What weapon would you wield?

It all depends on where I was fighting and what my objective was.

For a rifle, I'd be using either an M1 Garand (with bayonet), or a Lee-Enfield.
For a submachine gun I'd probably use an M1A1 Thompson or a PPSh-41, both with drums instead of box magazines.
For a machine gun, I'd have a Browning 1919 or MG42.

And I'd just have a normal COLT 1911 for a side arm.

 

much more mightier, according to pooper the intellectuals are responsible for wars and therefore control the sword by the use of the pen.

 

Pistol - Whatever I am issued
Rifle - Whatever I am issued
SMG - Whatever I am issued
HMG - Whatever I am issued
Other - Whatever I am issued

Reason - It's the military! You have no choice.

 

They just don't get the concept Mike. Just another "Favorite" thread.

 

as for me, i would probably choose the BAR... ya, sure it was a heavy weapon to have to lug around, but it had the power of a .30 M1919 and it was completely mobile... a very useful weapon to have on the battlefield... the only real drawback was that it only had a 20 round magazine... but it still was a great weapon overall

 

I would use an M2 Flamethrower! Been playing too much Call Of Duty 5.

 

I would use the the german panzershreck

 

I would have the Springfeild 1903 W/ ascope...SNIPER FOR LIFE

 

gimme a thompson and an m1 cabine and as much ammo as i could carry and that war is caput!!!!!!!!!!!

 

I would use a Tompson or a BAR and a 1911.

 

I would use a MK.1NO5 Enfield.

 

I like to wield a thompson, a bazooka, m1911 pistol, and lots of heavy explosives

 

Do you mean a No.5 Mk.1? As in this bad boy:



If so, why? From what I hear they were inaccurate and a pain to shoot.

 

I had one... They were not inaccurate... And they were not a pain to shoot.!

 

Cool, I'm just thinking about what Ian Hogg said, compared to other rifles of the period (the rest of the enfield series) they were known for being inaccurate and having a greater recoil. Apparently they also had a wandering zero which one imagines would be a pain (shown by tests during and after the war).

I guess on a range these problems can be dealt with through taking your time and focusing on marksmanship but which were a problem in combat.

As an aside, a mate of mine used to live on the site of the old Enfield factory, I only lived round the corner.

 

ill take a thompson too

 

Thompson Tony, you can't wield a nuclear bomb, and survive. It is physically impossible.

 

Exactly.:grad:

 

The US did develop short range (not sure if they were quite man-portable, certainly crew served) nuclear weapons. Of course the range they could be thrown was slightly less than the range at which you could survive the blast, rather you than me buddy!

 

Stefan, I edited my post and now it makes more sense.