skiffing wasn`t good?
just let it go, look at google for “Skiffing” and “dirty sanchez”
have a good night.
if it mentions boats with asymetric sails, or poorly washed people called sanchez you are in the wrong place.
skiffing is a condecoration says google,that`s bad?
sorry :oops:
This statement implies that you blame the German MGs and/or other small arms for their defeat.
QED.
This statement implies that you blame the German MGs and/or other small arms for their defeat.[/quote]
Not at all. Did you have a hard time comprehending my entire post about Germany’s demise, or are you simply trying to put falicies into my mouth with your own words?
I think you are trying to be a BogusBoy again, and put words into my mouth. Shame shame.
However, it was in responce to this statement of yours:
…which makes it clear that you mistakenly believe that the German infantry was not underpowered, despite the fact that they mostly used the slow, long, and unweildy bolt action rifle against infantry which used mostly semi-automatic weapons, simply because they had the MG42 and placed too much value on it, and despite the fact that every army in the world had machineguns…
…and that is simply f’d up thinking.
Look, mate.
In defence, the Germans had the advantage. Any defender always has an advantage, which is why we never (normally) attack without a 3:1 superiority in numbers. In the Bocage, one well-sited MG42 could wipe out a large number of enemy, no matter what personal wpns they carried. Think about Omaha beach - a relatively small number of Germans with machineguns and bolt-action rifles caused 2,400 casualties. In defence, the MG42 made up for the shortcomings of the bolt-action rifles - it represents a huge quantity of mobile firepower.
And as I’ve said before - even the US troops had a “firepower gap” at squad level, with nothing heavier than the BAR until the introduction of the M1919A6 late in the war. They had no wpn at squad level capable of concentrated, sustained fire out to long-ish ranges, i.e. something to counter the MG42.
In any case, it was only the Americans that had semi-automatic wpns as standard personal wpns - the Brits didn’t, and the Russkies only had them on a small-scale (not talking about SMGs here). And dispersed, albeit rapid fire from rifles, carbines, SMGs and BARs is no match for a well-sited and well-protected MG34 or 42.
Another problem you have is that you’re applying the US mentality to the Germans, who had a totally different perspective on small-scale infantary tactics - the riflemen were there to occupy ground and to support the machine gun (which is the main bulk of the firepower) rather than dispersing the firepower more thinly amongst the squad - this means that the Germans could bring concentrated fire down at longer ranges. At close quarters, or if flanked, or if the MG is knocked out, then you are correct that they’re at a disadvantage.
Incidentally, one of the plans regarding the Stg 44 was to arm all infantrymen with it and to do away with the MG42 in the light role, since the firepower of the individuals was increased.
And yes, all armies had MGs, but not all MGs are equal, and the way they are used is not the same.
(edited to clear something up to avoid a deliberate misunderstanding from tinwalt)
despite the fact that they mostly used the slow, long, and unweildy bolt action rifle against infantry which used mostly semi-automatic weapons
I’m sorry but brits used bolt-action rifles as well and a regular-trained brit soldier could fire 15 rounds per minute, that’s not exactly slow now is it?
And when are you going to respond to my point on Arnhem?
My personal record with the No.4 is 25rds in 50 secs (starting with 5 in the mag & on-aim). I got 17 rounds out of a Mosin-Nagant M1891/30 under similar conditions (with bayonet fixed). The absolute record is 38 rounds with the SMLE.
I spoke to someone who was a Canuck in the army just after the war, and said that the top shots with the No.4 were marginally quicker over 15 rounds (starting with 10 in the mag) with the No.4 than the Garand in aimed, rapid fire at 300yds. From 16 rds and up the Garand is quicker, and at close-quarters with semi-aimed fire too. Given the choice though, the Garand is the significantly better wpn due to it being self-loading.
Given the choice though, the Garand is the significantly better wpn due to it being self-loading.
No doubt if you want to achieve weight of fire, then the garand is a superior weapon, and as all of us know with some real military experience and not the computer generated variety, suppressing fire is essential to winning a contact.
Although i would argue the Lee Enfield was far more accurate than the garand, especially as the modern brit sniper rifle is based on it.
Having shot both, I wouldn’t say that the Garand is any less accurate than the No.4, particularly in the normal, untweaked versions. A tweaked No.4 will of course shoot better than a standard Garand, but the opposite is also the case. The Garand is also heavier and bulkier than the No.4.
The L42 (7.62mm heavy barrelled No.4 sniper rifle) was phased in favour of the Accuracy International L96 a few years back, which is a more accurate rifle with much better optics - it’s not as robust though.
i bow to your superior knowledge of military weapons! 
Not having fired the Garand myself I cant comment in too much detail but I feel many of the advantages of having a semi-automatic rifle were lost due to the relatively small magazine capacity this was of course corrected in the M14. As far as the good old No4 is concerned, it’s a joy to fire, I spent many an enjoyable weekend on the ranges at Strensal as a lad, usually taking home a fair win from the pool bull to boot.
The 8 rds is not as much of a disadvantage as you might think - it should have been 10 (in prototype it was 10rds of .276 Pedersen, but then some brass-hat dictated that the calibre had to be .30-06 at the last minute), but it’s so quick to reload it’s not too much of a problem.
The 10rd mag of the SMLE & No.4 was only normally filled to 10 rounds in lulls in the firing - the 2nd charger is such a PITA to get in that once the rounds are going downrange it’s quicker only to load 5 at a time. It does, however, give you the option of topping up with a charger of 5 when you’ve got a couple of rounds left in the mag - something that can’t be done with a 5 rd mag, and the Garand cannot be topped up at all due to its en-bloc system (it’s a full clip or nothing).
Hey that was fun. Let’s do it again.
I say “semi-automatic weapons”
…and you rant relentlessly and blindly.
GO!
Perhaps your simply rather talk about how bolt action rifles are in your onion… err… I mean opinion were superior in infantry combat to semi-automatic weapons? Don’t forget to bitch about how the Germans lost the war because they had faster firing weapons, won the atlantic conflict, beat the RAF, prevented Germany from being bombed into rubble, prevented the D-Day landings, made lasting peace with the Soviets, declared war on the US, managed to continuously supply their lines in Europe and the east, etc.
Listen to yourselves. You sound like a bunch of little kids fighting over a popsicle. It’s pathetic. We all know why Germany was defeated, well some of us do. Bitching about it simply because I pointed out the reasons to one who needed help understanding is beyond pathetic.
Now make sure that you never cite any of the reasons, ever, for Germany’s demise that I did, lest you prove yourself to be a hypocritical little sissy.
:lol:
Of course they’re not superior (in general - when they’re working properly), but they’re not as much of a disadvantage as you might think.
A lot of self-loaders which were around in WW2 were unreliable - normal russian infantary prefered the Mosin-Nagant M1891/30 to the Tokarev SVT38/40 for instance, since they had not the wit to keep it clean and functioning reliably. The Marines, however, took care of them better and liked them. The G41(W) and G41(M) were also notoriously unreliable.
A functioning bolt-action is infinitely superior to a self-loader that jams every couple of shots.
And what weapon did the Soviets in Afghan fear most? The SMLE, since it far outranged the AK47. The Indians also aquitted themselves well in the Sino-Indian war with SMLEs against AK47s, by keeping the Chinese far enough away.
Ahhh! And Germany’s transportation infrastructure and manufacturing facilities being bombed constantly? That was not “as much of a disadvantage as you might think” too? :lol:
How about declaring war on the Soviet Union? Why not adfdress all of them now eh?
Man of Goat, you are begining as we can see from your 1st installment of a half-assed admission, the very loooong, painful, embaressing process of admitting that what I have said was true to begin with. 
Why do you do that to yourself? How many pages will it take you to get there this time? Why do you agree with what I say when it comes out of your mouth first, but when it comes from mine first, you contend that it is false? What kind of emotional problem is that anyway?
Stop putting words in people’s mouths - I never claimed that, either explicitely or implicitely. It’s a non-sequitur to go from “a bolt action is not as much of a disadvantage as you might think” to talking about German’s industry being bombed and the Russian campaign not being as much of a disadvantage as you might think.
However, everything we have dealt with from you has been claimed by yourself, even if you did delete it later, without egregiously claiming that you have said other things, or extending what you’ve said to apply to other things.
I don’t know why you’re referring to me as Man of Goat - he’s not on this forum. :twisted:
Increase the quality of your arguments and your level of proof (“I’ve told you 10 times” does not count - cite sources), or be slammed.
Oh, and self-loading rifles had been developped around 1900, and had been trialled before and during the first world war. They were not adopted in large numbers. Why? 3 main reasons: cost, weight, and because at that time the manufacturing skills were not up to making them to the right tolerances to make them reliable, and the designs were not inherently reliable - i.e. at that time, bolt-action rifles were more effective and battle worthy.
The turning point really came with the Garand, but even a Garand will not keep firing as long as an SMLE when it’s dirty, fouled & full of mud - and the Garand is more reliable than the German and Soviet self.loaders.
As for being “Man of Goat”, it is only a response to your calling me by an insulting name. I will not use it anymore, if you can control your tongue.
And none of that has anything to do with the fact that bolt action rifles are a dissadvantage for one army against another using semi-automatic weapons. But then, you are trying hard to make that seem not so.
So, you admit that they are a dissadvantage, as long as you get to claim that they “are not as much of a dissadvantage as you might think”?
Are you going to say that being attacked by 410,000 US soldiers in the west while conducting a war against the Soviet Union where you will lose millions of lives is not much of a disadvantage too?
You say I need to offer proof of those things or “get slammed”? :lol: Those things which are in every university history textbook in the civilized world? Come on man. Just give it a break. Do you not realize how ridiculous that sounds?
FRIONPAN have you not jsut listed in a sperate post each, all teh reasons that stoat earlier gave for Germanies demise in another thread?
I have never heard children argue over a popsicle - I think I left the playground before you did.
All this talk of fallicies being put in poeples mouths - are you a Michael Jackson fan?