M1A1 carbine rate of fire unmetered

[undercova]

G43: You press as fast as you want ... it maxes out at a "reasonable" rate of fire. So like 1 round per second for example.

M1A1 Carbine: You press as fast as you want ... it fires off EVERY round which makes it kinda like an MG42. You are able to unload the whole mag within 1-2 secs !!!!!!!!

[tater]

This guy seems to empty it in about 4 seconds.

[enervate]

This is how I clear cps

 

 

 

 

Edited January 14, 2022 by enervate

[vanapo]

may I just for the lulz?

 

[B2K]

20 hours ago, vanapo said:

may I just for the lulz?

sure, it shows the benefit of having a good supported form when firing.  

[B2K]

good find though, I'll pass it along. 

[Mosizlak]

You can fire it almost or just as fast as the STG44 LOL.

How does all this make it through quality control? 

[B2K]

31 minutes ago, Mosizlak said:

You can fire it almost or just as fast as the STG44 LOL.

How does all this make it through quality control? 

Look at that 2021 end of year post - all of those new/fixed items went through QA.  Also going through QA are all the .bug reports from in game, the issues reported here, as well as other items.  The QA team (depending on when in the year) was 2-6 (volunteer) people.  In previous years seems to be about to same number.  So a lot of stuff to have a lot of functional testing done to/with.  so yeah sometimes stuff slips through the cracks.

 thanks for volunteering to help QA.  Bit harder to do that sniping from the forums. 

One of the ways to assist would be to subscribe.  Maybe we could then pay someone to spend hours testing everything in every imaginable way possible prior to release. 

[tater]

15 minutes ago, Mosizlak said:

You can fire it almost or just as fast as the STG44 LOL.

How does all this make it through quality control? 

StG44 is 500-600 RPM.

In the video above, the guy pauses after the first couple, but none the less manages to use all 15 rounds in 4.3 seconds. If that was sustainable, it would be ~209 RPM. If he could instead fire as he fired most of the rounds, I think it would easily get closer to 300 RPM.

I just tried offline, and I can do it in ~3 seconds.  That's 300 RPM.

Seems like not much of an issue.

FWIW, the M2 ROF was 750 RPM, so clearly there is not a mechanical limitation on the action that would prevent 300 RPM.

[Mosizlak]

3 hours ago, B2K said:

Look at that 2021 end of year post - all of those new/fixed items went through QA.  Also going through QA are all the .bug reports from in game, the issues reported here, as well as other items.  The QA team (depending on when in the year) was 2-6 (volunteer) people.  In previous years seems to be about to same number.  So a lot of stuff to have a lot of functional testing done to/with.  so yeah sometimes stuff slips through the cracks.

 thanks for volunteering to help QA.  Bit harder to do that sniping from the forums. 

One of the ways to assist would be to subscribe.  Maybe we could then pay someone to spend hours testing everything in every imaginable way possible prior to release. 

Great customer relations, makes me wanna give you money right this minute. 

[Mosizlak]

3 hours ago, tater said:

StG44 is 500-600 RPM.

In the video above, the guy pauses after the first couple, but none the less manages to use all 15 rounds in 4.3 seconds. If that was sustainable, it would be ~209 RPM. If he could instead fire as he fired most of the rounds, I think it would easily get closer to 300 RPM.

I just tried offline, and I can do it in ~3 seconds.  That's 300 RPM.

Seems like not much of an issue.

FWIW, the M2 ROF was 750 RPM, so clearly there is not a mechanical limitation on the action that would prevent 300 RPM.

Those videos show nothing ingame.   I tested it offline, the M1 fires way faster than that video lol. 

I'd make a video to help, but nah,  I'd rather be "sniping from the forums". 

 

Edit: Just tried it offline, and it was under 3 seconds, easily.  

Edited January 15, 2022 by Mosizlak

[OLDZEKE]

I ticketed this. In review now.

 

[undercova]

https://i.imgur.com/VrPUxZx.mp4

full clip in 2 secs ...

Edited January 15, 2022 by undercova

[blakeh]

the M1 carbine is a bit underpowered- I found you need a few more rounds to get a kill.     The M1 rifle is better.  The Americans lose a large numbers of a better rifle and have it substitute by an inferior.

