What dumpness?
You argue that my request is ahistorical while we speak about an already ahistorical gun.
I’m not the one who starded this nonsense but I want it to be finished.
1 Like
Then argue that, don’t dance around it by proposing stupid changes to it.
It’s already to late.
So best I can do is to make not historical gun realistic.
1 Like
What is ahistorical in this gun? Only number of them.
You wanna make it ahistorical also by bipods.
You are TS lol.
No because it’s stupid. It’s like adding a tank without tracks “because the one prototype that was made didn’t have them”.
A bipod doesn’t suddenly make it more controllable whilst firing from the hip or aiming… Meaning the entire argument is irrelevant 70% of the time, why not argue that the MG 34 and MG 15 and MG 42 should be basically impossible to use whilst standing up…
They weren’t given to the troops. This makes them ahistorical.
And if they would be given, they would have bipods or would be tripod/vehicle mounted.
You are arguing that a car without windshield is perfectly fine.
1 Like
Like this one
It’s pretty stupid comparison do I need really to say this?
1 Like
So you can’t give it to the troops…
Imagine they taken this gun from museum. And forgot about bipods
MGs aren’t used without a bipod or other mount. Maybe except for emergencies.
So if MG39 is used by soldiers, it should have bipods. Otherwise it’s unusable. (irl)
Actualy I do. Just not in this post.
2 Likes
It’s not stupid.
Tank without tracks is unusable in reality. And so is MG without either bipod or other mount.
1 Like
I guess they could be simply taken straight from the factory by desparate soldiers.
But still they would either make an improvised bipod or place it in a mount. As, like I’ve already said at elast 20 times, without them it’s not possible to use.
I really don’t understand you guys.
You can’t accept my request because it’s not historical (and so is giving those guns to soldiers) but you are completely fine that the gun would be impossible to use in reality.
1 Like
…
So your issue is that I want to add a bipod to the gun that should and was supposed to have one (probably) but it didn’t have it because it was made only for tests. Did I get it right?
Look, because a car at tests is painted this way:
It doesn’t mean it’s supposed to be sold this way.
And since the project was abandoned after trials, I argue we should finish it ourselves and “paint” the metaphorical car as intended by it’s designers.
(Btw the car is apparently Mercedes AMG project something something. And the funny paint is to make it herder for competition to take “inspiration”.)
(Also I happened to help design some parts for AMG project. I never bothered to check what the car looks like so I’m quite surprised now.)
Not all MGs. Also forcing bipod use is boring and DF could not competently implement it
add 150 round belt to mg 39
In the ww1 - interwar period there was an idea of “walking fire” with LMGs. Guns like BAR and chauchat (I think bren too) were designed to use it. It was basically an assault tactic, in deffence those guns would still use bipods.
Germans went in the other direction and developed universal MGs with big volume of fire. That turned out to be the future.
Tldr:
There are MGs that can be used without a bipod but MG39 is not one of them.
Last time I played BFV it wasn’t boring at all.
Imo ppl are too used to the stupid idea of going rambo with LMG and don’t want changes no matter what. Fears instead of facts.
But I agree that DF probably won’t implement this. They care about realism and history only for the purpose of marketing slogans.
Also thanks to their incompetence they royally fucked up changes to MGs when stalingrad came out. So they are probably unwilling to try something again.
1 Like
well - if it doesnt have a bipod - they might as well lower it into BR3.
So at BR3 it will magically become realistic?
Also it’s kind of absurd from the balance perspective.
1 Like