 | | | |||
| | |||||
| | |||||
1031633 Re: Fallschirmjägergewehr 42 (FG 42) PFC. Bryan April 10th, 2004 03:14 PM Quote:
1032504 Re: Fallschirmjägergewehr 42 (FG 42) |KFG|Hell_March April 11th, 2004 12:06 AM Well 1str off the fg42 was not produced in large numbers for a few different reasons. 1 beeing it had alot of parts and was difficult to produce. It was a very slow to produce weapon. Its still very light and a compact weapon only a pound or 2 heavier than a rifle and roughly about 7,8 pounds lighter than a bar. It should be very easy to get into postion with it compared to any mg but the recoil is gonna be hell and it was very loud to. As for the ppsh compare a 7.62x25 to a 9x19. The ppsh's round has alot more zip than the shorter heavier 9mm round 1032738 Re: Fallschirmjägergewehr 42 (FG 42) the_move April 11th, 2004 06:05 AM Quote:
The FG42 is faaaar superior to the obsolete BAR, made in 1918. It has much less weight with only 5 kilos, compared to almost 9 kilos the BAR has. The recoil compensation, worked to a certain degree and the recoil was reduced with it in comparison to the model 1 and 2 protos. Also it the recoil had a "pull back" rather than a "pull up" effect. The only thing they can be compared is their effective range and stopping power. The FG-42 is far more versatile and can be used as an assault rifle, a sniper rifle, and as support weapon. A real multi talent (as it was meant to be). Quote:
Nonsense! The Bren, Type99, BAR and such were heavy and obsolete machine guns, thanks to their obsolete clip feding. The were bulky, heavy, but that´s because they were already old. http://www.waffeninfo.net/waff_fg42.php http://www.waffenhq.de/infanterie/fg42.html 1032953 Re: Fallschirmjägergewehr 42 (FG 42) Swe_Flying_Frog April 11th, 2004 08:56 AM Quote:
 1033002 Re: Fallschirmjägergewehr 42 (FG 42) Eglaerinion April 11th, 2004 09:32 AM Quote:
1033057 Re: Fallschirmjägergewehr 42 (FG 42) Artie Bucco April 11th, 2004 10:17 AM Quote:
FG42 was magazine fed so does that make it obsolete? The BAR may have been heavier but a skilled user could use it alot easier on full auto when compared to a German using an FG42 the BARs wieght helped control its recoil. 1033117 Re: Fallschirmjägergewehr 42 (FG 42) April 11th, 2004 10:48 AM If there realy are 5 new handguns in the next release of fh i am hoping that they are something likes this -m1a1 carbine (folding stock m1 carbine for paratroopers) for maps like carentan,foy and bulge -thompson 1928 for early american maps -sten mk2 for earlier brits maps before d day -fg 42 -luger  1033336 Re: Fallschirmjägergewehr 42 (FG 42) McGibs April 11th, 2004 12:47 PM I can only remember 3, there are a couple more i think though. FG-42 Thompson with drum mag K-98 1033388 Re: Fallschirmjägergewehr 42 (FG 42) April 11th, 2004 01:21 PM Quote:
1033472 Re: Fallschirmjägergewehr 42 (FG 42) the_move April 11th, 2004 02:29 PM Quote:
A belt would hinder it´s carrier to much then. The BAR was meant for giving supressive fire in order to help the assaulters, but that "supressive" was not really "impressive" compared to a belt-fed MG34 or 42. The BAR still saw service, coz the .30 was not as portable ansd the US army had no 11 kilo MG34. The FG-42 is superior to the BAR in it´s whole characteristics. That includes it´s weight, mobility, versatility and technology.
« Previous Thread
|
Next Thread »
All times are GMT -7. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
FH2 Suggestions 
Linear Mode
