SMG ROF and firepower in CMBB revisited

[Tero]

One Finnish infantry basic ammo load (tuliannos) per gun

was:

rifle 45 rounds = 9 x 5 round strips

SMG 350 rounds = 5 x full 70 round magazines/18 x 20 round clips

LMG 600 rounds = 30 x full 20 round magazines/10 full 60 round drums

HMG 1200 rounds = 12 x 100 round belts

1,5 basic ammo loads was considered to be dangerously low when preparing for defensive fighting. For prolonged heavy fighting one basic load was totally inadequate.

With one basic ammo load

The rifleman would run out of ammo after 9 minutes if the ROF was 5 aimed shots a minute

The Suomi SMG gunner would run out of ammo after 35 bursts firing 10 round bursts (or 3 seconds at full ROF of 800 RPM)

With 10 round bursts the LMG (LS-26 or Degtrayev) would last for 60 bursts and the HMG 120 bursts.

The fraction which claims the SMG is too powerfull in the game has won the ear of BTS/BFC. The claim is the SMG gets an unfair advantage because of the constant ROF in the game makes the rifle heavy units depleate the ammo at uneffective ranges while the SMG's get to save theirs for the close up work.

For some reason the average engagement range of 100 meters was selected as the yard stick for CMBO. IMO this range default should be re-evaluated for CMBB.

Early on during Barbarossa the Germans with their more manouverable, long range LMG's were more effective than the Red Army armed mainly with Mosin Nagant bolt action rifles when fighting in the open. Some time prior to Barbarossa the Finnish army was able to trash the Red Army and the only difference in infantry weaponry was the Suomi SMG. And close terrain. Later on when the Red Army got more SMG's they could outshoot the Germans at close range. The GPMG's of the Germans were no longer enough to stem the tide. The few rifle/several semiauto rifles and SMG's /1 LMG of the Soviets make up got to be more effective than the many rifles/few SMG's/1 LMG squad make up of the Germans.

And this is unfortunately how the cookie crumbled IRL for squads with few full automatics in the squad make up. The squad carrying more full automatic weapons was more effective close up. And this is why the 100 standard engagement range as a base should IMO be re-evaluated. The Red Army had to bend the "rules" and get close to make it tactids work in the steppes. The 100 meter basic engagent range does make the bolt action rifle heavy squads lose ammo sooner than the SMG heavy squads. What would happen if the basic engagent range was dropped to 50 meters ?

[Kwazydog]

Tero to be totally honest infantry battles in CMBB different enough from those in CMBO that discussing CMBB battles based on CMBO knowledge probably wont come to any useful conclusions

Maybe some of the guys whom have been lucky enough to see one of the sneak previews would like to comment here though? I would, but Ive still got too much to do

Something people may not know and may be worth noting here is that the values displayed in the infantry status window are just representive of the combat power of the squad (in the same way the 'blast rating' works for HE weapons) and much more is actually happening behind the scenes when combat results are calculated.

Dan

[ August 05, 2002, 04:15 AM: Message edited by: KwazyDog ]

[Tero]

Originally posted by KwazyDog:

Tero to be totally honest infantry battles in CMBB different enough from those in CMBO that discussing CMBB battles based on CMBO knowledge probably wont come to any useful conclusions

I know.

Maybe some of the guys whom have been lucky enough to see one of the sneak previews would like to comment here though? I would, but Ive still got too much to do

I have not heard there was one arranged here in Finland.

So: Yes, please.

When you are fishing it is the number of fish you get that counts, not the size. Unless of course the big one is really a beauty.

And BTW: when will there be more non-Russo-German bones thrown. Seeing the Red Army and the Germans trash each other in various landscapes is indeed pretty but there are people around who would like to see also different things and occurances.

Something people may not know and may be worth noting here is that the values displayed in the infantry status window are just representive of the combat power of the squad (in the same way the 'blast rating' works for HE weapons) and much more is actually happening behind the scenes when combat results are calculated.

Not quite what I am bitching about.

I still fail to see the reasoning behind the downrating of the SMG indicated in previous occasions and which seem to have made the CMBB modifications list. The main motivation I have thought is behind this school of thought is the seeming in-game predominance of the German SMG squads (especially the Sturmtruppe with 13 man squads) over the Allied squads.

[ August 05, 2002, 04:47 AM: Message edited by: tero ]

[flamingknives]

As I seem to be allowed to comment:

Infantry in CM:BB are much less likely to run across open ground under fire than in CM:BO. A few German rifle squads can quite easily stop Russian SMG squads advancing across open ground at ranges ~300m.

