I will list these three guns of WW2, that I feel was a Standard issue of each army, and which were effective.
The British Bren LMG of WW2.
Information:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bren
http://www.kimdutoit.com/ee/index.php/weblog/printvers/bren_lmg_303/
American Browning Automatic Rifle
Information:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Browning_Automatic_Rifle
German MP series.
Information:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MP44
MP44
In 1946 Kalashnikov start to design AKM based mainly on MP44.
If you do vote can you please state why you chose that weapon. So that we can debate.
I chose Bren LMG because it was extremely reliable and accurate, easy to use. Troops found not many problems with this gun, and it has become a favorite. The design is so good, the basic design stayed in the British military around the 80s. ( I emphasize highly accurate.)
It doesn’t surprise me, British military are well known for their conservatorism (I hope I spell correctly). Check WW1 British guns!
[quote=“Dani”]
It doesn’t surprise me, British military are well known for their conservatorism (I hope I spell correctly). Check WW1 British guns![/quote]
what do you mean by conservatism?
I supposed that all people knows AKM. It is fast, simple to manufacture, cheap and it could be converted for 5.56 cal NATO standards (actually Romania is in NATO and Romanian army had started to convert its AKM).
I am afraid if it wasn’t a MP44 “for inspiration”, Kalashnikov would design something different. Come on, Russia had already PPSH!!! Why they should start to inspire from MP44 if it wasn’t a real good gun (or maybe the best in its class at that time)?
It doesn’t surprise me, British military are well known for their conservatorism (I hope I spell correctly). Check WW1 British guns![/quote]
what do you mean by conservatism?[/quote]
Brits military (at least for the guns) prefered not to change so fast their equipments.
Germany in 1918 have MP18:
http://www.cruffler.com/historic-july00.html
Also check “British Army Rejection” article on http://www.firstworldwar.com/weaponry/machineguns.htm
Yes they usually keep their weapons for longer, mainly because they make good designs from the beggining and just modify it as time goes by. For example the Spitfire, was a very good design and one of best WW2 fighters, they kept that desining and just advanced it. The same thing with the Bren. And also the Lee Enfield which is still used today by hunters because it is so good.
I have two votes for the BAR but not one person states why they picked that. Some debating please?
Was a tought pick but i had to go with the Bar. The Mp44 was still and awesome weapons and the forerunner of modern assault guns. But sorry again S.A.M. and other just not impressed with the Bren. 
Id have to go with MP44 as my secound choice. But can u explain why the BAR was good, so far I got nothing really decent on it.
Id have to go with MP44 as my secound choice. But can u explain why the BAR was good, so far I got nothing really decent on it.[/quote]
THE BREN LMG
Manufacturer:
Royal Small Arms Factory, Enfield Lock
Calibre:
.303 inch British
Length Overall:
1,150mm (42.5 inches)
Weight empty:
10.15kg (22.38lb)
Barrel:
635mm (25.0 inches), 6 groove Right Hand
Feed system:
30-round detachable box
Rate of fire:
500 rounds per minute
Muzzle velocity:
731 metres per second (2,400 ft/sec)
From http://www.diggerhistory.info/pages-weapons/allied_ww2.htm
Operation Air cooled, gas operated, magazine fed, shoulder type
M1918A1 selective fire (fully and semi-automatic)
M1918A2 fully automatic
Caliber .30 (30-06)
Muzzle velocity 853.4 mps (2800 fps)
Capacity 20-round detachable box magazine
(1) Bandoleer (BAR belt): 12 magazines
(2) Magazine changeable in 2-4 seconds
(but averaged 6-8 seconds in combat)
Weight 8.33 kg (18.5 lbs)
Overall length 119.4 cm (47 in.)
Rate of fire 550 rounds per minute
Effective range 550m (600 yds)
Ammunition (1) Ball M2; 150 gr bullet, 50 gr charge
(2) Tracer M25, M1: for designating targets and signalling
(3) Armor piercing M2 (black tip); 165gr/53gr
(4) Armor piercing incendiary: for lightly armored flammable targets
From http://www.ww2incolor.com/phpBB2/posting.php?mode=quote&p=1535
This help?
well you know my ideas about british guns.my vote goes to mp44.
