M1 effectivness

[Tero]

Originally posted by poppy:

But---In CM the artillary available to either side is not enough [hopefully] to be the dominating factor as to which side wins.

IIRC the arty in CM is watered down so that it does not degenerate the battles into arty slugfests (which would be historically predominant). This pertains to the intensity of the barrages rather than the tech-spec.

So-- I still believe that the M1 is under rated in the 100m and 250m and 500m ranges. Military rifles in WW1 were all bolt action and in WW2 Great Britian and Germany still depended on the bolt action rifle. The US on the other hand developed a semi-automatic rifle of the same ballistics +- for a very good reason. It can be aimed and fired without taking your finger off the trigger for eight rounds and this is a great advantage when you are trying to hit something, especially if that something is moving.

Except the practical aimed fire ROF is for all intents and purposes the same for the M1 as it is for the bolt action rifles. And for suppression purposes the MG/LMG/SMG work better.

Ceterum cenceo the SMG is getting a bum rap in CM.

[YankeeDog]

Given the current level of abstraction with small arms firepower, I think the relative fp of the M1 vs. other small arem is about right. But I will freely admit that's a WAG on my part.

I do agree that at shorter ranges, the semi-auto action of the M1 is an obvious advantage over bolt-action types. A semi-auto makes it far easier to squeeze off several quick shots at a briefly exposed target, shoot when moving, shoot while lying/crouching in an unusual position, etc. -- all stuff becomes more important the closer the range gets. However, I think the limited mag size, tricky reload (yes, I have experienced the wonderful sensation of "M1 thumb"), and rather powerful recoil also limit the M1's effectiveness at shorter ranges. So the game's modeling, which puts the M1 as more effective than a SMLE or k98, but not light-years better, at shorter ranges, but definitely inferior to the SMGs once you get down to the sub-100m ranges, seems in the right ballpark to me. You can argue a few firepower "points" one way or the other, but to me this is pretty niggling and virtually impossible to prove definitively, anyway.

At longer ranges, for the average GI with just a few weeks marksmanship training I don't see much of a difference between a good bolt-action and a semi-auto rifle. No matter what the action, it takes a considerable amount of training and practice to control the recoil of a rifle in the .30-'06 class well enough to shoot tight groups in rapid fire. This means that most shooters are going to have to take several seconds between shots to re-establish sight picture and re-acquire the target. The M1 maybe gets a slight advantage since the shooter doesn't have to move his hands, making it easier to maintain sight picture, shooting posture and target view. OTOH bolt actions are inherently slightly more accurate than semi-auto, which is more important at longer ranges (there's a reason why modern military snipers still use mostly bolt-action weapons), and inexperienced shooters tend to rush when firing semi-autos rapid fire anyway. Even for civilian game hunters with semi-auto rifles, often the second and succeeding shots go up into the sky due to excitement and adrenaline; I would think this effect would be even worse in combat. I've actually heard good arguments that for less experienced shooters, bolt actions are better because cycling the action forces the shooter to settle between shots and re-establish his aim.

Anyway, CM models both the M1 and most bolt-actions with a fp of "1" at 500m. I suppose you could argue that the M1 at 500m should be "1.1" or whatever, but that seems like a pretty small niggle to me.

However, as we look forward to the CMX2 model, I think there are some opportunities to add more detail to the small arms firing model that would, among other things, point up more of the differences between M1s, bolt-action types, and SMGs.

One big thing I would like to see modeled is the difference between suppressive and aimed fire. A very high proportion of small arms fire in WWII, whether from SMGs, rifles, or MGs, was fired in the general direction of known or suspected enemy positions, not at visible enemy targets. Here, I think the M1 has a definite advantage over bolt-action types. If your goal is to put as many rounds as possible into an enemy occupied farmhouse 500m away, the semi-auto is definitely better since you don't need precision accuracy. Of course, a full auto MG is better than either type of rifle at this kind job.

OTOH, if you've identified an enemy rifleman playing peek-a-boo out of a specific window in the farmhouse, and you're trying to put a round into his noggin the next time he peeks up, I'd rather have the bolt-action since I'm only going to get one shot anyway, and here the slightly greater accuracy of the bolt action would come in handy. Again, an MG might be better at this too, though for a different reason -- it put a whole bunch of rounds into the general vicinity of the window in a very short time. teh MG is also heavier, more expensive, requires more training to use properly and really needs at least two soldiers to operate properly.

So to really improve the differentiation between various firearms types, CMX2 will need some kind of firing SOP modeling. At present, fire from a given infantry unit is a binary thing -- it's either "on" or "off"; the only refinement you can do is a Cover Arc, which basically sets the range at which the switch flips betwenn "on" and "off". I'm hoping for CMX2 we see some kind of fire discipline SOP command, so, for example, you could set the SOP for a given squad to anywhere from an absolute "Hold Fire," up through a low "Harassing/Sniping Fire", representing just a couple of the better riflemen in the squad, and perhaps occasionally the MG doing carefully aimed fire at exposed, sighted targets (efficent ammo usage, also low spottability), and so on up to a "Mad Minute" setting for maximum firepower output, where everyone is firing at the target area, even if they can't quite see exactly where the enemy is (best for final suppressive fire in an assault, etc., but very expensive in terms of ammo).

The above is directly relevant to the Bolt-action vs. Semi-Auto debate because have different relative performances; bolt actions are probably just as good as semi-autos for Harassing/Sniping type fire, but would definitely compare less favorably in mad-minute type final suppressive fire episodes.

There's other features I'd like to see added to the small arms model that would also sometimes boost the M1's performance when compared to other firearms (and at times hurt it, too). For example, I think SMGs are definitely overmodelled right now when firing from range at targets in heavy cover, like buildings; low energy pistol rounds have poor penetration into cover, while a .30-'06 round will go clean through a wood wall, even at long range.

There are other areas where SMGs get the short end of the stick right now, though -- for example, ammo consumption by SMGs at short ranges rises to the point where it would be physically impossible to achieve except perhaps on a firing range with the magazines laid out on a table.

But as one-size-fits-all firepower ratings, it seems to me that CM has the relative performances just about right. You can always argue for minor tweaks one way or the other, but to my mind that's pretty small fry.

Cheers,

YD

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by YankeeDog:

No matter what the action, it takes a considerable amount of training and practice to control the recoil of a rifle in the .30-'06 class well enough to shoot tight groups in rapid fire.

My M-1 doesn't have any recoil at all - the weapon is nicely balanced and heavy enough that this doesn't seem to be a problem. Was it different with the M-1s you have fired?

[YankeeDog]

Well, it's been a while, and my experience with the M1 is limited to a couple of borrowed turns at the firing range, so I wouldn't say my experience is all that great. . .

I would agree that the weapon is very well balanced. As I remember it, the recoil goes pretty much straight back, which does help you keep your sight picture and target. And the weight does tend to mitigate the movement considerably. Same is true of any good hunting .30-'06 as well. I also found the Springfield (only WWII-era bolt action I've fired) to have similar characteristics as far as recoil and climb.

However, at least for me personally, except for maybe in a really good, stabilized prone position with a rock or tree to help brace, I would still need to re-set for a second or two between each shot to have any decent chance of getting a good, tight group at 350m+ with any decent caliber rifle, M1 included. At that range, even a very slight muzzle climb or puts your shot several meters above the target. As such, for aimed long range fire, I don't think the practical ROF is really much above that of a good bolt-action.

I seem to recall that the US military did some studies when it was debating the switch from the M-14 (basically an M-1 with a larger mag and full auto) to the M-16 that showed only very experienced marksman could actually use full auto, or even rapid semi-auto with the M-14 and get the second and following rounds anywhere near the target. As I recall, this was part of the reason for switching to the 5.56mm cartridge. Maybe someone else knows more about this. . . I'm really going from foggy memory here.

As I mentioned before, I think it's different story if you're only aiming to hit the general area of a suspected enemy position. There I definitely think the semi-auto would help you get more rounds on target in a shorter time. And it is worth noting that a heck of a lot of the shooting done by riflemen in WWII was probably more of the "fire into that general area where we think we saw muzzle flashes" variety than actually aiming at clearly visible enemy.

I should note, too, that I may not be the best test case for all this. Not only do I not have any military weapons experience, but I am left-handed. So my bolt-action experience with a rifle that actually fits me is limited to one customized left-hand target rifle I have. Otherwise, my ROF *really* sucks with bolt action, since I have either (1) shoot from my off shoulder, or (2) reach up over the action to cycle the bolt.

No doubt the M1 would be better for me. . .

Cheers,

YD

[junk2drive]

when i was 10 my folks took me once a week to a rifle club where i fired a 22 rifle for an hour. i got pretty good at rapid bolting with my right as a lefty myself. course it didnt weigh anything.

[JonS]

Originally posted by YankeeDog:

One big thing I would like to see modeled is the difference between suppressive and aimed fire. A very high proportion of small arms fire in WWII, whether from SMGs, rifles, or MGs, was fired in the general direction of known or suspected enemy positions, not at visible enemy targets. Here, I think the M1 has a definite advantage over bolt-action types. If your goal is to put as many rounds as possible into an enemy occupied farmhouse 500m away, the semi-auto is definitely better since you don't need precision accuracy. Of course, a full auto MG is better than either type of rifle at this kind job.

Hi YD,

while in agreement with the majority of your post, the above paragraph betrays what is I believe a common misconception.

The aim of suppressive fire isn't to 'pump as many rounds as possible into the target area as fast as possible'. It is to suppress the enemy, usually for a specific period of time. For a sinlge man target, once his head is down, a steady rate of fire (~ one round every 10-20 seconds) will do the trick. Much more than that and you will blow throw your ammoload too quickly, and leave the friendlies you are providing the suppression for exposed. So, in that respect, semi-auto or bolt makes little difference.

Winning the initial firefight (ie, to the point where one side is more heads-down than the other) is where high ROF is most useful, and where the M1 would shine out compared to the SMLE or the Kar. However, even at the section level, that slight advantage was completely swamped by the advantage an MG34 has over a BAR.

Regards

JonS

[poppy]

Winning the initial firefight (ie, to the point where one side is more heads-down than the other) is where high ROF is most useful, and where the M1 would shine out compared to the SMLE or the Kar. However, even at the section level, that slight advantage was completely swamped by the advantage an MG34 has over a BAR."

Hello JonS,Hope I got the quote thing to work ok. The situation that you describe is why I believe that the M1 effectiveness at 100m and 250m needs to be increased by about 75 percent. I have found several references on the maximum effective rate of fire , one at 23rpm and another at 30 rpm. Maybe in CMx?

[YankeeDog]

Jon --

Absolutely agree with all your point. I guess I was thinking more of the initial contact suppressive fire like you mention, or other situations where a high ROF is desirable, such as overwatch upression for a final assault, a suppressive barrage just before a trying to break contact etc.

To me, theh points you make futher point up the desirability of some kind of fire discipline SOP set of commands in CMX2. This way, with rifles the semi-autos could be modeled as having more of an advantage at the "looser" end of the fire discipline spectrum, but be about equal to bolt-actions on the "tighter" side.

And totally agree that the MG34/42 so dominate allied LMGs that German squads should still end up with superior firepower in the vast majority of situations.

Cheers,

YD

[poppy]

To change and clarify my last post. I believe that an increase of 75percent at 100m and [35percent] at 250m would be a reasonable increase in the M1 effectivness at these ranges.

orginally posted by JonS

Winning the initial firefight (ie, to the point where one side is more heads-down than the other) is where high ROF is most useful, and where the M1 would shine out compared to the SMLE or the Kar. However, even at the section level, that slight advantage was completely swamped by the advantage an MG34 has over a BAR.

Winning the initial fire fight is a very important thing for a squad to be able to do and could make the differance between winning or losing that engagement. Even more so because of the fire power of the MG34. Maybe this initial firefight and then a hunkerd down peek and shoot period will be modeled in CMx2; I got this idea form a post by one of the other forum members but cant seem to find it in order to quote directly. I have been researching the M1 as used in WW2 and Korea and have visited a hundred or so internet sites without too much success except for a headache. Any suggestions for research material will be appreciated. poppy

[Tim The Enchanter]

Has anyone taken into account fire discipline?

You're typical World War Two fire firefight differed greatly from the house to house fighting as seen in the Half-Life mod Counter-Strike.

[poppy]

Originaly posted by Tim The Enchanter

Has anyone taken into account fire discipline?

I didnt think of it Tim but that would be one reason for the rate of fire to slow down after the initial firefight. poppy

[AC]

About full auto vs semi-auto:

In the army I was taught that full auto on my AK-47 was only for emergency situations or close assault. With full auto you'd usually fire bursts of 3+ bullets. Only 1 of them would go anywhere near the target. So anything over 50m every soldier should fire semi-auto only.

Semi-auto vs bolt action:

I fired both the Russian Dragunov and Finnish sniper rifle -85 in the army. The Finnish one is based on the same bolt action rifle as the WW2 ones used in Finland. Unfortunately the dragunov did not have front bipod (or what ever you call it), so the accuracy was mostly affected by that, but we were told that the semi automatic dragunov is not as accurate. Especially with a sniper rifle, you notice that the difference between shots with bolt action and semi-automatic mechanism doesn't make a big difference as you'd spend more time aiming that reloading. A good rifle man would reload quite fast and still maintain target in sight.

[poppy]

Take a look at this write up,some good info.

M1 firepower tests By Maj. G. H. Drewry, Ord. Dept.*

http://www.fulton-armory.com/M1NewRifle.htm

[Guest Mike]

nice article thanks Pop. shame they didn't take the .276 at the same time - although I guess we all understand that economics does rule.

[poppy]

Your welcome Mike, I agree with you on the.276. General Douglas MacArthur wanted the M1 but wanted it in 30-06 and got his way which also delayed the M1 program for a few years. I am still researching the M1 as to its effectivness and in the process have joined the NRA [life time membership] as the first step in obtaining an M1 thru the CMP. Gotta see how it shoots for myself, at a rifle range of course. poppy