[eclancy]

Gentlemen,

...M1 Garand Rifle never made it through the testing stage and the Project was dropped by Ordnance. How do you think we would have done in WW2 ?

NEED a FEW HITS thanks
Sites:
http://www.garandm1rifle.com

http://www.users.fast.net/~eclancy
Email:
garandm1rifle@rcn.com

Thanks again for taking the time and effort to read and reply to this
Clancy

[Eightball]

I would guess that we would not have fared as well, since we would have been stuck with weaponry similar to everyone else--bolt action Springfields. Either that, or it wouldn't have mattered because the Johnson rifle would have been more widely fielded. Just a guess.

[Dionysusigma]

Another vote for the Johnson. Superior capacity and rate of fire to the 1903, plus the ability to remove the barrel for paratroopers. Since it was blow-back operated, though, it'd be interesting to see what we'd have nowadays instead of the M14 and the M16 family. Maybe G3/HK33/MP5s?

We had BARs, though. Maybe a design based on that would've come up eventually. :confused:

[Vern Humphrey]

Since it was blow-back operated, though, it'd be interesting to see what we'd have nowadays instead of the M14 and the M16 family.

The Johnson was recoil-operated. It wasn't as well-liked as the M1 among troops who had combat experience with both.

The Johnson Light Machinegun, however at 12 1/2 pounds was better liked than the BAR and with a belt feed would make a great GPMG today.

[jefnvk]

What about the Pederson semi auto rifle, that the M1 beat out? Not the device that stuck in the 1903 (althopugh, that would have probably been a huge help if we were stuck with the 03), but wasn't there an actual gun?

[TMM]

if *just* the garand was not approved, what about the M1A or the M1 Carbine?

~TMM

[Dionysusigma]

:o Thanks for the correction... need to brush up on the subject some more, I guess.

If just the Garand was not approved, what about the M1A or the M1 Carbine?

I thought they were spin-offs of the Garand design... no M1, no spin-offs. The design would've failed during testing, right? Who'd want a design that "didn't work?" :uhoh:

[Rebar]

We'd have had to rely on our machineguns, BARs, and support (artillery/airpower) a lot more.

[Eightball]

Who'd want a design that "didn't work?" Me, if it means a free M1 :D

[Vern Humphrey]

What about the Pederson semi auto rifle, that the M1 beat out?

There was a reason the Garand beat the Pederson. The design was a dead end, and required such things as lubricated cartridges. There were wool pads in the receiver to keep the cartridges oiled so they would extract on firing. Imagine how that would have worked in the field.

[jefnvk]

Ah, never heard much about the rifle. Just kinda knew it existed, and it lost to the M1.

Do you have any links to good sites about it? All I keep finding when serching for it are the Pedersen device for the 03, and the Pedersen cartridge being the cartridge the M1 was chambered originally for.

[Vern Humphrey]

The handiest reference I have on the Pedersen rifle is a 40-year old edition of Smith and Smith, "Small Arms of the World."

The Japanese made a copy of the Pedersen, but it didn't work for them, either.

[johnmcl]

Clancy,

We are wobbling a bit here, although the conversations are good.

The question is how would we have done in WWII? I believe we'd have won still as the American industrial machine would still be cranking out the machinery of war at an astounding rate that the Axis powers could not match.

The infantry weapon would have been a bolt action Springfield as my best guess. We'd still have gone to war in '42, and the only weapon issueable en masse on the rack would have been the Springfield. Skirmishes that we won, we might have lost on reduced firepower. In summary, the overall result would have been the same, but with a casualty rate higher than the 400,000 we lost.

The WWII Memorial in Washington DC might have 600 stars instead of the 400 it does today if the Garand was not in place.

John

[jefnvk]

the only weapon issueable en masse on the rack would have been the Springfield

Methinks many 1917's also would have been used.

[Sylvilagus Aquaticus]

IIRC, the Pederson device was scrapped in the mid 30's (1936?) sometime and most were destroyed.

The Johnson was a little delicate for bayonet fighting, I've heard, with the slender barrel. It tended to string vertically as it warmed up. It wasn't nearly as fast to reload as a Garand or a Springfield/Enfield. The Reising had rust problems in the Pacific where it was mostly issued and wasn't in wide regard by the Marines, I've read.

