Ideas

[Simon]

1. It should be 1 shot kill (Depends where you hit him)
2. When you hit someone, and he doesn't die, he can be slow or bleed out if medic doesn't heal him (Maybe he will not be able to save him, because he is too injured)

3. Realistic body phsysics, when you shoot someone he falls down like real person, not like piece of wood
4. Character creation

5. Different classes: Rifleman, medic, ammo carrier, machine gunner.....
6. If someone is hit, he can lay down in vehicle, then driver drives away and medic tries to heal him
7. Bullet holes (Much gore, body parts can fall down of your body)
8. Bandage animation (Bandage on your arm, leg, head....)

 

[MausRatte]

1. It should be 1 shot kill (Depends where you hit him)

I believe, for balancing reasons, that guns that are fully automatic should be about a two shot to the chest. There will almost be no reason to use rifles if you can get an SMG that sprays down an entire room full of people in a matter of seconds because it one shots.

2. When you hit someone, and he doesn't die, he can be slow or bleed out if medic doesn't heal him (Maybe he will not be able to save him, because he is too injured)

Don't think there are going to be medics, I think having a bandaging and self-morphine system would could suffice. But medics would add a new element to team work.

3. Realistic body phsysics, when you shoot someone he falls down like real person, not like piece of wood

Think they said that this'll likely be a thing already.

4. Character creation

+1, I love the idea. Some people will abuse it of course, but I'd love to customize the face of my Wehrmacht soldier and his clothing. I'd feel like an actual soldier instead of a clone of the Fatherland.

5. Different classes: Rifleman, medic, ammo carrier, machine gunner.....

Do believe some of those are already planned/implemented.

6. If someone is hit, he can lay down in vehicle, then driver drives away and medic tries to heal him

Don't really know what to think of that. I mean I don't see why you can't just get in a vehicle normally in the first place. Seems like a waste of resources for the developers.

7. Bullet holes (Much gore, body parts can fall down of your body)

+1 to this too, war ain't pretty. Maybe an option to turn off the gore would be nice (Although I don't know what kids would expect to see when coming into a game based off the bloodiest war in a few centuries)

8. Bandage animation (Bandage on your arm, leg, head....)

If bandages are being implemented, I believe they would put this in. Would be rather simple, really. Just code it to where the bandage bandages the spot where you are shot, then a little bandage pops up in a static place. When you die, character model is reset back to how you spawned.

 

[Colonel__Klink]

I believe, for balancing reasons, that guns that are fully automatic should be about a two shot to the chest. There will almost be no reason to use rifles if you can get an SMG that sprays down an entire room full of people in a matter of seconds because it one shots.

1: the game is meant to be realistic

2: People would use rifles because of the fact that a ww2 era open bolt smg is a horrid weapon outside of that house. You can't hit **** realistically with full auto. Should you try to control your fire and just fire one or two cartridges you'll find that the open bolt of the dang thing will throw off your shot every last time. THEN you have the problem that a .45 acp cartridge looses about 10% of its energy at fifty yards and the 9mm looses around 20%. Weapons like the mp40 don't even have a proper stock to get a good cheek weld with to ensure that your head is in the exact same place every time(so your sight picture is consistent. Sights are adjusted in thousanths of an inch. So consider how little inconsistency in sight picture is required to cause trouble. )

Overall a smg is a poor weapon for just about anything other than storming that house. Even then its surprisingly easy to miss a target point blank just firing full auto crazy like that. There is a reason why they didn't replace service rifles with smgs.

 

[MausRatte]

1: the game is meant to be realistic

2: People would use rifles because of the fact that a ww2 era open bolt smg is a horrid weapon outside of that house. You can't hit **** realistically with full auto. Should you try to control your fire and just fire one or two cartridges you'll find that the open bolt of the dang thing will throw off your shot every last time. THEN you have the problem that a .45 acp cartridge looses about 10% of its energy at fifty yards and the 9mm looses around 20%. Weapons like the mp40 don't even have a proper stock to get a good cheek weld with to ensure that your head is in the exact same place every time(so your sight picture is consistent. Sights are adjusted in thousanths of an inch. So consider how little inconsistency in sight picture is required to cause trouble. )

Overall a smg is a poor weapon for just about anything other than storming that house. Even then its surprisingly easy to miss a target point blank just firing full auto crazy like that. There is a reason why they didn't replace service rifles with smgs.

