German Machineguns vs. US Machineguns WWII Training Film

[Sandman1957]

Many of you have most likely seen this. WWII training film doing a side by side on the US and German Guns. Good youtube video. enjoy.

 

 

 

[OCM]

Awesome, never seen this one before. Thanks- That 42 something else, Hitler's buzzsaw. They say the best time to move forward on it is when they change barrels. ( yea right )

 

OCM

[Got Uzi]

It is interesting to see the 3 mainstay subguns of WWII pitted against each other. This video never gets old to watch.

[Gio]

Haven't seen that before, was interesting . Thanks for posting.

 

Frank

[StooperZero]

Awesome, never seen this one before. Thanks- That 42 something else, Hitler's buzzsaw. They say the best time to move forward on it is when they change barrels. ( yea right )

 

OCM

 

 

Machine gunners don't die from a bang, they die from a boom. Interlaced fields of fire/support would make advancing forward nearly impossible, so I hope they had a mortar or rifle grenades handy. A lot of stuff we've seen in movies would have been suicide vs using real tactics.

[buzz]

Once again we see the soldiers shouldering the Thompson and carefully sighting it at the target.

 

Which contradicts the Hollywood movie idea that you're supposed to fire the Thompson from the hip, in the most futile and inaccurate way possible.

Edited February 16, 2017 by buzz

[ron_brock]

Very cool. It should be required to make high school kids watch old war movies. Maybe it will make them a little more appreciative of their iPhones and Facebook accounts.

 

Ron

[geefal]

I always get a kick out of watching this.

 

No matter what, our stuff is better/more accurate.

 

I might argue that a bit, but propaganda is what it is.

[hntrdarren]

I own a MG42 and the bite is definitely worse than the bark ! Just my humble opinion...

[ppgcowboy]

some of the argument of more men makes sense but getting hit 15 out of 30 vs 20 out of 30 really makes no difference if you are the recipient, even getting hit once is bad.

[Sandman1957]

Yes, this was propaganda. Trust your leaders and run into that machine gun when I say so. Interesting, if you applied that same test to the Mauser 98 and the M1 garand some German was told, the Americans waste their ammo and have a hard time getting resupplied.

 

This was all about giving a poor kid heading into battle some confidence in his weapons, the men around him, and his training on how to use his tools of the trade.

[buzz]

Maybe it was more of a matter of giving the soldiers a realistic idea.

 

Were any of the German small arms truly better than our weapons in a way that would give them a distinct advantage?

 

Would a company of Americans armed with American weapons be out-gunned by a similar company of Germans?

 

I think not based on the historic accounts that I have read.

 

 

One thing that the Americans had over the Germans was our artillery. Everywhere we went we dished out a huge volume of excellent artillery. Something like 60% of Germans killed by Americans were killed by artillery.

 

You never hear anything about it because it's not exciting. Watching movies, you'd think the entire war consisted of hand-to-hand combat.

 

Same thing with Japan. Our submarines sunk 55% of the jap ships lost in the war, crippled the economy. You never hear a word about it. But when Japanese soldiers landed, they basically got no more supplies. They called Guadalcanal "starvation island."

 

 

The point is that the perception of what mattered is different than what actually mattered.

[StooperZero]

Same thing with Japan. Our submarines sunk 55% of the jap ships lost in the war, crippled the economy. You never hear a word about it.

 

Quite a few fully loaded japanese troop ships went to the bottom too, ships would be hit with AP shells or explosive rounds with the fuses removed cause they wanted them to drown vs just being blown up instantly.

 

 

I don't remember the commanders name but his submarine ran out of torpedoes and they racked up an incredible amount of damage/kills with just the ships deck guns.

 

but, that would make for a boring movie.

Edited February 17, 2017 by StooperZero

[johnsonlmg41]

Buzz,

yes German small arms were decades ahead of US small arms development. Actually most all German industry was and in many cases, still is ahead of the US. The Germans led the world in chemistry and implementing it from steel to nuclear reactions they led the world and to a degree still do so today.

