Hitman 3 Trilogy Addednum.

Hi again everyone.

This is me with more Hitman 3 Trilogy gameplay experiences.

I feel that I need to address and expand upon some of the stuff I mentioned and some things that I'd like to add.

First off, when it comes to weapons, what I said as far as outright damage abilities is true.  However, that's at the upclose and personal range.  Assault/automatic rifles on a per shot basis do about the same damage as a .45 pistol shot.  However, range does come into play.  At longer ranges (say about 50 yards/meters), assault rifles will still deal a kill with 3 shots, and even at ranges further than that.  With a M1911 type pistol, that drops off to 4-5 shots, maybe even more, at those ranges.  And 9mm class pistols do even less damage at long ranges.

So for mid-range combat, the auto rifle is your best bet for stopping power and fire power.  Submachine guns, aside from full auto capabilities, I'd rate as roughly equal to pistols, as, after all, SMGs fire pistol ammo.  That said, they're still a fun gameplay addition when used properly.

There's only one true semi-automatic rifle in the game, and it's got the perk of making one shot kills, albeit at almost melee distances.  At most ranges, it does about the same damage as a normal auto rifle, though you can be a better marksman and conserve ammo with it.

Sniper rifles are best at long range, obviously.  This is not just because of their nature.  Until a patch comes out, most are a pain to use indoors or in low light because unless you point them at a light source, the scopes tend to cloud up unless you zoom in, which isn't really an option on the so-called scout rifles.  Speaking of which, I do consider in my own opinion, the scout snipers to be fairly useless.  They're good for heat shots at fairly close range, and they can deliver rapid aimed fire, but you can't zoom the scope, and they can sometimes take multiple hits to the body to take down an enemy, which does limit their usefulness.

There's also shotguns, which, as I said, generally do what you expect.  Great for close range combat, but performance and accuracy drop off essentially as expected.  Especially since they use actual shot, not shotgun slugs.

There's also two pistols known as the Striker, which is a magnum caliber Colt M1911 type pistol.  As you'd imagine, it's slow firing and not as easy to use as several of 47's customized pistols, but it's hitting power is hard to ignore for close range engagements.

And, this being a stealth-themed game, you have silenced weapons.  In line with real life, the use of suppressors reduce noise signature, though (also like in real life) at some cost to range and performance.  That being said, in real life if you fire full power rifle ammo though a suppressor, it'll muffle the sound somewhat, maybe to (barely) hearing safe levels.  But you still will have significant noise from the shot, let alone the crack made from the bullet breaking the sound barrier (same will also happen with supersonic capable pistol rounds fired though a suppressor).  But, again, a fun addition.

In addition, I feel I should comment more on the scenery of the game.  Which if you like scenery porn, Hitman's World of Assassination trilogy (which you get with the Hitman 3 Trilogy pack, as in all three games in one, though you may also have to get some DLC to get 100% content from all the games).  Among the locations you'll be visiting include Paris, a fictionalized city on Italy's Amalfi coast, Marrakesh, Bangkok, the plains of Colorado, an elite Japanese hospital, a New Zealand beach, Miami, the Colombian rain forest, India, a small town in Vermont, an Island in the North Atlantic, New York City, the Maldives, Dubai, the Dartmoor area of England, a dance club on the outskirts of Berlin, a secret facility run by 47's former agency in China, a vineyard in Argentina, and a train going though Romania's Carpathian Mountains.

 Each location has it's own atmosphere, from a Paris fashion show where seedy dealings are being done, to bright and sunny coastal Italy, to equally bright and sunny Miami, to Mumbai slums, to a rain forest, to secluded night club, to a Maldives beach resort, to a rainy, dark, English manor house (which if you do a side mission becomes sunny and cheerful), to a snowy train trip.  You also can gain mastery point bonuses for exploring each location that you're able to explore.  So in addition to globe trekking, you're sort of encouraged to explore to find locations and secrets.

 That's what I'd like to add to Hitman 3 for now, though I may find more things to talk about or elaborate on later.

Hitman 3 Trilogy

 Hi everyone.

For the past several weeks, I've been occupying my time with playing Hitman 3 Trilogy on the PC.  I've played Hitman 2: Silent Assassin for many years on the PS2, and more recently on PC along with Hitman Contracts.  So when I had the chance to get the World of Assassination trilogy on PC, I jumped at it.

Granted, these are the newest games I've played, being stuck in the PS2 era for so long.  But anyways, on to the games.

Needless to say, I've had fun.  The challenges that you can do are fun, though some of them are tedious (though at least not hard).  I did such challenges mostly to unlock weapons and equipment.  And what's there is good, though a little (IMO) threadbare in some areas.  And you can go globe trotting in various locations, ranging from bright and beautiful, to dark and stylish, in reflection with the game itself.

First off, full disclosure, I do play with cheats, mostly for somewhat aimless fun, somewhat in tribute to the original ultimate assassin and crime fighter, the Shadow.  For those who are familiar with The Shadow comics, he was a master assassin, fighting criminals by being a master of stealth, weapons, and evasion.  In the radio show, though, he used magic powers to "cloud enemies minds".  This, though, was to avoid tedious descriptions of where and how he was finding and exploiting cover (TVs, of course, weren't common until the years following World War II, and there was no Shadow film serial--an early predecessor to TV and streaming show series--either).  Agent 47, IMO, is kinda a modern version of the Shadow, though many of you are probably more familiar with the Shadow's most well known homage, Batman.

I do have to say that though not ultra-realistic by any means, the use of weapons and gear in the game is fun.  You get a good variety if you unlock enough stuff, though the amount of reskinned weapons in the pistol and sniper rifle categories becomes obvious after a while.  Also, by comparison, the automatic rifle, submachine gun, and shotgun categories seem threadbare.

However, since this is a modern PC game, stuff does get released in patches or DLC, or can be unlocked by completing new challenges.  The latter tends to happen in the form of elusive target contracts or escalation contracts.  Elusive targets can be accessed though the Elusive Targets Arcade mode, which is a semi-permanent and less challenging mode of Elusive targets mode.  Normally, such things are if you eliminate them, that's it, and if you fail, that's it, too.  In ET Arcade mode, they're a quasi-permanent feature, and if you fail, you can attempt again after a 12 hour lock out for that particular contract.

Escalation contracts are a series of missions that take place at a particular setting, where different terms and conditions get added for each level after the first (hence the term escalation).  These include stuff like hiding corpses, no knock outs, using a particular weapon/method to eliminate a target, etc.

That all being said, I just play the regular missions, for which there are various ways to play them.  The only way to fail, usually, is if you die during a mission, which, of course, gets aborted when you die.  Only one or two missions I can think of in the whole trilogy can be aborted by killing someone who you're not supposed to, and even then you get an achievement for it (IMO, oddly).

Of course, I already use a cheat engine to play the game so I can get immortality, stealth mode (the latter can interfere with some challenges that involve face to face meetings with people, though), infinite ammo, and, occasionally, no reloading for firearms and one shot kills.

Getting on to weapons, I mentioned that some categories seem to be overloaded and others seem to be relatively empty, though what's there isn't bad as far as overall variety.  One negative is that, relative to real life, some weapons are unbalanced.  SMGs deal less stopping power than pistols (which fire the same caliber of bullets), assault rifles also have equal stopping power to Agent 47's signature Colt M1911-type .45 caliber pistols, and combat/shooting is biased for close quarters action.  This doesn't detract from the fun factor, but if you're a stickler for realism, you may be a bit disappointed.  Or you can use that as an opportunity to use your imagination, too.  But in either case, if you use a Colt .45 semiauto pistol or the machine pistol versions, you're pretty much set for most things.

Shotguns, though, do what shotguns usually do in such games.  Get in close, ruin someone's weekend, and get out.  There's also sniper rifles.  The scout rifles are quick firing, but do limited damage at range and have fixed zoom scopes.  More versatile sniper rifles have 3, sometimes 4, zoom levels and are reasonably to very powerful, but tend to feature an animation for hit enemies where if you get a headshot or an upper body hit they get flipped over backwards.  This is unrealistic for the lower powered rifles, but can be amusing to watch.

