Heavy automatic rifle vs LMG

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Heavy automatic rifle vs LMG

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Steel Panthers World At War & Mega Campaigns >> Heavy automatic rifle vs LMG

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Heavy automatic rifle vs LMG - 5/30/2007 9:22:10 PM

Kuokkanen

Posts: 3545
Joined: 4/2/2004
Status: offline

Sometimes it's bit funny how translations can twist meanings. Let's take a look how that has affected to SPWAW, starting from automatic rifles and light machine guns and how their wordings are different in english and finnish languages. First off I'll teach you some finnish:
pikatykki = autocannon
pikakiv��ri = automatic rifle or light machine gun... WAIT A MOMENT!

I think first pair of two is more compatible. Is there word autorifle? I guess not. Anyways many weapons that SPWAW and Wikipedia names as automatic rifle or light machine gun are, in finnish, called pikakiv��ri. These weapons include Lahti-Saloranta, Degtrajev, Bren and BAR. In finnish MG34 is LMG too, so no conflict there. On the otherhand pikakiv��ri is defined as LMG with clip feed system instead belt, so effect caused by translation barrier is minor.

So what does this mean? At least that Lahti-Saloranta is possibly named incorrectly as LMG when it is closer to heavy automatic rifle along with BAR. It does weigh couple kg more than BAR, but I think it was used much the same way as squad/platoon support weapon (where available). Many other characteristics between these weapons, like caliber, rate of fire and magazine capacity, are very much the same. So what does make BAR automatic rifle and Lahti-Saloranta LMG when so many things are on the same line?

[edit]
Maybe correction could be made for future Enhanced DV versions?

Just for fun, search for english translation for word v��peli

(it's finnish military rank)

Corrected wording.

< Message edited by Matti Kuokkanen -- 5/30/2007 9:55:41 PM >

_____________________________

You know what they say, don't you? About how us MechWarriors are the modern knights, how warfare has become civilized now that we have to abide by conventions and rules of war. Don't believe it.

MekWars

Post #: 1

RE: Heavy automatic rifle vs LMG - 5/30/2007 10:28:55 PM

FlashfyreSP

Posts: 1193
Joined: 7/6/2002
From: Combat Information Center
Status: offline

quote:

So what does make BAR automatic rifle and Lahti-Saloranta LMG when so many things are on the same line?

What makes it a BAR is, that's its name: Browning Automatic Rifle. What makes it a LMG is, that's its nomenclature (name): Lahti-Saloranta m/26 LMG.

What does it really matter?

If you don't like the name, make the change in your OOB.

_____________________________

(in reply to Kuokkanen)

Post #: 2

RE: Heavy automatic rifle vs LMG - 5/31/2007 12:29:22 AM

KG Erwin

Posts: 8981
Joined: 7/25/2000
From: Cross Lanes WV USA
Status: offline

Interesting. Apparently there's not a clear distinction in the definitions of a light machine gun as opposed to an automatic rifle. Both could be operated by an individual, but a BAR man or Bren gunner usually had an assistant.

In any case, for SPWaW purposes the LMGs and automatic rifles are secondary squad weapons, so as Flashfyre said, if you wanna call a whatsit a whosit, it really doesn't matter.

(in reply to FlashfyreSP)

Post #: 3

RE: Heavy automatic rifle vs LMG - 5/31/2007 1:53:43 AM

FlashfyreSP

Posts: 1193
Joined: 7/6/2002
From: Combat Information Center
Status: offline

Most LMGs also operated with an assistant; the only real distinction would be if the weapon is not capable of firing single shots. Then it would not qualify as an "automatic rifle", but would more accurately fit the description of a light machine gun.

_____________________________

(in reply to KG Erwin)

Post #: 4

RE: Heavy automatic rifle vs LMG - 5/31/2007 5:19:14 AM

azraelck

Posts: 581
Joined: 1/16/2006
Status: offline

It's interesting. There actually seems to be two types of LMGs. One is the traditional, M1919 or MG34-type ones that are used deployed primarily to provide sustain supporting fire from movable positions. Then there's the ones like the Bren, which can be used in that role, or to provide mobile fire, like a BAR.

Automatic Rifles like the BAR and the Soviet AVS-36 are essentially heavy rifles, capable of fully automatic fire; to provide fully mobile support fire when needed, and capable of being used at range for accurate shots or up close in an assault. While most LMGs tend to be made for long sustained periods of fire from a deployed position. But there are plenty of notable exceptions to that, like the Bren gun. Of course, those tend not to be quite as good in the traditional LMG role, mostly due to the reduced ammo capacity. Of course, those big honkin' magazines jutting up probably didn't make the gunners too comfortable. It seems to me a good way to paint a target on one's self.

As to the game, it's arbitrary. If you want something to be designated a LMG or an Automatic Rifle, then do so. In the case of the Finnish Lahti-Saloranta, it appears that it was called an LMG originally, whether it matches the traditional design of one or not. The Bren doesn't either, not strictly, nor does quite a few more guns of that type that are still called LMGs.

The BAR is not the only automatic rifle, just the best known (and probably the best period). The M14 qualifies as well, as does the above mentioned AVS-36. I'm sure that there are more, that just don't get heard of very much because they either sucked like the AVS or weren't used quite as widely and with as much acclaim as the BAR.

_____________________________

"Wait... Holden was a cat. Suddenly it makes sense."

(in reply to Kuokkanen)

Post #: 5

RE: Heavy automatic rifle vs LMG - 5/31/2007 6:02:45 AM

264rifle

Posts: 168
Joined: 12/5/2004
Status: offline

Since in WW II the only 3 belt fed LMG were the MG 34, the MG 42 and the American M1919A6 which is only a light machine gun if we are being charitable i am not sure how the Brens 28-30 round magazines were such a disadantage. Since the big problem with sustained fire was trying to keep the gun/barrel cool most LMGs were limited to about 120 rpm. Book drill for Bren was 4 mags per minute and change barrels after 2 1/2 minutes. Bren and MG 42 probably had the best barrel changing systems. I forget what the suggested drill was for changing the barrel on the MG 42 but I think it was supposed to be changed after 250 rounds

Brens were issued with 25 magazines giving the squad 700-750 rounds in magazines. I am not sure what the ammo load out was for some other peaples LMGs but given similar weight ammo (Is it 4lb per hundred or 8lb per hundred

) it doesn't take a lot of ammo to equel the weight of the gun.

Since only a few guns had more rounds in their magazines than the Bren ( Russian DP springs to mind) and those didn't have a quick change barrel I am not sure what you have against the Bren gun. No Japanes LMG held more rounds (as many yes but not more) the Italian Breda held only 20 in one of the worlds worst magazine systems. The Czech zb 26 and zb 30 (ancestors of the Bren) held 20. French gun held 20 as did the American BAR and all of it's european cousins. If you put a 30 round mag out the bottom the gunner can't get low enough to the ground. If you put it out the side (MG 13, Auatrian MG 30, American Johnson and the afore mention Breda) the gun is unbalanced and awkward to carry. Kind of leaves you with out the top. I am not sure what kind of eyes a soldier would have to pick out a bren guns 30 round mag and miss a French or czech LMG with a 20 rounder sticking out the top. And then we are back to the cooling problem. The 'book' rate of fire for the BAR was 80 rpm to prevent over heating.

(in reply to azraelck)

Post #: 6

RE: Heavy automatic rifle vs LMG - 5/31/2007 6:52:13 AM

KG Erwin

Posts: 8981
Joined: 7/25/2000
From: Cross Lanes WV USA
Status: offline

Azraelck, just look at the numbers in the database. The Bren is a pretty awesome weapon. As far as a SAW is concerned, it leaves the BAR in the dust.

However, and this can't be denied, the Germans, with the light MG 34 and later the MG42, had a squad base of fire that was hard to match. It offset the ineffiency of the bolt-action Mausers than the common landser carried.

Since we don't have easy to compare "combat factors" in SPWaW, it'd be difficult to determine which nations' squads could pour out the most firepower, since morale and experience also play a part in the "to hit" calculation.

(in reply to 264rifle)

Post #: 7

RE: Heavy automatic rifle vs LMG - 5/31/2007 9:35:22 PM

Kuokkanen

Posts: 3545
Joined: 4/2/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: azraelck

In the case of the Finnish Lahti-Saloranta, it appears that it was called an LMG originally

What do you mean with originally? It was originally LMG in Steel Panthers and still is in SPWAW. But when weapon first came off from assembly lines, it was called pikakiv��ri, where:
pika = auto(matic)
kiv��ri = rifle

Also see first post for more info

_____________________________

(in reply to azraelck)

Post #: 8

RE: Heavy automatic rifle vs LMG - 6/1/2007 12:06:00 AM

FlashfyreSP

Posts: 1193
Joined: 7/6/2002
From: Combat Information Center
Status: offline

Matti

As you said earlier, translations are funny when they mix up meanings. If someone translates pikakiv��ri as "machine gun", then that's how it will be referred to in there treatise. If they translate it as "machine rifle", or "automatic rifle", or "automatic gun", the same applies.

Here's a link to the L-S m/26 weapon, plus some bibliography sources. http://www.saunalahti.fi/~ejuhola/7.62/lahtisaloranta.html
Look at the first one: it calls the weapon a "machine rifle".

