Rifles in v6.1

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Rifles in v6.1

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Steel Panthers World At War & Mega Campaigns >> Rifles in v6.1

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Rifles in v6.1 - 11/25/2001 10:33:00 AM

Khan7

Posts: 132
Joined: 7/27/2001
From: StL
Status: offline

Does it seem to anyone that rifles have, in v6.1, been perhaps a bit *too* emasculated? I dunno, just a random thought, got done playing a large battle and they didn't seem to be doing much, whereas I was *quite* happy with the performance of my MGs, especially my tripod-mounted MG34s. I suppose you could chalk this one up to rifles having a limited effective range, though. I did manage to eke out some kills with them at 2-3 hexes or less, and even a few at longer ranges. I'm not saying I've thought this through, I'm just saying the thought occurred to me and was wondering if anyone else had noticed or thought anything. Matt [ November 24, 2001: Message edited by: Khan7 ]

_____________________________

Khan7

Post #: 1

- 11/25/2001 11:04:00 PM

Warrior

Posts: 1808
Joined: 11/2/2000
From: West Palm Beach, FL USA
Status: offline

Actually, the effectiveness of rifle fire was way too high in earlier versions, and v6.1+ more accurately emulates it, as well as the effect of MG fire. It takes some getting used to, and an adjustment of tactics, but it is more realistic.

_____________________________

Retreat is NOT an option.

(in reply to Khan7)

Post #: 2

- 11/25/2001 11:15:00 PM

generalrichmond

Posts: 178
Joined: 10/15/2001
From: richmond, va
Status: offline

My concept of MG crews is that they were pretty nasty. I've seen entire squads obliterated a few times with a horrific raking. On the other hand, at times they do zilch. I think the experience factor really affects squads and their rifle firepower. Then you got those SMGs and, boy, did I have a good time in Heroes of the Motherland with my SMG platoon and those German engineers (scenario #1). To wit: Brrr-AAAAPPPPP! puttaputtaputta! Braaaappp! AI-EEE!!! Умрите, Вы Немецкая собака свиньи!! Just had to relive those ol' Sgt. Rock comics!!!

_____________________________

(in reply to Khan7)

Post #: 3

- 11/26/2001 12:38:00 AM

LilJoe

Posts: 40
Joined: 11/8/2001
From: HoneyBrook Pennsylvania
Status: offline

As was said, and from my own playing experience, unit experience is a huge factor in fire effectiveness whether it's rifles or tanks.

_____________________________

"Victory Through Superior Marksmanship"

(in reply to Khan7)

Post #: 4

- 11/26/2001 1:51:00 AM

asgrrr

Posts: 529
Joined: 9/18/2001
From: Iceland
Status: offline

This was discussed at great length here a few weeks ago. Can't remember the name of the topic, but someting to do with "rifle" I'm sure...

_____________________________

Never hate your enemy.
It clouds your judgement.

(in reply to Khan7)

Post #: 5

- 11/26/2001 1:58:00 AM

Nikademus

Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline

The overeffectiveness of Rifles has been a Steel Panthers staple effect ever since the orig Steel Panthers I came out back in 95. 6.1 is the first version to properly address it (I suppose Cameo's SP:WWII could claim that as well, except that their MG's got made even more pitiful too in the process) so it takes some getting used to but as others have said, its quite realistic. after all the inclusion of a portable MG was what really gave the basic squad it's "hitting power". Bolt action rifles pale in comparison to the output a good MG-34 could pour, assuming a trained operator. Never could stand the classic "SP" effect where, because of the primary fire slot multiplyer, even the most mediocre B-A rifle could outscore a MG, whether integral to the squad or a seperate unit. Now....especially if caught out in the open and moving....a MG "finally" can, and often does, do what all wartime accounts said it did.

_____________________________

(in reply to Khan7)

Post #: 6

- 11/26/2001 2:31:00 AM

Khan7

Posts: 132
Joined: 7/27/2001
From: StL
Status: offline

I wasn't complaining about MGs, I actually was impressed with the way they were handled and liked it alot. It just seemed that rifles were a bit impotent. Evidently no one seems to think so. Sounds good enough for me. They still *seem* pretty impotent, except at close ranges. Matt [ November 25, 2001: Message edited by: Khan7 ]

_____________________________

Khan7

(in reply to Khan7)

Post #: 7

- 11/26/2001 3:11:00 AM

Nikademus

Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline

quote:

Originally posted by Khan7:
I wasn't complaining about MGs, I actually was impressed with the way they were handled and liked it alot. It just seemed that rifles were a bit impotent. Evidently no one seems to think so. Sounds good enough for me. They still *seem* pretty impotent, except at close ranges. Matt [ November 25, 2001: Message edited by: Khan7 ]

Part of the reason for it may lie in the SP-III engine of which WAW was largely based on. Before later versions, the game retained the distressing tendancy (first seen in SP-III) for rifles to consistantly cause at least one casualty, even at long range, often leading to soft targets being 'one-offed' to death over the space of a few turns. This used to drive me crazy as even green units could do this against elite units (which is supposed to be very hard as a) the green unit cant aim well, and b) the elite unit is supposed to get a combat defensive bonus for knowing how to react under fire) The above was one of the reasons i personally was so wary of WAW in the beginning, knowing it was based on the SP-III engine Historical wise, IIRC, Paul explained that out past 200-300 yards or so, a rifle's chance of scoring a casualty was greatly curtailed in leiu of causing 'suppression' This makes sense to me as actual combat data seems to support it. At closer ranges though the battles i've fought has seen infantry kills. One really good benefit of the tweaks is that it makes the campaigner have to think hard about what choices he will make to arm his core infantry. One the one hand you could go with SMG's for that close up lethality, but the conn is that they are very short range. You could go with rifles which dont hit much but do fill the vital role of causing suppression. For my current campaign i tried to strike a balance and had two platoons armed with SMG's and one with rifles. Turned out to be a wise choice for me, as i've often found that the crack German troops can cause my tanks alot of woe up front while the SMG troops, a few hexes back ar'nt able to effectively assist (and if they try to get closer they in turn get supressed by rifle fire and pinned. Under such thorny circumstances that rifle platoon comes in handy as they dont have to worry about becoming 'pinned' they can just fire back. They wont hit much but the real benefit is spotting the enemy unit, and suppressing it enough for the tank to sucessfully overrurn I love it. no more one-offing, and it really forces the player to attempt to preform combined arms tactics properly to achieve a breakthrough of the enemy defence line

_____________________________

(in reply to Khan7)

Post #: 8

- 11/26/2001 3:29:00 AM

tracer

Posts: 1865
Joined: 11/22/2000
From: New Smyrna Beach, FL USA
Status: offline

quote:

Originally posted by Penetrator:
This was discussed at great length here a few weeks ago. Can't remember the name of the topic, but someting to do with "rifle" I'm sure...

BTW, in that thread I brought up that SMGs were too accurate in SPWAW; I based this on a PBEM game I had just completed. My final comment (after receiving several conflicting/skeptical responses) was something like 'maybe my SMGunners were just having a very lucky streak'.
Turns out this was the case. Since then I've bought SMG armed units whenever possible, and have not seen them perform anywhere near as well as they did in that game.

_____________________________

Jim NSB

(in reply to Khan7)

Post #: 9

- 11/26/2001 3:44:00 AM

Khan7

Posts: 132
Joined: 7/27/2001
From: StL
Status: offline

Hehe, I recently played a delay (full WW2 campaign) as Germans vs. French, them having 3 recon vehicles, about half a dozen medium tanks, and 3 heavies, plus 2500-odd infantry with no heavy weapons support. I was able to knock out their tanks very quickly, at which point it's just me, with my 3 platoons of infantry, 10 Czeck tanks and 6 Stub-bs, vs. mannnnny mannnnnnnnnny infantrymen. A platoon and a half of my infantry (later with another platoon moving up to support), in prepared positions with ample heavy weapons support (can you say 37mm AAA?) ably held off the mass up there, while I bombarded and unleased my full armored fist on the southern contingent (which had been crawling amoeboid laterally along the line of fire of a couple of those 37s, at about 1000m range, and were getting a bit thinned at that point). By far the most obscenely ridiculous battle I've ever fought. My tanks for the next 20-odd turns were in costant close combat with the infantry, destroying the Southern contingent and rolling up the flank, ultimately killing or capturing every last Frenchman (minus some random 60mm mortars which I never got a sight of, and some fleeing tank crews). By the end one of my tanks was KOed, none of my tanks had main gun HE left, so the only anti-Inf I was left with was the 4 of my 9 Czeck tanks which had piddlings of some MG ammo left. Roughly half my surviving tanks also suffered some sort of damage, like a non-lethal hole in the armor or a KOed main gun. Oh yes and my poor little armored car was struck by a rifle grenade early on.. Also about 2/3 of my infantry was almost or totally out of ammo by the end. 45 casualties in this category, mostly from my 3 recon "platoons" that I had forward as skirmishers. A very interesting and very bizarre battle, but it really took too long to play, like probably 7 hours total. I'm waiting for realtime SP!! Please?? Matt

