Favorite WWII weapon!

[Konata Suzumiya]

Well I love WWII (not literaly as in I thought it was a good thing happening lol) and thought it would be appropriate to make this topic aloongside the other.

My favorite wapon is the M1garand (can't beat a classic).

[Beyond Birthday]

I'm very interested about WW2 history, and i know a lot about it...

but my favorite weapon is.... it's PPSH-41 or STG 44, i'll say SGT 44

[SuperVegito]

Why is this in the PC thread? O_o

[Beyond Birthday]

dunno.

because of Call of Dutys?

[kirant]

None of the above. Where's the 20 mm guns from the Japanese Zeros?

[Konata Suzumiya]

you can post whatever you want, I just suggested 10 fairly popular weapons commonly used during WWII (you can only have 10 items in a poll).

[Beyond Birthday]

Or the model A6M3b wich had 30 mm cannon :P

[Supernova141]

The STG 44 was the worlds first assault rifle, you can't beat that!

[Konata Suzumiya]

also hard to beat the B.A.R one of the worlds first automatic Rifles.

[Sutii-chan]

B.A.R. = BadAss Rifle :D

[Konata Suzumiya]

B.A.R. = BadAss Rifle :D


Omg! That is actually what I call it whenever I use it in WaW!

[Supernova141]

I guess this thread is refering to real life, but in COD2 my favorite weapon was the bren. lol, i still play that game online sometimes for the memories.

[nathangonmad]

B.A.R. = BadAss Rifle :D


So true :P

[kirant]

B.A.R. = BadAss Rifle :D


Of the options, yes it is. The world's scariest sewing machine (The German MP40) was my second choice though.

['John Smith']

its the Kar 98 hands down. That rifle is one of the finest of it's time, and it is still used by sportsman for hunting. The Springfield was basically a copy pasta of the K98 and the lee-enfield was slightly inferior. You know, there was a reason the German army used the K-98 in BOTH world wars; it simply kicks that much ass.

[kirant]

Didn't the Germans use their MP-40 for mass production though? I mean, I've seen the thing and I like it. It's fairly quiet, has a good ability to prevent recoil, and could go 500/min (8.33/sec).

Also, the Kar never saw use in WWI. It was designed in 1938 to replace the G98, which was their WWI rifle.

Long story short, I'd prefer to be hauling around an MP-40 than a Kar 98 because the MP-40 is a SMG. It, or the BAR, would be easily my preferred weapon in a WWII scenario. The BAR was so good, it was used from WWI to the Vietnam war BTW.

[Sutii-chan]

Finally! I' ve said something that is both important and cool in the same time! So rare moment... it makes me cry! :D

[Konata Suzumiya]

I would easily like an M1 Garand the most in WWII, It has a nice weight, controllable recoil, and a very long range + tons of power.

[Supernova141]

its the Kar 98 hands down. That rifle is one of the finest of it's time, and it is still used by sportsman for hunting. The Springfield was basically a copy pasta of the K98 and the lee-enfield was slightly inferior. You know, there was a reason the German army used the K-98 in BOTH world wars; it simply kicks that much ass.


the Lee-enfield was the best bolt-action(at least in the game) because it used a clip to reload, you didn't need to load the rounds one by one. Using a magazine would probably have been even easier, but meh...

[kirant]

-----


the Lee-enfield was the best bolt-action(at least in the game) because it used a clip to reload, you didn't need to load the rounds one by one. Using a magazine would probably have been even easier, but meh...


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karabiner_98k

The Kar 98 uses a Stripper clip. Same thing as the Lee-Endfield. No need to load each individually.

[Sutii-chan]

I would easily like an M1 Garand the most in WWII, It has a nice weight, controllable recoil, and a very long range + tons of power.


And dont forget to add that its fast as hell

My second choice of WWII weaps

[Freeman]

The Thompson M1/A1 is my favorite.

.45 automatic submachine gun, fairly accurate and a dual chamber clip. It's rate of fire was decent and it weighted into the stock, keeping the stability to the gun.

I'm just in love with this gun, I use it in any WW2 game, and exclusively that gun, even for long range attacks.

[Supernova141]

-----


the Lee-enfield was the best bolt-action(at least in the game) because it used a clip to reload, you didn't need to load the rounds one by one. Using a magazine would probably have been even easier, but meh...


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karabiner_98k

The Kar 98 uses a Stripper clip. Same thing as the Lee-Endfield. No need to load each individually.



oh, my bad. i guess i was thinking about something else.

