Skolman Posted September 14, 2004 Share Posted September 14, 2004 Why has the Lee Enfield Rifle such a high Firepower in the CM world ? All rifles have a FirePower of about six on short range , just the LF has 10 ! Only the semi automatic rifles have more FP. Maybe some weapons experts out there ? Oi ! The Skolman 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flamingknives Posted September 14, 2004 Share Posted September 14, 2004 The LE has a number of advantages over other bolt-action rifles. The first is a 10 round magazine, where mausers etc only have 5 round magazines. Secondly, the action on the LE is comparitively fast for a bolt-action rifle. AIUI, it locks only at the back, rather than having lugs that lock into the barrel, or something like that. A demo I saw had a soldier fire the full magazine into the centre of a target at 20m or so without taking it off his shoulder. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colonel J Lee Posted September 14, 2004 Share Posted September 14, 2004 What is the CM firepower rating for an M-1 Garand? They had 7 or 8 rounds and fired semi-automatically. The rating should be higher, shouldn't it? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redwolf Posted September 14, 2004 Share Posted September 14, 2004 13 @ 40m 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poppy Posted October 3, 2004 Share Posted October 3, 2004 Hello Colonel J Lee, I agree, the M1 in my opinion is very much under rated at the 100m and 250m ranges. It is after all a semi auto rifle with a eight round clip, and no matter how you constru it a semi auto is much faster than a bolt action using the same or nearly the same cartridge. I started a thread in the CMAK forum in which I argued this point. Im in the process of buying one so I can give some first hand accounts of the results that I get firing the M1. Itl be awhile,I live in California so it takes awhile to go thru the process. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poppy Posted October 11, 2004 Share Posted October 11, 2004 Hello Skolman, The difference in the LeeEnfield and the K98 is the bolt rotation on the LE is about 45deg the bolt rotation on the K98 is about 65deg and the LE cartridge is shorter than the K98 cartridge and the LE magazine holds 10 rnds vs the K98 5 rnds. Mostly tho is the mystic generated by the super trained Brits in the Expiditionary force of WW1. They were the benchmark of infantry of that era. poppys 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Denwad Posted October 25, 2004 Share Posted October 25, 2004 poppys, you still have to aim. it doesn't matter if you have a semi-automatic firearm that can bang off 8 rounds in 3 seconds, if it's shooting 30-06 and only weights 7lbs or so, and you try to do that you won't hit anything. at 40m it might be like this *point in general direction* BANG X8 at 100m+ it's probably like this *steady* *aim* bang X8 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poppy Posted October 28, 2004 Share Posted October 28, 2004 Hi Denwad, I agree ,you do still have to aim but you dont have to work the bolt which as you know requires you to release your grip on the stock work the bolt to eject the spent round and chamber a new round, grip the stock again and aim, if your target is still in sight,[your right hand obscures your vision unless you move your head or the rifle while working the bolt and this requires a gross readajustment of aim and a longer aim time and a greater chance of losing sight of your target]. The sequence with a semi-auto is ,aim fire aim fire ,much faster and less chance of losing sight of your target and if your laying down suppressive fire on some bushes at 100m or 250m range the aim time is furher reduced. Thanks for your reply Denwad and I hope that you will consider my argument. poppys 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Krautman Posted November 3, 2004 Share Posted November 3, 2004 I'd agree with poppys, though a higher firepower with an Enfield/M1 rifle would also mean a much higher ammo depletion for the short ranges, and this is modeled neither in CMBO nor in CMAK. With a k98, you'd aim very carefully before firing, thus attaining a higher hit percentage, while when using an M-1 you would be tempted to fire 8 bullets in rapid succession(if the first one won't hit, the second one will etc.), aiming only marginally. IMHO the firepower is represented quite well in the CM games, though i think the russian ppsh-41, the finnish suomi, the czech lmg 37 and its british bren clone are slightly too powerful. The lmgs just can't throw out as much lead with a 30-rounds-mag to justify their high short range firepower, i think. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flamingknives Posted November 7, 2004 Share Posted November 7, 2004 ISTR an argument in favour of the Bren/ZB37 was that is was more accurate and controllable than the German 'tearing linoleum' guns. Amount of lead down-range doesn't count for much if every round after the third is more of an aircraft hazard. Ease of handling is another key factor in close range combat, and the magazine fed weapons definately score well here, as they're lighter, can be reloaded faster and you don't need to mess about with a belt. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leopard_2 Posted November 8, 2004 Share Posted November 8, 2004 flamingknives, do you have any sources? I mean, I have some experience with the MG3 (being the MG42 modified to fire 7.62x51mm NATO), and I can't complain about the reload speed. (Open cover, insert belt, close cover, cock is only one step more than remove magazine, insert magazine, cock - and I would argue that inserting the belt is quicker than inserting a magazine, but then I've never handled a Bren.) As for controlability, when firing from the bipod (as the MG42 / MG3 is intended to be used), I had little trouble keeping whole volleys in target at around 600m... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Krautman Posted November 8, 2004 Share Posted November 8, 2004 Good point, Leopard 2. However, it usually takes a second man to quickly get that belt inside, so that the gunner can keep his target focused. flamingknives: the easier control of the ZB/Bren at close range compared to the Mg34 might be a point, yet: 30/28-round mag needs to be exchanged much more often than a belt. And what about the StG44? Same mag capacity as Bren, but has considerably less 40m-firepower- why that? It should be even easier to control than the bren, and the lower penetration power of the short bullet shouldn't be an issue at short range. Interesting discussion so far. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flamingknives Posted November 8, 2004 Share Posted November 8, 2004 Like I said, vague recollection. Quite possibly wrong too. Part of it comes from the "Combat Lessons" series of pamphlets issued to the US army in the latter stages in WWII. Comments indicated that German fire was high volume, but not necessarily accurate. Probably quicker to haul a fresh mag out of a pouch than a fresh belt. Nonetheless the MG42/34 still have a higher FP to represent the larger capacity. Lying down with the bipod on at sub-40m mightn't be the best plan in the world either. Regards the MP44 Vs the Bren. The StG is easier to manouevre than the Bren, but the Bren is more stable on automatic, being slightly heavier, but not as heavy as a belt-fed gun. There's also the greater ammo supply for the Bren, and the observance of Marshall that squad automatic gunners tend to be more active in a firefight than their regular squadmates. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Krautman Posted November 8, 2004 Share Posted November 8, 2004 flamingknives wrote "...but the Bren is more stable on automatic," Do you mean stability in ROF due to the heavier/thicker barrel compared to the StG44, or easier control during rapid fire? " Lying down with the bipod on at sub-40m mightn't be the best plan in the world either." Well, the Bren needs a bipod too, doesn't it? And the MG3 can be fired from a kneeling or standing position (though only short, controlled bursts, and it requires a STRONG left arm to keep that barrel down), so MG42 and 34 should be usable likewise. However, BTS probably did some testing to the issue, which i admit i didn't(how could i)-they might be correct with those FP values they implemented in their CM games... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flamingknives Posted November 8, 2004 Share Posted November 8, 2004 The Bren is heavier than the StG, which absorbs recoil forces, but is still light enough to be used as a large rifle. The Bipod is less of a requirement than a full fledged GPMG. There's precious few pictures/footage of Brens being used with bipod deployed. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leopard_2 Posted November 9, 2004 Share Posted November 9, 2004 About the belt vs. magazine reloading... well, that depends on where that magazine / belt is, now does it? If I have a second man at my MG3 / MG42, I don't have to reload at all. Splicing the end of belt #1 to the beginning of belt #2 is a very easy thing to do, basically giving you an "endless belt" - can't do that with a magazine. And as for having the magazine at your belt... nope, not faster at all. In fact it took me longer to crank a new mag from my belt into my G3 combat rifle than getting a new (ammo) belt into the MG3 from an ammo box beside me. Not to speak of the wiggling you have to do to get at your belt pouches when lying down. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Krautman Posted November 9, 2004 Share Posted November 9, 2004 flamingknives wrote "The Bren is heavier than the StG, which absorbs recoil forces,..." which, at ~80m+ distance, surely is a great advantage concerning the accuracy of rapid fire compared to the StG44. But at 40m and less, i'd still prefer a lighter, more maneuverable weapon like the StG. It is not for nothing that the german army (and presumably every other army nowadays)teaches to mainly use single-shot mode, and to switch the assault rifle from single-shot to auto-fire at ~50m and below. "...but is still light enough to be used as a large rifle. The Bipod is less of a requirement than a full fledged GPMG. There's precious few pictures/footage of Brens being used with bipod deployed." This is interesting. So the Bren is rather a big assault rifle than a machine gun, maybe somewhat like the BAR? Does anyone have data concerning lenght and weight? (MG3/42: weight~12,9 kg IIRC, maybe Leopard 2 could give some more accurate data as well as the length, so we could compare with Bren) 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flamingknives Posted November 9, 2004 Share Posted November 9, 2004 10.4kg loaded. Leopard_2: How long does it take for you to reload a G3 from a magazine lying on the ground beside you, or how long does it take to reload a belt from a stowed ammo can? You can't compare different cases to get an answer. Note that the German GPMGs still far surpass the LMGs in terms of firepower, I'm just trying to point out that the good, toploading, handy LMGs aren't as bad as people like to make out. In addition to the raw 'FPS-Type' data on firearms, one has to take into account other things such as barrel heating - effective rates of fire for Bren and MG3 are most likely very similar - and things such as most fire being provided by the squad automatic weapon - above and beyond that provided by personal small-arms, except in very close range fighting. Krautman: I believe that the term favoured these days is automatic rifle. The Bren leans more towards being an MG than an AR than, for example, the US BAR. but still could be used as one. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leopard_2 Posted November 10, 2004 Share Posted November 10, 2004 My term in the German army is over 10 years past, and damn it, I gave away my copy of "The Edge of the Sword: Compendium of modern Firearms"... too bad, it had some pretty good data on precision. According to this, the MG42 was 25.5 lbs (11.6 kg). Fits with the ~12 kg estimate we were given for the MG3. And the same site says that you could fit a drum magazine instead of the belt - but I never got my hands on a drum magazine in my army time. Again, there's supposed to be someone besides you helping to carry the ammo and splicing the belts together. Again, I don't know the Bren, but what struck me in the MG3 was the ultra-quick barrel change. (You hit a lever with the palm of your right hand, and the whole barrel frame swivels to the right. You pull the hot barrel out - preferrably with a glove on - insert the new barrel, and slap the frame shut. Commence firing. ) 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Mike Posted November 10, 2004 Share Posted November 10, 2004 IIRC the MG42 "magazine" is a container for a 50 round belt isn't it? The bren has a quick change barrle in the smae manner as the MG42, and anyone who hasn't seen Brens on Bipods hasn't been out and about enough!! the Bren was handy enough to be used for "walking fire", but standard commonwealth infantry section tactics were to split the squad into a "fire group" and an "assault group" each of 4-5 men. The firegroup had the Bren, the Assault Group rifles and SMG's - the fire group provided a firebase to keep teh bad guys heads down while the assault group went in to chase them away. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flamingknives Posted November 10, 2004 Share Posted November 10, 2004 No doubt the Bren was used from the bipod in open ground and at long range, but most combat pics show them being rested on a window sill/convenient rock/earth back/chocolate cheesecake etc. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Other Means Posted November 13, 2004 Share Posted November 13, 2004 mmm...cheesecake. i think the measure of being able to handle easily must be related to weight/RPM. the MG42 was only slightly heavier than the Bren buy with the energy it was having to absorb must have been a lot harder to handle. enough to rule out walking fire, i would have thought. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poppy Posted November 13, 2004 Share Posted November 13, 2004 My M1 Garand arrived and now the learning process starts. How to load it and how to fire it with some accuracy. Also got to field strip it and clean it up. Its in suprisingly good condition, nothing but surface dings on the wood and some wear of the metal finish. Hopefully within a few months I can post some rapid fire scores. poppys 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skolman Posted November 13, 2004 Author Share Posted November 13, 2004 Hey Poppys, In my country it would be illegal to own an M1 Rifle.....so cheers to you ,Skolman! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poppy Posted November 14, 2004 Share Posted November 14, 2004 Thank you Skolman, The Garand is a well made rifle, good balance and not as heavy as I had anticipated,but of course after a 20 mile hike I might change my opinion on the weight. Sorry to hear that you cant own one yourself. It will take a few months to clean it up and correct some of the wear related problems with the front sight and then a safety and shooting instruction session at the local sportsmans association rifle range. And then practice practice. It would be interesting to hear from the CM community some first hand accounts of the K98 and the Enfield. poppys 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.