"Are US semi-auto rifles overpowered in Bolt Action rules?" Topic

After reading the Bolt Action rulebook i am very surprised about how powerful the semi-automatic rifles are in this game.

They have a range of 30" instead 24" for rifles. I can´t figure why they have a longer range.

They have 2 shots and LMG´s have just 3 shots and the same range (30").

A 10 man US squad with sa-rifles have 20 shots at 30"

A 10 man German panzergrenadier squad with two MG-42 and rifles have just 16 shots (8 of them at 24"). I don´t think this is very realistic, germans are in a clear disadvantage.

The basic 1 NCO + 5 rifles costs 50pts, no matter if they are german, us or soviet. But US have much great firepower at the same price.

What´s worse, the US army have a special rule than allows them to advance and fire without the -1 penalty so that makes US infantry squads totally overkill.

Any thoughts?

I think maybe the problem is that MG are not lethal enough. A tripod MG have just 4 shots. Two infantrymen with BA-rifles have the same firepower.

The Automatic Rifle in BA represents the BAR. The Garand and the carbines have the same stats as a normal rifle, 24'' and 1 shot per figure.
It is explicitly written in the Rulebook

Regards

Oooops…yes, you are right. I missed that paragraph and just assumed that semi-auto were a category apart from rifles. So many rulesets…sometimes i mix things.

The move&fire rules simulate the M-1 garand, of course.

Thanks!

The discussion on the WG forum seems to focus on the STG44 as being a little too good value for the points…

Though Im still at a loss as to how an M1 Garand makes you shoot better when moving than other rifles.

"The Garand and the carbines have the same stats as a normal rifle, 24'' and 1 shot per figure."

They also have a maneuver and shoot. They do not suffer -1 when they move so that they can move then shoot without a penalty. It is a FOW treat of the same weapon.

The Grand is a self loading rifle, unlike other nations rifles are bolt action requiring a reloading action. You shoot then you have to work the bolt to load the next bullet. With SL Rifle is re-loaded automaticlly.

According to the rules the -1 is not related to being a semi auto rifle, but to a combination of armament, doctrine and plentiful ammunition of the americans.

So that makes you shoot better when moving in a skirmish game?

Fair enough, just dont seem logical to me.

Is what the rules says, not that they are logical

It might be weight of fire Piers. A US rifle squad could toss a lot of firepower down range because of the Garand/BAR combo combined with US logistics in WWII. GI literally carried hundreds of rounds of ammo that was already loaded into clips and ready to pop into the rifle. Heck, even the M16 series can't claim that! All of your 5.56 is in singles and you have to load your magazines yourself. Not so with the Garand. All the rounds were preloaded into an eight round clip that you could just pop into the rifle. That's every single round. That alone gives the Garand a huge advantage in a fire fight.

Toss in the GI tactic of marching fire and you're tossing some serious firepower down range. Maybe that is what the -1 represents- toss enough metal down range and you're sure to hit something.

Other than that you got me.

But did they?

Im just re-reading M. Doubler's book on the evolution of the US Army and in Normandy the major infantry problem that the US Army suffered with was failure to maintain volume of fire with the individual rifleman failing to keep up a steady rate of fire and failure to maneuver to put down effective direct fire.

That changes as they evolve through the last year of the war but it struck me as odd that they should get this bonus in the rules.

Perhaps in the army books it will be different.

Maybe it's something that should be in place for veteran troops?

Would the US problems in Normandy be caused by, well, Normandy? Were there the same issues in N Africa, Italy, etc? I'm genuinely curious- I haven't seen much that covers effectiveness of US tactics in other theaters, just how things didn't work so well in bocage country.

Rich

I will have a look tonight. He covers N. Africa and Italy prior to Normandy and the ETO. He mentions some of teh same problems but I cant remember the context. Will reply when I have had a read tonight.

I always felt that semi-auto rifles were underpowered in most sets of rules.

I figure that at ranges of 100 yds or more, a bolt action and semi-auto would be roughly equal since the time it would take to draw a bead for a second shot would offset the any RoF advantage the semi-auto would have. But at close ranges the semi-auto would have a bigger advantage since the operator could put the sight back on target faster than a bolt could be operated.

So, bolt rifles fire one round, semi-auto two rounds (at close range) and fully auto weapons would fire 5+ rounds per turn.

In Operations Research firepwoer studies (and things like the umpires guide for military exercises), SLRs generate roughly twice the firepwoer of bolt actions at ranges up to 200m.

Both dwarfed by machineguns of course, which produced the firepower equivalent of 11-40 rifles depending on range and type.

Some good historical research being presented here, which comes back to the rules in BA.

I've bought them, and am looking forward to the first game. But I notice around the internet that people either love it or hate it. The main reasons for the dislike seem to be the point system, and quirky, gamey rules like Americans can fire on the move with penalty. One comment I have seen is that "rules lawyers" have already figured out that the Germans can substantially equip with assault rifles.

Still, the proof of the pudding is how it actually plays. I'll wait and see.

Regards,

Rob

I think the rules offer the ability to take a significant number of Assault Rifles because they are pitched at the basic squad level, with the squads combining into platoons and so forth. Some squads may have a lot of Assault Rifles whilst others may not have any. I really like the freedom to organize in this way but I'm VERY fortunate in that the people I game with don't abuse such freedoms. I've played 4 games up to now and the highest number of Assault Rifles carried by the Germans in any game has been 5 which we actually thought may have been too many!

Hi, I have lurked on here for many years, but thought I would take the plunge now!

From what I know the main advantages afforded by the universal issuing of the M1 Carbines, M1 Garands and BARs was that, as Martin has pointed out, the average amount of fire power across the squad was higher and more evenly distributed than within other armies that had integrated LMGs. This allows the lowly rifleman the ability to perform their own suppressing fire and not entirely rely on the Platoon integrated LMG/HMGs.

US doctrine as a consequence had their training make US troops fire forward at the enemy line to cover an area equivalent to the one they occupied within their own line, so effectively peppering the area (and helping to breed the stereo-type of Yanks shoot more). This meant that the US troops would be able to perform covering fire better than other nations with Bolt-Actions, although they tended to shoot less with the intent to actually hit the target, just the target area.

The other main advantage already highlighted on was that in a close combat situation the advantage goes to the man with 'one more bullet in his gun'. Unless against SMG or Assault rifle armed infantry the US would have a distinct advantage over other bolt action and LMG armed opponents. If the intent of the rules were to reflect a more historical outcome then I would suggest that the main benefts would be a slight bump in combat, and that while stationary the unit could perform some form of Suppressing Fire (as heard in nearly all WWII films with US troops in)

However if the rules are for a game that approximates the volume of fire mixed with intended (not necessarliy effective and actual) doctrine then the rules probably hit the mark in terms of an abstraction. (excuse the pun)
I agree with Piers though that the M1s would not be able to make shooting on the move better per se, however as an abstraction to simulate the increased volume of fire making hitting the target easier then it maybe does work.

Also, with regards to Marching Fire, this was a horribly woeful tactic and resulted in many US deaths until they realised that fire then maneouvre tactics were much better and effective. This is when suppressing fire from one squad element would then cover the advance of assaulting units.

As for assault rifles, they should be around 2/3 to half the effective range of the M1 Rifle (more similar to the M1 Carbine) and having them as a bump for every model in a unit seems a bit extreme and should be reserved probably for the ocassional game or for SS only as they were the Fuhrer's favoured units.

Hope that helps,

Ark

"But did they?

Im just re-reading M. Doubler's book on the evolution of the US Army and in Normandy the major infantry problem that the US Army suffered with was failure to maintain volume of fire with the individual rifleman failing to keep up a steady rate of fire and failure to maneuver to put down effective direct fire.

That changes as they evolve through the last year of the war but it struck me as odd that they should get this bonus in the rules.

Perhaps in the army books it will be different."

Yeah that they did, this was not an American problem but a purely psychological one, normal person has hard time killing another person.
Book titled "On Killing" by Col. Grossman delves into this subject with lots of detail. Basically don't blame the rifle blame the gun.

If the skirmish was realistic, maybe 2 of the guys in the squad would be aiming at the enemy and trying to hit them the rest would either be making noise and wasting ammo or helping other squad members in some way.

You are absolutely correct as far as I am aware. It was found that soldiers would not fire straight, or would even close their eyes when firing their weapons. This is shown a little bit in Band of Brothers (easy point of reference only) in the second episode ' Day of Days' from memory where a trooper fires almost point blank at a fleeing german trooper, but misses, and takes Guarneer (or however you spell it) to shoot the guy instead. Obviously they were the elite Airborne so less likely to happen than the army, but I'm sure it happened all the same. Either way it did seem to be down to a few key individuals to do all the work while the others didn't shoot.

