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.
Even if that were true...
it's still a far cry from "most effective gun of WW2"
The M1 rifle is probably tops...........
Without a doubt. Garand was credited with creating the best gun of the war. It was called "the greatest battle implement ever devised" by General Patton.
That semi auto could lay people down.
Without a doubt. Garand was credited with creating the best gun of the war. It was called "the greatest battle implement ever devised" by General Patton.
That semi auto could lay people down.
Long rifles were found to be useless in most combat situations. These guns were expensive to produce, heavy and too long. The British made the Sten, the Sterling was progression of the Sten and the SA80 again another progression. The SA80 is the standard issue gun. Long rifles are for snipers, the Accuracy International. In WW2, smaller, lighter, quick to ready weapons for close combat were found to be more useful. The Soviets experience as well.
I recall taking to a British para when the SA-80 was issued and the FN withdrawn. Some paras did not like it as it was more flimsy than the familiar FN. But this para said you can bend it if you want to but in a battle situation you just pick up another. He objectively looked at it. He also liked the idea of it being light, smaller, quick to get ready and you carried more bullets as the bullets were smaller.
Western Allies did not use long rifles rather short rifles. SMLE, M1 Garand, M1903 are correctly termed short rifles.
A short version of the M1 Garand was built. Known as the Tanker model due to the secondary nature of use being mechanized troops and their limited storage.
No disputing the smaller,lighter and CQB effective weapons being more useful in some theaters of WW2 where they were needed for those conditions but of course one could not foresee how infantry combat would occur so there was a mix of weapons. Otherwise, post-war armies would have been equipped wholesale with SMGs. Instead they developed better rifles and a host of supporting weapons for infantry use.
No disputing the smaller,lighter and CQB effective weapons being more useful in some theaters of WW2 where they were needed for those conditions but of course one could not foresee how infantry combat would occur so there was a mix of weapons. Otherwise, post-war armies would have been equipped wholesale with SMGs. Instead they developed better rifles and a host of supporting weapons for infantry use.
As one might say, spot on, not me but others...
If I were a paratrooper or commando or involved in a lot of house to house fighting a sub-machine gun would be my preference (a Thompson thank you very much) but once you left the confines of the village or town... I'd be damned if I'd want any underpowered, short sight radius firearm when I need a weapon that could accurately reach out and touch someone (and put them down) at 100 yards or more, not an uncommon occurrence in the european theatre.
Western Allies did not use long rifles rather short rifles. SMLE, M1 Garand, M1903 are correctly termed short rifles.
A short version of the M1 Garand was built. Known as the Tanker model due to the secondary nature of use being mechanized troops and their limited storage.
No disputing the smaller,lighter and CQB effective weapons being more useful in some theaters of WW2 where they were needed for those conditions but of course one could not foresee how infantry combat would occur so there was a mix of weapons. Otherwise, post-war armies would have been equipped wholesale with SMGs. Instead they developed better rifles and a host of supporting weapons for infantry use.
The British have dropped long rifles, going for the SA-80 - after initial problems because of changes in the design, the SA-80 is now a superb gun. Where you need range, rate of fire, etc, SMGs, etc, are available. Most NATO forces have standardised on the Belgian MAG. Lee Enfield's, Garands, etc were proved obsolete in modern warfare in WW2. The Brits and Soviets realised that quite quickly. They tried to adapt long rifles with shorter barrels and the likes - carbines.
Infantry guns must be small, light and ammunition small and light enough entailing many more rounds. The SA-80 does all that. The Canadian C-7 is too long as is the M16 but the M4 is getting there. The Russian AK-74 is too long but there is a folding but version.
The British have dropped long rifles, going for the SA-80 - after initial problems because of changes in the design, the SA-80 is now a superb gun. Where you need range, rate of fire, etc, SMGs, etc, are available. Most NATO forces have standardised on the Belgian MAG. Lee Enfield's, Garands, etc were proved obsolete in modern warfare in WW2. The Brits and Soviets realised that quite quickly. They tried to adapt long rifles with shorter barrels and the likes - carbines.
Infantry guns must be small, light and ammunition small and light enough entailing many more rounds. The SA-80 does all that. The Canadian C-7 is too long as is the M16 but the M4 is getting there. The Russian AK-74 is too long but there is a folding but version.
Listening to a dis-armed Brit pontificating about small arms is pretty funny.
Tell us all about how the POS SA-80 is a superb gun. So superb, in fact, that other than the UK, it's use is limited to such military powerhouses as Jamaica and Bolivia.
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.