Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: Klum25th on April 20, 2005, 04:49:09 PM
-
I Know its a MP44 or STG44. But whats the thing on top of it?
(http://sgm.zonadictos.net/fotos/437.jpg)
and on the web site its in German or spanish or something but it says this. Soldado aliado prueba un fusil de asalto STG-44 con sistema de visión nocturna "Vampiro".[/U]
-
CLEARLY its night vision "visión nocturna" is a cognate for night vision. ;) I have learned something in Spanish this year.
Allied soldier proves a assault rifle STG-44 with system of night vision "Vampire"
-
Reminded me of these photos from a 1946 pictorial history of WW2
Dan/CorkyJr
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/169_1114034665_nightscopes.jpg)
-
going to change my handle to "Vampiro"
be afraid , be very afraid
-
Originally posted by Klum25th
I Know its a MP44 or STG44. But whats the thing on top of it?
(http://sgm.zonadictos.net/fotos/437.jpg)
and on the web site its in German or spanish or something but it says this. Soldado aliado prueba un fusil de asalto STG-44 con sistema de visión nocturna "Vampiro".[/U]
Looks like an active IR system there. Basicly an early precurser to modern night vision.
It used an IR flood-light to provide a light source to a primitive light amplification tube. (Back then, light amp tubes werent even powerful enough to work in normal room lighting).
Worked pretty well...until the enemy learned to start packing IR sensing gear to find the flood lights.
-
Wasn't it called Vampyr? Frigging massive battery you had to lug along with it.
-
If you ever read the book "The Master Sniper" that device features prominanlty in the plot.
But the author unfortunaly confused Active IR with Thermal Imaging and his whole story was to do with people wearing alot of clothing and defeating the IR system because they were well insulated.
Really the guy saw that picture and wrote a whole novel arround it without really understanding what it was.
-
It is an IR spot light and IR recieving scope. You think it would have been a great Idea, but it wasn't.
It weighed so much and the STG wasn't that great of a gun anyway.
-
LOL
its a great idea if you have one and the other guy doenst have any NV capability at all.
Especially in concert with bigger spot lights mounted on vehicles but using the scope on the rifle. The germans developed a 1 meter spot light for mounting on a 251 half track. All great stuff till the other guy starts using IR scopes and the men maning your spot lights start to feel vulnerable.
This was typical NVG technology untill the early 80s.
And the STG was a fantastic gun compared to its contemporaries.
the spot light has limited range so it would be wasted on a longer raged weapon.
-
No, the STG was not a fantastic gun.
It was a mediocre gun. Take a look in any direction towards any country (including germany) and there were better guns.
-
The title of this thread was my response when seeing the new 190 cockpit for the first time. :)
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
No, the STG was not a fantastic gun.
It was a mediocre gun. Take a look in any direction towards any country (including germany) and there were better guns.
Like what?
-
Garand, enfield, K98, MG 42, 1917, Nagant, PPSH, Thompson...
It was a revolutionary concept. But just like the first wheel being a revoluationary concept, it did not roll too well.
-
You sure laser?
It could engage targets at longer ranges with better accuracy than smg's. It gave a greater rate of fire than all contemporary rifles, being much more useful for urban combat too.
Not sure why you are comparing it to the MG42.
-
Soldado aliado prueba un fusil de asalto STG-44 con sistema de visión nocturna "Vampiro".
Allied soldier tests an STG-44 assualt rifle with a night vision system "Vampiro" (vampyre).
-
No, think about the M1 Carbine. It only had a slight edge on the M1 Carbine in some categories (besides full auto). The other categories, it came about dead even. It was only a slightly better gun.
And even then, some people would take their M1 Carbine and file down the sear pin. So it really didn't have much of an advantage there.
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
No, think about the M1 Carbine. It only had a slight edge on the M1 Carbine in some categories (besides full auto). The other categories, it came about dead even. It was only a slightly better gun.
And even then, some people would take their M1 Carbine and file down the sear pin. So it really didn't have much of an advantage there.
**Foxy looks at his M1 Carbine...looks for a file...looks to make sure BATF aint looking...**
-
Thanks guys. I thought he was IR or something like that, but I didnt think they had the Technology after WW2 tell like the late 50s or early 60s.
-
Originally posted by Klum25th
Thanks guys. I thought he was IR or something like that, but I didnt think they had the Technology after WW2 tell like the late 50s or early 60s.
Actually, the germans had that tech during the war. Some of their night fighters used it.
I dont know how effective, or how common it was, but it did exsist back then.
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
No, think about the M1 Carbine. It only had a slight edge on the M1 Carbine in some categories (besides full auto). The other categories, it came about dead even. It was only a slightly better gun.
And even then, some people would take their M1 Carbine and file down the sear pin. So it really didn't have much of an advantage there.
Umm ... the StG has about twice the effective range of the M1 Carbine, and is very comparable with the 7.62x39R round (AK-47) in power. I agree that many other rifles are far better for the sniper role, but the StG-44 was hands down the best infantry weapon of WWII.
-
Wow! Thats a first, I actually agree with GScholz.
I think I need to go take a shower now, next I'll start shamelessly bashing the US. :)
In all seriousness, the StG was another 'too little, too late' weapon, if it was made in sufficient numbers it would of been alot tougher to get across the Rhine.
The Germans based their platoons on the MG, with rifleman covering the flanks of those MG. A Mauser is alot less effective than a 30 round automatic weapon for such a defense...
Originally posted by GScholz
the StG-44 was hands down the best infantry weapon of WWII.
-
Well CP, there's a first for everything ... but didn't you agree with be once before as Capt. Pork? ;)
-
Umm ... the StG has about twice the effective range of the M1 Carbine, and is very comparable with the 7.62x39R round (AK-47) in power. I agree that many other rifles are far better for the sniper role, but the StG-44 was hands down the best infantry weapon of WWII.
Oh wow. Never before in all of your political discussions have you ever been this wrong.
The garand was the best weapon of WW2. But I wasn't even going to bring it up.
First off, the Kurzpatrone only had about 100 more joules of energy over the .30 carbine. It was roughly 550 joules short of the AK round. The AK round had 1/3 more energy then the Kurzpatrone. That's not even close to being compareable.
Everyone claims that the STG was the worlds first Assault Rifle. It wasn't. The M1 Carbine was the first.
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
Oh wow. Never before in all of your political discussions have you ever been this wrong.
The garand was the best weapon of WW2. But I wasn't even going to bring it up.
First off, the Kurzpatrone only had about 100 more joules of energy over the .30 carbine. It was roughly 550 joules short of the AK round. The AK round had 1/3 more energy then the Kurzpatrone. That's not even close to being compareable.
Everyone claims that the STG was the worlds first Assault Rifle. It wasn't. The M1 Carbine was the first.
Complete and utter crap. The 7.92x33mm Kurz round was an 8.1g round with a muzzle velocity of 686 m/sec and a muzzle energy of 1,900 joules while the 7.62x39mmR M1943 round has 7.9g, 710 m/sec and 2,000 joules. The .30 Carbine has a measly 7g, 580 m/sec and 1,200 joules of muzzle energy; in addition it had a round nosed bullet that quickly bled energy over range.
The M1 Carbine was a semi-auto weapon with a 15 round magazine with an effective range of little more than 200 yards. That's not an assault rifle by anyone's standard. The M2 Carbine however can more easily be considered an assault rifle since it has selective fire and a larger 30 round magazine (I don't. It's just a powerful SMG) ... However the M2 did not enter service until early 1945, two years after the MP-43/44/StG-44.
If you are going to berate me, first make sure you're right.
http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/Assault.htm
Edit: Quite easy to spot which round does not belong in the rifle category at all, isn't it?
(http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/Service%20Carts.jpg)
-
Jeeez, I just shot a horse with a smaller round.
