|
Bar vs FG42 is it a draw?
Hello
When comparing the BAR and the FG42 we find that both fired a similar full powered cartridge, had a 20 round magazine, a bipod, weights of 8.8 and 6.1 kg, practical ROF of 120 and 400 rpm, cyclic ROF of 500 and 600 rpm and ranges of 550 and 800 m respectively. see http://www.tarrif.net/ (amongst many others) However in the game the weapon stats are BAR acc 20, kill 5, range 12. FG42 acc 1, kill 3, range 8. The game values seem not to reflect the real performances of the weapons? especially as the BAR represents a single weapon and the FG42 slot represents several FG42s. Best Regards Chuck. |
Re: Bar vs FG42 is it a draw?
First, you're comparing the empty weight of the BAR to the loaded weight of an FG42. Empty weight of an FG42 according to the link you provided is 4.98 kg. Not sure about how much weight I put in the info on that site you provided because it says the "combat" weight is over 1 kg heavier than the empty weight, and also provides a combat weight of a BAR that I've seen many people source as its empty weight.
The BAR is definitly a heavier weapon with 4" of barrel length. I don't understand where this "practical ROF" comes from either. The practical ROF on the FG42 is its single-shot capability IIRC (if even that), whereas the BAR's is a "slow" auto. Where are we getting that FG42s in weapon slots automatically represent multiple FG42s as well whereas BARs are always single weapons? The acc value seems a bit off, but really that's the only thing that seems out of place. Furthermore, depending on tactics and employment of the system for what the designers were looking to recreate this could be completely accurate. |
Re: Bar vs FG42 is it a draw?
Those figures come from two sources...
1. "FM 23-20 Basic Field Manual. Browning Automatic Rifle, Caliber .30" That's the official US Army manual for the BAR printed in 1940. 2. "TM 30-451 - Handbook of German Forces" That's the official US Army manual of German weapons of WWII. On top of the other books I use, I also took possession of both weapons (since I work at the Aberdeen Proving Grounds) and did my own measurements. The FG-42, in almost every respect, was better than the B.A.R. Although it was liked by the troops, the B.A.R. was not a great light machinegun or automatic rifle - although it could be a powerful weapon in the right hands. Its rate of fire was too slow, it was too heavy, and the magazine was too small. The FG-42 was an ideal weapon that was copied and modified by the US military which eventually became the venerable M-60 machinegun. It was only limited because it was complicated to produce and the Heer (German Army) didn't get along at all with the Luftwaffe (Germany Air Force) and was not willing to share its limited weapon production facilities with them. The "practical rate of fire" is how many aimed rounds can be fired per minute, accounting for average reload times. The FG-42, with its integrated bi-pod and scope, can fire more acurately at longer ranges at put more aimed rounds down-range. The B.A.R., with its open sights and bi-pod removed (as was the case in most B.A.R.'s in combat service because it was damn heavy) jumps around a lot so its much harder to shoot accurately. One possible reason for all the mis-information about the B.A.R. is because there were many models produced, both in the USA and in Belgium (which produced it in a number of calibers). That's why I stick to official manuals and my own measurements with the actual weapons at the U.S. Army Ordnance Meuseum at Aberdeen. EDIT: The big weight difference between the combat weights and empty weights of guns because of the "frills" that come along with combat like bi-pods, scopes, a full magazine, etc. In the case of the FG-42 the bi-pod is integrated, but the B.A.R. often had it's removed, and so I did the same when getting its "empty" weight. That's why those numbers are lower than much of what you might see in other referrences online or maybe even in some books. There's also a big difference between pre-war and wartime manufacture of some weapons. During the war, to save materials and speed production, guns were not manufactured to as fine a finish. That resulted in weight variances between pre-war and wartime weapons. Something as simple as different quality steel or a different kind of wood could offset a weapon's designed weight by as much as 10%. |
Re: Bar vs FG42 is it a draw?
Hi thatguy96 thanks for your interest
To address your points in order. According to tarrif these are the combat weights of the two weapons they may of course be wrong(well Id like to take this comment back as it appears tarrif himself has posted on this one!). The difference between combat weight and empty weight would be mostly accounted for by the magazine and 20 rounds about a Kilo or more(same!). Practical ROF would be measured IMHO aver an extended shoot and would be mainly limited by the rate at which the barrel heats up and cools down(same!). In the game when a second BAR appears in the squad it appears in the second weapon slot as with most other LMGs they are represented singly. The game however represents all the rifles in a sqad in a single weapon slot the FG42 AFAIK was issued to replace the squads rifles and so there would have been as many FG42s in a paratrooper squad as there were riflemen. Well I think the accuracy value is a litle more than a 'bit off' whatever "accuracy" realy means in-game I doubt that the BAR is -20 times- more accurate than the FG42. Also the FG42 fires a heavier bullet and at a much faster rate so wouldnt the kill factor be more than the BAR? Lastly Tarrif site and others quote FG42 range to be 800 m game has 400m Best Regards Chuck |
Re: Bar vs FG42 is it a draw?
Right, so if you're using the FG 42 as an infantry rifle, on the move, from the shoulder, should it really get the bonuses of a weapon intended to be used from a prone or supported position with or without the benefit of its bipod in terms of squad tactics? I think that's the issue, is that the FG42, in game terms, if it were to be treated as if it was being used as the squad support weapon, when it appears that it was not would be unbalanced. We are supposed to believe that FG infantry on the move were not taking up positions every time they engaged, where as we are supposed to believe that the trooper with the BAR in a US infantry squad was firing from the bipod and/or a supported position, regardless of whether this is realistic or not. Note that in its current form the FG42 has stats very close to other infantry rifles in other OOBs. I think realistically, the BAR's stats should be lowered, not the FG42 stats raised.
|
Re: Bar vs FG42 is it a draw?
Yes, barrel heat is a huge factor in rate of fire, and as with most German weapons, swapping barrles in the FG-42 is a simple and painless process. The BAR is a little more complicated, but that's why it has two selective rates of fire (350 - 400 rpm, and 550 - 600) to cut down on the barrel heating up too quickly to compensate.
Frankly, I have no idea why anyone would think the BAR is more accurate than the FG-42, especially in semi or full automatic fire. The FG-42 is a MUCH better weapon at long ranges - so much so that it was given a 4x power scope for sniping. The BAR can be accurate, but the muzzle climb really hurts any chance of long range accuracy after the first shot - assuming the bi-pod has been removed as was often the case. Both are reliable and robust weapons, but the FG-42 is still a better weapon in just about every category. On the other hand, the B.A.R. would be a "common" weapon while the FG-42 would be a "rare" weapon outside of Fallschrimjaeger units - if that matters in this game. For referrence, since most people don't have access to official manuals, here's the stats as listed by Ian Hogg in the "Military Small Arms Data Book". Since Ian Hogg is one of the most respected authors on this subject, we can trust his numbers for the purposes of game design... FG-42 -------------------------------- Cartridge: 7.92mm x 57mm Mauser Bullet Weight: 198 grains Length: 940 mm Barrel: 508 mm Weight: 4.53 kg M. Velocity: 761 m/sec Cyc. ROF: 750 Magazine: 20 round box or 75 round belt Rifling: 4 grooves, right hand twist Browning M1918A2 -------------------------------- Cartridge: .30-06 Springfield (AKA U.S. Ball M2) Bullet Weight: 150 grains Length: 1214 mm Barrel: 610 mm Weight: 8.8 kg M. Velocity: 855 m/sec Cyc. ROF: 450 or 650 Magazine: 20 round box Rifling: 4 grooves, right hand twist As you can see just by Mr. Hogg's numbers, the FG-42 is much lighter, has a higher rate of fire, and fires a heavier bullet. According to Chris Chant in "Small Arms of WWII" and Chris Bishop in "The Encyclopedia of Weapons of World War II" the effective range of the B.A.R. is 550 meters. The effective range of the FG-42 is 800 meters. In both cases that figure is with the bi-pod deployed. |
Re: Bar vs FG42 is it a draw?
Hi ThatGuy96
Yes I think it most certainly should because.... AFAIK the acc, kill etc stats for these weapons represent what the weapons capabilities are in a static unmolested position, not its tactical employment. In this case movement effects are modeled by decreasing these values when the squad moves. If this is correct then according to any reputable source you would like to quote the in-game weapon slot values for FG42 should be better than the those of the BAR. In real terms the normal infantry practice is for half the rifle squad to bound forward some few metres hit the dirt, take up a fire position and then provide covering fire for the other halfs bound. ie though you are breathing heavily you are not firing from the shoulder and moving when you fire your weapon. Also dont forget the case of the paratroopers dug in on the defensive. They are then most definitly using the weapon from a static prepared position effectivley the same as a whole squad armed with BAR's! Yes I agree that BAR should be downrated, personally I would like to see the American 2 BAR squad receive about the same stats as the 1 BAR squad currently has (ie one weapon slot) and single BAR squads get about half the stats values that they currently have(mainly because BAR doesnt have a quick change barrel like most other LMG's and AFAIK isnt part of a two or three man LMG team). Best Regards Chuck. |
Re: Bar vs FG42 is it a draw?
