Discord-logo.jpg Join our Discord!
If you have been locked out of your account you can request a password reset here.

Talk:Battlefield V

From Internet Movie Firearms Database - Guns in Movies, TV and Video Games
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Cut Weapons

Frommer Stop Machine Pistol

The previous game's Frommer Stop Machine Pistol was found in the game files and usable, but never implemented.

Frommer Stop Machine Pistol - .380 ACP

Nagant M1895 "Suicide Revolver"

Another cut "weapon" found in the game files was the previous game's Nagant M1895 Revolver, albeit in a configuration based on an infamous photoshopped image of a Nagant Revolver in a "suicide" configuration. The revolver could actually be hipfired and shoot targets immediately behind the player character, but aiming down the sights and firing would insta-kill the player character.

Nagant M1895 Revolver - 7.62x38R Nagant

Lanchester Mk.I

The British copy of the Haenel-Schmeisser MP28/II, the Lanchester Mk.I, was found in the game's files and on dog tags. Files indicate that the Lanchester fired at 600 RPM and was the direct opposite of the MP28, as the Lanchester favored aiming down sights, unlike the MP28.

Lanchester Mk.I - 9x19mm

Patchett Machine Carbine

The predecessor to the Sterling, the Patchett Mk I, was confirmed in three dog tags and found in the files, but never released.

Patchett Machine Carbine Mk 1 - 9x19mm Parabellum

M1917 Enfield

The previous game's M1917 Enfield is present in some of the game files, but was never implemented.

M1917 Enfield - .30-06 Springfield

Other Equipment Notes

Brixia Model 35 Round

A 45mm Brixia M35 mortar round is found on the Veiled Threat outfit.

M8 Rocket

M8 rockets are used by the T34 Calliope tanks in The Last Tiger.


Videos and more info

A couple great resources you guys should take a look at: JackFrags' video on tons of new features and design, and Flakfire's trailer breakdown with tons of details. Alex T Snow (talk) 18:14, 24 May 2018 (EDT)


So, ignoring the elephantess in the room (which, if you're worried about it, bear in mind that the devs do have several months to listen to the community's backlash, so there's that), what are your thoughts on the game so far? I've heard mixed opinions on the gameplay mechanics and changes being introduced, and I'm curious as to what people here think about some of the things to come (e.g. the constructible fortifications, the squad-reinforcement vehicles and rockets, the spotting changes, the limited vehicle ammo, the Hardline-esque TTK, the Grand Operations gamemode, the universal revives, the towable emplaced guns, the reduced reserve ammo and health regen, etc.). What are your thoughts? Pyr0m4n14c (talk) 20:00, 10 June 2018 (EDT)

My thoughts are that I love literally everything we've seen and heard so far, everything feels like an improvement. Not really the most in-depth thoughts, but I've got nothing bad to say. Alex T Snow (talk) 20:07, 10 June 2018 (EDT)
Lets see how good the campaign will be... hoping that they will add even the most obscure WW2 guns--Dannyguns (talk) 03:28, 11 June 2018 (EDT)
I'm just bummed out that we're getting yet another WW2 game.--Aidoru (talk) 03:45, 11 June 2018 (EDT)
Well, is just that both companies had adopted a "Follow the Leader" policy. They care about getting a lot of sales, not original content. Hardline? Original (and I loved it) but didnt sold out well. BF1?? Semi-original. And sold better. CoD WW2 sold because fans got righteously tired of the sci-fi trend and got back to roots. BF:V is trying to do the same. Well in 20th Century alone a lot of war happened from the most famous WW1 and WW2 to the most obscure ones like the Sino-Indian War,The Troubles and the Timor East War. I would kinda like it to see a AAA FPS set in those conflicts.--Dannyguns (talk) 11:03, 11 June 2018 (EDT)

Turner SMLE

The Turner SMLE semi-auto conversion is an odd choice by DICE considering the real gun was rejected by the Canadian Army. I would've preferred the Howell from BF1 or other more successful conversions like the Rieder or even the Charlton. --MJ79 (talk) 03:27, 8 September 2018 (EDT)

I'm not sure if the Howell saw much use during WWII, though. As for the Rieder and the Charlton, they would have practically gone to the machine guns class. --Ultimate94ninja (talk) 04:36, 8 September 2018 (EDT)
Anyway, given all the liberties that DICE took for weapon choices in BF1, I wouldn't be surprised if they do the same for the following game. In fact, BF5 currently has the Selbstlader M1916, which I don't think it really fits in it. --Ultimate94ninja (talk) 04:42, 8 September 2018 (EDT)
BFV has the M1916 because they needed a British-or-German non-DLC SLR from BF1, for the matching skin set. And it's a neat rifle, I'm happy to see it again; the more the merrier, really. Alex T Snow (talk) 12:38, 8 September 2018 (EDT)
Well yeah, it's a fantastic weapon; my point was just that it doesn't exactly fit in a WWII game. --Ultimate94ninja (talk) 16:18, 23 September 2018 (EDT)
I think the Selbstlader 1916 is probably just standing in for another German semi-auto rifle they haven't announced yet, similar to how the MP18 Arras skin is going to be transferred over to the MP28. In a similar vein, I also believe the Steyr m.95 is going to be the 1930 version as well.--AgentGumby (talk) 16:34, 23 September 2018 (EDT)

Welgun (etc)

Please don't remove it and similar things from the page, it's almost certainly going to be in the first batch of guns added after launch, I'd bet on within the first month. Ditto for the Vickers K, and given we saw the Hi-Power in concept art, it seems likely it'll be an SAS / commando themed set of stuff. Alex T Snow (talk) 04:45, 3 October 2018 (EDT)

Is there a better way to present cosmetic modifications?

Hey Nanomat, I like what you're doing here with the cosmetic modifications, but I wonder if there might be some better way to present them. Having a specific section for Sten Mk V for example isn't very helpful when the weapon doesn't actually appear in-game, just parts of it. --Wuzh (talk) 18:09, 9 November 2018 (EST)

Well, maybe we should use the CODWW2 method with subsections. --Nanomat (talk) 18:22, 9 November 2018 (EST)
Well, in CODWW2, the variants are full weapons; here they're just small parts. I think guns that appear as parts and not full guns should be all sorted into a subsection distinct from all weapon classes. --Wuzh (talk) 18:38, 9 November 2018 (EST)
I feel either subsections (like the pistol carbine variants and such on the Battlefield 1 page), or, alternatively, a whole separate section at the very bottom of the page dedicated to parts of guns that aren't actually in the game, but have customization parts (as some movie pages do with giant gun walls and the like) would be best. EDIT: Grease Gun flash hider? Neat. Considering we also have Shermans, including a Calliope variant, in the campaign (as well as that giant mortar German halftrack), we might be getting the Americans sooner rather than later. Alex T Snow (talk) 00:52, 10 November 2018 (EST)
My current format matches with the "whole separate section at the very bottom of the page" format you mentioned. --Wuzh (talk) 03:26, 10 November 2018 (EST)
Yeah, I noticed that right after I posted here. >.> Alex T Snow (talk) 14:48, 10 November 2018 (EST)
Just to point out, almost all outfits for the British team are actually American so technically the US are already in as far as I'm concerned. In fact, the PROPER British uniforms are nowhere to be found :D --Nanomat (talk) 17:26, 10 November 2018 (EST)
I honestly can't tell the difference, pretty much all the gear in the game looks the same to my eyes; helmets (stahlhelm, brodie) and officer uniforms are the only things that look identifiable past "WWII-era gear" to me. :P Alex T Snow (talk) 17:34, 10 November 2018 (EST)

Scopes and optics

This isn't my area of expertise at all, but if we could eventually get IDs for all the optic options in the game (as BF1's page has), that would be fantastic (I see the 98k has some already). It would be really helpful if wanting to use proper, or at least thematically-appropriate optics, I just have no idea what's what. IIRC the 6x scope for the Enfield is correct for it, though I'm not sure what the 3x scope is. Alex T Snow (talk) 17:38, 10 November 2018 (EST)

We will need photos of the optics or some video showing them all. --Nanomat (talk) 17:53, 10 November 2018 (EST)
I'm happy to take photos of whatever, once I can play again on the 15th (since my 10 hours are up). I'm not sure if we want console screenshots on here though. Alex T Snow (talk) 18:07, 10 November 2018 (EST)
My screenshots are from the Xbox One and I think Highphighs are from the PS4. For the purpose of 600p displayed images, I don’t think 4K/Nvidia Ray tracing enables images have to be the standard...--AgentGumby (talk) 18:41, 17 November 2018 (EST)
...I suppose I had just assumed everyone else here was on PC, I'm not entirely sure why. >.> Alex T Snow (talk) 16:52, 18 November 2018 (EST)

Gun customization screens

Can we use photos like this here from reddit to illustrate the weapon customization items or somebody who has the game is gonna take screens? --Nanomat (talk) 18:04, 17 November 2018 (EST)

New datamine info

From Flakfire, 24 weapons, and a bunch of otber cool stuff too! Alex T Snow (talk) 16:24, 23 November 2018 (EST)

Anachronistic campaign

British paratroopers dropping from a US plane wearing US inspired uniforms on Norway and using Stens a year before they were in full production.

STG44s in the hands of anybody before 1944

The presence of the M1 Carbine anywhere in the war before 1944

A Tiger tank in Africa in 1941 and also in Norway.

British never conducted air raids during the day. That was America. Excalibur01 (talk) 17:35, 27 November 2018 (EST)

Storytelling > Year-by-year authenticity. I don't see how what amounts to a rant helps discuss how to improve the page either. Stens are an iconic part of British commando raids, therefore that's what they have; it's intuitive, rather than being strictly technically accurate. The Tiger is present in Africa because it's the same crew that will feature in The Last Tiger, and making them drive a Panzer IV here throws all sorts of wrenches into storytelling consistency. This is also why the Tiger is in Narvik, because, if you somehow hadn't noticed, each section transitions to the next with the same vehicle. For a way this could relate to the actual page, put a blanket note in the introduction that states that (as Battlefield has always done) anything that existed before VJ Day is fair game, and can appear on any map/setting for story and/or gameplay purposes. Alex T Snow (talk) 23:08, 27 November 2018 (EST)
We always talk about inconsistencies in whatever page. Historical inaccuracy is part of this site. If it states what year it is and a piece of equipment didn't exist at the time, we point it out Excalibur01 (talk) 10:42, 28 November 2018 (EST)
What Excalibur said. I don't understand why some people recently have too much of a problem with the fact that we point out the numerous inaccuracies about weapons in media, when this has always been the purpose of this site. --Ultimate94ninja (talk) 11:10, 28 November 2018 (EST)
I would personally argue that many people have a point with IMFDB pointing out inaccuracies because IMFDB has a very blunt way of stating these inaccuracies, which gives off an arrogant impression (incorrect this, erroneous that) rather than an educational impression. I personally thinks that while pointing out inaccuracies is a part of IMFDB, we also need to take into consideration why these inaccuracies are made, explain them, rather than just bluntly saying "this wrong". --Wuzh (talk) 13:15, 28 November 2018 (EST)
No harm in being blunt, imo.--Aidoru (talk) 02:08, 29 November 2018 (EST)

There is, in fact, a lot of harm in not understanding the creators' intent and bigger picture. Even the phrasing "being blunt" is already problematic, as it assumes strict adherence to reality is how a work of fiction (not a documentary) and a video game (not a simulator) is supposed to be judged. Acting as if that's how we should go about things will only make us look like a bunch of overly-literal, small-minded people who have no understanding of thematic elements, storytelling, or gameplay. It amounts to the same sort of useless complaining as "why can an adrenaline shot bring someone back who was blasted in the face with a tank shell?" Because it's good for gameplay. We should not aspire to be the sorts of people who ask uninspired, narrow-minded questions like that. If we want to note the Sten is out of place in the Prologue, an appropriate phrasing would be "The Sten is anachronistic for the raid, as it wasn't produced until 1941, however it was likely chosen by the developers as it's an iconic weapon of the British special forces during the war, helping to set the scene for the player.". Or something to that effect. Alex T Snow (talk) 03:06, 29 November 2018 (EST)

