Kraut magic?

Progressive designs like the MG-34 and STG-44 make up for that. Both of those guns could be used by a modern Infantry squad and they would be 95% as effective as those equipped with M240/M4

>>31838009
>Kraut Magic
>Posts M1 Garand
You had one job.

>>31838009
MG42 was a great design that basically defined the modern MMG. FG42 was also a very innovative and neat design.

Some German designs were better than others.

>>31838009
>MG42
Now it does have the advantage over the MG34 in being lighter and cheaper due to having more stamped parts, however it's still 25lb unloaded if I recall correctly, and though I stated before that usually I see a higher rate of fire as being a double-edged sword, this is where it comes into play. Higher rate of fire gives more felt recoil which lowers the accuracy when firing in bursts, it uses up ammo more quickly, and it overheats the barrel more quickly. The benefits of course being that bursts are more likely to hit a target in a 'sweep', and it would seem to have a more intense psychological effect on troops who are receiving cover fire from it. So MGs with a lower rate of fire would be less likely to hit a target in a 'sweep' and might not have QUITE as much of a psychological effect, but it would be more accurate in its bursts, its ammo would last longer, and the barrel wouldn't have to be changed so frequently.

The MG42 also lacks select fire which it could most DEFINITELY benefit from consider it would seem to typically fire around 20 rounds per second. It also requires gloves or a rag of some sort to change the barrels. Sounds like a small issue, but it's far nicer knowing that NO extra equipment/material is needed to swap the barrel rather than actually needing something to prevent burning one's shooting hand.

>STG-44
Now it was inarguably groundbreaking for its day, however it weighed a veritable ton. What was it, 11lb unloaded? Granted the M1 Rifle and Thompson were around 10lb and the No.4 Lee Enfield and M91/30 were around 9lb, but still, God damn. The M2 Carbine (true, it wasn't used much in WWII, if at all) was effective to about 300yd (270m) which was admirable even though it wasn't a true assault rifle, had the same 30-rnd capacity, was select fire for semi/full auto, however LITERALLY weighed about half as much. The STG no doubt managed better accuracy and distance, perhaps even 50% so, but is it worth all that WEIGHT?!

>>31838112
Have you had any hands-on experience with any of these weapons?

>>31838138
Not him but most people won't have hands on experience with rare select fire WWII relics and even those that do won't necessarily be qualified to talk about it

GIs were idiotic conscripts so reports from the war itself shouldn't be gospel.

All we can really do is examine the way the weapons functioned and apply our modern knowledge to them.

>>31838009
I don't think anyone is claiming the k98 is super complex or unique. as >>31838095 and >>31838069 said, "kraut space magic" ends up usually referring to specific arms, not their entire arsenal.

it's like saying "American aircraft in the cold war weren't cutting edge, because there was nothing special about the Skyhawk or the Huey"

This video might be relevant to this thread, given that it covers light machine gun tactics in WWII.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SyJs6expvT8

>>31838009
Most of the kraut space magic was in the concepts they brought out: GPMG, actually fielding an assault rifle, and etc; not what they actually used.

>STG-44 opened the door for assault rifles, changing the standard for service rifles everywhere post war
>MG42 paved the way for modern GPMGs
>The US copied the FG42 to design the M60
>The P38 was the basis for the Beretta M9/92f
>The motherfucking Mauser action
Nope, not influential at all.

>>31838069
Except for the noteworthy difference in weight, attachments for custom jobs, and in terms of STG vs M4 there's the obvious difference in accuracy. The M240 no doubt has a lower rate of fire than the MG42 and though I'm not certain at all, I believe it is probably also select fire, so the M240 would undoubtedly be more accurate since the MG42 is full auto only with the insane rate of fire.

>>31838077
>Pic unrelated

>>31838112
>STG-44
The STG also used a cartridge that was weaker than 7.62x39 by 100 ft/s when matched in barrel length and bullet weight. That, coupled with being SEVERAL pounds heavier than the AKM, makes it a likely overall worst assault rifle, likely being less accurate with a larger bullet drop. It also couldn't accept bayonets, though the Mkb.42(H) could, however that's not really a huge aspect these days, bayonets I mean.

>G41
Bang system. Need I say more?

>G43
Now I've heard mixed things. Of course it had to copy the SVT-40's gas system, that's undisputed, but I've heard that it's a GREAT rifle, but I've also heard it was a TERRIBLE rifle. So I'm not going to comment on this one as I don't know much about it other than the fact it copied Soviet technology.

>FG42
Now there's a diamond, for sure. Overengineered to fuck, I think, but that doesn't mean it's bad. Far from it. Open bolt in full auto, closed bolt in semi. Of course select fire. Reciprocating buttstock and huge muzzle brake which MASSIVELY reduced felt recoil of 8mm Mauser (strongest basic Infantry rifle round of WWII), had the bayonet and bipod already fixed to it. I don't care for its side-mounted mag much (no real reason, just personal preference), but... alright, I'll consult Wiki just this once, but I want to know the weight on this sucker. 9.3-10.9lb! For what's essentially a WWII battle rifle! It would probably outperform the M14, FN FAL, and G3. Likely be WAY more expensive, but it could do what the Americans WANTED the M14 to do but couldn't manage, I'll explain...

>>31838173
I like to define it as the Americans have great assaulting weapons and the Germans have great defensive weapons. Russian and British had good jack of all trades master of none weapons

>>31838009
You uneducated basic bitch. The Mauser action is what defines all bolt action rifles on the market today, save for special snowflakes like the M200.

And the MP38-MP40 was in response to growing demand for something that could match the allies M1a1 Thompson and Garand, as well as the G43. Its how they were used and why is what makes it magic. Just like Disney, he was using the same tech that everyone else was, but just in a special way.

>functionally nothing special
Faggot.

>>31838138
>>31838172

Not OP but my uncle is a ww2 collector; ive basically shot every trooper gun that america, brit and germ had to offer... Not mg's and heavy shit tho...

If i had 3 guns to carry into battle

>M1D Garand (scoped) - Best battle rifle of the time, easily
>M2 Hyde - I bet you will never fire this gun in your life.. only 400 made. This shits 2legit2quit
>M1918 - Heavy bullets.

