The War
Headlines
Movies
Screenshots
Alliance Community
2011: We're Back!

Alliance: The Silent War

Community Forums for Alliance: The Silent War
It is currently Wed Aug 12, 2020 4:33 pm




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 64 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Feb 12, 2007 10:27 pm 
Offline
Staff Sergeant

Joined: Tue May 23, 2006 9:13 pm
Posts: 196
It's all personal preference. Some people prefer carrying clearly inferior weapons simply because they're comfortable with using them.

Both weapons have their advantages and disadvantages. That said, given a choice, I would personally choose the Thompson.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Feb 12, 2007 11:46 pm 
Offline
2nd Lieutenant

Joined: Wed Dec 27, 2006 10:17 pm
Posts: 592
good boy sterm. the tommy also just look "classy".

_________________
No sigs makes threads load faster!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Feb 13, 2007 8:06 pm 
Offline
Specialist

Joined: Sat Jan 06, 2007 11:02 pm
Posts: 40
Yeah Im shure its ''Personal preference'' in civilian life... But thats not the life Im living.
Civilians dont need smg's. Military personel are given a service weapon and must make do with that weapon. Atleast in the ones I know off.
Ive heard that US troops are equipped at 80% with stuff they buy on their own from Blackhawk industries...

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Feb 13, 2007 8:08 pm 
Offline
Lieutenant Colonel
User avatar

Joined: Sat May 27, 2006 11:22 pm
Posts: 1826
Location: Hayward, Cali
I'de say M4. If Thompson's were better in any way, we'de still be using them. SImple logic, folks.

Plus, doesn't the M4 have a higher muzzle velocity?

I mean,the thompson's like Bang, where as the M4 is like Bang!!!!!

_________________
Go pioneers!

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Feb 13, 2007 8:10 pm 
Offline
2nd Lieutenant
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 28, 2006 2:54 pm
Posts: 592
.:}_50cA{_|neostyles:. wrote:
I'de say M4. If Thompson's were better in any way, we'de still be using them. SImple logic, folks.

Plus, doesn't the M4 have a higher muzzle velocity?

I mean,the thompson's like Bang, where as the M4 is like Bang!!!!!
if i'm not mistake the m4 is a carbine not a smg

_________________
Image
Image
Image
Sox's assistant and the number one grunt of the NZG
don't mess with a nation that needs medication


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Feb 13, 2007 10:43 pm 
Offline
Captain
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 06, 2006 6:28 pm
Posts: 999
Location: Houston, Texas
darkdragon wrote:
.:}_50cA{_|neostyles:. wrote:
I'de say M4. If Thompson's were better in any way, we'de still be using them. SImple logic, folks.

Plus, doesn't the M4 have a higher muzzle velocity?

I mean,the thompson's like Bang, where as the M4 is like Bang!!!!!
if i'm not mistake the m4 is a carbine not a smg


Ya you cant compare a rifle round to a pistol round...and plus they are 2 completely different weapons. If you were going to comparet he thompson to anything It should be the Mp5..even though I would rather use the thompson because its more powerfull

_________________
-Leader of the DAP
-Head of Transportation
-Guinea Pig for the Entire NZG
Image
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Feb 13, 2007 11:10 pm 
Offline
Lieutenant Colonel
User avatar

Joined: Sat May 27, 2006 11:22 pm
Posts: 1826
Location: Hayward, Cali
That's what I hate about our weapon design philosophy. I dont know how many of you have looked at the Box O truth, but a goddamn cowboy gun is morepowerful than our flagship military rifle.

I say it's time that we get a rifle that shoots 345 grains.

_________________
Go pioneers!

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Feb 13, 2007 11:17 pm 
Offline
Captain
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 06, 2006 6:28 pm
Posts: 999
Location: Houston, Texas
.:}_50cA{_|neostyles:. wrote:
That's what I hate about our weapon design philosophy. I dont know how many of you have looked at the Box O truth, but a goddamn cowboy gun is morepowerful than our flagship military rifle.

I say it's time that we get a rifle that shoots 345 grains.


