Rail Guns in CMBB

[Gaylord Focker]

Parabellum, i did not mean that the modeling of Allied Machine guns could not be improved, I just was adding that under modeled machine guns in CMBO was more of an impact on the German side.

The MG-42 sprayed significantly more lead into the air then any other allied machine gun, check your numbers per minuit, the numbers are right but the increase in rpm over the allied mg's is very significant.

Point being, the PPsH , best smg of the war, sprayed 900 rounds per minuit. The MP-40, a great smg in it's own right laid down 700 rounds per minuit. 200 extra bullets being fired in a 60 second time span is very significant. Same holds true with the Machine Guns. Hope i clarified what i was trying to get across.

[ July 16, 2002, 11:53 PM: Message edited by: Gaylord Focker ]

[Michael Emrys]

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

[Gaylord Focker]

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>

[Priest]

I think the point is that rate of fire has nothing to do with it, as a trained team was not going full bore most of the time.

[WWB]

Originally posted by Gaylord Focker:

Parabellum, i did not mean that the modeling of Allied Machine guns could not be improved, I just was adding that under modeled machine guns in CMBO was more of an impact on the German side.

The MG-42 sprayed significantly more lead into the air then any other allied machine gun, check your numbers per minuit, the numbers are right but the increase in rpm over the allied mg's is very significant.

Point being, the PPsH , best smg of the war, sprayed 900 rounds per minuit. The MP-40, a great smg in it's own right laid down 700 rounds per minuit. 200 extra bullets being fired in a 60 second time span is very significant. Same holds true with the Machine Guns. Hope i clarified what i was trying to get across.

MG42s were a weapon to be feared. But then again so was any well sited, emplaced and supplied MG. Post-war studies found that the 1200 rounds per minute was overkill. For example, the germans still use a version of the venerable beast (MG3) but they have toned down the ROF to a mere 800 rounds a minute. A rate suprisingly similar to most modern MMGs for some odd reason. Also, having spoken to a few people who have fired both MG34s and MG42s, albeit not in anger, all perfered to shoot the MG34. They found it alot easier to keep on target, and a far more accurate weapon in general. The only disadvantage was there was an extra step or two involved in changing the barrel.

The MG42 (or 34) can be called the best MG of WWII for reasons besides high ROF. Things like being able to use the same weapon as an assault MG, light MG or tripod-mounted HMG are great features. That feature along with quick changing barrels (something no one else figured out) put them both well ahead of the pack. In fact, the main reason for the replacement of the MG34 was not due to its low ROF (~800 RPM IIRC) but due to high production costs. The MG42 was made out of stamped, rather than machined parts, and could be made in greater quantities at lower cost than its predecessor.

Regarding SMGs, 900 RPM is great, if you can feed it ammo, the barrel does not melt and you can manage to control the thing. Those 200 extra rounds you speak of would not exist, because both SMGs would have ran out of ammo long before.

The PPsH was a great weapon, but for reasons well beyond ROF. Reasons like ease of use and maintenence and rock-solid reliability.

I do agree that the germans get alot by MG undermodeling in CM, but that has more to do with doctorine and TO&E. German infantry tactics revolved around the MG, especially on the defensive. And while manpower in german infantry battalions steadily dropped, the number of HMGs held pretty steady at 12 per battalion, even if the organization was shifted about somewhat.

OTOH, allies get hit hard too, especially the americans. They deploy a rather high number of MGs, which were nearly as effective at discouraging charges by SMG toting infantry as an MG42. Remember, when one is on the recieving end, one finds that 650 RPM coming downrange is scary enough.

WWB

[edited because I had not yet ranted enough]

[ July 17, 2002, 01:11 AM: Message edited by: wwb_99 ]

[Gaylord Focker]

I could'nt agree more wwb, except about the part of people like the MG-34 better. Well veterens anyway prefered the MG-42 from what i have heard and read. They did generaly practice in firing in bursts, but those bursts still shot more lead in the air then any other Machine Gun. Ever hear what a burst from an MG-42 sounds like? It's impressive. Also, the Heavy Mg-42 was alot lighter then any Allied MG and could be moved around alot easier. Worked great for the Blitz and on defense.

