Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
rise27

Competitive shooting comparisons of WW2OL guns

2 posts in this topic

Interesting data when it comes to figuring out how these guns should preform in-game.

I like that these guys are extremely knowledgeable of history and skilled competition shooters, so I learn a lot watching their videos. You can skip through the videos to see them talk about their conclusions at the beginning, middle, or end of the videos, if you don't want to watch them go through the firing.

FG-42 vs BAR, and P38 vs 1911

FG42 vs M1 Garand, and P38 vs 1911.

 

K98 vs Enfield rifle, and C96 vs enfield pistol

K98 designated marksman rifle vs Enfield sniper rifle

G43 sniperhttps://www.full30.com/video/eb6179349a4e5212f0faede7af6ba7be

More on K98 designated marksman rifle

 

Interesting analysis of the MP44's combat performance, against those who say it's historically overrated.

 

MP40 performance simulation:

Full auto G3 vs FAL (Not WW2, but interesting analysis of what it's like firing full caliber rifles full auto, for comparison to things like the BAR/FG42).

M1 Carbine:

 

 

 

Indepth analysis on the quality of the Mosin Nagant vs German weapons:

 

-When some in-game weapons have atrociously obstructive sights that you feel are more of a hinderance than a help, this is probably accurately modeled.

-The BAR can be fired from the shoulder, but it modeling it correctly would involve more aimsway, more difficult recoil recovery, more draining on stamina, and it would be more heavily effected by lower stamina states.

-Firing full auto from the shoulder using a full rifle caliber is possible, but functionally not that useful because you have to focus all your attention and strength on just holding the gun in position. Although the extent to how functionally useful it is does appear to depend on the quality of the gun's design in terms of recoil and balance. Considering that, I believe red orchestra modeled this very well the last time I played it, because it was possible with some weapons but excessively difficult to the point where any aim adjustment was out of the question unless you broke your full auto fire. In practice, you ended up using controlled bursts unless the target was right next to you.

-I was surprised at their low opinion of both the BAR and the 1911. There is such a history behind the 1911 that I've always wanted one, but practically I wonder if I should consider something else if I want to do more with it than just keep it on display as a collector's piece.

-I was surprised that they consider the FG42 to be such a good weapon that he would be consider it to be good enough for today's battlefield. I wasn't surprised that he considered the MP44 to be a good weapon, but did not expect him to say that he felt using it would put you at no disadvantage against modern assault rifles that aren't tricked out with a bunch of modern accessories.

-Firing some full caliber rifles means you really only get one shot on your target, even if they are semi-auto, because after each shot you need to establish a new sight picture. The main advantage of the AR caliber rifle is that you can rapidly readjust your fire to walk several rounds into your target, which is better against moving targets that provide limited firing time against them. Interesting that some semi-auto full caliber rifles, like the FG42, are so well engineered that you can actually adjust your fire about as well as an AR as long as you are firing semi-auto.

-The faster bolt working on the enfield isn't as big an advantage as you might think under most conditions. It seems to only factor in when you're firing repeatedly from the same position at relatively close range targets. Which does match with historical accounts I've read. I didn't realize that the K98 would be more reliable in it's cycling though.

-Interesting comment about the history of sniper use on the eastern front, where it often involved using them as long range suppression weapons against large masses of enemies like with a machine-gun. It seems counter-intuitive that this would even be a successful strategy, but I can off-hand think of an instance both in the vietnam war and WW1 where this happened. In Vietnam two snipers were able to pin down and what was at least a company level force of infantry, maybe even more but I don't recall, long enough for an air strike to take them out.  In WW1, a squad of Americans had pushed into open territory and set up in a treeline overlooking a field, and about 800 yards away german infantry started coming over the ridge line trying to advance over the field. They had only a handful of riflemen and a maybe one chauchat LMG, but they were able to prevent the advance of an entire German infantry battalion because they were kentucky/tennessee riflemen and during WW1 the Americans put a premium on long range rifle marksmanship training. The Germans would go prone 500-600m away, trying to do a bounding advance, but they just kept getting picked off everytime they dropped, and they apparently had no way to return effective fire. They weren't use to dealing with soldiers who had that level of long range accuracy, so they thought they were facing a much bigger force; because by 1918 the British, French, and Germans had all neglected rifle marksmanship due to trench warfare conditions. The Americans stubbornly insisted that everyone else was doing it wrong, so they were going to train their soldiers in long range marksmanship in anticipation of the breakthrough to open warfare.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FG42 was virtually uncontrollable in full auto.   The 1911 is still a superior hand gun firing a superior cartridge.    The BAR often had its bipod removed to save weight, it was manageable due to a low ROF  and a  very accurate, very powerful weapon.  The 1903 Springfield  and K98 Mauser were virtually identical as the 1903 is basically a copy of the K98's superb action.   The Garand was the best service rifle of WWII by far and the only semi-auto in general issue to the combatants of WWII.   The Enfield's advantage over other bolt-action rifles was it's 10 round capacity vs. 5 round capacity for every other bolt-action.  

If i'm going to war in 1939-45 I want the M-1 Garand though the M-1 Carbine would be a good choice for jungle warfare or house-to-house urban warfare.  

IMO the WWIIOL Garand , 1903 Springfield, and Thompson SMG need work.   Not nearly as powerful and accurate as they should be.  The 9mm Luger Pistol is way over-modeled.     Other than that everything else seems reasonable even though the G43 and other semi-autos were either produced in very low numbers or had serious function problems - or both.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.