PDA

View Full Version : What weapons do you like or dislike?



Semper Fi
08-12-2008, 01:46 AM
To start this off, I love the M1 Garand and the Thompson SMG.
M1. because it is a good all around weapon. It was the weapon that George S. Patton said that it was the best Weapon in the war department. Ok not his exsact words but close.
M1A1 Thompson. Is a .45 cal submachine gun that has fame with mobsters and movies. But as the war go's on a .45 has more power then a 9x19mm round any day.. 20,30 ,50, and 100 round drum clips. And I don't know if the Mp40 has a drum clip but till .45 is better.

tankgeezer
08-12-2008, 01:53 AM
For social work, the .45 a.c.p. is hard to beat. the 9mm para. has the velocity in the range of the .357 mag. not sure of the muzzle energy, as the 9mm uses a much lighter slug than the .357.
Wartime 9mm ammo (as well as later production) very often had some steel in them, giving a greater versatility in field against thin skinned vehicles, and walls ,doors, etc.

herman2
08-12-2008, 10:07 AM
I like the Bazooka. It's Big Bad and gets the job done!

Rising Sun*
08-12-2008, 10:13 AM
I don't like knives and bayonets. They could make me bleed.

I also don't like all other weapons which could hurt me.

herman2
08-12-2008, 10:20 AM
I don't like knives and bayonets. They could make me bleed.

I also don't like all other weapons which could hurt me.

hahaha I get the point

Semper Fi
08-12-2008, 10:25 AM
Well why do you like to Bazooka?

herman2
08-12-2008, 10:46 AM
I like the Bazooka because it was considered the ultimate anti-tank weapon in WW-2. I don't even think the Germans had anything like it and if they did, they probably copied the American version. The Bazooka could be used less than 300 feet by 2 man teams. The tank is considered one of the best fighting and killing machines but the Bazooka makes minced meat out of the tank...and that is why I like the Bazooka:)

pdf27
08-12-2008, 11:58 AM
Nope, the Germans had both direct copies of the Bazooka and rather better indigenous variants. The Panzerfaust was an indigneous German design of which just about all modern light anti-armour weapons are direct descendents, while the Panzershreck is essentially a more powerful version of the Bazooka.

herman2
08-12-2008, 12:18 PM
Nope, the Germans had both direct copies of the Bazooka and rather better indigenous variants. The Panzerfaust was an indigneous German design of which just about all modern light anti-armour weapons are direct descendents, while the Panzershreck is essentially a more powerful version of the Bazooka.

I read this in another war web site...thus the reason for my original statement that American Bazooka's kissed *** over german Bazooka's

German efforts to provide infantry with anti-tank rifle grenades proved unsatisfactory when confronted with superior Russian Tanks like the T-34.
Either from the Russian front or from Africa, captured American M9A1 Bazooka examples were sent to Germany to be analyzed. Designers, being impressed with the weapon, proceeded with development of an improved version. The name, officially abbreviated RPzB, was commonly referred to as the Panzerschreck ("Tank Terror"). It was in operational use by mid-1943.

Churchill
08-12-2008, 12:31 PM
AK-47, because I heard an expert say that every child's first weapon should be the AK-47 because he/she can't make it not fire, except by running over it with a tank.

redcoat
08-12-2008, 05:19 PM
I dislike the Me 163.
This German aircraft is often called a 'wonder weapon'!!!
The only 'wonder' about this death trap of an aircraft, was wondering where they found pilots stupid enough to fly it :evil:

flamethrowerguy
08-12-2008, 05:41 PM
I dislike the Me 163.
This German aircraft is often called a 'wonder weapon'!!!
The only 'wonder' about this death trap of an aircraft, was wondering where they found pilots stupid enough to fly it :evil:

But the ME 163 looked cute! But talking of flying deathtraps, here's a post war one: the infamous Lockheed F-104 "Starfighter" aka known as "widowmaker" or "flying coffin" by german Bundeswehr-pilots and surely enough with other nations pilots. An example: Italy used this wreck until 2004 (!), overall they had 360 Starfighters. In 40 years of service they lost 137 planes due to accidents and crashs, makes a ratio of 38% debris...

pdf27
08-13-2008, 02:47 AM
Oddly, that isn't actually a particularly bad ratio for an aircraft of the era. The problems largely weren't the fault of the Starfighter, but due to using it for the wrong thing - it was designed as a supersonic interceptor (rather like the EE Lightning), yet was used by the Germans as a multirole fighter-bomber at low level, with heavy loads in bad weather. That's always going to be inherently dangerous.

Nickdfresh
08-13-2008, 07:44 AM
I read this in another war web site...thus the reason for my original statement that American Bazooka's kissed *** over german Bazooka's

German efforts to provide infantry with anti-tank rifle grenades proved unsatisfactory when confronted with superior Russian Tanks like the T-34.
Either from the Russian front or from Africa, captured American M9A1 Bazooka examples were sent to Germany to be analyzed. Designers, being impressed with the weapon, proceeded with development of an improved version. The name, officially abbreviated RPzB, was commonly referred to as the Panzerschreck ("Tank Terror"). It was in operational use by mid-1943.

The Bazooka (2.76") was obsolete by 1943. And the improved, larger 3.5" variant never saw action until Korea I think...

Sergej
08-13-2008, 08:25 AM
I like the AK-47 too. But just because of the milled reciever.
Otherwise I would prefer a AK-103.

overlord644
08-13-2008, 12:25 PM
The american bazooka was obsolete even during WW2, it was simply underpowered and did little to stop germany's tiger and panther tanks

flamethrowerguy
08-13-2008, 12:27 PM
Oddly, that isn't actually a particularly bad ratio for an aircraft of the era. The problems largely weren't the fault of the Starfighter, but due to using it for the wrong thing - it was designed as a supersonic interceptor (rather like the EE Lightning), yet was used by the Germans as a multirole fighter-bomber at low level, with heavy loads in bad weather. That's always going to be inherently dangerous.

We're talking peace time, right? BTW, there was this joke going around when the german Bundeswehr was still equipped with Starfighters. "How to get a Starfighter as a civilian? Just buy a few hectares of ground and wait."

herman2
08-13-2008, 12:29 PM
Why was it called the Bazooka?It has an odd name. If anyone knows I would be obliged.

flamethrowerguy
08-13-2008, 12:32 PM
Why was it called the Bazooka?It has an odd name. If anyone knows I would be obliged.

Because of a similar looking musical instrument of the american radio comedian Bob Burns.

pdf27
08-13-2008, 01:30 PM
We're talking peace time, right?
Yep. Remember, you train as you fight...

Semper Fi
08-13-2008, 07:06 PM
How about the M1911a1 colt. anyone like that side arm.?

BadKharma
08-13-2008, 08:14 PM
The american bazooka was obsolete even during WW2, it was simply underpowered and did little to stop germany's tiger and panther tanks

Might I point out a quote. Its impact was such that General Dwight D. Eisenhower later described it as (together with the atom bomb, jeep and the C-47 Skytrain transport aircraft) one of the four weapons which won World War II for the allies. The bazooka was one of the first weapons based on the High explosive anti-tank (HEAT) shell to enter service. And it survived to remain in US service during the Korean War.

On the Colt model 1911 it has really good stopping power, although without modifications it has limitations concerning accuracy. I qualified with one when I was in the service before the Beretta was adopted as the standard sidearm.

herman2
08-14-2008, 09:45 AM
I knew it!. The bazooka was compared as the next best thing since the Atomic bomb. This is great news. I somehow knew I fancied the bazooka and now that it is compared against the Atomic bomb, I like the Bazooka even more now.

Kurgast
08-23-2008, 11:39 AM
Hi I am new to this forum.

I like the MG 42 especially when mounted with the scope.

Rising Sun*
08-23-2008, 12:16 PM
How about the M1911a1 colt. anyone like that side arm.?

My experience of it is limited mostly to a distressing experience when I was about fourteen or fifteen, when I was allowed to fire one smuggled interstate and the possession of which was a criminal offence.

I fired off a disturbingly large amount of lead without causing more than surprised indifference to the tree stump I was aiming at.

I think it would be a very accurate and very destructive weapon in combat at anything up to about ten to fifteen yards in the hands of dummies like me.

pdf27
08-23-2008, 12:29 PM
I like the MG 42 especially when mounted with the scope.
Why on earth would you mount an optical sight on a weapon which is designed to operate on the beaten zone principle?

Yours, confused of London :confused:

pdf27
08-23-2008, 12:31 PM
I think it would be a very accurate and very destructive weapon in combat at anything up to about ten to fifteen yards in the hands of dummies like me.
If you're accurate with it (OK, accurate enough to hit anyone) at 15 yards you're a much better shot than me. I could just about hit a figure 12 with 1 shot in 3 from a 9mm at 10m back in September :neutral:

Rising Sun*
08-23-2008, 12:35 PM
Why on earth would you mount an optical sight on a weapon which is designed to operate on the beaten zone principle?

Yours, confused of London :confused:

And on a weapon which loses all precise optical sighting after the first round in a burst?


Yours, confused of Melbourne. :confused:

flamethrowerguy
08-23-2008, 12:36 PM
Why on earth would you mount an optical sight on a weapon which is designed to operate on the beaten zone principle?

Yours, confused of London :confused:

There was an optical device on the MG 42 mount of the "heavy MG 42" version.
http://img118.imageshack.us/img118/135/mg42lz1.jpg

Rising Sun*
08-23-2008, 12:42 PM
If you're accurate with it (OK, accurate enough to hit anyone) at 15 yards you're a much better shot than me. I could just about hit a figure 12 with 1 shot in 3 from a 9mm at 10m back in September :neutral:

Well, it's a long time ago and people were bigger then, while tree stumps were smaller. :D

I can say with complete confidence that, using any pistol, I am lethal at a range of about ten feet / three metres.

With a stationary target. :D

Rising Sun*
08-23-2008, 12:58 PM
There was an optical device on the MG 42 mount of the "heavy MG 42" version.
http://img118.imageshack.us/img118/135/mg42lz1.jpg

Judging by the picture, there are huge parallax problems in all axes.

Seems more like a ranging device than a firing sight.

Not least because the firer's shoulder will be about the level of the top optic and his head will be a lot higher.

pdf27
08-23-2008, 01:24 PM
I can say with complete confidence that, using any pistol, I am lethal at a range of about ten feet / three metres.

With a stationary target. :D
Yeah, maybe. I'd definately agree if they were 6 feet or so closer, because then you could beat them to death with the blunt end!

Semper Fi
08-23-2008, 04:17 PM
well most shot were takin at about 25ys. and that is to close to me. But a gun that i think is a good weapon is a trinch gun a 12.g shot gun.

Churchill
08-23-2008, 05:56 PM
I know they're called "trench guns" because of their use in trenches, but why not call them a shotgun? In WWII, there wasn't much need for a trench gun, because the war wasn't fought only in the trenches.

flamethrowerguy
08-23-2008, 07:36 PM
Judging by the picture, there are huge parallax problems in all axes.

Seems more like a ranging device than a firing sight.

Not least because the firer's shoulder will be about the level of the top optic and his head will be a lot higher.

Well, maybe there were parallax problems, I surely don't know. But it was a eavy mg supposed to hit at quite a distance and the frame took away most of t´he recoil.

Kurgast
08-24-2008, 09:05 AM
Judging by the picture, there are huge parallax problems in all axes.

Seems more like a ranging device than a firing sight.

Not least because the firer's shoulder will be about the level of the top optic and his head will be a lot higher.


Yes. It must have been a ranging device. Since it is not so accurate, but with a range of 3000m (hence the sight) and 1550 rounds per minutes it can just spray the hostile area as it had done in the Eastern Front. The Russians like to walk in formation during the early and middle stage of the war.

BadKharma
08-24-2008, 03:08 PM
well most shot were takin at about 25ys. and that is to close to me. But a gun that i think is a good weapon is a trinch gun a 12.g shot gun.
Definitely good for close in work and you do not need to worry about accuracy.

Well, maybe there were parallax problems, I surely don't know. But it was a eavy mg supposed to hit at quite a distance and the frame took away most of t´he recoil.
And any telescopic type sight is mounted to what? Which would cause how much of a problem from recoil? The recoil relief is not from the frame btw that is acheived by the spring on the buffer assembly.

flamethrowerguy
08-24-2008, 03:29 PM
And any telescopic type sight is mounted to what?

Normally not to a weapon to fire about 1500 rounds per minute theoretically.

pdf27
08-24-2008, 06:06 PM
I know they're called "trench guns" because of their use in trenches, but why not call them a shotgun? In WWII, there wasn't much need for a trench gun, because the war wasn't fought only in the trenches.
The thought at the time was that Shotguns were illegal under the St Petersburg Declaration (the same one that banned explosive/expanding bullets for anything smaller than an artillery piece). Hence the euphamism "trench rifle" being used.

Semper Fi
08-25-2008, 12:58 AM
Thank you, for that. I could not have put it beter my self.

Man of Stoat
08-25-2008, 02:57 AM
The telescopic sight on the MG 42 mounts does two things: it enables the number one on the gun to keep an extremely low-profile, even to remain completely behind cover.

It also helps the number one to see the target. The fact that it is an area weapon is irrelevant to this. This is why telescopic sights have been used on machine guns ever since the First World War, and are being used extremely frequently in Iraq and Afghanistan at the moment.

Kurgast
08-25-2008, 08:40 AM
The telescopic sight on the MG 42 mounts does two things: it enables the number one on the gun to keep an extremely low-profile, even to remain completely behind cover.

It also helps the number one to see the target. The fact that it is an area weapon is irrelevant to this. This is why telescopic sights have been used on machine guns ever since the First World War, and are being used extremely frequently in Iraq and Afghanistan at the moment.


Ah.. Thanks. It all make sense now. The machine gunner is in cover and wait for the enemies to come in range while using the scope in low profile.

Rising Sun*
08-25-2008, 10:27 AM
The telescopic sight on the MG 42 mounts does two things: it enables the number one on the gun to keep an extremely low-profile, even to remain completely behind cover.

It also helps the number one to see the target. The fact that it is an area weapon is irrelevant to this. This is why telescopic sights have been used on machine guns ever since the First World War, and are being used extremely frequently in Iraq and Afghanistan at the moment.

By No. 1 do you mean the gunner?

If so, and assuming that the lower optic is the No. 1's viewing piece, how does he shoulder the butt or otherwise restrain the weapon and control it while firing with his head well below the butt and somewhere in a circle between his arms? Seems like a most awkward firing position with very limited ability to control the weapon properly.

SS Ouche-Vittes
08-25-2008, 01:48 PM
The telescopic sight has saved mg-42 crews or at least the gunners. An account from the book Red Blood Snow: The author, Gunther is in winter Russia as a machine gunner with a feeder and is in a trench. He looks through the sight toward a forest and notices a small hump that flinches. He immediatley ducks and a HE sniper round flies an inch from his head. His feeder however gets sniped when he looks over the trench and so does the feeder replacement. But the second one lives.

Man of Stoat
08-27-2008, 03:42 AM
By No. 1 do you mean the gunner?

If so, and assuming that the lower optic is the No. 1's viewing piece, how does he shoulder the butt or otherwise restrain the weapon and control it while firing with his head well below the butt and somewhere in a circle between his arms? Seems like a most awkward firing position with very limited ability to control the weapon properly.

Simple answer: he does not shoulder the butt, the weapon is restrained by the tripod. The German tripod does not have a "wave it around" mode like e.g. the Vickers tripod, only a " dial in " mode. Interestingly, many of the German tripods also had a fire disperser operated by the recoil of the weapon to increase the size of the beaten zone.

Rising Sun*
08-27-2008, 04:08 AM
Simple answer: he does not shoulder the butt, the weapon is restrained by the tripod. The German tripod does not have a "wave it around" mode like e.g. the Vickers tripod, only a " dial in " mode. Interestingly, many of the German tripods also had a fire disperser operated by the recoil of the weapon to increase the size of the beaten zone.

Thanks.

All is now clear.

Those crafty Germans, they think of everything. :D

Kurgast
09-01-2008, 07:59 AM
I can't upload the picture as I am new here but I placed the attachment of the MG 42 with the Bino-scope. This is what I mean all the while....

Nickdfresh
09-01-2008, 10:40 AM
I can't upload the picture as I am new here but I placed the attachment of the MG 42 with the Bino-scope. This is what I mean all the while....

I think you mean an MG34 with a scope...

Kurgast
09-01-2008, 01:11 PM
The same scope used in MG 42.

Dixie Devil
09-02-2008, 01:21 PM
The thought at the time was that Shotguns were illegal under the St Petersburg Declaration (the same one that banned explosive/expanding bullets for anything smaller than an artillery piece). Hence the euphamism "trench rifle" being used.

‘Trench Guns’ were shotguns that had shorter barrels and a bayonet lug. They had to differentiate because in the First World War long barreled shotguns were used to a limited extent as antiaircraft weapons. I would think the terminology was just carried over into the Second World War. The Hague Convention bans the use of ‘bullets which expand or flatten easily in the human body’ which does kind of leave shotgun rounds in a grey area. Also of note, it was the Hague Convention banned the use of poison gas. Germany was the first to use poison gas and also the ones that complained that shotguns were a breach of the convention. Never the less they were very effective close range weapons.

Cuts
09-05-2008, 05:24 PM
To start this off, I love the M1 Garand and the Thompson SMG.
M1. because it is a good all around weapon. It was the weapon that George S. Patton said that it was the best Weapon in the war department. Ok not his exsact words but close.
M1A1 Thompson. Is a .45 cal submachine gun that has fame with mobsters and movies. But as the war go's on a .45 has more power then a 9x19mm round any day.. 20,30 ,50, and 100 round drum clips. And I don't know if the Mp40 has a drum clip but till .45 is better.

http://img393.imageshack.us/img393/5442/normalmagazinevsclipyk2.jpg

christophe1992
09-06-2008, 06:57 AM
i like the tompson because of the rate of fire,reliability and power.
The garand,springfield and moising nagant i would consider the best rifles( the lee enfield was accurate,strong but disliked by troops)
the bren was better than the B.A.R. more ammo, and the magazine was on top so you could reload faster when you lay down.
stg 44 the first assault rifle was one of the best guns in ww2 they gave an surrounded german force these rifles and they broke trough russian lines

i hate the mp40 its crap. weak bullet, reliability was avarage( the magazine spring was bad) and you could get your hands burned. the only thing good about it was accuracy
sten unrealiable, uggly and weak

Len
09-06-2008, 10:02 AM
I believe that in every war from the Ages and today, the most powerful weapon is the Combat Knife, because always is a Platoon who decide the end.
Aye yours,

ww11freak34
09-09-2008, 10:41 PM
i like the m1 garand becuse it had a large bullet and lots of stoping fire ny secind favourite is the mp40 ilike it cause it was good in close quarters and my favourite pistol is the m1911 45. it has great stoping power the 45. is better thethen the 9mm bullet

ww11freak34
09-09-2008, 10:44 PM
i dislike the bolt action rifles because u have to pul back the bolt aim and with a semi auto matic rifle u aim fire aim agian then fire the sten sucked but the good thing about it it was small and cheap

Man of Stoat
09-25-2008, 09:41 AM
the lee enfield was accurate,strong but disliked by troops)


That's the first I've heard of that, in fact I don't recall any British veterans saying that they disliked either of the main two Lee-Enfield rifles in service. Many preferred one over the other for many reasons, but I have never, ever heard of a dislike expressed.

herman2
09-25-2008, 10:20 AM
I still like the Bazooka despite some claims that it was out of date before it could benefit the war. When it came out, bazooka was all the rage!

tankgeezer
09-25-2008, 10:38 AM
Judging by the picture, there are huge parallax problems in all axes.

Seems more like a ranging device than a firing sight.

Not least because the firer's shoulder will be about the level of the top optic and his head will be a lot higher.
Its a periscope so the gunner can keep his noggin from getting ventilated by remaining below the top edge of his position.

OLD RSM
09-25-2008, 12:43 PM
http://img393.imageshack.us/img393/5442/normalmagazinevsclipyk2.jpg

We should get the correct wpns when you talk about them The M1A1will not take a DRUM only the M1921 or M1928 will take the drum.
Cheers

christophe1992
09-26-2008, 12:20 PM
That's the first I've heard of that, in fact I don't recall any British veterans saying that they disliked either of the main two Lee-Enfield rifles in service. Many preferred one over the other for many reasons, but I have never, ever heard of a dislike expressed.

well i dont understand it either because it was better then the mauser, very accurate pwerfull, and you could schoot many rounds after each other. ( mad minute) some claim 30 rpm( is the number to much or accurate?

Man of Stoat
09-29-2008, 03:46 AM
well i dont understand it either because it was better then the mauser, very accurate pwerfull, and you could schoot many rounds after each other. ( mad minute) some claim 30 rpm( is the number to much or accurate?

Basically, you made your original comment up.

The record, by the way, was made in 1913 and was 38 rounds in a minute, all of which being hits at 300 yards.

gunner-B
09-29-2008, 08:11 PM
The Fairbairn-Sykes commando fighting knife looked the business, done the business.
The worst weapon(s) are the Japanese Type 94 and Nambu pistols.

christophe1992
09-30-2008, 07:49 AM
Basically, you made your original comment up.

The record, by the way, was made in 1913 and was 38 rounds in a minute, all of which being hits at 300 yards.

no i didn't i said that the soldiers din't like id. i didn't say i believed it did i?
38? in a minute at 300 yards? nice effective gun. wat was the rpm of the garand? 60?

Man of Stoat
09-30-2008, 09:36 AM
BUT THE SOLDIERS DID LIKE IT, you provided no source for your claim (unsurprisingly, because it is incorrect), hence you MADE IT UP.

Please engage brain before engaging keyboard.

ww11freak34
09-30-2008, 08:17 PM
i like the m1 and the m3 grease gun

ww11freak34
10-06-2008, 09:33 PM
i personnely like the m1 garand and thompson.my favourite pistol is the m1911

feldwebel1942
10-06-2008, 10:02 PM
http://world.guns.ru/rifle/smle1long.jpg

SMLE lee-enfield







"Their sword will become our plow, and from the tears of war the daily bread of future generations will grow."
Adolf Hitler

gunner-B
10-06-2008, 11:54 PM
Feldwebel1942

The picture that you have posted is a Lee-Metford MkII, the precursor of the Lee-Enfield No1 MkIII AKA SMLE ( Short Magazine Lee-Enfield )

feldwebel1942
10-07-2008, 07:10 AM
Lee-Enfield Mk.1 rifle - the original "Long" Lee-Enfield, made in 1900

gunner-B
10-11-2008, 04:36 PM
feldwebel1942

I stand corrected.

not having a dimple under the magazine cutoff plate handle & the safety catch on the cocking piece of the bolt should have given me a clue.Though the quote underneath the picture denotes it wrongly as a SMLE.

Semper Fi
10-12-2008, 03:37 AM
The 30-06 m! Garand and the B.A.R the best weapons in my mind.

Egorka
10-21-2008, 07:07 AM
I like these:
http://www.littlegun.be/curios%20et%20antiquites/a%20a%20images%20curios%20et%20antiquites%20gb.htm

Ardee
10-21-2008, 03:03 PM
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe most machine guns of WWII had optical sights - certainly the medium versions of MG 34 and 42 did - and so did the Schwarloze and at least some of the Maxim guns. I am reasonably confident the Hotchkiss did as well. Then there were some LMGs with sights as well -- the Japanese Types 96 and 99 come to mind immediately; I dare say there might be more, but I can't think of any at the moment.

IIRC the Japanese weapons could be mounted on a tripod, and that might have some bearing on why they had a scope. But plenty of other LMGs could also be mounted on tripods: the Bren, MG 30, etc. Even a BAR was used on a tripod at times (by the Belgians: don't know about the USA).

