466
467

WWII Guns (USA/Germany) (youtube.com)

KazCarpent が 投稿

全 121 件のコメント
並べ替え:
ベスト
トップ新着論争中古い順Q&A

[–]MPair-E 47ポイント48ポイント  (0子コメント)

Interesting stuff! I love WW2 propaganda/training videos.

[–]TheInverseKey 118ポイント119ポイント  (38子コメント)

Too bad the 42 bite was as mean as it's bark.

[–]DasUberSquid 105ポイント106ポイント  (34子コメント)

Telling the 19 year old going to war that yes, the MG42 is as devastating and terrifying as it looks and that you'll probably die is probably inadvisable.

[–]Quietu 43ポイント44ポイント  (19子コメント)

Yeah, I'm not sure we can take this as a completely objective assessment.

"All right boys, these German guns sure sound scary. But let's see how well they really do against good old American fire power.

Well, the results are in! The German weapons are superior. We should probably give up. Happy hunting, boys!"

[–]hurenkind5 16ポイント17ポイント  (3子コメント)

"All right, lets pick 3 people with wildly different bursts".

[–]nikomo 7ポイント8ポイント  (1子コメント)

I swear they shot way longer bursts with the German LMGs, but I couldn't be bothered to check.

[–]pegcity 4ポイント5ポイント  (0子コメント)

they did , they also didn't train on them

[–]redbeards 3ポイント4ポイント  (4子コメント)

Why didn't these training films focus on the fact that the MG42 could only sustain fire for 150 rounds before they had change the barrel?

[–]kenshinmoe 4ポイント5ポイント  (0子コメント)

Because it had a really quick barrel change system. You can change the barrel in a 42 in less than 10 seconds, maybe even 5 seconds.

[–]brainburger 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

I wondered about the reload frequency and timing.

[–]DammitImNotDutch 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

We are trained to change after 200, its no biggie, takes like 5 seks to change.

[–]Helplessromantic[🍰] 0ポイント1ポイント  (9子コメント)

The German weapons are superior

Questionable, some are certainly, but not all, for example the Garand is better than anything Germany was fielding for most of the war.

[–]pegcity 0ポイント1ポイント  (8子コメント)

how about the first assault rifle ever? Luckily they didn't make too many of them

[–]Helplessromantic[🍰] [スコア非表示]  (7子コメント)

I'm very familiar with the STG44, while revolutionary, it wasn't amazing at the time.

I mean we can do a comparison if you want

M2 > MG131

M1919 < MG42

M1 Garand > Gewehr 43

M1911 > P38

Thompson < MP40 Kind of debatable but I'll give it to the MP40

M1903 Springfield > Karabiner 98k Worth noting that the M1903 is basically a copy of a Mauser, but with better production, sights, and other stuff.

The bazooka was apparently good enough for the nazis to copy with the Panzerschreck

There are more comparisons to be made obviously, but I don't want to sit here all day researching, the point is there is this myth that the US was quantity over quality, when it was really quality and quantity.

[–]shady_limon [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

Having the Ammo stored near the front off the turret where it was likely to get hit, and burn the entire crew alive is one those things that tends to put it low on people's list.

Edit: that said its actually kinda scary that it really was a pretty good tank for the time.

[–]Helplessromantic[🍰] [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

As opposed to having it literally line the tall, flat, thinly armored walls?

It's also worth noting that US ammo wasn't as explosive as other ammo, it tended to fizzle and burn longer before actually exploding.

[–]pegcity [スコア非表示]  (4子コメント)

Not arguing the U.S. made some great weapons. Having production facilities outside the war and an extra 3 years of research and production using captured weapons and reports from allies in the war was a boon

[–]Helplessromantic[🍰] [スコア非表示]  (3子コメント)

The US made many great weapons but they all get shit on for no apparent reason.

The Sherman is a perfect example of this, arguably the best medium tank of WW2 (certainly one of the best) and it gets featured in shows like "Engineering disasters"

[–]in_rod_we_trust [スコア非表示]  (2子コメント)

Well yea, in some respects it was very advanced like gyroscopically stabilized aiming systems, but it was notoriously bad for its fire prevention, called the "Tommy Cooker". It definitely made an impact on all fronts of the war, but in terms of performance it was not even close to the best medium tank of WW2.

