# Favorite Sub-machine gun



## P38 Pilot (Oct 8, 2005)

This is a thread for us to discuss our favorite sub machine guns! If none of these i have posted are not your favorite or if you have any other sub machine guns, tell us.

Also i encourage Pics of the SMGs also!! 8)


----------



## Nonskimmer (Oct 8, 2005)

This is just a trick to get people to post pics of SMG's, isn't it? 
My favourites from that list are the PPSh-41 and the Thompson. The Thompson was a well made and powerful close range weapon, but a little expensive for wartime mass production. The PPSh-41 was robust with a great rate of fire, and had good range for an SMG. It was also simple and cheap to produce.


----------



## Medvedya (Oct 8, 2005)

Nonskimmer said:


> This is just a trick to get people to post pics of SMG's, isn't it?



I can do a little bit better than that! Urrah!

http://www.ppsh41.com/ppshmgp.MPG


----------



## Nonskimmer (Oct 9, 2005)

How's _that_ for a submachine gun?


----------



## schwarzpanzer (Oct 9, 2005)

Belch!  

I'm with you NS, except the M3A1 is IMHO far better than the M1A1.


----------



## Nonskimmer (Oct 9, 2005)

In what way? It was a lot cheaper and easier to mass produce, I'll give it that.


----------



## schwarzpanzer (Oct 9, 2005)

Yep, same capability too.

The M1A1 had a lower RoF.


----------



## Nonskimmer (Oct 9, 2005)

I don't think so. The M1A1 version of the Thompson had a rate of fire of approx. 700rpm. The Grease Gun's was approx. 450rpm.
The M3 and it's variants were just cheaper alternatives to the Thompson for wartime production. The US took the British example of the Sten as a basis for a cheap, simple weapon to mass produce and get out to the troops quickly.


----------



## lesofprimus (Oct 9, 2005)

I say the PPsH-41 handsdown.... I seem to have a keen likeness for Soviet combat arms...

Compare the weight of the Thompson to the PPsH-41.... Plus, the -41 could withstand severe punishment under harsh conditions, while the Thompson had to be taken care of diligently...


----------



## P38 Pilot (Oct 9, 2005)

The "Papasha" was a great SMG when it came down to Rate of Fire, and endurence. But when it came down to using that sight, it wasnt that accurate. Tommy gun is still my favorite.

Watching Mail Call on history channel and found out the PPsH could fire 900 rpm! Thats a whole lot of whoop-ass!


----------



## Nonskimmer (Oct 9, 2005)

No SMG is especially accurate at any kind of long range. They're not built to be. The Thompson wasn't more accurate than the PPSh-41. The Thompson M1 finally did away with that useless windage sight that had been present on earlier models, and went with a simple aperture sight instead. It's all you need on a submachine gun because there's no way in hell you're going to hit anything spot-on beyond about 50 yards anyway.


----------



## lesofprimus (Oct 9, 2005)

> It's all you need on a submachine gun because there's no way in hell you're going to hit anything spot-on beyond about 50 yards anyway.


Goddamn right....


----------



## plan_D (Oct 9, 2005)

I believe we are all forgetting the more compact and lighter, thus superior PPSh-43. It was superior design to the PPSh-41 and could actually be used properly by tank crews and paratroopers. Considered by some to be the greatest submachine gun of World War II.


----------



## trackend (Oct 9, 2005)

I like the old tommy gun.
Using the soft nose 45 pistol round made it super for building clearance and as you guys say with a SMG the first round may be on target at 30 or so yards but after that its spray and pray but close up in a room its Blat and Splat


----------



## Medvedya (Oct 9, 2005)

There's a slightly slower RoF with the PPS43 but not by much. 700rpm - and God is it ugly!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 9, 2005)

Well from that list I go with PPsH-41 also.


----------



## Wildcat (Oct 9, 2005)

My favourite is not on the list, it's the owen gun. Made in Australia and designed especially for combat in the jungles of New Guinea for the Aussie Diggers, the owen proved to be robust and very, very reliable. Apparently they jammed very rarely and was a favourite weapon of choice for our soldiers. Saw service from WWII upto Vietnam.


----------



## Medvedya (Oct 9, 2005)

A fine weapon no doubt, but on appearances, it makes even the PPS43 look like a custom built Purdey fowling piece. 

Mingalingdingdong!


----------



## Nonskimmer (Oct 9, 2005)

Apparently it was favoured by many American and New Zealand troops in the jungle as well. An extremely reliable weapon. But what was with the top fed magazine?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 10, 2005)

Almost looks like a paintball gun.


----------



## plan_D (Oct 10, 2005)

The PPSh-43 was still better than the PPSh-41, and the PPSh-41 wasn't exactly art.


----------



## schwarzpanzer (Oct 10, 2005)

The PPSh43 exaggerated the low lethality of the Soviet 7.62 round, was really not much better than the MP40 - that's a nice one.  

*NS:*

I meant the weight and compactness really, though the Tommy's stock could be detached.



> It's all you need on a submachine gun because there's no way in hell you're going to hit anything spot-on beyond about 50 yards anyway.



It is actually very accurate, there was even a Program with Jezza Clarkson and the Brit Army showing it's abilities. 8) Plus it's recoil ain't bad, due to it being so heavy and having a muzzle break.



> But what was with the top fed magazine?



"it helped when moving through thick cover."

- Rifles and SMGs

- Major Fredrick Myatt M.C.

The Owen could also be fired one-handed like an Uzi. 8) 


One that's been forgotten here is the Sterling, or Patchett as it was called then.

Didn't see much WW2 service, but was one of the best.

Uncomfy, but not if you were used to a Sten.


----------



## Nonskimmer (Oct 10, 2005)

Well the effective ranges of the PPS-43 and the PPSh-41 were both about double that of the MP-40, so I'd say the Soviet 7.62mm round had plenty of lethality. _Especially_ close up.


----------



## plan_D (Oct 11, 2005)

Yes, the PPS-43 was superior to both the PPSh-41 and MP-40. As I said before, it's considered to be one of the best SMGs of the war. And I would certainly rank it in the top three. 

My father fired the Sterling and wasn't much impressed. He said it felt like holding a toy. But then he was also trained on the much loved SLR.


----------



## Nonskimmer (Oct 11, 2005)

I just missed out on the Sterling. They discontinued the training with it not long before I joined up, and had switched completely over to the MP-5. According to everyone I know who had fired it, it was a clunker.


----------



## schwarzpanzer (Oct 15, 2005)

I think the Sterling is still the most powerful 9mm weapon?

It was auto, compact and very reliable and often silenced.

Popular with my family.

The SLR didn't have any of those features, apart from being reliable.


----------



## plan_D (Oct 15, 2005)

You're a retard if you think the SLR wasn't good. The SLR was reliable, accurate, long range and it actually felt like a real gun. The SLR is one of the best rifles in the world ...ever.


----------



## Nonskimmer (Oct 15, 2005)

The only bad points of the SLR were the relative length and weight, and they weren't really that bad. It didn't have an auto-fire setting either.


----------



## plan_D (Oct 15, 2005)

My dad had no problem with the SLR. The only problem would be the length, as you said, in house-to-house fighting. The weight found no problem with my dad, he loved the feel of that wonderful rifle.


