What would you take to battle?

[Ursus]

You are a WWII combatant (Any service branch). What would you take to battle, if able to choose?

[Pistolenschutze]

That depends greatly on what type of combat (open country or close range) was most likely to be encountered, Bear. I voted for the Thompson, but if shooting at ranges over a hundred yards max were to be the rule, I would prefer the M1. The BAR was a fine weapon, but it was heavy to lug and the poor slob who carried it usually drew a lot of fire from the opposition! In my opinion, the Johnson rifle was too unreliable and jam-prone to be a good choice. You don't designate whether action was to be on the islands of the Pacific, where close-in jungle fighting was most likely, or in Europe where fire fights at over 100 yards occurred more commonly.

[JohnGerald]

Since most combat takes place at less than 500 yards, my real WW II preference is the M 1 Carbine. I have and shoot two of them, and at a couple of hundred yards, they are pretty accurate. But the Thompson's .45 is a "put down round" if it hits someone. My problem is that I think like a sniper (one round, one kill) rather than the more practical "spray and pray" approach to a combat situation.

[Ursus]

You're right Pistol, about that I should had specified where the combat woulb be taking place. In the jungle I'd take the Tommy, on a more open range, I would take the M-1 Garand. I love the carbine, but I have to admit that it is more a "pistol you can hit a longer distances" that a combat rifle.

[southernshooter]

Out of those the M1 Garand, But out of all military rifles I would carry an AK-47 or SKS as a Rifle and a Beretta 96 as a side arm.

[AntiqueWeapons.org]

M-1, or a Krag

[MRMIKE08075]

you cannot possibly believe that the SKS is superior to the GARAND...

you might be able to pump out more rounds and a rapid rate with the SKS, but at best its a trashcan lid at 200 yds gun...

i would drop an SKS for a GARAND every time, and i own and like both guns.

best regards, mike.

[Pistolenschutze]

I must agree, Mike, the Garand is far superior to the SKS, although it might be said the SKS was somewhat cheaper to produce, and that was certainly a factor in Soviet thinking when they adopted it. I too like the SKS and own two of them. They're great plinkers, but for battle use, give me a Garand every time.

[JohnGerald]

In addition to the weaponry, a case of wine and a pleasant brunette would be nice to have in the bivouac area.

[MRMIKE08075]

the SKS:
is cheaper to produce
is "monkey export" designed to be operated with no maintanance by a peasant with a luke warm IQ undere adverse conditions
is profligate in nature / mass produced / widely distributed
can be high capacity

its also:
under powered
exhibits poor accuracy (minute of torso / unusable past 250 yds)
at best fair fit and finish
a true "carbine" not a rifle

i happen to own a 1990`s production Norinco Officers Model that has no stamped parts / all milled parts. its reliable, and functional, but is a short range engagement weapon with less then acceptable accuracy (in terms of a good battle rifle)

the Garand is capable of engaging man sized targets at twice the range of the SKS even in the hands of an average marksmanship level recruit...

the .30 cal cartridge is perfection in ordanance, has way more terminal energy, accuracy, velocity, range, and shoots flatter...

the Garand is a better weapon in almost all terms and catagories...

8 rounds at a time is more than enough for a disciplined trooper with some shooting skills...

JMHO.

best regards, mike.

[polishshooter]

Crap, Ursus, you closed the pole before I voted!!!

Give me a Garand any day. I would hae even used my DCM hodgepodge non-matching battle Garand I USED to have....(I wish to HEAVEN I could relive that ONE lousy day in my life where I had the thought "Hmmm, I need REALLY need a new set of Hoosiers for this weeks race for the stock car, but I don't have any extra cash, I wonder if I have any guns I could sell quickly?" )

I had a LOT of rounds through that thing, hung on EVERY reload so I got REALLY good at the old "slam the op rod handle after the reload before resuming the grip" (which EVERY Garand owner should practice BTW...I've seen it happen in matches for the first time on "match" Garands where guys look down at it with a dumb look on their face with the clock running!) which also meant it NEVER bit me... PLUS it didn't slow me down at all, all it took was a touch and it went home!

