Firstly, please spoiler your response. These sorts of arguments often feel like spam to others, and it's polite to provide an easy way to ignore them.
I just want to say that I don't think it is a good idea to ask for something in the hopes the GM won't know enough about WWII to say no.
This is a statement of morality, not fact. I find it kinda funny used against me, doubly so in a Piecewise game; ask any veteran of ER about Tinker, and whether it seems like evidence I care about playing these games in a moral or fair fashion. I'm sure some would be quite colorful in their response.
The De Lisle is a fine weapon, but it is not a sniper rifle by any stretch of the imagination.
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/strawmanNow, when did I say I wanted to use the De Lisle as a sniper rifle? Or refer to it as such a thing? Unless my eyes and memory decieve me, I specifically stated that I wanted to use it as a "scoped weapon", which seems like a perfectly reasonable title for a carbine with a scope mounted on it.
Perhaps you are operating under the mistaken assumption that scopes are only used with weapons that are used at long range.The k98 maximum effective range with iron sights is 500 meters (double that with a good scope)
As it happens, my character has a rifle that is ballistically quite similar to the K98. If I feel the need to shoot someone at five hundred meters, I'll
probably use that one, considering that it's extremely difficult to even see a prone person at that distance, and even harder to hit them with iron sights.
the de Lisle only has 200 meters, no matter the sight (maximum range is listed as 400 meters, which is still inside the range you can effectively use iron sights).
Actually, the common guideline for effective engagement by riflemen is 300 meters, because it's hard to notice people beyond that with the naked eye. Most battles in both world wars took place at or below that distance, which is why rifle calibers were phased out in favor of intermediate calibers.
As a side note, the
VSS Vintorez has an identical max range, due to both firearms using subsonic rounds. It was always issued with a scope, and was used in an identical fashion to how I plan to use the De Lisle.
BTW a Thompson submachine gun? Maximum effective range: 150 yards.
This has more to do with the sights, operator, and efficient use. If the sights can't be adjusted past 150m, it becomes extremely difficult to use them at any greater range, and any subsonic cartridge has extreme drop at even moderate range. Even if they can be adjusted, you have to be extremely precise in you adjustment to hit someone--45 ACP will drop nearly five feet over 200 meters, and that number nearly quadruples at 400 meters. Yet, at 400 meters, it has lost slightly less than half its energy, and should still be rather lethal--though less so than at point blank. If you are careful, and zero perfectly, killing someone at 400 meters should be quite possible, if difficult.
It's just really inefficient to have soldiers with SMGs try and use them at range. Yes, they could kill people, but those people have rifles, and will be far more likely to kill them first, because it's
easier to hit with a rifle at that range. Let the men with 30-06 weapons take those shots.
((Final note, might wanna check the citations before relying on what Wikipedia says. I checked, and found this on the page claiming the thompson was limited to 150m: "There also were some submachine guns that never reached full-scale production, such as "Military model" M1923, which was developed with intent to extend the effective range out to 600 yards (approx 550 meters)." Their goal was impossible, but it shows that they didn't
really believe 150m was max. You don't quadruple a gun's range by slightly tinkering with the design, not matter how optimistic you are.))
It use the same ammo as the de Lise, so the main difference would be accuracy, AKA, the de Lise isn't that much more accurate than a (known for being inaccurate) submachine gun!
...Point being? Yes, I want to use an inaccurate weapon with a scope. It shouldn't matter, since I'm shooting down from a hill relatively close to my target, and can afford to take several shots for each hit, since the weapon is excellently suppressed.
The de Lise used the same basic barrel as the Thompson, but the suppressor cut down muzzle velocity, so the Thompson has greater maximum range,
No, the
porting in the barrel cut down muzzle velocity, and by an insignificant amount. This largely wouldn't matter because the round is lethal at ranges far beyond those that it is accurate at.
As a quick lesson, standard suppressors don't alter the bullet's trajectory or power in any way--they simply trap the gasses behind it, so that they aren't released with a sudden loud flash. The Welrod had a different suppressor from the De Lisle, where the bullet physically penetrated through leather and rubber--this made it even quieter, but much less accurate, and needed to have the suppressor replaced after a few shots, because it would rapidly degrade and lose most of its effectiveness.
The de Lise gains the most from the fact that it was hand made for special forces use, and was bolt action.
I actually disagree with this too, but I don't feel the need to undermine my own argument. So, sure.
Can I have a scope for any Thompson I pick up in the future?
There is literally no logical reason you couldn't, with the possible exception of the armorer refusing to humor you. The only stupid thing is that putting a scope on a gun changes what skill it uses, but if we're really going to quibble about that, it's far more stupid that the garand and springfield use different skills, considering the fact that they're ergonomically and ballistically almost identical.
Author
Topic: 888th Brigade: DAY OF THE PURGE (Read 469389 times)