Heavy machine guns and suppressive fire

[hoolaman]

Watch part 4 it has a enfilading fire sequence that only leaves 4 balloons.

It then goes on to explain how WWI MG positions fired from the flanks with interlocking fires.

The shooter was some 30 year British Army veteran MG officer or something.

[Magpie_Oz]

Is enfilade fire modelled in CM ? Does it follow that if you shoot at a target 300m away everything else in between times cops it too ?

[JonS]

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 think you forget that the attackers have a say in this matter.

[Zonks54]

Zonks40, makes the point that when using a MG in bi-pod mode, he was trained to fire in 5-8 round bursts because anything longer would end to make the fire too inaccurate to be effective. However, MGs are designed so that the bullets spread laterally. That is their purpose. They are not supposed to hit a point target but to put down bullets on an area (one of the criticisms of the Bren was that a burst produced too tight a group and so made it less effective than it needed to be). The point was also made that when mounted on a tripod longer bursts could and would be used, the basic accuracy was not affected but the longer burst gave a greater supression effect on the target.

Bull****, haven't you ever heard of Point target?, Area target?, Linear target? deep target?, linear target with depth?, is this what they taught you in the army ?

[Vark]

Is enfilade fire modelled in CM ? Does it follow that if you shoot at a target 300m away everything else in between times cops it too ?

I have mentioned this on a number of occasions, if the beaten zone is nor represented then you cannot have realistic effects on infantry, especially flanking fire, where the infantry's footprint matches the beaten zone.

There is another clip (cannot find it) that showed a Vickers with MILES equipment shooting at advancing infantry, most are bleeping at the end. Again, do not know how realistic this is but I have run a test using CMBB and have got 3-4 casualties for an attack on an entrenched Maxim, so CM1 had a problem with simulating MG fire. I have also just played the PCOF demo and had a platoon of infantry pinned by one Maxim and suffering a steady stream of casualties, as pinning takes alot longer to recover from. Do not know if this is going to the other end of the extreme but it came as a bit of a shock.

[YankeeDog]

I have mentioned this on a number of occasions, if the beaten zone is nor represented then you cannot have realistic effects on infantry, especially flanking fire, where the infantry's footprint matches the beaten zone.

There is another clip (cannot find it) that showed a Vickers with MILES equipment shooting at advancing infantry, most are bleeping at the end. Again, do not know how realistic this is but I have run a test using CMBB and have got 3-4 casualties for an attack on an entrenched Maxim, so CM1 had a problem with simulating MG fire. I have also just played the PCOF demo and had a platoon of infantry pinned by one Maxim and suffering a steady stream of casualties, as pinning takes alot longer to recover from. Do not know if this is going to the other end of the extreme but it came as a bit of a shock.

Yes; unlike CMx1, enfilading fire is modeled in CMx2, at least to a degree.

Every bullet's ballistic path is tracked. Units become suppressed and/or take casualties if a bullet comes near, or hits one of their members, respectively.

Try it. Put an infantry platoon in line-ahead formation and march them at an MG. You should have a column a good 100m long or so. Watch the bullets rip right down the line, causing suppression and casualties along the way.

What you can't easily do is deliberately order an MG to engage in a fire plan where it consistently put out grazing fire over a specific arc. As I have noted before, there are ways to trick this, but the game has no simple way of ordering an MG to do this.

[Fūrinkazan]

Totally agree with YankeeDog for enfilade fire.

I did tests in CMSF and if you target the last squad of the column, you will cause casualties and suppression to all the squads in front. Sometimes one burst can hit 2 or 3 men at a time.

I have been reading that it was the case in WW 1 were MG were placed on the flank of the attack.

When i said that i used WW tactics for my testing i only meant that i did not use short runs of 50 or 100m to reach the mgs but that my men attacked in line, moving fast all the way. I know that there were obstacles, mud etc...

And i did not want to reproduce the WW 1 battlefield.

I did it to show a situation that i think is impossible in real life.

