The linki-tanks, Sir, was the funniest thing I read all night! .& I spent several hours on TvTropes. But, yeah, the water, grime & rotting are a very good point, all the better reason for box magazines of 20-30 rd capacity.course, i guess they tend to get abandoned after use.
Well, you might be a total bad-ass on the shooting range. But the 15-rounds a minute is apparently the same now in pdf27’s day as is was in mine. It is the average number of rounds one can send down range in a sustained fire-fight without melting one’s barrel or fouling the weapon too badly - or using up all the ammunition being carried. I was told the exact same thing in training…
…
Compared to a FAL, maybe, but how about an M16? which jams constantly & which needs 30 hits, or 5 minutes to kill who it shoots. I’ve read too many articles written by soldiers who fought in Vietnam, Somalia & the war on Terror on the lack of stopping power the .223 has, even w/ fragmenting ammo…
The latter versions of the M-16A1/2/3/4 do not “jam constantly.” That’s an outdated myth resulting from switching the powder of the 5.56mm M193 cartridge to the same used by the 7.62mm NATO round during the Vietnam War coupled with the Pentagon further tinkering with Eugene Stoner’s design without his blessing (not coating the barrel with chrome for instance). Soldiers were also told it was a wonder weapon of the space-age that needed no cleaning, and no kits were initially issued.
There is no “lack of stopping power” with the 5.56mm at short to intermediate ranges. It indeed fragments and explodes at shorter ranges and causes hydro-shock to the human body due to its high velocity and ballistic wound damage that can be unpredictable. It’s not perfect, as the small caliber ammo had problems penetrating the jungle canopy in Vietnam. But the weapons work well enough when augmented by semi-auto sniper rifles such as the M-39 and M110. The silly Freudian “it’s too small” stuff is silly at this point…
15 RPM is the rate of fire that doctrine prescribes as a deliberate rate of fire, i.e. that which should be used to keep an enemy suppressed without wasting ammunition. 30 RPM is the rapid rate of fire, to be used when winning the firefight, an enemy attack is coming in, etc.
And I’d love to see you doing much better than 15 RPM when doing it properly. This means that you need to have done the whole dash-down-crawl thing carrying substantial amounts of weight for several hundred meters beforehand, then be firing from the prone position, changing your position every few shots. Then firing 15 effective shots per minute is quite a challenge - and firing faster just means wasting more shots. Any idiot can do a Beiruit Unload in the general direction of some targets.
In any case, changing mags isn’t the problem - bombing up is. Riflemen typically only carry about 120 rounds (4 mags), with section and platoon 2ICs carrying the reserve ammo. Once those mags are burned up, that rifleman is armed with nothing more dangerous than a bayonet until he’s bombed up again.
Staying in one position, and not breathing out of your hoop? Easy - the practical limit is about 90 RPM for that. Never going to happen in the real world though.
There is a place for automatic fire (very, very close range mainly, when clearing positions). However, try firing on automatic out to say 200m - your groupings will be horrendous.
As for heating, how long are you firing for - 2-3 minutes? It hasn’t had time to get hot at that stage. Keep going for half an hour (as you may have to) and you’ll start melting things. Look up the SA80A2 acceptance trials for an idea of what a military rifle may have to do if you’re interested.
Significantly faster - I’m used enough to the SA80 to reload by feel, but can’t do that with a GPMG yet.
Because Artillery (as demonstrated on the Somme, at Ypres and elsewhere) can suppress, but can’t take positions. Further suppressive fire wouldn’t have done much to help and would have allowed the German reinforcements from inland to get much closer, making the final landings more hazardous.
- They did - the Germans didn’t cooperate. IIRC there was a significant Panzer counterattack which reached the sea between Gold and Omaha. Furthermore, I’ve walked over the area in between. It isn’t small, and is awful country for infantry to attack over today, let alone 60 years ago. Taking it in a day would be TOUGH.
- Lounging around and drinking tea is exactly what you should be doing if you have a few minutes spare - and is still taught by the British Army today. “Lounging Around” gets you low to the ground where you are hard to see and harder to hit. Getting a brew inside you warms you up and gives you a lot of energy, something the infantry always need. This would have been a fraction of the invasion force, not all of it - with the rest doing other tasks such as fighting or humping stores.
