Small Arms.-No AR-15 conversation allowed

[Mabzie555]

Bellamy (1986), pp. 1–7, cites the percentage of casualties caused by artillery in various theaters since 1914: in the First World War, 45 percent of Russian casualties and 58 percent of British casualties on the Western Front; in the Second World War, 75 percent of British casualties in North Africa and 51 percent of Soviet casualties (61 percent in 1945) and 70 percent of German casualties on the Eastern Front; and in the Korean War, 60 percent of US casualties, including those inflicted by mortars.
—J. B. A. Bailey (2004). Field artillery and firepower

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artillery

Also, I'm a soldier, and it is basic military doctrine: small arms exist to pin the enemy down so you can get where you need to go. Bombardments kill things. (be they from mortars or cannons or planes or whatever.)

No doubt having better small arms is great for the soldier (I certainly wouldn't want to go into battle with a Lee-Enfield against men with kalashnikovs). But it's not a deciding factor except on the smallest tactical level. Can anyone find a battalion-sized action, let alone a battle, operation, or campaign, where superior rifles decided the outcome?

You can also look at modern warfare: US infantry in Iraq far outperformed insurgent infantry. Iraqi infantry, several years later, has proven helpless against the same insurgents despite carrying US gear. Kurds and FSA units with inferior gear, however, can and does stand up to them and throw them back. The gear (within reason- I'm not talking M1s vs. brown bess muskets) is only an amplifier- superior tactics, training, discipline, and motivation is the key for carrying out infantry operations, which are about manouver and suppression.

There's just no justification for rifles having an effect on unit stats at this scale- especially not since you'd have to track not only rifles but MG, SMG, etc etc loadout. That's a huge amount of calculation for what'll amount to, at most, +1 soft attack. When planes are interdicting supply lanes, panzers are racing around your flanks, and accurate barrages are killing or wounding dozens, the increase in firepower from better rifles is just not much of a factor on the operational scale.

Except it is a factor, just not as much as artillery.
And +1 soft attack? That means next to nothing as thus game hasn't come out, abd you're just basing it off previous games

+1 soft attack in say hoi3 could equal +10 soft attack in hoi4 depending on how they worked it out.

I for one would love to see small arms play a role in the game.
And I think you're really downplaying the role of small arms here. Yes, artillery is what kills, but I'd like to see how effective an army with no small arms is... Having effective small arms is very important.

But anyway just make it so 1 s/h attack in hoi4 = .10 in hoi3-- then small arms could have different production models and actually make some sort of difference on the strategic level.
But mainly, I want more detail, and would lpve to choose whether to spend IC on building more wz.29 rifles, or to use that IC to put into mass production the wz.29 prototype SMG-- something that could have definitely made a difference tactically and therefore possibly effect the manner in which the strategic picture evolves.

P.S. are you an artilleryman? Lol

 

[unmerged(143216)]

Except it is a factor, just not as much as artillery.
And +1 soft attack? That means next to nothing as thus game hasn't come out, abd you're just basing it off previous games

+1 soft attack in say hoi3 could equal +10 soft attack in hoi4 depending on how they worked it out.

I for one would love to see small arms play a role in the game.
And I think you're really downplaying the role of small arms here. Yes, artillery is what kills, but I'd like to see how effective an army with no small arms is... Having effective small arms is very important.

But anyway just make it so 1 s/h attack in hoi4 = .10 in hoi3-- then small arms could have different production models and actually make some sort of difference on the strategic level.
But mainly, I want more detail, and would lpve to choose whether to spend IC on building more wz.29 rifles, or to use that IC to put into mass production the wz.29 prototype SMG-- something that could have definitely made a difference tactically and therefore possibly effect the manner in which the strategic picture evolves.

P.S. are you an artilleryman? Lol

Except the thing is we aren't talking about no small arms vs. small arms we are talking about small arms vs. better small arms. The best way to imagine tech advancements is a series of cumulative advancements bunched together, especially for infantry units. What is the difference between a K98 in a 1936 infantry battalion and a K98 in a 1939 infantry battalion? A better way to look at it is the sum of all changes over those three years, so while they may use the same exact rifle, the 1939 battalion has more advanced tactics, possibly artillery, mortars, or grenades, and perhaps some changes to the role of infantry in evolving military doctrine that makes them more effective. So while the 1939 squad might not be able to outgun a 1936 squad they have better more accurate mortars for support and are better trained in small unit tactics meaning that in a head to head battle they have an advantage.

 

[Mabzie555]

I'm aware of what we are talking about, and was just making a point that small arms are important.

Small arms vs. Better small arms doesn't make as much difference as artillery or armor in that respect, but it still makes a difference and should be in the game.

 

[scroggin]

Weapon upgrades are a thorny issue, the problem is the scale necessary to build the new weapon in massive numbers. And it creates trouble with making divisions that have submachine guns only, and using only those in the Pacific while the japanese use rifles. It could imbalance the game or feel weird.

In other words, it´s tricky making specific weapons give specific bonuses if the AI can´t handle that as well as the player.

I do wonder why the brits still used the Enfield all the way to 1945. I think that it´s more interesting to focus on why they decided to keep using bolt-action for so long, instead of analyzing only the germans.

I think the lee-Enfield was the best of the bolt actions the 10 shot magazine gave a good sustained rate of fire. It had less recoil that the 8mm or 30-06 used by the Germans and Americans, this made accurate shooting easier for the average soldier. And of course it was the same round used in the British machine guns, making supply easier.
Changing from a 10 shot bolt action to a semi-auto wouldn't have been such a leap forward as the German change from a 5 shot bolt action was.

I think the easiest way for the British to increase their firepower was to increase the number of brenguns

 

[Vanguard44]

Britain was not just supplying the British Army. It was also supplying the armies of Canada, Australia and New Zealand and India (which admittedly produced its own ammunition for Mk IIIs, of a lower quality), and India had the largest volunteer army in world history. The British and the commonwealth simply couldn't afford to start producing new factories for small arms when they had already a tried and tested, excellent weapon with a lot of ammunition already produced and men already trained - the Lee Enfield.

 

[1alexey]

I for one would love to see small arms play a role in the game.
And I think you're really downplaying the role of small arms here. Yes, artillery is what kills, but I'd like to see how effective an army with no small arms is... Having effective small arms is very important.

But that`s the problem, there were basically 2 types of rifles, first was pre-WW1 bolt-action rifle that was used by everyone except USA, then there were semi-automatic rifles like American M-1, other countries had those basically in neglictable numbers, except maybe SVT-40, because those rifles were far more expensive and often far less reliable, for a very small gain, compared to other possible ways of increasing firepower of division, and they arrived in early-mid war, when massive retooling of armament industry was not an option.

US probably even got very lucky that they managed to hit the successful design so early, almost 5 years before first competitor that was actually worthy of production(AFAIK), allowing it to actually be ready to use new rifle by the war start.

 

[Vanguard44]

The reason was also that the US trained its army from scratch with the Garand, and produced stocks from scratch, whereas the other armies would have had to re-train all their infantry with the new weapon.

 

[TheRomanRuler]

The reason was also that the US trained its army from scratch with the Garand, and produced stocks from scratch, whereas the other armies would have had to re-train all their infantry with the new weapon.

Or just issue it to new conscripts. If it takes too long, why not start few offensives, soon entire army is equipped with latest equipment

 

[Mabzie555]

I think the lee-Enfield was the best of the bolt actions the 10 shot magazine gave a good sustained rate of fire. It had less recoil that the 8mm or 30-06 used by the Germans and Americans, this made accurate shooting easier for the average soldier. And of course it was the same round used in the British machine guns, making supply easier.
Changing from a 10 shot bolt action to a semi-auto wouldn't have been such a leap forward as the German change from a 5 shot bolt action was.

I think the easiest way for the British to increase their firepower was to increase the number of brenguns

You can't really make the claim that there was a "best" rifle.
Yeah, I personally love the Enfield but have you seen any "torture tests" of the mosin-nagant or arisaka? It's just absurd what kind of conditions these weapons can go through and still fire. Overloaded cartridges, black powder loads, drag it bolt open behind a vehicle for 5 miles, smash it against blocks, all sorts of stupid stuff and at most you'll have to clear an obstruction or re-cock the bolt.

 

[xXAgeOfPeopleXx]

Alright so I've been thinking and reading the developer diaries and perhaps the answer lies in the variant system? For example using the variant system we could choose to what degree we want our battalions equipped with semi automatics without going into the immersive details. So say it's 1936 and I've unlocked the generic "Infantry Kit 36" (sounds great right) so using the combat experience gained in peace time I could select by Infantry battalion and spend combat experience to make generic "Semi Auto Rifle '36" my standard weapon which upgrades organisational damage and supply upkeep.

This system would work much better for those who would rather focus on combat while keeping the framework for depth that more hardcore players who love micromanagement would enjoy. Basically a compromise that pleases no one but satisfies both.