Regarding shotguns: in the ETO, they were mostly used by guards. However, they saw much more combat usage in the Pacific: with pump action, they were devastating close combat weapons, described as having "a hit probability 45% greater than a submachine gun, and twice as great as an assault rifle" (the quote is from a Wikipedi page, so I know the quote is NOT "good as gold," but the statement jives with my memory of other descriptions). Shotguns and M9A1 Bazookas were assigned to "bunker busters" to deal with Japanese jungle bunkers. I also recall reading one instance were the USMC scrounged up a large number of shotguns, and went into action against the Japanese were some high figure - maybe 25% or even 50% - of the soldiers were armed with shotguns. I am trying to recall more details, search the Internet, etc for specifics, but so far, have come up dry. I'll post more if/when I find them.... I would also think they would be good for urban fighting in the ETO, but if they were used in such a manner, I haven't come across reference to it....

So far as favorite weapons, I'd probably nominate the "Ma duece" as a crew weapon (hey, with its longevity, the .50 cal has to have done something right). For a personal weapon, the Danuvia 39.M or 43.M machine pistol -- the first has a wooden stock, the second a folding stock, but basically the same weapon. It has the longest barrel of any machine pistol, with arguably the greatest accuracy (sights were up to 400 m, IIRC), it could mount a bayonet, and the magazine could fold out of the way when not in use. It's also a weapon few are aware of! It was a excellent weapon, sometimes described as a transitional weapon between MPs and assault rifles. It was the "standard" MP of the Hungarian army, by rather few were produced, so other weapons were in fact more common in the MKH, IIRC. Most were lost on the eastern front. If you want to know more, looky here:

http://www.sunblest.net/gun/Danu39.htm :)

As for least favorite weapon -- I'd vote for the Chachaut LMG, a left over from WWI used by a variety of nations (mostly by 2nd line troops). It is a gun that users either loved or hated, but the consensus today is that it is a thoroughly vile weapon: poorly made, subject to jamming, etc.

Nickdfresh
10-21-2008, 07:12 PM
I haven't heard much in regards to shotguns and Marines in the Pacific during WWII, but I think it has been said that a very high proportion of Marines would carry the BAR almost as if it were an automatic (assault) rifle rather than a light machine-gun role it typically was placed in....

Ardee
10-22-2008, 04:24 PM
Yes, by the end of the war, the USMC had three BARs assigned per squad, and from what I've read, the BAR was a preferred "pick up" weapon as well.

aly j
10-23-2008, 05:36 AM
no i didn't i said that the soldiers din't like id. i didn't say i believed it did i?
38? in a minute at 300 yards? nice effective gun. wat was the rpm of the garand? 60?

Just learn from my mistake.
Put proof up. Put proof up and they wont argue with you;)

Nickdfresh
10-23-2008, 07:13 AM
I like this little weapon that makes a rude belching noise...

flamethrowerguy
10-23-2008, 07:22 AM
I like this little weapon that makes a rude belching noise...

...and the idea of a 71-round magazine for an smg is very impressive as well!

Staz Johnson
11-04-2008, 07:12 PM
It's very difficult to say that one likes something which is basically designed to knock large chunks out of a human body. However, I think it is possible to appreciate the design sensibility that goes into such a device, & it is also possible to admire a weapon as a physical thing... a tactile object which has it's own inherent beauty (if we chose to set aside for a moment it's core perpose).

So, I admire (as things of beauty) the British Lee/Enfield SMLE rifle, & the M1 Garand. Both of which look attractive. Mostly because of the craftmanship which goes into making that wooden furniture, & the precision mechanism.

As for appreciating the simplistic/utilitarian design of a weapon, I have to go with the German Stg44, for the forward thinking of producing a weapon which can be used effectively by a largely untrained conscript army (by the end of WW2 mostly boys & old men, if the cliche is to be believed) & still provide massive firepower. The realisation that by using a smaller cartridge, it enables the soldier (or 14 yr old boy) to carry more of the lighter ammunition, & if the injuries metered oput by the smaller bullet are less often fatal more the better.. human nature dictates that if one soldier receives a wound, at least one, more likely two, of his comrades will help remove him from the battlefield, so one small bullet has reduced the opposition by three.

Also, the German Panzafaust. Genius at work, a throw away anti tank device, cheap to manufacture, easy to use, & very very effective...

All that said... what would happen if they called a war... & nobody came?

bootneck
02-13-2009, 05:22 PM
For me its the fairburn sykes fighting knife or in later years the K bar.

leccy
02-15-2009, 03:15 PM
Favourite weapon for me was the Bren LMG
First had my hands on one in 1980 both long barreled and short barreled versions firing 0.303 ammunition
Progressed to the 7.62mm LMG in 1983 (Date stamped 1942) and continued with them until 1992 :( sad day when I gave mine up for an LSW (although the general capability was the same just lighter)
Accurate, reliable, easily maintained (just a beast of a box for the 12 mags)

herman2
02-16-2009, 01:45 PM
My favourite weapon is a woman; I mean a really pretty woman. When used as a distraction, they can be extremely beneficial to the goal of distracting the enemy. A man can't really be used the same as a woman, in distraction. The best way to win the war with the Taliban, is to send over women showing their Hair; this way, the Taliban will get blinded by the mere sight of a woman's hair uncovered and while they are blinded, the army can shoot them between the eyes to end the war!

3194

An example of the Pefect weapon that can be used for distracting the enemy-hands down-no question about it!!

Schuultz
02-16-2009, 02:46 PM
A+ for creativity, herman. But why restrict ourselves to open hair? Let them run around in Bikinis, and you'll see Taliban switching sides quicker than you can count. :D

The only danger might be that our own troops could be too distracted to shoot any Taliban at all...:neutral:

pdf27
02-16-2009, 04:30 PM
A+ for creativity, herman. But why restrict ourselves to open hair? Let them run around in Bikinis, and you'll see Taliban switching sides quicker than you can count. :D
Sadly not. Haven't you heard about the man-love thursdays they have out there?

Schuultz
02-16-2009, 08:45 PM
I certainly have not. What's that all about?

Nickdfresh
02-16-2009, 09:52 PM
Sadly not. Haven't you heard about the man-love thursdays they have out there?


I certainly have not. What's that all about?


http://www.glapn.org/sodomylaws/world/afghanistan/afnews009.htm

Actually, I think the burkhas cause the man love thing...

DavisC12
02-28-2009, 07:54 PM
I liked the hand gernade, it was very effective against ground assults.

I prefer the AK-47.

Major Walter Schmidt
02-28-2009, 10:52 PM
ADK-45 anybody???

http://images.ea.com/games/redalert3/Units/Conscript/RA3_Soviet_Conscript2sm.jpg

Schuultz
02-28-2009, 11:44 PM
That looks like a Drawing from C&C Red Alert 3...

Rising Sun*
03-01-2009, 06:27 AM
http://www.glapn.org/sodomylaws/world/afghanistan/afnews009.htm

Actually, I think the burkhas cause the man love thing...

From your link:


Richardson, the psychiatry professor, says it would be wrong to call Afghan men homosexual, since their decision to have sex with men is not a reflection of what Westerners call gender identity. Instead, he compares them to prison inmates: They have sex with men primarily because they find themselves in a situation where men are more available as sex partners than are women.

"It is something they do," he notes, "not something they are."

Yeah, right.

I spent a few years in my late teens in an exclusively male environment where we went into town, some towns consisting of a pub and a hall, only at weekends with no chance of anything better than a dance with a sheila, and we'd be lucky to get that most of the time as in many places we were regarded very much as a "lock up your daughters and wives for the barbarians are in town" crew.

It never occurred to me or anyone else to take a gallop up the tan track (or, for Americans, a gallop up the Hershey Highway) for a bit of sexual relief.

Anyone who was caught at that would have been booted out immediately.

The same for millions of men in various exclusively male occupations in remote areas and in the military in the West.

There is nothing in my national culture, nor in any English speaking and probably Western cultures of which I am aware, which is even vaguely equivalent to the ancient Pathan (Afghan) lament which includes the lines:

Oh, there is a boy across the river
With a bottom like a peach.
But, alas, I cannot swim.

A bit of male, preferably boy, bum has long been an entrenched aspect of male sexual orientation and activity in much of the Arab, Persian and related world areas and it's still alive.