Aside from some weapon re-balancing, the game's pretty good if you want to play it as a stealth oriented shooter, or just a shooter.  And when it comes to eliminating your targets, you can get creative within the game, which you get rewarded for, usually though challenges getting achieved.  Such things help with mastery points, and the more mastery you earn, the more things you unlock, be it weapons, items, gear, or mission starting locations.

Also, the game is pretty open world, and as I said, you rarely fail unless you die.  That means you can do anything from eliminate the targets, to the targets and their entourage/guards, to pretty much living creature on the map.  That said, the more non-targets you eliminate, the more your score gets negatively impacted if you want the Silent Assassin rating.

But in all, a fun game.  I wish there were more weapon options in some areas, and slightly more realistic, but what's there isn't bad and the game's being continually updated with monthly roadmaps getting released.  Hence, fan and community suggestions do get incorporated at times, quite frequently, in fact.

Chauchat vs Breda Model 30: Which One is Worst?

 This is the first in a series of posts about various items (weapons, cars, etc) that combines fact with sardonic-ism.  This will usually compare two things that are generally held to be horrible, and, using research, determine which one is actually worst.  These posts were also inspired by the "World's Worst" books, namely World's Worst Cars and World's Worst Weapons.

Now, here's what are widely held to bet two of the worst automatic weapons ever designed, the French Chauchat from World War I (and also made appearances in World War II, the Spanish Civil War and even the Vietnam War), and the Italian Breda Model 30, used mostly in World War II (also in other conflicts beforehand, such as the Spanish Civil War and the Italo-Eithiopain War).

To begin with, the Chauchat machine gun is widely held to be one of the worst firearms ever designed--no book on crappy weapons is complete without it.  However, more recent research has shown that, perhaps, it wasn't that bad.  

First, the elephant in the room.  The Chauchat wasn't no where near as good as the Browning Automatic Rifle.  But then again, few weapons back then of that type were.  It was cheap, relatively jam-prone, made in a rough-shod manner, and chambered in 8x50mm R Lebel--a round far from ideal in use in self-loading or automatic weapons.

That all being said, the Chauchat had some positive virtues.  It was made mostly out of sheet metal stampings and drawn tubing--manufacturing processes that wouldn't become common until World War II over 20 years later.  This made it easy and inexpensive to make--something that the French desired, as they needed/wanted as many machine guns as they could get, and as quickly as they could possibly get them.  This also lead to well over a quarter of a million Chauchats being made by the end of World War I.  Hence, it was the most produced automatic weapon of the entire conflict.

The fact that the Chauchat survived in used in some numbers reportedly until the Vietnam War does show its longevity, in spite of its flaws.  And yes, the Chauchat was jam prone.  But in truth, this was due to two things:  overheating and its magazine.

The Chauchat tended to overheat if more than 300 rounds was continuously fired though it.  This resulted from the aluminum barrel jacket expanding and catching on the steel outer body of the weapon.  This usually only took a few minutes of cooling to remedy, or by dumping water on the barrel assembly.  As the Chauchat wasn't really designed for sustained fire, this was actually seen as an acceptable flaw.

A much bigger flaw was the Chauchat's magazine, which was a 20 round detachable crescent shaped device with large holes cut in the sides of it.  The cuts were intended to allow the user to check the amount of ammunition he had left.  Of course, this also meant that junk and detritus could easily find its way into the mag and coat the mag with mud, dirt, dust and the like.  With the trench warfare that was common in France and Belgium during World War I, this was easy to find, and the holes in the mag wasn't a desirable feature for obvious reasons.

Also, the 8x50mm R Lebel round, a severely tapered, rimmed cartridge, was ill suited to automatic weapon use.  At the time, though, it was the standard French Army rifle and machine gun round, so the Chauchat's designers had little choice but to use it for logistical reasons.  In fact, the 8mm Lebel round wouldn't be replaced completely until after World War II, though the French designed a successful 7.5x54mm rimless round of more conventional shape in the 1920s, and machine guns and rifles that went with it.

In short, records do show that the magazine was responsible in one way or another for 75% of the Chauchat's jams in combat and on training ranges.

As far as how it worked, the Chauchat used a variation of long recoil inspired by the Remington Model 8 which was designed by John Browning as a hunting rifle.  Interestingly, Browning also designed the BAR, which was a gas operated weapon whose basic mechanism is used in the present day and long running FN MAG 58/M240 machine gun family.  The breech on the Chauchat, like the Model 8 (and like, for example, the gas operated M1 Garand rifle) was locked by a two lug rotating bolt.

Though it was flawed, it was the French World War I equivalent of the British World War II Sten SMG.  It was cheap, available, could be made quickly and cheaply, and for that reason it appealed to the French Army and gave decent account of itself at the end of the day.  Granted, the modern FN Minimi/M249, FN MAG/M240 and even the HK416F rifle are much better weapons than the Chauchat, but that's also comparing weapons of different eras and hence is an apples to oranges comparison.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chauchat

Now the Italian Breda Model 30.  This weapon was the result of an effort dating back to late World War I to get a light machine gun that was in a rifle caliber (in this case the 6.5x52mm Carcano round) and more portable than the Fiat Revelli 1914 tripod mounted medium machine gun.  

First, there was the SIA 1918, which was a relatively light weight machine gun mounted on a light tripod.  Though a reasonable weapon in some ways, it was felt that there was clear room for improvement.  Though a line of development in the 1920s with the Fiat and Breda companies primarily, the Breda Tipo 5 was developed as a direct predecessor to the Model 30.  

The Tipo 5C was mounted on a light tripod with spade grips and a thumb trigger (though it had a conventional buttstock).  There was also a transitional Tipo 5G which had a conventional trigger and pistol grip, and stood on a bipod.  The mass produced Model 30 was the productionized version of the Tipo 5G.

The items that all versions shared in common was they were overmachined and complex to make, and were inefficient and impractical in service.

All versions operated though a short recoil mechanism with a very short recoil stroke.  As such, it's been described as a blowback or delayed blowback weapon, though it in reality used a fully locked breech, as ineffective as it was.  The recoil stroke rotated a locking collar that unlocked a five-lug bolt (which didn't rotate, the locking collar did, though).

All versions of the Tipo 5/Model 30 were fed from a 20 round semi-fixed box magazine.  Typically, the magazine was reloaded using a 20 round horseshoe shaped charger, though it could also be reloaded with loose rounds.  The theoretical advantage of the mag design was that the magazine lips were machined into the receiver and less prone to damage.  

However, the reloading process was slow, and though the mag could be completely removed, this was usually done during field stripping.  Also, should the mag be damaged, the gun could be put out of action until the mag could be replaced, which was problematical on the battlefield.  Also, like the Chauchat, the mag had a cutout to check the contents, though (especially in North Africa in World War II) this merely tended to allow crap to find its was to coat the rounds, which isn't a good thing.

On top of that, due to poor primary extraction (the initial extraction movement that unseats the round from the chamber to ease overall extraction), the Breda used lubricated ammo.  This as achieved though the use of a cartridge oiler.  Given what I just mentioned about the magazine, this wasn't a good feature, as the oil tended to attract said dirt and dust and make a nasty slurry in the chamber of the barrel and other parts of the gun.

All and all, in short, a horrible weapon.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breda_30

So, which is worst:

This is actually a pretty hands down answer from my POV.  The Breda Model 30 is by far the worst of the two.  The Chauchat in a lot of ways wasn't very good, that much is obvious.  But it has some excuses to be not great, and it's not quite as maligned as accepted urban legend makes it out to be.

