M1918A2browning automatic rifle or the sturmgewehr44

Ahhhhh! I understand now!

 

One of the problems I have with the games. They tend to give a false view of reality LOL. Most who ask these types of questions in these types of threads are coming from a video/computer game type of knowledge and mentality. Some may be correct and some not.

 

nonesense JCF of course its realistic, in COD 4 I can pick of a Russian from across the entire map through a wall with my Side arm.



But that is after all the point.

 

Well in the Case of Call of Duty 3 it is what I would take to be correct.

For the "Heavy Assualt" class you get BAR for allies and STG44 for Axis. The Bar can fire with a slow but steady rate of fire, although a large amount of recoil; so it is usually used with a rapid trigger clicking single shot (It is not fun to fire from the hip up close)

While the STG44 is unmatched a close range because of its decent ability to keep firing with a not to large "jumpy recoil" But at range the BAR slaughters it.

 

LOL. I bet you can. Too bad a game can never give you the feel of what it is really like to fire a weapon . To feel the recoil or to smell the gun oil and gunpowder. To feel it in your hands rather then a game controller. To actually experience what its like to be actually carrying and firing a weapon.The knowledge you get is from a game designer LOL. Whats funny and is brought up time and again is that soldiers were issued the weapons they used in combat. Not given a choice. Very few had the opportunity to use any other then the one issued to them.And in battle I really don't think they had to time to think about what they had.

 

Stephan:

Quite so. PPsh-41s did not exist in the TO&E. However with some exceptions that is the only systematic information we have and it does reflect to a degree the equipment and tactical preferences of an army, at least in terms of what it wants to have.

Tired Old Soldier:

The quartermaster was not able to join the squad's photography session because he had sucumbed to non-combat fatigue to the strains of his duties after reviewing the requirements of the said squad.

Seriously, this sounds like a unit that had been doing a lot of rogue acquisition. Regular field units won't have access to those equipment. I imagine a piping new Volks Grenadier Division won't have quite as many weapons to add into its collection and probably won't survive combat enough to obtain one before being reconstituted.

One of the reasons I don't like to discuss field expepient TOE was that this is equally applicable to all armies. Bazookas were supposed to be in the Antitank Platoon but it seemed to be everywhere in the American army. As well as extra BARs and M1 Thompsons (which is no where to be seen in infantry TOEs). Use of the maligned M1 carbine on a scale larger than commonly believed was also reported by some. They were used as an assault weapon. Not to mention add hoc task forces and their load-out.

 

Is this from REAL LIFE experience or game experience?

 

I have a suspicion the Germans, due to the practice of leaving units in the line for long periods and giving leave to individual soldiers, instead of pulling back the whole unit for rest and reorganization where more likely to accumulate non regulation equipment. On the other hand US soldiers usually had access to motorized transport so could afford not to discard "souvenirs" that they would have been unwilling to carry in their packs.

 

With the kind of casaulty rates and loss of territory the Germans had in 1944, I doubt any unit constituted at the time would accumulate much equipment. More likely they went out, got destroyed and was built from scratch again with the same number. Examples abound such as the various Grenadier and Infantry Divisions that were reflagged Volks Grenadier. I mean for the veteran survivors, maybe. For most of the units? I doubt it.

 

Now you got me choking :lol:

 

Perhaps it would be good if some people were made aware of this text. It provides the background for the use of the several weapons, how they are employed on the battlefield, purposes, advantages, disadvantages, etc. Different weapons are used for different purposes, the purpose of the BAR is one, the purpose of the STG is somethine else.

Now read on, please.

 

Thanks - BAR or MP44?

Regards
Kruska

 

The Germans organized their WW2 divisions differently from American same. The same soldiers an officers remained with the same units, down to squad level, as long as possible. (The Germans knew that men who personally knew and trusted each other for a long time were more effective in battle than a group of strangers thrown together in the middle of a war. ) until the desperate days of wars end, most divisions were simply allowed to sustain losses until they dropped to a certain level of men and machines. Replacements were not brought up until the unit had been pulled back from the front, and usually placed in reserve while they rested and refit.
German practice right before the war was to carefully choose soldiers, NCOs and officers and train them well. Before Hitler threw out the Versailles treaty of the limited 100,000 man army, it was easier to do this as they could hand-pick who they wanted from plenty of volunteers looking for a square meal.
When the Werhmacht went to a wartime organization, most of the infantry was simply divided by three, in such a way that two new conscript men were put in the same squad with one older soldier. The older guys helped the new ones learn how to be a good soldier.

American practice was completely different. Units were often left at the front, regardless of losses, and individual men were sent up from the rear to replace lost members. Thus in the American unit you wound up with every unit always having its share of "FNG'S" making mistakes and making the old salts worry that the new guys were going to get everybody killed, before they learned how to move and survive on the battlefield.
(source: "Dirty little secrets of WW2", James Dunnigan)

 

I know exactly what you mean mate. The shaking of the gun from the fear, the sounds of combat around you, men in pain crying out, you hungry belly after years of war and lack of supplies. All of these none existent in a game, for you are on a nice cushy couch with a nice cold drink and a full belly with all your family around and you know that if you make a mistake there is always the reload button.

 

Since the BAR went into production decades before the M1 was designed that was a pretty forward looking designer. From what I recall reading it was designed as an assault weapon so that troops attacking trench lines (WWI time frame) could have some automatic fire power with them. The original versions had slings that were designed to enable fire on the move with them and no bipods I believe.

 

Thats right. The BAR was designed as a "Trench Sweeper" during WWI. Trying to compare two totally different weapons from two different timeframes is really quite silly.You may be able to in a video game but not in real life where they were designed and used for two totally different purposes.

 

I suppose nobody took the trouble to read it. That's understandable, it's a pretty long text and doesn't have many images.

 

LOL. I did. .

 

Ow chucks... Za is all sad now. Here's a lolly so you can forgett all about it




Cheers...

 

I had, it's bayonet strength which is one of my favorite sites.

I still wonder how the heck did the armored doughs and paratroopers managed to march with the M1919. It's a beast of a gun at 14 kg.

Sure. I meant how the BAR was used in the US Army. Stating that it was designed for that purpose is, evidently, wrong =P