Kandahar Journal; Shh, It's an Open Secret: Warlords and Pedophilia
CRAIG S. SMITH
Published: February 21, 2002

Back in the 19th century, ethnic Pashtuns fighting in Britain's colonial army sang odes talking of their longing for young boys.

Homosexuality, cloaked in the tradition of strong masculine bonds that are a hallmark of Islamic culture and are even more pronounced in southern Afghanistan's strict, sexually segregated society, has long been a clandestine feature of life here. But pedophilia has been its curse.

Though the puritanical Taliban tried hard to erase pedophilia from male-dominated Pashtun culture, now that the Ministry for the Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice is gone, some people here are indulging in it once again.

''During the Taliban, being with a friend was difficult, but now it is easy again,'' said Ahmed Fareed, a 19-year-old man with a white shawl covering his face except for a dark shock of hair and piercing kohl-lined eyes. Mr. Fareed should know. A shopkeeper took him as a lover when he was just 12, he said.

An interest in relationships with young boys among warlords and their militia commanders played a part in the Taliban's rise in Afghanistan. In 1994, the Taliban, then a small army of idealistic students of the Koran, were called to rescue a boy over whom two commanders had fought. They freed the boy and the people responded with gratitude and support.

''At that time boys couldn't come to the market because the commanders would come and take away any that they liked,'' said Amin Ullah, a money changer, gesturing to his two teenage sons hunched over wads of afghani bank notes at Kandahar's currency bazaar.

Most men here spend the vast majority of their time in the company of other men and rarely glimpse more than the feet of any woman other than their mother, sister or wife. The atmosphere leaves little room for romantic love, let alone recreational sex between men and women. But alternative opportunities are not hard to find.

Muhammad Daud, 29, says he first spotted Mr. Fareed seven years ago at an auto repair shop owned by Mr. Fareed's father and pursued the boy for months.

''If you want a haliq'' -- a boy for sex -- ''you have to follow the boy for a long time before he will agree,'' said Mr. Daud, smiling at Mr. Fareed in a hostel in Kandahar where the two consented to give an interview.

''At first he was afraid, so I bought him some chocolate and gave him a lot of money,'' said Mr. Daud, laughing. ''I went step by step and after about six or seven months, he agreed.''

''At that time, I had no beard,'' Mr. Fareed said, smiling.

The Taliban took care of that problem by resorting to an ancient punishment prescribed by the Shariah, a compendium of Islamic laws: they pushed a wall on top of anyone found to be homosexual.

Odd as the punishment sounds, it resonates with many Afghans who live in a world of mud-and-wattle walls, many of which have long since lost their usefulness. There are plenty of 12-foot-high, 2-foot-thick earthen walls around waiting to be toppled.

On the outskirts of Kandahar, Mr. Fareed pointed to a mound of rubble and described how he had watched the Taliban lay a man there in a shallow pit in front of a high wall and then ram the wall with a tank from the other side, knocking it over on top of him.

''When the wall fell, people said he was dead, but later we heard that he wasn't dead,'' said Mr. Fareed.

The man was Mullah Peer Muhammad, a former student of the Koran who had become a Taliban fighter and was later put in charge of boys then incarcerated at Kandahar's central prison. He was convicted of sexually abusing the inmates.

After the wall fell on him, his family dug him out and took him to the hospital. He spent six days there and another six months in jail, but according to the punishment, survivors are allowed to go free. He now lives in Pakistan, his former neighbors say.

A man who said he owns the wall that fell on Mr. Muhammad said he had seen the Taliban knock successive sections of the wall on another man seven times, digging him out each time and moving him along the remaining wall before he died. The man had been convicted of raping and killing a boy.

''We had to be very careful then,'' said Mr. Fareed, shrinking instinctively from the crowd that had gathered around the site during a reporter's visit. He said he and his lover could meet only at night in each others' homes, but that they tried to refrain from physical contact for fear that the Taliban's extensive intelligence network would discover them.

Now the Taliban are gone and the commanders have returned, some with their predilections. The problem is so widespread that the government has issued a directive barring ''beardless boys'' -- a euphemism for under-age sex partners -- from police stations, military bases and commanders' compounds.

While men are courting boys once again, few do so openly.

''Still, we feel ashamed in front of our older brothers or parents,'' said Mr. Fareed.

But he insisted that he does not regret being lured into a relationship by his older friend. When asked if he would do the same to a young boy, Mr. Fareed said, yes.

''I'm looking for one now,'' he said with a smile. http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=980DEFD6143EF932A15751C0A9649C8B 63&scp=1&sq=warlord%20homosexuality%20afghan&st=cse

Rising Sun*
03-01-2009, 06:28 AM
I certainly have not. What's that all about?

See my post above.

Be careful if you're on a tight budget which makes you think about bumming your way through such parts of the world. :D

DavisC12
03-01-2009, 11:24 AM
The bayonet was an effective weapon but it was only useful in hand to hand combat.

Man of Stoat
03-01-2009, 01:23 PM
The bayonet was an effective weapon but it was only useful in hand to hand combat.

And the Sherlock Holmes Prize goes to this post ^^^ :D

Cuts
03-01-2009, 04:17 PM
The bayonet was an effective weapon but it was only useful in hand to hand combat.
And the Sherlock Holmes Prize goes to this post ^^^ :D

But he's correct.
I know people that have been badly injured when using bayonets in hand to gland combat. :(

Nickdfresh
03-01-2009, 04:57 PM
I like rocks, because you can throw them at people and crush their heads while sleeping.

Nickdfresh
03-01-2009, 08:09 PM
Did they use rock thowing as a weapon in ww2?:shock:

I was joking, but certainly they did. I read of a US Marine pilot that was shot down over Guadalcanal and spent the following week making his way back to US lines near Henderson Field.

He encountered a sleeping Japanese soldier (or maybe Korean laborer) and smashed his head with a rock and then stole his equipment...

Rising Sun*
03-02-2009, 05:02 AM
I like rocks, because you can throw them at people and crush their heads while sleeping.

Is there special training that teaches you how to throw rocks while you're asleep?

The best I've ever managed is getting my rocks off while I'm asleep, but they barely leave my body.

Rising Sun*
03-02-2009, 05:08 AM
The bayonet was an effective weapon but it was only useful in hand to hand combat.

Wouldn't it be cheating to use a bayonet in hand to hand combat?

I think a hand would be the correct weapon to use in hand to hand combat.

Anyway, WWI and WWII bayonets were a lot longer than Vietnam and subsequent era bayonets, so I think the older bayonets were designed for long range work.

Schuultz
03-02-2009, 07:35 AM
The old bayonets were created for defense against cavalry. In 16th - 19th century combat, the Musket/Arquebus Infantry often had to withstand cavalry charges. For that reason, the formation of 'Pike and Shot' was used in the 16th & 17th century warfare. Rows of Muskets were covered by rows of Pikemen to the front and side. By the 18th century the Muskets had become accurate (and long) enough to remove the pike, instead adding long bayonets to the rifles. That way, if a cavalry charge was imminent, the musketeers could simply switch their role to Pikemen and fend them off. In WW1 trench warfare, however, the infantry lost the need for any melee cavalry defense, but gained the need for effective close encounter weaponry.
Many German soldiers believed bayonets were too unwieldy, and preferred using sharpened shovels for any melees, which gave them a significant advantage regarding mobility and speed.

Subsequent Bayonets were likely shortened because the designers realized that a bayonet had become a melee infantry vs infantry weapon, and not a cavalry-defense weapon, and they were adjusted for this new role...

Beaver22
03-04-2009, 12:29 PM
But wasn't the Panzerfaust made in reaction to shortening recources on the part of the german army, not that it wasn't still an effective weapon...

I would have to say the Garand or Thompson myself, the late war variants or maybe the PPSH. MG42 is also a terrific weapon, though they weigh a tonne!

Stuart

Timbo in Oz
03-09-2009, 12:09 AM
Hmmm,

for me liking a weapon has more to do with its effectiveness and efficiency, and perhaps if it was innovatory, ease of use and carrying the bloody thing and drilling with it, rather than appearance or the machining of the receiver or not.

I just don't find weapons to be appealing in any other way. Though nice lines - as in the SMLE-III - don't hurt.