_____________________________

Khan7

(in reply to Khan7)

Post #: 10

- 11/26/2001 4:49:00 AM

john g

Posts: 984
Joined: 10/6/2000
From: college station, tx usa
Status: offline

quote:

Originally posted by Khan7:
A very interesting and very bizarre battle, but it really took too long to play, like probably 7 hours total. I'm waiting for realtime SP!! Please?? Matt

Its already in there, just play with timed turns with turns set to 3 min. Snap decisions become the norm. Makes you prioritize what you want to do each turn, and units not in the thick of it are better off set to comp control so you have more time to devote to units in battle. I can handle up to about 5 or 10 platoons this way, those who routinely play with 10000 pt forces wouldn't be able to handle it.
thanks, John.

_____________________________

(in reply to Khan7)

Post #: 11

- 11/26/2001 7:01:00 AM

Khan7

Posts: 132
Joined: 7/27/2001
From: StL
Status: offline

An interesting idea.. still wouldn't be the same... But I may try it. Matt

_____________________________

Khan7

(in reply to Khan7)

Post #: 12

- 11/26/2001 11:00:00 AM

AmmoSgt

Posts: 1002
Joined: 10/21/2000
From: Redstone Arsenal Al
Status: offline

Some fun numbers to add to the debate ... one of the factors that was the main driving force behind the development of Modern Rifle ammo , such as the Russian 7.62x 39 used in the AK and SKS, the German 7.92 kurz used in the MP44, the Nato 7.62 x 51 ( .308) and an endless number of experimental ammo that never got adopted (Brit .280 for example) and even the US 5.56 used in the M-16 was the fact In WW2 about 50,000 rounds of rifle ammunition was expended for each casulity caused by rifle caliber ammunition. Now , this inculdes Rifle Caliber MG's like the MG-34, Browning 30 cal, Vickers .303 Russian MG's using the 7.62 x 54.
Rifles could be assumed to have an effective rate of fire from a low of about 8 for the Mosin-Nagants to a high of 15 per minute for the British Enfields for Bolt Action Rifles , Twice that for Semi Autos like the Garands and STV's and GW 42's .. and twice that again for Submachine Guns and Auto Carbines like the M-1/2 Carbine and MP 44 ..with each weapon type having it's own span of effective rate of fire based on magazine size .. ease of reloading.. ergonomic factors ..doctrinal use .
However in Veitnam the rounds fired per casulity actually increased to about 100,000 rounds fired ... This is considered a successful trend in that Effective Rounds fired have doubled per firing soldier since Rate of fire is up about 4 times , while ammo needed to cause a casulity merely doubled.
I know these numbers seem incredible , I have a hard time believeing them myself ..but source after source , from nation after nation , come up with about the same basic numbers .. and the same Philosphy of lighter smaller rounds, and Higher rates of fire, for increased Basic Infantry Effectiveness, continue to drive adoption of cartridges like the Russian 5.45mm and experiments with Flechett type ammo ..
So if a squad of 10 men, 8 Riflemen and a 2 man MG crew, with about 100 rounds per Rifleman and 1000 rounds of 30 cal/7.92/7.62 for the MG ( maybe 50 lbs, or a little more with ammo cans and belts),
The MG has the Majority of the ammo , and it should only take the basic load of ammo of about 25 squads to inflict 1 casuality on average , I know this sounds silly , but i have NO idea who is shooting all of those rounds that miss. LOL but those are the statistics ..
Good Info on the development of various types of military rifle ammo over the last 120 years or so is avilable at the www.cruffler.com web site in their Weapons Trivia Archives, they also have good specific info on various infantry type weapons in their other Historical Archives. [ November 25, 2001: Message edited by: AmmoSgt ]

_____________________________

"For Americans war is almost all of the time a nuisance, and military skill is a luxury like Mah-jongg. But when the issue is brought home to them, war becomes as important, for the necessary periods, as business or sport. And it is hard to decide which

(in reply to Khan7)

