Machine gun battalions

Have a feature request for SRGW? Post here.

Moderators: Balthagor, Moderators

Post Reply
Draken
General
Posts: 1168
Joined: Jul 14 2004
Human: Yes
Location: Space Coast, FL

Machine gun battalions

Post by Draken »

Are they in the game? As infantry or artillery? Since they were kinda fixed fire support units, I would suspect that they would be treated as artillery units in SRGW....
Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent.
Isaac Asimov, Salvor Hardin in "Foundation"
-
Si vis pacem, para bellum
-
It is hard to free fools from the chains they revere.
Voltaire
geminif4ucorsair
General
Posts: 1286
Joined: Jun 08 2005

Re: Machine gun battalions

Post by geminif4ucorsair »

Draken wrote:Are they in the game? As infantry or artillery? Since they were kinda fixed fire support units, I would suspect that they would be treated as artillery units in SRGW....
If one also follows the line of SR-36/SRU, they are more or less in the category of infantry gun battalions, because there are issues of mobility with the MG Bn.'s that also effected the infantry gun battalion in SR-36/SRU.

Therefore, I believe they should be treated as Artillery.
User avatar
George Geczy
General
Posts: 2688
Joined: Jun 04 2002
Location: BattleGoat Studios
Contact:

Re: Machine gun battalions

Post by George Geczy »

Artillery have an "indirect" fire effect (including damaging other units in the same area) that I don't think would fit with a Machine Gun battalion. While it could be argued that they do share some "suppression" effect with Artillery fire, I don't think this is really working in the same way, and I would think that MG would be direct fire - possibly considered as part of a standard infantry battalion's loadout.
Draken
General
Posts: 1168
Joined: Jul 14 2004
Human: Yes
Location: Space Coast, FL

Re: Machine gun battalions

Post by Draken »

well, believe or not, machine guns were used as indirect fire support on WWI (effectiveness could be debatable). A good reading about it is A Rifleman Went to War by Herbert McBride (he was an american who served in the MG btn on the 2nd Canadian division iirc)

My concern on game mechanics is that the "emma gees" of these battalions were in the heavy side, with limited mobility (no fire when moving) and used mostly of defense role .
Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent.
Isaac Asimov, Salvor Hardin in "Foundation"
-
Si vis pacem, para bellum
-
It is hard to free fools from the chains they revere.
Voltaire
dax1
Brigadier Gen.
Posts: 511
Joined: Apr 05 2012
Human: Yes
Location: Italy

Re: Machine gun battalions

Post by dax1 »

Draken....sorry...but I really can't understand how could be indirect, the machine guns fire...
I'm agree with George , just need set and balance the skills in right way.

[_]B In my mind the indirect fire is that with parabol trajectory..I don't know for you...
Con forza ed ardimento
Draken
General
Posts: 1168
Joined: Jul 14 2004
Human: Yes
Location: Space Coast, FL

Re: Machine gun battalions

Post by Draken »

Dax, no need to be sorry! this is a discussion forum after all...And as long as we are civil to each other we can disagree all day long! :-)

As per "how" ...well it is very simple actually ... MG rounds follow the same laws of physics as and other proyectile fired from conventional artillery . The differences are the number of rounds per tube and, of course, the caliber of the rounds...Just fire enough rounds at the proper angle.

Take a look at this:
http://1914-1918.invisionzone.com/forum ... -gun-fire/

That's shorter to read that the book I mentioned (where the use of MG in an indirect fire role is documented first hand). Mr McBride, in the book, comments that firing several machine guns in indirect mode (they knew the initial velocity of the rounds and the range to the target, so they were able to calculate the elevation angle) was very effective as area denial and to harras the enemy.

I don't remember the TO&E but imagine 64 mgs (quick gooogled number) firing 450 rounds per minute (Vickers MG rate of fire) and that's about 29k per minute .30 bullets on a basically inmobil target ...Wikipedia quotes 4100 meters as the max indirect range for the vickers..
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vickers_machine_gun wrote: The Vickers was used for indirect fire against enemy positions at ranges up to 4,500 yards (4,100 m). This plunging fire was used to great effect against road junctions, trench systems, forming up points, and other locations that might be observed by a forward observer, or zeroed in at one time for future attacks, or guessed at by men using maps and experience. Sometimes a location might be zeroed in during the day, and then attacked at night, much to the surprise and confusion of the enemy. New Zealand units were especially fond of this use. A white disc would be set up on a pole near the MMG, and the gunner would aim at a mark on it, knowing that this corresponded to aiming at the distant target. There was a special back-sight with a tall extension on it for this purpose. The only similar weapon of the time to use indirect fire was the German MG 08, which had a separate attachment sight with range calculator.
Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent.
Isaac Asimov, Salvor Hardin in "Foundation"
-
Si vis pacem, para bellum
-
It is hard to free fools from the chains they revere.
Voltaire
Draken
General
Posts: 1168
Joined: Jul 14 2004
Human: Yes
Location: Space Coast, FL

