Why does Jow Forums praise german weapons again?

German weapons are widely praised because they influenced almost all our gear and squad tactics we used during the Cold War era. M60 was basically just an MG34/42, M16 fulfilled both the rifle and SMG roles just like the STG did, etc. Even the web gear we used in Nam is very reminiscent of what the Germans used in the second World War.

>Using propaganda to make the argument that German guns sucked.

Attached: 664.jpg (558x614, 14K)

>[Wehraboo Squealing Intensifies]

>If you think differently you're a nazi

Attached: 1541353014476.jpg (1200x1039, 192K)

>wtf you know history and basic knowledge of firearms!?!?!? wehraboo nazi!!!!!!!
pls go

Attached: 1532001016858.jpg (454x340, 88K)

Doesn't make your post any less retarded

Not a wehraboo man, you're just a retard

When you first get into guns you are drawn to the German arsenal. You Praise the buzz saw mg42 and the stg44 for being the first intermediate assault rifle.

Later. When you've matured a bit as a shooter. You realize that America fielded a semi auto rifle en masse before anyone else could. The garand alone is enough to put the US ahead of the krauts as far as small arms.

Attached: 1505528000310.gif (500x221, 986K)

>the sound of that 42

>Why does Jow Forums praise german weapons again?
Because with the exception of the Garand and possibly the Grease Gun all the German guns were superior. Some are even still being built and fielded in modern armies - like the MG42 (MG-74, MG-3) and the Mauser action (Remington 700).

Because they had some very solid weapons, in reality you don't cheer for your side, you find what is good and learn from the example. That is also why we adopted some small unit tactics from them.

The lee enfield action is mechanically superior to the mauser, the only reason Remington uses it is because of grandfathering. People have always used the mauser action, so they continue to make it that way because that's wehat people want. The rear locking lug design of the Lee-Enfield action is more reliable and the action itself allows for a much smoother, shorter and faster bolt throw which leads to an increase in rate of fire capability. It's also more mechanically reliable, although that's kind of like choosing between two... very very reliable things. I'm an engineer, I don't do metaphors.

>Bolt Action standard infantry rifle Vs. Semi Auto
Granted.
>MP40 vs. Grease Gun
About equal then, one is clearly better to fire, the other is clearly better to produce.
>Nothing vs. BAR
Nope. MG34/4 was meant as a GPMG that replaced everything from LMG's like the BAR...
>Nothing vs. M2HB
to HMG's like the M2. Obviously the M2 is a better HMG, although both can deliver pretty accurate suppresive fire from a dedicated tripod. However, the MG34/42 were massively superior to the BAR, especially in a defensive role.
>P08 Vs. M1911
Pistols don't decide wars.
>Nothing vs. M1 Carbine
SMG's were used in the PDW role, and while the M1 Carbine was a better rifle, the rifles/SMG's you can to your rear echelon do not decide battles.
>G43 was a hunk of shit
Truth.
>G41 was a hunk of shit
Truth.
>MG42 and MG34 were great
Truth.
>STG44 was the first modern assault rifle, after which both the US and USSR modeled the rifles they have currently adopted
FTFY. The damn thing was revolutionary.
>FG42 was made in such small numbers
Truth.

>The garand alone is enough to put the US ahead of the krauts as far as small arms.
Not going to argue you on that one: a widespread semiautomatic rifle showed the way of the future, and allowed the average US rifle squad a massive advantage in firepower.
>You realize that America fielded a semi auto rifle en masse before anyone else could.
... and then the Germans fielded (although in small numbers) the first assault rifle. The worst assault rifle ever by some measured, but the first nonetheless, and that made it the best rifle on the ground in the late war.

No. Just no.

>The rear locking lug design of the Lee-Enfield action is more reliable
Reliably inaccurate you mean. If you can break a Mauser action you don't deserve to be near rifles, and rear locking lugs suck if you want reliable lockup like in any precision/hunting rifle ever. There's a reason the P13/P14 were Mauser actions: even the Brits knew they were superior. You are not going to see a practical difference in rate of fire between a Mauser and an Enfield unless the operators are highly trained - but that is largely irrelevant because it's WW1 now and those highly trained men suddenly get shot by machine guns.

That really varies.

The Mp40 is better than the Thompson, but the Greasegun is better than the Mp40.
The M1 Garand is clearly better than the K98k in every way.
The 1911 is better than the Luger, not that the Luger is bad even (people exaggerate about it being sensitive to mud), it's just very expensive. The 1911 and P38 are about comparable.
The MG34 is clearly better than any infantry support weapon the US was employing, just more practical across the board.
The MG42 is much cheaper, but is kind of a black hole for ammo. One step forward, one step back.
The M1 Carbine and the Stg44 really don't compare to one another because they're fundamentally very different in their intended use, the former is pretty much a PDW, while the latter is very much intended as an infantry rifle.

Looking at some captured stuff, the Zb.26 is better than the BAR in every single way, the Vis-35 could roughly be described as a halfway between the 1911 and a P38, and about as good. The Hi-Power would be a step above all these handguns given the higher capacity.

>Hurr durr evrything british is shit
Ok Ivan. Ok.

If we are gonna get picky, the M60 was based conceptually on an FG42 rifle with an MG42 beltfeed cobbled onto it.
Also the M60 wasn't very good, not back then.

Not a fault of the FG42 or MG42, however, just bad execution.

Attached: FG42 with MG42 belt feed, first prototype for the M60 machinegun.jpg (800x343, 35K)

How is that incorrect? The M1 was the standard infantry rifle for the US Army, and it was a rather good one compared to the bolt-action rifles which most everyone else was still sticking to.
Higher capacity, higher rate of fire, faster reloading than stripperclips, (hell, faster reloading than swapping box magazines).

The MG3 is kind of a dated hunk of shit though,

>Ivan
There's only one thing worse than an Enfield action, and it's the Mosin. It's not that the Enfield action is bad, it's just that saying it is better than the obviously superior Mauser is foolish, the Brits circa 1913 would agree with that. Hell, they would agree especially between 1899 and 1902, while being shot at by superior Mausers chambered in a superior cartridge - that only didn't get adopted because of WW1. That's where the second flaw of the Enfield comes in: it was still chambered in a rimmed cartridge when semi-auto (Garand) and full auto (Stg) infantry rifles got used in WW2.

Which he didn't say, don't put words in his mouth.

Did the Germans ever have a proper HMG for ground roles? I know they had the 13mm MG131, which seems roughly equivalent to the M2, but I've only ever heard of it being used in the air.

the MG3 is pretty awesome.
Cheap, reliable as long as you keep it oiled, indestructable and if you actually wanna fuck something up yoi aim precisely and literally drill yourself through any kind of cover with it.

sure the MG5 is better in pretty much any way but the MG3 is still great and a very good thing for something like an all out war where you have to actually manage recources like material but also manufacturing time and training of conscripts.

>one is clearly better to fire, the other is clearly better to produce
I'd argue the Greasegun has an edge because its magazines seem much less flimsy overall.

For better to fire, they seem like they'd be kind of even, the Greasegun is pretty slow, but the Mp40 has lighter recoil overall, probably also a bit more range.

Attached: M3A1 Greasegun-chan.jpg (600x600, 325K)

Not really. Its still better than most competitors.

I was more thinking that it's very ungainly for using without a bipod, and that it's a black hole for ammunition.

By WW1 standards they did: a heavy machien gun back then was a crew served (and crew moved!) machine gun that could fire nearly sustained for ages, from a dedicated tripod that allowed accurate suppresive fire well beyond what an infantry rifle could. The MG34/42 meets that standard since it was designed to replaced all machineguns as the new Universalmaschinengewehr, or GPMG as we know it today. This means replacing LMG, MMG, HMG and AAMG roles, although not of them perfectly of course.

By (post-)WW2 standards, no, they did not have an HMG. Somewhere between the invetion of the M2 and the end of WW2, the definition of HMG shifted towards a physically heavier, tripod or vehicle mounted 10-15mm machine gun, and of course the Germans did not officially use those. The closest thing they had was their 20mm FlaK guns, which were used against ground targets (although rarely).

S P A C E
M A G I C

>Because with the exception of the Garand and possibly the Grease Gun all the German guns were superior. Some are even still being built and fielded in modern armies - like the MG42 (MG-74, MG-3) and the Mauser action (Remington 700).
M2 is still produced and used widely by militaries
Garand descendants are still produced and used widely by militaries
1911 still produced and used widely on the civ market

>STG44 was okay
literally a game-changing invention.

also the BAR was garbage and the americans didn't have a proper LMG.

I'd argue that the M1 Carbine did a lot more to prove the viability and need for a light intermediate-cartridge rifle than the StG-44 did. Sure they didn't get select-fire switches until really late, but unlike the StG-44, they were a lot more widely issued and made a noticeable difference.

P38, not P08, was the standard service sidearm. Double action > single action.

>game-changing invention
If it they weren't so starved for ammo for it.

The M1 was only intended for close quarters though, it was miserable for anything else.

the fuck this Strumgehwer chambered in, .950 JDL?

Attached: nani.jpg (1539x896, 304K)

The was US made the best guns in the world up until the 70's.

obviously it's chess pawn