Really bad weapons... [Archive]

dragoon500ly

10-17-2010, 09:33 PM

Here it is, late at night, the kids are in bed, and I'm bored!

So here is a new thread about some of those real "gems" of weapons that have been inflicted on the innocent service member...

For any US tanker, the weapon that leaves you shuddering in disgust is one that was designed by the good ole Springfield Arsenel as a replacement for the venerable M-1919A4 machinegun. It was known as the M-73 co-axial 7.62mm machine gun.

The big feature of this weapon is that it has a very compact body, saving precious space inside the turret for other items. Breaking down the M-73 usually left you with over 30 parts, many of them small. A real pleasure to break down and maintain inside the turret, but that wasn't make it a bad weapon.

What really took this weapon into the realm of just plain aweful was the development of its replacement, the M-219. This improved model of the M-73 had even more parts (40) and earned the nickname of "The 25 and jam".

Without fail, no matter how much love and maintaince, no matter the amounts of RBC and Break-Free applied, no matter how much was offered to the Eldar Gods. This piece of junk would fire from 5 to 25 rounds and then jam. The loader of a tank could always be identified by the impressive muscles on his right hand and the callus on his left palm. You used your right arm to yank the chain to eject the misfired round, while using the left hand to hold down the manual trigger. A favorite statement was that if the Soviets invade West Germany, the first M-16 that could be scrounged would be mounted in place of the -219. At least the M-16 would fire!

When the M-240C first came out, the civilian ordnance techs had a great demonstration. They would mount the -240C on a tripod and layout a thousand round belt of ammo. Then load the weapon and hold the trigger down. The sight of a machine gun firing for that long and not jamming amazed every tanker that witnessed it.

Legbreaker

10-17-2010, 10:26 PM

For me it was the M60 machineguns from the Battalion armouries. For almost two decades they'd had almost no maintenance from a competant armourer. Instead of replacing worn out parts with new, our armourer had the brilliant habit of storing said used parts for reuse in other weapons at a later date.
1991 rolls around and we're at Canungra. Out of the 9 guns we took with us, all 9 were found to be completely unservicable and dangerous by the JWC (Jungle Warfare Centre) staff. Two days later were were handed the guns back and to our great amazement, no more UD's (Unauthorised Discharges), parts falling off, jams, etc. They were still bitches, but at least they were bitches that worked.
Unfortunately, the other 30 odd M60s left behind in the battalion didn't get the same loving attention.
:(

A couple of years later and we were issued with M16A1's which had come from a unit recently converted to the Steyr AUG. These were to replace the 9mm F1 SMGs and M79 grenade launchers (with M203s).
After the M60s, I'd have to say these were the worst weapons EVER! Not a single one was anywhere near accurate, most having barrels which appeared to have been used as prybars, sights knocked completely out of alignment and most scary of all, you could grasp butt and stock and twist the weapon - the whole thing would shake and rattle with every shot.
Basically they made the M16EZ of 1st ed look like high quality engineering...

dragoon500ly

10-18-2010, 12:38 PM

Now this may not be an horrible weapon, but I don't know if I would want to risk my life using it.

On the M-48/M-60 series tanks, two M-3A1 sub machine guns were issued for the use of the driver and loader in the event that the crew has to fight dismounted. That's right the ole World War II "Grease Gun" soldiered on with the US Army well into the 1980s.

The first time that I ran into this was during Advanced Individual Training at Ft Knox, Kentucky. The first I that I picked up and used was a runaway, i.e. with a single tap of the trigger, it fired the entire magazine. Same thing with the second and third ones that I fired. Okay, these weapons have been used by trainees for 30+ years, not much call to update, right?

When I arrived at my first posting in Germany, the assigned weapons for my tank was a pair of M-3 submachineguns, right down to the little crank on the side to retract the bolt with.

And the M-1911A1s that we had, according to their serial numbers, they were third production run M-1911s. Yup, 1914 production models!

Dog 6

10-19-2010, 04:52 AM

The M-3 smg was useless.

TiggerCCW UK

10-19-2010, 06:35 AM

The first time I fired the L98A1, the cadet version of the SA-80/L85, the cocking handle came off in my hand. This was a brand new rifle, fresh out of the box :( Never really had any faith in the rifle after that, something that ws further borne out by my experience with the L85.

How ever, as a quantifier to that I have heard much better things about the A2, although I've never used it.

Another example of how bad a reputation the L85 has occured in the early 90's, in Coalisland here in NI. A foot patrol was surrounded by a hostile republican crowd. The troops were unable (rightly) to fire as the crowd were unarmed and he range was too close for baton rounds. The patrol was partially overwhelmed and a number of the squaddies became seperated, which must have been a terrifying situation for them. Thankfully there were no serious injuries, but in the melee three of the troops lost their weapons, a gimpy and two L85's. These weapons were presumed to have been snatched for use by republicn terrorists. The gimpy disappeared completely, but the L85's were discovered after being stripped of their SUSAT's and magazines. How little faith does anyone have in a weapon when even a terrorist group won't take them?

dragoon500ly

10-19-2010, 08:59 AM

You its a sign of a poor design if a terrorist group won't touch it!!!:rolleyes:

copeab

10-19-2010, 09:47 AM

The M-3 smg was useless.

Was this an inherent problem of the design, or just a side-effect of a 30-40 year old weapon that was originally built as cheaply as possible?

Adm.Lee

10-19-2010, 02:57 PM

A GM introduced a horror to us in a GURPS game once: some kind of breechloader from the Austro-Hungarian Empire. It needed at least 13 steps to change a round! Make sure you don't forget something.

Lee.

dragoon500ly

10-19-2010, 03:48 PM

Here's another contender for the "Worst Machine Gun" title. Dates back to World War One, but still...

The US M1915 and M1918 Chauchat Automatic Rifle.

Prior to the US entry into WWI, there were less than 2,000 machine guns in service with the Army, Marine Corps and Navy. In the hast to get automatic weapons in large numbers to equip the rapidly expanding military, the decision was made to purchase the French Chauchat Fusil-Mitrailleur. This weapon was designed from the beginning for simplicity and low-cost construction and featured extensive usage of sheet metal and stamped components.

The M1915 was chambered for the French 8mm Lebel cartridge. Due to the use of this rimmed cartridge, a semicircular detachable box magazine holding 20 rounds was developed. To make the magazine even cheaper, two large cuts were made, allowing the gunner to see how many rounds remained with a quick glance (and also allowing mud and battlefield debris to easily enter the firing mechanism).

Perhaps the best illustration of how the US soldier felt is found in the book "The Doughboys":

"Their automatic rifles were Chauchats, said to have been made of battlefield scrap but believed by the Doughboys to have been fashioned from rusty sardine cans."

As bad as the M1915 was, there was worse to come. Since it didn't make sense to issue 30.06 rifle ammunition and 8mm Lebel automatic rifle ammunition, the decision was made to convert the Chauchat from 8mm to the .30-06, leading to the M1918. The semicircular 20rd magazine was replaced with a 16rd magazine, the sights were modified and there were several other minor changes. But the Chauchat had never been developed for the higher stress that the .30-06 round put on the mechanism. Jamming problems were widespread, including such odd jams as inserting the cartridge, primer end first!

Needless to say, many Chauchats were "combat lost".

Dog 6

10-19-2010, 08:50 PM

Was this an inherent problem of the design, or just a side-effect of a 30-40 year old weapon that was originally built as cheaply as possible?

both imo

dragoon500ly

10-20-2010, 12:00 PM

The Italian Army in World War II has often been slammed in various histories as being one of the worst armies. I disagree. While the Italian soldier was certainly indiferrently led and poorly equipped and even more poorly supplied, you have to respect the way the Italian soldier kept, soldiering on. If any soldier has ever been poorly served by his service, it has to be the Italians.

I present for your pleasure, the Machine Guns of the Italian Army, 1930-1943.

Our first item is the standard heavy machine fun, the Fiat-Revelli, Model 1914. This is a water-cooled weapon that bears some resemblance to the Maxim/Vickers/Browning family. This 6.5mm weapon uses a delayed blowback system that uses the force of firing to eject and reload the weapon. Like most blowback designs this led to extraction difficulties and a oil reservoir and pump were installed to lubricate the cartridge before it was loaded. It used a magazine that held ten columns, each of five rounds, as each column emptied, the magazine indexes across to bring the next column into line, until the finally, the empty magazine is ejected from the right side of the weapon. Needless to say, the internal mechanism is very complex which is not improved by the oil and dust coating the cartridges it acquired during firing; it is notoriously prone to jamming.

Next is the Breda, Model 1930, the standard Italian light machine gun of the war. It is very difficult to say anything good about this weapon. To start with, it is also a blowback operated weapon, while the 6.5mm cartridge is not as powerful as a .30-06, it is still too powerful for this weapon. The M1930 has a tendency for the neck of the empty cartridge case to tightly expanded against the chamber while the bolt is opening, leading to the case stretching as the case moves out of the bolt. To overcome this, the Breda design team added an oil reservior and pump which sprayed a small quantity of oil on to the cartridge before it was chambered. The magazine is permanently mounted on the right side and is hinged forward to allow it to be reloaded from rifle chargers. In theory, this is a good idea, since it means that the magazine lips, which are critical for correct feeding, are machined within the receiver and are protected from accidental damage. In practise, this leads to a low rate of fire due to the need to reload the magazine instead of just swapping out magazines.

And finally, the Breda Model 1937, the first go-green machine gun! The Italians really tried to correct the issues with their previous designs. First, they replaced the blowback system with a simple gas piston, but failed to design a slow opening movement to start the empty case out of the chamber. The same violent ejection as with every other Italian machine gun took place and....you guessed it! The answer was to add the ole oil reservoir and pump to lubricate the cartridges...and all of the problems that resulted. To add insult to injury, the feed mechanism was unique! The designers took the old Hotchkiss metal strip system which feeds a metal strip holding 20 rounds into the left side of the gun and then strips the cartridge out, loads and cycles the strip out of the right side of the gun. The design team went one better and arranged the system so that when the empty case was extracted from the chamber it was replaced into the strip before the strip cycled. While this system does have the advantage of keeping the gun position tidy, it also has the disadvantage in that the the empty cases must first be stripped out before the metal strip can be reloaded!

helbent4

10-20-2010, 01:19 PM

I ran the Call of Cthulhu adventure "No Man's Land", changing the adventure background from Americans in the "Lost Battalion" to Canadians soldiers during 2nd Ypres (the first use of poison gas adding nicely to the horror).

Of course, this meant inflicting the Canadian-made Ross rifle on the players. A militarised version of a finely made and highly accurate sporting rifle, it did not work well in the mud and dirt of the trenches. For example, the straight-pull bolt was often worked only by kicking it. In the game, the jam number was so high players quickly abandoned them for whatever German Mausers or British Lee Enfields they found lying around.

http://www.cmhg-phmc.gc.ca/cmh/book_images/high/v3_c4_s01_ss01_01.jpg

Again, the Ross apparently wasn't a terrible weapon, it was in fact considered a superiour marksman's rifle in its own right. Also bear in mind the Ross was adopted because of a prior British refusal to sell or licence the Lee Enfield for Canadian use or production, and some kind of rifle was needed.

Tony

Adm.Lee

10-20-2010, 01:22 PM

Of course, this meant inflicting the Canadian-made Ross rifle on the players. A militarised version of a finely made and highly accurate sporting rifle, it did not work well in the mud and dirt of the trenches. For example, the straight-pull bolt was often worked only by kicking it.

Isn't that the rifle that reputedly killed some of its shooters when the bolts popped loose and hit them in the face?

helbent4

10-20-2010, 01:31 PM

Isn't that the rifle that reputedly killed some of its shooters when the bolts popped loose and hit them in the face?

"The shortcomings of the rifle were made apparent during the Second Battle of Ypres in April 1915. The rifle showed poor tolerance of dirt when used in field conditions, particularly the screw threads operating the bolt lugs, jamming the weapon open or closed. Another part of the jamming problem came from the bolt's outer face hitting the bolt stop, then deforming the thread shape. The bolt could also be disassembled for routine cleaning and inadvertently reassembled in a manner that would fail to lock but still allow a round to be fired, leading to serious injury or death of the operator as the bolt flew back into his face. "Thankfully such incidents were minor." [Emphasis mine.] Another well-known deficiency was the tendency for the bayonet to fall off the rifle when the weapon was fired. Many Canadians of the First Contingent (now renamed the First Canadian Division) at Ypres retrieved Lee Enfields from British casualties to replace their Ross rifles. Lieutenant Chris Scriven of the Tenth Battalion commented that it sometimes took five men just to keep one rifle firing."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ross_rifle

Admiral,

"THERE WERE ONLY A FEW FLIPPER BABIES!" (- Brain Candy)

Apparently, they were made of sterner stuff back then, when getting hit in the freakin' face by an exploding bolt was considered a minor incident.

"Cheerio lad, you still got one eye left, that's why the Good Lord gave you two, eh?"

Tony

dragoon500ly

10-20-2010, 05:22 PM

You know, somebody on this site metioned doing a Twilight: 1918. After the research I''ve done on the weapons of WWI...I'm actually kinda worried!

;)

dragoon500ly

10-20-2010, 05:38 PM

Time for an anti-tank weapon from hell!

The British Projector, Infantry, Anti-Tank or PIAT. This was a stopgap weapon first issued in 1942. It was delevoped by Lieutenant Colonel Blacker RA, the same Blacker who introduced the world to the Blacker Bombard in 1930. He seems to have this really sick desire to use the Spigot Mortar.

Anyhow! The British Army needed a simple, cheap, easy to maufacture weapon that didn't use a lot of critical material and a minimum amount of explosive force. The PIAT met all of these requirements. This is nothing more than a metal tube, holding an enormous spring, which was compressed by unlatching the shoulder pad and standing on it, and lifting the weapon so that the spring and spigot were withdrawn into the body and held in place by a simple seer mechanism. The body was then returned to the shoulder pad and the PIAT was now ready to fire. A bomb was placed in the guideways at the front and when the trigger was pressed, the spigot was released, entering the tail unit of the bomb and exploding the propelling cartridge inside. This blew the bomb off and at the same time returned the spigot back into the body, recocking it for the next round.

The maximum range of the bomb is about 100 yards. Maximum armor penetration is about 75mm.

Within its limitations, the PIAT was a startingly effective weapon, but it was never popular with the infantrymen who had to carry the 32 pound weapon. It is heavy, cumbersome to carry, awkward and strenuous to cock, and violent to fire, but it was respected as a weapon which did what it set out to do; stop a tank when used by a resolute man.

The most famous incident involving the PIAT took place in the Italian campaign when Fusilier Jefferson dashed into the open and fired it from the hip, stopping two Tiger tanks at close range. He was adwarded the Victoria Cross for this remarkable feat, and the general opinion in the ranks was that he deserved the medal for firing the PIAT from the hip, let alone killing two tanks with the thing!

Mahatatain

10-20-2010, 06:07 PM

The first time I fired the L98A1, the cadet version of the SA-80/L85, the cocking handle came off in my hand. This was a brand new rifle, fresh out of the box :( Never really had any faith in the rifle after that, something that ws further borne out by my experience with the L85.

How ever, as a quantifier to that I have heard much better things about the A2, although I've never used it.

The L85A2 is reputed to be a much more reliable and better weapon after H&K got involved and sorted out the mess that was the L85A1:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L85A2#Service_and_modification

I've never fired one myself however so I can't speak from personal experience.

I have read on the T2013 forums however that the L85A1 has an "unreliable" flaw on it (in terms of game mechanics) that the L85A2 doesn't and the guys there working out the game mechanics of different weapons certainly seem to know their stuff.

StainlessSteelCynic

10-20-2010, 06:40 PM

The L85A2 is reputed to be a much more reliable and better weapon after H&K got involved and sorted out the mess that was the L85A1:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L85A2#Service_and_modification

I've never fired one myself however so I can't speak from personal experience.

I have read on the T2013 forums however that the L85A1 has an "unreliable" flaw on it (in terms of game mechanics) that the L85A2 doesn't and the guys there working out the game mechanics of different weapons certainly seem to know their stuff.

They aren't quite as wise as it would appear, the problem with their ruling is that the L85A1 was reliable until it was used in sandy and/or very dusty conditions. In a typical European setting (and in jungles) it was as reliable as any other average rifle.
The worst faults of the weapon aren't addressed at all by any game system as far as I'm aware - magazine catch releasing at inopportune times (until they put a guard around the catch), plastic parts breaking, the issue insect repellent melting the plastic parts, the takedown pins coming completely free from the weapon and thereby being easy to lose and finally, the working parts literally fly out the reciever when you disassemble the weapon (unless you're ready for it and keep your hand over the opening.

Legbreaker

10-20-2010, 07:17 PM

The issue insect repellent for the Australian army back in the late 80's and 90's also had the reputation of melting plastic used in the F88 Steyr AUG. It was also said to be carcinogenic (causes cancer).
Mind you, two drops were more than sufficient to keep mosquitoes at bay even in the thickest of jungles or the wetest of swamps.

Raellus

10-20-2010, 07:32 PM

http://www.cmhg-phmc.gc.ca/cmh/book_images/high/v3_c4_s01_ss01_01.jpg

Ron Volstad is one of my favorite military illustrators (Angus McBride is awesome too). Wish he was still doing Osprey titles.

helbent4

10-20-2010, 08:57 PM

The most famous incident involving the PIAT took place in the Italian campaign when Fusilier Jefferson dashed into the open and fired it from the hip, stopping two Tiger tanks at close range. He was adwarded the Victoria Cross for this remarkable feat, and the general opinion in the ranks was that he deserved the medal for firing the PIAT from the hip, let alone killing two tanks with the thing!

Lee,

Probably a little more famous (at least around here) was a local boy, Ernest "Smokey" Smith, a Seaforth Highlander. He earned a Victoria Cross in Italy by (among other things) using a PIAT to take out two Mk V Panther tanks (one by firing from the hip) plus a Stug III, then hold off up to a company of SS simgle-handedly with a Thompson. While dragging wounded comrades to safety.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernest_Smith

Tony

Fusilier

10-20-2010, 09:47 PM

Lee,

Probably a little more famous (at least around here) was a local boy, Ernest "Smokey" Smith, a Seaforth Highlander. He earned a Victoria Cross in Italy by (among other things) using a PIAT to take out two Mk V Panther tanks (one by firing from the hip) plus a Stug III, then hold off up to a company of SS simgle-handedly with a Thompson. While dragging wounded comrades to safety.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernest_Smith

Tony

Ha, I met that guy when I was in the Army, shortly before he died.

