Video trumps those sources. The guy was using it accurately. I'm not sure what the claim was, because I have a well sourced book on the rifle and it says US testing showed it worked in full auto, just with the muzzle brake. Remember it was meant to be used in short bursts like an MG to create a cone of fire.
Were that the case why do we use M16s instead of bolt actions today?
Wasn't the dropping of heavier calibers more for cost cutting and difficulty shipping and maintaining heavier systems overseas? Well that and having a much more accurate air force. Heavy artillery had a pretty vital role in WW2, which is why everyone had really heavy stuff for corps and above.
Will respond to the rest later, but that is a complicated system to achieve that effect. Still interesting and if the Italians could use that they could develop an interesting family of launch systems.
Yup.
A man of above average skill at a shooting range?
Because we can.
True. But ... baby steps
towards the M79.Which IIRC were manufactured in small numbers due to use of scarce weight saving alloys.
His first time ever firing that rifle in automatic AFAIK. Certainly more experienced with semi-auto shooting, but not automatic AFAIK. He also did the M14 and the results were MUCH worse, which makes it seem like it was an issue with the rifle, not the shooter. Especially as the 8mm Mauser is more powerful than the 7.62 NATO.
Absolutely. Even a 6.5 Mauser would work, which is just the 8mm Mauser necked down. The less heavy the bullet the less the recoil and the more efficient the muzzle brake. Even shortened 8mm Mauser necked down to 6.5mm, which was a pretty common caliber at the time even in the civilian market, like the modern 6.5mm Creedmoor would have been easier to control.
I'd recommend a few books on the M-16. There were very good reasons based on operations research to upgrade small arms. That was the entire reason for upgrading to the Garand from the Springfield and the Sturmgewehr and AK47 from their bolt actions. In the case of the Americans, their small arms were upgraded at the same time as everything else in the interwar. The Euros were too broke to upgrade from the bolt actions despite their desire to do so and some interesting prototypes.Because we can.
Progress.
Need to replace worn bolt actions with something borrowed, something new ...
Small arms were the last thing to be upgraded, as good enough was good enough.
And are not so important when look at the fighting capability of a Division.
No, they were just normal models lightened and using a muzzle brake.
Sure, but this guy has fired MGs of all sorts, especially a bunch of WW2 ones for his channel. If he says it lives up to the hype I'm willing to believe it especially given that that matches what this books cites from US army studies of the rifle:
The based that off their experience in Crete where British snipers were outranging them as they often only had SMGs and firing from up to 1000m away. So their goal was to have all weapons in one, SMG, MG, and rifle while using the standard caliber. It simplified logistics vs. having a short and long version of the same caliber.
Oh, OK, wrong word choice
Different design choice/doctrine.
Its essentially a strong Panzergrenadier Division. With 3 Armoured and 7 Infantry Battalions.
Also a good way to go. Not that dissimilar to US Mechanised Divisions half a century later
@ATP
IMO too "heavy" - you have Corps level stuff there - but as we are fantasising about ideal
Those Long Toms need a "dywizjon pomiarów artyleryjskich" - i.e. a "ranging and target acquisition" - Counter Battery/Survey battalion, as otherwise they are limited to 8-10km range (no can find target beyond that).
Good point about having a few light planes for recce/laison - although again this might be a Corps asset ... could find targets for that long range artillery
BTW - here "dyvision" is used to denote an artillery battalion - this is Polish, Russian etc. usage where there are two similar yet spelt differently words for division - one meaning the "big" thing, the "combined arms" formation, while the other denotes an artillery or cavalry battalion/half-regiment. French Revolutionary/Napoleonic Army also used "division" for two things. Austrian German - same, for cavalry half-regiment.
I recommended something like that in the OP and in a separate mortars thread. I'm 100% in agreement that that is the way to go. Even if just at the regimental level.
That Bad Boyon the left is the 160mm. So Big and Stronk!
The Puny Runt
Compared to a 15cm howitzer (the shell is roughly same weight) the 16cm mortar is one third the weight and somewhere between one third and a half of the range. Decisions, decisions ...
Problem with rifled barrel HEAT shells is that it reduces their penetration by something like 50%. 105mm howitzer infantry support Shermans would be better.