Heavy machine guns and suppressive fire

[Blackcat]

MGs, particularly in the sustained fire role, have never been modelled properly in any CM game. The modelling has certainly improved over the years, e.g one can now simulate sort of grazing fire but only over a very narrow arc. Beaten zones, traversing, plunging fire are all still missing. Rates of fire from tripod mounted guns are also too low, especially at long ranges. The benefits of water-cooled MGs were also missing in CMx1; I don't know if they are in with CMBN as I haven't had a chance to play with them yet.

As for the effect of MGs as far as they are modelled. I have not seen anything to make me doubt their effectiveness. My pixeltuppen that get targetted by MG42s seem to die pretty well and the .30 calibre weapons I have used seem to produce reasoanble results. I certainly haven't seen anything similar to Taki's experience. If I do, I'll be shouting, again (I have been going on about MGs in the games since I first got my hands on CMBO).

One last thought I haven't yet seen any MG get a stoppage in CMx2. Has anyone?

[Magpie_Oz]

Like I said, I'm no expert But I am always glad to learn!

So the M2 is not a HMG because it is large caliber, it is a HMG because it's large caliber allows it to be effective at a longer range?

Kinda, the 50Cal is a bit of an exception to the rule as it can be considered a small autocanon or big MG. A HMG is an infantry weapon that is capable of sustained fire and longer range. The 50cal is pretty much in a class of its own, mainly because it is not really man portable in the sustained fire role.

I can see where the two go hand-in-hand, actually. This answers some things that have puzzled me a time or two (in that how does adding a mount change a LMG into a MMG, and why do they use traverse limiters)

Traverse limiters are slightly different to what I was meaning above. Limiters are used when in a defensive position to stop the weapon firing outside its designated arc so that other positions are not endangered.

[Blackcat]

No the weapons are still direct fire, they don't have enough arc to be able to fire indirect in a true sense.

Not sure how the game works but they should be more accurate at long range and able to fire a greater volume of rounds. In ASL HMG's and MMG's that hadn't moved used to be able to use bore sighting which is like TRP's in CM but I don't know if they can in CM:BN

I am going to have to disagree with Mr. Oz on the indirect fire possibilities of HMGs. If one considers that indirect fire means that the gunner cannot see the target area then MGs in the sustained fire role were and still are capable of it (whether the art is still taught is another matter).

Anyway, in WWI the British and Canadians regularly used the Vickers .303 water-cooled MG to lay down "MG barrages" on lines of supply, important cross roads etc. behind the German lines. The gunners had no line of sight and the firing was done predictively, i.e. using some fairly basic mathematics and a knowlegde of the performance of the gun.

When used in this role the beaten zone became more circular than eliptical and with the sustained rates of fire possible from a Vickers it was possible to put a continuous stream of bullets into quite a small area, enough to deny any movement through it.

With the more mobile nature of WW2 in the ETO 1944-45, predictive MG fire was utilised much less. However it was still used during set-piece attacks. It was also taught in the British army at least until the early eighties by which time the Vickers had been finally retired (does it hold the record for the longest serving bit of kit?) and replaced by the wonderful GPMG.

One last thought, if anyone was wondering the Vickers was sighted to a range of 3,000 yards. On the GPMG, using standard 7.62 NATO ball, we reckoned 2.5km for predictive fire.

[zukkov]

tried a short test with 2 mg42 in light woods and a platoon of u.s. infantry moving in open ground. ranges varied from 700m to a little less than 300. at 300 the mg fire became deadly enough to keep the gi's at bay while only receiving 1 casualty themselves and light suppression to one of the mg's. total casualties for u.s. was 5 dead, 4 wounded. not a grog by any means, but this unscientific test seemed ok to me.

[Blackcat]

tried a short test with 2 mg42 in light woods and a platoon of u.s. infantry moving in open ground. ranges varied from 700m to a little less than 300. at 300 the mg fire became deadly enough to keep the gi's at bay while only receiving 1 casualty themselves and light suppression to one of the mg's. total casualties for u.s. was 5 dead, 4 wounded. not a grog by any means, but this unscientific test seemed ok to me.

Looks decidedly underpowered to me. At 300 yards rifles shoud be causing those casualties against an enemy moving in the open, a MG should be doing much more damage much further back. Time to go and play in the sand pit, I think.