----------



## Nonskimmer (Oct 15, 2005)

I thought it was alright. Of course, I've never been in combat with it.


----------



## lesofprimus (Oct 16, 2005)

Ahem... 

Well, I tried out most available weaps in combat situations, and it was just too damn big... It was a great weapon, no doubt pD, and if there was fighting in the Sahara or Antarctica, it might be a weapon for a skilled operator to use... The weight wasnt so much of a handicap as to the size of it..


----------



## Nonskimmer (Oct 16, 2005)

You know, it never even occurred to me to ask any Falklands vets what they thought of it. 
I don't know any of the old timers from the British Army or Royal Marines anymore. The guys I know only had SA80 experience.

I seem to recall that there was some misgiving among a lot of British troops about having to give up their SLR's for the SA80's, after the Falklands. Most regular infantry types that I've spoken with in the Canadian Army were only too happy to give up the old C1's for the C7's (licence built, ever so slightly modified M-16).


----------



## schwarzpanzer (Oct 16, 2005)

I actually like the SLR PlanD, it's just not auto.

The SLR was no good for paras or jungle fighting, though I know a few people who loved it for the latter. Some 'borrowed' Argentinian versions had folding stocks.

Close range it was lethal too, though not nearly as much as an AK47, AR-15 or Sterling.

You could also give someone a good whack with it or when using the bayonet the length was an advantage.

The SA80 is disliked because it is a horrible weapon, worse than the Sten or Chincom 56.

The C7 is good and is full auto, there was a clamour for the AR-15s when it came out despite the unrealiablity because of its weight (and that of it's ammo) and full-auto rifle ability. Though you look after it and it's OK.


----------



## plan_D (Oct 16, 2005)

The SLR was fine for any kind of combat. My father carried a SLR through Northern Ireland, Falklands and the Gulf. And he was glad he left the RAF before the SA80 came in. In fact, he was the last guard commander at RAF Finningley before it switched to the SA80. "It's not auto..." so what? The British forces are trained for single aimed shots to drop the opponent in one ...the 7.62mm round will drop them in one, especially in the hands of a marksman like my dad. And yes, he has the marksman badge.


----------



## schwarzpanzer (Oct 16, 2005)

Oh yes, like I said some love it, usually markmen like your dad.

However sometimes compactness and auto fire are vital, would you use it for CQB or hostage situations?

Would the MG42, AK47, MP40 or PPSh41 be as good if they were single-shot?

I know of it's use in Malaya and Aden by friends/family who loved it and I like it but some would pick a Sterling or AR-15 9 times out of 10, and no they're not crap shots.

If you are a crap shot, then the SLR is not really for you either.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 16, 2005)

The M-16 and M-4 are not auto and they are just fine. You dont have to be fully auto to be a good gun. In fact for most scenerios a fully auto is a waste of ammo. 

Dont go into the M-16 being fully auto either. Yes the older versions were but the A-2, A-3, and A-4 are not fully auto and there is a reason why it was a waste of ammo and if you needed to put out lots of ammo you have 3 round burst.


----------



## Nonskimmer (Oct 16, 2005)

All of the Canadian versions (C7, C7A1, C8 ) have the auto-fire capability, and there are certainly times when it's good to have. Like any good soldiers, the boys are trained to conserve the ammo as much as possible of course, and single-shot marksmanship is essential. They train that way constantly. Just because the weapon has the automatic setting, it doesn't mean that they don't train to fire in controlled bursts. They do.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 16, 2005)

Then Canadian versions are liscence built versions of the M-16 that were early versions - Vietnam era. From the A-2 onwards the US only used the 3 round burst and semi auto selectors on there M-16s.


----------



## Nonskimmer (Oct 16, 2005)

No, the Canadian versions were modified that way deliberately. They're based on the M-16A2, M-16A3, and M4 but lack the 3 round burst setting and instead have the full-auto setting. That's how the Canadian Forces wanted them. Denmark and the Netherlands use C7's as well.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 16, 2005)

Interesting factoid my friend, thank you that I did not know.


----------



## plan_D (Oct 16, 2005)

The SLR is able in any situation. The only place someone wouldn't want it is in room to room fighting. You don't have to be a crack shot to use the SLR effectively. Not all British forces are crack shots ...but they all loved and used the SLR effectively where ever they went. 

The MP40 and PPSh-41 were both designed to be full-auto for room clearing. The MG-42 was a LMG, what kind of stupid question is that? And the AK-47 would still be as good because anyone using it properly would fire it single shot.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 16, 2005)

plan_D said:


> And the AK-47 would still be as good because anyone using it properly would fire it single shot.



And thats why the Iraqi's did not do too well with the AK because they would just pull the trigger and spray it wildly without aiming and they would not hit a damn thing with it.


----------



## Nonskimmer (Oct 16, 2005)

A lot like the majority of Russian ground forces. Spray from the hip and hope to hit something. That doesn't make it a lousy weapon, it just means that the soldiers aren't very well trained.


----------



## lesofprimus (Oct 16, 2005)

The only time full auto should be used, is either for covering fire or withdrawls.....

Any decent operator can hold their weap on target with a 3 round burst...

The AK-47 is actually quite a stable weapon on full auto, if u brace urself with the recoil.... I used mine for several years, in all sorts of situations, and the full auto DID come in quite handy.... 

Im not a big fan of the M-16....


----------



## plan_D (Oct 16, 2005)

Unfortunately I cannot talk from personal experience so I'm going to take the opinions of those that have actually used them in combat more to heart. I have read that the Delta in the Battle of Mogadishu were ed with their CAR-15s because they were shooting the "skinnies" and they would either carry on running or would still fire back. If the Delta there had a SLR or AK-47 then they would have never had that problem. 

My dad got a hold of an AK-47 in the Gulf and he says he loved pulling it to pieces and cleaning it. Unfortunately the paper work was too much to get it decomissioned so he could bring it home. It would have taken at least three days and he was flying home the next day he found out. I don't know if he actually fired the thing but he loved the feel of it. "It felt like a real gun..."


----------



## Nonskimmer (Oct 16, 2005)

The Russians may not have the best troops in the world, but they typically make some damn good small arms. The philosophy is simple: Make robust, tough, reasonably accurate weapons that are simple to operate and maintain. It seems to work.


----------



## schwarzpanzer (Oct 17, 2005)

On the Mog thing PlanD

1. The 'skinnies' were probably stoned. Some stoner 'ignored' a .303 once!!  Wherever they're expected SWAT have the best weapons.

2. There was a trooper who used an M14 and found it effective. They showed that in the BHD film too, so yeah an SLR would've done the biz.


----------



## plan_D (Oct 17, 2005)

They weren't stoned, they were high on Khat. I will take the Delta word for it, they needed a more powerful rifle than the CAR-15. 5.56mm do not do the job.


----------



## schwarzpanzer (Oct 17, 2005)

Look at point 2 will you PD?

The early 5.56 (not SS109) was more lethal, though lacked penetration compared to the current NATO issue.

Also in the Afghan mountains the 5.56 is considered pants.


