The m1 carbine has too much recoil and garand has too little
what the hell are you on and can i have some of it?
3 Likes
In the game, it does feel like the M1 Carbine has more recoil than the M1 Garand, and no I donāt think that is how it is in real life. Based on the info in the game, allegedly the M1 Garand does have more recoil than the M1 Carbine. Though, who knows, maybe in real life even though to me the M1 Carbine feels like it recoils softer than the M1 Garand, itās actually the other way around. The M1 Carbine is roughly half the weight of the M1, so if it also shot .30-06 then it would have SUBSTANTIALLY more recoil, but it doesnāt shoot .30-06. It fires .30 Carbine, which is smaller, but how much smaller? Well, comparing basic .30 Carbine to basic M2 Ball .30-06, itās 110gr vs 150gr (So like 70% the bullet mass) and 1990 ft/s vs 2800 ft/s (Again, seems like a little over 2/3rds or 66%, so maybe more like 70%). So roughly 50% of the weight, but around 70% of the firepowerā¦ this would result in MORE perceived recoil for the M1 Carbine in theory, and indeed the M2 Carbine on full-auto is allegedly quite difficult to control. After all, unlike other SMGs of the time, the M2 Carbine is less than 8-10lb and uses a hotter cartridge than 9mm/.45/7.62x25. Those use bullets around 85-230gr and velocities around 900-1600 or so ft/s, specifically with the 230gr .45 having maybe 900 ft/s from an SMG barrel (more like 850 ft/s from a 5" M1911 barrel) and the 85gr or so 7.62x25 from an SMG barrel is quite up there, like 1600-1700 ft/s. 110gr at 1990 ft/s though? Thatās hotter than either 85gr at 1700 or 230gr at 900. Hotter cartridge (.30 Carbine), high rate of fire, and very low weight, thus the M1 Carbine should recoil more on semi-auto than basically any WWII SMG set to semi-auto.
So maybe the answer is to give more recoil to the M1 Garand, rather than take recoil from the M1/M2 Carbine. Though also keep in mind that these are trained soldiers who have fired many hundreds of rounds of .30-06 over the past few months, so I dunno, thereās lots of different directions that this issue could be pulled in. Perception of reality can be a difficult thing because thereās so many different ways to perceive and experience things. Some say the AKM in full auto in 7.62x39 is uncontrollable, and in their undoubtedly inexperienced hands, yeah, theyād be useless in trying to control a mag-dump from an AKM probably. Iāve shot a lot of firearms, but never anything on fully automatic unless it was somehow bump-fired. Chances are, if my first time shooting a full-auto AK in 7.62 Soviet, if I tried to pull off an entire mag-dump and try to keep it on-target within 10m, Iād probably fail to keep all rounds on a man-sized target! Meanwhile, the guy on the Military Arms Channel, canāt remember his name, heās a US Veteran with PLENTY of experience in shooting fully-automatic firearms and he demonstrates, I think with a 100% authentic Russian AKM, how he can keep an AK on-target in full-auto out to possibly 30yd (27m or so) while STANDING. So, no, he might not perceive the AK as being āuncontrollableā whatsoever, because he CAN control it quite capably, though could undoubtedly control an M4A1 in 5.56 or AK-74 in 5.45 more easily.
3 Likes
Hahaha ok you got your point across but with allot of numbers and percentages, but thanks for putting the effort into explaining it
You really have no idea how much I enjoy discussing the fine details of firearms and firearm realism. It was a pleasure, really. I just hope it doesnāt come off as condescending, and I hope that everything I stated was correct and truthful. Firearms and history have been consistently among my greatest passions in life, and they go together beautifully. There is also writing, and thus I am able to give highly detailed and perhaps excessively long replies to one-sentence statements or questions. Life is weird.
Donāt worry it was just a person explaining something in very fine detail, thanks
You sir, are invited to explain to certain people why a submachine gun in .45 ACP, with a relative high rate of fire and a stock that is not in line with the recoil force might not be the pinnacle of SMG design in the 1940s 
FYI, I donāt know if youāve ever played the Germans or picked up one of their guns, but the Gewehr 43 has less recoil, more ammo, and the same damage as the Garand, so I wouldnāt go about nerfing the Garand even harder because the Carbine is in a bad place. Especially since the M2 carbine is meant to compete with the FG42, which is a laughable comparison at best.
The Thompson should even that out
Yeah, thatās pretty silly that the Thompson is the last SMG you unlock in the game, however the M3 āGrease Gunā is much cheaper to manufacture and so the process of replacing the old, heavy, and very expensive Thompson SMGs with the smaller/lighter M3 probably didnāt take all that many years. Though, if any firearm is deserving of a high rate of fire, itās a heavy one, because a heavier firearm helps to absorb recoil.
The Thompson is BASICALLY a WWI-era SMG even though it didnāt properly come about until about the early 1920s. Itās something of a āgen 1ā SMG. The more simplified āgen 2ā SMGs of WWII, if I may call them such, are superior to designs like the MP18, MP34, and Thompson for a variety of reasons. With more stampings and less millings, they are far more affordable to produce, they are much lighter to tote around, and depending on the cartridge and rate of fire, they can STILL be quite controllable. This is seen with the M3 with its ludicrously slow rate of fire, and the MP40 with its also fairly slow rate of fire, however the MP40 is still fancier and probably more costly to produce than many other SMGs of WWII like the PPSh-41 and definitely the later PPS-43.
