Big B -> RE: Small Arms of WWII: What Were the Best? (8/7/2008 3:42:59 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: jcjordan Well being a collector of some of these Bolt - Enfield 10rds plus ability to fire them fast vs 5rds of others but M1903 very close 2nd (I'd stack a Marine w/ a 1903 vs anything!!!) Swiss K31 gets a mention Semi - Garand Auto - STG44/MP44 MG - MG42 something to be said when we're still using it's decendant Shotgun - only US has anything to consider, enough said Pistol - P38/1911 very close Sub - MP40 w/ Sten/M3 Grease Not saying anything the IJ or Italians has was bad they just get bad reps but sometimes like the Nambu pistol do somewhat deserve the rep. Not a bad list [;)] The only items I would address are the 'machine guns' Ma'duce - well it doesn't need defense from me. The M1918A2 B.A.R. - a 'jack of all trades-master of none', but an extremely valuable weapon in the squad role, and a rather unique weapon. Bren gun - a very reliable S.A.W. - outstanding in nothing in particular(ballistics, ROF, etc), but did everything it was asked very well. The MG-42. Well, it has a mystique all its own, it was (I think) the first true 'General Purpose MG', it is still in production today as far as I know - in NATO cartridge, and had a very very good quick barrel change, and I know of no stories of battlefield failures in its working - at least nothing you could call a design flaw. In my opinion, its chief drawback was its extremely high ROF (better suited to the AA role). I know that is heresy - and will cause forum members to roll their eyes, but in the infantry role - that is a genuine drawback. Why? Because automatic weapons fire is all about volume of fire over a sustained period of time to suppress a target. The drawback that the MG42 had (in its most common role - squad automatic weapon) is that the ROF is so high the barrel heats up in seconds - this means you must fire it in very short bursts. Further aggravating that problem is - like it or not - the weapon was served by a 75 RD saddle-drum (not clip-together disintegrating link belt)\, that gives you only a few bursts of fire before you must change drums - and after a couple of drums you must change the barrel. The net result is, as a machine gun, you are not putting rounds in the 'beaten zone' continually enough for best effect....over a sustained period of time. If you have visions of mowing down a hundred exposed men in two seconds - it aint gonna' happen. Automatic weapons fire is extremely inaccurate because of vibration and barrel climb - a fact that was driven home to me at Ft.Benning Georgia. So for those limitations, it wouldn't be my support weapon of choice. The best machine gun to support a squad or platoon in WWII would IMHO be the Browning M1917A1 heavy machine gun. The old water-cooled was heavy with tripod, ammo, and radiator - but its reliable volume of sustained fire was unmatched. During proving trials it fired over 20,000 rounds continuous, non-stop, without a stoppage(that's 33 minutes by the way)...until the Army inspectors stopped the test saying 'you proved the weapon's reliability'. Furthermore, it fired 250 round ammo belts, and its cal .30-06 (7.62x63mm) ammunition had the best long range ballistics of the time (to this day actually). To top it off, at a ROF of 600 rds per minute, it was quite capable of fulfilling a machine guns true role of laying down lead. I know it aint sexy, and looks anachronistic, but it was the champ (IMHO). By the way, if I am not mistaken, the Brits hung on to their water-cooled Vickers until the mid 1960's for the same reason. B
|
|
|
|