PDA

View Full Version : OT: Best Infantry Weapon of WW2



erco415
12-31-2006, 05:53 PM
The best battleship & best medium bomber threads were so much fun that I thought it might also be fun to argue about small arms.

My pick: M1 Garand

I purposely left the wording a little vague to increase the play value. Have fun and Happy New Year to all!

erco<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://i74.photobucket.com/albums/i278/ercos-hangar/fokker_now.jpg

Rudeljaeger
12-31-2006, 05:59 PM
Stgw. 44 of course.

But both the FG 42 and the M1 were also quite good.

JSG72
12-31-2006, 06:09 PM
Originally posted by Rudeljaeger:
Stgw. 44 of course.

But both the FG 42 and the M1 were also quite good.


http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif

MG42, Bazooka, (Cough!), PIAT, B,A,R.PPSH 41.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

Is it just me? or can, anyone sook the truth.

Rudeljaeger
12-31-2006, 06:18 PM
Argh....I forgot the MG 42...Still used in many Armys, for example in the Bundeswehr as the "MG 3", slightly modified of course.

Also the american "M60" is a heavily modified reproduction of the MG 42.

Airmail109
12-31-2006, 06:22 PM
Mg42....<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

Megile : "Hey it's not technically spamming if its on different forums right?"

JSG72
12-31-2006, 06:42 PM
Since we still use. (Basically Ball rounds in todays modern army).

I have to make the asumption that the MG42 is in fact the ZENITH, of this particular firearms development. as opposed to slight modifications whatever countries decided had to be included, to make them original designs

Wouldn,t mind betting the MK. 213 would take the grand prize in the aircraft cannon development. And wouldn,t lose a bet on saying that the MK 108 played a hand in the development of the m19 Grenade launcher http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

Is it just me? or can, anyone sook the truth.

Esel1964
12-31-2006, 09:13 PM
M-1 Garand or K-98 Mauser,both fine weapons,M-1 has rate of fire advantage,which can be + or - .<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://i75.photobucket.com/albums/i314/DMFesel/200px-Bomber.jpg

Lyrics from Naked Raygun's "Rat Patrol".
"What we need to take control,we could use the Rat Patrol.What's that coming over the dune?...
Chasing the halftracks across the sandflats,got a nice pine box,for that desert fox,machine guns blaring,and Arabs staring wondering why,the Westerners are there.It's the same old story,and it'll happen again."

VMF-214_HaVoK
12-31-2006, 09:32 PM
BAR
Browning Automatic Rifle of course.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v604/vmfhavok/theBlackSheep.jpg

VMF-214 The Original Black Sheep Squadron of the IL-2 series are currently recruiting dedicated and mature pilots. Visit us at http://vmf214blacksheep.com/

Waldo.Pepper
12-31-2006, 09:38 PM
With apologies in advance, but these threads are stupid. Here's why.

BEST: is never defined from the start.

Best for whom? The end used? Or the nation contracting the weapon? Case in point. Best TANK may be the T-34, but I wouldn't want to crew one. Not BEST for the personal survival of the crew.

Now back to Infantry Weapon. StG44 may have been BEST for the person using it, but it was too expensive to make for Germany at the time. Therefore was is really BEST for the nation?

Also note for Infantry Weapon may also include Bazooka, Mortars etc.

More drinkies for me! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/partyhat.gif

Esel1964
12-31-2006, 09:39 PM
Originally posted by VMF-214_HaVoK:
BAR
Browning Automatic Rifle of course.

Most definitely...if you've got good supply lines allowing adequate .30-06 supply. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Brens are nice too,but carry the same 'supply' caveat.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://i75.photobucket.com/albums/i314/DMFesel/200px-Bomber.jpg

Lyrics from Naked Raygun's "Rat Patrol".
"What we need to take control,we could use the Rat Patrol.What's that coming over the dune?...
Chasing the halftracks across the sandflats,got a nice pine box,for that desert fox,machine guns blaring,and Arabs staring wondering why,the Westerners are there.It's the same old story,and it'll happen again."

leitmotiv
12-31-2006, 09:39 PM
Speed and surprise, everything else is nonsense.

erco415
12-31-2006, 09:45 PM
Originally posted by Waldo.Pepper:
With apologies in advance, but these threads are stupid. Here's why.

BEST: is never defined from the start.

Best for whom? The end used? Or the nation contracting the weapon? Case in point. Best TANK may be the T-34, but I would want to crew one. Not BEST for the personal survival of the crew.

Now back to Infantry Weapon. StG44 may have been BEST for the person using it, but it was too expensive to make for Germany at the time. Therefore was is really BEST for the nation?

Also note for Infantry Weapon may also include Bazooka, Mortars etc.

More drinkies for me! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/partyhat.gif

Hey Waldo, have another drink! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif
I don't expect that anything so neat and tidy as one thing being annointed best will result of this (or any similar) thread. I do find that as people make the case for their pick that I learn a lot. And it's all opinion anyway. So, Happy New Year to you!<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://i74.photobucket.com/albums/i278/ercos-hangar/fokker_now.jpg

XyZspineZyX
12-31-2006, 10:17 PM
Well, having fired only the M-1 Garand and the 1903 Springfield I am by necessity biased

The M-1 Garand is such an honest rifle. I love the '03, but it is fiddly compared to the Garand, which is simple and robust; it feels like you could chop a tree down with it, while it is not too heavy at the same time and in my opinion is actually better balanced than the '03

I was a fair shot with the Garand from the first round, it was literally a point and shoot rifle to 100 yards

The Garand was such a nice effective and simple design that if you place an M-1 Garand next to an M-14, which in my opinion is one of the finest rifles ever built bar none, you will shocked at how similar the two are

While weapons such as the Stg 44 and the MG 42 were more technologically advanced, in my opinion they can't compare to the M-1 Garand because in the case of the MG 42, it required support- ammo, bipod, and barrels. not every soldier could carry one. The Stg 44 was too limited in use. It was the Me 262 of rifles, and despite it's revolutionary design, it mimics the 262's inability to have a decisive impact. The Garand was so widespread that every cook, orderly, and clerk could carry one, and easy enough to transport and keep supplied with ammo that they would have no trouble toting one around

I am very biased but I choose the M-1 Garand<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v441/Chuck_Older/clarkchampion.jpg
Flower of Scotland, will we see your like again?

LStarosta
12-31-2006, 10:23 PM
Why, the .45, of course.

Put halftracks out of business if you ricocheted the rounds off the ground just right.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

_____________________________

http://img109.imageshack.us/img109/1872/fe4ae1e074f2ea8e1878fa1kn2.gif (http://irwinnotguaranteed.ytmnd.com/)

HotelBushranger
12-31-2006, 10:34 PM
.45 wins the day!

http://www.snipercountry.com/Articles/WWII_SniperWarStory.asp

In reality, I'd say maybe Lee Enfield SMLE .303: High ROF for a bolt action, terribly accurate, logistically easy, sexy looking http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

M1 Garand is also a possibility, would have been especially useful in the Pacific where you'd want to be firing off several rounds at once at a target in the bush.

Then again, that's what the Bren's for http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif


Perhaps the best infantry weapon of WW2 was tactics?<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

------------------------------
http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y231/Low_Flyer/fokkerdxximodel3ds_Sig.jpg
You can have no idea just how hostile aircraft can be until they come to your area...
Aircraft which strafe or bomb your positions should be regarded with suspicion, if not deep mistrust. Aircraft which bomb and strafe your position and wear a red circle should certainly be regarded with deep mistrust. In fact, the deeper the better. A six-foot-deep slit trench is an ideal place from which to mistrust them...
Australian soldier VX116124
www.magnum-pc.com (http://www.magnum-pc.com) Be sure.

Stackhouse25th
12-31-2006, 10:48 PM
STG 44, or K98. If STG44 or the FG42 (the later version) were given a chance to have been on the field a few more years earlier they would have been obviously the best weapons the germans could field. i also like the G43 and SVT40.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

VFA-25 C/O

Snuffy Smith
12-31-2006, 10:57 PM
Well, what's still around today?

The MG-42 also known as the M3, and as the M-60 had a very long life. The M-60 used many components and design features of the MG-42 and remained in service for many years.

STG-44 became the model for Kalashnikov. His AK-47 perfected that idea, including the short cartidge.

The Bar was obsolete and the Garand nearly so, when they entered service. A US infantry company had about half the effective firepower of a German company, due to a disregard of infantry weapons developement by the US prior to WW2. All the focus was on artillery developement in the US Army.

"It must be noted that while being technically a very good design (typical for Browning's genius), BAR was not too successful in both Automatic Rifle and LMG role. For Automatic Rifle it was too heavy and too uncontrollable in full auto. For LMG, it lacked the magazine capacity and the quick replaceable barrel, being inferior in terms of sustained firepower to the pre-WW2 LMGs like British BREN, Soviet Degtyarov DP-27 and the like."

But, good ideas don't go away: "The new service standard M-240,takes advantage of the fine technical design of the BAR and in many ways is just a BAR turned upside down with a belt mechanism and quick change barrel."

I used an M-14 (a Garand in disguise) in basic but was issued a Garand when I joined my first combat unit in 1965. I carried it, fired it, and jumped with it. It was heavy and clumsy. The ammunition was heavy, and the 8 round clip a real danger--there was no way to add to reload between clips, so you were left with an empty weapon every 8 rounds, and it made a pretty loud noise announcing that your were empty. It got hot fast too, due to the heavy round, and kicked hard. Not to mention M-1 thumb. I knew some guys in Vietnam who carried Tommy Guns, and couple of old timers who even carried BARs, I even saw Grease Guns used, but I saw no one who ever picked up a Garand in combat if there was something else about to use.

Then there is, of course, the M-2 50 cal. MG. I think it will be with us forever, though technically it is not an infantry weapon. One is not supposed to use it against people.

The best infantry weapons of WW2? I vote for the MG-42 or the Bren.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

"I wanted wings till I got the gosh darned things; now I don't want'em anymore."
I just want the peek-a-boo blonde.
http://mysite.verizon.net/res7kxfm/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/lakeveronicasalute231.jpg

ElAurens
12-31-2006, 11:18 PM
M1 Garand.

Every other nation fought WW2 with WW1 shoulder arms.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

_____________________________

http://img118.imageshack.us/img118/554/elskiubikb4.jpg

"To explain the lure of speed you would have to explain human nature" - T.E. Lawrence

Longpo
12-31-2006, 11:41 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif



No mention of the PPS-43 or the Suomi M/31.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

__________________________

- The Droop Snoot wasn't very effective in combat. Paul Habbe commented, "About the only thing it was good for was hauling whisky and girls." -

HotelBushranger
12-31-2006, 11:45 PM
Suomi M/31

True, the KP-31 was a great SMG. Would you count it as the best infantry weapon of WW2 though? A lot of fighting in Finland-Karelia was at range, where the Mosin Nagant 91/30 was more suited than the KP-31. In the Winter War especially though, were there were a lot of ski battles, the KP-31 ruled over all.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

------------------------------
http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y231/Low_Flyer/fokkerdxximodel3ds_Sig.jpg
You can have no idea just how hostile aircraft can be until they come to your area...
Aircraft which strafe or bomb your positions should be regarded with suspicion, if not deep mistrust. Aircraft which bomb and strafe your position and wear a red circle should certainly be regarded with deep mistrust. In fact, the deeper the better. A six-foot-deep slit trench is an ideal place from which to mistrust them...
Australian soldier VX116124
www.magnum-pc.com (http://www.magnum-pc.com) Be sure.

Snodrvr
12-31-2006, 11:46 PM
I'd have to go with the Thompson Submachine gun. Light weight, high rate of fire, and seems like it'd be fairly useful at short to medium range.

But, If this discussion was limited to Rifles, I'd have to go with the M1 Garand, But I don't know much about guns beyond their hollywood image.

Longpo
12-31-2006, 11:52 PM
Thompson...light?