A firefight is the most confusing place on earth, particularly without radios. Sending troops into the wrong sector, and sending more than the sector is expected to take, is a recipe for chaos and failure.
They were known as Large Slow Targets for a reason…
They were very successful in the British and Canadian sectors. It appears that they were launched too far out to sea in the US sector, and their crews given insufficient small boat handling skills. It appears that those which sank tried to reach their sector, while those that got ashore tried to make for whatever sector they could reach given the sea conditions.
30 RPM is the deliberate rate of fire. IIRC the rapid rate is about 120. And that’s light role (equivalent to the Bren/BAR). Sustained role is something like 250 and 500 RPM respectively I think, but can’t quite remember.
MFC = Mortar Fire Controller, FOO = Forward Observation Officer. The guys with radios who bring in Mortars and Tube Artillery respectively on those who incur your displeasure.
Anyone dumb enough to get seen deserves to get shot. If you’re in view of the enemy, you crawl everywhere to avoid exactly that. Even if you’re carrying a GPMG.
Nobody fights like that.
Which would be why we flattened Caen a couple of weeks later…
The US equivalent to the G3 is the M-14, not the M-16.
It was a pirate copy of the FAL, and FN were VERY unhappy about it. A lot of places may use the G3 (largely because there are a lot of cheap ones about), but the FAL was far more popular and frankly far better.
Ever tried using an aluminium thread in steel, or vice-versa? It often binds up solid, which could cause cases to break up in the chamber. Also, Aluminium isn’t much stronger than steel for the same weight, but more bulky - so you need bigger cases.
Among other things - armour plate also needs rolling into slabs, face hardening and heat treating, and after all that needs to be manufactured into a tank. Creating the mild steel to base it on is only a small part of the process, and usually the one with the fewest bottlenecks.
I don’t think so.
The evidence from the other gang members was that Bonnie Parker never fired a shot from anything, let alone a BAR.
He had to make a different politik for the ukranians and other people groups in the East - the politic for mass killing and clearing space for the german folk was quite bad in the end it just bringed more partisans and red army soldiers and tightened the situation . Moscow had to be a very far priority as capturing it won’t bring the end of the war in any way , Leningrad and Stalingrad had to be his first targets . When attacking he in some major offensives used only the Wehrmacht ( for example for the fight in Stalingrad ) and where the hell was the SS - sitting behind the lines , more personal was to be used in the offensives and if the doctrine was different for the ukrainians even bringing them as allies things maybe were to be different who knows .
True, from various memoirs I’ve read, the ammo load is around 100 rds in general. I had in mind the old maxim about war being long stretches of waiting, interspersed w/ brief, intense moments of Hell.
Staying in one position, and not breathing out of your hoop? Easy - the practical limit is about 90 RPM for that. Never going to happen in the real world though.
Very true, my skills on the range don’t quite carry over to hunting… and I don’t have to worry about the deer shooting back at me, course I do gotta worry if Cheney’s prowling about:lol:
There is a place for automatic fire (very, very close range mainly, when clearing positions). However, try firing on automatic out to say 200m - your groupings will be horrendous.
As for heating, how long are you firing for - 2-3 minutes? It hasn’t had time to get hot at that stage. Keep going for half an hour (as you may have to) and you’ll start melting things. Look up the SA80A2 acceptance trials for an idea of what a military rifle may have to do if you’re interested.
Generally, the matches are each 1-1.5 minutes, then a 10-15 minute break to let the others have their turn at the line.
Significantly faster - I’m used enough to the SA80 to reload by feel, but can’t do that with a GPMG yet.
That’s the Bullpup rifle right? It’s kinda awkward w/ a banana mag. The FN P-90 & Calico seem to be more suitable for a bullpup configuration.
Because Artillery (as demonstrated on the Somme, at Ypres and elsewhere) can suppress, but can’t take positions. Further suppressive fire wouldn’t have done much to help and would have allowed the German reinforcements from inland to get much closer, making the final landings more hazardous.