So which is the most correct? Which is the right translation? Does it really matter?

_____________________________

(in reply to Kuokkanen)

Post #: 9

RE: Heavy automatic rifle vs LMG - 6/1/2007 7:53:42 AM

Korpraali V

Posts: 659
Joined: 7/11/2005
From: Finland
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Matti Kuokkanen

quote:

ORIGINAL: azraelck

In the case of the Finnish Lahti-Saloranta, it appears that it was called an LMG originally

What do you mean with originally? It was originally LMG in Steel Panthers and still is in SPWAW. But when weapon first came off from assembly lines, it was called pikakiv��ri, where:
pika = auto(matic)
kiv��ri = rifle

Also see first post for more info

Actually 'pika' is not automatically translated as 'auto(matic)' in regular Finnish to English translations. Usually 'automatic' is simply 'automaattinen'.

As far as I know Finnish 'pikakiv��ri' is in most cases translated as LMG. That is ok since we all know - for example by previous posts - that the term 'LMG' includes quite of a variety of weapons (from zb26 to MG42). Also other translating variations are ok, as long as we have some picture of what we are talking about.

So I'll have to go with Flash in this: It doesn't really matter.

_____________________________

(in reply to Kuokkanen)

Post #: 10

RE: Heavy automatic rifle vs LMG - 6/1/2007 4:04:50 PM

NoX

Posts: 41
Joined: 2/23/2006
From: Finland
Status: offline

Yep, the Finnish word pikakiv��ri breaks into:
"pika" = quick, fast, rapid
"kiv��ri" = rifle

So pikakiv��ri in English could be translated to something like "rapid-fire rifle". However "pikakiv��ri" is a Finnish classification for a light machine gun that has a box magazine rather than belt ammunition.

I don't think that in English there is a distinction like that made, so you can not compare the Finnish weapon terminology to English directly. So Lahti/Saloranta is a light machine gun in English because there is no "pikakiv��ri" equivalent classification in the English language.

In English you would simply say:
pikakiv��ri = light machine gun whit a box magazine.
kevytkonekiv��ri = light machine gun whit a belt feed.

Also note that:
"Automaattikiv��ri" = Automatic rifle

The only automatic rifles (or autorifles if you like to shorten the words) Finland had were the Soviet Tokarev and Simonov designs that were taken as war trophy.

_____________________________

Nox a.k.a Lahtinen

(in reply to Korpraali V)

Post #: 11

RE: Heavy automatic rifle vs LMG - 6/4/2007 1:49:59 PM

String

Posts: 2661
Joined: 10/7/2003
From: Estonia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: 264rifleI forget what the suggested drill was for changing the barrel on the MG 42 but I think it was supposed to be changed after 250 rounds

I can only vouch for MG-3 but i recall that in this area they were the same. We were taught to change barrels every 250 rounds. Conveniently we also had 250 round standard belts. We didn't drill the barrel change too much, but the best of us could still change it with less than 5 seconds. We were told that 3 seconds was a goal to aim for. Ofcourse that required the assistant to prepare for the change beforehand and take the spare barrel out etc.

IIRC the lock was also changed every 2500? rounds. I'm not very sure but it was a pretty big number. The reason for the lock change was to keep the spare lock at the same level of wear as the main one.

(in reply to 264rifle)

Post #: 12

RE: Heavy automatic rifle vs LMG - 6/14/2007 4:27:40 AM

Rune Iversen

Posts: 3630
Joined: 7/20/2001
From: Copenhagen. Denmark
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: String

IIRC the lock was also changed every 2500? rounds. I'm not very sure but it was a pretty big number. The reason for the lock change was to keep the spare lock at the same level of wear as the main one.

It is also related to the bolt (Not lock. It is only a "lock" (verschluss) in german) getting dirty and seizing up. It is especially bad if the two rollers get dirty, since the machinegun will teh refuse to eject spent cartridges.

_____________________________

Ignoring the wulfir
Fighting the EUnuchs from within

(in reply to String)

Post #: 13

RE: Heavy automatic rifle vs LMG - 6/18/2007 10:25:11 PM

String

Posts: 2661
Joined: 10/7/2003
From: Estonia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rune Iversen

quote:

ORIGINAL: String

IIRC the lock was also changed every 2500? rounds. I'm not very sure but it was a pretty big number. The reason for the lock change was to keep the spare lock at the same level of wear as the main one.

It is also related to the bolt (Not lock. It is only a "lock" (verschluss) in german) getting dirty and seizing up. It is especially bad if the two rollers get dirty, since the machinegun will teh refuse to eject spent cartridges.