Weapons

McIvan · 08-01-2006, 02:04 PM,

Don't disagree with you about the effect of the .50cal when hitting someone. The thing is that you've got to hit them first, and beyond close-ish range I think you're more likely to hit them as a factor of sustainable ROF and ammo carried.

You can see that the game takes this into account (I think) with the quad .50 cal halftracks...plenty of ammo and a great mount equals an absolute anti-infantry monster.

What I was thinking is (not that the scale of the game would allow it) that the .50 cal/12.5mm/14.5mm MGs could get a bonus when shooting at troops in cover...eg woods, village....in that the percentage reduction for the cover should be reduced. The big MG rounds should tend to make a mockery of a tree as cover, although concealment would mean there should still be some reduction....say half normal.

Although the US army made extensive use of .50 cals on vehicles, I understand they only had a couple of cans of ammo each at 100 rounds per can (although I bet crews routinely stashed more away). IIRC a US battalion's heavy weapons company had a platoon with 3 x .50cal...they would have had a fair bit more ammo......but the .50cals were outnumbered about 6-1 by .30 cal machineguns in the battalion overall, the reason being that supressive area fire is far better delivered by smaller calibres with plenty of ammo. If it wasn't they'd have switched to .50cal. Defensive position with plenty of ammo; fair enough, although you're still running up against the low sustainable ROF....I tend to think the 3x.50cal platoon in CS represents this ok.

I wouldn't have thought the .50 cal would be as hard to shift as you think? At least compared to other MGs. But then again I've never lifted one and tried to lug it round...

Jumbo · 08-02-2006, 03:34 AM,

I agree with your statements completely Ivan. The .50 cal was outnumbered 6 to 1 by .30 cal MG's primarily becouse it was completely impractical to think they could be used tactically in the same fashion as the .30 cal's were. They were just flat out to heavy and cumbersome to adequetly perform the task neccassary for mobile infantry support. It just couldn't happen. However when they were used, IMO those .50 cal's had a greater impact on the forces they were hitting or trying to hit than those smaller caliber weapons. I think your statements above hit the nail right on the head. It's a fact that what might be considered adequet cover from .30 caliber MG's simply wasn't from a .50 caliber. The game as it's played now doesn't provide that very well IMO. It comes close to saying these troops that are out in an open hex in this CS game are all just standing up there like clay pigeons ?. There not. It would be reasonable to think those troops are out looking for adequet cover from the weapon firing on them, Be it a mound of dirt or rocks. The bottom line I think is that those troops would find adequet cover alot sooner with .30 caliber MG's firing on them than they would with .50 caliber MG firing on them. There is a trade off here of some sorts. Sustainable rounds per Minute versus hitting power and the troops under this fire being able to find good cover from it.

Jumbo · 08-02-2006, 03:43 AM,

And yes. A .50 caliber MG with all it's associated equipement and ammo having to be carried and set up on foot from one position to the next is far more difficult than with those lighter MG's. I don't believe those troops would be able to tactically move 250 meters, set up that big .50 cal and get an effective volley of fire off all in 6 minutes.

Afro Thunder · 08-03-2006, 12:51 AM,

Yeah, don't forget that axis soldiers are also inherently superior to allied soldiers, because of that pure Aryan blood. They need to model that into the game as well. (in case you can't tell, this is sarcasm :P. I just think the Axis are already over-powered enough. Go ahead and burn the heretic, I'll still have the same opinion.)

Peiper · 10-31-2009, 01:45 PM,

The German Forces

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w5K_3z1On...re=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b4Fdt_QrV...re=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DwzNme5ks...re=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yjm2phsou...re=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ohudRVMd...re=related

K K Rossokolski · 10-31-2009, 04:28 PM,

Interesting stuff....lots of numbers.
A few thoughts.....
1. I think it's an urban myth that the M60 was developed from the MG-42. These are quite different weapons, primarily in the operating system, gas in the M60 and recoil in the German weapon. The bolt locking is very different, and the very awkward M60 barrel change was a poor comparison with the MG-42. I believe the M60 designers did use the German belt feed system.

2. Please be careful with rate of fire numbers, which are IMO always misleading. Sustained rate of fire, which includes matters such as reloading, barrel change, and ammo supply is the important one.

3. Comparison of the M2 with the MG-42 is not really pertinent as the latter being readily portable was the rifle platoon automatic weapon. The heavy M2 was/is more of a heavy weapons platoon element.......its portability is closer to a light mortar than to say a Bren gun. It is certainly not a rifle platoon weapon. Probably fair to say that one of the few weaknesses of the USA TO&E in WWII was lack of a good Inf Pl MG. The 30 cal was too heavy, the BAR wek on sustained fire.

4. I agree with the suggestion that the "Mama Deuce" mobility be cut down a bit. How about Fire Cost 50, movement cost 60....which might reasonably measure the setting up, whilst precluding fire AND movement

5. Gud ta hair yo ugun MucUrvan....hair er thungs un thu Shakies?