MP40 Effectiveness

[LukeFF]

I'm finding that the MP40 consistently causes casualties at the maximum limit of its range, and often there is a lot of foliage between the shooter and the target. This doesn't seem to be in keeping with the historical record, where the MP40's lack of range and rapid degradation of accuracy over 50+ meters spurred the development of the assault rifle.

Am I accurate in this assessment, or am I way off base?

[YankeeDog]

I'd be wary of drawing any conclusions based on anecdotal experience. I've certainly had experiences in the game that suggest the opposite of what you're seeing; just this past weekend I was able to get an entire squad across a stream ford without a casualty, even though two Germans with MP40s were firing at them from ~100m away. I did have some suppression on the Germans, but not enough to stop them from firing.

So it's not something I'm particularly worried about at the moment. But if you're interested in doing more testing, IIRC there is a German scout team armed with MP40s only in the game, so you could use that unit to test their effectiveness at various ranges.

[Statisoris]

In my current PBEM scenario "Carbide Carbide", the MP-40s have been very deadly under about 50m, wiping out half of squads. Over that they havent really been that useful.

[Alan8325]

I've seen one instance of a single burst from an MP40, at a range of a little over 100m, take out 3 guys who were running single-file along a wall. Probably just bad luck, but if it happens a lot then maybe there is an issue with precision.

Regarding accuracy I don't often see automatic weapons be highly accurate in CM, in other words each burst goes in a slightly different direction, which is fine. However I do often see the precision of such weapons look a little too high. In other words, each shot in a single burst doesn't deviate in direction from the previous shot very much. It is this way in CMSF too. MG's tend to fire bursts that are each very precise, but each burst deviates significantly from the previous one.

[Vark]

Just wait for the PPSH-41, its effective range was 200m!

[YankeeDog]

Just wait for the PPSH-41, its effective range was 200m!

'

Eh... "effective range" is a very subjective thing, and you'll hear very different numbers quoted for the same weapon, depending on where you look.

Once BFC gets around to the East Front, if you're expecting to see some kind of huge difference between the effective range of an MP-40 and a PPSH-41, I suspect you're going to be sorely disappointed. This said, the PPSH-41 did have higher muzzle velocity (though this advantage is somewhat mitigated by the fact that the lighter bullet it fires loses velocity more quickly than the 9mm), and is usually considered to have somewhat better maximum effective range than many contemporary SMGs. I think 200m is stretching it though, and I suspect if you set up an apples-to-apples comparison, the difference between the two weapons, while noticeable, would not be that huge.

[Vark]

Actually Yankee Dog the info comes from a guy who fires them and even he was surprised, thinking he could never hit a target at 200m with an SMG. He repeatedly hit the targets (standard military) both with semi-auto and automatic fire, now range firing is not the same as combat but the PPSH-41 should have the edge on an MP-40. That said it burns through ammo quicker and they only had two drums a man, so sustained fire is not an option, unless they pilfer the dead, dying or wounded, of their magazines.

[MikeyD]

I recall discussions about this earlier. THE low-power round in the game is the Colt .45 round, also chambered by the Thompson and Grease Gun. Effective range for the more powerful 9mm Walther and MP40 was about a third farther. If you're hitting stuff with the Thompson at 90m you should be hitting stuff with the MP40 at 120m. ...Theoretically

[YankeeDog]

My simple point is that, if we take the "effective" range of the MP-40 to be 100m, I'm not sure I agree that the equivalent "effective" range of the PPsh-41 would be double this, to 200m. Rather, I suspect different evaluation criteria are being used.

Is the PPsh somewhat more effective at longer ranges than the MP-40? Probably. Does it actually have double the effective range? I really doubt it.

Range accuracy really has nothing to do with it.

If you want to look at firing range accuracy, the .45 ACP round that the Thompson uses is considered by many competition shooters to have very good range accuracy compared to other pistol-caliber rounds because it is a relatively heavy (230 grain) bullet, and this gives it more predictable ballistics (less affected by crosswinds etc.). It's used in shooting competitions to this day for this very reason.

