With all my respect, men, what a hell ?
There is topic about “Best LMG” ?
Why, for Garand’s sake, you brothers, dancing there around M1/M2 Carabine ?
Especially is it question for you, IRONMAN !
I’m not moderator there, but obstinacy, usefull for some another good duty, wich you keep on talking about carbine and frangible ammo (good for is that is not flexible as well) in LMG topic make me a bit nvervous…
I forgot to mention that having a rifled barell is one of the characteristics of a rifle, and an assult rifle as well.
Yes, we know that the M1 Carbine was designed for use as a more powerful replacement of the pistol, however, it was not a pistol, nor was it an SMG. It was a rifle. I have three .22 calibre rifles. Are they not rifles simply because they are not as powerful as an M1 Garand? Ofcourse they are rifles! In fact, it was used quite a bit by front line troops because it was such a good little rifle for close to medium range fighting. The M2 Carbine was an assult rifle by definition, and was the inspiration for the popular and brotherly-looking Ruger Mini 14 assult rifle. While the M1 Carbine is not technically an assult rifle because by modern definition of the term the M1 did not have selective fire, it was used in that capacity numerous times.
Your post is confusing. Are saying the M1/M2 Carbine were not a rifles? It seems that you are saying that they fired pistol ammunition. Is that what you mean by, “Now ask any infantryman that has been under fire if he would like to carry a weapon firing a pistol round”?
I think you meant the Thompson, even though you did not mention it. If you meant the M1\M2 Carbines, then I offer the following:
The M1\M2 Carbines used short rifle ammunition, like the MP44 (although the MP44’s ammo was a bit longer). I have a box of them in my closet. They were given to me by my father recently, who faught at Chosin Reservoir in Korea where the 7,000 soldiers of the US 7th Marines Division fought against 220,000-240,000 Chinese in damp -40 weather in the bloodiest battle in the history of modern warfare.
This is not pistol ammunition:
The muzzle velocity of the M1\M2 Carbine was 1960-1975 fps. - 2 or more times that of a typical semi-auto pistol.
A very large number of the US troops in that battle, Chosin Reservoir, and others in Europe during WWII, used an M1 Carbine rifle because it was faster to reload and effective at the close ranges of that battle. They had to put alcohol-based hair tonic on the action of their M1 Carbines rifles to keep the action loose by stopping the ice build-up.
The M1 Carbine rifle was also used quite a bit by front-line troops, even though that was not what it was designed for. Ofcourse the M1 Garand was used more than any other rifle by US troops in WWII, but the M1 Carbine rifle was used far far more than it was intended to be used, and in ways the US military did not at first expect it would be used by the troops.
Despite the fact the the M1 Carbine rifle was not technically an assult rifle by definition because it lacked selective fire, thousands of US troops used the M1 Carbine rifle as an assult weapon while attacking Japanese positions on the islands of the Pacific. It was used in Europe that way too. Just because the M1 Garand was a more powerful weapon does not mean the M1 Carbine rifle was hardly used, or that it was not used as an assult weapon to levy an assult on enemy positions. It was also used in a folding stock version especially, as a rifle for airborne troops, and sometimes the M4 bayonete was fitted to the rifle.
BTW, quite a few of the tens of thousands of soldiers that landed on the beaches in Normandy on D-Day carried an M1 Carbine rifle, because a short, fast reloading rifle was a good choice for that range. Also because you can carry more of the smaller cartridges.
M1 Carbine rifles on Normandy:
M1 Carbine rifles on at the battle of the Bulge:
These are the men that took Foy from the Germans:
Elements of the 506th PIR, 2d Battalion, E (Easy) Company
Battalion HQ TAC 4 Morale 4
Lieutenant Dick Winters with M1 Excellent leader – optional rule P4
2 Gunners with .30 cal MMG and M1911 (Pistol) 2 Assistant Gunners with M1 carbine
Easy Company Command group TAC 7 Morale 6
Lieutenant Dike M1911 1 Radioman – M1 Carbine Sergeant Lipton Assistant Company Leader M1 Carbine
Radioman M1
8 Riflemen M1 – represents elements on the board of 2d platoon
1st Platoon Command group TAC 6 Morale 5 (initial) Sergeant Foley M1 carbine Assistant leader Perconte M1 carbine
1 Gunner BAR LMG attached to Company Command
1 Assistant gunner M1 attached to Company Command
1 Radioman
60mm Mortar team
Gunner M1911 attached to Company Command Assistant Gunner M1 carbine attached to Company Command Spotter M1 carbine
1st Platoon - NB all squads are under strength TAC 6 Morale 5 (initial) 1st Squad Sergeant Sisk M1 carbine
BAR gunner BAR loader (M1 carbine) 3 riflemen (M1) 2d Squad Sergeant Grant M1 carbine
BAR gunner BAR loader (M1 carbine) 3 riflemen (M1) 3rd Squad Sergeant Talbert M1 carbine
5 riflemen (Bazooka with 4 HEAT rounds present)
I counted more M1 Carbine rifles than M1 Garands there. Although Foy had changed hands between the Germans and Allies four times, it was again needed to move artillery through the town. The Americans levied an assult upon Foy. It was decided that it had to be done quickly and efficiently - they had to rush in and wipe them out. The assult was swift and merciless, and it was effective. So you see, the M1 Carbine, short-barelled rifle was used quite extensively, even by front line troops, and in assult situations as an assult weapon! The US military had no idea when they authorized the weapon how useful and effective it would prove to be, or how the servicemen would ultimately chose to use it! A lot of people underestimate how much the M1 Carbine rifle was used and in the ways it was used. I guess it’s because they simply had no idea.
