HMGs in Normandy

[YankeeDog]

For the most part, I agree with previous comments that infantry squads in general should prioritize keeping the SAW in combat, but to play devil's advocate I do think it's important to keep a few things in mind:

- War is confusing. Other squad members don't necessarily instantaneously know that the guy carrying the squad MG has been wounded or killed. So it may take some seconds before anyone moves to re-man the MG.

- The effect of seeing a man wounded or killed right next to you is pretty strong, and there is also the instinct to help one's wounded comrade. So I'm not sure it's realistic to expect the Asst. MG gunner to always just push the body of the dead MG gunner off the gun, wipe the blood out of his eyes, and keep firing. Sometimes, an individual soldier might have this fortitude, but not always.

- There is also the simple practical matter of getting the wounded/killed man out of the way, so the gun can be manned again. Moving a wounded or dead 150+ lbs. man is not easy, especially if you are under fire and can't stand up to gain proper leverage without getting shot.

- Finally, especially with regard to the Panzergrenadier squads, there is the issue of carrying ammo vs. carrying the 2nd MG. Panzergrenadier squads only have 8 men to start with, and the MG42 is a heavy, hungry beast. It's probably appropriate for the squad to prioritize keeping the 2 MGs for the first casualty or two, but once the squad gets down to 6 men or less (and keep in mind that many German formations were going into battle already understrength by 1944), I wonder whether squad should really prioritize keeping the 2nd MG, or drop down to 1 MG, so that it can maintain mobility and still carry enough ammo to feed the gun. This would be more true if the squad were on the move by foot, rather than in a stationary position, or with the Halftrack nearby for ammo resupply.

[Migo441]

Dietrich,

Thanks for quoting that bit from Battlefront. I dimly recalled earlier discussions about this but wasn't sure where to go to to find them. When I searched for "national differences" I ended up in the epic thread discussing how there would not be FOW for trenches for technical reasons having to do with the terrain mesh, etc... I assume that is still operative, but I digress.

Is Battlefront not "concerned" with national differences more from a philosophical perspective, i.e., they just don't think it's appropriate for a game of this scale and scope?

Or is it more for technical reasons, i.e., national differences would provide a subtle payoff compared to a gazillion other items on the development priority list?

Without expecting (or asking) Battlefront to change their position, do players think that inherent national differences are desirable? Are there relatively easily defined examples (like Kar98k armed soldiers with different firing behavior based on ranges/commands compared to M1 Garand armed soldiers)?

[YankeeDog]

I wouldn't interpret BFC's "no nationality differences" comments too broadly; as I read them, they are intended to mostly apply to stuff like morale and fitness. For example, you could argue that Axis soldiers fighting in Normandy were, on average, in poorer physical condition than allied soldiers -- many were from 2nd line formations, diet wasn't as good etc. The way model this in the game is to give any such formations a lower fitness rating, not to give Germans an across-the-board "fitness penalty".

But where the historical data supports a real difference in the way nationalities deployed and fought on the squad level, I think we will see some differences. Most obvious place I think we'll see this is in way squads break down into sections or teams -- squad level tactical doctrine was very different from nationality to nationality in this regard. For example, American WWII infantry squads were larger than most other nationalities', and doctrinally the 12-man squads split into Squad Leader (independent, but I assume attached himself to whichever team he considered most important at the moment) + Able (scout w/ 2 rifemen) + Baker (maneuver w/ 5 riflemen) + Charlie (gun w/ BAR + 3 riflemen). This system apparently proved rather unwieldy in combat and from what I've read many formations adopted simpler, more robust ad hoc systems on their own. I know less about the German squad-level doctrine, but IIRC, with generally smaller squads, they usually split into two sections, with a greater emphasis on maneuvering the MG into the best firing position, with a rifle group providing covering fire while the MG was moving, and then protecting the flanks once the MG was emplaced.

All this should not only affect the actual breakdown of split teams when the player use the Split Team order, but also how the squads move and deploy tactically of their own accord. I don't envy BFC the task of figuring out how to make all this work from a programming perspective, but it's pretty important to a realistic representation of WWII small unit tactics.

But I'm not sure how much this has to do with the instant debate about picking up MGs via buddy aid. As noted, pretty much all formations in WWII emphasized keeping the Squad base-of-fire weapon in action; even the Americans, who has the weakest SAW with the BAR, trained this way. So I don't see much need for a "nationality preference" on this particular issue. Maybe a slightly stronger preference to the Germans, but not a huge issue.

[Morten Poulsen]

Hi all - wasn't the LMG the real beat in a defrencive possition?

As a former gunner of the German LMG known as LMG42 in Denmark, I can tell you that the LMG42 is a pottentially deadly weapon. You just have to adjust from a mobile warfare to a defencive => use a tripod and a dug in possition. We used to deploy the lmg42 in this fixture. Made it stable and accurate up to 1000m when fire-arcs was prepared. http://www.bisgaardnielsen.dk/product.asp?product=10905

It was a simple fixture that made a sweeping fire the simplest thing of the world. It was possible to preprogram 2 different fire tracktories (up close and max detection at daylaight/night). The sweeping effect is to my knowledge not moddeld wery good in current CM:Sf. But then it's nedded in moddelleing a moddern static fight. Moddern weaponery is to accurate to make this last for more than 30 sec.

