Author Topic: What the heck is this??? (Read 1962 times)

lasersailor184 · « **Reply #30 on:** April 22, 2005, 03:10:45 PM »

Wow Humble, you're so far gone it is even worth arguing with you upon this.

Come back to this conversation after you've spent time reading up on these weapons and those who actually used them.

GScholz · « **Reply #31 on:** April 22, 2005, 03:51:40 PM »

Lasersailor, I'm afraid I'm going to have to take Mr. Williams word over yours. He's a world-renowned author and expert on automatic firearms ... you're a dude on the intardnet. No offence.

"Anthony G Williams is a military technology historian principally interested in guns and ammunition and especially in ammunition for automatic weapons. He is a member of the International Ammunition Association and the European Cartridge Research Association (ECRA) and is the Editor of ECRA's monthly bulletin The Cartridge Researcher.

Tony has authored and co-authored many magazine articles and several books, including Assault Rifle: The Development of the Modern Military Rifle and its Ammunition (with Maxim Popenker); the three-volume series Flying Guns: Development of Aircraft Guns, Ammunition and Installations (with Emmanuel Gustin); and Rapid Fire: The Development of Automatic Cannon, Heavy Machine Guns and their Ammunition for Armies, Navies and Air Forces."

http://jah.janes.com/public/jah/editorial_team.shtml

He is also a member of this board, so perhaps you should ask him in person?

Angus · « **Reply #32 on:** April 22, 2005, 04:22:33 PM »

OUR Tony Williams?!?!?!?!!?!?!

Now this board has some gravity

GScholz · « **Reply #33 on:** April 22, 2005, 04:34:43 PM »

Klum25th · « **Reply #34 on:** April 22, 2005, 05:33:36 PM »

Man my post became a gun fight.

humble · « **Reply #35 on:** April 22, 2005, 05:48:32 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by lasersailor184
Wow Humble, you're so far gone it is even worth arguing with you upon this.

Come back to this conversation after you've spent time reading up on these weapons and those who actually used them.

And you of course are an expert...

I asked you to name a single front line combat unit that was issued the M-1 carbine as a primary weapon.....

Still waiting.....

I asked you for any source that argues the kar43 as an inferior weapon.

Still waiting.....

I pointed out that you were mistaken in believing that the g41 was a copy of the SVT 40....it simply isnt.

Your clearly wrong about the stg-44. This gun is widely recognized as the catalyst for development of the AK-47 which in turn is the "source" of all modern assault rifles.

So your an expert....

lasersailor184 · « **Reply #36 on:** April 22, 2005, 08:34:24 PM »

I'll answer just one of your questions, just to begin to show you how wrong you are.

US Army Divisions using the M1 Carbine as a primary weapon.

1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th, 10th mtn., 24th, 25th, NG 26th, NG 27th, NG 28th - 45th, 63rd, 65th, 66th, 69th, 70th, 71st, 75th, 76th, 77th, 78th, 79th, 80th, 81st, 83rd, 84th, 85th, 86th, 87th, 88th, 89th, 90th, 91st, 92nd, 93rd, 94th, 95th, 96th, 97th, 98th, 99th, 100th, 102nd, 103rd, 104th, 106th, Americal, 11th Airborne, 13th Airborne, 17th Airborne, 82nd Airborne, 101st Airborne, 555th Parachute Battalion, 1st Cavalry, 2nd Cavalry.

Not enough? How about the marines that were issued the M1 Carbine?

Please, don't waste my time. I was serious when I said you need to hit the books. You don't even have the mental power to read over this page...

humble · « **Reply #37 on:** April 22, 2005, 09:09:30 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by lasersailor184
I'll answer just one of your questions, just to begin to show you how wrong you are.

US Army Divisions using the M1 Carbine as a primary weapon.

1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th, 10th mtn., 24th, 25th, NG 26th, NG 27th, NG 28th - 45th, 63rd, 65th, 66th, 69th, 70th, 71st, 75th, 76th, 77th, 78th, 79th, 80th, 81st, 83rd, 84th, 85th, 86th, 87th, 88th, 89th, 90th, 91st, 92nd, 93rd, 94th, 95th, 96th, 97th, 98th, 99th, 100th, 102nd, 103rd, 104th, 106th, Americal, 11th Airborne, 13th Airborne, 17th Airborne, 82nd Airborne, 101st Airborne, 555th Parachute Battalion, 1st Cavalry, 2nd Cavalry.

Not enough? How about the marines that were issued the M1 Carbine?

Please, don't waste my time. I was serious when I said you need to hit the books.

Hmm...the marines were the raiders....otherwise they wouldnt touch em....they didnt even want the garland.

The airborne cav and tankers used it as did numerous support troops....I'm unaware of a single front line combat unit that was issued M-1's in place of BAR's Garlands Tompsons etc....

I'm sure the quartermasters cooks & gravediggers had em....but no line infantry company would have them as part of the standard infantry squad.

Pretty typical of what I find here from the "experts"....

So we'll take the 1st example...the Big red....

It was composed of 3 infantry regiments....16th, 18th & 26th

It also had the 5th, 7th, 32nd & 33rd field artillery battalions

1 engineer combat battalion, 1st Quartermaster Company, 1st recon troop and so on....they made 6 million of the M-1's since such a large % of an American combat division is actually "support troops"....

Flat out...the M-1 was not a standard issue infantry weapon for the line companies of the combat regiments of the Big Red or any other Infantry Division (non specialized) of the US Army. It was a choice for senior NCO's and officers within those units as I stated originally.

lasersailor184 · « **Reply #38 on:** April 22, 2005, 09:29:33 PM »

Wow. Is it even worth it for me to say it again?

Back on the ignorance list you go again. Err, I meant ignore list. You should be proud. Not even any of the liberals in the O Club graced my ignore list. You're the first.

Stupid conscience. Making me feel all bad for abruptly ending it like that. How about this? You'll stay on my ignore list. But send me a PM after you read up on what actually happened and we'll continue this discussion.

humble · « **Reply #39 on:** April 22, 2005, 10:28:38 PM »

.....

Once again a member of the "intellectual elite" tucks tail and runs. It's amazing how quickly the armchair idiots hide behind their stupidity instead of simply proving their point.....whoops....

They cant....can they. Lets see, the United States army is going to equip a front line infantry manuever battalion with a carbine with limited range and hitting power and give the cooks the garlands:)

So in summary.....

The STG-44 was the 1st widely deployed assualt rifle in the world.

The M-1 carbine was an outstanding weapon issued to support troops who benifited from its light weight, low recoil and ease of use....it was not however issued to anyone whose primary mission was to close with and engage the enemy as an infantryman (except for senior NCO's & Officers)....it was however NOT an infantry assualt weapon.

Details on the M-1

The weapon was designed in response to offer non-front line troops a better weapon than a pistol in terms of range and hitting power, but without the cost or weight of a full power weapon. Initially the weapon was going to be automatic-fire, but this feature was dropped on the production version. The feature would be added again on the M2 Carbine, a automatically firing M1 (select fire). The weapon was developed in part due to observations of the Nazi Germany blitzkrieg where Nazi troops would quickly and deeply penetrate or bypass an opponent's front lines using mechanized infantry assisted by tanks and airplanes. Facing an enemy that used this tactical approach meant that support and rear-echelon troops could come under direct attack by front line forces. In anticipation for this possibility, this carbine was commissioned to supply an adequate defensive weapon to those troops.

The weapon was also issued to some regular troops, particularly officers, drivers and radio operators, since it was lighter and less unwieldy than the M1 Garand rifle, and was still considered suitable for shorter range combat

The M1 Carbine, originally intended only for non front line troops, ended up being very popular with them. The weapon's individual round had less hitting power than the larger rounds, but it didn't matter because it was much easier to get multiple hits, due to its high practical rate of fire and accuracy with its effective range. Its range was much shorter than the full-power rifle's, but urban and woodland combat involved shorter distances. There was some criticism of its accuracy at longer range and and the power of a individual round, but this was the price to be paid for a weapon prized for its light weight, compactness, superior ergonomics, low recoil, and high rate of manual fire.

I've got no issue with presenting both sides of an issue factually. Many "bootleg" M-1's maded it to frontline service...especially at the NCO level. However the M-1 was never issued to any "manuever element" of a US infantry Division as a primary weapon. In fact its use as a replacement for the garland was widely discouraged for anyone not in a leadership or scout role.

It was issued to paratroopers, mountain troops and other specialized troops however....

hawker238 · « **Reply #40 on:** April 23, 2005, 09:44:06 AM »

john9001 · « **Reply #41 on:** April 23, 2005, 11:01:08 AM »

what the hell is a "garland"?

Schaden · « **Reply #42 on:** April 23, 2005, 11:16:16 AM »

It's a thing that you hang around your neck or a pill popping singer, also famous make of rifle (the best evar) if you can't spell.

humble · « **Reply #43 on:** April 23, 2005, 11:55:11 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Schaden
It's a thing that you hang around your neck or a pill popping singer, also famous make of rifle (the best evar) if you can't spell.

Hmmm....it's "ever"...and no it isn't the "best evar" however it was a quantum leap at the time and is still a fine weapon.

MiloMorai · « **Reply #44 on:** April 23, 2005, 12:17:01 PM »

A Judy Garland is a fine weapon.