The Breda Model 30, though, is way to complex for its own good.  It was more difficult to make than say a BAR, or a Bren/Vz 26 LMG of the period, both of which were pretty intensive and somewhat expensive to make.  But for that difficulty of manufacture, the Model 30 was junk.  It was more jam prone than the Chauchat, used oiled ammo (as pointed out, generally not a good thing) and was slow to reload.  

Reports from the World War II era seem to indicate that the Model 30, especially one that wasn't in top condition, was so slow to reload and prone to jamming that a US soldier with a M1 Garand semi-automatic rifle often could produce a higher volume of fire than an Italian Breda 30 gunner could.  That's not to knock the Italian machine gunner, as it wasn't his fault that he was saddled with such a pile of crap.  

In spite of that, a Chauchat gunner and a Breda Model 30 gunner did have one thing in common:  it was accepted that they were among the most dangerous troops to come across at the time they were faced.  During World War I, man portable automatic were a rarity, except for the Chauchat until late in the conflict.  Hence, for all its flaws, the Chauchat did have some right to be feared by the enemy because it was at least man portable when such weapons were far from common.

In the case of the Breda Model 30, it tended to stand in for semi-auto rifles or even submachine guns.  The Italians didn't field semi-auto rifles in any notable numbers during World War II (ironically, the Italians adopted the M1 Garand following World War II, even license building them and using the M1's design to develop the Beretta BM-59 and some design elements of the M1 influenced the Beretta AR-70 and AR-70/90 5.56mm assault rifles).  Also, until late 1942, submachine guns weren't common in the Italian infantry units.  Even though the Beretta MAB 38 family were commonly used by Italian paratroopers, the Carabineri (the Italian Armed Forces civil police agency that's still a part of the modern Italian Armed Forces), commando units and the Blackshirts, they weren't commonly issued to Italian infantry until late 1942/1943.

That all being said, the Breda Model 30 is probably the worst, most craptastic automatic weapon ever designed.

For further reading on the Chauchat or Breda Model 30, check out the Forgotten Weapons website and YouTube pages.

France vs Germany and Italy Expanded

 Hi everyone.

This is a bit of an expansion of my previous blog post.  My intention here is to explain some of the differences between the World War II era and the modern era.

Firstly, mechanized warfare as we know it now had its origins during World War II.  However, it was in it's infancy.  One big thing we have today that no one had back then was the helicopter.  In the World War II era, it was absolutely new technology.  In fact, it was just invented by the time the conflict broke out.  Hence, the modern image of spec ops troops or paratroopers dropping from helos, simply didn't happen.  The capabilities--both utility and offensively--wouldn't be explored in depth until late in the conflict and wouldn't start to be utilized until the Korean War a few years later.

Also, paratrooper units were just being looked at with the advent of large amounts of transport aircraft that could move men and equipment relatively long distances quickly by the standards of the time.  It should be noted that the one really big German operation involving paratroopers being used as intended was initially little short of a disaster.  Operation Mercury--the Axis invasion of Crete--involved German paratroopers arriving by air and German and Italian troops arriving more conventionally by sea.

Unfortunately for the paratroopers, the British and other Allied units benefited from knowing in advance about the invasion, as the British had just broken the German's Enigma codes.  Which meant that in spite of being relatively poorly armed and the Axis having near complete air superiority, the Allies simply took pot-shots at paratoopers as their either jumped from planes or after they landed--and usually lost their main weapons.  This resulted in German troops often armed only with pistols being out-ranged and out-gunned by troops with rifles.  The paratroopers also lacked automatic weapons, which didn't help, either.

This convinced Hitler that paratroopers had little future, which ironically lead to them being deployed as specialist forces--similar to a large extent to today.  The Allies, though, learned from the German difficulties and successfully used them against the Germans and Japanese in the later years of World War II.

This also lead the Germans to develop the FG-42 automatic rifle, which lead to several innovations still being exploited today:  

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FG_42

Now, as to material today vs now.  Research carried out before and during (and after) World War II confirmed that the average soldier with an iron sighted rifle didn't stand much of a chance of hitting much of anything as far as a man-sized target beyond 300-400 yards range.  This generally represented wasted potential as far as bolt action or even semiautomatic rifles designed around cartridges that were designed to reach out to 1200 yards or so.  This realization among others--such as rifle caliber weapons were pretty useless against vehicles, and overall firepower mattered more in infantry vs infantry matters--lead to selective fire full auto capable automatic rifles that largely took the place of both full powered rifles and submachine guns.

In something of an ironic twist, modern ammunition and items such as optical sights has pushed out range again.  Instead of 300 yards or less, the average soldier can now, even with a 5.56mm assault rifle--engage targets out to 600 yards or more with a considerable degree of success.  Also, due to increased use of body armor by various enemies, and attempts to out-range soldiers with assault rifles by using marksmen rifles and general purpose machine guns (GPMGs) that fire full power ammunition, has lead to the .30 caliber rifle and machine gun making somewhat of a comeback as far as squad level designated marksmen's rifles (DMR) and lightweight GPMGs.  

So, what does this mean if Nazi Germany tried to invade modern-day France?  Well, in a ground war, Germany would probably be screwed.  I already touched upon armored vehicles, aircraft, and naval vessels in a bit of detail (even if it involves looking up links).  But seeing as how the majority of German soldiers though out World War II were armed with bolt action Mauser rifles, confronting French troops armed with Heckler & Koch HK416 rifles and FAMAS rifles (which are being replaced by the 416), that can fire in semi- and full automatic, and firing lethal and accurate 5.56mm NATO ammo and equipped with optical sights and other equipment means that peer to peer, the firepower rests with France.  

Even if the Germans went to the StG-44 (the first mass produced assault rifle that entered service late in World War II), the 416 especially but also the FAMAS can reach out to further ranges, and even though 5.56mm seems small compared to 7.92x33mm round of the StG-44, it's more accurate and does better at penetrating cover such as flak jackets and helmets, and has pretty nasty terminal effects on soft targets, especially with newer ammunition developed in recent years.

It also doesn't help that the French have the FN MAG 58 GPMG and FN Minimi squad automatic weapon (SAW), which are excellent weapons of their type, and the FN SCAR HPR (High Precision Rifle), a self-loading (or semiautomatic) sniper and marksman's rifle that is just as accurate as the equivalent WWII German Mauser sniper rifle while offering more firepower with similarly lethal rounds (7.62mm NATO vs 7.92mm Mauser, both rounds offer similar performance).

And of course, what helped drive a lot of these innovations is improved mobility of both spec ops forces and regular infantry.  Though the Germans had half tracks and transport planes during World War II, things have moved on.  Armored Personnel Carries (APCs), Infantry Fighting Vehicles (IFVs) and armored cars and light vehicles offer much better performance and capabilities vs their World War II ancestors.  This increases the abilities of the modern French Army to hit hard and run fast vs World War II Germany.  Ironically, the Germans were able to do the same in the early war years for much the same reasons.  That being said, the Germans had to rely on horse-drawn artillery for much of the conflict, and they also lacked an assault gun (a form of mobile artillery support) early on, too.

And, as an aside, it's ironic that the French are adopting a French rifle as their main service weapon (HK is a German company), which I believe that I mentioned previously.  It's also perhaps somewhat ironic that Germany are reportedly set later this year to adopt a similar rifle.  The HK416 A8 is similar to the 416F in broad specs, but has a longer (16.5 inch vs 14.5 inch) barrel that's lighter, a newer design of handguard, and a 90 degree selector switch/safety lever rather than the AR-15 inspired 180 degree lever.  The German Army and Navy spec ops use the HK416 A7 as the G95, which is similar to the A8 with a shorter barrel and longer handguard.

So that's more on how things stacked up as far as now vs then.

Germany and Italy vs France (Then and Now).

 This is post number one of the series where I compare the Axis and other armed forces of World War II with what they faced--and would be facing today.

I'll provide master lists of items used by both sides being compared, which will be sourced from Wikipedia, that you can read at your leisure.  This is me balancing trying to include a lot of info whilst not turning each entry into what will probably be an even larger novel than it'll already be.

