The Annals of Baaaaad Infantry Small Arms...
- Thread starter Kujo
- Start date
Bad infantry weapons is probably a topic worth it's own thread tbh.
Last edited:
Tiamat
I've seen the future...
Well, if you really wanna go there...
I think the L85/L86 gets the same infamous reputation like the Chauchat did during WW1, at least in retrospect....a piece of worthless junk that needlessly got some fine British soldiers killed. Now, I would argue that the rep of the Chauchat is not entirely deserved, it was one of the first man-portable automatic weapons of it's time, and the biggest real problems were the long recoil action, the cartridge itself which had problems in an automatic weapon, and just not being very suitable to the mud of the European WW1 battlefield. But again, "perception of reality is as important as reality itself", and the perception of the Chauchat overall is pretty horrible. With all the problems of the SA80 series that cropped up, and to then have it get thrust upon the average British squaddie in the middle of a balls-to-the-wall World War no less, whether rightly or wrongly deserved, it's going to get the same poisoned reputation, so badly that it gets special attention by the press.
The Soviets being who they are, will twist the knife in the wound during the war by pushing out a propaganda piece about how "the British imperialists show the stink of their own capitalist corruption by thrusting an inferior weapon upon their own sons and daughters, while our mighty proletariat are armed with the might legacy of Kalashnikov himself!"
Bottom line, IRL the end of the Cold War allowed a peaceful resolution to the SA80 issue with Heckler and Koch taking over the design and doing a complete overhaul, and now supposedly it's a much better weapon with it's own tradeoffs. In this alternate timeline? It gains an infamous rep and, other than seeing use by less than scrupulous actors as mentioned, is consigned to the dustbin of history.
EDIT: If you wanna move this discussion about bad weapons to another thread like Husky Khan suggested, feel free too.
Aaron Fox
Well-known member
The thing was the Chauchat for the US was hated because of how bad it was converted to the US .30cal round. The original Chauchat was well-liked by the french soldiers and functioned quite well (all considering) in the muck of WW1.
The SA80 would likely be pointed at the Thatcher Government for all its ills, especially since they're the ones to push for it, ensured that they would be made so shoddily, among other factors. It would likely see the dissolution of the Thatcher Government for how bad of a scandal it was... and probably would get the Queen involved. It wouldn't help that the Thatcher Government would find few friends in the bureaucracy and military, and thus in the leadup to the war likely would get canned so hard that their grandchildren would feel it... and likely cause rumors and speculation going around that elements of the Thatcher government were Soviet plants to weaken Britain (it wouldn't be the first time that MI5 and MI6 couldn't find a powerful spy ring in their mist).
The British Military at this time would likely expedite getting the SA80 family fixed ASAP, likely to get FNH, H&K, and/or other foreign companies involved to expedite it even faster. If they don't, then the Queen will be Displeased.
Tiamat
I've seen the future...
Okay, if we're doing this, I will raise a glass to:
The WW2 Imperial Japanese Type 94 Nambu pistol. I'd add a pic but it's not working for some reason.
Anyway...clunky design, weak cartridge, exposed sear that could lead to negligent discharge if not careful(!), stripping and disassembly was apparently notoriously complex and could cause issues if not done right, and wasn't helped with the fact that as the war progressed and materials became harder to come by, quality deteriorated rapidly.
The WW2 Imperial Japanese Type 94 Nambu pistol. I'd add a pic but it's not working for some reason.
Anyway...clunky design, weak cartridge, exposed sear that could lead to negligent discharge if not careful(!), stripping and disassembly was apparently notoriously complex and could cause issues if not done right, and wasn't helped with the fact that as the war progressed and materials became harder to come by, quality deteriorated rapidly.
How about the Ross rifle of WWI...nothing like the weapon jamming if it even looked at dirt funny, and your own army saying no, you still have to use it! 
nationalinterest.org
The National Interest: Blog
nationalinterest.org
Last edited:
Bear Ribs
Well-known member
For pistols it's very difficult to be worse than the Nambu. One of the few guns that really can just go off for no reason, prone to a sudden slamfire into your foot when you holstered it, and extremely hard to clean, load, aim, or do anything useful with.
There fortunately were some safe Nambus, because it was built to such shoddy tolerances and of such poor quality steel that many couldn't fire at all.
There fortunately were some safe Nambus, because it was built to such shoddy tolerances and of such poor quality steel that many couldn't fire at all.
Tiamat
I've seen the future...
Okay....while maybe not really bad....IE, two weapons filled the roles they were meant for, automatic weapons that could be produced on the cheap and quickly, they were just ugly, nasty weapons that were more akin to the sort of "last ditch weapons" you'd see that was made in someone's garage or metal workshop. By that, I refer to the Sten submachinegun, and the M3 "Grease Gun".
In the Sten's case, it really was literally made from any quality steel they could get their hands on and was just literally bolted and screwed together around a simple steel tube, which led to some rather interesting, erm, issues, especially the early models.
The M3 grease gun, on the other hand, no real excuse for this from the U.S. unlike the Sten as the UK was in a world of hurt and needed a lot of guns fast. Basic and cheap, you get what you pay for but I've heard many an unkind story about it as it was regarded as an absolute dog. Amazingly enough the damn thing was still in use by some U.S. tank crews up to Gulf War I!
STEN SMG
Page details technical specifications, development, and operational history of the STEN SMG including pictures.
www.militaryfactory.com
M3 (Grease Gun)
Page details technical specifications, development, and operational history of the M3 (Grease Gun) including pictures.
www.militaryfactory.com
In the Sten's case, it really was literally made from any quality steel they could get their hands on and was just literally bolted and screwed together around a simple steel tube, which led to some rather interesting, erm, issues, especially the early models.
The M3 grease gun, on the other hand, no real excuse for this from the U.S. unlike the Sten as the UK was in a world of hurt and needed a lot of guns fast. Basic and cheap, you get what you pay for but I've heard many an unkind story about it as it was regarded as an absolute dog. Amazingly enough the damn thing was still in use by some U.S. tank crews up to Gulf War I!
Last edited:
The Grease gun was the need for a small enough full auto weapon that can fit inside a tank, and not as bulky as the Thompson.Okay....while maybe not really bad....IE, two weapons filled the roles they were meant for, automatic weapons that could be produced on the cheap and quickly, they were just ugly, nasty weapons that were more akin to the sort of "last ditch weapons" you'd see that was made in someone's garage or metal workshop. By that, I refer to the Sten submachinegun, and the M3 "Grease Gun".
STEN SMG
Page details technical specifications, development, and operational history of the STEN SMG including pictures.www.militaryfactory.com
M3 (Grease Gun)
Page details technical specifications, development, and operational history of the M3 (Grease Gun) including pictures.www.militaryfactory.com
In the Sten's case, it really was literally made from any quality steel they could get their hands on and was just literally bolted and screwed together around a simple steel tube, which led to some rather interesting, erm, issues, especially the early models.
The M3 grease gun, on the other hand, no real excuse for this from the U.S. unlike the Sten as the UK was in a world of hurt and needed a lot of guns fast. Basic and cheap, you get what you pay for but I've heard many an unkind story about it as it was regarded as an absolute dog. Amazingly enough the damn thing was still in use by some U.S. tank crews up to Gulf War I!
Ot worked and was not as bad as people said
How 'bout the Liberator?
Granted it kinda has the excuse that it's designed to be made in a resistance basement out of scrap with nothing but blacksmith-level tools.
What was it's round capacity?
Bear Ribs
Well-known member
Do you mean rounds in the magazine or how many you're likely to get off before it explodes in your hand?
But here's a picture of the internals. I have no idea how some of those bullets can possibly get into the chamber so Imma assume they're just stored there for later insertion the right direction.
UltimatePaladin
Well-known member
Yeah, that's basically it.
The entire thought process behind the gun was "Something so bad that the enemy won't use, but good enough for a partisan to use." Mind you, even if the weapon was successful, it would have been discarded afterward - the whole point of the weapon was to give the user "something" to use to kill an Axis soldier, and then loot their weapon afterward. Though, what else would you expect from a pistol worth about $40.00 (in today's money?)
Tiamat
I've seen the future...
Yeah, that's basically it.
The entire thought process behind the gun was "Something so bad that the enemy won't use, but good enough for a partisan to use." Mind you, even if the weapon was successful, it would have been discarded afterward - the whole point of the weapon was to give the user "something" to use to kill an Axis soldier, and then loot their weapon afterward. Though, what else would you expect from a pistol worth about $40.00 (in today's money?)
A zip gun essentially, but was meant exactly for the role it was intended for.
Do you mean rounds in the magazine or how many you're likely to get off before it explodes in your hand?
But here's a picture of the internals. I have no idea how some of those bullets can possibly get into the chamber so Imma assume they're just stored there for later insertion the right direction.
Ew a single shot pistol? It seems almost next to useless. Like you'd be better off beating zee German to death with a shovel unless the idea is to shoot him then finish him off by beating him to death with a shovel...
I mean I get the concept. Use it to shoot a German and get his weapon but a one shot pistol in the hands of a civilian with little firearms experience doesn't seem too useful.
Last edited:
Trace Coburn
BattleTech Starfighter Analyst
Personally, I think the STEN gets a bad rap. Yes, it could slam-fire if dropped, but that was a known possibility and accounted for in the manual-of-arms; yes, the magazine design was questionable (double-column single-feed, really?); yes, the early models could have ‘quirks’, especially of quality-control; but it was reasonably priced, could be assembled by unskilled labour (mostly women told what parts to put where in what order, with no ‘machine to fit’ components like so many other bits of British kit of the era), decently accurate, fairly ergonomic, and it laid down automatic fire at a rate that allowed good control of burst-length and shot-placement. It wasn’t completely squaddie-proof, but anyone who’s read even a handful of the SB posts by lackofgravitas knows that very few things are. If the soldier holding a STEN gun was properly trained and knew what to expect, he had a very good weapon in his hands.
As a Kiwi, I have to confess to a certain bias; the Aussies developed and fielded the Owen machine-carbine, which although quite heavy was IMO the superior weapon, especially for being more reliable under jungle conditions... but the STEN was a solid light-automatic in its day, and personally I feel that its reputed ‘failings’ might have become a little overblown in the retelling.
If you want a really bad small-arm? It’s hard to go past the Italian Breda 30. An LMG fed from a fixed side-mounted magazine reloaded with stripper clips and requiring oiling of the ammunition to facilitate proper feeding? To be used in a desert campaign, amidst all that dust and grit?
If the soldier holding a STEN gun was properly trained and knew what to expect, he had a very good weapon in his hands.As a Kiwi, I have to confess to a certain bias; the Aussies developed and fielded the Owen machine-carbine, which although quite heavy was IMO the superior weapon, especially for being more reliable under jungle conditions... but the STEN was a solid light-automatic in its day, and personally I feel that its reputed ‘failings’ might have become a little overblown in the retelling.
If you want a really bad small-arm? It’s hard to go past the Italian Breda 30. An LMG fed from a fixed side-mounted magazine reloaded with stripper clips and requiring oiling of the ammunition to facilitate proper feeding? To be used in a desert campaign, amidst all that dust and grit?
Tiamat
I've seen the future...
Personally, I think the STEN gets a bad rap. Yes, it could slam-fire if dropped, but that was a known possibility and accounted for in the manual-of-arms; yes, the magazine design was questionable (double-column single-feed, really?); yes, the early models could have ‘quirks’, especially of quality-control; but it was reasonably priced, could be assembled by unskilled labour (mostly women told what parts to put where in what order, with no ‘machine to fit’ components like so many other bits of British kit of the era), decently accurate, fairly ergonomic, and it laid down automatic fire at a rate that allowed good control of burst-length and shot-placement. It wasn’t completely squaddie-proof, but anyone who’s read even a handful of the SB posts by lackofgravitas knows that very few things are.
It wasn’t a horrible weapon, the later ones anyway. It was basically a product of its time and of circumstance when you really need a lot of automatic weapons for soldiers and militia right away. And it seemed to perform the job it was intended for, quirks notwithstanding. That said I am admittedly biased as a Yank toward the Thompson...though I also find myself leaning toward the MP38/40.
The ANZACs were at least fortunate enough to have the Sten and the Owen. The IJA on the other hand had barely any sub machine guns and not even self loading rifles, they were mostly stuck with bolt action rifles and crew served machine guns in a theater that was mostly jungle. Speaking of which...
If you want a really bad small-arm? It’s hard to go past the Italian Breda 30. An LMG fed from a fixed side-mounted magazine reloaded with stripper clips and requiring oiling of the ammunition to facilitate proper feeding? To be used in a desert campaign, amidst all that dust and grit?
Funnily enough the Imperial Japanese had the same bright idea with the Type 11....a machine gun that was fed via stripper clips using a feed hopper mechanism, and the rounds had to be kept oiled.The idea was any rifleman could add rounds to the weapon from his supply during a firefight. Yeah, that sounded like a brilliant idea...
Funnily enough the Imperial Japanese had the same bright idea with the Type 11....a machine gun that was fed via stripper clips using a feed hopper mechanism, and the rounds had to be kept oiled.The idea was any rifleman could add rounds to the weapon from his supply during a firefight. Yeah, that sounded like a brilliant idea...
Well, that's not as bad as the idea of installing a bayonet lug on said LMGs...I get the Japanese POV, but it kind of defeats the basic purpose of an LMG, it's meant to lay down a base of fire, not get up close and stick people. If you're that close with an LMG, something has gone very, very wrong, and you're better off grabbing your pistol or a grenade.
My other candidate for bad infantry small arms, or at least overrated? The Dryse Needle Gun. That's right, the gun that helped the Prussian Army win in 1866:
According to the Wiki article, which is always questionable...
According to the Wiki article, which is always questionable...