There was this awkward pause when were talking, and I didn't really know what to say next, so I filled it with "So...uhh... so like where did you get shot? In the back?"

"No! I didn't get shot in the back. I wasn't fucking running away."

-- getting scolded by this angry old man made my day. It was kinda funny, but I'm glad I got to meet him, mostly.

Mahatatain

10-21-2010, 03:28 AM

Ha, I met that guy when I was in the Army, shortly before he died.

There was this awkward pause when were talking, and I didn't really know what to say next, so I filled it with "So...uhh... so like where did you get shot? In the back?"

"No! I didn't get shot in the back. I wasn't fucking running away."

-- getting scolded by this angry old man made my day. It was kinda funny, but I'm glad I got to meet him, mostly.

Sounds like a fantastic man to have met!

helbent4

10-21-2010, 04:23 AM

copeab

10-21-2010, 04:28 AM

Can we count WWII Italian and Japanese tanks?

perardua

10-21-2010, 05:27 AM

They aren't quite as wise as it would appear, the problem with their ruling is that the L85A1 was reliable until it was used in sandy and/or very dusty conditions. In a typical European setting (and in jungles) it was as reliable as any other average rifle.
The worst faults of the weapon aren't addressed at all by any game system as far as I'm aware - magazine catch releasing at inopportune times (until they put a guard around the catch), plastic parts breaking, the issue insect repellent melting the plastic parts, the takedown pins coming completely free from the weapon and thereby being easy to lose and finally, the working parts literally fly out the reciever when you disassemble the weapon (unless you're ready for it and keep your hand over the opening.

Having used both the L85A1 (as a cadet), and the L85A2 (as a soldier on ops in Afghanistan), I feel pretty confident in saying that the difference between the two is enormous. The one experience I had with the A1 was pretty awful, whereas the only stoppages I've ever had with an A2 have been down to damaged magazines, which are pretty rare thanks to the more durable metal HK ones that replaced the old plastic Radway Green ones.

All of the above faults have been fixed, as far as I am aware. To my mind, the recoil rod and spring assembly 'flying out the receiver when you disassemble the weapon' is not an issue. Anyone correctly trained to strip and disassemble it won't find it a problem, and I'd have rather have a spring that pushes the bolt forward effectively and avoids the A1's problem of being a bit anemic with chambering a new round.

Anyway, if you want to see bits of weapon flying around, try watching some strip a cocked GPMG. Tis hilariously dangerous.

Several USAF Security Forces personnel on a recent exercise with us also felt the L85A2 was more reliable than our M4s, though comparing their cleaning regime with ours led me to suspect that the frequency with which we cleaned our weapons may have had something to do with it.

The L85A2's biggest problem is that memories of the A1 pretty much ruined it's reputation outside of the British forces, hence a lot of servicemen I know have had to try and defend the weapon to concerned civvies who come up to us at public displays and things and tell us our weapon's crap. It's really not any more.

helbent4

10-21-2010, 06:57 AM

The L85A2's biggest problem is that memories of the A1 pretty much ruined it's reputation outside of the British forces, hence a lot of servicemen I know have had to try and defend the weapon to concerned civvies who come up to us at public displays and things and tell us our weapon's crap. It's really not any more.

Perardua,

It's a bit like the bad rep the M16 earned in Vietnam. Not undeserved but a thing of the past. It would be nice if there was some kind of snappy comeback for twits slagging the L85A2!

Tony

Canadian Army

10-21-2010, 07:03 AM

A bad weapon and, yet, at the same time good one is a Punt Gun.

"A punt gun is a type of extremely large shotgun used in the 19th and early 20th centuries for shooting large numbers of waterfowl for commercial harvesting operations and private sport; A single shot could kill over 50 waterfowl resting on the water's surface. Punt guns were usually custom-designed and so varied widely, but could have bore diameters exceeding 2 inches (51 mm) and fire over a pound (0.5 kilos) of shot at a time. They were too big to hold and the recoil so large that they were mounted directly on the punts; a type of boat; used for hunting, hence their name." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punt_gun

http://www.freeimagehosting.net/uploads/ae18c75694.jpg (http://www.freeimagehosting.net/)

TiggerCCW UK

10-21-2010, 07:33 AM

There's a 4 Gauge punt gun in the museum in Ayscoughfee Hall in Spalding Lincolnshire, where my sister lives. I have a look at it every time I'm in the museum and just have this urge to try it out.......

Its the sort of thing that could be pretty devastating on a pintle mount for defending a village or similar in T2K.

Canadian Army

10-21-2010, 07:49 AM

LBraden

10-21-2010, 08:05 AM

The Royal Armouries up my end has one on display, as well as a few extra weapons, if any needs a few snaps, message me, I will see what I can do (as its about 4 quid for the train to get there)

dragoon500ly

10-21-2010, 08:32 AM

dragoon500ly

10-21-2010, 08:37 AM

dragoon500ly

10-21-2010, 08:41 AM

Can we count WWII Italian and Japanese tanks?

DIBS on the M13/40!!!

if anybody wants to zing a least favorite aircraft or warship...its a bad weapon

dragoon500ly

10-21-2010, 08:46 AM

A bad weapon and, yet, at the same time good one is a Punt Gun.

"A punt gun is a type of extremely large shotgun used in the 19th and early 20th centuries for shooting large numbers of waterfowl for commercial harvesting operations and private sport; A single shot could kill over 50 waterfowl resting on the water's surface.

The first thought that popped into mind, is where can I get one...and if I loaded it with a solid round instead of shot, just how much armor could it penetrate? The second thought that popped up was if i every fired this, just how many sheriff's deputys would show up...wanting to borrow it?

Adm.Lee

10-21-2010, 09:41 AM

You know, somebody on this site metioned doing a Twilight: 1918. After the research I''ve done on the weapons of WWI...I'm actually kinda worried!

;)

That would be me. ;) I should use some of this to encourage players to put skill points into bayonet training, huh? Those don't jam.

dragoon500ly

10-21-2010, 05:06 PM

That would be me. ;) I should use some of this to encourage players to put skill points into bayonet training, huh? Those don't jam.

Until the bayonet falls off or bends...I'll stick to a trench club, a few Mills Bombs and my trusty Webley .455 revolver!

pmulcahy11b

10-21-2010, 06:44 PM

Until the bayonet falls off or bends...I'll stick to a trench club, a few Mills Bombs and my trusty Webley .455 revolver!

I can't remember the movie, but the person goes to stab the bayonet target, and ends up throwing his rifle a good 15 feet beyond the target.

dragoon500ly

10-21-2010, 07:47 PM

I can't remember the movie, but the person goes to stab the bayonet target, and ends up throwing his rifle a good 15 feet beyond the target.

Don't know the movie, but Monty Python did do a skit about Trench Warfare...

helbent4

10-21-2010, 08:14 PM

Until the bayonet falls off or bends...I'll stick to a trench club, a few Mills Bombs and my trusty Webley .455 revolver!

In the movie All's Quiet on the Western Front, didn't the crusty NCP advise against using a bayonet as well because it got stuck in the stickee? I believe the sharpened e-tool was the weapon of choice. In the movie Passchendale, a Canadian soldier beats a German to death with a rock. Ah, the classics are always popular from stone-age times!

Tony

atiff

10-22-2010, 09:21 AM

dragoon500ly

10-22-2010, 10:41 AM

I think I remember reading something about advice for getting a stuck bayonet out of the target. It was just to fire a round off, to make the hole bigger, if I remember right...

Of course, it might have been in some silly movie, or be an urban myth.

Depends on the bayonet, if you are using a WWI pigsticker (the 1-2 foot blade lenght) then you can get away with firing a round. If you're using an M-16 bayonet, good chance that the muzzle may be in direct contact with the body, not a good idea to fire a round if the muzzle is blocked!

Adm.Lee

10-22-2010, 11:31 AM

I can't remember the movie, but the person goes to stab the bayonet target, and ends up throwing his rifle a good 15 feet beyond the target.

My ROTC instructor told me he saw that happen at least once at summer camp.

Fun fact of the day, the Russian word for bayonet is: Shtik.

Ironside

10-22-2010, 12:22 PM

I can't remember the movie, but the person goes to stab the bayonet target, and ends up throwing his rifle a good 15 feet beyond the target.

Carry On Sgt?

pmulcahy11b

10-22-2010, 12:37 PM

WallShadow

10-22-2010, 05:07 PM

That would be me. ;) I should use some of this to encourage players to put skill points into bayonet training, huh? Those don't jam.

"They don't like it up 'em!"--Lance Corporal Jack Jones ("Dad's Army")

dragoon500ly

10-23-2010, 03:54 PM

Here's another bad weapon. The M-4 Sherman medium tank. Now before the flaming starts, please consider the following:When the Sherman saw its first combat action at El Alamein, it was a match for the German MkIV in all respects except for firepower. But even the US Army admits that the Sherman was obscelent by 1943-44. When Shermans met Tigers and Panthers in the Italian and Normandy campaigns, the results were shattering of Allied forces. Our primary tank was undergunned, underarmored, and actually had worse cross-country mobility then the Germans. Only two things saved Allied armor; the fact that more Shermans were in the supply pipeline and that, compared to the German tanks, the Sherman was more reliable.

Now this is due more towards the idiotic doctrine that tanks will not fight tanks, this is the job of the tank destroyers. The tank destroyers get better guns, and improved ammunition while Army Ground Forces believed that the short barreled 75mm was all that was needed. From 1943 onward, tankers were begging for a larger tank with more armor and above all else, the 90mm gun.

LBraden

10-23-2010, 05:14 PM

Yeah, the Ronson was kinda <deleted> for its time, even the Pz IV could pop them easily at ranges, but not the sort of range the Pz V and Pz VI could, but the main thing about the Ronson was that we had numbers, and the British "Firefly" mod was really the only effective weapon against the Pz V and Pz VI, but that was if it got a lucky side or back shot at medium range, and not get spotted at 2000 yrds.

Still, I find the Sten and subsequent Sterling SMG variant to be well shit, my reason:

My father was on foot patrol in Ballymena, Northern Ireland, walked past an RUC officer asleep in a chair, about 10 minutes later they made it up the hill, a RUC "car" pulled up and blared its horn to wake up the sleeping copper, who stood up and the sterling fell to the floor from his lap, and emptied its clip down the road, ripping my father's good boots, which he had only just broken in.

However, the Japanese in WWII kinda made some really bad weapons, mostly small arms and rifles, go on, take a gander at some of them, and the mish-match of calibres.

pmulcahy11b

10-23-2010, 05:56 PM

What we did with the Shermans was basically mob the Germans with numbers instead of trying to match their technology. We could build them fast and cheap. But in the typical tank engagement, the US pretty much counted on losing four out of five Shermans for each Tiger or Panther they got. (That I got from my neighbor, Michael March, who was a Sherman tanker in World War 2.)

Sounds kind of like Soviet-style combat techniques.

dragoon500ly

10-23-2010, 06:08 PM

The problem with both the Italians and Japanese in WWII was that neither nation was as heavily industralized as Germany was, in fact, the Italians had already reached their maximum production and were winding down before their economy failed. Add to this the pre-war decision to replace the standard caliber weapon with a new, larger caliber and their situation becomes even worse.

Even the Germans had this problem, when the MP-44 (Stu.44) assault rifle was developed, one of the main reasons why it was rejected was due to no one wanting to take responsibility for declearing 8 milliard (that's eight thousand million rounds) of standard 7.92mm ammunition as worthless.

pmulcahy11b

10-23-2010, 06:18 PM

Even the Germans had this problem, when the MP-44 (Stu.44) assault rifle was developed, one of the main reasons why it was rejected was due to no one wanting to take responsibility for declearing 8 milliard (that's eight thousand million rounds) of standard 7.92mm ammunition as worthless.

I wonder how many of those World War 2 rounds are still on the market!

Raellus

10-23-2010, 06:32 PM

Sounds kind of like Soviet-style combat techniques.

Indeed. Luckily for the Red Army, the T-34 was a fine medium tank. Many historians/military techies rate it as the finest of WWII (or #2 to the mid-production Panther). Unfortunately, tanker training early in the war was terrible and, as a result, attrition was high. Once the Soviets started installing radios in their tanks (besides command tanks), training techniques improved, and crews started surviving engagements and gaining experience, they were at least a match for their German opponents.

HorseSoldier

10-23-2010, 09:10 PM

Depends on the bayonet, if you are using a WWI pigsticker (the 1-2 foot blade lenght) then you can get away with firing a round. If you're using an M-16 bayonet, good chance that the muzzle may be in direct contact with the body, not a good idea to fire a round if the muzzle is blocked!

Contact shooting somebody with an M16 or M4 will work fine -- the flash suppressor provides venting, and even if it wasn't there the escaping propellant gas would just shred tissue on the target.

The problem I always had with the "shoot to disentangle your bayonet" idea was that if you have a round in the weapon why you ever using the bayonet in the first place? I think it was Rommel who noted in WWI that bayonet fights are usually won by the guy one with more ammo in his weapon. The development of the "shoot after you bayonet them" idea represents how vestigial bayonet use became in the 20th century.

copeab

10-23-2010, 09:55 PM

The problem I always had with the "shoot to disentangle your bayonet" idea was that if you have a round in the weapon why you ever using the bayonet in the first place?

Because you don't want to waste a bullet on a helpless civilian or soldier in an infirmary bed.

dragoon500ly

10-23-2010, 11:03 PM

Contact shooting somebody with an M16 or M4 will work fine -- the flash suppressor provides venting, and even if it wasn't there the escaping propellant gas would just shred tissue on the target.

The problem I always had with the "shoot to disentangle your bayonet" idea was that if you have a round in the weapon why you ever using the bayonet in the first place? I think it was Rommel who noted in WWI that bayonet fights are usually won by the guy one with more ammo in his weapon. The development of the "shoot after you bayonet them" idea represents how vestigial bayonet use became in the 20th century.

Anything that blocks a muzzle is never a good thing, even with a flash suppressor!

Have to agree, as long as you have ammunition, why take the time to stab. There are several personel histories dating from the Wellington's campaigns in Spain (back in the flintlock era) that talk about how few men were ever killed by the bayonet. One story in particular mentioned how amazed the soldiers were when they found the bodies of two men who had killed each other with bayonets. Its the threat of the bayonet, more than the use on one that dominates the other side.

Of course, when you see the Russians charging you with bayonets fixed, firing up the ole M-1A1 and chasing them down with the tank kinda defeats the purpose!

dragoon500ly

10-23-2010, 11:05 PM

I wonder how many of those World War 2 rounds are still on the market!

you can still get German 7.92mm, still in the original Heer cans on the surplus market so the answer would be quite a bit!

dragoon500ly

10-24-2010, 07:23 PM

I first saw this book at the post library at Fort Knox, Kentucky and I finally managed to score a copy of it at a yard sale in Mississippi this weekend! The book is "Sherman" by R.P. Hunnicutt and it is considered to be the work on US tank design from 1921-1973.

Its all here! From the M1921 medium tank through the Israeli conversions of the M4 Sherman. Rare photos (B&W and color), stats on the major models in service, production data AND data on the performance of the tank cannons themselves!!!

And for only 20.00!!

Now I have to get a copy of Hunnicutt's "Pershing"!

Legbreaker

10-24-2010, 08:23 PM

Have to agree, as long as you have ammunition, why take the time to stab.

That's simple. Because a bayonet isn't used JUST to stab. Used properly, a rifle and bayonet are employed more like a quarterstaff with both ends used. The blade, while certainly able to be used in a stabbing motion, is also devastating in a slash. The butt of a decent rifle can crush skulls with both a swing or a jab.

And what if one doesn't have the time to point the weapon then shoot? If you're within a metre or two it may be quicker, and more effective to step in swinging...

But if you're using a lightweight toy like an M16, then yes, you're better off taking a step or two back and trying to fire, or hope that somebody else has a clear shot.

StainlessSteelCynic

10-24-2010, 09:23 PM

I have a few thoughts here, the first deals with the Sterling SMG mentioned as being a shit weapon.
I agree that the Sten wasn't the best example of a good weapon but still, it worked well enough. However, to criticize the Sterling because dropping it would make it fire isn't particularly fair because many SMGs of that era all suffered from the same problem including the much vaunted Uzi. Even some rifles suffered the same problem including the M16 and M16A1 if dropped straight on their butt.

As for the bayonet, I recall an instructor mentioning that bayonet training was still carried out in the modern army not because they believed you would use it all that often but because it helped to instill aggression and the control of aggression in a soldier.

In regards to the MP44, I've read that it wasn't rejected because of the ammunition as the 7.92mm round would still have been the standard round for machineguns and sniper rifles. It went through a number of developments from the MP42 to the MP45 and it was kept largely hidden from Hitler because he wanted manufacture to concentrate on machineguns and SMGs instead of rifles. After impressing Hitler in demonstrations and the good reports coming back from combat testing on the Eastern Front, the MP44 was given the green light and he is alleged to have named it the SturmGewehr in praise.

perardua

10-25-2010, 04:38 AM

From people who used the Sterling in British service, I am repeatedly told that the quality of ammunition supplied for it was so poor that you could almost see the rounds in flight, and that it would have trouble penetrating a car door.

As for bayonets, in my experience the British forces, specifically the infantry, place a lot of emphasis on the bayonet. Bayonet training is, as previously mentioned, an excellent way of developing aggression (especially since they run you ragged before you even pick one up), it's an essential part of being able to use the weapon system to it's greatest extent (after all, if you are issued with a rifle that can fit a bayonet, it might help to be able to use it), there's a psychological advantage to fitting them (it puts you in a certain frame of mind, and scares the crap out of the enemy), and because they actually have a practical purpose.

Our last bound checks when conducting attacks include fitting a bayonet just before assaulting the enemy position, because, as been mentioned, if you find yourself in a confined space with the enemy and pulling the trigger fails to produce a result, due to a stoppage, a quick thrust may be all it takes to save your life. British troops have used bayonets in combat in the Falklands, and in Iraq and Afghanistan. One incident was even picked up by the press as the first bayonet charge in decades or something, but it's a part of our infantry doctrine and we actually do it more than people think.

In fact, one of the few complaints about the introduction of the LMG/Minimi and UGL into service was that these weapons don't fit bayonets, and the reduction of the Section bayonet strength is something that is regarded as important. Indeed, rumour has it that proposed improvements to the LMG may include the ability fit an L85 bayonet.

