PDA

View Full Version : m1 vs. k98



Dori1234
08-29-2005, 12:19 AM
I was flipping through a weapons magazine yesterday and one page had an m1 garand and k98 cartriges side by side and the m1 round (30-06) was heavier,taller,wider and looked like it would pack a bigger punch.. knowing that, it shouldin't even be a contest,the k98 has a little more accuracy but the m1 must be far superior to a k98 because its semi automatic

whats your thoughts?

AMC_Pace
08-29-2005, 05:58 AM
Originally posted by Dori1234: the m1 must be far superior to a k98 because its semi automatic
in what way could it be "FAR" superior?
1. in a 1 vs 1 used on what distance?
ie. long range: the K98 can shot you a precise 3rd nosehole at a range of almost 1 mile so when you come along with your c rappy m1 your dead before you have even seen where it would have been coming from.

2. if the K98 would have been in anyway bad the germans would not have owned all nations in ww2 till 42 (in the begin of ww2 the K98 was the standart for the german soldier). ie the Brits which where useing the semiautomatic Rifle "enfield"

3. in a modern combat?
both guns would be more then useless, modern combat distance is about 50 - 150m Meters/ 55 - 164 Yards and fast paced. Both guns do not fullfil in anyway those needs.

Dori1234
08-29-2005, 01:13 PM
I mean like a squad with all k98's and a sqaud with all m1's fighting to the death

1.an m1 rifle was very accurate but just not quite as accurate as a k98 becuase of it being semi automatic... but personally Id pick a semi auto over a little less accuracy.

2.The enfield was not semi automatic and the germans never in the course of the war "owned" the british,they never blitzkrieged the united kingdom. all they did was send v1's and v2's (1944)

3. I can see the k98 being useless in modern warfare but the army and the marines use the m1 garand in some cases still today heres a pic... I talked to the guy holding the m1 about it

http://img131.imageshack.us/img131/3108/m15ek.jpg

http://img131.imageshack.us/img131/3598/94055225l7gz.jpg

4.It wasn't really due to the k98 that the germans "owned" (blitzkrieged) Europe in 42' it was more due to suprise,superior manpower,tanks,and fast paced

gustave.jany
08-29-2005, 05:20 PM
It is incorrect to match the two rifles, because they two completly different type of weaponry. They are different classes of rifles.
Everybody knows that the best, most accurate, and most reliable bolt-action rifle is the Mauser Karabiener '98, no doubt. And also everybody knows that the best most accurate and reliable semi-automatic rifle is the M1 Garand.
Personally i wouldn't match the two on a contest. A good contest would be M1 Garand vs a Karabiener 43 (we already know the winner http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif ) or a K98 vs a Enfield or Nagant or Springfield.
Dorry isnt the pic u display an M21 Sniper Rifle? It doesnt look like a Garand to me

Dori1234
08-29-2005, 05:33 PM
he told me it was a garand and i guess your right; it would be stupid to compare them but one thing.

1. Why isn't the springfield 03' hailed as better than the k98; ok the k98 was easy to handle but the springfield had more punch...I think the 03' has a better tradeoff

Airforce1234
08-29-2005, 09:42 PM
No other way:
1 sq vs 1 sq, both squads are on the same skill level....the german squad would win.

Dori1234
08-30-2005, 12:39 AM
whats your reasoning for that?

Raccoon_2
08-30-2005, 08:22 AM
)The Karabiner 98K has a bigge rpunch than the M1 Garand. There is no way you can ever find one of the 2 superior over the other.

There is actually one thing that makes the Garand better (superior has no place in this discusion anymore (imo) http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif): the Garand can be used for about 10 days in dusty, shallowed, difficult terrain without cleaning the interior of the rifle. (Maybe this info is wrong, I learned it form sombody else http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif.)

The Karabiner is bolt action, yes, but the Garand had to be replaced in the 50's because of the 'ping'sound which betrayed his owner http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif. BTW: The governement siad this, we all know there is no continuous ping, many times yuou don't hear it because of the others who fire.

I only prefer he K98K because it's German and ..... it is beautifull (which is actually the same for the Garand in my opinion http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif)

DarkAutumn
08-30-2005, 10:12 AM
Sorry to butt in but this is a curious debate...

You can have a great weapons system or weapons platform. But the weapons are only as good as the men using them.

Sure, soldiers need confidence in their weapons.
But weapons don't win wars.
Soldiers with the will to win do that.

History shows us that soldiers armed with inferior weapons can, and have, beaten enemies having superior weaponry.

Personally, I'm far more scared of a professional squad of hardcore troops armed with pointy sticks than a half-*ssed company armed with autorifles.

jn5654
08-30-2005, 11:36 AM
that whole, the "ping betrays the owner" deal in nonsence. i mean is it gonna give away your posistion after to kick out 8 30.06 rounds? no. does it tell your enemy that you need to reload? yes, but so what? it takes about 3 seconds to reload it, i know from experience. and if the enemy is close enough to charge you after he hears the "ping" then let someone else next to you shoot at him for 3 seconds, or have a bayonet or sidearm. any more reasons why the ping would betray it owner????

Dori1234
08-30-2005, 12:27 PM
I agree with Dark Autumn, As I am a republican i live by this phrase...

"Guns don't kill people, people kill people"

DarkAutumn
08-30-2005, 03:05 PM
Well, for my part, I'm Canadian.
So neither Dubya nor Kerry approve this message.

Anywho, just to add to my point:

-Troops who know the strengths and weaknesses of their weapons (and those of the enemy) and know how to the get the most out of them (strategy and tactics) -and also- have the kind of hardcore mentality needed to follow through, those are the kinds of troops who'll win.

Airforce1234
08-31-2005, 11:06 PM
Originally posted by Dori1234:
whats your reasoning for that?

No reasoning..im just kidding...http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif!
Im german and homeland made products are always better! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

ozjish
09-01-2005, 02:49 PM
Garand, period.

I think Lee-Enfield Rifle No. 4 vs Mauser Kar-98(k) (vs Mannlicher M.95 vs Mosin-Nagant vs...) is a better comparison.

AMC_Pace
09-04-2005, 03:38 AM
Originally posted by Dori1234:
3. I can see the k98 being useless in modern warfare but the army and the marines use the m1 garand in some cases still today heres a pic... I talked to the guy holding the m1 about it

http://img131.imageshack.us/img131/3108/m15ek.jpg

http://img131.imageshack.us/img131/3598/94055225l7gz.jpg

4.It wasn't really due to the k98 that the germans "owned" (blitzkrieged) Europe in 42' it was more due to suprise,superior manpower,tanks,and fast paced
Wrong and wrong again. actually with the brit gun 3 times wrong

so why do you see a K98 as useless while that cra ppy M1 not? just because you found a pic on the web where a GI did hold that gun?

THINK before you post.
as you can see on the Photo it is a sniper rifle, no gun for CQC. Now THINK! the most and best Sniperrifles are... yes... bolt rifles ... oh yeah right...like the K98.
Sniper rifle... one shot on long range .. for this purpose the K98 is(even you admit) better then the M1...
Conclusion
the K98 would be for this GI on your picture the BETTER and superior Gun then the M1

ad 2 the germany did owned all nations in Europe in ww2 till '42, why else did they beat them?


now tell me
why do I not get rid of the Impression you are one of these typcal completly uneducated US Boys who thinks just because something comes out of the US it is automaticly better then anything else from somewhere. You should get urself better informed, I know that is hard in the US because your education system is on 3rd world level and can not catch up with any country in Europe.. but at least you can try.

Raccoon_2
09-04-2005, 06:18 AM
opinions, these are just opinions and thoughts of people who were interested http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Dori1234
09-04-2005, 12:58 PM
The m1 has a bigger round, bigger punch and a bigger bullet.Have any of you watched black hawk down or read the book? Well the one of the two sniper rifles they were using was an m1 garand, They say the m1 has a perfect caliber projectile with a perfect FPS, Because the m1 fired at a human at distant ranges will lodge in the chest, torso, leg, whatever. Meaning it will go straighthrough there body, the bullet will penetrate and puncture vital organs and be left in the body, some of the other bolt action rifles on the market (excluding a k98) will penetrate right through and leave an exit wound, leaving the soldiers still charging at you with bayonet at hand, (bigger rounds). Now the k98's problem is the shell and the bolt action mechanism. Personally If you want a good squad level in WWII it would be the fast cycling m1 garand. if you want a good medium range sniper rifle it would be a fast cycling yet extremely accurate m1 garand. Its all around a good weapon (excluding weight haha).

And I was right about the blitzkrieging, sure if the Wearchment didn't have a weapon at all they wouldn't have taken all those countries but they wouldn't have tried tanking over all those countries without weapons that just stupid, are they gonna throw rocks? lol. that takes the rifle out of the category it was due to :

*suprise
*superior manpower
*tanks
* and a fast paced assualt

AMC_Pace
09-04-2005, 01:32 PM
Originally posted by Dori1234:
...Now the k98's problem is the shell and the bolt action mechanism...
in what way if I may ask? LOL again you have no clue about what you are talking.
the K98 round is a 7,92x57 or common called 8x57IS round, which almost the same as a Cal. 300 round nowadays (most common round for sinperrifles nowadays)

Personally If you want a good squad level in WWII it would be the fast cycling m1 garand. if you want a good medium range sniper rifle it would be a fast cycling yet extremely accurate m1 garand. Its all around a good weapon (excluding weight haha).


Originally posted by Dori1234:
And I was right about the blitzkrieging,....that takes the rifle out of the category it was due to :
*suprise
*superior manpower
*tanks
* and a fast paced assualt
WRONG!
<LI>there was never any Surprise, for none of the countries that got assaulted.
Poland had serveral actions before and it was clear it would come to a War, they even wanted it (they thought they would beat germany and would march through Berlin within 2 weeks...lol)
now who else surprised? The dutch got informed and had an ultimatum, The French? well after beating the Netherlands in 4 day, you think that Belgium and France where surprised when the germany just go on? I guess even you see you are wrong.

<LI> there was nothing such as superior manpower when germany invaded Poland they did it with 25% menpower then the polnish army had. The French Army was double as big as the german, and about Sovietunion we dont even need to talk.

<LI> all others had tanks too (France double amount then germany), just not as good as the germans, well nothing germany to blame for, only the polnish, dutch, french, soviet engineers.

<LI> a fast paced assault, is how modern warfare is. If other nations then the german back then where to lazy to run or to scared as chicken.. well then it was as it was.

Dori1234
09-04-2005, 02:33 PM
I can either Counteract or reword everything you said was wrong.Im leaving Russia Out of this its eastern europe besides thats another story with there T-34's

1.http://www.kimdutoit.com/ee/images/2005files/8mm-762x54-303-30-06.jpg

^^^^ The Second to the right is close enough to the k98 round, (Id much rather get nailed by that than the more powerful 30-06..But I wouldn't want to get hit by either haha)

2. The m1 Can chamber 8 rounds in a stripper clip.. 8 rounds compared to the k98's 5 less powerful rounds

3. The Germans that blitzkrieged the European Countrys were brainwashed, Some of them SS fanatics They were much better fighters than any other soldiers they faced ( french, polish, norwegian..ect)

4. The Germans had Tigers,Panthers and other highly powerful Tanks, even if they were put up against 2 the amount of prewar model french "rolling sheet metal BB guns" They would take them out with one shot, (I read that in Citizen Soldiers by Stephen Ambrose.)

4.The luftwaffe was ruling the skies at that time period too.

5. The fact is they Took over western Europe, something must have been right with their assualt.

6.The french and Polish Army never stood a chance, they couldn't hold their ground versus Superior SS fantactics on Rolling 88's

7. Okay mabey suprise didn't have much to do with taking over europe especially after the first days of the offensive, "hey ya gotta hand it to the underground."

8.
a fast paced assault, is how modern warfare is. It wasn't MODERN warfare this was over a half a century ago although it was EXTREMELY more of a mobile war that that of trench fighting in the great war

AMC_Pace
09-05-2005, 12:07 AM
ridiculous,
you have no logic in your agumentation chains.
jumping from one to the other, then other way around, just to have right... good god how old are you?
12?
aside that you have no clue about WW2

now again THINK before you post!
when did the war start?
when got T34 into the battlefield? when the Tiger and Panther?
nothing of it has anything to do with beating entired Europe.
There where NO "fanatic superior SS" as fighting troops in the Begin of the war, not even one. Poland, France got beaten up by ordonary Wehrmacht's Soldiers with cr apy K98k.

as for that, i leave this, because i really cant be botherd to talk to someone who acts like a little child and has no understanding of things.

ozjish
09-05-2005, 11:42 AM
Hey AMC, pipe down, would you. There are many things to say in favour of a Kar98 and/or a M1 Garand, but there's no need to start dissing out insults like that.

Dori is right in his perception that the Germans overran every opponent they faced during the early years due to those four factors. It was Germany that invented a whole new kind of warfare, so yes, surprise WAS achieved. Superior manpower WAS achieved. The Germans didn't have a bigger army, they just put the men and materiel where it was needed most AND they put it there at the same time. Blitzkrieg. Fast paced assault. They made excellent use of their horrific tank(ette)s.

Of course, none of this could have been successful if it wasn't for a couple of other factors, namely competence, fanaticism, ideology, tactics and training.

And about the subject: most of the battles between grunts takes place within four hundred meters. I don't need a bolt-action rifle that's accurate to over a kilometer. Hell, I can't even SEE over a kilometer. If I am to slug it out with another squad, I want to put more bullets in their direction than the other way around. So I'd rather have Garands in my squad. Simple as that. Or FALs, but those weren't invented yet. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

One more thing: the BHD guy had a M-21 or M-24, Dori, not a Garand.

gustave.jany
09-05-2005, 02:27 PM
Some1 said the k98 had a weak round!
WOW ARE U KIDDING?
The k98 was an extremelyt strong round. An mg42 could cut out a tree in couple of seconds (small tree)

The wermacht did not have superior manpower
The german army put up 136 division in the invasion of the Low Countries and France while The allies had 135 divisions. Yeh 1 extra German divison. Thes 136 divs are part of 3 army groups A,B,C and C hardly seen any action just taunted a faint assaulted french positions over the Rhein. This means like 115 divs were available to the 2 army groups and actually less than 100 saw action because some divs were in reserve.
Speed and a superior deseptive plan made the offensive work. If germany wouldve lost 2 weeks in fighting and not reach paris in time they wouldve ran out of Oil which woulve meant a complete halt for the army and loss of "steam"
And SS did fight in the early campaing partiucularly the 1st SS divison LAH and 2nd SS divison Das Reich, useless to mention that they achieved outstanding results like conquest of Balkans in 6 weeks.
The Luftwaffe was about half the size of the allied air power or even more outnumbered but still They had superior airplanes and pilots, exact same situation as Guagamela.
The german tanks PZ1 PZII PZIII were weaker than the allies outnumbered, but they were faster more manouverable, had a better crew and the commanding generals were the kings of Panzer warfare.
Truly the Early German waremachine consisted of Superior Arms, Soldiers, Training and Morale.

Dori1234
09-05-2005, 04:33 PM
I dindn't say the k98 had a weak round I said the m1 (30-06) had a helluva killing round, your lights out with a 30-06, and it was WEAKER than the m1

gustave.jany
09-06-2005, 03:00 PM
NAhhhh!
I still rather would trust a 7.92 round the most.

RoyalWolf
09-08-2005, 11:02 AM
Gentleman --

This discussion has been... interesting. Here are some facts for you all to consider.

The 1906 .30 caliber round (Ball M2, 30-06) that the M1 Garand and the Browning MG and the BAR (etc.) all use and the 7.92mm (8mm Mauser) round that the k98 and the MG34/42 and the G/K43 and the FG42 use ARE NEARLY THE SAME. The 8mm German round is a heavier, wider bullet (198 grains vs. the 30-06 154 (?) grains).

Any ballistic difference between the M2 ball and the 7.92 Mauser round is so slight that in a battlefield sense it can be disregarded. By that same token, the average k98 rifle is not inherently much more accurate than the average M1 rifle. Yes, a particularly good k98 will outshoot an average M1 and a particularly good M1 will outshoot the average k98. HOWEVER, in a battlefield situation this difference is so close as to not matter except in the case of sniper rifles -- and the U.S. had the Springfield rifle to fill that role.

As main battle rifles, which is what both the k98 and the M1 are for the purpose of this discussion, the M1 Garand surely holds an advantage. It simply has a larger magazine and can shoot faster. Many would argue that it has better battle sights, as well.

If given a choice, I'm sure most of use would choose the M1. That is not to say that the k98 is a bad rifle in any way. It is as good as any other bolt-action battle rifle design out there. It just had the misfortune of being pitted against the first general-issue semi-automatic battle rifle.

However, the advantage that the M1 gave to U.S. fighters was not insurmountable. A good German squad leader or a bad American squad leader still would have much more impact on the outcome of an engagement. As always, the guns and ammo and equipment rarely decide the outcome of an engagement. It is the men involved that do.

Also:

The photos posted above of a current U.S. servicemember DO NOT show an M1 Garand rifle. The rifle in both pictures and in wide use overseas today is the M14 rifle -- the Garand's successor. It is chambered in 7.62x51 NATO (.308) and is select-fire (fully automatic or semi automatic) and has a detachable 20-round box magazine. The rifle pictured is likely a variant of the M21, which is an M14 mounted with optics and a bipod (etc.) and employed in a sniper or designated marksman role.

Also worth mentioning again is that the Enfield rifle is NOT semi-automatic. It is a bolt action rifle. I find it hard to understand how such grossly incorrect information is stated with such authority.

DarkAutumn
09-08-2005, 05:35 PM
You're all forgetting German use of psychological warfare propaganda:

The Germans propaganda to create the perception of an ultra-modern, all-powerful, unstoppable, and technologically superior Nazi war machine.

They used the psychological warfare to undermine the will to resist in neighbouring countries.

Powerful nations, like France, were shellshocked before the first shots were even fired.

Another reason for German success was their tactics. Everyone else thought of modern warfare in terms of static combat: Trench Warfare.
Because that's what the European experience of what modern warfare was. And the memories of all it's appalling horrors were still fresh in European minds.

But the rebuilt German military was all about speed and mobility. Not trenches.

And then there's the fact that the German people themselves had been psychologically manipulated and conditioned by the Nazi's throughout the 1930's.

What separated Germany from every nation it attacked or found itself at war with in the Second World War? -The fact that none of the Allied Powers marched their kids up and down streets wearing uniforms & singing battlesongs.

Nobody else was telling The Big Lie and nobody else was giving Germans what they so desperately wanted: Peace, Order, Prosperity.

Then again, the Victorious Powers of the First World War didn't suffer to the extent that the Germans did during the Great Depression of the 20's and 30's or have the burden of War Reparations making life even more miserable.

There wasn't the kind of anarchy in the streets in those countries that Germany experienced.

And when Hitler became Chancellor, what then?
What else separated them from the rest?

-Their whole country was put through a Nazi form of military Basic Training in their streets, in their homes, and in their schools.

How was this done? Through the reorganizatin and restructuring (militarization) of the very fabric of German society, education, and industry.

The Hitler Youth stands out as a prime example.
Lesser known is the compulsory year German youth had to spend on national labour service.

They were half trained soldiers long before they actually enlisted in the German military.

As proof of this, I submit the titles of two excellent books on the subject:

'Hitler's Young Tigers' by Rupert Butler, published by Arrow Press: 'The chilling true story of the Hitler Youth.'

'The Black March' by Peter Neumann, published by Bantam Books.

Both books are valuable resources for historical facts.
But Neumann's book is particularly fascinating:

-He grew up under the Nazi's as a Hitler Youth.
He joined the SS shortly after the outbreak of war and saw action until his capture in 1945.
He lived every step of what the Nazi's did to the Germanic peoples. And what they did everyone the Nazi's said were their enemies.

gustave.jany
09-09-2005, 08:57 PM
The German people supported the NSDAP because they brought relief from Poverty and Order as You said.
The fall of moral came after the bombs started falling.
What my grandparents told me really made me angry in some points.

DarkAutumn
09-09-2005, 09:33 PM
The German people believed what they were told by their government. And what their (government controlled/manipulated) media told them. Even when, individually, their conscience knew better.

Many find that hard to understand, but as controversial as this may sound, what happened in the United States and Great Britain during the build up to the current Iraq War stands an example of a very mild case of how easily it can happen.

ozjish
09-10-2005, 06:28 AM
DarkAutumn, the Germans conscience was flawed at that time due to World War One.

After World War I ended, the German people were relieved, but bitter. The bitterness for a war they didn't really consider lost, turned into disbelief and hatred for France and England when the Versailles Treaty was forced upon them. FYI, that treaty put the blame on Germany and Germany alone (while Austria-Hungary started the war; Germany entered teh war only very reluctantly)! The treaty also forced them to do a ridiculously high post-war payment to France and England. When the German people would work on minimum wages, the payments would have been completed in 1987(!). This unfair and humiliating treaty put silent rage into the hearts of German people against France and England and all their allies.

Germany was razed to the ground by this. Prices were skyhigh, the economy was not able to get up again, the people suffered. For years and years.

Hitler didn't only exploit the world-wide crisis in the 20s and 30s to rally the people, he also played on these feelings and the desolate state of Germany. And if a man does good (Hitler re-inspired the economy and gave the Germans their dignity back), how can he do evil? This is why it was possible for an entire population to fall under the control of this son of Satan.

RoyalWolf
09-11-2005, 01:42 AM
ozjish,

You are in some ways correct but I will disagree with you to some extent.

I would not characterize Germany's entry into WWI as "reluctant." The German people, furthermore, had little to do with the decision. The causes for WWI are extremely complex and frighteningly trivial.

You are correct that the Treatey of Versailles was harsh for the Germans. It created, as you say, a huge amount of debt that they couldn't hope to pay off and Germany sank into a severe economic depression while the U.S., England, etc. boomed. Where I'd disagree with you is where you characterize it as "unfair." "Unwise," maybe. But certainly a lot more of the blame for the horror of WWI laid on the Central Powers rather than the Allies.

After WWI, anti-semitism grew in Europe in general, but especially in Germany. And the fact that Jews were more often than not bankers, doctors, and wealthy in general didn't help their plight. No matter whether Germany deserved the Versailles treaty or not, all the suffering and anger stemming from it was eventually manipulated by the Nazi party into feverish nationalism and hatred for the Allies and the Jews.

And Dark Autumn, haven't been around here long but I usually agree with you. Here I will disagree. I don't think many peoples (with the exception of the Imperail Japanese, for example) take their government at its word. The Germans were not "duped" by the Nazis. Many (or most) of them really did hate Jews and most didn't think a war would be a bad idea. Really, it probably wasn't that bad of an idea until Hitler decided to roll to deeop into the USSR. Again, it's a very complex issue but I'm not ready to give the German people a pass because they simply "believed their goverment."

And I see the correlation you are making using the current war in Iraq situation, but I strongly disagree.

DarkAutumn
09-11-2005, 02:02 PM
And Dark Autumn, haven't been around here long but I usually agree with you. Here I will disagree. I don't think many peoples (with the exception of the Imperail Japanese, for example) take their government at its word. The Germans were not "duped" by the Nazis. Many (or most) of them really did hate Jews and most didn't think a war would be a bad idea. Really, it probably wasn't that bad of an idea until Hitler decided to roll to deeop into the USSR. Again, it's a very complex issue but I'm not ready to give the German people a pass because they simply "believed their goverment."

And I see the correlation you are making using the current war in Iraq situation, but I strongly disagree.

I agree there was anti-Semitism in the Germany of the 1930's.
Just not to the extent you suggest.

Were that true, the Jews would've been run out of Germany long before Hitler & Friends came along.

It's by no means a strictly German prejudice from the early to mid 20th Century either.

European pograms against Jews date back to the Dark and Middle Ages. And don't lets forget the Spanish Inquisition.

Many peoples for many reasons have persecuted the Jewish people and their faith.

But nowhere near the universal fear, loathing, and hatred instilled and institutionalized by the Nazi's.

As for German inclination towards war, losing the First World War and then suffering it's aftermath certainly gave them reason to want revenge. Against the victorious powers.

Germany could've easily fought and won a limited war whose goals were punitive (ie: punish the French for instance, for occupying the Ruhr after WW 1), whose aims were restorative (to be repaid in currency, raw and finished materials, and territory) for what was taken from them following the war as part of their war reparations, etc.

The average German-on-the-street didn't want 'Today Europe, tomorrow the World' until the Nazi's came along and said it wasn't just possible, it was Germany's divine right and destiny. Until the spell binding oratory of Hitler and the propaganda used by the Reich to subvert every aspect of German daily life from radio; to cinema; to the press; to even the education system convinced them of it.

As for my comparison of what the public was led to believe in both 1930's Germany and modern-day America, it's an entirely valid comparison.

In both cases the people believed what the government said: The Big Lie.

In Germany's case, it was that Aryan superman tripe about the mystic ties of blood and race, how Germany had been betrayed by the Jews into losing WW 1, and all the rest of that nonsense.

In America's case, it wasn't total world domination and genocide.

It was WMD's; Saddam somehow being in cahoots with Osama Bin Forgotten; Iraq somehow having some possible connection with the root cause of the War on Terror: 9/11 and the Al Qaedea terror network.

And the claim that Saddam's Iraq was capable of assisting (or committing on their own perogative) 9/11-style or WMD attacks on the United States.

Take the time to read the following.
It's a listing of Josef Goebbels own primer on propaganda. These points have their corollaries in the war fever build up to the Iraq incursion.
Simply look up press releases to compare.

http://www.psywarrior.com/Goebbels.html

DarkAutumn
09-11-2005, 04:53 PM
Originally posted by DarkAutumn:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> And Dark Autumn, haven't been around here long but I usually agree with you. Here I will disagree. I don't think many peoples (with the exception of the Imperail Japanese, for example) take their government at its word. The Germans were not "duped" by the Nazis. Many (or most) of them really did hate Jews and most didn't think a war would be a bad idea. Really, it probably wasn't that bad of an idea until Hitler decided to roll to deeop into the USSR. Again, it's a very complex issue but I'm not ready to give the German people a pass because they simply "believed their goverment."

And I see the correlation you are making using the current war in Iraq situation, but I strongly disagree.

I agree there was anti-Semitism in the Germany of the 1930's.
Just not to the extent you suggest.

Were that true, the Jews would've been run out of Germany long before Hitler & Friends came along.

It's by no means a strictly German prejudice from the early to mid 20th Century either.
European pograms against Jews date back to the Dark and Middle Ages. And don't lets forget the Spanish Inquisition.

Many peoples for many reasons have persecuted the Jewish people and their faith.
But nowhere near the universal fear, loathing, and hatred instilled and institutionalized by the Nazi's.

As for German inclination towards war, losing the First World War and then suffering it's aftermath certainly gave them reason to want revenge. Against the victorious powers.

Germany could've easily fought and won a limited war whose goals were punitive (ie: punish the French for instance, for occupying the Ruhr after WW 1), whose aims were restorative (to be repaid in currency, raw and finished materials, and territory) for what was taken from them following the war as part of their war reparations, etc.

But the average German-on-the-street didn't want 'Today Europe, tomorrow the World' until the Nazi's came along and said it wasn't just possible, it was Germany's divine right and destiny.
Until the spell binding oratory of Hitler and the propaganda used by the Reich to subvert every aspect of German daily life from radio; to cinema; to the press; to even the education system convinced them of it.

As for my comparison of what the public was led to believe in both 1930's Germany and modern-day America, it's an entirely valid comparison.

In both cases the people believed what the government said: The Big Lie.

In Germany's case, it was that Aryan superman tripe about the mystic ties of blood and race, how Germany had been betrayed by the Jews into losing WW 1, and all the rest of that nonsense.

In America's case, it wasn't total world domination and genocide.
It was WMD's; Saddam somehow being in cahoots with Osama Bin Forgotten; Iraq somehow having some possible connection with the root cause of the War on Terror: 9/11 and the Al Qaedea terror network.

And also the claim that Saddam's Iraq was capable of assisting (or committing on their own perogative) 9/11-style or WMD attacks on the United States.

Take the time to read the following.
It's a listing of Josef Goebbels own primer on propaganda. These points have their corollaries in the war fever build up to the Iraq incursion.
Simply look up press releases to compare.

http://www.psywarrior.com/Goebbels.html </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I know it's an emotionally and politically charged comparison. But it's true nonetheless.

