MP40 Effectiveness

[LukeFF]

Alright, so I ran the test again. This time, the range was 115 meters, which is outside the effective range of the MP40 listed in the manual (not to mention the Thompson, which is 50 meters).

With both teams set to Average skill:

The American team caused a German red wounding within first minute of the test. The second German was pinned in the second minute of the test.

With the Germans set to Veteran skill:

The Germans pinned the American unit about 30 seconds into test. First American was red wounded 36 seconds into the test. Second soldier was killed 10 seconds later. Both Americans were prone at the time they were hit.

This leads me to believe something isn't right. Thompsons shouldn't be hitting targets at twice its max effective range, and MP40s shouldn't be hitting targets so easily beyond its effective range, either.

[LukeFF]

Final Tests:

Range 155 meters, Average skill for both sides:

German unit was pinned 30 seconds into test. First German soldier was KiA 36 seconds into test. Germans never hit a target.

Veteran skill for Germans: First American was KiA 1:10 into test. Second American pinned but not hit. No Germans hit.

------------------------

Range 195 meters:

Average skill: No one hit.

Both sides Veteran: 1 American red wounded 3:45 into test.

[LukeFF]

My conclusions from these tests are twofold:

-Submachine guns on both sides are hitting targets well beyond their effective range. For the Thompson, an Average soldier can pin and hit a prone target at over three times its effective range. MP40s are doing the same at twice their effective range.

-Soldiers, even when they are set to Veteran skill levels, open fire at very excessive ranges with their SMGs. Even at 100+ meters, the soldiers in these tests happily fired away at the enemy as if they were at close range. The result is either a colossal waste of ammo or casualties for the other side. This should not be so.

[Michael Emrys]

In all honesty, I don't feel you ran enough iterations of your tests to draw firm conclusions. CM allows enough variation of outcome from instance to instance that you need a rather large sample to be statistically meaningful. That said, your results are interesting and do not depart much from what I have casually observed in playing the game, namely that SMGs tend to be used at longer ranges than were probably the case in the real war, and also that they are more effective causers of casualties at those ranges. IMHO, SMGs should be deadly inside 20 m and effective out to 50 m, but rapidly lose their effectiveness beyond 50 m.

Michael

[LemuelG]

I find it hard to believe to believe these 'effective range' figures... let's get this straight - what do we mean by effective range with these weapons? Are we talking effectiveness on point-targets (max-range a shooter can hit a human torso-sized target 50% of the time), area-targets (max-range a shooter can hit a vehicle-sized target 50% of the time), or simply the maximum range at which a bullet loses the kinetic energy to kill?

Would you be comfortable standing rigid while someone blasts away at you from 100m with a Thompson? I'd duck, personally.

[flamingknives]

The War Office document held on file at the Public Record offices as WO291/476* reports trails on the effectiveness of different small arms, including the Sten gun (firing the same 9mm Parabellum round as the MP40).

The Sten gun was able to hit (with the aid of improved sights) targets at 300 yards with sufficient force to perforate 3/4" deal planks covered with two thicknesses of webbing.

* A summary of this can be found, along with others, in John Salt's excellent document available here:

http://mr-home.staff.shef.ac.uk/hobbies/ww2eff2.pdf

[LemuelG]

It was noted that "the average firer has a higher overall chance of hitting an enemy at 200 yards with a Sten than with a rifle."

And given those numbers I'd be more than happy to have a Sten on-hand for any firefight up to and above 200m - 68% chance of a hit when firing a four-round burst at 200 yards (180m), with reliable killing power. Good odds - it's notable that the spread for an automatic-burst is (approx.) 50% greater than single-shots, but the chances of hitting the target increase even more.

If the performances of the Thompson and MP40 are anything like that they are just fine.

[Blackcat]

"It was noted that "the average firer has a higher overall chance of hitting an enemy at 200 yards with a Sten than with a rifle." "

I should have thought with those numbers the document must be open to serious question. I would suggest a closer reading of the paper.

The 68% chance of a hit would seem to be an extrapolation based on the spread of a burst fired at a target 30 yards away from a rested weapon under range conditions. Just look at the terms of the trial, even in its own terms the conclusions are barely justified.