Side note:

Stop saying It at most would be a +1 Soft attack because:
A) It would include modifiers if you're going to a depth such as for Semi Auto's +1 Soft Attack +0.5 Organisational Damage (Suppression) +
B) A new tank would be at most +1 Hard attack, +1 Armour +0.10 Speed.
C) You're using a double standard for all intents and purposes the Engine treats them as equally important regardless of reality and we are discussing a game not a simulator.

When you say artillery and armour had the biggest impact on the war you are directly going against the "US Military handbook on German forces" where the book confirms multiple things
A) Before the widespread issue of semi automatic and automatic weapons in fire fights the US Forces found it easy to engage the Germans because their fire power was centralised, elimination of the base or assault teams would render the squad ineffective. The proliferation of automatic and semi automatic weapons in late 1944 was harder to fight against as fire dominance i.e. the most important thing on a battlefield, shifted towards the Germans making engagements with them more difficult, especially in ambushed where elimination of the MG34/42 usually caused a withdrawal.
B) US Armour was regularly engaged and defeated by German Armour post 1943. This Armoured superiority however was denied by "US Infantryman employing composition B in unique and innovative ways" then destroying the vehicle with Bazookas.
C) US Infantry proved capable of fighting of enemy fighters through mass volley fire of their weapons creating a wall of bullets that frightened low flying planes off. (Though this I'm sceptical of)
D) And this is my most favourite on the chapter Allied Experiences with the German Military "The British Army had at one point requested M1 Garand to supplement their own SMLE Rifles, supply shortages has deemed this infeasible thus resulting in British forces fighting with a distinct fire-power shortage."

I could keep going on but the manual written by the US Army keeps reinforcing that it was US Infantry that did the most damage to German Forces, not Armour, not Army Air Force personnel, not the dedicated Artillery Battalions but a Rifleman suppressing then capturing German soldiers. (Guess what most German manpower loses on the Western Front were. Hint: Artillery couldn't do it).

 

[208]

If the purpose of small arms is to pin an enemy force for the delivery of a killing attack like artillery (and the lack of good small arms would mean your artillery, however powerful, would be less effective), could you then consider small arms to be a force multiplier? From that point of view, a small arms tech might have an effect like "+5% soft attack" rather than a flat bonus, so that units with strong soft attack values (i.e. better integrated support weaponry) would benefit more from better small arms than a unit without.

However, as it seems that "infantry kits" are probably only going to have a single tech that includes all manner of support weaponry and small arms together, I doubt whether the debate over what impact improved small arms alone should have will matter in vanilla HoI4 - but it's probably of interest to modders.

 

[Hayro]

No wonder hoi4 forum is so ghost town...

 

[Mjarr]

When you say artillery and armour had the biggest impact on the war you are directly going against the "US Military handbook on German forces" where the book confirms multiple things
A) Before the widespread issue of semi automatic and automatic weapons in fire fights the US Forces found it easy to engage the Germans because their fire power was centralised, elimination of the base or assault teams would render the squad ineffective. The proliferation of automatic and semi automatic weapons in late 1944 was harder to fight against as fire dominance i.e. the most important thing on a battlefield, shifted towards the Germans making engagements with them more difficult, especially in ambushed where elimination of the MG34/42 usually caused a withdrawal.

Practically that was hell of a lot more complicated since outside airbourne troops or grognards, US squad structure and abundance of artillery support even on smaller levels encouraged that when they got pinned down or faced more serious resistance, they would just bunker down and refuse to take iniative. Even when artillery was unavailable typical US rifle squad had for compartments essentially, while the German squad had simple rule: keep the machinegun firing. No fire teams, no assault teams, no BAR guy, no NCO doing his stuff. Just keep the gun firing. Is it firing? Good. Is it firing and we're attacking? Move in frogleaps. Is NCO wounded or killed? Keep the machinegun firing. Is the LMG guy KIA? Someone else take over (most soldiers were at least trained to use common weapon, even if the dedicated LMG guy was better at it obviously) and keep it firing. Is the LMG out of action and the squad lost central leadership etc? Join with another squad and keep the machinegun firing.

That does not mean Germans were somehow übermensch by any means (just saying due nature of forum posts etc, so pardon the redundancy), but especially as the war progressed the US infantrymen often found themselves facing the problem if one part of the squad was not operating correctly or there was confusion of orders, their next option was to call for artillery support. Airbourne troops and rangers and other similar troops were specifically trained and even drilled to avoid this kind of problem. On the opposite end instead of having overcomplicated squadstructure with otherwise sound tactics, the Germans had stupidly simple system which eliminated confusion in most situations assuming morale did not fail on either side. By 1945 add the fact most people knew the war was coming to an end which made most Western troops even more reluctant to do anything but call artillery the very moment it was possible.

