What the....

[Fußball]

I apologize in advance if someone has already posted anything about this subject. While messing around on scenario editor I came across something I never really noticed. I've always wondered why the weapon value for the Russian Mosin Nagant 1891 did not go into the 500m range. But I never play Russian so I just did'nt pay too much attention to it. I just thought it was some botched weapon value like a few other weapons. But I then noticed the weapon model and realized...its an M44 carbine! :eek: I know there are a few 'screwy' weapon values but there is not one MN91. Its all the M44 carbine. I can only say I'm disturbed by this. I'm such a stickler about these things. The funny weapon values on some weapons I could overlook. But one country's most common battle rifle traded off for a Carbine? Thats a bit of a problem. Please post your thoughts on this subject...

Tschüß!

Erich

[ January 03, 2006, 11:15 AM: Message edited by: Fußball ]

[M1A1TC]

Does Tschuss mean Aufiederzein?

[stoat]

Originally posted by M1A1TankCommander:

Does Tschuss mean Aufiederzein?

It's a slang term. An informal greeting, or way to say goodbye. But I'll let an actual German tell you the real answer.

[Fußball]

You basicaly covered it Stoat. But please, back to topic all.

Tschüß!

Erich

[M1A1TC]

Is it polite to use with a stranger?

There are many weapons in CM games that are misrepresented, unfortunatly.

[stoat]

It's not really a term of endearment, it's just a friendly way of saying See you!, or ¡Nos vemos!

[Fußball]

Originally posted by M1A1TankCommander:

There are many weapons in CM games that are misrepresented, unfortunatly.

It would be nice to see at least a patch that corrected the weapons values and such. I am no developer whatsoever and I may be wrong. But it looks like a rather easy problem to correct in a short amount of time. Here are some very basic problems concerning the weapons in CM.

1.) At times, it may be according to year but I have only noted this a few times. The MG42 and DP27 have very incorrect values. In the 'Sturm' squads especialy. The value for the MG42 is slated 28 at 40m whereas regularly it is 50. This cannot be in attempt to even gameplay. Because if that were true there would be no SMG squad.

2.) Weapons being phased out. Here is a simple example. Weapons such as the PPD are phased out after 1941 in CM. I have never seen a PPD in a squad after 1941. I fully understand that Russian industry ceased producing the PPD40 in favor of the Ppsh41. But that does not mean the PPD was not used after 1941. And the MG34 in squads around 1944 and up is rarely seen. It should be at most uncommon to see the MG34 in 1944 and up. Just lessen the chance of it, correctly, as the war goes on. Ex. The PPD is uncommon in 1942 and rare in 1943. Afterwards it is no longer a factor.

3.) Weapons values. This is the #1 problem and in my opinion, the easiest to correct. With the correct information in mind of course. A good example would be the Mp44 ( StG44 ). The values for the Mp44 are too low. The value is slated 34 at 40m. It has a 7,92x33mm round and 500rpm rate of fire. That alone shows that the Mp44's weapon value at 40m needs to be higher. Effective up to 300m and very accurate up to 100m. The larger calibre round and its high muzzle velocity, 685m/s, its round will travel much farther than any SMG. The Ppsh41's value for 100m is 11 whereas the Mp44's value is 12. Thats only one point. With all this in mind the Mp44's values would have changed a bit. 40m: 41-42 100m: 14/-15 250: 2.5.

4.) Complete misrepresentation of a weapon. As I stated in my first post in this thread. Its very disturbing that the carbine completly replaces the Mosin-Nagant1891 rifle.

These are the main problems. I suppose its a pipedream to have a patch for the numerous weapon problems. But one can hope.

Tschüß!

Erich

[zmoney]

I totally agree with you. I always thought the Mp44 was vastly understreghted. I think it should be the best small arm in game. At least 50 at 40m, the same as the Ppsh. Then at 100m it should be bumped up as well. Like I said it should be modeled as the best small arm weapon in game yet keep it at the current issue level in squads because one or two in a platoon is accurate.

With your first point I also agree. I just noticed this the other day and thought my game was just messing up or something. I hope they do release a patch for this and they should because even though this is an old game, it is still more popular than any other game of this type out there. People are still buying this game new now.

[Bruce70]

I don't think that the problem is that it would be difficult or costly or even time consuming. I'm guessing that there are two reasons why it wont be patched again. First, not everyone agrees what the weapons values (etc) should be. Second, and much more importantly, they are now working on something else, CM:BB is (almost) forgotten, and I for one don't blame them. The value of the game is far greater than what I paid for it already. Not that I wouldn't be greatful for a couple of small fixes

[tankibanki]

ot: "Tschüß" is derived from the Italian "Ciao". Basically it is less formal and more friendly than "Auf Wiedersehen". You can say it to just about anyone, but older people may find it inappropriate. On the other hand, young people will never say "Auf Wiedersehen" to each other.

[JasonC]

The 1944 carbine is not a reduced caliber round, unlike say the M-1 carbine or the MP44. It fires the same full rifle round as the original MN. (With a lot of muzzle flare and climb as a result, I might add). There is not that much difference in the performance. The carbine length was preferred simply because it made the weapon lighter.

The low short range values seen for the MGs in some squads reflect the missing FP of the loader. In squads, all individual weapons contribute firepower. The MGs are actually being manned by 2 men, not 1. To reflect the fact that one other man in the squad is not firing when the LMG is, the FP of the LMG itself is reduced - in effect, that line is the excess FP over the loader's weapon, that the pair can contribute. The total being contributed by the MG, in reality, is that line plus the loader's weapon. How big a difference that makes depends on the weapons of the rest of the squad, and the range. At long range, nothing is given up. At short range in a rifle squad, you are only missing the contribution of one rifle, to get the full MG firepower. But in a squad full of automatics at close range, you only get the FP of the MG by giving up the FP of one of the SMGs, which can be a significant difference. In some 2 LMG squads, the reduction might reflect an average for the loaders (as though one SMG and one rifle aren't firing, while both LMGs are).

As for the FP of the MP44, most of the short range FP values reflect ROF and ammo load. At 40m, it makes no difference whether a round is pistol ammo or carbine ammo, so the FP is basically the same as any other German SMG. At 100m, the MP is getting an accuracy boost from its better muzzle velocity. The PPsH about matchs it due to a larger magazine size and significantly higher cyclic rate of fire.

The real benefit of carbine accuracy only kicks in beyond 100m, especially in the 100m to 250m range bracket. It is significant there, with all SMGs dropping to zero rapidly, while the MP44 continues to contribute, at rifle levels. It is simply the fact that all small arms firepower is modest at 250m, that obscures this. Nevertheless, a squad with MG42s and MP44s will correctly have very high firepower at close range, and still excellent firepower at medium range.

A squad full of PPsHs will not have the latter. A squad with a few of them (3 is typical for a good Russian squad) and one DP LMG, gets modest firepower at middling range but decent in close. That mix still does not match the MG42 and MP44 loadout, but it is the superior MG that makes most of the difference.

Notice also that both the PPsH and the MG42 get some of their high FP values from significantly higher than average cyclic ROF. The PPsH fired 900 rpm, vs. 450 to 500 from a typical WW II automatic. The MG 42 fired 1200 rpm. These get the highest FP values in the game. But squads that have several of them are also docked overall ammo points to reflect the high consumption.

In the case of the SMG, the bullets are lighter pistol ammo and easier to carry in quantity. Not so the full caliber MG 42 ammo. So 2 LMGs squads pay for their high surge FP close and good FP at range, with relatively limited ammo loads in the 30s. And all SMG squads pay for their high 40m FPs with low ammo points, 25 typically.

Notice, if an SMG squad fires off its full ammo load at 100m ranges, it will not match the total delivered FP of MP44s. They deliver their fire faster, not more accurately.

The CM FP values are much more sensible than the casual comments here suggest, and more thought has gone into them than people here wishing their favorite item had this or that number at this or that range, suppose. In addition, all of these effects are minor, since it is the firepower of full squads, and over their entire delivered ammo loads (with men hit along the way etc) that determine actual CM battlefield outcomes. In which all infantry small arms contribute only a fraction, anyway (terrain dependent, sometimes as much as half but often only a quarter to a third).

[Fußball]

Originally posted by JasonC:

The carbine length was preferred simply because it made the weapon lighter.

But it did not replace the entirety of every Russian MN91. This is very annoying. That a game so accurate to detail could miss or 'change' something like this. The carbine was intended for calvary use since it was a lighter and less bulky weapon. Thus lightening the load on a mounted soldier. Do not tag me as wrong. I understand that carbines were issued to units other than calvary. And from what I have read the average Russian soldier preferred the longer MN91 to the carbine. Also an interesting note. Quite a many Russian soldiers did not prefer the carbine. It was not viewed as a "Man's weapon" due to the shorter length. You just cannot replace such a weapon as the MN91 for a carbine. Its as if taking the K98 away and fully replacing it with the G98.

Originally posted by JasonC:

The low short range values seen for the MGs in some squads reflect the missing FP of the loader. In squads, all individual weapons contribute firepower. The MGs are actually being manned by 2 men, not 1. To reflect the fact that one other man in the squad is not firing when the LMG is, the FP of the LMG itself is reduced - in effect, that line is the excess FP over the loader's weapon, that the pair can contribute. The total being contributed by the MG, in reality, is that line plus the loader's weapon. How big a difference that makes depends on the weapons of the rest of the squad, and the range. At long range, nothing is given up. At short range in a rifle squad, you are only missing the contribution of one rifle, to get the full MG firepower. But in a squad full of automatics at close range, you only get the FP of the MG by giving up the FP of one of the SMGs, which can be a significant difference. In some 2 LMG squads, the reduction might reflect an average for the loaders (as though one SMG and one rifle aren't firing, while both LMGs are).

Good explanation. I never really looked at it in that way.

Originally posted by JasonC:

As for the FP of the MP44, most of the short range FP values reflect ROF and ammo load. At 40m, it makes no difference whether a round is pistol ammo or carbine ammo, so the FP is basically the same as any other German SMG. At 100m, the MP is getting an accuracy boost from its better muzzle velocity. The PPsH about matchs it due to a larger magazine size and significantly higher cyclic rate of fire.

If calibre does not play a slight role then there are a lot of FP values still out of place. The Greasegun comes to mind here. At 450rpm comparitive to the Mp40's 500rpm. That would mean that the Mp40 still needs to have a better FP value. The two should actually, as I have stated before, have their FP values switched. They both have a controllable recoil, the Mp40 has a higher muzzle velocity, is 50rpm faster and the rounds do not 'spread' as much as the M3A1's rounds at full automatic fire. Switching the FP values for the two would be a very sensible decision. And then the Sten Mk.II. Why is it stronger than both the Mp40 and M3A1 by 3 and 1? The only thing that differs it from the Mp40 is the 50rpm faster rate of fire. Face it, there are a few weapons values that need to be tweaked. If calibre did not play a slightly significant role then the weapons values would be slightly different.

And the Mp44, even if you do not count calibre, is too weak. Calibre aside it should have 36 like the botched Mp40 at the least. Now throw in calibre and all those goodies you have a weapon thats FP value should be 40-42 at 40m. The Thompson with calibre aside only has one thing going for it and that is 700rpm rate of fire. Assuming that this is the M1. That would only give it around 42-43 FP value in comparison to its 45 FP value.

Originally posted by JasonC:

Notice also that both the PPsH and the MG42 get some of their high FP values from significantly higher than average cyclic ROF. The PPsH fired 900 rpm, vs. 450 to 500 from a typical WW II automatic. The MG 42 fired 1200 rpm. These get the highest FP values in the game. But squads that have several of them are also docked overall ammo points to reflect the high consumption.

If this holds true the MG34 needs to have a higher rate of fire than 36. At 850-900rpm, 40 is a good minimal change of FP value. The accuracy of both the MG42 and MG34 are about the same. And the muzzle velocity only differs out at 30 or so meters. The difference between the two being 300-350rpm.

Originally posted by JasonC:

The CM FP values are much more sensible than the casual comments here suggest, and more thought has gone into them than people here wishing their favorite item had this or that number at this or that range, suppose. In addition, all of these effects are minor.

Its not about having a favored weapon. It just shows how much historical accuracy goes into such a small detail. Anyone who knows such differences in small arms will agree. Many small arms are misrepresented whether its ones favorite or not.

Tschüß!

Erich

[MikeyD]

"But one country's most common battle rifle traded off for a Carbine? Thats a bit of a problem."