Re: Machine gun battalions

Post by Draken »

dax1 wrote:
[_]B In my mind the indirect fire is that with parabol trajectory..I don't know for you...
That is exactly what indirect fire means and it can be accomplished with any "firearm" that can be fired at an angle...

:-)

There are plenty of stories around of people struck by bullets fired to the air... That's indirect fire! :-) :-)
Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent.
Isaac Asimov, Salvor Hardin in "Foundation"
-
Si vis pacem, para bellum
-
It is hard to free fools from the chains they revere.
Voltaire
dax1
Brigadier Gen.
Posts: 511
Joined: Apr 05 2012
Human: Yes
Location: Italy

Re: Machine gun battalions

Post by dax1 »

Shooting with a rifle against a helicopter or airplane at low altitude does not mean to be an antiaircraft system.
When I was in the army I always used the MG in direct mode.
Con forza ed ardimento
SGTscuba
General
Posts: 2544
Joined: Dec 08 2007
Location: Tipton, UK

Re: Machine gun battalions

Post by SGTscuba »

Also, 4km isn't that far when you consider a hex is 16km.
My SR:U Model Project, get the latest and post suggestions here:

http://www.bgforums.com/forums/viewtopi ... 79&t=28040
Draken
General
Posts: 1168
Joined: Jul 14 2004
Human: Yes
Location: Space Coast, FL

Re: Machine gun battalions

Post by Draken »

I'm not saying that in our time and age they are use for indirect fire... But history says that, they, indeed were use in that role (with some degree of success) during WW I, which is the timeframe we are interested in.
Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent.
Isaac Asimov, Salvor Hardin in "Foundation"
-
Si vis pacem, para bellum
-
It is hard to free fools from the chains they revere.
Voltaire
Draken
General
Posts: 1168
Joined: Jul 14 2004
Human: Yes
Location: Space Coast, FL

Re: Machine gun battalions

Post by Draken »

SGTscuba wrote:Also, 4km isn't that far when you consider a hex is 16km.
No, it isn't much but I bet that there are a lot of WWI artillery pieces which ranges is less that 16km ...

My point, from a game mechanics point of view, is that MG batallions are not mobile as infantry and their equipment (the machine guns) needs to be deployed in order to be used, so they cannot fire while moving...
Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent.
Isaac Asimov, Salvor Hardin in "Foundation"
-
Si vis pacem, para bellum
-
It is hard to free fools from the chains they revere.
Voltaire
geminif4ucorsair
General
Posts: 1286
Joined: Jun 08 2005

Re: Machine gun battalions

Post by geminif4ucorsair »

George Geczy wrote:Artillery have an "indirect" fire effect (including damaging other units in the same area) that I don't think would fit with a Machine Gun battalion. While it could be argued that they do share some "suppression" effect with Artillery fire, I don't think this is really working in the same way, and I would think that MG would be direct fire - possibly considered as part of a standard infantry battalion's loadout.
I would not argue the direct-fire aspect as you point out; my perspective was more focused on the mobility issue (as point out, they have to be set-up more extensively and to infantry-mobile - especially the WW One era water-cooled MGs).

But, remember, BG also rated the Infantry Assault Gun battalion as artillery, when in fact the 65, 70mm and similar light guns were all direct-fire weapons.

Either way is probably acceptable, only the ground Speed and Reaction function need to be adjusted.
User avatar
Balthagor
Supreme Ruler
Posts: 22082
Joined: Jun 04 2002
Human: Yes
Location: BattleGoat Studios

Re: Machine gun battalions

Post by Balthagor »

geminif4ucorsair wrote:... the Infantry Assault Gun battalion as artillery...
What unit ID is this?
Chris Latour
BattleGoat Studios
chris@battlegoat.com
Post Reply

Return to “Suggestions - SRGW”