Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 LordofHats wrote:

Suppressing fire eats bullets, and isn't really done with the intention of hitting anything per se.

That's my point though, wargames special rules generally provide US riflemen some kind of 'killing' bonus but I don't think that is appropriate unless the target is at very close range.

 Silent Puffin? wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:

Suppressing fire eats bullets, and isn't really done with the intention of hitting anything per se.

That's my point though, wargames special rules generally provide US riflemen some kind of 'killing' bonus but I don't think that is appropriate unless the target is at very close range.

Do they?

We've discussed two games in this thread. Flames of War doesn't. Instead, FoW makes it so that a bad rate of fire doesn't get even worse when you move. It sounds as if Bolt Action gives a bonus, though.



How do other games treat it?

LordofHats wrote:

I mean the time it takes to work the bolt action, not necessarily aim. But of course, time you don't spend working your weapon is time you have to aim

Having had the pleasure of firing an SMLE, I can say that the time to work the bolt is miniscule and doesn't require losing your aim on a target. It is a bolt action rifle, that once familiar with, can put out a tremendous rate of accurate fire. Reload time is very fast too. Plus, unlike the Garand, you can part reload...

The K98 works well too, though I preferred the SMLE.

The US firepower ability was, eventually when retrained to do so, the ability to pin targets down with sustained suppressive fire. But if you read any US account, what they feared was the German MG fire and mortar fire. No one side had a great small arms advantage. Localised units could - Such as some Volksgrenadier and Sturn Zug - have a tremendous firepower allocation at the platoon level, but like any weapon, it matters little its rate of fire, what really matters is the man using it.

Big P wrote:


Plus, unlike the Garand, you can part reload...

Funny story... that bit about not being able to top-off the clip in an M1 after firing a few shots isn't strictly true. I've seen someone fire three shots out of an M1 and then (carefully) insert three bullets into the gun, and resume firing. There's a bearded British bloke with a video on Youtube about it.





Pertinent bit starts at 1:38, but I recommend watching the whole thing, as it is quite good!

To be fair, that myth has always been kind of silly. What armed force designs a gun that can only be reloaded when it's current clip/magazine is completely empty? I blame Call of Duty.

Well learn something every day.

The rule doesn't come only from the fact they were issued semi-automatic rifles and BAR, but from the training and basic squad/platoon tactic. Where the german, forexample, would rely on mg covering while other elements would progress, the US doctrine was based on the idea that you never should stop moving. So basically, the hole group had to use its firerate to shoot while advancing so that the enemy kept thir heads down .Afterwards, when to squad's gotten close enough, the SMG men rush in and finish the adversaries off. That's the basic method anyway. SO, to my mind, it sounds perfectly legit to assume your squad would be able to successfully set up such way of fighting.

As far as the BARs, they basically worked the sae way and were supposed to provide cover to the men advancing while the BAR gnner would remain on the move. Sadly, due to its very little magazine and its weight, it wa obviously quite hard to match with the expectations. But eh, that's just a game isn't it?

feel free to correct me if I'm wrong somewhere anyway.

the only thing the rule in bolt action does is remove the penalty for moving and firing. Standing still gives the Americans no benefits. So essentially all American players should be using an advance order (move then shoot) whenever possible. It allows them to ignore the -1 to hit that an advance order would normally cause.

It makes the Americans more mobile and aggressive but doesn't really up their firepower. In bolt action rifle fire doesn't kill much, but it is handy for suppression. A lot of times enemy troops will be in hard cover if they can so usually all you cause is pins.

Personally I think that the way FoW handles M1 Garands and BARs is just fine, and anyone who thinks they get a significant bonus is simply not familiar with the rules. US rifle teams equipped with BARs and M1s are worse than any unit equipped with LMGs. Both Rifle/MG teams and MG teams are better than US rifle teams. The only unit that US rifle teams are better than are other nations' rifle teams equipped with only bolt action rifles and no MGs.