How do you tell if a MG is good?

[Hades]

Originally posted by Vetkin
Here's a question, what would you prefer, a tank with a big infantry cannon (75mm, but around 20-30 penetration maximum) and 2 Medium MGs (7.5, 7.62, etc.) Like a PzKwIV?

or a heavier armored tank with a 47mm anti-tank cannon (penetration around 40-60 max i think) and 1 Medium MG?
I'm talking about a Char Bis here.

I'd rather have a Sherman, but out of those two I'd take a platoon of Pz-IVs and a squad of engineers. After pounding whatever I couldn't destroy with my 75, I'd run the engineers up and flame the tank.

[Frank W.]

this is true!

if you once shoot with such a thing in reality
you will understand. it´s a nasty weapon.

i fired the MG3 which is only a slightly modified
MG42 during my bundeswehr time...

A single MG42 could easily pin down an entire platoon this way. "Now you wait right there while we get your coordinates to our mortars." [/B]

[Svennemir]

I've earlier conducted some experiments and this is what I was able to conclude. It *should* be correct.

There are two "primary factors". The HE KILL and the WARHEAD values. Both of these can be seen in the encyclopaedia.

HE KILL represents the uhh... ability to kill. WARHEAD represents Splash damage (more on this later). All weapons firing regular bullets have a WARHEAD rating of 1. Explosive stuff like grenades and artillery have more. (about 5, 7, 12 etc. depending on caliber)

When checking for infantry casualties, the game first sees if the weapon should score a 'direct hit'. For determining this, it does some calculations involving ACC(uracy) of the weapon, FireControl/RangeFinder of the unit, then does a random check. If success is achieved a few casualties should show.

Then Splash damage is calculated. If WARHEAD is big enough, units in adjacent hexes will also be prone to damage and suppression. The Splash damage can also add casualties to target unit, so actually a unit can be hit twice by one weapon. Theoretically (but rarely seen), this means infantry units can retreat two hexes while only being fired upon once. "Run, Forrest, Run!"

At close range the WARHEAD is increased somewhat, so generally more casualties will done to near units. Try using an IS-2 at range 10 - then range 2. The explosion appears much bigger at range 2 since the game gives the tank a WARHEAD bonus at close range.

Artillery bombardments are basically the same as direct fire except no check is made for 'direct hits' (only splash damage is dealt).

[Vetkin]

Good research, so theoretically, for example; 2 trucks in the same hex. A Sherman in the adjacent hex fires a 75mm shell direct-fire at one of the trucks. The truck explodes of course - but theoretically the other truck COULD also explode? (this is a question)

Does the SPLASH rating affect the gun's AP rating? Is it halved or quartered or something? Or is it the same AP rating as a direct-hit?

Plus: What location will the other target be hit?

[Svennemir]

Yes, Vetkin, the other truck could explode too.

The bigger the WARHEAD value of a gun, the better the chance of hitting vehicles in the same hex.

Another strange phenomenon: an AVF can be hit twice by just one round! I haven't actually seen this, but I predict it should happen rarely.

As you all know, an artillery barrage can hit tanks (splash damage ONLY). If a direct hit can be scored, it *should* be possible for a "splash" hit to be scored also.

Splash effect doesn't directly affect the AP rating, but it does have something to say in the calculations.

First of all, if a "splash" hit is scored, the round can hit anywhere on the tank (I remember to have had a halftrack hit frontally by opfire - while it was turning its back(!) on the enemy, this is the only time I've experienced it) including the top (probably not the bottom, however). This adds a bit to the randomness of the game, and although people usually get angry when stuff like that happens to their vehicles, it should just be viewed as the "uncertainness" of battle or whatever.

But the really interesting part of Splash and AP capability is the Armour Quality which was introduced in SPWAW 7.1.

If you look at vehicles in the encyclopaedia, you'll see that many have an "Armoured Skirts" rating of 40, 50, 60 or 70. This means

40: Superior quality or Face Hardened (mostly German vehicles)
50: Poor quality (Mostly Russian vehicles)
60: Very poor quality (scattered a bit about)
70: Cast armour (most non-German heavy tanks and some Shermans)

If there's no Skirts rating, the armour should be considered "standard".

Superior armour is especially good at defeating rounds whose diametre is bigger than armour Thickness (high T/d) while the opposite is true for poor armour, cast and very poor in varying degrees.

The game uses the WARHEAD value to determine which caliber (~diametre) round is fired; I'm not sure but it *could* look something like this:

WARHEAD - Diametre
5 - 75mm (or 76)
6 - 85mm (or 88)
7 - 100mm

The caliber of the rounds then affects armour penetration depending on armour quality! You can press alt+L and SPWAW will create a file called "combat.log" in which many calculations are shown (just fire a couple of rounds and check the file).

In short: if armour quality is good, it's even better against large calibre rounds. If armour quality is bad, it's even worse against small calibre rounds.

This is very crude, and I hope I'm not messing up anything.

[G_X]

I've taken a Matilda III-CS and killed a Tiger with it.


Anyone that's seen the Matilda III-CS knows it only has HE.

And I killed a Tiger, and a Panther, with this thing.


HE Splash from a Direct-Fire hits randomly on the tank, these two shots happened to hit the bottom of the tank, blowing it away.

Neat stuff huh? Too bad you can't force Shermans to constantly fire HE at tanks.

[Vetkin]

Ey I like Matildas!

Because they are just stubborn, especially at the time they were first introduced. What heaps of armor!!!

[Svennemir]

Bottom hits occur when tanks are situated on sloped ground and in certain other terrain types and can be very devastating. I believe those were direct hits, considering the fact that I've never seen a bottom hit in an artillery bombardment.

[Vetkin]

How do you compute for the vehicle's top armor?

And why is it that when an SU-122 of mine hit a Tiger on the top its suspension was disabled?? What happened? Was the suspension squished by the sudden pressure or what

[Katana]

If the SU122 litterally hit the top of the Tiger then yes.

Sorry, just couldn't resist :rolleyes:

[Vetkin]

LOL, my fault
Let me correct that then, a SU-122 ROUND
hahaha

Anyways, I also notice that .50 cals disable/damage suspension a lot. Why is this? More so than any other MG/small arms

[arethusa]

Likely because the .50 has fairly good armour piercing capabilities as well as being fairly accurate.

So if you're shooting at a tracked vehicle, go for the treads instead of the hull. The treads aren't armour, just hard steel so a .50 would break the individual links and I don't know about you, but when it takes 15 minutes to replace a tread link and somebody's firing a .50 at the tank, I wouldn't be too inclined to unbutton unless I see an ATG of some kind lining up that the tank now can't dodge.

If you're shooting at a wheeled AC, then the same thing applies. A .50 can go through the tires where a 7.62 might bounce at the same angle of incidence. AC tires have quite a few bolts to remove before you can change them so again, it might be a while before it gets mobilized again.

[LordCucumber]

Well today I had one lucky break. A soldier, ironically supported by a BAR in his squad, blew the tracks of one of RobW's self propelled guns with an M1 Garand (!) at, now this is funny, 400 METERS away. It suspension got mangled beyond repair. That's like hitting a nut or bolt exactly right! Pure luck, as one would expect the BAR to do this (since it is a .50 cal weapon). I nearly died laughing.

On topic: thus far MG units have served me well. In my current PBEM I use the .30 extensively, but as said before, ALWAYS with some kind of backup. Without it you lose them very quickly indeed. The .50 on jeeps is lovely too, as you drive up to where your infantry saw some enemy infantry, spray the hell out of them, and race off again..

[radboy223]

Uh, a BAR fires the exact same round as an M1 Garand(.30 caliber, or often called the .30-06). It just fires them a lot faster(full auto).

[Vetkin]

Try the SPAA M16 unit on infantry... It has a quad .50 cal turret (like the one mounted on the boat in Waterworld ) and really decimates infantry and light vehicles like crazy

[LordCucumber]

Originally posted by radboy223
Uh, a BAR fires the exact same round as an M1 Garand(.30 caliber, or often called the .30-06). It just fires them a lot faster(full auto).