There is one game that sort of models this, A Coffin for seven brothers or something (never played it, does anyone know?) I read a review that the reviewer described it as 'an unusual mechanic that has only half the amount of models in a unit being allowed to shoot'. It would seem to model what you have said above to an extent.

Another handicap the US had was their replacement system that seriously undermined the combat effectiveness of units. This resulted in units being severly watered down in terms of combat effectiveness relative to the UK or German practice of taking regiments out of the line to train up and form a true 'esprit de corps' and subsequently greater cohesion in combat. The effect could only be to erode the chances of the average GI firing his weapon effectively in an indivdual sense or as part of a unit.

gain though, it comes down to what the game designers are trying to do, make a fun gam, simulate 'reality' or get somewhere in the middle.

Cheers,

Ark

Oh nomentclature. M1 Garand is semi automatic, BAR is select fire.

Hey Petrov, not sure what you mean by nomenclature, I googled it but the definitions coming up refer to plant group naming references etc.

Yeah, the M1 Carbine and Garand are semis-autos, the BAR is a selct fire fully automatic weapon of cyclic rates of 450 and 650 (squirting out the 20 round magazine in around 2 seconds)

Cheers,

Ark

Nomenclature :)

As for assault rifles, they should be around 2/3 to half the effective range of the M1 Rifle (more similar to the M1 Carbine) and having them as a bump for every model in a unit seems a bit extreme and should be reserved probably for the ocassional game or for SS only as they were the Fuhrer's favoured units.

Correct on the range as they fired a smaller cartridge, but wrong on distribution as they were issued en masse to the army's volksgrenadier divisions, whose organization was based around platoons of two assault squads armed entirely with MP44's or MP40's, and a third squad armed with k99's and a single LMG

Ha ha! We may be having a history geek off here…

I thought distribution was initially/primarily for SS troops and the likes of Grossdeutschland (had to google the exact spelling there!) divisons, and only once production of the Stg44 jumped in the winter of '44 were there enough to distribute through down to the VG units? Maybe we are discussing the different sides of the same coin, and really it would be the time period being played that should decide (or not care about it, just have a game…)

Ark

Here you go – who had them and when:

First 1500 MKb42(H) sent late April 1943 for testing in six divisions from (HGr. Nord):

1. Inf.Div.
11. Inf.Div.
21.Inf.Div.
93.Inf.Div.
212 Inf.Div.
18 Inf.Div.(mot)

-In October 1943 Firsts MP43 are sent for testing:

HGr Mitte:
31.Inf.Div,
268 Inf.Div
KavRgt Mitte,

HGr Süd:
15. Inf.Div.,
46. Inf.Div.
2.SS PzGr Div "Das Reich",
PzGrDiv Grossdeutschland
16.PzDiv.

HGr B (deployed in Italy):
71.Inf.Div.,
GrenDiv "Hoch u. Deutschmeister"
LSSAH

-January 1944 two divisions were chosen to reequip completely with MP 43, the 1.InfDiv and 28.Jäger-Div (New Kstn).

-February 1944 the OstHeer was equipped with about 10.000 MP43 and MKb42(H) as follows:

HGr Mitte:
HGr – 718

2.Armee:
SkiJägBrig 1 – 1480
KAbt E – 147

4. Armee:
31. InfDiv – 133
78 SturmDiv – 115
95. InfDiv – 35
267. InfDiv – 35
337. InfDiv – 114
25. PzGrDiv – 115

9. Armee
9.Armee Units- 260
6.InfDiv – 20
36. InfDiv – 88
45.InfDiv – 20
296. InfDiv – 60

3. PzArmee
3.PzArmee Units – 2
12. InfDiv – 20
14. InfDiv – 50
197. InfDiv – 10
211. InfDiv – 35
299. InfDiv – 49
5. JägDiv – 153
4. LwFeldDiv – 39
6. LwFeldDiv – 24

HGr Nord:
16. Armee:
16.Armee Units- 864
28. JägDiv – 380
32.InfDiv – 778
93. InfDiv – 155
122. InfDiv. – 864

18.Armee:
18.Armee Units- 293
11. InfDiv – 1070
LettSSBgde – 10
SS-Polizei Div – 3
338 FeldErsatzDiv – 20

HGrD:
PzGruppe West:2.SS PzGrDiv – 41
HGr A:15.Inf.Div.D – 119
16. PzGrDiv – 120
23.PzDiv – 119

HGr Süd:
1.Inf.Div. – 612
LSSAH – 108
2.SS PzGrDiv – 29

-In July 1944, 570 MP 44 sent to each one of the following Divisions:

HGr Nord-Ukranie:
101. JägDiv
26. InfDiv
68. InfDiv
75. InfDiv
371. InfDiv

HGr Nord:
11. InfDiv
30. InfDiv
32. InfDiv

-September 1944, 600 MP44 were sent to each one of the following Divisions:

HGr A:
342. InfDiv

HGr. Mitte:
14. InfDiv

October 1944 the first two divisions from the West front to be fully reequipped with MP44 are the 269. Inf Div (HGr D) and 305. InfDiv.
From that point onwards the various Hgr. decided the MP44 distribution between his units.
In September 1944 the decision is taken for the Volksgrenadier divisions to be equipped with the MP44.

Source – Sturmgewehr! From Firepower to Striking Power, Hans Dietrich Handrich

Har har, you win the 'what ARs were issued when' geek off, 10/10!

It seems then that it is plausible that your whole force might be equipt with the STG 44 then, good to know. As long as the points reflect their worth then there's no issue with it to be honest.

Oh, I'm all in favor of 'just have a game', I just like researching this sort of stuff and sharing it with anyone else who might be interested.

BTW if a rule set gives the M1 carbine the same effective range as a Garand, then it's wrong. The carbine's blunt nosed bullet lacks penetration/stopping power at ranges where the 30-06 of the M1 and BAR can still knock down walls.

I concur old chap, I concur. I have written and played my own WWII platoon- company level game fir about 3-4 years now, stats work out something like this;

All weapons apart from pistols, SMGs and weapons like PIATS etc have unlimited range.

Rifles: Effective range: 21" (regardless of type) ROF 1
Stg44 and M1 Carbine: Effective range 14" ROF 1 (or 3 effective range fir Stg)
SMGs: Effective (and maximum) range 9" ROF 3

(being in effective range gives a bump up in effect when hitting the target, outside that range shots only cause suppression)
Semi-autos can rapid fire and give a small bump in combat, whereas the Bolt actions are at just the one shot regardless.
Stg44 has increased range over SMGs yet less than other 'rifles', equivalent ROF to SMG yet not the range of rifles.
M1 carbines are just a scaled down Semi-auto rifle in effect for the reasons you have given above, although the M1 Carbine isn't represented in the BA rules.

Just think of the firepower advantage U.S. troops had over the Japanese, who usually didn't even have an SMG!

Ah, the old STG debate. I read a similar thread once and the most interesting thing pointed out was that the soldiers tactics did not change to adapt to the new weapon. They were fired single fire at long ranges same as the rifles before them and they were not preferred by the men who used them. Sure at 40 yards it's use is apparent, but that was rare.

Funny you should mention that Iron Front, I watched a WWII in colour episode yesterday and there was a 2-3 sec clip of an Stg being used used (presumably in combat judging from the clip) and it was being fired semi-auto by a stationary infantryman. I also remember seeing the mock up done a few years ago of a COD practice level for a real SAS chap to go around and see if he could beat the player on the Xbox. Xbox promoted run-and-gun style of play, whereas the real life chap was move, stop, fire, move, stop, fire, with no shooting from the hip or otherwise. It would all seem to support your comment on the lack of doctrine/tactiocs change.

Ark

OK

Hagar – "One comment I have seen is that "rules lawyers" have already figured out that the Germans can substantially equip with assault rifles."

That is the problem with a points ORIENTATED system: "I'll have 3 MG42s, and 7 MP44s" (or whatever)

What should happen is the army lists should list historical organisations, with an associated points value. Its stuff like this that gives the ammo to the anti-points brigade. Points should be used to gauge the equivalence of dissimilar units to help balance a scenario. They shouldn't be "1000 points, however you like".

Can you imagine Naval gamers this way? "Yeah, I've got the Exeter, but I'm replacing the 4 2x8" turrents with 2 turrents each with 1 16 inch…". You have the points – the defence budget for the ship.

I do think points are a useful scenario design tool, to help gauge 1 MP42 with 3 man crew vs an 8 man Soviet SMG squad, as long as you realise they are a guide.