I thought the major complaint about it was its weight?<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

__________________________

- The Droop Snoot wasn't very effective in combat. Paul Habbe commented, "About the only thing it was good for was hauling whisky and girls." -

HotelBushranger
01-01-2007, 12:03 AM
I've handled a Thompson before, and lemme tell you 'light weight' it ain't!<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

------------------------------
http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y231/Low_Flyer/fokkerdxximodel3ds_Sig.jpg
You can have no idea just how hostile aircraft can be until they come to your area...
Aircraft which strafe or bomb your positions should be regarded with suspicion, if not deep mistrust. Aircraft which bomb and strafe your position and wear a red circle should certainly be regarded with deep mistrust. In fact, the deeper the better. A six-foot-deep slit trench is an ideal place from which to mistrust them...
Australian soldier VX116124
www.magnum-pc.com (http://www.magnum-pc.com) Be sure.

waffen-79
01-01-2007, 12:19 AM
Originally posted by Rudeljaeger:
Stgw. 44 of course.

But both the FG 42 and the M1 were also quite good.


+1 BE SURE!!!

also the LeeEnfield is a Superb bolt action rifle, top of the line<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://i124.photobucket.com/albums/p32/Waffen-79/forum_signature.jpg
You need blokes like me to fly Blue side!
Banning Planes OnLine? NOT COOL, M'KAY?

BoCfuss
01-01-2007, 12:37 AM
It almost seems to me as if some are rating these guns based on COD2. If thats the case then the M1 FTW!!!!!!!

I have really only used shotguns and a few handguns. So really I have no idea.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

Chuck Norris originally appeared in the "Street Fighter II" video game, but was removed by Beta Testers because every button caused him to do a roundhouse kick. When asked bout this "glitch," Norris replied, "That's no glitch."

Sergio_101
01-01-2007, 01:25 AM
M-60 is NOT a WWII design.

For WWII the Garrand was the best battle rifle.
If you were up to your ears in sand a SMLE is best.
US M1 carbine is an excellent weapon, but under powered.

BAR users loved them, but they required a lot
more support.
Rate of fire was poor for a full auto.
It over heated VERY quickly.
It was heavy.
But it was accurate and reliable. Rate of
fire was adequate for most situations.

Mausers, Springfields, US M1917 Enfields, Arisakas and Nagants
were obsolete after 1918.
SMLE's were obsolete except for special operations
where the ability to fire in impossible situations was needed.

Sergio<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

P-51s may not have won the war, but they did not loose it.
Loosing the war was left to the Bf-109s and Fw-190s. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif

jasonbirder
01-01-2007, 02:11 AM
Has to be the MG42 or Panzerfaust for me...
Both ground breaking weapons...Both a blueprint for weapons still in use today...
Gave the German infantry the ability to punch far above their weight.

Aaron_GT
01-01-2007, 02:47 AM
M-60 is NOT a WWII design.

It was based on a WW2 action, though.

The BAR is not a good choice for the best infantry weapon of WW2. Of WW1, perhaps. The first versions lacked a bipod making it a rather overweight way of providing an assault rifle, but did have selective fire. With the addition of a bipod it has the problem that the magazine is not ideally located for changing, unlike the bren. The later versions lacked single shot mode (which was from an open bolt anyway, compromising accuracy) but did have two rates of automatic fire, and the top rate of 800 rpm was pretty good.

The Johnson LMG was a better US weapon for the role, if somewhat more fiddly.

I'd agree that for a combination of firepower and reliability the M1 Garand was the best battle rifle, although the development of assault rifles showed that perhaps the battle rifle itself was heading towards obselesence, but that's another story. The big negative for the M1 was the small ammunition capacity and loading system. Experiments were conducted with versions with BAR magazines. If it had been fitted from the outset with, say, a 15 round magazine that could be topped up with standard 5 round stripper clips it would have been even better.

The SMLE was a good bolt action rifle, but even more obselete. The UK gave up development of its selective fire assault rifle just prior to WW2 to concentrate on the Bren.

Ruy Horta
01-01-2007, 03:02 AM
Die Gulaschkanone!

No Army fights on a empty stomach...<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif
Ruy Horta

http://img212.imageshack.us/img212/7748/signaturecommunismih6.png

CD_kp84yb
01-01-2007, 03:07 AM
The best for an infantryman was the Russian PPSH41, cheap, reliable, 71 shot magazine.
Beloved by the russian and German troops.
No need to reload after a few shots while running at a enemy position.

For the Stg44 and the AK47 they have nothing in comon, the AK is not a copy nor a devolpment from the STG44.
The FG42 too heavy, too much recoil and too expensiv, it was a weapon for specialist (paratroopers) and only a few where build.

The M60 and the MG42 have only in comon that they are both machineguns (ok the M60 has the beltfeeding of the MG42 ,but what modern machine doesnt have it??)

an infantryman wants a light weapon , with lots of ammo (reasonble weight), reliable, easy to maintain and of course good firepower (firerate)
It isnt neccesary to kill with one shot, so you dont need heavy rounds, only counts that the opposite is not capable to continue to fight.

Happy new year all, jeez still a little boozed

cheers

Bobario
01-01-2007, 03:25 AM
I`d go for the Ppsh too. They were highly regarded by the Germans too, German weapons were, on the whole, over engineered and too complicated. The PapaShah was simple, reliable, had a high rate of fire and was eventually produced in phenomenal numbers.

Esel1964
01-01-2007, 03:39 AM
Originally posted by Snodrvr:
I'd have to go with the Thompson Submachine gun. Light weight, high rate of fire, and seems like it'd be fairly useful at short to medium range.

But, If this discussion was limited to Rifles, I'd have to go with the M1 Garand, But I don't know much about guns beyond their hollywood image.

Thompson-very fine weapon,perhaps too fine for the job it was designed to do(close-range spray & prey).
In 1939,a Thompson cost the gov't $209($2750 today dollars),by 1944 a Thompson cost the gov't $45,while an M3A1 Grease Gun cost $5;they're both designed to do the same thing.True the Thompson's a masterpiece of craftsmanship,while the G.M. Headlamp stamping division made 'Grease-gun',sufficed in the roles mentioned earlier.

I'm not saying "grease gun" for #1(by no means),I just believe Thompson's were too finely made for economical short-range work.

Vipez-
01-01-2007, 03:53 AM
Just wondering, how would the M-1 Garand compare against it's rivals, SVT-40 and German G43?<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

__________________________


http://personal.inet.fi/cool/tmu/kuvat/sig.jpg

A.K.A LeOs.K_Vipez

zugfuhrer
01-01-2007, 04:01 AM
Firearms:
The Stg.44
http://world.guns.ru/assault/as51-e.htm
The Ak 47 copied a lot from the STG.44

MGs:

http://world.guns.ru/machine/mg33-e.htm
Used both as light- and heavy MG.

Antitank:
Panzerfaust 100.
Light, massproduced good penetration.

Esel1964
01-01-2007, 04:04 AM
Originally posted by zugfuhrer:
Firearms:
The Stg.44
http://world.guns.ru/assault/as51-e.htm
The Ak 47 copied a lot from the STG.44

MGs:

http://world.guns.ru/machine/mg33-e.htm
Used both as light- and heavy MG.

Antitank:
Panzerfaust 100.
Light, massproduced good penetration.

You forgot:
http://world.guns.ru/rifle/rfl12-e.htm G-43

http://world.guns.ru/rifle/rfl06-e.htm SVT-40

http://world.guns.ru/rifle/rfl05-e.htm Garand

You'll notice that the G-43 and SVT-40 had detachable 10 rd. mags,(A big advantage compared to the Garand's 8 rd. clip that sent out an alarm 'ping' when emptied/ejected,letting the enemy know you're out of ammo(often faked as a trick)),when you look at the numbers produced,that's when you see the "why's".

G-43 prod. numbers ~400,000

SVT-40 ~1.5 mil.

M-1 Garand ~5.5 mil.

Something else to look at,both other rifles than the Garand have an on-rifle,externally mounted cleaning rod,which equals noise,as anybody who's ever owned/handled an SKS can attest,if you jog,or bump the rifle,the cleaning rod sounds like somebody kicking a can.If you're going deer or hog hunting with a surplus rifle-remove the cleaning rod. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/halo.gif

CD_kp84yb
01-01-2007, 04:15 AM
the ak47 and stg44 only have the looks in comon.

http://i47.photobucket.com/albums/f163/cd_kp84yb/ak47-zerlegt.jpg

Action: Gas operated, rotating bolt with 2 lugs


http://i47.photobucket.com/albums/f163/cd_kp84yb/mp43_strip.jpg

Action: Gas operated, tilting bolt

cheers

RCAF_Irish_403
01-01-2007, 05:29 AM
M1...both rifle and carbine. (i own a reproduction M1 Carbine) http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif

BREN gun for LMG

that Soviet submachine gun (PPsH?)<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

Originally posted by marc_hawkins:
Don't be too proud of this technological terror you've constructed. A 108:0 kill ratio is insignificant next to the power of the Force

http://www.fas.org/main/home.jsp

Death-Dealer68
01-01-2007, 05:35 AM
Sorry but you are all Wrong. The best infantry weapon is of course the infantry man !!!

Esel1964
01-01-2007, 05:37 AM
Originally posted by RCAF_Irish_403:
M1...both rifle and carbine. (i own a reproduction M1 Carbine) http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif

BREN gun for LMG

that Soviet submachine gun (PPsH?)

I've got an M-1 Carbine ('43 General Motors) and I'd have to put that in the "most fun http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/partyhat.gif rifle to shoot category".<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://i75.photobucket.com/albums/i314/DMFesel/200px-Bomber.jpg

Lyrics from Naked Raygun's "Rat Patrol".
"What we need to take control,we could use the Rat Patrol.What's that coming over the dune?...
Chasing the halftracks across the sandflats,got a nice pine box,for that desert fox,machine guns blaring,and Arabs staring wondering why,the Westerners are there.It's the same old story,and it'll happen again."

RCAF_Irish_403
01-01-2007, 05:37 AM
Originally posted by Death-Dealer68:
Sorry but you are all Wrong. The best infantry weapon is of course the infantry man !!!

indeed.

it has often been said that the most deadly man on the battlefield is the guy with a working radio.

how did the radio's of the various warring parties matchup?<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

Originally posted by marc_hawkins:
Don't be too proud of this technological terror you've constructed. A 108:0 kill ratio is insignificant next to the power of the Force

http://www.fas.org/main/home.jsp

RCAF_Irish_403
01-01-2007, 05:39 AM
Originally posted by Esel1964:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by RCAF_Irish_403:
M1...both rifle and carbine. (i own a reproduction M1 Carbine) http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif

BREN gun for LMG

that Soviet submachine gun (PPsH?)

I've got an M-1 Carbine and I'd have to put that in the "most fun http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/partyhat.gif rifle to shoot category". </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yeah, they are fantastic weapons. The carbine would be my weapon of choice if i had a say in it<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

Originally posted by marc_hawkins:
Don't be too proud of this technological terror you've constructed. A 108:0 kill ratio is insignificant next to the power of the Force

http://www.fas.org/main/home.jsp

Aaron_GT
01-01-2007, 05:41 AM
the ak47 and stg44 only have the looks in comon.

The most important thing that they have in common in the concept. To some extent the M2 Carbine also has that in common (the M2 Carbine was selective fire, which is what the M1 Carbine was intended to be, but didn't achieve initially). The Carbine, though, was intended as a more useful replacement for the pistol, whereas the Stg44 and AK47 were intended as a replacement for both the battle rifle and the SMG based on reports of typical engagement ranges in the early parts of WW2.

I think the comment about radios is very apt, though. Perhaps the Handie Talkie of the US army plus the various Walkie Talkies should get credit. Or perhaps the Navahos in the Pacific.

Esel1964
01-01-2007, 05:55 AM
Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">the ak47 and stg44 only have the looks in comon.