Alex, we are not here to make up excuses for things being the way they are. If the way they are is not the way they were, we simply say so. If people think that's arrogant or whatever, that's their problem, not ours. There is nothing "elitist" about stating facts plainly and unapologetically, and "elitism" is just a tiresome buzzword that means almost nothing anyway. Evil Tim (talk) 21:14, 30 November 2018 (EST)
Yeah, IMFDB is a website based around firearms in media, not media based around firearms. There's nothing wrong with speculating about the reasons why a developer or movie director chose a certain firearm despite it being anachronistic on say, the Battlefield wiki since that wiki is based around the series. But I think its sorta out of the purview of this wiki to speculate UNLESS the developer has come out and stated the reason(s) why.--Aidoru (talk) 00:51, 1 December 2018 (EST)
That or if it's reasonably clear why they might have done it, like say there's an Airsoft gun that does a particular thing the in-game gun does and the real one doesn't. I mean you could certainly get away with saying "the stereotypical image of a WW2 British Commando gives him a Sten, but in reality..." (as with, say, commenting on almost all gangsters in media having Thompsons even though it was very rare IRL), but certainly not try to write fanfiction about how it "sets the scene" or something silly like that. Evil Tim (talk) 02:39, 1 December 2018 (EST)

Anachronistic stuff is not new in games, remember BO1? BO1 had Soviets in the 60s wearing Afghankas from the 80s and flora camo uniforms from the 90s, in fact the Spetsnaz from BO1 are more appropriate for the Chechen Wars period rather than the 60s. But I understand why they did that, it is clear that Treyarch wanted to steer away from the WW2 period and if they were to add realistic 60s uniforms for the Soviets they would have ended up with very WW2 looking uniforms. Same thing goes for the weapons, realistic 60s guns would be more or less the same stuff from WW2 especially for the Vietnamese, but thanks to BO1 I know of the existence of guns like the KS-23 and the ASP, if it weren't for that game I would never have known of their existence. But back then nobody made any fuss about all that, I presume because the 60s are more obscure period in general.

This problem is further aggravated with modern games where the emphasis is on multiplayer customization. I think that their first priority is to prepare the cool looking skins for multiplayer customization (and lets be honest, the late war US airborne uniforms are far cooler than early war British uniforms) and they just slap them into the single player campaign which is just shoehorned into a mainly multiplayer game anyway. But that's not an issue, i'm pretty sure the proper British gear is coming down the line anyway. It appears that for some reason devs like to reuse assets a lot, probably they can't handle everything in time for example the bridge in Twisted Steel and also reused in the prologue showing the Battle of Nijmegen is actually based on the bridge from the Battle of Remagen. Is it so expensive for a studio like DICE to make different bridge models or different skins for multiplayer and campaign... who knows?

In conclusion, older games like the Medal of Honor series, earlier WW2 COD games until WaW have relatively accurate portrayal of uniforms and weapons but on the other hand newer games provide more variety and are actually useful in that you learn about obscure uniforms and weapons from them. --Nanomat (talk) 13:47, 28 November 2018 (EST)
Well said, both of you. That's the crux of the issue, really. This site in general has a bad tenancy to come across as elitist and condescending when pointing out errors, rather than informative and educational. We don't exist to nitpick pieces of media, we exist to explain them. And explaining why a certain liberty was taken is equally important as explaining that it's a liberty in the first place. Alex T Snow (talk) 23:03, 28 November 2018 (EST)
All the thing I said is not being elitist. It's respecting history and the real things troops have done, which the Battlefield franchise has become less and less and becoming more like Call of Duty. There's a difference between taking liberties like if they make a game based on the Son Tay Raiders and it was 4 guys in a coop mission than a bunch of guys, sure. It makes the fight seem more tense and a lot more explody vs say ONE kid did it by himself while doing assasin's creed level of stuff or in the case of Black Ops while wielding an M4 with a fancy red dot that doesn't exist in the time period, absolutely over the top, etc. Call of Duty has never seek to emulate real histories of combat or end missions with paragraphs about the deeds of the real people, but Battlefield outside of the Bad Company games and Hardline has always put a more "realistic" feel in gameplay and feel. That there's a sense of history behind the entertainment. In Battlefield 5. I see a sense of revisionist history Excalibur01 (talk) 10:29, 29 November 2018 (EST)
I... can't disagree more with everything you just said, and honestly parts of that read like talking points from certain less-than-reputable areas of the internet. But I'm interested in less drama, not more, so rather than get into that, I'm simply going to recommend you cool your head off for a bit, and if that doesn't help, then potentially simply staying away from something you don't like would be beneficial to everyone involved. Alex T Snow (talk) 23:05, 29 November 2018 (EST)
All I'm saying is the purpose of this site is to point out what guns are used and any inconsistencies and inaccuracies. That's all. I'm just putting my 2 cents that this game is so full of inaccuracies in weapons and history, it's bullshit and needs to be pointed out Excalibur01 (talk) 19:02, 30 November 2018 (EST)
"Less than reputable areas of the internet?" Alex, please, quit while you're ahead. Evil Tim (talk) 21:35, 30 November 2018 (EST)

I call things as I see them. At any rate, what I'm finding ironic here is I'm being told we need to be objective and factual by someone who is simply posting very emotionally-charged rants. The main page as it is is fine, but if this attitude starts creeping into it, I'll be opposing that as much as I need to. Alex T Snow (talk) 22:54, 30 November 2018 (EST)
Let's stick to addressing the things being said rather than criticising tone. If a rant is right it doesn't matter how "emotionally-charged" it might be. Evil Tim (talk) 23:05, 30 November 2018 (EST)
That assumes it is right, which is primarily what I take issue with. But things are fine as they are now, so I'll leave this at that. Alex T Snow (talk) 23:20, 30 November 2018 (EST)
Actually it doesn't assume that, my point is you were addressing how it was said rather than what was said. If I tell you smoking is bad for your lungs and you shouldn't do it, in between taking puffs on a cigarette, does the contradiction between my actions and my words have any bearing on whether or not smoking is bad for your lungs? Evil Tim (talk) 23:30, 30 November 2018 (EST)
I can understand if you are reading my text and assuming my tone from it, but are you saying everything I've said was wrong? Excalibur01 (talk) 15:35, 1 December 2018 (EST)

I supposed, I'm more passionate some WWII things because I've been reading a lot of the history. There were actual Norwegian commandos that actually did stop the Germans from producing Heavy Water and sunk a boat (not a sub) at the cost of their lives. But in this game, they had 1 girl ninja her way across Norway like Lara fucking Croft by herself and then survive a fall off a bridge, into freezing cold water, almost blacking out and then physically overpowered a German soldier who wasn't in the ice all night...A fully trained adult male commando would of had a hard time, but she shrugged off hypothermia like it was the sniffles.

The SBS didn't recruit from jails but asked for volunteers from the Royal Marines. I mean, what sense does it make for the guy to recruit 1 bomb maker and then deploy from a ship that most likely have a lot of better explosives than home brew stuff that doesn't work? Then, in that same episode, the game completely forgot we came ashore with a whole squad, but the rest of the team was no where to be found by the end of the mission.

The whole "Last Tiger" campaign could of been a separate thing with the same tank commander from the intro mission in Africa of him commanding a Panzer.

The last few COD games that did take place in the past like Black Ops went beyond the rails of taking liberties, so at the point, it's blatant fantasy. They weren't trying to recreate the feel of Vietnam, just how the movies portrayed 'Nam. In Battlefield's case, the developers basically lied about keeping historical authenticity.

We point out the things people don't see in. People want to call it nitpick, so be it. Someone has to tell it correctly Excalibur01 (talk) 16:56, 28 November 2018 (EST)

Did you see this YouTube video? This guy addresses a lot the revisionist history you mention above.- Phillb36 (talk) 20:29, 1 December 2018 (EST)
Hahahahahahaha. No. Alex T Snow (talk) 00:53, 2 December 2018 (EST)
Well that's certainly a thorough rebuttal. Evil Tim (talk) 02:52, 2 December 2018 (EST)
I'd give a worthy rebuttal to something worth rebutting, not drama-filled, attention-grabbing, Youtube clickbait crap. Alex T Snow (talk) 22:11, 2 December 2018 (EST)
So as far as correcting the historical record, what did he get wrong? And attempting to separate historical fact from fiction is always a worthy endeavor.--00:51, 3 December 2018 (EST)Phillb36 (talk)
Alex, that's just a bunch of empty adjectives. You might as well have just said "because A, B and C," it's propositionally identical. Evil Tim (talk) 02:01, 3 December 2018 (EST)

In response to what a couple of users said above, I'm going to say this... you might call me an asshole for it, but I need to get this off my chest. Guys, today there are enough places filled with people who are too easily offended by choices of words and the like... *cough* Facebook *cough*... please, PLEASE, don't let IMFDB turn into this. If some game developers have a habit of not making decent research and blatantly ignoring simple weaponry basics, we will bluntly say that it is wrong, period. Basically just like we've been doing for years. Now, if there are some choices that are definitely justified, sure, we can be more lenient; PUBG is a good example, where the calibers are simplified to 9mm, 7.62mm, etc. to allow several weapons to share ammo with each other for gameplay purposes (or another example: as you all know, BF1 has multiple weapons that were extremely rare, but their inclusion was nice so that the game's pace doesn't become boring and that we don't get limited to bolt-action rifles and the like). But when games repeatedly make incredibly dumb mistakes (yes, Call of Duty, I'm talking about you - and no I'm not spreading hate since that's the franchise that I play the most, but I do have to acknowledge the numerous inaccuracies present in it), we do have to point this out. And regarding the Sten, no, the point about "iconic British weapon" isn't needed, firstly because any idiot with a bit of gaming knowledge easily knows this, and secondly because the devs could have simply made the in-game Brits use M1928 Thompsons instead. Same things goes for, let's say... BO1: during the 1960s there were enough automatic firearms and the like (AMD-65, M2 Carbine, XM177, Sa vz. 23, Beretta M12, Remington Model 1100, etc.), so it wasn't that hard to include more appropriate weapons than the ones present in-game. If some people outside of IMFDB think that we are "overly-literal" or things like that, it's their problem, and we don't need to care about it (in fact, I've seen quite the opposite happening: based on YouTube comments, people have been actually reacting positively to the fact that we're sarcastic about the inaccuracies in CoD and other games). --Ultimate94ninja (talk) 09:37, 29 November 2018 (EST)

IMFDB is not going to turn into that. Not while I'm still alive, anyway. We do not base our decisions on the hypothetical reactions of imaginary people. Evil Tim (talk) 21:18, 30 November 2018 (EST)
I hope so. I mean, not a very long time ago we got someone trying to turn it into that, though he failed, thankfully. One of the things I like about this site is that it goes straight to the point and doesn't downgrade its contents for the sake of going with the wishes of annoying SJWs, and it should remain that way. --Ultimate94ninja (talk) 08:56, 5 December 2018 (EST)
That's what I'm pushing for. Pretty much everything here is a work of fiction. We point out inconsistencies and inaccuracies in these fictions based on what they present. If it's a pure fantasy, it doesn't matter what guns are used. Many pages point out things that don't make sense. It's straight to the point and that's what I think people look to our site for Excalibur01 (talk) 10:44, 5 December 2018 (EST)

Remember good old days of Battlefield where they were historically accurate shooters? You don't? Because it never happened. In a game where the HMS Prince of Wales where somehow the US Navy rose from the depths off the coast of Malaya and it bombards the Type 5 wielding, Panzershreck toating Japanese Navy Soldiers on Iwo Jima? Or should we try the NVA deploying Mi-8/Ka-25s against the Marines at Con Thein. BFV is modest by comparison and is in the same standards as all the other Battlefields in terms of historical accuracy (AKA Fucking garbage). -- Osaka amd (talk) 13:53, 1 December 2018 (EST)

