Bar vs FG42 is it a draw?

[TheDesertFox]

Tarrif said:
The emphasis was on being light-weight and compact, while trying to cram as much firepower as possible into those restrictions.

Tarrif, to make a long story short:

Was it designed to replace the Riflemens weapon(s) or was it designed to replace the LMG-Gunners weapon ?

What do your sources say ?

cheers

[Tarrif]

It was designed to provide firepower along the lines of a LMG but the accuracy of a rifle. For units like paratroopers, weapons were sometimes designed under the jack-of-all-trades principle. It was never meant to totally replace the rifle or the LMG - especially since it was complicated and expensive to produce. Had the FG-42 been quick and easy to produce, its possible it would have become the primary weapon of the Fallschrimjaegers, but that wasn't the case, so only one or two men per squad recieved them and they were used to augment the firepower of the squad.

[TheDesertFox]

Tarrif said:
It was designed to provide firepower along the lines of a LMG but the accuracy of a rifle. For units like paratroopers, weapons were sometimes designed under the jack-of-all-trades principle. It was never meant to totally replace the rifle or the LMG - especially since it was complicated and expensive to produce. Had the FG-42 been quick and easy to produce, its possible it would have become the primary weapon of the Fallschrimjaegers, but that wasn't the case, so only one or two men per squad recieved them and they were used to augment the firepower of the squad.

Tarrif,

thanks for your answer. In game terms this means it is used as a riflemens weapon (primary weapon) and not as a LMG (secondary weapon). That�s how things are represented in the game right now.

I just wanted this to be clear.

cheers

[narwan]

Tarrif said:
It was designed to provide firepower along the lines of a LMG but the accuracy of a rifle.

It's accuracy in the game is like that of rifles and its firepower (HE kill factor) is closer to that of lmg's. So that would make it about right as it currently is doesn't it?

Narwan

[DRG]

It does and that's the way it's going to stay.

Don

[Tarrif]

I'm not sure how it is in this game because I don't play this game. I joined this conversation because I saw the URL linked to my website on the first page. The original argument was that the FG-42 should be treated like the B.A.R., which I agreed with from a historical and technical point of view. Maybe from a gameplay point of view that doesn't make sense, but technically the FG-42 could be used in the same exact role. That was my original point.

I understand the game industry, and the players that go with it. I know some people don't want to see this changed because it doesn't favor their particular side, or because it might imbalance the game (in some respect). Its up to the developers if they want to put historical accuracy over game balance, or visa-versa. Sometimes historical accuracy isn't the best thing for a game - that's for them to decide.

[TheDesertFox]

Tarrif said:
I'm not sure how it is in this game because I don't play this game. I joined this conversation because I saw the URL linked to my website on the first page. The original argument was that the FG-42 should be treated like the B.A.R., which I agreed with from a historical and technical point of view. Maybe from a gameplay point of view that doesn't make sense, but technically the FG-42 could be used in the same exact role. That was my original point.

I understand the game industry, and the players that go with it. I know some people don't want to see this changed because it doesn't favor their particular side, or because it might imbalance the game (in some respect). Its up to the developers if they want to put historical accuracy over game balance, or visa-versa. Sometimes historical accuracy isn't the best thing for a game - that's for them to decide.

Tarrif,

no problem with that, no hard feelings on my side and I hope none on your side either.

The game has it�s limitations, that�s for sure. However, as you basically told us from your sources:

the FG42 was used (designed) to be a weapon which increased the riflemens firepower. Basically (in game terms) this means some men had the FG42, some men had the 98K and some the MP40, also there always was the regular LMG(s) in the german Squad OOB. Unfortunately (that�s how the game was designed from the beginning, going back to the original SSI OOB structure) the game doesn�t allow to represent such a mixture of weapons unless you leave out the MG34/42 as a SAW for the squad (which is historically unrealistic).

This leaves the game- or enthusiastic OOB-designer with the following options:

1.) leave it as is (FG42 as primary (riflemens) weapon in squad) and (MG34/42 as LMG - secondary weapon)

2.) or create a new secondary FG42 which may have been used as a SAW - BUT - at the same time leave out the MG34/42 as a squad SAW (secondary weapon).

I think option 1 is more realistic and historically accurate (keeping in mind the limitations of the game).

