[Tailz]

Yup, by the look of it, the Zeiss Ikon B2 uses 35mm film. Going by the wiki for the Minox:

The film is in strips 9.2 mm wide, or less than one-quarter the size of 35 mm film, and unlike 35 mm film, it has no sprocket holes.

Thus the compact size of the Minox. The Zeiss Ikon still looks very nice, but I just love the look of the Minox. It is a pity the digital Minox of the same model just does not look like the old style Minox.

[Godstud]

That'd be awesome, to get a new digital camera, that looked like an old camera.

[Tailz]

That'd be awesome, to get a new digital camera, that looked like an old camera.

I totally agree. I looked on ebay for Minox cameras, the 1950's models (which look pretty close to the 1938 model) go for a hundred or so dollars. But the 1938 model is over $2000, ouch! If I had access to a dark room so I could process the film (I spent my apprenticeship in a dark room), I'd get the 1950's model.

Minox still makes a small "spy" camera today, and its digital, but it looks too modern. It would be awesome if Minox made a Digital version that looked just like the 1938 model.

[Section Leader]

Definitely the StG 44.

[Tailz]

Definitely the StG 44.

The Sturmgewehr 44 was covered on page 1 of the thread.

[Xbow]

The M1 Garand

[Tailz]

The M1 Garand

Uh, ok, and how do you think the M1 Garand was more of an innovation compared to other rifles introduced during the Second World War? Especially considering that the M1 Garand was predated by the M1918 Browning Automatic Rifle (BAR).

As far as rifles go, I don't think the inovation of semiautomatic fire was the real innovation of the Garand, but rather equipping a large body of soldiers with it was the real inovation in tactics - while standard issue for most other forces was the bolt action rifle. But this was offset by the methods the US army employed, where soldiers would fire one round at the target, the a round ether side of the target in order to suppress enemy soldiers with the greater volume of fire that a platoon equipped with Garand rifles could put out.

[Xbow]

Uh, ok, and how do you think the M1 Garand was more of an innovation compared to other rifles introduced during the Second World War? Especially considering that the M1 Garand was predated by the M1918 Browning Automatic Rifle (BAR).

Taliz the BAR was an innovation of WW-1 not WW-2 hence it is outside the realm of this discussion. The BAR was initially designed as an automatic weapon to be carried by men distributed through a line of advancing troops and was designed to be fired from the hip in that role. The BAR concept was based on the French theory of Walking or Marching fire that they implemented with the introduction of the Chauchat LMG. So the M1918BAR was not an innovative weapon despite its superiority in design and construction to the Chauchat. However the M1918 found its niche as a squad automatic weapon that could deliver both precision semi automatic and short burst automatic fire.

On the other hand the M1 Garand was innovative because:

It was the first reliable semi automatic rifle introduced as a nations standard battle rifle (full introduction by 1941)
It was more accurate than other semi automatic rifles of the time by virtue of its long radius and fully adjustable in 1 MOA increments peep sight that were vastly superior to the primitive short radius sights of the competition that were not fully adjustable:
--G41 (limited introduction 1941) (reliability problems)
--Gewehr 43 (limited introduction 1943)
--AVS-36 (limited introduction 1938) (serious reliability problems)
--SVT-38-40 (significant introduction by 1941)(some reliability problems)

Note: The Russian weapons all suffered from the use of the 7.62 X54r rimmed cartridge (frequent jams) and highly corrosive primers that without constant disassembly and cleaning mercuric primers ate the gas systems alive.

Note:The M1 Garand was a very reliable weapon. The only weakness of the Garand was the the use of the 8-round En Bloc clip internal magazine that could not be 'topped off' and could be difficult to load in very cold weather. But neither as it happened was a serious problem.

Additionally US rifle squads were built around the capability of the Garand and augmented by the M1918BAR while German platoons were built around the MG34 or MG42 as their base of fire. The fact that the combination of the Garand and the M1918BAR made US units more flexible since they were not slaved to the base of fire. For the Germans the loss of their primary base of fire weapon was disastrous. And Garand armed units in the assault could deliver several times the volume of fire that a 98-k armed unit could.

Note: The USA never had a machine gun as capable or a flexible as the either the MG34 or MG42.


However of all infantry weapons designed in WW-2 I think the incomparable FG-42 is the most innovative but it was produced in such low numbers that its impact was insignificant.

It combined the characteristics and firepower of a light machine gun in a lightweight form no larger than the standard-issue Kar 98k bolt-action rifle. Considered one of the most advanced weapon designs of World War II, the FG 42 influenced post-war small arms development and ultimately helped to shape the modern assault rifle concept.

[Tailz]

Taliz the BAR was an innovation of WW-1 not WW-2 hence it is outside the realm of this discussion. The BAR was initially designed as an automatic weapon to be carried by men distributed through a line of advancing troops and was designed to be fired from the hip in that role. The BAR concept was based on the French theory of Walking or Marching fire that they implemented with the introduction of the Chauchat LMG. So the M1918BAR was not an innovative weapon despite its superiority in design and construction to the Chauchat. However the M1918 found its niche as a squad automatic weapon that could deliver both precision semi automatic and short burst automatic fire.

On the other hand the M1 Garand was innovative because:

It was the first reliable semi automatic rifle introduced as a nations standard battle rifle (full introduction by 1941)
It was more accurate than other semi automatic rifles of the time by virtue of its long radius and fully adjustable in 1 MOA increments peep sight that were vastly superior to the primitive short radius sights of the competition that were not fully adjustable:
--G41 (limited introduction 1941) (reliability problems)
--Gewehr 43 (limited introduction 1943)
--AVS-36 (limited introduction 1938) (serious reliability problems)
--SVT-38-40 (significant introduction by 1941)(some reliability problems)

I think you have misunderstood my comment. The inovation of semi-automatic fire or even automatic fire was an innovation of the First World War, I was mealy supplying the BAR as an example of that cycle of inovation where weapons developers were seeking a "trench broom" weapon that was portable and employable by a single soldier.

Thus I think the innovation of the Garand - as you also mentioned - was that it was the first semi-automatic firearm to be issued en-mass as the standard infantry rifle of an armed force - that is a large innovation and advantage compared to pretty much every other armed force of the day they had a bolt operated single shot rifle as standard issue.

Note: The Russian weapons all suffered from the use of the 7.62 X54r rimmed cartridge (frequent jams) and highly corrosive primers that without constant disassembly and cleaning mercuric primers ate the gas systems alive.

All weapons had their pro's and cons. Better sights, more accurate over long rage, or better short range, high stopping power, or some other such thing. To use your statement from above about the sights on the Garand... Having better sights/optics was not a fundamental innovation, since many weapons had optics of differing degrees of quality.

Note: The M1 Garand was a very reliable weapon. The only weakness of the Garand was the the use of the 8-round En Bloc clip internal magazine that could not be 'topped off' and could be difficult to load in very cold weather. But neither as it happened was a serious problem.

The ping noise from a completed En Bloc Clip become something of a ploy used by both the soldiers equipped with the Garand and those who faced soldiers equipped with the Garand.

Additionally US rifle squads were built around the capability of the Garand and augmented by the M1918BAR while German platoons were built around the MG34 or MG42 as their base of fire. The fact that the combination of the Garand and the M1918BAR made US units more flexible since they were not slaved to the base of fire. For the Germans the loss of their primary base of fire weapon was disastrous. And Garand armed units in the assault could deliver several times the volume of fire that a 98-k armed unit could.

Completely agree. Which is again, why I think the innovation was not the Garand itself, but the issue of the rifle as the standard US rifle. Thus doctrine evolved to take advantage of the semi-automatic capability in a platoon, while the German Gruppe was handicapped by reliance of the majority of soldiers being equipped with bolt action rifle - and thus the reliance on the MG34 or MG42 to pin the enemy as the Schutzentrupp outflanked the enemy.

Note: The USA never had a machine gun as capable or a flexible as the either the MG34 or MG42.

The problem was the US still saw Machine Guns as special purpose fixed position fighting weapons, thus the weapons designed for the role were not easily man portable and certainly not designed for firing from the hip or on the go. Where the MG34 and MG42 were designed as multi-role weapons, that could be operated on the move, or from a mounted position.

However of all infantry weapons designed in WW-2 I think the incomparable FG-42 is the most innovative but it was produced in such low numbers that its impact was insignificant.


It combined the characteristics and firepower of a light machine gun in a lightweight form no larger than the standard-issue Kar 98k bolt-action rifle. Considered one of the most advanced weapon designs of World War II, the FG 42 influenced post-war small arms development and ultimately helped to shape the modern assault rifle concept.

Indeed, the Germans saw the Fallschirmjägergewehr 42 as a specialized Fallschirmjager weapon - it would be like the Americans specifically designing a weapon for issue only to the Rangers. But this could have been the inter-service rivalry where the Lufwaffe acted independently or even in competition too the Heer and Kriegsmarine. About 7000 were manufactured in total, and from what I have read, they were not easy to manufacture - which is thought to have added to why the numbers manufactured never meet the demand of the Lufwaffe. Plus I figure that Hitler may have been as acceptive to the idea of designing another rifle as he was for the idea to design the Sturmgewehr 44, eg: against it, until shown it was a good idea. Since the developers of the Sturmgewehr 44 passed it off as the Maschinenpistole 43 (submachine gun nomenclature) when Hitler suspended all new rifle programs due to administrative infighting within the Third Reich, ordered that more, newer submachine guns were to be built. This was feed by Heer research that displayed that average engagement ranges were between 200 to 300 meters (the majority being 200m).

[Xbow]

The problem was the US still saw Machine Guns as special purpose fixed position fighting weapons, thus the weapons designed for the role were not easily man portable and certainly not designed for firing from the hip or on the go. Where the MG34 and MG42 were designed as multi-role weapons, that could be operated on the move, or from a mounted position.

I agree 100%. Although the M1919 Browning machine gun was a solid reliable weapon it was something that was vastly inferior to either the G34 or MG42 with respect to weight, ergonomics, rate of fire but also for its lack of a quick change barrel and portability. Note: The weapon did not have fixed head space and timing as the German weapons did.

I think you have misunderstood my comment.

Perhaps so..I'm good at that!

The USA should have done something simple such as providing the M1918BAR guys with 50-75 round drum magazines, a heavier Stellite lined barrel equipped with cooling ribs to make the BAR more effective weapon when used in the light machine gun role.
+
Imagine the Colt Monitor Machine Rifle (FBI variant) with a 75 round drum magazine...that would have been a far better SAW for almost nothing.
Note: the Drum magazine depicted is from an AKM

Another innovative weapon is the much maligned Sten Gun that could be made in a muffler shop for a few pounds. Shepherd-Turpin-ENfield. It wasn't pretty but it was quite good enough. Of course the only way the STEN was innovative is in its design and manufacture


And IMHO the predominant innovative use of SMGs has to go to the Russians. Imagine entire SMG battalions with only one squad of SVT-40's in a platoon to provide long range cover fire. The idea was that its easier to teach an uneducated man to spray effectively than operate a precision weapon.
[youtube]Lq63GlFiCKE[/youtube]
Imagine the sound and effect of a hundred of these laying down fire against Germans with 98ks in Stalingrad

[Decky]

Another innovative weapon is the much maligned Sten Gun that could be made in a muffler shop for a few pounds.

Yep, do you know a lot of them were made in old clockwork toy shops? Since the gun is basically just a tube and a spring the shops already had almost all the equipment they needed.

[Xbow]

Yep, do you know a lot of them were made in old clockwork toy shops? Since the gun is basically just a tube and a spring the shops already had almost all the equipment they needed.

I didn't know about the clock/toy shops but I knew about but the bicycle, muffler, light fixture and heating and plumbing shops. They seldom if ever completed weapons in the small parts fabrication shops instead they would have lorrys drive around London and surrounding suburbs where the small shops were located to pick up rough components and take them to the Royal Small Arms Factory (RSAF) in North London for final fit and assembly. I think in all about 5 million were made during the war. I think the program was brilliant. The idea of US M3 Grease gun as a replacement for the expensive to produce Thompson came from the STEN.

[Tailz]

The STEN, Grease gun, and the Sturmgewehr 44 were designed on the principle of speed of manufacture. All of them used easily made parts (the Sturmgewehr 44 and the Grease Gun are made from metal stampings, and the STEN is just a bunch of metal tubes and springs) that can be manufactured in bulk and then just assembled with little finishing. The down side to this is that the weapons also had a tendency to be flawed in some way because of the cheep production methods. The Sturmgewehr 44 stampings created thin areas of metal that could fail with ware, the STEN had a tendency to fall apart.

[Xbow]

Taliz, no one said those rattle traps were superb weapons .

[Tailz]

Taliz, no one said those rattle traps were superb weapons .

Indeed. But in the theme of the discussion, the innovation of those weapons was mass production. I don't think mass production was an innovation unique to the Second World War, but standardisation on weapons such as these was an innovation. Thus why the Garand itself is not really an innovation, but equipping it as the standard rifle of an armed force, is the innovation. The same as Russian Assault forces, forces that fight in cities where the range is going to be a little better than 200-300 meters, is also in the same theme.

[Xbow]

Alright I have a devices that is genuinely innovative. The Proximity Fuze



It's small enough to hold in your hand so I say it qualifies!

[Tailz]

Alright I have a devices that is genuinely innovative. The Proximity Fuze

I'll buy that, although I think the proximity fuze has its ancestry in the attempt to have shells explode at a set time after release from the weapon - which was pioneers during the First World War. Where shell flight times were worked out for specific distances and calculated with a detonator fuse so that the shells would explode after a set amount of time had elapsed since the shell was fired from the projector. Thus shrapnel shells were timed to explode over enemy trenches. Where with a proximity fused shell detonates when it detects something within a set distance from the shell after leaving the muzzle of the projector.

[Xbow]

Taliz

Although it is not a hand held weapon I rather think the 'Sondergerät 500 Jägerfaust' is innovative. At least its 50mm rocket projectiles can be carried in the hand. So I will wait for your ruling on this matter.

Problem: The Me163 was initially armed with a pair of 30mm guns. About six hits were required to down a heavy bomber. Unfortunately the Komet's closure rate with the target was so high that few pilots could hit a B-17 or Halifax with enough rounds to kill it or even hit it at all.

Solution: the Sondergerät 500 Jägerfaust. The weapon was a collection of ten disposable short 50mm single shot gun barrels that were fitted to the wing roots of an Me163 (5 on each side) and pointed straight up. Upon firing the disposable barrels were ejected straight down by the propellant charge.

The innovative part: With the Sondergerät 500 Jägerfaust the Pilots tasks in the attack was to arm the weapon and fly under the bomber with the correct relationship to the sun and get under its shadow at close range. When that happened a light meter or Photo-detector would sense the change in light intensity and automatically fire a salvo of projectiles up into the gut of the bomber. It was used in combat once very close of the end of the war and erased a Halifax bomber instantly.

[Tailz]

Taliz

Although it is not a hand held weapon I rather think the 'Sondergerät 500 Jägerfaust' is innovative. At least its 50mm rocket projectiles can be carried in the hand. So I will wait for your ruling on this matter.

Problem: The Me163 was initially armed with a pair of 30mm guns. About six hits were required to down a heavy bomber. Unfortunately the Komet's closure rate with the target was so high that few pilots could hit a B-17 or Halifax with enough rounds to kill it or even hit it at all.

Solution: the Sondergerät 500 Jägerfaust. The weapon was a collection of ten disposable short 50mm single shot gun barrels that were fitted to the wing roots of an Me163 (5 on each side) and pointed straight up. Upon firing the disposable barrels were ejected straight down by the propellant charge.

The innovative part: With the Sondergerät 500 Jägerfaust the Pilots tasks in the attack was to arm the weapon and fly under the bomber with the correct relationship to the sun and get under its shadow at close range. When that happened a light meter or Photo-detector would sense the change in light intensity and automatically fire a salvo of projectiles up into the gut of the bomber. It was used in combat once very close of the end of the war and erased a Halifax bomber instantly.

The other drawback - Who on earth would want to be under a bomber when it gets destroyed and falls out of the sky?

[Xbow]

The other drawback - Who on earth would want to be under a bomber when it gets destroyed and falls out of the sky?

I thought about that.
However, the Me 163 would be going about 500mph (max speed 596mph) the B17 would be going 180mph(cruise) to 280mph(top speed). The closure speed on a target moving away (the best situation for your theory) would then be between 220mph(265fps) and 320mph (470fps).

Assuming:

•That the Me163 fired when it was 25 yards below the B-17
•That the velocity of the projectiles is 400feet per second (I can't imagine it being much faster than a Panzerschreck projectile with such a short tube)
•That the Sondergerät 500 Jägerfaust was fired when it was directly below the B-17 and center mass.

In that case the flight time of the projectiles to the B-17 would be about 2/10ths of a second. By the time of impact the Me163 would have moved from 53 to 94 feet further than the B-17 or Halifax. Both aircraft are about 72 to 75 feet long. Hence by the time of impact in either extreme case and all cases in between the Me163 is clear of the bomber at the time of impact. I doubt that a bomber 'falling' on a passing Me163 was a reasonable concern.

BUT! If the Sondergerät 500's projectiles detonated the four to five ton bomb load of a B-17 or Halifax the Me163 would certainly assume the status of a descending cloud of flaming tin and aluminium shards.

Yes a wild ride it would certainly be! But the one thing the Germans had plenty of was young indoctrinated volunteers for such duty! Remember, nichts für den Vater Landes und nichts für den Führer