If you only had one weapon...

[Joe2]

FN FAL.

And don't tell me it wasn't a WW2 weapon.

Designed in belgium prior to ww2 the plans/drawings were smuggled out to the British.

One reason for it not being produced was the inordinate amount of retraining tactcal decisions that would have been needed at war.

Yup .308 or .303 cal FN FAL, go kick some.

Called the SLR in later years.

My dad used an SLR. It was an FN FAL with a few minor tweaks. Strange tweaks. For a start, the fire selector was removed so you could only fire in semi-automatic. SLR stood for Self Loading Rifle. It had something to do with British Pride (especially at the enfeild company, who had been making guns for the British Army for hundreds of years) in using weapons that were not British Designs.

 

[schwarzpanzer]

Fliegerfaust! I was just about to suggest that HealzDevo. Yes, it would have been frmidable against troops - better than the targets for which it was designed (aircraft).

I heard that some Panzershreck rockets had HE warheads, anyone else hear of this?

For me=LOADS of smoke gernades. that way I could be a coward and run away


If not, the Bren gun. Like i said before, nothing can beat it.

heheh! With you on the Bren, but a bit dodgy in .303, and I'd rather have an MG42.

I was after less weight (more ammo) and a bayonet.


The FN FAL wasn't designed in WW2 (though it's progenitor was). I think that the SLR was an improvement over the FAL, it had GRP instead of wood and it wasn't at all accurate on full-auto - IIRC these measures also saved weight?

It could also use the L4 LMG's (Bren's) 30-round magazine, there was also the SUIT sight and British bayonets.

The only improvement I would add is a folding stock, which the Argentine version had - but some people don't like folding stocks.

 

[Soren]

I don't really rate the M1 Carbine, StG44 or 5.56mm NATO round too much, my reasons why should be known.

No we don't know your reasons, so please explain.

There are plus points though; the M1 Carbine performed well against thinly clothed targets (Obviously excluding the Soviets in WW2), the StG44 was a good weapon and the 5.56 is light and readily available.

Err.. the M1 carbine has no problem penetrating a helmet at 100y so why should clothes be a problem ??

And regading the 7.92x33 Kurz round, well it would penetrate the thick German steel helmet past 700m, so its lethal as far away as you can reliably hit a human sized target.

 

[Matt308]

And regading the 7.92x33 Kurz round, well it would penetrate the thick German steel helmet past 700m, so its lethal as far away as you can reliably hit a human sized target.

In fact MUCH further away than you could reliably hit a human sized target. With less than about a 450mm sight radius and square notch sights? 200m would be about it in aimed methodical fire. Less under stress of combat.

And I know I'm a broken record, but has anyone ever carried 12.5lb rifle + what 4, 5, 8 30-round clips of ammo? That coupled with your normal load out gets frickin' tiring REAL quick. This ain't video games here boys.

M1 Carbine.

 

[schwarzpanzer]

You know better than to provoke me Soren?

Very well. SAS reports on the M1 Carbine state that an overcoat is defense against one at 50m! (IIRC). There is also a report on a bullet from one failing to stop a soldier point-blank (he was finished off with a 12guage). Strange that it should pierce a helmnet though - I wonder if this is due to clothes spreading the load? (like Kevlar), odd.


As for penetration of the 7.92 Kurzpatrone, yes I am well aware of it. You do know though that penetration is often at the expense of lethality? (Think Mogadishu). The terminal ballistics are nasty though IIRC.

The StG's bad points were that it was easy to burn your hands with and too flimsy for hand-to-hand combat (Problems the Schmeisser shared) also, as has been said and like the Schmeisser, it couldn't be fired from prone too well. A good weapon though.


As for the effectiveness of the 5.56mm NATO, well I'm sure many would disagree, but the M1943 Soviet has proved superior, even to the SS109 (and that is far from ideal). Of course, the Corbon may prove me wrong(?) but I have no data on that and it ain't standard issue(?).


Hi Matt308,

I know your point about weight, which is why I chose the Enfield, hence:

I was after less weight (more ammo) and a bayonet.

- Lighter than an MP40 BTW.

The M1 Carbine was light, cheap and easy to use, though not for me.

The Enfield doesn't require mags either, saving weight and is lethal both at point blank or over a mile.


Don't worry about the range either, the StG was designed purely for 'realistic combat ranges' i.e. upto 300m. In Iraq though (Desert Storm), the AK is lost out due to being innacurate at over 400m though, so this 'rule' may well be wrong after all?

 

[P38 Pilot]

I would probably use an M-16A2 with a M203 40mm Grenade launcher, a radio, smoke grenades, and a F-15 to drop napalm.

 

[P38 Pilot]

If I had to use a WWII wepaon, it would be the Thompson .45 caliber SMG! Either that or the M1 Carbine with loads of ammo and 30 round clips.

 

[Matt308]

Keep on em P38. I'm on your side.

 

[Soren]

In fact MUCH further away than you could reliably hit a human sized target. With less than about a 450mm sight radius and square notch sights? 200m would be about it in aimed methodical fire. Less under stress of combat.

And I know I'm a broken record, but has anyone ever carried 12.5lb rifle + what 4, 5, 8 30-round clips of ammo? That coupled with your normal load out gets frickin' tiring REAL quick. This ain't video games here boys.

M1 Carbine.

Exactly.

You know better than to provoke me Soren?

Very well. SAS reports on the M1 Carbine state that an overcoat is defense against one at 50m! (IIRC). There is also a report on a bullet from one failing to stop a soldier point-blank (he was finished off with a 12guage). Strange that it should pierce a helmnet though - I wonder if this is due to clothes spreading the load? (like Kevlar), odd.

Just because it fails to stop a man doesn't mean it isn't lethal Schwarz, it just means it doesn't spread the load as much as other rounds. And about the overcoat, well I'd have to see it to believe it, cause the M1 certainly has no problem piercing a WWII helmet - and since its got a good amount of extra velocity than a pistol round, which can be lethal even against a std. Kevlar vest, I know an overcoat isn't gonna save you.

As for penetration of the 7.92 Kurzpatrone, yes I am well aware of it. You do know though that penetration is often at the expense of lethality? (Think Mogadishu). The terminal ballistics are nasty though IIRC.

Nope, cause the 7.92 Kurz round flies so fast that it causes damage to organs far away from the actual entry hole - hence why the 5.56 NATO is so effective.

The StG's bad points were that it was easy to burn your hands with and too flimsy for hand-to-hand combat (Problems the Schmeisser shared) also, as has been said and like the Schmeisser, it couldn't be fired from prone too well. A good weapon though.

The Stg.44 is sturdy Schwarz, and so is the MP-40. Also I have never heard of anyone complaining about the Stg.44's grip getting to hot to touch, infact thats why its got a sleve right where you grip, to make sure you DON'T burn your hands.

As for the effectiveness of the 5.56mm NATO, well I'm sure many would disagree, but the M1943 Soviet has proved superior, even to the SS109 (and that is far from ideal). Of course, the Corbon may prove me wrong(?) but I have no data on that and it ain't standard issue(?).

Infact as far as lethality goes, the 5.56 NATO is better than the M1943, both because its faster (Remember what I told you about speed and damage?) and crucially because it shatters once inside you - causing massive internal damage.

The M1943 is still a very lethal round though..

 

[schwarzpanzer]

It appears that Soren and myself are in agreement with you Matt308 - and we rarely agreee on anything!

For example:

Nope, cause the 7.92 Kurz round flies so fast that it causes damage to organs far away from the actual entry hole - hence why the 5.56 NATO is so effective.

I see your point, but most vital organs are at the front of the body and shock is probably the greatest killer, on the other side there are the properties of high-velocity projectiles, also over-penetration has its merits and under-penetrations a *****. The 5.56 NATO is effective mainly because it tumbles. Why do you think dum-dums, hydra-shock and hollowpoints are so effective? Also, in a way; shotguns, the .45 ACP, bean-bag guns etc. They all have low penetration.

I know an overcoat isn't gonna save you.

It might, but I wouldn't rely on it. Nor would I rely on the bullet to penetrate an enemies overcoat. If you have any 'Weapons of the SAS' books, there's usually something on it in there.

Do you have a source for the helmet penetration BTW? (The M1, not StG - I already have that).


The StG's handguard is ineffective, but you often see combatants in WW2 holding it by the magazine well - like the MP40. That had a problem for hand-burning too, but not if you were used to holdingf it properly.

You can see how unsuitable the MP40 was, as versions that expeced to see hand-to hand fighting (Police, MP's etc) had Bergman-type woooden butts. Still, there were always knives and entrenching tools, but I'd personally prefer a bayonet or butt.

 

[Matt308]

And reports of the M1 Carbine not penetrating a heavy over coat at 50yds is pure bullfeces. 900ft-lbs of energy does not bleed off that quickly. You won't find single person on the planet willing to suffer a shot from an M1 carbine at 50 yds wearing a wool coat.

 

[Soren]

And reports of the M1 Carbine not penetrating a heavy over coat at 50yds is pure bullfeces. 900ft-lbs of energy does not bleed off that quickly. You won't find single person on the planet willing to suffer a shot from an M1 carbine at 50 yds wearing a wool coat.

Yep, and I know from first hand experience that it'll go straight through the std. G.I. helmet at 100y - and nomatter how thick your overcoat is, its a piece of cake by comparison.

I'll still go with the Stg.44 though, just because of its sheer power, accuracy and automatic fire capability.

 

[Matt308]

AND it is VERY cool.

Wish I owned one...

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

And I know I'm a broken record, but has anyone ever carried 12.5lb rifle + what 4, 5, 8 30-round clips of ammo? That coupled with your normal load out gets frickin' tiring REAL quick. This ain't video games here boys.

Does a 23.1 lb machine gun with 4 200-round belts count?

 

[Matt308]

I was waiting for the military dudes to chime in. 6lbs more on your load out in a 20 mile run is a b!tch. Correct me if I'm wrong Adler.

[The author has asked a rhetorical question. While the author expects no answer, he knows that he will get one.]

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

blank

[The reader decided not to answer the author]

 

[Matt308]

[Thus the rhetorical question is defined. The author is proven correct via silence from his audience]

 

[the lancaster kicks ass]

[surely the auther is incorrect as he was expectinging an answer and got none of sorts...].....

 

[Matt308]

Thought you might like to see this definition that I cut and paste.

[The rhetorical question is usually defined as any question asked for a purpose other than to obtain the information the question asks. For example, "Why are you so stupid?" is likely to be a statement regarding one's opinion of the person addressed rather than a genuine request to know.]

 

[ndicki]

And on my runs, etc, I was carrying CEMO/CEFO and an SLR. Painful, but I'd rather have pain and a rifle I think I can count on, than less pain and a rifle that I don't think I can count on. Which does not say I don't believe your figures about the M1 Carbine - only that I don't want one.