Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Site Notices
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 10/2/2014 8:52:17 PM EST
[Last Edit: 10/2/2014 8:52:46 PM EST by Miami_JBT]

The US goes to WWI and instead of the M1903 and M1917 they have M1 Garands. US Troops are armed with the M1 Garand.

Nothing else changes in equipment or tactics. The tank isn't introduced sooner, aircraft are still the same, etc... the only difference is that the US Army and US Marine Corps are armed with M1 Garands.
Link Posted: 10/2/2014 8:53:37 PM EST
Germany would have had to prepare it's anus.
Link Posted: 10/2/2014 8:54:16 PM EST



The First World War was an artillery war.


Link Posted: 10/2/2014 8:55:03 PM EST
Without the squad - battalion level tactics to use it not a huge difference IMO.
Link Posted: 10/2/2014 8:55:19 PM EST
No change at all.
Link Posted: 10/2/2014 8:55:21 PM EST
Still a bloodbath. Tactics were the problem. 'Blackjack' Pershing was a horrible commander and didn't listen to the French and British who said that going 'over the top' was retarded. It doesn't matter if you are going 'over the top' with Garands or Springfields, you are going to get massacred.
Link Posted: 10/2/2014 8:55:44 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Maharlika74:
Without the squad - battalion level tactics to use it not a huge difference IMO.
View Quote


This. The weapon in the GI's hand is not nearly as important as how he uses it.
Link Posted: 10/2/2014 8:55:59 PM EST
[Last Edit: 10/2/2014 8:56:47 PM EST by Miami_JBT]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History

View Quote
Link Posted: 10/2/2014 8:57:16 PM EST
The Germans would have lost the war.

Link Posted: 10/2/2014 8:57:41 PM EST
Who needs a Garand when you have Alvin York!
Link Posted: 10/2/2014 8:57:49 PM EST
The Marines used 1903's for a good portion of the second world War, and they managed to kill the enemy just fine with it.

Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile
Link Posted: 10/2/2014 8:58:10 PM EST
Its important to note that during WWII it was considered common knowledge that 100 German infantry troops were worth 120 American infantry troops. The Germans were mostly using Mausers. With Infantry, the machine guns do the killing, not the common arm. The battle rifle is only used to get the enemy in position to get killed by the machine gun.
Link Posted: 10/2/2014 8:59:44 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By packinheavy:
No change at all.
View Quote


+1 Artillery and Machine guns define WWI.
Link Posted: 10/2/2014 9:01:13 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Doc_Lane:
The Germans would have lost the war.

View Quote


Link Posted: 10/2/2014 9:04:54 PM EST
It was trench warfare with artillery and gas. The Garand would not have had a substantial impact and the losses on all sides would have been the same.
Link Posted: 10/2/2014 9:06:12 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Johnny_Reno:
The First World War was an artillery war.


View Quote


Not just this- when has a small arm ever been pivotal in the course of a large-scale conflict?
Link Posted: 10/2/2014 9:07:19 PM EST
Better question: how much better would the Garand have been in the original .276 chambering?
Link Posted: 10/2/2014 9:09:40 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By GTwannabe:
Better question: how much better would the Garand have been in the original .276 chambering?
View Quote
Fucking awesome in my opinion..... MacAthur changed the cartridge back to .30-06 because of all the stocked up ammo we had from WWI if I remember correctly.
Link Posted: 10/2/2014 9:09:43 PM EST
Link Posted: 10/2/2014 9:10:28 PM EST
Rifles don't win wars anymore, haven't since the machine gun and telephone lines to artillery batteries.
Link Posted: 10/2/2014 9:12:48 PM EST
WWII would have sucked.

Germans would have captured the rifle, copied/modified it and would have had a superior rifle to the k98 prior to WWII. The Soviets would have also done the same, WWII causalities would have been much higher.
Link Posted: 10/2/2014 9:14:12 PM EST
Would a high volume of fire from Garand equipped soldiers have made the machine gunners less effective?
Link Posted: 10/2/2014 9:29:07 PM EST
[Last Edit: 10/2/2014 9:29:24 PM EST by rabidus]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By JellyBelly:
Would a high volume of fire from Garand equipped soldiers have made the machine gunners less effective?
View Quote



No, they would have worked together and slaughtered even more soldiers.