But, as noted, the .45 ACP also has quite a slow muzzle velocity, and therefore falls off the line of the bore quickly. This isn't as much of a problem on the firing range shooting at a stationary target, where you know the exact range and can compensate for the fall of shot very precisely. But in ranged combat shooting, where you have to make a snap assessment as to the distance, and also are quite possibly shooting at a moving target, this is a serious disadvantage. A GI firing a Thompson at a target 100m+ away has to account for several feet of drop, as well as 1/3 of a second or more of flight time.

By comparison, the 7.62 x 25mm Tokarev that the PPsh fires is less than half the weight of a .45 ACP. But it also comes out of the muzzle at a bit under twice the speed of the .45 ACP. The 9mm Parabellum that the MP-40 is somewhere in between.

The high muzzle velocity of the PPsh means it has a much flatter initial trajectory, which, all other things being equal, makes it easier to hit things. BUT, the light weight also means it loses speed much faster with distance.

Overall, I absolutely agree that, in combat conditions, the PPsh probably has a longer practical range than the MP-40, and definitely the Thompson. However, given the very light bullet, I also don't think the difference is as great as some people might think.

And I don't think the cyclic ROF has much to do with the effectiveness of any SMG beyond CQB ranges at all. If you want to talk about room-clearing or sweeping a trench or something like that, higher cyclic ROF might be a slight advantage. But not when you're looking at longer ranges. If anything, over 100m, a higher cyclic just means more muzzle climb and more bullets wasted shooting at the sky.

[RockinHarry]

Regarding accuracy I don't often see automatic weapons be highly accurate in CM, in other words each burst goes in a slightly different direction, which is fine. However I do often see the precision of such weapons look a little too high. In other words, each shot in a single burst doesn't deviate in direction from the previous shot very much. It is this way in CMSF too. MG's tend to fire bursts that are each very precise, but each burst deviates significantly from the previous one.

+1

Good observation. I observed it in a test play scenario yesterday, very closely.

I was attempting to have two german HMG42 support a company attack on a US foxhole line at range of 600m. With C2 well established overall and attacking infantry spotting dug in US units at ranges just over 300m, the HMG42 started blasting away already in turn 1-2.

Started with Regulars and observed in magnified vision (X key) from the individual HMG42 positions on targets. Deviation of individual bursts on targets varied greatly, just as the gunner had to reaim and calculate for each new burst again and again, but never remembered the right settings.

As said, this is from a static HMG42 position well behind advancing german infantry and range to targets is between 500-600m.

I changed the quality of the HMG teams up to Elite, Fanatic motivation and +2 leader...and it didn´t make the slightest difference, in aiming and burst deviation behavior.

At last the two "supporting" HMG42 were hardly a nuisance for the defending US infantry and gathered kills after the battle were between 1-3.

Btw, I gave the defending US 2 "supporting" HMG as well (veterans in foxholes) and these did not work any better...vs. a whole company of assaulting germans. Gathered 1-3 kills.

So tripod HMG42 are not any better than LMG42 carried by assaulting teams, completely neglecting the capabilities of the tripod, optics sight and it´s elite gunners. Sad story.

[dieseltaylor]

Very sad. I am slightly shocked to be honest as I was hoping troop quality would be the edge that made weapon systems more effective. I realise your test is small but seems very significant in no change.

Possibly BF have decided thta a better crew creates more/quicker suppression. Can your test films show this?

[RockinHarry]

Very sad. I am slightly shocked to be honest as I was hoping troop quality would be the edge that made weapon systems more effective. I realise your test is small but seems very significant in no change.

Possibly BF have decided thta a better crew creates more/quicker suppression. Can your test films show this?

From my observations, "suppression" effects do not differ with more or less skilled shooters. A dug in US HMG maybe receives ~10 bursts in one minute at range 500-600m from 2 elite HMG42 and maybe 2-3 bursts at max, hit close enough to make few guys of the veteran HMG crew duck down for few seconds. The actual gunner never was forced to interrupt his firing on advancing german infantry (no shooting back, short covered arc), 300m away.