These articles will mostly talk about land based and aviation weapons, since those are my main areas of "expertise", though I'll also include naval/seaborne weapons whenever possible.  So here's the lists of French, German and Italian armed forces equipment of the World War II period:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_German_military_equipment_of_World_War_II

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_World_War_II_military_aircraft_of_Germany

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Italian_Army_equipment_in_World_War_II

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Regia_Aeronautica_aircraft_used_in_World_War_II

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:World_War_II_vehicles_of_Italy

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:World_War_II_armoured_fighting_vehicles_of_Italy

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:World_War_II_naval_ships_of_Italy

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_World_War_II_weapons_of_France

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_aircraft_of_the_French_Air_Force_during_World_War_II

In overview, France was in logistical chaos by the time World War II hit.  For example, even though they were on the verge of being the second country after the US to adopt a semiautomatic/self-loading rifle (after the US with the M1 Garand) with the MAS 40 rifle, all French troops were armed in reality with a mix of World War I era and earlier bolt action rifles.  Mostly, these were Berthier bolt action rifles from World War I, namely the M1907/15 M16 (not to be confused with the US M16 rifle that came years after World War II ended) that was introduced in 1916.  Some of these were also the M34 variant.  The M16 was in 8x50mm Lebel and was fed from a 5 round fixed magazine loaded by an en-bloc clip.  The M34 was rebarreled to 7.5x54mm French and used a 5 round fixed mag loaded by a Mauser type stripper clip charger.  Some reservist carried M1886 Lebel rifles, which were outdated soon after they were introduced and featured a by then certainly idiosyncratic tube magazine feed.

This also leads to the fact that the ordinance system wasn't in great shape, either.  The Army had two rifle cartridges, 3 pistol cartridges (8x27mm M1892, .32 ACP, and 7.65x20mm French, which was and basically still is a proprietary cartridge).  The Air Force wasn't much better.  Not just did they have a mix of French and American aircraft of various vintage, they had 7.5mm French, .303 British and 8x50mm Lebel rounds for their machine guns to deal with.

Now, enough with the gloom and doom for France.  What if Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy confronted modern day France?  A France with one of the largest all-professional armed forces in Europe, armed with modern automatic weapons and Mach 2+ capable fighter aircraft?  Let's just say that France probably wouldn't have fallen in a matter of weeks.

Here's a list of modern French Armed Forces equipment:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_equipment_of_the_French_Army

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Air_and_Space_Force#Aircraft_inventory

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_active_French_Navy_ships

The modern French Army benefits from, maybe ironically, items that the German Army introduced at various points in World War II or shortly before.  The main rifle for the modern French Army, also ironically, is German in origin.  The Heckler & Koch HK416F (F indicating French model) is the French Army spec version of the popular HK416 rifle, which is a gas piston operated AR-15 derivative.  The French Army version differs primarily in that its got an integral rifle grenade launcher on the barrel--the French have always loved rifle grenades in one form or another since World War I.  It also fires in both semi- and fully automatic modes, which allows it to replace semiautomatic (let alone bolt action) rifles and submachine guns--self loaders and SMGs were short in the French inventory during World War II.  This is also helped by the fact that most German troops in World War II, let alone the 1940 era of the conflict, were armed with bolt action Mauser K98k rifles.

But what about caliber?  The Mauser is in 7.92x57mm Mauser, while the 416 is in 5.56x45mm NATO/.223 Remington.  Well, the Mauser will hit harder, but even at most combat ranges in World War II (which rarely exceeded 300-500 yards/meters), that matters little compared to the 416's superior fire power.  Not to mention that in overseas missions recently, French troops have reported that they've successfully engaged targets to beyond 600 meters with the 416.  

The Germans had the MG34, one of the first true general purpose machine guns.  To counter that, modern France has the FN MAG GPMG and the FN Minimi squad automatic weapon.  Not to mention that modern France is a member of NATO, which means service rifles/SAWs are in 5.56x45mm NATO (.223 Remington), GPMGs and sniper rifles are in 7.62x51mm NATO (.308 Winchester), and pistols and SMGs are in 9x19mm NATO (9mm Luger).  So no more logistical issues that plagued France back in 1940. 

