Jump to content
Majestic12

Playing as Brazilians

Recommended Posts

13 hours ago, SimpleSimon said:

I'll be giving that scenario a swing soon since im really drawn to the Brazilian scenarios more than I thought i'd be. I love the idea of American-style ToEs….but minus the Garand.

But if you don't really use the Garand anyway, why is an american-style OOB without the Garand so interesting? Genuine question, I'm not trying to be annoying here. Just curious.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Bulletpoint said:

There's AI in the game now?

It surely feels like it at times, but it's actually all painted zones, timing and simple scripts. 

To make those scripts feel this convincing is no mean feat IMHO.....Kudos to the scenario designers.   B)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Bulletpoint said:

But if you don't really use the Garand anyway, why is an american-style OOB without the Garand so interesting? Genuine question, I'm not trying to be annoying here. Just curious.

Browning machine guns, the M2 mortar, the BAR, and the bazooka are all still organic to the formation. Those weapons are the chief tools of an American ToE in reducing an enemy position. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, SimpleSimon said:
10 hours ago, Bulletpoint said:

But if you don't really use the Garand anyway, why is an american-style OOB without the Garand so interesting? Genuine question, I'm not trying to be annoying here. Just curious.

Browning machine guns, the M2 mortar, the BAR, and the bazooka are all still organic to the formation. Those weapons are the chief tools of an American ToE in reducing an enemy position. 

So you mean players rely too much on the firepower of the Garand, and with the Brazilians, they will have to learn to use the support weapons better?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think they expect too much of the Garand really more than relying too much on it. Don't get me wrong the Garand has its circumstances where its a far superior weapon to a bolt action rifle...I just think those situations are not universal. Some would disagree and their arguments would not be unconvincing. Crucially I think where the Garand shines brightest is in defense, where its high rate of fire can allow even draftees to rapidly punish attackers for even the smallest mistake. 

Edited by SimpleSimon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bolt action rifles have their own window of effectiveness - you just have to be more cautious, take your time and stay at slightly longer range where they still have good accuracy. It changes the feel of the game significantly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

M1903/M1917 vs M1 effectiveness depends more on the area of operation (AOO) and whether in defense or advance. When you’re in a defensive position with an open 1000 yard field of fire, the bolt actions are going to be more effective than the M1. That’s the type of fire for which they designed. When assaulting or defending in forested areas, urban areas, or other areas with limited ranges, the M1 takes the lead. During those assaults, soldiers and Marines learned to effectively fire from the hip. In those situations, the M1903, M1917, and K98 simply couldn’t match the M1, so that would put the Brazilians more on a par with the Axis infantry. Without a doubt though, the BAR, which was designed in WWI, was overmatched by the MG42 as an organic squad support weapon. The U.S. light MGs were part of the weapons platoon, and were assigned to rifle platoons on an as needed basis, just like the M60 MG during the Vietnam war. 

The U.S. Marine Corp declined to receive the M1 when it was accepted because they wanted the 1000 yard range of the M1903. When the Marines landed on Guadalcanal, they carried M1903s. They fought off attacks by Japanese soldiers who were also using bolt action rifles. Then, shortly after National Guard units landed to take over the AOO, Marines “found” M1s to replace their M1903s that were “lost” in combat. I believe that says more about the effectiveness of the M1 over the M1903 in that type of combat.

I’ve fired the M1903, M1, M-14, and M-16, and would chose an M1903 for long-range sniping, M-14 for fixed defensive positions (because of the 20-round magazine), and the M-16 for limited visibility assaults. Max effective ranges (the range at which a Marine can be expected to inflict a casualty): M1903 -1000 yards (yd), M1-600 yd, M-14 - 460 meters (m), and M-16 - 360 m.

The effectiveness of a weapon is almost entirely dependent on the training of and use by the combatant carrying it.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...