Land War stuff (Tanks, guns and anything else that doesn't fly or float)
- Thread starter tvstrip
- Start date
Mr. Daystar
In a bell tower, watching you through cross hairs.
So this post is for my absolute favorite weapon of all time. The Thompson sub machine gun. I really do want one very badly, but with a price tag in the $40k range, and the hoops you need to jump through, it will never happen. The version I would prefer is the 1918/20 version, with the fore grip, and drum capability. But none the less, It was invented by Gen. Thompson at the end of WWI, and was the perfect weapon for trench warfare, however the military didn't see it that way, at the time. When they did adapt it, they got rid of the bulky drum capability, and only used 30 rnd stick mags, and lowered the rate of fire, and shortened the barrel, and got rid of the fore pistol grip.
Here's a little something to think about. The rate of fire of these weapons, during the prohibition days, was around 800 rounds a minute. Of the men involved in the St. Valentines day massacre, at least 2, carried tommy guns. with 50 round drums. So in roughly 3 3/4 SECONDS, both guns working together, delivered 100 rounds of ammo. That's just brutal
EDIT: i forgot that towards the end of the war, the U.S. developed a cheaper replacement for the Thompson. It seems the army didn't want to spend the $75 per unit cost of a Thompson. Which boggles the mind, considering a full auto version cost around $2k in 1984, and are worth upwards of $40k now. Anyway, they developed the "grease gun", designated the M3. Cheap to make, but reliable. Ugly as hell, but it was lighter, cheaper, and fired the same .45acp cartridge.
Here's a little something to think about. The rate of fire of these weapons, during the prohibition days, was around 800 rounds a minute. Of the men involved in the St. Valentines day massacre, at least 2, carried tommy guns. with 50 round drums. So in roughly 3 3/4 SECONDS, both guns working together, delivered 100 rounds of ammo. That's just brutal
EDIT: i forgot that towards the end of the war, the U.S. developed a cheaper replacement for the Thompson. It seems the army didn't want to spend the $75 per unit cost of a Thompson. Which boggles the mind, considering a full auto version cost around $2k in 1984, and are worth upwards of $40k now. Anyway, they developed the "grease gun", designated the M3. Cheap to make, but reliable. Ugly as hell, but it was lighter, cheaper, and fired the same .45acp cartridge.
Last edited:
Mr. Daystar
In a bell tower, watching you through cross hairs.
As far as the American forces go, the side arm they carried, like the Thompson, is an old design, but a John Browning design, and he started working on it in before the final design we know today. It's called the 1911, because that's when the U.S. adopted it. It remained this countries side arm for almost 75 years. I personally like the gun. but it's a pain in the ass to reassemble, after you strip it for cleaning. Depending on what kind, and what year, they can be picky on the ammo they will eat, and older models tend to only be able to cycle ball ammo, whereas newer more modern versions will cycle defense ammo as well. In case you don't know "ACP" stands for "Auto Colt Pistol". Because they also made the famous Peace Maker six gun, which fired a .45 LC. The "LC" stands for "Long Colt"
And a little comparison to our enemies side arm.
One of the things I like about the .45 ACP, ACP, it's a very large heavy bullet, but it moves slow. In fact, straight out of the box, almost every different brand is sub sonic, which means it can be easily suppressed, whereas most other calibers need to be specially loaded. Anything over 1000 feet per second, is to fast to properly suppress.
And a little comparison to our enemies side arm.
One of the things I like about the .45 ACP, ACP, it's a very large heavy bullet, but it moves slow. In fact, straight out of the box, almost every different brand is sub sonic, which means it can be easily suppressed, whereas most other calibers need to be specially loaded. Anything over 1000 feet per second, is to fast to properly suppress.
Mr. Daystar
In a bell tower, watching you through cross hairs.
The last one for the United States, are the heavy machine guns. I don't know much about them, other then they cost a lot of money, So I'm just going to post the videos for each one.
Browning .50 caliber belt fed machine gun
The Browning .30 caliber belt fed machine gun
Browning .50 caliber belt fed machine gun
The Browning .30 caliber belt fed machine gun
Mr. Daystar
In a bell tower, watching you through cross hairs.
I stumbled upon this, while looking for other weapons videos. I think it can answer your question, better then I can.
Mr. Daystar
In a bell tower, watching you through cross hairs.
No. Shooting a gun at the range, or out in the woods at an animal, is VERY different then a simulation. First off the recoil and the muzzle flash aren't the same, and most importantly, there are no repercussions if you screw up in a game. If you are a reasonably competent person, you become very aware of the fact that you are holding a tremendous responsibility in your hands, You have no room for error, and you must adhere to ALL safety regulations. Death could be the consequence of failing to do so. You also usually don't have anyone shooting back at you.
Sometimes I wonder if that's why some of these shootings occur. The kid wants to know what it's REALLY like to do what's going on in the game. Which is where parenting comes in. It's not the games fault, it's the parents for not making clear the difference between reality and fantasy
I'm pretty sure that's a big part of it, combined with the idea that they don't think/comprehend the consequences of getting shot themselves. They likely don't think of the pain caused to the victims because they don't comprehend what it would be like on the other side of the barrel.
Remember those two juvie kids who broke into a house, found some AKs and shotguns, and ended up in a shootout with police? After spraying the police, the girl took one hit and collapsed into a sobbing mess.
In this case, I was narrowing it down to just the visual/audio representation. If you put on headphones, does it sound realistic? Is the visual representation of the crosshairs & the accuracy, etc match up to the real experience? Just looking at it from a simulation POV - That type of stuff.
Mr. Daystar
In a bell tower, watching you through cross hairs.
A set of speakers would never be able to reproduce how genuinely loud a gun shot is. Even good ones. Of course smaller calibers aren't as loud, but those aren't in the game. Accuracy isn't something I can speak about. I haven't shot 99.9% of the guns in a game, but the sights look right, and the cross hairs would depend on the type of scope, but they seem pretty realistic. I've never looked through a scope from the WWII era. The action of the weapons does sound realistic. The clicks and the "ping" when an M1 Garand empties out, things like that sound the same I can't say for sure, but I would assume they were able to recreate those simply by recording the real firearm in question, it's self. Most every real weapon used, is still around somewhere.
Mr. Daystar
In a bell tower, watching you through cross hairs.
I've always wanted one of these. It's called a Kettenkrad. Half bike, half, half track.
You might like an anime called "Girls' Last Tour", where 2 girls explore a post-apocalyptic world in one. Very chill.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Girls'_Last_Tour
Mr. Daystar
In a bell tower, watching you through cross hairs.
That's funny. I wouldn't drive it, but it's funny.
Perfect example of "they don't make them like they used to"
This WWII-era tank survived an atomic blast, and then was pressed back into service!
https://tankhistoria.com/cold-war/169041-atomic-tank/
This WWII-era tank survived an atomic blast, and then was pressed back into service!
https://tankhistoria.com/cold-war/169041-atomic-tank/
The Minenräumer – A Weird German Prototype
https://tankhistoria.com/experimental/the-minenraumer/
A failed, but interesting WWII approach the Germans had to clear mines. Basically a tank on steroids made to just hulk it's way through mines.
Looks badass as hell.
https://tankhistoria.com/experimental/the-minenraumer/
A failed, but interesting WWII approach the Germans had to clear mines. Basically a tank on steroids made to just hulk it's way through mines.
Looks badass as hell.
Similar threads
