Welcome to the WWII Forums! Log in or Sign up to interact with the community.

Equip your army...modern war with WW2 small arms.

Discussion in 'The Guns Galore Section' started by Robinson phpbb3, Dec 19, 2007.

  1. Commando

    Commando recruit

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2007
    Messages:
    494
    Likes Received:
    0
    via TanksinWW2
    The Russians sure used women snipers to great effect against the Huns. :kill:
     
  2. sinissa

    sinissa New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2006
    Messages:
    570
    Likes Received:
    0
    via TanksinWW2
    ?
     
  3. Commando

    Commando recruit

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2007
    Messages:
    494
    Likes Received:
    0
    via TanksinWW2
  4. Robinson phpbb3

    Robinson phpbb3 New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2005
    Messages:
    82
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Adelaide, Australia
    via TanksinWW2
    Im sure some where out there you can find a hard core fetish site
    on the very subject.

    I just hope no one brings up Russian explosive anti tank dogs...
     
  5. Commando

    Commando recruit

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2007
    Messages:
    494
    Likes Received:
    0
    via TanksinWW2
    :angry:
     
  6. lynn1212

    lynn1212 New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2005
    Messages:
    351
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    upstate NY USA
    via TanksinWW2
    ????

    do i detect a note of disbelief about the existence of soviet woman snipers?
    the russkies used women in a lot of combat roles including but limited to snipers, pilots [ of just about everything they operated], tank crews, fire control, and many others.
     
  7. Robinson phpbb3

    Robinson phpbb3 New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2005
    Messages:
    82
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Adelaide, Australia
    via TanksinWW2
    NO disbelief here...I think most people here should know the exploits of Soviet women during the Great Patriotic War...

    as snipers, bombers, fighter pilots and infantry not to mention the other burdens these women under went to make up for 'man power' shortages.

    Interesting note in regard to these ladies...

    I remember reading some time ago, that the Women were found to be less compassionate as 'marksman' than there male counter parts in combat. Generally they showed a colder side towards there target.

    So much for soft and maternal, these cold hearted warriors helped perhaps tip the balance on the battle field with there capabilities.

    Kym
     
  8. Tony Williams

    Tony Williams Member

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2002
    Messages:
    1,006
    Likes Received:
    23
    via TanksinWW2
    I don't whether they were cold-hearted or just more angry with the enemy. Men tended to accept war, and usually didn't personally hate the enemy. Women, on the other hand, may have been more likely to see it as a kind of personal violation and get really mad.

    Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum
     
  9. Hoosier phpbb3

    Hoosier phpbb3 New Member

    Joined:
    May 11, 2005
    Messages:
    904
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Bloomington, Indiana USA
    via TanksinWW2
    A female, Russian sniper... with PMS.
    Armed and dangerous would be an understatement.
    :evil:

    Tim
     
  10. Robinson phpbb3

    Robinson phpbb3 New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2005
    Messages:
    82
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Adelaide, Australia
    via TanksinWW2
    Hahah goood point..
    as political correct as it sounds too
     
  11. Commando

    Commando recruit

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2007
    Messages:
    494
    Likes Received:
    0
    via TanksinWW2
    :grin:
     
  12. Andy235

    Andy235 Member

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2018
    Messages:
    32
    Likes Received:
    3
    Here is what I would pick for infantry weapons: (assume that the standard rifle, the squad automatic and the MGs are all chambered for the same round---lets say .30-06 for logistical purposes)
    Pistol:
    Walther P38 9mm
    Submachine Guns:
    MP 38 and MP 40
    Standard Infantry Rifle:
    M-1 Garand
    Service Carbine:
    M-1 Carbine (the M1 Rifle and Carbine would be distributed like they were in the US Army during WWII---riflemen getting the Garand, while other soldiers/Marines who had special duties being armed with the smaller, light carbine)
    Sniper/Sharpshooter rifle
    Springfield 1903
    Squad Automatic
    Bren LMG (chambered for .30-06)
    Light Machine Gun (company level)
    MG-42 (in .30-06)
    Water cooled machine gun for sustained fire (Battalion level units and for some vehicles)
    British Vickers chambered in .30-06
    Heavy Machine Gun Units and for certain vehicles
    .50 Caliber M2
    Anti-Tank
    Panzerfaust
    Panzerschreck
    US M18 Recoiless Rifle (57mm) at Company level
    US M20 Recoilless Rifle (75mm) at Battalion level
    German 88 mm (at Division)
    Mortars:
    60 mm (at company level)
    81(at battalion level)
    120mm (German Granatwerfer) at Division
     
