Explain This -1 reply

Please wait...

WiseBobo

Most loved forum member.

50 XP

9th February 2004

0 Uploads

5,668 Posts

0 Threads

#31 15 years ago
'[WOW}IRONMAN'Dude! What in God's name are YOU talking about? We were not talking about comparing the MP40 to the "grease gun". We were talking about the Thompson and PPSh. The modifier, btw, was unpopular because in increased jamming. Even so, 400-500 rpm is sleepy compared to 500-725 rpm of the Thompson, and downright silly compared to the 900 rpm of the Russian PPsh.

The Germans already had what they needed in an MP-40 when comparing it to the M1a1, and let's be honest here, they had the MG-42, which their whole doctrine revolved around. The MP-40 was a good gun and fulfilled the role it was intended to serve.

Dude! You are making my point in a way. As I said, game makers tone-down the Thompson and beef-up the MP40 to make the game worth playing. In case you did not know, ANY SMG is hard to hold on target with sustained fire. If it were only .22 calibre it would STILL be difficult to hold on target. I don't see how you can argue that ANY SMG is easy to hold on target. Have you ever fired a real firearm of any kind at all? You sound like someone who has never shot any kind of firearm. Heck dude, even my .22 rifles have a little kick to them. lol Exploding gunpowder makes things move, ya know.

SMG's are not hard to hold on target at all. You are only shooting up to a maximum distance of one hundred and fifty feet, and besides, there is minimal kick when compared to bigger rounds. A 9mm Para or a .45 ACP is not difficult to handle at all. Ask Killorlive about it.

Have you ever fired a 9mm pistol, for example? I feel sure you have not. Go do it, and see how hard even a 9mm short kicks your hand, then come back here and post about how easy it is to hold an automatic weapon of large calibre on target. lol

9mm Parabellum kicks hard? No. .454 Raging Bull? Yes.

Dude! You're ideas are wack. Why do you think the Germans felt the need to even have such a weapon? Could it be because they had no effective repeating weapon for close and medium ranges, (Church Lady shagrin expression)... AND THE ENEMY DID? Isn't THAT special!

The German's didn't need to counter the M1a1 Thompson, PERIOD! The MP-40 more then adequately performed it's duty, and besides, as I have already mentioned, they had the MG-42. Saying that the Thompson had a better range then the Mp-40 is pure idiocy. The M1a1 and the MP-40 share the exact same maximum effective range of 50 meters. Beyond that, neither one of them is expected to inflict a casualty. Now, when talking about medium range, which to me is 200-300 yards, the K98 will easily get the job done against an M1 Carbine. The Stg-44 was meant to replace the K98 first and foremost, and once production was picked up, the MP-40 as well, because it would of been more effective up close then the MP-40, not because the MP-40 "couldn't compete with the Thompson", but it would be better suited for that particular role.

Read your history and you will learn that few German soldiers had an SMG throught the war. Most used a bolt action rifle.

And that is because rifleman supported the MG-42; neither the Thompson, nor the MP-40 were the revolving point for both respective German and United States armies.




Cleft-Asunder

I don't spend enough time here

50 XP

10th April 2004

0 Uploads

26 Posts

0 Threads

#32 15 years ago

I hate to shatter your ego Ironman, but Bobo is completely correct and he reinforces my points (and then some). Ragarding never having shot a firearm, I own a Arsenal Inc. SAM-7 milled receiver AK which is arguably the finest AK out there. It's built by Bulgarian technicians working here in Las Vegas, Nevada and is essentially a semi-auto version of the Military weapon, with slight defferences. There is a fully-automatic AR-M1 at Arsenal of Bulgaria that has fired 300,000 rounds until the receiver failed, they are that durable. 762.jpg I also own a .45ACP CZ 97B, a 10-shot czechoslovakian pistol based on the CZ 75 design. I chose this over the 1911 because it houses 3 more rounds in a double-stack mag, and the grips are the most comfortable that I've ever held. It's simple, reliable, accurate, low recoil and high quality but quite heavy and not good for concealment. It's a combat pistol after all. 43.jpg Thanks for asking. As for recoil, I can handle .45 without any trouble. I don't personally like 9mm and I'd take .40 over it, but they are both easy to shoot, and this is coming from a guy who weighs 135 pounds.