Fielding several million BAR's to our ground and airborne troops would have taxed manufacturing and supply lines and would have REALLY caused GI's to complain about carrying a rifle that weighed twice (and more!) what a Garand weighs...not to mention all that ammo to keep it fed and barking.

If there was no Garand, there would likely be no M14/M1A, as it is a linear decendant.

Geez, I think the Garand was the right tool at the right time. The M1 carbine works, but it doesn't have the reach and carry range, same as the little .30 caliber cartrige of the Pedersen. Same argument applies to the Thompson and Reising, as they both are .45ACP weapons. Good for city fighting, bad for open fields and hills.

I'm glad our soldiers/heroes/saviors of the free world had the Garand and I'd hate to think of what might have been if they hadn't had that tool.

Regards,
Rabbit.

[Dienekes]

We would have soldiered through (literally) with the 1903A3 and such older 03s and 1917s as we had for second-line work. As good as the M1 Garand was it was not a "war-winner". That role goes to artillery, armor, and support weapons.

There is a book out titled "Fighting Power by a Martin van Creveld ($90 used, but possibly available on interlibrary loan) that makes the case that all things being equal the Wehrmacht was always about 1.3 times more effective than any force it opposed, including the US Army. This was essentially because of superior small unit tactics, leadership, and command philosophy. Unfortunately for them the Fuhrer was convinced that he was a military genius and negated most of that.

[eclancy]

Gentlemen,
Thanks for your comeback. After the attack on Dec. 7, 1941 the US started up our war machine and nothing could even come close to what we could do in production. Guys on Dec. 8th had all the Recruiting Offices with lines around the block. Ordnance had been ahead of the game and was ready to go from 8hrs a day for 200 M1 Garands to 600 on a 24 hr day. My point is the US was together right after the attack on our military at Pearl Harbor. So what happened after 9/11 which was a civilian target and over 3,000 dead ? If I was in charge we would not have the room to put another tank in Iraq or is that Iran ???

Thanks again
Clancy
ps that's why I am not in charge!!

[Vern Humphrey]

Thanks for your comeback. After the attack on Dec. 7, 1941 the US started up our war machine and nothing could even come close to what we could do in production. Guys on Dec. 8th had all the Recruiting Offices with lines around the block. Ordnance had been ahead of the game and was ready to go from 8hrs a day for 200 M1 Garands to 600 on a 24 hr day. My point is the US was together right after the attack on our military at Pearl Harbor. So what happened after 9/11 which was a civilian target and over 3,000 dead ? If I was in charge we would not have the room to put another tank in Iraq or is that Iran ???


The great irony is that the greatest and freest country in the world has spawned a breed of left-wingers who hate the country so much you wonder why they don't all up stakes and move to North Korea.

[Dienekes]

A fair percentage of americans have been well and truly gelded between then and now. That's what changed.

[Dionysusigma]

Nothing buys away loyalty better than money and comforts.

[Sleeping Dog]

Ordnance had been ahead of the game and was ready to go from 8hrs a day for 200 M1 Garands to 600 on a 24 hr day. My point is the US was together right after the attack on our military at Pearl Harbor. So what happened after 9/11 which was a civilian target and over 3,000 dead ? If I was in charge we would not have the room to put another tank in Iraq or is that Iran ???

I'm not sure we still have a manufacturing base, steel mills, etc, that would sustain a WW2-level of building tanks, guns, ships, trucks, planes, ammo, etc.

I'd agree with filling Afghanistan with tanks, esp on the Pakistan border. I still don't see a connection between Iraq and 9/11. I think prez Bush 2 is just trying to complete the job left undone by prez Bush 1.

Regards.

[Chipperman]

If the M1 had not been fielded during WWII, we would have had higher casualties among ground forces. Ultimately, we still would have won the war.

That's my story, and I'm sticking to it.

[jefnvk]

I still don't see a connection between Iraq and 9/11.

And I don't see a connection between attacking Germany, when it was Japan that attacked us.

[GunGoBoom]

Thanks for your comeback. After the attack on Dec. 7, 1941 the US started up our war machine and nothing could even come close to what we could do in production. Guys on Dec. 8th had all the Recruiting Offices with lines around the block. Ordnance had been ahead of the game and was ready to go from 8hrs a day for 200 M1 Garands to 600 on a 24 hr day. My point is the US was together right after the attack on our military at Pearl Harbor. So what happened after 9/11 which was a civilian target and over 3,000 dead ? If I was in charge we would not have the room to put another tank in Iraq or is that Iran ???


The great irony is that the greatest and freest country in the world has spawned a breed of left-wingers who hate the country so much you wonder why they don't all up stakes and move to North Korea.

Another great irony is how someone who seems to know a fair amount about history can not know that neither Iraq nor Iran had anything to do with 9/11 - ahhh, the brainwashing power of the spinmeisters of our POTUS - so utterly amazing about how many in the general public actually think that Iraq has a scintilla of a scrunthair of anything to do with 9/11.

And I don't see a connection between attacking Germany, when it was Japan that attacked us.

Well, Hirohitu (sp?) and Hitler had already met in a summit and decided how they were going to divy up Russia and the rest of the world they were going to conquer. Saddam Hussein and Osama were not allies in any way.

Now back to your regularly-scheduled programming. :)

[WT]

Some may remember that the Marines landed on Guadalcanal with bolt action rifles. The follow on North Dakota National Guard unit was equipped with Garands. When the 2 regiments were line abreast at the Battle for Henderson Field, each did very well against the charging Japanese.

As an aside, van Creveld's work is flawed. He fails to note that the German Army had been preparing for war since 1932 while the American Army started preparing in 1940.

[Sleeping Dog]

I don't see a connection between attacking Germany, when it was Japan that attacked us.

Germany declared war on us. Their treaties with Japan sort of required it after the war in the pacific was declared (by both parties). It all seems like a lot of strange formalities. With big consequences.

I wonder what would have happened if Germany reneged on Japan and didn't declare war on us. Would we have just continued to supply Churchill and Stalin with supplies and put our entire armed force into the Pacific? Then we'd have probably reached the Japanese home islands before the atom bombs were ready, and it would have been a lot bloodier before we won.

In addition to 1903's, I think the Marines on Guadalcanal had a few of Browning's toys, like the 1911 pistol, 1917 machinegun, 1918 BAR, maybe the 1919 machinegun. Not for the landing, but for the defense of Henderson Field. What they lacked was ammo, food, water. The resupply ships were staying well out of harm's way.

Regards.

[Vern Humphrey]

I wonder what would have happened if Germany reneged on Japan and didn't declare war on us. Would we have just continued to supply Churchill and Stalin with supplies and put our entire armed force into the Pacific? Then we'd have probably reached the Japanese home islands before the atom bombs were ready, and it would have been a lot bloodier before we won.


Churchill and Roosevelt agreed (as did all our strategic leadership) that Germany was our most dangerous enemy. Had we failed to go to war with Germany, and put most of our efforts into defeating Germany, we might well have finished with Japan only to face a Germany with a full arsenal of super-weapons -- perhaps including the atomic bomb.

Remember the lesson of WWI -- We delayed coming in, and Germany beat Russia, and then turned with full force on the Allies -- and nearly won.

[spartacus2002]

If there was no Garand, there would likely be no M14/M1A, as it is a linear decendant.

http://homepage.mac.com/stevegarfield/ooat/belushi_scream.jpg AAAAAAAAAAAAAUUUUUUGHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[NMshooter]

Actually Germany was developing the tactics they used in WW2 at the tail end of WW1.

Checkout Bruce Gudmundsson's Stormtroop Tactics for details on this.

If we did not start with the Garand we would have ended the war with something else. Not sure if it would have been a semi-auto battle rifle or an intermediate caliber assault rifle, but we would not have fought the whole war with the Springfield.

[Gabe]

If Hitler had not declared war on us post Pearl, we would still be at war with Germany because we would ally ourselves with the Brits who were at war with the Japs and Germans.

However public opinon would probably force us to a "Japan First" strategy. I doubt we could finish Japan much earlier than we did because no nukes = invasion of Japanese home islands.

We would supply the Brits and Soviets and still bomb the heck out of Germany with Flying Fortresses. The European theater would probably still be raging in '46-'47 but the Soviets would ultimatly beat Hitler and the Brits and Uncle Sam would have to race to land in France before the Communists overrun it. It would be a like a larger version of Greece at the end of the war.

As for the Garand, without it we would take more casualties. Maybe 15-20% more. It would suck to invade Japan with a bolt rifle. Wars are however won by tanks and arty.