And fighter aircraft?  France of the modern era has the Dassault Mirage 2000 series and the Dassault Rafale.  Both of which are supersonic capable (Rafale has a top speed of over Mach 1.8, Mirage of over Mach 2), and though they can't dogfight a Messerschmitt Me-109, just passing over a squadron of them at supersonic speed will cause a pressure wave that would take out said squadron.

Yes, I know that history is what it is, but it's interesting to think what things could've been like if modern equipment and tactics intermingled with what the past had.

Plans For My Blog

 Hi Everyone.

I've decided on a couple of things for my blog.  I'll continue (actually, in reality, start) the Philadelphia Experiment posts, and one of those is coming soon, maybe as soon as Thursday.  

But I've also decided to do a new series of posts that focuses on history called "The Weapons That Lost the War".  This is not only about the infantry weapons, vehicles, artillery, and other items that it can be said lost the war for their unfortunate users (or won the war in spite of on occasion).  It'll go into why said article of equipment was bad, why it was designed, its purpose, and what factors lead it to at best mediocrity, or in some cases, downright horribleness.

I'll also be posting more about stuff that I've been doing and following.  Eventually, as we get closer to August, I'll try and do a post about the 24 Hours of Le Mans, for example.  I'll also talk more about gaming, stuff I've done or plan on doing with friends, outings and other such things.

So that's what I have planned going forward.  I'll also try and be more active on here, too.

Everyone have a good one.

The Philadelphia Experiment, or X Wouldn't Want to Screw with Y Today...

 Hi everyone.

This is a series of blogs that I've been thinking about writing for a while now.  It takes its name from a 1984 sci-fi film based on the World War II urban legend of the same name.  In that film, contemporary technology intermingles with that of the past.

 As someone who's kinda big time into World War II era history, I also have to admit that I'm also interested in modern armed forces technology, and how both compare and stack up.  Namely, most of us know how Nazi Germany overran most of continental Europe, and Imperial Japan dominated the Pacific until the Allies retaliated and gained the initiative following the Battle of Midway.  Also, Soviet Russia/the Soviet Union was also bent on expanding its influence at the time, and seized several eastern European countries, such as Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and, for a time, parts of Poland.  The Soviets also tried to take over Finland, and succeeded (albeit at heavy costs) at annexing some relatively small parts of Finland into their territory.

It was actually the Finnish/Russian conflict that got me thinking about this topic.  Namely, how would these major powers of the World War II era stack up against some of the territories that they conquered back then, but if they were confronted by those countries modern armed forces?

I also found two videos posted by the French Army on their Armee de Terre (French: Army of the Land) YouTube channel that commemorated World War I where in which the technology of over 100 years ago is compared to what's in use today.

The first that I found is the newer of the two, were the M1886 Lebel rifle (one of several the French used in World War I, and even to an extent in World War II) is compared to the present day Heckler & Koch HK416F, a version of the 416 created for the French Army to replace the long serving and long out of production FAMAS rifle.  Also, compare and contrast the overall kit from 1918 vs 2018:

 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3oyGo0_GNV4

 The other is a comparison between the World War I St. Chamond tank and the modern day Leclerc main battle tank.  As with the rifles and soldier kit, armored vehicle tech has clearly moved on leaps and bounds over the past century:

  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IKJYE6N9rTg

 The point being is I don't think that the land grabbing political empires of the World War II era would have such and easy time if they came up against modern armed forces with modern technology and equipment.  Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan, and even the Soviets would have all kinds of trouble taking over the countries they so easily overran back in that time if they tried to conquer them today, or were facing their modern armed forces back then.

 I'll also link to lists and articles, so as to not make my own posts overly long, but I'll still delve into details of each side's strengths and weaknesses and what advantages and difficulties they'd have.

I hope you enjoy.