Under no conditions should the B.A.R. be better than the FG-42 unless you are talking about production. At the very least they should be equal, but the reality is that the FG-42 is a much better infantry support weapon than the B.A.R. could ever hope to be. That's why the U.S. adopted the M-60, a weapon based on the FG-42, years after the B.A.R. was declared obscolete.
|
Re: Bar vs FG42 is it a draw?
The FG-42 is in the first weapon slot as OTHER rifles, smgs, whatever, that are used as a rifle-type weapon. BAR is in the second slot, where infantry squads has their SQUAD AUTOMATIC WEAPON or LMG.
So FG-42 has the same characters as a AK-47 has in WinSPMBT of acc. 1 and kill 3. BAR has the same characters as a modern RPD Squad Automatic Weapon in WinSPMBT of acc. 21 and kill 5 So the point is that BAR is the SAW or LMG not a rifle as this FG-42. Thatīs why it has so much higher accuracy and range, being used as squad base-of-fire weapon, and this is encrypted into the game code, think I. Rifles are genric weapons in a infantry squad, even with differing kill stats. That is modeled into the game and represents several rifles at the same time, in the hands of different individuals. Accuracy and kill factor is really more related to each individuals skill than the nominal accuracy of the weapon he is using as a shoulder fired rifle. Actually in combat statistic show that only 30% of soldiers use and fire their personal weapon as intended or trained. SAW and LMGs use the volume of fire and a kill zone it creates itself, supporting their weapon usually in to the ground, thus giving a more stable firing platform and maybe the mental state of firing at the enemy, not just the sky or whatever else with shoulder fired snap-shots. Every infantry squad counts for their LMG or SAW to do most of the real killing and suppressing in the battlefield. Their accurate fire can cover the whole squad if riflemen are found in tricky situations. |
Re: Bar vs FG42 is it a draw?
If there would be a heavy-barrel SAW version of the FG-42, then it could be used in SAW/LMG slot and would probably receive higher accuracy and kill ratings than the BAR.
Unbelievable. I made my point almost in a sentence! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...es/biggrin.gif |
Re: Bar vs FG42 is it a draw?
FG 42's in the first slot do NOT represent just a single weapon firing just as a Lee Enfield in the first slot does not represent a single weapon.
Wouldn't you agree it would be a bit silly to have the fixed stats represent a variable, ie the number of riflemen left in a squad? Which is the whole point of the current stats and stat differences btw. This is, for infantry, a SQUAD based game. Not an individuals riflemans game. That means the game has to incorporate the SOP, doctrines, tactics, etc within a squad in it's mechanics. As Pdoktar already pointed out, troops armed with the FG 42 are basically riflemen in the squad, not surrogate SAW gunners. The game is a lot more than just a collection of weapon statistics. Narwan |
Re: Bar vs FG42 is it a draw?
Quote:
Regards Chuck. |
Re: Bar vs FG42 is it a draw?
The point is the FG42 was employed as a riflemans weapon, not a SAW. The BAR was. That's figured into the stats too, not just pure weapon statistics.
Narwan |
Re: Bar vs FG42 is it a draw?
Hi Narwan
Well as for SOP, doctrines,tactics I can add this. The normal infantry practice is for half the rifle squad to bound forward some few metres hit the dirt, take up a fire positions and then provide covering fire for the other halfs bound. This is done while the LMG suppreses the target. In this situation in the FG42 armed paratrooper rifle squad you will have 3 FG42s firing from a stationary prone position at any one time, surely enough justification to give the rifle squad at least the same acc/hit values as the single BAR gets in the same role? And what about on the defence? You have all 7 of the rifle squads FG42 being used exactly like the single BAR yet all 7 added together only get one twentieth of a single BARS accuracy value? The current FG42 values seem to be based on the assumption that the FG42 is never used in a stationary or prone position wich doesnt make much sense to me. If just one of the 7 or so FG42's in the rifle squad is being used in the stationary prone position (which is pretty likely in almost any situation) then this first 'rifleman' weapon slot for FG42 should have the same or better value than the BAR slot. Regards Chuck. |
Re: Bar vs FG42 is it a draw?
Whereas you want us to have every FG42 fired from a 'prone' or SAW role EVERY time. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...s/rolleyes.gif
|
Re: Bar vs FG42 is it a draw?