Furthermore the paper seems to be a summary by Mr. Salt of a much bigger set of documents. Sorry, with all respect to Mr. Salt, the data quoted doesn't support the conclusions stated.

[Vanir Ausf B]

He hates being called "Mr. Salt".

[Blackcat]

He hates being called "Mr. Salt".

In which case I shall apologise to him, and plead FlamingKnives' post in mitigation.

Still think that sentence can't be justified by the data he presented though.

[c3k]

Re: LukeFF's test. Thanks for sharing, but a better test would be Unit A versus Unit C, then Unit B versus Unit C. It sounds like you ran A vs. B.

As mentioned, many, many iterations would be needed. Vary range/experience and run, run, run, some more.

Ken

[Andrew H.]

"It was noted that "the average firer has a higher overall chance of hitting an enemy at 200 yards with a Sten than with a rifle." "

I should have thought with those numbers the document must be open to serious question. I would suggest a closer reading of the paper.

The 68% chance of a hit would seem to be an extrapolation based on the spread of a burst fired at a target 30 yards away from a rested weapon under range conditions. Just look at the terms of the trial, even in its own terms the conclusions are barely justified.

Furthermore the paper seems to be a summary by Mr. Salt of a much bigger set of documents. Sorry, with all respect to Mr. Salt, the data quoted doesn't support the conclusions stated.

I wouldn't assume that the data are not correct, but it is important to consider the circumstances of the test. First, the person firing the sten is prone and has the weapon rested, while the rifle is not rested. Second, the Sten's chance of hitting is based on firing a 4-round burst; the rifle's chance is based on firing one round. And third, these results seem to deal with "semi-skilled" infantrymen - they also state that these results would probably not hold for a "first rate" shot.

[LemuelG]

I should have thought with those numbers the document must be open to serious question. I would suggest a closer reading of the paper.

Why? Because it doesn't agree with you? It's not the primary document, but it's source is official War Office documents from '44, and it's rather more impressive than any evidence offered to the contrary so far.

Whatever you take from that, it ought not to be: this gun can't kill at ranges >100m. Obviously it can. I used to figure those numbers just meant that when the enemy was was over that range you'd be best served by switching to single-shot mode.

Any evidence that critics of in-game SMG behaviour can provide to back-up their assertions is welcome.

UK citizens are can verify the data themselves: http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/catalogue/displaycataloguedetails.asp?CATID=2449019&CATLN=6&accessmethod=5

I'd love to see a primary copy personally.

[YankeeDog]

...Whatever you take from that, it ought not to be: this gun can't kill at ranges >100m. Obviously it can. ...

I don't think anybody's seriously suggesting that 9mm (or .45 ACP or 7.62 x 25mm Tokarev, or whatever pistol round you chose) "can't" kill at ranges >100m. Heck, as was beaten into my young brain in hunter's safety class, .22 LR will seriously wound or kill at a range of over a mile.

The issue at hand is what the "effective range" of these various weapons systems that fired these calibers are. This is a very subjective thing, and I think part of the issue here is that different nationalities had a different idea of what "effective range" meant.

For example, the Thompson had non-adjustable iron sights that IIRC were set to match the ballistic trajectory at about 50 meters. This doesn't mean that the Thompson's "effective range" ended at only 50 meters -- for a fair distance beyond 50 meters, the variance between the ballistic trajectory and the sight line would be relatively small, and the sight picture would still be "good enough for government work". And good shooter could probably stretch the range a bit further by knowing to aim a bit high at longer ranges.

As far as comparing the various SMG and calibers, and trying to come up with some sort of universal standard for "effective range", I would suggest that a good place to start would be to look at the time for the bullet to fly to a given distance, and also the bullet drop off the line of the bore at that distance. This will give rough idea of how comparable two small arms are at a given distance. If SMG A has 1/2 second flight time and 1 meter of bullet drop at distance x, and SMG B has roughly the same flight time and drop at distance 1.5x, this is a pretty good clue that the "effective range" of SMG B is about 1.5 times the "effective range of SMG A.

