"Historic/Realistic Rates of Fire" Topic

Do the skirmish 1:1 game rules you use deliver realistic rates of fire or is it based on one shot per activation?

Is this even important to you in a game?

What rules attempt to portray historic rates of fire?

Thanks,
Wolfhag

Don't think of it as individual shots but accuracy of shots over time. An RoF of 1 means that in a given turn there is a chance of an accurate/effective shot for this figure/stand. Unless you want to go down the rabbit hole of 10 second turns.

I believe historical/realistic rates of fire are always limited by situational awareness.

Perhaps units in overwatch/ambush positions can generate firing-range ROFs, but even then the timing and length of fire may be influenced by the potential exposure to enemy countermeasures/response fire (example – does a defending unit open up fully vs. enemy recon patrols).

The rules I've designed or favored, make adjustment based on the movement of the firer (potentially higher if halted, less if moving and then halting – but with some heavy two-piece ammo loads – really this makes no difference – reloading being restricted based on the loader's work load – as target acquisition and firing is just waiting on the loader).

If the rules fold in target spotting mechanics, and these being influenced by observed enemy firing volumes, then perhaps the situational conditions begin to factor into modeled gun exchanges.

All this can have a detrimental effect on game play efficiency – where real-time game decisions lapse while the game mechanics try to catch up.

Lastly then, ROFs can be factored as relative expression of firepower, or turn times can be reduced to reduce the potential ROFs to game-manageable levels.

My gamer/GM viewpoint……the presenter must look at the overall game product results……..does the game scenario results seem plausible, and can you execute that game within a reasonable timeframe or with your expected audience (and their tolerance for……).

+1 Saber 6

So in a given turn how do you even decide the ROF of:

• A bolt action rifle
  
• A heavy machine gun
  
• A 45mm AT gun
  
• A 50cal turret mounted MG
  
• A 76mm AFV main gun?

Is it just how many bullets it can put down range in a given time? How does visibility, spotting, movement, smoke, weather, ammo supply, mission all affect ROF at any given moment?

In a way ROF is like speed. There's how fast your tank can drive, and how fast it will actually move in combat conditions.

Your tank moves 30mph on road. Your turn is 10 minutes, and your ground scale is 1" = 100 yards. Your tank should move up to 88" per turn.

I think all I look for is somewhat realistic fire ratios. A bolt action rifle should have a different rate of fire than an SMG, and they both are different than an MG42.

Interesting points – this reminds me of one of my issues with Napoleonic rule sets – from what I can read, at best Napoleonic heavy cavalry could mount two full-out charges a day – yet most rules allow them to charge on and on and on – and I agree Sabre 6 nailed the core of the issue

Blush

I'm happy with the representation of combat that my preferred rules deliver.
Effectiveness of fire is what I care about.

If a ruleset makes a us rifleman with a garand more effective than a german with a kar98k then I would have doubts.
If it doesn't make an mg42 more effective than a browning 30 cal then I would have doubts.

Wolf,
Interesting question. Agree with the thoughts presented so far. For my go to skirmish, force on force, weapons are rated for both rate of fire and effective use of the weapon. So a rifle gets you 1 die, while a MG might get you 2 or 3 depending on if you are a team or not and if you have ammo. If you are trained you will roll a d8, if not you will roll something else. So yes rate of fire is important but only one factor in deciding "effectiveness" of that fire.
Just my thoughts

Joe

And then there's the question of comparing different weapons: a tripod mounted MG42 technically has a faster rate of fire than a Vickers, but the Vickers can fire all day. Do you need to factor that in? If you do, it will be very dependent upon the time scale you use, and just how detailed your rules are. But don't give one of them an advantage without the corresponding disadvantage.

Final Combat by Ben Lacy accounts for EVERY. SINGLE. ROUND. FIRED. It is basically a time motion study.

I like the game a lot but I've only been able to play it solo.

I do admit it did get a little tedious at times to figure how many rounds were being fired in certain situations.

No skirmish games that I play, but some RPGs did: in different ways Delta Force, Twilight 2000, Recon & Shadowrun all tried to account for every round. I even played Phoenix Command a few decades ago.

Only the first two worked mechanically IMHO but even then, it was pretty pointless and produces less realistic results than wargames rules.

Do the skirmish 1:1 game rules you use deliver realistic rates of fire or is it based on one shot per activation?

Neither.

