MP40 Effectiveness

[YankeeDog]

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.

I sincerely doubt this is an issue. Amongst other things, the effective ROF of the MG42 and 34 in the game increases rapidly as the range gets close. So the game is perfectly capable of having these weapons spit out lots of bullets; it just doesn't *usually* model such weapons "going cyclic" under typical combat conditions.

Also, if this were a problem, then large scenarios with lots of MGs shooting at once would tend to cause problems (framerate slowdowns, etc.), and I haven't seen this happen, at least on my machine. From a ballistics calculation load viewpoint, 2 MG42s firing 100 rounds/minute is the same work as 1 MG42 firing 200 rounds/minute.

Rather, I think BFC made some deliberate choices regarding effective ROF of the MG34 and 42 (and other automatic weapons) based on their assessments of how the the weapons would actually be used on the tactical battlefield, and taking into consideration factors like barrel heating/changing, ammo supply, etc. You may disagree with the conclusions they have come to, but I don't think the ROF as depicted in the game right now is due to any kind of hardware or game engine limitation.

[womble]

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.

A conservative cyclic RoF for the MG42 is 900rpm. At that rate, the standard load out of an LMG team would last less than half a minute. Nearer 20s. No wonder teams don't do that very often.

[Georgie]

A conservative cyclic RoF for the MG42 is 900rpm. At that rate, the standard load out of an LMG team would last less than half a minute. Nearer 20s. No wonder teams don't do that very often.

Was this a limitation on the effectiveness of the 34 and 42 vs the 1919?

[YankeeDog]

Was this a limitation on the effectiveness of the 34 and 42 vs the 1919?

Not sure what you're asking. In general for MGs carried by infantry, effective ROF is more limited by how much ammo the men can hump than it is by the weapon's cyclic ROF. The higher the ROF of the weapon, the greater the gap between what it can theoretically put out, and how long infantry team can actually keep it fed if they run it at max. ROF.

In the case of air-cooled MGs like the MG34/42 and M1919, overheating and need for cool-down time and/or barrel changes can also be a factor. Here the MG34/42 have an advantage over the M1919 because they can swap barrels much more quickly. But they also need to switch barrels more often in order to maintain a higher ROF; standard protocol was to swap the barrel every belt (250 rnds), or about 12 seconds of "trigger down" time in the case of an MG42. However, over time, available ammo supply is usually a greater limitation on the effective ROF of a weapon like the MG42 than heat buildup/barrel swaps.

In the case of bipod mounted MGs, a third limiting factor on effective ROF is accuracy -- the MG34/42 have very high recoil, and it is difficult to fire more than short bursts from a bipod mount accurately. So gunners were generally trained to tap out 3-6 round bursts. The HMG 34/42 heavy tripod mount doesn't have this problem to the same degree, but even with the tripod mounts there can be some problems with the ROF of these weapons "running away" during very long bursts (i.e., the ROF accelerates the longer the trigger is held down), and this can lead to jams. So even on the heavy tripod mount, usual protocol is to keep individual bursts relatively short.

[Fūrinkazan]

Hi guys,

When reading this thread i decided to run another test since this problem was on other threads since then release of the game :

First in in soviet infantry tactics book i found :

PPd 40 smg : max range 500 m effective 100 m rof cyclic : 900 practical 30-100

ppsh41 : max range 500 m effective 100 m rof cyclic : 1000 practical 30-100

7.62 dp lmg : 1500 /1000 m rof 600 practical 80

DS-39 Hmg : 2400 / 1000 m rof 600 practical 300-310

SG-43 Hmg : 2000/ 1000 m rof 700 practical 250-300

In German squad tactics in ww2 :

Lmg 42 should shoot 50-60 aimed shots in 30 sec = 100/ 120 rpm

Now i tested hmg and lmg in the game :

i took an average of 7 bullets by burst

Hmg 42

50 m 41 bursts rof 287 rpm

100 m 26 bursts rof 182 rpm

150 m 20 bursts rof 140 rpm

200 m 17 ----------119 rpm

250 m 14 ---------- 98 rpm

300 m 12 ---------- 84 rpm

400 m 10 ---------- 70 rpm

500 m 9 ---------- 63 rpm

600 m 8 ---------- 56 rpm

700 m 8 ---------- 56 rpm

800 m 8 ---------- 56 rpm

Lmg 42

50 m 26 bursts 182 rpm

100 m 19 ------- 133

150 m 18 ------- 126

200 m 12 ------- 84

250 m 12 ------- 84

300 m 11 ------- 77

400 m 10 ------- 70

500 m 8 ------- 56

600 m 8 ------- 56

700 m 7 ------- 49

800 m 0 ------- 0 max range

With the hmg it took 6 mn to test and 1210 cartridges were shot

this means about 210 rpm (less because of the rifles)

Smg that were with the hmg 42 can shoot up to 270 m

Rifles up to 450 m .

