Fewer SMGs please!
- Thread starter Bennanteno
- Start date
![[TW]DrGuppy](/data/avatars/s/0/171.jpg?1568638684){kind=avatar}
This post fails.
My uncle used a K98 through the entire war and never coward in a hole during a fire fight.
Upvote
0
Uh huh... sources please?
SLA Marshall's Classic Men Against Fire 1947
http://books.google.com/books?id=_9EqGQAACAAJ&dq=SLA+Marshall
As a result, modern armies and infantry training emphasize the importance of lots of automatic fire and de-emphasizes aimed individual weapon fire.
Modern armies don't rely on rifle-armed troops to do anything much.
Upvote
0
Really? I would bet that he did spend more time cowering than machine gun crews did.
Most rifle-armed troops tried to lie low. If you look at real fire fights, most of the troops on hand spend most of their time staying out of trouble, especially if they are armed with rifles.
Upvote
0
When you're fighting off Russian human wave attacks you don't sit in a hole and wait for someone to come bayonet you. The only time you would go back down is to reload.
Upvote
0
The source provided is:
1. From the American doctrine and POV (hence neither German nor Russian)
2. A post-war study for the preparation of future wars
We are not talking about modern, American armies. We are talking about WWII on the Eastern Front, where the bolt action rifle was the standard issue weapon.
1. From the American doctrine and POV (hence neither German nor Russian)
2. A post-war study for the preparation of future wars
We are not talking about modern, American armies. We are talking about WWII on the Eastern Front, where the bolt action rifle was the standard issue weapon.
Upvote
0
Too bad bolt-action rifles in RO are the ultimate lazerz guns and even in close combat you can still beat the crap out of almost every other weapon no matter what. Atleast if you have space to move.
Upvote
0
Yes, but all modern armies have given up on the general aimed fire doctrine that was assumed to work in WWII, but did not. With the advent of light machine guns, mortars, SMGs and assault rifles, armies gave up on expecting the average infantryman to do much with his rifle.
In RO, what we can assume is happening is that a few very brave and skilled riflemen are backing up the main firepower units and so it is realistic to have only a few riflemen.
Sure the rifle is a fine weapon, but players in RO are in a very different world than the thousands of riflemen in WWII who were nowhere near as interested as the average RO rifleman in exposing themselves. If WWII demonstrated anything very clearly, it demonstrated that the likelihood of a rifleman using his rifle according to the doctrine of rifle use was universally very low. It could happen (for example US Marines on Guadalcanal with 1903 Springfields were pretty lethal), but nowhere near as much as the doctrine of the time demanded.
Upvote
0
With all respect man, you saying that few riflmean is realistic you dont know crap what you are talking about, rifle was the main weapon of the average soldier in ww2 as it is today the only diference todays rifles are automatic assault rifles so to type crap i suggest you keep your hands off your keyboard.
Upvote
0
I realize that millions of rifles were issued to mass conscript armies between say 1890 and 1960 and if you look at the rifles in use in WWII, most of them are of pre WWI design. On the other hand the evidence suggests that most of the firepower in a serious firefight during WWII came from weapons other than rifles and not only that but every army took steps to get firepower other than rifles into as many firefights as possible. Starting in WWI, mortars, light machine guns, SMGs and finally assault rifles were brought in...obviously because they are more effective than rifles for one reason or another. In light of all that, if many players would rather use something other than a rifle...that suggests the game is realistically simulating the dynamic that causes people to use weapons other than rifles and moreover, if a relatively low number of rifle-armed players turns up on a given RO battlefield, that simulates the desire of higher commanders to get more firepower to the critical point as well as the likely lower motivation of conscripts armed with rifles.
Upvote
0
This is the eastern front. American doctrines do not apply.
A tpyical German platoon focused around the machine gunner with supporting rifleman. Only the NCO/Officer would have an SMG if he was lucky.
Upvote
0
We can come up with various justifications for why there are more SMGs, but the issue here isn't one of realism -- it's one of gameplay preference. The realism argument is an additional concern, but I honestly think that people who complain about SMGs are mostly complaining about the effect additional SMGs has on gameplay, not on whether the loadouts are historically accurate.
I'll bet even if you could prove that the specific unit engaged in the battle DID have the rough percentage of SMGs (or even had MORE SMGs), people would still say "Well, fine, but I don't want to play that map." Like I said, it's gameplay preference. Some people just like rifle combat better. Partially because they view it as more realistic (which I think it is), and partially because of the pace of it, I think. There's nothing wrong with that, but I think the realism argument often gets superimposed over the argument about gameplay preference. Possibly because gameplay preference is subjective, while realism is more objective and thus can be conclusively argued about.
