>Americans will defend using this after ww1 Was US high command

>>33432852
>oblivious to the German MG34
yea, just like everyone

Not like everyone isn't aware of its flaws, but if you got a shitton already in the armories and the lines to facilitate production no reason to not use it. You got fireteams that need an automatic weapon, and this is an automatic weapon there isn't much more reasoning beyond that it was needed so it was used.

File: Arthur-Bio.jpg (174KB, 501x328px) Image search: [Google]

174KB, 501x328px

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

>>33432852
>Was US high command just completely oblivious to the German MG34 or?
No, they had the M1919 issued out at the platoon level to fill a similar role.

>>33432852
the cost of manufacturing and supplying a replacement was not worth it. US high command probably saw how many BARs we had, looked at the cost, and then went on to focus on something else.

>>33432970
>there are still people on /k/ who haven't seen this video

>>33432852
>Americans will defend using this after ww1
No, we won't.

>>33432852
It's simple logistics, dummy.

If you already have a shit ton of one thing that has proven to work well enough and something happens that you are going to need a lot of that thing, it makes sense to use what you have at hand instead of waiting around doing nothing while you wait to get a very limited supply of a new improved thing.

Besides, the BAR was decent enough for WW2. I'd say that Korea was when it was showing its age in a post-WW2 world and the firearm technologies of the mid-20th century that sprang from it.

>>33432852
It was basically a proto-SAW. It was never meant to be a platoon-level suppression weapon or GPMG, and never used as such because the 1919 existed. IDK why everyone gets 'tism over it and tries to compare it to the MG-34 and 42.

It you wanna make fun of a country with shit machine guns, make fun of the Ruskies whose non-heavy was the Dinner Plate 28, or the Japs or had some stupid clip-fed monstrosity.

>>33433499
>IDK why everyone gets 'tism over it and tries to compare it to the MG-34

Probably because their knowledge of WWII tactics begins and ends at "the German squad had an MG 34 and the US squad had a BAR".

>>33432970
Wow. These videos are fucking great.

>>33432852
>oh fuck war
>shitshitshit we don't have war-tier money
>okay set up war bonds
>well we already have rifles made and adopted, churn those out
>get working on a new tank
>we have a HMG and a GPMG
>FUCK, need a squad tier automatic weapon that's not a thompson
>either spend gorillions developing new weapon
>or go into the armory and pull out some BARs and retrofit them for basically nothing
>pick what you have as a stopgap to allow money to be freed up for more important shit
try harder.

>>33433499
Probably because it weighs nearly as much as a mg42.

>>33433499
>plz do not to compare proto-SAW-BAR to mg-34!
>better compare proto-SAW-DP28 to mg-34
Ffs, man.

>>33433732
>muh weight

The MG 42 required at least 3 dedicated men to operate, plus additional ammo and parts spread among the rest of the squad. The BAR required only one man.

They were different guns employed in different manners.

>>33433810
>3 dedicated men

>>33432970
very informative video, thanks

>>33433675
Yeah, I never thought I would be so interested in arquebus tactics until I saw his videos.

>>33433499
>make fun of the Ruskies whose non-heavy was the Dinner Plate 28
Arguably the best LMG of the war, which never had a 1928 designation by the way.
>the Japs or had some stupid clip-fed monstrosity.
they replaced those with mag-fed ZB26 derivatives in the LMG role

>>33433861
Link?

>>33433849
What, did I just stumble over an obscure meme or something?

>>33433873
No you stumbled over a retard that doesn't know what crew served weapons are. Just ignore him and continue on.

>>33433732
>19 lbs for M1918A1 & A2
>25 lbs for MG 42
That's what you consider nearly?

File: b95496493588e037a0b66a0872607548.jpg (159KB, 720x1080px) Image search: [Google]

159KB, 720x1080px

>>33433940
>20lbs
>a real machine gun instead of an overgrown rifle

>>33433810
>required 3
No it didn't.

Top effectiveness at 3? Yes. Operable and capable of functioning with one.

>>33434101
.... I mean, yeah, technically, you can fire an MG34 or MG42 with one man, but it's incredibly awkward. The gun is built to be operated with at least two.

Technically speaking, I can drive a tank forward, spot a target, load a round, and fire the gun all alone if I crawl around inside, but that doesn't mean that it's the smart thing to do.

>>33432852
Honestly, the only thing that confuses me about the M1918A2 is that Poland and Belgium had perfectly adequate BARs for WWII, with non-shitty bipods, pistol grips, reasonable sights, and quick detach barrels. And nobody else tried that damn rate reducer, because it doesn't work very well.

It's a perfectly fine gun, just in bad clothing.

>>33432852
Kurwa and Chinese BAR > American BAR

>>33434029
How did they carry plates?

>>33434029
>Same RoF
>Same weight
>Double the capacity of the BAR but more than double the time to reload
They seem about the same to me

File: bn36x.jpg (32KB, 1000x326px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 1000x326px

The worst part is they're still trying to "modernize" the BAR into that HCAR abomination, when you could have a .30-06 AR15 for literally half the price and 1/3 the weight.

>>33434232
You can functionally work an MG34 or MG42 with one man, doing the three separate functions more effectively than one guy operating a three person tank, that is a shit comparison.

>Barrel change
>Belt feeding.
>Firing
Not super fucking hard for one guy.

>>33434641
Ohio Gun Works have always been colossal memelords. That has always been their business model, to make big goofy shit.

File: Marine Automatic Rifleman stands guard in Saipan.jpg (191KB, 964x929px) Image search: [Google]

191KB, 964x929px

What ever the reason, the Marines and Soldiers made do with it until something better was issued and thats all that matters

>>33432852
mg43>1919

But they already had the BAR enmas, and the 1919.

and it worked out for them in the end......unfortunately....

4th riech when...
American riech when.....

File: flagbearer.jpg (44KB, 470x752px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 470x752px

>>33434867
>American Reich
>Wanting some Euroshit influenced Empire
>Not wanting an original, glorious American Empire with Art Deco, wooden furniture and Bitchin' Uniforms

Come on dude

File: IMG_0637.jpg (120KB, 800x533px) Image search: [Google]

120KB, 800x533px

>Germans will defend using this after ww1

Was German high command to the M1 Garand or?

>>33434819
They dumped their M240-SLR recently. I'm waiting for the semi-auto Mk48 now.

>>33432852
The BAR was pretty much a stopgap after WWI, just putting something in place before belt feds could be deployed en mass.

>>33434951
*oblivious

Now I am just as much of a faggot as OP. Disregard

>Implying small arms decides wars

>>33434959
>The BAR was pretty much a stopgap after WWI, just putting something in place before belt feds could be deployed en mass.

Just stop. The US Army had plenty of M1917, M1919, and M2 machine guns. They just weren't used at the squad level because that's not what US tactics called for.

>>33432970
>FESTOONED across their chest like the FRITO BANDITO
I'm sold, this guy is awesome

>>33432852
>Was US high command just completely oblivious to the German MG34 or?
US ordnance thought that BAR is adequate, that is not worth replacing. That it was sub-par they didn't care.

Why have majority of nations ignored the ideas behind MG34? Well the basic idea was - we'll have one machinegun that does what two machineguns did. H/M MG(I'm gonna go with MMG) and LMG. That was great for an army that was stripped off majority of their WW1 era surplus machineguns, they've had a "machinegun gap" to mend.

British, Americans, French, Russians didn't. They've had tons of old, but literally unbreakable MMG's from the great war, why would they be interested in having compromises when they've had their part covered? So they went for lighter LMG's and heavier MMG's that were better suited for continuous fire(and given the fact that MMG's role was an area denial one, it made lots of sense).