Americans are so turned around that they still don't know what, exactly, the truth of why they invaded is. Same goes for the Brits, and others.

Only that they're all in Iraq and that they're going to be there for a very long time.

RoyalWolf
09-11-2005, 09:24 PM
Dark Autumn,

Anti-semitism was very strong throughout Europe starting long before the Nazis came to power. Ever heard of the Russian Pogroms in the late 1800s?

It started to become very virulent in Germany with the "Volkish" movement of the early 1900s. Germany went from a number of loosely organized communities into a major power in a very short time, and the people resisted. Those at the forefront of the modernization were wealthy professionals -- often Jews. They were strongly resented by the "Volk" and this carried over nicely to the post-Versailles depression.

Your assessment of the Nazi manipulation leading up to the start of WWII I agree with.

However, in order for your assertions about our current situation to be true, we would have to assume that

1. Our current administration is in control of the national media.
2. Both political parties are part of the conspiriacy.
3. Americans are sheep, ready to believe whatever they are told.

None of the above things are true.


In both cases the people believed what the government said: The Big Lie.

My feelings about the Iraq war are not based on the words politicians use but on my own observation of the events and I believe most Americans are the same as me, whichever side the choose. I was not "duped" about the war by anyone. You owe Americans more credit than you are giving them.

And don't forget that almost everyone agreed that the WMDs existed before the war. It wasn't a lie.

Dori1234
09-11-2005, 09:52 PM
jeez this thread got off topic in a hurry, although I would rather hear debates on cartriges and rifles I still love people having non-flaming talks on their views. But Still Don't leave me in the dust here, please give your thought on m1's and k98's!

DarkAutumn
09-12-2005, 06:26 AM
Your assessment of the Nazi manipulation leading up to the start of WWII I agree with.

However, in order for your assertions about our current situation to be true, we would have to assume that

1. Our current administration is in control of the national media.
2. Both political parties are part of the conspiriacy.
3. Americans are sheep, ready to believe whatever they are told.

None of the above things are true. [QUOTE]

My feelings about the Iraq war are not based on the words politicians use but on my own observation of the events and I believe most Americans are the same as me, whichever side the choose. I was not "duped" about the war by anyone. You owe Americans more credit than you are giving them.

And don't forget that almost everyone agreed that the WMDs existed before the war. It wasn't a lie.


If this were true, there wouldn't have been global protests against the war; both diplomatically by national governments and publicly by members of the populations of those countries.

That was a warning sign that Americans missed because they couldn't make sense of it. It seemed, at the time, like friends and allies were turning their backs on the United States.

Take Canada for instance. We're in the War on Terror. Why? There's 3 basic reasons:

First, because Canadians died on 9/11 too.
It was an Act of War. The World Trade Centre was exactly that: A centre for world trade with people of many nationalities working there.

Second, because taking in all those diverted airline flights made us a potential target for terrorist reprisals. It's in our own interests.

And Third, because no people of conscience can stand by while a friend and neighbour is so cruelly struck down and do nothing about it.

That said, why aren't we in Iraq?
Because Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.
The trail of the 9/11 terrorists went through Iran and Pakistan. Not Iraq.

To us, invading Iraq makes about as much sense as the U.S. response to Pearl Harbour being to promptly invade some asiatic country because there'd been hostile relations with the U.S. in the past.

We get the major U.S. networks here.
We watched what the U.S. media was reporting.
More importantly: HOW they were reporting it.

And what Americans have to deal with is the failure by their own media to actually investigate the claims their administration was making. Because they didn't. And many in the media down there have now come forward to publicly state and acknowledge this.

In a nation almost introverted in its dependence on its own domestic media and which seeks to get the world to equally depend on that media (ie: CNN) it's impossible for Americans to make the claim that they went into Iraq with their eyes wide open; in full possession of the necessary facts which proved and justified they had a legitimate casus bellorum; when their own media now admits it failed to provide those facts.

It was a blindspot y'all just didn't see.
Or it wouldn't have been a blindspot, eh?

The enemy in this war is Al Qaeda.
The leader we're all after is Osama bin Laden.
These combined equals the main threat to us all.

Not Iraq. And the fact there was an invasion in the first place is proof that Americans did not have full and accurate disclosure of the facts they needed.

DarkAutumn
09-12-2005, 06:29 AM
Originally posted by Dori1234:
jeez this thread got off topic in a hurry, although I would rather hear debates on cartriges and rifles I still love people having non-flaming talks on their views. But Still Don't leave me in the dust here, please give your thought on m1's and k98's!

Sorry Dori!

Personally, I'd choose the M1.
My reasons have nothing to do with technical details like grains of powder per cartridge, etc.

My reasons come from Veteran's talking about various weapons. And I've come across a lot of praise for the M1.
If troops on all sides respected the weapon, then they're the ones who ought to know best.

And that's good enough for me.

Dori1234
09-12-2005, 08:28 AM
well alright! lol ....good answer

TDC_kar98
09-18-2005, 02:37 PM
The sniper in that picture is actually a m14(am i correct?, ive fired one, nice but one hell of a heavy trigger http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif) They actually done use the M1 Garand model no more, but it's basically the same rifle but the M14 are now .308 rounds, right??

RoyalWolf
09-18-2005, 08:27 PM
Originally posted by TDC_kar98:
The sniper in that picture is actually a m14(am i correct?, ive fired one, nice but one hell of a heavy trigger http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif) They actually done use the M1 Garand model no more, but it's basically the same rifle but the M14 are now .308 rounds, right??

Yes. See my above post:




The photos posted above of a current U.S. servicemember DO NOT show an M1 Garand rifle. The rifle in both pictures and in wide use overseas today is the M14 rifle -- the Garand's successor. It is chambered in 7.62x51 NATO (.308) and is select-fire (fully automatic or semi automatic) and has a detachable 20-round box magazine. The rifle pictured is likely a variant of the M21, which is an M14 mounted with optics and a bipod (etc.) and employed in a sniper or designated marksman role.

killertom19
09-27-2005, 12:16 PM
Originally posted by ozjish:
DarkAutumn, the Germans conscience was flawed at that time due to World War One.

After World War I ended, the German people were relieved, but bitter. The bitterness for a war they didn't really consider lost, turned into disbelief and hatred for France and England when the Versailles Treaty was forced upon them. FYI, that treaty put the blame on Germany and Germany alone (while Austria-Hungary started the war; Germany entered teh war only very reluctantly)! The treaty also forced them to do a ridiculously high post-war payment to France and England. When the German people would work on minimum wages, the payments would have been completed in 1987(!). This unfair and humiliating treaty put silent rage into the hearts of German people against France and England and all their allies.

Germany was razed to the ground by this. Prices were skyhigh, the economy was not able to get up again, the people suffered. For years and years.

Hitler didn't only exploit the world-wide crisis in the 20s and 30s to rally the people, he also played on these feelings and the desolate state of Germany. And if a man does good (Hitler re-inspired the economy and gave the Germans their dignity back), how can he do evil? This is why it was possible for an entire population to fall under the control of this son of Satan. I'm sorry to say but you exhibit a seriously low knoledge of history. The German plans for attacking France were already ready by 1905! The assasination of the Austro-Hungarian prince Franz Ferdinand was only a " Casus belli ". Austro-Hungarian offiials consulted the Germans, and when Germany gave the " all go " sign, the war has been started. And mainly because of Clemenceau the treaty that ended the I. World War was the worst possible, and already gave the way for the next war.

ozjish
09-29-2005, 11:12 AM
I'm sorry to say but you exhibit a seriously low knoledge of history.

A "seriously low 'knoledge' of history", Killertom19? Please do yourself a favour and cease making clueless statements like that.

The Germans had prepared for war for a long time, as had all the "powers" in Europe. Think of the Dreadnought building run. After his diplomatic flunks, however, the Kaiser tomed down somewhat in 1911. For a time, everybody believed that war could be averted.

Now, there are many historians who believe that Germany jumped into the war with great enthousiasm right after the assassination of Franz Ferdinand. Others, including me, believe that Germany was not totally aware of the dangers (don't forget that they didn't expect
England to join the war at all); Germany only joined the war to get rid of the continuous Austrian "whining".

The reason I believe this, is because if it had been up to Austria-Hungary, they would have invaded Serbia the next day. If the Germans would have been anxious to start the war, the Kaiser would have immediately agreed to this. However, he only gave 'the "all go" sign' five days later.

But those are details... the main point is still that they entered the war at all.

DarkAutumn
09-29-2005, 10:06 PM
Imperial Russia postured itself as the 'protector of the slavs'; in reference to the slavic nations of which Serbia was one.

The Austro-Hungarian Empire wanted to invade Serbia in response to Gavrilo Princip's assassination of their Arch-Duke.

Therein lay their problem: How to neutralize Russia as a threat to their aims diplomatically?
Their solution was the Kaiser's Germany.

Russia might intervene against one opponent, but would not take action against the combined might of an Austro-Hungarian/German alliance.

To the Germans, this was just more of the same old sabre-rattling they'd been engaged in.
They were to be used as a threat to prevent Russian interference. So they agreed.

Nobody actually thought the war would escalate beyond Serbia. At the time, it seemed inconceivable that it would.

Also consider the era and the personalities:
Fierce nationalism, imperialism, and pride.

If the German Kaiser was all for war, he would've started one on his terms, at a time of his choosing, according to his timetable and NOT those of the Austro-Hungarians.

Raccoon_2
09-30-2005, 03:28 PM
This is what I think:

- France was defeated by the Germans in 1871.
- Germany became a growing (military) power and had a fleet to big to be a peacefull navy.
- England got anxious because of the new kid in town: Germany.
- Austria-Hungary had some big problems, its image had to be restored after the defeats against the Prussian armies in the 19th century.
- Russia wanted to be taken seriously.
- Turkey was the "sick man" of Europe.

And you all know what happened then because of these minor problems http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Atholien
10-01-2005, 05:31 AM
The Kar98 owns on long range, but in CQB the M1 Garand would wipe it out easily.

killertom19
10-01-2005, 10:21 AM
Originally posted by ozjish:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I'm sorry to say but you exhibit a seriously low knoledge of history.

A "seriously low 'knoledge' of history", Killertom19? Please do yourself a favour and cease making clueless statements like that.

The Germans had prepared for war for a long time, as had all the "powers" in Europe. Think of the Dreadnought building run. After his diplomatic flunks, however, the Kaiser tomed down somewhat in 1911. For a time, everybody believed that war could be averted.

Now, there are many historians who believe that Germany jumped into the war with great enthousiasm right after the assassination of Franz Ferdinand. Others, including me, believe that Germany was not totally aware of the dangers (don't forget that they didn't expect
England to join the war at all); Germany only joined the war to get rid of the continuous Austrian "whining".

The reason I believe this, is because if it had been up to Austria-Hungary, they would have invaded Serbia the next day. If the Germans would have been anxious to start the war, the Kaiser would have immediately agreed to this. However, he only gave 'the "all go" sign' five days later.

But those are details... the main point is still that they entered the war at all. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>In some points I agree with you. On the other hand, there is something that is very important. Austria-Hungary only wanted to capture Serbia, but Germany had much wider plans. They had many more territorial claims. Germany ultimately wanted the war, and while the peace treaty forced on Austria-Hungary and Germany by the French was the worst possible, Germany cannot be released from the responsability of the breakout of the War.

Cpt_Raidergun
10-02-2005, 05:43 AM
Do you really think Germany was responsable for the outbreak of the 1st World war? They were responsable, but no more then France, Austria-Hungary, ...
The French were still angry about 1870-71 and wanted to get their revenge on Germany. This goes a bit further then: "this country wanted that county". Just in case you didn't know France and Germany were never friends and if Germany hadn't invaded France and Belgium, France would have, their is no way to say when but it would just have been a matter of time.
Germany's "territorial claims" were not as big as you suggest, after all they conquered everything they needed with Bismarck: Germany unified, Alsace-Lorraine taken from the French.
Making Germany the main resposable for the war is just the view of the victorious nations, which is always accepted.

RoyalWolf
10-02-2005, 09:24 AM
The Kar98 owns on long range, but in CQB the M1 Garand would wipe it out easily.

Did you even read the rest of this thread?

The k98 does NOT "own" at longer distances. An average k98 might be slightly more accurate than an average M1, but a good M1 will outshoot an average k98. The projectiles have about the same energy as each other, regardless of distance.

And unless we're talking about sniper rifles (which we're not), all the rifles concerned can be considered "average."

The M1's main advantage over the k98 is its rate of fire, which would come in handy in a close-range encounter. I still wouldn't say it would "wipe out the k98 easily" though, because the rifles don't do the fighting. An M1 won't garauntee you a victory over a skilled opponent with a k98. You still have to outsmart and outshoot him to win.

As for the causes of WWI -- well, historians who've dedicated their lives to the very subject can't agree on it, so I won't even bother trying. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

killertom19
10-02-2005, 11:07 AM
Originally posted by Cpt_Raidergun:
Do you really think Germany was responsable for the outbreak of the 1st World war? They were responsable, but no more then France, Austria-Hungary, ...
The French were still angry about 1870-71 and wanted to get their revenge on Germany. This goes a bit further then: "this country wanted that county". Just in case you didn't know France and Germany were never friends and if Germany hadn't invaded France and Belgium, France would have, their is no way to say when but it would just have been a matter of time.
Germany's "territorial claims" were not as big as you suggest, after all they conquered everything they needed with Bismarck: Germany unified, Alsace-Lorraine taken from the French.
Making Germany the main resposable for the war is just the view of the victorious nations, which is always accepted. I just feel that blameing the A-H Empire for the entire war is wrong. Austria-Hungary was far to weak to start a war on its own. And no matter how you are trying to excuse Germany, they had their part in it to.

P.S: I live in a country which lost the War, so you can't say I'm using the victor's arguments.

