What would you take to battle?

Discussion in 'General Military Arms & History Forum' started by Ursus, Aug 21, 2006.

?

What would you take to battle?

Poll closed Aug 24, 2006.
  1. M-1 Garand

    8 vote(s)
    66.7%
  2. Thompson SMG

    2 vote(s)
    16.7%
  3. BAR

    2 vote(s)
    16.7%
  4. 1941 Johnson

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  1. Ursus

    Ursus Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2006
    Messages:
    1,030
    Location:
    El Salvador, Central America.
    You are a WWII combatant (Any service branch). What would you take to battle, if able to choose?
  2. 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.
  3. JohnGerald

    JohnGerald New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2006
    Messages:
    19
    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.
  4. Ursus

    Ursus Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2006
    Messages:
    1,030
    Location:
    El Salvador, Central America.
    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.
  5. southernshooter

    southernshooter New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2006
    Messages:
    5,956
    Location:
    Deep South Mississippi
    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.
    Last edited: Aug 21, 2006
  6. AntiqueWeapons.org

    AntiqueWeapons.org Former Guest

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2006
    Messages:
    1
    Location:
    Massachusetts
  7. MRMIKE08075

    MRMIKE08075 Member

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2005
    Messages:
    398
    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.
  8. 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.
  9. JohnGerald

    JohnGerald New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2006
    Messages:
    19
    In addition to the weaponry, a case of wine and a pleasant brunette would be nice to have in the bivouac area.
  10. MRMIKE08075

    MRMIKE08075 Member

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2005
    Messages:
    398
    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.
  11. polishshooter

    polishshooter Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2001
    Messages:
    8,095
    Location:
    Indiana
    Crap, Ursus, you closed the pole before I voted!!!:confused:

    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?":mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:)

    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...:p 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....:p
  12. Ursus

    Ursus Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2006
    Messages:
    1,030
    Location:
    El Salvador, Central America.
    Last edited: Aug 25, 2006
  13. True, Ursus, true. It is kinda scarry! That's OK. Even Polishshooter is entitled to be right SOMETIMES. :D :p
  14. polishshooter

    polishshooter Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2001
    Messages:
    8,095
    Location:
    Indiana
    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!:mad:

    After that, everything else is is merely insignificant.:cool:

    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.";)
    Last edited: Aug 25, 2006
  15. 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! :D ;) :p

    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.
Similar Threads
Forum Title Date
General Military Arms & History Forum August 1943 Battle for Burma Aug 21, 2012
General Military Arms & History Forum 112th Calvary "Rarin To Go" Pic of Vets Battle Damaged Jap Arisaka Aug 17, 2011
General Military Arms & History Forum Civil War Battles by states Sep 21, 2010
General Military Arms & History Forum Revolutionary War Battlefields in South Carolina Sep 13, 2010
General Military Arms & History Forum TN. and KY. Civil War Battlefields Jun 1, 2010

Share This Page