I have my opinions about all that expressed in another thread already, so I leave it at that.

Just one detail...each individual HMG42 expended exactly 61 rounds in this 1 minute shootout. This could even hardly be described as "harassing" fire, with regards to the HMG42 RL capabilities and its tactical employment doctrine.

To remember: In RL and for this particular task, the 2 HMG42 would concentrate their fire on a single target with continuous bursts of 1-2 belts (50-100 rounds), to get the desired "suppression" effect. (enemy HMG, dug in) Also the 500-600m engagement range is way within optimal fighting range for the tripod HMG to deliver accurate point fire.

Edit: Did another quick test and placed a TRP on each of the US static HMG positions. Now burst accuracy for both HMG42 was noticably better and also 1-2 more bursts were expended during the 1 minute turn (overall 70-80 shots). Looks like without the TRP the HMG gunners simply forget their aim settings between the bursts and started anew each time with differing (in-) accuracy.

[slysniper]

Has there been any feed back from battlefront on the topic of the Machine guns and how they are modelled in the game in general.

It is one weapon they have never managed to model correctly as to what it can really do on the battlefield. This is a good example as to how poorly they are modeled. But I remember doing test on the CMX1 versions and they were also way poor compared to what they can do in RL.

It is sad, because two good MG crews working together can do plenty of damage. You hear people complain about arty now since it is more powerful in the game, just imagine the comments if they ever were able to get MG's correct when they are set up correct.

A HMG42 with a line of fire at ground level should leave a immpassable zone for hundreds of yards while it is firing. I can take two of them to cover a perfectly flat street and run enemy squads across the street and hardly lose a man. IN RL, no one would be getting across that street.

Should keep starting threads about it until they listen some day

[RockinHarry]

If the "dumbing down" of machine guns is purposely made for the sake of "balancing", one way to work around is knowing the fact that in 1944/45, germans were constantly in short supply of heavy weapons and also machine guns. It´s not unusual for (german) infantry units, even after refitting, but more so after prolonged combat, not to have LMG for all infantry squads and even just parts of the heavy MGs left in TOE.

I just checked in editor --> Units, when Formations = Poor is selected, a resulting german Grenadier Btl. still has all LMG and heavy weapons included in the TOE. I would have expected about at least 50% of LMGs & HMGs removed, but it is not so.

This would be more of a "balancing", assuming properly performing MGs vs. fully equipped US infantry. But US HMG performance is equally effected and thus suffers even more in its intended role.

[Alan8325]

My guess is that MG functionality, being carried over from CMSF, has not been altered (enough) to be reflective of MG functionality in Normandy. In CMSF, troops in the open were shown closer together, due to the action spot system, than they were assumed to be in real life in a setting like Syria. MG bursts were intentionally deviant from each other to reduce accuracy against troops in the open to reflect a wider spacing between troops that would be used in real life in a setting like Syria. Artillery against troops in the open was nerfed to reflect this as well. My guess is that arty was "un-nerfed" in CMBN to reflect the closer spacing between troops in Normandy in WWII and MGs were not "un-nerfed" as well or to the same degree.

Edit: The way it is now, you may occasionally get unlucky (or lucky) and have a high-precision burst from an automatic weapon take out an entire team of troops running in a single file line.

[YankeeDog]

My guess is that MG functionality, being carried over from CMSF, has not been altered (enough) to be reflective of MG functionality in Normandy. In CMSF, troops in the open were shown closer together, due to the action spot system, than they were assumed to be in real life in a setting like Syria. MG bursts were intentionally deviant from each other to reduce accuracy against troops in the open to reflect a wider spacing between troops that would be used in real life in a setting like Syria. Artillery against troops in the open was nerfed to reflect this as well. My guess is that arty was "un-nerfed" in CMBN to reflect the closer spacing between troops in Normandy in WWII and MGs were not "un-nerfed" as well or to the same degree.

I could be wrong about this, but I have always understood it that the action spot "nerf" in CMSF applied to HE and shrapnel only, and *not* to small arms fire.

