Whats so special about the lee enfield ?

[throwdjohn]

Poppys, I'm assuming you're in america eh? HAHA our right to bear arms. That is neat that you got your own garand. Maybe you can figure out how to make it full auto like capt. Winters of BoB fame. Too bad I can't own a gun now (too young) and most likely never will (I'm waiting for myself to commit a felony =)

[flamingknives]

Why would you want an automatic Garand?

If you must shoot at aeroplanes then the M14 ought to fit the bill

[poppy]

Hello throwdjohn, The Garand wouldnt make much of an automatic, only 8 rounds. poppys

[Doodlebug]

An interesting discussion so far. The Lee Enfield has, by all accounts, a much faster bolt action than it's other bolt action contemporaries hence it's higher factors in comparison to them. The Garand, as a semi automatic, has higher factors again realistically representing the difference in ability to put rounds into the target at a greater rate. One can quibble about the numbers but one cannot argue, I believe, with the 1)Garand, 2)Lee Enfield, 3) Other bolt action rifles ranking.

The comparison of MG42 and Bren is a little bit unfair surely? One is the forerunner of the modern GPMG and the other is an LMG a class of weapon destined to be ousted by the GPMG. Both are very different weapons. To touch briefly on that other theme running through the comments: the one of accuracy. It surely ultimately matters not the slightest how many rounds can be fired or how quickly if none hit their intended target? A single round on target is probably enough to do the job. Any more than that: overkill. The Bren, certainly the early models, was noted for it's precision. My father recounted to me in my younger days how he was trained on the gun. Squeeze the trigger. A three round burst and release. Repeat as necessary. 1,2,3. 1,2,3. 1,2,3. That is evidence, is it not, of training and tactical useage designed to take advantage of the weapon's characteristics to the full? 30 round magazine? Good grouping on target? 3 rounds. Next target. Simple but easily overlooked in an entirely firepower factor driven equation. The MG42 for all it's significant advantages in rate of fire and belt supply was not without critisism at the time. I am aware of at least one contemporary who spoke of MG42 casualties being found with 4 or 5 wounds in them. Overkill? Perhaps. That observer also spoke of MG42 being loaded with a 1:4 mix of real and wooden training rounds so as to conserve ammunition and still maintain kill rate without having to reduce rate of fire. I have no corroboration on this point (Grogs? Please speak now) but it does seem to me a plausible solution to a situation if ammunition supply is an issue. If that were the situation then the rate of fire of an MG42 would be, in effect, 1/5th it's quoted rate of fire.

On that basis an entirely rate of fire driven numerical combat analysis can never be the 100% literal truth. The accuracy of a particular weapon coupled to the ability and training of the individual wielding it comes a very poor second if it gets any consideration at all.

[poppy]

What Im concerned about is that the M1 Garand is not recieving its due. Which is , the first and only semi automatic rifle in WW2 that was standard issue for the troops. Its increase in fire power for the individual squad member was a quantum step forward but is treated in CM as an insingnificant increase in firepower at the 100m and the 250m ranges. :confused: poppys

[poppy]

Hopefully, The BF people in charge of things like this will purchase a couple of Garands from the Civilian Marksmanship Program and do their own tests at their local firing ranges. poppys

[YankeeDog]

Actually, I'm pretty sure at least several, if not all, of the BFC crew have fired Garands.

Garands are still pretty easy to find here in the US. I don't own one, but I've fired one on several occasions.

Harder to find a working SMLE here in the US for comparison. While I have fired a couple of different WWII-era bolt-action rifles, including the Springfield and the Kar98, I've never gotten my hands on an SMLE. However, I'm left-handed, so I can't really comment personally on the relative effectiveness of bolt-action vs. semi-auto -- all bolt actions suck for me (except for the rare custom-modified left-handed bolt receiver, of course).

IMHO, the ultimate solution probably lies in changing the small arms firepower to account for different rates of fire. I don't really see much difference between a Garand and an SMLE for moderate, "sustained" ROF situations, but in hot-and-heavy "mad minute" type situations, I definitely think the Garand would have a substantial advantage.

