User blog:El Alamein/El Alamein's Edges: BG1's Modern Warfare 3 vs. Battlefield 3

Mmkay, so--this is a vote for BG1's Modern Warfare 3 vs. Battlefield 3 battle. It is in blog format because it will be much, much easier to follow like this than cramped up in a tiny comment, and it will also help preserve some space for his commenting section so that way there's one less wall of text clogging it.



Close Range (Melee):
For melee, we're going to analyze the Glock Combat Knife, the Riot Shield, and the Machete vs. the KA-BAR, M9 Bayonet, and the Machete.

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3

|-| Glock Combat Knife= Pros: Versatile in combat, can be used at a distance
 * 11 inches with a 6.5-inch blade
 * Clip point blade
 * Glock polymer scabbard
 * Can be used as throwing weapons

Cons: Low corrosion resistance, relatively short blade

Pros: Offers defense as well as offense, can be used as makeshift cover
 * -| Riot Shield=
 * Covers average man from top of head to the knees
 * Can be bullet resistant against low-velocity handgun/shotgun rounds
 * Better against fragmentation/splash damage from explosives
 * Can be used in melee fashion

Cons: Big, bulky, attracts attention, not resistant to higher-caliber rounds

Pros: Large and intimidating, offers longer reach, can inflict serious wounds with ease
 * -| Machete=
 * ~18-inch blade
 * Hacking/slashing attacks
 * Useful against foliage as well as people

Cons: Makeshift weapon, difficult to use in extremely close quarters

Battlefield 3

|-| KA-BAR= Pros: Reliable military-grade combat knife
 * 11.8 inches with a 7-inch blade
 * Single-edged clip point blade
 * Stacked leather washer scabbard
 * Can kill a bear

Cons: Relatively short blade

Pros: Can be attached to end of some rifles, military-grade knife, can be used as wire-cutting tool
 * -| M9 Bayonet=
 * 12 inches with a 7-inch blade
 * Clip point blade
 * Attaches to M16/M4-series weapons as bayonet

Cons: Relatively short blade, Iranian Army and PLR not equipped with compatible rifles for bayonet

|-| Machete= Pros: Large and intimidating, offers longer reach, can inflict serious wounds with ease
 * ~18-inch blade
 * Hacking/slashing attacks
 * Useful against foliage as well as people

Cons: Makeshift weapon, difficult to use in extremely close quarters



Analysis

Both arsenals here have their strengths and weaknesses. The combat knives obviously bring reliable lethality in the event of a close-quarters encounter. Battlefield 3's team has a bit of a weakness in that the faction with the bayonet is not equipped with a compatible rifle, meaning they're carrying glorified combat knives that won't be as effective when they're not jutting out of the business end of a big bad gun. The machetes are going to be scary but probably not as combat practical in such a large-scale situation. What tips the comparison in favor of Call of Duty for me is the Riot Shield--sure it might not protect against concentrated, raw firepower but it offers a level of tactical variation that Battlefield's teams simply don't have. The Riot Shield can offer makeshift cover in case some of their troops get pinned down, or a Riot Shield-wielding soldier can expose himself to draw fire in case some other assets are being targeted and they need to divert some of that enemy fire elsewhere. Up-close it's definitely a mean piece of work to contend with and one thing it will protect against for sure is another melee weapon. Both teams have combat knives and both teams have machetes, but because Modern Warfare 3 can shake things up with a shield, they get the edge.



Short Range (Pistols):
For short range, we're going to analyze the USP .45, the FN Five-Seven, the MP412, and the Desert Eagle vs. the M9, the MP-443 Grach, and the Glock 17C.

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3

|-| USP.45= Pros: .45 offers good stopping power
 * .45 ACP
 * 12-round magazine
 * 50 m effective range
 * 1.74 lbs.
 * 4.41 inch barrel

Cons: Smaller-than-average magazine

Pros: Large magazine
 * -| FN Five-Seven=
 * FN 5.7x28mm
 * 20-round magazine
 * 50 m effective range
 * 1.6 lbs.
 * 4.8 inch barrel

Cons: Low stopping power

Pros: High stopping power, longer barrel
 * -| MP412=
 * .357 Magnum
 * 6-round cylinder
 * Double action
 * 1.98 lbs.
 * 6 inch barrel

Cons: Slow fire rate, low ammo capacity, slow reload time

Pros: High stopping power, longer barrel
 * -| Desert Eagle=
 * .50 Action Express
 * 7-round magazine
 * 200 m maximum firing range
 * 4.2 lbs.
 * 6 inch barrel

Cons: Relatively heavy, high recoil, low ammo capacity

Battlefield 3

|-| M9= Pros: Decent magazine size, reliable weapon
 * 9x19 mm Parabellum
 * 15-round magazine
 * 50 m effective range
 * 2.1 lbs.
 * 4.9 inch barrel

Cons: Low stopping power

Pros: Large magazine size
 * -| MP-443 Grach=
 * 9x19 mm Parabellum
 * 18-round magazine
 * 50 m effective range
 * 2.125 lbs.
 * 4.4 inch barrel

Cons: Low stopping power

Pros: Large magazine size
 * -| Glock 17C=
 * 9x19mm Parabellum
 * 17-round magazine
 * 50 m effective range
 * 1.6 lbs. (unloaded)
 * 4.49 inch barrel

Cons: Low stopping power

Analysis

To me, the edge here is pretty straightforward. Call of Duty's arsenal is severely hampered by the presence of a revolver and the Desert Eagle, both of which do offer high-caliber firepower, but at the cost of fire rate, accuracy, magazine size, and reload time. The Battlefield 3 arsenal might not shine out in any particular category, and their reliance on the 9x19mm Parabellum round won't necessarily send the Call of Duty team scrambling for solid cover, but at least they won't have to worry about recoil smacking them in the face or reloading in time during an intense firefight.



 Medium Range: 

For medium range, we're going to analyze the MP5, M1014, AA-12, PP90M1, Striker, and Winchester Model 1887 vs. the UMP 45, Remington Model 870, AKS-74U, USAS-12, Saiga-12K, and Benelli M4.

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3

|-| MP5= Pros: High rate of fire
 * 9x19mm Parabellum
 * 800 rds/min
 * 200 m effective range
 * 30-round box magazine
 * 6 lbs.
 * 8.9 inch barrel

Cons: Low stopping power

Pros: High stopping power, semi-automatic, decent magazine size
 * -| M1014=
 * 12 gauge
 * Semi automatic
 * 50.2 m effective range
 * 7+1 round internal tube magazine
 * 8.42 lbs.
 * 18.5 inch barrel

Cons: Short range, lengthy reload

Pros: Fully automatic, high stopping power, above-average shotgun range
 * -| AA-12=
 * 12 gauge
 * 300 rds/min
 * 100 m effective range
 * 8-round box magazine
 * 16 lbs.
 * 17.99 inch barrel

Cons: Low magazine size, especially for an automatic weapon

Pros: High rate of fire, large magazine size
 * -| PP90M1=
 * 9x19mm Parabellum
 * 800 rds/min
 * 200 m effective range
 * 64-round helical magazine
 * 6.3 lbs.
 * 7.7 inch barrel

Cons: Low stopping power

Pros: High stopping power, semi-automatic, large magazine size
 * -| Striker=
 * 12 gauge
 * Semi automatic
 * Probably ~50 m effective range
 * 12-round revolving cylinder
 * 9.7 lbs.
 * 14 inch barrel

Cons: Short range, long reload time

Pros: High stopping power, decent magazine size
 * -| Winchester Model 1887=
 * 12 gauge
 * Lever-action
 * Probably ~50 m effective range
 * 5+2 round tubular magazine
 * 8 lbs.
 * 30 inch barrel

Cons: Slow fire rate, short range, lengthy reload

Battlefield 3

|-| UMP 45= Pros: Higher stopping power, more controllable rate of fire
 * .45 ACP
 * 600 rds/min
 * 65 m effective range
 * 25-round box magazine
 * 5.8 lbs.
 * 8 inch barrel

Cons: Shorter range, smaller magazine

Pros: High stopping power, decent magazine size
 * -| Remington Model 870=
 * 12 gauge
 * Pump-action
 * Probably ~50 m effective range
 * 7+1 tubular magazine
 * 8 lbs.
 * 30 inch barrel

Cons: Slow fire rate, short range, lengthy reload

Pros: Good effective range, good stopping power
 * -| AKS-74U=
 * 5.45x29mm
 * 650 rds/min (100 rds/min practical)
 * 400 m effective range
 * 30-round box magazine
 * 6 lbs.
 * 8.1 inch barrel

Cons: Slower fire rate

Pros: High stopping power, fully automatic weapon, ease of reload with box magazine
 * -| USAS-12=
 * 12 gauge
 * 400-450 rds/min
 * 30-40 m effective range
 * 10-round box magazine
 * 13.6 lbs.
 * 18.1 inch barrel

Cons: Short range, low magazine size, (especially for automatic weapon)

Pros: High stopping power, semi-automatic, ease of reload with box magazine
 * -| Saiga-12K=
 * 12 gauge
 * Semi-automatic
 * Probably ~50 m effective range
 * 10-round detachable box magazine
 * 7.7 lbs.
 * 16.9 inch barrel

Cons: Short range

Pros: High stopping power, semi automatic, decent magazine size
 * -| Benelli M4=
 * 12 gauge
 * Semi-automatic
 * 50.2 m effective range
 * 7+1 tubular magazine
 * 8.42 lbs.
 * 18.5 inch barrel

Cons: Short range, lengthy reload

Hmmm. This here is a tough one. I like MW3's submachine gun loadout because they're bringing two simple weapons to the table--the MP5 and the PP90M1, which bring a good balance of high fire rate and large magazine sizes. They lack stopping power with the dinky 9mm, but nonetheless there will be much less of a logistical strain and they will be able to suppress the Battlefield 3 soldiers a lot easier as a result. Shotgun-wise, it's not looking good for team CoD. Their Striker is gonna be a nightmare to reload and the Model 1887's awkward lever-action won't do it any favors in a modern firefight. The AA-12 is admittedly the superior automatic shotgun when compared with the USAS-12, thanks to its significantly longer effective range, but I don't see that individual weapon as being very significant in such a large firefight.

Battlefield 3, alternately, is bringing in the UMP 45 and the AKS-74U, with the mindset of stopping power over fire rate. The .45 ACP and the 5.45x29mm (which is a rifle cartridge) will really lay down the hurt on the CoD team, and with a slower rate of fire they will have a much more manageable and practical fire rate (at the cost of having a harder time keeping their foes suppressed). Their shotguns are also generally much more reliable, with simple box or tubular magazines and either semi-automatic or pump-action fire modes that don't make things unnecessarily complicated (looking at you, Striker and Model 1887).

Here I'm going to give the edge to Team Battlefield because when it comes to automatic weapons, fast is (more or less) fast. Yeah, 600 rds/min loses out when compared to 800 rds/min but I wouldn't really wanna stick my head up regardless of the fire rate zipping past my position. What makes the difference is the significantly superior stopping power brought in by their SMGs and the across-the-board reliability of their shotguns, which I think will enable them to hit harder as the fight moves closer-in. It's certainly close, but these factors give Battlefield 3 a significant advantage in mid range.



THIS STUFF TAKES A LONG TIME TO WRITE OUT, SO TO BE CONTINUED, OBVIOUSLY