[–]Helplessromantic[🍰] [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

The Panther spontaneously caught on fire when it wasn't breaking down on the side of the road yet somehow it's never known as the tommy cooker

Nevermind the fact that Shermans gained a reputation of being flammable because Germans would continuously fire on knocked out or abandoned shermans until they caught fire to prevent allies from recovering the tank

Nevermind that the sherman was the safest medium tank of the war with a crew survival rating of like, 81%

Nevermind that it was all around superior to the German equivalent at the time (the PZ4)

NO YEAH ITS AN ENGINEERING DISASTER

[–]fr33dom_or_death 11ポイント12ポイント  (10子コメント)

I thought WWII kids didn't need safe spaces.

[–]ElagabalusRex 3ポイント4ポイント  (0子コメント)

Can you believe that they didn't even kill deserters? America is going to be a feminist wasteland by 1950.

[–]TheTinman85 -2ポイント-1ポイント  (8子コメント)

They went to war to make a safe space...instead of protesting, they actually did something about it

Edit: /s

[–]0b_101010 4ポイント5ポイント  (2子コメント)

instead of protesting, they actually did something about it

Well, if more people actually cared and went out protesting, that might actually achieve something.

But that's just the thing about well definable, external enemies. You go, you kill them, you come hopehome, you live happily ever after. But you can't fight corruption, policies, and power hungry psychopaths with guns, especially not from within the system. So most people just shrug and give up.

[–]fr33dom_or_death 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Are you having a bad day? Relax, it's just a joke.

[–]Powerfury -1ポイント0ポイント  (3子コメント)

Well, if Russia invades Europe and starts exterminating populations I'm sure there will be plenty of enlistments to go around.

[–]lowrads 0ポイント1ポイント  (2子コメント)

Nah, we've been subsidizing their social spending with our military spending. This has embittered the West towards Europe. Russia could harass each of its neighbors in turn without popular sentiment ever favoring intervention.

[–]Powerfury [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

The point is if there was another world war there would be plenty of people fighting the war instead of worrying about 'safe spaces'.

[–]lowrads [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

The end of the next big war will only be experienced from underground bunkers.

[–]Paremo 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Depends. If it means that less of your 19 year olds die uselessly because they underestimated enemy firepower that would be a positive effect.

[–]downvotemeufags 5ポイント6ポイント  (0子コメント)

Well, I mean, this video was done by the US Army during WW2, so they aren't likely to say that German MG's are vastly superior to US MG.

[–]superciuppa 8ポイント9ポイント  (0子コメント)

pretty sure they drew the svasticas and stars after the shooting, that first american smg looked like a kicking mule on crack cocaine...

[–]DerProfessor 4ポイント5ポイント  (0子コメント)

The MG 42 did burn through ammunition like nobody's business, though.

I wonder if there's any way of estimating casualties-inflicted vs. ammo used ...? (probably not very accurate measure, since that would ignore the effectiveness of suppressing fire)

In the long run, the high rate-of-fire of the MG 42 must've posed strategic supply problems for the Wehrmacht, especially since Germany didn't go to full war production until 1942...

[–]hizOdge 14ポイント15ポイント  (0子コメント)

The 42 is such a sexy weapon

[–]engineerEFK 35ポイント36ポイント  (26子コメント)

"Their bark is worse than their bite." Tell the guys at Omaha beach that. Isn't the MG-42 arguably one of the greatest in WWII? The Americans had superior smaller weapons though. M1 grand, BAR is much better than a bolt action, unless you're a sniper right?

[–]jonttu125 29ポイント30ポイント  (3子コメント)

The Americans equipping every soldier with a semi-automatic rifle was definitely an advantage for the Americans, but calling the BAR superior to German fire support weapons is a bit of a stretch in my mind. It's a difference in doctrine. The Wehrmacht valued machine guns as the heart of an infantry squad and the rest of the squad was there basically to just protect the MG and support it. So every German infantry squad had an MG-34 or MG-42 in it, while the American squads had the BAR, with only 20 round mags and the proper machine guns were relegated to the platoon level. While the BAR was indeed effective, it couldn't put out anywhere near the amount of lead downrange that the MG-34 or MG-42 could, being fed from 100-200 round drums or belts. And there's a reason why most modern militaries now use the German squad composition, with every squad having a designated machine gun.

[–]MissMesmerist 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

I recall reading somewhere, I wish I could remember which book, that the soldier operating the BAR had a much lower life expectancy than someone without one. The very small magazine and loud, distinctive report made them particularly vulnerable to attack and easy to spot.