SMGs are better than the carbine in close quarters.  The M1 is better than the carbine at greater distances.   The M1 carbine has no real niche.  I think the US only deployed it in large numbers because it may have been easier and cheaper to produce than the M1 rifle ( similar to the grease gun being cheaper and easier to the thompson, but otherwise inferior)

 

[dm79]

1 hour ago, blakeh said:

the M1 carbine is a bit underpowered- I found you need a few more rounds to get a kill.     The M1 rifle is better.  The Americans lose a large numbers of a better rifle and have it substitute by an inferior.

SMGs are better than the carbine in close quarters.  The M1 is better than the carbine at greater distances.   The M1 carbine has no real niche.  I think the US only deployed it in large numbers because it may have been easier and cheaper to produce than the M1 rifle ( similar to the grease gun being cheaper and easier to the thompson, but otherwise inferior)

 

Thats historic, the M1 Garand has a bigger round more range and hitting power, the M1 Carbine i think fires a smaller almost pistol round so less hitting power but easier control and recoil, ment for mid to close range, then the SMGs should be close range with some mid range ability.

[tater]

On 1/14/2022 at 8:40 PM, Mosizlak said:

Those videos show nothing ingame.   I tested it offline, the M1 fires way faster than that video lol. 

I'd make a video to help, but nah,  I'd rather be "sniping from the forums". 

 

Edit: Just tried it offline, and it was under 3 seconds, easily.  

I tried it and it was around 3 seconds. No one shooting real ones online I have found yet is trying for the fastest possible, and yet they are very close to the same sort of 3s time not even trying. The action is capable of 750 RPM—and people can bump shoot it way faster than 3 seconds.

3 seconds = 300 RPM

2 seconds = 450 RPM

M2 (or converted M1) does 750 RPM

On 1/14/2022 at 10:01 PM, undercova said:

https://i.imgur.com/VrPUxZx.mp4

full clip in 2 secs ...

Useful post, thanks. But the reality check would be any real human firing in 2 sec. I have used the carbine in game, and have never used it that way, not even once aside from tests for this thread. You can limit it, but ic cannot be limited to slower than any real human can shoot it, any limit has to be an actual mechanical limit, right? Full auto ROF is action limited.

 

2 hours ago, dm79 said:

Thats historic, the M1 Garand has a bigger round more range and hitting power, the M1 Carbine i think fires a smaller almost pistol round so less hitting power but easier control and recoil, ment for mid to close range, then the SMGs should be close range with some mid range ability.

His point is it replaces M1 Garands in the spawn list. The M1 Carbine should in fact replace Springfields in our spawn lists—a weapon that barely existed in Europe in ww2. Springfields should not be a thing, in short. Actually, M1 carbines should also replace many pistols.

A US rifle Company had 198 armed men (+3 unarmed medical).

35 were issued carbines, ~18%.

9 might have Springfields early war—with grenade launchers. ~5%. 3 more Springfield sniper rifles in a Company pool. So maybe 6%—none as plain rifles, though.

11 BARs, ~6%

2 LMGs (which don't exist in ww2ol), ~1%.

Only mortars/machineguns, and their assistants were issued pistols (10 total) as their small arm.

So ~66% of GIs were issued M1 Garands. Once the 2 modern grenade projectors were added (M7 for the Garand, M8 for Carbine) that % would go up to 71% M1.

Each company also had a pool of 5 zooks, and 5 SMGs, but we know in actual combat it seems to have been slightly higher, probably closer to BARs—1 per squad would be 9 SMGs per Company.

 

Of course if all the armies had accurate ToEs for infantry, it would still be bogus, because all the "best" stuff gets spawned first, so the hapless UP side will only see best stuff shooting at them.

Note that late war German Companies had way more issued SMGs (28 in 142 men, so ~20%) than the US had self-acquired SMGs ~5%+. UK was like 12-13% SMGs. Assuming Germans scrounged as well as anyone else, more for them than 20%.

if we had a decent spawning system, there would be profound differences between the infantry units, which I think would be more fun. Yeah, the Germans would have way more SMGs than the rest of the countries, France could get that bumped since they are imaginary, which might actually make them more desirable to play than they usually are.

