Underused weapons and equipment in WW II - Page 4




 
--
 
November 22nd, 2011  
lljadw
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by samneanderthal
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.
a lot of nonsens
November 23rd, 2011  
84RFK
 
 
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.
November 23rd, 2011  
samneanderthal
 
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?
--
November 23rd, 2011  
84RFK
 
 
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.
November 23rd, 2011  
samneanderthal
 
An interesting article, please read b.mobility
http://99div.com/olddirect/american_...652042756c6765

note than during the battle of the bulge it took 4 days for part of the German artillery to advance 12 miles, the rest lagging behind.
November 23rd, 2011  
samneanderthal
 
Heavier than an 88 mm
November 23rd, 2011  
BritinAfrica
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by samneanderthal
It takes a day to make the dies in a lathe. Not much testing involved. I have made several wildcats.
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.
November 23rd, 2011  
samneanderthal
 
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.
November 23rd, 2011  
Sean the flying kangaroo
 
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"
November 23rd, 2011  
Sean the flying kangaroo
 
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.
 


Similar Topics
Next US President
Russia tied to Iraq's missing arms
Watchdog blasts China's 'irresponsible' arms trade
Weapons Report US
Shaking hands with Sadam Hussein