Hi Narwan
No that would be about as sensible as the current situation where all 7 are being fired from the shoulder into the air on the move even when the squad is dug in and stationary http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...s/rolleyes.gif But thank you for asking. This is the sloution I would propose. BAR does not have a quick change barrel and AFAIK is not employed with a number 2, unlike every other nations LMG. To remedy this a second BAR was introduced into the squad, so now we have a quick change barrel of sorts (second weapon) and twice as much ammo (still less than a three man LMG team carries, or even a two man team as the second BAR weighs a lot) So rather than representing 2 Bars in a sqad as 2 weapon slots the 2 BAR sqaud could lose the second BAR slot and the remaining BAR slot retains the current single BAR slot values ie acc 20, hit 5. Now for the single BAR squad's BAR weapon slot we would now have values of 10 and 2.5(lets say 2). AS BAR and FG42 have nearly identicle in-game performance, this gives us a guide to how to model the FG42 rifle squads weapon slot. Assuming that a least 2 of the FG42s are operating in the stationary prone position during movement (not unreaslonable I would think if the squad has any training whatsoever) then the paratrooper FG42 rifle slot should have acc 20 hit 5. Obviously this is a gross underestimation of the squads firepower when in a defensive position ie 7 FG42 in stationary prone but is much more credible than the current acc 1 hit 3 Also of interest the game models FG42 range at 400m rather than the correct 800m Regards Chuck. |
Re: Bar vs FG42 is it a draw?
Hi Chuck,
you've clearly stated your view. I take it you are the same Chuck who has over the years tried on several occassions to get this exact same issue in the (DOS version of the) game. Unsuccesfully as is obvious. There is an easy way to resolve this. Use the provided utillity programs that come with the game to change the stats to your liking so you too can fully enjoy the game. That is what those programs are for. Don't forget to cut the ammo load for the FG42's by two thirds btw. Cause that is also a consequence of how you perceive this weapon should be modeled. Firing bursts in an lmg like mode is what gets you the higher stats isn't it? And we wouldn't want to be inconsistent now would we? As far as I'm concerned I'm fully happy to have the FG42 modeled as a rifletype weapon. Narwan |
Re: Bar vs FG42 is it a draw?
The FG42 as issued was used as an SLR, and not as an SAW.
from a quick Google: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FG42 Quote:
if you want to make an FG42 SAW, feel free to do so in your own OOBS. It won't be so in the official OOBS which will remain as-is. Cheers Andy |
Re: Bar vs FG42 is it a draw?
The FG-42 was hard to control in full auto mode because it was light-weight but still firing a full size rifle round. Firing at full auto from the standing or kneeling position would make it very difficult to aim, but from the prone position with the bi-pod deployed its not any worse than most other weapons I've fired. Its strait line configuration does much to reduce the recoil and muzzle climb. In single-shot or semi-auto its absolutely deadly, especially at long ranges.
As for weapon imbalance... its negligable. On top of that, by the time the FG-42 entered service there was virtually no airborne operations and so it was used with the same 75 round ammo belts as the MG-34 and MG-42. The 10 and 20 round clips were available, but there were other options if you wanted to use it as an LMG. I never felt that the 10 or 20 round magazines affected the balance at all. That's just my opinion. |
Re: Bar vs FG42 is it a draw?
Hello Narwan
Yes one and the same. As I only play PBEM the OOB route doesnt really appeal. There are so many odd things in the game like this that need fixing it would be a hassle to explain it all to the PBEM opponent. Does the BAR have its ammo loadout cut by one third? Best Chuck. |
Re: Bar vs FG42 is it a draw?
Hi Andy
Well it would seem from Tarrifs post that FG42 is just fine as a SAW and certainly better than the BAR in this role. I can see your point that it was used as a SLR but it would certainly also have been used as a SAW, especially as there a 7 or so in the section. And of course we just need one of them to be used in the SAW role to justify changing the rifle weapon slot from acc 1 hit 3 to acc 20 hit 5. But if you believe this never happened then I guess thats your choice. It is also interesting that the second BAR when added to an american rifle squad certainly gets its own acc 20 hit 5 weapon slot no pooling for the BAR! Regards Chuck. |
Re: Bar vs FG42 is it a draw?
