• 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/

British Weapons Pack

Jump to latest Follow Reply
Sort by date Sort by votes
Spartan1388

Spartan1388

Grizzled Veteran
Jul 17, 2013
466
0
#1
Alright, this is about adding more weapons, not about realism and such things, so i will not mention anything about weight and stats and everything else and i will let it 100% up to TWI.

After the pack presentation, there are other micro-suggestions that can be added, for a DLC to be reasonable.


British Weapons Pack Update/or/DLC
This can be either a free Update or a DLC, so we have four basic weapons.

1. Lee Enfield SMLE
1288250978.jpg

Picture from world.guns.ru
Description: A classic, cute, WWII British rifle. It offers fast firing, allowing you to go "Mad-Minute" but she does not have a scope and reloading takes time.

Perk: Sharpshooter
Ammo Capacity: 10 rounds.
Reload: Long reload with two (ACTUAL) clips of 5 rounds each.
Pricing/Effectiveness: Between Lever Action Rifle and M14.


2. Sterling-Patchett L2A1
sterling02.jpg

Picture from world.guns.ru
Description: Another classic British weapon. It has also be used in numerous Sci-Fi movies and series because of its futuristic look. In game, the model should have the stock folded, and you should hold it form under the barrel shroud. In game, it should also have a Holosight, because it looks cooler that way. Just think of Star Wars... :cool:

Perk: Commando
Ammo Capacity: 34 round magazine
Reload: As long as the MP5M
Pricing/Effectiveness: Under the DLC Thompsons.


3. WELROD MKI Silenced Pistol
1287717873.jpg

Picture from world.guns.ru
Description:O.K, i know it is a pistol and if it is added as as Sharpshooter weapon it will suck and that the Sharpshooter will get two weapons in one update. I am not going to suggest this, really.
It is a cool weapons, and British and it is cool, and it should be added.
In game, this will be a Firebug weapon and it will function as a Grenade Launcher, like the M79 or micro-grenade launcher, like a pistol or UZI, firing 20mm incendiary micro-grenades

Perk: Firebug
Ammo Capacity: One 40mm Greanade /or/ 6 20mm micro-grenades
Reload: Like the M79 /or/ like the HandCannon
Pricing: As much as the M79 /or/ Less than the M32.


4. Cricket Bat
images

Description: Do i have to describe it? We want it! It is time to get it!

Perk: Berserker
Ammo Capacity: N/A
Reload: N/A
Pricing/Effectiveness: Between the Machete and the Axe.


Other Stuff
It would be nice if the Bullpup (L22) was replaced by a L85A2 with SUSAT scope, which is the weapon that can be found more commonly in the U.K.

England has a long Hunting tradition, so i would like an Elephant Gun and/or a Muzzleloader single-shot very-large caliber Musket.

The Webley pistol is a also an unique, beautiful and classic British gun and should be added at some point.

What about the MP5A3 with the Navy stock that most Police Offiers carry around? It should be nice for Commandos...

Sten SMG is also cool, but the Sterling is way cooler. The Sterling was used in Star Wars as an Imperial weapon and it looks totally cool, so i am biased and i suggested on its favor, but the Sten can appear in KF, fitted with a medical dart attachment as a Medic weapon.

The LAW rocket launcher should be replaced too. The in-game thing is as bulky as a FGM-148 Javelin. LAW 80 is also single-shot. I suggest the Russian RPG-7.

What about the Moss-12 and Hunting Rifle?

Many people also like a bow to be added (!!!) why not a Longbow? :rolleyes:


Not that all the weapons from the pack can be made into a separate Golden Weapons Pack DLC.
Yes, even the cricket bat, and it will look cool made out of ebony with embossed designs and a golden handle...
 
#2
I always did love that double clip thing goin on with the Enfield.
Although as the LAW goes, since LAW is a very broad term this is just assumed to be a fictitous LAW.
Light Anti-zombie Weapon :cool:
As for shotguns, the only shotgun that I feel hasn't been done yet would be something like
the original Winchester 1200 with the sexy wooden furniture and the 4 round magazine
loaded with foster slugs.
Mmmmmmm now that I typed that out I really want it.
But probably isn't necessary.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
#5
I like some of these, especially the SMLE--but I play Sharp as my primary, so I'm biased here. :p

I do have to say on the unlikely chance that a bow was added, then it should probably be a recurve rather than a longbow. It's a long reload, very high power weapon (the Native American recurves maxxed out at an 80-lb draw iirc, which is enough to take down a bear in one shot)--and it requires a great deal of skill to use effectively.
 
