If you were a WWII infantry soldier...

Status
Not open for further replies.
Audie Murphy carried a 1917 Colt 45, a trench knife, a 1903A3 Springfield and an M-1 Garand all at the same time, while in Italy.
Latter while in Italy,France and Germany he would swap weapons per job, Tommy gun for night work, M-1 Carbine (with a nice trigger) for counter sniper work in dense forests. Audie collected 3 Nazi sniper rifles with his carbine.
 
I could be wrong, but I've heard that all the carbine ammo we used was non corrosive. Can someone confirm/deny this?
 
I could be wrong, but I've heard that all the carbine ammo we used was non corrosive. Can someone confirm/deny this?
Click to expand...
That would be correct. No .30Carbine ammunition was ever produced [for military use] with corrosive primers. It was one of the first rounds to be produced exclusively in a non-corrosive form.

:)
 
BAR, no question. Shotgun for room clearing.
On a side note, the Cabelas in Lehi UT has a new Ohio Ordance BAR in their gun library. I drooled for about 30 minutes.
 
What KodiakBeer said -- StG-44. Hands down, the best gunfighter's gun of the war by a long, long margin. Barring that, and M2 carbine.

P-35 for a sidearm.
 
M1 Carbine or PPSh-41. 71-rounds of ".30 Carbine-Lite" on tap is a tempting offer.

As everyone re-learned during WW2, most combat takes place at 300 yards or less, with many encounters at the 100-yard range. Having a light weapon that offers a great deal of fire-power makes sense.

The Soviets learned on the Eastern Front that the side with the greatest volume of fire usually won the engagement. Hence, why Soviet and Russian doctrine has been massed assault with as many automatic weapons as feasible.

Seeing as the Eastern Front saw the most intense and vicious between fighting of WW2, I think they probably learned a thing or two.

While the Pacific also saw some very vicious and heavy fighting, the equipment and strategy of the Japanese was more of WW1 mark 2 then it was true modern mechanized warfare.
 
STG44, IMHO its the most significant gun of the 20th century. It was the first assult rifle and could outshoot anything around.

For a pistol I'd take a Hi power or P38.

I like German stuff, they had the best weapons...just not enough.
 
Last edited:
opening post
If you were a WWII infantry soldier...what weapon would you want to carry into battle and why?
Click to expand...

My father fought in WWII, Sixth Army Division, in New Guinea and Luzon. He won the Bronze Star for single handedly fighting off a Japanese patrol with a BAR inflicting several casualties. His choices were either (1) BAR or (2) M1 Garand. With a side order of grenades. The Thompson was almost as heavy (12 pounds) as a BAR stripped down for patrol carry (16 pounds without the accessories intended to make it a light machine gun) with shorter range and less penetration; same complaint against the carbine; and if you are at .45 pistol range, a bayonet does not need reloading after seven tries.

all the carbine ammo we used was non corrosive
Click to expand...
True. The M1 Carbine gas assembly is a semi-permanent assembly and user disassembly and maintenance is not convenient in the field. So all issue ammo was non-corrosive. One of the results is that most WWII M1 Carbines found today have their original barrel; most WWII M1 Garands found today have had their barrels replaced in arsenal reconditioning. There was some experimentation at the proving grounds with carbine ammo with regular corrosive primers: in a matter of days the carbines were malfunctioning due to corrosion within the gas system. With non-corrosive primers, the carbine gas system uses gas at such high temperature and pressure it is practically self-cleaning and non-corrosive primer residue does not attract moisture like the corrosive primer residue.

US Marines writing about personal experiences in Leatherneck magazine stated they preferred the M1 Garand over the M1903 Springfield and the M1 Carbine over both the M1928 Thompson and M50 Reising. The M1 Thompson was more reliable in jungle conditions than the M1928 Thompson (the oil pads for the H lock in the Thomspon would draw moisture and swell).
 
Garand, backed up by hand grenades and the bayonet. The weight I'd give up by taking that instead of a BAR or Thompson would allow me to carry a belt for the .30 cal Browning. That .30 caliber Browning would be the whole squad's best friend and keeping it fed would be in everyone's best interest.
 
Last edited:
A Garand.

I have a 45 year-old friend from Germany who has never owned a Mauser, but also wants a Garand.
For him, wanting a Garand is ironic, as his father served in the Wehrmacht in Finland (WW2).
 
I'd love to have the thompson but to much weight, gotta go with the Garand but only if i had my trust 1911.
 
Carbine.

I'm small and also prefer capacity and quick suppression compared to ultra long range.
 
Garand + 1911 in europe. im a good shot with open sights and id like to be able to reach a bit. 1911 seems like a no brainer to me.

M1 carbine + 1911 in the jungle. light is good.
 
I went through Parris Island with a M14. I went to Camp Geiger at Camp lejune for ITR with a M1-Garand. Did BITS with a M14. Some of my senior officers and SNCO's had served in the Pacific and Korea. In Vietnam they finally forced me to get an M16 half way through my 2d tour attached to the 3rdMarDiv.

No doubt for me, of the USA's 2nd WW II weapons it would be the M1 Garand, with a 1917 or 1911 on the hip. It ain't exotic, or fancy, just works, and no one ever questioned the "stopping" power of the 30-06, or for that matter the 30-06 short or 7.62 NATO. My ten years in Corps I was qualified as expert with the rifle and 9 years expert with the pistol (my first year I was not given the opportunity to shoot the Pistol for Qual). I did not like the M16, and still don't, I still prefer the M14.

As for those folks that want a belt fed machine gun, enjoy. The first thing we used to tell the FNG's is if you want to be popular and have all the bad guys shooting at you and have any heavy weapons the enemy may have with them being aimed at you, be on the gun or be near the gun when it opens up. No thank you. The gun is a bullet magnet. God Bless our gunners.

AS for the question on the table, to reiterate: M1 Garand and Sidearm.

Go figure.

Fred
 
OOOkay, my first choice of WWII standard issue equipment? A pencil and a clipboard for REMF duties. If the paperwork action really starts heating up I would swap for a typewriter!

If I had to pick a weapon it would be the M1 carbine. Light and short enough for this lazy soldier.
 
My father had a different outlook. Dad was one of the first Rangers and a combat medic. His platoon sgt ordered him to escape after capture at Cisterna. Dad said it took him six days to hook up with I believe the 7th Inf. Dad ended WWII walking combat shock wards in WWII as a corpsman in San Francisco Presidio. Mom told me in the 1980s after dad died he would carry only a 45 and two magazines as anything else cut into weight of medical gear he could carry.

blindhari
Sgt Ranger
like my father before me
 
Stupid, off topic question: Were WW-II infantrimen of any origin given ear protection? I can't imagine what it must have been like to be on the front lines without hearing protection.

I've often wondered if that was the reason we'd have to yell into the phone when talking with my grandfather.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

S
  • Locked
M1 Carbine vs. M1 Thompson/M3 Grease Gun .45ACP...
Replies
24
Views
8K
shoobe01
shoobe01
C
  • Locked
Why Fewer Choices In Small Arms For Military Today?
2 3
Replies
56
Views
2K
Vern Humphrey
V
W
  • Locked
What rifle would be used by WWII soldier European theater?
2
Replies
39
Views
3K
Tinpig
Tinpig
B
  • Locked
Most Realistic WWII PC Games??
Replies
20
Views
3K
Kestryll
K
S
  • Locked
Pipe Dream?
Replies
8
Views
606
Gewehr98
G
Back
Top