Military Review

Nambu 94 Pistol (Nambu Type 94 Pistol)

26



Kijiro Nambu is sometimes called Japanese John Browning. He made a huge contribution to the development of many samples of small weaponswhich was used by the imperial Japanese army during the Second World War. Nevertheless, it should be noted that the development of Browning is still appreciated for its durability and simplicity of design, and the Nambu weapons were often complex, not very convenient, and not always reliable.

HistoryPistols.ru has already talked about the Japanese Nambu pistol Type 14 (Nambu Taisho 14) and its varieties. This gun was successfully used in the Japanese army, but it was rather bulky and heavy. The desire to create a lighter and more compact weapon led to the emergence of a Nambu 94 pistol (Nambu Type 94 Pistol).



In the literature there is an opinion that the Nambu Type 94 pistol is rather ugly and one of the worst military pistols of the Second World War.



Of course, this weapon is not the best in terms of functionality and design, but its original and unconventional design and today attracts the attention of collectors and fans. stories weapons.



Some researchers claim that the NNambu 94 pistol was originally created as a commercial model and was intended for export to South America.



The gun was developed under the usual in the land of the rising sun 8 mm Nambu cartridges (8 × 22mm Nambu). These munitions were not very common in other countries of the world. It is unlikely that the Japanese were so naive to believe that the weapon will be popular and in demand in the countries of South America. Most likely the gun was created as a personal weapon for pilots and tank crews who needed compact weapons in conditions of small dimensions of combat vehicles.



In 1934, the pistol was first adopted in tank troops and air forces of the Imperial Japanese Army, and shortly before the outbreak of war in China in July 1937 and in the ground units. The Nambu pistol received the Type 94 designation, according to the last digits of the year it entered service. 1934 in Japanese chronology is 2594 (from 660 BC, when the first emperor of Japan ascended the throne). Serial production of weapons began in 1935, at the Nambu Rifle Manufacturing Company.



The Nambu 94 Pistol (Nambu Type 94 Pistol) consists of four main components: a frame with a handle, an outer casing with a bolt, a barrel with a locking mechanism, and a magazine. Box magazine single-row pistol, designed for 6 cartridges. The magazine release button is located on the left side of the handle, in front of the trigger guard.

Nambu 94 Pistol (Nambu Type 94 Pistol)


Automatic Nambu gun Type 94 uses recoil energy in the short course of the barrel. Coupling the bolt with the barrel is due to the vertically sliding wedge, which is located in the slot of the protrusion under the chamber. Shutter pistol rather unusual design. It consists of two parts - the outer casing and the shutter itself, which is installed in the back of the casing. The outer casing is connected to the bolt with a transverse pin.



In the extreme forward position of the barrel and shutter, the locking wedge is at the top point, and is held by the protrusion of the frame. In this position, the side projections of the wedge enter the grooves in the walls of the bolt. After the shot, the barrel and bolt move back together for the first time. After some distance, locking the wedge, due to the bevels of the pistol frame, goes down, releasing the bolt. After disengagement, the barrel stops and the bolt continues to move to the extreme rear position. When this happens removing the liner from the chamber and cocking. Further, under the action of a return spring, the bolt begins to move forward, while sending the cartridge from the magazine to the chamber.



The trigger mechanism of the pistol single action, with a hidden trigger. The trigger pull connecting the trigger and the sear is located openly on the left side of the frame and moves in a transverse plane, so that when the trigger is cocked, accidentally pressing the pull can cause an unexpected shot, even without pressing the trigger.



Manual safety is located on the frame on the left, above the cheek handles. To control the use of ammunition, the design of the pistol provides a slide delay. After the ammunition runs out in the weapon, the protrusion of the magazine feeder locks the bolt in the rear position.



When the shooter retrieves an empty magazine, the pistol bolt closes under the action of the return spring. For this reason, after installing a new magazine with cartridges, before producing the first shot, it is necessary to distort the bolt, sending the cartridge to the chamber. Such a design of the slide delay sometimes causes the magazine to become jammed due to the strong return spring. After that, in order to extract the magazine from the pistol grip, the shooter has to put considerable effort.



The cheeks of the pistol grip, usually plastic, with a diamond-shaped notch. Weapons made after the first half of the 1944 year, in order to save, was equipped with wooden cheeks arms without any notches. The cheeks of the handle are mounted in the frame due to the upper ledge, which is included in the groove of the frame, and the bottom screw. This method of attachment resembles a pistol Parabellum.



The total length of the gun 186 mm, height 116 mm, length of the barrel 96 mm, length of the aiming line 117 mm, weight of weapons without 750 ammunition gr. The barrel of a Nambu Type 94 pistol has six right-angled rifling. The pistol grip is rather small for a hand of an average European, but for a small Japanese brush it was just right. The angle of the grip and the overall ergonomics of the weapon, oddly enough, is quite good.

Japanese Nambu Type 94 Pistol


To the rear of the frame just above the handle is attached antabka, which is a trapezoid-shaped bracket.



The gun is equipped with an additional store fuse. When the magazine is removed, under the action of the spring, the safety lever turns around its axis and its front edge abuts against the back of the trigger. When installing the magazine in the pistol grip, the back of the safety lever turns and unlocks the trigger. Thus, the magazine fuse does not allow pulling the trigger when the magazine is removed.



An oval-shaped extraction window is located in the casing of the bolt on top. Removing the sleeve is up, due to the reflector installed in the frame of the gun. Sights fixed. The front sight is mounted on the upper part of the shutter casing, the rear sight is placed on the upper ledge of the frame. The front sight and rear sight are small in height, and therefore aiming from the weapon is inconvenient.



Marking Japanese weapons is not quite familiar to Europeans. On the right side of the frame in the tail section there is a marking in the form of a hieroglyph, indicating the era of the reign of Emperor Hirohito. After it are two digits "19.6" - this is the year and month of release of the gun. The year is specified in Japanese chronology. In order to determine the year of manufacture of a particular gun, add 25 to the first digit. Accordingly, the gun presented on the photo was made in June 1944. The serial number of the 55879 pistol is marked on the frame above the trigger guard.



The markings on the left side of the frame in the form of three hieroglyphs 式 四九 indicate the model of the weapon - Type 94. Two hieroglyphs in the tail section on the left side of the frame indicate the positions of the safety lever (the left one - “fire”, the top one - “the fuse on”).



The last digits of the serial number are printed on the back of the gun stores.



The Nambu gun 94 was equipped with a holster and a spare shop. The holster could be made of genuine leather or canvas. Canvas holsters were probably made at the end of the war, when the resources of the empire were exhausted and it was necessary to save on everything.



Most researchers estimate the NNambu 94 Pistol as an under-performing weapon for use in the military. Low-power 8 mm cartridge does not quite meet the criteria for military ammunition. Almost all experts note the difficulty in handling and maintaining the Nambu 94. The biggest complaints about the safety of the gun. Design features of the firing mechanism lead to the fact that the Nambu 94, when a pistol is dropped or even a weak blow to the weapon, can allow an accidental shot without pressing the trigger. Historians also note the flaws of the factory assembly, especially in the last years of the war.



Yet the Nambu Type 94 pistol was a Japanese success. Army officers appreciated his compactness and the availability of ammunition. From 1935 to 1945, approximately 71200 Nambu 94 copies were released. Most of the mass production accounts for 1942, 1943 and 1944 year (respectively 10500, 12500 and 20000 units). The Nambu 94 became one of the few Japanese pistols that were sold abroad. The Thai army and China, having bought a small amount of these weapons, have successfully used it for several decades.