[zukkov]

didn't explain my test well enough. the infantry started moving from outside of range. the mg's began firing at around 700m. at that range not much effect. once they reached around 400m and less is when the causualties started. i quit the test after only a few turns at 400m or less. the closest u.s unit was just under 300. at this point i felt that the 2 mg's could hold their own and had stopped the advance of the u.s. mind you, i don't do scientific tests, i play it by ear...

[Blackcat]

Houston, we have a problem.

Or at least we might have. I just set up a quick test. 2 MG42s (regular troops with plenty of ammo) in two buildings. 1 platoon of regular Us infantry moving at quick pace to take the buildings. The US Troops came into view of the MG 42s at just on 400 yards with not a shred of cover. Got this? One platoon of ordinary infantry moving quickly, accross bare ground, against two MG 42s in cover. Who won?

Yup, you guessed the US infantry won. They took more casualties 17 against 8, but they forced both sets of MG teams to retreat (one of them twice) and all but eliminated one team. The US infantry, though depleted and not in a good state, were able to take the buildings.

I am disappointed and worried by this result. Even using fire and manoeuvre, I wouldn't expect to see a single platoon defeat two MG42s deployed in the sustained fire role, let alone a head on quick command ove billiard-table-bare ground. More testing is required, but I think Taki might have a point.

[Sgt Joch]

Blackcat,

What tactics did you use? A rush or fire and maneuver?

[Blackcat]

Blackcat,

What tactics did you use? A rush or fire and maneuver?

The three sections and the HQ were given the quick order throughout, each bound was about 100 yards. So no quite a headlong charge, but not far off it and ceratinly not even a pretence at a tactical advance.

[Lanzfeld]

Yes I have always thought there was something wrong with the MG's in the Combat Mission games. Too little firing. They have always needed longer bursts and shorter time between burstd IMHO. Water cooled MG's can and should have very long bursts.

I mean, in a patch give us some 10 second bursts for the water cooled MG's and let us see how that is.

[Magpie_Oz]

I am going to have to disagree with Mr. Oz on the indirect fire possibilities of HMGs. If one considers that indirect fire means that the gunner cannot see the target area then MGs in the sustained fire role were and still are capable of it (whether the art is still taught is another matter).

Nope no disagreement there at all good Sir Black. That is what I meant by "in the true sense".

Meaning that an MG cannot fire from behind a hill for example. It has to be on the front of the hill not the back of the hill like a mortar or arty piece can be. More over it cannot attack an enemy in dead ground (i.e. they are behind the hill) like a mortar or arty piece can.

It is taught that an SFMG can fire at unseen targets and even sometimes if conditions are right it can fire over an intervening obstacle. Just like your quoted example.

A further note on the Vickers in the sustained role is that they used a more powerful cartridge for the extreme range engagements, I think it was called the Mark 8 Cartridge from memory. The Vickers could also fire several thousand rounds per hour with barrel changes and just keep on going as it didn't run out of water. The Vickers by far is the pinnacle of an SFMG, it even came in a 50cal version but I think that was only ever vehicle mounted.

I doubt an MG42 could match that performance, but the question is would it want to?

[JasonC]

The physical effect seems right to me, actually. It is the morale consequences of that rate of loss on a formation that small, in that short a period of time, that appear undermodeled. Outlier special force badasses, or just veteran forces on their outlier best day with their blood high, might pull it off actually. (I can think of several historical examples where they basically did). But the average unit would dissolve under losses that high, would not continue the mission, but would pin or break irretrievably and not get up.

Besides individual unit morale, it is possible that part of the solution might be morale contagion effects or "BCE" like effects above the individual game unit level. Right now the way such effects occur is by an HQ unit getting waxed, leaving subunits without the rally benefits of leadership - but otherwise doesn't happen. In real life, 17 men in the platoon being down already would have a catastrophic effect on the cohesion of the rest of the men. Who would be spending their time trying to aid the wounded, seeking cover personally, noticing the restraining influence of their sergeant disappeared when the hole appeared in his head and getting out of dodge outright, and the like.

As for the focus on rate of fire issues, I think it is misplaced. The physical limits on the tactical firepower of all machineguns since they were first fielded has always been the ammo that can actually be supplied to the guns, plus the physical safety of the gunners to reply fire, and never how fast they could throw the ammo they have. They have always been able to throw all that could be fed to them far faster than was tactically useful, and if used for max ROF would simply be dry in a handful of minutes to precious little tactical effect. The way to maximize the tactical impact of the rounds is instead to move the times when more of them are fired to the times of maximum enemy exposure, not to try to fire them off as fast as possible. The enemy just hits the dirt while you "go hot" and you waste 98% of the ammo.