Not that I blame them in such situation but the common problem of lack of iniative and overreliance on artillery in situations when it was not feasible or even the best first response was never solved during the war despite being fairly notable issue as the war progressed.

 

[Gethsemani]

Alright so I've been thinking and reading the developer diaries and perhaps the answer lies in the variant system? For example using the variant system we could choose to what degree we want our battalions equipped with semi automatics without going into the immersive details. So say it's 1936 and I've unlocked the generic "Infantry Kit 36" (sounds great right) so using the combat experience gained in peace time I could select by Infantry battalion and spend combat experience to make generic "Semi Auto Rifle '36" my standard weapon which upgrades organisational damage and supply upkeep.

This system would work much better for those who would rather focus on combat while keeping the framework for depth that more hardcore players who love micromanagement would enjoy. Basically a compromise that pleases no one but satisfies both.

The problem is still that the choice of small arms is on too low a level to have a place in HoI. Essentially, the choice of small arms comes down to what your military doctrine looks like and how you expect your army to be fighting. Hence the US adopted a doctrine that distributed firepower evenly in squads, but didn't give the squads machine guns. Meanwhile the Germans went for a doctrine that focused the firepower to a single member in each squad, the machinegunner, with the rest of the squad focused on making the machine gun fire. In the end both systems are equally valid and provided the same amount of firepower down range, just in different ways (also bear in mind that the Bundeswehr still uses the same tactical doctrine of LMG equipped squads).

In HoI when you make the choice of army/infantry doctrine you are basically making choices that influence the equipment your soldiers get issued, which in turn is modeled by the unit upgrades (inf '36, inf '39 etc.). Trying to model a choice system for small arms is just needless busy work, because in the end the exact load outis less important than having a doctrine that supports said load out. Not to mention it would be a pointless modelling as the choice would, realistically, just be "bolt action" and "semi-auto", since there is no significant difference between the G43, the M1 or the SVT-40, just as the Arisaka, Mosin-Nagant and K98 are very similar. Finally, there was no significant progress in rifle development during the war and the real leap forward was in terms of doctrinal use of automatic weapons.

 

[xXAgeOfPeopleXx]

Practically that was hell of a lot more complicated since outside airbourne troops or grognards, US squad structure and abundance of artillery support even on smaller levels encouraged that when they got pinned down or faced more serious resistance, they would just bunker down and refuse to take iniative. Even when artillery was unavailable typical US rifle squad had for compartments essentially, while the German squad had simple rule: keep the machinegun firing. No fire teams, no assault teams, no BAR guy, no NCO doing his stuff. Just keep the gun firing. Is it firing? Good. Is it firing and we're attacking? Move in frogleaps. Is NCO wounded or killed? Keep the machinegun firing. Is the LMG guy KIA? Someone else take over (most soldiers were at least trained to use common weapon, even if the dedicated LMG guy was better at it obviously) and keep it firing. Is the LMG out of action and the squad lost central leadership etc? Join with another squad and keep the machinegun firing.

That does not mean Germans were somehow übermensch by any means (just saying due nature of forum posts etc, so pardon the redundancy), but especially as the war progressed the US infantrymen often found themselves facing the problem if one part of the squad was not operating correctly or there was confusion of orders, their next option was to call for artillery support. Airbourne troops and rangers and other similar troops were specifically trained and even drilled to avoid this kind of problem. On the opposite end instead of having overcomplicated squadstructure with otherwise sound tactics, the Germans had stupidly simple system which eliminated confusion in most situations assuming morale did not fail on either side. By 1945 add the fact most people knew the war was coming to an end which made most Western troops even more reluctant to do anything but call artillery the very moment it was possible.

Not that I blame them in such situation but the common problem of lack of iniative and overreliance on artillery in situations when it was not feasible or even the best first response was never solved during the war despite being fairly notable issue as the war progressed.

I guess I can't argue with the fact that the book says Infantry which could include mortar support from heavy weapons platoons and it would explain why artillery picked up allot of the kills but again I'll pick a battle at random in the book. Ardennes offensive 1944/5 "German casualties estimated 90000 at minimum divided into the (rounded for convenience) following 40000 Captured 20000 wounded 30000 killed" the latter two figures aren't really reliable as they are estimates but the captures is which would say 45% of all casualties during the batle of the bulge was a G.I. using the suppresive fire ability of his Garand to achieve something artillery simply could not do.

@Gethsemani

The Bundeswehr don't any more, they adopted the MG4 SAW and began to phase out the MG3 on the squad level and adopted like every other nation the idea of the Light Automatic Weapon based of the FN Minimi the weapon that is in between an Automatic Rifle and a Machine Gun.

