HMGs in Normandy

[panzermartin]

Will HMGS like the mg34/42 provide a bit more supression than the MGs in CMSF? Sometimes I feel its rather easy for your infantry to make 50+m sprints from cover to cover under constant MG fire with no noticeable supression effect. While I think in CMBB it was a bit exaggetated with infantry pinned down and crawling from very long distances, I expect mgs to be more capable of area denial in CMN compared to what they are now.

Surely back then the psychological impact from a rapid firing gun in a "rifles world" was bigger than it is today and maybe one of the reasons they seem dumbed down in CMx2. I admit I do miss that extra tactical puzzle when faced with a scoped MG42 and more the sense of security when having a couple of these on your flank

[Götz von Berlichingen]

Will HMGS like the mg34/42 provide a bit more supression than the MGs in CMSF? Sometimes I feel its rather easy for your infantry to make 50+m sprints from cover to cover under constant MG fire with no noticeable supression effect. While I think in CMBB it was a bit exaggetated with infantry pinned down and crawling from very long distances, I expect mgs to be more capable of area denial in CMN compared to what they are now.

Surely back then the psychological impact from a rapid firing gun in a "rifles world" was bigger than it is today and maybe one of the reasons they seem dumbed down in CMx2. I admit I do miss that extra tactical puzzle when faced with a scoped MG42 and more the sense of security when having a couple of these on your flank

I couldnt agree more... Their lethality should be more true to life than is currently depicted in CM:SF.

The necessity for taking out MG nests should be as important in CM:N as taking out RPG and other AT units is in CM:SF.

Having a halftrack with a mounted MG42 being able to hold off a company of soldiers down a street, it will give rise to alot more flanking attacks etc...

Given that the effective range of an MG42 is around 1000m, geeez its gonna get messy...

[Lanzfeld]

Agree

Mg's in CMSF are a little bit of a fail. I hope they are adjusted for Normandy.

[Yair Iny]

Sorry, but I have to disagree. I think MG lethality in game is modeled more or less OK. I think that the opposite view is not taking into account changes to the rest of the weaponry, combined with a slight over-admiration of all things German in WW2.

Bottom line, as I see it at least, is that MGs haven't changed all that much since then. Not in terms of effective range, ammo lethality, firing rate, etc. On the other hand, in WW2 a squad of 12 marines armed with Garands had little "leverage" to exert on an opposing MG42 nest 600m away. Nowadays, with the effective range of a trained Marine with an ACOG equipped M16, coupled with underslung GLs, I wouldn't want to be that lone MG42 against them.

[MikeyD]

Mg's in CMSF are a little bit of a fail.

What game are you playing? My men get cut down by mg fire like a sythe going though them on a regular basis!

Someone once stated that the MG42 was designed to drop advancing troops with the first burst. Anything after that the infatry will have gone to ground and made hitting anything much less effective. That's why they had the insanely high ROF.

You could make the opposite case modern squads versus WWII confronting MG42. M1 Garands will reach out 600m with some accuracy and continue through a building wall, something you can't say about the M4 carbine. Of course a modern squad would put an ATGM round through the bunker opening from 3km.

[Lanzfeld]

I call them a fail because of the short burst length and bullet dispersion.

Almost all actual combat footage on liveleak or youtube shows the 240's and saw's ripping quite a bit more then in the game.

PS..Dont ask me what game I am playing. You know that this has been a problem forever.

[panzermartin]

Hmm, nobody talked about actual lethality. I'm talking about "supression effect", volume of fire etc.

CMN should take into account not only the superb rate of fire of MG42s but also the psychological impact they had on enemy troops back then. Let's not forget that today's over admiration existed back then too with a form of exaggerated fear of "tigers" ,"88s" and "MG42s". I actually suspect german HMGs is the only thing hollywood got (almost) right Of course I'm not talking about speech bubbles with "OMG sarge MG42s!!" and instantly vanishing units but making troops a bit more reluctant of sprinting 100m to the next trench under MG crossfires (and yes it happens in CMSF quite often).

From my long experience with all CMBO/BB/AK and CMSF games, I believe a good balance would be a cross between CMBB/AKs somewhat overeffective MGs and CMSF's weaker ones. Thats my humble opinion of course and maybe I'm thinking too much of CMx1 but I just cant get past the feeling that my CMSF MG gunners are firing in the air and not grazing fire on running troops. Like the engine is handling them as small arms aimed fire, while I imagine their real life role is different?