Quote:
Now the tools necessary to make your own mods come with the game, so making you own OOBs is simple and straight forward. Since you have - and have always had - numerous problems with the way the game works and rarely have been able to convince the powers that be of the validity of your point of view, I suggest that you post less and work more. Flogging the same dead old horses is not very productive. Creating your own OOBs and post them here in the relevant forum would be much more creative and usefull. With the OOB manager in the game, it would be a piece of cake to switch between the official OOBs and "Chucks Mod OOB Set". Then you can just agree with your PBEM opponent on which OOB set to use and let the market decide which one is better. Claus B |
Re: Bar vs FG42 is it a draw?
Hi Clause
Long time no chat. My work is to make the game more realistic thankless but neccessary. Actualy Im not interested in editing OOBs I think I already said that. Perhaps you could address the topic in hand and tell me just why FG42 shouldnt have acc 20 hit 5? Regards Chuck. |
Re: Bar vs FG42 is it a draw?
Quote:
Andy has clearly closed this argument with respects to the official OOBs, so it seems to me that you have either to do something about the issue yourself or move on. Quote:
Most people should be able to understand how it works.... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif Claus B |
Re: Bar vs FG42 is it a draw?
My involvement in this discussion is purely academic - I don't play this game (although it looks interesting). That being said, for a game that *seems* to pride itself on historical accuracy and reality, I'm surprised that it would classify the FG-42 as a rifle since that wasn't it's intended role.
Because of the nature of airborne troops they needed to pack a lot of features into a light-weight weapon. It *could* be used as a rifle, but its primary role was to provide LMG support to the squad. The FG-42 is a specialist type of weapon. It could shoot like a rifle if it had to, but could function as a LMG as well. I wouldn't call it a SAW as we define them today - but as many authors have said - the FG-42 was the basis for which many pre-modern and modern SAW's are designed. To classify it as a rifle, and to limit its game functions to that of a rifle, is historicaly and technically inaccurate. If that's the case, you might as well classify the B.A.R., Bren, etc., as rifles as well - because they technically *could* be used that way, even if its not what they were primarily designed for. |
Re: Bar vs FG42 is it a draw?
Quote:
Your 'WORK' to make the game more realistic? LOL Give it a rest. |
Re: Bar vs FG42 is it a draw?
Quote:
Quote:
a "specialist" weapon. I doubt you would have 6 or 7 man firing their belt-fed FG42s from the tripod, another 2 men manning the MG34/42, all supporting the squad leader as he charged the enemy. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif Seems to me that with the high number of FG42s in the squad, it would primarily have been used as an automatic rifle, not as a light machinegun. And that is the issue here: The use of the weapon, not its statistics. If Chuck wants that changed, he should not look at weapons statistics, but at fieldmanuals and unit histories dealing with the organisation and tactics of the units that used the weapon. Incidentally, we are wasting all this bandwhith on a weapon that is used in four (4) units out of 800-900 German units in the game.... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/Sick.gif Claus B |
Re: Bar vs FG42 is it a draw?
Well this brings up another important issue: Why are there so many FG-42's available per squad in this game? The often quoted total production number of FG-42's is about 7000 - even by the most reputable of authors. Split between the tens of thousands of men in the Fallschrimjaeger units between 1942 and 1945, that would leave a hanful per platoon and perhaps one or two in a squad. That's a liberal estimate.
If you are really looking for historically accurate weapon distribution among the squads/platoons then the FG-42 would *NOT* be a primary weapon. It should be considered a special weapon like the Panzerscheck, PzB39, etc. The only instance I can think of where many FG-42's were used at the squad level is during Skorzney's rescue of Mussolini - and that was more of a commando operation and not a real representation of a regular Fallschrimjaeger operation. The real crux of the problem seems to be that - in this game - the FG-42 is being issued to the majority of men in a squad and so the game creators nerfed it for the sake of keeping the game balanced. This simply was not, nor could it be, the situation historically. |
Re: Bar vs FG42 is it a draw?
Quote:
You could of course argue that there should also be units with a single FG42 as a secondary weapon with stats like an LMG, but considering the scope of the game and the fact that there is already numerous arms combinations for the FJ squads and the fact that there is 800-900 units in the German OOB, that is a very, very, very minor point. It just goes to show the fallacy of simply comparing stats without thinking about the game as a whole - as I think Narwan pointed out earlier. But it is one of those things Chuck likes to persue.... endlessly.... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif Claus B |
Re: Bar vs FG42 is it a draw?
Well as I said before, I don't play this game or know very much about it. For me, this debate is purely academic. If the FG-42 needs to be the way it is now for the sake of game balance, then so be it. Not everything can be historically accurate and still keep things fair.
|
Re: Bar vs FG42 is it a draw?
