Evaluating Squad Automatic Weapons

[KG Erwin]

I'm quoting from Mark Flowers' WWII Gyrene weblog for Dec 29 about the merits of the Browning Automatic Rifle vis a vis the MG34/42 as a squad automatic weapon.

" In my opinion, the German machine guns used by the rifle squad were over engineered for the purpose of giving the squad leader a light support weapon. The MG34 was, as you probably know, replaced for this very reason with the MG42. Having fired the NATO version of this weapon, I can tell you it has too high a rate of fire for the rifle squad to sustain. Both the MG34 and MG42 would have been much better as platoon or company level medium machine guns. Firing 1200 rpm, ammo consumption on the 42 was always a big issue for the German infantry to overcome. Having loaded the German Army fixed link belts myself, I can tell you it's no fun and takes a long time, especially when you consider how quickly the gun burns through ammo.

The BAR was never intended to be a light machine gun. It was designed as an automatic rifle, and employed as such in the US armed forces. Virtually every rifle squad in the US Army and Marine Corps was equipped with at least one BAR. No other Army in World War II came close to this ratio of issue for a squad automatic weapon. During its production, over 200,000 BARs were manufactured. The other major combatants on the war used bolt action service rifles, giving them a much lower volume of fire in comparison with our Soldiers and Marines. The infantry of the US Army and Marine Corps could produce a much higher rate of long range fire than any other infantry. When you consider the M1 rifle, the BAR, the M1919 machine gun and the M1917 at battalion level, the infantry battalion had an incredible amount of firepower. You have to factor this in when discussing infantry support weapons.

The BAR man was issued with a speed loader with his tool kit and it was a simple matter to reload magazines from the 5 round clips that were packed and issued for this purpose throughout the war. I don't know specifically about how the Army did it, but the BAR man in the Marine rifle squad had an ammo bearer who was a rifleman. This Marine carried a BAR belt with 12 extra magazines and ammo for his M1 in bandoleers. In the absence of 5 round clips, it was a relatively simple matter to reload magazines by stripping rounds from eight round M1 clips.

In terms of combat reliability, the BAR offered unparalleled performance. The Marine Corps's official history made a special note of this fact, as have many Marines who I've talked to over the years. As a retiree who spent 22 years in the service from 1979-2001, I know from personal experience that Soldiers and Marines often complain about the weight of their equipment. When we transitioned to the M240 machine gun (a very fine weapon with many years of service) Soldiers griped about its weight even though it was an effective weapon. That's what Soldiers and Marines do. When I trained with the German Army in the 80's, I heard many complaints from machine gunners about what they perceived as the excessive weight of the MG3.

I am not dogmatic about this subject and I have developed my opinion through research and study. In general, I feel the US Soldier of World War II has not been given his due in comparison with the other major combatant armies. Although its not my primary focus, I feel strongly about this. (My dad served in the Army infantry during World War II.)"

Now, Mr. Flowers is a combat veteran, so I value his opinions. I love the BAR as it is portrayed in SPWaW. However, in SPWaW terms, the Bren LMG is better all around (it beats the BAR in range, accuracy and HE kill).

I frankly don't know how automatic weapons were rated for the game . These have been accepted for years. The question of ammo is accounted for when using reduced ammo ON.

Has anyone here actually fired both of these weapons (the BAR and the Bren) and can offer a comparison between them?

The weight issue also makes me wonder -- does the weight of a German MG34/42 necessitate making the German squads a tad slower than squads using weapons such as the BAR, the Bren or the Johnson LMG?

In other words, should all German rifle squads equipped with the MG34/42 be lowered to a speed of 8 (matching the speed of an MG34/42 team) ?

PS In every old board game I played, the speed of the stack is that of its slowest unit. Following this logic, then I think the Germans should match the slowest humped weapon in the squad.

[vahauser]

I am totally comfortable and happy with the speeds and ratings of the MGs in Enhanced. 
 
I don't want to change anything to do with MGs in Enhanced.
 
 

[Goblin]

ORIGINAL: vahauser

I am totally comfortable and happy with the speeds and ratings of the MGs in Enhanced. 

I don't want to change anything to do with MGs in Enhanced.

[robot]

Well I for one believe the bren LMG in this game really sucks. Too easily killed and no kick to its fire very little kill power at all. I have not fought too many battles as the British so far but my Bren squads might as well not even fire at the enemy for as much efect as they have. And they are really usless more then 3 hexes when firing.

[FlashfyreSP]

The in-game MG34/MG42 LMGs within the squads are stripped-down models of the gun. Their weight isn't that great that they cause a reduction in speed of the troops carrying them. The MG42 in the LMG role weighs 11.6 kg, easily portable.

The MG34/42 weapons were designed to be all-purpose MGs, with different accessories and attachments for different jobs. As a LMG, it only had a folding bipod and basic iron sights. As a MMG or HMG, it was mounted on a Lafette 42 tripod, which weighed over 20 kgs itself. Depending on its task, additional sights could be attached, including an AA sight for use against low-flying aircraft.

I wouldn't call for any reduction in the German squad's movement. Since the game operates in an abstract time-envelope anyway, why would it matter?

[FlashfyreSP]

BTW...
Is this just another of those "Gee, KG Erwin is bored and needs something to do" threads? What is the actual purpose of this discussion, other than just to rehash the same kinds of things that have been hashed over in the past?

[KG Erwin]

ORIGINAL: FlashfyreSP

The in-game MG34/MG42 LMGs within the squads are stripped-down models of the gun. Their weight isn't that great that they cause a reduction in speed of the troops carrying them. The MG42 in the LMG role weighs 11.6 kg, easily portable.

