Completely out of context to what I have said, but okay.
Go spam similar nonsense to mess room. That’s for it is.
1 Like
Maybe, but id rather see the accuracy boost first tho. Buffing its rpm while at the same time boosting its accuracy will ruffle some feathers
1 Like
People dont understand your logic I really dont get this conservatism nothing must be changed all must remain how it is there is buffs and nerfs and Germany can use better BR III smg and below average BR II SMG is not really needed just like Japan with its Type 2 SMG in BR IV is useless unless we buff it or move it to BR III.
1 Like
doesnt help much, you can give it the best pseudo AR stats and it will still fall short.
Besides Im suggesting a historical correction not just buffing on a whim like you are suggesting.
Here we talk about M3A1 grease gun which has 0.52 dispersion (less than Mkb42(H)) and yet most people still use M1A1 Thompson and Lanchester over it.
I couldn’t care less.
They want to transform the unique weapon for which I paid into some completely non-unique weapon, of which there are already plenty in the game.
Literally 1:1 to PPS 43 (just with 5 rounds difference, okay 
)
…Just based on some pseudo video from YouTube.
1 Like
Surely my suggestion isn’t that crazy:
I have laid out the evidence.
If you can prove me otherwise, we are interested.
2 Likes
The evidence is simply not valid enough. Unless you do trust every random YouTuber.
1 Like
he is no youtuber, he is Arnaud Lamothe, small arms specialist, he wrote the article:
He just uploaded the video on youtube because that is the most straight forward way for a website to integrate video material on its website without having to keep up a server for it.
Everyone can write an article about his biased findings.
You are acting like he’s some known small arms specialist like Ian. But he’s not.
But it’s interesting that you will just condemn all other reliable sources. And trust the one guy who’s stating exactly the opposite thing.
1 Like
Stop wasting our time and read the article, to see evidence yourself.
Why should I read article of some scammer from YouTube?
It’s obvious nonsense. And literally every other source goes against the agenda he’s trying to push.
That’s the reality.
I have no idea why you decided to trust this one guy.
Because it goes in hand with what you want to push into the game?
Okay
I DO USE the Grease gun btw, and it absolutely slaps mid to long range. Many of the issues reported are mostly due to the fact that players use it to gungho, instead of engaging enemies at longer ranges.
But since you did provide a reputable source, then maybe. (I still would love the accuracy boost :}
It is not reliable source.
It’s the same source several other topics were trying to use as justification as well. It’s not something new.
All of them were denied.
As for the suggestion itself, it sounds strong, and I am totally for historical rates of fire where applicable.
This text here is perticularly interesting, listing the causes to logicly explain why a gun of this type was unlikely to have just a 400 RoF. The reasoning is compelling, but I lack the technical knowledge to fully appreciate and weigh their factors, as I don’t have a degree in gunsmithing (yes, that’s a thing, and it’s cool AF):
My problem with this article and connected video is however that it contradicts information elsewhere about the FNAB itself, specificly with information Ian McCollum of Forgotten Weapons. Mainly on the subject on the numbers produced.
Ian states the following in his FNAB article: “They were produced in 1943 and 1944, and only about 1,000 were made (all with serial numbers in the 5,000 range, for unknown reasons).”
FNAB 43: From WW2 Italy to Algerian Independence - Ian McCollum
FNAB 43: From WW2 Italy to Algerian Independence - Forgotten Weapons
Whilst in the youtube comments, the creator stated that his weapon only had the number “1” on it, which would contradict the Ians claim of all known examples existing withing the 5000 range:
So, I’m sceptical, this guys weapon might be a trials prototype (pre-production make, and thus irregular from production models), it could be a unfinished gun assembled post-war (and possibly non-uniform in function, Allies liked to tinker with Axis weapons projects right after the war ended), it could be a reproduction (and thus not helpful), or indeed yes Ian could be wrong, who’s to say? Certainly not me, and certainly not the developers.
I think a slight increase is still warranted, after someone with some actual firearms knowledge looks into the various factors at play here, the 500-600ish RoF sounds reasonable though but that’s just me taking a guess.
It’s not reasonable to cripple down the uniqueness of the weapon for which people have paid for real money.
There’s plenty of weapons with such rate of fire, basically any other Italian smg in TT.
1 Like
the comment is not about fire rate, but production number estimation.
Sadly I have zero information on how many were produced so I will refrain from commenting on that, not that this kind of stuff would matter in Enlisted since we have one of a kind prototype weapons anyway.
seems unlikely. Besides the nice commenter that claims to have also fired a FNAB-43 claims a high fire rate as well.
1 Like
What a trustworthy source, lol.
1 Like
Yikessss
1 Like
Yes yes, of course, my point is that I am sceptical of the authenticity of the video itself, as the guns serial number does not match another trusted source, for whatever reason that might be.
Hence, the video and the article based on it, without further context or information to clarify the discrepency, is sadly not much use…
2 Likes