Reply With QuoteI always thought that it was the individual soldiers that wins the war. Weapons are just tools.
Germany Weapons Superior?
Fallenangel wrote:
I took the initiative to take the above discussion out of the HK4 pix thread and start a new one. Strictly speaking, many German weapons fielded were technically superior. But this superiority is apparently useless, since the Germans still lost the war.German WW2 were superior to Allied aircraft. Had the Me262 gone into production in late '43 instead of late '44 when they were first designed as fighters, they would have given the numberically superior mustangs a run for their money. And that's not even mentioning the slaughter Russian pilots would recieve.
The K98 rifle was different from the M1 because the early German system was different from the American system. In the American system, each squad member was an offensive unit. The Germans however made the MG of their squad the offensive unit. The K98 was issued to troops who would support the flanks of the machine gun- being defensive in nature. Later in the war, German tactics changed a bit- thus the emergance of the MP/StG44.
German tanks were hands down superior to their allied counterparts. It was estimated that it took at least 5 Shermans to knock out a Panther and up to 10 to kill a Tiger. Hand the King Tigers in the Battle of the Bulge had enough fuel, it is quite possible that those behemoths (even by today's standards) would have decimated all in their path. The T-34's only saving grace was it's sloped armor although even with that many were lost.
P-51s attacked Me262s on final approach for landing, when the jet was almost stalling it was going so slow. Not exactly the best senario for comparison of combat capabilities. The Me162 Salamander was simple, cheap and highly manueverable. Had the Germans had enough time, these would have formed the bulk of the German fighter units. Such fighters would have control over even the Allied Jets at the time- Gloster Meteor and Bell P-59/P-80.
German aircraft (and most arms) production in the last year of the war actually INCREASED. The problem for the Germans was that they only had so many pilots and they had no gasoline for their machines of war.
In the end, I would say that generally, the Germans were beaten by superior quantity rather than quality.
Looking at the quote above, several points stand out: the Germans simply do not have enough time (not to mention resources such as metal, fuel, manpower, etc.) to fully exploit their superior technology. In fact, we might argue that the obsession with 'secret' weapons like the V1 and V2, and Me262 actually DAMAGED the German war effort by diverting valuable resources away from producing practical weapons in sufficient quantity. While not the most technologically superior aircraft, the FW190 had proven itself by 1944, and raw material should very well have gone into producing more and better FW 190's. As it was, the Me262 did not appear in anywhere near sufficient numbers and the Me192 was merely a pipe dream.
With regards to tanks, it is more questionable if the Tigers, King Tigers and Panthers were truly superior to the T34's. I might even add that it is questionable if these tanks - while no doubt superior to the Sherman - were actually that much more superior.
First, all of these tanks were huge and heavy, but powered by inadequate engines built to significantly lower standards than American engines. This accounted for the huge number of mechanical breakdown. Once a tank breaks down, it becomes vulnerable to infantry attacks and is always in danger of being by-passed.
It is almost an article of faith that German tanks have better cross-country mobility on account of their wider tracks. But any student of physics will tell you that ground pressure is calculated based on mass and track area. A King Tiger is almost 70 tonnes in weight, compared to a Sherman's 25 tonnes. Even a Panther is twice the weight of a Sherman. This means that the track areas of these tanks must be correspondingly larger. This in turn a proportionate increase in the width of the tanks. On broad plains, this is fine, but fighting in wooded and hilly country - which is the terrain of most of Europe - this means pretty much that German tanks would not be able to manouvre off road as well as smaller Allied tanks. Indeed, many roads during WW2 would have been hard pressed to accomodate these monsters - which account for why the Germans had to fight so desperately to capture road nexus such as Bastogne and why they could not by-passed these heavily defended cities.
Indeed, the Battle of the Bulge was a very good example of this myth. German tanks were forced to fight down roads. Even minor rivers became major obstacles to German tanks as the river beds could not bear the weight of German tanks - they had to capture bridges, which in turn, were repeatedly blown up by American engineers ahead of them. There were several instances as well when the bridges simply could not bear the weight of 55 tonne monsters, and collasped.
Which finally leads to the question of armour and guns. No doubt the 75mm and 88mm on German tanks were superior to the American 75mm and 76mm, but it is much harder to argue that the 85mm on the T34-85 were inferior to German guns. This argument become even harder when we include the Josef Stalins with 122mm guns.