The rules allow you to stat out your units to achieve whatever fire effectiveness you want. Within that, you can manage the design to represent whatever you feel is relevant to the game.

For example:

RoF 1 : 10 shots/min
Ph 1 : 0.5

RoF 2 : 20 shots/min
Ph 2 : 0.25

Overall Pk is the same for both, so they could be represented by the same unit design.

Deprecation for damage and the relationship between maneuver and firing is also abstracted.

With just over half a million basic design combinations, I feel there's a reasonable scope of granularity to allow you to represent whatever "reality" you want.

No. I haven't tracked individual rounds fired since the 1970s. Like Andy, I'm more interested in relative effects. One MG is worth 14 rifles, that sort of thing.

My good pal John Salt has postulated that real world rates of fire are more determined by the availability of targets than theoretical cyclical rates of fire. Which seems quite sensible to me.

ROF can be a useless parameter. Real troops carry really very limited ammunition.

The first and confirmed record for the most hits on target during a 'Mad Minute' was set by Sgt-Major Jesse Wallingford – 36 hits at 300 yards in 1 minute in 1908. However, this was allegedly bettered in 1914, by Sergeant-Instructor Alfred Snoxall with 38 hits within the 24 inch inner ring in 60 seconds. It has not been beaten since although there is little documentary evidence of the feat readily available. Hitting the target 38 times would require him to fire his first 5 rounds pre-loaded in the SMLE's magazine and then reload 7 times with 5 round chargers. Add onto this that the rifle was a single shot, bolt action rifle which required the user to push up and retract the bolt and then return it forward pushing a new round into the chamber, then aiming and fire. All while maintaining his cheek weld and line of sight. This means Snoxall must have averaged around 1.5 seconds per shot to hit the target 38 times in a minute. Quite a feat.

So a good man could run out of qammo in 2 to 3 minutes. Clearly ROF is all dependent on the situation. Yes an MG is more effective but it also shoots more ammunition than the rifelmen that it supports. In all but the most desparate situatins fire is not a peak rate. For a 0.5 cal MG often 3 round for range 5 for effect, nowhere near max ROF.

Thus somehow a Rule desiger has to "rationalize" fire effect and ROF so that the real troops would not run out of ammor or start counting but that to me is a step too far. We do it for artillery but not for rifles or MG's, except SFMG's need to have additional ammo dumped or be accomponied by a vehicle carrying spare ammo.

Thanks for the replies. So I should probably re-word my question.

What I meant as "historic" ROF was not the theoretical ROF but the rate used to engage the enemy in different tactical situations which is what it seems people have responded to. I'm definitely not talking about tracking every round of small arms fire or firing at their max cyclic rate all of the time. Thanks.

So to rephrase the question, are you playing skirmish level games with rates of fire determined by the tactical situation and what the manuals state or a generic "hits on 1-3", etc?

I think the tactical situations that would determine the level/rate of expenditure of ammo would be harassing/interdiction fire, sustained fire and intensive fire. There is data for this in the manuals.

Intensive Fire is normally used in the opening of an engagement within 200m or ambush to achieve firepower superiority, final protective fire, to suppress the enemy or if a juicy and exposed target presents itself. You'd probably use intensive fire in the final stage of an assault too.

Intensive fire can cause many causalities if the unit is caught in the open or flanked. If they can take cover you'll probably have only 2 seconds worth of firing before the targets all go to ground and this would give an advantage to semi-automatic rifles over bolt action. Most weapons, except water cooled MG's, would only be able to keep this ROF up for a short period. Most games I've seen the targets must stand exposed to see the results of the die roll before they can react or do something.

Sustained Fire is normally the rate to keep an enemy suppressed and causing causalities wold be secondary as units in cover are hard to target individually. The "experts" have stated that it takes about 1/3 of the Intensive Fire to keep them suppressed. For rifles of all types it appears to be 6-10 rounds a minute and LMG's about 150/minute. A Vickers or M1917 water cooled gun probably up to 600/minute for as long as they have ammo and water. Sustained fire generally causes very few causalities if the defenders are in good cover. If they are out of the LOS, in a trench, etc nothing is going to touch them unless they are returning fire.

I'm thinking Suppressed units can only use harassing/sparse small arms fire at about 10% to 30% of their sustained rate. Depending on the terrain, infantry units can "Hunker Down" and be immune to small arms fire but cannot return fire themselves. This is typically what my recon units will do with mortars and vehicles backing them up. Get the enemy to open fire and give away his position and then pound him. I also allow infantry units to immediately obey a "Fall Back" order.

IIRC John Salt published a British War Office Report that sustained fire from a section with a Bren gun could expect about 1% per minute causalities against well entrenched defenders.

A big factor in generating causalities would be the enemy response (Immediate Action Drill, Battle Drill) because that would determine the amount of time the target is under fire.

I like etotheipi 's idea as it's something I'm working on too.

Thanks Joe,
I've played FoF only once. There seemed to be a lot of die rolling but overall I like the concept.

Is it just how many bullets it can put down range in a given time? How does visibility, spotting, movement, smoke, weather, ammo supply, mission all affect ROF at any given moment?

Some could affect the ROF and some accuracy. With a low ammo supply you might limit intensive fire. Historically, sustained fire against targets in cover and dispersed over 100m gave very little results regarding causalities but did fairly well for suppression.

For 1:1 AFV combat tracking single rounds could work. Regarding the ROF of tank main guns:
To answer this I think a first shot engagement Ranging fire would take a certain amount of time. From my research about 10-15 seconds after reacting (Situational Awareness) a few seconds less if using Battle Sight or a Snap Shot. A good crew a little quicker and poor crew a little slower. After that a unit may be able to use an almost ideal ROF or there are a variety of factors that could slow it down.

The actual combat ROF would depend on how many different targets were engaged over a period of time. So you might engage four targets with four shots in one minute and knock out each one with additional time for acquiring a new target. However, you also might fire 8-10 shots in a minute at one target with all of them bouncing off. It's pretty tough to simulate using activation and IGYG rules. Engaging new targets takes an additional slightly variable amount of time. There is good hard data on reload times for many WWII AFV's and you can get an idea watching combat footage.

I guess my issue is with games that use unit activation systems and normally perform one or two actions. I've seen games where an anti-tank gun fires as much as an IS-2 that has a reload time of 25-30 seconds. There is too much of a disconnect. The difficulty is finding a playable and interactive way to parse the different units rate of fire within a turn and account for the additional time to engage new targets.

Final Combat comes close, and I think Phoenix Command has the right idea for tank guns but the overall mechanics are just too much for me. But Final Combat and Phoenix Command are use action timing since orders are not magically executed immediately, not activations so it's hard to compare them.

IIRC Panzer War, Panzer, Combat Commander and GI Commander do have direct fire results that can generate more than one hit per turn with a single die roll.

UshCha,
The SMLE is an excellent rifle, accurate with a smooth bolt. Here is an example of rapid fire the British used in WWII. The rate is about that of an M1 Garand but not as accurate on follow-up shots.
YouTube link

Wolfhag

Gathered what you were asking Wolfhag, and reason why I focused on situation awareness, or a unit's battlefield posture.

"Realism" questions asked to be filtered through gamer experience with [skirmish] rules will be fraught with inexactitude to start with.

There's a tendency to discuss history, tactics, or technology here through gamer experience with rules, but these things don't necessarily conform to game rules, instead, game rules are attempting to conform to them (this is obvious, but still there's this exercise to conform reality to "the game").

My basic view, based not on rules, is that rates of fire are situational. They're affected by the conditions on the battlefield, by the mission orders, even by those intangibles defined as quasi-battlefield conditions (militaries accept that there are indeed quasi-battlefield conditions).

We understand that military units fight under echelons of leadership, down to the smallest elements. In most instances unit leaders order fire, or attempt to control the conditions and manner for it. Even snipers operating independently, or outposts, recon patrols are operating under orders of enganement.

I've owned or have fired the Lee-Enfield No. 2 MkIV, Springfield M1903, M1 Grand, M1 Carbine, Browning M1919 MG, Mauser 98k, MG42, and seen most of the other WWII small arms fired – doing this has taught me nothing about battlefield decision-making, or how I would perform (or fire) under combat conditions.

Gamers or designers can have all manners of approaching "realism", it's what we like to dabble at a lot within this hobby. However, isn't the core practice of gaming about making risk/success analysis, but that defined between the page covers of some set of gaming rules?

After 50+ years in this hobby, I wholeheartedly believe that rules don't make the player, or even the game, it's been the other way around. That sometimes there's so much placed between the actual process of allowing decision making, that a set of rules ends of playing the player instead. Maybe comparisons about rule realism is meant to say – "this is why I enjoy using this particular set of rules" (because the rules meet a personal threshold where someone feels motivated enough to engage with them in decision-making).

