Rail Guns in CMBB

[Gaylord Focker]

Triumvir, the MG-42 came in 50 round belts. With a 6 man crew, i don't see how this could be any more of a problem. If it were in fact a problem, would'nt the German Field Marshals have been aware and corrected this so called problem?

It is still my opinion that the MG-42 was and was used to it's greatest potential in World War2.

I still fail to see how you can take the best of machine gun of the war, and cut down not only it's ammo, but it's rate of fire as well, and come up with an "improved" version of the gun.

The 30% less ammo would obviously make life easier for the machine gun crew who had to lug it around, i can't argue that, but at what cost? Is that worth the trade off of making life considerably more difficult for the rest of the squad out fighting in front of you?

Also i'm sure the Werhmacht had an adequate enough phyisical fitness system in wich soldiers designated to machine gun crews were proficient in firing their weapon, cleaning thier weapon, maintaining their weapon, and being phyisicly fit enough to carry around the ordinance for thier weapon.

Now if you want to say starved soldiers are not as strong as well fed ones, well in those cases, Stalingrad for example, soldiers on both sides had to make consessions to feats of strenght and endurance. An Mp-40 would probably get heavy realy fast after going with out food and snacking on axel grease for a couple weeks.

[ July 17, 2002, 05:24 PM: Message edited by: Gaylord Focker ]

[Triumvir]

As far as I'm aware, MG42 ammo did not come in 50 round belts. It came in 250 round belts, in boxes; perhaps you're thinking of the 25 or 50 round drum magazines for the MGs. And whether it comes in 50 round belts, 250 round boxes or 5000 round crates, you still have to carry it; and the more people you have, the _more_ ammo you carry, not the less.

You can't imagine how you can cut down two things and yet have a better weapon because I think you think that bigger is always better. But here's an example that's not to do with militaria, so maybe you might be better able to appreciate it.

Let's say you have a series of cars that can only move at 0 or x km/h, with nothing in between. In a case like this, a car which travels at 120km/h is better than one that travels at 60km/h, right?

Answer: it depends. If you're on a straightaway, yes, the faster car is better. If you're in any kind of twisty terrain, though, the slower car is better because it's more handleable.

Let's add another dimension; let's add fuel consumption to the mix. Even if you're on a straightaway, if the fast car runs out of gas after 200km, while the slow car runs out of gas after 400km, would you still want the faster car?

Like so many people, you're focussed on one stat; the rate of fire. But to an infantryman, and to an army, rate of fire is not so much a critical factor as other, equally important things like weight, ease of use, time between resupply, maintainability... There are a lot of dimensions to something, and you're only looking at one.

Furthermore, it works out doubly so; if you keep the same amount of ammo, then the team lasts 25% longer without needing resupply -- that's significant if, as was the case at Stalingrad which you mention, you don't have enough supply.

I don't think you quite realise how important, how _crucially_ important weight and comfort is for a soldier. If you can reduce weight, increase comfort at the cost of a little theoretical firepower, the productivity gains far outweigh the loss.

Learn to think in colour, not black and white...

[Gaylord Focker]

I understand what your saying, but using solider comfort and Stalingrad together is an oxymoron.

I think i see what you mean about MG-42 performance improvements. The MG-42 was such a great design that it's basic design is still in use today as the MG-3. The MG-3 does have a slower rate of fire, and i'm sure it's for a reason.(is cost one of a few factors?)

But from 1942-1945, the MG-42 was simply as good as machine guns got.

The Panther was a great design but with a few tweaks and some laser guided ordinance it would have been a better tank as well. (another design that outlasted the war.)

A question we have to ask is was the technology availabe to make the MG-42 perform better then in did from 42-45? Simply cutting down it's high rate of fire i don't think would have done the trick.

First off i think the developers would have to start with the Optics and the Barrel,and the cartridge itself, after those were perfected, then i think you could tune down the rate of fire to make it just as or a more effective weapon.

IMHO the technology was either not present, or not presented to improve on the MG-42's design.

