MP40 Effectiveness

[Vark]

Talking of Where Eagles Dare, I think there will be a, "German troops use blanks option" soon, for gamers who are struggling with the harsh learning curve of CMBN. If we do get Colonel Schaffer, in module 3, will he have an inexhaustible supply of suitcase bourne dynamite, it would help with the bocage!

As for the PPSH-41, the weight of the weapon, smaller grain round, crude muzzle compensator and the higher ROF would make it more effective, when firing full auto and it also had the option for semi-auto.

[LemuelG]

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.

I think maybe I mis-understood the thread (derailments aside), I thought at least some of the posters in here felt that way. If I'm wrong, my bad and let's move on. And thanks for the generous offer.

If I have a problem it is with the 'effective ranges' quoted here and in the manual, I think they sound utterly bogus. Every source* I can find provides much more generous figures.

*not Wikipedia

Contemporary military accuracy tests are interesting, and belie the oft-repeated stories that the Thompson was useless at long range or when fired on fully automatic. British tests at RSAF Enfield showed that at 50 yards (46m) using a 50-round drum, a group 3 x 6in (7.6 x 15.2cm) was made; at 100 yards (91m) it was 14 x 10in (35.5 x 25.4cm); and at 300 yards (274m) the group was 25 x 29in (63.5 x 73.6cm). Guns were fired on full-automatic mode, but in bursts.

Firing at extreme ranges of 500 yards (457m) achieved groups covering 24 x 46in (61 x 116.8cm). At 100–150 yards (91–137m) a man-sized target could be hit regularly, although, as the author can attest, at longer ranges there is

a distinct time-lag between the sound of the gunshot and the ‘thump’ of the bullet striking the target! Bearing in mind that the Thompson is firing a pistol cartridge, such performance is surprisingly good.

THE THOMPSON SUBMACHINE GUN

From Prohibition Chicago to World War II

Martin Pegler

Basically, more-or-less triple the 'effective range' of the Thompson. I have found much more generous numbers, but not in full-auto bursts.

Similairly, contemporary allied sources make the MP40 as having an 'effective range' of 200 yards; and I found out the MP40 is sited to 200m.

No need to limit willingness of SMG-ers to open-fire at >100m. That's all I'll say about that particular idea.

[womble]

The weapon was clamped to a jig. A real heavy jig. No way that could be achieved hand-held. Surely?

[Vark]

Doesn't anyone on these boards have a WWII era SMG and could test if it could hit a target at 200m? This is directed mainly at the transatlantic forum members, as here in the UK most civilians are not allowed to shoot full bore guns, that right is reserved for the criminals!

[LemuelG]

The weapon was clamped to a jig. A real heavy jig. No way that could be achieved hand-held. Surely?

No way to tell. I suspect not though - more precise testing gives much better numbers than seen above, here's a pre-war source:

Tests indicate that accuracy and penetration is very good, even at the longer ranges. A few feet from the muzzle the 230 grain bullet, tested on 3/4-inch yellow pine boards spaced one inch apart, ran 6 3/4 boards. At 100 yards it would plough through six boards; at 200 yards through 5 1/4; at 300 yards, 4 1/2; at the 400 mark through four boards, and at 500 yards it would still stumble through 3 3/4 [Page 1107] boards¾sufficient to cause very unpleasant sensations in the body of a victim.

The accuracy of the sub-machine gun is decidedly interesting. File records of the Auto-Ordnance firm indicate that in a Mann rest test fired at Hartford, Conn., May 2, 1921, the mean radius using a Remington Standard 230 grain bullet at 100 yards ran 1.89 inches. At 200 yards mean radius was 4.92 inches; at 300 yards 7.63 inches at 400 yards it increased to 18.31; while at 500 yards it jumped to 20.45 inches. Accordingly, one can assume that the accuracy of the more or less spent bullets is quite uncontrolled at the longer ranges. This writer suggests that the effective range of the weapon is under 300 yards.

At 200 yards,, using the gun from the sitting position, I experienced no difficulty in placing deliberate fire in "killing" portions of the standard Colt Police Pistol "silhouette" target. It is safe to state that an officer could readily "get his man" at that range. which is well out of normal revolver range.

Further factory figures of Mann rest tests fired at 200 yards on June 10, 1922, include six lots of ammunition, commercial and Government. One lot of war ammunition showed an extreme vertical deviation of 37.6 inches as compared with 18.04 inches average for the other five lots. Even with this poor lot included, the tests show an average extreme horizontal deviation of 15.9 inches; extreme vertical average of 21.3 inches; and an average mean radius of 5.8 inches.

