff