MGs fire trajectory-grazing fire affecting multiple units

[pamak1970]

Sometime ago i had a discussion about this issue in another post.

Is there any official response regarding this aspect?

For people that may not understand, i talk about the issue regarding have a single line of fire affecting-attacking ALL the units along it, provided that they are at a relative short range and on about the same level with the shooter.

I feel as long as this issue is not simulated,the location of MGs in the game can not simulate realistic tactics.

For example, in reality MGs are generally located in such a way as to provide interlocking flanking and grazing fire,especially for FPFs (final protective fires) near the front of the main defense position.

In the game ,The effect of fire is not related by the type of it (like, flanking grazing).

It is only related to range and it only affects the area it lands (either as point fire or area fire).

The LOF is harmless along the rest of the path it "travels"

Therefore Mgs fire becomes always less effective as the distance to target increases ,even if someone acheives flanking or grazing fire.

So at the end it is more beneficial for players to have MGs aiming directly in front , than using an obligue angle in relation with the enemy avenue of attack.

In real life i think things are more complicated.

Take for example an enemy formation deployed and attacking towards friednly positions.

We can imagine the geometry of this formation as an orthogon parallelogram ,approaching our position.

A MG firing from directly infront is not so effective.

The LOF of bullets travels inside a relative small section of the area occupied by the formation and therefore there are less chances to hit a target located inside the formation's area.

The more the MG is in an oblique position, the longer the LOF "passing through" the formation's area and therefore the better chances to hit or pin members of that formation.

So if for example the LOF follows along the diagonal of this formation, it would be more dangerous compared to if it follows along its shorter side.

So , does anybody agree with the importance of simulating this effect,and if so, is it possible to accomplish this type of effect with the new game engine?

[YankeeDog]

A suggestion: You may want to post a link to the original thread so people can read up on what's already been said and we don't rehash the same stuff all over again.

But briefly, I do agree that it would be great if CMX2 adds more detail to the modeling of small arms fire, including grazing fire, beaten zones, etc.

For myself, I would rate this as a "Medium-High" priority -- somewhere below my most-desired imporvements like fixing Borg Spotting and improved modeling of C&C, but definitely important, and far above modeling Company Buglers and Field Kitchens.

Exactly how things should, or can be improved is difficult to discuss because BFC hasn't yet released any details about how the small arms firepower model for the new engine is going to work.

Based on the bones and information that Steve's been posting here on the forum lately, my WAG is that BFC is currently working on issues like environment terrain modeling, represention of units (soldiers & vehicles), etc. and has not yet started working on the nuts and bolts of the small arms modeling. I'm sure they have some ideas, but I doubt they're yet at the point where they're figuring out exactly what works and what doesn't wrt MGs & small arms.

As I said, though, this is just a guess on my part.

But I'm sure we'd all love to see more detailed modeling of MG effects. Some of the already-released bones, such as 1:1 soldier modeling and seperate modeling of weapons and soldiers, open up a lot of exciting possibilities.

Cheers,

YD

[dumrox]

I'm still trying to imagine an orthogon parallelogram approaching our position.

[Wartgamer]

How 1:1 modeling can play into this needs to be addressed. The MG bullets, of course, can not be modeled 1:1.

[tar]

I think this would be a big boon to the tactics modeling. But it shouldn't be limited to just machine guns. It really should apply to all small arms fire.

No more shooting over the heads of friendly soldiers. Attackers will have to take care to leave fire lanes open for the support weapons -- as it should be. This will also add more bite to attacks from the flank, since (given a linear disposition), it will have the potential to hit multiple units.

[JonS]

Originally posted by tar:

No more shooting over the heads of friendly soldiers.

In all cases? All the time?

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by JonS:

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

No more shooting over the heads of friendly soldiers.

In all cases? All the time? </font>

[pamak1970]

Following the advise , i provide the link with the original discussion.

web page.

I agree of course about the problem of friendly fire and i also agree that ideally this proposition should apply to all small arms in general.

I focussed only on MGs cause i was thinking that there might be issues with processing PC power to apply the concept in general for all units.

This is just a personal impression ,not backed up by any knowledge in computer programming .

Anyway If someone reads the link i provided, he will get an idea of the nature and some possible complications of the idea we are talking about.

that is why i asked about any "official" news regarding the way that the new engine will resolve MG and small arms fire.

