MG poll at Combat Opinion - interesting results

[TeAcH]

http://www.combatopinion.com/polls.php?view=1&thepolls_id=151&num_days=50&page_active=1

TeAcH

[Berlichtingen]

A badly worded question. It lumps casualties and supression into one. CM does model casualties correctly, but not supression

[TeAcH]

Hmm..well perhaps and then again perhaps not.

The question is "I think the MG units in CM with respect to fire rate, damage dealt, and area deniability are". Whats wrong with that? The answers are quite simple - Done well, undermodeled, overmodeled.

I think the spirit of the question is right on target though. It is the spirit of the question that people can figure out.

[ February 02, 2002, 05:25 PM: Message edited by: TeAcH ]

[Holien]

A good site and thanks for the head up on the poll.

I await the new game which should deal with lots of issues, and lets see what debate kicks off once we get to grips with the new game.

Cheers

H

[Battlefront.com]

Hehe... well, I agree with Berli here that the wording could have been better. Even I would vote against MGs being done right I know Charles, Matt, Dan, and Martin would also agree. In fact, I am surprised that even 22% said that we got it right. If the "got it wrong" question wasn't so specific, I would expect the results to be more evenly split.

In other words, I would have asked "on balance did BTS get it more right than wrong, or is it not right at all". In that event I would have voted for more right than wrong. Especially after reading why most people thing we undermodled MGs Man, there are some REALLY crappy players out there looking for excuses! Funny thing is that CMBB's MG simulation is much more accurate, but will probably lead to even more people bitching about MGs because far too many just don't know how to use 'em in a combined arms setting.

Steve

[Berlichtingen]

Originally posted by Big Time Software:

In fact, I am surprised that even 22% said that we got it right.

I'm one of the 22%, and here is why.

1) ROF... CM doesn't count each and every round, so this has to be measured in how long it takes with continous fire before the crews start saying 'screw you buddy, we are getting low on ammo". BTS has this on the money.

2) Killing power... having seen MGs in real action, I have to say that this is also right on the money.

3) Supression... when firing at a single target (the only thing CM allows), the supression effect is right on the money

4) Supression part2... when laying down supressing fire over an area (not possible in CM) they suck.

More pro than con

[Battlefront.com]

BTW TeAcH,

Don't feel bad if someone doesn't like the wording of your Poll. There is a reason why there are "professionals" to do this sort of thing, although I often think it is simply so they can get the best answer that their clients want to hear Even 40 question (i.e. less ambiguity) Polls which are boiled down to a handful of results often suffer from serious problems related to the questions.

Glad I am designing wargames rather than doing Polling for a living

Steve

[Slapdragon]

I have written 11 national polls and I can think of nothing that sucks more than pretesting questions for validity and reliability and cross testing them between various populations/

[Sailor Malan]

Originally posted by Berlichtingen:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Big Time Software:

In fact, I am surprised that even 22% said that we got it right.

I'm one of the 22%, and here is why.

1) ROF... CM doesn't count each and every round, so this has to be measured in how long it takes with continous fire before the crews start saying 'screw you buddy, we are getting low on ammo". BTS has this on the money.

2) Killing power... having seen MGs in real action, I have to say that this is also right on the money.

3) Supression... when firing at a single target (the only thing CM allows), the supression effect is right on the money

4) Supression part2... when laying down supressing fire over an area (not possible in CM) they suck.

More pro than con</font>

[chrisl]

Originally posted by Sailor Malan:

Question - do some people expect MG's to be effective in a WW1 sort of way (murderous against walking troops in a skirmish type line?). I think people sometimes forget that even a "moving" squad could be doing short rushes by sub-section etc.

CMBO machineguns are quite effective in a WW1 sort of way if you set them up in WW1 sort of conditions:

1) Create a map with a big open area ~200 m or so across, and woods/buildings on one side, with woods on the other. The woods/buildings will house the defenders (since you can't make real trenches), and the woods the attackers (so they can start in full cover)

2) make the ground conditions muddy

3) put a couple rows of wire between the attackers and defenders (one is often enough)

4) give the defenders a dozen or so machineguns (regular quality). Also give them enough leaders so every MG is in C&C.

5) Distribute the MGs uniformly along the defenders line, inside the cover (trees and buildings). Every MG should be able to cover nearly every bit of the no-man's land with interlocking fire.

6) start a large number of attacking troops on the other side (mostly regulars and green).