Legbreaker

10-25-2010, 07:09 AM

I found that with a few seconds application of an allen key, the lug on the F88 Steyr AUG could be shifted back to allow the fitting of an SMLE bayonet.
Now THAT was some scary shit!
Didn't do the balance of the weapon much good, and I'm sure the barrel harmonics would have been screwed, but damn did it frighten the trainees! :P

Adm.Lee

10-25-2010, 09:26 AM

As for bayonets, ... there's a psychological advantage to fitting them (it puts you in a certain frame of mind, and scares the crap out of the enemy), and because they actually have a practical purpose.

One of the most influential books on my gaming style was Paddy Griffith's Forward into battle. The theme of the book was that the more aggression the attacker shows, the more likely the defender will run, rather than defend his position to the last man. Thus, it is usually very helpful to do whatever one can to demoralize a defender, and it is also useful to show them that the attacker is willing to close with them.

Thus, "I'm not just going to kill you, I'm going to come over THERE and kill you!" is scary. "And I'm going to do it with this sharp little piece of steel!" is even more scary.

dragoon500ly

10-25-2010, 11:03 AM

In regards to the MP44, I've read that it wasn't rejected because of the ammunition as the 7.92mm round would still have been the standard round for machineguns and sniper rifles. It went through a number of developments from the MP42 to the MP45 and it was kept largely hidden from Hitler because he wanted manufacture to concentrate on machineguns and SMGs instead of rifles. After impressing Hitler in demonstrations and the good reports coming back from combat testing on the Eastern Front, the MP44 was given the green light and he is alleged to have named it the SturmGewehr in praise.

The MP43 developed the "short" 7.92mm round. The major arguements against the weapon is that there was no stockpile ammo and no one was willing to take responsibility for replacing 8 milliard rounds of ammo, in the middle of a shooting war. Okay, its understable from a REMF standpoint. But when the MP43 was issued to test platoons on the Eastern Front, the soldats loved the weapon, not due to its ability to fire automatic, but more due to its semiautomatic capability. Hitler, at first, ordered that production be stopped on the MP43, because the MP40 was doing a excellent job and did not need to be replaced. It was only when at a firearms demonstration (where the honor guard was issued MP43) that Hitler actually saw the weapon and order its production to continue and its name was changed to the Sturmgeschutz 44.

While the Stu44 was an issue weapon, there is a great deal of debate over just how widely issued it really was. Stories of entire divisions being equipped with the new assault rifle have proven to be just that, stories. It is more realistically believed that the scale of issue was one or two platoons per regiment on the Western Front and at least one company per regiment on the Eastern Front.

dragoon500ly

10-25-2010, 11:34 AM

Yet more stupid weapons....

The Super Tank!!!

Yes, I'm poking fun at the super tanks of WWII, the offspring of those funny guns at the Wehrmacht Design Bureau and thier chief kook, A. Hitler! Now I'm not going to poke fun at the Panther/Tiger/King Tiger tanks, which actually were decent (fairly) tanks. But consider these gems from the design floor.

In his effort to have them deployed for the Kursk Offensive, our favorite mad hatter rushed the Ferdinand heavy assault gun, deploying 90 of them. It was the first vehicle to mount the awesome PaK32/2 88mm L71 cannon, perhaps the best antitank weapon of the war. But so rushed was the Ferdinands, that their electric drive was, not fully tested. And when the engine goes, the cannon can only point in one direction. And so rushed was the design team, that they neglected to mount something...co-axial armament. That's right! The Ferdinand mounted no machineguns and when the Russian infantry realized this, they simply advoided the cannons, and amused themselves with Molotov Cocktails and satchel charges. The 48 remaining Ferndinands were brought back for rebuilding, to include having a bow machine gun mounted and were deployed to Italy, where more were lost due to the miserable engine.

Next up is the Jagdpanzer VI, built on a stretched King Tiger chassis, this heavy tank destroyer mounted the PaK44 128mm L55 cannon. One of the most heavily armored vehicles of the entire war (max of 250mm), only 77 were built, serving in the Battle of the Bulge and the fighting for the Remagen Bridgehead. Crippled by poor engine design the "Jagdtiger" was prone to breakdowns, which allowed Shermans to outflank them...While their front armor was thick, the sides only had armor of up to 80mm thickness, vulnerable to the 76mm gun.

Third in the wacky designs is the "Maus". This 188 ton tank mounted the same Pak44 128mm L55 cannon, as well as a co-axially mounted PaK44 75mm L36.5 cannon!?! Fitted with a newer version of the Ferndinards electric drive (2 of them) and capable of a blistering top speed of 20km per hour! Armor would be a maximum of 240mm with the gun mantlet fitted with another 240mm of armor. It was just too heavy for existing bridges, and had manuverability that was truely in a class by itself. Never saw combat and only two prototypes were built. For many years it was assumed, based on German records that both were destroyed, turns out that one was captured by the Russians and is currently in a armor museum.

The last entry in the "A. Hitler Super Tank Race" is the E-100 which existed as a single prototype. The turret was never built and the 140-ton hull was captured by the British, carefully examined and then melted down. Like the Maus, the E-100 had two electric drives and was going to be mounted with the Pak44 150mm L38 cannon and a co-axial Pak44 75mm L36.5 cannon. Armor protection was on the same scale as the Maus.

There is one intresting story on why the E-100 was developed. It seems that Herr Hitler saw one of the prototype Maus and complained that the 128mm cannon "was too small". That's right armor fans, the bigger your tank, the bigger your main gun should be!!!!

StainlessSteelCynic

10-25-2010, 11:17 PM

The MP43 developed the "short" 7.92mm round. The major arguements against the weapon is that there was no stockpile ammo and no one was willing to take responsibility for replacing 8 milliard rounds of ammo, in the middle of a shooting war. Okay, its understable from a REMF standpoint. But when the MP43 was issued to test platoons on the Eastern Front, the soldats loved the weapon, not due to its ability to fire automatic, but more due to its semiautomatic capability. Hitler, at first, ordered that production be stopped on the MP43, because the MP40 was doing a excellent job and did not need to be replaced. It was only when at a firearms demonstration (where the honor guard was issued MP43) that Hitler actually saw the weapon and order its production to continue and its name was changed to the Sturmgeschutz 44.

While the Stu44 was an issue weapon, there is a great deal of debate over just how widely issued it really was. Stories of entire divisions being equipped with the new assault rifle have proven to be just that, stories. It is more realistically believed that the scale of issue was one or two platoons per regiment on the Western Front and at least one company per regiment on the Eastern Front.

I should have been clearer, the 7.92x57mm round then in use would still have been retained for use, specifically for the MG34 & MG42 machineguns and sniper rifles. It wouldn't have been obsolete because of the development of the 7.92x33mm Kurz cartridge. It would never have been used to replace the 7.92x57mm round specifically as that round was being used not just for the army's MGs but also for some of the MGs fitted to Luftwaffe aircraft and the MGs fitted to armoured vehicles.
The MP43 wasn't the cause of the 7.92mm Kurz round, the Germans had been studying intermediate rounds since at least the mid-1930s and the decision to use a 7.92mm projectile was taken by the Heereswaffenamt (HWA) to save the cost of developing new tools for the manufacture of a new calibre.
While at least five different companies were involved with design studies, the 7.92x33mm developed by Polte Werke probably in 1938 was selected by HWA for production. The decision to develop a weapon for the new cartridge was made in 1939.
http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/Assault.htm
http://world.guns.ru/assault/as51-e.htm

While not produced in the same numbers as other German weapons, the StG44 was still made in a significant quantity as sufficient numbers were available for it to be used as the standard rifle of the East German Workers Militia and Volkspolizei and the Yugoslav paratroop battalions for many years.
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?f=60&t=57447
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/StG_44
http://www.battlegroup42.de/modules.php?name=Forum&topic=1614.msg27257

Gorbag

10-26-2010, 12:16 AM

Howdy all, new to the forum, and hoping to contribute in a meaningful way.

Lest we forget, we shouldn't leave out the Northover Projector (or officially, the "Projector, 2.5 inch") and the No. 76 Special Incendiary Grenade.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northover_Projector

Basically, get a big piece of pipe, mount it on a wobbly tripod, put a screw in breach, and use a charge of black powder touched off by a cap from a child's cap gun. The projectile of choice was the No. 76 grenade, which was basically a milk bottle stuffed with white phosphorous and gasoline.

What's not to like? A projectile that has a large chance of going blooie in the breech and spraying phosphorous everywhere? A tripod that had a chance of randomly bending during firing and sending the projectile flying off into God knows where? A weapon made from drain pipe? It just shows the desperation Britain had reached after Calais that they actually produced these things in quantities.

HorseSoldier

10-26-2010, 12:51 AM

I should have been clearer, the 7.92x57mm round then in use would still have been retained for use, specifically for the MG34 & MG42 machineguns and sniper rifles.

(snip)

Agreement. The Germans could have fielded a 7.92x33/7.92x57 mix of calibers during the war pretty effectively. German MGs were the main consumer of small arms ammo in infantry units by a pretty wide margin (though widespread issue of a select fire assault rifle would have changed that some).

The bigger problem was the lack of competence at high level that kept the program underfunded and under supported until relatively late in the war. (Not that incompetence at the top was a solely German problem when it came to small arms decisions -- as evidenced by the US retention of 30-06 instead of 276 Pedersen when fielding the Garand.)

The other thing the StG-44 managed to do was be the coolest weapon of the war by a long margin. Wasn't a perfect design, but with some very modest tweaks it could certainly hold its against anything fielded into the 1960s (and for a real combat gun it was superior to all the 7.62x51 battle rifles fielded by NATO thanks to more incompetence in the US military establishment).

http://i79.photobucket.com/albums/j132/jboschma/Stg44VickersClass-2.jpg

Matt Wiser

10-26-2010, 01:48 AM

Just how many SG-44s would be available in Eastern Europe in T2K?

Japanese weapons could often be dangerous to the user as well as the enemy: the Nambu pistol sometimes had a habit of exploding in the shooter's hand. Then there was the Type 92 machine gun: used 30-round strips instead of belts, and was so heavy it took four men to carry the weapon on its tripod. This was the MG that Marines called "The Woodpecker" because of its sound when fired.

helbent4

10-26-2010, 02:37 AM

copeab

10-26-2010, 02:55 AM

Japanese weapons could often be dangerous to the user as well as the enemy: the Nambu pistol sometimes had a habit of exploding in the shooter's hand.

It could also be fired without pulling the trigger. The sear bar was exposed and pressing on it could fire the weapon.

Some Japanese LMGs had mounts for the large style bayonet. One even added a telescopic sight and a mechanical counter to it's 30 round magazine (Type 96, I think).

Early-war Japanese rifles weren't really bad, just unremarkable.

copeab

10-26-2010, 03:00 AM

(Not that incompetence at the top was a solely German problem when it came to small arms decisions -- as evidenced by the US retention of 30-06 instead of 276 Pedersen when fielding the Garand.)

Although at that time the US wasn't getting overrun by Russian hordes, so there was little incentive (logistically or tactically) to make such a switch.

The other thing the StG-44 managed to do was be the coolest weapon of the war by a long margin.

Gotta disagree. The FG 42 was way cooler but tried to do too much in such a small package.

(also, compare it to the earlier Johnson M-1941 LMG)

HorseSoldier

10-26-2010, 04:00 AM

Gotta disagree. The FG 42 was way cooler but tried to do too much in such a small package.

That is another good one -- though I'm not holding my breath on getting a chance to shoot an FG42 anytime soon, or probably ever. (Though I seem to recall reading at some point that some company in Oregon was supposed to start building shooting replicas of the '42 for the WW2-reenactor crowd.)

Just how many SG-44s would be available in Eastern Europe in T2K?

Yugoslav paras were still issued them up to when the country imploded, so they'd probably be "-/R" down that way (I think the Yugos only one airborne brigade plus some assorted smaller SOF units that might have had them too).

The East Germans also used them on a very large scale early in the post-WW2 era (Czechoslovaks, too, I think) but as they stocked up on AKs they ended up selling or giving all of their StG-44s to their fraternal socialist allies in Syria. (Who in turn hooked up all sorts of dodgy groups in the Middle East and Horn of Africa, most recently Iraqi insurgents.) East Germany continued to make the ammo -- I think up until the wall came down -- but it was all for the export market.

Overall, I'd say there're probably more functional StG-44s in the Middle East in the Twilight timeline than there are in central/eastern Europe. The one possible question mark on that might be the weapons captured by the Russians. No idea if they passed theirs onto guerrillas and allied states, though I can't think of any accounts of them doing so (unlike the PPS and PPSh SMGs and SKSs they handed out by the boat load in Africa in lieu of AKs in the 60s and into the 70s, when they got more interested and started shipping better weapons that way).

StainlessSteelCynic

10-26-2010, 04:53 AM

Agreed that there'd be more StG44 rifles in the Middle East/Africa than Europe although the Russians did seem to have a fair number in their collections as they got used a number of times in movies according to IMFDB
http://www.imfdb.org/index.php/Stg-44

As for the FG42 (and a number of other WW2 German weapons), there is a chance you could get a semi-auto only copy
http://www.ssd-weapon.com/web_en/produkte_en.htm

TiggerCCW UK

10-26-2010, 05:32 AM

Regarding the Northover projector and other similar weapons, here are a couple of decent books;

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Last-Ditch-Britains-Resistance-Against/dp/1853677302

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Real-Dads-Army-Story-Guard/dp/toc/1848689144

I already own 'The Real Dad's Army' and I recently borrowed 'Last Ditch' from the library and its a fascinating read. I'll be investing in a copy when funds permit, but not just yet - road tax this month, exhaust fell off the car and February and the arrival of the next generation of T2K player is looming!

dragoon500ly

10-26-2010, 06:06 AM

[QUOTEJapanese weapons could often be dangerous to the user as well as the enemy: the Nambu pistol sometimes had a habit of exploding in the shooter's hand. Then there was the Type 92 machine gun: used 30-round strips instead of belts, and was so heavy it took four men to carry the weapon on its tripod. This was the MG that Marines called "The Woodpecker" because of its sound when fired.[/QUOTE]

There are two Nambu pistols, The Taisho 04 is the early version (1915), its basically a version of the Italian Glisenti pistol. The major defect of this design is that it is possible assemble the pistol without the breechblock in place, making it a fun pistol to fire, NOT! It also has a small diameter recoil spring in a recess on one side of the slide,which gives the 04 a rather lumpy appearance. A last defect is a weak striker spring which lost its temper and gave lighter blows, leading to an excessive number of misfires. So severe is the problem, that the issue holster has a pocket for a spare striker spring.

The second Nambu is the Taisho 14, dating back to 1925 and designed to be a more easily manufactured version. It adds a safety catch on the off side and adds a second recoil spring on the opposite side of the pistol. Nothing was done to replace/improve the striker spring. Once the last shot was fired, the bolt is held open by abutting against the magazine platform. The pressure of two recoil springs, plus a strong magazine retaining spring makes replacing the empty magazine, very difficult. If the fingers are slippery with oil, perspiration and if the gun is dirty, it becomes almost impossible to change mags quickly.

The Type 92 is a copy of the Hotchkiss 1914 machine gun, like all Hotchkiss designs, the weapon is on the heavy side. The 92 weighs in at 61 pounds (122 pounds with tripod). The only difference in the operating systems is that the 92 has a slight change in the connection between the gas piston and breechblock to allow it to better use the 6.5mm cartridge, because of this alteration the extraction is violent, leading to ruptured cases and the cartridges are normally oiled before loading, leading in turn to all sorts of dirt and debris getting fed into the chamber and causing jams/misfires. By 1932, the Japanese moved the caliber up to 7.7mm, adding a flash hider and changing the firing grip.

The Type 92 tripod was always designed to be carried by three men, a short pole would be inserted into the tubes on the front of the forward legs, and a rather off yoke, resembling overgrown bicycle handlebars would be attached to the rear leg, allowing the crew to move the Type 92 rapidly about the battlefield without dismounting it from the tripod.

helbent4

10-26-2010, 08:06 AM

February and the arrival of the next generation of T2K player is looming!

Tigger,

Congratulations, and fantastic! Keep us all informed on the progress.

To reply to Lee's previous post on using the Maus turret of the E-100, I think the answer is "sort of". The "Entwicklung" series was developed concurrently with the Maus, and were intended to be the next generation of tanks. Evolutionary, not revolutionary (like the Panthers and Tigers) but easier to build and maintain and still the best around. Classes would be divided by weight (E-5, E-10, E-25, E-50 Standardpanzer, E-75 Standardpanzer, with E-100 being the superheavy class.

It's reasonable to say that they used the turret designed for the Maus that Hitler rejected because a 12.8cm gun wasn't big enough for him, but I think the E-100 was always going to share design with the Maus.

Tony

ex3313

10-26-2010, 08:49 AM

If I may my example of bad guns would be the Reisling I shot one in the 80's and found I couldn't empty a mag without a FtF Give me an old grease gun anyday

helbent4

10-26-2010, 09:15 AM

I'd have to second the Sterling as being unreliable (amazing for a post-WWII SMG design) and inaccurate. Apparently it had a high chance of a misfire if you filled the magazine all the way, so experienced soldiers would under-fill by a couple rounds. Also, I was reading of a South African policeman who used one in on a rioter who came for him and missed with the entire magazine. He ended up clonking the guy on the head with it.

Tony

B.T.

10-26-2010, 11:35 AM

Well, Tony, that brings back memories ...

Obviously I've never been to South Africa, but Sterling and Uzi seem to share a lot. The clonging-option was not trained, but "my" Uzi worked very much the same way as afore mentioned Sterling.

And, as someone noticed before, the Uzi is not very "safe". Rumours about Uzis bursting their whole mag.-capacity after falling to the ground where common in the Bundeswehr. I can testify, that mine sometimes bursted all bullets out - although the safety clearly stood on "singe shot fire".

Nah, we had a lot of fun with them :rolleyes:

dragoon500ly

10-26-2010, 12:16 PM

[QUOTE]The "Entwicklung" series was developed concurrently with the Maus, and were intended to be the next generation of tanks. Evolutionary, not revolutionary (like the Panthers and Tigers) but easier to build and maintain and still the best around. Classes would be divided by weight (E-5, E-10, E-25, E-50 Standardpanzer, E-75 Standardpanzer, with E-100 being the superheavy class.

It's reasonable to say that they used the turret designed for the Maus that Hitler rejected because a 12.8cm gun wasn't big enough for him, but I think the E-100 was always going to share design with the Maus.[QUOTE]

Granted the E-Series was supposed to be a whole new series of combat vehicles, but the only hardware that I found records for is the prototype E-100. My post was supposed to mention that the armament was going to be the same as for the Maus, until Hitler ordered the upgunning to 150mm.

helbent4

10-26-2010, 06:14 PM

Well, Tony, that brings back memories ...

