MP44

[Barleyman]

As far as I understand these things, the war was won by

a) Russian divisional and higher level artillery

Russian strategic operations (bagration, uranus etc)

c) Russians reclaiming the skies in -43

d) Russian tank platoons which could've taken out US and UK armies for dessert after defeating germans

Assault rifles are nice but don't make much difference for operational manouvers against enemy which knows you're coming, outnumbers you by 3 to 2 and has comparable weapon systems to boot.

[illo]

Wasn't the V1 powered by a pulsejet engine?

http://tanks45.tripod.com/Jets45/ListOfEngines/EnginesD.htm

[Marlow]

Originally posted by Barleyman:

As far as I understand these things, the war was won by

a) Russian divisional and higher level artillery

Russian strategic operations (bagration, uranus etc)

c) Russians reclaiming the skies in -43

d) Russian tank platoons which could've taken out US and UK armies for dessert after defeating germans

Here we go again. At the risk of further sidetracking this thread and of beating a very dead horse, a few questions for you:

a) Why only Russian artillery?

c) How did the Russians reclaim the sky? (Who really desstroyed German airpower?)

d is too silly to deal with.

[tracer]

Andreas,

I haven't been around lately (been busy) to keep things stirred up, but, in response to rather being locked uo in a room with a spade and let the other guy have the G3. I was not trained on the G3, now I own a vintage WWII G43,maybe you were a little confused. I was trained with the M14, Mi6 rifle while in the service, and afterwords with various other weapons during my time with the tact team. And I think you have a good point as far as using a G3 in close quarters, but even then with a trained individual using it, I don't think you would stand much of a chance, but then agian if all you had was a spade, well you would have to use it. I'll keep tabs on this thread and stir the nest up as needed. It's a lot of fun to see the reactions.

[White Phosphorus]

If one army is equipped with 50% riffles, and 50% SMGs, and the other is equipped entirely with ARs. Wouldn't the AR equipped army be at a numerical advantage at both long and close range engagements, since the AR can double up as an SMG.

[SgtMuhammed]

Depends on how well each side is trained. Given identical training they would actually be quite even. A dedicated rifle has a longer effective range while a true SMG is handier in CQB. The AR is not a wonder weapon.

[Marlow]

Originally posted by sgtgoody (esq):

Depends on how well each side is trained. Given identical training they would actually be quite even. A dedicated rifle has a longer effective range while a true SMG is handier in CQB. The AR is not a wonder weapon.

While I agree with your basic argument that the MP 44 in greater numbers wouldn't have had much effect on WWII, I'd disagree with the above. Not a wonder weapon for sure, but more effective in a greater number of situations than either a small magazine, large bore rifle or a SMG. Also, the long range accuracy of a large bore rifle compared to a typical AR is not significant in 99 percent of combat situations.

[Snowbart]

I agree with Marlow......this thread is like beating a dead horse.

On a side note, by the fall of Berlin, the Ivans were sending in 14 & 15 yr olds into battle. The Germans, bled white themselves, had put a serious thrashing on the manpower the soviets could muster. The U.S. was still fairly fresh, and I personally believe we could have/should have beat the piss outta the damn red horde. Could have easily prevented the fall of eastern Europe to the red's........prevented the splitting of Germany, etc.

[Warmaker]

* Kicks the horse's bleached bones *

Hey guys, I'm amazed this went 8 pages!

[Bastables]

Originally posted by flamingknives:

If an assault rifle has a greater effect on the battlefield, has the proportion of casualties inflicted by small arms gone up in more recent conflicts?

Trouble is, for a good comparison you'd have to find a conventional war with ARs Vs bolt-actions, SMGs or a mixture of both.

I can't think of any.

Timor: Indonesian M-16/FN FNC or SS-1 (assault rifles) equipped sections were almost predestined to defeat equal numbers of FALANTIL groups armed with semi auto SKS and bolt action K-98. Biggest difference was made when M-16 caches were captured and began to proliferate thorough the FALANTIL.

This is a counter insurgency war where neither side paid much attention to LMGs though. Also a "war" where most engagements were Ambushes, still TNI or ANBRI units were more likely to survive as ambushees merely because they all had auto capable assault rifles and the FALANTIL were lucky to have 1/3 of their "team" wielding assault rifles.

There will be other low intensity wars where such lopsided weapon match ups predominate, the nature of the beast.