[JasonC]

45 rifle rounds may have been a "basic load" in a supply man's log book, but that doesn't mean riflemen carried only 1/8th the ammo. The rounds are only 2-3 times heavier, and steroids are not issued along with SMGs to make their users carry 3-4 times the weight. In practice, riflemen carried extra ammo, often for squad LMGs, with the rounds interchangable. Pretty much everyone carried whatever ammo they could manage. Find me real riflemen going into action with nothing but their rifle and 45 rounds and I'll eat my hat. Just didn't happen.

As for the idea that the "only difference" when the Finns fought the Russians in 1940 was that the Finns had Suomi SMGs, it is a silly notion. Obviously the Russians dramatically underperformed the Finns in every respect in the winter war; trying to trace it to one small arm is crazy. Besides, didn't Finns regularly eat a dozen T-26s apiece, and fillet another score while declining to actually consume them, with toothpicks made from tall trees?

As for the "100m range" standard, SMGs have up to twice the firepower of rifles at that range, per shot. But they do have fewer shots. In closer, they still do far more over their whole ammo load than rifles can, even leaving aside the fact that "front loaded" fp kills and suppresses and so reduces replies, etc.

In open steppe terrain, getting to either range is going to be quite difficult. CMBB infantry fire pins far more readily than it did in CMBO. Long charges across open ground just don't get anywhere if the movers are under (unsuppressed) fire, certainly not rapidly. The big uptick in the importance of LMGs will stem from that sea change in behavior under fire (hitting the deck instead of accelerating to "run").

But in cities (where SMGs really mattered), or forests, LOS lines are going to be low enough to make SMGs quite powerful. The PPsh gets 50 fp at 40m, 8 times what a rifle gets. I personally saw Russian SMG tank riders in a night fight in a village at the Chicago preview, and they were nothing to sneeze at. SMGs certainly have not been neutered, but they are not magical wands.

[Tero]

Originally posted by JasonC:

45 rifle rounds may have been a "basic load" in a supply man's log book, but that doesn't mean riflemen carried only 1/8th the ammo.

There are certainly some problems with the terminology here. The translation of the term is mine. 45 rounds were a ration unit that I call the basic load. A man could carry up to 1-4 basic loads, depending on the mission and supply status.

The rounds are only 2-3 times heavier, and steroids are not issued along with SMGs to make their users carry 3-4 times the weight.

What is your source on this ?

A Suomi SMG weighs 4,6 kg unloaded. A fully loaded 70 round magazine weighs around 2 kg (a 20 round magazine weighs 500g). 5 of the 70 round magazines make 10 kg. All together they weigh 14 kg. By comparison a Mosin-Nagant type rifle weighs around 4,5 kg. A 5 round strip weighs around 120g. 9 times that make just over a kg. All in all around 6kg total weight. The way I was tought math the weight difference is not 3-4 times.

In practice, riflemen carried extra ammo, often for squad LMGs, with the rounds interchangable.

Only in the German army. They were the only ones with a belt fed GPMG at squad level. The rest used magazine fed models. The ammo was interchangeable.

Pretty much everyone carried whatever ammo they could manage.

On that we agree.

Find me real riflemen going into action with nothing but their rifle and 45 rounds and I'll eat my hat. Just didn't happen.

What makes you think the SMG gunners would not have carried as much or more ?

As for the idea that the "only difference" when the Finns fought the Russians in 1940 was that the Finns had Suomi SMGs, it is a silly notion.

Finnish KIA 26 000, Russian KIA 130 000.

Obviously the Russians dramatically underperformed the Finns in every respect in the winter war; trying to trace it to one small arm is crazy.

So is trying to disregard it as a contributing cause. The Red Army High Command seems to have thought there was something to the use of SMG though.

Besides, didn't Finns regularly eat a dozen T-26s apiece, and fillet another score while declining to actually consume them, with toothpicks made from tall trees?

So it seems.

As for the "100m range" standard, SMGs have up to twice the firepower of rifles at that range, per shot. But they do have fewer shots. In closer, they still do far more over their whole ammo load than rifles can, even leaving aside the fact that "front loaded" fp kills and suppresses and so reduces replies, etc.

So why do you think the tweak down at longer ranges was necessary ?

In open steppe terrain, getting to either range is going to be quite difficult. CMBB infantry fire pins far more readily than it did in CMBO. Long charges across open ground just don't get anywhere if the movers are under (unsuppressed) fire, certainly not rapidly. The big uptick in the importance of LMGs will stem from that sea change in behavior under fire (hitting the deck instead of accelerating to "run").

