Totally agree in that point.
But I guess the FNAB only was able to perform such a high ROF because it was modified. According to a real soldier you only could get such a high ROF because the closure of the FNAB in that video was modified.
I hope he is right. No matter if only on BR II with a buffed ROF of 630, or if it real existed with a ROF of 837 and being in BR III → I hope Darkflow / Gaijin add one of these
what? my brother in Christ, he is shooting a confirmed original FNAB-43 on the video and he examined not one but three original FNAB SMGs sent to him by museums, he concluded that the weapon must have a high rate of fire by its design.
That’s interesting. I only can say that he told me and that sounded reasonable to me.
Got from another mate the contact datas for one of the most famous WW2 museum in my country. Let’s see what informations they can give. 
FNAB-43 Late. Boom problem solved.
Same situation as type 100 early and late.
They could have been wrong, but not by a factor of two.
It may be original. But these are 3 different submachine guns assembled into one. It shoots the wrong bullets, although it is known that weapons with such a bolt are sensitive to cartridges. It is unclear what kind of return spring is installed. All this also affects the rate of fire.
Also, the weapon could have been changed at the factory after the war. Detailed practice exists.
It just seems unlikely to me that the creators of this submachine gun themselves did not know its exact characteristics. There can be no mistake, even by ear you can easily distinguish a submachine gun with a rate of fire of 400 rounds per minute and a submachine gun with a rate of fire of 800.
I mean, yes and no, the type 100 early and late are mechanicly different and thus deserved to be seperated, no idea if the limmited production run of the FNAB at the end of the war had such a major difference in performance between production models. Ultimately it would be hard to prove either way, as we’ve seen.
Another example of terribly miscalculated fire rate.
Early has 700 rpm fire rate and late has 800 rpm which hard to fix because they have the same stats so after the fire rate fix, they would be almost identical.
Really? That’s surprising, their mags aren’t even compatible (never checked that in game actually, they shouldn’t be if they are), so I expected even more differences after that. It’s a pretty commonly held belief that the different patterns have different RoF (not saying wide acceptance = correct), haven’t found one that says otherwise. I thought that was the explenation to why late pattern guns so often had charred wood by the ejection port, when the early more tame pattern didn’t have the same issue. Would you send me the source you have stating that they were the same in RoF? Learning is fun.
There was a topic already made about it so in my opinion it’s best share that, since he talks in great detail.
Well many WW 2 guns have wrong rate of fire and sadly Ian McCollum never tested the FNAB-43 but after he tested the Raising realized its actually fires is 800 rounds a minute.
Well thats the problem with Reising M55 was the same story he finally tested it and realized its really 800 now I wonder will they finally fixed in game and give us 30 rounds in BR III.
Not true, actually FNAB-43 had two versions one with delayed recoil (400rpm) and another one with delayed recoil removed (550rpm at bare minimum)
Respectfully, US already has M1 and M1928A1 Thompson with high fire rate, I would much rather see 30 round Reising added to Soviets, since lend-lease had delivered them thousands.
USSR BR3 so empty at the moment.
That’s fine as long as i have it i prefer Raising over tommy
I didn’t claim anything other than lack of knowledge on the subject, so no idea what I was untrue about, but nice there’s something out there with some information!
My knowledge is expanded, learning is indeed fun!
Variaty is cool though…
True, that is why Soviets need the .45 acp gun and Western Allies need a 9mm gun like Sten mk.V on BR3.
Probably is…