7) Set the attackers to run across the open area, and swarm the MGs.

8) Press "GO".

Very few attackers will make it across the wire. When I've done this with 2 companies against about a dozen MGs, I don't get more than 1 or 2 squads across unbroken (sometimes the broken squads will retreat forward, since the cover is closer). The wire slows the attackers enough to let the MGs cut them to pieces, which is exactly what the wire is for.

For more fun, put some TRPs in no mans land (near the wire) and rain artillery on the attackers as they run across.

[ASL Veteran]

I do not see it as a significant defect in the game (you play round it).

Question - do some people expect MG's to be effective in a WW1 sort of way (murderous against walking troops in a skirmish type line?). I think people sometimes forget that even a "moving" squad could be doing short rushes by sub-section etc.

It is a significant defect.

No, it can't be played around. You haven't thought out of the box and grasped the true nature of the problem - which is that the danger space (extending from the MGs barrel all the way out to the beaten zone) is not, and can not, be modeled with the current game engine. I would explain the 'box' as "I shoot at a target, and the target is hit - so what's the problem?" which completely ignores the fact that the bullets are 'travelling' to the target and influencing everything in between. However, if grazing fire is not in your bag of tactical 'tricks' you won't notice that it's missing - therefore you won't be able to identify what the problem is.

The problem is pretty straightforward, and it has nothing to do with WW1 mythology. The significance of the problem is that you can't use an MG effectively in some ways that they were commonly employed. I think anyone who has been in the service and gone through that exercise in Basic where you are crawling under some barbed wire while an M60 MG is firing tracers overhead will understand the situation. Even though the bullets from the MG were passing, like 50 feet overhead, they felt like they were right on top of you and you hugged the dirt trying to get as low as possible. You can't really tell how low the tracers are as they pass overhead. I know I was pinned down though . Wow, does that bring back some memories out of the attic!

[TeAcH]

Thanks Steve and Slap. I am certainly not as adept at WW2 history and as are the heavyweights around here. And when it comes to polling questions, yeah. I see your point. It is hard to get it perfect.

Don't get me wrong, CM is one of my favorite games (computer or otherwise).

Thanks again,

TeAcH

[MajorBooBoo]

http://www.combatopinion.com/polls.php?view=1&thepolls_id=156&num_days=50&page_active=1

This is a better poll

booboo out

[Battlefront.com]

TeAcH,

Don't get me wrong, I think I know what you were trying to tweak out of people, which is actually quite interesting.

With all the multitudes of MG discussions I think it would be interesting (but just that, interesting) to see the range of opinions on MGs in CMBO. Some think they are totally useless, which I STRONGLY disagree with, unless manned by someone who is tactically totally useless Others, like me, think that they are right on the money in most situations, but have failings in others (which is sometimes compounded by non-MG problems). And some think they are perfect as is. Personally, I would hope the vast majority would take the middle position, since I think the evidence that they are useless is rather poor and evidence that they aren't perfect is rather strong.

But not to worry... CMBB.... CMBB...

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

Booboo,

Not sure I understood all the questions, but funny none-the-less

Steve

[MajorBooBoo]

There was only question. But the one comment was a good link also.

BooBoo over

[Eric Alkema]

I would have liked to see one other option

() I have no bloody idea! I wasn't in that war or any other. I have never fired a machinegun and have never been shot at by one.

[MajorBooBoo]

Seen on the web...

Combat Missions full of Fluff

Doodad! Doodad!

Mods and rocks and swaying stuff

O! de Doodad day!

Omnispotting's getting sluffed

Doodad! Doodad!

T34's are getting tough

O! de Doodad day!!!!

OH!! DE DOODAD DAY!!!! Oh de Doodad daaayyy!

Bet on a weasel

Ill bet on a nag

Doodad Doodad

Madmutt's hair is kept in a bag!

OH! de Doodads day!

Combat missions is bought by cranky grogs

Doodad! Doodad!

BTS treats them like poisonous frogs

OH! de Doodad day!

[JasonC]

Just a little problem with chrisl's WW I example - they didn't have anything like that many machineguns in WW I, yet they stopped far larger attacks than that.

A *battalion* had 4-6 heavy machineguns, of the type depicted in CMBO by the British Vickers or the US M1917 HMG. Not 12. And the attackers against a battalion would not be 2 CM companies, which amount to only around 200 men (or 250 with Americans). That was the strength of *one* WW I company; a battalion had four; and attackers had local odds.