As a trained* small arms trainer, my favourite weapon was the one I ran into on the course* at the Infantry Centre.

? The L4, 7.62 NATO version of the Bren gun. Our Lithgow SAF (actory) conversions retained the long/narrow beaten zone of the original. IE the Bren was very accurate - as LMG's go. And we had good reason to keep that feature.

I had never enjoyed using the - then recently dropped by the regs - M60 as a squad gun. It made the Bren look like a marvel, which it sort of was IMO.

It had become apparent to me - both in the reserves and on FTD - late 1960's and 1970's - that the M60 GPMG was not as good as it could have been - at least! as a squad/section gun. That it was heavy and awkward to carry, would not have mattered if it had been really good, rather than merely acceptable.

On the course it was very clear that all the regulars, students and instructors felt the same way. The L4 was welcomed by them.

We did have around four days on tripod mounted MG's. Our tripods copied the recoiling fluid damped top plate of the MG42's tripod. Two guns - the M60 - with which we all had stoppages and breakages - and the L7 GPMG - no problems. The staff were 'assessing' the L7 and it was soon adopted.

Later I did the Centre's MG course, with the L7.

the faults of the M60?

running away - gun goes through a whole belt when hot!!!!! the sear!? - low service-life, and some wore out very fast.

No single shot option. And as it fired from an open bolt, the first burst might not go where you wanted it too.

Link stoppages - the belts links come apart as you fire and can, and do, get in the way of the feed mechanism, jamming it. Burnt fingers!!

Note that the feed was a copy of the excellent one in the MG42 - but IT used non-disintegrating-link belts. ;-)!

The changeable* barrel really wasn't, no handle? an asbestos glove and a way too short spanner - insufficient leverage? The US Army went through a LOT more barrels then planned for in 'Nam, as a HOT* barrel wears very quickly.

*After 400 rounds IIRC, just four belts!

Stripping one in the dark was a no-no, as you could easily put the gas-piston in backwards, and still assemble the gun. Then it would fire one shot, and had to go to the armourer.

poorly balanced, and awkward, more so than the Bren, and harder to control when firing from the hip.

So, the L4 Bren is the only weapon I used enough to LIKE it. It worked, and kept on working.

The handle on the barrel for twisting it and taking it off, worked well.

With rimless ammo the magazines could be filled.

Easy to fire, controllable, even from the hip, rounds went where you meant them to.

My second favourite was the Lee-Enfield, which we all got to fire during the course. NICE. Australia's own sniper version of the SMLE III, with a heavy barrel, and a WWII made WWI design 'scope. I often wished that I'd bought at least one sporterised SMLE action, rather than the 4 Mauser action hunting rifle I did buy. The IC museum did have a couple of P14 snipers, which our Commandos on Timor used against the Japanese.

Although I shot well with the L1A1-SLR I never got to like having a bruised cheek - aka the FN-FAL!> I enjoyed drill, eventually, let alone teaching it ;-)!!!! so I didn't HATE the thing.

I trusted the Browning High-Power pistol I was issued, one box of ammo a week down at the base' test-range, and then you CAN hit things with them! Yep, really!!!

I was gifted a short commando version of the Armalite - which was a gift from a Yank supply sgt. Used to clip it just below the front of the seat in 'the jeep'.

If I'd had to carry and maintain an AK47, which I've stripped, cleaned and fired 2-mags through I think I'd have LOVED it! Sensible rational LIGHT thing that it was.

Weapons I HATED?

- I positively FEARED hand grenades - Mills, and 26M. Most of my experience with them being teaching recruits about them, and then being in the pit with them while they threw a few live ones. I hated throwing the bloody things myself. And so should / would you have.
{:~| !!

the Enfield .38 revolver, the 'DA only' ones us weekend warriors got lumped with.

And the dud AT projectiles I was trained to clear. Yes, I did do 'the blinds course'. Silly old me!

ATK rounds from the 3.5 RL and the Energa 94 RG, and the LAW, and the Carl-Gustav RCL.

Just lying on the ground's creepy enough, but if they lodge in a shrub and fail to explode ............

I'll get out of yer way now, shall I!?


Tim B

Schuultz
03-09-2009, 07:39 AM
So, considering your remarkable experience, have you ever fired the German assault rifles? G3, G36? How about the MG3 or MG4? MP5, MP7?

I'm pretty curious to see how they hold up to your criticism :D

Timbo in Oz
07-13-2009, 10:10 PM
the H&K assault rifles were by all reports excellent weapons, they were blow-back types IIRC?, and to do that succesfully with 7.62 Nato rounds is an achievement. I read that blow-back implementations are now more sophisticated.

the only assault rifles I've fired were the M16, and that Commando.

alvinkate
07-13-2009, 11:44 PM
The bayonet was an effective weapon but it was only useful in hand to hand combat.

yeah, that's true. http://storeyourpicture.com/images/signature_imageHost.jpg

Schuultz
07-14-2009, 12:01 AM
the H&K assault rifles were by all reports excellent weapons, they were blow-back types IIRC?, and to do that succesfully with 7.62 Nato rounds is an achievement. I read that blow-back implementations are now more sophisticated.

the only assault rifles I've fired were the M16, and that Commando.

I'm assuming that with Commando, you mean the commando type not commando style :D

Deaf Smith
07-14-2009, 10:59 PM
Likes and dislikes....

Likes:

The Glock, P-35, 1911, and yes Makarov, are very very sturdy handguns. I've owned them all in several flavors.

The Garand, in it's day, was the best. The M-14 is really what the Garand should have been! The FAL is what the M-14 should have been. The AK was the right weapon for the 60s. And the AR is the right weapon for today (and that is more because of what they have done to the AR platform than what the AR platform was back in the 60s.) And yes I've owned the simi-auto version of all of 'em.

Thompson submachinegun was good but awful heavy. Funny thing is Thompson himself wanted these qualities:

Simplicity
Accessibility
Positive action under all conditions
Normally light weight <----- the 1st eight did weigh 7 lb!
High rate of controlled fire.

http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/PSharpe1.html

You guys know they made a 351 Winchester version? And a Remington-Thompson .45 cartridge that gave 1450 fps for a 250gr slug?

Dislike? French Lebel and their later MAS rifle. I knew better than to own one of them. Sorry!

Deaf

Schuultz
07-15-2009, 12:07 AM
So, how would you compare an M1 Garand to an SVT-40? My understanding was that that one was very good, too.

Canberra Man
09-29-2009, 08:32 AM
Hi.
I have always liked the modern Enfield, I could manage a 2" group at 200 yards (old money!) and rapid fire, a 4" group all in the bull, I think thats why I ended up in the regimental rifle team. We also handled the old fashioned Sten, what an abortion! Coming out of the artillery, a true glutton for punishment, I joined the RAF and was introduced to the Bren, wonderful weapon. Big difference, in the army, I was payed 1s 2p for my marksman badge, the RAF don't.

Ken

Non_Sequitor
09-29-2009, 06:59 PM
I rather liked the Mauser 98K, but when it comes to bolt-action rifles, I'd take my Lee-Enfield any day of the week. The action is buttery smooth, and though the .303 isn't the most efficient round, it does pack a pretty good wallop. The Mosin-Nagant 91/30 and other variants were OK, but their actions were stiff. It also took some work for me to make my 91/30 and M44 reasonably accurate. I do like the 7.62X54R round that the Russians used though. The M1 Garand and 1903 Springfield are great rifles, and the 30-06 round is pretty awesome too. I don't know, really. When it comes down to it, I guess I like almost all of them for some reason or other. If I had to pick an absolute favorite, I would choose my SMLE. It just feels right to me. Pistol wise, it would be a three-way toss-up between the P-38, P-08, and M1911. Obviously the 1911 packs the most punch, but I really dig the natural (for me) aim point of the German pistols - especially the Luger. Machine guns would have to be either the MG-42 or M2. One for the rate of fire, and the other for WHAT it fires. From a practicality standpoint, the STG-44 has to be mentioned, and was probably the most versatile gun of the war. It spawned some truly amazing weapons afterwards too. I guess I just like 'em all too much!

fatmannz
10-21-2009, 05:29 AM
Well you can try to compare the M1 Garand and the SVT-40. The Garand had an 8 bullet clip and was the first semi automatic rifle that was standard for any army when it was first used. It had a really good design and could be mass produced quickly. The Garand was also very reliable in the hands of the G.I's. The SVT-40 came around after the Garand and was very complex to create. Also it was very very expensive and unreliable even with a 10 bullet clip. Russians preferred the Mosin-Nagant rifle. Only problem with the Garand was the fact that it made a destinctive sound when it clipped out.