[–]SNCommand [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

I think that goes for most people on machine gun duty, you're going to be slower, less agile, expected to suppress the enemy, and you're far more noticeable than anyone else, they could just as well paint a bullseye on your chest

[–]SexSellsCoffee 22ポイント23ポイント  (0子コメント)

Their bark is worse than their bite."

Hard to tell an 18 year old that'll they'll be shredded and still get them to fight effectively. It wasn't just the MG 42 rate of fire but German tactics contributed to its effectiveness. They placed an emphasis on the LMG in their squad while Americans focused on rifles. They could simply send more bullets downrange than Americans.

[–]bmystry 42ポイント43ポイント  (10子コメント)

MG-42 was such a good design that it's the basis for several guns still in use today.

[–]Infectios 13ポイント14ポイント  (7子コメント)

Well shit its even used today as the MG5

[–]MissMesmerist 5ポイント6ポイント  (3子コメント)

So is the Browning M2, and it's older.

[–]Infectios -3ポイント-2ポイント  (2子コメント)

And? We werent talking about the M2, we were talking about the MG42 so the M2 aint relevant

[–]MissMesmerist [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

And other guns of the period are also still in use today because of their exceptional design.

It's not like I was correcting you. But it's sort of relevant that literally the opposite weapon to the MG-42, used by the nation that created this propaganda video, has an equal pedigree.

You're talking about WW2 machine guns, in a thread about a video comparing US weapons to German ones. Pretty fucking sure a US Machine Gun is relevant.

[–]Helplessromantic[🍰] 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

Ma deuce is always relevant.

[–]jg727 1ポイント2ポイント  (2子コメント)

Do you mean the Swiss MG51?

[–]Infectios 6ポイント7ポイント  (0子コメント)

Oh sorry typo, meant the MG3

[–]lukefive 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

And the Yugo M53

[–]Shorvok 3ポイント4ポイント  (0子コメント)

After the war the MG-42's design was rechambered to 7.62×51mm NATO and called the MG3. That gun is the exact same design as the MG-42 used in WWII and tons of countries still use it, especially on vehicles.

[–]MissMesmerist 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

Whereas the Browning M2 is still in use today.

It was arguably better. The "squeeze gun", not so much.

[–]audidass 50ポイント51ポイント  (1子コメント)

They did tell the guys at Omaha that, that's the purpose of this propaganda. To lie and try to make the men going up against these guns less afraid of them and more confident in their own equipment. The Germans also had comparable rifles to the Garand and the BAR in terms of battle effectiveness. Continually the problem for the Germans was that most of their war technology was difficult and not straightforward to manufacture.

[–]lukefive 8ポイント9ポイント  (0子コメント)

That's actually why they had the MG42 replace the 34. The 34 was a beautiful early war design that took forever to manufacture; the 42 was essentially a direct replacement that was made from flat folded steel rather than milled out steel block.

[–]iLuVtiffany 7ポイント8ポイント  (1子コメント)

Well this is a propaganda film. They aren't going to say "If you hear this, you're probably going to die".

[–]MissMesmerist 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

A lot of the British propaganda was like that. The "Blitz Effect" is actually recognized by historical scholars, were the British public's morale actually increased the worse it got. Similar to how the people of another island nation like Japan reacted.

British Propaganda at the time ironically presented the situation as worse than it actually was, in retrospect. There was also the need to present the situation as dire to enlist American support.

[–]Beorma 5ポイント6ポイント  (1子コメント)

The BAR isn't the equivalent of a Kar 98, the BAR is the equivalent of the Stg44. Many people consider the latter to be a far superior gun, but that's getting into debates that never cease.

[–]MissMesmerist 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

Well you have to look at popular assault rifle designs and ask yourself which they look more alike to.

However, people forget the BAR was first introduced during the First World War.

[–]Mr_Bumper 2ポイント3ポイント  (2子コメント)

Wasn't the MP 40 considered a rather good submachine gun? Or am I mixing something up?

[–]ex-ape 3ポイント4ポイント  (1子コメント)

No you're right, it was cheap, low rate of fire and 9mm round made it reasonably accurate. It's only main weakness was the single feed insert that could cause it to jam if it was dirty or the magazine was jostled. "Bad" magazines were (and still are) a problem with these weapons. Apparently German soldiers had to keep track of the good mags to use in combat.

