Indians For Guns

I found this great video. Hope you enjoy it.

[youtube][/youtube]

I like those wather p38s. thhough a handgun, but was used by germans during ww2.
later used by yakuza

Nice. . .

Nice find, XL!

I would like to offer an opinion here that I've been thinking about for some time.

Ever wonder why the Germans could hold off the Allies for so long, and why, with their limited manpower compared to the combination of the Soviet Union, the USA, the UK, Poland, Free French, and other combatants, fight so effectively?

I believe that it was an entirely different infantry doctrine, based upon the weapons highlighted in this film, that separated German Infantry excellence from all others.

Take the USA, for instance. Here in the USA, it is common for Americans to speak with pride about the M1 Garand semi-automatic battle rifle as the best infantry rifle of WW2, and so it was.

Similarly, those from the UK speak with pride about the SMLE and the No. 4 Mk 1, noting that they were the best bolt action battle rifles ever, superior to the M98 and its derivatives as a battle rifle in two World Wars. This, too, is also true.

American GIs from WW2 often speak with great fondness of the Browning Automatic Rifle, the BAR. (Please don't confuse the old military BAR with the modern Browning hunting rifle. The only similarity is the name. The old military BAR was a recoil operated weapon This statement is in error. Please see my subsequent post in this thread and forgive me!; the modern hunting BAR is a gas operated weapon.) Well they might, since the BAR, used as a squad support weapon in WW2, offered great firepower to squad-level infantry units, so much so that riflemen in US Infantry squads were always willing to carry extra magazines for the BAR. (It is interesting to note that the US Army usually assigned the 8+ Kg BAR to the smallest infantryman in the unit!) Even my Brother, who fought in Vietnam, spoke with fondness and awe of the BAR his unit had. This speaks to the effectiveness of full-automatic fire at the squad level as a combat tactic in WW2.

However, the BAR was not intended for this role, but was pressed into such service because it was all the US Army had to provide squad-level automatic weapon support fire in WW2. It was limited by its 20 round magazine and the inability to provide sustained fire.

The German K98 is often looked at as an inferior battle rifle to the M1 Garand, and so it was. The problem with using this viewpoint to illustrate superiority is that the effort of supplying US troops with such a rifle was solving a problem that was tactically the wrong direction for infantry units, given the timeframe and level of military firearms development.

The Germans used their K98s to support their machine guns at the squad level. The Wehrmacht provided TWO of the excellent MG34 or MG42 machine guns PER SQUAD as opposed to a US infantry squad maybe being supported by one BAR. You can clearly see from this that the BAR was a stopgap, used to give some semblance of automatic weapon support in recognition that infantry superiority on the squad level was NOT based on the rate of fire and accuracy of individual riflemen. It was based on the widespread disposition in quantity of true machine gun level automatic weapon support.

So note: The Germans used their K98s to support two excellent machine guns, while the US maybe used a single BAR at the same level to support individual riflemen with semi-auto M1 Garands. It is easy to see the disparity here.

In fact, all of the major combatants still based their squad-level infantry tactics on the individual rifleman: The USA, the UK, the USSR, and Japan, for instance.

It is also interesting to note: The German reliance on massed machine gun support even down to the squad level was a lesson they had learned well from WW1 battlefield experience. However, in the overall timeline of infantry tactics, the individual rifleman still turns out to be key, another tactical development the Germans identified, developing the StG 44.

Everyone recognized the power fully automatic weapons conferred in infantry situations as far back as World War 1. The "Pederson Device," which was used to covert the American M1903 Springfield bolt action rifle into a submachine gun firing a round similar to the .30 Carbine is proof of this, as is the development of the Thompson Submachine Gun (the "Tommy Gun") soon after the end of the war. All sides in WW2 used great numbers of submachine guns: The British had their STEN, the Americans, their Thompson and M3 "Grease Gun", the Germans their MP 40 "Schmeisser", and the Soviets their PPSh 41.

Each of these weapons had their own attributes. I would single out the British STEN for its ultra-simplicity, which allowed even basement arsenals operated by resistance units to manufacture it, and the Soviet PPSh 41, which was deployed in great numbers by the Red Army. Even the Germans recognized the PPSh's superiority, as it functioned in all of the terrible Russian Winter conditions present on the Eastern Front, where their MP 40 often did not. In my opinion, the 7.62x25 may well have been more ideal for submachine gun use than either the 9mm P or the 45 ACP, as well.

However, something more than the limited power of a handgun round used in submachine guns was needed, but effective shoulder-fired full automatic fire required less power than a battle rifle round to be controllable.

The Germans again hit on this idea first with the development of the first true "Assault Rifle," the StG44, with its reduced 7.92 x 33mm round offering greater firepower than a pistol cartridge, but better controllability than the 7.92 x 57mm in full auto fire.

The Soviets were quick to pick up on this, developing the 7.62 x 39mm, first deployed in numbers with the famous SKS rifle. However, the SKS did not prove amenable to full auto fire, where the AK 47 design certainly did, and in spades!