First, you'll notice that at 250 300 m there is not much difference between hmg 42 and lmg 42 and that is strange. And there are less differencies if you take in count that the lmg had to reload more often.

For the lmg i think the game is quiet correct.

But for the hmg :

If the soviets hmg have a rof of about 300 rpm i would say that the hmg 42 in the game is under rated. and it's worse for allied Hmgs since they shoot 5 rounds bursts in average.

I don't understand why hmgs at long range loose so much of their firepower.

With optics and much more ammo than lmg they should be more efficient than this i think up to 800 m.

I 've been watching an interresting national géo program about auto weapons.

they made a test with a maxim hmg and an experimented British gunner.

They managed to cut a tree (with a lot of bullets) and they made another test to show the importance of the placement of Hmgs. If you're in the front of an infantry line it's very difficult to aim and hit targets. So it's crucial to be on the flank to shoot on the mass of the attacker.

I tried this in the game and Hmgs are much more efficient this way but :

I did tests with infantry charging in the open in column (to shoot in the mass)

and it was difficult to stop infantry (128 men regular) with 5 hmgs in bunker.

I also noticed that a platoon targeted by hmg kept advancing with is stress indicator to the maximum until one guy is hit.

I think that hmgs cannot fullfill their mission of interdiction in defence and support in attack.

For smgs, 270 m is way too long to open fire i think.

I had small experience in the army shooting with smg (french Mat 49) because i had to instruct new recruits. Even at 25 m most soldiers have a lot of problems to hit something (and that were fixed targets).With training you can have good results and my Captain said that it was possible to hit targets up to 150 200 m for the best shooter.

I don't think the game engine is really a problem (i have seen hmgs shooting one burst/second at 50 m or less).

If the germans did not have as many hmgs than in the game, then it's more a problem of scenario design of to take the lmg out of depleted squads.

They were very few Tiger tanks on the battlefield but BFC did not degrade the armor or the gun to make them easier to kill.

So, i would really suggest some tweaks on those 2 points :

Reduction of the range of smg and more bursts at longer range with more suppression for hmgs.

I would really like to have opinion of other players about this, and of course of the BFC team.

I think that they have been working on the pistol accuraccy and that's great, but Hmgs and Smgs are still a problem for me.

I must say that i was very happy with the new upgrade system for the game engine. I know that there is a new suppression fire order that allows 15 sec of fire and stop without other order of the player. Maybe a special order for hmgs could be the solution, i don't think that having the same characteristics for hmg and lmg at 250 m + is realistic.

Sorry for this long post.

[YankeeDog]

Hi,

One quick question: How were you testing the rate of fire in the game? Did you use Area Fire to do so? If so, it has already been shown that, infantry will use a higher rate of fire against an actual spotted target than they will on Area Fire. I don't recall whether this has been verified with MGs, but it's definitely true with rifles, especially at close range.

[Fūrinkazan]

hi, YankeeDog

Yes i used area fire, it was a good way to calculate all the bursts.

Now i have already tested against targets (and many other than me).

I made an infantry company (about 120 men ) charge in the open in front of 5 hmgs. At long distance, 800 m, i had about 12 bursts by minute max or less (don't remember exactly) about 84 rpm.

I did the test many times and i dont' think you can expect a huge difference.

What was a problem for me is that infantry was able to reach the bunkers after a 2000 m run on the open and some bunkers were destroyed and all this without any support.

I still think that hmg at long range (300 m +) don't have enough firepower and suppression effect.

I just did another test : i took five hmgs and make them shoot at 50m (area target) this means almost 1 burst second and i did not see any problem with my computer. So i don't think it's an engine problem + during QBs i have ambushed squads with hmgs at 50 m or less and the result was devastating without any slowdown.