[–]Mr_Bumper 3ポイント4ポイント  (0子コメント)

Yeah I think that was the downside of most german weaponry in the war. Highly effective but the soldiers really had to watch out for their gear to be in perfect condition. Especially some of the Porsche tanks were way too complex to work properly all the time.

It is really interesting how advanced the weapons were in WW2. In only a few years several insane improvements were made in military tech.

[–]YNot1989 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

The whole point of this is to address the one thing that will be most immediately pressing to their senses once they enter combat. None of those men that hit the beach were gonna hear that sound, see their buddies get cut down and think "Hey, for every 1 of them there's like 10 of us, it doesn't matter if their guns are a little bit better than ours and kill a few of my friends. We got this." Combat isn't really the place for nuance.

[–]kidnebs 6ポイント7ポイント  (6子コメント)

Any more videos comparing WW2 guns? I'm very interested to find out more.

[–]PutMeInTheBinPls 11ポイント12ポイント  (4子コメント)

I always enjoy anything about the MG42 or "Hitler's Buzzsaw"

[–]ImaStillInsane 2ポイント3ポイント  (2子コメント)

Is that the guy from Full Metal Jacket?

[–]hubricht 5ポイント6ポイント  (0子コメント)

Yes, his name is R. Lee Ermey and he served as a Staff Sergeant and then a Drill Instructor in the US Marine Corps. He's hosted two shows on the History Channel, Mail Call and then the show where this clip is from, Lock n' Load. The latter is pretty entertaining if you ever wanted to know specifics about certain types of weaponry.

[–]AGaryGazAppeared 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

yes

[–]hurenkind5 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

And the training video is referenced there. Talk about meta.

[–]Swag_Attack 4ポイント5ポイント  (0子コメント)

yeah i'd a comparison of ww2 guns that isnt propaganda pls

[–]MissMesmerist 7ポイント8ポイント  (1子コメント)

The thing about machineguns is you don't want it to very accurate. The original configuration of the Bren gun was considered too accurate. It's accuracy was extremely good, and therefore the concentration of fire was so pinpoint it would have hit a single soldier dozens of times without hitting his comrades either side once. Or, just as likely, you could miss every shot.

I'm sure you can imagine, this isn't desirable. A machine gun with a large cone of fire, that in a roughly aimed burst would hit three to four men abreast, almost instantly, is exactly what you want. Not to mention the suppressive effect of having rounds hit all about you.

An extremely high rate of fire with a wide cone of fire is the sweet spot. You want a 6ftx6ft box of death, not a 1ftx1ft close spread.

[–]AinzMomonga [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Whew, for a second there I thought they were lying about America being number 1 in accuracy. I'm glad to know I can trust my government. /s

[–]FedericoChile 11ポイント12ポイント  (1子コメント)

Always loved the engineering in german guns

[–]Darbon 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

Always loved the engineering in German guns everything

[–]Helplessromantic[🍰] 4ポイント5ポイント  (0子コメント)

My favorite of these videos is the Type 95 tank evaluation

[–]reddit111987 22ポイント23ポイント  (4子コメント)

He forgets to circle and count a German headshot: https://youtu.be/oQwRjZByaok?t=6m37s

[–]enderwigout 31ポイント32ポイント  (0子コメント)

If you look at the Heavy 30 when they count the shots you can see a similar spot on the right head as in the scene you linked. I think it is the nail used to hold the cardboard to the backing posts.

[–]engineerEFK 9ポイント10ポイント  (0子コメント)

Tis only a flesh wound.

[–]ChuckCarmichael 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

It's a propaganda video, so of course you can expect some messing with the facts. Can't tell your soldiers they would've been shot in the head when you later want them to run into machine gun fire.

[–]1peekay1 18ポイント19ポイント  (1子コメント)

"We cannot dunk, but we make up for it with fundamentals" -WNBA & Apparently, Circa 1943 US Army

[–]YNot1989 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

"Also, there's like 10 of us for every one of them, and our shit doesn't break after 150 rounds."

[–]_Sasquat_ 7ポイント8ポイント  (1子コメント)

I really like these old films. The pace is so much more tolerable than what you see today. The camera work and editing is straight and to the point. And the way the narrator speaks is so classic.

[–]CrazyA64 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

You should start watching stuff from the BBC.

[–]legsbrogan 3ポイント4ポイント  (0子コメント)

I just had Day of Defeat flashbacks listening to that gun fire!

[–]VoliBeast 7ポイント8ポイント  (2子コメント)

only gun missing was the STG 44.

[–]Infectios 7ポイント8ポイント  (0子コメント)

It was an assault rifle though, not a submachinegun

[–]christurnbull 5ポイント6ポイント  (0子コメント)

Seems StG 44 was also deployed in 1943. Probably had not captured one yet since the film talks of the "new" M3 grease.

[–]Wookimonster 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

At 2:32 they show a "34" in a bubble, but it looks more like an 0815. Is this a variant of the 34?

[–]kim2kjy 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

Good old days...

[–]wickys 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

I'm sure the guys were very happy with the MG42 inaccuracy on D-Day.

[–]InquisitorCorinthius 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

The ammo conservation seems the only legit point in this. As for accuracy, the american guns may appear better here but even if thats true if you only put 11 bullets in me instead of 20 I'm pretty sure I'm still dead.

[–]kenshinmoe 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

I like how they said, during the smg test, that the German mp40 pays for its high rate of fire with less accuracy, but the Thompson smg had a higher rate of fire than the mp40! And it had better accuracy!

[–]MrChestnut 3ポイント4ポイント  (3子コメント)

Can someone simplify the accuracy, firing rate, and devastation factor for each of these weapons?

[–]TheZigg89 8ポイント9ポイント  (2子コメント)

To quote "Whos' line is it anyways": Everything is made up and the points don't matter.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9KAGwNtI26w&feature=youtu.be&t=20

[–]tomthecool 1ポイント2ポイント  (1子コメント)

To quote "Whos' line is it anyways"

Whose Line Is It Anyway

[–]helpfuljap 3ポイント4ポイント  (0子コメント)

Forgive his accuracy, he's German.

[–]randomrecruit 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

Well worth the watch! Thank you for posting.

[–]importon 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

war is hell

[–]Hylan143 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

America always saves for AWP

[–]butcher99 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

seems to me that my buddy and I would be just as dead with 13 bullets in our bodies as we would be with 22.

[–]shneven 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Eat Snacky S'mores.

[–]Mentioned_Videos 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Other videos in this thread: Watch Playlist ▶

VIDEO COMMENT
MG42 Machine Gun - "Hitler's Buzz Saw" 9 - I always enjoy anything about the MG42 or "Hitler's Buzzsaw"
Whose Line - "Points Don't Matter" compilation 8 - To quote "Whos' line is it anyways": Everything is made up and the points don't matter.
Japanese Type 95 Light Tank Evaluation 1 - My favorite of these videos is the Type 95 tank evaluation

I'm a bot working hard to help Redditors find related videos to watch.

Info | Chrome Extension

[–]khanvict007 [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

great video. WWII videos are awesome

[–]TreeStump21 0ポイント1ポイント  (5子コメント)

Is this video accurate in their comparison of the weapons?

[–]lukefive 10ポイント11ポイント  (0子コメント)

Not very; the 42 on a lafette tripod was extremely accurate and threw larger rounds downrange more accurately at a faster rate than the American equivalent, and was faster to reload and to swap out hot barrels for cool ones... but that info wasn't going to help recruitment any.

[–]iLuVtiffany 5ポイント6ポイント  (2子コメント)

Probably not. This is a propaganda video after all. They will lean in favor of the American weapons. The MG42 was a bitch.

[–]MissMesmerist 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

Thing is the MG42 not being superbly accurate isn't a problem. That's what machineguns are supposed to do. If you're too accurate your forty or so rounds you fired will all hit the same spot. You want them to hit a nice wide box, so that you'll hit or suppress as many as possible.

[–]brainburger 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

I guess there us also the expense and difficulty of manufacture. I suspect the US ones were better in those logistical ways.

[–]yaosio 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

They all can hit their targets and maintain fire, so training and tactics are more important.

[–]Renzhe 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Oh, that MG-42? Don't worry about that. It can't hit you.

[–]AmericanSocialist -1ポイント0ポイント  (2子コメント)

lol. You trust an American war film produced by the military to give any sort of objective assessment? German weaponry was superior.

[–]SpenceNaz88 [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

That's pretty debatable. The Americans having semi-automatic rifles gave them a pretty good edge in combat. The German machine guns were definitely better.

[–]titos334 [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

There is a drawback to the German MGs though in that they require a lot more bullets and barrels.