Whatif: Which rifle for WWII Patrol?
- Thread starter DMK
- Start date
- Status
Darkside852003
Member
M1
Highland Ranger
Member
M1 Carbine: lighter than Garand, accurate, reloading advantages of magazine Vs clip.
2nd choice - MP40; light and accurate, magazine fed.
(this is of course all based on my extensive Call of Duty United Offensive experience)
2nd choice - MP40; light and accurate, magazine fed.
(this is of course all based on my extensive Call of Duty United Offensive experience)
M1 Garand. Excellent Sightes, .30-06 power, semi-auto, and if you whack somebody with it, it won't break. Both of my grandfathers used Garands. They said nothing else comes close. The M1 Carbine is UNACCURATE, and has a poor round, and my friend's grandfather carried an M1 Carbine in the Normandy landing and he said the first thing he did was ditch it for a Garand. A BAR is heavier. The German weapons were generally crap because they relied on thier MG-34/42's to provide the majority of fire in battle. The 1903 is no good b/c of poor sights and slow fire (accuracy is not really an issue since the Garand is effective out to a long range). For some reason, none of the WWII games do the Garand justice.
Good topic.
I would take a submachine gun. And I guess I would go with the M3 since I could get resupplyed with ammo from my own Army. I think that out of the weapons you name, it is the most practical choice. Basically for all the reasons I list below as to why I wouldn't want an M1.
I am a big fan of the M1 rifle and own three of them and compete regularly with one of them. I wouldn't want to carry one in combat though. Heavy, severe magazine limitations, long and unwiedy (sp ?) for CQB, and IMO it is really too much rifle for the job at hand. I too would much rather have an M4 than any of them, but you didn't ask that.
The carbine is more along the line of what I think would have been the right direction, but the cartridge it is chambered for is horrible IMO (yes I own one). For that matter, I was also issued an M3 in the US Army in the 80s and have a bunch of pictures with me and the Greasegun.
I would take a submachine gun. And I guess I would go with the M3 since I could get resupplyed with ammo from my own Army. I think that out of the weapons you name, it is the most practical choice. Basically for all the reasons I list below as to why I wouldn't want an M1.
I am a big fan of the M1 rifle and own three of them and compete regularly with one of them. I wouldn't want to carry one in combat though. Heavy, severe magazine limitations, long and unwiedy (sp ?) for CQB, and IMO it is really too much rifle for the job at hand. I too would much rather have an M4 than any of them, but you didn't ask that.
The carbine is more along the line of what I think would have been the right direction, but the cartridge it is chambered for is horrible IMO (yes I own one). For that matter, I was also issued an M3 in the US Army in the 80s and have a bunch of pictures with me and the Greasegun.
Selfdfenz
Member
I going with Preacherman,
Wide open spaces = M1
Tight corners = submachine gun but I'll say M3 cause it weighed less.
I just watched Band of Brothers again this weekend. They seemed to have used a fair number of M2 carbines in some of the jumps and later they'd all be humping around with M1s and Thompsons.
I got the impression that happened in real life. Lots of weapon swapping took place doing the different phases of the War.
S-
Wide open spaces = M1
Tight corners = submachine gun but I'll say M3 cause it weighed less.
I just watched Band of Brothers again this weekend. They seemed to have used a fair number of M2 carbines in some of the jumps and later they'd all be humping around with M1s and Thompsons.
I got the impression that happened in real life. Lots of weapon swapping took place doing the different phases of the War.
S-
Ivy Mike
Member
Garand
I'd like a thompson, but rifles are for fighting. An M1 carbine would work in a pinch, but its really just a weak .357
I'd take the M14, but it hadn't been introduced yet.
I'd like a thompson, but rifles are for fighting. An M1 carbine would work in a pinch, but its really just a weak .357
I'd take the M14, but it hadn't been introduced yet.
KarbineKrazy
Member
give me a garand on my back and an M3 in my hands!!! 
If you are in an infantry squad, and your weapon gets destroyed, you'll take the weapon the squad leader tells you to take. Odd's are, that would be a Garand, unless the BAR gunner was killed and he wanted to keep the BAR in action.
If I did have a choice, I'd take the Garand anyway. It's more powerful than the carbine and the Thompson and is much, much, lighter than the BAR. Heck, it's even lighter than the Thompson.
You gotta remember also, that the BAR was actually somewhat unpopular. As soon as the BAR opened up, it got the attention of all the Germans in the area. I wouldn't want to be singled out for attention from a MG 42 by shooting off a BAR. Better to be just another rifelman.
My second choice would be the carbine. It'll still reach to 200 yards, which is far past the effective range on the Thompson. I'd only take it if no Garands were available though.
The enemy weapons would be right out. There's a reason they didn't let G.I.'s pick up and carry enemy weapons. As soon as you fire one, you're going to get shot at by both sides. The enemy will shoot at your because your shooting at them, your side will shoot at you because the sound of the weapon makes them think your an enemy. It's a no win. The only exception is if an enemy weapon is the ONLY weapon available.
If I did have a choice, I'd take the Garand anyway. It's more powerful than the carbine and the Thompson and is much, much, lighter than the BAR. Heck, it's even lighter than the Thompson.
