Five of the best WW2 weapons,
- Thread starter TGC
- Start date
I would argue that the reloading method wasted more ammo with the Garand. Which logistically meant you needed more ammo since there was a fair amount of waste. In the Germans case running out of ammo against a Russian attack was a very real possibility. Especially with the Russian doctrine of attacking when the numbers were 5 to 1 against the enemy.
Any lull in the action and you'll want to reload/top off. You're not going to sit around with 1 or 2 rounds left. A mag fed system allowed you to easily do this. With the Garand the fastest way was to fire off the remaining rounds. and put in the new clip. Yes there were other ways to reload but this was the fastest.
From Wikipedia: "In battle, the manual of arms called for the rifle to be fired until empty, and then recharged quickly. Due to the well-developed logistical system of the U.S. military at the time, this wastage of ammunition was generally not critical, though this could change in the case of units that came under intense fire or were flanked or surrounded by enemy forces."
SVT40 Semi auto 7.62x54R unloaded weight 8.9 lbs. Note: 10 round detachable magazine
STG44 Full auto 8mm Kurtz unloaded weight 11.5 lbs Note: 30 round detachable magazine
Garand semi auto 30-06 unloaded weight 9.5 lbs Note: 8 round fixed magazine
Wikipedia "Wehrmacht studies had shown that most combat engagements occurred at less than 300 m with the majority within 200 m. Full-power rifle cartridges were excessive for the vast majority of uses for the average soldier."
Agreed. The only advantage of the Garand over the SVT40 was the length. Here the Garand had a clear advantage over the SVT40. Otherwise the SVT40 had a comparable cartridge, weighed about half a pound less, had a muzzle brake, and a 10 round detachable magazine.
Wikipedia "The Eastern Front was the largest and bloodiest theatre of World War II. It is generally accepted as being the deadliest conflict in human history, with over 30 million killed as a result[11]. It involved more land combat than all other World War II theatres combined. "
Well i see the lee enfield has taken third place and kicked the Mp 44 to forth, that was fast, so in a few days will take the final 3 andgo for the top rifle of ww2, givinging everone a last chance to vote, even if what you voted for in all the other polls never made it. wonder if theLee will hold third place, rrop or advance?
By reading the survey post I would assume this was to be based on the available "proven" firearms technology of World War Two. The mid to late war german firearms designs were in, some cases, largely experimental and were forced into production as simple stop gap measures. The primary german firearm at the time (98 mauser) Post war analysis indicate they had incredible potential and subsequently some of the design features were utilized/borrowed in other military firearms designs.
When making the comparisons against other rifles we need to do this from a 1940's military perspective. The best comparison would be against the Russian SVT-40. I would have to say the SVT-40 was as close as one could come to finding a serious rival to the Garand.
Remember, a lot of gun magazine writers compared the garand to current firearms designs and we, over the years, have taken these comparison and opinions as gospel truth. We are comparing 1940's firearms designs only, given the choices indicated in the pole.
The poll is an opinion pole and everyone will have another perspective to add I am sure. Thanks for your input, this makes for an interesting discussion.
Cheers
Last edited:
- Location
- Pile of Bones, SK
I would argue that the reloading method wasted more ammo with the Garand. Which logistically meant you needed more ammo since there was a fair amount of waste. In the Germans case running out of ammo against a Russian attack was a very real possibility. Especially with the Russian doctrine of attacking when the numbers were 5 to 1 against the enemy.
Any lull in the action and you'll want to reload/top off. You're not going to sit around with 1 or 2 rounds left. A mag fed system allowed you to easily do this. With the Garand the fastest way was to fire off the remaining rounds. and put in the new clip. Yes there were other ways to reload but this was the fastest.
From Wikipedia: "In battle, the manual of arms called for the rifle to be fired until empty, and then recharged quickly. Due to the well-developed logistical system of the U.S. military at the time, this wastage of ammunition was generally not critical, though this could change in the case of units that came under intense fire or were flanked or surrounded by enemy forces."
I see what you're saying. I will concede that the Garand could potentially be wasteful on ammo. However, the manual of arms is one thing; in general practice soldiers should whenever possible conserve ammo. While the US supply system was good, it still would have taken time to get replenished at the front lines. Nonetheless, it would be interesting to know what US troops generally did it this particular situation we're discussing. If there was any lull, I know I would be pocketing the extra round or two. I could also make the point again about the MP44 having a fun switch could potentially lead to some wastage of ammo, but I tend to believe the Germans were taught the same disciplines.
SVT40 Semi auto 7.62x54R unloaded weight 8.9 lbs. Note: 10 round detachable magazine
STG44 Full auto 8mm Kurtz unloaded weight 11.5 lbs Note: 30 round detachable magazine
Garand semi auto 30-06 unloaded weight 9.5 lbs Note: 8 round fixed magazine
Yep.
Wikipedia "Wehrmacht studies had shown that most combat engagements occurred at less than 300 m with the majority within 200 m. Full-power rifle cartridges were excessive for the vast majority of uses for the average soldier."
Is there such a thing as excessive in war?It's worth making note however that the US knew this as early as the 1920's. The Garand even started out as a .276 calibre rifle, but in the end the calibre changeover never got approved.
It's interesting that those range contact stats are still more or less true to this day.
Agreed. The only advantage of the Garand over the SVT40 was the length. Here the Garand had a clear advantage over the SVT40. Otherwise the SVT40 had a comparable cartridge, weighed about half a pound less, had a muzzle brake, and a 10 round detachable magazine.
I've read the Russians ran into significant stock cracking problems with the SVT40 due to the arctic birch used. It also apparently suffered from vertical shot dispersion and had cycling issues because of the rimmed cartridge. To what extents this hampered use in combat I don't know.
In concept the SVT may be ahead of the Garand, but I think the Garand is way more reliable. Granted the US had a few more years to work out the kinks in their semi auto rifle than the Russians did.
At least no one's said anything about the Garand's "ping" giving away troop positions or I would have gotten out the beatin' stick!
Last edited:
- Location
- Pile of Bones, SK
It might let someone know you're reloading, but you have friends. Has this actually ever been documented to be a concern by GI's? I've heard people say "troops would keep an empty enbloc to rap off the side of the rifle to try to trick the enemy into thinking they were empty". I say it's all more urban legend than anything.
It actually is a combination of both...the sounds of the ping would resonate on a totally flat unobstructed field...something like southern Alberta
On broken terrain the sounds would dissipate quickly. The sound actually disappears within 50 to 75 yards of the shooter depending on atmospheric conditions. The shooter is the one hearing the Ping the loudest and the assumption was, that everyone else on the battle field can also hear it.Take into consideration that on a front-line there is more then one soldier armed with either a fully loaded or partially loaded Garand. Even the japs wouldn't be foolish enough to move on a position based on a single "ping"..."Verify range to target with one ping, Vasilee...one ping only".
The Ping...makes good Hollywood...kind of like the 8 shot Colt single action.
Cheers
I have been asked about doing other polls, nam etc, nam would start with the basic ww2 stuff etc and move up to m14. m16, Sks ak etc, Civil was most rifles where the same really 44 cal up to 90 cal american made, copes for the south ,europen inports,
577 or 58 cal not much difference, smooth bore rifles or rifled.
577 or 58 cal not much difference, smooth bore rifles or rifled.
Meh, 2 of those firearms legacies live on as being great grandfathers of what we have today for machine guns and assault rifles...
MG42 and STG44, both of which would still be within acceptable parameters as a combat weapon even to this day.
The rest...not so much.
I think that speaks volumes on what would be considered "Best"
MG42 and STG44, both of which would still be within acceptable parameters as a combat weapon even to this day.
The rest...not so much.
I think that speaks volumes on what would be considered "Best"
MG-42's are plenty cool but I'm thinking that 1200 rpm and belt fed might not be the best choice for "personal" weapon.
If the dude(s) packin the ammo and spare barrels can't keep up you'd be up the creek in a big hurry.
If the dude(s) packin the ammo and spare barrels can't keep up you'd be up the creek in a big hurry.
Thats pretty much the same reason I voted for the Bren. Slower rate of fire and a readily changed barrel. Magazine fed and from my understanding the idea was to have as many troops as possible carrying 2 or more magazines for the Bren gunners.
It would be interesting to know which troops and weapons the German soldier would have chosen to face off with had he been given any choice in matter.
Hey maybe thats a whole new thread???
It would be interesting to know which troops and weapons the German soldier would have chosen to face off with had he been given any choice in matter.
Hey maybe thats a whole new thread???
