to be fair that’s a really bad picture, the angle isn’t right to show the muzzle.
I just showed what is shown to me man but here is the better one
But our discussion here most likely wont change a damn thing cause its already added so anyhow it is what it is I dont like when they change stuff that is known on guns but again it is what it is
1 Like
I admit defeat on the second image BUT:
My first image is indeed a T20, as that rear sight was only present on T20 Serial Number 8
As seen by the 8 on both the stock and reciever.
Meaning, the muzzle break with the flue existed for later T20’s and earlier T20E1’s, as later T20E’s had this muzzle break:
So the most reasonable conclusion is that the devs kinda combined Serial Number 8 and 1 (since the receiver in game has a big fat 1 on it).
Your second source actually backs me up on this too:
“The first muzzle brake design required a redesigned gas cylinder lock, and with that device installed on the barrel a bayonet or a grenade launcher could not be used on the rifle. Subsequent T20 variations had redesigned muzzle brakes that did permit the attachment of a bayonet or grenade launcher.”
Notice the wording “first” and “subsequent T20 variations”. Meaning that what is said about the first muzzle break is only applicable to the first prototype.
1 Like
Well it doesent change the fact that in game T20’s muzzle blocks the bayonet yet it can get bayonet and
historically it cant accept Bayonet at least with that muzzle in game
1 Like
I could’ve sworn that the T20 had the No.8 muzzle break… but I just checked it now and it’s flat without a flue… wtf…
Seems like we’ve been talking past each other then… sorry about that.
But I did demonstrate that it’s not just the T20E1 and onward that were able to mount bayonets.
Seems like this is a really easy fix then, they just need to copy the T20E1 muzzle break in game and put it on the T20 (and maybe change the sight to not mix and match the No.8 and No.1 parts). They also need to give the T20E1 a bayonet too…
1 Like
No worries kind of was fun discussing things without insulting each other most of the time in forum it ends up with insult
Most likely never gonna happen but we can hope
1 Like
Yeah… they seem to be very reluctant to just copy and paste 3D objects (bayonets come to mind)
1 Like
How do you explain T20 No.8 then…?
And SzepWaxweiler’s second source?
And the source I’m drawing from is using at least two sources:
The works of Frank Iannamico
U.S. Rifle M14 — From John Garand to the M21
My source being:
That book seems to be pretty old too, so it’s likely got a lot of outdated or simplified information (especially since it has to keep things short since it doesn’t go into much depth about the weapons themselves it seems)
You also have to keep in mind that they built several different prototypes for each model designation, as I’ve already said earlier.
yes it is pretty old and it is most extensive resource on ww2 weapons (depending on edition). you can check it here Internet Archive: Digital Library of Free & Borrowable Books, Movies, Music & Wayback Machine
usually i find that older sources are actually more correct than modern ones (with few exceptions) cause they had actual access to those rifles and were referencing actual documents/archives, while lots of modern ones are susceptible to second hand information or have access to modified/recreated rifles.
here is an example:
btw if you read further into your source
“The T20E1 Rifle, incorporating the changes desired as a result of testing previous models, fired both automatic and semi-automatic from a closed bolt, omitting the unsatisfactory feature for holding the bolt open on automatic fire and substituting in lieu thereof two heat flow arresting grooves on the barrel before the chamber for chamber cooling. In addition, the receiver was further modified to simplify the operation of locking the receiver and trigger group together as well as to introduce a more secure means of locking the box magazine within the magazine well. At the same time, the receiver was prepared to mount a telescopic sight, night sight, or grenade launcher sight, as might be desired. The recoil check was modified to take a bayonet. However, the T20E1 was still incapable of mounting a grenade launcher or flash hider. A new box magazine to replace the modified BAR magazine was developed to work in conjunction with the new method of locking in the receiver, and thus this magazine provided the only means of holding the bolt to the rear in its retracted position. This magazine was not interchangeable for use in the BAR.
btw i went to check one of the sources in your article
This piece is an abridged excerpt from the book The M1 Garand Rifle by Bruce N. Canfield.
here is link to the book by the same author
Hmm… That still doesn’t explain T20 No.8… Perhaps they’re using No.1 as the baseline and simply summarizing the gradual changes made before they got to the T20E1 and its closed bolt. Prototyping and R&D is very much incremental and iterative after all.
That’s not the same book… the excerpt is from an 800+ page book…
So are you saying he’s contradicting himself 25 years later…? As that book is from 1988 and the excerpt is from 2013…
And that book is, like the other one you showed, extremely brief with its descriptions.
there is absolutely no information about that rifle and i have not seen any primary sources that explain it. that picture could be wartime mod, postwar mod or someones failed recreation. all sources that i could find point that t20 could not mount bayonet and that led to changes in t20e1.
also i cant see designation of that rifle besides serial number 8. for all i know this could be t20e1 or t20e2.
you are free to quote primary source.
btw if i have picture of ww2 weapon with weird modification, doesnt mean it was serially produced like that
None of them were serially produced… they were test prototypes… it’s literally what the “T” stands for…
well you know what i mean. it was originally produced by set of specifications and everything after that is a mod. new set of specification for new rifle is t20e1 and next is t20e2.
I play germany just as much as i play U.S…not so much russia though. You’re talking about 1 premmy squad with an exception, that’s not a justification to bring panzerfaust 60 to br 2. The event paras get a PTRS in low tier, and premmy squads should come with some sort of special outlier to make it worth spending your cash on it. Germany also gets an exception to the rule with their event para squad getting flamethrowers in br2.
1 Like
There is a huge difference between Soviet paras of BR1-2 having a 3x troopers with Panzerfausts 60 (12 of them each while real AT gunner can have like half of them) and heavily nerfed and kinda useless flamethrowers that have very limited ammo and range and just 2 of them, it’s also accompanied by garbage BR1 smgs while Soviets can have their PPS-42/43 which are pretty much BR4 smgs at BR2. Also remember that Soviet premium paras can also equip DP-27 at BR1-2, or SVT-38 also at BR1-2 and not just premium para but event too.
2 Likes