What's up /k/ bros. I made this thread in /tv/ but wanted

.30 Cal M1 Carbine, with the 30 rounders if I can get them.

>>30935723
>SPR
'no'

also, id tote a Thompson cause muh 15 lbs of fuddy five

>>30935723
whisper into Ryan's ear
>they're coming for you, Borne

>>30935734

this

File: bm 59.jpg (36KB, 1024x433px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 1024x433px

>>30935723
M1 Garand to be able to share ammo and clips with the rest of the men. I've also never shot a Thompson, grease gun or BAR before. I at least know that I'm a decent shot with the M1

M1 carbine is a close second though.

>>30935777
>clips
Seriously, sharing ammo is invaluablr. Besides, you could take a belt from a M1919 to reload your end blocs or share an ammo can with your BAR gunner. Since we're only using ball ammo, I would trust 30-06 way more than spraying with a full retard SMG.

>>30935723
Jesus, something about the way this is written and I can tell that you are fifteen

>>30935804
Lol this so much, this is how I thought at 14-15 playing original COD and MOH

>>30935734
Lol

>>30935829
>lol
First off, lurk moar.
Secondly, care to elaborate on that sentiment?

>>30935723
>>30935804
>>30935814
You don't get to choose OP

>>30935803
Were there different weights and varieties of .30-06, or did everything just use M2 Ball and whatever its tracer counterpart was?

I mean, nowadays, you could potentially have 3 different grains of ammo in the same fireteam.

>>30935723
You can't choose your gun, you know.

I'd use whatever I was issued.

To that end the scoped Springfield is the best choice, despite the fact that the scoped Mauser is better.

>>30935723
If I could actually choose, M1 Carbine, probably with jungle-taped magazines.

>>30935734
The 30rd magazines were only made once the M2 was devised, I'm pretty sure, and that was the Korean War (though early conversion kits existed to make the M1 select-fire).

>>30936199
This, pretty much.

>>30936199
Scoped springfield is actually far from best choice. The magnification was only like 2.5x and they werent waterproof so they got fogged up all the damn time and you'd be worthless cause you have no sights. I'd sure as hell take an A3 model though

>>30936256
I didn't tell you it was good, senpai. I said it was the best option and, THE MAUSER WAS BETTER.

American small arms during WW2 were atrocious.
>Inb4 muh garand
Hideously overrated. Stg44 beat it in every way.

America's moronic obsession with ludicrously overpowered cartridges (that were in fact WORSE than they could be) killed a huge number of their small arms.

30-06 is fine for snipers and mounted mgs. Not so much for a repeating rifle.

>>30935723
1. Pick BAR
2. Send home to mom in pieces
3. Surrender to Reich

>>30935803
The Garand was clip-fed though. Unless you're just spouting the meme, in which case ignore my autism

>>30936301
Honestly I agree that the Mauser was sex as a sniper but it sounds like your mad at America for cucking whatever europoor country you live in guy

>>30936256
>I'd sure as hell take an A3 model though
>not being the cool guy with an M1917

File: Screenshot_20160718-201811.png (3MB, 1440x2560px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1440x2560px

>>30936405
>muh aperture sights

>>30936365
>implying Germans wont shoot you on sight
dey wuz gud boyz, dey wuz cleanin up yurup

>>30935723
M1 carbine, M3 grease gun, M1 garand. Anything else is too fucking heavy.

>>30936301
>12 million Garands. Enough to ensure there were a negligible amount of bolt-actions in the hands of frontline troops by mid-42.
>400k STGs, never able to be issued in numbers that actually mattered.

>>30936492
M1 Garand is too fucking heavy

>>30935723
M1 Carbine, so i can be a second line dude and stay out of trouble.

Sturmgewehr obvs. if its good enough for Prad Bitt, its good enough for me.

>>30936385
no, you're just being too autistic. he's saying you can take rounds from a belt and reload an empty enbloc

>>30935723
M1A1 carbine.

Compact, low recoil, and with a 15-round magazine.

>>30936618
besides the glorious ping! it must have been awful lugging around the pacific

>>30935723
M1 Garand. Semiautomatic, good rate of fire, no fumbling around with reloading box magazines in the heat of battle and ammo comes prepackaged in disposable clips.
https://youtu.be/o2idYNKWGm4

>>30936736
The rifle weighs right at ten pounds, but considering the WWII soldier carried a lot less gear than a modern infantryman, the weight would be negligible. And .30-06 would cut through undergrowth nicely.

M1 Garand or Thompson. Carbine has trouble getting through thick clothing, BAR is too heavy, MG needs two people, and I just think the grease gun is ugly

>>30936848
>Carbine has trouble getting through thick clothing
This is a myth.

>>30936386
I live in America you autist.

You know, it's actually mature to recognize mistakes made in the past and correct them, so you do not make the same mistakes again.

The US should have gone with the Petersen, (better yet, stg44) Owen, Luger or 1911, MG42, Springfield with more than two damn rifle grooves and a decent scope.

Why bother doing work someone's already done for you? It's not like the Germans can sue you for copyright infringement.

The only truly excellent infantry weapon the US had was the flamethrower.

Hell, why stop there? You can steal the German tank designs too, just make them easier to mass produce and less of a pain in the ass to fix.

American planes were good though. That being said the P-80 should have been flying combat missions by 1944, not 1950.

>>30936514
>Duuuhhh, I'm a garand fanboy, and my rifle has been challenged, so I'll claim that number fielded = quality and double the number manufactured!

>>30936865
>You can steal the German tank designs too,
>I want my tanks to have 150 km final drives, shit ergonomics, and transmissions designed for a 35 ton tank put on one that is 45 tons

The Sherman was one of the greatest tanks of WW2.

File: 13828101_7.jpg (90KB, 1200x784px) Image search: [Google]

90KB, 1200x784px

>>30936199
If we're talking scoped guns, I'd like an M1C.

>>30935723
MUH BAR

>>30936863
I'd rather not take the chance

>>30936846
>but considering the WWII soldier carried a lot less gear than a modern infantryman, the weight would be negligible
Gear strapped to your body through belts and straps != 8-10 pounds in the form of a long unwieldy object that must be carried by hand. Don't forget how much of that weight is sticking out on the front half of the rifle, making it more work to carry than the same weight held closer in.

>>30935723
Thompson, yeah its a little heavy but its less cumbersome than a full sized battle rifle in an urban environment but still has the stopping power of .45 my only concern about it is reliability

>>30936919
Sure blew up a lot for one of the "greatest tanks"

>>30937075
That tends to happen when your enemy has a policy of repeatedly shooting knocked out tanks until they start burning.

An A-10

File: download.jpg (13KB, 279x180px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 279x180px

>>30936942
Korean era, not WW2.

>>30937088
Source.
Also I don't think it would have been called the ronson if this hadn't happened

>>30936865
It's clear you are baiting, but I will answer anyway. Garand to StG are apples and oranges. StG may have shown the way forward, but it did so a decade later. For its time, the semi-automatic Garand was the tits. You are correct that it was negatively impacted by the use of full-power rifle ammunition. But you attribute this problem to the wrong causes:
>America's moronic obsession with ludicrously overpowered cartridges
America's moronic obsession with overpowered cartridges was a post-war thing. The Garand ended up in .30-06 simply because the War Dept didn't want to buy a bunch of .276 Pedersen at a time when there were millions of rounds of .30-06 left over from the previous war, especially not when the machine guns were going to be staying in .30-06. Economics made the Garand a full-power rifle, not some obsession with full-power cartridges.

Now if you want to talk about America screwing up rifles via an obsession with powerful ammunition, the FAL is what you need to read about. It went from 7.92x33 to .280 Brit to 7.62 NATO. Then Murrica didn't even buy the thing.

>>30936301
StG44 is objectively better than the M1. It sets the pattern for all modern assault rifles.

Like so many German innovations, it was fielded in insignificant numbers far too late in the war to make any difference.

Compared to the StG44, the M1 was inferior. By any other measure, it excelled. All other major combatants were fielding full power rifle cartridges in bolt action rifles. The Germans were no exception. Compared to a Mauser K98, the M1 was three decades ahead in design (literally).

The average American G.I. could lay down a weight of fire that was superior to anything his Axis counterpart could bring to bear.

The U.S. fielded what was necessary to win and didn't introduce newer weapons because to do so would have required complicating an already over stressed logistical supply train.

If the Germans had introduced something like the StG44 early on in significant numbers, the U.S. military likely would have responded in kind.

But they didn't. Like so many mid to late war German innovations, the StG44 was a desperate attempt to use superior technology to overcome impossible odds.

And it failed.

>>30937136

Lights
Every
Time

>>30937136
>Also I don't think it would have been called the ronson if this hadn't happened
Can't tell if bait or just a legitimately misinformed person

1. Ronson is a post-war meme
2. Statistically, Shermans brewed up less often than equivalent medium tanks when penetrated
3. Statistically, Sherman crews were more likely to escape alive than the crews of equivalent medium tanks when penetrated

File: FlameSherman.jpg (20KB, 504x308px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 504x308px

>>30937136
>Also I don't think it would have been called the ronson if this hadn't happened
That's a bullshit myth that's been debunked several times over and in several different ways, the closest thing you're going to get to the Sherman being called the "Ronson" is the pic related variants which were nicknamed "Zippo".

>>30937153
>It's clear you are baiting
Stopped reading there. Reply back when you're ready to debate like a normal person.

>>30937193
Source and also see above.
I've never seen a medium tank with more holes in the side than the Sherman.

>>30935723
I'd take the carbine, because fuck lugging around a 9 pound rifle when most of the time I'm not going to shoot at anyone, and realistically as an American soldier my response to coming across Germans would be, "Hello, artillery!"

File: download (1).jpg (7KB, 272x185px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 272x185px

>>30937202
Source.

Also doesn't mean they didn't blow up or her knocked out a lot.

File: Wittmann_Tiger_007.jpg (95KB, 648x322px) Image search: [Google]

95KB, 648x322px

>>30937251
>Source

We can throw around pictures of destroyed tanks all day anon.

File: gerat06h.jpg (100KB, 1055x696px) Image search: [Google]

100KB, 1055x696px

>>30936896
Being able to mass produce a superior rifle in huge numbers is more important than being able to design a complex weapon that can't be produced in any sort of meaningful numbers. This is why the germans ended up revising the STG design to be much, much simpler pipe gun.

The garand was vastly superior to other widely produced weapons of the time and the weapons that were technically superior to it in some ways ended up being far too complicated to be implemented. Egro it was the best infantry weapon of the war.

File: -faqs-M1G-FAQs-M1DCloseup2med.gif (36KB, 269x191px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 269x191px

>>30937136
The M1C, with the receiver drilled and tapped, is late WWII and was first fielded in late July/early August 1944, within OP's timeframe.

The M1D with the barrel block mount is Korean War era.

If you compare my pics, the M1C has a scope mount attached directly to the left side of the receiver.

The M1D, pictured here, has a mounting blocking front of the receiver on the barrel. The scope mount is attached with a screw in knob.

>>30937268
That's not a revision, it's an entirely separate design

>>30937215
[citation required]
Source please

>>30937136
A lot of the Sherman mythology come from the post war book, "Death Traps".

The Ronson thing, for example. The Ronson campaign slogan "lights the first time" was first used in the 1950's.

>>30937266
Sure, but I'll bet you all the money in the world I'll have more photos than you.

And more disgruntled former crewmen from interviews cursing the thing.

And very apparent blunt proof of a mediocre gun that you can find out about through a simple wiki search.

>>30937268
That is bullshit. Having the beat by measure doesn't make something the best. The point of this all is that if the united States (and Germany) had jumped on the early assault rifle game early, instead of wasting time on three different SMGs and a rifle that breaks if it gets dirty, they'd be leaps and bounds ahead of their competitors.

>>30937272
Sure, but that doesn't mean anybody used it. A puny 7,000 were made, and I have never seen a single picture of it in use.

>>30937303
Quality post.

File: Pict0007.jpg (152KB, 1132x685px) Image search: [Google]

152KB, 1132x685px

>muh german steel
>built by slave labor

>>30937329
>built by slave labor

>>30937328
>And more disgruntled former crewmen from interviews cursing the thing.
>Interviews with 60+ year old men are more reliable than statistical analyses, penetration charts, and actual historians

Read Armored Thunderbolt by Steven Zaloga and then come back.

>>30937321
I would expect most books written to be written after the occupant was out of his tank.

And unless the book is horrendously written it is still perfectly valid.

Furthermore I get my information princely from interviews; which obviously have no connection to the author of that book.

Seeing as how the M1 and BAR are beloved despite being mediocre, I dread to think how utterly garbage the Sherman would have to be in order to have such low respect from its crews. Even the early M16s had their champions; I have never met nor read not watched a single Sherman crewmember praise the vehicle.

If you can do otherwise I'd honestly love to see.

>>30937328
>and a rifle that breaks if it gets dirty
Which rifle would that be?

>>30936618
10 pound rifle is better than a 15 pound SMG or a 20 pound automatic rifle.

>>30936896
>duh I'm a wehraboo XDD
Man, you're just making yourself look autistic. Fuck off back to r/gunz.

>>30937354
I see you couldn't be be asked to provide any of those penetration tests or statistics or otherwise.

Here's a quote from your own fucking book.

"Despite the Bureau of Ordnance development of new 76mm and 90mm anti-tank guns, the Army Ground Forces rejected their deployment on U.S. tanks as unnecessary. Even in 1943, most German armored fighting vehicles (later models of the Panzer IV,StuG III, andMarder III) mounted the7.5 cm KwK 40. As a result, even weakly armored light German tank destroyers such as the Marder III, which was meant to be a stop-gap measure to fight Soviet tanks in 1942, could destroy Shermans from a distance. The disparity in firepower between the German armored fighting vehicles of 1943 and the 75mm-armed M4 was the impetus to begin production of 76mm-armed M4s in April 1944.
However, transfer of the tanks to the front started slowly"

>>30937364
The book is full of inaccuracies. It IS a great account of life in WWII, but it was written by a mechanic, not a tank crewman, who apparently made up numbers and "anecdotal evidence" out of whole cloth. And people have been using his book as fact pretty much since it came out.

Here's a pretty good run down of WWII armor myths by someone who did the research with access to actual Army records.

https://youtu.be/bNjp_4jY8pY

>>30937371
M1.

Both it and the M14 perform pathetically in mud.

All you need to do is bring yours to the backyard and try it yourself.

>>30937384
Quality post. Do tell me where those extra 6 million garands came from (actual number)

File: Wehrabingo.png (139KB, 556x645px) Image search: [Google]

139KB, 556x645px

>>30937405
>Using an out-of-context quote from Wikipedia that just happens to cite the book

Fuck it time to break out the cards.

>>30937419
To be perfectly honest I would trust the mechanic just fine as he's assumedly the one who had to plug the holes in the things.

Unless he was fixing cars and not Shermans, he should be plenty trustworthy.

And you know what, even if he was merely a bartender, I would trust him to a certain extent because he spent his time listening to the drunken moans of soldiers.

So, why exactly can we not trust his first hand account of the war?

File: Sans titre 1.jpg (76KB, 700x551px) Image search: [Google]

76KB, 700x551px

M1 Carbine, I'll get killed anyway so at least let me carry something light
Plus, it's kinda sexy desu

>>30937470
Because it contradicts the available evidence from more reliable sources.

>>30937470
Because it's a shitty memoir, only about 1/3 of which deals with stuff the author personally experienced.

https://tankandafvnews.com/2015/01/29/debunking-deathtraps-part-1/

>>30937449
>Haha, you're so dumb, you should read this book!
>Nononononono stop! Not that part of the book! That part doesn't back up my preconceived opinions!

>>30936301
> stg44 beat it everyway
The stg wasn't a primary battle rifle...
Came so late, and in such small numbers. Also hideously expensive to manufacture. You might as well say the FG42 was better than the garand.

>>30936848
>Carbine has trouble getting through thick clothing
>picks a .45 ACP
smdh

>>30937494
The book never states what the Wikipedia article claims. I've read the fucking thing twice.

>>30937479
Like what?

>>30937492
That guy says a lot about anecdotes and the author's mistakes without actually showing me any of them.

>>30937509
That seems like a pretty drastic oversight and you should probably challenge the citation on the discussion page.

>>30937499
I'm aware. The point is it should be.

And yes, while we're at it, the FG-42 was better.

Just because the Germans were too dumb to see the potential within the weapons does not mean the weapons were not good.

>>30937528
Posting this again in the hope that it penetrates your KRUPPSTAHL-like skull(Thanks to the other anon for reminding me that it existed).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bNjp_4jY8pY

>>30937549
>That seems like a pretty drastic oversight and you should probably challenge the citation on the discussion page.
>Going on Wikipedia

kek

>>30937569
>Dood can't you see you're only allowed to use the parts of the internet that agree with me even if I reference them first
Kek.

>>30936865
>work that was already done for you
Remember, The U.S. Used the Mauser to design the 1903 Springfield.

Do you really think during a war that Germany would have sold their enemies arms and munitions? Countries have always believed in arming themselves during wars, especially when nationalism was as high as it was.

You really just sound like a WWII German fan who is really stubborn. If they were so good, then why did they lose?

M1 carbine, Germans would hear the ping of the M1 Garand clip and know when you were empty.

>>30935723

Since you didn't give me any rules...

MP-40. Ammunition and the supply of it will be abundant and reliable in hostile territory, as will spare parts of spare weaponry altogether. Acceptably accurate at expected engagement distances.

>>30937647
Yes I'm aware. They just fucked it up with shitty rifling and a weaker bolt.

I don't remember saying sold. I remember saying stole. We should take their hard work and use it against them. Preferably while Laughing maniacally and twirling a ridiculous mustache.

They lost because they were cretins that picked a fight with the entire world and still weren't satisfied. Poland? Great. France? Good. The UK? fine. SU? Now we've fallen into the ocean of shittyness. Poland, France the UK, SU, a Confederate portion of Africa AND the united states? Now the ocean of shittyness has passed above our heads while we begin to drown in fecal matter.

Then they spent their war making budget on gassing Jews and trying to force POWs and concentration camps to make their captor's weapons. Surprise surprise, sabotage and riots.

Also Hitler. Good painter, shitty planner.

>>30937433
I've seen that video. Odd that the Garand action was always considered reliable until two guys with a YouTube channel do to an M1 what a Drill Instructor would PT you to death for doing.

If you want to live in combat, you make every effort to keep your rifle out of the mud and water. It is you life.

This was drilled into me when I was issued an M16. It was drilled into every WWII and Korean War G.I. And apparently it worked because the M1 was reliable in conditions that contemporary box fed guns failed in.

>>30937683
God, when will this bullshit meme die?

>>30937509
>45 minute video debunking WWII Sherman mythology
>guys, this doesn't prove anything

>>30937852
Listen man, you can't control the battlefield. Keeping guns dry and clean isn't easy when you're on Iwo Jima.

Plus, if you can refute them, go ahead, make your own video.

