Why Conscripts have PPShs: Mixing weapons and why it works

The Soviet Union conscripted millions of barely literate peasants into its vast army during the Second World War. Due to the shortages in training time, it became readily apparent that average Red Army soldier was not going to be able to achieve a high degree of marksmanship regardless of the quality of the rifle issued to him. However, the Stavka also noted that this could be overcome with the use of submachineguns as they were cheaper than rifles to build, easier to become effective with and were extremely effective at the close ranges that most fighting was happening at. As a result, the USSR fielded a huge number of PPSh-41 and PPS-43s during the war.

In game, there has been much criticism of the conscript PPSh upgrade, whether it is too expensive, too powerful or perhaps a bad idea to give conscripts a mix of long range bolt action rifles and short range submachineguns. I stand by the notion that conscript PPShs mixed with Mosin-Nagant rifles is not only historically accurate, but also fits the unit design of conscripts in general.

Put into as few words as possible, conscripts are generalists that counter other units not by being better at them at what they’re good at, but by being better at them at what they’re bad at. Conscripts best short range units at long range and long range units at short range. The PPSh upgrade allows a conscript squad to enhance their flanking power against team weapons while maintaining their role as a long range plinker against short range troops, and as a close range assaulter vs long range troops. This mix is entirely keeping with the Soviet faction design of flexibility and combined arms.

In short, keep PPSh conscripts good at countering what other units suck at, but balance them so they don’t beat things at what they’re good at.

Invised an offtopic (and a bit insulting) post.

It's not about them HAVING SMGs. It's about how the SMGs perform.

This goes for literally all Allied SMGs.

You put an Axis SMG-wielding unit up against an Allied SMG-wielding unit at melee range, and the Allied SMGs ABSOLUTELY SHRED the Axis unit and instawipe the unit even if it starts retreating after one second of being fired upon.

Meanwhile, all Axis SMG units take half a year to wittle enemies down to half health and NEVER wipe ANYTHING unless they catch the unit on retreat with 10 health points and one model left.

You want historical accuracy and the originally intended game design that was supposed to make Conscripts incompetent but zergy? You switch the performance between Allied SMGs and Axis SMGs, so that the many-model Allied squads have to stand in close range of enemy units for a long time to deal serious damage, while the low-model Axis squads murder anyone who dares get into close range with them -- then it'll be accurate and balanced.

It's not about them HAVING SMGs. It's about how the SMGs perform.

This goes for literally all Allied SMGs.

You put an Axis SMG-wielding unit up against an Allied SMG-wielding unit at melee range, and the Allied SMGs ABSOLUTELY SHRED the Axis unit and instawipe the unit even if it starts retreating after one second of being fired upon.

Meanwhile, all Axis SMG units take half a year to wittle enemies down to half health and NEVER wipe ANYTHING unless they catch the unit on retreat with 10 health points and one model left.

You want historical accuracy and the originally intended game design that was supposed to make Conscripts incompetent but zergy? You switch the performance between Allied SMGs and Axis SMGs, so that the many-model Allied squads have to stand in close range of enemy units for a long time to deal serious damage, while the low-model Axis squads murder anyone who dares get into close range with them -- then it'll be accurate and balanced.

The bullshit is strong with this one.

I'll be brief here.

Axis SMG units are:
-weapon of 2nd cheapest unit in game and not even a combat unit, but a builder
-weapon of T0 call-in that does not require any upgrade
and
-early game weapon upgrade coming with a package with other goods, like rec acc bonus and nades, on a primarly long range infantry.

Allied SMGs are:
-literally ALL doctrinal
-most on elite infantry balanced to hardcounter squads at close range
-arrive no sooner then 10th minute, unless you coune meme AI partisans.
The two allied SMG units which are exception are:
-british REs, which arrive much later then any of axis SMG units.
-assault engies, which suck

The two allied SMG units which are exception are:
-british REs, which arrive much later then any of axis SMG units.
-assault engies, which suck

Vehicles crews with grease gun SMGs available at minute 1 through decrewing the wc51. Checkmate.

Well this isn’t the topic I was trying to talk about.....

What I was originally trying to say is that cons are fine the way they play with mixed weapons. They don’t need to be an all SMG unit when upgraded or have a different upgrade like i have heard suggested elsewhere.

If I were to suggest any change at all I would say make the upgrade cost 30 munitions and give only two SMGs instead of three. Upgrading to PPShs should be a straight up buff for most situations much like the StG44 upgrade for Volks.

You want historical accuracy and the originally intended game design that was supposed to make Conscripts incompetent but zergy? You switch the performance between Allied SMGs and Axis SMGs, so that the many-model Allied squads have to stand in close range of enemy units for a long time to deal serious damage, while the low-model Axis squads murder anyone who dares get into close range with them -- then it'll be accurate and balanced.

