WWII weapon debates

Britain developed the No 74 ST Grenade, popularly known as a sticky bomb, in which the main charge was held in a sphere covered in adhesive. In anticipation of a German invasion, the British Army asked for ideas for a simple, easy to use, ready for production and cheap close-in antitank weapon. The ST Grenade was a government sponsored initiative, by MIR(c), a group tasked with developing weapons for use in German and Italian occupied territory, and they placed the ST Grenade into mass production at Churchill's insistence, but seeing how it was operated, the British Army rejected it for the Home Guard much less their regular forces. The No 74 Grenade was later issued to troops as an emergency stop-gap measure against Italian tanks in North Africa, where it provedï¿½€"to the surprise of manyï¿½€"highly effective. Later in the war, French partisans used the No 74 effectively in sabotage work against German installations. http://en.wikipedia.org... In your argument against my Gewehr 43, your M1A1 Carbine. You Don't list it's effective range. Where as mine is 500 m. 800 m with scope attached. You also explain the M1's Muzzle velocity, 1,990 ft/s (607 m/s). This is great for it's own design, but is beat by my Gewehr 43, 775 m/s (2,328 ft/s). Thats at least a 168 m/s difference, a 338 ft/s difference. These two play major roles in war, meaning the difference between life and death by how much faster, and farther your firearm can strike. Just because you can shoot faster doesnt mean you have will hit the target. As you know from your history lessons, The US M1 Garrand and M1A1 Carbine were the most heavyly used weapons of WWII. The Gewehr 43 was interduced to late to do any real fighting. Now in your second response, your PPsH-41 against my MAB 38 submachine gun. In almost every way your weapon does look more effective than my choice. But you have not matched them stat for stat. I saw that your weapons effective range is 150m. While mine is 250m. This is nearly twice your range. And if i am not correct as the PPsH-41 Is fired over time it becomes very inacurate when over used or fired continuously. Making it a very inaccurate weapon. This is where training comes in. The Russians were trained to fire in smalll bursts to 1 not waste ammo and 2 to remain accurte. Also, it was used in urban combat, which took place in the PPsH 41's range. It was also cheap to make. The impetus for the development of the PPSh came partly from the Winter War against Finland, where it was found that submachine guns were a highly effective tool for close-quarter fighting in forests or built-up urban areas. The weapon was developed in mid-1941 and was produced in a network of factories in Moscow, with high-level local Party members made directly responsible for production targets being met. A few hundred weapons were produced in November 1941 and another 155,000 were produced over the next five months. By spring 1942, the PPSh factories were producing roughly 3,000 units a day. The PPSh-41 was a classic example of a design adapted for mass production (other examples of such wartime design were the M3 submachine gun, MP40 and the Sten). Its parts (excluding the barrel) could be produced by a relatively unskilled workforce with simple equipment available in an auto repair garage or tin shop, freeing up more skilled workers for other tasks. The PPSh-41 used 87 components compared to 95 for the PPD-40 and the PPSh could be manufactured with 7.3 machining hours compared with 13.7 hours for the PPD. Barrel production was simplified by using barrels produced for the 7.62mm M1891 Mosin-Nagant rifle: the rifle barrel was cut in half, and two PPSh barrels were made from it after machining the chamber for the 7.62mm Soviet submachine gun cartridge. Now in your final response on your lmg choice, the MG 42 versus my BAR. I have notice a few differences in the two. First to trump is weight issue. Your MG weighs at 11.57 kg (25.51 lb), my choice weighs about 7.25 kg (15.98 lb). Making it a lighter weapon more manuverable choice. The next thing was the Muzzle velocity. Your MG 42 fired about 755 m/s (2,477 ft/s), mine however was 860 m/s (2,822 ft/s). This is another example of faster takedowns upon the enemy. Now in the final stat that i matched up was the effective range. Your MG 42 range measured in at 1000m, where mine was 4500-5000yd 4128-4587m. This is makes for a much great killing distance than your selection. Ok, you have me beat at the distance, but it doesnt mean anything when you only have 20 rounds before you have to reload. trust me, I've fired both weapons. The BAR is a bitch to pick up, pull the clip out, put a new one in, and line back up to the target in a short amount of time. And again, the firing rate of the MG42 was FEARED by the Allies in WWII.