At maybe up to 20m and vs vit + body armor it’s always 3 hit kill. I have never used MP35/l more than twice while playing BR3 it’s way too weak. ZK-383 is a much better weapon.
Hell no nothing justifies weak German smgs going to br3 outside of maniac that have hobby of Nerfing Germany at every occasion. What’s next we put FNAB-43 to br3 along with mp40. Someone wants to kill Germany once and for all. They are already the weakest nation in a game they can’t go any lower.
Germany is the only nation that hasn’t had all its smgs become too OP, every other nations smgs are too strong it’s not that Germany is too weak, Germany should be the standard for balance and all other nations need to be balanced until they are equal to Germany again.
So what not ever br3 smg needs to be identical, there can be more powerful br3 smgs and less powerful smgs. You’ve got the COD mindset of if it’s not meta then its shouldn’t exist or be buffed until it Is meta.
I don’t want any br2 German smgs going to br3, the smgs I was referring to was the soviet’s PPS guns, Japan’s type 2a and other OP smgs and Americas br3 Thompson. I never said I want the mp40 uptiered in fact the mp40 is what every br2 smg should be balanced to.
Valkay, please understand I hold you in the highest regard and you’re usually on point on almost every topic. But here, I really need to ask you:
What have you been smoking?
This is flat out incorrect though? I mean, you’re not just disputing that they are remarkably well designed (egonomicly speaking) rifles, but also dusputing that this is even commonly accepted? I’d like to hear your arguments for why you don’t believe the first statement, but surely you can’t deny that it is generally held to be true?
Allow me to mechanicly describe why the Lee-Enfield family of rifles (perticularly the SMLE/No. 1 and the No. 4 rifles) are so smooth to operate, why their ergonomics are supperior to that of regular turn-bolt rifles, and why these factors contribute to them being unusually capable of being cycled whilst still aiming down the sights:
Unlike Mauser-style rifles, which use forward-locking lugs near the chamber, the Enfield employs rear-locking lugs located just ahead of the bolt handle. Mechanically, this means the rotational resistance needed to unlock the bolt is lower. The bolt doesn’t have to engage tightly with the chamber front during lift, so the motion feels very smooth. While some might think this allows a shorter bolt, in practice the overall physical length of the No. 4 Mk I bolt is similar to, or even slightly longer than, a Kar98k bolt. The key advantage isn’t length but reduced rotational effort during the lift.
“Cocking” a rifle means compressing the firing pin spring so that when the trigger is pulled, the firing pin can strike the cartridge primer and fire the round. In the Enfield, this spring is compressed as the bolt is pushed forward to close, a system called cock-on-close. This makes the upward lift of the bolt very light, because you’re not compressing the spring while lifting. The resistance instead occurs during the forward push to chamber the round, which is a more natural and ergonomically efficient motion for rapid fire.
A cock-on-close system also avoids the jerk from opening a cock-on-open action, which is uncomfortable for the shooter if they want to retain a cheek weld while cycling, a non-insubstantial metal mass suddenly shooting back towards the wielder is disconserting to say the least, especially when you can’t guarantee absolute perfect head-placement during combat.
The Enfield bolt handle is placed rearward, just behind the trigger, compared to the forward position on Mauser rifles. At first, this seems counterintuitive, you might expect a forward handle to avoid hitting your face. However, the rear placement works synergistically with the Enfield’s ~60° bolt lift: your hand moves mostly backward and and less upward along a natural arc around your shoulder, keeping it clear of your cheek. In contrast, a Mauser-style bolt handle requires a ~90° lift and moves forward and upward, which can interfere with cheek weld and line of sight.
The combination of rear placement and short lift allows the Enfield to be cycled while keeping sights on target.
Even though the bolt lengths of Enfield and Mauser rifles are similar, the Enfield feels faster and smoother due to:
This synergy allows shooters to cycle rounds without disrupting cheek weld, maintain sight picture, and minimize hand fatigue, something very few turn-bolt rifles achieve. This is why the famous “mad minute” drills (20–30 aimed shots per minute) were possible. Soldiers could fire, lift the bolt with minimal disturbance, push it home strongly (cocking on close), and immediately be back on target without ever dropping their cheek weld.