Whatever Red Orchestra 2 did with the entire weapon system/damage system, they did it really well (Realistic mode that is). SMG was rather useless if you were in a wide open space, but indoors it was hell for the opponents.

 

[Pjosip]

Mind you MP40 isn't that bad at medium to longish ranges, not sure about tommy.
Also in real life (aka realism) you wouldn't instantly die after one hit unless it's heart or head, even some fatal injuries would keep you alive for next couple of minutes while you are bleeding out or bleeding internally.

So I am all for:
A. Modular damage, where part of body has impact on if you die instantly or slowly bleed out
B. Projectile strenght where at long distances K98 deals significantly more damage to you than MP40

That way you can have realistic gun stats and at close range automatics win while at long range BA rifles win.

 

[Colonel__Klink]

Mind you MP40 isn't that bad at medium to longish ranges, not sure about tommy.
Also in real life (aka realism) you wouldn't instantly die after one hit unless it's heart or head, even some fatal injuries would keep you alive for next couple of minutes while you are bleeding out or bleeding internally.

So I am all for:
A. Modular damage, where part of body has impact on if you die instantly or slowly bleed out
B. Projectile strenght where at long distances K98 deals significantly more damage to you than MP40

That way you can have realistic gun stats and at close range automatics win while at long range BA rifles win.

1: what do you consider "medium to longish ranges"?
2: what do you mean by "isn't that bad?" lol.

While a MP40 is indeed called "effective" at 200m, its no match for a rifle at that range by the very fact that the dang weapon is open bolt. You sight in, pull the trigger perfectly and then that heavy ass bolt flying forward moving your weapon around and throws off your shot. Past 50m against a guy limiting his exposure to fire your going to find its inferior to a rifle. Even dealing with the bullet drop is going to be a pain. With a zero at 25 meters the drop at 50 is 2 inches, and TWELVE INCHES at 100 meters. Good ****ing luck! lol. I might also point out the sights on smgs are generally simple and do now allow for adjustment!

In terms of an "insta kill" the only spot on the human body guaranteed to prevent the enemy from getting at least one last shot back at you is to sever the spinal cord at the base of the brain. Basically if the guy is looking straight at you shooting him square in the nose is the only guarantee.

Reminds me though. In RO there is a chance to survive a shot to the chest from any small arm it seems. Normally the full power rifles are one hit kill but I've survived shots before in game. It seems like a fairly intelligent way to go on about the realism. I think the trick is balancing the chance of survival y'know?

 

[VonMudra]

IIRC the accuracy tests done by the Germans found that the MP40 is accurate (50% of round on a human sized target) at about 100 yards. The Thompson, in similar tests by the US Army, got about 50 yards. That said, that's ideal tests, not a human under fire, snap shooting and exposing himself for as short a time as possible. SMGs in WW2 are a great deal heavier than modern SMGs and had much longer barrels, so this lent them well to longer range shooting- the Russian PPSH achieved accuracy of up to 200 yards, and the Finnish Suomi was the best of the bunch, with around 300 yards accuracy. Even at 100 yards, firing a 50 round mag dump (IE, never letting off the trigger) will land all rounds on target:

This shows the effects of a Suomi firing 15 rounds semi auto (left target) and 50 rounds mag dump (right target) at a human sized target at 100 yards.

In summary, SMGs will be just as accurate as they were in real life. Also, I should note that all SMGs in WW2 had sight adjustment to one degree or another, from simple flip sights that could scale between 50 and 100 yards, to more complicated sights on early Thompsons and the Suomi that were essentially little changed from rifle sights.