Cpt_Raidergun
10-02-2005, 12:13 PM
Of course Germany had their part but reading your post I thought you were putting the blame entirely on Germany. And I'm not putting the blame on the A-H empire, actually I think France had more responsability for the start of the war then Austria-Hungary. France along with Germany

Cpt_Raidergun
10-02-2005, 01:23 PM
How did we go from "M1 vs K98" to "causes of WWI"

Americal_164th
10-09-2005, 08:03 PM
To get back on track. The M-1 would beat the kar 98. The reason being both were around the same caliber. Shoot about the same distance. The sights are crude on both weapons. You won't be shooting people at a mile off more likly if your a good shot about 400 yards if your lucky and its perfect shooting weather.THE M-1 GARAND has to big advantages. One is that it has a 8 round clip compared to the kar 5 rounds. The second is that it is semi auto. The only real disadvantage that it had is that it makes a (ka-ching) sound when the clip is emptyed. Basically when the M-1 ran out of ammo every german with in gun range knows it. Not to brag but I happen to own this particular rifle.
Another thing is that in BIA the germans will take 2 rounds from the M-1 to be killed. While if you shot a german with a kar it only takes one. If you get hit with a bullet in the chest your dead period.http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/cry.gif
THe BIA producers wanted to make the kar 98 equall in fire power to the M-1 so the kar 98 kills with one round while the M-1 kills with two. And if the kar was a better rifle than the M-1 we might be speeking german right now.

RoyalWolf
10-09-2005, 09:01 PM
I'm not sure how you would define "crude," but I find the sights on both the M1 and k98, while different, to be excellent. Competition target shooters use aperature sights like the M1's, and the M16 family uses very similar sights. The k98's sight is a classic desing that, with a little practice (which your average German soldier had) can be very effective.

I also own an M1 (1944 Sprinfield Armory) and two Mausers (though I sold my k98 a while back).

You're right on as far as the advantages and disadvantages. Except for the "ping" -- with maybe one or two very extraordinary exceptions, I can assure you that the noise that the empty clip ejection made was not a tactical worry. You can hear it when you're shooting, but even standing to the side of the shooter, it's hard to hear the "ping." Now imagine yourself fifty yards downrange of the thing, being shot AT -- I garauntee you don't hear it "ping."

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Americal_164th
10-10-2005, 06:58 AM
What I mean on "crude" is that at 300 yards the front post on the M-1 covers an area of 3 yards apx. I guess that the kar 98 has very simular sights not having seen one up close. The sight apputures are very differnet from the M-1 and kar 98. The sights competitive shooters use are a peep sight and that is where the simiarity ends. The hole in the back sight is a little bigger than a pin hole. While front sight is a circle that when aimed goes around the circular target, leaving a little white space around the outside of the target. I shoot compitition .22's.

The M-1 Garand that I own is a late WWII or early korean.

As for the "ping" the Army and Marines obvisilly thought it was a big deal if everyone knew that you where out of ammo. This is because some Army and Marines grunts would drill a hole through the clip and tie a string to it. Then in combat they would fire a few rounds (3-4 usually) throw that clip tied to a string on a hard surface. It would make that "ping" sound, the germans or the ja*****e would occasionaly think that someone emtyed there gun then they would make there move. Where the Army or Marine personell would fire on who they were fighting, if they knew were they were. The Allied and Axis infantry would be listining and looking for every advantage they could get becuase they wanted to make the other guy die for his country. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/cry.gif

Willys-MB
10-10-2005, 09:20 AM
Here's what weapons expert and writer Bruce Canfield thought about the "ping" stories:


An Enduring "Urban Legend"

Everyone is familiar with "Urban Legends" which are fantasy stories that have been told and re-told so many times that some people believe them to be true. One such story has plagued the M1 Garand rifle since at least the time of its adoption in 1936. The "legend" involves the distinctive "pinging" noise that the empty M1 clip makes when it is ejected from the rifle. When the M1 was adopted, some of its critics claimed that this was a serious defect in the rifle because an enemy could hear the "ping" and would know that the rifle was empty. This "defect" of the M1 was the cause of many barracks "bull sessions" during World War II and a number of new recruits were undoubtedly frightened. Even today, the story is repeated in some books and articles. The "legend" involves U.S. soldiers who were killed because the enemy was alerted that their M1 rifle was empty due to the noise of the ejected clip. While there are multiple variations to the story, they basically involve an American GI with an empty Garand rifle who was killed when the wily Japanese (or in some stories, German)heard the sound of the ejected clip, charged cross the open ground and bayoneted (or shot) the hapless "dogface" while he fumbled with trying to reload his empty Garand. An interesting twist on this "legend" involves U.S. soldiers turning the tables on their devious enemies by dropping empty M1 clips on the ground to simulate the noise of an ejected clip and then mowing the enemy down when they foolishly revealed their positions to the Americans with supposedly empty rifles. A variation of the story stated that members of the U.S. Army First Special Service Force who were armed with M1941 Johnson Light Machine Guns would fire eight rounds from their weapons, throw empty M1 clips on the ground and then use the remaining 12 rounds in their magazines to kill the Germans who were fooled by this bit of clever deception. Such stories were not limited to World War II and variants of the "legend" are attributed to the Korean War when the Red Chinese troops heard the ejected M1 clips hitting the frozen ground and then killing the Americans with unloaded Garands.

Despite this "legend" being around for over six decades, there is not one documented instance where an American soldier was killed because of a noisy ejected M1 clip. Repeat, there is NO official confirmation of such an incident. If one thinks about it, such a scenario is actually quite absurd. Anyone who has been in combat will verify that a battlefield is a noisy and confusing place. To think that an enemy could hear the sound of an ejected clip several hundred (or even several dozen) yards away over the din of explosions and the racket of many weapons being fired is not logical. Even in the case of a close-range firefight, the scenario does not hold water. Even if an enemy could hear the sound of an ejected clip, he really couldn't do much in the brief period that it takes to reload an M1. A GI with a little practice and a lot of incentive can reload a Garand in just a few seconds. Even Carl Lewis couldn't sprint very far before he would be faced with an angry American with a fresh eight-round clip. Also, even if the GI with the empty Garand couldn't reload fast enough, there would be fellow squad members around with loaded BARs, carbines, M1919A4 machine guns, Thompson submachine guns and other weapons who would be only too happy to send the enemy to their fate in the hereafter.

Some British authors who never used the M1 rifle have published this "defect" of the M1 rifle in numerous books and articles. Even some American writers who should know better have repeated the same bit of fantasy. While the M1 rifle was not perfect, the fact that its ejected clip makes a "pinging" noise when it is ejected is not, by any means, a flaw. If anyone has even a single documented instance of an American being killed due to this reason, I would be quite interested in hearing about it. I recall as a kid in the late '50s and early 60's reading "war stories" in the men's magazines of the day while waiting for a haircut at the barber shop. At the time, I had never handled (let alone fired) a M1 rifle and such tales seemed reasonable. However, to anyone with a knowledge of military small arms and combat situations, it should be readily apparent that such stories clearly fall into the "Urban Legend" category. Hopefully, someday, this piece of fantasy will die a natural death. In the meantime,if you hear a variation of the story being repeated, politely ask what documentation they have to support it. You will likely hear that they "read it somewhere" or their brother-in-law's next door neighbor knew somebody in WWII who was killed because of a noisy M1 clip. That ain't documentation!

RoyalWolf
10-10-2005, 10:17 AM
Thanks for posting that Canfield article. I knew I had read that somewhere but wasn't sure where.

As for the sights: high-power competition shooters (such as in the NRA matches and John C. Garand matches) shoot the M1 rifle, the M14 (M1A) rifle, M1 carbines, and AR15 rifles. All of those rifles use peep sights and front sight pictures almost identical to those of the M1's. It is not the same as .22 target shooting.

The k98 has open rear sights, not an aperature/peep sight. They are not as suited for target shooting but perfectly fine for combat shooting out to 300 yards -- which is what they were made for.

royalwolf

Americal_164th
10-10-2005, 03:52 PM
Thanks for putting in the time to straighten the M1 "ping" story out for me. Being to young to be in real combat therefor I have never heard or experinced the ravages of war. I have only my grandfather's first hand experiences in WWII, news, books, and first hand experince with the M1 to base my conclusions on.
I was not very clear on the kar 98 sights or some of the competitve rifle sights sorry.
Thanks again. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif Americal_164th

Mr_M1Garand
10-11-2005, 07:18 PM
Can I just say that you must be crazy to think that the K98 is a better weapon. What would you prefer when u have 2 germans running at u a bolt action, or a semi auto garand firing. People also failed to mention the room clearing ability and suppresing fire ability of the M1.

Im Australian and am not a huge fan of American weapons and I love euro weapons. You cant compare a k98 to a semi auto rifle, In squad based operations.

If the germans had the gun they would have the replaced k98 with it.

Raccoon_2
10-12-2005, 01:49 PM
Only if you are bale to supress though. And with room-clearing: in small rooms it's the same for both rifles, only a certain percentage of soldiers had to fire several rounds at a time. In one on one battles you're certainly right http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif. But in practise it was a lot different.

RoyalWolf
10-12-2005, 02:56 PM
As far as supression fire is concerned:

The M1 did give the rifleman an edge in that area. But remember that the Germans issued light machine guns on a much wider scale. Their squad was built around MGs and they worked with them much like in BIA you use a fire team and an assault team.

I won't claim to be an expert on Wehrmact small unit tactics, but I would imagine that a an MG crew could lay down a hell of a lot of cover fire, just like three or four GIs with M1s could.

Comparing two weapons is very hard and in an overall sense almost impossible. Some will fit some roles better than others. The k98 is lighter and handier than the M1 in practical use, and had a more user-friendly magazine/loading system. But I think the M1 makes a better overall battle weapon.

If I were to take one of the two hunting, I'd pick the k98. But in battle I'd want an M1.

Kentuck
10-13-2005, 06:48 AM
In response to the links of the guy with the firearm posted by Dori1234, Sir that is not a
M-1 Garand rifle. What you link to was a designated marksman armed with a accurized M-14 which has been converted to semi-auto only. You may have mistaken this because of the lack of the 20rnd detachable box magazine.

Since we are talking about WW2 era firearms, I recomend to all of you here to take a look at this site, www.surplusrifle.com (http://www.surplusrifle.com) It is a very informative website about military surplus firearms. Not just the main site, but the message boards also.

As for the debate over the M-1 vs. the K98
I would prefer to have both for my collection. But my favorite of the two would be the M-1 Garand. For the following reasons, Accurate, semi-auto, it's chambered for 7.62X63mm
(30-06 for the layman), and generally a real hoot to fire.

Someone mentioned the M-1903 Springfield rifle.
It is actually a copy of the Mauser action. The United States payed royalty payments to the Mauser corporation up until the U.S. entered the first World War.

Another thing. These weapons that we are talking about can be fired out to 1000 yards with reasonable accuracy.

The main battle rifle for the British during WW2 was the No.4 Mk.1 Lee Enfield bolt action rifle. Also the next version, the No.4 Mk.2 Lee Enfield. The difference being that the No.4 Mk.2 Enfield had/has Micrometer rear sites (appeture sight).
However some troops still used the WW1 Lee Enfield, which was the No.1 Mk.3.

Sorry for the long posting, But I'm sure you can appreciate my motive of wanting to share some information on such a pivital and important era in world history.

Kentuck

Kentuck
10-14-2005, 06:39 AM
Ok, I should have read the entire post befpre i posted. But Iam going to have call bull on Dori1234. The 7.62X63mm (30-06) projectile is NOT bigger than that of a 8X57mm mauser projectile. The 8X57mm mauser bullet has a diameter of 7.92mm whilst the 30-06 bulllet has a diameter of 7.62

Isnt it lovely when you actually know something about firearms?

WE_STAND_ALONE
10-14-2005, 02:43 PM
7.92mm = .312048 inches
7.62mm = .300228 inches

killertom19
10-15-2005, 04:05 AM
Originally posted by Kentuck:

Someone mentioned the M-1903 Springfield rifle.
It is actually a copy of the Mauser action. The United States payed royalty payments to the Mauser corporation up until the U.S. entered the first World War.

The main battle rifle for the British during WW2 was the No.4 Mk.1 Lee Enfield bolt action rifle. Also the next version, the No.4 Mk.2 Lee Enfield. The difference being that the No.4 Mk.2 Enfield had/has Micrometer rear sites (appeture sight).
However some troops still used the WW1 Lee Enfield, which was the No.1 Mk.3.
While the Springfield 1903 is a copy of the Mauser K98, the U.S. only payed royalties because the stripper clip of the Mauser, which they also copied, not for the rifle design.

The Lee Enfield No4Mk1 rifle was folowed by the Mk1*, not the Mk2. The peep hole sight was introduced on the Mk1*, to simplify production. Also, the bolt removal is different on Mk1* and Mk2 rifles, than on the Mk1. The main difference is, that on the Mk2 the trigger is pivoted to the receiver, instead of the trigger guard.

Kentuck
10-15-2005, 06:17 AM
Thank you for your input.

TR_Sloane
10-15-2005, 08:29 AM
The way I understand it, the German squads usually had riflemen supporting a machine gun (like a MG42). So it would make sense to have a long range, sniper-like rifle to complement the obviously devestating rpm of the LMG. I've heard that the Germans based their tactics around the LMG crew. I don't really know that much about it. The US choice of weapons seems like they were compromising between distance and speed in order to make more fluid, mobile, interchangeable units of pure infantery. It seems like the Germans were more into combined tactics using armor and artillery in a more integrated fashion- the K98 choice would have served a specific purpose. US paratroopers serve a much different purpose than the Whermacht. Maybe someone else can add to this or prove me wrong

TR_Sloane
10-15-2005, 08:36 AM
Oh, and Dori1234- Guns don't kill people, they just make it a heck of a lot easier.

TR_Sloane
10-15-2005, 08:37 AM
Same as nukes.

Dori1234
10-16-2005, 03:24 PM
lol, thats definatley true. But if you are saying that as guns should not be available to the everday law abaiding citizen trying to protect his or her family then you are wrong. If a man has the anger to kill another, then guns don't kill people, people kill people.


Oh, and your are definatlyey right about the
30-06 and the 8mm mauser. I must have been looking at like a 7mm winchester that looked like an 8mm mauser lol http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

willaume
10-28-2005, 02:46 PM
hello,
To be fair the kar 98 was probably slightly more performant than the Garand M1 in terms of balistic/wounding but less performant in partical rate of fire.
The German ammunition being slightly heavier and not that much slower, it if we believe wounding test done in the US after the war it has a slightly better fragmentation in the body (provided that there is enough body to go through for that to occurs).
All that being said any 7.x shot by a WWI or WWII would end up in the 3.2-3.6 kj
So well it does not really matter the difference being marginal.
It will hurt about the same.
The German gun was slightly lighter. Both gun were very reliable. The German gun having a slightly greater operational range. That being said they were both used as sniper riffle albeit with a slightly modified version for the Garrand M1).
The Garand main advantage was that it was a semi-auto that really reduce the level of training level required it is still far from an assault rifle. The German started to develop a semi auto version of the k 98 but precursor of the assault rifle emerged instead FG42 and SG44 (an AK 47 really so not really a proper riffle but more of a glorified mp40 and shooting 7.6 short)
My understanding is the big noise happened when the clip was ejected so really it is not that much of an hindrance. The design of the WWII m1 garand ammo feed was probably its main drawback was the non removable magazine feed by clips which was not as convenient to reaload as the removable clip of the other gun of the time.

To be honest there is little difference between a Mas 36, spingsfield, kar98, carracano mosing nagent, enfield.
I would see the garand M1 as a compromise between the m1 carabine (firing much smaller ammo) and rifles proper or the precursor of the semi auto post WWII gun like the tokarev SVT40 or the K43 (ie bigger calibre and 10 round user friendly-er ammo clip)
Which were produced in relatively large number but not as big as the garand M1 which was the most produce SA gun of the war.
Basically I would say that the M1 garand was slightly less performat in damage and slight more performant in practical rate of fire than the K98.

killertom19
10-28-2005, 03:55 PM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by willaume:



The Garand main advantage was that it was a semi-auto that really reduce the level of training level required it is still far from an assault rifle. The German started to develop a semi auto version of the k 98 but precursor of the assault rifle emerged instead FG42 and SG44 (an AK 47 really so not really a proper riffle but more of a glorified mp40 and shooting 7.6 short)
My understanding is the big noise happened when the clip was ejected so really it is not that much of an hindrance. The design of the WWII m1 garand ammo feed was probably its main drawback was the non removable magazine feed by clips which was not as convenient to reaload as the removable clip of the other gun of the time.

To be honest there is little difference between a Mas 36, spingsfield, kar98, carracano mosing nagent, enfield.
I would see the garand M1 as a compromise between the m1 carabine (firing much smaller ammo) and rifles proper or the precursor of the semi auto post WWII gun like the tokarev SVT40 or the K43 (ie bigger calibre and 10 round user friendly-er ammo clip)
QUOTE]

The Garand required less training because the en-bloc clip was easier to insert than loading with stripper clips. This has nothing to do with being semi-auto or not.

The part where you writhe about the Stg44 is just messed up! The Stg44 being like an AK47? The AK47 was developed after the war, and while I believe, that the Stg44 had much influence on its design, the internal mechanisms of the two are different. Also, the Stg44 fired 7.92 kurz, and it had nothing to do with the MP40.

The loading system of the Garand as a hindrance? I don't think so. It was fast, easy to use, and it CAN be reloaded in the middle of a clip. If you want to reload with bullets remainig in the clip, you just press the clip release button on the side of the receiver, and the clip jumps out. Removable clip of other guns of the time? May I ask you what rifles are you talking about? Since we are not talking about submachineguns, apart from the M1 Carbine, the Lee-Enfield rifles, the SVT40 and the German G/K41 or 43, no other rifles had removable magazines. The main battle rifles of the time were loaded by stripper clips, mostly five rounds, 6 with the Steyr and Carcano rifles, and 10 with the Lee-Enfield ( Altough the Enfield has a removable magazine, it was usually loaded by stripper clips.

"To be honest there is little difference between a Mas 36, spingsfield, kar98, carracano mosing nagent, enfield."

There are many-many differences between the rifles mentioned above.

mauser1959
10-28-2005, 09:49 PM
Comparing the K98 to the M1 is to compare apples to oranges. The M1 had troubles with sand and other forgien debris in the battle field , the K98 had a smaller magazine. The K98 had a slightly superior bullet , the M1 had the ability to train a grunt to fire the rifle in a faster fashion. To properly fire a bolt action rifle one does not remove it from ones shoulder during shots , I know men who can make a K98 sound like a semi auto with the rapidity of thier firing . The K98 has proven to be a time tested rifle in fact a rifle that the US army still continues to use in its armory though in a analog. No M1 rifle man in ww2 got close to the number of kills recorded with a k98 , however that number is succeeded by the mosin nagant 91-30 (considered a soldier proof rifle). The differnce in the projectiles was about 10 grains heavier for the k98 (there are 7000 grains in a pound).


1. Our current administration is in control of the national media.
2. Both political parties are part of the conspiriacy.
3. Americans are sheep, ready to believe whatever they are told.

None of the above things are true.


While I am an american , I tend to disagree with your opinion. It is not the current administration that is in control of the national media , I believe that task falls to the large corparations ( does the quote " never trust the military industrial complex ring a bell)? I believe that both parties are in cahoots as both have to have the backing of the large corparations to get enough money to get elected , including those of the media : how many corparation are connected to sony or any other mega media giant that you wish to name. As for the americans being sleepy and being willing to believe whatever they are told , history has borne that out time and time again, from ww2 through vietnam and I believe including the present conflict ( though I believe that we should have invaded Iraq for a differnt reason than those stated by the president).

But I degress from the topic at hand , I am sorry but I do not wish to be shot by either a M1 or a k98, both have the problem of making thier targets dead. Rifle effectiveness is akin to realestate , location , location, location. With that being said I happen to own both of the rifles in question , and each have thier strong and weak points . And if I could have my pick of battle rifles it would be the M1A1 other than that I will stick to my FAL.

mauser1959
10-29-2005, 02:15 PM
The principles that made the United States of America the greatest country on the face of the earth are under attack from enemies both foreign and domestic.

Governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, to secure the natural rights of Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.

Muslim extremists seek to destroy our Liberty and criminalize our Pursuit of Happiness. Their chosen path to achieve these goals involves taking away the lives of many Americans.

Statists from the Democratic Party seek to destroy our Liberty with useless government intervention into our private lives and to handicap our Pursuit of Happiness with crippling taxation.

Statists from the Republican Party seek to destroy our Liberty with a different set of useless laws attacking different portions of our private lives.

The Republicans seek to protect us from foreign threats; the Democrats seek to protect us from ourselves. Who will protect us from them?

The American secession from Britain was sparked by excessive government intervention into private affairs, by unreasonable taxation, and by government from a distance. These three statements described colonial America in 1776 - and they describe modern America in 2005


I know this is off topic , but it needed to be said ...http://www.fortliberty.org/

DarkAutumn
10-29-2005, 02:28 PM
God Bless America.

Considering recent events of the past few years, and past few months, y'all are in clear and present need of it.

But please, next time, post over in the Off Topic Barracks.

willaume
11-01-2005, 09:38 AM
Originally posted by : killertom19
.
Hello killertom19
I think you misunderstood me. (Or I was not clear enough)
I meant reloading the clip itself, especially when it was not empty.
Having fired mass 46/59 (eject-able magazine) and strip clipped rifles. It does not make a difference it just a question of habit.

Being semi-auto increase your rate of fire only marginally over bolt action. But you need to be more trained with a bolt action.
It is a riffle so the semi auto can have some advantage in certain situation but well that does not make such a difference between two skilled operators fighting each other in riffle range.
Nor does it make any significant difference when facing a SMG or assault rifle in SMG range. You are buggered all the same, even though you are slightly less with a semi auto than with a lock but in both case you better not miss your first bullet.

Sure all the rifle I mentioned have a difference but damage wise and range wise they are really in the same category of weapon. They fire about he same weight bullet at about the same velocity, in any case they all end up in the same rage of kinetic energy and force of impact.
In the grand scheme of thing, the difference performance wise is marginal compared to other type of weapon I am not sure it is worth agonizing on the subject.


The Ak47 and StG.44 are both gas operated, firing from a locked position with a gas cylinder on the barred and are using a long stoke gas piston. With a sping to absorb the recoil of the relatively heavy
Ok the lock is tilted in the stg44 and it is rotated with the Ak47 and the Ak shot 7.62x39 and the Stg44 7.9x33. Both being short version of the riffle 7.x calibre.
As far as I can tell, the AK was developed in 44 and tested in 46 and accepted in 47.

killertom19
11-03-2005, 03:08 AM
Hi Willaume,

You have some good points, but:

I don't believe that the rate of fire is only marginally higher with a semi-auto over a bolt action. Especially between the Garand and the K98, which has a relatively slower bolt action. Also don't forget that the Garand has 8 rounds in its clip, while the Mauser has 5 in its magazine.

About what you say about the bolt-action rifles basically being the same:
Don't forget that there are many more factors that decide if a weapon is a good combat arm. For example, while the Lee-Enfield rifles are also bolt actions, they are very different than the Mauser. Apart from technical differences, they have a 10 round magazine, and a faster bolt action than of the Mauser. This is also a key factor in the qualities of a firearm.

I believe that the Mauser K98k is a beautifully engineered piece of weaponry, but it was designed for another kind of warfare than what occured in the second wolrd war.

ozjish
11-17-2005, 04:40 PM
When can you truly compare a rifle to another? In equal situations. A common situation is two soldiers behind equal kind of cover, slugging away against each other.

The KAR-98 requires manual operation to get ready to fire again. Which involves time, movement, body action, aiming. The Garand doesn't. It fires, the soldier aims. A Garand has a firing speed which was determined by how quickly the soldier could pull the trigger. In an euqal situation, the average trained American soldier could fire four bullets for every one bullet the equally trained German soldier could fire.

I'll go with the Garand. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

ozjish
11-17-2005, 04:48 PM
And about guns & people: I believe that guns should only be granted to military and law enforcement personnel, not to crooks and civilians. And that's the problem in the States. It's not a matter of guns, but of law enforcement. We Europeans (and Canadians, if I may speak for them) are pretty confident that a crook who enters a house, won't be as stupid as to draw a gun because he'll have hell to pay if (or rather, when) caught. People in the States just don't believe that the government can enforce that basic principle.

My two cents.

gustave.jany
11-17-2005, 08:31 PM
Heard about the kid shooting his GF's parents. He used his Daddy's guns.
Now! Was his dad in any military or just collected weapons?
And what kind of parental education these people receive? These incidents stun me.

Mklangelo
12-11-2005, 08:20 PM
Originally posted by AMC_Pace:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Dori1234: the m1 must be far superior to a k98 because its semi automatic
in what way could it be "FAR" superior?
1. in a 1 vs 1 used on what distance?
ie. long range: the K98 can shot you a precise 3rd nosehole at a range of almost 1 mile so when you come along with your c rappy m1 your dead before you have even seen where it would have been coming from.

2. if the K98 would have been in anyway bad the germans would not have owned all nations in ww2 till 42 (in the begin of ww2 the K98 was the standart for the german soldier). ie the Brits which where useing the semiautomatic Rifle "enfield"

3. in a modern combat?
both guns would be more then useless, modern combat distance is about 50 - 150m Meters/ 55 - 164 Yards and fast paced. Both guns do not fullfil in anyway those needs. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Bolt action vs semi automatic? In closer combat(anything within 60meters, I'll take the semi-auto)

Raccoon_2
12-12-2005, 12:03 AM
8. <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> a fast paced assault, is how modern warfare is. It wasn't MODERN warfare this was over a half a century ago although it was EXTREMELY more of a mobile war that that of trench fighting in the great war </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Though modern warfare is actually based on what we now from WWII. So it actually was modern.

Mklangelo
12-13-2005, 07:33 AM
Originally posted by Raccoon_2:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
8. <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> a fast paced assault, is how modern warfare is. It wasn't MODERN warfare this was over a half a century ago although it was EXTREMELY more of a mobile war that that of trench fighting in the great war </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Though modern warfare is actually based on what we now from WWII. So it actually was modern. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Right. Combined Arms and all that...

M1928_TommyGun
12-18-2005, 01:29 AM
The M1 Garand would win with a distance less than 100 meters. Come on... The K98 is designed in 1898! They only made them a little shorter.
Why do you think the Germans made their own version of the M1 Garand? They made a 10 round semi-automatic Walther rifle.

LtPuddlesworth
12-19-2005, 01:27 PM
The M1 Garand would most likely win because it has superior firepower, accuracy has nothing to do with winning a battle. If you think about it, most people aren't taking well aimed shots during combat, especially in urban fighting. The K98 is a good weapon, packs a little more punch with its 8mm round but nothing substantial. M1 Garand will usually win, but it's hard to compare the two since one is a semi automatic and the other a bolt action.

sgt.scream
12-19-2005, 01:58 PM
in my opinion if you want to compare ww2 rifles compare the m1 to the g43 because they are both semi-auto............but this is just my opinion

Mklangelo
12-19-2005, 02:16 PM
Well, in that way, your at least comparing apples to apples...

Dori1234
12-27-2005, 01:47 PM
I havent fired either the m1 or the g43 in real life although i have fired a a 7.62 in real life.

this is a toughy

im prolly going with the g43 because it could easily be reloaded in the middle of the clip it was 7.92 it had 10 shots and all that german production jazz

Panzer10.Soldat
01-30-2006, 12:10 PM
Heres the deal. I don't think this argument should exist. The reason the Americans used a semi-auto rifle and the Germans used a bolt action comes down to tactics. The Americans focused on individual men, firing and manuvering, cover and flank, as depicted in BiA. The machine gun supported the rifleman. In fact, not every squad was issued a machine gun. The Germans however, approached the situation from the complete other side. The machine gun, originally the MG34, then MG42 (much better, faster barrel changes, less weight) was the workhorse of the German army. The riflemen were in the squad to support the MG. Pretty much every squad had an MG. (SS at least.) Both rifles fufilled the role they were designed to play perfectly. And for accuracy, that has already been addressed. So, I declare a tie.

As for the "ping", I am in a reenactment division, an SS unit actually, and I have NEVER, I repeat, NEVER in 3 years of events, heard a "ping". Between my firing, my squadmates firing, the roar of the 2 MG 42's in our squad, the MG 34, the mp40, the SG44, and the Tokerov (a suvanier from the Ostfront) not to mention the Amis guns going off. It is one of the loudest things on this earth. And there is no way you can hear a ping.

Donny101st
02-14-2006, 01:54 PM
Pace, you are just waiting for a smack in the face.

YOU are the one who has to think!

"The dutch got informed and had an ultimatum, The French? well after beating the Netherlands in 4 day, you think that Belgium and France where surprised when the germany just go on? I guess even you see you are wrong."

