SMG ROF and firepower in CMBB revisited

[Lee]

I think the higher effective firepower advantage of a good SMG in close quarters in CM

is well justified. An MP40 is extremely deadly at 50 yards and less (where a large

portion of combat happens), able to pour fire in large volumes exactly where one

wants it, in the hands of a skilled operator. And magazine changes are very fast.

Enabling a high sustained ROF.

[M Hofbauer]

Originally posted by Lee:

I think the higher effective firepower advantage of a good SMG in close quarters in CM

is well justified. An MP40 is extremely deadly at 50 yards and less

except if the target happens to be behind some sort of viable cover, e.g. a wooden blockhouse wall / some sandbagging.

[M Hofbauer]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

Oh, and JasonC, they were not disintegrating; I own two of the 50-round links that the Germans used for their 7.92 mm ammo - they do not come apart.

indeed.

the Gurt 33, 33/41 and 34 belts, as used in the MG34 and MG42, were non-disintegrating. (technically, the 34 was "semi-disintegrating, since the single 50-round belts could be linked together to form unlimited-length belts, but would part into 50-round belts again after the cartridge case was extracted).

the Gurt 17/81 belt, as used in the aircraft MG17, MG81 and MG81Z, was non-disintegrating by default (when delivered, from production) but could easily be modified to be disintegrating or semi-disintegrating belts by the armorers by tweaking the connectors with a tool. if they didn't change each round's connector the belt would be falling into the respective parts (semi-disintegrating).

[M Hofbauer]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

Oh, and JasonC, they were not disintegrating; I own two of the 50-round links that the Germans used for their 7.92 mm ammo - they do not come apart.

indeed.

the Gurt 33, 33/41 and 34 belts, as used in the MG34 and MG42, were non-disintegrating. (technically, the 34 was "semi-disintegrating, since the single 50-round belts could be linked together to form unlimited-length belts, but would part into 50-round belts again after the cartridge case was extracted).

the Gurt 17/81 belt, as used in the aircraft MG17, MG81 and MG81Z, was non-disintegrating by default (when delivered, from production) but could easily be modified to be disintegrating or semi-disintegrating belts by the armorers by tweaking the connectors with a tool. if they didn't change each round's connector the belt would be falling into the respective parts (semi-disintegrating).

[Tero]

Originally posted by K Jonsson:

This is one thing that most ppl seems to agree on. At least those from Finland

Hard to disregard some 60 years of history writing and folklore. Which run contrary to the western Allies on the subject of SMG.

But should BFC treat finnish SMGs differently? Probably...

That would be acknowledging there is quantifiable force specific differences in tactics and doctrine. Purely based on the technical characteristics of the hardware being used.

Since all the tech spec in CMBB is going to be on the money I expect a portion of the Finnish Maxim HMG's have a better FP rating since they had a selector for 600 or 800 rpm. What kind of a hubbub is that going to cause: the überFinns have a HMG which incorporated the benefits of water cooled system and (almost) the FP of the MG-34 and MG-42. Or actually the FP rating should be better than that of the MG-42 since the RL practical ROF would have been higher than the that of the aircooled models. Without the need to change the barrel so often.

Nah. Can't have that now can we. We already claim our arty procedures were as good as or better better than that of the Americans.

Lets see if I can make my point clear. If its role was the same as the LMG in other armies the squad would have relied on it more than soldiers in other armies.

Actually it was more ellaborate than that. The text book application was regarded as too restrictive so it was modified in the field. Once the captured DT LMG's started pouring in the entire scene changed. The FP of the SMG was embraced and it was freed from its support role into a more aggressive role. And that is down to the very tactics and doctrine of the Finnish army. The axiom was the defensive line should be at the hands of the friendly troops at the end of the battle (true both in 1939 and 1944).

Things like extra ammo being carried by other members in the squad and always having the best/toughest member using it might be enough to raise the firepower a little.

Concur.

But one thing that definitely should be modeled that will differ from other armies is the probability that the SMG will be lost if one man is hit. I think it should be treated just like the LMG is mow.

I think that is already modelled adequately.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by M Hofbauer:

technically, the 34 was "semi-disintegrating"

Did you just coin that one, too?