StG44 in 1942?
- Thread starter Redit
- Start date
- Status
That Hans guy posted on another forum trying to refute the decision already made here. I think it is best, if we just stop beating ourselves up. It's in the game. Move on please.
Upvote
0
Interesting read. Could you cite your source for this information?
I did?
I assume you took survey and then tabulated your findings into a graph that led you to believe that "most" want this?
From reading your statement, since supposedly the Mkb 42 didn't exist in Cholm or Stalingrad, you still want it added to RO2? Please tell me how that makes sense? Because if we use your logic I want laser guns and dual wielding swords because it was plausible.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
I suppose he wants it for the same reason I and most here do, because it will add a bit of variety to a WW2 games that has chosen to exclude the most common WW2 icons, like heavy tanks as well as the whole western front (which for realism fans is not a bad thing at all, since we will get to see a much better portrayal of Stalingrad, not just some bombed buildings with lots of snow). And as I said before, its not hardcore realism...
Upvote
0
Two sources:
The number of shipped prototypes by Haenel up to June are stated as 50 everywhere, in every book and pretty much every source you will find (as long as it states the date of the prototypes and number of them. A articles about the Mkb.42 don't feature this)
The second source is the 1953 book (which is cited as the source for this "Cholm test") called "Das Sturmgewehr in Wehrkunde" which a friend of mine has. The book states no sources and has been criticised for it's inaccuracies. I'll try to get a scan of it, but that's probably gonna take a few days/weeks as he lives in Vienna now
So we are, as so often, left with simple reasoning:
By June 1942, 50 prototypes have been finished in total, which were then sendt off to the Heer for evaluation. If they would have dropped them in late April that would mean a difference of 2 months.
So tell me... why would the Heer send not yet existing prototypes that haven't even been looked upon at that time?
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Why are you asking me? Ask the people that ***** and moan that there aren't any realistic FPS games on the market and make fun of the COD/Mw2 crowd because their game is to "arcadey." Then they contradict themselves in supporting a weapon that never existed in 1942 in enough quantity to have been flown all the way to Stalingrad and dropped to the encircled Sixth Army. In one of the biggest public relations and military victories, the Russians couldn't even find one single wunderwaffe - Mkb 42 - which to document in a plethora of books they wrote on the battle. Out of all the biographies written on Von Pualus, and there is not one footnote or citation on the Mkb 42 ever being used.
I mean go ahead and add the weapon that didn't exist. But don't call Red Orchestra "realistic" or "authentic." Call it Red Orchestra: What if or Red Orchestra: COD10.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
There is 1 weapon in the game that *did exist* that no one can *guarantee* was in the field of conflict but it *did exist* at the time. So TWI have put it in the game.
That makes it COD now? And that it makes all the other excellent things TWI have implemented in the game worthless?
Ok sure. Seriously. Get over it.
That makes it COD now? And that it makes all the other excellent things TWI have implemented in the game worthless?
Ok sure. Seriously. Get over it.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
No actually, I didn't conduct a survey or poll. That was just the gist I got from reading most people's post on this horse beating thread.
The point is, it's in the game whether you like it or not. So this is merely an academic exercise and belongs in the history forum.
Truth be told, since I tend to play Soviet (big surprise if you look at my sig), I don't really want this gun in the game, as I would get killed by it a lot.
Upvote
0
Here's your history thread: http://forums.tripwireinteractive.com/showthread.php?p=623114#post623114
Upvote
0
I'd like to hear why the inclusion of MKB42 would make the game a CoD clone?
Upvote
0
RO2 uses the wrong MkB42(H) pouches for the time frame.
The first delivered magazine pouches had a single-flap for all 3 magazines.
The RO2 pouches have a separate flap for each magazine(introduced late 1943):
Early single-flap MKb42(H) pouch:
Improved single-flap MKb42(H) pouch -- Replica:
http://www.atthefront.com/german/fieldgear/images/MP44_pouches/g_gear_mkb_main.jpg[url]http://www.atthefront.com/german/fieldgear/images/MP44_pouches/g_gear_mkb_main.jpg[/URL]
http://www.atthefront.com/german/fieldgear/MP44_pouches.html[url]http://www.atthefront.com/german/fieldgear/MP44_pouches.html[/URL]
Improved single-flap MKb42(H) pouch -- Original:
-http://www.wehrmacht-awards.com/forums/showthread.php?t=459469
-http://www.wehrmacht-awards.com/forums/showthread.php?t=421710
The first delivered magazine pouches had a single-flap for all 3 magazines.