Please do some actual research. The Germans only produced about 1.1 million MP40s, compared to 1.75 million Thompson’s of all types, about half a million grease guns 6 million PPSh-41s and 2 million PPS43s and 4 million STENs. Cross reference those numbers against all the other weapons fielded by each warring nation (such as the K98k at about 16 million rifles) and you’ll find that MP40s should in fact be the least common SMG of all. Not to mention how realistically poor they perform compared to the better US and Russian SMGs (realitive rate of fire, controllability, cartridge, reliability etc.) To be fair, STENs are kinda crap, but you just gotta love ‘em for being such an ugly duck. Lol

Basically, if you’re too lazy to actually read, or maybe if you just can’t, go watch some of Ian’s videos on Forgotten Weapons on YouTube. He will enlighten you to your folly if you believe everything German is somehow better.

He will enlighten you to your folly if you believe everything German is somehow better.

But what if everything better is somehow German?

But what if everything better is somehow German?

Mein Gott im Himmel!!!! XD

When you only spam conscripts with ppsh and win early game, balance is off and it needs a nerf.

Combined arms should always be the superior choice.

When you only spam conscripts with ppsh and win early game, balance is off and it needs a nerf.

Combined arms should always be the superior choice.

When opponent has 7 squads total, but you decided you can take him on with 4-5, its not balance that is not as it should be, its your investment.

Game aside, I find it funny how OP claims soviets produced smgs becouse they were easier to train soldiers for. Smgs being much harder to control and score a hit than rifles were actually the reason why soviets dumped all of their smg programmes before losing a war to finland. Only then, they decided that one of the main reasons for the loss was superior infantry tactic of their opponent, who deployed single smg to every infantry squad. That smg was given to squad leader, who was the most experienced and best trained soldier, that could control the gun in close combat and could lead the charge of his men. Similarly, existance of shock troops as separate units was coused by the fact they needed longer training. Typical frontline troops did indeed get smgs as well, but only later in the war when soviets could train all the soldiers a little better then in the early years. In fact, a badly trained soldier with smg will soon be defenceless shooting all his ammo off. That is why they gave them rifles that shoot slower and need manual reloading.

Obviously, the game is dated around 43-44 in the eastern front so in this case having some soldiers with smg and some with rifles makes sense historically. But it is definitely not becouse smgs need less training.

Game aside, I find it funny how OP claims soviets produced smgs becouse they were easier to train soldiers for. Smgs being much harder to control and score a hit than rifles were actually the reason why soviets dumped all of their smg programmes before losing a war to finland. Only then, they decided that one of the main reasons for the loss was superior infantry tactic of their opponent, who deployed single smg to every infantry squad. That smg was given to squad leader, who was the most experienced and best trained soldier, that could control the gun in close combat and could lead the charge of his men. Similarly, existance of shock troops as separate units was coused by the fact they needed longer training. Typical frontline troops did indeed get smgs as well, but only later in the war when soviets could train all the soldiers a little better then in the early years. In fact, a badly trained soldier with smg will soon be defenceless shooting all his ammo off. That is why they gave them rifles that shoot slower and need manual reloading.

Obviously, the game is dated around 43-44 in the eastern front so in this case having some soldiers with smg and some with rifles makes sense historically. But it is definitely not becouse smgs need less training.

Another example is how (IIRC) the modern-day US army changed the M16 to be only single fire and 3 round burst mainly because they found soldiers would panic and waste ammo by spraying entire magazines uncontrollably if given full auto as they were in Vietnam. Worth pointing out that a lot of the soldiers in question were also probably green draftees (basically conscripts).

Another example is how (IIRC) the modern-day US army changed the M16 to be only single fire and 3 round burst mainly because they found soldiers would panic and waste ammo by spraying entire magazines uncontrollably if given full auto as they were in Vietnam. Worth pointing out that a lot of the soldiers in question were also probably green draftees (basically conscripts).

Sorry dudes, but you’re just flat out wrong on that one.

The roughly 8 pound M16A2 in burst mode firing M855 5.56mm is not comparable to a nearly ten pound PPSh firing a pistol cartridge. Shooting a real rifle and scoring a hit on a moving target is hard. That’s it. Shooting a burst from an SMG is more likely to result in a hit by a poorly trained soldier compared to a rifle.

I have shot several machine guns in my life, and I will tell you that WWII era SMGs are heavy bitches. This makes them easy to control and basically reduce aiming to a point and spray technique. Rifles are hard, you gotta aim and make it count every time and that’s just not an easy thing to teach when the invaders are outside your front door.

I could go on for days on why you’re wrong, or I can direct you to Ian at forgotten weapons in YouTube and he can show you what I am talking about. He has videos on lots of WWII SMGs that would be highly interesting and informative to anyone with an interest in WWII.

Or you can come visit me in Arizona. I’ve got a small collection of several WWII guns that we can go out and play with. Trust me, I know what I’m talking about.