Your favorite WWII gun
- Thread starter Spartan1175
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Royal War Museum, or something of that accord, in London.
OT: It's a tie between the Thompson and the PPSH for me.
OT: It's a tie between the Thompson and the PPSH for me.
Schwerer Gustav:
The Nazi's sure knew the fact that if something is worth doing it's worth OVERDOING.
p.s I don't want to hear any snippy comments. The headline of the thread only asks for your favourite GUN of WW2, it doesn't specifically say that it can't be a siege gun.
The Nazi's sure knew the fact that if something is worth doing it's worth OVERDOING.
p.s I don't want to hear any snippy comments. The headline of the thread only asks for your favourite GUN of WW2, it doesn't specifically say that it can't be a siege gun.
I've got a massive boner towards old school rifles like the M1 garand, M1903 Springfield, k98 etc.
But as for all time personal fav, it's got to be the M1 garand. There's just something so awesome about it.
But as for all time personal fav, it's got to be the M1 garand. There's just something so awesome about it.
I wouldn't say any, granted there are some incredible shooters out there, but for the most part hitting anything outside of 300 yards with just iron sights is near impossible. Secondly, I don't know about the Korean military, but in the United States they do NOT, nor have they ever trained soldiers to shoot outside of 300 yards, unless you are being specially trained as a sniper or a counter-sniper. Finally, the US military still trains soldiers to shoot well without optics on their rifles, long before they even get their own weapon which they then add scopes and red-dot sights to.brtshstel said:Delta 3 Actual said:
Plus, just about any American WWII or Korean War infantryman would tell you that the rifle has an effective range far greater than 300 yards, and trained soldiers can accurately shoot that far with iron sights or adjustable rear tangent sights for range and elevation, since back in those days they actually trained soldiers to shoot well without any of the fancy "red dots" or "ACOG."
We're not talking about Call of Duty.
Not trained to shoot more than 300 yards with a full-power cartridge and ladder sights? You obviously have no knowledge of military doctrine in the 1900s-1950s.Delta 3 Actual said:
Judging by your username, the terminology you used, and the fact that you have shown no sources of your research leads me to call bullshit on this. And by sources, I do not mean werkaperdera, I mean public-domain, government-produced fact sheets and documents. They do exist, but I'm not doing your work for you.
If you like guns, that's fine. But real life and Cawadoody are not the same.
Can't believe this, but ninja'd. I'd take an Owen over a Thompson, Sten or Grease any day. Still got a soft spot for the Mp40 though.I_am_a_Spoon said:The Owen gun.
Aussie ingenuity at its finest.
Well your inability to quote me and create a counter-claim against the information that I gave you lead me to believe that you just buy into propaganda and have no real experience. I served, my father served, my uncle served and my grandfather served. So I'm very sorry that my information comes from personal experience on the battlefield and from veterans from almost every known and unknown war since World War II. Yes the government claims that soldiers can shoot farther than 300 yards with iron sights, but they also claimed (in the same war I might add) that the German MG34's "bark is[was]worse than it's bite". Your information comes not from experience or from veterans, but from govt. produced "doctrine" which was inspired heavily by propaganda at the time.brtshstel said:
