rifles v's machine gun

Discussion in 'General' started by raf, Aug 16, 2006.

  1. raf

    raf Senior Member

    i maybe wrong so correct me if i am.

    i get the impression that most british soldiers at the start of the war carried rifles.

    but the germans machine guns.

    surely a machine gun out weighs a rifle.

    any thoughts
     
  2. Cpl Rootes

    Cpl Rootes Senior Member

    Your kind of right it does outweigh a rifle in ROF (Rate of Fire) but its not as accurate. I think that most of the Germans had the Kar98 and MP40 during the war.
     
  3. lancesergeant

    lancesergeant Senior Member

    i maybe wrong so correct me if i am.

    i get the impression that most british soldiers at the start of the war carried rifles.

    but the germans machine guns.

    surely a machine gun out weighs a rifle.

    any thoughts
    Kars, Mausers and MP40's. You might be confusing the MP40 mistakenly called the Schmeisser -a sub-machine gun for the MG 40/42.
     
  4. Glider

    Glider Senior Member

    I think you will find that at the start of the war, the British at platoon level normally carried Rifles and one LMG. As the war progressed some, initially the squad leaders would carry an SMG instead of the rifle.

    The Germans had this mixture ahead of the British Army.
     
  5. adamcotton

    adamcotton Senior Member

    Had I been an infantary soldier in WW2, I think I'd much have preferred an SMG or an MP-40 to a rifle. It may be less accurate, but it's quicker to use and lighter, too. I know I've survived a lot longer in close combat when weilding a sub machine gun in games like Call of Duty and Medal of Honour. The only time the rifle is really superior is when taking shots at distant targets, where accuracy is more important.
     
  6. Doc

    Doc Senior Member

    I think we need to differentiate in this discussion between Machine Guns (usually heavy, crew-served, and firing full-power rifle ammunition) and Submachine Guns (usually lighter, individually operated, and firing pistol-caliber cartridges). The intent of the original question is, I think, that of SMGs primarily, though LMGs are sort of an intermediate. The Russians and the Germans were the first to really adopt the SMG in large quantities, though they had been around in various armies since WWI. There are many advantages to SMGs-- they generally are lighter (though not much) than combat rifles, and you can carry more ammo. However, they normally require multiple hits to be effective, and the cartridges are inherently less powerful/effective than rifle rounds. Which is better to arm your forces with will depend on what kind of a war you plan to fight.

    As regards surviving in games longer with a SMG than a rifle..... come on! Game "survival" is all based on what the programmer thought was a more useful weapon in various circumstances, not necessarily reality. Rifles and SMGs have different uses and each is better in different circumstances, but generally if I had a choice on an open battlefield (i.e. not in cities or jungles), I would take a unit of riflemen over an equal unit equipped with SMGs--- The effective range of a rifle, used correctly, will keep the SMG-armed troops so far away that they can't hit your people. The SMG is a very good weapon for close-quarters battle, but is certainly not the optimum weapon for all purposes. Doc
     
  7. raf

    raf Senior Member

    thanks for the replies guys.

    what do you think the best hand granade was in wwII.

    the Germans or Allies.

    why did the Germans opt for a total different design
     
  8. adamcotton

    adamcotton Senior Member

    I think we need to differentiate in this discussion between Machine Guns (usually heavy, crew-served, and firing full-power rifle ammunition) and Submachine Guns (usually lighter, individually operated, and firing pistol-caliber cartridges). The intent of the original question is, I think, that of SMGs primarily, though LMGs are sort of an intermediate. The Russians and the Germans were the first to really adopt the SMG in large quantities, though they had been around in various armies since WWI. There are many advantages to SMGs-- they generally are lighter (though not much) than combat rifles, and you can carry more ammo. However, they normally require multiple hits to be effective, and the cartridges are inherently less powerful/effective than rifle rounds. Which is better to arm your forces with will depend on what kind of a war you plan to fight.

