What would you take to battle? - Page 2 - The Firearms Forum

jerrybeaumont · 08-26-2006, 03:34 PM

in the name of freedom'for everyone and all rights,
all i have to say.
war is crewl,and should never become,with people dieing.
if the politacle people are so great at there job,and you are not,
people die,because you failed,and thats life

bubbatalk77 · 09-07-2006, 07:09 PM

If I was going to take a rifle to battle, it would be an m14 with a decent synthetic stock.

stash247 · 09-07-2006, 08:01 PM

In WWII, or any other conflict, Just four things; both my Senators, my Congressman, and lots of Sour Mash Whiskey.
Draggin' their asses into the real world would eliminate a lot of conflicts, even faster than the Enola Gay did, at the end of WWII.

SKYDIVER386 · 09-08-2006, 12:45 AM

If I were in the European theater, the M-1 Garand. In the Pacific, the M-1 carbine, but it wasn't one of the choices.

Xracer · 09-08-2006, 08:29 AM

Meanwhile, back at the original question.....

I'd take a Mark 7, 16 inch/50 caliber Naval Rifle.

Get within 18 miles of me, and your butt is hamburger!

Pistolenschutze · 09-08-2006, 08:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Xracer

Meanwhile, back at the original question.....
I'd take a Mark 7, 16 inch/50 caliber Naval Rifle.
Get within 18 miles of me, and your butt is hamburger!

Hmmm, a 16 inch . . . . If you take it on an S&D mission, X, you might consider taking along a couple of cherries to hump the ammo for ya.

Xracer · 09-09-2006, 08:30 AM

Well......let's see. A 2,700 lb. projectile, and three 150 lb. powder bags.....yeah, I might need just a little help.....

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ship/weaps/mk-7.htm

Pistolenschutze · 09-09-2006, 10:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Xracer

Well......let's see. A 2,700 lb. projectile, and three 150 lb. powder bags.....yeah, I might need just a little help.....

True, X. For those long hikes in the green, you might have to be content with a lil' ol' 5 in./36.

BISHOP · 10-24-2006, 08:26 PM

five hundred yards three letters SVD can you say "bye bye hitler"

Mithrandir · 10-25-2006, 10:58 AM

I normally don’t join in esoteric discussions like this…

but I haven't spoke for a while....So… here is my two-cents worth….

In my experience……the weapon doesn’t matter…

Only the will to win…..and therefore survive..….

Out…

polishshooter · 10-27-2006, 06:44 PM

Popgunner, I guess it would depend exactly WHAT marines you were talking about, there were 5 full divisions committed at the end, and I think at least one more working up if I remember right, then the Raiders in 42 and early 43 until they were disbanded, then of course the FLEET marines that probably NEVER had Garands....and the "Defense Battalions" that were used mainly at the beginning...

What's FUNNY is that the Raiders used O3s, you'd have thought if they had the choice of anything available, they would have gotten Garands if they wanted them....they were being issued to Marines in the States for training at the same time, at least at Quantico for the Officer-Candidates....

But what I mean is that that is a pretty blanket statement...the First and Second MarDivs STARTED with 03s at the 'canal abut most of them got Garands by the time they hit Bougainville, (and MANY of course got them on the 'canal by stealing them from the few USA Infantry Regiments that were there....

but the 3rd through 5th carried Garands the whole way as issue, although there WOULD have been many 03s still around, some old guys carried them by CHOICE if they had them available, then of course the O3A3 (Unertl) sniper rifles the Marines issued before the Army came up with the 03A4 (Weaver).....and used for the rest of the war....

And it went both ways....MANY people don't realize many ARMY outfits carried 03s and 03A3s in EUROPE until the end of the war! MAINLY the units that had fought in Africa, and then were mainly used in Sicily/Italy (Canfield has a great photo from late 44 in Italy of an Infantry platoon cleaning rifles after combat near Rome, and 75% of the rifles in the picture are Springfields, only about one in four soldiers had a Garand.)

Heck, our field artillery units in Africa in 42 were issued rearsenaled WWI P17 Enfields, because there was a shortage of 03s, which is why Remington developed the 03 (Mod) and the 03A3....

And several units went ashore at DDAY carrying them too...although in only a short time there were enough Garands for just about every US soldier in Western Europe that wanted one, but there STILL were a lot of Springfields carried with the grenade launcher attached...we used a LOT of rifle grenades, but never got one to work with the Garand until after the war that didn't have to be removed before firing ball through it ....our troops like the 03 for that because after firing the grenade you could switch over to ball and shoot it without removing the launcher first...(they liked the Carbine for firing grenades for the same reason)..many 03s with launchers and 03 snipers saw action in Europe until the end....

Kenneth · 10-27-2006, 07:01 PM

Well , I'm no history expert nor gun expert , but have shot three of the four at the top of the page , own an M-1 Garand , shot a Tommy and BAR , but not the Johnson . So if I had to pick out of that four , I think it would be the BAR . Not much longer than the M-1 and has 20 rds versus eight , and outranges the 45ACP .
One of these days I hope to get an Ohio Ordnance BAR as the real deal is way out of my price range .
Kenneth

polishshooter · 10-27-2006, 07:26 PM

You know, the BAR was a decent weapon, and MANY veterans SWORE by it..but I STILL can't keep thinking we wouldn't have been better off with trying to produce a BREN in .30-06.....it wouldn't have been hard, the original Czech design actually was made in the rimless 8mm mauser, so it would have worked...but then again, MAYBE we would have been better to resurrect the LEWIS gun for our troops, instead of keeping the BAR....

The BAR could NOT really act as the SAW it was supposed to be, with no way to change barrels, and only the 20 round mag....and at 16 pounds, was it worth it to carry it for what it COULD do????? It really WASN'T much better than just a "heavy" rifle. I've always wondered....

I've also always wondered about some of the anecdotal stories....it was universally praised for its ACCURACY if you fired short bursts....BUT "Machine Guns," even LMGs, are SUPPOSED to produce a BEATEN ZONE by DISPERSAL!!!! And I've also read some anecdotes that some soldiers LIKED them when their barrels WERE "shot out," BECAUSE they then got "dispersal...."

HOW could it go BOTH ways?????

Not to sound heretical, but I CAN'T help wondering if the BAR got such a GREAT reputation because (1) on the one side we NEVER came up with a REAL "LMG...." (WE had GREAT Browning MMGs and HMGs, but grafting a stock on an M1919 MMG and CALLING it an LMG sure didn't work...and (2) on the OTHER side with the GARAND, the squad ALREADY had decent "firepower" compared to a typical Jap or German squad WITHOUT MGs, so it kind of "covered" some of the BAR's faults....

I always thought the BREN was so good, it "covered" for the B/A Enfields the Tommies carried, and the GARAND was so good for our troops it covered for the BAR they were stuck with....

Now don't get me wrong, I'm a Brother in the Sacred Order of Saint John Moses Browning,

but the BAR was GOOD at what it was meant to do, fired from the HIP, without a BIPOD, on the advance across No-Mans Land in WWI, to give more SHORT RANGE firepower than the B/A rifles it was supporting, and of course to replace the miserable Chauchat! It was NOT designed as a "SAW", (heck, nobody knew what that WAS in 1918!!!!) but if he DID, he WOULD have given it a drum and a quick change barrel.....

But think about it, what if ALL Allied units carried Garands and BRENS?????

Pistolenschutze · 10-27-2006, 08:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by polishshooter

But think about it, what if ALL Allied units carried Garands and BRENS?????

Even better if they were armed with Smeisers, Polish.

polishshooter · 10-27-2006, 10:48 PM

Why PS? The MP 38 and 40 were just M3s in a MINOR caliber....

Pistolenschutze · 10-28-2006, 09:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by polishshooter

Why PS? The MP 38 and 40 were just M3s in a MINOR caliber....

And by that logic, the Russian PPSh-41 was just a Mosin Nagant in a "minor caliber" Polish?

polishshooter · 10-28-2006, 09:42 PM

No, I was referring to the M3 Grease gun, you know, all cheap stampings and all...

As far as CALIBERS, I think the 7.62x25 is a little hotter than a 9....

But then again, MANY PPsh's, especially the ones made during late 41 and 42 were actually MADE using barrels from from Mosin Nagant's cut in half....

Talk about recycling....