Id have to go with MP44 as my secound choice. But can u explain why the BAR was good, so far I got nothing really decent on it.[/quote]
THE BREN LMG
Manufacturer:
Royal Small Arms Factory, Enfield Lock
Calibre:
.303 inch British
Length Overall:
1,150mm (42.5 inches)
Weight empty:
10.15kg (22.38lb)
Barrel:
635mm (25.0 inches), 6 groove Right Hand
Feed system:
30-round detachable box
Rate of fire:
500 rounds per minute
Muzzle velocity:
731 metres per second (2,400 ft/sec)
From http://www.diggerhistory.info/pages-weapons/allied_ww2.htm
Operation Air cooled, gas operated, magazine fed, shoulder type
M1918A1 selective fire (fully and semi-automatic)
M1918A2 fully automatic
Caliber .30 (30-06)
Muzzle velocity 853.4 mps (2800 fps)
Capacity 20-round detachable box magazine
(1) Bandoleer (BAR belt): 12 magazines
(2) Magazine changeable in 2-4 seconds
(but averaged 6-8 seconds in combat)
Weight 8.33 kg (18.5 lbs)
Overall length 119.4 cm (47 in.)
Rate of fire 550 rounds per minute
Effective range 550m (600 yds)
Ammunition (1) Ball M2; 150 gr bullet, 50 gr charge
(2) Tracer M25, M1: for designating targets and signalling
(3) Armor piercing M2 (black tip); 165gr/53gr
(4) Armor piercing incendiary: for lightly armored flammable targets
From http://www.ww2incolor.com/phpBB2/posting.php?mode=quote&p=1535
This help?[/quote]
No not really, because you are deliberately giving more detailed information about the BAR compared to the Bren.
I supposed that all people knows AKM. It is fast, simple to manufacture, cheap and it could be converted for 5.56 cal NATO standards (actually Romania is in NATO and Romanian army had started to convert its AKM).
I am afraid if it wasn’t a MP44 “for inspiration”, Kalashnikov would design something different. Come on, Russia had already PPSH!!! Why they should start to inspire from MP44 if it wasn’t a real good gun (or maybe the best in its class at that time)?[/quote]
Hmm.
Few words about AK-47 design. Is it long story and i don’t know english enogh to say it all, but try to show highlights.
Hugo Shmeisser and about 150 German weapon engeneers was taken in USSR after end of war as a kind of POWs. They lived in Izevsk and worked there from 1945 till 1953. Who nows what they do there ? But few samples of AK, relised for concours - looks like a bit rebuilded StG44.
But after all (about seven pre-samples) in AK 47 was used bolt-lock from M1 Garand and trigger-mechanism from StG-44 (and StG44 used this mechanism from czech autorifle). And finally AK-47 looks like clon of StG44 only if you never disassembling them.
Honestly would be to say - StG44 and AK-47 are different assault rifles, used different locking mechanism, different safers, different bolt receivers (and bolts looks very different too), and different idea finally.
But i sure - StG44 was a start point in construction of AK-47.
A lot of strange, a bit ugly tales was related with AK-47, most related with names of ingeneeers. Today in’nt matter, i tought.
About PPSH.
First was a Suomy SMG, designed by finnish genius Lahty, who also disigned great LMG and pretty good handgun for Finnish army.
After Suomy SMG was designed soviet PPD, simplified clon of Suomy SMG, used 7.62 TT cartriges (Suomy used 9mm Para).
And late Shpgin designed simplyfied, odificated clon of PPD, known as PPSH.
In all conditions PPSH never was closely to AK-47, not by range of fire, not by durable. Pistol cartrige of PPSH (clon of Mauser 7.63) never was can be equal to AK-47 cartrige (clon of 7.62 cartrige for M1 Carabine), not by ballistic, not by power, not by velocity, independly of weapon, wich can use TT cartrige.
BTW, few facts about weapon engineers from Germany.
Engineers from Walther Co. escaped in Spain after war and there with them was designed an CETME battle rifle, later (after Belgians don’t sell license to Germany for FN-FAL ) licensed and adopted in Germany as official battle rifle.
