Quote: |
But about British Rifle grenades ,Overlord shows somthing completely diffrent than GJS Which one is more realistic? |
Quote: |
And How do you sort the powers of the War according the using of Rifle grenades?
Germany > USA > Britain > Russia |
Quote: |
So probably ,Germany and USA were the only Armies which used Rifle Grenade actively till the end of the War. |
Dima wrote: |
Brits had rifle grenades adapters for SMLE No.1.
By 1944 only No.4 was in use that was not compatible with SMLE adapters. Brits used 2inch mortars in pretty same role . |
Quote: |
I hate to say that you're wrong, |
Quote: |
the British did have rifle grenades in the Second World War. The Grenade, Rifle No. 68/AT was fired from a rifle cup. |
Dima wrote: |
have i ever told that they didn't have?
AFAIK i told that they didn't have rifle grenade discharger for SMLE No4 Mk1. |
Quote: |
The No.4 did have a rifle grenade discharger. That's what I believe the error was.
The picture and the manual proves it. |
Quote: |
A grenade launcher was developed for the #4 Mk 1 which allows it to fire rifle grenades.
the adapters could be fitted to any model lee enfield. |
Quote: |
By the end of 1943 most forces in Europe and the Med had been re-equipped with these. |
Quote: |
the No.68 Heat grenade is what got it its bad rep with troops,as this was set off by impact,and many accidents happened.And was covered up by the british army. |
Quote: |
Well "hitting" power is a very arguable point. |
Quote: |
BAR V BREN... |
Quote: |
The BAR had a non interchangable barrel and suffered from heat exchange between barrel and cocking spring causing jams, and had a 20 round magazine. |
Quote: |
suffered from heat exchange between barrel and cocking spring causing jams, |
Quote: |
USA had the Garand as wide spread automatic rifle. |
Quote: |
BAR M1918A2 had its semiauto select removed, and had only option to fire automatic fire in two rates, had bi-pod. |
Quote: |
After Normandy, USA army saw the limitation of BAR, and was not satisfied with it: |
Quote: |
the BAR would be to much for to little, the LMG belt feed was the way to go. |
Dima wrote: |
IIRC they have never positioned BAR as LMG in USArmy, it was Automatic Rifle and was almost fully suitable for the infantry tactics doctrine USArmy had during most of WW2.
BAR was never meant to provide sustained fire according USArmy doctrine . and again it happened only when u try to provide sustained fire with it that was not meant with neither it's design nor doctrine . |
Quote: |
You may notice the energa type grenade launcher (third from the bottom, picture) designed for the No 4 mark 1 |
Quote: |
yes the British were grenade launcher capable in 44 ( as they were thru out the war ) |
Quote: |
just to prove a point (I dont need smiley faces ) |
Quote: |
That the yanks took it thru to Korea... well they took shermans too... |
Quote: |
EDIT, added: Thing is, a doctrine is not the same way as success.. It don?t mean weapons are good just cause it fits doctrine, and it sure don?t mean the doctrine work when face the enemy. |
Quote: |
Stiff rigid minds bash there head in the wall cause the ?doctrine say so?, the Americans adapted to reality. Adaptation, more BAR, and more 1919 belt MG was ONE of the results of meeting Germans in Normandy. |
output generated using printer-friendly topic mod. All times are GMT