----------



## Blackwatch (Oct 17, 2005)

As former infantry, the issue is weight to knock-down power....auto fire is for the point man and slack man, house clearing (room clearing), or covering fire and/or withdrawls.....every other time is on semi....a submachine gun is a highly specialized weapon used for specific circumstances or need....ALMOST all infantry needs are covered by a accurate sustained rifle or selected target fire designated by the squad leader or platoon leader....fire at where the enemy MAY be or thought to be....you can always get more rounds, you may not be able to get more trained infantrymen....a sub gun simply wastes rounds most times....usually the need for one is covered by other weapons like a pistol or grenade...or like with the 203mm grenade launcher....

I broke into the military with the M14....one cannot argue with a 7.62mm round....it plants people it hits...

if I had to pick on it would be the M3....the rate of fire allowed accurate auto fire out to 150 meters, plus the .45 plants whoever it hits...period


----------



## Jabberwocky (Oct 18, 2005)

One bullet isn't always going to put a guy down, particularly not a SMG or pistol bullet. But the same is true even for a 7.62 or a 5.56.

The actual force of impact of a bullet isn't going to knock down a target. The momentum imparted to a target when it is hit with a rifle bullet is similar to the amount of momentum that a well thrown baseball or cricketball would impart, it is just spread over a much smaller area  

The human body can lose about 1-1.2 litres of blood before shock is induced an consciousness is lost. The only certain way to incapacitate an attacker is to cause significant damage to the central nervous system, or cause enough loss of blood to shut down the attacker's higher (and potentially lower) brain functions. There are certainly psychological factors that might stop an attacker ("I've been shot!"), but depending on these is probably not a good idea, and discounts the possibility that the attacker's state of mind is altered chemically or emotionally to a point where being shot won't seem like that interesting a distraction. That means you want to:
*Penetrate deep enough to get to major organs or blood vessels. *Disrupt the tissue of those structures.
*Encourage profuse bleeding and/or CNS damage

Part of the problem in Mogadishu was that troops with the M4 carbine (mostly Delta) were issued 'green tip' semi armour piercing ammunition. Obviously SAP ammo is not going to fragment like standard M193 5.56mm ammo. A 5.56mm NATO (either M193 or M855) impacting at anything above 800m/sec will relaibly fragment, causing very large temporary and permanent cavties as well as deep penetration and large exit wounds. The 5.56mm NATO also has a tendency to tumble 'upwards' some.

The problem was that the M193 is generally fired from a M16 (20 inch barrel) and has a higher initial velocity and will reliably fragment out to about 200m, while the M855 is used with the M4 carbine (with a 14.5 inch barrel) the and will only fragment out to about 50m. Hence less temporary cavity, less chance of fragmentation and a much harder put down.


----------



## lesofprimus (Oct 18, 2005)

> The actual force of impact of a bullet isn't going to knock down a target.


I dont think I'll comment on that one....


----------



## Blackwatch (Oct 18, 2005)

Jabberwocky, are you in the forces? or have been?


----------



## plan_D (Oct 18, 2005)

The Delta Force were using the CAR-15 in Mogadishu with titanium tipped AP rounds. 

And trust me, one 7.62mm round will knock anyone off their feet. Take into account that sniper rounds are normally 7.62mm - one shot, one kill. A trained soldier is told to aim at the chest which will puncture vital organs and often kill instantly, or at least very quickly. A really good shot will be hitting heads - but much less often than the opponents chest. 

You get hit with a 7.62mm round in the chest or head ...you're as good as dead.


----------



## P38 Pilot (Oct 21, 2005)

Also taking a shot like that through the knee caps will cause a lot of pain and will take your whole leg off!

My cousin who was in Vietnam said that the M-16 was useful if you:

1) Knew how to use it properly
2) If you could handle it on full auto
3) make the bullet hit a weak point in the human body.

He said they were taught how to "tilt" the 5.56mm round in the gun. In order to do this you had to put it on semi but this was a great way onto bring the enemy down. When you fired the round, the bullet would spiral like when you miss threw a football and when it hit the Vietnamese, it could tear a limb off or if it was a head shot, spilt it wide open.

My cousin said that a friend of his did this technique in Nam and took the Vietnamese's right arm off! It was dangling before the shot him in the chest.


----------



## evangilder (Oct 21, 2005)

Those three points are true with _any_ weapon. How do you "tilt" a round in the chamber?


----------



## lesofprimus (Oct 21, 2005)

Thats a new one to me too....

And for the record, just to clear up any misunderstandings, I have fired the 7.62 round in combat, and it DOES knock the target off their feet...


----------



## evangilder (Oct 21, 2005)

yup


----------



## 102first_hussars (Oct 22, 2005)

The STG-44 all the way it was the most accurate of its day, and the first Asault rifle to be designed, it had the firepower to carry the same role as the BAR.

In my opinion it was the most beautiful in comparison to others at the time.

You may notice that the HK-5 bares a slight resemblance to the STG-44


----------



## P38 Pilot (Oct 22, 2005)

> How do you "tilt" a round in the chamber?


I remember him telling me that before every patrol they would take a rod or something and set the bullet in a different position from the others. You could only do this with one round or the gun would miss fire or jam.

I dont have to much detail on this but ill try to find out the next time i see him.


----------



## schwarzpanzer (Oct 22, 2005)

*Jabberwocky:*



> One bullet isn't always going to put a guy down, particularly not a SMG or pistol bullet. But the same is true even for a 7.62 or a 5.56.



Even pistols firing Magnum or hollow-point rounds are capable of this.



> The human body can lose about 1-1.2 litres of blood before shock is induced an consciousness is lost.



It depends on a lot of factors the principal one being the person's mass.



> Part of the problem in Mogadishu was that troops with the M4 carbine (mostly Delta) were issued 'green tip' semi armour piercing ammunition.



I didn't know that, thanks JW.



> Obviously SAP ammo is not going to fragment like standard M193 5.56mm ammo. A 5.56mm NATO (either M193 or M855)



I'm pretty sure all NATO 5.56 is SS109?

I think M193 is the early Vietnam era round I was talking about?

If so, this tumbles very well as it is rear-heavy.



PlanD said:


> You get hit with a 7.62mm round in the chest or head ...you're as good as dead.



Funny you should mention that PD, the 7.62 can suffer from the SAP problems in the Mog.

This is made worse if the target is running at you?

- Basically the wounds seal themselves.

The force can rip flesh along with it with the 7.62 though, and if it hits bone it fragments (the bone).



P38 said:


> My cousin who was in Vietnam said that the M-16 was useful if you:
> 
> 2) If you could handle it on full auto



Thats not a problem so much with the 5.56, the leightweight of modern rifles makes it harder though.



102first_hussars said:


> The STG-44 all the way it was the most accurate of its day, and the first Asault rifle to be designed, it had the firepower to carry the same role as the BAR.



It wasn't the most accurate (Bren?), the 1st AR was the Fedorov Avtomat (WW1), the .30 '06 had more power than the Kurzpatrone 7.92.


I think all this 'tilting' is for extra tumble?


This is an interesting link:

http://www.bobtuley.com/terminal.htm


----------



## 102first_hussars (Oct 22, 2005)

"It wasn't the most accurate (Bren?), the 1st AR was the Fedorov Avtomat (WW1), the .30 '06 had more power than the Kurzpatrone 7.92."

The Bren was a LMG,


Isnt the 30'06 the 7.62 by 63mm casing? cause if it is than the german 7.92 had a bit more punch to it.

And maybe it wasnt the first but it was an incredible weapon.


----------



## schwarzpanzer (Oct 22, 2005)

I thought you were comparing AR's and SAW's?

That's why I included an LMG.

The 7.92 of the StG44 was shortened as compared to the standard 7.92 of the Kar98k, MG42 etc.

It could still penetrate a steel helmet at 600m though apparently. 8) Though this may be far-fetched?


----------



## 102first_hussars (Oct 22, 2005)

Oh when I included the BAR to my other post I was saying that it was capable of sustaining that role as a SAW.


----------



## schwarzpanzer (Oct 22, 2005)

The AR replacing an MG is a difficult point with me, I always see a need for a SAW/LMG.

As is the MG42 being used as a SAW/LMG.

I understand, the BAR was lacking in the Sustained fire role, but it gave birth to the ZB26 and FN MAG (240) 2 very important weapons.


Have you seen the Brit film 'The Bunker' 102first Hussars?

It features the StG44 held correctly, that takes practice! - Good film. 8) 


Also the Infra-rot Vampir and MKb42 are worth looking into if you like the StG44.







Vampir StG44 and Panther G.

www.arniesairsoft.co.uk

http://www.legendshobbies.com/fns/MKb42.htm

MKb42 Walther and Haenel models.


----------



## 102first_hussars (Oct 22, 2005)

schwarzpanzer said:


> The AR replacing an MG is a difficult point with me, I always see a need for a SAW/LMG.
> 
> As is the MG42 being used as a SAW/LMG.
> 
> ...


No I havnt seen that movie, whats it about and when was it made.
Cuz I cant stand those WW2 movies from the 50'-70's theyre stupid.


----------



## schwarzpanzer (Oct 22, 2005)

No worries, it's from the 90's at the oldest.  

It's actually a thriller movie, but is very good.

It has 'Moksie' from Auf Weidersein Pet in it.


BTW: Please don't quote my entire post, it takes up room and makes the page take longer to load.


----------



## lesofprimus (Oct 22, 2005)

> and makes the page take longer to load.


Get DSL...


----------



## 102first_hussars (Oct 23, 2005)

Hmm Ill have to look into that movie, if it was made in britain the chances of me finding here are very slim,

we get mostly America entertainment here.


----------



## Nonskimmer (Oct 23, 2005)

As a matter of fact, I just saw The Bunker for rent at Rogers Video yesterday. Me and the wife rented Halloween: Resurrection instead though.


----------



## P38 Pilot (Oct 23, 2005)

> P38 wrote:
> My cousin who was in Vietnam said that the M-16 was useful if you:
> 
> 2) If you could handle it on full auto
> ...


Even back then firing the little 5.56mm was tough. 

I forgot to mention this but my cousin was also taught at basic training to hold the M-16 a certain way so when you fired it, the gun wouldnt "jerk" hard to the right or left.


----------



## Blackwatch (Oct 23, 2005)

battle-site zero for a M-16 is 250 meters in the US Army or was anyway...I taught my guys 250 meters is way to close...we have other means to engage, so use them


----------



## cheddar cheese (Oct 23, 2005)

Nonskimmer said:


> As a matter of fact, I just saw The Bunker for rent at Rogers Video yesterday. Me and the wife rented Halloween: Resurrection instead though.



It was on TV here a few days ago, too tired to watch it though


----------



## plan_D (Oct 23, 2005)

I'm quite amazed that some people actually think getting struck by a 7.62mm wouldn't be that bad. This almost shocks me as much as when I found out that the majority of my chemistry class didn't even know how a gun worked ("It uses a spring, doesn't it?") ... 

The odds of a 7.62mm round causing little damage is slim to nil. No matter where it strikes on the body it will rip most of the impact area away with it. The odds are it's going to strike and shatter bone, when the bone is shattered it takes a very large portion of the body with it.


----------



## lesofprimus (Oct 23, 2005)

> No matter where it strikes on the body it will rip most of the impact area away with it. The odds are it's going to strike and shatter bone, when the bone is shattered it takes a very large portion of the body with it.


100% accurate assesment....


----------



## 102first_hussars (Oct 24, 2005)

Got A nice Picture for you


----------



## evangilder (Oct 24, 2005)

lesofprimus said:


> > No matter where it strikes on the body it will rip most of the impact area away with it. The odds are it's going to strike and shatter bone, when the bone is shattered it takes a very large portion of the body with it.
> 
> 
> 100% accurate assesment....



Yep. Most times it's a small hole in the entry point with a large hole on exit.


----------



## P38 Pilot (Oct 24, 2005)

Plan_D wrote:


> This almost shocks me as much as when I found out that the majority of my chemistry class didn't even know how a gun worked


What a bunch of retards...


----------



## lesofprimus (Oct 24, 2005)

> Got A nice Picture for you


Any picture of an M-16, besides the SOPMOD M4, is a waste of kilobytes, just like the weapon....



> What a bunch of retards...


Well, aint that the pot calling the kettle black....


----------



## trackend (Oct 24, 2005)

LMFHO Jesus Les you're on song tonight or morning or what ever bleeding time of day it is in you neck of the woods sod it, I hate fucking time zones


----------



## lesofprimus (Oct 24, 2005)

lol... Its 6 pm Monday night here in Mississippi...


----------



## P38 Pilot (Oct 24, 2005)

What?? They were a bunch of retards if they dont know know how a gun works! The only gun that uses a spring is a freaking BB gun.


----------



## 102first_hussars (Oct 24, 2005)

I wonder where they got the Idea for this weapon.


----------



## schwarzpanzer (Oct 25, 2005)

102first_hussars said:


> if it was made in britain the chances of me finding here are very slim,
> 
> we get mostly America entertainment here.





Strangely on Canadian Amazon all shipments are from the US, whereas the UK Amazon's are all from Canada.  



PlanD said:


> I found out that the majority of my chemistry class didn't even know how a gun worked



Not everbody's into guns.



P38 said:


> The only gun that uses a spring is a freaking BB gun.



Most, if not all guns use a spring, the Sten's is the most obvious I've seen.

[quote-"102first_hussars"]I wonder where they got the Idea for this weapon. [/quote]






EM2?






(http://world.guns.ru)


----------



## trackend (Oct 25, 2005)

P38 Pilot said:


> What?? They were a bunch of retards if they dont know know how a gun works! The only gun that uses a spring is a freaking BB gun.



And the Gat(spud gun) and air weapons (although I assume P38 you class all air weapons as BB where in the UK BB fires little metal balls and air rifles fire waisted pellets or you used to be able to get plastic sheathed sabots, and of course the Sten (for the bolt) and several other shock operated weapons as opposed to gas, but as a projectile force theirs not many.
The atmosphere weapons although still using compressed gas either air in a reservoir or a Co2 cartridge are in somewhat different league hence the need for a fire arms licence.


----------



## schwarzpanzer (Oct 25, 2005)

> other shock operated weapons as opposed to gas



The M16 and AK use springs.