My personal opinion is that although the M1 Carbine rifle was not an assult rifle by the definition, it was in my opinion an assult rifle because it was very often used in that role and was quite effectiveness in that role. I personally don’t feel that the inability to fire fully automatic is reason enough to say that a rifle which is or was extensively used in assult situations is not an assult rifle. But then, that is only my opinion. By the modern definition, the M2 Carbine was an assult rifle, but the M1 Carbine was not.[/quote]
Nice pics, the first is a beach landing some time after the assault. If you look at the beach you will see troops standing in groups, trust me when your under fire no one stands. The troops in the landing craft are looking around sight seeing. One on the left is pointing and smiling the guy in front right does not look like he is to assault a beach. All of them are on a trip to shore not an assault. The second I think I have seen before and shows a guy with an M1 and another with a grease gun, and?
This is a picture of assault troop going into a beach that is under fire, note the difference.
Your orbat is from a GAME and is no reference, Dylan!!!
The following is by an author who deals in weapons. He has published a number of books on the subject and one particularly on AS. He is an expert. This is his site, please read at your leisure.
“A military rifle, capable of controlled, fully-automatic fire from the shoulder, with an effective range of at least 300 metres”.
There was one rather odd American development not followed by any other country - the M1 Carbine. This was a light, semi-automatic rifle chambered for an intermediate, straight-cased 7.62x33 round. It was not originally intended for front-line troops, but more as a self-defence weapon for second-line units, on the sensible grounds that it was much easier to shoot accurately than a pistol. The M2 version came with a full-auto option, and thereby comes close to our definition of an assault rifle, but the cartridge was rather weak and the light, blunt-nosed bullet lost its modest velocity too quickly.
I don’t speak street slang and I went to college, but if you mean that you think my understanding is from games, you’re wack. I’ve corrected enough of your statements to show you that. I even posted the commentary of a vet who used an M1 Carbine on the front lines with many hundreds of his comrades - because it was the preferred weapon for that battle at that range, not because it was available.
Nobody is saying the carbine is as effective at killing as the Garand. But as an effective weapon in short-to-medium ranges, and assult situations, it was used quite a bit, and proved effective.
When you have hundreds of Chinese soldiers at a time running over a hill 200 yards away, you don’t need to waste a lot of time with the reloading, and the M1 Garand is no speed champ in loading. Can you imagine fighting such a battle as that at 0-200 yard ranges with an M1 Garand? I can’t. In case you didn’t know, much of the fighting in that battle was done at less than 100 yards with hundreds of men rushing the Marines at a time. That’s the why so many used the carbine in that fight. Perhaps that will help you understand why it has been used far more by front-line troops than many people might realize. I think if you read all you could about that battle, your understanding of the term “assult rifle” and the necessity of using a smaller, faster loading weapon would become clear to you.
There was one rather odd American development not followed by any other country - the M1 Carbine. This was a light, semi-automatic rifle chambered for an intermediate, straight-cased 7.62x33 round. It was not originally intended for front-line troops, but more as a self-defence weapon for second-line units, on the sensible grounds that it was much easier to shoot accurately than a pistol. The M2 version came with a full-auto option, and thereby comes close to our definition of an assault rifle, but the cartridge was rather weak and the light, blunt-nosed bullet lost its modest velocity too quickly.[/quote]
Well, your “expert” lost it right there when he said “comes close to our definition of an assault rifle, but the cartridge was rather weak and the light, blunt-nosed bullet lost its modest velocity too quickly” He’s completely thinking is a little wooden box.
Mr. Expert: An assult weapon does not need an effective range of 600 meters to be an assult rifle! He thinks assult rifles are going to be used at ranges of more than 300 yards? Assult rifles are used at ranges from virtually point blank to perhaps 200 yards, possible more in rare circumstances. Seldom is one used near or beyond it’s effective range. At 300 yards, the M1\M2 Carbine will kill without a headshot. It’s range is 300 yards. Show me a battle where assult rifles were used at distances beyond their effective range or as far as 300 meters. He bases his definition of an assult rifle on conditions that are almost or never met in warfare, and whether or not it uses ammo that is as effective as some other weapon? By that logic, no weapon is good for anything, because there’s always a more effective one.
That’s like saying a Corvette is not a sports car because a McLauren is faster. Orbat?
The M2 Carbine is an assult rifle by ANY definition. Personally, I believe also that the M1 Carbine is an assult rifle also, because…
…it was used quite a bit in that role, and it has proven to be effective in that role, in two wars no less.
2nd of foot, will you please try to explain to our resident ‘expert’ ?
Exasperation only begins to describe it…
Let him know what an Orbat is while you’re at it.
Apparently the word ‘ANY’ is now interchangeable with ‘walt’ when it comes to definitions.
Trying to instruct experienced soldiers by using hearsay or results from a Playstation game is like a virgin instructing sexually active adults in lovemaking techniques because he or she has read a book…
I found a store not far from where I live yesterday… it had tons of vintage WWII stuff. They even had an MG42 on a shelf. It was awesome to see one in person. It looked so small. It was all original except for the bolt, which was missing.
On a sad note, a cop caught a guy climbing out of a building he was robbing and he shot the cop in the stomach with a .25 calibre auto - 1 shot. The cop died 30 minutes later. Fortunately, the cop also hit the burgalar and he died too.
As for LMG’s, I hear the Chechs made excellent machine guns, but I’m not familiar with any of them I don’t think.
I find that I must apologies profusely. I have been guilty of using technical jargon common in military circles but my not be understood by people with no knowledge or experience of the military. I am afraid it is a common occurrence by people who have served in military units. We endeavour not to use such language, as we know people who do not have the same understanding or background as us may not understand it.
I inadvertently use the word orbat assuming that all would understand that it is an abbreviation for the term Order of battle and relates to the organisation, equipment and structure of a military unit.
I realise now that I may have inadvertently confused, perplexed, and baffled others who have not had the opportunity of serving their country and accept that I am at fault in this matter.
For Czech LMG I know only UK 59 (developed mid 50s)
Caliber: 7.62x54 mm R (also available in 7.62x51mm NATO as UK 68 )
Weigth: 8.6 kg with light barrel; 9.6 kg with heavy barrel; 19.3 kg with tripod and heavy barrel
Length: 1220 mm with heavy barrel
Length of barrel: 694 mm heavy; 591 mm light
Feeding: belt, 50 rounds
Rate of fire: 750 rounds/min
At started thinking that ORBAT meant Only Rifles Bought Are Toys.
SAD story about cop. Why he don’t used he’s flak jacket ?
Chech - do you meand Czech or Chechens ?[/quote]
Preatorian,
The cop was on his way home from a police meeting and was in civilian clothes. He saw the punk climbing out of a window and told him to freeze, but he pulled a .25 auto out of his pocket. A gunfight ensued with both being hit - the cop took 1 round to the gut and the punk took 3 from a 9mm Glock.
It’s funny how such a small firearm can be so deadly. I keep a 1975 Colt .22 revolver with a 9 inch barell loaded with hollowpoint Minimags next to my bed. I used to keep my Mossberg pump .410 3" mag full choke with squirell shot as my self-defense gun, but I thought it was too long - althought extremely deadly at close range. I have slugs for it, but at 20 ft. or less, the squirell shot would be more deadly. I don’t have a large calibre handgun, never had an interest in having one really.
What I meant was Czechoslovakian. I have heard that during the WWII era, that country made excellent LMG’s and MG’s but I don’t know anything about them. They used to make one of the better dirtbikes too, but I think the CZ brand has been gone for some time now if I am not mistaken. I used to race motocross and I’ve seen plenty of them.
That cop deserves all possible signs of respect, even after death. Especially because he was off-duty.
About Czech’s wepon. Czech usually make really good weapon. For example famous UK LMG BREN was just a copy of czech ZB 26 LMG.
Trigger mechanism from czech self-loading rifle ZH 29 was copied in AK 47 and all following AK family (as well as M1Garand’s bolt - lock).
During soviet era Czech was only one country of WP that hawe own, not USSR based firearms.
SA Vz.58 assault rifle - looks like AK-47, but with very different mechnism.
Vz.82 / CZ-83 pistol - with that sidearm was a big scandal, because that pistol was much better than soviet PM…
Assault rifle do need an effective range out to 600m. It is not expected that the individual would engage and expect to hit a single enemy over 300m, they would fire as a group and the overall effect would be to suppress the enemy, not necessarily kill them. There is nothing like a crake and thump demo to bring you back down to nature. The section comd would indicate and allocate who was to engage targets. Under 300m would be given to one or two rifleman depending on the target size. Large targets at this range may be given to the gunner. Over 300m targets are given to the gunner or the all the rifleman or the complete section depending on target priority. The MG comes in its own when over 300m because the beaten zone has now increased to a good size (long and thin) 1m X 80m about (I am sure I will be corrected if this is not right). When it gets to 1000m it is short and fat about 12 x 40m. As a rifleman I have hit 60% of targets at 600m with iron sights and that is not above average. The USMC requires it’s marines to hit targets out to 400m to qualify.
Mr. Expert: An assult weapon does not need an effective range of 600 meters to be an assult rifle! He thinks assult rifles are going to be used at ranges of more than 300 yards? Assult rifles are used at ranges from virtually point blank to perhaps 200 yards, possible more in rare circumstances. Seldom is one used near or beyond it’s effective range. At 300 yards, the M1\M2 Carbine will kill without a headshot. It’s range is 300 yards. Show me a battle where assult rifles were used at distances beyond their effective range or as far as 300 meters. He bases his definition of an assult rifle on conditions that are almost or never met in warfare, and whether or not it uses ammo that is as effective as some other weapon? By that logic, no weapon is good for anything, because there’s always a more effective one.
Why do you think armies that can afford it are following the British armies lead and putting optic sights on the rifles? So that we can read the name on the smock as we shoot them. As for your sarcasm, you did not bother to follow the link to the sight or you would have a better understanding of his expertise. He also works closely with Max Popenker, another person whose site is used on this site as reference. Mr Williams has a greater knowledge of this subject than I, and most definitely you.
Well, your “expert” lost it right there when he said “comes close to our definition of an assault rifle, but the cartridge was rather weak and the light, blunt-nosed bullet lost its modest velocity too quickly” He’s completely thinking is a little wooden box.
Praetorian has pointed out to you that the .30 round did not have the legs to be effective at 200m and you would be required to aim off a great deal to hit any thing. So it think Mr Williams statement is correct.
When you have hundreds of Chinese soldiers at a time running over a hill 200 yards away, you don’t need to waste a lot of time with the reloading, and the M1 Garand is no speed champ in loading. Can you imagine fighting such a battle as that at 0-200 yard ranges with an M1 Garand?
Yes. Imphal and Kohima and Imjine river/Gloster HIll
“The first frenzied assault fell on A Company. The Battalion’s Vickers guns pumped belt after belt of ammunition into the screaming hordes until the cooling jackets of the guns boiled over and they seized up. Bren guns were fired until the barrels became red hot and rifles until they were too hot to hold.”
This was using bolt action rifles with the occasional sten, although this was at night so the range was not a problem.
That’s like saying a Corvette is not a sports car because a McLauren is faster.
I did not think you could use the words “sports car” when talking about an American car? Aren’t they opposite?
About Czech’s wepon. Czech usually make really good weapon. For example famous UK LMG BREN was just a copy of czech ZB 26 LMG.
This brings us back to the Bren probably being the best LMG. Designed in the 30s used in at least 10 wars and finally going out of UK service in about 92. Can you think of any other LMG with that history? A good Czech design.
MG-34/Mg-42… :lol: Do not take it seriously - i’m not in mood to dance around words “light” and “general purpose”… Adopted as general purpose machine gun in 1934 and modified a bit in 1941/42. Rebarreled for 7.62 NATO in 1952, still in service in Germany and in about 10 other countries…
And about MG-34 as LMG:
Btw - someone can descide that i’m BREN-opponent. Is it wrong idea about me. I like BREN - i can judge about BREN by russian DP-27 - that LMG got same operating idea but have another magazine.
By the way - idea about best LMG not related with any historical thing - anyway if i have choise i will prefer in battle some familiar LMG, that i can shot using my expirience, can easly stripe it out if case of neccessary etc. Is it just kind of personal expirience. I can quick manage with (maybe a bit whorse by specifiaction) familiar LMG against enemy with better LMG that my enemy see first time…
If we start talk about catrs - that topic really fall in somethin like trash…
But.
I can say about some american car - “sport car”. Sure.
And unfortunately soon words “brittish car” can be used only in past tense.
Is it really sad for me, i was mad about brittish cars, but today… hmm… Aston-Martin Lagonda ? Lotus (if it still alive), Mogan ? I lose something else ?
I not trieng insult you by it. I’m really sorry about brittish cars - i liked them very much, real old brittish cars. But today most of them gone by wind.
And i need ask you for one favor - don’t turn talk in that famous “America vs UK” way… please. For me, who are nor american and nor brittish too - it seem childlish.
But now i need it for sure…