As for hits, the general feeling is that 1 hit with a rifle caliber and 2 hits with any pistol caliber is fair enough to work reality and gameplay together. Yes, that means MGs will be one shot one kill.

Learn to fear them, as soldier did in real life.

 

[siben]

About the simple sights on smg's. I wonder where you get that from? there are basicly exactly the same as rifle sight, simply adjusted to a shorter range.

And 'windage adjustment' options to soldiers does more bad then good.

 

[Colonel__Klink]

[MENTION=147]VonMudra[/MENTION]

Yeah.... I've been to a LOT of rifle ranges and overseen a great deal of training. Seen civilians and military shoot. I'll tell you that most shooters in the world with a full length rifle like an ar-15 will have to work to keep what appears to be a 3.5-4 inch shot group featured on the left. And there is absolutely no way for the shot group on the right. Consider, at 100 yards roughly one inch is equal to one minute of angle of difference in the position of the muzzle of a rifle. There are 60 minutes in an angle. That means that if the muzzle shifts 1/60th of a degree off while your firing your a whole whopping INCH off at 100 yards. This puts the whole control thing in perspective.

Its hard to find any videos of people actually shooting for accuracy with any smg(because the accuracy is ****) but I found this produced by the US army. In the video the mp40 only scored 11/20 on a two man sized target at 75 yards. Which is about what I had been expecting from the weapon.

WW2 Automatic Weapons: American vs German | 1943 | Shooting Tests on Submachine Guns & Machine Guns - YouTube

Further, longer barrels do not mean better machine accuracy. The improvement noticed is because longer barrels afford a larger distance between the front sight and the rear sight, allowing the weapon to be aimed more precisely. The barrels also increase the end weight thereby reducing perceived recoil. The heavier weights also work to do this. However, its worth noting that these smg had sights that are low enough on the receiver that the stock has significant drop at heel. This means that the weapon is often over the shoulder instead of in line with it, thereby changing recoil mechanics and increasing the perceived recoil.

Its also worth noting that the mp40 rear sight cannot be adjusted on elevation or for wind. [MENTION=1855]siben[/MENTION], the reason why you allow for windage adjustment on infantry small arms is so that you can actually zero the weapon. This means that the soldier who successfully zeroed his weapon at a range will know that outside of conditions like wind if he shoots exactly the same way every time the bullet will land exactly where the sights are pointing at a given range. Each shooter has a different face structure and ultimately slight variances in holding the weapon and pulling the trigger. This not only will mean shots will land at different elevations but also at different positions to the side. In order to get your infantryman actually hitting true its critical he zero his rifle at a range.

To my knowledge the only smg mentioned here so far that actually had even elevation adjustment is the Soumi. The ppsh41 and the mp40 simply have a factory installed blade. The m1a1 thompson also featured simplified sights over the m1928a1's sights.

 

[Feldmeijer]

Yes, that means MGs will be one shot one kill.

Unless of course we are talking about Italian machine guns

 

[MausRatte]

Unless of course we are talking about Italian machine guns

If french MGs take less than 47 shots to kill someone, then I'm leaving. (jk)

 

[DerJoachim]

Unless of course we are talking about Italian machine guns

What about them.

 

[VonMudra]

@VonMudra

Yeah.... I've been to a LOT of rifle ranges and overseen a great deal of training. Seen civilians and military shoot. I'll tell you that most shooters in the world with a full length rifle like an ar-15 will have to work to keep what appears to be a 3.5-4 inch shot group featured on the left. And there is absolutely no way for the shot group on the right. Consider, at 100 yards roughly one inch is equal to one minute of angle of difference in the position of the muzzle of a rifle. There are 60 minutes in an angle. That means that if the muzzle shifts 1/60th of a degree off while your firing your a whole whopping INCH off at 100 yards. This puts the whole control thing in perspective.

Its hard to find any videos of people actually shooting for accuracy with any smg(because the accuracy is ****) but I found this produced by the US army. In the video the mp40 only scored 11/20 on a two man sized target at 75 yards. Which is about what I had been expecting from the weapon.