[ May 13, 2003, 04:32 AM: Message edited by: Bastables ]

[Andreas]

Originally posted by Snowbart:

On a side note, by the fall of Berlin, the Ivans were sending in 14 & 15 yr olds into battle. The Germans, bled white themselves, had put a serious thrashing on the manpower the soviets could muster. The U.S. was still fairly fresh, and I personally believe we could have/should have beat the piss outta the damn red horde. Could have easily prevented the fall of eastern Europe to the red's........prevented the splitting of Germany, etc.

[SgtMuhammed]

As long as this horse keeps popping up I will continue to beat it.

As another view of Assault Rifles against the world one could look at the Soviet invasion of Afganistan.

[Snowbart]

Andreas,

This is for you

two is better than one, right?

Thanks for the insiteful post

[Bastables]

Originally posted by Snowbart:

Andreas,

This is for you

two is better than one, right?

Thanks for the insiteful post

I've played this game before

[Andreas]

Originally posted by Snowbart:

Andreas,

This is for you

two is better than one, right?

Thanks for the insiteful post

About as insiteful (sic) as yours. Construct a non-rambling argument and you get a decent response.

In the non-rambling argument, address matters such as US and UK commitments in the far east, the impact of the Soviet Manchurian operations, the infantry shortage of Commonwealth forces, and the question of whether Soviet operational art was superior to anything the western allies understood about modern combined arms warfare. Then you can have a response. Until you have done that, I assume you are just rambling cluelessly, and a " " is a response commensurate to the thought that went into your original post.

[ May 13, 2003, 05:22 AM: Message edited by: Andreas ]

[thewood]

My understanding is that the assault rifle (AR) is a compromise, just look at the ammo. The ammo is between a rifle and pistol round. Someone else mentioned that a soldier can switch from ranged rifle fire to close-up auto fire with one weapon. Isn't that the entire reason behind an AR? It has nothing to do with the AR being better than either a rifle or a SMG, but it is in many ways a compromise between the two. Unfortuantely, a compromise is just that...limited range compared to a rifle and limited firepower compared to a SMG.

Now if you factor in that most soldiers can't effectively engage beyond 200m, the AR looks like a winner. But that is also why modern armies equip with ARs, but use SOPs of single shot for ranged fire, and auto for up close. This is the best evidence that the AR is a compromise between the rifle and the SMG.

Now for whether you want an AR, a rifle, or a SMG. As has been stated before, if you can gaurentee me good open fields of fire foe 400 or 500 yards rifles supporting a LMG is the best. If I know I am up close and personal, I'll take SMGs and grenades. If I have to be prepared for anything, an AR and a very light SAW.

Now looking at this, would the MP44 have prolonged the war? Only if the Germans could have rationalized thier logistics and tactics to take advantage of the compromise. That is extremely unlikely. Look how long it has taken modern armeis to truly adopt tactics that take advantage of the AR abilities.

I hope that is a good summation of the previous posts.

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by thewood:

My understanding is that the assault rifle (AR) is a compromise, just look at the ammo. The ammo is between a rifle and pistol round.

But in the current day, much closer to a rifle round of the same caliber.

Someone else mentioned that a soldier can switch from ranged rifle fire to close-up auto fire with one weapon. Isn't that the entire reason behind an AR? It has nothing to do with the AR being better than either a rifle or a SMG, but it is in many ways a compromise between the two. Unfortuantely, a compromise is just that...limited range compared to a rifle and limited firepower compared to a SMG.

How is the firepower of an AR limited compared to an SMG?

There could easily be something I'm missing here, in which case you will find me eager to learn, but I should have thought that the only advantages that an SMG possessed would be handiness, because it can be made more compact, and the soldier can carry more ammo because the individual rounds are somewhat lighter and much shorter.

Michael

[Snowbart]

Originally posted by Andreas:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Snowbart:

Andreas,

This is for you

two is better than one, right?

Thanks for the insiteful post

About as insiteful (sic) as yours. Construct a non-rambling argument and you get a decent response.

In the non-rambling argument, address matters such as US and UK commitments in the far east, the impact of the Soviet Manchurian operations, the infantry shortage of Commonwealth forces, and the question of whether Soviet operational art was superior to anything the western allies understood about modern combined arms warfare. Then you can have a response. Until you have done that, I assume you are just rambling cluelessly, and a " " is a response commensurate to the thought that went into your original post. </font>

[Andreas]

I don't work for BFC. Just to get that clear. In the meantime, feel free to put up or not. At the moment I assume you are not capable of that, which makes your 'at least I have something to say' just so much hot air, just like your statement about me being anti-US. You can take that crap and bring it to the General Forum, there are enough idiots lapping it up there, there is no need for that in the CMBB forum.