The most important thing that they have in common in the concept. To some extent the M2 Carbine also has that in common (the M2 Carbine was selective fire, which is what the M1 Carbine was intended to be, but didn't achieve initially). The Carbine, though, was intended as a more useful replacement for the pistol, whereas the Stg44 and AK47 were intended as a replacement for both the battle rifle and the SMG based on reports of typical engagement ranges in the early parts of WW2.

I think the comment about radios is very apt, though. Perhaps the Handie Talkie of the US army plus the various Walkie Talkies should get credit. Or perhaps the Navahos in the Pacific. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

My brother was a Class III firearm's dealer(I guess it's easier to get when you're TX DPS) he had a;BAR,Tommy gun,and a selective M-14)and had an M-2 carbine,it'd only hit about 10 % of aimed shots due to it's lightweight making it spray like a garden hose-same w/ the M-14.
That's why I've got semi-auto versions of both. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://i75.photobucket.com/albums/i314/DMFesel/200px-Bomber.jpg

Lyrics from Naked Raygun's "Rat Patrol".
"What we need to take control,we could use the Rat Patrol.What's that coming over the dune?...
Chasing the halftracks across the sandflats,got a nice pine box,for that desert fox,machine guns blaring,and Arabs staring wondering why,the Westerners are there.It's the same old story,and it'll happen again."

Ugly_Kid
01-01-2007, 05:55 AM
Originally posted by TommyAtkins1966:
I`d go for the Ppsh too. They were highly regarded by the Germans too

PPSh in turn was a heavily copied KP-31 with cheaper quality and less accuracy. Having carried and fired KP-31 in several occasions I would have personally prefered it over RK-62, which is on the other hand an improved copy of AK-47 http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif. The accurate range was enough and 70 round drum did not need constant loading and even on full automatic fire it was still possible to point it and aim, with RK-62 automatic fire was just demoralizing. In close combat absolute winner and when rolling over the trenches.

Did someone already mention German MG42, also noted as a highly proficient weapon and used still by Bundeswehr (modernized, I believe) and I believe some other defence forces (Netherlands, Denmark?)

I am not sure, though, whether there is such a thing as simply "the best", since infantry weapons have several categories, a combination is the key. It would not make sense to say that a squad armed solemnly with MG42 was best equipped, although MG42 is a very good weapon, for its role. Give 30 guys some 4 MG42, 10 KP-31 and 16 Moisin-Nagants and things would fare better.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://www.f19vs.se/fokker_now.jpg

Kurfurst__
01-01-2007, 06:05 AM
Originally posted by CD_kp84yb:
The best for an infantryman was the Russian PPSH41, cheap, reliable, 71 shot magazine.
Beloved by the russian and German troops.
No need to reload after a few shots while running at a enemy position.

It sounds good, but I have 2 'pepeshkas' myself, and they are ungainly, crude *****es IMHO. The drum magazine and the barrel makes it far too nose, and overallly heavy. It might have been a good idea to give such weapons to untrained, herded infantry who didn't even get much of a shooting training. 'Here, Ivan, point at the fascist and shoot'. But overall it's just ungainly. The Soviets themselves realized that, having re-designed it with an ordanary, 30-round magazine. I guess that version was fairly good, high RoF, powerful rounds, but I guess no less crude than the original PPsh in appearance.

The Thompson, I had one in hands, but wasn't very impressed with it. It's an early SMG design, which means it's HUGE and ***bersome in size, and rather heavy. The ammo is low velocity as well, making it having a very short effective range. With the stopping power of the .45 and the high RoF, I guess it was perfect for Chicago mob showdowns, and close quarters in WW2, but it's size and bulk is objectable.

The MP 40 is the one I had in hand as well, and liked the best of all of them. The gun stats themselves are nothing particular special, but the whole package is just a love of first sight. It's increadibly well balanced, it just fits into your shoulder at the first time you raise it, and from what I've read it's steady in the fire with it's moderate RoF. I kinda feel it was the HK MP5 of WW2. The folding stock was also a very new idea at that time, making it ideal for tank crews, paras, and close quarters. It had the limitations of an SMG, but was a very good one at that.

The Sten is IMHO not a serious contender. While it made good service in the times of need, production qualitz was beneath horrendous, and technically, the Sten was little more than a re-engineered Bergmann SMG from 1928, for ease of production.

An interesting contender is the 1943M Hungarian Király SMG, named after it's designer. A fairly good piece I had in my hands, quite well balanced. Despite it's conservative looks (wooden parts etc.), it was anything but that. Like the MP 40, it had a folding stock (much less robust one though, didn't like that). And interesting feature is the 40-round straight magazine, which can be swept 90 degrees to fit under the barrel in march. It fired the rather powerful Mauser 9 x 25 round at a respectable 450 m/sec (the typically used 9x19 parabellum used in SMG is around 360m/sec), at 650-700 rounds per min (early versions : 760-780/min).

http://www.freeweb.hu/gamma21/kiralyg.JPG



For the Stg44 and the AK47 they have nothing in comon, the AK is not a copy nor a devolpment from the STG44.

The mechanism of operation are different, but to say the Kalasnyikov had not took a look at the Stg 44 (which was being around from late 1942) is a bit naive. The concept is obviously similiar, M. Kalashnikov simply reworked it (and he did that job fine!).


The FG42 too heavy, too much recoil and too expensiv, it was a weapon for specialist (paratroopers) and only a few where build.

It's a bit heavy, true, but not very different from the typical WW2 battle rifle like Mosins, Mausers, SMLEs or Garand. The FG 42 was de facto to for-runner of the heavy automatic rifles like the FN-FAL, HK G3, M14 that were so popular in the West and particularly Europe after WW2. As for the FG 42, it was pretty solid design, but too expansive as you mentioned.



The M60 and the MG42 have only in comon that they are both machineguns (ok the M60 has the beltfeeding of the MG42 ,but what modern machine doesnt have it??)

Actually the M60 is a hybrid. Half MG42 (feeding mechanism), half FG42 (operation). Not a very successfull hybrid, thuogh.


Overall though, for the original question, I think the sole real contender for the 'best infantry weapon of WW2' is the MP43/44 Sturmgewehr. There's little doubt that an assault rifle is superior to either semi-autos, bolt-action battle rifles or SMGS. It takes the best of these worlds, and giving the infantryman a universal weapon.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/42333000/jpg/_42333631_puskasbudapest_ap203b.jpg
In memoriam Puskás Ferenc,2 April 1927 - 17 November 2006.
Nyugodjon Békében - May he rest in Peace.

http://kurfurst.allaboutwarfare.com/
Kurfürst - Your Resource for Messerschmitt Bf 109 Performance!

"The Me 109 was exceptional in turning combat. If there is a fighter plane built for turning combat , it has to be the Messer! Speedy, maneuverable (especially in the vertical) and extremely dynamic."
- Major Kozhemyako, Soviet fighter pilot of the VVS

Ignored Posters : AKA_Tagert, Wurkeri, Gibbage, LStarosta, Sergio_101.

The-Pizza-Man
01-01-2007, 06:28 AM
http://world.guns.ru/smg/owen_mk1-43.jpg

Owen gun for the win http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

"As a comparison, Sten guns and Thompson submachine guns were used as benchmarks. As part of the testing all the guns were immersed in mud and covered with sand to simulate the likely environment they would be used in. The Owen was the only gun that still operated after the treatment."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Owen_Gun<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://users.tpg.com.au/rowdie/evasig.jpg

Krizz1972
01-01-2007, 06:31 AM
Panzerschreck 54 (88 mm)

http://www.waffenhq.de/infanterie/panzerschreck02.jpg <div class="ev_tpc_signature">

__________________________________________________ _________________________



http://www.sloganizer.net/en/image,Messerschmitt-spc--spc-BF109,red,yellow.png (http://www.sloganizer.net/en/)

Aaron_GT
01-01-2007, 06:54 AM
it'd only hit about 10 % of aimed shots due to it's lightweight making it spray like a garden hose-same w/ the M-14.

I wouldn't be surprised if it was no worse than an AK-47 or Stg-44 though. The M2 carbine is lighter in weight than either, but then the round is also a bit less powerful than either too in terms of muzzle energy.


The Soviets themselves realized that, having re-designed it with an ordanary, 30-round magazine.

I suspect that was because a 30 round (I thought it was actually a 35 round magazine) is much cheaper to manufacture, and also can be refilled in the field without a special tool.


The Thompson, I had one in hands, but wasn't very impressed with it. It's an early SMG design, which means it's HUGE and ***bersome in size, and rather heavy. The ammo is low velocity as well, making it having a very short effective range. With the stopping power of the .45 and the high RoF, I guess it was perfect for Chicago mob showdowns, and close quarters in WW2, but it's size and bulk is objectable.

Early SMGs were designed for use in WW1 trenches, so the short range in this context wouldn't have been an issue. It's over engineered, but it was a fairly new concept and needed to be robust for trench warfare and resistant to the sort of conditions it was likely to encounter. And in this context a big capacity drum magazine also made sense, and more so than the snail magazine of the MP-18 which had a smaller capacity but the same drawback of needing a loading tool.

In terms of the assault rifle, the first ones were trialled by the Italian army in 1895. A number of nations (e.g. Mexico, Denmark, France, USA, USSR) used or trialled semi auto rifles or conversions of bolt action rifles to semi automatic action prior to or during WW1, although sometimes in relatively small numbers. The UK was criminally late in adopting a semi automatic weapon. I wish I could track down more information on the RAC assault weapon from the 1930s.

Kurfurst__
01-01-2007, 07:28 AM
OFF

Speaking of which, the UK field, develop or toy with any sort of semi-auto rifles in WW2...? Or LL Garands maybe..?
That's actually a bit of WW2 Online related, been toying with the idea of equivalent troops types there... Framericans get the Garand, Germans the G41 or G43, but what for the BEF..?

PS Correct on the 35 round magazine, I just coulnd't find the terminus technicus for the straight magazines.. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/42333000/jpg/_42333631_puskasbudapest_ap203b.jpg
In memoriam Puskás Ferenc,2 April 1927 - 17 November 2006.
Nyugodjon Békében - May he rest in Peace.

http://kurfurst.allaboutwarfare.com/
Kurfürst - Your Resource for Messerschmitt Bf 109 Performance!

"The Me 109 was exceptional in turning combat. If there is a fighter plane built for turning combat , it has to be the Messer! Speedy, maneuverable (especially in the vertical) and extremely dynamic."
- Major Kozhemyako, Soviet fighter pilot of the VVS

Ignored Posters : AKA_Tagert, Wurkeri, Gibbage, LStarosta, Sergio_101.

Choctaw111
01-01-2007, 07:34 AM
I would have to say from personal experience having fired numerous firearms from that period that the MG42/MG3 takes the cake. The first time I fired one was in 1995 when I was in Germany in Ehre Lecine at a former SS training facility. That is where I earned my Shutzenschnur. We also fired the H and K G3 and the Panzerfaust there. I was so impressed by the many refinements on the MG3 that I still find the newest US weapons lacking. You remove the barrel from the SIDE of the gun and not the front, the bipod swivels forward so you can "duck down" when not taking a shot and "pop back up" when ready to fire again, all from the prone. Even the ammo belt has an extended tab on the end to make it easier to load! The rate of fire is 1,200 rounds per minute! There are many more things that just impressed me so much about this machine gun that I have not seen on any other firearm. The Germans really did a fantastic job on this engineering marvel. The only downside is that you would NOT want to carry it around all day. It is impossible to create a weapon that does EVERYTHING well but this one does more things well than any other in my opinion.

