While the M1 Garland and the M1903 Springfield use the same ammunition and have the same muzzle velocity, the M1 Garland’s striking power is 12 points.
The M1 Garland and the M1903 Springfield use the same ammunition and have the same muzzle velocity, yet the M1903’s striking power at 10 meters is 14 points and the M1’s is 12 points.
Wasn’t this game “realistic”, the M1 is semi-automatic, so it’s power is intentionally reduced?
You’ll lose some marginal amount of power because part of the gas is diverted into the piston to run the action. Would it be represented by those numbers? Eh, probably not, but it isn’t impossible for the penetration and killing capabilities of a single bullet to be slightly less than a bolt action. Thankfully, you have 7 more on tap.
ODM
even with less hit power I will take the Garand … you can have the m1903
This was discussed a while ago. The only way to balance semi autos if they did the same damage would be to limit their use per squad or to increase their rarity so that it was much rarer to get them. Pretty much everyone preferred to keep the current system as no one wanted to have to grind hundreds of hours for a full squad of G43s.
Not really, this is purely a balance choice in this case.
You lose nothing - the cartridge produces way too much gas anyway - as witnessed by muzzle flash - the utterly miniscule amount taken to drive a small cylinder a few inches is not measurable.
The reason is, apparently, “balance” - because otherwise SLR’s would be too much better than bolt actions… which I would have thought is the idea of SLR’s and why they replaced bolt actions … but what do I know?! 
IMO the PROPER way to balance americans in WW2 with almost all SLR’s would be to give them reasonably historical squad makeups, so they have no decent machineguns, their 60mm mortar is pretty much unusable on the Enlisted sized maps, and they are almost always attacking into MG42’s… but apparently such thoughts are too hard to do or something …
Hence why I said “marginal”. It’s about 55 feet per second according to the numbers I have available. Considering we’re looking at the difference between 2750 to 2805 FPS, we’re not looking at some vast gulf of difference here. It’s still not “nothing” but it isn’t enough to make a difference except in the most extreme of edge cases. Much like everything else in this game, the distances we’re shooting at usually sums up to “a few dozen to a few hundred feet” and anything greater than 200 yards is rare… so the edge cases don’t actually happen.
Now, the REAL question is what you were actually ranting about towards the end, namely that the method of balancing a semi-auto firearm is questionable. THAT is where things get interesting and useful… in the game.
I’d be interested in a source that says the Garand was at 2750 fps - that IS a significant velocity difference that would have been easily measurable.
Mmmm, okay, the M1903 uses a special ammunition called “30_06_springfield_ap”. That’s why it has high power.
M1 data mine
M1903 data mine
what the hell is an M1 Garland?
this is still an issue though. the M1 Garand and the M1903 Springfield shoot the same .30-06 round. why does the M1 do half the damage output? I mean, I get the balance thing. but that’s bull.