[Bigduke6]

I would say MGs in CMSF are modeled very well indeed.

If you try and run a Syrian squad across the street, and a blue MG is 200m. away or less, that squad is going to get chopped to bits. Most likely a couple of guys will survive the first few bursts, but if they go to ground in the open they'll die in the next minute or two.

At greater ranges, say 200 - 600m, you might or might not get your red squad across a bit of open ground covered by a blue MG. Cover, squad discipline, the skill of the firer, visibility - all that stuff comes into play here. Sometimes the squad makes it no casualties, sometimes a guy or two are hit, and sometimes the squad goes to ground and then it's a question of what they do next while pinned, and of course how badly blue tries to kill them while pinned.

At even greater ranges, say 600m - 1200m, I would say it's really a question of how effective one thinks LR MG fire should be. It seems like a red squad will take a casualty about half the time once the MG opens up, and unless the MG keeps hitting their particular location, more or less ok red infantry will keep its discipline and eventually move out of the covered area, albeit maybe with a casualty or two. Guys carrying AT equipment definately are more likely to get hit, since they are carrying the heavy object that makes the tail end of the squad, and so exposed more to fire; also maybe the A/I targets them more. But bottom line if there is open ground and a CMSF MG is covering it LR, the only way red infantry is getting across it is by paying the price casualties and time. They will go to ground and if they are visible to the MG, they will mostly stay that way.

I'd say all in all that's excellent replication of the real deal. You can quibble about particular effects at a particular range in a particular cover or visibility situation, but all in all I think the guys at BFI have nailed this part of the simulation.

Perhaps some of the complaints about weak MGs, has to do with the fact that blue infantry are turtle troops, they're armored. Just guessing there.

[Battlefront.com]

YankeeDog,

But I'm not sure how much this has to do with the instant debate about picking up MGs via buddy aid. As noted, pretty much all formations in WWII emphasized keeping the Squad base-of-fire weapon in action; even the Americans, who has the weakest SAW with the BAR, trained this way. So I don't see much need for a "nationality preference" on this particular issue. Maybe a slightly stronger preference to the Germans, but not a huge issue.

Correct, there really is no difference. As has already been stated, the doctrine of a US Rifle Squad or a Commonwealth Rifle Squad, is basically the same as a German Rifle Squad when it comes to keeping the LMG in action. The big differences, which were noticeable in the war and even in CMx1, is the firepower that comes from the respective LMGs. In CMx2 this is even more keenly felt because specific ROF and reloading is simulated. This puts the MG 34/42 head and shoulders above the BAR and Bren in many ways.

The code in CM:SF already handles this sort of behavior very well. Not text book perfectly, of course, but that's what war is all about. Sometimes the weapon isn't recoverable, often it is. Situations are not predictable.

BTW, as the war ground on the US Rifle Squads began adding BARs to their weaponry. There were often as many as three BARs in a single Squad. That's not the case within CM: Normandy's timeframe, but I thought I would just mention that the Americans did value the concept of the LMG as much as the Germans. In fact, after the war they basically copied the MG 42 (M-60), and to this day have 2x SAWs per Squad.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

As for MG effectiveness in terms of causing casualties, remember that something like 75% of casualties in Europe were caused by shell fragments, not bullets. I forget the breakdown of that remaining 25%, but it was crowded with lots of other stuff such as mines, tanks, etc.

If each MG in service killed even 1 guy in its lifetime of service, I'd be surprised since the above statistics wouldn't be possible. I've seen stats which claim as many as 15,000 bullets were fired for each KIA caused. I'm sure MGs fired the majority of these rounds on a per weapon basis.

Anyway, MGs are designed for suppression not killing. But if the enemy is willing to be stupid in the face of a blazing MG, why go easy on the dumb bastage?

Steve

[Mord]

So let me jump in and ask, will jams be simulated for the WWII settings?

Mord.

[Kanonier Reichmann]

.... but I thought I would just mention that the Americans did value the concept of the LMG as much as the Germans. In fact, after the war they basically copied the MG 42 (M-60), and to this day have 2x SAWs per Squad.

Steve

Ahhhh... the M60. An MG42 based design with 18 more mistakes!

Regards

KR

[Dietrich]

The doctrine of a US Rifle Squad or a Commonwealth Rifle Squad, is basically the same as a German Rifle Squad when it comes to keeping the LMG in action.

This article on German squad organization in 1944 includes the following interview excerpt:

You never wanted to lose your machine-gun. If you did, they would divide the survivors up and put them into other Gruppen that still had their gun.

—Alfred Becker (ex-Gefreiter of the 326th Volksgrenadier Division), from an interview dated Jan. 12, 1989

Such squad reorganizing is outside the scope of the game, but it seems clear to me that the LMG was more important to the German Gruppe than it was to the US rifle squad, though the difference would be less pronounced as regard the British rifle squad. It would be odd for the men of a BAR-less rifle squad to get reincorporated into other, more intact squads. If the grunts in a US squad had 1903 Springfield rifles instead of Garands, I think they would be all the more keen to keep their BAR in action.

