http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USMC
the best topic to talk about here
the best topic to talk about here
Everyone his own iterests.
My interests are World War 2, German Unit histories.
My interests are World War 2, German Unit histories.
I like everything military history, lol. But yes, the Germans are very interesting particularly their Stg 44, that's a beast of an assault rifle, considering nobody else had an assault rifle at the time.Gillenator wrote:
Everyone his own iterests.
My interests are World War 2, German Unit histories.
Their bolt action rifle was very nice too, very accurate, but the Germans probably had the most professional army of World War 2.
not really, they just had a headstart on proffessionalising their conscripts. certainly the crucial distinction of a proffessional army, that it is uninvolved in the body politic is broken.
Last edited by Vernedead (2007-06-17 17:33:13)
What do you think about the progression of small arms? The modern firearm (accurate, using cased ammo) has been around for a while, now. We haven't seen a lot of progression since the 1940's, with the introduction of assault rifles. Do you think there will be revolutionary changes in small arms in the near term, or simply evolutionary changes to the basic assault rifle?
Are you thinking of the hellcat? While the widlcat was no match for the zero, the hellcat was very sucessful vs zeros during WWII.The_Mac wrote:
I'm going to discount the P-51 statement, because the P-51 came out in '44, and it's not comparable to the A6m2(standard zero) maybe the Shiden Kai, but not the AM62.Deadmonkiefart wrote:
P-51Mustang>A6m Zero>F4F-3 WildcatacEofspadEs6313 wrote:
A6m Zero>F4F-3 Wildcat, sadly enough.
In terms of Speed and agility, the Zero wins. Its top speed of 553(speed could be higher, but rarely exceeded that) vs the Wildcat's 320mph as well as climbing and agility was good for one v ones. However, the Wildcat was better able to dive, because the flaps didn't lock up when going straight down like the Zero's did. The Wildcat had excellent armor, and even when the bullets did penetrate, the Wildcat had self sealing tanks, rubber devices that when oil leaked out of the aircraft, the rubber would get expanded by leaking oil, and because of its expansion, the bullet pierced oil tank would be covered up for the moment. It prevented Japanese tracers from blowing the thing up.
The Americans were also able to use their aircrafts armament to devastating the Japanese aircraft. That and the teamwork like the Thach Weave employed by the Americans were able to defeat the Japanese.
I don't mean to be Anti British at all when I say this (I'm a self styled Anglophile), but the Germans were very professional in terms exactly as you mentioned; the British were excellent fighters, but they were enthusiastic amateurs.Vernedead wrote:
not really, they just had a headstart on proffessionalising their conscripts. certainly the crucial distinction of a professional army, that it is uninvolved in the body politic is broken.
Otto Von Bismark said when asked what he'd do if the British invaded was, "I'd send a policeman down and have them all arrested."
The British didn't have a reputation for being professional.
Wellington called his troops "The Scum of the earth, enlisted for drink."
Now the officer corps is of course very professional, but the actual soldier was more enthusiastic than anything else.
But I agree with you said about the definition of professionalism.
The thing is, warfare evolved in the 1800s from static lines of bright colored troops, to trenches and a combination of troops in lines (Crimean war) to troops adapting to their local environment to take cover and all that (Imperialism Wars) to finally, pure trenches (with the exception of the East front, which still involved trenches). And then at last, generic battlefields that'd spring up over night in various cities, rural areas, anywhere.RAIMIUS wrote:
What do you think about the progression of small arms? The modern firearm (accurate, using cased ammo) has been around for a while, now. We haven't seen a lot of progression since the 1940's, with the introduction of assault rifles. Do you think there will be revolutionary changes in small arms in the near term, or simply evolutionary changes to the basic assault rifle?
The Germans recognized this fact, and they wanted to develop a gun that would be able to be automatic and yet have high velocity bullets. That way, you could lay down good suppressing fire, while still being moderately accurate. That was the idea, to weld both guns into one monster--curbing production costs and making an efficient firearm that all troops get.
