Ammunition consumption under 4.4.258

[BigDuke66]

Wait... what?
I still see 27 HE and 27 AP loaded onto the "7.5cm StuK 40 L/48 - III" of the "StuG III", 54 is what the usual source give as ammo load.
While checking this I found the "7.5cm StuK 40 L/48 - IV", that gun has a higher load of 44 HE & 43 AP but it is not used by anything, maybe it is meant of the StuG IV although that has usually 63 rounds of ammo.

Regarding the adjustment of the weapon values I think a look at the ROF should also be taken, the 98K is said to have a ROF of 15 shoots per minute and in the game we are very close with 12 what is about 80% of the max value, now look at the MG 42 it can do 1200-1500 shoots per minute but we only have 100 that is only 8,33% of the lower max value, no wonder the effectiveness of MGs is more than poor.
Maybe a realistic ammo load with a ROF off 300-350 would help a bit.
300-350 because the english wiki article mentions:
"indicated a sustained rate of no more than 300–350 rounds per minute to minimize barrel wear and overheating."
so it seems a good spot to start.

[wodin]

BigDuke we asked Dave about upping the ROF of the MG's just after release...it was a no go. Because they'd fire off all the ammo before you could blink..not sure the AI can regulate it's ROF depending on the situation so it would either fire all it's ammo away in a couple of mins at high RoF even if you really wanted them to do bursts etc. I did up mine at the time though..and yes it had a huge impact even then on ammo so I put it back down again.

Also apparently it was rare for MG teams to fire at high rates for a whole minute (Only I imagine when being attacked by Russian Human Waves which didn't last that long)..they'd fire in short bursts. Lets remember in WW1 during the Somme German MG teams went through 20,000 rounds over the day, yes slower firing MG@s..but thats still alot of lead. However work out the ammo needed for an MG firing at 300 rounds a minute in action for say 6 hours....!!!

[wodin]

Another issue most likely is in real life we have platoons\ squads..who during the battle will be in action sometime sat different times..thus Commanders can manage the ammo better within the Coy..this obviously doesn't happen and will be abstracted, again abstraction with hi fi realism can at times clash.

[RockinHarry]

ORIGINAL: BigDuke66

Wait... what?
I still see 27 HE and 27 AP loaded onto the "7.5cm StuK 40 L/48 - III" of the "StuG III", 54 is what the usual source give as ammo load.
While checking this I found the "7.5cm StuK 40 L/48 - IV", that gun has a higher load of 44 HE & 43 AP but it is not used by anything, maybe it is meant of the StuG IV although that has usually 63 rounds of ammo.

Regarding the adjustment of the weapon values I think a look at the ROF should also be taken, the 98K is said to have a ROF of 15 shoots per minute and in the game we are very close with 12 what is about 80% of the max value, now look at the MG 42 it can do 1200-1500 shoots per minute but we only have 100 that is only 8,33% of the lower max value, no wonder the effectiveness of MGs is more than poor.
Maybe a realistic ammo load with a ROF off 300-350 would help a bit.
300-350 because the english wiki article mentions:
"indicated a sustained rate of no more than 300–350 rounds per minute to minimize barrel wear and overheating."
so it seems a good spot to start.

Sorry, just noticed I scored an own goal! [:D] I already made this test edit in march 2013 ESTAB (258) instead of my Veritable ESTAB, based on december 2012. Yep, it´s still 27/27. Sorry for the confusion! [:o]

The practice with "overloading" AFV or field modifications can be found in lots of tanker accounts and in the case of the Stugs, it´s on page 15 of "Sturmgeschutze - The tanks of the infantry".

ROF is based on "normal", as well as beeing influenced by unit training, experience and such. Also close range combat and assault mode will see the ROF going up to high, so this needs to be reflected in the ESTAB already.

The bipod Mg42 is more likely around 50 to 100 RPM, while the tripod HMG usually fires in 50 rounds bursts and up, reaching up to 250-300 RPM before the barrel needs changed.

As said, "ammunition tactics" is more important, than technical ROF, as well is avoiding wastage by tweaking engagement ranges.

Another point is that the smallest tripod HMG tactical unit unusually was the platoon (4 MG´s) and up, with the goal of massing fires on important targets and sectors. Only when terrain and tasks demand this, squads (2 HMG´s) or platoons were parcelled out to Inf Coys, unless these HMG were organically part of a unit.

Just like with the mortars, the AI has some difficulties employing HMG platoons or the whole Coy, so it appears to be the reason they are now directly attached to the line infantry.

[BigDuke66]

@wodin
Well of course if the ROFs are upped the ammo load has to be adjusted too, we are now only at around 30% of what the normal load was so of course no CO would waste that bit of ammo in a careless way, and in the game no player would use high aggro or ROF settings or even both.

@RockinHarry
I guess that is not the only thing, the 4th company is a "schwere Kompanie" with a mix of heavy MGs, grenade launchers and infantry guns, that would also be a problem for the player to use this multi-type unit in a specific role so splitting it up into the different branches seems to make sense in this game engine, I guess in real life the different platoons were also used at different spots for different roles.

[wodin]

Still he has said NO to MG ROF being upped..so i doubt he will change his mind. If you search the forum you'll find the topic..he was adamant not just due to ammo supply but also realism and the way the game works. SO upping or wanting MG ROF upped isn't going to happen, unless Dave has had a drastic chnage of mind. We at the time really argued the case to no avail.

Again work out the amount of ammo the game will use..the game isn't really a tactical one nor is a true tactical simulation running underneath..this means MG's with a 300ROF will in game most likely burn through 1000's and 1000's of rounds of ammo in a very short time indeed...like 9000 in 30 mins. For one MG!...it just wouldn't work. Unless you micro manage the RoF of the unit constantly whilst playing.

When it comes to ROF we need to NOT think at the tactical level as this isn't a tactical game as such..but spread out ROF's over time to find a decent average rather than the few mins sprays a gun could do during the battle. If you really think about it it makes sense.

Has it been proved where only at 30% supply for foot units? Thought Dave said that supply and amount was all correct. It's more likely in game RoF's will have to be reduced to get he game to use ammo consumption within realistic amounts again abstracting a touch to compensate this isn't a tactical game and you have to average the RoF out over a few hours and see what sort of ammo consumption a unit went through over a few hours in real life and match the game up to that.

[RockinHarry]

There´s yet 2 other IMHO serious ammo wastage situations.

One is that there´s a whole lot of small arms fire aimed at purely armored units. I understand that it´s meant to "suppress" the tankers, getting them to button up and receiving some spotting penalties, which is ok. Yet I find it should rather become automatic button up penalty, once the tankers get near a high threat enemy unit (which is spotted) having just close range (or none at all) AT capabilities.

I noticed a whole lot of situations, where tank units get near an infantry unit and the infantry wastes much of small arms fire and ammo on the tanks, instead of some infantry, maybe 100-200m further to the rear and well within effective range. Think it has much to do with the TLOS ratings, but the main point as said, is the small arms ammo wastage on otherwise invulnerable units (armor), just for the sake of suppression.

The second is related and has to do with the AI calling Arty (incl mortars) on armored units in a piecemeal manner. To have any noticable effects (damaging and killing) on moving and stationary armor, concentrations of high calibre Arty (100mm and up) is usually needed.

The only noticable effect once more again is "suppression" (getting tankers button up in RL) and usual "counter measure" would be to move through those barrages as quick as possible. Yet the odd thing is that tiny bits of mortar and Arty on a tank unit, makes it too oftenly "halting", instead of moving. It´s feasable if it´s a tight road column, but not so when fully deployed in open terrain.

For the last example I´ve yet to make a test mission, to see if my observations include all possible factors, causing the unecessary halting under Arty/mortar fires...

[BigDuke66]

Well I didn't test it but just because the ROF is 100 for MGs using the High setting for ROFs it doesn't mean they will use 100 rounds each minute as from start to end of the engagement, I mean there is some kind of "flow" in it like when a unit takes cover, or recovers from rout or retreat and so on.
But well 100 may be OK, I mean it's nothing compared to the real MG 42 ROF but on the other hand 100 rounds a minute would already mean 2 belts/drums gone and a 3 men team can't carry that much directly at the front.

[wodin]

BD I do understand what your saying..but I'm not so sure when engaged their is much ebb and flow (again due to it not really being an indepth tactical sim under the hood)..the guns will fire the set ROF until they retreat\rout or the engagement ends..thats the issue I feel.

So you have to find a ROF that matches the amount a gun will fire over and engagement period.

As I said I upped it myself..but the more I think about the scale of the game the more I realise where Dave is coming from.

[RockinHarry]

ORIGINAL: BigDuke66

@wodin
Well of course if the ROFs are upped the ammo load has to be adjusted too, we are now only at around 30% of what the normal load was so of course no CO would waste that bit of ammo in a careless way, and in the game no player would use high aggro or ROF settings or even both.

@RockinHarry
I guess that is not the only thing, the 4th company is a "schwere Kompanie" with a mix of heavy MGs, grenade launchers and infantry guns, that would also be a problem for the player to use this multi-type unit in a specific role so splitting it up into the different branches seems to make sense in this game engine, I guess in real life the different platoons were also used at different spots for different roles.

