drtechno Posted May 10, 2011 Share Posted May 10, 2011 The manual lists the M3 as having an effective range of close to 100m .. what? Twice the range of the Thompsons. Is this true? This blows my perception of the M3 if so. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nachinus Posted May 10, 2011 Share Posted May 10, 2011 That'd be more likely the max effective range, perhaps? Meaning the max range you can hope to hit the side of a barn with it. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergei Posted May 10, 2011 Share Posted May 10, 2011 The manual lists the M3 as having an effective range of close to 100m .. what? Twice the range of the Thompsons. Is this true? This blows my perception of the M3 if so. It doesn't say that at all. It says "Sights set to 100 yards (91 m) (9mm), 50 m[4] (.45 ACP)" .45 ACP being the cartridge used by M1A1 Thompson. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drtechno Posted May 10, 2011 Author Share Posted May 10, 2011 The 9mm round is that much more accurate in this short barreled submachine gun? I would be surprised to hit anything accurately beyond 50m with this gun.. Even 50m is pushing it for little more than suppressive fire. I would think the Thompson would be more accurate (assuming both are loaded with 45 ACP) given the lower recoil, longer bore, stock, etc. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyD Posted May 10, 2011 Share Posted May 10, 2011 I looked at the manual, the Grease gun text is a bit confusing. It says both the .45 cal Thompson and .45 cal M3 have an effective range of 50m. That's the same round used for the Colt pistol - effective range about 25m. The confusion comes in where they also included stats for the 9mm Parabellum version of the gun - the round used for the British Sten gun. I assume those weapons went to commonwealth forces. Thompson carrying troops will fire beyond 50m in the game. Thier range seems to be a bit under the German MP40 (9mm parabellum). Whether or not they hit anything under 50m is another matter. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drtechno Posted May 10, 2011 Author Share Posted May 10, 2011 Yes, that had me confused at first. But even using the same round, the Thompson should be far more accurate as I mentioned above. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glukx Ouglouk Posted May 10, 2011 Share Posted May 10, 2011 I think it's worth point out that the text states that the 100 yds figure comes from the sights setting - it's not uncommon for WW2 weapons to have sights set for completely unrealistic maximum ranges, including SMGs with sights set for firing at 200m... I don't think that means that it's the actual effective range. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergei Posted May 10, 2011 Share Posted May 10, 2011 Guys, guys. How many times do I have to repeat that it doesn't say anything about accuracy? It says "Sights set to". Okay? If the sights were set to one metre it wouldn't mean that the gun is useless beyond that. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dadekster88 Posted May 10, 2011 Share Posted May 10, 2011 The manual lists the M3 as having an effective range of close to 100m .. what? Twice the range of the Thompsons. Is this true? This blows my perception of the M3 if so. It also depends on what you mean by effective. Do you mean effective in a manner that an average GI can hit a target he's aiming at more often than not and kill it or do you mean that whatever he points the weapon at and pulls the trigger causes the target to go to ground? There's a big difference there imo and both of them get the job done depending on what you're trying to do. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elmar Bijlsma Posted May 10, 2011 Share Posted May 10, 2011 What I don't get is the following: Unless it is done different from CMSF, BFC have assigned these weapons a maximum range beyond which they will not fire. Why not have that in the manual rather then a max/effective/sighted range that is neither here nor there? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MengJiao Posted May 10, 2011 Share Posted May 10, 2011 It also depends on what you mean by effective. Do you mean effective in a manner that an average GI can hit a target he's aiming at more often than not and kill it or do you mean that whatever he points the weapon at and pulls the trigger causes the target to go to ground? There's a big difference there imo and both of them get the job done depending on what you're trying to do. In Red Orchestra's USA mod (Darkest Hour?), the Grease gun was my favorite weapon. I didn't kill very many avatars with it, but when I did I would laugh myself sick. Not very realistic no matter how you look at it. Still, i love to see the Grease Gun in games. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drtechno Posted May 10, 2011 Author Share Posted May 10, 2011 Ok true .. it is probably just the sight settings that is confusing me. But I agree with Elmar, since its just a game, and not real life, why not provide the 'game data' such as maximum range (range beyond which they will not fire) and effective range. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryujin Posted May 10, 2011 Share Posted May 10, 2011 As shown by this highly accurate and detailed chart I found, the relative low velocity and large size of the .45 makes it limited in effective range. .45 gets a bit of a boost from being fired by the longer barreled Thompson/M3 as opposed to the M1911, but it's still pretty slow (usually subsonic, unlike 9mm). 