Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: What is your favorite firearm and caliber
Dumpshock Forums > Discussion > Shadowrun
Pages: 1, 2
Snow_Fox
I don't think you're giving the Regulars of the BEF proper credit, I didn't think you were French. Their firepower was impressive because the Germans with their bolt action mausers, just as good a weapon, couldn't dream of that level of accuracy and they had far more rifles to throw into the line.
If it was just numbers of Rifles the BEF wouldn't have survived Mons, never mind the running battles that went on until 11/11/14. True the BEF had suffer 80% casualties by then, but it was still nuder arms and fighting and by 3rd Ypres the germans had been ofrced to change their tactics. If it was just volume of fire places like Le Catuea and Nery would have been noted for the British regiments being exterminated instead of holding off vastly superior German armies. Even when they were cut off, like 2 Munster Fusiliers at Etreux or 1st Cheshires at Audregnies, if it was just fire power, the Germans would have rolled over them at 3 to one odds instead of hte 9 to 1 odds the Germans had to bring to bare.
(We can discount the Lebel from the discussion because of it's assanine magazine outlay. I've never had a chance to fire a Mannlicher so I can't comment on that.)
Hot Wheels
Raygun, I did try to warn you guys. You may know guns overall better than anyone else here, but if you go into the First World War, SF's going to get on a serrious soapbox.
Siege
Uh...yeah. Ok.

A little faster on the warning next Wheels, s' il vous plait.

grinbig.gif

-Siege
Hot Wheels
Hey I warned you guys two days ago!
Raygun
QUOTE (Snow_Fox)
I don't think you're giving the Regulars of the BEF proper credit, I didn't think you were French.


Snow_Fox, I'm not arguing about the particulars of WWI or whether the British were better soldiers or even better shots than the Germans. I'm talking about how a rifle, in combination with a particular sighting aparatus, was used.

Yes, the Lee-Enfield is a wonderful rifle. That is why I own one. But if you're trying to suggest that the British won the war because their soldiers were using their volley sights to intentionally snipe Germans at greater than 2,000 meters, you're wrong. Inside of about a third that distance, the British could have been wholly outclassing the Germans in terms of marksmanship. But at the distances the volley sight was intended to be used at (1,800-2,700 meters), there are just too many variables involved to allow precision fire to happen reliably and predictably, especially with the technology of the time. Yes, it is possible to hit reliably within a certain area, but that's just what the thing was designed for: affecting an area (say a 10-15 meter radius) rather than a point (a soldier's body). If you need someone else's opinion on the matter, here it is.

That said, maybe the British were better soldiers. Better trained, better equipped, better supported. Again, they could have been totally outclassing the Germans in terms of marksmanship and tactics. I don't know enough about WWI to make those observations. But I know plenty about the rifles they used and how they were employed.

QUOTE
Their firepower was impressive because the Germans with their bolt action mausers, just as good a weapon, couldn't dream of that level of accuracy and they had far more rifles to throw into the line.


Mechanically speaking, the M98 Mauser had all the accuracy potential of the Lee-Enfield, if not more, being a much more rigid action. As far as ammunition goes, the British .303 MKVII load (174 grain spitzer @ 2440 fps) may have a had a slight advantage over the German S Patrone (154 grain spitzer @ 2880 fps), but that is very arguable. The British rifle had twice the ammunition capacity of the German rifle, as well as a detachable magazine which could be exchanged very quickly compared to the charging method the German rifle used. With that in mind, it doesn't take a huge leap of imagination to figure out how the Germans would think that they were under machine gun fire under some circumstances.

QUOTE (Hot Wheels)
Raygun, I did try to warn you guys. You may know guns overall better than anyone else here, but if you go into the First World War, SF's going to get on a serrious soapbox.


I guess it's a good thing that I'm arguing about the rifles and not the war. wink.gif
Snow_Fox
The volley sights disappeared after 1914 when the war settled into trenchs. Now if we accept that the Mauser and Enfield in 1914 were comperable, then it must come down to the something else. If it was just volume of rifle fire, the Germans would have been able to have likewise poured out volley fire and swept away the British. The french army, in their dark blue tunics and bright red pants were slaughtered en mass by the germans(you so don't want me to get started on that one).

The fact the British were able, through rifle fire alone (they had only 2 machine guns for each 1000 man battalion in 1914) to hold off numerically superior German armies, that proved against the French to be competant soldiers, then it has to come down to what was differnt between the british vs Germans as opposed to the Germans vs French. It is those volley sights im the hands of the British Regulars of the "Little red Army."
Raygun
And many other factors besides an auxiliary sighting apparatus, I'm sure. If the volley sights were so darned effective, they wouldn't have started removing them in the first year of the war, would they? It doesn't add up. Certainly the British did something right. But I don't think a little doodad attached to the side of a rifle was of all that much consequence in the big picture.
Drain Brain
QUOTE (Raygun @ Oct 24 2003, 08:58 AM)
<snip>
Certainly the British did  something right...
</snip>

[sarcasm] [Snobby Accent]

Darling, the British do everything right....

We're British!

[/sarcasm] [/Snobby Accent]
Snow_Fox
Raygun, all I'm saying is that your claim that it was just the volume of fire that did the damage doesn't hold up. There has to be something else. The Germans were a tough, capable army which was capable of defeating numerically superior enemies, as shown at Tannenburg. But against the much smaller British army they were at a loss. If it was just quantity of rifle fire, then the Germans would not have been stopped cold, because they could have laid down a similar quantity of fire. The difference must be in the quality of British marksmanship.

