Author Topic: Garand vs Enfield vs Kar 98 (Read 4824 times)

SunTracker · « **Reply #15 on:** March 11, 2004, 02:26:33 PM »

How many seconds does it take to reload Garand Laz?

GtoRA2 · « **Reply #16 on:** March 11, 2004, 02:32:24 PM »

Sun,
I am pretty slow reloading mine but I can do it prolly in under 5. I am sure it can be done faster by someone who really know it.

lasersailor184 · « **Reply #17 on:** March 11, 2004, 02:34:01 PM »

Lol, 5 seconds on a slow day.

And that includes removing it from your bandolier.

straffo · « **Reply #18 on:** March 11, 2004, 02:35:44 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by lasersailor184
Yeah, the germans made the G43. But it was one of the worst excuses for a rifle ever. It's predecessory, the G41 would often break from the force of the bullets.

No contest, garand wins.

The french? I don't believe the french were ever in the pacific.

My god how do you learn history in the US ????

It's a part of YOUR history and you even had an CVL-24 named USS Belleau Wood during WWII and still have a Belleau wood ship (type unknown to me)

GtoRA2 · « **Reply #19 on:** March 11, 2004, 02:35:51 PM »

LOL well their you have it. I do not get to shoot it much so I am slow. It is very easy to reload though.

lasersailor184 · « **Reply #20 on:** March 11, 2004, 02:37:28 PM »

I'm sorry Straffo, I should have said the French didn't accomplish much in the pacific because of what F*** ups they are...

GtoRA2 · « **Reply #21 on:** March 11, 2004, 02:37:36 PM »

straffo
I do not think they teach much about the battles of WW1 in our history classes.

I read about them in a Marine Corps history book.

from what I remeber of school the barely cover the wars...

Wars are bad emmkay?

lazs2 · « **Reply #22 on:** March 11, 2004, 02:38:12 PM »

when I do it takes a while cause I hold the bolt back while inserting the "clip" cause I am a wuss. Not long tho... lower gun, hold back bolt slightly and jam clip home... release bolt and go to it again. Watched guys do it a lot faster than I could jam a mag into the bottom of my mini 14.

It is also hard to describe but it is very "positive" very solid.. the rails the clip slides into are solid and easy to see/feel. very positive and confidence inspiring.

guys were smaller in WWII and some had never fired a rifle. A full powered .303 or mauser round from a bolt action rifle with a steel butt plate and a stock that may not fit (probly didn't) you... well... it is painful after a very few rounds... The Garrand is not. If you are hurt (even slightly) every time you fire you won't be accurate.

I also have a mint SMLE and it is not near as accurate as the Garrand.

lazs

lasersailor184 · « **Reply #23 on:** March 11, 2004, 02:40:10 PM »

That was the trick Lazs. Most americans grew up in the back woods shooting .22's at squirrels.

Ww2 rolled around and they said here's a gun, go for the germans / japs.

Most germans or Japanese hadn't ever fired or fired a lot of guns before. Thus they were at a disadvantage from the start.

straffo · « **Reply #24 on:** March 11, 2004, 02:43:29 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by GtoRA2
Laser
You are wrong on both counts. I was asking gunslinger about the battle of below woods in WW1 though the engagement I am thinking of was right before that I think

The french where in french indochina durring WW2, the basicaly surrendered to the japanese. They where also know to turn in US and allies personal to the Japanese to help them. So they where there, but not really on our side... hehe

Kind like the Vichy french bastards in North Africa, who killed over 5000 US and British, when we invaded, but not a single german in the same time frame.

Obviously you need an history course too.

GtoRA2 · « **Reply #25 on:** March 11, 2004, 02:48:25 PM »

I may be wrong on the French in the pacific straffo, I have not read much about it other then US service men who escaped from the Philipines were turned into the japanese by the french in french info china.

But I am not wrong about the Vichy in north africa, go look it up. I read a very interesting book on it not to long ago. It suprised me they fought as hard as they did in some of the places.

Dune · « **Reply #26 on:** March 11, 2004, 02:52:22 PM »

Don't forget that both the Lee's and the Mausers used stripper clips, which sped up the loading significantly.

I would say that both the 1903 (and A3) and the Mauser are more accurate rifles than the Lee. However the Lee-Enfield's bolt is faster than the other two. It's one of the fastest-cyclying bolt actions made.

