Bar vs FG42 is it a draw?

[narwan]

FG 42's in the first slot do NOT represent just a single weapon firing just as a Lee Enfield in the first slot does not represent a single weapon.
Wouldn't you agree it would be a bit silly to have the fixed stats represent a variable, ie the number of riflemen left in a squad?

Which is the whole point of the current stats and stat differences btw. This is, for infantry, a SQUAD based game. Not an individuals riflemans game. That means the game has to incorporate the SOP, doctrines, tactics, etc within a squad in it's mechanics. As Pdoktar already pointed out, troops armed with the FG 42 are basically riflemen in the squad, not surrogate SAW gunners. The game is a lot more than just a collection of weapon statistics.


Narwan

[chuckfourth]

pdoktar said:So the point is that BAR is the SAW or LMG not a rifle as this FG-42.

The point is that FG42 is a better SAW/LMG than BAR and that both are automatic rifles.

Regards Chuck.

[narwan]

The point is the FG42 was employed as a riflemans weapon, not a SAW. The BAR was. That's figured into the stats too, not just pure weapon statistics.


Narwan

[chuckfourth]

Hi Narwan
Well as for SOP, doctrines,tactics I can add this.
The normal infantry practice is for half the rifle squad to bound forward some few metres hit the dirt, take up a fire positions and then provide covering fire for the other halfs bound. This is done while the LMG suppreses the target.
In this situation in the FG42 armed paratrooper rifle squad you will have 3 FG42s firing from a stationary prone position at any one time, surely enough justification to give the rifle squad at least the same acc/hit values as the single BAR gets in the same role? And what about on the defence? You have all 7 of the rifle squads FG42 being used exactly like the single BAR yet all 7 added together only get one twentieth of a single BARS accuracy value?

The current FG42 values seem to be based on the assumption that the FG42 is never used in a stationary or prone position wich doesnt make much sense to me. If just one of the 7 or so FG42's in the rifle squad is being used in the stationary prone position (which is pretty likely in almost any situation) then this first 'rifleman' weapon slot for FG42 should have the same or better value than the BAR slot.
Regards Chuck.

[narwan]

Whereas you want us to have every FG42 fired from a 'prone' or SAW role EVERY time.

[chuckfourth]

Hi Narwan
No that would be about as sensible as the current situation where all 7 are being fired from the shoulder into the air on the move even when the squad is dug in and stationary
But thank you for asking.
This is the sloution I would propose.
BAR does not have a quick change barrel and AFAIK is not employed with a number 2, unlike every other nations LMG. To remedy this a second BAR was introduced into the squad, so now we have a quick change barrel of sorts (second weapon) and twice as much ammo (still less than a three man LMG team carries, or even a two man team as the second BAR weighs a lot) So rather than representing 2 Bars in a sqad as 2 weapon slots the 2 BAR sqaud could lose the second BAR slot and the remaining BAR slot retains the current single BAR slot values ie acc 20, hit 5. Now for the single BAR squad's BAR weapon slot we would now have values of 10 and 2.5(lets say 2). AS BAR and FG42 have nearly identicle in-game performance, this gives us a guide to how to model the FG42 rifle squads weapon slot. Assuming that a least 2 of the FG42s are operating in the stationary prone position during movement (not unreaslonable I would think if the squad has any training whatsoever) then the paratrooper FG42 rifle slot should have acc 20 hit 5. Obviously this is a gross underestimation of the squads firepower when in a defensive position ie 7 FG42 in stationary prone but is much more credible than the current acc 1 hit 3
Also of interest the game models FG42 range at 400m rather than the correct 800m
Regards Chuck.

[narwan]

Hi Chuck,

you've clearly stated your view. I take it you are the same Chuck who has over the years tried on several occassions to get this exact same issue in the (DOS version of the) game. Unsuccesfully as is obvious.

There is an easy way to resolve this. Use the provided utillity programs that come with the game to change the stats to your liking so you too can fully enjoy the game. That is what those programs are for.
Don't forget to cut the ammo load for the FG42's by two thirds btw. Cause that is also a consequence of how you perceive this weapon should be modeled. Firing bursts in an lmg like mode is what gets you the higher stats isn't it? And we wouldn't want to be inconsistent now would we?

As far as I'm concerned I'm fully happy to have the FG42 modeled as a rifletype weapon.

Narwan

[Mobhack]

The FG42 as issued was used as an SLR, and not as an SAW.

from a quick Google:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FG42

The FG42 filled a key niche in Germany's arsenal and was somewhat well-received by paratroopers when tested, but it did have its drawbacks. The FG42 had a 20, or sometimes 10, round magazine that was mounted on the left side of the rifle. Though a side-mounted magazine was common in submachineguns, the larger magazine with heavier ammunition of a full-powered rifle tended to unbalance the weapon. In addition, muzzle rise with automatic fire was substantial and controlable bursts were difficult. This made full-automatic fire only marginally useful. The FG42 used a fairly sophisticated muzzle device that did help with recoil and muzzle flash, but blast and noise were much greater than other similar weapons. The US M14 rifle had similar problems and attempts were made to upgrade that rifle the same way with an in-line stock and muzzle device. Both weapons seemed to have failed in that respect.

So, 20 round mag, uncontrollable in auto fire and unbalanced. Not a very good SAW candidate.

if you want to make an FG42 SAW, feel free to do so in your own OOBS. It won't be so in the official OOBS which will remain as-is.

Cheers
Andy

[Tarrif]

The FG-42 was hard to control in full auto mode because it was light-weight but still firing a full size rifle round. Firing at full auto from the standing or kneeling position would make it very difficult to aim, but from the prone position with the bi-pod deployed its not any worse than most other weapons I've fired. Its strait line configuration does much to reduce the recoil and muzzle climb. In single-shot or semi-auto its absolutely deadly, especially at long ranges.

As for weapon imbalance... its negligable. On top of that, by the time the FG-42 entered service there was virtually no airborne operations and so it was used with the same 75 round ammo belts as the MG-34 and MG-42. The 10 and 20 round clips were available, but there were other options if you wanted to use it as an LMG. I never felt that the 10 or 20 round magazines affected the balance at all.

That's just my opinion.

[chuckfourth]

Hello Narwan
Yes one and the same.
As I only play PBEM the OOB route doesnt really appeal. There are so many odd things in the game like this that need fixing it would be a hassle to explain it all to the PBEM opponent.
Does the BAR have its ammo loadout cut by one third?
Best Chuck.