OK

But in cities (where SMGs really mattered), or forests, LOS lines are going to be low enough to make SMGs quite powerful. The PPsh gets 50 fp at 40m, 8 times what a rifle gets. I personally saw Russian SMG tank riders in a night fight in a village at the Chicago preview, and they were nothing to sneeze at. SMGs certainly have not been neutered, but they are not magical wands.

That is good to hear.

But I think it was you yourself who advocated the SMG be toned down some time ago.

[Jarmo]

Just noting that 350 shots is enough for about 30 seconds of continuous fire at 800rpm...

[Frunze]

Originally posted by tero:

A Suomi SMG weighs 4,6 kg unloaded. A fully loaded 70 round magazine weighs around 2 kg (a 20 round magazine weighs 500g). 5 of the 70 round magazines make 10 kg. All together they weigh 14 kg. By comparison a Mosin-Nagant type rifle weighs around 4,5 kg. A 5 round strip weighs around 120g. 9 times that make just over a kg. All in all around 6kg total weight. The way I was tought math the weight difference is not 3-4 times.

No, if the SMG ammo weighs 10 kg, and the rifle ammo weighs just over a kg, the weight difference is 9-10 times. If the two weapons are both around the same weight, is it likely the SMG trooper would carry 10 times the weight in ammo?

[Tero]

Originally posted by Frunze:

No, if the SMG ammo weighs 10 kg, and the rifle ammo weighs just over a kg, the weight difference is 9-10 times.

Don't tell me they are going to throw them at the enemy. The equal weights of the guns do not cancel each other out.

That 10kg is in five 70 round magazines. The 45 rounds are strips, which you do NOT want to get entangled.

I just wonder why on earth all the "trade rifle for SMG during combat" stories, never "trade the SMG for rifle during combat" stories.

If the two weapons are both around the same weight, is it likely the SMG trooper would carry 10 times the weight in ammo?

Not as simple as that.

The SMG ammo is 9mm (Para IIRC, 7,62R25 in the case of PPSh) and the rifle ammo is 7,62R53 (or 7,92 for the Germans). Which do you think fits in your pockets or satchels better and is easier to carry and handle, 90 addittional rifle ammo strips, loose ammo or ammo cartons or additional (round 70 round) SMG magazines ?

How many riflemen carried 450 ready rounds intended for their own personal use ? And where would they carry them ? Look at some pictures taken in combat. How many times do you see a rifleman carrying his backpack in combat conditions in the eastern front ? Also, please study the load carrying equipement and arrangements in the different armies.

I hope you realize the belt fed GPMG as SAW is uniquely German organizational feature. Other armies did not have that kind of LMG/SAW in their organization. The riflemen in the squads were not required to hump ammo for the SAW. I have not seen anybody indicate the main function of a member of a British squad for example was to hump ammo for the Bren. In the Finnish squad the ammo for the SAW was the responsibility of the SAW team (two men, the gunner and his assistant). Sure they could and would ask for more ammo from their squad mates if they run low. But the squad mates did not carry extra ammo for just that purpose like they were required to do in the German army.

[ August 06, 2002, 12:22 AM: Message edited by: tero ]

[M Hofbauer]

Originally posted by JasonC:

The PPsh gets 50 fp at 40m, 8 times what a rifle gets.

the problem with the abstracted firepower thing is it is a mix value of volume of fire, precision, penetration power, etc.

so you are saying a SMG has 8 times the firepower of a rifle in CMBB. you know what i don't like about that?

in real life, if a soldier takes cover in a russian wooden loghouse (wood thickness >30cm), at 50m he is pretty safe from a SMG. a full power regular rifle round however will simply penetrate, period.

in CM, it seems from your post that it will be the other way around. in a light building, a soldier is much safer from a rifle than he is from a SMG, at a rate of 8 times safer.

similar problems pertain to woods / scattered woods and similar terrain cover (tree trunks, small earthen dikes, etc.).

I am not whining, we got used to that model from CMBO (and in a way, it works). Just wanted to add that the re-modeling of small arms in CMBB you describe above, welcome as it is, is not the be-all end-all of modeling small arms.

[Tero]

Originally posted by M Hofbauer:

in real life, if a soldier takes cover in a russian wooden loghouse (wood thickness >30cm), at 50m he is pretty safe from a SMG. a full power regular rifle round however will simply penetrate, period.

Some data on the penetration for Suomi SMG

at 100 meters: 2 mm of iron

at 300 meters: 1.5 mm of iron, 3 inches of pinewood

Unfortunately I could not find data for the PPSh.

[M Hofbauer]

Originally posted by tero:

Originally posted by M Hofbauer:

in real life, if a soldier takes cover in a russian wooden loghouse (wood thickness >30cm), at 50m he is pretty safe from a SMG. a full power regular rifle round however will simply penetrate, period.

Some data on the penetration for Suomi SMG

at 100 meters: 2 mm of iron

at 300 meters: 1.5 mm of iron, 3 inches of pinewood

Unfortunately I could not find data for the PPSh.

IIRC the Suomi used 9x19 Parabellum. That round is comparable to the russian7.62x25 used in the russian SMGs. The russian round might have a slightly better penetration capability because they have a comparable energy, but the russian round has a slightly smaller cross-section. The slight differences in penetration power are completely negligible however for our comparison to a rifle round.

german official penetration data for the 9x19 when fired from the MP40 (as per DV 167/1 Maschinenpistole 40) roughly coincide with you data, except for the iron at 300m (no penetration of iron at 200m).

[Tero]

Originally posted by M Hofbauer:

IIRC the Suomi used 9x19 Parabellum. That round is comparable to the russian7.62x25 used in the russian SMGs. The russian round might have a slightly better penetration capability because they have a comparable energy, but the russian round has a slightly smaller cross-section. The slight differences in penetration power are completely negligible however for our comparison to a rifle round.

I think that is true. Only, your original statement is valid only at longer ranges.

You said:

in real life, if a soldier takes cover in a russian wooden loghouse (wood thickness >30cm), at 50m he is pretty safe from a SMG. a full power regular rifle round however will simply penetrate, period.

The Suomi (which could penetrate 7,5cm of wood at 300 meters), and presumably the PPSh, would be able to penetrate for all intents and purposes roughly the same amount of of wood at 50 meters as a full power rifle round. The only difference is it would fire at approx 900 rpm where as a bolt action rifle would fire a shot every 6 seconds at 10 rpm.

Would you still say a log house built of 30cm logs would protect you better from SMG fire than from single shot rifle fire at the range you said it would ?

EDIT: A log house made out of round logs does not have a solid 30cm wall. If you are careful and take the time you can carve a notch to hold the log but even then the joint (being padded with turf and moss and what not) is not 30 thick. If the house is crudely made the logs will be round and the padding between round logs. If the logs are crooked enough you can go through the joint with a wooden stick.

german official penetration data for the 9x19 when fired from the MP40 (as per DV 167/1 Maschinenpistole 40) roughly coincide with you data, except for the iron at 300m (no penetration of iron at 200m).

No penetration or not even tested ?

[ August 07, 2002, 05:23 AM: Message edited by: tero ]

[flamingknives]

The Suomi (which could penetrate 7,5cm of wood at 300 meters), and presumably the PPSh, would be able to penetrate for all intents and purposes roughly the same amount of of wood at 50 meters as a full power rifle round.

I really feel the need to jump in here.

The penetration of iron at 100m is ~33% greater than that at 300m. It is therefore fairly safe to assume that the penetration of wood increases by a similar amount, to 4" of pine (~10cm). Reducing the range to 50m would increase the penetration further, but not, AFAIK, by the 200% required to punch through 30cm of pine.

Comparing rifles and SMGs; the Suomi uses 9x19mm para, where the case is the same width as the calibre, whereas the rifles uses bottleneck cartridge, some 50mm long and 10mm wide.

More propellent = more energy = more penetration.

[Tero]

Originally posted by flamingknives:

I really feel the need to jump in here.

The penetration of iron at 100m is ~33% greater than that at 300m. It is therefore fairly safe to assume that the penetration of wood increases by a similar amount, to 4" of pine (~10cm). Reducing the range to 50m would increase the penetration further, but not, AFAIK, by the 200% required to punch through 30cm of pine.

Comparing rifles and SMGs; the Suomi uses 9x19mm para, where the case is the same width as the calibre, whereas the rifles uses bottleneck cartridge, some 50mm long and 10mm wide.

More propellent = more energy = more penetration.

I am not contesting the superiority of the of the rifle of the SMG in penetration power.

However, I am contesting the fact that at 50 meters you are safer from the SMG than from a rifle when behind a 30cm wooden wall.

First off, the entire premise is hypothetical.

The likelyhood of getting hit by a stray bullet anywhere else but near an opening (window, door etc) coming through the wall that thick is not very high. In fact I have never heard that was in a list of concerns in anybodys book. It would be a waste of ammo trying to shoot blind through a wall that thick with anything less than a 50cal/12,7mm/20mm weapon.

