Gunboards Forums banner
101 - 120 of 217 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
339 Posts
Discussion Starter · #101 ·
MG 42 is right there if I'm going to war with a will to conquer (vs survive).

But since no one has mentioned it, I'll take a comparable type very much in the same league, the Solothurn MG 30.

Which for actual WWII use means the Hungarian version, Solothurn 31.M Golyószóró in 8x56R.

View attachment 3923522

A Louis Strange design, FG 42 predecessor and origin of the Luftwaffe's MG 15 and MG 17 aircraft-mounted MGs.

At 21 lbs* it could be a little lighter but not much sleeker - this is Star Wars worthy. Up to 900 rpm.

*per wiki
Sitting in a concrete bunker with an MG42 is a solid plan for survival… until that Iowa class Battleship shows up off the coast.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
339 Posts
Discussion Starter · #103 ·
You guys are hilarious wanting BARs bolt actions, and all that other esoteric and heavy crap. If I'm going to get stuck as a grunt in WWII, it means I'm probably going to get the luxury of walking across Europe. It also means automatics are no longer a curiosity. An M1 carbine with plenty of ammo will do. If I allow myself some more weight, a PPSh-41 again with plenty of ammo, although I'm torn on whether drum magazines are worth the hassle because of the weight.
There would probably a vehicle around that had a .50 cal on it within a stones throw too. Good post!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
339 Posts
Discussion Starter · #104 ·
I really like the full stock M1 Carbine. Used to hate them, but I found a real one and it is accurate and definitely not a pistol round.

But I would probably take the Garand or the Enfield. Reason is they didn’t use dry wall in Western Europe in the early 20th century when they built towns and cities. They used bricks. I want a 30-06 or a 303 in that kind of combat. I want to be able to shoot through those walls. Same on the Eastern Front… you want range and power.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
339 Posts
Discussion Starter · #105 ·
IF it were only that easy...My neighbor who was declared 4-F twice and after a third time being called up, figured it a cinch he'd be turned down again...Even though he was legally blind in one eye, he was taken as Selective Service needed numbers in 1943....His MOS was Carpenter and so he was detailed to building Bailey Bridges....

I would further add, it would be better being an essential worker.....Knew a guy who worked in a foundry and had brothers who were drafted for service....He was upset when he was exempt from serving....Bodes
My Grandfather was a steel worker during the war and in his early 30s with five kids. They weren’t drafting him no matter what.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
372 Posts
There are many good choices for sure but I will pick the M1 Garand. More capacity than a Mauser or Mosin, semi auto action, rugged, accurate.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
339 Posts
Discussion Starter · #107 · (Edited)
Interesting side note. Everyone assumes the most expensive defense program of WWII was the US Atomic bomb effort. Not true. The most expensive defense program of WWII was the development and fielding of the Boeing B-29 bomber. The atomic cost $1.9 billion, but the US spent $3 billion to come up with the B-29. Money well spent. The B-29 in WWII was the equivalent of having an MG42 at Picketts Charge,

In fact, the entire US Pacific strategy starting in 1944 was to accommodate the range of the B-29 to burn out Japan. And that was not lost on the Japanese who knew they had to do whatever was possible to keep airfields out of B-29 operations.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
899 Posts
Interesting side note. Everyone assumes the most expensive defense program of WWII was the US Atomic bomb effort. Not true. The most expensive defense program of WWII was the development and fielding of the Boeing B-29 bomber. The atomic cost $1.9 billion, but the US spent $3 billion to come up with the B-29. Money well spent. The B-29 in WWII was the equivalent of having an MG42 at Picketts Charge,

In fact, the entire US Pacific strategy starting in 1944 was to accommodate the range of the B-29 to burn out Japan. And that was not lost on the Japanese who knew they had to do whatever was possible to keep airfields out of B-29 operations.
It was for the Russians...We needed to land B-29's in Vladivostok following air raids on China and Japan....The Soviets wouldn't release the planes, taking the information to build a version of their own....Bodes

