"Diferentiating Sustained fire MG's from Light MG's" Topic

I am still trying to differentiate in my mind. What each can or cant't do.

Sustained fire Machine guns (i.e on a Tripod) and lots of ammo.

Types of fire

1)Point targets out to 1100 m (7.62mm) Heavy to 1500m.
2)) Un-0bserved Fixed line fire (Grazing fire) out to 600m which can be unobserved as it is set up like artillery fire.
3) Un-0bserved Area fire when operating beyond 600m.
4) Firing effectively on an observed line to maximize targets within the fall of shot within 600m. More targets than 1) Typically why Mg's fire across the units front not directly out.

Light Machine guns (bi-pod mounts) no so much ammo available.

as 1) but limited to 800m.
as 4) I have left the range the same as for instance the GPMG can be used as an SFMG or a Squad weapon.

Now there is also the issue that lying down quickly with a LMG, visibility may be limited by the surrounding vegetation, it's difficult to use an LMG on a bipod mount lying down in full grown corn, I have ignored this for the present in my rules as a currently acceptable approximation.

So what facts opinions can you bring to bear on this very difficult issue?

Why the fuss after the rules have been out for 10 years? I have always considered that the Machine gun is never well represented in many war games. Ours was/is better than some but the balance between the firepower of the rifle group and the MG group is hard to achieve and I do not feel it is as good as it could be. MG's are very powerful but need more care in selection of the base of fire so simple upping of the odds of a "kill" is not a credible solution.

You've summed it up quite well already. It's a while since I was on SF, but if you've any specific questions tap away. But as I said, you're pretty much bang on.

I think a sustained-fire MG might have a bit of a problem in the cornfield situation as well.

Daithi,
I assume that an SFMG will need time to set up and hence have time to pick a spot to minimise the issue, possibly raising the tripod to get a clear arc of fire.

An SF MG or gun line won't be going forward in the assault, so it won't find itself in that sort of cover. Gun positions will have been recce'd, either by the gun commander or by map, to find the best position to support the assault. Or in defence, to cover likely approach routes etc.

Sounds about right …

SFMG
1) 1100 meters is pretty much beyond unaided visibility. 1500 meters is almost a mile (.932) away. You'll need a steady rest and more than iron sights. Think sniper rules with a (very) high rate of fire.
2) Un-0bserved
3) Un-0bserved Both of these require a mount and sight with which you can lay azimuth and elevation. Indirect fire artillery rules.
So far your problems are in overcoming visibility issues, not the type of weapon.
4) "Fire across the unit's front"; typically this is part of a prepared defense. Cleared field of fire and lay in plenty of ammo. Any MG, defender modifies the Line Of Sight/Field Of Fire to fit, and ammo rules or higher Rate Of Fire.
LMG
1) Your limit will be unaided visibility.
4) Yes, for the reasons previously cited.
In many of the cases it will be the same weapon (e.g. MG34/42/1/2/3 or M60) The differences in hardware are the mount (bipod, tripod), the feed (drum, belt, multiple linked belts), the sight (iron, telescopic, Traversing & Elevation (T&E)), and ammunition supply.
The difference in software(?) is Line Of Sight/Field Of Fire, which can be modified over time spent in a fixed position.
The difference is not the gun.
link
link enter: SHUTDOWN

"Full grown corn" brings something entirely different to the minds of Kansans.

Walking Sailor,to function as an SFMG it req has ammo dumped with it or very close (US WW2 stated a machine gun of this tytpe could never operate more than 500m from its jeep trailor full of ammo).

In the Falklands the UK paras complined they were pined down by the Argentines as thir GPMG (bipod) tracer ran out at 1100m so could not realisticalt see fall of shot limiting their range. The argentines in reply with 0.5 cal MG were still in the game at 1500m as their tracer was good to 1500m.

emckinney. I assume you mean Maize or 'sweet Corn' as we call it in the UK. we grow it in the UK now. Once got lost in it 6ft in. I did consider rules for play but abbandoned it as too specialist, more sence just define it as zero visibility and some chance of getting lost.

Things like corn, i.e. foliage is considered concealment. It blocks LOS but does not stop incoming rounds. Vs cover, e.g. a solid object like a wall, etc. That could/would stop the rounds, schrapnel, etc. E.g. a corn field in full bloom will provide concealment but not cover.

For gaming purposes in either case of cover and/or concealment there should be a bonus to the unit taking fire. Could be also divided into terms of Hard and Soft. I.e. Cover is hard vs. Concealment is soft. E.g. -2 to hit = hard vs. -1 for soft.

And we know that most firefights occur @ 250m. Which has much more to do with terrain, LOS, the naked eye, etc. than the distance a round will travel. I.e. Max Effective Range vs. Max Range. The round can generally go farther than you can see, again, based on terrain, etc. And we also know a scope on a weapon does change/modify that paradigm as well to a point …

In The World Wars a water cooled 30 was classified as a Heavy Machine Gun (HMG). (aside: 50's and up were Large Caliber Machine Guns (LCMG).) Any MG with a Jeep load of ammo would have been an HMG. When a GPMG is used in SFMG mode it is attempting to replicate the function of an HMG. To do so, you're right, lots of ammo, and a quick change barrel system with extra barrels. Functionally, this means that the gunner is willing to burn more ammo. A higher rate of fire based on mode of use of the same weapon.

Yes, you can use tracer to sight the fall of shot.

Edit: the sight (iron, telescopic, T&E) add: tracer.
Edit: ammunition supply add: and spare barrels

Again, the difference is not the gun. It is what the gunner can and will do.

Tango put up something relevant: TMP link at the bottom of that page also click the "Rules of Infantry Combat" link.

Again, the difference is not the gun. It is what the gunner can and will do.

Yep … a weapon is only as good as the soldier/crew behind it …

In the US Midwest, I'm pretty sure you could lose a Sherman or M60 tank in the full-grown corn, nevermind a platoon of grunts!

IMO, a SAW or M60/GPMG is a heavier basic rifle for most of it's use. A bipod MG can throw down a whole lot of lead, but that mostly seems to be once properly sited into the defense.

Even when used during the assault the GPMG won't move position during the assault. The gun team will be directed to or find the best position to lay down suppressive fire, the assault team will do all the running round once the gun is in position. Only when the enemy position is taken will the gun team rejoin the section. It's only in CQB that the gun is fired on the move. So no, I don't agree that a GPMG is a heavy basic rifle for most of it's use, it's the majority of a sections firepower.

As per W/Sailor's recommendation … worth a look …

"Rules of Infantry Combat"
link

In the US Midwest, I'm pretty sure you could lose a Sherman or M60 tank in the full-grown corn, nevermind a platoon of grunts!

Yes, the only thing you have to be concerned about is the path into the cornfield. But based on the enemies' LOS you certainly could be concealed. But as Infantry it is most certainly a great place to be concealed.

E.g. During REFORGER'88 [IIRC ]. Dismounted elements of my Mech Co. and I, hide in a cornfield. And ambushed an OPFOR AT Plt moving into a Support By Fire/Overwatch Position outside of a German village. Most of them would have been WIA/KIA before they could have fired a shot. We moved into that cornfield and didn't leave any signature, pretty much completely "invisible". Until it was too late for those ITVs and their crews …