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjkerner Posted May 10, 2011 Share Posted May 10, 2011 I love accurate and detailed visuals like that! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LemoN Posted May 10, 2011 Share Posted May 10, 2011 I wish CM:BN would have these kind of visuals. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barkhorn1x Posted May 10, 2011 Share Posted May 10, 2011 Was that graphic from a US Army field publication? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pak40 Posted May 10, 2011 Share Posted May 10, 2011 That chart stinks. There's no scale on it! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Cairns Posted May 10, 2011 Share Posted May 10, 2011 I used to have the Janes pocket book of Pistols & Submachine Guns. It was about 240 pages and cover about the over 200 weapons half of which were SMG's Regardless of type and calibre about 90% of them had an effective range of 200m, a cyclic rate of 600rpm and an automatic rate of about 250rpm. In a battle what you do with your troops matters more than the technical differences between various SMG's. The variations between them won't make much of of difference compared to things like being in cover, being suppressed, whether you are moving or the target is. For LMG's and HMG's sustained rates and accuracy can matter a lot but a badly positioned MG42 can still be less effective than a well placed Bren (okay but not often even with a TRIPOD). A good plan and good tactics and control is worth a lot more than "My men have the Ultra 7X with Megazap ammo"..... In CMBO I've seen elite troops carved up by a poor MG which was well positioned. Peter. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dadekster88 Posted May 10, 2011 Share Posted May 10, 2011 Very true. Even a very crappy pos gun can kill you given half a chance. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted May 10, 2011 Share Posted May 10, 2011 But even using the same round, the Thompson should be far more accurate as I mentioned above. Except that the Tommy had a really bad tendency to climb as it was fired. It sprayed bullets all over the place. The M3, because its stock came straight back, had less of that tendency. Still not what could be called a seriously accurate weapon, but I doubt it gave up anything to the Thompson. Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BloodyBucket Posted May 10, 2011 Share Posted May 10, 2011 Having had the chance to fire both, I'd pick the M1A1 Thompson if I was trying to hit something at a distance. I believe the 9mm capability of the M3 was designed with using captured ammo in mind...Didn't the OSS order the majority of the 9mm weapons? IIRC they used Sten magazines with an internal mag well adapter. I think the practical difference between the two in game terms would be nil. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gunnergoz Posted May 11, 2011 Share Posted May 11, 2011 Except that the Tommy had a really bad tendency to climb as it was fired. It sprayed bullets all over the place. The M3, because its stock came straight back, had less of that tendency. Still not what could be called a seriously accurate weapon, but I doubt it gave up anything to the Thompson. Michael Mind, I've never fired a tommygun but when I was a (get this) cub scout (as in 55 years ago) I got to see a Massachusetts state trooper fire one at about 5 yards at a steel box. This is like, seared into my boyish memory, as it should be. As I recall, every round of his 3-5 round bursts went into that dang box. Good thing, too, or else he'd have had to pay to fix the Fort Devens post movie theater where he showed this off for our cub pack. He also fired some pistols including a .357 magnum (this was before the .41 and .44 mags came out). Now the .357 really got our attention. That was loud! Years later, when I fired my own .357's on ranges, I could not help but smile at the memory of that sharp bark in that little post theater. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyD Posted May 11, 2011 Share Posted May 11, 2011 If you wanted light and accurate you'd go for the M1 carbine. When thinking of the Thompson think of the end of the movie Bonnie & Clyde. At 700 rounds per minute you didn't need to be particularly accurate. Something's bound to hit something. M3 Greasegun ROF was just about half that 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dadekster88 Posted May 11, 2011 Share Posted May 11, 2011 If you wanted light and accurate you'd go for the M1 carbine. When thinking of the Thompson think of the end of the movie Bonnie & Clyde. At 700 rounds per minute you didn't need to be particularly accurate. Something's bound to hit something. M3 Greasegun ROF was just about half that Yeah, that's the ole' spray and pray technique. The Thompson always reminds me of the Valentines Day massacre myself. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fetchez la Vache Posted May 11, 2011 Share Posted May 11, 2011 When I saw that the Thompson had 50m effective range on Marco's mod, I did some online checking. I can't help but notice that the CMBN data on the M1 and M3 are the same as the Wikipedia entries. I don't trust Wikipedia. ;-) 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.