M14e2/a1

[exhausted]

While nearly all M14s in US Marine Corps and Army arsenals were permanently welded to in semi-auto mode, about 1,000 special conversions existed as Squad Automatic Weapons (SAW). In the first couple of years, they were issued to 1 out of every 4 Marines in a fireteam, 3 to a squad.

The M14 and M14E2/A1 had these similarities:
- same barrel length
- same style of iron sights
- same 20 round magazine
- same dust cover
- many used the M14 rifle stock

They were different in that:
- A1 had a muzzle break, not a flash hider
- A1 had no bayonet mount
- A1 was semi and full auto
- Many A1s used a stock with a pistol grip
- M2 bipod used on M14A1s, fitted with either stock
- collapsible front grip

I hope to see this weapon included for use in VERY early battle maps.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CCysep8Zpu0

 

[NorthDumpling]

I think its been mentioned, that in internal tests, people have chosen M14 over M16 in most of the cases, which made it almost FG-42 with full rifle cartridge, not to mention it was disbalanced weapon.

 

[exhausted]

I think the balancing issue depends largely on how you hold the weapon. The center of gravity should be just under the magazine well. But the M14E2 was only issued to Machine Gunners until the M60 completely replaced it and the BAR. We only have a small handful of MG slots, so it shouldn't be an issue based on having too many players running around with them. They would only be used on certain maps portraying battles where the M60 wasn't around. The same number of players would normally have multiple 100 round belts would now only have 6 20 round box magazines.

I don't think 'balancing' should rule the whole game. I think the game should have a selectable 'balanced' mode, but most people playing this game with real military experience will probably find it very distasteful not to assume a realistic approach. I would even go as far as to have a choice to use black powder arms for one or two of the NLF roles.

 

[NorthDumpling]

I disagree with having modified M14 as a replacement in MG role, this is just hilarious. And moreover I dont think M60 wasnt around in 1968-1969 years, to that time theese automatic M14 would have been so rare, barely any of them saw any huge battles taking into an account that you are playing role of multiple soldiers in a match and no wonder it will look very sick if there will be more automatic variants, that ever existed, not to mention automatic firemode was welded into semi-auto on all M14.

 

[Thom430]

As cool as it would be to have some more weapons, those M14 SAWs weren't spectacular weapons that seemed to have been used much. Leroy Thompson in his book on the M14 says the following:

"By December 1964, all 8,350 M14E2 rifles had been completed. As those rifles made it into the hands of troops, various problems arose, including: muzzle stabilizers coming off during firing; stocks breaking where the foregrip was attached; front handgrips breaking; and the M2 bipods working loose."
...
"After additional field trials, the improved version was eventually adopted as the M14A1 in April 1966."
...
"It should be noted that friends of the author who were familiar with firing the M14A1 stated that it was prone to "cook offs" (a round firing due to excessive heat in the chamber resulting from the closed-bolt design) and the wooden handguard catching on fire."

So all in all, I think it's safe to say these weapons didn't see much use, at least not succesfully.

I guess for the sake of having some more classes, you could add an Automatic rifleman, give him an M14 with M2 bipod, M14E2, or M14A1 and an M16 with XM3 bipod, but I can understand the decision not to include them

 

[exhausted]

I guess for the sake of having some more classes, you could add an Automatic rifleman, give him an M14 with M2 bipod, M14E2, or M14A1 and an M16 with XM3 bipod, but I can understand the decision not to include them

The M14A1 would mainly be around for battles in 1965-66. The Marines initially deployed with some M14 SAWs. Like we said, there weren't many of them but there were enough that entire platoons (3 squads) would have depended on them exclusively for the role of MG the same way there are a just few BARs in Rising Storm.

It's not meant to be a choice between "M14, M16 or.... COOL M14 full auto!!!"

Rifleman would still be M14/M16 (though it should only be M16 after 1969 ish)
But early war maps would have the M14A1 choice rather than M60.
We use this concept on the Guadalcanal map where there are no M1 Garands available, only M1903s

 

[NorthDumpling]

The game is not set in early war period. Tho you can hope for mods.

 

[exhausted]

Actually it is. For example one of our main maps, the Battle of Song Be, is set in May 10–15, 1965.

This map, however, should be fought mainly by ARVN units as the Americans were only advisers in this battle. USSF escorted the ARVN in on helicopters and APCs. The bulk of the soldiers used M1 Garands, P17s, M1 Carbines, M1927 Thompsons and BARs in this battle. The VC should have roughly the same.

Then there's the Cu Chi map, which I think portrays the fighint from Janurary 1966 in Operation Crimp, which was actually a joint US-Australia operation.

But I digress: we have early war maps already. American teams in these maps should have access to 2-4 M14A1s.

 

[AATTV]

Would love to see it [m14a1] included for early war phase (i know the game covers 67 & later), and by the same token the Winchester Model 70 in .30-06 w/ 8x unertl too for the usmc scout snipers.
strictly speaking the M40 was a very uniquely USMC thing & theoretically shouldn't be available to the army faction.

 

[exhausted]

(i know the game covers 67 & later)

Am I missing something? We clearly have maps representing battles in 1965 and 1966 already. This makes the existing weapon set wrong already, in terms of the M40 and M25 sniper rifles, which didn't come until after the Battle of Song Be. During Song Be, I believe the appropriate sniper weapon would be an M1D Garand.

The Winchester 70 would be appropriate for pretty much the whole war, however.

strictly speaking the M40 was a very uniquely USMC thing & theoretically shouldn't be available to the army faction.