A more realistic portrayal would be as follows - and incidentally I've tried it. The Brits defend with 4 Vickers HMGs, 2 full infantry companies minus their PIATs, and with only 4 2" mortars instead of 6. They also get one 25 lber FO and 1 TRP. Plus 32 wire, on a front 640 yards across, thus one complete wire belt. The wire is 50-60 meters in front of the forward trench line.

The two companies are deployed in successive lines, the second about 150 meters behind the first. Each trench line is represented by a stone wall, confering complete protection against small arms fire on anyone who goes prone behind it. 200 yards beyond the first one (NML, 150 yards beyond the wire) is the first German wall, and 100 yards behind it is another. There are a few "traverse" walls added. The ground is mud, the sky overcast and the time dawn.

The Germans use rifle 44 infantry and some plain pioneers. They get 4 companies, 16 rifle platoons, and 3 pioneer platoons. Plus a weapons section with 3 HMGs (actually representing 6 Maxim guns, each with about half the FP of an HMG-42), and 2 81mm mortars to represent their trench mortars. No artillery support - it is assumed to have already lifted, and its effects are reflected in the strength of the Brits opposite.

The Germans are deployed in three lines, one right behind their first wall, one between it and their second, the third behind their second wall. The first moves out - no running - on the first turn, while the second moves to behind the first wall. The third waits. The lines follow each other at two minute intervals after that, three waves in all, with 5-8 platoons per wave.

When the first wave reaches the wire, that is when the second goes over the top. They will tend to "bunch" at the wire, as some falter there and most take time getting through it. Once the first wave is through the wire, the second will be reaching it, and the third, having already moved up to the front wall, will be going over the top for its part of the attack.

The Germans have 670 men, a WW I size battalion. They also have 1.75 to 1 odds in CM points terms, with the cost of the British wire included. Just like in CM "assault" QBs.

I played the begining of one of these set-pieces against the AI. The Germans took around 70 causalties clearing the front trench line. They wiped out 2/3rds of the forward British company in the process, routing the remainder. The Brits had lost about 80 men in the first 6 minutes. One of their two HMG groups, with 2 Vickers and an HQ, was also wiped out to a man. The 2nd wave was clearing the wire, and the 3rd was approaching it but had not yet reached it.

The second line would have been a bit tougher to crack, as the men were deployed a little tighter and were in wooded foxholes behind their stone wall, instead of a mix of wheatfield and scattered tree foxholes behind the first one. The German fire support group (3 HMGs and 2 81mms) was also out of LOS of many of their positions, and the 81s were getting low.

The first wave took the bulk of the German losses and so was a bit weakened. They would have waited for the second to reach them, and then jumped off again. The Brits would have tried to put down artillery fire on them, or on the gap between the 1st and 2nd trench lines, in the meantime.

But there is no question the Germans would have carried the second position much like they carried the first. The initial manpower odds, 2.5 to 1, had already risen to 3.25 to 1. In effectives, the Brits were already cut in half while about 5/6ths of the Germans remained (roughly half the first wave, and most of the other two) - making the odds between those still active and unbroken more like 4 to 1.

The 2 Vickers in the forward trench position waited until the platoon right in front of them reached the wire, then opened up. They had a +2 combat bonus platoon commander. They rapidly shot down around half of the platoon right in front of them - 15 men - while they were on the wire. One squad broke and ran, as well.

But then all heck fell on the heads of the two Vickers crews. Click on one and there is a solid wall of yellow lines pointing at it. The trench mortars and HMGs also joined in. By the next minute, one is head down, the other still firing. Some of the first platoon renmants have made it through the wire. So have the platoons on either flank.

Those then reach the first trench line and turn to face the MGs, cutting them apart from nearly 180 degrees to either side. The next two minutes small groups rush, and the MGs try to bug out. One is finished off in the trees they started in, the other makes it about 30 yards to the rear in the open.

Total losses to the HMG position - 16 men. Losses they inflicting on the men attacking them - not much more than that, almost all of it during their first, unsuppressed minute of fire.

Any way you slice it, that is undermodeled. Real WW I strongpoints typically incorporated 4 HMGs, with 2 on each flank. One sighted inward from each side, interlocking their fields of fire ahead of the position. One sighted outward from each side, tying in with neighboring strongpoints up to a mile away on either flank.

