Tech Trees and Models

[D Inqu]

STG44 was different in that it actually was a weapon capable of replacing regular rifles. MP-40 was the German SMG, PPSH was Soviet one.

MP-40 was used to arm officers and rear soldiers. Officers just got something better then pistol, and rear soldiers were much better off with weapon that did well in short range, and allowed error.

In all honestly, US and largely UK did overrate the long range fire of rifles, compared to their actual efficiency.

Old misconception. The allied post war analysis stated that the semi-automatic rifle was much better suited to trained personnel and could achieve much better results due to high accuracy, good reliability and good fire rate. Which was why the post-war NATO rifles were similar in ideology to the M1 and not the StG. The soviets also downplayed the StG44 as it was, and went with the SKS after the war. The appearance of AKM was due to a very efficient, very cheap rugged design, combined with the inertia in the army, which adapted the tactics during the war to mass use of fully automatic weapons.

StG44 was inevitably rushed due to war-time constraints and as a result was complex and expensive.

 

[Bullfrog]

Another tech that is over researched is Artillery. Essentially the major combatants utilized one or two standard light and heavy howitzers throughout the war. Specialization certainly occurred, leading to mission appropriate pieces like airborne unit pieces and certainly adaptations for mobile artillery. But these techs need not go on ad infinitum. Not saying there can't be advancements in this field of technology (such as variable fuse), just that having techs for techs sake is redundant and adds to complexity.

What would be cooler would be just a few more types available rather than oft repeated linear advancement of the same pieces. So things like MTN and PAR guns, light vs heavy howitzers. The rest are already there I think: fixed AA, infantry guns and so on. Though I think mobile AA (more of a chassis overhaul really) didn't have a dedicated tech. Plus if all these were consolidated into one tech page rather than strewn around the research tab, that'd be nice.

 

[FOARP]

One of the big issues was that this semi-automatics in the 30-s were:
1. expensive (semi automatic rifles were about an order of magnitude or even more extensive than classical rifles)
2. Required well trained soldiers to use most efficiently (which was why the bulk of the soviet infantry didn't like the SVT, but the well trained border guards and marines loved it)

Therefore, during wartime, only the US having the huge industrial base completely undamaged by war, could afford the expense of keeping the mass production of semi automatics. They were nevertheless a huge breakthrough. People talk, a lot about the StG44, but the US line of infantry weapons (and tactics) draws its origins to the M1. and, to be honest, the germans build as many semi-automatics as they did StG44.

The appearance of many submachine guns (StG44 included) on the European theater of war in other armies than the US was simple - the soldiers needed a fast firing weapon, preferably cheap and easily producible.

I have to be honest - I've read a lot of histories of the war, and not one of them cites the M1 as being particularly advantageous. Even given the choice, most British troops preferred the accuracy of the Lee-Enfield, which a trained man could fire almost as quickly as the M1. This isn't a "Ra-Ra-British weapons were great" argument, it's just that the Allied armies had a marked inferiority to the Germans in terms of equipment in most fields that was never really addressed during the war - artillery and air support were one area in land combat where we had an advantage.

Another tech that is over researched is Artillery. Essentially the major combatants utilized one or two standard light and heavy howitzers throughout the war. Specialization certainly occurred, leading to mission appropriate pieces like airborne unit pieces and certainly adaptations for mobile artillery. But these techs need not go on ad infinitum. Not saying there can't be advancements in this field of technology (such as variable fuse), just that having techs for techs sake is redundant and adds to complexity.

What would be cooler would be just a few more types available rather than oft repeated linear advancement of the same pieces. So things like MTN and PAR guns, light vs heavy howitzers. The rest are already there I think: fixed AA, infantry guns and so on. Though I think mobile AA (more of a chassis overhaul really) didn't have a dedicated tech. Plus if all these were consolidated into one tech page rather than strewn around the research tab, that'd be nice.

Agreed. The player should made to chose a model which they are going to mass-produce, and maybe given a chance or two to switch to better ones - it should not just be a no-brainer choice of continually upgrading.

 

[D Inqu]

I have to be honest - I've read a lot of histories of the war, and not one of them cites the M1 as being particularly advantageous. Even given the choice, most British troops preferred the accuracy of the Lee-Enfield, which a trained man could fire almost as quickly as the M1. This isn't a "Ra-Ra-British weapons were great" argument, it's just that the Allied armies had a marked inferiority to the Germans in terms of equipment in most fields that was never really addressed during the war - artillery and air support were one area in land combat where we had an advantage.

Why do you think the post war NATO rifles were selective fire rifles (M14, FAL), which are following the same ideology as earlier semi-automatic rifles and use a rifle round (7.62×51mm), as opposed to the shortened round the germans tried to introduce for the StG44?

 

[Beagá]

Bit OT but is there any research that shows how often semi-automatic mode was used instead of full auto in recent wars (Vietnam, Yugoslavia, Iraq etc)?

 

[Mjarr]

Why do you think the post war NATO rifles were selective fire rifles (M14, FAL), which are following the same ideology as earlier semi-automatic rifles and use a rifle round (7.62×51mm), as opposed to the shortened round the germans tried to introduce for the StG44?

The staff disagreed with some reports made from the field - which advocated greater use of fully automatic weapons, though they were definitely in the minority - and because it was military tradition back in the day, and coming up with immediate successor over proved designs (conceptually at least) would either force them to stick with old guns instead of adopting something familiar, but improved? SKS was bit of stopgap until they could come up with something better in Soviet Union in same vein. And to be honest, it's not much different how it took so long until M1943 field uniforms were issued in large quantities outside couple of lucky divisions. Majority of US Generals and especially those in high position such as Bradley, thought it looks ugly and considered it to be inferior to the greatcoat in winter use, and given that clothes were quite low on supply priority it was not until early 1945 they finally caved in because lack of proper clothes. In comparison, M1941 field jacket was quite awful outside golf course or stroll in Sunday afternoon.

Bit OT but is there any research that shows how often semi-automatic mode was used instead of full auto in recent wars (Vietnam, Yugoslavia, Iraq etc)?

I consider it common sense that other than for purely suppressive purposes or such close ranges you can literally throw your gun at someone, you don't use assault rifles in full auto mode unless you intend to get sore shoulders and miss the side of a barn. That being said, reality is unrealistic and thus for every thumb rule one can easily notice based on some experience with firearms can be broken since wars induce creative use for everything.

 

[D Inqu]

The staff disagreed with some reports made from the field - which advocated greater use of fully automatic weapons, though they were definitely in the minority - and because it was military tradition back in the day, and coming up with immediate successor over proved designs (conceptually at least) would either force them to stick with old guns instead of adopting something familiar, but improved? SKS was bit of stopgap until they could come up with something better in Soviet Union in same vein.

Ehm, the M14, G3 and FAL were adopted in the 50-s at the height of the Cold War. Funding was definitely not an issue, these rifles were in use for decades, and FAL remains in use to the day in dozens of countries - so it must not be as bad as you seem to think.

The SKS was not a stopgap, it was a logical return to the pre-war soviet weapon development (AVS->SVT-38->SVT-40). However, the inertia of the use of massed PPSh during the war demanded a fully automatic weapon.

In the end, no-one in the West went with the german assault rifle ideology. The whole idea of the shortened Kurz Cartridge was dismissed as a decision made out of dire necessity that resulted inferior quality. NATO adopted 7.62×51mm as standard round, which was similar to most rifle rounds.

Bit OT but is there any research that shows how often semi-automatic mode was used instead of full auto in recent wars (Vietnam, Yugoslavia, Iraq etc)?

The correct question to ask will be "how often was full-automatic mode used (by trained regulars)?". With the answer "not often at all".

 

[Mjarr]

Ehm, the M14, G3 and FAL were adopted in the 50-s at the height of the Cold War. Funding was definitely not an issue, these rifles were in use for decades, and FAL remains in use to the day in dozens of countries - so it must not be as bad as you seem to think.

I honestly don't think I implied by any means most battle rifles were\are bad. Simply that doctrines and analysis aside, there can still be heavily conflicting views on things which may or may not influence such decisions. The M1943 field uniform - though as odd as the example is - is one better example, since the uniform was superior to the old M1941 and old wool trouser combination by any means but aesthetics and old fashion mentality was apparently better than actually making sure soldiers have more practical and multifunctional clothes to wear.

(And on obvious note, of course odd decisions are not by any means exclusive to West and I certainly do not mean to imply by any means the Western view on assault rifles in late 40s or 50s is somehow fundamentally inferior.)

 

[D Inqu]

I honestly don't think I implied by any means most battle rifles were\are bad. Simply that doctrines and analysis aside, there can still be heavily conflicting views on things which may or may not influence such decisions. The M1943 field uniform - though as odd as the example is - is one better example, since the uniform was superior to the old M1941 and old wool trouser combination by any means but aesthetics and old fashion mentality was apparently better than actually making sure soldiers have more practical and multifunctional clothes to wear.

Likewise, I did not mean to imply that the StG44 was "bad" - it performed well in the war. Just that like many other new German designs it had problems that somewhat negated the advantages.

As far as in-game is concerned, I just don't want the earlier games models, which progressed rifle>semi-auto>submachine gun>assault rifle, which unhistorical. Massed submachine guns should be a decision, that makes divisions cheaper, but is worse than massed semi-automatic. Assault rifles should also be a decision, and early assault rifles should be expensive.

 

[tommylotto]

Its not as if the Americans did much in the way of designing new small arms during the war either, the M1 Garand (a 1941 design that got a mixed reception) was pretty much the only new small-arms adopted in significant numbers by the US

The M1 was adopted by the US Army in 1936 as the standard service rifle and was described by Patton as the greatest battle implement ever devised. An air-cooled, gas-operated, clip-fed, semi-automatic, shoulder-fired weapon has a distinct advantage in a battlefield populated by slower bolt action rifles.

 

[mursolini]

Old misconception. The allied post war analysis stated that the semi-automatic rifle was much better suited to trained personnel and could achieve much better results due to high accuracy, good reliability and good fire rate. Which was why the post-war NATO rifles were similar in ideology to the M1 and not the StG. The soviets also downplayed the StG44 as it was, and went with the SKS after the war. The appearance of AKM was due to a very efficient, very cheap rugged design, combined with the inertia in the army, which adapted the tactics during the war to mass use of fully automatic weapons.

StG44 was inevitably rushed due to war-time constraints and as a result was complex and expensive.

The SKS was not a stopgap, it was a logical return to the pre-war soviet weapon development (AVS->SVT-38->SVT-40). However, the inertia of the use of massed PPSh during the war demanded a fully automatic weapon.

It is well known that Allied expertise in terms of firearms was crap. Sure, if you only suffered 400k loses, out of which, maybe 150k was lost infantry man, you end up with trained infantry that, can potentially use M1 better. But that was not the situation of SU, Germany, Japan or any country that was not sitting behind the ocean or channel. STG44 is quite similar to AK-47, and it was for a good reason. In fact, SKS was a case of military inertia, since SU was transitioning to SVT before war, and thus preferred to get arm people with STS. But then, AK-47 appeared, and STS was tossed away.

M1 and M-14 are maybe better at Pacifying banana republics or arming small professional armies, but for a world war, STG44 and AK-47 are far better.

No-one says that the design was perfect, but looking only at allies is stupid, as their expertise in land warfare was small and limited to fighting with well trained and well supplied army against badly trained, outnumbered and poorly equipped opponent.

In the end, no-one in the West went with the german assault rifle ideology. The whole idea of the shortened Kurz Cartridge was dismissed as a decision made out of dire necessity that resulted inferior quality. NATO adopted 7.62×51mm as standard round, which was similar to most rifle rounds.

Please.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5.56×45mm_NATO
How is 5.56x46(for M-16) round is not similar to 7.62x33?
Are you sure the idea was dismissed?
Let`s look at the reason 5.56x46 was developed:

The 5.56 mm cartridge was developed as a more medium range alternative to the larger caliber round used in M14 rifles; each soldier can carry more ammunition. It was also found useful in automatic and burst fire, developing the M16 into variants such as the M16A3 and M16A4.

Compare to:

The rifle was chambered for the 7.92×33mm Kurz cartridge. This shorter version of the German standard (7.92x57mm) rifle round, in combination with the weapon's selective-fire design, provided a compromise between the controllable firepower of a submachine gun at close quarters with the accuracy and power of a Karabiner 98k bolt action rifle at intermediate ranges. While the StG44 had less range and power than the more powerful infantry rifles of the day, Army studies had shown that few combat engagements occurred at more than 300 m and the majority within 200 m. Full-power rifle cartridges were excessive for the vast majority of uses for the average soldier. Only a trained specialist, such as a sniper, or soldiers equipped with machine guns which fired multiple rounds at a known or suspected target could make full use of the standard rifle round's range and power.