I never won any matches with it, but it was accurate ENOUGH for battle and went bang EVEERY time.....


Of course, if you have me humping the tripod for the 1917A1 or the baseplate for an M2 Mortar, I'd might have to rethink....

[Ursus]

[QUOTE=polishshooter]Crap, Ursus, you closed the pole before I voted!!!/QUOTE]

Where have you been?
Don't worry, the Garand seems to be the landslide winner!!
And for the first time ever (At least since I joined TFF) you agree with Pistolenschutze!!!
Scary tought...

[Pistolenschutze]

Originally Posted by Ursus

And for the first time ever (At least since I joined TFF) you agree with Pistolenschutze!!!
Scary tought...

True, Ursus, true. It is kinda scarry! That's OK. Even Polishshooter is entitled to be right SOMETIMES.

[polishshooter]

Actually, PS and I agree on the only thing that REALLY matters...Studying History MATTERS and should be MANDATED by LAW. Not "SOCIAL STUDIES," but HISTORY. And SERIOUS study, not read a textbook for 40 weeks and take a test on dates....if that happened, we would ALL be smarter, better informed, better citizens....but hell, we can't even be sure kids today know how to READ when they come out of public High School, much LESS comprehend!

After that, everything else is is merely insignificant.

And BESIDES, to truly UNDERSTAND History, you HAVE to know how to argue!!!

THAT'S why it's an ART, not a boring "by rote" "learn the freakin' TABLES and shut up" SCIENCE...


You have to THINK. READ. QUESTION. READ SOME MORE. CHALLENGE, and BE challenged! And ALWAYS reserve the right to "Change your mind" in light of BETTER sources and ideas and arguments that DO come along, but not JUST "new" ones, BETTER ones.

I quess that is why we respect each other so much, WHILE we argue so vehemently!













Plus we BOTH hate "Revisionists."

[Pistolenschutze]

Originally Posted by polishshooter

Actually, PS and I agree on the only thing that REALLY matters...Studying History MATTERS and should be MANDATED by LAW. Not "SOCIAL STUDIES," but HISTORY. And SERIOUS study, not read a textbook for 40 weeks and take a test on dates....if that happened, we would ALL be smarter, better informed, better citizens....but hell, we can't even be sure kids today know how to READ when they come out of public High School, much LESS comprehend!

Amen to that, Polish! I could not agree with you more. Wait! What am I saying? That's twice I've agreed with Polish recently! It could get to be a habit; maybe I should enter a rehab clinic to regain my perspective!

Seriously, you truly are right on that one, Polish. History is the sum total of all that we are as human beings--both good and bad. How can anyone claim to be an educated person without an understanding of his or her historical foundation? That's like trying to build a house from the shingles down instead of from the foundation up. Human accomplishment does not work like a light switch that may be turned on or off at will. EVERYTHING that is today has a historical foundation and it could not exist without that foundation.

[Ursus]

The 3 of us couldn't be more agree about History and how important its study should be, and how sad it is that most people don't care about it!!

[Pistolenschutze]

Originally Posted by Ursus

The 3 of us couldn't be more agree about History and how important its study should be, and how sad it is that most people don't care about it!!

Very true, Bear. And by the way, thanks for joining in our debates here. Both Polish and I love it when we can get other intelligent and well-informed people involved in the discussions we have.

As a college teacher, I so very often encounter the problem you refer to, Bear. So many of my students come to me with a negative impression of history. They think it is nothing more than dusty, old, irrelevant facts and dates. Most of them have only had exposure to history through their "social studies" classes in high school, and those are virtually worthless. I think part of my job is to show just how wrong that impression is, and usually, I succeed. The advantage of teaching in college is that I can tell it like it really was, both the nice stuff and the ugly stuff. I teach history within a context of the situations and events of today, i.e., I try to show history's relevance to the things happening all around us. How can one understand, for example, the troubles in South and Central America today without an understanding of the Spanish conquest and the independence movements of the 19th and 20th centuries? How can one judge the situation in the Balkan states without understanding the Ottomans and the ethnic turmoil that has been going on in that region for five centuries and more?

