Mordern day vs ww2

Quote and then name the source, KBO! No plagiarism.

 

Its the strong recoil of the 8x57mm IS round that gives the MG42 1500rpm. And the lighter recoil of the 7.62 NATO therefore decreases this.

KBO

 

Hehe.. No problem, it was from here: http://www.geocities.com/Augusta/8172/p ... 5.htm#mg42

The best reference site for German MG's on the Web !

Sry it took so long to find it, but i had forgotten it.

 

These are the specifications for the German MG's according to Ian V. Hogg:

7.92 mm Maschinengewehr 34

Weapon:
7.92 mm Maschinengewehr 34

Other Designations:
7.92 mm leMG 34

Originating Nation:
Germany

Manufacturers:
Mauser-Werke AG, Berlin and Oberndorf-am-Neckar; Gusloff-Werke, Suhl; Maget, Berlin-Tegel; Steyr-Daimler-Puch AG, Steyr; Waggenwerke Brünn (Brno)

Calibre/Cartridge:
7.92 mm x 57

Feed Type:
75 round saddle drum or 50 and 250 round continuous link metal belts

Length:
1,219 mm (48 in)

Barrel Length:
627 mm (24.7 in)

Weight with Bipod:
11.5 kg

Muzzle Velocity:
755 m/sec (2,477 ft/sec)

Rate of Fire (cyclic):
900 rpm



7.92 mm Maschinengewehr 34/41 and 34S

Weapon:
7.92 mm Maschinengewehr 34/41 and 34S

Other Designations:
7.92 mm MG 34/41; 7.92 mm MG 34S

Originating Nation:
Germany

Manufacturers:
Mauser-Werke AG, Berlin

Calibre/Cartridge:
7.92 mm x 57

Feed Type:
50 and 250 round continuous link metal belts

Length:
1,135 mm (44.7 in)

Barrel Length:
500 mm (19.7 in)

Weight of Gun:
11.42 kg (25.2 lb)

Muzzle Velocity:
730 m/sec (2,395 ft/sec)

Rate of Fire (cyclic):
MG 34S: 1,200 rpm; MG 34/41: 1,500 rpm


300 examples of the fully automatic MG 34/41 were used for troop trials on Eastern Front during 1942. However, they were not adopted for service. The MG 34S represented an experimental design only. Both machine guns featured shorter barrels than the MG 34.


7.92 mm Maschinengewehr 42

Weapon:
7.92 mm Maschinengewehr 42

Other Designations:
7.92 mm leMG 42

Originating Nation:
Germany

Manufacturers:
Mauser-Werke AG, Berlin; Grossfuss, Döbeln/Sachsen; Maget, Berlin-Tegel; Steyr-Daimler-Puch AG, Steyr; Gusloff-Werke, Suhl

Calibre/Cartridge:
7.92 mm x 57

Feed Type:
50 and 250 round continuous link metal belts

Length:
1,230 mm (48.4 in)

Barrel Length:
530 mm (20.8 in)

Weight with Bipod:
11.6 kg (25.6 lb)

Muzzle Velocity:
820 m/sec (2,690 ft/sec)

Rate of Fire (cyclic):
1,500 rpm

Best regards, KBO.

 

hmm...in terms of numbers there is till a larger force of ww2 troops tanks and ships and fighters...

 

True, and replacements can be built faster.
However, what good would it do to build 50 Spitfires if they cannot shoot down an F-16?

 

Well, maybe 50 of them will have a shot, especially late versions equipped with 20mm cannon. But if you consider the losses that would be inflicted by the vastly superior modern weaponry, I doubt the huge armies of WW2 would last much longer. Also, when faced with such numbers any modern force would soon be playing on its advantages; it would for example only fight in the dark.

 

Just one thing, modern warfare is not always to kill the enemy. One enemy dead takes out one soldier, one seriously wounded soldier requires 2 to evacuate or if left a great drain on enemy morale. That is why the Brits and mybey the whole of NATO now use 5.56.

 

How will they have a shot? An F-16 flies at way over mach 1, a spitfire wont even be able to see the F-16! The F-16 will fly at altitudes unatainable by the Spitfire, loosen a hail of missiles, make rapid passes with its vulcan, and get back to a base protected by gatling guns and missiles in which a fleet of a thousand spitfires cannot penetrate.

Seriously guys, this stuff is clear, maybe infantry vs infantry the WW2 army has a chance. But otherwise the conclusion is definate.

 

Just one thing, modern warfare is not always to kill the enemy. One enemy dead takes out one soldier, one seriously wounded soldier requires 2 to evacuate or if left a great drain on enemy morale. That is why the Brits and mybey the whole of NATO now use 5.56.

Not just that, a wounded man requires surgeons, doctors, nurses, aftercare, a dead man just requires a hole in the ground.

A lot seems to be made of the striking power of bullets, but to me this only seems a marginal issue at best, practically every LMG and MMG will struggle to penetrate all but the lightest armour, so the extra striking power of say a 7.92mm bullet over a 7.62mm is irrelevant there, and if a shot hits an enemy soldier I can't see him being significantly less injured by a 7.62mm than a 7.92mm, typically he's still going to have a great big hole in him and be basically out of the fight, so again extra "Striking Power" here is again pretty irrelevant.

Both types of weapon will hit and wound effectively as far as the gunner is likely to be able to see, so any benefits of greater range will be limited at best.

As for the F-16/Spitfire argument, there is a possibilty, however small that whilst the F-16 is going through the formation raking them with gunfire that he will be in a Spitfire's gunsights for long enough to be on the recieving end of a burst of cannon fire, yes I know, you'll still loose a lot more Spitfires than F-16s, but the F-16s would not be completely immune...

Seriously guys, this stuff is clear, maybe infantry vs infantry the WW2 army has a chance. But otherwise the conclusion is definate.

Agreed.

 

Fair enough. I just believe there will always be some way in which superior numbers can get through, despite horrendous losses, if they have at least some weapon capable fo dealing with the enemy. In this case, I believe that if you send 50 Spitfires out at every F16, how many will the F16 be able to knock out of the sky before it runs out of ammo? It doesn't exactly carry that many missiles.

But you're right, it's not a realistic scenario and certainly the numbers of WW2 armies would easily be depleted beyond salvation.

 

You are right in mentioning that the F-16 will not be able to destroy 50spitfires simply because it doesnt have enough ammo. (In Air supremacy missioins, an F-16C can carry 8 missiles). But the F-16 will always be able to go back to base using superior speed to load up and come back to bag another bunch of spits.

 

Lets not even mention the F-14..

 

Yes, of course most versions of the F16 are several decades old already and what we'd really have to pit Spitfires and other WW2 fighters against if we wish to talk about "today" would be planes like the Eurofighter and the F22 Raptor. In any case, there's WW2 era planes and modern era planes and the difference between them is too great to be bridged by anything.

 

Oh man !! my favorite Figther !! I have 9 models of that single aircraft ! Just love it 8)

Back to subject:

In terms of infantry vs infantry, there's a chance for the old equipment. However in airforce vs airforce, there's no chance for WW2 fighter's, not the slightest !. And in Tank vs Tank there isnt a chance for the older WW2 tanks either.

WW2 vs Modern: Winner = Defidently Modern !!.

KBO

 

I just wonder how many upgrades to the length of the 88 the Germans would try before realizing it won't work.

I mean, they might even press the E-100 into service thinking it'll stem the advance of the M1A2 Abram formations.

 

I doubt they'd have time for more than one before fighting the Second Battle of Berlin! :lol:

 

No AT gun of WW2 will be any good against a M1A2 ! The German 88mm and 128mm guns will have the best chances however. (They might start using APDS rounds then, wich will increase the penetration of their guns quite alot, but still the Modern 120mm Rheinmetall gun will be totally superior in every way possible !)

Modern tanks are a world apart from WW2 tanks, everything is better on modern tanks "Everything !!".

Same goes for the airforce.

KBO

 

but todays fighters use missiles as main weapon, but when using guns can they even aim at it? it think only thing that is fair is artillery....

 

Modern fighters have far better 'accuracy' than WW2 fighters, as they have the exciting electronic doodah that shows them exactly where their bullets will end up (at a set distance) making deflection shooting a doddle.

Artillery - even there you have far better fire control systems, SPGs with incredible rates of fire, more use of rockets (less accurate, but scares the heck outa you)...