Quote:
The FG42 may have had other uses or issed to units in ways that are not portrayed in the game, but that only means that you may add a clone of the weapon as an LMG and create yet another FJ formation, differently equipped. When it comes to small arms, you could make endless variations and easily fill the 999 unit slots on the OOB - and probably another 999 without any problems. At some point, the OOB designers have to stop fiddling, even if it means neglecting some players pet units/weapons/formations. Those players can then fiddle on themselves - unless of course they are too lazy to do so http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif Claus B |
Re: Bar vs FG42 is it a draw?
Quote:
|
Re: Bar vs FG42 is it a draw?
Quote:
I'm not saying these are all the same sort off weapon, but the do show the scaling of modeling primairy infantry weapons from bolt action to semi auto to full auto in the game. Narwan |
Re: Bar vs FG42 is it a draw?
Then I guess the problem is that the game interprets the FG-42 as a general issue rifle in the first place. The FG-42 was not designed to be anything like the M1 Garand, STG44, or Gewehr 43. It was designed from the outset to be a light-weight automatic rifle / light machinegun that could add some punch to the firepower of airborne forces. Its a specialized weapons designed for parachutists.
If you want a comparison, the only ones I can think of are the various carbines specifically designed for those purposes. Perhaps the American M1A1 Paratrooper Carbine. I understand the game might interpret things differently, and I guess that the problem, because the game is wrong in that respect. The FG-42 should not be in the same class as the M1 Garand or Gewehr 43. It should be in the same class as whatever the B.A.R. is in, and have stats similar or slightly better than it. |
Re: Bar vs FG42 is it a draw?
IMHO the best comparison to FG-42 would be Soviet AVS-36 7.62mm full-power automatic rifle - also manufactured in rather small qantities, given to elite units, hard to control in autofire... Later replaced by similar, but just self-loading SVT-38/40 rifle. All sources I've seen claim FG to be intended as primary automatic weapon (ie rifle), manufactured in low quantities and used by crack units as rifle. Yup, there were just 7000 pieces but how many German paratroopers was there? And if you give those 7000 pieces to 7000 men in one unit it would act as a primary weapon (which it did AFAIK, those 7k pieces weren't spread thin in the entire FJ corps as would the SAW role suggest, rather they were concentrated in chosen units.)
Just my 2 cents |
Re: Bar vs FG42 is it a draw?
Quote:
The actual stats of the weapon is not the issue here. Its use is. 1. If it is used as an automatic rifle, that is, issued to most men in a squad like the StG 44 etc. then it is labelled as primary infantry weapon and its stats adjusted for how the game treats this type of weapon. 2. If it is used as a light machinegun, that is, only one, perhaps two issued, then it is labelled as a secondary infantry weapon and the stats are changed to reflect its use as a light machinegun. In the game, the BAR is treated as #2 under the assumption that it was issued and used as the LMG of the infantry squadron. In the game, the FG42 is treated as #1 under the assumption that it was issued and used as a rifle. It is assumption in the game that the FJ squad at the time would have a rifle (or FG42) for most of the men in a squad with an MG34/42 as the LMG of the squadron. It is also the assumption of the game that a US infantry squad would have rifles (like the Garand) for most of the men and use the BAR as the LMG of the squadron. If you or anyone else want that changed, you need to forget about the actual statistics of the weapon and find documentation about their actual issue and use. That would be references to the official TO&E (KStN) of the units in question and unit histories etc. which describes its use and issue as being different from that in the game. There is no inherent problem in the game that prevents you from having the FG42 as both a primary and secondary weapon (as a rifle and LMG) with the appropriate statistics for each use. The only problem here is a blind comparison of statistics without taking into account that this is a game and that weapon statistics in the game reflects a lot more than simply physical performance (as was pointed out a long time ago in this thread http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif ) Claus B |
Re: Bar vs FG42 is it a draw?