The map was 250 m wide and i used for heavy HMG's because i remember the Germans used about 12 mg for 1 Km of front.

I would not be disturbed by the results if i had used small fast movement to reach the Bunker positions, It would have taken just a lot more time. Here, the mg position were reached in 3 Minutes only.

I don't know if changing the rate of fire is the solution, it was just a suggestion. If turning down the moral does the same, it's good for me.

I said before that i was not interrested much in technical solutions, i care only about the result. If the result is plausible, or convincing that's ok for me.

Makes me think of the gun elevation thread in CMSF. Gun elevation is not modelled and most of the time we don't notice it.

When a tank is shooting at infantry in a building from very close range, it is a problem for me and i suggested to put a minimal range about 20m for a tank main gun, taken from the minimal range of a T62 tank for weapons to avoid point blank shots in cmsf since it was not possible to model gun elevation.

I think that if Battlefront developpers can find a convincing solution, or a compromise to tweak this, we will not see in future realeases threads like this one that was already in CMSF and before.

[Fūrinkazan]

Just one little thing about moral.

Of course Green troops will be nailed much faster than veteran.

But, does it mean that a veteran troop can run in front of mgs for 600 m or more and succeed in the attack ?

what i mean is that veteran would not act like that, they use a proper tactic to get close to mg.

If green, veteran etc... use bad tactics, they should be punished the same way.

veteran should maybe suffer less losses, or they should get much closer to mg positions, but i don't think the attack would be a success, of course, in the same conditions that i used : no cover, no wind, bunker for mg etc...

[dieseltaylor]

US Army manual

.50 calibre HMG

Range at which there is a 50-50 chance of a hit:

Tripod mounted firing bursts 9-15 rounds

Point[man] target 700 metres

Vehicle 1000 metres

Area 1600 metres

Cupola mounted stationary vehicle , 9-15 rounds

Man 500 metres

Vehicle 600 metres

Area 1000 metres

Cupola mounted in moving vehicle firing 15- 30 rounds

Area target 300 metres

Range at which there is a 30% chance of a hit on squad/platoon 500 metres.

Unfortunately it is a graphic and is not that informative as to cover or attitude of soft targets. Lethality is greater than MMG but chance to hit should be similar. Incidentallly maximum distance for grazing fire is given as 800 metres which they define as i metre from the ground. Maximum range 6800 metres!

[Sgt Joch]

Paul Wiedorfer, who won the Medal of Honor during the Battle of Bulge, died a few days ago.

From his MOH citation:

He alone made it possible for his company to advance until its objective was seized. Company G had cleared a wooded area of snipers, and 1 platoon was advancing across an open clearing toward another wood when it was met by heavy machinegun fire from 2 German positions dug in at the edge of the second wood. These positions were flanked by enemy riflemen. The platoon took cover behind a small ridge approximately 40 yards from the enemy position. There was no other available protection and the entire platoon was pinned down by the German fire. It was about noon and the day was clear, but the terrain extremely difficult due to a 3-inch snowfall the night before over ice-covered ground. Pvt. Wiedorfer, realizing that the platoon advance could not continue until the 2 enemy machinegun nests were destroyed, voluntarily charged alone across the slippery open ground with no protecting cover of any kind. Running in a crouched position, under a hail of enemy fire, he slipped and fell in the snow, but quickly rose and continued forward with the enemy concentrating automatic and small-arms fire on him as he advanced. Miraculously escaping injury, Pvt. Wiedorfer reached a point some 10 yards from the first machinegun emplacement and hurled a handgrenade into it. With his rifle he killed the remaining Germans, and, without hesitation, wheeled to the right and attacked the second emplacement. One of the enemy was wounded by his fire and the other 6 immediately surrendered. This heroic action by 1 man enabled the platoon to advance from behind its protecting ridge and continue successfully to reach its objective. A few minutes later, when both the platoon leader and the platoon sergeant were wounded, Pvt. Wiedorfer assumed command of the platoon, leading it forward with inspired energy until the mission was accomplished.

