How do you tell if a MG is good?

[Belisarius]

Originally posted by 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.

AFAIK, the main reason gas wasn't used on the battlefield in WWII was because of its' limited tactical value. It can only be used if the enemy is down wind. Dispersion direction is hard to calculate, winds can suddenly shift and such. Also, the lingering effects makes it nigh impossible to use the speed element to secure the gassed area - you can't go in there either. In WWI, gas was used (at least by the germans) for areas intended to be enveloped, not assaulted directly.

Still, everyone expected and feared gas to be used, at least early in the war. Heck, we saw the same thing this very spring, didn't we? For strategical uses, like V rockets, city bombings and stuff, there might have been use for it. There, I think your argument of mutual deterrence applies.

[Hades]

and while everyone in Europe was scared of gas attacks, some scientists in Los Alamos(sp?) where making something that went BOOM!!

[STEELER13]

Yo Hades,
Many weapons were in the process of being developed that were fortunately never used. While the atomic bomb was developed late and used against Japan, I wonder if it had been developed in time to be used in the ETO, if there would have been any deterrence.
Remember, chemical weapons had been seen before, the atomic weapon had not been. The temptation to use it in 1944, probably would have overridden any cooler heads in any country because until Hiroshima no one had any experience with the weapon. I imagine in Europe the use would have been worse than Hiroshima.
One thing in common nuclear weapons had in common with chemical weapons is that fear is the primary effect of such weapons. Even now, in Iraq and in Afghanistan many of our bombs were almost on the level of the first bomb in Hiroshima, and the MOAB if it had been used would have been equivalent if not worse, yet the nuclear weapon is still feared more. A weird line has been drawn between using MOAB and using a nuke.

Anyway, back on topic, the MG is still a feared weapon, and very effective. Some of that for the same reason I discuss why chemical and nuclear weapons are feared--psychological.
In WWII, the MG was even more effective than in WWI(greater availability, accuracy, better use, and better technology). Even tank crews were suppressed by consistent MG fire and would retreat if unable to locate it. I see some posts that question why the MG would force the retreat of a tank in the game, and the primary reason is psychological. A tank that is buttoned, is a tank with limited LOS. When it is constantly hit, even by small arms fire, the crew is bothered by the sound, and nervous something else might be used against it as the tank has obviously been "targeted" by the unseen enemy, and how are they to know it isn't an enemy tank, being shot by MG while the gunner reloads the main gun?
So don't skimp on buying those MG"s in the game...just my opinion...-

[Hades]

i bet if D-Day had failed Berlin probably wouldnt be the same.

[Vetkin]

Can you imagine the fear that a combined MG/AT-rifle attack can bring to a lightly armored Pz-II? The crews of these tanks probably know what their tank is and is not capable of, and even though an AT-rifle might not have enough power on paper to penetrate, it is still an unnerving experience for the crew. A lot of things can be damaged... including the tracks and other external devices... Plus the thought of bailing out of a vehicle in the middle of a firefight was probably too much for the crews to risk getting immobilized.

BTW, I think AT-rifles should have a higher % chance of penetrating tanks, maybe a bonus percentage. I have a book called The Second World War which shows an early Pz-IV being hit on the side track with one and getting disabled. If I would redesign these guns I'd give them a +% bonus chance to penetrate if they hit a tanks somewhere in the rear, top, bottom or tracks.

[Irinami]

How do you tell if an MG is good?

Kill of 4 or higher, Accuracy of 10 or higher, Range of 12 or higher. In general terms, it is "good" if it has a higher Kill and/or Accuracy than it's contemporaries. The higher the Accuracy, the better the chance of hitting the target (Accuracy is the range at which you have a base 50% chance to hit, so if your Accuracy is 10, then at 5 hexes you'll have an easy time hitting, especially compared to a weapon with Acc 5). The higher the Kill, the better your chance of then killing someone(s).

What would I like to see? Well, in a book on Panzers I saw an SdKfzw with a quad-MG42 mount for AAA, and in one on Panzergrenadiers, I believe in the recon I believe I saw the same MG42x4 AAA mount on a Kubelvagen. Now that would be fun. The German Duster.

[Sentry]

Originally posted by Gary Tatro
If is has 12.7 in front of it it is good.
Or if it has Quad in the name it is good.
Or if is says AAMG in the name it is good.
Other than that. Stick with +10 infantry they will serve you better and longer.

I dont agree 100%.True is that 12.7 is good,but also good is 7.62 maxim or 7.92 MG42 (which is best IMHO).Actually it seems to be that if it is Maxim HMG it kills better than Maxim MMG.Atleast,HMG usually kills better when i use it.About AAMG: it definetly IS good,but when talking about tank-attached MGs i prefer CMG that shoots far and is quite accurate and BMG for infantry suppression when its about 3-4 hexes away.

[Sentry]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by 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.

I have a question: can one actually AIM what to shoot with his ATG or tank or is it just random places where it hits? For instance,
i have 37mm ATG and Tiger is driving with his side exposed to me.
I know that i will never pierce the side hull but my gun seems to think it may be able to do it;) .I want to hit tracks but my gun shoots at side hull.Is there way i could change it?

[Supervisor]

Glad you found us Sentry!:D

[VikingNo2]

Don't think so, I have found the .50 disable tanks more than anything else