    As regards surviving in games longer with a SMG than a rifle..... come on! Game "survival" is all based on what the programmer thought was a more useful weapon in various circumstances, not necessarily reality. Rifles and SMGs have different uses and each is better in different circumstances, but generally if I had a choice on an open battlefield (i.e. not in cities or jungles), I would take a unit of riflemen over an equal unit equipped with SMGs--- The effective range of a rifle, used correctly, will keep the SMG-armed troops so far away that they can't hit your people. The SMG is a very good weapon for close-quarters battle, but is certainly not the optimum weapon for all purposes. Doc

    Actually, those computer games are designed to be as realistic as possible, and many vets' help was enlisted in the programming of all of them. Anyway, I was in fact concurring with your thoughts: for close quarters, street to street, or house to house fighting, an SMG is the better weapon, for the reasons aforementioned. But over longer ranges or in open country, the rifle is without doubt the better weapon. However, for me there is still something oddly "reassuring" about the rate of fire of a sub machine gun.

    To address the question of hand grenades, I'm no expert. Although I know is that the correct name for the British version was the Mills bomb, and it shattered into tiny fragments upon exploding, so was great against "soft" targets like human beings. Why the Germans preferred the stick type grenade, I've no idea. I think also there may have been some difference in the time delay. I'm sure others will kinow more than I do on this subject. However, you might also want to take a look at this link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hand_grenade
     
  9. MikB

    MikB Senior Member

    Why the Germans preferred the stick type grenade, I've no idea. I think also there may have been some difference in the time delay.


    Obvious answer is you could throw it further, as the stick added to the effective length of the throwing arm. Set against that it was bulkier to carry and a bit more difficult to pop through rifle-slits and into open hatches.

    Regards,
    MikB
     
  10. superpumper

    superpumper Junior Member

    Wasn't the US Army the only army to issue a semi-automatic rifle as a standard weapon to their troops? I know the marines used a bolt action,(M-1903?), I know the number is correct, early in the war but I think even they were issued the M-1 later.
     
  11. mallory

    mallory Junior Member

    So many elements to answer.

    The US was the only army to have a semi automatic rifle... and good it was too. It had limitations, but in general was a nice serviceable weapon. (The main flaw was with the stripper clip, which meant that you had to fire the entire clip, before you could reload).

    The British Army squad went to war with one Bren (LMG) and the rest with rifles, so 2 very junior NCO's (rifle armed), 1 Bren Gun, 1 No.2 on a Bren gun (rifle armed) and 6 riflemen (3 designated as 'bombers' - grenade throwers).

    This did change slowly over time with the introduction of the Sten (SMG). Even so the British army showed a strong reluctance to change from its rifle (the legendary Lee Enfield).

    The German army, contrary to popular opinion, despite having machine pistols (they weren't really sub machine guns, at that stage) was still predominantly rifle armed at the start of the war. This changes quite fast, which is where the confusion lies. By the end of the war, very few rifle armed German soldiers are to be found and they've even introduced (in small numbers) an assault rifle.

    Hope that helps.
     
  12. plant-pilot

    plant-pilot Senior Member

    So many elements to answer.

    The US was the only army to have a semi automatic rifle... and good it was too. It had limitations, but in general was a nice serviceable weapon. (The main flaw was with the stripper clip, which meant that you had to fire the entire clip, before you could reload).

    The British Army squad went to war with one Bren (LMG) and the rest with rifles, so 2 very junior NCO's (rifle armed), 1 Bren Gun, 1 No.2 on a Bren gun (rifle armed) and 6 riflemen (3 designated as 'bombers' - grenade throwers).

    This did change slowly over time with the introduction of the Sten (SMG). Even so the British army showed a strong reluctance to change from its rifle (the legendary Lee Enfield).

    The German army, contrary to popular opinion, despite having machine pistols (they weren't really sub machine guns, at that stage) was still predominantly rifle armed at the start of the war. This changes quite fast, which is where the confusion lies. By the end of the war, very few rifle armed German soldiers are to be found and they've even introduced (in small numbers) an assault rifle.

