How do machine guns work in real-life and in CM:SF?

[Flanker15]

Just looked in-game, there is jorizonal deviation.

Was that in one burst or several?

For me, a M2 has barely 1m horizontal deviation for a burst at 2000m, the MGs do shift their fire between each burst though.

[Falconander]

EDIT: I've actually heard of situations where MG fire is used in INDIRECT fire situations, which is of course not currently supported in any form in any game I know of, including CMSF.

You are right. With the M60 you could effectively fire over a rise/burm/hill and walk the beaten path to a target. You would need a spotter or some other means to see that you are on target. Not used too much in my days but I thought it was pretty cool.

Still remember the tracers bouncing off of rocks and buildings flying up into the sky at night. Pretty cool stuff. You realize why they don't let flyovers during live fires.

[Lampshade111]

In my opinion the coax M240C and other coaxial MGs should fire somewhat longer bursts. The Abrams has an absurd amount of ammunition for it anyway.

[Apocal]

Was that in one burst or several?

In one burst, I've seen spreads of around 2 meters. Probably the biggest problem is getting a good angle to view it, because you have to right on the line of fire to notice any shift at all.

For me, a M2 has barely 1m horizontal deviation for a burst at 2000m, the MGs do shift their fire between each burst though.

Yeah, that's part of what was screwing me up when I looked for the effect. It is there though.

Probably it would be more noticeable if the gunner's would fire longer bursts with MGs. And honestly, it should be more pronounced (especially at 2km) when you're firing off a M3 tripod. The tripod is good and it's very stable when sandbagged, but vehicular mounts are absurdly stable. I'm guessing an ad hoc tripod setup as shown in game for HMG squads would have much more horizontal deviation.

[theFightingSeabee]

Using the tripod helps a great deal. But still, as Apocal stated, can be unstable. The tripods need to be set up properly (we usually sandbagged the feet) in order to keep it stable. One thing though, vehicle mounts aren't always that good. I fired a .50 from a hmmwv a couple times. It actually caused the truck's suspension to tilt back a bit! An armored vehicle probably wouldn't move at all. (If this hummer's a rockin', don't come a knockin'!).

Free gunning is a different story. Free gunning a .50 cal is not precision work. Sucker will not stay on target. If you're free gunning, you're probably either getting ambushed or you're goofing off.

The SAW on the other hand, has the bipod. Still not as stable as a tripod, but also less recoil than the larger mg's.

Either way, I think the mg modelling in cmsf is still superb. You guys are right, they DO traverse the 8mX8m action spot, peppering the whole area (during Area Fire).

[Battlefront.com]

I can tell you that MG fire is one of the most difficult things to simulate. In CMx1 it was even more problematic for us because we had fewer things to tweak to get the overall right feel to it. We've had to do a lot of tweaking to MG behavior since CMx2 came out, despite all the testing that came before it (many testers have first hand experience). I think the reasons for this are evident throughout this discussion...

there are just so man f'n different ways a MG can be used!!

The more situationally specific something is, the harder time we have getting it to work right overall. MGs are on vehicle mounts of various types, ground mounts of various types, and hand held at times from different positions. That right there is a lot of variability. Shooting at 1 guy at 1000m is different than shooting at 10 guys at 100m, then again different depending on terrain.

I'm sure we don't have it perfect, but I'm happy it's as good as it is considering how difficult they are to do

Steve

[theFightingSeabee]

Yes, it's not REAL, but quite good. I challenge anyone to show me a game with better!