That's happening today! More and more soldiers in Iraq have traded in their M16s for the shorter and ligher M4 carbine. I guess they thought the long barrelled M16 was just to cumbersome manhandling in cramped apartment block hallways. When CM Shock Force comes out you may have some difficulty finding a plain Vanilla M16 in the game!

[Sergei]

Aw, JasonC already said what I had on mind.

[JasonC]

The FP values are the same whether you call it a MN or a carbine. As for soldier preferences, some disliked the carbine not for the lack of length (ridiculous on its face), but because the full caliber ammo in the shorter barrel increases muzzle climb.

As for replacing rifles with carbines, the Germans invented it way back in 1866. And the K in K98 stands for carbine - it was the cut down version. There is in fact little to chose between the K98 and the carbine version of the MN. (The long version of the MN is marginally better as a rifle, though clumsier to lug around).

On availability of Russian rifles, they produced tens of millions of full length MNs but also lost them in huge quantities in the first two years of the war. Production of the carbine version was very high later in the war, and the new forces raised then got lots of them, whatever doctrine wanted or they wanted themselves. Doctrine wanted bayonets to be effective, who cares? Its just nonsense.

As for the FP numbers, you are slowly discovering they are all within 2-3 points of where ROF and mag sizes put them. Minor remaining differences reflect feed and reliability issues and the like - the M1 Thompson was famously the most reliable SMG of the war, firing full bursts with no feed issues or jamming forever. That makes a difference because men treat less reliable SMGs more gingerly in terms of length of burst and the like. Whereas the MP40 was notoriously suspectible to feed problems if its mag springs were weakened, as happened regularly if the full 32 round capacity was used.

The MP44 does better at range, where its improved accuracy matters, and over whole ammo loads when you consider all the shots the squad will take. There is no question it improves a squad compared to having another MP40. The difference is just marginal, because all small arms FP at medium range is marginal to begin with.

The MG34 had factory set ROF between 800 and 900 rpm. While it could and did use full belts, it was also frequently used with a 50 round drum instead. Its lower FP per unit time than the MG 42 is fully justified. If you look at the HMG versions, you will notice the 34 get 105 shots to the 85 given to the 42, so the slower firing 34 gets back over time some of what it gives up per burst.

The 40m FP rating of any particular weapon is not a manliness quotient. The full squad FP ratings accurately reflect the firepower of the various infantry types at various ranges, how compressed that firepower is in time of delivery (e.g. rifle squads take longer to achieve their delivered FP) and the suspectibility of that FP to reduction by manpower losses. Nothing remotely as accurate in tactical effects has ever been achieved in any previous simulation.

There are plenty of nits to pick with CM as it stands, this just isn't one of them.

[Fußball]

Originally posted by JasonC:

The FP values are the same whether you call it a MN or a carbine. As for soldier preferences, some disliked the carbine not for the lack of length (ridiculous on its face), but because the full caliber ammo in the shorter barrel increases muzzle climb.

This is untrue. Given the full length MN91 the values should come out the same as the K98. This would add the range and accuracy of a full length rifle.

Originally posted by JasonC:

On availability of Russian rifles, they produced tens of millions of full length MNs but also lost them in huge quantities in the first two years of the war. Production of the carbine version was very high later in the war, and the new forces raised then got lots of them, whatever doctrine wanted or they wanted themselves. Doctrine wanted bayonets to be effective, who cares? Its just nonsense.

They lost huge quantities but there were plenty more left. And dispite whatever you may think the MN91 was preferred and more common seen with the average Russian soldier. Russians also heavily emphasized the use of a bayonet. Where is the bayonet on the carbine before the m44? Nowhere. Bayonet or not thats just one more reason why it was preferred. Its inaccurate for CM not to have the MN91.

Originally posted by JasonC:Minor remaining differences reflect feed and reliability issues and the like - the M1 Thompson was famously the most reliable SMG of the war, firing full bursts with no feed issues or jamming forever. That makes a difference because men treat less reliable SMGs more gingerly in terms of length of burst and the like. Whereas the MP40 was notoriously suspectible to feed problems if its mag springs were weakened, as happened regularly if the full 32 round capacity was used.

If the remaining points not given to the Mp44 are because of feed and reliability issues that still does not stop its need for the higher FP value. Any soldier who carried it remarked how it never jammed and it was reliable through even the harshest Russian weather. Yet again there is nothing discrediting the Mp44's need for a higher FP value.

'Famously' the most reliable SMG of WWII? You are the first I have heard branding the M1 as the most reliable of all WWII SMGs. Do not tag me wrong, the M1 Thompson was a reliable weapon. But I have heard plenty of good and not so good comments about it. The Mp40 did jam, but not as often as many would like to think. And the Mp40 especialy was not 'notorious' for it. This was not much of a problem however. Since the majority of the jams were simple stovepipe jams all that was needed was a simple pull of the bolt to remove the jam. This jamming was most attributed to the 32 round magazine. That is why many soldiers removed 1-2 rounds to prevent the jamming, which it did. And also, the magazine springs could be replaced if it were that much of a problem. The Mp40 was also a reliable weapon. There is no doubt about it.

And if you honestly want to go into feed issues. The Sten Mk.II does not deserve a 39 FP value. Now the Sten Mk.II is a SMG that had a bad reputation for jamming. But just as with the Mp40 good cleaning and maintenance would keep this problem minimal. As cleaning and maintenance does with most any weapon.

Originally posted by JasonC:

The MP44 does better at range, where its improved accuracy matters, and over whole ammo loads when you consider all the shots the squad will take. There is no question it improves a squad compared to having another MP40. The difference is just marginal, because all small arms FP at medium range is marginal to begin with.

This still does not discredit the Mp44's need for higher FP value at close range. And I am fully aware of how accurate the Mp44 was at medium range. Just because its values are better at medium range than a SMG, does not mean that its values at close range, should necesarrily be worse. With the size of its round, rate of fire and control of recoil it was better than many SMGs of the time. 34 FP value does not in any way show how effective the Mp44 was at closer rangers. It would be unreasonable for the M1 Thompson's value to be 39 or 40. Or for the PPSh's FP value to be 44. The same goes for the Mp44. It is not given the FP that the weapon truly deserves.

Originally posted by JasonC:

The MG34 had factory set ROF between 800 and 900 rpm. While it could and did use full belts, it was also frequently used with a 50 round drum instead. Its lower FP per unit time than the MG 42 is fully justified. If you look at the HMG versions, you will notice the 34 get 105 shots to the 85 given to the 42, so the slower firing 34 gets back over time some of what it gives up per burst.

Ja, the 50/75 round saddle drums were used. But the belts were far more common. The 50/75 drums were initially intended to withstand attacks and fast paced movement into and out of positions with ease. It had its other advantages but overall the saddle drum was the same as the belt. The differences being the saddledrum kept dust and dirt from causing jams and the saddledrum held less ammunition. But overall it proved to be unnecessary in comparison to the belt.

I am not saying at all that the MG34 needs to be as good as the MG42. I am only saying for its capabilities its FP value is too low. As I have said in my last post. The MG34 is clearly not as fast as the MG42. But that is'nt the point. With the same ammo loadout as the MG42, the MG34 would only be behind by a few points. I think 40 FP value is a nice and even ratio for the MG34.

Originally posted by JasonC:

The 40m FP rating of any particular weapon is not a manliness quotient. The full squad FP ratings accurately reflect the firepower of the various infantry types at various ranges, how compressed that firepower is in time of delivery (e.g. rifle squads take longer to achieve their delivered FP) and the suspectibility of that FP to reduction by manpower losses. Nothing remotely as accurate in tactical effects has ever been achieved in any previous simulation.

It is indeed not a manliness quotient. The values remain, and if unchanged, will remain inaccurate. A weapon's ( not the squad or man using it ) will have a set value in FP itself. This is accuratley portrayed with weapons such as the Mp44. Argue if you must, it is incorrect.

Of course the effects in CM have never been met by any other game. Its a wonderful game. Despite my wishes for corrected FP values and despite the stickler I am about these things I still play it. And it, of course, still retains the title of my favorite game. But such a great game should have such minor fixes to make it that little bit more of a better game.

Originally posted by JasonC:

There are plenty of nits to pick with CM as it stands, this just isn't one of them.

These are problems that I for one would like to see adressed. Whether or not there are more than two people behind me wanting the same thing is debateable. They can be overlooked by those who are not interested in such small realistic detail. But problems such as the full length MN91 being replaced are problems. Its as if taking the M1 Garand and replacing it with the Springfield. Point being: It did not happen that way. CM is wonderful game of tactics. But it is also a very realistic game. These few and minor changes would just prove this fact even further.