Pictureman

I'm too cool to Post

50 XP

14th June 2003

0 Uploads

224 Posts

0 Threads

#33 15 years ago

WiseBobo The Germans already had what they needed in an MP-40 when comparing it to the M1a1, and let's be honest here, they had the MG-42, which their whole doctrine revolved around. The MP-40 was a good gun and fulfilled the role it was intended to serve.[/QUOTE]

The MP40 was a fair wepon, but being only fair, and markedly inadequate compared to the Soviet's SMG, they suaght to have something better. Hence, the rush to develop the StG44.

WiseBoboSMG's are not hard to hold on target at all. You are only shooting up to a maximum distance of one hundred and fifty feet, and besides, there is minimal kick when compared to bigger rounds. A 9mm Para or a .45 ACP is not difficult to handle at all. Ask Killorlive about it.

WiseBobo

Watch this video of a 220 lb. man shooting a Tommy. You can see that when he fires short bursts, it is easy to hold on target. You will also see, that when he holds the trigger, the barrel is constantly rolling around. And you say "SMG's are not hard to hold on target at all" :lol: http://mikesmachineguns.homestead.com/files/50_round_dump.wmv

Just for fun, watch this video of the MP40 and note how utterly slow the rate of fire seems compared to the Tommy. Geepers.

http://mikesmachineguns.homestead.com/files/mp40.mpg

WiseBobo 9mm Parabellum kicks hard? No. .454 Raging Bull? Yes.[/QUOTE]

Did I say that a 9mm was hard compared to a .44 magnum???? Dude, once more, you are arguing for the sake of arguing. Stay on topic. Pleeeeese. What I said was, that ang SMG is not easy to hold on target during sustained fire. You are trying, as you always do Bobo, to make an argument of something by exaggerating or deforming something I have said. Get yourself together.

WiseBoboThe German's didn't need to counter the M1a1 Thompson, PERIOD! The MP-40 more then adequately performed it's duty, and besides, as I have already mentioned, they had the MG-42. Saying that the Thompson had a better range then the Mp-40 is pure idiocy..

No. Wrong again Bobo. I have already explained to you how this is not so. The MP40 was the slowest firing SMG of the the major nations involved in the war.

40% slower than the Thompson 90% slower than the PPsh

It performed adequately at best. It jammed occasionally, fired very slow for an SMG, had no forward grips and burned the user's hands frequently in the heat of battle. The MG42 thing is part of the reason the MP40 had to be replaced. Have you not read anything I have posted? This policy of supporting the MG42 with bolt action rifles is part of the reason the Germans desperately needed to develop a better SMG, and/or semi-auto carbine, not a bolt action carbine like they had. Once the Americans and Russians began kicking their asses with Thompsons, M1 Carbines, and PPsh in French towns, they realized how inadequate these weapons were at short to med. range. Let that sink in for a minute. [QUOTE=WiseBobo]The M1a1 and the MP-40 share the exact same maximum effective range of 50 meters. Beyond that, neither one of them is expected to inflict a casualty..

"Tests indicate that accuracy and penetration is very good, even at the longer ranges. A few feet from the muzzle the 230 grain bullet, tested on 3/4-inch yellow pine boards spaced one inch apart, ran 6 3/4 boards. At 100 yards it would plough through six boards; at 200 yards through 5 1/4; at 300 yards, 4 1/2; at the 400 mark through four boards, and at 500 yards it would still stumble through 3 3/4 [Page 1107] boards¾sufficient to cause very unpleasant sensations in the body of a victim."

"One 5 shot group of slow untimed fire at 100 yards, prone, center to center of extreme bullet holes, measured 2 1/2 inches horizontal and 2 1/4 inches vertical."

http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/PSharpe1.html

OOPS! Sorry Bobo. Your are incorrect, once more. Both guns had a rated effective range of 100 yards, not 50 yards. And you can see that because of the much higher ROF, the Thompsone had better accuracy with short bursts. Nobody is saying the MP40 is the worst SMG ever meade, just that is fell short of the weapons of the enemy. It just wasn't good enough, as the Germans themselves knew.

[QUOTE=WiseBobo] Now, when talking about medium range, which to me is 200-300 yards, the K98 will easily get the job done against an M1 Carbine.

