Practical Rate of Fire for WWII RIfles

Discussions on the small arms used by the Axis forces.
Kocur
Member
Posts: 194
Joined: 23 Jul 2006 17:11
Location: Poland

Re: Practical Rate of Fire for WWII RIfles

Post by Kocur » 05 Oct 2011 09:40

lhughes41 wrote:I wish I understood what the impact of a tripod versus bipod was on an MG34. Why does that make it more effective? Just steadier? Any insights?
Yup, steadier in at least two ways: weapon was less displaced angularly with every shot of a burst and was still on sighting line after burst.
lhughes41 wrote: I'm going to make a tripod mounted stronger but right now have no empirical basis on which to proceed like with VOF.
Just remember that sMG 34 and sMG 42, that is those gpmgs with tripods, were not equipment of regular squads - those had their machine guns with bipods only. In Heer gpmgs with tripods - making them medium machine guns - were equipment of machine guns companies at battalion level and they operated on semi-independent basis from rifle squads and platoons (as did medium machine guns in other armies).
lhughes41 wrote:Leaving aside grenades, if German firepower is measured by Volume of Fire (i.e., adding up the various rates of fire multiplied by number of weapons) I still come out with almost 3 to 2 advantage for Germans.
Did you add on the US side their M1919A4 or M1919A6? US Army was aware of inferiority of BAR as a lmg and in order to supplement infantry company firepower, they added company-own machine guns, being lighter, air-cooled variants of their mmg, which was M1917A1. The latter was equivalent of German sMG 34 and sMG 42. On company level and lower, US Army had two types of mgs (while other armies had just one): light machine gun (as M1919A4 on light tripod and M1919A6 on bipod were officially called) in company and automatic rifle M1918A2, i.e. BAR, in squads.
lhughes41 wrote:Of course moments after I wrote that I found my first data on different rates of fire for MG34 (and 42) when LMG vs HMG. which is presumably about the mounting. The poster cites sources and says (to summarize):
MG34 as LMG [bipod presumably] -- 120 RPM
MG34 as HMG [tripod presumably] -- 250 RPM
MG42 as LMG -- 250
MG42 as HMG -- 500
http://www.feldgrau.net/forum/viewtopic ... 44&t=27088
Higher cyclic rate of MG 42 over MG 34 would not o produce such a dramatic increase in practical rate of fire, with everything else equal. Actually, cyclic rate has little impact on practical rof. What has greatest impact is time required to change what delivers cartridges to the weapon. In case of machine guns that could be magazines or belts. In German lmgs belt could come from two basic types of containers: small one, attatched to the weapon, containing single 50 rds belt - or big belt box, that could contain belt with hundrets rounds (made by joining basic 50 rds belts). Now, if a German lmg was used with smaller containers, it would have to stop shooting after every 50 shots and it would take some time to remove empty container, attatch full one and place belt in the gun. That would make practical rof of MG 34 and MG 42 not much higher than what you would expect of Bren, I'd say 150 rounds per minute. But in a situation where no movement was expected for a while, German lmgs could be fed from belts coming from big boxes. That would make those light machine guns' practical rate of fire not much lower than that of medium machine guns, say 250 rounds per minute.
lhughes41 wrote: Very interesting because this brings down the firepower of the German Squad now considerably (using an LMG version of MG34 typically). If this is true it drops the effective FP of the German Squad dramatically. Now the MG34 as LMG looks little different from the BAR or Bren (both rated at practical 120 RPM).
You need to make a difference between BAR and Bren in practical rof. The latter had bigger magazine, so pauses in fire were less frequent. Moreover, Bren magazine could be easily changed by assistant gunner, which meant that those pauses could be shorter.


There is one more complication. Shooting heats up barrels and overheating them is to be prevented, for it could easily lead to quick destruction of barrel, not to mention cook-offs. German mgs and Bren enjoyed quick barrel change capability, so once a limit of shots was reached, crew could remove hot barrel and install cold one. Theoretically they could shoot forever maintaining typical practical rate of fire. That was not true for BAR and both M1919s. These would have to fire at lower rate after certain number of shots, to prevent barrels from overheating. So those US guns had two practical rofs in a way: higher for short fight and lower for sustained fire, lasting many minutes.


