Weapon damage levels

Enforcer1975 · Post by **Enforcer1975** » 2005-10-30 13:49

While we are suggesting... I was thinking why the weapons in vanilla BF had different damage levels even if they used the same ammo?
I was wondering if the M16A2 was using stronger ammo than the M4 because of the amount of damage and why does the chinese AK copy have more damage than the MEC AK etc.???

Is that the same in PRMM?? If it's so, why not give weapons damage levels dependant of their calibre and not just by keeping game balance? Sure it would be unfair having chinese and mec forces shooting through cover and scoring more damage, but that would give the US player the opportunity of using his brains on how to survive this threat. I think everybody know the capabilities of a .30 bullet compared to a .223 or 5.45mm bullet.

.30 = more power, less range, less accurate in fullauto due to the recoil, less ammo for the carrier
.223/5.45mm = less power, more range, more accurate in fullauto, more ammo for the carrier.

ECale3 · Post by **ECale3** » 2005-10-30 17:46

The wounding cavity created by the Nato 5.56mm Round is pretty massive, you would not want to be shot by one.

And saying that the 7.62x39mm roud has "More Power" is kinda subjective. Either way a couple of rounds and you're a very unhappy camper.

Mad Max · Post by **Mad Max** » 2005-10-30 19:29

Simple, they use different calibres and barrel length and rifle twist have an effect on it.

The M16A2, M4A1 and M249 SAW (I won't use the unlocks as examples) use 5.56 x 45mm NATO. The longer the barrel, the more power it'll have, and the more accurate they'll be. The SAW is more devistating because of it's rate of fire more than anything else.

The AK-103 and RPK-74 use 5.45 x 39mm Soviet. The same applies with barrel length and so on. These rounds are more deadly than 5.56 as they don't fragment on impact and have better armour peircing properties.

The Chinese Type-95's use 5.6 (I'm not too sure on these, but they're different from Soviet and NATO rounds), and the AK-47 (which the Chinese actually call the Type-56... which is more like the AKM than the 47 in terms of it's improvements) uses 7.62 x 39mm Soviet. This is a beast of a round. One of these in real life will drop you like a sack of **** if it hits somewhere vital (torso or head). Maybe you'll survive one shot if you're lucky or high on adrenaline though.

If they went dead on realistic in terms of power. The US would be in the **** whatever happens. 5.56 is very controversial in terms of its dropping power. Anyone who has an AK-47 will most likely come out on top even if they get shot by someone wielding an M16A2 a few times.

DWM|SgtSwabs · Post by **DWM|SgtSwabs** » 2005-10-30 20:15

ECale3 wrote:And saying that the 7.62x39mm roud has "More Power" is kinda subjective. Either way a couple of rounds and you're a very unhappy camper.

A couple!?!? one of those rounds in the shoulder and BAM no more shoulder 7.62mm is massive (not to mention heavy which is one reason why AK's are less accurate)

Mad Max · Post by **Mad Max** » 2005-10-30 20:25

Nah AK's are less accurate mainly because of the the shorter barrels. Plus the AK-47 isn't really designed for long range accuracy, they were made for the sort of fighting they encountered in Stalingrad which is why they're almost unbeatable in close combat fighting. Another thing that makes them less accurate (after the first shot mind, the first tends to be pretty damn spot on) is the firing mechanism. Because it's more simple it tends to lack the whole recoil reducing features seen in NATO rifles, which is pretty complex and why they jam more because everything is precision made, so if some dirt gets somewhere it puts a spanner in the whole works (litterally the same effect).

Nevermore · Post by **Nevermore** » 2005-10-30 21:02

DWM|SgtSwabs wrote:A couple!?!? one of those rounds in the shoulder and BAM no more shoulder 7.62mm is massive (not to mention heavy which is one reason why AK's are less accurate)

yes, 7.62 mm is a whole 2.06mm more massive than 5.56.....LMFAO

There are plenty of sniper rifles and battle rifles that would make that statement WRONG, M14DMR, M40A1, etc...

7.62mm.....that is the size of the diameter of the bullet, no more, no less, it has more to do with its length/shape, the amount of propellant behind the round, the twist in the barrel/accuracy, bottom line is, there isnt that much of a difference in the circumference of both rounds, roughly 2mm is not much...ballistically speaking it may or may not be. It would depend on the rifle itself{and too many other factors to list} and not the size of the projectile really.