The game forums are full of guys or designers relating why their choice to engage with a set of rules might be your best choice too.

I'm sure there's gamers who enjoy peeling back those weighty rules layers, or think this means more realism (guess that's the first rules decision we make).

So to rephrase the question, are you playing skirmish level games with rates of fire determined by the tactical situation and what the manuals state or a generic "hits on 1-3", etc?

Still neither. ROF is abstracted as part of an overall kill chain, represented by an opposed roll. The actual representation is in the design of units, not the rules.

To be honest we don't really do casualties. So ROF is a bit academic. In typical cases a prolonged firefight at a reasonable range will run both sides out of ammunition, most probably before they run out of bodies. Also you can't take large casualties by just shooting generally unless you catch the enemy doing something stupid. Running 100 yds across a bridge under an SFMG that has be set up to protect it is a good case of stupid. So in our game the aim is to win the fire fight so suppression is the aim. The leadership does slowly decrease which is a bit of fatigue and/or ammunition usage. If you want to make the enemy run off or be overrun you do that over the last 200yds in a final flurry of fire, grenades and close in weapons. So to some extent you have do what you need. Casualty removal is a "toy soldiers" thing. Typically a 30% loss is catastrophic so 3 men out of 10 is a lot and it makes for poor granularity so "kills" i.e figure rendered combat ineffective is a poor parameter to bother with. Hence ROF is not really an issue in of itself but the degradation of troops in a long firefight as they both run out of capability for little gain is.

Gaining fire superiority is important but if the troops are evenly matched then they give as good as they get so its about quantity of fire. How many rifles and MG's vs the enemy, factored for position for example trenches are a combat multiplier.

Now if you want to add ROF in you could, say in our game ramp up suppression rate at the expense of ramping down their capabilities faster as they are using more than the optimum ROF for the condition. That probably called wasting ammo. But the question is what are you trying to achieve even if you did this? I for one would never go that far, too many rules for the little gain it may achieve on rare occasions.

Wolf,
Now I understand your question. My answer is "yes". In FoF you have the option of choosing supressive fire rather than normal killing fire. This shockingly, makes it easier to pin down the target at the expensive of getting hits.

Did I help?

Joe

Joe,
That's kind of what I'm looking for, not one size fits all. In FoF do they take into account ammo expenditure?

Personally, I like the definition of suppression being, "Degrading your opponents ability to observe (Situational Awareness), shoot, move and communicate and/or forcing him to change his orders or posture. Also, "All small arms fire is suppressive, sometimes it kills".

So when a unit is shot at, it performs an Immediate Reaction Drill like in this post: TMP link

Hitting the deck (Improved Position) to return fire and falling back are player decisions. To advance while under fire a unit needs to pass an Aggressiveness Check (Morale Check) with a negative modifier if under intensive fire and a positive if under sporadic fire. If they fail they can Hit the Deck or Fall Back, players choice. Suppressed units have their firepower decreased and reaction time is slower because of poor SA. The Platoon Leaders ability to control other squads is decreased.

This works well for Fire & Maneuver as one element suppresses and the maneuver element stays Hunkered Down out of sight so is not being shot at. When the target is sufficiently the player can order the maneuver element to move out without needing to pass an Aggressiveness Check. The targets reaction is slowed allowing the maneuver element to move from cover to cover or out of their LOS.

I'm in agreement with UshCha.

Wolfhag

No ammo is not taken into account. I assume because the battles are so short. There are some weapons ( tanks ect) that you have to take a suppression check just because they shot at you.
Interesting stuff

Thanks

Joe

Ammo counting is not part of our rules either. As Joe Logan point out, most battles are short enough that ammo supply is a strategic campaign issue, not a tactical one.

Sieges are commonly an exception to this, so they get that handled in the scenario. We normally play this with a "double blind" approach where both sides have a variable supply unknown to the other, which might include (functionally) infinite supply. This represents limits on stores for one side and logistic train on the other.

An example of a one-sided is one of my faves, the Battle of Puebla (Cinco de Mayo). What we play represents the third assault at the end of the day where the French were at the tail end of their artillery ammo supply. We use a progressive random deprecation of capability to represent running out of ammo.

In all of these cases, RoF is abstracted into the operational environment, not directly represented.