Post #: 13

- 11/26/2001 1:27:00 PM

Khan7

Posts: 132
Joined: 7/27/2001
From: StL
Status: offline

Well that doesn't sound right at all. I mean not at ALL. How the hell did they get these figures?? It's just not right. I smell fish. I mean, I know most of the rounds are missing, obviously, and attrition is generally slow, obviously, but if those figures are correct then the act of carrying a rifle or MG into battle and firing upon your enemy, is, well, entirely futile and pointless. What the heck. That's not right. Matt P.S.: Are you SURE you didn't just add on a zero on to the end of those figures? Or perhaps your source did? Cuz lop off a zero, and the figures are believable, at least to me.. [ November 26, 2001: Message edited by: Khan7 ]

_____________________________

Khan7

(in reply to Khan7)

Post #: 14

- 11/26/2001 8:52:00 PM

Belisarius

Posts: 4041
Joined: 5/26/2001
From: Gothenburg, Sweden
Status: offline

I'm with you, Khan7. 50,000 rounds/kill seems a bit high. Ofcourse, tons and tons of ammo were used up just for suppression/covering fire, but still....it's a lot. It means that a standard infantryman on average would have to use ten THOUSAND 5-round magazines to score ONE kill?

For the Germans, the total production of the 7.62x57mm cartridge totalled some 10.475.000.000 (yep, that's 10.5 billion of 'em). That suggests, with the 50,000/1 kill ratio, an inflicted enemy casualty at 209,500 -granted that ALL ammo were used. Seems a bit low to me, even though not all enemy casualties was caused by the 7.62x57...

_____________________________

Got StuG?

(in reply to Khan7)

Post #: 15

- 11/27/2001 12:18:00 AM

Larry Holt

Posts: 1969
Joined: 3/31/2000
From: Atlanta, GA 30068
Status: offline

AmmoSgt, I strongly suspect that the kill per rounds figures are derived not from counting rounds actually fired and bodies but from the total number of rounds supplied in a theater and the total number of casualities reported. Lots of ammo was used in training, went unused, etc. & that would drive up the numbers. Khan7, When I get to the point that the result is not in question any more and its just an issue of killing off the remaining AIP infantry, I just set the preferences to arcade mode (me 250, AIP 30) and the game goes quite quickly & its fun to see a MG burst kill several squads.

_____________________________

Never take counsel of your fears.

(in reply to Khan7)

Post #: 16

- 11/27/2001 2:00:00 AM

AmmoSgt

Posts: 1002
Joined: 10/21/2000
From: Redstone Arsenal Al
Status: offline

Like I said .. they ain't my numbers .. I just supplied the numbers folks like the US Ordnance Board put out to justify new cartridge development ... But even if the numbers are off by a factor of ten .. it still means about 1 casulity per PLATOON per basic load of rifle caliber ammo. If anybody has any other numbers , they might be fun and educational to post. Remeber now these are just the rifle caliber .. grenades , SMG ammo /Pistol ammo, HMG ammo, and other infantry weapons would be additional casualities .
Also note that at the highest practical rate of fire most infantry formations in this game only would have 2-4 turns of ammo at best if they are in fact carrying a full basic load .. but i think that maybe a whole different issue .
Arty is and was the main casulity producer .. I was sorta intrigued back when Band of Brothers was on at some of the reactions to episode 6 Bastogne... It seemed that some folks didn't like it that much, because there wasn't as much combat action as they thought there would be .. despite the fact that Easy company got the **** shelled out of them at least twice. Some Battles, sometimes you never even see the enemy , because they are only shooting Arty... ok not much fun in SPWAW terms ..and probably a lousy scenario ..BUT it is and was still considered combat.
If anybody has any sources that support or refute my numbers it would be fun and educational to post them .. and please check out the ammo developement info from the link I posted. [ November 26, 2001: Message edited by: AmmoSgt ]

_____________________________

(in reply to Khan7)

Post #: 17

- 11/27/2001 3:23:00 AM

panda124c

Posts: 1692
Joined: 5/23/2000
From: Houston, TX, USA
Status: offline

IIRC Patton was the one who advocated 'advancing fire' where rounds were thrown in the direction of the enemy to keep his head down while advancing, with no attempt at hit anything. This would consume a large amount of ammo without causing many casaulities.
As AmmoSgt says these numbers were used to justify new cartridge development, which brings to mind number manipulation. We all know that never happens.

Lets see now 6 million Russian and 10 billion rounds that's 1,666 rounds per Russian. That's one squad of 10 men firing 167 (rounded up) rounds each to cause one casaulity. Gee we only have 70 rounds per man in SPWaW. Sound like rifles are not very efficent.

