Will the MG-34/42 be feared in CMBB?

[Barrold]

A quick clarification on the ranges involved in the scenario Lord Dragon and I played.

We had a fairly thin line of infantry positions that opened up at the mentioned 50 to 100 meters.

I un-hid the machineguns from their covered positions at about 150-250 meters at the encouragement of Rune. IIRC, at least two of the three were MG-34s.

As informative as these couple turns were to display the modifications of the game system and the alterations in machinegun unit effectiveness, I don't think it would be fair to extrapolate much more than situational experience from what happened.

It certainly appeared that the paradigm was shifted and the need to think outside the box was value-added to the embedded technology but clichés aside, I am sure the new game will generate a billion tips on how to correctly deal with these units.

The time-honored CM tradition of discussing the relative merits and historical accuracy of the various tactics and units will no doubt soon start-up after everyone is able to spend much more time than we were to dissect more carefully these all-too-brief glimpses.

Fortunately, it appears that the wait will not be too much longer since they are making distribution announcements and such so we can all start analyzing instead of speculating.

BDH

[JasonC]

Berli - if you don't have the numbers to win the firefight that close, you don't have the numbers for a human wave to succeed, either. No, the time when a human wave may make sense is when there is a lot of open ground to cover, not when you are very close to the enemy. And when you have any level of odds. The problem it can solve is that low quality troops pin very easily or break if they try to creep forward in sequence by fire and movement bounds, and don't recover to continue the attack. Not that low quality troops shoot so poorly they can't hit anything except at 5 yards. If you've got a whole company of poor troops nearby already, just fire. Fire ascendency is a much surer way to take ground.

Farther on, I see the attack was not from 50 meters but from more like 250 meters out. That is the sort of distance that can make a human wave sensible, so the whole thing fits better than I thought at first. If you can get lower quality troops down to around 100 yards, you can just fire, but if you can't get them there without them pinning, or getting broken in sequence, then it may may sense to risk a wave.

[ July 09, 2002, 12:33 PM: Message edited by: JasonC ]

[JasonC]

To lcm - I think the HMG-42 deserves its FP rating, because higher ROF is useful for momentary impact from each burst. What I don't think it deserves is its ammo rating, of 95 shots. I think the Allied MGs do deserve lower FP ratings, though I'd like to see all MGs do more to highly exposed targets (especially those moving rapidly in the open). Some also deserve somewhat higher ammo ratings. The HMG-1917 and Vickers actually get a quite generous ammo rating, but the others do not.

I'd do the ammo levels like this (parens show relative ammo to the current default level) -

HMG-42 - 65 (.68)

LMG-42 - 25 (1.00)

HMG-1917 - 105 (.84)

Vickers - 105 (.84)

MMG-1919 (5 man) - 80 (1.23)

MMG-1919 (3 man) - 40 (1.14)

50 cal - 35 (.88)

The HMG-42 is overly generous because it has both a high FP, signifying very rapid fire, and a large ammo total in shots. The adjusted total gives it basically the same FP*shots as the water cooled HMGs, but delivered more rapidly. The LMG-42 is fine, with few men and a high rate of fire it gets few shots.

The water cooled HMGs are too generous at the present 125, because the guns themselves are quite heavy, limiting the ammo that can be moved by the 6 man team. The MMG-1919 is short-changed, because the ammo depth produced by low rate of fire, a light gun, and a large team is not reflected in the present default ammo value of only 65. The 3 man team is more nearly right, because the much smaller team doesn't have as much spare lift capacity for ammo, with one man carrying the gun and the other the tripod. The 50 cal correctly gets about 1/3rd of what the water cooled HMGs do, because the rounds are so much heavier - making it a limited "wind" weapon.

With those adjusted ammo values, you see the HMG 42 still very good, with high FP and a usefully large ammo load - but not a bottomless one. The larger 30 cal teams are effective due to ammo depth. The smaller 2-3 man teams and the 50 cal are weak on the ammo side.

With those ammo tweaks, the HMG-42 is not obviously underpriced, while without them it is a better buy than the other MGs. But all the MGs need upmodeling in CMBO. The Allied MGs are overpriced for their effectiveness. Adjusting only prices and leaving the ammo levels as they are, you'd have to do things like reduce the MMG-1919 to about cost 13, or it to 15 and raise the HMG-42 to 30-32.

