The two weapons used during WWII that really grab my attention is the Browning Automatic Rifle and the Sturmgewehr 44. I have done some research on both and really my favirot is the B.A.R. This weapon was far more effective and had quite a punch to it. Even though it was heavy and surely got a little anyoning after lugging it all over the the Pacific or France it saved a lot of soldiers and Marines lives. The StG. 44 on the other hand was a weapon unlike any other. It was the first assault rifle. There happen to be many flaws with it though. It couldn't sustain rough weather, it was poorly made, the stock was uncomfortable, and the stock would easily break in hand-to-hand combat! But this would have been easily fixed if the war would have ran just a little longer. And in case if some of you don't know the StG. 44 is the grandfather of the Ak-47. When the war began to come to a close, Soviet soldiers found this weapon and eventually made the Ak-47. Hope to read your opinions soon! Hit'em hard and hit'em fast till they hope you don't come back! -Thunderbolt47
Originally posted by thunderbolt47@Mar 30 2005, 08:37 PM And in case if some of you don't know the StG. 44 is the grandfather of the Ak-47. Does that make the MP.43 the Gt.Grandfather of the AK 47 then? Thunderbolt, you're asking for a comparison between two completely different types of weapon there! One is practically a LMG and the other an assault rifle. They were both used for different reasons and were both good for their particular job at their particular time. Dave. (PS I'd rather lug a StG 44 around for miles than a BAR, any day!!! )
You cannot really compare these weapons. The BAR was a squad level automatic weapon in the LMG class. However, it was an old design with a slow rate of fire and a small magazine capacity. It was the American equivalent of the Bren and in my opinion it was inferior to the equivalent weapon in many other armies. But as it was in service in 1941 with no obvious replacement in the pipeline, it remained in service. It was reasonably effective, but not outstanding. The StG44 was, as you say, an early assault rifle and, as often happens, being the first in its class it suffered from a number of design faults. It was not used in the same role as the BAR, but was issued in place of the previously standard K98k to some units. In appearance, the AK47 resembles the StG44, but they operate in totally different ways - difficult to see a direct lineage.
Originally posted by thunderbolt47@Mar 30 2005, 09:37 PM The StG. 44 on the other hand was a weapon unlike any other. It was the first assault rifle. There happen to be many flaws with it though. [post=32723]Quoted post[/post] As there was with the M16, when it was first issued. One of the major modifications included the fitting of a "Forward Assist" lever, because the breach constantly "Jammed". Look at it now though. I can see the "resemblance" of the Stg44 and the AK47, but the AK was a much 'cruder' weapon, in the way it was engineered. Still is in fact, which is probably why it's so sucessfull... There's nothing to jam up! Out of the two, personally, well difficult to say really, probably have to go for the smaller, lighter Stg44. But give me a good old fashioned Lee Enfield anyday. Mark.
But give me a good old fashioned Lee Enfield anyday. i would add to that or a SLR. but it is easy to see why most people assume that the AK47 was developed from the stg 43/44 View attachment 571 mp43 View attachment 570 ak47 Clyde of Bonnie and Clyde used a BAR rather than a Tommy gun. but not a lot of people know that. View attachment 572
Originally posted by morse1001@Apr 3 2005, 03:34 PM i would add to that or a SLR. [post=32838]Quoted post[/post] What, nobody for an SA80?
Originally posted by Pte1643+Apr 3 2005, 03:23 PM-->(Pte1643 @ Apr 3 2005, 03:23 PM)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteBegin-morse1001@Apr 3 2005, 03:34 PM i would add to that or a SLR. [post=32838]Quoted post[/post] What, nobody for an SA80? [post=32843]Quoted post[/post] [/b] not even a martian in his right mind or for that matter his left mind would want a SA80!
Poll added. I would probably go for the lighter STG44 rather than a BAR. Originally posted by Pte1643+-->(Pte1643)</div><div class='quotemain'> What, nobody for an SA80? [/b] Why would I want an SA80?? Morse sums it up well <!--QuoteBegin-morse1001 not even a martian in his right mind or for that matter his left mind would want a SA80!
Quoting from Military small arms of the 20th century. " The BAR never entirely lived up to its designers hopes; neither a rifle nor a light machine gun, it fell between the two. As a rifle it was too heavy and could not be fired from the shoulder with any great accuracy as it vibrated from foreward movement of the bolt. Set for automatic fire it was too light and moved excessively, and the small magazine capacity necessitated frequent reloading. For its day however it was nevertheless a brilliant design." When I was in the New Zealand Army we had the SLR, brilliant, we changed to the Steyer, duh. These were the Aussie made versions and some had the charming habit of still firing on automatic when you had stopped squeezing the trigger. Made for some very realistic live firing exercises. The fault was remidied but we still called them LGPAG's. Little Green Plastic Army Guns A bloke who joined us from the Brit Army told us about the SA 80. He said the bastard who designed it should be shot but it would have to be with another make of rifle to make sure of getting him. Hasn't the Brit Army spent millions, billions?, continually reworking them just to have more expensive crap. .
Originally posted by sappernz@Apr 4 2005, 06:24 AM A bloke who joined us from the Brit Army told us about the SA 80. He said the bastard who designed it should be shot but it would have to be with another make of rifle to make sure of getting him. Hasn't the Brit Army spent millions, billions?, continually reworking them just to have more expensive crap. . [post=32858]Quoted post[/post] Yes, the last refit cost £92M, so we were told... Don't know if I agree with the shooting him with another make, as the SA80 has a reputation for being an extremely accurate rifle. Only problem is, you would have to make sure that you shot him in the winter, as even a grain of pollen would jam the thing up. Hmmm... <_< Great design, Light weight and accurate, if only they could get it to work it'd be a superb tool. But then, as I said, the M16 was flawed when it was first introduced aswell. Mark.
Originally posted by morse1001+Apr 3 2005, 04:23 PM-->(morse1001 @ Apr 3 2005, 04:23 PM)</div><div class='quotemain'>Originally posted by Pte1643@Apr 3 2005, 03:23 PM <!--QuoteBegin-morse1001@Apr 3 2005, 03:34 PM i would add to that or a SLR. [post=32838]Quoted post[/post] What, nobody for an SA80? [post=32843]Quoted post[/post] not even a martian in his right mind or for that matter his left mind would want a SA80! [post=32846]Quoted post[/post] [/b] This leftie says amen to that!
Originally posted by sappernz@Apr 4 2005, 05:24 AM Hasn't the Brit Army spent millions, billions?, continually reworking them just to have more expensive crap. . [post=32858]Quoted post[/post] Well, you wouldn't want the British army to have cheap crap would you?
When I first joined the NZ Army in the early 1970's we were informed by our instructers that the New Zealand Army had the finest weapons in the world as they had been tested in two world wars and if we did not believe it we could check the rifle numbers against the Boer War, WW1 and WW2 soldiers that were issued with these weapons. SA-80 . It looks like half a scoreboard when South Africa play the All Blacks. NZ-970.... SA-80.
A bloke who joined us from the Brit Army told us about the SA 80. He said the bastard who designed it should be shot back in the late 70s the british Army introduced "Clansmen" kit radios, which were designed to replace larkspur kit. i was told by a Royal Siggie that they got all of the Foremen and yeomen of Signals who had less than a month to go in the armyand asked them to design a radio kit for the eighties. And that is why Clansmen kit was so bloody terrible.
But then, as I said, the M16 was flawed when it was first introduced aswell. Another problem with the M16 in vietnam was the ammo. the US army ordered the stuff from all over the place but the ammo produced for the civvie version was far superior and worked all of the time.