From the responses ,i understand that it is still too early for the designers to deal with this issues.

On the other hand and again without saying that i have any knowledge of computer programming, i was thinking that calculating LOF or LOS issues, may be part of the core of the game engine.

[ASL Veteran]

My favorite topic has reappeared once more. Fear not, Battlefront is well aware of Grazing fire and Steve was very engaged in the discussion previously. From what I recall, Steve indicated that with the 'old' engine (CMAK etc) there would be too many calculations along the LOF and that these calculations would bog down the game. If you do a search through any of the archived forums you will get many many hits that deal with MGs and grazing fire. If you search under my name and pick out topics that deal with MGs you may even come across Steve's remarks on the topic (focus on pre release CMBB forums or CMBO forums).

Anyway, the range of grazing fire is not short. As I recall Steve, at first, was thinking in terms of sighting the MG level with the ground, but a member, whom I believe was named Marlowe, pointed out that the sights on the MGs will account for an arc - as long as the arc doesn't go above 1 meter above the ground (since grazing fire is defined as fire in which most of the rounds do not rise over 1 meter above the ground). The MG itself will typically sit lower than 1 meter off the ground so arcing can be included in your range calculation. According to US Army Field Manual 7-7 The Mechanized Infantry Platoon and Squad APC, the .50 Caliber MG has a maximum grazing fire range of 800 meters. The 5.56 SAW has a maximum grazing fire range of 600 meters. These ranges are not insignificant.

Anyway, the topic is much more broad than just grazing fire. Tactically it would include the use of grazing fire through LOS hinderances such as grain and smoke. Currently if you can't see it you can't shoot it. However, grazing fire should be able to interdict areas in smoke even if the enemy can't be seen.

Finally, the beaten zone is simply the area that the bullets land within at the target. When MGs fire they fire in a 'cone of fire' and the end of the cone gets larger and larger the farther from the MG you fire. This is the result of the fact that not all the bullets you fire will end up hitting in the same location due to weapon vibration etc. Obviously, since the MG will not be firing at direct right angles to the ground, the 'beaten zone' on the ground will be some sort of an oval as some bullets in the cone of fire fall short of the target and some fall long or to the side. What is currently represented in CM is known as 'beaten zones'.

If you combine the grazing fire with the cone of fire concept, then your area affected will increase the farther from the weapon you go - although the effect of the fire will decrease because the area is increasing. So, to sum up, if I have that Ma Deuce firing from a tripod across a field in Kansas, then everyone who was standing from directly in front of the weapon to 800 meters away could potentially become a casualty. The area these people could be injured in would also get progressively farther from either side of the centerline of fire (think triangle with one endpoint being the muzzle of the Ma Deuce and the other endpoint being the oval shaped 'beaten zone'), although your chances of actually getting hit by this fire would decrease the farther from the weapon you were (because fewer bullets would be landing in your vicinity as the shot scatter gets worse).

[DrD]

Interesting! This of course is why high rates of fire were so important. Who cares about a rate of fire if the bullets all go along the same path?

A similar effect is achieved with modern air-to-air cannon. The vulcan automatically scatters the rounds so that at normal range, they cover a circle about 30 feet wide, which is the average wingspan of a fighter. Due to the very high rate of fire there is a round in almost every square foot of this circle. Thus the aim can be off significantly but the target may still be hit.

[Wartgamer]

A 'circle' 30 feet wide translates to a area of 706.5 sq ft.

The vulcan fires 100 rps? So it would take ~7 seconds of firing to achieve that.

The vulcan would scatter the rounds at a certain range to achieve your 'magic' circle. The circle would be smaller closer to the firer and larger further away. Whats the range?

You calculate this yourself or are you quoting someone? In reality, the rounds would be grouped in a dispersion pattern about the center of fire.

[86smopuim]

Originally posted by YankeeDog:

grazing fire, beaten zones, etc.

'splain these terms to this non-grog please.

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by 86smopuim:

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

grazing fire, beaten zones, etc.

'splain these terms to this non-grog please. </font>

[Michael Emrys]

BTW, the reason the terms 'grazing fire' and 'beaten zone' were brought into this thread was to focus attention and provide a rationale for adopting a revised model for MGs in CM. It is felt by many that the effects as described in CM are too limited. For instance, an MG set up to employ grazing fire can interdict movement across its LOF all along that LOF and not just in one spot along it. That is a significant difference.