The STG-44 was the first assault rifle in the world and brought about the AK-47 which is the most numerous assault rifle in the world. I remember it was like 20 million that was created to this day? Something like that. The STG-44 was an awesome weapon but one problem was that it couldn't be mass produced fast enough to have any effect on the war.

The best machine gun was indeed the Mg-42 with its tremendous rate of fire. The massive volume of fire it could put out had surpassed any of its opponents and it was pretty mobile. Only problem was that the quick rate of fire chewed through heaps of ammunition and also melted the barrel. Machine gun crews had to carry along spare barrels to exchange. This was an awesome gun

VonWeyer
10-21-2009, 06:46 AM
The best machine gun was indeed the Mg-42 with its tremendous rate of fire. The massive volume of fire it could put out had surpassed any of its opponents and it was pretty mobile. Only problem was that the quick rate of fire chewed through heaps of ammunition and also melted the barrel. Machine gun crews had to carry along spare barrels to exchange. This was an awesome gun

Agreed...Mg42 is my favourite.

fatmannz
10-21-2009, 08:41 AM
I also wonder why the flamethrower didn't get a mention... It was highly effective in the pacific and jungle combat, used for flushing out bunkers and such... Only problem was that a bullet in the tank meant the flamethrower would blow up into smithereens but overall it was a good weapon. Burn baby burn

Schuultz
10-21-2009, 10:29 AM
fatmannz, that's nothing but a myth. A flamethrower tank would not blow up when struck by a bullet, unless it was an incendiary round.

Munchausen
12-09-2009, 02:30 PM
My favourite weapon depends on what standpoint. For instance, if I were a general I'd love the T-34/85. But as a tanker, I think I'd prefer the King Tiger.

Timbo in Oz
12-29-2009, 05:23 PM
It's the one with the collapsible butt and very short barrel.

Fricking NOISY device, but beat the pants off the High Power as something to actually use.

Timbo in Oz
12-29-2009, 05:34 PM
Agreed...Mg42 is my favourite.

I've only fired the MG3 version, and it was pretty damned lively on a bipod.

When firing long bursts, which was pretty easy to do, the empty belt got very hot, no-one I know has asbestos fingers.

The barrel change system? Good to have but there's no handle, unlike the L4A4 (? Nato ammo Bren) which I grew to love.

Accurate / it didn't jump about.

IME&O a weapon that sprays ammo around just wastes it.

Have _you_ ever fired an MG42!?

OTOH I do find the noise of the MG3/ MG42 pretty scary. And also note that mounted on a tripod with a recoiling oil-damped interface the MG3 is a VERY effective MMG. I don't know if their MG tripods in WWII had this feature.


Timbo

Munchausen
01-05-2010, 10:46 AM
don't know if this is apples and oranges but I'd put my money on the Ma Deuce. It may not have the rate of fire of the MG42 but the range and penetration make it well worth the weight. But I doubt you'd see this weapon on an OR-BAT less than company level. I've had experience with the M1919 and based on that, I cannot see why we stuck with that instead of adapting something like the MG34, let alone the 42. How Browning could have hit the mark so well with the M2 HB and missed so far with the M1919 is beyond me.
As for the Bren, from my experience with the FNC2 (Canada's section automatic that predated the SAW they use now-Minime?) 30 rounds of suppressive fire is far too brief to be of great effect. So I think of the Bren and add to that that it's half again as heavy. No thanks. Sure it looks awesome but usually you don't see the weapon that kills you in the field. I'm a great proponent of belt fed LMGs.

leccy
01-06-2010, 07:13 AM
The Bren was a section weapon that was usually fired in 3 round bursts at a specific target, it was too accurate really to be used as an area supressive fire weapon. It backed up the Lee Enfield's quite well as they could fire 10 aimed rounds a minute (controlled fire).

The British doctrine was to conserve ammunition hence the reason the SLR was only single shot when most nations used the full automatic capable FN.

I will say that after using the LMG (nato chambered bren) for 10 years the only pain was refilling the 12 magazines you were issued with each weapon (the number 2 spent most of his time refilling if in prolonged action). It was very accurate (tendancy to walk forward at times dragging you with it) lighter than the GPMG and required less ammunition due to lower rate of fire and differing use.
The British army relegated the LMG to second line roles (non infantry units) starting in the 50's when it adopted the GPMG. The LMG has been superseded itself by the LSW since the early ninety's (although it has been in service since the mid 80's) but it is still used in the same way as the LMG 'sort of long range burst/sniping fire and not as a supressive fire weapon'.
Note the infantry were originally issued 2 LSW to replace each GPMG in a section but soon reverted back to carrying a GPMG for its supressive fire ability.

pdf27
01-06-2010, 09:32 AM
Note the infantry were originally issued 2 LSW to replace each GPMG in a section but soon reverted back to carrying a GPMG for its supressive fire ability.
Current section composition is typically 2 x LSW, 2 x Minimi, 2 x IW with UGL and 2 x IW (sect comd. and 2IC), although this varies massively on operations with additional weapons (e.g. Javelin, the new AR-15 derivative in 7.62mm that the army has just bought, etc.).

Nickdfresh
01-06-2010, 11:13 AM
...

The British doctrine was to conserve ammunition hence the reason the SLR was only single shot when most nations used the full automatic capable FN.

...

Similar to the American doctrine with the M-14 in the late 1950s and 60s. But also because generally speaking, 7.62X51mm rifles are almost useless on full auto--unless the user is extremely proficient. I believe the US Army did have a few designated men with full auto capable M-14s though...

I'd still want to have cyclical fire capable rifle though, and thought the three-round-burst thing (M-16A2/A4) might be a problem if actually having to clear rooms in a close quarters urban environment, and there I think there have been some problems recorded in Iraq...

tankgeezer
01-06-2010, 11:39 AM
The M-14 wasnt alot of trouble to hold on target when used with the bi pod, very stable, and controllable. Off hand it was tougher to hold on a particular target, so unless the baddies were way close,or very numerous, it was just wasting ammo. The AR-10 was a real beast, no way to hold that thing on any target off hand. (I tried several times,)

Dmke2010
01-10-2010, 11:45 PM
i like the browning BAR... very high powered and accurate due to the slow firing..
wait... we talking ww2 era?
modern weapons the Scar- H is the most versatile assault rifle to date...

plheure2
01-12-2010, 10:01 PM
Put me down for the Ma Deuce.... the venerable Browning 0.50 caliber machine gun. Packs a great punch. Put eight of them in the wings of a P-47 and you better not be in its way....:mrgreen:

Gren Schell
01-16-2010, 03:53 AM
For close up work, a sharpened entrenching tool, mid-stuff an MP44, and my most favourate.. an 81mm Mortar for taking out my enemies from long distance.. :mrgreen:

muscogeemike
04-18-2010, 09:12 PM
Not often considered as “weapons” but I submit the Douglas C-47 aircraft and Liberty and Victory cargo ships as keys to WWII victory.

Rising Sun*
04-19-2010, 09:57 AM
Not often considered as “weapons” but I submit the Douglas C-47 aircraft and Liberty and Victory cargo ships as keys to WWII victory.

An interesting and useful contribution, which is worth pursuing on the distinction between weapons and other things which contribute on or to the battlefield.

A tank is commonly regarded as a weapon, but in reality it may be no more a weapon than a jeep.

It's the gun(s) on the vehicle that is the real weapon, but a jeep-mounted recoilless rifle doesn't convert a jeep into a weapon in most people's eyes yet a tank is commonly seen as a weapon in the same way as an artillery piece.

As for Douglas C 47 / Dakota and Liberty ships etc, perhaps they are more accurately seen as the sinews of war rather than weapons per se.