The MG34/42 weapons were designed to be all-purpose MGs, with different accessories and attachments for different jobs. As a LMG, it only had a folding bipod and basic iron sights. As a MMG or HMG, it was mounted on a Lafette 42 tripod, which weighed over 20 kgs itself. Depending on its task, additional sights could be attached, including an AA sight for use against low-flying aircraft.

I wouldn't call for any reduction in the German squad's movement. Since the game operates in an abstract time-envelope anyway, why would it matter?

OK, it's a non-issue, then.

[vahauser]

robot,
 
If you see the word 'light' as part of the unit description, then that is usually a good indicator that that unit won't be much of a "killer" unit.
 
I use LMG units and light mortar units and light infantry units, etc. as peripheral support units.  LMGs are good for suppressing soft targets even though they don't cause many casualties.  If you are trying to destroy enemy units with your LMG teams, then I can imagine your frustration since they aren't very good at that.  But one LMG team can pin a whole enemy platoon if you handle it correctly.

[h_h_lightcap]

I love the Bren squads!!!  CHeap and stealthy and they have smoke!!!!!   Opps cats outta the bag---sorry Viking---If you use them right they are quite effective.
 
 
HH

[m10bob]

Due to my fathers collection of firearms he acquired in his wars,I have fired almost all small arms (from the ETO) of WWII. The German LMG's had a fire select capability, so no, their rate of fire did not have to be too high to be sustained by the squad.
The German army did not consider the LMG as a support weapon, but rather the squad was support for the LMG,(the opposite of every other army, IIRC.)
The BAR had AP rounds as a standard issue in every theatre, and this has never been accurately portrayed in SP.(It would completely prevent an enemy from approaching in armoured HT's with impunity.)
Further, there should have never been a speed reduction in ANY squad support weapons team.(Had there been a problem with speed, the weapon would have never been assigned to the squad.)
This latter has always been a sore pont with me.
Only in a static line situation did the heavier (and movement hindered) support weapons come forth, generally.

[vahauser]

robot,
 
Here is another excellent use for your LMG teams.
 
Let's say that you have several units in a hex that gets bombarded and everybody is routing.  And let's say that you try to rally those routing units but all your rally attempts fail.  Well, here's what you can do with those LMGs.
 
'Z' Fire an LMG into that routed hex and guess what.  Now all the units in that hex are pinned/buttoned.  LMGs are perfect for this because they cause almost no damage and they don't add much suppression either.
 
Whenever I have a situation where I really don't want units fleeing their position, then I find a handy LMG team and 'Z' Fire into that hex to keep the units from fleeing.

[Alby]

ORIGINAL: vahauser

robot,

Here is another excellent use for your LMG teams.

Let's say that you have several units in a hex that gets bombarded and everybody is routing. And let's say that you try to rally those routing units but all your rally attempts fail. Well, here's what you can do with those LMGs.

'Z' Fire an LMG into that routed hex and guess what. Now all the units in that hex are pinned/buttoned. LMGs are perfect for this because they cause almost no damage and they don't add much suppression either.

Whenever I have a situation where I really don't want units fleeing their position, then I find a handy LMG team and 'Z' Fire into that hex to keep the units from fleeing.

You got to be kidding!!!
[X(]
Wouldnt you call that a bit gamey to fire on your own men to get them off the Routed status???
This is an obvious bug, has been around at least since SP3, and I cant believe someone actually does this
[:-]
Why would you encourage players to use known bugs and Glitches.
[&:]
yes thats exactly how to properly use your LMGs Robot, use them to fire on your own men to un rout them...
[8|]

Ask Vikingno2 how to properly use them, he is best player I ever faced and makes great use of LMGs
[&o]

[Goblin]

If you are the Russian player, the tactic seems in line with R/L practices. [:D]

[Alby]

ORIGINAL: Goblin

If you are the Russian player, the tactic seems in line with R/L practices. [:D]

LOL
actually they didnt unrout their men, they just killed them..
[:D]

[vahauser]

Alby,

It's not a bug.  It's a feature.

But, of course, this is the kind of thing that makes PBEM games so troublesome.  One man's "feature" is another man's "bug". 

[P.S. It's another reason why I consider just about everything in the game to be a "feature". That way, I don't get upset when somebody uses a "feature" against me. If I consider nothing to be a "bug" exploit, then I never have to cry foul.]

[Alby]

A "feature"???!!!
oh boy...

[vahauser]

Alby,
 
Is it really so difficult to believe that I believe most everything in SPWAW is a feature? 
 
And the way I see it, features are there to be used.

[Alby]

Nope its not difficult to believe that YOU believe that...LOL
[:D][:D][:D]

[vahauser]

Right on, brother Alby.
 
See?  I'll make a power gamer out of you yet!  Heh.

[Goblin]

Alot people would call that a bug, but most gamers would consider it an 'Exploit'. For those that do no play FPS games online, an exploit is something not intended by a map maker that allows a player to do something borderline cheat-like. An example is a partially deleted wall in a map that is invisible, but a player learning of this (usually in a map editor) can keep trying until he finally jumps on top of it, enabling him to shoot into a spawn point. The players that do it usually use the same argument as vahauser.

vahauser is also correct in the fact that he may play the game as he wishes, even point out the exploit for others to use if they chose to (which I would like to think most of us would never do). Using it against the AI, especially when one claims the AI is extremely weak and needs every advantage it can get is extremely contradictory, and very confusing to me, however. If any of my PBEM opponents ever used it, I would publicly post that they had done so, and never play them again.


Goblin