These single HMG fire zones were sufficient to stop mass attacks, until some of the guns were KOed. It is relatively easy to see why, too. Each location ahead of a line of such positions could receive 1000 bullets per minute, split between two different directions, crossing at near right angles. The effect this created was vastly more deadly than 800-1000 firepower is in CM (80-100 each, 5 times a minute, from 2 guns).

WW I planners estimated the firepower of a single Vickers gun at that of a platoon of 40 riflemen. If you look at Enfield fp numbers, that is about 3 times the firepower rating MGs get in CMBO today. Perhaps the WW I planners understood the practical fp effects more accurately, at least for the effects of MGs firing at open ground positions (which is when the penetrating effects of grazing fire have a chance to shine).

If I had to make a single correction to MG firepower, instead of a 3x across the board I'd link the effect to the target cover state. At 25% exposure or lower, there would be little difference. But at around 50% expsoure, the fpxROF would be double what it is now, at 70% exposure 3 times, at 100% exposure 4 or 5 times.

The result would be that MGs would have deadly open-ground denying abilities, even at long range. But they would be no more effective shooting at men in cover in the house or woods across the street, than they have in CMBO today. I'd restrict these effects to true MGs, crew served, not the squad SAW weapons (which are much more tightly limited by ammo).

But BTS will make other changes to MGs, including "hot gun" behavior, for CMBO. I think they might be too tied to just short range, rather than cover, but that is what they decided on.

[jwxspoon]

Excellent post, Jason. I must say that I believe you are right on target with your modeling. I do not have your knowledge in terms of the makeup of a typical WWI attack/defense, but I can tell you from personal experience that when an HMG is fired in your direction, whether directly at you or simply in area fire, you immediately CEASE your movement, hug the ground, and try to think of a way to either eliminate the HMG or find an alternate route. Nobody, but NOBODY is going to be moving in normal IMT rushes unless there are no other options. Add to that the fact that an HMG position on the defense is often quite carefully prepared (read: well entrenched) and supported by properly sited individual fighting positions, and you have a tough nut to crack without armored support or some type of indirect fire (in WWII that would mean mortars, rifle grenades, etc.).

I have been in the singularly unexciting position of having an HMG fired in my direction from an armored vehicle only a few hundsred meters away. Certainly nothing I carried on my person could have eliminated that vehicle and I was most definitely aware of that fact. The vehicle was subsequently destroyed, but until that happened the only people not keeping their heads down were the AT gunners and the mortars.

I am sure that BTS has given thought to how to more appropriately model crew served MG fire. I seem to recall hearing that one way in which it may be changed within the current engine dynamics is by increasing the rate of fire. I can only hope that the ammunition load out is going to be increased per weapon.

JW

[ February 03, 2002, 09:02 PM: Message edited by: jwxspoon ]

[Triumvir]

JWXSpoon,

was that in Panama?

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by jwxspoon:

Excellent post, Jason. I must say that I believe you are right on target with your modeling. I do not have your knowledge in terms of the makeup of a typical WWI attack/defense, but I can tell you from personal experience that when an HMG is fired in your direction, whether directly at you or simply in area fire, you immediately CEASE your movement, hug the ground, and try to think of a way to either eliminate the HMG or find an alternate route. Nobody, but NOBODY is going to be moving in normal IMT rushes unless there are no other options. Add to that the fact that an HMG position on the defense is often quite carefully prepared (read: well entrenched) and supported by properly sited individual fighting positions, and you have a tough nut to crack without armored support or some type of indirect fire (in WWII that would mean mortars, rifle grenades, etc.).

I have been in the singularly unexciting position of having an HMG fired in my direction from an armored vehicle only a few hundsred meters away. Certainly nothing I carried on my person could have eliminated that vehicle and I was most definitely aware of that fact. The vehicle was subsequently destroyed, but until that happened the only people not keeping their heads down were the AT gunners and the mortars. JW

You hit the ground because you were trained to, no?

In 1914, infantry were trained to advance - machineguns or no. Big difference - look at the Newfoundland Regiment on 1 July 1916 for an example of obedience to doctrine. 800 men instinctively tucked their chins in, as if advancing into a strong wind, and set off across No Man's Land - heavily laden, and per orders, walking with rifles at the port. Thirty minutes or so after the whistle blew, 700 of them were dead or mortally wounded. None of them got as far as the British wire.

Incidentally, they had to start their attack from a reserve trench because the forward trenches were piled so high with bodies they couldn't form up there.

Your experience is frightening, but nothing like WW I experience and unfortunately not of much use in discussing that period.

[jwxspoon]

Michael,

I certainly wasn't attempting to compare anything I had seen or heard to WWI fighting, or WWII or any other major conflict. However, I was trying to illustrate that most troops have a healthy respect for and are aware of the suppressive power of a Heavy Machine Gun and in my opinion these effects are not adequately modeled in CMBO. Since WWI was brought up as the comparison under the premise of "CM's MG's are modeled correctly - compare by setting up a WWI style assault" it seems relevant to me; after all the point of the thread is the results of the poll question over at Combat Opinion.

And BTW, when I hit the ground, I would like to think training had something to do with it, but I think "Holy SH&%^%" would be more descriptive of my frame of mind at the time:p .

I don't get involved in these "grog threads" very often, but when I do it is because I have some personal knowledge of what the hell I'm talking about.

JW

[aka_tom_w]

Originally posted by jwxspoon:

Michael,

I certainly wasn't attempting to compare anything I had seen or heard to WWI fighting, or WWII or any other major conflict. However, I was trying to illustrate that most troops have a healthy respect for and are aware of the suppressive power of a Heavy Machine Gun and in my opinion these effects are not adequately modeled in CMBO. Since WWI was brought up as the comparison under the premise of "CM's MG's are modeled correctly - compare by setting up a WWI style assault" it seems relevant to me; after all the point of the thread is the results of the poll question over at Combat Opinion.

And BTW, when I hit the ground, I would like to think training had something to do with it, but I think "Holy SH&%^%" would be more descriptive of my frame of mind at the time:p .

I don't get involved in these "grog threads" very often, but when I do it is because I have some personal knowledge of what the hell I'm talking about.

JW

Hi jwxpsoon

Thanks for your wisdom and insight. Reading posts from those that have actual combat experience is very enlightenly for the fast majority of us who have no idea what you experienced and have no real concept of real combat. Thanks for your post, would you feel free to tell us all a little more about the location and time of the engagment and how it turned out?

If not, I hope you won't mind me asking, we are just curious with regard to your experience of being fired at by HMG.

Thanks

-tom w

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by jwxspoon:

Michael,

I certainly wasn't attempting to compare anything I had seen or heard to WWI fighting, or WWII or any other major conflict.

Actually, you were. You said to Jason "I must say that I believe you are right on target with your modeling" and then recounted your experience as proof of why you think his description of WW I modelling was accurate.

However, I was trying to illustrate that most troops have a healthy respect for and are aware of the suppressive power of a Heavy Machine Gun and in my opinion these effects are not adequately modeled in CMBO. Since WWI was brought up as the comparison under the premise of "CM's MG's are modeled correctly - compare by setting up a WWI style assault" it seems relevant to me; after all the point of the thread is the results of the poll question over at Combat Opinion.

A direct comparison to WW I is false for the reason I mentioned - troops were NOT aware of the supprssive effects, or at least their commanders weren't, and they were trained to advance regardless.

And BTW, when I hit the ground, I would like to think training had something to do with it, but I think "Holy SH&%^%" would be more descriptive of my frame of mind at the time:p .

I don't doubt it. I hope I would be smart enough to do the same if the need arose.

I don't get involved in these "grog threads" very often, but when I do it is because I have some personal knowledge of what the hell I'm talking about.

I don't dispute that either, but unfortunately, I was simply saying that it adds nothing to a discussion of World War One machineguns.

Simply put - you used your experience in the 1990s to try and describe situations occurring in the 1914-18 war - a decidedly fruitless approach. Middlebrook's descriptions of the opening day on the Somme bear out what I am saying - troops were trained to advance into machinegun fire (I am not saying it got them very far, believe me) and this would account for the losses they suffered.

Insisting that the firing of an MG in someone's direction will automatically make them take cover is false - a good portion of the 20,000 men killed on day one of the Somme would probably disagree with you.

This does have relevance to WW II - Battle Drill, etc. and the concept of fire and movement. When your rifle team is ordered to GO, you don't pop your head up and see if the MG firing at you is "suppressed" - you simply go - healthy respect for an HMG or not. If your platoon commander knows what he is doing, he will find a way to flank the gun.

But going to ground is deadly in a firefight, and I do believe most infantrymen were trained to keep moving rather than stopping.