A reliable gun is reliable even when something our of your control happens; IE a machine gun opens up and you have to hit the deck.

>>30937897
Seeing as the website that "debunked" death traps was fucking awful I'll wait until ice finished watching and evaluating the video to pass my judgment.

>>30935723
M1 garand.

anyone saying m1 carbine is being dumb, WW2 era .30 carbine loads were weak as shit. the things sights were zeroed at under 100m, its not a good gun for the kind of combat the western front saw outside of cities.

>>30935840
Lol

>>30937936
So, the experience of a million G.I.S who swore by the Garand is wrong. Like I said, I saw the video. I had my issued M16A1 shit the bed on me often enough with less provocation to think the platform is any more reliable.

And the military isn't going to let you carry your $3000 boutique AR that CAN shake of that kind of abuse into combat, so it's a moot point.

Garand. Good range and rate of fire, not too heavy. Carbine is nice and light but trying to reach out to 300 yards with one is an exercise in disappointment. BAR makes good dakka but it's heavy and I am lazy. Guys I've talked to have stated a preference for the earlier models that could fire on semi auto over the WW2 model that was FA only with a selectable ROF.
Thompson is heavy but good. Greaser is lighter but lacking in comfort. 1919 is a good MG but again I wouldn't much care to carry one all day.

>>30938063
In a way, yes.
I've yet to see an interview that flat out asks when, where and why the garand failed. Apparently they didn't find it necessary.

At the moment FN is making M16s and M4s for around 500-800 dollars for the military. I have one of their guns. It works exquisitely in mud, dust, rain... as proven in part by another inrange mud test.

If course my own experience of success rather renders that test pointless; don't need you to tell me my gun works, I already know it does.

>>30938141
>At the moment FN is making M16s and M4s for around 500-800 dollars for the military.
Colt lost the M4 contract? If so, this is a good thing, fuck them

>>30938203
Oh yeah dude they haven't had it for like three years or something I think.

>>30938203
Colt got the M4 contract back in the early 2000's. They're floundering now because the U.S. military has all the M4s it will need for the foreseeable future.

The downside being that the Marines are being forced to replace their FN M16A4s with Colt M4s already in storage and have to pretend it's a good idea

File: 1470704404298.png (590KB, 1200x1300px) Image search: [Google]

590KB, 1200x1300px

>>30935723
Mp40 obviously, pretty much the best subgun of the war desu.

File: d1bcba935d3379ec44c299b30addf064.jpg (25KB, 236x344px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 236x344px

>>30938141
I'll concede the weaknesses of the M1 platform to modern guns, though Army Special Forces and Navy SEALs still seem to like the M14 a lot.

If we're choosing U.S. WII small arms, I'm still picking the Garand.

>>30936618
Its pretty well balanced though for the weight, its comfy to hold and shoot.

>160lbs, 5'9 manlet

>>30937973
jej

>>30938380
Yeah they liked the m39/mk14/m14ebr so much that they replaced it with the sr24 then m110 and then g28. The only reason marksman m14s existed was cause we had a bunch of m14s sitting around in armories and we wanted a rifle in 7.62 that could be accurate enough when spruced up.

>>30935723
BAR desu, but that's cause I'm a big guy

>>30938380
Every marine I've ever met loathes the M14 as being front heavy, insufficiently accurate and questionably reliable. The M110 is preferred for normal troops and the SCAR H is preferred for the special snowflakes.

>>30936301
>America's moronic obsession with ludicrously overpowered cartridges
They stuck with the .30-06 for budget reasons, when the Garand was being developed, they had looked at the .276 Pedersen cartridge for a long time, it was kind of an intermediate cartridge, which actually would have been very good, there really was the desire for this caliber, the Army Ordnance Board was convinced it was good and was looking to adopt it, the Garand was originally chambered in it, fitting 10rds, and performed solidly.

But they already had .30-06 machineguns and a huge stockpile of .30-06 ammunition, they'd have to either have a separate supply of ammo for riflemen, or then go through the trouble of having a .276 machinegun developed, something which was entirely outside of their budget.

For what it was, it was a pretty good rifle, heavy, sure, and had more power than we today consider necessary for an infantryman, but it worked, it had higher capacity and was faster than the Mauser and Mosin, it was reliable and durable, unlike the German G43 or the Russian SVT40, both pretty bad infantry rifles. The Stg44 was a better weapon for infantry combat, sure, but it came many years after the Garand and it was kind of a new development for small arms.

>>30936301
>A gun made at the beginning of the war wasn't as good as a gun made at the end of the war
Thank you for your revelation and blinding enlightenment, buddy.

>>30935723
>implying you have a choice on what weapon you are issued with
go back to COD faggot

>>30938576
You're telling me things I already know dude.

The Garand beats the socks off the Springfield, Mauser and the Enfield but it could have been so much more.

>>30938587
You asked, I answered.