The average price for antique auctions for a Nambu 94 pistol is 500-800 dollars.
Originator:
http://historypistols.ru/blog/pistolety-pod-unitarnyj-patron-avtomaticheskie/pistolet-nambu-94-nambu-type-94-pistol/
26 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Sergey Vladimirovich
    Sergey Vladimirovich 16 January 2016 07: 56
    +6
    An interesting instance. In fact, it is valuable only to collectors.
  2. cth; fyn
    cth; fyn 16 January 2016 08: 12
    +6
    What tanks that small arms, this ... This ... There are simply no words suitable
    1. almost demobil
      almost demobil 16 January 2016 09: 55
      +5
      Actually, the Arisaka rifle was not bad.
      1. lnew
        lnew 16 January 2016 12: 03
        +1
        Quote: almost demobilized
        Actually, the Arisaka rifle was not bad.

        Which one? They will be typed there from about five.
        In fact, only "Type 99" is interesting. The rest are bullshit.
        1. Mikado
          Mikado 16 January 2016 15: 26
          +1
          Quote: lnew
          Which one? They will be typed there from about five.
          In fact, only "Type 99" is interesting. The rest are bullshit.


          Nonsense or not, they were enough to bend all of Southeast Asia. And the Type 38 rifle was purchased by many states, including Russia, and for some reason no one complained.))

          Let another article about the so-called. "knee mortar" will write, especially about the misuse)) Interesting thing! And the Japanese had enough of them!))
          1. lnew
            lnew 16 January 2016 15: 43
            0
            Quote: Mikado
            Bullshit or not, they were enough to bend all of Southeast Asia.

            So big mind was not necessary. Asia then and Asia now, these are 2 big differences.
            Quote: Mikado
            And the Type 38 rifle was purchased by many states, including Russia

            Only different "Papuans" and bought. Or for the Papuans.
            Quote: Mikado
            and no one complained for some reason.))

            Well yes. Only the Japanese complained. So we changed it, a good one, for "type 99".
            1. Mikado
              Mikado 16 January 2016 15: 57
              0
              Quote: lnew
              Well yes. Only the Japanese complained. So we changed it, a good one, for "type 99".


              There was no need for a big mind - sorry, unfounded. They always fight wisely. Although, undoubtedly, the opponents of Japan at the first stage of the war were categorically inferior to it in training personnel and military experience, as well as in interaction (for example, China, specific kings-generals). Southeast Asia is just a theater of operations. Japan bent down the Chinese, English, American, Dutch troops. It was somewhat blitzkrieg. The defeat in Malaya, the Philippines and Indonesia was complete. The type 38 rifle was used until the end of the war.
              Papuans bought ?? Great Britain (150 rifles), Russia and Mexico - Papuans? Interesting!! Apparently I'm Papuan. Learn the materiel.
              Type 99 was launched into production only in 1939. Prior to this, the country, which was independently building battleships and aircraft carriers, waging war in China, and periodically exchanging fire with the USSR, was for some reason satisfied with type 38. By the way, it seemed like there was a good cartridge. Even Fedorov took it as the basis of his own cartridge when developing his own machine gun.
              Replace only the good with the best. PPSh is also not just replaced by AK))

              Yours faithfully, hi
              1. lnew
                lnew 16 January 2016 16: 52
                -2
                Quote: Mikado
                UK (150 rifles)

                For the native troops.
                Quote: Mikado
                Russia and Mexico - Papuans?

                The army of Russia for Britain was the same native army as the others. Mexico did not pull to a developed country either.
                Quote: Mikado
                Apparently I'm Papuan.

                You know better.
                Quote: Mikado
                for some reason type 38 was satisfied.

                And from this it was replaced by "type 99".
                Quote: Mikado
                By the way, there seemed to be a good cartridge.

                Why write about what you do not understand? Cartridges in the caliber of 6,5 mm, as unsuitable for the army, were abandoned in the world in the 30s of the last century. The latter were Italians and Japanese.
                Quote: Mikado
                Even Fedorov took it as the basis of his own cartridge when developing his own machine gun.

                There was no own cartridge. There was a regular cartridge Arisaka.
                Quote: Mikado
                Replace only the good with the best.

                What are you talking about?
                Quote: Mikado
                PPSh is also not just replaced by AK))

                To compare pitchfork with an ax correctly. Submachine gun with ... I find it difficult to correctly name ... a weakened self-loading shortened rifle (carbine) with the function of automatic fire at close range (AK-47) it is not correct to compare
              2. The comment was deleted.
              3. gross kaput
                gross kaput 16 January 2016 20: 53
                +1
                Quote: Mikado
                Type 99 was launched into production only in 1939. Prior to this, the country, independently building battleships and aircraft carriers, waging war in China, and periodically exchanging fire with the USSR, for some reason, type 38 was satisfied.

                Let's just say - type 99 is the same type 38 only with a cartridge of 7,7 and it is based on a Mauser 94g rifle (Swedish Mauser) of 6,5mm caliber, the Japanese modified the rifle - the most noticeable improvement is the shutter lid, the solution is nowhere meeting, and cartridge.
                Quote: Mikado
                Even Fedorov took it as the basis of his own cartridge when developing his own machine gun.

                With a finger on the ceiling, in addition to the Japanese, various 6,5-round cartridges were produced in a dozen countries, only three Mauser cartridges were used, Fedorov himself said that the cartridge was developed by him personally, which is likely to be much closer in geometry to the Mauser 6,5X57 than to the Japanese 6,5. 50XXNUMX, and even at the time of the creation of the Fedorovsky cartridge, the Japanese had not yet switched to pointed bullets.
                1. Mikado
                  Mikado 16 January 2016 22: 16
                  0
                  Of course, the Mauser rifle is the most famous and replicated, including in modern systems. There are only a few successful well-known rifles with a sliding shutter, on the model of which modern weapons are made, and Mauser is taken as a sample when developing new samples. Well done, what is there!
                  Fedorov did not know about the memories.
                  About type 99 your absolute truth, caliber enhancement.
                  I am simply against unfounded peremptory judgments. My opponent deleted his lines, or they helped him delete ..
                  1. lnew
                    lnew 16 January 2016 23: 53
                    +1
                    Quote: Mikado
                    Of course, the Mauser rifle is the most famous and replicated, including in modern systems

                    Type 99 has nothing to do with the Mausers. Neither German nor Swedish. You yourself pointed out that a Japanese woman has a sliding bolt. And at the Mausers it is rotary. And the shutter in such systems, this is almost a rifle.
                    Quote: Mikado
                    Fedorov did not know about the memories.

                    Do not strain. In fact, you are right, not kaput. The cartridge on the sleeve of the Mauser with the step-bullet Fedorov used for his first self-gun, still pre-revolutionary. The very one during the construction of which he forgot about the cooling of weapons. And about the bipod for him. Therefore, his funny muskets used letnabs, cooling was better in the air.
                    By the way, "anonymous letters" are wandering around the Internet about the alleged DP-27, this is a deep processing of the first AF. I don’t know how true this is, but in general, it could be THEORETICAL. DP-27 is structurally unsuccessful. I really respect Degtyarev, but alas. Moreover, in terms of performance characteristics, this is not a machine gun, but a multi-charge automatic rifle on a bipod. Moreover, without protection from the fool, such as the Czech and British LMG. But this is in any case better than nothing, like the Germans.
                    But the more famous Fedorov's samopal (edition chu) was on a standard Arisak rifle cartridge. Therefore, to destroy the enemy from this AF was even more difficult than from the "type 38", whose trunk was longer. And which the Japanese put aside in the late 30s. Actually, this AF did not take root at all. Yes, and there was especially nothing to take root there.
                    Quote: Mikado
                    About type 99 your absolute truth, caliber enhancement.

                    Everywhere. Everywhere in the world by the end of the 30s for the army abandoned the caliber of 6,5 mm.
                    Quote: Mikado
                    I am simply against unfounded peremptory judgments.

                    Can you give an example of such judgments?
                    Quote: Mikado
                    My opponent deleted his lines, or they helped him delete ..

                    It's not me. This moderators are so hungry. They demonstrate omnipotence.
                  2. gross kaput
                    gross kaput 16 January 2016 23: 54
                    +1
                    Quote: Mikado
                    Mauser’s rifle is the most famous and replicated, including in modern systems.

                    The trick here is that the most copied system in 1898, and the Japanese took 1894 as a basis, (which is understandable since the Type 38 rifle is a modified model of the Type 30 adopted for service in 1897) but added the bolt of the 98 bevel on the jumper of the receiver, which, together with the beveled rectangular base of the cocking handle, provides preliminary starting of the sleeve, as a result, type 38 symbiosis of Mauser 94 with Mauser 98 with Japanese "ethnic delights"
                  3. gross kaput
                    gross kaput 17 January 2016 00: 51
                    0
                    Quote: Mikado
                    My opponent deleted his lines

                    He's not just blacklisted you, do not pay attention to this local troll, each village has its own and each forum has its own troll, although neighing over his "revelations" is sometimes useful.
          2. The comment was deleted.
  3. Alex
    Alex 16 January 2016 09: 07
    +5
    I’m not a constructor, but I didn’t understand why I should take so much care to prevent the trigger from being pulled when the magazine is removed (what will it shoot there?), While it can spontaneously shoot when the trigger is accidentally pulled? And what prevented making more sights?
    1. gross kaput
      gross kaput 16 January 2016 21: 00
      +2
      Quote: Alex
      why take care so much that the trigger is not pressed when the magazine is removed

      To exclude an accidental shot when the magazine is removed, it is relevant when disassembling and cleaning weapons - go to the weapon unloading / cleaning room in any unit of the Ministry of Internal Affairs, FSB, Ministry of Defense, etc. and in each you will find more than one hole from a Makarov bullet in a bullet trap, the main reason for accidental shots either the soldier forgot about the sent cartridge and made a "control" descent or forgot to remove the magazine and then see point one, especially gifted people manage to bang twice in a row.
  4. lexx2038
    lexx2038 16 January 2016 10: 51
    +3
    What an ugly gun. Without a story and description, I would have thought that homemade.
    1. Yarik
      Yarik 16 January 2016 20: 53
      +2
      Feng Shui made simply. wassat
  5. diglator
    diglator 16 January 2016 10: 53
    +2
    Quote: Alex
    I’m not a constructor, but I didn’t understand why I should take care of protecting the trigger from being pulled out when the magazine is removed (what will it shoot there?)

    probably only a cartridge sent to the chamber ...
  6. lysyj bob
    lysyj bob 16 January 2016 10: 54
    +4
    A strange toy. A lot of "extra" iron, and this is weight. And in appearance - ugliness. But it is very interesting as fun "disassemble-assemble".
    1. Vladimirets
      Vladimirets 16 January 2016 11: 13
      +2
      Quote: lysyj bob
      And in appearance - ugliness.

      Particularly pleased with the trigger spring sticking out. smile
  7. tasha
    tasha 16 January 2016 11: 34
    +1
    Japanese designers and industry could not supply the army with more or less sensible small arms. It didn’t work out with tanks either. Perhaps the reason is the distribution of resources between the fleet and the army.
    1. Chtononibrator
      Chtononibrator 16 January 2016 18: 06
      0
      Where are such conclusions from. Their shooting was quite at the level of those years, take at least machine guns.
      1. tasha
        tasha 16 January 2016 19: 30
        0
        I think that by the beginning of World War II, more or less sensible small arms should be considered:
        a single machine gun with tape power and air-cooled barrel
        self-loading rifle
        submachine gun
        self-loading pistol
        1. lnew
          lnew 17 January 2016 00: 12
          0
          Quote: tasha
          a single machine gun with tape power and air-cooled barrel

          Those. Didn't WW2 German experience teach you anything? The Germans were the only country to use the "single machine gun" concept. The Germans got seriously burned on this concept. And again you deduce this concept as correct. Why German? Why don't you like British? After all, Bren was very good. And Lewis is a genius at all.
          Quote: tasha
          machine gun with tape and air-cooled barrel
          self-loading rifle

          Manual machine gun (LMG) and self-loading rifle (you can shop, but with a longitudinally-sliding shutter) on a cartridge type Czech post-war 7.62 × 45mm. By the way, the USSR made a major mistake by adopting a cartridge of 7,62x39 mm and weapons on it. While there was a real opportunity to adopt the Czech Vz.52 (self-loading and handbrake) on a cartridge of 7.62 × 45mm.
          Quote: tasha
          submachine gun
          self-loading pistol

          In caliber, no less than 8,8 mm (9,0 mm in the Soviet system of measurements).
          1. tasha
            tasha 17 January 2016 06: 44
            0
            Please explain what the German experience of 2MB should have taught me? On what grounds do you define a German or British concept?

            I wrote a sample list of small arms. I’m not sure, but Japanese armourers and industrialists couldn’t give anything particularly outstanding to their army in these positions.
            1. lnew
              lnew 17 January 2016 12: 57
              0
              Quote: tasha
              Please explain what the German 2MB experience was supposed to teach me?

              Experience in the unsuccessful concept of a single light and heavy (easel or company) machine gun. While there was a blitzkrieg, everything was fine. But as soon as the war took a protracted character, the enemy learned to knock out these very machine gunners and machine guns. And they were expensive and very expensive to maintain. It was the price of unification.
              Therefore, closer to the middle of the war, the Germans became concerned about increasing the density of fire of the infantry squad without machine guns. To do this, they began to be wise with a rifle cartridge of weakened power (later it was called intermediate). The idea was extremely simple, we reduce the effective defeat range by 1 step from the optimal (to 300 m), and in return we get dense automatic fire. We change two MG42 numbers to 2 such submachine gunners, and we have a high almost in full.
              But since the gunsmiths riflemen from the Germans, as from g ** to a bullet, they did not succeed. Because small arms should be made by a specialist, not just anyone. And it turned out, even theoretically, nothing could. Impulse return StG44 7,06 kgm / s. It is impossible to balance it with automatic fire at a distance of even 300 m. The laws of physics and human physiology against.
              The result was a strange weapon, such as a head and shelders (2 in one). It was a weakened and shortened self-loading rifle (later called an assault rifle) with the option of automatic fire at a range of about 150 m. The last numbers are the numbers of a very good PP (or a bad submachine gun). Those. self-loading assault carbine + good PP.
              The Germans used this failed ersatz as a special weapon (weapons for special operations). But there was one strange country in the world that, after WW2, briefly armed the whole army with such an ersatz. Then she got rid of him. But that was, that was.
              Quote: tasha
              On what grounds do you define a German or British concept?

              The "British concept" could easily be called "as everyone else did" (except for the USSR, of course). Those. usual bunch, handbrake + good shop. The Americans were more advanced. They were able to replace the store with a self-loading one. It was the best option at the time. However, with a machine gun, they "did not shmogli". Therefore, the British bunch looks even preferable, despite the store.
              The USSR, of course, was the most original of all. If the Germans lowered the heavy MG down to the point of separation, in the Red Army, on the contrary, the light DP was adapted for equipment and even for aviation (!!!). And this is at his rate of fire. But besides this, they also did not abandon the easel machine guns (which is absolutely correct, given the performance characteristics of the DP). They also adopted an unsuccessful self-loading. Which was quite logically set aside immediately after the start of the war, and in 1945. and completely removed from service. In addition, Maxims had near-zero combat resistance. Which resulted in a nightmarishly low fire density. The SG-43 did not greatly improve the situation, although the effect of its appearance was.
              Quote: tasha
              I’m not sure, but Japanese armourers and industrialists couldn’t give anything particularly outstanding to their army in these positions.

              There was no army pistol (Nambu Type 94 is a typical army service pistol) and a normal PP. Because there was no cartridge. Everything else was.
              1. tasha
                tasha 17 January 2016 15: 30
                0
                Not quite clear.

                The Germans have a good bunch of MG34 on the bipod + 98k at the branch level and MG34 on the machine at the company level. Everything seems to be logical. Yes, the machine gun is expensive, but on the way MG42 + Gewehr 41.

                The British at the branch level BREN (extremely low-tech) + Lee-Enfield. At the company level - Vickers? (with at least near-zero than Maxim, in your words, combat stability) or BESA under a non-standard cartridge.

