Heavy machine guns and suppressive fire

[YankeeDog]

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.

Interesting analysis. I need to play the game more to draw my own conclusions, but the above does make a lot of sense. I do find it highly unlikely that a platoon that just took almost 50% casualties in a relatively short period of time would be good for much of anything.

I wonder if I'm going to end up drawing the same conclusion I did with CMx1, which is that the game generally plays more realistically if you play with lower experience-level troops. That is, if you want to realistically depict the typical, decently trained unit with maybe a little bit of combat experience, they should be "Green", and and not "Regular".

[Rayak47]

I'm not sure if anyone has said it, if so I missed, but range and scientific conditions on accuracy and rof go out the window then the guys are shooting back and you are also not trying to be sitting target (ducking and peaking, bullets zipping past and around you.) My one time I was ducking behind the vehicle tying not to get shot rather than standing and ripping off a mag at the full cyclic rate. Even sustained three round bursts were tough! Not that I disqualify the argument mind you, just that I think everyone is comparing book and range statistics rather than what happened in combat under fire. My semi-unscientific assumption being accuracy and ROF go out the window when you are getting shot at.

[Steiner14]

@Blackcat:

That's an interesting test. The description of your testscenario seems similar to historical human-wave attacks of the Soviets. But in reality even a single MG42 was capable to suppress whole waves at company-size, when the great liberating Boshevik Comissars forced their soldiers to storm over open ground, like in your test.

I also have read many anecdotes, where the commanders urged the MG42-gunners not to open fire until the enemy was as close as 50m. That indicates, that the effectiveness at short range seems to be very high and somehow outweigh the danger of close assaults.

Overheating the barrel on the MG42 was not a big issue, since it could be changed within 3 seconds. From what i know, supply of ammo and jamming (a major problem in the dirt of the Ostfront) were the biggest problems. Often enough resulting, that the german Ostfrontkämpfer wished for Soviet weapons, which were primitive, but working under all russian conditions.

In particular the high suppressive effect of the MG42 due to it's firepower (-> if you know, this sound is aimed at you, you dont want to stand up again), seems to be missing.

I hope BTS will find the time to focus on a more sophisticated MG model in general, because CMBN as a work of art and state of the art of tactical warfare simulation would deserve it.

[Rayak47]

Doesn't anyone have a Dad or grandfather they could ask? My dad was in the Navy, my mom was in after D-day but as a nurse didn't have much MG experience! (and no smart remarks!)

[YankeeDog]

A further thought: We should test the relative effectiveness of an HGM42 team at stopping an infantry advance vs. an M1919A4 team, and other American MGs.

And, now that the game allows American vs. American, it is possible to run both MGs against exactly the same opposition, and see what happens.

I'll get around to it sooner or later, if nobody else does, though probably later -- got a busy couple of days ahead of me. :-(

[Michael_Hatch]

Hi all.

As a long time gamer and a ex-soldier trained in the use of sustained-fire machine guns, machine gun fire in games is something that I pay a lot of attention to.

Getting realistic results from games designed by persons who don't have any knowledge of the theory, practical experience with or history of machine guns is expecting too much.

Battlefront has done a wonderful job with so many aspects of CMBN that I'm in awe of what can be accomplished in this day and age. Having said that, I'm sure there are things that could be improved on. I haven't done any testing of MG stuff myself (still just enjoying the game) but things look promising so far. I have faith that if we, the collective users community, can identify and purpose changes, we can hone the game further.

Of course, the standard disclaimer is that its a game...

Way back in the day (1983ish), while on a Advanced Machine Gunners course, I was given hard copies of the following two articles. Over time I misplaced them but recently found them posted online (you gotta love the internet).

For your consideration;

Rise, Fall and Re-Birth of the Emma-Gees

by Major K.A. Nette, PPCLI

(First published in the Canadian Infantry Journal No 8 - Winter 1979)

http://regimentalrogue.com/emmagees/emmagees1.htm

http://regimentalrogue.com/emmagees/emmagees2.htm

Hopefully, this will provide some food for thought.

Michael Hatch, Sergeant, retired a looong time ago.

[undead reindeer cavalry]

I think the developers got A LOT right!

yeah they did and it is a very good game.

