Military rounds

spike.t said:

223 as far as I know not allowed in France....

Click to expand...

I wonder if they will allow a 5.56 mm. AFAIK a 7.62 x 51 mm is classed as a military caliber and . 308 W is not. The same with paper money with the value of 20 for e.g.. There is a difference between 20 dollars, pounds, euros, roebels, lahks, rands, pullas etc. The same thing but not really the same thing.

Mr. Zorg said:

Can you expand on this?

Click to expand...

The situation was Germany and USSR had a non-aggression pact, however both sides planned on attacking the other when the situation presented itself. Had Germany not attacked USSR, historians believe USSR would have attacked Germany. This would have put USSR at a disadvantage because Germany would be fighting on their home ground and resupply lines would have been short. USSR would have been extended the farther they went. Additionally, prior to USSR attacking, Germany could have continued the invasion of England and could have knocked England out of the war, thus freeing their entire army to meet USSR. Germany had superior forces at that point, so it is likely that USSR, though not conquered in the classic sense, would have had their armies reduced to combat ineffectiveness. As such Germany would have owned Europe, at least until the United States got involved.

What changed the plan was Germany's General staff and Hitler noticed how the little poorly equipped Finnish army had fought the mighty USSR army to a virtual stand-still. finally yielding after they had inflicted severe losses to the USSR. Because of this, Germany concluded that they could attack USSR and get a quick victory, knocking USSR out of the war, then Germany could return to the English campaign. In many respects it was this decision that cost Germany the war- and it was due to Finland fighting the Russian bear to a standstill.

Ray B said:

...

What changed the plan was Germany's General staff and Hitler noticed how the little poorly equipped Finnish army had fought the mighty USSR army to a virtual stand-still. finally yielding after they had inflicted severe losses to the USSR. Because of this, Germany concluded that they could attack USSR and get a quick victory, knocking USSR out of the war, then Germany could return to the English campaign. In many respects it was this decision that cost Germany the war- and it was due to Finland fighting the Russian bear to a standstill.

Click to expand...

That is a bit more complicated, than the ways that most look at it. Makes sense, though.

During the 1939-1940 "Winter War", Finland was looking for assistance in the West, including fighter aircraft from USA, UK and France - and actually managed to acquire some. With USA and UK allying with the Soviets, a bit later on, it became a matter of "enemies of your enemies". "Fun fact": Finland fought on both sides of WWII.

On swastikas (or rather: hakaristi) on Finnish war machines of the time: they go back longer than nazis. Everybody used to have "swastika" as some sort of a symbol, including native Americans.

leslie hetrick said:

I can understand the French not liking the 8mm mauser, but they should have build a schrine to the 3006.. I have a garand built in early 1944 that could have been in france.

Click to expand...

You can read in the text of the law from April 18 , 1939 that are prohibited :

"Armes à feu et leurs munitions conçues pour ou destinées à la guerre terrestre, navale ou aérienne."

"Firearms and their ammunition designed for or intended for land , naval or air warfare."

It does not only refer to the cartridge 8mm Lebel or 30-06 Springfield , but every cartridges that was fired in handguns , rifles and machine guns by various armies after January 1 , 1870 !!!

Most Europeans countries have caliber limitations for civilians.

I cannot have a .223, which is classified as a military-only caliber, and .308 is only authorised in bolt actions. Nothing above .50 cal unless it is rimmed.

But...I can import any trophy in the world, as long as it has a CITES

But...I can import any trophy in the world, as long as it has a CITES

Click to expand...

Not everything anymore and in all countries !

kurpfalzjäger said:

Not everything anymore and in all countries !

Click to expand...

In Spain I can, we don´t have any restrictions as long the trophy has the necessary paperwork.

Ray B said:

The situation was Germany and USSR had a non-aggression pact, however both sides planned on attacking the other when the situation presented itself. Had Germany not attacked USSR, historians believe USSR would have attacked Germany. This would have put USSR at a disadvantage because Germany would be fighting on their home ground and resupply lines would have been short. USSR would have been extended the farther they went. Additionally, prior to USSR attacking, Germany could have continued the invasion of England and could have knocked England out of the war, thus freeing their entire army to meet USSR. Germany had superior forces at that point, so it is likely that USSR, though not conquered in the classic sense, would have had their armies reduced to combat ineffectiveness. As such Germany would have owned Europe, at least until the United States got involved.

