HMG vs. MMG and LMG

[Jagdwyrm]

I have seen the effectiveness of HMG on light armor...but does the HMG have more punching power for firing into buildings? Is this modeled into the game?

[Olle Petersson]

Pretty interesting question, and I don't know the answer...

Other related question:

How do BTS define the limits between heavy, medium and light MGs?

In my personal definition, based on what's currently in use by a couple of armies, the classification depends on use.

HMG; MG used for supporting direct fire at 1 - 2.5 km range. These are typically mounted on tripods (or vehicles) and have either large calibre, like the M2, or very high ROF, like the miniguns.

MMG; MG used for supporting direct fire at 0.5 - 1.5 km range. Typically mounted on tripods, normal calibre (6 - 8 mm) and ROF. (Might also be used for lobbing fire up to 2.5 km.)

LMG; MG used for close support up to 1 km or less. Usually bipod mounted, air cooled and normal to small calibre (4 - 8 mm).

For CM this would mean that only the M2 qualifies as a HMG. The German "MG42 LMG" may keep it's rating as LMG. All others (that are not integrated with the squads) are MMGs.

If there were to be any other HMGs than the M2, it would be the Vickers and M1917, since these fulfill the older definition based on actual weight of the weapon.

I see no reason why the MG42 should be rated as heavy.

- It's a very lightweight weapon, compared to the other MGs.

- The accuracy and ballistics aren't good enough to hit small targets at 2 km range (as is the case with the M2).

- The ROF isn't high enough to compensate lack of accuracy at long range. (Only 20 rps or so, compared to the 100+ rps of miniguns.)

- I can't think of any reason why this weapon should be deployed or used as a HMG.

Could somebody please explain why the MG42 is rated as "heavy" in CM?

Cheers

Olle

[Sig]

Mmh, you are right if you would consider the *dismantled* HMG. By dismantled I mean: on guy has the MG, another the tripod, another the spare barrels, the others transport the ammo.

I have only fired once a MG in its light configuration, but I remember I helped a team to transport their HMG ammo load: its HEAVY!! And I was in a very good physical shape since it was after 3 months intensive army training. Arg, after half an hour climbing (was mountain infantry) I just though my shoulders and my back would break. So I believe it has lots to with the amount of ammo needed to fulfill the HMG role.

Other point is: once in its tripod configuration (I.E. HMG configuration) its a real pain to transport, *very* inconvenient. You can hardly run, more a trot(sp?) than anything else. So for a fast move you would need to dismantle it again, run to new position, mount it, etc...life expectancy under fire and fighting efficiency would not be very good.

BTW, the HMG I speak about is the one still in use in the Swiss army. It is basically a MG42.

Sig

[Mlapanzer]

MG -34/42 heavy or light?

Found a very good artical on this MG at www.techpubs.wwiionline.com Some great photo's also. It explains the differance betweem the light and heavy roles performed by this MG.

Did you know that the U.S. M60 MG is based on the MG 42. I don't think a German soldier from WW2 would have any problem operating it.

As for punching power against armor and buildings that should depends more on the caliber of bullet than rate of fire.For that the .50 cal is awesome.

I've had the pleasure of firing both the

M-60 and a .50 cal on a tripod. Man you want to fell like Rambo get behind a .50 cal it is totally awesome.

-------

"Who put orange juice in my orange juice" W.C.Fields

[BloodyBucket]

A HMG is the one shooting at YOU.

A LMG is the one shooting at the other guy.

------------------

"Roll on"

[The_Capt]

On the same vien but different topic,

Does Cm model the actual "beaten zone" of the MG? I am finding that my MGs are effective against only one target at a time. Is this a design or user issue?

[Mlapanzer]

by beaten zone I'm assuming you mean grazing fire. Don't know if it is modeled or not but after a few 100 meters the fire is more of a plunging fire. Mean old mister gravity you know. The farther away the greater the drop.

BTW: I think it is really cool how they actually model this with Zooks in the movies.

[X-00]

No, the game doesn't model grazing fire nor beaten zones. The game in general doesn't model MGs correctly and as a consequence aren't valued that much.

To answer the original question, the M2 will take a house apart. The German's particularily feared this weapon in urban fighting.

The one thing i hope BTS does is improve the mobility of the LMG. I've personally humped the M60 for 25 k and had to run the last 500 meters. We were gassed but we were able to get the weapon into action and had plenty of ammo for a 10 minute fight (4k rounds).

[Jagdwyrm]

So I take it in a village or town fight my best bet would be to set the LMGs up to cover open fields and let theHMG handle suppressing squads in buildings.

[jasoncawley@ameritech.net]

What makes an HMG42 team an H, not an L?

- it is mounted on a heavy tripod with an elevating screw and locking levers. The gunner doesn't "aim" it, he nudges the locked barrel by tapping/slapping the side of it.

- an NCO with a pair of binocs does all the "aiming", telling the gunner which way to nudge the barrel while he observes the "fall of shot" aka the dust it kicks up where it lands.

- it has half a dozen spare barrels that can be replaced in 30 seconds when the first ones literally get hot enough to melt and warp. It comes with an asbestos glove and wrenches to change the barrel even when it is too hot to touch.

- the ammo supply looks like an annual salary. One man is continually feeding the belt into the gun and watching for loose links, twists, and debris, to avoid jams. Another is linking belts together to feed through the gun in a continuous stream, without it ever "clearing".

All of the above allow an HMG 42 to be fired more like an artillery piece, practically, with the trigger held down as long as necessary at times, and firing over any distance, not limited by the stability or aim or even the naked eyesight of the gunner.

In CM, HMGs have the firepower of squads but they have it out to much greater ranges. They are most effective at ranges of 250-400 yards, where enemy infantry cannot effectively reply, and at troops in open ground. At such ranges, they have almost nothing to fear from reply fire, especially if they are in good cover themselves (like buildings, or wooded foxholes).

It is hard for them to hit things in cover at that range. Such long range fire pins more than it kills, even in the open. But if 2 or more HMGs or similar weapons can hit a given open area, at ranges like that, they can often deny the ground to the enemy, by pinning or breaking those who try to cross it. If sustained for long periods, hits from such fire will add up, but the main effect is pinning and area-denial.

As for one fellow's comment about running with LMGs, in case you hadn't noticed, squads run just fine in CM. Many of them have 2 LMGs in them. They also have more men to carry spare barrels and ammo belts. But seperate 2-man LMGs are for MG nests. If you want fast LMGs, buy motorized panzergrenadier squads, not LMG teams.

LMGs are bipod weapons in CM, with limited ammo loads and also limited firepower. They are generally only effective against troops in open ground, closing streets, etc. And as 2-man teams, they are quite vunerable to short range fire by normal infantry. Their firepower "carries" better than rifles or SMGs. But at ~250 yards, it will produce a sniping, harassment effect only. The effective range for them is more like 100-150 yards, and at that range enemy infantry can reply with good effect.

LMGs are mostly deception weapons, or suppliments to the infantry-range firepower of regular squads. The deception works by giving the enemy a inf? counter to look at and the distinctive sound of a squad automatic weapon. You have 4 men in the area, but he suspects a platoon.

As suppliments to squads they can be useful but not very much. They are faster and easier to transport on vehicles than HMGs - 1 2-man team can be added to a squad on full squad carriers (tanks, halftracks, trucks).

Normally, 1 HMG is better than 3 LMG, because the firepower is similar in close, greater at long range, and the gun can be kept in action longer despite a few losses. The LMGs aren't as easily suppressed, though, if in the open or something. So they may make sense on the attack in some cases.

MMGs, the standard US MG type, are tripod mounted but with fewer extras and a lower ROF than heavies. In particular, the U.S. MGs did not change barrels easily, and this limited the gun to more like its sustained rate of fire (how fast it can be fired without unduly overheating).

MMGs have about half the firepower of squads at normal infantry ranges, and more like the firepower of full squads at medium ranges, ~250 yards. Their main use is to suppliment the fire of ordinary infantry at such medium ranges. A couple of them can double the ranged firepower of an "overwatch" platoon, for example. They also have far more ammo than standard squads, so they can afford to chatter away every turn at longer range.

Against enemies in cover, such ranged fire is mostly useful to suppress defenders and reduce the volume of return fire they put out. Alone, they are not very effective, as single squads can easily outshoot them at closer ranges (~100 yards).

But in their intended purpose as suppliments to the ranged firepower of a platoon, the U.S. MMGs are fine weapons, and relatively speedy for an MG. You generally want at least 2 of them with the same platoon to have any serious tactical effect, though. Think of them as a "4th squad" for a ranged-firepower platoon.

In game terms, the *dismounted*, .50 cal team is an HMG in some respects but not in others. It is very slow, even by MG team standards, because of its weight. It does not have a large ammo supply, for the same reason. Its firepower is above that of the MMG and its range is much better, and it can KO light armor (half-tracks and such. On defense some of these things help. On the downside, its relatively low rate of fire keeps its close-in firepower below that of an HMG 42 team, and low ammo can limit the total hits one can cause.

On the attack, weight and low ammo are debilitating weaknesses, and ground .50 cals aren't very useful. (If you have a jeep, use it to carry them - that helps). Vehicle mounted ones are a somewhat similar story - good firepower, mobile, but limited ammo again.

If you want .50 cal support on the attack, buy M-20 scout cars or M3A1 halftracks, not dismounted teams. Jeep MGs are speedy but too vunerable compared to the types mentioned.

The British Vickers is a fine MG, with very high ammo. On defense or in towns it is a good choice. On the attack outside of towns, MMG carriers can be a better buy, as they are far more mobile and better protected. And unlike the U.S. 50-cal M-20, the MMG carriers have plenty of ammo.

In my opinion, the best MG "buys" are the HMG 42, the U.S. MMG (but take 2 of 'em), and the British MMG Carrier.

[Olle Petersson]

Originally posted by jasoncawley@ameritech.net:

What makes an HMG42 team an H, not an L?

---

All of the above allow an HMG 42 to be fired more like an artillery piece, ...

My question wasn't about heavy vs light, but heavy vs medium.

All of the factors you've pointed out as specific for the HMG apply to the water cooled Vickers and M1917 MMGs, as was my original point. (They don't have spare barrels, but then they don't need to replace the barrel every 250th shot...)

IMO the designations in CM could simply be based on the FP at various ranges:

- If the FP is fairly high beyond 1000m, then it's a HMG.

- If it's low at long range, but desent at 500m, then it's a MMG.

- If it's good at short range, but not very good at 500m, then it's a LMG.

(Weight of the ammo isn't an issue; you always bring as much ammo as you can...)

Cheers

Olle

[jasoncawley@ameritech.net]

Weight of the ammo is certainly an issue for the .50 cal. Yes, you bring "all you can", but the amount you "can" is rather lower when the shells are much heavier each. Obviously, ammo weight is about the same for all the ~.30 cal varieties.

As for the Vickers, I do consider it an HMG. It certainly was by weight - it was 20 lbs heavier with its tripod than an MG 42 with tripod. Its firepower is lower because its rate of fire is only 1/3rd that of the MG 42 (~500/minute rather than 1500/minute), but it still has around 2/3rds to 3/5ths the firepower, because it can fire longer bursts without overheating.

The U.S. MMGs are air-cooled and middling rate of fire, without spare barrels, and get about half the firepower of the HMG 42, while the U.S. water-cooled .30 cal HMG is a sister of the Vickers.

Incidentally, the lifetime of a MG 42 barrel was around 3500-4000 rounds, not 250. That is still only 140-160 seconds of burst firing, because the ROF was so high. That might mean 10-20 minutes of sustained firing, with ~5 2-3 second bursts per minute. In very heavy firing you could burn out a barrel in 5 minutes.