Engineers from Mauser Werke was moved in USA and worked with Irvin Stowner. So, we hawe today M16 and all he’s brothers.
And other interesting fact: and Kalashnikov and Stowner too NEVER designed something new after AK-47 or M-16. Brownng, Mauser, Walther, Tokarev, Shmeisser, Schtange designed a lot of great examples of good weapons, but not famous designers of famous AK-47 and M16 (AR15).
The Bren was noted for its accuracy and a good gunner could chop a tree down with it.
!HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
I want to chop a tree down with a bren!
Id have to go with MP44 as my secound choice. But can u explain why the BAR was good, so far I got nothing really decent on it.[/quote]
THE BREN LMG
Manufacturer:
Royal Small Arms Factory, Enfield Lock
Calibre:
.303 inch British
Length Overall:
1,150mm (42.5 inches)
Weight empty:
10.15kg (22.38lb)
Barrel:
635mm (25.0 inches), 6 groove Right Hand
Feed system:
30-round detachable box
Rate of fire:
500 rounds per minute
Muzzle velocity:
731 metres per second (2,400 ft/sec)
From http://www.diggerhistory.info/pages-weapons/allied_ww2.htm
Operation Air cooled, gas operated, magazine fed, shoulder type
M1918A1 selective fire (fully and semi-automatic)
M1918A2 fully automatic
Caliber .30 (30-06)
Muzzle velocity 853.4 mps (2800 fps)
Capacity 20-round detachable box magazine
(1) Bandoleer (BAR belt): 12 magazines
(2) Magazine changeable in 2-4 seconds
(but averaged 6-8 seconds in combat)
Weight 8.33 kg (18.5 lbs)
Overall length 119.4 cm (47 in.)
Rate of fire 550 rounds per minute
Effective range 550m (600 yds)
Ammunition (1) Ball M2; 150 gr bullet, 50 gr charge
(2) Tracer M25, M1: for designating targets and signalling
(3) Armor piercing M2 (black tip); 165gr/53gr
(4) Armor piercing incendiary: for lightly armored flammable targets
From http://www.ww2incolor.com/phpBB2/posting.php?mode=quote&p=1535
This help?[/quote]
No not really, because you are deliberately giving more detailed information about the BAR compared to the Bren.[/quote]
K well you can get the basics from it…and see that the BAR is slightly better. Plus it looks cooler. Who is winning in the polls BTW??? 
No one likes your crappy funky looking rabbit terd shooter so …blah.
JK :lol:
You are indeed correct. Some people say it wasn’t the inspiration for the AK-47. Well, all you have to do is to put one beside the other. The resemblance is uncanny. Those 2 are the only weapons that looked anything like them for quite some time after WWII. There is no doubt that it was the source of inspiration for the AK. About the MP44 however: it was effective at up to medium range, but had one major flaw: It was much too heavy. It weighted almost twice as much as other SMG’s or light assult rifles of the time. Had it not been so heavy, it would have been a truly great weapon.
You are indeed correct. Some people say it wasn’t the inspiration for the AK-47. Well, all you have to do is to put one beside the other. The resemblance is uncanny. Those 2 are the only weapons that looked anything like them for quite some time after WWII. There is no doubt that it was the source of inspiration for the AK. About the MP44 however: it was effective at up to medium range, but had one major flaw: It was much too heavy. It weighted almost twice as much as other SMG’s or light assult rifles of the time. Had it not been so heavy, it would have been a truly great weapon.[/quote]
I watched a special on the AK with a rare interview of Mikhail T. Kalashnikov. He was offended when told that people thought he got his idea from the MP44. Personally I think he might have been inspired by the MP44 but the designs are completly different. The only thing that is similar is the look.
Well ofcourse he’s going to say that. Did you think he’s just plainly admit to using the MP44 as a basis for the design of the AK-47? Think about it. And so what if he did? What’s wrong with that? He made an even better weapon! Everything is ispirated by something else.
BTW, the look is similar because they are mechanically similar. It’s a weapon. There’s not a lot of empty space in such a thing for “stylizing” or fancifying.