However, if any increased likelihood of retaining an LMG in the event of loss of the gunner would fall under "national differences" and would thus be omitted, then I respect and accept BFC's decision.

[TheVulture]

To what extent can scavenging the LMG be seperated from the first aid portion of buddy aid? After all, it can take up to 2 minutes of 'medic' action before an injured man is removed, but presumably getting the LMG and ammo to someone else in the squad could be done pretty quickly while the buddy aid continues. Can man A doing buddy aid on injured man B get the LMG to other squad member C within say 20 seconds while A continues to buddy aid for another minute? As I understand it now, A will take the LMG and it will be out of action (effectively) until he finishes the buddy aid (unless you manually interrupt the aid with a move order, then come back and let someone else do the buddy aid; and even then I imagine that the weapon isn't transferred until the buddy aid finishes, although I haven't checked).

[Elmar Bijlsma]

Do we really want buddy aid to be more then it is? BFC have always indicated they intend not to include casualty handling over the minimum required. And I agree.

If I need to be managing how first aid is administered because some of you couldn't wait one minute to get a MG back in to action, I'd be very cross indeed.

[TheVulture]

Do we really want buddy aid to be more then it is? BFC have always indicated they intend not to include casualty handling over the minimum required. And I agree.

If I need to be managing how first aid is administered because some of you couldn't wait one minute to get a MG back in to action, I'd be very cross indeed.

The only change I am suggesting is that after about 10-15 seconds of buddy aid, the LMG is automatically transferred to a third squad member if there is one close by who is not doing anything else. Exactly the same in all other respects. It just means that the squad still has the LMG available to fire if they are under attack whilst buddy aiding. No chnage to the user behaviour at all.

[Elmar Bijlsma]

Ah, sorry, I misread your example to mean that soldier C would also be involved with the whole buddy aid thing. I'd have no real problem with your solution.

Nonetheless, I feel it's a pretty marginal thing.

[Battlefront.com]

Dietrich,

Such squad reorganizing is outside the scope of the game, but it seems clear to me that the LMG was more important to the German Gruppe than it was to the US rifle squad, though the difference would be less pronounced as regard the British rifle squad. It would be odd for the men of a BAR-less rifle squad to get reincorporated into other, more intact squads. If the grunts in a US squad had 1903 Springfield rifles instead of Garands, I think they would be all the more keen to keep their BAR in action.

That may or may not be true, but it really doesn't strike me as relevant. A Squad will try to keep its LMG in action regardless of nationality. Whether they can or not, and what they do later on if it fails, is a different matter completely. In fact, that quote Alfred Becker kinda says it all because it shows that it is possible for a German Rifle Squad to not have their LMG for some reason, despite their focus on retaining it.

However, if any increased likelihood of retaining an LMG in the event of loss of the gunner would fall under "national differences" and would thus be omitted, then I respect and accept BFC's decision.

Again, I just don't see there being a practical difference in terms of intent. I do see a practical difference in terms of outcome.

TheVulture,

To what extent can scavenging the LMG be seperated from the first aid portion of buddy aid? After all, it can take up to 2 minutes of 'medic' action before an injured man is removed, but presumably getting the LMG and ammo to someone else in the squad could be done pretty quickly while the buddy aid continues. Can man A doing buddy aid on injured man B get the LMG to other squad member C within say 20 seconds while A continues to buddy aid for another minute? As I understand it now, A will take the LMG and it will be out of action (effectively) until he finishes the buddy aid (unless you manually interrupt the aid with a move order, then come back and let someone else do the buddy aid; and even then I imagine that the weapon isn't transferred until the buddy aid finishes, although I haven't checked).

I'm pretty sure weapon transfer is not dependent on finishing Buddy Aid. However, I'll check. As you say, in theory it should be separate as there is no need to wait until Buddy Aid is complete before getting the weapon back in service.

Steve

[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?!?!

He said or I said?!?!?

Geezz....I get no respect...

[Dietrich]

Steve,

All I'm worried about is that my rifle squads (especially the German, and to a lesser extent the British/Commonwealth ones) will lose the most significant component of their firepower (and thus come close to combat ineffectiveness) simply because the LMG-wielder became WIA/KIA.

In CM:SF, when a SAW gunner goes down, more often than not his M249 is not retained. This doesn't lessen the squad's firepower that much, since pretty much every man in the squad has a rifle which can fire semi-auto and in bursts. (And, not to put too fine a point on it, SAW gunners virtually never fire anything more than very short bursts anyway.)

But since BFC has consistently proven itself, I suppose my worry is ill-founded. I trust y'all will furnish a groggishly realistic yet fun-to-play simulation. =)

Sincerely,

Dietrich

[TheVulture]

He said or I said?!?!?

Geezz....I get no respect...

Not feeling the love? <hug>

Meanwhile, I wonder whether it is worth coding it for Normandy so that the LMG gunner is much less likely to be the one giving buddy aid if there are other squad members around who can do the job. It would make sense, if the doctrine is indeed to keep the LMG in action as a priority.