who made the best cc weapons in WW2?

[Viking]

Originally posted by FrodeMk3
Way too true-The same could be said about the .303, though. The Bren was no lightweight, but It cooled a little better, and it did have a 30-round mag, versus' the 20-rounder in the BAR. It helped the Bren out in the fire-support role.

Yes the Bren Gun was actually heavier than the BAR. However the BAR was built and shaped as an automatic rifle, not as a light machinegun, and its performance suffered for it. The Bren Gun has a pistol grip, a properly centered machinegun stock, carrying handle, and a top loading magazine feed which makes it much faster to reload from a prone position, especially with the aid of a loader. Compared with other weapons of this type the BAR was relatively clumsy and impractical. IMHO of course.

[Viking]

Originally posted by SIG220
Except that the modern German Army is totally untested.   There is no combat record to suggest that it can fight as effectively as it used to.

It is hardly untested. The Germans regularly beat US forces in NATO exercises, to the point that one US commander noted “the Germans must have warfare written in their genetic code”. Since 1992 more than 200.000 German troops have served in international operations, most notably in the Balkans, Sudan, Cambodia and now Afghanistan and Iraq.

The British army is more battle tested that the German army, and that is the only reason I consider them better. The German army is actually bigger than the British and much better equipped. The German army is perhaps the best equipped army in the world at the moment. I’m sorry if this offends some people here, but the only reason I place the US Army 4th and not umpteenth is because of its large size.

[Viking]

Originally posted by SIG220
The other factor in this debate is the .40 S&W cartridge, which no one has mentioned.

I did mention it indirectly in an earlier post. I’ve never owned a pistol in .40 S&W, but I’ve shot a friend’s .40 S&W Glock on many occasions at the range. I liked the .40 S&W. I’m more comfortable with 9 mm and .45 though.

[Viking]

Originally posted by SIG220
Fortunately, here in the USA, we do not have to obey International law.    

Actually you do, since the US government has ratified most international law and your constitution demands you honor international treaties. However I do understand that your comment was tongue-in-cheek.

[Viking]

Originally posted by Angus
That made sense! And the 45's quite a bit heavier, never thought it would be so much! So it is a king of total energy. That will also help with penetration even with slower speed. Theory holds.

The energy is generated by the gunpowder charge, not the bullet.  The gun itself helps shape and focus that energy trough different chamber and barrel designs, and may also bleed off some of the energy to work other functions (like cycling the action). In pistol applications the 9 mm and .45 ACP are usually very similar in energy at the muzzle, .45 usually being a little more powerful. However the size, weight and shape of the bullet determine how the energy imparted in the bullet is transferred to the target. Two bullets with the same energy imparted in them, but of different size will affect the target differently; the bigger, slower bullet will transfer the energy more quickly at the expense of penetration (i.e. it will not travel so deeply into the body). The smaller, faster bullet will transfer the energy over longer time and penetrate deeper into the body. If the bullet exits the back of the target (called over penetration) the energy it retains is lost and ineffective. That is why smaller faster bullets often need to be of an expanding design (hollow point, soft tip etc.) to prevent over penetration. I hope this makes sense.

[Viking]

*phew*

[GtoRA2]

Originally posted by Viking
The Norwegian army’s primary infantry weapon is the AG-3 (Norwegian version of the H&K G-3). The AG-3 is chambered for the 7.62 NATO round and although it is selective fire the recoil of full auto fire is excessive. Over penetration of the 7.62 round is also a problem in urban combat and a hazard to friendly forces. The Ag-3 also only has a 20 round magazine and is over a metre long. In what we call “sharp missions” or better translated as “live fire missions” the AG-3 is supplemented with MP-5’s in units that operate in urban areas.


Norwegian soldier with MP-5 in Kosovo.



Norwegian soldier with AG-3 in Afghanistan.

The AG-3 is on its way out of service with our army, soon being replaced with the H&K 416 in 5.56N. This will reduce if not eliminate the use of the MP-5 in the infantry. As you mentioned, It will of course continue to be used by vehicle crews, military police and in other support roles.

Your helms need horns

Why has it taken Norway so long to go to an rifle using 5.56 nato?

[FrodeMk3]

Originally posted by GtoRA2
Your helms need horns

Why has it taken Norway so long to go to an rifle using 5.56 nato?

I'd hazard a guess; With longer, more open spaces, or mountainous terrain where firefights might wind up at fixed distances(I.E. Your on one peak/hilltop, the Enemy's on another, 200 yards' away) You might want something like the .308 to cover that distance. Kinda the same way that some U.S. forces' in Iraq and Afghanistan have been using M-14's, because of the ranges' involved being too far for accurate 5.56mm fire. There might be other reasons, though, like economic or logistic's.

[FrodeMk3]

Originally posted by Viking
Actually you do, since the US government has ratified most international law and your constitution demands you honor international treaties. However I do understand that your comment was tongue-in-cheek.

As far as our military is concerned, yes, they abide by the Geneva convention. But for civilian or Law-enforcement inside the territorial U.S., a Gun owner is legally free to load his weapon with hollowpoints' if he so chooses.

[FrodeMk3]

Originally posted by Viking
That depends on your definition of “lightweight” in this context. The .30-06 and its replacement the 7.62 NATO are fully controllable from a full auto battle rifle in a prone position with a bipod. The Germans even made machinegun versions of the G-3 battle rifle.

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.

[FrodeMk3]

Originally posted by Viking
Yes the Bren Gun was actually heavier than the BAR. However the BAR was built and shaped as an automatic rifle, not as a light machinegun, and its performance suffered for it. The Bren Gun has a pistol grip, a properly centered machinegun stock, carrying handle, and a top loading magazine feed which makes it much faster to reload from a prone position, especially with the aid of a loader. Compared with other weapons of this type the BAR was relatively clumsy and impractical. IMHO of course.

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. The concept was that the infantry, advancing across the no-man's-land of WWI, would be their own fire support, each man capable of wielding' automatic firepower.

During WWII, the B.A.R. had the advantage over other squad automatic weapons, in that one man could operate the B.A.R. You did not need to assign someone out of the squad to be the gun's No.2, thereby you had an extra man freed up for tactical maneuver with the squad. This was viewed as an acceptable trade-off for the 20-round mag.

[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

[SIG220]

Originally posted by Viking
It is hardly untested. The Germans regularly beat US forces in NATO exercises, to the point that one US commander noted “the Germans must have warfare written in their genetic code”. Since 1992 more than 200.000 German troops have served in international operations, most notably in the Balkans, Sudan, Cambodia and now Afghanistan and Iraq.

The British army is more battle tested that the German army, and that is the only reason I consider them better. The German army is actually bigger than the British and much better equipped. The German army is perhaps the best equipped army in the world at the moment. I’m sorry if this offends some people here, but the only reason I place the US Army 4th and not umpteenth is because of its large size.

German combat units in Iraq??  That never, ever happened.  Please offer actual evidence of it if you insist that it did.  There has been a lot of debate in Germany in recent years over helping in Iraq, and the decision has always been to avoid military involvement there.

Even their troops in Afghanistan are relegated to only police type security operations, mainly in the capital of Kabul.   That is not truly combat experience either.

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

[Viking]

Originally posted by GtoRA2
Your helms need horns

Why has it taken Norway so long to go to an rifle using 5.56 nato?

Lol, yeah, I bet the Irish, Scots and French would be thrilled with that idea.

We have kept the AG-3 for more than 30 years now mostly for the reasons stated by FrodeMk3. In addition the AG-3 is very rugged and rivals the AK-47 in reliability and simplicity. For a conscript army those are important factors. However now that our army is in the process of reorganizing from the classical land defense against a Russian invasion to an expeditionary force for international operations a 5.56N assault rifle is the logical choice.

[Viking]

Originally posted by FrodeMk3
As far as our military is concerned, yes, they abide by the Geneva convention. But for civilian or Law-enforcement inside the territorial U.S., a Gun owner is legally free to load his weapon with hollowpoints' if he so chooses.

You are right of course, the context of my original post was for military use, not civilian.

Originally posted by Viking
Ball ammo is the only legal ammo for military use. Expanding bullets are outlawed by international law.