The writer fired several hundred rounds of ammunition at the various short ranges using the inverted "T" target and aiming at the converging point where the vertical meets the horizontal line. One 5 shot group of slow untimed fire at 100 yards, prone, center to center of extreme bullet holes, measured 2 1/2 inches horizontal and 2 1/4 inches vertical.

Fifteen shots, prone, at 75 yards, time 9 3/4 seconds, measured 4 1/4 inches horizontal and 3 3/4 inches vertical. One shot went wild, however, and was two inches from the main group.

Still another prone group fired from 60 yards consisted of 9 shots in 25 seconds, and gave a group measuring just two inches center to center of widest holes.

At fifty yards, prone, five shots fired in 6 1/2 seconds ran 2 3/4 inches horizontal by 1 1/2 inches, vertical. These groups were among the best for the given ranges, but compare favorably with the other firing results. [Page 1108]

In this respect. it is well to note that the horizontal deviation indicates a personal error, as all machine rest firings show that the cartridge fires mostly vertical groups.

All target firing for accuracy as conducted by the writer was carried out with the fire control ]ever set at "single," i.e., the mechanism was set to discharge but one cartridge at each separate Pull and release of the trigger. Furthermore, this writer is convinced that the arm should be fired in this manner at all times except in case of hip fire where bursts would be more effective in controlling a not, or in spraying a speeding gangsters' car to prevent escape.

http://www.saf.org/lawreviews/psharpe1.html

[Vanir Ausf B]

Doesn't anyone on these boards have a WWII era SMG and could test if it could hit a target at 200m? This is directed mainly at the transatlantic forum members, as here in the UK most civilians are not allowed own to have guns, that right is reserved for the criminals!

Fully automatic weapons are not legal even in the US without a special permit, so if anyone here has one it has likely been modified to be semi-automatic only.

[YankeeDog]

As I noted earlier, the heavy .45ACP bullet has very predictable ballistics, which means that under range conditions, where you know the exact distance, crosswind etc., it tends to produce very consistent groupings.

But when you're talking about combat shooting, where you're usually aiming at a portion of an enemy soldier exposed for only a fleeting moment, and you have to make a snap judgment as to the range, things like bullet drop and flight time really matter. This is where the .45 ACP compares poorly to other pistol-caliber rounds.

Nevertheless, I don't buy for a second that 50m is a good ballpark for the "effective range" of a Thompson, as listed in the manual. This may have been the range the (non-adjustable) sights were zeroed to, but the sight picture would still be close enough for some dozens of meters beyond this, and in any event, any halfway trained shooter would know how to adjust his aim upward to extend the range, at least to a degree.

Nor do I buy that the equivalent "apples to apples" effective range of the MP40 listed in the manual is 100m. Seems to me, different standards are being applied here.

Fortunately, neither of the above figures seems to have anything to do with in-game behavior. I haven't tested the exact ranges, but even 1.01 patch, Thompson gunners seem happy to use their SMGs out to something over 100m, which is fine with me.

Honestly, as far as the range at which soldiers will shoot an SMG or not, things seem about right now on 1.01. In 1.00, my primary issue was SMG gunners using their SMGs very liberally at ranges over 200m, which seemed a bit much to me, especially since the ammo carried for the SMG is often rather limited.

[LemuelG]

Fortunately, neither of the above figures seems to have anything to do with in-game behavior. I haven't tested the exact ranges, but even 1.01 patch, Thompson gunners seem happy to use their SMGs out to something over 100m, which is fine with me.

Honestly, as far as the range at which soldiers will shoot an SMG or not, things seem about right now on 1.01. In 1.00, my primary issue was SMG gunners using their SMGs very liberally at ranges over 200m, which seemed a bit much to me, especially since the ammo carried for the SMG is often rather limited.

Good point on the ammo, they don't have much on-hand, and are usually the first to run out.

I did some casual testing, just to observe - 2 MP40s vs 2 Thompsons, at 110m and 220m (with a valley in between to observe ballistics better), they are definately less enthusiastic at 220m - battles could run for 8-9 minutes without decisive results and Americans running out of ammo first, .45 rounds drop like a stone at around 200m, 9mm seems to have a flatter trajectory; at 110m they fire much more rapidly, results are always decisive within a few minutes, one way or another (life/death in ranged battle seems to be pure luck), no notable differences in ballistics at the shorter range.

At 200m they will engage, they can kill, but they are certainly less willing the further away they are, basically ,meaning they fire much much slower. Exact rates not calculated.

[YankeeDog]

Good point on the ammo, they don't have much on-hand, and are usually the first to run out.

