Don't Look So SMG!!

[Irinami]

Originally posted by Buzzard45
Other than Aim, which is dependant on the operator more so than the weapon, ... The question remains, How can different weapons of similar design and barrel lenghth, using the same ammo have such different accuracy ratings?

I don't think the question remains. Beyond 50-75m, yes, aim is the biggest factor. With rotten sights, it's exceedingly different to aim well. Remember, half a degree doesn't seem like a lot, but imagine that line stretching out 100 meters. That round's going way off target.

[Buzzard45]

Originally posted by Irinami
I don't think the question remains. Beyond 50-75m, yes, aim is the biggest factor. With rotten sights, it's exceedingly different to aim well. Remember, half a degree doesn't seem like a lot, but imagine that line stretching out 100 meters. That round's going way off target.

If the bullet can't hit the target no matter how well its aimed? What good does better sights do? You are just pointing and spraying bullets and hoping. Aimed rounds belong to a different weapon.

[Irinami]

I don't get what you're saying, Buzzard45. Sights allow you to better determine where your shot is going to go when you point the gun in a certain place. If a target is far away, you aim high. You arc the bullet, indirect fire like artillery, if it's very far away. Now, since at such ranges the smallest deviation results in the bullet falling far away from the target, you want sights that have very fine adjustments for that sort of range. You also have to consider winds, too. If you have sights that can only move in 2-degree increments, you're in trouble shooting very far. If you have ones that can adjust to the minute of a degree, you're going to have much better results. If your sights are fixed, you're just screwed. You may as well not even try shooting at targets past 100m, because you just plain won't hit it.

Remember, the "maximum range" on these weapons in the game is not the maximum distance the round can travel. Otherwise, every **** rifleman could fire at targets a couple kilometers out. Sure, they wouldn't hit... their rounds would stray by several hexes.

The range given to weapons is apparently the maximum range they can be fired with anything resembling accuracy.

MP40: 8/3. Means it's accurate out to 150m, but can engage targets out to 400m with some wild hope of hitting a target.

Sten: 4/3. Means it's accurate out to 150m, but can engage targets out to 200m. Anything beyond 200m is, either due to poor sights, wide tolerances (if the weapon parts move around a lot like the AK47), super-light weapon, low pressure, or some other reason, something that's just not going to happen within the realm of reason. The Sten can throw rounds out to 400m, sure. But not with any reasonable expectation of anything resembling accuracy.


... and no, no, no, NO!!!!! You are NOT!!! just spraying rounds around, Hollywood be damned. Weapon ratings are based on standard usage. Sure, when you're pinned down, you might just spray 'em... thus one reason for the lower hit chances with higher suppression.

[Buzzard45]

I think I understand your point. I just think the spread is too much. 1/3 less would be reasonable. Or half again as accurate such as a 4/3 vs 6/3 or 6/4. Maybe I'm nick-picking, I'm a Virgo, we do that on occassion. Well, okay so lots, but its not with any malice.

[Kevin E. Duguay]

While it is true that the Bren could fire German 9mm Parabellum it would have been unwise to shoot British 9mm ammo out of anything other than another SMG or the Sten itself. British 9mm SMG ammo had a heavier powder charge and thus more velosity than standard 9mm pistol ammo. I found this out in a warnning published by the NRA and other shooting mags. The warnning stated that firing these rounds through any 9mm pistol would result in a damaged firearm and possibly cause personal injury. So while the ammo of both the Bren and 9mm Parabellum/MP40 may have looked the same they were very different animals inside. Another factor is barrel length. Most SMG's firing pistol ammo have much longer barrels than the pistol that the round was ment to be shot from. Longer barrel to a point will produce a higher muzzel velosity. This appears not to be so with the Bren. It retains a high muzzel velosity despite having a relatively short barrel. This is because of the higher powered ammo.

The End

[Irinami]

No offense taken, Buzzard, and none meant.

Thanks to Kevin E. Duguay, that helps narrow things down. I did neglect to mention the effects of rifling on accuracy; in short, they help. I agree with Buzzard that the reduction is probably a bit much... but it's not that big a deal with me. Try the Japanese for a bit, guy. That 4/3 accuracy sure beats 3/1!!!

[Wolfleader]

Hard to tell, my inf seldom get into range to use their SMG's since I rely more on distance and fire from my rifles and machineguns and supporting armor to deal with enemy inf. I play the Germans mostly (due in part to me playing a 200 mission campaign against the PC) and I've never had any trouble or jams with the MP40 so it gets my vote as my favorite SMG.

[LordCucumber]

This is a very interesting discussion I must say.. but..

How would one actually AIM with a Thompson..? Ever tried it? Sounds pretty painfull to me, since it's recoil is firm and there is no way to shoot single rounds if I remember correctly.

[Irinami]

Doesn't matter if it's burst-only, Cyricist, you still aim. They have, IIRC, similar sights to those found on a rifle. Lemme draw a diagram (because I'm jazzed on coffee):

Looking down the barrel, the rear sight looks like this:

[FONT=courier new]
  _    _
_| \_/ |_

[/FONT]

And the front sight looks like:
[FONT=courier new]
_
O
[/FONT]
So you want to look down the barrel and seeeee...

[FONT=courier new]
  _  _  _
_| \O/ |_

[/FONT]

Sort of. The top of the front sight should make a flat line with the top of the rear sights. You then put that in the middle of the point you're aiming at. You don't make the target float on top of it.

[Irinami]

Man that's hard to edit right. ^^;;;;;;

Anyhow, same as you aim anything else. You aim machineguns, rifles, pistols--everything. Recoil is firm, yes. Being dead is much firmer. Besides, you get used to it after a while. That's what every single person who's wielded military arms has told me, and it's what my friends and I have experienced with hunting weapons.

[LordCucumber]

Irinami

Off course they have sights on them how else would you AIM.. The point I was trying to make was that recoil would seriously mess up aim in the course of a firefight, as your shoulders and arms battle the tremors from the barrel. I mean, a Thompson's barrel shoots up fast when you fire it, it's really recoil a go-go. So your first few shots would be fairly accurate (we are talking a 11 3/4 lbs weapon here, big hump of wood and metal!), but after that you'd have to be pretty dang hardcore to get any good shots off.

[Irinami]

Cool, I didn't know it was such a prissy weapon.

Unfortunately, there's no way to dynamically reduce accuracy in this way during battles without seriously manhandling the code... and probably turning it into Steel Panthers: Supply Clerks At War!

[LordCucumber]

LOL Good one! Perhaps a nice new project for you guys at Matrix Games hahaha

A recode sounds unneccesary to me.. since things as 'spraying' also come into play at larger distances. You can still hit something at larger distance without aiming by firing enough bullits in it's general direction (providing you can handle the weapon that long of course), but it does become a lucky shot if you hit something. Then again, that is what we have sniper riffles for. And hey, firing a Thompson at full auto is intimidating if you know what one of those bullits can do to you (as stated earlier in this thread), so for suppressing fire it is a fine weapon, especially against experienced troops. Edit: assuming that anyone in their rightfull mind would take cover of course.

[arethusa]

Originally posted by Raskolnikov
[B
1. BR SMGs suck. Sten guns are awful. BR Paras are suicide squads.

Rask. [/B]

As an old soldier who was trained in the use of stens, I hafta agree with you on that.

The only reasonable use I could see for stens was in house-to-house clearing.

What we were told to do was to:

Step 1] Remove the safety (frequently this was a big nail stuck through a hole in the breech block - an honest to God nail like you'd use on a 2x4).

Step 2] Break window in house if not already broken.

Step 3] Make sure sten is cocked.

Step 4] Toss entire weapon through window into room you want cleared, almost like it was a grenade.

Step 5] Duck. As soon as the sten hits the floor, it starts to fire and just sort of rattles around firing randomly in every direction until it runs out of ammo.

Step 6] Jump in after the gun stops and finish off anything that it missed hiding behind the desk.

Stens were awful guns that couldn't hit anything more than perhaps 15 metres away. I think the thought was for offiers to carry stens and make them so bad that the officers would spent their time planning and giving orders instead of being tempted to actually shoot at the enemy.

That being said, in real life, I found the bren gun quite a good weapon to use. It was VERY accurate for an MG and could actually hit what you aimed at at 200 metres. It had a good rate of fire and unlike many other MGs, if it overheated, you could snap on a cool barrel in just a few seconds.

The other nice thing about the bren, as opposed to the M16 for instance, was that it had a large calibre round that could penetrate even lightly armoured vehicles.

In SPWAW, the MG-42 seems to be a weapon with good range, accuracy and ROF.

[Buzzard45]

Originally posted by arethusa
As an old soldier who was trained in the use of stens, I hafta agree with you on that.

The only reasonable use I could see for stens was in house-to-house clearing.

What we were told to do was to:

Step 1] Remove the safety (frequently this was a big nail stuck through a hole in the breech block - an honest to God nail like you'd use on a 2x4).

Step 2] Break window in house if not already broken.

Step 3] Make sure sten is cocked.

Step 4] Toss entire weapon through window into room you want cleared, almost like it was a grenade.

Step 5] Duck. As soon as the sten hits the floor, it starts to fire and just sort of rattles around firing randomly in every direction until it runs out of ammo.

Step 6] Jump in after the gun stops and finish off anything that it missed hiding behind the desk.

Stens were awful guns that couldn't hit anything more than perhaps 15 metres away. I think the thought was for offiers to carry stens and make them so bad that the officers would spent their time planning and giving orders instead of being tempted to actually shoot at the enemy.

That being said, in real life, I found the bren gun quite a good weapon to use. It was VERY accurate for an MG and could actually hit what you aimed at at 200 metres. It had a good rate of fire and unlike many other MGs, if it overheated, you could snap on a cool barrel in just a few seconds.

The other nice thing about the bren, as opposed to the M16 for instance, was that it had a large calibre round that could penetrate even lightly armoured vehicles.

In SPWAW, the MG-42 seems to be a weapon with good range, accuracy and ROF.

STOP STOP . I'm going to wet ny jeans.

[arethusa]

Originally posted by Kevin E. Duguay
While it is true that the Bren could fire German 9mm Parabellum it would have been unwise to shoot British 9mm ammo out of anything other than another SMG or the Sten itself. British 9mm SMG ammo had a heavier powder charge and thus more velosity than standard 9mm pistol ammo. I found this out in a warnning published by the NRA and other shooting mags. The warnning stated that firing these rounds through any 9mm pistol would result in a damaged firearm and possibly cause personal injury. So while the ammo of both the Bren and 9mm Parabellum/MP40 may have looked the same they were very different animals inside. Another factor is barrel length. Most SMG's firing pistol ammo have much longer barrels than the pistol that the round was ment to be shot from. Longer barrel to a point will produce a higher muzzel velosity. This appears not to be so with the Bren. It retains a high muzzel velosity despite having a relatively short barrel. This is because of the higher powered ammo.

The End

I think you're getting the bren and the sten mixed up. The bren does have a long barrel and was quite accurate. The sten has a little stubby barrel and can't hit the broad side of a barn at anything much farther away than you can hear the guy breathing.

As far as the guys talking about sights go, when firing an smg in a combat situation, you don't bother to aim. The accuracy range isn't good enough and with a sten at least, there's no point to it. When you fire a sten, the recoil drags your aim up and to the right. So the idea is to start by shooting at the right hip of your target and it will stitch up across his chest to his left shoulder.

The weapon chatters so much in your grasp that the only bullet that you could possibly aim is the very first one and only the first one, and if you're only firing single shots, it defeats the whole concept of a machine gun, doesn't it?

The bren on the other hand, tends to have a recoil that pulls you forward slightly. That makes it much steadier to hold and this is a factor in increasing your accuracy as much as many of the other things that have been discussed here. When firing a bren prone on a polished concrete parade ground, it actually dragged the gunner forward about 6 inches or more during the course of emptying a magazine.

[arethusa]

Originally posted by Cyricist

.. since things as 'spraying' also come into play at larger distances. You can still hit something at larger distance without aiming by firing enough bullits in it's general direction (providing you can handle the weapon that long of course), but it does become a lucky shot if you hit something.

Exactly the idea for an SMG! Just make the enemy keep their heads down so your teammates can do what they need to do.

This brings to mind the old way of fighting before rifled barrels and breech-loading came into general use. Remember the long lines of redcoats and Imperial Guards facing up to each other across the field at Waterloo?

The old muzzle loaders of that day could kill at 200 yards but the saying was that you were exceedingly unlucky to be hit if anybody aimed at you from 100 yards and at 200 yards you were never hit by the person who aimed at you. But the long lines were really an 18th century way of creating an smg.

If there were enough guns pointing in the general direction of the enemy and all firing at once, somebody is going to hit something with all that lead in the air.

The same is true of these SMGs. If you put enough bullets in the general direction, you might even hit them but don't kid yourself about trying to aim.

When the bad guy is shooting back at you with a far more accurate Mauser, Garand, Lee-Enfield or whatever the case may be, you're not going to aim. You're going to squeeze off a short burst in his direction and dive for cover again. Let the bigger more accurate guns behind you do the aiming while you keep the guy occupied with your bullets hitting all around him and dropping twigs down on his sights.

[Irinami]

Originally posted by arethusa

As far as the guys talking about sights go, when firing an smg in a combat situation, you don't bother to aim. The accuracy range isn't good enough and with a sten at least, there's no point to it. When you fire a sten, the recoil drags your aim up and to the right. So the idea is to start by shooting at the right hip of your target and it will stitch up across his chest to his left shoulder.

The weapon chatters so much in your grasp that the only bullet that you could possibly aim is the very first one and only the first one, and if you're only firing single shots, it defeats the whole concept of a machine gun, doesn't it?

I'm sticking to my guns here. Every professional soldier I've ever spoken to on the topic insists you aim every single weapon, all the time. (Sure, there are times you can't, like spraying around a corner... but then, that's highly discouraged.) SMG's specifically included. I think we're just gonna' have to differ here.

[LordCucumber]

I think the difference is which ERA you're talking. And what type of weapon too.

Nowadays MOST SMGs are weapons you can aim with (the MP5 for instance is a very accurate SMG) . However, there are still exceptions to this rule, like the Ingram SMG, which is just a box with a barrel, a trigger, a handhold and a clip of ammo AND NO SIGHTS. Typically, the Ingram is NOT a soldier's weapon.

Taking it back to the 40s get's you very different types of SMGs as well.. The stengun is, as pointed out, very hard to aim, as is the Thompson, both for very different reasons. As I said before, the Tommy is 11.4 lbs to carry around. Imagine this weight while trying to aim. Then consider the rate of fire. It's possible, but only for a short while! We are forgetting that SMGs were still very much in developement and the common riffle was still predominant on the battlefield (with the exception of Germany, who produced MP40s like procreating mice). The stengun was one of the first attempts, so to speak, and thus a tad impractical at times.

My 2 cents...

[arethusa]

Originally posted by Cyricist
I think the difference is which ERA you're talking. And what type of weapon too. .....The stengun was one of the first attempts, so to speak, and thus a tad impractical at times.

My 2 cents...

Absolutely correct Cyricist.

The sten had a very short barrel and I never saw two of them that looked the same. Some of them had 'wire butts', some of them were wood, some hollowed-out steel. Some were blackened or gunmetal colour but most looked like plain steel. Some really did have nails for safeties as I said earlier (they were attached by a wire so you didn't lose them) others had special made pins that fitted in and still others had a lever more like modern guns. We called them 'plumber's guns' because they looked like a few bit of steel pipe threaded onto each other.

The one consistent thing was that they couldn't really be aimed because they vibrated so much and they had no accuracy to speak of anyway so why bother.

Yes, with a modern SMG you could aim. I also fired FNC-1s, the standard 7.62 NATO weapon at the time and scored 89 out of a possible 100 at 200 yards.