Here you have one man charging over an open field at two MG nests and taking both out singlehanded.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_J._Wiedorfer

Admittedly an extreme example, but it does show that you can't just assume that HMGs are Uber-weapons.

RIP sarge.

[Bastables]

Paul Wiedorfer, who won the Medal of Honor during the Battle of Bulge, died a few days ago.

From his MOH citation:

Here you have one man charging over an open field at two MG nests and taking both out singlehanded.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_J._Wiedorfer

Admittedly an extreme example, but it does show that you can't just assume that HMGs are Uber-weapons.

RIP sarge.

Such an easy task against such an indifferent weapon system that he received a MOH for his routine execution of duty.

He survived dashing 40-50 yds after fire was so effective the platoon took cover behind a ridge line. CM has companies able to walk up or run 500-600m directly at HMG emplacements. How are these issues comparable?

What about the AAR of the dead HMG attackers, oh that's right they're statistics because they're dead. That's why you get medels for successfully taking out MG nests they're dangerous to attack and odds are you will die.

[dieseltaylor]

My initial feeling is that in wooded and lumpy terrian the HMG's were not in there optimal environment, and perhaps badly commanded to let the enemy approach to within 40 yards.

However having said that the guy was obviously a hero.

[Bastables]

My initial feeling is that in wooded and lumpy terrian the HMG's were not in there optimal environment, and perhaps badly commanded to let the enemy approach to within 40 yards.

However having said that the guy was obviously a hero.

Yeah badly sighted that you have an intervening ridgeline 50m away. I can see how the defenders could screw it up in the field, just being tired and on the run eventually leads to she'll be right thinking. The reverse slope of that ridge would make a good coy mortar target.

[Fūrinkazan]

"Miraculously escaping injury"

Yes i think that he was very lucky and extremly brave for this action, no doubt.

War is full of extreme exemples like a Tiger II tank destroyed by a light mortar fire that went in the commander hatch. I've been reading a story about at Tiger tank destroying an airplane with it's main gun on the Eastern front. It seemed the Russians used to attack in the same direction every day and Germans pointed the guns in that direction and by extreme luck touched a plane.

I Had in CMBO a Tiger destroyed by a Stuart. The Ap round went through the drivers block of vision. That changed the Villers Bocage battle results

That's not a problem since it's possible and it happen very very rarely in the game.

I don't expect HMG's to be super weapon. There are no super weapon.

I would like them to have more effect on suppressing, stopping infantry.

What are the chances that a man can do the same after running 600 m in front of 4 mgs without cover ?

[RockinHarry]

Paul Wiedorfer, who won the Medal of Honor during the Battle of Bulge, died a few days ago.

From his MOH citation:

Here you have one man charging over an open field at two MG nests and taking both out singlehanded.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_J._Wiedorfer

Admittedly an extreme example, but it does show that you can't just assume that HMGs are Uber-weapons.

RIP sarge.

I wouldn´t take some of the battle descriptions that literally. In particular:

"...1 platoon was advancing across an open clearing toward another wood when it was met by heavy machinegun fire from 2 German positions dug in at the edge of the second wood..."

I´d take it rather as "large volumes of fire taken from machineguns in 2 german positions dug in...."

So I´d rather realistically assume the incoming fire was from the german squads LMG and NOT a tripod MG42 HMG.

Same goes for mentioning of "machine gun nests", which can be any enemy (german) position including any sort of machine gun, but not necessarily a tripod MG42 HMG. The almost always understrength german infantry squads would preserve the squads LMG firepower for most defense tasks alone, with the remaining few squad members (if any) dropping in for close defense only.

