Infantry Firepower Questions
Posted 15 September 2010 - 01:32 AM
Posted 15 September 2010 - 03:33 PM
Posted 16 September 2010 - 10:36 AM
Posted 16 September 2010 - 02:48 PM
Posted 18 November 2010 - 12:26 PM
Posted 26 November 2010 - 07:24 AM
Posted 26 November 2010 - 10:46 AM
Yes, and (maybe) no. It is hard to generalize when the squads were equipped with rather different kit, and operated under different doctrines.With a 1942 German squad of 10 infantrymen in a defensive position, the two men serving an MG34 will generate more firepower (and do more killing) than the 8 men with Kar-98k's. No disagreement. The Wehrmacht expected this, and the men were trained for it. The primary role of the riflemen was to protect the MG team, who were the main source of firepower for the squad.With a 1944 US squad of 12 infantrymen advancing, the 11 men with M1 Garands will generate more firepower (and do more killing) than the 1 man with a BAR. The army expected this, and the men were trained for it. The primary role of the BAR mad was to suppress the enemy so that the riflemen could maneuver into positions from which they could provide effective (lethal) fire.
Note that rifles do not generate the volume of fire that automatic weapons do ... An automatic weapon will generate most of the fire for a squad when it is so eqipped.
No disagreement. I think this statement is fully reliable, and born out by history.The question is how far we carry it.Case 1: LMG stand, alone, has greater firepower than the increment it provides when you add it to a stand of riflemen.In my book that is a reasonable approach.Case 2: LMG stand, alone, has greater firepower than a stand of riflemen AND LMG.In my book that is not reasonable.If an LMG-only stand has firepower of 14, and riflemen-only stand has firepower of 8, then a combined rifle+LMG stand having firepower of less than 22 (< 14 + 8) is reasonable to my readings of history. So give it 20, or 18, or even 16. But the combined stand having firepower of less than 14 just doesn't make sense.To examine a practical case:The Italian army in WW2 had an "obsolete" platoon structure. Rather than integrating their automatic weapons into the rifle squads, they kept the LMGs in seperate squads, with each platoon organized as two sections each with a rifle squad of 11 men, and an LMG squad of 9 men with 2 LMGs. I have tried to organized my Italian force according to this (historically correct) structure. Since there is no rating for a squad with 2 LMGs, each LMG squad is modelled as two seperate support-stands each with 1 LMG.Under Mein Panzer rules, Italian rifles are rated lower than most other nation's rifles, and Italian LMGs are rated lower than any other nation's LMGs. I think this is reasonable. The Italian rifles and LMGs were notoriously poor compared to other nations' kit. Yet under Mein Panzer rules my Italian infantry platoon has more combat power than any other infantry platoon in my forces, if they are rated at the same skill level. More than my US, Soviet, French or Romanian infantry.Why? Because while the platoon's rifle stands are anemic, the LMG-only stands each have more firepower than a combined rifle+LMG stand, so the net firepower of a platoon is very high.This just ain't right.Even the Italians realized this historically, and forces in the field by 1942 often re-organized away from the specified platoon TOE towards the combined squads that other nations used. Now why would they have done this if they originally had more firepower than their opponants?
LMG stands alone have more firepower when deployed alone than with rifle squads.
I'm bumping up against the conclusion that something has to be changed.-Mark 1
Having said that, it might be better to just come up with different stats for automatic weapon equipped squads.
Posted 26 November 2010 - 02:45 PM
Posted 11 February 2011 - 08:06 PM
Posted 12 February 2011 - 07:09 AM
Mark, The MMG group struggled with this very issue for some time, and came up with its own massively playtested rules for the combined stand.
I've been noodling the original question of this thread a bit. I saw the answer regarding clips vs. belt-feed, but I have to say that I'm not quite sure I "get it".Let's set aside the question of German MG34s and 42s for a moment. Let's just look at American BARs and British BRENs. Or Russian DP28s, or French FM24/29s. Or Romanian .... or Italian ... or Japanese ...The starting point of my "not getting it"' 'ness, is that there was only ONE army in WW2 that equipped most squads with an LMG that could also serve as a belt-fed SFMG. So it should be considered the outlying case, not the basis for modelling the others.Now if I look at the US Infantry, I find that a squad of 10-12 men, with 11 x M1 Garand Rifles and 1 x BAR, has LESS firepower than a 2 man team with 1 x M1 Garand Rifle and 1 x BAR. In the case of the Brits, not only does the 2 man BREN team have more firepower than the combined rifle + LMG squad, but it shoots more often too (higher ROF).I am struggling to understand how this could be, unless we assume that there are 10 soldiers in each squad who each have the combat role of kicking the LMG gunner while he is trying to shoot.If this were reflective of reality, the US or British Armies would have cut their manpower allocations to 8 men per platoon (3 x 2-man LMG teams, plus platoon sargent and CO). This would have boosted their platoon firepower by over 100%. So why did they bother with the other 25-30 riflemen?Nope, it is not passing the test of reasonableness....-Mark(aka: Mk 1)
Posted 14 February 2011 - 09:38 PM
Posted 14 February 2011 - 10:21 PM
Posted 23 February 2011 - 04:47 AM
Posted 20 March 2011 - 10:32 AM
Posted 22 March 2011 - 11:12 AM
Product Manager - Mein Panzer
Posted 08 April 2011 - 08:45 PM
Posted 09 April 2011 - 10:52 PM
This looks much more reasonable. The next question is, when do the other pages get changed? I think I can change the squad numbers myself (it looks like everything went down 1), but the pattern for the individual MG's is not so simple. I eagerly look forward to the next round of updates (or even some suggestions for how to change until then). Thanks in advance and keep up the great work.
I need to get more input on the numbers. So far you are the first to comment. I need to have a little playtesting with them to verify the numbers actually work ok. Please try the numbers in a game or two and let me know how they work out. Soon as I am comfortable with the results, I will make the changes and post them.
Product Manager - Mein Panzer
Posted 29 April 2011 - 07:05 PM
I need to get more input on the numbers. So far you are the first to comment. I need to have a little playtesting with them to verify the numbers actually work ok.
I guess the new website design must have kicked-in right in the middle of this discussion. I did not get my normal notification of activity in the thread, so I am afraid I was not very prompt in reacting to your update. Oops!
But I have now downloaded the test sheets. I will take a look, and give you my first impressions shortly. I don't have a game coming up anytime soon for play testing, but I might run a solitare engagement in the near future just to get a feel for how they work. If I can round up a compadre or two I'll also try running a short scenario to test 'em out.
Feedback upcoming either way.
Posted 26 May 2011 - 03:33 PM
Edit: oh well after downloading it I see they are also changed ;-) ... sorry ...
Posted 26 May 2011 - 04:56 PM
I am going to try and work out this issue over the course of the next couple of days. I hope to have something out NLT a week from now for initial ingestion and comments.
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users