WW2 Automatic Weapons: American vs German | 1943 | Shooting Tests on Submachine Guns & Machine Guns - YouTube

Further, longer barrels do not mean better machine accuracy. The improvement noticed is because longer barrels afford a larger distance between the front sight and the rear sight, allowing the weapon to be aimed more precisely. The barrels also increase the end weight thereby reducing perceived recoil. The heavier weights also work to do this. However, its worth noting that these smg had sights that are low enough on the receiver that the stock has significant drop at heel. This means that the weapon is often over the shoulder instead of in line with it, thereby changing recoil mechanics and increasing the perceived recoil.

Its also worth noting that the mp40 rear sight cannot be adjusted on elevation or for wind. @siben, the reason why you allow for windage adjustment on infantry small arms is so that you can actually zero the weapon. This means that the soldier who successfully zeroed his weapon at a range will know that outside of conditions like wind if he shoots exactly the same way every time the bullet will land exactly where the sights are pointing at a given range. Each shooter has a different face structure and ultimately slight variances in holding the weapon and pulling the trigger. This not only will mean shots will land at different elevations but also at different positions to the side. In order to get your infantryman actually hitting true its critical he zero his rifle at a range.

To my knowledge the only smg mentioned here so far that actually had even elevation adjustment is the Soumi. The ppsh41 and the mp40 simply have a factory installed blade. The m1a1 thompson also featured simplified sights over the m1928a1's sights.

The early Thompson was what I referred to on the complex sights. Also, early ppsh had standard mosin-style rear sights:

Now, the photo I've shown was from the actual Finnish army zeroing on the Suomi. So you can take those results up with the Finnish military, but that is the actual testing results from fully automatic fire from it. Every single Suomi manufactured had to pass those tests, by scoring 10 round all hitting in that 4in center circle at 100 yards, then scoring all hits by the 50 round mag dump. That means every single Suomi issued out was capable of that same performance if properly handled. The KP-31 Suomi is able to achieve the results shown due to design and style of shooting. The recoil is so light that the soldiers actually were trained to not even allow the stock to touch their shoulder. All the recoil was to be absorbed with the thumb, using the thumb to hold the gun steady and in place. This gave wonderful control and combined with the light, high velocity round, long-ass barrel, muzzle brake, weapon weight, and training to give the excellent accuracy you can see there.

And your result is about on par. Accuracy in the military at that time is generally judged to be 50% of rounds landing on target at a minimum. So that sounds like, with proper training, those GIs could have easily pulled off the 100 yard range. The longer barrels also affect it- longer barrels mean higher velocity, plus the other advantages you noted. As for zeroing the weapon, soldiers didn't really do that in WW2. Some rifles had windage adjustments, but the soldiers were not actually issued or trained to do this- this was the job of the armourer with his specialty tools. The armourer would have the same job for the SMGs, and could use front sight adjustments for that. And yes, the MP40 can be adjusted for elevation- it has flip up sights that can snap you between 50 yards and 100 yards. I would also note that, in general, you did not carry the weapon you trained in basic into combat- that weapon was deemed a part of the training unit, not your own unit. This was especially important in the German army, as K98k and Gew98 derivatives were the standard training rifles, but many garrison units would be issued a wide range of foreign weaponry that they would have to familiarize with on deployment.

You also must remember- weapons training was very, very strict in that time period. Soldiers were to pass weapons qualifications that involved being able to routinely hit, with iron sights, targets at 1000 yards with their rifles. Even in the German army, there was a heavy emphasis on accurate shooting, and SMGs were no exception. Just wait until you see the MGs- the lafette mounted MG34 and MG42 were rated to hit targets at 3000 yards accurately, and even farther away through the use of forward observers and indirect fire. To put it lightly, most modern MGs are simply not designed with these ranges in mind, and cannot really be compared to WW2 era weaponry.

