[QUOTE=Argent Towers]
I think any squad of U.S. Marines with a mix of M1 Carbines and Thompsons would outmatch any given Iraqi insurgent force armed with AK-47s and variants thereof. The insurgents’ main weapons as I’ve said are explosives, so I think the US could switch from M16s to M1 Carbines and if they still had the same tanks and planes they do now, it would - at the very least - be no better and no worse.
[/QUOTE]
The Tommygun was never especially reliable, and the .45 ACP has an effective range of about 100 meters on the outside (not to mention the muzzle drop). I’ve never heard of anyone worshiping the M1 Carbine, which was never intended for front line use and was only marginally effective when it was deployed for such in the Korean War. The M1 Garand was a fine weapon for its day, but the first time you get a case of “M1 thumb” from trying to load that sucker with clipper strips under pressure you’ll understand why modern firearms use detachable box magazines. It is true that the M16/M4 is not a great battlefield design–things that work fine on the test grounds tend to get gummed up in the mud and sand of a real world environment–but that doesn’t mean that many more modern firearms like the HK G3, the FN FAL, the Galil family, the Steyr AUG, et cetera aren’t substantial improvements over WWII-era weapons; indeed, reliability under adverse conditions is much higher in well-designed modern weapons (i.e. those that don’t use direct impingement like the near-clone of the AR-15 pattern HK-416) than in WWII era guns, including the vaunted Garand.
Isn’t the whole premise of firepower about whether the opposition is prepared to fight as an army rather than as guerilla units? I don’t think that anyone doubts that the Coalition forces have superior firepower, but they still need targets.
[QUOTE=E-Sabbath]
'57 Chevy: 283 HP V-8. (Old style, not bhp, not '05ish reformulation. Possibly as low as 220 today), 3 speed manual, curb weight 3160 pounds. 0-60, “Under 10 seconds.” Quarter mile, 17.5 /77 MPH
http://www.57classicchevy.com/engines.html (Actual test of '57 Chevy with the Blue Flame V8)
2007 Camry. 268 HP V6, 6 speed automanual. Curb weight 3185 pounds. 0-60 5.8 seconds.
Quarter mile: 14.3/99 MPH
[/QUOTE]
It’s pretty stunning that a Camry out weighs a 57 Chevy. But I do understand with all the safety features and such.
Power equipment, electric windows and seats, entertainment… but wow.
[QUOTE=chacoguy420]
I’m surprised that no one has brought up the M-2 ‘Ma Deuce’ .50 cal machine gun. When I got out of the National Guard in the late 80’s, our unit had some .50 cals that had seen action in WWII, Korea and Vietnam. Is there any chance some of those are still around?
[/QUOTE]
As far as I know, they’ve never been improved upon, and thus never been replaced. I don’t know about the U.S. military, but the Israeli military still uses them extensively - on tanks, in fortifications, and as an infantry support weapon.
[QUOTE=enipla]
It’s pretty stunning that a Camry out weighs a 57 Chevy. But I do understand with all the safety features and such.
Power equipment, electric windows and seats, entertainment… but wow.
[/QUOTE]
Yeah, I know. I randomly googled the curb weight, and went, “Wait, no. What?” and decided to do the rest. The Camry is only slightly smaller, too.
'57 Chevy has a 115 inch wheelbase.
'08 Camry has a 109 inch wheelbase.
'57 Chevy is 200" long.
'08 Camry is 189.2" long.
That is true, but at what range is most of the fighting in Iraq taking place?
You’ve never Googled it. The internet is awash with love for it. One article from Guns Magazine argues that it can still be a very good choice for police work. The problem in Korea is that, like in Afghanistan, you needed something with some range but that is not what the M1 Carbine was designed for, but in the correct situation it’s comparable to most modern weapons. Like I said earlier, firearm design since WWII has mostly been fine-tuning existing designs and concepts.
[QUOTE=dropzone]
Based on basic training to shoot, I wouldn’t bet against a squad of Marines armed with Springfield Cavalry Carbines and Colt Single Action Army revolvers, both from 1873.
[/quote]
I would. Black powder guns jam surprisingly quickly when fired rapidly, and Colt Peacemakers aren’t that accurate beyond 25m or so, despite what the Cowboy Action Shooting guys claim.
If we’re going to talk WWII era firearms still in service, then the SMLE/No. 4 Mk I and the Mosin-Nagant M91/30 deserve a mention. The Indian Police and several reserve units of the Indian Military are issued with SMLE and No. 4 rifles, and there are so many M91/30s floating about that they get an Honourable Mention just for that. The M-1 carbine might still be in use with the Israelis, but everything I’ve heard and read about it suggest that it lacks stopping power and range and basically manages not to be as useful as either a handgun or a rifle in the appropriate situations.
There have been some advances in things like design tolerance and stock materials (look at the polymer used to make the grip and stock on Glock pistols or MP-5 SMGs, for example), as well as the refinement of Double-Action semi-auto pistols with high capacity magazines, and things like rail-mounts, but I do agree with you in principle that there basic principles of firearm design haven’t changed a lot since WWII.
Having fired an M1928A1 Thompson, I can say that I would insist upon one if I were in the military and being deployed into an area where most of the fighting was going to be at short range, such as in a town or jungle/bush.
[QUOTE=Argent Towers]
Say we for some insane reason decided to fight the war in Iraq using only WWII-era small arms. We’d have all the same tanks, planes, bombs, and ordnance that we have now, and the same technology - but only the small arms that were used in World War II. Squads would be issued Garands, with one man carrying a BAR and the officer with a Thompson.
Would we be better or worse off?
[/QUOTE]
I mean, this is a pretty pointless question; but the answer is, the war would be going much worse for the United States, because obviously such a limitation would hinder the US much more than it would the insurgency.
[QUOTE=Alessan]
Mainly with volunteer policemen and tour guides. Certainly not by the actual military.
[/QUOTE]
I think it says something about the M-1 as a rifle when a century old design (the SMLE) is still in official service in India and the Subcontinent, yet the M-1 isn’t being used by anyone for anything more than prarie dog hunting and as a “Because This Man In A Uniform Needs A Gun” gun…
Read that Guns Magazine link I left earlier. He discusses the merits of the M1 when used as it was designed: a handy weapon with longer range and greater stopping power than a handgun and not intended as a replacement for a long gun when range beyond 150-200 yards is needed. I agree with one of his points, that neither police nor civilians have any business shooting at anyone further away than that, and I would extend it to the sort of street warfare going on Iraq, with civilians present as they are. Know who you are shooting at, and all.
As for India’s use of the Enfield, well, they got a lot from the Brits and made them well into the 60s and there’s nothing cheaper than something you already have, although getting a M91 for $69.95US comes close.
And he also mentions an interesting reason for people like police in contact with civilians to use the M1–it’s less threatening looking than a M16. This could be an advantage for tour guides AND members of an army out to win the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people.
[QUOTE=dropzone]
Read that Guns Magazine link I left earlier. He discusses the merits of the M1 when used as it was designed: a handy weapon with longer range and greater stopping power than a handgun and not intended as a replacement for a long gun when range beyond 150-200 yards is needed. I agree with one of his points, that neither police nor civilians have any business shooting at anyone further away than that, and I would extend it to the sort of street warfare going on Iraq, with civilians present as they are. Know who you are shooting at, and all.
[/QUOTE]
Most infantry small-arms combat takes place at under 200m, no matter what the terrain. The reason the M4 is used instead of the M1 is that it’s more accurate in these ranges (as it fires rifle rather than pistol ammo), it has a larger magazine capacity and its rounds pack more of a punch.
[QUOTE=E-Sabbath]
Yeah, I know. I randomly googled the curb weight, and went, “Wait, no. What?” and decided to do the rest. The Camry is only slightly smaller, too.
'57 Chevy has a 115 inch wheelbase.
'08 Camry has a 109 inch wheelbase.
'57 Chevy is 200" long.
'08 Camry is 189.2" long.
[/QUOTE]
I knew they were close, that is why I chose the Camry (rather than a generic Toyota that could be the SUV).
I will take the steel frame of the Chevy vs. the unibody of the Toyota in the demolition derby - I hypothesize that the Chevy can take more damage than the Toyota and still be driving. The lack of shoulder belts is my only concern in the Chevy - and one good whack and the airbags go on the Toyota, blinding the driver>
The analogy works pretty well, and is why the AK 47 is so popular. It is not as accurate, but it take a lickin’ and keeps on plinkin’ - unlike some of our Western fancy weaponry.
I have a bias towards KISS, though. I prefer revolvers to pistols for the same reason. My shotgun is a double-barrel side-by-side, so I never have autofeed issues. My favorite rifle is a Model 70 in .300 magnum bolt-action. My next purchase will be a lever-action guide gun of some flavor.