I did some casual testing, just to observe - 2 MP40s vs 2 Thompsons, at 110m and 220m (with a valley in between to observe ballistics better), they are definately less enthusiastic at 220m - battles could run for 8-9 minutes without decisive results and Americans running out of ammo first, .45 rounds drop like a stone at around 200m, 9mm seems to have a flatter trajectory; at 110m they fire much more rapidly, results are always decisive within a few minutes, one way or another (life/death in ranged battle seems to be pure luck), no notable differences in ballistics at the shorter range.

At 200m they will engage, they can kill, but they are certainly less willing the further away they are, basically ,meaning they fire much much slower. Exact rates not calculated.

Yeah, that matches my experience thus far in 1.01 and seems like reasonable results to me.

Ideally, the weapons of the other soldiers in the team should matter, too. For example, if it's one guy in a German PzGen squad with an MP40, and the rest of the team has k98s and an MG42, then probably the guy with the MP40 doesn't feel the need to waste his ammo on a 250m firefight because the other weapons are far more effective at this range; he should save his ammo for the close range fight.

But if it's a team armed with mostly or exclusively MP40s, and an enemy has spotted them and taken them under fire at 250m, then ideally they should be more inclined to shoot back, even if it's difficult to get the rounds on-target at that range, since the alternative is not shooting back at all.

I have no idea if the game engine takes the above into account... It's probably not particularly important right now because there are only a few specialist teams in CMBN that have SMGs as their majority or exclusive weapon. But as new titles come out and the game engine moves later in the war, and to other theatres, this will become more important. Late war, there are German squads armed predominantly with SMGs, and of course on the East Front, you have those Russian SMG squads.

[LemuelG]

But if it's a team armed with mostly or exclusively MP40s, and an enemy has spotted them and taken them under fire at 250m, then ideally they should be more inclined to shoot back, even if it's difficult to get the rounds on-target at that range, since the alternative is not shooting back at all.

That's right... personally I don't much care what they do, as long as they shoot at targets to the best of their ability, if he's 300m away, might as well shoot - even if they don't die it'll add to suppression, and the faster the enemy is suppressed the faster they can be out-maneuvered and destroyed (or the faster one can withdraw in safety).

I think, maybe a good solution would be implementation of a status-toggle, for SMG-ers at least: 'suppress' or 'effect'. Occasionally you need to pour it on, sometimes you want to keep your powder dry.

[acrashb]

and I found out the MP40 is sited to 200m.

I once owned a Mauser 98K, which had an adjustable rear site going all the way to 2000 metres. I guarantee the total impossibility of hitting a man-sized target at this range. It was used, if ever, for volley fire to do area denial.

"effective range" for small arms is not a binary, some magic line after which the enemy can moon you without fear of repercussion. It is an estimate after which fire rapidly becomes less useful. I would imagine that the "effective range" is, ideally, the inflection point on an inverted S-curve shows the likely utility of engaging an enemy at various ranges. Because this is somewhat subjective, including error induced by both the weapon and it's user in various states (good / poor maintenance, rest / not rested, skilled / not skilled) there will be lots of numbers floating around. I would be inclined to use "official" numbers from the various armies.

[YankeeDog]

I once owned a Mauser 98K, which had an adjustable rear site going all the way to 2000 metres. I guarantee the total impossibility of hitting a man-sized target at this range. It was used, if ever, for volley fire to do area denial.

I tend to view having sights that can be set to a given range as a prerequisite for firing accurately at that range, not something that in and of itself allows the weapon to be effective at that range.

Previous figures regarding the Thompson at 200 yds. are a good example. 7 feet of bullet drop doesn't preclude accurate fire at that range, but with non-adjustable iron sights set to 50m, it becomes very difficult, because the shooter has to do some serious guesstimating, and put this sight picture 7 feet in the air above the desired impact point, which also means his view of the actual target is probably blocked by the barrel. This definitely isn't going to make the shot any easier...

"effective range" for small arms [...] is somewhat subjective, including error induced by both the weapon and it's user in various states (good / poor maintenance, rest / not rested, skilled / not skilled) there will be lots of numbers floating around. I would be inclined to use "official" numbers from the various armies.

Totally agree. But I do think the figures in the manual can be confusing for people not so familiar with WWII weaponry, because different nationalities have different standards, and this results in pretty widely different "effective range" figures for weapons that are fundamentally similar. I think it's pretty clear that the MP40 should have a range advantage over the Thompson, but I don't think it's effective range is double the Thompson's (100m vs. 50m), which is what the manual seems to indicate (and in any event, isn't what the in-game behavior shows, either).