Also in the middle of a World War if you have the world best machine gun and it seems to out perform everything else the enemy has, would you put time and funds into further developement of the MG-42? Or would you put all that time money and energy into a place where your armed forces were lacking , or on par with the enemy's particular piece of equipment(s)?

[ July 17, 2002, 05:41 PM: Message edited by: Gaylord Focker ]

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Gaylord Focker:

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

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Gaylord Focker:

Point being, the PPsH , best smg of the war, sprayed 900 rounds per minuit.

I do hope that you are not presuming that a high ROF in an SMG is an unmitigated boon? Aside from making ammunition supply that much more problematic, a high ROF also makes the weapon harder to control while firing.

Michael</font>

[Tero]

Originally posted by wwb_99:

Reseating probably depends on the drum. I am sure the finnish designed drum magezines for the suomi are the most wonderfully designed drums in the world, seatable in an instant, reloadable in seconds and light as a feather.

As a matter of fact the PPsH drum is a copy of the Finnish magazine. And the PPsH magazine was completely interchangeable with the Suomi drum. A Suomi could use a PPsH drum eventhough it was built to house the 7,62 round. It was found out the 9mm Suomi round could be loaded into the PPsH magazine.

Now, seatable in an instant: yes. Where do you get the notion a (Suomi/PPsH) SMG drum magazine is hard to seat ? reloadable in seconds: a two man team can rotate 5 drums and never run out of ready drums even in a fierce fire fight. Ie. they act like a magazine fed LMG team. You have to keep calm when reloading it, yes. But if you know what you are doing you can reload the drum quite fast. light as a feather hmmmm... for a shoulder fired full auto weapon having some weight is good.

Exactly how does two times the bullets weigh out to nearly the same?

What is the exact weight difference you are talking about ? How much less do 7 loaded MP-40 stick magazines weigh compared to 7 loaded Suomi/PPsH magazines ?

The weight of the magezine itslef is usually immatierial once it is loaded, because bullets are heavy last time I checked.

What you have to take also into account is the other stuff the gunner is hauling. The Finns and the Soviets rarely carried such stuff like gas masks in actual combat conditions. And since neither a Finnish or a Soviet squad carried a belt fed LMG the main task of the squad members was not to haul extra LMG belts in addition to their own kits.

You are too hooked on magezine pouches. Pockets work fine for holding 30 round box mags last time I checked.

Last time I carried 30 round banana magazines they did not fit into any non-purpose pouches so that they were easily accessible. Around that time I also carried some Suomi magazines and because of their size and shape you could stack them upright into any pouch large enough to hold them and it was quite easy to take them out quite fast.

WWII era uniforms did not have too many large pockets you could stick many box magazines into and still have the easily at hand when in a prone position. That you can arrange with a pouch very easily.

While I have no evidence, save anecdotal, I highly doubt, given avaliability, any trained german would go into battle with ~120 rounds for a SMG that could eat that in seconds. I have read a number of first-hand accounts, and dont recall anyone running out of ammo after the third clip.

Ay, there is the rub. There were very few trained Germans in the Finnish and the Soviet armies.

Marlow has a very good point--if drums were so great, why were they phased out of service?

Because it is easier to put factory loaded belts into canvas pouches that have the same function as the manually fed drum magazines had in the WWII era SMG's. In the field manually loading a drum is easier than loading a belt, actually.

BTW: the Finnish army phased out the Suomi SMG in early 90's. And AFAIK the military pretty dispensed with the box magazined in favour of the drum after the war so the ROF could be maintained. The law enforcement usage might have had more use for the box magazines. When I was in the service we were tought to load both but only the drum magazine was present in the live fire ranges.

[ July 17, 2002, 05:44 PM: Message edited by: tero ]

[Triumvir]

Does soldier comfort, in your opinion, _really_ seem to be the more important item when I'm talking about using less ammo in a situation where resupply is rare?

I admit to perhaps bad positioning by talking about soldier comfort after talking about lack of supply but that's one of the things paragraphs are for -- to signal a shift in focus of content.

Cost is obviously a factor for rate of fire in the MG3 -- ammo is expensive.

