# Infantry of World War 2



## plan_D (Jul 20, 2005)

Prior to World War 2 many developments in technology occured which made World War 2 the first "modern" war. Planes zoomed through the skies at speeds reaching 600 mph - tanks and armoured transport carried forth the banner of many militaries and massive aircraft carriers sailed the oceans bringing with them a new era in naval warfare. But what would these massive leaps in military might achieve without the infantry? Nothing. 

Infantry is the oldest military "machine" from cavemen beating each other with clubs to, well whatever the future may hold. Infantry is the one arm that cannot and will not be replaced. It can be modernised changing from march to motorised infantry but the man with the club, spear, sword, pike, musket, rifle or assault rifle will always be the man raising the flag above a captured position. 

So, in World War 2, who had the supreme infantry formations? Individual natural talent does exist among soldiers but which nation trained their infantry to a point of excellence beyond all others? Which infantry formations inside the nations were the best? Who was the best at what?

Personally, I believe the German infantry to be the best. I have read a lot about their training and their combat actions which lead me to believe they were the supreme combat troops. For anyone who has seen Band of Brothers - imagine the combat prowess of Easy Company in almost every company of the Army, and you've just about got what the Wehrmacht had. The Germans gave better than what they received during World War 2 in terms of losses - with little over 4 million deaths on all fronts. When in equal numbers no Soviet, British or American force on battalion level could hope to defeat the German force. 

However the Wehrmacht did have something missing by late 1944 - men. Germany had suffered massively during the war and lost many of it's experienced veterans and able bodied men. So, by the time the Red Army reached Berlin they were fighting old men of the _People's Guard_ or young children of the _Hitler Youth_ - hardly the experienced, well-trained and combat capable men of the yesteryear. Imagine a Berlin defended by the élite infantry that stormed across Poland, France and the Lowlands and Russia in 1939-1941... 

...you could count on the Soviet losses being much-much higher.


----------



## evangilder (Jul 20, 2005)

All the airplanes and ships are great to have and an invaluable asset, but you are right, wars are won with boots on the ground. They have to take, and hold the territory. 

At the beginning of the war, the Germans had some of the best men and equipment available. The Blitzkrieg tactics and highly mechanized force coupled with aircraft like the Stuka made for a powerful force that the allies were ill-prepared for. The early war German generals were skilled tacticians who knew how to fully utilize their strengths while not exposing their weaknesses. 

The allies did have some skilled generals like Patton and Montgomery later in the war that observed and learned from previous mistakes. The main problem the allies had at the beginning of the war was force stagnation and technical malaise. The allies were also studying the tactics and battles of previous wars, like WWI, where trench warfare were common. 

While everyone else was allowing their forces to get smaller and not spending tons of money on their armies and R and D, the Germans were covertly, and in some cases overtly preparing for war. Because of this, they were able to use these strengths to their fullest advantage early on. 

It is still hard for me to imagine that a country the size of Germany, could take over almost all of Europe, sections of North Africa and parts of Russia. That says alot for their infantry and military as a whole.


----------



## plan_D (Jul 20, 2005)

It was an amazing feat, Nazi or not you have to admire the combat prowess of the German nation during World War 2. A common misconception is that Germany had the supreme technological advantage that allowed it to gain all it's victories. While true that Germany was in advance of the Allies and Soviets in rocketry and aerodynamic study, they never achieved victory with their technology. They achieved the real victories of 1939-1941 with *inferior* equipment! 

The Werhmacht was well equipped for a Blitzkrieg type war. That was the only war that would secure victory for Germany and the High Command knew it. The whole idea of an Armoured (Panzer) Division with everything sub-ordinate to the tank was new and farout in 1936 but because of people like Heinz Guderian these formations were in existence in 1939 and they were the winning factors. With close infantry support the armour provided the breakthrough, encirclement and ultimately victory. 

During the French campaign there was one unit in the Wehrmacht that was an excellent infantry formation. Fully motorised (in a time when only the ten Panzer Divisions were motorised); these three infantry regiments handed many great defeats to the Allies. The SS-VT (which would become the dreaded Waffen-SS) were only three regiments during the _Fall Gelb_ but they provided invaluble service and secured their place in history as an excellent military organisation despite the fact that they're shrouded in myth about their policy. They probably were the greatest formation in the war when fully equipped. 

It is quite hard to believe how Germany managed it - but manage it they did and it was excellent co-operation between man and machine that did it.


----------



## evangilder (Jul 20, 2005)

I believe that alot of it had to do with superior tactics. One big advantage the Germans had was with airpower. They learned alot during the Spanish Civil War that enable Luftwaffe crews to gain valuable experience. They also realized that if you control the skies, you can control the battle. Unfortunately (or fortunately, depending on how you look at it), I don't think they could have adequately prepared for the massive amount of bomber formations.


----------



## plan_D (Jul 20, 2005)

They also realised that aircraft had to be ready to attack on area anytime and anywhere. All formations had an air liason officer to call in air support within minutes. The Allies in 1944-'45 perfected the same system by having aircraft continually circling above the battlefields ready to go down on a call. 

I've got some opinions of the different nations' infantry - I'll try and find them. One is of the British take on the Japanese and the rest are of the German opinion of the Soviet, American and British troops.


----------



## Glider (Jul 20, 2005)

Like most my money is on the Germans as being the best. PlanD if you could find those opinions it would be very interesting, in particular the Germans views of the others.


----------



## plan_D (Jul 20, 2005)

I'm in the process of finding them. They're short but still quite interesting.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 20, 2005)

I think the main problem of the Wehrmacht was that they were spread to thin and they could not recover from there losses like the allies could.


----------



## wmaxt (Jul 20, 2005)

I think both Plan_D and adler pretty much said it. At the start of the war the German soldier was the best and the tactics were also very good. The problem in the war was that Hitler thought tacticly not strategicaly, blinded by his own ego. Around mid '44 the Allies had gained a lot of experiance, people like Patton were in place at the same time the most experianced Germans were much fewer and their support was less effective allowing the Allies to at least match their combat effectivness.

I also think this was matched by the Japanese in the PTO/CBI where they were effective until the Allies caught up.

wmaxt


----------



## plan_D (Jul 20, 2005)

I don't believe the Allied infantry matched up to German infantry even in the late war months. German troops were under a fascist regime and it was victory or death much like in the Soviet Union but German troops were actually good in combat and didn't foolishly throw away lives. What that did do though was make them aggressive and aggression often saves more lives than it costs - tell that to the soldier on the ground though and he'll say "I don't care - I just don't want to get shot" he's naturally cautious. 

Allied Generals never matched their German counter-parts. Almost all Allied Generals were egotisical and always against each other - which often caused a breakdown in the war effort. The British and Americans did not get along too well during that war - which affected strategy. Alexander was probably the best Allied Commander in the ETO. 

I don't think the Japanese infantry were massively impressive overall. They were excellent in the actions prior to combat but in actual combat they were often clumsy - although tactically they had some decent generals and often moved for the flank almost with pure instinct. 

If the Allies had an a Manstein with troops like the Waffen-SS, the war could have been won in 1944. 

The closest the Allies had as frontline units comparable to German units were in the USAC - the Rangers and Airborne. In the British Army the Marines and Airborne. 

The British were the experts of guerilla warfare and special forces though. No one matched them - they had the SOE, SAS, Commandos, LRDG and Chindits. Although the Chindits were ordinary soldiers but I don't know where to place them because they were not just part of the army as such - they were just all taken from the army. Plus, they never fought the Germans...


----------



## evangilder (Jul 21, 2005)

You raise a good point, d. There was alot of in-fighting amongst the allied commanders. Patton and Montgomery were always competing for resources. It is amazing that Ike was able to hold it together with all of the problems. But what is good is that during the North Africa campaign, new tactics were developed for communication and command and control to allow joint operations that were used for the rest of the war.

While the allies made the best of it and were able to achieve victory, there were often times when things were clumsy and improvisational. Being able to adapt and proceed was a good thing for the allies. Unfortunately, experimentation in combat can be deadly.


----------



## plan_D (Jul 21, 2005)

Eisenhower did an excellent job as the Supreme Allied Commander in Europe - he wasn't a good tactician (far from it) but he held together the Allied forces in North West Europe at a time when the whole world knew the alliance was close to cracking. 

Cracking the Alliance on the ground and in the minds of the commanders was the point of _Wacht Am Rhein_. A lot was learnt in North Africa but unfortunately a lot had been forgotten or cast aside in North-West Europe. 

Above Divisional level - command was appalling, especially the supply command. They cast aside the lessons of exploitation and the inter-service and inter-commander revialry was something that made the North-West campaign possibly one the worst military campaigns (in my opinion). It was a certain victory from the start and they were handed victory on a plate time and time again - and they never gripped it. 

One fine example is the Ardennes Offensive; three German Armies punched through U.S 1st Armys line and aimed to cut off Antwerp and split the U.S and British forces. Many German commanders knew it would not work, they did not have the reserves to exploit the success. With another Panzer Armee behind what they used, they could have won but they didn't. Even Patton said "Let them drive all the way to Paris, we'll just cut them off at the back" but what did happen? They got drove a wedge and then were exhausted and halted. In no defensable positions at all and Eisenhower pushes the bulge out instead of cutting it off at the back. U.S 3rd Army and British 2nd Army could have met on the East side of the Ardennes and trapped enough German troops and equipment to make Stalingrad look like a local action!


----------



## evangilder (Jul 21, 2005)

Yep, that is a very good example of letting a major operation get away. Encirclement and capture would have been the perfect way to stop that offensive. Plus it would have taken alot of those Wehmacht soldiers out of the war instead of letting them retreat to fight again.