On a side note I feel that the actual best infantry weapon of all would be good and abundant rations and a steady supply of mail. If you can keep these two things going you can conquer the world for sure. That is what I always told my Platoon Sergeant anyway and he always agreed with a smile. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

Alienware P4 3.2 EE
2 Gigs RAM
Intel D875PBZ MoBo
GeForce 7800 GS
CH Fighterstick, ProThrottle, ProPedals
TrackIR3 w/ 6DOF

CD_kp84yb
01-01-2007, 08:05 AM
Its hard to discribe the best weapon for infantry, but i go with chocktaw that moral is the best weapon, too boost moral is contact from the home and food supply, you cant fight with an empty stomach http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/touche.gif

For the MG the winner is dead on the MG42, i have fired all kind of modern machineguns, the MAG, Minimi (now in our army) MG3 and had a few years back the happy oppurtunity to fire the MG34 (build 1942) and MG42 (build 1944).Yup my job has some big pro's.
This MG42 is more impressiv than the MG3, must be the round it fires, holy cow, and at 1200Rpm
Overheating No problem, change barrel in no time.
The rest like chocktaw said. Big fun,and most impressiv.

For the guys who never had the change to fire one, this site has some clips.

http://198.144.2.125/MG42/mg42.htm

cheers

Ugly_Kid
01-01-2007, 08:27 AM
Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
I suspect that was because a 30 round (I thought it was actually a 35 round magazine) is much cheaper to manufacture, and also can be refilled in the field without a special tool.


Anywhere I can read the Ppsh drum was a copy of KP-31s and that one required no special tool - in fact it was faster to load than a normal clip. There were straight clips for KP-31 as well, but drum was far more popular. I don't see the real benefit from the straight clip except it will be easier to fit on a belt, but with 1000 rpm the 30 rounds are off in no time - no thx. KP-31 is also somewhat heavy but not disturbingly so.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://www.f19vs.se/fokker_now.jpg

Bewolf
01-01-2007, 08:37 AM
AFAIK the PPSH had one huge advantage going for it...it still worked propperly far below freezing temperatures, at degrees german weapons seized to work. THat is one reason why this weapon was so popular with the german troops, too.

As to the best infrantry weapon per se, I'd also say StG44. The concept alone was far superiour to anything fielded anywhere else at that time.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

Bewolf

Never discuss with stupid people.
They'll drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

Aaron_GT
01-01-2007, 08:40 AM
Anywhere I can read the Ppsh drum was a copy of KP-31s and that one required no special tool - in fact it was faster to load than a normal clip.

I stand corrected. Just about every other drum magazine required a loading tool, though.

Aaron_GT
01-01-2007, 08:44 AM
Speaking of which, the UK field, develop or toy with any sort of semi-auto rifles in WW2...? Or LL Garands maybe..?

Occasionally M1 Garands were used by British special forces, but the one that was issued in numbers to British and Commonwealth troops was the M1 Carbine in South East Asia. The SMLE No. 5 (UK 'Jungle Carbine') was not a happy experiment. If I did any more information up on the 1930s assault rifle that was in development for the Royal Armoured Corps (dropped to develop the Bren) I'll post it, but it the information even when I had a book that mentioned it was very very little.

tools4foolsA
01-01-2007, 08:50 AM
. StG44 may have been BEST for the person using it, but it was too expensive to make for Germany at the time. Therefore was is really BEST for the nation?

They would not have won the war making gazillions of spears either.
Best would have been not getting into a war with so many countries in the first place; hard to win....
If you do there is one thing you need: state of art weapons and those are expensive, but that's the only way to go if you are outnumbered.

If the cheapest easiest to produce weapon would have been the way to go there would be no Challengers, Abrahmas, Leopard II's, Stealth bombers, etc.

I think StG44 was very good as it offered good performance in all fields while other weapons were 'specialists', good for one particular job but unsuitable for other task. Like submachine guns in long range shooting for example.

And yes, after WWII StG44-like weapons beacme standard in modern armies. Another hint that the design idea was right.

****

ElAurens
01-01-2007, 09:14 AM
Originally posted by Vipez-:
Just wondering, how would the M-1 Garand compare against it's rivals, SVT-40 and German G43?

The M1 Garand was more reliable than either of it's gas operated contemporaries. The SVT was particularly finicky about dirt, not a good thing for an infantry weapon.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

_____________________________

http://img118.imageshack.us/img118/554/elskiubikb4.jpg

"To explain the lure of speed you would have to explain human nature" - T.E. Lawrence

AndyHigh
01-01-2007, 09:46 AM
Originally posted by Ugly_Kid:
PPSh in turn was a heavily copied KP-31 with cheaper quality and less accuracy. Having carried

No, sir! This has been covered in the past in this forum, and the truth is that PPsh-41 is no copy of the Suomi-KP M/-31, there's much of differences. It was propably an inspiration for PPsh, but required quite much delicate manufacturing. Russians needed something that was easier for mass production. First of all Suomi-KP M/-31 uses 9mm rounds while PPSh uses 7.62mm. Suomi's barrel can be changed in few seconds, while PPSh doesn't have this feature. It was very accurate, reliable, and made of high quality steel. It fires 900 rounds/min with velocity of 400 m/s.

What was copied was the 70 round drum magazine M/-37 which was almost a direct copy. As for its usefullness vs. smaller magazines, one veteran wrote: "The drum magazine was the best, it wasn't allways empty when you had to shoot. One could stay alive better with it". Especially in forested areas (like most of Finnish front) the shooting range was usually shorter than elsewhere, and SMG's proved their value vs. rifles.

Kurfurst__
01-01-2007, 09:49 AM
Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Speaking of which, the UK field, develop or toy with any sort of semi-auto rifles in WW2...? Or LL Garands maybe..?

Occasionally M1 Garands were used by British special forces, but the one that was issued in numbers to British and Commonwealth troops was the M1 Carbine in South East Asia. The SMLE No. 5 (UK 'Jungle Carbine') was not a happy experiment. If I did any more information up on the 1930s assault rifle that was in development for the Royal Armoured Corps (dropped to develop the Bren) I'll post it, but it the information even when I had a book that mentioned it was very very little. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thanks a lot, Aaron. I was not sure if I knew British small-arms development/use enough, even despite I was sure if such semiauto would exist, it would be surely mentioned here and there...<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/42333000/jpg/_42333631_puskasbudapest_ap203b.jpg
In memoriam Puskás Ferenc,2 April 1927 - 17 November 2006.
Nyugodjon Békében - May he rest in Peace.

http://kurfurst.allaboutwarfare.com/
Kurfürst - Your Resource for Messerschmitt Bf 109 Performance!

"The Me 109 was exceptional in turning combat. If there is a fighter plane built for turning combat , it has to be the Messer! Speedy, maneuverable (especially in the vertical) and extremely dynamic."
- Major Kozhemyako, Soviet fighter pilot of the VVS

Ignored Posters : AKA_Tagert, Wurkeri, Gibbage, LStarosta, Sergio_101.

DuxCorvan
01-01-2007, 09:53 AM
Best Infantry Weapon of WW2

Balls.

http://www.supercoolstuff.com/items/balls/pics/BL627.jpg

Aaron_GT
01-01-2007, 09:56 AM
Thanks a lot, Aaron. I was not sure if I knew British small-arms development/use enough, even despite I was sure if such semiauto would exist, it would be surely mentioned here and there...

I am not sure how far they got with it to be honest. It was intended to be for the Royal Armoured Corps which was typically just issued pistols for personal defence at the time, with the only other options in the mid 1930s really being the SMLE or the Thompson.

In the 1934-6 period there was apparently an atmosphere of inventiveness in terms of aircraft, weapons, uniforms, etc, in the British forces but it seemed to die off after that due to the need to rearm with -something- as quickly as possible.

ElAurens
01-01-2007, 10:45 AM
Semi auto firearms are notorious for their tough time cycling with blank ammunition. The lack of a projectile means no gas seal in the barrel and hence lower operating pressures in the gas system. I'm suprised an M1 would cycle at all firing blanks.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

_____________________________

http://img118.imageshack.us/img118/554/elskiubikb4.jpg

"To explain the lure of speed you would have to explain human nature" - T.E. Lawrence

erco415
01-01-2007, 10:59 AM
Good Stuff!
I've only had the opportunity to fire two WW2 weapons, the Thompson and the Mauser. The Tommygun was the first fully automatic I'd ever fired and I found it very easy to keep on target with 4-5 round bursts. The Mauser (mine's a Turkish build) is heavy, kicks like a mule, but it's a blast when everyone on the range stops and looks to see what the heck just went BOOM over there.
One of the guys at work said that a bunch of Garands are coming back from South America this year, I'm thinking it might be time to look into the Civilian Markmanship program and pick one up. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://i74.photobucket.com/albums/i278/ercos-hangar/fokker_now.jpg

LStarosta
01-01-2007, 11:02 AM
The best infantry weapon is one that does not require the infantryman to confront the enemy on a face to face basis. The longer the engagement range, the easier it is psychologically for the soldier to engage the enemy. Due to archaic combat conditioning techniques used by armed forces in the WWII era, as little as 15-20% of frontline troops ever discharged their weapons in combat. Often times, this "attack" assumed a form psychologists like to call posturing, which in this case is firing with the intent to intimidate and overwhelm without the intent of killing or maiming the enemy.

The lack of proper combat conditioning resulted in the fact that rifles as combat weapons were in most cases useless. The soldier had to step over insurmountable psychological obstacles to actually fire at another man, and it was far easier to fire and intentionally miss with a rifle. Only with an Officer or NCO yelling and encouraging would soldiers actually fire. And riflemen are only effective en masse. The motivation to not let their comrades down was the primary factor that enabled a rifleman to kill, not the fear of getting killed.

My point is that crewed weapons are the most effective at killing the enemy.

This was known by the Romans long ago. The Roman legion was as successful as it was largely due to the fact that since every soldier was in close proximity to not only his peers but NCOs and Officers. Through authoritative and peer psychological reinforcement, as well as constant peer supervision, it was much easier for the individual soldier to kill the enemy. If he didn't, he'd be branded a coward etc. In essence, the Legion was one entire weapon rather than just a formation of soldiers.


Napoleon understood this very well and took it a step forward with his direct-fire artillery support. For starters, the cannon's engagement range was much longer than the musketeer's. Again, the cannon is a crewed weapon. In psychological terms, no one person in the crew is responsible for the actual killing. This kind of mutual absolution is what made the cannon responsible for more deaths than hundreds upon hundreds of muskets could ever do.

In fact, in the American Civil War, many soldiers were so reluctant of discharging their weapons against fellow man, that many resorted to actually using the same crew absolution psychological mechanisms that artillerists did: a few soldiers would actually discharge their weapons while others would stand behind them and reload, passing a fresh weapon to the firing infantry.

As warfare evolved, artillery became longer ranged and was for the most part an indirect fire weapon. What took the direct fire cannon's place was the crewed machine gun. Again, we see the same crew absolution techniques. The loader is not psychologically traumatized by the killing of his machine gun because he is not directly engaging the enemy. Ammo carriers are only that: they carry ammunition. Spotters only point out targets, they don't kill them. The actual gunner, however, is motivated to kill because he is closely bonded with his crew. His crew is watching him, making sure he does his job. On the other hand, he rationalizes the killing he does because if he didn't kill, he'd let his comrades down.

Therefore I will move on to state that LMGs in general were the most effective infantry weapons of WWII. The specific LMG can be debated, although the MG42 was arguably "won teh war".<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

_____________________________

http://img109.imageshack.us/img109/1872/fe4ae1e074f2ea8e1878fa1kn2.gif (http://irwinnotguaranteed.ytmnd.com/)

John_Wayne_
01-01-2007, 11:13 AM
Go tell the Gurkhas.

http://www.army.mod.uk/brigade_of_gurkhas/history/kukri_history.htm

http://www.khukurihouseonline.com/Themes/Products/Large_1/1140693084.jpg <div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b71/Big_Duke/Duke.jpg

ryankm
01-01-2007, 11:20 AM
G43 or the Stg44 depending on what kind of combat you are in. Mg 42 is good but these are small arms not machineguns.

SkyChimp
01-01-2007, 11:24 AM
My votes:

Side arm: Colt 1911A1 .45 ACP.
Why: The sidearm is a last ditch weapon. I picked this one for reliability, robustness, and the .45 cartridge, which is superior to the 9mm in one-shot stops.
Runner-Ups: Colt M1917 in .45 ACP, and Webley Mk VI in .455 Webley, revolvers. These guns were sumpremely reliable and fired powerful cartridges.

Sub-Machine Gun: Thompson M1 .45 ACP .
Why: This model has a blow-back action, was ultra-reliable, had a relatively high rate of fire, an was heavy enough to assist in the control of the gun when firing bursts. The ideal way to fire this gun was either one-round-at-a-time, or in bursts of 3 rounds. The high rate of fire and weight of the gun made this manner of fire very effective.

Assault Rifle: STG44. No competition. Though the rifle was known to be less than robust.

Semi-Automatic Infantry Rifle: M1 Garand. Well made, reliable, very accurate, long ranged. Could be used to lay down suppresive fire, and was accurate enought o serve as a sniper rifle.

Bolt Action Infantry Rifle: Lee-Enfiled SMLE. Well made, supremely reliable, and the .303 cartridge was entirely sufficient a normal combat ranges. It was also relatively compact.
Runner Up: Mauser K98. Reliable, positive round feeding, and a very potent catridge.

Heavy Rifle: M1918 BAR. This rifle was intended to be a heavy infantry rifle or light squad automatic weapon. It was never intended to be a light machine gun. In the role of a squad automatic weapon, I'm not sure it had any peers in WWII.

Very Light Machine Gun: Johnson M41. Underrated and not well known. Very reliable with a blow back action, ajustable rate of fire, potent round, and very light and portable. In fact, I would not even classify this gun in the same category as the German FG42 and contemporaries since it is so much lighter and more compact.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

Regards,
SkyChimp
http://members.cox.net/us.fighters/colorchimp.jpg

"Hammer the American hard enough and you forge the best weapon in the world."
Captain Simeon Ecuyer during the siege of Fort Pitt

LStarosta
01-01-2007, 11:36 AM
That is a completely moot point, Johnny.

Nepalese Ghurkas are a society that DID UTILIZE combat conditioning techniques. They were actually declared by the British as a Martial Race because of their emphasis on combat and warrior prowess etc.

Most of the West was NOT. We have these things called Bibles and Torahs telling us that killing is wrong etc etc. Killing in today's society has become a bigger taboo than sex was in the Victorian age and the advent of homes with separate rooms. That's why we have PETA and all these other organizations against killing animals even if for food. Ever since people stopped hunting or living on farms and gathering or domesticating their own food, they have become entirely separated from killing. Now compound that reluctance to killing by the fact that animals aren't being killed but rather sentient human beings. PEOPLE JUST LIKE YOU DOING THE SAME THING YOU ARE.

However, much has changed and since WWII American soldiers have been subject to seemingly crude and disgusting but psychologically ingenious combat conditioning techniques. Everything from movies and video games to jodies featuring words like "I wanna kill, rape, pillage, burn..." etc. From Lt. Col Grossman's book On Killing, the firing rates of soldiers in Vietnam rose to over 90% compared to the 15-20% in WWII. Everything from dehumanizing the enemy, to the introduction of human silhouette targets for training has made the soldier a far more effective killing machine.

And let's speak pure numbers here. How many soldiers were slain by Ghurka knives and how many were slain by an LMG.

Once again, I stand by my claim that the LMG was the most effective infantry employed weapon of WWII, and not the Kukri.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

_____________________________

http://img109.imageshack.us/img109/1872/fe4ae1e074f2ea8e1878fa1kn2.gif (http://irwinnotguaranteed.ytmnd.com/)

MarkSynthesis
01-01-2007, 11:38 AM
If you think about it, it's hard to consider--for example, the MG'42 is probably the zenith of machinegun development, but would you really want every single soldier in a 8-man squad to have one? The logistical problems and lack of flexibility means it would be unworkable.

A similar case for the later, sturdier version of the FG'42--granted, it's a much lighter weapon, and it did use a few very clever tricks to try to reduce climb, but it still fired a massive bullet at a rather high ROF. You might have a good time scaring the enemy with your own miniature fireball everytime you fire, but I think that would eventually become a disadvantage. And while it was probably much more flexible than the MG'42 (since you could use it as a rifle as well as an MG), it was far more time-consuming to manufacture.

Looking at the weapons intended to outfit most of the soldiers in a squad--the M1 Garand has quite a reputation, but was entered into service fairly late in the War (granted, the US did enter the War somewhat later than some other nations, and fought principally in the Pacific theater). Furthermore, it had such a short useful lifespan--the Mauser 98 rifles were used in both World Wars and for several decades afterwards by other nations, as were Springfields (which I've heard were essentially the same as 98s, but chambered for a smaller bullet and with less-pleasant sights).

Overall, it lookts like the repeating rifle had a very short life-span, especially compared to the bolt-action. SMGs have a similar fate--the Thompson and the MP'40, which are both ultimately phased out in preferece for shorter-cartridge automatic rifles. The BAR, which was a sort of "relic" from the Great War, doesn't count, since it would have many of the problems the FG'42 would later have, was also very painstaking to manufacture, and (I'm wondering why no-one mentioned this), was ridiculously heavy.

Overall, I think the StG'44 might have the "best" weapon for a average infantryman, in terms of flexibility and firepower. Sort of a compromise that lets you confront any situation (seriously, would you want to go house-to-house or through heavy snow with a BAR?). Still, that's all just speculation....

BillyTheKid_22
01-01-2007, 11:49 AM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by John_Wayne_:
Go tell the Gurkhas.

http://www.army.mod.uk/brigade_of_gurkhas/history/kukri_history.htm

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/inlove.gif<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://members.cox.net/bkid/pacificfighters/p39.jpg

.................................................. ..............

"All I got was a bellyful of English Channel."

Xiolablu3
01-01-2007, 12:16 PM
Has to be the STG44, it started a new line of firearms which arms every countries army over the world today, which is a testament to its excellnt design and thinking.

There really can not be any other option.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

--------------------------------------------------------------------
"I despise what you say; I will defend to the death your right to say it."
-Voltaire

Sergio_101
01-01-2007, 12:18 PM
Chimpster is right on the money with only
one disagreement.
I like the Grease gun over the Thompson.
Reason is weight. My farther carried a Reising.
He said the Thompson was way to heavy.

Did the Win M12 see service?
I got to believe it did. Was VERY effective
in WWI trench warfare.
http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2002-2/11449/DSC00415.JPG
Reising was "lighter and more controllable with the Cutts compensator, faster rate of fire also.".
Thompson was"excellent range gun, very reliable and accurate to 100 yards"
My note, 100 yards is beyond the effective range of a .45.
But those were quotes from my farther.

Marines dislike the Reising becuse it was not tolerant
of sand and corrosion.
Wonderful weapon when clean.

By the way, my farther disliked the "grease gun".
He had one "run away*", never trusted it after that.

Johnson M41 was used by the USMC at Guadalcanal.
It was not well liked, but it was really a better
weapon than a Garrand.
Available in select fire, it had two main faults.
it was not very accurate and it was hard
to re-load, or "top off" in a fire fight.
The accuracy issue was related to it's delayed "blowback"
action where the barrel slid forward instead
of a slide or bolt sliding back to load the next round.
The accuracy issue could have been solved.

Advantage of the Johnson was heavy firepower in a small light firearm.
About 1/2 the weight of a BAR and as effective.

By the way, the old man claimed the schmeisser MP40
was the best submachine gun of WWII.
He fired most of them, he should know.
Never a fan of 9mm, but he loved the schmeisser.

Sergio

*(fired till it was empty)<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

P-51s may not have won the war, but they did not loose it.
Loosing the war was left to the Bf-109s and Fw-190s. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif

Airmail109
01-01-2007, 12:53 PM
Seriously all the kuffaw about the 7.62mm rounds being to big and powerful is stupid.

The 5.56 is underpowered in todays enviroment, especially when your fighting insurgents equiped with body armour which is becoming increasingly common place.

This stuff can stop

In Level III,M80 Ball (7.62x51mm), M193 (5.56x45mm), and 7.62x39mm Ball Round


In Level IV, (5.56x45mm), PS Ball (7.62x39mm), LPS (7.62mmx54R),B32 (7.62mmx54R) Armor-Piercing Incendiary round (API), APM2, and BZ/BS API (7.62x39mm Armor-Piercing Incendiary round)


Nato are seriously considering going back to 7.62 rounds or 6.8 SPC. At ranges 100 m and beyond most soldiers select semi automatic mode on their rifles anyway. Why because its more accurate and conserves ammo, one well placed shot is better than praying and spraying, for ranges under that the recoil from a 7.62 round isnt really an issue.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

Megile : "Hey it's not technically spamming if its on different forums right?"

Aaron_GT
01-01-2007, 01:10 PM
Available in select fire, it had two main faults.
it was not very accurate and it was hard
to re-load, or "top off" in a fire fight.

That comment on the M41 makes no sense whatsoever. The M41 rifle could be topped up via the standard 5 roun d stripper clip. The M41 LMG could be also.

Chimp, the BAR was modified prior to WW2 to LMG standards - removal of selective fire, addition of bipod and monopod. I think that signals that it was classed by the US Army as essentially an LMG. The US Army lacked anything else to serve in the role apart from the M41. The M1919 .30 cal MG was too heavy, even with the simple bipod and shoulder stock version. I think the M41 would have been a great choice, though with most of the advantages of the Bren. I don't know why it wasn't more widely used.

Aaron_GT
01-01-2007, 01:16 PM
seriously, would you want to go house-to-house or through heavy snow with a BAR?

Many years ago we did some house clearing reenactment and the squad member armed with a BAR found it rather ***bersome.

BillyTheKid_22
01-01-2007, 01:24 PM
http://www.neaca.com/images/Win_1897_Group_1_.JPG


I have my owner Winchester model 1887 Slide Action shotguns and Marlin Model 1914 Slide Action Shotguns with '26 inch and World War 1. OLD Gun and U.S Army http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://members.cox.net/bkid/pacificfighters/p39.jpg

.................................................. ..............

"All I got was a bellyful of English Channel."

Sergio_101
01-01-2007, 01:30 PM
Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Available in select fire, it had two main faults.
it was not very accurate and it was hard
to re-load, or "top off" in a fire fight.

That comment on the M41 makes no sense whatsoever. The M41 rifle could be topped up via the standard 5 roun d stripper clip. The M41 LMG could be also.

Chimp, the BAR was modified prior to WW2 to LMG standards - removal of selective fire, addition of bipod and monopod. I think that signals that it was classed by the US Army as essentially an LMG. The US Army lacked anything else to serve in the role apart from the M41. The M1919 .30 cal MG was too heavy, even with the simple bipod and shoulder stock version. I think the M41 would have been a great choice, though with most of the advantages of the Bren. I don't know why it wasn't more widely used. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Aaron_GT, quoting from an artical in the Numerich Arms
catalog on Mr Johnson and his firearms.
Garand could not be topped off easily, or at all
from my experiance.

Marines did not like the Johnson.
I believe the Guadalcanal experiance was the
end for the Johnson.

Sergio<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

P-51s may not have won the war, but they did not loose it.
Loosing the war was left to the Bf-109s and Fw-190s. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif

Aaron_GT
01-01-2007, 01:32 PM
Garand could not be topped off easily, or at all
from my experiance.