Also the game is not just set during the second world war and minor evolutionary improvements to bolt actions happened during the interwar period. Again tanks would be useless without the doctrine that backed them up, go to any military history course and they'll give you the text book battle of France example. Your statement is an exercise in a double standard.

If you say Infantry Doctrine chooses your equipment then I say Armour doctrine chooses your tanks, no technology for Tank research lets abstract them as well. Here is your reasoning applied to tanks.

"We don't need to get a better version of the Sherman because on the strategic level it make so little difference that +1 Hard attack and +1 armour is minuscule any actual advantage of getting a better tank would be represented with doctrine as the M26 was only a marginal improvement without the US Army rethinking their "Tank Destroyer fight armour tanks fight infantry doctrine"

Also no, the system I'd propose would allow you to standardise sub machine guns should you wish to do so because it's your choice as the player, you shouldn't be rail roaded by some anal retentive OCD history geek who says that standard issue Tommy guns would make him cry, if you did such a thing you'd have benefits for doing so and weaknesses because in the end, it's your choice.

 

[Mjarr]

I guess I can't argue with the fact that the book says Infantry which could include mortar support from heavy weapons platoons and it would explain why artillery picked up allot of the kills but again I'll pick a battle at random in the book. Ardennes offensive 1944/5 "German casualties estimated 90000 at minimum divided into the (rounded for convenience) following 40000 Captured 20000 wounded 30000 killed" the latter two figures aren't really reliable as they are estimates but the captures is which would say 45% of all casualties during the batle of the bulge was a G.I. using the suppresive fire ability of his Garand to achieve something artillery simply could not do.

I was speaking on general level, since the reality of course is more complicated than that. It is arguably the same with bayonets in 18th century and the Napoleonic Era that statistically in the open field, bayonet attacks connected only in blue moon but as far as wounds go and anything that involved more narrow front or environment in which one could properly poke eachother (houses, primitive dug-in positions etc) the likelihood of bayonet combat doing something exploded, and even that can get quite complicated to make sense of due psychological factors. That, and that what 18th\Napoleonic era's equivalent of charge was could be simply rapid movement aggressively in the enemy direction with no physical contact made instead of balls to the walls melee.

I agree that high presence of automatic weapons (or even semi-automatic) on battalion\platoon level should definitely count but there should be possible downsides (temporary or not) or even potential limitations industrially etc, so we do not end up in ridiculous situation that we have 90% of army supplied with super minisubmachineguns with accuracy of Barret and firepower of MG42 in 1938 providing +10 soft attack +20 toughness +90 defence because video game logic. HoI3's armour on AFVs was prime example since until TFH (and even then? Someone please correct me here if I'm wrong) there was no point upgrading armour unless one played with mods because the loss of speed was never worth it, as even very high hard attack never inflicted enough casualties by HoI3's in-game terms.

 

[Klausewitz]

Infantry Battalion tech

But to have a two track or three track system, you need to identify two or three clear choices around which to diverge. Can that be done for WWII? There's the German MG centric system, did any other countries practice it?

(Distributed vs centralised firepower, maybe... one side is semiautomatics and BARs and SMGs whereas other is MMGs/HMGs/bolt actions...more/less radios etc. That would put Soviets and Americans on one side and British and Germans on the other.)

I think this would be a nice way to model the issue.
We already have doctrines, so the code is already there.

 

[Axe99]

I think this would be a nice way to model the issue.
We already have doctrines, so the code is already there.

Aye, +1 to this if we did head down this track.

 

[Beagá]

The reason was also that the US trained its army from scratch with the Garand, and produced stocks from scratch, whereas the other armies would have had to re-train all their infantry with the new weapon.

I think it has more to do with standardization, really. Having different parts for different guns requires much more logistics, and that´s even more the case if the round is also different. Much simpler to have a division with 2 weapons using the same ammunition in an area. US didn´t really count, because it had resources any other country didn´t have. There´s also the cost of replacing weapons in ALL divisions. It probably isn´t cheap.

Just look how Germany was screwed by having so many different vehicles and tanks.

 

[Orson]

Semi-auto rifles are expensive. Much more so, than bolt action. A SMG, like PPSH-41 was cheaper and easier to make than an SVT-40. Much less milling involved, more stamping. Mass warfare is not just about best weapons - its also about having enough of said weapons. Germany did not develop a cheap and reliable semi-auto rifle. Neither did SU. But USA did, and they used it.

right... Germany never developed the G 43 and most certainly never developed the Stg44 which are even better, because they were cheaper than the Garand and were full auto