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.

good for you.

Obviously there are always going to be gaps in the game, especially with regards to realism.

yeah and i am cool with it.

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.

i think i kept patching CMSF up to 1.28 or some such. then i just stopped caring about the patches. after putting up with this same stuff for years, and then seeing it in CMBN -- it's extremely demoralizing.

[AslakH]

With my experience with the MG42, tripod and bipod, the game seems way off.

I don't even use the HMGs in CMBN. I use them like they would've used cooks and office clerks - rearguard with an undeployed MG.

I have yet to see the MG42 perform as it should in CMBN. Nevermind the 1200 RPM bollocks, it just doesn't work. I'd rather have a green grenadier platoon covering my front, than a veteran HMG.

No biggie, I just don't use the HMGs. And I will never use them, because they will never change.

Good game, at the most. Not so good at some points. An overall 7/10.

[Fūrinkazan]

hi guys,

i was thinking exactly the same about HMG's. I did some search on my old books to evaluate machine guns.

first the machine guns inside a combat group Lmg's :

from the book german squad tactics we can see that : "german soldiers were expected to fire 50 to 60 well aimed shots in 5 8 round bursts in 30 seconds with MG 34.

So i would say that this is correct in the game for German squads. From what i saw in a few QBs it can be devastating, and at more than 200 m, german squads can stop an infantry attack.

I think that's the good way to model LMG's and automatic rifles like the BAR in the game.

The problem is that HMG's are shooting the same way.

During WW1 germans used about 12 HMG's for 1 Km of front :

In 1918 the 27th American infantry division was blocked for one day by HMG fire, in 1917 51 Scottisch division nailed for hours by only 3 Mg's....

There are a lof of exemples .

In 1916 10 vickers machine guns shot during 12 hours to avoid a german counter attack. A little less than 1 millon cartridges were shot and only 2 MG's had firing problems;

I have seen real movies of WW2 were MG 34 and 42, on tripod were shooting a lot of ammo in one burst, servants did not aim and they just pull the trigger.

Maybe there is a solution in the game. For exemple by reducing the delay between each burst, but only for heavy mg's.

Maybe another option : target light = short aimed bursts target = longer bursts with less or no delay in between for suppression, for area target the same long bursts, only pauses to change the guns and ammo.

It was the same with CMSF and i did some tests at that time.

For the maximum suppression effect try to target units that are in line from the flank. I used to target not the first but the last unit of the line so you suppress all the squads that are in line. You can also hit 2 or more men in one bullet or burst because they go through the squads. I suggest to put MG's on ground level so the bullets fly in a straight line suppressing all squads in the area. Shooting from high levels of buildings will make the bullets go to the ground.

For soldiers who don't use their weapons :

General of the army George Marshall : "in combat only 15 to 20 % of our soldiers open fire on the enemy"

Army ground force ETO reports : " in average, 1 GI on 3 with a rifle miss his target for lack of trainning or for religious reasons.

So, for LMG's, tanks mg's i think it's correct.

For HMG's (heavy on foot or on vehicles : half tracks etc...) increase the number of bullets shots and or less time between each shot.

I also think that the fact that some soldiers don't shoot or not enough is also good. I think it would be unrealistic to have all the squads shooting at the same time especially with rifles.

[StellarRat]

There were extensive and huge threads about MG effectiveness, suppression, beating zones, etc, etc... when CM1 came out! I'm sure BFC has this figured out. If not, I doubt they are going to reopen an ancient topic without substantial proof that their approach is wrong. If you really want to test MG effectiveness I suggest setting up a couple of MGs and trying to advance across open ground with an infantry battalion. In CM:BO / CM:BB I could stop Russian infantry battalion from advancing with 4 German HMG units.

[AslakH]

As I said: They will never change.

Get used to Mausers and MP40s, lads!

[Sgt Joch]

I just ran some simple firing range test scenarios. 3 MG 42 each in a bunker to negate the suppression effect on a hard terrain map to negate the micro cover effect, all regulars. Facing them, A US infantry platoon "regular". The platoon starts out around 800 meters away with a quick order towards the front of the bunkers, each squad taking on one bunker.

I ran the scenario twice, with the same results: the squads started taking casualties between 500-600 meters, became pinned, broken and uncontrollable 200-400 meters in front of the MGs, 2 squads came within 100 meters before being broken, one being wiped out.

Results:

Test 1: 34 casualties, 5 men ok;

Test 2: 33 casualties, 6 men ok;

There may be room for some fine tuning, but on the whole the performance

of the MG42s does not seem out of whack.

As JasonC mentioned, the rate at which morale is recovered may have to be looked at again.

[Wiggum]

As JasonC mentioned, the rate at which morale is recovered may have to be looked at again.

For sure !

Recovering moral goes way too fast at the moment...should be some minutes not seconds overall.

[StellarRat]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N59msUnyy1g

After watching this im pretty sure i'd be suppresed by an MG42. It must have been hell.

steve

I second that motion.

[Blackcat]

"If you really want to test MG effectiveness I suggest setting up a couple of MGs and trying to advance across open ground with an infantry battalion. In CM:BO / CM:BB I could stop Russian infantry battalion from advancing with 4 German HMG units."

Strangely enough I have been playng with a test firing range for much of the day.

Now then, fellows, particularly you ex-infantry types, how do you fancy being part of a platoon which is ordered to advance across one kilometre of flat open ground, without any cover to take a house which contains an MG 42 mounted on a tripod with lots of ammo and which is in command and control? Any takers?

Well, I have been running normal infantry platoons against MG42s in just those circumstances and never yet has the platoon failed to win. In each case the HMG has been eliminated and the US casualties have not exceeded 6 men (sometimes a few as 2) and moral state at the end has not been worse than cautious.

When there are two MG42s the situation changes dramatically and one can expect the platoon to get hammered though in maybe one in 10 cases they do take out both MGs.

The problem appears to be target overload. As HMGs cannot put down grazing fire, don't have beaten zones and cannot traverse a la 2 inch tap, the four targets (3 sections plus the HQ unit) cannot be brought under fire quickly enough to make a difference.

With a veteran crew the HMGs normally opened fire at a shade less than 900 metres, about 600 for a regular team, and the first casualties were caused at between 600 and 500 metres. Serious casualties can be expected to start at about 400 yards for a veteran team and 300 for regulars. Once one US section gets within about 250 yards it starts to put down good fire and the other two sections can then get even closer and once the Bazookas and rifle grenades start flying a single MG is toast.

StellarRat mentions the long discussions in the early days of CMBO about the effectiveness of MGs in that game. I remember them well. I also remember that the behaviour of MGs was changed very significantly bewteen CMBO and CMBB.

Now, I am not going to claim on the basis of my tests that HMGs are fundamentally broken in the game, but I would suggest that I have shown that there are grounds for further investigation.

If anybody wants to try this for themselves they are welcome to my "firing range" map.

[Blackcat]

Sgt Joch,

You have a one to one correspondance between the number of HMGs and the number of targets. Frankly, I'd expect to get similar results using an dug in infantry platoon against a single platoon moving in the open. HMGs should be able to handle more than one target over open fields of fire.

[WriterJWA]

Sgt Joch,

You have a one to one correspondance between the number of HMGs and the number of targets. Frankly, I'd expect to get similar results using an dug in infantry platoon against a single platoon moving in the open. HMGs should be able to handle more than one target over open fields of fire.

I kinda agree.... machineguns have commands and procedures that riflemen don't. I'd like the be able to have my MG's fire traversing fire across a crest or along a length of bocage without having to manually select the aim points each time. The target arch function is nice, but it's more defensive vice offensive. A target has to appear in order for it to work.

[Redwolf]

"If you really want to test MG effectiveness I suggest setting up a couple of MGs and trying to advance across open ground with an infantry battalion. In CM:BO / CM:BB I could stop Russian infantry battalion from advancing with 4 German HMG units."

Strangely enough I have been playng with a test firing range for much of the day.

Now then, fellows, particularly you ex-infantry types, how do you fancy being part of a platoon which is ordered to advance across one kilometre of flat open ground, without any cover to take a house which contains an MG 42 mounted on a tripod with lots of ammo and which is in command and control? Any takers?

Well, I have been running normal infantry platoons against MG42s in just those circumstances and never yet has the platoon failed to win. In each case the HMG has been eliminated and the US casualties have not exceeded 6 men (sometimes a few as 2) and moral state at the end has not been worse than cautious.

When there are two MG42s the situation changes dramatically and one can expect the platoon to get hammered though in maybe one in 10 cases they do take out both MGs.

The problem appears to be target overload. As HMGs cannot put down grazing fire, don't have beaten zones and cannot traverse a la 2 inch tap, the four targets (3 sections plus the HQ unit) cannot be brought under fire quickly enough to make a difference.

With a veteran crew the HMGs normally opened fire at a shade less than 900 metres, about 600 for a regular team, and the first casualties were caused at between 600 and 500 metres. Serious casualties can be expected to start at about 400 yards for a veteran team and 300 for regulars. Once one US section gets within about 250 yards it starts to put down good fire and the other two sections can then get even closer and once the Bazookas and rifle grenades start flying a single MG is toast.

StellarRat mentions the long discussions in the early days of CMBO about the effectiveness of MGs in that game. I remember them well. I also remember that the behaviour of MGs was changed very significantly bewteen CMBO and CMBB.

Now, I am not going to claim on the basis of my tests that HMGs are fundamentally broken in the game, but I would suggest that I have shown that there are grounds for further investigation.

If anybody wants to try this for themselves they are welcome to my "firing range" map.

In addition to not offering grazing fire the game has another problem:

since ammo is no longer abstracted you have to make real decisions about when to spend the rounds you have. As we have seen the game decides to be rather conservative, as this is most likely to come out all right when looking at a whole battle with many units. I don't think anyone wants to repeat CMBB where SMG squads would fire off all their ammo in a timeframe that was shorter than any real SMG man could have unloaded a regular load of MP40 magazines.

So far so good, but what looks like an obvious case of "well, now it's a good time not to be conservative and go 1200rpm", such as when a whole platoon advances on a single HMG, is not coded in the game and would be very difficult to do.

So the game is conservative and the HMG behaves like it was part of a normal defensive line, which means at least a couple squads and maybe some mortars are alongside it.

Overall I haven't made up my mind where I stand on this but one thing is clear: doing non-abstracted 1:1 "realistic" ammo count does not mix with then abstracting away grazing fire, aka not putting it in the game. I can see the complexity of implementing the latter but once you go off reality like this you have to go abstraction somewhere else to compensate.

A platoon might be able to take out a HMG realistically - but not with a full click of open ground in front of it. That would require HMG malfunction or running out of ammo.

%%

I wonder whether the CMBB MG hack is in: is there a supressive area of 50m around the point of impact of a MG in CMBN?

[von Murrin]

I didn't expect so many replies.

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.

I like this. The AI isn't going to do it, so I do think it would add much to the game, especially as MG's in-game are pretty much "run here, deploy, fire here" tools. Now, can BFC add this without too much trouble is the real question.

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".

As you said, "best of conditions".

I can attest to the difficulty of hitting moving or simply evasive (cover, concealment) targets 150-200m away with incoming fire. Even with an MG, this is far more challenging than it seems. A superb gunner can wield his charge like the hand of god. A superb gunner I was not.

Successfully engaging targets in a fullblown firefight is irritatingly difficult. Not trying to nitpick your nitpick, just reinforcing the point.

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.

I think he took greater issue with reactions to suppressive fires, and with this I agree.

[YankeeDog]

Simplest thing to do would probably be to allow the HMG teams to rapidly switch targets and increase rate of fire when presented with multiple targets in a relatively close arc, spreading the increased fire out amongst multiple targets. Somewhat similar to the tweak that was done for MGs between CMBO and CMBB, albiet updated for the new 1:1 mechanics and ammo tracking.

Tweaking morale modeling to make units pin sooner when under MG fire, and stay pinned longer, would also help.

Still doesn't solve the Area Fire issue, but IMHO this is less critical than the situation where an MG is presented with multiple, spotted targets, especially if said targets are advancing on the MG.

[von Murrin]

For sure !

Recovering moral goes way too fast at the moment...should be some minutes not seconds overall.

I think they recover fine. What they don't do IMO, is hit the dirt fast enough.

[WriterJWA]

I wonder whether the CMBB MG hack is in: is there a supressive area of 50m around the point of impact of a MG in CMBN?

Beaten zone representation would be awesome, but I think it would take some serious computing power to pull it off. As the rounds travel further away, the beaten zone would get larger, and the shape of it would depend on the orientation of the gun, the rounds, and the target. Might be a bit much to compute ... IDK.

However, how does one fire a final defensive line (an FDL) as a platoon might in a serious defensive battle? Platoon and company defenses are built around their machinguns, in fact they're one of the first things emplaced when planning a defense. Having that wall of lead at the sustained rate is pivotal, especially when the enemy is attempting to assault through.

One thing I think would be keen is to have an SOP setting available for your forces that can be taylored to your needs per scenario. For example, in a platoon patrol, I might not want my men returning fire at the first shot they hear. In a defensive scenario, I might want the standard procedure to be to wait until 75m for riflemen to open fire. Or, I may want my MG's to fire searching fire up to 75 meters, and then go sustained after that if in the defense.

[Sgt Joch]

Blackcat,

There are a couple of issues, one is the baseline raw performance of the MG42s to hit targets with the ROF and ballistics modeled in the game, which is what I was trying to test.

When you give the HMGs a wide field of view, you get into issues of spotting which are not directly related to the performance of the MG per se.

You also have to try to take out the suppression factor so you are just isolating the performance of the firearm. WW1 or Ostfront 41 results are not directly applicable, US and German infantry did not fight that way. They would lay down covering fire to suppress German MGs allowing the maneuver team to outflank and assault the position. Suppressing the defender is the key in any successful assault.

02001.pdf'>http://www.2ndbn5thmar.com/CoTTP/Suppression%20McBreen%2

02001.pdf

Just to be clear, I am not saying everything is perfect. If I was I would not be

running my own tests.

I would like to try out your test scenario btw.

[YankeeDog]

I wonder whether the CMBB MG hack is in: is there a supressive area of 50m around the point of impact of a MG in CMBN?

Don't need it. Units are already suppressed by being in close proximity of flying lead. Units 1 or 2 action spots to either side of the point target of an MG do experience some suppression; you can see this in-game (though I do wonder if the suppression to nearby action spots shouldn't be increased a bit). And since every bullet path is modeled explicitly, you can have units quite a distance away from the aim point experience suppression, and even casualties from MG fire, *especially* uprange or downrange. Assuming flat terrain, the area where there can be at least some suppression, and a chance of casualties, is usually much deeper than in CMBB, though also a bit narrower (CMBB's was a 50m circle). Which is realistic for an MG firing at a point target.

Now, if you combined this with a higher ROF when presented with multiple targets, things could get really nasty, really quickly....

[Redwolf]

Don't need it. Units are already suppressed by being in close proximity of flying lead. Units 1 or 2 action spots to either side of the point target of an MG do experience some suppression; you can see this in-game (though I do wonder if the suppression to nearby action spots shouldn't be increased a bit). And since every bullet path is modeled explicitly, you can have units quite a distance away from the aim point experience suppression, and even casualties from MG fire, *especially* uprange or downrange. Assuming flat terrain, the area where there can be at least some suppression, and a chance of casualties, is usually much deeper than in CMBB, though also a bit narrower (CMBB's was a 50m circle). Which is realistic for an MG firing at a point target.

Now, if you combined this with a higher ROF when presented with multiple targets, things could get really nasty, really quickly....

Sounds good to me. I didn't like the way that it worked in CMBB. It was better than CMBO's MGs not stopping anything but viewed at in isolation the CMBB hack didn't work very well.

I think that the way to go would probably be to allow extra freedom and speed in switching targets when presented with numerous "attractive" targets. "Attractive" means out of cover. That would do something precisely about the situation tested earlier, where a platoon can overrun a HMG over open ground.

This can lead to expending the ammunition early but alas I think that is realistic and appropriate here. If the attacker is willing to sacrifice 25-35 men it would be realistic to run an unsupplied HMG out of ammo.