Monty Python in the Western Desert

[Mark Gallear]

Aye - I have turned this into a serious thread about the game Model and it is no longer PENG for the BRITISH.

"So yes, bigger is always better and you are correct that MGs are not totally useless. But I don't think it is correct to say that the desert tankers were better off without an HE round at their disposal."

They noticed that one! -

But where do you get this information that 37mm and 50mm He rounds are useful? Germans, Americans and Russians issued them certainly. British doctrine says not so is there some scientific evidence on this -

I have found out that "Some" HE rounds were issued to Churchill 6pdrs in Tunisia and later to AT guns. So 57mm sort of all most there for British Doctrine. Suspect 50mm Short maybe a different breed to 6pdr AT specialist gun.

Certainly (in my experience)the game model in CMBB of 37mm against AT guns does not make it out to be a miracle round. Closing to effective MG round usually makes the AT gun much more effective against the extra weight of fire the tank MGs should be putting out.

quote:

ii) CM underplays the effectiveness of tank MGs. Tank MGs come on an armoured and fixed mount...

I am not sure what you are trying to say here, but as worded that statement is false. The only fixed mount MGs on tanks I can think of offhand were the M2A4 light tank, which only saw limited use in the Pacific, the M3 medium, and the JS-2 heavy. It was not a good idea, which is why it was not widely employed in other designs.

AVF MGs tended to be either turreted (either coax or as main armament) or flexible.

quote:

Maybe I didn’t putting it very well but would have thought a tank mounted gun either in the turret or in a hull flexible mounting must be as good as HMG tripod or are they better at putting out rounds for some other reason?

My perception of playing CM is that a HMG tripod machineguns are much, much better than bipod or tank or halftrack mounted MGs. Tanks might be slightly better than a 7 point bipod but thehalftrack MG42 is certainly as pathetic as a bipod and despite the gun shield and armour the gunner is rather more vulnerable.

Maybe I’m wrong and have got the wrong end of the stick about what is happening in the game and that the tank MG is just as effective as its HMG cousin?

Sitting behind all that armour and with stacks of ammo, I think I would have the confidence to keep my finger on the trigger. Ok jamming including changing the barrel, etc is not covered in tank mounted MGs by the game. (Maybe they should.) Tank MGs do tend to be slow firing reliable types – MG34, Besa etc.

Did I make myself understood as to where I coming from Michael or is this really Peng for the British :eek: !

[flamingknives]

I figure that I'll carry on my whinge.

When you attack an ATG, you're trying to hit the ground under the gun. It's really quite difficult trying to hit a particular spot of ground.

BUT, an ATG has some height - it's smaller than a tank, to be sure, but it is something to aim at. I'd think that a 75mm HE round hitting the gunshield would either:

A) Break the gun

Make the gun crew really think about taking a holiday.

[Sergei]

Originally posted by Mark Gallear:

Maybe I didn’t putting it very well but would have thought a tank mounted gun either in the turret or in a hull flexible mounting must be as good as HMG tripod or are they better at putting out rounds for some other reason?

...

Sitting behind all that armour and with stacks of ammo, I think I would have the confidence to keep my finger on the trigger. Ok jamming including changing the barrel, etc is not covered in tank mounted MGs by the game. (Maybe they should.) Tank MGs do tend to be slow firing reliable types – MG34, Besa etc.

A tank-mounted MG definately is not even close to as good in firepower as a HMG. Why would you think that? Most of them were LMG's. Keeping up a high ROF is difficult inside a tank as changing barrels is impossible (water cooled MG's may have been better on this?). Gunner's vision is much more limited, and so is traverse. The tank MG'er wouldn't have a sergeant with binoculars next to him telling him ranges and ordering targets. I think most TMG's were clip-fed, so sustained fire was impossible. On a bright side you're a bit higher than a HMG so you can see better over bushes, and you probably have more confidence when fighting against plain riflemen.

