thats not the gun pictured in any sense of the term. it's a zf4 setup shown..not a zf43
Upvote
0
K98 Upgrades
- Thread starter The_GAP_Trixie
- Start date
thats not the gun pictured in any sense of the term. it's a zf4 setup shown..not a zf43
Some of you guys really have no clue on historical facts when it comes to firearms and you really shouldnt be trying to arugue if you havent spent the time researching.
Reguarding the G.41(W) in RO2:
The G.41 in RO2 is marked "G41 duv 43" with the serial number on the left hand of the reciever. Big deal right?
Nothing like fighting at the grain silo with a rifle that was made in the future
Least they couldve done was changed "43" to "42" which is still wrong.
The maker "duv" aka Berliner-Lubecker did not start making G41(W) rifles untill the start of 1943. There are no known examples of a duv made G41 marked "42". So what that means is that NO G.41 rifles made by duv aka Berliner-Lubecker wouldve been at stalingrad. Any G.41 rifle at stalingrad wouldve been made by Walther.
So for the G41 to be historically correct for RO2 it needs to be Walther made and walther marked "G.41 (W) ac" and the stock needs to be WALNUT, not laminated! The durofoil handguard is fine.
Reguarding the 4x scope on the G.41(W):
The only scope that wouldve been fitted to the G.41(W) that is in RO2 was the 1.5x power Zf40 scope because of the rail on the reciever and location of the right hand sided cocking handle on the bolt carrier.
They never used 4x power ZF4 scopes on the G41(W) and theres only maybe two pictures of a G41 with the ZF4 scope and mount taken from the Aberdeen Proving Ground and the pictures hve been determined the rifle was a fake. Any other pictures of a G.41 with a 4x ZF4 scope and mount are pictures of a faked "make believe" rifle.
Its going to be interesting to see how TW "added" a 4x power ZF4 scope to the G.41(W). If they did, I hope theyre not using the ZF4 mount, because that scope and mount wasnt even developed when stalingrad was happening, and the cocking handle better be relocated to the left hand side or else its going to smash into the ZF4 mount located on the right side.
Reguarding the G.41(W) in RO2:
The G.41 in RO2 is marked "G41 duv 43" with the serial number on the left hand of the reciever. Big deal right?
Nothing like fighting at the grain silo with a rifle that was made in the future
Least they couldve done was changed "43" to "42" which is still wrong. The maker "duv" aka Berliner-Lubecker did not start making G41(W) rifles untill the start of 1943. There are no known examples of a duv made G41 marked "42". So what that means is that NO G.41 rifles made by duv aka Berliner-Lubecker wouldve been at stalingrad. Any G.41 rifle at stalingrad wouldve been made by Walther.
So for the G41 to be historically correct for RO2 it needs to be Walther made and walther marked "G.41 (W) ac" and the stock needs to be WALNUT, not laminated! The durofoil handguard is fine.
Reguarding the 4x scope on the G.41(W):
The only scope that wouldve been fitted to the G.41(W) that is in RO2 was the 1.5x power Zf40 scope because of the rail on the reciever and location of the right hand sided cocking handle on the bolt carrier.
They never used 4x power ZF4 scopes on the G41(W) and theres only maybe two pictures of a G41 with the ZF4 scope and mount taken from the Aberdeen Proving Ground and the pictures hve been determined the rifle was a fake. Any other pictures of a G.41 with a 4x ZF4 scope and mount are pictures of a faked "make believe" rifle.
Its going to be interesting to see how TW "added" a 4x power ZF4 scope to the G.41(W). If they did, I hope theyre not using the ZF4 mount, because that scope and mount wasnt even developed when stalingrad was happening, and the cocking handle better be relocated to the left hand side or else its going to smash into the ZF4 mount located on the right side.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
![[TORO]Patosentado](/data/avatars/s/35/35970.jpg?1568638684){kind=avatar}
In old RO the bayonet affecte long range accuracy, so it was useful to put or take it out in your convenience... I hate carrying it deployed all the time...
Upvote
0
They seriously made sight hood removal an upgrade? If anything it is the otherway around. Sight hoods protect the front sight blade and also make for a better and easier to aquire sight picture. These unlocks just keep getting more and more retarded.
Upvote
0
Might be true for european enviroment but in the cold snowy enviroment ov stalingrad the german hood tended to pick up dirt and snow so they cut it of do keep their sight clear
Upvote
0
And apparently two G41(w) with ZF-4 Scopes fitted exist in the real world, but the game will enable us to unlock it.
Considering the Germans made like two of them, the fact that they are in the game is ludicrous - it's way more likely that silenced M1895 and scoped MkB42(h) were in Stalingrad than the Gewehr 41 (w) with ZF-4 was to even be used in the war.
Edit: here is some pics of the G41 with improved scope mount + sight (I can't tell the scope model..)
If you can't see the picture of it with a scope, here is a direct link.
http://img717.imageshack.us/img717/8109/g41scope.jpg
What we're looking at here is either a late war modification, or a post war one, to mount the ZF4 scope. The scope, obviously a ZF4, wasn't in use during the battle of Stalingrad, as this type of scope first entered production in October 1943.
In short, this particular weapons system was never officially fielded by the German military, esp. during the time of the battle of Stalingrad. And apart from a few extremely rare examples modified to mount a late war scope, there existed no factory made G41 rifles mounting 4 power scopes.