The Iconic B-29 Bomber: The Plane America (and Russia) Loved | The National Interest
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
596 Posts
Did they have various kind of .30-06 ammo in WWII? Thought the differences were Ball, Tracer, API, and blanks.
The OP question was what WWII era weapon would you take into battle? I took the battle part to be present tense as if there was a SHTF situation and you only had a choice of WWII weapons.
In WWII you would have to take the weapon you were issued or picked up on a battle field so choices would be limited.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
96 Posts
It was for the Russians...We needed to land B-29's in Vladivostok following air raids on China and Japan....The Soviets wouldn't release the planes, taking the information to build a version of their own....Bodes

The Iconic B-29 Bomber: The Plane America (and Russia) Loved | The National Interest
This is a simplified look at the history of weapons, including aviation. The B-29 was an intercontinental aircraft of a new next generation than they were in the USSR, and in other countries, allies and opponents in World War II. First of all, in a pressurized cabin and navigation systems, which allowed the crew to effectively cover huge distances. Also, the bombing sight system and remote control of machine gun weapons were the next step in aviation technology. No wonder it cost so much to develop...
After 1946, relations between the allies deteriorated to the point that the USSR was forced to quickly expand the nuclear industry and modernize the aviation industry, because there were no missiles capable of delivering atomic weapons. Copying the B-29 is a step that eliminates possible errors in the development of its new generation strategic bomber and allows you to win the most important thing - time. Even with an aircraft partially damaged, it cannot be produced at an aircraft factory. This is not the beginning of the twentieth century. An aircraft never flies with a set of drawings and technological documentation. :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
899 Posts
This is a simplified look at the history of weapons, including aviation. The B-29 was an intercontinental aircraft of a new next generation than they were in the USSR, and in other countries, allies and opponents in World War II. First of all, in a pressurized cabin and navigation systems, which allowed the crew to effectively cover huge distances. Also, the bombing sight system and remote control of machine gun weapons were the next step in aviation technology. No wonder it cost so much to develop...
After 1946, relations between the allies deteriorated to the point that the USSR was forced to quickly expand the nuclear industry and modernize the aviation industry, because there were no missiles capable of delivering atomic weapons. Copying the B-29 is a step that eliminates possible errors in the development of its new generation strategic bomber and allows you to win the most important thing - time. Even with an aircraft partially damaged, it cannot be produced at an aircraft factory. This is not the beginning of the twentieth century. An aircraft never flies with a set of drawings and technological documentation. :)
Things were a fester way before 1946....Like the relationship between Hitler and Stalin, things between the Soviet Union and the west were merely a matter of convenience...Bodes
 

·
Silver Bullet Member
Joined
·
3,817 Posts
hings were a fester way before 1946....Like the relationship between Hitler and Stalin, things between the Soviet Union and the west were merely a matter of convenience...Bodes
Very very true. Joe did, in no way like America, but he sure did like American aid, military action, money and Studebaker trucks.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bodes

·
Gold Bullet member
Joined
·
8,670 Posts
...Copying the B-29 is a step that eliminates possible errors in the development of its new generation strategic bomber and allows you to win the most important thing - time...
Did Tupolev also copy the B29's defective cowl flaps too?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
13,566 Posts
IMHO, just about anybody who has chosen the M1 Carbine (a 'rifle' with notoriously underpowered ammunition, whose only advantage is light weight) over the MP44 just hasn't thought everything through.

What ELSE will you be carrying (other than maybe your first aid kit) that, pound for pound, is going to be more important in determining if you are going to survive, or not?.

Go for something EFFECTIVE.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
13,566 Posts
Did Tupolev also copy the B29's defective cowl flaps too?
EDIT: Yeah, they probably did.

It is reported that the people who were tasked by Joe were to make an EXACT COPY of the B29, and were terrified to make ANYTHING on it the least little bit different.

They built entire factories to make exact copies of B29 parts, and even built a brand new Aluminum rolling mill to make sheet aluminum for the skin of the aircraft in the EXACT same thickness as the B29 (they didn't have a factory that could make it in that exact thickness at the time).

There are reports (I don't know if they are 100% true or not) that they even reproduced the aluminum patches over the bullet holes in the skin of the example airplane.