In re: the MG42, The History Channel's "Tales of the Gun" segment on WWII German weapons has some interesting interview footage with WWII Wehrmacht veterans who actually used both the MG42 and the MG34 in combat. Overall, they seem to have appreciated the MG42 over the MG34 because it was more rugged and reliable weapon, and not because it had a higher ROF. In fact, I distinctly remember one veteran commenting that the MG42 was considerably less accurate than the MG34 -- he compared it to being more like a shotgun, rather than a rifle.

IIRC, the overall sentiment was that the two MGs were about equally effective so long as they were working, but that the MG42 was more likely to keep working, especially in field conditions. The trade-off, of course, being the fact that the MG42 used substantially more ammo for about the same amount of firepower.

I have often wondered about this in terms of CM's modeling of the two weapons. For squad-internal LMGs, the only way to model reliability in the current engine is with the fp rating, but for HMGs, the interviews would seem to argue that the MG34 & MG42 should be about equal in terms of firepower, but that the MG34 should jam more often, especially in difficult conditions (extreme cold, mud, etc.)

Cheers,

YD

[flamingknives]

The GPMG is, these days, rarely used as a SAW. Instead it has ousted dedicated MMGs like the Vickers, Maxim and Brownings. More common in the rifle squads are box fed or light belt fed MGs like the RPK 74 and Minimi respectively.

[Michael Dorosh]

Is poppys STILL going on about the Garand? I own one myself - and have owned three different models of Lee Enfield. Battle situations are somewhat different than range situations, so I am told; I'd suspect the difference in firepower was less than a simple look at tangibles such as muzzle velocity and rate of fire might suggest.

[YankeeDog]

Heh. He has been harping on this for a while. . .

Still, he may have a point, at least to a degree. I do think that if anything, it would be minor tweaks, though -- a point or two one way or the other.

IOW, looking just at the shortest range, 40m stats, current fp of the Garand is 13, the SMLE is 10, and the k98 (and most other bolt-actions across the flavors of CM) is 7. If we take the 7 for "vanilla" bolt actions as our basis of reference, I think a strong argument could be made that the the Garand should be bumped up to 14, *maybe* 15.

I also sometimes wonder if the 10 for the SMLE is a bit overstated and it should be more like a 9.

There's other stuff I wonder about, too. For example, the M1 carbine gets a very respectable rating of 21fp @ 40m, and still beats the Garand @ 100m (8fp vs. 7fp). Indeed, at 250m, the M1car is still "in the race" - 2fp vs. the Garand's (and most other rifles') 3fp. Looking at these stats, one wonders why the US Army didn't ditch the Garand and re-equip all it's riflemen with M1 carbines -- according to CM, this would have resulted in a 50% increase in close-range firepower, and only a marginal loss in long-range firepower, all with a weapon that was dramatically lighter, used lighter, cheaper ammo, was easier to train, and cheaper to produce!

Given all this, a squad loadout something like 2BARs for long-range fp, and 10 M1car (and remember, those lighter M1cars mean more ammo for the BARs can be carried!) would seem to be the best choice, but I suspect that this wasn't actually the case. . .

But again, I'm pulling all of this out of my butt, since I've certainly never had to use a firearm in a combat situation, and I've only even range-fired a few of the weapons in question. And this is all a moot point anyway since presumably there will be no further modifications to any iterations of the current CM engine.

I suspect that the small-arms firepower model is going to change pretty radically for CMX2, so talking about one-size-fits-all firepower numerical ratings may be pretty irrelevant, too. At least, I hope so -- One of my big hopes for the new game engine that it more accurately models firepower and ammo consumption, taking into account factors like the nature of the target (ex: target is a full platoon charging across open ground, vs. a single muzzle flash from a building window), and tactical effect desired (ex: high-output 'mad minute' situations to gain fire ascendency vs. sustained, harrasing fire to interdict or keep an already supressed enemy heads down).

Cheers,

YD

[throwdjohn]

Well I'm not one for facts, preferring my own opinions, so i skipped the posts with numbers in them, sorry. Why would you want to make a garand auto? Good God man, what country are you from? Maybe it's an american thing, maybe it's a teenager thing, maybe it's an american teenager thing, but anythings better at full auto.