I think the best quality of the PPsH was the ease of manufacture. They could spit out a whole gun in less time it takes me to type this out. Very durable as well, worked great in the cold.

[ July 17, 2002, 01:18 AM: Message edited by: Gaylord Focker ]

[ParaBellum]

Originally posted by Gaylord Focker:

Parabellum, i did not mean that the modeling of Allied Machine guns could not be improved, I just was adding that under modeled machine guns in CMBO was more of an impact on the German side.

The MG-42 sprayed significantly more lead into the air then any other allied machine gun, check your numbers per minuit, the numbers are right but the increase in rpm over the allied mg's is very significant.

I think you confuse high ROF with lethality. The 1300-1400 rounds per minute for the MG42 is a theoretical figure.

The MG42 was a very good weapon, no doubt. But as WWB already pointed out the success of the MG42 was based on many factors, the high ROF being not the most important. Cheap to produce, easy to handle, usable as light and heavy MG, light weight and reliability under all conditions.

When I was trained on the MG3 we were instructed to fire 3-5 rounds when firing from bipod, longer bursts were considered a waste of ammo.

On tripod we would fire 20-50 rounds but always had to take care of the barrels not overheating. After 150-200 rounds (longer bursts without breaks) we had to change the barrel.

I once fired a modified MG3 (without the so-called "Nato-Bremse" =Nato break) that had a much higher ROF, comparable to the MG42 and I wasn't impressed too much. Very hard to control on a bipod. And after some firing on tripod the barrel became so hot it took a looong time to cool down again...

[edit: hell, how did we come from railroad guns to MGs? Anyway...

Thx again John, looks like I have to write a letter to Mr. Krupp, didn't find any production numbers... "Dear Mr.Krupp, I'm writing you...]

[ July 17, 2002, 02:49 AM: Message edited by: ParaBellum ]

[Tero]

Originally posted by wwb_99:

Regarding SMGs, 900 RPM is great, if you can feed it ammo, the barrel does not melt and you can manage to control the thing. Those 200 extra rounds you speak of would not exist, because both SMGs would have ran out of ammo long before.

Not necessarily. When talking about the MP-40 and Thompson with a 40 round bar clip you are correct.

With a 70 round drum magazine (Suomi/PPsH SMG's) those 200 extra rounds mean about three extra magazines. And since they are pistol caliber (9mm /short 7,62mm respectively) the extra weight of the extra magazines would not burden the SMG gunner too much. I think a combat load of one magazine in the gun and 5-7 in a pouch/carrier bag would not be unheard of or unrealistic for a SMG gunner fielding a Suomi or PPsH.

7 x 40 = 280 rounds

7 x 70 = 490 rounds

Add to that the more control over the duration of the burst (you could actually fire aimed single shots lethal up to and beyond 300 meters with the Suomi at least) there are conditions when such a SMG is much better than a standard LMG.

[ July 17, 2002, 04:00 AM: Message edited by: tero ]

[zukkov]

with regards to railroad guns, if they're included, i would assume a rather high rarity factor, thus making them too expensive vs. other types of artillery in most situations.

as to tactics of early war russians, it would not bother me to "force" the usage of wave attacks as long as the scenario is still balanced to allow the russian a chance for victory. remember, regardless of the time period of the war, this is still a tactical level game. and what player out there wants to play a scenario that is fixed for either side to lose? it will be interesting to see how german vs. ai scenarios play out in this game, especially in the early war. will the russians give a good account of themselves or will it just be a slaughter? i doubt the boys of bfc would make a game that isn't balanced, so i expect a lot of german players to bitch about how the russians are "too good". we'll see. lol...

[WWB]

Originally posted by tero:

Originally posted by wwb_99:

Regarding SMGs, 900 RPM is great, if you can feed it ammo, the barrel does not melt and you can manage to control the thing. Those 200 extra rounds you speak of would not exist, because both SMGs would have ran out of ammo long before.

Not necessarily. When talking about the MP-40 and Thompson with a 40 round bar clip you are correct.

With a 70 round drum magazine (Suomi/PPsH SMG's) those 200 extra rounds mean about three extra magazines. And since they are pistol caliber (9mm /short 7,62mm respectively) the extra weight of the extra magazines would not burden the SMG gunner too much. I think a combat load of one magazine in the gun and 5-7 in a pouch/carrier bag would not be unheard of or unrealistic for a SMG gunner fielding a Suomi or PPsH.