What changed the plan was Germany's General staff and Hitler noticed how the little poorly equipped Finnish army had fought the mighty USSR army to a virtual stand-still. finally yielding after they had inflicted severe losses to the USSR. Because of this, Germany concluded that they could attack USSR and get a quick victory, knocking USSR out of the war, then Germany could return to the English campaign. In many respects it was this decision that cost Germany the war- and it was due to Finland fighting the Russian bear to a standstill.

Click to expand...

I think this gives short schrift to the Axis victories in Poland and France to set such mindset as well. Not to mention the direction the war in North Africa shifted after deployment of the Afrika Korps, all before the launch of Operation Barbarossa.

Somehow I think anyone who has relatives that were in Leningrad / St Petersburg during the siege of that city would not be as inclined to be disposed to be thankful of the actions of the Finnish Army during WWII but to be fair, the USSR started the hostilities with Finland.

I'm not quite sure a statement that Finland was on both sides during WWII is accurate. Finland was never a signatory to the Tripartite Act, and Finland was not a formal member of the Allied nations as far as I can see.

Finland fought in the interest of Finland, in the Winter War, the Continuation War, and the Lapland War. Finland was treaty bound after the Continuation War to expel German military forces, most of which escaped to Germany through Norway to be available on both fronts after the Normandy invasion. I see nothing inherently wrong with Finland fighting in the interest of Finland. I don't know of any concentration camps in Finland, and I expect Finnish military forces taken prisoner by the USSR fared no better than German, Italian, Romanian, Hungarian, and Spanish forces taken as POWs by the USSR in WWII.

Mr. Zorg said:

I expect Finnish military forces taken prisoner by the USSR fared no better than German, Italian, Romanian, Hungarian, and Spanish forces taken as POWs by the USSR in WWII.

Click to expand...

Nor better than any Americans that the USSR captured.

Ray B said:

Nor better than any Americans that the USSR captured.

Click to expand...

When and were did USSR took US POW's?

I know for Gary Powers, but he was not POW.

mark-hunter said:

When and were did USSR took US POW's?

Click to expand...

There were several over the years of WWII, the first I recall was a flight crew from the Doolittle raid that crashlanded when they ran out of fuel over the USSR. I recall that they weren't released until the end of the war. Despite all the stuff that the Vice Pres was sending their way, Ole Joe didn't trust the US any more than he did his generals.

Back to the subject at hand, I wonder what the nations that prohibit military round would say if you listed your ammo as .223 Remington in stead of 5.56 or .308 Winchester instead of 7.62 NATO?

The argument being that the .223 Remington and the .308 Winchester are civilian rounds and not military like their metric brothers.

I know the US Lend-Lease policy for the USSR was no equipment would be shipped to the USSR that US enemy forces had not already faced in action and had dissected examples of. But there were B29 crews that landed in then-USSR territory which resulted in the USSR producing their own semi-clone version.

I have not read much of interned US troops in the USSR. My mother's younger brother was one of the initial Western Allies / USSR captured territory border guards, as V-E day occurred while was still in training. He was always bitter about that citing his draft notice said "for the duration". That of course didn't matter, troops that had been in service were the ones mustering out.

So I'd certainly welcome links to autobiographies of US service personnel especially air crews that landed in the USSR. My father was in the earliest USAAC troops landed in North Africa after the Torch Landings, and he definitely served "for the duration" but never encountering troops from the USSR. He qualified as having served in 3 theaters: North African, Mediterranien, and European. That's part of what drives my hobby interest in that period in history.

Troops that served in the Pacific were only considered to have served in one theater, massive as it was. My father was thankful he wasn't sent to serve in the Pacific.

Ray B said:

Ole Joe didn't trust the US any more than he did his generals.

Click to expand...

And wise versa.

US distrust to USSR, was quite summarized vocally by General Patton in ww2. Not politically correct at the time (1945), but quite formalized shortly after ww2.

