SMG for unscoped rifleman

[Maxfragg]

but a good moddel of this one would have 3x as much polys as the current

[KP]

And it would be unrealistic for the MEC, as it's made in Norway for the Norwegian Army and no-one else. Still a cool weapon, though.

[Waaah_Wah]

Holy smokes, now that's a G3.

AG3 actually (i think)

[Top_Cat_AxJnAt]

To my knowledge that only applies in the case of battle rifles that were only semi-automatic or bolt-action, such as the battle rifles typically used in WWII. The subsequent generations of fully-automatic battle rifles, such as the M14, tended to fill the role of both the semi-automatic battle rifle and the SMG.

They did indeed intend for the automatic battlerifle to replace the SMG but it sort of failed really! Hence, even though British Army and Australian Army adopted FN FAL, a semi/auto battle rifle they STILL designed and adopted a new 9mm SMG in the 50s and 60s.

See lots of 9mm SMGs and its 1980s...



the SMG in question, the Sterling....



Ok not exactly 1980s but trying all the same, see the L4 but more importantly the guy on the right is using a 9mm SMG!!!!!!!!!



and finaly...



Its the aussie F1.
Although the F1 was withdrawn in Nam becuase it was found to be underpowered, importantly it was still issued in the first place and being underpowered - well what do you expect a 9mm round in a jungle environment to be!

So in conclusion - in armies that whos main rifle after WW2, was a semi/auto battle rifle (firing 7.62) and not an assault rifle (firing 5.56), there were tons and tons of 9mm floating around. Therefore becuase the MECs main rifle is a semi/auto battle rifle it would be well within the bounds of realism to equip some MEC soldiers with 9mm Submachine gun but only in situations in which the SMG would be effective. For example it would be useless in desert combat, therefore it would NOT be issued, however i could be very effective in CQB, therefore could be issued!

Comprende?

hopefully this puts an end to SA80 SMG nonsense and the like.......so we can focus on which SMG would be most appropriate, Sten anyone?

[Bob_Marley]

L1A1 - Semi only

G3A3 - Semi/full

SMGs - By and Large issued to support troops

[ReaperMAC]

Meh, screw SMGs, give them carbines. Against assault rifles in-game, you will still die first with SMGs on a one-on-one with someone who has an assault rifle.

[Top_Cat_AxJnAt]

I hope so much this post does not kill the thread

L1A1 - Semi only

G3A3 - Semi/full

"BINGO 1" The fact the G3 is capable of automatic fire makes it no more suitable for CQB than the L1A1- this could be any distance well up to 50m - where due to the heavy recoil of the 7.62mm round, automatic fire past 25m (mabey less) is ... unquestionably irrational!

Completely random but highly relavent e.g. of similar "situation" - if every day i require to travel from A to B, in centre of London, in any time less than 20 minutes, having a car that is capable of 200mph is of no greater help in for filling my requirement than a car that is only capable of 50mph - heavy traffic in the streets will mean average speed of both cars will be almost identical.

However if one where to make the journey on a motorbike, specifically a much narrower vehicle, one can overtake and slip through traffic easier and therefore reach the destination quicker.

Even if this motorbike is also only capable of 50mph (WTF + LOL), in certain environments, in this case, congested urban, it is a quicker means of transport than both the 200mph and 50mph car!



A so we jump back to The Case of the SMG

"BINGO 2" Even though the 9mm Submachine fires a round of significantly less energy and too much less distance - the reason for these differences, make accurate automatic fire way past 25 (or whatever the distance auto G3 fire becomes irrational) effective and therefore rational

"BINGO 3" In an CQB environment, remembering combat can occur at or anywhere just past 50m, your chances of surivial and sucess depend hugely on your rate of fire and the accuracy of that fire in engagements.

"CONCLUBONGO" Based on "BINGO 1, 2 and 3", the SMG undoubtedly has an advantage of the G3 in CQB. The extent this is advantage is not great but when any advantage, however slight over your enemy is invaluable, i believe in this case, its enough, the warrant the use of the SMG in CQB by any force whos main rifle is a battle rifle (exact type makes to different - see "BONGO 1").


However becuase its advantage is not whopping, its use would ofcourse be limited - to what extent, again, that is matter should be debated.



QUESTIONS FOR YOU, IN DIRECT RELATION TO THIS POST to assist further understanding of each others valuable points of view :

How much do to you agree or disagree with?
- "BINGO 1"
- "BINGO 2"
- "BINGO 3"
- "CONCLUBONGO"
Not really an answer question, more designed to help focus key debatable points in peoples mind.

[Waaah_Wah]

Any words from DEVs on this?

[gclark03]

The OP probably confused SMG for Carbine for the sake of PR gameplay. Only the MEC actually needs a 9mm SMG. The rest could use carbines, except for the Chinese and British factions, which already use bullpup rifles that eliminate the need for a dedicated carbine in their arsenals.

(To my knowledge, the USMC does use M4s alongside M16s - at least, they did 5 years ago, during the invasion of Iraq.)

Anyway, a carbine/SMG and door-breaching shotgun would be perfect for the ammo rifleman.