_____________________________

(in reply to Khan7)

Post #: 18

- 11/27/2001 6:28:00 AM

Mikimoto

Posts: 511
Joined: 11/6/2000
From: Barcelona, Catalunya
Status: offline

quote:

Originally posted by Khan7:
Does it seem to anyone that rifles have, in v6.1, been perhaps a bit *too* emasculated? I dunno, just a random thought, got done playing a large battle and they didn't seem to be doing much, whereas I was *quite* happy with the performance of my MGs, especially my tripod-mounted MG34s. I suppose you could chalk this one up to rifles having a limited effective range, though. I did manage to eke out some kills with them at 2-3 hexes or less, and even a few at longer ranges. I'm not saying I've thought this through, I'm just saying the thought occurred to me and was wondering if anyone else had noticed or thought anything. Matt [ November 24, 2001: Message edited by: Khan7 ]

Hey Khan. Check this:
http://www.matrixgames.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=2&t=007312

_____________________________

Desperta ferro!
Miquel Guasch Aparicio

(in reply to Khan7)

Post #: 19

- 11/27/2001 6:49:00 AM

GH1967

Posts: 6
Joined: 11/25/2001
From: Australia
Status: offline

The original poster is definitely right. I played a big infantry battle last night and in all the rounds of fire that I saw riflemen execute I saw ONE casualty inflicted. This was from a distance of 9 hexes and closer. Even from under 5 hexes rifles miss EVERY time and the targets were in the open. Something is definitely amiss.

_____________________________

(in reply to Khan7)

Post #: 20

- 11/27/2001 7:39:00 AM

Khan7

Posts: 132
Joined: 7/27/2001
From: StL
Status: offline

quote:

Originally posted by Larry Holt:
[QB]AmmoSgt, I strongly suspect that the kill per rounds figures are derived not from counting rounds actually fired and bodies but from the total number of rounds supplied in a theater and the total number of casualities reported. Lots of ammo was used in training, went unused, etc. & that would drive up the numbers.[QB]

I think this explains it. Matt

_____________________________

Khan7

(in reply to Khan7)

Post #: 21

- 11/27/2001 11:46:00 AM

AmmoSgt

Posts: 1002
Joined: 10/21/2000
From: Redstone Arsenal Al
Status: offline

Further numbers to keep folks argueing about this issue in a fun and friendly manner ...
from the the post war research on Infantry Rifle Effectiveness done by the wonderful folks at Aberdeen Proving Grounds and the Operational Research Office ... 80% of all rifle casulties were at under 200 yeards , and 90% were under 300 yards (in WW2) 1952 study ...
I know ya'll don't like that 50,000 round per casulity figure ...I don't like it either .. but I can't find any referencable lower numbers ..
if ANYBODY has any alternate referenciable info please post it ... near as I can tell from the report excerpts I have found .. those 50,000 are in theater expenditures .. not stateside training fires ... the other undocumentalble reason that might apply however is the 24-32 rounds of aimed fire per minute from the semi-auto M-1 Garand , as opposed to 15 for the Lee-Enfields , 12 for the Mauser, and about 10 for Mosin-Nagants .. so european major powers using much slower firing bolt action weapons may in fact have a lower per casulity usage rate ... additional Note about 20% of US WW2 rifles were 1903 or variants that would be about equivalent to the Mausers in rate of aimed fire ..
Personally I feel uncomfortable rejecting these numbers out of hand , based solely on my feelings or impressions of what ammo rates should be ... so if ya got any referencible data please post .. happy debating

_____________________________

(in reply to Khan7)

Post #: 22

- 12/4/2001 7:31:00 PM

AmmoSgt

Posts: 1002
Joined: 10/21/2000
From: Redstone Arsenal Al
Status: offline

More Bizarre Numbers and wierd analysis...

Total Allied Combat Military Casualties in round numbers less the Chinese for the whole of WW2 are about 15 Million Dead and 10 Million Wounded on all Fronts from all causes ( 13.6 million dead and 5 million wounded for the Russians alone ) Total German Small Arms produced for the whole War in round numbers about 10 million rifles and MP's and about a million MG's Assuming all casualties were caused by small arms ( they weren't) and all Allied casulities were caused by the Germans ( they weren't) Then each German Rifle/Assualt Rifle/ MP caused on average 2 casulties and each MG caused 5 casulites .

