The Americans should get the M1919A6 LMG

(Cleft-Asunder) #1

I feel that it would be reasonable to replace the MG-42 LMG for the American soldier class with the Browning M1919A6 since this would add some more variety to the game. Using the MG-42 LMG gets tiresome after a while, but that 1919 on the Churchill is a blast to use when you aren’t being bombarded by explosives.

The 1919A6 has a pistol grip, buttstock and bipod. About ~40,000 of them were made from what I remember at the end of the war, and were issued to paratroopers primarily. (3-men teams I think)

The two sides really need to have seperate support weapons. Also I’d like to suggest that American HMG nests be replaced by the Browning M2 .50 caliber HMG. The American engineer would always set up an M2 nest, while the German engineer always sets up a MG-42 HMG nest.

Makes sense to me. What do you guys think?


M1919A6. Note the buttstock, pistol grip and bipod.


M1919A4.

(kotkis) #2

Sugar

([=O=]SMYLER) #3

If anyone sees the individual known as “Cleft-Asunder” in the game, extreme caution is recommended or failing that possibly the best course of action is to run like “blue fuck” in the opposite direction as he is DEFINITELY armed, dangerous and equipped with a second to none knowledge of field weapons and the like. :eek:

He doesn’t say where he lives but I can imagine that place in Terminator 2 where the hispanic guy has the underground cache covered with a tarpaulin.

(Freedom[]Tickler) #4

I was assuming it would be that way when I read they were doing away w/ the venom.

But if for balance reasones they didnt want dif heavy weaps - then sall good by me -

they could have saddled american FOs w/ the M-1 carbine too, w/ its wee lil 30 cal round. then wed have the BAR w/ its crap rate of fire but nasty armor piercing rounds, the under powered bazooka vrs the panzer faust - but w/ white phosphorous rounds … the list would get too long : ) and I dont think the game would be more fun

distinct skins woulda been fun tho, even if ROF and damage were the same

(Cleft-Asunder) #5

That’s funny you should mention that since on the contrary I have a lot of knowledge about smallarms in general, especially Kalashnikovs. I also play CMBB nearly every day which provides me with a plethora of accurate information about the eastern front. But given that this game makes little attempt to be realistic --for example, the U.S. sets up MG-42’s?–, there’s not much reason any of the things I mentioned shouldn’t AT LEAST be considered.

Now, perhaps you’d like to take a time-out from your pompous ego-trip and tell us all WHY you don’t agree with my suggestions(?). Unfortunately, I forsee yet another ultra-pompous and “witty” reply with what I’m sure will be double the stupidity this time around, and (yet again) no contrary points I could examine and rebut.

Take your time…

(HellToupee) #6

each side having seperate weapons isnt so much a realism thing but a game play thing, i mean if we all had identical looking equipment it would be pretty boring, woulda been cool if they realeased the source code some ppl might have made a british and russian side and added missing weapons to the US side.

(=[mG]=Spitfire) #7

but you guys have to admit that SD team put in some of that effort,diff ide arms,garands and mausers,and the lts can only choose a thompson or mp40 depending on what side there on

(Rippin Kitten) #8

I’m sure there’s no technical reason why they couldn’t have done this. Gameplay wise you would just have to make sure both weapons were equal. I think the only reason they haven’t done this and might not do it is because the added benefit it provides would be small enough it doesn’t justify the time and resources to get it done. I’d much rather have more maps to play on or stability issues resolved before “fluff” addons like weapon skins.

Still, no reason why you shouldn’t pull out a copy of MilkShape and get modeling. This is the perfect task for independant modders. =)

RK

(Cleft-Asunder) #9

The M1919 is already in the game as a tank mounted machine gun so I doubt it would take much effort to remove the MG-42 from the U.S. side, and replace it with the M1919.

It would be interesting to see the tri-pod mounted M1919 MMG available for the soldier. It could differ from the MG-42 LMG in that while moving with it, it has to be carried over the shoulder (pointing up into the sky), depriving the soldier of firing it and slowing him to a walk. One would have to be stationary to set it up and start firing. For balance, the 1919A4 could be more accurate and stable compared to the MG-42.

The only issue with that is that in world war II 6 men were asigned to one M1919A4 MMG, so it’s rather rediculous having one soldier successfully operate it. But again, this game doesn’t aim at realism, so it could work.

(Majikthise) #10

I’d say the M2 or M1919A4 would be good for the mounted allied gunmounts (I love those double handles in back of the M2), and the M1919A6 for the soldier. Since the A6 had the handle and folding bipod, it’d make more sence to be the mobile LMG for soldier.

For everyone else, here’s a good visual reference:
http://www.ramskov.nu/krih/marketgarden/american_weapon.htm

(Pog'S) #11

Only the M1919A4 can be handeled easily and was used as a squad support weapon, one soldier carrying the tripods and another carrying the gun itself. For game purpose we should assume thesoldier would carry all. It should indeed replace the MG42 on Allies side.

(bogs) #12

Why was everyone so grumpy this weekend. Nobody said anything other than compliment you on your knowledge. The game probably doesn’t have those features because it would have taken another two months to add them in.

(Cleft-Asunder) #13

Why was everyone so grumpy this weekend. Nobody said anything other than compliment you on your knowledge. The game probably doesn’t have those features because it would have taken another two months to add them in.[/quote]

No way, [=O=]SMYLER totally tried to offend me.

(Cleft-Asunder) #14

Corrected, thanks Majikthise! That makes a lot of sense.

(Freedom[]Tickler) #15

I dont think smyler was insulting you

just his salty sense of humor at work - maybe he shld have added a few dancing bananas to indicate his mirth

:banana: :banana: :banana: <— like so

(Riftgarde) #16

Would the allies have gotten a browning if the game didn’t become free and went retail?

I’m guessing the allies got the MG because SD was just finishing up the parts of multi player to make it functional and giving the MG to the allies just saved alot of time coding/modeling the browning to be portable?

(Pog'S) #17

Yeah the fact that Allies use a FG42 and MG42 really sounds like a ET is unfinished but hey it’s free so we can’t compain :wink:

I’d really like we, fans, get the source code to be able to fix ET on this and adjust some other imperfections that would deserve tweaking such as the XP award system which is not allow fair. See the thread on Covert Ops Disguise skill…

(Rippin Kitten) #18

Did the allies have a weapon that was comparible to the FG42? I didn’t tihnk the US came out with an assault rifle until after WW2.

RK

(Borsuk) #19

Note: game treats tank-mounted Browning as Mg42. Check stats.

…and I want AK-42 in the game !

(Pog'S) #20

You’re right Allies did not have any weapon similar to the FG42, which is not an assault rifle but a light MG. The FG 42 uses the same caliber as the MG42 or Mauser K98 : 7.9 sS bullet (7.92x57). Plus it’s rate of fire of 750 rpm makes it a good MG (better than Allies ones : BAR, Bren MKx, M1919A4).

The first assault rifle of History is the StG44, which uses the 7.9 PP43, “Kurtz” ammo (7.92x33).

The 7,9 sS is far more lethal than the 7.9 PP43 caue its weight is nearly the double (13 compared to 7) and its velocity is 100 meters / second faster (750 compared to 650)

ET does not use accurate stats for weapons :frowning:
In ET the FG42 base damage is 15 compared to 18 for MP40 or Thompson !!!
But that for fun and balance sake :-/