Myths, Old Wives Tales and Outright Lies...

[browningautorifle]

Browning M2 in British first line use

Unless you are certain this is an older gun, older pic...they aren't the same gun at all. If you didn't train on the new QCB version, you might have some problems. Not much the same, even the ammo is different.

[Frederick303]

Good catch on the M2 HMG, I should have clarified a regular rifle caliber MG used by the Infantry. You could also make a case the M1919 is still in use someplace in south America, but mostly on vehicles.

But as far as MMG or Univeral MMG it seesm the PKM, FN MAG and MG42/MG1/MG3 are pretty much it.

So my list possibly had a myth, depending on how deep you dive.

[Frederick303]

Could you post the basis for this please? I would love to know.

So the thing the K98K is critiqued for:

1) Open V/front ^ sight: not so precise sights.
2) rising comb on buttstock, if you use the standard target shooter cheekweld it gives you a nice shove.
3) Carbine sling, does not work in traditional shooting position, does work as anything but a slight hasty sling support.

But all of these features plus the following make it great snap shooter.

1) The laminated stock and bedding mean the rifle zero is very stable. Walnut rifles.......regulations required any stock that had zero shift problems was to be removed and replaced.
2) The sight ladder can be adjusted with the non-firing hand in position, in 50 M clicks. This can be done without looking at the sight

The German Infantry rifle concept was based on the idea that a fire firefight was a series of short time moments, when targets were available. Most of the time there will be no visible targets. When there are, a shot must be made immediately.

So the primary mission of the rifleman in engaging an enemy is:

1) loaded rifle at ready, head scanning for target for moment.
2) when target detected, keeping eye on the target (as if it stops and you look away you will lose the target
a) bring the rifle to your shoulder, large sights allow alignment without removing eye off of target
b) if range adjustment needs to be made, it can be done without disturbing sight alignment.
c) execute a quick shot. the rising comb helps keep the rifle recoil stable, as the cheekweld is not that heavy.

3) While observing the target area for the effect of shot, reload. Now because the primary purpose is to observe the effect, removing the rifle from the shoulder to operate the bolt is not discouraged. Action right in front of your face is likely to draw your attention away from the target, dropping at least the muzzle so that the bolt motion is not in your direct line of vison .

The compromises made in the design make a lot more sense when you consider the doctrine behind its use.

[soonerfan66]

I am a novice with firearms I know a little but not a expert and I have gotten into a few discussions with people over .22 and .223 being the same caliber . Those people would argue that the .223 was a WAY BIGGER bullet . Weight wise yes I would agree but basicly same size around . I have had them pull out a .223 and say look at this , this is way bigger . I couldn't get them to under stand CALIBER . These people were few and most the AR type rifle they had was the only rifle they ever owned .

[Surpmil]

Unless you are certain this is an older gun, older pic...they aren't the same gun at all. If you didn't train on the new QCB version, you might have some problems. Not much the same, even the ammo is different.

Couldn't say how different this one is, but it certainly looks like the receiver, shroud, barrel and basic configuration are the same or nearly the same.

[Daan Kemp]

Frederick303, it seems most of the points you mention are applicable to all the military rifles of the same age; some more, some less. All problems solved by proper training.

I would like to read up about the doctrine, sounds very interesting. Could you recommend some sources please?

[Frederick303]

Frederick303, it seems most of the points you mention are applicable to all the military rifles of the same age; some more, some less. All problems solved by proper training.

I would like to read up about the doctrine, sounds very interesting. Could you recommend some sources please?

Read the German manuals: there is a pre WWII Weimar one that covers it conceptually, I think the number was Zdh 240 to 242.