Nevertheless the game offers everything necessary to try out option 2. Start up Mobhack and feel free to do some experiments.

That�s one of the great things about this game and the SP-series in general: The user can adapt the OOBs to his personal preferences and play with it. Where do you find this kind of flexibillity in other wargames ?

cheers

[narwan]

The FG42 was thought up after Crete. German paratroops would need a weapon with decent firepower they could drop with ON THEIR PERSON and immediately be able to go to combat to without having to go to weapon canisters first to retrieve weapons. MG34's and MG42's were to heavy to jump with. So they thought up the FG42. I was intended as an infantrymens personal weapon, replacing the standard rifles, that COULD be used as a 'stand-in' LMG too. It was not primairily designed or intended as a SAW or LMG. It wasn't very good as a LMG however. It's low weight proved to be it's biggest drawback. That's because the designers kept the full 7,92mm cartridge for the weapon. That resulted in a recoil that made the weapon very difficult to handle and control when in full auto mode, it had a very strong tendency to kick upwards. That made it very hard to keep the sustained fire on a target that one would need from an LMG. The BAR, being a lot heavier, didn't suffer nearly as much kick as the weight helped keep the weapon down. Although having drawbacks of its own, the BAR was much better suited for the LMG role.

Further, even though use as an LMG was part of the INTENDED design, there is little evidence to suggest it was actually used as such. Two reasons, first it was much better as an automatic rifle, ie firing aimed single shots in rapid succesion. The extreme muzzle flash and extremely loud noise when firing also were less of a drawback when used as a rifle. As an LMG it would be used more from a 'fixed' position and the flash and noise would make it easily identifiable by the enemy, especially when firing on auto.
Most important however was that the Luftwaffe needn't have bothered with coming up with a weapon parattroops could jump with since another outcome of Crete was Hitlers decision that there would be no more paratroop attacks. Many of the later paratroop units didn't even receive jump training anymore. So without combat drops being on the agenda anymore, the paratroop units did the smart thing and they went back to the excellent MG34 and superb MG42 as the squad LMG with the FG42 being used as an automatic rifle.

And this is how it is portrayed in the game, the game isn't historically inaccurate at all in this respect. As said so many times before in this thread, you can not do a straight comparison between the stats of primairy and secondary weapons.

Narwan

[Tarrif]

As I said just a few posts ago, the original argument was for the FG-42 to have the same stats and function as the B.A.R. I know we got side-tracked with other discussions about SAW's and LMG's. The fact is that the FG-42 could very well be interchangeable with the B.A.R. and perform just as well if not better. I know the game doesn't allow this, but from a purely technical and functional point of view there's no disputing that.

As you said, it could be a stand-in for a LMG or a rifle, even though it wasn't usually better than the weapons it was standing-in for. It was a multi-function weapon, and while it wasn't always the best in each individual class, it still *could* perform those duties. The FG-42 wasn't meant to replace anything - it was meant to augment the fire-power of the Fallschrimjaeger squads as a weapon that adequately perform single-shot, long-range, close-range, and rapid-fire shooting. As someone that has used the FG-42 I believe its a superb weapon for its day, although if I had to use it in combat I would probably utilize more as an automatic rifle than an LMG, especially since better LMG's were available at the time.

While you are right that there were no more large scale airborne operations, smaller scale ones happened right up to the end of the war. One of the most famous was the rescue of Mussolini, in which the FG-42 made its debut and performed wonderfully.

I understand the game designers have to make choices between historical/technical accuracy and balance. If they feel the FG-42 would serve the game's purposes better as a automatic rifle that for some reason doesn't work the same as the Browning automatic rifle then so be it.

[chuckfourth]

Hi Claus
Ah the old arguments surface again, when you know you havent got a leg to stand on "wheres the documention" a little common sense wouldnt suffice would it.
No need to mobhack anything with a little imagination one can see that the unit would play similar to the 2 bar American squad or is that to much of a stretch for you?
And of course if you dont have an argument misrepresent the other guys argument, I am saying you just need one out of seven FG to be used 'a la BAR' to justify giving the 1st weapon slot BAR values not all of them.
Yes and of course changing one weapon slot in maybe two squads in a game with thousands of units is a really massive change.
For someone so worried about bandwidth maybe you could supply a little substance for you arguments.
Regards Chuck