Ah you're right... I looked it up

[Akmatov]

Just a thought by a novice, but might not the preception of the MG as being a marginally useful weapon be based on the fact that most of us are using forces with lots of armoured vehicles?

Something else that I have noticed about my own play is a strong temptation to open fire at unrealistic ranges. I'm expecting 1990's performance from 1940's equipment - which just isn't fair.

Recently set up a 'fire sack' for the AI's advancing infantry with concealed infantry and MGs. It was agony waiting for them to close right up to 150 meters and hit my mine field. But once they were nicely bunched up, my concealed infantry (whose fire power is mostly LMGs) and my MMGs pretty much vaporized them with the first bursts! The mortars then finished off any lingering valour and they were running to the rear.

It is my impression that in the real world most of the infantry killing with .30 cal/8mm class bullets is done at about 100 meters or so. If you play the game with that in mind, I'm finding infantry and MMGs directed at infantry in the open and moving to be pretty devestaing - as it should be.

One of these days I keep telling myself I should supress that good old 'Panzer Passion' and play a short campaign with an infanrty core force just for the experience.

[arethusa]

That's why I think it would be fun to have a WW1 version of SP. In that war, all forms of MGs were king on the battlefield. They just didn't have the tactics and other equipment to counter them, hence the trenches and barbed-wire.

Tanks were just in their infancy near the end of the war. Big, lumbering behemoths that sometimes had as many as 8 main guns and I think I heard of one once that had a crew of more than 20 men.

But the tanks could be stopped by determined infantry if they could get close enough. Ditches were tried but tanks carried bundles of branches on their tops (they didn't have turrets so guns fired out of sponsons, sort of moveable blisters on the side) and the ropes holding the branches were cut from inside so the branches fell into the ditches and filled them so the tanks could cross. Only good for one ditch per tank though.

CAS was non-existent and aircraft found dropping darts on trenches was more deadly than bombs. Shellholes were significant features on the battlefield and the rain played havoc with supplies, attacks, or even sitting waiting.

Oh yeah, I forgot the gas attacks and wind effects that could turn the tide of a battle.

Lots of nasty things that would work well with this game engine.

[Belisarius]

arethusa,

Basically correct, but infantry in WWI had almost no means whatsoever of dealing with tanks. Tanks were dealt with with artillery. As the fighting doctrine included preparatory artillery barrages before each advance, the tanks stopped at the first line to wait for the artillery to be finished bombarding the second line. They were then sitting ducks in the open field for enemy artillery fire. Thus the enemy artillery was also the prime target for tanks, as they were the only realistic means to fight them, and had minimal support.

It was avoid these problems that the concept of Blitzkrieg was developed in the inter-war years. The tanks were to break through and advance all the way to the rear, without waiting for artillery support or the advancing infantry.

This was also the reason why the Germans eventually dropped gas attacks (and why it wasn't used in WWII at all). Too slow and too unpredictable.

[STEELER13]

Yo All,
Actually I thought gas attacks were not used because of the mutual deterrence factor(although term is from Cold War, theory still applies). The fear was that once gas was used on the battlefield, there was no turning back and gas would be used by bombers against cities. From the late 1930's(following Italy's invasion of Ethiopia) many Europeans feared gas attacks on major cities. When war was declared September third, 1939, many citizens of London, Berlin and Paris carried gas masks with them. And when V2's were launched, the fear was that the Germans would attach gas warheads.
Would gas have changed things on a WWII battlefield? Depending how it was used, I think it could have, but not one worth the risk of the response.

Back to MG's...stand-alone MG's properly used are great for wiping out advancing infantry. Set up overlapping fields of fire, set range to 0, let the tanks pass by, and then wipe out the supporting infantry. Without infantry support, advancing tanks are more vulnerable.

On the offense, mobile machine guns(attached to AFV) are obviously more effective then moving up an MG team. By the time the team sets up, registers fire, etc. your enemy is prepared. In an advance I use the MG teams to target retreating enemy infantry...very effective at dispersing squads.