The Effectiveness of Weapons in WW2.

[Lost Cipher]

In playing this game or any game, and reading these forums... I have realized quite succinctly that most people do not understand Firearms. And a soldier's use of them.

An instructor told me something once upon a time "A Gun doesn't miss, it's operator does!". Its a very simple and poignant message. If you can't hit a target, you are doing something wrong. Because the bullet of a weapon goes where its pointed at.

The Average Effective range of WW2 was in and around 500m (1640.419 ft/4.5 Football Fields) with small arms. For those less technically inclined that's little over a quarter of a mile. And that is with just iron sights. Whenever a scope is added the Effective Range increases.

Some Basic Values: (Funny what knowledge a inclined mind can inquire on the internet).

Russian Weapons of Stalingrad:
SVT 40 - Effective Range 500m
Mosin Nagant - Effective Range 500m, Scope 800m (2624.671 ft/About Half a Mile)
PPSh - Effective Range 150m (492 ft/Greater than a Football Field)

German Weapons of Stalingrad:
Gewehr 41 (G41) - Effective Range 400m
Karabiner 98k - Effective Range 500m, Scope 800m
MP 40 - Effective Range 100m (Just Under a Football Field by 30 ft)

*I chose weapons that the average player can use now in the beta.

The Battle of Stalingrad was amongst the bloodiest battles in the history of warfare. Its estimated that in and around 1,250,00 - 1,798,619 people were killed. Some estimates are higher. Much of the fighting took place in Close Quarters or Urban Environments, one of the primary reasons historians state it was so deadly.

People were not sent to Stalingrad to survive, they were sent their to die. To hold back their perspective enemies as long as possible, and drive them back. Weapons are not designed to be ineffective, they are designed to kill. That combined with the fact that all the training militaries use are designed to make a soldier Combat Effective. And on top of all that; the Germans desire to be victorious, and the Russians desire to fight for their home. You have a lot of capability, drive, and desire to survive and kill your enemy.

If you want realism, then upon your death in the video game. It should exit the application and delete it from your hard drive. That is as real as you would ever want it to be.

 

[monster]

So, you're saying that the game isn't easy enough.

 

[NuclearDruid]

If you want realism, then upon your death in the video game. It should exit the application and delete it from your hard drive. That is as real as you would ever want it to be.

I was with you (for the most part) until here. Which thankfully was the end of the post. The argument that people wanting realism also want death simulated is beating a dead horse - and it's plain wrong. Of course we don't want death in a game to be that dramatic. We just want as an authentic experience as possible, that's all. Last time I checked I can't go back in time (nor do I want to) and fight on the eastern front. It's a horrible war, but people find joy, as they do with other simulators, when they can get a realistic feeling to things and have the sense of being there.

This goes on the same lines of telling people who want military simulation to join the military. Let me know when in the military you can get away with death and go on 5000+ combat missions as an infantry, or a tank commander, or in an f-15.

 

[M55ikael]

Did your post have a point? What exactly was the misconception you wished to rectify with your ramblings?

 

[NuclearDruid]

Did your post have a point?

Did your post contribute to this topic?

Edit: Ah, nice edit there

 

[Pig]

what is you point ? The weapon accuracy is realistic and good, however how well you aim after you sprinted 100m is wrong

 

[Lost Cipher]

I was with you (for the most part) until here. Which thankfully was the end of the post. The argument that people wanting realism also want death simulated is beating a dead horse - and it's plain wrong. Of course we don't want death in a game to be that dramatic. We just want as an authentic experience as possible, that's all. Last time I checked I can't go back in time (nor do I want to) and fight on the eastern front. It's a horrible war, but people find joy, as they do with other simulators, when they can get a realistic feeling to things and have the sense of being there.

This goes on the same lines of telling people who want military simulation to join the military. Let me know when in the military you can get away with death and go on 5000+ combat missions as an infantry, or a tank commander, or in an f-15.

Are military FPS fun, yeah. That may be wrong on a philosophical level. But the over dramatization of the final sentence was the entire point.

You can't have a realistic video game. Because in a realistic video game, every weapon is powerful. Every soldier is capable. But for some reason people seem to think that its hard to kill. Unfortunately it does not take much to kill someone. Especially when firearms are involved. This is why they are regulated! And why they are used in warfare!

Realism is a philosophical context on a broad level (What is Real?). A Simulation is a numerical context based on in general scientific realism (Hard mathematical facts). They do not work together. Numbers are constant, Philosophy changes from person to person.

But in general video games demand balance, otherwise their is no challenge or curve for players to progress upon. That means that in a true sense, a realistic simulation of war; The best virtual soldier has the fastest reflexes. Interesting as to how this correlates with actual warfare...

 

[Lost Cipher]

what is you point ? The weapon accuracy is realistic and good, however how well you aim after you sprinted 100m is wrong

So what do militaries use Ruck Marches for? Stress Shooting for? Muscle Memory? Training? Firing drills?

Every general would have his or her troops firing from the highest hill, and the best rest position. Yet this is not realistic or practical. Therefore in military training they kick your ***, so you kick the enemies ***.

100m is not a long distance. If you think it is, you are not in physical shape for combat duty.

 

[DiedTrying]

So what do militaries use Ruck Marches for? Stress Shooting for? Muscle Memory? Training? Firing drills?

Every general would have his or her troops firing from the highest hill, and the best rest position. Yet this is not realistic or practical. Therefore in military training they kick your ***, so you kick the enemies ***.

100m is not a long distance. If you think it is, you are not in physical shape for combat duty.

Ramble less please.

I can't make heads or tails out of your posts.

Next thing I know you'll be talking about how you went down to the pharmacy to get a root beer float when you met Jackie Jean the homecoming queen. She was quite the looker.

 

[M55ikael]

Are military FPS fun, yeah. That may be wrong on a philosophical level. But the over dramatization of the final sentence was the entire point.

You can't have a realistic video game. Because in a realistic video game, every weapon is powerful. Every soldier is capable. But for some reason people seem to think that its hard to kill. Unfortunately it does not take much to kill someone. Especially when firearms are involved. This is why they are regulated! And why they are used in warfare!

Realism is a philosophical context on a broad level (What is Real?). A Simulation is a numerical context based on in general scientific realism (Hard mathematical facts). They do not work together. Numbers are constant, Philosophy changes from person to person.

But in general video games demand balance, otherwise their is no challenge or curve for players to progress upon. That means that in a true sense, a realistic simulation of war; The best virtual soldier has the fastest reflexes. Interesting as to how this correlates with actual warfare...

That was much more interesting than your first post and I agree with you to a large extent. But when I thought about using the same argument in another thread I recalled that BIS makes simulators based on ARMA that are useful enough to be employed by several militaries. A game can never get real, but it can get reasonably close for many intents and purposes.

Obviously, some liberties need to be taken to make a game fun, which are not present in straight on sims, such as balance - something I pointed out in another thread. Then I was criticized for wanting historical accuracy, while having a balanced game. Historical accuracy and realism aren't necessarily the same thing. They can immerse you on different levels.

War is seldom balanced in real life. Especially not in this modern day and age. But one of the reasons WW II games hold so much potential is the fact that the sides were fairly balanced and the conflict dragged on for 6 years.

 

[sultan]

Not related to the OPs post coz I know my aiming sucks But when it comes to the effectiveness of weapons did they really shoot through brick walls? Ive been shot by rifles and machinguns (not assault but the mg34 and the russian variant that I dont remember the name of).
Not a OMG THAT SUCKS post, Just curious if they really could? I've tried doing the same but no kill so far

 

[Lost Cipher]

That was much more interesting than your first post and I agree with you to a large extent. But when I thought about using the same argument in another thread I recalled that BIS makes simulators based on ARMA that are useful enough to be employed by several militaries. A game can never get real, but it can get reasonably close for many intents and purposes.