I have a very nice No. 4 Mk 1 and I'm borrowing my dad's Garand right now.

Also, the K98's 7.92mm or "8mm" Mauser cartridge wasn't rimmed. It was rimless like the .30-06.

straffo · « **Reply #27 on:** March 11, 2004, 03:02:01 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by GtoRA2
I may be wrong on the French in the pacific straffo, I have not read much about it other then US service men who escaped from the Philipines were turned into the japanese by the french in french info china.

But I am not wrong about the Vichy in north africa, go look it up. I read a very interesting book on it not to long ago. It suprised me they fought as hard as they did in some of the places.

I should have made a more complete post.

In fact the version you expose is over simplified (so was my post...).

I won't negate that the french turned US/UK men to the Japaneses it's true and it's a shame it's just quite uncomplete to pretend they were just evil and doing that just because they were actively collaborating with the Japanese.
It's not in any way comparable to what happened in France in the same time frame.
It's late here and I want to have fun in the MA so I'll not do a 4 page long digression (plus it remind me I've a great uncle who was decapited by the Japanese after having both legs tired by a grenade

)

Concerning Vichy soldier you have to take into account Mers El Kébir it influed heavilly on their behaviour and explain why it's mainly the American who made combat against them in N Afrika.
Sending the Brit would have ended in a more violent carnage.

I'll try to point you some book about those events (provided I can find the english version of my French book)

GtoRA2 · « **Reply #28 on:** March 11, 2004, 03:18:15 PM »

Straffo,
Though I find it disdainfull they fought us like they did in north africa, I understand why. Part of it was the south of France was still under "French" controll and they did not want the Nazis to ocupie it if it looked they just gave up. I can understand that, but it does not make alot of sense. It has been a months sine I read the book and there was ALOT more to it then that and I understand that.

Some of the Brit ships used US flags and I think some Brit soldiers fought in US uniforms because of the some of the Brit/French issues.

It just seemed odd that to me the french fought as hard as they did in some places, because we where working towards a goal they had as well....

I prolly went overboard on the bastards thing, but they did kill over 5000 US and british men.
I am going to go back and edit my post, I went overboard and I apologise.

I would be interested in what you can find in the books or the Names in the english version.... So i can purchase them

Batz · « **Reply #29 on:** March 11, 2004, 03:30:55 PM »

The Brits attacked the Vichy fleet at Oran on July 1 1940. In fact there are are number of times when the Brits attacked Vichy-French colonies:

Quote

The United Kingdom viewed the Vichy government with suspicion after severing diplomatic relations. In the armistice terms with Germany, the Vichy regime had been allowed to keep control of the French Navy, the Marine Nationale and it was pledged that it would never fall into the hands of Germany. However, this was not enough for the Churchill government. French ships in British ports were seized by the Royal Navy. The French squadron at Alexandria under Admiral Godfroy was effectively interned after an agreement was reached with Admiral Cunningham, commander of the Mediterranean Fleet.

However, there were still French naval ships under French control. A large squadron was in port at Mers El Kébir harbour near Oran. Vice Admiral Sommerville with Force H under his command was instructed to deal with the situation in July 1940. Various terms were offered to the French squadron, but all were rejected. Consequently, Force H opened fire on the French ships. Over 1,000 French sailors died when an old French battleship blew up in the attack. The incident provoked a great deal of resentment and hatred within the Marine Nationale towards the UK. Further action was taken against French naval forces at Dakar in Senegal. These attacks were beaten off and the British forces had to retreat.

The next flashpoint between Britain and Vichy came in June 1941. A revolt in Iraq had just been put down by British forces. Luftwaffe aircraft intervened in the fighting in small numbers, and they staged through the French colony of Syria. That put Syria on the radar as a threat to British interests in the Middle East. Consequently the Australian Army and allied forces invaded Syria and Lebanon, capturing Damascus on June 17.

One other major operation against Vichy French territory took place using British forces. It was feared that Japanese forces might use Madagascar as a base, and thus cripple British trade and communications in the Indian Ocean. As a result, Madagascar was invaded by British forces in 1942. It fell relatively quickly, but the operation is often viewed as an unnecessary diversion of British naval resources away from more vital theatres of operation.

Why shouldn't Vichy-French fight an invasion of its territory?