Really bad weapons...

[dragoon500ly]

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]

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]

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]

The M-3 smg was useless.

[TiggerCCW UK]

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]

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

[copeab]

Originally Posted by Dog 6

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]

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]

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]

Originally Posted by copeab

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]

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]

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.



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]

Originally Posted by helbent4

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]

Originally Posted by Adm.Lee

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]

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]

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]

Originally Posted by TiggerCCW UK

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#S...d_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]

Originally Posted by Mahatatain

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#S...d_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]

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]

Originally Posted by helbent4

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

[helbent4]

Originally Posted by dragoon500ly

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]

Originally Posted by helbent4

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]

Originally Posted by Fusilier

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]

Originally Posted by Fusilier

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.

Fuse,

I know some people (guys and gals) that are (or were) in the Seaforths, and they say he was indeed a heck of a guy!

Tony

[copeab]

Can we count WWII Italian and Japanese tanks?

[perardua]

Originally Posted by StainlessSteelCynic

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]

Originally Posted by perardua

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]

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

[TiggerCCW UK]

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]

Originally Posted by TiggerCCW UK

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.

A 1995 survey done in the United Kingdom, showed fewer than 50 active punt guns still in use.