    Hope that helps.

    Hi there mallory, it does say that you are from the UK, so why do you have to use american terms when talking about British units? The Americans had the squad as their smallest fighting unit, but the British always used the sub-unit of 'Section'.

    As you pointed out, the basic section was indeed led by two JNCO's although the term 'very junior' may be a little unfair. The Section was split into two 'groups. The 'Rifle Group' was the majority of the section, armed with rifles, led by the Section Commander (Corporal) and was used in the attack to close with the enemy, while the 'Gun Group' consisting of two men and the Bren Gun, led by the Section 2i/c (Lance Corporal) who also acted as No.2 on the gun, provided flanking and supressive fire.

    Although it may seem strange to have the 2i/c of the section split from the rest of the section with the gun group and use him as the No.2 on the Bren, but he was there as important tactical decisions needed to be taken on sighting and movement of the gun group (70% of the Section's firepower), in days before the use of radio within a section.

    As for 'Bombers', everyone in a section should have been issued with grenades if available. Would you know who would be in the right position to use one? You may be able to plan who you want to be in the right place to use one, but plans are fairly fragile things.

    Too many people confuse a 'squad' with a 'section'. They are supposed to do a similar job but are oganized differently and use completely different tactics.
     
  13. von Poop

    von Poop Adaministrator Admin

    By the end of the war, very few rifle armed German soldiers are to be found and they've even introduced (in small numbers) an assault rifle.
    Ayup Mallory,
    Welcome to here.

    Sorry to pick nits (but as we all like a bit of pedantry:) ) The vast majority of German soldiers carried the k98 rifle as a primary weapon right until the bitter end. The perception that SMG's dominated seems to originate from a few famous photographs and a lot of Hollywood films. As many as 10 times the amount of K98's were built relative to the MP40, they were never in short supply and generally popular. To the extent that they went on to serve in many of the worlds armies, some as late as the 1980's.

    Have fun and keep posting.
    Cheers,
    Adam.
     
  14. panzerschmuck

    panzerschmuck Junior Member

    Was there a particular method to determine which troops were equipped with rifles and which with submachine guns, or was it more or less a random process depending on what was available when troops were issued their weapons?
     
  15. Doc

    Doc Senior Member

    "The US was the only army to have a semi automatic rifle... and good it was too. It had limitations, but in general was a nice serviceable weapon. (The main flaw was with the stripper clip, which meant that you had to fire the entire clip, before you could reload)."

    Not quite-- Other nations had semi-autos as well. Russia and Germany come to mind immediately. However, they were never issued in quantities sufficient to replace the bolt actions. It is perhaps safe to say that the US was the only nation to use them as standard issue to a large proportion of their forces. The rifle described in the previous reply was the M-1Garand in calliber 30-06, and it did not use a stripper clip, but an "en bloc" clip from which the cartridges were taken only when fired, unlike a stripper clip, which was used only to load the weapon, and was then thrown away. While it is true that it was not possible to simply "top up" the Garand when the clip was partially used, it was possible to dump the whole clip and its remaining rounds rapidly to reload (dumb, I think, but possible-- reloading the Garand can be done VERY rapidly when the previous clip is expended). But, we can't forget that actually the US Carbine, Caliber .30 carbine (not the same cartridge as the garand-- an intermediate cartridge of about the same power as a .357 magnum pistol round), was issued in much higher numbers than was the Garand, which is much more well-known. I don't have numbers available right now, but as I remember, nearly 6 million of the little carbines were manufactured-- they soldier on in various parts of the world, last being used in quantity during the Viet-Nam war. Doc
     
  16. Cpl Rootes

    Cpl Rootes Senior Member

    Russia's semi auto - the Tokarev SVT had been in production since the late 30's and had been developed over a 15+ year period
     

Share This Page