I actually started with the same "thinking" a year ago, but it´s not quite like the game/simulation works! The ROF is based around units with the standard settings (of 50%) if you start placing units in scenmaker. A highly trained and experienced unit already sees these base ROF figures raised (doubled) and other ingame factors come into play as well. You couldn´t raise the lMG ROF much, cause they could be raised to non realistic figures during game play. It´s somewhat different for HMG units, which have other ammunition and fire tactics, but there´s limits as well.

I suggest you create some base units that just include the weapon systems you want to check out and also have ammo seperated. For this purpose I created ammo for lmg, as well as HMG, so individual ammo expenditure (=ROF) can be tracked individually for rifles, lMG and HMG. It´s a quick edit btw. (cloning rifle ammo and reassigning the new ammo to individual weapons with different name).

My "base" assumptions for i.e a german infantry squad would be:

65 ammo for K98 (pouches + 5 in the rifle)
1000 ammo for lmg42 (4 ammo boxes of 250 rounds/belt each, usually carried by 2 guys in the squad)
210 ammo for MP40 (6 in pouches + 1 already attached)
210 ammo for Stg44 (same setup as above)
and so forth...

~2000 ammo for HMG42 (assuming a full strength 6 man crew)

These are some ideal figures and assuming a fully supplied, full strength unit. Normally the MP40/Stg44 mags aren´t fully loaded, so you could deduct 2 rounds from each magazine.

These are my figures for units destined to move into attack (on foot). For well prepared defenders, one can assume that extra ammo was already loaded from the Bn train and cached within the defensive positions, BUT scenmaker allows to increase/decrease ammo loads on a per unit base (supply tab/initial unit level), so there´s no further need to adapt the ESTAB.

Other considerations is motorized/mechanized infantry units. The figures above count for foot units and with no extra transports.

[BigDuke66]

Oh I didn't know ROF is modified by the values of the unit, interesting.

I think your observations about too much small arms fire on tanks should go into the patch thread, there is a certain difference between firing so that the other side takes their heads down and firing to really achieve kills and that's something that the infantry will not do with their small arms fire.
Same counts for behavior of armored units while being bombarded, if that is the opposite of what usually was done it should be corrected.

[wodin]

I too think something needs tweaking if lots of small arms is wasted for suppression purposes on tanks.

[dazkaz15]

BigDuke 66

Thanks for all your work on this mate, also thanks to the other guys that have posted informative responses to your queries, but biggest thanks to wodin for pointing out this discussion was going on over here in the War Room.

I had no idea [:'(]

[RockinHarry]

ORIGINAL: BigDuke66

I think your observations about too much small arms fire on tanks should go into the patch thread, there is a certain difference between firing so that the other side takes their heads down and firing to really achieve kills and that's something that the infantry will not do with their small arms fire.
Same counts for behavior of armored units while being bombarded, if that is the opposite of what usually was done it should be corrected.

Well, not really bugs, rather cases for further adjustements, since the basic game mechanics revolve much around the suppression system. Beside that, all IMHO.

Have yet to test more on the Arty/armor issues, before making final conclusions. Would be nice if other members keep an eye on these too and give some feedback. [:)]

[wodin]

Sorry Daz didn't know you were unaware..though did think the two threads started to cross over abit.

ORIGINAL: dazkaz15

BigDuke 66

Thanks for all your work on this mate, also thanks to the other guys that have posted informative responses to your queries, but biggest thanks to wodin for pointing out this discussion was going on over here in the War Room.

I had no idea [:'(]

[BigDuke66]

Another point, what about all the stuff not cover by the game engine, I think primary of sidearms and hand grenades but also of hand to hand combat.

We saw already in the patch thread that hand grenades really seemed necessary has units sitting almost on each other had much to low casualties, Dave adjusted that area but still without combat there is no effect and so it might have to be considered raising the ammo amount of other small arms to compensate for the missing weapons.

[wodin]

Funny enough me and Harry posted about Close Combat earlier today..can't remember the thread though.

ORIGINAL: BigDuke66

Another point, what about all the stuff not cover by the game engine, I think primary of sidearms and hand grenades but also of hand to hand combat.

We saw already in the patch thread that hand grenades really seemed necessary has units sitting almost on each other had much to low casualties, Dave adjusted that area but still without combat there is no effect and so it might have to be considered raising the ammo amount of other small arms to compensate for the missing weapons.

[BigDuke66]

Now that Arunja is back I'm really interested if AP rounds are also used for slightly armored targets like halftracks and so.

Oh and is usually the effective armor thickness used in the Estabs? I guess there is no data for showing the angle of the armor so I assume that.

[Arjuna]

AP and HE rounds can be used against half tracks. All armour thickness is normalised to a 30 degree slope.

[RockinHarry]

ORIGINAL: Arjuna

AP and HE rounds can be used against half tracks. All armour thickness is normalised to a 30 degree slope.

So HE would be used vs. HT´s, even when there´s Nil AArm entry in ESTAB for HE?