[RockinHarry]

Artificial deviation of individual bursts, for what ever reason or not, might work for SMG, ARs and light machine guns, but not quite so for HMGs, due to the small bullet count for each burst (5-7 at max) and comparatively long intervals between.

"Fire for effect" is achieved by continuous bursts and in case of tripod HMG34/42, fire commands measure in "belts" (of 50 rounds or more) and by concentration of fire by usually at least a section (2 guns), squad (4 guns) or the whole company, if terrain and combat situation allows. For singled out, subordinated HMG´s or terrain, that does not allow concentration of more than one gun, still the basic fire unit is measured in "belts" or a set number of rounds as ordered by the team leader.

The basic "fire unit" for each "burst" in CMN appears to be 5-7 rounds, unless there is an unknown abstraction in the game, that counts rounds as bursts internally (5-7 burst units of X rounds). But then given ammo count for each team & squad is misleading (for MG/small arms ammo).

Range to target also shouldn´t matter. Shooting at a point target at normal HMG combat ranges with just 5-7 bullets a burst, would hardly achieve a harassing effect. Same goes for any larger targets at any range.

Currently, HMG crews behave like rookies.

"Hey...there´s some enemy guys over there! Lets do some shooting for the sake of fun. Don´t care for combat tasks, optical sights, tripod settings or proper range measuring, that´s just for earnest shooters. Also ammo is expensive, so just lets spray few bullets over there and see if a single guy ducks down. If not and who cares observing anyway, repeat or bother other bad guys showing up. Free fire and have fun!"

[LemuelG]

I made a little s.MG42 video. Not of a test, but in-the-wild; this happened while I was playing, and I thought of this thread.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I2s1A4sShsU

It's like something out of SPR

[RockinHarry]

I made a little s.MG42 video. Not of a test, but in-the-wild; this happened while I was playing, and I thought of this thread.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I2s1A4sShsU

It's like something out of SPR

Well..ok...for a HMG at almost close combat range in dense terrain. Would have achieved more, quicker and with greater effect, when just pulling the trigger for 2-3 seconds (or more) and do a short sweep on targets yet standing upright.

As for the tactical situation,...normally the HMG would´ve failed, as it should´ve pulled back way before, but now it´s too late. Few pineapples thrown at the HMG should´ve settled the matter in shortest time. What´s the experience, motivation levels for the US btw? Not a usual situation for a HMG...

[LemuelG]

Well..ok...for a HMG at almost close combat range in dense terrain. Would have achieved more, quicker and with greater effect, when just pulling the trigger for 2-3 seconds (or more) and do a short sweep on targets yet standing upright.

As for the tactical situation,...normally the HMG would´ve failed, as it should´ve pulled back way before, but now it´s too late. Few pineapples thrown at the HMG should´ve settled the matter in shortest time. What´s the experience, motivation levels for the US btw? Not a usual situation for a HMG...

A picture would have been perfect to describe the setup, though I don't want any spoilers for my scenario (this is from testing the US AI plans) - but that HMG had only just displaced to that position and set up - there is another MG nest just past the Ami in that video and those foxholes are supposed to provide the featured crew with a position to protect it's mates' southern flank and that small patch of woods behind them (I've even designed cleared lanes-of-fire into it); unfortunately in this case it was too slow to save it's sister-crew (one of whom can be seen surrendering in the video).

The Ami being shot at were regulars, a mix of normal/high motivation, hard to say which in this case. The crew stayed for two and a half turns (having killed maybe 8 guys? Certainly halting any advance for the time being), then displaced again to a position further back without incident (supporting MGs can be seen firing at the woods in the video, but without the same effect-on-target).

[RockinHarry]

A picture would have been perfect to describe the setup, though I don't want any spoilers for my scenario (this is from testing the US AI plans) - but that HMG had only just displaced to that position and set up - there is another MG nest just past the Ami in that video and those foxholes are supposed to provide the featured crew with a position to protect it's mates' southern flank and that small patch of woods behind them (I've even designed cleared lanes-of-fire into it); unfortunately in this case it was too slow to save it's sister-crew (one of whom can be seen surrendering in the video).

