Are MG nests more for Suppression then actual damage?

[jbwjr]

Had a battle the other day and i may be reading to deep into this, but MG nests (bear in mind i have no upgrades for them yet, so these are the nests you have from the start) don't actually seem to do that much damage. So are they more for "suppressing fire"?

I got a forest heavy map, set up 2 or 3 trenches to cover a forest approach with 2 mg nests, 1 on each end with overlapping fire. I just zoomed in to watch and far as i could tell the MG nests don't hurt much. They do deal damage but its a very SLOW Damage over time effect i think, meanwhile the regiments in the trenches would CHUNK the enemy Regiments by like 1/3rd with each volley of rifle fire.

Like i said im probably reading into this too much, but are MG nests more for Suppression to key the enemy at bay while your troops gun them down?

[DropShot]

nah, get em out in the open and the MG can wipe an entire formation or two on their own. It still wont be as effective as a trench network filled with your own troops, but it do still slap. Typically, ♥♥♥♥ breaks before it dies anyway, so technically yes it does more moral damage than outright damage, but that goes for basically everything.

[camaro9163]

remember your static defenses are defensive support not the king pin to your defense. put them in your second and third line with a couple of battalions and watch the enemy fall.

[Hexagoros]

MGs used to act like real world MGs - as in they actually killed things, like real MGs.

People complained, and MGs got nerfed into the ground. Add on suppression and being fragile as ♥♥♥, and you've got the current MG situation.

[Yuithgf]

Hexagoros lähetti viestin:

MGs used to act like real world MGs - as in they actually killed things, like real MGs.

People overestimate the ♥♥♥♥ out of HMGs ngl. They really were more suppression than damage irl.

As for in-game, i don't think they suppress at all. Their main use to me is guard HQ and the rear line where enemy artillery doesn't reach.

[Turtler]

What DropShot and Yuit mentioned. HMGs are a bit too nerfed due to how they are an emplacement rather than a proper unit and how both the AI and competent players will try to identify them ASAP and blow them away as a prelude to the attack (which to be fair has historical precedents), but they will easily chew through formations of infantry if given the chance. The key issue is keeping the enemy at a distance and avoiding giving them the chance to throw grenades at them.

[Hexagoros]

Yuithgf lähetti viestin:

Hexagoros lähetti viestin:

MGs used to act like real world MGs - as in they actually killed things, like real MGs.

People overestimate the ♥♥♥♥ out of HMGs ngl. They really were more suppression than damage irl.

As for in-game, i don't think they suppress at all. Their main use to me is guard HQ and the rear line where enemy artillery doesn't reach.

20-40% of all WWI deaths were due to Machine Guns....

https://www.americanrifleman.org/content/grim-reapers-the-machine-guns-of-world-war-i/#:~:text=Some%20historians%20see%20machine%20guns,at%20about%2020-25%20percent.

Put another way, they were "one of the deadliest weapons on the Western Front."

https://www.nam.ac.uk/explore/weapons-western-front#:~:text=The%20machine%20gun%20was%20one,from%20a%20fixed%20defensive%20position.

But sure, they were totally "more suppression than damage."

[Searry]

They are really great if you position them correctly. Really quick wipe.

[Yuithgf]

Hexagoros lähetti viestin:

https://www.americanrifleman.org/content/grim-reapers-the-machine-guns-of-world-war-i/#:~:text=Some%20historians%20see%20machine%20guns,at%20about%2020-25%20percent.

First i want to say my comment was most about HMGs, if you add LMGs it does start to get more important especially since every western front country in ww1 basically produced their total number of HMGs several times over when it came to LMGs.
Keep in mind HMGs are partially aimed using a damn wheel.

Personally i can't help but wonder how they calculate deaths from machine guns. A soldier's corpse is found with a bullet in it, how are you sure of what fired it.

Ngl. this article mentions the madsen BAR browning 30 cal and colt as some of the most used MGs of the war... suuuure if we're very loose with definitions why not.