[von Murrin]

The physical effect seems right to me, actually. It is the morale consequences of that rate of loss on a formation that small, in that short a period of time, that appear undermodeled. Outlier special force badasses, or just veteran forces on their outlier best day with their blood high, might pull it off actually. (I can think of several historical examples where they basically did). But the average unit would dissolve under losses that high, would not continue the mission, but would pin or break irretrievably and not get up.

Besides individual unit morale, it is possible that part of the solution might be morale contagion effects or "BCE" like effects above the individual game unit level. Right now the way such effects occur is by an HQ unit getting waxed, leaving subunits without the rally benefits of leadership - but otherwise doesn't happen. In real life, 17 men in the platoon being down already would have a catastrophic effect on the cohesion of the rest of the men. Who would be spending their time trying to aid the wounded, seeking cover personally, noticing the restraining influence of their sergeant disappeared when the hole appeared in his head and getting out of dodge outright, and the like.

As for the focus on rate of fire issues, I think it is misplaced. The physical limits on the tactical firepower of all machineguns since they were first fielded has always been the ammo that can actually be supplied to the guns, plus the physical safety of the gunners to reply fire, and never how fast they could throw the ammo they have. They have always been able to throw all that could be fed to them far faster than was tactically useful, and if used for max ROF would simply be dry in a handful of minutes to precious little tactical effect. The way to maximize the tactical impact of the rounds is instead to move the times when more of them are fired to the times of maximum enemy exposure, not to try to fire them off as fast as possible. The enemy just hits the dirt while you "go hot" and you waste 98% of the ammo.

Well stated.

MG's are not superweapons. Indirect fire is called plunging fire and is an interdiction, not a suppression technique. As to the accuracy complaints, a 2mx1m silhouette is not an easy target past ranges of about 150m under the best of conditions, especially if it's moving. Even open ground isn't ever open, and finding and hitting a target that has gone to ground is difficult at best.

MG's are superb at suppressive fires, especially when the target is known to be in a small, specific area and static. This they do very well in-game, where targets behind walls or in structures are made rather more miserable than they would otherwise be. Mowing down dozens of men who are doing their best not to get killed is pure Hollywood. T&E adjustments also make effective sustained rates of fire much harder to achieve with any real accuracy.

Bottom line? Use area fire, target static enemy positions, and use them for suppressive fires more than as direct killing tools and they do what they are supposed to do.

[Michael Emrys]

I'm not a MG42 grog, but from what I understand, even though it could fire at 1,200 rpm, normal practice was to fire in short bursts to conserve ammo and prevent overheating of the barrel.

It's been a couple of decades since I read up on that, so I might be confusing it with something else, but IIRC the MG 42 had a two position trigger. One position allowed continuous firing, and the other would fire three round bursts. The latter would be a good choice for suppressive fire.

Michael

[Fetchez la Vache]

Bottom line? Use area fire, target static enemy positions, and use them for suppressive fires more than as direct killing tools and they do what they are supposed to do.

Agree. However it would be great to have some refinement of the 'target' tools to permit a greater control of suppressive. Equivalent linear/area/target options c.f arty is my suggestion.

[ArgusEye]

I got this impression from a brief run with the demo, so my impression might not be representative.

The machine guns, not just the heavies, seem to do well when used against troops taking cover. Since this is the most realistic situation, it dominates. The reason, however, that most machine gun fire falls on soldiers taking cover, is that a soldier not taking cover when under machine gun fire has a very short life expectancy. And that is not modeled as well.

I could maneuver troops while they were under fire from multiple machine guns, and that should not be without taking big casualties. I mainly suffered morale damage, when sending a team across open ground not two hundred meters from a machine gun. That's silly.

[LemoN]

As to the accuracy complaints, a 2mx1m silhouette is not an easy target past ranges of about 150m under the best of conditions

Quit nitpick here, a 2x1m silhouette at 200m is a really easy target to hit, even with a normal bolt-action from a standing position, especially under the best of conditions. Remember that HMG's are a very stable fire-platform with sophisticated optics firing a spray of bullets with tolerable accuracy. I expect an MG-42 in a tripod configuration with optics to easily hit a standing target in plain sight at 400m+ with the first or second burst.