Tschüß!

Erich

[JasonC]

The full MN was 4 inches longer than the K98, which was 4 inches longer than the MN 1938 and MN 1944, so why would you say it should have the same values as the K98? The barrel lengths are 730mm, 600mm, and 510mm respectively. The cartridges are comparable, slightly more powerful for both of the Russian rifles but not nothing noticable.

Moreover, why do you think the MNs in CM all must be carbine versions? It just says MN rifle, it does not specify the type. Why does the K98 get a marginally better figures? It wasn't zeroed with an attached bayonet, front-heavy, like the full MN. It didn't have muzzle climb issues, like the shortened MNs. Which would you rather match shoot? We are talking about differences of 9, 2, 0, 7 FP per squad, in other words nothing. There is nothing wrong with the ratings.

As for pretending bayonets mattered, as anything other than accuracy inhibitors, it is simply ridiculous. Sure manuals told people to use them, and people once thought the world was flat, too. But here in the corporeal world, it is utterly irrelevant. On issue, the 1938 model shorter carbine was out well before the war of course. The 1944 model became the standard issue weapon.

On MG34s, now you are pulling figures out of your backside. The MG42 gets 50 FP at 40m. With only 2/3rds to 3/4 the rate of fire, there cannot be any reason for your figure of 4/5ths of that for the MG 34. 2/3rds would be 33, and 3/4 would be 37.5, average 35. The MG 34 gets 36. Nothing to complain about, directly in line with ROF.

Moreover, these are loader adjusted FP figures. The MG itself is effectively being credited with the listed line plus one K98 in each case, as already explained. Meaning the real ratios of MG 42 to MG 34 are 1.33, 1.28, 1.22, 1.12 at the different range windows. With a 33% higher cyclic ROF.

As for the MP44, marginally smaller mags than MP40s or Stens, and would be used for short bursts more frequently. (Less control on longer ones, not more, from extra kick per round).

On Sten feeds, if the user held it by the mag they could cause feed problems it is true, by jostling the mag in its seat as the gun recoiled. If held under the barrel where the mag joined, that problem did not occur.

On underloading MP40 mags, you can lose the FP to underloading or you can lose it to jams, I don't care which. In practice I have no doubt underloading was better. Did the previous user of the mag always do so? Was the spring always good? No of course not, because the problem was noticed, reported, and adapted to for a reason.

If you want to complain about infantry small arms, there are a few items you might have noticed, but apparently national bias has you looking in the wrong spots. There are no airborne model M1919A6 LMGs for the US airborne squads. Those were used as LMGs much as the MG42s were. Instead they are treated as separate tripod weapons, as though they were M1919A4s. The US armored infantry don't have their BARs. Adding them as separate teams does not work in remotely the same fashion. In reality, the Brits issued more Stens than the Germans did automatics of all kinds combined - by a factor of 2 - but they get just one per squad.

[Fußball]

Originally posted by JasonC:

The cartridges are comparable, slightly more powerful for both of the Russian rifles but not nothing noticable.

Actually the 7,92x57mm cartridge is faster, losses less distance and the round itself is larger than the 7,62x54mm cartridge. This would not have much effect on the performance however. Just a factual sidenote.

Originally posted by JasonC:

Moreover, why do you think the MNs in CM all must be carbine versions? It just says MN rifle, it does not specify the type. Why does the K98 get a marginally better figures? It wasn't zeroed with an attached bayonet, front-heavy, like the full MN. It didn't have muzzle climb issues, like the shortened MNs. Which would you rather match shoot? We are talking about differences of 9, 2, 0, 7 FP per squad, in other words nothing. There is nothing wrong with the ratings.

I would obviously choose the K98, it is also my favorite rifle of all. And by the way, the MN91, M38 and M44 each had muzzle climb issues and the sights had to be adjusted a certain way for the round to stay on target with what you are aiming at. Perhaps it is only a few FPs but a few FPs can add up. Otherwise I have stated all reasonings for extra FP values in previous posts.

Originally posted by JasonC:

As for pretending bayonets mattered, as anything other than accuracy inhibitors, it is simply ridiculous. Sure manuals told people to use them, and people once thought the world was flat, too. But here in the corporeal world, it is utterly irrelevant. On issue, the 1938 model shorter carbine was out well before the war of course. The 1944 model became the standard issue weapon.