                In the USSR - the separation level of DP + Mosin (and SVT in service), at the company level - Maxim (and not brought DS-39).

                USA - BAR + M1 at the branch level, M1919 at the company level.

                What do you think, whose option can be considered more attractive?

                Regarding YES, it was replaced by ShKAS in aviation.
                1. lnew
                  lnew 17 January 2016 17: 31
                  0
                  Quote: tasha
                  Germans have a good bunch of MG34 on bipod + 98k at the branch level

                  Who told you that this bunch was good? Do they write on the Internet? So on the Internet, why not just write.
                  Do you know how much the MG34 weighed with ammunition and accessories? Even the one on the bipod. Do you know how many people served him? In fact, the function of half the infantry squad was reduced to servicing the machine gun. And in the event of his death, it remained weakly armed. Because Mauser was hardly a good army rifle. Even the Japanese type 99 was better. What can we say about Lee-Enfeld. In fact, only a mosquito was worse than Mauser.
                  The difference in MG is not so significant as to contrast one another. Everything is on the level a little bit. The fact is that the Germans did not actually have LMG (handbrake). And with Gewehr 41 there are only fantasies.
                  Quote: tasha
                  The British at the branch level BREN (extremely low-tech) + Lee-Enfield.

                  Maybe not high-tech. Although I do not know about it. But the bunch was very effective. In addition, Bren’s barrel was quick-detachable. But with the Lee-Anfield rate of fire, this was not particularly required.
                  In addition, do not forget about the truly ingenious Lewis. It was he who performed the functions of a company machine gun. Therefore, the known shortcomings of Vickers (also company, but easel) were not so critical. Therefore, the British in terms of this rifleman were all hurt.
                  Quote: tasha
                  separation level DP + Mosin (and SVT in service)

                  DP is not a machine gun. According to TTX, this is a multi-shot bipod automatic rifle. This would be acceptable with normal self-loading. But SVT-40 had fatal design flaws and was discontinued. Therefore, the compartments were equipped with a mosquito. In this case, in order to create a normal density of fire, there should be two in the PD compartment. But there was one. And even then, not always.
                  Quote: tasha
                  at the company level - Maxim (and not brought DS-39)

                  Maxim. As for the DS-39, do not fantasize. And his Lewis was gone.
                  Quote: tasha
                  USA - BAR + M1 at branch level

                  This is exactly what the USSR wanted to do, but could not. I remind you, BAR is a Browning Automatic Rifle. Those. Browning automatic rifle (not a machine gun). It differs from DP only in the presence of protection against the fool (a magazine for 20 rounds, approximately the same protection was at Bren). And the fact that Garand was successful self-loading, and SVT-40, unsuccessful. As a result, the Americans at the grassroots level were all hurt, but the Red Army did not.
                  The Browning M1919 was, by the way, so-so. But the Americans were not shy about using British Lewis. And with the saturation of machine guns, everything was fine with them.
                  Quote: tasha
                  whose option can be considered more attractive?

                  American. Yet he is. Although the British was also very good. But, in my opinion, American is still more modern.
                  Although I would have taken an American rifle (Garand), although Lee-Anfield was almost equivalent to Garand in terms of performance characteristics, although it was a convenience store.
                  I would take the handbrake British (Bren), but with Garand or Lee-Enfield BAR was also in place.
                  A rotnik I would take British (Lewis). There are no options.
                  By the way, Japanese type 99 (a magazine and a handbrake) were very good, as well as an interesting type 92 machine tool.
                  1. tasha
                    tasha 18 January 2016 05: 54
                    0
                    Thank you.
                    If instead of the numerous "Do you know ..." you had indicated specific numbers, the quality of the commentary would have only increased, I think so.

                    As for the number of people serving the machine gun, it may be that 6 people were engaged in its service, not because he was so capricious, but because he was doing his job so effectively?

                    Germans actually had no LMG (parking brake)

                    It was. This is the same ZB26 with modifications. After the capture of Czechoslovakia, the factory in Brno continued to produce these machine guns and released a lot of them (60 with something thousand). But the Germans for some reason did not use it in infantry units, but he was in the SS troops. Why do you think?

                    Maybe not high-tech. Although I do not know about it.

                    Very low-tech and metal-intensive. Mk2 is already a version for the conditions of military production, the list of changes is very rather big.

                    In addition, do not forget about the truly ingenious Lewis
                    Please explain.

                    As a result, the Americans at the grassroots level were all hurt, but the Red Army, no

                    The Americans had time to bring Garand to mind. About SVT-40 for a trained and skilled fighter who just did not write already.

                    And about the German / British concepts. At one of the English forums I came across an article in which the author proves that the British are not so backward and also organized a branch around the machine gun. If in the 1937 year a fighter carried 120 cartridges for a rifle, then in 1939 - 50 for a rifle and 90 for a machine gun.
                    1. 2news
                      2news 18 January 2016 11: 28
                      0
                      Quote: tasha
                      maybe 6 people were engaged in his service, not because he was so capricious, but because he was doing his job so effectively?

                      Why argue on this topic? History has already shown who was right. And these are not Germans. In addition, the mono-weapon in the department is like a mono-product in trade. For this reason, the combat stability of the German squad in the second half of the war was not great.
                      Quote: tasha
                      Why do you think?

                      I think that the Czech was not successful. Unlike Bren. The fact is that the Germans not only had a single machine gun, but also had a single rifle cartridge in service, a rifle in machine-gun (HMG) modification. Those. with a heavy bullet. Universal unification. Therefore, weapons under it were made heavy (durable). In addition, getting somewhere from MG on the bipod (and especially ZB26 on a German cartridge) was not easy. The MG42 recoil momentum was just wild 11,0 kgm / s. The ZB26 has 11,1 kgm / s. For DP-27 it was 9,6 kgm / s, for Bren 9,8 kgm / s.
                      Quote: tasha
                      Very low-tech and metal-intensive.

                      Well, still brought to an acceptable level.
                      Quote: tasha
                      Please explain.

                      Original forced cooling system. Today Pecheneg is a variation on the Lewis theme. A very correct decision, in my opinion. And quick-change trunks, this is a dead end. Or you need to return to the bus. rifles on the bipod (BAR, DP-27). There are no other options; you cannot deceive physics with science.
                      Quote: tasha
                      The Americans had time to bring Garand to mind.

                      No more than the USSR. Only they brought it up, not tryndely about fool soldiers.
                      Quote: tasha
                      About SVT-40 a trained and skilled fighter who just did not write already.

                      So there are a million jokes on the internet on any topic. And this is one of them. In fact, the SVT had fatal design flaws that led to its withdrawal from production in 1941 and to its decommissioning in 1945. It was impossible to use it on NSD in wartime, because she could refuse at any time. Therefore, the adjustment of the crane (and it was not easy, because it required a special tool and time) in the battle, no one was engaged, it was simply set to maximum. All. Including Germans. In this position, the CBT worked quite well, but relatively briefly. The shutter, stepping backwards, gradually broke the receiver, and the chamber, in reverse. Given its cost and the actual trouble-free shooting in wartime, it turned out to be very expensive. Therefore, they abandoned it.
                      And with hunters it can serve for a long time. Only the crane must be correctly and often adjusted.
                      Also a fairy tale about the "advancement" of the marines and the weapons of their SVT. The Marines simply fired less often than the infantry, so they were armed with it. In order not to change weapons often.
                      Quote: tasha
                      and also organized a branch around the machine gun.

                      It's not even about machine guns. The point is rifles. When destroying a machine gun, the Americans and the British (to a slightly lesser extent), in extreme cases, could do with rifles. Go ** explicit German Mauser this is not very allowed. About mosinka and no conversation. For example, Garand gave a fire density of 1,7 times more than Mauser. And 2,5 more than a mosquito.
                      1. tasha
                        tasha 18 January 2016 15: 27
                        0
                        Thanks for the detailed clarification.

