Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 4/30/2003 5:16:45 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 4/30/2003 5:17:42 PM EDT by DarkNite]
Let's say you're going aboard a landing craft heading for a place called Omaha Beach and from there to Berlin. Given a choice which personal weapon would you take, a Garand rifle or a Thompson SMG? Why?
Link Posted: 4/30/2003 6:08:05 PM EDT
M1 Rifle. Hey it is "the greatest battle implement ever devised." It has the capability of rapid fire in an oh crap situation, plus it is plenty accurate, very powerful, and has reach. I believe the term ballistic superiority spells it out. House to house, I would go Thompson, but all around I would move with the rifle.
Link Posted: 4/30/2003 6:19:00 PM EDT
BAR

sure it is a bit heavier but it has the firepower
Link Posted: 4/30/2003 7:10:56 PM EDT
BAR for me also.
Link Posted: 4/30/2003 9:05:45 PM EDT
In hindsight, Thompson. Aimed fire was pretty useless against the concrete fortifications, so you needed to move quickly to get behind them before you could get into the fight. Once you get behind the bunkers, you need volume of fire out the wazoo because there are going to be alot of krauts up close.

However, that being said, if I was in the shoes of a young grunt on his way in, knowing only what he knew then and not what we all know now, I would have wanted the Garand for long range accuracy and stopping power, not knowing that both would be pretty useless that day.

I think the best piece of equipment to have that day would be some really well-fitted boots, to run like hell across that beach like a crack dealer with a Crown Vic behind him!
Link Posted: 4/30/2003 10:26:02 PM EDT
BAR. The hedgerows weren't too friendly for the .45acp rd, IIRC.
Link Posted: 5/1/2003 12:23:43 AM EDT
BAR also. 20 rounds of '06 compared to an average of 20 rds 45 automatic....I am not sure how prevelant the 30 rounder was back then.
Link Posted: 5/1/2003 3:07:11 AM EDT
M1 Carbine. I want to run as fast as I can, and it'd be easier with a light weapon or ammo. Beisdes, on the landing beach there will be plenty of Thompsons, Garands, BARs, etc. to pick-up and use .

Link Posted: 5/1/2003 7:30:50 AM EDT
Geez, guys, I didn't ask about the BAR or M1 Carbine! Those were either squad support or rear echelon weapons mostly. I was referring to the two primary personal infantryman's weapons.

That being cleared up, proceed...
Link Posted: 5/1/2003 1:14:55 PM EDT
POW
POW
POW
POW
POW
POW
POW­
POW
"Klang!"

Link Posted: 5/1/2003 1:22:11 PM EDT
As someone who has carried a Garand up and down a few tall hills chasing deer and elk, I have never noticed the weight. Of course I may have been a little hyped by getting to carry a piece of history.
Also it had an '07 sling, but I don't remember ever using it (other than shooting), always carried it at the ready.

So my choice would be the M1-Garand

M1-ED
Link Posted: 5/2/2003 8:13:33 AM EDT
Well if I am limited to those two choices I would choose the Thompson. I really like the Garand so this is a hard choice. I would imagine there were many more BARs on in use that day than Thompsons. The Thompson was in short supply and highly sought after. The night before when the Airborne was dropping in there were probably a lot more Thompsons and M1 carbines in use than on Omaha. My Grandfather carried a Garand and a 1911 that day. He used an M1 carbine later in the War.
Link Posted: 5/2/2003 8:24:07 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/2/2003 8:24:44 AM EDT by Combat_Diver]
How about a M1903A4 and a M1911A1
Link Posted: 5/2/2003 12:36:14 PM EDT
Both have their merits and drawbacks..

I'd have to say that I'd go with the Thompson..

It wins , mainly on the cool factor , it is full-auto after all....


t
Link Posted: 5/2/2003 6:53:43 PM EDT
If it were the me that is me right now suddenly going to be there... give me an M1!

I'd rather throw down some accurate, concentrated fire from a distance than run and get close. I'd take some cover on the beach and try to find a good position to shoot into the pillboxes, concentrating on the muzzle flash of the MG42s.


If I were up close, the Thompson would have the advantage, but I wouldn't feel outgunned with an M1.

Give me the 'greatest battle implement ever devised'.

LOCK AND LOAD, GENTLEMEN!
Link Posted: 5/3/2003 11:44:59 PM EDT
M1 Garand on the left sholder, while sholdering the Carbine.
Link Posted: 5/3/2003 11:53:29 PM EDT
M1 for sure.
Link Posted: 5/4/2003 3:30:03 PM EDT
Garand. No contest.
Link Posted: 5/4/2003 3:36:03 PM EDT
I'd beam myself forward intime and barrow an M4 with a whooole bunch of ammo.
Link Posted: 5/4/2003 3:59:05 PM EDT
either or.... it's a trade off. Garand's better at long range... Thompson far better up close.

