Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Posted: 11/2/2006 6:43:06 PM EST
What American small arm has killed more of our enemies? I say the Garand, but my buddy says the M16 (and variants) i can see both sides.

Garand- main rifle for the biggest war this country has ever fought, and another pretty big war immediately thereafter.

M16- has been almost continuously deployed since it came into service, fought one major war, and a steady stream of minor conflicts ever since

so what say ye?
Link Posted: 11/2/2006 6:43:47 PM EST
tag
Link Posted: 11/2/2006 6:46:38 PM EST
I don't think anyone can say for sure. Like how many people were obliterated by carpet bombing Berlin versus counting bodies in Iraq. I would say the "fog of war" will introduce this variability.

That said....Garand
Link Posted: 11/2/2006 6:49:51 PM EST

Model 1861 Springfield

sorry
Link Posted: 11/2/2006 6:54:34 PM EST

Originally Posted By JoseyWales:
I don't think anyone can say for sure. Like how many people were obliterated by carpet bombing Berlin versus counting bodies in Iraq. I would say the "fog of war" will introduce this variability.

That said....Garand
I thought that the firebombing of Tokyo was worse than the carpet bombing....oh well

I was trying to see if I could find out which was more successful between the AR and Garand and I ran across this in yahoo answers to a similar question "what country has killed more in war".....I feel ill after reading the ignoramus responses.
Link Posted: 11/2/2006 6:54:35 PM EST

Originally Posted By JoseyWales:
I don't think anyone can say for sure. Like how many people were obliterated by carpet bombing Berlin versus counting bodies in Iraq. I would say the "fog of war" will introduce this variability.

That said....Garand or the m4/16


+1
Link Posted: 11/2/2006 6:56:15 PM EST
Garand.
Link Posted: 11/2/2006 7:03:18 PM EST
WWII + Korea = Garand.


Impossible to tell really.
Link Posted: 11/2/2006 7:12:53 PM EST

Originally Posted By Robert2011:
Model 1861 Springfield

sorry


i wouldn't be surprised if you're correct

depending on how you want to define "enemies"
Link Posted: 11/2/2006 7:14:54 PM EST
Kentucky Rifle or one of the Springfield Rifled Muskets.
Link Posted: 11/2/2006 7:17:39 PM EST
The Garand was responsible for literally millions of enemy kills when you consider WWII and Korea together.

There have not been millions of enemy deaths in all the conflicts the USA has been involved in since then. Vietnam is close with estimates hovering right around one million, and the death toll from every conflict since then doesn't even come close to that total.

I think that makes it rather obvious.


(note: deaths by weapon aren't really recorded, but especially in WWII and Korea, infantry was by far the biggest hammer.)

Link Posted: 11/2/2006 7:19:53 PM EST

Originally Posted By Paveway_:
Kentucky Rifle or one of the Springfield Rifled Muskets.


indian wars?
Link Posted: 11/2/2006 7:23:36 PM EST
[Last Edit: 11/2/2006 7:23:50 PM EST by fossil_fuel]

Originally Posted By allenNH:
The Garand was responsible for literally millions of enemy kills when you consider WWII and Korea together.

There have not been millions of enemy deaths in all the conflicts the USA has been involved in since then. Vietnam is close with estimates hovering right around one million, and the death toll from every conflict since then doesn't even come close to that total.

I think that makes it rather obvious.


(note: deaths by weapon aren't really recorded, but especially in WWII and Korea, infantry was by far the biggest hammer.)



IIRC since WW1, the vast majority of combat deaths have been due to artillery and machine guns, not rifles. i'd bet money that the 1919 killed more than the garand in WW2.
Link Posted: 11/2/2006 7:24:49 PM EST

Originally Posted By Paveway_:
Kentucky Rifle or one of the Springfield Rifled Muskets.


Are you joking? they are still loading those things to this day.
Link Posted: 11/2/2006 7:28:27 PM EST

Originally Posted By Robert2011:
Model 1861 Springfield

sorry


The question was M16 or Garand. I'm going with Garand, but it won't hold the title long.

But as said above it's really impossible to say for sure.

You have to figure in modern air support compared to WWII. The Garand surely saw more up close battles than the M16 does today.
Link Posted: 11/2/2006 7:38:37 PM EST

Originally Posted By yekimak:
I was trying to see if I could find out which was more successful between the AR and Garand and I ran across this in yahoo answers to a similar question "what country has killed more in war".....I feel ill after reading the ignoramus responses.


Wow, thats really bad...
Link Posted: 11/2/2006 7:40:19 PM EST

Originally Posted By fossil_fuel:

Originally Posted By allenNH:
The Garand was responsible for literally millions of enemy kills when you consider WWII and Korea together.

There have not been millions of enemy deaths in all the conflicts the USA has been involved in since then. Vietnam is close with estimates hovering right around one million, and the death toll from every conflict since then doesn't even come close to that total.

I think that makes it rather obvious.


(note: deaths by weapon aren't really recorded, but especially in WWII and Korea, infantry was by far the biggest hammer.)



IIRC since WW1, the vast majority of combat deaths have been due to artillery and machine guns, not rifles. i'd bet money that the 1919 killed more than the garand in WW2.


I'm not sure that's true, trying to find out but google is just mocking me.. I was watching something yesterday on the History Channel though about the evolution of artillery and I distinctly remember the gun emplacements of WWII being pretty nefarious, but also being largely "ignored" and left for later since the bunkered guys wouldn't come out.

There was a segment on the Magniot line in France where the Germans just went around it, conqured the country, then came back and dealt with the emplacements.

If artillery was responsible for most of the deaths in WWII and Korea, then that gives the M-16 a much better chance.
Link Posted: 11/2/2006 7:47:29 PM EST
Link Posted: 11/2/2006 11:12:24 PM EST

Originally Posted By hanibal:

Originally Posted By Robert2011:
Model 1861 Springfield

sorry


The question was M16 or Garand. I'm going with Garand, but it won't hold the title long.

But as said above it's really impossible to say for sure.

You have to figure in modern air support compared to WWII. The Garand surely saw more up close battles than the M16 does today.


How can you say that when the M16 was adopted because the thought was that the majority of fighting was going to be 300 meters or less. And has been shown to be true with some exception, mostly in Afganistan. Modern day fighting is urban fighting, which is very "up close."
Top Top