If you are referring to me pretending the bayonet mattered, I am not. I am just referring another point as to why the Russian soldier preferred the full length rifle to the carbine. I am not referring to the bayonet in any means of being able to increase FP value in any way, shape or form. And why would they just specifically model one FP value for two ( three at best ) weapons? As I stated if it were the full length MN91 the stats would still be differed. And I personally believed there would not be an m44 modeled as the weapon the soldier carries.

Originally posted by JasonC:

Moreover, these are loader adjusted FP figures. The MG itself is effectively being credited with the listed line plus one K98 in each case, as already explained. Meaning the real ratios of MG 42 to MG 34 are 1.33, 1.28, 1.22, 1.12 at the different range windows. With a 33% higher cyclic ROF.

This makes things much more understandable.

Originally posted by JasonC:

As for the MP44, marginally smaller mags than MP40s or Stens, and would be used for short bursts more frequently. (Less control on longer ones, not more, from extra kick per round).

Two rounds is honestly not going to subtract much at all. And beside that the calibre more than makes up for the two lost rounds. As I have stated before and will state again there still is no discrediting that the Mp44 deserves a higher FP value.

Originally posted by JasonC:

On Sten feeds, if the user held it by the mag they could cause feed problems it is true, by jostling the mag in its seat as the gun recoiled. If held under the barrel where the mag joined, that problem did not occur.

After the Mk.III that may have been the case. But the Sten magazines suffered from a weak spring just as the Mp40 did. In a sense the StenMk.I and II were like the Mp38. Just like the Mp38 they had a tendency of firing off if dropped onto the ground. Differences between the Mp40 and the Sten Mk. II-V were particularly minimal. Mp40 had slightly higher muzzle velocity, 380mps in comparison to the Sten's 365mps. The Mp40 had 500rpm ROF in comparison to the Sten's 550. And the Mp40 had an estimated effective range of 100m in comparison to the 70m of the Sten. The Mp40 still deserves a higher FP value. 38 is perfect in my opinion.

Originally posted by JasonC:

If you want to complain about infantry small arms, there are a few items you might have noticed, but apparently national bias has you looking in the wrong spots. There are no airborne model M1919A6 LMGs for the US airborne squads. Those were used as LMGs much as the MG42s were. Instead they are treated as separate tripod weapons, as though they were M1919A4s. The US armored infantry don't have their BARs. Adding them as separate teams does not work in remotely the same fashion.

For one, I am not biasing anything against anything else. I have not pointed out any problems in Allied weapons from CMAK. I used other weapons as examples. I was initially focusing on German and Russian weapons. I realize there are problems such as the ones you stated. Nor you or I have the ability to fix them ourselves. Thus why these threads are made. To discuss opinions and whatnot over problems.

Tschüß!

Erich

[JasonC]

"Two rounds is honestly not going to subtract much"

2 FP out of 36 is an even smaller portion than 2 rounds out of 32. It is just silly to complain about this stuff. If the MP44 had half the FP of an MP40 at 40m you might have something to say, but it is practically the same.

[Zalgiris 1410]

The Sturmgewehr44 had more kick and consequently much greater climb than the MP40 and therefore I can understand the 2 points difference at 40 metres range. However from my reading and understanding of the MP44's capability it was still quite effective in the sustained (burst) fire mode out to 300 metres, much more like a LMG rather than needing to be compared to a rifle at that range only although it was just as good as one going out further beyond 250/300 metres. I mean the Sturmgewher44 had about a 30 round magazine, better than the Browning's 20 and just as good as the Bren's 30.

That said I don't understand why the Bren gun has a better performance with its 30 round magazine compared to the MG34 with a fifty round drum or belt! :confused:

[RockinHarry]

Originally posted by JasonC:

As for the MP44, marginally smaller mags than MP40s or Stens, and would be used for short bursts more frequently. (Less control on longer ones, not more, from extra kick per round).

Can´t remember where I read this, but it was reported the MP44 is to use short (5 round) bursts only for auto fire, since longer bursts resulted in very unconfortable self resonating of the whole weapon. End result most likely the same, loosing aim and accuracy, no matter range.