Just a quick comparison of LMG's(formatting is screwed because I'm copypasting from wiki)
FM 24/29(France) 8.9 kg (19.7 lb)
Bren 22.83 lb (10.35 kg) (Mk1 and Mk2) (25lb–11.25 kg loaded); 8.68 kg (Mk3 and Mk4) (21.6lb–9.75 kg loaded)
BAR 7.25 kg (15.98 lb) (M1918) Approx. 11 kg (24 lb) (M1922) 6.0 kg (13.2 lb) (Colt Monitor) 8.4 kg (19 lb) (M1918A1) 8.8 kg (19 lb) (M1918A2) 9.0 kg (19.8 lb) (wz. 1928)
DP 9.12 kg (20.11 lb) (unloaded) 11.5 kg (25 lb) (loaded)
MG-34 12.1 kg (26.7 lb) 19.2 kg (42.3 lb) (with tripod)
Type 11 10.2 kg (22.49 lb)
Type 96 9 kg (20 lb)
Type 99 10.4 kg (23 lbs)
Breda 30 10.6 kg (23.369 lb)
And just for fun:
Lewis 28 pounds (13 kg)
Chauchat 9.07 kg (20.0 lb)
MG 08/15 - 18 kg
Madsen 9.07 kg (20.00 lb)

Even the heaviest WW2 LMG's were lighter than unloaded MG-34 when loaded, of the WW1 constructions only oversized Lewis and MG08/15 which was really only MG08(MMG, back then HMG) that was lightened and shortened here and there and put on bipod are heavier than that. There was a point in reluctance to adopting GPMG.

File: 1488047012694m.jpg (44KB, 266x1024px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 266x1024px

>>33432852
Different roles for different tactics. The German military placed all of their manuevering based on placement of Medium/Heavy MGs. The American units relied on fireteams/squads and the individual rifleman is key. Thus the BAR is used an LMG position that can easily manuever with the assaulting elements, and at the same time can also be used to provide supporting fire. The MG34 would also require an AG to carry ammo and barrels, while the BAR gunner is mostly self contained. Different platforms for different rolls, just because they're other full auto doesn't mean they fit the same needs

File: Carlos.png (138KB, 350x350px) Image search: [Google]

138KB, 350x350px

>>33435269
>that image
I don't even need to say it

File: BREN.jpg (177KB, 3488x2016px) Image search: [Google]

177KB, 3488x2016px

Was the BAR any better than this son of a bitch right here?

>>33432970
>Trevor in his youth

>>33434907
What do you expect from a wehraboo

>MG34
>designation LITERALLY tells you it was made in the interwar period
DURRRRRRRRRR

File: BAR.jpg (105KB, 659x786px) Image search: [Google]

105KB, 659x786px

Try shooting the MG34 this way

>>33433747
Did you even read, anon? The Ruskies didn't have any other comparable GPMGs while the U.S. had the 1919. How do you miss the entire point of his post?

>>33436202
Madsen > Bren. Fight me

File: mg 34.jpg (56KB, 793x541px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 793x541px

>>33437077
results are less than popular with the assistant gunner

>>33437077
I've done it before with a semi auto one, It's doable but fatiguing.

>>33439266
What a shit job wow that would suck

File: Ive seen the light reaction image.gif (56KB, 400x200px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 400x200px

>>33434641
>AR15 for literally half the price and 1/3 the weight.

Why is the AR platform so perfect?

>>33434789
You really think it's that simple, huh?

>>33434789

Why don't you ask the Colonel about your one-man MG team?
>>33432970

>>33432852

No, it's just peace time budgets.

>>33434232
What a shity comparison

>>33432970
This stuff is fucking great

>>33439828
Yeah it fucking is, especially in the mg42, replacing the barrel take mere seconds.

File: Screen Shot 2017-03-27 at 8.30.20 AM.png (877KB, 948x718px) Image search: [Google]

877KB, 948x718px

>>33432970
goodbye hearing

>>33432970
I always laugh at how much he hated the M-16 and it's faggot round in his M-14, AK-47 vs M-16 comparison.

>>33433499

>Hey guys the BAR was proto saw
>Don't compare it to the MG-34
>Compare the DP-28

The DP-28 weighed only a pound more than the BAR, had twice the ammo and a bit to spare in a magazine and required only one man just like the shitbox.