MG34 was not reliable, MG42 was. Finns even swapped the MG34's that came in German imported AFV's to Degtyarev's, as the latter was less likely to malfunction.

[MikeyD]

The MG34 had the same problem as the modern U.S. M16 assault rifle... that it was too well made! The tolerances between parts were simply too tight. A bit too much dust and dirt and it would jam-up. I recall a posting from someone who was challenged to assemble and fire some crude Soviet smg (I can't recall which type). Nobody before him could get it to fire. He got a bright idea and after assembling it rubbed in on the muddy ground to muck it up. After being all 'lubricated' it fired just fine!

A tank mounted mg has advantages and disadvantages. The coax mg is a stable platform and is aimed by magnified optics. A hull ball mount, on the other hand, would most often be fired fire-hose style and aimed by adjusting where the rounds were seen to fall.

[Mark Gallear]

OK then Sergei, I agreed to some extent with everything you said.

(The period British Army perception of German MGs including the MG34 is that they are very reliable and good, the British Besa was one bit of British kit that was also considered good!)

Do you:

A) think that a tank MG 34 either in the hull or coaxial is much worse in performance than a tripod mounted MG 34 HMG?

think that tank MGs are modelled correctly in the game i.e. as far as I can see - not all that effective even at close ranges against AT guns and infantry? Bare in mind that there is usually two of them letting lose in front of the tank. (Some British tanks – like the Valentine have only one in the turret which is subject to the dreaded gun kill!)

I think if the tank MGs were a bit more deadlier than the lack of HE rounds in British tanks particularly in the early war period would not look so Monty Python goes to the Desert. And more importantly, I think it would be more realistic if they were deadlier! (Maybe this will happen in CM*2 or whatever they are calling it.)

Gosh from all this info about the MG34 being a piece of Sh*t maybe it was possible to kill a Tiger by running round it and causing the gunner to have a heart attack from the exertion!

(For Flamming Knives - if a 75mm Sherman HE round cannot kill an AT gun god help us - but in my experience they usually rapidly do once the AT gun has made its exact position known.

I have read battle accounts from Normandy of the German AT guns supposedly using special smokeless rounds that didn't give their position away. Accounts of British tanks suddenly being knocked out without knowing where from in that campaign are very common.)

[ February 04, 2004, 06:04 PM: Message edited by: Mark Gallear ]

[Kitty]

Scene: Two British Tommies knock on the hatch of an Axis tank. The Axis crew opens the hatch.

Tommies: Can we have your liver then?

Axis tank dude: But . . . I'm using it. *shrugs*

Tommies: All right then, don't muck us about! (they wrestle the tank crewman out of the tank and pull a liver donor's card from his pocket)

Kitty

[Sergei]

Originally posted by Mark Gallear:

Do you:

A) think that a tank MG 34 either in the hull or coaxial is much worse in performance than a tripod mounted MG 34 HMG?

I don't know if "much worse". I'm not sure what types they used as tank machineguns. At minimum it would compare to LMG but better because the recoil stays better at control.

think that tank MGs are modelled correctly in the game i.e. as far as I can see - not all that effective even at close ranges against AT guns and infantry? Bare in mind that there is usually two of them letting lose in front of the tank. (Some British tanks – like the Valentine have only one in the turret which is subject to the dreaded gun kill!)

Hard to say about how correctly they are modelled, because I have never been killed by one in real life. In the game they do kill moving infantry and suppress defending infantry, which feels right to me.

But I never wanted to be a grog, anyway. I always wanted to be a... LUMBERJACK!!!

[Treeburst155]

Originally posted by Sergei:

Hard to say about how correctly they are modelled, because I have never been killed by one in real life.

Thanks, Sergei! This is my new signature!

[junk2drive]

hey sergei, i'm a lumberjack and its ok...

kitty, stop it, this thread has turned serious, stop it or.. i will f@rt in your general direction.

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Mark Gallear:

Did I make myself understood as to where I coming from Michael...

I'm afraid not. For one thing, your posting style and use of language is almost unintelligible. Having to translate what you post into English is a labor I'd rather not be forced to undertake. And I'm not just being pedantic either. Sometimes what you write is so unclear and ambiguous that there is a real danger that I am ascribing meanings to your post that are different from what you intended. This makes meaningful dialogue between us all but impossible.

And from what I can tell—which may or may not be accurate—there are real lapses in your logic that are an almost continual problem.

I do not doubt your sincere interest in the game and the issues related to it. Nor am I trying to say that you are unintelligent. I don't think that is the case. But there are real problems in the way you express yourself, and it appears that there are also problems in the way you arrive at your conclusions. I don't say this to be mean or discouraging, quite the opposite. I hope you will pursue your studies further as I expect that much good could come of them eventually. But I do wish you would think longer and harder before posting. Carefully proofreading of your posts from the viewpoint of potential readers would help a lot too. Reread them while asking yourself whether they really say what you mean for them to say.

Good luck.

Michael

[Andreas]

From Friesner 'Blitzkrieg Legende', an excellent study on the war in France and the Benelux 1940 (translation by me).

The enormous problems to destroy a small point target, such as e.g. an ATG, are shown by an episode of the combat of 4.PD. While breaking through the Dyle position on May 15th, the I./PR35 hit an AT wall south of Gembloux. Not even the heavy tanks (Panzer IV 75L24) could win the duel with the enemy's ATG.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> From the KTB of I./PR35:

The I./PR 35 loses almost all its heavy tanks. To get rid of the ATGs, tank crews dismount to deal with them in close combat. This works, even bringing in POWs, but only under heavy losses.

</font>

[PD]

Originally posted by Michael Emrys:

I'm afraid not. For one thing, your posting style and use of language is almost unintelligible. Having to translate what you post into English is a labor I'd rather not be forced to undertake.

Is this the 5 minute argument, or the full 1/2 hour?

[jeffsmith]

I'm still noticing North American Songbirds

in the European Theatre of Operations

They Must be Extremely Migratory

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by PD:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Michael Emrys:

I'm afraid not. For one thing, your posting style and use of language is almost unintelligible. Having to translate what you post into English is a labor I'd rather not be forced to undertake.

Is this the 5 minute argument, or the full 1/2 hour? </font>

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by jeffsmith:

I'm still noticing North American Songbirds

in the European Theatre of Operations

They Must be Extremely Migratory

You've just stumbled onto the best-kept secret of the war: Allied long-range jet propelled birds. These birds, swallows mostly but some terns for anti-U-boat work, were fed on a special diet of refried beans and habañera peppers then released in the direction of the Reich. They were in fact a devastating weapon that led to a complete breakdown of German fighting morale and the collapse of resistance on the Western Front seen in 1945, the year of their use.

This was kept under tight security wraps during the Cold War lest the Soviets learn of it and develop the Borscht Bomb in retaliation.

I hope this clears things up for you.

Michael

[REVS]

Fool!

Some of those damned birds were booby-trapped with exploding beaks. Pick one up and a whole Panzerschrek team was lost!

And they even had a few experimental exploding birds that blew up as soon as they came in contact with any Axis accordion music.

I know it's damned hard to model in CMAK, but what happens is that in games, if a Tiger tank comes across a Lee tank, and the Lee gets a 25 metre rear shot that doesn't work out, then the next shot is an APCR bird beak, coming up the clacker! The early Lees are equipped with only one EBUC round (exploding beak up clacker) in the early phases of the war. Very late in the piece, some came with up to 7 EBUC rounds.

Hope that clears things up for the grogs.

[Mark Gallear]

Originally posted by Andreas:

From Friesner 'Blitzkrieg Legende', an excellent study on the war in France and the Benelux 1940 (translation by me).