IIRC, the Typhoons, Maquis & Paratroopers took or destroyed all the bridges leading to Normandy, or at least those that could support Panzers which delayed them for days. & I meant when our guys were being pined down, couldn’t our big guns have fired at least a few salvos on or behind the Germans to rattle them a bit? however accurate the big guns were, a few 16 in shells in front of the gunports would’ve given the MG crews a real bad day. What was their Circular Error Probable? 100 feet? IIRC, our battleships were far more accurate than bombers were. The problem w/ our early barrage was that we didn’t know the location of ALL the defenses. But when they started firing… then we knew where to focus our next salvoes.
-
They did - the Germans didn’t cooperate. IIRC there was a significant Panzer counterattack which reached the sea between Gold and Omaha. Furthermore, I’ve walked over the area in between. It isn’t small, and is awful country for infantry to attack over today, let alone 60 years ago. Taking it in a day would be TOUGH.
-
Lounging around and drinking tea is exactly what you should be doing if you have a few minutes spare - and is still taught by the British Army today. “Lounging Around” gets you low to the ground where you are hard to see and harder to hit. Getting a brew inside you warms you up and gives you a lot of energy, something the infantry always need. This would have been a fraction of the invasion force, not all of it - with the rest doing other tasks such as fighting or humping stores.
It’d have been nice for the movie to put that scene in context. Since most Americans wouldn’t know that. IIRC, Saving Private Ryan virtually ignored the non-American forces, compared to Longest Day (I’m not very fond of Spielberg, but he’s better than Michael Bay)
A firefight is the most confusing place on earth, particularly without radios. Sending troops into the wrong sector, and sending more than the sector is expected to take, is a recipe for chaos and failure.
They were known as Large Slow Targets for a reason…
How much of what the Germans had able to threaten them anyway? Of the dozens of sources I’ve looked at, the only heavy weapons the beach defences had there were 6 x 15 cm guns (howitzers?) & ONE battery of 75 mm guns. The Pont Due Hoc guns had been abandoned even before firing.
They were very successful in the British and Canadian sectors. It appears that they were launched too far out to sea in the US sector, and their crews given insufficient small boat handling skills. It appears that those which sank tried to reach their sector, while those that got ashore tried to make for whatever sector they could reach given the sea conditions.
30 RPM is the deliberate rate of fire. IIRC the rapid rate is about 120. And that’s light role (equivalent to the Bren/BAR). Sustained role is something like 250 and 500 RPM respectively I think, but can’t quite remember.
MFC = Mortar Fire Controller, FOO = Forward Observation Officer. The guys with radios who bring in Mortars and Tube Artillery respectively on those who incur your displeasure.
Ah, I’ve never seen those military Acronyms before
Nobody fights like that.
Haven’t there been cases of squads getting separated from their support in the heat of battle? A paratrooper on D-day had his whole unit scattered when their transports were getting hit by flak & for the 1st 3 days had no more than 20 guys from several other units cobbled together. They had no mortars, bazookas & only 1 machine gun which they lost in a particularly bad firefight. And his was just one of thousands of such stories.
Which would be why we flattened Caen a couple of weeks later…
Err, I do remember that shiver Heavy bombers used for Tactical Air Support. Not exactly pinpoint like Stukas or Dauntlesses would be. But still, if Caen had more Germans in it when we tried taking it, the battle could’ve ended up like Monte Cassino, but w/ so many on the beach. Yeah, they were in bunkers & pillboxes, but being closer to shore meant we had clearer targets to bombard.
The US equivalent to the G3 is the M-14, not the M-16.
Though the Germans still kept their G 3 when we discarded the M 14 for the M 16, from 'nam till the 90’s
It was a pirate copy of the FAL, and FN were VERY unhappy about it. A lot of places may use the G3 (largely because there are a lot of cheap ones about), but the FAL was far more popular and frankly far better.
I recall reading something about the Falkland’s War & the Argentinian’s had FAL rifles & according to the Brits using .223 rifles (can’t recall if they were M 16s or SA 80s, but there were having a real hard time of it & the Argentinians took a disturbing number of hits before going down. (maybe they were amped on amphetamines 
) Freudian or not, a larger caliber bullet is typically heavier. Why else would the Abrams be armed w/ a 120 mm gun rather than a higher velocity 105 mm gun? Plus I’m really surprised the US bought German for the gun, considering no small measure of Germanophobia in NATO.