Range was very short though :(
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Umm ... the StG has about twice the effective range of the M1 Carbine, and is very comparable with the 7.62x39R round (AK-47) in power. I agree that many other rifles are far better for the sniper role, but the StG-44 was hands down the best infantry weapon of WWII.
OMG....I cant believe I agree with this guy on anything...or to put it more clearly that he's ever right about anything:)....
The AK-47 is more or less a direct successor to the stg-44.
As for the M-1 carbine being an "assult rifle"....not a chance. It was actually an alternative to a sidearm for officers and senior enlisted personnel. It was never issued in mass to any frontline combat formation at anytime for normal use. It was however a favorite of cooks, clerks and supply seargents everyewhere.
The Garland was (and is) a fine weapon. It was the first weapon of its kind. I'm not sure its better than the Kar-43 however. Neither is really an assualt weapon however.
Basically the stg-44 was the 1st weapon to bridge the gap between the rifle and machine pistol and is the forrunner to all modern military assualt "rifles"
-
Hate to tell you scholz, but your source is completely wrong.
I hate quoting this source, he bashes the hell out of american weapons. But he is never wrong about non american stuff. "http://world.guns.ru/ammo/am03-e.htm" .
There is no ****ing way in this physical world the Kurzpatrone went 686 m/s *****AND***** weighed 8.1 g. It either did one, or it did the other. NOT BOTH. That is physically impossible with the propellants they had available at that time.
Next, the STG 44 did not see service in 43. It was only called MP43 during development to fool hitler. It came in later 44 as the STG 44.
Also, sorry for saying that the M1 Carbine was the first assault rifle. I always forget about the Russian Gun.
-
As for the M-1 carbine being an "assult rifle"....not a chance. It was actually an alternative to a sidearm for officers and senior enlisted personnel. It was never issued in mass to any frontline combat formation at anytime for normal use. It was however a favorite of cooks, clerks and supply seargents everyewhere.
The Garland was (and is) a fine weapon. It was the first weapon of its kind. I'm not sure its better than the Kar-43 however. Neither is really an assualt weapon however.
Woah dude. You need to stop speaking now. You aren't even coming close to the truth either.
The M1 Carbine was designed as an alternative to the 1911 *****AT FIRST*****. But it was seen as being really powerful so it *****WAS ISSUED***** to front line troops in all theaters *****IN MASS*****.
Next, the Garand still is the greatest weapon only second to the M14. (Third is the AK47 which was a successor of the STG).
Next, I will seriously always laugh at anything you say from here on out because you said the G43 was a good weapon. The G43 originally came from the G41. The G41 was one of the worst weapons ever. It would often break from the power of the cartridge alone. The G43 was an attempt to make it better, but it still wasn't a great rifle. It was incredibly innaccurate, it did not have the reliability needed of a war time rifle and it would break easily. (BTW, the G41 / G43 series were copies of the Soviet SVT 40, which itself was a good rifle, still not comparable to the Garand though.)
-
Please tell me which unit it was issued to in mass. It was designed as a replacement for the officer sidearm and used as such. It was commonly carried by senior NCO's and above. It was never issued at the squad level. Only broadscale use was by marine raiders and other specialized forces...
As for your comments relating to the garland....your ignorance is showing. I agree the M-14 is probably best infantry weapon ever made...SKS is a close second....garland doesnt crack the top 5.
The Kar43 was a perfectly acceptable weapon...it had relatively poor finish & fitting but was functionally a fine weapon. It was reliable and accurate. Please provide some 3rd party documentation that states otherwise....
By 1943 the Germans realised the necessity for an arm which could be produced at a very low cost in the least possible time. In the same year they produced the Gewehr 43. While this weapon appeared to be rather crude, it was in fact highly efficient. The rifle was later modified to carbine form and the designation KAR 43 applied.
http://www.rememuseum.org.uk/arms/rifles/armaslr.htm
-
Also your wrong about the G41 being a copy of the SVT 40. The germans "stole" the gas sytem from the SVT 40 to replace the bang type gas pistons the G41 used when they designed the Gew.43....which in turn became the kar43.