But i would NEVER want an M1 CArbine. Id sooner have a .22LR. The .30 carbine just lacks any knockdown power. At least the M2 has full auto...
Link Posted: 5/4/2003 4:31:26 PM EDT
Garand without hesitation. The Thompson is FA only, which really has no place for the most part in combat, is extremely short range, fires a (in comparison) sissy assed pistol bullet (I own a .45 1911, so hah!), and is heavy as heck for what it is. Also the ergonomics are horrible in a Thompson. Plus, you can beat a man to death with a Garand, which will snap a Thompson stock.
Link Posted: 5/4/2003 4:40:08 PM EDT
M1 Garand, I would want the accuracy, and it is plenty fast for shooting
Link Posted: 5/4/2003 5:28:13 PM EDT

Originally Posted By soylent_green:
Garand without hesitation. The Thompson is FA only,



I'm gonna put my balls on the line and call you on that. Since when is the Thompson Full only?

THere are two seperate selectors... one for safe/fire, and one for semi/full auto.

Am i wrong?
Link Posted: 5/4/2003 5:33:21 PM EDT
I'd go with the Garand also. The '06 is just a great round and gets the job done, what ever it is. Just makes the 45 seem anemic, and I'm a 45 fan. My father was a co. commander and made five landings in the Pacific in WWII, was the first wave in four. He would'nt carry anthing but a Garand and he could have carried anything he wanted, said it was the best battle rifle ever made. I never even heard him mention the weight. Sold my Garand a couple of mo. ago to help fund an AR10T, I'm already planning on getting another. Fine weapons.
Link Posted: 5/4/2003 5:49:15 PM EDT
Thompson SMG for me.

Handier, more RPM, and everybody else would be carrying a Garand.
Link Posted: 5/4/2003 5:50:44 PM EDT
Thompson for the first mile and then the Garand for the rest of the trip to Germany.
Link Posted: 5/4/2003 6:11:17 PM EDT

The Thompson is FA only

WRONG. TSMGs are select-fire.



is extremely short range

Which makes it very effective for close quarters.



is heavy as heck for what it is

Have you ever handled a subgun, ANY subgun? Subguns are ALWAYS heavy, like eight pounds or more.



Also the ergonomics are horrible in a Thompson.

WRONG. Have you EVER handled or shot a TSMG?
Link Posted: 5/5/2003 5:42:10 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/5/2003 6:02:59 AM EDT by soylent_green]

Originally Posted By Jim_Dandy:
WRONG. TSMGs are select-fire.


I have only fired a Thompson twice, both times at Bull'seye in Lawrenceville, GA. It was FA only unless I am very unobservant. I simply assumed that all Thompsons were FA only. Mea culpa.



Which makes it very effective for close quarters.

Which makes it less flexible for combat use.



Have you ever handled a subgun, ANY subgun? Subguns are ALWAYS heavy, like eight pounds or more.

I have fired MP5s and MP5 variants, a Thompson, a Colt 635 in 9mm, a PPSh, and a M3. The Thompson is much heavier than all of them except the PPSh. The M3 is almost as heavy. The 635 and MP5 are not 8 pounds, so so much for the 8 pounds thing.




WRONG. Have you EVER handled or shot a TSMG?


Yep, and it really isn't made to be fired from the shoulder. They had an episode on Tales of the Gun that addressed the Thompson, and it confirmed that suspicion for me.
Link Posted: 5/6/2003 10:41:41 AM EDT
I'll be satisfied with my .45 ACP pistol. The landing is certain to be a cakewalk. After all, the Army Air Force will have bombed the fortifications into rubble by the time we show up.
Link Posted: 5/6/2003 10:48:06 AM EDT
Thompsons have 2 selectors #1 is Safe/Fire #2 is Semi/Auto.
Link Posted: 5/6/2003 11:56:06 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/6/2003 12:19:43 PM EDT by Jim_Dandy]

It was FA only unless I am very unobservant.

Most likely you are.



Which makes it less flexible for combat use.

Which makes it just fine for the close quarters stuff that was encountered in Normandy. Guess you didn't observe that either.



I have fired MP5s and MP5 variants, a Thompson, a Colt 635 in 9mm, a PPSh, and a M3. The Thompson is much heavier than all of them except the PPSh. The M3 is almost as heavy. The 635 and MP5 are not 8 pounds, so so much for the 8 pounds thing.

No, not "so much for the eight pounds or more." Subguns are heavy. Ever handled a Swedish K? A S&W 76? A Reising? An Uzi? An Ingram? A Stemple? Of course you haven't, otherwise you wouldn't have posted something so OBVIOUSLY WRONG.