 

 

Edited January 16, 2022 by tater

[dm79]

8 minutes ago, tater said:

His point is it replaces M1 Garands in the spawn list. The M1 Carbine should in fact replace Springfields in our spawn lists—a weapon that barely existed in Europe in ww2. Springfields should not be a thing, in short. Actually, M1 carbines should also replace many pistols.

A US rifle Company had 198 armed men (+3 unarmed medical).

35 were issued carbines, ~18%.

9 might have Springfields early war—with grenade launchers. ~5%. 3 more Springfield sniper rifles in a Company pool. So maybe 6%—none as plain rifles, though.

11 BARs, ~6%

2 LMGs (which don't exist in ww2ol), ~1%.

Only mortars/machineguns, and their assistants were issued pistols (10 total) as their small arm.

So ~66% of GIs were issued M1 Garands. Once the 2 modern grenade projectors were added (M7 for the Garand, M8 for Carbine) that % would go up to 71% M1.

Each company also had a pool of 5 zooks, and 5 SMGs, but we know in actual combat it seems to have been slightly higher, probably closer to BARs—1 per squad would be 9 SMGs per Company.

 

Of course if all the armies had accurate ToEs for infantry, it would still be bogus, because all the "best" stuff gets spawned first, so the hapless UP side will only see best stuff shooting at them.

Note that late war German Companies had way more issued SMGs (28 in 142 men, so ~20%) than the US had self-acquired SMGs ~5%+. UK was like 12-13% SMGs. Assuming Germans scrounged as well as anyone else, more for them than 20%.

if we had a decent spawning system, there would be profound differences between the infantry units, which I think would be more fun. Yeah, the Germans would have way more SMGs than the rest of the countries, France could get that bumped since they are imaginary, which might actually make them more desirable to play than they usually are.

 

 

Appreciate you spending the time getting historic numbers.

But.

Ignore the historical make up of inf units they don't transition into the game or historical numbers or replacements again not represented in the game. If you want the Carbines to replace bolt action then  expect the axis to get more St44 or something to replace Kar98 numbers to match.

 

[rob]

On 1/14/2022 at 4:58 PM, B2K said:

Look at that 2021 end of year post - all of those new/fixed items went through QA.  Also going through QA are all the .bug reports from in game, the issues reported here, as well as other items.  The QA team (depending on when in the year) was 2-6 (volunteer) people.  In previous years seems to be about to same number.  So a lot of stuff to have a lot of functional testing done to/with.  so yeah sometimes stuff slips through the cracks.

 thanks for volunteering to help QA.  Bit harder to do that sniping from the forums. 

One of the ways to assist would be to subscribe.  Maybe we could then pay someone to spend hours testing everything in every imaginable way possible prior to release. 

Isn't QA currently Allied Player heavy? Not saying there's a bias, but...

[fidd]

1 hour ago, dm79 said:

Appreciate you spending the time getting historic numbers.

But.

Ignore the historical make up of inf units they don't transition into the game or historical numbers or replacements again not represented in the game. If you want the Carbines to replace bolt action then  expect the axis to get more St44 or something to replace Kar98 numbers to match.

 

I agree, whilst I would personally love to see really accurate TOE's, I appreciate that's not possible to that degree, and that overall comparable performance in terms of the sum of each TOE is required to balance, as near as possible, the chance of taking a CP. Again, personally, I'd like to see the back of the Garand in BEF lists, and them got rid of completely from British TOE's. I'd much rather see the Enfield's retention of the aim whilst cycling the bolt, giving a slower-firing "automatic" rifle, which it effectively was, with a good lethality and long range. It should be similar to, but slower firing than, the STG44. 25-30 aimed shots in a minute with the Enfield is more than possible with a competent shot against a man-sized target at up to around 300 yards, and in the order to 15-20 out to about 450 yards. Larger targets, say of a column of marching troops can and were engaged using the "mad minute" of 25-30 rounds out to 1400 yards. This was a highly capable weapon that had an excellent rate of fire relative to other manual bolt-action rifles, very good accuracy, and was lethal out to 4 miles or so.

What we need with the Enfield is a distinction between the reload animation, where one comes off the aim, (1) to insert the two "chargers" (stripper clips in US parlance?) , pressing 5 rounds into the magazine, and then (2) cocking the weapon prior to coming to the aim, and the cycling of the bolt whilst remaining at the aim. Then (3) to load the next round having fired one. This (3rd)  animation should be conditional on remaining at the aim with the right mouse button, otherwise you get the (2nd) one?

[fidd]

6 minutes ago, rob said:

Isn't QA currently Allied Player heavy? Not saying there's a bias, but...

If that's the case, of more allied players in QA than axis, then in the first instance I'd not expect CRS to ask anyone to do QA who had "form" for bias in any form, and secondly, the remedy for any implied bias - and whilst you are "not saying it" you are implying it - is entirely in axis hands. I imagine all you need to do is PM Zoom to volunteer.

[B2K]

29 minutes ago, rob said:

Isn't QA currently Allied Player heavy? Not saying there's a bias, but...

At this point QA is whoever bothers to show up more than once, and can objectively conduct testing. 

[dm79]

27 minutes ago, fidd said:

I agree, whilst I would personally love to see really accurate TOE's, I appreciate that's not possible to that degree, and that overall comparable performance in terms of the sum of each TOE is required to balance, as near as possible, the chance of taking a CP. Again, personally, I'd like to see the back of the Garand in BEF lists, and them got rid of completely from British TOE's. I'd much rather see the Enfield's retention of the aim whilst cycling the bolt, giving a slower-firing "automatic" rifle, which it effectively was, with a good lethality and long range. It should be similar to, but slower firing than, the STG44. 25-30 aimed shots in a minute with the Enfield is more than possible with a competent shot against a man-sized target at up to around 300 yards, and in the order to 15-20 out to about 450 yards. Larger targets, say of a column of marching troops can and were engaged using the "mad minute" of 25-30 rounds out to 1400 yards. This was a highly capable weapon that had an excellent rate of fire relative to other manual bolt-action rifles, very good accuracy, and was lethal out to 4 miles or so.

What we need with the Enfield is a distinction between the reload animation, where one comes off the aim, (1) to insert the two "chargers" (stripper clips in US parlance?) , pressing 5 rounds into the magazine, and then (2) cocking the weapon prior to coming to the aim, and the cycling of the bolt whilst remaining at the aim. Then (3) to load the next round having fired one. This (3rd)  animation should be conditional on remaining at the aim with the right mouse button, otherwise you get the (2nd) one?

I have seen the Enfield used the way you describe although i believe it was a specialist skill and not something every guy using it would have been able to do.

Even if that was not the case and i am yet to find any information to prove or disprove that statement, i the shots would not be aimed shots as you describe but a volume of fire in a direction, i think the idea is to get enough rounds flying at a target to either hit them or keep there heads down. Aim shots are aimed this would be volume you can't have both.

[fidd]

The "mad minute" was part of the musketry qualification for the British Army, for the whole period the weapon was used. It is true that not everyone could attain the required accuracy/number of rounds down-range, but the great majority of troops, could, and did attain this standard. Some experienced troops could shoot circa 35 aimed-shots in the minute, using the right middle-finger to pull the trigger, the instant the bolt went home, which wasn't doctrine, but did work effectively. Some 40 years after I had a go at the mad-minute, I forget now how many rounds I managed, but it was over 25, and under 30. With more practice, I think I could have managed the 30. That was at foot square metal plates at 300 yards, hitting them around half the time. With even a section of 4 riflemen, I'd confidently expect them to nail, as a group, all ten such targets in a few seconds. This was a very capable weapon, and many of us who had to then use it's replacement - the SLR - did not favour the new weapon, especially at range. 

[tater]

1 hour ago, dm79 said:

Ignore the historical make up of inf units they don't transition into the game or historical numbers or replacements again not represented in the game. If you want the Carbines to replace bolt action then  expect the axis to get more St44 or something to replace Kar98 numbers to match.

You are complaining that a gun with an action capable of 750 RPM can fire at 450 RPM in unaimed semi-automatic fire. A number which seems to be plausible in RL, just pointing it downrange and trying for max ROF.

The M1 is a needed US weapon, but the relative number of them needs to be looked at, since they did not offset M1s, they are functionally replacements for pistols.

[tater]

19 minutes ago, B2K said:

At this point QA is whoever bothers to show up more than once, and can objectively conduct testing. 

How do people even volunteer to do QA? I was a beta tester 20-whatever years ago, lol.