Fact is, that valuable german tripod MG34/42 HMGs were mostly employed, where they can give supporting fires to infantry in the line (Hauptkampflinie, forward edge of the main line of resistance) at longer range. "Ideally" that would be from positions well within the "Hauptkampffeld" (main defense area), at least 50 to several hundred of meters to the rear of the line infantry. In order to employ these supporting fires, HMGs either had to overshoot, ot shoot through gaps in the infantry line. For flanking/crossfires, HMGs were employed in ways, that they´re effectively "covered" frontally by terrain (slope, woods, houses ect.) AND secured by line infantry forward of the HMG position. That´s just the "basic" principle for employing HMGs under the assumption, that a german defense position is situated in appropiate terrain (good and rather long range fields of fire).

If possible, supporting weapons were used to their best inherent effects. From my various wartime german FMs, pamphlets, training manuals, german LMG/HMGs were rated for employment as follows:

MG34 LMG:

"effective" fire, vs small targets, upto 1200m

best effect, upto 1000m

vs large targets, upto 1500m

"practical" rate of fire: 100-120 RPM

bursts of between 5-10 rounds, in short intervals.

MG 34 HMG on tripod:

"effective" fire, upto 3000m (includes indirect shooting, not covered in CMBN)

best effect upto 1500-2000m

beyond 2500m just "suppressing" effects

"practical" rate of fire: 300-350 RPM

"Continuous fire" (Dauerfeuer), per given task. A task would basically include the "target" (moving, covered/stationary, lethality) and number of rounds fired (50+) as given by the HMG unit section or platoon leader. If desired "effect" is achieved, targets would possibly switched to another one, or fire task repeated.

LMG/HMG 42 has similar data for "effective" ranges and somewhat higher "practical" ROF.

Something yet to consider is the preplanned defensive "fire plans" and the practice to employ ad hoc "Feuerüberfall" (concentration of fire) in order to amass most effectice (defensive) fires vs. an approaching enemy.

A more "realistic" scenario test setup for evaluation of (german) HMG effectiveness in CMBN, would "ideally" include HMGs positioned to the rear of the line infantry, where supporting fires can be applied at greater range. If possible place them in keyholed positions, as well as covered frontally by line infantry, in order to apply cross fires in front of the MLR. Consider using HMG "fall back" positions, once they come into effective return fire by enemy heavy weapons, or enemy infantry coming too close. A single (german) HMG seldomly fights it out alone til close combat range, unless you assume fanatical troops ("Waffen Grenadiers", Paratroopers, ect.)

Also a "prepared" defense needs to have included numerous TRPs, to have defensive fires maximized for ALL defending units, not just mortars and artillery.

Just leaves the fact, that (german) LMGs and HMGs in CMBN do not apply a realistic (higher) rate of fire, as well as do not switch targets often enough, or in shorter intervals. That´s the only MG performance diminishing effects, that I observed in CMBN so far.

Main reference resources: http://www.spwaw.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=18276

[Magpie_Oz]

Things is that because beaten zones and grazing fire etc is not modelled in CM:BN as far as I am aware, MG's of whatever form cannot really be employed as they truly were.

Why place them on a flank if they cannot enfilade the attackers ?

[JonS]

Things is that because beaten zones and grazing fire etc is not modelled in CM:BN

I don't know where you got those ideas, but - as even the meanest test will show - it simply isn't true.

[gunnergoz]

I don't know where you got those ideas, but - as even the meanest test will show - it simply isn't true.

I think the beef with MG's as portrayed in the game is that they can only fire on point targets, not true area targets. The bullets may cluster around the aim point and cover a bit of ground in the process, but it is not like traditional grazing fire or a defined beaten zone as I understand it.

If HMG's in particular were allowed to be targeted like artillery and mortars already are, with pre-defined circular target areas or along specified target lines, it would go a long way in my mind towards addressing this.

[JonS]

I think the beef with MG's as portrayed in the game is that they can only fire on point targets, not true area targets. The bullets may cluster around the aim point and cover a bit of ground in the process, but it is not like traditional grazing fire or a defined beaten zone as I understand it.

Yes, but there is a huge beaten zone around the nominated aim point AND there is grazing fire between the gun and the aim point.

