Maybe als the MP35 for the Soviets?
2 Likes
That might be a good addition if they only get the M1928A1 Thompson (box) and PPSh 41 (box). I will add this to the list.
Do you know what the word effectively means? You have an extremely low iq if you cant interpret such things and need someone to spell out every little thing. Also never said t20 was mass produced. I said they ordered 100k of them before war ended. Production only got canceled because the U.S. WON! If the war didnât end t20 would have been in the hands of many soldiers within a couple months. The reason they didnât produce them after war was, well because the fighting was over. Was time to improve, hence the m14 shortly after.
[quote=âCaptainSebekel, post:66, topic:153074â]
Apparently the troll knows the definition of an Assault Rifle and the mouth breathing American not
Do you know the definition of âeffectivelyâ? Nato rounds play a huge role in weapon design. Iâm assuming i need to tell you why as well since you think the U.S. is retarded for taking so long. Part of the reason your beloved fascist lost is because they were using several different ammo types. Not only is it a logistical nightmare but you canât use x bullets for y guns when it matters most. The nato alliance was so smart, that they all decided to use the same ammunition type. It took so long for the u.s. to properly adopt the .556 because they had to transition half the world along with them. Youâre welcome for the history lesson.
Language. No need to disrespect others if they disagree with you
1 Like
Battle rifle ? Its a post-ww2 term for new weapons such as FN fal, M14.
Or AR? Its Assault Rifle in this context.
We do know that very well.
Which makes your argument entirely pointless.
Or germany would have sent heinrich from rtcw to end entire america.
About 1958?
âShortly afterâ
Fun fact, as early as 1920-1930 smaller bullets were suggested for US army.
Some even tested / used in .2somethingthisidioticmeasurementsystemmakesnosensr.
Pedersen.
kind of the reason of development for stg44 & 7.92kurz.
Soviets had the 7.62 m42 ready, 1943 ? gun for it relatively fast
( cba to check so not going in detail here )
From that to AK47, wasnt really that long path.
Dunno, didnt really take decades from soviets to arm the other half of the world with 7.62 and platforms for it.
Back for more, I see.
Yes and battle rifles still do not effectively turn into an AR, regardless of trans-rifle rights. They use completely different rounds and as seen with the M14, AVS36 or the AVT modification, they have completely different issues, most notably recoil and weight.
The only rifle and rounds that were effictively a AR was the M2 carbine/ M1/M2 modification.
Is that why the Yankees developed both the 5.56 and the M16/ AR15 in the 60s while the NATO nations agreed on getting a intermediate round in the 70s and adopting 5.56 in the 80s?
Yeah I think that one makes sense. Blame NATO even if they developed both stuff anyways.
It is also worth noting that only the US had major issues with its battle rifle while European rifles such as the FN FAL or the G3 saw service until the 90s and the FN FAL being called the âRight Arm of the Free Worldâ. So there was no real issue for NATO, but for the US only.
And I also said âmas-production-likelyâ or other meme terms, indicating your baseless claim that it was intended or set for mass production while it cleary wasnt.
And I wanted evidences for that one. You know, a link, the name of the book or something like that. Not assumptions.
But I do not get anything like this from people with such claims.
Sources also stated that US officials were concerned with already starting mass production phase of a rifle they never tested in the battlefield at all.
Based on the magical 100k numbers only Americans know about?
âShortly afterââŚ
You do know that the M14 was issues in 1957?