Fav WW2 equipment.

[CountDeMoney]

No love for the Beaufighter, Typhoon or Sunderland ?

If it makes you feel any better, I was always more partial to the Hurricane than the Spitfire.

[CountDeMoney]

K98's couldn't put out the volume of fire of the Garand.

Yeah, but those couple hundred extra yards' of effective range with the K98 came in handy.  Sometimes you want to be as far away from the enemy as possible.

Then again, if I were a squaddie in WW2, I'd want a Thompson, hands down.

[derspiess]

K98's couldn't put out the volume of fire of the Garand.

Yeah, but those couple hundred extra yards' of effective range with the K98 came in handy.  Sometimes you want to be as far away from the enemy as possible.

Then again, if I were a squaddie in WW2, I'd want a Thompson, hands down.

Difference was negligible. Unless you're talking about a scoped K98, but that's a different category.

Thompson was a fine submachinegun but that's definitely an area where effective range could bite you in the ass. But I could imagine you as the tough as nails cigar chomping platoon sergeant with a heart of gold lugging a Thompson around.

FWIW, I probably wouldn't want to be stuck with an M1 Carbine under any circumstances. Would love to have one to take to the range, but would not want my life to depend on one.

[CountDeMoney]

Difference was negligible. Unless you're talking about a scoped K98, but that's a different category.

I dunno, I thought the K98 had a good 200 more yards effective range on the Garand with a skilled rifleman.  But long guns aren't my thing, so I could be wrong.

Thompson was a fine submachinegun but that's definitely an area where effective range could bite you in the ass. But I could imagine you as the tough as nails cigar chomping platoon sergeant with a heart of gold lugging a Thompson around.

I like the concept of its close-in chewing up capability, and the ability to lay down my own suppressing fire while I haul ass the other way.

FWIW, I probably wouldn't want to be stuck with an M1 Carbine under any circumstances. Would love to have one to take to the range, but would not want my life to depend on one.

ROF would come in handy, though.

[11B4V]

K98's couldn't put out the volume of fire of the Garand.

Yeah, but those couple hundred extra yards' of effective range with the K98 came in handy.  Sometimes you want to be as far away from the enemy as possible.

Then again, if I were a squaddie in WW2, I'd want a Thompson, hands down.

Difference in effective range 450 vs 550 is negligible. Garand has much better iron sights IMO though. K98 rifle wasnt anymore accurate than the M1 until a scope was put on it.

[Berkut]

Yeah, I am guessing that regardlessof the weapons effective range, the riflemans effective range with it sans a scope is going to be around 300m at best, right?

A human body is a pretty freaking small target even at 300 yards without a scope. I seem to recall that was about as far as I could reliably hit the human sized target with an M-16, and I rated Expert of whatever the highest rating was for an infantryman.

I am sure exceptional shooters could hit further out, but I would guess that vast majority of competent infantryman are not hitting anything beyond 2-300 meters regardless of the accuracy of the weapon.

[11B4V]

Yeah, I am guessing that regardlessof the weapons effective range, the riflemans effective range with it sans a scope is going to be around 300m at best, right?

A human body is a pretty freaking small target even at 300 yards without a scope. I seem to recall that was about as far as I could reliably hit the human sized target with an M-16, and I rated Expert of whatever the highest rating was for an infantryman.

I am sure exceptional shooters could hit further out, but I would guess that vast majority of competent infantryman are not hitting anything beyond 2-300 meters regardless of the accuracy of the weapon.

And that's if it's sitting still at 300 meters...

[Viking]

K98's couldn't put out the volume of fire of the Garand.

Yeah, but those couple hundred extra yards' of effective range with the K98 came in handy.  Sometimes you want to be as far away from the enemy as possible.

Then again, if I were a squaddie in WW2, I'd want a Thompson, hands down.

Difference in effective range 450 vs 550 is negligible. Garand has much better iron sights IMO though. K98 rifle wasnt anymore accurate than the M1 until a scope was put on it.

Wan't the the main motivation for moving to the 5.56 cartridge for NATO (in addition to the reduced recoil) that virtually all combat with light arms happened at ranges shorter than 300 with most combat happening at even shorter ranges?

[derspiess]

K98's couldn't put out the volume of fire of the Garand.

Yeah, but those couple hundred extra yards' of effective range with the K98 came in handy.  Sometimes you want to be as far away from the enemy as possible.

Then again, if I were a squaddie in WW2, I'd want a Thompson, hands down.

Difference in effective range 450 vs 550 is negligible. Garand has much better iron sights IMO though. K98 rifle wasnt anymore accurate than the M1 until a scope was put on it.

Yep. Tangent sights FTW. I get spoiled by them to the point where I need several shots to get acclimated to the leaf sights on my Mauser and Mosin rifles.

[11B4V]

K98's couldn't put out the volume of fire of the Garand.

Yeah, but those couple hundred extra yards' of effective range with the K98 came in handy.  Sometimes you want to be as far away from the enemy as possible.

Then again, if I were a squaddie in WW2, I'd want a Thompson, hands down.

Difference in effective range 450 vs 550 is negligible. Garand has much better iron sights IMO though. K98 rifle wasnt anymore accurate than the M1 until a scope was put on it.

Yep. Tangent sights Aperture sights FTW. I get spoiled by them to the point where I need several shots to get acclimated to the leaf sights on my Mauser and Mosin rifles.

[derspiess]

Whoops :embarrass:

[11B4V]

K98's couldn't put out the volume of fire of the Garand.

Yeah, but those couple hundred extra yards' of effective range with the K98 came in handy.  Sometimes you want to be as far away from the enemy as possible.

Then again, if I were a squaddie in WW2, I'd want a Thompson, hands down.

Difference in effective range 450 vs 550 is negligible. Garand has much better iron sights IMO though. K98 rifle wasnt anymore accurate than the M1 until a scope was put on it.

Wan't the the main motivation for moving to the 5.56 cartridge for NATO (in addition to the reduced recoil) that virtually all combat with light arms happened at ranges shorter than 300 with most combat happening at even shorter ranges?

Carry more ammo too.

Yes, M14 on full auto is very defferent from an M16 on the same. 


M14 auto
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CSceYZsGbkU

M16 auto
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q8QiU4ZwRgo

[11B4V]

Given a choice I would prefer the M14. Shoot through the tree FTW.

[CountDeMoney]

Whoops :embarrass:

Lulz, Caliga Gunfail.

[Berkut]

Hey 11B, that 50 round drum mag he used on the M14, that is something aftermarket or whatever right? Not an actual military item?