                        Well, still brought to an acceptable level.


                        They brought it, but only by September 1941 of the year.
                        To produce 18 pounds of MkI metal parts, 101 pounds of workpieces, 15 types of alloys, 17604 fixtures, tools and accessories were required. Until May, 1940 produced 30000 Brens. Of these, 27000 was lost in Dunkirk.
                        So the success of BRENa is a very big question.

                        Regarding the Lewis cooling system, one of the readers gave very detailed comments. I will give some excerpts.

                        The efficiency of ejection and, in general, air cooling of a machine-gun barrel chambered for a rifle cartridge is close to 0 .. The ejectors were placed in the first world on the Lewis, but for effective cooling it is necessary to pump about 1-3 cubic meters of outside air per second through the ejector. The radiator efficiency is even lower.

                        If a radiator or an ejector gives anything, it will slightly increase the duration of continuous firing, but not due to the cooling efficiency, but due to an increase in the mass of the barrel and the total heat capacity of the system. But a thicker and heavier barrel will solve this problem even more effectively. But the heavy barrels were abandoned due to their mass .. The efficiency of the Lewis cooling system was not high, which is why it was soon abandoned and the Pecheneg authors would have liked to first calculate the heat balance at least approximately .. The use of special steels is also not the best option, heat resistance then the barrel will rise, however, shooting from a red-hot barrel will again fail, because the cartridges will begin to explode in the chamber when the bolt is unlocked. The Germans faced this even on the MG-34, so they immediately abandoned the idea of ​​using heat-resistant steels, not to mention the fact that this decision, in principle, greatly increases the cost of the machine gun itself and the complexity of its manufacture.
                        So at the moment, and from World War 1, there are only 2 options for a heavy machine gun, when you need to shoot 500-1000 rounds per hour - either a replaceable barrel or water-cooled like the "Maxim" .. Pecheneg confirmed this and an attempt getting rid of the interchangeable barrel frankly failed. Yes, in fact, despite the presence of an ejector, the possibility of changing the barrel on it is still provided. There is only one plus from the casing and the ejector - this is the absence of moiré, and the extra weight allows you to slightly increase the duration of continuous shooting.


                        If you are so sure of the opposite, then it may be considered possible to present your point of view in a separate article?

                        Or you need to return to the bus. rifles on the bipod (BAR, DP-27).
                        Perhaps BREN should also be included here? Many English-language sites come across topics like "BAR vs BREN", and they call it gun, then semi auto.

                        No more than the USSR. Only they brought it up, not tryndely about fool soldiers.

                        They had time. And more or less were able to rearm in the 1942 year.

                        For example, Garand gave the density of fire 1,7 times more than Mauser. And in 2,5 more than a mosquito.


                        Is it correct to compare the characteristics of the Garand and the mosquito?
                      2. gross kaput
                        gross kaput 18 January 2016 17: 48
                        0
                        Quote: tasha
                        , however, firing from a red-hot barrel does not work again, for the cartridges will begin to explode in the chamber with an unlocked shutter. The Germans encountered this at the MG-34, therefore they immediately abandoned the idea of ​​using heat-resistant steels,

                        This is exactly the case when a small blunder, specially distorted or out of ignorance - it doesn’t matter, immediately casts doubt on everything else - the MG-34, like the cookie, shoots from the open shutter, the time it takes to send a cartridge from its entrance to the chamber to close the shutter is thousandths seconds - during this time the walls of the sleeve simply do not physically have time to heat up and transfer enough heat to the powder to ignite the powder, even with a trunk that is hot to white.
                      3. 2news
                        2news 18 January 2016 18: 47
                        0
                        Quote: tasha
                        one of the readers gave very detailed comments.

                        Quote: tasha
                        The efficiency of ejection, and indeed air cooling of a machine gun barrel under a rifle cartridge, is close to 0 ..

                        Why read such comments? There is NSD (official document). There we see that the Pecheneg rate of fire is equal to the rate of fire of a PC with one interchangeable barrel. Is there an effect? On the face. The rest of the argument is empty.
                        And the one who wants to compare Pecheneg (rotnik) with MG34 and Maxim (machine gunners) should look towards the SGM. This is a suitable object for comparison, but Pecheneg, no. And MG put on the bipod from this mouthpiece did not. He became a bomber loom. And this is not a cowboy.
                        Quote: tasha
                        it may be considered possible to give a statement of their point of view in a separate article?

                        What for?
                        Quote: tasha
                        Is it possible that BREN should also be included here?

                        Could have been Bren. Only now he has easily replaceable trunks, but the American-Soviet couple doesn’t. But not like MG. In general, the closest thing to Bren on TTX is a PC. Actually, ideologically, this is one and the same thing.
                        Quote: tasha
                        Yes, and they call it gun, then semi auto.

                        99,9% of information on the internet is either bullshit, or links to bullshit. Therefore, any names may occur.
                        Quote: tasha
                        They had time. And more or less were able to rearm in the 1942 year.

                        We could. And in the USSR, until recently, they could not. The AK-74, for all its advancement (for the level of the USSR), is still not powerful enough, balanced and effective. It does not reach the level of a full-fledged army individual automatic small arms. The maximum is the "+" level of the assault rifle. And the standard is the level of an automatic rifle.
                        At the same time, funny yusers here on the site "competently discuss" the prospects for building aircraft carriers in Russia. Give the army at first something at the level of an automatic rifle "-" (in the SMG version, of course). And then tackle the difficult. An army pistol and ammunition for it (well, let's say, conditionally normal) appeared only in the Russian Federation. In the USSR, there were none at all. Now, God forbid, Pecheneg will replace the PC. Already good. But slowly all this is happening. AK-74 urgently needs to be replaced. Although this is the newest and best thing that was in the shooters of the USSR.
                        Quote: tasha
                        Is it correct to compare the characteristics of the Garand and the mosquito?

                        Why not? Vitovki performed exactly the same functions in different armies at the same time. Well, the USSR did not qualify for a new rifle, I had to fight the old one. But the date of birth does not matter, the time of use matters.
                        And if you are jarred by the comparison of the magazine and self-loading, then you can easily compare the mosinka with Lee-Enfeld. The density of the "British" fire was twice as high as the mosinka. Moreover, they were the same age. And even the ancient Lee-Metford was better than a mosinka, about the level of the German Mauser. By the way, the British cartridge was also rimmed. And nothing, the British did not find a reason for self-flagellation.
                      4. tasha
                        tasha 19 January 2016 07: 36
                        0
                        There we see that the Pecheneg rate of fire is equal to the rate of fire of a PC with one interchangeable barrel.


                        No wonder the rate of fire is the same. The basis is the same. The greater weight of the machine gun due to the larger weight of the barrel (3,7kg at Pecheneg versus 2,4 at PKM) has become new, the ability to design a full-fledged calculation of heat fluxes and heat dissipation - this is the increased survivability of the barrel, better accuracy.

                        And MG put on the bipod from this mouthpiece did not. He became a bomber loom.

                        Why do you think so?
                        MG34 was developed as part of the terms of reference as a machine gun capable of replacing such classes as HMG, LMG, APM and AAM. Universalism, of course, is not always good, but the Germans simply had no other choice. If the Germans began to separately develop manual and easel machine guns, they would end up with some MG35H and MG36L (with approximately the same characteristics) without the possibility of mass production on the same equipment.

                        Could. But in the USSR they were not able to the last.

                        It’s good to modify small arms sitting somewhere overseas, away from active ground combat.

                        And if you are jarred by the comparison of the magazine and self-loading, then you can easily compare the mosinka with Lee-Enfeld. The density of the "British" fire was twice as high as the mosinka.

                        I think the Soviet leadership understood this perfectly. And therefore, 1500000 SVT was released in an attempt to replace the mosquito and about 100000 DP in order to increase the density of fire.

                        After Dunkirk, the British, probably, would not have refused the mosquitoes. It is better to defend a native island with a bad rifle than with a good spear.

                      5. 2news
                        2news 19 January 2016 14: 56
                        0
                        Quote: tasha
                        Larger machine gun weight due to the larger barrel weight (3,7 kg for Pecheneg versus 2,4 for RMB)

                        But in total, Pecheneg is easier, because Pecheneg’s weight is most by 0,7 kg, and correctly add the weight of another barrel to the weight of RMB. In addition, Pecheneg is more convenient, a spare barrel, this is gimor.
                        Quote: tasha
                        Why do you think so?

                        Because of the cartridge. Because of this, excess weight, because great strength is needed. Because of this, there is a large recoil momentum, and this is a deteriorated accuracy. No, I know that on Vicky and MG34 weighing 12,1 kg, and PKM weighing 7,5 kg are listed as classmates. And this does not take into account the fact that MG has more spare barrels. Well, there is a lot of "interesting" to be found.
                        By the way, the British Bren (the closest analogue of RMB) is also indicated there as LMG. The paths of Wiki are inscrutable. Yes, Bren was used up to a point like LMG. But in the second half of the 20th century, the standards changed, and weapons of a similar class were moved one level higher. And the role of LMG began to perform SMG-growth.
                        Quote: tasha
                        but the Germans simply had no other choice.

                        Well, how was it not? All in all, it was necessary to adopt a cartridge with a light bullet (only a new bullet, that is, penny costs). And to develop a lightweight version of MG for it. That's how the modern MG5A1 is. By the way, it took the Germans 64 years after the defeat to get the simple idea that "universality" is bad. This shows the level of their professionalism in this area.
                        And before the war, instead of LMG (those times) and MMG, they released GPMG. Neither fish nor fowl. In fact, an MMG with a sawn-off and quick-change barrel. As a result, everything was beautiful on paper, machine gunners change their barrels and create a given density of fire. And self-loading is not really needed at all. Those. the Germans decided to take not the number of machine guns, but their quality (rate of fire). The "trifle" was that the machine gunners and the machine gun could be destroyed. In this case, everything was sad for the Germans. After the failure of the blitzkrieg, it was necessary to urgently (and again unsuccessfully) develop an ersatz weapon, later nicknamed the "assault rifle".
                        Quote: tasha
                        It’s good to modify small arms sitting somewhere overseas

                        So in Tula and Izhevsk it was not bad. It’s not a matter of conditions. The point is the lack of a design school. And without this in any way. Examples of shops in different countries I have already given you above.
                        In addition, for example, DE M16A2 is more than DE AK-74 by 25,5%. At the same time, at a distance of 300 yards (274 m), a burst of 20 M16A2 rounds is placed in a circle with a diameter of 40 cm.And the AK-74 at the same distance in a circle with a diameter of 55 cm puts 17 out of 20 bullets. This is called the "design school". This is the reason for the INTENTIONAL weakening of the 5,45x39 mm cartridge.
                        Quote: tasha
                        It is better to defend a native island with a bad rifle than with a good spear.

                        For this, they had enough for a start and a fleet with aviation. At least until 1942. the Germans would certainly not have snooped. Under no circumstances.
                      6. tasha
                        tasha 21 January 2016 07: 26
                        0
                        But in total, Pecheneg is easier, because Pecheneg’s weight is most by 0,7 kg, and correctly add the weight of another barrel to the weight of RMB. In addition, Pecheneg is more convenient, a spare barrel, this is gimor.


                        We are with you about the characteristics, but not the ease of use. Who walks a lot - that spare barrel does not carry.

                        Well, how was it? All that was needed was to adopt a cartridge with a light bullet (the new one is only a bullet, i.e. a penny).

                        Now, possessing a certain afterthought, one can say that "only something." I'm not sure that at that time, in conditions of a shortage of non-ferrous metals, the Germans could withstand the transition to a new bullet in the same caliber. Even so, you still need a margin of safety in order to switch to heavier ersatz if necessary.
                        They later created a relatively light bullet, but with an aluminum core and for training purposes.

                        For this, they had enough for a start and a fleet with aviation. At least until 1942. the Germans would certainly not have snooped. Under no circumstances.

                        This we now know. And at that time, the British were preparing to defend the island, 350 of thousands of soldiers were evacuated from Dunkirk, and there was nothing to arm them with.
                        That is the question - if England were not an island - what would the English army be armed with? And what would her number be in 1939?
                      7. 2news
                        2news 21 January 2016 09: 27
                        0
                        Quote: tasha
                        We are with you about the characteristics, but not the ease of use. Who walks a lot - that spare barrel does not carry.

                        Whoever doesn’t carry the barrel receives less than 2 times the density of fire. That's all TTX.
                        Quote: tasha
                        I’m not sure that at that time, in conditions of a shortage of non-ferrous metals, the Germans could withstand the transition to a new bullet in the same caliber.

                        I want to draw your attention to the fact that the light bullet is smaller. Which is just more convenient in conditions of scarcity. I wrote about the light pool, not the heavy one.
                        Quote: tasha
                        They later created a relatively light bullet, but with an aluminum core and for training purposes.

                        One bullet is not enough. It was necessary to make a machine gun ONLY under a light bullet. They became MG5A1 arr. 2009 Slightly later than 2MB.
                        Quote: tasha
                        At that time, the British were preparing to defend the island, 350 thousand soldiers were evacuated from Dunkirk, and there was nothing to arm them with.

                        Well, nothing. They were evacuated in 1940. And the Germans, with the successful development of Barbarossa, could have snooped only in the spring-summer of 1942. The Law on Lend-Lease was adopted in March 1941. Of course, no shortage of small arms by the summer of 1941. the British, through the efforts of the Americans, did not experience. In addition, the successful landing of the Germans on the British Isles in 1942. It seems extremely doubtful. Yes, and later, too.
                        Quote: tasha
                        if England weren’t an island, what would the English army be armed with? And what would her number be in the year 1939?

                        Why think about it? The island and mainland states have different priorities for the development of genera and types of aircraft.
                      8. tasha
                        tasha 22 January 2016 06: 34
                        0
                        I want to draw your attention to the fact that the light bullet is smaller. Which is just more convenient in conditions of scarcity. I wrote about the light pool, not the heavy one.

                        Are you talking about Patrone S with a bullet weight of 10? Can you suggest your version, why did the Germans switch to sS with 1916 bullet weight in 12? And how did the impact on the shutter change from this?

                        Why think about it? The island and mainland states have different priorities for the development of genera and types of aircraft.


                        Something you British look like some Papuans.
                        They create such weapons for the army that it is better not to meddle from the island to the mainland. And wizards from across the ocean are waiting for help all the time.
                        And all the rest on the Papuans should be equal?

                        The Germans, too, did not count on a long positional war, like the 1914-1918. They learned a good lesson, and created a weapon for their chosen tactics. And with this weapon they captured Europe.
                      9. 2news
                        2news 22 January 2016 09: 37
                        0
                        Quote: tasha
                        Can you suggest your version, why in 1916 the Germans switched to sS with a bullet weight of 12 g?

                        No, the Germans did not release a cartridge with a light bullet at all. Apparently you had in mind the original cartridge I. But there was also a heavy, but blunt-pointed bullet, as well as a smaller charge and the diameter of the bullet itself in rifling. The rifling had to be deepened due to the increase in powder mount and working pressure.
                        In general, of course, before 2MV it was too late for the Germans to take a cartridge with a light bullet and the weapons on it. The mistake was made back in 1916. Then, together with the S bullet, the L bullet (light) should have been adopted. Or rather LS.
                        In Russia, this was done. As a result, even before the 1MV, weapons were designed for different bullets (among the Germans only in the post-war MG3), and since the end of the 20th century, weapons went under the light bullet only (for Germans only since 2009, with the MG5A1 model).
                        I'm trying to explain this. In my opinion, the generally accepted concept of a single machine gun (in the case of the USSR it was an automatic rifle DP) on a rifle cartridge with a light bullet + a loom on a cartridge with a heavy bullet is more correct than the unusual German concept of a single machine gun. The Germans always featured a shortened loom on a cartridge with a heavy bullet (on a loom or on a bipod). Actually, the modern concept of Russia is the same as in the days of the Red Army, only the DP27 was replaced with a (real) PC machine gun, and later with a more advanced Pecheneg machine gun. And raised a notch to the platoon.
                        True, such a single machine gun on a cartridge with a light bullet is a sin to call a company one, because company were always machine tools (machine-gun platoon of the company). These are rather "platoon" machine guns. But according to the old habit, they are called company officers.
                        But the German MG, even on a bipod, is fair to call company. Why are company machine guns in the squad and platoon? No logic whatsoever. This is the price of "versatility".
                        Quote: tasha
                        Something you British look like some Papuans.