"Ammo counting"

A better way of handling that is Units Of Fire (UOF). Give each figure (or model) a certain # of UOF. If a 'bad' roll is made while making a shooting attack, one UOF is expended. When out, uh-oh, better scrounge for more, or sharpen that bayonet. Some figures/units may fire off all their UOF early in a battle, while others might fire the whole game without expending even one (depending on your dice rolling… ;-) Obviously, one-use weapons are still just that, one-use, like grenades…

Zephyr1, I never liked this semi random approach. Its flaws are obvious, two units doing the same thing with the same training could, and often would, have wildly diffrent performance, I smacks too much of (too me) the excessively random game (agreed loved by some but hated by me). Thats why we us e a Fear, Fire and Fatigure leadership, it does (again to me) a much more credible job more cloesly linked to the intensity of the combat.

Never sure why to some designers throwing the dice is the first resort, is it the desire not to have to think about basic modelling or is it the love of gambling?

Yes, it is semi-random. Are all soldiers perfect automatons that will do exactly what they are trained to do perfectly, every time? No, because we're human, after all. ;-) Every situation in a battle is unique, not every variable can be accounted for, no two are the same, so the randomness represents some soldiers blazing away, while others take measured shots. Yes, UOF is an abstract way to track ammo usage, without needing to track *every single round* (though I acknowledge some like to do that, 'cause it's fun for them? ;-), and when a figure/unit is down to one UOF, it's then up to the player to decide the risks of running out. Randomness has always been a part of war (if not life… ;-)

Training and officers are there to keep control of the troops and stop Ad Hoc wastage of ammunition. Having run some big games, what may seem random to the man at the bottom is really actually Known Unknowns to the highet levels. Such things are which are indeterminate but not trully random like a dice throw. Still like you say "you pays your money and takes your choice".

While the die roll discussed is a uniform, linearly distributed random event, the context under which the die roll is applied is not. So the entire transaction is not fully random.

two units doing the same thing with the same training could, and often would, have wildly diffrent performance

No. With the system described, two units doing the same thing with the same training often have slightly different performance and on a rare occasion have wildly different performance. So, basically just like actual operations.

The idea of "doing the same thing" is a canard in most real world military situations (and many other real world situations outside military actions).

No. With the system described, two units doing the same thing with the same training often have slightly different performance and on a rare occasion have wildly different performance. So, basically just like actual operations.

Can't agree. On a D20 one could fail on fist go another after 20 bounds (5% of the second given the first roll) That too me is not rare. 1 i9n 1000 to me is starting to get rare.

First of all, a single die roll is not the system described. But let's look at the thing you describe:

If you fail on a 1 of 20:
- The first fail is a chance of .05.
- Twenty rounds of of no fail in a row is (.95)^20 = .358
- Combing the probability is .017, so a little more than 1 in 100.

Not to your definition or "rare", but about once every two years at one game a week.

Now, if you use a d6:

- Fail first .167
- Fail after 20 (5/6)^20 = .026
- Composite odds = .004

So about 4 in one thousand, or one game in 19 years at one game a week. Still not to your standard.

The situation Zephyr1 described, with deprecated decrease based on multiple rolls.

- Fail first roll – 0%
- Fail after 20 – not enough info, but who cares
- Composite odds of one fail first, other after 20 rounds, 0%

So no chance is significantly less than 1 in 1000.

For BoP, I use artillery with 3d6, remove one die for a roll of 6 (still counts as a success, but removed after hit).

- Chance of fail on first roll, (1/6)^3 = .005
- Upper limit of fail on 20 is (91/216) x (11/36) x (5/6)^18 = 1.6 x 10^ 16
- Composite odds .000024

Or a little more than 2 in 100,000.

I'm using a rule that there is a 5% chance of a non-optimum situation (SNAFU) that can occur when you fire so they end up happening at the worst time. There are 20 different situations based on historical accounts.

Things like a misfire, jammed round, gunner chokes, etc. The player rolls a D100 (2xD10) on the Critical Hit Chart to determine which one occurs. If he rolls a 00 (100) the round explodes in the chamber. I recall reading an account of that happening to Otto Carius. If my math is correct that is a 1 in 2000 chance (5% divided by 100) of getting that result. The very next game we played I got a SNAFU and rolled 00 on my very first try, it happens.

There are other "rare" occurrences such as a 5% chance of a Critical Hit which can hit a turret ring, weak armor spot, shot trap, view port, etc so no vehicle is completely safe. You roll a D20 to determine the hit location. Rolling a 20 is a Critical Hit.