The sight dissappeared after 1914 because
1) the battles were no longer being fought in the open as the trenches settled in.
2) there was a shortage of rifles for the "Kitchener recruits" and anything that would speed up construction, like leaving off features, was done. Like the developements in the Brown Bess, from the Long Land pattern of circa1750 to theShort land pattern of about 1775 to the Sea or India Pattern of about 1800. Wheree the design of the gun was simplified without losing accuracy.
Snow_Fox
QUOTE (Drain Brain)
QUOTE (Raygun @ Oct 24 2003, 08:58 AM)
<snip>
Certainly the British did  something right...
</snip>

[sarcasm] [Snobby Accent]

Darling, the British do everything right....

We're British!

[/sarcasm] [/Snobby Accent]

Let's not push it dear. My grandfather had a most unnatural, for a frenchman, fondness for the English, which he passed on to me, but lets not go too far. beret.gif
Traks
I use Russian Vodka, 0.7 l caliber.

Gee, this shows how far I am from geek.
While it is interesting to read, getting into details bores me to death.
Especially arguing about rifle 1 and rifle 2. Duh.
Snow_Fox
Think of it this way, we're arguing the importance of certain options to a gun.
Raygun is arguing form his experience of handling the gun, I'm arguing the historic facts of it's use.
NeO_ZeN
Metal Storm

Some of you might know about this, so this is for the others.

This is what us Aussies can do. eek.gif
Kagetenshi
You Aussies live in one of the deadliest places on the planet. Of course you're going to come up with stuff like that.

~J

Postscript: I'm still considering someday moving to Oz. Love that place.
Raygun
QUOTE (Snow_Fox)
Raygun, all I'm saying is that your claim that it was just the  volume of fire that did the damage doesn't hold up.


What parts of "many other factors besides an auxiliary sighting apparatus" and "[the British] could have been totally outclassing the Germans in terms of marksmanship and tactics" are you not understanding?

I did not say that volume of fire was the ONLY reason the British beat back the Germans during WWI. I said that the reason for using the volley sight is, as a matter of fact, absolutely, 100%, volume of fire. Otherwise, the device is completely ineffective. The idea is to create a beaten zone, much as you would with a machine gun. That's documented. You yourself have commented that the "Germans though that they were under machine gun fire". Do you think a single Brit cranking out, at best, about 30 rounds a minute at distances greater than 2,000 meters is going to make a bunch of Germans think that they're under machine gun fire? No. Ten or twenty guys, even up to a full company doing the same thing, that makes a lot more sense. No doubt casualties occurred because of volley fire, but I'm pretty sure, having read from several sources that volley fire was used more as a harrassment technique than anything else, that the numbers involved were pretty low within the grand scheme of WWI.

Now, the British could have been sniping the hell out of the Germans at much shorter ranges using the standard rifle sight. On top of that, there are a lot of factors, many of which have little to do with the kind of rifles being used, that contributed more to the change of tactics than the volley sight on the Lee-Enfield. The use of real machine guns (of which the Germans apparently had more), artillery, chemical warfare, etc...

QUOTE
The sight dissappeared after 1914 because
1) the battles were no longer being fought in the open as the trenches settled in.
2) [to speed up production].


That sounds reasonable to me.

QUOTE
Raygun is arguing form his experience of handling the gun, I'm arguing the historic facts of it's use.


I'm arguing both, actually. If I didn't think you were mistaken about how the volley sight was used, I wouldn't bother to reply.
Drain Brain
QUOTE (Snow_Fox)
Let's not push it dear. My grandfather had a most unnatural, for a frenchman, fondness for the English, which he passed on to me, but lets not go too far. beret.gif

Je m'excuse, monsieur - c'est ne fait rien! Sarcasme, non?
Snow_Fox
Something about getting liberated from the Nazi's by the Brits did it for my grand father. Silly little things I guess.
FlakJacket
QUOTE (Drain Brain)
Je m'excuse, monsieur - c'est ne fait rien! Sarcasme, non?

Sarcasm? She's American remember. You'll have to start explaining the whole concept of it from the beginning... wink.gif
Drain Brain
QUOTE (FlakJacket)
Sarcasm? She's American remember. You'll have to start explaining the whole concept of it from the beginning... wink.gif

ouch...
Siege
Well, yes. But that's only because the American military works.

-Siege
Hot Wheels
Trust me, she knows sarcasm!
spotlite
back on topic breifly - favourite gun has GOT to be the Gyrojet. Packing AV ammo if you can get it, it just rawks.
Ed_209a
Handgun? Glock 21 in .45ACP; M1911-based .45

SMG? H&K UMP in .45

Assault rifle? H&K G36, M16A2/M4, Steyr AUG; all in 5.56. Willing to try a century series AK in 7.62x39.

Sniper? Anything well made from 7.62 NATO to .338 Lapua. Not a fan of .50BMG for antipersonnel work.

AMR? 14.5mm or .50BMG for soft targets. 20x83mm or 25x59 for heavier targets. Laser designator from then on. (with a Paladin 10 miles behind me, or a jet above me.)
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Dumpshock Forums © 2001-2012