EDIT: Here's an example for you. To Stalin, too thin a skin on the Tu-4 might cause failures of the cockpit pressurization system at altitude, which Stalin would definitely consider sabotaging the design. Too thick a skin would make the airplane heavier, compromizing its range and load-carrying capability. Sabotage AGAIN!

In EITHER case, the 'designers' that screwed up (AND their families) would probably get a 7.62X38R behind the ear for their troubles.

Maybe the Russians could have avoided the cowl flap issue if the B29's carried their 'service manuals' aboard the aircraft, but why in heck would they do that? The manuals (and any possible 'service updates' issued about the cowl flaps) were all safe on the ground back on Tinian.

ALL they had to work with was the three examples they had sitting on the runway, and those airplanes evidently didn't get engine fires when they were tested.

You don't go around advertising the weaknesses in your weapons systems during wartime. Did the Japanese go out and advertize the fact that their magnificent Zero had a hard time making right turns at high speed? We had to actually FLY a captured one to figure that out.


Based upon their orders, and the short life expectancies of Soviet Aeronautical Engineers (or anyone else) that displeased Stalin, I am absolutely sure that if it was on the B29 (of the three intact examples they had) that they chose to copy, it also ended up on at least the Tu-4 prototypes and early production aircraft.
 

·
Gold Bullet member
Joined
·
8,670 Posts
I bought my Inland M1 carbine at Martin B Retting's Culver City CA shop in 1967. I paid $65 for it plus $2 for the oiler and sling. At that time Retting also sold GECO (Gustav Genschow) M1 carbine ammo. The story I was told was that their batch of carbines were surplused German Bundesgrenzschutz (border guards) and the ammo that was issued for that service. This ammo was hot, but very accurate. Its recoil definitely had a sting compared with GI ammo.

I don't know if this hot M1 carbine ammo would wear the carbine faster, but it sure made a difference in the carbine's performance.

BTW I still have that M1 carbine, but sadly none of the GECO ammo.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
886 Posts
Answering the thread, could I take a B-29 into battle? Those low level fire raids at night must have been thrilling, not counting the commute, and don't think too much about what's happening down below.

Guys called the Tupolev Superfortress copy (TU-4) the "B29-ski."

Sky Cloud Vehicle Aircraft Airplane



It first flew in 1946 - the same year as our B-36, followed by our all-jet swept-wing B-47 in 1951 and the BUFF in 1955 (B-52). We will bury you, Ivan (& Nikita).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
899 Posts
IMHO, just about anybody who has chosen the M1 Carbine (a 'rifle' with notoriously underpowered ammunition, whose only advantage is light weight) over the MP44 just hasn't thought everything through.

What ELSE will you be carrying (other than maybe your first aid kit) that, pound for pound, is going to be more important in determining if you are going to survive, or not?.

Go for something EFFECTIVE.
Should one however need their firearm for a club, an M1 garand would take more physical abuse than an MP44....Ruin the pin that holds the buttstock/sheet metal shroud on, and you've rendered the weapon useless....Bodes
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
13,566 Posts
Should one however need their firearm for a club, an M1 garand would take more physical abuse than an MP44....Ruin the pin that holds the buttstock/sheet metal shroud on, and you've rendered the weapon useless....Bodes
The MP44 wasn't my first choice, either. It would be about fifth or sixth on my list. I was aiming my comments towards the people who were swept away by the Carbine's 'handiness'.

The MP44 is about twice as heavy, but in overall handiness and combat effectiveness, I would rate it about 3 times as effective as an M1 Carbine.

My choices (in order) were the No.4Mk.1(T) (to keep my distance from the threats), the Garand, and the No.1 Mk.III.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
96 Posts
Did Tupolev also copy the B29's defective cowl flaps too?
If you really think that one of the leading aircraft designers of the USSR instructed his employees not to think about performance, but to stupidly copy a defective assembly? How, after a few years after the Tu-4, were the Tu-16 jet bomber and the Tu-104 passenger bomber designed and produced? :)
 
101 - 120 of 217 Posts
Top