Maybe the reason is the Ai. During a QB in the bocage i had 2 hmgs just in front of a road. The AI send infantry, squad after squad in column.The hmg that was just in front of them was able to do more than 20 casualties because it was shooting in the mass of the infantry and some bullets did more than one casualties. That was at something like 200 m. If the rate of fire had been higher, they would have been wipped out by only one hmg without problem (the hmg was in a building).

As the AI cannot be has good as a human player, maybe they tweaked down hmg fire. A human player would have stopped and use arty or a tank to get rid of the hmg position. Much more realistic i think.

I think there is also a problem with the deployment delay for hmgs. I think the delay to deploy and undeploy is not respected especially in buildings.

[sonar]

Another factor in the Hmg debate, is the fact that over distance, an advancing squad usually ends up running in single file, this is one behaviour I would like to see addressed. I can't see why the squads can't be a bit more elastic when moving, and then snap back into the action spot when they stop. This should be possible as i've seen men left way behind the rest of the squad, they still catch up and the squad regroups.

also in terms of engagement ranges for smg's, from what I understand, their limited range was one of the reasons they were issued to squad leaders and officers, to discourage them from getting involved in the firefight as just another shooter, instead of leading the squad through target designation and such.

[Fūrinkazan]

i have found the datas of an old test i did against infantry :

"Rate of fire :

Hmg 42

at 800 m 7 sec between each burst of 7 to 10 bullets :49 to 70 rounds mn

at 600 m 9 bursts : 63 to 90 shots rpm

at 300 m 12 burst : 84 to 120 shots rpm

under 300m you can expect 9 to 12 bursts by mn"

so, at 800 m about 8 bursts/mn (60 sec/ by 7 the delay between each burst).

That was on advancing infantry.

This was in the same test.

Lmg 42

750 m 5 bursts : 35 to 50 rpm

300 m 10 bursts : 70 to 100 rpm

100 m 10 to 12 bursts mn : 120 rpm

US 30 cal

750 m 3 bursts of 4/5 bullets :12 to 15 rpm

550 m 8 bursts : 32 to 40 rpm

300m and less about 10 to 12 bursts mn : 48 to 60 rpm

All gunners were regular with no bonus.

Results on infantry after 11 mn of battle :

Hmg 42 :27 kia 25 wia about 42% loss infantry is not stopped by hmg

lmg 42 : 12 kia 13 wia 20% loss infantry is not stopped by lmg

US 30 cal : 21 kia 20 wia 42 % loss infantry is not stopped by hmg

In this case infantry was charging in line. So harder to hit for mgs.

You can have much better results against infantry in column or by placing the mgs on the flank.

Now if we take in count the rate of fire of russians hmg, i still think there is something to change. unfortunately, i don't know if the practical range was for the effective range (1000 m or less) and how it changes with distance.

Anyway, we don't see long bursts in the game like we may see in real life (for suppression) and from what i've seen in the documentary, the experienced british gunner used short bursts but with onlya delay of one second or two max during the test they made.

this means at least 30 bursts mn = 210 rpm

[Fūrinkazan]

This is also maybe a reason why reco team had smgs.

They don't have to engage combat. If they fall in an ambush they should return fire and withdraw, and usually, an ambush is at close range.

I think smgs are close combat assault weapon, very usefull in cities, this is certainly why the russians had assault squads equipped with only smgs.

I also think the russians smgs were very effective and if we consider that they estimated the effective range at about 100 m i don't think that MP40, Thomson or sten would do a better job.

[Baneman]

I tend to agree - not only do the HMG's fire ( apparently ) too slowly at range, but they also have a habit of firing each burst in a straight line.

Eg. I had a group of enemies crossing a river about 500-600m away from a couple of HMG's. The HMG's are firing side-on to the enemy and have not hit a single one due to their uncanny ability to fire between the men - fair enough, my gunners are usually muppets, but I would expect at that range that the slightest movement by the gunner would be able to "spray" the burst across a wider area - even 2 or 3m would be better.

As it stands, the entire burst either hits or misses where the first bullet goes - frustrating when the first round practically grazes an enemy's tunic, but following bullets do not deviate one iota.

Also, they seem to be reluctant to engage at very long range - my opponent debussed several trucks in good LoS to a couple of my MG42's at about 1000m ( which would be good for some suppression and a possible casualty or two ), but not one chose to open fire on its own initiative. Naturally by the whims of WeGo, by the time I could thwack the gunners around the earhole, the opportunity had passed.

