Whats so special about the lee enfield ?

[poppy]

Theres two schools of thought from what Iv read about military small arms. The old school of aim and fire and the new school of point and fire. The Garand was the last of the aim and fire school, it allowed a soldier to aim and fire at 100m and 250m and even at greater ranges at a much faster rate. It also provided better concellment because the soldier didnt have to operate the bolt, its easier to see a moving object than a still object. The M1 carbin fits the point and fire school, not nearly as destructive a weapon if hit as the Garand but it got more lead out there at the short and 100m ranges than the Garand did one on one.poppys

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by poppys:

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

I thought Class III states specifically allowed full auto weapons in private hands?

[poppy]

You got me Michael, whats a class III? Maybe these are disabled full autos like Thompsons and such as keepsakes, cant spell suviners. poppys

[YankeeDog]

Originally posted by 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.

Yes, for these reasons, and also the fact that it is a lighter weapon (easier to handle in close quarters), I can see why the M1car should have a higer fp rating at close ranges than the Garand. Having fired both weapons, the difference is recoil and muzzle climb is substantial.

As full rifle-caliber weapons go, the recoil on the Garand isn't that bad. Nevertheless, it takes a proper shooting position to absorb recoil and control the muzzle when firing shots in rapid succession; you can't just whip it up to your shoulder, hold it any old way you want and start squeezing off rounds if you expect to control where the bullets are going. In addition to the smaller magazine, I also found the stripper clip loading with the Garand rather cumbersome. I'm sure reloading with the stripper clipes would become easier with practice, though -- stripper clips are pretty rare in modern firearms, so I had very little experience with them before I tried the Garand.

In contrast, the M1car feels like shooting an oversized pistol. I could easily fire it one-handed, and with two hands in a good shooting stance I was putting all rounds into a man-sized target @50m on rapid fire on my second clip.

Given all this, to me the 21fp @ 40m seems in the right ballpark for the M1car. It's more the 100m & 250m ratings that I wonder about. While 100m is still pretty close range, it isn't spitting distance, either, and I would think that the M1s superior penetration power would compensate considerably for the slower practical rate of fire and smaller magazine. .30-'06 rounds will go right through a cinderblock and kill on the other side. The M1's .30 rounds have trouble penetrating pine boards at any decent range (yes, we experimented with this when I tried the weapons). Ultimately, in CMX2 it would be nice to see type of cover vs. bullet penetration taken into account with firepower -- obviously there would be substantial differences between the Garand and the M1car here.

However, given that the current fp ratings are "one-size-fits-all," and don't take bullet energy vs. cover into account, I wonder if the longer range ratings of the M1car are a bit high.

Extrapolating from the fp numbers available on the unit info screen, the "break even" point where the Garand and the M1car are about equally effective is somewhere around 175m, which seems long to me; I would think that it would be somewhere around 100-150m, and probably closer to 100m.

I'm not sure whether this means the Garand should be a bit higher, or the M1car a bit lower. It all becomes a balancing act with the fp ratings of other small arms in the game. If I ran the circus, I might tweak a point or two there and there, but BFC's numbers are in the right ballpark for me, and it's not something I lose much sleep over.

In re: the M2 Carbine, I did a fair amount of research on this back in CMBO days when I first started playing the game because I was surprised it wasn't included. The M2 was produced in substantial numbers in WWII. IIRC, some M1s were probably converted to M2s in the field (it's just the simple subsitution of a couple of parts). However, it is very unclear how many of the M2s actually made it to troops in the ETO and Italy; some reports seem to indicate that a majority of them were allocated for units in the Pacific fighting in dense jungle terrain. However, I was able to find some direct evidence of the weapon's use in Normandy -- IIRC, the best evidence was an article in the NRA's "American Rifleman" whose subject was the M2 Carbine, and talked about it's usefulness in the Hedgerow fighting in Normandy. IIRC, it was was a reprint of an article from a 1944 edition of the magazine in an edition published in 1994 or so. Unfortuately, I didn't keep good notes, so I can't offer a better cite than that.

I was hoping to bring up the subject again (hopefully with more concrete cites) when/if BFC revisits US Army WWII TOEs for CMX2.

My personal conclusion is that the M2 carbine should probably have some random presence in American infantry squads as an additional squad automatic weapon from at least June, 1944 on, probably on the level of about 1-2 per platoon. IIRC, evidence suggested that it was generally the Asst. Squad leader who carried it, so presumably it would therefore replace one of the Garands in the squad, and not the Thompson SMG. When/if BFC decides to visit the Pacific theater, I think an even higher presence of M2 carbines among US units would be appropriate.

Cheers,

YD

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by poppys:

You got me Michael, whats a class III? Maybe these are disabled full autos like Thompsons and such as keepsakes, cant spell suviners. poppys

Just what I said. A Class III License allows you to possess fully active full auto weapons. Depends on the state.

[poppy]

OK

[Berlichtingen]

Originally posted by flamingknives:

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.

I remember seeing somewhere that the US claim of high volumn low accuracy during the war was geared toward making the men facing it more confident... and not an accurate statement. Also, I've never read an account by a veteran that claimed they were anything but deadly