-
Wow Humble, you're so far gone it is even worth arguing with you upon this.
Come back to this conversation after you've spent time reading up on these weapons and those who actually used them.
-
Lasersailor, I'm afraid I'm going to have to take Mr. Williams word over yours. He's a world-renowned author and expert on automatic firearms ... you're a dude on the intardnet. No offence.
(http://jah.janes.com/public/images/editors/nlwilliams.jpg)
"Anthony G Williams is a military technology historian principally interested in guns and ammunition and especially in ammunition for automatic weapons. He is a member of the International Ammunition Association and the European Cartridge Research Association (ECRA) and is the Editor of ECRA's monthly bulletin The Cartridge Researcher.
Tony has authored and co-authored many magazine articles and several books, including Assault Rifle: The Development of the Modern Military Rifle and its Ammunition (with Maxim Popenker); the three-volume series Flying Guns: Development of Aircraft Guns, Ammunition and Installations (with Emmanuel Gustin); and Rapid Fire: The Development of Automatic Cannon, Heavy Machine Guns and their Ammunition for Armies, Navies and Air Forces."
http://jah.janes.com/public/jah/editorial_team.shtml
He is also a member of this board, so perhaps you should ask him in person?
-
OUR Tony Williams?!?!?!?!!?!?!
Now this board has some gravity ;)
-
Yup :)
-
Man my post became a gun fight.
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
Wow Humble, you're so far gone it is even worth arguing with you upon this.
Come back to this conversation after you've spent time reading up on these weapons and those who actually used them.
And you of course are an expert...
I asked you to name a single front line combat unit that was issued the M-1 carbine as a primary weapon.....
Still waiting.....
I asked you for any source that argues the kar43 as an inferior weapon.
Still waiting.....
I pointed out that you were mistaken in believing that the g41 was a copy of the SVT 40....it simply isnt.
Your clearly wrong about the stg-44. This gun is widely recognized as the catalyst for development of the AK-47 which in turn is the "source" of all modern assault rifles.
So your an expert....:rofl
-
I'll answer just one of your questions, just to begin to show you how wrong you are.
US Army Divisions using the M1 Carbine as a primary weapon.
1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th, 10th mtn., 24th, 25th, NG 26th, NG 27th, NG 28th - 45th, 63rd, 65th, 66th, 69th, 70th, 71st, 75th, 76th, 77th, 78th, 79th, 80th, 81st, 83rd, 84th, 85th, 86th, 87th, 88th, 89th, 90th, 91st, 92nd, 93rd, 94th, 95th, 96th, 97th, 98th, 99th, 100th, 102nd, 103rd, 104th, 106th, Americal, 11th Airborne, 13th Airborne, 17th Airborne, 82nd Airborne, 101st Airborne, 555th Parachute Battalion, 1st Cavalry, 2nd Cavalry.
Not enough? How about the marines that were issued the M1 Carbine?
Please, don't waste my time. I was serious when I said you need to hit the books. You don't even have the mental power to read over this page...
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
I'll answer just one of your questions, just to begin to show you how wrong you are.
US Army Divisions using the M1 Carbine as a primary weapon.
1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th, 10th mtn., 24th, 25th, NG 26th, NG 27th, NG 28th - 45th, 63rd, 65th, 66th, 69th, 70th, 71st, 75th, 76th, 77th, 78th, 79th, 80th, 81st, 83rd, 84th, 85th, 86th, 87th, 88th, 89th, 90th, 91st, 92nd, 93rd, 94th, 95th, 96th, 97th, 98th, 99th, 100th, 102nd, 103rd, 104th, 106th, Americal, 11th Airborne, 13th Airborne, 17th Airborne, 82nd Airborne, 101st Airborne, 555th Parachute Battalion, 1st Cavalry, 2nd Cavalry.
