who made the best cc weapons in WW2?

[Viking]

Originally posted by FrodeMk3
I think what SIG didn't point out, but what he had on his mind, was that not every battlefield situation allowed for prone firing from a bipod or rest. In situation's like house-to-house fighting, you are going to be running from cover to cover, crouched over, around a corner, etc. This is where the 5.56mm's lesser recoil would be a boon, because you would be firing alot in close quarters, most likely in Full-auto.

That is true. 5.56N is a much better round for a squad automatic weapon. However we were discussing the WWII era Browning Automatic Rifle; a time where there was only one intermediate round suitable for a SAW type weapon. Unfortunately that round was German.

[Viking]

Originally posted by FrodeMk3
You forgot to add, that the B.A.R. M1918 was not originally designed to be a Squad Automatic weapon, or a true LMG. It was origanally designed to be an infantryman's standard-issue weapon.

Perhaps my post was ambiguous, but I believe that's what I said:

"However the BAR was built and shaped as an automatic rifle, not as a light machinegun..."

I'm sorry for any misunderstanding.

[Viking]

Originally posted by lazs2
viking.. energy has nothing to do with powder charge... it is a function of bullet weight and velocity..  for instance..  a charge of 45 grains of IMR4895 powder does not have more "energy" than say 40 grains of IMR3031.

dia. is not the same as bullet weight either.

lazs

The bullet gets its energy from the gunpowder charge. The gunpowder is the propellant, the fuel. Without the gunpowder charge you'd have to throw the bullet to get any velocity at all.

This is elementary physics Lazs.

[Viking]

Originally posted by SIG220
German combat units in Iraq??  That never, ever happened.  

You are absolutely right. Brain fart on my part.

Originally posted by SIG220
I have no doubt that their army is well equipped and trained.   But the fact remains is that it is totally untested in combat.  Policing type work does not count.

SIG 220

The US Army was totally untested in combat when they invaded Iraq in 1991. 10 years later when you invaded Afghanistan in 2001 much of the personnel in your army had been replaced with new soldiers untested in combat. An army is only as good as its training, leadership and equipment.

The US Army no more proved itself in combat by invading Afghanistan or Iraq than the German army proved itself by crushing Poland under its heel in '39. The US Army of today has never met an equal or even close to equal in combat, and probably never will. If anything the US Army has proved itself ... and I apologize for being blunt ... less capable in securing Iraq than one would expect from a nation as preeminent as yours.

[john9001]

the US army was untested in combat when they invaded France in WW2. Just a bunch of farm boys and store clerks.

[Viking]

Yes! Exactly  And they sure proved themselves facing the Germans and Japanese.

[Viking]

Originally posted by lasersailor184
.45 was chosen because it WOULD knock down and kill coked out Filipinos.  All those rounds you espouse didn't even tickle them.

Lol, you remind me of the dude with the six-shooter in his belt:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8RHBOfM9CFQ

[john9001]

Originally posted by Viking
Yes! Exactly  And they sure proved themselves facing the Germans and Japanese.

what just happened? did viking and me just agree on something?

[Viking]

I believe so.

[lasersailor184]

Originally posted by Viking
The US Army was totally untested in combat when they invaded Iraq in 1991. 10 years later when you invaded Afghanistan in 2001 much of the personnel in your army had been replaced with new soldiers untested in combat. An army is only as good as its training, leadership and equipment.

The US Army no more proved itself in combat by invading Afghanistan or Iraq than the German army proved itself by crushing Poland under its heel in '39. The US Army of today has never met an equal or even close to equal in combat, and probably never will. If anything the US Army has proved itself ... and I apologize for being blunt ... less capable in securing Iraq than one would expect from a nation as preeminent as yours.

The problems with the performance of American Troops in Iraq and Afghanistan stem entirely from wussy Rules of Engagement, and the desire to please rather than the desire to win.

I believe that the clip was not a problem with the garand.. you can load a clip at least twice as fast as you can change a mag.. the problem with the clip was that it was 8 rounds instead of ten say and that it was difficult to top off...

If you shoot a few rounds and then have a break.. what do you do? do you dump the whole clip and load another and now have a bunch of loose rounds or.. do you just go into battle with less rounds or.. try to load loose ammo into the gun to top it off?

It's not difficult to Top Off the garand clip in-gun up to 7 rounds.  With a little practice, it's pretty easy.  BUT, it's almost impossible to load it up to 8.

[Spikes]

PPSH, M1, MP44
.

Also that one German gun with the scope on it, looks like it's got a box atached to it for it's ammo holder.

I play COD1 and use the M1 the most.

[FrodeMk3]

Originally posted by SpikesX
PPSH, M1, MP44
.

Also that one German gun with the scope on it, looks like it's got a box atached to it for it's ammo holder.

I play COD1 and use the M1 the most.

The German rifle would be the G-43. That "box attached to it for it's ammo holder" is called a 'Magazine'.

[lazs2]

viking..   it doesn't matter if you throw the bullet or shoot it out of a slingshot or drop it from an airplane or use gunpowder to propel it.

energy is a function of that bullets weight and velocity.

energy is not the most important factor in stopping power although it is very important.

lazs

[Viking]

Lazs, we are talking about two different things. I was trying to explain the physics of how a gun works. You're talking gun nomenclature, i.e. muzzle energy  , target energy etc. I was just explaining where the bullet gets its energy from: The propellant charge. Just as a car gets its energy from the gasoline it burns. And I was trying to keep it simple.

[lazs2]

oh... when talking about ballistics or ammo the accepted defenition of energy is as I have said..  it seems that instead of making things simple you have complicated them.

and.. just to make it even worse.. it is not so much the powder as the pressure.     Powder exploding without pressure would create no energy that the bullet could use.

lazs