Hexagoros lähetti viestin:

https://www.nam.ac.uk/explore/weapons-western-front#:~:text=The%20machine%20gun%20was%20one,from%20a%20fixed%20defensive%20position

That link lähetti viestin:

It was a relatively new weapon at the start of the war, but British and German forces soon realised its potential as a killing machine, especially when fired from a fixed defensive position.

Ah yes, the Germans and British figured that out.
The belgians who were the first to use LMGs in combat in ww1 didn't, the french who produced the most MGs and at the start of the war had a similar MG per men ratio as the rest didn't: it was the germans and british who figured out machine guns kill.

For real that link is kinda british bias: the article. After what i quoted, they mention the vickers/lewis, and they're done. That's the topic of ww1 machine guns covered!
(when i say they mention the lewis, of course no mention of belgians using it way before the brits. why mention that, it's irrelevant.)

That link lähetti viestin:

The gun was so successful that it was later fitted to aircraft.

Oh golly gee that means it's as good as the 1909! can you imagine.

Edit: even as good as this thing!
https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/604430324683898921/1123631126095872100/Austro_hungarian_aircraft_gunner_Mausers.jpg

[jbwjr]

Turtler lähetti viestin:

What DropShot and Yuit mentioned. HMGs are a bit too nerfed due to how they are an emplacement rather than a proper unit and how both the AI and competent players will try to identify them ASAP and blow them away as a prelude to the attack (which to be fair has historical precedents), but they will easily chew through formations of infantry if given the chance. The key issue is keeping the enemy at a distance and avoiding giving them the chance to throw grenades at them.

If enemy infantry get THAT close your MG nests something has gone horribly WRONG! Now that iv enter the "mid to late game" (like 20 plus turns in, its 1917 and the Americans have arrived) We now have tanks and aircraft to deal with.

Tanks just NUKE Emplacements period, and Bombers well 2 bombs and POOF their goes your defense emplacement. Thankfully tanks are easy to deal with if you know HOW to counter them (bombers, Trench Raiders, Mortors, Your own Tanks). Planes....not so much, you need your own planes for that.

[Cpl. Burden R 3294]

Yuithgf lähetti viestin:

For real that link is kinda british bias: the article. After what i quoted, they mention the vickers/lewis, and they're done. That's the topic of ww1 machine guns covered!
(when i say they mention the lewis, of course no mention of belgians using it way before the brits. why mention that, it's irrelevant.)

To address a few things here. The Belgians had a handful of Lewis Guns for field testing. (around 20 to 30, including those in Armoured Cars). Yes, they made an impression on both the Belgians and the invading Germans, but, they weren't enough to make any difference. No lessons could be learnt in their usage. It was "too small a sample size". Had the war started a year later and Belgium had had chance to produce and deploy them in bulk, sure, but it didn't happen.

I do agree with you that the British did not grasp Machine Gun use early on at all. 2 Machine Guns per Battalion was woeful. The disparity with German formations wasn't quite as horrific as it first sounds, with I believe (I researched it some years ago and the exact numbers elude me at this moment) the average German Division having approximately twice to three times as many Maxims as the average British one at the outbreak of war, but the gap was closed gradually (both ways, with the Germans not having sufficient numbers to keep all their mobilising 2nd and 3rd line divisions equipped to that degree, and the British gradually increasing the numbers as trench warfare became dominant). It took until the end of 1915 with the formation of the Machine Gun Corps and the introduction of the Lewis into Infantry formations (and then the complete reorganisation of British units in the aftermath of the Somme a year later) for the British and Empire troops to get to grips with automatic weaponry.

You're also right that the French had quite the lead on it, likely experience of the Franco Prussian War (where their secret weapon, the Mitraileuse, failed miserably). Another reason why they favoured air-cooled weapons; mobility. The pre-war French Army revolved around mobility to the point of obsession, but I suppose that made sense considering it was widely believed it would be an open war of manoeuvre.

[Turtler]

Cpl. Burden R 3294 lähetti viestin:

To address a few things here. The Belgians had a handful of Lewis Guns for field testing. (around 20 to 30, including those in Armoured Cars). Yes, they made an impression on both the Belgians and the invading Germans, but, they weren't enough to make any difference. No lessons could be learnt in their usage. It was "too small a sample size". Had the war started a year later and Belgium had had chance to produce and deploy them in bulk, sure, but it didn't happen.

Can't entirely agree.

Firstly and most importantly: the Belgian Lewis guns were just one of the LMGs the Belgians had, including the Hotchkiss M1909 and IIRC the Maxim (though I'll need to double check my histories of the Belgian military and the Congo Free State). The Lewis was the new kid on the block but it was very much inheriting an older tradition that the Belgians were familiar with.

Secondly: Reading through the history of the Belgian army after 1914 and even that of their allies and enemies, lessons were learned to some degree even with the small sample size. The Belgian Armored Car units earned worldwide renown, so much so that they saw continued action through the war and even had some sent as far afield as Russia, and IIRC we see fairly sharp increases in Lewis contrasts as early as the Winter of 1914 (though I'll need to check).

Cpl. Burden R 3294 lähetti viestin:

I do agree with you that the British did not grasp Machine Gun use early on at all.

Eh, I'd be somewhat more generous. The British had a long history of interest in machine gun style weapons and were early adopters of the Maxim (and indeed became something of a go-to shop for international inventors - and especially American ones - to either patent or at least market their new designs, most famously Hiram Maxim) to the point where it became proverbial.

The issue I think was that they really lacked the experience in facing adversaries equipped with them. The exceptions are few and far between such as the Boer Republics (and even they usually emphasized marksmen and light artillery), and MAYBE the Choushu Domain's radicals and IIRC Egyptian Rebels like those fought in Urabi Pasha's revolution.

But the last continental war they fought in Europe against another Western Great Power IIRC was the Crimean War, very much before the machine gun age, and against one of the less developed of the great powers at that. So they lacked the sort of tentative experience and blooding many of the others received in things Americans fighting each other and the Amerindians, the Prussians fighting the French and their Mitrailleuse de Reffye, and so on.

So they were probably less experienced in how one dealt with an enemy fielding reasonably modern machine guns in number than even the other Western powers, and I'd stress that those nations generally didn't have a huge well of experience with it either since they were used to being the Machine Gunning rather than the Machine Gunned.

Though IIRC we do see a number of problems that indicate the British still lagged behind, such as the botched pursuit patrol at Shangani (the battle itself being a crushing victory in large part due to British maxims and discipline), which went down as a heroic legend but tactically and organizationally saw too few men trying to do too much with too little.

A big problem I do feel is that the regular British military was too geared towards fighting expeditionary wars against rather less developed enemies. Admittedly pretty much every major Western military was to one degree or another (with even the Habsburgs sending Naval Infantry to China in 1900), but it had invested less in the prospect of facing a serious peer adversary than the others.

Cpl. Burden R 3294 lähetti viestin:

2 Machine Guns per Battalion was woeful. The disparity with German formations wasn't quite as horrific as it first sounds, with I believe (I researched it some years ago and the exact numbers elude me at this moment) the average German Division having approximately twice to three times as many Maxims as the average British one at the outbreak of war, but the gap was closed gradually (both ways, with the Germans not having sufficient numbers to keep all their mobilising 2nd and 3rd line divisions equipped to that degree, and the British gradually increasing the numbers as trench warfare became dominant). It took until the end of 1915 with the formation of the Machine Gun Corps and the introduction of the Lewis into Infantry formations (and then the complete reorganisation of British units in the aftermath of the Somme a year later) for the British and Empire troops to get to grips with automatic weaponry.

I'd argue that is less them coming to grips with automatic weaponry so much as being able to field a comparable amount of firepower to their allied and enemy equivalents, especially on the Western Front.

Cpl. Burden R 3294 lähetti viestin:

You're also right that the French had quite the lead on it, likely experience of the Franco Prussian War (where their secret weapon, the Mitraileuse, failed miserably). Another reason why they favoured air-cooled weapons; mobility. The pre-war French Army revolved around mobility to the point of obsession, but I suppose that made sense considering it was widely believed it would be an open war of manoeuvre.

