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 New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2006
    Messages:
    1,030
    Location:
    El Salvador, Central America.
    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.
  2. jerrybeaumont

    jerrybeaumont New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2006
    Messages:
    7
    jap 99,or mp 38
    being alone,i would infiltrate,belong,and do the most damage i could .untill my troups came along
  3. jerrybeaumont

    jerrybeaumont New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2006
    Messages:
    7
    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
  4. jerrybeaumont

    jerrybeaumont New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2006
    Messages:
    7
    I like (KISS) keep it simple stupid and answere the dam question
  5. jerrybeaumont

    jerrybeaumont New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2006
    Messages:
    7
    this is why polititons dont fight,and send other people off to die
  6. jerrybeaumont

    jerrybeaumont New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2006
    Messages:
    7
    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
  7. bubbatalk77

    bubbatalk77 New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2006
    Messages:
    5
    If I was going to take a rifle to battle, it would be an m14 with a decent synthetic stock.
  8. stash247

    stash247 New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2003
    Messages:
    2,811
    Location:
    Central Texas
    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.
  9. SKYDIVER386

    SKYDIVER386 New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2006
    Messages:
    62
    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.
  10. Xracer

    Xracer *TFF Admin Staff Mediator*

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2001
    Messages:
    9,141
    Location:
    Minn-eeee-sota, ya, sure, you bet!
    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! :D :D :D
  11. 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. :D
  12. Xracer

    Xracer *TFF Admin Staff Mediator*

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2001
    Messages:
    9,141
    Location:
    Minn-eeee-sota, ya, sure, you bet!
  13. True, X. For those long hikes in the green, you might have to be content with a lil' ol' 5 in./36. :D
  14. BISHOP

    BISHOP New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2006
    Messages:
    8
    five hundred yards three letters SVD can you say "bye bye hitler"
  15. Mithrandir

    Mithrandir Member

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2001
    Messages:
    827
    Location:
    Durango Colorado, the right knee-pit of Colorado
    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…
  16. polishshooter

    polishshooter Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2001
    Messages:
    8,081
    Location:
    Indiana
    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....
    Last edited: Oct 27, 2006
  17. Kenneth

    Kenneth New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2006
    Messages:
    34
    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
  18. polishshooter

    polishshooter Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2001
    Messages:
    8,081
    Location:
    Indiana
    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....":confused: 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,:p 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?????
  19. Even better if they were armed with Smeisers, Polish.:D
  20. polishshooter

    polishshooter Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2001
    Messages:
    8,081
    Location:
    Indiana
    Why PS? The MP 38 and 40 were just M3s in a MINOR caliber....:cool:
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