All fire would be aimed at the openings with the intention of supressing anybody inside.

One argument was similar problems pertain to woods / scattered woods and similar terrain cover (tree trunks, small earthen dikes, etc.).

Well.... in that kind of closed terrain the problem is lack of ROF, not lack of penetration. What deflects or stops a SMG bullet usually also deflects or stops a rifle bullet. But once you get a clear shot, say at 50 meters, one aimed rifle shot has does less harm than one aimed 10 round bursts from the SMG.

[ August 07, 2002, 06:41 AM: Message edited by: tero ]

[M Hofbauer]

Originally posted by tero:

However, I am contesting the fact that at 50 meters you are safer from the SMG than from a rifle when behind a 30cm wooden wall.

well then you are simply wrong. An SMG round will not penetrate, and a rifle round will. Period.

Originally posted by tero:

First off, the entire premise is hypothetical.

no it's not.

The likelyhood of getting hit by a stray bullet anywhere else but near an opening (window, door etc) coming through the wall that thick is not very high. In fact I have never heard that was in a list of concerns in anybodys book. It would be a waste of ammo trying to shoot blind through a wall that thick with anything less than a 50cal/12,7mm/20mm weapon.

maybe you should do more reading. most people would not need reading to substitute lack of common sense for printed matter, anyhow. we are not talking about "blindly" hosing down a house as you seem to suggest. the usual situation would be the enemy gunner/soldier taking cover below the window sill, beside the door opening, going into cover behind a treetrunk/log in the woods etc.

All fire would be aimed at the openings with the intention of supressing anybody inside.

now guess what happens to those bullets that do not hit the opening but closely around it? like, if they hit half a meter below the widow sill, where an enemy soldier might duck?

One argument was "similar problems pertain to woods / scattered woods and similar terrain cover (tree trunks, small earthen dikes, etc.)."

Well.... in that kind of closed terrain the problem is lack of ROF, not lack of penetration. What deflects or stops a SMG bullet usually also deflects or stops a rifle bullet. But once you get a clear shot, say at 50 meters, one aimed rifle shot has does less harm than one aimed 10 round bursts from the SMG.

in MiamiVice - type movies, maybe. In real life, your statement "What deflects or stops a SMG bullet usually also deflects or stops a rifle bullet." is simply blatantly wrong.

[MikeyD]

Tero, let me assure you, as one of the lucky few who's had the chance to actually play CMBB before release, that while your concerns on historically accurate ammo loads are justified CMBB has done an astounding job at accurately simulating infantry ammo loads and rates of use while in combat. Very un-CMBB-like.

I don't dare say too much before release (don't want to spill any secrets) but imagine the game just as you wished it was and you'd be pretty darned close.

And one more thing. Get used to keeping some units with ful ammo loads in reserve during a battle. They'll come in handy in CMBB.

[MikeyD]

Ah, my typing skills are awful. The 5th line above should've read "Very un-CMBO-like".

Sorry for the typing goof.

[JasonC]

Riflemen in other armies did carry ammo for their SAW. It was by no means particularly to the German army. Some armies also used belt fed MGs, including some of the Russians and certainly the Americans, in the form of the M1919A4.

In the US army, men carried as much 30-06 ammo as they could. They could use it in their rifles, they could use it in the BAR, they could use it in the M1919A4s. They typically wore 50-100 round bandoliers of it, in addition to filling their pouches with filled clips for the M-1s. Assistant BAR gunners and assistant MG gunners also carried boxed ammo, 250 rounds to a box.

In the German army, they also wore bandoliers of ammo that could be used interchangably in either the LMG or their rifles. They also wore double cartridge belts to carry 90 rounds prepped for the rifle, sometimes more by using the FJ field belts (which held 60 apiece, instead of 45) instead of the army issue ones. HMG gunners carried boxed and belted ammo, but for the LMGs bandoliers were more common. Some riflemen instead carried other bits of kit, like grenade bundles, infantry AT weapons, wire cutters, etc. They never got to fight "light" with just rifle and 45 rounds.

An SMG gunner had considerably less additional room for such "overages". A full load of magazines, his personal kit, and a few grenades - which SMG gunners want many of given the ranges they strive for - easily tops them out, practical weight wise. Moreover, 70 rounds mags were not at all the rule, with 20s not uncommon and 30s typical for the German MPs, Stens, and Thompsons. Sometimes 30s were not fully loaded, to avoid spring problems. A practical load of pistol caliber ammo to be fired through SMGs was on the order of 200 to 400 rounds.

