Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
if you could choose one of these to use in combat during WWII which one would you rather carry?
the M1A1 paratrooper carbine .30 cal
the Thompson submachine gun .45 auto
I would choose the M1 carbine, but hopefully not the paratrooper version. At better than 10 lbs empty, the Thompson is much heavier than the 5.2-lb. M1 carbine. Add several magazines of .45 acp ammunition and it becomes extremely cumbersome.
having shot both before, if at home would rather carry the carbine. but if in a firefight would rather have the thompson. nothing says firepower like a 100 round drum of 45 spewing in controlled bursts at your enemy.
M1A1 Para carbine. Less weight, and probably better effective range and stopping power at distance than the Tommy Gun.
a Tommy Gun would just be BA, though. I do think that one of the worst things about that war was the use of so many different weapons in so many different calibers/cartridges. Logistics must have been a PITA.
I'd have to know the theater and the mission. If we are going to the Pacific, or for that matter any place in Europe that close action would be expected, I'd take the Thompson, and a 1911 pistol to go with it if one is available.
If little shooting is anticipated, yeah, I'd go with the carbine as it's lighter. But the carbine round is not a world-beater, essentially it's the old 32-20 with a GI haircut and wearing khakis instead of overalls. If you are going to war with some sort of small game, it's great, but particularly against an enemy from any Eastern culture that might well use some "chemical courage" and/or are big strong guys - The Phillipine Moros for example - it won't strike a decisive blow. The .45 ACP will. This was documented in the very early 20th century, when the 38 Colt revolver failed against the Moros, and was temporarily replaced with .45 Colt SAA, until Dr. Browning came up with what I still think is the "right answer" in the form of the 1911 - but for some reason Americans in general just really want a really light rifle or carbine, and have been known to take this to the extreme of using a sub-powered round.
For all-round use, probably the Garand was the best combat rifle of WWII. IMHO 2nd place would go to the Mauser, probably 3rd to the AK-47.
Myself I choose option 3. I like the Winchester M97.
The Thompson is a beauty but even empty too heavy. The .30 is nice, probably better knock down than the .223/5.57
Not really answering the question, but I don't think it's too off-topic...
When I was in Kosovo in '99, my unit ran a gun-buy program where the locals received a set amount of money per weapon. At the end of the second day, an old man dragged an obviously US made wooden box out of his truck and started to open it. Our policy was to keep any cases closed at the turn in site and just give them the money for 1 weapon. He insisted on opening the case, and inside were 6 wrapped, greased, and BRAND SPANKING new condition WWII Thompsons. Apparently, we air dropped them onto his family farm for the Yugoslav partisans and his father hid a box. My major fought long and hard with the Army brass to keep them, but they refused on the basis of a strict President Clinton order against "war trophies". They ended up destroyed like every other weapon turned in to us.
Not before I took this picture while on nightwatch though
Between the two, the carbine. Both versions of the Thompson saw use at Okinawa. Both pretty much failed. The action is prone to dirt and crap making it a useless POS. While the carbine is a dandy, it's far cry from being a combat weapon or weapon of choice. It just doesn't have the power to stop an enemy. The stories from the front in Korea are all too true of not being able to stop an advancing enemy at 50 yds because the bullet can't penetrate the winter clothing. Give me an M14 any day....and you can keep the all but worthless plinker M16 or any variant of it. But the 97, it's hard to walk over a man with a shotgun. Just lacks any kind of range which is why the flame throwers and the shotgunners paired up in the Japanese island campaigns. The shotgunner would literally pumped and walked towards an emplacement while the flamethrower moved into position. Flushed a lot of Japanese troops like that. And like a friend of mine said years ago that carried a flamethrower, you don't have to hit anybody with it, the fire consumes the oxygen and the party is over.
Thompsons are bloody heavy and a pain to maintain. If I was gonna lug that much gun around I might as well go with a BAR.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
