• Please make sure you are familiar with the forum rules. You can find them here: https://forums.tripwireinteractive.com/index.php?threads/forum-rules.2334636/

Best and worst of suggestion - Look here before posting

I beg to differ

(with what I have highlighte in blue) thats why each weapon system is 'sighted in' and 'matched' to a particular load. As an easy to research example, take a look at the history of the 30-06 round with respect to the M1 Garand vs the BAR. In trying to make the rounds a little 'hotter' to take advantage of the BAR, the army tried playing with the powder loads and bullet calibers. While the 'hotter' load (and higher BC) for the BAR was accurate enough for its intended use, the Garand's shot placement was all over the place. For logistics, the Army needed one load for both weapons, so they reverted back to the original Garand load. In other words, you don't just pick up a rifle, cram some ammo into it and run off into battle.

Wo wo wo, hold on a minute, I never said that a weapon didn't need to be sighted in for the particular round it was to fire. Ofcourse it does, that's a no-brainer as differents rounds naturally feature different trajectories and are affected by wind differently.

Secondly the 30.06 was downloaded for the Garand because of excessive recoil, not because its accuracy diminished, to state otherwise is completely false. Try shooting 168 or 180 gr FMJBTs with the Garand, it is very accurate with these loadings!

(with what you state as I've highlighted in orange). Now you're talking precision over accuracy (which I think everyone has bass ackwards anyway ;)). In any event, that statement is just wrong.

Well actually you're right there, I'll give you that, seeing as you can infact make a barrel with a twist rate more suited for a certain length bullet fired at a certain velocity envelopes (700-850 m/s, for example).

Fortunately for standard WW2 infantry rifles their riflings were suitable for both flat based spitzers and long boat tailed projectiles, the 1 turn in 9.5" to 10" (very rarely 11") providing the necessary stability to projectiles of such dimensions and muzzle velocities. You only need to use Dr. Miller's stability formula to see this :)

In your OP, what I think you're asking for is comparable trajectories for the individual weapons based upon their real life counterparts. Certainly, if the trajectory calculation makes any statistical difference (re: bullet drop and 'circular error probability', 'cone of fire', 'dispersion' or whatever you want to call it) , I'm sure it will be in. Why wouldn't it be? This is after all TW we're talking about isn't it?;)

Well I hope this is the case, I'm just wondering why Schneidzekk hasn't posted the figures yet, or at the very least just answered to the request. So far he's only ignored it :(

Indeed, this was present even in RO:Ost, BUT, what I am asking for in HOS is that the devs consider the fact that Germans issued ammunition better suited for long range shooting, and therefore to compensate for this lower the dispersion of the ingame K98k to lower than that of the ingame Mosin (0.50 MOA vs 0.75 MOA ??). IMO's that's how you best simulate the difference in the quality of the ammunition that in particular both side's snipers were using.

Besides, as irl, once we learn the weopons and loads, we get to 'dial in' our sights (like any proficient rifleman would do).........;)

Very true, but differences in the quality of the rounds you fire will also make itself shown on the target range.

Simply stated, a well made rifle firing high quality examples of the ammunition it was designed specifically to fire, will be more accurate than a well made rifle firing only low quality mass produced examples of the ammunition it was designed to fire.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
I think we're beginning to see eye to eye. ;) In response to your last sentence....absolutely! But that is circular error probablity (cone of fire, dispersion, etc.) due to normal manufacturing tolerances and/or quality control. Not necessarily a rounds BC.

My only quibble now would be with the following because my statement is not completely false.
Secondly the 30.06 was downloaded for the Garand because of excessive recoil, not because its accuracy diminished, to state otherwise is completely false. Try shooting 168 or 180 gr FMJBTs with the Garand, it is very accurate with these loadings!
Starting with the last sentence first....
With regard to the higher bullet wgts, I have to assume that you know there is more to accuracy than just bullet wgt for a given caliber; and that powder burn rates, powder wgt, powder volume and bullet characteristics(BC, profile, etc.) all factor into a particular "load's" accuracy within a particular weapon. And also that there are a myriad of powders and burn rates that can be used today (far more than 45 years ago). Just as (and contrary to what I deduce your example to indicate) higher calibers do not necessarily mean higher recoil, higher pressure does not necessarily mean more recoil either. I've seen guys shoot modern handloads with a 220gr bullet through the M1 comfortably, safely and accurately. Why would they do that? Who knows? Because they can, I guess...lol.


Several of us went through a big debate some 8-9 years ago when we were tweaking the weapons characteristics on our MoH:AA server. One of the coders was just adamant that the BAR was more powerful and shot a 'hotter' round and/or a larger caliber bullet and did more 'damage'. We all researched the military use of the .30-06. Sadly, I've looked and don't have the info at hand to give you for a citation, nor can I find it quickly on the internet (geesh, there's about 1000x more 'hits' in a search today on the subject than back then), but I'm pretty sure the excessive recoil you are referring to was from the M1 bullet deveoloped between the two world wars. And iirc, it was a 172gr boat-tailed bullet and powder combo that worked great in machine guns. However, the military didn't think the common GI's shoulder would fare too well from using this round. They fell back to the old standby 1906 bullet. The 1906 load became the infamous M2 ball ammo. I guess perhaps I errantly called that the 'original' load. My reference was to ammunition testing done in the meantime (or maybe during the war, I don't recall off hand) at the Frankford Arsenal. There were pressure issues with some of the existing slower burning powder/bullet combinations that could bend the operating rod. And there were also some other lower pressure loads that simply just did not perform well with the weapon. None of these ever made it to production. (Btw, if you find any experimental loads in original boxes from FA, some of them are quite the collector's items).

I think we're close enough in terminology and thought to end this derailment of Capt. Cool's thread......:cool: Sorry, Capt. Cool. I'll hush now.;)
 
Upvote 0
Floyd,

I believe we see eye to eye as-well now that you've elaborated what you meant in regards to the M1 Garand, because it is definitely very accurate with heavy high BC bullets, and the loss of accuracy in experienced during those tests had nothing to do with the bullet choices but everything to do with power of the propellant charges.

Fact is that semi automatic rifles are more sensitive accuracy wise to changes in the power of the propellant charges than are bolt action rifles. As you explained yourself the hotter loads experimented with by the US army led to bent operating rods in the M1. The bent operating rods in turn suggests violent vibrations must have occured due to the chamber & escape pressures having been too high. This naturally would have resulted in a marked decrease in accuracy: Forces big enough to bend operating rods are more than strong enough to cause unusual amounts of barrel vibrations, resulting in a great loss of accuracy. In short the decrease in accuracy experienced by the M1 during testing had nothing to do with the bullet type used, but instead it again had everything to do with the power of the propellant charges.

Infact initially the M1 had been issued with the heavy, high BC, M1 Ball ammunition, with which it was very accurate. The recoil with this ammunition was however determined as being too fierce for the average G.I., and a 150 gr flat based spitzer, the M2 Ball, was introduced instead.
 
Upvote 0
I've just figured out how to make a ton of money... we issue everyone with standard wartime ammo, made by slave labor in Siberia or Poland. If you want higher quality ammo, you can buy it - we'll do it for $1 per 100 rounds. Brilliant :)

/me runs off to see a coder and work out how to get this stroke of genius implemented...
 
  • Like
Reactions: Olivier
Upvote 0
I've just figured out how to make a ton of money... we issue everyone with standard wartime ammo, made by slave labor in Siberia or Poland. If you want higher quality ammo, you can buy it - we'll do it for $1 per 100 rounds. Brilliant :)

/me runs off to see a coder and work out how to get this stroke of genius implemented...
If you want to make billions make every grenade cost 5 dollars.
 
Upvote 0
Last edited:
Upvote 0
Too lazy

Too lazy

Too lazy to read all, but Stuka attack would be great basic movement and controls tutorial for a soviet campaign. Panic and despair, then you had to follow the extremeshootersergeantpersonofthemax (some immortal NPC) from cover to cover. And also would be kinda powerful way to start the war.

Meaning: Player sits in a truck or train that is headed for the front, and then some panicy chatter and gossip about incoming airformation starts, and soon the stuka sound joins in. NPCs and player run for the forest while the brave and/or destperate try shooting their rifles and throwing pinecones at them.

Or then a IL2 raid when playing as german.
 
Upvote 0
I've just figured out how to make a ton of money... we issue everyone with standard wartime ammo, made by slave labor in Siberia or Poland. If you want higher quality ammo, you can buy it - we'll do it for $1 per 100 rounds. Brilliant :)

/me runs off to see a coder and work out how to get this stroke of genius implemented...

Infinite money
faceg.gif
 
Upvote 0