Armor Piercing Machine Guns?

This is more of a thought experiment than a proper suggestion. There are some examples of man-portable machine guns which would be capable of penetrating light targets that could be added to Enlisted. I’m just curious what the general population (and any developers that happen upon this thread) think of such a thing? I’ll give two examples:

MG 13 mit SmKH (AXIS)

Imgur
Imgur
Imgur

For those who are unfamiliar, the MG 13 was not only the gun mounted by the Panzer 1, but it also had an APCR bullet. The muzzle velocity of the MG 13 in-game is currently incorrect at 750m/s, when it should be 890m/s with standard SmK 178gr/11.55g ammunition. With 12.6g SmKH (H for Hartkern AKA Tungsten Core, similar to the PzBs’ ammunition), it should penetrate 19mm of armor.

Imgur

A potential option to replace the tech tree gun is the MG 13 Kurz: Simply an MG 13 with a shorter barrel, and likely around the current in-game muzzle velocity (Regular Above, Kurz Below):

Imgur
Imgur

Robinson SR.9 (ALLIES)

Imgur

The SR.9 is an Anglo-Australian over-the-shoulder bullpup .50 BMG machine gun, firing at 340 RPM from a 16 round top-mounted magazine. The barrel length is 63 inches compared to 45 inches on the M2 Browning HMG, meaning the muzzle velocity had to be at least the same at 890m/s (though it’s likely beyond 1000m/s, I cannot find a source). Currently, the 12.7mm M2 in Enlisted penetrates 29mm at 10m, so this weapon would have equal or greater penetrative capabilities.


Like I’ve said, this is purely a thought exercise. With everything in consideration, I’m not certain where these weapons would be placed for Battle Rating, or even the soldier type that could use them. Perhaps giving all machine guns some sort of penetrative performance is something that could be considered (most would fit between 6-13mm penetration at 10m if we look at the data on Euthy’s Google Sheets document)? Either way, I figured this would be a fun way to get some discussion going on the subject!

7 Likes

Ma Deuce was used by Americans as an AT weapon early on in the War.

2 Likes

Early on? Buddy we STILL put that gun on everything we feasible can to deal with anything from masses of infantry to lightly armored vehicles

2 Likes

Yeah, I’m meaning we used it to take out tanks like Pz IIs and Pz IIIs, before things like Tigers and Panthers started popping up

1 Like

The MG13 “kurz” sounds interesting. Maybe with bigger movement bonus like the BAR?

1 Like

SR.9 is an Anglo-Australian over-the-shoulder bullpup . -yes-

MG 13 Kurz anti apc -yes- anti-tank -no-
no portable anti-tank machine guns

1 Like

They should add AP and more.

There’s a video that I’m 97% sure is two different videos stitched together in an extremely believable way that’s an old training video for the M1911A1. They had a Pz II rolling on the field in front of the dude and the video “showed the stopping power of .45” by punching a hole in the tank. Lol

2 Likes

2 Likes

I think they should add armor penetration for all small arms in general. Not a lot, just whatever the actual historical penetration for a standard ammo load would be. Obviously with machine guns you can actually have different kinds of rounds in the belt, so it should be whatever the standard round order was for each weapon, but with other guns like rifles, SMGs, and pistols, it can just be ball for all of them.

1 Like

No infantry guns punching through tanks outside at guns

Sir did you not watch the video? Lol

Here comes the problem
What level of equipment will it be?
If he was a machine gun
Then it might be level 5
The only thing you can do is to sneak attack the enemy’s truck
If he is an anti-tank weapon
Will he become trash because he cried because of an idiot in a low-level environment?