7 x 40 = 280 rounds

7 x 70 = 490 rounds

Add to that the more control over the duration of the burst (you could actually fire aimed single shots lethal up to and beyond 300 meters with the Suomi at least) there are conditions when such a SMG is much better than a standard LMG.

What about reload time? Drums are a pain to reseat. Also, 70 round drums are not as insignificant in weight as you think. In addition, you are also presuming all ammo is in 70 round drums. Looking at photographic evidence, I see if anything more of the 30-40 shot clips for the PPsH at least. I doubt there is a reason why a finnish or soviet SMG gunner could carry nearly twice the weight in ammo than his german counterpart.

And, at 300m, I would rather have a LMG 34 with a 250 round belt on it. I will be shooting you while you reload. You see, MG34s did have a very nice single shot feature on them, and could even be used as sniper weapons.

WWB

[Doug Beman]

Exactly, wwb. Higher ROF means faster ammo consumption means more frequent drum/clip changing means less time spent pulling the trigger, or "every second spent reloading is one second spent not firing."

If ROF is the all-deciding factor in machine gun effectiveness, shouldn't the US .30 cal MMG be much more effective than the Ma Duce?

DjB

[Gaylord Focker]

Originally posted by ParaBellum:

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

Parabellum, i did not mean that the modeling of Allied Machine guns could not be improved, I just was adding that under modeled machine guns in CMBO was more of an impact on the German side.

The MG-42 sprayed significantly more lead into the air then any other allied machine gun, check your numbers per minuit, the numbers are right but the increase in rpm over the allied mg's is very significant.

I think you confuse high ROF with lethality. </font>

[WWB]

Actually, no it does not. Too high a ROF and weapons get too spendy on ammo and become very hard to control. Not to mention jams and barrel overheating. Too low is also bad, but no WWII era SMG had that issue.

WWB

[Gaylord Focker]

Originally posted by wwb_99:

Actually, no it does not. Too high a ROF and weapons get too spendy on ammo and become very hard to control. Not to mention jams and barrel overheating. Too low is also bad, but no WWII era SMG had that issue.

WWB

What made the MG-42 so great was that it did not suffer from these symptoms you mention that Ailed MG's did. No such thing as too spendy on Ammo. Thats flawed way of thinking, died during th American -Spanish War. We did'nt use Machine guns and the new rifles, because the American army thought it was a waste of ammo, and well aimed shots would be more effective then the "wasteful" high rate of firing new European weapons. Boy were they wrong, and found out the hard way. Luckily we had some dated Gatling guns laying around for that much needed ROF.

Bullets are Lethal, the more bullets cutting through the air, the more dangerous that area is to move around or take aim or baiscly do anything.

The MG-42 had no problem consistantly filling the air with deadly bursts of ammo. The German industry had no problem keeping up production of rounds for their guns until late war, when their factories were in flames from Allied bombing.

Also as a side note, THe PPsH could sustain high volumes of fire for extended periods of time due to it's chrome lined barrel. A trend that Soviet small arms still use today.

[ July 17, 2002, 11:27 AM: Message edited by: Gaylord Focker ]

[Tero]

Originally posted by wwb_99:

What about reload time? Drums are a pain to reseat.

Actually they are quite easy to seat.

Also, 70 round drums are not as insignificant in weight as you think.

You should compare a drum to a stick magazine. The weight difference is not that pronouced.

In addition, you are also presuming all ammo is in 70 round drums. Looking at photographic evidence, I see if anything more of the 30-40 shot clips for the PPsH at least.

True. But usually one gunner would carry only one type of magazine.

I doubt there is a reason why a finnish or soviet SMG gunner could carry nearly twice the weight in ammo than his german counterpart.

You forget one thing: the German magazine pouch held only 3 magazines. Usually 2 was all that a gunner could carry. The Russian and the Finnish uniforms were less formalized. It was quite usual to carry extra drums in your gas mask bag or bread bag.

You are too hooked on weight alone. The drum magazine was easier to carry because you could use any bag large enough to hold it.

