Weapons

[Peiper]

Maybe anyone interested in reenactment or for a view of some CS-weapons in reality:

http://www.stuartgouldphotography.co.uk/

[Afro Thunder]

If only there was a way to test the effectiveness of the German MG-42 as compared to the effectiveness of say, the US .30-cal or the Soviet Maxim. I still think the German MGs are overpowered.

[Von Luck]

Well i think they got it right.The MG-42 rate of fire and the zip sound it made was enough to send most troops hugging the earth.One of the best MG ever made going by what ive read.

[Herr Straße Laufer]

The U.S. Army liked it so much they developed the M-60 from it, but with a dialed down rate of fire. And, I heard that some of the parts were even interchangable.

The U.S. 50 cal could cut down a tree. The Mg 42 could shoot all of the leaves off the tree in the same amount of time.

Funny how, when playing CS, I fear the Mg 42 playing as Allied. But, when I am German I often say, "Hey, what's the big deal?" It must be my dice rolls? :rolleyes:

[Copper]

let's do a little math here
at 1100 Rounds/minute that's about 18 rounds a second..

try to imagaine doing anything 18 times a second....

[Jumbo]

I'm not entirely sure about this. But it seems to me the game designers toned down the effectiveness of the U.S. .50 cal a bit. Sure the German MG34 and MG42 had incredible rates of fire. But the .50 cal rate of fire was something in the neighborhood of 750rpm. And that ain't to shabby itself. If just simply thinking in terms of firepower, I would give the nood to the .50 cal. 750rpm is extremely good and it's slug was far more damaging to whatever it happened to strike than those two German MG's

[McIvan]

There was a big argument in the forums for a tabletop WWII game, which I visit sometimes, about effectiveness of .50cal vs HMGs generally....using the term HMG to mean a 7-8mm weapon on a tripod with a trained crew.

The general answer was that the superior firepower ratings for the HMG's against soft targets (hard targets was clearly a different kettle of fish) reflected not so much the maximum RPM but first the sustainable rpm (which for the .50 cal is, I heard, about 40-50rpm; unsure about the MG42), secondly the ease of barrel changing and barrels typically carried, and thirdly the amount of ammo carried by a five to seven man team. Apparently you can carry about 5-6 times as much 7.62 or 7.92mm ammo as .50cal ammo, which is a big round.

Same rationale applies I suppose to the Soviet 12.5 and 14.5 mgs.

[Afro Thunder]

I also don't understand why German rifle platoons are (slightly) better than for example, American rifle platoons. Sure, the germans have more machineguns per squad, but shouldn't the presence of American M1 Garands even things out, making the American and German rifle platoons essentially the same?

[Askari19]

Preceding comments on .50 cal ratings vs. 7.62 HMG are right on the money: sustainable rate of fire, weight of ammo, time for barrel change (.50 cal requires careful headspace and timing adjustment, awkward in a firefight), controllability all favor the 7.62 except in anti-vehicle or anti-material applications. On a tripod with T&E and a trained gunner, the 7.62 HMG can even be effective out to 1500-1800 yards, on the rare occasions that such ranges occur on the battlefield, so range is no great advantage for the .50 cal either. I'm a big fan of the .50 cal but it's no rival for a good HMG or GPMG in an infantry fight.

Regarding the German infantry ratings, it is their machineguns that make the difference. The BAR could not compare for sustainable firepower, and the Garand probably did not compensate in most situations. The verdict of S.L.A Marshall, recognized in recent years for its veracity, is that many riflemen do not actually fire much, or very effectively, in battle, regardless of the technical capabilities of their weapon. The effective firepower of a platoon is measured in its heavy weapons. Personally I suspect that the advent of the assault rifle may have changed that math some, but through Korea, when rifles were semi-auto like the Garand, or bolt-action like most everyone else's, it appears to have been true.

Bill (BT)

[Jumbo]

I perfectly agree that a 5 man german MG34 or MG42 machine gun crew would certainly have to be more effective in the field than the same amount of GI's trying to haul around the heavy .50 cal and all it's ammo. US .50 cal's were simply not deployed in the same fashion as were those other two German MG's. So if we approach this as to how effective this weapon was at a squad level. The answer is very easy. It wasn't at all.
However, When deployed in it's typical manner ( tripod in a fixed position or vehical mount ) and used on German or Japanese infantry. Even a single .50 cal could be very devastating. Even more so I believe than those lighter German MG's that spit out bullits at a terrifying rate. The Germans soldiers were scared shitless at even the prospect that they might have to take a hit from a .50 cal round. It was considered almost a certain death sentence. The Americans used .50 cal's in the field extensively and in very very large numbers in comparison to most any other combative nation. There wasn't a great shortage of ammo for them either since they were usually in set fixed positions or were vehical mounted. I for one would increase the .50 cals soft target firepower for the CS game and reduce their movement. Making it completely impossible for them to move more than 1 hex in a turn and certainly not allow them to move and fire all in the same turn. Just my thoughts ("")