----------



## lesofprimus (Oct 25, 2005)

Hmmmm, hows that education system in Alabama going there P-38... Not too many retards huh???


----------



## plan_D (Oct 25, 2005)

The M-16 and AK-47 use springs ...if you're seriously refering to how the gun fires - you'll never be taken seriously ...ever again. 

And even before I was into guns, I knew how they worked. Because it's pretty obvious what is happening inside when there's a big flash and a big bang ...it's obviously not a spring - it's a freakin' explosion!

It's the same that a lot of people don't know how a jet engine works ...

The intellectual elite seem to moving further and further away from the general public these days - it's a shame I'm part of the general public.  

It's like when I told a friend that humans can now make their own blood (which we can) ...he was like, "So?" - I could tell him humans could cure every disease on the planet and he wouldn't be impressed. Problem is ...he's not stupid compared to most of them around here!


----------



## 102first_hussars (Oct 25, 2005)

schwarzpanzer said:


> 102first_hussars said:
> 
> 
> > if it was made in britain the chances of me finding here are very slim,
> ...








EM2?






(http://world.guns.ru)[/quote]

No I figured they got the Idea from the weapon they used in the movie Aliens.
Whats the EM2?


----------



## Jabberwocky (Oct 25, 2005)

The EM-2 is the Enfield Experimental Model 2, .280 Bullpup Automatic Rifle.

At the end of WW2 the British realised that a) bolt action and semi auto rifles were obsolete and, b) sub-machine guns were inadequate for anything apart from short range combat.

So the went and built a gun that was shorter than the SMLE No 4, had a selective rate of fire and fired a very powerful .280 (7x43mm) round, which was much better than that fired by the Sten gun. Unfortunately, even though it was officially adopted at some point in the 50s (1952???) as the "R,A .280 No 9 mk 1" (Rifle, Automatic, calibre .280, Number 9 mark 1) it never saw service because the UK thought that interoperability with the new NATO standard 7.62x51mm round was more important. Eventually, the went for the L1 (FN FAL), which was an excellent weapon, but probably not as versatile as the EM-2.


----------



## P38 Pilot (Oct 25, 2005)

Cartmann kicks ass! Awesome sig 102hussar!



> Hmmmm, hows that education system in Alabama going there P-38... Not too many retards huh???


Nope. The only retards i see are those born that way.


----------



## 102first_hussars (Oct 25, 2005)

P38 Pilot said:


> Cartmann kicks ass! Awesome sig 102hussar!
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Hmm Reminds me of Ontario, I was 1 out of a handfull of kids in the school that knew how to read, I think I was about 14.


----------



## 102first_hussars (Oct 26, 2005)

Jabberwocky said:


> The EM-2 is the Enfield Experimental Model 2, .280 Bullpup Automatic Rifle.
> 
> At the end of WW2 the British realised that a) bolt action and semi auto rifles were obsolete and, b) sub-machine guns were inadequate for anything apart from short range combat.
> 
> So the went and built a gun that was shorter than the SMLE No 4, had a selective rate of fire and fired a very powerful .280 (7x43mm) round, which was much better than that fired by the Sten gun. Unfortunately, even though it was officially adopted at some point in the 50s (1952???) as the "R,A .280 No 9 mk 1" (Rifle, Automatic, calibre .280, Number 9 mark 1) it never saw service because the UK thought that interoperability with the new NATO standard 7.62x51mm round was more important. Eventually, the went for the L1 (FN FAL), which was an excellent weapon, but probably not as versatile as the EM-2.



I looked up the the Em2 and I do see a slight resemblance, what made me figure the fictional weapon on Aliens was the fact that it was integrated with mag loaded, pump-action grenade launcher.

Did you know that the the Pulse Rifle on Aliens, was simply a Thompson with a Spaz shotgun attached to the bottom with some other custom made parts?


----------



## Jabberwocky (Oct 26, 2005)

Riddley Scott wasn't the first to use WWII or WWI weapons as the base for sci-fi weapons.

The Stormtrooper Rifle in Star Wars was based on the Sten gun. The Heavy Rifle was based on the British Lewis Gun. Han Solo's blaster was based on the C96 Broomhandle Mauser.

Almost the entire Death Star escape and later Death Star attack scenes are based of WWII guncam and documentary footage.

George Lucas had access to hundreds of hours of unedited guncam footage from Flim Storage depositories around Southern California. When ILM needed a referance for how to make the spaceships move and what camera angles to film them at, he edited a whole bunch of it together and sent it off to them. Many of the scens in Star Wars are actually exactly the same, frame by frame, as actual dogfight footage from WWII.


----------



## lesofprimus (Oct 26, 2005)

This is true....


----------



## evangilder (Oct 26, 2005)

Interesting.


----------



## 102first_hussars (Oct 26, 2005)

Jabberwocky said:


> Riddley Scott wasn't the first to use WWII or WWI weapons as the base for sci-fi weapons.
> 
> The Stormtrooper Rifle in Star Wars was based on the Sten gun. The Heavy Rifle was based on the British Lewis Gun. Han Solo's blaster was based on the C96 Broomhandle Mauser.
> 
> ...



Whatever holy crap Im just expected to know this?


----------



## 102first_hussars (Oct 26, 2005)

Oh the Storm Trooper Gun looks nothing like the Sten, When I see the storm Troopers weapon I think Sterling


----------



## Nonskimmer (Oct 26, 2005)

That's because they _were_ Sterlings, with a few extras added to them. Scopes, raised cooling slats, stuff like that. The Rebel rifles in The Empire Strikes Back were heavily modified Stg-44's.


----------



## schwarzpanzer (Oct 26, 2005)

*PlanD:*



> The M-16 and AK-47 use springs ...if you're seriously refering to how the gun fires - you'll never be taken seriously ...ever again.



What causes the bolt to fly forwards after the second shot then?

And what about the PIAT gun?



> It's the same that a lot of people don't know how a jet engine works ...



I've been into mechanics before I could walk (seriously) but obviously most people see me as a freak.



> The intellectual elite seem to moving further and further away from the general public these days - it's a shame I'm part of the general public.



I hate to say this, but you're pretty knowledgeable.

I think intelligence is not knowing things, rather being able to figure things out IMHO.



> It's like when I told a friend that humans can now make their own blood (which we can)



Well if we didn't, we'd be dead within a day, unless you meant artificially?



> Problem is ...he's not stupid compared to most of them around here!



Yeah, tell me about it. It's not a sweet ignorance either.

I think it's the 'I'm right' close-mindedness that does it. Then again, you and me do that sometimes - but at least we research, listen, admit when we're wrong etc.


Sorry 102 Hussars,

I attempted (unsuccessfully) to insert a pic on that post:

http://world.guns.ru/assault/em2.jpg


With 'Alien' The flamethrower is part M16 and was used in the Video game 'Resident Evil'. Anyone got any more info on it? M240 I believe, could it even be an actual weapon?


*Jabberwocky:*

The EM2 had 2 calibres, one resembled the 7.62 .308 Win NATO, the other the 5.56 NATO.



> it never saw service because the UK thought that interoperability with the new NATO standard 7.62x51mm round was more important.