Guys seriously, do some research before making broad sweeping statements like that, you just sound ridiculously under-informed...there are some really good resources on the internet to provide cohesive factual information.

IMHO there are a lot of flaws with the way the weapons are 'handled' in vanilla BF2 and your mod, the fact that there is conefire is a major problem, MGs are fairly accurate at range and under sustained fire {the SAW especially, guns hit where you aim asside from some small inaccuracy from environmental/stance/recoil recovery, etc}, the sniper rifles should be more accurate/do more damage, the AT should do more damage {considering the AT implemented is state of the art}, lots of things.

Again, this is just my opinion, if it differs from the Dev teams, thats ok, we will have to agree to disagree, its thier mod after all, i just play it

Post by **NikovK** » 2005-10-30 22:14

Oh God. Please, no 5.56 >/< 7.62 arguements. People break out their ballistic gelatin, their scales, their fps, their maximum point target range, ballistic armor, cover penetration...

Yet it boils down to the hillbilly question: would you rather shoot a charging bear with 5.56 or 7.62? 7.62 from an AK at full-auto, of course. Bigger round, more stopping power, more total punch in a clip. But shooting coyotes from across your corn field? .223 Remington from an Armalite clone. Accuracy in semi-automatic.

Just because both are rifles does not mean both were meant to do the same thing. The M-16 series is meant for a nation that exalts marksmanship above all other qualities in its infantry force. In fact, we do not issue fully automatic weapons to our riflemen for that very reason. However, the AK-47 was born from a nation that prided itself in the attack. The Red Armies? ATTACK. The Viet Cong? ATTACK. Iran/Iraq war? ATTACK. Arab coalitions against Israel? ATTACK. The AK-47 is cheap, rugged, and distinctively superior to Western counterparts in close combat because of its fully-automatic capability. Hence the rifle is used as such.

Being a MAK-90 (Modified AK, ie, the Kalashnikov that gets past the Assault Weapons Ban) shooter, I'll tell you that the recoil from 7.62 Commie requires a pair between your legs. This is a full-out, bon fide military round. The Kalashnikov series were built as a no bullshit battle rifle for the Soviet grunt. Accuracy was sacrificed for reliability with burst and full auto to provide volume of fire in close combat and offensive ops. The rifle is robust, heavy and requires the minimum of maintanence. Specifically, I've only had it jam because of bad mags or downright shitty Chinese ammo (Never buy "Chinasport", 1/4 fail rate in a Kalashnikov. If it were Japansport, the whole munitions factory staff would commit seppuku over that kind of shame. Israelsport, sackcloth and ashes and the rending of hair.)

Well, I'm done talking out my ***.

{GD}Snake13 · Post by **{GD}Snake13** » 2005-10-30 23:11

yes, 7.62 mm is a whole 2.06mm more massive than 5.56.....LMFAO

There are plenty of sniper rifles and battle rifles that would make that statement WRONG, M14DMR, M40A1, etc...

Except they fire completely different rounds, the 7.62x39 round the AKM fires is shorter then the 7.62 NATO round that that those sniper rifles use.

Raaschou · Post by **Raaschou** » 2005-10-31 00:19

... And you'd also have to take armour into the picture.

While the 7.62 (both NATO and different Soviet-editions) packs a pretty good puch, they simply do not have enough energy (you know, the psysics-thingie), to penetrate modern armour-plates (as worn by US and other troops).

But 5.56 can (as it is a high velocity round)...
The Danish Army demonstrates this for their soldiers before deployment, so you have a clear idea of what your armour can and cannot!
(There's also a demonstration of the soft-armour, which fragments it stops etc)

Nevermore · Post by **Nevermore** » 2005-10-31 02:21

{GD}Snake13 wrote:Except they fire completely different rounds, the 7.62x39 round the AKM fires is shorter then the 7.62 NATO round that that those sniper rifles use.

Agreed, but the BULLET is almost exactly the same size, differing lengths of cases, as i stated result in more or less propellant, which equals higher/lower velocity, so the broad sweeping statement that "OMG 7.62 mm is much teh huger than 5.56" is wrong, its the BULLET DIAMETER only which BTW is a .30 caliber round regardless of the 7.62X39/X54r/X51....the 54R is slightly longer than the NATO round.