There is not a good English source, as most of the translations of German manuals do not explain the underlying meaning of technical words all that well. To be honest it was WWII vets in the Rifle club that explained most of what these words meant. An example is the word "Zeitbild" It literally translates to "time picture" but as used in the manuals "zeitbilder" would be better translated to "time moments" German is full of these words which are in essence a concept, clear to a native speaker but not so clear to those of us who are trying to decipher meaning in a second language. Most of concepts most stated in the MG manuals, they cover the Zietbilder and the difference between "fire power" (rounds per second) and striking power (effective power, meaning either a hit or complete suppression of the opponent reducing his abiity to fight to zero). The German idea of fire suppression was different, rather than volume of fire, they looked at the effect of fire. So a large barrage of fire was considered less effective that a small volume of fire that hit. That concept was applied to all small arms, not just MGs. The German idea of fire suppression was different, rather than volume of fire it was effective hits that count, or strictly translated "striking power". A strike that hit a man in the jaw was much more effective in keeping an enemy squad down, not observing, or actively taking part in action then 50 rounds simply hitting the parapet. while the latter suppressed them at the moment, it had much less effect on their moral or state of fighting spirit once the fire was lifted. In that regard the single shot coming in and hitting one man who raised his head would me far more effective, which is the basis for rifle fire, it is always a point weapon. The primary way such fire can be effected is in observation and careful shots rapidly applied upon target detection. Hence rapid rifle fire like we do, (rapid fire stages) did not exist as a suppression concept, until the Russian campaign when things started to change due to mass Russian charges in the summer/winter of 1941.

hence the development of the K41/K43 and eventually the MP44. But I digress.

I suppose the problem would exist for a person who English was a second language. When you read "mission oriented orders" in a US manual what does it mean as opposed to normal "operation orders"? I seem to recall it was explained verbally when I first heard the phase, with examples to illustrate to the different between a task oriented order and a mission oriented order. So trying to get an first hand source that covers the nuance is difficult, Manuals are meant to be taught and references, they are not exhaustive. I would suggest knowing what the doctrine is and then reading the manuals will help illustrate the subtle different from

The idea originated in WWI, and the result was a new musketry course which was first applied to the strosstruppen, then the regular Infantry in the fall winter of 11918, That is confirmed in the long edition of "Storm of Steel " by Ernst Junger, where he discusses that. I was introduced to shooting by a US WWII Vet, whose father had gone through that course of fire in January-Feb 1918. For WWII training based on this concept, I believe the official history of the 12th SS has a detailed section on the small arms training. How it was taught. There is a 2 volume English version of this history. When you get done you will see where the US train fire program came from.

Sajer, Forgotten Soldier, if you read his book, covers both the doctrine in small arms training in Poland and how it was applied in his first firefight against partisans ( another German word: feuerkampf, which seems to have come over to English)

Shore in his book with British snipers to the Reich discusses a bit of this with misunderstanding. His emphasis on the rigid positions employed by the Germans in training misses that the technique was to ensure the same pressure points on the rifle, so one zero would work in all positions.

Many of the ideas translated over to the New Bundeswehr and most certainly the Bundesgrenzeschutz. Jac Weller discusses this in this 1960s/1970s American rifleman articles on rifle training though most of it goes over his head, because he sees rifle training in a commonwealth/US orientation. As such he misses the emphasis on rapid engagement with reasonable accuracy. If you can fined a Bundeswehr man trained prior to 1996 or so you can still see the concept in how they saw the G3 to be employed. Maybe latter what changes occurred with the G36 I know not.

I think if you are curious that will get you started.

[Surpmil]

So the doctrine was a smaller volume of effective fire suppresses better than a larger volume of near misses? Anyone who doubts that just needs to read the accounts of a sniper pinning a company to the ground.

So how does the high rate of fire of the MG42 tie into that?

[Ovidio]

The M1 rifle had a defect as when it fired the last round the "ping" of the ejecting clip would cause 30 or 40 Germans/Japs to rush the chap with an empty rifle. as if you could hear that or anyone would not worry about the other 7 or 8 man in the squad whose rifles were not empty.

We were told this exact thing at Military School...

[bombdoc]

As I just happened to see a photo of a Browning M2 in British first line use, can this really be true? And of course the M2 was practically a WWI design, was it not?

Anyway, you've clearly got more of this info to hand than the rest of us, but that jumped out at me.

UK used the M2 as a ranging gun in the Chieftain before the introduction of Tank Laser sight. It became a "thing" in GW1 with the Marines (and several senior officers) "obtaining" them from store, however the ammunition was in short supply. The UK stock was mostly APTI for ranging. Kynoch were the only UK manufacturer of .50 and they had stopped production years previously.

As part of the run up to GW2 a load of QC barrel change ones from ManRoy were bought as UOR. They are good, but much more picky with what ammo they like due to the mounting swiping recoil energy. Firing one over the side of a light vehicle can lead to stoppages as the rolling of the suspension takes even more.. Recoil operated guns... need recoil!