AHAHAHAHA!!!!
The Dutch (IM ONE OF EM) didn't get informed, there was no such of a ultimatum until the war almost ended with the threatening of bombing Rotterdam (THE WAR HAD ALREADY BEGUN AND WAS NEARLY AT HIS END WHEN THIS ULTIMATUM WAS MADE)

And now the surprise part:
THERE WAS SURPRISE!! Holland relied on their neutral stance and were surprised as hell when the germans invaded Holland.

Mozzerman
02-21-2006, 02:15 PM
Anyone who says the M1 was less accurate because it was semiauto is an idiot. It was less accurate because it wasn't constructed as perfectly as the K98k. Video games often make the M1 look inaccurate and have the K98k shoot perfectly. This is not how it was. The K98k was just a little more accurate.

RoyalWolf
02-21-2006, 03:30 PM
Semiautomatic rifles are less accurate than bolt-action rifles as a rule. It is just the way it is. Do you own either rifle Mozzerman?

The pre-war k98s were made to a much higher quality than the late-war carbines. You cannot say that all k98s are better quality than all M1s. M1s were made to a very high quality throughout their production, as were k98s except toward the end of the war.

A good k98 will outshoot a good M1 but a good M1 will outshoot an average k98. The difference in any combat situation is negligible as has been said several times in this thread.

Mozzerman
02-22-2006, 01:34 PM
I have to admit you are right. Although I did fire an M14 and felt it was more accurate than my cousin's Mosin-Nagan, but there is a 60 year difference in when they were designed!

Filtakleen
02-22-2006, 03:04 PM
well theres alot of disussion on here but ill keep it simple. out of personal preferance and nothing else i'd take the M1 Garand.

Shieko
03-06-2006, 08:40 PM
i would just like to say that the comparison is fair being as the stradagey with the americans was to swamp in as many troups as posible geting of as many shots as posible per man with the germans it was to bomb everything then run over it all with tanks then get the men to clean everything up and kill off survivers with the assistance of yet more tanks point being is each sides suport guns the Mg 42 for the germans and the browning for the allies the allies would get off more rifel rounds then the germans but the problem was if they can get off a shot before a mg 42 shot hits them (mg 42 had an impresive rate of 130 rounds a minute the browing had a low 60)the kar got off 5 rounds a minute and the m1 got of about 12-15 i heard the m1 also has a problem of miss fireing while the kar 98 had that problem when it wasent cleaned that day my opa was in the youth divishon for 3 years of the war but he didnt have much to say about m1s as he was on the eastern front with the russians for 2 years anyways he said that the m1 was a waste of wood and iron and so was the kar as he put it "they are to perfect" he said the russians had the best he told me how you would think it would fall apart in your hands (it was that badly put together) but when it reached -82 deggrees celcius in russia it shrunk so much that it was the perfect gun another thing about russian wepondry is you can pull them from most anywhere and still fire them after a little bit of cleaning http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/heart.gif

Dori1234
03-06-2006, 11:53 PM
Originally posted by Shieko:
i would just like to say that the comparison is fair being as the stradagey with the americans was to swamp in as many troups as posible geting of as many shots as posible per man with the germans it was to bomb everything then run over it all with tanks then get the men to clean everything up and kill off survivers with the assistance of yet more tanks point being is each sides suport guns the Mg 42 for the germans and the browning for the allies the allies would get off more rifel rounds then the germans but the problem was if they can get off a shot before a mg 42 shot hits them (mg 42 had an impresive rate of 130 rounds a minute the browing had a low 60)the kar got off 5 rounds a minute and the m1 got of about 12-15 i heard the m1 also has a problem of miss fireing while the kar 98 had that problem when it wasent cleaned that day my opa was in the youth divishon for 3 years of the war but he didnt have much to say about m1s as he was on the eastern front with the russians for 2 years anyways he said that the m1 was a waste of wood and iron and so was the kar as he put it "they are to perfect" he said the russians had the best he told me how you would think it would fall apart in your hands (it was that badly put together) but when it reached -82 deggrees celcius in russia it shrunk so much that it was the perfect gun another thing about russian wepondry is you can pull them from most anywhere and still fire them after a little bit of cleaning http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/heart.gif

are you kidding me, 130 RPM, 60?!?!

The MG-42 could fire around 1200 and the brownign .30 cal could fire 400-600

The western front would not get to 82 below, that is impossible

PLEASE think before you post

RoyalWolf
03-07-2006, 12:33 AM
Originally posted by Shieko:
i would just like to say that the comparison is fair being as the stradagey with the americans was to swamp in as many troups as posible geting of as many shots as posible per man with the germans it was to bomb everything then run over it all with tanks then get the men to clean everything up and kill off survivers with the assistance of yet more tanks point being is each sides suport guns the Mg 42 for the germans and the browning for the allies the allies would get off more rifel rounds then the germans but the problem was if they can get off a shot before a mg 42 shot hits them (mg 42 had an impresive rate of 130 rounds a minute the browing had a low 60)the kar got off 5 rounds a minute and the m1 got of about 12-15 i heard the m1 also has a problem of miss fireing while the kar 98 had that problem when it wasent cleaned that day my opa was in the youth divishon for 3 years of the war but he didnt have much to say about m1s as he was on the eastern front with the russians for 2 years anyways he said that the m1 was a waste of wood and iron and so was the kar as he put it "they are to perfect" he said the russians had the best he told me how you would think it would fall apart in your hands (it was that badly put together) but when it reached -82 deggrees celcius in russia it shrunk so much that it was the perfect gun another thing about russian wepondry is you can pull them from most anywhere and still fire them after a little bit of cleaning

Sir, read the rest of the posts in this thread and you might learns something. Almost all of the facts in your post are incorrect. This subject has been covered quite well, I think. The last thing we need is to have false Information added at this point.

Thirty_cal.
03-09-2006, 10:26 PM
M1: hands down
Semi auto rifle in general are less acurate than bolt action rifles. which is why springfield 03s were used by snipers in WWII. But the M1 Garand was an exception, highly accurate, dependable, and the semi auto feature could save your life, as you've probably already figured out in BIA. General Patton called the M1 garand "the greatest battle impliment ever devised." and the germans were more than a little envious of our M1s. I've had the privilege to shoot these two guns and many other WWII era guns on a regular basis. My shooting buddy is a avid WWII firearms collector.

OsteAgtigDK
03-22-2006, 04:40 AM
Hello everyone.

Thought i might just pop in and say hello.

Just finished a book called "Blitzkrieg" which is an analysis of German tactics 39-40 and halfway through Guderian's "Achtung Panzer!" so I thought i would correct you all a bit http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

The Germans won in France, not through superior tanks or even more of them, but through the correct use of armoured formations. The English and the French used outdated tank tactics and strategies. They dispersed their armour and used them in an infantry support role where the Germans massed them in huge formations. Also, through the daring tactics of Rommel and Guderian, they shot through the enemy lines to the allied rear positions instead of waiting for the infantry as they were ordered to do.

So the Germans won because of(among others):

-More evolved tactics.
-Better commanders.

Oh by the way, SS formations did participate in the battle of France but it was only on brigade or regimental level (i forget what it was). The wehrmacht generals wanted to do without Hitler's "Parade Ground Troops" or "Asphalt Soldiers" but they couldn't because the SS formations were mechanized and the mechanization of the German Wehrmacht was not particularly advanced yet. They simply had no choice. So the SS was completely subordinated to the army. And their results was actually rather poor in the french campaign. It was not before Russia they started to perform well and became known as an elite unit.

Jus228
04-12-2006, 10:42 AM
I'm a little late to the party but this is an interesting thread.

I can't believe some of the misinformation out there, it makes me sick.

The only reason these two rifles can even be compared is because they were both main battle rifles.. Despite the M1 being semi-auto, I think these rifles are pretty evenly matched across the board.. All but rate of fire obviously. the 7.62x63mm(I hate calling it that, the beloved 30-06) and 7.92x57(8mm mauser) are so evenly matched. I've personally chronographed both loads. the '06 was M2 ball and the 8mm was Romanian surplus light ball, which I think is 147gr? The 8mm chrono'd at 2950fps at 5ft from the muzzle out of my Yugo M48 Mauser. The Garand was around 2875fps. Now someone tell me the Garand is *more powerful* lol.. Granted, the 8mm was loaded HOT.. but the incredibly strong Mauser action handled it with ease... I don't know much about it, but there was some heavy ball in 8mm for the machine guns ect.. that was 198gr I believe. That'd wreak havoc on the M1's gas system, which was non adjustable and too sensitive to changing loads.

I love both rifles but have a soft spot for the Garand, and I wish I could get one.. I've passed up a few REALLY nice ones when I should have bought them... Someday.

Someone showed a picture of what was really an M14... That's what the Garand wanted to be when it grew up.. They are fantastic rifles IMO. Some of the best sights ever put on a battle rifle.. A redisigned and more reliable gas system.. 20rd detachable magazines.. 7.62x51 chambered.. Which has proven to be one of the most consistant long range cartridges in the wind, and one of the most accurate cartridges in the world. It's no wonder most of the sniper rifles are chambered in it. How awesome it would've been if all our servicemen in WWII had M14's..... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif And you want to talk about accuracy.. The U.S. Army used the M-21 as its standard sniper rifle for a good long time before it was replaced by the M24SWS in the 80's.

That's my M1A. (civilian semi-auto only M14)

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v167/Jus228/DSC00523.jpg

Don't mind the POS AK below it.. I got rid of that jamming piece of ****.

Kentuck
04-13-2006, 07:55 AM
It shouldnt have jammed unless for a few reasons, debris in the recieiver such as gravel, lol, uh maybe if it was picky on ammo like not feeding SP and HP rounds, FMJ should have breezed right into the chamber. Possibly the feed lips on the magazine wasnt up to par. Oh well, it most likely could have been fixed.

RoyalWolf
04-13-2006, 08:35 AM
I agree with Kentuck -- there are very few reasons, and few of those serious ones, why your AK didn't perform. It looks like a Romanian SAR-1. Unless it was a poorly-home-made example, it should have run fine. Probably like Kentuck said, bad magazine, SP ammo problems or something like that.

As a general rule, AKs don't jam. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Jus228
04-13-2006, 10:53 AM
It was an SAR-1. The jams were failures to eject empties. It'd try to eat the empty while loading a loaded round. It might've been the fixed ejector was at the wrong position or angle, or the extractor might've been weak or defective... I don't know. It shot pretty darn good and was fun, but it was too discouraging having it hang up every couple of magazines.. I didn't feel like tinkering on that rifle. I sold it for just about what I payed, so no loss..

It's funny though.. My AR-15 (with a terrible reputation for reliability) has never malfunctioned and its got a little over 3000rds through it, and I rarely clean it. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

RetardedPanda69
05-02-2006, 10:45 PM
Originally posted by RoyalWolf:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by TDC_kar98:
The sniper in that picture is actually a m14(am i correct?, ive fired one, nice but one hell of a heavy trigger http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif) They actually done use the M1 Garand model no more, but it's basically the same rifle but the M14 are now .308 rounds, right??

Yes. See my above post:




The photos posted above of a current U.S. servicemember DO NOT show an M1 Garand rifle. The rifle in both pictures and in wide use overseas today is the M14 rifle -- the Garand's successor. It is chambered in 7.62x51 NATO (.308) and is select-fire (fully automatic or semi automatic) and has a detachable 20-round box magazine. The rifle pictured is likely a variant of the M21, which is an M14 mounted with optics and a bipod (etc.) and employed in a sniper or designated marksman role.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Eh, I'd hate to jump into this, but the M-14 is actually the M1 Carbine's successor, it even looks like it in a way. You can also say that the M-16 is kind of like the replacement for the M1 Garand during Vietnam. The M-14 was used during Vietnam as almost the same way the M1 Carbine was used during WWII, a rifle for tank-crews next to the grease-gun since it was more compact than an M16. There was also a scoped variant of it. I think I remember my dad saying something about using an M-14 during Vietnam, he might've been part of a tank crew since I think I remember him saying that too, but he never really talks about it anyway.

RetardedPanda69
05-02-2006, 10:55 PM
Originally posted by Cpt_Raidergun:
Of course Germany had their part but reading your post I thought you were putting the blame entirely on Germany. And I'm not putting the blame on the A-H empire, actually I think France had more responsability for the start of the war then Austria-Hungary. France along with Germany


And now, how can you even put the blame on a certain country for "starting" a war in the first place? Wars are caused by rivalries and tensions between countries, and it takes countries to piss EACH OTHER off to start wars.

RetardedPanda69
05-02-2006, 11:16 PM
Originally posted by Shieko:
i would just like to say that the comparison is fair being as the stradagey with the americans was to swamp in as many troups as posible geting of as many shots as posible per man with the germans it was to bomb everything then run over it all with tanks then get the men to clean everything up and kill off survivers with the assistance of yet more tanks point being is each sides suport guns the Mg 42 for the germans and the browning for the allies the allies would get off more rifel rounds then the germans but the problem was if they can get off a shot before a mg 42 shot hits them (mg 42 had an impresive rate of 130 rounds a minute the browing had a low 60)the kar got off 5 rounds a minute and the m1 got of about 12-15 i heard the m1 also has a problem of miss fireing while the kar 98 had that problem when it wasent cleaned that day my opa was in the youth divishon for 3 years of the war but he didnt have much to say about m1s as he was on the eastern front with the russians for 2 years anyways he said that the m1 was a waste of wood and iron and so was the kar as he put it "they are to perfect" he said the russians had the best he told me how you would think it would fall apart in your hands (it was that badly put together) but when it reached -82 deggrees celcius in russia it shrunk so much that it was the perfect gun another thing about russian wepondry is you can pull them from most anywhere and still fire them after a little bit of cleaning http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/heart.gif


...Are you kidding me? Not only is that the most ******ed thing I've read, I couldn't even understand more than half of it.

Mozzerman
05-03-2006, 03:01 PM
Originally posted by ******edPanda69:

Eh, I'd hate to jump into this, but the M-14 is actually the M1 Carbine's successor, it even looks like it in a way. You can also say that the M-16 is kind of like the replacement for the M1 Garand during Vietnam. The M-14 was used during Vietnam as almost the same way the M1 Carbine was used during WWII, a rifle for tank-crews next to the grease-gun since it was more compact than an M16. There was also a scoped variant of it. I think I remember my dad saying something about using an M-14 during Vietnam, he might've been part of a tank crew since I think I remember him saying that too, but he never really talks about it anyway.