Obviously, some liberties need to be taken to make a game fun, which are not present in straight on sims, such as balance - something I pointed out in another thread. Then I was criticized for wanting historical accuracy, while having a balanced game. Historical accuracy and realism aren't necessarily the same thing. They can immerse you on different levels.

Exactly. It is a video game. Balance is required. However making a weapon less accurate for reason of balance is not realistic. Unless you have a MP 40 acting as a sniper at 500m. Which to my knowledge and attempt, it does not.

RO1 in terms of accuracy of its firearms is not realistic, I am quite confident the developers stated something similar to this.

 

[Lost Cipher]

Not related to the OPs post coz I know my aiming sucks But when it comes to the effectiveness of weapons did they really shoot through brick walls? Ive been shot by rifles and machinguns (not assault but the mg34 and the russian variant that I dont remember the name of).
Not a OMG THAT SUCKS post, Just curious if they really could? I've tried doing the same but no kill so far

In modern warfare, their are two ideas of general safety. Cover and Concealment.

Cover will prevent a round from penetrating a surface and kill you, concealment won't. For a modern example, if someone is shooting at you take cover behind a engine block not a car frame. If its an assault weapon, run and hide well.

It is not uncommon for high caliber rounds to penetrate walls, I would be safe in assuming the same was true in WW2 when heavier caliber rounds were in more general use.

 

[Kugyi]

I agree with you post, but the running should have bigger impact on your aiming. Most of the soldiers in Stalingrad were poorly trained or starving. So they weren't that fit to hold the rifle steadily after running a lot.

 

[sultan]

In modern warfare, their are two ideas of general safety. Cover and Concealment.

Cover will prevent a round from penetrating a surface and kill you, concealment won't. For a modern example, if someone is shooting at you take cover behind a engine block not a car frame. If its an assault weapon, run and hide well.

It is not uncommon for high caliber rounds to penetrate walls, I would be safe in assuming the same was true in WW2 when heavier caliber rounds were in more general use.

Yea I try to stick to concrete and thick walls as cover, never anything made of wood unless I have no other choice
So guess Ill stick to taking cover behinds the burned out tanks then since the brick walls isnt safe enough lol ^^ thanks

 

[Lost Cipher]

I agree with you post, but the running should have bigger impact on your aiming. Most of the soldiers in Stalingrad were poorly trained or starving.

I agree. However I think it should be represented by a bit more sway and difficulty of control. Not in accuracy of weapons. When crouched or prone, control should not be a problem.

Example 1: Standing Iron Sight (Aiming), first ten seconds is stable, next five less so, etc...

Example 2: Decent amount of Physical Excretion then to Standing Iron Sight (Aiming), first ten seconds stable but uneven, next five less so, etc...

A gun in a realistic simulation should never have accuracy determined by a random number generator attached to the ballistic mechanics. Remember where you point a gun, is where the bullet will travel.

 

[Kugyi]

I agree. However I think it should be represented by a bit more sway and difficulty of control.

I meant that.I edited it later to be more understandable. Guess you started posting before I edited so you missed it.

 

[Lost Cipher]

I meant that.I edited it later to be more understandable. Guess you started posting before I edited so you missed it.

Understandable, and I do apologize if at times I sound like an asshole. I don't mean too, but god knows that tone is a hard thing to put across in a literary context. Without sounding sarcastic, or like an asshole.

And I did overreact. So for that I apologize. I am passionate about firearms, so I like to see them be portrayed realistically.

 

[SockMonkeh]

If only the Germans and the Russians could have settled their differences so civilly!

 

[Spindle]

Yea I try to stick to concrete and thick walls as cover, never anything made of wood unless I have no other choice
So guess Ill stick to taking cover behinds the burned out tanks then since the brick walls isnt safe enough lol ^^ thanks

Sandbags are your best friends