|
Wasn't the BAR equipped with a bipod though?
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2017 00:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 16:10 |
|
|
Gnoman posted:
ehhhhh. . . not quite. The Thompson is a large and heavy as gently caress weapon for an SMG. They weighed about 10 lbs empty. In comparison an AK is about 7 lbs unloaded. Things get interesting because half the reason the Thompson is so heavy is the massive bolt required to do simple blowback (well. . . eventually, we're not going to get into that oddball Blish effect stuff - it's simple blowback by WW2). A 7.62x39 bolt would need to be even larger, which would in turn make the gun even heavier. I suspect that a thompson in x39 would be fairly controllable, at least on par with an AK. Not exactly a gentle ride, but good enough to keep bursts on target.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2017 00:46
|
|
|
MikeCrotch posted:Wasn't the BAR equipped with a bipod though? Sometimes. How it was used depended wildly on circumstance. Frankly it was a kind of lackluster weapon. THe magazine wasn't all that large which made it a ho hum LMG and it was a bit unwieldy for using as a proto-assault rifle.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2017 00:47
|
|
|
Fangz posted:Ask Us About Military History: The dick looking is authorised MODS
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2017 01:09
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:Sometimes. How it was used depended wildly on circumstance. Frankly it was a kind of lackluster weapon. THe magazine wasn't all that large which made it a ho hum LMG and it was a bit unwieldy for using as a proto-assault rifle. How many of them were given out to platoons on squad support levels? at least a pair? because that magazine really is tiny.
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2017 01:24
|
|
|
The Belgian posted:PM sent Thanks! There's some stuff in here that gonna make it into the next infodump.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2017 01:46
|
|
|
I'm reading Ivan's War based on the recommendation of this thread and it's real good, and also satisfying my curiosity about what life was like in the USSR, though I get the sense that the period in the book was exceptionally rough (even before the nazis invaded—I assume things are going to get slightly worse before they get better). I think my favorite part so far is how foreign agents couldn't successfully infiltrate Russia because life there was so lovely that their inability to put up with it without grimacing would give them away. Something like "you try shooting 100 proof vodka nonstop and smoking cardboard cigarettes and see how long you last".
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2017 01:48
|
|
|
The .30-06 Thompson probably also suffered because rifle rounds are really bad to use in straight blowback. As the Italians discovered (and continuously ignored) with their WW2 machine guns, it leads to very violent extraction that necessitates lubricated cartridges to keep them from tearing apart. The only realistic option would have been to replace the operating system altogether with a gas or delayed blowback system, which makes it a Thompson in appearance only.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2017 01:50
|
|
|
SeanBeansShako posted:How many of them were given out to platoons on squad support levels? at least a pair? because that magazine really is tiny. I could be wrong here, but I think actual LMG type squad support poo poo was done with M1919s. I guess with a mix of BARs in there? The US was not in a great spot when it came to our LMGs during that war. The BAR wasn't really ideal for a ton of reasons and the m1919 was a bit heavy to be a true LMG. We really didn't have a good analog to a MG34/MG42 with the assault drum or the bren edit: unloaded weight of an M1919 is 31 pounds compared to a MG42s 26, for example.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2017 02:13
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:I could be wrong here, but I think actual LMG type squad support poo poo was done with M1919s. I guess with a mix of BARs in there? The US was not in a great spot when it came to our LMGs during that war. The BAR wasn't really ideal for a ton of reasons and the m1919 was a bit heavy to be a true LMG. We really didn't have a good analog to a MG34/MG42 with the assault drum or the bren IIRC, the BAR was a squad support weapon, while the M1919 was a platoon-level asset. Edit: this varried by unit and branch of service, though. Paratroopers would often have the lightened M1919A6 at the squad level, and obviously individual squads would equip additional BARs or modified M1919s wherever they could get one. Acebuckeye13 fucked around with this message at 02:42 on Jun 8, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2017 02:37
|
|
|
You use whatever you've got that's suitable. I don't know what the theoretical equipment was, but for your WWII infantry, no doubt they'd take more than one BAR if they could get them, because although they had the ammo problems as mentioned, they were also light and therefore mobile. The only other limit would be that you need people with lighter weapons to act as scouts or assault elements and to carry heavy things like radios or ammo for said BARs. Something like an M1919 has it's uses, but it can't always replace an LMG because an infantry squad moving through unknown territory wants a very fast response, not two guys carrying a heavy weapon that doesn't work unless they put it together. But of you take the same infantry squad and they now need to defend the group of buildings they've just moved into, then sending back to get an M1919 is great because they can put a nice heavy weapon into the best fire position and the addition of three or four guys makes the defence stronger in a very efficient way, probably even better than another lightly armed infantry squad. Meanwhile, the Germans with their MG 42s can pretty much do both, which is one reason why they were so notorious, they could be everywhere.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2017 03:31
