Search the Community

This is strictly an opinion piece (my opinion) It isn't scientific, and is bases solely on my experiences with my own weapons. I am going to compare the "big 5" of the US infantry during WWII. Their ease of carry vs impact ... I did not include the M3 submachine gun as I do not have access to regular shooting of one. First up is the 1903 Springfield. The weight isn't bad, but the bolt action and limited magazine capacity makes it my least favorite battle weapon. The sights, while fine for pinpoint accuracy are not the best for combat. The impact of the 30-06 cartridge is the best attribute of the 03. I might also mention I do like the built in magazine of the bolt action ... Nothing to lose. To me the rifle seems to have an over-all feel of fragility to it The 1903 would be my least favorite choice. Next is the Thompson submachine gun ... While this is my personal favorite iconic piece, it would, in my opinion be a poor choice for battle. The weight of the Thompson, coupled with the guns short range, and its rate of consuming ammunition are the weapons draw backs. Packing enough magazines to run the gun in battle without constant resupply limit its effectiveness. My uncle carried a Thompson in the ETO and he told me that he mostly shot the gun in semi-auto mode to conserve ammo. The upside of the gun is the impact of the .45 ACP at close range and it does have a psychological impact when firing. The Tommy guns cool factor is off the chart, but I would.t want to carry one in battle. The Thompson would excel as a room cleaner in house to house fighting. Third is the BAR ... The only negatives to the BAR is the weight, the consumption of ammunition, and the accuracy while being fire in full automatic. The return for rounds expended would be relatively small for such a massive weapon. Carrying a full BAR belt is also a tough proposition ... My BAR belt with 12 full magazines weighs well in excess of 20 pounds. On the upside, the BAR is devastating in impact and the sound of the rifle when rocking would keep any enemies head down. Now we have the basic rifle of the US Infantry ... The M1 Garand. The rifles has few negatives. The only one I can think of is the clip loading system. Without a constant, abundant supply of the clips the M1 could be limited in efficiency. This occurred on Bataan when elements of the 31st Infantry, and the 26th Cavalry, Philippine Scouts were armed with M1's. The men would have to police up their expended clips in the heat of battle so that they could reload them to use again. They also complained that while on the march the M1 clips had a tendency to fall out of the cloth bandoleers ... Other that this I can think of no down side to carrying an M1 rifle. Now we come to what would be my personal favorite ... The M1 carbine. The downside of the M1 carbine is the .30 carbine round. No where near as effective as the 30-06 and has a limited effective range. This negative is countered by the ease of carry of the weapon, and a soldier could carry a lot of magazines of .30 carbine ammunition. Most firefights in WWII were under 100 yards which is comfortably in the 30 carbine's effective range. While anemic when compared to the 30-06, the .30 carbine round is nothing I would want to be hit with ... It's a legal deer cartridge in my state. The M1 Carbine could also be accurately fired one shot at a time, and when unleashed could send 15 rounds towards the axis forces with both physical and psychological effect. Maybe it's my favorite because of my age and it doesn't weigh much ... But the M1 Carbine would be my choice of a weapon in the field during WWII. That's my list of favorites from least favorite to what I would have wanted to carry ... As I stated, it's totally non-scientific and based on nothing but my range and hunting time. Feel free to discuss ...