Indeed, and to be fair they and most other Western armed forces had long experienced this.

[Yuithgf]

Cpl. Burden R 3294 lähetti viestin:

The Belgians had a handful of Lewis Guns for field testing. (around 20 to 30, including those in Armoured Cars). Yes, they made an impression on both the Belgians and the invading Germans, but, they weren't enough to make any difference. No lessons could be learnt in their usage. It was "too small a sample size".

I don't think you need many MGs to be able to realize their potential, them shining in a number of occasions like at haelen or liege did impact the belgian and german perception of them.
Also legitimate question, what types of belgian armored cars used lewis guns in 1914? I always recall seeing minervas with hotchkisses.
Which also ties to the point belgians had more than lewis guns as MG but thats a point that was made in my absence already.
Havent got much to add to the rest.

[Cpl. Burden R 3294]

Yuithgf lähetti viestin:

Cpl. Burden R 3294 lähetti viestin:

The Belgians had a handful of Lewis Guns for field testing. (around 20 to 30, including those in Armoured Cars). Yes, they made an impression on both the Belgians and the invading Germans, but, they weren't enough to make any difference. No lessons could be learnt in their usage. It was "too small a sample size".

I don't think you need many MGs to be able to realize their potential, them shining in a number of occasions like at haelen or liege did impact the belgian and german perception of them.
Also legitimate question, what types of belgian armored cars used lewis guns in 1914? I always recall seeing minervas with hotchkisses.
Which also ties to the point belgians had more than lewis guns as MG but thats a point that was made in my absence already.
Havent got much to add to the rest.

Oh indeed, but you need to have them deployed en masse and for some repeated engagements to be able to formulate tactics for their employment. This is how the use of Heavy Machine Guns changed from a sort of, light artillery to being close infantry support. (increasing in number as well). 20 to 30 LMGs deployed in your entire army for a few months at most in one or two pitched battles isn't enough data to form those tactics.

As I said, they were getting there, but more guns and more time using them was needed.

As for Belgian use of the Lewis Gun on Armoured Cars, it wasn't on the Minervas specifically. I can't recall the type I saw it on, I believe one of the ad hoc armoured tourers. The best reference i've been able to find (isn't it always the way? you remember reading something then can't find it again) is here.

https://history.army.mil/html/bookshelves/resmat/wwi/historical_resources/default/sec09/Over_There/Over_There_08.pdf

"Gas operated with a unique air cooled design, the Lewis first saw service with the Belgium Army in mid-late 1914 as added protection for a handful of touring and armored cars and against German patrols and troop columns. "

An interesting element that was debated for some time on other forums i've been on is that the Belgian Lewises were in British .303 Calibre, not the contemporary Belgian 7.92mm, again leaning towards their trials nature. (and again being more useful in armoured cars and the like than with the infantry, as otherwise it meant carrying multiple calibres of ammunition. Never a desirable situation)

Anyway. I don't dispute that the Belgians saw the potential of machine guns. I agree with you strongly :) It's that there weren't enough machine guns (specifically light machine guns) in Belgian infantry use, and not for a long enough period of time, for them to come to any conclusions about their tactical deployment. This would take until the end of the Battle of the Somme (and the Ancre) in the autumn of 1916 and the wholesale retraining of the British Army in Platoon tactics.

[Yuithgf]

All fair. I didn't mean to imply belgians had figured everything out by 1914, just was questioning the way that article presented things.

To come back slightly more on topic, i really do think MGs in this game should cause suppression.

[Cpl. Burden R 3294]

Yuithgf lähetti viestin:

All fair. I didn't mean to imply belgians had figured everything out by 1914, just was questioning the way that article presented things.

To come back slightly more on topic, i really do think MGs in this game should cause suppression.

Agreed on both. Tactics during the war, as they are now, are to pin the enemy with your machine guns, and kill them with your artillery (usually mortars)