The Ak does fire the 7.62X39mm round, but the Dragunov fires a 7.62X54 rimmed cartridge, which is a little LONGER one of the belt feds fires the same caliber {PKM}. What i was trying to say is that the size of the bullet doesnt make a shitlot of difference in accuracy, its the same diameter bullet regardless, its the GUN and a lot of other factors that matter as far as accuracy go.

let's get the terminology correct too>

CARTRIDGE= bullet and brass, plus primer and propellants
ROUND=the bullet itself

so NO, they are not different rounds, they are exactly the same size round, .30caliber/7.62mm, same round

Post by **Paladin-X** » 2005-10-31 02:36

The weapon damages are different. I based the damage values on calibre of the round and muzzle velocity of the weapon.

{GD}Snake13 · Post by **{GD}Snake13** » 2005-11-01 02:44

Except thats kind of a deadend arguement, most of the time when people simply state 7.62 its well understood which they are talking about based on the disscusion, its simply shorter not to type out 7.62x54 Rimmed 10 times if your comparing the druganov to the M21

PghJoker · Post by **PghJoker** » 2005-11-06 06:11

Well, in terms of "stopping power"...believe it or not, the NATO 5.56 produces a better wound than any 7.62. Soviet 7.62x39, 7.62x54R and Nato 7.62 all produce a "minimal disruption" wound channel. The typical post impact tendency for any 7.62mm round to begin yaw is 26 centimeters. The 5.56 has a typical tendency to yaw after only 12 centimeters. Typical 7.62 wounds closely resemble wounds delivered from non-hollow point handgun rounds, whereas 5.56 wounds are typically very nasty. Note the measurements at the bottom of each graph is in centimeters, and these are not to scale with each other.

Noetheinner · Post by **Noetheinner** » 2005-11-06 06:31

I've heard of stories of a 5.56 round go in one part of your pody, hit a bone, richocet (SP?) and end up coming out somewhere totally different.

On the rifle range, when you dig one out of the sand bunker that the rounds hit, the bullet is all sorts of bent. *shudders at thought of actually getting shot* Brutal.

Heydude235 · Post by **Heydude235** » 2005-11-06 07:41

Ya Some time in ww2 people wuld get hit in the chest and it would hit there rip bone. Then bounce down and come out there croch or ***.

Mad Max · Post by **Mad Max** » 2005-11-06 14:03

Whilst 5.56 may make a bigger "mess" inside, it doesn't actually kill you as effectively as 7.62. They're specifically designed to incapacitate and not actually kill. The idea is they wound you and you need medical treatment, which will take you and at least one other person off the battlefield, in order to get you treated. The thing is that works against well equiped, well trained professional national armies, but it's pretty useless against insurgents and rebels and so on because they don't have a support chain of medevac units ready to take you to the nearest field hospital.

Also a lot of people who get shot are on an addrenaline high, and often don't even realise they've been shot, which is VERY common among those shot with 5.56, especially with M4 systems, so in short, they get shot, think "argh!" fall back, then come back with their mates and their AK's which will actually kill you with the same number of rounds you just survived of 5.56.

It's very common in Iraq in urban fighting, there's plenty of stories of US Marines shooting insurgents point blank with several rounds with their M4's and they just shoot back or go for cover, they don't actually seem to kill the buggers, or at least make them drop in extreme pain. That's why a more effective round like the 7.62 x 39 Soviet is far superior to 5.56, especially in close combat, because those things will rip through anything near enough, and when it hits a person it'll cause massive shock to a smaller part of the body than a 5.56 (because it doesn't fragment inside spreading the pressure) and will blow a fist sized hole out of where it exits, then may continue to inbed itself a few ft into some concrete behind you or even go through it before being totaly stopped. It's a nasty round, also the US are issuing more 7.62 rifles again because of their increased stopping power and more effective range (well, actually hurting/killing at a range at least), ala the M14 DMR and so on.