----------



## CharlesBronson (Jul 21, 2005)

> I don't think the Japanese infantry were massively impressive overall. They were excellent in the actions prior to combat but in actual combat they were often clumsy - although tactically they had some decent generals and often moved for the flank almost with pure instinct.



I always tough that the japanese fighting spirit and equipement ( like val, A6M) was completely overrated.

If look at the infantry , the japs are fighting with a 1890s rifle the 6,5 Arisaka, and other litle more modern of 7,7 mm, making logistic hard.







The infantry MG was in little cuantity and quality, even the submachinesguns are not present.

The war crimes and atrocities comited by the Katana armed officers are only comparable with the SS Einzatzgruppe and even worst. 

The all samurai bullshit and the alleged "code of honour" of this asian soldiers concealed in many ways this poor perfomance in fighting, lack of iniciative of his commanders and others severe faults.


----------



## plan_D (Jul 21, 2005)

I think you're downplaying the Japanese a little too much there. The Japanese soldier as an individual was a determined, deadly and obidient soldier. 

Some Allied PoWs even believed that the Japanese soldier was treat more harshly than themselves when they saw them marching past them on the roads. Massive packs which weighed, sometimes, over 100 lbs on the small frame of a Japanese soldier was something to marvel. They had to be pulled up when they sat down due to the huge weight. 

They were remarkable at night marches and were able to fight well in the jungle. They were also good a living off the land - they would hunt, fish and forage in the jungle for food. 

As a unit they weren't the best, far from it. The battalion, regimental and divsional commanders had a good sense of battlefield tactics. They were good tacticians and, as I said before, went for the flank almost by instinct. Below that though, they lacked a certain edge, they were clumsy in combat. 

They were certainly determined though! A unit of Japanese would lay down and die before giving up the land they held. They were also fercious but after 1942 this worked against them. The Banzai charge was soon overcame when the Allied troops were taught not to fear it. This made the Banzai Charge merely target practice for the Allied gunners. 

If you read about the Japanese in Burma and India, there's quite a lot of differing views from great to clumsy. I cannot quite make up my mind about them.


----------



## CharlesBronson (Jul 21, 2005)

> I think you're downplaying the Japanese a little too much there



Maybe, but that is my way of thinking.



> They were remarkable at night marches and were able to fight well in the jungle



But even in this combat ground was machted and defeated by the Chindits and Marauders.



> They were also good a living off the land - they would hunt, fish and forage in the jungle for food.



yea, I have to agree, some living off the land to 1960s.



> They were certainly determined though! A unit of Japanese would lay down and die before giving up the land they held. They were also fercious but after 1942 this worked against them. The Banzai charge was soon overcame when the Allied troops were taught not to fear it. This made the Banzai Charge merely target practice for the Allied gunners.



...And that is what I am talking about, there is a deference between be brave, courageos and being fatalistic about your future.
The so-call banzai charge is only other of the imbecilic and non-inteligents japanese fighting tactics.


----------



## plan_D (Jul 21, 2005)

The Marauders and Chindits were excellent fighting units - some of the best in the war. They were used well tactically as well and a lot of experience was gained while they were in the jungle. 

The Chindits were created under the idea of 'The Japanese are great at fighting in the jungle, marching in the jungle and living in the jungle but we're going to train you to be better at all of them!' 

The Marauders were only one regiment too, that's little over 3,000 men. Not exactly the whole army, they were a specialised long range penertration group. The whole Japanese Army was capable of actions like that.


----------



## trackend (Jul 22, 2005)

The problem with the Japanese tactics was it instilled an if I'm caught I'm dead ideal amongst its opponent's so in situations such as Kohema or the Pacific Islands the allied forces out fought the Japanese and refused to give ground ending up with actions like the battle of the tennis courts because they knew to pack in was a death sentence the Japanese wasted too many of their troops in one off attacks as did the Russians Zhukov was not a great commander he would be willing to loose hundreds of thousands of his men to obtain his objective. Eisenhower as you say PD was not a great tactician but without him winning the European campaign would have been a very dodgy affair his ability to hold the alliance together with primadoners like Monty and Patton floating about and Churchill poking his useless tactical nose in can never be over stated Ike was vital to the success of the campaign.
I think it is not recognized just how close things got In the Ardene's to a catastrophe my old man was given a cross roads to cover with a Lewis gun, to pull naval personnel ashore for soldiering duties means the situation was very serious indeed.
As for the best troops Its a hard call overall I would tend to agree that the German Infantry in general was probably the best of the infantry but not perfect there command structure was a bit too ridged and removing the command line tended to have a more profound effect than in some other forces.
I also agree with you D that the prowess of the Japanese as jungle fighters was matched and bettered by many troops including the Marauders, Gurkha's ,and Chindits.
Each army had its pluses and faults the Japanese had fanatical obedience but this did not make them a better soldier in my opinion. 
As a foot note (one thing that they became well known for was there skill and use of 50mm knee mortars, a very effective weapon)

The US undoubtedly had the finest logistics of any force if the Germans had the same it would have been goodbye Europe and Russia in double quick time fortunately they did not.

So to pick the best infantry is not easy many had bravery but not the skills at the beginning of the war and it was a case of learn or die this was what made many infantrymen stand out, the learning process was extremely quick and combat hardened troops stood out from the new intake like sore thumbs. six weeks basic combat training is not as effective as 1 hour of the real mc Coy so by later in the war the German army began to consist of raw recruits, kids and old men (basically civvies wearing uniforms) going up against battle hardened veterans who had fought across Europe or the Russian plains.

Specialised fighting units are a different subject in my opinion.


----------



## plan_D (Jul 22, 2005)

_"...Zhukov was not a great commander..."_ 

I disagree, I believe that Marshal Zhukov was a great commander. He excelled in armoured warfare and was very quick to exploit any breakthrough. He was mobile and was willing to use his resources to the full. 

The Red Army was always willing to give up life for land. Zhukov was merely a product of his culture, it's hardly suprising that he threw in men like they were nothing. He did, however, grasp the idea of warfare; maybe not as good as his German counter-parts but he did. You also have to look at the pre-war actions at Khalkin-Gol where Zhukov soundly defeated the Japanese with a classic pincer movement of his fast armour.

_" Eisenhower as you say PD was not a great tactician but without him winning the European campaign would have been a very dodgy affair his ability to hold the alliance together with primadoners like Monty and Patton floating about and Churchill poking his useless tactical nose in can never be over stated Ike was vital to the success of the campaign."_

I couldn't agree more. Eisenhower was a diplomat and an excellent one at that. I could think of no great feat that quelling the egos of both Montgomery and Patton while keeping the war on track. He would have probably made the name of best commander in history if he had some tactical ability but no one can be perfect. I also do agree that the campaign in North-West Europe might have been a little different had Eisenhower not been there to throw water on the Allied High Command fire. 

_"I think it is not recognized just how close things got In the Ardene's to a catastrophe my old man was given a cross roads to cover with a Lewis gun, to pull naval personnel ashore for soldiering duties means the situation was very serious indeed."_

I think it's thrown completely out of proportion to be honest. The Wehrmacht had no chance to defeat the Allied army with the Ardennes Offensive. They lacked the vital reserves to exploit any breakthrough. The bulge might look big on a map but if you take into account the fact that there was nothing behind that bulge, it's really just an invitation to be encircled. 

Montgomery had already moved some of U.S 9th Army to cover the River Meuse anyway, so if 1st Army did completely collapse the Germans would have had to drive over the Meuse which 9th Army was covering - then by some miracle manage to hold off U.S 3rd Army and 21st Army Group counter-attacks. It wasn't going to happen. 

It is amazing that the only people that actually paniced were Allied High Command except a few. Patton would have let the Werhmacht drive all the way on to Paris, if they wanted. He knew they had nothing left. 

_"As for the best troops Its a hard call overall I would tend to agree that the German Infantry in general was probably the best of the infantry but not perfect there command structure was a bit too ridged and removing the command line tended to have a more profound effect than in some other forces."_

I've heard the opposite. The German infantry were just as remarkable as individuals as they were with units. Take Operation Market Garden for example; the German units in Arnhem and Oosterbeek were caught completely off-guard yet without any official command the units there managed to fight British 1st Airborne to a point where they had no chance of success. 

They didn't even organise into company or platoon strength. They just went out from wherever they were and headed to the sound of shooting. Lone German troops would just march to the action and dive in the line - they didn't need an officer prodding them in the back all the way. 

Overall the German infantry had the advantage of being in a fascist culture. They were willing to die but were well educated [in combat] enough to not throw away their life in senseless charges (like the Red Army or Japanese). Where Allied troops would have surrendered, the German carried on fighting. 
In an encirclement the Wehrmacht were the best. Even in 1944-1945 if the Soviets were encircled (or just shocked for that matter) they would surrender, their morale was extremely low even in times of victory! It was easily broken, and they were easily cracked. 

There are many German encirclements, which are remarkable. If you read the state of the man and machine, it's just amazing they held on. Often they could have broken out but Hitler ordered no retreat, a shame for them really. 

_"I also agree with you D that the prowess of the Japanese as jungle fighters was matched and bettered by many troops including the Marauders, Gurkha's ,and Chindits."_

No doubt about it. They had to be superior to the Japanese at their own game, it was the only way the Chindits and Marauders had any chance of victory. Interestingly enough only 3rd Battalion of the Marauders were any good at the start, they were seasoned veterans from the Pacific. 1st and 2nd Battalion were made up of the lowest population in the USAC. 