The RO2 pouches have a separate flap for each magazine(introduced late 1943):
Early single-flap MKb42(H) pouch:
Improved single-flap MKb42(H) pouch -- Replica:
http://www.atthefront.com/german/fieldgear/images/MP44_pouches/g_gear_mkb_main.jpg[url]http://www.atthefront.com/german/fieldgear/images/MP44_pouches/g_gear_mkb_main.jpg[/URL]
http://www.atthefront.com/german/fieldgear/MP44_pouches.html[url]http://www.atthefront.com/german/fieldgear/MP44_pouches.html[/URL]
Improved single-flap MKb42(H) pouch -- Original:
-http://www.wehrmacht-awards.com/forums/showthread.php?t=459469
-http://www.wehrmacht-awards.com/forums/showthread.php?t=421710
Upvote
0
History thread made...this thread
SRSLY. People. We're all armchair historians here. Take a moment to humble yourselves and ask if you want to go ahead and flop your dicks back on the table in this stale discussion. Good job making it a flame war as well.
If you ARE a historian feel free to post your degree
SRSLY. People. We're all armchair historians here. Take a moment to humble yourselves and ask if you want to go ahead and flop your dicks back on the table in this stale discussion. Good job making it a flame war as well.
If you ARE a historian feel free to post your degree
Upvote
0
I have beter option than being butthurt about the subject (and the lack of AVT40 complaint, which would spark even more interesting discussion):
Wait CoD10 : Call of Red Orchestra to be released, wait until some super authentic awshum mod to please all realism and authencity needs, buy the game from sale, download the mod, play it for eternity with cult following and say "We told you so, CoD nublets" when those who bought the game in the first place are wondering about it. Mods 1 - CoD10 0
Upvote
0
http://www.dramabutton.com/
@ Everyone moaning about people discussing this topic. If you don't like it, stay away and ignore this thread. The Dev's gave their official go and all you guys do is try to get it closed by spamming it with useless stuff.
@ Hans Ludwig and everyone else complaining about the lack of realism in RO2:HoS:
I think you fail to understand that RO:Ost never was realistic. The only thing realistic about it is the setting and the gun handling. Everything else is driven by the same arcade systems as seen in CoD titles.
The same goes for HoS.
ArmA2 on the other hand uses less realistic gun handling to achieve a way more realistic game.
RO= Arcade shooter with very realistic and accurate gun handling
ArmA=Milsim with less realistic gun handling
If you want immersive fast paced semi realistic multiplayer action with realistic gun handling you choose RO
If you want a full blown ultra realistic milsim you choose ArmA
What my objective is:
Stop HoS slipping into the arcade sector too much concerning it's basic gameplay. Weapons don't matter too much.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Hmmm I missed all this. That's what I get for only hanging around in the off-topic section
Anyways, I agree with Lemon: It is HIGHLY unlikely that the MKb was used in either Cholm or Stalingrad. Not seen a single primary source that indicates that. I don't care if it's in the game or not, but if TWI really has a picture I'd like to see it as it certainly would interest a lot of historians both amateurs and professionals.
Anyways, I agree with Lemon: It is HIGHLY unlikely that the MKb was used in either Cholm or Stalingrad. Not seen a single primary source that indicates that. I don't care if it's in the game or not, but if TWI really has a picture I'd like to see it as it certainly would interest a lot of historians both amateurs and professionals.
Upvote
0
Yeah... RO2 = CoD.
If you weren't such an obvious troll I might have responded seriously.
YouTube - Trollolololol
@LemoN it's semi-realistic, not an "arcade shooter with realistic gun handling". The gun handling definitely isn't the only thing that's realistic in RO.
Anyway, this thread should be locked. It's full of trolls and armchair historians.
Upvote
0
Okay, now that's just silly. Calling it Call of Duty because it has a prototype weapon that probably wasn't in Stalingrad but did exist at the time (albeit not very many of them) in the game? ****, that's like me calling an otherwise (semi) realistic combined-arms FPS based around a 1989 Fulda Gap scenario "unrealistic" (which everyone already knows that it is. If we really want to talk about unrealistic, than there is not a single game that has been named in this thread that is actually realistic, if realistic is defined as being close to reality. Both ArmA 2 and RO are unrealistic, just at different levels) because it has some BMP-3 prototypes in it. Sure, unlikely, but come on. Really?
Last edited:
Upvote
0
I've been playing RO since 1.2, 6 years ago. I've seen how the RO devs operate even before Tripwire existed. They are not known for putting weapons/vehicles in their game that did not exist in the right time period. Considering the amount of research they have done on Stalingrad I doubt they would add something that wasn't there for the hell of it.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
- Status