Now, thats the most ******ed thing I read in a while. The M14 was 1120 mm long. The M16 was 986 mm long. The M14 is longer and heavier than the M16 so it would have been the other way around, but we all know the M16 took over for the M14 very fast. Oddly enough the M14 was barley used at all, and the only large numbers were used by the marines.

PS don't say another post is ******ed when yours is just as bad

RetardedPanda69
05-03-2006, 03:04 PM
Originally posted by Mozzerman:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ******edPanda69:

Eh, I'd hate to jump into this, but the M-14 is actually the M1 Carbine's successor, it even looks like it in a way. You can also say that the M-16 is kind of like the replacement for the M1 Garand during Vietnam. The M-14 was used during Vietnam as almost the same way the M1 Carbine was used during WWII, a rifle for tank-crews next to the grease-gun since it was more compact than an M16. There was also a scoped variant of it. I think I remember my dad saying something about using an M-14 during Vietnam, he might've been part of a tank crew since I think I remember him saying that too, but he never really talks about it anyway.

Now, thats the most ******ed thing I read in a while. The M14 was 1120 mm long. The M16 was 986 mm long. The M14 is longer and heavier than the M16 so it would have been the other way around, but we all know the M16 took over for the M14 very fast. Oddly enough the M14 was barley used at all, and the only large numbers were used by the marines.

PS don't say another post is ******ed when yours is just as bad </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oh my god, why don't you learn how to read you ****ing idiot? I said that the M1 GARAND is kind of like a replacement of the M-16, and that the M14 was used mostly by anybody whose primary job wasn't fighting, like the M1 CARBINE was. Stop getting offended over stupid things you FAT loser. You also have the spelling of a 10 year old. And how can you say thay my post (which is right by the way) is just as bad as:

"i would just like to say that the comparison is fair being as the stradagey with the americans was to swamp in as many troups as posible geting of as many shots as posible per man with the germans it was to bomb everything then run over it all with tanks then get the men to clean everything up and kill off survivers with the assistance of yet more tanks point being is each sides suport guns the Mg 42 for the germans and the browning for the allies the allies would get off more rifel rounds then the germans but the problem was if they can get off a shot before a mg 42 shot hits them (mg 42 had an impresive rate of 130 rounds a minute the browing had a low 60)the kar got off 5 rounds a minute and the m1 got of about 12-15 i heard the m1 also has a problem of miss fireing while the kar 98 had that problem when it wasent cleaned that day my opa was in the youth divishon for 3 years of the war but he didnt have much to say about m1s as he was on the eastern front with the russians for 2 years anyways he said that the m1 was a waste of wood and iron and so was the kar as he put it "they are to perfect" he said the russians had the best he told me how you would think it would fall apart in your hands (it was that badly put together) but when it reached -82 deggrees celcius in russia it shrunk so much that it was the perfect gun another thing about russian wepondry is you can pull them from most anywhere and still fire them after a little bit of cleaning"

I CAN BARELY EVEN READ THAT. How old are you "Mozzerman"? 12? God damn.

Mozzerman
05-03-2006, 10:04 PM
Originally posted by ******edPanda69:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Mozzerman:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ******edPanda69:

Eh, I'd hate to jump into this, but the M-14 is actually the M1 Carbine's successor, it even looks like it in a way. You can also say that the M-16 is kind of like the replacement for the M1 Garand during Vietnam. The M-14 was used during Vietnam as almost the same way the M1 Carbine was used during WWII, a rifle for tank-crews next to the grease-gun since it was more compact than an M16. There was also a scoped variant of it. I think I remember my dad saying something about using an M-14 during Vietnam, he might've been part of a tank crew since I think I remember him saying that too, but he never really talks about it anyway.

Now, thats the most ******ed thing I read in a while. The M14 was 1120 mm long. The M16 was 986 mm long. The M14 is longer and heavier than the M16 so it would have been the other way around, but we all know the M16 took over for the M14 very fast. Oddly enough the M14 was barley used at all, and the only large numbers were used by the marines.

PS don't say another post is ******ed when yours is just as bad </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oh my god, why don't you learn how to read you ****ing idiot? I said that the M1 GARAND is kind of like a replacement of the M-16, and that the M14 was used mostly by anybody whose primary job wasn't fighting, like the M1 CARBINE was. Stop getting offended over stupid things you FAT loser. You also have the spelling of a 10 year old. And how can you say thay my post (which is right by the way) is just as bad as:

"i would just like to say that the comparison is fair being as the stradagey with the americans was to swamp in as many troups as posible geting of as many shots as posible per man with the germans it was to bomb everything then run over it all with tanks then get the men to clean everything up and kill off survivers with the assistance of yet more tanks point being is each sides suport guns the Mg 42 for the germans and the browning for the allies the allies would get off more rifel rounds then the germans but the problem was if they can get off a shot before a mg 42 shot hits them (mg 42 had an impresive rate of 130 rounds a minute the browing had a low 60)the kar got off 5 rounds a minute and the m1 got of about 12-15 i heard the m1 also has a problem of miss fireing while the kar 98 had that problem when it wasent cleaned that day my opa was in the youth divishon for 3 years of the war but he didnt have much to say about m1s as he was on the eastern front with the russians for 2 years anyways he said that the m1 was a waste of wood and iron and so was the kar as he put it "they are to perfect" he said the russians had the best he told me how you would think it would fall apart in your hands (it was that badly put together) but when it reached -82 deggrees celcius in russia it shrunk so much that it was the perfect gun another thing about russian wepondry is you can pull them from most anywhere and still fire them after a little bit of cleaning"

I CAN BARELY EVEN READ THAT. How old are you "Mozzerman"? 12? God damn. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sorry, I just read it really fast. I didn't realize what you were saying and jumped to conclusions. I'm 19 years old and I will say one last thing: Calm down! You sound like a jerk. I made a simple mistake and instead of just pointing it out nicely, you had to act like an ***. Lose the ego man.

And next time don't make assumptions on age.

RetardedPanda69
05-04-2006, 01:37 AM
Eh, yeah, you're right, sorry about that. I got carried away because I thought you didn't get what I was saying, but actually I didn't really know what I was talking about. I didn't know the M14 was actually that big, I've just thought I heard something about it being the replacement to the M1 Carbine or something like that, it was probably on the History Channel a while back. I'm actually 15, so I'm really in no place in making assumptions about people's ages anyway. :\
I just mis-understood you, and got a little hot-headed.

Mozzerman
05-04-2006, 01:51 PM
Originally posted by ******edPanda69:
Eh, yeah, you're right, sorry about that. I got carried away because I thought you didn't get what I was saying, but actually I didn't really know what I was talking about. I didn't know the M14 was actually that big, I've just thought I heard something about it being the replacement to the M1 Carbine or something like that, it was probably on the History Channel a while back. I'm actually 15, so I'm really in no place in making assumptions about people's ages anyway. :\
I just mis-understood you, and got a little hot-headed.

Too late. LOL! I already jumped to conclusions and admitted I'm wrong.

RetardedPanda69
05-04-2006, 09:42 PM
Okay, well... that's all that needs to be said... because we're MEN.... *AHERM*... *manly grunt*

FTsuper
07-17-2006, 11:37 AM
Well... While the Garand is .30-06 and semi-auto, people tend to overlook the fact that the round was so overpowered and had such recoil that a second follow up shot was hard to make accurate. IF you are taking your time and aiming effectively (which, I suppose, doesnt happen very often in combat), there is not a 'whole' lot of difference between the firing rates of the two. From personal experience (and obvious thought) though, I would have to say the Garand is superior in terms of putting lead down range, but not in terms of one being better than the other. Both are great combat rifles, both suited to their time and function.

Has anyone else ever read, anywhere, the 'saying' about the rifles. "The Germans built an accurate rifle, The Americans built a firepower rifle, but the Brits built a Combat Rifle." Its something similiar to that, if you can remember, please tell me, I remember it was interesting and would like to read it again.

I guess I had to put that up because im a huge fan of the Lee Enfield No.4 Mk1. I have 4 of them and on top of that, I am Canadian, and as everyone knows, we carried them too. Hooray for Canada.

paddockrulzok
09-03-2006, 11:52 AM
The Lee Enfield has the same accuracy and firepower as a kar.98 Mauser, the only difference is the Lee fires 10 rounds composed of two 5 round stripper clips, similar in calibre to the mauser,the garand fires 30.cal ammo, it has an 8 round mag. but lacks the accuracy of the two, its mainly a good supression gun cos you can fire it pretty damn quick if ur good, still some pretty good firepower though...but not quite as powerful as a kar.98 or Lee Enfield. There problem solved.

Milsurp_Kentuck
09-04-2006, 05:31 AM
I do not own a M1 garand yet, but I have fired one before, It must have been broke, cause I didnt find any recoil (joke). And there isnt any major differences between 8mm Mauser and 30-06. Any difference in "power" is minute. 30-06 cant be all that bad, it is the most popular centerfire cartridge in the U.S. and its 100 years old.

Trotchye
11-23-2006, 01:45 AM
Originally posted by AMC_Pace:
ridiculous,
you have no logic in your agumentation chains.
jumping from one to the other, then other way around, just to have right... good god how old are you?
12?
aside that you have no clue about WW2

now again THINK before you post!
when did the war start?
when got T34 into the battlefield? when the Tiger and Panther?
nothing of it has anything to do with beating entired Europe.
There where NO "fanatic superior SS" as fighting troops in the Begin of the war, not even one. Poland, France got beaten up by ordonary Wehrmacht's Soldiers with cr apy K98k.

as for that, i leave this, because i really cant be botherd to talk to someone who acts like a little child and has no understanding of things.
"THINK before you post"
Trying to act like some smart a$s?
Just let me show you one simple quote of yours


2. if the K98 would have been in anyway bad the germans would not have owned all nations in ww2 till 42 (in the begin of ww2 the K98 was the standart for the german soldier). ie the Brits which where useing the semiautomatic Rifle "enfield"


You got it definately right! The k98 dominated until they saw the M1s in 1942!


know that is hard in the US because your education system is on 3rd world level and can not catch up with any country in Europe.. but at least you can try.

Go check out most of the recent Nobel Prize winners in science! US Scientists outnumbered most other countries.

Now, just a reminder

"THINK before you post!"

Trotchye
11-23-2006, 01:57 AM
Muslim extremists seek to destroy our Liberty and criminalize our Pursuit of Happiness. Their chosen path to achieve these goals involves taking away the lives of many Americans.



Hi there, I would like to focus on this particular one only. The media would tell us that Muslims just envied us but that really wasn't the real reason. As a christian, and currently in a religion class writing my term paper about muslims. One main reason the US is fighting the muslims is all about Israel http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif The Muslims really wanted to annihilate the Jews. I mean genocide here!

Of course, the Iraq war is a whole differenting. Sadam Hussein violated his agreement of W. of Mass Destruction with the UN.. blar blar blar. The japanese are bounded by a similar law, they can only own defensive weapons.
The idea is like when a police officer says, "Freeze!"
You don't reach your hand into your jacket... and say "I'm gonna call my lawyer..."
You would probably get shot since the officer might think that you were trying to pull out a gun.
Even you were found unarmed later....
Law is Law, The same goes with agreement.

TexasRed84
02-08-2007, 07:50 PM
I wish they had ignorance control for these forums or atleast a minimum age limit. Some of you guys put up a lot of false info.

The M-14 replaced the M-1 Garand, and it's really more of a modification than replacement. The only real difference between the two is a 20red. box mag. and a selective fire switch. The M-14 is no longer the standard issue but it's not an uncommon to see our marksman in iraq using them. Our special forces have a sweet new stock for it. It's called the Mk. 14 mod 0. Check it out.

TexasRed84
02-08-2007, 08:05 PM
As far as the Garand vs. the mauser, it would depend on the circumstances. A garand off the stockpile will be just about as accurate as the mauser. In theory, yes the mauser is more accurate, but when your country is trying to churn them out in the millions and takes shortcuts to produce them faster...you'll lose that accuracy. Also, the Garand's sights are superior in that windage can quickly and easily be adjusted The Mauser has a slightly larger round but not enough larger to make a difference. You wouldn't say after getting shot,"wow, i'm glad that was only a 7.62 and not the german 7.92 cause that really would have hurt." Getting hit by the M-1 Garand will knock you off your feet just like the Mauser will. The real important difference between the two is the ability to put lead downrange in a hurry. A semi-auto is much better suited to regular small arms fighting than a bolt action. The U.S. service rifle before the Garand was the Springfield 03a3...and it's was so close of a copy of the german mauser that the U.S. got sued internationally for it. This is a rare example of where the U.S. was one step ahead of the germans in technology pre-ww2.

AFSmity
04-14-2007, 01:34 AM
Well, yeah, Poland and France fell ridiculously fast but there certainly WAS surprise when the Western Offensive came through the Ardennes, cutting off the best of the French divisions in Belgum. The French had a lot of tanks, but they were not concentrated, which allowed the roving Panzers to knock them out piecemeal. The Germans defeated France through far superior leadership and planning, not man power or weapons. Certianly not because of the K98 since Germany only trusted infantry divisions to hold ground, not take it. (Excluding Falstermjagger)
They had the edge on Britian, and embarrased them in Norway, but they never "owned" them. The UK only had 10 divisions on the european mainland durring the western offensive, and they were ALL ordered to Belgum where they were useless. (Ordered by the French who were in charge of the battle.) It wasn't long after that the RAF gave the Luftwaffe a spanking it never fully recovered from. Not to mention the Kriegsmarine could not stand up to the British Royal Navy, and instead went after merchant marines.

If you don't think there was surpise in Barbarossa you're mistaken. During the initail attack Soviet troops sent messages that they were under attack by Germans and got the reply "You must be mistaken, and why isn't your message in code?" Also, they stoped "Owning" before 42 was over. (Stopped cold at Leningrad and Moscow)

Your point about the size of Kar98 and M1 rounds being the same isn't quite valid either. The K98 had a higher muzzle velocity, giving it higher penetrating power. Much like the Tiger 1 and Panther tanks.

Costa0007
08-04-2007, 05:12 PM
Originally posted by Dori1234:
all they did was send v1's and v2's (1944)

Correction : they only fire V1 Rockets.

JohnnyRaygun
03-29-2008, 06:34 AM
Howdy, first time poster.