What else do you want, really?

[dieseltaylor]

I have been using a Honey* each turn to fire down a road at night and from what I can see the variance from targetting point at range is considerable. As he is firing continually I ssem to have made a big dent in the 6000+ rounds : )

Stuart*

[gunnergoz]

Yes, but there is a huge beaten zone around the nominated aim point AND there is grazing fire between the gun and the aim point.

What else do you want, really?

What I want is something more than an approximation. Artillery can already fire at a defined circular target area or alternately within a defined target line. HMG's should be able to do something much the same. Is that so unreasonable?

[RockinHarry]

Beaten zones and grazing fire make a difference, if i.e a HMG34/42 pulls a realistic volume of fire per "burst" in a game minute. Currently I do not expect german HMGs to be more "effective" than US 30cals with 10 rounds max spent each burst and long intervals between. No wonder, attacking (US) infantry does not feel that much bothered in the game.

Minimum burst time for HMG34/42 s/b 1 second (~20 rounds) and if a good target offers (moving infantry in the open), there would be 2 second bursts (~40 rounds) and more.

LMG 34/42 bursts (5-7 rounds) are just right in the game, but a good gunner surely needs roughly 1 second to reaim for the same target and pulls of another 1-2 short bursts. If "effect" is achieved, target would likely be switched within 2-3 seconds, or the gunner pulls back into cover, or alternate firing position. Other interruptions between engaging targets off course is changing barrel and loading a new ammo belt. Usually for this, the gunner and assistant do that in cover.

Me guesses, that for technical reasons the CMBN game engine can not handle longer bursts with large volumes of fire from a single weapon like MG42, which would be a pity, as it takes a lot from its historic "efficiency".

[JonS]

What I want is something more than an approximation.

That's nice. Will you tell the pixeltruppen I just slaughtered - the ones that weren't near the aimpoint, the ones the gunner couldn't even see because they were hidden in thick crops - that they're only approximately dead, or do you want me to do that for you?

[Fūrinkazan]

Beaten zones and grazing fire make a difference, if i.e a HMG34/42 pulls a realistic volume of fire per "burst" in a game minute. Currently I do not expect german HMGs to be more "effective" than US 30cals with 10 rounds max spent each burst and long intervals between. No wonder, attacking (US) infantry does not feel that much bothered in the game.

Minimum burst time for HMG34/42 s/b 1 second (~20 rounds) and if a good target offers (moving infantry in the open), there would be 2 second bursts (~40 rounds) and more.

LMG 34/42 bursts (5-7 rounds) are just right in the game, but a good gunner surely needs roughly 1 second to reaim for the same target and pulls of another 1-2 short bursts. If "effect" is achieved, target would likely be switched within 2-3 seconds, or the gunner pulls back into cover, or alternate firing position. Other interruptions between engaging targets off course is changing barrel and loading a new ammo belt. Usually for this, the gunner and assistant do that in cover.

Me guesses, that for technical reasons the CMBN game engine can not handle longer bursts with large volumes of fire from a single weapon like MG42, which would be a pity, as it takes a lot from its historic "efficiency".

I agree that for LMG it's correct, and i also think that maybe it's more a problem of calculating each bullet trajectory with long bursts.

But maybe they can reduce the delay between each burst, 6 seconds is too much. Maybe 2 seconds for hmg 42/34 and more, 4 seconds for allied HMG's to reproduce the difference between the fire rate + changing suppression effect the higher caliber and fire rate the higher suppression.

It may be a more convincing simulation without slowing the game.

[gunnergoz]

That's nice. Will you tell the pixeltruppen I just slaughtered - the ones that weren't near the aimpoint, the ones the gunner couldn't even see because they were hidden in thick crops - that they're only approximately dead, or do you want me to do that for you?

Jon, you don't need to be an @ss to make your point. It won't change my mind. Can you not simply be civil instead of turning snide when someone disagrees with you?