Heavy machine guns and suppressive fire

[undead reindeer cavalry]

But for now I can answer the question "do HMG's work as advertised?" with a qualified yes.

it would be great if you could run two additional tests:

- plt + 2 HMG in open

- plt in foxholes (no HMGs)

this way we could make sure that the effect is not coming from the foxholes.

[LemuelG]

The info I would most like to see from any testing would be concerning the MG's sustained rate of fire during an encounter, how this is affected by suppression and if it falls in line with Real Life practice; and also whether or not the gunner is firing more sustained bursts when presented with a large number of targets or faces imminent peril.

[gunnergoz]

I timed one MMG at one point. My impression is that each MMG and HMG fires a short burst approximately once every 5-6 seconds. It got to where I could sort of pick up a rhythm. The guns do not appear to fire more often as the enemy closes or I would hear the difference. One would think that gunners would be tempted to fire more often as the enemy neared their actual position but that does not seem to be the case. I'll keep checking.

[Fūrinkazan]

I timed one MMG at one point. My impression is that each MMG and HMG fires a short burst approximately once every 5-6 seconds. It got to where I could sort of pick up a rhythm. The guns do not appear to fire more often as the enemy closes or I would hear the difference. One would think that gunners would be tempted to fire more often as the enemy neared their actual position but that does not seem to be the case. I'll keep checking.

From the test i have done it's correct, up to 5 6 seconds between each shot.

With 4 hmg in bunker a company of infantry was able to reach mg position by running without pause in 3 minutes after 600 m run on flat ground without cover.For me, this should be impossible.

Some bunkers had more suppression than infantry squads and one was destroyed.

The rate of fire seems to be correct for light machine guns inside of squads. But not for HMG.

I think there should be much less time between each burst.

This was the same in CMSF so i think that maybe it's a question of computer power. If every bullet is taken in count by calculation, having 4 Hmg or more shooting at the same time long bursts would slow the game.

If that's not the case, maybe 1 sec pause or less for HMG between each burst would be more realistic i guess.

[LemuelG]

I timed one MMG at one point. My impression is that each MMG and HMG fires a short burst approximately once every 5-6 seconds.

I think that's your/our problem right there. The three guys I lost in one burst will testify to the lethality of it's bullets, there just isn't enough of them being put in the air at any one time.

[Michael Emrys]

The two extra HMG's altered the balance considerably.

Thanks for running the experiment, gunner. This is a bit closer to what I would expect from an actual engagement of this size.

And infantry will continue to advance into the teeth of horrendous fire.

Meaning, I think, that JasonC is probably correct that average morale is too strong.

Michael

[Michael Emrys]

I think there should be much less time between each burst.

And/or bursts from HMGs should be of longer duration. The existing timing seems about right for LMGs but not HMGs. Certainly in situations where they are apt to be overrun in the next 15 seconds, you'd expect them to hold the trigger down and either rip through an entire belt or until they run out of targets.

Michael

[YankeeDog]

Yeah, my SWAG is that it's a little bit of both. The ROF for HMGs seems about right for disciplined, longer range fire. But it doesn't seem to ramp up quite enough as the range gets closer, especially if the HMG has multiple targets to shoot at that are in a relatively close arc. Put another way, there doesn't seem to be any "final protective fire" AI routine for HMGs.

And infantry seems to be a little too robust when charging into the teeth of MG fire.

Devil is, as always, in the details. I actually suspect it would only take rather modest adjustments to the above to substantially change the outcome.

EDIT to add: of course, if MGS do start laying down "final protective fire" at closer range, then ideally the game should somehow represent that overheating/jamming can become an issue... this problem should be worst for the air-cooled Brownings which can't change barrels quickly, less of a problem for the HMG42 (just a brief pause in firing to switch barrels), and only a very slight issue for the water-cooled MGs.

[Michael Emrys]

I actually suspect it would only take rather modest adjustments to the above to substantially change the outcome.

Quite so. One would want to be careful not to go too far in the opposite direction and turn MGs into some kind of godlike über-weapon.

Michael

[gunnergoz]

And do we really want the game to have to track how many spare MG barrels we have on hand?

[YankeeDog]

And do we really want the game to have to track how many spare MG barrels we have on hand?

No. And in any event, MG barrels aren't designed to be throw-away disposable items. Usually, the idea is that you switch out, and let one cool while you fire out of the other one, and then you switch back. So no need to keep track of the specific number of barrels, unless it's only one (in which case, obviously, the MG team can't switch).

The game actually already models barrel switching for HMG42 teams. put 'em on area fire for a few turns and watch them up close, after about 200 rounds, you'll hear the order in German, followed by a short pause in firing.

What's more important is that certain types of MG (specifically, the Browning M1919) CAN'T easily switch the barrel, AND are not water-cooled. So there's a very short period of time that a Browning MMG team can "go cyclic", before the risk of a round cooking off and jamming the barrel becomes very high. This is a major disadvantage of the air-cooled Browning when compared to the German GPMG designs.

[gunnergoz]

Thanks, YD, I'd always assumed that the German MG barrels had the rifling blown out and that is why they were disposed of. I knew that the game modeled the switch but never figured it was a "recycling" process so to speak.

[YankeeDog]

Eventually, the rifling does wear down and the barrel has to be replaced. But this takes longer. IIRC, German MG42 teams were supposed to switch the barrel every 200 rounds or so when engaged in sustained firing, and usually carried 2-3 barrels.

The rifling actually wears down faster if the team does not switch barrels frequently -- when the barrel gets hot, the rifling degrades much faster.

[Fūrinkazan]

it's not necessery to go into very detailed things.

Is there a way to obtain a "realistic" result.

I suggest shorter delay between burst, especially at short distance when enemy is getting closer, faster switch of the HMG between targets, increase suppression or decrease infantry moral.

I'm not asking the game to model every detail of a weapon.

what i expect is that the result on the battlefield is most of the time logical, or historical.

I think that we most agree that a normal company would not succeed in assaulting 4 HMG in a 600/ 700 m run (with good weather, no wind etc...)

I tried with the 0.50 caliber hmg and 4 of them, in foxholes did not stop infantry, and i think there was no difference in suppression.

Close Combat was far from beeing as detailed as CMBN, but if i remember well, HMG were quiet efficient and seemed to have "realistic" results by blocking infantry.

Some may say that tactics between WW1 and WW2 are very different and that's right, but i used a WW1 tactic when i did my testing, and the soldiers did run all the time without pause for more then 500 m and they were able to take the position which i think is impossible.

This is why during WW 1 tanks were used to break the defense, and why Germans used Stoßtruppen to infiltrate and destroy enemy trenches.

[Boche]

Didnt the mg42 carry atleast 4 to 5 spare barrels?

here in Spain were we still use it, I went to an exhibition the other day and they had 2 MG42s on Tripods on display, each having atleast 4 spare barrels

Here is a photo: (barrels sorounded by red)

[Fūrinkazan]

it seems that during WW2, 2 or 3 barrels were furnished with the weapon.

It takes 6 to 10 seconds to change the barrel.

[Magpie_Oz]

http://www.lonesentry.com/manuals/german-infantry-weapons/mg42-machine-gun.html

Is a pretty good run down on the MG42 and barrels etc

[JasonC]

Furinkazen - WW I defenses were not limited to a few sandbagged MG positions, and if they had been they would have been regularly penetrated. Full "up" manned trench positions had uncut barbed wire in aprons 10 to 20 meters wide, and entrenched riflemen at densities up to one man per yard. On top of emplaced MGs and barrages for no man's land as well as the enemy jump off trenches.

Where instead a defense in depth with small teams of "stay behind" MGs were used instead, to avoid casualties to the defending infantry from attacking artillery when using fully manned trenches, the attackers routinely did penetrate the forward defending positions. They just arrived reduced and disorganized, and then had to brawl with hand grenades against defending infantry reserves, deep into the defensive system.

In the reported results, what is being described for an average morale company is a "stall" at 50% casualties around 200 yards from the defensive position. That is morale too high. They should "stall" at roughly half those losses, and break at roughly 2/3rds of those losses.