|
|
|
There was a bipod for the m1919 as well. It was used in a lmg capacity quite readily. The biggest issue was the lack of something like the German assault drum.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2017 03:52
|
|
|
It has come to my attention that Dean Acheson was a professional dick-sucker for Britain regarding foreign policy. Which resulted in policies that we could've done well without.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2017 04:37
|
|
|
The M1919 was also field-modified pretty frequently, typically to make it lighter and more suitable to mobile operations and firing. A lot of these modifications were introduced officially in the M1919A6, but IIRC it wasn't particularly well-received since it was still pretty heavy and the 'official' adjustments to the design weren't as effective as typical field modifications. The "Ultimate" infantry support M1919, of course, was the Stinger, which took the aircraft-mounted ANM2 variant of the M1919 and Frankensteined it into a workable SAW using parts from multiple different guns (Including, IIRC, a Garand stock, a Thompson grip and trigger, and sights off a BAR). As an aircraft machinegun the ANM2 had a much faster rate of fire than the standard M1919 (1200 RPM versus ~400-600), and the handful that were converted were used fairly effectively by Marines in the Pacific-most famously on Iwo Jima, when one was used by Medal of Honor recipient Tony Stein to suppress and destroy a number of bunkers while fighting inland during the initial landings.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2017 04:41
|
|
|
MikeCrotch posted:Wasn't the BAR equipped with a bipod though? Ive seen (and posted) at least one long-barrel thompson with a bipod. And no, it wasnt some modern conversion/experiment.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2017 06:29
|
|
|
Jaguars! posted:Meanwhile, the Germans with their MG 42s can pretty much do both, which is one reason why they were so notorious, they could be everywhere. M1 Garand and Lee-Enfield were so quick firing that wherever Germans met them, they thought they were facing machinegun fire!!!!!  But seriously US infantry carried so many automatic weapons with them that it covered for some of BAR's lack in raw firepower. British grunts were a lot worse off, with mostly bolt lock rifles and a Bren and a Sten per section. I think that was partly a result of the material struggles after Dunkirk, I can't imagine any other good reason for refusing to upgrade infantry firepower over the course of the war.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2017 07:02
|
|
|
The British army has had a historical tendency to not provide its soldiers with things out of the belief that if provided, they'd only use them recklessly. See also: parachutes, permission to use the magazine in one's rifle. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 07:30 on Jun 8, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2017 07:28
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:The British army has had a historical tendency to not provide its soldiers with things out of the belief that if provided, they'd only use them recklessly. Were they afraid of Paras inventing Just Cause 60 years early or of pilots ditching Spitfires at random? What about the magazines?
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2017 08:09
|
|
|
A lot of early air forces seemed to believe that if you gave pilots parachutes they'd ditch the plane at the first sign of trouble, though parachutes were also rather dangerous so it's debatable how much it was that and how much it was just people didn't believe parachutes were worthwhile. The original Enfield came with a magazine cutoff, which is a little cover you can engage which stops the gun feeding from the magazine, turning it into a single shot breech loading rifle. The idea being that if you let soldiers fire from the magazine they'd waste bullets. Or, more charitably, that you were supposed to load the gun 1 round at a time until the enemy got close and then use the magazine at point blank. This dates from much earlier when magazine fed rifles were first introduced but the design was kept for a long time even well after the introduction of stripper clips for loading multiple rounds at once, and was even reintroduced as part of the no1 mk V in the 1920's, it wasn't included in the no4 though, thankfully. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 08:24 on Jun 8, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2017 08:21
|
|
|
Acebuckeye13 posted:The M1919 was also field-modified pretty frequently, typically to make it lighter and more suitable to mobile operations and firing. A lot of these modifications were introduced officially in the M1919A6, but IIRC it wasn't particularly well-received since it was still pretty heavy and the 'official' adjustments to the design weren't as effective as typical field modifications. Sounds like what the SAS/Libyan Desert Taxi Service did with the Vickers K
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2017 09:39
|
|
|
What is the story behind M3 Stuarts equipped with German Pak 40s? How did that happen, and was there any kind of significant mechanical fuckery required to make the twain integrate?
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2017 09:57
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2017 10:51
|
|
|
US Armored riflemen had more m1919s than other US infantry platoons because they could haul them in their halftracks- they often ended up with a lot more gear than their TOE(they were called 'gypsy columns'), same for halftrack-mounted panzergrenadiers. I heard of one panzergrenadier squad for 4 MG42s, for example.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2017 12:17
|
|
|
Does anybody know about Mughal or Persian warfare in the late medieval and/or early modern period?
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2017 12:28
|
|
|
For anyone not getting it, the Tippu Sultan is pissing on them. Though at this point if you aren't in tune with Georgian satire and it's love for body fluid humour god help you.
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2017 13:07
|
|
|
Also on the magazine front, the Lee-Enfield was designed with a detachable box magazine. The men in charge declared that it was to only be removed for cleaning and no spares were to be issued for fast reloading, to keep troops from losing them. Some early guns even had the magazine attached by a chain.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2017 13:08
|
|
|
The history behind the Lee Metford to the SMLE really should have it's own post.
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2017 13:10
|
|
|
WTF is wrong with the poor horsie? Its mouth is melting off
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2017 13:15
|
|
|
SeanBeansShako posted:For anyone not getting it, the Tippu Sultan is pissing on them. Though at this point if you aren't in tune with Georgian satire and it's love for body fluid humour god help you. And he's pissing on Cornwallis. Third Anglo-Mysore War from Wikipedia: When the war broke out, Cornwallis negotiated alliances with the Marathas and Hyderabad.[88][89] Cornwallis ascended the Eastern Ghats to reach the Deccan Plateau in February 1791.[90] After successfully besieging Bangalore, Cornwallis then joined forces with Hyderabadi forces that he described as "extremely defective in almost every point of military discipline", and their presence in the army ultimately presented more difficulties than assistance.[91] These forces then marched toward the Mysorean capital at Seringapatam, compelling Tipu to retreat into the city at the Battle of Arakere on 15 May. Dwindling provisions, exacerbated by Tipu's slash-and-burn tactics, forced Cornwallis to abandon the idea of besieging Seringapatam that season, so he retreated to Bangalore.[92][93] He attacked again next January and after a quick siege made Tipu surrender and relinquish large areas: 
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2017 13:20
|
|
|
That man really must have hated the word 'siege'.
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2017 13:23
|
|
|
david_a posted:WTF is wrong with the poor horsie? Its mouth is melting off It's wearing a nosebag.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2017 14:02
|
|
|
Did Cornwallis have a good career besides getting owned by colonials?
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2017 14:56
|
|
|
zoux posted:Did Cornwallis have a good career besides getting owned by colonials? Yes, very much so. Though his biggest successes were in administration. Hogge Wild fucked around with this message at 15:03 on Jun 8, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2017 14:59
|
|
|
Grouchio posted:It has come to my attention that Dean Acheson was a professional dick-sucker for Britain regarding foreign policy. Which resulted in policies that we could've done well without. Such as?
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2017 15:01
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:What is the story behind M3 Stuarts equipped with German Pak 40s? How did that happen, and was there any kind of significant mechanical fuckery required to make the twain integrate? That's the Yugoslavian Stuart Pak. It's not like they put the gun into the turret, just cut a hole in the turret platform and stuck a mount in it like on the Marder tank destroyer. They also put a quad 20 mm AA gun on the same chassis.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2017 15:02
|
|
|
zoux posted:Did Cornwallis have a good career besides getting owned by colonials? Ya. He defeated a French invasion of Ireland and also was a big factor in the unification of Britain and Ireland, among other things.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2017 15:02
|
|
zoux posted:Did Cornwallis have a good career besides getting owned by colonials? That is a weird way of saying The French.
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2017 15:05
|
|
|
SeanBeansShako posted:That is a weird way of saying The French. ayyyyyy
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2017 15:07
|
|
|
Jamwad Hilder posted:a big factor in the unification of Britain and Ireland, among other things. I mean, I guess militarily speaking that is achieving an objective though I'm not sure it worked out "good" for anyone in the long run.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2017 16:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 16:10 |
|
|
chitoryu12 posted:Also on the magazine front, the Lee-Enfield was designed with a detachable box magazine. The men in charge declared that it was to only be removed for cleaning and no spares were to be issued for fast reloading, to keep troops from losing them. Some early guns even had the magazine attached by a chain. Though considering historical soldiers tendency to leave, barter away, or otherwise lose equipment is it really that odd?
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2017 17:49
|
|
