yes to prove there bs why limit there firing capability’s for historical reasons then not give them there accurate firing rates
than why dont you say adding gun malfunctions instead of ridiculous RPM limit?
because they already have beautiful malfunction animations, that they have either removed nor never added to the game.
1 Like
There were games with malfunctions Ideas and I have never been a fan of that.
Its just the thought that RNG decides the outcome of a battle, not what I want to see.
Also personally, a soldier is capable of making sure your gun runs "smoothly enough. Which would mean every 1000 shots you would get malfunction, which would just be frustrating to deal with.
Yeah, but I don’t see how waiting to shoot after a round has been chambered would affect reliablitity. As after the action cycles and either loads in the round correctly or fails, it’s basicallly in a dormant state. Unless external elements are put into place, there should be no difference to you pressing the trigger 2s after the round was cycled in or 0.5s after the round has been chambered.
If I am wrong, please explain why.
Though keep in mind this is after more than 75 years.
See, this is your first problem. You’re attempting to apply logic to gaijin. And usually that doesn’t work.
As far as I’m aware, I have said multiple times that I wanted to keep rof high due to gameplay reasons and you have disagreed. If I misunderstood what you meant, then please explain.
If I’m unaware of the backround/validity of said information, it is logical to doubt it before proven otherwise.
There is a pattern that can be applied based on the decisions that they have made. You may not agree with what they chose to do or think it makes any sense, but it exists.
Balance has literally only been mentioned once, where we agreed from a pure balance perspective it would be best to make all guns equal. However, this entire thread has been you questioning the historically reported unreliability of the G41 and G43, as well as the recorded ROF.
Most people are operating under the assumption that this information is common knowledge because this is not the first time it has come up. The oneness is on you to provide the evidence if you want to disprove it.
The only pattern they have is increasing profit.
Other than that, I’ve played gaijin games long enough to understand that there is no other pattern.
Maybe once maybe thice, maybe 3 times. I’m not going through the 90 replies on this thread to check.
Though I don’t remember you agreeing with me on basing in-game stats on cyclic rate. I do remember you wanted to add it as avrage field rof though.
By entire thread do you mean like 3 comments? Most of this has been about firerate.
And that’s how false information spreads. People believing it’s correct without checking it.
First time I’ve seen it come up.
No, it’s up to you to provide evidence to backup your claim.
Sure, thats part of it, but there is more to it, you just need to be a bit less cynical and actually observe them.
Just look at the thread where the semi-auto nerf was first announced. I’m not going back to find it, but people were pointing out that these were the “historically accurate” values there.
You are in the contrarian position here, so it is up to you to convince us. Furthermore, a source has been provided in the G43 user manual.
I quite literally said:
Rate of fire has been tied to mechanical problems a while ago. I also literally said the part about ROF right after
Seeing as you did not bother to read my post in entirety, I can only assume you are operating in bad faith for some reason.
I have and being cynical is all my 1.5 years of warthunder experience got me.
I don’t think I was in this forum back then.
By the “Us” you mean you? And yes, a source was provided, which told me it was an avrage rof statistic, which is something that doesn’t belong in this game and i don’t care about.
When? And how?
Wasted pissed me off and irl events aren’t helping.
But don’t worry, I did read it, I simply corrected a part of it. I did not mention the other cause it’s correct. I was talking about the ROF in quite a few posts. And in quite a few others, I honestly don’t know what I was talking about, because the combination of what wasted and you said just stopped making sense. Just like this whole thread. It’s a waste of time.
Thats your opinion, and its irrelevant to the matter at hand. We are discussing historical ROF in a hypothetical situation where the devs change it to such, not whether or not it is a good idea.
Did you miss this post?
All of the physics principles applied here are introductory level, however if you need a further breakdown, that is certainly possible.
You took the first part of the quote out of context and then proceeded to pretend the latter part did not exist. If that is not operating in bad faith, I do not know what is. If you want us to make sense to you, make sense to us first.
Except that is not what I’m talking about and something i don’t care about.
Fairly certain I didn’t miss a post with a source that states how exactly technical dificulties affect the G43s rof. If i did quote it.
I understand this perfectly and agree that that is something which happenes. I just don’t believe it affects the gun as much as you make it out to do. If I had to guess, the rof reduction would be max 10-20% and you’d really have to not clean it at all for a long time. (this of course is a guess, and isn’t based on fact, as i have yet to see a source that explains this and shows it’s actual values) And you gave no source to this. I also tried searching up tests or values and found nothing.
I don’t need a breakdown, I need numbers.
As far as I know, I just took out a part of the sentence which made no sense to me. Though there’s always the possibillity that i just didn’t realise I changed the context, as English is my 2nd language.
Then as you have stated, you should stop. That is why the stuff we said didn’t make sense to you, because you were not talking about anything we were talking about.
Thats where the 20 - 30 RPM comes in, as opposed to the Garand 50. We have all seen the numbers last time such an idea came around and have done our own research, so that is I expect you have done it yourself.
Source? That 20-30rmp is an avrage statistic, the G43 can be fired much faster. As seen at 1:40 here:
And you can see the chamber rate is even faster than he shoots.
What I want to see is how quickly the gas system fouls and to what degree does it hurt the gun. I don’t believe that’s been said here before.
Yes, an average statistic taken by the Germans in ww2, who would have know about the gas port fouling when taking that number, and factored that in.
And how do you know that? If the gas fouling was this bad, then by the time it was noticable, it’s likely you’d start getting light stikes or most likely the bolt wouldn’t be able to make a full rotation due to lack of gas/force.
They didn’t factor anything in. My guess is that they simply gave a bunch of marksmen (brand new) rifles and measured how fast they could shoot.
TLDR: You can’t tell how bad the gas fouling was from that number. The only thing it tells you is on avrage how fast a soldier could accurately shoot this rifle in the field.
Thats your guess, but its not backed by anything, not even logic. As you have demonstrated, the mechanical ROF is far above 20-30, so if they just gave marksmen a gun, it should have a similar ROF to the Garand unless German marksmen are significantly inferior to American marksmen. Since the Germans recorded a far slower ROF, and assuming German and American marksmen are of similar caliber, something else must be at fault. Since we already know that the G43 was unreliable, it makes sense to attribute the reduction of ROF to the mechanical issues.
Different countries different tests. There’s the posibility of different range, or different accuracy standards, quite a few things.
And judging by logic, if gas fouling really came in that fast and affected the gun that much, there wouldn’t be enough gas in the system to cycle in rounds.
I’d consider this to be a far better guess than just reliability issues. And another thing that counters that idea is that they’d likely test with rifles which are new, well kept and in good condition in testing. Walther was trying to get a contract that was gonna make them quite a bit of money after all.
Your guess is based on less than mine. Though if you don’t want to present evidence on the faouling of the gas system, this’ll continue to be pointless word against word.
It doesn’t work that way, the ROF would gradually decrease until the jam happens, as fouling of the gas block is gradual. I literally explained this when I did the whole physics lecture.
You literally found evidence of the fouling yourself, and stated that you did.
Seriously, either you are saying you have the memory of a goldfish or you are acting in bad faith.
Yes. But those jams would start to become unbearable far before the cyclic rate reached this low. As when enough powder builds up to the point it would theoretically slow down cycle speed to below 100 per minute, there simply wouldn’t be enough pressure to generate enough force to push the bolt back far enough to properly eject the empty case and feed a new cartridge.
And as far as I’m aware, powder buildup did indeed happen slowly over time and could easily be fixed by cleaning the gun after a few hundred rounds. You’re the one trying to say it happens quickly enough to affect the rof during testing.
I said it happens. I also said it happened slowly enough to not make much of a difference.
Nowhere did I find what I was searching for. Which were the exact values of how quickly it started to show and how noticable it was. All I found was that it happened. And the fact it got through testing and the germans made 400k of them suggests it wasn’t that big of a deal.
That would just be the cyclic rate, and again, we are talking about the effective rate of fire. the gas buildup may not be able to drop the ROF by less than 100 RPM, but it should easily be able to drop it by 20 RPM from the Garand’s 50 with only minimal or minor jamming occurring. Sure, fouling can be fixed with cleaning, but the fouling will just come back and on a gun with such a noted problem, yeah the G43s average ROF being less than the Garands by 40% makes sense.
The Germans also made over 6000 Panthers, despite the fact the engine and transmission were complete shit and broke down repeatedly. Germany doesn’t really have the greatest track record of mass producing things that don’t have catastrophic issues, so this point is moot.