Yep, and it really isn't made to be fired from the shoulder. They had an episode on Tales of the Gun that addressed the Thompson, and it confirmed that suspicion for me.

Glad you pointed out the source of your experience. Your comments shall be forever in that context from now on. Thanks, TV Man.
Link Posted: 5/6/2003 12:06:33 PM EDT
If I recall the title of the thread correctly, the choice was a Thompson or a Garand, not a BAR nor a 1911. Sheesh.
Link Posted: 5/6/2003 12:09:37 PM EDT

Originally Posted By LARRYG:
If I recall the title of the thread correctly, the choice was a Thompson or a Garand, not a BAR nor a 1911. Sheesh.



Well excuse us. Just because someone put up "a box" doesn't mean we can't think outside of it. Kinda like being anti-sheep.

I was thinking BAR too.
Link Posted: 5/7/2003 9:26:13 AM EDT
Well any weapon seems to be the subject now so how about a thompson rifle. Nice gun and has 2 more rounds than a garand.
Link Posted: 5/7/2003 10:15:25 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Jim_Dandy:
No, not "so much for the eight pounds or more." Subguns are heavy. Ever handled a Swedish K? A S&W 76? A Reising? An Uzi? An Ingram? A Stemple? Of course you haven't, otherwise you wouldn't have posted something so OBVIOUSLY WRONG.


You think an Ingram is heavy? Swedish Ks aren't too heavy either. Uzis weigh in at about 7 pounds for the full size version. I have never fired one, but I have held them, both physically and in contempt. With the degree of bile you are spewing I serously doubt the degree of your experience. Aren't you the twit who demanded that I name my guidon as proof of military experience a while back?



Glad you pointed out the source of your experience. Your comments shall be forever in that context from now on. Thanks, TV Man.


My experience, provided the public schooling you recieved allows you to comprehend a little of the words you sound out as you trace the letters with your eyes, is related to the weapons I have fired.

Just to show you there is no hard feelings here, send me your email address. I keep getting these spams about penis enlargment. I normally just delete them unread, but you will be able to make good use of the service offered.
Link Posted: 5/7/2003 10:59:09 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/7/2003 11:00:07 AM EDT by Jim_Dandy]

You think an Ingram is heavy? Swedish Ks aren't too heavy either. Uzis weigh in at about 7 pounds for the full size version.

WRONG. Not suprising. What's your source today? HGTV? Full-size Uzis weigh a nominal NINE (9) POUNDS. Shall we discuss weights and measures, or is that too deep for you?



With the degree of bile you are spewing I serously doubt the degree of your experience.

Doubt all you want, Mr. TV. I'll be thinking about you while I'm dumping some full-auto this week.



Aren't you the twit who demanded that I name my guidon as proof of military experience a while back?

Judging by your very ignorant and uninformed posts, the only twit here is you. Don't really care if you were in the gay scouts, or whatever you're claiming. Wasn't a part of your "discussion."



My experience, provided the public schooling you recieved allows you to comprehend a little of the words you sound out as you trace the letters with your eyes, is related to the weapons I have fired.

Sounds like we have a large degree of disproportion here, because if you had any experience with any of these weapons, aside from a "Tales of the Gun" episode, you wouldn't have posted anything as COMPLETELY WRONG as you have thus far ("Beretta owned Taurus. I heard it on the HISTORY CHANNEL").



I keep getting these spams about penis enlargment.

Sorry, dude. I'm confident in my masculinity. Speaking of which (or your lack thereof), I think that gay guy is on TLC right now. Should be right up your alley, if you get my meaning.
Link Posted: 5/7/2003 12:24:04 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Jim_Dandy:

You think an Ingram is heavy? Swedish Ks aren't too heavy either. Uzis weigh in at about 7 pounds for the full size version.

WRONG. Not suprising. What's your source today? HGTV? Full-size Uzis weigh a nominal NINE (9) POUNDS. Shall we discuss weights and measures, or is that too deep for you?


The only thing deep about you is the pile of bullshit you spew.
matrix.dumpshock.com/raygun/firearms/smg/uzi.html
8 pounds for an Uzi. The "expert" is wrong. Who'da thunk it?


Sorry, dude. I'm confident in my masculinity.


You can't drive without a car.
Link Posted: 5/7/2003 12:51:39 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/7/2003 1:28:51 PM EDT by Hoplite]
Alright guys, lets settle down.
Soylent was wrong about the modes of fire on the thompson and Jim wasnt wrong about the weight of the UZI. No one is gay here (atleast i think) so lets move on back to the topic at hand: June 6, 1944
Link Posted: 5/7/2003 12:58:27 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/7/2003 1:05:32 PM EDT by Jim_Dandy]

The only thing deep about you is the pile of bullshit you spew.
matrix.dumpshock.com/raygun/firearms/smg/uzi.html
8 pounds for an Uzi. The "expert" is wrong. Who'da thunk it?