[Konata Suzumiya]

Ya the springfield, kar, mosin, lee, and Arisaka all used clips

[kirant]

The Thompson M1/A1 is my favorite.

.45 automatic submachine gun, fairly accurate and a dual chamber clip. It's rate of fire was decent and it weighted into the stock, keeping the stability to the gun.

I'm just in love with this gun, I use it in any WW2 game, and exclusively that gun, even for long range attacks.

Using that logic, the Brewster Buffalo, the single biggest failure of a fighter in history, would be my favourite plane (I use the thing and love it for the insane challenge). :P

[7h3101im4idw0lf]

hey wheres the russian PTRS? im a sniper (i even have an official rank with the NRA, second bar sharpshooter, yes i use guns, occasionally)

but from what i have... probably the M1 Garand, it has great stopping power, good fire rate, reliable (doesnt jam alot), doesnt require as much field maintenance as other weapons.

but the only thing that might be considered a drawback was its unique "click" it made when the clip ran dry

[kirant]

^
You must have loved the "cheap and cheerful" Shermans (American Medium Tank) then. Not exactly what you would call anything strong (paticularily when lined up to the German Panzers), but was decent enough in each catagory, was mass prroducable, and could be battlefield repaired.

[Freeman]

but the only thing that might be considered a drawback was its unique "click" it made when the clip ran dry


Actually American G.I's turned that into a major counter-attack. They would have a few guys let the clicks go off, while others aimed towards the enemy position, then when the enemy popped up to take a shot, they were killed by our guys.

But the Garand was a good enough rifle that it earned the nick-name, "Rifle that won the war", and even a law stating that citizens could own one.

[7h3101im4idw0lf]

^
You must have loved the "cheap and cheerful" Shermans (American Medium Tank) then. Not exactly what you would call anything strong (paticularily when lined up to the German Panzers), but was decent enough in each catagory, was mass prroducable, and could be battlefield repaired.


Actually, I preferred the Russian T-34 or german Panther



but the only thing that might be considered a drawback was its unique "click" it made when the clip ran dry


Actually American G.I's turned that into a major counter-attack. They would have a few guys let the clicks go off, while others aimed towards the enemy position, then when the enemy popped up to take a shot, they were killed by our guys.

But the Garand was a good enough rifle that it earned the nick-name, "Rifle that won the war", and even a law stating that citizens could own one.


That's why I said "could possibly be considered"

[Konata Suzumiya]

there are many ptrs, but if you're talking about the 41 (which I am assuming you are) then sorry to say this to you but that was not used as a sniper rifle it was specifically an anti tank (light) rifle commonly used without a scope.

[7h3101im4idw0lf]

yes i realize that the PTRS-41 (which indeed, was the one i was reffering to) was mainly used as a anti-tank rifle but it COULD be used as a sniper rifle (i dont just know it from WaW, i actually look these things up for basic info unlike the rest of the 99% of WaW gamers who think its specifically made for sniping)

[kirant]

there are many ptrs, but if you're talking about the 41 (which I am assuming you are) then sorry to say this to you but that was not used as a sniper rifle it was specifically an anti tank (light) rifle commonly used without a scope.


Anything that has that much firepower can be specialized, with scope, to be a sniper rifle. The Kar 98, an average bolt action rifle, was specialized to a sniper rifle for some...so...

In addition, the game Close Combat III: The Russian Front, a game infamously netorious for its realism (From the concept or moral, supressive fire, range, anti-infantry/anti-armour damage, smoke screens, troops that tire, and more) lists one of the two Russian Snipers units as having a PTRS. This unit also has fairly exceptional Anti-Tank power.

[Konata Suzumiya]

there are many ptrs, but if you're talking about the 41 (which I am assuming you are) then sorry to say this to you but that was not used as a sniper rifle it was specifically an anti tank (light) rifle commonly used without a scope.


Anything that has that much firepower can be specialized, with scope, to be a sniper rifle. The Kar 98, an average bolt action rifle, was specialized to a sniper rifle for some...so...

In addition, the game Close Combat III: The Russian Front, a game infamously netorious for its realism (From the concept or moral, supressive fire, range, anti-infantry/anti-armour damage, smoke screens, troops that tire, and more) lists one of the two Russian Snipers units as having a PTRS. This unit also has fairly exceptional Anti-Tank power.