However, if a Dakota was converted to a gunship a la Spooky / Puff the Magic Dragon in Vietnam, did that make the transport plane a weapon or just a weapon carrier?

tankgeezer
04-19-2010, 01:41 PM
No one has mentioned "Who-Me" yet,,,,

colmhain
09-25-2010, 04:02 AM
If I were a ground pounder back then and saw an STG44 with ammo laying around.....

WorldWar2JDH
09-29-2010, 01:09 AM
I like the Sten gun, itself it wasnt a really good gun, but it was Cheap, very easy to make, small,
It was used by lots of resistance groups, and it got low recoil and its easy to shoot, the first stens were really bad the Jammed and fired unsafe
but the later versions were better, the Sten sub machine gun did his Job in world war 2.

And for a Rifle i would Choose the lee enfield. one of the fasted firing bolt weapons, and it can fire long range, and a very powerfull bullet.

Regards JDH

WorldWar2JDH
09-29-2010, 01:13 AM
Why on earth would you mount an optical sight on a weapon which is designed to operate on the beaten zone principle?

Yours, confused of London :confused:

Just what i thought :)

muscogeemike
09-29-2010, 09:50 PM
.50 Cal M-2 rules!
Trained with the M-14 and found it to be accurate to at least 500 yds. I believe all M-14’s had selective auto capability but required a special tool to convert from semi-auto. There were squad auto weapons with a heavy barrel and bi-pod. I know the USN Seals used M-14’s into the 90’s.
BAR was heavy and very hard to hold on target. 30-06 round was really too powerful for individual weapons, much prefer .303. Would choose SMLE over ‘03 Springfield and maybe over M-1 Garand. Firm believer in marksmanship over “spray and pray”.
No question, in my mind, .45 ACP over 9 mm - if you are experienced shooter.
I agree that of WWII individual weapons I would choose the German MP 42-45 .

"Sometimes gunpowder smells good." Ralph Waldo Emerson

Nickdfresh
09-30-2010, 09:12 PM
.50 Cal M-2 rules!
Trained with the M-14 and found it to be accurate to at least 500 yds. I believe all M-14’s had selective auto capability but required a special tool to convert from semi-auto. There were squad auto weapons with a heavy barrel and bi-pod. I know the USN Seals used M-14’s into the 90’s.
BAR was heavy and very hard to hold on target. 30-06 round was really too powerful for individual weapons, much prefer .303. Would choose SMLE over ‘03 Springfield and maybe over M-1 Garand. Firm believer in marksmanship over “spray and pray”.
No question, in my mind, .45 ACP over 9 mm - if you are experienced shooter.
I agree that of WWII individual weapons I would choose the German MP 42-45 .

"Sometimes gunpowder smells good." Ralph Waldo Emerson

All M-14's were originally envisioned to all be selective fire capable, but soldiers inadvertently turning them into anti-aircraft guns on full-auto sort of discouraged the military. Variants of the M-14 are still in use as intermediate sniper weapons and special operations use a cut-down version called the M-14 "SOCOM."
http://www.mwairsoft.net/images/stories/m14socom%20bk.jpg
I almost bought one recently, but they're very pricey and in demand...

muscogeemike
09-30-2010, 09:44 PM
Yeah, I too have priced them and agree - can get an equilivant weapon for less money.

Ealdwita
10-18-2010, 01:56 PM
http://i707.photobucket.com/albums/ww78/leveller/35ATCJ.jpg

"AYO GOORKALI!"

Iron Yeoman
10-18-2010, 06:12 PM
M-14 is an outstanding weapon and it was only due to interference from Curtis LeMay and the air-force that caused the M-16 to win out over it.

For WW2 I think one of the best weapons was the humble Bren gun, very versitile and an excellent squad weapon. Probably not too great in the LMG role due to its low mag capacity but decent calibre round, good rate of fire and range.

ced381
10-18-2010, 07:26 PM
Taken from my personnal photo collection of Kandahar and the FOBs around:

http://i26.servimg.com/u/f26/14/26/15/49/kaf_8510.jpg

imi
10-18-2010, 07:51 PM
My favourites from ww2
7.62 mm M1 carbine
7.62 mm SVT 40
7.62 mm M1 Garand
7.62 mm Sturmgewehr 44
9 mm Mp 40
9 mm P08 Luger
7.62 mm MG42
7.62 mm FG42
150 mm Panzerfaust
9 mm Walther P38
0.45 Colt 1911
0.45 Colt 1911A1
455 Webley Mk IV
9 mm Browning HP
7.65 mm TT
7.62 mm PPSH
0.38 or 7.65mm FÉG 37M
9 mm Király 43m

Za Rodinu
10-22-2010, 05:57 PM
Russian M91/30 would probably be my favourite,because its what my grandfather used in the war. I also love the German K98 but dont have one yet,
A 91/30 I own that looks to have seen some action

SimonSays1
02-08-2011, 04:58 PM
The P-51 and the AK-47. Both just awesome.

Ronnyguitar
02-08-2011, 05:12 PM
a Mauser 8x57is with scope for the distance, a Kalaschnikov for the middle range, and a Ruger .45 Revolver for close combat.... if that's not enough, a nice Bowie knife would take care of the rest....

;)

fastmongrel
02-09-2011, 05:38 AM
My own personal favourite my .303 Lee Enfield No4 mk1*

It shoots really well and I know it is accurate because my friend who is a much much better marksman than me has hit targets at 600 yards regular as clockwork. A lot of people who have never fired .303 say it wasnt an effective round well from my experience of firing at 10 inch thick old railway sleepers (railway ties if your american) the 7.92x57 and the 30-06 will knock a nice neat hole through the timber with a bulged exit hole about 1 inch in diameter. The .303 will knock a fist sized lump of wood out of the back of the timber, the guys who designed the mkVII round with its light aluminium or box wood plug in the tip sure knew how to make a man killer.

Greycap Leader
04-14-2011, 05:05 PM
The F104 has to down in history as one of the most useless and downright dangerous aircraft ever conceived. Firstly, as it was lauded as the "missile with a man in it" it was felt that as it was easily capable of mach 2+, the ejection seat was designed to fire downwards to prevent the pilot from hitting the tail. This was all well and good, but if the pilot got in to difficulty with the approach and landing (only the SR71 and the Space Shuttle had faster approaches than the 104) as so often happened, he punched out downward and drilled a bloody great hole in the ground. Only after the wisdom of this idea was fully exposed, the aircraft was re-designed with a conventional upward firing ejection seat. If the angle of attack exceeded 20 degrees, and induced a stall, the stub wings blanked out the flow of air to the T tail. Chuck Yeager had his most dangerous bale out whilst flying an NF104 to 70,000ft, had a flame out and the resulting flat spin was impossible to recover from. He ejected and the red hot rocket tube on the base of the ejection seat smashed his pressure visor on his helmet causing severe burns, as his suit was pressurised with pure oxygen.
The USAF rejected the 104, but Lockheed pulled off the deal of the century by offering the Starfighter to several NATO airforces, with significant bribes to boot. Hundreds of pilots lost their lives courtesy of a nod and a wink. Once the truth of the deal came out in the late 1970's the Carter administration passed legislation prohibiting such deals with individual governments. The 104 has joined an unfortunate list of truly pointless and downright dangerous aircraft that most countries around the world have produced during the 20th century.

JohanS83
04-15-2011, 10:47 AM
What i absolutly dislike is the atom bomb! this takes out the war.. in warfare..

muscogeemike
04-15-2011, 10:22 PM
My own personal favourite my .303 Lee Enfield No4 mk1*

It shoots really well and I know it is accurate because my friend who is a much much better marksman than me has hit targets at 600 yards regular as clockwork. A lot of people who have never fired .303 say it wasnt an effective round well from my experience of firing at 10 inch thick old railway sleepers (railway ties if your american) the 7.92x57 and the 30-06 will knock a nice neat hole through the timber with a bulged exit hole about 1 inch in diameter. The .303 will knock a fist sized lump of wood out of the back of the timber, the guys who designed the mkVII round with its light aluminium or box wood plug in the tip sure knew how to make a man killer.
I saw my cousin take down a running feral hog at about 200 yds with a SMLE, I'd say it was, and is, an effective round.