Small Arms.-No AR-15 conversation allowed

[PlacidDragon]

He is using a bump fire device. Bump fire is a really ugly work around to turn a semi auto rifle into a full auto. It really screws over accuracy in a big way.

The semi auto rifle sits in a spring loaded stock and the whole rifle moves from the recoil. The spring then pushes the rifle forward and "bumps" the trigger into your static finger, recoiling the rifle back again. Just look at how much the rifle moves compared to the stock. The principle behind bump fire would work with any semi auto rifle. And yes, you could build a device that would work for a Garand.

I know its a bump fire device

While not as accurate as a "normal assault rifle", its certainly accurate enough in trained hands. And it has no problem of spitting out lead at fully automatic speeds. An AR-15 is identical to an M-16 (which certainly is an assault rifle), except for some modifications of the firing mechanism (so it can only fire semi auto).

 

[L'Afrique]

I would like to see those statistics posted here. As I said, the previous statistics are almost completely useless due to how much they have been manipulated. I do not trust manipulated statistics.

Bellamy (1986), pp. 1–7, cites the percentage of casualties caused by artillery in various theaters since 1914: in the First World War, 45 percent of Russian casualties and 58 percent of British casualties on the Western Front; in the Second World War, 75 percent of British casualties in North Africa and 51 percent of Soviet casualties (61 percent in 1945) and 70 percent of German casualties on the Eastern Front; and in the Korean War, 60 percent of US casualties, including those inflicted by mortars.
—J. B. A. Bailey (2004). Field artillery and firepower

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artillery

Also, I'm a soldier, and it is basic military doctrine: small arms exist to pin the enemy down so you can get where you need to go. Bombardments kill things. (be they from mortars or cannons or planes or whatever.)

No doubt having better small arms is great for the soldier (I certainly wouldn't want to go into battle with a Lee-Enfield against men with kalashnikovs). But it's not a deciding factor except on the smallest tactical level. Can anyone find a battalion-sized action, let alone a battle, operation, or campaign, where superior rifles decided the outcome?

You can also look at modern warfare: US infantry in Iraq far outperformed insurgent infantry. Iraqi infantry, several years later, has proven helpless against the same insurgents despite carrying US gear. Kurds and FSA units with inferior gear, however, can and does stand up to them and throw them back. The gear (within reason- I'm not talking M1s vs. brown bess muskets) is only an amplifier- superior tactics, training, discipline, and motivation is the key for carrying out infantry operations, which are about manouver and suppression.

There's just no justification for rifles having an effect on unit stats at this scale- especially not since you'd have to track not only rifles but MG, SMG, etc etc loadout. That's a huge amount of calculation for what'll amount to, at most, +1 soft attack. When planes are interdicting supply lanes, panzers are racing around your flanks, and accurate barrages are killing or wounding dozens, the increase in firepower from better rifles is just not much of a factor on the operational scale.

 

[Meanmanturbo]

I know its a bump fire device

While not as accurate as a "normal assault rifle", its certainly accurate enough in trained hands. And it has no problem of spitting out lead at fully automatic speeds. An AR-15 is identical to an M-16 (which certainly is an assault rifle), except for some modifications of the firing mechanism (so it can only fire semi auto).

Yes but the principle would work with any semi auto rifle, like say a Garand (though the market would be pretty damn small, hence we haven't seen one). An AR 15 is not more dangerous than any other semi auto rifle with the same magazine size, the one thing making it more dangerous then a Garand. Now a semi auto rifles can be pretty damn dangerous on it's own right, full auto with rifle calibers really isn't that useful anyway.

 

[PlacidDragon]

Yes but the principle would work with any semi auto rifle, like say a Garand (though the market would be pretty damn small, hence we haven't seen one).

True that

Now a semi auto rifles can be pretty damn dangerous on it's own right, full auto with rifle calibers really isn't that useful anyway.

heh, tell me about it. I did my military service with a G3 (7.62). On full auto you could just forget about holding it steady, it was all over the place. Probably wouldn't hit the broadside of a barn past the first shot, even if i was standing inside it

Intermediate cartridges on the other hand, like the 5.56, are quite accurate on full auto (at least by comparison).

 

[Beagá]

Weapon upgrades are a thorny issue, the problem is the scale necessary to build the new weapon in massive numbers. And it creates trouble with making divisions that have submachine guns only, and using only those in the Pacific while the japanese use rifles. It could imbalance the game or feel weird.

In other words, it´s tricky making specific weapons give specific bonuses if the AI can´t handle that as well as the player.

