TWO (2) Gen. Patton's/M1 Garand

C

Clancy

Regular
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Location
N. Catasauqua, Pa.
Gentlemen,

Here are the TWO (2) endorsements from GEN. PATTON on the M1 Garand Rifle.
Just thought that you might find them of interest.

5b86361a.jpg







9abca59b.jpg

So guys what do you think about this file??
Sorry about the post again I am dealing with old microfilm.

garandm1rifle@rcn.com
I hope you enjoy.

http://www.garandm1rifle.com

If you need a larger copy just email me.
Thanks again for taking the time and effort to read this data.
Clancy
PS I do need HITS on my TWO sites. I have to ask or the sites will go down. I can only ask for this on a few sites I post to
 
if he thought the sherman was the best tank, he never ran into the t-34- other than that, i tend to agree on most points
 
t-star said:
if he thought the sherman was the best tank, he never ran into the t-34- other than that, i tend to agree on most points
Click to expand...
Funny I was thinking Tiger, but same thought.

I dunno, he was very Bully on US kit, good for him, very Patriotic, but it doesn't necessarily hold much sway.
 
Best rifle - arguable. Best handgun? Doubtful (ie, the Hi-Power is likely a better combat gun than the GI 1911A1). Tank? No frickin way.
 
He meant is was the best massed produced item under the circumstances. Quantity has a quality of its own and so on.
Anyway even if he thought it wasn't much good he would still have sung its praises in his morale-boosting manner.
Good to see the letter, thanks for posting.
 
Dosing said:
Funny I was thinking Tiger, but same thought.

I dunno, he was very Bully on US kit, good for him, very Patriotic, but it doesn't necessarily hold much sway.
Click to expand...
if i remember correctly, the tigers had trouble firing on the run- when the t34 went to 85mm gun, it set the standard for tanks - it was originally an american system (christie)that was rejected-
 
You guys sound like you would enjoy the book "Weapons of Destruction - Ranking the World's Best Land Weapons of WW2" by Robert A. Slayton. I bought the book for my young son. I got so interested in it when I was browsing it I ended up reading it. It's an easy and enjoyable read, comparing Tigers, Panthers, Shermans, T34, Garand, Mg42, Bren, LeeEnfield,K98, etc. I think it was like $25 at Chapters. Anyways, I nice read.
 
25 bucks buys almost a thousand primers, about a hundred jacket bullets, or a pound of powder- i don't read much
 
Patton was also VERY aware that it was a war of attrition. He was full of s**t. He would have preferred it if the war never ended. He didn't want better tanks. He wanted soldiers to be sacrificed at will to win his battles. Is there any doubt that Montgomery had no use for Patton's "tactics"? Montgomery did his best to save every man he could, and he did. In this "war of attrition" the Brits were severely outnumbered on the ground and in the air and yet they refused to lose. It's all good and fine that the U.S. joined the war after almost 5 years of the U.K. and Canada, and the Polish fighter pilots, and a scraping of other allies holding off the bad guys from invading that little chain of islands. But, the facts are obvious. Patton was willing to kill a great many Americans to gain his victories and be the hero. His disdain for Montgomery makes sense, since Monty was a great strategist who had already beaten Rommel. Patton wouldn't have beaten Rommel. Rommel was smart. Monty was smart. Patton was an idiot.

edit: The M-1 was (is) a great rifle. It was designed by a Canadian as was the Lee-Enfield, so go figure! :D
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom