Kill value .50 MG

Michael Wermelin · Post by **Michael Wermelin** » Mon Jul 24, 2000 11:40 am

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.

molset · Post by **molset** » Mon Jul 24, 2000 8:40 pm

Hi
The U.S 0.50 cal HMG is a upscaled model of the model 1917 0.30 cal MMG/HMG. According to stats in George Forthys excellent book of U.S army org. in ww2 the rate of fire of these weapons are somewhat similar or 500 to 550 rpm. Disregarding accurancy would make the larger caliber more lethal/suppressive against any target.
regards
molset

Wild Bill · Post by **Wild Bill** » Mon Jul 24, 2000 9:01 pm

Plus the .50 cal has a lot more hitting power. It is a devastating weapon. I never realized it till I held a .50 caliber round in my hand. It is a "big" bullet!

Its almost (poor analogy) the difference between the bit of a gnat and the sting of the bumblebee.

Hit a man with a .30 cal, he may get up and charge again. Hit him with a .50 cal, highly doubtful!

WB

------------------
In Arduis Fidelis
Wild Bill Wilder
Coordinator, Scenario Design
Matrix Games

sven · Post by **sven** » Mon Jul 24, 2000 9:32 pm

The same reason that all of the infantryman who once had the M60 would rather have the old "pig" back as opposed to the M249 SAW. The M60 is a belt fed .30 caliber crew-served weapon, it does indeed have a lower cyclic than the M249(a .223 caliber weapon)however it's superior penetrating capabilities are sorely missed by infantry squads. My drill sgt. at Ft. Benning back in '90 said that he had used both and that the M60 was a fine weapon for killing damn near anything unarmored or anyone. (as he was a former LRRP who sported a silver star when he had on his class "a"'s I'll take his word for it)

When the 1st Cav was on its way home from Saudi my favorite quote about hitting power vs. rate of fire was, "With the M249 SAW watch me bounce light ammo off of hard targets faster than ever before!" The SAW also has a distressing habit of turning it's barrels into muskets because it really is not engineered for its high rate of fire. The 700 round a minute ROF is hard for some people to control, and requires a very good gunner's asst. if you are using the 200 round belt.

Anyway to make a long story short.... the lack of a true GPMG at the squad level has limited flexibility in target interdictory capabilities for the platoon. The M2 HB was a more accurate weapon at distance than the M1919 and that is more important than high ROF(which was a difference of 100 rds. a minute-fairly negligible). The M1919 in it's air-cooled state also needed far more barrel swapping(which is a lot harder than the same op with the MG42)and that should be factored into lethality as well if one wants to be a "hyper-grognard".(not accusing you of such by the way).

regards,
sven (who knows way too much about military firearms)

Originally posted by Michael Wermelin:
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.

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

[This message has been edited by sven (edited July 24, 2000).]

[This message has been edited by sven (edited July 24, 2000).]

crazyivan · Post by **crazyivan** » Tue Jul 25, 2000 11:48 am

to cut a long story short i to served in the grunts for 5 years and 2 of them as a section gunner operating i think was the best and most devastating belt fed gpmgs of the time 10 years ago the 7.62 fired well over the rate of the saw but with a hell of alot more accur- than the tin ass saw.it was a shame to see it go to a company support weapon from a section one.after 2 years it was still hard to limit a quick pull on the trigger to at least 15 25 rounds the rate of fire was so quick that if you weren,t well supported it would almost push you back even whilst laying down and i never new of any one still standing after he tried a rambo on it (firing from the hip)any way as a new zealander we are often kept in the dark.

Michael Wermelin · Post by **Michael Wermelin** » Tue Jul 25, 2000 12:02 pm

The swapping of barrels and the cooling system of the weapon are for sure important to the over all performance of the said weapon but what has it to do with the kill rate? The number of shots available to each unit per turn counts in for such things together with experience. The german MGs were never known for their accuracy but for their tremendous rate of fire. I guess the kill value of the MG34 and MG42 is based on their rate of fire, not on their accuracy and certainly not on their caliber. Wild Bill must excuse me but I don't think too many soldiers kept on fighting when hit by a .30 round. The M2 HB surely fires man stopper rounds but the calibers between say 5.56 and 12.7mm (.50) can not make so much difference in the game as to outweighing the rate of fire. And there is also the fact that the lighter machine guns are easier to handle and move around, swapping targets, which should as well count against the heavy ones.

[This message has been edited by Michael Wermelin (edited July 25, 2000).]

bigjim · Post by **bigjim** » Tue Jul 25, 2000 12:14 pm

ROF does not decide which weapon is more effective. The .50 cal has a MUCH higer Velosity than the .30 and throws a much larger slug faster, the US Army Air Force in WWII classified the .50 cal as a "cannon", and there are NUMEROUS stories of .50 cals stopping tanks in Europe during the war NOT just light trucks and the like. The game has given I feel the proper weight to the .50 's capabilities.

BigJim

Voriax · Post by **Voriax** » Tue Jul 25, 2000 1:42 pm

The 'Cannon' capabilities of a .50 are already nicely taken into account by giving it an AP penetration value of 23, which the lighter mg's lack.

Disregarding what mg is needed in modern days

there is some validity i the original problem, kill rate against infantry.

If you compare .50cal HMG and .30 cal HMG gamevise, with the former you should have a bigger range and a bit better accuracy as the heavier bullet is less affected by wind. But on the other hand the .50 fires slower.

In the game sense against _infantry_ it does not matter IMO which bullet is more lethal, if you get hit from .50 or .30 you will be a 'kill' one way or another.

Now let's take a look at the US OOB:
.50cal HMG
Range 40
Accuracy 12
HE Kill 14

.30cal HMG
Range 20
Accuracy 9
HE Kill 14

These look fine to me, same kill value for both guns. What might be in order is to check if these values are right between weapons of similar size. Also I've wondered why a .50 cal AAMG has much bigger range and accuracy than .50 HMG as afaik the AAMG is the same weapon firing same ammo on a different mount and with AA ring sight.

Design decision?

Voriax

Michael Wermelin · Post by **Michael Wermelin** » Tue Jul 25, 2000 3:56 pm

The only difference, as I see it, is that the AAMGs mount that makes it possible to fire at airplanes at all, in the first place, with decent accuracy. It feels strange that the range and accuracy should be greater vs ground targets, only because of the mount. As for accuracy, right me if I'm wrong, but MGs were not used for precise fireing. They were made for laying down supressive and massive fire. Not for sniping. So the accuracy should not count as much against the kill value as the rate of fire. Nor should the caliber, since .30 kills an infantry man just as well, or at least maim him enough. At the moment I'm not sitting at my own computer and can therefore not check the kill value of the german MGs but I don't think the .30 and .50 MGs should have the same kill value against infantry. The.30 should have slight higher, say 13/15 or 12/14 or something like that, but it should also depend on the other nation's MGs and their values. I'm rather curious about the german MGs as I can't check it right now...

Voriax · Post by **Voriax** » Tue Jul 25, 2000 5:11 pm

Okay, I'll correct you ar once

Some mg's, especially mg's mounted on heavy tri/quadpods had optical sights in them and were very accurate. Even some LMG's had such mounts. I've fired with a Madsen LMG on such mount and it was real sniper gun

and would have been even better if we had fine-tuned the system.

I think that this is basically the reason why MMG's aren't as accurate than HMG's of the same calibre and even same type.

Voriax

sven · Post by **sven** » Tue Jul 25, 2000 6:49 pm

http://www.nasog.net/weapons/machine_guns.htm

Really barrel swapping should have nothing to do with kill value? Ummm and I am just guessing here but I bet the ROF of a MMG or HMG while it's barrel is melting or being swapped is just about friggin' zero. That would adversely affect it's ability to destroy or suppress.

The MG42 and MG34 were EXTREMELY accurate for machine guns and had a high rof.(the m60 is an Americanized MG42 made by mating the mg42 reciever to an fg 42 barrel). One hundred rounds a minute is not THAT big a difference, and is most assuredly not enough to outweigh the destructive difference of 12.7mm vs. 7.62mm.(really the rof difference was 50 rounds or less than one a second and the weight of the slug and accuracy outweigh that even more.)

Hey change the kill value for the MG34 and MG42 to 99he if that's what floats your boat. You are not basing it on valid logic, or proven military theory, but if that's how you feel. You have a nifty little editor included with the game.

The MG42 had a ROF of 1200rpm, and the MG34 had a rof of 300 less rpm. How would this impact lethality to you? The german manuals suggested changing barrels after every 250 rds, but that would mean that they were not encouraged to lay down 1200 rpm? The fact is that the Nazi gunners were taught to use quick controlled bursts-just like the bren gunners and bar gunners.

Which was more lethal and a better suppressor of troops the sniper, or the MG? If you said MG you are wrong. My favorite exercise was when they put the m1919 up against a sniper armed with a Spfld.'03 w/scope and counted who hit the target at 300 yards more in a minute. The winner was the sniper by like three times as many hits.