Garands need to reload too, a constant barrage of MG fire and multiple soldiers with garands would have been a hot mess.
Link Posted: 10/2/2014 9:30:18 PM EST
The Russians had a semi auto rifle on the books a good 2 years before the USA showed up - Fedorov Avtomat

Design looked quite a lot like a better known post WW2 Soviet rifle - I wonder why!!

Events of 1917 meant that Russian interest in WW1 lapsed somewhat as they had more pressing issues than manufacturing a 6.5mm Arisaka chambered, automatic rifle, with a 25-rd magazine; three features that make it a better contender for the type of fighting that took place in the trenches than the later John C. design.

Never mind bringing Garands into WW1, the real question should be, "If the Germans hadn't bombed Pearl Harbour would you have even bothered to show up for the last few months?"

Link Posted: 10/2/2014 9:31:27 PM EST
Squad operated machine guns > Garands.
Link Posted: 10/2/2014 9:32:26 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By rabidus:
WWII would have sucked.

Germans would have captured the rifle, copied/modified it and would have had a superior rifle to the k98 prior to WWII. The Soviets would have also done the same, WWII causalities would have been much higher.
View Quote


Link Posted: 10/2/2014 9:36:32 PM EST



No change in outcome.

Let's not forget that the Germans blitzed through Russia with basically the same rifle they used in WWI.

It's not about small arms at the squad level.

It's about tactics and strategy on the large scale.
Link Posted: 10/2/2014 9:39:36 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By MonkTx:
Rifles don't win wars anymore, haven't since the machine gun and telephone lines to artillery batteries.
View Quote


Exactly

Germans shot over 1,000,000 rounds of artillery in the first 10hrs of the battle of Verdun. That's 1,666 impacts a minute, almost 28/second, for 10hrs straight.


And then things got ugly. For 10 months.


I doubt bolt action vs semi auto would have even been on anyone's mind.
Link Posted: 10/2/2014 9:40:26 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By WI_Rifleman:
Still a bloodbath. Tactics were the problem. 'Blackjack' Pershing was a horrible commander and didn't listen to the French and British who said that going 'over the top' was retarded. It doesn't matter if you are going 'over the top' with Garands or Springfields, you are going to get massacred.
View Quote

The British didn't have any better ideas and the French had stopped assaulting for the most part after 1916. It was Russians and Germans that found a better way.
Link Posted: 10/2/2014 9:41:56 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By WI_Rifleman:
Its important to note that during WWII it was considered common knowledge that 100 German infantry troops were worth 120 American infantry troops. The Germans were mostly using Mausers. With Infantry, the machine guns do the killing, not the common arm. The battle rifle is only used to get the enemy in position to get killed by the machine gun.
View Quote


The US picked lesser quality men to be Infantrymen and sent the best to the AAC, where they died in daylight bombing raids. Then they implemented the replacement depot system, which was horribly negligent.

When Patton advanced to Bastogne, he sent 1 Bn. of tanks and 22 Bn. of artillery. That is what you do in an industrial war.
Link Posted: 10/2/2014 9:48:36 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By WI_Rifleman:
Still a bloodbath. Tactics were the problem. 'Blackjack' Pershing was a horrible commander and didn't listen to the French and British who said that going 'over the top' was retarded. It doesn't matter if you are going 'over the top' with Garands or Springfields, you are going to get massacred.
View Quote


Pretty much this in my opinion. Having a garand in your hands isn't going to save your ass against a Maxim MG. I don't see the infantry making any major improvement with all the other factors.
Link Posted: 10/2/2014 9:53:03 PM EST
The issue that caused so many casualties in WW1 was a lack of COMMUNICATIONS technology.

Doesn't matter what you're armed with, if your bosses can't coordinate anything more complicated than "Artillery at 8:30, everybody over the top at 9:00" because they lack radios and any way to control the action once the fighting starts, you're fucked.
Link Posted: 10/2/2014 9:54:31 PM EST
We would win and the Germans and their allies would have lost.
Link Posted: 10/2/2014 9:56:16 PM EST
[Last Edit: 10/2/2014 9:57:32 PM EST by sherrick13]
Small arms really just don't make much difference. If we had the 1903 all during WWII the war would have gone the same.