Perhaps, until the German guy jumps from his trench and runs like hell to the next hole but gets hit by 1 of the 5 rounds shot at him in 3-4 seconds as he makes the mad dash by a Marine with an M1 Carbine. The bolt action weapons of the Germans were insufficient, they learned it, they saught to develop something better.

[QUOTE=WiseBobo]The Stg-44 was meant to replace the K98 first and foremost, and once production was picked up, the MP-40 as well, because it would of been more effective up close then the MP-40, not because the MP-40 "couldn't compete with the Thompson", but it would be better suited for that particular role/

lol Bobo, that statement is so narrow-minded. You must wear horse blinders. Do you not see the biffer picture here? What you said is like saying, "And the jet engine plane was replaced by the air forces of the world, not because it could not compete with the jets, but because it was better suited for the role" :lol:

P L E E E E S E [QUOTE=WiseBobo]And that is because rifleman supported the MG-42; neither the Thompson, nor the MP-40 were the revolving point for both respective German and United States armies.

A large percentage of American troops fighting in close quarters used the Thompson ans the M1 Carbine. In fact, they requested it in great numbers when going into close range battles. The German soldiers requested MP40's to replace thier bolt actions, but their requests fell on deaf ears. In fact, when the StG44 began trickling into the hands of german soldiers, they made urgent requests of thier superiors for the weapon. Gee, you don't suppose it was because... no could it be because... Yes! It was because they were getting outgunned by Tommy's and reapeating carbines! OMG! Who would have guessed that was the reason. It just goes to show you. You learn something every day.




Sovetskeey

The Canadian on the forums...

50 XP

8th December 2003

0 Uploads

640 Posts

0 Threads

#34 15 years ago

Nice to see you two are being a little more professional in your argument :-/ .




Pictureman

I'm too cool to Post

50 XP

14th June 2003

0 Uploads

224 Posts

0 Threads

#35 15 years ago

Cleft-Asunder I own a Arsenal Inc. SAM-7 milled receiver AK...

I also own a .45ACP CZ 97B, a 10-shot czechoslovakian pistol based on the CZ 75 design... As for recoil, I can handle .45 without any trouble.

That's nice. I can too, but that doesn't mean shooting an SMG at a target for 30 rounds and keeping the barrel on the target is easy as pie ya know. lol

: )




Cleft-Asunder

I don't spend enough time here

50 XP

10th April 2004

0 Uploads

26 Posts

0 Threads

#36 15 years ago
'[WOW}IRONMAN'That's nice. I can too, but that doesn't mean shooting an SMG at a target for 30 rounds and keeping the barrel on the target is easy as pie ya know. lol : )

I was commenting on what you said here: "Have you ever fired a 9mm pistol, for example? I feel sure you have not. Go do it, and see how hard even a 9mm short kicks your hand, then come back here and post about how easy it is to hold an automatic weapon of large calibre on target. lol" I stated that a .45acp is very comfortable in my hand, which is much bigger than a 9mm, and I'm simply pointing out that you seem to exagerate bullet recoil. As for the MP-40, I can't imagine the recoil being a problem. The weight of the weapon and the small size of the 9mm nearly canceling each other out. As for sustained fire, I still feel that it was manageable. To what degree I don't know. In a pistol you're dealing with more recoil because of the weight. Smg's like the milled Tommy would lessen the recoil of the .45 considerably, and the high RPM would be more managable. This isn't saying that it's comfortable shooting 30 rounds of .45 sustained, nor that it would be accurate, but I'd say you're exagerating the recoil. Then again, I haven't really fired either, I'm just familiar with the calibers.




WiseBobo

Most loved forum member.

50 XP

9th February 2004

0 Uploads

5,668 Posts

0 Threads

#37 15 years ago
'[WOW}IRONMAN'The MP40 was a fair wepon, but being only fair, and markedly inadequate compared to the Soviet's SMG, they suaght to have something better. Hence, the rush to develop the StG44.

By the same token, you yourself would mark the Stg-44 inadequate compared to the PPSH-41, given the intended use of the PPSH-41; making your argument of "getting their asses kicked by allied submachineguns forced them to develop the Stg-44" extremely wrong, and illogical.

Did I say that a 9mm was hard compared to a .44 magnum???? Dude, once more, you are arguing for the sake of arguing. Stay on topic. Pleeeeese. What I said was, that ang SMG is not easy to hold on target during sustained fire. You are trying, as you always do Bobo, to make an argument of something by exaggerating or deforming something I have said. Get yourself together.

I fail to see "what you don't get" about my post. 9mm Parabellum has relatively no kick. The .454 I have shot does. A pretty simple statement that you could not apprehend.

No. Wrong again Bobo. I have already explained to you how this is not so. The MP40 was the slowest firing SMG of the the major nations involved in the war.

40% slower than the Thompson 90% slower than the PPsh

It performed adequately at best. It jammed occasionally, fired very slow for an SMG, had no forward grips and burned the user's hands frequently in the heat of battle. The MG42 thing is part of the reason the MP40 had to be replaced. Have you not read anything I have posted? This policy of supporting the MG42 with bolt action rifles is part of the reason the Germans desperately needed to develop a better SMG, and/or semi-auto carbine, not a bolt action carbine like they had. Once the Americans and Russians began kicking their asses with Thompsons, M1 Carbines, and PPsh in French towns, they realized how inadequate these weapons were at short to med. range. Let that sink in for a minute.

Never in history were submachineguns the mainstay of any army. Your arguments of Germans getting their asses kicked by Allied smg's is trivial at best. Squads revolved around rifles, not SMG's. The Germans were getting beaten in the rifle department, and thus your argument of smg's being involved in the Stg-44 has indeed been proven wrong. That being said, let's move on. The Germans encountered the M1 Garand and the Svt-40 during WWII. Both of these babies fire fully-sized rifle rounds, the 30-06, and the 7.62x52mm, respectively. Now what they did is develop the K43, essentially a semi-automatic K98, and they made all kinds of variants for it and what-not, including an optical version. Now, the Germans figured out beforehand is that they didn't need a full-sized 8mm Mauser to be effective against the enemy, because most engagements were occuring between 100m and 300m. SMG's Don't come into play here. The Germans knowing this wanted to develop a rifle to effectively counter any situation in which the K98 could be rendered inferior. This is why they developed the Stg-44; to utilize the 7.92m Kursz that could still be effective at ranges where the Germans were encountering their opposition. The only role the M1 Carbine had was merely the smaller cartridge, which was developed for mobility, not effectiveness; as evident for the lack of the pursuit of an AR-type rifle post-war.

OOPS! Sorry Bobo. Your are incorrect, once more. Both guns had a rated effective range of 100 yards, not 50 yards. And you can see that because of the much higher ROF, the Thompsone had better accuracy with short bursts. Nobody is saying the MP40 is the worst SMG ever meade, just that is fell short of the weapons of the enemy. It just wasn't good enough, as the Germans themselves knew.

I will stick to Military manuals before I stick to some website straight out of left field.

Perhaps, until the German guy jumps from his trench and runs like hell to the next hole but gets hit by 1 of the 5 rounds shot at him in 3-4 seconds as he makes the mad dash by a Marine with an M1 Carbine. The bolt action weapons of the Germans were insufficient, they learned it, they saught to develop something better.

Don't use strawman arguments that lack basis.

lol Bobo, that statement is so narrow-minded. You must wear horse blinders. Do you not see the biffer picture here? What you said is like saying, "And the jet engine plane was replaced by the air forces of the world, not because it could not compete with the jets, but because it was better suited for the role"

Wrong, 'doode'. I merely said the Stg-44 would replace the MP-40 because it was simply better, not because of some "inferiority when compared to the Thompson". Once again, you can't comprehend what I am posting.

A large percentage of American troops fighting in close quarters used the Thompson ans the M1 Carbine. In fact, they requested it in great numbers when going into close range battles. The German soldiers requested MP40's to replace thier bolt actions, but their requests fell on deaf ears. In fact, when the StG44 began trickling into the hands of german soldiers, they made urgent requests of thier superiors for the weapon. Gee, you don't suppose it was because... no could it be because... Yes! It was because they were getting outgunned by Tommy's and reapeating carbines! OMG! Who would have guessed that was the reason. It just goes to show you. You learn something every day.

Give me facts, give me numbers. Until you can support your own contored views, do us all a favor, and bit your lip before you start spewing such crap.