In any case, we must remember that in war, the instance of one to one confrontation was rare. Unit tactics and competency accounted for just as much as technical superiority. The 75mm and the 76mm did not serve the Americans too badly, and German tanks were still destroyed.
Which leads finally to the question of armour. Let's not fall into the trap of the tanker's dream - the more armour the better. For a lowly tanker in a tank, you would want the most armour about you that you can get. It's only natural. But we must remember that every ounce of armour means one more ounce of weight. Many historians talk about the armour of Panthers and Tigers as if they weigh nothing. But it is precisely the thick armour that makes the King Tiger a 70 tonne monster with all its attendant problems.
You might not be able to take out one with a bazooka with one shot, but you can blow up the bridge and mine the road. Once the bridge is down, and the tank blow a track, it is stuck. Because it is so heavy, it will not be easy to push it out of the way. And because the other tanks behind it are just as heavy and wide, they could not by-pass the first tank. The whole column becomes stuck until the poor bloody infantry could deploy to the flanks and clear the area, and the engineers could come forward to deal with the broken down tank.
This is why, while one-to-one the German tanks are superior to the Shermans, you will never find an instance where German tanks spearhead unstoppable attacks against Allied defences, smashing them to bits. The debut of the Panthers and Tigers at Kursk is a good example. They were deployed in great armoured wedges that theoratically should have blown the Soviet defences to bit. Instead, they were destroyed in huge numbers by mines, artillery, poor bloody infantry, and - yes - inferior T34s. The same thing happened in Mortein and Ardennes on the Western Front.
German weapons are technically superior, but in the end, they are not operationally superior to Allied equipment.
I always thought that it was the individual soldiers that wins the war. Weapons are just tools.
i got this table of charts where is king tiger vs. allied tanks. only gun that penetrated front armor was english 17 pdr gun with armor piercing super velosity sabot ammunition, what wasnt popular ammunition couse lack of accuracy. American 75 mm and russian 76 mm gun penetrated side hull in the range of 100 m. But you have to remember that these are german studies and not proven facts!
The lack of fuel and air cover were big factors in the closing stages of the War. While the weapons may have been better, they aren't any good if the machines haven't got fuel to drive/fly. Without air cover the tanks became slow targets for allied aircraft.
u bring up good points but u also forgot some.
The allies had supremacy in the air over the battlefield (recall the Falaise Pocket?). I think the germans lost more tanks to allied fighter bombers than to allied tanks. A kill ratio of five to one (against american and british tanks) is indicative of a large superiority gap.
U are correct the tiger especially the king tiger was too cumbersome to be effective in offensive operations, but in defensive operations it was superb. A lone tiger in a well prepared site caused havoc in disproportion to it's number. Remember Michael Whitman? He destroyed 25 tanks and held up an entire division, with one Tiger 1! Only 1300 Tiger 1s were produced and only 485 tiger 2's were produced. Also these tanks were never massed but fielded in units of four or five tanks apiece.
You mention Kursk and the panther, but you neglected to mention that the Panther was fielded before it was ready (because of Hitler).
In the Ardennes the germans were stopped by the stubborn defence of Bastogne by the 101st and the timely arrival of good weather (which allowed the dreaded fighter bombers to wreak havoc)
And actually the main tank used by the germans was the Panzer mkIV (production numbered 8000 ) and this tank was more easily tackled by the sherman. And u also forgot to metion the assault guns which were very effective (especially the Stug 3 and the jagdpanther).
The Me262 simply appeared too late, it could have started production as early as 1943 , and was never produced in the numbers needed. The highest number produced in a month was 280 in february 1945 and was misused at first (hitler insisted it was used as a bomber). Had it been fielded earlier and had it been used in it's correct role it could have made a difference. For instance JG7 the first operational Jet fighter squadron averaged 100 victories a month (their total was 450+ victories), they only had 30 aircraft available at any one time.
u also forgot to mention some of the superior infantry weapons, what about the Mg42 (the first GPMG) and it's cousin the Mg 34? Or the Stg 44, the first operational assault rifle? Or the MP 38/40 (weapons much coveted by the allies). The only Infantry weapon that was better than the german ones was the m1 garand (the best rifle of the war; too bad the british never adopted it and too bad the US never adopted the Bren!)
What it boils down to is numbers; (the allies had more of everything) and the air superiority. That combined with dumb mistakes on hitler's part doomed germany to defeat (such as attacking russia when he did without finishing the british off first). If u closely look at how the germans performed u might see that they actually outperformed the allies. Read up on the performance of the SS panzer divisions post D-day (Hitlerjugend, Libestrande were the main ones i think). When i find the book I read I will post the title, it was written by a former British Army officer and used the official histories of the units involved both allied and german. And he mentions the qualitative gap of german weapons versus allied weapons.