_"Each army had its pluses and faults the Japanese had fanatical obedience but this did not make them a better soldier in my opinion. 
As a foot note (one thing that they became well known for was there skill and use of 50mm knee mortars, a very effective weapon)"_

I agree. Their suicide fantasy of giving their life for the emperor often cost the Japanese Army more than if they had accepted defeat and retreated. It was basically what Hitler was doing to the Wehrmacht, the only countries able to hold land to the last man and pull it off are countries with massive amounts of manpower e.g China, Soviet Union and India. 

The Japanese were very good at bringing all kinds of weapons to bare at once. The Japanese were extremely good at concealment and often in an ambush there would be everything ranging from a LMG to mortar to 75 mm infantry cannon. It gives the impression of more than there actually are. 

The Japanese were mostly let down by their poor equipment, I think. And lack of unit action. Of course they acted as a unit but I've never read anything of unit support for one another, they fought as individuals on the ground like they did in the air. 

_"The US undoubtedly had the finest logistics of any force if the Germans had the same it would have been goodbye Europe and Russia in double quick time fortunately they did not."_

They had the biggest economy, they certainly did not have an efficient supply system. The North-West campaign was a shining of example of poor supply. The advanced of the Allied armies often halted soley due to lack of supply. It was also a case of discipline, the U.S Army had a severe lack of discipline. 

The Wehrmacht were extremely efficient in getting supply to the front quickly at the start of the war but with Allied air power destroying anything that moved, it was tad harder in 1944-1945. 

_"... German army began to consist of raw recruits, kids and old men (basically civvies wearing uniforms) going up against battle hardened veterans who had fought across Europe or the Russian plains"_

And they still gave the Allied and Soviet armies a hard time. The Allies were not willing to sacrifice life, no matter how battle-hardened they became they weren't aggressive, they were scared of tanks and they were too cautious. 

A whole Allied column would often be stopped by a blocking position of 20 men, one FlaK 88 mm and a StuK40 because the infantry leading the advance stopped everything. If they had a little more tactical mind they could have just out-flanked the blocking position because the Germans never covered their rear against the Allies because they knew the Allies would not out-flank them!

_"Specialised fighting units are a different subject in my opinion."_ 

What do you consider specialised? SOE, SAS, LRDG etc? They were specialised and the best in the war, in my opinion. 

The Chindits weren't specialised, they were just excellent combat troops. And I'm proud that my Grandad served with them (had to throw that in there) It's the same for the Waffen-SS (who had over 100,000 troops at one point). The Airborne, Rangers and Marines weren't specialised either. And I'm talking about the Royal Marines not the U.S Marines. The U.S Marines were equals to their Army counter-parts, the Royal Marines were more experienced and well trained.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 22, 2005)

I believe one thing that hurt the German Infantry and the rest of the Wehrmacht was the fact that the Field Commanders had no complete control over there forces. Everything was governed by *The Party*. Before a German Field Marschal or Commander could exploint something on the battlefield to his advantage it had to be approved by the OKW and higher.

Anyhow I just bought and recieved a 10 book set call the _Journal of Ober Kommando der Wehrmacht_. It completely covers the whole war based off of actual reports from the Wehrmacht. It includes day to day situation reports and battle reports including actual copies of the reports. It should be interesting to get some info from these books. It covers 1939 to 1945.


----------



## trackend (Jul 22, 2005)

So how would you class the Army Commandos D each had to pass a very stiff selection but in terms of numbers it ran into several battalions all had high unarmed combat and self sufficientcy skills and specilist covert or raiding abilitys.
Inverary was a highly regarded although extremely dangerous training course. 
To me these where the elite British force during WW2 as they where a large enough group to take on the Germans head on but also skilled enough to operate in small unit covert or raiding operations. this made them formidable all round soldiers.

For the Germans I would go for the Paratroops all selected for fitness and physical abilities and excellent combat troops tough, skilled and in my opinion the equal too any allied units.

I have always liked the US 29th rangers having trained alongside the British Commandos at Achnacarry they fought alongside and carried out many raids with and without the Commandos proving themselves to be troops of the highest order and effectivness,and there cliff scaling abilitys became a speciality un matched by any other units.

The SOE had some extremely efficient and courageous operatives the bravest generally being the radio operators due to the incredible almost suicidle risks they ran for each transmition.


----------



## Glider (Jul 22, 2005)

PLan D your last post was first class. Hard to disagree with any of it and it sums things up pretty well.


----------



## plan_D (Jul 22, 2005)

I don't consider the Commandos a specialised force because, as you mentioned, they were in large enough numbers to take the enemy head-on. They landed on the beaches on D-Day and were an Army fighting unit, just like the Airborne. 

They were extremely effective in combat and were the élite along with the Airborne. The British Army is difficult to generalise because different regiments have different cultures, as it were. The whole idea of the same people from the same area joining the same regiment gives a sense of competition, which makes each regiment different from the next. 

As I said earlier, the Allied equals to the German infantry were the U.S and British Airborne, Commando and Ranger units. The majority of the U.S and British Army were too cautious making them less effective soldiers. 

The Fallschirmjager were élite and were extremely effective and brutal soldiers. The Fallschirm and Waffen-SS were the two élite sections of the German fighting machine. I think the stand made at Monte Cassino is enough to make the Fallschirm go down in history as a great fighting unit. 
There was also a SS-Fallschirmjager battalion but don't let the name fool you, they weren't élite. It was a penal battalion. 

The SOE were remarkable and definately worth mentioning. Extremely brave and skilled, they were certainly a great asset to the Allied war effort. The most famous SOE action has to be the destruction of the Heavy Water plant in Telemark...

People often forget the SAS beyond North Africa, I find. The SAS were in action far ahead of the Allied forces in North West Europe causing havoc among German supply lines. They were remarkable soldiers also, extremely aggressive and brave. 

Thank you, Glider. You get me going I just can't stop!


----------



## Glider (Jul 23, 2005)

Don't tell the wife


----------



## plan_D (Jul 23, 2005)

Is she missing out? 

I had to recover, you sick "*%£"!


----------



## trackend (Jul 23, 2005)

The Commandos did a lot more than land on D-day, D ( St Nazair was not a big unit action)


----------



## plan_D (Jul 23, 2005)

I was using D-Day as an example of their full unit strength actions.


----------



## P38 Pilot (Jul 23, 2005)

Personally I think some of the best divisions we had here in the US were the Paratroopers. 101st and 82nd had to be the best of the best. And about the Japanese infantry, thats all they had were Banzai tactics. Using crappy weapons like that. They didnt even have proper SMGs! I dont think they spent a lot of time on their Land Armies but instead on their Naval Fleets and somewhat aircraft.

I think the Germans had the best infantry overral. But when it comes down too power, size, and reliable weapons, the United States had the upperhand in Europe and the Pacific.


----------



## evangilder (Jul 23, 2005)

Ever heard of the 17th Airborne? The were in the largest and most successful aiborne invasion in history. The British 6th Airborne was also part of that. It was called Operation Varsity. This is an operation that is mostly forgotten in WWII history. If it was better known, the 17th would be as famous as the 82nd and 101st, if not moreso.


----------



## plan_D (Jul 23, 2005)

I already mentioned the best of the U.S being Airborne and Rangers. Of course, my Airborne would include all the U.S Airborne not just the famous 82nd and 101st. Operation Varsity, the drop on the Rhine - it didn't go as well as planned but it worked. 

P38, go tell people fighting in the jungles of Burma that all the Japanese had was the Banzai charge. The Japanese were masters of concealment, night marching and self-reliance. Matters of war are not simply the combat, it's getting into combat and being able to get out of combat. 

Reliable weapons, the U.S? What makes the U.S weapons more reliable the German weapons? It's alright being patriotic but really, don't go over the top or you're not going to learn anything.


----------



## KraziKanuK (Jul 25, 2005)

I know it is going to hit the fan but the best common Allied(non American) soldiers were from the 'Colonies'.


----------



## Nonskimmer (Jul 25, 2005)

Heh. I have a great uncle who wholeheartedly agrees with that. Ex-Airborne.


----------



## trackend (Jul 25, 2005)

Its only right that you show your colours KK I think that most guys are going to go with their own nationalities my old man worked along side Canadian,US,Australian,Gurka,Poles, and British troops as well as coming in close contact with German and Japanese troops he always said each had there merits and there faults the perfect soldier is yet to be invented.


----------



## plan_D (Jul 25, 2005)

Absolutely no evidence to back that up though, KK? 

Although they weren't the _best_, the British colonials were excellent fighting troops. Why say "non-American", the American troops weren't the best and far from it. 

All the British Airborne units were remarkable soldiers, and that goes for Colonial troops also. You will find that many Canadians, British, Australians, New Zealanders etc. etc. fought alongside in the same regiments during the war. 

The "Colonials" were just as bad, and as good, as the British troops. The only "Colonial" troops that do stand out for me are the Ghurka and West African troops, who were in action in the CBI. 

I feel it seems to be something to do with the anti-British sentiment; if the British were always such poor fighting troops, how did they own one third of the Earth and all the oceans?


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jul 25, 2005)

yeah so, how big was the american empire


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 25, 2005)

The German Paratroopers were great fighters. Fort Eben Emael which was considered impregnable in Belgium was taken in about 30 hours by only 85 paratroopers (some sources say only 38 to 80) led by a Seargant. They rehearsed it the operation over and over and over on a replica of the fort before they did it.

_Their second operation, which this time included parachuting and glider landings, was a month later in the invasion of western europe. They did what paratroopers do best, and captured vital river bridges behind enemy lines which the advancing german armor needed to cross, and a formidable belgian fortress, Eben Emael, which guarded other key bridges. 

Eben Emael was manned by about a thousand belgian soldiers and was strongly fortified. It was a set of seven large fortified artillery positions, with 18 artillery guns, surrounded by many machine gun positions, mine fields, barbed wire, a moat, and connected via underground bunkers and tunnels. 