The USA continued to flounder about, pursuing the dead-end of a full powered battle rifle cartridge in the M14, a derivative of the M1 Garand.

FN did come out with the better solution, the FN FAL, however as we have seen, the full battle rifle cartridge has not proved to be the way forward for the infantry soldier.

One has to credit the Germans for changing their squad tactics to recognize what worked best for squad level infantry tactics in the interwar years, with the two machine gun equipped squad, supported by riflemen. The only way they were defeated was by superior numbers of infantry, air superiority, war production superiority, and a crushing blockade in the end (not to mention the stupidity of their war leader, hitler and his foolish decisions, thank goodness!).

Even then, the Germans recognized that ultimately, an enhanced WW1 strategy was not the way of the future, and they identified and developed the assault rifle concept, which is where we are at today.

A Very well written and erudite post timmy.
I never knew the 'peculiar for their time' tactics of the germans.

A toast to your brother

Nice link XL

timmy - great explanation of german tactics. I was actually discussing with colleague of mine how exceptionally productive germans are and how easily economic pressures can pass leadership to idiots zealots the Nazis. A lesson which is now forgotten by present gen of leaders and with world tethering on precipice of global recession and volatile situation in Middle east / Far east..

But Germans were in fore front be it German army armored tactics, airforce , staffing ( Command and Staff) technology etc. Its only after Vietnam did the defense folks started changing tactics and doctrine written and executed by Wehrmacht.

I guess the lesson lost for folks is to develop tactics at unit or platoon level as foundation bottom up rather than top down. Look at Indian defense services till date none of serving generals has even raised the issue of bad infantry weapons - a sarcastic response by an old infantry officers AK is a trench cleaner true soldiers aim and shoot not spray.
BTW Pakistan army still uses MG 42 while India uses Bren as squad level machine gun.

Good post, Tim, but the BAR is gas operated, not recoil.

... but the BAR is gas operated, not recoil.

@#$%^&*!

You are absolutely right! Why I didn't check with brain before engaging mouth, I don't know.

The BAR used by the Army (M1918) is indeed a gas operated weapon. The point I should have made about it is that it does not use a rotary bolt, like the commercial hunting Browning BAR, but instead uses a bolt with a "rocking" locking lug, like the Browning A5 shotgun and the Stevens 520 pump shotgun. That's why it has that peculiar "hump" on the top of the receiver where the locking lug engages.

I beg forgiveness!

Thank you XL ... my favourite subject

Cheers

TC

good post.....I specially like the MG-42. this maschine gun gave depression to allied forces because of its sheer killing power. Sitll if u see its used till date actively by forces of other countries. The american M-60s design is somewhat derived from the MG-42.
Also, Kar98 to is an excellent sniper weapon, but it failed against the Mosin Nagant of soviet union because the mosin had an upper hand in zeroing compared to the kar98. The mosin took some 3 rounds to to be zeroed and the kar98 took 5 rounds. Also, to calibrate the scope of mosin it was very easy compared to kar98. This gave an upper hand to the snipers in stalingrad against the nazis.
Thanks XL for share...enjoyed

INSAS556 wrote:
Also, Kar98 to is an excellent sniper weapon, but it failed against the Mosin Nagant of soviet union because the mosin had an upper hand in zeroing compared to the kar98. The mosin took some 3 rounds to to be zeroed and the kar98 took 5 rounds. Also, to calibrate the scope of mosin it was very easy compared to kar98. This gave an upper hand to the snipers in stalingrad against the nazis.
Thanks XL for share...enjoyed

It does not seem that you have a notion what the terms to "zero" a rifle, or to "calibrate" a scope mean. Your statement makes no sense at all. Your knowledge of the matter appears to come from movies.

Also, Kar98 to is an excellent sniper weapon, but it failed against the Mosin Nagant of soviet union

No Sir,
There is no comparison between a 98 Mauser and a Mosin. While both work, in my opinion, the average Mosin was a piece of junk compared to the average KAR 98 Mauser.
Sure, the Mosin is built tough but it had to be. The quality of the average Russian soldier it was designed for was rather poor. The Germans on the other hand were some of the best soldiers in the world (at the time). As far as toughness goes, the KAR 98 was no shrinking lily either.
Only someone who has never worked the actions of both rifle will rate the two as equal.
Sure you can accurize a Mosin but you can do the same thing to a 98. As far as sniping goes, its the man (or woman) behind the rifle, not the rifle so much.

I will agree that an M98 is quite refined when it comes to a Mosin Nagant action, and that an M98 makes a better sporting rifle than a Mosin Nagant. A Mosin Nagant's operation seems quite "clunky" compared to a M98, no doubt about it. However, there are some other matters to this discussion, as well, I think.