*ooREAPERoo*

I'm too cool to Post

50 XP

17th April 2004

0 Uploads

10 Posts

0 Threads

#38 15 years ago

In the last few days i´m playing with the russian nagat (not the sniper) I like this weapon Its good 2 shot some 1 from a far range AND form a close range Everytime if some1 is running in my direction and he doesnt reallyes that i am an enemy i just shoot (without zooming) and he´s dead ... (headshot):eek: 1 shot 1 hit 1 dead enemy :D max 2 shots and i like the model on the nagat because its for me easyer to aim with the little round thing on the front of the weapon . its big enough for a far standing body on the head :naughty: I have seen a list of weapons and their damage on an website for cod 1.2 or 1.3 here I´ve made a new for 1.4 : _____________________________________________________________ Weapon |Damage|Melee Damage | Reload Time|Clip Size|Fire Time ___________|______|_____________|__________|_______|_________ PPSH | 38 | 50 | 1.83 | 71 | 0.0670 STEN | 45 | 50 | 2.50 | 32 | 0.1000 BAR | 70 | 200 | 3.80 | 20 | 0.1100 BREN | 75 | 200 | 2.86 | 30 | 0.1200 COLT | 50 | 50 | 2.25 | 7 | 0.135 ENFIELD | 120 | 150 | 0.70 | 10 | 0.3300 FG42 | 70 | 200 | 2.30 | 20 | 0.0750 KAR98K | 120 | 150 | 2.50 | 5 | 0.3300 LUGER | 45 | 50 | 2.30 | 8 | 0.1350 M1CARABINE | 45 | 50 | 2.65 | 15 | 0.1350 M1GARAND | 70 | 150 | 1.60 | 8 | 0.1350 NAGAT | 120 | 150 | 2.40 | 5 | 0.3300 NAGAT SNIPER| 120 | 150 | 2.50 | 5 | 0.5000 MP40 | 45 | 50 | 2.00 | 32 | 0.1200 MP44 | 68 | 150 | 2.40 | 30 | 0.1200 SPRINGFILED | 120 | 150 | 0.60 | 5 |0.3300 THOMSON | 50 | 150 | 1.80 | 30 |0.0857 PANZEFAUST | 1000 | 60 | X | 1 | X AM NA | 120/5 | 50 | 2.00 | X | X BRIT NA |120/5 | 50 | 2.00 | X | X RUS NA |120/5 | 50 | 2.00 | X | X GER NA |120/5 | 50 | 2.00 | X | X _____________________________________________________________ Am Na = American Grenade / Fraggrenade Brit Na = British Grenade / m1kBritishFrag Rus Na = Russian Grenade / rgd-33russianFrag Ger Na = German Grenade / stielhandgrenade by *ooREAPERoo* i know the list doesn look good so i made an other downloadable : :p




Pictureman

I'm too cool to Post

50 XP

14th June 2003

0 Uploads

224 Posts

0 Threads

#39 15 years ago

WiseBobo By the same token, you yourself would mark the Stg-44 inadequate compared to the PPSH-41, given the intended use of the PPSH-41; making your argument of "getting their asses kicked by allied submachineguns forced them to develop the Stg-44" extremely wrong, and illogical.[/QUOTE]

You aren't making sence kiddo.

WiseBoboI fail to see "what you don't get" about my post. 9mm Parabellum has relatively no kick. The .454 I have shot does. A pretty simple statement that you could not apprehend.[/QUOTE]

Relative to what? A .22 short? Bobo, there is no such thing as a gun with a bullet bigger than .25 calibe that has "relatively no kick.' Personally, I don't believe you have ever fired such a gun. Nobody who has would say such. Tell you what. You get your hands on a 9mm and try to hit a target the size of a man's head at 25 paces with 5 shots in rapid succession. If you hit it with 3, I'll buy you a Cadillac. :lol:

WiseBoboNever in history were submachineguns the mainstay of any army. Your arguments of Germans getting their asses kicked by Allied smg's is trivial at best.[/QUOTE]

At close range combat, the Americans and Soviets used fast SMG's and semi-automatic rifles. Not mostly long rifles like the Germans. The Germans used mostly bolt action rifles and a smattering of MP40's. BTW, ever since, an SMG has been the maintay of every country in the world. Such as the M-16. IF you don't think the Germans got the stew beat out of them with faster SMG's in Eastern Europe by the Soviets and in France and Germany by the Americans with semi-auto's and SMG's, you have not done enough study of this subject to be debating it.

