John,
I took your advice and decided to compare double 8cm mortars with the double MG42.
These may be a good comparison because:
Both cost: 25 points
Both have two main weapons in slot 1 & 2
Both have 8 men
Both size 1
Both very common
Both have similar ranges: 2400/2200yds
Both have similar KILL ratings: 11/10
I z-fired the mortars and HMGs 10 times each, into unsuppressed (or suppression 1) group of US infantry. I made sure the accuracy of the hits were equal.
The results were remarkably similar:
8cm Mortars
Target infantry suffered an average suppression of 10.4
Surrounding (splash) infantry an average suppression of 3.9
MG42
Target infantry suffered an average suppression of 12.4
Surrounding (splash) infantry an average suppression of 4.3
*One casualty was sustained in the target hex of the MG z-fire.
Although my test gave the MG a slight edge, it was a limited test, so I consider these results as close enough to make no difference. For arguments sake let’s assume 8cm mortars and MG42s are identical in their suppressive ability, as well as in the criteria listed above.
However, two issues make the MG the superior suppression weapon:
1. Rate of Fire
The MG has double the RoF of the mortar: 6 vs 3
2. Ammunition
The MG has more than double the ammo: 180 vs 80
---
Again, we are talking about indirect non-LoS fire here. I am not suggesting that we limit the direct fire ability of MGs at all. They are, and should be deadly in direct fire mode; but they should not be at least twice as effective as artillery when used for indirect fire.
I agree with you that to have MGs use double ammo for z-fire (representing the additional ammo used when firing blindly) would be a step in the right direction.
Another possibility may be to limit z-fire to 2 or 3 times a turn (representing barrel overheat or the extra time/ammo needed for indirect fire).
I would love to see both implemented.
regards,
Simon