 

[Pjosip]

Unless of course we are talking about Italian machine guns

Didn't those fire icecream cones instead of bullets?

 

[Boltaction]

I again might be wrong but as far as I can recall that Video was Made for Propaganda use and in the Rest of the Same Video they generally try to lessen the quality and effectivness of german weapons

 

[siben]

I will back out of these walls of text, but ignoring the sten i think it is safe to say that every SMG had sights that could be adjusted from 50m till 300+. The German ones had a flip up type of sight with 2 settings (sort of like the british No4Mk1 rifle). Hell, even some pistols (HP Browning, very popular with allied and axis) had adjustable rear sight then.

Also, i think the results Von mudra is showing is the factory test, the weapon is probably somewhat mechanically fixed.

And for the big rifles, if you did not zero your rifle properly at the range you did something wrong, no need to go messing around with the settings in combat. Each rifle was set for each person.

 

[LazMan12]

Unless of course we are talking about Italian machine guns

Oh, Italian MGs were quite lethal really, so they should kill in one shot, if you actually manage to get a shot out of them,that is

 

[Colonel__Klink]

Now, the photo I've shown was from the actual Finnish army zeroing on the Suomi. So you can take those results up with the Finnish military, but that is the actual testing results from fully automatic fire from it. Every single Suomi manufactured had to pass those tests, by scoring 10 round all hitting in that 4in center circle at 100 yards, then scoring all hits by the 50 round mag dump. That means every single Suomi issued out was capable of that same performance if properly handled.

I agree with Siben on this one. If its a factory quality control test then it is not being fired by a human being which is a different situation altogether. Those are machine accuracy tests which is different. With a big friggin vice holding the weapon certain factors don't come into play as much such as the fact that the weapon is open bolt.

The longer barrels also affect it- longer barrels mean higher velocity, plus the other advantages you noted.

Well, sounds like ol Klink the certified gunsmith(I have the documentation from both the marines and the civilian schools) needs to provide a quick lesson here...

Longer barrels do not equal more velocity. Barrels length is ideally coupled with the balance of the weapon you wish to achieve (so the weapon better serves its purpose) and the cartridge/cartridge load you intend to fire. For example: a 9mm parabellum is generally loaded so that the propellant will burn completely off in a 5-8 inch barrel. This means that if I have a 16 inch barrel I will not increase the velocity of the projectile and very well may be slowing it down due to the friction of the barrel on the bullet.

This is the same with shotshells. A 12 guage shotshell is only designed for an 18 inch barrel. If you have a shorter barrel you will not be utilizing all of the propellant and will have a fireball at the muzzle. The only point in adding more is to play with weapon weight and balance. One of the ways you can observe this effect in a rifle is look at the muzzle flash and sound difference of firing a 91/30 mosin nagant and firing the m44 carbine. The 7.62x54 r cartridge was designed for the full length barrel of the mosin 91/30, so when you fire it in the carbine you get a fireball from all the unburned propellant.

The longer barrel myth is a hold over from the days of black powder. Black powder burns so slowly that a longer barrel length is ideal, even with fine fast burning powders. In the modern world we use gunpowder that is essentially shaped and formed Nitrocellulose or "gun cotton." Sometimes its "double base" and a little Nitro Glycerin is thrown in too. Anyway in its native form Nitrocellulose burns WAY too fast and provides excessive pressure so the forming and shaping is a means of controlling the burn rate. Just as with black powder where you picked between grain sizes today you pick between powders for your weapon's bore size and length to provide propellant the whole length but not past.

Some rifles had windage adjustments, but the soldiers were not actually issued or trained to do this- this was the job of the armourer with his specialty tools.

In ww2, and pre ww2 American soldiers were trained to use the windage adjustment on their rifles. This includes the m1903a4 rifle.


This is because the "factory zero" is not the same as "shooter zero." In Europe you are right, most rifles required a gunsmith to adjust with a punch or a pusher as well as micrometer to measure. This is not "superior" for the reasons discussed in my previous post. It seems that Europe for whatever reason had a lower expectation of marksmanship from its troops. In the us military your unit has always issued your combat weapon as well, the difference is that you take it to the range.

You also must remember- weapons training was very, very strict in that time period. Soldiers were to pass weapons qualifications that involved being able to routinely hit, with iron sights, targets at 1000 yards with their rifles. Even in the German army, there was a heavy emphasis on accurate shooting, and SMGs were no exception. Just wait until you see the MGs- the lafette mounted MG34 and MG42 were rated to hit targets at 3000 yards accurately, and even farther away through the use of forward observers and indirect fire. To put it lightly, most modern MGs are simply not designed with these ranges in mind, and cannot really be compared to WW2 era weaponry.

I know that most militarizes trained at 1,000 yards at the time. The question is what they defined as a passing score? With no wind adjustments available to the troops I doubt the German shooters did all that well.

the full on mgs are a different matter. "effective at 3,000 meters" is different than "laser accurate at 3,000 meters." Remember the German ww2 doctrine was built upon the recognition that firepower should be used to control and manipulate the enemy. at 3,000 yards the mg42 can EASILY hammer a enemy squad or platoon and hold them still. It is not however, going to be a sniper rifle that accurately pegs the enemy once they are in cover.

Its also worth noting that the mg42 had that exceptional range on a tripod in part because of the excellent ballistics of the German 7.92 projectile. It simply was very well designed to stay on target and hit hard at long range. Of course the other part that made the gun effective at that range is the rate of fire creating a predictable "beaten zone" that had enough bullets landing in it per second to make its large size an advantage.

The recoil is so light that the soldiers actually were trained to not even allow the stock to touch their shoulder. All the recoil was to be absorbed with the thumb, using the thumb to hold the gun steady and in place. This gave wonderful control and combined with the light, high velocity round, long-ass barrel, muzzle brake, weapon weight, and training to give the excellent accuracy you can see there.

I don't even know what to say to this.... where the hell did you read this! What military leadership in their right friggin mind would say "forgo the advantages of the stock and just shoot the gun!" The stock is about more than recoil control, its about consistency in shooting and placement. For example, you can buy a shotgun that only has a pistol grip and shoot it. But your going to shoot like utter ****.

Holding the weapon away from the shoulder provides absolutely no advantage what so ever. In fact it will make it even harder to maintain a sight picture at all much less a consistent one!

 

[VonMudra]

Believe what you would like, but I'm quoting facts and figures from one of the foremost authorities on the Suomi and it's history in Finland. The guy owns his own Suomis, has fired them, and is basing his work off veterans accounts and actual documents. As Finnish reenactor myself, I also have had the opportunity to reseach Finnish weaponry, documentation, and veteran accounts extensively. To quote said author, on the manner of firing:

"Muzzle brakes or compensator are useless gimmicks on long-barreled submachine guns like KP/-31. Pressure of the muzzle blast is too low to generate reaction force strong enough to prevent "muzzle climb". A skilful submachine gunner can easily control the recoil and keep the gun steady, by keeping the thumb of his trigger hand behind the breech-cap. This thumb must receive whole recoil force. The butt of the gun is not allowed to hit or even touch shoulder of the gunner. Another way to control the recoil is to keep the gun with stiff hands, again without solid contact on the shoulder."

Also:
"The rear sight is graduated to 500 meters for harassment firing. Aimed shots could hit enemy individuals within 300 meters, but within distances of less than a hundred meters - common in skirmishes in afforrested terrain - the shooter simply pointed the gun in the direction of the enemy without aiming. Most skilled submachine gunners could operate their KP/-31 like a long-range shotgun, without the need of sights. A high rate of full-automatic fire had its uses."

Finally, the weapons testing was done by hand, not by machine. These were army tests, not factory tests, and the results were published in the training manuals to demonstrate was the soldiers were expected to get. Just to emphasize here, here is a Suomi firing at full auto:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gWbIaeomnmI

Albeit it's a collector who is not shooting it the pre-subscribed army manner, it does show just how incredibly smooth and stable the gun is in full auto. It does not jump around, and recoil is easily compensated and stabilized, and this is in the hands of someone in no way trained for months in using it.