Depending on the hit location and angle/aspect there is also a 5% chance or higher for a round to ricochet which the defending player rolls (similar to a Saving Throw) when the shooter is rolling for the hit location so his fate is in his hands. While these things may not happen very often, the suspense of them happening when the player rolls the dice is one of the most entertaining parts of the game but it does not over power or slow down the game either.

I did consider some low ammo rules like ammo racks being depleted. However, I found that in the short engagements that occur at Battalion level and below most tanks did not fire enough rounds and if they did there was enough down time they could have been filled up again so I left it out. However, you could start a scenario with a tank having only a limited number of rounds.

From my readings if a WWII unit got into an extended and mostly static firefight they'd be sending people back for ammo runs unless they get cut off. The only recent account of a unit running low on ammo and grenades, surrounded, cut off, fighting all night until dawn, and outnumbered 10-1 was Sgt Jimmie Howard in VN in 1966. Read some of their solutions: link

Wolfhag

Guerilla actions are usually driven by limited ammo, but it is still rare that such a force will run out.

We only have enough ammo for a thirty minute sustained fight. After ten minutes, we're backing out. The same decision envelope happens in many other types of engagement. We're not going to press forward or even hold ground if I know we don't have the resources to sustain against the enemy force. We'll withdraw. Running out of ammo only happens in rare, constrained cases. That's part of what makes those cases interesting.

Even in Puebla, Lorencz thought there was enough artillery for the engagement because he thought the people of Puebla would turn on the Army as soon as the first shot was fired, so he would get a quick victory. As it happened, not only did they support the Army, but they turned out to help.

Normally, I would handle something like the above situations with penalties to VP for staying long (until the end of your ammo), so you don't need to track ammo as people will withdraw or lose by exceeding that limit on their engagement.

There is a lot of misinformation spoken about MG rates of fire. Many fans of the MG34 and MG42 speak about rates of fire exceeding 1200 rpm. This is the cyclic rate which assumes the weapon firing non stop with stoppages, ammunition limits or barrel changes.
I was previously a MG platoon commander in the British army so if I talk about the GPMG which is a very similar weapon using similar ammunition. It has a cyclic rate of fire of 750, could be higher but the gun is ‘balanced' to keep it that low..
The GPMG in Sustained Fire role (on a tripod) uses a 200 rpm firing bursts of approximately 20 rounds. This is because you need to adjust fire and also change barrels every 400 rounds. Add in the weight of ammunition, a belt of 200 rounds of 7.62 in disintegrating link weighs 5.5kg (just the belt not the tin it is issued in). So just 10 minutes of firing is 55kg weight! That doesn't even take into account the soldiers personal kit, rifles, the weight of the gun, the tripod or the barrel bag.
So that's a lot to think about and battlefield rates of fire are a lot different to cyclic rates. It also shows the old bulky Vickers with its lower cyclic rate of fire can actually knock out higher battlefield rates providing the water jacket is kept topped up and there is enough oil to feed into the working parts to prevent stoppages.
Things are never that straightforward.
In the Light Role (using just the bipod) the battlefield rate of fire is probably 20-30 rpm in 3 round bursts. Again I would venture the MG42 would be very similar.

A us training film for an Mg platoon stated they shot at 100 rpm when 3 were firing and then increased for a short time to 150 rpm when one gun from the 3 stopped firing to change a barrel, clear a stoppage etc.

sidley, that was a very useful contribution thanks.

Good stuff sidley.

On 24th of August, it will be 106 years since the 100th Machine Gun Company of the Machine Gun Corps supported the attack on High Wood on the Somme. The story of them firing one million rounds from six Vickers Machine guns in 12 hours has appeared throughout written and oral history since then. Did it happen?

link

Wolfhag

There's a quote from a very experienced british officer. I posted a copy some time back if anyone cares about the exact wordage.

He saw lots of combat with the germans.
Their machine guns would be firing and firing.
First few engagemens he expected them to run out of ammo and stop.
They never stopped though.

Interesting quote, unfortunately nothing to hang a discussion on. I can't believe machineguns fired non stop, the targets just would not be in sight constantly. The German system where the entire section had the job as ammo carriers meant that there was always a good supply. Plus in defence you get the opportunity to stock pile the ammunition you need plus extra piled in alternate and secondary positions. (An alternate is a different position where you can fire on the same area as your original position and a secondary is a different position covering a different area, normally a fallback position in defence or another forward position to cover advancing troops).
Whenever you fought the Germans you would hear machineguns as they based their entire platoon and company doctrine around them.