PghJoker · Post by **PghJoker** » 2005-11-06 19:20

The whole idea of a "fist sized hole" resulting from any 7.62mm round used by military forces; ie steel jacket, boat tail rounds, is completely opposing almost every single medical report regarding wounds from these rounds. These are reports from field medics and field medical hospitals, ranging from the conflict in Vietnam to present day. 90% of these are described as being "extremely similar to a small caliber, non hollow point hand gun round". The only time I have personally seen anything other than a slightly larger exit wound was when hunting deer with a .308 using hollow point rounds.

Enforcer1975 · Post by **Enforcer1975** » 2005-11-06 19:25

7.62 still has more penetration power than the 5.56 or 5.45

Can the engine manage that?

Mad Max · Post by **Mad Max** » 2005-11-06 19:50

Either way 7.62 is far more effective at killing and droping someone like a sack of faeses than 5.56.

ECale3 · Post by **ECale3** » 2005-11-06 21:29

Mad Max wrote:Whilst 5.56 may make a bigger "mess" inside, it doesn't actually kill you as effectively as 7.62. They're specifically designed to incapacitate and not actually kill. The idea is they wound you and you need medical treatment, which will take you and at least one other person off the battlefield, in order to get you treated. The thing is that works against well equiped, well trained professional national armies, but it's pretty useless against insurgents and rebels and so on because they don't have a support chain of medevac units ready to take you to the nearest field hospital.

Also a lot of people who get shot are on an addrenaline high, and often don't even realise they've been shot, which is VERY common among those shot with 5.56, especially with M4 systems, so in short, they get shot, think "argh!" fall back, then come back with their mates and their AK's which will actually kill you with the same number of rounds you just survived of 5.56.

It's very common in Iraq in urban fighting, there's plenty of stories of US Marines shooting insurgents point blank with several rounds with their M4's and they just shoot back or go for cover, they don't actually seem to kill the buggers, or at least make them drop in extreme pain. That's why a more effective round like the 7.62 x 39 Soviet is far superior to 5.56, especially in close combat, because those things will rip through anything near enough, and when it hits a person it'll cause massive shock to a smaller part of the body than a 5.56 (because it doesn't fragment inside spreading the pressure) and will blow a fist sized hole out of where it exits, then may continue to inbed itself a few ft into some concrete behind you or even go through it before being totaly stopped. It's a nasty round, also the US are issuing more 7.62 rifles again because of their increased stopping power and more effective range (well, actually hurting/killing at a range at least), ala the M14 DMR and so on.

You know everytime a 7.62 proponent wants to spew some bullshit about how 5.56 has poor stopping power they use this argument.

Look at it this way, If i were to take a sharpened post about the size of a baseball bat and stick it through you, yeah, you'll probably stop dead in your tracks.

Now if i take a smaller, shorter spike stick it into you, and then twirl it around you would still stop in your tracks.

The only time 5.56mm rounds have less "stopping power" is when they are fired from a shorter barrel that prevents the round from reaching the muzzle velocities its designed for.

For Example:

M4A1's occasionally have problems pushing the M855 and M193 (IIRC M855 is especially problematic in the M4) to their optimum muzzle velocities. As a result, on impact the round doesn't yaw and fragment the way its designed to do, causing less damage and a cleaner wound profile. Thats your lowered "stopping power".

Now an M16A2/A4 has a much longer barrel and almost always pushes the 5.56 mm rounds out at proper velocities. So upon striking a target the 5.56mm round yaws and fragments as designed causing a massive (Larger than 7.62 so get over it) wound cavity and a dead/downed enemy.

Of course all of that is completely subjective as shot placement and andrenaline can make all but the largest (.50cal or bigger) rounds seem like bb's.

Just to inform you, the M14DMR is a DESIGNATED MARKSMAN RIFLE, not a battle rifle like the old M14. Its a special purpose, special issue weapon that very few marines will ever touch, not something that they will give you because your "M4 doesn't have enough stopping power." If you went to a marine armorer and told him your M4 didn't have enough stopping power he'd probably laugh at you, then tell you to learn how to shoot.

Also if anyone says anything about hydrostatic shock in relation to the larger "stopping power" (god if i have to use this phrase on more time i'm going to be sick) of 7.62mm rounds i will personally kill you.

Plus having smaller lighter rounds means you can carry more ammo, which means you have more bullets to shoot at your enemy before your rifle becomes a fancy club.