quote:

ORIGINAL: Adnan Meshuggi

quote:

ORIGINAL: Japan

The Best Serialprodused (BY FAR THE BEST)  Hand Weapon of WW2 was by far the STG44 - Sturmgewehr 44

Thay Prodused in  430 000 in Total.   Note that this is the Best Serialproduced Weapon only. (IMHO)

[image]http://i38.tinypic.com/y2ghs.jpg[/image]

Well, the STG44 was a revolutionary weapon, but still with pistol ammo, the short cartridge.

The idea to make a rifle cartridge automatic weapon, the final solution, was made by a certain russian who was deeply inspired by this weapon. His weapon will be remembered as the finest automatic rifle in the world, the AK47. (and yes, i know that now other ars are better - but how many of them had been used/produced and work after been mistreated like the ak47?

For MGs, the MG42 was and is the best maschinegun of the world. It is to heavy for modern warfare, but an enemy aproaching this weapon will be in deep trouble.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Anthropoid

It is interesting to consider whether pistols really matter. I mean, imagine a Division or Brigade or whatever where NO PISTOLS were issued. Would it _really_ have mattered?

quote:

ORIGINAL: wdolson A pistol does make for a light weight and easy to carry backup weapon. 

Bill

quote:

It is interesting to consider whether pistols really matter. I mean, imagine a Division or Brigade or whatever where NO PISTOLS were issued. Would it _really_ have mattered?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Anthropoid

... So you'd consider the B.A.R. an "automatic rifle" not a "machine gun?" Please, elaborate

quote:

ORIGINAL: Joe D.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Anthropoid

... So you'd consider the B.A.R. an "automatic rifle" not a "machine gun?" Please, elaborate

BAR = Browning Automatic Rifle

It didn't have a high rate of fire, or a large magazine, but Clyde Barrow sure swore by it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: anarchyintheuk

quote:

ORIGINAL: Joe D.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Anthropoid

... So you'd consider the B.A.R. an "automatic rifle" not a "machine gun?" Please, elaborate

BAR = Browning Automatic Rifle

It didn't have a high rate of fire, or a large magazine, but Clyde Barrow sure swore by it.

The guys that shot him did as well.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

Really depends on the job and what one means by "small arm."

I also like the STG-44. Range-accuracy wise, it does not compare well with the M1 Garand, but it is a great all around mil firearm. Nostalgic as I am for the Garand, if I was forced into a war, and if I had to choose the lesser of two weevils, I think I'd grab the STG-44.

For a sidearm the Colt 1911 still floats my boat.

If I thought I'd be in relatively open ground all of the time, I'd want a Garand, because I can shoot well enough to make the range work for me.

Is Ma Deuce a "small arm?"

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl
Actually it made up for it with a prodigious number of radios at all levels and the most modern and effective artillery fire direction system in the world.

quote:

Hello!

You wrote:
"the US artillery, which was definately the world's most sophisticated in WWII"

You know Finnish texts say the same thing about our own artillery. True or not, can't say. May be patriotism. You might be interested to find out what is correct, though.

But fact is Finnish fire observer could direct fire of all the artillery which had the target within their range. This even before WWII. I've seen written that US adopted similar system (to Finnish one) later. With their wast resources US system probably was "more sophisticated". In Finland communications were big problem, too few radios, unreliable field telephone cables etc.

Also one major principle about Finnish artillery was to get as much as possible first rounds hitting the target simultaneusly thus increasing surprise and havoc. This meant different batteries fired in different times but their first rounds hit target simultaneusely. And target areas were much smaller than for example Soviet had. Actually I've seen in calculated that in the area where Finnish artillery hit the concentration of fire could be actually higher than Soviets were able to produce (their artillery fire was more like area bombing). I think the best example of the effectivity of Finnish artillery was at Tali July 4th.

http://www.network54.com/Forum/116312/message/1061195068/Finnish+artillery

quote:

What I have understood from this forum and other the Finnish and US systems had a lot of similarities. The US system was worse in one aspect and that was that the values for the guns had to be precalculated in order to be able to direct the fire. Once the calculations were done fire could be concentrated and a single FO could command almost any number of batteries. US army had not placed the same emphasis on producing maps as the Finns had and they also had much larger areas to map as potential battle grounds.

Novelty of the Finnish system was based on good maps and a simple looking device that gave the needed values for the guns when it was placed on the map the right way. After the device was invented in 1943 the FO needed to know only his position on the map and estimate the distance and direction to the target. He did not need any other information.