Ever tried using an aluminium thread in steel, or vice-versa? It often binds up solid, which could cause cases to break up in the chamber. Also, Aluminium isn’t much stronger than steel for the same weight, but more bulky - so you need bigger cases.
Hm, so brass doesn’t have those problems like Aluminum. Is there anything better than Brass that’s cheap, strong & light?
Ambushes are like that (on either side). Otherwise, firefights can get very protracted, occasionally lasting for hours.
Yeah, any rifle should be fine over that period of time. It’s sustained fire that wrecks them.
People keep telling me that, but I’ve never found it. The pistol grip being forward makes it very easy to hold steady when changing mags, which I personally like.
It wouldn’t rattle them significantly - their positions were designed to withstand exactly that, and the crews were usually the sons of the men who withstood million-shell barrages in 24 hours on the Western Front a generation earlier (in some cases, even the same men). The barrages at Normandy were pitiful in comparison.
How could it? Wouldn’t make a good film.
LSTs were practically unarmoured (the plating might keep out splinters at a pinch) and stuffed to the gills with fuel, ammunition and people.
So there were a few cock-ups. Doesn’t make it a good idea to design your whole concept of operations around minimising the effect of this limited number of problems.
In the same way as the UK kept the FAL until the mid 1980s. The 5.56mm round was foisted on the US military by that fool Robert Strange MacNamara <spit> and his efficiency drives. It was originally designed for hunting small game (prairie dogs, rabbits, etc.) and adopted by the USAF as a lightweight weapon for their security police (incidentally, the AR-15 was originally designed as a 7.62mm weapon - see the AR-10 for details). It is highly lethal when striking with enough velocity, but has limited range.
Incidentally, the Germans kept a lot of otherwise obselete kit. Probably because they were short on cash, keeping a very large conscript army.
The UK used SLRs (slightly modified FAL rifles, often known as “inch pattern” FALs, while the Argentinians used standard FALs as well. Some UK forces (SAS, RM Mountain & Arctic Warfare, etc.) used AR-15s (note, NOT M-16s), but in very limited quantities.
The US is not known for building tank guns - the 105mm was a British design, necked up from the WW2 20 Pdr IIRC (Tony Williams, where are you?)
Very ductile and so suitable for deep-drawing to form cartridge cases. And if that list of good things isn’t enough for you, you’ll never be satisfied!
A useful piece of advice given to me on battlefield conduct was along the lines: Eat when you can, sleep when you can. And when there’s nothing to do, do nothing.
It’s about conserving your energy and taking every opportunity to replenish it, because you never know how long you’ll be in action when it starts, or starts again.
Hitler could not win that war he tried to win. It is quite simple.
Double fronts is too much. Germany was not prepared to get involved in a second great war, and while involved it never tried to address full war economy at the right time. The latter a strange feature since Hitler’s rise to power gave him all the credit and support to make that part happen.
The Blitzkrieg succes was a tiny lapse in “expected” time and space, and much was possible because of Allied failure, rather than Axis superiority. It made for an extremely hard and long period in time of horror, since since it fortified nazi believe and means. Had there been no blitzkrieg, Hitler would’ve been in some war crime jail in 1941.
But looking at the most serious answer I could give is the only fact that Hitler should have waited. The allied juggernaut was NOT being prepared and most of the allied superiority came from necessity (economics, production, technology) once the nazis broke out. The allied forces in 1939-1940 were in fact - in history as written - already a bigger and stronger nut to crack than Germany could offer. They had more men, more machines and most of the machines were better. But still the Germans succeeded with their Blitzkrieg.
Summarized, I do not believe Hitler when looking at it would have had a more difficult route if he would have waited a couple of years, since Germany too had research going on, they would have had more and better material and the Blitzkrieg tactics still would have worked at first blow.
And of course, the crazy projects and tanks didn’t work at all, in fact they made things worse.
Hitler wasn’t alone however, the american T-28 project and british A39 tortoise were as wacko as the moustache.
Hitler could not win that war he tried to win. It is quite simple.
Double fronts is too much.
And that is true. There was really no way to win in once he attacked Russia.
Hitler wasn’t alone however, the american T-28 project and british A39 tortoise were as wacko as the moustache.
Yes, but we had the industry to make them! Make them and the gas to run them! Germany just didn’t have the resources.
Deaf
Well, some remarks on this: Germany din’t only have the industry as well (they made more projects than UK+US) but had better designs as well IMHO.
The problem was - as you mentioned - the Germans did not have the resources to USE them and surely couldn’t handle the maintenance.
steben,
America alone made over 40,000 Sherman tanks. Germany barely made 40,000 armored fighting vehicles.
This gives you a hint of what the Germans could produce .vs. Allied countries:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_production_during_World_War_II
And Japans:
http://www.combinedfleet.com/economic.htm
No, the Germans, especially after they invaded Russian and Japan got the U.S. involved, were doomed as well as the whole Axis enterprise.
Deaf
And Hitler claimed War on the US, which he wasn’t really obligated to do was not the least of his blunders…
Agreed!
According to Chamberlain and Doyle the Germans produced 87,956 ‘armored fighting vehicles’, during the nazi reign of which about 4500 were made before the war began.
But not tanks. Their total of production was a drop in the bucket compared to the Allies. They only held on mainly because they were fighting defensively by 1944, and the Allies all had made mistakes of one form or another which prevented them from performing better against the panzers…
So really, if I am reading everything correctly, it looks like the Germans losing the war would have been inevitable…they just couldn’t possibly compete with the massive industry and economies of the US and the USSR. Even if the “total war” doctrine was applied in Germany earlier, it probably would have only delayed the inevitable. The population of both the USSR and US were also much higher than the population of Germany, which would offer the opportunity for more men to fight.
Once the USSR was attacked and especially once the US got involved, the Axis were pretty much screwed. At that point the best the Germans could probably hope for was some kind of conditional peace settlement that would leave the Nazis in power in Germany.
One other thing that is important to note (I think someone else touched on this earlier) - While the Germans had massive production loss (not to mention hugely decreased morale) due to raids and very heavy damage by US and UK bombers, the USSR and especially the US were able to produce needed war materials easily, without having to worry about loss of production due to the war - the USSR simply moved their factories east and the US was able to produce war materials without fear of anything (other than possibly sabotage) as the fighting on both fronts was thousands of miles away.
One thing that I would be interested in learning more about (that someone else mentioned) is how the Allies could have stopped the Germans from taking over more land, had they acted more decisively earlier.
According to Wikipedia, the Polish defense plan was based on the Western Allies invading Germany’s western border. Here is probably how the Germans could have been stopped more easily:
Perhaps French and British troops could have been sent to Poland earlier to help guard the borders, or at least once the fighting started, sent over troops to help the Poles fight off the Germans? What about the Soviets, once they invaded the eastern part of Poland? Would British and French troops fire on Soviet troops?
More realistically, the French and British could have invaded Germany from the west as the vast majority of the German military (Wikipedia cites a figure of (eighty-five percent of their armored forces) were engaged in Poland. The French did actually invade Germany and were able to successfully advance into Germany, before the invasion was called off (read more about this here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_betrayal#The_Phoney_War).
The Poles were also able to inflict significant damage on the Germans (Wikipedia cites a figure of Poland costing the Germans approximately the equipment of an entire armored division and 25% of its air strength).
The French, British and Polish were COMPLETELY caught off guard by the way that the Germans fought. They expected the trench warfare from WWI to resume and did not expect to fight the highly mobile and armored German forces.
Any predictions about what would have happened, if the French and British didn’t stop the invasion of Germany? Could the Germans have pushed them back out? The Germans were more technologically advanced and better organized (I am guessing here) than the French but with most of their army in Poland it would have been a huge loss of morale and shocking to the Germans, had the British and French been able to have gotten pretty far into Germany’s Western border. The Germans would have been forced to pull divisions out of Poland to fight the British and French in Germany, which would have given some relief to the Poles, at least before the Soviets invaded (I doubt the Poles could have resisted the Soviets but at least they would have had a fighting chance against the Germans).
Exactly, however, Germany was dumb enough to bring both those deciding superpowers into the game itself. First by invading Russia, then by declaring war on the US (who would have no casus belli otherwise).
Once the USSR was attacked and especially once the US got involved, the Axis were pretty much screwed. At that point the best the Germans could probably hope for was some kind of conditional peace settlement that would leave the Nazis in power in Germany.
The chances for such a settlement are low. On the one front, you’re fighting naive Idealists who want to abolish your dictatorship, on the other extreme Ideologists who, after once awakened, wouldn’t stop short of spreading their political system.
One thing that I would be interested in learning more about (that someone else mentioned) is how the Allies could have stopped the Germans from taking over more land, had they acted more decisively earlier.
Easier said than done.
According to Wikipedia, the Polish defense plan was based on the Western Allies invading Germany’s western border. Here is probably how the Germans could have been stopped more easily:
Perhaps French and British troops could have been sent to Poland earlier to help guard the borders, or at least once the fighting started, sent over troops to help the Poles fight off the Germans?
This is a lot easier said than done. Both the UK and France were still pretty much broke from WW1 and paying off their debts. And, even though Chamberlain was considering attacking Germany earlier, he and his French counterpart simply couldn’t afford it. If they had wanted to create an army to equal the Wehrmacht & SS, they would’ve had to borrow more money from the US - problem was the States weren’t willing to give any more for the time being.
What about the Soviets, once they invaded the eastern part of Poland? Would British and French troops fire on Soviet troops?
Yes, if ordered.
More realistically, the French and British could have invaded Germany from the west as the vast majority of the German military (Wikipedia cites a figure of (eighty-five percent of their armored forces) were engaged in Poland. The French did actually invade Germany and were able to successfully advance into Germany, before the invasion was called off (read more about this here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_betrayal#The_Phoney_War).
Again, look above at the financial problems. They simply couldn’t afford it, their countries were broke. (Hitler, as a dictator, didn’t have the same problem)
The French, British and Polish were COMPLETELY caught off guard by the way that the Germans fought. They expected the trench warfare from WWI to resume and did not expect to fight the highly mobile and armored German forces.
There were actually French generals who predicted that Trench Warfare wasn’t the new face of war. However, they didn’t have the resources to retrain their troops in time. Sucks how it all comes back to money, doesn’t it?
Any predictions about what would have happened, if the French and British didn’t stop the invasion of Germany?
The German army would have pushed them out. Simply because the Brits and French didn’t have the money to sustain an army powerful enough to withhold the Wehrmacht at the time. However, the war would have been fought on German soil.
I disagree with your assertion,it is too general. The T-28/95 project was for the purpose of breaching the Sigfried line, and reducing other fortified positions. It was not a tank,nor would it have been used as one. And, as the war progressed more quickly than expected, this project was canceled, and the one remaining prototype was abandoned, the other of the two having been destroyed in testing.
I’m going to wade in here again.
Yes, the Germans sealed their fate the moment they crossed into the USSR. The key was to take Moscow by early December '41, knock out Leningrad and push hard to Baku on the Caspian by early '42. That would have taken the USSR out of the war. Ok, possibly.
The German Army got within 75 miles of Moscow by December '41. Close.
On the issue of Poland, yes that was exactly the plan in '39. The German Army only had 5 mobile divisions, the rest went in on foot and the artillery was hauled by horses. The only real place to put up a well fortified resistance in Poland is the hills and forest land around Warsaw.
The plan: Allow the German Army to go all the way to Warsaw. Have the Polish army hold them and grind them down with concealed anti-tank weapons around Warsaw while at the same time the combined British and French Armies walk across the Rhine, take the industrial Rhur Valley from the Germans and force a capitulation of Germany.
That did not work because just as the German Army reached Warsaw, the Red Army of the USSR attacked and invaded from the East. Faced with a double threat, the Polish resistance evaporated.
As to the money issue: Mostly bogus. With all the supposed money issues, the French still maintained the largest army in the world and were able to build the Maginot Line…all except that critical area in Belgium due to political, not money, issues.
Which leads to, how many Main Battle Tanks (Panzerkampfwagon Mark IV’s) did the German Army have for it’s invasion of France? Less than 500. They had more Mark III’s but those were smaller and used mostly against other tanks. The Mark IV fired the high explosive round necessary for killing troops.
Overall, the German Army in the 1939-1941 era was not that powerful.
(oh, and Hitler’s finances for his army came from American and British sources in the run up to the war and continued, Prescott Bush, throughout the war)