Kill value .50 MG

SPWaW is a tactical squad-level World War II game on single platoon or up to an entire battalion through Europe and the Pacific (1939 to 1945).

Moderator: MOD_SPWaW

Voriax
Posts: 1581
Joined: Sat May 20, 2000 8:00 am
Location: Finland

Post by Voriax »

Sven, thanks for your comments.

to be honest I don't think that the values are that far off. I've managed just fine as they are, guess I just couldn't resist joining in the fray in here.. Image

yep, the .50cal is bigger badder round..btw do you happen to have a spare M2 bolt around? I have a partial aircraft gun variant here...needs few parts to make it work..

I think it was Pavel in the HE effectiveness thread who was also talking about bursts. 10 rounds from a MG34 feels right, when i've fired with it they are about that size if not shorter. but did they fire 10 rounds bursts from a M2 also?
That is a weapon I haven't fired with as they are bit rare here, but I'd guess the burst size is 3-5 rounds?

I think this whole topic is eventually of one of those minor things we start to bitch about when we cannot find any *really serious* things any more, due to the good work of the programming team! Image

Voriax
Oh God give Me strength to accept those things I cannot change with a firearm!
User avatar
sven
Posts: 718
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2000 10:00 am
Location: brickyard
Contact:

Post by sven »

Nope 3-5 round bursts are normal for the M2hb. My big beef is that he started off saying that the US .30 cal MG(m1919)has a higher ROF than the m2 and it is not so. Sadly no I have no M2 bolt. Image
Originally posted by Voriax:
Sven, thanks for your comments.

to be honest I don't think that the values are that far off. I've managed just fine as they are, guess I just couldn't resist joining in the fray in here.. Image

yep, the .50cal is bigger badder round..btw do you happen to have a spare M2 bolt around? I have a partial aircraft gun variant here...needs few parts to make it work..

I think it was Pavel in the HE effectiveness thread who was also talking about bursts. 10 rounds from a MG34 feels right, when i've fired with it they are about that size if not shorter. but did they fire 10 rounds bursts from a M2 also?
That is a weapon I haven't fired with as they are bit rare here, but I'd guess the burst size is 3-5 rounds?

I think this whole topic is eventually of one of those minor things we start to bitch about when we cannot find any *really serious* things any more, due to the good work of the programming team! Image

Voriax


------------------
Give all you can all you can give....
johnfmonahan
Posts: 80
Joined: Sun Jun 11, 2000 8:00 am
Location: Waterford WI, USA

Post by johnfmonahan »

Ah, to kneel behind the butterfly of joy one last time.
When in doubt, go on line.
renwor
Posts: 118
Joined: Wed May 17, 2000 8:00 am
Location: czech republic

Post by renwor »

I have speciall way to considering HE ratings. I imagine myself on the other side of the barel (the one, where the lead leaves it)
Now, what I would prefer to be firing at me and my sqad from the hedge over there? The BAR or MG34? I guess you know the answer Image
The same goes with 1919MG and M2. in case you wonder, I would really prefer to be a target practise for the 1919 browning, than his bigger brother. And I want the HE rating to reflect that. So far it reasonably does in side of weapon classes. i have problem with balance between classes, but thats another story.
And NO HE rating cannot be considered just the efectivity of kill if it hits, with accuracy taking care of the aiming. Remember HE kill is used for EXPLOSIVE rounds as well.
Whats the difference when you are hit by 150mm shell or 380mm naval gun ? Oh, well ...
... the size of the crater I guess

Renwor

P.S. : I already gave up the idea of getting sensible HE kills in version 3.0. There are so many opinions about what is sensible ...
So I take whatever is there when it comes out and start tweaking to my pleasure Image
I suggest You do the same, just don't forget to keep balance. If you improve Vickers HMG, don't forget about Maxim Image
Larry Holt
Posts: 1644
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2000 10:00 am
Location: Atlanta, GA 30068

Post by Larry Holt »

BLUF (bottom line up front): its ROF, not the accuracy of individual rounds (i.e. .50 cal sniper) or caliber that makes a machine gun effective in combat. IMHPO (in my humble professional opinion) of course.

Ah controversy. This thread is sure getting interesting. It seems that some guns have both a higher and lower rate of fire than others or are some of the posters unsure of there facts?

I'm not sure of the ROF facts of WWII machine guns but I've seen an episode of, "The History of the Gun" on the History channel. It talked about the development of machine guns. In it there was an excerpt from a US Army WWII training film. It seems that US troops were used to hearing US machine guns in training and when they heard the Germans' guns, they were terrified. The US guns had a slow enough rate of fire that you could hear the individual rounds (whomp, whomp, whomp) but the Germans' guns were just a continuos high pitched whine (aaahhhuuurrr, kind of like a gatling). The training film was made to calm US troops fears and overcome some of the rumors of the terrifying German's guns.

So this seems to validate that rate of fire had more of an effect than slower rate of fire but heavier bullets (the US .50 cal).

I've commanded a combat service support company (read lots of big trucks for juicy targets) and emplaced machine guns for defense of it. I've found that, properly sighted and emplaced, a high rate of fire lets you get enough bullets in the beaten zone (seems to have been called a lane of fire in this thread) to kill something before that something can get out of the way. Now the gun needs to be firmly mounted so it does not wildly rock and the field of fire should be surveyed to determine ranges for your range card. I've also found that its far easier to adjust the azimuth of a gun than its range (that is its easier to swing it accurately back and forth than it is to accurately move it up and down since you are holding the butt down to counteract barrel rise).

OK, this was long but I wanted to support my post with something other than opinion.

------------------
An old soldier but not yet a faded one.
OK, maybe just a bit faded.
Never take counsel of your fears.
User avatar
sven
Posts: 718
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2000 10:00 am
Location: brickyard
Contact:

Post by sven »

I agree with you as far as all that goes. See my post concerning the he value of the german mgs. Where I fail to see Mike W.'s logic is concerning the m1919 v. m2hb. I have fired the m2hb and used it when I was working in an S4 on a deuce and a half vehicle mount. I have no valid experience with the M1919(thank God)and so must rely entirely on data.

Have you ever fired the m1919 Larry? I am not taking a dig at your age(love your sig). I am curious-all data I have managed to dig up on the two weapons seems to indicate extremely similar rates of fire.

You are far more experienced than am I concerning this. My main job was to keep my eye near the TOW2 on my humvee. I am by no means a pro when it comes to MG use. (I received some training but I really focused on my ATGM.)

I conceded that ROF delivers a form of suppression but I was also taught that accurate fire does the same. My poor little 11H brain cannot comprehend how Mike. W. sees the 500-550 rpm M1919 as being a superior killer or suppressor than the 500-550 rpm M2HB. Can you help me out? (seriously I do not think you are agreeing with that assertion-are you just opining on the ROF vs. accuracy question)


"Can anyone tell me why the .50 machine guns have a higher kill value than the .30s
I thought the smaller calibers had higher rpm and in so being more effective against infantry. The .50s were also ment to be effective against light vehicles? Perhaps this is an old discussion but I haven't found any answer so far. A higher rate of fire seems to me to be more lethal than a larger caliber."

This quote seems to indicate the gentleman has no concrete knowledge of what he speaks. He did not cite any sources for his assertion that the .30 cal(m1919) had a higher rof than the .50 cal(M2hb). I am as yet unable to find any source that would lend credence to his assertion. Sadly that leaves me only able to conclude that he is judging oob data without any scholarship.(and that is not something we should allow to influence the oobs of this game)

awaiting your reply,
sven

Originally posted by Larry Holt:
BLUF (bottom line up front): its ROF, not the accuracy of individual rounds (i.e. .50 cal sniper) or caliber that makes a machine gun effective in combat. IMHPO (in my humble professional opinion) of course.

Ah controversy. This thread is sure getting interesting. It seems that some guns have both a higher and lower rate of fire than others or are some of the posters unsure of there facts?

I'm not sure of the ROF facts of WWII machine guns but I've seen an episode of, "The History of the Gun" on the History channel. It talked about the development of machine guns. In it there was an excerpt from a US Army WWII training film. It seems that US troops were used to hearing US machine guns in training and when they heard the Germans' guns, they were terrified. The US guns had a slow enough rate of fire that you could hear the individual rounds (whomp, whomp, whomp) but the Germans' guns were just a continuos high pitched whine (aaahhhuuurrr, kind of like a gatling). The training film was made to calm US troops fears and overcome some of the rumors of the terrifying German's guns.

So this seems to validate that rate of fire had more of an effect than slower rate of fire but heavier bullets (the US .50 cal).

I've commanded a combat service support company (read lots of big trucks for juicy targets) and emplaced machine guns for defense of it. I've found that, properly sighted and emplaced, a high rate of fire lets you get enough bullets in the beaten zone (seems to have been called a lane of fire in this thread) to kill something before that something can get out of the way. Now the gun needs to be firmly mounted so it does not wildly rock and the field of fire should be surveyed to determine ranges for your range card. I've also found that its far easier to adjust the azimuth of a gun than its range (that is its easier to swing it accurately back and forth than it is to accurately move it up and down since you are holding the butt down to counteract barrel rise).

OK, this was long but I wanted to support my post with something other than opinion.

------------------
Give all you can all you can give....


[This message has been edited by sven (edited July 26, 2000).]
Voriax
Posts: 1581
Joined: Sat May 20, 2000 8:00 am
Location: Finland

Post by Voriax »

Hehee..can't resist.

Why do we assume that the .30 cal mg is m1919? Why not a water-cooled m1917A1? That has a bit higher rof than M2 Image (very little higher, 50 rds or so, but fired from 250 round belt and being capable of longer bursts...)

Voriax

Oh God give Me strength to accept those things I cannot change with a firearm!
User avatar
sven
Posts: 718
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2000 10:00 am
Location: brickyard
Contact:

Post by sven »


Point taken. I still do think it would be semi-negligible in HE effect. The .30 and .50 are very close in effect anyway.(not the glaring problem the thread originator makes it out to be)

regards,
sven

Originally posted by Voriax:
Hehee..can't resist.

Why do we assume that the .30 cal mg is m1919? Why not a water-cooled m1917A1? That has a bit higher rof than M2 Image (very little higher, 50 rds or so, but fired from 250 round belt and being capable of longer bursts...)

Voriax



------------------
Give all you can all you can give....
Larry Holt
Posts: 1644
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2000 10:00 am
Location: Atlanta, GA 30068

Post by Larry Holt »

Originally posted by sven:
...
Have you ever fired the m1919 Larry? I am not taking a dig at your age(love your sig). ...
No, I've not used the m1919, just the m60. No offense I only retired in 1996, I'm not that old.
I conceded that ROF delivers a form of suppression but I was also taught that accurate fire does the same.
I agree that accurate fire (i.e. actually killing things) does suppress troops its just that I've found that it takes a lot of time to adjust fire on one target, time that's better spent on area fire and keeping the heads down for the rest of the unit. In the interest of full disclosure I've only fired on ranges or in the joint training centers with MILES (multiple integrated laser engagement system), not in combat but MILES is pretty darn realistic. If anything there is more suppressive effect in combat than when using MILES as you know that you won't really die with MILES and you are more likely to stick your head up rather than hug the dirt.

My poor little 11H brain cannot comprehend how Mike. W. sees the 500-550 rpm M1919 as being a superior killer or suppressor than the 500-550 rpm M2HB. Can you help me out? (seriously I do not think you are agreeing with that assertion-are you just opining on the ROF vs. accuracy question)
I'm just advocating ROF as more important. I also can not see why a lighter gun would be more effective than a heavier if they both have the same ROF. I guess this could be true if the heavier one was harder to aim but I don't think this is the historical case.