So, ANY proof or supporting facts for the statements you made, first about the 14-15 year olds, and then for the opinion that the US Army could have 'beat the piss outa the Red Horde'. Go on, if you are so smart and knowledgable, it can't be that difficult. Otherwise, you will have to live with the fact that some people will " " at the idocies you spout out.

[manchildstein (ii)]

i heard that in the indonesian battles (timor) one side was employing an m1 carbine chambered for 22 magnum. that would have been an interesting piece.

[Monty's Double]

Snowbart, if you are replying to nonsense posted by others, please include the post as a quote, otherwise it looks like you're guilty of promulgating the very same twaddle, which I'm sure wasn't your intention. Andreas, cut the man some slack, he has obviously just unearthed some pretty spectacular primary sources, because I'm not aware of any previously published work that supports his claim.

[Snowbart]

andreas,

So now I'm an idiot? I have no time for this ****. I am at work and this is a waste of my time. I am sorry that i cannot quote you exact sources of my claims that the Red's were sending in kid's towards the end of the war. I suppose this is not a place for oppinion, and i will never again make any statement here w/out knowing my freaking page numbers.

I had enjoyed these forums because there was no mindless garbage, no personal attacks, etc. I see that is not the case with you Andreas. By the way, I did not start this crap, I just stated an oppinion that the U.S. could have handled the Russians. You have been pushing my buttons in this thread for weeks now, and I am quite sick of it. Maybe you should go to the general forum and roll your eyes at someone there, because it is you who started this by acting childish and insulting me.

[flamingknives]

Dammit! *kick*

Dead horse *kick* give me an answer! *kick*

(Goes off googling, comes back)

web page

Gives some US casualties for WWII, Korea and Vietnam but weapon type. The proportion inflicted by small arms goes up for vietnam, where we see ARs being used by the other side, but this is mostly fighting irregular forces with limited Arty and armour support in close terrain.

web page

Also comments that casualties in low-intensity conflicts are more likely to be injured by small arms.

What would be useful would be to find Vietnamese casualties by weapon type, which a brief google fails to find, as they faced a conventional, assault rifle equipped army.

Also, the German casualty rates per sector would be useful, as you would be able to compare British (bolt-action) with U.S. (semi-automatic) caused casualties.

Does anyone have these figures, or are we all to busy bitching at each other?

[flamingknives]

One thing I like about these forums is the large number of amateur historians - it often makes for good reading.

It does include a caveat though. If you're going to post something as fact, be ready to quote sources, and if you post an opinion, be ready to argue it.

[Determinant]

Originally posted by flamingknives:

It does include a caveat though. If you're going to post something as fact, be ready to quote sources, and if you post an opinion, be ready to argue it.

Ahh, but that presupposes of course that your 'model' of the board is a university or staff college seminar. Which is not a bad aspiration. But I often prefer to see it as a drunken conversation in a bar. Sometimes funny; somtimes punchy; mostly entertaining. Never let 'facts' intrude on a good argument.

I admired your bold attempt to measure the relative effectiveness of the AR vis a vis more primitive weapons by comparing casualty proportions in different theatres and campaigns. An elegant attempt at resolving the effectiveness conundrum.

But as you note - it does leave you with the second order problem of knowing when your comparison is valid. I suspect that Vietnam, or any insurgency, will always produce odd statistics about the efficiency of small arms. For instance if you compared inter-war British Army campaigns on North-West Frontier (an insurgency - those wily Pathans) with the Great War you would probably be left with the conclusion that rifle fire was more effective on the Frontier than on the Western Front. Despite the best efforts of the men with the screw guns.

I am guessing (and you will not get a single fact out of me on this) that the best comparison for pre-AR and post-AR campaigns in an all arms environment might be the Western Desert in '41-'42 and one of the more unpleasant Arab-Israeli punch ups. Say Yom Kippur in '73? And I bet (note no factual basis whatsoever for the following assertion) that the answer would be that the proportions of casualties amongst indirect/aerial_direct fire crew served/vehicle mounted_direct fire small arms_mines etc would be spookily similar. With maybe even small arms dropping down in the killing stakes - everything else getting much nastier - and AR armed riflemen being unable to hit a cow's arse with a banjo at any realistic combat range in the desert).