Next subject is obviously the SVT40's mounting a 6 power scope. These 6 power scopes, which apart from some 10 odd trial pieces that never left the testing range, were never fielded for use with the SVT40 during the war and as such they never saw any combat.
Upvote
0
They didn't cut them off, they are removable and slide/clip into place. And I don't see how the Germans would have been having anymore of a hard time with their sight hood than the Russians would have had with their Mosins which have a fixed sight hood. Do you have any sources to prove this claim? If they were dragging their weapons around enough to need to remove the front sight hood, I would think they would have had some bore blockage as well.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Sight hoods were made for only one purpose, to protect the front site via a stamped sheet metal hood.
They werent easier to aquire the sight picture with, infact they are actually harder. The hood itself would sometimes block out their line of sight. This is why alot of them were taken off by the soldiers in the field, they also took them off because in winter conditions the snow would fill up the hood entirely. Not a good thing if you quickly have to shoulder your rifle and defend your life.
The germans had plastic muzzle caps to keep dirt and snow out of their bores. They also used the earlier front sight and muzzle protector used on 1940 and earlier dated K98s but those had to manually removed, unlike the plastic caps that could be shot off in emergency situations.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Read it cant remeber where but at least from the looks its seems like theres much less space in the k98 hood as there is in the nagant hood so might be because of that
Upvote
0
It made no difference to accuracy what so ever or sway if you had the bayo on or off and im sure it was the same in the mod.
Upvote
0
Actually they are easier to aquire a sight picture with, as they make it easier to line the sights up properly. I don't speak from online information or guesses, I speak from personal experience with firearms. I think the front sight hood being packed with snow is right up there with the m1 garand ping getting people killed left and right. If that were the case, I seriously doubt that the Russians themselves would have a sight hood on just about every weapon they made. Edit: Also, I seriously doubt that they all had muzzle caps in place while they were in the middle of combat. If they were not in combat at the time, they would have known to keep the sights as clean as possible, If they were in combat the barrel and sight block would be too hot for snow to be snow on.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
That the sight hood can be taken off is a nice unlock (if it's choosable ofcourse), simply because a great many of the K98's out there either had none or had theirs taken off because of a soldiers personal preference.
Upvote
0
Well I just played after the patch and tried out the G.41(W) scoped and im happy to say it has the correct 1.5x power zf40 scope with the correct straddle mount. TW got the magnification and field of view completely right with it. Good job on that part TW.
However the unlock for it, the 4x ZF scope still isnt historically correct.
However the unlock for it, the 4x ZF scope still isnt historically correct.
Upvote
0
I dont know what point youre trying to prove. But the fact is many germans took them off because either A) it obscured their field of view (holds espcially true for the pre 1941 veterans that were used to shooting a k98 without one) and B) in winter enviroments they would pack with snow. These are facts, I have seen plenty of pictures of germans with 1941-45 issued rifles without their sight hoods for one of those two reasons. Ive even read this in many books also. There are no other reasons why you would take it off. If you have any, id like to hear them.
It seems like youre trying to proove why they left them on instead of accepting the fact that those two reasons i just stated are the reasons why they took them off. The only perk of a sight hood was it actually protected the front sight. period. there are 2 advantages to taking it off. only one for leaving it on.
If you havent noticed in your "real life firearm experience", the mosins front sight post is flimsy and "stick" like, it can easily be bent, snagged or broken off IF the acutal hood part was removable, because it isnt. the whole front sight hood and post is one peice, dovetailed into the front sight base. they couldnt take the hood off even if they tired to. if they did, they would have no front site. have you tried to shoot a mosin with no front site? LOL. This could be the only reason why the Russians and Finns left them on. Personally who gives a crap why, were talking about why the germans took THEIRS off. The front site post on a K98 is solid and can actually survive occasional bumps.
muzzle caps...dont know where you got the idea that germans would walk into combat with one on, i never stated they would. i simply stated they used the two types to keep their bores clean when not in combat situations. but incase a emergency situation arrose...they can shoot it off.
sorry but you have no valid point or reasoning to your edited posts.
My sources? real world experience and research with WW2 firearms espcialy German
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Could you list some sources? I'm sincere and not trying to be sarcastic. I had honestly never heard of that and now I'm interested.
Upvote
0
What havent you heard of? what would you like to know? Id happily share any sources and information I have.
Upvote
0
What havent you heard of? what would you like to know? Id happily share any sources and information I have.
Thanks! I was hoping to get some information on the Germans taking off their sight hoods. I guess I really didn't consider the impracticality of the sight hood, and I haven't come across that in my readings yet.
Upvote
0
I was not trying to prove anything, You seem to think that I'm fighting against it as if it never happened at all. I know that some soldiers prefered not to have them, and if TWI made removal optional than it is fine with me. But I don't think snow had anything to do with it. And yeah I know the hood is part of the front sight on the mosin but did you stop to think that if the hooded sights were that much of a problem, that the Russians (knowing their own climate) would have saved the small bit of resources and just produced an unhooded front sight for their military weapons? The snow thing does not jive with me, preference maybe but snow, I doubt it. Any soldier worth his salt could keep a sight clear of snow between battles and like I said before, in combat the gun would get too hot too quick to matter.
Upvote
0