All that was needed was a connection by radio or by phone to the artillery communication network and all was set. The artillery commander gave the commands to all artillery units that were to shoot, including heavy mortars of the infantry. When everything was ready he informed the FO: "ready". Then it was up to the FO to give fire commands directly and to make any corrections into the fire with simple commands like "left 200 (meters)". Depending on the case it could be that one battery was shooting or that the whole artillery force within range gave it's "comment". Density of fire could go up to 10 tons/hectar/minute and the target size was usually 300*100 m allthough it could be bigger. 30 seconds and 1 minute were the standard durations of fire but at times even 15 seconds was used. In some special cases fire could last longer than 1 minute but that was uncommon.

http://www.network54.com/Forum/116312/message/1061205956/Allthough+the+question+was+about+Soviet+artillery

quote:



Really depends on the job and what one means by "small arm."

I also like the STG-44. Range-accuracy wise, it does not compare well with the M1 Garand, but it is a great all around mil firearm. Nostalgic as I am for the Garand, if I was forced into a war, and if I had to choose the lesser of two weevils, I think I'd grab the STG-44.

For a sidearm the Colt 1911 still floats my boat.

If I thought I'd be in relatively open ground all of the time, I'd want a Garand, because I can shoot well enough to make the range work for me.

quote:


Is Ma Deuce a "small arm?"

quote:

Furthermore, the Stg-44 is unquestionably the firearm type all nations went to by the 1960s; although, personally, I have never quite thought that was the best decision for a general issue battle rifle...but the world thinks otherwise. (If it were my choice I would have preferred an M-14, G-3, L1A1, SVD type weapon to the modern assault rifle.)

quote:

ORIGINAL: gladiatt


Ahemm....i thought a weapon was dangerous only if the guy holding it aim it at you, whatever the type of weapon....

I also thought that determination, training, courage, made a great difference in the use and effect of a weapon ...?

Sorry to hijack a very technical thread

quote:

ORIGINAL: Anthropoid

It is interesting isn't it? I'm no expert so correct me if I'm wrong but, the basic technology for the assault rifle to have been developed (had 'officials' given it enough interest) existed toward the end of WWI. I've heard tell that one of the main reasons that military planners did not want to equip infantry with automatic rifles was the fear that common soldiers would just waste ammunition. Perhaps this partly explains why the StG44 did not get into mass production and distribution till too late. Not until some thinkers realized . . . "Okay, look at how these battles played out . . . most of the fighting was at fairly cloes quarters . . . if we had had automatic weapons as the standard issue rifle, we coulda won . . ." too late . . .

The only reason I can reasonably imagine for why battles were fought at close quarters (and again correct me here if I'm talking ****e): more trucks allowing more mobile deployment of infantry and forcing battles fought in a less static, opportunistic/surprise sort of manner as in WWI?

quote:

ORIGINAL: mikemike

quote:

ORIGINAL: Anthropoid

It is interesting isn't it? I'm no expert so correct me if I'm wrong but, the basic technology for the assault rifle to have been developed (had 'officials' given it enough interest) existed toward the end of WWI. I've heard tell that one of the main reasons that military planners did not want to equip infantry with automatic rifles was the fear that common soldiers would just waste ammunition. Perhaps this partly explains why the StG44 did not get into mass production and distribution till too late. Not until some thinkers realized . . . "Okay, look at how these battles played out . . . most of the fighting was at fairly cloes quarters . . . if we had had automatic weapons as the standard issue rifle, we coulda won . . ." too late . . .

The only reason I can reasonably imagine for why battles were fought at close quarters (and again correct me here if I'm talking ****e): more trucks allowing more mobile deployment of infantry and forcing battles fought in a less static, opportunistic/surprise sort of manner as in WWI?

Analysing the battles of WWI, military thinkers in Germany came to the conclusion that the average soldier, firing the average service rifle, doesn't hit much of anything at ranges above 200-300 metres in combat. Traditional thinking had been that mass-firing rifles at long range would be effective, in the way that massed rifle (or musket) fire had been effective in previous wars. Yet that kind of tactic couldn't be employed in WWI terms anymore. So a shortened type of rifle cartridge was developed that had an effective range of about 300 metres, saving weight and production costs per round, and it was found that the cartridge could be fired from a fully automatic weapon with reasonable accuracy. The prototype of the StG44 was ready for series production in 1942/43, and small quantities went into combat trials, but Hitler forbade production of the weapon because he was afraid a second type of rifle cartridge would disrupt the supply chain for ammunition. He reversed that decision in 1944 only because combat units were clamoring for the weapon. The risk of far higher ammunition consumption was appreciated, but it was thought that the soldiers would keep adequate fire discipline. You may know that the British Army removed the full auto capability from their version of the FN FAL rifle for similar reasons. Conversely, one gets the impression that US soldiers use their M16s in full auto only, there's probably always enough ammo around.