Higher ROF for the defending MGs is not the answer; the stall and break points are off compared to men hit.

I'd recommend a test run with the attacking infantry rated green with no bonuses, and again with green and -1 on motivation. I think the results would be significantly more realistic, and also that the overall outcome (success vs. stall vs break of the attackers) would become more sensitive to defender cover, as the morale on both sides is dialed lower.

FWIW...

[hoolaman]

Skip to 7:14 in this youtube video it has an interesting real world experiment on how easy it is to hit properly spaced infantry with one gun. It doesn't give range but I guess its about 200-300m.

[Renaud]

That's very interesting. One can only conclude that it would be even harder in combat conditions with the enemy firing back at you, etc. I've pretty much reached the conclusion that heavy mg's are modeled about right. It's the morale effect of losses and general suppression that are a bit underwhelming perhaps. As JasonC and others have suggested, green is probably more 'regular' than regular in cm...this applied to cmx1 as well.

Edit: one thing I found humorous about this part of the video was the claim by the narrator that directly in front of the advancing troops was the best position to fire from (rather than enfilade fire which is obviously more deadly). Rubbish like that in popular shows is not surprising, but I do have respect for the actual operator of the weapon however.

Edit 2: oh and I think 'motivation' may be the key attribute here...I think it's wonderful how 'experience' and 'motivation' have been separated into distinct attributes. I think i remember asking for this 10 years ago or so. Now we can model crack troops who have seen one too many battles, or green troops too ignorant to understand the dangers and thus highly motivated to follow your murderous orders...

[Lanzfeld]

I think heavy MG's need to fire more often.

[gunnergoz]

(snip)

Edit 2: oh and I think 'motivation' may be the key attribute here...I think it's wonderful how 'experience' and 'motivation' have been separated into distinct attributes. I think i remember asking for this 10 years ago or so. Now we can model crack troops who have seen one too many battles, or green troops too ignorant to understand the dangers and thus highly motivated to follow your murderous orders...

I have to agree. I think motivation is a superb element to factor into troop qualities and am pleased someone finally decided to include it. The four soft factors in use now (experience/training, fitness, leadership and motivation) are so very flexible yet comprehensive as to be able to define almost any fighting force in any era. Adding in morale and suppression, (which are clearly more volatile and related to immediate events) makes it hard for me to think of anything they may have missed.

[Redwolf]

The two extra HMG's altered the balance considerably. After 30 minutes of advancing, the US company had failed to take the objective, although the Germans were beginning to waver and break from their own losses. Once the US got within 300 yards, the Germans could not keep up the same rate of knockdowns and eventually the US gained some measure of fire superiority, although at horrendous cost to themselves. At 200 yards so many US troops were cowering and near panic that it was taking a long time between team rushes, so it is conceivable that the Americans might have broken entirely at the final rush. It was more like a race to see who would break first.

I don't think a platoon in foxholes should need an additional 2 HMG or be overrun by a company sans that company's heavy weapons. You don't say what infantry you have there but that is at least 3 LMG, one per attacking platoon. If all the attackers are in the open you can surely prevent anybody in there from ever wanting to stand up again (after dropping to the ground on the first sweeps). You cannot kill 30 men that way but they will not cross the open towards you without any kind of friendly fire support. The only way to take that position should be an out-of-ammo situation on part of the defender.

I am more interested in the situation this thread originally was about where a HMG tries to hold a platoon and fails.

[Boche]

Edit: one thing I found humorous about this part of the video was the claim by the narrator that directly in front of the advancing troops was the best position to fire from (rather than enfilade fire which is obviously more deadly). Rubbish like that in popular shows is not surprising, but I do have respect for the actual operator of the weapon however.

...

Not that I ussually defend these kind of programs but actually, the narrator says "most obvious" defensive tactic (supose for the layman), not the best.

ive actually seen this program before, after this they go on to show enfilading fire and show how its much more effective

[Renaud]

Ah, good point. I have a bias against these shows generally, as the quality can be pretty bad. I just hear the worst now. I failed to keep watching past the balloon shoot. The tree chopping was silly but fun. 450 .303 rounds to chop down a 50 ft tall pine tree...