praslovan wrote:That doesn't mean that you can't let it rip if the situation dictates to.
You guys are still stuck on the range. If I throw an apple at you from 100m away, there is a good chance I will miss. If I can throw 20 in a second suddenly the chance that I hit is greater. If you are throwing apples back at me with 8 apples per second and you are about as good at throwing as I am... Who is a more effective apple thrower? And mind you... 100m is a very long range for throwing an apple.
Keep in mind, there will be a limit to how far you can throw, which is what I'm getting at. You can throw 10 apples or 100 apples, there is a point where you're never going strong enough to conceivably throw past. Now if we were to replace those apples with, say oranges, which have the same aerodynamics and only weight a few grams less or more, would that effect you enough to throw it that much further?
It's how I view machineguns though their calibers. There is too little of a difference between the ballistics of the two to mean one has more stopping power at a higher range, which means shouldn't they have the same(ish) max range, with the MG-42 simply being better at max range. Which is why I belive that only larger caliber guns like the 13mm hotchkiss and M2 should really have a bigger max range than small arm fire.
Once again, I feel the MG's RoF and accuracy should be represented with... Well a higher suppression (RoF) and accuracy. Now I understand that max accuracy at this point is human related, but all weapons so far have the tools that allow for a human to aim at a 2-3km max firing range.
Now, rather than salivating over semantics and arguing over which youtube gun vibrates more, I spent my lunch break looking up MG-34/42 standards and doctrines to see how the German forces treated it and found several sources or posts containing better information.
- Although it could achieve a RoF of 1200RPM, the MG-42 was restricted to a more realistic RoF of 1000RPM or less. This wasn't only restricted to Germans, the American M1919 could be modified to fire up to 1800RPM, but was mechanically limited to 600RPM.
- Fully automatic, sustained RoF is strongly discouraged due to chewing though ammunition and barrels. Instead they were restricted to bursts of 5 to 20 rounds. It's practical rate of fire was around 154 RPM compared to the MG-34's practical RoF of 150RPM
- The tripods came semi-standard with scopes, called the MGZ32 or MGZ40 scopes, which were attached to the tripod and had a 2 to 4 times zoom. The scope was not a precision scope but had a 'V' style crosshair much like tank machinegun scopes.
- While more accurate than water cooled machine guns, it actually wasn't the most accurate of the machine guns. Which online seems to be universally agreed to be the British Bren gun, which in game only has a range of 750m.
- The whole discrepancy between Allied and Axis forces is seems to be because of the General purpose machine gun doctrine, most allied troops were only given the modern equivalent of SAW's, Bren's and BAR's which simply counter battery a full purpose GMPG. However, they only took one person effectively to use compared to the 4-6 needed for German squads. This was corrected in later tactics and doctrine with the addition of more BAR's and the platoon level M1919A6.
- German doctrine effectively stared to withhold fire until the best possible effect is assured, which seems contradictory to MG-42's firing first in game.
- The doctrine between the MG-34 and MG-42 were effectively the same.
So I'm still not sure what qualifies for an effective range increase. If it's accuracy, why does the Bren have such low range?
If it's sustained curtain fire, wouldn't water-cooled guns have more ability?
Is it it's scope, if so what about other MG's which had a scope, and what about the ones without a scope but use a separate spotter to correct shots? Would it be more efficient for the gunner to use a scope, rather than have a spotter with a set of optics correcting him?
However, I think the most telling piece of evidence is it's older brother, the MG-34 (Which I've noticed has been tip-toed around whenever I brought it up). Both effectively had the same practical RoF (154 vs 150). Both handled the same, both came in the same tripod, with the same scope, both had the same doctrine. So why does the MG-42 have a 300m range over it's older brother?
What I think, is that Eugen saw that the MG-34 and MG-42 has effectively the same stats, and arbitrarily raised it's max range and it's cost in order to diversify the units a bit more. Which kind of sucks in a balancing sort of view.http://www.lonesentry.com/articles/intelligence-report/use-of-mg42.html
Had some good tibits of information, mostly translated from German instruction manuals. If I can be arsed sorting though my phone history I'll post those sources too.