And of a general note: focusing on squads', platoons' or companies' smallarms is unrealistic, except for very specific circumstances. Squads and platoons would typically enjoy fire support of say light mortars and companies were supported by of battalion's mortars and medium machine guns. And then, there was artillery. US infantry may have been inferior in number of .30 projectiles it could fire, but it could almost always rely on very powerful, quick and accurate artillery support. It would take few minutes to bring volleys of shells, from at least a 105 mm howitzer battalion, usually dropping with no warning and air-bursting.

User avatar
RegimientoSaboya
Member
Posts: 4
Joined: 01 Jan 2007 17:45
Location: Birmingham UK

Re: Practical Rate of Fire for WWII RIfles

Post by RegimientoSaboya » 05 Oct 2011 11:49

Hello all,

Great post regarding use of tripods and drum or belt magazines, fully subscribe it. I agree that considering rifle quads as self-contained units, without reference to the wider firepower available to them from higher formations, is unrealistic, but we need to remember that we are providing help in modelling a squad-based game, we were not asked for a lecture on WWII tactics :milwink: If we need to consider the wider context, What about the half-dozen P-47s that any German squad could be expected to see circling over their heads at any one time, waiting for a chance to bomb them into the other life? If we need to consider ALL firepower, we might as well stick to big-scale games TOAW style, then. Besides, since US and Soviet tactics, ground and weather permitting, were mostly along the lines of "blast them until they don't shoot back, then roll over what's left with tanks", Where is your squad-based game?

So, onto what may be applicable at squad level: German squad tactics revolved around the MG 34 (or 42) completely, riflemen were only expected to provide extra pairs of eyes and flank protection, little else. Even on the offensive, official doctrine and training expected to obtain "fire superiority" prior to any assault, and this fire superiority was meant to be achieved by maneuvering the MG to a position where it could dominate the enemy fire. During these MG "leaps" from position to position, riflemen were of course expected to provide cover fire, but that was pretty much the extent of their role.

What does all this mean to a game modeller? If I were you, I'd assign a typical German rifle squad a mid-range firepower of at least twice that of a Western squad, and triple that of a Soviet one, if not more. I'd also give it longer range, as the MG 34, had a much longer ACCURATE range than a Bren or a BAR, never mind Soviet MGs. As an aside, German stick grenades also had a much longer range than allied ones, even if their charge and fragmentation power was smaller.

As for short-range firepower, I'd say Germans and Western allies on a par until 1943, with Soviets 50% higher, due to their extensive use of SMGs. From the German TO&E changes of 1944, maybe Germans 50% higher than the Western allies, with the Soviets still 50% higher than the Germans, as they continued increasing their SMG use.

To compensate, you could give Western allies and Soviets a higher mobility rate than the Germans, as they are much more reliant on their slow-moving MG teams, and I suppose higher defensive ratings as well, as a rifleman can hide, cover and move much better than a MG team.If a MG 34/42 team was expected to dominate the battlefied, that means positioning itself where it can have a good field of fire, but that usually also means being quite visible and exposed!

Hope this helps.

Steve Wilcox
Financial supporter
Posts: 183
Joined: 13 Nov 2006 21:39
Location: Victoria, BC, Canada

Re: Practical Rate of Fire for WWII RIfles

Post by Steve Wilcox » 05 Oct 2011 12:41

lhughes41 wrote:Of course moments after I wrote that I found my first data on different rates of fire for MG34 (and 42) when LMG vs HMG. which is presumably about the mounting. The poster cites sources and says (to summarize):
MG34 as LMG [bipod presumably] -- 120 RPM
MG34 as HMG [tripod presumably] -- 250 RPM
MG42 as LMG -- 250
MG42 as HMG -- 500
http://www.feldgrau.net/forum/viewtopic ... 44&t=27088

Very interesting because this brings down the firepower of the German Squad now considerably (using an LMG version of MG34 typically). If this is true it drops the effective FP of the German Squad dramatically. Now the MG34 as LMG looks little different from the BAR or Bren (both rated at practical 120 RPM).

Jeez. Now really not sure what to do. Germans seem to enjoy no advantage from MG34 inside the Squad (LMG usage). Sigh.
That poster would be me answering a question there, and I posted more detailed information here while asking a question here:
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 1&t=136569

A le.MG34 has the higher cyclic rate combined with a larger ammunition capacity than the Bren with both having quick-change barrels, so the le.MG34 will still have the advantage there, while the BAR has a smaller ammo capacity and no quick-change barrel, so would be worse than either in terms of rate of fire. I think one of the problems is that sources don't always specify if they are referring to maximum practical rates of fire or maximum sustained practical rates of fire, so you can come across apples and oranges comparisons.

JamesL
Member
Posts: 1647
Joined: 28 Oct 2004 00:03
Location: NJ USA

Re: Practical Rate of Fire for WWII RIfles

Post by JamesL » 05 Oct 2011 14:00

FYI. Links to US Army documents posted on Lone Sentry dealing with the MG42.

THE NEW GERMAN MACHINE GUN--M.G. 42
http://www.lonesentry.com/articles/ttt0 ... -mg42.html


German Views on Use of the MG 42
http://www.lonesentry.com/articles/inte ... -mg42.html


MORE DETAILS OF THE GERMAN MG 42
http://www.lonesentry.com/articles/ttt/mg42.html

Apparently the MG42 was 'too accurate' for a GPMG.

lhughes41
Member
Posts: 21
Joined: 01 Oct 2011 19:09

Re: Practical Rate of Fire for WWII RIfles

Post by lhughes41 » 05 Oct 2011 17:01

Thank you JamesL. Another thoughtful point to mull! That is captured to some degree by MG units being more expensive to move around while squads are less so (BAR being with Squad). And their will be acquisition modeled. So therefore a "smart" U.S. Squad keeps moving ;-)

JamesL
Member
Posts: 1647
Joined: 28 Oct 2004 00:03
Location: NJ USA

Re: Practical Rate of Fire for WWII RIfles

Post by JamesL » 05 Oct 2011 19:02

Don't forget to factor in the practice of assigning the BAR to the smallest man in the squad. Small man = small target. The other squad members would carry some of his magazines.

Kocur
Member
Posts: 194
Joined: 23 Jul 2006 17:11
Location: Poland

Re: Practical Rate of Fire for WWII RIfles

Post by Kocur » 05 Oct 2011 23:00

RegimientoSaboya wrote:If we need to consider the wider context, What about the half-dozen P-47s that any German squad could be expected to see circling over their heads at any one time, waiting for a chance to bomb them into the other life?
Well, it wasn't that good (or bad, depending on POV). Air support was a rarity compared to artillery support.
RegimientoSaboya wrote: If we need to consider ALL firepower, we might as well stick to big-scale games TOAW style, then. Besides, since US and Soviet tactics, ground and weather permitting, were mostly along the lines of "blast them until they don't shoot back, then roll over what's left with tanks", Where is your squad-based game?
The game should then be called "A Small Patrol" or "How The Kitchen Was Won" :wink:
RegimientoSaboya wrote: So, onto what may be applicable at squad level: German squad tactics revolved around the MG 34 (or 42) completely (...)
Btw. things were similar in British Army.
RegimientoSaboya wrote: What does all this mean to a game modeller? If I were you, I'd assign a typical German rifle squad a mid-range firepower of at least twice that of a Western squad, and triple that of a Soviet one, if not more.
I don't think that superiority would be marked compared to British squad with it's Bren. Soviet squad would be less powerful in terms of firepower past say 100 meters, as it had less efficient lmg in form of DP and less capable rifles. US squad would be more difficult to compare, as it depended more on quality of riflemen, who with their semi-automatic rifles and co-operating with poor lmg, contributed more to squad fire power than riflemen of other armies.
RegimientoSaboya wrote: I'd also give it longer range, as the MG 34, had a much longer ACCURATE range than a Bren or a BAR, never mind Soviet MGs.
Do you have some numerical data?
RegimientoSaboya wrote: As for short-range firepower, I'd say Germans and Western allies on a par until 1943, with Soviets 50% higher, due to their extensive use of SMGs.
I think US infantry stood out in that. Not by extensive use of smgs, but by having semi-automatic rifles and BARs, which were poor lmgs, but good, well, (Browning) Automatic Rifles. I mean they were exceptionally, for a lmg, suited to be used as individual weapon (which went as far as returning to original, WW1 configuration, i.e. removing bipod).

User avatar
RegimientoSaboya
Member
Posts: 4
Joined: 01 Jan 2007 17:45
Location: Birmingham UK

Re: Practical Rate of Fire for WWII RIfles

Post by RegimientoSaboya » 06 Oct 2011 15:24

Of course the half-dozen P-47s per German squad is an exaggeration, but my point was that any game designer will have to choose his scenarios very carefully if he wants to avoid the Allies having too much firepower for a balanced game: Italy, winter battles on the Siegfried Line and the Vosges, you all know the ones, we're all geeks here :milwink:

On that subject, What is wrong with "How the kitchen was won"? It'd be a good urban combat game, and I'm sure enough Germans and Soviets were killed trying to take kitchens and living rooms in Stalingrad, Warsaw or Berlin. Yeah, "How the kitchen was won". Love it!

About British Army tactics also being MG-centric, I am more familiar with the German army, both by inclination and experience (family, not personal, I'm not that old). Having said that, I have read in various books on small-unit tactics (I'll try and get some references on this, I'm at work now) that the way the Germans relied on their MGs was quite unique and advanced at the time, and only after the war did the Western allies catch up. It is pretty much general knowledge, even good 'ole Wikipedia mentions it (check the article on the MG 42, for example), and you only need to compare TO&Es to see there were more MGs per man in the German army than anywhere else, by a long shot. This is not necessarily a good thing, in fact the reason behind it was probably that the Germans were trying somehow to compensate for their dwindling manpower base, but the fact is, a German squad could shoot out twice or three times as many bullets (past 100m or so) than any other squad.

As for my advocacy of German fire superiority, let's see: Bren: 500 rpm, magazines of 30 usually, 100 max. MG 34: 600 to 1000 rpm (selectable through a switch on the grip), drums of 50 rounds but usually belts of 250, which could also be linked to make longer belts. And, from 1943, about half your German squads would have a MG 42 instead, 1200 rpm.

I guess, depending on how complicated you want your rules to be, but there must be a way of separating aimed, semi-automatic (in US case) rifle fire from a MG. I agree that 100 bullets from a MG will hit far less targets than 100 bullets from a rifle, and there must be a way of modelling this, perhaps the ASL way of having separate firing turns for the squad itself and the attached MG. Maybe making the German squad fire weaker than USA/UK, and MG fire stronger?

As for the MG 34/42 having a longer range than the Bren, check ANY source you want, effective range for the Bren was around 500m, for the MGs 1000 on bipods, longer on a tripod. Barrel lenghts were about the same, but the MGs had a heavier breech and a much better roller-lock system. Maybe the fact that most MGs in use today are based on the MG 42 (including roller-lock), while none is based on the Bren, should give a clue as to their respective capabilities.

This is getting interesting!

User avatar
LWD
Member
Posts: 8584
Joined: 21 Sep 2005 21:46
Location: Michigan

Re: Practical Rate of Fire for WWII RIfles

Post by LWD » 06 Oct 2011 17:18

RegimientoSaboya wrote:... About British Army tactics also being MG-centric, I am more familiar with the German army, both by inclination and experience (family, not personal, I'm not that old). Having said that, I have read in various books on small-unit tactics (I'll try and get some references on this, I'm at work now) that the way the Germans relied on their MGs was quite unique and advanced at the time, and only after the war did the Western allies catch up.
I'm pretty sure the relevant US FM's are on line. The Marines would be a bit different. Then there's that German quote about US doctrine ...
... you only need to compare TO&Es to see there were more MGs per man in the German army than anywhere else, by a long shot. ...
I think this depends on what organizations and how far up you go. Especially with higher level US formations you start getting huge numbers of both HMGs and MMGs. While most were carried on a vehicle most could be dismounted. I believe in practice these were often assigned to lower level units on an as need basis. Could be wrong in that though. Then of course there was a tendency for troops to scroung up equipment. A budy of mine who's a Vietnam vet mentioned once that according to the TOE his vehicle was suppose to have one radio but at times had as many as 6 (they liked to have spares due to reliability problems). My understanding is that many Marine and some army squads for instance managed to equip themselves with two BAR's (or more) before it became standard.

Kocur
Member
Posts: 194
Joined: 23 Jul 2006 17:11
Location: Poland

Re: Practical Rate of Fire for WWII RIfles

Post by Kocur » 06 Oct 2011 20:01

RegimientoSaboya wrote: On that subject, What is wrong with "How the kitchen was won"? It'd be a good urban combat game, and I'm sure enough Germans and Soviets were killed trying to take kitchens and living rooms in Stalingrad, Warsaw or Berlin. Yeah, "How the kitchen was won". Love it!
Nothing's wrong with "How the kitchen was won" at all :) But more seriously - close quarters battle was fundamentally different to open terrain fighting.
RegimientoSaboya wrote: About British Army tactics also being MG-centric, I am more familiar with the German army, both by inclination and experience (family, not personal, I'm not that old). Having said that, I have read in various books on small-unit tactics (I'll try and get some references on this, I'm at work now) that the way the Germans relied on their MGs was quite unique and advanced at the time, and only after the war did the Western allies catch up.
I don't think reliance on lmg was unique for German army. British thought about it basically the same, so did the French and Soviets. US Army had some catching up to do, as they entered 1940s with BARs grouped at platoon level (Italians had similar system).
RegimientoSaboya wrote: It is pretty much general knowledge, even good 'ole Wikipedia mentions it (check the article on the MG 42, for example), and you only need to compare TO&Es to see there were more MGs per man in the German army than anywhere else, by a long shot.
How so? Both Heer and BA entered WW2 with a lmg per squad, but BA squad was considerably smaller (8 to 13 if memory serves). "General knowledge" isn't necessarily right.
RegimientoSaboya wrote: As for my advocacy of German fire superiority, let's see: Bren: 500 rpm, magazines of 30 usually, 100 max. MG 34: 600 to 1000 rpm (selectable through a switch on the grip), drums of 50 rounds but usually belts of 250, which could also be linked to make longer belts.
There is no question that belt-fed gpmg enabled German squads to produce unmatched firepower when needed. But that doesn't mean that all other armies used their lmgs in a different way.
Btw. adjustable rate of fire was a feature of mere few first thousands of MG 34s and was dropped before WW2.
RegimientoSaboya wrote: And, from 1943, about half your German squads would have a MG 42 instead, 1200 rpm.
Influence of theoretical rate of fire aka cyclic rate on practical rate of fire isn't dramatic. As per German manual, le MG 34 practical rof was 120-150 rpm, while le MG 42's - 150-180 rpm. For sake of comparison, Bren's "normal" rate of fire was 120 rpm (with one man crew - with assistant gunner working on magazines, more could have been squeezed).
RegimientoSaboya wrote: I guess, depending on how complicated you want your rules to be, but there must be a way of separating aimed, semi-automatic (in US case) rifle fire from a MG.
I don't think that is really necessary in a simple game. Proper separating efficiency of rifles fire and lmg fire would have to take into account great deal of factors.
RegimientoSaboya wrote: I agree that 100 bullets from a MG will hit far less targets than 100 bullets from a rifle (...)
I wouldn't be so sure about that. Hit probability with iron sights in semi-automatic fire fell with every meter, to be very low past 300 m. A lmg would fire short bursts at individual targets and it's weight made the burst patterns rather tight, so chances of hitting intended target with at least one of bullets could be at least as good as chances of achieving a hit with the same number of shots fired from semi-automatic rifle. Naturally that depended heavily on range and individual skill - the closer and the better marksmen, the more hits per round would be achieved with rifles.
RegimientoSaboya wrote: As for the MG 34/42 having a longer range than the Bren, check ANY source you want, effective range for the Bren was around 500m, for the MGs 1000 on bipods, longer on a tripod.
"Effective range" is a matter of a definition. As long as numbers expressing effective ranges come from different armies (or even the same army in different time), they can't be compared directly.
RegimientoSaboya wrote: Barrel lenghts were about the same, but the MGs had a heavier breech and a much better roller-lock system.
Internals of action have no influence on effective range. It depends on exterior ballistics of the ammunition, when everything else is equal.
RegimientoSaboya wrote: Maybe the fact that most MGs in use today are based on the MG 42 (including roller-lock), while none is based on the Bren, should give a clue as to their respective capabilities.
The only mg in use today that is based on MG 42 is MG 3, which is basically MG 42 rechambered for 7.62 x 51 NATO. Most of mgs in use today are gas operated and the only feature they have in common with MG 42 is belt feeding mechanism (with exceptions, say ubiquitous PK uses totally different mechanism). MG 34 and MG 42 were superior to all other lmgs in being belt-fed and that feature was copied in post-WW2 designs along with concept of belt-fed general purpose machine gun (not gpmg concept per se - the first gpmg was Danish Madsen).

User avatar
jwsleser
Member
Posts: 1051
Joined: 13 Jun 2005 14:02
Location: Leavenworth, KS

Re: Practical Rate of Fire for WWII RIfles

Post by jwsleser » 08 Oct 2011 13:26

US Army had some catching up to do, as they entered 1940s with BARs grouped at platoon level (Italians had similar system).
RE: Italians. Ahhhh, no. The platoon was changed as part of the transition from the divisione ternaria to the divisione binaria in 1938. The squadra (squad) consisted of 18 men organized into a gruppo fucilieri (rifle group) and a gruppo fucili mitragliatori (light machinegun group). You had a squadra commandante, the gruppo fucilieri with 11 men and the gruppo fucili mitragliatori with 6 men (two Breda 30 and four ammo bearers). There were no ‘fire teams’ or sezione in the gruppo fucilieri, it maneuvered as a single unit. The gruppo fucili mitragliatori consisted of two sezione, each with one Breda. The gruppo fucili mitragliatori would establish a base of fire and the gruppo fucilieri would maneuver. The fucili mitragliatori sezione would bound forward to maintain support.

The infantry platoon under the 1938 reorganization now only had two squadra.

Sources:

L’esercito italiano tra la 1° e la 2° guerra mondiale
Addestramento della fanteria 1940 volume I
battaglione Alpini sciatori Monte Cervino (Reenacted)
5th Greek Regiment
9th reggimento bersaglieri

lhughes41
Member
Posts: 21
Joined: 01 Oct 2011 19:09

Re: Practical Rate of Fire for WWII RIfles

Post by lhughes41 » 19 Oct 2011 18:42

I just spotted there was a whole second page of replies! Thanks everyone. I am OP. As for points about further platoon assets ... absolutely. I am just proceeding ground up:
-- weapon -- compare a given rifle to another, MG to another etc
-- weapon system -- how many rifles in a squad, how many MGs etc
-- Squad -- squad firepower treated as multiple weapon systems firing based on range. I am not going to abstract the squad but instead treat as a series of weapon systems firing (the game will be computer based so I can do this without bothering the user. Like Steel Panthers does).
-- Platoon|Battalion -- what additional weapon systems or units come into play (tripod MGs, mortars etc)
-- air assets etc -- these are called in but are not part of the TOE ;-)

lhughes41
Member
Posts: 21
Joined: 01 Oct 2011 19:09

Re: Practical Rate of Fire for WWII RIfles

Post by lhughes41 » 19 Oct 2011 19:04

OK my next question for the assembled experts here ;-) is about damage these weapons do. I am distinguishing ToHit from damage done by the hit. Obviously the ROF of say an infantry gun is much lower than an MG.. nonetheless being hit by an infantry gun shell is a much more serious affair. So Now I am trying to come up with a systematic approach to relative damage of weapons if they hit. This is all in the context right now of attacks on infantry. Weapons penetrating tank armor etc etc is yet another topic.
So, to the point, I am trying to decide if there are interesting damage differences between different rifles and MGs. Obviously a 50 caliber MG hit is very different from a rifle hit. Less obvious is differences between rifles. Here's the apparent differences I see so far based on caliber:

-- 56mm and below -- Lee-Enflied, Mosin-Nagant, Carnano, K-98 Mauser, Fusil 36
-- 63mm -- M1 Garand, M1917A1 to A6,
-- 88 mm -- Browning .50 Caliber
--57mm??? -- the German MGs. not sure whether to throw into the 56 mm or the 63. Probably into the 56mm group
This clumping really only differentiates U.S. vs other WWII weapons based on caliber. Is this the right kind of clumping? Should I be clustering at some threshold below 56mm?

Now looking at muzzle velocity -- presumably this increases severity of damage:
-- 800's+ -- Mosin-Nagant, Breda Model 37, MG42,Maxim 1910, most MGs
-- 700's -- Lee-Enfield, Carnano, K98, most other rifles, MG34
-- 600's - Breda Model 30

Comments?

What I will likely do is multiple caliber times muzzle velocity to arrive at overall momentum and then compare those scores. I will also have to think about VOF as influencing maybe multiple hits occuring at the same moment due to high rate of fire. But right now I wanted to get any further thoughts from folks from their experience or readings as to in practice how these weapons might be differentiated in terms of they damage they do to infantry.
In the end I can get over clever about this. My goal is just to get the "obvious" differences .. if in practice really any.. between different rifles and MGs in the damage they do. It is obvious .50 standouts. Do other weapons?

User avatar
LWD
Member
Posts: 8584
Joined: 21 Sep 2005 21:46
Location: Michigan

Re: Practical Rate of Fire for WWII RIfles

Post by LWD » 19 Oct 2011 19:53

There has been considerable debate as to whether momentum or kinetic energy is the primary cause of trauma (IMO it's some mix). How the rounds expand or fragment and just what they hit may have more impact on damage than what rifle they come from. Certainly the combata rifles differ little in diameter
The 30-06 is 7.82mm.
The .303 is 7.70mm
The German 8mm is actually 7.92mm
A good reference is:
http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/Historic%20MGs.htm
barrel length is going to be more of a factor IMO than whether it's and mg or a rifle. I.e. a carbine may have significantly less velocity than a rifle or mg using the same cartridge.
You may find the table at the bottom of that page of interest. Lots of other good info at the home page: http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/miltech.htm
Indeed this may go a long way to refineing your questions if not answering them: http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/terminal.htm

Kocur
Member
Posts: 194
Joined: 23 Jul 2006 17:11
Location: Poland

Re: Practical Rate of Fire for WWII RIfles

Post by Kocur » 19 Oct 2011 20:56

lhughes41 wrote:Here's the apparent differences I see so far based on caliber:

-- 56mm and below -- Lee-Enflied, Mosin-Nagant, Carnano, K-98 Mauser, Fusil 36
-- 63mm -- M1 Garand, M1917A1 to A6,
-- 88 mm -- Browning .50 Caliber
That is not caliber, that is length of casing and it is irrelevant.
lhughes41 wrote: What I will likely do is multiple caliber times muzzle velocity to arrive at overall momentum (...)
Momentum is mass times velocity.
lhughes41 wrote: Comments?
One: differences in wounding potential between spitzer projectiles of WW2 full power cartridges at typical distances were small enough not to matter practically.
That is a very good article indeed.

Return to “Small Arms”