And here we are, it only took Americans 25 years to get to the same conclusion as Germans came to.

 

[tommylotto]

And here we are, it only took Americans 25 years to get to the same conclusion as Germans came to.

Scoreboard.

 

[FNK_Drake]

@Bulldog

Did you ever try the HPP mod?.. They modeled things quite nicely; No more redundant techs.

Single set of Small arms, with additional modification techs for special forces(Para, Marine, Mountain). All Capital ships shared engines. Light Carriers used Cruiser engines. Light AA guns were used by all ships, and Multi-purpose ones by most. One tech for Aero engines.. Etc, Etc.

Hopefully Paradox learns from this and we get a nicer tech tree in HOI4.

 

[mursolini]

Scoreboard.

What i meant is, at the end of WW2 allied practical experience of fighting a land war was far smaller then German or Soviet. Hence why they had huge misconceptions and their "post war analysis" is precisely the misconception.

Later, as they fought more wars, Korea, and Vietnam, they came up to the same conclusion: the rifle round is excessive for average soldier`s rapid firing weapon, hence why the 5.56 caliber was developed. Essentially it shows that Allies were roughly 25 years later develop a round that would fit the same purpose as what German kurtz 7.62x33 or Soviet 7.62x39 were for.

If you look at the list of modern Assault rifles, just about none uses rifle round. And aside from sniper rifles or machienguns rifle round is no longer used. Most use smaller caliber 5.56 NATO. That is something Germans were first to create in their STG44, having less powerful than rifle but more powerful than pistol round for main battle semi-automatic infantry weapon.

 

[Victor Cortez]

In all honestly, US and largely UK did overrate the long range fire of rifles, compared to their actual efficiency.

Do you think this might be because they had a sort of WW1 mindset?

 

[mursolini]

Do you think this might be because they had a sort of WW1 mindset?

Definitely is a cultural thing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spray_and_pray

Jack Lewis a former U.S. Marine veteran of World War II, the Korean War, and Vietnam War and editor of Gun World magazine met the then Commandant of the Marine Corps Paul X. Kelley. Lewis told the Commandant that the effect of the introduction of the M16 rifle was that "The United States used to be known as a Nation of Riflemen; now we've become a Nation of Sprayers".
Drawbacks of uncontrolled automatic gunfire are the low likelihood of actually hitting an enemy target, the large amounts of ammunition needed, and the increased risk of it becoming friendly fire. It was due to the tendency of soldiers to spray and pray during the Vietnam War that the US replaced the automatic-fire setting that was on the original M16 with three-round burst fire for the M16A2 and M16A4/M4 carbine.

An alternative method for achieving effective fire is to use either single shots or controlled, aimed bursts after locating the opposing force. Many armed forces employ selective fire assault rifles such as the M16 Rifle and other small arms with a burst mode instead of, or in addition to, a fully automatic mode, to encourage soldiers to use effective fire techniques.

It shows a definite lack of training and understanding of how to use semi-automatic weapons even in Vietnam era.

Germans for example used small bursts for machienguns at the start of WW2 already. And centered their squads around machienguns, so it is no surprise Germans were the pioneers in creation of doctrine of massed semi-automatic weapon use.

Probably it happened due to Germans being defenders most of the time in WW1, and hence developing their infantry around supporting MGs, and Allies did not, as machienguns were to heavy to take on offensive, and they were really unwilling to close in to under machiengun fire, hence putting emphasis on log range combat and rifles.

Also by the end of WW1, Germans figured out how to beat trenches, and it involved crawling close to enemy`s trenches. That, was something Allies didn`t figure. Then, at the start of WW2, Germans used their infantry support much better, especially mortars and small guns, allowing them, again to get closer and beat enemy. That was the great dirty work that was massively important to German success, but is heavily overlooked because it is much easier to blame tank pincers and dive bombers for loss, then to see your fundamentals being wrong.

Also specifically America`s infantry tactics was bad in both wars. It takes a lot of blood to get things right, something Americans didn`t had to sacrifice. But, Korea and Vietnam to the rescue.

 

[D Inqu]

It is well known that Allied expertise in terms of firearms was crap.

That is a very bold and completely unfounded and crap statement.

Sure, if you only suffered 400k loses, out of which, maybe 150k was lost infantry man, you end up with trained infantry that, can potentially use M1 better. But that was not the situation of SU, Germany, Japan or any country that was not sitting behind the ocean or channel. STG44 is quite similar to AK-47, and it was for a good reason. In fact, SKS was a case of military inertia, since SU was transitioning to SVT before war, and thus preferred to get arm people with STS. But then, AK-47 appeared, and STS was tossed away.

Read: "sitting behind an ocean" the US did what other countries wanted to do, but could not afford due to total war and weapon cost being a major issue. The SU wanted decent semi automatic rifles, but could not afford them during the war, and switched production to a cheap PPSh. The Germans produced the same number G43 rifles in 1943-1945 as they did the StG44. The AKM was adopted in the Warsaw Pact because it was a cheap rugged design that could easily be mass-produced for total war (unlike the SKS), not because of being better on the battlefield.

In-game that would mean that divisions equipped with these rifles would be cheap to equip, and obviously still better than pre-war designs, but not quite as good as post-war battle rifles.

M1 and M-14 are maybe better at Pacifying banana republics or arming small professional armies, but for a world war, STG44 and AK-47 are far better.

No-one says that the design was perfect, but looking only at allies is stupid, as their expertise in land warfare was small and limited to fighting with well trained and well supplied army against badly trained, outnumbered and poorly equipped opponent.

Putting arise yet another very bold statement of calling the post war US army "small and professional", when it was huge and conscripted.

What about the FAL? It was loved by the said "banana republics". And was still a battle rifle, completely unlike the StG44.

It is true that in WW2-style "total war" the AKM would do better (not the StG44, because it was too complex). But mainly for the reasons outlined earlier - cheap, rugged, easily mass produced.

And here we are, it only took Americans 25 years to get to the same conclusion as Germans came to.

Poorly quoting wikipedia hardly works as an argument and is laugable in general, but OK.

The development of the 5.45 in the USSR, and the 5.56 in the US had 2 main goals.
1. Allow the soldier to carry more ammo and therefore bring more fire-power to the battlefield.
2. Reduce rifle recoil while retain the accuracy of rifle rounds.

The Kurz cartridge did not allow the soldier to carry more ammo, the rifle and the cartridges were no lighter than contemporary rifles. And while recoil was reduced, accuracy suffered due to lower bullet speed.

So no, the 5.45 in the USSR, and the 5.56 in the US had little to do with the Kurz.

 

[Mjarr]

Do you think this might be because they had a sort of WW1 mindset?

Strictly speaking the entire basic German squad structure from the early thirties to the end of the war was nothing but logical extension of WW1 mindset. After all, why would essentially every rifle squad operate as machinegun team and go as far as cease distinguishion between rifle squad, "LMG" and "HMG" team in training manuals by 1941?

Also specifically America`s infantry tactics was bad in both wars. It takes a lot of blood to get things right, something Americans didn`t had to sacrifice. But, Korea and Vietnam to the rescue.

US infantry tactics during the war were not exactly that bad but overcomplicated squad structure tends to put a halt to efficiency.

 

[mursolini]

That is a very bold and completely unfounded and crap statement.


Read: "sitting behind an ocean" the US did what other countries wanted to do, but could not afford due to total war and weapon cost being a major issue. The SU wanted decent semi automatic rifles, but could not afford them during the war, and switched production to a cheap PPSh. The Germans produced the same number G43 rifles in 1943-1945 as they did the StG44. The AKM was adopted in the Warsaw Pact because it was a cheap rugged design that could easily be mass-produced for total war (unlike the SKS), not because of being better on the battlefield.

In-game that would mean that divisions equipped with these rifles would be cheap to equip, and obviously still better than pre-war designs, but not quite as good as post-war battle rifles.

In that case, explain adoption of M-16.

Putting arise yet another very bold statement of calling the post war US army "small and professional", when it was huge and conscripted.

Every army uses rifles for snipers and similar roles.

What about the FAL? It was loved by the said "banana republics". And was still a battle rifle, completely unlike the StG44.

2 millions is extremely little for a battle rifle used in 90 countries during 50 years. You should probably explain why it is so underused.