It should have been made sooner. And in America.

The practical part of me wants the M1 Carbine (with the full stock)
But the "Fuck it, I want dakka" part of me wants the 1919. Too bad it's not one of the behemoths with the stock on it,

>>30937736
Hitler was a shitty painter.

M1 garand was issued to all infantry
M1A1 was for officers/ SNCOs
Grease gun was drivers/ paras/ egineers
As were both carbines
BAR and M1919 were issued to a selected unit in each platoon know as a support gunner
Springfield was obviously for a sniper who had to go on special marksman courses
You get no choice

>>30938600
I didn't ask anything and you didn't answer anything either. You just shitposted about MUH STG

File: HitlerMaryWithJesus.jpg (32KB, 660x459px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 660x459px

>>30938654
Can you repeat that? I can't hear you over the sound of clapping.

>>30938629
Better than you.

>>30938589
>>30938645
wow mr.fun thanks for the info!

>>30938600
Stuff is made when it's made. Where's your man-portable railgun? What do you mean you haven't invented it yet?

>>30938704
Entirely different situation. Cretin. People merely hadn't seen it yet, not that it was prevented by the literally limits of chemistry, metallurgy, or the moment of electrons.

America very nearly had an assault rifle in the .30 caliber Thompson, but >muh stoppan powuh kept it down.

File: cenk uygur.jpg (55KB, 608x397px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 608x397px

>>30936301
Also let's go over some of the American small arms of WW2, the more primary ones at least:

>1911
Works as a sidearm, there really isn't anything to complain about.

>M1 Garand
Works as a battle rifle, could be better, but could be worse. Until WW2 it was probably the best combat rifle in the world that was in active service as a standard infantry rifle.

>M1A1 Thompson
Quite heavy and expensive for the kind of weapon it is, by WW2, it was kind of dated, but it worked. Arguably weight makes for less recoil.

>BAR
Actually not that amazing. It worked, but it had a lot of shortcomings, there were better ways to do a magazine fed support weapon by this time. Army Ordnance Board added a number of "improvements" to the weapon in time for WW2, most which weren't really very necessary or useful, rather just making the gun heavier than it already was.

>Springfield
This was mainly fielded as a sniper's rifle by this time, but rear echelon troops and reservists would get these when there weren't enough Garands to around. Be thankful if you got a scope instead of irons.

>M1 Carbine
Actually a very excellent weapon that did exactly what it had to do, be lightweight and handy, have more firepower than a sidearm but not being a full powered rifle, allowing it to be so light and easy to handle. This was mainly intended for drivers, cooks, artillery crews, medics, radio operators, etc, people who could need a gun, something which was easier to use and offered more power than a sidearm, but didn't need to lug around a heavy Garand all day, the Carbine was excellent for this. It did end up seeing some actual frontline combat purely for being a good close range weapon.

>M1919
A pretty good GPMG, all in all, it didn't shoot as fast as the MG42, but that shit was bananas, you don't need that rate of fire for a GPMG, it goes through ammo too fast and gets your barrel hot. In terms of field performance I'd say it's comparable to the MG34, as in, pretty good.

>>30938725
Thanks autocorrect.

>>30938729
The Thompson was good for 1920. That's about it.

The Springfield was standard issue for Marines all the way into 1943. It was basically a weaker mauser with worse rifling.

The M1 carbine wasn't quite garbage but jammed far to often to be worthwhile.

The M1919 was heavy, awkward, handled terribly, complicated, expensive, had literally the worst trigger I've ever seen, which doesn't matter normally but it's seriously so fucking awful you can't fire single shots, and the barrel is extremely awkward to change.

File: .30 carbine magazines.jpg (521KB, 922x1229px) Image search: [Google]

521KB, 922x1229px

>>30938725
.30 Carbine makes for a good PDW or subgun cartridge, but it would have been a very poor assault rifle round.

In the Korean War, the M2 Carbine was fielding, featuring 30rd magazines and a fire selector, US Marines ended up using it for infantry combat a fair bit, but found that trying to use it outside of it's intended range (150yds or so), had it either miss or perform poorly (this is where the myth about wintercoats stopping .30 carbine comes from).

An actual assault rifle should be able to reach about double that, if not a bit more, so a Thompson in .30 Carbine would have been very insufficient as an assault rifle.

>>30938762
>The Springfield was standard issue for Marines all the way into 1943
I'm pretty sure that was on the insistence of the Marines themselves (god knows why).

>>30938729
I would've loved being a cook during ww2
> make spaghetti and slop in 80 gallon oil drums
>free carbine
>spam

>>30936848
>Carbine has trouble getting through thick clothing
Absolute nonsense.

It will have poor effect outside of it's effective range, but that's true for literally every single cartridge ever made, there's a distance where .30-06 will perform very poorly too.