Not enough? How about the marines that were issued the M1 Carbine?
Please, don't waste my time. I was serious when I said you need to hit the books.
Hmm...the marines were the raiders....otherwise they wouldnt touch em....they didnt even want the garland.
The airborne cav and tankers used it as did numerous support troops....I'm unaware of a single front line combat unit that was issued M-1's in place of BAR's Garlands Tompsons etc....
I'm sure the quartermasters cooks & gravediggers had em....but no line infantry company would have them as part of the standard infantry squad.
Pretty typical of what I find here from the "experts"....
So we'll take the 1st example...the Big red....
It was composed of 3 infantry regiments....16th, 18th & 26th
It also had the 5th, 7th, 32nd & 33rd field artillery battalions
1 engineer combat battalion, 1st Quartermaster Company, 1st recon troop and so on....they made 6 million of the M-1's since such a large % of an American combat division is actually "support troops"....
Flat out...the M-1 was not a standard issue infantry weapon for the line companies of the combat regiments of the Big Red or any other Infantry Division (non specialized) of the US Army. It was a choice for senior NCO's and officers within those units as I stated originally.
-
Wow. Is it even worth it for me to say it again?
Back on the ignorance list you go again. Err, I meant ignore list. You should be proud. Not even any of the liberals in the O Club graced my ignore list. You're the first.
Stupid conscience. Making me feel all bad for abruptly ending it like that. How about this? You'll stay on my ignore list. But send me a PM after you read up on what actually happened and we'll continue this discussion.
-
.....
Once again a member of the "intellectual elite" tucks tail and runs. It's amazing how quickly the armchair idiots hide behind their stupidity instead of simply proving their point.....whoops....
They cant....can they. Lets see, the United States army is going to equip a front line infantry manuever battalion with a carbine with limited range and hitting power and give the cooks the garlands:)
So in summary.....
The STG-44 was the 1st widely deployed assualt rifle in the world.
The M-1 carbine was an outstanding weapon issued to support troops who benifited from its light weight, low recoil and ease of use....it was not however issued to anyone whose primary mission was to close with and engage the enemy as an infantryman (except for senior NCO's & Officers)....it was however NOT an infantry assualt weapon.
Details on the M-1
The weapon was designed in response to offer non-front line troops a better weapon than a pistol in terms of range and hitting power, but without the cost or weight of a full power weapon. Initially the weapon was going to be automatic-fire, but this feature was dropped on the production version. The feature would be added again on the M2 Carbine, a automatically firing M1 (select fire). The weapon was developed in part due to observations of the Nazi Germany blitzkrieg where Nazi troops would quickly and deeply penetrate or bypass an opponent's front lines using mechanized infantry assisted by tanks and airplanes. Facing an enemy that used this tactical approach meant that support and rear-echelon troops could come under direct attack by front line forces. In anticipation for this possibility, this carbine was commissioned to supply an adequate defensive weapon to those troops.
The weapon was also issued to some regular troops, particularly officers, drivers and radio operators, since it was lighter and less unwieldy than the M1 Garand rifle, and was still considered suitable for shorter range combat
The M1 Carbine, originally intended only for non front line troops, ended up being very popular with them. The weapon's individual round had less hitting power than the larger rounds, but it didn't matter because it was much easier to get multiple hits, due to its high practical rate of fire and accuracy with its effective range. Its range was much shorter than the full-power rifle's, but urban and woodland combat involved shorter distances. There was some criticism of its accuracy at longer range and and the power of a individual round, but this was the price to be paid for a weapon prized for its light weight, compactness, superior ergonomics, low recoil, and high rate of manual fire.
I've got no issue with presenting both sides of an issue factually. Many "bootleg" M-1's maded it to frontline service...especially at the NCO level. However the M-1 was never issued to any "manuever element" of a US infantry Division as a primary weapon. In fact its use as a replacement for the garland was widely discouraged for anyone not in a leadership or scout role.
It was issued to paratroopers, mountain troops and other specialized troops however....
-
:lol
-
what the hell is a "garland"?
-
It's a thing that you hang around your neck or a pill popping singer, also famous make of rifle (the best evar) if you can't spell.
-
Originally posted by Schaden
It's a thing that you hang around your neck or a pill popping singer, also famous make of rifle (the best evar) if you can't spell.
Hmmm....it's "ever"...and no it isn't the "best evar" however it was a quantum leap at the time and is still a fine weapon.
-
A Judy Garland is a fine weapon. :D
(http://www.stargalleries.com/g/judygarland/judy%20garland%20305a.jpg)
-
The 44 was a result of German testing showing that the average engagement range of infantry on a "modern" battlefield is 400 yards. America didn't do these exact same tests until after WW2, but came up with the same result. Mostly stamped construction making it cheaper & easier to produce, around 500k produced, and very lethal fighting the way it was designed. Not a perfect gun, but it definately set the bar for light automatic weapons.
-
Actually, it's a sub-woofer
Originally posted by Klum25th
I Know its a MP44 or STG44. But whats the thing on top of it?
and on the web site its in German or spanish or something but it says this. Soldado aliado prueba un fusil de asalto STG-44 con sistema de visión nocturna "Vampiro".[/U]
-
humble
a garland is a thing you put on a xmas tree or get in hawaii.
The M1 Garand was the finest rifle of WW2.
I have to take everything else you posted with a grain of salt since you got that wrong.
-
Originally posted by GtoRA2
humble
a garland is a thing you put on a xmas tree or get in hawaii.
The M1 Garand was the finest rifle of WW2.
I have to take everything else you posted with a grain of salt since you got that wrong.
I come from the Pyro school of typing...and no the Garand wasnt the finest rifle of ww2 although it was certainly one of them and was probably the best "primary" combat rifle of the war. But why should I bother since your just another noob who wants to ignore the facts and jump on the typo's.
I'd hate to be hunkered down with my garand if the other guy is sitting 1200M out with a Mosin-Nagant.
The primary issues here are if the STG-44 is an assualt rifle.
If the M-1 carbine is an assualt rifle.
Was the M-1 carbine distributed to combat manuever elements in place of garands as an interchangable weapons system?
Now youwant to argue anyof the facts I posted or do youwant to head back to the spelling bee....?
-
humble
You being an arrogant bellybutton is not helping your cause.
I'd hate to be hunkered down with my Garand if the other guy is sitting 1200M out with a Mosin-Nagant.
What the hell is some guy going to do with open sites at 1200 yards?
Sounds pretty newbish/sniperwannabeish to me.
Maybe you should try to be more like your name implies. I never said I was an expert or even that knowledgeable, on the subject. I did not state my opinion on the STG-44 either way. I was just pointing out you look a little ignorant by consistently missing the name of the Garand.
-
Originally posted by humble
The primary issues here are if the STG-44 is an assualt rifle.
Well, Sturmgewehr literally means assault rifle. An infantry weapon using cut down rifle cartridges, designed to engage targets at 400 yards and establish a superior volume of fire. I don't think there should be any question as to whether or not it's an assault rifle. It invented the class.
-
Originally posted by GtoRA2
humble
You being an arrogant bellybutton is not helping your cause.
What the hell is some guy going to do with open sites at 1200 yards?
Sounds pretty newbish/sniperwannabeish to me.
Maybe you should try to be more like your name implies. I never said I was an expert or even that knowledgeable, on the subject. I did not state my opinion on the STG-44 either way. I was just pointing out you look a little ignorant by consistently missing the name of the Garand.
Did you know that the best sniper ever was finnish and racked up hundreds of kills (500+) using the above mentioned rifle (with open sights). You want to bash me for poor spelling fine...but the facts stand or fall on merit...not my spelling. I provided 3rd party content on the issues regarding the M1 carbine...so because I cant spell thats "bad info"?
Who's being ignorant?....just tired of folks here murdering the messenger....