GERMAN LMG TACTICAL CONCEPT???
The rulebook allows for three rifle sections and one LMG section. This appears to be the same for every nation. Does this not change the German method of using the light machine gun (MG34/42)? If every nation is the same how do the rules reflect the German tactical use of their light machine gun within the squad framework?

Have a look at the chart at the bottom of page 9, it gives the different ratioes of LMG to Rifles for each country. Alan

Thank you for your reply. The chart on Page nine (lower right hand corner) Does show the increased reliance that armies of the time placed on automatic weapons. Please remember that especially in the British and American armies there was not an actual light machine gun at the squad level. The German Army built much of their tactical doctrine around the light machine gun role which other nations could not. This did seem to make a difference. The question is does the rules not allow for the tactical use of the MG 34/42 at the squad level since it appears all nations are the same? Thank you again for taking the time to make a reply.

The ratios allow for the Germans throughout the war to use two or three LMGs in the following layout (considering a standard company has 9 rifles): 1939-1942, 2 LMGs per company (1 each in two of the 3 rifle platoons). Thereafter, 3 LMGs per company (1 in each rifle platoon). The other armies did in fact have LMGs - the Bren gun, the BAR, Degtyaryov. In Burma, Brens were apparently deployed 1 to every 8 man section by the British, with a later aim of having 1 to every 4 men. The fact that the British and Americans were slower to issue their LMGs in greater numbers is reflected by them being allowed only 1 LMG per company initially, then 2 later on.

Thank you for your reply. The BAR, Bren and Degtyaryov were not in actual fact light machine guns. They were automatic rifles which were magazine or drum fed weapons. The sustained rate of fire was markedly less than the MG34/42. The fact that the German machine gun could serve in several roles (HMG etc) should indicate that the rate of fire was much greater. The cyclic rate was much greater than any other squad weapon (it was called the "Hitler Sage" Hitlers Saw) This was because it was belt fed. I am sorry to keep making the point but my original question still stands. Thank you for considering this post.

I think the problem here is that your definition of a light machinegun differs from what is generally accepted and has been used in the rules; A light machine gun is an automatic weapon (with or without a bipod) which can be carried by 1 man, with or without an assistant(s) carrying ammunition/spare barrels. An assault rifle is a select-fire auto or semi-auto weapon carried and served by a single man. You seem to be defining an LMG as a belt fed weapon. The MG34 in most (non tripod) configurations was drum fed (75 rounds), much as with the Bren, BAR and DP. The Bren could be fitted with either 30 or 100 round drums. With 1 every 4 or 8 men, and every man carrying spare magazines and with training to fire the weapon - I would say this classifies as a squad used LMG. ROF for the bren was anything around 500-520RPM - for comparison a Vickers gun only had an effective rate of 450-600RPM For further comparison, an AK-47 has a cyclic ROF of 600RPM, as did the PPS. But effective for the PPS/AK-47 and similar assault rifles is only around 100.

Apologies for having to split posts - I have to navigate around a work firewall. WRT to using cyclic ROF as some sort of indicator - it is worth considering that with one MG34 per 3 stands, firing at up to 900RPM (when you consider each game turn is around 10 minutes) would probably result in low on ammo! for each stand every turn. Remember you have to balance what the gun could notionally fire against how much ammunition the men could carry. I think you will find that effective rate of fire for any squad automatic weapon in the field is dictated by the number of rounds available above all else.

I think perhaps what Op. Sealion is trying to get to here is that in most armies the LMG was there to support the rifle element of the section/squad whereas in the German army especially late war the riflemen were there to support the MG's because they had such a high ROF & used so much ammo. In a game where 1 base = 1 section/squad it is very limited as to how this difference in doctrine can be represented. The only real option is to give the Germans more LMG stands.

Yes - I think the fundamental element here is that the game doesn't go down to the level of organisation that Operationsealion is perhaps looking for. Each 'LMG stand' in a company actually represents all of the LMGs that would be present in (in late war German companies) 3 rifle sections. It doesn't spread them out. Just in the same way that a 'command stand' represents a notional collection of all of the officers. The simple answer is that the Germans always get more of them as has been pointed out.

Operationealion, I think you are being a bit extreme about just what was and was not an LMG, perhaps you should accept what the people who made and deployed them thought they were. the Bren certainly was, just because it was magazine fed doesn't detract from that, it was quite capable of being used in the MMG role with the large drum magazine and tripod mount. The DP was also certainly an LMG. As for the German tactical use of the LMg you are quite correct, the riflemen in a section were looked upon as ammo carriers for the LMG while in the British army they were very much the bayonets required to attack and defeat the enemy, very old fashioned. Alan

A, one MG34 per 3 stands, firing at up to 900RPM (when you consider each game turn is around 10 minutes) would probably result in low on ammo! for each stand every turn. You’re quite right! On average one infantry man would be lucky to carry 200 rounds of link ammo in addition to all his other kit. :cry: The German rate of fire did make a difference but their tactical edge was less dependant upon rounds per minute, (which as you state the MG34/42 eats up an awful lots of rounds very quickly indeed, and hence the reason MG'ers actually fire pretty slowly unless presented with a decent target), but more dependant on the fact that they were deployed as the main squad weapon rather than as a support weapon as per the Bren, etc. This is why the German’s have more LMG sections and the German LMG is the only LMG that may employ sustained fire under the rules. DB

Bearing that in mind, DB - would it be better to move German LMGs towards the Flamethrower model? (i.e. you can employ sustained fire, but you have a higher chance of going out of ammo than just on an unmodified 1,1)? Between the proposed range extension (ISTR reading that in 2e, German LMGs go out to 16"?) and the ability to employ sustained fire, I can see them becoming perhaps too effective, without some reasonable risk that they will revert to a normal rifle stand if they shoot too often.

A, All LMG's will have a long range out to 16". But sustained fire low on ammo increases to 3 or more, (which although it may not seem much of an increase does crop up with annoying regularity!) DB

Point taken! Thanks for all the lively discussion. Will post more questions as I finish reading the rules. Thank you for your time.