So, were all USA WWII small arms total shit?
>Thompson is 10 lbs and like 10 times more costly than any other smg
>BAR was like 20 lbs, had really shitty mags, and weren't belt fed
>M1 carbine used an anemic round
(actually these were pretty decent for what they were and light, but they are still a pistol caliber carbine (.30 carbine has the power of a hot .357)
>Garands were inaccurate and easy to malfunction due to the action
(still better than the bolt actions anyone else was using and could still be used manually, just the action is shit by today's standards).
>1911 only held 7 rounds and the high power is a much better gun
>.45 acp revolvers suck because clips
>1903A3 I guess is fine what what it is, IE a mouser, but the 1917 is a better rifle.
>grease gun is just a piece of shit in general
Not sure how either of the Browning belt fed .30 cals stacked up vs the other belt feds at the time. People usually say he MG34 and MG42 are great but both ate a ton of ammo and the tripod heavy as fuck. I would assume all the water cooled MGs are all great (1917 browning, vickers, ect.) but heavy so it would really be how the 1919 compares to the German, Russian, and Japanese MGs.
Also I was looking at this
>http://www.101airborneww2.com/equipment.html
It says that paratroopers carried a mix of ball, ap, and tracers. How would they be like dutch loaded or would the soldiers have to keep track of clips or what?
>>29571418
M2 browning didnt
>>29571418
I see this is a thinly veiled political thread.
>>29571418
I don't understand why anyone used the BAR, or why it was so popular with gangsters.
This is now a Viper thread
>>29571481
Agreed, this thread is gay as fuck.
>>29571475
Because there were a fuck ton of them.
>>29571475
The 1918 BAR was awesome for pre WWII. They were 16 lbs that could shoot AP 30-06 rounds full auto and the monitor was 13lbs with an 18 inch barrel so it was even better.
The version of the BAR fielded in WWII was 24 lbs because they put a ton of bullshit on it.
>>29571418
>Garands were inaccurate and easy to malfunction due to the action
>grease gun is just a piece of shit in general
Both of these are objectively wrong.
Most of the rest are accounted by the fact that it was 1941, and almost everything was reasonably comparable to other designs.
>>29571418
Maybe if you're comparing them to modern small arms developed 70+ years after WWII ended.
>>29571418
>garands
>inaccurate
As compared to what? They are used for target shooting, that alone is pretty good for a military rifle. I have never heard of garands being inaccurate
>>29571418
>Thompson is 10lbs
10lbs of fuck you up
>BAR was 20lbs
People back then weren't pussies
>M1 Carbine used an anemic round
It was meant to replace the 1911, but it served well for artillery men, tankers and it did quite well in urban combat
>Garands were inaccurate
2.5 MOA for 1941 is pretty fucking accurate
>easy to malfunction due to the action
If properly maintained they were extremely reliable. Of course a rifle that is 80 years old is going to seem outdated by todays standards.
>1911 only held 7 rounds and the hi power is a much better gun
Too bad the Hi Power, Saive, and FN got cucked by the Germans and only fielded a few on either side of the conflict.
>.45 Revolvers suck because clips
Someones never used half moon clips before
>grease gun is a piece of shit in general
Wrong again faggot.
>not sure how the browning .30's stacked up
GOAT
,>>29571475
>reliable
>tough
>accurate (if finicky)
>beeg boolit
Now go away
>>29571418
A lot of the problems stem from the US innovating early on and sticking to older designs from WW1 that they didn't want to replace or modernize. They were very good designs, but better options were becoming available.
>Thompson
The really cheap stamped steel SMGs didn't really become in vouge until the war had actually started. As far as Americans were concerned, the role was secondary to the M1s so a token effort was made to cheapen it but fully phasing out the platform was a low priority since not that many were even being used.
They did adopt the Reising as a supplemental weapon for the Marines and those did see action, but were not quite up to the task of being a military weapon.
Finally they adopted the M3 and that thing WAS stupid cheap. It worked too, still being used in some 3rd world Pacific shitholes where we dumped them.
Also, pretty much all WW2 SMGs weighed in around 7-10 pounds. PPSh, Suomi and eve the STEN weren't that light because of the sheer bolt mass needed to make then work. This problem was amplified by the .45ACP cartridge which needed even more bolt mass.