Box O truth is awesome....he is on arfcom alot....he told me how to stain my k31 :D

_________________
-Leader of the DAP
-Head of Transportation
-Guinea Pig for the Entire NZG
Image
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Feb 13, 2007 11:18 pm 
Offline
Staff Sergeant

Joined: Tue May 23, 2006 9:13 pm
Posts: 196
Krazbaz wrote:
Ive heard that US troops are equipped at 80% with stuff they buy on their own from Blackhawk industries...


Nope. All troops are issued vests, BDUs, ect. Only the high speed, low drag types wear what they want. The other guys are contractors.

And, personal preference takes place in the military too. Some troops in the sandbox have gotten permission to use AKs (especially mechanical inf. and convoy operators). And, everyone is making use of M1913 rails and adding options like optics, forward grips, ect.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Feb 13, 2007 11:50 pm 
Offline
Sergeant First Class

Joined: Sat Dec 02, 2006 6:06 pm
Posts: 243
Location: Boston, Ma
.:}_50cA{_|neostyles:. wrote:
That's what I hate about our weapon design philosophy. I dont know how many of you have looked at the Box O truth, but a goddamn cowboy gun is morepowerful than our flagship military rifle.

I say it's time that we get a rifle that shoots 345 grains.


Image

~600 if i remember correctly


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Feb 14, 2007 12:13 am 
Offline
Major General
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 06, 2006 6:09 pm
Posts: 1312
Location: Texas
Yeah, that's a sharpshooter's rifle, not a battle rifle.

What we need is a semi-auto Martini-Henry with a 20 round magazine. .450/.577 is a great cartridge.

_________________
Image
Head of Zombie Suit Manufacturing, Supplying Guns to the Mentally Stable, Lead Researcher for Weapons, Grand Requisitioner, and Master Keeper of the NZG Armoury.
Whatever happens, we have got
The Maxim gun, and they have not.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Feb 14, 2007 12:56 am 
Offline
Lieutenant Colonel
User avatar

Joined: Sat May 27, 2006 11:22 pm
Posts: 1826
Location: Hayward, Cali
Or better yet. Hand held gattling gun chambered in .22. Low kick, high firing rate = insurgents owned.

_________________
Go pioneers!

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Feb 14, 2007 1:23 am 
Offline
Specialist

Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 3:03 pm
Posts: 32
.:}_50cA{_|neostyles:. wrote:
Or better yet. Hand held gattling gun chambered in .22. Low kick, high firing rate = insurgents owned.


How about .223, it might be a little more effective than .22.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Feb 14, 2007 6:05 am 
Offline
Major General
User avatar

Joined: Wed May 24, 2006 6:44 am
Posts: 853
adaam93 wrote:
.:}_50cA{_|neostyles:. wrote:
Or better yet. Hand held gattling gun chambered in .22. Low kick, high firing rate = insurgents owned.


How about .223, it might be a little more effective than .22.
You might fall over with the recoil and would never really aim well with both most likely. Waste of ammo as well.

_________________
Johnny Rico wrote:
This is for all you new people, I only have one rule; everyone fights, no one quits, you don't do your job, I'll kill you myself.......do you get me?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Feb 14, 2007 8:44 am 
Offline
Staff Sergeant

Joined: Tue May 23, 2006 9:13 pm
Posts: 196
adaam93 wrote:
.:}_50cA{_|neostyles:. wrote:
Or better yet. Hand held gattling gun chambered in .22. Low kick, high firing rate = insurgents owned.


How about .223, it might be a little more effective than .22.


They tried that with the XM214.