Yeah, but nobody ever tried to argue those things should get a free pass because ~art~. Evil Tim (talk) 14:16, 1 December 2018 (EST)
I don't remember a lot of the older games and if I did, I'd probably point out historical inaccuracies in that too. I don't give historical inaccuracies a pass unless the premise is fantasy. I talked a lengths with how the movie Fury was completely inaccurate in how they portrayed tank combat in WWII Excalibur01 (talk) 15:37, 1 December 2018 (EST)
That's certainly one way to look at fiction, and I do respect it and think it's perfectly valid, though I really don't share that sort of take on storytelling and entertainment. There's a clear difference between "Documentary" and "Fiction", and it's really the exact same difference as "Gameplay" vs "Realism" in a video game context. Really, it's a matter of perspective, where "Fury is not a very realistic movie" and "Fury is a great piece of storytelling and cinematography", and both can actually be true at once, it's a matter of what angle you take on a given piece of media. Personally, I prefer to judge a given piece of media on the intent of its creators; it would hardly be fair to judge something like Die Hard on its realism, because you'd be judging it on something it never wanted to be in the first place, just as you wouldn't judge Saving Private Ryan on how well it handles romance. Alex T Snow (talk) 01:05, 2 December 2018 (EST)
If there's a clear difference between documentary and fiction, why is is possible to create a fictional documentary? I feel you're positioning things as opposites that aren't actually opposed to each other. Moreover, you can analyse things from any perspective you want to, regardless of the creator's intentions. Indeed, since you can't know the creator's intentions (even if they state them, they might be lying) it's actually not a very useful mode of analysis. This is why literary analysis has run on "death of the author" for over a century.
Check out this as an example. It's a long, legitimately interesting article about matters of real physics as related to Independence Day. Now it should go without saying that "what would these ships do if they actually existed?" was not a major concern when making that film, but it doesn't mean it's "unfair" to analyse it that way. Evil Tim (talk) 02:52, 2 December 2018 (EST)
As regards the main post, it's worth noting that BF1942 and Vietnam did not have storyline campaigns and were just a series of multiplayer battle missions, and it's not like nobody found the ship being Prince of Wales, out of all the allied battleships they could have chosen, to be more than a little bizarre (I guess it's just because they had the model from making the intro FMV). But the real issue with BFV was that stupid initial trailer where they were showing off all the daft customisations they wanted to nickel-and-dime players for with microtransactions, as if that's what people would be excited by after the fiasco with Battlefront II. All they needed to have done was remake the Battlefield 1942 intro with modern assets and they'd have struck gold, but instead we got this weird mess of a thing. And while the BF1 campaign had its share of nonsense (such as the WW1 Juggernaut suit), we didn't have quotes from a high-ranking idiot at DICE saying it was done that way to further media representation of men in suits of armour with machine guns because his son is one of those.
The whole "let's take a real story that's about a group of real people, then replace them with people we think are more marketable" approach to historical fiction has been rightly criticised for a long time. Remember the objections to U-571 telling the story of how the naval Enigma machine was captured by the Americans? Or Ben Affleck winning the Battle of Britain in Pearl Harbor even though no Eagle Squadron was operating during the Battle of Britain? Evil Tim (talk) 03:24, 2 December 2018 (EST)
If you're making historical fiction, something is going to be made up, whether it be the events, the characters, the locations, and so on. Saving Private Ryan, made up the MG 42 pillboxes, they didn't exist like that on Omaha. Ramelle, the town at the end battle, is similarly entirely fictional. I've really never understood why Rafe's Eagle Squadron bit annoys so many people. He went to Britain, fought in Eagle Squadron, we see him get a couple kills, then get shot down. Like... okay? Look, I'm Canadian, and generally we always find the whole "Americans insert themselves into things" pretty silly/amusing, but I just don't see the issue here, when he really didn't do anything especially notable or important there, certainly not "winning the Battle of Britain". Alex T Snow (talk) 22:11, 2 December 2018 (EST)
Yeah, and people objected to the Ramille sequence because that Panzer Division was off to the East fighting the British and Canadians. As for Pearl Harbor, when he goes to England he joins a squadron of frazzled Brits and gets a Spitfire with a shot-out cockpit. After one mission, Squadron Leadah is like "I SAY OLD CHAP IF THERE'S MORE CHAPS LIKE YOU WHERE YOU COME FROM THE BALLY ENEMY CHAPS ARE RIGHT FOOLS TO FIGHT YOU AND WHATNOT" and Ben's like "Sorry I missed that I was just giving birth to a bald eagle." Evil Tim (talk) 02:01, 3 December 2018 (EST)
I've talked on how Saving Private Ryan as a story doesn't make sense. You send a bunch of guys ahead of the invasion to hopefully find the 1 guy behind enemy lines? That part is stupid, the rest of the movie was pretty well done, but I bet if this movie was made today, people would bitch about no blacks or woman representation, like when Spike Lee whined about Clint Eastwood making 2 WWII movies in Japan and had no black troops in his movies. I have no problems with fictionalized historical movies, but I do not like pandering and misrepresentation of characters and themes. Guys with any degree of military background will always point out the cracks in any movie because they want to. Just like how we here point out inaccuracies. I will not bitch about fiction but I will complain about how much suspension of disbelief I have to undergo to enjoy it as entertainment. Also you being Canadian has nothing to do with this discussion. Why bring it up? Did I make any real complaints that there are no American campaign in this game? I wasn't talking about that at all. If you want me to be objective. I am tired of D-Day campaigns about America. The Canadians and British were also there. I want a real North Africa mission Rat Patrol style. Where's my A Bridge Too Far mission? Where is the actual World War? Excalibur01 (talk) 10:49, 3 December 2018 (EST)

The Juggernaut suit in the BF1 campaign is relatively historical. The armor is based on an experimental US armor which did not see service and the helmet is based on Italian Farina helmets. As a whole, the entire "Juggernaut" concept is based on the medievalesque nature of the warfare employed by the Italians at the Alpine front, heck they apparently even used shields. --Nanomat (talk) 16:36, 2 December 2018 (EST)
Indeed. And additionally, the purpose of Avanti Savoia was that it was a story being told in "the present" of the framing narrative, many years after the war. We're not playing through the events as they actually happened, we're playing through the events in the manner Luca is recounting them, with a blend of time having passed, a general tenancy to romanticize past events, and through his daughter's perspective, who's never experienced the horrors of war and can't quite imagine the events in that light anyway. Did Luca really take on hundreds of Austro-Hungarians all by himself, eating hundreds of bullets? No. But he did feel that way about it, and remembers it that way (to say nothing of how many crazy things have been done in wars that post people wouldn't believe are true at first telling), on top of not wanting to scare is daughter too much (thus his line about being "completely safe in his armour"). Alex T Snow (talk) 22:11, 2 December 2018 (EST)
Or they said "we want a mech suit sequence here because people like Titanfall, come up with an excuse for one." Evil Tim (talk) 02:01, 3 December 2018 (EST)
Yeah, but that's in the same sense that Juggs himself is "based on" a real EoD suit, but is a suit of power armour in functional terms. That WW1 armour was supposed to be good for stopping pistol fire and splinters, not so much turning you into a steampunk Space Marine. Evil Tim (talk) 02:01, 3 December 2018 (EST)

DICE slightly redeemed themselves with the last tiger campaign, it is a decent one in comparison to the other ridiculous campaigns. It is set in the Battle of Cologne as evidenced by this triple bridge seen in the beginning. The whole urban tank battle premise and especially the final battle at the cathedral appears to be inspired by this tank duel near the cathedral. Now to the funky stuff, in game the tiger tank crew single-handedly obliterates like maybe hundreds of shermans in a single day while the real duel had a mere sherman and pershing destroying a panther and overall the whole battle seems to be depicted as a huge and epic one while it seems it wasn't that much of a great battle in reality, I can't find much info on Cologne other than it was basically bombed to shit and then Americans swept in. It's funny seeing Americans being depicted as using horde tactics and just throwing away hundreds and hundreds of tanks completely contradicting reality but at least we gotta give it to DICE that they made the first ever German campaign in a major video game and otherwise the setting is authentic, we got Germans as Germans in an urban tank battle which more or less actually happened. --Nanomat (talk) 16:59, 5 December 2018 (EST)

To be fair, literally every FPS protagonist ever mows down dramatically more enemies than we would see in reality, it's for fun and gameplay. I just finished it, and wow, what a fantastic story, I'm very impressed; I wasn't sure if it would top Nordlys for me, but I feel it did. Time to go back through and collect the stuff to get Tiger 237 in multiplayer! Alex T Snow (talk) 21:19, 5 December 2018 (EST)

An error I found rather hilarious in the "Under No Flag" story was when the Special Banter Service blokes commandeer a Kubelwagen from the random German, and stuff him in the trunk...even though that is where the Kubelwagen's engine is supposed to be.--AgentGumby (talk) 13:43, 22 December 2018 (EST)

Gustloff 1-5

For those around here wondering where the "1-5" designation came from, it's definitely a real thing; this German company that makes reproductions has it named as such, and I suspect one would find similar references looking into German-language sources. They also make a modernized FG 42. Alex T Snow (talk) 02:03, 5 December 2018 (EST)

From the article on the weapon:
"The weapon is also sometimes known as the Volkssturmgewehr 1-5 (or VG 1-5), a name that was believed to have originated as a misnomer. The Primitiv-Waffen-Programm resulted in five other bolt action rifle designs, VG 1 from Walther (VG in these cases standing for Volksgewehr), VG 2 from Spreewerk Berlin, VG 3 from Rheinmetall, VG 4 from Mauser, and VG 5 from Steyr. Collectively, they become VG 1-5, and a few misconceptions later the name was stuck to the Gustloff weapon."
So that company is just making a common error. Evil Tim (talk) 04:13, 5 December 2018 (EST)
Oh cool, that makes perfect sense! I hadn't checked our article on it. Alex T Snow (talk) 15:53, 5 December 2018 (EST)

Yet to be released stuff

I'll compile briefly seen stuff that is yet to be released/cut from game:

--Nanomat (talk) 13:35, 14 January 2019 (EST)

Screw it, might as well put this here: How do we know that the "M1922" is a Hotchkiss? There's been some serious speculation that it's actually a land-pattern Darne machine gun, which would fit the "M1922" name as well, and would make more sense as an MMG (being belt-fed instead of strip-/magazine-fed like the Hotchkiss). Thoughts? Pyr0m4n14c (talk) 16:55, 14 January 2019 (EST)
Given it's in the files, I would bet on the Darne. Alex T Snow (talk) 16:57, 14 January 2019 (EST)
I've removed it since we don't have precise confirmation, though I wouldn't add the Darne either. --Tamarin88 (talk) 17:12, 14 January 2019 (EST)

Visual customizations

Does anyone know precisely which muzzle modifications use the Colt Monitor compensator/M3 flash hider? Also there's a ton of different muzzle modifications, it'd be worth going through them all and identifying them. --Tamarin88 (talk) 17:07, 14 January 2019 (EST)

The Colt Monitor is "Night Owl" and the M3 is "Sandstorm". If you provide pics of the other stuff I will do my best to identify them. --Nanomat (talk) 17:33, 14 January 2019 (EST)
On which weapons? --Tamarin88 (talk) 17:55, 14 January 2019 (EST)
MP34, at least according to this. --Nanomat (talk) 18:40, 14 January 2019 (EST)
I know the Boys rifle muzzle brake (the flat, horizontal one with lots of holes) is an option on a lot of things, unless it's something else that looks very similar. Alex T Snow (talk) 22:26, 14 January 2019 (EST)
Here's the MG42 muzzle options, I'll get some more from other weapons later. The problem is that what models are used with which finishes swaps around a lot depending on weapon, so knowing if I've got them all is going to be tricky. --Tamarin88 (talk) 08:49, 15 January 2019 (EST)
Blued - PTRD-41 muzzle, Chromed Finish - ???, Gold Plated - this, Mint - this. --Nanomat (talk) 10:04, 15 January 2019 (EST)

Split MMGs with LMGs?