We could have had Krags in WWI. No change.
Link Posted: 10/2/2014 9:59:48 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By fervid_dryfire:


Not just this- when has a small arm ever been pivotal in the course of a large-scale conflict?
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By fervid_dryfire:
Originally Posted By Johnny_Reno:
The First World War was an artillery war.




Not just this- when has a small arm ever been pivotal in the course of a large-scale conflict?

Link Posted: 10/2/2014 10:00:19 PM EST
They would have kicked more ass and ran out of ammo sooner
Link Posted: 10/2/2014 10:03:06 PM EST
What if the U.S. had M1 Garands in WWI?

Well, then the U.S. would have had M14s in WWII

Then M16s in Korea

Then M16A4s in Vietnam

Then plasma rifles in the 40 watt range in OEF
Link Posted: 10/2/2014 10:06:25 PM EST
Originally Posted By Miami_JBT:
Nothing else changes in equipment or tactics. The tank isn't introduced sooner, aircraft are still the same, etc... the only difference is that the US Army and US Marine Corps are armed with M1 Garands.
View Quote


Not much would have changed. They'd still be unloading them to do bayonet charges and other stupid shit.

Now, if tactics had changed to use the strengths of the new weapon...Well...Major ass kicking time.
Link Posted: 10/2/2014 10:09:11 PM EST
What if the Germans got 88"s & stg.44?
Link Posted: 10/2/2014 10:09:41 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By rabidus:
WWII would have sucked.

Germans would have captured the rifle, copied/modified it and would have had a superior rifle to the k98 prior to WWII. The Soviets would have also done the same, WWII causalities would have been much higher.
View Quote

Mmmmm. No.
Link Posted: 10/2/2014 10:26:52 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By toby1:
What if the Germans got 88"s & stg.44?
View Quote


The StG would have been materially useful, the 8.8cm FLAK and PAK not so much. A number of memoirs of WW1 mention that the high-velocity "whiz-bangs" were pretty ineffective against trenches, the only exception being if it landed in your OP. Regular artillery did OK at disabling or knocking out the tanks of the era, so that's not a major benefit.
The "eighty-eight" has a fearsome reputation because American troops figured all German guns were "eighty-eight" guns. It wasn't that good an artillery piece, and everyone had better AA guns by late WW2, so about the only application it did reasonably well in throughout WW2 was anti-tank...and during WW1, it would have been massively over-engineered and wasteful for that application. Given that Germany was under blockade and embargo the whole of WW1, developing, producing, deploying, and using the "eighty-eight" of WW2 fame would probably have hastened their end somewhat.
Link Posted: 10/2/2014 10:33:01 PM EST
Negligible impact.
Link Posted: 10/2/2014 10:35:50 PM EST
Its important to note that during WWII it was considered common knowledge that 100 German infantry troops were worth 120 American infantry troops. The Germans were mostly using Mausers. With Infantry, the machine guns do the killing, not the common arm. The battle rifle is only used to get the enemy in position to get killed by the machine gun.
View Quote


Comparing apples to oranges. The WWII German infantry squad was built around the MG 34 or 42, with the Mauser-armed riflemen serving mainly as ammuntion carriers for the MG. (They needed lots of ammuntion carriers because of the rate of fire of those guns.) The U.S. squad was made up of riflemen, using aimed fire as opposed to the area fire of the Germans. Even the BAR was in no way comparable to the German MG's.

German company-level leadership was also superior to U.S. company-level leadership. After all, the Germans had a much more ingrained military tradition than the Americans. The Americans, by and large, were civilians. The young Germans had been training for war since their days in the Hitler Youth.
Link Posted: 10/2/2014 10:40:20 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By macpherson:
The Marines used 1903's for a good portion of the second world War, and they managed to kill the enemy just fine with it.

Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile
View Quote


Agreed. However, Japan had the worst collection of small arms of any nation in the war. Every weapon the USMC fielded, even before they received Garands, M-1 carbines, etc., was better than the Japanese counterpart, and I am even including the Reising SMG.
Link Posted: 10/2/2014 10:45:53 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By TheWenisPrinkle:

Mmmmm. No.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By TheWenisPrinkle:
Originally Posted By rabidus:
WWII would have sucked.