Other factors, like sights, weight and recoil characteristics, whether it has a full stock, ROF, etc. do matter, but I think the basics of trajectory more primary to calculating "effective range", and you need to nail this down before moving on to secondary factors.

[Ryujin]

I'm sure you can hit a 200m target with a SMG, just that it wouldn't be very effective.

Your talking about a bullet drop of multiple feet, plenty of wind drift, and steep arc. At 200m it'd be a pain to adjust for the drop in combat, not sitting on the range setting up for a known distance target. The sights on most SMGs are not going to help either.

So I'd say the usually quoted effective ranges make sense. Getting pistol rounds past 100m is just not that effective.

Some quick internet calculating (

http://www.handloads.org/calc/index.html

) says:

M1 Thompson

230 grain .45 @935 fps

100 yards: Drop = 21.95 inches / Wind drift @10mph = 3.11in

200 yards: Drop = 91.7 in / Wind drift @10mph = 10.87 in

(big and slow, 7 feet of drop at 200y. I'd bet you probably wouldn't be able to see the target with the nonadjustable sights pointed so high up)

MP-40

124 grain .355 @1,247fps

100 yards: Drop = 13.72 in / Wind drift @10mph = 5.47 in (not too bad at 100y)

200 yards: Drop = 61.14 in / Wind drift @10mph = 18.34 in

(bit faster, but still 5 feet of drop at 200)

[Amizaur]

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.

Maybe it's done this way, because if the HMGs were laying the fire as accurate as they should, they would wipe out the defenders in seconds and be unrealistically effective against dug-in troops ? Maybe the game can't just properly simulate the soldiers in prone, soldiers in foxholes making very small targets, exposing themselves only briefly ?

And this is because it's very hard to properly model this with simulation of bullet ballistics and target soldier exposure . First one would have to realisticly simulate the aiming, the burst and indvidual bullets spread - which is not that hard, and then properly model soldier exposure (how small parts of their body are they exposing firing from fortified positions, and how briefly and _smartly_). And this is much harder to do, considering also soldier and weapon LOS issues and the soldier 3D-models. It can be just close to impossible, without including some hard-coded "modifiers" defining that soldier in such position is just harder to hit - and means effectively considering most of the bullets that are hitting the soldier's 3D models as "ineffective" - abstracting that the soldier really was less or not exposed at this moment, that he was briefly covering or just made a much smaller target than the game is modelling visually.

Well, I consider accurate physical modelling of things in wargames a good thing, but in some areas the abstract way (percentage modifiers, probabilistic means) still gives more realistic results, because some things are still much too complicated to be fully modeled. One for example can model all splinters from a HE burst, and track their trajectiories to see if any of the

soldiers were hit. But he has to have very good model of terrain and obstacles to do that effectively, and still some oddities would show. It's still usually better to do that with probabilistic means (considering if the soldier is in the LOS or not, and because such HE burst, splinters and chances of wounds have a probabilistic nature.

It seems for me (not verly close observations, as I'm rather focused on tank combat now) that dug-in soldiers (or soldiers in buildings) in CMBN share time between laying with faces in dirt (and they are safe then) and periodically exposing good part of their body while firing. If the HMG was firing accurately, then the soldiers would have been instantly killed every time they were exposed to fire, when the HMG burst arrives. Foxholes would be cleaned from soldiers within a minute. So maybe, because the results were unrealistic, the HMG were made to fire the bursts less precisely. This way thir kill ratio against dug-in soldiers is more realistic, while retiaining their suppression value. On the other hand this lack of accuracy also makes HMG very ineffective also whenm they are used against infantry in the open, they can catch walking or running soldiers in the open, or laying soldiers in open flat terrain and are hardly able to kill anybody !!!

Now please someone tell me, I'm wrong, and the reasons for pitifull performance of HMGs agains exposed targets is different.... :-\

[Blackcat]

Why? Because it doesn't agree with you? It's not the primary document, but it's source is official War Office documents from '44, and it's rather more impressive than any evidence offered to the contrary so far.