Pistolenschutze · 11-05-2006, 10:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by polishshooter

But then again, MANY PPsh's, especially the ones made during late 41 and 42 were actually MADE using barrels from from Mosin Nagant's cut in half....

Talk about recycling....

Yup, I also heard that the Russians often recycled the Mosin bayonets for roasting marshmellows and weiners as well, Polish.

cpt.bales · 11-05-2006, 11:43 AM

I would take the M1 and have the BAR over my back just in case . but really i would prefer to have german weapons more then american . give me a MP44 and about 10 mags and i could get some good kills .

citydesk175 · 01-05-2009, 06:05 PM

I would carry an M1 Garand and have a bunch of friends similarly equipped with very sanguine intent.

My uncle carried a carbine in an arty bn and the then current wisdom was "shoot to wound" because each wounded soldier takes at least two healthy ones to carry him.

I know this sounds like a fable but his first opportunity to fire on the enemy, he "wounded 12" and killed 0.

Immediately, the boundary (FEBA?) changed and the 12 Germans were all captives (EPW) So guess which 2 soldiers got to carry one of the the 12 wounded. The US stretcher bearers all gently chided my uncle about shooting to kill the next time.

2nd choice is an SMLE with a division of Tommy infantry ready to engage in a "mad minute" when necessary

Regards
Citydesk175

citydesk175 · 01-08-2009, 08:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jerrybeaumont

this is why polititons dont fight,and send other people off to die

"Old soldiers never die"
Young ones do
Sigh

Terry_P · 01-09-2009, 09:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mithrandir

I normally don’t join in esoteric discussions like this…

but I haven't spoke for a while....So… here is my two-cents worth….

In my experience……the weapon doesn’t matter…

Only the will to win…..and therefore survive..….

Out…

Add good luck to it as well.

TranterUK · 01-09-2009, 09:29 AM

Candy.

Pistolenschutze · 01-09-2009, 01:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TranterUK

Candy.

More specifically, hard candy, Tranter. I've noticed a time or two that chocolate doesn't hold up too well, especially in the warmer climates.

TranterUK · 01-09-2009, 01:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pistolenschutze

More specifically, hard candy, Tranter. I've noticed a time or two that chocolate doesn't hold up too well, especially in the warmer climates.

Tell me about it

View Poll Results: What would you take to battle?
M-1 Garand	8	61.54%
Thompson SMG	3	23.08%
BAR	2	15.38%
1941 Johnson	0	0%
Voters: 13. You may not vote on this poll

08-26-2006, 03:34 PM	#26
jerrybeaumont Member Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 7	Re: What would you take to battle? in the name of freedom'for everyone and all rights, all i have to say. war is crewl,and should never become,with people dieing. if the politacle people are so great at there job,and you are not, people die,because you failed,and thats life

09-07-2006, 07:09 PM	#27
bubbatalk77 Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 5	Re: What would you take to battle? If I was going to take a rifle to battle, it would be an m14 with a decent synthetic stock.

09-07-2006, 08:01 PM	#28
stash247 Advanced Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Central Texas Posts: 2,815	Re: What would you take to battle? In WWII, or any other conflict, Just four things; both my Senators, my Congressman, and lots of Sour Mash Whiskey. Draggin' their asses into the real world would eliminate a lot of conflicts, even faster than the Enola Gay did, at the end of WWII. __________________ Don't start no s**t and there won't be none, Terry

09-08-2006, 12:45 AM	#29
SKYDIVER386 V.I.P. Member Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 62	Re: What would you take to battle? If I were in the European theater, the M-1 Garand. In the Pacific, the M-1 carbine, but it wasn't one of the choices.

09-08-2006, 08:29 AM	#30
Xracer TFF Admin Staff Mediator Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: Minn-eeee-sota, ya, sure, you bet! Posts: 9,144	Re: What would you take to battle? Meanwhile, back at the original question..... I'd take a Mark 7, 16 inch/50 caliber Naval Rifle. Get within 18 miles of me, and your butt is hamburger!

