luv2safari
Member
The screw. It revolutionized machines of every sort. Guns are just machines.Broader than individual firearm… Powder, rifling, caps to primers, breach loading, … where to start?
The screw. It revolutionized machines of every sort. Guns are just machines.Broader than individual firearm… Powder, rifling, caps to primers, breach loading, … where to start?
So my opinion is wrong? OKThat was the U.S. doctrine, but not the German doctrine. The Garand fit with the U.S. doctrine, and the MG34 / MG42 fit with the German doctrine. Therefore, it's incorrect to say that "the Garand won the war."
The screw. It revolutionized machines of every sort. Guns are just machines.Broader than individual firearm… Powder, rifling, caps to primers, breach loading, … where to start?
Accomplished with the invention of the screw.Anyone who wrote rifling is on point. I said metallic cartridges. I think rifling supersedes that.
"Glock Perfection"
You were right the first time. Rifling was around since the 1500's, but it wasn't practical because of the slowness of loading. It took the Minie ball to make rifles practical for general issue, and then breechloading cartridges.Anyone who wrote rifling is on point. I said metallic cartridges. I think rifling supersedes that.
Good points but if you look at it from the perspective of rifling not existing today amidst all the other inventions, we know accuracy would not really exist.You were right the first time. Rifling was around since the 1500's, but it wasn't practical because of the slowness of loading. It took the Minie ball to make rifles practical for general issue, and then breechloading cartridges.
Eli Whitney's demonstration of a supposed interchangeable-parts musket to President Jefferson was staged. He brought a selection of previously hand-fitted parts. He got the contract, but wasn't able to actually make interchangeable guns on a production basis. The first true interchangeable musket in the U.S. was the Model 1842. The British were even further behind. Musket assembly was a cottage industry until the London Armoury Company made the first interchangeable Enfields in the mid-1850's.I would say the vast amount of non-firearm specific manufacturing and materials technology such as Eli Whitney’s manufacturing improvements using interchangeable parts.
Look up the USS Vesuvius which had three hull mounted penumatic air cannons that shot dynamite. We used it on Havana.I would like to see someone make a compressed air cannon that can hurl a 32 pound projectile a thousand yards . . .
When we speak of "firearms", we tend to think of small arms or individual weapons, but it does encompass artillery as well.
Those pumpkin chucking guys have some serious air cannons....I would like to see someone make a compressed air cannon that can hurl a 32 pound projectile a thousand yards . . .
One of the best ideas to come out of 1775 for sure.I don’t know whether it’s an invention, or an idea- giving a rifle to a US Marine.
Wasn't this also the case with the Japanese as well?You are correct about German doctrine. Not only was the machine gun the base of fire, it was the primary offensive weapon for the infantry
I have not had a chance to read the Japanese doctrinal manuals, so I cannot say. However, given the culture, and how they eventually fought the war, It would seem that Japanese infantry doctrine was very similar to that of the French Infantry . . . .Wasn't this also the case with the Japanese as well?
To minimize what occured in the Pacific Theater by saying we'd be speaking German if not for the Garand is pretty naive. Germany's fate was sealed when they attacked eastward. Artillery, bombs and tanks were critical . Rifles and bullets were incredibly important as were ships and planes and trucks. U.S. production capabilities won WWII, moreso than any individual, army, weapon or doctrine.