[LemuelG]

I wonder what the criterion is, I don't profess to know well exactly what these weapons are capable of, that's why I hit the books - I guess it's possible not much thought went into the 'effective range' numbers. I don't like the idea of my guys not shooting at targets because they're kinda far away - have a crack, that's why I moved you there.

Where's Steve?

Is he on holiday or something?

[c3k]

Do the published (in-game) effective ranges have any effect on weapon use in the game? If the manual said the Thompson had an effective range of 1,000m, does that mean that number was taken from the code, or put into the code? Or, does the code do its own thing (ballistics, muzzle velocity, deviation, experience, morale) and just let the bullet find its own way?

Ken

[Gewehr 43]

Hi, guys. Loooong time lurker here. Been a history geek all my life and a fan of Battlefront since the earliest CMBO days.

Fully automatic weapons are not legal even in the US without a special permit, so if anyone here has one it has likely been modified to be semi-automatic only.

That's actually untrue. I am a Class III SOT/01 FFL machine gun dealer here in the United States and machine gun ownership doesn't require a special permit. It requires a lot of paperwork, but there's no machine gun "license" or "permit." That's a bit outside the scope of this discussion, but I'll gladly answer PM's on it if anyone has any questions.

That said, my collection has shrunk quite a bit, but I own, owned, or have fired most US/German small arms from WWII. Unfortunately, the best I can provide is anecdotal evidence as I never seriously tested any of my MG's for accuracy. Below are some quick thoughts. Please bear in mind that these are my opinions based on non-combat, civilian range shooting conditions.

MP40: Light, maneuverable, compact, but "meh" as far as accuracy. From a supported position, I could hit a man-size target at 100m fairly reliably. I didn't have a 200m range available at the time to test it out that far, but I would be skeptical how effective it would really be at that range. Especially given that it doesn't have semi-auto capabilities.

M1A1 Thompson: Very heavy, reasonably compact and maneuverable. It's weight lends to some stability at longer ranges and that's also aided by the fact that it has a semi-auto mode. I only owned it for a few months, so I never did much more than plink with it. At close ranges it would have been devastating as the huge .45 slug leave big big holes in whatever it hits.

MG42: Fired from the tripod, it pretty much hits where you aim. The "beaten zone" - the area the bullets impact - is pretty wide at longer ranges and it becomes more of an area suppression gun. At 100m or so, it's very easy to keep it in a less-than-man sized target even when firing from the bipod. The rate of fire is insane and I could see how some soldiers would hate it. There's nothing you can do with 1200 rounds per minute that you can't do with the MG34's 800 rounds per minute... except expend 25% more ammunition.

MG34: Pretty much the same as the '42 above only slightly less reliable due to its extreme complexity.

MP44: Mine's actually an MP43/1 - an earlier variant of the MP44 - but it's essentially the same gun. There is little to no way you can keep accurate fire at any kind of distance under full auto. The gun bounces around too much. On semi-auto, it's actually a pretty accurate rifle. It's a little hefty, but otherwise, it's a joy to shoot.

PPSh-41: The PPSh-41 is a light, maneuverable, and ridiculously fast murder machine. It's very controllable and at short ranges would be absolutely devastating. I didn't have a long range to shoot it at when I shot it, but at short - think room-clearing - ranges, it would be horrific. The 71 rnd drum mag, while heavy, is a huge asset to the bullet hose mantra of the gun.

M1, K98k, G43, and G41: They're all just about the same in terms of accuracy. With iron sights, they're all pretty much limited by the shooter's eyes. The G41 is very muzzle heavy and awkward to hold, but it is hands-down the smoothest-shooting semi-auto I've ever fired. The G43's a little lighter and more ergonomic, but it suffers from fragility. Parts breakage was very common on them. The 2000m K98k sights are definitely volley-fire only. At 2 kilometers you'd be lucky to see a man, let alone hit him with iron sights. The M1 is an amazing piece of WWII engineering. Its only real downfall is the semi-awkward loading machinations.

Unfortunately, I only have the MG42, G41, K98k, MP43/1 anymore, so I can't test anything for the forums here. I'll happily answer any questions anyone has about these guns provided it doesn't derail the thread too much.

[akd]

Do the published (in-game) effective ranges have any effect on weapon use in the game? If the manual said the Thompson had an effective range of 1,000m, does that mean that number was taken from the code, or put into the code? Or, does the code do its own thing (ballistics, muzzle velocity, deviation, experience, morale) and just let the bullet find its own way?

Ken

A number of stats in the manual are straight from wikipedia.

[YankeeDog]

Do the published (in-game) effective ranges have any effect on weapon use in the game? If the manual said the Thompson had an effective range of 1,000m, does that mean that number was taken from the code, or put into the code? Or, does the code do its own thing (ballistics, muzzle velocity, deviation, experience, morale) and just let the bullet find its own way?