I love the german weapons, but.. if i was going into battle.. this is my loadout

>>31838302
Fool. The muaser action is just an upgraded lebel action

>>31838138
Kar98k, P38, M1 Rifle, Mosin, Carcano, and M1 Carbine (I know I mentioned the M2 not the M1 but close enough). As for the others (MP40, MG42, STG44, etc.), no, I've not had any hands-on experience with them, but hey, Shakespeare didn't need to experience the Roman Empire or meet Julius Caesar in order to write about him. At least I'm not a COMPLETE no-guns.

>>31838172
Thanks, that was well put.

>>31838209
There's no arguing here in regards to German designs be influential, but many people tout them as being the best of the best at the time. I simply don't agree, and am explaining why. Also, the US copied both the FG42 and MG42 when they made the M60.

>>31838217
>FG42
The US, as I recall, wanted to replace the M1 Rifle and M1918 BAR with the M14. Possibly also the M1919, Thompson, M3 "Grease Gun", and M1/M2 Carbines, but I can't entirely remember. Anyways, the M14 couldn't accomplish this because it was just about completely uncontrollable in full auto. They had to keep it in semi auto only, effectively just making it a mag-fed M1 Rifle with an improved gas system.

The FG42 though, it seems to handle full auto FAR better than the M14 in spite of being ABOUT the same weight and capacity. It couldn't replace the M1/M2 Carbines because it's far too big/heavy to fill the roll of a small/light carbine for non-frontline troops, but those heavy SMGs with 230gr Ball .45 ACP (nearly as heavy as 150gr 7.62 Nato) could definitely be replaced along with the BAR for sure. M1919 was replaced by the M60 and that undoubtedly functions better as a GPMG than the FG42 or M14. So I'd say the FG42 is DEFINITELY way ahead of its time and in terms of battle rifles, better than anything else available in WWII, so this gets an easy pass from me. I'd also call it a better LMG than the M1918A2 though I'd need more time to think on the other LMGs of the time.

>P38
Now I'm not a HUGE fan of this pistol, but its many modern elements can't be ignored...

>>31838112
MG42's fire rate was tied into German infantry doctrine at the time. A squad's firepower was based around the MG, since they though you only had a limited time to shoot someone, so you had to maximize ROF to secure a hit.

I don't know if that's a shit doctrine, but that's what they thought.

>>31838342
>MG42's fire rate was tied into German infantry doctrine at the time. A squad's firepower was based around the MG, since they though you only had a limited time to shoot someone, so you had to maximize ROF to secure a hit.
>I don't know if that's a shit doctrine, but that's what they thought.

It was better than the American machine gun doctrine.

>>31838227
With how heavy the Thompson is, I'd DEFINITELY classify that as a defensive firearm. What was it, 10lb unloaded? 230gr .45 ACP Ball is 21 rounds per pound, and 150gr 7.62 Nato M80 Ball is about 18 rounds per pound. Yeah, I love .45 ACP but it's FRIGGIN heavy so you can't exactly lug a whole lot of it around with you, ESPECIALLY with that RIDICULOUSLY heavy Thompson SMG. The M1919 was also ridiculously heavy, even compared to the MG42/MG34. I think the M1919A6 was meant to be a more mobile version to be used as a GPMG, but as I recall, it's 30lb unloaded, isn't it? MG 42/34 is 25/26lb. The M1918A2, at 19lb unloaded as I recall, isn't much lighter than LMGs like the BREN or DP28, and has one of the worst bipods around. The original M1918 from WWI, in my opinion, was FAR better, and its 16lb unloaded weight was a noteworthy improvement even over WWII LMGs, but that noteworthy weight was ruined with the M1918A2.

>>31838302
Like the Mauser action, I see nothing special here, come back if you ever have something noteworthy to bring to the table.

>>31838316
I don't even know what an M2 Hyde is, but the M1d and M1918 BAR alone would weigh you down around 27lb before we even start talking about ammo, so forgive me if I don't put too much value in your words as they're offered.

>>31838325
>P38
Loaded chamber indicator, hammer-drop safety, double/single action, and probably the simplest field strip of any pistol of WWII, it was a shame it was just single-stack, because it's a FUCKING thick side-arm. To convert a P38 to double stack (practically a Beretta 92 except ejecting to the right instead of the left) would not cost it anything in width, I promise you that. That said, it's still very comfortable in the hand. I just hate that it's so thick yet it's single stack, that REALLY bothers me for some reason, but it's the first pistol I ever took to 50m, so it's not like I dislike it, but I just prefer OTHER designs. Still, its features were inarguably groundbreaking

>>31838009
"Kraut space magic" is typically used in reference to some of the weirder, more forward thinking designs that the Germans came out with. This isn't just relegated to WW2. People look at German weaponry as better at times because of the sheer cool factor. The Luger, STG44, MG42, FG42 and G43 are great examples of interesting firearms that have a certain air about them.
Then you get into the cold war and some of the great designs they put out then. Even a few years back with shit like the MP7, they're always bringing new things to the table. That's why people look at them as "Better".

>>31838342
Yeah, I've read about that as well. German squads were based around the MG, while American squads were based around the riflemen, or something like that. Yeah, I think I prefer the American doctrine over the German doctrine, but then again we have the hindsite that the Germans lost, so that opinion might be a bit biased. I'm not American though, so it can't be biased in that sense.

>>31838415
The Americans had a machine gun doctrine? Please do tell.

>>31838434
The Kar98k bit seems to be what ruffled the most feathers, so I think I'll go into more detail on that, to explain myself better...

Kar98k
>5 round mag
>cock-on-open with a 90 degree bolt turn
>short radius notch-and-post sights

Like I said, quite unremarkable, it's on par with most other rifles of the time. However, when we compare it to this...

No.4 Lee Enfield
>10 round mag
>cock-on-close with a 60 degree bolt turn
>long radius aperture sights
>able to be fired without letting go of the bolt
>free-floating barrel

All these are traits that most (if not all) standard-issue bolt actions of WWII lacked. The M1903A3 had long radius aperture sights but as I recall, that version came about around the time that the M1 Rifle was already being adopted, so was mostly used to train recruits into using M1-style sights until they got their actual M1. The Type 99 had aperture sights, but they were short-radius. The Arisaka and Swedish Mauser rifles were cock-on-close but with a 90 degree bolt turn, and having owned an M1917 before, I know there's a noticable difference between the smoothness of a 60 degree cock-on-close bolt (Lee enfield) and a 90 degree cock-on-close bolt (M1917). The No.4's barrel was also much thicker than the Mk.III*'s barrel. This, along with its free-floating nature, and the long-radius sights, improved accuracy quite a lot, not that the Mk.III* was particularly lacking in that regard to begin with.

Of course there are downsides to the Lee bolt, to be fair; it's not perfect...

>>31838302
This. Whatthe hell is the point of OPs post? These are German designs manufactured out of their design points and their politics /economy. The mosin nagants not perfect either but it served the Russians very well for what it is.

OP should stick to his call of duty games and leave the history to the adults.

>>31838434
I wasnt taking into account of weight that much. I mosty looked at their fire rate. Usa with the garand as a standard rifle, the Thompson as a high rate of fire semi accurate smg, bar a cross between a machine gun and a rifle.

>>31838507
>The Americans had a machine gun doctrine? Please do tell.
Muh 50. Cals

>>31838009
>Both the Thompson and the PPSh-41 have both a manual safety and a select fire switch.

The PPSh didn't have a select fire switch. They made some experimental ones with them but almost all of them did not have it.

As for the actual quality, yeah they were extremely high quality weapons. They were well machined and well built. Too much so in my opinion. the PPS was built from stamped sheet metal and could be cranked out by thousands a day. They didn't need high quality guns, they needed lots of decent guns, cheap and quickly. I think that their attention to detail and demand for high quality was their downfall.

They didn't make anything extremely revolutionary aside from the stg44, but everything else was just made very well.

>>31838488
The G11 and FG42 are probably the only firearms that I'd attribute 'Kraut Space Magic' to. Similarly the only Russian firearm I'd probably attribute 'Space Magic' to is the AN-94. I'd like to say Soviet Space Magic, but it's post-Cold War. Oh, and I don't yet know what the inner workings of the AK12 are like. Considering it externally looks redesigned, especially around the dust cover and manual safety region, I'd assume that more of the internals have changed as well, but I doubt it's too complex.

>>31838507
Now about the Lee Enfield's downfalls. It can't be safely rechambered to a magnum rifle round like 7mm Rem Mag or .300 Win Mag, and some might even suggest it shouldn't even be rechambered to .30-06. They're probably right. That dual-rear-locking style of bolt with no forward locking lugs is from 1888 when the Lee Metford (before Enfield rifling was adopted which could handle smokeless powder ammo better than Metford rifling) was still using black powder, and it shows. Still, for .303 British, it can take decades and decades and decades of abuse, yet still run, so for the cartridge it was intended for it's clearly quite capable. The Lee Enfields made for 7.62 Nato in India and Australia also suggest it can at least handle .308, but that's not much more powerful than .303 anyways. Perhaps 100 ft/s difference if comparing with the same bullet weights and barrel lengths.

The Lee bolt also needs a very specific tool in order to disassemble the bolt in case the firing pin or firing pin spring needed tending to for some reason. It only comes with a pull-through instead of a proper cleaning rod, which some might consider a downgrade but personally that doesn't bother me. It's a solid 9lb unloaded as I recall, about the same weight as an M91/30 in spite of having a barrel about 4" shorter, but that's because the barrel is so thick so it's not like the rifle is heavy without any benefits from that weight. Oh! The rimmed cartridge...

File: 4fded840c8168f2f25b0919b3ee300b1.jpg (9KB, 236x174px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 236x174px

>OP makes a whole thread picking apart weapons that were used in a war fought 70 years ago
>Completely ignores the fact that the very guns he's attempting to shit on influence small arms technology to this day
>Major point is "Well they weren't THAT great."

If you look hard enough at any gun you'll find issues with it. There will be comparisons and trade-offs between any two similar rifles/smgs/mgs.
This thread just might give me autism.

>>31838678
Op isn't saying that they suck. He wants to know how they compare to other weapons of that time.

File: PPSh-41_from_soviet.jpg (182KB, 1514x657px) Image search: [Google]

182KB, 1514x657px

>>31838585
>The PPSh didn't have a select fire switch
Just what do you think that little switch in front of the trigger is?

>>31838095

> FG42 was also a very innovative and neat design.

> take a Lewis gun
> strip off the barrel shroud
> replace drum magazine with side inserted box magazine
> very innovative and neat design

>>31838520
I'm not saying the designs are inherently BAD (except perhaps the G41), in fact even the MP40 performed very well in spite of how much I ragged on it. I just don't think German firearms are as superior as most people think. Yeah, the Mosin wasn't perfect either, but like you said it served them well. I'm merely giving my view on that the Germans didn't make overall better firearms (for the most part) than other nations. The FG42 however, I concede that that one is absolutely amazing and groundbreaking, even if I do think it's intensely over-engineered.

>>31838525
I'm sorry dude, but I don't really think I can take you seriously... even with the original M1918 at 16lb unloaded, sure that's a light LMG, but I wouldn't consider it anywhere near a rifle, even if it had semi-auto capabilities.

>>31838534
Surely the M2s were used as stationary or vehicular MGs rather than to actually be toted around. I mean, .50 BMG is about 4 rounds per pound. A belt of 50 would weigh about 12lb! A belt of 100 would of course be around 24lb which is nearing the weight of an unloaded MG42!

>>31838585
The PPSh-41 had a select fire switch, it's right in front of the trigger. It's kind of a lame way to go about it, but I just Googled PPSH41 and checked the images, looking for examples that don't have the select fire switch. I couldn't find one. Check for yourself if you like. I also don't recall ever seeing a vid of someone with a PPSh-41 and explaining how it's one of the 'more common' ones that is 'full auto only'. That doesn't sound like a thing. I would also say that the FG-42 was revolutionary, even if it didn't affect future designs as much as the STG. Even the STG didn't really affect future designs, it merely brought to light the value of a firearm that uses detachable magazines, is select fire, and used a round that's hotter/more accurate than a pistol cartridge, but weaker/less recoil/ a bit less accurate than a rifle. A happy medium for 100-300m (avg. combat in WWII)

>>31838644
That's the issue with your point of view. For some reason you think that when people say "Kraut space magic" they're also referring to basic bitch guns like the MP40 when they're really talking about concept firearms like the G11. As I previously stated, the infatuation with German guns, especially those of WW2, is that they did it in their own special way. They're cool looking guns with sex appeal. You don't need to put everything under a magnifying glass and sperg out about minor details.

like almost everything the germans made in WW2, generally 90% of what people say is the super best technology of dubya dubya 2 is, in reality, dogshit or nothing special

the other 10%, however, is usually some special things surrounded by the shittiness of something else

ie the 8,8cm gun on the tiger. sure, it was a really good gun for the most part, but it was also on the tiger. the 7,5cm gun on the panther was also a very good gun, but it was mounted on a panther.