It is true that in WW2-style "total war" the AKM would do better (not the StG44, because it was too complex). But mainly for the reasons outlined earlier - cheap, rugged, easily mass produced.

Easier to use by soldiers with little training.

Poorly quoting wikipedia hardly works as an argument and is laugable in general, but OK.

Provide a good quote from a book, otherwise your lack of arguments is laughable even more.

The development of the 5.45 in the USSR, and the 5.56 in the US had 2 main goals.
1. Allow the soldier to carry more ammo and therefore bring more fire-power to the battlefield.
2. Reduce rifle recoil while retain the accuracy of rifle rounds.

The Kurz cartridge did not allow the soldier to carry more ammo, the rifle and the cartridges were no lighter than contemporary rifles. And while recoil was reduced, accuracy suffered due to lower bullet speed.

So no, the 5.45 in the USSR, and the 5.56 in the US had little to do with the Kurz.

Kurtz cartridge allowed to have better accuracy then SMG round, while having reasonable recoil.
Kurtz accuracy is enough for WW2 weapon that is not sniper rifle.
German army was planing to eventually replace both it`s SMGs and rifles with STG44 for regular troops.
STG44 was shorted and more handy in close combat then K98 or G43.
5.56 rounds were developed because 7.62 round was not good for burst-fining due to having too much recoil.
5.56 round is worse at long range then 7,62. Hence, the 5.56 sacrifices long-range accuracy, for some reason(why?).
5.56 ARs replaced both rifles and army SMGs. Tompson, Sterling, M3, and others were in service of Nato countries up to 1990.
5.56 ARs were shorter and better suited for mechanized warfare and usage in viechles. Interestingly, how much does a weapon of person that is carried by APC weights is fairly irrelevant.
I think similarities are obvious.

But if you want to argue that development of 5.56 had nothing to do with recoil in semi-auto firing, go ahead, post your sources.

Also, go ahead and explain why did US army created M4 carabine, that has shorted barrel and lower mussle velocity while having the same bullet as M-16. They sacrificed long range performance. They must have some good reason, right? Maybe the reason is, even M-16`s 5.56 range is more than enough for a soldier. In that case, how can you argue that rifle round is not execive for infantry man, and Kurtz is not enough for most cases?

All in all, I would suggest you read some more or less recent works,
Daniel D. Musgrave, German weapons of War: Infantry weapons of the Third Reich, MOR Associates, 1985
not the immediate allied war trials.
It is quite similar to how German army itself rejected intermediate round when it was first offered in 1918, the same way allied rejected intermediate round till much after WW2 would end.

US infantry tactics during the war were not exactly that bad but overcomplicated squad structure tends to put a halt to efficiency.

Well, strictly speaking that is bad tactic to over complicate your squad structure.

Strictly speaking the entire basic German squad structure from the early thirties to the end of the war was nothing but logical extension of WW1 mindset. After all, why would essentially every rifle squad operate as machinegun team and go as far as cease distinguishion between rifle squad, "LMG" and "HMG" team in training manuals by 1941?

Not quite. Mortars made a huge difference. It is true Germans basically centered their tactics around MGs, but allies did not.

 

[Bullfrog]

Ahem, a bit of a derail going on here. But as a former USMC infantryman and PMI, I can say that the M-16 has an effective range about equal to that of the M-14 at 500 yards. I know this because I have shot many rounds into a man size target with the M-16 using iron sights at that range. The 5.56 is extremely accurate, has a flatter trajectory and due to the light bullet's tumbling effect on impact, produces comparable tissue damage and shock to the larger .308 bullet.

The reasoning then for its adoption was clear: for all intents and purposes it had met comparable performance metrics and certainly could be fired with less recoil while allowing for a combat load of 180 rounds per rifleman. However, in those days (Vietnam) they figured the more metal going down range by way of "every man is a machine-gunner" was best. In the long term we've discovered that single aimed shots perform better and have incorporated light automatic weapons into the rifle squad for suppressing fire at a ratio of about 1:4. Also the modern M-16 and it's cousins are capable of semi auto and 3 round burst only.

BTW, as it turns out, most firefights occur within 100 yards, so the max effective range issue is rather moot. Besides, go ahead and try to shoot any rifle at a moving target at greater than a couple hundred yards with iron sights and in the heat of battle. It's completely counter productive.

But let's try to focus on the game a bit more shall we?