How do you tell if a MG is good?

[Vetkin]

I was just wondering how you can tell from the stats on how good a certain Machine gun or rifle is. Is it the HE value? And how does it exactly compute with a certain target infantrY?

[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.

[Capt. Pixel]

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.

Yep. That's pretty much the whole story on MGs.

[Ograbme]

I've always wondered why heavier MGs like the .50 cal and 12.7mm(are those the same size?) are more effective vs infantry despite their slower ROF.

[VikingNo2]

The .50 is more accurate 1000meters point of aim point of impact, also the penatration factor has to be considered, if you hide behind a tree ( unless its a very big tree) the a .50 will just pass right through the tree. As Gary stated the more barrels you have the better off you are. The only thing in this game on par with the Quad .50 for killing killing infantry is the thriple AA Japan has but that is not mounted on a halktrack.

That being said the MG34 is very good if you lower your range and wait until the infantry that you are targeting is moving.


Italy has a 13.2mm that very good as well:D

My two cents

[Hades]

Originally posted by Ograbme
I've always wondered why heavier MGs like the .50 cal and 12.7mm(are those the same size?) are more effective vs infantry despite their slower ROF.

Yes the .50 and 12.7 are the same. Just as the .30 and 7.62 are the same. Even though though the .50 as a slower ROF it fires a really heavy shot, I mean it was designed as an ATR, and the bullet killed by doing lots of damage to the body it hit. Other guns like the Kar98k and the m-16 fired really small shots at really high velocites, which killed with the impact shock of a bullet going really fast.

[VikingNo2]

Hades knows about the .50 because I killed so many of his halftracks with them LOL:D

[bigtroutz]

I guess the advantage of MG units is the small size ....makes them hard to find and hard to hit once you do find em. Disadvantges are many, they are slower than their leg company companions and tend to get left behind, and cant fire after they move. Generally I replace em with sp-AA or halftracks tho, since they dont seem to real useful. They seem too expensive for what you get.

I use the accuracy number, rangefinder, etc in the encyclopedia to compare em, but the differences arent huge.

[Capt. Pixel]

I've found MGs to be most useful if I can get a good field of fire over advancing enemy infantry.

If you spread out your fire and shoot at several different infantry units that are in a Ready stance, you can generate a good number of casualties and Pin or Retreat a larger number of units. Infantry in Ready stance are more susceptible to small arms fire.

This would be opposed to, say, gunning a single unit into the dust.

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."

[G_X]

Pixel has my uses for both MGs and Snipers all at once. A pair of snipers, in one turn, can stop a platoon from advancing by pinning them down.

Also, it's the HE rating, which can be found in the Encyclopedia (Under HE I believe, Should look like Number:Number) And a higher rating means it's more likely to kill things I think.

[Gary Tatro]

Originally posted by bigtroutz
I guess the advantage of MG units is the small size ....makes them hard to find and hard to hit once you do find em. Disadvantges are many, they are slower than their leg company companions and tend to get left behind, and cant fire after they move. Generally I replace em with sp-AA or halftracks tho, since they dont seem to real useful. They seem too expensive for what you get.

I use the accuracy number, rangefinder, etc in the encyclopedia to compare em, but the differences arent huge.

I very seldom move my MG's when I place them. The only time that MG are a detriment is when you are advanceing and there is a relativly short visual range. But I have found that if you place your MG's in good spots and let them sit there gain cover, that it is almost imposible to force them to displace. The only thing that can do it is a infantry at range 1, a tank unit (seems like a waist), or a mobile afv with mounted MG's. I have had games where I placed my tanks three hexes behind my MG's in woods and had my opponent come out blasting with all his tanks only to get trashed next turn by my tanks.

I think the reason many people give the MG a bad rapp is that they use them poorly. For some reason people think that the MG all by itself should be able to hold back a platoon of infantry men. So many times I've run into machine guns all by themselves. No unit does well all by itself. Yes I do think MG's are expensive but they can be well worth it. You just need to support them properly. The reason I like MG's is that they are not suseptable to the one shot--dead that most of your AFV's are. I can tell you of no greater joy then taking my Quad 50 and eliminated a 88 with one shot.

[Capt. Pixel]

Originally posted by Gary Tatro

I think the reason many people give the MG a bad rapp is that they use them poorly. For some reason people think that the MG all by itself should be able to hold back a platoon of infantry men. So many times I've run into machine guns all by themselves. No unit does well all by itself. Yes I do think MG's are expensive but they can be well worth it. You just need to support them properly. The reason I like MG's is that they are not suseptable to the one shot--dead that most of your AFV's are. I can tell you of no greater joy then taking my Quad 50 and eliminated a 88 with one shot.

You're absolutely right, no individual unit could stand up to any and all threats. And misuse isn't an excuse to blame the unit for being inadequate.

But I think games we play, for the most part, are in an advancing posture, and it is difficult to use Machine guns effectively on the advance.

(I once managed to wipe out an 88 crew at range with a SO Ski Sniper (6 shots each turn!) Really ticked-off my opponent, he never did spot the li'l bugger. That was about a 10:1 point trade-off. )

[rbrunsman]

Originally posted by Capt. Pixel
(I once managed to wipe out an 88 crew at range with a SO Ski Sniper (6 shots each turn!) Really ticked-off my opponent, he never did spot the li'l bugger. That was about a 10:1 point trade-off. )

That didn't happen with v7.1 did it? My snipers never kill anyone anymore with the new version.

[Capt. Pixel]

Originally posted by rbrunsman


That didn't happen with v7.1 did it? My snipers never kill anyone anymore with the new version.

Nope, that was a 7.0 SO Sniper. In 7.1 they dropped the shots back to two and reduced the Fire Control from 15 to 5.

I'm not sure if all snipers sufferred the reduction in FC in 7.1. If so, that stinks.

[bigtroutz]

I agree that MG are useful in static defense, and I purchase them sometimes as support units when in static defense mode. I suppose the point I was making is that they they are too expensive for how one can use them IN YOUR CORE FORCE when in an assault or meeting engagement compared to a good leg unit of equivalent cost or a AFV with 2 x 3 times the MG/SMG firepower for the cost.

As far as getting a MG to displace, while they are certainly harder nuts to crack in this regard, it is easier after they have been suppressed by arty. Generally, i can then use AFV/HT MG fire to make them retreat, even from long range. Spotting the lil suxers before they fire is always the problem.

[Capt. Pixel]

Originally posted by bigtroutz
I agree that MG are useful in static defense, and I purchase them sometimes as support units when in static defense mode. I suppose the point I was making is that they they are too expensive for how one can use them IN YOUR CORE FORCE when in an assault or meeting engagement compared to a good leg unit of equivalent cost or a AFV with 2 x 3 times the MG/SMG firepower for the cost.

In campaign core forces, I generally change MGs into AAMG, or eventually two SPAA (using the spare HT too). I figure I get three-for-one threats that way. Those AA units are generally good against infantry, light armor AND Air.

With an Engineer platoon, I trade the MGs out for another Engineer unit. Five Engineers can bite through a minefield in short order.

[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.

[rbrunsman]

Is this a trick question?

Of course it depends what you want to do with the tank. To kill soft targets you take the PzIV. To kill hard targets you take the Char Bis.

If this is a purely a question of aesthetics, then I vote for the PzIV in all its variations. I love those tanks.

[Katana]

Good question.

Can I have a Char with a german crew?

[bigtroutz]

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.

Neither. I like either slow, heavily armored, big gun, mulitple MG tanks for CS / infantry support (eg matilda II CS)

and a fast, good pen gun, good range-finder/targeting/etc for antitank (eg achilles II, wolverine) where I dont esp care about armor, per se

and fast, reasonably armored, good anti-infantry capability for armored recon (stuart II, IV, V, etc)