MP40 Effectiveness

[Vanir Ausf B]

Flak. Now there is something that has been neutered.

[MikeyD]

CMFI will field the Italian Breda 20mm flak model 35 on the AS-42. They also field the 20mm Solothurn AT rifle which I think (not at all sure) may chamber the same ammo type. Its funny, in the pre-release scenario testing dash Beta testers went from "Ach, these awful Italian troops and their awful weapons!" to "I just won a total victory with my Italian forces!" You laugh at the notion of 47mm *off map* artillery fire untill you find your troops caught beneath it. Those little guns have a murderous rate of fire.

[LukeFF]

Am more than a bit surprised that the Ma Deuce should be so neutered in the game.

Nonsense, like so much of what you write on these forums.

[dieseltaylor]

These Forums are designed to be a fun, informative, and intellectually stimulating place where gamers can feel free to exchange their ideas ......... a place for gamers to get together and discuss relevant issues without being distracted, disrupted, or discouraged by abusive personalities so prevalent in unmoderated settings.

Disagreement between Members is not only expected, it is generally desirable because it is impossible to have an intellectually meaningful Forum if everybody agrees 100% of the time. However, there is a very big difference between a respectful disagreement (argument) and an abusive exchange (fight). It is our job, as moderators and Members alike, to know the difference between these two things and to react positively towards the former and negatively towards the latter. Otherwise these Forums will become like so many other Forums... effectively useless.

..............................

[JonS]

have an intellectually meaningful Forum ... Otherwise these Forums will become like so many other Forums; effectively useless.

I agree 100%

Kettler's scamming is the very antithesis of "intellectually meaningful," and with every post he attempts to drive this forums towards being effectively useless. Have you seen this? There is an exceptionally good reason the expression isn't "Vanirian" or "Jasonian".

[dieseltaylor]

You personally don't have to agree with everyones posts on the forum and if BF wish someone to police it I am sure they can arrange it themselves. In the meantime I accept the dross with the glimmers of gold that appear on these forums.

The day I start hounding/insulting any poster I hope I will realise that I am overstepping the mark of reasonable behaviour.

[Vark]

Can we stop the ad-hominem attacks please, normally posters run tests to determine the veracity of a statement?

[Lee]

I can say that the MP40 can indeed be effective at 100 yards in skilled hands, much beyond that and it gets tricky. But trained soldiers would know better than to fire much at that distance. At 50-60 yards, it's quite dangerous. Inside that and it's gets utterly lethal. While the Thompson does hit harder, it would also be more difficult to aim and compensate for accurately when firing at 100 yards plus.

[John Kettler]

JonS,

If there's a scam being run here, it's by you! You pretend to be open minded, but you generally exhibit anything but that in your behavior. Argumentum ad hominem is your default setting when confronted with anything threatening your defend-it-unto-the-other person's-death, hyper circumscribed, 3D only world view. So consistently loutish is your behavior that it's been modestly suggested that you be fed to the Reptoids! Your behavior is the antithesis of bonhomie and goodwill toward anyone whose views don't match yours in areas that matter to you. This is a marketplace of ideas, and you, sir, seek unfair competitive advantage by first urinating on the produce of others, then claiming their product's defective!

You are NOT about open debate. Rather, you are about the RUTHLESS SUPPRESSION of any idea, and anyone offering same, which challenges your sense of how the world is/ought to be. Your weapons are ridicule, distortion, lies and calumny. Your behavior is that of a thug and a bully, despite apparently being an educated man with a family. I don't know what you do for BFC, but it must be truly spectacular to have saved you from from being banned many times over.

I wish you'd learn to behave like a civilized person, but your track record inspires no such confidence!

Regards,

John Kettler

[Vark]

AP rounds can sometimes penetrate multiple vehicles, can a 50 cal penetrate multiple soldiers? Next question, is secondary missile damage calculated?

[JonS]

Kettler,

stop crying like a baby. The solution is in your hands; stop your scamming, stop your spamming, and learn to use some filters. That's it. That's all you need to do.

Regards

Jon

[Childress]

JonS,

So consistently loutish is your behavior that it's been modestly suggested that you be fed to the Reptoids!

I believe Reptiods, or 'Reptilians' in the U.K., feed on a variety of small vertebrate prey including birds, small mammals and fish, John. Not a mammal with the dimensions of JonS. They also reportedly eat the carcases of dead animals- if Wikipedia is to be believed. Jon's alive and kicking.

