Pistols vs Truppen

[dieseltaylor]

They sure took the detail seriously in the training manual!

5) Trajectory.—The elevation required for 100 yards is

24' and for 200 yards about 1°. The elevation for 250

yards is about 1° 13'; the maximum ordinate being approxi

mately 130 yards distance from the muzzle and about 51

inches in height. The maximum range is approximately

1,600 yards at an angle of elevation of 30°. The maximum

ordinate for the maximum range is approximately 2,000

However the actual training at targets was at 25 yards on a shooting range .... though the mounted cavalryman did have separate instructions on mounted use!

I must admit I would be training my crew for tank action not duelling with pistols.

[acehammer]

So we qualifed at 75ft , that seems right. If I remember correctly it seems you had 1 minute to shoot 7 rounds at 75ft ,another minute with 7 rounds at 50ft, and 7 rounds at 25ft. would this be correct? It doesnt seem like much time ,but when you,re really doing it, it seems like a long time.

[JonS]

They have to stay quilified.

Sure, but AIUI the quilification is quite modest.

I can gareentee you that they would be a better lot of a pool than army boys in WWII were.

I would expect they would have been lucky to have shot 3-4 clips of ammo before being sent into combat.

Bold statements are bold.

[MikeyD]

Here's a thought. Maybe the issue is not the over-lethality of the pistol, perhaps we're seeing the difficulty of the Germans using a bolt action rifle in close-in situations. You stumble on a German infantryman rounding a corner, you raise your pistol and 'bang bang bang' until he falls down. The German by contrast fires a round, extracts the shell, chambers another rounds, fires again... Someone had stated that they don't see the lethality problem with the German pistol. Perhaps that's because they're facing quick-firing Garands and M1 carbines. It'll be interesting to see if German pistol lethality increases when they're facing bolt-action Enfields. We don't really see over-lethality of pistols in CMSF, probably because the guy is usually cut in half within seconds by an AKM burst.

[acehammer]

I think that maybe some of those ww2 army boys grew up with a lot more trigger time than most people of todays world, many grew up on the farm during the great depression and spent alot of time hunting rabbits and squirrels with 22,s . I think it,s very possible that many hunted for their supper 3 or 4 times a week , I think hunger could make you a great shot in the long run .If you had been shooting since you were 12, and were drafted or joined the service at the time of pearl harbor , at the age of 18 or 19, a pistol might not seem that odd. They would have a lot more than 3 or 4 clips of live fire. I would not compare it to combat, but I think it would be more useful than going down to the range and blasting sitting targets ,like most people of today do.

[MikeyD]

I recall an old veteran saying he knew an army pal who was able to write his initials in a wall using his Thompson SMG. Thompson was notoriously difficult to control due to muzzle climb. I imagine there's special incentive to learn how to properly use your weapon when the alternative is a sudden gruesome death.

[SelfLoadingRifle]

At ranges of ~30m, a team of armed with semi-auto pistols probably should have an advantage over a similarly-sized team armed with bolt-action rifles.

With the greatest respect, what is possible on a range is not always possible in action. The Wesley Hardins and the Jelly Bryces are very much the exception, not the rule. Also take note that most people cannot shoot any kind of a pistol for toffee.

In action, maximum range for any service pistol would be no more than 15 yards, probably even less. Please note that in an adrenaline rush situation it is extremely easy to miss completely at 3 yards.

At 10 yards or less the pistol armed team might have a chance against rifles, but please remember that a single pistol round will not usually take someone down. A rifle round most definitely will.

We Brits pretty much perfected the service pistol in the late 19th century.

1) It had to be of a calibre heavy enough to stop someone who resembled Mike Tyson armed with an assegai who was charging straight for you.

2) It had to be completely reliable.

3) It had to be accurate to 15 yards.

4) It had to be robust enough to perform double-duty as a club.

The (eventual) result was the Webley Mk VI. The Yanks (God bless 'em) produced the 1911 Colt which also satisfied these vital criteria.

SLR:D

P.S. I agree, pistol effectiveness in CM needs a drastic reduction.

[Rocky Balboa]

I recall an old veteran saying he knew an army pal who was able to write his initials in a wall using his Thompson SMG. Thompson was notoriously difficult to control due to muzzle climb. I imagine there's special incentive to learn how to properly use your weapon when the alternative is a sudden gruesome death.

Perhaps but some would also do it merely for the notoriety ....

[slysniper]

I think that maybe some of those ww2 army boys grew up with a lot more trigger time than most people of todays world, many grew up on the farm during the great depression and spent alot of time hunting rabbits and squirrels with 22,s . I think it,s very possible that many hunted for their supper 3 or 4 times a week , I think hunger could make you a great shot in the long run .If you had been shooting since you were 12, and were drafted or joined the service at the time of pearl harbor , at the age of 18 or 19, a pistol might not seem that odd. They would have a lot more than 3 or 4 clips of live fire. I would not compare it to combat, but I think it would be more useful than going down to the range and blasting sitting targets ,like most people of today do.

You Logic is fine except for one point, yes many of a country boy grew up learning how and using a gun in the outdoors of the great USA, but shooting a rifle is still much different than shooting a pistol, pistols really are not a easy weapon to master., Just a slight jerk of the trigger changes the path of the bullit much more than a rifle. Most of this has to do with the barrel length, which is about 6" and nothing to make the weapon rigged other than your wrist, it sure is not like having a weapon stock in your shoulder.

Growing up shooting rifles will be of little value with being good with a pistol.

there is a show on TV right now, Top shots, which take marksman which are very good in their field and make them compete against each other in areas they are not masters at. Just watch the show and you can see that if someone is not trained long with a pistol, they generally do very poorly.

[slysniper]

With the greatest respect, what is possible on a range is not always possible in action. The Wesley Hardins and the Jelly Bryces are very much the exception, not the rule. Also take note that most people cannot shoot any kind of a pistol for toffee.

In action, maximum range for any service pistol would be no more than 15 yards, probably even less. Please note that in an adrenaline rush situation it is extremely easy to miss completely at 3 yards.

At 10 yards or less the pistol armed team might have a chance against rifles, but please remember that a single pistol round will not usually take someone down. A rifle round most definitely will.

We Brits pretty much perfected the service pistol in the late 19th century.

1) It had to be of a calibre heavy enough to stop someone who resembled Mike Tyson armed with an assegai who was charging straight for you.

2) It had to be accurate to 15 yards.

3) It had to be robust enough to perform double-duty as a club.

The (eventual) result was the Webley Mk VI. The Yanks (God bless 'em) produced the 1911 Colt which also satisfied these vital criteria.

SLR:D

P.S. I agree, pistol effectiveness in CM needs a drastic reduction.

Glad to see someone else step in and try to teach these guys how pistols really are as a weapon.

I figure it comes down to many just do not have the personnal expearence to understand how hard they are to use and how the game does not seem to portrey them correctly .

[YankeeDog]

I am in the process of building a test scenario to get some hard data on exactly how effective pistols are vs. various other weapons. To start, I want to test tank crews armed solely with M1911A1s vs. German teams of the same size with various weapon loadouts, @ 30m. Hopefully, I'll then have time to expand to a 50m test, and a 75m test, or something like that.

I got started on it this morning. Whether I finish the building the test within the next 24 hours and run it is probably directly related to whether the Commonwealth module comes out in this same time frame or not...

So soon we should have some hard data to go on, rather than just anecdotes. Not that I don't appreciate the anecdotes that people have posted here already, but there is so much random variation in this game, that I think a formal test with a good sample size is really important to drawing any useful conclusions.

One thing that would be very helpful: Does anyone know if there is a way to get a team of 4 or 5 men with just k98s in the editor? This would be the ideal "base" team to test, as it will give me a very pure test subject: All M1911A1s on one side, all k98s on the other, equal numbers, etc.

Ideally, I'd like to test the all bolt-action rifle vs. all semi-auto pistols case first, and then change variables from there to see how the results change -- add an MP40 to the German team, etc.

Note that I don't want to use e.g. 2 scout teams vs. a 4-man tank crew with pistols because this creates a second variable -- 2 2-man teams will deploy differently than a single, 4-man team.

Thanks,

YD

[acehammer]

This talk of close in fighting with tank crews with 45,s going up against fire teams with rifles has made me think, I wonder if tank crews ever carried shotguns? they carried grenades for sure ,it seems a good reliable pump action shotgun could have had a place.

[YankeeDog]

This talk of close in fighting with tank crews with 45,s going up against fire teams with rifles has made me think, I wonder if tank crews ever carried shotguns? they carried grenades for sure ,it seems a good reliable pump action shotgun could have had a place.

Shotguns were extremely rare among U.S. Forces in the ETO. The Marines in the Pacific used a few, but even there they were not at all common. Overall, unless a Tank crew found one in a French farmhouse or somehow managed to smuggle one purchased with personal funds across the Atlantic, they wouldn't have one.

As I mentioned above, other "acquired" weapons not part of the U.S. Army's official allotment for the crew are another matter. From what I've read, tank crews frequently scrounged or traded for carbines or rifles. The larger weapons that couldn't be easily managed in and out of the tank they simply strapped the back of the turret or the hull side.

[acehammer]

You Logic is fine except for one point, yes many of a country boy grew up learning how and using a gun in the outdoors of the great USA, but shooting a rifle is still much different than shooting a pistol, pistols really are not a easy weapon to master., Just a slight jerk of the trigger changes the path of the bullit much more than a rifle. Most of this has to do with the barrel length, which is about 6" and nothing to make the weapon rigged other than your wrist, it sure is not like having a weapon stock in your shoulder.

Growing up shooting rifles will be of little value with being good with a pistol.

there is a show on TV right now, Top shots, which take marksman which are very good in their field and make them compete against each other in areas they are not masters at. Just watch the show and you can see that if someone is not trained long with a pistol, they generally do very poorly.[/quote I will agree with that , but the sight picture is the same .

[Michael Ivan]

As a range master once told me, "A pistol is what you use until you can get a real weapon in your hands." By the way, he was an amazing shot with hand guns and long guns.

[dieseltaylor]

I recall an old veteran saying he knew an army pal who was able to write his initials in a wall using his Thompson SMG.

X X is not that difficult surely?

Literacy can muck things up though.

[acehammer]

You Logic is fine except for one point, yes many of a country boy grew up learning how and using a gun in the outdoors of the great USA, but shooting a rifle is still much different than shooting a pistol, pistols really are not a easy weapon to master., Just a slight jerk of the trigger changes the path of the bullit much more than a rifle. Most of this has to do with the barrel length, which is about 6" and nothing to make the weapon rigged other than your wrist, it sure is not like having a weapon stock in your shoulder.

Growing up shooting rifles will be of little value with being good with a pistol.

there is a show on TV right now, Top shots, which take marksman which are very good in their field and make them compete against each other in areas they are not masters at. Just watch the show and you can see that if someone is not trained long with a pistol, they generally do very poorly.

I belive that having prior firearm experience was of great value when I was first introduced to the 45 many years ago , I grew up with a shotgun pheasant hunting in Nebraska ,at the age of 11 I had a single shot 20 gauge ,of course I had a bolt action 22 and a pump 12 by the time I was 15, I think my grandma bought me my remington 1100, when I was 17. It is not the same shotguns and and pistols thats for sure. I do feel very comfortable around most shotguns. When the Marine corps made me a 106 gunner I had never used a 45 ,but the idea of what you were doing was the same ,sight picture ,breathing,kick ,lineing up the next shot, dominant eye,having your hands right. It all still matters I would much rather of had that experience than not to of had it ,It seems to me that it all mattered, when we first started useing the TOE it was very easy to bust those ultra thin wires coming out the back many people who were good with a 106 could not use a TOE missle. but experience and training made you better, for me the hardest weapon to master was the 3.5 rocket luncher to me it was a beast .

[c3k]

I concur: combat shooting with a pistol beyond approximately 10m should be a total waste of ammo. Odds of hitting should fall off a cliff beyond 5m.

[Bernie]

I concur: combat shooting with a pistol beyond approximately 10m should be a total waste of ammo. Odds of hitting should fall off a cliff beyond 5m.

Then you have´nt been watching "hickok45" om You Tube...

[MikeyD]

Someone recently posted here that army training instructors often had difficulty getting hunters to 'unlearn' habits got from hunting. Warfighting is a different skillset. I think he mentioned the hunter's tendency to take too long to get off the shot. I can imagine when you're deer hunting there's not much call for supressive fire either.

[GhostRider3/3]

My Father was a Range Instructor for the Air-Police during the Vietnam war, he trained not only Pilots but other AirForce staff that had to qualify.

Anyways my Father said there were very few that could shoot extremely well... Like Chuck Norris and Steven Segal.. (Actually the later Steven really can shoot well), but most of those qualifying with the Pistol just got by.... My Father said even some of their own MP's or Air Policemen did not shoot really abnormally well, but most were good with the Rifle.

Anyways I have run into the same thing with US Crews running around all over the place going "Chuck Norris" all over the battlefield.. LOL at one time while playing the Germans we destroyed over 28 Tanks.. as the Infantry advanced they had to dispatch these Super Human tank crews... taking medium and in some cases heavy casualties from ranges well over 60m.... Thats pretty damn accurate for Green and vetran Tank crews...

[sigop22]

Like I said earlier, my experiences in the army with a pistol as a signaller has been no more than:

"Range ready."

"Fire"

"Check your targets."

"If you hit your target more than 6 times, congratulations!"

Not that they don't want to teach you marksmanship, but with our terrible pistols that we have issued you're better off using it to beat the other guy to death after you miss him.

[YankeeDog]

Keep in mind, the most useful question here is not "at what range(s) is a semi-auto pistol most effective?", but rather, "at what range(s) does a soldier with a semi-auto pistol have an advantage over a soldier armed with other weapon type X?". Where X could be anything from 5-round clip bolt-action rifle with a very heavy bolt pull, to an SMG, to an LMG.

It may well be hard to hit a target with a semi-auto pistol at 30m. Still, if you told me I had to walk around a corner and confront another armed man at a range of 30m, and gave me a choice of an M1911A1 or a Kar. 98, I think I'd take the M1911A1. As the range gets longer, my response would change. And if you swap the Kar. 98 for a semi-auto or full auto weapon, then my response would also change...

Test results soon. It seems like some adjustment to the game model is needed the question is how much...

Working on tests

[acehammer]

I have enjoyed this topic very much, but it has taken me from my goal Im not sure where to find help at ,so I will just throw this out there . When I play and use my mouse to scroll around the battle I sometimes end up at my desk icons , why is this can it be fixed ?Any help is very much appreciated.

[acehammer]

I think you may have got it right YankeeDog that might be what we are looking for and I think that range is shorter than what most of us think it should be.