MP-44 vs SMG discrepancies

[Jarmo]

I'd like to point out that using only rate of fire and bullet velocity

will lead to MAC-10 being a bettter or as good weapon as Uzi or MP5.

Sten should not match the other weapons here at 100 meters.

------------------

Now, would this brilliant plan involve us climbing out of

our trenches and walking slowly towards the enemy sir?

[Spook]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mark IV:

Originally posted by Jarmo:

how does the MP44 compare to garand?

My personal belief is that the SMG ratings are too high for 100m but not enough to get exercised about (max effective range of the .45 ACP Grease Gun was rated by US Army at 90m).

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Mark IV's comment here is the essence of my viewpoint too. It's not so much that I think that the MP44 is too weak in mid-range firepower (still almost double an M1 Garand at 100 meters) rather than that all of the SMG's MIGHT still be too potent at 100 meters. So rather than to see the MP44 "boosted" at as inferred by BTS as a possibility, perhaps the SMG's should all come down just a notch at 100m?

I'm not absolute in this view, however, as I need to ask BTS one thing first. In the small arms reference charts, we get values for 40m, 100m, 250m, 500m. How are base firepower values calculated for in-between ranges, like 80m or 140m as examples? Do they come from linear extrapolations, or follow a "small arms weapon curve" unique to each weapon?

[John Erickson]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Spook:

I'm not absolute in this view, however, as I need to ask BTS one thing first. In the small arms reference charts, we get values for 40m, 100m, 250m, 500m. How are base firepower values calculated for in-between ranges, like 80m or 140m as examples? Do they come from linear extrapolations, or follow a "small arms weapon curve" unique to each weapon?

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is the important question as far as I'm concerned. If the firepower of the MP40 drops like a rock after the 100m mark and the MP44 firepower follows a more linear decline from the 100m mark to the 250m mark things would look great. In my games the shooting gets serious in the 120-170m range, and there aren't any stats for this bracket. Unfortunatly it's hard to test the firepower of individual weapons because you can't edit squad content.

John

[The DesertFox]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I just tried it witH my MP44 (non firing unfortunately!) and you have to fall with the weapon in a decidely non-firing postion. Then you have to prop your elbow up to full position, adjust the weapon, then aquire the target.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

LOL! Steve,

Don´t hurt yourself while trying this. We need you for programming CM-2

Seriously, it´s a question of propper military training. There are more than enough battledrills to hammer this into your soldiers until they are able to do it without accident. I still can remember the times when I was a little private and had the honour to be tought this procedure the whole day. Don´t ask how my knees and elbows looked at the end of the day

Bottomline is that you don´t need more than 3-5 seconds to get lying down and aquire the target.

Helge

------------------

Sbelling chequed wyth MICROSOFT SPELLCHECKER - vorgs grate!

- The DesertFox -

Email: desertfox1891@hotmail.com

WWW: http://www.geocities.com/desertfox1891

[Mark IV]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Spook:

So rather than to see the MP44 "boosted" at as inferred by BTS as a possibility, perhaps the SMG's should all come down just a notch at 100m?...Do they come from linear extrapolations, or follow a "small arms weapon curve" unique to each weapon?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

My thoughts exactly in the former case, and an excellent question that I have wondered about in the latter. Same question could apply to armor AP rounds (bet they follow the curve, but do small arms?).

I think the MP40 might outperform the other common subs in the long-range accuracy department. There is no way any of them compare to modern designs and manufacturing techniques.

I could post some more complete ballistics, etc., if anyone was interested, but maybe I'll just enjoy the game for a while. The only SMG I am personally experienced with is the Grease Gun (which has not changed substantively since WWII), and which shares some of the worst characteristics of the Sten and the Thompson, with little redeeming value. At 100m it was worthless.

Note that without selective fire (the ability to fire single-shot on demand), the full-auto works against the efficacy of the weapon at 100m.

[Kanonier Reichmann]

Originally posted by Mark IV:

The only SMG I am personally experienced with is the Grease Gun (which has not changed substantively since WWII), and which shares some of the worst characteristics of the Sten and the Thompson, with little redeeming value. At 100m it was worthless.

Apologies in advance if this is considered slightly off topic but I can't see where the "Grease Gun" has been modelled anywhere in the game. Is it the weapon for certain types of Allied infantry or was it considered too similar to the Thompson SMG to worry about changing any values? From what I have read & gathered from this discussion though, it seems as if it was by far the inferior of virtually all the SMG's used in WW II.

I'd love to know the answer from "someone in the know".

Regards

Jim R.

[Rattus]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by John Erickson:

This is the important question as far as I'm concerned. If the firepower of the MP40 drops like a rock after the 100m mark and the MP44 firepower follows a more linear decline from the 100m mark to the 250m mark things would look great. In my games the shooting gets serious in the 120-170m range, and there aren't any stats for this bracket. Unfortunatly it's hard to test the firepower of individual weapons because you can't edit squad content.

John<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Again, I think his is the crical point, If there are no mid range point advantagews to the MP44 then I think the values given need to be tweaked. These would then form the basis for my Soviet units (scouts probably) equipped with Tokarev SVT 38 & 40 automatic rifles . Interesting that the AK-47 so close to the MP44 given the Russian had built & used "Assault Rifles" since the mid -thirties. (Simonov AVS-36). They were all a bit delicate - especially the Simonov - but in the MP44 thay had an excellent battle proven weapon whose features they could copy. I don't know what proportion of Soviet troops had the Tokarev (anyone?) weapons captured by the Japaenese at Nomonhan indicated about 1/5 "Automatic Rifles". If such a high proportion was present initially it seems to have been rapidly reduced after 1941!

[John Erickson]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Rattus:

. Interesting that the AK-47 so close to the MP44 given the Russian had built & used "Assault Rifles" since the mid -thirties. (Simonov AVS-36). <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I thought the big breakthrough on the MP44 was the cut down cartridge which allowed for some control of full-auto fire. I'm not too familiar with the early Soviet designs. Did they reduce the power of their rounds before the AK?

The MP44 vs. AK47 controversy usually shows up soc.history.war.world-war-ii with some regularity. It hasn't happened in a while so it's due.

John

[Rattus]

THat could be it john, the Simonov's were also criticised for excessive muzzle blast. Tkarev's seem to have been very popular with Soviet Marines and Naval Infantry.

I think I'll skip the soc.history.war.world-war-ii for now