Some criticize the Mosin Nagant's single column magazine, usually for the same reasons they don't like the extended magazine on the SMLE: It doesn't make a trim sporting rifle. This ignores the fact that none of these weapons were made for sporting use. In their military configuration, the extended magazine is in no way an impediment to carrying the Mosin Nagant, at least in the rifle length versions.

XL, your point about the quality of training for individual German vs Soviet or Tsarist soldiers is true. The Mosin Nagant was designed as much for bayonet use as it was for shooting, which is one of the reasons for the long barrels in both the M91 and M91/30 versions.

Regarding battle toughness, I think it is easier to strip a Mosin Nagant than it is a M98.

Regarding INSAS556's point, I do think that a Mosin Nagant is superior in accuracy to a M98, but find that some of his generalizations should be tempered somewhat.

First of all, no combatant power had a sniper program like the Soviets in WW2, except for the Finns, who also used the Mosin Nagant. So oddly enough, when it came to snipers, the Soviets laid a lot more stress on sniper tactics and training, having the largest sniper forces in the war. I think that given this, it is no surprise that Soviet snipers had more accomplishments. (and Finns, even more!)

However, some of this credit does, I think, belong to the Mosin Nagant by virtue of its superior accuracy over the M98.

For one thing, the bedding on the M98 is not so good -- under continued firing, it will change because there is actually very little wood around the receiver, compared to other guns, like the Mosin Nagant, or even compared to the M1903 Springfield, which was also superior in accuracy to the M98.

The M98's receiver was also weakened by the thumb cut in the left side of the receiver, which didn't help bedding, either. On this point, not only did the Mosin Nagant not have a thumb cutaway, the odd horizontal position of the Mosin Nagant's locking lugs when in battery meant that the left side of the receiver is not weakened by a locking lug raceway, as in so many other bolt action designs.

The Mosin Nagant has a very stiff receiver, in other words.

Mosin Nagants were still effectively used in competition into the 80s, and were used as the Finnish sniper rifle action until not that long ago -- maybe they are even still in service. No M98 can boast of a record like that, and no M98 will shoot with a good Mosin Nagant in C&R competition, especially if that Mosin Nagant is the generally excellently bedded Finnish M39 version.

So if one were to talk about an accurate battle rifle, I think that the Mosin Nagant is superior to the M98. (The Swiss K31 is the best of all, and the Swedish M96 Mauser would rank near the top, as well.)

I should add, the Soviets didn't even bother with the trouble of making special sniper versions of the M91/30, as did other nations. Taking advantage of statistical dispersion in the manufacturing process, the Soviets simply grabbed the cream of the crop, the best shooting of the rifles to come from the assembly line. They put a scope on them and gave them to a sniper. When the accuracy dropped off from sniper standards, they took off the scope and sent the rifle to the front for use by ordinary troops, and got another one from the assembly line that shot well. A neat trick!

Tim,
You're perfectly correct that the Russians emphasized their sniping programs much more than the Germans.

Still, it's not really fair to compare the run of the mill Russian made Mosin with the Finnish M39. The M39's especially those built by SAKO were really good rifles. Also Finnish arsenals assembled large number of M39's with barrels made by Valmet or in Belgium. There is no question about the accuracy about those Finnish rifles. The Finns also spent a lot of time (postwar) improving the M39. A small number even had Tikka barrels. To me they are actually a whole different beast altogether.

I've really not been impressed the average Russian built Mosin rifles that have showed up here in such large numbers. The standard KAR98 that equipped soldiers of the Wehrmacht and other German units in WW2, in my opinion was a much better rifle at least as far as accuracy goes.

XL, I'm not so sure I could go along with that. Sure, the 91/30s were mostly made under wartime pressures and tolerances grew as machine tools aged -- but end-of-war M98s were no prizes, either. A few of the M39 barrels came from Belgium, but not that many. As far as the VKT or Sako barrels are concerned, they were well-made, but we tend to judge that stuff by the name. For instance, Sako-marked rifles fetch more money from collectors than VKT, but there's no difference at all in quality or the way they shoot. Russian/Soviet Tula marked Mosin Nagants fetch more than Izhevsk marked marked ones, for no reason other than collectors like the Tula marking better. There is no difference in quality, however.

I do believe that the big difference between an M39, or any other earlier Finn Mosin Nagant, and the Soviet ones (or the M98, for that matter) is the far superior way that the whole business is bedded -- take one apart, and you will see, they are a work of art from the bedding perspective, even if you don't like the Arctic Birch. I have yet to shoot my 1938 M91/30 from Cabela's, but feel as if it has a good chance to outshoot my 1938 Polish Radom wz 1929 (which isn't particularly accurate). If you know your Mausers, you know the quality of those Polish Radoms rivals the best military stuff the Germans turned out, just as the Radom wz 1944 rivals anything the Russians, Soviets, or even the Finns turned out in the Mosin Nagant world. My M39 has an ancient receiver -- it's no beauty -- but looks and collector-desirable stampings sometimes don't predict how accurate the bullet will strike a target. No, I'd have to go with the Mosin Nagant as far as accuracy.