Comparison: Enfield vs Mauser
| Feature | Lee–Enfield No. 4 | Mauser/Kar98k |
|---|---|---|
| Locking lugs | Rear | Forward |
| Cocking | Cock-on-close | Cock-on-lift |
| Bolt handle | Rear | Forward |
| Lift angle | ~60° | ~90° |
| Bolt lift effort | Low | Higher |
| Ergonomics for aiming while cycling | Excellent | Less favorable |
| Rapid-fire capability | High (“Mad Minute”) | Lower |
In short: The smooth operation of the Enfield comes from the combination of rear-locking lugs, cock-on-close mechanics, rearward handle, and short lift arc. These design choices reduce the effort required to lift and cycle the bolt and allow the shooter to maintain sight picture, all while keeping the overall robustness and reliability expected of a military rifle.
That same flex made the action tolerant of dirt, mud, and fouling. A rigid front-locking system like the Mauser might bind if the locking recesses were clogged, while the Enfield could keep running because the locking lugs were at the rear, farther from the chamber, and the action had more “give.” Soldiers often noted that Enfields would continue to cycle smoothly in conditions that choked more rigid rifles. There are give and takes with all rifle designs, the Lee-Enfields chose in-field reliability (something that is almost garuanteed to work when you need it) over long-term durability (more workshop intensive between battles to maintain).
Proper care and drill was instilled into the soldiery to make sure the cartridges were stacked correctly, but it remained a problem for the careless soldier until the conversions of Lee-Enfields into 7.62 NATO occoured.
As for the video “proof” provided;
The one showing the No. 4 rifle is being shot by a man who clearly hasn’t shot them before (remarking about the qualities of the rifle as he is learning about them, such as the power of the impact on the targets, also stating that he’s only loaning the rifle), and being shown in a sub-zero enviornment which he himself states is making the operation of the rifle more difficult than it should be, this alone makes it not representative of the general truth of the rifle.
The one showing the Kar98k clearly shows the shooter is lowering the rifle and moving his head, so I have no idea what proof you’re pointing to where he is still aiming down the sights whilst cycling. Having the rifle still on the shoulder whilst cycling is not the same as cycling whilst retaining your cheek weld.
Again Valkay, I don’t want to be mean, but I think you’re missguided on this issue.
Well, Tiger E and Tiger 2 share the same squad. So when people started to use the Tiger King, who would still use this Tiger E? The low utilization rate of Tiger E came about in this way. However, considering that now in a 3-star level room, the Soviet side has at most only one 57mm-T-34 that can barely defeat the Tiger E type by surprise attack rather than direct confrontation, let alone the zis5/kv with worse shell penetration than the British guns, so the removal of this tank also indicates that the Soviet side needs to have a good tank that can penetrate and defend against the BR3-4 in the future.
Indeed, if the Tiger is removed from the game, then the only vehicle capable of defeating a Tiger would be the 105mm Sherman, M10, Hellcat. However, I really want it. The Hellcat can be reduced to a 3-star weight because from the military map, it is so small that it has lost the ability to conduct guerrilla warfare. Everything is now a face-to-face attack. You get a large expanse of plain terrain. The area is sometimes very limited because of the black zone and the anti-tank firepower of the infantry. More often, just turning your head a little can reveal the tank. In that case, the 76mm Sherman, which is specialized in armor penetration, can be upgraded to a 3-star level. This is because its high-explosive shells are inferior to the 75mm. Usually, soft targets are cleared using the ordinary Sherman. Only when there is danger does one need to fire the 76mm. The threats are mainly the Tiger and the Panther. These are also BR4 items. On the internet, those like Tiger II, Hunting Tiger, etc., the 76mm can no longer handle them. Those already require a 90mm to deal with them. When you calculate it all, a small adjustment to BR sometimes requires pulling the entire situation together.
This applies to many items and the most important factor is balance. Like, why having the Panzer IV F2, G and the J in BR3 when the H exists? Why do we need M26 Pershing in BRV when the T26 exists?
So why dont we move them down? Because you would make BR3/ BR1 tanks of the other side struggle hard, not to metion AT for infatry beyond the Panzerfaust at BR3.