Germans would have captured the rifle, copied/modified it and would have had a superior rifle to the k98 prior to WWII. The Soviets would have also done the same, WWII causalities would have been much higher.

Mmmmm. No.



Allright KY boy, 'splain to me how the increase in the rate of fire from WWI of which a semi-auto rifle would have produced would not have created demand for such a rifle in WWII?

Link Posted: 10/2/2014 10:47:02 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By GTwannabe:
Better question: how much better would the Garand have been in the original .276 chambering?
View Quote


The second, third, and fourth order affects of keeping the Garand in the original .276 Pedersen chambering are staggering once you think about them.

In an alternate universe, this website would be called "Garand.com" and we would be arguing whether the replacement for the folding stocked, 25-round magazine, Picatinny railed Garand was any good, and why would anyone want to replace a rifle that served us so well in WWII, Korea, and the conflicts that made Vietnam and Brazil the 51st and 52nd states respectively.
Link Posted: 10/2/2014 10:47:38 PM EST
[Last Edit: 10/2/2014 10:48:17 PM EST by rabidus]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By RifleCal30m1n00b:


The StG would have been materially useful, the 8.8cm FLAK and PAK not so much. A number of memoirs of WW1 mention that the high-velocity "whiz-bangs" were pretty ineffective against trenches, the only exception being if it landed in your OP. Regular artillery did OK at disabling or knocking out the tanks of the era, so that's not a major benefit.
The "eighty-eight" has a fearsome reputation because American troops figured all German guns were "eighty-eight" guns. Could knock out all most Allied armor from 1,200yards+ It wasn't that good an artillery piece, and everyone had better AA guns by late WW2, so about the only application it did reasonably well in throughout WW2 was anti-tank...and during WW1, it would have been massively over-engineered and wasteful for that application. Given that Germany was under blockade and embargo the whole of WW1, developing, producing, deploying, and using the "eighty-eight" of WW2 fame would probably have hastened their end somewhat.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By RifleCal30m1n00b:
Originally Posted By toby1:
What if the Germans got 88"s & stg.44?


The StG would have been materially useful, the 8.8cm FLAK and PAK not so much. A number of memoirs of WW1 mention that the high-velocity "whiz-bangs" were pretty ineffective against trenches, the only exception being if it landed in your OP. Regular artillery did OK at disabling or knocking out the tanks of the era, so that's not a major benefit.
The "eighty-eight" has a fearsome reputation because American troops figured all German guns were "eighty-eight" guns. Could knock out all most Allied armor from 1,200yards+ It wasn't that good an artillery piece, and everyone had better AA guns by late WW2, so about the only application it did reasonably well in throughout WW2 was anti-tank...and during WW1, it would have been massively over-engineered and wasteful for that application. Given that Germany was under blockade and embargo the whole of WW1, developing, producing, deploying, and using the "eighty-eight" of WW2 fame would probably have hastened their end somewhat.


Agreed. My edit
Link Posted: 10/2/2014 10:47:39 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Miami_JBT:
Fucking awesome in my opinion..... MacAthur changed the cartridge back to .30-06 because of all the stocked up ammo we had from WWI if I remember correctly.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Miami_JBT:
Originally Posted By GTwannabe:
Better question: how much better would the Garand have been in the original .276 chambering?
Fucking awesome in my opinion..... MacAthur changed the cartridge back to .30-06 because of all the stocked up ammo we had from WWI if I remember correctly.


Stockpiles we had exhausted by 1937, IIRC.
Link Posted: 10/2/2014 10:48:43 PM EST
I think a better question would have been what if the Thompson would have reached the troops before the war ended.
Link Posted: 10/2/2014 10:49:58 PM EST
Rather have the P47. Huns would have been begging to surrender after a few weeks.
Link Posted: 10/2/2014 10:51:29 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By brich2929:

View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By brich2929:
Originally Posted By fervid_dryfire:
Originally Posted By Johnny_Reno:
The First World War was an artillery war.




Not just this- when has a small arm ever been pivotal in the course of a large-scale conflict?



Ask Colonel Custer. Ask Colonel Roosevelt.
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top