Fear of disrupting the supply chain or arms production was a phenomenon that kept a number of advanced weapons from going into production in Germany during WWII.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DW

quote:

ORIGINAL: mikemike

quote:

ORIGINAL: Anthropoid

It is interesting isn't it? I'm no expert so correct me if I'm wrong but, the basic technology for the assault rifle to have been developed (had 'officials' given it enough interest) existed toward the end of WWI. I've heard tell that one of the main reasons that military planners did not want to equip infantry with automatic rifles was the fear that common soldiers would just waste ammunition. Perhaps this partly explains why the StG44 did not get into mass production and distribution till too late. Not until some thinkers realized . . . "Okay, look at how these battles played out . . . most of the fighting was at fairly cloes quarters . . . if we had had automatic weapons as the standard issue rifle, we coulda won . . ." too late . . .

The only reason I can reasonably imagine for why battles were fought at close quarters (and again correct me here if I'm talking ****e): more trucks allowing more mobile deployment of infantry and forcing battles fought in a less static, opportunistic/surprise sort of manner as in WWI?

Analysing the battles of WWI, military thinkers in Germany came to the conclusion that the average soldier, firing the average service rifle, doesn't hit much of anything at ranges above 200-300 metres in combat. Traditional thinking had been that mass-firing rifles at long range would be effective, in the way that massed rifle (or musket) fire had been effective in previous wars. Yet that kind of tactic couldn't be employed in WWI terms anymore. So a shortened type of rifle cartridge was developed that had an effective range of about 300 metres, saving weight and production costs per round, and it was found that the cartridge could be fired from a fully automatic weapon with reasonable accuracy. The prototype of the StG44 was ready for series production in 1942/43, and small quantities went into combat trials, but Hitler forbade production of the weapon because he was afraid a second type of rifle cartridge would disrupt the supply chain for ammunition. He reversed that decision in 1944 only because combat units were clamoring for the weapon. The risk of far higher ammunition consumption was appreciated, but it was thought that the soldiers would keep adequate fire discipline. You may know that the British Army removed the full auto capability from their version of the FN FAL rifle for similar reasons. Conversely, one gets the impression that US soldiers use their M16s in full auto only, there's probably always enough ammo around.

Fear of disrupting the supply chain or arms production was a phenomenon that kept a number of advanced weapons from going into production in Germany during WWII.

While I'm not an expert on small arms, It's my understanding that the full auto option was removed on later models of the M-16 and replaced with a three round burst option.

I don't know the logic behind the move, but ammunition consumption and the tendency of Vietnam era troops to spray un-aimed fully automatic fire would seem likely.

quote:

ORIGINAL: m10bob
We did not do that as often as you might think, because the early M 16 would jam after 50 rounds.....

quote:

ORIGINAL: BASB

I'm amazed the bren gun hasn't got a single mention on this thread, a nice light machine gun for section level support. in the Australian Regular Army were using them 40 years after WW2 rebored to 7.62. They were a versatile weapon, they were used as a light AA gun as well.
Ron

quote:

ORIGINAL: mikemike


Seriously, if you have on one side Captain America, armed with a Smith&Wesson .38 Special and on the other side a cowardly, puny Arab with an AK-47, who would you bet on? There's this old saying that "quantity has a quality of its own".


Well, just reverse the position: if a guy from a high-tech army, with a high-tech rifle, is just hiding behind a wall, waiting for renforts (air support, artillery, tank, whatever could "help" him), because he is afraid, would he take the best on that partisan (call him "Mujahidin" or "yougoslave resistant" during wwII, or tchadian, or else...) aiming at him with an old rifle, few ammo round, no logistical supply chain behind him, but the willing of defending it's country, familly, or faith ?
Of course, two guys from opposite armies, with high-tech weapons, aqually trained and determined could fight, and the one with the most powerful/long range/reliable rifle wild take the best. But how often does it happen ?

quote:


In r/K selection theory, selective pressures are hypothesised to drive evolution in one of two generalized directions: r- or K-selection[2]. These terms, r and K, are derived from standard ecological algebra, as illustrated in the simple Verhulst equation of population dynamics[3]:

where r is the growth rate of the population (N), and K is the carrying capacity of its local environmental setting. Typically, r-selected species exploit empty niches, and produce many offspring, each of which has a relatively low probability of surviving to adulthood. In contrast, K-selected species are strong competitors in crowded niches, and invest more heavily in many fewer offspring, each of which has a relatively high probability of surviving to adulthood. In the scientific literature, r-selected species are occasionally referred to as "opportunistic", while K-selected species are described as "equilibrium"[4].

quote:

m10bob said it right,"The best small arms are not always the most accurate, most produced,etc.
The best were the ones that be dropped in the mud, picked up, and still fired without problems. "

quote:

ORIGINAL: ANZAC_Tack
thats why in 1945 i would choose the sks first. reliability, hitting power, resonable accuracy, easy to clean/maintain,good 10 rounds semi auto(automatic if u make the special sear spring like i did from 3.2mm welding electrode).i heard the stg44 had some problems with reliability,and was a complex unit.