[Cuirassier]

I agree that MG's need to be change for CM:N. In the real deal, they denied open ground or at least seriously slowed infantry advance, driving men to ground and sneaking around. In CMSF, they don't remotely achieve this. I've done tests where a US infantry platoon advanced from 700m to 100m against 4 PKM MG's without even stopping for a rest, over open ground. It's silly really. MG's have a specific, doctrinal role within the defence, and right now I consider them broken in CMSF. The do diddly to stop movement over open ground.

[Dietrich]

I think MG lethality in game is modeled more or less OK. I think that the opposite view is not taking into account changes to the rest of the weaponry, combined with a slight over-admiration of all things German in WW2.

For one contemporary assessment of German MG usage, see http://www.lonesentry.com/articles/firepower/index.html, in particular the final subheading:

"Our men have learned how to get around the fast-shooting German light machine guns. These guns have such a rapid rate of fire that they are not able to cover a great deal of ground. When our men have stayed well apart, the machine guns have not been able to do much damage. Actually, these weapons are terrific ammunition wasters. And our men have learned how to take advantage of the few moments afforded when the crew must change barrels. This happens frequently because of the high rate of fire. What ground the light machine guns cover is covered well, but it's a very limited area."

So even back then there were those who thought that any significant superiority of the MG34/42 was more supposed than actual.

Permit me to play "devil's advocate" some more (and no snide comments about how the Catholic Church officially abolished the position of "devil's advocate years ago): I think that any greater effectiveness of the MG42 -- assuming that at least some albeit finite degree of superiority might be ascribed to it -- is psychological. To put it in perspective, hypothetically ask an M240B/G gunner if he feels secure behind his weapon, since it dishes out good firepower and is reliable and accurate, etc. Now put that same gunner at the controls of a Mk 44 minigun and ask him how he feels.

[bodkin]

One thing to remember is that CMx2 models a squad as a cohesive unit that is usually more bunched together than what they would be in reality. Steve has mentioned this before in reference as to why artillery effectiveness against infantry can appear to be weaker than one would expect. Artillery is slightly diluted as the squad is abstracted to some extent in terms of their spacing, perhaps MG fire is possibly modelled to account for this abstraction as well, yet it's not been mentioned before as far as my dim memory recalls.

[Yair Iny]

Dietrich - very interesting article, thanks for the link!

Bodkin - If CMx2 models the squad too bunched up, imagine how much more CMx1 did. In CMx1 it was a single point, but in CMx2 a squad can occupy 3 action spots. So perhaps the MGs were too powerful in CMx1 as opposed to underpowered in CMx2...

[noxnoctum]

One thing to remember is that CMx2 models a squad as a cohesive unit that is usually more bunched together than what they would be in reality. Steve has mentioned this before in reference as to why artillery effectiveness against infantry can appear to be weaker than one would expect. Artillery is slightly diluted as the squad is abstracted to some extent in terms of their spacing, perhaps MG fire is possibly modelled to account for this abstraction as well, yet it's not been mentioned before as far as my dim memory recalls.

I thought if the bullet hit the character on screen that was it?

[Flanker15]

Yes the bullet collision is 1:1 but the squad is a cohesive unit that moves together and they are more tightly bunched than they should be.

[c3k]

Dietrich, nice link. Of course, I looked at it as US war-fighting propaganda of the, "don't worry about their MG42's, men. Here's an easy way around them. Hah! They use too much ammo and have to change their barrels" sort. It seems a combination of information, pychological shoring up, and tactical tips.

IMvHO, I think MG's in CMSF are undermodelled. In some cases, they're too accurate. Burst after burst hits the same spot (or two). The unspotted enemy between or near the impacts may take a (slight) morale/pin decrement, but remains safe from the bullets. The concept of sweeping fire is absent, as is dispersion. There may be reasons for this effect; see the above comments about squads being unrealistically bunched together.

Ken

[YankeeDog]

I'm really skeptical that HMGs need any significant increase in suppression/lethality over what we have now. In my experience, they're pretty darn effective in game as is.

And I agree with that MG42s in Normandy will probably seem a lot more powerful than GMGs do in Syria due to the relative quality of the personal firearms carried by the riflemen. Right now, GMG vs. Squad means something like PKM vs. 8-12 guys carrying modern assault rifles, plus one SAW, and an UGL. IN CM:N, it's going to be MG42 vs. 8-12 guys carrying mostly M1 Garands, one BAR and *maybe* a few rifle grenades. That's a pretty huge difference and the MG42 in the latter case is definitely on better footing.

A lot of suppression is about gaining fire ascendancy, and I think a lot of the "lack of MG suppression" you see in the game right now is due to the fact that an GMG by itself, even deployed and in good cover, just doesn't have enough of a firepower advantage in most situations to gain fire ascendancy vs. the typical modern infantry squad. This should definitely change in CM:N.

