Machine gun rules

[voltigeur]

I want to get forum members thoughts on how different machine guns should be treated. I’m working on a rule set (like everyone else) that is very tactics oriented and will provide a more interesting treatment of infantry tactics. One of the issues I’m currently looking at revising is how to represent the different capabilities of machine guns.
In my rules I allow a machine gun to engage 3 ways. Fire Lanes: the gun cannot move but can engage any number of elements that cross the fire lane at any time. (Provided the gun is not Suppressed or knocked out) Currently only a belt fed gun is allowed this type of engagement. Spraying fire: Cannot move but can engage 3 elements within 150 M frontage and 50M depth. Can be done with magazine or belt fed machinegun. Normal fire: Can engage any singe target as any other weapon system.
Does this sound consistent with the equipment’s capabilities? Also should the Japanese Type 92 gun that was tray fed be treated the same as a belt fed gun or was its characteristics more in line with a magazine fed gun?

[Timothy OConnor]

You're doomed!!!!! I've been down this same rabbit hole and there's no escape!



The challenge is "when is an MG and MG"? FWIW here's my observations on some weapons:

- BAR: 20-round mag and lack of barrel change make this an overweight assault rifle IMO, especially since the bipod appears to have been routinely discarded. Italian Breda is similar but with poor ammo.

- Bren: "Only" a 30-round mag but according to someone who has fired it they said an assistant gunner can quickly change the mag so that it should be treated as belt-fed in rules. Also has barrel change.

- Type 96: 30-round box mag like the Bren. Barrel change. But the round was considered under-powered. Early SAW in that respect?

- DP: 47-49 round drum mag. Barrel change but spares usually weren't carried.

- MG-34/42 and M1919A4: true belt-fed MG with barrel change. The A4 evolved to something close to the MG-34 with the A6 version.

So, where is the cut line for the definition of a wargame MG? That's tough. I think it's a stretch to call the BAR an MG. I suppose most would call the Bren an MG. A variation was used in the British army as late as 1982+ I believe. Since LMGs are intended to be fired in short bursts like long-range shotguns I suppose the DP would certainly qualify even in the absense of spare barrels. The Breda and Type 96 both suffered from poor, underpowered ammo which makes it a stretch to put them in the same category as the MG-34 or M1919.

Maybe it depends on your desired level of detail relative to the scope of your game:

1. Skirmish: model each weapon's differences! Yikes!

2. Skirmish+: three categories...
Class C: BAR/Breda
Class B: Bren/Type 96
Class A: DP/MG-34/M1919A4

3. Skirmish++: two categories
Class B: BAR/Breda/Type 96
Class A: Bren/DP/MG-34/M1919A4

4. or maybe
Class C: Breda/Type 96 (due to poor ammo and box mag)
Class B: BAR (better ammo, but low firepower)
Class A: Bren/DP/MG-34/M1919 (good ammo and high firepower)

5. Forget the whole excercise and model squad or platoon level aggregate firepower!

Tim

[SSgtBuck]

speaking of the bren gun..... ever see the movie Lock Stock and Two Smoking Barrels? Absolutely nothing to do with wargaming but one VERY cool scene with a chick shooting a bren gun in slow motion

[hauptgrate]

Been there, tried that....and then backed away to a much simpler system. Several years ago I was working on a set of 'large battle' skirmish rules where I wanted to represent two or three platoons or even a company for each side but at a 1/1 scale. Obviously, most skirmish rules were far too detailed for each individual to try to play with 30-150 characters per side so I ended up generalizing the effect of weapons fire. I wanted to really try to distinguish between each type of MG but ran into too many different types and capabilities. My reading of combat stories indicates that no matter what type of automatic weapon is being fired, if it is anywhere near your direction, you duck. With this in mind I allowed all MGs one actual attack (with differing firepowers to reflect ROF), but then force all figures in the area of the target to take morale checks. With non-auto fire only the target needs to take the morale check. It ended up streamlining the design and rules, and making play simpler while still making MGs very powerful in their effect. Have not worked on that game for several years -- never finished it -- but something you might want to consider....

[voltigeur]

You're doomed!!!!! I've been down this same rabbit hole and there's no escape!

Been there, tried that....and then backed away to a much simpler system.

I'm definitly wanting to keep this simple! And not somuch wanting to explore all the differences between weapons. My main question is: Can a magazine or tray fed gun maintain its rate of fire for the entire turn?

Really the only tactic that is affected is establishing a fire lane. In this tactic the gun cannot move and wil establish a lane where it can concentrate all its fire. While doing this tactic the gun can engage ans many targets as cross the lane at any time during the turn.

Would the need to change magazines & or trays affect the gun's ability to do this? Since I'm not doing skirmish the gun will have full crew as long as it is operational.

Thanks for the comments!

The challenge is "when is an MG and MG"?

I agree with your opinion that the BAR is not truly a machine gun. In my system it adds to the fire team's fire power but that's it.

[Timothy OConnor]

I think a combat vet would need to answer that sort of question! As I noted one fellow I exchanged e-mails with (he runs the site Bayonet Strength) said that the box-fed Bren was as good as any belt fed MG with respect to firepower. I was skeptical but he said that's what combat vets have said. On the other hand, why would linkable belts be so important to weapon designers if that were 100% true?

I think the reality falls in between. With a 30-round box you probably have to be much more concerned about rounds remaining in the box so you don't happen to run out just as fleeting target appears. But with a 50-100 round belt you have a greater "buffer" to address target opportunities.

So yes, the box-fed Bren and similar guns can change boxes quickly. But a belt is probably far more convenient with a greater margin of safety.

My experience is limited to hardcore tactical shooter computer games! But even in that form of "real time" wargaming I prefer a belt-fed weapon when trying to control ground simply because I've run out of ammo with box fed weapons at the worst possible times. There's a reason real-world soldiers call out ammo reloads! They don't want to be caught unready (so they cover one another) and MGs with great ammo capacity limit those times.

[opsctr]

In combat, under fire, running our of ammo or having to change a barrel always comes at the wrong time, ...no matter how well you've prepared. Having the experience as a "hose rider" on the right side of a transport (H-34) in combat I can personally attest to Murphy's law being accurate, ...and O'Toole's law being even more applicable.

On the ground, when you can't see much around you, the sound of any non-friendly automatic weapons fire made us "try to meld with the dirt". The sounds of "lead on leaf" or "lead in skin" are things you'll never forget.

Conversely, setting up "lanes of fire" and "overlapping fire arcs" are critical to any good defense but you must still depend on your "hose jockeys", "controlled fire", ammo supply, and their morale, to be successful in the defense.

Usage of terrain is almost as important as actual firepower. The defender who can see natural funnels or set up funnels as killing grounds will be more successful then a defender who relies on rounds down range alone. It boils down to "knowing your opponents weapons" which only comes through experience. Ops06

[Pitfall]

Don't forget rules for plunging fire!