Magazine cutoffs (hopefully fixed)

[retfarcimak]

This post is an idea for a magazine cutoff. For those who don't know, the magazine cutoff is a feature on certain WW2 rifles, specifically, the lee-enfield and MAS 36 bolt action rifles. The cutoff would allow the weapon to fire with single cartridges when engaged, while keeping the magazine full (11 rounds for the enfield, 6 for the MAS36 when this is used). If nothing else, this could be used for snipers and for using a +1 system. https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.co...03c13b213e9c3d7043ce4e3a--lee-enfield-cut.jpg This is a picture of the lee-enfield's magazine cut off system. To engage it, push it in, to disengage it and use the magazine, pull it out. It simply blocks the round from popping up into the chamber when engaged. In the picture, it is disengaged.

There is another post I made on this, but for some reason, the content vanished after an edit I made to attempt to fix a link error.

 

[Aniallator]

I'm always inclined to like something that benefits realism and historical accuracy, but what would a magazine cutoff system accomplish in-game? How would it be usedul to players?

 

[retfarcimak]

The most ready thing to come to my mind is the +1 system. In games that include guns with a detachable magazine, you can reload before you fire the last round, let's say you do that on a 1911. Normally, you'd have 7 rounds loaded, but if you reload before emptying, you'd have 7 + 1 in the chamber. Basically you could load the magazine, use the magazine cutoff to hold it in, and load in an 11th round. This could also be used for sniping. (keep it to cut off for longer distance engagements, if the enemies get closer, say med-close, you could take off the cutoff to access a full 11 rounds rapidly.) I'm pretty sure this is how they were meant to be used, in fact. At least, when it was designed before WW1. By WW2 it was mainly a holdover.

 

[VonMudra]

The magazine cutoffs on the SMLE were removed during WW1, readded in th 1920s, and then dispensed with by the 1930s. And, since we're doing NOrmandy, the vast majority of British rifles will be the No4, which never had the cut off. I also know not of the Mas36 ever having a mag cutoff- far as I know, the only French rifle that did was the Lebel.

Either way, mag cutoffs simply weren't used in WW2, hell, they really weren't even used in WW1 even by those who had access to them.

 

[retfarcimak]

The magazine cutoffs on the SMLE were removed during WW1, readded in the 1920s, and then dispensed with by the 1930s. And, since we're doing NOrmandy, the vast majority of British rifles will be the No4, which never had the cut off. I also know not of the Mas36 ever having a mag cutoff- far as I know, the only French rifle that did was the Lebel.

Either way, mag cutoffs simply weren't used in WW2, hell, they really weren't even used in WW1 even by those who had access to them.

Alright then. I got the bit about the Mas36's cutoff from a channel known as TFB TV from their run and gun. I found a picture that the site claimed to be an enfield from 1939 that clearly showed off the cutoff (albeit it was a deactivated rifle in very poor condition) but I don't want to link that for fear of the URL breaking the post again like it did for the other cutoff post I did.

Here's the TFB vid:

Of course I could always be remembering that video wrong. Magazine cutoff or no, I'm excited to see what this game will be like in the first open build. ^^

 

[retfarcimak]

The magazine cutoffs on the SMLE were removed during WW1, readded in th 1920s, and then dispensed with by the 1930s. And, since we're doing NOrmandy, the vast majority of British rifles will be the No4, which never had the cut off. I also know not of the Mas36 ever having a mag cutoff- far as I know, the only French rifle that did was the Lebel.

Either way, mag cutoffs simply weren't used in WW2, hell, they really weren't even used in WW1 even by those who had access to them.

To add to my previous reply, now the other magazine cutoff post has been fixed, so the link can be seen there ( https://www.tractionwars.com/suggestions/4254-magazine-cutoffs.html ), and in the URL, it says "Dated 1939" but yeah. Now that I think about it, it would make no sense to use it during WW2 because generally, if you shot at something, you were either moving or the enemy was attacking. Would the cutoff have been used before WW1? I've heard that they'd be used similarly to musket tactics on introduction.

 

[VonMudra]

To add to my previous reply, now the other magazine cutoff post has been fixed, so the link can be seen there ( https://www.tractionwars.com/suggestions/4254-magazine-cutoffs.html ), and in the URL, it says "Dated 1939" but yeah. Now that I think about it, it would make no sense to use it during WW2 because generally, if you shot at something, you were either moving or the enemy was attacking. Would the cutoff have been used before WW1? I've heard that they'd be used similarly to musket tactics on introduction.

Magazine cutoffs basically have their birth in colonial wars. The expectation was that western forces would be typically outnumbered, and would need very careful conservation of fire. With both breechloading and the extended ranges of rifled weapons, the idea was that officers would carefully estimate range to target and order aimed volley fire at said targets, being able to count ammunition as it was expended (since every man got the same issue) and thus control expenditure and know when to actually order more ammunition. It was all in an attempt, mostly developed by the British, to control the battlefield when heavily outnumbered.

This continued with the introduction of magazines, using cutoffs to continue this method of single fire, while the magazine was an emergency thing, basically "Oh no a group of dastardly Zulu got behind us." Then the order for magazine usage would go out, and the entire group would be able to open up without reloading. This is also where volley sights come from, with the massively extended ranges accomplished by smokeless powder, the ability to reach out and hit mass targets at 3000 yards was extraordinary at the time. Not only did this change colonial warfare (suddenly it was basically impossible for a large melee force to overwhelm a small rifle armed force, IE, Battle of Omdurman, the one time volley sights were used really effectively for what they were for), but it was believed that even war in Europe would suddenly be fought at greatly extended ranges "because well, we can now!" Combat sights were commonly ludicrous by modern standards, anywhere from 300-500 meters being the minimum setting, which meant soldiers had to aim extremely low to hit targets at closer ranges.

Of course, none of this came to fruition in WW1. Mag cutoffs were useless, volley sights had already been out-moded by the abilities of machine guns and modern artillery to lay down beaten zones, and combat ranges never really grew beyond 400m, and were generally far closer.

 

[Aniallator]

Interesting little historical read-up as usual Mudra

 

[retfarcimak]

Magazine cutoffs basically have their birth in colonial wars. The expectation was that western forces would be typically outnumbered, and would need very careful conservation of fire. With both breechloading and the extended ranges of rifled weapons, the idea was that officers would carefully estimate range to target and order aimed volley fire at said targets, being able to count ammunition as it was expended (since every man got the same issue) and thus control expenditure and know when to actually order more ammunition. It was all in an attempt, mostly developed by the British, to control the battlefield when heavily outnumbered.

This continued with the introduction of magazines, using cutoffs to continue this method of single fire, while the magazine was an emergency thing, basically "Oh no a group of dastardly Zulu got behind us." Then the order for magazine usage would go out, and the entire group would be able to open up without reloading. This is also where volley sights come from, with the massively extended ranges accomplished by smokeless powder, the ability to reach out and hit mass targets at 3000 yards was extraordinary at the time. Not only did this change colonial warfare (suddenly it was basically impossible for a large melee force to overwhelm a small rifle armed force, IE, Battle of Omdurman, the one time volley sights were used really effectively for what they were for), but it was believed that even war in Europe would suddenly be fought at greatly extended ranges "because well, we can now!" Combat sights were commonly ludicrous by modern standards, anywhere from 300-500 meters being the minimum setting, which meant soldiers had to aim extremely low to hit targets at closer ranges.

Of course, none of this came to fruition in WW1. Mag cutoffs were useless, volley sights had already been out-moded by the abilities of machine guns and modern artillery to lay down beaten zones, and combat ranges never really grew beyond 400m, and were generally far closer.

Alright, thanks for the lecture. ^^ Mostly the only thing I knew about was the minimal distance thing, I don't remember where but when I was just getting into verdun I found a video talking about the original mauser having that problem. I believe the guy said that "If you wanted to hit someone's shirt button, you would have to aim at their shoe lace." Though that was probably exaggeration... Well, unless the soldier was really bad at choosing sight settings.

 

[VonMudra]

Alright, thanks for the lecture. ^^ Mostly the only thing I knew about was the minimal distance thing, I don't remember where but when I was just getting into verdun I found a video talking about the original mauser having that problem. I believe the guy said that "If you wanted to hit someone's shirt button, you would have to aim at their shoe lace." Though that was probably exaggeration... Well, unless the soldier was really bad at choosing sight settings.

Actually not an exaggeration at all, the Gew98 at a minimum setting of 400 yards, so you would have to aim a yard or so lower than your intended point for close ranges. in Infantry Attacks, Rommel mentions aiming at people's feet in order to hit them in city combat.

 

[retfarcimak]

Actually not an exaggeration at all, the Gew98 at a minimum setting of 400 yards, so you would have to aim a yard or so lower than your intended point for close ranges. in Infantry Attacks, Rommel mentions aiming at people's feet in order to hit them in city combat.

Huh. Didn't know that. You know, reality can be stranger than fiction is probably more true than most people realize. XD