War winning weapons

cls12vg30 · 07-03-2004, 04:14 PM

Well I'm not sure about the actual production time per gun, but like the Sten the M3 was made mostly of stamped steel. It was extremely easy and cheap to manufacture, and yet extraordinarily reliable and controllable for an SMG due to its relatively low cyclic rate of fire. The M3 quickly replaced the Thompson as the primary U.S SMG, and remained in service through Vietnam. Even by that time, the cost to produce an M3 was approximately $28 USD.

Gemhorse · 07-04-2004, 12:23 AM

Accuracy is always determined by those firing the weapon, whether bolt-action, semi-auto or auto...Having handled some WWII weapons during my term in the Armed Forces, they all had their uses and specialities...My preference as a general combat weapon is a semi-auto, with a reasonably 'beefy' calibre, which can give a fast rate of fire in the case of 'covering-fire' for your advancing comrades, and also slow-shot accuracy for more distant targets. Automatic weapons prime use is in close-combat situations, such as jungle or urban warfare, other than the like of Brens, GPMG's etc. which can give concentrated-fire and support. The ability to handle any weapon is directly dependant on how well you've been trained in their use. The M1 Garand was a fine weapon which I would have preferred to an Enfield, partly because they were lighter, and obviously a faster rate of fire...Thompsons were nicknamed 'choppers' because their firepower was devastating close-range, but on rapid-fire they were a handful to keep aimed. The Sten was the same, but the idea was to fire only in short bursts. As for the AK47, I have used both the Russian & Chinese variant, and disliked both, they were heavy and I personally didn't like their balance, range and their 'ease of use'..., at least in comparison to their NATO counterpart, the Belgian FN SLR. There is better range & hitting-power in their 7.62x51, than the AK's 7.62x39.- There is confidence in using a firearm that has been well manufactured than one that's 'stamped-out' in volume...the Sten for example, while adequate, was very basic, but stoppages and malfunctions could be dangerous to the users....

the lancaster kicks ass · 07-04-2004, 05:55 AM

Quote:

the cost to produce an M3 was approximately $28 USD.

a sten cost £1.50, i don't know my conversion rates very well but i know that £1.50 is cheaper then $28, but they weren't a huge quality, the weilding was pretty poor, some would just fal apart if you dropped them, a very good urban warfare weapon however....................

cls12vg30 · 07-04-2004, 10:57 AM

Yeah, that is cheaper, even if we're talking about 1940's pounds vs. 1960's U.S. Dollars (the $28 number came from the Vietnam era) the Sten still would come out cheaper.

the lancaster kicks ass · 07-04-2004, 11:05 AM

it probery cost more to put ammo in it than the gun cost it's self

.....................

GermansRGeniuses · 07-05-2004, 12:10 PM

You could use Luger ammo in it...

Empty a clip, pick it up after all the Germans are dead, get their lugers, manually remove the bullets, put them in the Sten clip...

MP-Willow · 07-05-2004, 01:50 PM

Are you talking about the AK-47? I truely believe in all the interviews I have seen and resurch I have read that it was not based on any other weapon as it was developed on its own!

Why was the German rifle deployed so much to the East and not but a little to the west?

the lancaster kicks ass · 07-05-2004, 03:41 PM

Quote:

Empty a clip, pick it up after all the Germans are dead, get their lugers, manually remove the bullets, put them in the Sten clip...

or you could just use your own ammo......................

MP-Willow · 07-06-2004, 02:01 PM

that was to say if you had any of your own left.

GermansRGeniuses · 07-06-2004, 03:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MP-Willow

Are you talking about the AK-47? I truely believe in all the interviews I have seen and resurch I have read that it was not based on any other weapon as it was developed on its own!

Why was the German rifle deployed so much to the East and not but a little to the west?

The SS-Panzer Abeitlung were equipped with them before, after, and during D-Day, as well as during the BotB.

Erich · 07-06-2004, 04:39 PM

if you are talking of the Stg 44 it was not issued to W-SS Pz Abt. and it was not seen at D-day or during the Normandie invasion but in the fall especially during the Ardenne. The Ak 47 was developed after capturing the German weapon I described............the AK was nothing unique.

Lightning Guy · 07-06-2004, 11:28 PM

I'd rather be carrying the M3 as the .45cal packed a ton more whallop that the British 9mm.

GermansRGeniuses · 07-07-2004, 05:56 PM

Or German 9mm if you wanna take it further...

Lightning Guy · 07-07-2004, 11:09 PM

Either way, the .45cal hit alot harder.

Gemhorse · 07-08-2004, 12:09 AM

The M1 Garand's trigger mechanism was much copied and one very similar is found in every one of more than 50 million Kalashnikov AK-47's...The Garand's sighting was superior, they did have problems with the en bloc clip magazine system, but the ping when the feed-clip ejected would've been hard-pressed to start an 'enemy-charge', if you could hear it first-off in all the battle-din, and secondly, the time to reload an M1 would be less than it would take the fastest sprinter to cover 25 yds...The .30-06 round was grunty, gave good range and hitting-power...sure, I'd love .45 power, but they don't have quite the reach...gotta give the boys a great all-rounder, like they did... They went on to convert to .308 [7.62x51] NATO cartridge, and they were gradually superceded by the M-16 [5.56 - .223] during Vietnam, still using Garand's and Remington .30-06 for mainly Sniping-role....