Comments by "Andy Dee" (@AndyViant) on "Forgotten Weapons" channel.

@hdjono3351 Australia says hi (and supplied land victories against the Japanese). Pretty sure you might want to revisit how "unchecked" the Japanese were with Chinese, Dutch, Australian, New Zealand, British and Indian forces still very much in the field of play in the Pacific.
1
@radfatdaddy4169 Realistically? 1812 Napoleonic invasion of Russia, which based on peace treaties after the disastrous 1809 campaign left Russia standing alone against a Continental European army controlled by France to a far greater degree than WW2 Germany ever achieved. At this point France controlled France, Spain, Germany, Prussia, Austria-Hungary, Italy, Slovenia, Croatia, Switzerland, Denmark, Belgium, Netherlands, Poland/Warsaw, Norway and the provinces of Wallacia, Moldovia and Bessarabia (meaning effectively much of Ukraine, Romania and Belorussia). Britain merely provided a blockade and didn't jump in until Russia utterly trounced pretty much the rest of Europe combined. I'm guessing your knowledge of history is erm American?
1
@KennyP.Gemstone during WW2 Port Moresby WAS Australian and remained until 1975. Australia WAS invaded by Japanese ground forces during WW2, and by German ground forces in WW1.
1
@crawdadlando4053 Australia had sent pretty much all of their regular Army, Navy and Air Force to fight in the European and North African theatre starting in 1939. You know, while the Yanks were still sucking up to the Nazis. A couple of years before America bothered to join the war. Despite all this, our conscripted militia still stopped the Japanese at Kokoda, as well as providing some of the first ground force victories against the Japanese of the war. Mainland Australia never got invaded, and all our major cities and industrial capacity were almost completely unaffected during the war, although the Japanese did bomb Darwin and Broome, and launch submarine attacks on Sydney and Newcastle. Kind of like how US soil got attacked at Pearl Harbour really. Where you plucked a town of 300 people full of old people from is a pure mystery, but it's not in any way accurate. Please provide a reference for this. If that's "having your asses handed to you" you have a very different interpretation to most of the world.
1
@KennyP.Gemstone Why was I telling you Australia owned Port Moresby? Because it's factual, and there's a complete misunderstanding of Australia's role in the pacific war. Australia took over many of the German Empire's possessions in the Pacific region in or after WW1. This is how German New Guinea became Australian, capture during WW1. Papua was transferred to Australia in 1902 after Australian Independence from Britain in 1901. This is the reason Australian militia forces were able to be sent to PNG, because at the time they were part of Australia. I didn't read any understanding from you of this, and there are plenty of other posters who don't understand this either.
1
:D
1
Which only followed the .276 Enfield by a decade.
1
@FiveTwoSevenTHR why is it about what the US may or may not have adopted? The question was about WW2 Rifle cartridges. US only rifle cartridges certainly wasn't the question put to Ian.
1
@FiveTwoSevenTHR The British were going to take up the .276 Enfield before WW1, but with a few teething problems it was unable to go to full scale production before WW1 started. Although there was millions of rounds produced this was nothing compared to the demands of the demands of the Commonwealth's various Army, Navy and Air Force branches. Given that at that point the British Empire was over 1/4 of the world's population, and this would have been the primary service cartridge for rifles and machineguns across the empire for at least the next 4 decades it is pretty clear that would have been a notable cartridge too. But like the Pedersen, effectively both great ideas came to naught, because it is very hard to upgrade entire inventories at the best of times, let alone the cusp of war. This is why so many nations went into not just WW1 but WW2 with such supposedly "outdated" service rifles.
1
What if the British had adopted .276 Enfield (7mm x 60) as they intended before WW1 broke out?
1
I think the issue is that with more accurate rounds you often take more time trying to take a better shot. With a minute-of-man combat rifle, you just go for a still good enough fist sized target point. Less hesitation and a large chunk of lead thrown downrange ensures the outcome.
1
That makes a lot of sense. like a drill, running alongside it, maybe some rubber bit touches the round and imparting spin. It would be easier if the Spinny Bit (tm) was the floor of the "chamber" and it was top fed of course, then the projectile/dowel would just drop onto the spinning component and then get accelerated. How much difference spin would cause at 200 feet per second is questionable. I think you really need to get the velocity up to say double that fps before spin becomes that important.
1
That is so cool. This is the sort of stuff that only you would cover.
1
can't honestly see a good reason to build it that way.
1
Looks pretty awesome. I do wonder is that actually too low a barrel. The reciprocating parts being low is great in theory but it looks like it's just about running on your thumb webbing, and it means the red dot is sitting really high. Then there's the jam from having a thumb in the way. They need a lefty, not just for the left handers but left eye dominant right handers. Looks a really interesting piece though I'll be unable to ever afford one.
1