Not strictly true, USA led NATO at the time, it wanted 7.62mm and threw it's toys out of the pram.  




NS said:


> The Rebel rifles in The Empire Strikes Back were heavily modified Stg-44's.



Thought I'd seen StG44's somewhere, yes they were Sterlings also.


----------



## 102first_hussars (Oct 26, 2005)

Yep it was part m16 in the sequel also.


----------



## P38 Pilot (Oct 26, 2005)

> Did you know that the the Pulse Rifle on Aliens, was simply a Thompson with a Spaz shotgun attached to the bottom with some other custom made parts?


I did not know that! :0


----------



## 102first_hussars (Oct 26, 2005)

No Joke, a layout on the previous page.


----------



## schwarzpanzer (Oct 27, 2005)

Can you get the info for the flamethrower?



> Did you know that the the Pulse Rifle on Aliens, was simply a Thompson with a Spaz shotgun attached to the bottom with some other custom made parts?



It's SPAS, not Spaz. Spaz is a derogatory term, like retard.

*S*pecial *P*urpose *A*utomatic *S*hotgun FYI.


----------



## 102first_hussars (Oct 27, 2005)

Dont get all technical on me


----------



## 102first_hussars (Oct 27, 2005)

schwarzpanzer said:


> Can you get the info for the flamethrower?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



No I cant but if you watch the movie clearly it was part M-16


----------



## schwarzpanzer (Oct 28, 2005)

Sorry, it's just that it is seen as very offensive in England.

Pity there's no flamethrower info, it's called the M240 in sci-fi world, but I believe it may have it's origins in reality? as does the Rifle in the M16/M203.


----------



## Medvedya (Oct 28, 2005)

Is it? Like most things it depends on the context and who it's addressed to. 

For example when I was driving into the centre of Bristol with a mate of mine we had a laugh when we drove past a white guy in dreds and saying "Yo yo yo man! Like check out ma wigger sheet! Wot a total spastic!" 

Although would I say that if someone black or disabled was around that I didn't know? Probably not. And does it mean I have a poor opinion of either? Of course not.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 29, 2005)

P38 Pilot said:


> He said they were taught how to "tilt" the 5.56mm round in the gun. In order to do this you had to put it on semi but this was a great way onto bring the enemy down. When you fired the round, the bullet would spiral like when you miss threw a football and when it hit the Vietnamese, it could tear a limb off or if it was a head shot, spilt it wide open.



I am not doubting what you are saying because I do not know what you are talking about, but just seems kind of wierd. If you place a round in the magazine any differently in the magazine it will jam the gun.



P38 Pilot said:


> Even back then firing the little 5.56mm was tough.



Firing a 5.56 is easy. It has hardly any kick to it all. It does not matter what kind of gun it is, 5.56 is easy.



Blackwatch said:


> battle-site zero for a M-16 is 250 meters in the US Army or was anyway...I taught my guys 250 meters is way to close...we have other means to engage, so use them



It is 300m or atleast now it is.



P38 Pilot said:


> What?? They were a bunch of retards if they dont know know how a gun works! The only gun that uses a spring is a freaking BB gun.



Werent you just calling people in PD's chemistry class retards because they do not know how a gun works? You need to learn how a gun works.

The M-16, M-4, 50 Cal. M-9 Baretta, M-60, Mark 19, SAW, 249, all use springs. In fact lots of guns use springs. 

What did I tell you P38 think before you speak, you just made yourself out to look like an idiot again. Please research before you post.

Just looking out for you again.



schwarzpanzer said:


> What causes the bolt to fly forwards after the second shot then?



GAS! It is a gas operated weapon. The gasses from the fired round push the bolt back. It still has a spring though and it is called a Buffer Spring.


----------



## Glider (Oct 29, 2005)

Getting back to the subject. Has anyone nominated the Sterling as their choice for an SMG?

It must be in with a shout


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 29, 2005)

Dont know eneogh about the Sterling.


----------



## Glider (Oct 29, 2005)

Caliber: 9x19mm Luger/Para 
Weight: 2.7 kg empty; 3.5 kg loaded
Lenght (stock closed/open): 481 / 686 mm
Barrel lenght: 198 mm
Rate of fire: 550 rounds per minute
Magazine capacity: 34 rounds
Effective range: 200 meters 


This submachine gun had been developed in the 1940s by the Patchett at the Sterling Armament Co., Great Britain. Initial version was first introduced at Arnhem but was formally adopted by British Army in 1953. It remained in army service well untill early 1990s, when it was replaced by L85A1 assault rifle. 

Sterling is a relatively simple, but wery well made, blowback operated gun. The receiver and the barrel heat shield was made from steel tube, the bolt was machined, with fixed firing pin and four special ribs, designed to gather and remove the dust and fouling from the receiver. The curved magazine is inserted from the left side, spent cases are ejected to the right. The folding butt is made from stamped steel. Silenced version of the Sterling, oficially labelled as L34A1, replaced in service the older STEN Mark 6 silenced. 

The Sterling SMG deserved wery high reputation along the troops due to extreme reliability and good accuracy. 

Over 90 countries used the Sterling, a number still do and I think India still make it. 

As an aside at least one of the Arab royal families had gold plated Sterlings for the use of their body guard.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 29, 2005)

Cool thanks for the info.


----------



## Nonskimmer (Oct 29, 2005)

And lets not forget that it was the favourite weapon of Imperial Stormtroopers.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 29, 2005)

LOL


----------



## 102first_hussars (Oct 29, 2005)

> Werent you just calling people in PD's chemistry class retards because they do not know how a gun works? You need to learn how a gun works.
> 
> The M-16, M-4, 50 Cal. M-9 Baretta, M-60, Mark 19, SAW, 249, all use springs. In fact lots of guns use springs.
> 
> ...



K I do that all of the time so geeze dont be so hard on him you arent on me.

And second the SAW and The 249 are the same weapons, and the M2 50.Cal does not use springs it uses the bolt lock system on the cocking handle.

Springs were deveoped for Gas Operated weapons as the M2 was Recoil Operated.


----------



## schwarzpanzer (Oct 29, 2005)

*DerAdler:*



> Firing a 5.56 is easy. It has hardly any kick to it all. It does not matter what kind of gun it is, 5.56 is easy.



It is when you overcompensate for a heavy recoil, and a heavy gun, it feels really weird.  



> GAS! It is a gas operated weapon. The gasses from the fired round push the bolt back. It still has a spring though and it is called a Buffer Spring.



Gas makes the piston go backwards yes, but then what makes the bolt go forwards again?

*Glider:*



> Getting back to the subject. Has anyone nominated the Sterling as their choice for an SMG?
> 
> It must be in with a shout



I like the .45 ACP, but the Sterling is apparently the most powerful 9mm weapon.

I've heard it was a favourite for robbers as it could penetrate armoured glass.



> Silenced version of the Sterling, oficially labelled as L34A1, replaced in service the older STEN Mark 6 silenced.



Nice gun, not too silent but hard to know where 'popping' is coming from.

*102 Hussars:*



> K I do that all of the time so geeze dont be so hard on him you arent on me.



If you laugh at people and call them retards like he did, you have to expect counter-insults.