Edit: Whoops, I seem to have mistaken this for an HMG thread. My bad.

[Fūrinkazan]

Hi,Baneman

I think that 1000 m is out of range for hmgs.

During the tests i have done they opened at 800 m max i think, even with a target order.

You are right i think for dispersion. In the game, and this was noted in other threads, you can see all the bullets going in a straight line.

Again, when i saw the documentary, the gunner said that it was very difficult to aim that's why flanking is so important.

They made a test with 2 experimented hmg gunners from the British army.

The targets were balloons fixed on the field at the size of a man.

With 250 bullets against 250 balloons :

first the ballons are in line in front of the hmg : only 30 ballons hit with 250 bullets.

then with the hmg in the flank : 240 balloons were hit with 250 bullets.

So the placement of the hmg is very important.

From the front, the deviation caused by the firing makes the targeting difficult and bullets are going between the targets.

[Childress]

The most durable controversy: MGs and their proper lethality have constituted an ongoing debate since CMBO. And they use to 'jam' until the advent of CM2. According to some, they haven't tracked the more refined modelling of artillery we've arrived at now.

[Vark]

From the training manuals I have read, one of the reasons MG's were sited in the flanking position was because their beaten zone better matched the disposition of a line of attacking infantry. Ideally, if you opened fire at right angles to the target, your start of the beaten zone would touch the closest man and its end the last man. Trouble is, BF do not simulate beaten zones so MG's will never be as effective as they are in reality.

Talking of PPSH 41's, th re-enactors I talked to had the opportunity to fire the papasha on a range and were astonished to be able to hit standard NATO targets at 200 metres, regularly. They also were told by the MOD range officer to fire short bursts with the Maxim, as longer ones would shred the targets!

[womble]

From the training manuals I have read, one of the reasons MG's were sited in the flanking position was because their beaten zone better matched the disposition of a line of attacking infantry. Ideally, if you opened fire at right angles to the target, your start of the beaten zone would touch the closest man and its end the last man. Trouble is, BF do not simulate beaten zones so MG's will never be as effective, as in reality.

You can force something like a beaten zone by plotting grazing area fire. The overshoots and undershoots, along with the designed deviation of aim into adjacent AS produce an area of effect that is somewhat eliptical, IME. It's not always doable, due to angles, but if you look out for ways of sneaking a grazing shot in, it seems quite effective.

[Fūrinkazan]

i don't know if the game could reproduce beaten zone exactly but :

- area target works, you can target effectively hit and pin down infantry even if you don't see it.

- flanking fire works also, you can inflict more casualties, at least against the Ai.

The problem is that when you have to wait up to 6 seconds or more for long distance bursts it's not as efficient as it should be. As i said also, infantry doesn't seem to be pinned down unless there is a man hit. That's what i saw in the tests i did with one company.

For the ppsh 41 i'm not astonished. From wiki the practical range is up to 200 m

but it seems that the results at longe range were obtained by using semi auto because it can be full auto or one single shot. At full auto the precision was much less it seems.

So i don't remember that smgs we have in the game can do this.

It's like the stg 44 certainly precise at long range but not on full auto.

The effective range was it seems 600 m for single shot and 300 m for full auto.

[MikeyD]

I suppose the effectiveness of the MP40 has less to do with accuracy of individual rounds than volume of fire. I've read of weapons that were ineffective because they were TOO accurate, their dispersion pattern was too confined. Other weapons operate like a fire hose. You point in the general direction and let loose. The 'Hollywood' vision of MP40 fire that we've seen in countless films involve firing the gun from the hip. I doubt you'd hit much using that technique at 150m.

[Fūrinkazan]

I had the opportunity to shot with the Mat 49 from the hip.

The first time i did a bad job but the second time, on 25 bullets (we used to put only 25 bullets instead of the max 32) i had 23 in the target, but it was at 25 m and on a fixed target.

[Vark]

The PPSH example, was using full auto, hence the surprise of the re-enactors, single shot and it was 300m with the small bullet fading beyond that range. I was surprised at what a difference the full drum made, getting it up to the shoulder was quite an effort, compared to the MP40, it felt more like a rifle.

Mikey, as you know the Hollywood way would also result in it jamming repeatedly, as you do not hold onto the flimsy magazine, tempting though it maybe.