>BAR
It served a stopgap role where it didn't need to be belt-fed. 20 pounds isn't too far off for a support weapon with a heavy barrel. The magazine system was refined a little but was a huge shortcoming. Something should have been done to make it better at being both light and a machine gun. But again, like the Thompson we're looking at token efforts between WW1 and 2.
>M1 carbine.
Was fine. It did exactly what it was designed to do.
>1911
Was also fine. Everyone was using 6-8 shot pistols at the time. HP proved to be a little more future-proof because the trend would go to wonder-nines later on, but America was using the .45ACP cartridge. They could have tried upgrading it to a double-stack, but it would have taken away from it's otherwise excellent handling characteristics.
>.45ACP revolvers suck
Moon clips are fine. It was more of a stopgap measure anyway.
>>29571634
Oh and finally.
>M1
>Inaccurate
>Unreliable
Oh sure, compared to Cold War Era firearms it is. By 1930s-40s standards nothing else could come close. Both the SVT-40 and the G43 (not even going to compare the G41) were miles behind in both categories. SVT was the closest of the two and it had to be issued to special units with the training necessary to keep them working, snipers too only used them for short-range shooting since they would constantly shift their zero. They were still loved and carried by many, both the Finns and Germans actively snatched up any that they could recover from battlefields but the M1 was in a completely different league.
Every US rifleman had 8 rounds on tap that would fly near-as-makes-no-difference just as accurately and hit just as hard as an 8mm from a Mauser. In fact, thanks to the use of aperture sights he could get that gun on target faster and hit more often at all ranges, close and small. And yes, if you pour mud directly into the action it'll jam, but as long as you were to say wipe it off or not be completely retarded it would work just fine.
This gave every US rifleman a large degree of capability and confidence that absolutely no one else had. Best part is that unlike the other SLRs, it was in fact issued to just about everyone. Early on there were 1903s being used in the Pacific, but the M1 accounted for 90%+ of the rifles used which is a whole lot better than the Russians ever did with the SVT-40.
Literally the only problem with the M1 and subsequently the M14 was that they couldn't manufacture them fast enough. Fuckers were expensive. After the war, yes, MAS-49 and FN-49 topped it but that's how innovation works. Comparing the G3 or FAL to an M14 is a bit more fair because they were actually contemporaries, but if you're telling me that you'd unironically pick something over an M1 to carry as a battle rifle in WW2 I'm telling you that you are clueless.
>>29571418
Really the americans only saving grace firearms wise is the m2, everyone else did it better
>>29571778
You don't think a K98 is more reliable?
also for actual battlefield rates of fire was the M1 that much faster than the K98 or Enfield? It wasn't like soldiers were just mag dumping as fast as possible
>>29571893
Look up volume of fire as it pertains to battlefield tactics and get back to me.
>>29571893
Sure it's more reliable, but if you stuff fistfuls of mud into the open action it'll bind up as well and working the bolt will become a real freaking workout.
In other words, just because Ian rolled around in the mud with an M1 doesn't mean it sucks. He was just trying to prove that it wasn't as rock-reliable and indestructible as fuddlore would have you believe. Fudds think you can do that shit with M1s and to be realistic, yes it does have limitations.
As for ROF. Practically speaking the difference in ammunition fired isn't that high. However, what having an SLR means is that you now have the OPTION to shoot 4-5x as fast as the other guy. You won't be doing it all that often perhaps, but if you go from fighting innawoods to fighting innacity you'll start to appreciate being able to magdump into Fritz after kicking a door down while he's trying to work the bolt.
It all comes down to how confident the weapon will make you feel. Play this scenario out in your head. There's 4-5 men in a building across the street with bolt-actions that want to kill you. Your job is to go in there to kill them. Which rifle do you feel more confident using? An M1? An SMLE? An SVT-40? Run the same scenario moving through hedgerows or in the Battle of the Bulge. Even when there ARE long-range engagements I'd feel a lot more confident in being able to actually pursue, lay suppressing fire, maneuver and kill the enemy with the M1 than with any rifle in use at the time.
I have shot that gun before, I've shot and owned Mausers and Mosins. I've shot an SVT (that didn't work too well, which is actually par for the course, they are very finicky).
>>29571418
B8 thread
>>29571418
learn2spell
>>29571418
Wow, I haven't seen a thread this wrong since the post-sandy vag libcuck spam.
Just picking at one: The M1 carbine had problems, being anemic wasn't one.