I'll do my best to refind the DA studies on the issue and the Infantry Schools opines about the ROF vs. Accuracy and caliber controversy. "Spray and pray" may keep your target suppressed for a few minutes, but "steel on target" keeps 'em dead for all eternity. To each their own: but we were told during our ftxs that, "this is not Vietnam- YOU WILL NOT ATTEMPT TO TURN EACH BUSH AND NOISE INTO LEAD SCULPTURE!" I always kind of figured that maybe emptying a lot of ammo in an area was overrated after that.

regards,
sven

Originally posted by Michael Wermelin:
The swapping of barrels and the cooling system of the weapon are for sure important to the over all performance of the said weapon but what has it to do with the kill rate? The number of shots available to each unit per turn counts in for such things together with experience. The german MGs were never known for their accuracy but for their tremendous rate of fire. I guess the kill value of the MG34 and MG42 is based on their rate of fire, not on their accuracy and certainly not on their caliber. Wild Bill must excuse me but I don't think too many soldiers kept on fighting when hit by a .30 round. The M2 HB surely fires man stopper rounds but the calibers between say 5.56 and 12.7mm (.50) can not make so much difference in the game as to outweighing the rate of fire. And there is also the fact that the lighter machine guns are easier to handle and move around, swapping targets, which should as well count against the heavy ones.

[This message has been edited by Michael Wermelin (edited July 25, 2000).]

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

[This message has been edited by sven (edited July 25, 2000).]

bigjim · Post by **bigjim** » Wed Jul 26, 2000 4:36 am

Vor,

Read Sven's post he put it better than I did but the question is "accuracy" and the .50 is more accurate than the .30 and at a longer distance and I think you see that reflected in the stats you posted.

BigJim

Scipio Africanus · Post by **Scipio Africanus** » Wed Jul 26, 2000 6:21 am

I would just like to point out that penetration at range difference between a .50CAL and a .30CAL is in fact a rather important issue when considering the kill value of these two weapons. Unless, of course, your enemy is standing up and waving at you. A .50CAL will go through a much thicker tree or wall than a .30CAL. Accuracy is also at least as important as rate of fire: a bunch of .30CAL rounds falling to earth 20 yards short of their target have a 0 kill potential. Finally, since the turns are 2 to 5 minutes, sustained ROF is much more important than maximum ROF, and in this area the .50CAL is the winner.

Cheers,

------------------
Publius Cornelius Scipio Africanus

sven · Post by **sven** » Wed Jul 26, 2000 8:37 am

What is suppression? What causes suppression? Is suppression in the military sense correctly demonstrated by the game?

Suppression is the inactivity of soldiers caused by the taking of fire and fear of said soldiers facing potential harm. Suppression can be caused by many things and I have often imagined during my games that my privates and corporals are thinking, "Screw you sarge!" to my poor squad leader when they fear attack by MGs, tanks, arty, and planes or even the rifle. Suppression is reflected in the sp series by the state of your squad or vehicle.(none, buttoned, retreating, routed)

Suppression is caused by either volume and destructive intensity of the fire, or witnessing casualties in close proximity to your position(accuracy). Volume of fire is contained in fire lanes when given by MGs (and Arty to a degree). This can lead after a period of data gathering by the squad to a safe avenue of approach to the MGs position and elimination of the target.(notice this does not mean the soldiers that are inactive are "gone"-they are waiting for a safe way to eliminate the enemy) Accurate fire tends according to some analysis to be more disquieting, and a greater real suppressor to activity because it is reflecting care for the wounded and fear for one's life at a higher intensity of feeling.(hearing and seeing a machine gun hit nearby is scary, seeing your battle-buddy's brains turn to goo is terrifying)

It seems to me that the original poster may be confusing HE lethality with suppression. The way that spawaw handles the topic of suppression seems to be a good balance. Being suppressed leads to a unit taking fewer shots or running for the hills, but HE lethality leads to the unit taking both casualties and suppression. In a perfect world the game would allow you to set suppression levels for each individual weapon-but I do not see that in the game (yet-maybe someday). ROF perhaps should be a determiner in suppression, but not kill value- accurate fire kills, and spray and pray wastes bullets and scares fools.

As an aside if you read up on the Bren it was deemed almost too accurate for proper "spray and pray" suppressive fire because of it's high ROF and great barrel. It somehow managed to remain in service and stay beloved by the British infantry for years after WW2. The Brit infantry feels like the US infantry and would rather have retained the Bren vs. the L86 for the same reasons in my previous post.

regards,(and happy gaming)
sven

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

Desert Fox · Post by **Desert Fox** » Wed Jul 26, 2000 9:52 am

Originally posted by Michael Wermelin:
As for accuracy, right me if I'm wrong, but MGs were not used for precise fireing. They were made for laying down supressive and massive fire. Not for sniping.

Well right here I must interject the historic use of the 50 cal as a sniper rifle.
Carlos Hathcock, during the Vietnam war did use the M2 machine gun to snipe. Very successfully I might add. At the ranges he engaged the enemy with the gun, the target had about 3 or 4 seconds to move out of the way (more than enough time).
So yes the 50 caliber M2 machine gun is a highly accurate weapon.
The 30 caliber M1919 machine gun had less range, power, and a smaller round, and was definitely less accurate for it.
As for the German weapons, well the mg34 was a highly accurate weapon due to its highly precise construction. I assume it was more accurate than the M1919, but probably less accurate than the M2.
The MG42, on the other hand, was very lax on its tolerances. This made it a very rugged weapon, and very reliable. However, because of these loose tolerances, the machine gun was not very accurate. Its rate of fire only enhanced that feature because of the intense recoil of the burst.
Now my thoughts on kill value is that it should be based more on the chance of killing a target, if you hit it. Now this means that rounds per minute plays a role. Accuracy, however, does not. Accuracy is already taken up in its own value, and the fact is you have to hit someone before you can kill them.
The kill rating for the MG42 should be highest, of course. If you actually managed to hit the target, you would most likely hit it with multiple rounds.
Next on the list should be the 50 cal. Its large round made kills almost guaranteed, assuming you hit the target. The ROF is slow, but I think that here, the size of the round more than makes up for it.
Next would be the MG34. It has a fast ROF, and a 'normal' sized bullet.
Finally, in this list comes the 30 cal MG. It has the slowest rate of fire, and only a 'normal' sized bullet.
Now, since I am replying to the whole post, the way a machine gun is mounted has a great effect on its accuracy. The more stable the mount, the better the accuracy. The reason for this is because the more stable mount will reduce the effects of recoil on the firer's aim.
Ok, think I covered everything.

Michael Wermelin · Post by **Michael Wermelin** » Wed Jul 26, 2000 10:43 am

I'm not giving up that easy! As Desert Fox states the accuracy is already counting for, look for fire control!!! If you have 20 or why not 60 men in a field the size of a SPWAW-hex, thats approx. 50 m2 right? There is from say 300 m no problem actually hitting that hex. When the burst of fire strikes that croud surely the rate of fire MUST be what counts for most kills, when the air is thick with bullets??? And you guys who tell me I'm unhistorical in my facts. Look it up anywhere, the MG42 was NOT an accurate weapon. And as some fool stated, I will not change the kill values of the german MGs to 99.

Voriax · Post by **Voriax** » Wed Jul 26, 2000 11:39 am

Fox, afaik Hathcock had a .50 cal equipped with a scope, so that doesn't really apply here

Also I still disagree with the way you want to determine a 'kill'. It is not important what really happens to the enemy after he's been hit. If he dies, he becomes a casualty. If he gets wounded, he needs to be patched up, often carried to the rear. He also became a casualty and will not continue to fight. Also he has kept others from fight as they were patching him up and carrying him to the rear.

Now if we shoot at a target 300m away. I'd say there is very little difference in accuracy between various mg's. Meaning the 'inherent' accuracy of the weapon that could be determined by preventing the weapon from moving during fire. The more important factors at this distance would be the skill of the gunner, quality of the sights and quality of the mount.

So if we fire at the same range, *if* you hit it does make sense to give a higher kill rating to the gun with highest rof?

Oh and Scipio, my bet is that just about any water cooled mg can keep up a better sustained fire rate than the M2

hmmm...now should we have a special check for such weapons operated in desert to see if they actually have water! Perhaps the Brit gunner using a Vickers boiled tea from the cooling water...

Voriax

sven · Post by **sven** » Wed Jul 26, 2000 4:09 pm

Good for you. However you are still wrong about the accuracy of the mg42 as compared to the Breda and what not. As for your assertion for the fact that I am the "fool" I am not the idiot wanting to confuse suppression and lethality idiot. You are as dense as the lead that all of those fine weapons throw down range.

You do seem to want the MG42 and 34 to be "Vengence weapons", and I am sorry but they were not. They were weapons that were functionally used in similar ways as the Nazi's opponents were. You act as though "Fritz" had 1200 round belts and the friggin' weapons on max cyclic per minute and it just isn't so. The HMG is not used for point defense(meaning accurate fire direct unless the enemy is stupid enough to present himself), but you do not inflict casualties by merely putting lead down a fire lane.(otherwise we would have killed our enemies in Korea and 'Nam 50-75 times each) You have to you know like AIM, or hose an area.

THE MG42 AND 34 WERE BOTH SERVED BY 50 ROUND BELTS, THEY USED 10 ROUND BURSTS! THE HIGH ROF IS ACTUALLY A DETRIMENT TO HOSING AN AREA SOMETIMES! YOU DO NOT JUST HOLD OPEN THE TRIGGER, BUT INDEED PAUSE AND REACQUIRE THE TARGET.

A .30 cal is not the killer that a .50 is. Elseways mayhaps the mighty M1919 would still be in service instead of the M2HB. This game rated the accuracy of the MG42 and 34 as BEING THE SAME.

They both(34 and 42) have kill values as good or greater the the .50. WHAT THE HELL ART THOU BITCHING ABOUT THEN? HEY YOU IN THE NOSEBLEED SEATS- THE ROF FIRE FOR THE M1919 and M2HB ARE THE SAME(500 to 550 RPM). JESUS GOD LOOK IT UP AND SHUT UP YOU DAMN FOOL!

best regards,(and happy gaming)
Sven

p.s. hav you fired anything bigger than a Red Ryder BBgun? I have fired the M60, M2hb, the SAW, and an TOW. Wake up and smell the coffee- I would rather of had an MG42 or 34 as compared to the M1919-But nothing beat the M2hb in Lethality under 40 KG of weight. It can shoot through small hills for God's sake- try finding cover against that.

Idiot Boy stated:"I'm not giving up that easy! As Desert Fox states the accuracy is already counting for, look for fire control!!! If you have 20 or why not 60 men in a field the size of a SPWAW-hex, thats approx. 50 m2 right? There is from say 300 m no problem actually hitting that hex. When the burst of fire strikes that croud surely the rate of fire MUST be what counts for most kills, when the air is thick with bullets??? And you guys who tell me I'm unhistorical in my facts. Look it up anywhere, the MG42 was NOT an accurate weapon. And as some fool stated, I will not change the kill values of the german MGs to 99. "

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

sven · Post by **sven** » Wed Jul 26, 2000 4:18 pm

Sorry for the diatribe, but I think Mike W. was complaining without knowing his data.

sven

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

sven · Post by **sven** » Wed Jul 26, 2000 4:18 pm

Yes Vor one could agree that to a degree high ROF would supersede caliber. However the m1919 and m2hb have much the same rof. The game already reflects the superior ROF of the mg42, and mg34.

The fact is that it is harder to find cover against a higher caliber weapon. The .30 cal round can be diverted by foiliage and such.... the .50 cal will not. How should SPWAW factor this into the ratings?

The game will have a hard time doing everything for everyone. I was being a tad coy with the Swedish fella(Mike W.)when I said use the editor, but if you feel that strongly about it you should. You have posted many things I agree with and I respect your sense.(even if in the case of the m1919 vs. m2hb we disagree)

I notice that the Germans are more efficient in their use of the mmg and hmg in the game.(meaning causing more kills with their guns than other .30 cal teams) This is as it should be, but the Germans were not eliminating entire squads with one squeeze of the trigger either. I think the latest version of the game strikes a good balance.

If I had a magic wand the MG34 and MG42 would cause more casualties than an M1919, but far higher suppression.(and maybe due to ROF the MG42 and 34 should be as if not more HE lethal as the M2HB) The fact is that the M1919 and M2HB have very similar ROF and the same argument cannot be made IMHO. Post-war interviews with the victorious Allied infantry showed that they had a healthy respect(read fear)of the MG42 and 34.

regards,(with no sarcasm to you Voriax)
sven

p.s. How did the British in the desert survive without their crumpets to go with the tea?

Originally posted by Voriax:
Fox, afaik Hathcock had a .50 cal equipped with a scope, so that doesn't really apply here

Also I still disagree with the way you want to determine a 'kill'. It is not important what really happens to the enemy after he's been hit. If he dies, he becomes a casualty. If he gets wounded, he needs to be patched up, often carried to the rear. He also became a casualty and will not continue to fight. Also he has kept others from fight as they were patching him up and carrying him to the rear.

Now if we shoot at a target 300m away. I'd say there is very little difference in accuracy between various mg's. Meaning the 'inherent' accuracy of the weapon that could be determined by preventing the weapon from moving during fire. The more important factors at this distance would be the skill of the gunner, quality of the sights and quality of the mount.

So if we fire at the same range, *if* you hit it does make sense to give a higher kill rating to the gun with highest rof?

Oh and Scipio, my bet is that just about any water cooled mg can keep up a better sustained fire rate than the M2 hmmm...now should we have a special check for such weapons operated in desert to see if they actually have water! Perhaps the Brit gunner using a Vickers boiled tea from the cooling water...

Voriax

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