Author Topic: Garand vs Enfield vs Kar 98 (Read 4150 times)

GtoRA2 · « **Reply #30 on:** March 11, 2004, 03:47:04 PM »

Because the Allies where coming their to free them from the Nazi's?

Batz · « **Reply #31 on:** March 11, 2004, 03:49:17 PM »

Brit attacks on Vichy weren't to "free" them. Second maybe you should read the Armistice agreement made between Germany and Vichy.

They were free.

straffo · « **Reply #32 on:** March 11, 2004, 03:51:36 PM »

no problem for me (the bastard think it did get a bit on my nerve but nothing too violent

I resisted the temptation)

So far I'm done with the main being too tired to fly
(2 sorties 3 kills and 2 auger prooved I'm not in a good shape

)

As a side effect of the success of Torch the germand invaded the south part called "zone libre" and the little autonomie vichy had was gone since this moment Pétain was no more than a puppet (it's was a half a puppet before IMO)

I'll try to add a bit of my perception to this :

Quote

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 cant' disagree it's true. But they were soldier so they had to fight ,plus some of them didn't fought the German as they were training when France collapsed.
And all of a sudden they had an enemy : the allied so they fought...

That said lot of them joined the fight against the German and prooved they were good soldier ,certainly not with an impact comparable to what the US,Brit or Russian had on the outcome of the war but they done their part.

I'll try to post a book list tomorow no I'm going to bed

straffo · « **Reply #33 on:** March 11, 2004, 04:04:02 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Batz
Brit attacks on Vichy weren't to "free" them. Second maybe you should read the Armistice agreement made between Germany and Vichy.

They were free.

I must say I've not read the treaty , but when you say they were free I disagree it's something more complex than that.

There was (and still is btw) a sort of dogma in France called :"intégrité territoriale"/ territorial integrity ,it come from the period when Alscace and Lorraine were no more part of the French territory.

It's a dogma (or a myth if you prefer) comparable to the founding father for a American this explain the violance of the Algeria (it was not a colonie but a "département" and so see as a part of France).

That precised I don't think they were really free.

Now please stop posting when I'm working hard to translate my posts ... ifnot I won' be able to sleep

Batz · « **Reply #34 on:** March 11, 2004, 04:12:50 PM »

But they weren't under direct control of the Nazis either. (well not until Torch when the Nazis occupied all of France.)

Vichy was allowed to keep its Navy and its territories. Vichy may have and did it collaborate with the Nazis but thats not the same thing. Poland, the Baltic States etc were examples of nations directly under control of the Nazis.

GtoRA2 · « **Reply #35 on:** March 11, 2004, 04:19:03 PM »

Batz
The Brit attacks earlier are something else from Torch.

I do not see being free under the thread of ocupation as really being free.

Batz · « **Reply #36 on:** March 11, 2004, 04:37:10 PM »

You asked why would Vichy oppose allied landings; answer because the allies (Brits) had been actively attacking them.

Then read what Straffo said, what happened after Torch, the Nazis occupied Vichy.

So of the many reason why 2 could be that they were already angered by allied aggression and that they had to resist in order to prevent what’s left of their country being over run.

GtoRA2 · « **Reply #37 on:** March 11, 2004, 04:43:11 PM »

Batz
All their resistance did was kill of good men, their own and Brit and US, the nazis still ocupied. They new it was going to take place, that to me make them fighting back seem so sensless, either way the nazi ended up taking over the rest of france.

Boroda · « **Reply #38 on:** March 11, 2004, 04:46:00 PM »

Mosin 1891 three-line (0.3 inch) rifle.

The cartridge inherited from Berdan's rifle used in Middle Asian wars of the 1870s and Russo-Turkish war of 1877-78... The rib is still a reason why our ammo "zincs" are two times less capacity then nazi/NATO...

As for semiauto rifles - SVT. Worse then three-line rifle when bathed in mud, but reliable enough for Naval Infantry (Marines) who preferred it to other weapons.

MJHerman · « **Reply #39 on:** March 11, 2004, 04:49:23 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Dune
Couple of things:

The US's main rifle at the start of the war was the 1903A3 Springfield, a bolt-action rifle. Semi-auto's were new to the scene.

The UK couldn't afford to try and build a new rifle. They needed all the Lee's they could get.

The antiquated Lee was used by the British Army as a sniper weapon until the 80's.

The Mauser action is still state-of-the-art for bolt action weapons.

A fast rifleman with a Lee could shot almost as fast as a Garand.

I think, in all, compared to the Garand you dismiss the effectveness and quality of the Lee and Mauser without reason.

I don't know if a Lee could match the ROF of a Garand, but I do know that when the Germans first encountered the BEF in 1914 at Mons (I think), the British infantry were keeping up a sufficiently fast rate of fire from their Enfields that the Germans thought they were under machine gun fire.

Dune · « **Reply #40 on:** March 11, 2004, 04:54:50 PM »

That's why I said almost.

During WW1, British riflemen were taught the "Mad Minute" drill. They had to fire 15 aimed shots in 1 minute.

Batz · « **Reply #41 on:** March 11, 2004, 04:55:22 PM »

So? All the British attacks Vichy did was kill good men (1000 killed on 1 ship). War is ugly. The Nazis occupied Southern France to be in postion for a possible invasion of Southerrn France from North Africa. Torch forced the Nazis hand. Had it failed Southern France may not have been occupied.

Borroda from what I have read the SVT rifles weren't liked at all. I wasn't aware the Naval Infantry preferred it. Do you know if any Naval Infantry units were involved in liberating the Baltic Islands? If so could you list them?

-aper- · « **Reply #42 on:** March 11, 2004, 04:58:04 PM »

Russian army had both the bolt-action rifle Mosin and the semi-automatic rifle SVT-40 Tokarev
Btw SVT-40 was appreciated by german soldiers and some captured SVT's were used in combat by german troops.
Nevertheless the production of SVT-40 in Russia was discontinued in 1942.
There were several reasons for this decision but the main reason was that the average soldier equiped with SVT used to shoot fast but without good aiming wasting lots of ammunition while the soldier equiped with bolt-action Mosin rifle used to shoot slower but more accurately and never consumed such amount of ammunition. Considering the problems with ammunition in 1941-42 it was a main reason to stop the production of SVT-40.

Boroda · « **Reply #43 on:** March 11, 2004, 04:59:32 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by MJHerman
I don't know if a Lee could match the ROF of a Garand, but I do know that when the Germans first encountered the BEF in 1914 at Mons (I think), the British infantry were keeping up a sufficiently fast rate of fire from their Enfields that the Germans thought they were under machine gun fire.

In 1941 nazis thought they were under MG fire when they met units equiped with SVT/AVT rifles.

2 millions of SVTs were manufactured during the GPW. It was ironic that manufacturing of semiauto SVT took two times less machine/hours then bolt-action 1891/1930 rifle....

GtoRA2 · « **Reply #44 on:** March 11, 2004, 05:04:11 PM »

Batz
The Brits thought those ships may have been used by the Nazis, and would the french have been able or willing to stop them? They were already allies, mostly through blackmail. Those actions at least made sense, and may have stopped the ships from doing damage.

The french fighting back agaist the torch landings did nothing, it was a lose, lose, if they had welcomed the Allies with open arms the same thing would have taken place in southern france.

War is sensless, that is a fact, but that was more sensless the it had to be.