flamingknives Posted December 20, 2002 Share Posted December 20, 2002 Come to that, tank MG firepower too. What is it? I'd be nice to see that on the unit info screen. In the next patch. Huh? Huh? Please? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redwolf Posted December 20, 2002 Share Posted December 20, 2002 It is between LMG and HMG. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PvtTom Posted December 20, 2002 Share Posted December 20, 2002 I would think tank MG firepower would be as good or better than HMG firepower, you have stable platform and powerful sights to use when shooting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redwolf Posted December 20, 2002 Share Posted December 20, 2002 No Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bone_Vulture Posted December 20, 2002 Share Posted December 20, 2002 Originally posted by PvtTom: I would think tank MG firepower would be as good or better than HMG firepower, you have stable platform and powerful sights to use when shooting.You're in a cramped steel box with a firing slit barely larger than the hole in your average mailbox. The entire contraption is moving on treads in rugged terrain, perhaps balanced on crude metal springs. Where is the "stable platform", or "powerful sights"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PvtTom Posted December 20, 2002 Share Posted December 20, 2002 Maybe the tank is not moving? Now I am not sure about WWII tanks but modern tanks use the main gun sights for the MG also, I would assume WWII tanks did too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redwolf Posted December 20, 2002 Share Posted December 20, 2002 The cox MG, yes, it uses the gun sights and it has a pretty decent mount. But the sights are adjusted for the main gun. A 7.62 MG doesn't really have the same ballistics. The halftrack MGs have a ridiculous mount and no optics whatsoever. And besides, a vehicle with suspension is never a stable platform. The tripod on the earh is far more stable. It is the same issue why cranes with wheels don't stand on their wheels while using the crane, they use retractable hard legs. [ December 20, 2002, 04:23 PM: Message edited by: redwolf ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flamingknives Posted December 21, 2002 Author Share Posted December 21, 2002 It's still a wide area - a varience of about 100 fp at close range. Would BFC care to comment? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andreas Posted December 21, 2002 Share Posted December 21, 2002 Originally posted by flamingknives: It's still a wide area - a varience of about 100 fp at close range. Would BFC care to comment?Close range being closer than 40m, it could have something to do with: a) LOS (where does the dead space on a tank/vehicle start) - with an HMG you can fire in any direction at 2m distance, with a tank you can not. absence of a crew (if close combat is modelled by the crew of an HMG at very close range) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flamingknives Posted December 21, 2002 Author Share Posted December 21, 2002 The varience is between HMG and LMG versions of the MG42. Therefore, saying that the FP of tank and HT MGs is "between HMG and LMG" doesn't help that much Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wallybob Posted December 21, 2002 Share Posted December 21, 2002 Originally posted by redwolf: [QB]The cox MG, yes, it uses the gun sights and it has a pretty decent mount. But the sights are adjusted for the main gun. A 7.62 MG doesn't really have the same ballistics. QB]Not correct, You have/had a seperate aiming reticle for Coaxial MG, using the Gunners' Primary Sight. German , American, and British all did. Not sure about Soviet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wallybob Posted December 21, 2002 Share Posted December 21, 2002 My above post only referred to Coaxial use by a tank. Loaders, Commanders, and Half-track pintle mounts are and were notoriously innacurate. Today an M2HB machine gun (.50 Cal) on an M1 tank is accurate to 1850 Meters (tracer burnout). The same MG on a M88 recovery vehicle, or on a truck (both using a free mount) max effective is around 500 Meters. I am not sure about the range on a ground mount with tripod. Coax MG on M1 (M240) 7.62 accurate to around 900M. Loaders M240 on skate ring is pitiful. Maybe 300M. On a good day. With nobody shooting at the Loader. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redwolf Posted December 22, 2002 Share Posted December 22, 2002 Originally posted by flamingknives: The varience is between HMG and LMG versions of the MG42. Therefore, saying that the FP of tank and HT MGs is "between HMG and LMG" doesn't help that muchYou can get a pretty good idea to look at the maximum range and then compare it to LMG and HMG's max range. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YankeeDog Posted December 22, 2002 Share Posted December 22, 2002 I agree that it would be a good idea to see vehicle MG fp on the unit info screen. The fact that it is not there may be simply a matter of available real estate - not much space left on that info screen. I don't really have an issue with the idea that a vehicle mounted MG should have less firepower than an HMG team, though, even if you're talking about a well-mounted, optically sighted coaxial MG. In addition to the above mentioned issues, there's also the fact that a vehicle mounted MG is fired and serviced by one person. That means one person to sight, load, and fire. An HMG team has a different person for each of these jobs, making things much more efficient. I know less about this subject, but I imagine that changing a magazine or barrel in a vehicle mounted MG is considerably more difficult than for an infantry MG team that has more space and people to accomplish the job. Since barrel/ammo change is modeled only abstractly as part of firepower in CM, this should have a substantial effect of game fp ratings for vehicle mounted MGs, especially for Soviet vehicles that are by and large using the drum-fed (and therefore in more frequent need of reload) DT 1928 MG. I am interested in the issues that have been brought up in re tank-mounted vs. HT mounted MGs. It sounds like HT mounted MGs should have a substantially lower fp rating, especially at longer ranges. I have always assumed that all vehicle-mounted MGs were more or less the same (assuming same type of MG). I'd be curious to know if these differences in mount are modeled. Anyway, interesting stuff. Cheers, YD Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flamingknives Posted December 22, 2002 Author Share Posted December 22, 2002 Come to that - what's the fp of a Quad .50 cal? or a triple MG15? Might be nice to see this on the LOS tool too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PvtTom Posted December 22, 2002 Share Posted December 22, 2002 Just an fyi, a coax is fired by the gunner and the ammo is handled by the loader so it has a 2 man crew. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redwolf Posted December 22, 2002 Share Posted December 22, 2002 I am sure all vehicle MGs have the same firepower in CM. You can check max range for halftracks and ACs and also for coax MGs on the flammpanzers. They are all the same. I assume a flammpanzer coax MG is not modeled differently from a normal tank coax, so I assume they are all the same. Barrel change in a vehicle MG? Don't think so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PvtTom Posted December 22, 2002 Share Posted December 22, 2002 Actually the coax mg in an M1 is only held in with 2 pins, it is easy to take out, I don't have any idea how a WWII tank is set up though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts