M1/Enemy Opinion of the M1 Rifle

Status
Not open for further replies.
E

eclancy

Member
Joined
Dec 26, 2002
Messages
1,114
Location
N. Catasauqua, Pa
If you don't like quiz questions don't read on. Thanks

Gentlemen,
Here's a late dated file about July 21, 1945. Germany is defeated but the war goes on with Japan.
This file is from Chief of Research and Development Service.

"In our opinion the most authoritative testimony of the effectivness of our M1 Rifle lies in the fact that.."
What did Germany and Japan do to combat the effect of our M1 Rifle?
Need hits to both of my sites.
Sites:
http://www.garandm1rifle.com
http://www.users.fast.net/~eclancy
Email:
[email protected]
More files on this are in the up coming Books
Thanks again for taking the time and effort to read and reply to this
Clancy
 
Japan and Germany used captured weapons in combat and the Japanese tried to duplicate it but never reached production,IIRC. I wonder what a mummed M1 would be worth? :)
Do you have any pictures of those Japanese copies,Eclancy?
 
What did Germany and Japan do to combat the effect of our M1 Rifle?
Click to expand...

The axis executed a two phase plan in response to the effectiveness of the M1:

A)Be wounded and die in vast numbers, which in turn lead to
B)Unconditional surrender.

Incidentally, eclancy, I think it's a great question, and I'd love to see what the axis actually thought of the M1, I just don't have time to grep through all your sites to find that information....cheater link please?
 
My guess would be that at that time, every other country's standard issue gun was a bolt gun. From then on, we started seeing semi's appear. G43, the Jap Garand copy, SVT-40, Swedish Ljungman, etc.
 
I just searched your site and couldn't find the answer.

Why not gives us a direct link instead of links to two sites that then simply link to each other.
 
My guess would be that at that time, every other country's standard issue gun was a bolt gun. From then on, we started seeing semi's appear. G43, the Jap Garand copy, SVT-40, Swedish Ljungman, etc.
Click to expand...

The SVT 40 is bases off the AVS-36 and 38.
The G-41 and G-43 were developed and are similar to the soviet designs.

The SVT is not the Russian Version of the Garand, The Russians developed a Semi-auto rifle during WW1 but it was delicate/unsuitable for combat. They continued to design and test semi-auto firearms in the pre WW2 years.

The G-43 is based off of captured SVT-40's they redesigned the unsucsessful G-41 and used the gas sytem off the SVT.

I think the only country that tried to copy the rifle was Japan
 
I didn't imply to mean that they were all copies of the Garand, but that soon as one country went to a semi as the main battle rifle, most others followed suit.
 
The Germans had a designation for captured Garands used in German service.

The Japanese created their own 7.7 copy of the Garand. It differed in some details, but the lineage was there.
 
countertop, geekwitha.45
WHO told you that the answer to these quiz questions were on my sites??? Since "I just don't have time to grep through all your sites to find that information....cheater link please?"
I don't have time to post the answer!!!!!!!!!!
Clancy
 
The Japanese Type 5 (from the Japanese year 2005 (1945)) was a partial copy of the M1 rifle, using the same type gas piston and bolt, but it had a ten round fixed magazine and loaded from standard 7.7 rifle clips. The rear sight was also different (it was like the French M49 sight), and the magazine protruded slightly. But all in all the rifle was serviceable and could have been a problem had the Japanese started sooner and been able to produce them in quantity. As it was, less than 100 were made by the Japanese Navy(!) and it saw no combat use and had no effect on the war.

The German G.41(m) and G.41(w) rifles were early German attempts to produce a semi-auto. Designers were hampered by the Waffenamt opposition to drilling a gas hole in the barrel (the same thinking in the U.S. Army resulted in the "gas trap" Garand). When that objection was removed, Walther developed the G.43, which used the Belgian Saive gas system (also used by Russia), and was more successful.

The fact is that issuing a semi-auto rifle was more of a morale factor than anything else. I know of no WWII battles won by the U.S. solely because we had a semi-auto rifle or lost by the Germans or Japanese because they didn't. Air power, naval power, numbers of troops and, later, better training, all played a larger role in Allied victory than the small arms used.

Jim
 
Kind of like the "breechloader question" so beloved of Civil War buffs. As Edwin Coddington said, "you can't find a battle where one side won because of better rifles."
 
eclancy, please post the answer. But don't expect me to brown-nose you for it. You need a thicker skin.

And, Vern, did Edwin ever hear of Little Big Horn? For just an example quick like.

Maybe my Old Man didn't win the Bulge by himself and his M1, but he said that one on one against a Mauser, it kept him alive.
 
Did BG Hatcher cover this in his "Notebooks". I even remember seeing a picture of one on the "Japanese Garands" in the book. Now I'll have to go dig my copy off the den bookshelf......
 
For all the hype about it, the Garand was far from ideal. The Belgian SAFN, which the Brits had a chance at developing themselves at the outset of the war, was superior in nearly every respect, from adjustable gas vent to a ten round magazine that fed off strippers or cartridge-by-cartridge. The Garand was limited to archaic clips and could only fire underpowered ball ammunition. I'm not saying the M-1 wasn't a significant development in small arms technology, but I would say that it wasn't even the best option available during WWII. Maybe second best. Like the overrated Springfield 1903, it owes its place in history more to the men who used it than to any technological edge it gave our troops.
 
It is a tanker, one of the actual tankers. IIRC, on his site, it is listed as one of TWO produced.
Click to expand...

It may be appropriate to point out that the so-called "tanker" Garand had nothing to do with tanks or tankers. It was an experiment in the Pacific Theater to produce a shorter, lighter rifle for paratroops.
 
The Belgian SAFN, which the Brits had a chance at developing themselves at the outset of the war, was superior in nearly every respect, from adjustable gas vent to a ten round magazine that fed off strippers or cartridge-by-cartridge.
Click to expand...

But how many got used in the war? I would say that the M14 is a superior design to the M1, but it was never used during WWII.
 
the sharps at gettysburg and the spencers in the tullahoma campaign and again at snodgrass hill at chickamagua must have had some influence in the American civil war.
 
No SAFN's got used in the war because the Brits were too stupid to realize what they had. The legendary Saive and his engineering crew came to the UK with preliminary designs in hand for the rifle, and the British Army basically ignored them! Saive tinkered away on the rifle for the next few years, completely under the radar of a military establishment still more concerned about undue waste of ammunition than firepower. It's not a well-known episode, but it ranks high in the list of all-time stupid military choices. It's a very small step from a SAFN to an FN-FAL. Can you imagine US troops landing with FN's in hand!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

E
  • Locked
M1/USMC/M1 Garand/Quiz
Replies
3
Views
596
George S.
G
E
  • Locked
M1 Win/Ed/Order
Replies
1
Views
329
eclancy
E
E
  • Locked
M1/Finish on the M1 Garand Quiz
Replies
3
Views
469
eclancy
E
E
  • Locked
M1/Parts Update Quiz
Replies
6
Views
506
johnmcl
johnmcl
E
  • Locked
M1/Garand Scope Quiz
Replies
3
Views
428
Eightball
E
Back
Top