MovieChat Forums > Saving Private Ryan (1998) Discussion > USGI Weapons of WWII

USGI Weapons of WWII

posted 8 years ago by july-hizon
7 replies | jump to latest

I would hate to be a soldier during WWII. You can either have a cumbersome, awkward M1 Garand; or an M1 Carbine or SMG, which lack accuracy and long-range stopping power. Or you can carry a heavy-ass 30-cal machine gun. A great alternative would be the BAR, but that thing is heavy.

http://www.youtube.com/channel/UC3QX2ac7No6TyXaE8i2LoyA

[–] Paedogeddon 8 years ago

I would hate to be a soldier during WWII

So not because of the fear of being wounded or death
Not for the horror of it all
Because the weapons were heavy; even though those were the choices and there would no perspective to modern weapons.

What's your favourite tank?

[–] highlandspower 7 years ago

I'm assuming you don't actually know much in the way of firearms.

All the USGI guns, with the exception of the Thompson & 1911's (both .45 ACP) were all .30 caliber.

B.A.R. - 30.06
M1 Garand - 30.06
M1 Carbine - .30 Carbine
1903A4 - 30.06
Various 1919 machine guns - 30.06

All of those listed above are easily 300 +\- yards capable.

The .45 ACP can easily kill within 100 yards, which most engagements occurred in.

[–] 7 years ago

[deleted]

[–] highlandspower 7 years ago

Well the .30 Carbine is capable of hitting a man sized target at 300 yards, I myself have done it. Despite the fact that it's an elongated pistol cartridge, it's more than able to go the distance.

Matter of fact, if you check out Iraqvet8888 on YouTube, you can watch him find out the lethal range of a .22LR (longer than you might think)

So if a .22 can do it, a .30 Carbine easily can (trust me, again, I've done it)

And a .45 at 100 yards is more than capable of putting the hurt on someone. A Thompson can easily do damage at 100 yards. Don't be an idiot and fire full auto, controlled bursts or firing one at a time will increase accuracy.

[–] RoadKillBill1 7 years ago

Yeah, I figured you'd take that tack. There is a world of difference between the possibilities of a given round, and the practicalities in the hands of the average infantry soldier. What's more, I suspect you know that already. Look up the ballistics tables for those rounds in those weapons. I'm sure you'll find their trajectories at those ranges, and barrel lengths to look like rainbows.

So, if you want to have a semantics argument, have it by yourself. But the fact remains that the post you took exception to (especially since it was a matter of opinion anyway) was perfectly valid.

TNSTAAFL

[–] Spoiled_Pitbull 7 years ago

The Germans solved that dilemma with the StG-44 (MkB-42, MP-43, MP-44) which had selective fire capability and a round that while not as potent as a true rifle round like their 8X57 Mauser or our 30-06, had much better range and penetration than a 9mm or .45 ACP. It took the USA another 20 +/- years to adopt something with similar characteristics with the new M-16 and later M-16A1.

To this day there is no perfect solution, only periodic improvements.

[–] MaximRecoil (4085) 5 years ago

It took the USA another 20 +/- years to adopt something with similar characteristics with the new M-16 and later M-16A1.

No, the M2 Carbine (first issued in 1944) was also selective fire, also had a 30-round detachable box magazine, and was also chambered for an intermediate cartridge (in other words, it was also an assault rifle). The .30 Carbine is less powerful than the 7.92×33mm Kurz (~1,000 ft. lbs. vs. ~1,400 ft. lbs. of muzzle energy), but it still has about 3 times the muzzle energy of standard military 9mm and .45 ACP cartridges (both of which have ~360 ft. lbs. of muzzle energy). On top of that, it was FAR lighter than the StG 44 (5.2 pounds vs. 10.1 pounds).

The M1 Carbine was first issued in 1942 and was originally intended to be selective-fire like the later M2. Design work started on the M1 Carbine in 1938, so the U.S. had the "assault rifle" idea before Germany did (design work started on the MKb 42 in 1940).

Also, the M16A1 wasn't later than the M16. After the Colt models 601 and 602, development split into the Colt model 603 (XM16E1, M16A1) and the Colt model 604 (M16). That happened because the Army insisted on having a forward assist mechanism incorporated into the design, so they got the 603 (601 and 602 never had a forward assist, and neither did the original ArmaLite AR-15 prototypes). The Air Force didn't want a forward assist (Colt and Eugene Stoner didn't think the forward assist was necessary either), so they got the 604, which was the same as the 603, minus the forward assist.