And, at 300m, I would rather have a LMG 34 with a 250 round belt on it. I will be shooting you while you reload. You see, MG34s did have a very nice single shot feature on them, and could even be used as sniper weapons.

Then again it was not as easily moved around.

[Marlow]

If drums were truely superior, why weren't they used for the Thompson during WWII, and why are they not in common useage with any modern armed force.

[WWB]

Originally posted by Gaylord Focker:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by wwb_99:

Actually, no it does not. Too high a ROF and weapons get too spendy on ammo and become very hard to control. Not to mention jams and barrel overheating. Too low is also bad, but no WWII era SMG had that issue.

WWB

What made the MG-42 so great was that it did not suffer from these symptoms you mention that Ailed MG's did. No such thing as too spendy on Ammo. Thats flawed way of thinking, died during th American -Spanish War. We did'nt use Machine guns and the new rifles, because the American army thought it was a waste of ammo, and well aimed shots would be more effective then the "wasteful" high rate of firing new European weapons. Boy were they wrong, and found out the hard way. Luckily we had some dated Gatling guns laying around for that much needed ROF.

Bullets are Lethal, the more bullets cutting through the air, the more dangerous that area is to move around or take aim or baiscly do anything.

The MG-42 had no problem consistantly filling the air with deadly bursts of ammo. The German industry had no problem keeping up production of rounds for their guns until late war, when their factories were in flames from Allied bombing.

Also as a side note, THe PPsH could sustain high volumes of fire for extended periods of time due to it's chrome lined barrel. A trend that Soviet small arms still use today.</font>

[WWB]

Originally posted by tero:

Originally posted by wwb_99:

What about reload time? Drums are a pain to reseat.

Actually they are quite easy to seat.

Also, 70 round drums are not as insignificant in weight as you think.

You should compare a drum to a stick magazine. The weight difference is not that pronouced.

In addition, you are also presuming all ammo is in 70 round drums. Looking at photographic evidence, I see if anything more of the 30-40 shot clips for the PPsH at least.

True. But usually one gunner would carry only one type of magazine.

I doubt there is a reason why a finnish or soviet SMG gunner could carry nearly twice the weight in ammo than his german counterpart.

You forget one thing: the German magazine pouch held only 3 magazines. Usually 2 was all that a gunner could carry. The Russian and the Finnish uniforms were less formalized. It was quite usual to carry extra drums in your gas mask bag or bread bag.

You are too hooked on weight alone. The drum magazine was easier to carry because you could use any bag large enough to hold it.

And, at 300m, I would rather have a LMG 34 with a 250 round belt on it. I will be shooting you while you reload. You see, MG34s did have a very nice single shot feature on them, and could even be used as sniper weapons.

Then again it was not as easily moved around.

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.

Exactly how does two times the bullets weigh out to nearly the same? The weight of the magezine itslef is usually immatierial once it is loaded, because bullets are heavy last time I checked.

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

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

WWB

[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.

[Marlow]

Which LMG would that be? The SAW (FN minimi) doesn't have a true drum, but a belt that is contained in a plastic box (although I have seen it called a drum). Is it the Stoner?

In any event, a LMG is a far cry from a SMG. They have far different intended roles, and it is not surprising that what may work for one is not practical for the other. Ever seen a belt fed uzi?

[Triumvir]

That would be the Ultimax LMG, produced by Chartered Industries of Singapore. Since it's also used by special forces as, in effect, a 5.56 SMG thanks to the low recoil, I'd argue that the functionality is not that hugely different.

It also takes M-16 style 30 round magazines, so the line blurs even more.

The real drawback I see to a drum is not the usage of the drum, but the loading of it in the field. It's a gvdljoh (pardon my french) hard reload if all you have is loose rounds. Then again, you might say a similar thing about relinking belts from loose rounds.

As for a belt-fed SMG, well, I haven't seen any labelled as such in production, though I have heard of Minimis being cut down with folding stocks and shortened barrels to be used for the SMG role for special forces. Though that again is a somewhat blurry boundary.

[Gaylord Focker]

WWB just by blindly stating that the higher rate of fire that the MG-42 had is a disadvantage does not make it so.

Everything you've said is the anti-thesus of everything I've heard or read about about this weapon.

Do you have any reading material to back up your statements, you have me curious now because no where have I ever seen the MG-42 get such a harsh review.

The MG42 had the highest rate of fire of any infantry machine gun during World War II. In fact the German infantryman was taught to conserve on ammunition and only employ the high rate of fire when neccisary. The gun could also fire effectivly up to almost 1000 meters,max range of a litlte over 2000m with a muzzle velocity of 755m per second. The Mg-42 also had a quick barrel change.

Please read a little on the Spanish-American War to see how big of an impact ROF has on the modern battlefield.

[ July 17, 2002, 02:45 PM: Message edited by: Gaylord Focker ]

[Triumvir]

Gaylord, assuming you're not the troll your name jumps out and proclaims you to be, if you've ever fired an MG in real life you'll know that stats are , in reality, nowhere near as important as you think they are.

A cliche that still isn't quite worn out is that amateurs talk about tactics and strategy; professionals talk about logistics.

The MG-42 was a revolutionary weapon for WWII because it was the first true GPMG; it could be used as a squad LMG or as an SFMG. This makes supply a lot easier, because you only need to create a single weapon and ammo. You also only need to supply enough tripods and ammo to convert your squad LMGs to SFMGs.

Rate of fire certainly helps in some cases; for one, a faster ROF, assuming proper aim etc, gives a better chance of catching someone dashing from cover to cover. But this is all outweighed by the difficulty of feeding ammunition to the MG.

You try humping 750 7.62 rounds on a 24km march, in addition to all your gear, and you'll agree with me that sitting down and blowing it all away in the first minute of a firefight is a bit of a waste.

It's no coincidence that, as others have said, that modern MG-42s have their ROF reduced by about 25%; this allows a squad to keep roughly the same firepower, but last a lot longer between resupply.

[Gaylord Focker]

Tirumvir, I think that it is safe to say that the Germans had an effective supply technique to feed their Machine Guns. And your right about the simplicity of supply between the heavy and light mg-42.

Your theory would hold up if the average German squad was lazy and un organized, not the case. Perhaps you've watched Saving Private Ryan too often and have the scene of where the Private is incapable of bringing ammo up to the Machine Gunner in that last scene.

If you can point me in the direction of some reading material about the trials and tribulations of Germans bumbling about the woods looking for ammo to load thier machine gun, then please give me a link or a book title.

Also why are you refering to me as a troll when i've given no reason for anyone to think otherwise?

I'm sorry but i can't carry on a logical and productive debate with someone who starts their thoughts with such an ignorant adress such as that.

If you do not find my screen name amsusing, your loss, but no need of name calling, especialy when i've never even written anything to you before.

I have a feeling BTS has modeled all the MG's as they should be in CMBB so this debate will probably prove trite.

[ July 17, 2002, 04:31 PM: Message edited by: Gaylord Focker ]

[Triumvir]

Given that you can't even be bothered to spell my handle properly when all you need to do is cut and paste, I don't see why you're so surprised that I think you're a troll or that I'm dismissive. Details reveal a lot.

Given also that you don't seem to understand that when you're hungry, tired and low on sleep, even the simplest things are hard, I can understand why you seem to think that moving ammo around is a simple task. It's not. I've done it, and your comments indicate you haven't. Experience isn't everything, but in this case, it's a lot.

750 rounds of 7.62 comes to about 25-30 kilos for a single person. That's not an easy load to hump around on top of all your other stuff. If you can reduce this by 33% and still retain roughly the same firepower, that's 10kg you don't have to carry; and that much more energy you can use productively. And all MGs, no matter what their theoretical ROF is, have a practical ROF of about 100-200 rpm, if nothing else because you need to spend time acquiring targets.

It's not about bumbling around searching for ammo; it's about the difference between being ass-tired and generative-organs-falling-off tired. When you're tired, you can't think as well; and that makes you a less effective soldier. The more tired, the less effective, obviously; and tiredness brings increasing returns to scale.

Am I claiming that all German soldiers in WW2 were less effective soldiers than the equivalent Americans because they were lugging around more ammo? No. Am I claiming that they were less effective than they would be if they had carried 30% less ammo and a weapon with 30% less firepower? Yes.