Could the MG42 have been made a better weapon? Sure. Machine it for better accuracy. Reduce the weight. Make the barrel change a lot easier and not require tools (who has time to fumble for an asbestos glove?)

Optics? An MG isn't a point target weapon; it's used to cover an area. Barrel? Sure, stellite would make the interval between barrel changes longer.

But the easiest fix would be to make the bolt heavier, which is exactly what the Bundeswehr did with the MG3 (as well as rechamber it for 7.62, of course.)

As for what you should do in wartime, please note that I've already made this exact point further up in this discussion; and that this particular series of posts have been made to cure you of the belief that high ROF makes an unambiguously better weapon.

[Gaylord Focker]

Originally posted by Michael emrys:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Gaylord Focker:

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

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Gaylord Focker:

Point being, the PPsH , best smg of the war, sprayed 900 rounds per minuit.

I do hope that you are not presuming that a high ROF in an SMG is an unmitigated boon? Aside from making ammunition supply that much more problematic, a high ROF also makes the weapon harder to control while firing.

Michael</font>

[Gaylord Focker]

Originally posted by Triumvir:

Does soldier comfort, in your opinion, _really_ seem to be the more important item when I'm talking about using less ammo in a situation where resupply is rare?

I admit to perhaps bad positioning by talking about soldier comfort after talking about lack of supply but that's one of the things paragraphs are for -- to signal a shift in focus of content.

Cost is obviously a factor for rate of fire in the MG3 -- ammo is expensive.

Could the MG42 have been made a better weapon? Sure. Machine it for better accuracy. Reduce the weight. Make the barrel change a lot easier and not require tools (who has time to fumble for an asbestos glove?)

Optics? An MG isn't a point target weapon; it's used to cover an area. Barrel? Sure, stellite would make the interval between barrel changes longer.

But the easiest fix would be to make the bolt heavier, which is exactly what the Bundeswehr did with the MG3 (as well as rechamber it for 7.62, of course.)

As for what you should do in wartime, please note that I've already made this exact point further up in this discussion; and that this particular series of posts have been made to cure you of the belief that high ROF makes an unambiguously better weapon.

I agree then that high ROF on it's own does not make a weapon superior to another. You made some good points.

Getting back to SMG's wich is truly the best over all smg, the PPsH or the MP-40? I would have to say from what i've read the PPsH was superior, but i'm wondering if it is a debatable topic.

[Michael Emrys]

You're right, Triumvir, he is a troll.

I wonder if he ever posted under the handle of Mustang or P-51D...

Michael

[Triumvir]

Yeah Michael, he does sound like a troll with one major difference; I've never known a troll with any competence to back down on points presented. I suppose the day trolls learn how to do that they become even more dangerous...

But in any case the obvious answer to his question is neither, of course; the Suomi beats all of them hands down with both thumbs broken.

[Gaylord Focker]

Originally posted by Michael emrys:

You're right, Triumvir, he is a troll.

I wonder if he ever posted under the handle of Mustang or P-51D...

Michael

Exscuse me, but how am i a troll? I think your needless name calling of me a troll is completely un called for. Where can you base any facts that i'm a troll?

Mabe you mis interpreted my questions about the PPsH and MP-40 as trying to troll i don't know?

I was wrong about a couple things on the MG-42 and was wondering if i was under a similar wrong impression about anything on 2 SMG's.

So my suggestion to you is try not to jump the gun with pointless name calling when it is you who mabe under a false pretense.

[Sitzkrieg]

Talk amongst yourselves. Here's the topic:

Gaylord Focker is really Lewis/Username/MajorBooBoo and Starfleet Captain is really Maximus.

Keith

[Gaylord Focker]

Originally posted by sitzkrieg:

Talk amongst yourselves. Here's the topic:

Gaylord Focker is really Lewis/Username/MajorBooBoo and Starfleet Captain is really Maximus.

Keith

Please tell me your kidding..... I don't know who StarFleet is and i also have no clue who Maximus is, or Major whoever.....