I generally regarded the PPS-43 as the greatest SMG of WWII because it was a lightweight SMG, the stock could fold which made it good for troops in vehicle transport or for tankers, the magazines were super simple but also super reliable allegedly (and if a firearm struggles from reliability issues, it often comes down to magazine issues), and it used that lovely 7.62x25 cartridge with its high velocity and relatively flat trajectory as far as pistol cartridges go. It also had an in-built compensator to help with recoil. What I later learned from a video by Forgotten Weapons is that its recoil is unfortunately in kind of a difficult place. Ian McCollum, who runs that web page, has experience with a VAST array of automatic firearms. He described recoil as being in something of a spectrum, perhaps specifically confined to SMGs. If the rate of fire is slow enough, like with the M3, you basically have time between each shot to bring the sights back on-target, itās effectively a bullet hose which takes little effort to control. Then, with the PPSh-41 and its high rate of fire, undoubtedly also coupled with its relative weight (around 8-9lb unloaded, much lower than the Thompson), it is certainly a steady push but you can relatively easily get used to that steady push and direct the waterhose of bullets wherever you like. With the PPS-43, it was kind of in the middle ground. Too fast to easily keep under control like the M3, but too slow for it to be a steady push like the PPSh, so it jolts the shooter around a bit and itās hard to focus and keep on target. That seems, in my perspective, to be the one big drawback of the design, but I mean itās a submachine gun, and a CHEAP and SIMPLE one, itās meant for close range anyhow.
As for .45 ACP, I love that cartridge in a pistol, I love the M1911A1 design with all my heart, it was the first firearm I ever bought! That saidā¦ I dread to think of carrying it in a primary firearm. 230gr Ball .45 ACP is HEAVY. About 21 rounds per pound, meanwhile 150gr 7.62 Nato is about 18-19 rounds per pound if memory serves, only SLIGHTLY more heavy, and thatās comparing a pistol cartridge to a rifle cartridge. 115gr 9x19 and 55gr 5.56x45 weigh more around 35-38 rounds per pound, almost half the weight of .45. Iām pretty sure 85gr or so 7.62x25 weighs slightly less than either of those rounds, which is another reason why you can carry A LOT of ammo with the PPS-43. Those stamped magazines were FAR cheaper to manufacture than the PPSh-41 mags which required MILLING of the feed lips. Stamped metal is, to my knowledge, always lighter and cheaper than having to MILL things from a solid block of steel.
Still, the US is stuck with .45 in terms of SMGs. The M3 lacks the rate of fire of a Thompson, but it is much cheaper to produce and it is extremely controllable, also nifty that it has a magazine loader built into the sliding stock as I recall so thatās nifty. So yeah, Thompson aināt the greatest SMG, and making it the LAST possible SMG to obtain aināt the greatest either, but wellā¦ SMGs just arenāt Americaās strong suit. In the 1920s, sure, it can contend mightily with the rest of 'em. The advanced Lyman rear sight which can be graduated to like 500yd (which is insane, thatās basically volley-fire distance on group targets), the Cutts compensator, the nice pistol grip and vertical foregrip, those cooling fins on the barrelā¦ expensive as Hell to produce, but damn is it aesthetic. Compared to the MP40, STEN, PPSh-41, PPS-43, etcā¦ the Thompson is old, bulky, heavy, and bloody expensive. The M1 and M1A1 cut down costs, but still, Iām pretty sure it was largely or entirely milled. Stamping was the way of the future for SMGs, and America didnāt catch on until the M3, adopted at the end of 1942, one full year into USās involvement in WWII. So they had 1.5 years or so of production of M3 SMGs by the time D-Day came aboutā¦ and the Grease Gun was probably mostly given to paratroopers (it now makes sense that itās the airborne who are given the M3 in the game) and tankers. So surely basic infantry would be those who would end up with most of the Thompsons. But then if the Thompson was unlocked not long before or not long after the M3ā¦ what sort of āspecial SMGā could Gaijin provide for the last level where the Thompson is now?
Ah, perhaps, the first SMG you unlock is the M1A1 Thompson with a 20-round mag (or maybe 30?) even though for paratroopers, M3 might make more sense. Then, once you unlock your first tank, then you get the M3. Then, second paratrooper you get the M3A1 which is a slight upgrade from the M3, and finally at the end, you get an M1928A1 with Cutts compensator, cooling fins, and a 50-round drum. After all, the M1928A1 were surely very rare to see on the battlefield especially by 1944. Makes sense for it to be the rarest, and with the good rate of fire, the compensator, and the drum, it should be quite controllable and the capacity is fantastic!
