Underused weapons and equipment in WW II

42RM said:
Another weapon category for selected special operations scenarios is the sub-machine gun, with one of the most popular models being the 9mm Heckler & Koch MP5. With over 120 variants available, the MP5 meets the broadest range of tactical requirements. [/COLOR]
Click to expand...

The H&K MP5 appears to be the SMG of choice these days around the world.

However, the thing I don't like about the H&K MP5 is the roller locking, if its not kept spotlessly clean it jams. Neither do I like the closed bolt, which as you know can result in cook off's. If I were given a choice of SMG's I'd go for the UZI, even though I have a fondness for the Sterling.

The H&K G3 rifle had the same problem with the roller locking, on top of that it was a pig to clean, especially the chamber. The G3 was issued a few years ago to some African troops/rebels, unlike the AK47 the G3 didn't like being dirty, the average African trooper/rebel doesn't know a pull through from his bum or his elbow. A huge of G3's were found dumped, they were collected and properly cleaned, hey presto fully functioning rifles.
 
I've never had problems with either G3 or MP5. I've had them in water, sand, mud and snow. I've used them in the arctic regions and in jungles and they work just perfectly.

Firing from the closed-bolt position offers inherently higher hit potential than that obtainable from submachine guns which fire from the open bolt. When the heavy bolts utilized by most pure blowback smg´s fly forward and then stop violently against the chamber, accuracy is bound to be adversely affected. The theoretical problem associated with closed-bolt operation has always been that of "cook-off." When barrel temperatures greater than 250 degrees Centigrade are maintained for more than a minute, premature ignition of a cartridge in the over-heated chamber becomes possible. There has been some speculation about the MP5 in this area.

In fact, you cannot induce cook-offs in the MP5 under any remotely realistic set of circumstances. However, the receiver's chamber area, which acts as a heat sink, gets righteously hot in the attempt. If you are accustomed to holding the palm of the support hand back against the magazine-well and under the chamber area, the larger (and now standard), so-called "tropical" forearm is recommended instead of the earlier slimline handguard. The "cookoff" problem is more theoretical than practical and the gun is , indeed, easier to shoot well under stress than a typical open-bolt operated smg.
 
Last edited:
42RM said:
I've never had problems with either G3 or MP5. I've had them in water, sand, mud and snow. I've used them in the arctic regions and in jungles and they work just perfectly.
Click to expand...

I guess you have never been afflicted with African troops/rebels, if they can break it, they will. The only gun that can survive their handling/mistreatment is the AK47.

42RM said:
Firing from the closed-bolt position offers inherently higher hit potential than that obtainable from submachine guns which fire from the open bolt. When the heavy bolts utilized by most pure blowback smg´s fly forward and then stop violently against the chamber, accuracy is bound to be adversely affected. The theoretical problem associated with closed-bolt operation has always been that of "cook-off." When barrel temperatures greater than 250 degrees Centigrade are maintained for more than a minute, premature ignition of a cartridge in the over-heated chamber becomes possible. There has been some speculation about the MP5 in this area.
Click to expand...

I agree with you, firing from a closed bolt is inherently far more accurate then firing from a open bolt. Personally I have always found that the Sterling to be more then adequate when fired repetition or bursts.

42RM said:
In fact, you cannot induce cook-offs in the MP5 under any remotely realistic set of circumstances. However, the receiver's chamber area, which acts as a heat sink, gets righteously hot in the attempt. If you are accustomed to holding the palm of the support hand back against the magazine-well and under the chamber area, the larger (and now standard), so-called "tropical" forearm is recommended instead of the earlier slimline handguard. The "cookoff" problem is more theoretical than practical and the gun is , indeed, easier to shoot well under stress than a typical open-bolt operated smg.
Click to expand...

I can fully understand that the gun is easier to shoot from a closed bolt. There has been a lot of discussion over the years regarding cook-off, some say impossible, other not. I would still be very cautious regarding cook-off.

Interesting subject.
 
BritinAfrica said:
I would still be very cautious regarding cook-off.
Click to expand...
It's always a good thing to be cautious when dealing with firearms.

And as my Troop Sergeant always says to the new lads. Sex and weapons handling has in common that: “Good gunners fire controlled bursts preventing the weapon from overheating”.
 
An inexpensive, portable antitank cannon that was not produced in sufficient quantities was the 25 mm Hotchkiss, to which the German tanks that invaded France were susceptible. It knocked out several tanks in Gembloux, etc, and had there been more of them in Guderian's and Rommel's paths, it could have slowed down or stopped the Sickle cut. Its only draw back was the relatively short range, compared to larger AT guns firing at the same velocity. Had the allies invaded Germany en masse in September 1939, this portable gun would have been invaluable to eliminate the counter attacking German tanks, peslecially in urba settings.
 
6.2 million of the M1 carbine were produced and it was an underachiever. It would have been much better had it been produced either for a lengthened .38 super auto cartridge or for a shortened 30.06 case 1.5" long and firing a 130 gr bullet. But the low velocity, low sectional density bullet of the .30 carbine has poor stopping power at short range and poor ballistics and much worse stopping power at 200 m.
 
fabricating weapons is not a simple thing to do. You cannot change part of your production overnight to build new weapons. And the armed forces wanted their weapons NOW, not in three months or so. Most of the time when a superior weapon was developed but not brought into production, or produced in limited numbers there was a reason for it.
 
Since the .30 carbine was made only for that rifle, I see no problem in making that rifle with a different case.
Assuming that the military knew what they were doing and there was always a reason for doing things that way is unfounded. As we have mentioned in several instances, there are several factors, including leader ignorance, corruption, etc, that often contributed to inferior weapons.
The grease-gun, P-38, Sherman tanks, B-24, the Airacobra, the M1 carbine, etc, are good examples of basic manufacturing or design mistakes, that the advanced American industry and designers should not have made. They cost a lot to make and performed rather poorly.

The Japanese had a logistics nightmare because they used several cartridges for their rifles and machine guns (rimmed, unrimmed, etc,). Most of their machine guns were extremely impractical. However, starting in 1943 they were extremely efficient building fortifications and defending them. It is surprising how long they resisted and how many American casualties they caused in most islands, despite formidable American air and naval artillery support and overwhelming American troop superiority.
 
Last edited:
Have you any idea at all what is involved with introducing a new cartridge or rifle, the tooling up, testing and retesting?

Obviously not, otherwise you wouldn't post such rubbish
 
samneanderthal said:
Since the .30 carbine was made only for that rifle, I see no problem in making that rifle with a different case.
Assuming that the military knew what they were doing and there was always a reason for doing things that way is unfounded. As we have mentioned in several instances, there are several factors, including leader ignorance, corruption, etc, that often contributed to inferior weapons.
The grease-gun, P-38, Sherman tanks, B-24, the Airacobra, the M1 carbine, etc, are good examples of basic manufacturing or design mistakes, that the advanced American industry and designers should not have made. They cost a lot to make and performed rather poorly.

The Japanese had a logistics nightmare because they used several cartridges for their rifles and machine guns (rimmed, unrimmed, etc,). Most of their machine guns were extremely impractical. However, starting in 1943 they were extremely efficient building fortifications and defending them. It is surprising how long they resisted and how many American casualties they caused in most islands, despite formidable American air and naval artillery support and overwhelming American troop superiority.
Click to expand...
a lot of nonsens
 
I believe the M1 Carbine was made as a substitute for pistols and smg's, and that the basic idea was to issue them to personel in the rear echelon.as a personal sidearm that didn't require additional training.
Mostly carried, but rarely fired...well, it didn't work out exactly as planned.

As for the WW II German artillery, where did you get the idea that the 88 mm FlaK36 was horse drawn???
With a weight of 7,4 metric tons or 16000 lbs it required a gun tractor like the Sd.Kfz 7 to move the beast.
Same goes for for the 7,5 cm. PaK40, while the lighter anti-tank guns were often horse drawn units.
 
The M1 carbine was used at the front by paratroops, tankers, infantry in urban or jungle settings, etc, it was not intended to replace a pistol, which is far more portable but is easy to aim and effective only within 50 yd and has a low capacity magazine. It was intended to be easy to aim and effective at 150 yd and to use a much larger capacity magazine.

How many tons do you think that a large horse pulled dray weighed?
 
As I said about the M1 Carbine...it didn't work out exactly as planned.

As for horses, my knowledge is limited to the fact that they have 4 legs and a tail in the rear end...
I know a bit more about artillery, and I've even serviced the 88 mm. FlaK36 guns during my service, only as a salute-battery, but I still have a fairly good knowledge about them.
 
samneanderthal said:
It takes a day to make the dies in a lathe. Not much testing involved. I have made several wildcats.
Click to expand...

Did you pressure test them, or carry out internal and external ballistic testing?

So your saying it only takes a day to introduce a new cartridge? Have you any idea whatsoever how long it took to introduce the SS109 into NATO? Obviously not.
 
Last edited:
1) You make 4 loads with increasing powder charges (of course, you have to have some experience to know what kind of powder has the right burning speed for the type of case you're using). This takes a few minutes.
2) You start with the lightest load and look for signs of excess pressure in the primer (flattened radius), if there is none, you fire the next load and so on. Until you find some signs of high pressure, then you reduce the load a half grain and try again.

Accuracy, external and internal ballistics, stopping and killng power are quite easy to determine in minutes.

Developing an excellent cartridge or gun and having the idiotic military brass approve it are different things. For example, in the 1920's the US army gunsmiths built several rifles for different cartridges using the same case as the .30-06 but with bullets of different diameters. After shooting several sheep at different ranges and analizing the wounds, it was determined that the .25-06 had the best trajectory, killing power and the mildest recoil and lightest cartridges. However, brass ignored everything and continued to champion the .30-06.
Likewise, when Garand designed the M1, after several tests he concluded that a slightly shorter case with a slightly smaller diameter than that of the .30-06 was the best combination for his rifle. He presented it for tests and it performed very well. Unfortunately, MacArthur liked the rifle, but ignored Garand and ordered that it be produced in .30-06 to use the existing ammo (not thinking at all about ballistics, the longer action, future manufacturing cost, the sore arm of a soldier firing hundreds of .30-06 rounds in a few hours, the weight of hundreds of rounds that had to be carried for miles in rough terrain, etc,

Reaching a consensus between Americans, Frenchmen, Germans, Brits, Italians, etc in Nato is hell. But it has nothing to do with ballistics, manufacturing difficulty, etc,

It seems to me unbelievable that the military geniuses opted for either a wimpy .223, 70 grain bullet or a massive .308, 150 grain bullet. In my opinion nothing beats the .243 Win. with a 105 grain bullet to kill humans at normal ranges (of course a .50 caliber bullet is better at 1 km or more, but impractical for an average soldier). Its trajectory is far supperior to the other two, it has pleasant recoil, weighs less to carry around than the .308, the higher velocity requires less windage and drop adjustment, it has a higher sectional density, so it retains energy better, etc,

It is interesting the JFK's assasin, an exmarine marksman chose an italian 6.5 mm and managed to fire several shots, instead of a .308 or .30-06.
 
Last edited:
The Stuka was a GREAT idea but was woefully underpowered and due to the fact that it was an excellent dive bomber, as a pilot myself, I totally understand that this was also it's biggest weakness, as even though quite strong and tough ( to pull the "gs" out of the dive without ripping it's wings off) it was terribly unmanourevarable....just read Douglas Bader's book "Reach for the Sky".... his words alone which I deeply respect as a pilot were "JU 87...easy meat"
 
Samneandethal, I agree with you somewhat, I would like to share with you that the number one problem witha lot of early yankee planes is that they suffered from a poor excuse of a powerplant, namely Allison....and please coorrect my if I am misguided, a little political interference with the development of this engine too...The P41 when it was first delivered to the RAF was deemed a dog,...great down low, yet hopeless at altitude through lack of a supercharger ...It wasn't until the Merlin was introduced that such a wonderful airframe finally come to bed with an exceptional powerplant....and well,...the rest is history. Don't get me wrong American friends,..Packard did a lovely job of producing the Merlin ( and the Aussies, Canadians too ) and American radials were magnificent....still are.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top