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />The enormous problems to destroy a small point target, such as e.g. an ATG, are shown by an episode of the combat of 4.PD. While breaking through the Dyle position on May 15th, the I./PR35 hit an AT wall south of Gembloux. Not even the heavy tanks (Panzer IV 75L24) could win the duel with the enemy's ATG.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> From the KTB of I./PR35:

The I./PR 35 loses almost all its heavy tanks. To get rid of the ATGs, tank crews dismount to deal with them in close combat. This works, even bringing in POWs, but only under heavy losses.

</font>

[Sergei]

Originally posted by Michael Emrys:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by jeffsmith:

I'm still noticing North American Songbirds

in the European Theatre of Operations

They Must be Extremely Migratory

You've just stumbled onto the best-kept secret of the war: Allied long-range jet propelled birds.</font>

[Andreas]

It was aimed at the notion that tank MGs should be sufficient to deal with dug-in ATGs.

The Dyle position was a rather hastily occupied line north of the river Dyle in central Belgium. At best some trenches, no bunkers, little overhead cover, would be my guess.

88s are clearly a different proposition, IRL, because they have a much higher signature, and more guys running around them.

I have no problem with the current model. Having ATGs hard to kill makes up for the borg spotting to some degree, as far as I am concerned.

[Andrew H.]

I think that tank mgs in cmak/bb are about right. As Sergei and others have noted, a tank MG doesn't have nearly the ROF of a real HMG because there is no assistant gunner to help, nor is there a way to change the barrels. AFAIK, there were no water cooled tank mgs.

But I also think, in many cases, that a tanks mgs *are* very effective. In CMBB, I was always very happy with the 38(t) because it came with two mgs and a significant amount of ammo; I always found the mgs to be much more effective against infantry (I'm not including ATGs here; I usually didn't try to duel with them) than the 37mm HE in the main gun.

In fact, I often found that if I could win the armor duel in a ME-type game, a platoon or so of 38(t)s would just devastate the infantry unless they had good cover. Because there are no decent personal AT weapons in '41, I was often able to get quite close to the infantry, sometimes wiping out entire squads with mg fire (from multiple tanks). So I don't think that they are undermodeled.

Of course, winning the armor battle with 38(t)s in '41 is often very difficult...

[flamingknives]

Originally posted by Andrew Hedges:

AFAIK, there were no water cooled tank mgs.

Mr. flamingpicky would like to point out the existance of the Vickers MkVIB - both the .5 and the .303 turret guns were water cooled.

[Andreas]

I think the Matilda I also had a water-cooled HMG?

While the optics for a turret MG (but not the hull MG) are as good as those for the gun, in most cases, the actual mount is not necessarily as good (e.g. the shoulder stabilised gun in at least one Valentine model), the ability to bring it on target is not as good, target acquisition is not as good, ammo handling is not as good, as with ordinary HMGs. Especially when you compare German tank MGs against the HMG 34/42.

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Andreas:

I think the Matilda I also had a water-cooled HMG?

If you mean the Matilda I (not in the game), you may be right. At any event, in the photos it certainly looks like a water cooled mount.

The Matilda II coax is listed as a Besa, with a Vickers as an alternate on the very early machines, but I doubt that it was the water cooled Vickers.

Michael

[Determinant]

Originally posted by Michael Emrys:

The Matilda II coax is listed as a Besa, with a Vickers as an alternate on the very early machines, but I doubt that it was the water cooled Vickers.

Michael [/QB]

Is there any other kind of Vickers?

I think that squeezing MGs into AFVs is harder than it sounds. The modern example of the Warrior IFV is a case in point. The co-axial MG is a 7.62 Hughes chain-gun. They had to put it in upside down or on its side or some such nonsense (it wouldn't fit otherwise) and it doesn't always feed quite as it should in consequence.

Still the unassailable advantage of a water-cooled MG is that you will always have boiling water on tap, so to speak, to make a nice cup of tea at any hour of the day or night. A most civilised weapon.

[Mark Gallear]

Originally posted by Andreas:

I think the Matilda I also had a water-cooled HMG?