We Know that Arty and handgrenades and Air and auto cannon and tank guns and stuff caused some if not most the casulities so lets say for the sake of arguement about half maybe a bit more ...
That means for the whole war each rifle caused maybe 1 casulity and each MG maybe 2 for the WHOLE WAR on average .. Total BS analysis of course ... but interesting numbers none the less

_____________________________

(in reply to Khan7)

Post #: 23

- 12/4/2001 7:51:00 PM

Mikimoto

Posts: 511
Joined: 11/6/2000
From: Barcelona, Catalunya
Status: offline

quote:

Originally posted by AmmoSgt:
from the the post war research on Infantry Rifle Effectiveness done by the wonderful folks at Aberdeen Proving Grounds and the Operational Research Office ... 80% of all rifle casulties were at under 200 yeards , and 90% were under 300 yards (in WW2) 1952 study ...

Hi Ammo. And the SMG casualties at under XXX yards, please?
Now most SMG have a range of 150 yards, and causing lots of casualties... Is this real?
I recall someone from Matrix justifying an effective range of seven hexes (350mts) for Thompsons in an older version...

_____________________________

Desperta ferro!
Miquel Guasch Aparicio

(in reply to Khan7)

Post #: 24

- 12/4/2001 8:46:00 PM

AmmoSgt

Posts: 1002
Joined: 10/21/2000
From: Redstone Arsenal Al
Status: offline

Mikimoto Hi ... Probably not right .. high casuality for MP should be in the 50 meter range maybe 100 for Thompsons and Lahti's due to their special nature .. I don't argue that MP's couldn't shoot 200 meters some even 300 meters ..and most WW2 rifles have sights that go out to 1000 meters ( 20 hexes) My Lee Enfield is Graduated to 1300 yards ( 26 hexes) , I have a M1891 that goes to about 1600 meters (32 hexes) ..does this mean they can shoot that far with any great hope of sucess .. nope.. just means the bullet can go that far .. can the rare sniper hit anything that far? maybe? .. but most snipers, even these days, qualify somewhere between 300 and 500 meters, even with Barret 50 cal sniper rifles... the proper question is what makes for a fun game that reflects some reasonable relationship between different weapon types ... In my humple opinion, Rifles should dominate from about 150 meters to 300 meters, MP's under 100 meters, and assualt and semiautos between 100 and 250 meters...over those ranges suppression should probably be the main effect with actual casulties being rare. But again thats just an opinion based on what I have read and my own experience shooting.

_____________________________

(in reply to Khan7)

Post #: 25

- 12/4/2001 8:46:00 PM

generalrichmond

Posts: 178
Joined: 10/15/2001
From: richmond, va
Status: offline

If you're on a flat plain, then 200-300 yards is no big deal. But even on the steppes of Russia there were swells in the land. How hard it is to hit a target at 500 yards (10 hexes). Add to it that it probably isn't stationary, and after the first few cracks of rifle fire hit their ears they are more cautious. So under 200 yards is very understandable. Whenever I think of distances I measure them by my memory of playing highschool football. Looking from one end of the field to the other 100-120 yards (adding endzones) is pretty far. Double that. Hmmm.... Then think of that distance times 3-5. That is a long way to even have vision, folks, at least in anything other than a desert plain. As for SMGs, I read on one of AmmoSgt's suggested rifle sites (think it was discussing TT's and other WW2 rifles) that the effective distance of many SMGs was 150 yds.

_____________________________

(in reply to Khan7)

Post #: 26

- 12/4/2001 8:54:00 PM

Paul Vebber

Posts: 11430
Joined: 3/29/2000
From: Portsmouth RI
Status: offline

Hold on - the SMG ranges were all reduced in version 7

_____________________________

http://www.matrixgames.com/images/sig-logo-02.gif

(in reply to Khan7)

Post #: 27

- 12/4/2001 9:02:00 PM

AmmoSgt

Posts: 1002
Joined: 10/21/2000
From: Redstone Arsenal Al
Status: offline

General Richmond... if ya really want a site that is fun check out http://www.ima-usa.com/p6c.html and if you have a lick of sense you will put all of your credit cards in an ice tray ...fill it with water and freeze then BEFORE you click on that link for folks with absolutley no good sense and who haven't told their spouses what they want for Christmas click on http://www.ima-usa.com/p3.html [ December 04, 2001: Message edited by: AmmoSgt ] [ December 04, 2001: Message edited by: AmmoSgt ] [ December 04, 2001: Message edited by: AmmoSgt ]

_____________________________

(in reply to Khan7)

Post #: 28