-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Zuckergußgebäck said:
are you f***ing kidding me? the chautat was one of the most produced and issued automatic weapons in the ENTIRE war, it was seen throughout the entire of the french and later the american fronts. the villar parosa in the italian army showed up constantly. germany compaired to almost all the other powers was BEHIND in certian areas of tech. it took them to the end of the war to develop the mp18 and start issueing it to the infantry. only a small number of the mp18's showed up in the war. another example of germany being behind was the a7v. they did develop a tank but it NEVER got issued to any units and never conducted any battles in the war. in fact only 20 of these tanks were produced.
the role of a sub machinegun is a automatic wepaon designed to be fired on the move. there is a difference betwean a machinepistole(like the mp18) and the smg. they gennerally serve the same roles but they can be different. weapons like the chauchat were used in the war to do the same things machinepistols were supposed to do and a support weapon when needed and were VERY effective.
here are some pics of the villar parosa...
heres a pic of a soldier with a vp...
early smg's werent quite like we think of them today. weapons like the vp the chauchat and thier clones(the vp was copied and used extensively in the austrian army) along with other weapons like the bermingham(wich was one of the first gpmg's that could fill all automatic roles) were used EXTENSIVELY throughout the entire war in multiple roles. mobile automatic firepower, suppression weapons and just plain automatic support(wich covers both of the previous roles).
to support myself claiming that mobile automatic firepower can qualify a weapon into the smg class(or just mean that its doing that role) a dictionary definition of a submachine gun...
i do concede that untill the end of the war no weapon was used that we would think of as a smg in our modern sence. back then though, the mobile automatic firepower provided by these weapons filled both the lmg and the smg roles for the war.
Last edited:
I would describe those weapons as LMGs (light machine guns) not SMGs. An LMG is a platoon support weapon; SMGs are issued to individul soldiers for use in close-quarters fighting. They're completely different in purpose, and LMGs came into common use in 1916-7 in most armies.
The Chauchat - which has a reputation as being possibly the worst machine gun ever made - weighed 20 pounds - over twice as heavy as a rifle. It was the same weight as the American BAR, and 5 pounds lighter than the Lewis gun.
The Villar-Perosa was half again as heavy as a rifle, and was originally designed for aircraft use: it saw limited use on the ground, especially by Alpine troops. As far as I can see, Italy late in the war issued two light machine guns per company - I assume these would be either the V-P or the Perino.
The Chauchat - which has a reputation as being possibly the worst machine gun ever made - weighed 20 pounds - over twice as heavy as a rifle. It was the same weight as the American BAR, and 5 pounds lighter than the Lewis gun.
The Villar-Perosa was half again as heavy as a rifle, and was originally designed for aircraft use: it saw limited use on the ground, especially by Alpine troops. As far as I can see, Italy late in the war issued two light machine guns per company - I assume these would be either the V-P or the Perino.
StephenT said:
heh you do know more about the useage of the vp than i do, i just learned that it was a very compact machinegun that often worked as a mobile role. anyway you are right they were produced to be lmgs, however the mobile automatic firepower they provided also served as a smg role. a mobile automatic weapon. technically a lmg is still supposed to be set up when fired....see you got the scales here, smg, lmg, mmg, hmg. the smg wich we can clearly see what it evolved to in ww2 was used primarily as a mobile weapon. fireing ANY weapon on the move can be extreemly difficult when you consider that you just arent going to hit anything with one or two shots. smg's were designed for the purpose of spray and pray while commiting to assaults. this means when moving you can fire your weapon and judging by the area you see your hitting you correct as you continue running for your goal. this is what made smgs the close combat weapon, because they could run while still putting out effective firepower. when people with smgs were supporting thier allies with their weapons they could jsut rest thier weapon on an object making it into a lmg with a small calibre and a short barrel.
we have a case of cross useage here. in the us army there was the bar, classified as a automatic rifle but for our army it served in a lmg role more often than not. with the chauchut, the bermingham and the vilar parosa served both the lmg role and the smg role durring the war. the armies tried to get the soldiers to use these as smgs so much that they issued fireing cups for both the bar and the chauchat so they could be fired unsupported and even on the move with pretty damn good acuracy.
