Discussion in 'Small Arms and Edged Weapons' started by schizuki, Apr 12, 2008.
What good is your semi Automatic rifle, if the firer cant hit anything?
They do have a point there, but to controversial, even a blind squirrel finds a nut now and then.
So you think the markmanship of the man has nothing to do with it, what does the gun matter if the guy cant shoot straight? Clearly YOU are the one who hasnt thought about it.
I would suggest you read more on combat effectiveness and the relevance of the differing doctrine of rifle training between the armies especially between the US and the German army before ranting on about which gun does what.
But to get you started, seeing as people go on about the M1 Garand, lets look at a few choice comments relating to the US Army in the ETO during 1944...
"in an average experienced infantry company only 15% of soldiers fired their weapons, while the best units under extreme, heavy comabt managed to produce fire from 25% of all soldiers." Taken from 'Men Against Fire'.
Lt. Colonel John Hentges, commander of 3rd Divisions 7th Infantry, summed up the view as to why soldiers did not shoot enough...
"Our greatest need in training is to get riflemen to fire their weapons. New men will not fire. This is primarily caused by not wanting to disclose their position and inability to see the enemy or something to aim at. I believe our policy of putting so much of our basic training on known distance ranges where men are cautioned so often on holding, squeezing and marking the target causes this".
A training memo from the 78th Division told its officers...
"new men must be told and re-indoctrinated that aggresive fire keeos the Germans pinned down and allows their own units to advance. Remind the soldiers that the M-1 and BAR throw alot of lead and the unit that keeps firing intelligently can always move on the battlefield".
"Units put too much faith in artillery firepower and often failed to generate enough fire with their own organic weapons. The performance of the individual soldier indicated other training weaknesses..." from 12th Army Group.
My comment was tongue in cheek... Yours was just rude.... So my hackles are up now.
So tell me why the training level of the man has nothing to do with combat performance on the battlefield, regardless of the weapons capability... Im all ears...
This thread is about rating the rifles not the riflemen. I don't care how good a shot the members of your platoon are if they are equipped with Brown Besses and the other guys are equipped with M-1's you are in trouble. In a larger since the mg's and even more important the artillery makes a bigger difference than the quality of the rifle but that also is outside the scope of ths thread.
The quality of soldiers belongs in another thread. Feel free to star up a thread on overall quality within armies, you might get some surprising answers.
As for accuracy; I really don't see the difference between the accuracy of a Garand and that of a Kar after you dump both of them in mud, clean them out with dirty equipment, then load them with military-grade ammo. Without a precision-made barrel and match-grade ammo, the accuracy difference under battlefield conditions is negligible.
A fairer comparison would be between the Garand and the Gewehr (spell-check). semi-auto vs. bolt action...no contest.
Jim, I am not sure if Kokalis is still writing for Soldier of Fortune or not, he also wrote for small arms review. its been years since I have read SOF. His book is well worth finding however. This thread has gotten a bit 'hot' for me so I will duck back into my foxhole and wait for the smoke to clear....
I have one of these rifles sitting in my gun cabinet. Can anybody tell me more about it?
Welcome! This is a pretty old thread so you may have some trouble getting responses, but I also have an arisaka in my gun cabinet that some of the forum members helped me learn more about awhile ago. My grandfather brought it back with him from the Phillipines after the war. The stock is VERY worn and the bore is in pretty bad shape. I have never fired it and don't really intend to since ammunition would be a bit expensive.
-By reading some of the articles posted here you can learn quite a bit about your arisaka. Judging from its condition and parts you can determine whether it was an early or late production model. Parts such as the wire stand or anti aircraft sights discussed in this thread are evidence of early production model. Other characteristics such as clumsy or non adjustable sights, poor woodwork, or a different bolt design are evidence of late production or 'last ditch' rifles.
-One common sign of these 'last ditch' rifles is a lack of threading on the thumb safety.
-If your rifle is like mine then it is not an early or late production model and has all the necessary working parts.
-Your rifle probably has the emperor's chrysanthemum symbol scratched off, if not this is a KEEPER.
Posting pictures should get you good feedback from some more knowledgeable members of the forum.
#1 - M1 Garand.
#2 - Lee-Enfield #4.
#3 - Kar98K. .
#4 - Arisaka Type 38 & 99.
Yea, just about right.
With "Secondary" main weapons made in large quantity (~400K units plus):
1. STG-44 Assault Rifle (German)
1. M1 Garand
2. G43 Semi-auto rifle (German)
3. SVT Semi-auto rifle (Soviet)
I can't think of many military scenario in which the sound of a clip being ejected would be a problem. In the middle of the terrific ding of battle with shellfire and machine gun bursts, you would be deaf pretty soon.
Can't think of any practical advantage Mauser 98 had over Garand at long range either. The Garand was more then accurate enough out to 300 meters. Beyond that range, trading rifle fire--just about the most undeadly military weapon in an army except the pistol--for exposition of one's position seems unwise.
I'm not a shooter, but I'd like to ask...how awkward would shooting a bolt action rifle at an aggressive enemy be in say, 250-100 meters in a combat situation?
Does it take a lot of training to hit moving, man size targets?
Garand suprresion fire ability makes it a better choice for me
No shooter me either, but this is hard. I have heard well-trained, active duty troops talk about how damned hard it is to put the sights on the enemy at in the 2 seconds he is exposed 200 meters with an M-16.
I've heard of the Germans training their troops in "snap shooting" with the K98 (at 150 meters or so), though I don't see it being particularly effective given how awkward and slow firing the rifle seems to be...
And the M-16 is a good 2-3 pounds lighter than a K98 or a M1. With better ergonomics at that..
I would not call a Mauser an ineffective , it was just did not compare to a semi-automatic in close range.
I've heard of the Germans training their troops in "snap shooting" with the K98 (at 150 meters or so),
Now that is interesting. Fire fights at close range with bolt-actions was a decidedly common occurrence. I imagine with a MG-42 laying suppressive fire and bolt-action rifles shooting "surprise" volleys would be devasting in the first seconds of a fight.
There is actually a depiction of this shooting method in "Saving Private Ryan". In the intro scenes, the Germans in the trenches "Snap shoot" by popping up out of cover to fire one quick, barely aimed shot and dropping back in cover instantly to pull the bolt and repeat the process......
I got that snap-shooting tidbit from an Osprey book about the training methods for Fallschirmjager troops.
Seems not too effective..though probably much safer than standing up, aiming, and pulling the bolt..
I think most japanese officers either ordered thier troops to fight to the death and then suicide once the enemy advances or charge every soldier able to stand and yell BANZII!
you forgot the king of WW2 rifles the MP-44 sturmgewehr!!!
a squad of German infantry with mp-44's could probably over-run a platoon of bolt-action equipped-anyone-else. Even the m1 garand could not match the firepower of an MP-44. Yes it was cheap and made from steel stampings, and it wasnt much for accuracy beyond 100 meters, But its introduction on the Eastern front (in late 1943) and in the west (1944) may have possibly kept the war going a while longer. The soldier could fire off 30 rounds faster then he could blast off 5 in a kar 98, and fighting against advancing Russian hordes, this obviously made a lot of difference in battle, since no one else had anything to match it until years after the war.
If that's the criteria why not compare it to the M1 carbine and various submachineguns?