File: Ronald Speirs BoB.jpg (164KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

164KB, 1280x720px

>>30935723

Select Fire M1 carbines existed in ww2 but were kinda scarce, I'd pick the thompson due to the fact that the fireball it sprays will keep the enemy down a lot more than any rifle, at least thats what a ww2 vet I had the privilege of speaking to said. Speaking of .45 machine guns there was a saying in nam that all you needed to survive in the jungle was a trench gun and a forty-five, former teacher of mine was wounded at hamburger hill told me how he preferred his .45 grease gun to the new plasticky rifle though he did admit he couldn't hit shit.

>>30936865
>The US should have gone with the Petersen,
They were going to.

>(better yet, stg44)
The design that Germany thought up late into the war and which nobody on the Allied side had designed? Yeah, gotta love that hindsight.

>Owen
They got the Greasegun, close enough.

>Luger or 1911
The Luger was revolutionary when it was new, probably the best military sidearm in the world for that brief time, but the 1911 is just a mechanically better design.

>MG42
A mid-war development based on the MG34, something which the Americans weren't using.

>Springfield with more than two damn rifle grooves and a decent scope.
Fair enough.

>Why bother doing work someone's already done for you? It's not like the Germans can sue you for copyright infringement.
That was literally where the Springfield came from. Paul Mauser had filed a lawsuit but of course that's difficult when World War 1 was going on.

You seem to forget a lot of budgetary concerns and that hindsight is always 20/20.
Once a lot of these guns had been adopted, they couldn't really justify it in their budget to suddenly change something which had been recently adopted.

>>30938806
Aside from the free Carbine part, there's little stopping you now from cooking spaghetti in an oildrum or eating spam.

>>30938896
I would much rather use an intermediate rifle, operating on gas, made of machined aluminum, machined steel and plastic, than a straight blowback, stamped steel subgun designed to be cheap.

>>30936618
You get used to that real quick, dumbshit. Back then people used to work with their hands a lot more, they didn't mind the weight.

>>30937433
>>Both it and the M14 perform pathetically in mud
>K98k
>Mosin Nagant
>Stg44
>G43
All of them would eat shit.

It turns out if you stuff a bunch of mud into the action of a gun, it'll go fucking cattywompus, the M1 and M14 were not exceptions to this notion, they were the norm. A modern AR-15 is well enclosed (hell, old AR-10s were well enclosed), but if you get mud inside the actual action it'll shit itself like anything else.

>>30936865
Okay, war is more about logistics and production than any specific design of a weapon, especially small arms. Get a clue.

>>30937046
dumbass, a modern M4 fully loaded with all the gadgets is usually 9 lbs.

>>30937683
No they would not, in a firefight guns were going off left and right, infantry rifles booming loudly with every shot, subguns rattling off long series of rounds, support weapons thundering, grenades exploding, artillery incoming, you're NOT going to hear a little ping with all guns blazing.

>>30935756
kek

>>30939084
It's a much more balanced weapon though.
Also I blame the quadrail on for all that weight.

>>30938993
Le greatest generation maymay

File: 1469210260810.png (195KB, 406x422px) Image search: [Google]

195KB, 406x422px

>mfw even the Mosin Nagant made a better sniper rifle than the Springfield

Ak-47

>>30938063
Most of the issues with the M16 in Nam were bad magazines and bad ammo, with the A1 it could handle the ammo but a lot of the bad magazines were still around.

>>30938138
>Guys I've talked to have stated a preference for the earlier models that could fire on semi auto over the WW2 model that was FA only with a selectable ROF.

It was objectively better, the WW2 model had a bunch of useless shit bolted onto it making it heavier, and variable ROF is retarded on something feeding of box mags.

>>30936676
this, stock's a bit short for my 6 footness, and the carbines arent the most accurate, but, pistol grip, folding stock, short, mags instead of clips, 15 shots, and not a pos b.a.r.

File: mp41.jpg (51KB, 758x371px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 758x371px

>>30937689
I would pick an MP41 over an MP40 simply because the MP41 has a fire selector and a much better stock

>>30938787
I do not think it would have been terrible. Even if it isn't ideal, it's better than a grease gun.

>>30938799
It wasnt. Garands are complicated and expensive. Only about 2.5 million were made during WW2 to my knowledge.

