Bar vs FG42 is it a draw?

[cbo]

Tarrif said:
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.

The correct term in the game is "primary infantry weapon", which includes rifles, submachineguns, assault rifles etc. As the FG42 was issued (AFAIK) as the primary infantry weapon, that classification seems warranted. In the game, a typical platoon with the FG42 would have it as the main weapon (firepower multiplied by the number of men in the squad) with an MG42 as weapon number two and some handgrenades or Panzerfaust as weapon number three and four, filling all available slots.

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.

If - and that is the assumption in the game - the FG42 was issued to most of the squad and that squad also had a proper machinegun (MG34/42), it seems hard to justify it as
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.

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....

Claus B

[Tarrif]

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.

[cbo]

Tarrif said:
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.

It isn't in the game either. The FJ squad with the FG42 as the primary weapon is only one of many options. In, say, September 1944 you have 8 different squads to choose from of which 2 has the FG42, 2 has the StG44 and 4 has the Kar 98 rifle as their primary weapon. The player can choose what he wants here, but the computer will (in principle) choose equally among them, so you shouldn't end up with only FG42 armed units - in fact you are likely to end up with units mostly armed with rifles.

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....

Claus B

[Tarrif]

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.

[cbo]

Tarrif said:
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.

I think the game is historically accurate in the sense that the values for the FG42 is consistent with its use as an automatic rifle and that it was used as such during WW2.

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

Claus B

[Tarrif]

cbo said:
I think the game is historically accurate in the sense that the values for the FG42 is consistent with its use as an automatic rifle and that it was used as such during WW2.

Based on the numbers I've seen, it's values for use as an automatic rifle are far below what they should be - using other automatic rifles (namely the B.A.R.) to set the standard.

[narwan]

Tarrif said:
[Based on the numbers I've seen, it's values for use as an automatic rifle are far below what they should be - using other automatic rifles (namely the B.A.R.) to set the standard.

Not other automatic rifles, plural, but singular, only the BAR. Which is also a different category weapon (which difference has its own in game effects). If you want a valid comparison line the FG42 up with bolt action rifles, the M1 Garand (weapon 112 in the US OB), STG44's (weapon 153 in the GE OB), Gewehr 41 (weapon 162), Gewehr 43 (weapon 163) and see how they come off. These are all primairy weapons as is the FG42. You may also want to check some numbers in WinSPMBT as there are plenty of automatic primairy infantry weapons there.
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

[cbo]

Tarrif said:
Based on the numbers I've seen, it's values for use as an automatic rifle are far below what they should be - using other automatic rifles (namely the B.A.R.) to set the standard.

You dont understand how the game works.

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 )

Claus B