Hi Claus
Gee this thread seems to have developed legs overnight, I should say quite everyone please, were wasting Clauses precious bandwidth! I might point out that Claus and Narwan are attempting to make an example of me to rest of the posters in this forum. Lesson: Dont disagree with them or youll be in for the same sort of unpleasant invective and snide asides they are directing towards me. Reason the game curently contains some bias towards the American forces which they intend to keep in place. Assumption number 1 is wrong because the premise that the weapon was only ever used as a rifle never as a SAW is patently ridiculous. How often this happens is arguable, but if just one of 7 FG42 in the squad is used as a BAR this is enough to justify the change to 20 and 5. And there would certainly be circumstaces when the weapon was used in the same role as the BAR. The argument that because its in slot one it cant have its value increases is a complete furphy, It can easily have its acc and hit changed to 20 and 5 like the BAR. Play balance wouldnt suffer in the least. What the change to 20 and 5 values represents is an acknowledgemant of the inherent flexibity of the weapon. As you say Clause it is the use of the weapon that is the issue here and you cannot tell me with a straight face that it was never used as SAW. Marek is very likely correct. Logistics are greatly simplified if the weapon is concentrated in particular units rather than spread out evenly. Regards Chuck. |
Re: Bar vs FG42 is it a draw?
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
As for bias, it is typical that your solution to a percieved problem always results in a massive gain for the German side in the game. Whether that is by intent or just due to a lack of knowledge about the game, I can't say http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif In this case, you suggest changing the FG42 values so everybody in an FJ squad will be carrying a light machine gun and use it as such - always. Clearly not on. IF the FG42 was used, as a rule, as an LMG as well as a rifle, then the right solution, in my view, is to create a new weapon as a weapon class 2 and issue that as a supporting weapon like the BAR while retaining the FG42 as a rifle in slot 1 with the current stats. How such a solution would be employed would depend on the documentation (issue, use). Quote:
Claus B |
Re: Bar vs FG42 is it a draw?
Quote:
The FG42 was designed to replace the 98K and the MP40 in the paratroops, basing on the negative experiences in the west and Crete. It never was designed to act as a SAW. The germans had better weapons for that purpose. cheers |
Re: Bar vs FG42 is it a draw?
Quote:
|
Re: Bar vs FG42 is it a draw?
Quote:
Was it designed to replace the Riflemens weapon(s) or was it designed to replace the LMG-Gunners weapon ? What do your sources say ? cheers |
Re: Bar vs FG42 is it a draw?
It was designed to provide firepower along the lines of a LMG but the accuracy of a rifle. For units like paratroopers, weapons were sometimes designed under the jack-of-all-trades principle. It was never meant to totally replace the rifle or the LMG - especially since it was complicated and expensive to produce. Had the FG-42 been quick and easy to produce, its possible it would have become the primary weapon of the Fallschrimjaegers, but that wasn't the case, so only one or two men per squad recieved them and they were used to augment the firepower of the squad.
|
Re: Bar vs FG42 is it a draw?
Quote:
thanks for your answer. In game terms this means it is used as a riflemens weapon (primary weapon) and not as a LMG (secondary weapon). Thatīs how things are represented in the game right now. I just wanted this to be clear. cheers |
Re: Bar vs FG42 is it a draw?
Quote:
Narwan |
Re: Bar vs FG42 is it a draw?
It does and that's the way it's going to stay.
Don |
Re: Bar vs FG42 is it a draw?
I'm not sure how it is in this game because I don't play this game. I joined this conversation because I saw the URL linked to my website on the first page. The original argument was that the FG-42 should be treated like the B.A.R., which I agreed with from a historical and technical point of view. Maybe from a gameplay point of view that doesn't make sense, but technically the FG-42 could be used in the same exact role. That was my original point.
I understand the game industry, and the players that go with it. I know some people don't want to see this changed because it doesn't favor their particular side, or because it might imbalance the game (in some respect). Its up to the developers if they want to put historical accuracy over game balance, or visa-versa. Sometimes historical accuracy isn't the best thing for a game - that's for them to decide. |
Re: Bar vs FG42 is it a draw?
Quote:
no problem with that, no hard feelings on my side and I hope none on your side either. The game has itīs limitations, thatīs for sure. However, as you basically told us from your sources: the FG42 was used (designed) to be a weapon which increased the riflemens firepower. Basically (in game terms) this means some men had the FG42, some men had the 98K and some the MP40, also there always was the regular LMG(s) in the german Squad OOB. Unfortunately (thatīs how the game was designed from the beginning, going back to the original SSI OOB structure) the game doesnīt allow to represent such a mixture of weapons unless you leave out the MG34/42 as a SAW for the squad (which is historically unrealistic). This leaves the game- or enthusiastic OOB-designer with the following options: 1.) leave it as is (FG42 as primary (riflemens) weapon in squad) and (MG34/42 as LMG - secondary weapon) 2.) or create a new secondary FG42 which may have been used as a SAW - BUT - at the same time leave out the MG34/42 as a squad SAW (secondary weapon). I think option 1 is more realistic and historically accurate (keeping in mind the limitations of the game). Nevertheless the game offers everything necessary to try out option 2. Start up Mobhack and feel free to do some experiments. Thatīs one of the great things about this game and the SP-series in general: The user can adapt the OOBs to his personal preferences and play with it. Where do you find this kind of flexibillity in other wargames ? cheers |
Re: Bar vs FG42 is it a draw?