[John Kettler]

JonS,

Not crying, not scamming, definitely not spamming (you obviously haven't read the compliance statements on my site). As for filters, in my estimation, the filter should be on your end, in the online version of one of these.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scold's_bridle

Childress,

I believe the author of the modest proposal had this in mind.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reptilians

Regards,

John Kettler

[womble]

This is a marketplace of ideas...

Ah, the financial motive again.

Look, Kettler, if we're being charitable, your ranting is to support your income. We get that. Can you please just leave it out. We don't believe. We're never going to believe. You are preaching your comedy to the wrong audience. You're wasting your virtual breath because we see the joke and don't think it's worth sending you money to promulgate. You're spamming because you persist in trying to gain traction for your nonsense in a place that's made of metaphorical teflon, sprayed with WD40. Your site could be considered scamming, because, though it is meant to be humourous, there are people out there credulous enough to not realise that. If it weren't for the potential harm that such vulnerable people could sustain by subscribing wholehearteldly to the world view you've developed as a running joke, I'd think that might be quite funny.

You are NOT about open debate...

Just to be clear, neither are you. Your "evidence" is laughable (and that is, after all the point), and, because you believe you have to keep "In Character" the whole time, you soon grate. Anyone who points out flaws in your tale is obviously trying to suppress (ruthlessly, no less) The Truth.

...weapons are ridicule...

Well, what do you expect would be used to counter such baseless ridiculous assertions as you make.

...distortion, lies...

Your stock in trade, though. So it's all right for you.

...and calumny.

Part of the definition of calumny is that its claims must be false. Since nothing about your fictions is verifiable (since they're one big joke) any assertions that they are false cannot be calumny. Since Jon has opted not to be charitable, it follows that his assertions about your character seem true in his eyes.

I don't know what you do for BFC, but it must be truly spectacular to have saved you from from being banned many times over.

You never thought that BFC might actually agree with Jon, and that your mostly harmless rantings don't qualify you for a ban yourself? Perhaps BFC are part of the conspiracy

Just to pretend to take you seriously for a minute, the null hypothesis that you have to disprove to take "Reptoids" from "crackpot theory/hyperextended joke" to "potential part of realitty" is thus: "There are no Reptoids". And, to be clear, nothing you've written offers any proof because you undermine your own credibility so very well.

[dieseltaylor]

For Pete's sake I don't give a monkey for what people espose on other forums/sites lets just stick to WW2 and give up on personal attacks. As it is JK will be made immortal as a dictionary entry which is a pretty dumb way of ignoring something!

As for the MA Deuce I did post that interesting Canadian research of various arms penetrating power

http://www.claybrick.ca/pdf/cmri_bulletproof_project.pdf

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyndall_stone

And I doubt very much that a limestone is a particularly hard or cohesive rock compared to granite and others.

[Michael Emrys]

And I doubt very much that a limestone is a particularly hard or cohesive rock compared to granite and others.

It's a bit harder than chalk, but not by a huge margin. And no, not like granite or basalt.

Michael

[John Kettler]

dieseltaylor,

One of the things that intrigues me about the Ma Deuce is that unlike the MG-42 and MG-34 in their HMG configurations, the .50 lacks any kind of telescopic sight. In turn, that leads me to wonder how the effective range can be anything like the 1800 meters listed in the Wiki? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M2_Browning

S.L.A. Marshall concluded in his THE RIVER & THE GAUNTLET that effective MG range was 600 meters or so, a limit imposed by gunner eyesight. So how is it the Ma Deuce can hit at 3 x that distance while lacking any kind of magnifying sight? It's certainly true that Carlos Hathcock got a then record 2200 meter kill in Vietnam; that was with a Unertl sniper scope equipped M2, which was heavily sandbagged and fired in single shot mode. This is discussed in the Wiki.

Regards,

John Kettler

[Fūrinkazan]

Just made another little test this week end.

To see if the rate of fire of Hmgs was better against a real target instead of area, i choose to target an halftrack.

At about 750 the rate of fire was about 10 bursts of 7 rounds = about 70 rpm

The halftrack returned fire with is 30 cal. about the same number of bursts but with an average of 5 bullets by bursts about 50 rpm.

Then the Halftrack lost the shooter and i ended the test.

So i think not much differences between area and target objective.

This doesn't mean that hmgs are ineffective. I played Qbs and in one, the Ai had a 40 % advantage, it was an infantry only battle. The ai started to make infantry rush through a path in the bocage. I had 2 mg 42 in the flank and in a few minutes i inflicted 61 losses (30 for the 1st mg and 31 for the second) to the ai but it was at about 150 m and the the ai made the mistake of rushing its troops in mass.

I still think hmgs at 250 m or more should be tweaked. I think hmgs for the moment are more lmgs with more men and ammos than real hmgs since the rate of fire is quiet the same. I 've seen recently real life movies from an old tv program of the 70s about WW2. I noticed that bursts were longer than what we see in the game, i counted about 3 seconds of non stop firing, certainly something to look at too i think.

The mp40 were also firing at 150 m during my qbs and i think it was a waste of ammo. 100 m or less should be the rule, that's were those weapons are more efficient.If you open at 250 m you will be without 9mm ammo when the weapon is really effective at close range.

One very interresting thing happened the second time i played on the same map. Infantry attacked in the same field and i started to area fire with my 2 mg 42s. Then smoke rounds started to fall between my troops and the attacker. The hmgs kept firing without line of sight, directly through the smoke. I checked with the target order and i had no line of sight, despite this

they kept firing with all weapons. I guess it was a bug, i have a saved file if needed, but it would be cool to have it as a new feature, area target through smoke can be usefull. Each hmg inflicted something like 20 and 10 losses to attacker firing this way.

[John Kettler]

Furinkazan,

ANY kind of MG firing from the flank, what's known militarily as enfilade fire, should be effective, especially at 150 meters, spitting range for an HMG. HMGs, since they're on tripods, which are often sandbagged, should be able to significantly outrange LMGs, yet still be able to deliver accurate, punishing fires and of longer duration. The LMGs would "dance" long before an entire belt could be run through the guns, spoiling long range accuracy.

Regards,

John Kettler

[Fūrinkazan]

The placement of the hmg is very important for max efficiency.

As i said in this thread, i saw an experimented machingunner shooting with a vickers on a documentary. He insisted on the flank placement.

For accuracy, i don't know. He said targeting with accuracy was very difficult even with the mg mounted on a tripod, that was the case during the test they made.

They simulated an infantry attack and when firing from the front of an attacking line a lot of bullets were missing and go between the targets, and it would have been more difficult with moving infantry.

Since CMSF, i always regretted that it take so much time between bursts at long distance.

Maybe because the simulation is in the bocage, with short distance, the problem is less important, but when you start to play on open maps, with longer range, it's really annoying. The first test i made was on a flat map with 5 hmgs against 120 men charging on a flat map with no cover and support, and the result was poor for Hmgs.

Someone made also a test with CMBB, if i remember well, in the same conditions and the results were totally different. In CMBB, hmgs were able to stop the infantry charge way before it could reach their position. It's much more difficult in CMBN. I tried to make infantry charge in column to benefit from enfilade fire with better results but still insufficient i think.

I took the exemple of soviet practical rate of fire, about 250/300 rpm, that i found on a book about soviet infantry tactics. We can estimate that an mg42 on a tripod should have a practical rate of fire a little higher.

In the game, at very short range for a hmg i've seen 1 burst second = about 7 bullets x 60 burst : 420 rpm. The problem is that as soon as the distance increase you loose all your firepower to drop to 12 bursts/mn = about 84 rpm.

So the firepower is divided by five when you fire at about 600 m +.

I don't think it's a problem of game engine, i made 5 hmgs area shooting at 50m (about 1 burst sec) without slow down in the game.

The rate of fire is totally linked to distance, it seems that the shooter is targeting, firing, then targeting again, and at long distance it takes too much time. What i've seen in the real life test is short bursts but with 1 or 2 sec of delay between each. I think that's what we should see more or less in the game. I also think that allowing longer bursts should be permitted to the player.

I would suggest :

with the target light order : 7 bullets bursts (for mg42) with 1 or to seconds max of delay

with target order : longer burst 2 to 3 seconds of continuing fire with maybe

a little more delay in between.

This would make a noticeable difference between target and target light orders and the player will have tactical choice according to the situation and the ammo left.

With hmgs, i personnally don't use target light since i see not much difference between the 2 orders.

It would be also nice to have hmgs jamming sometimes and a delay for the change of barrel. If i remember well, hmgs used to jam in cmx 1.

[Fūrinkazan]

I forgot to say another thing.

With lmg, the bursts are short and accurate (this is how germans trained their soldiers from what i've seen on manual)

With hmgs, i don't think your shooting a particular soldier, it's more area target.

The purpose would be to pin down infantry with heavy firepower, and once infantry fixed, destroy it with mortars or arty.

I think that at long distance, hmgs fail to pin down infantry, because of lack of firepower and the result, not enough suppression.

I don't imagine 120 men running in front of 5 hmg 42 for more than 800 m without cover note beeing pinned down.

