Bar vs FG42 is it a draw?

[chuckfourth]

Hello
When comparing the BAR and the FG42 we find that both fired a similar full powered cartridge, had a 20 round magazine, a bipod, weights of 8.8 and 6.1 kg, practical ROF of 120 and 400 rpm, cyclic ROF of 500 and 600 rpm and ranges of 550 and 800 m respectively.
see http://www.tarrif.net/ (amongst many others)
However in the game the weapon stats are
BAR acc 20, kill 5, range 12.
FG42 acc 1, kill 3, range 8.
The game values seem not to reflect the real performances of the weapons? especially as the BAR represents a single weapon and the FG42 slot represents several FG42s.
Best Regards Chuck.

[thatguy96]

First, you're comparing the empty weight of the BAR to the loaded weight of an FG42. Empty weight of an FG42 according to the link you provided is 4.98 kg. Not sure about how much weight I put in the info on that site you provided because it says the "combat" weight is over 1 kg heavier than the empty weight, and also provides a combat weight of a BAR that I've seen many people source as its empty weight.

The BAR is definitly a heavier weapon with 4" of barrel length. I don't understand where this "practical ROF" comes from either. The practical ROF on the FG42 is its single-shot capability IIRC (if even that), whereas the BAR's is a "slow" auto. Where are we getting that FG42s in weapon slots automatically represent multiple FG42s as well whereas BARs are always single weapons?

The acc value seems a bit off, but really that's the only thing that seems out of place. Furthermore, depending on tactics and employment of the system for what the designers were looking to recreate this could be completely accurate.

[Tarrif]

Those figures come from two sources...

1. "FM 23-20 Basic Field Manual. Browning Automatic Rifle, Caliber .30" That's the official US Army manual for the BAR printed in 1940.

2. "TM 30-451 - Handbook of German Forces" That's the official US Army manual of German weapons of WWII.

On top of the other books I use, I also took possession of both weapons (since I work at the Aberdeen Proving Grounds) and did my own measurements.

The FG-42, in almost every respect, was better than the B.A.R. Although it was liked by the troops, the B.A.R. was not a great light machinegun or automatic rifle - although it could be a powerful weapon in the right hands. Its rate of fire was too slow, it was too heavy, and the magazine was too small. The FG-42 was an ideal weapon that was copied and modified by the US military which eventually became the venerable M-60 machinegun. It was only limited because it was complicated to produce and the Heer (German Army) didn't get along at all with the Luftwaffe (Germany Air Force) and was not willing to share its limited weapon production facilities with them.

The "practical rate of fire" is how many aimed rounds can be fired per minute, accounting for average reload times. The FG-42, with its integrated bi-pod and scope, can fire more acurately at longer ranges at put more aimed rounds down-range. The B.A.R., with its open sights and bi-pod removed (as was the case in most B.A.R.'s in combat service because it was damn heavy) jumps around a lot so its much harder to shoot accurately.

One possible reason for all the mis-information about the B.A.R. is because there were many models produced, both in the USA and in Belgium (which produced it in a number of calibers). That's why I stick to official manuals and my own measurements with the actual weapons at the U.S. Army Ordnance Meuseum at Aberdeen.

EDIT: The big weight difference between the combat weights and empty weights of guns because of the "frills" that come along with combat like bi-pods, scopes, a full magazine, etc. In the case of the FG-42 the bi-pod is integrated, but the B.A.R. often had it's removed, and so I did the same when getting its "empty" weight. That's why those numbers are lower than much of what you might see in other referrences online or maybe even in some books.

There's also a big difference between pre-war and wartime manufacture of some weapons. During the war, to save materials and speed production, guns were not manufactured to as fine a finish. That resulted in weight variances between pre-war and wartime weapons. Something as simple as different quality steel or a different kind of wood could offset a weapon's designed weight by as much as 10%.

[chuckfourth]

Hi thatguy96 thanks for your interest
To address your points in order.
According to tarrif these are the combat weights of the two weapons they may of course be wrong(well Id like to take this comment back as it appears tarrif himself has posted on this one!).
The difference between combat weight and empty weight would be mostly accounted for by the magazine and 20 rounds about a Kilo or more(same!).
Practical ROF would be measured IMHO aver an extended shoot and would be mainly limited by the rate at which the barrel heats up and cools down(same!).
In the game when a second BAR appears in the squad it appears in the second weapon slot as with most other LMGs they are represented singly. The game however represents all the rifles in a sqad in a single weapon slot the FG42 AFAIK was issued to replace the squads rifles and so there would have been as many FG42s in a paratrooper squad as there were riflemen.
Well I think the accuracy value is a litle more than a 'bit off' whatever "accuracy" realy means in-game I doubt that the BAR is -20 times- more accurate than the FG42.
Also the FG42 fires a heavier bullet and at a much faster rate so wouldnt the kill factor be more than the BAR?
Lastly Tarrif site and others quote FG42 range to be 800 m game has 400m
Best Regards Chuck

[thatguy96]

Right, so if you're using the FG 42 as an infantry rifle, on the move, from the shoulder, should it really get the bonuses of a weapon intended to be used from a prone or supported position with or without the benefit of its bipod in terms of squad tactics? I think that's the issue, is that the FG42, in game terms, if it were to be treated as if it was being used as the squad support weapon, when it appears that it was not would be unbalanced. We are supposed to believe that FG infantry on the move were not taking up positions every time they engaged, where as we are supposed to believe that the trooper with the BAR in a US infantry squad was firing from the bipod and/or a supported position, regardless of whether this is realistic or not. Note that in its current form the FG42 has stats very close to other infantry rifles in other OOBs. I think realistically, the BAR's stats should be lowered, not the FG42 stats raised.

[chuckfourth]

Hi ThatGuy96
Yes I think it most certainly should because....
AFAIK the acc, kill etc stats for these weapons represent what the weapons capabilities are in a static unmolested position, not its tactical employment. In this case movement effects are modeled by decreasing these values when the squad moves. If this is correct then according to any reputable source you would like to quote the in-game weapon slot values for FG42 should be better than the those of the BAR. In real terms the normal infantry practice is for half the rifle squad to bound forward some few metres hit the dirt, take up a fire position and then provide covering fire for the other halfs bound. ie though you are breathing heavily you are not firing from the shoulder and moving when you fire your weapon.
Also dont forget the case of the paratroopers dug in on the defensive. They are then most definitly using the weapon from a static prepared position effectivley the same as a whole squad armed with BAR's!
Yes I agree that BAR should be downrated, personally I would like to see the American 2 BAR squad receive about the same stats as the 1 BAR squad currently has (ie one weapon slot) and single BAR squads get about half the stats values that they currently have(mainly because BAR doesnt have a quick change barrel like most other LMG's and AFAIK isnt part of a two or three man LMG team).
Best Regards Chuck.

[Tarrif]

Under no conditions should the B.A.R. be better than the FG-42 unless you are talking about production. At the very least they should be equal, but the reality is that the FG-42 is a much better infantry support weapon than the B.A.R. could ever hope to be. That's why the U.S. adopted the M-60, a weapon based on the FG-42, years after the B.A.R. was declared obscolete.

[Tarrif]

Yes, barrel heat is a huge factor in rate of fire, and as with most German weapons, swapping barrles in the FG-42 is a simple and painless process. The BAR is a little more complicated, but that's why it has two selective rates of fire (350 - 400 rpm, and 550 - 600) to cut down on the barrel heating up too quickly to compensate.

Frankly, I have no idea why anyone would think the BAR is more accurate than the FG-42, especially in semi or full automatic fire. The FG-42 is a MUCH better weapon at long ranges - so much so that it was given a 4x power scope for sniping. The BAR can be accurate, but the muzzle climb really hurts any chance of long range accuracy after the first shot - assuming the bi-pod has been removed as was often the case. Both are reliable and robust weapons, but the FG-42 is still a better weapon in just about every category.

On the other hand, the B.A.R. would be a "common" weapon while the FG-42 would be a "rare" weapon outside of Fallschrimjaeger units - if that matters in this game.

For referrence, since most people don't have access to official manuals, here's the stats as listed by Ian Hogg in the "Military Small Arms Data Book". Since Ian Hogg is one of the most respected authors on this subject, we can trust his numbers for the purposes of game design...


FG-42
--------------------------------
Cartridge: 7.92mm x 57mm Mauser
Bullet Weight: 198 grains
Length: 940 mm
Barrel: 508 mm
Weight: 4.53 kg
M. Velocity: 761 m/sec
Cyc. ROF: 750
Magazine: 20 round box or 75 round belt
Rifling: 4 grooves, right hand twist


Browning M1918A2
--------------------------------
Cartridge: .30-06 Springfield (AKA U.S. Ball M2)
Bullet Weight: 150 grains
Length: 1214 mm
Barrel: 610 mm
Weight: 8.8 kg
M. Velocity: 855 m/sec
Cyc. ROF: 450 or 650
Magazine: 20 round box
Rifling: 4 grooves, right hand twist


As you can see just by Mr. Hogg's numbers, the FG-42 is much lighter, has a higher rate of fire, and fires a heavier bullet. According to Chris Chant in "Small Arms of WWII" and Chris Bishop in "The Encyclopedia of Weapons of World War II" the effective range of the B.A.R. is 550 meters. The effective range of the FG-42 is 800 meters. In both cases that figure is with the bi-pod deployed.