You gotta remember also, that the BAR was actually somewhat unpopular. As soon as the BAR opened up, it got the attention of all the Germans in the area. I wouldn't want to be singled out for attention from a MG 42 by shooting off a BAR. Better to be just another rifelman.
My second choice would be the carbine. It'll still reach to 200 yards, which is far past the effective range on the Thompson. I'd only take it if no Garands were available though.
The enemy weapons would be right out. There's a reason they didn't let G.I.'s pick up and carry enemy weapons. As soon as you fire one, you're going to get shot at by both sides. The enemy will shoot at your because your shooting at them, your side will shoot at you because the sound of the weapon makes them think your an enemy. It's a no win. The only exception is if an enemy weapon is the ONLY weapon available.
Ivy Mike
Member
Forgive the stupid question, but I have never actually compared the sounds of the two (even though I own one of each)
Wouldn't the 03 and the K98 sound VERY similar as they are both Mauser actions, fire similar sized rounds and have roughly the same length barrel?
Not that I'd take the K98 over the 03 in this situation (where you gonna get ammo) but I don't think you'd attract undue attention if a K98 was substituted for a 1903.
If it's the only thing available, you're already looking at a desparate situation anyway.
I'm changing my above answer though. You guys can have your silly garands or tommy-guns. I want the Enola Gay.
(my choice would still be Garand, but I'd sling an M3 over my back)
Wouldn't the 03 and the K98 sound VERY similar as they are both Mauser actions, fire similar sized rounds and have roughly the same length barrel?
Not that I'd take the K98 over the 03 in this situation (where you gonna get ammo) but I don't think you'd attract undue attention if a K98 was substituted for a 1903.
If it's the only thing available, you're already looking at a desparate situation anyway.
I'm changing my above answer though. You guys can have your silly garands or tommy-guns. I want the Enola Gay.
(my choice would still be Garand, but I'd sling an M3 over my back)
db_tanker
Member
Garand and a grease gun. 
'course...what with me being a DAT, I wouldn't mind an M-26 Pershing backing me up.
Darrell
'course...what with me being a DAT, I wouldn't mind an M-26 Pershing backing me up.
Darrell
Highland Ranger
Member
Re WWII FPSers - COD has the M1 carbine as very slightly less accurate than the Garand, with the Garand being more powerful (One shot, you go down in the game)
Not sure how true to life this is, but in COD not being able to top off the clip as you re-engage the enemy is a significant disadvantage.
I never use it as a primary weapon. (in the game )
Again, in the game, The MP40, is light and accurate. The MP44 is a killer, machine gun that is accurate pretty far out.
Not sure how common either were in the actual war.
Not sure how true to life this is, but in COD not being able to top off the clip as you re-engage the enemy is a significant disadvantage.
I never use it as a primary weapon. (in the game
)Again, in the game, The MP40, is light and accurate. The MP44 is a killer, machine gun that is accurate pretty far out.
Not sure how common either were in the actual war.
Matthew748
Member
I would also go with the M1. They are not as heavy as the BAR, have excellent iron sights, and are quick and easy to load.
Vern Humphrey
Member
With the M1 you don't have to negotiate a lot of tight corners -- you shoot through them. You can shoot through walls, ceilings, floors, put grenades through windows, penetrate stubborn walls with anti-tank grenades, and generally raise hell.
P95Carry
Moderator Emeritus
Clean - I am open to correction here but IIRC the M1 carbine is attributed with an ME equating to a 44 mag!!
Vern Humphrey
Member
ME isn't everything -- the carbine is not a manstopper. Which explains how my M2 carbine got wrapped around a tree.
ReadyontheRight
Member
M1 Garand:
-Turns cover into concealment
-Easier to keep up a rapid rate of fire with enblock clips compared to box magazines
-Attached bayonet and heavy stock make for a good last-ditch weapon
-Turns cover into concealment
-Easier to keep up a rapid rate of fire with enblock clips compared to box magazines
-Attached bayonet and heavy stock make for a good last-ditch weapon
jobu07
Contributing Member
But wouldn't the M1's carbine status, which thereby gives it more natural accuracy, negate a .357 out of a say... 6 inch barrel? Remember, don't trust a pistol (revolver) to do a rifle's job.
seeker_two
Member
I'd also pick the M1 Garand...
...but, if I could trade w/ one of my Marine buddies in the Pacific...
Too bad Johnson couldn't get an even break in the rifle trials...
...but, if I could trade w/ one of my Marine buddies in the Pacific...
- 10-round magazine...
- loads w/ loose rounds or M1903 Springfield clips...
- can top off before a fight...
- no "Dead Man's Ping" that the Krauts can hear.
Too bad Johnson couldn't get an even break in the rifle trials...
Vern Humphrey
Member
They'd be willing to trade.
The Johnson wasn't all that successfull in the muck, mire and crud of battle. As a recoil-operated weapon, it was quite sensitive to bad conditions.
And while topping off the magazine is a good feature, the slow reload told against the Johnson.
As for the "Dead Man's Ping," the dead man in question is the guy who hears the ping and gets up to charge, thinking the American is busy reloading.
1911 guy
Member
Garand For Me
M1, hands down. Ammo availability, training, accuracy, range, reliability, the list goes on.
M1, hands down. Ammo availability, training, accuracy, range, reliability, the list goes on.
- Status
