WWII small arms - Page 3

Hufflepuff · #51 (**permalink**) March 23rd, 2008, 08:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Commander of the F.S.

I read in a World War 2 small arms book and the MG-42 is like the US M-60 is that true

I have heard about this too; you have to admit that they look somewhat similar, even if they are in detail completely different.

Tony Williams · #52 (**permalink**) March 24th, 2008, 10:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hufflepuff

I have heard about this too; you have to admit that they look somewhat similar, even if they are in detail completely different.

It depends on what you mean by "like". As you say, they look similar but the only technical resemblance IIRC is the belt feed mechanism, which was copied from the MG 42. The M60's operating mechanism was I believe copied from the FG 42.

Commander of the F.S. · #53 (**permalink**) March 24th, 2008, 02:14 PM

Is the Russian RPG-7 or the American LAW like the German Panzerfaust? I like the look of the panzerfaust and Panzersherck

JCFalkenbergIII · #54 (**permalink**) March 24th, 2008, 04:12 PM

IIRC the replacable barrel was another MG-42 feature that was similar between the two.

Hufflepuff · #55 (**permalink**) March 25th, 2008, 01:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Commander of the F.S.

Is the Russian RPG-7 or the American LAW like the German Panzerfaust? I like the look of the panzerfaust and Panzersherck

The RPG-7 is more like the Panzerfaust, becasue it has a front-fed rocket and the LAW not. However, the Panzerfaust and the LAW are similar in that they are both one-time-use weapons, that have one shot only.

I recently made a homemade "Panzerschreck" out of PVC tubing and wood (yes, I know).

Tony Williams · #56 (**permalink**) March 25th, 2008, 07:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JCFalkenbergIII

IIRC the replacable barrel was another MG-42 feature that was similar between the two.

Do you mean the specific locking mechanism? Quick-change barrels predated the MG 42 (the Bren and its predecessors, for instance).

JCFalkenbergIII · #57 (**permalink**) March 25th, 2008, 04:00 PM

No. Just the similarity between the two having the ability to be able to.

Lt Fox · #58 (**permalink**) March 26th, 2008, 02:36 AM

Well i have ...well my dad has a PPSH ....and i used a clip on it and i love it because of the Recoil and the amount of it that shoots...At first youll feel the push back but then you start getting the hang of it..and i loved it.

Commander of the F.S. · #59 (**permalink**) March 26th, 2008, 05:40 PM

What if the Nazis came out with the STG-44 earler?

Hufflepuff · #60 (**permalink**) March 26th, 2008, 06:00 PM

The war would've taken a faster pace, I tend to think, with weapon design and infantry tactics.

Didn't somebody cover that in another thread?

JCFalkenbergIII · #61 (**permalink**) March 26th, 2008, 06:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hufflepuff

The war would've taken a faster pace, I tend to think, with weapon design and infantry tactics.

Didn't somebody cover that in another thread?

Yes T.A. did. I can't remember the thread though.

JCFalkenbergIII · #62 (**permalink**) March 26th, 2008, 06:12 PM

Here it is. Thanks and credit to T.A. Gardner.

"It isn't the weapon that is important, it is the orgainzed unit within which it is being used that is critical. The difference on the battlefield between the various submachineguns, excepting those of very poor quality, is insignificant, just as the choice of rifle is. Yes, semi-automatics do make a small difference as do assault rifles. But, in infantry units the only weapons of real military siginficance are machineguns, mortars, and grenade launchers / man portable HE /AT weapons."

http://www.ww2f.com/information-requ...tml#post277452

Za Rodinu · #63 (**permalink**) March 26th, 2008, 07:07 PM

Read my post of today there, about 19:00 GMT

http://www.ww2f.com/information-requ...tml#post277478

Tony Williams · #64 (**permalink**) March 27th, 2008, 03:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JCFalkenbergIII

Here it is. Thanks and credit to T.A. Gardner.

"It isn't the weapon that is important, it is the orgainzed unit within which it is being used that is critical. The difference on the battlefield between the various submachineguns, excepting those of very poor quality, is insignificant, just as the choice of rifle is. Yes, semi-automatics do make a small difference as do assault rifles. But, in infantry units the only weapons of real military siginficance are machineguns, mortars, and grenade launchers / man portable HE /AT weapons."

http://www.ww2f.com/information-requ...tml#post277452

I mostly agree with that.

The real benefit of the assault rifles is that they provided each soldier who had one with a multipurpose weapon, which could do the job of both an SMG and (at normal ranges) a rifle. So compared with a unit equipped with a mixture of SMGs and semi-auto or bolt-action rifles, the useful firepower was, on average, higher, since the rifle-armed men weren't very handy in street fighting while the SMG-armed men weren't much use in open country.

mac_bolan00 · #65 (**permalink**) March 27th, 2008, 10:41 AM

small-arms casualties in both wars (and subsequent wholesale shooting wars) accounted for only 5% of total war casualties. outside of the navy, airforce and heavy land weapons, the significant killers were machine guns, mortars, grenade and rocket launchers.

the above already implies 'no' to the question but then, there are those who say the 5% killed by small arms is the crucial 5% in a war.

GI_Squirrel · #66 (**permalink**) March 28th, 2008, 03:58 AM

I own a yugo 1945 mauser8mm.
Its a beuty to shoot, the way it kicks up in the barrel, like alot of guns i know, but i like to shoot it at the "farm"

In my JROTC unit, we drill with m1's but you cant shoot um. The firing pin wasnt takin out, but i cant remember what it was that made um de-militarized................

JCFalkenbergIII · #67 (**permalink**) March 29th, 2008, 06:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tony Williams

It depends on what you mean by "like". As you say, they look similar but the only technical resemblance IIRC is the belt feed mechanism, which was copied from the MG 42. The M60's operating mechanism was I believe copied from the FG 42.

M-60 is a general purpose machine gun suitable for firing 7.62 NATO ammunition. It is an out-come of series of experimental designs developed after World War-II. First, belt feed mechanism of German MG-42 and operating technique of German rifle FG-42 was combined into a machine gun called T-44. It was modified to Model T-52 which after considerable modifications took the shape of M-60. However, feed mechanism of MG-42 and operating mechanism of FG-42 were retained except that M-60 is only automatic while FG-42 has also single fire setting. It may be mentioned that FG-42 had a bolt system which was developed from U.S. Lewis gun used in World War-I. M-60 is a gas operated weapon with short stroke piston. It is used as light machine gun on bipod and as heavy machine gun on tripod. M-61E1 Machine Gun is a modified version of M-60. In M-60E1 barrel change has been simplified and number of parts has also been decreased. Some other modifications have also been carried out.

4e.Present-day Small Arms « Û” Û” Reality is Often Bitter Û” Û” Ø*Ù‚ÙŠÙ‚Øª Ø§Ú©Ø«Ø±ØªÙ„Ø® ÛÙˆØªÛŒ ÛÛ’ Û”

Hufflepuff · #68 (**permalink**) March 30th, 2008, 01:37 AM

M-60 and MG-42:

Similarities:

A: Both have a pistol-style hand grip underneath a bipod mounted barrel.
B: Both are fully automatic squad weapons (AKA, one or two per squad).
C: Both are belt-fed.
D: Both use the same ammunition as thier riflemen comrades; the M-60 and the M-16 both take 7.62mm rounds, and the MG-42 and Kar-98K both take 7.92mm rounds.

Differences:

A: The M-60 uses a 7.62mm cartridge, or .30 caliber, smaller than the 7.92mm Mauser round used by the MG-42 and German infantry rifles.
B: The MG-42 has a much faster rate of fire than the MG-42.
C: The MG-42 can in some instances be equipped with telescopic sights, allowing engagements of over a mile. This was not possible with the M-60.
D: The obvious, such as nationality, designers, producers, etc etc etc.

JCFalkenbergIII · #69 (**permalink**) March 30th, 2008, 04:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hufflepuff

D: Both use the same ammunition as thier riflemen comrades; the M-60 and the M-16 both take 7.62mm rounds, and the MG-42 and Kar-98K both take 7.92mm rounds.

B: The MG-42 has a much faster rate of fire than the MG-42.
C: The MG-42 can in some instances be equipped with telescopic sights, allowing engagements of over a mile. This was not possible with the M-60.

Just want to point out that the M-16 uses the 5.56mmx54 NATO round not the 7.62X51mm NATO round . And also I have never heard of the MG-42 of being issued or using a "scope" during the war. Do you have any sources for that? Or do you mean the sight for use in the AA role? The modern MG3 used by Germany today can be fitted with EOTech holosight red-dot optics though.

Tomcat · #70 (**permalink**) March 30th, 2008, 04:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JCFalkenbergIII

Just want to point out that the M-16 uses the 5.56mmx54 NATO round not the 7.62X51mm NATO round . And also I have never heard of the MG-42 of being issued or using a "scope" during the war. Do you have any sources for that? Or do you mean the sight for use in the AA role? The modern MG3 used by Germany today can be fitted with EOTech holosight red-dot optics though.

I watched are documentary on the MG42 the other week and they meantioned a sight that could be used for long distance shooting.

JCFalkenbergIII · #71 (**permalink**) March 30th, 2008, 05:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tomcat

I watched are documentary on the MG42 the other week and they meantioned a sight that could be used for long distance shooting.

I have heard of the MGZ34 and MGZ40 optics. But they arent used like a scope when firing per se. They are more of a range finder. Can you imagine trying to keep your eye on it while firing a machine gun LOL.