Whatever you take from that, it ought not to be: this gun can't kill at ranges >100m. Obviously it can. I used to figure those numbers just meant that when the enemy was was over that range you'd be best served by switching to single-shot mode.

Any evidence that critics of in-game SMG behaviour can provide to back-up their assertions is welcome.

UK citizens are can verify the data themselves: http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/catalogue/displaycataloguedetails.asp?CATID=2449019&CATLN=6&accessmethod=5

I'd love to see a primary copy personally.

As I said I don't think the data presented justifies the conclusion that an average trained soldier has a higher overall chance of hitting an enemy at 200 yards with a sten rather than a rifle. There maybe more information in the full document, but on what we have been given so far it don't stack up. The fact that it is a War Office document doesn't, in itself, make it accurate or reliable.

As has already been mentioned by YankeeDog, nobody is disputing that a hit by a 9mm bullet at a range of over 100 metres would kill or wound. Its the quoted chance (68% at 200 yards) of hitting an enemy at that distance with a sten gun that I struggle with.

If you wish to see a the original document, I maybe able to help. It would seem that the original has not been digitized and is therefore not available on line. However, I do have a reader's ticket for the National Archives and will be next going there on Tuesday. I'll get a copy of the original, if you want to PM me with your email address I'll send it to you.

[LukeFF]

In all honesty, I don't feel you ran enough iterations of your tests to draw firm conclusions. CM allows enough variation of outcome from instance to instance that you need a rather large sample to be statistically meaningful. That said, your results are interesting and do not depart much from what I have casually observed in playing the game, namely that SMGs tend to be used at longer ranges than were probably the case in the real war, and also that they are more effective causers of casualties at those ranges. IMHO, SMGs should be deadly inside 20 m and effective out to 50 m, but rapidly lose their effectiveness beyond 50 m.

Well, I didn't have time to run tests for hours on end. I just wanted to get a quick feel for how effective SMGs are at 100+ meters. TBH I don't think the modeling of the SMGs is that far off (many of the rounds fired had significant horizontal dispersion). The two main things, like I wrote above, that need to be done are to reduce the ranges at which more experienced troops open fire with SMGs and to reduce their chances of causing a hit at long range.

[LukeFF]

Re: LukeFF's test. Thanks for sharing, but a better test would be Unit A versus Unit C, then Unit B versus Unit C. It sounds like you ran A vs. B.

As mentioned, many, many iterations would be needed. Vary range/experience and run, run, run, some more.

I do plan on doing that, once I get some more time.

[flamingknives]

I think that the important bit isn't the conclusion under discussion, but that the weapon was capable of:

a) hitting and

damaging a target

at ranges out to 300m.

The need for an improvised back sight indicates that this kind of shooting was unusual, but possible.

However, to digress a little more

The 68% chance is for at least one hit in four rounds from a rested weapon calculated by the 90% zone extrapolated out to 200 yards. This means that many of the effects of long-range shooting (wind drift, range estimation, time of flight) are not included in the assessment.

For a single shot the rifle is better. It's the fact that the Sten get four goes that boosts the percentage.

[Blackcat]

"reduce the ranges at which more experienced troops open fire with SMGs "

I am certain that, following complaints on this forum, Steve said that this was addressed in the 1.01 patch. Has it not been or do you think it requires further adjustment?

[LukeFF]

"reduce the ranges at which more experienced troops open fire with SMGs "

I am certain that, following complaints on this forum, Steve said that this was addressed in the 1.01 patch. Has it not been or do you think it requires further adjustment?

I think it requires further adjustment. Less-experienced troops I can understand opening fire at 100+ meters (with the associated waste of ammo), but more experienced troops should be holding their fire until the engagement ranges are under 100 meters.

[RockinHarry]

Maybe it's done this way, because if the HMGs were laying the fire as accurate as they should, they would wipe out the defenders in seconds and be unrealistically effective against dug-in troops ? Maybe the game can't just properly simulate the soldiers in prone, soldiers in foxholes making very small targets, exposing themselves only briefly ?

And this is because it's very hard to properly model this with simulation of bullet ballistics and target soldier exposure . First one would have to realisticly simulate the aiming, the burst and indvidual bullets spread - which is not that hard, and then properly model soldier exposure (how small parts of their body are they exposing firing from fortified positions, and how briefly and _smartly_). And this is much harder to do, considering also soldier and weapon LOS issues and the soldier 3D-models. It can be just close to impossible, without including some hard-coded "modifiers" defining that soldier in such position is just harder to hit - and means effectively considering most of the bullets that are hitting the soldier's 3D models as "ineffective" - abstracting that the soldier really was less or not exposed at this moment, that he was briefly covering or just made a much smaller target than the game is modelling visually.

Well, I consider accurate physical modelling of things in wargames a good thing, but in some areas the abstract way (percentage modifiers, probabilistic means) still gives more realistic results, because some things are still much too complicated to be fully modeled. One for example can model all splinters from a HE burst, and track their trajectiories to see if any of the

soldiers were hit. But he has to have very good model of terrain and obstacles to do that effectively, and still some oddities would show. It's still usually better to do that with probabilistic means (considering if the soldier is in the LOS or not, and because such HE burst, splinters and chances of wounds have a probabilistic nature.

It seems for me (not verly close observations, as I'm rather focused on tank combat now) that dug-in soldiers (or soldiers in buildings) in CMBN share time between laying with faces in dirt (and they are safe then) and periodically exposing good part of their body while firing. If the HMG was firing accurately, then the soldiers would have been instantly killed every time they were exposed to fire, when the HMG burst arrives. Foxholes would be cleaned from soldiers within a minute. So maybe, because the results were unrealistic, the HMG were made to fire the bursts less precisely. This way thir kill ratio against dug-in soldiers is more realistic, while retiaining their suppression value. On the other hand this lack of accuracy also makes HMG very ineffective also whenm they are used against infantry in the open, they can catch walking or running soldiers in the open, or laying soldiers in open flat terrain and are hardly able to kill anybody !!!

Now please someone tell me, I'm wrong, and the reasons for pitifull performance of HMGs agains exposed targets is different.... :-\

+1

As said my basic test situation was HMGs supporting an infantry attack at "normal" HMG combat range (500m +) and good field of fire vs. dug in enemy support weapons. In RL and by doctrine it is not assumed to "kill" any such defenders, but rather lay heavy suppressive fire on them, so the to be supported infantry can keep up the advance.

"Suppression" effect was rather negligible in this special situation and LMGs did the purpose equally well. Once I set the german HMGs on idle and unleashed the german infantry by removing any covered arcs, they proofed to be pretty self sufficient in dealing with the US HMGs.

On the reverse side, the 2 US HMGs were pretty inefficient at stopping or bothering the german infantry company line at ranges of 300-400m. The only "suppressive" fire layed on the US HMGs, was by the 2 german HMGs. The german infantry had short covered arcs, in order to keep them advancing (first hunt, then assault mode) and not shooting back.

BUT, ...once a HMG 42 "burst" HIT the defenders, it also caused 1-2 kills instantly. This was a rare occurance though.

I´d expected a heavy volume of fire causing a longer lasting suppression effect, but due to the rather low volume of fire, suppression wasn´t enough to get the guys heads down, so they were quite vulnerable for a "burst", when it actually hit the action spot. Burst deviation usually was way off (to the side and oftenly too high). Check the YT videos.

Sometimes some of the HMG crew members shortly duck down, but it was mostly the gunner who stayed upright and kept shooting, despite the bullets flying all around (regular or veteran + normal motivation).

Rates of fire (of bursts actually) increase with decreasing of range to target. So if range to target is the main variable for burst & fire rates, then no wonder that HMG at certain combat ranges perform so weak and there´s no noticable performance difference between LMG and HMGs.

[BloodyBucket]

Great discussion.

As a side note, after watching "Where Eagles Dare" with my eleven year old son (his first viewing of the classic war fantasy) he wanted to know why they didn't give everybodytwo MP40s since when Clint Eastwood used two he killed Germans twice as fast.

Is this modeled???

[Vanir Ausf B]

IIRC dual wielding has been ruled out, but we may get Clint Eastwood in the 3rd module.