Now, a moving target (the lead for a target 150m away is nearly non-existent), obscuration, prone targets, cover, etc, of course will drastically change that, but these definitely don't fall under "best of conditions".

[Michael Emrys]

I think the problem is that you always hav to target 1 action spot for 1 minute.

So you can supress 1 squad only.

How is area fire modelled ?

It would be better if the supression effect would affect all action spots around your targeted one too.

Steve has posted that area fire also effects the adjacent action spots. And since bullets are tracked ballistically, what you end up with is a lane three action spots wide and of indefinite depth depending on the contour of the ground and the presence of any intervening obstacles.

Michael

[WriterJWA]

Regarding suppressive fire, it is more a question of range. Out past 200-300 meters, MGs are not very accurate, so you can still move troops forward with minimal casualties. Inside the 200-300 meters range, you will notice a lot more troops become pinned as they begin to take more casualties.

I hope that isn't displayed in the game.... because if so it's entirely unrealistic.

M2 Browning effective range is 2,000 meters. The M1919 is effective up to about 1,300 meters. This isn't maximum range (which is much farther), this is effective range, meaning the crew can lay down effective, aimed suppression fire and maintain a tight beaten zone.

Something else that would be cool would be the ability to fire machineguns in defilade. One thing machine guns can do is set up slightly behind sloping ground out of sight of enemy and fire by spotter a la indirect fire.

[Tarquelne]

use them for suppressive fires more than as direct killing tools

In the previous CM games I never appreciated that until I played via LAN (my first H v H games) and could see things from the POV of both MG and target. Or, if playing, hear the complaints. ("Crawl, dammit!")

[Duke d'Aquitaine]

When I was in the army I was trained specifically on the MG42 which we still used at the time (1980's) and as an NCO I subsequently trained recruits in it. In all modesty I was a pretty good shot with that weapon - I actually won the silver medal in the annual MG42 army shooting competition. What I can tell you is that we always shot in 3 round bursts. Always. As in always. The weapon became too imprecise firing more shots. That's not saying the recruits sometimes didn't fire more rounds, but that was because they didn't know better.

I easily hit individual moving mansized targets at 700 meters in terrain with the MG42 on bipod. I'm not saying all gunners were as good as me, but the MG42 is a pretty accurate weapon. And the tripod was even more accurate. It is my opinion that they're definitely not shooting enough bullets in CMBN. But their effect seem satisfying if you get my point...

What I'm saying is that they're not shooting a realistic amount of bullets, especially the tripod, I've never seen a tripod run out of ammo in CMBN, but perhaps they way BFC model the effect on the target is ok... hard to tell how many people should get killed. Try doing tests with elite gunners... see how they compare to regulars.

[Duke d'Aquitaine]

Also, if I may add this: the sound of the MG42 is not very accurate in CMBN at the moment :-)

[undead reindeer cavalry]

i tried cutting myself whenever my brains interpret game output in incorrect ways, but it's not effective. do you guys use electric shocks or how do you get yourself to ignore all the bs? please advice, i need your help.

[~Viajero]

Well stated.

...

Bottom line? Use area fire, target static enemy positions, and use them for suppressive fires more than as direct killing tools and they do what they are supposed to do.

Not sure you agree entirely with what JasonC just posted. If I got it right I believe he is still questioning the supression and/or moral mechanism in the game for troops under HMG fire, and qualifies it as maybe "undermodeled".

You seem to suggest that HMG are currently doing "what they are supposed to". May be that is strictly correct from the HMG point of view... but their target's reaction does not seem to be as I would humbly expect.

I´d tend to agree more with JasonC based in my limited experience so far with the game.

[WriterJWA]

i tried cutting myself whenever my brains interpret game output in incorrect ways, but it's not effective. do you guys use electric shocks or how do you get yourself to ignore all the bs? please advice, i need your help.

I think the developers got A LOT right! If I can use common infantry tactics such as fire-and-maneuver and achieve desired or relatively expected results, then I think they put out a successful game.

Obviously there are always going to be gaps in the game, especially with regards to realism. I don't think a rhino should be able to break through a thick bocage that fast and I should be able to use artillery to break up wire obstacles, but I expect these flaws to be addressed as the game progresses, patches are released, and the second and third iterations (Bulge and Russia) come out.