...It didn't work.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Feb 15, 2007 4:02 pm 
Offline
Private

Joined: Thu Feb 15, 2007 3:37 pm
Posts: 6
I don't know why you are comparing calibers. A bullet is a bullet. It'll kill you no matter what. It's just about shot placement. A .22 through the center your brain will kill you just as much as a .355 and a .45. Only reason the different calibers are used? Ballistics, and abundance. The MP40 with it's .355 (9mm) had the same exact round as the Luger and P38. Why change assembly lines (costing more money) to put out a heavier round. Besides, a 9mm with a hollowed tip vs. a 11mm FMJ. The 9mm would do much more damage. The rounds are ligher, making the MP40 lighter in comparison. The Thompson was in essence a little brother to the BAR. Better out in a field then in a room. In an open field, the Thompson, in a house, a MP40.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Feb 15, 2007 4:13 pm 
Offline
Master Sergeant
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2007 2:02 pm
Posts: 301
Don't forget folks, when you're talking 9mm from the MP40 it's coming from a 25 cm barrel.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Feb 15, 2007 4:20 pm 
Offline
Major General
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 06, 2006 6:09 pm
Posts: 1312
Location: Texas
Cypher wrote:
I don't know why you are comparing calibers. A bullet is a bullet. It'll kill you no matter what. It's just about shot placement. A .22 through the center your brain will kill you just as much as a .355 and a .45. Only reason the different calibers are used? Ballistics, and abundance. The MP40 with it's .355 (9mm) had the same exact round as the Luger and P38. Why change assembly lines (costing more money) to put out a heavier round. Besides, a 9mm with a hollowed tip vs. a 11mm FMJ. The 9mm would do much more damage. The rounds are ligher, making the MP40 lighter in comparison. The Thompson was in essence a little brother to the BAR. Better out in a field then in a room. In an open field, the Thompson, in a house, a MP40.


It's too bad HP are forbidden.

You don't have to change your entire industry if the standard is already .45ACP (look at the 1911, the Thompson, the failed Thompson replacements like the Reising, and the Grease Gun).

Thompson has a faster rate of fire and has much more stopping power. I would prefer it over an MP40 any place. If you're doing house to house fighting, you would probably just end up firing it with the butt tucked inbetween your torso and arm.

_________________
Image
Head of Zombie Suit Manufacturing, Supplying Guns to the Mentally Stable, Lead Researcher for Weapons, Grand Requisitioner, and Master Keeper of the NZG Armoury.
Whatever happens, we have got
The Maxim gun, and they have not.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Feb 15, 2007 7:26 pm 
Offline
Private

Joined: Thu Feb 15, 2007 3:37 pm
Posts: 6
HP wasn't forbidden during WWII, and Germany didn't use .45 since they had their entire industry going 9mm or 7.65mm. The Thompson is harder to control, 1) Higher Rate of Fire. 2) More powder. The Thompson and the MP40 both had their purposes. The Grease Gun was made in the similar fashion to the Thompson. 1) Costs. 2) Managabiltity. Thomspons were harder to use indoors due to the heaviness. The M3 not so much. It still used .45 but it was lighter, and due to lower RoF was easier to manage. More bullets accurately put in the air, means more kills then more lead in the air without accuracy. Doesn't matter if you put 30 rounds next to the guy. 10 rounds of 9mm in a guys chest is enough to put a man down. This is just my opinion though. Not trying to start a flame war though.

PS: First day on the forum. Nice to meet you guys. This being my second post.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Feb 15, 2007 8:15 pm 
Offline
2nd Lieutenant
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 28, 2006 2:54 pm
Posts: 592
Cypher wrote:
HP wasn't forbidden during WWII, and Germany didn't use .45 since they had their entire industry going 9mm or 7.65mm. The Thompson is harder to control, 1) Higher Rate of Fire. 2) More powder. The Thompson and the MP40 both had their purposes. The Grease Gun was made in the similar fashion to the Thompson. 1) Costs. 2) Managabiltity. Thomspons were harder to use indoors due to the heaviness. The M3 not so much. It still used .45 but it was lighter, and due to lower RoF was easier to manage. More bullets accurately put in the air, means more kills then more lead in the air without accuracy. Doesn't matter if you put 30 rounds next to the guy. 10 rounds of 9mm in a guys chest is enough to put a man down. This is just my opinion though. Not trying to start a flame war though.

PS: First day on the forum. Nice to meet you guys. This being my second post.
isn't the traing for the 9mm 2 in the chest 1 in the head when the good old .45 is one in the chest and your done i like the one shot one kill method of warfare

_________________
Image
Image
Image
Sox's assistant and the number one grunt of the NZG
don't mess with a nation that needs medication


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 64 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group