For the Germans, it truly seems ridiculous to me that the MP34 is the most common SMG youāll find. It should REALLY be, from my perspective, the MP40. Maybe thereās documentation that states that MP34 were very common in occupied France for such-and-such a reason, I donāt know, but the MP40 was THE SMG of WWII Germany, and weāre talking 1944 here. Theyāve had YEARS of manufacturing. If anything, the MP40 should be the first SMG you unlock, and then the heavier and more expensive MP34 is provided which functions better than the MP40. Ideally, earlier in the game you unlock the most common weapons, and they can be perceived as functioning in someway lesser than the more rare firearms you unlock later. This way, in a realistic fashion, you will discover common firearms most commonly in the game, but still find more rare firearms now and then. That makes more sense to me.
Does that help?
It is absolutely ridiculous for the M2 to be compared to the FG42. The M2 is lightweight, itās a PDW, and fires what is essentially a potent pistol cartridge. Itās 7.62x33, so 33mm long case. What also has a 33mm long case? Well, besides the 7.92x33 kurz (though thatās a NECKED casing, thus has much more powder, plus itās got a pointer spitzer bullet and a larger/heavier bullet making it in general superior), thereās .357 Magnum and .44 Magnum. Thatās why I think itās fair to consider .30 Carbine as being ā.30 Magnum,ā except it has a rimless case rather than a rimmed case. I digress. The FG42 was INCREDIBLY advanced for its time. Those who designed it had a litany of ridiculous demands put on their design, yet somehow they did it. Make it not too heavy, make it able to function as either a rifle or an LMG, and make sure thereās a bayonet available on the firearm itself. Itās for paratroopers, and it is MUCH better to have them drop with their equipment than to drop them and their equipment separate which they later have to go and findā¦ which is how it literally went initially because itās easier to drop WITHOUT a rifle or ESPECIALLY a big heavy MG42/34 GPMG, than to drop with it.
Well, the FG42 fires from a CLOSED BOLT for semi-auto, and like so many SMGs and LMGs, an OPEN BOLT for full-auto. The also created a RIDICULOUS complex muzzle brake to aid in controlling recoil which apparently works REALLY well, and the stock also reciprocates I think which also aids in absorbing recoil. This, in Ian McCollumās experience, results in the FG-42 making its 8mm rounds feel like 5.56 from an M16. That is a BOLD assertion, but if Ian says it, I believe it. He aināt even a big guy! Rather skinny. Anyhow, no, trying to compare the M2 to the FG42 is pretty darn stupid.
As for the G43 and Garand, realistically, they should do the same damage as the M1903 and Kar98k. 14 damage, not 12, but I guess in terms of not making the semi-autos too strong and not making the bolt-actions too weak, they gave the bolt-actions more power, which is pretty typical of videogames outside of Red Orchestra II, Rising Storm, and Rising Storm 2: Vietnam, all by Tripwire Interactive. They put realism first, or at least they tend to do so, even with LMGs that fire rifle rounds like the M1918A2. Still, 12 damage is not far from 14ā¦ I accept it. G43 having the same damage as the Garand but with higher capacity? I accept it, thatās realistic. Less recoil? I donāt know, I suspect the M1 Garand is probably heavier, and I donāt THINK the G43 had a compensator. If thatās the case, then why on Earth would the G43 have less felt recoil? I just donāt know, research would have to be done. I can tell you that my experience with the SVT-40 in comparison to the M1 Garand is that the SVT has less recoil in spite of being a lighter firearm, but thatās at least in part due to having an fixed compensator at the end of the barrel. The M1 Garand has no compensator, itās just a generally heavy firearm.
Also, while the M1 and M2 Carbine should indeed do less damage than the M1 Garand and G43, it should also do less damage than the FG42, which should do as much damage as the G43 since it fires 8mm Mauser just like the G43.
I feel like I didnāt give a full answer there, but hopefully this will suffice. I have no answer for the recoil aspect between M1 and G43, but I think I covered the other issues a bit better perhaps.
MP-40 was the most common SMG of the german side. However, the MP-38 never became a rare thing in battle either. In France, Germany wasnāt the best prepared to fight as they were focused on the russians. The troops defending Normandy were basically armed with whatever they could get their hands on, because all the good stuff went to the ground troops on the russian front. (This is why I think there should be two different campaigns in france). Yes they had mainline German weapons, but they were also largely issued obsolescent gear and captured foreign weapons.
After Normandy as Germany organized a proper defense with the Heer, they saw uniform equipment or MP-40ās and Kar-98ās. Like I said, Normandy and the initial invasion is one campaign, but once they start fighting for france more inland on the race to the rhine, it become a completely different fight.
I know itās gonna be hard to read, since ShareX doesnāt support HDR and I canāt seem to fix the brightness, but you can go to ShootersCalculator.com | Recoil Calculator, and with a little digging, get the answer to which gun had more recoil.
M1 Carbine on the left, M1 Garand on the right. Garand has almost three times the recoil energy of the carbine. Iāve owned both, shot both extensively, and can tell you that this makes sense.
Full auto is a different beast. Iāve fired loads, from 5.56 from the M249 all the way to .50BMG in the Ma Deuce. The M2 Carbine in auto wouldnāt be easy, but if you know what youāre doing, it wouldnāt be impossible. It has no means of reducing muzzle climb, so probably harder to control in auto than the FG42, which has all the engineered means of combatting climb.