challenge
Posts: 465
Joined: 10/10/2001
From: Austin, TX
Status: offline
|
The 7 mm Mauser used as the standard German infantry weapon had a much flatter trajectory than did the Garand's 30 cal projectile. Most people don't consider the idea that bullet mass and shape means much to accuracy, but it does. In a bench firing done on both calibers, the 7 mil had a consistantly tighter group than the 30 over a variety of ranges; at 250 yards the difference was about 3/8s to half the size.
The loads were consistant in grains of powder and bullet weight for each round. The 30s had a bit hotter load, as they do for standard, factory loads simply due to the casing. The 7 mil had a higher muzzle velocity and a thinner length/diameter profile which I think added to the flat trajectory. Ackley improved versions increased the muzzle velocity and caused a flatter than normal trajectory for the 7 mil round, leading me to think the accuracy has to do with the casing shoulder shape.
Many Mausers had ramp or ladder sights, although they weren't peep sights, as you pointed out. The "inherent" accuracy of the peep site has never actually been proven IMHO since individuals get varied results and it seems dependent on shooting style or some physical effect we don't measure: different people just work better with different sights. Although I will concede that the majority of people think they shoot better with a peep sight, I would suggest that this is only true at ranges less than 100 yds. Beyond that most people these days use scopes, which would be rather expensive as well as impractical for a squad of riflemen in WW II.
I agree with you that many people playing the game, and not just those using German forces, whine about the arrangement of statistics used for setting results from the wide range of weapons used. It is our nature, perhaps, to want to blame our bad luck on something more tangable than the computer's radomizer. I do think, however, that saying this, or that is out of sync with reality is equally valid for everyone's arguements. The folks who put the tables together (and this is a HUGE database of information) did their best to be accurate; it is up to the rest us to complain about it. ![]("wink.gif")
In defense of the German-centric view, I would like to say that when the US first went into combat the equipment they had WAS outclassed by their German counter parts. The average German soldier was better trained, better disciplined and certainly more experienced.
If those playing the US would put aside their "we won the war because we were so great and had the best stuff" attitude, maybe the Sherman-based TD with a 150 mm gun wouldn't be able to withstand a 50mm AT gun better than any other Sherman did, yet in the game they consistantly survive when others do not.
In conclusion, I agree with your assesment that many of the statistics in the game are open for debate. Some are likely to be in error. If for no other reason than the very scope of the information, no one will be happy with all of it, all the time. The best we can do is accept that, as with the reality, things are not always easily measurable.
[ February 04, 2002: Message edited by: Challenge ]
_____________________________
Challenge War is unhealthy for die-stamped cardboard and other paper products.  |
Printable Version
US Bazookas - 
![]("eek.gif")
![]("biggrin.gif")
I would like to have the Panzerschreck to be the better weapon and a cpt PzSchreck in the US OOB from Nov '44 on (maybe a Panzerfaust, too). 
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread