M1919a6

[GeorgeBates]

I had hoped, but was never certain, that we would see a counter for this in Yanks M3A1. Sadly, none are present, and not sure if it is in the plans for Korea. If anyone on the Korea team can say, please share.

Has there been discussion of how to model this "light" (15kg!!!) variant of the US 4-10 MMG? The A6 forgoes the tripod for the addition of a stock and bipod, which may not be enough to reduce it to 2PP, like the Lewis and Johnson LMG counters The bipod mount will reduce the range, but how far, to 8 hexes, or 7 like the BREN? FP is tricky, as the weapon has nowhere near the cyclic rate of fire of the MG34 or MG42, but it is belt fed, so it ought to be superior to the BREN or DP28.

My suggestion: 3-8, ROF1, 2PP, B12 (R1, X6)

Discuss and challenge, if you will.

 

[Hutch]

In the Reference Notes for SW by Geir Aalberg (VFTT 28, 29 and 30) it is listed as 3-8, 1PP, ROF 1, B11 (R1, X6). The lower B# is a result of the lightening of the gun which produced a weaker recoil with increased jamming, plus mittens were needed to change the barrel. 43,479 were produced.

But after reading his assessment, it was 50% heavier than any LMG, with a 250 round belt feed, I would agree with the 2PP.

 

[witchbottles]

In the Reference Notes for SW by Geir Aalberg (VFTT 28, 29 and 30) it is listed as 3-8, 1PP, ROF 1, B11 (R1, X6). The lower B# is a result of the lightening of the gun which produced a weaker recoil with increased jamming, plus mittens were needed to change the barrel. 43,479 were produced.

But after reading his assessment, it was 50% heavier than any LMG, with a 250 round belt feed, I would agree with the 2PP.

so is the Lewis LMG counter a decent stand in then?

 

[Hutch]

The only exception is the Lewis is 2-6, and that of the image.

 

[Paul M. Weir]

I would agree with 3-8, [1], 2 PP. Whether B11 or B12 is not something I am really sure of, I could go with either. It's not that I regard the M1919A6 as particularly good or bad, it's just that the existing B12/B11 choice is just too coarse for my taste (1/36 vs 3/36). The Japanese and Italian MG were particularly bad and a B11 is really justified, most other B11 MG were nothing as bad.

 

[Yuri0352]

I would agree with 3-8, [1], 2 PP. Whether B11 or B12 is not something I am really sure of, I could go with either. It's not that I regard the M1919A6 as particularly good or bad, it's just that the existing B12/B11 choice is just too coarse for my taste (1/36 vs 3/36). The Japanese and Italian MG were particularly bad and a B11 is really justified, most other B11 MG were nothing as bad.

I would agree with this assessment, although I think the B12 would be appropriate for this weapon. I have not seen any evidence to suggest that this Browning design is in any way less reliable than the MG-34 LMG.

 

[witchbottles]

I would agree with this assessment, although I think the B12 would be appropriate for this weapon. I have not seen any evidence to suggest that this Browning design is in any way less reliable than the MG-34 LMG.

nor is there any realiy available information that it was ever less reliable than its 4-10 MMG cousin. So it should probably be B12 unless there is a reason otherwise. ( perhaps those in bastonge from 23-26 december 44 going B11 for cold and lack of ammunition and spare parts. ( just a stab at a situational example) - those things could be handled via SSR.

the problem you run into borrowing a MG-34 german LMG counter is of course coloration.

Maybe get some printed in the counter mix for CdG with American green edging and French Blue centers?

 

[bprobst]

I'd like to see more detailed information about the operational deployment, and an explicit answer to the question of whether it supplemented or replaced the traditional BAR assets. That's way, way more important than arguing the specific values on the hypothetical counter.

The information on Wikipedia is a little vague, but the implication appears to be that while everyone loved the M1919A4 (the standard US MMG, yes? -- as well as a very common vehicle-mounted MG) because of its reliability, FP, etc., nobody was much in favour of the M1919A6, because of its weight. If the real-world troops said "no thanks, we'll do without" (yeah, I know, they probably were never consulted) while in ASL our cardboard troops say "yes, yes, give us more please" than that suggests a disconnect that we need to consider very carefully.

Would you rather have more of these suggested heavy LMGs, replacing the allocation of traditional MMG counters? If the M1919A6 replaced the usual BAR assets, would you be prepared to sacrifice (reduce) a standard US squad's FP in order to get one?

The extremely abstract nature of FP values for squads -- particularly when it comes to "inherent LMGs" and "inherent BARs" and that sort of thing -- makes the willy-nilly tossing in of new SW counters a tricky matter, at best. If ASL had been built from the word go as "squad FP is always calculated as x + y + z" with explicit and detailed instructions as to what each value represents, then adding a "missing" SW would be a much more straight-forward affair. As it is ... working out the numbers on the counter is the least important part of the process, IMO.

 

[witchbottles]

I'd like to see more detailed information about the operational deployment, and an explicit answer to the question of whether it supplemented or replaced the traditional BAR assets. That's way, way more important than arguing the specific values on the hypothetical counter.

The information on Wikipedia is a little vague, but the implication appears to be that while everyone loved the M1919A4 (the standard US MMG, yes? -- as well as a very common vehicle-mounted MG) because of its reliability, FP, etc., nobody was much in favour of the M1919A6, because of its weight. If the real-world troops said "no thanks, we'll do without" (yeah, I know, they probably were never consulted) while in ASL our cardboard troops say "yes, yes, give us more please" than that suggests a disconnect that we need to consider very carefully.

Would you rather have more of these suggested heavy LMGs, replacing the allocation of traditional MMG counters? If the M1919A6 replaced the usual BAR assets, would you be prepared to sacrifice (reduce) a standard US squad's FP in order to get one?

The extremely abstract nature of FP values for squads -- particularly when it comes to "inherent LMGs" and "inherent BARs" and that sort of thing -- makes the willy-nilly tossing in of new SW counters a tricky matter, at best. If ASL had been built from the word go as "squad FP is always calculated as x + y + z" with explicit and detailed instructions as to what each value represents, then adding a "missing" SW would be a much more straight-forward affair. As it is ... working out the numbers on the counter is the least important part of the process, IMO.

I am not entirely convinced that the design *purpose* was to replace and / or supplement the BAR. Nor am I convinced that this was the actual battlefield use.

Unless I miss my educated guess, their primary purpose was to replace the M919A4 version in certain "light" infantry units. Paratroopers / glider Troops / Mountain troops / Rangers.

IOW you removed the 4-10 MMG and replace it with the 3-8 2PP "LMG" in certain situations while designing the scenario therein.

KRL, Jon H

 

[rottenroller]

I had hoped, but was never certain, that we would see a counter for this in Yanks M3A1. Sadly, none are present, and not sure if it is in the plans for Korea. If anyone on the Korea team can say, please share.

I think I read on here somewhere that it would be included in the Korean War module. Was it used by Korean War era US Rangers?

 

[GeorgeBates]

Resurrecting this thread to note that this weapon is featured in Forgotten War, with the values 2-8, [1], 2PP and a B#12. Chapter W footnote 12 states that one M1919A6 was allotted to the weapons squad of each Korean War-era infantry platoon. US forces in the scenarios feature the MMG model more prominently, however.

 

[Paul M. Weir]

The US initial Para squad had 2 such M1916A6 per squad, late in '44 reduced to 1 M1916A6 and 1 BAR. Though as ASL in practice really doesn't distinguish between belt-fed LMG, magazine fed LMG or BARs, that would make no difference.