The Ruskies also had the AVT-40 if you feel like being Anal, Which weighed only 9 pounds and had the same mag size.

Admit it USA always had inferior weapons compared to their opponents do to the US Army and the USMC having a leadership stuck 20 years in the past.

BAR the worst infantry support weapon of WW2, that so many americans still fap too and are willing to shell out thousands of dollars for a taticool version of it of a gun that was obsolete after ww1.

ZB-26 was better, BREN was better, Type 96, MG-34/42 was better, The Madsen was better even the dp-28 was better.

>>33439828
Have you ever tried using a MG42 or its derivative? Be honest now, this is the internet

>>33444821
>the US will always have inferior weapons
Yeah and who won the war?

>>33445077

In Europe it's clear as hell that the Ruskies won. In the pacific US won, but in that front the navy was the most important thing.

>>33433708
Americans are always that way.
Geared to fight a war that ended 20 years before.

Two years into the war you produce an interim solution.
A year after that is the actual solution.
You mass produce that en mass.

Once the enemy's tactics change it's another 3 year rotation.

>>33439266
>>33439420
>EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

>>33444821
>Garand
>inferior

Anon you aren't even trying anymore.

>>33436202
The BAR was somewhat lighter and easier to shoot from the shoulder than the Bren.

>>33434641
>Fudd evolved

>>33445334

>1 Weapon
>Makes up for all the other shit ones

>>33432852
I'm American and I won't defend the BAR. It's the second-worst infantry weapon the US has ever issued en-masse, coming in directly behind the M-fuddteen

>>33434951
>What is the Gewehr 43
>what is the FG42

>>33434478
Plate carrier.

>>33432852
I hate the M1918A2. I think it's functionally pretty much the worst LMG of WWII, and the US shit the bed when they fucked with the original and made it the A2 model.

>Add piece-of-shit bipod that operates by wingnuts
>Add blocky/clunky/heavy chunk of metal to serve as a 'mag guide' to make reloading easier
>Make sights super small, good for accurate target shooting but bad for stressful situations
>Literal 'shoulder thing that goes up' to add more weight
>Carry handle to add yet more weight which is necessitated by the useless other shit
>Semi-auto function replaced by 'slow auto' function
>Sticks with 20-rnd mag which is basically the smallest by a fair margin of any widely-used LMG of WWII

Meanwhile

>About 16lb unloaded, which is a respectable weight for an LMG
>Select fire for semi or full auto
>Nicely open sights for stressful situations
>Only 20-rnd capacity but at least less than 18lb loaded
>Most LMGs of WWII were around 23-28lb loaded

The M1918 in its original WWI configuration would have had a step above typical WWII LMGs due to its VERY reasonable 16lb unloaded configuration, if memory serves, and I wager somewhere around 17.75lb loaded since the BAR mags doubtlessly weighed more than the roughly 1.5lb loaded M14 mags. Ah yes, and for the morons...

>BAR of ANY configuration
>Outdated and discarded 'Automatic Rifle' designation that literally nobody uses anymore
Pick one. Unless you take the fucking Tardis back to the 1910s, you can take the 'Automatic Rifle' class of firearms and get the front sight on the barrel so horribly lodged into your rectum that you require intensive surgery by a surgeon who has a habit of butt-fucking her patients with a dragon dildo strap-on when they're unconscious!

File: empireretirementhome.png (136KB, 700x545px) Image search: [Google]

136KB, 700x545px

>>33432852
>Americans will defend this after ww1

I really wish we'd stop

The BAR was a much better weapon for an attacking force. It works similar the the SAW giving an individual squad or combat team much more firepower than a German squad or combat team had. In conjunction with the Thompson, Garands, and Garand Carbines in an American squad they had a lot of firepower with very high mobility.

This is my the Germans liked the MG34 and MG42. If an American squad started to overrun a German squad, then the Germans could use their MG to cover them as the riflemen moved to a location where they could better use their bolt action rifles and long throw hand grenades.

LMG: Bren, MMG: Vickers, HMG: M2

>>33446623
That is because you are assuming the BAR is a light machine gun, when it is an automatic rifle.

I would make the argument that light machine guns didn't really emerge until the assault rifle and the heavy use of intermediate cartridges. I say this because most machine guns such as the MG34 and 42 were typically operated by a team and not truly operable by an individual soldier. Weapons like the Bren, BAR, Type 96, and Vz. 26 were automatic rifles that fed from relatively small magazines and couldn't provide good suppressive fire but they did give a big firepower boost to a squad of riflemen.

When intermediate cartridges came into main stream use in the 1960s is when we see real light machine guns, like the Stoner, that can be operated by one soldier and can provide effective suppressive fire.

>>33446643
hah classic

>>33436202
worse in pretty much all respects, the bren was more reliable, easier to reload -and could more easily be reloaded prone- and had a quic change barrel

File: Screenshot_2017-03-27-16-05-20.jpg (545KB, 1440x2290px) Image search: [Google]

545KB, 1440x2290px

>>33432970

My sides

>>33446590

Underrated

>>33436202
there is a mail call episode that covers this questions I believe

File: unimpressed.jpg (51KB, 460x500px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 460x500px

>>33448382
>mail call

>>33446223
>fg42 was a specialist weapon used primarily by the falschrimjager to replace the mg34
>g43 was a piece of shit that was in no way realistically comparable to the m1 garand
but wheraboos gonna wheraboo

>>33445317
not just that, the gases vented out sidewards and would probably burn him pretty easily

>>33446623
The Polish BAR was actually a really good automatic rifle and was significantly and properly upgraded from the original, you should check it out

>>33451223
And if you're interested in buying one there's one for sale at James D. Julia auctionhouse

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fAdSt3PPHX8

BAR's grand daughter SCAR wears ugg boots.

>>33446653
the BAR worked for American doctrine because of the volume of fire given by squadmates was high enough to allow for more accurate and slower firing weapons. If by world war 2 the U.S. was still only issuing Springfields in the same way the Germans issued the Kar-98k, then it would have been beneficial to have a weapon capable of a high volume of fire which sacrifices accuracy.

File: 939we9rwer.png (1MB, 1252x1252px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1252x1252px

>mfw these faggots saying the barrel melter 34 was anything other than a glorified bullet hose with a pitiful effective range.

>>33451261
>forgotten weapons meme
I would've bid but that thing went for $27,025...
seriously though have you looked at James D. Julia's catalog lately? Someone is selling a fucking SIG AMT right after I buy a pristine '58 Browning Light 12

>>33434951
Weren't the Marines still using M1903s until '44?

USA's best asset in Europe was their artillery and mortar systems, heavy accurate artillery (thank you, IBM) and a mortar for every situation

>>33432852
>Was US high command just completely oblivious to the German MG34 or?

We had a hard time dealing with change until Vietnam. Last night I read about the debacle surrounding the advancement of infantry rifles between WW2 and the 70's and it's so much fucking horseshit going on that I wanted to puke.

>Wow guise submachine guns and that STG44 work really gud
>LETS STAY WITH A GARAND-LIKE RIFLE DESIGN THO MURRIKA! >LET'S GIVE IT FULL-AUTO TOO.

>>33451725
the SAW aspect didn't get better till after Vietnam either, hence why the M60 was used at the squad level: they had nothing better to fill the role.

>>33451568
As far as transferable machine guns go and for something as rare and nice as a Polish BAR 27,000 is actually pretty reasonable.

>>33451841
Polish weapons are usually obscure enough to warrant less than anything with a Waffenamt on it, even Polish mausers that were re-worked by the Wehrmacht can often go for more than unmolested examples on Gunbroker

>>33451667
>Weren't the Marines still using M1903s until '44?

No, they only used them on Guadalcanal in '42.

>>33443091
Meanwhile BAR guy is pelting your position with accurate gunfire.

>>33451816
M60's pretty good desu ne
USA should have stuck with it and ironed out its warts

>>33434641
HOLY FUCK I NEED IT

>>33445111
Funny, the Japanese said "The graveyard of the Japanese military" isn't Midway, it's Guadalcanal.

>>33452438
More like panicking because he has to change his magazine every 3 seconds

>>33439266
tfw you're a bleeding gun shield

>>33432970
I honestly think I can do better against a man-sized target at 680yd/620m... I am untrained. I should not have this feel. With the MG34, set the sights, and take one shot at a time of accurate and well-aimed fire using the top portion of the trigger (if memory serves, the bottom portion provides automatic fire while the top portion is semi-auto. Or, vice versa). With the M1918A2, set it to slow-auto and take 1-2 shots per trigger pull, well-aimed. That, or just give me a fucking Mauser or Lee Enfield or some other bolt action. I've rung torso-sized gongs at 300m, confident I can do so at 400m, so I definitely believe I can manage 600m provided I'm informed of the distance and can get a nice prone position.

That video was a joke.

>>33453349
>accurate and well-aimed fire

not going to happen with the MG 34

>>33432852
>Have a bunch of BAR's made since 1918 using .30-06
>Why not use them?

Do you like throwing away weapons or something?

>>33453379
Go away, Lindy.

>>33432852
MG-34s are crew served weapons, issued as platoon assets.

The BAR was an individual weapon issued as a fireteam asset.

Two completely different roles, dumbass

>>33453349
It's meant to show how an average soldier would do, not a super marksman like you babe

>>33432852
>quadruple the capacity as Hans' rifle
>fully automatic for puckering Jery's butthole
> .30 caliber cartridge that removed pumpkin sized meat chunks from strung out methhead nazis

I believe the only thing better for pickling kraut would be a mason jar, anon.

>>33453379
>implying that thing isn't tons of heavy well balanced and shaped steel around a murder machine of a piston reciever and (at the time) the fastest barrel change mechanism

you ever see how Germans tended to demonstrate shooting bursts? it was a bullet machine and easily controlled with a belt of 45 rounds... the thing shot out to easily a thousand yards with casual killing power. and, as we know, such things were common, as german riflemen carried ammo for the given LMG they served with. they regularly used it at ranges where american weapons couldn't reach. just because america's tour of the war was a tank parade over the last elements of a reich falling from the russian deep tactic, doesn't mean they saw the best, nor the worst. (though GIs sure did kill lots of panzerfaust-toting SS cadets, whee!)

as an actual challenge, try to imagine the first young german wehrmacht men (who basically died to the man through the course of the war) armed with mg38s and early panzers going against the scrappy elements of the american military

america didnt even start with a MBT, fucksake...
a BAR is a 1930's, transitional era failure to accept doctrine. American principle of the rifleman got shit the fuck out they second a colonial war happened.

the german military was superior on a squad level. it always was. WW2 was NOT fought on the western front yo.

>>33453785
>MBT
>WW2

>>33453785
The MG 34 was inaccurate as fuck and literally beat itself to shit due to the high cyclic rate. All that weight is working against the gun when roughly 1/3 of it cycles with the bolt. If you want to compare crew-served weapons, the M1917 and M1919 could out-shoot the MG 34 all day long.

>>33433499
>Not hating on the Breda

Italian detected.

>>33453800
yeah, but it sure killed a lot of people. did the BAR? japanese conscripts, sure.

>>33453166

The japs could have won every single land engagement in the war and wouldn't have changed the outcome.

File: Val_Browning_M1918-BAR-1.jpg (719KB, 2240x1360px) Image search: [Google]

719KB, 2240x1360px

>implying USSR pushed germany out of france and also africa
>this is what werhaboos actually believe
>mfw im not even american

I think having:
>one okay auto rifle that can be operated by one dude
>3 other dudes with garands
>MAAAYBE still have a mg anyways if command is nice

is a better trade then having

>4 dudes to carry around and constantly nanny a machinegun

also requesting dinner plate vids

>>33446653
>Garand Carbines
Carbine Williams is going to come back from the dead to fucking choke you to death for that

>>33454116
The USSR was eating up so many German resources that they might as well of.
The battle of Stalingrad alone was bigger than the entire Africa campaign. While the Eastern front was getting fresh troops, new tanks and ammo, Rommel in Africa was getting medals and nothing else.
The Western Front was basically just a diversion from the main war.

>>33454116

For both the Africa and France campaign the US was supported by massive numbers of other allied troops. Also considering the high casualty rate in the Eastern Front, the small amount of German troops in North Africa and the fact that in France most troops were garrison units unfit for anything but manning emplacements one can clearly see it was a cakewalk because the Germans didn't really try to since they had more pressing matters at hand.

>one okay auto rifle that can be operated by one dude

Even when comparing the BAR with other auto-rifles one can see it's a shit. The bypod it was fitted was a shit, the weight compared to the few other auto riffle is excessive and it's about as heavy as an LMG which has higher ammo capacity and it fits a better doctrine.

The only advantage the BAR can claim is the fact that US squad had already a decent amount of rapid fire capability without it, which I would argue only showcases it's uselessness.

>>33454138
>the high casualty rate in the Eastern Front
That was just because the krauts and reds were both really bad at war. They just kept throwing bodies at each other.

>>33454171
Lol okay, maybe the Russians but certainly not the Germans. They didn't have the luxury of being able to afford massive losses.

The German soldier was about 20 to 30 percent more effective than an American or British one, even if you take into account that they were mostly on the defensive in the battles they fought against these forces.

File: gimme.jpg (33KB, 300x264px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 300x264px

>>33433199
>>33432970
>tfw finding a whole youtube channel of informative /k/ related videos that I've never seen before

>>33454171

>They just kept throwing bodies at each other.

With the exception of the start of the war for Russia, and the Stalingrad campaign as well as a few other minor episodes that idea is just false.

The real reason there were so many dead, was because it was the biggest land front in world history.

You had 3 German army groups vs 4-5 Russian fronts almost the entire length of the war.

Too put it in comparison, in Africa you had 1 Italian Army, and at most half strength army of Germans.

>>33435178
how do they manage to turn a 15 pound automatic rifle into the same thing but 21 pounds?

>>33432852
We don't have to defend our decision of rifles, we were too busy defending whatever shithole country you live in that got rolled over like the cucks you are.

File: IMG_1941.gif (2MB, 235x240px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 235x240px

>>33446590

>>33432852
Why does it matter?

The US Army barely did any fighting against Germany.

>>33447568
Wrong on virtually ever count except the barrel change.

>>33452438>
>33453194

More like pissing on his gun because you can't swap the barrel.

>>33444821
>b8 this bad
come on

>>33454447
source?

>>33455792
1891
The Imperial Russians begin production on their new "3 Line Rifle" Mosin. Smokeless powder, 5-round capacity, FMJ bullets, and able to be quickly reloaded with a 5-rnd clip.

The young nation of America is still using their single-shot M1873 black powder "Springfield Trapdoor" which in and of itself is pretty much just a conversion of a cap-and-ball musket.

>>33456263

The 20 years backwardness of the US Army and USMC is easily explained to do how the location and size of the US.

The thousands of km's distance from coast to coast means that the logistics are a bit of a nightmare compared to smaller nations. That coupled with the fact that the US is isolated from direct land threats and has been for a century and a half means the US couldn't afford to, or simply wasn't able to refit and refurbish as fast as other powers, and since it wasn't under direct threat for such a long time it's easy to see why they didn't want to. Since Russia had a similar size problem since it was neighboring nations capable of a full land invasion it had to keep up.

Though I would also add the fact that after WW1 the USA had a change of mentality, in the form of American Exceptionalism which made them more unwelcoming of foreign ideas and less willing to learn from what other nations have experienced in similar situations, over all the US turning a bit more arrogant.

If only the FG-42 was invented earlier, it would have made the BAR look especially silly and outdated.

File: 38053.jpg (35KB, 750x405px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 750x405px

>>33456263
1891
You had to go all the way back to 1891 to illustrate your point


What's up with those japs man? i heard they still are fighting with swords and bows, they don't even have the musket? maybe me and alberto should go and help them out....

>>33447993
To be fair those qt little azians are irresistible I'd want to hug them too.

>>33432852
>or?

fuck off Jürgen

>>33435269
Man, that shit is bananas

File: bar.jpg (281KB, 820x424px) Image search: [Google]

281KB, 820x424px

The shortened barrel ones look like they would be fun to shoot.

>>33459052
I wager that to be about 15lb unloaded, potentially as little as 14lb unloaded. Significantly lighter than the M1918A2, and I dare say, significantly more useful. Someone given that can be more mobile, would have much more ease in shoulder-firing it, can carry more ammo, and really the only prominent drawbacks I can think of is more felt recoil due to less weight, less velocity due to shorter barrel, and slightly less precise irons due to less sight radius. I'd say the pros heavily outweigh the cons.

>>33455857
http://graphiteknight.tumblr.com/post/61778455207/now-in-color-a-rack-on-titan-attack-on

Enjoy.

>>33432852
What I want to know is why the US insisted on using an en-bloc clip for the Garand instead of going with a removable magazine - if they did that, it'd open the door make an automatic rifle superior to the BAR: All you'd need is selective fire, maybe 450-500 RPM to keep barrel heat down and make it controllable, a bipod, and a ~25 round magazine. Think of it as an M2 Garand.

>>33459802
Superior? I love the M1, but that bent op rod is its weak point. With lots of use that op rod can bend further, so change it from a semi-auto-only rifle with an 8-rnd capacity to a full-auto-only or select-fire variant with around 25-rnd capacity? I don't think they would fare well in the long run. Not only that, but they'd DEFINITELY have to beef up the barrel. As-is, I imagine it'd be far too thin to do the truck for sustained fire. An "M2 Garand" wouldn't be around 10lb unloaded as it is now, it'd definitely be heavier. Maybe not 16lb, but I imagine the M1918 BAR would perform better in the long term than an "M2 Garand". That's my opinion, anyways. Seems to me that the M1 Rifle's op rod is a bigger issue than the mythical Lee-bolt headspacing issue.

>>33459956
Ah, I wasn't aware of the op-rod problems that they had. Never did much research into the M1, honestly.

If strengthening the op-rod is possible, perhaps having it fire from the open bolt when the selector is set to automatic would help with the barrel heating problems, and train soldiers to fire it semi-auto unless it's needed for suppressing fire.

>>33459990
It would add weight, but I dare say it's possible to beef up the op-rod and the barrel. The open-bolt automatic sounds like it would be quite complex. To my knowledge it was the Germans who did that first, with the FG-42. Closed-bolt semi-auto and open-bolt full auto.

Interesting side-note though; the M1 Rifle was meant to be chambered in a smaller cartridge, less than .30 cal, and it was supposed to be using a 10-rnd clip. When it was beefed up to .30-06 then the capacity was lessened by 2 rounds. The sub-.30 cal M1 Rifle (I can't remember the cartridge it was supposed to use, .276 Pederson or something like that maybe?) would have been higher capacity, softer shooting, and something like 1.5-2lb lighter I think, while also having a STRAIGHT op-rod if memory serves. It was in beefing up to .30-06 that the op-rod had to be bent in the re-design. Ultimately, I believe it's a damn shame that the M1 Rifle had to be in .30-06 instead of that smaller cartridge, whatever it was, but ultimately it's still a great rifle. Designed by a man who was born in Canada, I might add. A French-Canadian by origin, and hadn't gained a naturalized American citizenship until after he started working on it back in 1919 or so. Very interesting history.

>>33459802
>>33459990
As the M-14 demonstrated, automatic rifle-caliber fire from a weapon as light as the Garand is more or less unusable.

>>33444444