Ah - I thought you meant the -M41- couldn't be topped off easily!

erco415
01-01-2007, 01:32 PM
LStarosta, I just picked up 'On Killing'. What did you think of it?<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://i74.photobucket.com/albums/i278/ercos-hangar/fokker_now.jpg

Xiolablu3
01-01-2007, 01:33 PM
Originally posted by BillyTheKid_22:
http://www.neaca.com/images/Win_1897_Group_1_.JPG


I have my owner Winchester model 1887 Slide Action shotguns and Marlin Model 1914 Slide Action Shotguns with '26 inch and World War 1. OLD Gun and U.S Army http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Nice! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

My Dad has 3 shoguns, 2 double barrel 'under and over', very nice guns.

I have an air rifle with scope. We are not allowed real rifles here in ENgland unles you have a firearms certificate. My Cousin has a real rifle.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

--------------------------------------------------------------------
"I despise what you say; I will defend to the death your right to say it."
-Voltaire

LStarosta
01-02-2007, 08:54 AM
Originally posted by erco415:
LStarosta, I just picked up 'On Killing'. What did you think of it?

Excellent book. He does a good job of taking a lot of ideas from other military psychologists and he combines them with his own as well. His writing is easy to follow and he does an outstanding job of outlining case studies to support his points.

I highly recommend this book to anyone affiliated with law enforcement or the profession of arms.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

_____________________________

http://img109.imageshack.us/img109/1872/fe4ae1e074f2ea8e1878fa1kn2.gif (http://irwinnotguaranteed.ytmnd.com/)

Worf101
01-02-2007, 09:11 AM
Originally posted by RCAF_Irish_403:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Aimail101:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by The-Pizza-Man:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BM357_Sniper:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Aimail101:
Seriously all the kuffaw about the 7.62mm rounds being to big and powerful is stupid.

The 5.56 is underpowered in todays enviroment, especially when your fighting insurgents equiped with body armour which is becoming increasingly common place.

This stuff can stop

In Level III,M80 Ball (7.62x51mm), M193 (5.56x45mm), and 7.62x39mm Ball Round


In Level IV, (5.56x45mm), PS Ball (7.62x39mm), LPS (7.62mmx54R),B32 (7.62mmx54R) Armor-Piercing Incendiary round (API), APM2, and BZ/BS API (7.62x39mm Armor-Piercing Incendiary round)


Nato are seriously considering going back to 7.62 rounds or 6.8 SPC. At ranges 100 m and beyond most soldiers select semi automatic mode on their rifles anyway. Why because its more accurate and conserves ammo, one well placed shot is better than praying and spraying, for ranges under that the recoil from a 7.62 round isnt really an issue.

I'm not sure where you heard all that. The reason we went to 5.56 from 7.62 is weight. We can carry a lot more ammo and be more effective. Sure 5.56 doesn't have as big a punch as 7.62, but I dare you to ask someone on the receiving end! lol In my 16 years in the infantry, sniper school and combat tours I can't say I have a complaint.

As far as "considering" to go back to 7.62 or 6.8, they've been testing and playing around with that for years. It's very doubtful that will happen any time soon. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Although this is only hearsay, the only serious complaints I've heard about the lethality of the 5.56 are from non-combat troops who don't think it has enough stopping power. The reality probably is that they just aren't hitting them. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://www.theothersideofkim.com/index.php/forums/viewthread/10178/

"It was perfectly suited to the jungles of Vietnam and the lightly clothed enemy we were engaging. However, the 5.56 in Iraq and Afghanistan is the wrong round for the job. It?s failings as a combat cartridge are coming home to roost. The Marines don?t like it, the Special Ops guys don?t like it, the Army on the ground in Iraq doesn?t like it. About the only folks who have not gotten the message are the brasshats in the Pentagon. In fact, SOCOM is so disgusted with the 5.56 that they went out and designed their own new round and had new uppers made for their M16 platforms. The Marines went another route and adoped a redesigned 5.56 round. However, these moves by SOCOM and the Marines just highlight the adaptability of the M16 platform."

Why else are the special forces getting there hands on 7.62 FN SCARs? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

they ought to finally trash the M16 and revert to the old M14

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a66/jds1978/570_M14_rifle_2.jpg </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
When I was in they were just converting from the M-14 to the Plastic Fantastic. It was a sad, sad day I tell you.

Da Worfster<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v366/Worf101/My%20Pics/FortheGloryoftheEmpire1mod.jpg

Sharpe26
01-02-2007, 10:06 AM
kind of strange that noone has mentioned the Sten gun yet.

BM357_Sniper
01-02-2007, 10:10 AM
Originally posted by RCAF_Irish_403:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Aimail101:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by The-Pizza-Man:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BM357_Sniper:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Aimail101:
Seriously all the kuffaw about the 7.62mm rounds being to big and powerful is stupid.

The 5.56 is underpowered in todays enviroment, especially when your fighting insurgents equiped with body armour which is becoming increasingly common place.

This stuff can stop

In Level III,M80 Ball (7.62x51mm), M193 (5.56x45mm), and 7.62x39mm Ball Round


In Level IV, (5.56x45mm), PS Ball (7.62x39mm), LPS (7.62mmx54R),B32 (7.62mmx54R) Armor-Piercing Incendiary round (API), APM2, and BZ/BS API (7.62x39mm Armor-Piercing Incendiary round)


Nato are seriously considering going back to 7.62 rounds or 6.8 SPC. At ranges 100 m and beyond most soldiers select semi automatic mode on their rifles anyway. Why because its more accurate and conserves ammo, one well placed shot is better than praying and spraying, for ranges under that the recoil from a 7.62 round isnt really an issue.

I'm not sure where you heard all that. The reason we went to 5.56 from 7.62 is weight. We can carry a lot more ammo and be more effective. Sure 5.56 doesn't have as big a punch as 7.62, but I dare you to ask someone on the receiving end! lol In my 16 years in the infantry, sniper school and combat tours I can't say I have a complaint.

As far as "considering" to go back to 7.62 or 6.8, they've been testing and playing around with that for years. It's very doubtful that will happen any time soon. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Although this is only hearsay, the only serious complaints I've heard about the lethality of the 5.56 are from non-combat troops who don't think it has enough stopping power. The reality probably is that they just aren't hitting them. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://www.theothersideofkim.com/index.php/forums/viewthread/10178/

"It was perfectly suited to the jungles of Vietnam and the lightly clothed enemy we were engaging. However, the 5.56 in Iraq and Afghanistan is the wrong round for the job. It?s failings as a combat cartridge are coming home to roost. The Marines don?t like it, the Special Ops guys don?t like it, the Army on the ground in Iraq doesn?t like it. About the only folks who have not gotten the message are the brasshats in the Pentagon. In fact, SOCOM is so disgusted with the 5.56 that they went out and designed their own new round and had new uppers made for their M16 platforms. The Marines went another route and adoped a redesigned 5.56 round. However, these moves by SOCOM and the Marines just highlight the adaptability of the M16 platform."

Why else are the special forces getting there hands on 7.62 FN SCARs? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

"Special Operations often uses a variety of different weapons to suit the mission at any particular time. They've done that since their beginning. Who is this guy that you quoted with your link anyway? lol From what I can tell he's just some dude in Georgia that hasn't stepped foot in any current theater of war."

they ought to finally trash the M16 and revert to the old M14

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a66/jds1978/570_M14_rifle_2.jpg </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

"I am not sure how to get this through to you non-infantry/combat arms guys. You have NO idea what difference in weight these rounds make and how much it matters. What matters in a fire fight is how many rounds we can put down range (avg soldier can carry MORE 5.56 vs 7.62) so that we can maneauver into a better position. It doesn't matter if it is 5.56 or 7.62. They can't tell the difference when they are flying toward them and being hit.

I personally have consistantly hit targets at 600 meters with a standard service rifle and participated with A LOT of others that did the same. I guess the difference is in combat arms and noncombat arms units.

This point is very difficult to get across to anyone that hasn't served in a combat unit and especially to those that haven't had to serve in combat itself on a regular basis on tour. On that note, these same people are the ones that are making decisions based on "reports" like you posted that us infantry guys have to die for. One good case in point is when we went from full auto to three round burst. Leave the rate of fire decisions to the guys on the ground. We know that firing on full auto is not accurate, but there may be that ONE time that I need it and I'd like for it to be there. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif"<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a279/lifeguardhall/bm357_logok.jpg
"It's funny that all these guys with engineering degrees rely so much on their charts and graphs to fly. When they get in the plane, they are lucky to fly straight and level. Get a real pilot in there, one that flies by the seat of their pants and he will make it do things that the 'brains' are still denying."

Blutarski2004
01-02-2007, 10:27 AM
Originally posted by The-Pizza-Man:
Although this is only hearsay, the only serious complaints I've heard about the lethality of the 5.56 are from non-combat troops who don't think it has enough stopping power. The reality probably is that they just aren't hitting them.


..... From what I've read about the long strange trip which has been taken by the M-16 and its .223 caliber cartridge, there are problems with lethality.

The lethality of the original .223 cartridge had been based upon providing the bullet with marginal stability by means of limiting bullet rotation to a practical minimum and designing a bullet with the CoG well back. When the bullet hit, its marginal stability would cause it to tumble within the flesh. A tumbling bullet transferred a very great deal more energy to the target than a highly stabilitized bullet and created a very large wound efect.

This original weapon system rifle/cartridge designed by Stoner has been successively altered over the years, and not always for the best.

> The original limited barrel twist was increased to provide better LR accuracy.

> The bullet was later altered to improve its ballistic stability, again for the sake of improved LR accuracy.

What has since been discovered on the battlefield is that these alterations have produced a very stable bullet which does not easily tumble. Reports back from Afghanistan indicate that single hits will usually not drop an assaulting enemy and that 2 or 3 hits are often needed to put down an enemy soldier.

The other complaint filtering back is that the M-16 is being outranged by heavier caliber weapons of Taliban fighters in the relatively LR firefights which frequently occur in the nountainout terrain of Afghanistan.

I doubt that the problem is a lack of soldier marksmanship.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

BLUTARSKI

Blutarski2004
01-02-2007, 10:28 AM
Originally posted by LStarosta:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by erco415:
LStarosta, I just picked up 'On Killing'. What did you think of it?

Excellent book. He does a good job of taking a lot of ideas from other military psychologists and he combines them with his own as well. His writing is easy to follow and he does an outstanding job of outlining case studies to support his points.

I highly recommend this book to anyone affiliated with law enforcement or the profession of arms. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


..... Likewise, excellent book.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

BLUTARSKI

BM357_Sniper
01-02-2007, 10:38 AM
Originally posted by Blutarski2004:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by The-Pizza-Man:
Although this is only hearsay, the only serious complaints I've heard about the lethality of the 5.56 are from non-combat troops who don't think it has enough stopping power. The reality probably is that they just aren't hitting them.


..... From what I've read about the long strange trip which has been taken by the M-16 and its .223 caliber cartridge, there are problems with lethality.

The lethality of the original .223 cartridge had been based upon providing the bullet with marginal stability by means of limiting bullet rotation to a practical minimum and designing a bullet with the CoG well back. When the bullet hit, its marginal stability would cause it to tumble within the flesh. A tumbling bullet transferred a very great deal more energy to the target than a highly stabilitized bullet and created a very large wound efect.

This original weapon system rifle/cartridge designed by Stoner has been successively altered over the years, and not always for the best.

> The original limited barrel twist was increased to provide better LR accuracy.

> The bullet was later altered to improve its ballistic stability, again for the sake of improved LR accuracy.

What has since been discovered on the battlefield is that these alterations have produced a very stable bullet which does not easily tumble. Reports back from Afghanistan indicate that single hits will usually not drop an assaulting enemy and that 2 or 3 hits are often needed to put down an enemy soldier.

The other complaint filtering back is that the M-16 is being outranged by heavier caliber weapons of Taliban fighters in the relatively LR firefights which frequently occur in the nountainout terrain of Afghanistan.

I doubt that the problem is a lack of soldier marksmanship. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

If we are talking about effectively shooting an AK47 vs M16 or M4 carbine, the latter two will win ALL day long at any range. AK's just aren't as accurate. Add the fact that 95% of them can't shoot (lack of proper training) and well, you get the idea. The complaints you read about are isolated and like anything you see in the news, they are going to publicise it and you'll never hear about anything good that happenned.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a279/lifeguardhall/bm357_logok.jpg
"It's funny that all these guys with engineering degrees rely so much on their charts and graphs to fly. When they get in the plane, they are lucky to fly straight and level. Get a real pilot in there, one that flies by the seat of their pants and he will make it do things that the 'brains' are still denying."

zugfuhrer
01-02-2007, 10:40 AM
There are more similarities between the Stg 44 and the AK-47 than the look.
The gas-opeation is the same with the forward piston, and the tilting/rotating bolt are "cousins", and dont forget the short cartridge. I think that the germans looked at the SVT-38 and improved it to the Stg 44, and that Mikhail Kalashnikov pulled the work forward.

Blutarski2004
01-02-2007, 11:47 AM
Originally posted by BM357_Sniper:
If we are talking about effectively shooting an AK47 vs M16 or M4 carbine, the latter two will win ALL day long at any range. AK's just aren't as accurate. Add the fact that 95% of them can't shoot (lack of proper training) and well, you get the idea. The complaints you read about are isolated and like anything you see in the news, they are going to publicise it and you'll never hear about anything good that happenned.


..... My post concerned bullet lethality only.

My mention of the out-ranging issue reported out of Afghanistan was just an aside. And it is not clear to me exactly what "out-ranging" means in the context of those reports - i.e., whether it is a a question of Afghans firing .303 cal Enfields versus .223, or whether it is a question of guys in a valley exchanging fire with bad guys who occupy positions 1,000 ft above.

But, at the end of the day, .223 is not the optimal caliber choice for precision LR fire.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

BLUTARSKI

Sergio_101
01-02-2007, 04:02 PM
Ballistics of a 5.56 NATO 55gr (.223 Rem)round against
a 7.62 NATO(.308 Winchester) or a .30 1906 show the .223
as having superior ballistic performance (flatter trajectory) past 800 yards.
That's beyond what most troops can accurately shoot.

As to sheer power, the .30's win, no comparison.
As to stopping power, it's all about hitting soft
tissue at high speeds.
Really folks, a .223 is as deadly on a Human as a .30.
But with heavy clothing or light body armour I will take a .30.

.303 British is obsolete and not a serious competetor
in a modern battle field.

All the above are far superior at medium to long ranges against
a 7.62 Russian (AK-47).

sergio<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

P-51s may not have won the war, but they did not loose it.
Loosing the war was left to the Bf-109s and Fw-190s. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif

Kurfurst__
01-02-2007, 04:07 PM
Tmm, the 7.62mm 43M is as I recall a more powerful round than the .223.

Besides, the most recent (relatively, it predates Afghanistan) Russian thing is the 5.45mm for the AK-74. And it has some extremely foul working mechanism in tissue.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/42333000/jpg/_42333631_puskasbudapest_ap203b.jpg
In memoriam Puskás Ferenc,2 April 1927 - 17 November 2006.
Nyugodjon Békében - May he rest in Peace.

http://kurfurst.allaboutwarfare.com/
Kurfürst - Your Resource for Messerschmitt Bf 109 Performance!

"The Me 109 was exceptional in turning combat. If there is a fighter plane built for turning combat , it has to be the Messer! Speedy, maneuverable (especially in the vertical) and extremely dynamic."
- Major Kozhemyako, Soviet fighter pilot of the VVS

Ignored Posters : AKA_Tagert, Wurkeri, Gibbage, LStarosta, Sergio_101.

BM357_Sniper
01-02-2007, 05:10 PM
Originally posted by Blutarski2004:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BM357_Sniper:
If we are talking about effectively shooting an AK47 vs M16 or M4 carbine, the latter two will win ALL day long at any range. AK's just aren't as accurate. Add the fact that 95% of them can't shoot (lack of proper training) and well, you get the idea. The complaints you read about are isolated and like anything you see in the news, they are going to publicise it and you'll never hear about anything good that happenned.


..... My post concerned bullet lethality only.

My mention of the out-ranging issue reported out of Afghanistan was just an aside. And it is not clear to me exactly what "out-ranging" means in the context of those reports - i.e., whether it is a a question of Afghans firing .303 cal Enfields versus .223, or whether it is a question of guys in a valley exchanging fire with bad guys who occupy positions 1,000 ft above.

But, at the end of the day, .223 is not the optimal caliber choice for precision LR fire. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree with you, but neither is a 7.62 round. Even though we used 7.62 in the M24 SWS, we used "special ball" ammo. Basically it is match grade ammunition. Also, just from expeerience, I would suggest that any Afghan or Iraqi insurgent that is firing, accurately, past 300 meters is in the very small minority, be sure.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a279/lifeguardhall/bm357_logok.jpg
"It's funny that all these guys with engineering degrees rely so much on their charts and graphs to fly. When they get in the plane, they are lucky to fly straight and level. Get a real pilot in there, one that flies by the seat of their pants and he will make it do things that the 'brains' are still denying."

SkyChimp
01-02-2007, 06:45 PM
Originally posted by Bo_Nidle:
The MG42 must be the most influencial infantry weapon with its design inovations being used in the M60, Fn MAG, MG3 (a virtual copy) and of course in the movie "Aliens".
http://www.inetres.com/gp/sf/aliens/smart03.jpg

If the M60 is any measure of the MG42's success, then I'd call it a failure. The M60, in my opinion, was an awful gun that had to be kept meticulously clean to operate reliably. My personal experience with it was that if it had any grit in it, it was nothing more than a big, heavy, manually operated repeater.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

Regards,
SkyChimp
http://members.cox.net/us.fighters/colorchimp.jpg

"Hammer the American hard enough and you forge the best weapon in the world."
Captain Simeon Ecuyer during the siege of Fort Pitt

Bo_Nidle
01-02-2007, 06:59 PM
I agree the M60 was not the most successful MG by any means but it did use some design points from the MG42-primarily the trigger group which is also employed in the FN Mag.

In relation to the M60, I notice that it is being phased out in favour of the M240(FN Mag)in US forces. However the M60 is now being employed as a tailgun on RAF Chinooks?
http://media.militaryphotos.net/photos/albums/Allied_United_Kingdom/d_raf01.jpg
Why its been adopted I don't know. I asked a pilot at a UK airshow and he didn't know either!<div class="ev_tpc_signature">



Bo_Nidle

"You've got to treat your kite like you treat your woman.Get inside her five times a day and take her to Heaven and back"
Lord Flasheart RFC 1917

"All that is required for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing" Edmund Burke

"Somebody stop that awful,awful man!!" Chief Wigham

SkyChimp
01-02-2007, 07:03 PM
BTW, I happen to like the M16 and found it to be very accurate and very reliable, despite a lot of opinion to the contrary. The majority of my experience was with the older version with full auto fire. One thing I didn't like about it was the selective fire switch.

When I was going through ROTC and was at advanced camp at Ft. Bragg, I learned the hard way that the you had better visually see the position of the switch before pulling the trigger.

The M16 has a selective fire switch that is in a horizontal position in SAFE and in FULL AUTO position. In semi-auto, it's in a vertical position. I was taught that at night you only had to feel the position of the switch to tell if it was on safe. That's easier done (accurately) without gloves on. We had just finished an exercise and we were forming up on a road. As I entered formation, I "thumbed the switch" to see where it was. It was horizontal. Like a *******, I pulled the trigger. TATATATATATATATATATATAT!!!!!! I rattled off about 5 or 7 blanks. Needless to say, the switch was set for full auto instead of safe. But it sure felt like safe with gloves on, at night, with no light. After I finished my corrective action, I was advised that I was not the only one that ever did that. I never did it again, though.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

Regards,
SkyChimp
http://members.cox.net/us.fighters/colorchimp.jpg

"Hammer the American hard enough and you forge the best weapon in the world."
Captain Simeon Ecuyer during the siege of Fort Pitt

SkyChimp
01-02-2007, 07:24 PM
Originally posted by Bo_Nidle:
I agree the M60 was not the most successful MG by any means but it did use some design points from the MG42-primarily the trigger group which is also employed in the FN Mag.

In relation to the M60, I notice that it is being phased out in favour of the M240(FN Mag)in US forces. However the M60 is now being employed as a tailgun on RAF Chinooks?

Why its been adopted I don't know. I asked a pilot at a UK airshow and he didn't know either!

In that role, it's probably very reliable. It was reliable AFAIK when pintle mounted on APCs.

But my experience was thus: during exercises, in mock fire-fights, the most common thing I heard yelled at the height of the fight was "GET THAT 60 GOING." I remember seeing poor 60 gunners popping off a round, flipping open the cover, clearing rounds, closing the cover, popping off a round, and repeating the procedure. On more than one occassion the gun played no real part in the fire-fight since the gunner couldn't keep it going. Now granted it was a little gritty, but god damn.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

Regards,
SkyChimp
http://members.cox.net/us.fighters/colorchimp.jpg

"Hammer the American hard enough and you forge the best weapon in the world."
Captain Simeon Ecuyer during the siege of Fort Pitt

Ken_Det
01-02-2007, 07:35 PM
Grampa-far right-North Affric-WWII liked the Tommy Gun.
His 2 brothers-South Paciffic-WWII liked the M1 for it's nock down power, and it's long range cabability's.
http://groups.msn.com/_Secure/0TgBNDpUXyqKo*Q5ALVOQJ7B8sDwFCAyehL8aLKSctN7EPbO3E *aXkw4yFChDZLO6v6Cag!hgDMTA!P2YesnEqxbaIDy!dQclGMn jJUP7UDnakQNsVU3DwA/Picture%20474.jpg?dc=4675604582585875599
Grampa with X over his head in North Affrica holding his Tommy Gun.
http://groups.msn.com/_Secure/0TwCsGMcX0rOo*Q5ALVOQJwP4Wjw88MQkAb6oGtFjwOMFKFqE5 vF!7cv5ca*vjSL6aXETorinmF1uqBcROc7FVC!VJp9jvblmPBm we*IxPgQiOc5AOsY4PA/Picture%204760.jpg?dc=4675604582848918485 <div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://sc.groups.msn.com/tn/8E/70/HotWheelFamily/2/a9.jpg
http://sc.groups.msn.com/tn/8E/70/HotWheelFamily/2/55.jpg

Esel1964
01-02-2007, 08:24 PM
Originally posted by Choctaw111:
...The first time I fired one was in 1995 when I was in Germany in Ehre Lecine at a former SS training facility. That is where I earned my Shutzenschnur. We also fired the H and K G3 and the Panzerfaust there. ...

First off,congrats on the Schutzenschnur,and I bet that 1200 rd/min G-3 got the blood pumping.
But,I'd like to hear a descriptuion of the experience of firing the Panzerfaust.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://i75.photobucket.com/albums/i314/DMFesel/200px-Bomber.jpg

Lyrics from Naked Raygun's "Rat Patrol".
"What we need to take control,we could use the Rat Patrol.What's that coming over the dune?...
Chasing the halftracks across the sandflats,got a nice pine box,for that desert fox,machine guns blaring,and Arabs staring wondering why,the Westerners are there.It's the same old story,and it'll happen again."

HerrGraf
01-02-2007, 08:56 PM
I think that everyone is missing the point of the MG42 vs. B.A.R. debate. The German infantry squad is based around the MG 42. An American infantry squad was not based around a single B.A.R., there were a couple issued in each squad. The Marines issued one B.A.R. to a fireteam (4 men).
My main complaint about the M16 deals with the sights that the old ones came with. Couldn't hit squat with them except close in. The new ones have a much better sight system then the ones I used. Personally I preferred the M14 as I could reach out and touch someone with that heavy beast. The FN FAL is better still, but I have never had a chance to play with one.
My vote for the best WW2 infantry weapon goes to the M2 Browning. If it won't penetrate the target, just call back for something much heavier.

han freak solo
01-02-2007, 09:32 PM
Originally posted by LStarosta:
The best infantry weapon is one that does not require the infantryman to confront the enemy on a face to face basis.