On May 10, 1940, at dawn, this fortress was attacked by just 78 Fallschirmjager troops which landed on top of it with 10 gliders. They were equipped with light weapons and with several 100 pound armor piercing explosive charges. Before the raid these 78 paratroopers trained on a full size model of the Eben Emael fortress. They landed precisely on the roof of the large fortress in total surprise, and with their far superior fighting skill over the shocked belgians they were able to quickly take over the roof area and confine the defenders to their fortified bunkers which they cracked one after the other with their special explosive charges. The german losses were just six dead and twenty wounded. A day later, when the paratroopers were joined by german ground forces, the hundreds of remaining belgian defenders inside the fortress surrendered. 

The small elite force of just 78 german paratroopers defeated a greatly larger force in a mighty fortress. It was a great success which remains one of the most daring and successful raids in history, a model of what elite soldiers can achieve in properly planned raids. 

Kurt Student himself suffered a severe head injury in the fighting in Holland, but survived. A year later he was back on duty and he and Erwin Rommel proposed a large scale airborne operation. _http://www.2worldwar2.com/fallschirmjager.htm




P-38 Pilot said:


> But when it comes down too power, size, and reliable weapons, the United States had the upperhand in Europe and the Pacific.



Not to take anything away from the US weapons. They had great weapons like the M-1 and so forth but K98 Mauser was a great weapon and so was the Karabiner 43, FG 42, Gewehr 43, MG34, MG42, Panzerfaust, Panzerschreck, and Sturmgewehr 44. Some of these weapons were some of the best of the war. The British aswell had some great excellent weapons that were very reliable.

*FG 42*

Caliber: 7.92x57mm Mauser 
Weight: 
Version I - 4.5 kg (9.92 lb) 
version II, 4.9 kg (11.2 lb) 
Length: 937 mm (I); 1060 mm (II) 
Magazine Capacity: 10 or 20 rounds 
Cyclic Rate: 900 (I); 600 (II) rounds per minute 
Effective Range: roughly 500 meters (550 yards) 

*Gewehr 43* and *Karabiner 43*

Caliber: 7.92 x 57 mm Mauser 
Muzzle velocity: 775 m/s (2,328 ft/s) 
Action: Gas operated 
Overall length: 1130 mm 
Barrel length: 546 mm 
versions with barrel lengths of 600, 650 and 700 mm existed as well 
Weight: 4.1 kg, (9.7 lb) unloaded and without the scope 
Rate of fire: 20 to 30 rounds per minute 
Magazine capacity: 10 rounds 
Sights: One of several scopes, typically 4x or 2.5x, backup "iron sights" as well.

*K98 Mauser*

Barrel length 600 mm 
Ammunition 7.92 x 57 mm Mauser 
Magazine 5 rounds internal box 
Action 
Rate of fire approx 15 rpm 
Muzzle velocity 745 m/s 
Weight 3.7 - 4.1 kg 
Length 1110 mm 
Variants 
Number built 10 million + 

*MG34*

Caliber: 7.92 mm 
Load: continuous belt feed (50 or 200 round strips) or 75 round beltless saddle drum 
Action: selective fire, air cooled 
Rate of fire: 800 to 900 round/min 
Weight: 12.1 kg (26.7 lb) 
Weight with tripod: 19.2 kg (42.3 lb) 

*MG42*

Calibre 7.92 
Barrel length 
Ammunition 7.92 x 57 mm 
Magazine belt (50 or 250) 
Action recoil, roller locking 
Rate of fire 1200 
Muzzle velocity 
Weight 11.6 kg 
Length 
Variants none 
Number built 400,000 

*MP40*

Cartridge 9 x 19 mm 
Action Blowback 
Rate of fire 500 rpm 
Muzzle velocity ~380 mps 
Effective range ~ 100 m 
Weight (Unloaded) 3.97 Kg 
Length 63 cm (stock folded)
83.3 cm (stock extended) 
Barrel 25.1 cm 
Magazine capacity 32 
Viewing sights Blade front
tangent U-notch 
Variants MP36, MP38, MP40, MP40/1, MP41 
Number built Over 1 million 

*Sturmgewehr 44*

Cartridge 7.92 x 33 mm 
Action Gas-actuated 
Rate of fire 500-600 
Muzzle velocity 685 m/s 
Effective range 300 m 
Weight (Unloaded) 5.22 kg 
Length 940 mm 
Barrel 419 mm 
Magazine capacity 30 
Viewing sights Blade front
Tangent U-notch rear 
Variants ?? 
Number built 425,977 

Needless to say the AK-47 was influenced by the 44.


----------



## Nonskimmer (Jul 25, 2005)

The ol' Sten was one of those love/hate weapons with the Commonwealth troops. My great uncle George would say it was a "bastard of a thing" that had parts sticking out every which way, getting caught up and snagged in webbing and uniforms. He said it was awkward to hold (He was referring to the earlier Mk.II Sten, which had no grips save for the magazine.), and that you had to watch that you didn't wind up shooting the men around you with it. _But_...it worked! It was a simple, cheap, easy to produce wartime sub-machine gun that was there when it was needed most.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 25, 2005)

I agree with you on that.


----------



## trackend (Jul 25, 2005)

That sounds familiar Skimm my old man said the same as your uncle George about the Sten the bolt had such a poor safety and weak spring on a heavy bolt that it did not always engage on the casing of a chambered round could cause a live round to be pushed up the arse of an expended cartridge and fire the round out of the ejector slot. I believe 2 million Sten MKII's where produced this cartoon says it about right


----------



## Nonskimmer (Jul 25, 2005)

Heh! That's probably your dad and my Uncle George.


----------



## trackend (Jul 25, 2005)

LOL true Skim  
He had plenty of Kanuks along side him he remembered unloading German prisoners by a jetty wall and this Canadian squaddie was push troops up a ladder and an arrogent SS officer strolled a bit too slowly for the guy so he whipped out his bayonet and stuck it in this Nazi officers arse for some reason he lost his swagger and scrambled up the ladder. it was'nt many months after Dieppe so feelings where still very raw.


----------



## Nonskimmer (Jul 25, 2005)

I've met a few of the old fellas who were at Dieppe, and more than one of them blame the entire fiasco on the Navy. 
Poor navigation, late timing of the landings, and all that.

It was a right royal cock-up, that's for sure. But it did give the Allies valuable experience. The worst thing for the Canuck vets was the slap in the face they received from their own government. Only within the last few years has the Dieppe raid been recognized by the government as being worthy of national recognition. The veterans of Dieppe may now properly wear their campaign medals and stand counted with the veterans of Normandy, Italy, Hong Kong, etc. It's a fight that Veterans Affairs, the Royal Canadian Legion, and other veterans groups had been waging with Ottawa for decades.


----------



## KraziKanuK (Jul 25, 2005)

pD

'colonies' are countries that were part of the British Empire. The Brits of the day often referred to Aussies, Kiwis, Canucks as colonials.

You want an example > D-Day. The Brits on the Canadian flanks could not keep up with the Canadian advance.

Think what you want but no anti Limey from me.  

The RN Lanchester, a copy of the MP38, was better than the Sten. Being around a Sten always scared the crap out of me. One experience I remember is a guy jumping out of a deuce and a half and firing off several rounds when hit hit the ground. His finger was not on the trigger. Lucky they hit no one.

Anyone have info on the Ozzi 9mm Owen?


----------



## Nonskimmer (Jul 25, 2005)

I applaud your patriotism KK, but don't forget that the Canadian advance was so rapid in part because the Brits on our flanks were taking a lot of the heat. Our boys took a share too, but it was a big front.



KraziKanuK said:


> Being around a Sten always scared the crap out of me. One experience I remember is a guy jumping out of a deuce and a half and firing off several rounds when hit hit the ground. His finger was not on the trigger. Lucky they hit no one.


You've fired the Sten, eh? So you were in the Army? If so, are you sure you're not thinking of the Sterling? We haven't used Stens since the '50's, and the Sterlings were replaced in the '80's/early '90's with MP-5's. Just asking.

I wish I had some info on the Owen. Sorry.


----------



## Glider (Jul 25, 2005)

This may be of interest. Gives the basics of the weapon and comments for and against by people who used it.

http://www.rt66.com/~korteng/SmallArms/owen.htm


----------



## plan_D (Jul 26, 2005)

_"'colonies' are countries that were part of the British Empire. The Brits of the day often referred to Aussies, Kiwis, Canucks as colonials."_

Notice how I mentioned the New Zealanders, Australians and Canadians in my post. So, I have no idea where you get the idea that I don't know who Colonials were.  

_"You want an example > D-Day. The Brits on the Canadian flanks could not keep up with the Canadian advance."_

Erh, no. Even that was true it would still be stupid "proof" since the beach landings were different for every single regiment involved. Going off the D-Day advances the U.S troops have to be the worst because they were the last off the beaches at the Omaha beach...  

There's obviously something you've missed out if you ever studied the British and Commonwealth Armies in World War 2 (which I assume you have) is that all being under the British system had the same regimental system of local lads going to the same regiment. This gave the regiments a competitetive feel and made sure that for us we could never say that "Canadians were better than the British" or "British were better than Australians" because for one, the Prince of Wales own West Yorkshire regiment was one of the best in the entire British and Commonwealth force but then the Welsh Guards weren't too good (being polite). 

It's nice to see people being so partriotic but...just no.


----------



## Nonskimmer (Jul 26, 2005)

KraziKanuK said:


> D-Day. The Brits on the Canadian flanks could not keep up with the Canadian advance.