When the United States started developing their Assault Rifles, they were at war in Korea. M1 Garands were accurate, but they didn't have firepower. Firepower was something they wanted to shoot down the waves of NKs and Chinese. The m14 was brought, which was an M1 garand, with an extended magazine and full auto power. In Vietnam though, logistics were far different than in Korea, Jungle dominating Vietnam's landscape. The result of this was troops having to carry large amounts of ammo because it'd be a while before they could obtain more. In the m14's case, with .30 cal bullets, the ammo was heavy. That and the AK-47 was able to lay down a ton of firepower, with recoil that made the gun slide from side to side instead straight up like an AA gun (in the M14's case).
The M16 was developed to be full automatic, have lighter ammo, and have greater ease of use. To be fair, it accomplished this much better than the M14. Of course, the infamous jamming set in.
It is to be noted that the first squad of m16s sent to Vietnam were sent to Marines field testing, and Army Rangers. Both parties absolutely LOVED the gun. Only later did the majority of marines and soldiers have problems with it when the whole self cleaning gun myth became spread.
The problem was amended with the addition of chrome plating in the gas chamber to help reduce corrosion, which was featured in the M16A1, brought in I think 1968 earliest, I'm not sure though.
It's also to be noted that the Stoner Firearm system SEALs used was eagerly traded back in for M16s.
The M16 was and is a good gun, no gun is self cleaning, and I think people are starting to realize that.
Firearm innovation 101 right now is for a gun that can resist jamming on full auto for NATO (The commies and terrorists have had the AK-47 for 50 years now).
The HK 416 is one answer, and I believe the Army and Marines are converting their M4s and M16s to 6.5mm Grendels and might be adding a gas piston instead of the gas chambering bolt used right now. I guess they figure this is cheaper than purchasing the HK 416.
Only a few Marines and Delta Force Operators use the HK.
Last edited by The_Mac (2007-06-17 18:54:35)
that was when he was pissed of with them, because they where stone drunk after winning a battle, he thought they where the finest soldiers in the world.The_Mac wrote:
I don't mean to be Anti British at all when I say this (I'm a self styled Anglophile), but the Germans were very professional in terms exactly as you mentioned; the British were excellent fighters, but they were enthusiastic amateurs.Vernedead wrote:
not really, they just had a headstart on proffessionalising their conscripts. certainly the crucial distinction of a professional army, that it is uninvolved in the body politic is broken.
Otto Von Bismark said when asked what he'd do if the British invaded was, "I'd send a policeman down and have them all arrested."
The British didn't have a reputation for being professional.
Wellington called his troops "The Scum of the earth, enlisted for drink."
Now the officer corps is of course very professional, but the actual soldier was more enthusiastic than anything else.
But I agree with you said about the definition of professionalism.
"well the thing is you see the french generals troops where always getting them into scrapes, my troops where always getting me out of them."
but actually my comment was specifically directed at thetime period at start of WW2
right, but I wanted to give a background history from where I was coming from. I don't exactly know how you mean more disciplined. The British certainly had very enthusiastic soldiers, but in terms of professionalism, early on anyway, they were blown away.Vernedead wrote:
but actually my comment was specifically directed at thetime period at start of WW2
i never said they where more disciplined. i said the germans weren't more proffessional they simply began preparing for war much earlier than everyone else, which meant there was a point where the german army was at its peak efficency whilst everyone else was still work up to it. even then the fact that the german army is not a proffesional arm of the state but an individuals personal political tool means that the training is unevenly distributed meaning you have the crack SS and Panzer divisions and then regiments composed of little more than POWs and schoolboys.The_Mac wrote:
right, but I wanted to give a background history from where I was coming from. I don't exactly know how you mean more disciplined. The British certainly had very enthusiastic soldiers, but in terms of professionalism, early on anyway, they were blown away.Vernedead wrote:
but actually my comment was specifically directed at thetime period at start of WW2
discipline wise theres certainly several examples of british infantry in the redcoat era performing textbook examples of close order drill in extreme battlefield circumstances followed by drinking themselves senseless despite the officers best attempts to stop them. wellington himself believed that his troops where the finest on a battlefield but the worst off it.
proffesional soldiers?
proffesional soldiers?
of course not, their ideological ones. not to say germany didn't have any highly trained and effective forces, nor even that the british/american/polish/japanese/rebelalliance/whoever army was superior. but the german army was not the most proffesional.
Last edited by Vernedead (2007-06-18 07:12:04)
Those are Hitler Youth, you cannot compare them with real soldiers.