WiseBoboSquads revolved around rifles, not SMG's. The Germans were getting beaten in the rifle department, and thus your argument of smg's being involved in the Stg-44 has indeed been proven wrong. That being said, let's move on.

GERMAN companies revolved around rifles, close or long range. This was not the case for the Americans and the Russians. At close and medium ranges, a large percentage of American and Soviet soldiers used semi-auto rifles ands SMG's. You have your facts wrong. Most American soldiers, for example, in cobat at such ranges DID NOT use the M1 Garand. [QUOTE=WiseBobo]Now, the Germans figured out beforehand is that they didn't need a full-sized 8mm Mauser to be effective against the enemy, because most engagements were occuring between 100m and 300m. SMG's Don't come into play here.

Wrong agian Bobo. Let me put this in terms you can grasp. The German idea of warfare was to hit the enemy heavily with air support and artillery (and tanks), and on the ground with MG's supported by rifles. Once the Allied bombing raids began reducing Germany's ability to manufacture and import iron ore from Sweden, their war machine fell apart, and they found themselves without much of the planes and artillery that was necessary to make bolt action rifles and a smattering of slow firing SMG's effective on the ground. They became outgunned. Sufdenly, the need for a better weapon became a priority, and development of the MP44 was given, finally, much more serious value.

The greatly reduced manufacturing capabilities of Germany which left them without much air support and tanks caused the Germans to discover that their bolties and putput MP40's could not compete with the semi-automatic rifles and much faster SMG's of the enemy. In fact, had the US never declared war on Germany, the MP44 program probably would never have been given any resources during the war. Now do you understand why there was a rush to develop the MP44 in the 3rd year of the war?

[QUOTE=WiseBobo]The only role the M1 Carbine had was merely the smaller cartridge, which was developed for mobility, not effectiveness; as evident for the lack of the pursuit of an AR-type rifle post-war.

Hmmm. Again you are not making any sence. You might find it interesting to know that the M1 Carbine fired a rifle bullet, not pistol ammunition like the Thompson. It was not as long as that of the Garande, but it was a rifle bullet my boy! Wrong again. BTW, just for fun, did you know that the .22 calibre is the prefered weapon of hired hitmen around the world? It's true. So, effective? Hmmm. Any weapon is effective if you hit the target kiddo. Any. [QUOTE=WiseBobo]I merely said the Stg-44 would replace the MP-40 because it was simply better, not because of some "inferiority when compared to the Thompson".

And that is incorrect, as I have explained to you. Bobo, your failure to understand that you cannot fight a ground battle against fast SMG's and semi-automatic carbines with bolt action rifles and a very few slow firing SMG's goes beyond absurdity. It's just obstinant. It has been explained to you in simple terms.

Common sence should tell you this. In fact, you should have learned it playing games, since the Thompson's firing rate has been greatly reduced in virtually every FPS WWII game. It just never struck home with you eh? :eek: :




WiseBobo

Most loved forum member.

50 XP

9th February 2004

0 Uploads

5,668 Posts

0 Threads

#40 15 years ago
'[WOW}IRONMAN'You aren't making sence kiddo.

How am I not making sense? Your whole argument of how the Thompson was better then the Mp-40 has been based on RoF and accuracy. Now, seeing as to how accuracy doesn't matter when in a cqc situation, by following logic by your means, the Thompson would be superior. I highly question your ability to deduct and reason.

Relative to what? A .22 short? Bobo, there is no such thing as a gun with a bullet bigger than .25 calibe that has "relatively no kick.' Personally, I don't believe you have ever fired such a gun. Nobody who has would say such. Tell you what. You get your hands on a 9mm and try to hit a target the size of a man's head at 25 paces with 5 shots in rapid succession. If you hit it with 3, I'll buy you a Cadillac. :lol:

9mm is a damn pea shooter. I don't know about 5 head shots from 25 paces or so in rapid succession, but I sure as hell know I will be on the paper.

At close range combat, the Americans and Soviets used fast SMG's and semi-automatic rifles. Not mostly long rifles like the Germans. The Germans used mostly bolt action rifles and a smattering of MP40's. BTW, ever since, an SMG has been the maintay of every country in the world. Such as the M-16. IF you don't think the Germans got the stew beat out of them with faster SMG's in Eastern Europe by the Soviets and in France and Germany by the Americans with semi-auto's and SMG's, you have not done enough study of this subject to be debating it.