Upvote 0
#13
PotentiaLeaena said:
I like some of these, especially the SMLE--but I play Sharp as my primary, so I'm biased here. :p

I do have to say on the unlikely chance that a bow was added, then it should probably be a recurve rather than a longbow. It's a long reload, very high power weapon (the Native American recurves maxxed out at an 80-lb draw iirc, which is enough to take down a bear in one shot)--and it requires a great deal of skill to use effectively.
Click to expand...

pfft. English long bow had a draw power of 105 lbs, (although some were up to 185 lb depending on person. They trained from youths mind, your average person couldn't draw one of those. Very few people now can accurately draw and release 150+)
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
#14
Gartley said:
pfft. English long bow had a draw power of 105 lbs, (although some were up to 185 lb depending on person. They trained from youths mind, your average person couldn't draw one of those. Very few people now can accurately draw and release 150+)
Click to expand...
^ heard stories about the English and Welsh archers shooting 400+ metres and still hitting their targets. Not sure how true it is, but it's pretty amazing stuff.
 
Upvote 0
#15
Longbowmen where some of the best, if not the best bowmen of Medieval times, no?

Yes, Byzantines and Turks where also great archers, but they where able to shoot "somewhere over there", and usually hundreds of archers would launch a "rain" of arrows at an area.

Although Composite bows where easy to handle and learn to use, even by villagers, and had a range of 100-200 meters even on not so skilled hands, while trained men could reach 300 meters.
Most of the Composite bowmen where trained to shoot as a "bulk" based on the instructions of officers. A process of trial and error basically.

On the other hand, Mongols and Byzantines units like the Kataphraktoi as well as the Turkish Janissaries who where trained from childhood (5-7 years of age or as soon you could walk) to use the composite bow, where very efficient with it, but i deem that the Longbow was superior in terms of range, power, penetrating force and accuracy.

Note that i have every reason to be biased because i am Greek, but i am not.

Only problem about the Longbow is that each archer was a precious asset of an Army and if he was killed, replacements where not plentiful.
Byzantines and Turks on the other hand could "enlist" civilian villagers and train them in a matter of days.
 
Upvote 0
#17
Well, in England, Football was banned for a while because it interfered with archery training. ;) And we still have 'companies' of archers in the UK. :D

I think it was expected that every child learnt so that when there was a call to war everyone could be used. Not sure we were fans of throwing untested units into close combat. It was also said they could fire 30 shots a minute, that's nock, draw, release an aimed shot in 2 secs.

So yeah, I vote English longbow for obvious reasons XD
 
Upvote 0
#18
Spartan1388 said:
Longbowmen where some of the best, if not the best bowmen of Medieval times, no?

Yes, Byzantines and Turks where also great archers, but they where able to shoot "somewhere over there", and usually hundreds of archers would launch a "rain" of arrows at an area.

Although Composite bows where easy to handle and learn to use, even by villagers, and had a range of 100-200 meters even on not so skilled hands, while trained men could reach 300 meters.
Most of the Composite bowmen where trained to shoot as a "bulk" based on the instructions of officers. A process of trial and error basically.

On the other hand, Mongols and Byzantines units like the Kataphraktoi as well as the Turkish Janissaries who where trained from childhood (5-7 years of age or as soon you could walk) to use the composite bow, where very efficient with it, but i deem that the Longbow was superior in terms of range, power, penetrating force and accuracy.

Note that i have every reason to be biased because i am Greek, but i am not.

Only problem about the Longbow is that each archer was a precious asset of an Army and if he was killed, replacements where not plentiful.
Byzantines and Turks on the other hand could "enlist" civilian villagers and train them in a matter of days.
Click to expand...

Well, let's think about this.