Considering how DICE has been accurate so far with basing the MMG classifications based on real weapon classifications, maybe we can split the MG section into LMGs and MMGs? --Wuzh (talk) 13:57, 17 January 2019 (EST)

Not sure what the point would be, there aren't enough MGs to make it worth it in my opinion. --Tamarin88 (talk) 14:13, 17 January 2019 (EST)
Yeah, it's unneeded as of now. --Ultimate94ninja (talk) 14:15, 17 January 2019 (EST)

Sten customizations

Should the Sten customizations (MkI, MkV, MkI*) be placed alongside the main Sten Mk II section to minimize user scrolling, similar to COD WWII's page where the variants of a single weapon are placed in small headings? --Akane miyoshi (talk)

I think it's a bit different here, because some of the Sten parts are only available as attachments, and they're usable on weapons other than the Sten (e.g. the massive conical muzzle brake from the Mark 1 Sten being a barrel option for some of the other guns). For the parts of other steps that can be put on the Mark 2, this isn't an issue, but for the parts that can be put on several different guns, they should stay where they are. Pyr0m4n14c (talk) 11:30, 24 January 2019 (EST)
I’d say that parts like the Mk. V front sight should go under the original entry as it’s only available for the STEN and not other guns.--AgentGumby (talk) 12:07, 24 January 2019 (EST)
Anything under "Muzzle" is the stuff that can show up on anything (and should probably stay at the bottom of the page), but if it's in the other customization sections it's specific to that gun, so it should go alongside the gun in question (Sten barrels, Bren ironsights/stock, StG 44 ironsights, etc). Alex T Snow (talk) 01:42, 29 January 2019 (EST)

MP 34 stock

Some of the stock options for the MP 34 give it a different shaped stock, with a curve in the cheekrest area. A quick search shows a few images of MP 34s with this style, but does anyone know the reason for the difference? Different contracts? Early/late pattern? Alex T Snow (talk) 01:17, 14 February 2019 (EST)

New weapons confirmed

Found new weapons from dog tags section as of Feb 12 patch.

  • Patchett SMG - Early Sterling prototype
  • Welgun SMG
  • Lanchester SMG - British copy of the MP28
  • Madsen machine gun

--Akane miyoshi (talk)

Plus an M1917 Enfield. Kinda curious how they're gonna handle the Lanchester, since it's almost identical to the MP28; maybe in customizations? Say, the 50-round mag and the bayonet could be specializations, along with some more esoteric things different from those available to the MP28 - you'd start with basically the same gun, but you can do different places with it. Pyr0m4n14c (talk) 16:12, 22 February 2019 (EST) P.S.: That reminds me, I said I'd move the M1917 to P14, since the P14's the original. See ya in a bit.
Per the files, the Lanchester is going to have a lower RoF than the MP 28 (600 or just above I believe) and have recoil buff Specs, which slots nicely into a RoF zone we didn't have anything in until now. Basically, MP 28 for hipfire spam, Lanchester for ADS accuracy. Alex T Snow (talk) 17:22, 22 February 2019 (EST)
I wonder why do they bother putting in the MP28, Lanchester and the other Czech subgun. Having one of these would be enough to represent that style of gun and that's. They can put other exotic and strange designs but I guess it has to do something with following the CODWWII trends or maybe reskinning the MP28 into Lanchester is easier than creating an entirely fresh weapon model. --Nanomat (talk) 18:57, 22 February 2019 (EST)
It's really not weird at all, it's the standard style of SMG in the time period, just like how any modern game is probably going to have 15 different versions of AR-15 and derivatives. While the MP 28 and Lanchester are versions of the same gun, I really don't see much similarity between them and the MP 34 or ZK-383, beyond the most broad strokes of the layout. But then that same philosophy can apply to modern guns too, like how the vast majority of pistols have an M1911 layout (or to make it even more similar, all modern combat pistols are basically Hi-Powers). Alex T Snow (talk) 19:47, 22 February 2019 (EST)
Upon doing a little search, I thought the M1917 Enfield would be just a recycled weapon (just like how the Ribeyrolles and the Luger rifle were). It was actually used in the Pacific War in the Philippines as well as rear echelon troops in Western Europe. This was due to shortage of M1 Garands. As for the Lanchester = MP28, it's really like how modern warfare games include different variants of an AR-15. Remember BF3/4 with the M416, M4 and M16A3? Akane miyoshi (talk

First batch of Chapter 3 weapons confirmed

In Week 4/5/6 we have the Commando Carbine coming to MP for Medic, Support is getting the Lahti-Saloranta M/26, and Medic gets the very interesting Tromboncino M28, a combination of a Carcano rifle with a side-mounted grenade launcher that uses the same bolt. Looks like we're getting another bolt-swap animation like BF1 had! Alex T Snow (talk) 01:17, 24 March 2019 (EDT)

Sten and Bren naming

Per the recent edit, while STEN being all caps makes sense, shouldn't Bren be BREN too, or, uh, BrEn? I realize "British naming conventions" and "consistency" rarely belong in the same sentence, but this has been bugging me for a while. Normally the sort of stuff I've sent to the devs for the past few years has been technical issues/errors, but with BFV having a ton of naming inconsistencies, I've built up a naming correction list too, and the Sten/STEN and Bren/BREN bit has been bothering me. Alex T Snow (talk) 23:17, 8 April 2019 (EDT)