But as you noted yourself, the "basic load" for a rifleman weighs only 1 kg. He has got plenty of "carrying ability" beyond that. Some might carry up to 320 rounds (e.g. German with 2x100 round bandoliers and a double FJ cartridge belt). That would be 8.5 kg of ammo. A more typical level would be 100 to 200 rounds, or roughly half as many as the SMG gunners in raw number of rounds. That is wholly unsurprising, since 9mm rounds weigh about half what typical 30 caliber rifle rounds weigh.

The rounds weigh half as much so you can easily shoot off twice as many of them. You can easily shoot off 30 rounds in the time it would take a rifleman to get off 5, so you can easily throw those twice as many rounds six times as fast. Just hold down the trigger. But if you fire twice the rounds six times as fast, or 8 times as fast, you are going to run out sooner. If you fire so slowly that you don't run out any sooner, you are only going to be firing twice as much.

Each round out of the rifle, round for round, is certainly more accurate. At close ranges that hardly matters, because accuracy is a threshold effect. It doesn't matter if your groups are 1 inch or 2 inchs if that is how wide they actually are. So at close ranges, the firepower of the SMG is higher more or less in line with its higher rate of fire. A little less, actually, because throwing several bullets at once will generally mean some of them thrown innaccurately. A burst of 10 rounds, close, is certainly more likely to hit than 1, but not quite 10 times as likely to hit.

So, if being generous we say the SMG gunner may have 2-4 times the rounds to throw, then he might have fp x shots nearly 2-4 times what a rifle has - at point blank range only. Anything beyond that, and he will have considerably less than that, as his bullets start missing more than the rifle bullets do, and he has to throw more to make up for it. Eventually he can throw all he likes and he won't hit a blessed thing, because pistol ammo is simply innaccurate at long range.

Well, a PPsh with 50 fp at 40m and 25 shots has 1250 fpxshots. A K98 with 6.5 fp at 40m and 40 shots has 260 fpxshots - only about 1/5th as much, well under 2-4 times. So that is generous to the SMG, or reflects a small ammo load for the rifleman. At 100m, the PPsh has 10 fp, twice what the rifle does, and fpxshots of 250. While the rifle has 5.25x40 or 210. The SMG is doing more over its whole ammo load and doing it twice as fast per shot. But no longer 5 times as much over its ammo load, out at ranges where pistol ammo becomes innaccurate. Since the SMG clearly fires faster and more overall at 40m even with the changes, and by large amounts, one is left wondering what the complaint is.

[ August 07, 2002, 10:06 PM: Message edited by: JasonC ]

[Tero]

Originally posted by M Hofbauer:

well then you are simply wrong. An SMG round will not penetrate, and a rifle round will. Period.

The question is not penetration. The question is when will the round be fired at the solid section of the wall and when at an opening in it.

First off, the entire premise is hypothetical.no it's not.

Yes it is. Otherwise there would not have been any need for demolition charges and other more drastic measures when dealing with wooden bunkers. They could have been taken out simply by using volley fire from rifles.

I wonder why nobody seem to have resorted to vollyes of rifle fire in taking out wooden bunkers.

maybe you should do more reading.

Make a list then.

most people would not need reading to substitute lack of common sense for printed matter, anyhow. we are not talking about "blindly" hosing down a house as you seem to suggest. the usual situation would be the enemy gunner/soldier taking cover below the window sill, beside the door opening,

Then all I have read about this kind of occurances is bogus. Instead of waiting to see movement they should have hosed down the immediate vincinity of the openings.

going into cover behind a treetrunk/log in the woods etc.

There was little hope of actually being safe anywhere in the battlefield. At 100m a rifle round would go through 7 cm of rubble, 43 cm sand, 83 cm of clay and 60 cm of pine wood (according to a 1936 manual).

The thing is firing the rifle (or any weapon for that matter) at the a man behind a cover was not encouraged because the cost efficiency of firing blind like that.

now guess what happens to those bullets that do not hit the opening but closely around it? like, if they hit half a meter below the widow sill, where an enemy soldier might duck?

Now quess what kind of a moron soldier with any level or training or experience would not know what would happen in a situation like that ? Once spotted would he stay in the immediate vincinity of the opening he was spotted in or would he haul ass someplace else ?

in MiamiVice - type movies, maybe. In real life, your statement "What deflects or stops a SMG bullet usually also deflects or stops a rifle bullet." is simply blatantly wrong.