But compare the relative value with the ammo tweaks and the present prices, to the present default situation. Right now, an HMG-42 gets ~1.8 times the FP of an MMG-1919, and 1.46 times the ammo load as well. Ammo load probably effects value less than linearly, since units often fail to deliver the load they have ("front weighted" higher FP is therefore more useful than "back weighted" high ammo load). Call the ammo factor square root, the FP factor linear in the price.

Then an HMG-42 is arguably 2.2 times as effective as an MMG-1919 with present settings. Tweak the ammo as advised, and the slower firing and lighter MMG now has 1.23 times the ammo. The relative effectiveness of the HMG-42 is 1.62 times. But its price is 1.56 times, pretty darn close.

In short, the right way to balance CMBO MGs is to tweak the ammo. It is also do-able by scenario designers, not requiring any coding changes from the programmers.

[Panzer Leader]

Re: Human Wave Tactics

From my reading, most currently "Infantry Aces" by F. Kurowski, it seems that most human wave tactics were not used at only "certain" ranges, but would indeed extend from the jumping off point (the Soviet line) until it reached the German line.

I think the main reason for the human wave was for the attacker to reach and infiltrate the trenches and fox-holes of the defender. Therefore, if they could do this, flanking enemy strong points is a much easier way to destroy the enemy, much easier than "fightn' it out at 50 meters."

It seems to me that a force could have the right mix of numbers and (lack of) skill to justify a succesful human wave/line breaching but at the same time NOT be strong enough to fight it out successfully from a forward position.

Infiltrating trenches and flanking strongpoints were the goals of human wave tactics, and they worked.

Jasonc maybe I am misunderstanding your point, but I don't understand what you are trying to say.

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by wwb_99:

There was one huge disadvantage to the US (and any other) 12.7mm---ammo weighs a ton. IIRC, you can carry 3 7.62mm rounds for every 12.7mm in terms of weight. Even though the ma deuce was a weapon to be feared, feeding it enough ammo in the field was a difficult proposition.

Which no doubt led to its use mainly by vehicles, which could haul all that ammo around with ease, and fixed positions where it could be stockpiled.

Michael

[Marlow]

Originally posted by Andreas:

Infantry Weapons of WW2 site

In particular:

LMG

HMG

Has most of this info it seems.

Cool website. Thanks Andreas.

Originally posted by Andrew Kinnie:

To me, it's not clear which is better or more effective. An american squad was more effective across the board, the german squad had a more effective automatic weapon.

Seems to me that question has been more or less answered. While the M1 was clearly superior to bolt action rifles, automatic weapons and volume of fire were better still. A U.S. squad with one BAR and 10 rifleman could not match the volume of fire of a German squad with its LMG, particularly when the squad had some MP44s as well. Modern armies have learned this leason, and most now have one or more belt fed LMGs at the squad level, supplemented by small calibre assault rifles. Even during WWII, part of the U.S. military recognized the benefits of high firepower. The Marines (as much as I hate to admit it) constantly increased the amount of firepower of its rifle squads throughout the war. By 1945, a typical Marine squad had 3 BARs, and each company had 6 .30 cal machine guns (enough for 2 per platoon) at its disposal.

The U.S. Army overcame the comparative lack of firepower of its rifle squads by other means.

[Gaylord Focker]

Interseting points put very well.

As a side note the Germans did produce a few hundred thousand of the Gewer 43 semi automatic rifles.

[JasonC]

To Panzer Leader - yes, a human wave was launched "all the way" from a "start line" to the vicinity of the enemy positions. But that start line has to be a fair ways away from the enemy positions for it to make any sense. You don't launch a risky human wave if you've already gotten your force 100 yards from the enemy without resorting to one.

If the start line is 250 or 500 yards away, then a human wave may enable lower quality infantry to get to the enemy position, whereas creeping movement by bounds might lead to them getting pinned down or broken before they ever got to effective (close, 100 yard) range. But if you already walked a whole company down to 100 yards - through covered routes, say - then there is no point in charging from so close.

The point being, the purpose of a human wave is not to cover the last 100 yards through enemy final protective fire in order to tackle him in close combat. Unless the target is fully suppressed, that is suicide, and if he is fully suppressed, it is a coup de grace after a won battle not the means of winning it. The point of human waves is, instead, to get lower quality infantry through the long range fire envelope of the defenders without going to ground pinned, or broken.

It works in that respect simply by providing too many targets at once. Units hit may indeed fall out (pinned or broken), but the rest will get close and be able to fire. The farther, pinned units can then be rallied, protected by the "shield" the closer, more successful units become once they are close enough to fire themselves. Higher HQs follow behind and scoop up the laggards, and shove them forward after the leaders.

It is really an alternative to fire and movement, movement by bounds, and overwatch. Which higher quality infantry can use, but lower quality infantry is quite bad at. Leading units of high quality infantry will recover and continue an attack when bits of it are hit by long ranged fire, where low quality infantry will not. And the low quality infantry needs to get relatively close - 100 yards or so - for its fire to have any appreciable effect on defenders in good cover, making its value in overwatch roles minimal. To ram the low quality guys through the outer range envelope is the point of human waves.

Once you get near or among the defenders - into their foxholes, into shell holes right around them, into woods cover within 100 yards, right across a street in urban settings, etc - there is no point in "banzai" suicide down to point blank. Shoot it out instead, relying on numbers. You may occasionally charge a single position with one platoon or less in that kind of fighting, to finish it off, but that is hardly a human wave.

I hope that clarifies what I was saying.

[Andrew Kinnie]

Originally posted by Marlow:

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

Infantry Weapons of WW2 site

In particular:

LMG

HMG

Has most of this info it seems.

Cool website. Thanks Andreas.

Originally posted by Andrew Kinnie:

To me, it's not clear which is better or more effective. An american squad was more effective across the board, the german squad had a more effective automatic weapon.

Seems to me that question has been more or less answered. While the M1 was clearly superior to bolt action rifles, automatic weapons and volume of fire were better still. A U.S. squad with one BAR and 10 rifleman could not match the volume of fire of a German squad with its LMG, particularly when the squad had some MP44s as well. </font>

[JasonC]

Actually, there wasn't any "comparative lack of firepower" in US rifle squads. Because the M-1 did indeed have appreciably better firepower than the bolt actions most others used. Yes, the BAR was too light to function as a real LMG. But no, the Germans did not have 5 times as many automatic weapons as the Allies, as you see depicted in CMBO when players continually cherry pick the many automatic infantry types.

The typical German squad had the weapon load out of Rifle 44 infantry. The load out CMBO gives to the FJ, for example, was only achieved by one regiment in Normandy - the average MG load out in the FJ was no higher than in the Heer infantry. The Germans issued less than 1 million SMGs, less than half a million MP44s (and about the same number of semi-auto rifles) and over 11 million bolt action rifles. The Brits alone issued more Stens than every non-bolt action small arm in German service on all fronts, though they were used as "throw away" weapons.

The Germans fielded far fewer SMGs than the Allies did, although besides the Russians the Allies tended to issue them to weapons and vehicle crews rather than line infantry squads. And in CMBO, you see the automatics that are present rather seriously overmodeled, because they get the higher FP they do deserve for ROF, but not the lower total number of shots they deserve for the same thing.

What armies learned after the war included (1) pure SMGs lack the range to be terribly effective on the battlefield, except in commando style ops (2) the firepower of the heaviest squad automatic weapons, and of true MGs, is the most important component of infantry firepower (3) the critical thing for line riflemen once over the semi-auto threshold is not cyclic ROF but total ammo load that can be carried.

Thus the switch to shorter carbine rounds, then lower caliber rounds, 3 round bursts rather than full auto, etc). Because all riflemen with a semi-auto or better small arms can easily exhaust all the ammo they can carry in a matter of minutes. Increasing ROF does not increase the number of bullets available.

Using pistol ammo (true SMGs) does to a degree, because each bullet weighs half as much - but at the cost of extremely limited range. Using carbine ammo does to a limited degree, at some cost on the range front (M-1 carbines to 100-150 yards, MP44s to 200-250 yards, compared to M-1 rifles and K98s out to 500-1000 yards). The "short" rounds can be carried in somewhat larger quantities. A big shift in the same direction is the move to 5.56mm, which doubles the ammo load compared to 7.62mm, while retaining carbine ranges or better (250-400 yards).

[Col Deadmarsh]

I have fond memories of the mg42 in Close Combat 2. You tried to cross a field or city street against one of those and it would mow your ass down in a second.