The Ami being shot at were regulars, a mix of normal/high motivation, hard to say which in this case. The crew stayed for two and a half turns (having killed maybe 8 guys? Certainly halting any advance for the time being), then displaced again to a position further back without incident (supporting MGs can be seen firing at the woods in the video, but without the same effect-on-target).

Thus the HMG crew was lucky and yet able to pull back from that situation.

For the sake of realism, ...don´t have that many frontline HMG at those limited LOF and ranges below 100-200m. Germans are already overarmed in CMN and the few HMG that could be expected in any given defense would rather cover longer range objectives, if available (and pull back to a switch position, once the enemy comes too close).

Squad or single team LMG would perform equally in that situation and germans can´t afford to employ their scarce heavy weapons right at the MLR.

US accounts (St-Lo, ect.) most frequently report about "heavy machine gun fire", similar to reporting Tigers and 88s everywhere.

Think "heavy machine gun fire" can better be interpreted as "heavy fire from machine guns" and not "fire from heavy machine guns". Fire from MG34/42..can be always considered "heavy", due to the large volume of bullets delivered from the bipod versions too. So most US accounts probably report about engagements vs the squad LMGs.

[RockinHarry]

So here´s some videos showing the support role configuration for elite HMG42, engaging dug in US HMG at 600m range. Nicely shows the burst deviations.

10x magnified view from the german position, also showing its situational awareness.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LKux4VCkyJw

And the broad, normal view, picture.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lIHwZ4YZFFo

View from the US HMG position during the same ~30 second engagement. Take notice of the german TRP in the middle of US foxholes.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=egyevu1i37E

[JasonC]

The PPsH is indeed a vastly superior weapon to the MP40, and its range should be significantly farther.

It is using a better round. The 7.62mmx25 has a much higher muzzle velocity with the 9mm, and better range and accuracy at range as as result.

Moreover, the PPsH has a true full stock, which greatly aids aimed fire at longer range.

Yes both are fundamentally firing pistol ammo, not rifle ammo. But the PPsH round and the stability of the weapon it is coming from are both superior to the MP40.

Note this isn't a national weapons sort of point. The Russian 7.62mm x 25 is a direct copy of the German 30 caliber used in the Mauser C96, their WW I era automatic pistols...

[RockinHarry]

Did another test, substituting the HMG teams with two LMG42 teams and placed them in the same spot, subordinated to the same MG platoon HQ. With "Face" command I got them to a crested position, laying down and have clear LOF to the US HMG positions, still 600m away.

During test play, I figured the LMG42 teams to be equally effective, or even better, than their HMG comrades formerly. Beside beeing cheaper, offering less of a target for return fire, only disadvantages I figured yet, was finding a good shooting position, so they can lay down and fire accurately, having less ammo than their HMG brothers and lacking binocs. The latter wasn´t a problem, if the superior is close for C2 purposes and can provide the necessary targeting information and observation.

Really thinking about, what HMGs in CMN are currently good for...

Also wondering, that US MG teams seperate to gunner and ammo bearer teams and the german can not...which I find a big disadvantage.

Edit: looks like the division treshold for a squad/team to divide is 7-8? So a full strength german HMG team of 6 men can´t be divided, due to this treshold?

[LukeFF]

Alright, so I ran some tests with SMGs. Two scout teams, each composed of two men. Germans with MP40s, Americans with Thompsons. Range was 90 meters. Wind was set to 0.

In the first test, both teams were set to Regular. Suppression of the Americans was noticeable within 10 seconds and rapidly increasing afterwards. With continuous firing, the first American casualty (red wounding) did not occur until approximately 1:20 into test. Second soldier was wounded (yellow) about 4 minutes into test. Horizontal shot dispersion was quite noticeable.

In the second test, I upped the Germans' skill to Veteran. The American unit was pinned about 30 seconds into test. First American casualty (red wounding) was about 35 seconds into test. Second casualty (KiA) 1:05 into test. So, skill level definitely plays a part in how accurate these weapons are.

Note: in both these tests, the Americans caused some suppression but never hit the Germans once.