Okay, who kidnapped LStarosta? His avatar is freakin' me out and this guy has valid, intelligent postings.

WTF?<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://www.lssdigital.com/lwpilot/HFSsig47.jpg

Xiolablu3
01-02-2007, 09:36 PM
Originally posted by Ken_Det:
Grampa-far right-North Affric-WWII liked the Tommy Gun.
His 2 brothers-South Paciffic-WWII liked the M1 for it's nock down power, and it's long range cabability's.
http://groups.msn.com/_Secure/0TgBNDpUXyqKo*Q5ALVOQJ7B8sDwFCAyehL8aLKSctN7EPbO3E *aXkw4yFChDZLO6v6Cag!hgDMTA!P2YesnEqxbaIDy!dQclGMn jJUP7UDnakQNsVU3DwA/Picture%20474.jpg?dc=4675604582585875599
Grampa with X over his head in North Affrica holding his Tommy Gun.
http://groups.msn.com/_Secure/0TwCsGMcX0rOo*Q5ALVOQJwP4Wjw88MQkAb6oGtFjwOMFKFqE5 vF!7cv5ca*vjSL6aXETorinmF1uqBcROc7FVC!VJp9jvblmPBm we*IxPgQiOc5AOsY4PA/Picture%204760.jpg?dc=4675604582848918485

Very nice pics Ken http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

--------------------------------------------------------------------
"I despise what you say; I will defend to the death your right to say it."
-Voltaire

han freak solo
01-02-2007, 09:40 PM
Since I'm just a civilian and have no reasonable education or experience to post an argument in favor of one firearm over the other, I'm just voting on the one that I know to be the most fun to shoot. WWII era, that is.

Thompson M1A1
http://files.uzitalk.com/images/usma/museum/thompson-m1a1-02.jpg <div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://www.lssdigital.com/lwpilot/HFSsig47.jpg

Ken_Det
01-02-2007, 10:10 PM
Thanks Xiolablu3 http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
I took the pix of photo's with my Sony Sibershot.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://sc.groups.msn.com/tn/8E/70/HotWheelFamily/2/a9.jpg
http://sc.groups.msn.com/tn/8E/70/HotWheelFamily/2/55.jpg

Aaron_GT
01-03-2007, 02:01 AM
An American infantry squad was not based around a single B.A.R., there were a couple issued in each squad.

The official US Army organisation up to late 1944 had one M1903, one BAR, and 10 M1s per standard infantry squad. The BAR was being issued as an LMG replacement, with one person being designated the second crewman for the BAR. The late 1944-45 squad had the BAR replaced by a bipod mounted M1919 with a shoulder stock (I can't remember which A number it was). Officially (from memory) a paratroop squad had no BARs or LMGs at all until late 1944.

Sergio_101
01-03-2007, 02:58 AM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
Tmm, the 7.62mm 43M is as I recall a more powerful round than the .223.

Besides, the most recent (relatively, it predates Afghanistan) Russian thing is the 5.45mm for the AK-74. And it has some extremely foul working mechanism in tissue.

7.62x39mm Russian, for the AK47 is a tad more powerful
than a .223, but has MUCH lower muzzle velocity and as a result
rather lame ballistic performance.
IMO it's superior to a .223 at under 300m.
The 7.62x39 would not be my choice in combat.
The 5.45 Ă— 39 mm is the equal of the .223
in most respects, and shares it's
faults and advantages. The 5.45 Ă— 39 mm can be
hand loaded to a bit more muzzle velocity than a .223
with the same projectile weight. In practice
there is no difference.
Military loadings have the .223 as a bit
more powerful.

Sergio<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

P-51s may not have won the war, but they did not loose it.
Loosing the war was left to the Bf-109s and Fw-190s. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif

HotelBushranger
01-03-2007, 03:54 AM
I take it no one is taking the Owen gun seriously? I think it's definately in contention for the best SMG of the war.
-It was super reliable and resistant to the environment.
-It was accurate and controllable thanks to having 2 pistol grips.
-It could be disassembled and cleaned without tools.
-It didn't require any special tool to reload the magazine, unlike any drum magazine SMG and I also believe the Sten and MP-40.
-It was far cheaper to manufacture than a Thompson and weighed about the same as an MP-40.

Apparently, US troops would go to great lengths to get their hands on Owen guns.

Best SMG of the war, absolutely a contended. They were still using them in Korea and a bit in Vietnam IIRC. I think the best thing about them, apart from their killing power, is that compared to all other SMG's it was bloody uncomplicated and really easy to maintain. This was especially useful in the Pacific, where the Aussies used em.

Best SMG of the war? IMO Either that or the KP-31. Best infantry weapon of the war? I wouldn't say so.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

------------------------------
http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y231/Low_Flyer/fokkerdxximodel3ds_Sig.jpg
You can have no idea just how hostile aircraft can be until they come to your area...
Aircraft which strafe or bomb your positions should be regarded with suspicion, if not deep mistrust. Aircraft which bomb and strafe your position and wear a red circle should certainly be regarded with deep mistrust. In fact, the deeper the better. A six-foot-deep slit trench is an ideal place from which to mistrust them...
Australian soldier VX116124
www.magnum-pc.com (http://www.magnum-pc.com) Be sure.

BrewsterPilot
01-03-2007, 03:58 AM
Originally posted by TommyAtkins1966:
I`d go for the Ppsh too. They were highly regarded by the Germans too, German weapons were, on the whole, over engineered and too complicated. The PapaShah was simple, reliable, had a high rate of fire and was eventually produced in phenomenal numbers.

And a pirated, simplified version of the Suomi Model 1931, which was much more durable, accurate and could take more of a beating...<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://img487.imageshack.us/img487/2796/7ffb9f51c23d5648bd11e44yt7.jpg

DuxCorvan
01-03-2007, 05:00 AM
The best infantry weapon is a Spanish Legion soldier, armed with cojones, if you manage to anger him enough, which is easily achieved.

http://www.tel.uva.es/personales/econgil/leg2.jpg

Airmail109
01-03-2007, 05:06 AM
Nahhh the brits are much more dangerous when theyre pissed off

http://youtube.com/watch?v=pWJndtug4j0

Eeeek<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

Megile : "Hey it's not technically spamming if its on different forums right?"

Krizz1972
01-03-2007, 05:19 AM
http://198.144.2.125/MG42/FULL/STG-44%203.jpg <div class="ev_tpc_signature">

__________________________________________________ _________________________



http://www.sloganizer.net/en/image,Messerschmitt-spc--spc-BF109,red,yellow.png (http://www.sloganizer.net/en/)

han freak solo
01-03-2007, 06:57 AM
Originally posted by DuxCorvan:
The best infantry weapon is a Spanish Legion soldier, armed with cojones, if you manage to anger him enough, which is easily achieved.

http://www.tel.uva.es/personales/econgil/leg2.jpg

He's p1ssed because he has to wear those crazy white gloves in public. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://www.lssdigital.com/lwpilot/HFSsig47.jpg

Worf101
01-03-2007, 06:59 AM
Originally posted by SkyChimp:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bo_Nidle:
I agree the M60 was not the most successful MG by any means but it did use some design points from the MG42-primarily the trigger group which is also employed in the FN Mag.

In relation to the M60, I notice that it is being phased out in favour of the M240(FN Mag)in US forces. However the M60 is now being employed as a tailgun on RAF Chinooks?

Why its been adopted I don't know. I asked a pilot at a UK airshow and he didn't know either!

In that role, it's probably very reliable. It was reliable AFAIK when pintle mounted on APCs.

But my experience was thus: during exercises, in mock fire-fights, the most common thing I heard yelled at the height of the fight was "GET THAT 60 GOING." I remember seeing poor 60 gunners popping off a round, flipping open the cover, clearing rounds, closing the cover, popping off a round, and repeating the procedure. On more than one occassion the gun played no real part in the fire-fight since the gunner couldn't keep it going. Now granted it was a little gritty, but god damn. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Boy did you bring back some memories there. I was a M60 gunner with the 5th Ash and Trash at Ft. Leonard Wood, Misery. I NEVER could get the the 60 to work with blanks. If you didn't put the restrictor on, there wasn't enough blowback to reload the gun so you only got one shot. If you put it on you'd get two shots but the gun would be so fouled with carbon you'd spend the next week trying to clean it. I hate blanks.

Da Worfster<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v366/Worf101/My%20Pics/FortheGloryoftheEmpire1mod.jpg

HotelBushranger
01-03-2007, 07:16 AM
From what some savvy friends have told me, it's the same thing with the MG-42's they use in reenacting; don't take to blanks very well. I've also seen a video on YouTube of British troops in Germany; a bloke with a MAG-58 GPMG is in a building, every time he pops his gun out of a window and fires a shot, STOPPAGE, instant action, pull the trigger, STOPPAGE, instant action, etc etc etc. I felt sorry for the poor fellow http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

------------------------------
http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y231/Low_Flyer/fokkerdxximodel3ds_Sig.jpg
You can have no idea just how hostile aircraft can be until they come to your area...
Aircraft which strafe or bomb your positions should be regarded with suspicion, if not deep mistrust. Aircraft which bomb and strafe your position and wear a red circle should certainly be regarded with deep mistrust. In fact, the deeper the better. A six-foot-deep slit trench is an ideal place from which to mistrust them...
Australian soldier VX116124
www.magnum-pc.com (http://www.magnum-pc.com) Be sure.

Ninemm2004
01-03-2007, 08:55 AM
I don't think you can pronounce a "best"
without having some criteria to match them
against and taking into acount the roles
they are suited for (which of course may well
not be the roles they were actually used in).

In the end reckoning, weapons are just a tool;
if you can keep it working, if it reliably
goes "bang" when you squeeze the trigger and
if it hits what you want it to hit then it's
just fine.

If by "the best" you mean the "most effective"
in WW2 then it unquestionably has to be
mortars. Splinters were by far the biggest
casualty producer, not bullets. As mentioned
before, only 20% or so would actually fire in
combat (and only 2% would actively attempt to
shoot to kill). Interestingly, the same
statistics are valid for WW2 aerial combat
too. The vast majority of kills were made
by only 1% of the pilots.

BaronUnderpants
01-03-2007, 10:53 AM
Originally posted by Aimail101:
Nahhh the brits are much more dangerous when theyre pissed off

http://youtube.com/watch?v=pWJndtug4j0

Eeeek


Not that i know the story behind the clip but:

Real brave heroes. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

Especially the one filming, what a turd....sounds to me like his stoned.

A disscrase to the uniform. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

BillyTheKid_22
01-03-2007, 11:06 AM
http://efour4ever.com/thompson_560_text.jpg


http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/inlove.gif<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://members.cox.net/bkid/pacificfighters/p39.jpg

.................................................. ..............

"All I got was a bellyful of English Channel."

DuxCorvan
01-03-2007, 11:12 AM
Originally posted by han freak solo:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DuxCorvan:
The best infantry weapon is a Spanish Legion soldier, armed with cojones, if you manage to anger him enough, which is easily achieved.

http://www.tel.uva.es/personales/econgil/leg2.jpg

He's p1ssed because he has to wear those crazy white gloves in public. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Blood sticks under nails, lad. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

BillyTheKid_22
01-03-2007, 11:14 AM
Originally posted by DuxCorvan:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by han freak solo:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by DuxCorvan:
The best infantry weapon is a Spanish Legion soldier, armed with cojones, if you manage to anger him enough, which is easily achieved.



He's p1ssed because he has to wear those crazy white gloves in public. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif

Blood sticks under nails, lad. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif[QUOTE]

I am laugh!!!!!<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://members.cox.net/bkid/pacificfighters/p39.jpg

.................................................. ..............

"All I got was a bellyful of English Channel."