Actually, I'm not wrong. See Vector's webpage (you know, one of the manufacturers). NINE POUNDS, TV Man.

From the Vector website:

"DRY WEIGHT: Standard size UZI: 9 lb. Mini UZI: 7 lb."

CLICK D LINK

Then again, you posted this NONSENSE:

Uzis weigh in at about 7 pounds for the full size version.

Even at the 3.7 kg figure you offered, it's still over eight pounds (the number eight, as the rest of us know, comes AFTER seven). Probably doesn't make much difference since you've never shot let alone held one.



You can't drive without a car.

Sort of like you need one with a stick shift, huh?


soylent_green's motto: TV is life.
Link Posted: 5/7/2003 1:07:46 PM EDT
Where is this persistant TV fantasy coming from? And 3.7Kg is 8.14 lbs, or 8lbs 2 oz, which might as well be 8lbs. Idon't care what Vector's homegrown recievers weigh in at, you sad an Uzi. Thompsons are 11lbs, which is a damned sight more than the 8 lbs you quoted, so get a crowbar and some Kleenex, pry your head out of your ass, wipe the shit from your eyes, and do a little research BEFORE you try to correct me, you little pre-pubescent zit farmer.
Link Posted: 5/7/2003 1:13:00 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/7/2003 1:15:38 PM EDT by Jim_Dandy]

Where is this persistant TV fantasy coming from? And 3.7Kg is 8.14 lbs, or 8lbs 2 oz, which might as well be 8lbs. Idon't care what Vector's homegrown recievers weigh in at, you sad an Uzi. Thompsons are 11lbs, which is a damned sight more than the 8 lbs you quoted, so get a crowbar and some Kleenex, pry your head out of your ass, wipe the shit from your eyes, and do a little research BEFORE you try to correct me, you little pre-pubescent zit farmer.

Backpedal, backpedal, backpedal. You were wrong and you're still wrong. You quite clearly and wrongly posted that a FS Uzi weighed in at seven pounds, did you not?

You might also note that the TSMG is chambered in .45 ACP (a BIG cartridge) and Uzis are primarily chambered for 9mm ( a SMALLER cartridge).
Link Posted: 5/7/2003 1:14:28 PM EDT
M1A1 Carbine. Common in the airborne. Thats where I would want to be.

Link Posted: 5/7/2003 1:22:22 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Jim_Dandy:
Backpedal, backpedal, backpedal. You were wrong and you're still wrong. You quite clearly and wrongly posted that a FS Uzi weighed in at seven pounds, did you not?


Yep, I was thinking micr Uzi weight when I posted. See, that is what an adult does, he admits when he is wrong. Your failure to do so with regards to the weight of the Thompson and pretty much every other bit of detritus that has pooled from your mind onto the board demonstrates your own significant lack of maturity as well as wit.


You might also note that the TSMG is chambered in .45 ACP (a BIG cartridge) and Uzis are primarily chambered for 9mm ( a SMALLER cartridge).

And? So?

It is good, however, that you have learned the all important skill of recognizing the difference between smaller and larger. Next we learn the difference between wet and dry. I have to take a leak, remove your hat please.
Link Posted: 5/7/2003 1:55:28 PM EDT

Yep, I was thinking micr Uzi weight when I posted. See, that is what an adult does, he admits when he is wrong. Your failure to do so with regards to the weight of the Thompson and pretty much every other bit of detritus that has pooled from your mind onto the board demonstrates your own significant lack of maturity as well as wit.

Backpedal, backpedal, backpedal, backpedal. You were fairly adamant with sticking with your first answer until you couldn't even dig up the data to support your post. I'd say that says a lot about your own maturity.



And? So?

Well (SIGH), the TSMG was designed around a larger cartridge, hence more mass in the receiver, bolt, barrel, etc. Don't worry, I didn't really expect you to get that.



It is good, however, that you have learned the all important skill of recognizing the difference between smaller and larger. Next we learn the difference between wet and dry.

As in water on your brain.


I see your future in a TV test pattern.
Link Posted: 5/7/2003 3:41:18 PM EDT
Link Posted: 5/7/2003 4:10:26 PM EDT

Hmm...

Both of you know better, back on the subject please.


Sorry, couldn't resist.


Well, after reading some of the D-Day stuff, like Band of Brothers, I'd have to say that I'd be satisfied to have ANY functioning weapon in Normandy. Lots of the GIs lost their weapons on the jump or amphibious assault and picked up whatever they could find from dead or wounded GIs. M1s, M1 carbines, TSMGs, M3s, BARs, 1911A1s, etc. Just whatever they could get.
Top Top