I do wonder why the brits still used the Enfield all the way to 1945. I think that it´s more interesting to focus on why they decided to keep using bolt-action for so long, instead of analyzing only the germans.

 

[The_Phoenix]

jju just don't mind any firearm ignorance, however I kind of doubt that he was referring to my AR15 comment. I do want to say we are talking about the importance of semi-automatic weapons and their important role within combat units and why this is significant to model in the game in some way. Real assault rifles must have selective fire, the BAR "almost" fit this category but it uses a full length rifle round where as the German Sturmgewehr had this intermediate round that truly defined what an assault rifle is. So jju is right, there is NO difference between a military spec M16 and a military spec AR15 except selective fire capability, and this is why an AR15 is placed in the same category with an M1 or a later model Gewehr.

I am at least hoping for some sort of tech which improves the combat effectiveness of infantry equipment.

 

[Secret Master]

Can anyone find a battalion-sized action, let alone a battle, operation, or campaign, where superior rifles decided the outcome?

How about the Battle of Franklin in 1864? Two Union regiments were using the famous Henry Repeating Rifle. It served them well in the Union center. And that was a battle with 3 times as many Confederate dead as Union dead. Of course, everyone wanted Henry rifles, but there simply weren't enough to equip everybody even in the Union army.

There's also the Battle of Königgrätz during the Austro-Prussian War. Austrian superiority in artillery did not overcome Austrian deficiencies in small arms. Not unlike the Battle of Franklin, you really shouldn't bring a muzzle-loading weapon to a breech loading or multi-round magazine fight. And that was a battle where the loser also had 3 times as many dead as the winner.

There's just no justification for rifles having an effect on unit stats at this scale- especially not since you'd have to track not only rifles but MG, SMG, etc etc loadout. That's a huge amount of calculation for what'll amount to, at most, +1 soft attack. When planes are interdicting supply lanes, panzers are racing around your flanks, and accurate barrages are killing or wounding dozens, the increase in firepower from better rifles is just not much of a factor on the operational scale.

Well, in fairness to small arms, in the HOI series, I've always assumed that small arms for infantry formations include everything up to Browning M2s. After all, the DOD's definition of small arms something along the lines of "Man portable, individual, and crew-served weapon systems used mainly against personnel and lightly armored or unarmored equipment". I would agree that just having a better rifle, if you are already starting at post-WWI techs, isn't going to nudge the firepower of an entire division up that much, at least compared to other things. But if you take small arms as the totality of non-mortar, non-howitzer, non-vehicular division firepower, it makes more sense for a small arms technology to provide a marginal increase in division firepower. I mean, really, a division is more than the sum of its parts, but it needs good parts across the board.

There doesn't need to be a specific rifle tech or piece of equipment in HOI4. But a small arms tech, or infantryman kit (which is something podcat mentioned) would be reasonable.

 

[Beagá]

It´s not good enough.

A G.I can´t carry a Garand and a Thompson. Ultimatedly you have to decide how to equip your divisions. Having a "Rifle" tech that gives +2 attack and a "SMG" tech that also gives +2 attack, for a total of +4 attack, is silly, because the guy won´t be carrying two weapons. The bonus/malus is proportional to how much of the division is equipped with it.

 

[jju_57]

The FG-42 and BAR were semi-automatic and had detachable box magazines.

The AR-15 is much, much closer to assault rifle than it is to just plain old rifle, even though the 'Assault Rifle' term was never a military term and infact originated from the civilian world.

The BAR is much closer to a real AR then the AR-15 is. Contrary to what you wrote the BAR was a fully automatic weapon. Without even getting that correct you can't state the AR is an assault weapon.

As I said my BB-gun M-16 is fully automatic, has a box magazine and is identical in size and shape to a M-16. Does that make it an assault rifle? After all the only difference is the caliber of the weapon.

Can anyone find a battalion-sized action, let alone a battle, operation, or campaign, where superior rifles decided the outcome?

Yes look at many fights between the US and Japan in WW2. The M1 provided superior firepower to allow the US a tactical advantage. No different then the Zulu wars or the Indian wars in the US. Superior weapons make a difference.

 

[Novacat]

It´s not good enough.

A G.I can´t carry a Garand and a Thompson. Ultimatedly you have to decide how to equip your divisions. Having a "Rifle" tech that gives +2 attack and a "SMG" tech that also gives +2 attack, for a total of +4 attack, is silly, because the guy won´t be carrying two weapons. The bonus/malus is proportional to how much of the division is equipped with it.

But he can carry a Garand for missions that call for it, and a Thompsons for missions that call for it. Considering the default weapon is the Rifle, the Garand can just be a flat damage upgrade and the Thompson can be a bonus to urban attack/defense.