                        Really? I somehow do not find it. On the contrary, I believe that the British concept of primary small arms in fact could well compete with the American one. American was more promising. But in a particular historical period, the British was at about the same level.
                        Quote: tasha
                        They create such weapons for the army that it is better not to meddle from the island to the mainland.

                        It's not about weapons. Better not to meddle for other reasons. Because these are losses. Loss of "precious British lives". The British are not used to this. Therefore, Papuans were always hired to solve their problems. Different races and religions. So during WW2 everything was traditional. Only the Papuans were not found immediately. Some of them could not be. And some didn't want to.
                        Quote: tasha
                        And wizards from across the ocean are waiting for help all the time.

                        And this is the next level. The British were Papuans for the Americans. Even then, the emphasis was placed quite clearly.
                      10. 2news
                        2news 22 January 2016 09: 37
                        0
                        Quote: tasha
                        The Germans, too, did not count on a long positional war, like 1914-1918. They learned a good lesson, and created a weapon for their chosen tactics.

                        Do not fantasize. The fact that the weapon would be on a cartridge with a light bullet to the Germans would not be worse. All countries produced such variations of the rifle cartridge. The Germans just spoiled. They were never good gunsmiths riflemen. There was no school. So they decided to be smarter than everyone.
                        And when the war entered a protracted stage, it suddenly turned out that expensive looms with short trunks on bipods + a furry shop, this is not a good option for separation. The fuss on this subject only led to the creation of the ridiculous and stupid ersatz MP43 and StG44.
                        But the British had no such problems. With small arms, everything was fine with them.
                      11. tasha
                        tasha 23 January 2016 09: 36
                        0
                        It is possible and most likely that you are right in the need to create a machine gun under the WWII for a light bullet (the Germans did not have it) and a machine gun for a heavy. But immediately there are problems with the organization of production and logistics.
                        Very often the choice between good and cheap will not be in favor of the good.
                        Still, the views given in the book of M. Popenker and M. Milchev are closer to me.
                      12. The comment was deleted.
                      13. 2news
                        2news 23 January 2016 12: 51
                        0
                        Quote: tasha
                        But immediately there are problems with the organization of production and logistics.

                        The rest of the army somehow coped. In addition, a new, completely original cartridge of 7,92 × 33mm also required its own logistics.
                        I also recommend that you be wary of all sorts of modern books "for technology". Incl. and "for the weapon". This is often just entertainment literature. Read, have fun. I just don't know what is the first thing. Either the "information" stated in this kind of booklets then spreads across the Internet in the form of gossip. Whether gossip from the Internet somehow accumulates in such bookings.
                        Although they periodically meet interesting information and interesting thoughts.
                        And guessing on the "machine gun" topic (and finding out who is right) is not necessary. History has long put everything in its place:
                        1. Branch machine gun (LMG) - actually SMG-overgrowth (machine-overgrowth) on a modern intermediate small-caliber cartridge.
                        2. Platoon machine gun, it is a single one (GPMG) - a machine gun on a rifle cartridge with a light bullet. Linear snipers also use such cartridges. Such machine guns in Runet are usually called "company". It's funny, the RP-46 has long been gone, the concept and the weapon itself have changed more than once, and the term stuck.
                        3. The company machine gun, aka machine gunner (MMG) - a machine gun on a rifle cartridge with a heavy bullet. At the same time, such a machine gun retains the ability to use cartridges with a light bullet (to simplify logistics, but the main one is still a cartridge with a heavy bullet). Those. heavy bullet cartridge is specialized.
                        Kill me, but I don't find a place here for the MG34 and MP42. They are most similar to item 3 (especially when on the machine), but then what about the chopped off trunk? Even the post-war MGs were conceptually no longer analogues of the MG42, as some Bestolozzi assure us. Stupid Nazi machine gun "Bobik" died on MG42. He had no children, only, perhaps, nephews.
                  2. The comment was deleted.
                2. The comment was deleted.
  • gross kaput
    gross kaput 18 January 2016 14: 30
    0
    Quote: 2news
    And these are not Germans
    Well, yes, that’s probably why now in all the armies of the world there are single machine guns in service? And the German MG-42 (MG-2 / MG-3) is still in some places still in service.
    Quote: 2news
    The MG42 recoil momentum was just wild 11,0 kgm / s.
    Horrible! and the 98k has 20 kg. Only now the byada tsyfirki about the machine guns were sucked out of the finger, in the hope that no one will check, in fact, the record holder in terms of recoil momentum is the brand then DP and then the Germans, as regards the "mono cartridge", the brits Mark 8 also had it.
    Quote: 2news
    In fact, the SVT had fatal design flaws that led to its discontinuation in 1941
    In fact, SVT and then AVT was produced in Mednogorsk and was officially discontinued at the end of 44, and the last rifles were assembled at the beginning of 45. And now they are shielding rifles in 44, so any person "in the subject" knows about it ... According to the resource of SVT-AVT in wartime, my comrade, in my opinion, does not understand what he is trying to talk about, and the pearl about the "crane" immediately suggests that a person has a very vague idea of ​​the subject. In general, merchants (2news) you yourself are not tired of constantly poking your nose into the corner like a pissing cat? finish writing nonsense and disappear from VO.
    1. 2news
      2news 25 January 2016 11: 12
      0
      He refused to answer any "smart bawlers". But here it is necessary, everything is very neglected here.
      Quote: gross kaput
      Well, yes, that’s probably why now in all the armies of the world there are single machine guns in service?

      Are standing. But what does MG have to do with them? Is that what they call them on the internet? These are what you are called. In fact, MG were "German uniform machine guns", and not uniform machine guns in the modern sense of this tremin. Those. the "Germans" were actually air-cooled MMGs with a short barrel. Which were sometimes put on the bipod. There were no other analogues of such "single machine guns" in the world. No, though. I remember MT arr. 1924 But it was abandoned already in 1927.
      Quote: gross kaput
      And the German MG-42 (MG-2 / MG-3) is still in some places still in service.

      MG3 is not a complete analogue of MG42. This is a different weapon. There are common features, but no more.
      Quote: gross kaput
      Only now the bayonet tsifirki about machine guns is sucked from a finger, in the hope that no one will check

      So check who's in the way? Can't you? Say so. And there is nothing here to launch "cheerful wind" from the fifth point.
      Quote: gross kaput
      in fact, the record holder for recoil momentum is brand then DP and then the Germans

      And what, can you even confirm this with numbers? You, my dear, didn’t you confuse the impulse of return with something else, similar, for an hour? Very similar to that.
      Quote: gross kaput
      As for the "mono cartridge", the Mark 8 Britons also had it.

      And then. Only now the manuals brazenly call the Mk8 a specialized cartridge for the Vickers easel machine gun. And for Bren and Lee-Anfield, they point to the Mk7. They probably lie.
      The Mk8 is an analogue of the Soviet cartridge with the "D" (heavy) bullet. And the German 7.92 × 57mm Mauser. But the Mk7 had no direct analogues in the USSR and Germany. There were simply no analogues in Germany. Generally. And the USSR used a bullet "L" (light). While the British used a heavy (but not the same as in the Mk7) bullet in the Mk8, along with a smaller powder load than in the Mk8. In fact, the goals in Britain and the USSR were achieved by this the same, but by different means. Each of these decisions had their own pros and cons. So, this topic can be debated. Personally, for a number of indicators, I like the British solution more. But there is no dispute about tastes. And the difference is not too big there. In addition, it was precisely for the USSR that the solution that was chosen by it was more suitable.
      Quote: gross kaput
      According to the SVT-AVT resource in wartime, the comrade doesn’t understand what he’s trying to talk about,

      Duc, where to me.
      Quote: gross kaput
      and the pearl about the "crane" immediately suggests that a person has a very vague idea of ​​the subject.

      Duc, where have I got to once again (see. Figure). No, well, people write, just to write something.
      Well, then went no one interesting tantrums. I won’t comment on them.
    2. The comment was deleted.
  • lnew
    lnew 17 January 2016 00: 14
    0
    Quote: Chtononibrator
    Their shooting was quite at the level of those years, take at least machine guns.

    There were only rifles and handbrake. A pistol and a submachine gun were on. A submachine gun may not be really needed. But how without an army pistol?
  • Walking
    Walking 16 January 2016 11: 42
    +3
    "Amazing nearby, but we are not allowed to." This is me talking about collectors, you can't collect collections of firearms, military equipment here, and it's a pity they could save a lot for history.
  • AlNikolaich
    AlNikolaich 16 January 2016 11: 51
    +4
    The Japanese always surprise ... A gloomy Japanese genius, it's something with something! Only in their products can one meet the most modern technologies mixed with anachronisms of the 19 century! Firearms and tanks, this is a special topic ... Aviation is the same! Imagine a Zero duel and for example, Yak-1! Or with Me-109! But the Americans seriously fought this miracle, and considered it a serious opponent ... But the Japanese fleet is generally a song! Yes, by modern standards, cool technology, and yapps could forget to provide anti-aircraft guns on the battleship ...
    1. lnew
      lnew 16 January 2016 12: 10
      -7
      Quote: AlNikolaich
      and yapps could forget to provide anti-aircraft guns on the battleship ...

      In the RKKF, this was a common practice. And not only on battleships, but generally everywhere. Due to the lack of these same anti-aircraft guns. As a result, the Baltic and Black Sea fleets were defeated from the air.
      I don’t know how in Japan, but in the USSR they could not create a capable anti-aircraft gun. It was likely in Japan as well.
      1. Chtononibrator
        Chtononibrator 16 January 2016 18: 00
        0
        A 61-k Rezun invented?
        1. lnew
          lnew 16 January 2016 18: 26
          0
          Quote: Chtononibrator
          A 61-k Rezun invented?

          Marine 61-K was called 70-K. Both of them were incapacitated. After 40-60 sec. continuous fire (100 shots) the barrel required replacement (at least 15 minutes) or cooling (about 1,5 hours). Draw your own conclusions.
  • lnew
    lnew 16 January 2016 11: 54
    -1
    Most likely the pistol was created as a personal weapon for pilots and tankers who needed compact weapons in the conditions of small dimensions of military vehicles.

    Yes, a very high quality ballistic service army pistol. Usually they don’t shoot from such a further 25m.
    Most researchers estimate the Nambu Pistol 94 as an insufficiently effective weapon for use in the military. A low-powered 8 mm cartridge does not quite meet the criteria for army munitions.

    Yes, the Japanese did not have a real army pistol. Generally.
  • Support
    Support 16 January 2016 13: 22
    +1
    I don’t know. That’s why for some reason they are of the same type, it’s as if from the same source - Walter, Mamba, pm ... as if someone alone said the same thing to different people, but they perceived somewhat differently ....
  • Mikado
    Mikado 16 January 2016 15: 21
    +1
    Article is good, informative, bold +... Few people know about this weapon (the Japanese Imperial Army, I think, "dark forest" in the sense of the published popular information). The author, I think, needs to write this data on Wikipedia. There is no such data, moreover, such an abundance of images. By the way, many articles on weapons on Wikipedia specifically refer to VO. Success!
  • Volga Cossack
    Volga Cossack 16 January 2016 15: 53
    +1
    how purely antiques is interesting. but no more.
  • Mountain shooter
    Mountain shooter 16 January 2016 18: 01
    +2
    Apparently, anthropometric data of the Japanese should be taken into account. For most of them (possibly) pistols for powerful cartridges were not lifting and with too strong recoil. And to take from the same Germans the chic Walter PPK and copy it - probably Feng Shui did not allow it.
    And so - the gun is just original. Complex, unreliable, low-power. Explicitly missing design school. In general, for general development information.
    1. Mikado
      Mikado 16 January 2016 19: 27
      0
      Quote: Mountain Shooter
      Apparently, anthropometric data of the Japanese should be taken into account. For most of them (possibly) pistols for powerful cartridges were not lifting and with too strong recoil. And to take from the same Germans the chic Walter PPK and copy it - probably Feng Shui did not allow it.
      And so - the gun is just original. Complex, unreliable, low-power. Explicitly missing design school. In general, for general development information.

      I think the Japanese went their own way. A country building battleships, aircraft carriers and Zero fighters could have made a better pistol, it just didn't have to. The Imperial Japanese Army was already an extremely dangerous enemy until the end of the war, even if due to the "banzai attacks" at the very end. We are waiting for articles about other weapons of the Imperial Japanese Army, they are much more interesting than the individual weapons of officers)) We will consider this as a groundwork for other articles))
      1. lnew
        lnew 16 January 2016 23: 58
        0
        Quote: Mikado
        A country building battleships, aircraft carriers and Zero fighters could have made a better pistol, it just didn't have to.

        There was simply no suitable cartridge. And for some reason they did not want to adopt a new special one. As a result, in the Japanese army there was not only an army pistol, but also a submachine gun. The only type 100 was all on the same cartridge 8 × 22 mm Nambu, but this is not serious.
    2. lnew
      lnew 17 January 2016 00: 24
      0
      Quote: Mountain Shooter
      For most of them (possibly) pistols for powerful cartridges were not lifting and with too strong recoil.

      A normal army pistol has a recoil momentum of at least 4,4 kg / s. Today. In the times of 2MB, when there were no broniks, this impulse could be 3,8 kgm / s. The Americans used the Colt M1911 with an impulse of 5,2 kgm / s. I do not think that the Japanese could not hold 3,8 kgm / s.
      Quote: Mountain Shooter
      And to take from the same Germans the chic Walter PPK and copy it - probably Feng Shui did not allow it.

      A sound mind did not allow. Only the USSR was able to think of taking the service (police) pistol as a basis and shooting it into the army. Well, probably, everyone in the world opened their mouths in surprise.
  • gross kaput
    gross kaput 17 January 2016 00: 46
    +1
    lnew I know that you read those whom you put on the black list to spoil from the underwear - well, here merchants, in your face with each subsequent reincarnation, this is the sixth or seventh kind, progressive dementia.
    Quote: lnew
    Neither German nor Swedish. You yourself pointed out that a Japanese woman has a sliding bolt. And at the Mausers, he is turning
    dividing the longitudinally-sliding shutters into sliding and rotary ones is worthy of entering into memorials laughing
    Quote: lnew
    Everywhere. Everywhere in the world by the end of the 30s for the army abandoned the caliber of 6,5 mm.
    only this has nothing to do with your nonsense about a "weak bullet" - the main reason is the difficulty with those technologies of adequate production of special ammunition - tracer, incendiary, sighting, armor-piercing and combined, which were necessary for rifle caliber machine guns, so the transition to 7,6 , 8-XNUMX was determined at first by the need to ensure that machine guns were able to fire with special bullets, and the transition to rifles was already a consequence of the unification of weapons in terms of ammunition - so a lover of unconventional history would once again go into a deep ban.
    PS gentlemen moderators, you ban in the end by IP it’s a miracle - you ban it by nickname and he immediately registers a new one and again trolley VO.