Nah, we had a lot of fun with them :rolleyes:

BT,

"Excuse me, is that an Uzi?"

- Air America

Lee,

All correct, so we can say I was merely completing your thought! I guess we'll never know, but the E-100 was not the insanity that the Maus turned into.

An alternative-history scenario that probaly features the Maus and E-100 is the upcoming wargame "Nuklear Winter '68". Forty years after the Third Reich was atom-bombed into a radioactive wasteland that is then sealed-off, a rebuilt Werhmacht emerges from a vast underground Reich, and boy are they pissed!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T0gGavTYhjM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WZtYJkDP0i8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oZbaZvHgKus

Sorry, I can't remember if I've posted these before, I seem to think I have so please accept my apologies if this is the case!

Tony

LBraden

10-27-2010, 05:16 AM

heh, the Maus would have been a plaything compared to this

http://www.panzerbaer.de/workshop/wdieb_mod_87-a.htm
http://www.achtungpanzer.com/p-10001500-pzkpfw-ixx.htm

dragoon500ly

10-27-2010, 06:58 AM

With me, I'm fascinated at how tanks were developed, used, and misused. Some of the sidelines, like the Russian flying tank are always good for a chuckle. Others, like the Italian and Japanese WWII tanks are always good for a moment of silence for the bravery of their crews, going into combat with such utter pieces of garbage.

And then you have the Russians, and the post war designs...the people who terrifed the Nazis with the T-34 and KV-1, also developed the T-54 and T-55 and the T-62.

The basic T-54 has the driver positioned on the left side of the hull, to his right is the main fuel cell, to save space, a ammo rack holding 30 rounds of 100mm ammo is built into the rear side of the fuel cell. The turret has the gunner and tank commander positioned on the left side of the turret, in seats suspended from the turret ring. The loader stands on a small platform suspended from the turret ring (that's right, the T-54/55 series does not have a turret basket!). He has four rounds of ready ammo for the main gun. Once the ready ammo is expended, the loader has to step off his platform and get a shell from the hull rack. Lots of fun to do while moving cross-country, rotating the turret to track targets and trying to avoid stepping on empty shell casings. Right?

What does this mean? If you want to blow the T-54 up, you load a APDSDU round, and aim at the headlight, located on the right front side of the hull. You will get penetration of the front glacis plate, and then enjoy a fuel/ammo explosion! If you want to disable the tank, switch your aim to the left front and your round will kill the driver, gunner and tank commander. If you get a flank shot, aim inbetween the last set of roadwheels and use a HEAT round, this will penetrate the hull and start an engine fire.

The difference inbetween a T-54 and a T-55...is located on the muzzle end of the gun, the T-54 has a smooth gun tube, the T-55 has a bore evacurater. This is the simple way to tell them apart, otherwise you have to measure how thick the hatches are, because some T-55s have a plain tube and radiation shelding. But being a simple grunt and not some Intell weenie....

The T-62 was a major improvement over the T-55, it had a full turret basket, but otherwise had all of the same faults of the T-55. With one new one. If you look at a picture of the rear of a T-62 turret, you will notice a small hatch. This is why an engineer should never be allowed to tinker with a tank, without a tanker sitting behind the engineer, holding a sledge hammer ready to hit the stupid engineer.

You see, the T-62 automatically ejects its spent main gun ammo casings. To the rear, and to avoid dropping them on the rear deck, the casings are ejected about 20 meters or so to the rear. Now, if you are a infantryman, using the tank for cover, you have to worry about a 10kg chunk of steel being thrown back at you, everytime the tank fires its cannon. If you are the tank crew, the auto-ejector has one design flaw. It vibrates. Loose. If the loader doesn't pay attention, the auto-ejector will grab the casing and throw it at the door, and if it has vibrated loose, it will bounce the casing off the inside edge of the door, throwing the case back into the turret. The tank commander has a shield to protect him from the movement of the breech of the cannon, which also protects him from the shell casing...the gunner has a leather padded helmet to protect his head. Yup! You guessed it, the casing is often thrown right into the back of the gunner!

dragoon500ly

10-27-2010, 08:59 AM

In our ongoing look at Russian post war armor...we have the T-64/T-72

Faced with the new M-1/Challenger/Leopard 2 designs, the Soviets came up with these new designs. Fitted with the new 125mm cannon, fitted with an autoloader, the Soviets felt that these two designs would be superior to the new Western designs. To this date, only the T-72 has fought against the
M-1 and Challenger and the results were shocking.

The new 125mm cannon was unable to penetrate the Chobham/Special Armor Plate of the Western designs frontal arcs. And even more shocking, the T-72 proved to be highly vulnerable to the newly developed APDSDU round. This was due to two design flaws.

First, Soviet tanks are considerable smaller than Western designs, this smaller size allows them to add thicker armor over a smaller area, it also means that any penetrating hit has a much greater chance of causing severe damage.

Second, the T-72's small size and its use of an autoloader meant that the ammunition was placed below the main gun in the turret and took the form of a tray, holding the shells and powder charges of the 125mm gun (a conventional round could not be used due to the small size of the turret and the length of such a round). US and British tankers quickly discovered that aiming at the base of the turret, below the main gun, gave them the best chance of penetration AND allowed them to place a APDSDU right in the ole ammo rack. Desert Storm has hundreds of photos of T-72s, with their turrets blown off due to this tactic.

The BMP-1, when it was introduced was the world's first infantry fighting vehicle. As ground-breaking as this vehicle was, it has some major design flaws.

The squad leader on a Bimp has his own hatch, complete with a fixed IR searchlight, and herein lies the first problem. When traversing the turret over the left front, in order to avoid knocking out the IR searchlight, an interruptor was added that causes the main armament to elevate up and over. If the gunner is tracking a tank with the standard Sagger ATGM, the missile just went ballistic and would miss its target, the 73mm main gun is currently pointing at the sky and that NATO tanker now has the chance to place a 120mm HEAT round were it would do the most good..

Even the BMP-2 has the same drawback.

copeab

10-27-2010, 09:49 AM

To this date, only the T-72 has fought against the M-1 and Challenger and the results were shocking.

It's worth noting that the T-72's in Desert Storm were using local (Iraqi) ammo, not Soviet ammo. Not that this would have made a lot of difference, but the Iraqi's weren't using the best ammo for the 125mm gun.

The BMP-1, when it was introduced was the world's first infantry fighting vehicle. As ground-breaking as this vehicle was, it has some major design flaws.

It didn't help that the whole concept behind the BMP (including the later M2 Bradley) is severely flawed. Basically, take a light tank and bloat to to carry an understrength infantry squad, so it's not as effective as either a dedicated light tank or dedicated APC.

Let's not forget that the infantry in the BMP sat on the main fuel tank and the rear doors contained the secondary fuel tanks. Or that the 73mm gun sometimes tried to ram the loader's arm into the breech.

dragoon500ly

10-27-2010, 12:55 PM

It's still sad that T-72s could be penetrated so easily and at such a long range. The longest range T-72 kill on record was at 4,500 meters by a M-1A1 of the 2nd ACR. Longest range kill on an Iraqi T-55 was at 5,200 by an M-1A1 from the 1st Armored Division. It's even more amazing because both kills were done with APDSDU rounds.

For the non-tankers, APDS is a high velocity, low-trajectory round that normally bleeds off speed fairly rapidly. Our gunner's manuals stated that it was not to be used beyond 2,500 meters due to uncertain penetration. The perferred long-range antitank round is the HEAT, which is a medium velocity, high-trajectory round. Do to this, the lead-off is so great that it was expected to have to fire 2-3 HEAT rounds in order to score a hit. As you can see, the performance of the APDSDU was a pleasant surprise for the Allies.

Didn't forget that the Bimp has a chance of loading the gunner's left arm, although this was always more of a chance thing, in that the round has to grab the gunner's coveralls. Besides, if you maneuvered to the left front and nailed the Bimp with a HEAT, who have a better chance of catching the main gun ammo racks.

Call me old fashioned, but I like ammo explosions, you get to see the pretty fireworks!!!

:p

pmulcahy11b

10-27-2010, 02:07 PM

Call me old fashioned, but I like ammo explosions, you get to see the pretty fireworks!!!

:p

I've seen one, close up. A BMP. Later, when you think of the poor guys inside, it's not so pretty.

pmulcahy11b

10-27-2010, 02:54 PM

Sorry about that one.

dragoon500ly

10-27-2010, 03:34 PM

Tis okay Paul, I certainly don't take offense.

I've had to attend too many funerals of too many buddies, killed through their own mistakes, or through the stupidity of others. The problem with armor, is that the fatal mistakes tend to be pretty severe.

I guess that's were my smart-ass atitude comes from, you have to laugh about, otherwise you spend too much time, assisting Jack Daniel's profit margin.

pmulcahy11b

10-27-2010, 03:58 PM

This one was during Desert Storm. I botched my Dragon shot, hit it near one of the right front roadwheels, but it slewed around and gave an AT-4 gunner in 2nd squad a nice rear-quarter shot. Thing went up like a roman candle, after a slight delay. Sometimes I still see those Iraqis frying inside (even though I never actually saw them).

dragoon500ly

10-27-2010, 04:25 PM

Worst one that I ever saw was a stupid accident on a gunnery range. A
M-48A5 of the Texas National Guard was shooting night machinegun. The turret stabilizer system chose that moment to go balls up and started spinning the turret and the damned gunner didn't let go of the triggers until after he sprayed the bleachers with the better part of 200+ rounds. Wound up killing three men and injuring another seven.

Training Accidents are such a damn stupid way of losing good men.

helbent4

10-27-2010, 05:46 PM

The turret has the gunner and tank commander positioned on the left side of the turret, in seats suspended from the turret ring. The loader stands on a small platform suspended from the turret ring (that's right, the T-54/55 series does not have a turret basket!).

Lee,

Not that it matters much, but someone local bought a surplus T-54 from the Czechs. They keep it in a museum on a decommissioned base (the former CFB Chilliwack). Year before last I was out there and got to ride in the commander's hatch with a full family riding on the back, sides and front, tank desant-style. From what I recall, the gunner and TC were located on either side of the gun, but yeah, there was no turret basket.

Brandon,

I think one of the main concepts for the BMP/BMD was a vehicle that could allow infantry to fight buttoned-up on a nuclear battlefield. Not so good on the non-nuclear battlefield! Original tactical doctrine was to have the vehicle leading out front, followed by the infantry... after the Yom Kippur war this doctrine was reversed, so obviously a few kinks needed to be ironed out.

Tony

natehale1971

10-27-2010, 05:55 PM

I can't remember where I read this... but there was a 'training accident' were target computers were off, and weapons ended up killing a bunch of soldiers during a wargame. Just like i had read were two ships ran into each other due to a computer glitch that told the ships they were at a safe distance and they ended up scrapping paint when the quartermasters pulled back at the last minute and pulled out of the head on collision.

helbent4

10-27-2010, 06:37 PM

natehale1971

10-27-2010, 06:42 PM

Nate,

Such disasters pre-date the modern computerised era, of course!

In 1893 two British pre-Dreadnaught battleships (HMS Camperdown and HMS Victoria) collided while on exercises and sank. It's a somewhat complicated story but it boils down to how a reputedly brilliant admiral planned a showy maneuver, and no one questioned his calculations either through blind faith or a rigid adherence to orders:

http://ahoy.tk-jk.net/macslog/StupidityreignsandthenAdm.html

Not exactly a "stupid GI" trick!

Tony

Very true Tony... i was just going by something i had heard about that happened during the past twenty years. Because I swear I read about the two ships swapping paint after I got out of the Navy... and that it had happened at night, and the computers acted up and said the ships were about twenty meters further apart than they actually were. Thus when they saw the running lights they thought everything was okay, the guys on watch were saying "i think they are too damn close!" and the offical statements were "no the computer says were safely apart" and when they got really close even the officers in charge said "They're to f**king close!" and started to pull out of their turns. and they scrapped as they turned apart.

dragoon500ly

10-27-2010, 09:36 PM

when the Field Artillery started using computers, some of the firing errors would shock you.

I was doing a FTX once and we got to actually call in artillery. Now, I've never had problems figuring out where I am on a map, and on previous exercises I was always able to get the round on target with only 2-3 adjustments.

Got into an arguement with out FO, who swore that our positions was five clicks from where I said we were. Needless to say, the ole E-5 got out voted by the 1st Lieutenant. And we used his grid coordinates to call for fire. As he was completing his fire mission, I had dismounted from his M-113 and stepped into an old foxhole, and was pulling on my kevlar. About the time our Lieutenant finished saying "Get your ass back on the track now Sergeant!" We heard the whistle of incoming artillery. The spotting round struck less than 40 meters from our track.

As you can imagine, the FO was back on the radio screaming "CHECK FIRE! CHECK FIRE!"

And I sat in the foxhole, grinning at the Lieutenant....:D

dragoon500ly

10-27-2010, 10:17 PM

Lee,

Not that it matters much, but someone local bought a surplus T-54 from the Czechs. They keep it in a museum on a decommissioned base (the former CFB Chilliwack). Year before last I was out there and got to ride in the commander's hatch with a full family riding on the back, sides and front, tank desant-style. From what I recall, the gunner and TC were located on either side of the gun, but yeah, there was no turret basket

So Solly Tony!

The gunner/tank commander are on the left side on the Soviet tanks all the way through the T-62 series. The T-64/T-72 are the first ones with the two seated on either side of the gun.

There was a running joke about the Russians cornering the market on short (5'5"), left-handed loaders!

Here's a tidbit on the BTR-60 and BTR-70 series of APCs...there are two main defects on this vehicle....the fact that it uses two bus engines as a power plant, always led to maintenance problems, although you can turn off one power plant and still have half-speed...and that the armor plate beind the first two roadwheels can be penetrated by 7.62mm AP ammo...

Targan

10-27-2010, 10:39 PM

Very true Tony... i was just going by something i had heard about that happened during the past twenty years. Because I swear I read about the two ships swapping paint after I got out of the Navy... and that it had happened at night, and the computers acted up and said the ships were about twenty meters further apart than they actually were. Thus when they saw the running lights they thought everything was okay, the guys on watch were saying "i think they are too damn close!" and the offical statements were "no the computer says were safely apart" and when they got really close even the officers in charge said "They're to f**king close!" and started to pull out of their turns. and they scrapped as they turned apart.

In 1964 the Royal Australian Navy lost the destroyer HMAS Voyager due to a collision. The Voyager was cut in half by our carrier HMAS Melbourne.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melbourne%E2%80%93Voyager_collision

Two Royal Commissions were held into the incident (the only time two Royal Commissions have ever been held into the same incident) with the second focussing on allegations that the captain of the Voyager may have been unfit for command (apparently he was an alcoholic).

Given the modest size of the Australian Defence Force (both then and now) we really couldn't afford to lose a destroyer that way. Now we'll probably never again see an Australian aircraft carrier sinking an Australian destroyer because we now longer have an aircraft carrier. But that's fine because our best buddies the USA has more than enough aircraft carrier to go around :D

Matt Wiser

10-27-2010, 10:44 PM

Speaking of T-72s, they've even been killed by Bradleys with 25-mm AP rounds. In both DESERT STORM and OIF-1. Several OIF kills from 3rd ID took place at less than 250 meters, and they were taking flank shots. I remember seeing Walt Rogers of CNN talking about a fight between 3-7 Cav and some T-72s, and the T-72s had been killed by Bradleys-and by 25-mm. Only one who tried to flee ate a TOW, the rest....

helbent4

10-28-2010, 05:01 AM

So Solly Tony!

The gunner/tank commander are on the left side on the Soviet tanks all the way through the T-62 series. The T-64/T-72 are the first ones with the two seated on either side of the gun.

There was a running joke about the Russians cornering the market on short (5'5"), left-handed loaders!

Lee,

Well, it didn't seem like that was the layout to me, but some written material does seem to conform to what you say so I could be wrong! Tell you what, next time I'm out in the 'Wack (CFB Chiliwack) and the museum is open I'll have a look inside the turret if I can. Then we'll see who's sorry then! Eh? Eh! :p

(Probably, I'll still be sorry.)

Tony

dragoon500ly

10-28-2010, 10:05 AM

Lee,

Well, it didn't seem like that was the layout to me, but some written material does seem to conform to what you say so I could be wrong! Tell you what, next time I'm out in the 'Wack (CFB Chiliwack) and the museum is open I'll have a look inside the turret if I can. Then we'll see who's sorry then! Eh? Eh! :p

(Probably, I'll still be sorry.)

Tony

LOL What you most likely have at Chiliwack is a driving instruction conversion, turret removed, modest superstructure to replace, the seat on the right (the new TC) has duplicate driver controls. Several dozen of them have been sold to the West in recent years. Nothing like packing a few paying tourists into a tank and running around them around the track!

helbent4

10-28-2010, 10:19 AM

LOL What you most likely have at Chiliwack is a driving instruction conversion, turret removed, modest superstructure to replace, the seat on the right (the new TC) has duplicate driver controls. Several dozen of them have been sold to the West in recent years. Nothing like packing a few paying tourists into a tank and running around them around the track!

Lee,

The turret is removed and some superstructure added for the training version? This tank had a turret and I rode in it, although I can't say if superstructure was added. :cool:

http://i209.photobucket.com/albums/bb186/helbent4/CropperCapture1-1.jpg

-The tank, although not me in the turret.

http://www.cmedcentre.ca/#

The owner said he had a choice between a T-54 and an M48A3 Patton and decided on the former due to cost concerns and parts availability. Also, the steel tracks were replaced by rubber-shod Centurion. He was specific (and proud) of his baby and spent time talking about engine rebuilds and the boxes on the turret sides and pretty much everything, it's difficult to see it was originally a training tank not coming up.

A little off-topic, here are some pictures of Cuban variants on the BTR-60, including the middle one with a modified T-54 turret. Bottom left has a BTR-1 turret. All could make an appearance in the Twilight war!

http://i42.tinypic.com/34pz9lw.jpg

http://i43.tinypic.com/b3lfvc.jpg

http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?149472-Bluffer%92s-guide-Fortress-Cuba

Tony

dragoon500ly

10-28-2010, 10:27 AM

There have been several posts about favorite German weapons...here are a couple that didn't make the fav list...

The MG35/36. This was a Swedish design that was sold to the German firm of Knorr-Bremse. KB was a automotive supply company that specialized in car brakes. Looking to score a nice defense contract, KB offered the MG35/36 to the expanding Wehrmacht. Das Heer was not impressed by the design and turned the weapon down. KB however, sold a few thousand to the Waffen SS, who used it as a training weapon until enough MG34/MG42 were available to replace it, and then issued the MG35/36 to the various SS Foreign Legions which were, by then, fighting in Russia.