As an after thought. I suppose for very elite infantry area fire would have little suppressive effect. I can see where Rangers could ignore rounds ping around them and continue to advance and it would take actually killing them to stop them.

As a note to those who might not know, the US Army teaches its troops to advance by 3 to 5 second rushes or bounds in the face of fire. It has been found that it takes a gunner about 5 seconds to identify, acquire and fire on a target. The drill is , spot your next covered position, jump up from behind cover, sprint for 3 to 5 seconds then dive to the ground using the stock of your rifle to break your fall. Using this battle drill, troops can minimize casualities against aimed fires and its another reason that I advocate using automatic weapons in an area fire rather than aimed fire mode. Your rifle men can use well aimed shots since they don't have weapons that are meant for sustained automatic fire (even if they have a full auto selector switch).
...




------------------
An old soldier but not yet a faded one.
OK, maybe just a bit faded.
Never take counsel of your fears.
User avatar
Nikademus
Posts: 22517
Joined: Sat May 27, 2000 8:00 am
Location: Alien spacecraft

Post by Nikademus »

I read numerous references and opinions which have stated that the German MG34/42 suite were signifigantly superior weapons vs most other contemporaries, yet if memory serves their HE kill/Accuracy values in SP are not much different from their US/British and Soviet contemporaries.

comments?
User avatar
sven
Posts: 718
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2000 10:00 am
Location: brickyard
Contact:

Post by sven »

Nik here is the data.

MG34MMG(used in both HMG and MMG unit)

range 80

Acc 36

HE kill 14

MG42 (same as above in config)

range 80
acc 32
he kill 16

.30 cal hmg
range 80
acc 36
he kill 14 (a bit high for the rof)

.50 cal hmg
range 120
acc 48
he kill 14

I think that maybe the 30 cal. based on rof should be more akin to the he kill value of the BAR or the BREN. (around 6 as all had similar rofs IIRC)

I might even concede that the .50 cal should be a little less. I cannot however concede that the MG34 or MG42 should have their HE kill increased in the interest of weapons balance.

best regards,
sven
I would be interested in knowing if there is any formula involved in tabulation of the kill values or if it was just based on gut feeling.(no offense meant)
Originally posted by Nikademus:
I read numerous references and opinions which have stated that the German MG34/42 suite were signifigantly superior weapons vs most other contemporaries, yet if memory serves their HE kill/Accuracy values in SP are not much different from their US/British and Soviet contemporaries.

comments?


------------------
Give all you can all you can give....
User avatar
sven
Posts: 718
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2000 10:00 am
Location: brickyard
Contact:

Post by sven »

Larry thanks for your reply. I myself am only 28 I joined at 17 and am now out due to a pretty bad training accident. I can still walk and like my new hip better anyway.(sarcasm) I wanted to go green to gold and be an officer someday, but I have made peace with the loss of my career.

I wanted to be an 11B, but you know the score with the Gulf going on my whole boot camp class became either 11Hs or 11Ms (TOW gunners or Bradley Jockeys). Much to my suprise I rather enjoyed being a Hotel and am glad for it now. Our Army has a wonderful tank-killing force.

I am waiting with baited breath for SPWAW modern because that is really more my forte. 3-5 second rushes are a ball, but you are dead on about people pretending to be Rambo when using MILES.(I hated that when we were at the NTC)

Thanks for your input and let me know what you think about the hard data(gamewise)I posted just a bit ago. Support has it tough, but we Cav guys loved you all because you helped keep the drives alive. Hope to see you around the SPWAW Modern forum when it is born.(your input will be appreciated there I think)

happy times upon you,
sven

------------------
Give all you can all you can give....

[This message has been edited by sven (edited July 26, 2000).]
Michael Wermelin
Posts: 60
Joined: Mon Jul 03, 2000 8:00 am
Location: Karlstad, Sweden
Contact:

Post by Michael Wermelin »

I'm sorry if I in any way has offended the seemingly high weapon-fetish pride and self assurance of mr Sven. Besides, as it also seems important to you Sven what weapons you have fired..... I have fired a BIGGER GUN a howitzer, namely a swedish 155mm B . Look that one up Image

No this discussion has surely come to its end. It is sad that some here has taken this game so personally serious. Fortunate for me I'm by vacation relieved from any more insults until monday.

/Hopefull of more constructive debates in the future. mr W, not a nazi-weapon lover at all. Happy weekend.
Attacking is the best of all defences.
User avatar
sven
Posts: 718
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2000 10:00 am
Location: brickyard
Contact:

Post by sven »

Outstanding it is good to know you served. I would never deign to speak from a position of authority(I am loathe to do so even about anti-armor tactics<of which I have a paiing knowledge>)to you concerning large-caliber guns. Truly even my Infantry data is becoming out-of-date as armies are prone to doctrine and tactics changes constantly.

Allow me to take this opportunity to apologize Mr. Wermlin but I do believe you referred to me as a fool. I found that rather offensive and perhaps overreacted in my response. You do indeed have my sincerest apology if I offended.

I only fear that the oobs can be nitpicked to death and would have gladly attempted to digest your logic if it had had support. It is rather unfortunate that the Allied mmgs and hmgs are represented by generic postings.(I would suppose it is to preserve space in the weapons charts). I meant no ill will directed at you personally and indeed you are entitled to modify the oobs to your hearts content.

I will happily ignore your snide remark in your last post concerning my "weapon-fetish" and self-assurance. What is a wargame other than a representation of weapons, tactics, troops and their place in battle? I do truly wish you a happy and productive vacation.

humbly,
sven

p.s. next time you can use that "search" button on your browser menu to attempt to find data on the weapons of which you are posting an opinion.
Originally posted by Michael Wermelin:
I'm sorry if I in any way has offended the seemingly high weapon-fetish pride and self assurance of mr Sven. Besides, as it also seems important to you Sven what weapons you have fired..... I have fired a BIGGER GUN a howitzer, namely a swedish 155mm B . Look that one up Image

No this discussion has surely come to its end. It is sad that some here has taken this game so personally serious. Fortunate for me I'm by vacation relieved from any more insults until monday.

/Hopefull of more constructive debates in the future. mr W, not a nazi-weapon lover at all. Happy weekend.
------------------
Give all you can all you can give....

[This message has been edited by sven (edited July 26, 2000).]
Voriax
Posts: 1581
Joined: Sat May 20, 2000 8:00 am
Location: Finland

Post by Voriax »

Sven, the weapon lists are individual for each oob, so I think the reason for the generic mg's is the need to save time/work Image

So with 249 slots available for each oob you could do very personalized arsenals for each country, and some future oob's have a lot of national weapons in them.

Voriax


[This message has been edited by Voriax (edited July 26, 2000).]
Oh God give Me strength to accept those things I cannot change with a firearm!
User avatar
sven
Posts: 718
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2000 10:00 am
Location: brickyard
Contact:

Post by sven »

Awesome. I am glad to hear it. Hats off to Matrix once again and I never fail to be impressed with the staff's dilligence.

happy times upon you,
sven
Originally posted by Voriax:
Sven, the weapon lists are individual for each oob, so I think the reason for the generic mg's is the need to save time/work Image

So with 249 slots available for each oob you could do very personalized arsenals for each country, and some future oob's have a lot of national weapons in them.

Voriax


[This message has been edited by Voriax (edited July 26, 2000).]
------------------
Give all you can all you can give....

[This message has been edited by sven (edited July 26, 2000).]
Post Reply

Return to “Steel Panthers World At War & Mega Campaigns”