You have not apparently done any hunting then. Ask a hunter what kind of an obstruction will throw a shot off.

[Tero]

Originally posted by MikeyD:

Tero, let me assure you, as one of the lucky few who's had the chance to actually play CMBB before release, that while your concerns on historically accurate ammo loads are justified CMBB has done an astounding job at accurately simulating infantry ammo loads and rates of use while in combat. Very un-CMBB-like.

I don't dare say too much before release (don't want to spill any secrets) but imagine the game just as you wished it was and you'd be pretty darned close.

And one more thing. Get used to keeping some units with ful ammo loads in reserve during a battle. They'll come in handy in CMBB.

Can't you be a bit more cryptic than that ?

[Tero]

Originally posted by JasonC:

Riflemen in other armies did carry ammo for their SAW. It was by no means particularly to the German army.

You are disregarding the differences in squad/platoon organization. For example the Finnish army had 4 squad platoons, two of which were initially armed with SAW and two not. The SAW/LMG squad had 6 men. As per the manual the magazines for the SAW were carried like this: the gunner had one pouch with 5 magazines, the assistant gunner had one pouch. Four ammo bearers carried 2 pouch each. That makes 10 pouches and 50 magazines. All in all the squad carried 1000 rounds for the SAW.

The squads without the SAW did not carry extra ammo for SAW.

Some armies also used belt fed MGs, including some of the Russians and certainly the Americans, in the form of the M1919A4.

Pretty much all armies had belt fed MG's. But not as SAW. To my knowldege even the American organization had separated the belt fed MG to a separate organizational unit from which they were parcelled out as needed.

In the US army, men carried as much 30-06 ammo as they could. They could use it in their rifles, they could use it in the BAR, they could use it in the M1919A4s. They typically wore 50-100 round bandoliers of it, in addition to filling their pouches with filled clips for the M-1s. Assistant BAR gunners and assistant MG gunners also carried boxed ammo, 250 rounds to a box.

In the German army, they also wore bandoliers of ammo that could be used interchangably in either the LMG or their rifles. They also wore double cartridge belts to carry 90 rounds prepped for the rifle, sometimes more by using the FJ field belts (which held 60 apiece, instead of 45) instead of the army issue ones. HMG gunners carried boxed and belted ammo, but for the LMGs bandoliers were more common.

How about the other armies ? The British, the Russians, the Hungarians, the Rumanians, the Italians, the Finns ? How were their LBE configured ? Using the US and the German armies as a yardstick disregards any and all deviations from the norm set down by these two armies.

Some riflemen instead carried other bits of kit, like grenade bundles, infantry AT weapons, wire cutters, etc. They never got to fight "light" with just rifle and 45 rounds.

An SMG gunner had considerably less additional room for such "overages".

Hence they would most often pair up with somebody who would for example throw grenades for them when clearing trenches and buildings. The other would throw in the grenade and after it exploded the SMG gunner would rush in firing at full ROF.

A full load of magazines, his personal kit, and a few grenades - which SMG gunners want many of given the ranges they strive for - easily tops them out, practical weight wise.

Have you actually taken notice how much gear a soldier would carry into the combat zone in the CMBO/CMBB scale and scope ? Don't know about the Western Armies but the Finnish and the Soviet armies would take only the essential when going into combat.

Moreover, 70 rounds mags were not at all the rule, with 20s not uncommon and 30s typical for the German MPs, Stens, and Thompsons. Sometimes 30s were not fully loaded, to avoid spring problems. A practical load of pistol caliber ammo to be fired through SMGs was on the order of 200 to 400 rounds.

Yes. But since the Suomi and the PPSh did have the 70 round magazines available should they be punished for the lack of more spacious magazines for the majority of the rest of the SMG's ?

But as you noted yourself, the "basic load" for a rifleman weighs only 1 kg. He has got plenty of "carrying ability" beyond that. Some might carry up to 320 rounds (e.g. German with 2x100 round bandoliers and a double FJ cartridge belt). That would be 8.5 kg of ammo. A more typical level would be 100 to 200 rounds, or roughly half as many as the SMG gunners in raw number of rounds. That is wholly unsurprising, since 9mm rounds weigh about half what typical 30 caliber rifle rounds weigh.

The problem is storage though. A SMG would have most of the ammo he carries ready in magazines. The reload time goes way up when the rifle man run s out of ready strips.