> the SAW and The 249 are the same weapons



Yes, the M249 is a SAW (Also called the Minimi)


----------



## lesofprimus (Oct 30, 2005)

> And lets not forget that it was the favourite weapon of Imperial Stormtroopers.


Ummm, excuse me, but that would be the BlasTech DLT-19 Heavy Blaster Rifle....

This endearing classic weapon has stood the test of time.... Since the Empire was formed, the Heavy Blaster Rifle began its ongoing service as the Defender..... Now nicknamed "The Sweeper", the DLT-19 discharges a tremendous blast bolt with long-range capability... 

The DLT-19 is the most dramatic and effective personally carried Trooper weapon... 

This single weapon, used correctly can replace the firepower of 3-5 Standard Blasters with equal destructive force... The EBR of the Heavy Blaster Rifle is approximately 3.2 times greater than the E-11 unit.... Its un-daunting and legendary reputation of service proved that the DLT-19 was the perfect platform for defending garrisons... 

Now, this Heavy Rifle is the preferred weapon of single-purpose Assault Combat Teams for open-area engagements specializing in frontal and large-scale assaults... 

The Heavy Blaster Rifle uses a canted spotting scope (older versions) - newer version of the Heavy Rifle use a top mounted scope - featuring both manual and automatic focusing and trajectory compensators (adjusting for ambient magnetic and force field anomalies, etc.).... The scope is not serviceable in the field. 

The folding stock permits the Sniper Trooper to wield this weapon with deadly precision....The muzzle blast/flash suppressor minimizes the initial blast flash to a nominal signature... To compensate for the increased recoil, a PlastiTheen stock absorbs much of the tremendous recoil created by such a powerful bolt as produced by the DLT-19.... 

The Heavy Blaster Rifle is charged using two forms of energy: A heavy-duty 50-bolt Electro-Crystalline power cell and a 200-bolt capacity plasma cell give personnel a moderate cache of firepower usage.... Note the per capita shots of the E-11 outnumber the DLT-19 since the Heavy Rifle requires a greater charge per shot... Periodically inspect the cell magazine receivers to be sure the tracks are free from debris and defects... Check the operation of cell-feed to ensure the cells lock into position freely and securely... 

The cell casings are designed to high tolerances and may be re-used with confidence, however recycling of said cells should only be performed at an authorized overhaul site... 

***NOTE*** 
Periodically check the barrel to be sure the inner channel is free of Foreign Object Damaging (FOD) material/debris. Failure to do so may lead to the destruction of the weapon and harm (death) to the user... 

Field Servicing of this Blaster is covered under the BlasTech DLT-19 Field Service Manual... (All safety checks and routine/emergency repair procedures are discussed thoroughly in said manual....)


----------



## Nonskimmer (Oct 30, 2005)

I thought it was the BasTech E-11 blaster carbine (Sterling) that was better. 
Shows what I know.


----------



## lesofprimus (Oct 30, 2005)

Silly human....


----------



## 102first_hussars (Oct 30, 2005)

Oh god silly humans everybody knows that the Light Saber was the best,

I mean cumon it was a sword made of Lazer


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 30, 2005)

102first_hussars said:


> The M-16, M-4, 50 Cal. M-9 Baretta, M-60, Mark 19, SAW, 249, all use springs. In fact lots of guns use springs.
> 
> K I do that all of the time so geeze dont be so hard on him you arent on me.



I dont have to be hard on you. Les and PD do it for me. Keep saying stupid things why dont you.



102first_hussars said:


> And second the SAW and The 249 are the same weapons, and the M2 50.Cal does not use springs it uses the bolt lock system on the cocking handle.



Excuse me I made a mistake I meant the 240G which is what we are starting to use in our Blackhawks not the 249. And I have news for you the M2 50 Cals which we have in our unit have a spring in them.



schwarzpanzer said:


> It is when you overcompensate for a heavy recoil, and a heavy gun, it feels really weird.



Why do you think that 5.56 have heavy recoil. I am sorry but I have never fired a 5.56 that had heavy recoil. Have you fired a 5.56 that has heavy recoil? 



schwarzpanzer said:


> Gas makes the piston go backwards yes, but then what makes the bolt go forwards again?



I am not an expert on exactly how guns work but when the bolt goes back the sear pin catches it and locks it. The spring behind th bolt is under tension and when you pull the trigger the sear assy releases and the spring under tension slams the bolt foward.


----------



## schwarzpanzer (Oct 30, 2005)

*DerAdler:*



> Why do you think that 5.56 have heavy recoil. I am sorry but I have never fired a 5.56 that had heavy recoil. Have you fired a 5.56 that has heavy recoil?



No, but that's the point. It's too weird on single-shot IMHO.  



> The spring behind th bolt is under tension and when you pull the trigger the sear assy releases and the spring under tension slams the bolt foward.



Yes, that' what I was meaning.

BTW: DerAdler's usually a top bloke hussars, no need to be defensive.


----------



## 102first_hussars (Oct 31, 2005)

"BTW: DerAdler's usually a top bloke hussars, no need to be defensive."

I wasnt, It seems that every1 is going nuts when ever P-38 has something to say so Im defending him.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Nov 1, 2005)

then you'll proberly end up getting it the same as P-38, pD and les don't discriminate


----------



## trackend (Nov 1, 2005)

Personally I believe that there is a fundamental difference between gas and inertia operated weapons ,all fire arms make use of springs to some degree or another but control of the action varies greatly
Rather than me rambling on for ages have a look at this site it gives a pretty reasonable explanation of the various principles.

http://www.rkba.org/guns/principles/operating-systems/


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 1, 2005)

Cool link, thanks.


----------



## lesofprimus (Nov 1, 2005)

Hussars, the LAST person here u want to ally urself with is P-38... Take some advice from me, dont get involved in -38's buisness, just worry about urself...


----------



## schwarzpanzer (Nov 2, 2005)

102first_hussars said:


> It seems that every1 is going nuts when ever P-38 has something to say so Im defending him.



I don't  but in all honesty I can hardly defend that last remark, how rude.  



the lancaster kicks ass said:


> pD and les don't discriminate



PD hates everybody,  loves me though.  



trackend said:


> all fire arms make use of springs to some degree or another but control of the action varies greatly



That's what I was saying trackend.


----------



## lesofprimus (Nov 2, 2005)

> I don't but in all honesty I can hardly defend that last remark, how rude.


It was meant to be rude....


----------



## 102first_hussars (Nov 3, 2005)

What my remark? I wasnt trying to be rude I was stating a fact.

If P-38 says something about a fact that is incorrect is it really fair for any1 to call him a retard or Idiot simply because he was incorrect, now if he is known to make personal attacks thats different, Think of me as "The Canadian Peacekeeper" Wearing Jungle Camo in the Desert and everything.


----------



## schwarzpanzer (Nov 3, 2005)

Not you, him. 

P38 called a group of people retards for saying something that was correct,  I usually try to stick up for people, but he lined himself up IMO.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 3, 2005)

102first_hussars said:


> If P-38 says something about a fact that is incorrect is it really fair for any1 to call him a retard or Idiot simply because he was incorrect, now if he is known to make personal attacks thats different,



What for calling people retards because he thinks that the only guns that use springs are BB guns? Why dont you go and read the rest of the posts in this forum and you will see why we do what we do. 





102first_hussars said:


> Think of me as "The Canadian Peacekeeper" Wearing Jungle Camo in the Desert and everything.


----------



## 102first_hussars (Nov 3, 2005)

Actually theres a bit of a joke behind that,

We wore Green Camo In Afghanistan So the Taliban wouldnt mistake us for Americans


----------



## Nonskimmer (Nov 3, 2005)

Oh? I thought it was so that you could stand together and become a forest or something. Individually, you could have stood still, stuck your arms out, and become a cactus.


----------



## lesofprimus (Nov 3, 2005)

> "The Canadian Peacekeeper"


Well the next time we need u, I'll make sure to stick my head up a Mooses' ass and holler for you...


----------



## Nonskimmer (Nov 4, 2005)

Mmmmm...Moose meat...  
God, I haven't had a good moose steak in ages.


----------



## lesofprimus (Nov 4, 2005)

Heres the perfect place for u to go NS...


----------



## Nonskimmer (Nov 4, 2005)

Pfffff! You can't find a good moose steak in Saskatoon. 
But I've always liked that sign.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 4, 2005)

102first_hussars said:


> Actually theres a bit of a joke behind that,
> 
> We wore Green Camo In Afghanistan So the Taliban wouldnt mistake us for Americans



We had to at first also because they did not have eneogh desert issue for us.


----------



## trackend (Nov 4, 2005)

My mate said he actually ended up having to buy his own desert boots in the Gulf off the US guys and because he wasn't front line to begin with he had no desert camo issued for months.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 4, 2005)

I can believe it. We did not even get our desert flight boots until we got to Kuwait and that was still not everyone.


----------



## 102first_hussars (Nov 4, 2005)

> We had to at first also because they did not have eneogh desert issue for us


. 


Really? We Didnt have any, but you know those new digital camo that your Royal Marines and The U.S marines, We invented those, those are patterned in a way so that you cant be seen on Infrared and they work too.



And why does military crap cost so damn much these days, like during operation anaconda we had no desert camo, we taped our boots with water proof tape (It was not for water protection, the color happend to be light pink) we were cutting the material from our sand bags and making it into brush for our helmets, we looked pathetic and the americans wouldnt stop laughing at us, that was until our sniper pegged a taliban from 800 yds at night time. 

where was I? yeah we finally got Desert Camo when we were well into Op Apollo, apparently it set back the government like 3 million dollars for the dam things wtf, and we spent so much just to ummm  rent some submarines from the brits just to find they had asbestos insulation in them Thx alot PD  Its not your fault, and NS may bring more light to what Im saying, but were paying like 6billion dollars for 25 new anti-submarine helicopters to replace our Sea Kings, Though its old news to you guys I was shocked to hear that the US canceled the Comanche program which was a big farce on their part, I heard it was because they would have to pay like 14bil for like 140 planes well that was stupid, Back in the day the government could purchase a P-40 Warhawk for 12000 dollars. 
Personally I think the prices of this technology is meant to keep countries 10 paces behind them in strength even if you are their closest ally.
Now I can Understand Navy ships being so exspensive, there is time put into building them, Huge ass radar and sonar installation, price of the raw products used to make them, certain advansed weaponry and navigation systems along with big ass weapons like those right and left side "Big Berthas" that makes sense.
But for a helicopter that cant exceed 12000ft, or or 300kmh, and can easily be downed if you so much as shoot a pistol into the tail rudder.
For an F-18 that will go for 18 million dollars cant exceed 1000mile without drop tanks, that wont last in carrier service for more than 6 years, yes they have advanced navigation, radar, and miscellanious technology but those are meant to help the pilot and his ground control how the does it meet the requirments of todays battlefeild.
If you ask me we should all start over agian at swords and arrows and work our way up to making it easier for another country to get ahold of advanced weaponary LOL


----------



## P38 Pilot (Nov 5, 2005)

> And why does military crap cost so damn much these days, like during operation anaconda we had no desert camo, we taped our boots with water proof tape


It just is. Howcome only the Marines are using the Dessert Camo anyway????


----------



## 102first_hussars (Nov 5, 2005)

Not desert camo Digital Camo, Instead of the pattern being splashes and tigerstripes the pattern is small squares, when you try to find a guy with this camo with Infrared anywhere beyond 100meters he is invisible, the pattern in great detail simulates the static that you see when using NV goggles.


----------



## Nonskimmer (Nov 5, 2005)

We're not renting the subs, we own them. They're ours, come hell or high water (lousy choice of words  ). That's all I'm gonna say about them for now.


----------



## P38 Pilot (Nov 5, 2005)

I really like the digital camo! Just looking at a woodland camo uniform at a Surplus store was awesome!


----------



## 102first_hussars (Nov 5, 2005)

Yeo, thats as good as it gets for canadian products in the states, A flippin surplus store, If I were a quebecer it probably wouldnt bother.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 6, 2005)

Yes the US Marines got there digital pattern from the Canadians. Now the Army has it also. Our design is for wooldand and desert also. One uniform for where ever we go.

The Germans were actually using digital cammo back in the 80's already. Not most of the units but the GSG9 Spec ops units were using the digital pattern in the 80's.


----------



## P38 Pilot (Nov 6, 2005)

> The Germans were actually using digital cammo back in the 80's already. Not most of the units but the GSG9 Spec ops units were using the digital pattern in the 80's.


Wow, Germans have always been working on their camo. Even back during WWII when they painted their tanks with that special spotted camo including their uniforms!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 7, 2005)

For the longest time the German uniforms after WW2 were just plane grey/green uniforms similar to the US Fatigues. They did not go to a camo pattern until the 80's just like the US did.


----------



## schwarzpanzer (Nov 7, 2005)

> Even back during WWII when they painted their tanks with that special spotted camo including their uniforms!



Ambush pattern! 8) 

BTW colourblind people see in tonality rather than colour, so using camouflage against them is nearly pointless.


----------



## P38 Pilot (Nov 8, 2005)

Wait. The Germans had a cool assortment of camo. I know most of the Werhmacht used mainly grey but the SS used Camo. They also put on their tanks mainly in the Russian Campaign.


----------



## Joe2 (Oct 28, 2006)

P38 Pilot said:


> My cousin said that a friend of his did this technique in Nam and took the Vietnamese's right arm off! It was dangling before the shot him in the chest.



bet he was happy to die in the end!


----------



## MacArther (Oct 28, 2006)

The SIG MP41 was the submachine gun that I would use if I were a European nation, although the US should stick with the Thompson to simplify things. This weapon was made in Switzerland, and clocked in at 9.6lbs. It had a 40 round detachable box clip for holding 9mm Parabellum rounds. It opperated on blowback, and had a cyclic rate of 850rpm. It had a muzzle velocity of 1312fps, and an *effective* range of 984 ft. This is not to say that the gun was accurate at these ranges, but rather that it could still be believed that bullets would reach out past most other SMGs.


----------



## P38 Pilot (Oct 29, 2006)

I forgot about the MP41. Its a least known sub machine gun used in the war.


----------