Ray B said:

The situation was Germany and USSR had a non-aggression pact, however both sides planned on attacking the other when the situation presented itself. Had Germany not attacked USSR, historians believe USSR would have attacked Germany. This would have put USSR at a disadvantage because Germany would be fighting on their home ground and resupply lines would have been short. USSR would have been extended the farther they went. Additionally, prior to USSR attacking, Germany could have continued the invasion of England and could have knocked England out of the war, thus freeing their entire army to meet USSR. Germany had superior forces at that point, so it is likely that USSR, though not conquered in the classic sense, would have had their armies reduced to combat ineffectiveness. As such Germany would have owned Europe, at least until the United States got involved.

What changed the plan was Germany's General staff and Hitler noticed how the little poorly equipped Finnish army had fought the mighty USSR army to a virtual stand-still. finally yielding after they had inflicted severe losses to the USSR. Because of this, Germany concluded that they could attack USSR and get a quick victory, knocking USSR out of the war, then Germany could return to the English campaign. In many respects it was this decision that cost Germany the war- and it was due to Finland fighting the Russian bear to a

Click to expand...

Nazi Germany’s “Operation Sea Lion” to invade England by sea, failed before it began, due to the RAFs virtual destruction of many of the Luftwaffes aircraft and more importantly their experienced pilots during the Battle of Britain. And in between occupied France and Great Britain was England’s massive, powerful Navy! I use the terms Great Britain and England interchangeably because I’m ignorant? Please correct me!

Yes, there's a difference between being "interned for the duration" vs being a POW. That's why I would like to see links to autobiographical accounts of US troops that landed in the USSR during WWII.

I doubt they were sent to the same gulags to undergo the same treatment as captured enemy troops of the USSR.

I've known one indiviual whose father was a POW taken by the Japanese forces in WWII, and one person whose father was in the Wermact whose father was taken prisoner by the USSR in WWII. Both survived, but that's about all that could be said of their experiences. On the other hand, I've met and chatted with one of the original Tuskegee Airmen, who was shot down in northern Italy going after a train locomotive when suddenly one of the railcars dropped its side panels and shot him down using what is now termed triple-A. He gave no evidence of anywhere near as harrowing an experience as a POW.

Back on topic, I'm glad there are many cartridges of the .30-06 and .308 families available that have not been in formal use by military forces readily svailable, along with cartridges like 7X64mm Brenneke and 9.3X62mm, that are effective hunting cartridges available to choose from if circumstances dictate.

Mr. Zorg said:

Yes, there's a difference between being "interned for the duration" vs being a POW. That's why I would like to see links to autobiographical accounts of US troops that landed in the USSR during WWII.

I doubt they were sent to the same gulags to undergo the same treatment as captured enemy troops of the USSR.

I've known one indiviual whose father was a POW taken by the Japanese forces in WWII, and one person whose father was in the Wermact whose father was taken prisoner by the USSR in WWII. Both survived, but that's about all that could be said of their experiences. On the other hand, I've met and chatted with one of the original Tuskegee Airmen, who was shot down in northern Italy going after a train locomotive when suddenly one of the railcars dropped its side panels and shot him down using what is now termed triple-A. He gave no evidence of anywhere near as harrowing an experience as a POW.

Back on topic, I'm glad there are many cartridges of the .30-06 and .308 families available that have not been in formal use by military forces readily svailable, along with cartridges like 7X64mm Brenneke and 9.3X62mm, that are effective hunting cartridges available to choose from if circumstances dictate.

Click to expand...

Along with the .303 British Enfield! I have a Mark 2. Great rifle, accurate and mechanically dependable! Same with the Russian Mosin Nagant rifle. I believe both were used in the two World Wars and were highly successful combat rifles.

CoElkHunter said:

Please correct me!

Click to expand...

Great Britain, indeed had a Navy. But in my perception, this navy has been in decline, at the begging of ww2. It was not the navy the kept the empire in previous 200 years.

As after ww1, All major world powers have started reducing military budgets, and decommissioning of heavy equipment (artilleries, navies, airplanes, etc) never expecting war on world wide scale, and certainly not in Europe.
Britain was not exemption.

