Propagandacast small arms fake news.

First I would like to say that Dane does a good job being entertaining and is an asset to the community. I have watched his casts for many years and the fact that I can measure my viewership of his content in years says a lot about his longevity.

That being said, I have watched and realized with growing concern that he knows little to nothing about small arms. So below is a list of factual errors considering small arms that I would like to correct in order to dispel some of the accidental misinformation spread by a well meaning but less than experienced friend when it comes to firearms.

1. Riflegrenades. US rifle grenades came in many forms in WWII, but all of them used an attachable device that must be fitted to the rifle prior to use. These launchers were developed and issued on a very large scale to US troops, usually with two being present in a US squad of 12 men, but not always fitted to the rifles all the time. To use the rifle grenade, you attach the launcher to the rifle either an M1, M7 or M8 launcher for the M1903 Springfield, M1 Garand or M1 Carbine respectively. Then the grenade is placed on the launcher and a special grenade launching blank was placed in the chamber. Fired either from the shoulder or from the ground, and depending on grenade type and position on the launcher and angle of fire, these grenades could be fired anywhere from 25- 300 yards with good accuracy. The AT riflegrenade had nearly identical anti armor penetration when compared to the 2.36 inch bazooka rocket. M1 garands when fitted with the rifle grenade launcher could still feed and fire regular ammunition, but required manually cycling of the bolt for each shot due to the gas system being disabled by a vent that is activated by attaching the launcher to the rifle. This was done to prevent damage to the gas system from the extra gas pressure generated by the rifle grenade. The M1 carbine however was unaffected due to its totally different gas system and would function normally with or without the M8 launcher attached. As such it is often seen in photographs with the launcher on the rifle even when not in use. British riflegrenades used a cup launcher very similar to the German one, and not the grenade on a stick thing he claims. That was from early WWI and was quickly replaced because it was crap. The French actually have the best Rifle grenade launching systems in case you were wondering being an early adopter and innovator of the weapon ranging from WWI until the present day.

2. M1 Garands can eject a partially fired clip. It’s easy. You pull the bolt to the rear and push a button on the left side of the receiver and the clip pops out. Done.

3. Semi automatic rifles are not less accurate or less powerful than bolt action rifles. While bolt action rifles can be very accurate, the ones issued in WWII were on average able to hold a four inch group at 100 yards. Each army had different standards for testing rifles and rejected anything that didn’t meet their standards, but when you compare the standards of Germany, the US and England, they all end up being about the same standard of about 4 minutes of angle which is about 4 inch groups at 100 yards. This is not impressive by any means, but is suitable for a combat rifle and when combined with good marksmanship training and good sights and ammunition, will produce hits on a man sized target out to 500 yards, which is well beyond the ranges usually fought at. The notion that semi automatic rifles are less powerful is silly, as the amount of energy generated by a full power battle rifle round such as .303 British, 30-06 M2 ball or 7.92x57mm is so much that the amount to cycle the operating system is less than 1% of the total energy of the round fired.

4. BREN guns were not “too accurate”. The British standard of accuracy on a BREN gun was actually higher than that of their standard for a bolt action rifle and they wanted their BRENs to be highly accurate. The accuracy of the BREN was prized by Tommies as it allowed them to be very effective at suppressing enemy troopers with accurate fire with fewer rounds. If less accuracy was desired for some reason, it was simple to just hold the gun more loosely and let it vibrate around, you don’t need a less accurate or worn out barrel to do this.

5. The M1 Garand “ping” from an ejecting empty clip was never used to as a cue to jump up and ambush anyone who had an empty gun. Not only is the noise of the clip very hard to hear during a firefight, but even if it was heard, reloading an M1 clip is so fast and easy that attempting to rush someone who had “pinged” would be akin to suicide. M1 Garand clips are a variation of the Austrian Manlicher type and they are much faster to use than Mauser style stripper clips. Both can be very fast, but with equal training, an M1 clip is faster.

6. The AK-47 is not based off of the Sturmgewer. It’s ammunition is heavily inspired by the German 8mm kurz, but the gun itself is not. The StG44 is a stamped sheet metal rifle with a short stroke gas piston design that uses a tilting bolt to lock, while the AK-47 is mostly milled (later AKMs would use more stampings) that uses a long stroke gas piston and a multi lug rotating bolt. The operating principles of the Kalashnikov are actually more like an upside down M1 Garand. AKs are great guns and they are a hybrid of some of the best guns that came before them, but takes very little from the StG44 family of weapons except the idea of a short cartridge.

Whew! That was fun. Anyone else wanna talk about the small arms in the CoH games? My passion for small arms history is matched only by my desire to teach and share that knowledge.

I would really like to find or hear something about PIAT's exept their wiki page. I wonder, why they are spring-loaders? Even germans in final periods of war had AT rockets literally everywhere, but Britain is still using giant springs to take down tanks.

1) Soviet sniper scopes were more succesfull than german counterparts. Optics were more quality than germans (yea, big surprise, because soviet tank optics have very poor quality, especially at start of war, but production optics for tanks and small armshave very big differences). Also scope mounted from side of rifle gave a possibility to use sniper rifle at close distance as regular rifle. It also gave sniper possibility to fast dismount sniper scope and looking as "regular soldier", if was chance to get in captivity. Also soviets have more special rounds for sniper rifles than germans.
2) PIAT's and bazooka's don't got usage in soviet army due some disadvantages. PIAT's rounds in cold lose stability to detonate, also very tough reloading. Bazooka's have troubles with cold and danger zone behind shooter. Also troubles with aiming in strong wind conditions. But must said, that these bazookas were first models, with many lacks that were fixed in later versions. And one common minus for both - very low distance of fire in comparsion to AT rifles. Soviets wants 300-400 meters of fire distance. Bazooka and piat have maximum 100 meters.

I would really like to find or hear something about PIAT's exept their wiki page. I wonder, why they are spring-loaders? Even germans in final periods of war had AT rockets literally everywhere, but Britain is still using giant springs to take down tanks.

Special british way, like in tank production)) Only british did tanks like train tanks, when armor plates used rails to mount. Only comet was really succesfull tank (as medium tank) if looking on technology and used experience, but comet went in war too late.
PIAT decision also gives you possibility to shoot from buildings and trenches without danger to get wounded from blast wave like bazooka, faust of pshreck. Also overall length of weapon lesser than other variants (especially if compare with AT rifles). It very closer to mortar design, where length of tube don't affect on fire distance.
Two links abot british AT small weapon. On russian.
https://warspot.ru/238-s-rogatinoy-na-medvedya
https://warspot.ru/10296-britanskiy-variant-boys-i-piat

I would really like to find or hear something about PIAT's exept their wiki page. I wonder, why they are spring-loaders? Even germans in final periods of war had AT rockets literally everywhere, but Britain is still using giant springs to take down tanks.

Forgotten Weapons did a video on the PIAT relatively recently, you should check it out.

1) Soviet sniper scopes were more succesfull than german counterparts. Optics were more quality than germans (yea, big surprise, because soviet tank optics have very poor quality, especially at start of war, but production optics for tanks and small armshave very big differences). Also scope mounted from side of rifle gave a possibility to use sniper rifle at close distance as regular rifle. It also gave sniper possibility to fast dismount sniper scope and looking as "regular soldier", if was chance to get in captivity. Also soviets have more special rounds for sniper rifles than germans.

Ok, this is a good one!

Later war Soviet optics were very rugged and are generally regarded as being the best of the war from anyone, but the earlier Soviet scopes were direct copies of German ones!

The Soviet scope mounts for the late war style were excellent, but not for the reasons you say. The ability to use the iron sights and the optic was mostly for two reasons. One, if your scope broke you could still use your irons as s back up right away without taking off the optic and the second reason is for checking your zero easily when you put the optic back on the rifle. You can sight in on an object with the iron sights and then look through the scope and see if you are aimed at the same point as when you zeroed the scope before. It doesn’t have to be the same as the iron sights, as long as you know the correct offset amount.

The scopes were meant to be taken off for transportation, not in order to blend in, but I’m sure that happened too. The original intent was for snipers to put the scope in a protective case while traveling because even the excellent Soviet scopes were still fragile by today’s standards and needed to be protected.

Fun fact! Soviet scopes were zeroed at the factory with shins of metal and then fine tuned later. This means that scopes are not interchangeable from rifle to rifle without totally messing up the zero, which is why it was important to keep them together.

IMHO theme of thread looks like...person agression. Fake news are when you know about something true, but say only lie. WW2 too big theme to know everything. Maybe rename them as "Myths about small arms in WW2"?

Let's just say that Dane has been leaning a little bit too much towards the Axis side and that's also the reason why I stopped watching him when I noticed it.

So him being a bit clueless about ALLIED small arms comes as no real surprise to me.

Also it's fairly obvious what the Soviets copied to make their AK47 even if they're not the same weapon system -



*cough* (superior German engineering) *cough*.

IMHO theme of thread looks like...person agression. Fake news are when you know about something true, but say only lie. WW2 too big theme to know everything. Maybe rename them as "Myths about small arms in WW2"?

It was really more of a joke in the title about people calling things “fake news”. I was being sarcastic. Lol

Let's just say that Dane has been leaning a little bit too much towards the Axis side and that's also the reason why I stopped watching him when I noticed it.

So him being a bit clueless about ALLIED small arms comes as no real surprise to me.

Also it's fairly obvious what the Soviets copied to make their AK47 even if they're not the same weapon system -



*cough* (superior German engineering) *cough*.

The Germans did heavily influence the AK, but mechanically it really isn’t very similar “under the hood”.

The AK’s gas piston is much more similar to an upside down M1 Garand actually. But they did copy the concept behind the cartridge, that being a shorter, lower velocity round with a lighter bullet that is still the same diameter of the standard infantry rifle round. ( 7.92 for the Germans and 7.62 for the Soviets )

Captured German engineers would later help the Soviets figure out the stamping process, so I’ll give you that too, but the implementation is very different. The AK has a main receiver that is either stamped or milled, with s dust cover on top of it. The dust cover actually is not needed structurally and an AK can be fired with it removed. The StG has a two part upper and lower receiver that are both stamped sheet metal that hinge together, kind of like an AR-15/M16.

Once again, forgotten weapons and in range TV have videos on comparing and contrasting the AK and StG. I highly recommend them. ( Ian from FW is actually super cool in real life and I got to meet them at a 2 Gun match while living in Arizona. They’re both interesting dudes and swear a lot off camera. Lol

https://youtu.be/tTkUlMmpW7g

https://youtu.be/sPWJOJZQCs8

The Germans did heavily influence the AK, but mechanically it really isn’t very similar “under the hood”.

The AK’s gas piston is much more similar to an upside down M1 Garand actually. But they did copy the concept behind the cartridge, that being a shorter, lower velocity round with a lighter bullet that is still the same diameter of the standard infantry rifle round. ( 7.92 for the Germans and 7.62 fir the Soviets )

Captured German engineers would later help the Soviets figure out the stamping process, so I’ll give you that too, but the implementation is very different. The AK has a main receiver that is either stamped or milled, with s dust cover on top of it. The dust cover actually is not needed structurally and an AK can be fired with it removed. The StG has a two part upper and lower receiver that are both stamped sheet metal that hinge together, kind of like an AR-15/M16.

Once again, forgotten weapons and in range TV have videos on comparing and contrasting the AK and StG. I highly recommend them. ( Ian from FW is actually super cool in real life and I got to meet them at a 2 Gun match while living in Arizona. They’re both interesting dudes and swear a lot off camera. Lol

What I'm shooting at here is that anything good that came out of the Soviet Union was basically copied, that's all. If you do a little bit of research on everything again, good that the Soviets "made" you'll reach the same conclusion.

Examples: PPSh 41 was actually copied from the Finnish Suomi KP/-31, their IS-1s and IS-2s didn't even come before they captured and examined Tigers, their arguably "famous" Lada car is actually heavily inspired and copied from Fiat, Italians. I could probably go on but it would take me a full day/night cycle to list them all.

Also, guess where the pic is from.

4. BREN guns were not “too accurate”. The British standard of accuracy on a BREN gun was actually higher than that of their standard for a bolt action rifle and they wanted their BRENs to be highly accurate. The accuracy of the BREN was prized by Tommies as it allowed them to be very effective at suppressing enemy troopers with accurate fire with fewer rounds. If less accuracy was desired for some reason, it was simple to just hold the gun more loosely and let it vibrate around, you don’t need a less accurate or worn out barrel to do this.

There is a lot of context missing there, it is true that a Bren was NOT going to supress a group of infantry at range anywhere near as well as a propper HMG.

Any true HMG does two things, puts down a LOT of rounds, and does so with a "beating patern", which causes suppression over a decently large area. With more accurate weapons like a Bren, you could suppress a small area sure, but maybe not a larger area covering 10-20 infantry or more.

This was pretty much same problem with the more recently used British LSW (Light support weapon - just a long barreled SA80), it was deployed at section level with the role of fire support for flanking manouvers, however again just being a longer barreled version of the standard assault rifle, it only really added extra accuracy, no increase in rate of fire or spread of bullets. So it worked closer to a sniper type weapon, giving more concentrated fire than an actual MG, which was supposed to be its intended role.

This is LSW:



Which has been replaced by Minimi, which address the issues above:




I dont know what Dane was saying about Bren accuracy, but I dont doubt that it wouldnt perform suppression dutys as well as a propper MG due to being too accurate. That doesnt mean it wasnt a good gun, or well liked.

What I'm shooting at here is that anything good that came out of the Soviet Union was basically copied, that's all.

Yes. Soviet Union bad. Western countries good. /end

Who needs overly complicated thought processes anyways??

Yes. Soviet Union bad. Western countries good. /end

Who needs overly complicated thought processes anyways??

I'm guessing that you're from the Eastern part of Germany. I'm well aware of the brainwashing of the communists in that part of Germany, most of you even, to my big surprise, seem to speak or at least understand Russian.

If you don't believe me that's fine, but if you do even a little bit of research you will see that I'm not talking about this stuff without proof. I'm not going to waste my time trying to prove something to someone that doesn't want to hear anything else on the internet.

What I'm shooting at here is that anything good that came out of the Soviet Union was basically copied, that's all. If you do a little bit of research on everything again, good that the Soviets "made" you'll reach the same conclusion.

Sounds like a real populism.

Examples: PPSh 41 was actually copied from the Finnish Suomi KP/-31...

Soviets took round magazine from finnish SMG, but everything else was original. PPSh was created as replacement for PPD, and both created separated from Suomi. Common outview of magazine not equal to "was actually copied from the Finnish Suomi".

...their IS-1s and IS-2s didn't even come before they captured and examined Tigers, their arguably "famous" Lada car is actually heavily inspired and copied from Fiat, Italians. I could probably go on but it would take me a full day/night cycle to list them all.

Let's go then with "their Tiger and Panthers didn't even come before they captured and examined KV-1 and T-34".

Also it's fairly obvious what the Germans copied to make their G43 even if they're not the same weapon system.


P.S. Next time please spend some time and give some proves pls.
P.S.S. It is ironically, that your manner of proving your position (west is good and east stolen EVERYTHING) quite often refers me the communist propaganda from the past. Just replace "West" and "East" words in the previous sentence.

I'm guessing that you're from the Eastern part of Germany. I'm well aware of the brainwashing of the communists in that part of Germany, most of you even, to my big surprise, seem to speak or at least understand Russian.

If you don't believe me that's fine, but if you do even a little bit of research you will see that I'm not talking about this stuff without proof. I'm not going to waste my time trying to prove something to someone that doesn't want to hear anything else on the internet.

Wow. Could you be any more stereotypical American?

Wow. Could you be any more stereotypical American?

Yes.

He could be me.

I’m literally in the armory on base right now surrounded by M16A4s, M240Bs, M9s and other such Marine Corps goodies.

Semper Fucking Fi

Yes.

He could be me.

I’m literally in the armory on base right now surrounded by M16A4s, M240Bs, M9s and other such Marine Corps goodies.

Semper Fucking Fi

Heh, cleaning the weapons, Marine? Keep up the good work, Semper Fi brother.

I'm guessing that you're from the Eastern part of Germany. I'm well aware of the brainwashing of the communists in that part of Germany, most of you even, to my big surprise, seem to speak or at least understand Russian.

If you don't believe me that's fine, but if you do even a little bit of research you will see that I'm not talking about this stuff without proof. I'm not going to waste my time trying to prove something to someone that doesn't want to hear anything else on the internet.

...I mean, TBF, if you assume people who disagree with you are all communists, I think it's you that doesn't want to hear anything else on the internet...

And I mean, if the Soviets were really so oppressive and evil with their governing, why would anybody who lived in East Germany defend them? Do you really think Soviet "brainwashing" worked in countries like Poland or Hungary who fought to overthrow the Soviets? And, according to western brainwashing sources, didn't East Germany have the worst of it too? I fail to see your logic.

On topic:

There is a lot of context missing there, it is true that a Bren was NOT going to supress a group of infantry at range anywhere near as well as a propper HMG.

Any true HMG does two things, puts down a LOT of rounds, and does so with a "beating patern", which causes suppression over a decently large area. With more accurate weapons like a Bren, you could suppress a small area sure, but maybe not a larger area covering 10-20 infantry or more.

This was pretty much same problem with the more recently used British LSW (Light support weapon - just a long barreled SA80), it was deployed at section level with the role of fire support for flanking manouvers, however again just being a longer barreled version of the standard assault rifle, it only really added extra accuracy, no increase in rate of fire or spread of bullets. So it worked closer to a sniper type weapon, giving more concentrated fire than an actual MG, which was supposed to be its intended role.


I dont know what Dane was saying about Bren accuracy, but I dont doubt that it wouldnt perform suppression dutys as well as a propper MG due to being too accurate. That doesnt mean it wasnt a good gun, or well liked.

I think this is the wrong context to use it in.

The Bren was not and was never supposed to be an HMG, and the modern problem of the LSW not being able to apply enough suppression isn't necessarily relevant to WWII. The Bren fit the UK's infantry doctrine at the time (and for a long time afterwards), which is why it remained in service for decades. The LSW doesn't have nearly the same service life, which I think makes it fair to say it didn't fit very well with the UK's current infantry doctrine.

The Bren is obviously not as effective as a dedicated HMG or emplaced GPMG/MMG when suppressing large groups. However, it's a light machine gun that achieves fire superiority on a far more local level. You don't need to cover a whole open field; you just need to suppress that bloke and his friends over there behind the sandbags. Oftentimes the Bren's accuracy helps in suppressing small groups, especially those behind cover since they know you are accurate enough to perforate their heads if they peeked out to fire back.

Dane's comment that the Bren was too accurate to suppress effectively is almost akin to calling an MG42's suppression fire ineffective because rocket artillery does it better; he's comparing a weapon out of its intended role and scale (or context).

I still love Dane's entertainment value, but I would agree that people should take his history talks with a grain of salt.

If you don't believe me that's fine, but if you do even a little bit of research you will see that I'm not talking about this stuff without proof. I'm not going to waste my time trying to prove something to someone that doesn't want to hear anything else on the internet.

Yea, Panther don't get influence from sloped armor of t-34, 120 mm german mortar wasn't copy of soviet 120 mm (soviet one have origins from frenche system). G-43 not was by influence of svt. Shrecks not have bazooka design in origin.

Looks like you have little representation how real engeeners work. Every engeener bases his work on what was invested before him. You always study other mechanics and decisions. It like artist work, you see paintings from other artists and make your own. You could use similar composition, color, value decisions but your painting will be not copy (only if you don't make strict copy or master studies). The real good engeener could combine all good old decision in such way, that you get not only good quality product, but also product that will be very good in production too. Like Koshkin (IRC) said: "Even fool could make complicated thing". Try to make product that will have good quality and production possibilities. First who open power of powder were Chinese, but in which level of technical design they were in start of WW2? First who make first working tank were British and they lead way to others countires, but they level of tank design was too outdated in WW2. Firs who make strategic bomber were Russian Empire, but who has the best strategic bombers in WW2? There are more and more examples, that technical discoveries not suddenly pop-up from void.