If you had to pick a World War Two weapon to fight with?(Infantry)

[Guest]

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever

Login with username, password and session length

[They Call Me SpitFire]

What would you pick?

[NLeaf]

4 for a variety of garand...1 for a thompson so far...damn, guys! Not the FG42? Even if its Pre-patch?    Why is the m1 so popular, its a decent weapon, but its not that amazing 

Damn, I always post on wrong profile...

[acker]

The M1 Garand is amazing. What are you talking about? And the M1 Carbine isn't a variety for the M1 Garand, it's a different gun altogether.

I wouldn't choose the Carbine. Sure, it's light and a perfect paratrooper weapon, but the stopping power is less than that of a rifle cartridge. Not that that means anything at close range...the M1 Carbine has more power per round than a .357 Magnum.

The FG42 suffers from light weapon weight on an automatic weapon, which results in screwy auto fire. Plus, only 5,000 or so were made. The BAR suffers from the autofire recoil thing, but at least they made over 50,000 of them...

I wouldn't choose any of the MGs. That would make me a priority target by any tank/sniper/infantryman that looked at me. Hence, a small-arms weapon.

Stg44...major ammo problems (logistics) with this thing for either side. If it didn't have logistics problems, I would choose it. Amazing gun, it was...

M1 Garand is the best regular small arms out there. Better than any of the other rifles listed.

And the Thompson is the Thompson. The PPSH-41 wasn't listed, so that's my choice for SMGs.

[They Call Me SpitFire]

Have you never heard Gen. EisenHower or was it that other guy, who said that the M1Garand was what won them the war.

[acker]

It was Patton, I believe. "The M1 Garand is the best instrument of war ever devised by mankind" or something like that. He said the same thing about the Jeep, too.

I agree with both of those quotes. Mastery of logistics is far more important than strategy or tactics in warfare, as proved time and time again in WWII.

[They Call Me SpitFire]

OH yeah I was thinking Patton sorry I called yah Eisenhower Patton if yah hear me okay up there.

[They Call Me SpitFire]

Though Strategy can beat logistics, and without that logistics wouldn't mean much.

[acker]

You are partially correct. Strategy can determine some battles and operations. But Logistics wins campaigns, and wars. Patton had a famous quote of this somewhere...



North Africa, Russia, the Atlantic, Italy, France, Holland, and Germany are classic examples of that.

[Leafedge]

It was Patton, I believe. "The M1 Garand is the best instrument of war ever devised by mankind" or something like that. He said the same thing about the Jeep, too.

I agree with both of those quotes. Mastery of logistics is far more important than strategy or tactics in warfare, as proved time and time again in WWII.

This isn't the question here...and how many were made is totally irrelevant to this. The question is what you would use personally, so logistics has nothing to do with this, only weapon quality. Yes, the garand was a major factor to the winning of the war, but that doesn't mean it was a superior weapon. It was just a more widely used weapon that performed well. The FG42 was vastly superior, but didn't have an effect on the war because as you said - so few were made.

Also,

The M1 Garand is amazing. What are you talking about? And the M1 Carbine isn't a variety for the M1 Garand, it's a different gun altogether.

Yeah...I think this speaks for itself...but I'll say it anyway. A carbine is a shorter version of a given rifle. In the case of the M1 Carbine, its a shorter, more maneuverable, less powerful and accurate version of the M1 Garand. So in other words, it is a version of the garand.

[acker]

The Carbine is a "version" of the Garand the same way the Kar is a version of the Gewehr  . The internal design characteristics of the two weapons are completely dissimilar. They fulfill different roles in combat, and use differing round types. They don't even use the same semi-auto feed method. They aren't "versions" at all.

Please. The "carbine" you think of is something like the Kar98, where someone saws off the barrel of a larger gun and redesigns around that. The M1 Carbine was built ground-up. There is no rifle equivalent that it was designed around.

There is, however, an M1 Garand "carbine" variant. They took a Garand, cut off the barrel by around seven inches, and redesigned around it. The M1 Carbine is, however, not a variant carbine of the Garand.



Logistics is a question that needs to be considered. The weapon I "personally" get has to be serviced, machined, and maintained (ammo {logistics}) by people who might be a thousand miles away from my combat zone. Logistics is a part of personal preference. If I was in an Australian unit, I'd choose the Austen over the Thompson because .45 ACP was hard to get in Australian divisions.

It does me no good to have a weapon with only 50 rounds in it, that receives irregular ammo shipments every three months or so. It does me no good if the weapon is so rare that spare parts are hard to come by, if not impossible to come by. That weapon does more than shoot bullets, you know. Something people have trouble understanding, even with larger objects like tanks.

That's why I didn't choose the Stg44 or the FG42.

[[AB]RikiRude]

You are missing a lot of guns!

M3 Grease gun
Bren
Johnson Automatic Rifle
Johnson LMG
Carcano M1891
Beretta smg
PPSh varients
Reising SMG (i think i spelled that wrong)
Arisaka models
Japanese lmgs, what is it, type 98 and such?
the SVT
G43
sten
De Lisle

also it's Kar98k.

Personally I would want to use the Johnson LMG, such a cool gun!

[Thirteen]

I'd pick a Colt .45 or a Panzerschreck.

[Dukka]

I'll take the Mosin.

[Willshire]

BAR all the way. John Moses Browning designed it, so it must be worshipped as God himself gave John M. Browning the designs and said "Give them unto your people as they are and no different." The gun was freaking heavy (close to 20 lbs or about 9 kgs) and toned down a lot of the recoil.

If I had to pick any other gun from WW2, it would the the PPSh-41 71 freaking rounds of 7.62x25 there's no stopping you.

And as far as a sidearm it would be a 1911, well MY 1911 and a close second would be a TT-33. The funny thing about a TT-33 is that there is no safety on one

As far as WW2 guns go I've only shot a 1911, Garand, Mosin Nagant, M1 Carbine, and several mauser bolt action rifle variations (basically close enought to call it a kar 98k). I'm lucky enought to own a 1911, Mosin Nagant and an SKS which was tested during the war, along with several other fine firearms that were used outside of the WW2 time period.

[They Call Me SpitFire]

You are missing a lot of guns!

M3 Grease gun
Bren
Johnson Automatic Rifle
Johnson LMG
Carcano M1891
Beretta smg
PPSh varients
Reising SMG (i think i spelled that wrong)
Arisaka models
Japanese lmgs, what is it, type 98 and such?
the SVT
G43
sten
De Lisle

also it's Kar98k.

Personally I would want to use the Johnson LMG, such a cool gun!

Yeah I know it would be a really long list so I just put 12, and I noticed soon after I put it that I messed the Kar98k  up thanks for all the others Rikki.

[Warbirds]

I think I'd either go with an FG42 or a G43.

[They Call Me SpitFire]

The Reason I'd pick a M1Garand is that the infantry usually fought out in the open fields and woods and stuff most of the time So I'd like a weapon with range/rof/damage

[Dr.Nick2]

If ammo wasn't an Issue I would deffinantly go for  the StG44, such an amazing weapon. I don't care what people say, the Russians totally ripped it off for the Ak47 imo. Also, if I was going to be sniping I would deffinantly want a lee-enfield with a scope. We have on that I've fired many times. Very reliable, big clip, easy to use, good sites. VERY powerful.

[StuartAxis]

What about the Gewehr 43 + 41???

[They Call Me SpitFire]

I just never added half the weapons.