I think it's going to be very interesting to see how German MGs play out in CM:N. For the most part, I think they will be a tremendous advantage for the Germans, probably even more so than in CMx1. The more detailed modeling will allow things to happen that couldn't in CMx1. Ammo resupply is the most obvious; I really hope we get on-ground ammo caches (and I think we will). The old CMx1 tactic of just putting pressure on an MG42 until you exhaust its ammo isn't going to work if the MG has an ammo cache nearby... I'm also hopeful we'll gain the ability for German HMG teams to drop the heavy tripod in order to gain mobility, AIUI something that was often done when on the attack.

The infantry squad MG modeling will also be very important. A German Rifle Squad's firepower is heavily concentrated in the MG. Since the player cannot directly control the position of a squad MG, it's going to be very important for the squad-level AI to place the MG intelligently so that it can fire on a target. And it will also be very interesting to watch what happens when the MG gunner in a typical German Rifle Squad gets hit -- losing the MG at the wrong time will lose a firefight. So "Buddy Aid" to pick up the MG and get it back in action quickly will be very important. This was abstractly modeled to a degree in CMx1, but now we should see it in much greater detail.

I would like to see some improvement to the Area Fire modeling, so that more than one action spot can be targeted for area fire at a time. Steve recently mentioned the possibility of adding an "Area Fire Arc" to the game at some point in the future. This would be a very welcome improvement and would increase the utility of MGs in general considerably.

Cheers,

YD

PS: I do see one significant difference that doesn't have anything directly to do with MGs, but should affect their perceived effectiveness: troop training and quality. The typical rifleman fighting in Normandy had far less training than the typical rifleman does today. Training techniques have also improved considerably over the past 60 years. So in general, modern first-world infantrymen are better prepared for the experience of being under fire than their WWII counterparts, especially those without significant real combat experience. So there should probably be some difference in the "hardiness" of infantry in general under fire, including MG fire.

[Lanzfeld]

Yankee,

I am familiar with fire superiority. I have not heard of fire ascendancy. Could you please give a short explaination?

Thanks

[YankeeDog]

Yankee,

I am familiar with fire superiority. I have not heard of fire ascendancy. Could you please give a short explaination?

Thanks

Fundamentally, fire ascendancy is the concept that once a unit gains a clear suppression advantage in a small arms firefight, this tends to create a feedback cycle wherein the advantage increases over time until one unit is highly suppressed and putting out almost no fire, and the other unit is free to fire and maneuver.

Imagine two roughly equal infantry units in a firefight. In the initial exchange of fire, there are no casualties, but for whatever reason, one unit suppresses the other a little more -- a few lucky shots, better cover, whatever. Since suppression degrades a unit's ability to put out fire, as the fight goes on, this initial advantage is likely to become bigger until eventually the one unit is nearly completely suppressed (i.e., unable to put out any meaningful fire or manuver), and the other is able to fire and maneuver as it pleases. This is why the first few moments of a firefight are often the most important; once one side gains an advantage, that advantage tends to feed back on itself, unless and until something else comes into the equation (reinforcements, artillery, etc.).

So infantry tacticians talk about "gaining fire ascendancy" as a first step in winning a firefight. Gaining fire ascendancy is not always possible. For example, in a long-range firefight, it might be that neither side is able to put out enough fire to significantly suppress the other and the fight will simply continues as a running exchange of fire until something happens to break the stasis, such as one side attempting a maneuver to gain an advantage.

[Fat Dave]

Thanks for that, very interesting

[Dietrich]

Dietrich, nice link. Of course, I looked at it as US war-fighting propaganda of the, "don't worry about their MG42's, men. Here's an easy way around them. Hah! They use too much ammo and have to change their barrels" sort. It seems a combination of information, pychological shoring up, and tactical tips.

Being a contemporary account, there is no doubt a certain lack of objectivity, if a small one. Even the die-hard pro-American R. Lee Ermey, in his hosting of a Mail Call episode which discussed the MG42, made note of a US War Department training film which compared the MG42 and MG34 to contemporary US machine guns and which came to the conclusion that while the German machine guns had higher rates of fire, they were less accurate; Ermey admitted: "I got a feeling that this experiment was stacked in our favor, and I'm not sure if it helped our boys get the job done or not."