[Fūrinkazan]

I did some research and found that site :

http://www.ppsh41.com/

You can find a pdf with a comparison of the russian smgs.

for the ppd 34/38, the ppd 1940 and ppsh 1941

the practical range S/A is 200 m and full auto 100 m

The site is interresting and detailed (i didn't know the russians had made a PPSh with curved barrel)

I think the problem with smgs is that, like other weapons you cannot control exactly your men. After the short 6 mn test only 9 bullets were left for the 2 smgs guys in the machine gun team. So they wasted bullets at long range up to 270 m and if infantry comes closer, they don't have bullets left. It's also a problem when snipers have a security member with mp40 since he's revealing the position by shooting at too long range.

I found in the old CMBO manual the following datas for motorized infantry squad :

the firepower of 1 mp 40 smg is 36 at 40 m 11 at 100 m 0 at 250 m

compared to mp44 : at 40 m 30 at 100 m 12 at 250 m 4

I would also like to know why the hmg firepower is so degraded after 250 m and why there is not much difference after that distance between Lmgs and Hmgs.

I think there should be a huge difference at long distance because hmgs have much more ammo and they have tripod and optics.

Those 2 things are what bother me in the game now.

Since the last patch, sniper are deadly now (i had some killing up to 20 men in some qb's) and they can hit tank commander quiet often.

It's the same problem that was found with pistol accurracy and i hope that BFC will do some changes on this.

[JasonC]

"they wasted bullets at long range up to 270 m and if infantry comes closer, they don't have bullets left. It's also a problem when snipers have a security member with mp40 since he's revealing the position by shooting at too long range."

+1 to this. These are the two things about SMGs in the game that bother me. They need to exercise fire discipline on range instead of firing whenever anyone else in the same unit fires. That seems to be the programming difficulty.

The spotter firing and giving away a sniper position is very annoying and makes it hard to use them effectively, because it prevents the second half of the sniper's basic drill, which is "go quiet when / before the enemy gets close enough to spot you". The rifle, only, should be firing at 300 meters plus. The SMG should be firing at 60, maybe 80 meters at most, the range at which people walking by will see even the hiding sniper. In between, nobody should be firing, because that is the range window in which the enemy would see a firing team but won't see one that is quiet and motionless.

In the regular squads, the SMGs should also kick in around 80 meters, or maybe 100 at the outside. Beyond that they should save their ammo and let rifles do the work. That way when they actually are needed for final protective fire they have the ammo for it.

[YankeeDog]

Yeah; I'll sign that petition. SMG firing behavior has improved some with 1.10, but it still needs some work. We can quibble about the exact range at which SMGs should open up, but 270m is IMHO clearly too far. And ideally there should be additional code in the Unit AI for units like sniper teams and FOs that further restricts SMG usage.

[LukeFF]

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

Dunno. And, Regular and Veteran troops aren't exactly untrained, which is exactly what I'm seeing this with.

[LukeFF]

In the regular squads, the SMGs should also kick in around 80 meters, or maybe 100 at the outside. Beyond that they should save their ammo and let rifles do the work. That way when they actually are needed for final protective fire they have the ammo for it.

Exactly

Conversely, when MP44-armed soldiers open up at 100m+, they hit their targets just fine, which is what the weapon was designed to do, after all - bridge the gap between slow-firing K98s and the short-ranged MP40s.

[Fūrinkazan]

I have found another smg that is efficient up to 300 m it seems :

the Finnish Suomi m/1931. So, like the PPSh 41, some smgs can be precise at that range but, firing on a fixed target on a range is not combat and i think that in real combat, soldiers tend to wait at much shorter range so they don't waste ammo and reveal their position too fast and to maximise the effect of their smgs.

The problem of the escort member of AT and sniper teams was already in the Cmsf series. It was worse because with a lot of vehicles and much more firepower for infantry, snipers were wiped out very quickly. Unfortunately, BFC did not tweaked anything about this in CMSF.

For the moment we have pistols to accurate at 100 m +, smgs that shoot at too long distance, and hmgs that loose their firepower at 250 m +.

Just hope that BFC can tweak these things like they change the way tanks fire on the move. That was a great improvement for me. Most people want new features, i'd prefer those tweaks before and new features with the new system of updates for the game enging. If the behaviour of soldier is correct, this will be for all the games and modules to come.