  13. lwd

    lwd Ace

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2007
    Messages:
    12,312
    Likes Received:
    1,230
    Location:
    Michigan
    Interesting choices. 8mm Mauser and 30:06 are pretty much exchange able though if you are going to produce the weapons in calibers different from the original I think I'd go with one of the 7mm rounds instead.
    Why the sub gun choice? Most here have expressed a preference for either the Soviet, US, or other less well known ones.
    Sharpshooter again I don't think there's a great deal of difference between the bolt action rifles of the various nationalities although I think the US did come out with a sniper version of the Garand which would have some advantages (and some disadvantages).
    Why the Vickers over say the Browning? Both were good guns but the Browning holds the records on rounds fired continuously. In any case if I were going water cooled I think I'd just as soon have it in 12.7. You already have logistical constraints.
    The Pansershreck IMO had enough issues that it probably wasn't worth it. Panzerfausts and RR would be my choice.
    I'd be temepted to use 81mm mortars at both company and battalion levels just to simplify logistics as well.
    The Bren is an LMG for a squad level automatic rifle you choice is pretty much limited to the BAR at that time. The question is what does a squad look like? If you have plenty of motor vehicle support having an LMG team and two or even possibly 3 fire teams with a BAR and a couple of rifles might work. If you hare relying on man or horse power to move your supplies though that could create issues. Think I'd be tempted to use the Bren at squad level and the MG-42 at company level with enough of them to allocate one per platoon if needed.
    Not sure if I'd want two calibers of RR either. Whether to go with a 17lber, 88, or 90mm for division level AT gun is an interesting question. Probably would depend on what ones tanks were armed with. I think I'd tend to go 90mm though. All of this assumes a rather late war unit though.
     
  14. USMCPrice

    USMCPrice Idiot at Large

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2009
    Messages:
    4,617
    Likes Received:
    1,655
    Location:
    God's Country
    Having humped both, the 81 is a bear and best suited for not displacing often or with adequate motor transport. The 60 is light enough to hump along with the company and displace frequently. The WWII M2 60mm mortar was 42 lbs. and the shells were about three pounds each. The M1 81mm was 136 lbs. and the light HE round was right at 7 lbs. each. Quite a difference when you figure the weight that had to be humped and the weight of sufficient ammo.

    Base Plate M2 60mm-12.8 lbs. M1 81mm-45 lbs. (3 pounds more than the entire M2 system)
    Tube M2 60mm-12.8 lbs. M1 81mm-44.5 lbs.
    Bipod mount M2 60mm-16.4 lbs. M1 81mm-46.5
    100 rounds M2 60mm HE-M49A2 273 lbs. M1 80mm M43A1 HE 687 lbs.
    Now the common practice is for the Mortar section to carry the bulk of the ammunition with most of the rest of the men in the company carrying an additional round, same same for MG ammo. If the riflemen are humping a 2.73 lb round that's more weight for MG ammo. A 6.87 lb. round means they may not carry an extra belt for the MG's. Things to consider.
     
    lwd likes this.
  15. von Poop

    von Poop Waspish WW2|ORG Editor

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2006
    Messages:
    6,078
    Likes Received:
    1,668
    Location:
    Perfidious Albion
    I believe the Hoyt-Clagwell Avenger was available in limited numbers during the period.
    Seems sufficient.
     
    KodiakBeer and George Patton like this.
  16. lwd

    lwd Ace

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2007
    Messages:
    12,312
    Likes Received:
    1,230
    Location:
    Michigan
    Really sounds like you need to decide what kind and quantity is available for transporting things before you look to closely at support weapons. If the mortar (or heavy mg) has a dedicated carrier or even trailer that's one thing if it's got to be man portable for extended distances that's another.
     
  17. KodiakBeer

    KodiakBeer Member

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2012
    Messages:
    6,102
    Likes Received:
    1,572
    Location:
    The Arid Zone
    You'd want the Mark II. The Mark I was extremely problematic since its .68/120 round tended to shatter the shooter's upper torso.

    .
     
    von Poop likes this.
  18. von Poop

    von Poop Waspish WW2|ORG Editor

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2006
    Messages:
    6,078
    Likes Received:
    1,668
    Location:
    Perfidious Albion
    I'm a tin-pot island dictator.
    I'll take the mark one, please.
    Troops are expendable - it's all about looking good and bigger calibres.

    Can't see any mortars in the catalogue.
    They'd make a damned fine mortar.
     
  19. Terry D

    Terry D Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2015
    Messages:
    559
    Likes Received:
    230
    Location:
    Huerta, California
    Don't forget the Lepage Glue Gun, the finest AA weapon of the entire war.
     
    von Poop likes this.
  20. George Patton

    George Patton Canadian Refugee

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2010
    Messages:
    3,084
    Likes Received:
    1,063
    Location:
    Ontario, Canada
    It is indeed unfortunate that Hoyt-Clagwell's ventures into the artillery market fizzled following the failure of Operation Drug Bunker. The experimental Fuscia Assploder saboted incendiary shaped charge had incredible potential, and is rumoured to have formed the foundation of the shaped charges used to disable Eben-Emael in 1940.
     
    von Poop likes this.

Share This Page