I stumbled across this on YouTube. It's very interesting, but I wonder if it's propaganda or if these are real results from tests.

Cool none-the-less...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oyj-ZHXFKQI

I remember all sorts of movies like that from growing up in the 60's.
The narrators all seemed to sound the same.
As for the guns, German stuff was said to be made to tighter tolerances but they were more likely to malfunction for that reason too.
The Japanese stuff was mostly much lower quality. Their handguns were especially bad.

quote:

Originally posted by 220-9er:
As for the guns, German stuff was said to be made to tighter tolerances but they were more likely to malfunction for that reason too.

Not really. The tighter tolerances and more complicated machining on some pre-war and early war German small arms didn't really result in reliability issues, but they certainly slowed down production. As the war progressed, Germany made extensive use of simplified gun designs, using fewer parts, looser tolerances, and stamping rather than machining, but that was in an attempt to increase production, not necessarily to address reliability issues.

quote:

The Japanese stuff was mostly much lower quality.

They certainly had some real stinkers, like the Type 94 Nambu handgun, which was capable of firing without the trigger being pulled, thanks to the exposed sear on the side of the frame. But they also had some excellent small arms designs, and pre-war and early war Japanese small arms overall were actually fairly high quality. However, as the war progressed, lack of raw materials, rushed production schedules, and damage to industrial areas from bombings led to extremely rough "last ditch" guns being produced towards the end. (Germany did the same thing, and some of the German "last ditch" weapons from the very tail end of the war are nearly as rough.)


Italian small arms, on the other hand, could be more accurately described as "mostly lower quality", with some notable exceptions like the Beretta M1938 SMG, which was quite possibly the best SMG of WW2.

First, I liked the video.

As for propaganda , yes. For the submachine gun test, notice the soldier with the MP40 puts the stock on his upper arm instead of his shoulder, doesn't lean into firing stance like the soldiers with Thompson and Grease gun.

Larry Vickers had a slightly different result at 10 yards:



Thompson:


M3 Grease Gun:



I have seen a few of these old films. I have never seen the one title "Why You Should Not Be Afraid of The King Tiger Tank" for Infantry and Tankers.

quote:

Originally posted by jsbcody:I have seen a few of these old films. I have never seen the one title "Why You Should Not Be Afraid of The King Tiger Tank" for Infantry and Tankers.

Probably followed by "There's really nothing to worry about when an 88-HV round comes your way".

If I found myself advancing on barking 34's and 42's, it would be hard to crunch the numbers and convince myself probability was on my side. Maybe math was easier in 1944.

For those a little short on rate of fire numbers -

The German “standard” machine gun was the MG42. It shot at a rate of 1200 rounds per minute (20 per second)

The American “standard” was the air cooled 1919A4. It shot at a rate of 450-500 rounds per minute.

Both shot a roughly similar .30 caliber bullet.

Nobody "dual-wielded" MP40s like Clint Eastwood. (1:53)


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CdaeBiF__u4