And the regiment that led the way? The North Nova Scotia Highlanders, brother!  (Even though they landed in the second wave.  )
Along with the Sherbrook Fusiliers, of course.
More than ten miles inland by the end of the day. They _did in fact_ advance the furthest that day, under some of the heaviest fire outside of Omaha Beach. But nothing compared to the hell that the men at Omaha faced that day. Sword, Gold, and Utah were certainly no picnic either. Each beach was different of course, as PD said.

Actually KK, there _was_ a company of Royal Marine Commandos at Juno as well, along with the 3rd Infantry Division. Canadians often tend to overlook that.


----------



## evangilder (Jul 26, 2005)

Well, whichever beach, I salute _anyone_ who landed in France on June 6, 1944.


----------



## Nonskimmer (Jul 26, 2005)

Absolutely! They did it for us, didn't they? Damn right they did!


----------



## evangilder (Jul 27, 2005)

Amen, brother!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 28, 2005)

Agreed and they should all be remembered no matter what wave they landed or how fast they ran up the beach. Who cares what nation they were from they all landed for a common cause.


----------



## P38 Pilot (Jul 29, 2005)

I agree!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 31, 2005)

Nice Siggy there. Are you sure that they are 101st though? I know most 101st are Airborne Qualified but the 101st is actually Helicoper Borne Air Assault. They just keep the name Airborne out of tradition from WW2. One of my pilots actually was 101st during the initial attack into Iraq and he cooridated and led one of the largest air assaults in history.


----------



## P38 Pilot (Aug 1, 2005)

Yeah I was kinda wondering that too because i got it of a 101st Airborne website and i remembered that the 101st turned into a air calvary division during the Vietnam War and like you said form then on they sort of remained air cavalry. Hmm. Go figure.  

If i find another picture i will defiently change this one.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 3, 2005)

I am sure they do still do some jumps to keep there jump pay so it could be right.


----------



## P38 Pilot (Aug 3, 2005)

Yeah.


----------



## KraziKanuK (Aug 6, 2005)

for pD

_Sword Beach

On Sword Beach, the regular British infantry got ashore with light casualties. They had advanced about five miles (8 km) by the end of the day but failed to make some of the deliberately testing targets set by Montgomery. In particular, Caen, a major objective, was still in German hands by the end of D-Day.

1 Special Services Brigade went ashore in the second wave led by No.4 Commando with the two French Troops first, as agreed amongst themselves. The British and French of No.4 Commando had separate targets in Ouistreham, the French a blockhouse and the Casino, and the British two batteries which overlooked the beach. The blockhouse proved too strong for the Commando's PIAT guns, but the Casino was taken with the aid of a Centaur tank. The British Commandos achieved both battery objectives only to find the gun mounts empty and the guns removed. Leaving the mopping-up procedure to the infantry, the Commandos withdrew from Ouistreham to join the other members of 1 SS Brigade (Nos.3, 6 and 45), in moving inland to join-up with the 6th Airborne.

Juno Beach

The Canadian forces that landed on Juno Beach faced 11 heavy batteries of 155 mm guns and 9 medium batteries of 75 mm guns, as well as machine-gun nests, pillboxes, other concrete fortifications, and a seawall twice the height of the one at Omaha Beach. The first wave suffered 50 per cent casualties, the highest of any of the five D-Day beachheads except Omaha.

Despite the obstacles, within hours the Canadians were off the beach and beginning their advance inland. The 6th Canadian Armoured Regiment (1st Hussars) was the only Allied unit to meet its June 6 objectives, when it crossed the Caen– Bayeux highway 15 km inland.

By the end of D-Day, 14,000 Canadians had been successfully landed, and the 3rd Canadian Division had penetrated further into France than any other Allied force, despite having faced such strong resistance at the beachhead. The first counter-attack of D-Day was launched by the 21st Panzer division between Sword and Juno beaches, and the Canadians held against several stiff counter-attacks on June 7 and 8 by the 12th SS Panzer Division Hitlerjugend recruited from the Hitler Youth.

Gold Beach

At Gold Beach, the casualties were also quite heavy, partly because the swimming (Click link for more info and facts about Sherman DD) Sherman DD tanks were delayed, and the Germans had strongly fortified a village on the beach. However, the 50th division overcame its difficulties and advanced almost to the outskirts of Bayeux by the end of the day. With the exception of the Canadians at Juno Beach, no division came closer to its objectives than the 50th.

No.47(RM) Commando was the last British Commando unit to land and came ashore on Gold east of Le Hamel. Their task was to proceed inland then turn right (west) and make a ten mile (16 km) march through enemy territory to attack the coastal harbour of Port en Bessin from the rear. This small port, on the British extreme right, was well sheltered in the chalk cliffs and significant in that it was to be a prime early harbour for supplies to be brought in including fuel by underwater pipe from tankers moored offshore._


----------



## P38 Pilot (Aug 6, 2005)

Youve got to give credit too them. All men who fought at d-day should have recieved a medal!


----------



## Nonskimmer (Aug 6, 2005)

They did. 
No, I know what you mean. We owe them all. Big time.


----------



## P38 Pilot (Aug 7, 2005)

We need to turn all major battles not only Normandy into national holidays! 8)


----------



## cheddar cheese (Aug 7, 2005)

Every Day of the year a holiday...sounds good to me!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 7, 2005)

Hell yeah then maybe if everyone was on holliday we would not have any wars anymore.


----------



## plan_D (Aug 7, 2005)

What does that prove, KK? Nothing. I'd have thought your brain might have picked up on the objectives of the forces. How do you think the Canadians would have done trying to take Caen?

And do you know who the first unit was to complete their objectives on D-Day? 2nd Oxford and Bucks at Pegasus (Caen De Canal) Bridge with the loss of two men. Proves nothing.


----------



## HealzDevo (Aug 8, 2005)

I agree it ties up resources and is inefficient waiting for headquarters to approve advance. It often means that the Allies could have in theory set up traps for the Germans to fall into. Also by the time approval came through, the situation could have turned that action into a suicide march.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 8, 2005)

I dont quite understand this argument though. How can we say that one country was better in D-Day when they all fought bravely and well.


----------



## Nonskimmer (Aug 8, 2005)

But the Canadians were the best looking guys out there. :-"



I tend to agree, Adler. We owe a great, great deal to _all_ the fellas who did their part during the landings and afterward, regardless of nationality.
O Canada, God Save the Queen, and God Bless America!


----------



## plan_D (Aug 8, 2005)

It was the King.


----------



## Nonskimmer (Aug 8, 2005)

I know that, but the last time I said "king" lanc got all pissy for some reason.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Aug 8, 2005)

But lanc isnt here, he's on holiday about 50-60 miles away


----------



## plan_D (Aug 8, 2005)

You should have kicked him into touch then, NS. If he didn't know it was the King during World War II, then he's in the wrong.


----------



## HealzDevo (Aug 8, 2005)

You've got to admit it has been a while since we had a monarch change. Queen Elizabeth the II first appeared on Australian Coins in 1953 and she is still on our Australian coins now. The only monarch to appear on a pre-decimal and decimal circulation issue. She has been on the throne for about 53 years. That means that there would be an awesome number of people who wouldn't remember there being any previous monarch other than a Queen in their lifetime.


----------



## plan_D (Aug 8, 2005)

Due to a lack of historical knowledge.


----------



## Nonskimmer (Aug 8, 2005)

plan_D said:


> Due to a lack of historical knowledge.


Not me though. I've got me grandad's medals to prove there was a king! George was 'is name, and he was the 6th one! 



Well ok, I haven't got grandad's medals yet but I'm well aware of George VI. Most people are.


----------



## plan_D (Aug 8, 2005)

Come over to Britain and ask people who was the monarch during World War 2, you'll be shocked so much that you'll wet yourself then have a cardiac arrest from the...erh...shock.


----------



## P38 Pilot (Aug 9, 2005)

Hey now the Americans took the toughest beach, Omaha. We didnt even have too use any of the Amphibious tanks and we still got the job done!


----------



## plan_D (Aug 9, 2005)

Yes and it was the American's fault they didn't have the DD tanks. What is your point? Is this the basis of your argument that American troops were the best?


----------



## evangilder (Aug 9, 2005)

Yes, we got the job done, but at a tremendous cost.


----------



## Nonskimmer (Aug 9, 2005)

plan_D said:


> Yes and it was the American's fault they didn't have the DD tanks. What is your point? Is this the basis of your argument that American troops were the best?


Where was he saying that American troops were the best? He's right. The Americans at Omaha had the toughest go of all, and they managed to take the beach without the DD tanks. They did it at a tremendous cost, like evan said, but they still did it. Good on 'em, I say. 

Thank god they _did_ manage it.


----------



## plan_D (Aug 9, 2005)

And no one will ever take that away from the men on Omaha. I'm sure _most_ people will agree that it's certainly not a basis of argument for the supreme infantry formations of World War 2.


----------



## P38 Pilot (Aug 9, 2005)

Exactly. Like we were saying earlier this thread, any man who shed his blood or survived D-Day, hell, any major battle is a hero. _This ones for you Uncle Archie. I may never know your story, but you fought well._

Found out he fought at the Battle of the Bulge and the Hurtgen forest.


----------



## plan_D (Aug 10, 2005)

Sure they were all brave but that's not the point of the thread, to be honest.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 10, 2005)

Actually it was. The point of my post was to say that I dont give a damn how far you made it on D-Day or for what country you landed with. As far as I am concerned they all proved themselves that day.


----------



## plan_D (Aug 10, 2005)

I was saying it's not the point of the thread. That is also why I stated that how far people advanced on D-Day proves nothing of their training and combat ability as a whole.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 10, 2005)

I agree.


----------



## P38 Pilot (Aug 11, 2005)

You are right Plan_D. They did it for their moral resppnsibility into bringing down Nazi Tyranny.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 11, 2005)

Uh uh.


----------



## P38 Pilot (Aug 11, 2005)

> Uh uh



Its this a good thing or did i miswrite my post?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 12, 2005)

Its an agreement. I think I spealt it wrong it should have read Uh Huh.


----------



## CharlesBronson (Sep 4, 2005)

German snipers in action ¡¡¡¡.












*Gefreiter Matthäus Hetzenauer. 345 confirmed kills*






Interview (1967) with Gefreiter Matthäus Hetzenauer; 

1. Weapons used? 

K98 with six-power telescopic sights. G43 with four-power telescopic sights. 

2. Telescopic sights used? 

Four-power telescopic sight was sufficient up to a range of approximately 400 meters, Six-power telescopic sight was good up to 1,000 meters. 

3. What is your opinion on increasing the magnification of your telescopic sights? 

Six-power was sufficient. There was no need for stronger scope. No experience with greater magnification. 

4. At what range could you hit the following targets without fail? 

Head up to 400 meters. Breast up to 600 meters. Standing Man up to 700-800 meters. 

5. Do the ranges indicated by you apply only to you, i.e. the best snipers, or also to the majority of snipers? 

Only to the best snipers. 

6. What was the range of the furthest target you ever fired at, and what kind of target, size? 

About 1,000 meters. Standing soldier. Positive hitting not possible, but necessary under the circumstances in order to show enemy that he is not safe even at that distance! Or superior wanted to satisfy himself about capability. 

7. How many second shots / Additional shots were necessary per ten hits? 

Almost never. 

8. If you had a choice, what weapon would you use and why? 

K98. Of all weapons available at that time it had the highest accuracy for permanent use, besides it did not jam easily. G43 was only suitable to about 400 meters. It also had inferior precision. 

9. Today if you had the choice between the K98 and a semi-automatic rifle that does not easily jam and has the same capacity as the K98, which weapon would you take and why? 

Snipers do not need a semi-automatic weapon if they are correctly used as snipers. 

10. Were you incorporated into a troop unit? 

We belonged to the sniper group of the battalion. C was the commander of this group. They numbered up to 22 men; six of them usually stayed with battalion, the rest were assigned to the companies. Observations and use of ammunition as well as successful hits had to be reported daily to the battalion staff. In the beginning, the snipers were called up cut of the battalion, as the war continued and the number of highly-skilled snipers decreased, they were often assigned and given their orders by the division. In addition, a few marksmen in each company were equipped with telescopic sights. These men did not have special training but were able to hit accurately up to about 400 meters and carried out a great deal of the work to be done by "actual snipers". These specially equipped riflemen served in the company as regular soldiers. This is why they could not achieve such high scores as the "snipers". 

11. Strategy and Targets? 

a. Attack: 

Always two snipers at a time; one shoots, the other spots. Usual general order:- Elimination of observers, of the enemy's heavy weapons and of commanders, or special order, when all important or worthwhile targets were eliminated; for example! Anti-tank gun positions, machine gun positions. Etc. Snipers followed closely the attacking units and whenever necessary. Eliminated enemies who operated. Heavy weapons and those who were dangerous to our advance. 

added: In a few cases, I had to penetrate the enemies main line of resistance at night before our own attack. When our own artillery had opened fire. I had to shoot at enemy commanders and gunners because our own forces would have been too weak in number and ammunition without this support. 

B. Attack during night: 

As far as I can remember, no major attacks during night were conducted, snipers were not used at night; they were too valuable. 

C. Winter 

Clothed in winter camouflage I followed behind the front units. When the attack slowed down had to help by engaging machine gunners and Anti tank guns etc. 

b. Defense: 

Usually on my own within company detachment; order fire at any target or only worthwhile targets. Great success during enemy attacks since commanders can often be recognized and shot at long range due to their special clothing and gear such as belts crossed on chest, white camouflage in winter, etc. As a consequence, enemy's attack was prevented in most cases. Shot the respective leaders of enemys attack eight times during one attack. As soon as enemy snipers appeared we fought them until they were eliminated; we also suffered great losses. As a rule, the sniper watched for worthwhile targets at the break of dawn and remained in position until dusk with few interruptions. We were often in position in front of our own lines in order to fight the enemy more successfully. When enemy knew our position, we were forced to remain without provisions or reinforcements at such advanced position. During alarm or enemy attack, a good sniper did not shoot at just any target, but only at the most important ones such as commanders, gunners, etc. 

e. Defense during night: 

Snipers not used during night; not even assigned to guard duty or other duties. If necessary he had to take position in front of own lines in order to fight the enemy more effectively during the day. 

12. Did you score successful hits by moonlight? 

I was often called to action when there was sufficient moonlight since reasonably accurate hitting is possible with a six-power telescopic sight, but not with point and rear sight. 

g. Delaying action: 

In most cases four to six snipers were ordered to rear guard and eliminate any enemy appearing; very good results. Use machine guns for rear guard only in emergencies since snipers delayed enemy's advance by one or two hits without easily revealing his own position. 

12. In what warfare could the sniper be most successful? 

The best success for snipers did not reside in the number of hits, but in the damage caused the enemy by shooting commanders or other important men. As to the merit of individual hits, the snipers best results could be obtained in defense since the target could be best recognized with respect to merit by careful observation. Also with respect the numbers, best results could be obtained in defense since the enemy attacked several times during a the day. 

13. Percentage of successful hits at various ranges? 

Up to 400 meters A. 65 percent C. 80 percent 

Up to 600 meters A. 30 percent C. 20 percent 

Additional information: This is why about 65 percent of my successful hits were made below 400 meters. 

14. Do these percentages and ranges apply to you personally or are they valid for the majority of snipers? 

This information is applicable to the majority of snipers as well as to the beat snipers, for: the majority of snipers could hit with absolute certainty only within a range of 400 meters due to their limited skills, the best snipers could hit with reasonable certainty at longer ranges; they in most cases, however, waited until enemy was closer or approaching the enemy in order to better choose the target with respect to its merit. 

15. On the average, how many shots were fired from one position ? 

a. Attack: 

As many as necessary. 

b. Defence from secure position: 

One to three at most. 

c. Enemy attack: 

Depending on worthwhile targets. 

d. Combat against enemy snipers: 

One to two at most. 

e. Delaying action: 

One to two was sufficient since sniper was not alone. 

16. What else is especially important in addition to excellent marksmanship? 

Besides the generally known quality of a sniper it is especially important to be able to outsit the enemy. The better "Tactician at detail" wins in combat against enemy snipes. The exemption from commitment to any other duties contributes essentially to the achievement of high scores. 

17. From what group of persons were snipers selected? 
Only people born for individual fighting such as hunters, even poachers, forest rangers, etc without taking into consideration their time of service. 

18. In what sniper training courses did you participate? 

Sniper courses at the training area Seetaleralpe. 

19. Was it advisable to equip the sniper with a double telescope? What magnification did the double telescope have? 

6 x 30 enlargement was insufficient for longer distances. Later I had a 10 x 50 telescope which was satisfactory. 

20. Would you prefer a periscope which allows observation under full cover? 

Was very useful as supplement (Russian trench telescope). 

21. Were scissor stereo telescopes (positional warfare) used? 

Yes, when available. Was used mutually by sniper and artillery observer. 

22. What type of camouflage was used? 

I have never used a fake tree stump, but I have used camouflage clothing. Camouflage of my face and hands and camouflage of my weapon in winter. (White cover, white wrapping, white paint) . 

23. Did you use technical means to mislead the enemy? 

Yes, stuffed dummies, etc. 

24. Did you use protective shields in positional warfare? 

No. 

25. What is your opinion on the use of tracer ammunition? 

If possible, they should not be used at all in combat since they have easily revealed the position of the sniper. Tracer ammunition was mainly used for practice shooting as well as ranging at various distances. For this purpose every sniper carried with him a few tracer cartridges. 

26. Did you use observation ammunition, i.e. cartridges that fired projectiles, which detonate upon impact? 

Yes; upon impact a small flame as well as a small puff of smoke could be seen which allowed good observation of impact. By this method we could force the enemy to leave wooden houses, etc by setting tire to them. 

Observation cartridges were used up to a range of about 600 meters; their dispersion was somewhat larger than that of heavy pointed cartridges (heavy pointed bullet). 

27. How did you overcome side wind? 

By my own judgment and experience. When necessary, I used tracer ammunition to determine wind drift. I was well prepared for side wind by my training at Seetaleralpe where we practiced often in strong winds. 

28. Can you recall the rules pertaining to your behavior when shooting at moving targets? 

No; importance is own judgment and experience as well as fast aiming and fast firing. 

29. Do you have any experience with armor piercing rifles? 

Yes, several times I have fought against a "machine-gunner with a protective shield". I could hit small targets only up to 300 meters since dispersion was considerably larger than with K98. Besides, it was very heavy and clumsy and was not suitable as a sniper weapon. I did not use it against unarmored targets. 

30. What was the method by which your hits were certified? 

By observation and confirmation by an officer, non-commissioned officer or two soldiers. This is why the number of certified hits is smaller than the actual score.


----------



## Glider (Sep 4, 2005)

Very interesting post. Thanks


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Sep 5, 2005)

yeah it's nice to read an interview like that...........


----------



## Wildcat (Sep 5, 2005)

Very interesting indeed.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 5, 2005)

Good info, and the pictures are great, I really like the top one.


----------



## plan_D (Sep 5, 2005)

That was a very interesting read. Snipers are often only remembered as people left behind to cause havoc. But they really were a vital outfit to any offence, or defence.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 5, 2005)

And they rarely make themselves available for interviews.


----------



## CharlesBronson (Sep 5, 2005)

Some action pics of german snipers in the Balkans, about 1944.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Sep 5, 2005)

Nice pics. If I ever joined the army id wanna be a Sniper.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 5, 2005)

Its a lonely life.

Nice pics.


----------



## Nonskimmer (Sep 5, 2005)

A very interesting post, CB. Thanks.


----------



## Glider (Sep 5, 2005)

Interesting pictures. The top one looks posed as they are too clean and the spotter is in the way of the shooter. He's doesn't look settled for the shot.
The second one looks the business, but its the third that interests me. The rifle doesn't have a scope (which wasn't a must have) and the spotter is too high, neither is he camouflaged at all. Its almost certain he would give the position away.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 5, 2005)

They may have been propoganda photos.


----------



## CharlesBronson (Sep 6, 2005)

Probably.

Here is some more pics about Waffen SS snipers.

Leningradfront, December 1942, Legion Niederlande( dutch Waffen SS):












Color photo taken from Signal magazine:






German Waffen SS officers equipped with a scoped rifle (I am not sure is those are snipers) East Prussia 1944. The rifle seems to be a K-98K with small telescopic Zielfernrohr 41 or Zf 41 with a zoom factor of 1.5.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 7, 2005)

Great pics I really like the colored one.


----------



## Glider (Sep 7, 2005)

The Germans had a number of Sniper rifles but in my view the SMLE No 4 Mk 1(T) was the best sniper rifle of the war. Re barelled with the 7.62 they were in use until the early 80's with the British Army as the L42.

I used the L42 a couple of times and found it very easy to shoot. The second time I used it I averaged 86 at ranges up to 900 yards. Which for someone who had only shot .22 up to 100 yards till that time, shows how forgiving it it was.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 7, 2005)

I know it was the not the best, but I really enjoy the 98 Mauser as a Sniper. I have enjoyed shooting the ones that me and my friends own.


----------



## Glider (Sep 7, 2005)

It would be interesting to compare them in a shoot out.


----------



## CharlesBronson (Sep 7, 2005)

The german 7,92 mm round had more energy and range than .303 

Accuracy ?....I think that they had the same.


----------



## plan_D (Sep 8, 2005)

I may be wrong but I believe the K98 had half the range again as the Lee Enfield IV.


----------



## Glider (Sep 8, 2005)

There is of course a difference between the range of the bullet and the accuracy of the weapon. 
The .303 was used in early WW1 Lee Enfields with a volley sight that was ranged from 2000 yards to a staggering 3,900 yards. The idea was that a volley from a body of men at a large target such as a Cavalry formation would do some damage even if individual accuracy was impossible.
During WW1 they deleted the volley sight as it obviously not required. I don't know the figures for the 7.92 but the .303 clearly had more than enough power. 
As for the accuracy of the rifle the Lee Enfield was very accurate for the time. All Lee Enfields were bench tested before being issued to the army to meet minimum standards. The very best were taken off to specialist manufacturers who fitted the sights, cheek pieces and tuned the rifle for issuing to the army. 
One of the keys to the accuracy of the Lee Enfield was the length of the barrel. If its too long the bullet will have expended most of its energy before the bullet reaches the end of the barrel and a slight suction effect takes place which induces the bullet to fly less smoothly in the air reducing accuracy. If its too short there is a certain amount of energy which hasn't been transferred to the bullet again causing vibration and in extreme cases can cause a nasty kick/vibration in the rifle such as in the Lee Enfield Mk 5 carbine which wasn't a success. 
The standard Lee Enfield had just the right length of barrel. The Mauser was shortened in 1935 and the charge in the cartridge wasn't changed to compensate. In normal use it made little if any difference, but at long range or where you want supreme accuracy it did make a difference. 

The British snipers were also allocated special ammunition that had been made to higher standards than normal issue ammo. I believe the same happened in the German Army.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 8, 2005)

Like I said I dont think the K98 was the best weapon, but it is a joy to shoot like the M1 Grand.


----------



## CharlesBronson (Sep 17, 2005)

Female russian snipers at training with Tokarev stv-38.

I am asking myself...That was the girls that accounted sor some 200-300 german soldiers kills..?, ....hmmmm it dont think so...it smell fishy.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 17, 2005)

Hmmm chicks with guns.....Cool.


----------



## schwarzpanzer (Sep 17, 2005)

> It would be interesting to compare them in a shoot out.



The Mauser's recoil is straight back.

In a wind tunnel the Mauser wins, otherwise the Mosin-Nagant, SMLE and Kar98k draw.



> I don't know the figures for the 7.92



An Australian in North Africa survived a shot (or shots) to the head with one of those things!

I suppose its the tumble that kills.



> Various tricks have been used to increase the probability of a bullet tumbling; the British .303 Mk VII bullet had a lightweight tip filler with the weight concentrated towards the rear of the bullet, and the current Russian 5.45mm rifle bullet has a hollow tip.



Taken from: http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/ballistics.htm

NB: The Russians nearly got into trouble for deliberately using the former principle in the AK-74 round.

The 5.56mm is the same, though I think not so much in the new NATO SS109 - however this is an accidental(?) feature.



> It is noteworthy that the commercial loadings will perform at up to 400 fps lower impact velocity than some of the reloading brand bullets, which translates into extended effective lethal range. Here too, we see a trend which explains the effectiveness of many an "obsolete" cartridge whose kinetic energy figures simply pale in comparison to many high powered rounds of today. With a bullet matched in its metallurgical characteristics to the velocity of the rifle (or handgun), performance equivalent or even surpassing that of chamberings of greater theoretical power could be achieved. This is because, as alluded to earlier, an instantaneous kill through massive trauma is not more effective than a kill which drops the animal inside 50 to 100 yds; a level of lethality which can be achieved rather easily with far greater penetration. The X-Bullet is being touted as a phenomenal slayer of game, yet it is clear from the penetration (fully 33 % greater than most conventional designs) and the narrow profile of recovered bullets that the wound channel is of more modest dimensions than that produced by many bullets (see actual test results hereafter). Similar observations have been made of the long heavy bullets used in low-velocity loadings of the .303 British, .30-40 Krag, 6.5 x 54 mm (aka .256) Mannlicher-Schoenauer and 7 x 57 mm Mauser from the turn of the century. These cartridges, considered "underpowered" by contemprary standards, were considered phenomenal slayers of very large game, including the largest species of African antelope, elk, moose, and even grizzlies.



Taken from: http://www.rathcoombe.net/sci-tech/ballistics/methods.html




> Lee Enfield Mk 5 carbine



Those things are well diddy, make a hell of a blast and have massive rubber butts!


Also the SMLE just feels right, has a pistol grip etc.


That Russian bird in that pic is holding the magazine??


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 18, 2005)

schwarzpanzer said:


> > It would be interesting to compare them in a shoot out.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



The Mauser is a joy to shoot atleast for me.


----------



## trackend (Sep 18, 2005)

I think the SMLE is the finest army bolt action weapon ever produced 
Bisley's One mile club who had the joice of any weapon for there target competitions used the SMLE right up into the seventies the repetative accuracy of the Enfield was unsurpassed . 
My brother who was a gunsmith for Leech Sons during the late sixties worked on most army rifles for collectors and he said the quality of the componants eg trigger sears, breech and general rifle machining on the Enfield was of a very high quality and much superior to the Mauser , the worst being the Japanese Arisaka


----------



## CharlesBronson (Sep 18, 2005)

The SMLE action is fine, but the Mauser 98 bolt are stronger, in here and others countrys, there is some hunters that make modifications to the 98 action from Argentine Army Mausers M1909 ( originally for the 7,65mm x 54 ) and convert it to a large caliber weapons, I have seen this modifications even for the 458 Winchester Magnum. 

The bolts face diameter is the limit.






You can find more info in here:

http://www.gunsandammomag.com/classics/ct0405_1909/

http://www.surplusrifle.com/argentinemauser1909carbine/index.asp


----------



## CharlesBronson (Sep 18, 2005)

By the way here is a couple of interviews with russian female "snipers" .

http://www.iremember.ru/infantry/kalugina/kalugina.htm

http://www.iremember.ru/infantry/kotliarova/kotliarova.htm


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 18, 2005)

The Mauser can be compared to todays AK-47 in the fact that it used by so many different countries and hell even made by so many different countries.


----------



## trackend (Sep 18, 2005)

The SMLE would be no good for hunting its a soldiers gun for people killing if you want to hunt you buy a hunting rifle converting army rifles for hunting is a bodge job it would be like using an Express 600 for shooting ducks or a 12 bore for sniping.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 18, 2005)

Not necessarily true. I know people that hunt with Mausers and they have no problem with them.


----------



## CharlesBronson (Sep 18, 2005)

trackend said:


> The SMLE would be no good for hunting its a soldiers gun for people killing if you want to hunt you buy a hunting rifle converting army rifles for hunting is a bodge job it would be like using an Express 600 for shooting ducks or a 12 bore for sniping.



I just give that information to prove the good quality of the action 98, in the K-98K you could use all the gama of ammo for the 8 mm, including armor piercing, tracer , High pressure V-max cartrigdes, Beobachtungs ( german 'De Wilde') etc.
In some others bolt actions military rifles like Mosin Nagant, Enfield, Berthier, etc, you cannot do that and the special ammo is stenciled "only for MG" "only for aircraft use"... and so


----------



## trackend (Sep 18, 2005)

Your welcome to fire an AP over charged round from a rifle CB having a strong bolt doesnt always make a good rifle, the Boys fired a .5 AP but it was total shit escpecially if you was the poor sod to have to hold on to it when it went off ( the army only put padded butts on a weapon if there is danger of breaking your collar bone  )


----------



## CharlesBronson (Sep 18, 2005)

> Your welcome to fire an AP over charged round from a rifle CB having a strong bolt doesnt always make a good rifle, the Boys fired a .5 AP but it was total s**t escpecially if you was the poor sod to have to hold on to it when it went off ( the army only put padded butts on a weapon if there is danger of breaking your collar bone )



.5 inch...? I though it was 14 mm in caliber, anyway I would like to fire one of these, I really love the the large caliber guns. I had shoot a couple of .50 BMG rounds but only in a Browning M2 wich was in a Shooting club.


----------



## trackend (Sep 18, 2005)

BOYS ANTI-TANK RIFLE 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Country Of Origin: UK 
Designation: Bolt Action Rifle 
Cartridge: .55in Boys 
Production Date: 1937-1942 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Weapon Dimensions: 
Length: 1.613 m 
Barrel: 914 mm 
Weight: 16.33 kg 
Rifling: 7 grooves, rh 
Mag Capacity: 5 rounds


----------



## Glider (Sep 18, 2005)

There was a story of an Australian who shot down a couple of 109's with a Boys on Crete. He positioned himself in the control tower of the airfield knowing that sooner or later someone would straff it. When they did he shot back. It would only take one hit in the engine to bring a plane own.
I admit its probably one of those stories that has been embelished with time, but knowing how stubborn and bloody minded an Aussie can be I wouldn't put it past one to try it.

The Boys was pretty accurate and probably one of the most over engineered AT rifles. Bit like the 2pd AT gun which was considered to be the best of the 37-40 mm AT guns but was kept in action way past its sell by date.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 19, 2005)

Damn I dont know though if I would want to play chicken with a fighter.


----------



## CharlesBronson (Sep 19, 2005)

> There was a story of an Australian who shot down a couple of 109's with a Boys on Crete. He positioned himself in the control tower of the airfield knowing that sooner or later someone would straff it. When they did he shot back. It would only take one hit in the engine to bring a plane own.
> I admit its probably one of those stories that has been embelished with time, but knowing how stubborn and bloody minded an Aussie can be I wouldn't put it past one to try it.



I ve read somewhere that the boys was also used in the 1942s Dieppe landings for disabling 20 and 37 mm Flak emplacements.

Well ..Trackend....we both are right...if you convert .55 inches to mm it gives you 14 mm .. 8) 

I am inlove of these old, big bore rifles, I always tough that the antitank or antiarmour infantry gun was too forgetted in the WWi and with the exception of the russians the others armies failed in create a tactic to use this rifles with good effect.

For example the germans give away to the finns all the Boys captured in Dunkerke, and all the Polish 8 mm Maroczek rifles to the rumanians, and eslovaquians.


----------



## CharlesBronson (Sep 23, 2005)

German Flammerwerfer 34 in color.


----------



## Gnomey (Sep 23, 2005)

Nice pics Charles, where did you find them?


----------



## CharlesBronson (Sep 23, 2005)

Right Here:

http://www.mundosgm.com/smf/index.php?topic=436.0


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 24, 2005)

Wow great pics.


----------



## CharlesBronson (Nov 5, 2005)

Some very interesting material:

The Panzerknacker, german army manual for close-antitank combat.

Panzerknacker means something like Tank cracker, crasher, is like another word for antitank:

*Plate 1:*






"Tank Killer: Instructions for Close Combat with Tanks 

Leaflet 77/3"


*Plate 2:*






"You also can crack tanks!
You need vim and presence of mind. Above all superior savvy will prevail.
Think that tanks don't come only where there are paks [anti-tank guns]. Every day it happens that tanks infiltrate somewhere. You also can face suddenly such a coffer ["Kasten" also means box, hutch cabinet]. Anybody, if you are in the rear, if your are in the furthermost trench, you can get into this situation. The tank does not ask, weather you were trained to be tank cracker or something else.
Every body can do this - even you!"

*Plate 3:*






"A tank every 150 meters.
Over 1500 km.

What many others do daily,
You can do just as easily. 

Over 10,000 German soldiers wear the Tank Close Combat Medal [Panzernahkampfabzeichen]. That many knocked-out tanks corresponds to the equipment of 200 Russian tank brigades and the total Russian tank production for a half year. 

And all that done with the most primitive means, no less. But these lay in the hands of real men, and that’s what it boils down to. 

You ask yourself, how is that possible under such unequal conditions? It’s quite clear: First off, tanks go after evenly matched opponents: tank, AT gun, and flak. At first they don’t pay you any mind. But then, pay attention: 

You can kill tanks too!"


*Plate 4:*






"On the other hand,
Even the strongest tank has weaknesses. 

Have you ever attacked alongside tanks? Or ever sat in a tank? You will have noticed right away that the fight between man and tank is so uneven—not at all, because even a tank has its weaknesses! 

It sees poorly, poorest of all that which goes on right next to it.
It hears poorly.
It can’t defend itself well against you, particularly when you’re right next to it.
It’s highly dependent on terrain. 

You have to know the weaknesses of the tank. You’ll find every different production type shown in exact detail in the Tank Close Combat cards (Supplement to Army Manual 469/4) Get them and study them. The first requisite for the tank killer is: know the type. Know the weaknesses. And of course: observe, observe, observe. 

(Cannon blind spot = around 7-24m
Small arms blind spot = around 5-9)"



*Plate 5:*






"Success at tank killing comes 
When you know their weaknesses, otherwise not at all. 

Overall, note the weaknesses from this sketch. It’s only a schematic drawing, though. 

(front: hatches, optics, guns and mantlet, turret ring, MG and vision port, running gear, final drive train.

(aft: hatches, turret ring, hatches, running gear) 

(side: cannon, mantlet, vision ports, ventilation, running gear, turret ring) 

(His coat has worn patches,
And tanks show their weaknesses in the same way!) 

There’s no basic formula for the positioning of these locations. So, commit to memory the Tank Close Combat and Tank Identification cards. 

It’s fear that it generates!"


*Plate 6*:






"Dangers are already half averted,
As soon as we recognize them clearly. 

(black bar: “From here here he sees you.”
Red dot: “Danger lurks here.) 

A tank is definitely not completely defenseless against close attacks. It has pistol ports through which the tanker can shoot with pistols and machine pistols and throw grenades. Aft MG’s are also dangerous. You only need to know: where does he see me most easily? Where does danger threaten? 

Note: With hand grenades, he can also reach you in the blind spots. 

Look out, danger lurks here!"

--------

You can found the Panzerknacker booklet translated in here: 

http://www.3pgd.org/reference/panzerI.htm


----------



## trackend (Nov 6, 2005)

That must be where the English get the word Knackered from as in "I've been working so hard I'm totally Knackered"


----------



## Blackwatch (Nov 6, 2005)

I have a Argentine Army Mausers M1909 rechambered for cal 30.06...I was living in Utah and need a very dependable rifle that was aready had hard use on the wood but extremely accurate....I found the Mauser that someone had poorly mountied a scope to....the only beef I had was the terrible trigger mechanism....so I had the scope remounted using a Bushnell 4x and a national match trigger installed set to 4.5 lbs....when I bought the rifle I paced out a 400 meter target (a large rock in the desert about man-size....On the first shot I hit midway up the rock using the military 2-stage trigger!!!!....since then I would not be afraid to take a 800 meter shot with the rifle now that I have a 6x Leapold mounted....I use standard Winchester 180 gr rounds....


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 6, 2005)

I have allways enjoyed shooting my Mauser but I dont have 1909's.


----------



## Blackwatch (Nov 6, 2005)

also had a rubber butt pad installed....damn thing came with a steel butt plate!!! damn thing would take your shoulder off witht he steel one!!!!


----------



## CharlesBronson (Jan 10, 2006)

Anybody knows the purpose of this propaganda poster...?


----------



## Glider (Jan 10, 2006)

A guess would be a recruiting poster to encourage British POW to join the SS troops. They tried it with most POW's.


----------



## Nonskimmer (Jan 10, 2006)

Ah yes, the Britisches Freikorps. I think the SS managed to convince a grand total of around 20 British and Australian POWs to sign up. Twenty traitorous thugs.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 11, 2006)

Yes they did not get many and it was for propaganda only. They never were used in combat though.


----------



## plan_D (Jan 11, 2006)

They were to be used against the Russians if enough joined. I don't consider them traitors as I understand the desire to stop the Soviet Union, as it was far worse than the Nazi wave of terror at that point in time. As it happened though, the Britisch Freikorps just partied in Paris ...some war that was.


----------



## CharlesBronson (Jan 11, 2006)

Thanks for all your, that helmet cannot lie , he,he.

Because there is no SS runes i tough that this was some kind of psicological warfare from the Heer.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 12, 2006)

It pretty much was just that.


----------



## CharlesBronson (Jan 4, 2007)

This is as the title says: a German sniper training film. Seven parts, translated into english.

Here is where you can watch it.


_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D9uQl4lOvyM_


_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q7jgP5XufJo_


_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eY5ySJsaby0_


_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cl1cuNaEvXM_


_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nk0tOdvy5F0_


_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XQO6_LCt5g4_


_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N81k8gZ0d00_


----------



## bananafoothead (Jan 6, 2007)

Interesting, the first video shows the German hitting the "cunning bolsheviks" with a SVT-40


----------



## bananafoothead (Jan 6, 2007)

nice post by the way!


----------



## CharlesBronson (Jan 7, 2007)

Yes, unfortunately the translation is not very compresible due the overlaping with the original sound.


----------