While the optics for a turret MG (but not the hull MG) are as good as those for the gun, in most cases, the actual mount is not necessarily as good (e.g. the shoulder stabilised gun in at least one Valentine model), the ability to bring it on target is not as good, target acquisition is not as good, ammo handling is not as good, as with ordinary HMGs. Especially when you compare German tank MGs against the HMG 34/42.

I am glad Andrew is happy with the Machinegun modelling, on tanks. I am still unhappy. Not sure that I am arguing that the tank machinegun should be the same as a heavy machinegun or that water cooled MGs have a higher rate of fire or have some other advantage over the newer air-cooled types. (I hope not anyway!)

The problem is we do not know how tank machineguns are treated in CM. Are they the same as LMG or Heavy Machineguns or do they have their own class? Are they different for different tanks and machineguns or are they all the same. My feeling is much more like the 7-9 point LMG than the more expensive HMG. (I am not happy about the LMG class at all with guns like the MG42, Bren and BAR designed to do different things – give high rate of area fire, give fire accurately at very long ranges, or be mobile on the assault or modelled, being differentiated.) Although I would not want t be seen as crawling or anything, I do think the CMBB infantry combat system is very good indeed - (Apart from the LMGs, close combat with grenades and hand to hand combat anyway!)

Andreas is making some very good points.

The hull machinegun range is short mainly because of its limited view but the mount would allow you to rapidly spray an area in the front of the tank, and the mount and pistol grip would make this very controllable. The crewman should be able to insert a new magazine/box or even belt by him self and probably in most cases do it very rapidly indeed.

Co-axial machineguns are used at very long ranges like heavy machineguns. Not sure why Andreas believes the mount is not as good - once the turret and machinegun are moved to fire at a particularly point it will continue to do so. Not sure you can say the same for a tripod mounted HMG in which the gunner has to manually keep the gun on the target point. As the tank space is cramped - loading can be awkward, do not think that is necessarily an overriding factor though. The big compensation is that they can carry many more boxes of ammo than a crew served HMG can. I would have thought target acquisition and aiming at these very long ranges in the later tanks is in many ways more sophisticated as they have zoom sights.

As for the modelling my perception from playing CMBB is that tank machineguns are fairly effective at close range against infantry in the open it will get them to rout from the tank but I not sure that is the effect a tank machinegun would really have spraying from the hull. Against infantry in cover such as forests or houses much, much less effective. Against AT and field guns you may get a pin but you probably won't get to kill or rout the crew unless its right out in the open. (I think that early MG armed tanks such as Pz I type tanks have their firepower greatly underestimated.)

At long ranges beyond the 200m of normal small arms they are good at killing tank and halftrack crewmen and trucks. Against spotted field guns, pretty much a waster of time if you are lucky you might get a pin. Against infantry, forget it. This last point may be ok, as I do not believe tanks can spot infantry beyond 200m very well and even if they do they can hide very rapidly. If other units can see them does not mean that the tank can and that goes for HE from the main-gun as well.

A case in point is the Cruiser MK II, IIA - the II has the old Water cooled Vickers HMG and the IIA the new air-cooled Besa. Both were used in the desert - no doubt with the II being upgraded to IIA standard. Not looked to see if CMAK treats them as different tanks but if it does the only visible difference will be in the name - although a Vickers MG icon is available it will not be used - you will just see the Browning tank gun icon for both. Is BFC telling us something?

Sorry Michael had to rush - other things to do! Probably not up to my usual standards .

A Quick Extra Note

The Besa was a new gun just being introduced at the start of WWII. It replaced two types of Vickers MG used in tanks the .303 and a rarer .50 (used in the LT Mk VIB). I gather the infantry would probably have had their Vickers MG replaced with it but the Czech design could not be made to fire the rimmed .303 cartridge which the infantry had standardized on. The 7.92mm rimless was deemed to be unacceptable as it would have caused supply problems.

[ February 07, 2004, 03:56 PM: Message edited by: Mark Gallear ]