Thing is though the ptrs wasn't a very favorable sniper at all for its weight and recoil, while being a very good anti light tank rifle.
(I know what your saying, hell with a tuned sniper scope a B.A.R. could be used as a sniper)

[7h3101im4idw0lf]

what system is that for? and is it a FPS, TPS, or a strategy (i love all three)

[Konata Suzumiya]

http://tinyurl.com/kqlxgv

[kirant]

It is a split military controller/split RTS (Also made in 1998). Don't play it if you like the modern war games, as it is insanely realistic and will give you fits if you play it the way you run and gun in the newer games. Most games will run down to who can smash the opponent's tanks better, while not endangering their infantry (A lot of positioning, very little fighting...unless you bring over a LOT of anti-tanks to break apart buildings)[hr]



-----

-----


Thing is though the ptrs wasn't a very favorable sniper at all for its weight and recoil, while being a very good anti light tank rifle.
(I know what your saying, hell with a tuned sniper scope a B.A.R. could be used as a sniper)


No it isn't. Again with that above game, the same Sniper unit also doesn't do a whole lot either. The Sniper with a Anti-Infantry gun does a lot more.

[7h3101im4idw0lf]

i prefer the non-modern-war games so...

as for the run and gun, i never do that in the games anyways

[Konata Suzumiya]

-----

-----


Thing is though the ptrs wasn't a very favorable sniper at all for its weight and recoil, while being a very good anti light tank rifle.
(I know what your saying, hell with a tuned sniper scope a B.A.R. could be used as a sniper)


No it isn't. Again with that above game, the same Sniper unit also doesn't do a whole lot either. The Sniper with a Anti-Infantry gun does a lot more.


Isn't what there's about 3 statements in my text.

[Freeman]

I can run and gun, spray and pray, like a beast, but for realistic shooters, play Red Orchestra.

It's the most realistic FPS I've ever played, pretty well made too.

The condition for a Sniper rifle would not be fufilled just by adding a scope to a weapon like the Browning Automatic Rifle. Sure it may 'snipe' but it wouldn't be a sniper rifle...you could call it a pseudo-sniper. Like how one might translate words directly over to English, but use the same grammar. It's sort of right...but not actually right.

And this whole thing about AT rifles being used as sniper rifles...it's probably true, as absurd as it sounds. I know such things can be done...but how often?

[7h3101im4idw0lf]

hey in WaW, dome

give me a MP40, double tap, steady aim, bandolier and i WILL rain death upon the other team (once got a 59 kill, 5 death in cap the flag once)

put me in WaW, dome with two friends that know me well and i will COMPLETELY AND UTTERLY obliterate the other team (100+kill, less than 20 death once, again cap the flag)
(two friends cover my back while i go in and spray around)

[Konata_is_Mine]

What is Red Orchestra for? Wasn't the Red Orchestra the German Anti-Nazi Reistance

[Konata Suzumiya]

I can get in close enough to kill with an smg or a shotgun, but I much prefer precision shots from Bolt Actions, Semi auto rifles, or burst shots at long range from HMGs, and LMGs.

Also Freeman I was trying to use sniper more as a way of comparing something. If you could precisely put a scope on something with a lot of range and power, one could easily use it like a sniper with similar effectiveness. The PTRS-41 can become a sniper but the effort is not worth the outcome - High Recoil, very very VERY heavy, and low accuracy without a bipod (which one shouldn't have to put up before every shot for effectiveness).

[kirant]

^
I dunno. I mean, the high recoil was just starting to get solved in WWII. In addition, I don't think that the recoil would actually knock it off its Bipod. As for weight, that actually helps solve the recoil problem (Conservation of Momentum)...and generally all a sniper ever caries their rifle and POSSIBLY a side arm (T-33 for the Soviets IIRC). And they don't move around a whole lot either. Finally, they're generally set up before the battle, so unless they're getting flanked (Which generally means death for the Sniper anyways), they shouldn't need to move unless reloading.

[7h3101im4idw0lf]

^i agree with him

[Konata Suzumiya]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PTRS-41

They were almost always mounted If you found records of a ptrs-41 being fired on infantry alone I would be very surprised.
The Ptrs-41 would not be wanted to carried on its own would you really want to carry something 20.3 kg, 2020mm long (about 6ft 7in)?