During the few tests i did infantry was able to reach less than 100 m of 5 bunkers and even destroy one of them. Even with the suppression bar at the maximum, they kept advancing until one man was hit. And i think they recover from suppression too fast, especially for regular troops with average moral.

[JonS]

I think that at long distance, hmgs fail to pin down infantry, because of lack of firepower and the result, not enough suppression.

I don't imagine 120 men running in front of 5 hmg 42 for more than 800 m without cover note beeing pinned down.

Try it again, with the HMGs firing at nominated point targets beyond the advancing infantry so that they fire completely crosses the area to be traversed. Set them up so the lines of fire cross-cross like a net. Set up a TRP in the middle of the area.

Once you have all that set up, send the enemy infantry in and see how it goes. Once the advancing infantry start being effected by the HMGs, call in some mortars on the TRP.

CMx2 is really quite subtle in its effects. If you use weapons wrong, you won't get good results. Stopping an attack in WWII was more than simply a case of plonking a 6-5 HMG chit in front of a 10-2 infantry chit and rolling a dice. Exact placement mattered. Exact usage mattered. Morale mattered. Terrain mattered. The enemy mattered. Combined arms mattered. A bunch of other things mattered. Those matter in CMx2 too.

[Fūrinkazan]

To JonS

I agree with you about the use of weapon the placement etc....

I must say that i did not use trp during testing but i will give it a try.

Do they have an effect on the hmgs fire ?

When i tested i only wanted to know how hmgs were firing especially at long range. Of course, in a game, i would use combined weapons, but that was not the purpose of my "tests".

I tried crossfire area target in front of infantry but i was not convinced by the result.

What do you think of the rate of fire at long range ?

Don't you think that less delay between bursts or longer bursts should be more realistic ?

I may be wrong but i think that lmgs and hmgs share the same behaviour.

An lmg on area target will shoot about 12 bursts at 250 m and an hmg 14 and there is less differences at longer range (at 600 m 8 bursts for hmg and 8 for lmg). Those weapons are different and i think there should be a difference at long range.

During game i had good results with hmgs but it was at short range, that's what i try to point here.

It's the same for smgs for me. I have seen them open at 270 m and i think this should be changed. When an hmg team is firing you don't have control on smgs in the team and you can't limit the range. After a few minutes of firing your smgs are low on ammo when infantry is closing in, were the weapon is the more efficient.

[JonS]

What do you think of the rate of fire at long range ?

I think it's ok.

Don't you think that less delay between bursts or longer bursts should be more realistic ?

No, not really.

Every one only has so much ammunition, and therefore it is imperative that units ration their expenditure. I forget where I read it, but most infantry platoons only carry two minutes worth of fire at high rates. Two minutes! HMGs carry more, but not that much more.

Whenever I can I have my HMGs in CMx2 set up and get them chattering away for many minutes at a time at some likely area at long range. I don't really care whether they kill anyone, because that's not the effect I'm after with them. I want them to interdict an area and deny it to the enemy. But I would care if they were blowing through their ammo load in 4 or 5 minutes.

When an hmg team is firing you don't have control on smgs in the team and you can't limit the range. After a few minutes of firing your smgs are low on ammo when infantry is closing in, were the weapon is the more efficient.

If you're depending on the firepower of the SMG in an HMG team, you're doing it wrong.

Overall, you post seems consistent with a common, but misguided, theme of complaint. Many players seek to extract the maximum possible efficiency out of every single thing under their command. They want to be able to dial up exact artillery attacks that only use an exact number of rounds on an exactly defined target. They want every single weapon in every single unit to always and only fire at the exactly range they think is perfect for each weapon. They want their men to move exactly from one location to another. They want to know exactly how much fatigue their units will accumulate and exactly how long it will take to recover. They want to be able to order on-map mortas and tanks to fire an exactly defined number of rounds at an exactly designated target. And the list goes on.

I don't have a lot of sympathy for such views.

[MikeyD]

I do get the impression that the .50 cal has benefitted more from wartime propaganda than most other weapons. The Russian equivalent is the (slightly more powerful) DsHK but nobody claims that that weapon is the ultimate do-anything terror of the battlefield. I vaguely recall complaints from Abrams commanders out of Fallugha that a single coax 7.62 and a single roof mounted. 50 cal were entirely inadequate for the tasks they were asked to perform. And a high-pressure 120mm tank gun is not exactly the sanest close infantry support weapon. Basically, they had less useable infantry support firepower than a CMBN Stuart light tank. .50 cal is good for frightening off light armor and piercing building facades that 7.62 can't. Bit its the .30 cal that does the bulk of the killing.