as for the chauchat being the worst machiengun in history.... sorry but that is fiction. its just like those people who claim the m16 is crap. its not. the chauchat's problem was reliability and that is solved completely if you just keep the dirt out of the open magazine. the weapon operated GREAT if you just kept that magazine clean. it was acurate, when the magazine was clean it was reliable and even highly controllable unsupported. this weapon realy was effective, and the fact that it was so produced proves it. no army in the world continues production of weapons that are "horrible" and defeninately not on that scale.
here check out a movie of the chauchat unsupported.
http://trenches.myrmid.com/Chauchat.mov
amazingly unsupported the man fireing the weapon hits with almost all of his shots. you can see the shots go through the target and hit the hillside behind.
anyway, i guess in a since the 1919 is right. the smgs didnt show up in ww1 like we think of them. however their role was filled throughout the entire existance of lmgs in the war. the lmgs provided that sub machinegun role, the modern thought of that weapon is just a shorter lighter version of a lmg.
ceacar99 said:
You have head of Villers-Bretonneux, right? Three A7V tanks faced off against one Male and two Female British tanks in the first ever tank vs tank combat. Given that there's also the A7V Mephisto down the road in the museum having been captured in combat I'd have to say that if you seriously think that they were never issued to units and never saw combat then you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.
ceacar99 said:
The soldiers on the battlefield don't have much time to check is the magazine clear. You mention M-16, and that was it's main defect. M-16 was powerfull and accurate, but that is the advantage only for the best sharpshooters. For the average soldier, reliability is much more important - he has to be sure that his weapon won't betray him in a decisive moment. That's why American soldiers in Vietnam threw off M-16 and used AK-47.
I guess the same goes for Chauchat. And the tech component is called "Reliable Submachineguns".
Indeed. The AK-47 was tested by tying a piece of string to it and dragging it through sand, mud etcetera.jova said:
As for the doctrinal tree, what about this?
The Defence-In-Depth doctrine will of course not sleep the Mass Charge Doctrine...
Code:
Modern Military Establishment
____________________________________|___________________________________
| | | |
Defensive Focus Firepower Focus Manpower Focus Offensive Focus
|___________________|_______________________________|__________________|
|
Strongpoint Warfare
___________________|_____________________
| |
Defence-In-Depth Mass Charge Focus
| |
Defensive Attrition Offensive Attrition
|_______________________________________|
|
Infiltration
___________________|_____________________
| |
Static Defence Doctrine Breakthrough Emphasis
| |
Counterattack emphasis Schwerpunkt DoctrineThe Defence-In-Depth doctrine will of course not sleep the Mass Charge Doctrine...
Are both Static Defense Doctrine and Breakthrough Emphasis open or are they unique paths?
I was thinking more along the lines of unique paths also. Trying to figure out how to set up the tree in my head ... thinking of making it like the naval tree in vanilla with techs reached at certain points along certain branches.
Since I was constantly buggered by all the arrows left over from the vanilla tech tree, I descided to make my own background. It just took me a couple of hours of constant (re)drawing, changing coordinates and testing. 
(Braces against the inevitable 'I´ve already done this'-answer)
(Braces against the inevitable 'I´ve already done this'-answer)
wasn't there a marine model before the 1924 one ?Zuckergußgebäck said:Since I was constantly buggered by all the arrows left over from the vanilla tech tree, I descided to make my own. It just took me a couple of hours of constant (re)drawing, changing coordinates and testing.
(Braces against the inevitable 'I´ve already done this'-answer)
I haven´t got the foggiest. I just changed the background and position of the techs already in place.
Zuckergußgebäck said:
It must be painful in the extreme to be penetrated in such places by objects as notably sharp as arrows.
Zuckergußgebäck said:I descided to make my own. It just took me a couple of hours of constant (re)drawing, changing coordinates and testing.
(Braces against the inevitable 'I´ve already done this'-answer)
Looks excellent, though - very well done.
I don´t quite follow.Allenby said:It must be painful in the extreme to be penetrated in such places by objects as notably sharp as arrows.