Upvote
0
You're still chatting crap on this part as well, given most modern armies the basic weapon is still a rifle.
I'm not being stupid because think about it: the latest M4, the latest L85, the latest HK
All are automatic rifles which are default set to semi-automatic and can be fired burst or in some cases full-auto if required, reason being the average grunt doesn't carry that much ammo, they can't because of all the other crap they have to carry around all the time, space in ya pockets is at a higher premium than a flat in London!
And the soldiers are trained to engage at longer ranges and from cover, granted they're also trained in room clearance and urban combat, but if you're taking fire from a sniper down the street, firing off a few round in his direction wont do much, but firing off a quick, reasonably accurate salvo with a good chance of hitting or at least spanking a few bullets into the window frame he's looking out of will get him ducking so you and your squad can get to cover and figure out a plan.
Personally, i love my rifle in RO, i prefer using the semi-auto, or the MP44 if i can get hold of one, but if all them are taken then i'm not gonna ***** and moan, i'm gonna grab my trusty rifle, run from cover to cover, stay calm and place my shots as accurately and swiftly as i can. Many's the time a rambo sprayer has run at me and we've both been surprised to find me standing there with a bayonet in his gut while the PPSh drops from his suddenly numb fingers. All you really need is a little bit of confidence and faith in your own abilities and you can use any weapon you want effectively.
Upvote
0
Well...I bought RO because people said that the rifles were fun and they are, but I don't think you can use the argument that the fact that millions of rifles were issued means that most players ought to use rifles. As everyone seems to agree, the real question is whether SMGs ruin things in terms of interesting play and yet even there the rifle-advocates are of two minds: the rifle is better and more satisfying or rendered annoying by annoying SMGs. I agree that nothing beats a nice bayonet kill but I also think having plenty of SMGs around doesn't bother me nearly as much as waiting for things to download or start or the fact that my new microphone doesn't work. I also assume that if people are really interested in making sure there are relatively large numbers of rifles, they can make modified maps where that is the case. I'll play on them happily if they download fast and my microphone starts working again.
Upvote
0
I think the distinction on the "most armies don't use rifles" anymore is still accurate. Most armies DON'T use rifles -- they use assault rifles, which are different. A full rifle fires a different kind of round from an assault rifle and is often larger, with a longer barrel. It has a longer engagement range and, at least at the time of WWII, was usually semi-auto or bolt action. The only exceptions here were automatic rifles like the BAR, the FG-42, and, I think, the Johnson LMG (which was kind of on the border of an automatic rifle and an LMG -- I suppose it's debatable).
Assault rifles fire an intermediate round, usually with a smaller powder charge than a full rifle round. This reduces recoil and makes the weapon more controllable at shorter ranges where reacquisition of a target is more important than the ability to engage at longer range.
Even among assault rifles, though, there are different designs emphasizing different combat doctrines. The AK-47 and its successors are more about bringing massed firepower to bear, while sacrificing accuracy, whereas the AR-15/M-16 series of rifles are more about semi-auto or burst-fire controlled accuracy and lightweight design.
Anyway, it's a nitpicky point, but hey, that's what we do on the forums.
That said, most WWII troops WERE issued with a full rifle, either bolt action or semi-auto. There were SMGs about, but the main weapon of all of the armies was SOME kind of rifle. So, in that sense, appealing to realism by saying "We should have rifles because all the armies issued that mainly to people" is reasonably accurate if somewhat of an oversimplification.
Upvote
0
The norwegian army still issues the AG3 to most soldiers. Thats a automatic rifle firing 7.62 NATO ammo.
Its close to useless on full auto, (only 20 rounds in a mag and 700-900 rounds pr min of 7.62 makes a lot of recoil) but very effective on single shots.
British and US soldiers love it, maybe because its a rifle, not a hybrid between a rifle and a smg.
Upvote
0
It is a very nice weapon and your point still stands.
Ontopic: Everyone can have a smg for what I care as long as I can have a rifle with bayo. On the other hand, stg44 has to be limited cause of its long range capabilities.
Ontopic: Everyone can have a smg for what I care as long as I can have a rifle with bayo. On the other hand, stg44 has to be limited cause of its long range capabilities.
Last edited:
Upvote
0