[Marlin]

I am in agreement with all each of you three have discussed.

BTW, my undergraduate degree is in History, with an emphasis on American History, with a minor in Psychology. After much thought, I felt privileged to have had Mason Gross as my Senior Advisor during junior and senior years. At that time he was Provost, before serving as President. O, was he ever liberal, but unlike most of the other Rutgers Professors, he was very tolerant of other views than his own. We were very good friends from my days in college until his death: I, the died in the wool ultra-conservative and he, the typical ultra-liberal, communist, socialist and globalist, at that early date before it became fashionable..... (yuk!)

I learned of his tolerances first hand, when I wrote my Senior Dissertation on "How Roosevelt betrayed the free world at Yalta". I fully expected him to give me a "5" and to either have to do it over or write on another subject. Instead, when the paper was returned it had a big "1" on the cover and the only comment inside was, "How did you feel about this before you started writing? He also complimented me on my "...well done research..." and "...meticulous documentation". Didn't change his mind, though. That, I think, was the greatest "A" that I have ever received before or since !!!!!

[Pistolenschutze]

Originally Posted by Marlin

O, was he ever liberal, but unlike most of the other Rutgers Professors, he was very tolerant of other views than his own.

It is interesting that you mention that, Marlin. I had a similar experience many years ago with one of my philosophy instructors. He was a flaming Left Coast liberal and I a member of the California College Republicans and the small pro-Vietnam War movement on campus. Now remember, this was in the mid-60s at the height of the Vietnam War with anti-war rallies going on almost daily in the campus Plaza. Anyway, we disagreed on just about everything political and had many, many fine arguments, both inside and outside of class. What made Dr. Kessler special, though, was his willingness to look at and consider an opposite viewpoint. I once wrote a paper for him that heavily attacked the whole Johnson "War on Poverty" program as being a socialist trap that would bankrupt the U.S. Like you, I fully expected no more than a "C" on the paper. When it came back with an "A" I about fell out of my chair! Yes, he did state clearly that he disagreed with me, but he also complimented me heavily for the arguments I presented. Indeed, it was this man who sparked my interest in philosophy. I went on to take several courses from him, and yes, we still argued about almost everything!

[jerrybeaumont]

seems be be a loaded question,but in any enviroment and 3 man team.
a good bolt action high caliber 308
shotgun with buck
low cal belt machine gun,so can pac ammo,5.56

**** can the hand guns,and other weapons,will get them along the way

[Ursus]

I had this philosophy teacher at the university who was of right wing persuassion, but we didn't realize it at the time because he was always very impartial. The only exception to this was when one of my classmates made an apology of Hitler. Mr. Flores was fumming!!. By the way, eventually he became President of El Salvador. (The teacher, that is). And about me joining your debates, I'm honored but I'm would't dare to be so bold. I'm just enjoying an learning from you.

[jerrybeaumont]

jap 99,or mp 38
being alone,i would infiltrate,belong,and do the most damage i could .untill my troups came along

[jerrybeaumont]

a real reason why to your question.
1) the bar,its not realy a machine gun ,and not realy a rifle
worthless in a one man crew
2) the johnson,great rifle if clean works on short recoil,and clip prone to dammage,shot recoil prone to jam in dirt,worthless also
3) the grand ,everyone picked it,not me,it is a great rifle 30-06
but 8 round clip,this is ww2 right !!!
4) thopmson is king,on field or urben,can reach 100 yards if have to,
and close hell on wheels

[jerrybeaumont]

I like (KISS) keep it simple stupid and answere the dam question

[jerrybeaumont]

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