I’m sorry chum, I don’t understand what you mean.
Could you re-phrase it please ?[/quote]
Sorry mate its all mistake and i dont ,understand your post ,i think 2nd post on topic :lol: :lol: :lol: sorry agian . :oops:
Two things. The Paras are a small force within a large organisation. The priority for equipment is within the Luftwaffe not the German army, it is also related to budget requirements. As a force they are cheep, no heavy kit or weapons (artillery). Late war infantry organisation was built around the MGs the rifleman were there to carry ammo as much as to fight. I will have to look it up but I believe that most of the German infantry were not para but light inf who arrived by glider of flown in after the initial landing. That is why it was so important to capture an airfield.
My standard war load in modern times war 150 rds, 5 x 20 rd mags + 50 link. That was to last my about 20 mins in combat then get resupplied. Automatic weapons eat ammo fast, do the maths and work out how much ammo they could carry. Do not forget that heavy weapon ammo is also carried by the troops as well. The big problem for airborne ops is transport and it is not just the vehicles it is also the fuel. Although it is not directly related it is pertinent. In WW1 an inf Bn could be moved by one train, a cavalry reg took 5. Wars are won by logistics not the guy with the rifle. Look at the situation after Normandy, it all stopped so that the supplies could catch up.
SS para not Luftwaffe.
why was it difficult ot use?
What do you define as close and long ranges Cdo ?[/quote]
Well…Rifles are designed for accuracy to hit at a precise distance Cuts mate,
a close range rifle, depending on what type of gun and its model, and the length the bullet will go, A short Range ww2 Rifle would be no more then 500 meters as a short range military rifle, capable of controlled, fully-automatic fire from the shoulder, with an effective range of at least 300 metres.
Long Range, as I said depends on the Ammunition and Weapon you are using , different long range rifles and automatics go different differences over 500 meters.[/quote]
Combat ranges are not often over 600m. That is why the German came up with the MP42. The short round had the legs and power to achieve what was required of it at this range. This smaller round made a more accurate automatic weapon, a lighter weapon, lighter ammo, less strain on the log support chain and lighter load for the soldier (and if you believe that last one then your be a sucker for yes I will love you tomorrow, no I will not come in your mouth and the cheques in the post).
Concerning ammo, a British infantry man in WW2 carried a minimum of 106 rounds .303 (2 Bren gun magazines with 28 rounds each and one bandolier with 10 chargers of 5 rounds each for the SMLE or No.4 rifle) plus two No.36 grenades. Often he would carry a second bandolier in his right pouch together with the grenades. Else he would carry whatever his section commander would tell him to carry, e.g. bombs for the platoon 2" mortar in a carrying container with 6 bombs each or an ammo box with additional bandoliers of .303.
Jan
SS para not Luftwaffe.
why was it difficult ot use?[/quote]
I doubt he’s even seen one close up… (the closest I got to one of these rare things was behind glass)
:shock:
Where did this gem come from ?[/quote]
probably from wherever Frionscam got his “information” from - it’s very Ferrousesque “thinking outside the box”…[/quote]
that tidbit is from a ww2 weapons book i have. i think its reasonable. the gun was too light for 8mm full auto. other problem was the excessive muzzle flash, making it a bad sniper weapon.[/quote]
Fire an LMG in real life is not like the dream factory. 3-5 rd bursts controlled and aimed is far more effective than pull the trigger and see who empties the mag first.
Why would it be used a sniper rifle?
:shock:
Where did this gem come from ?[/quote]
probably from wherever Frionscam got his “information” from - it’s very Ferrousesque “thinking outside the box”…[/quote]
that tidbit is from a ww2 weapons book i have. i think its reasonable. the gun was too light for 8mm full auto. other problem was the excessive muzzle flash, making it a bad sniper weapon.[/quote]
Fire an LMG in real life is not like the dream factory. 3-5 rd bursts controlled and aimed is far more effective than pull the trigger and see who empties the mag first.
Why would it be used a sniper rifle?[/quote]
Quite - it was never used as such. It was occasionally fitted with a scope (as was the Stg.44), but a scope does not a sniper rifle make (it does, however, make a “designated marksman’s rifle” to use the Spam terminology). The FG42 was just an automatic rifle - not an LMG (the name gives it away - Fallschirmjägergewehr - Paratrooper rifle (although German terminology can be confusing and/or political - this one, however, is accurate).
SS para not Luftwaffe.
why was it difficult ot use?[/quote]
i’ve discussed this with knowledable people at feldgrau.com. the waffen ss did not get priority equipment. it got priority replacements. paratroopers got priority small arms, since they are more elite then the waffen ss.
This suggests that they had a central supply system. Was that the case or did each arm supply its own troops?
Actually the agreement with the conservative Wehrmacht generals was that the Wehrmacht should have the first pick in equipment and conscripts. Still Himmler managed to bypass the regulations and instead of the pure infantry units he was supposed to own, he soon had complete armoured divisions. The SS Paratroopers was an attempt to encroach on the territory of his rival Goering. The big change came after July 1944, when after the officer’s rebellion against Hitler, Himmler and his SS gained influence.
Jan
yea, thats true. in the beginning, the only good thing the waffen-ss got were nice camo smocks and helmet covers. a lot of them had to make do with old g98s and czech brens (forgot the name) since they were supplied from Heer channels.
. they were all motorized , but were not panzer divisions until later on. after kharkov, i believe, they gained influence and were upgraded to panzer divisions and spearheaded kursk.
Charles Macdonald’S “By air to Battle” has the assault force as,
22,750 troops of this
10,000 jumped
750 by glider
5,000 by air transport
7,000 by sea.
Because of the high number of troops jumping they had 3 waves of transports relying on the aircrafts of the first wave to get the second and third in. due to the heavy aircraft losses in the first wave reduced the number of support and back up troops to arrive.
The capture of the airfields in Crete was so important, because the second wave were supposed to be mountain troops (Gebirgsjäger) flying in on Ju-52 transports. The Junkers were also supposed to bring in needed supplies of ammo, the next step was the cature of sea ports, so that ships on the way loaded with heavy weapons and supplies could be unloaded.
The mission of the para troopers and glider infantry was solely to capture the airfields and gain control of the hills covering them.
The Junkers arrived and landed under heavy shelling by Commonwealth artillery (I’ve seen newsreel footage of it) and the Gebirgsjäger they brought in were badly needed reinforcements for the Fallschirmjäger.
Jan
Charles Macdonald’S “By air to Battle” has the assault force as,
22,750 troops of this
10,000 jumped
750 by glider
5,000 by air transport
7,000 by sea.
Because of the high number of troops jumping they had 3 waves of transports relying on the aircrafts of the first wave to get the second and third in. due to the heavy aircraft losses in the first wave reduced the number of support and back up troops to arrive.[/quote]
the men that came by air transport were mountain troops of the 3rd mountain division i think.
the 10,750 men that jumped and glided were all paratroopers of the 7th fleigar division.
its the paras that did most of the fighting though. they suffered most of their causalties at the drop zones thanks to ULTRA. they were lucky that the brits/commonwealth weren’t better armed though.
i believe a group of paras landed right into a machine gun ambush and were all killed except for two that jumped in to the sea, and swam to walther koch’s position…
What do you define as close and long ranges Cdo ?[/quote]
Well…Rifles are designed for accuracy to hit at a precise distance Cuts mate,
a close range rifle, depending on what type of gun and its model, and the length the bullet will go, A short Range ww2 Rifle would be no more then 500 meters as a short range military rifle, capable of controlled, fully-automatic fire from the shoulder, with an effective range of at least 300 metres.
Long Range, as I said depends on the Ammunition and Weapon you are using , different long range rifles and automatics go different differences over 500 meters.[/quote]
Oh dear, looks like it is here we go again![/quote]
my Gosh, i cant win either way can I, i got nothing against you guys, but you seem to make smart ass comments back, and i never get positive feedback.
What do you define as close and long ranges Cdo ?[/quote]
Well…Rifles are designed for accuracy to hit at a precise distance Cuts mate,
a close range rifle, depending on what type of gun and its model, and the length the bullet will go, A short Range ww2 Rifle would be no more then 500 meters as a short range military rifle, capable of controlled, fully-automatic fire from the shoulder, with an effective range of at least 300 metres.
Long Range, as I said depends on the Ammunition and Weapon you are using , different long range rifles and automatics go different differences over 500 meters.[/quote]
Oh dear, looks like it is here we go again![/quote]
my Gosh, i cant win either way can I, i got nothing against you guys, but you seem to make smart ass comments back, and i never get positive feedback.[/quote]
Cdo, it was a reference to a long running ‘discussion’ by another poster, (no longer using that identity,) who’s views on weapons and ranges was a little odd to say the least.
He gave his opinion on weapons, their effects and ranges based on computer games and anecdotal evidence that was at best second hand.
When offered information or correction by ex- and serving soldiers and/or experienced shooters with articles published in internationally reputable journals, he burst out into gibberish and gave unsupported ‘evidence’ to back up his ludicrous claims.
If you’d like to read through some of the older theads on weapons in the various fora, you’ll find the reason for the comment by Firefly.
The ‘discussions’ are both exasperating and amusing due to the boneheadedness of the poster in question.
Thanks Cuts for your explanations and for your kindness.
Commando, what Cuts stated is sadly true.
What do you define as close and long ranges Cdo ?[/quote]
Well…Rifles are designed for accuracy to hit at a precise distance Cuts mate,
a close range rifle, depending on what type of gun and its model, and the length the bullet will go, A short Range ww2 Rifle would be no more then 500 meters as a short range military rifle, capable of controlled, fully-automatic fire from the shoulder, with an effective range of at least 300 metres.
Long Range, as I said depends on the Ammunition and Weapon you are using , different long range rifles and automatics go different differences over 500 meters.[/quote]
Combat ranges are not often over 600m. That is why the German came up with the MP42. The short round had the legs and power to achieve what was required of it at this range. This smaller round made a more accurate automatic weapon, a lighter weapon, lighter ammo, less strain on the log support chain and lighter load for the soldier (and if you believe that last one then your be a sucker for yes I will love you tomorrow, no I will not come in your mouth and the cheques in the post).[/quote]
CJ I have reposted it for you it was on page 3 at the bottom.
Most of the stuff Cuts is referring to is
http://www.ww2incolor.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=241
Sit back with a drink for an evening’s entertainment as you read. If as you read you feel at some point that life is not worth living, you are not alone.
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: