Considering the track record around completing my own suggestions on time, I’m not one to complain. 
I still haven’t done my follow up on British cosmetics…
1 Like
4 Likes
@Valkay @OggeKing if you want to ensure this post gets forwarded, make sure to provide the source for the increased RoF of the Sten Mk.V. Specifically, the part of the source that actually shows the value, not just citation.
6 Likes
The exact cause of the fire rate increase is not clear, most likely its the result of the fire control group´s redesign, after all the difference between 550 and 600 rpm is not very big.
4 Likes
It’s a bit iffy since it isn’t from an archival document or an official handbook, but it beats nothing, nevertheless!
1 Like
Clarification on Valkay’s behalf: “Redesign” in this case means “moved forward”, as internal parts were still interchangeable with the Mk II.
It is assumed that this change is the cause of the increased RoF. It’s not solid, the best explenation for why we don’t have first hand fire trials is that it would likely have been superfluous to do so to a already proven design (the Mk II was not some unknown).
As opposed to the Patchett, which was a new development and thus had more dedicated testing, the only thing that needed to be established with the Sten Mk V was that 1, it remained parts compatible, and 2, remained fully functional without reliability issues.
The guns provably worked, that’s all that was needed for a temporary design… It’s important to remember that the British anticipated in short order that either they would adopt a Assault Rifle (in which case, they thought, would replace both the service rifle and the SMG), or adopt a entierly new SMG design (which became the Patchett descended L2 Sterling). As such, extensive trials and RoF clock tests would be superfluous for a already proven design intended for a short service life, as long as it did not excessively excede current numbers of the Mk II.
1 Like
These are often not available or may contain false propaganda information.
It is much better to rely on data of researchers that had access to both reading such documents and measuring the guns personally.
Tom Nelson is one the greatest firearm collector and researcher of all time and his book I quoted remains one of the best researched despite its age.
1 Like
My comment was entirely based on the developer’s standards as of the last year or so, which influenced changes to a bunch of the Japanese weapons, FG.42 I, AVS-36, Scotti Naval, MP.35 and MP.35/I, Charlton, and others.
“False propaganda information” and accuracy depends on what TYPE of archival document is referenced. Official reports for weapons considered for adoption, especially given their context, are good choices.
Now, I wont look into every case here, but most of these changes were driven by player demand and/or intention to make them better or at least more unique.
this was the source behind MP35 buff.
The only few examples when such documents were actually used were with Japanese SMGs since the US tests most books quote were very inaccurate. Most SMGs were destroyed after the war so rerunning the tests are also often of the question. That leaves us with Japanese source which were also probably not the most accurate, but definitely better than the US ones.
Anyway, the devs clearly never demanded the documents you mentioned nor ever looked at them themselves if they had to make these changes.
But, I got tired of beating it around the bush, lets ask our friendly helpers.
@Euthymia07-live @YuіHіbіki
are the sources of the suggestion satisfactory?
3 Likes
It has a source, multiple even so it’s by default way better than 90% of weapon suggestions
6 Likes
don’t mean to be rude, but are you gonna forward it or something?
I forward most weapon suggestions
I don’t like to comment that i did it for them because inevitably someone will complain about “why this and not this?!”“”
6 Likes
ah, sorry m8
1 Like