 

Yes the company of Americans effectively was outgunned by a similar company of Germans as their weapons development was 20+ years ahead of the US. The newest US developed and fielded small arm is the M16 and that was effectively made to be cheap and disposable.....like most things here today. That was over 50 years ago. Take away the Browning family and US firearms development is sketchy at best. Most of the smart guys left the country to practice in more friendly environments. Sad story really.

[av8tr]

I could be wrong, but from what I read, our armament philosophy during WWII was quantity over quality. Not that the quality was bad, but emphasis was on the industrial machine producing as much of whatever we could. As respects artillery, I suspect there are many that would say the German 88 was at the top of the class. Fortunately, our (and the British) bombing campaigns destroyed the German industry and arms producing capacities as the war progressed. But then, as a pilot, and the son of a US WWII bomber pilot, I could be biased.

[geefal]

MP44 vs Garand.

 

nuff said on that part

 

we had scale and numbers

 

they ran out of time and supplies

 

we had pallets (probably one of the single most important and yet mundane advantages we had to win the war, no seriously, pallets made that much difference)

 

we were motorized, they were still basically a horse drawn supply system

 

they picked to many fronts (or should say not so much picked, but ended up in)

 

superior tech only goes so far. One man with a mini gun still can not overcome 100,000 people with spears and rocks

 

 

 

Were any of the German small arms truly better than our weapons in a way that would give them a distinct advantage?

[StooperZero]

One man with a mini gun still can not overcome 100,000 people with spears and rocks

 

 

 

That's what would happen if michael bay remade Zulu .

[huggytree]

i think the whole testing is very flawed...it focuses on accuracy on 1 fixed target...doesnt involve multiple targets or time...plus the human factor will never be even...no 1 person will ever do equal to the other....unless you have 100 people do the same test and see patterns its 100% flawed because people are flawed...Mythbusters would bust this test!

 

to me put up 10 targets and time the guy to do a burst on all....then count the time and how many hit the target

 

just shooting bursts at the same target over and over w/ no time limit seems a miss...who is going to unload 30 rounds on a person who is not firing back......

 

 

how good are the sights, how well does the gun shoulder (for the 2 smg's), how fast can you kill 10 men...those men wont be sitting in 1 place, they will be running and shooting back at you....this test means nothing to me.....think its just propaganda to make the GI's feel like they have a fighting chance against faster/meaner weapons

 

ive never seen a GG comparison to other FA's...shocking how slow that thing is....might as well be SA

Edited February 19, 2017 by huggytree

[Uncle Dudley]

[buzz]

I don't buy it.

 

If you have two cars in a drag race, the faster car will clearly win. It has a clear advantage and it wins because of it.

 

But what actual use is the (debatable) superiority of the MP40 going to have?

 

When the guy with the Thompson aims the gun and pulls the trigger, the bullets come out and hit the target.

 

How is that different from the MP40?

 

Both guns do the exact same job, so how could one give some huge advantage?

 

If the Thompson was inaccurate and unreliable, then sure, the MP40 would have an advantage. But it's not, it works great.

 

The function of both guns is so similar that I don't see how any difference could work out to an advantage in the practical sense.

 

 

 

It's kind of like in the old days when the gun magazines would have endless articles about the superiority of one deer cartridge over the other.

 

You were supposed to come away saying, "Yeah, gee whiz, I had better sell my 30-06 and buy a 270 right away."

 

But in truth they both work great so how could there be any practical difference when you're actually out there hunting?

 

Both guys are going to come home with a deer, so what is the difference?

 

 

 

[Motorcar]

Anyone else get a kick out of the Grease Gun empty shell cases coming out and hitting the soldier with the Thompson on helmet?

[huggytree]

but does the thompson shoulder quicker resulting in a quicker shot...its heavy/ extra long.....id bet i could bring a mp40 up to my shoulder faster....also the sights...i think the thompson sights suck....but i am old and can barely see through the tiny ring.....

 

speed with using the weapon may make it more deadly than shooting w/ no time limit at a target sitting still.......i can shoulder my UZI 2x faster than my thompson....id bet in a shoot out id get the first shot every time...and the rear sight ring is huge...i can acquire the target instantly.............just an example that there is more to this than the physical accuracy of the weapon

[johnsonlmg41]

Apparently from the video you're supposed to be squatting and hopping while hip shooting the Thompson? Don't bother with the sights. The new M3 grease gun is superior to the Thompson since there are more hits on target.....I actually can't argue that and I prefer the M3 for a variety of reasons. Ergonomics of the Thompson are indeed poor when compared with about any German gun, or most guns in general even US guns of the period. Let's face it, it's all about the gangster fantasy for most and the WWII provenance, not much on the gun itself. Of the german subguns I have, the MP40 is low on the list, I think I'd have to go with the MP34 at the top as far as older guns go.

Ergonomics of an UZI is not a fair comparison due to the timeframes mostly. Not fair to compare an UZI with an MP5 either for the same reason even though they are pretty close in age.

 

I love the propaganda in the first vid. Don't worry about that guy with the MG42, he's just spraying bullets. Right.... no worries there! I'm not really sure even an 18 year old could be easily convinced of that? I think the Germans thought it was easier to carry more ammo up front, then bodies at the end. A 42 on a lafette is a marvel of engineering compared with a 1919 or 1917.

[darrylta]

German guns versus American guns, to me it's purely a matter of honoring our country and soldiers.

I do not own / patronize any German or Jap guns at all!

Simple as that,

Darryl

[Uncle Dudley]

but does the thompson shoulder quicker resulting in a quicker shot...its heavy/ extra long.....id bet i could bring a mp40 up to my shoulder faster....also the sights...i think the thompson sights suck....but i am old and can barely see through the tiny ring.....

 

speed with using the weapon may make it more deadly than shooting w/ no time limit at a target sitting still.......i can shoulder my UZI 2x faster than my thompson....id bet in a shoot out id get the first shot every time...and the rear sight ring is huge...i can acquire the target instantly.............just an example that there is more to this than the physical accuracy of the weapon

You use the sights? I personally like the hip shooting--without the hopping. The hopping footage is from a Ranger training school early in WWII in Hawaii. I believe at that time our forces were catching up on close combat/jungle training. My guess is the "hopping" would help train the shooter to keep the gun aligned with the line of eyesight when "hip" shooting in close quarter jungle combat. I have read accounts of GIs carrying the TSMG on the hip keeping the barrel in line with the line of eyesight. That way they were able to engage the close target by just a trigger pull because the gun was already aimed by their line of sight.

 

PK's post from January 2004.

 

I have noticed different height front sights. While there are smaller variances within categories, two different heights stand out and could be called “tall and shortâ€; you wouldn’t have any trouble telling them apart.

 

In general, the tall sight is the one you want (sounds like you have a short) and it is much more prevalent. The current sight offered by Kahr is well made (believe it or not) and one of the tallest- a good candidate for you to try.

 

Keep this in mind, the “battle sight†setting on the Lyman (leaf folded down, small notch visible) is intended to allow hits on a torso out to 200 yards (or something like that, no time now to look it up), so it will hit high at the ranges we normally use these guns. With the staff up and the aperture set to a specific distance, the POI should correspond with the marking on the staff.

 

In my opinion, 20 yards is to close to make any judgment, adjust your front sight to get it on at 50 yd. with the staff up and the slide at ‘0’ and you should be quite satisfied.

 

Also, the open bolt will cause poi to shift dependent on the support given to the gun while firing. It will be quite different fired from sandbags or sitting or standing. Before you set anything in stone, try all positions and note the differences in POI, then decide how you will likely use the gun and proceed accordingly.