The rounds weigh half as much so you can easily shoot off twice as many of them. You can easily shoot off 30 rounds in the time it would take a rifleman to get off 5, so you can easily throw those twice as many rounds six times as fast. Just hold down the trigger. But if you fire twice the rounds six times as fast, or 8 times as fast, you are going to run out sooner. If you fire so slowly that you don't run out any sooner, you are only going to be firing twice as much.

Yes.

Each round out of the rifle, round for round, is certainly more accurate.

That is not entirely accurate. See below.

At close ranges that hardly matters, because accuracy is a threshold effect.

Agreed.

It doesn't matter if your groups are 1 inch or 2 inchs if that is how wide they actually are. So at close ranges, the firepower of the SMG is higher more or less in line with its higher rate of fire. A little less, actually, because throwing several bullets at once will generally mean some of them thrown innaccurately. A burst of 10 rounds, close, is certainly more likely to hit than 1, but not quite 10 times as likely to hit.

The KP/-31 was the accuracy standard to which other sub-machine guns of the time were compared. Above are two targets shot during official Army weapon acceptance tests from 100 meters' distance. Left target: 15 rounds of semi-auto shots from bench rest. Right target: 50 rounds of full auto shots as a single long burst from bench rest. Photograph from original illustration in the KP/-31 manual "SUOMI-KONEPISTOOLI" by OY TIKKAKOSKI AB (1942).

So, if being generous we say the SMG gunner may have 2-4 times the rounds to throw, then he might have fp x shots nearly 2-4 times what a rifle has - at point blank range only. Anything beyond that, and he will have considerably less than that, as his bullets start missing more than the rifle bullets do, and he has to throw more to make up for it. Eventually he can throw all he likes and he won't hit a blessed thing, because pistol ammo is simply innaccurate at long range.

The Suomi was rated up to 500 meters.

Also, it was initially given to the man the squad leader rated as his best man (best shots, most cool and collected etc) in the squad. That means that often the sharpest shooter in the Finnish squad did not carry a rifle, he carried the SMG.

Well, a PPsh with 50 fp at 40m and 25 shots has 1250 fpxshots. A K98 with 6.5 fp at 40m and 40 shots has 260 fpxshots - only about 1/5th as much, well under 2-4 times. So that is generous to the SMG, or reflects a small ammo load for the rifleman. At 100m, the PPsh has 10 fp, twice what the rifle does, and fpxshots of 250. While the rifle has 5.25x40 or 210. The SMG is doing more over its whole ammo load and doing it twice as fast per shot. But no longer 5 times as much over its ammo load, out at ranges where pistol ammo becomes innaccurate. Since the SMG clearly fires faster and more overall at 40m even with the changes, and by large amounts, one is left wondering what the complaint is.

The complain is: The fraction which claims the SMG is too powerfull in the game has won the ear of BTS/BFC. The claim is the SMG gets an unfair advantage because of the constant ROF in the game makes the rifle heavy units depleate the ammo at uneffective ranges while the SMG's get to save theirs for the close up work.

[ August 08, 2002, 10:03 AM: Message edited by: tero ]

[John D Salt]

Originally posted by tero:

[snips]

How about the other armies ? The British, the Russians, the Hungarians, the Rumanians, the Italians, the Finns ? How were their LBE configured ?

For the British, a reasonable guide to the likely "by the book" loads is I think given in "Infantry Training Volume IV, Infantry section leading and platoon tactics", dated 1950 and therefore presumably based on later-war experience.

The Bren gunner, Bren no. 2 and NCO in charge of the Bren group each have a set of utility pouches, and carry 4 mags (each 28 rounds) for the Bren. The NCO and no. 2 also carry a rifle and 50 rounds. The NCO also carries 2 HE and 2 smoke grenades.

In the rifle group, the section commander carries an SMG and 5 mags, 2 HE and 2 smoke grenades. Each rifleman carries a rifle with 100 rounds and 2 HE grenades. Everyone in the rifle group also carries 1 Bren mag.

Of course, loose .303 rounds can be loaded into empty Bren mags if necessary.

All the best,

John.

[ August 08, 2002, 11:50 AM: Message edited by: John D Salt ]

[Marlow]

Originally posted by tero:

Left target: 15 rounds of semi-auto shots from bench rest. Right target: 50 rounds of full auto shots as a single long burst from bench rest.

Fire from a bench rest is next to meaningless for actual combat accuracy.

[Tero]

Originally posted by Marlow:

Fire from a bench rest is next to meaningless for actual combat accuracy.

Tell that to the drill instructors who always say it is better to fire from a rest than firing standing up or from the high kneel position.

[ August 08, 2002, 12:32 PM: Message edited by: tero ]