I remember Winston Chushill notes from his memoirs, when taking position of PM, and first sea lord, before that having problem of recommissioning some heavy pieces of artillery from military ware houses, left since ww1.

navy had its problems.
Not sufficient number of destroyers,for duty of convoy escorts. Old fleet, on another hand.

They signed a deal with US to get urgently Escort destroyers, for exchange for military basis. It was so called destroyers for bases deal. This improved Great Britain naval capability in ww2. And helped them to survive, because convoy were bringing vital supplies and resources for war effort, plus food.

I think that in that time, naval doctrine was still heavily influenced by the doctrine of large vessels - battle ships, and aircraft carriers time was yet to come. Air craft carriers have not been proven as backbone of modern navy fleet -yet. Only few in service, and battle ships,. cruisers, heavy cruisers prevailed, with many of them obsolete since ww1, that survived first wave of scrapping during previous budget cuts.

UK paid the price, by losses in tonnage and human lives.
HMS Hood sunk by german battleship Bismarck, 1941
HMS Royal Oak, sunk on anchorage in well protected Scapa flow base, by german sub... u47, 1941
HMS Repulse, sunk in south china sea, 1941
HMS Prince of Wales, sunk in south chine sea, 1941
HMS Glorius, carrier, sunk in 1940
HMS ark royal, carrier, sunk 1941
Those are capital ship lost, only by 1941 - how much was left then to keep fighting the next day?
etc... There might be few more, but they were sunk either by modern ships like Bismarck, or by airplanes or subs, as modern technology.

After the European ground has been lost to Germany in begging of ww2 with occupied Poland and France, and before invasion of Russia, great Britain was the only country fighting Germans, and really loosing their ground, with culmination at Dunqirk.
And even before that royal navy realized they need to upgrade their fleet - FAST. In such environment, in 1940, they signed the deal with US for escort carriers, in return to give to US the bases.

The only other part, of occupied Europe that kept fighting, at that time - and till the end of war were Yugosalv partisans, which at all times kept at least a part of liberated territory, till end of ww2... Which in advanced stages of war gave allied pilots a chance to land, or parachute when flying to and from bombing missions across the Europe. In other parts of europe, they had best chance to get KIA or POW... no free territory to land...if they plane was shot.
But that is another story. However, this is less known fact.

Bottom line: UK - Navy they had, but US helped greatly!

The fall of Shanghai typified the issues with the UK Navy, and stodgy stay-in-the-box military thinking. For example, the 2-pounder (40mm) and 6-pounder (57mm) never had HE rounds manufactured, for these were "proper" tank and anti-tank guns. The CS (close support) and some Engineers versions of AFV's were instead armed with short barreled larger diameter guns for firing HE, Smoke, and late war HESH / HEP "squash head" ammunition. And the well armored for its time Matilda series of AFV's were restricted to ridiculously low speeds regardless of armament as they were "proper" infantry tanks. Legend has it Erwin Rommel's troops pioneered the dual role of the famous Flak 88 gun during combat with Matilda tanks in France, and leveraged that to historically legendary use in North Africa.

However, USA AFV's used under Lend Lease had HE ammunition available in 37mm and 75mm vehicle guns (which were both simultaneously mounted in Lee and Grant tanks in the "Land Battleship" manner) and some, even small for Medium Tanks at the time, Lend-Lease M3 Stuarts were nicknamed "Honeys" by UK forces for robust reliability of drive system and gun systems / optics.

A note of historical curiosity: the USSR / Russia paid off its debts incurred through the USA Lend-Lease program prior to the UK doing the same. There is the point the USSR received Lend-Lease from the UK as well as the USA.

I've never thought of, nor explored, whether the .303 British and 7.62X54R cartridges spawned "cartridge families" that used the same case but with different diameter projectiles like the .30-06S & .308W. My father hunted with a milsurp SMLE he removed the top wood from to make a bit lighter. I still have that rifle, for sentimental reasons. As to the 7.62X54R, the only firearm using that cartridge was the Dragunov and it's clones, but I never purchased one.

i think the Russians stopped repayments in the 50,s. the russians should have a monument to the studabaker trucks we sent as 90 precent of every thing they moved was by horse before that and with the trucks they could move their cannons up close to the front lines and they moved much quicker. saving the foot soldier.