Why would you mention it? This was AUTO experience. Guess someone does have a hard time reading but it isnt me. And the British never had an FAL…still slipping up I see
1 Like
For completeness - actually what was asked for was MACHINEGUN experience - the M16 isn’t a machinegun either.
The British SLR - L1A1 - was the Belgian FAL in British service. Never used that either.
You really got to try harder with identifying who is slipping up.
If I called an M16 an AR15 I would be wrong yes? A SERVICE MEMBER calling an issued weapon the wrong name is an obvious red flag. The L1A1 does have alot of differences but I wont elaborate for you, you already know that right? 
The M16 is automatic lmao i would say that’s far more machine gun than a semi auto FAL
Well thanks to thoose who at least tried to discuss the actual issue.
The others? Bunch of heroes I’m sure y’all are, but y’all need some lessons in how to actualy argue a point.
We’re talking about shit that’s not meant to be shoulder fired, like the 240
And if you’re going to take a staged photo as evidence, here’s evidence that cavalry fight standing up
1 Like
We didn’t call it L1A1 because we didn’t use L1A1 - sorry that’s too complicated for you.
Indeed shoulder firing is sure as heck not ideal - but could be done.
The OP was about using MG’s “like SMG’s”, especially in buildings for example - which mostly means shooting from the hip - which is well within their design parameters for most of them at least.
And ours is the compromise that certain MGs should only be able to ADS while bipoded.
Including the BAR?
Read “certain” MGs.
BAR, Chauchat, Bren and FG 42, maybe ZB off the top of my head definitely should be shoulderable.
Breda mod 20, madsen, MG 30, 34, 42, DP and DT definitely shouldn’t
you didn’t specify - so an explanation was asked for and an answer supplied - thank you 
FYI - the British Parliament was told the Madsen could be fired from shoulder or knee without any support - see Hansard -
https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/lords/1918/jun/06/the-madsen-gun
They just want to nerf MGs to the ground so in the future in Normandie they can thrash germans with Bar and 100-drum thompson, in Moscow and Berlin with their PPD. Okay! Then we leave the game.
Thx for this good evidence.
Yup.
There are TONS of news real footage of German soldiers shooting MGs from the hip, aiming and putting them on another soldier’s shoulder.
I don’t think the issue is putting it on someone’s shoulder - it is firing from the shoulder with no support - like a rifle.
That can be done - there’s plenty of modern videos demonstrating it - but you’d certainly not have good control and hence degraded accuracy, and that isn’t well represented in Enlisted.
Just make length and weight a factor in CQC and job done.
4 Likes
I do have to agree that MGs need some kind of nerf as while it was definitely possible to fire them from the hip or shoulder, it was definitely not as common as it currently is ingame. Even the walking fire LMGs are pretty heavy and are not used in that role all the time.
I personally support @VoyoMayPL’s suggestion of introducing barrel length as a limiting factor, as well as improving how weight affects a soldier.
Other options:
One of these heavier LMGs like MG42 is not a weapon you would enjoy firing from the hip/shoulder for long periods of time, so perhaps stamina should be drained, or at least prevented from being regenerated.
Alternatively, preventing ADS and reducing hipfire accuracy for these heavier LMGs is also an option.
However, I would prefer to see barrel length limitations before either of those options as it would apply universally to all weapons, and would also buff the lower damage, shorter length carbines like the G33 and 1907 Mosin, on top of feeling more realistic, less “forced”, and probably more fun as well.
4 Likes
Indeed - although I think that “just do it” is possibly treating it a bit lightly - if the game engine isn’t set up to handle it then it’s a big job.
1 Like
Game engine can 100% handle something like more weapon sway, longer time to raise it to aim, slower turning when carrying MG etc. Considering weight of particular LMGs could also work as a balancing factor - some players could prefer taking to battle less bulky machineguns to be more mobile.
But collision effects for the bigger weapons would be indeed more complicated.
From observation I can tell that weapons have kind of “physical model” that is used to determine if you can mount a weapon. That’s why bipods are so wonky.
I may be wrong but that’s how it seems to be.
If so, then some part of the job is done.
(Yes, I’m probably thinking that it’s easier than it really is. But I’m not a game programer and I have to work with what I have.)
Based on my experience of the Madsen, trying to ADS with it while walking or crouch walking in game is pretty futile, the recoil is all over the place, and I’ve certainly felt it worse than PPD for hipfire shenanigans as well.
I started getting far more kills with the weapon as soon as I started using it mounted (on windows or on the ground) rather than trying to figure out how to hipfire or ADS, so it feels like nerfing the ability to hipfire or ADS wouldn’t matter to me.
But sure, such nerfs can come when the mounting system isn’t quite as frustrating to find the specific pixel you CAN mount a thing on and where you get a decent line of fire as well.
Madsen is 30/30 recoil, 25 ammo mag, 410-450 shots per minute and 12 damage at 10 meters (I believe soldiers have 12 health, as medkits heal for 3.0).
PPD is 15/9 recoil, 71 ammo mag, 730-800 shots per minute, 5.5 damage at 10.
In my experience while you can use the Madsen as a hipfire building storming weapon, I’ve had better success with the drum PPD so far - the rate of fire and much lower recoil making sure I actually hit stuff.