[kirant]

http://www.simaqianstudio.com/forum/lofiversion/index.php?t7569.html

Not records, but this man seems to be very well informed about the Eastern Front and points out that many soldiers had used the PTRS for a Sniper Rifle.

http://www.chacha.com/question/is-the-ptrs&%2345%3B41-sniper-rifle-from-cod-waw-a-real-sniper-rifle-or-was-it-made-up

More support that the PTRS has been used as it

[Konata Suzumiya]

I didn't mean they couldn't be used just that you'd have to be a complete idiot to try to use them against infantry and expect to make it out alive. (In the first link he seemed very much like he was being sarcastic)
(P.S. Cha Cha is not a source, all it said was that it existed and at the end it added that it was a real "sniper" rifle because that was his question, if his question was "Is the PTRS-41 a real rifle?", then I guarentee the answer would have been different with no credible source)

[kirant]

http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/topics/Anti-tank_rifle

Claims Anti-Tank rifles, PTRS and its ilk, were used in WWII as Sniper Weapons, specializing in taking out open-hatched Tanks and smoking out Snipers.


http://dic.academic.ru/dic.nsf/enwiki/1616731
The PTRS and rifles like it were given to the Chinese and North Koreans during the Korean War, where they were used against light tanks and other vehicles as well as serving as long range sniper rifles.
QED. China was the killing blow for the most part in the Korean War. Therefore, they must have done their attacks right. It must have been fairly effective to be not worthy. Therefore, they have been used as Sniper Rifles.

[Konata Suzumiya]

Never said they haven't I have only said that intending to use them to only attack infantry is a terrible move as there are lighter, smaller rifles with longer ranges which are much more effective against infantry.

"Some anti-tank rifles, like the Finnish L-39, were still used by snipers to harass the enemy, like firing phosphorus bullets at tanks' open hatches, or to smoke an enemy sniper out of his position."

I see no mention of the ptrs in the above quote only (and the key word) some anti tank rifles were used. (please no more mis quoting the text it gets annoying to track down where the quote was)

"The Soviet PTRS-41 and PTRD of World War II vintage were used by North Korean and Chinese forces during the Korean War as they lacked more modern infantry anti-tank weapons"

They didn't use them because they were effective, they used them because they lacked up to date tech and it was all they had.

[kirant]

Never said they haven't I have only said that intending to use them to only attack infantry is a terrible move as there are lighter, smaller rifles with longer ranges which are much more effective against infantry.
The only thing hampering the PTRS is the fact that it generally has a crew of 2. And that can be fixed.

I see no mention of the ptrs in the above quote only (and the key word) some anti tank rifles were used.
This quote is used more to prove the effective use of Anti-tank guns as relatively effective sniper weapons. Now, I'm not sure if you're the type to hunt down Academic Google and look for 3 hours to find a specific document that accounts for a single battle and have it explicitely state that a reason they won the battle was because of the PTRS and its use as a sniper rifle, but these quotes I'm finding are the closest thing to proof without actually doing the aforementioned work. We have to fill the gap by logic...and again, the only thing I see holding back the PTRS as a plausible Sniper Rifle is the fact that it is normally 2 crewed, which can be solved by carrying it on your own.

The Soviet PTRS-41 and PTRD of World War II vintage were used by North Korean and Chinese forces during the Korean War as they lacked more modern infantry anti-tank weapons
Rifled Anti-tank weapons were already out of date. If they used them for Anti-tank firepower, they would have been spoon-fed bazookas and RPGs from the then-friendly USSR. Remember, that was the time that both sides of the Cold War were beginning to believe in the Domino Effect. So, the Soviets saw this time to open an indirect war with the US, and began feeding China weapons, which China would use to attack the UN in Korea as they saw the UN as a threat to their Commiunist State.

They didn't use them because they were effective, they used them because they lacked up to date tech and it was all they had.
The affliated Communist states did a fairly good job spreading around the technology. About the only thing not given much of was Soviet air support.

It appears we're derailing the topic. If you'd like to continue this, I'd highly suggest a new topic. Again, because of basic lack of resources on both sides, I have to emphasize the fact that the information given is valid, as mistakes rarely go unfixed by a military power, and it appears the Soviets had used the PTRS for sniping roles throughout WWII, and the Chinese had recycled the tactics going into the Korean War.

Also, for the record, they DID experiment with a fully sniper version of the PTRS. The result was a cancelled project, as the scopes used would become damaged from the semi-automatic fire.

[Konata Suzumiya]

I would agree that the PTRS could be used as a sniper, but it was a bad choice because of many factors I listed earlier. I do not deny they used the ammunition occasionaly against infantry but if they had the choice to fire against infantry or light tanks / light transport I highly doubt they would waste ammo on infantry. My point is that when you bring a PTRS-41 into the battlefield you should intend on firing against transport and only infantry as a last resort. (EX. an automatic weapon should be fired in burst, but if the enemy gets too close than automatic fire can be the best way to save your life)

(Btw the 2 man crew isn't the only draw back, the length and weight play a large role in why it is bad to use against infantry)

[7h3101im4idw0lf]

am i the one who started this whole PTRS talk?

i think i am... ^_^"

im always the one who starts hot discussions ._>

[kirant]

I do not deny they used the ammunition occasionaly against infantry but if they had the choice to fire against infantry or light tanks / light transport I highly doubt they would waste ammo on infantry.
Let's be honest. That's not a great arguement. That's just redefining its design purpose. I'm not arguing that its primary purpose is that of of sniper rifle, but it could be used as an effective sniper rifle in addition to an anti-tank rifle.

My point is that when you bring a PTRS-41 into the battlefield you should intend on firing against transport and only infantry as a last resort.
I disagree. Easily, by late war, the armour vs anti-tank rifle tech war tilted into the armour's favour. Late war (late 43 and early 44 to end of war), those PTRS rifles wouldn't penetrate the armour of a medium tank or heavier...they couldn't even reliably knock through a light tank's armour. The PTRS was so useless against them that I'd more keen to use them as a sniper rifle instead of an anti-tank.

(Btw the 2 man crew isn't the only draw back, the length and weight play a large role in why it is bad to use against infantry)
The additional reasons you mentioned are dual-edged. They provide advantages, but hamper the weapon as well.

Weight matters very little when it isn't intended to be moved after set up. It also aids in preventing the recoil from being disasterous via conservation of momentum.

The legnth of barrel aids in the compensation of unusable scopes. I mean, a longer barrel means there is less time to allow gravity to take its effect on the shot.

[7h3101im4idw0lf]

holy crap, and i thought i knew guns decently well!


btw this argument is very fun to read

[Konata Suzumiya]

The thing is Svt's and Mosin nagant's are designed to take down infantry, and are in reality much better at getting the job done then the Ptrs. I disagree with the statement saying it is too late for anti armor rifles, because despite having a lower efficiency against newer tanks they still had a strong efficiency towards armord trucks (a few extra rounds to take out a large target carrying lots of infanty > using 1 round against a smal target). Another large disadvantage the Ptrs carries over other soviet rifles is its muzzle velocity is larger than the other soviet snipers. Even though it may not be a lot a lower muzzle velocity is a key thing snipers try for. And lastly the effective range is low for a sniper with only 400m against the svt 40's 500m and the mosin's 600.

[kirant]

The thing is Svt's and Mosin nagant's are designed to take down infantry, and are in reality much better at getting the job done then the Ptrs.
I NEVER said they weren't. I'm saying that the PTRS was still an effective weapon for sniping purposes.

I disagree with the statement saying it is too late for anti armor rifles, because despite having a lower efficiency against newer tanks they still had a strong efficiency towards armord trucks (a few extra rounds to take out a large target carrying lots of infanty > using 1 round against a smal target).
In the range that the PTRS is usable (500 metres), unless guerilla warfare is being used, light armour supply trucks are very rarely used. 500 meters is Close Combat. At that range, you'd have to be insane to use transports. I have very few records of the Germans using transports to attack late war, when the PTRS was becoming a weapon for sniping purposes.

Another large disadvantage the Ptrs carries over other soviet rifles is its muzzle velocity is larger than the other soviet snipers. Even though it may not be a lot a lower muzzle velocity is a key thing snipers try for.
Now, explain why the velocity is a disadvantage. You never even state it. One thing you completely ignore is that the PTRS has a much bigger shell size. Each hit is going to KILL your target. Once the shell enters the body, changes direction, and exits, the trauma caused will easily incapacitate your target. No question, no matter where you hit in their center of mass. By comparison, the smaller, slower sniper rifles will not always do that. You can take a hit in the kidney area and still go. Take a hit by the PTRS, you've got a f'ing hole in you. You'll collapse and bleed to death in short order.

And lastly the effective range is low for a sniper with only 400m against the svt 40's 500m and the mosin's 600.
Did I ever say that the Soviet Sniper Rifles would be more effective than the PTRS? No.

