rifles v's machine gun

[raf]

i maybe wrong so correct me if i am.

i get the impression that most british soldiers at the start of the war carried rifles.

but the germans machine guns.

surely a machine gun out weighs a rifle.

any thoughts

[Cpl Rootes]

Your kind of right it does outweigh a rifle in ROF (Rate of Fire) but its not as accurate. I think that most of the Germans had the Kar98 and MP40 during the war.

[lancesergeant]

Originally Posted by raf

i maybe wrong so correct me if i am.

i get the impression that most british soldiers at the start of the war carried rifles.

but the germans machine guns.

surely a machine gun out weighs a rifle.

any thoughts

Kars, Mausers and MP40's. You might be confusing the MP40 mistakenly called the Schmeisser -a sub-machine gun for the MG 40/42.

[Glider]

I think you will find that at the start of the war, the British at platoon level normally carried Rifles and one LMG. As the war progressed some, initially the squad leaders would carry an SMG instead of the rifle.

The Germans had this mixture ahead of the British Army.

[adamcotton]

Had I been an infantary soldier in WW2, I think I'd much have preferred an SMG or an MP-40 to a rifle. It may be less accurate, but it's quicker to use and lighter, too. I know I've survived a lot longer in close combat when weilding a sub machine gun in games like Call of Duty and Medal of Honour. The only time the rifle is really superior is when taking shots at distant targets, where accuracy is more important.

[Doc]

I think we need to differentiate in this discussion between Machine Guns (usually heavy, crew-served, and firing full-power rifle ammunition) and Submachine Guns (usually lighter, individually operated, and firing pistol-caliber cartridges). The intent of the original question is, I think, that of SMGs primarily, though LMGs are sort of an intermediate. The Russians and the Germans were the first to really adopt the SMG in large quantities, though they had been around in various armies since WWI. There are many advantages to SMGs-- they generally are lighter (though not much) than combat rifles, and you can carry more ammo. However, they normally require multiple hits to be effective, and the cartridges are inherently less powerful/effective than rifle rounds. Which is better to arm your forces with will depend on what kind of a war you plan to fight.

As regards surviving in games longer with a SMG than a rifle..... come on! Game "survival" is all based on what the programmer thought was a more useful weapon in various circumstances, not necessarily reality. Rifles and SMGs have different uses and each is better in different circumstances, but generally if I had a choice on an open battlefield (i.e. not in cities or jungles), I would take a unit of riflemen over an equal unit equipped with SMGs--- The effective range of a rifle, used correctly, will keep the SMG-armed troops so far away that they can't hit your people. The SMG is a very good weapon for close-quarters battle, but is certainly not the optimum weapon for all purposes. Doc

[raf]

thanks for the replies guys.

what do you think the best hand granade was in wwII.

the Germans or Allies.

why did the Germans opt for a total different design

[adamcotton]

Originally Posted by Doc

I think we need to differentiate in this discussion between Machine Guns (usually heavy, crew-served, and firing full-power rifle ammunition) and Submachine Guns (usually lighter, individually operated, and firing pistol-caliber cartridges). The intent of the original question is, I think, that of SMGs primarily, though LMGs are sort of an intermediate. The Russians and the Germans were the first to really adopt the SMG in large quantities, though they had been around in various armies since WWI. There are many advantages to SMGs-- they generally are lighter (though not much) than combat rifles, and you can carry more ammo. However, they normally require multiple hits to be effective, and the cartridges are inherently less powerful/effective than rifle rounds. Which is better to arm your forces with will depend on what kind of a war you plan to fight.

As regards surviving in games longer with a SMG than a rifle..... come on! Game "survival" is all based on what the programmer thought was a more useful weapon in various circumstances, not necessarily reality. Rifles and SMGs have different uses and each is better in different circumstances, but generally if I had a choice on an open battlefield (i.e. not in cities or jungles), I would take a unit of riflemen over an equal unit equipped with SMGs--- The effective range of a rifle, used correctly, will keep the SMG-armed troops so far away that they can't hit your people. The SMG is a very good weapon for close-quarters battle, but is certainly not the optimum weapon for all purposes. Doc

Actually, those computer games are designed to be as realistic as possible, and many vets' help was enlisted in the programming of all of them. Anyway, I was in fact concurring with your thoughts: for close quarters, street to street, or house to house fighting, an SMG is the better weapon, for the reasons aforementioned. But over longer ranges or in open country, the rifle is without doubt the better weapon. However, for me there is still something oddly "reassuring" about the rate of fire of a sub machine gun.

To address the question of hand grenades, I'm no expert. Although I know is that the correct name for the British version was the Mills bomb, and it shattered into tiny fragments upon exploding, so was great against "soft" targets like human beings. Why the Germans preferred the stick type grenade, I've no idea. I think also there may have been some difference in the time delay. I'm sure others will kinow more than I do on this subject. However, you might also want to take a look at this link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hand_grenade

[MikB]

Originally Posted by adamcotton

Why the Germans preferred the stick type grenade, I've no idea. I think also there may have been some difference in the time delay.

Obvious answer is you could throw it further, as the stick added to the effective length of the throwing arm. Set against that it was bulkier to carry and a bit more difficult to pop through rifle-slits and into open hatches.

Regards,
MikB

[superpumper]

Wasn't the US Army the only army to issue a semi-automatic rifle as a standard weapon to their troops? I know the marines used a bolt action,(M-1903?), I know the number is correct, early in the war but I think even they were issued the M-1 later.