The BAR is much closer to a real AR then the AR-15 is. Contrary to what you wrote the BAR was a fully automatic weapon. Without even getting that correct you can't state the AR is an assault weapon.

Contrary to what I did not write, I never talked about the fire modes of any of the rifles I talked about in my previous post.

The real 'grey area' rifles are the M14, FN FAL, G3, and yes, the BAR. Even the media sometimes calls them 'Battle Rifles' as opposed to assault rifles on account of their use of a full length cartridge. Either way, as I mentioned above 'Assault Rifle' has never really been an official military classification.

As I said my BB-gun M-16 is fully automatic, has a box magazine and is identical in size and shape to a M-16. Does that make it an assault rifle? After all the only difference is the caliber of the weapon.

It does not use a intermediate rifle cartridge, which is a rather specific requirement. Hell, even if you had it shoot pistol rounds it would be an SMG instead of an assault rifle.

 

[Gamer_1745]

Things may change, but we have been informed the values are averaged out in a division (as in the average of different tanks in a battalion). We also have been informed that weapons/equipment can/will have terrain effects. So if a division has 80% k98 rifles and 20% MP40 smgs their values will be averaged. So a K98 can have bonuses in open terrain & penalties in urban and a MP40 can have bonuses in urban terrain & penalties in open terrain.

 

[L'Afrique]

How about the Battle of Franklin in 1864? Two Union regiments were using the famous Henry Repeating Rifle. It served them well in the Union center. And that was a battle with 3 times as many Confederate dead as Union dead. Of course, everyone wanted Henry rifles, but there simply weren't enough to equip everybody even in the Union army.

There's also the Battle of Königgrätz during the Austro-Prussian War. Austrian superiority in artillery did not overcome Austrian deficiencies in small arms. Not unlike the Battle of Franklin, you really shouldn't bring a muzzle-loading weapon to a breech loading or multi-round magazine fight. And that was a battle where the loser also had 3 times as many dead as the winner.



Well, in fairness to small arms, in the HOI series, I've always assumed that small arms for infantry formations include everything up to Browning M2s. After all, the DOD's definition of small arms something along the lines of "Man portable, individual, and crew-served weapon systems used mainly against personnel and lightly armored or unarmored equipment". I would agree that just having a better rifle, if you are already starting at post-WWI techs, isn't going to nudge the firepower of an entire division up that much, at least compared to other things. But if you take small arms as the totality of non-mortar, non-howitzer, non-vehicular division firepower, it makes more sense for a small arms technology to provide a marginal increase in division firepower. I mean, really, a division is more than the sum of its parts, but it needs good parts across the board.

There doesn't need to be a specific rifle tech or piece of equipment in HOI4. But a small arms tech, or infantryman kit (which is something podcat mentioned) would be reasonable.

I agree, an overall infantry weapons tech makes sense, but arguing about caliber minutia or semi-auto vs bolt-action at a divisional level is silly.

Also, funny you bring up those examples. The quote I cut out there, in full, reads "From the middle of the eighteenth century to the middle of the nineteenth, artillery is judged to have accounted for perhaps 50% of battlefield casualties. In the sixty years preceding 1914, this figure was probably as low as 10 percent. The remaining 90 percent fell to small arms, whose range and accuracy had come to rival those of artillery. ... [By WWI] The British Royal Artillery, at over one million men, grew to be larger than the Royal Navy. Bellamy (1986), pp. 1–7, cites the percentage of casualties caused by artillery in various theaters since 1914: in the First World War, 45 percent of Russian casualties and 58 percent of British casualties on the Western Front; in the Second World War, 75 percent of British casualties in North Africa and 51 percent of Soviet casualties (61 percent in 1945) and 70 percent of German casualties on the Eastern Front; and in the Korean War, 60 percent of US casualties, including those inflicted by mortars."

Really demonstrates how lethal firearms became, and in turn, how utterly, mind-destroyingly terrifying artillery got a few decades later.

(alas, why does this forum format c/ps thus, I can't get back to normal font )

 

[jju_57]

Contrary to what I did not write, I never talked about the fire modes of any of the rifles I talked about in my previous post.

Then how did this sentence get into your previous post?

The FG-42 and BAR were semi-automatic and had detachable box magazines.

Cleary you said the BAR was semi-automatic.

As for classification of what is an assault rifle here in the US the goofy left doesn't use cartridge size at all. It has things like grip, magazine, barrel length, stock etc. And you agree that event he military has not classified assault rifles so how can someone then classify the AR-15 as one?

 

[Secret Master]

It´s not good enough.

A G.I can´t carry a Garand and a Thompson. Ultimatedly you have to decide how to equip your divisions. Having a "Rifle" tech that gives +2 attack and a "SMG" tech that also gives +2 attack, for a total of +4 attack, is silly, because the guy won´t be carrying two weapons. The bonus/malus is proportional to how much of the division is equipped with it.

I agree; I'm also assuming this was not a response to my post.

I agree, an overall infantry weapons tech makes sense, but arguing about caliber minutia or semi-auto vs bolt-action at a divisional level is silly.

Also, funny you bring up those examples. The quote I cut out there, in full, reads "From the middle of the eighteenth century to the middle of the nineteenth, artillery is judged to have accounted for perhaps 50% of battlefield casualties. In the sixty years preceding 1914, this figure was probably as low as 10 percent. The remaining 90 percent fell to small arms, whose range and accuracy had come to rival those of artillery. ... [By WWI] The British Royal Artillery, at over one million men, grew to be larger than the Royal Navy. Bellamy (1986), pp. 1–7, cites the percentage of casualties caused by artillery in various theaters since 1914: in the First World War, 45 percent of Russian casualties and 58 percent of British casualties on the Western Front; in the Second World War, 75 percent of British casualties in North Africa and 51 percent of Soviet casualties (61 percent in 1945) and 70 percent of German casualties on the Eastern Front; and in the Korean War, 60 percent of US casualties, including those inflicted by mortars."

Really demonstrates how lethal firearms became, and in turn, how utterly, mind-destroyingly terrifying artillery got a few decades later.

(alas, why does this forum format c/ps thus, I can't get back to normal font )

Right. I'm not disputing the power of artillery in the least. I also doubt HOI4 will make artillery wimpy. Consider how powerful ART was in HOI3 (to say nothing of the light artillery tech in the infantry line). For non-special forces divisions, the question wasn't "Should we have ART?" the question always was, "How many ART brigades per division can I afford in terms of IC cost and logistics?"

 

[Beagá]

I agree; I'm also assuming this was not a response to my post.

Actually it kinda was

I don´t agree with what Novacat said either. Yes you can swap weapons.

But ultimatedly, you can´t have a +4 bonus if the majority of people is using the weapon you researched to give a +2, unless having half the division with SMG and half with rifles gives enough of a synergical effect to justify a +4 attack. Now IF you research the assault rifle and ALL of it is equipped with it, and it gives a +X value, then ok.

 

[Novacat]

Cleary you said the BAR was semi-automatic.

Bad choice of word, I was thinking auto-loading when I said semi-automatic.

As for classification of what is an assault rifle here in the US the goofy left doesn't use cartridge size at all. It has things like grip, magazine, barrel length, stock etc. And you agree that event he military has not classified assault rifles so how can someone then classify the AR-15 as one?

Which sort of serves my point in that theres no concrete definition on what is and is not an assault rifle.

 

[LordGazer]

Not sure if this was directed tot he AR15 comment or not.

The AR15 is not an assault rifle. It is not much different from a M1 Garand. Assault rifles are fully automatic or can fire in 3 round bursts. The AR15 is a semi-automatic where it takes a trigger pull to fire one round.

But the point is valid for WW2. Just like a modern assault rifle lays down massive suppression fire the M1 Garand did the same in WW2 and this is why it was way superior to any bolt action rifle.

I did not mean to imply that AR15 is an assault rifle. I'm well aware of the semantics debate going on in USA and the aggressive use of the word in media. I was referring to an earlier post where the poster would rather take his AR15 than a bolt action rifle and wanted to say that that is because he personally feels better/safer and not because it is strictly better in a large scale combat situation.

 

[Had a dad]

Well since it has zero bearing on WW2 or HOI IV we can stop the conversation about the AR-15, and what is a modern "assault rifle"

 

[TheRomanRuler]

Sorry if already said, but it was not due to quality of men why Germans moved to fully automatic weapons, it was due to their numbers which inspired new Volksgrenadier (NOT Volkstrum) units that were designed to cope with less manpower available: It had only 6 battalions (instead of 9) and had more automatic weapons than other units. Germans however had equipment and manpower shortages, which meant these units got militia level soldiers and equipment, thus they were usually closer to Volkstrum than planned.
Wikipedia has nice, tough for a history geek, short page about it.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volksgrenadier Altough that does not really add anything to what i already said, expect "often displayed high motivation and morale which resulted in surprisingly good cohesion and military effectiveness against the Reich's enemies in the last eight or so months"

 

[Filou]

Some people need to revise their Newtonian mechanics and stop posting Special Relativity equations.