The Knorr-Bremse MG35/36 has two major problems; first was the safety catch. If it was carelessly applied it would hold the bolt 3/4 open (cocked without the sear being engaged). If the user then snapped a magazine into place and released the safety catch, the weapon would release the bolt, chamber a round and discharge....The second problem had to do with how the stock was attached to the receiver. The attachment point was too weak to withstand the vibration of firing and the butt had a tendency to come loose and fall off the gun, a bit upsetting to the user, to say the least.

The second machinegun is an oddity in the weapons race, it has been produced in virtually the same form for over 50 years and has served in every war from the Russo-Japanese to Vietnam, and yet has never been officially adopted in quantity by any major power. It is a Danish design and is named after the Danish Minister of War who was particulary enthusiatic about the weapon. The Madsen machine gun was the Norwegian Army's light machine gun in 1940 and saw service against the Germans during the invasion. It was also used by the militarys of Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia, and Poland, and many of them found there way into German service.

The Madsen action is based on the recoil of the barrel, which moves a pivoting breechblock. Since the block is working on a vertical arc, a separate rammer is needed to load the next round and a separate extractor is needed to remove the spent casing. It's a complex mechanism, prone to frequent jams. The major innovation that the Madsen is known for is the top-mounted curved magazine, widely copied after its introduction on this weapon.

Since the Germans were using captured Madsens, some bright engineer realized that the Heer used metal link belts, and to ease ammunition supply, designed an ingenious conversion kit that allowed the use of the standard box magazine as well as the standard German Army machine gun belt. Please remember that with the complxity of the Madsen's mechanism...this is the technical equivalent of operating two elevators in the same shaft.

:rolleyes:

dragoon500ly

10-28-2010, 10:35 AM

The owner said he had a choice between a T-54 and an M48A3 Patton and decided on the former due to cost concerns and parts availability. Also, the steel tracks were replaced by rubber-shod Centurion. He was specific (and proud) of his baby and spent time talking about engine rebuilds and the boxes on the turret sides and pretty much everything, it's difficult to see it was originally a training tank not coming up.

Well, what you have here is your basic T-54A, with some modified storage boxes. May even be a Czech copy, although you need to look at the rear deck for sure. Not sure about the Centurion tracks, at the very least it would require major replacement of the sprokets which could lead to trannie issues.

The position on the right side of the turret is the loaders.

Fusilier

10-28-2010, 05:26 PM

Legbreaker

10-28-2010, 06:35 PM

Sounds like it doesn't it....
The amount of safety staff and checking that's carried out on the range here in Australia makes events like that effectively impossible.

dragoon500ly

10-29-2010, 05:55 AM

That just seems incredibly unsafe and well... dumb - that on a training exercise you actually have the ability to either call in artillery on your own position or can be in an designated impact area during a live fire. No range safety staff either?

I'm guessing the apparent lack of ensuring the safety of its members is a reason for such a high rate of US military training deaths?!?

Like I said in the Post, the Lt (and that new computer) was off by 5 kilometers. THis was back in 1981 and the FX was to teach us old soldiers about the latest advance in calling in fire.

As for the training accidents, the us military does seem to have a lot of them. And most of them are sheer stupid human error.

helbent4

10-29-2010, 09:50 AM

Well, what you have here is your basic T-54A, with some modified storage boxes. May even be a Czech copy, although you need to look at the rear deck for sure. Not sure about the Centurion tracks, at the very least it would require major replacement of the sprokets which could lead to trannie issues.

The position on the right side of the turret is the loaders.

Lee,

Well, there you go. The tank was licence-built by the Czechs, and the tracks were from a Centurion. I don't know if he had problems with them or not!

Tony

dragoon500ly

10-29-2010, 04:44 PM

There is a story that floats around about the difference in quaility control between made-in-the-USSR and those copies made in Poland/Czech Republic.

When the first T-54s were sold to the Warsaw Pact, the engines were blowing at fairly short intervals.

The story goes that a Polish engineer, ordered to fix the problem, took apart several of the Soviet-made engines, and discovered, about 15kgs or so of metal grit, burrs, and other debris in the engines. It was reported in some engines, that it looked like the Soviet factory workers drilled holes into the metal, and instead of sweeping the debris away, simply pushed it into the interior of the engine, some of the oil lines were so blocked with debris, that oil could not flow.

helbent4

10-29-2010, 06:39 PM

HorseSoldier

10-29-2010, 07:46 PM

helbent4

10-29-2010, 07:49 PM

I've heard similar on Soviet ATGMs -- story being that after the Wall came down US technical intelligence guys got their hands on a lot of them care of the former DDR. Test firing them yielded a surprisingly high dud and misfire rate, owing to apparently very low end quality control.

HS,

I heard the same thing as well for US-supplied M72 LAW rockets that had been stored in Egypt for over a decade. The warheads and fuses were fine but the rocket motors misfired at a high rate. Not to say the Soviet-built weapons weren't rubbish, but apparently rocket motors have a very high failure rate over time due to chemical processes.

Tony

HorseSoldier

10-29-2010, 08:44 PM

Strangely, I used to date a girl years ago whose mother owned a company that made pretty good money doing surveillance on warehoused rockets and missiles, mostly (from what I gathered) watching for signs that the fuels were decaying or leaking. Apparently a pretty involved process.

dragoon500ly

10-29-2010, 10:04 PM

Face it, the only decent anti-tank weapon that the Soviets had was the RPG7...and it still had a high misfire rate...not to mention, since it was fin-stabilized, that cross-winds played holy havoc with accuracy!

In spite of the stated effective range and the fancy sight, most RPG users just use the iron sights and don't fire at anything more than 250 meters.

dragoon500ly

11-04-2010, 08:40 PM

Back in 1895, the US Army made the decision to retire its collection of Colt and Smith & Wesson .45 revolvers, most of these weapons dated back to 1873 and there was a lot of intrest in the new smokeless powder cartridges. So Colt sold the Army on what became the M1895 .38-caliber revolver. It was a smaller caliber, it was double-action and it was easier to shoot than the old thumb-buster single action revolvers. Looked like a great weapon.

Until the Spanish American War.

In the aftermath of the SAW, the US came into possession of the Phillippine Islands, and soon found themselves involved in putting down the local resistance. It was quickly discovered that the .38-caliber round just didn't have the same knock-down effect as the old .45 and the US Army scrambled to refurbish and reissue as many of the "old" revolvers as possible. It also spurred Colt to develop the M-1911 pistol, one of the longest serving, and most reliable, hard-hitting weapons of the 20th Century.

Even though the M1895 emerged with its reputation in tatters, it did see a second chance during World War One, when cases of the pistol were brought out of storage and issued as training weapons for the Doughboys.

copeab

11-04-2010, 09:15 PM

I think one of the main concepts for the BMP/BMD was a vehicle that could allow infantry to fight buttoned-up on a nuclear battlefield. Not so good on the non-nuclear battlefield! Original tactical doctrine was to have the vehicle leading out front, followed by the infantry... after the Yom Kippur war this doctrine was reversed, so obviously a few kinks needed to be ironed out.

Unfortunately, fire from gunports is not all that accurate (limited field of vision) and if the vehicle is moving ... forget it.

HorseSoldier

11-05-2010, 12:13 AM

In the aftermath of the SAW, the US came into possession of the Phillippine Islands, and soon found themselves involved in putting down the local resistance. It was quickly discovered that the .38-caliber round just didn't have the same knock-down effect as the old .45 and the US Army scrambled to refurbish and reissue as many of the "old" revolvers as possible. It also spurred Colt to develop the M-1911 pistol, one of the longest serving, and most reliable, hard-hitting weapons of the 20th Century.

This doesn't really belong in a "really bad weapons" thread, as there was nothing wrong with the weapon itself -- which was a dramatic improvement in ergonomics and functionality over the Single Action Army. The problem was that the .38 caliber cartridge in question was extremely anemic -- loaded weaker than modern .380 ACP, which most experts either consider to be the bottom end for serious defensive/fighting pistol calibers.

Anyway, the Moro story is primarily myth -- at least the idea that the 1911 fixed the problem. There were lethality complaints concerning 30-40 Krag rounds as well, and if a full power rifle round couldn't get the job done no handgun round could. The 1911 is a great design (I carry one as a duty sidearm), but the Philippine Insurrection stories are enshrined legends rather than reality.

dragoon500ly

11-05-2010, 09:55 AM

This doesn't really belong in a "really bad weapons" thread, as there was nothing wrong with the weapon itself -- which was a dramatic improvement in ergonomics and functionality over the Single Action Army. The problem was that the .38 caliber cartridge in question was extremely anemic -- loaded weaker than modern .380 ACP, which most experts either consider to be the bottom end for serious defensive/fighting pistol calibers.

Anyway, the Moro story is primarily myth -- at least the idea that the 1911 fixed the problem. There were lethality complaints concerning 30-40 Krag rounds as well, and if a full power rifle round couldn't get the job done no handgun round could. The 1911 is a great design (I carry one as a duty sidearm), but the Philippine Insurrection stories are enshrined legends rather than reality.

LOL...The Philippine Insurrection saw the replacement of the .38 revolver by the reissue of the old thumbbusters. To the best of my knowledge, no M1911 ever served in the Philippines until after the end of the Insurrection. So that famous print of a soldier shooting a Moro that hangs in the Army Heritage Museum is based on the popular myth, not reality.

The reason I added the M1895 pistol, is it failed the acid test of combat. In contrast, the M1894 Krag-Jorgensen was noted for several deficiencies that led to its replacement by the Mauser-based M-1903 Springfield rifle. But it was never considered to be a failed design.

I certainly don't consider myself to be the guru of military weapons, the weapons that I have added to the list are based on my research and are my personal opinion. I stand by my opinion of the Colt M1895 Revolver.

dragoon500ly

11-23-2010, 08:44 PM

Time for another really bad idea for a weapon.

In the late 1950s the Army, in its infinite wisdom, decided to field the the M-28 and M-29 Davy Crockett. The M-28 (120mm caliber, max range of 2,000m) and M-29 (155mm caliber, max range of 4,000m) fired the M-388 round, a modified version of the W54 nuclear warhead. This particular warhead weighs in at 23kg and had a selectible yield of 0.01KT up to 0.02KT (just about the smallest possible fission warhead). On the minimum setting, this was about twice the size of the bomb used in the Oklahoma City bombing of 1995.

The problem with the Davy Crockett lies in its intended usage. It was to be deployed along the border, prior to the Soviets lauching their great drive to throw NATO into the Atlantic. The theory is that the Davy Crocketts would launch their bombs and lay a belt of intense radiation (in excess of 10,000rem) that would last for 48 hours, buying NATO time to deploy forward and defeat the Soviets.

Hmmmm, a short range, very dirty nuclear warhead with a promise of being non-lethal within 48 hours....nope can't see a problem! :rolleyes:

dragoon500ly

11-27-2010, 09:34 AM

I'm going to post this picture as soon as I get my scanner back up and running.

The source is US Infantry Weapons of the First World War by Bruce Canfield...

It is an experimental combination sword and pistol made from a M1913 saber blade with a handle containing a M1911 .45 caliber pistol and a sliding shoulder stock. This unusual, one-of-a-kind prototype weapon was carried in a M1913 saber scabbard. Reportedly fabricated at the Springfield Armory.

Since it may be a bit before I get to a scanner....the M1913 saber is the one designed by George Patton, a long, tapering blade, used only for the thrust. It has a bell handguard and the pistol is welded to the top of the handguard, which has seven bars welded and running back and ending in a ring, protecting the hand while it holds the pistol.

You basically have the choice of shooting your target as you gallop towards it and then sticking it as you ride past.

THANK GAWD only one was ever produced!!!!!

pmulcahy11b

11-27-2010, 02:10 PM

Somewhere I have a picture of something similar done for a Japanese officer with a Nambu pistol and a samurai sword.

dragoon500ly

11-27-2010, 06:01 PM

And there is a pic floating the web that has a British Heavy Cavalry Saber, brazed to a Webley revolver...

Its such a bad idea, and it seems that every armory sooner or later gets this wild hair.......

Its as silly an idea as the OSS glove with a single-shot pistol riveted to the back, "Why no Mr. Donovan, sir, no Nazi will every suspect you want to shot him!"

Panther Al

12-06-2010, 06:55 PM

In the aftermath of the SAW, the US came into possession of the Phillippine Islands, and soon found themselves involved in putting down the local resistance. It was quickly discovered that the .38-caliber round just didn't have the same knock-down effect as the old .45 and the US Army scrambled to refurbish and reissue as many of the "old" revolvers as possible. It also spurred Colt to develop the M-1911 pistol, one of the longest serving, and most reliable, hard-hitting weapons of the 20th Century.

You know that whole escapade as always left me amused:

Here you have US soldiers in a far off land fighting die-hard muslim insurgents and it is found that their 9mm(ish) pistols are not up to the job, so they bring back a .45 pistol.
Fast forward a hundred years and here you have US soldiers in a far off land...

What is they say about learning from history?

:)

On a earlier post about fuel tanks and tank drivers, just think of the M1 driver: fuel tank to the left, fuel tank to the right, a hatch that won't open with NV installed, a heater that always leaks a few inches behind his head to the left, and a halon nozzle a few inches behind his head to the right.

dragoon500ly

12-07-2010, 09:15 AM

You know that whole escapade as always left me amused:

Here you have US soldiers in a far off land fighting die-hard muslim insurgents and it is found that their 9mm(ish) pistols are not up to the job, so they bring back a .45 pistol.
Fast forward a hundred years and here you have US soldiers in a far off land...

What is they say about learning from history? :)

That the US military doesn't read its own history? LOL!

You can almost see some staff weenie telling the general all about how cool the 9mm is and how everybody else in NATO is using it...

Makes you wish that ole George Patton was there to say "It takes a .45 to knock the $#&(%^(&@%^@@^%$^@ down for good!"

On a earlier post about fuel tanks and tank drivers, just think of the M1 driver: fuel tank to the left, fuel tank to the right, a hatch that won't open with NV installed, a heater that always leaks a few inches behind his head to the left, and a halon nozzle a few inches behind his head to the right.

Could be worse, at least he doesn't have 30 rounds of main gun on either side...

Panther Al

12-07-2010, 08:20 PM

I always thought that the US going to the 9mm as something of an unofficial apology for forcing the 7.62 round down NATO's throat only to dump it ourselves a few years later.

pmulcahy11b

12-07-2010, 10:00 PM

I always thought that the US going to the 9mm as something of an unofficial apology for forcing the 7.62 round down NATO's throat only to dump it ourselves a few years later.

And then forcing the 5.56mm NATO round down NATO's throats...

Legbreaker

12-07-2010, 10:02 PM

5.56 isn't a bad round, it's just not the best that could have been chosen.... :(

Targan

12-08-2010, 08:31 AM

5.56 isn't a bad round, it's just not the best that could have been chosen.... :(

Well and succinctly put.

bobcat

12-09-2010, 05:32 AM

5.56 isn't a bad round, it's just not the best that could have been chosen.... :(

heck 5.56mm was a great round...
...till we let NATO mess with it.

StainlessSteelCynic

12-09-2010, 11:14 PM

heck 5.56mm was a great round...
...till we let NATO mess with it.

The M193 round might have been great before the common use of body armour by potential foes but against body armour it just doesn't cut it.
NATO (including the US) wanted something more effective against personal armour, they should have gone for something else but the US had already forced the 5.56mm calibre onto everybody else so that was what they had to work with.
Would not have been an issue if they'd hadn't swallowed the bullshit about micro-calibre high-speed projectiles.

dragoon500ly

12-10-2010, 04:57 AM

And as the troops in Iraq and Afghanistan are discovering, 5.56 may allow for a weapon with low recoil and give the soldier the ability to carry a lot of ammo...but the trade off is a round that just doesn't have the umph for a 800-meter shot and simply is not as lethal as you would like.

Sooooo...

You see a lot of the ole M-14s being pulled out of storage, go through depot maintenance and then get reissued ot units pulling AK-47s out of the captured weapons piles and used.

I've been watching the development of the 6.8mm round for the last few years and I think they may be on to something here, its light weight but has enhanced hitting power, is this what will be replacing the ole 5.56?

bobcat

12-10-2010, 05:49 AM

my vote for the worst weapon ever? imagine taking a motor scooter ripping the seat off and in place of a seat mount a recoilless rifle. the french call this thing the "ACMA Troupes AerÃ³l PortÃ©es Mle. 56."

http://www.darkroastedblend.com/2006/12/mystery-photo-one-seriously-empowered.html

though i guess that 75MM gun might get you through a traffic jam a little easier.

StainlessSteelCynic

12-10-2010, 07:23 AM

Actually it's not as bad as it sounds. Most of the sites that report on this Vespa with a BFG fail to mention that although the weapon could be fired while mounted, there's no aiming device fitted to allow it. The intent was to use the scooter to rapidly move the M20 recoilless rifle from place to place where it would be removed from the scooter, set on it's tripod and fired in the normal manner.
The scooter is meant only to transport the weapon and it's tripod while a second scooter would carry extra ammo.

bobcat

12-10-2010, 08:26 AM

headquarters

12-10-2010, 09:51 AM

The French have like a gazillion Vespa riding kids - they could cut training time to a bare minimum.Those guys are crazy fearless in traffic on their scooters.Although not as mad as Italian scooter kids. They are kamikaze like to my Norwegian traffic mentality.

dragoon500ly

12-10-2010, 01:21 PM

Reminds me of the Belgian Army back in 1914; their infantry would transport their machineguns via light carts, hauled by dogs.

Legbreaker

12-11-2010, 08:24 AM

i for one would love to see the reaction if someone were dumb enough to fire it while rideing it...
the recoill, the lack of padding between the gun and the balls, the look on the drivers face... priceless.:D

Ummm, it's a recoiless rifle....
Not saying it would be a good idea to fire in the transport position though.

helbent4

12-11-2010, 09:19 AM

Reminds me of the Belgian Army back in 1914; their infantry would transport their machineguns via light carts, hauled by dogs.

Lee,

I posted in the Images thread a chart showing the Cubans currently transport Soviet-designed machineguns using a bicycle to tow the wheeled carriage. You'd certainly see that in T2K!

Tony

mikeo80

12-11-2010, 10:39 AM

I know the following weapon is historically much earlier than the weapons discussed in this thread. Seeing that one of the regimental guidon's for Custer's 7th Cavalry was sold at auction, I thought it might be worthwhile to contemplate the poor grunts at Little Big Horn who were stuck with the Springfield Model 1873.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Springfield_Model_1873

By all accounts, the Souix and others had a motley assortment of weapons from tradional bow,arrow, and lance to Winchester and Henry repeating rifles.

Once again the war department wanted to save money by issuing a poor substitute to US soldiers.

Just my two cents worth!! :p

Mike

bobcat

12-11-2010, 12:57 PM

dragoon500ly

12-11-2010, 03:38 PM

the reason Custer's men lasted as long as they did was because that single shot rifle everyone loves to malign was excellent for long range where as the pistol caliber repeating rifles sucked at the ranges that battle was mostly fought at. the thing that killed Custer was numbers.

True, to an extent. In 1983 a range fire burned off most of the ground cover on the Custer-Reno-Benteen battlefields this allowed the first archaeological study of the battlefield and it was released in the book "Archaelology, History and Custer's Last Battle". Its an intresting study in that they used modern police techniques to match bullets and casings to specific firearms and used this to trace troop/indian movements.

While Custer's battalion was initially able to hold off its attackers by using their range advantage, the Indians were able to use the terrain to get close enough to use the real advantage of the Henry/Winchester rifles, i.e. its rapid range fire that allowede them to overwhelm the troopers, unit by unit and cause the disintegration of the 7th Cavalry's cohesion, this allowed the Indians to get to within hand-to-hand range and swamp the remaining troopers.

Targan

12-12-2010, 01:59 AM

Ah well. I reckon Custer seriously had it coming. Indigenous people FTW!

LBraden

12-12-2010, 04:55 AM

Plus, lets not forget that Custer said that he did not want the fancy new invention by a Dr Richard Gatling, that played a huge advantage in lack of useful defence systems.

dragoon500ly

12-12-2010, 08:53 AM

Gamer

12-12-2010, 09:52 PM

And, of course, one should never forget the misconduct of Major Reno and Captain Benteen, who disobeyed orders to rejoin the Custer Battalion until it was far too late.

Would their presence have prevented the Last Stand? It's one of historys what ifs...but their actions on that field of battle merited a courts-martial and a firing squad!

Only an extreme lack of real research into the battle nor actually seeing the battlefield can one come to that conclusion.
The accusations of Misconduct came from the 'Custer clique' of the regiment the ones overly loyal to him.

You need to really research the tactics and abilities of cavalry of the time, what it takes to move a pack train of 147 mules.
To learn what it takes to rally and reorganise a shattered command with wounded, exhausted and demoralised troops which if they even still had horses found them to be exhausted as well after being routed and pursued by many hundreds of hostiles for miles, cross the Rosebud river and climb 100 foot bluffs.

There was no way Reno could get moving fast enough to join Custer again, Benteen arrived at Renos shattered command after Custer was already fighting, they didn't even have the pack train yet.
Benteen Left a slowly reorganising Reno to join Custer before the Pack train even arrived their position and as far as Benteen made it was to Cpt.Weir at Wiers point under indian contact where they could only watch Custers command getting wiped out a few miles away.
The pack train would never have arrived in time in any place.

Custer and his command was killed by Custers over ambitious flamboyant repeated insistence his 7th cavalry could take on anything they met and his repeated ignorance of intel provided by his scouts.
It was the 'Custer luck' that got him through some of his battles in the Civil war as it was.

Gatlings would never made a difference as they would have been stuck with the pack train, as they are too cumbersome and heavy to keep up with the rest of the command and Custer favored speed and shock effect.
The best the Gatlings would have done in the battle had they been taken is helped Reno and Benteen in their defensive position.

The only thing that would have made some kind of difference in this battle would be the 2nd Cavalry that Custer refused to take along, he insisted at the time his 7th cavalry could beat anything they met.

Custer attacked the combined Indian villages before he even had an idea of what and the numbers he faced.

The inquiry called on Reno's insistence found Reno and Benteen innocent.
The timeline of the battle given by the Indians and the current battlefield forensic evidence confirms that there was no way Benteen and Reno could have arrived in time to help Custer and even if they had done so they would all have died as well.
It was Custer and his very bad decisions that killed Custer and his command.

helbent4

12-13-2010, 05:06 AM

It was the 'Custer luck' that got him through some of his battles in the Civil war as it was.

Gamer,

So what happened is best described by another phrase that closely rhymes with "Custer luck".

On a more serious note, the following article goes into the various elements of the battle in depth, including examining the evidence of jammed cartridges, faulty intelligence that misled Custer, how many repeating weapons the Indians really had and how they stacked up to the Springfield, and so on:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Little_Bighorn

Tony

dragoon500ly

12-13-2010, 11:55 AM

[QUOTE=Gamer;28294]Only an extreme lack of real research into the battle nor actually seeing the battlefield can one come to that conclusion.
The accusations of Misconduct came from the 'Custer clique' of the regiment the ones overly loyal to him.[QUOTE]

Well now, let me see...I took part in some of the digging on the Battlefield in the 1983 archeological survey. I've toured the various sites three times in the last 7 years. And I have a personal intrest in the battle as well, one of my ancestors, Captain George W.M. Yates. commanding Company F died with the Custer Battalion. So yes, I have researched the battle and the movements leading up to it in some detail.

I have never considered myself a fan of GAC, his orders leading up to that day certainly were not made with the best of judgement. But that does not excuse the misconduct of Reno and Benteen. Reno's conduct during his attack are, by themselves, sufficient grounds to cashier him from the Army. His orders were to take his battalion and attack the valley villages, driving the Indians up the Little Big Horn Valley. When he saw the true extent of the villages, he halted his command and formed a skirmish line across the prairie.

Indian testimony confirms the utter surprise of Reno's attack and their own concerns with escaping. That's right, the Indians stated that they were ready to run. That is until Reno halted his command and give the Indian chiefs time to rally their warriors and launch their own counterattack. Up to this moment in time, the Indians were not aware of Custer's battalion.

A brisk fire took place until a group of Indians were moving down a gully, threatening his horses. Reno pulled Company G from his line and sent them towards the river, leaving his skirmish line spread too thinly to be effective. He then moved his men back to the woods where his horses were sheltered. Here his men rallied and kept up a stubborn fire that kept the Indians at bay.

By about 330pm, Reno had lost several killed and wounded, but was holding his position. It is at this moment that he made the decision to fall back towards the bluffs. Rather than using a bugle call, he called out his order, resulting in that some of his men heard the order and others did not. In this mass of confusion, the firing of his men slackened enough to allow the Indians to attack. It was at this moment that Bloody Knife, one of Custer's scouts, was shot in the head sending brains and blood splattering into Reno's face.

Reno panicked. He ordered his men to dismount and then to remount. He then spurred his horse and took off for the river bluffs. He never issued an order to retreat, he simply ran. Reno's battalion broke and it became a every an for himself rout.

The exact distance of the rout runs about a half mile to a full mile, depending on which crossing was used by the troops. In the panic, some forty or so of Reno's men were left behind, on foot. Most of them were able to seek cover in the woods, but several were killed in the aftermath.

To add insult to injury, Major Reno was the first man up the bluff to the sight that became the Reno-Benteen Defense Site. When Dr. Porter, an acting surgeon, approached the gallant major and mentioned that the men were badly demoralized by the rout. Reno is reputed to have snapped back "That was a cavalry charge, sir!" It took less than half an hour, and Reno was out of the fight.

dragoon500ly

12-13-2010, 12:28 PM

As for Captain Benteen...he had received orders prior to the launch of Reno's attack to scout a secondary valley to the south and block the escape of any Indians in that direction. Testimony of the officers and men of his command confirm that Benteen thought this was little more than a wild goose chase and he broke off his "scout" and followed well behind the Custer/Reno Battalions and the pack train. Shortly after starting this march, Benteen called for a halt. During this period, his men heard the sound of distant firing (most likely from Reno's Valley Fight), but Benteen, in opposition to his officers desire to move to the sound of the guns, stayed put. After about twenty minutes, he remounted his command moved at a slow trot down the trail.

Benteen's Battalion had moved perhaps three miles when they met Custer's courier, a Sgt Kanipe, who carried the order to the Pack Train to move up and join with the Custer Battalion. Benteen refused to hurry his command and after moving another mile up the trail, halted to water his horses. It was at this point that Pvt John Martin, Custer's orderly arrived with what is known as Custer's Last Order "Benteen. Come On. Big Village. Be Quick. Bring Packs. W.W. Cooke. P. Bring Pacs." Benteen then took the time to discuss the order with his officers until a heavier burst of firing could be heard. This took place at about 3:30pm.

Benteen then galloped his command up the eastern side of the LBHR and arrived at the bluffs in time to witness the rout of Reno's Battalion from the valley floor. Benteen then led his command around the bluffs to where Reno's command was gathering. At this point, Major Reno rode out to meet Benteen and stated "For God's sake, Benteen, halt your command and help me! I've lost half of my men!"

Benteen showed Reno the order from Custer. According to the military regulations in effect at that time, the burden of carrying out the order transferred itself to Reno. For his part, Reno ignored the order.

During this time, both officers were able to hear the unmistakable sound of heavy fighting coming from from the direction that Custer had taken. Many of the other officer's present suggested moving up to rejoin Custer. Reno replied that ammo was low, which, according to the testimony of these officers, was not true, plenty of ammo was available.

Captain Thomas Weir, commanding Company D, lost patience with Reno and requested that he be allowed to scout downstream. Reno refused and a heated argument took place. Wier then blatantly disobeyed orders and rode off to the north, followed by Company D. They rode about a mile north to a promontory now known as Weir Point. The view north was obscured by dust and smoke, but Indians could be observed riding around a hill and firing at objects in the area now known as Custer Hill. Weir also observed a group of Indians advancing towards him and he led his company to more defensible ground.

Reno dispatched a courier to inform Weir that the rest of the command would soon follow and ordered the captain to open communications with Custer. By this time, it was too late, the firing had mostly ceased and Weir could observe most of the Indians riding towards Weir Point.

Most of the Reno/Benteen battalions had moved up to Weir Point when the advance of the Indains was sighted and an impromptu retreat ensued as the troopers rode back to their initial defense position.

By 7pm, seven companies, representing Reno's Battalion, Benteen's Battalion and the Pack Train and its escort were beseiged at the Reno-Benteen Defense Site.

The conduct of Major Reno during this time has been a matter of controversy. Many officers and men stated that Reno had hidden himself in a protected position until shortly before dawn. Other witnesses claimed that Reno gave the apperance of being drunk. Reno was also overheard suggesting to Benteen that the mounted portion of the command and those wounded able to ride should mount up and depart the hill under cover of darkness. Those wounded too badly to ride were to be left behind. To the enternal credit of Benteen, he rejected this plan. It should be noted that the defense of the hilltop was lead by Benteen who displayed great courage under fire. Reno, apparently relinquished command to Benteen.

dragoon500ly

12-13-2010, 12:54 PM

So who is to blame for the loss of five companies of US Cavalry at the Little Big Horn?

There is no doubt that Custer misread the strength of the Indians in the Little Big Horn Valley. His decision to split the regiment into three tactical battalions has often been blasted ever since. But it does not take a military genius to understand what Custer had planned. Plenty of evidence exists to support a strategy that was nothing less than brilliant, especially given the terrain.

Major Reno was ordered to move to the floor of the LBHV and charge the Indian village. Only Reno has stated that he was told by GAC that he would be supported by the whole outfit. Reno has also stated that he kept looking for any sign of reinforcement, which never appear.

Custer's movements after splitting off from Reno confirm that Custer never had any intention of following Reno to the Valley floor. Reno was part diversion, part strike force. It must be remembered that the Indians themselves were not aware of the Custer's Battalion until sometime after Reno's Attack. Custer was simply following his Civil War tactics of executing a frontal attack with one detachement while moving one or more detachements to attack from the flank or rear.

Reno's charge did cause great chaos among the unsuspecting Indians, this should have prevented them from mounting a defense or launching a counterattack. Then elements of Custer's Battalion would have descended from the bluffs and strike the villages from several locations. This would force the Indians to flee to the south, into Benteen's Battalion and then later into the hands of Crook's Column.

No less a personage than Chief Gall has stated that when Reno's troops launched their attack, the Indians were more concerned with tearing down what they could of their villages and running away.

So what went wrong?

Reno and Benteen went to their deathbeds swearing that Custer disobeyed the orders of General Terry and tried to steal all of the glory for himself. Studying the movements of the three Battalions shows that there was a plan, in spite of the Reno/Benteen claims and that it was a good plan with every right to expect sucess. Remember, that during the entire history of the Indian Wars up to this point, whenever Indians were attacked in their villages by the Army, in every case, the Indians took what they could and fled the scene.

But Reno's decision to not continue his charge, his decision to halt and go on the defense, his panic-stricken decision to flee that defense line allowed the Indians time to regroup and counterattack his command and then Custer's command. For this alone, he deserved to be courts-martialed and shot. The Reno Inquiry that took place was little more than a white-wash intended to protect the reputations of the Army, and that of the surviving officers. Custer had only his wife to speak up for him. The rest of Custer's adherents lay dead with him.

weswood

12-13-2010, 05:00 PM

Wow, Dragoon, thanks for the info/history lesson. I did a book report of the Little Big Horn, but that was 20+ years ago. All I can remember is Custer didn't believe his scouts estimates of the enemy.

dragoon500ly

12-13-2010, 05:31 PM

Ever since my granddad told me about Captain Yates, LBH has been a major source of intrest to me. I used to believe the perception of "Custer the Heroic Jackass" until I first visited the battlefield. Walking the ground as a volunteer with a metal detactor during the '83 dig really opened my eyes.

Ever since then I have been a member of most of the LBH groups, I've spent waaaaaayyyy too much money on various books about LBH, and dragged my long suffering wife and kids to three boring vacations (at least for them!).

Custer may have been an ass, and certainly he was guilty of underestimating what was camped in the valley and certainly he should have taken time to properly scout the villages and it is also certain that the smart choice would have been to wait for General Terry to close up with the rest of the column. But GAC was a typical cavalry officer, raised in the Civil War and with too many images of Murat lurking in his head. But he did his best, too bad he was let down by Reno and Benteen.

helbent4

12-13-2010, 08:03 PM

Group,

I think the Little Big Horn deserves it's own thread, because I'm sure we still want to read about "really bad weapons", too.

Tony

Targan

12-13-2010, 10:18 PM

Remember, that during the entire history of the Indian Wars up to this point, whenever Indians were attacked in their villages by the Army, in every case, the Indians took what they could and fled the scene.

Yup, I guess that's the smart thing to do when you're trying to avoid genocide.

Similar situation in the Maori Wars in New Zealand. The British redcoats got fed up with failing to draw the Maori guerrillas into open, set piece battles so they changed strategies and concentrated on locating and destroying the Maori villages. Amazing how a people lose the will to fight when their crops have been burned and their women and children slaughtered.

Ah the benefits of civilization. :(

Morthrai

12-14-2010, 05:41 AM

dragoon500ly

12-14-2010, 06:04 AM

(Still catching up on things here)
I see the Ross rifle (http://forum.juhlin.com/showpost.php?p=26453&postcount=12) has already been mentioned. I recall my uncle, who was a British tank driver right through WW2, mentioning that he went ashore at Juno Beach on D-Day supporting the Canadians. The weapons that were issued to those tank crews were Ross rifles, the idea being that more No. 4 .303s were freed up for use by the Canadian infantry. During the course of the assault, a couple of .303s and Stens found their way into the tanks and the Ross rifles got left behind before they even had to be used.

As a hunting rifle, the Ross is a fairly decent weapon, the problem with it is that it was never designed for combat use (and how many times have we heard that description?). A lot of stories from WWI tell how the bolt would get so gummed up with dirt/carbon that it would often take two men to work it. So as a combat rifle the Ross is on the list for bad weapons.

Other horrible rifles would include the French Lebel and Berthier rifles. With their 3 round magazines and akward bolt design they are often described as "little more than a musket more useful to hang a bayonet from."

Targan

12-14-2010, 06:12 AM

Interesting that the Ross Rifle was a failure (under trench warfare conditions) but the LMG conversion of the Ross Rifle, the Huot Automatic Rifle, probably would have been a big success had the war not ended before the final production version was ready for mass manufacture. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huot_automatic_rifle . Its a pity that the Ross Rifles provided to Britain during WWII hadn't undergone that conversion.

dragoon500ly

12-14-2010, 06:25 AM

The whatifs and mighthavebeens of military weapons can sometimes be a real eye opener.

When the Bren was first introduced into the British Army, many thought that it was too heavy, had a poor rate of fire and an small ammo capacity...who know that it would turn into the weapon that it did?

The Boys antitank rifle is considered to be the best design of that breed, but its service life can be measured in a handful of months before it was overtaken by tank development.

Atomic Annie, Davy Crockett, the Northover Projector, endless scores of machine guns, the list is endless

Abbott Shaull

12-14-2010, 06:51 AM

Zaskar24

12-14-2010, 07:00 AM

helbent4

12-14-2010, 07:08 AM

As a hunting rifle, the Ross is a fairly decent weapon, the problem with it is that it was never designed for combat use (and how many times have we heard that description?). A lot of stories from WWI tell how the bolt would get so gummed up with dirt/carbon that it would often take two men to work it. So as a combat rifle the Ross is on the list for bad weapons.

Other horrible rifles would include the French Lebel and Berthier rifles. With their 3 round magazines and akward bolt design they are often described as "little more than a musket more useful to hang a bayonet from."

Lee,

Outside of the trenches the Ross wouldn't have been too bad at all, and tanks wouldn't have been the worst place for them. The weapon had such a bad rep (not undeserved) that there was no chance soldiers would use it. Those "zipperheads" would probably use captured Mausers and MP40s long before they would have used the Ross!

I can see why the Lebels and Berthiers were crap, French doctrine really did emphasise bayonet use over firepower.

Tony

dragoon500ly

12-14-2010, 11:56 AM

Alway found it amazing how resourceful armor crews can be in securing long arms for the crew. Especially with the way they handle in the Iraq where much like Artillery and other non-infantry units, they could be expected to be able to do infantry foot patrols or run in convoys in other designated vehicles.

One of the many reasons why you could see US troops carrying AKs. Yet, that is another story altogether...

For a long time, personal weapons for tankers was limited to a pistol per man and maybe a submachine gun or two for the crew. The US started to move away from this during WWII when the crews of tank destroyers were issued M1 carbines. When the TD Branch was closed after the war, tankers went back to a M1 TSMG or a M3 Grease Gun.

When the M1 Abrams entered service, a M16 was issued with the tank, it was strapped in place under the TC's stand and was a welcome addition as the M3 was finally departing service (too many rebuilds of worn-out weapons).