>>30938922
>They were going to.
MacArthur fucked that up.
>The design that Germany thought up late into the war and which nobody on the Allied side had designed?
It's not hindsight. Assault rifles had existed before the stg44. It's just American (and some German) insistence on high power cartridges fucked it.
>They got the Greasegun, close enough.
Eh. The grease gun is junk, and took time to design. Tooling and blueprints for the Owen already existed.
>The Luger was revolutionary when it was new, probably the best military sidearm in the world for that brief time, but the 1911 is just a mechanically better design.
Luger's better in mud. 1911 is adequate but I chose it for its cheap price.
>A mid-war development based on the MG34,
Mg34 is fine with me too.
> something which the Americans weren't using.
Your point? My point is they should be.
>That was literally where the Springfield came from.
I'm aware. The thing is though they took the Mauser and made it worse. When I say take the MG34, I say take it and make it better; IE make the MG42 before the Germans.
>You seem to forget a lot of budgetary concerns and that hindsight is always 20/20.
I don't forget it, because that's not the point. I'm making the budget more efficient by condensing the rifle, carbine and SMG into an assault rifle, then improving it further by stealing the AR design from my enemy.
>Once a lot of these guns had been adopted, they couldn't really justify it in their budget to suddenly change something which had been recently adopted.
Sure, but if they can fuck with the Thompson, grease gun and Springfield as much as they did, they can afford to scrap all three for a better alternative, and turn the reserves they have into specialist or stop gap weapons.

>>30937251
That the Rondon brand didn't even exist until AFTER ww2.

>>30939297
Doesn't mean disgruntled solders can't mockingly call their former equipment derogatory names.

File: image.jpg (23KB, 237x212px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 237x212px

>>30935723
Buncha dumbasses
1911 obviously as it blows up tanks
It's like you haven't even seen the movie

>>30935723
>what would you choose as your primary weapon?
thompson smg or BAR
2nd the M1
3rd the 50cal
4th grease gun

>>30939282
>I do not think it would have been terrible.
It could have been a weapon good for something, it just wouldn't have been good as an assault rifle, the Stg44 would outrange it pretty seriously.

>Even if it isn't ideal, it's better than a grease gun.
Considering the Greasegun was meant to be a cheap subgun, no shit.

>My point is they should be.
Yes, let's restructure your entire base of logistics and your supply chain, and retrain all of your personnel every time someone does something which is a bit better than what you have, surely this won't be a bureaucratic hell where you constantly break your budget for small gains!

Even better, let's do it during war time!

>>30939864
>It could have been a weapon good for something, it just wouldn't have been good as an assault rifle, the Stg44 would outrange it pretty seriously.
Again, I would take it over a garand, carbine, thompson, anything, ESPECIALLY if I was a marine in the Pacific.
>Yes, let's restructure your entire base of logistics and your supply chain, and retrain all of your personnel every time someone does something which is a bit better than what you have, surely this won't be a bureaucratic hell where you constantly break your budget for small gains!
Right right because having three pistols, six SMGs, one rifle, three bolt guns, one automatic rifle, somewhere around 7 gpmgs and mmgs, but making an assault rifle? Oh no! That's totally the straw that broke the camel's back!
>Even better, let's do it during war time!
Yeah, when you need it. Better late than never.

I don't think you understand how much money the US had to throw away. We had so much fucking money and production power, we literally designed the P-63, one of the best fighters of the war, manufactured it in the thousands, and not only didn't use it, but -used it as a flying target-.

We had so many corsairs on our carriers we pushed them into the ocean. We had so many pursuit aircraft for decades after the war, every civilian airspeed record was set by a surplus aircraft. Disney bought a milsurp B-29 for $500 (adjusted) and turned it into a boat. B-17s went for even less. We sold off so many surplus Catalina and B-type aircraft that i challenge you to find just ONE firefighting organization that existed in the 50s did not use them. We were metaphorically drowning in cash and resources; and yet we didn't use any of it for small arms that actually worked.

If you wanna use the "we didn't have the budget" argument, you best not use it on the country that had five heavy bombers (19,256 B-24s alone). Germany didn't have any (used in appreciable numbers)

>>30935723
M1 carbine. Not even a question. After that, the grease gun then the Thompson

>>30935723
if I can manage it two firearms, the garand and the m3, the m3 for close in work, I hear repeatedly that the carbine simply did not have the put down factor like the garand

>>30936865
you are a bit of a dolt 30 years of 30 caliber ammo is not going to magically disappear plus the army had enough sense at least to put a semiautomatic rifle in the field

File: 30-06 Gov't Issue.jpg (96KB, 571x480px) Image search: [Google]

96KB, 571x480px

>>30936158
Apparently not. M1 ball was better in every way and supposedly intended for MGs, but they couldn't afford the cost of enlarging the firing ranges to accommodate the increased range that it offered, so they just went back to M1906 ball and called it the M2.

>>30935723
How god tier would it have been if the Americans had box fed M1 garands (ala m14 status) and belt fed BARs (like if they went to the drawing board and somehow made the FN MAG).

The M1919, because fuck everything

>>30941152
Why have a beltfed BAR when you have a M1919? The BAR is shit in comparison.

>>30935723
Stg 44 I ripped out of some Kraut's cold dead hands.

>>30941118
Right right just forget about the history of the garand you cretin.

>>30941291
>Shit

>Lighter
>Less cumbersome
>Better trigger
>Same sights
>Integral bipod
>Easier barrel swaps
>Easier to use
>More reliable
>Better trigger

You are a fucking imbecile.