The FG42 was thought up after Crete. German paratroops would need a weapon with decent firepower they could drop with ON THEIR PERSON and immediately be able to go to combat to without having to go to weapon canisters first to retrieve weapons. MG34's and MG42's were to heavy to jump with. So they thought up the FG42. I was intended as an infantrymens personal weapon, replacing the standard rifles, that COULD be used as a 'stand-in' LMG too. It was not primairily designed or intended as a SAW or LMG. It wasn't very good as a LMG however. It's low weight proved to be it's biggest drawback. That's because the designers kept the full 7,92mm cartridge for the weapon. That resulted in a recoil that made the weapon very difficult to handle and control when in full auto mode, it had a very strong tendency to kick upwards. That made it very hard to keep the sustained fire on a target that one would need from an LMG. The BAR, being a lot heavier, didn't suffer nearly as much kick as the weight helped keep the weapon down. Although having drawbacks of its own, the BAR was much better suited for the LMG role.
Further, even though use as an LMG was part of the INTENDED design, there is little evidence to suggest it was actually used as such. Two reasons, first it was much better as an automatic rifle, ie firing aimed single shots in rapid succesion. The extreme muzzle flash and extremely loud noise when firing also were less of a drawback when used as a rifle. As an LMG it would be used more from a 'fixed' position and the flash and noise would make it easily identifiable by the enemy, especially when firing on auto. Most important however was that the Luftwaffe needn't have bothered with coming up with a weapon parattroops could jump with since another outcome of Crete was Hitlers decision that there would be no more paratroop attacks. Many of the later paratroop units didn't even receive jump training anymore. So without combat drops being on the agenda anymore, the paratroop units did the smart thing and they went back to the excellent MG34 and superb MG42 as the squad LMG with the FG42 being used as an automatic rifle. And this is how it is portrayed in the game, the game isn't historically inaccurate at all in this respect. As said so many times before in this thread, you can not do a straight comparison between the stats of primairy and secondary weapons. Narwan |
Re: Bar vs FG42 is it a draw?
As I said just a few posts ago, the original argument was for the FG-42 to have the same stats and function as the B.A.R. I know we got side-tracked with other discussions about SAW's and LMG's. The fact is that the FG-42 could very well be interchangeable with the B.A.R. and perform just as well if not better. I know the game doesn't allow this, but from a purely technical and functional point of view there's no disputing that.
As you said, it could be a stand-in for a LMG or a rifle, even though it wasn't usually better than the weapons it was standing-in for. It was a multi-function weapon, and while it wasn't always the best in each individual class, it still *could* perform those duties. The FG-42 wasn't meant to replace anything - it was meant to augment the fire-power of the Fallschrimjaeger squads as a weapon that adequately perform single-shot, long-range, close-range, and rapid-fire shooting. As someone that has used the FG-42 I believe its a superb weapon for its day, although if I had to use it in combat I would probably utilize more as an automatic rifle than an LMG, especially since better LMG's were available at the time. While you are right that there were no more large scale airborne operations, smaller scale ones happened right up to the end of the war. One of the most famous was the rescue of Mussolini, in which the FG-42 made its debut and performed wonderfully. I understand the game designers have to make choices between historical/technical accuracy and balance. If they feel the FG-42 would serve the game's purposes better as a automatic rifle that for some reason doesn't work the same as the Browning automatic rifle then so be it. |
Re: Bar vs FG42 is it a draw?
Hi Claus
Ah the old arguments surface again, when you know you havent got a leg to stand on "wheres the documention" a little common sense wouldnt suffice would it. No need to mobhack anything with a little imagination one can see that the unit would play similar to the 2 bar American squad or is that to much of a stretch for you? And of course if you dont have an argument misrepresent the other guys argument, I am saying you just need one out of seven FG to be used 'a la BAR' to justify giving the 1st weapon slot BAR values not all of them. Yes and of course changing one weapon slot in maybe two squads in a game with thousands of units is a really massive change. For someone so worried about bandwidth maybe you could supply a little substance for you arguments. Regards Chuck |
| All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:33 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©1999 - 2025, Shrapnel Games, Inc. - All Rights Reserved.