09-09-2006, 08:30 AM	#32
Xracer TFF Admin Staff Mediator Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: Minn-eeee-sota, ya, sure, you bet! Posts: 9,144	Re: What would you take to battle? Well......let's see. A 2,700 lb. projectile, and three 150 lb. powder bags.....yeah, I might need just a little help..... http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ship/weaps/mk-7.htm

10-24-2006, 08:26 PM	#34
BISHOP Member Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 8	Re: What would you take to battle? five hundred yards three letters SVD can you say "bye bye hitler"

10-25-2006, 10:58 AM	#35
Mithrandir Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: Durango Colorado, the right knee-pit of Colorado Posts: 822	Re: What would you take to battle? I normally don’t join in esoteric discussions like this… but I haven't spoke for a while....So… here is my two-cents worth…. In my experience……the weapon doesn’t matter… Only the will to win…..and therefore survive..…. Out… __________________ Esse Quam Vidiri

10-27-2006, 06:44 PM	#36
polishshooter Advanced Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2001 Location: Indiana Contributor Posts: 7,859	Re: What would you take to battle? Popgunner, I guess it would depend exactly WHAT marines you were talking about, there were 5 full divisions committed at the end, and I think at least one more working up if I remember right, then the Raiders in 42 and early 43 until they were disbanded, then of course the FLEET marines that probably NEVER had Garands....and the "Defense Battalions" that were used mainly at the beginning... What's FUNNY is that the Raiders used O3s, you'd have thought if they had the choice of anything available, they would have gotten Garands if they wanted them....they were being issued to Marines in the States for training at the same time, at least at Quantico for the Officer-Candidates.... But what I mean is that that is a pretty blanket statement...the First and Second MarDivs STARTED with 03s at the 'canal abut most of them got Garands by the time they hit Bougainville, (and MANY of course got them on the 'canal by stealing them from the few USA Infantry Regiments that were there.... but the 3rd through 5th carried Garands the whole way as issue, although there WOULD have been many 03s still around, some old guys carried them by CHOICE if they had them available, then of course the O3A3 (Unertl) sniper rifles the Marines issued before the Army came up with the 03A4 (Weaver).....and used for the rest of the war.... And it went both ways....MANY people don't realize many ARMY outfits carried 03s and 03A3s in EUROPE until the end of the war! MAINLY the units that had fought in Africa, and then were mainly used in Sicily/Italy (Canfield has a great photo from late 44 in Italy of an Infantry platoon cleaning rifles after combat near Rome, and 75% of the rifles in the picture are Springfields, only about one in four soldiers had a Garand.) Heck, our field artillery units in Africa in 42 were issued rearsenaled WWI P17 Enfields, because there was a shortage of 03s, which is why Remington developed the 03 (Mod) and the 03A3.... And several units went ashore at DDAY carrying them too...although in only a short time there were enough Garands for just about every US soldier in Western Europe that wanted one, but there STILL were a lot of Springfields carried with the grenade launcher attached...we used a LOT of rifle grenades, but never got one to work with the Garand until after the war that didn't have to be removed before firing ball through it ....our troops like the 03 for that because after firing the grenade you could switch over to ball and shoot it without removing the launcher first...(they liked the Carbine for firing grenades for the same reason)..many 03s with launchers and 03 snipers saw action in Europe until the end.... __________________ The problems we face today are there because the people who work for a living are outnumbered by those who vote for a living. Last edited by polishshooter; 10-27-2006 at 07:03 PM..

10-27-2006, 07:01 PM	#37
Kenneth Member Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 34	Re: What would you take to battle? Well , I'm no history expert nor gun expert , but have shot three of the four at the top of the page , own an M-1 Garand , shot a Tommy and BAR , but not the Johnson . So if I had to pick out of that four , I think it would be the BAR . Not much longer than the M-1 and has 20 rds versus eight , and outranges the 45ACP . One of these days I hope to get an Ohio Ordnance BAR as the real deal is way out of my price range . Kenneth

10-27-2006, 07:26 PM	#38
polishshooter Advanced Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2001 Location: Indiana Contributor Posts: 7,859	Re: What would you take to battle? You know, the BAR was a decent weapon, and MANY veterans SWORE by it..but I STILL can't keep thinking we wouldn't have been better off with trying to produce a BREN in .30-06.....it wouldn't have been hard, the original Czech design actually was made in the rimless 8mm mauser, so it would have worked...but then again, MAYBE we would have been better to resurrect the LEWIS gun for our troops, instead of keeping the BAR.... The BAR could NOT really act as the SAW it was supposed to be, with no way to change barrels, and only the 20 round mag....and at 16 pounds, was it worth it to carry it for what it COULD do????? It really WASN'T much better than just a "heavy" rifle. I've always wondered.... I've also always wondered about some of the anecdotal stories....it was universally praised for its ACCURACY if you fired short bursts....BUT "Machine Guns," even LMGs, are SUPPOSED to produce a BEATEN ZONE by DISPERSAL!!!! And I've also read some anecdotes that some soldiers LIKED them when their barrels WERE "shot out," BECAUSE they then got "dispersal...." HOW could it go BOTH ways????? Not to sound heretical, but I CAN'T help wondering if the BAR got such a GREAT reputation because (1) on the one side we NEVER came up with a REAL "LMG...." (WE had GREAT Browning MMGs and HMGs, but grafting a stock on an M1919 MMG and CALLING it an LMG sure didn't work...and (2) on the OTHER side with the GARAND, the squad ALREADY had decent "firepower" compared to a typical Jap or German squad WITHOUT MGs, so it kind of "covered" some of the BAR's faults.... I always thought the BREN was so good, it "covered" for the B/A Enfields the Tommies carried, and the GARAND was so good for our troops it covered for the BAR they were stuck with.... Now don't get me wrong, I'm a Brother in the Sacred Order of Saint John Moses Browning, but the BAR was GOOD at what it was meant to do, fired from the HIP, without a BIPOD, on the advance across No-Mans Land in WWI, to give more SHORT RANGE firepower than the B/A rifles it was supporting, and of course to replace the miserable Chauchat! It was NOT designed as a "SAW", (heck, nobody knew what that WAS in 1918!!!!) but if he DID, he WOULD have given it a drum and a quick change barrel..... But think about it, what if ALL Allied units carried Garands and BRENS????? __________________ The problems we face today are there because the people who work for a living are outnumbered by those who vote for a living.

10-27-2006, 10:48 PM	#40
polishshooter Advanced Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2001 Location: Indiana Contributor Posts: 7,859	Re: What would you take to battle? Why PS? The MP 38 and 40 were just M3s in a MINOR caliber.... __________________ The problems we face today are there because the people who work for a living are outnumbered by those who vote for a living.

10-28-2006, 09:42 PM	#42
polishshooter Advanced Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2001 Location: Indiana Contributor Posts: 7,859	Re: What would you take to battle? No, I was referring to the M3 Grease gun, you know, all cheap stampings and all... As far as CALIBERS, I think the 7.62x25 is a little hotter than a 9.... But then again, MANY PPsh's, especially the ones made during late 41 and 42 were actually MADE using barrels from from Mosin Nagant's cut in half.... Talk about recycling.... __________________ The problems we face today are there because the people who work for a living are outnumbered by those who vote for a living.

11-05-2006, 11:43 AM	#44
cpt.bales Former Guest Join Date: May 2006 Location: phoenix, arizona Posts: 71	Re: What would you take to battle? I would take the M1 and have the BAR over my back just in case . but really i would prefer to have german weapons more then american . give me a MP44 and about 10 mags and i could get some good kills .

01-05-2009, 06:05 PM	#45
citydesk175 Member Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: Michigan Posts: 32	Re: What would you take to battle? I would carry an M1 Garand and have a bunch of friends similarly equipped with very sanguine intent. My uncle carried a carbine in an arty bn and the then current wisdom was "shoot to wound" because each wounded soldier takes at least two healthy ones to carry him. I know this sounds like a fable but his first opportunity to fire on the enemy, he "wounded 12" and killed 0. Immediately, the boundary (FEBA?) changed and the 12 Germans were all captives (EPW) So guess which 2 soldiers got to carry one of the the 12 wounded. The US stretcher bearers all gently chided my uncle about shooting to kill the next time. 2nd choice is an SMLE with a division of Tommy infantry ready to engage in a "mad minute" when necessary Regards Citydesk175

01-09-2009, 09:29 AM	#48
TranterUK Advanced Senior Member Join Date: May 2008 Location: Cambridge UK Posts: 5,103	Re: What would you take to battle? Candy. __________________ DVC - Diligentia, Vis, Celeritas - Accuracy, Power, Speed. The light at the end of the recession tunnel IS a train coming the other way!