So was this thing the biggest piece of shit the Americans fielded in WW2??
>>28299982
Was that the one so bad, that one commander threw them into a river?
If so, then yeah. They're pretty bad.
Yes, my local class 3 dealer has one in his collection. We cannot make it run. He regrets his purchase.
>>28299982
Yes, I've shot one. Couldn't get through a mag without a stoppage
USS William D. Porter
I suggest looking up the story if you want an M. Night-tier story that actually happened. Fucking stupid funny.
>>28299982
The Rising is better as a police or civilian submachine gun. It just wasn't cut out enough for military use, and the marine's only adopted it because they desperately needed submachine guns.
>>28300142
sum it up.
>>28300152
Stip trying to sound smart you faggot mouth breather and go back to masturbating to Forgotten Weapons
>>28300265
>2015
>Not masturbating to based Ian
>>28300195
They almost killed the president by firing a real torpedo at the ship he was on. They tried signaling with flags, but signaled that they were going in reverse instead of torpedo somehow. They've got some other shenanigans that are really funny because of how incompetent the crew was.
>>28300265
It's the truth though. You don't have any experiences with Risings. Ian is right.
>>28300152
Better suited, but not a better option
I'd say the M3 Lee or the early airdropped torpedoes were the worst weapons fielded by the US.
The Lee had ineffective armor, astonishingly high profile, and an underpowered engine. While it was mostly to get the 75mm gun on a mobile platform, I can't help but think it would have been better to just mount them on trucks/ halftracks.
As for the torpedoes, it was a crapshoot if they worked. You could fight your way through Japanese fighters and AA fire, drop your torp, and then watch as it either sunk or hit the target without exploding.
If I have to pick a firearm then I say the BAR.
>>28300342
>I can't help but think it would have been better to just mount them on trucks/ halftracks
I don't think it was about protecting it from other tanks, I think it might have just been about protecting the crew from small arms fire.
>>28300142
No bully
>>28300342
I agree with the first two, but I'd argue there wasn't a huge amount wrong with the BAR itself, just that it was fielded in a role it was not originally intended to fill, especially when other guns could have taken its role, such as the 1919a6.
>>28300142
>Iowa was unhurt, but according to legend, trained her main guns on William D. Porter out of concern that the smaller ship might have been involved in some sort of assassination plot
This fucking shit.
>>28300195
>Accidentally shot a torpedo at a battleship carrying FDR during an exercise, entire crew was arrested (unique in naval history) while the USS Iowa aimed it's guns at her concerned that it was some kind of plot.
>Later sank by kamikaze which was shot down, sunk and floated under the ship before exploding,
>>28300362
The Lee was supposed to counter German tanks. Once the American realized that the M2 wouldn't cut it with it with its armor or 37mm gun. Unfortunately for them, they expected to face things like the Pz II and Pz IV with the short 75m.
But when they got to Africa the Americans and British encountered Pz IIIs with 50mm guns, Pz IVs with 75mm (And HEAT ammo), or even Pz VIs.
>>28300384
I just don't see what role it filled. It was supposed to be a light machine gun to support riflemen, but it had a low ammo capacity and couldn't be reloaded as quickly as something like the Bren. Plus it was heavy when it was first made, and then made even heavier after WW1. As you said, there was better options for the role it was supposed to fill.
>>28300142
The funny thing is that its class is still in active service.
>>28300342
At the time the Lee first deployed it was sufficient. Its armor was enough at the time to cope with the 75mm howitzers on PZIV's but yes AT guns both 75mm and 88mm killed them dead. Those same guns also killed Shermans quite well though too.
>>28300531
According to the all knowing Wikipedia, none of the Fletcher's are still in active service with Mexico retiring theirs years ago. The museum ships as far as I can tell aren't modernized enough to be able to pull out of retirement like the Iowa
>>28300265
>he doesn't pull the goalie to based ian
>>28299982
george patton
USS William D porter
If /k/ was in the US Navy during WW2
>>28300342
>The Lee had ineffective armor,
Except at the time it was introduced and theater it was used in, it was tough enough to let it shit all over German tanks.
>>28300265
What do you mean, "go back to"? When did I stop?