I was surprised at the decision to remove the M16 when M1A1 was fielded, the official reason was that too many tankers were complaining about the length of the M16. Since the intent of the weapon was to arm a dismounted tanker, the length of the flaming thing shouldn't have been an issue.

As for myself, like many other tankers, I owned two personal weapons that rested in the arms room. Officially for targeting shooting and hunting, I had a Remington 870 pump shotgun with a folding stock that would have rode with me in the TCs hatch; for those times when somebody was crawling up the sides with a satchel charge. My second was a semi-automatic CAR-15, just in case I had to go dismounted.

My first sergeant used to ride me about both weapons, that is until I found out that he had pulled a few strings and had a M-14 waiting for him.

Yes Virgina the Beretta M9 is a wonderful pistol, but then so many US tankers were scrambling for M1911A1s, and every long arm they could scrounge, steal or requisition for the duration....

dragoon500ly

12-14-2010, 12:05 PM

I can see why the Lebels and Berthiers were crap, French doctrine really did emphasise bayonet use over firepower.

Considering that their rifles, automatic rifles, most of their machine guns and all of their grenades were obsolete, utter pieces of crap, I can't blame them for resorting to bayonets. :D

Abbott Shaull

12-14-2010, 10:03 PM

Dog 6

12-15-2010, 12:38 AM

pmulcahy11b

12-15-2010, 01:36 AM

In my M-1A1 we dumped the M-3's and picked up 4 M-16A2's.

Are they still using the M3? I thought they were due for replacement by the M4.

dragoon500ly

12-15-2010, 05:52 AM

Wow learn something new. Didn't realize that M1 when first issued had M16 aboard. Yeah I agree with you that it didn't make sense to take them off the M1A1s.

It one of those things when people who were in charge of planning failed to realized that if the tank was disable and crew survive they would need something to defend themselves with.

Interesting combination of personnel weapons. I totally get the shotgun. Another weapon that seems to never be issued enough.

It was originally issued for the dismounted OP that tankers put out at night. When it first showed up, there was a lot of confusion about how to stow it, since the manual said strap the M16 this way, but don't load a magazine and remove the sling as they might get caught when the turret was traversed. Me, being a dumbass, slapped a magazine in, wrapped the sling around the barrel and strapped the M16 in so that the magazine faced into the turret (backwards, in other words) and never had a lick of trouble!

And then had several of the transition instructors tell me that what I did was impossible. This was usually followed by my patented blank look followed by a rather pointed glance at what I had done. Gee! Guess you shouldn't have told me that I couldn't do it!

dragoon500ly

12-15-2010, 05:55 AM

I checked with a NG tanker buddy of mine and tells me that the ole M-3A1 is still sitting in their arms room, two per M-1A1 and 2 per M-88. The damn thing just won't go away!!!!

Abbott Shaull

12-15-2010, 06:02 AM

Are they still using the M3? I thought they were due for replacement by the M4.

I think it all depends where the unit is based at and where they went. I also heard that some tank units had been issued M4s due to the fact that once over in Iraq, they may be pulling dismounted duty... No it doesn't surprise me that M3 are still in some armories too. It like the M1911 when they replace them with the M9. It one thing to say so on paper and another to actually get to the point where it done....

Panther Al

12-15-2010, 11:11 AM

Back when I was in the regiment all our A2's had a pair of M4's stowed in them, at least till our CO gave them to heavy because he didn't want us to get "too agressive".

dragoon500ly

12-15-2010, 11:35 AM

Back when I was in the regiment all our A2's had a pair of M4's stowed in them, at least till our CO gave them to heavy because he didn't want us to get "too agressive".

An officer worried about cav being too agressive?!?! :eek:

And this was a cav officer? What was he, one of those Judge Advocate weenies "tasked" over to Armored Cavalry so he could get command time?

Telling a trooper not to be too agressive is sort of like asking a hooker to become a virgin...its a fine sentiment, but the chance of that happening is slim and none...and slim is out of town!

Panther Al

12-15-2010, 02:52 PM

dragoon500ly

12-15-2010, 04:07 PM

WPPA and daddy was a general, and he was being groomed for stardom. This is the joker that had a hard rule that only troopers with assigned rifles could have ammo, and a max of 210 round less any expended without prior clearance from an officer- top couldn't even give it. Got pulled from my tank because I was caught stealing ammo from hq platoons stash and put on mid to 8 radio watch in the TOC an the assigned bitch for every patrol that came along (here- you get the radio and the 240...). Thankfully about two-thirds through the tour we got a new CO who fixed the ammo problem, got us some more M4's and told us there was no such thing as too much force. He heard about what I did to get in the doghouse and promptly got into a fight with top to see which of them got me as a driver, but wound up being his gunner.

Why am I not surprised...:rolleyes:

I guess I was just lucky, most of my officers were mustangs, ROTCs or Citadel/VMI grads. Didn't run into many WP and going by the couple that I did run into Thank GAWD!!!!!! Both were "moved" over to Armor, the first was a Engineer and the second was a Judge Advocate. Both were notable in that everyone in the unit was carrying a calander and counting the days until they rotated out of the unit.

Panther Al

12-15-2010, 04:25 PM

In fairness I have to make a point to his credit and one to another grad of WP, the previous CO's attitude may have sucked but it did work out for us in fallujah very well. All the locals liked us and while they never helped us they didn't hinder us nor shoot at us. (They all thought the G on the sides of our tanks meant that we was the good guys) It was very nice to be able to do a raid and not have the local version of the cop alarm going off.

As to west pointers: 1Lt (at the time) Hertling (Imay have jacked the spelling, its been a while) was another daddy was a general type, and was aware that he came from the point. When he arrived at the troop fresh as grass he did the usual speech and dismissed all the men but the senior NCO's (and I wasn't one of them but I was close enough to hear) "Sergeants, I'm a green as grass officer who doesn't have a fucking clue how to run a tank platoon outside the classroom, please help me out."). Dude rocked. He wasn't afraid to goof and he always gave credit to who deserved it, yet never caved in when people screwed up. Next to the definition of outstanding officer in Webster's should be his picture.

Legbreaker

12-15-2010, 05:01 PM

Sounds like he was a man who had some quality instructors.

Dog 6

12-15-2010, 05:40 PM

Are they still using the M3? I thought they were due for replacement by the M4.

the M-4 wasn't around in 1990 as far as i know, a few guys picked up car-15's, close but not the same as M-4's

helbent4

12-16-2010, 03:28 AM

WPPA and daddy was a general, and he was being groomed for stardom.

FYI:

WPPA: West Point Protective Association. The not-so-informal group of graduates of the United States Military Academy at West Point, New York, who are often accused of protecting each other, regardless of their level of competence or errors committed. Term is generally frowned upon by members of the WPPA.

Tony

dragoon500ly

12-16-2010, 06:02 AM

pmulcahy11b

12-16-2010, 03:25 PM

A long-standing revelry? I love those unintentional weird mistakes...:p

pmulcahy11b

12-16-2010, 03:26 PM

the M-4 wasn't around in 1990 as far as i know, a few guys picked up car-15's, close but not the same as M-4's

Oh 1990...I see. We didn't even have them at the 82nd in 1990 -- we went to Desert Storm with M16A2s.

pmulcahy11b

12-16-2010, 03:31 PM

Here's a bit of insider trivia....

West Point and Virginia Military Institute have a long standing revelry going back to the Civil War.

West Point has more football victories than VMI.

VMI has more graduates that make it to Army Chief of Staff.

Hmmmmm

Colin Powell came from City College of New York, where Michio Kaku also teaches and does his studies. Makes you wonder about the quality of people coming from City College of New York -- excellent.

An by the way, Michio Kaku was an infantryman!

dragoon500ly

12-16-2010, 04:32 PM

What can I say....my mind works faster than my fingers....:D

Legbreaker

12-16-2010, 05:58 PM

I usually blame the keys. They have a habit of jumping about underneath my fingers!

HorseSoldier

12-16-2010, 08:00 PM

I checked with a NG tanker buddy of mine and tells me that the ole M-3A1 is still sitting in their arms room, two per M-1A1 and 2 per M-88. The damn thing just won't go away!!!!

They just are a really low readiness unit. The 'Guard armored cav unit I was in when I first started out back in the early 90s had a couple M3s for the '88 crew and that was it. The tankers had their one long gun* per track and pistols.

* Initially we were issued M16A1s that had been "upgraded" with A2 hand grips and maybe A2 buttstocks (can't recall on that part), later replaced with a mix of new production M16A2s and remanufactured M16A1s with the 'auto' option on the selector ground off and overstamped with 'burst'. In a Twilight War scenario I suspect they might have installed new 1-7 twist barrels and not even bothered with changing the fire control group, so a lot of NG units and the late war raised USAR divisions might have had a lot of what are essentially M16A3s. (And I'd guess those would be pretty popular with anyone else who could get their hands on them, compared to M16A2s.)

Legbreaker

12-16-2010, 08:55 PM

I'd imagine that they'd be a bit worn out though so perhaps not as popular as one might first think.

dragoon500ly

12-17-2010, 08:19 AM

Group,

I think the Little Big Horn deserves it's own thread, because I'm sure we still want to read about "really bad weapons", too.

Tony

Just wondering, but is there any intrest in a LBH thread?

helbent4

12-17-2010, 10:06 AM

Just wondering, but is there any intrest in a LBH thread?

Lee,

You never know until you try. Not everything we discuss has to relate specifically to T2K, does it?

Tony

pmulcahy11b

12-17-2010, 12:08 PM

* Initially we were issued M16A1s that had been "upgraded" with A2 hand grips and maybe A2 buttstocks (can't recall on that part),

We had a bunch of those in my training battalion during my second round of AIT, when I changed from 11C to 11B.

dragoon500ly

09-15-2012, 08:56 AM

Yet another thread too good leave hanging in the past...

When Germany staged its rapid tour of Poland and its little incursion into France in 1939 and 1940, the US Army had several military observors who were shocked by the impact of massed tanks. The US Army realized that it had no real tank worthy of the name and those that were in service were thinly armored and vastly underarmed. In an effort to be ready for the expected entry into the war, in May of 1941, the Tank Destroyer branch was created. Its mission was to use heavy guns, mounted on mobile carriages and tank on the German panzers.

Here is what producing tank destroyers cost the US Army:

The M-3 Gun Motor Carriage, 75mm. This was the basic halftrack fitted with a field gun. Total production came to some 2,202.

The M-6 Gun Motor Carriage, 37mm. This was the standard 1.5-ton weapons carrier fitted with a 37mm antitank gun, some 5,400 were built.

The M-10/M-10A1 Gun Motor Carriage, 3-inch. The standard SPAT of WWII, total production was 5,000. The M10A1 had a redesigned rear grill, some 1,713 were built.

M36, M36B1 and M36 B2, Gun Motor Carriage, 90mm. Entered service in late 1943. Some 913 M36 were built. The M36B1 used the 90mm turret on a Sherman hull, 187 were built. The M36B2 had minor changes, 724 were built.

The M-18 Gun Motor Carriage, 76mm was the last of the tank destroyers, 2,507 were built.

Total production of the tracked vehicle came to 11,044

dragoon500ly

09-15-2012, 08:13 PM

pmulcahy11b

09-16-2012, 11:36 AM

Wait till I put the 8-Gauge Woinchester Maganum shotgun I just made up on my site -- it's based on the Looney Toons cartoons where Porky Pig was (trying) to hunt Bugs Bunny or the Tasmanian Devil (the fictional one, not a real Tasmanian Devil). Now that's a bad weapon...:shaft::shaft:

BTW, I did just put an update on my site a few days ago -- let me get to the "announcement" on the Site Update thread...

dragoon500ly

09-16-2012, 08:10 PM

Picked up a Copy of World at War #24 and saw this article.....

The Unluckiest Ship: The USS Willian D. Porter, DD-597---by Mark Day.

The USS William D. Porter, was a brand Fletcher-class destroyer commissioned on 6 July 1943. Her first commanding officer was LCDR Wilfred A. Walter. After her trails and shakedown cruise she reported to Norfolk VA for her first mission. On 12 November she left Norfolk as escort for the new battleship Iowa, onboard Iowa was President Franklin D. Roosevelt, Secretary of State Cordell Hull, Chief of Naval Operations Admiral Ernest J. King as well as many other top brass enroute for conferences in Cairo and Teheran.

While departing Norfolk, Porter's anchor fouled on a sister ship and tore off her railings and lifeboat mountings. This in itself was enough to cause the relief of a ship's captain, but the problems, they were only beginning!

The next day, a depth charge fell overboard, exploding and causing the Iowa and other ships to take evasive action, believing a German submarine was attacking. Next, a real tradegy struck when a man was washed overboard by a freak wave and died. Next, one of the ship's boilers lost power.

The next day, President Franklin requested to see the task force conduct an anti-aircraft drill. Target balloons were released and most were quickly destroyed by the Iowa's gunners. Several drifted toward the Porter, which shot them down.

Then the Porter and other escorting destroyers were ordered to perfrom a simulated torpedo attack against the battleship. During that exercise, the Porter accidentally launched a live torpedo towards the Iowa. According to eyewitness reports, the torpedo officer ordered the simulated firing and commanded "Fire One!" "Fire Two!" and finally "Fire Three!" There was no "Fire Four!", but the sequence was continued by the unmistable sound of a fourth (armed) torpedo launch). Panic instantly reigned on the bridge. Lt H. Lewis, who witnessed the entire even, asked the captain "Did you give permission to fire a torpedo?"

Captain Walter's stammered answer was "HELL NO, I, I, I---ahhh, I---WHAT!?"

The Porter them attempted to warn the Iowa, but the task force was operating under radio silence, the warning message was sent by blinker light. The first message told of the torpedo heading towards the battleship, but gave the wrong bearing. The next message confusingly signaled only that Porter had gone into reverse at full speed.

Finally, the destroyer broke radio silence to warn the flagship, only to be ordered by Iowa's radioman to identify themselves.. Finally, the crucial message was received in time and the Iowa was able to turn aside to avoid the torpedo.

When President Roosevelt was told of the approaching torpedo, he ordered his Secret Service bodyguard to move his wheelchair to the railing so that he could watch. His bodygaurds then drew their psitols, ready to shoot the torpedo as it approached. Porter's torpedo finally exploded some 3,000 yards astern, in Iowa's wake.

The Iowa then trained every gun that could be brought to bear on the Porter, as it was feared that the Porter was part of an assassination plot. When the battleship radioed for an explanation for the live torpedo, all CPT Walter replied with was a meek "We did it."

For the first and only time in US Navy history, an entire ship's company was arreasted. Porter was sent to Bermuda, when she docked, she was surrounded by armed Marines. Ship and crew were held there for several days while a closed-session Naval Court of Inquiry examined the case.

LCDR Walter's career was effectively over. He was reassigned to a shore billet, well inland as were most of his officers. For teh Rest of her career, the Porter was greeted with the sardonic message "DON'T SHOOT! WE'RE REPUBLICANS!" whenever she approached other ships.

Torpedoman L. Dawson eventually confessed to having accidently left a promer in the Number Three Torpedo Tube, causing the accidental launch. He threw the primer case overboard to try to conceal his mistake, but finally admitted what happened. He was sentenced to 14 years at hard labor, but President Roosevelt ordered his release.

The Porter was sent to the Aleutian islands off Alaska. Where she accidentally fired a 5-inch shell into the front yard of the base commandant. The unlucky destroyer was next ordered to the dangerous waters off Okinawa, where kamizaes were weaking ahvoc with the US fleet. There she partly redeemed herself by shooting down several attacking planes, but only partly, as she was also accused of shooting down three American planes with friendly fire.

Her bad luck continued when she accidentally fired on a sister ship, USS Luce DD-522, riddling her side and superstructure.

On 10 June 1945, Porter's luck finally ran out. But even her sinking was bizarre. At 0815, a Japanese bomber dove out of the clouds, without warning; and headed straight for the ship. The Porter was able to evade the diving plan, but the bomber crashed into the sea nearby, passing underneath the ship and exploding, breaking her back.

With her steam lines ruptured, power was lost and fires broke out. The crew fought to save their ship for over three hours, but their efforts were in vain. The order was given to abandon ship and twelve minutes later, the Porter rolled to starboard and sank by the crew. Miraculously, none of her crew was lost. Perhaps in that regard, she could at least be said to have finally found some good luck, even while sinking.

Webstral

09-16-2012, 10:21 PM

Poor CO. I've had periods off time that felt like that. Mishaps come in bunches.

Adm.Lee

09-18-2012, 10:44 AM

That's even worse luck than the battleship South Dakota, she too had a reputation as a "hoodoo ship" in the Pacific War.

raketenjagdpanzer

09-18-2012, 12:51 PM

If we're going to talk about terrible general purpose weapons, how about the M85. More complicated than the M2HB, and despite being the same caliber it had an entirely different link feed system, rendering cross-feeding M2 ammo into it or it's into an M2 impossible.

HorseSoldier

09-18-2012, 03:32 PM

raketenjagdpanzer

09-18-2012, 04:15 PM

Yeah, the M85 was a dim idea at best. Early 90's the unit I was with had several days of planned gunnery training tanked because the ammo guy ordered the wrong DODIC and got big pile of ammo for M85's. I was luckily too junior to be anywhere near the meeting where he had to explain that to the commander and 1SG.

Yeah, that turkey is a real pisser. What's worse is when the '85 rolled out it was going to be the greatest thing since sliced bread - and of course they were phased out PDQ - and something like 3 or 4 million rounds of ammo were produced for it. Because the linkage is completely wrong, it's completely useless ammo: it's cheaper to produce more properly linked M2 ammo from scratch than delink and relink the M85's rounds in M2 belts.

dragoon500ly

09-19-2012, 07:44 AM

For the non-DATs, the M85 was the coupla mounted .50-caliber on the M-60 series MBTs. Of intrest was that it had two rates of fire, normal was about 500-60rpm, but when set to high, it was supposed to have a 800-900rpm. Great idea! when the Hinds started poping up over the treeline, the tank commander simply had to switch to high rate and blast commie whirley birds with a long burst.

There was just one, simple, little problem....

The M85 has this habit of, well, simply going all to pieces when you fired it on high rate. And since the TC was seated right behind it when it went...

It was a standing order in Germany in the ealy 1980s, to never, under any circumstances, set the M85 on high rate.

dragoon500ly

09-19-2012, 09:24 AM

The Heinkel He 162 was designed to be a simple, inexpensive fighter suitable for quantity production from readily-available materials by semi-skilled and unskilled labor. It was to have simple controls to allow new pilots to easily fly it. It was conceived, designed, built and flown within 90 days!

It had a metal fuselage with a plywood nose cap, its wing was primarily of wood with plywood skin and detachable metal tips. Tailplanes, elevators, and rudders were of metal construction, but the fins were made of wood. The MBW 003 turbojet was attached directly over the top of the fuselage. The cocpit was fitted in front of the jet inlet and was provided with a jettison able canopy as well as a simple ejector seat. The fighter was intended to have an active service life of some 5-10 hours of combat flying.

Armament consisted of two 20mm cannons provided with 120 rounds per gun. At maximum thrust the He 162 had a maximum speed of 562mph at 19,690ft. Range was limited to about 300 miles and the service ceiling was 39,400ft.

One its first test flight, an undercarriage door broke away. On its second flight, before a large gathering of Luftwaffe and Party officials, the starboard wing leading edge ripped away during a low level, high speed run, causing the plan to start rolling and crashing.

During its short service life, no Allied pilot ever engaged a He 162, although some 170 were officially delivered to the Luftwaffe, with a further 100 more waiting on flight testing and another 800 in advanced stages of assembly at various plants.

Flight tests by the RAF after the war confirmed that the He 162 was no plane for a novice pilot, being unstable around its longitudinal axis as a result of its top mounted engine. It was an unforgiving machine that required careful handling by its pilots., in the words of one test pilot “no sudden or erratic movements and no tight maneuvers!” If experienced test pilots had problems with controlling this fighter, attempts by 16-year old pilots with only cursory gliding experience, would have been little short of suicidal.

Source is “Warplanes of the Third Reich”

Webstral

09-19-2012, 01:27 PM

I've read some modestly favorable reviews for the Volksjaeger. It's an interesting idea. Of course, it takes a lot more than on-paper promise to get a combat worthy weapon into action. Still, if used as an interceptor, the Volksjaeger had potential. With a high top speed and a good offensive punch, the Volksjaeger might have been able to get around its other limitations. Short range doesn't matter so much for an interceptor. Radical maneuvers might not have been necessary if the fighter operated in a hit-and-run mode against Allied bombers. If the Volksjaeger had an average sortie length of 1 hour (just to pick a round figure) and killed an Allied bomber every other sortie, then a 5-10 hour combat life would yield 2.5 to 5 kills. Obviously, it's nothing like this simple. Still, it would have been interesting to see what might have come of getting the new plane into service in mid-1944.

dragoon500ly

09-19-2012, 01:46 PM

HorseSoldier

09-19-2012, 04:55 PM

I'm guessing the 5-10 hour lifespan was due to the jet engines of the era primarily.

Webstral

09-19-2012, 06:53 PM

I'm guessing the 5-10 hour lifespan was due to the jet engines of the era primarily.

That matches what I have read.

Webstral

09-19-2012, 06:59 PM

I've seen the same reviews but that these were written by test pilots, not the intended 16 year that were supposed to climb into the "People's Fighter" and do their bit for the Fatherland. And almost all of these reviews do agree that the, with its known fighters, the 162 would have taken a high toll...of its pilots.

There's no way around pilot quality. The Big Week was so hard on the Luftwaffe because they lost 400 pilots. The airframes could be replaced. Aircraft production increased virtually to the end of the war. Without fuel, though, the new pilots couldn't get into the air to learn their new profession. Hitting fuel production was a shrewd move on the part of the Allies. The Komet, with its unique fuel requirements and stupendous performance, might have accomplished something significant if they had overcome the hazards of using said fuel and had been able to get a significant number of them operational.

dragoon500ly

09-19-2012, 08:09 PM

There's no way around pilot quality. The Big Week was so hard on the Luftwaffe because they lost 400 pilots. The airframes could be replaced. Aircraft production increased virtually to the end of the war. Without fuel, though, the new pilots couldn't get into the air to learn their new profession. Hitting fuel production was a shrewd move on the part of the Allies. The Komet, with its unique fuel requirements and stupendous performance, might have accomplished something significant if they had overcome the hazards of using said fuel and had been able to get a significant number of them operational.

True! The F2A Buffalo was roundly damned by the RAF, RAAF, Navy and Marine pilots as combat ineffective...yet the Finns loved the aircraft and actually had several aces who perferred to fly that aircraft.

raketenjagdpanzer

09-20-2012, 09:04 AM

True! The F2A Buffalo was roundly damned by the RAF, RAAF, Navy and Marine pilots as combat ineffective...yet the Finns loved the aircraft and actually had several aces who perferred to fly that aircraft.

Kind of like the USAAF's experiences with the P39 Airacobra - didn't do well at altitude in the Pacific theater so they lend-leased as many as possible to the Soviets...who promptly used it at 0-15k/ft and proceeded to blast the crap out of the Nazis with it. They loved the Airacobra!

raketenjagdpanzer

09-20-2012, 10:53 AM

More really bad weapons, let's talk (more) really bad aircraft (production only). The F-4K. The British (like us) have occasionally a case of "not built here" myopia so with their F4 purchase they insisted on the higher-performing Rolls-Royce Spey engines rather than the ol' smoky J79s. Better engines! Higher performing!

...except the Spey engines had to be modified to such an extent to fit in the Phantom that any design advantages were lost, and as a result they were only as good as (some say inferior) to the Phantom's...

Or how about the Gutless Cutlass? The F7-U was a terrible aircraft that served for a tiny, tiny amount of time - despite 300+ being built. Let's see...horrible roll characteristics, such anemic engines that it's takeoff AOA required a huge front wheel strut that was apparently made from balsa wood: rough landings (you know, the kind every landing on a carrier deck is) would smash the oleos into their own telescoping length...on the Cutlass this would and did typically break the entire assy.

Still, it was the first guided-missile armed Navy plane, and responsible for several kills (...of its own pilots...)

The A-5 Vigilante. Okay, this one is a 50/50. The RA5 Viggie was a decent dedicated recon platform. Problem was when everything on a carrier comes at a premium (fuel, replacement parts, berthing for pilots, space to park the A/C either on deck or beneath) the idea of a dedicated recon-only bird becomes problematic. But once converted to Recon duty the Viggie wasn't that bad. Where it sucked was its original role as a dash nuclear strike fighter (hence the "A") - shockwaves would form behind the aircraft when it would drop its ordinance in a high-altitude vertical drop-and-dash laydown attack that would (and in tests, did!) bring the bomb along behind the plane. That's right - the test articles would just sort of bob along behind the airplane for a distressingly long amount of time. On occasion, some bobbed into the actual aircraft, damaging it.

While in the event of a nuclear war there'd be all kinds of horrible things to worry about, finding out the nuke you just dropped out of your aircraft was floating along behind you would really take the starch out of your shorts...

The F5! Now...let's be fair, in terms of "MiG-21, only better" the F5 actually is a decent aircraft. But poor Northrop can never, ever catch a break, ever when it comes to building military a/c. A descendent of the T38 Talon, and cousin of the F18 family, the F5(a/b/c/d/e/g) was an anemic, day-only, Mk. 1 eyeballs only aircraft. A Honda Civic DX when the USAF was in to buying Cadillac El Dorados. Northrop shopped it around and found some customers - Iran, Pakistan, Kenya, S. Vietnam (which meant that shortly thereafter, North Vietnam became a operator, although not for long as they quickly ran out of parts)...Then came the F20 (in reality, the "F5-II"). They put it up against the F16. The USAF wasn't buying. And because the USAF wasn't buying...nobody was buying.

But hey lest anyone think I'm picking solely on the US side, and to go back to the skies, how about the Yak-38? Whoa Nellie, that was a shitty aircraft. In the Soviet's defense it...well, no, there is no defense for putting that thing in the air. Seriously, that's what happens when you don't have a free press and governmental oversight of projects. Couldn't fly in hot air. Couldn't carry more than a couple hundred pounds of bombs. So unstable it had to have an automatic ejection system for the crews when it got past a certain AOA since there was no way in hell a pilot could regain control once that happened...what a horrible waste of everything that bird was.

The MiG-25. V. Belenko's defection taught us that all is not gold that glitters. The Foxbat turned out to be a paper (well, stainless steel) tiger. It did have some innovations, like an all-digital integrated hands-off weapon system - but this was because Soviet aviation treated aircraft like flying SAM platforms rather than like, y'know, aircraft with pilots. Designed to intercept and destroy the (X)B70 Valkyrie, it found itself without a job once the Valk was cancelled. However the Soviets never let that stand in the way of producing something anyhow! The engines had the lifespan of a mayfly. The whole bird had a turning radius of about Rhode Island at speed. Still, it gave us the F15 and that is a truly awesome weapons system!

I've been scouring my resources but I cannot find the entry for the Soviet cold-war era bomber that literally barely had the range to hit targets in Western Europe. It was pathetic, I wanna say it was the M50 but that never got produced. There was a whole "Wings of the Red Star" episode about it...

Adm.Lee

09-20-2012, 12:58 PM

In defense of the F-5, the USAF was never the target market for that. It was supposed to be an export fighter, I am told, for folks like the Saudis, South Vietnamese, all of South America, maybe even the Israelis. It was a cheap fighter for those who didn't have to worry about facing a high-quality air force, but needed to replace whatever WW2 cast-offs they were still operating in the 1970s. If your opponents are flying day-only MiG17s, or French Mirages, then you shouldn't need two-seat Phantoms or other all-weather interceptors.

Trouble was, as you say, if the USAF and USN weren't buying it, no one wanted it.

Webstral

09-20-2012, 06:03 PM

I've read that the latest F-5 upgrades are quite serviceable, provided you can get around the small combat radius. The advantages of relative simplicity and cheapness of operation have to count for something to somebody.

Maybe the F-5 counts as "too much of a good thing". When we look at the USAF, we see a number of truly stellar performers. However, we also see very good but much cheaper airframes like the F-16 (compared to the F-15). That should mean that there is a place for an aircraft like the F-5. As Adm. Lee points out, perhaps the quality of the F-5 that prevented it from becoming a success was the fact that the US didn't use it extensively.

TrailerParkJawa

09-20-2012, 08:06 PM

I always liked the F-5 even if it was just base on looks.

pmulcahy11b

09-20-2012, 08:16 PM

I always liked the F-5 even if it was just base on looks.

When it was modified to its F-20 Tigershark (originally F-5G), it was a match for virtually any light fighter out there (at the time it was being marketed). And Northrop was willing to produce different builds (as the guts of the F-20 were modular to a large degree). The buyer could choose from sets of electronics, radar, air-to-ground capability, AAM carriage capability, even the amount of rounds for the aircraft's cannon. The Tigershark, despite seeing much interest around the world in the design, lost in the sales department by the US Government. Northrop was for most of its time as an independent company looked down upon by the USG, and they cajoled, persuaded, undercut deals, and even threatened the procurement agencies of other countries into buying either surplus USAF/Navy aircraft or more expensive aircraft like the F-16 series.

dragoon500ly

09-21-2012, 08:01 AM

Let us not forget...

The Anzio Battle Sleds!

These were open steel tubes, each just wide enough and long enough to hold an infantryman, mounted on runners for stability and then connected in pairs to carry a 12-man rifle squad. The intent was to tow a battle sled behind a Sherman tank, the men would be protected from small arms fire and anti-personnel fire and yet remain close enough to support the tank.

The "gizmo" proved to be difficult to tow, especially in turns and when they were used in their first combat, a drainage ditch proved to be too much for them to be towed over.

The Dark

11-26-2016, 11:09 PM

It seems that we've been picking on the ground services...time to spank the Navy!!

The USS Vesuvius was a "dynamite cruiser" armed with the awesome battery of three 15-inch pneumatic guns that were aimed by pointing the ship at the target. The guns fired a 980-pound shell of which some 500-pounds are dynamite.

So what made this awsome ship killer such a bad weapon you ask? The maximum effective range of the "air cannon" was less than a 1,000 yards.I realize this is a 4+ year necro, but the maximum range of the Zalinsky pneumatic dynamite guns was one and a half nautical miles, not "less than a thousand yards". Where it failed as a naval weapon was that it was a fixed mount (and thus nearly useless in ship-to-ship combat), and the ship could only carry a total of 30 rounds (10 for each gun). It ended up being of limited use for shore bombardment off Cuba, because it was almost silent when firing, so targets had no warning to get under cover. Interestingly, the USS Holland (SS-1) had an 8.4" dynamite gun in its nose for "aerial torpedoes," although I haven't seen anything on whether it was ever actually fired.

Roosevelt's Rough Riders also had a pneumatic gun, the half-ton 2.5" Sims-Dudley, which was the gun that had a maximum range of less than a thousand yards (it could only reach 900 yards on a good day). However, it really was a dud. It required a high arc of fire to even achieve that range (Roosevelt refers to it being used "like a mortar"), and the fin-stabilized shell was prone to being blown off-course. It suffered technical problems every few shots that could require a couple of hours to repair, and it only had a high explosive shell that weighed 10 pounds, contained 5 pounds of nitro-gelatin, and would not detonate until ~6-7 seconds after impact. The muzzle velocity was only 600 feet per second, so that 900 yard shot took almost 5 seconds for the projectile to reach the target. Roosevelt thought it out-performed regular artillery, but mostly because it used smokeless powder to generate the pneumatic pressure, and thus did not attract counter-battery fire.

StainlessSteelCynic

11-27-2016, 03:27 AM

I think most people here have no problem with thread-necro if it's to add or correct something.
The info you provided was quite interesting.
I'm left with the impression that although pneumatic guns were not uncommon from 1880 till 1900, there isn't enough information about them.
So then we get the confusion about their capabilities such as the notion that the Vesuvius' guns were limited to only 1000 yards when, as you mentioned, they actually were capable of ranges out to 1760 yards with a 250kg (550lb) projectile and ranges out to 4000 yards with a 100kg (200lb) projectile.

dragoon500ly

11-27-2016, 06:08 AM

When I first posted the pneumatic gun, the only source material I could find mentioned a maximum range of a thousand yards, glad to see more info is out there! But please, what is the source?

Draq

11-27-2016, 06:51 AM

There's mention of a pneumatic machine gun in Final Blackout. https://books.google.com/books?id=b3DJRabN8HAC&pg=PA19&lpg=PA19&dq=pneumatic+machine+gun+final+blackout&source=bl&ots=c6z8U5kDU6&sig=7-PTgmvyExUNeaiPaPruZPy8QQ4&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj37MXq_MjQAhVn9YMKHTzdALMQ6AEIGzAA#v=on epage&q=pneumatic%20machine%20gun%20final%20blackout&f=false

dragoon500ly

11-27-2016, 09:21 AM

You can see a lot of info on pneumatic guns or "air cannons", for the most part these tend towards the toy side. What I'm trying to locate are the military uses, most information tapers off after the start of 20th Century, and there are few, if any technical mentions....at least those I can afford!

Raellus

11-27-2016, 01:49 PM

This year's Pumpkin Chuckin' event was cut short after an air cannon blew up, badly injuring a couple of crew members.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/life/tv/2016/11/20/punkin-chunkin-program-canceled-after-accident/94162012/

The Dark

11-27-2016, 04:13 PM

When I first posted the pneumatic gun, the only source material I could find mentioned a maximum range of a thousand yards, glad to see more info is out there! But please, what is the source?For the Zalinski gun (the 15" on Vesuvius), I started with an article from the Transactions of the Royal Martian Geographical Society (http://www.heliograph.com/trmgs/trmgs1/dynamite.shtml) and also checked NavWeapons (http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_Zalinsky.htm). The best site I know of for the Sims-Dudley is the Spanish-American War Centennial (http://www.spanamwar.com/dynamite.htm) page; I had found this one a while back when trying to stat the gun for the Soldier's Companion rules for S:1889.

You can see a lot of info on pneumatic guns or "air cannons", for the most part these tend towards the toy side. What I'm trying to locate are the military uses, most information tapers off after the start of 20th Century, and there are few, if any technical mentions....at least those I can afford! That's because use tapered off once stable high explosives were developed. The pneumatic guns were built because the shock of conventional cannon had a nasty tendency to detonate early high explosives in the tube, so a gentler firing method was needed. Once stable high explosives could be fired from a conventional cannon, the pneumatic cannon had no advantage to counterbalance its disadvantages, and they left service.

Vespers War

08-11-2020, 12:01 AM

Necroing the thread again to come back to dynamite guns, I think I finally found enough information to stat out three dynamite guns, using the DP for dynamite (even though they used various early high explosives, it should be close enough) and the Demolitions rules from page 221 of v2.2 to convert to concussion damage. Their shells are generally too light for effective shrapnel, but if fired into something that could produce appropriate fragments (brick walls, etc), they follow the rules from Demolitions for that (primary burst equal to HE concussion radius, secondary burst double HE concussion radius).

The SS-1 Holland, the first submarine commissioned by the Navy, had either 1 or 2 (sources vary, but I suspect 1 is correct) dynamite guns of roughly 8" caliber. The ship carried seven rounds for the gun (referred to as "aerial torpedoes"), along with three Whitehead torpedoes that fired from a tube under the gun. A June 1897 article from The Princeton Union states her projectiles were 180 pounds with 100 pounds of high explosive as the payload. This would be C:50 and Pen 25C in T2K terms, with a range of approximately 1 mile. As a compromise between the 0 add for a set explosive and the 2d6 of a standard shell, I'd add 1d6 to Pen for the lighter dynamite shell.

The 2.5" Dudley-Sims would be roughly C:11 and Pen 6C with its 5-pound charge, and I'd either add 1/2d6 (1d3) if I wanted a variable Pen or just stick with the constant given that it's a low-velocity semi-mortar. The semi-accurate range is 900 yards. For a 1000 pound 1890s artillery piece, it's decent. With each shell weighing only ten pounds and a half-pound smokeless powder charge as propellant, ammo transportation shouldn't be too difficult.

I think most people here have no problem with thread-necro if it's to add or correct something.
The info you provided was quite interesting.
I'm left with the impression that although pneumatic guns were not uncommon from 1880 till 1900, there isn't enough information about them.
So then we get the confusion about their capabilities such as the notion that the Vesuvius' guns were limited to only 1000 yards when, as you mentioned, they actually were capable of ranges out to 1760 yards with a 250kg (550lb) projectile and ranges out to 4000 yards with a 100kg (200lb) projectile.

The weights provided (on a lot of websites that seem to be copying from someone that misinterpreted data) are the amount of explosive in the shells. The 1,760 yard range was with a 980 or 1,150 pound shell (different sources provide different weights), of which 550 pounds was explosive, or C:117 and Pen 59C. The lighter shell with 200 pounds of explosive and a 4,000 yard range would be C:71, Pen 35C. Vesuvius only carried a total of 30 shells, 10 for each gun.