You are completely wrong. Squads were equipped with rifles, and higher-ranked officers, such as sergeants, were equipped with your M1a1 Thompsons and the M3a1 Greaseguns. There were far more Pvt.'s in a Pplatoon, and nearly every Pvt. carried an M1 Garand, with support infantrymen being issued B.A.R's. Smg's had a minimal impact on the war. The Stg-44 was designed to be a multi-purpose rifle that could be useful in any given situation. The German's were not outgunned by any means, infact, it is quite debatable as to whether or not they indeed had the superior armaments during the War. FYI, the M16, and it's entire family, is not an SMG. It is an assault rifle. SMG's fire pistol ammunition, such as the .45 ACP, 9mm Para, etc; not 7.62 NATO or 5.56 NATO. If you don't even know these facts, a extremely basic outline of weaponry, then by all means, you don't know jack.

GERMAN companies revolved around rifles, close or long range. This was not the case for the Americans and the Russians. At close and medium ranges, a large percentage of American and Soviet soldiers used semi-auto rifles ands SMG's. You have your facts wrong. Most American soldiers, for example, in cobat at such ranges DID NOT use the M1 Garand.

WRONG. BOTH ARMIES USED A LARGE PERCENTAGE OF RIFLES IN ANY GIVEN COMBAT SITUATION. YOU SIMPLY COULD NOT REQUEST WHAT WEAPON YOU WERE GIVEN.

Wrong agian Bobo. Let me put this in terms you can grasp. The German idea of warfare was to hit the enemy heavily with air support and artillery (and tanks), and on the ground with MG's supported by rifles. Once the Allied bombing raids began reducing Germany's ability to manufacture and import iron ore from Sweden, their war machine fell apart, and they found themselves without much of the planes and artillery that was necessary to make bolt action rifles and a smattering of slow firing SMG's effective on the ground. They became outgunned. Sufdenly, the need for a better weapon became a priority, and development of the MP44 was given, finally, much more serious value.

The Germans were not outgunned by any means. They simply wanted to, and did infact, design a rifle that could be easily produce and suit all of the needs of the Wehrmacht. They needed a compromise between the K98/K43 and the Mp-40, not because they were outgunned, but because ever single German Soldier's Stg-44 would be able to outclass any other Pvt. or Sergeant that was limited to a special role in their squad; I.E., rifleman, support infatrymen, etc.

Hmmm. Again you are not making any sence. You might find it interesting to know that the M1 Carbine fired a rifle bullet, not pistol ammunition like the Thompson. It was not as long as that of the Garande, but it was a rifle bullet my boy! Wrong again. BTW, just for fun, did you know that the .22 calibre is the prefered weapon of hired hitmen around the world? It's true. So, effective? Hmmm. Any weapon is effective if you hit the target kiddo. Any.

I know very well that the M1 Carbine fires a shortened rifle cartridge. It was designed to replace the M1911a1. That is why beyond 300m, good luck in inflicting a casualty. 108 gr bullet, 13 gr charge, US Service M1 round is no where near as effective as a 30-06 for putting down an enemy. Have you ever been shot by a .22? A guy I know sure as hell has while out squirrel hunting. It didn't really hurt him or anything, but he sure has hell gave his buddy a good punch in the face.

Bobo, your failure to understand that you cannot fight a ground battle against fast SMG's and semi-automatic carbines with bolt action rifles and a very few slow firing SMG's goes beyond absurdity. It's just obstinant. It has been explained to you in simple terms. You are trying to convey that SMG's and M1 Carbines solely were the reason behind the development of the Stg-44, while infact they were minimal at best. The Mp-40 was perfectly suited for the role, and the M1 Carbine doesn't even come into question when it comes to combat. The German's already had the Karabiner 43, but they realized, as I have stated, they didn't need a full-sized rifle round to get the job done. You are simply an ignorant, old fool.

Common sence should tell you this. In fact, you should have learned it playing games, since the Thompson's firing rate has been greatly reduced in virtually every FPS WWII game. It just never struck home with you eh The lowering of any weapons RoF in a game, like the Thompson, MG-42, etc etc, has moreso to do with netcoding and latency issues then it does balance.