I was just trying to get some info on the MP-40/ PPsH smg's. My read knowldege of these 2 weapons is very limited in the fact that i've read 0 books on either and was interested.

If i have offended anyone somehow please come forward and let me know what happend? Feel free to e-mail me as well because i'm quite confused right now.

[Tero]

Originally posted by Triumvir:

But in any case the obvious answer to his question is neither, of course; the Suomi beats all of them hands down with both thumbs broken.

But of course.

Not too many SMG models were copied during WWII, either by friends or foe. The Suomi was copied. Off hand I can't think of any notable copies of the Thompson, PPsH or MP-40 which would have reached widespread front line service.

The Suomi inspired the PPsH which in turn was instrumental in beating back the Germans out of Soviet soil. The Swedish K-model was also a copy of Suomi.

[Triumvir]

The Sten was copied, extensively. It never made it into service, but since its intended users were Werwolf, that's quite lucky.

Personally, I think more highly of the Sten than the Suomi. A cheap nasty piece of stampings, but so fast to produce that you could probably arm at least four people for the cost of one Suomi.

Another good weapon, one that never made it into as much use in Soviet time as it should have done thanks to internal Party politics was the PPS-43, which went on to inspire at least 3 post-war copies. Simple, cheap, and producible by starving workers.

To claim that the Suomi inspired the PPsh is quite untrue; the mechanisms are quite different with the PPsh having simple blowback while the Suomi has an interesting mechanism where the ignition of the primer creates the seal. The Suomi's drum magazine, however, influenced the Russians to build drum magazines for their weapons. Quite different.

Accuracy is nice and all, and in our present world of war by mercenaries -- by which, of course, I mean regular troops as opposed to a levee en masse -- is perhaps the most important characteristics in a weapon. But for arming the masses, nothing beats a weapon like the Sten or the PPS-43.

[Sig]

Hello,

Concerning the weight of MG ammunition: ooooh yes it is *heavy*!! I had the dubious pleasure to help a HMG crew transporting additional ammo (3 boxes of 200 fitted in a sort of crude rucksack). It was in the alps and I was in top physical condition at that time, but I still painfully remember I suffered a lot! So much for mobility when you have full ammo allotement to transport...

On another subject (the drum vs clip story): I seems to remember that some of the reasons why the Thompson was fitted with a clip and not a drum had something to do with

a/ increased risk of jamming as the drum empties esp. when the spring gets older and weaker, and

b/ noise: if the drum is not totally full, the ammo inside has a tendency to rattle when the soldier moves (not good for stealthy movement).

Can someone confirm or infirm these two points? I read that long time ago, and am not totally sure of the accuracy of this info. Just remember I'm talking about WWII vintage drums, not modern equipment.

Sig

[Durbish]

Originally posted by Triumvir:

Drums are not completely phased out. I've used a 5.56 LMG with 100 round drums in service. It's a cast iron bitch to reload once you pass 60 rounds, but it works just fine. I preferred it to the belt on the 7.62 MG we had because you could actually fire on the move.

Resupply is trivial because you can dump a 100 round drum into your hip pocket or into the pouches on your webbing; and so can your buddies. For sustained fire, it's not so great; but that's what 7.62 MGs are for.

We used drums because belts tend to get tangled in jungles, and because it's harder to return fire immediately if you get caught in an ambush with a belt-fed weapon.

That LMG is, I believe, in use by some special forces units as an optional weapon because it can, with the right accessories, shrink down to M4 carbine size. If you're strong enough to aim with one hand, you can fire one handed because the recoil is incredibly low.

Cool post.

[Tero]

Originally posted by Triumvir:

The Sten was copied, extensively. It never made it into service,

So how extensive was that copying then ?

Personally, I think more highly of the Sten than the Suomi. A cheap nasty piece of stampings, but so fast to produce that you could probably arm at least four people for the cost of one Suomi.

Another good weapon, one that never made it into as much use in Soviet time as it should have done thanks to internal Party politics was the PPS-43, which went on to inspire at least 3 post-war copies. Simple, cheap, and producible by starving workers.

The Finnish army took on surplus Stens (and even made copies of it along with the PPS-43) after the war for that very reason. But only the Suomi was retained long after the introduction of assault rifles.

The different sets of benefits and problems associated both crafted and stamped, mass produced weapons are evident. Curiously enough it seems the mass produced model gets always thrown out first after the immediate need for quantity over quality is overcome.

To claim that the Suomi inspired the PPsh is quite untrue; the mechanisms are quite different with the PPsh having simple blowback while the Suomi has an interesting mechanism where the ignition of the primer creates the seal. The Suomi's drum magazine, however, influenced the Russians to build drum magazines for their weapons. Quite different.

Inspiration is more than just copying the mechanical characteristics. Before Winter War the Red Army regarded the SMG to be of no real military value. After their experiences against the Suomi SMG they thought differently.

I hear the MG-42 inspired the Americans already during the war but there was a clitch in the reading the measurements of the original model (metric vs inch) which rendered the produced copies totally unworkable and useless. Yet the copy emerged as the M-60 GPMG when all the bugs were worked out.

Accuracy is nice and all, and in our present world of war by mercenaries -- by which, of course, I mean regular troops as opposed to a levee en masse -- is perhaps the most important characteristics in a weapon. But for arming the masses, nothing beats a weapon like the Sten or the PPS-43.

True. I think a balance of ROF and accuracy culminated in the AK-47 and other early assault rifles which were built according to the war time experiences (with such features as freely selectable semi/full auto).

There are still conscript armies around and they regularly outfight the western "regular" troops using cheaper or "outdated/obsolete" weaponry. It is folly to think you can win a real war with remote control gadgets and gizmos. When cost effectiveness overriders centuries of experience the outcome can only be a disaster.

Here is a link:

http://www.guns.connect.fi/gow/suomi1.html

[ July 18, 2002, 04:01 AM: Message edited by: tero ]

[KNac]

Well, about RR guns and/or very heavy artillery guns.

I wonder which new types will be modelled for germans, and which for soviets.

For example, the 170mm gun will be modelled? and the 30.5 or 35 cm guns/mortars? I don´t know about eastern front but I know about western front, 170mm guns were not modelled for CMBO when were much superior (in numbers) to the already modelled 24 cm guns.

For example in Normandy there were several 170mm batteries (some cased in concrete bunkers) attached to coastal artillery bn. For example 4/HKB.1262 coastal artillery bn or 10/1261 coastal artillery bn. Both under heer command (not kriegsmarine)

Also, what about 122mm guns? Used in several artillery brigades, or in some artillery batteries in several divisions? I suppose 240mm had an higher "cool" factor. This is not a flame I love the game and wuill buy CMBB for sure but a personal opinion, i prefer that more common guns that weren´t modelled to be included (170, 122, or other several guns) that were much common than the most of RR guns, which were uncommon, and as others said, are far away from the CM scope (tactical battlefield).

But if they are included they will be very good for player runed campaings (like the CMMC).

S!

[Triumvir]

With regards to the Sten, from what I know nearly 400,000 of them were produced by the Germans, with some strangely being produced as exact -- down to serial number -- copies of British Stens. That's a decent amount of copying. Note that this happened during 1945 itself, so you can probably imagine why it never made it into service.

As for why stamped guns are thrown out of service, it's fairly obvious that peacetime tolerances are much tighter than wartime tolerances and that simply throwing a weapon away to pick another up is frowned upon.

Furthermore, to claim that the M-60 is a "debugged" copy of the MG42 is a bit incorrect; it's a mix between the MG42 and FG42. Also, the fact that even the Americans are abandoning it for the FN MAG should say something about how well debugged it's been.

As for regular troops, I think we've previously discussed how, all else being equal (training, equipment etc) a cohort of conscripts will beat a cohort of volunteers because the proportion of able men will be quite a bit higher among that of volunteers.

There are many dedicated and professional soldiers in the regular portions of armies around the world. They are far outweighed in numbers by the remainder deadweight regulars around them. Everyone here who is a regular belongs to the first category, naturally; deadweight don't bother learning how to play games, eh?