Some people today write Bren as BREN (while BrEn is just silly). I've been looking for any historical precedence on all caps STEN and BREN and so far has not found any good sources yet. I'm currently asking some people about it. --Wuzh (talk) 20:40, 10 April 2019 (EDT)
British manuals for the Sten treat it as a lowercase proper noun, same as Bren. Only reason it was in allcaps on our page was the same user editing it that way. Evil Tim (talk) 22:50, 10 April 2019 (EDT)
Treating it as a noun (like Radar, Laser) is definitely what I'm more familiar with, and it does fit the Brits' very... colloquial style of military naming; usually things either don't have a real "proper noun" name at all (I'm looking at you, "6-pounder"), or if they do it's usually very "casual" term like "Sten Gun". Getting the British names correct/consistent for the list was definitely the most tricky, and I'd been meaning to ask about this in particular for a while, so it's nice to get some discussion on it. I had gone with "Sten Mk II", "Bren Mk I", "Lewis Mk I" and so on, so I'll stick with that. Alex T Snow (talk) 23:17, 10 April 2019 (EDT)
You are talking about a country that resisted adopting decimal currency because they thought it sounded too complicated. :D Evil Tim (talk) 00:00, 11 April 2019 (EDT)
And yet everyone knows their multiples of fourteen because they record their weight in stone. --Funkychinaman (talk) 00:12, 11 April 2019 (EDT)
Oh, that's only the start of it. Here's what we thought was simple and comforting compared to that weird European "hundred things makes a thing" concept:
Two farthings = One Ha'penny. Two ha'pennies = One Penny. Three pennies = A Thrupenny Bit. Two Thrupences = A Sixpence. Two Sixpences = One Shilling, or Bob. Two Bob = A Florin. One Florin and one Sixpence = Half a Crown. Four Half Crowns = Ten Bob Note. Two Ten Bob Notes = One Pound (or 240 pennies). One Pound and One Shilling = One Guinea.
I don't think our country has ever claimed to have a surplus of common sense. After all, we live here. Evil Tim (talk) 05:53, 12 April 2019 (EDT)

Datamines of future content

Here's a really cool look at some of the stuff coming in Chapter 5, for the Pacific theatre, and here are some other weapons and gadgets likely coming sooner than that. Temporyal here is a datamining wizard, so keeping an eye on his posts is a good idea. Alex T Snow (talk) 23:17, 8 April 2019 (EDT)


As for its proper designation, looking across Wikipedia, Italian Wikipedia, and the BF Wiki, it seems that the BF Wiki has indeed figured out the most accurate long-form designation: Moschetto Carcano per Truppe Speciali Modello 91/28 con Tromboncino (Carbine Carcano for Special Troops Model 91/28 with Tromboncino). As that's definitely the overly descriptive official name rather than a pure model name, looking back at Italian Wikipedia it seems something like Carcano Mod. 91/28 TS con/with Tromboncino Mod. 28 is most appropriate; like the M4/M203 combo, it doesn't have a name as a whole unit. However, something I can say for sure is that the American-style "M##" designation (M91) is not correct, Italian rifles should always be Modello or Mod. specifically. Alex T Snow (talk) 23:03, 2 May 2019 (EDT)

Luger Carbine

The 1900 and 1906 patterns (differences here) were both made in carbine setups, and both were made in the same style of carbine (same barrel/sights/forend/stock). It seems the Luger's IMFDB page only has the 1900/1902 carbine right now, but BFV's is the 1920 carbine that uses the 1906/P08 pattern. The only difference between the real 1920 Carbine and BFV's P08 Carbine is the latter lacks the grip safety, being based on a P08 rather than a civilian 1906. Alex T Snow (talk) 11:01, 10 May 2019 (EDT)

There are modern carbine versions without safety: [1]. --Slon95 (talk) 11:36, 10 May 2019 (EDT)
It turns out the luger actually had a custom made mount for the Zeiss ZF41 scope which is shown in game. However, this modification appears to be a post war thing and the in game mount in the default ZF41 one anyway. --Nanomat (talk) 19:37, 23 May 2019 (EDT)
Someone posted this image in the C&Rsenal Discord, and I felt compelled to share it (after figuring out how to deal with that stupid file type mismatch error):
Luger Carbine with Trommelmagazin 08 "snail drum" and custom Lyman aperture sight - 7.65x21mm Parabellum
Apparently, there either were 7.65x21mm snail drums made, or you could fit 7.65mm ammo into a standard TM 08 (which would make sense, since 9x19 is essentially just necked-up 7.65x21). In either case, this would make the in-game gun's magazine less of an error than the page currently claims. Thoughts? Pyr0m4n14c (talk) 16:27, 28 July 2021 (EDT)
If it's credible, sure, add it to the main page. Even if it isn't, still might be worth mentioning it. --JackalUnderscore (talk) 18:12, 28 July 2021 (EDT)

Considering that the Swiss experimented with elongated Luger magazines (originally box-type) throughout the 1910s, and their test SIG M1918, chambered for 7.65, used Luger mags, like the original MP18, it is not surprising that at one point they could it's easy to do something like that. --Slon95 (talk) 12:02, 7 August 2021 (EDT)

Mini Madsen

In the blog for Battlefest we got this screenshot of the shorter Madsen (with a weathered-looking skin), and I was wondering if anyone here can ID it, out of all the dozens and dozens of slightly different variations of Madsen over the years. It's been suggested that it's the Dutch East Indies version (designated M.15), but I don't know all the details well enough to tell for sure. Alex T Snow (talk) 23:16, 1 October 2019 (EDT)


Not sure if this is worth mentioning on the main page but I have this old screencap of what seems to be a fairly convincing MP41 with a suppressor or faux suppressor muzzle attachment in an Armory menu - the wood stock does look fairly accurate to the real one. Also searched google, apparently some people also noticed this on reddit but it looks like it was a pretty early casualty of BFV's cut content as a working in-game model was never datamined. --AgentGumby (talk) 11:18, 16 February 2021 (EST)

MP41 - 9x19mm
Best seen at full-size here.
I'd say go ahead and put it in; if there's an actual in-game appearance, it goes on the page. Also, I can't imagine that it would've been terribly hard to model, given that an MP41 is more or less just an MP40 upper on an MP28 lower. Pyr0m4n14c (talk) 11:22, 16 February 2021 (EST)

Fun video

Here is a video of an actual Sten pistol with a real Nydar sight attached by magnets.--AgentGumby (talk) 15:59, 28 March 2021 (EDT)

FN M1903

I never noticed this until now, but in addition to the unusable MG 08/15 at the test range, there's also an unusable M1903 sitting on top of the pistol section. It doesn't look like it's a reuse of the BF1 model, or at least not the same texture on it. Alex T Snow (talk) 01:39, 18 April 2022 (EDT)

Do Not Sell My Personal Information