Michael

[Wartgamer]

Bullets always obey gravity. To really 'graze' you actually have some superelevation. Hopefully the majority are under the height of advancing enemy. Note: Only stupid people advance at human height. Everyone else advances at a running crouch. Exception: CW.

The 'beaten zone' also includes the amount of bullets ejected up. This can be substantial if the ground yields up these energetical projectiles.

[86smopuim]

hmmm, interesting.

enfilade is from the side?

Snarker's ill timed and

unsupported human wave

attack

000000000X-- -- //

000000X0X0-- -- --===[hmg42] :mad:

00000000XX-- --\\

|

|

|

V

suspected smope's troopers

:mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:

[ March 19, 2005, 08:41 PM: Message edited by: 86smopuim ]

[dalem]

Originally posted by Michael Emrys:

BTW, the reason the terms 'grazing fire' and 'beaten zone' were brought into this thread was to focus attention and provide a rationale for adopting a revised model for MGs in CM. It is felt by many that the effects as described in CM are too limited. For instance, an MG set up to employ grazing fire can interdict movement across its LOF all along that LOF and not just in one spot along it. That is a significant difference.

Michael

Doesn't it also limit the effectiveness of the CW Vickers platoons/companies? I'm not a big CW WWII guy so the concept still boggles my simple mind, but weren't the Vickers platoons more likely to be using some form of long ranged indirect fire than not?

-dale

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by 86smopuim:

enfilade is from the side?

Not always. The determining factor is not whether it's from the front or side, but whether it's along a line and not across it. So if a column was approaching you, fire against them from dead ahead or behind would be enfilading fire and fire from the side would not. In fact this was how road ambushes were set up when possible. Just firing down a column of vehicles was almost bound to hit something.

Michael

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by dalem:

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

BTW, the reason the terms 'grazing fire' and 'beaten zone' were brought into this thread was to focus attention and provide a rationale for adopting a revised model for MGs in CM. It is felt by many that the effects as described in CM are too limited. For instance, an MG set up to employ grazing fire can interdict movement across its LOF all along that LOF and not just in one spot along it. That is a significant difference.

Michael

Doesn't it also limit the effectiveness of the CW Vickers platoons/companies? I'm not a big CW WWII guy so the concept still boggles my simple mind, but weren't the Vickers platoons more likely to be using some form of long ranged indirect fire than not?</font>

[dalem]

Originally posted by Michael Emrys:

I don't know if they were more likely to use indirect fire, but they were trained in its use and capable of it. They might have been more apt to use indirect fire than, say, their American counterparts, but I don't know that for a certainty either.

Michael

Ahh, okay. Thanks.

-dale

[JonS]

Originally posted by Michael Emrys:

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

Doesn't it also limit the effectiveness of the CW Vickers platoons/companies? I'm not a big CW WWII guy so the concept still boggles my simple mind, but weren't the Vickers platoons more likely to be using some form of long ranged indirect fire than not?

I don't know if they were more likely to use indirect fire, but they were trained in its use and capable of it. They might have been more apt to use indirect fire than, say, their American counterparts, but I don't know that for a certainty either.</font>

[Andrew H.]

Modeling grazing fire will also affect how your own troops attack, as at many ranges your MGs will have to be careful when engaging enemy troops if your own units are between the MG and the enemy objective.

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Lord Peter:

Modeling grazing fire will also affect how your own troops attack, as at many ranges your MGs will have to be careful when engaging enemy troops if your own units are between the MG and the enemy objective.

Which might be one big reason why the Vickers squads liked to use plunging fire. I am inclined to think that grazing fire was more of a defensive tactic, designed as I said earlier, to interdict certain lanes of movement.

Michael

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Michael Emrys:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Lord Peter:

Modeling grazing fire will also affect how your own troops attack, as at many ranges your MGs will have to be careful when engaging enemy troops if your own units are between the MG and the enemy objective.

Which might be one big reason why the Vickers squads liked to use plunging fire. I am inclined to think that grazing fire was more of a defensive tactic, designed as I said earlier, to interdict certain lanes of movement.

Michael </font>

[dalem]

Here's a useless non-grog, reverse-anecdotal observation:

I've never read of any German AARs or any anecdotal stories of taking indirect MG fire.

-dale