Regarding that contemporary assessment of German MG usage, I think a key statement therefrom is: "What ground the light machine guns cover is covered well, but it's a very limited area." I'm inclined to suspect that one thing this assessment failed to take into account is the number of MGs the Germans employed. Not only did the Germans employ a greater number of MGs than the army of any nation they faced, in certain cases they employed them in a much more concentrated way. For example, the TO&E of a Panzergrenadiergruppe included not only the two MGs which the soldiers carried with them but also the MG which was mounted on their SdKfz 251. Granted, any given PzG Gruppe in an actual tactical situation might be understrength or suboptimally equipped, but assuming that a full-strength PzG Gruppe came up against a regular US Army rifle squad (with only one BAR, but sometimes two), the difference in firepower would definitely be marked one.

As for CM:N, I'm keen to find out how German infantry squads will behave. Based on what I've read about German tactical principles and practices, a reasonable outline for German infantry squad TacAI would look something like this: Assuming no specific orders are in effect (i.e., no cover arc, no "hide", etc.), if the Gruppe spots enemy infantry within effective range, the MG opens fire alone. If the Gruppe is issued a Target Light order on an enemy unit, the MG opens fire alone but fires longer and more frequent bursts. If the Gruppe is issued a Target order, the MG as well as the rifles open fire. Of course, that's just one concept for how German infantry would behave in terms of fire discipline. Then again, Steven has emphasized that there won't be "national differences" between forces, so I suppose no such distinction will be seen with German infantry.

[Elmar Bijlsma]

For example, the TO&E of a Panzergrenadiergruppe included not only the two MGs which the soldiers carried with them but also the MG which was mounted on their SdKfz 251.

Wasn't the MG on the halftrack removed and used by the infantry when dismounted?

[Dietrich]

Wasn't the MG on the halftrack removed and used by the infantry when dismounted?

According to German Squad Tactics in WWII by Matthew Gajkowski (which includes a translation of H.Dv.299/4a from May 25, 1942), the Panzergrenadiergruppe's equipment includes: "3 light machine guns, one is mounted in the front of the halftrack, the others are kept with the squad (when the squad is in the vehicle the machine gun of the second MG-Schütze 1 is mounted in the rear, in the anti-aircraft mount)".

My point is simply that a fully equipped Panzergrenadier squad had roughly twice the firepower of a regular Gruppe and about three times the firepower if the squad was able to employ the "bord MG" of their accompanying SdKfz 251.

I certainly hope they make it so if a Gruppe's MG-Schütze gets WIA/KIA, one of his squadmates picks up the MG. (By comparison, if a SAW gunner gets WIA/KIA, only rarely does the buddy-aid-performing squadmate pick up the M249.)

[Lanzfeld]

Which brings up another thing....

They seem to do buddy aid before they pick up the weapon. There are going to be times when I want that gun NOW and do the first aid later. Whats the point in trying to save a buddy if you all get shot in the process?!?!

[Dietrich]

I concur.

In the German infantry squad, the MG was the most important weapon; it provided more firepower than all the squad's other weapons combined.

However, because BFC has stated...

[in CMx1] there was nothing inherently special about any force at all. Everything used the same stats, the same evaluation systems, the same interaction with terrain, etc. The difference came from the specific differences in the units themselves modified by the same pallet of options. If the user played with realistic options for specific units, then things came out generally realistic. Tactics came from these differences plus the way a particular force was organized/equipped.

In short, we never concerned ourselves with national differences when making CMBO, CMBB, CMAK, or CM:SF. The differences instead came out naturally from a well designed and implemented simulation. We will continue on with this approach forever more.

...I'm inclined to think that such non-outliers as how important the MG was to the German infantry squad and the manner in which German infantry squads used their MGs will not be simulated, since such TacAI behavior would be not the same as the TacAI behavior for the infantry squads of other forces. So at the risk of sounding like a pessimist (though I'm sure I will thoroughly enjoy CM:N and will be pleasantly surprised by the inclusion of things I hadn't thought of), I reckon German riflemen will be firing pretty much the same as Garand-wielders and there will be no provision for bringing leichte MG34s and 42s back into action as quickly as possible (i.e., before buddy aid is performed).

[moneymaxx]

I concur.

... I reckon German riflemen will be firing pretty much the same as Garand-wielders and there will be no provision for bringing leichte MG34s and 42s back into action as quickly as possible (i.e., before buddy aid is performed).

Wouldnt it be better than to rewrite the code of the Tac AI so that every squad, regardless of it's nationality, tries to use its automatic weapon again as quickly as possible ?

[Cuirassier]

"Wouldnt it be better than to rewrite the code of the Tac AI so that every squad, regardless of it's nationality, tries to use its automatic weapon again as quickly as possible ?"

Really that should be the case. The British and Commonwealth armies, for example, emphasized the importance of keeping the Bren gun firing regardless of casualties.