You made excellent points yourself. War is a complex phenomenon, which goes beyond technological superiority. As I had written, Bastogne and St Vith were crucial battles as they denied the Germans the use of these crucial road networks. Precisely because German tanks were road-bound, these heroic defense successes became their downfall.
I do not agree that the MG42 was such a good weapon. I say this from experience. Unlike many armchair historians, I was trained as a PBI (Poor Bloody Infantryman), and I had to lug a GPMG around on exercises. I know how heavy and inconvenient these things are.
There was no doubt that the MG42 was a very good defensive machine gun with its high rate of fire and quick change barrel design, but it's too heavy and cumbersome (as well as been two-men operated) for infantry attacks. And in strictly defensive battles, water cooled designs such as the British Maxim gun and the American M1917 would be superior as they can be kept in action longer - with or without rapid barrel change. And the 0.50in M2 would have been superior to anything the Germans had. Again taking an example from the Battle of the Bulge, on the opening night, an Intel and Recce platoon held up the advance of an entire battalion with M2's and M1917's mounted on jeeps.
If MG42 were actually issued to American and British units as they fought in Europe, they would not have treated it with as much respect. I can almost imagine the GI or the Brit Tommy cursing and swearing at the weight and dangling ammo belts as they tried to fight their way through bocage country or Dutch towns, against skillfully sited German defensive positions. For poor bloody infantry combat, I would say the British Bren would have been more balanced weapon and more versatile. The BAR will be come in further behind because of its 20-round magazines and light barrel, but still better than the MG42.
In terms of SMG's, I completely disagree that the MP38 or MP40 were good weapons. The long single-stack magazines led to reliability problems. The best SMG during WW2 were the Finnish Soumi <sic?> and its clone, the Soviet PPsh-41 - utterly reliable with massive firepower from 71-round rums. The Thompson would come in a close second with the heavy punch of its 0.45 rounds. Of course, there is nothing good to be said about the Sten, except that it was there when it was needed.
And let's not forget the MP43 or StG44. No doubt superior weapons to other infantry rifles - including the American M1. But also no doubt not what Germany needed in 1944. There were more than enough of the perfectly serviceable K98 to go around, and there's really no sense in coming up with another weapon system using another ammo type to the already stretched logistics system.
I must admit that German SPG's were good designs, much more balanced in terms of weight and size than their more famous tank counterparts. Indeed, given the defensive needs of Germany in Winter 1944, what they needed more of were SPG's, not tanks. Of course, SPG's would not be as useful on the offensive, but Germany were not fighting many of these battles - except for the BOB. It said much about the German obsession with technology that they continued to try to build tanks that were too large and expensive, when they could very well have made do with superbs SPGs like the Marder and the Hertzer.
I think the Me262, the StG44, the King Tigers, the V2's, etc. all pointed to the same problem the Germans had - an obsession with technology. Instead of producing cheap and cheerful weapons that did their jobs adequately and could be produced in large numbers for hastily trained personnel, they tried to overdo it by producing 'marvels' that were really too expensive and difficult to operate.
There is one German weapon which bucks this trend, and it is no surprise to me that it is the weapon that the Allied fear the most. It is not the mighty V2 or King Tiger. It is the Panzerfaust. Cheap and cheerful one-shot disposable weapons that even a teenage boy without training can use effectively. Now, THAT'S a superior weapon.
You made excellent points yourself. War is a complex phenomenon, which goes beyond technological superiority. As I had written, Bastogne and St Vith were crucial battles as they denied the Germans the use of these crucial road networks. Precisely because German tanks were road-bound, these heroic defense successes became their downfall.
I do not agree that the MG42 was such a good weapon. I say this from experience. Unlike many armchair historians, I was trained as a PBI (Poor Bloody Infantryman), and I had to lug a GPMG around on exercises. I know how heavy and inconvenient these things are.
There was no doubt that the MG42 was a very good defensive machine gun with its high rate of fire and quick change barrel design, but it's too heavy and cumbersome (as well as been two-men operated) for infantry attacks. And in strictly defensive battles, water cooled designs such as the British Maxim gun and the American M1917 would be superior as they can be kept in action longer - with or without rapid barrel change. And the 0.50in M2 would have been superior to anything the Germans had. Again taking an example from the Battle of the Bulge, on the opening night, an Intel and Recce platoon held up the advance of an entire battalion with M2's and M1917's mounted on jeeps.
If MG42 were actually issued to American and British units as they fought in Europe, they would not have treated it with as much respect. I can almost imagine the GI or the Brit Tommy cursing and swearing at the weight and dangling ammo belts as they tried to fight their way through bocage country or Dutch towns, against skillfully sited German defensive positions. For poor bloody infantry combat, I would say the British Bren would have been more balanced weapon and more versatile. The BAR will be come in further behind because of its 20-round magazines and light barrel, but still better than the MG42.
In terms of SMG's, I completely disagree that the MP38 or MP40 were good weapons. The long single-stack magazines led to reliability problems. The best SMG during WW2 were the Finnish Soumi <sic?> and its clone, the Soviet PPsh-41 - utterly reliable with massive firepower from 71-round rums. The Thompson would come in a close second with the heavy punch of its 0.45 rounds. Of course, there is nothing good to be said about the Sten, except that it was there when it was needed.
And let's not forget the MP43 or StG44. No doubt superior weapons to other infantry rifles - including the American M1. But also no doubt not what Germany needed in 1944. There were more than enough of the perfectly serviceable K98 to go around, and there's really no sense in coming up with another weapon system using another ammo type to the already stretched logistics system.
I must admit that German SPG's were good designs, much more balanced in terms of weight and size than their more famous tank counterparts. Indeed, given the defensive needs of Germany in Winter 1944, what they needed more of were SPG's, not tanks. Of course, SPG's would not be as useful on the offensive, but Germany were not fighting many of these battles - except for the BOB. It said much about the German obsession with technology that they continued to try to build tanks that were too large and expensive, when they could very well have made do with superbs SPGs like the Marder and the Hertzer.
I think the Me262, the StG44, the King Tigers, the V2's, etc. all pointed to the same problem the Germans had - an obsession with technology. Instead of producing cheap and cheerful weapons that did their jobs adequately and could be produced in large numbers for hastily trained personnel, they tried to overdo it by producing 'marvels' that were really too expensive and difficult to operate.
There is one German weapon which bucks this trend, and it is no surprise to me that it is the weapon that the Allied fear the most. It is not the mighty V2 or King Tiger. It is the Panzerfaust. Cheap and cheerful one-shot disposable weapons that even a teenage boy without training can use effectively. Now, THAT'S a superior weapon.
You made excellent points yourself. War is a complex phenomenon, which goes beyond technological superiority. As I had written, Bastogne and St Vith were crucial battles as they denied the Germans the use of these crucial road networks. Precisely because German tanks were road-bound, these heroic defense successes became their downfall.
I do not agree that the MG42 was such a good weapon. I say this from experience. Unlike many armchair historians, I was trained as a PBI (Poor Bloody Infantryman), and I had to lug a GPMG around on exercises. I know how heavy and inconvenient these things are.
There was no doubt that the MG42 was a very good defensive machine gun with its high rate of fire and quick change barrel design, but it's too heavy and cumbersome (as well as been two-men operated) for infantry attacks. And in strictly defensive battles, water cooled designs such as the British Maxim gun and the American M1917 would be superior as they can be kept in action longer - with or without rapid barrel change. And the 0.50in M2 would have been superior to anything the Germans had. Again taking an example from the Battle of the Bulge, on the opening night, an Intel and Recce platoon held up the advance of an entire battalion with M2's and M1917's mounted on jeeps.
If MG42 were actually issued to American and British units as they fought in Europe, they would not have treated it with as much respect. I can almost imagine the GI or the Brit Tommy cursing and swearing at the weight and dangling ammo belts as they tried to fight their way through bocage country or Dutch towns, against skillfully sited German defensive positions. For poor bloody infantry combat, I would say the British Bren would have been more balanced weapon and more versatile. The BAR will be come in further behind because of its 20-round magazines and light barrel, but still better than the MG42.
In terms of SMG's, I completely disagree that the MP38 or MP40 were good weapons. The long single-stack magazines led to reliability problems. The best SMG during WW2 were the Finnish Soumi <sic?> and its clone, the Soviet PPsh-41 - utterly reliable with massive firepower from 71-round rums. The Thompson would come in a close second with the heavy punch of its 0.45 rounds. Of course, there is nothing good to be said about the Sten, except that it was there when it was needed.
And let's not forget the MP43 or StG44. No doubt superior weapons to other infantry rifles - including the American M1. But also no doubt not what Germany needed in 1944. There were more than enough of the perfectly serviceable K98 to go around, and there's really no sense in coming up with another weapon system using another ammo type to the already stretched logistics system.
I must admit that German SPG's were good designs, much more balanced in terms of weight and size than their more famous tank counterparts. Indeed, given the defensive needs of Germany in Winter 1944, what they needed more of were SPG's, not tanks. Of course, SPG's would not be as useful on the offensive, but Germany were not fighting many of these battles - except for the BOB. It said much about the German obsession with technology that they continued to try to build tanks that were too large and expensive, when they could very well have made do with superbs SPGs like the Marder and the Hertzer.
I think the Me262, the StG44, the King Tigers, the V2's, etc. all pointed to the same problem the Germans had - an obsession with technology. Instead of producing cheap and cheerful weapons that did their jobs adequately and could be produced in large numbers for hastily trained personnel, they tried to overdo it by producing 'marvels' that were really too expensive and difficult to operate.
There is one German weapon which bucks this trend, and it is no surprise to me that it is the weapon that the Allied fear the most. It is not the mighty V2 or King Tiger. It is the Panzerfaust. Cheap and cheerful one-shot disposable weapons that even a teenage boy without training can use effectively. Now, THAT'S a superior weapon.
One american weapon deployment often overlooked is the POZIT or VT artillery fuse. POZIT saw its first large scale deployment in the Ardennes campaign
This was the first time that large artillery formations had a good supply of artillery rounds that would explode in the air and were easy to use. They were fused to go off before impact, thus making top cover very important. Previous efforts at this type of fuse had not meet with near this success.
US forces were also able to coordinate artillery very well in Time on Target barrages. Artillery fire control was accurate and the units were very mobile.
Self propelled artilley (different than an SPG really) were an excellent way to go. And one that the US did not use to its fullest advantage, although they realized the value after the war. Even towed artillery had addequate supply of 2 1/2 ton and 5 ton trucks to haul them and the ammo around.
German soldiers that had seen the results of US and USSR artillery called the US artillery less numerous and far more lethal.
Rifles
The German STG-44 was probably the best all around rifle of the war. However I shudder to think what the German army could have done if they had STARTED the war with a rifle like the Garand in place of the K98. The K98 is a great rifle, but the Garand is more accurate (yes you read that right) is semi-auto and holds more rounds. If German first line units that started the war very well trained had been issued this, well it would have been very nasty.
Sidebar: Garand accuuracy. The Garand is an extremely accurate design. Shooters in John. C Garand matches can testify just how much. The sight group is basically the same type of sight used from then until the M-16 series went flat-top. The rear sight is click adjustable for windage and elevation very quickly in two stages. One where you set "mechanical zero" and lock it in, and the second where you adjust for shot condition.
The Garand rear sight is peep as opposed to a v for the K98. The peep is easier to teach and more accurate. Also the distance from the front to the rear sight is significantly longer on the Garand than the 98K. Longer sight spacing equals greater shot accuracy. This is why the UK switched the site design of their Enfield from one model to another.
As far as the round goes they are similar enough to not matter. Both rifles have well deserved reputations for reliability under harsh conditions. If you give me the choice of rifles I'll take the Garand every day.
The Garands big failing is that mounting a scope is a beyotch.
None of this means a darn thing without a good soldier.
cool all your points are valid (especially the Panzerfaust one), and i see your point on the MG 42, i never said it was a perfect weapon,there is no 'perfect' weapon.
There was no doubt that the MG42 was a very good defensive machine gun with its high rate of fire and quick change barrel design, but it's too heavy and cumbersome (as well as been two-men operated) for infantry attacks. And in strictly defensive battles, water cooled designs such as the British Maxim* gun and the American M1917 would be superior as they can be kept in action longer - with or without rapid barrel change. And the 0.50in M2 would have been superior to anything the Germans had. Again taking an example from the Battle of the Bulge, on the opening night, an Intel and Recce platoon held up the advance of an entire battalion with M2's and M1917's mounted on jeeps.
* I'm sure u meant vickers
here's the rub, u slam the MG 42 for being too heavy and crew intensive yet these weapons u mention had to be carried on vehicles or by a crew of three ( one for the gun, one for the tripod, one for the water can, not to mention ammo.)
The US basically had two types of automatic weapons issued to squads (the BAR and the .30 browning) whereas the germans had one type the MG42 and it's cheaper, but still effective cousin the MG 34. The allies dreaded going up against these guns because they were ferocious. Add to this that the germans had a higher concentration of MGs per squad and you see the germans had a bit of an edge in the firepower stakes (at the squad level anyway). At one point in time the US gave serious consideration to copying them (in fact if i remember correctly the M60 is based on the MG 42). The BAR was no lightweight weapon itself and the bipod made it cumbersome (there are plenty pics of GIs and marines with the bipod removed) add to this that it had 'only' a 20 round magazine.
Now look at the MG 42/34. heavy yes, but belt fed, possessing an awesome rate of fire, capable of being operated by one man(i know in practice it wasn't but it didn't need a tripod so it is capable of one man operation), and can be employed in the sustained fire role. Now the browning .30 cal was a good design, but most versions required two men (one to carry a tripod) and it had the same limitations u said the MG 42 had.
And to be honest all ww2 machine guns had two man crews I have seen plenty of pics of brens with a two man team (one to fire the weapon the other to change mags) If i had the choice between having a BAR in my squad or a MG 42...well the BAR would lose.
The Bren was a better weapon more suited to an infantry squad (which is why i said the US shoulda adopted the Bren) but in terms of firepower there is no comparison to the MG 42. I remember the british army saying the LSW had replaced the ol heavy GPMG (FN MAG), but when they went to war (gulf wars 1 and 2) they reappeared in the hands of the infantry. U think the US Marines in Fallujah mind having a M240 (FN MAG) backing them up?
All infantry men curse at what they have to carry, they have been doing it since there have been infantry men, it's their lot in life (the lighter they make the weapon the more ammo they make u carry). I'm sure the hoplites would have liked lighter armor and those spears musta been a bitch to carry but ask the persians what they thought after Thermopolae after facing the phalanx. I think if u had to lug a weapon around a battlefield IMO u would want one that the enemy absolutely feared.
As to your whole SMG point I can't really say. Everyone i have read from said the MP 38/40 was an excellent weapon. If u say that it was unreliable, i won't argue, although the Whermacht seemed to be happy with them. But none of us has fired any of the types mentioned in combat so who is to really know?
The correct spelling is Suomi. Great thread guys, I almost feel bad about not posting something more relevant.Originally Posted by ogukuo72
Mark Saman great info on the Garand, i never knew that (and they say the 'net is only good for ****!) and jassemon don't worry spelling counts so your post is useful!loland u r right this thread isn't too bad! Thanks for the good topic Ogukuo 72! I look forward to your reply!
How was the FG42 in combate. I know only paratroopers carried them and the big rounds made them almost impossible to fire in full auto but I never heard how combate effective the rifle was.
I don't know about the FG-42, seems like a good idea.
Fallschirmjägergewehr 42
Fallschirjägergewehr 42 Technical Information
Caliber: 7.92mm (0.312 inch)
Length overall: 940mm (37 inch)
Length of barrel: 502mm (19.76 inch)
Weight: 4.53kg (9.99lb)
Muzzle velocity: 761m (2,500ft) per second
Magazine capacity: 20 rounds
Maximum effective (combat) range: 800m
Rate of fire: 750-800 rpm cyclic
More of a parts and sales site http://www.fg42.net/
A little info http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FG-42
Intreresting: "When it was fired in semi-automatic mode, it fired from a traditional closed-bolt position. When fired on full-auto, it fired from an open bolt. All FG-42 rifles were also equipped with high-powered rifle scopes."
U.S. Rifle, Cal. .30, M1
Weight 9.5 lb
Length (over-all) rifle only 43.6 in.
Length of barrel 24 in.
Muzzle velocity 2,800 fps
Type of mechanism Gas-operated, semiautomatic
Loading device 8 round Clip (ejects on last round, bolt locks back, bolt releases and comes foward when a new clip is inserted)
Sight radius 27.9 in. at 100 yd range
Cartridge, ball type Cal. .30, M2
I don't know if these are loaded weights.
Unfortunately I have no experience with the FG-42. I would love to fire one. I'm not saying I'd give Cousin Hulka (the left one) up for the chance, but I would definitely go out of my way to do it. Problem is I believe these are select fire, and I live in the US where this would require extra effort to do. It is however in a nice commonly available caliber.
Heres a decent site with FG-42 info
http://www.cruffler.com/historic-november00.html
Posting Permissions