First, let's look at how a bow works. A bow is a simple mechanical device. As you draw a bow, the energy of the bowman is transferred to the string. Once you release the string, that force is then transferred into the arrow--the arrow flies through the air, and (hopefully) transfers it's initial energy (minus any energy lost in flight) to it's target.

That means the power of a bow is relative to how much energy can be transferred to the string (and thus to the arrow, and it's intended target). There's not really such a thing as a 'more powerful bow' then, is there?

The amount of force that can be transferred to the arrow is directly proportionate to the strength of the bowman. A bow may have a 160-lb draw, yet if the bowman can only hold 60-lbs, the arrow isn't going to go any further or strike any harder than a bow with a 60-lb draw.

Now, the main difference between a Compound and a Longbow is how big the bow needs to be to generate the same amount of power. This is why the Mongolian bow is such an important weapon historically (not to say the Longbow isn't), as the design of the bow allowed the power of a larger bow in a bow of a much smaller size, which was ideal for fighting on horseback!

So, knowing that the power of a bow is a result of the strength of the bowman, and the main difference between a compound and longbow is one of size, there's one more factor that needs be taken into consideration, and that's energy efficiency.

Strictly speaking, Compound bows are smaller and more energy efficient than a classical Longbow.
Gartley said:
Well, in England, Football was banned for a while because it interfered with archery training. ;) And we still have 'companies' of archers in the UK. :D

I think it was expected that every child learnt so that when there was a call to war everyone could be used. Not sure we were fans of throwing untested units into close combat. It was also said they could fire 30 shots a minute, that's nock, draw, release an aimed shot in 2 secs.

So yeah, I vote English longbow for obvious reasons XD
Click to expand...

The more I think about it, the more I have to agree with this because of the setting. I really do prefer a good recurve over a longbow though--(I've hunted with both and always preferred the recurved)--but there's a certain amount of bias there. :p

Gartley said:
pfft. English long bow had a draw power of 105 lbs, (although some were up to 185 lb depending on person. They trained from youths mind, your average person couldn't draw one of those. Very few people now can accurately draw and release 150+)
Click to expand...

You're right, and that's probably what I get for posting something before reading it. :p

I was only using the 80-lb draw as an example though--historically recurves (like the Mongolian bow) easily matched or exceeded the draw of an English Longbow.

The Mongolian bow is actually a fascinating example, as the ears stopped the string short, allowing even more of the string's energy to be transferred to the arrow--it was a huge technological innovation at the time.

(I usually draw 80-100lbs on my recurve, and that's only after years of practice--with over a decade of martial arts training certainly not hurting--so I definitely have a ton of respect for English archers)

</derail>
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
#19
Yes, obviously the bow is as strong as the archer, but, as far as i know, the Longbowman had to be trained for years before he could use one, and also be of good "stock", which means having good genes that give him stamina and strength.

A simple villager would have problems using a Longbow, or at least use it efficiently for the reasons you stated.


A Compound bow from what i know, was what you describe, and that made it ideal for enlisted villager, militiamen and other common folks to use, because it didn't required "superhuman" strength and years of training, also hundreds of men would fire missiles from formation. The baulk of men would compensate for the weaker archers, shorter range and less power compared to the Longbow.


Professional soldiers like the Kataphraktoi preferred the Compound bow because of the reason you stated, which is firing from horseback, and also because it was less tiring to use than other bows.
Kataphraktoi where archers, lancers and heavy cavalry armed with swords and maces, as well as proficient foot soldiers if needed (at least in theory), so they had many roles to fill and they needed to save strength.
I believe that they would be able to handle the Longbow, but this would have tired them quickly.


Now, 160 Lbs are about 75 Kgs.
It is indeed a big number, but if someone of good genes was trained from 5-7 years of age, i believe he could draw the full 160 Lbs at the age of 20. This translates to 15-13 Years of constant training and practice.
Spartans where training from age 7 to 30. 23 whole years before they become Soldiers.
So, i believe it is reasonable to assume that these men where as strong as pro-athletes/strongmen/bodybuilders.
 
Upvote 0
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back
Jump to latest Follow Reply
Jump to latest Follow Reply
Community News
Forums
Merch
Menu