Look. If you're going to keep debating, please stop stating that the ACTUAL sniper rifles are better at it. We're not debating it. Provide counter-arguements as to why the PTRS is not an effective sniper weapon. And don't state that the Soviet army would just use better weapons, as we all know that the Soviets flooded the field with quantity. They took more casualties than their opponent in almost every battle.

[Konata Suzumiya]

Im sorry you mis understood me my debate was meant to be that It is stupid to bring in a PTRS into battle to only snipe when you have other rifles (mosin, svt, etc.) available which are both cheaper and more efficient in every way possible. Yes the PTRS can snipe effectively but with that logic so can almost every semi auto, bolt action, automatic rifle, lmg, and hmg from WWII. What I was trying to debate was why would you use the PTRS to specifically snipe (not attack any transport), when you have cheaper, available, and much more efficient rifles ready. Why risk your life to fire a giant anti-armor rifle at infantry when there are so many better options is the point I am trying to get at.
(sorry about the lack of paragraphs too tired to put them in)

[kirant]

It is stupid to bring in a PTRS into battle to only snipe when you have other rifles (mosin, svt, etc.) available which are both cheaper and more efficient in every way possible.
Yeah, but when you've got them lying around, collecting dust, they can be still effective weapons for sniping purposes.

Bascially what I'm saying is that you can retool the existing ones into effective sniping weapons.

Yes the PTRS can snipe effectively but with that logic so can almost every semi auto, bolt action, automatic rifle, lmg, and hmg from WWII.
But this one has the ability to blow a literal hole in you. Most rifles don't do enough damage. Typical sniper rifles struggle to kill consistantly, often just wounding. A PTRS can take you down as long as it hits a reasonable section of your body.

What I was trying to debate was why would you use the PTRS to specifically snipe (not attack any transport), when you have cheaper, available, and much more efficient rifles ready.
They just weren't existant enough. There were just not enough sniper rifles ready in WWII to feed the massive army of the Soviet Union.

Why risk your life to fire a giant anti-armor rifle at infantry when there are so many better options is the point I am trying to get at.
You have some advantages. I agree though, you don't have enough to given yourself a reason to use it OVER true sniper rifles.

I'm not sure our arguements are that far apart. My arguement is (basically) that the PTRS could be used as an effective makeshift sniper rifle when better ones were not available because of the size of the Soviet Red Army and wartime production limitations from total war. In fact, anti-tank rifles were the predecessor to high-power sniper rifles. Your arguement is that true sniper rifles are more useful for anti-personel purposes, which I agree.

[Konata Suzumiya]

Then I guess our arguments are fairly close.

would you agree on this statement to end the debate?...

"The PTRS-41 can be used somewhat effectively as a sniper rifle and has its advantages, but these advantages do not out weigh those of using a rifle designed specifically for anti infantry. Thus the conclusion is the PTRS-41 can be used as a make shift sniper rifle, but should not be used over other rifles designed for sniping in particular"

[Sutii-chan]

*almost finished popcorn eating, while wearing 3d glasses*

This is friggin' awsome... om nom nom... best movie I' ve ever seen... nom nom... I luv these arguements...[hr]
The BadAss Rifle hasn' t got enough votes so I have to post this... sorry...

http://img134.imageshack.us/img134/7674/posterbar22x34300dpirede.jpg (http://img134.imageshack.us/i/posterbar22x34300dpirede.jpg/)

[kirant]

"The PTRS-41 can be used somewhat effectively as a sniper rifle and has its advantages, but these advantages do not out weigh those of using a rifle designed specifically for anti infantry. Thus the conclusion is the PTRS-41 can be used as a make shift sniper rifle, but should not be used over other rifles designed for sniping in particular"
Agreed.

[Freeman]

"The PTRS-41 can be used somewhat effectively as a sniper rifle and has its advantages, but these advantages do not out weigh those of using a rifle designed specifically for anti infantry. Thus the conclusion is the PTRS-41 can be used as a make shift sniper rifle, but should not be used over other rifles designed for sniping in particular"
Agreed.


Precisely.

It can be used, but it shouldn't be used for that purpose. I would say mostly because it's a major waste of an AT round.


And about Red Orchestra, yeah it was an anti-nazi movement, but the game takes place in the Eastern front between the Grossdeutschland and Red Army forces.

[kirant]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T_ClWi27olA
Yup. Massive waste of power.