In this case yeah, Ross could get one maybe. There are some cases in which I would agree. But in others I would argue it would be wiser to keep it without bayonet, or even remove the bayonet.
I mentioned the Manlicher earlier, a clear case were the pre-war kar has a bayonet but is slower, and the manlicher faster but without bayonet. Creating an intresting choice between the too.
But when talking about, for example, the FG and FG II. In this case maybe add the bayonet to the FG but not the FG II, therfore creating balance between the two weapons and a reason to play the FG over the FG II. This could also be done for the MP 43 and StG. MP 43 getting a bayonet giving it a boost while the StG remains without one. This is also why I would remove some bayonets. For instance, the AVT 20. There is no reason to play the orginal AVT, the AVT 20 is just better. If the bayonet is removed, it would at least create some reason to play the original.
Obviously, the devs have not really tried creating balance in this way, adding a bayonet to the already strong Federov. But this is the way I would like to see the implementation of bayonets. So, in some cases, like the Ross you mentioned, I do agree that it should get a bayonet. But I disagree that all weapons should simply just get a bayonet.
I agree with the Italian Semi but not the M1 carbine bc historically it didn’t have a bayonet lug and you can clearly see… the lack of one on said M1 carbine
…But it did historically have one? It was a late war thing, but there was an attachment that slid on the barrel that was the bayonet lug, I’m pretty sure the M1A1 carbine has it actually, so the model is even already in game.
I feel like tech tree M1 Carbine shouldn’t get a bayonet, but an event M1 Carbine could get a bayonet. It would be called M1 Carbine Field Mod. or something like that.
Look at the current M1 in the tech tree, it can’t mount a bayonet. It should not be altered to do so either, it should represent the most common version of the gun in use at the time.
But, a late-war version with a 30 round mag and bayonet in BR III in the TT should definetly have the bayonet mountings added to it, this is fine.
I would also be interested in considering a Event M1 with a bayonet but still have a 15 round mag, a rare little curiosity for people to collect.
That’s incorrect—what I meant is that some weapons historically came with fixed bayonets on the battlefield, but the game hasn’t included them. This is already a lacking feature, not a case of demanding that every gun must have one.
Because the FG42 is a paratrooper machine gun! A machine gun! Ah! Though it actually could mount a bayonet. Oh well—originally designed as a machine gun for paratroopers, it’s now been repurposed here as a wholesale automatic rifle. In that case, it’s no surprise that it can take a bayonet, just like the T20 and AVT.
That’s just straight up wrong though. It’s supposed to be THE paratrooper weapon to replace all other weapons used by Paratroopers. The M14 was intended to do the exact same thing and the T20, which is essentially just an M14 in .30-06, is also the Allied BR5 SF Rifle.
Even if it was indeed a machine gun it’s already modelled with the bayonet so why not just attach it properly and even out the SF rifles across all factions, the Axis are the only ones without a Bayonet on a SF rifle.
But while we’re talking about LMGs. Add Bayonets to the Type 96 and Type 99, they could historically take them and it’d make more unique than they are at the moment.