That's true. Conversely, the M25 is uniquely US Army and shouldn't be available to the Marines.

 

[NorthDumpling]

What maps are representing battles in 1965 and 1966 already? One map doesnt proove a thing.

 

[exhausted]

not to mention automatic firemode was welded into semi-auto on all M14.

I just caught this. I addressed this earlier. The M14E2/A1 was common in the early part of the war (time frame of Song Be and Cu Chi), and they were completely capable of full auto fire because they were to be used the exact same way as BARs were in WWI, WW2 and Korea. Technically, the Coast Guard and Navy M14s remain capable of full auto, so any map with SEALs should have auto M14s. It was just basic infantry M14s that were welded in semi auto. Therefore it doesn't apply to the M14A1.

What maps are representing battles in 1965 and 1966 already? One map doesnt proove a thing.

So far there is more than one. One of our most central maps being set in 1965 certainly clears the hurdle of showing a portion of the game is set in the early war. Cu Chi is a second map that takes place at the beginning of 1966. That's two. There will probably be more so you can't say this game is all about post-1967 Vietnam by any measure.

 

[NorthDumpling]

Only Song Be falls under your early war conditions, but you simply looking for an excuses to justify implementation of a rare weapons, not to mention you want them to replace GPMG M60.

 

[exhausted]

About a third of our maps take place earlier than 1967. Now I think you're just looking for excuses to say the appropriate weapon for the time period shouldn't be implemented. 1965 couldn't have had more than 50,000 infantrymen in Vietnam, and there were 8,000 M14A1s in the arsenals (your number not mine), so that would have made them very common. Having that many M60s is not historical for the time period.

 

[NorthDumpling]

Well if you want M14E2/A1 then it will be highly uncontrollable, overheating and useless gun with 20mags in it having crazy recoil, so theese versions of M14 are not worth an effort.
By the way the number you telling me, is just completely made out by you right now as I never mentioned rifles count.

 

[exhausted]

Well if you want M14E2/A1 then it will be highly uncontrollable, overheating and useless gun with 20mags in it having crazy recoil, so theese versions of M14 are not worth an effort.

Do you even shoot in real life?! Looks more controllable than the M60 or RPK

 

[NorthDumpling]

AMG have said that they're not basing off any particular battles, as they dont want people running around like headless chickens saying that some semi-experimental guns should be added. The game is set during tet offense, thats all. By your logic, they must add XM177, some M1As , some other **** like M2 Carbine and single action revolver for pilots.

 

[exhausted]

So far your objections have been:

1) the game isn't early war - FALSE, PROVEN THERE ARE ALREADY MULTIPLE MAPS FROM 1965-1966
2) the M14A1 would be unbalanced - FALSE THE M14A1 WAS A STOP GAP BETWEEN THE BAR AND M60, ADDING IT WOULD INCREASE THE CHALLENGE OF US SOLDIERS AND MARINES, NOT DECREASE
3) the M14A1 wasn't common - FALSE IT WAS ISSUED TO MANY INITIAL UNITS DURING THE EARLY PERIOD
4) the M14A1 would be uncontrollable - FALSE IT WOULDN'T BE LESS CONTROLLABLE THAN THE EXISTING SQUAD AUTOMATIC WEAPONS/MACHINE GUNS

AMG have said that they're not basing off any particular battles, as they dont want people running around like headless chickens saying that some semi-experimental guns should be added.

Let's not get crazy just because I've backed my position up. You keep making up new questions thinking there's no answer for them, but I've done my research and I have the answers.

The game is set during tet offense, thats all.

You keep saying that, but it's wierd af since a third of the maps are set more than a year before Tet.

By your logic, they must add XM177, some M1As , some other **** like M2 Carbine and single action revolver for pilots.

I never said anything about M1As and XM177s because M1As are civilian rifles that didn't even come out until the 1970s, and XM177s are Air Force carbines. BTW the M2 Carbine is just a FA version of the M1 Carbine and the devs told me they will probably release those officially.

 

[Jagdwyre]

Do you even shoot in real life?! Looks more controllable than the M60 or RPK

I'm curious if you shoot in real life, you can clearly notice the really aggressive muzzle climb on the weapon, even when using the bipod. The M60 has the advantage of low cyclic rate and being heavier, the RPK benefits from shooting a lighter cartridge.

Beyond that what "looks" controllable from a third person perspective comes down to how experienced the person pulling the trigger is. The M14 is absolutely not more controllable than an M60 or RPK in full auto, and is likely even worse then an FN FAL or G3 in full auto. Can you fire the M14 full auto without it flying everywhere or knocking you over? Of course you could, but that doesn't mean it's a good weapon in full auto(of course I'd argue most weapons are better in semi-auto in the real world anyway).

Mind you, I don't care if a full auto M14 makes into the game, but M14's are not very good on full auto in the real world. E2 or not.

 

[exhausted]

I shoot, and I've gotten somewhat competent with double taps on an M14 (M1A to be completely honest). I can keep them on target at a close range (25 yards) with little deviation.

I concede that muzzle rise of full auto is tough, but the RPK is no walk it the park. It suffers from difficult muzzle climb even with the smaller round. The pig is also very difficult to use unless you deply the bipod. Then there's the DP28. My point is that FA for a rifleman would be unnecessary and difficult in most circumstance, but using the M14A1 in FA in the automatic rifleman role (read machine gunner to those who aren't aware) is an exercise in judgement that usually means firing very small bursts.