[poppy]

I would imagin that range conditions are where the effective rate of fire is determined for the various small arms. In real battle conditions it would be hard to find someone to keep count.poppys

[poppy]

Good argument YankeeDog, And I agree with most of your argument, The M1 carbine was designed as a replacement for the 45 auto pistol and in a lot of instances was a better choice for defense. The Garand on the other hand uses the same cartridge as the BAR and the M1919 machine gun so there is not much range differance between the M1 Garand,the BAR and the M1919 or the M1917. They all used M2 ball. The Garand was semi auto times 10 squad members, a lot of fire power even at the 100m and 250m ranges. CMx2 is comming up and Im doing what I can to get BF to "see the light" poppys

[poppy]

Hello Michael Dorosh, If you still own an LeeEnfield how about doing some comparison sessions at your fifle range between the Enfield and the Garand. My Garand is in stripped down mode right now but hopefully within the next month or so Il be familiar unough with it and my Enfield to do some rapid fire accuracy comparisons. These comparisons wont probably show us an "effective firepower" but will show the differance between the Garand and the Enfield. Any K98 owners out there. poppys

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by poppys:

Hello Michael Dorosh, If you still own an LeeEnfield how about doing some comparison sessions at your fifle range between the Enfield and the Garand. My Garand is in stripped down mode right now but hopefully within the next month or so Il be familiar unough with it and my Enfield to do some rapid fire accuracy comparisons. These comparisons wont probably show us an "effective firepower" but will show the differance between the Garand and the Enfield. Any K98 owners out there. poppys

I have a K98 as well....I don't see what it is you're trying to prove, though.

[poppy]

Hello Micheal,Thank you for your response, What Im trying to prove is that there is a significent difference in effective firepower between the K98, the Enfield and the Garand that is not accuraty represented in CM at the 100m and 240m ranges. The only way to do this other than search the internet which Iv tried with varying results, is to do what must have been done during the development of these rifles, and that is to take them to a rifle range and under a sanctioned shooting match, compare them. I believe that the Garand has been underrated by a wide margin and this has, in my opinion, created an unrealistic protrayal of small unit actions in particular and large unit actions to a lessor but still significant degree. Any help will be appreciated. Substitute" sanchioned shooting match" with" military observers" for the initial tests of course. poppys

[JonS]

but the test you are proposing is not a measure of 'effective firepower'.

And even if you're right, look at YDs numbers - the change you are talking about is, at best, trivial.

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by YankeeDog:

There's other stuff I wonder about, too. For example, the M1 carbine gets a very respectable rating of 21fp @ 40m, and still beats the Garand @ 100m (8fp vs. 7fp).

This I just don't understand. It might make sense for the full auto M2 carbine, but those were a post-war development. Does anybody have an explanation for this?

Michael

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Michael Emrys:

This I just don't understand. It might make sense for the full auto M2 carbine, but those were a post-war development.

My understanding is that they were in fact available during WW II. Can't find an online source right now, can someone else confirm or refute?

[throwdjohn]

This topic has quicly turned into grogville.

[flamingknives]

What were you expecting?

[flamingknives]

Regarding the M1 Carbine fp, the carbine has:

A larger magazine - 20 odd rounds compared to the Garands 8

Lesser recoil - easier to fire accurate volleys

Both factors seem to feature in BFCs fp rating system, especially the former.

[poppy]

Now I have to purchase an M1 carbine to compare with the Enfield and Garand. Ill talk to my wife about it now......well maybe latter. poppys

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by flamingknives:

What were you expecting?

Well, given the timbre of his earlier post:

"Poppys, I'm assuming you're in america eh? HAHA our right to bear arms. That is neat that you got your own garand. Maybe you can figure out how to make it full auto like capt. Winters of BoB fame. Too bad I can't own a gun now (too young) and most likely never will (I'm waiting for myself to commit a felony =)"

It would appear he would prefer we bash the United States for looser firearms laws, introduce innuendo from TV movies, and commiserate with angst-filled youth who have little life experience...

Who would like to start?

[poppy]

I was trying to ignor it. But that doesent usually work.so. It is against the law in the United States,except for the US military or law enforcement agencies to possess a workable full automatic firearm. poppys