Unless this is a picture from the 12th ss Pz Division "Hitlerjugend".
Last edited by Gillenator (2007-06-18 07:14:22)
but thats just the point. if we look at the best trained and equipped of the german army of course it looks proffesional. its because they can't be compared ot real soldiers but where never the less expected to fight them.
Last edited by Vernedead (2007-06-18 07:24:30)
Yes, but that was towards the end of the war. With all the Volkssturm units involved in the fighting, made up of really old or really young people.Vernedead wrote:
but thats just the point. if we look at the best trained and equipped of the german army of course it looks proffesional. its because they can't be compared ot real soldiers but where never the less expected to fight them.
And the 12th ss Pz division is truly an professional, well trained combat unit, formed in 1943. Doesn't matter how young the soldiers where. Mostly between 17 and 19 by the way.
rationalize it anyway you want i don't recall many eagle scout regiments on the beaches of normandy.
Eagle scout regiments?Vernedead wrote:
rationalize it anyway you want i don't recall many eagle scout regiments on the beaches of normandy.
it would be the nearest equivalent. boy scout regiments.
Last edited by Vernedead (2007-06-18 07:48:54)
The defenders of the Normandy beaches where 3rd or perhaps even worse grade didvision. Mostly so called 'Static' Divisions, made up of eastern conscripts and people who otherwise wouldn't even be allowed into the army, like men with hearing problems and other disabilities.
The only real organized german division on the beaches was the 352nd Infantry division on Omaha beach.
The good divisions were inland, or even still in Belgium, Southern France or Germany. Like the fallschirmjager, 1st, 2nd, 9th. 10th and 12th ss Pz divisions, Panzer Lehr Division, 21st Panzer Divsion and some other ones.
The only real organized german division on the beaches was the 352nd Infantry division on Omaha beach.
The good divisions were inland, or even still in Belgium, Southern France or Germany. Like the fallschirmjager, 1st, 2nd, 9th. 10th and 12th ss Pz divisions, Panzer Lehr Division, 21st Panzer Divsion and some other ones.
doesn't that very divide seem unproffesional? do you think its a coincidence that the best divisons are all politically prominent ones? hitler was a personal sponsor of the armoured forces, himmler backed the SS and Goering the Fallschirmjager. how can it be a proffesional army if the only way to get decent kit is to have a personal nazi sponsor? its one short step away from fuedalism.
Last edited by Vernedead (2007-06-18 08:23:43)
out of interest, after all your studying, which army do you think was the most disciplined...or the most effective at any rate on the battlefield. Would all the armies be equal, with the skill of officers determining the fate of the battle? What's your take on it?Vernedead wrote:
but the german army was not the most proffesional.
Just because they were FJ, SS, or Hitler's favorite units didn't mean they got the new, shiny equipment first.Vernedead wrote:
doesn't that very divide seem unproffesional? do you think its a coincidence that the best divisons are all politically prominent ones? hitler was a personal sponsor of the armoured forces, himmler backed the SS and Goering the Fallschirmjager. how can it be a proffesional army if the only way to get decent kit is to have a personal nazi sponsor? its one short step away from fuedalism.
You'd be surprised. Hitler was nuts, and that affected his tactical side as well. He tried to ban the Stg 44 (Assault Rifle) because he didn't like it--at first. Kinda shows how idiotic he was.acEofspadEs6313 wrote:
Just because they were FJ, SS, or Hitler's favorite units didn't mean they got the new, shiny equipment first.
so you do think its a coincidence that the best trained, best equipped units where high ranking nazis personal armies.
Last edited by Vernedead (2007-06-18 11:09:06)
Or how he was a tool and made the 262 into a bomber.The_Mac wrote:
You'd be surprised. Hitler was nuts, and that affected his tactical side as well. He tried to ban the Stg 44 (Assault Rifle) because he didn't like it--at first. Kinda shows how idiotic he was.acEofspadEs6313 wrote:
Just because they were FJ, SS, or Hitler's favorite units didn't mean they got the new, shiny equipment first.
No.Vernedead wrote:
so you do think its a coincidence that the best trained, best equipped units where high ranking nazis personal armies.
so your deliberately contradictory to confuse people on web forums?