Brits next?
[QUOTE=sami-pso;25927416]Yeah pistols. But generally speaking you don't use rifles in close quarters. Unless it's a carbine.
And i didn't know body armor dates from ww1. I've only heard about it from a docu and that said the russians were the first to use it.[/QUOTE]
I'm assuming you mean in large quantities, body armor has been around for ages.
[QUOTE=MegaChalupa;25927829]Brits next?
I'm assuming you mean in large quantities, body armor has been around for ages.[/QUOTE]
I know. But body armor against firearms i thought was new in ww1. Apparently ww1. But now i wonder when it really was new.
I love WW2 guns. The germans looked so badass.
[QUOTE=sami-pso;25927868]I know. But body armor against firearms i thought was new in ww1. Apparently ww1. But now i wonder when it really was new.[/QUOTE]
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ballistic_vest[/url]
This is what wikiped is for.
[QUOTE=PrusseluskenV2;25927927][img_thumb]http://img442.imageshack.us/img442/1893/img0165vm.jpg[/img_thumb]
[img_thumb]http://img28.imageshack.us/img28/3932/img0169kz.jpg[/img_thumb]
[img_thumb]http://img832.imageshack.us/img832/2476/img0170pm.jpg[/img_thumb]
Sup thread[/QUOTE]
So fucking jealous right now.
[QUOTE=PrusseluskenV2;25928069]:q:[/QUOTE]
Thats a mighty fine Kar98k, where'd ya get it
[QUOTE=sami-pso;25927868]I know. But body armor against firearms i thought was new in ww1. Apparently ww1. But now i wonder when it really was new.[/QUOTE]
Body armor has faced off against firearms for as long as they've existed. Calvary still wore cuirasses for quite a long time.
he is obviously talking about truly dedicated anti-bullet armour
somone should make an artsy fartsy game where you play a jew in poland who has to escape capture from the nazi's in multiple ways (bribes, hiding, just outright killing them,etc)
[QUOTE=PaChIrA;25919698]The FG-42 is still worth putting on the thread, and besides just because that amount was made doesn't mean it all was fielded.
[editline]7th November 2010[/editline]
I didn't even know the Soviets had paratroopers back then.[/QUOTE]
The Soviet VDV was active ever since the 1930s, where it would have an essential offensive role in fighting in the enemy's rear areas as part of their deep battle theories. Too bad the VDV was rarely used in its intended roles during WWII.
[QUOTE=LordLoss;25917753]No, its anti-tank artillery.
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7.5_cm_Pak_40[/url]
Deployed and used by Brigade attachments, not the standard infantry units, like all the other weapons in this thread.[/QUOTE]
Actually, referring to several Wehrmact and Waffen SS order of battles from 1941 and 1944, the Pak 40 was organized in a platoon as an infantry company level AT weapon or a battalion level weapon under the command of the battalion. Of course when kampgruppes were formed they could be assigned to any level of command or cross-attached to other units - it's an infantry weapon, just not an infantry [i]small arm[/i]. The Pak 40 was also used by higher level units, but that's outside the context of this topic.
[img_thumb]http://dl.dropbox.com/u/1939265/Militaria/IMG_0107.JPG[/img_thumb]
[img_thumb]http://dl.dropbox.com/u/1939265/Militaria/IMG_0109.JPG[/img_thumb]
[img_thumb]http://dl.dropbox.com/u/1939265/Militaria/IMG_0110.JPG[/img_thumb]
WW2 is awesome.
[QUOTE=Tac Error;25930066]The Soviet VDV was active ever since the 1930s, where it would have an essential offensive role in fighting in the enemy's rear areas as part of their deep battle theories. Too bad the VDV was rarely used in its intended roles during WWII.
Actually, referring to several Wehrmact and Waffen SS order of battles from 1941 and 1944, the Pak 40 was organized in a platoon as an infantry company level AT weapon or a battalion level weapon under the command of the battalion. Of course when kampgruppes were formed they could be assigned to any level of command or cross-attached to other units - it's an infantry weapon, just not an infantry [i]small arm[/i]. The Pak 40 was also used by higher level units, but that's outside the context of this topic.[/QUOTE]
Exactly my point hence why the thread title is incorrect.
[editline]7th November 2010[/editline]
also my uncle has a TT-33 my grandfather's brother brought back from WWII, It's a piece of shit. Me and him were shooting at a piece of plywood from about 10 yards away and by the time the rounds hit the plywood they were sideways (the rounds were tumbling after they left the barrel.)
[QUOTE=mugofdoom;25930737][img_thumb]http://dl.dropbox.com/u/1939265/Militaria/IMG_0107.JPG[/img_thumb]
WW2 is awesome.[/QUOTE]
That C96 :buddy:
I hate when people say they love history when they only like the wars.
Awesome OP, very informative.
[QUOTE=Tahrok;25931017]I hate when people say they love history when they only like the wars.
Awesome OP, very informative.[/QUOTE]
And war isn't history? I hate when people say they like history and don't like the wars.
[editline]7th November 2010[/editline]
Also, here's a couple pics of the Nagant revolver since it's relevant to the current subject:
[img_thumb]http://dl.dropbox.com/u/1939265/Militaria/IMG_0389.JPG[/img_thumb]
[img_thumb]http://dl.dropbox.com/u/1939265/Militaria/IMG_0391.png[/img_thumb]
Mugofdoom are these your firearms?
If so they're VERY nice :q:
[QUOTE=16bit;25931171]Mugofdoom are these your firearms?
If so they're VERY nice :q:[/QUOTE]
Like 16bit, I would also like to have sex with that revolver.
[QUOTE=16bit;25931171]Mugofdoom are these your firearms?
If so they're VERY nice :q:[/QUOTE]
Thanks. Yeah, it's only a small piece of my overly excessive collection :P
[editline]7th November 2010[/editline]
Oh, and a last ditch Type 99 Arisaka:
[img_thumb]http://dl.dropbox.com/u/1939265/type%2099/IMG_0171.JPG[/img_thumb]
[img_thumb]http://dl.dropbox.com/u/1939265/type%2099/IMG_0170.JPG[/img_thumb]
[img_thumb]http://dl.dropbox.com/u/1939265/type%2099/IMG_0173.JPG[/img_thumb]
You should totally do the Japanese next by the way.
I MIGHT, but I don't really like the Japanese weapons :smith:
[QUOTE=mastermaul;25911743]I don't think any uniform will ever surpass the sexiness of the German uniform.
Even fascism has a cool side.[/QUOTE]
Nothing cool about fascism, many people have died because of it.
[editline]8th November 2010[/editline]
[QUOTE=16bit;25932875]I MIGHT, but I don't really like the Japanese weapons :smith:[/QUOTE]
Do Soviet then.
[img]http://sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc4/hs1129.snc4/149104_1584570727464_1031612326_3068388_6369902_n.jpg[/img]
Me on an MG-42.
Those things are fun to fire, but they have their drawbacks. First, they are a pain in the arse to reload - it's quite difficult keeping the belt in position whilst closing the top. Second, you have to be careful with the belts or the gun will easily jam. I experienced that quite a few times because I had a dodgy belt. Third, you need to be careful how you hold it or you will be burned and/or nearly get your fingers taken off (the latter happened to me). Finally, the things chews through ammunition, obviously. This isn't so much of a problem if you were using it as a soldier of the Wehrmacht, but when you have to buy the ammo yourself it is a bit of a pain.
[QUOTE=16bit;25932875]I MIGHT, but I don't really like the Japanese weapons :smith:[/QUOTE]
This is WWII infantry information is it not? Then your opinion is invalid.
[QUOTE=mastermaul;25929174]Body armor has faced off against firearms for as long as they've existed. Calvary still wore cuirasses for quite a long time.[/QUOTE]
I had no idea there were cuirasses that protected against bullets. :O
[QUOTE=sami-pso;25935171]I had no idea there were cuirasses that protected against bullets. :O[/QUOTE]
Probably very little protection but hey if it protects you by chance, you'll rely on it.
Yeah well i just read the wiki someone posted earlier and they did have bullet proof cuirasses. :O
Wikipedia =/= absolute fact.
[QUOTE=David29;25935584]Wikipedia =/= absolute fact.[/QUOTE]
I know right.
But it just so happens that wikipedia is more reliable than some random person claiming something.
Wikipedia is only not reliably when there's not much info available.
Now stop being an ass and read the sources on the wiki page or something.
Name that gun;
[img]http://www.valkyriearms.com/images/delisle1.jpg[/img]
No cheating now
[QUOTE=sami-pso;25935726]I know right.
But it just so happens that wikipedia is more reliable than some random person claiming something.
Wikipedia is only not reliably when there's not much info available.
Now stop being an ass and read the sources on the wiki page or something.[/QUOTE]
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SN-42[/url]
Does you see any sources for that article? No. A professional and accurate article would always have sources to back up all of the claims it makes. Wikipedia is a good read, but nothing more than that. It can be edited by anyone at any time and I have, on occasion, seen mistakes in some of it's articles. Whenever I go and look at an article, I am always met with [citation needed]'s, [by who?]'s and [when]? dotted throughout the article.
Stop treating it like the holy grail.
[QUOTE=jaredop;25937384]Name that gun;
[img_thumb]http://www.valkyriearms.com/images/delisle1.jpg[/img_thumb]
No cheating now[/QUOTE]
De Lisle Carbine.
Wrong article bro.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
