.30 Cal MG's [WAW]

Discuss Mongoose miniatures game here, including Mighty Armies, Gangs of Mega-City One, and Battlefield Evolution.
User avatar
127th Angry Angels
Banded Mongoose
Posts: 273
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 8:09 pm
Location: Southampton UK

.30 Cal MG's [WAW]

Postby 127th Angry Angels » Sun May 04, 2008 3:34 pm

Might be a stupid question (not being an arms expert) but 30.cals are not in the armory section for US infantry. I thought they were very prominent in WW2. Is it a deliberate omission?
Check out Diamortis for your melodic death metal needs :)

http://www.myspace.com/diamortis
Ben2
Greater Spotted Mongoose
Posts: 1470
Joined: Fri Mar 03, 2006 4:35 pm

Postby Ben2 » Sun May 04, 2008 8:19 pm

It is the bog standard MG on many of the vehicles. It could be done as a separate team, which would be the same size as the HMG support team but with a worse gun.

Use the Stats:

Range - 24"
Damage - 2D6
Traits - Auto, Prone

Drop the cost of the team by 15 points.

I think everyone with a choice would take the .50 cal, and this is why it has been left out of the book.

.30 cals were seen a lot though, and were widely used in the Pacific. The Besa machine gun commonly seen on British tanks is based on it as well, and the Poles and Swedes also had infantry versions.

Most famous non-American use was as the Browning .303, used in Spitfires and Hurricanes.
Old B5W developer and professional shut in.
User avatar
Agis
Greater Spotted Mongoose
Posts: 1052
Joined: Sun May 01, 2005 10:44 am
Location: Berlin
Contact:

Postby Agis » Thu May 08, 2008 10:54 am

The .30 cal is in the Pacific war draft.

Try the following stats:
M1919A6 .30 Cal HMG R: 48” Dam: 2xD6+1 Traits: Auto, Prone

-5 points compared to M2 .50 cal
cheers and keep on gaming, Agis
www.adpublishing.de Author of Battlefield Evolution: World at War and Pacific War
Image
Ben2
Greater Spotted Mongoose
Posts: 1470
Joined: Fri Mar 03, 2006 4:35 pm

Postby Ben2 » Thu May 08, 2008 11:29 am

Isn't it the same MG as the hull MG on the Sherman and Cromwell though? Or did the infantry model have a greater muzzle velocity to justify the +1 on the damage?
Old B5W developer and professional shut in.
User avatar
Agis
Greater Spotted Mongoose
Posts: 1052
Joined: Sun May 01, 2005 10:44 am
Location: Berlin
Contact:

Postby Agis » Thu May 08, 2008 1:34 pm

Ben2 wrote:Isn't it the same MG as the hull MG on the Sherman and Cromwell though? Or did the infantry model have a greater muzzle velocity to justify the +1 on the damage?
The reasoning is a bit the other way around, the .30 cal is more or less the same as the .50 cal, therefore only the Piercing removed.

For the vehicles we decided to create just one generic MG.
Otherwise we would have MG 42 or 34s on German tanks, or? :wink:
cheers and keep on gaming, Agis
www.adpublishing.de Author of Battlefield Evolution: World at War and Pacific War
Image
User avatar
127th Angry Angels
Banded Mongoose
Posts: 273
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 8:09 pm
Location: Southampton UK

Postby 127th Angry Angels » Thu May 08, 2008 3:55 pm

Cheers, guys. I will give it a try at some point as i have the mini's.

I can see the logic in it's ommision but it could be useful to represent historic formations or a bit points shaving.

Thanks for the answers :)
Check out Diamortis for your melodic death metal needs :)

http://www.myspace.com/diamortis
Mac
Weasel
Posts: 49
Joined: Thu Jun 15, 2006 1:47 pm

Postby Mac » Wed May 21, 2008 7:38 pm

Ben2 wrote:I think everyone with a choice would take the .50 cal, and this is why it has been left out of the book.
Fine, but historically a US Infantry Company's Weapons Platoon had 2xM1919 LMGs and 3x60mm Mortars (another weapon missing entirely). The battalion Heavy Machine Gun platoons were equipped with M1917 HMGs. No M2's there at all in the TO&E.

Additionally, the stats for the BAR look out of line with it's historical performance. It seems that the Bren Gun, arguably the best LMG in Allied service, is inferior to the BAR.

Just a few things to consider when you are working on errata.
User avatar
Laffe
Stoat
Posts: 80
Joined: Wed May 21, 2008 8:49 pm
Location: Storvreta, Sweden

Postby Laffe » Wed May 21, 2008 8:57 pm

Mac wrote:
Ben2 wrote:I think everyone with a choice would take the .50 cal, and this is why it has been left out of the book.
Fine, but historically a US Infantry Company's Weapons Platoon had 2xM1919 LMGs and 3x60mm Mortars (another weapon missing entirely). The battalion Heavy Machine Gun platoons were equipped with M1917 HMGs. No M2's there at all in the TO&E.

Additionally, the stats for the BAR look out of line with it's historical performance. It seems that the Bren Gun, arguably the best LMG in Allied service, is inferior to the BAR.

Just a few things to consider when you are working on errata.
I feel that the Bar is seriously overrated in the list; it's better than the MG42 and the Bren, at least when carried, which seems wrong. Also, as you said, shouldn't the HMG teams have the .30 instead? Same thing for the jeep, it should have a .30. It wasn't equipped with the M2 .50 because it was too damn big for a small jeep!

And the .30 is still in the list; US combat engineers can switch their flamethrower for a .30, but it's stats aren't anywhere. Another thing for when the errata is released.
.signature deleted for security reasons. Please report for termination. Thank you for your cooperation citizen.
User avatar
Rabidchild
Lesser Spotted Mongoose
Posts: 699
Joined: Fri Feb 18, 2005 10:31 am
Location: Portland, Oregon USA

Postby Rabidchild » Wed May 21, 2008 9:35 pm

Laffe wrote:I feel that the Bar is seriously overrated in the list; it's better than the MG42 and the Bren, at least when carried, which seems wrong.

And the .30 is still in the list; US combat engineers can switch their flamethrower for a .30, but it's stats aren't anywhere. Another thing for when the errata is released.
I love the BAR just as it is, so keeping my bias in mind my argument for the BAR being better on the move is this: BAR = 20lbs (loaded), MG42 = 25lbs, bren gun = 22lbs and a magazine on the top. From this list, the BAR is the lightest and has the same weight distribution of a conventional rifle (ie no side drum/belt feed or top magazine). Seems like it would be the easiest to raise to your shoulder, aim and fire while pausing. So, stats seem fine to me!
User avatar
DM
Duck-Billed Mongoose
Posts: 2422
Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2006 6:43 pm
Location: Gloucester, UK

Postby DM » Wed May 21, 2008 9:52 pm

Top magazine is FAR easier to reload when firing prone (he says from personal experience), so I wouldn't say the BAR wins on that point :)
DM's naval website, now moved to the NWS site
http://www.navalwargamessociety.org/nav ... links.html
Co-author "Order of Battle"
Author, "Age of Dreadnoughts"
Bloke who paints VAS ships for Matt
Bacon Number of 4 :D
User avatar
Rabidchild
Lesser Spotted Mongoose
Posts: 699
Joined: Fri Feb 18, 2005 10:31 am
Location: Portland, Oregon USA

Postby Rabidchild » Wed May 21, 2008 10:02 pm

DM wrote:Top magazine is FAR easier to reload when firing prone (he says from personal experience), so I wouldn't say the BAR wins on that point :)
Certainly, but I'm talking about on the move, not prone. The Bren gets 4 shots when set up prone, something the BAR can't do. So yes, I think we agree with the rules here. :)
User avatar
rvrratt
Banded Mongoose
Posts: 321
Joined: Wed May 03, 2006 3:09 pm
Location: St. Petersburg, Florida USA

Postby rvrratt » Wed May 21, 2008 10:14 pm

I too thought it was odd that the 30 caliber was omitted especially when most of the infantry sets come with the 2 30 caliber gunners.
US Army River Rat (Amphibious Assault) Veteran
Image
User avatar
DM
Duck-Billed Mongoose
Posts: 2422
Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2006 6:43 pm
Location: Gloucester, UK

Postby DM » Thu May 22, 2008 5:05 am

Certainly, but I'm talking about on the move, not prone.
To be honest I found the Bren simpler to reload on the move than a weapon with bottom mounted magazine, but that was obviously just a "me" thing since "no one makes 'em like that any more" :)

Of course the Bren scores very highly with its blank firing adapter (aka "Masher Barrel") during night shoots which gives it visual qualities somewhat akin to a flamethrower :D
DM's naval website, now moved to the NWS site
http://www.navalwargamessociety.org/nav ... links.html
Co-author "Order of Battle"
Author, "Age of Dreadnoughts"
Bloke who paints VAS ships for Matt
Bacon Number of 4 :D
User avatar
Agis
Greater Spotted Mongoose
Posts: 1052
Joined: Sun May 01, 2005 10:44 am
Location: Berlin
Contact:

Postby Agis » Thu May 22, 2008 6:38 am

Laffe wrote: snip...
And the .30 is still in the list; US combat engineers can switch their flamethrower for a .30, but it's stats aren't anywhere. Another thing for when the errata is released.
I have commited my input to the Players guide last week to Matt, the .30 cal issue is covered! Stay tuned...
cheers and keep on gaming, Agis
www.adpublishing.de Author of Battlefield Evolution: World at War and Pacific War
Image
User avatar
Laffe
Stoat
Posts: 80
Joined: Wed May 21, 2008 8:49 pm
Location: Storvreta, Sweden