>>31838009

Damn - is this a poor bait or do you really know this little about historical military small arms?

>The Swedish Mauser and Arisaka rifles are similar save for being cock-on-close.

Mauser 98 action cocks when opened, not when closed.

>MP40

First SMG ever with telescopic recoil spring system was its predecessor MP38 - making the design very efficient in terms of size if compared to other designs of that time. MP40 was the first SMG ever with stamped steel receiver (vs. milled steel) - which was a massive step forward as far as manufacturing techniques are concerned.

BTW: MG42 was the first machinegun also made mostly from stamped steel parts. They were also ahead of their time by starting to develop belt-fed GPMG already long before World War 2.

While the Germans were doing remarkably well when it came into technical development of military small arms, from end user point of view their designs were not always that great and they failed to built production capacity needed to properly equip their whole Armed Forces with their own weapon designs. Hence by end of the war ultimately their military ended up using pretty much all sorts of captured small arms to equip their troops.

File: pepewhy.jpg (37KB, 400x386px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 400x386px

>itt nogun autists compare numbers
>talking for the sake of talking

>>31838678
I just don't like how people think that German firearms in general were better than everyone else's. I'm not saying they were bad (except the G41), but simply that in practice, in their usage, they were largely pretty much on par with what others were using at the time, or in the case of the MP40 I might even go so far as to say sub-par (though still clearly effective). It's just that many people seem to think that they were all AMAZING.

>>31838712
This, basically. Nicely put.

>>31838734
Yup. I think the PPSh-41 was perhaps overall the best designed SMG in terms of a combination of simplicity, but still offering features. The biggest downfall of it is probably the single-feed mag, I think due to the drum. All that tension probably wouldn't do well with double-feed lips. The later PPS-43 was double-feed as I recall; made the mags MUCH easier/cheaper to produce since it was basically all sheet metal. The feed lips of PPSH mags were milled, I hear. What a nightmare... the PPS-43 would probably be what I consider the best 'super simplified' SMG. The STEN was perhaps even simpler/cheaper, but I think that's going a bit TOO far. Good for if you need A LOT of SMGs right fucking NOW, but the PPS-43 seemed more refined and better designed. The STEN seemed like something the Germans would make for their Volksturm as a last-ditch SMG. In fact I'm pretty sure they made a STEN variant but with the mag going vertically down instead of off to the side. Seen it on Forgotten Weapons I think.

>>31838735
Now I've heard this before, but I don't believe it. The FG42 was select fire and open bolt in full auto while closed bolt in semi auto. Those don't sound like Lewis gun features. It was also less than 11lb unloaded, however had its own bipod and bayonet readily available in the firearm, not to mention the reciprocating buttstock. How many of these features did the Lewis gun have?

>Dare to question the perfection of German WW2 weapons
>The wehraboos crawl out of the woodwork

Every time. Never change /k/.

>>31838756
Like any other lmg that is given to the squad. It usually goes to the person who is big enough and strong enough to handle it weight and the ammo weight is disbursed through out the squad and ammo carriers. So yes I see weight of a lmg to be as unimportant

>>31838855

> The FG42 was select fire and open bolt in full auto while closed bolt in semi auto.

That can be accomplished by a sear modification, but it also was one of the big weaknesses of the FG-42 since the way they did was really finicky and caused a lot of stoppages with a worn sear releasing only the bolt and not the firing pin or vice versa.

>>31838760
I hear this quite a bit. 'Small details' or 'Minor details'. It's genuine aspects of the firearms in terms such as weight, size, rate of fire, recoil, ammunition, barrel swapping, and so on and so forth. If I were making a big deal about pointed vs post front sights, left-hand bolt (STG) vs right-hand bolt (AK), parkerized finish vs blackened finish, and so on, then yeah, I'd say it's 'sperging out about minor details', but the details I'm on about are inherent aspects of the designs while comparing them to aspects of other designs. I don't see anything wrong in this discussion I've started. Still, you're entitled to your opinion, if this is more in-depth than you like then that's ok.

>>31838760
I'm afraid I don't know much about tanks, but I like the way you put it. Most of the German firearms seem relatively average or otherwise on-par with everything else (even if it's very well made), though like the FG42 I've talked about, there are indeed some gems here and there. Largely though, the WWII German arsenal wasn't anything special compared to what everyone else had. Especially with the Kar98k in my opinion. Functionally, it has almost no advantage over a good quality Mosin (the quality does vary, so I specify one of the good ones, not a lemon), save for the controlled feed instead of push-feed which makes it SLIGHTLY easier to close the bolt on a Mauser, and the clips eject automatically upon closing the bolt, not to mention the clips are smoother. So the bolt is in theory SLIGHTLY smoother compared to a good Mosin, while the biggest advantage that the Mauser has is the smooth clip system. I would still consider them about on par with each other.

>>31838773
>similar SAVE for being cock-on-close
Meaning they're similar EXCEPT that they're cock on close while the Mauser is cock on open.

>MP40 being more efficient in terms of size
Nope, and I will explain to you how. Even the Thompson had a more efficient size in terms of length.

>>31838773
Now for these barrel/overall lengths, I'll obviously have to consult Wiki, though the only time I've done so before this was for the FG42's weight and to check for select fire switches on Google.

>MP40
OAL: 32.8"
Barrel: 9.9"
Barrel starts 22.9" from shoulder

>M1A1 Thompson
OAL: 32"
Barrel: 10.5" (short OAL but longer barrel than MP40)
Barrel starts 21.5" from shoulder (1.4" more efficient in length)

>PPSh-41
OAL: 33.2"
Barrel: 10.6"
The barrel shroud extends beyond the barrel, so subtracting the barrel length from OAL would not provide an accurate distance, however even so, it's still closer than the MP40

I never said they didn't make any revolutionary designs or designs that weren't ahead of their time, but in terms of WWII, many of Germany's firearms weren't that much better than those around them, or in some cases, weren't as good. The Kar98k wasn't anything special in terms of functionality, the MP40 was if anything below-par in my opinion, and the MG42 had both advantages and disadvantages going on as mentioned due to its rate of fire. In terms of a defensive firearm though, it may very well have been the best available provided the barrels could be cooled in water regularly after being swapped and a ready supply of ammo could feed its ridiculous 20-round-per-second rate of fire. I'm not shitting on German designs, merely explaining how I don't think they're God's gift to gun owners like most people seem to think.

>>31838856
Haha yup, pretty much! I think I'm going about it in a pretty friendly manner too. I'm clearly no fan of the MP40 but I'm not calling it a BAD design, just not as good as various other ones in many respects. PPSh-41 and Thompson were select fire, MP40 isn't. They also have better rates of fire (pistol ammo shoulder-fired from an 8lb+ SMG... recoil isn't going to be increased TOO much between 550-1000 RPM when we're talking 9mm or 7.62x25. If we were talking about 7.62x39 or a rifle cartridge, then that'd be different.

>>31838734
The clitoris?

>>31839231
Congratulations, you finally found it. That's where the mythical clitoris has been hiding all along; in the trigger guard of PPSh-41 SMGs.

File: 1394238601062.jpg (25KB, 384x314px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 384x314px

>>31839227

>>31839250
That's how the Russians managed to make the PPSh-41 select fire in spite of their simplistic nature; they take the clitoris' from women in Africa and slap em on their SMGs.

>>31838227
Americans weren't know for being particularly great assaulters and the Germans were a much better offensive fighting force than defensive. German weapons and equipment were designed around fast paced shock assaults that delivered fatal blows before the enemy had time to fully mobilise and retaliate. This is one of the main factors behind the Germans not fielding very many HMGs and other definsive weapons of that sort for infantry combat.

>>31838009
The thing about the big space behind the mag of the MP40 is the recoil mechanism which makes the weapon super controllable.

>>31840042
It is hard to tell wether or not one would be better than the other. All we know in hindsight are weapon stats tactics that were used, although not all the time. Tactics that were used by either side developed through the war and as the allied forces advanced further the Germans would have to find ways to dig in better, then the allies would have to find better ways of assaulting and keeping the momentum. One of the key factors of why the Germans couldn't advance further on the allies was supply chain was in horrible shape throughout most of the war.

>>31838194
It's cringeworthy when he tries to cover the lack of volume of fire of the BAR by referring to what was available at platoon, company and even battalion level. Well, a German infantry battalion had light and heavy mortars and heavy MGs (an entire MG company, actually). He should have mentioned that, too, even he wanted to make a proper comparison.

The mauser essentially cost germany the war, on the russian front when their rifles froze solid and the volga froze and the russians came stampeding over.


the mosin won the war.

>>31840351

>Implying Americans didn't have mortars at Company, Battalion level
>Implying the Germans retained the 5cm mortar at the Platoon past 1940
>Implying the differences in Germany's fire and manuver element vs the American multiple element wasn't taken into consideration
Spoiler alert: there was more than one BAR

>>31840426
lrn2read fag

>>31838112
>>31838209
The only thing that makes STG 44 revolutionary was the ammo. It wasn't the first automatic rifle, it was bulky and heavy, but light rifle ammo's weren't popular back then. Just a simple innovation.

>>31840266
Regarding controlability grease gun is probably more controllable due to lower fire rate.

>>31840577
>Regarding controlability grease gun is probably more controllable due to lower fire rate.
Maybe, maybe not. But anyway that's not the proper way to do it. You don't want higher controllability at the expense of lethality.

>>31840655
>.45
>at the expense of lethality
lol nah

>>31840671
>he thinks lethality is a function of caliber
dude
http://www.policemag.com/channel/weapons/articles/2013/01/stopping-power-myths-legends-and-realities.aspx

>>31838217
240 isn't select fire, shut the fuck up, never served.

>>31840684
Yeah dude you can one shot kill anyone with .17 if you hit the eye.

>>31838342
Well they killed a million Russians and a fuckload of other people so they must of been doing something right

File: YFYIbtL.jpg (20KB, 456x297px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 456x297px

>>31840718
>reading comprehension

>>31840372
nope

>>31840266
>550 RPM with 9mm from shoulder-fired SMG over 8lb in weight
>Recoil mechanism is what makes it super controllable
Haha, right, sure it is...

>>31840372
I know that my stance of the Kar98k is that it's nothing special, but even I know that that's bullshit. The Kar98k was a fantastic rifle, but it just didn't have any note-worthy benefits over the majority of other bolt actions at the time. In fact, off the top of my head, I can't think of any WWII bolt actions that had a notable deficiency in comparison of the Kar98k, even considering the M91/30's size/weight, push-feed bolt, and lesser quality clips.

>>31840577
There were actually developments in intermediate cartridges or at least weak rifle cartridges as early as the late 1800s/early 1900s, but the onset of WWII made people more or less stick with the big stuff. If not for the World Wars, nations around the world would have naturally gone to weaker cartridges because giving EVERY soldier a full sized rifle round strong enough to hunt just about any animal on Earth let alone a human is, well, overkill. Lighter ammo would allow them to carry more. The Japanese kind of went backwards in first having the practically intermediate round 6.5 Arisaka, but then later adopting 7.7 which as I recall was similar ballistically to .303 British which was stronger.

>>31840655
They're heavy shoulder-fired SMGs using pistol ammo with a relatively low rate of fire, that's what makes them so controllable. >>31840266
just doesn't want to think that it's a purely waste of space. Anon wants to think that it gives a legitimate purpose, in this case hoping it's due to a recoil-absorbing mechanism, which is ridiculous. It's like putting a recoil pad and a compensator on a .223 bolt action. Even if that space WAS due to a recoil-absorbing mechanism, I would still consider it a waste of space because it would NATURALLY have low recoil due to the small cartridge from the heavy shoulder-fired firearm.

>>31841175
what submachine guns have you shot?

>>31838799
(Insert Spandau superiority rant here)

>>31838217
>Stg. 44
7.62x33 did its job well for its intention, honestly (Especially when put into temporary service after WWII by the Eastern bloc till the Reds introduced their stuff). However, it was still a design concept that needed fleshing out. The Stg. 44 gas action and concept was perfected after WWII, specifically the CEAM M50 (Which the French planned on having it with the .30 Carbine Cartridge) and the CETME series of battle rifles.

>>31841528
HK USC, I think it was called, but that's the civilian version of the UMP so not technically a submachine gun. I've also owned an M1 Carbine though of course that's not the M2 Carbine SMG version (I hear it's debatable on whether the M2 Carbine is an SMG or not. With that long barrel, it does sound like an odd thing to call it, but it's what I consider it). As I've said earlier though, no, I have not handled LMGs or SMGs, nor the STG44.

>>31841711
That's how it's been going thus far, yup...

>>31841745
7.92x33, but close enough. It did indeed to its job well, even though it's a smaller/weaker (though I think with a thicker casing) than 7.62x39. Would explain why the mags look so much taller in length but shorter from front-to-back than x39 mags.

>>31838507
German doctrine was right, though. MGs account for the majority of kills in modern infantry engagements, e.g. Iraq and Afghanistan.

>>31838112
Some US veteran in a report about WWII in North Africa said that German MG's shot so fast, that they'd cut people in half. Which is probably exaggerated, but I assume that instead of getting hit by 1 or 2 rounds, you'd be hit by 4 or 5 rounds of 7.92, which must be rather unpleasant.

>>31838009
>There's nothing inherently noteworthy about the Kar98k. It of course performed fantastically, but functionally it didn't have anything that put it on another level from what most other nations had going on.
Because other nations stole the design. 1903 Springfield was pretty much a Mauser clone.

>>31842331
Like in WaW lmao.

>>31841175
>overkill
It's about the distance, not just power.

>>31842233
So you've shot one SMG in your life and talk like you can make comparisons between various types and voice a strong opinion.
I see.

>>31842367
Or the fact that 5 other belligerent countries were using either the '98 or the '96 mauser, or domestic clones thereof.

Literally the only outliers in WW2 as far as boltgun design were the Enfield and the Carcano.

>>31842541
What about the Nugget?

>>31842367
Even when you consider the K31, Carcano, Mosin, and so on. Now I'd say it's superior to the Krag due to being able to reload with clips while any Military that had the Krag never used those commercially made speed loaders that competition shooters use. Then of course the Mauser or Mauser-influenced rifles like M1903, Swedish Mauser, and the Arisakas, not to mention the old WWI P14/M1917. The cock-on-close nature of the last few rifles mentioned after M1903 did help the rate of fire a bit. Actually the P14/M1917 also had the added benefit of being able to be fired without letting go of the bolt, so I'd say in spite of their heavier nature, they're superior to the German Mauser design in terms of smoothness/rate of fire, so the Kar98k is inferior to them in my opinion, however the P14/M1917 aren't QUITE as smooth as a Lee Enfield due to the 90 degree bolt turn instead of 60 degree, but they are of course FAR stronger bolts that can be safely rechambered to a magnum rifle cartridge.

The M1903 though, as you mention, is practically a Mauser clone. The P14/M1917 at least had some differences like the cock-on-close action, the improved long radius aperture sights, and the less intuitive method of bolt disassembly, not to mention the rear portion of the stock has a more Lee Enfield-esque style to it though that's quite minor and insignificant. Still, at least they made some noteworthy alterations/improvements, or in the case of the bolt disassembly method, a negatively noteworthy alteration.

>>31842387
The thing is, they found that volley fire is, for the most part, not a particularly beneficial aspect that the accuracy of modern firearms gave. Attempting engagement at beyond 800m, let alone out to 1500-2000m? Yes it's overkill in terms of power, but also the distance is excessive in my opinion. That's why nations are going with intermediate cartridges; typical Infantry don't generally need that kind of excessive accuracy/distance. There's also ammo weight.

>>31841175
The Carcano had the notable deficiency of being very susceptible to jamming when dirty, due to the open design for the fall-through en blocs.

The 6.5 Carcano was about the closest thing going to an intermediate military caliber prior to the .280 British being developed. And even then it was marginally longer than .308 and shot a ridiculously heavy round-nosed bullet for no apparent reason, giving away a lot of its potential benefits (namely, high BC and low recoil).
>but muh 6.5 Jap!
If it weren't rimmed and (during prewar and wartime manufacture) non-smokeless it'd be a hell of a contender. They *should* have just updated it instead of going to something closer to .30-06 than .303brit.
>but muh 6.5x55!
Still bigger than a .308 by a fair margin.

>>31842573
Other than having a simplistic bolt they share a lot of the same features as a Mauser
>2-lug, 90* bolt throw
>5 round internal/nondetachable magazine
>long action full power rifle round fed either individually or from stripper clips

File: 1476641027985.gif (998KB, 500x175px) Image search: [Google]

998KB, 500x175px

>>31838209
this

>>31842466
You may berate me as you like, but I have a deep passion for firearms, I like to think that I know a fair bit about them even if it's more in theory and less in practice though I have handled quite a large number of designs in my time and fired several thousand rounds of ammo. Am I an expert in any way, shape, or form? Certainly not, and you'll find that I have never claimed to be such. I am merely giving my opinion, and I believe it to be, at the very least, an educated one.

Still, seeing as I've never handled an SMG (like I said, the HK USC and M1 Carbine are semi auto only, so NOT SMGs), if you feel my opinion is worth little to nothing, then you are free to dismiss it as such. I felt like giving my opinion on German WWII firearms though, I feel that they are honest and well thought out opinions for the most part, and I have found that I've had some interesting conversations with some people. Sure there's some butthurt wheraboos who come here with hate because I don't think German firearms are gifts from Odin himself, but for the most part I have enjoyed this thread, so you can believe what you like, say what you like, and do what you like. Cheers!

>>31842573
Yeah, the M91/30 has just about nothing MECHANICALLY in common with a Mauser, even though they both function mostly the same (bolt action, cock-on-open, clip-fed 5-rnd magazine, short radius notch-and-post sights, etc.)

>>31842593
Isn't 6.5 Arisaka weaker than 6.5 Carcano? Keep in mind that the Type 38 has something ilke a 31.5" barrel or something ridiculous like that. Through a shorter barrel that's a more normal 20-25" length, you'll find that the ballistics are near-identical to 6.5 Grendel as I recall. I do not thing a rimmed casing is enough to negate a cartridge's ability to be an intermediate one. A cartridge should be judged on its ballistics, not on the aspects of its casing. The Fedorov Avtomat was the first assault rifle ever made, as far as I'm concerned.

>>31842609
I hope you're not suggesting the Mosin is somehow derived from the Mauser...

>>31842614
Never said they weren't influential. The M1886 Lebel was influential as well in its day, that doesn't mean it's an amazing design.

File: HueyMain.jpg (44KB, 560x380px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 560x380px

>>31838173
>because there was nothing special about the Skyhawk or the Huey"

>there was nothing special about the Huey

get the fuck outta here

>>31842704
OP here, I literally know just about NOTHING in regards to aircraft, and barely know anything about tanks. I wouldn't be surprised if one day I seen one of those fancy 'Stealth Bombers' in a movie and try to think of the name for it, only to end up with 'B52 Bomber' first. So yeah, I'm not making any opinions/observations/statements on Hueys or 'Skyhawks' at all. I literally have no idea what a Skyhawk is, and I assume in the pick is a Huey, which I THINK were the primary choppers during the Vietnam War?

>>31842657
The 6.5mm Arisaka throws a 138gr bullet at 2500fps from an 800mm/31.5" barrel for 2666 ft-lbs of ME.

The 6.5 Carcano throws a 162gr bullet at 2300fps from a 780mm/31" barrel for 1897ft-lbs of ME (why the test barrel was 31" long when the 1938 Carcano short-rifle had a 445mm/18" barrel is beyond me).

I'd say they're fairly comparable, though not directly comparable due to significantly different bullet weights. The Arisaka actually has a modest ME advantage.

And I would consider being rimmed a significant drawback to an intermediate cartridge as it nearly completely precludes reliable feeding from a detachable box mag, one of the MAIN draws of an intermediate rifle round--the ability to be used in an "assault rifle"

And no, I'm not suggesting that the Mosin and the Mauser are related, just that they have comparable features.

>>31842744
yes, that's the UH1 Iroquois (Huey).

It's the single most influential helicopter design of all time, and still in service with over 50 nations more or less unmodified.

>>31842747
Your Arisaka math is off.
The original Italian Carcanos had long (~31") barrels.
No problems with a rimmed cartridge feeding from magazines.

>>31842747
>>31842657
Oh, to further expound on the differences between the Arisaka and the Carcano:
>the Carcano was never loaded for military use with a spitzer bullet
>the Arisaka had a spitzer bullet as early as 1908
This gave it a significant range advantage (nearly 300m further supersonic flight) due to the much higher BC.

But it kicked more, was significantly fatter, and was semi-rimmed with no rebate meaning it SUCKED to try to extract.

File: Capture.png (19KB, 317x372px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 317x372px

>>31842780
Math wasn't off, just listed Joules where it should've been ft-lbs.

Mah bad.

>>31842780
>no problems with rimmed cartridge feeding from magazines
Except the significant extra bulk and weight, and rimlock.

There's a reason why the only countries to still use rimmed rounds are literally too poor to switch to a cartridge designed after 1900.

>>31842747
138gr at 2500 ft/s from a 31.5" barrel for 6.5 Arisaka.

M43 7.62x39 is a 123gr bullet at 2350 ft/s from a 16.3" barrel.

From my perspective, it's likely that if the Type 38 were to be chopped down to have a 16.3" barrel, the velocity would drop to the point that it's less than an AK's velocity. Granted it has a SLIGHTLY heavier bullet, but it seems to me that whether or not the 6.5 Arisaka is rimmed, its ballistics tell of a thoroughly intermediate cartridge.

You're right that being a rimmed cartridge is a drawback, but significant? It will make for lower capacity mags due to taking up more space, but in terms of reliability, the Russians have been using 7.62x54r in boxed mags without interruptors since at least 1940 with the SVT-40, likely back in 1936 with the... what was it called... SVS-36 or something weird like that? Then there's the .303 British of 1888 carrying right on into the 1950s-60s in rifles, and as I recall the BREN was used even into my lifetime and I was born in the early 90s. So while I do believe it's something of a drawback in comparison to rimless cartridges, I do not see it as being significant because as I recall modern SVD rifles still use rimmed 7.62x54r in boxed magazines without any sort of interruptor device as seen on Mosins.

So if a rimmed cartridge has intermediate qualities, then I'm inclined to still consider it intermediate, even if it just barely reaches rifle qualities with a ridiculously long 30"+ barrel. It even has a less than 150gr bullet as standard. The 6.5 Carcano's bullet is over 150gr, so I believe that automatically disqualifies it as an intermediate cartridge, but if you were to give a 6.5 Carcano cartridge a lighter bullet weight, and a barrel length of a more reasonable 20" or less, along with of course detachable mags and select fire capabilities, then I'd be fine with calling 6.5 Carcano (at least with that lighter bullet loading) an intermediate cartridge.

File: 1475516548459.jpg (67KB, 720x960px) Image search: [Google]

67KB, 720x960px

>>31842618
>I like to think that I know a fair bit about them even if it's more in theory and less in practice though I have handled quite a large number of designs in my time and fired several thousand rounds of ammo

>>31842799
Extra bulk, yes. Weight? Does the added little bit of metal to the rim REALLY add much weight? Even if we were talking 100-200 rounds, I don't think that little extra rim will add much of any weight to it. As for rimlock, as I mentioned in >>31842831 rimmed rifle cartridges have been in use for over 100 years, even in use today, so while it IS a detrimental quality, I don't see it as being a deal breaker or a game changer.

The reason why Britain didn't switch to a different cartridge was due to the onset of WWI, and the reason Russia didn't switch, to my knowledge, was because the round flat out works. An attempt was made in the 80s where they worked on some rimless designs, but found they they already had SO many firearms in 7.62x54r because they had been using it since 1891, that logistically it would be a nightmare to replace all that. Ultimately, the cartridge isn't causing any problems, even civilians love to use it in Mosins and SVTs all the time. There's quite a massive fanbase behind 7.62x54r, it's a very popular cartridge. So I think you're being a bit disengenuous here, especially with the claim that it adds weight, and the claim that the only reason rimmed cartridges are still around is because nations are 'too poor' to switch from them. If Britain seen a need to get rid of their Lee Enfields or rechamber them to a rimless cartridge, they had 21 years between the two World Wars to do it. They didn't, and continued to use it until after the Korean War.

>>31842799
Extra bulk and weight is minimal.
Rimlock is not and has never been a problem with militaries.

>>31842851
Don't even...

>>31838316
Pics or it didn't happen

Also,
How's Highschool?

>>31842831
Good news for you then.
1. The Carcano brass design would lend itself well to being used in semi auto/select fire rifles capable of chambering .308win, the rim diameter is right at half a millimeter smaller than .308win (12.01 vs. 11.42) and might work without modification to the bolt face
2. A 6.5 Carcano round loaded with a <135gr spitzer bullet will fit in .308 magazines such as those for the FAL/G3/AR10
3. Hodgdon lists loads for the 120gr Hornady softpoint spitzer bullet with several different powders in the 2200fps range from a 20" barrel.

So you'd end up with intermediate-caliber ballistics in battle rifle format. Still not ideal, but for a round invented in 1891, not bad. In fact, better than you could hope for from the 6.5 Arisaka (which is in the 1800fps range with the same bullet from a 24" barrel and under 1600fps from a 20" barrel).

>>31842863
The extra weight comes from mags that are literally twice the size for the same capacity.

ESPECIALLY steel mags, which apparently everyone but the US and Britain seems to like using.
>reminder that an EMPTY steel AK74 mag weighs almost as much as a FULL AR15 mag loaded with m855

>>31842865
So mags being half again as thick and twice as long is "minimal" extra bulk?

Keep in mind the depth of the internal mag in a k98k is 3", and in an m91/30 it's 7".

>>31842888
Are you high or stupid? It seems pretty obvious you have no ida what you're talking about.
There is nowhere near that much difference between rimmed and rimless mags.
The Mosin mag is also nowhere near 7" in depth.

File: x54r 10 round.jpg (79KB, 1000x540px) Image search: [Google]

79KB, 1000x540px

>>31842907
This is a 10-round VEPR mag for 7.62x54r

File: .308 20 round.jpg (62KB, 800x520px) Image search: [Google]

62KB, 800x520px

>>31842929
And THIS is a 20-round mag for the .308 version of the same goddamn rifle.

Notice how it's twice the capacity yet shorter?

File: 1464225256932.jpg (6KB, 250x188px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 250x188px

>>31840372

File: 1439864174279.jpg (46KB, 700x430px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 700x430px

>There's nothing inherently noteworthy about the Kar98k

Which is why Winchester, Remington, and Ruger based their flagship hunting rifles directly off the Gewehr 1898 action.

Because it was mediocre.

>>31842939
Did you know that the .308 version normally takes a double stack magazine?

>shitting on the mg42
>It is still being produced today in 7.62 NATO

good meme friendos

>>31843078
If only they still kept it in its original caliber, oh well

>>31843017
Did you know they can't make a double-stack x54r version because of the fucking rim?

File: SVT40 magazine complete with AP rounds..jpg (151KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

151KB, 640x480px

>>31843096
You're a fucking idiot.
Rimmed double stack mags have existed for well over 100 years at this point.

>>31842929
Looks like it's single-stack. Check out the SVT'40's mag. Quite wide, but much shorter.

>>31843116
Beautiful, though I still think carrying spare Lee Enfield mags is sacreligious and worth a flogging.

>>31842878
6.5 Carcano is 6.5x52, if I remember correctly, yes? I also recall the bullet being QUITE long... are you certain that it would fit in .308 mags? I should think the bullet wouldn't clear it, unless you seated it deeper than is normal for 6.5 Carcano. Anyways, if you make a design that uses 6.5 Carcano that had detachable mags and select fire, as well as a more 'normal' barrel length, then bullets of more than 150gr would qualify it as... well... at less than 2000 ft/s I guess that would be perhaps a select fire carbine. Too strong to be an SMG, but not enough velocity to be an assault rifle, it would kind of be in a strange place of its own. An intermediate cartridge requires at least 2000 ft/s, so... wait, 138gr 6.5 Arisaka is 1800 ft/s from a 24" barrel? Less than 1600 ft/s from a 20" barrel? Is that correct? Surely there's not THAT much drop in velocity from 31.5" to 20".

I might have to rethink my stance on the Federov Avtomat... I'll keep in mind to do more research, though for now I've cracked into my bottle of rum, so it's not the BEST time to do math. Still, I'll try to keep in contact to hear more, but I'm watching Vikings right now, and drinking to it, so I might very well forget about /k/. Hopefully this thread doesn't end anytime soon.

Also, I'm getting fucking sick of this pictures-based captcha BS...

>>31843295
Before anyone makes the foolish mistake, no, I wasn't calling >>31843116 a Lee Enfield mag, but seeing as the Lee Enfield and SVT both have detachable double stack 10-rnd mags, I just tossed in my opinion on carrying extra Lee Enfield mags. I'm fine with SVT-40 mags being carried as spares, but Lee Enfield mags I think should be kept one per rifle. The clips are FAR smoother than Mosin clips anyways, so if any time is saved between swapping mags (which is an awkward process with the Lee Enfield rifle) vs clip reloading, it's negligible at best.

>>31842878
>>31843295
>>31843549
are you autistic or on amphetamines?

>>31843572
I'm not on any drugs, though I'm an alcoholic, and may or may not be autistic. My ability to retain specific information definitely suggests some form of autism, so you might be right. The first of the three links you provide, or whatever you want to call them, isn't me.

>>31843651
I am drunk. 10oz of 40% booze in about 1.25 hours. Cheers! Fuck sobriety, and I have LOTS of drinking to do yet! This is merely a good start.

>>31840372
You can't just boil down anything, much less world war fucking 2, into such simplistic terms.

>>31843769
You really take that statement seriously? That the Mauser cost Germany the war and the Mosin won Soviet Russia the war?

I'm sockcucking OP and not even I believe that bullshit, in spite of how much I believe the Kar98k was utterly average.

>>31838799
>itt nogun autists compare nuanced difference in mechanical design that mean jackshit in the context of large cale war
fixed that for you
but I'm sure OP will try to convince you with a wall of that the Mp40 lacking a thumb safety or the Mg42 not having semiauto capability is what lost krauts the war

>>31844051
still confused about the semi-auto thing. does he not know that none of the current MGs in use in the US have a semi-auto capability? well except for the m-27 platform but i think that was just a way to get new rifles into the Corp. if the MG is firing single shot it is because of trigger control.

>>31840351
He was making a point about the difference in the tactics behind the employment of both weapons, you fucking sperglord.

>>31843116
Really is a shame that more SVT mags aren't available in Canada. There's certainly no shortage of actual rifles.