why?
we don’t need to compare weapons. that’s the main point.
not to mention, it’s quite pointless.
because as you should already know better than anyone, enlisted weapons cannot be compared as are pretty much different and not accountable due to it’s different damage.
what once again i’m saying; is that:
not necessarely has to keep somewhat equal or different values.
it just need to be a weapon of choise insthead of a place keeper in my inventory.
They should be true to life. It would make very little sense for a high rate of fire gun IRL to fire slowly ingame. It should be the same for damage falloff.
The only values that are not set in stone are damage, recoil, reload speed and ADS speed. We can use those to balance out the gun to perform better at certain ranges.
We can keep the guns true to real life while simultaneously doing this.
real life weapons =/= result desired/needed for gameplay
most of those weapons are being tweaked for gameplay reasons.
so it’s pointless to make close to reality as it would break many factors.
an example, is the AA.
or mgs. they are not even close to their real counter part. but for gameplay puroposes it’s best that way.
Of course, but that does not mean we should completely ignore the historical data. We can at least take a look at the data @67929529 wanted look up, right? We can always decide it does not fit gameplay requirements later if need be.
you don’t need historical datas to know how a weapon performs?
i mean, if you have tried the carbine, understood it’s gameplay reasons and mostly, using common sense.
you can understand that:
you know that has a huge magazine. so the drawbacks for this gun it’s the damage.
but you have others factors mining it’s gameplay and the overhall effectiveness of the weapon.
being huge and insane recoil along side a slow velocity bullet.
so, those should be tweaked insthead.
and once again, just like RJtony suggested, the best way to do that, is by actually making the gun better in close range, to be an option insthead of running with m1 garands because they are better than the m1 carbines ( in the current state )
Right, the recoil was complained of a lot in the previous test, and the round is less powerful than the MP 43’s so it doesn’t make sense that it has more recoil.
A basic rundown of the IRL M1 Carbine.
The M1 Carbine was given to auxillary troops to replace their m1911s due to the fact that the m1911 was not capable of being used at anything more than 20 meters in the event of a german breakthrough. The M1 Carbine was designed to be given to these auxillary troops so they had something they could actually use to defend themselves out to a few hundred meters. Being a carbine, the rounds had low muzzle velocity and dropped off pretty heavily. Its rounds hit with less stopping power than the M1 Garand but more than the M1911s. It would also have significantly less recoil than either firing its round due to its large size with such a small round.
Pretty much the whole purpose of the M1 Carbine was that it was a semi-automatic with a (at that time) large magazine capacity that could be used in close quarters combat. Thats why I’ve suggested making it lower recoil and slightly higher damage (while not one hitting) while retaining the dropoff. This keeps it both historically accurate and gives it a niche to use it over the M1 Garand.
From what I’ve seen it was implemented because the M1 Garand was too cumbersome for second-line duty where rifles would stay slung.
M1 G too heavy, and M1911 too weak, yes.
More the Garand was too long
The M1 Carbine was only a little less than 8 inches shorter than the Garand. Don’t think it was the length.
Picture showing size:
Length and weight - if you’ve ever handled a full-size military rifle you’d appreciate the difference in both.
From what I read its more how the Garand could not be properly slung the way the auxillary troops needed it to be since they carried extra equipment along with the additional weight and the ends of the gun getting caught while being slung across their backs. And I own an AR15 and Kriss Vector so I do indeed know the trade offs they were looking at. 
slinging while not in use was definitely an issue for all non-infantry - hence carbines for cavalry dating back 300 years, and even the “fusil” lighter musket from the 16-1700’s - same problems, similar fix.
AR and Kriss are not full size military rifles in this context - M-14 is. I used to carry M-16 or L1A1 SLR - worlds apart - the AR is a nice light gun with easy handling f’sure - much easier than the Lee Mk4 (which I also trained on) or SLR - not in hte same ball park 
Adoption of hte M-16 meant the end to a need for weapons like the Carbine - but even then you still get version with 4" shorter barrel for easier use… amazing what a difference 4" can make!! 
Im into ww2 era firearms but they’re not exactly easy to get your hands on and I prefered to get myself some newer guns for experience with them before I started buying and shooting 80 year old firearms.
A neighbour of mine 20 yrs ago had a pre-WW1 SMLE III with the long range sight and magazine cutoff - shot just fine with period-level ammo loads
But worth getting them looked ever by professionals
You don’t know the difference until you’ve been carrying them all day.
lol - ain’t that the truth!
Then for a week, “bush”… or on a forced march test with ammo, water, pack… or… etc
Just wanted to point out that this post is still relevant after the launch of OBT. The M1 Carbine is in my opinion the worst primary gun in the game and has absolutely zero use. Especially since you unlock the M1 Garand 2 levels later which is better in every way
M2 carbine will also outperform it by a large margin. Guess at this point we must accept it’s just another MP-34(ö) and we need to grind for MP-40s.