Postby Laffe » Thu May 22, 2008 8:11 am

Rabidchild wrote: I love the BAR just as it is, so keeping my bias in mind my argument for the BAR being better on the move is this: BAR = 20lbs (loaded), MG42 = 25lbs, bren gun = 22lbs and a magazine on the top. From this list, the BAR is the lightest and has the same weight distribution of a conventional rifle (ie no side drum/belt feed or top magazine). Seems like it would be the easiest to raise to your shoulder, aim and fire while pausing. So, stats seem fine to me!
Yes, easier to fire, but with only a 20 round magazine, compared to the higher RoF and 50/75 round drums for the MG42. And remember, german squad doctrine was centered around the MG, so the gunners were trained to move and fire (in an assault for instance). The BAR was actually just an assault rifle trying to play the LMG role.

But I will have to play some more games first 8)
.signature deleted for security reasons. Please report for termination. Thank you for your cooperation citizen.
User avatar
wkehrman
Banded Mongoose
Posts: 358
Joined: Tue May 22, 2007 1:57 am

Postby wkehrman » Thu May 22, 2008 4:06 pm

Agis wrote:
Laffe wrote: snip...
And the .30 is still in the list; US combat engineers can switch their flamethrower for a .30, but it's stats aren't anywhere. Another thing for when the errata is released.
I have commited my input to the Players guide last week to Matt, the .30 cal issue is covered! Stay tuned...
This last statement rings hollow to me as it is typical for us to have to "stay tuned" for several weeks if not months for a correction. Having said that, the "MG" on almost any US vehicle would be the M1919 Air cooled LMG. Could the Vickers double for the M1917?
Those who beat their swords into plowshares will plow for those who don't.

Counting on silashand's crappy die rolls since 2006.
User avatar
Agis
Greater Spotted Mongoose
Posts: 1052
Joined: Sun May 01, 2005 10:44 am
Location: Berlin
Contact:

Postby Agis » Thu May 22, 2008 4:45 pm

wkehrman wrote: This last statement rings hollow to me as it is typical for us to have to "stay tuned" for several weeks if not months for a correction. Having said that, the "MG" on almost any US vehicle would be the M1919 Air cooled LMG. Could the Vickers double for the M1917?
I promise (mostly to myself :wink: ) to be more quiet on the forum, I really did not want to offend with any more "hollow" statements...
:(
cheers and keep on gaming, Agis
www.adpublishing.de Author of Battlefield Evolution: World at War and Pacific War
Image
User avatar
Laffe
Stoat
Posts: 80
Joined: Wed May 21, 2008 8:49 pm
Location: Storvreta, Sweden

Postby Laffe » Fri May 23, 2008 5:38 am

I think we all have to realise that Agis is the author of the game, caught between a rock (the players) and a hard place (Mongoose Publishing). Agis wants to defend his game, and make it as good as possible for all of us, Mongoose wants to make money and develop other projects too, to make more money.

I think it's very good that we have the author here on the forum, so don't be too hard on Agis guys.

Now, that being said, before the Forum vanished just recently, you had posted some stats (and points) for the .30-cal. I would be very glad if you could repost them Agis, since I intend to use them instead of .50's in my games as a house rule. Please? Pretty please with sugar on top?
.signature deleted for security reasons. Please report for termination. Thank you for your cooperation citizen.
User avatar
MongooseMatt
Site Admin
Posts: 14896
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2003 4:25 pm

Postby MongooseMatt » Fri May 23, 2008 8:09 am

Laffe wrote: Now, that being said, before the Forum vanished just recently, you had posted some stats (and points) for the .30-cal. I would be very glad if you could repost them Agis, since I intend to use them instead of .50's in my games as a house rule. Please? Pretty please with sugar on top?
All going well, the WaW Player's Guide with the .30-cals will be up today!
Matthew Sprange

Mongoose Publishing
http://www.mongoosepublishing.com
User avatar
Agis
Greater Spotted Mongoose
Posts: 1052
Joined: Sun May 01, 2005 10:44 am
Location: Berlin
Contact:

Postby Agis » Fri May 23, 2008 11:41 am

Laffe wrote:I think we all have to realise that Agis is the author of the game, caught between a rock (the players) and a hard place (Mongoose Publishing).
Thanks for the nice words. But honestly for me it is more the rock. :wink:

I never ever experienced such a mistrusting gamer community.
There are so many bad feelings on this forum I am just amazed.
Everything has to be a typo;
if one source says 3 MGs on a vehicle and another 2 MGs - whatever we use - we are wrong;
if vehicle X or Y is missing it is the most important vehicle of the late war;
if a SMG is missing, it is a terrible thing (even all SMGs got the same stats);
if somebody can't kill a Tiger with infantry the game has to be wrong
etc
etc

Guys - play the game and have fun! :D
cheers and keep on gaming, Agis
www.adpublishing.de Author of Battlefield Evolution: World at War and Pacific War
Image

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 18 guests