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!

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.

Carry On Sgt?

That's what they taught us in Basic -- fire a round and simultaneously pull.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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!

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!

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"!

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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!!!!

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....=1614.msg27257

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.

(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/j1...ersClass-2.jpg

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.

Gorbag,

Welcome to the forum, and thanks for the contribution!

Your post is a good contribution; not only is this a terrible weapon, unlike most such weapons I could actually see it being produced on a limited or at least local basis as logistical chains broke down and manufacturing of pre-war weapons ceased.

Tony

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.

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.

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)

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.)

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).

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

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

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Last-Ditch-B.../dp/1853677302

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Real-Dads-Ar...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!

[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.

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

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

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

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:

[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.