IIRC the Vickers in that engagement were conducting indirect area fire which was not uncommon in WWI.

My Grandfather (on the US side) was the Captain of a Machine Gun Company with 12 M1919 water cooled MG's. In his diary he described how they conducted indirect interdiction fire on a water well on the German side of the lines all night. It was not continuous fire but with the guns alternating firing bursts all night long.

They captured a German prisoner who said they lost 6 guys attempting to get water that night, they all failed.

Wolfhag

For six MGs to consume 1,000,000 rounds in twelve hours, the calculation would be – 1,000,000 divided by 6 guns divided by 12 hours divided by 60 minutes per hour – to obtain the required rate of fire per minute per gun. The number comes out to 231.48 rpmpg.

Per the book "Automatic Arms" by Johnson and Haven, the Vickers water-cooled tripod-mounted rifle caliber MG possessed a "deliverable rate of fire" of 250 rpm, which implies that each gun could enjoy 7.32 pct "down time" (about 4.5 minutes per hour) for service & maintenance.

It is unlikely that anyone planning to deliver that degree of sustained barrage fire over twelve hours would have failed to confront the logistical issues – pre-positioning of ammunition, coolant.

A question I have been unable to answer is whether the claimed one million rounds were necessarily delivered by the same six guns. Is it possible that some spare guns were provided to fill in in the event of mechanical breakdowns? Dunno.

Conclusion = theoretically possible.

B

The account of the vickers is in one of the US library's of useful military books. I never kept a record of it as it was not of direct interest as it was not my chosen period. I did read Vicxers themselves ran a gun for 24 hrs just to show that it could.

If you were interested in WW1 the report I read would be of interest. The account stated the gunners moved from one fire marking stick to another sometimes taking of the order of 30 min if I recall correctly and dwelling at one point at least for 20 min. I'm glad I don't have to put that in my rules. However even the report noted it was quite unique in that the assault was parallel to the front.

Strangely enough the British Army still trains for and uses indirect fire from GPMG in the sustained fire role (tripod mounted) using the C2 mortar sight using many of the techniques from WW1. Not very effective and only for harassing area fire, but we still train for it.

OH NOOOOO! At least for us aorthors we now might have to look at this!

IIRC in the early 1900's before WWI started European were using long range mass rifle fire volleys at targets over 1000 yards. The reason was that the angle of descent was so steep the targets would not be protected if hiding behind certain cover, in shallow trenches or fighting holes.

Wolfhag

Hi Wolfhag,
Balck discusses this tactical approach in use by the French as early as the Franco-Prussian War in his book "Infantry Tactics". I also suspect that this long range engagement approach may have been the reason why the French Army opted to attach it secret Mitrailleuse proto-MG to the artillery branch rather than the infantry.

B

Sidley – when the barrels get changed out, I assume they are allowed to cool down and swapped out – how many barrels would an MG section have?

Wolf – I use Two Hour Wargames and 5Core pretty much, and both have suppression w/o casualties showing firepower dominance. I think a 'realistic' rule set would be like Final Combat, more of an RPG.

I remember reading Farley Mowat's "And No Birds Sang" years ago, and noting how often the actions ended because they ran out of ammunition – I'd never really seen that as a routine thing happening but I suspect it's a lot more common.

The GPMG. In the light role as a section weapon using the bipod does not carry any spare barrels as the ROF means normal air cooling is sufficient.

In the sustained fire role (tripod Mount) the team carry the gun, the tripod, sights and a barrel bag containing two barrels in addition to the one mounted on the gun, so a total of three. As the barrels are changed every 400 rounds that means each barrel gets 4 minutes to cool before being swapped around.

We did once fired on a range without changing barrels to see what would happen. The barrel went red at the base where it joined the breech, then white, we thought we could almost see through the barrel body, then the rounds were cooking off and we panicked. We changed the barrel quickly, threw it on the sand bag we always used to put changed barrels on to avoid dirt. But the barrel was so hot it set the hessian sandbag on fire. Then the Range Conducting officer noticed us and went ballistic, that ended in an uncomfortable interview with the company commander!

I saw a gun melt the barrel of an M-1919 at night and it was the same way, you could see the rounds going through the barrel.

roryg1957, what do you like best about Final Combat?

Wolfhag