AS for the MGs, yes, 3000 yards was an effective range for creating beaten zones. 1500 yards was the more realistic accurate range. One thing to consider as well was that the lafette mounting system was not a modern day army tripod where it's just mounted on a stable platform. The lafette had a series of recoil dampeners that acted like the recoil dampeners on an artillery piece, preventing the gun's recoil from shaking the tripod severely. This lent itself to much higher accuracy. Also, lafettes were all equipped with scopes for long range firing and distance calculations printed on metal plates afixed directly to the lafette itself. Finally, it also had an automatic tracker for sweeping fire, which would automatically angle the gun up and down, allowing the gunner to simply set up pre-detirmined angles, duck behind cover, and simply execute sweeping fire from left to right, as the gun itself angled up and down, allowing for very fine beaten zone firing, especially from reverse slopes.

Also, on the 1000 yard ranges, it was expected to score ~50% hits. Obviously this was in firing range settings from stabilized prone positions, but I'm merely noting just how accurate these rifles were. (The reason many were graduated out to 2000 yards or more was a pre-WW1 concept, in which entire companies and battalions would use plunging fire on enemy formations at range through vollies- the British extended this to the maximum with the volley sights that allowed plunging rifle fire out to 3-4,000 yards. However WW1 quickly eliminted any notion of firing at those ranges). 100 yards with a K98K or Garand is, essentially, point blank. Thet problem was never that the weapon would miss what you fired at, the problem was that the firer was, more often than not, not taking the time to actually aim. That is the situation we wish to see in TW- guns that are on the whole realistically accurate to their specs, however the player him/herself finding themselves in firefights and effects that dampen their ability to coherently pick targets and aim carefully.

To sum up- yes, SMGs will be wildly inaccurate. Yes rifles will hurt and hurt bad. And yes MGs will be something to be feared, and will be the lifeblood of the infantry squad in combat.

 

[Colonel__Klink]

The problem stands as thus. I'm certified and trained, as well as HIGHLY experienced with firearms and automatic weapons of all sorts. I can even post my documents on the matter. Your quoting an unknown figure, from an unknown source. In my near decade of experience and training I have NOT ONCE heard of a credible firearms instructor telling someone to leave a space between the butt of ANY TYPE OF WEAPON and the shoulder. You may have found a hobbyist whom is obsessed with the Soumi but that very suggestion negates any credibility he has. Your source is literally telling people to weaken their grip on the firearm by taking the thumb off the grip(the comb) of the stock and placing it in a crazy upwards position behind the cap at the end of the receiver! That's all the evidence I need to discredit him!

Here: send James Yaeger a message asking him about that technique. He's one of the most respected firearms instructors in the industry and I promise you that James Yaeger will inform you that the guy your quoting is a moron.
https://www.facebook.com/JamesYeagerofTacticalResponse

Part of the problem with my chosen vocation is that I must continually dispel ignorance such as this. Think hard, think REALLY hard. If smg were this accurate and effective at long range then why the hell didn't they replace the service rifles with them! Why did every army adopt an intermediate cartridge select rifle instead? If automatic firepower were so accurate then why does the USMC consider full automatic fire other than in a squad automatic role so ineffective?

I found a video of a guy shooting like your author suggests. Watch how at 10 yards he struggles to keep all the cartridges inside a man sized target!

There is a lot of muzzle movement on that weapon.... Which incidentally is about the same amount of muzzle movement in the video you posted. IE several degrees of movement. Remember at 100 yards 1/60th of a degree of movement equals 1 inch of difference.

Lol this all reminds me that when I first showed up here I had considered applying to be "realism advisor" due to my sheer level of education and experience with small arms. I'm worrying now that in game your smg are going to be shooting shot groups like you had posted, which is not realistic at all...