Ken

Only someone from BFC could say for sure, but based on what's printed in the manual and what I see in the game, I'm pretty sure the "effective range" figures for small arms don't have anything directly to do with the in-game behavior. Rather, they appear to be figures taken from standard training manuals on the weapons, and/or simple quotes of the maximum range setting for the sights of the weapon.

After all, as noted in LemuelG's quick test, the Thompson in-game will fire, and can potentially cause casualties at ranges of over 200m. It's a very inefficient weapon at this range, burning a lot of ammo for limited effect, but it's not worthless. That's a pretty huge difference from the 50m effective range listed in the manual... my SWAG is that the 50m cited in the manual is simply the range at which the sights are zeroed.

[Michael Emrys]

No way to tell. I suspect not though - more precise testing gives much better numbers than seen above, here's a pre-war source:

http://www.saf.org/lawreviews/psharpe1.html

You will note that in these tests, all were done in single shot mode. It's not surprising that the small groupings reported were obtained. Given the length of the T-gun's barrel and having a shoulder stock, I would expect it to perform better than a hand-held pistol using the same ammunition.

Firing even short bursts under full auto is likely to be a horse of a different color. Nearly every article on the T-gun I have ever read has mentioned muzzle climb under recoil, even with the compensator. And apparently standard procedure firing any SMG at a standing target was to aim at the target's feet and allow the recoil to put rounds on the center of mass.

Michael

[LemuelG]

You will note that in these tests, all were done in single shot mode.

That's why I first gave the figures I found from full-auto bursts, recorded by the military, during the war; when someone expressed skepticism I used those pre-war manufacturer's figures to show what comes from a rest test, and how superior the groupings were when not fired in auto-bursts.

[Vark]

If troops have a weapon with a fire selector do they use it in CM2? Also regarding WWII SMG's all fired from an open bolt which caused problems with accuracy. IMO, I think that accuracy for small arms should be greatly dependent on troop levels, most veterans would automatically calculate bullet drop when looking at the sight picture, average troops would struggle to remember all they had been taught, probably forgetting half of it under the stress of combat. Green troops would struggle to get rounds anywhere near the target as their brains suffered sensory overload from being in combat.

I do feel accuracy issues are being heightened so that games can be played to a decisive point, in the time allowed and have a sense of the players tactical skill deciding the issue. Not much fun being pinned down by a realistic MG-42 for hours and having to wait, yet again, for artillery to decide the issue, or just try somewhere else.

[YankeeDog]

Also regarding WWII SMG's all fired from an open bolt which caused problems with accuracy.

Many WWII-era automatic weapons were open bolt, including the BAR, Bren, MG34 & MG42. Note that the Bren in particular had a reputation of being a very accurate weapon even though it was an open bolt design. So open bolt isn't really that big a deal in this context. If you're talking about a scoped, semi-auto sniper rifle where the goal is to have a weapon that can generate first-round hits at a range of several hundred meters, then an open bolt system would definitely be a liability. But for firing over iron sights under 300m, it's a very minor factor.

[Vark]

True, all those weapons were open bolt they also were considerably heavier than the SMG's, even the Thompson, sorry should have been clearer. The open bolt, combined with the relatively low weight of the SMG reduces accuracy, and as the SMG burns through its ammo it gets considerably lighter. Modern SMG's that use closed bolts are not only more accurate in semi-auto fire but also in full auto or 3 round bursts.

[LukeFF]

Bumping up an old thread, because I'm still seeing SMG-armed soldiers open fire at ridiculous ranges. The net effect is that by the time you send in soldiers to close-assault an objective, any soldiers armed with SMGs are down to their last 1 or 2 mags. Plus, these are troops rated Regular or Veteran.

I really do hope this is tweaked in a forthcoming update.

[Mingan]

Bumping up an old thread, because I'm still seeing SMG-armed soldiers open fire at ridiculous ranges. The net effect is that by the time you send in soldiers to close-assault an objective, any soldiers armed with SMGs are down to their last 1 or 2 mags. Plus, these are troops rated Regular or Veteran.

I really do hope this is tweaked in a forthcoming update.

Does this happen with elite troops also? Because I think it's only realistic if untrained troops shoot too much and too early.

[Georgie]

Calling all computer grogs. Some earlier post in this thread were about the low rate of fire of the mg42 and 34. This may be because the soft ware of the game has to track each bullet path and a normal rate of fire for a 42 or 34 would tax the limits of the game. Gotta go to 64 bit so that the full potential of this game can be realized.