If you only had one weapon...

[ndicki]

That's about as subjective as you can get, too - depends where you are. M1 carbine ammo you can look for till you're blue in the face in, say, Northern Holland, Burma or Leningrad!

Also, the M1 carbine wasn't very good at actually killing people - didn't they find that out the hard way during the early part of the Korean War?

 

[the lancaster kicks ass]

that might be because of the grunt behind it though

 

[Matt308]

I suspect that if you counted the bodies that the 6,000,000 M1s has put in the ground you may find that statement would sound a little foolish. They say the same about the .223 (5.56x45 NATO). I wouldn't let anyone shoot at me with either. But your point is well taken.

It's WWII. If I only had one weapon at my disposal, I would want one that was handy. Easy to carry. Based upon my only having one weapon, I have to surmise that I am in less than an ideal situation. Desperate somehow. Only one weapon implies that my load out is only what I can carry. Thus, I want the lightest weight with the most massive amounts of firepower possible.

A 12lb+ submachine gun with a small sight radius is not going to be my choice.

I'll take the 5.5lb carbine and load up with extra ammo. 7lbs of weight difference is a LOT of ammo for the M1 Carbine. Absolutely accurate out to 200yds (take my word for it). Assuming that some desparation is coming into play based on above, 200yds range is all that you need when your primary goal is to get back to the supply lines to get multiple weapons, friendly fire support, and a commo link to call in doom upon your enemies with the big guns.

 

[ndicki]

I suspect that if you counted the bodies that the 6,000,000 M1s has put in the ground you may find that statement would sound a little foolish.

The US Army's statement, although I find it's reasonable. If you look at the physics, you cannot compare the .30 short with the NATO SS-109 5.56 round. Velocity, penetration, impact and all that.

Personally I still prefer an old fashioned 7.62 SLR/FN/R1/G3/CETME etc on the grounds that you can shoot through walls, trees etc with it. But the weight argument is valid - I've tested!

So for WW2, I'll have a Sturmgewehr.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

I was not think about the Sturmgewehre and with all these valid points I am with ndicki on this.

 

[rochie]

ndicki is spot on ww2 the stg-44 after that the good old slr my favorite weapon that ive fired

 

[HealzDevo]

I am going to be stupid and say Pazerfaust as that is one killer weapon with lots of barrels. But no I think i'd prefer a flamethrower, as well as a STG-44 for when they get too close and I have to bail out. Oh, and don't forget the vodka and a fuel-pump so I can surround myself with a flaming wall of petrol and alcohol. Yes, that should keep the buggers out for a little while...

 

[ndicki]

Panzerfaust? Lots of barrels? If the figure following zero is lots, then I'll give it you!

 

[Matt308]

Understand that the M1carbine (110gr at 1900fps) is not the same ballistically as the 5.56x45mm (55-62grs at about 3200fps). But with the M1 carbine having about twice the kinetic energy of a .357mag, I don't think we're talking about a popgun either.

stg-44 gets the cool factor. But not the thumbs up for a long dreary march. Too damn heavy. And it aint shootin' thru no trees. Not even the .30-06 or .308 will do that unless the tree is a sapling and your target is right behind it. Tests have proven that virtually any small arms caliber will deflect significantly with even slight brush.

Perhaps we should refine our requirements. Example, one might choose a completely different weapon for fortified defensive positions with long fields of fire, versus one for solo or squad patrol, versus one for attacking a semi-fortified position. Too many variables. Thus my assumption that I must choose only one because of some dire circumstances that exist. I'd much rather pick the proper gear for the situation if that is my choice.

Give me a M-14 any day of the week if nothing else enters into the equation.

 

[ndicki]

Give me a M-14 any day of the week if nothing else enters into the equation.

The L1A1 SLR or R1 FN FAL are better!

 

[Matt308]

I own both. We'll agree to disagree.

 

[schwarzpanzer]

Can only be one thing; the Lee-Enfield! Any version will do, but I'd like the '18 inches of steel' sword-bayonet - if it is a desperate situation we are talking about?

I don't really rate the M1 Carbine, StG44 or 5.56mm NATO round too much, my reasons why should be known. There are plus points though; the M1 Carbine performed well against thinly clothed targets (Obviously excluding the Soviets in WW2), the StG44 was a good weapon and the 5.56 is light and readily available.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

I am going to be stupid and say Pazerfaust as that is one killer weapon with lots of barrels.

What are you talking about? The Panzerfaust was a recoiless gun not a rocket launcher and it had one barrel not many. It would have been useless against troops coming at you.

Below is a panzerfaust.

 

[rochie]

always liked the look of the M-14 but never got the chance to fire one would of been nice to compare it against L1A1

 

[Joe2]

BREN nout can beat it

 

[Vassili Zaitzev]

I would have to respond with an M-1 Garand. The rifle has been battle tested and rated on the military channel as one of the top 10 rifles and assualt rifles, it was rated better than the Stumgewher 44. I don't believe it was as heavy as the thompson, fired a good hard hitting .30 caliber round, and could be fitted with a grenade or a knife. Only problem with it though would be the small eight round clip and difficulty to reload mid-clip.

 

[HealzDevo]

Opps I meant the Fligerfaust... That is the one with the multiple barrels. Rumoured to have been tested in the Battle of Berlin against Russians...

 

[k9kiwi]

FN FAL.

And don't tell me it wasn't a WW2 weapon.

Designed in belgium prior to ww2 the plans/drawings were smuggled out to the British.

One reason for it not being produced was the inordinate amount of retraining tactcal decisions that would have been needed at war.

Yup .308 or .303 cal FN FAL, go kick some.

Called the SLR in later years.

 

[Joe2]

For me=LOADS of smoke gernades. that way I could be a coward and run away


If not, the Bren gun. Like i said before, nothing can beat it.

 

[ndicki]

Good piece of kit, the Bren. Her Majesty lent me one of hers for a while.