Well I only read so much before I couldn't read anymore. Not only because of misinformation but also complete errorneous butchering of the English language.

Blitzkrieg, means "lightning war". Essentially the Germans were successful due to it's speed and tactics and not necessarily weapons.

The Polish had the Pt7 which was up to par or better than some German tanks. They got rolled over through superior firepower (as in, smaller numbers but better use of it through tactics.)
France had BETTER tanks than the Germans. The Char b1 bis was a moving fortress but the vast majority were moved into the defense of Paris and so Germany took over most of France. France's doctrine of war was still stuck in the WW1 trench warefare mindset. The Maginot line was a network of bunkers, trenches, pillboxes etc that stretched through most of eastern France. The Germans utilizing manuever warfare flanked around the Maginot line through the black forest in Belgium leaving the French wide open.

Also the S-35 was an extremely successful tank the French had.
The German's knew their armor needed some help and thus they borrowed the 35(t) and 38(t) from the Czechs. The most useful weapons used in the Battle of France was the Flak 36 88mm AA gun used for direct fire as well as the Ju-87 Stuka.

As for the British never getting "owned" (read Blitzkrieged) by the Germans...read about Dunkirk. The Germans literally pushed the Brits into the channel.

The pic of the soldier with the rifle. That is an m21 or m14 DMR (not the Marine variant which I've used before but the Army's version). The m1 garand hasn't been used in a LONG time. The m14 was a successor to the m1 garand due to a removable magazine which held more rounds, fired a 7.62X51mm round which was lighter but still extremely deadly and had a better barrel.

In the debate of what rifle was better, the 98k or m1 garand. It was said that it was the soldier and not rifle that mattered which is 100% true. What you don't realize is the difference in tactics employed.

American tactics revolved around the rifle. A squad of semi automatic rifles put a lot of fire downrange.

German tactics revolved around the machine gun. Mg34s and Mg42s were the focus of the squad. It was never just rifle on rifle...

Dori1234- Tigers and Panthers weren't around during the Battle of France so thats a moot point. French tanks were far from "rolling sheet metal bb guns". It took a lot of work to take out a single tank, where as the French had thicker armor, bigger guns (47mm vs 37mm or 75mm low velocity) it was simply the tactics and employment the French used that caused their demise.

Just a note about both the m1 garand and 98k (sorry I keep jumping around but I keep remembering things)

Mauser's bolt system is still put in many rifles today. It's a very good system. (hunting rifles/ sniper rifles)
The garand's firing mechanism is still put in weapons today as well. (m14/m21)

I guess I'll read some more and see if I need to comment on anything else.

Ermac2008
05-02-2008, 09:16 PM
I've fired a M1 garand and they are just as accurate as any bolt action from that time. The 8 rounds plus semi automatic fire does make them superior to any bolt action at the time. And in the heat of combat I doubt you would hear the ping sound. So don't listen to any of these idiots who have no idea what they are talking about.

M1_Maniac
05-03-2008, 12:43 AM
Having fired an M1 doesn't mean you can compare them to any bolt action at the time. If you want to make that statement, give us some actual tests that you have done to compare them.

(Ex: Go to a range, sight in an m1 garand and a k98 on 200 yards and compare groupings.)

Not trying to bash, I just don't think your statement has any concrete evidence.

-M1

Ermac2008
05-03-2008, 08:17 AM
While I haven't fired a K98, I have fired a Springfield and the grouping on that was nearly the same as the M1 Garand. And I even found the M1 garand to have better grouping then a Mosin Nagant.

thereddbaron
05-04-2008, 05:03 PM
To continue this current debate on wich rifle is better or not. i have here a youtube video that explains the best in the bolt-action rifles the K98 and the SMLE.

Lee Enfield SMLE and Mauser K98k compared
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f5tyA645k4k

JunoAssualt
08-16-2008, 07:20 PM
I prefer the Karabiner 98k over the M1 Garand because it's more accurate and packs a greater punch, and even though it is a slower firing rifle the way the basic german unit was made up helped to make up for its lack of a highrate of fire by placing a few men with the MachinePistole 40 and possibly and MG-42 into the mix

dscottw88
09-14-2008, 04:35 PM
Originally posted by AMC_Pace:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Dori1234: the m1 must be far superior to a k98 because its semi automatic
in what way could it be "FAR" superior?
1. in a 1 vs 1 used on what distance?
ie. long range: the K98 can shot you a precise 3rd nosehole at a range of almost 1 mile so when you come along with your c rappy m1 your dead before you have even seen where it would have been coming from.

2. if the K98 would have been in anyway bad the germans would not have owned all nations in ww2 till 42 (in the begin of ww2 the K98 was the standart for the german soldier). ie the Brits which where useing the semiautomatic Rifle "enfield"

3. in a modern combat?
both guns would be more then useless, modern combat distance is about 50 - 150m Meters/ 55 - 164 Yards and fast paced. Both guns do not fullfil in anyway those needs. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

First of all, No K98 was accurate enough to give a 3rd nosehole at 1 mile. Thats an overstatement. Accurate enough to hit a torso-sized target out at 800 yards? Sure, if you had good enough ammo. All of it at the time was corrosive though, and left some accuracy to be desired.

Secondly, The M1 Garands Peep Sights are much easier for novice and experienced shooters to use than com-bloc style open leaf sights.

Thirdly, K98s were seeing extensive service as early as 1934.

Fourthly, The brits .303 Enfield was not Semi-Automatic. It was bolt action design that could be manipulated faster due to the bolts location next to the shooters hand.

And last of all, even a broken clock is right twice a day, Most engagements are well within 300 Yards. But recent engagements in Iraq and elsewhere in the Middle East show that our marine's are scoring many many kills out at 500 yards with their stock M16A4s. This is only helped by the Marines training, which includes qualification with irons at 500 yards, no optic included.

dscottw88
09-14-2008, 04:51 PM
Originally posted by Raccoon_2:
)The Karabiner 98K has a bigge rpunch than the M1 Garand. There is no way you can ever find one of the 2 superior over the other.

There is actually one thing that makes the Garand better (superior has no place in this discusion anymore (imo) http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif): the Garand can be used for about 10 days in dusty, shallowed, difficult terrain without cleaning the interior of the rifle. (Maybe this info is wrong, I learned it form sombody else http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif.)

The Karabiner is bolt action, yes, but the Garand had to be replaced in the 50's because of the 'ping'sound which betrayed his owner http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif. BTW: The governement siad this, we all know there is no continuous ping, many times yuou don't hear it because of the others who fire.

I only prefer he K98K because it's German and ..... it is beautifull (which is actually the same for the Garand in my opinion http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif)

The 7.62x63 and 8mm Mauser are on par when it comes to kenetic energy contained. Nobody will tell a difference when hit in the chest at any range.

Also, The garand had to be cleaned at least every other day when in use, just like the K98, both riflees used corrosive ammunition which, if left dirty, would let the salty residue eat away at the bolt face, chamber, and barrel resulting in pitting. This would result in your rifle not being able to hit the broad side of a barn while inside it.

The garand was officially replaced in the 1950s, but it was also unofficially in service half way through vietnam side by side with M14s, and M16s.

dscottw88
09-14-2008, 04:55 PM
Originally posted by Dori1234:
I mean like a squad with all k98's and a sqaud with all m1's fighting to the death

1.an m1 rifle was very accurate but just not quite as accurate as a k98 becuase of it being semi automatic... but personally Id pick a semi auto over a little less accuracy.

2.The enfield was not semi automatic and the germans never in the course of the war "owned" the british,they never blitzkrieged the united kingdom. all they did was send v1's and v2's (1944)

3. I can see the k98 being useless in modern warfare but the army and the marines use the m1 garand in some cases still today heres a pic... I talked to the guy holding the m1 about it

http://img131.imageshack.us/img131/3108/m15ek.jpg

http://img131.imageshack.us/img131/3598/94055225l7gz.jpg

4.It wasn't really due to the k98 that the germans "owned" (blitzkrieged) Europe in 42' it was more due to suprise,superior manpower,tanks,and fast paced

That man is holding an M14. A cousin of the M1 Garand chambered for 7.62x51 instead of 7.62x63. The M14 is full auto, and also took detachable 20 round magazines. It is used today by some of our troops as a DMR, or Designated Marksman Rifle.

dscottw88
09-14-2008, 05:00 PM
Originally posted by Dori1234:
The m1 has a bigger round, bigger punch and a bigger bullet.Have any of you watched black hawk down or read the book? Well the one of the two sniper rifles they were using was an m1 garand, They say the m1 has a perfect caliber projectile with a perfect FPS, Because the m1 fired at a human at distant ranges will lodge in the chest, torso, leg, whatever. Meaning it will go straighthrough there body, the bullet will penetrate and puncture vital organs and be left in the body, some of the other bolt action rifles on the market (excluding a k98) will penetrate right through and leave an exit wound, leaving the soldiers still charging at you with bayonet at hand, (bigger rounds). Now the k98's problem is the shell and the bolt action mechanism. Personally If you want a good squad level in WWII it would be the fast cycling m1 garand. if you want a good medium range sniper rifle it would be a fast cycling yet extremely accurate m1 garand. Its all around a good weapon (excluding weight haha).

And I was right about the blitzkrieging, sure if the Wearchment didn't have a weapon at all they wouldn't have taken all those countries but they wouldn't have tried tanking over all those countries without weapons that just stupid, are they gonna throw rocks? lol. that takes the rifle out of the category it was due to :

*suprise
*superior manpower
*tanks
* and a fast paced assualt

Again, Incorrect, that gentlemen in BHD used a M14, And although the M1's 30-06 had a longer case, the bullet's diameter was only 7.62, smaller than the 8MM mauser's 7.92mm Bullet.

Also, The heavier full-size rounds such as 7.62 NATO, 30-06, 8MM mauser, 7.62x54 and 7.7 Jap would generally pass straight through body tissue. Effective.

But today's 5.56 NATO fragments on impact and thats what makes it lethal. A 5.56 round will almost literally explode depending on what range it impacts the target resulting in tremendous wound damage. Very Effective.

kalski
11-06-2008, 12:41 PM
Originally posted by AMC_Pace:
<LI> all others had tanks too (France double amount then germany), just not as good as the germans, well nothing germany to blame for, only the polnish, dutch, french, soviet engineers.

It is true that in 1939 the Polish Army was ill equipped to deal with the Germans and modern warfare. The Polish still had mounted cavalry as did the Soviets.

As fot the French. You are correct in the fact that they had superior numbers of armored vehicles. However you are incorrect with the assumption that they were inferior to the German AFVs. The French armor was far better than what the Germans had. The PzIII's 37mm gun was no match for any French armor sans the armored cars. The Chech 37mm was far superior to the German variation and that is one reason why the Germans adopted it. (Pz38(t) specifically)However it still had trouble penetrating the French Armor at ranges over 500m.

The problem with the French at that time was their reliance on the Maginot Line and having spread out all their armored forces along that same line. The Germans had concentrated forces coming though Belgium and they overwhelmed the spread out French.

staticline1
11-10-2008, 12:40 PM
Originally posted by JunoAssualt:
I prefer the Karabiner 98k over the M1 Garand because it's more accurate and packs a greater punch, and even though it is a slower firing rifle the way the basic german unit was made up helped to make up for its lack of a highrate of fire by placing a few men with the MachinePistole 40 and possibly and MG-42 into the mix

Based on what? The 30-06 and 7.92x57mm rounds trade blows in power while the 30-06 has a higher velocity at all bullet weights. Accuracy is moot unless you are sighting in your target at 1000+ yds, then the K98 accuracy will win out, at that point use the Springfield or the Lee Enfield. The MP40 won't make a difference when you throw in the M1 Thompson, which has a higher rate of fire regardless of model and fires a MUCH more powerful round. The only real advantage the German infantry had in firearms was the MG42, which probably the best squad based machine gun ever made.

kalski
11-18-2008, 12:29 AM
Originally posted by dscottw88:Fourthly, The brits .303 Enfield was not Semi-Automatic. It was bolt action design that could be manipulated faster due to the bolts location next to the shooters hand

Not quite correct. The reason the Enfield bolts were so fast to operate was the fact that the bolt was cocked on the CLOSING of the bolt. This is where most of the energy spent with a bolt action occurs. The M1903, M91/30 and K98's all cocked upon opening of the bolt which made them inherently slower. Not only are they cocking the bolt but they are also trying to extract a spent cartridge in one movement.

Reddisback
11-19-2008, 01:02 PM
we realy can't compare the M1 Garand against the lee-enfield. bassicly, because the Garand is a semi-automatic rifle and the enfield isen't?

but as the old saying goes:

''Never underestimate the power of the Bolt-action rifle''

we should make a topic about the K98 versus the lee-Enfield!

that would be intrested http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Ermac2008
11-19-2008, 07:09 PM
Originally posted by Reddisback:
we realy can't compare the M1 Garand against the lee-enfield. bassicly, because the Garand is a semi-automatic rifle and the enfield isen't?

but as the old saying goes:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">''Never underestimate the power of the Bolt-action rifle''

we should make a topic about the K98 versus the lee-Enfield!

that would be intrested http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
True you can't compare a semi automatic against bolt action because the semi automatic rifle will be better almost all the time.

JGnam
11-19-2008, 07:12 PM
Haha, so much fantasy and misinformation in this thread...

The M1 Garand is flat out better than the k98 in virtually all areas. The K98 is slightly more accurate, but it only makes a difference at 600-1200 meter ranges. Most small arms combat in WWII (and today) takes place at 100 meters or less, with an absolute max at 300 meters.

The K98 does not have an advantage in "stopping power" or pack a "bigger punch" than the M1 Garand. If you think this, it's cause you base your knowledge of real life firearms on videogames. Videogames typically give bolt action rifle disproportionally more damage for the sake of balance, to compensate for their slow rate of fire, but this isn't actually realistic. If you look at actual scientific date (ballistic gelatin testing, muzzle energy, etc) full power rifle cartidges like .30-06, .308, 7.62x54R, 7.92x57mm are all extremely similar in performance.

The germans did not field the K98 because it was some kind superior, unbeatable rifle, they did it because they didn't have the manufacturing power to arm everyone with G43's. The G43's they did manufacture mostly went to snipers and designated marksmen, even though they weren't as accurate as K98's, because they still considered the G43's to be superior weapons.

The accuracy of a bolt action is just not that much better than a good semi-auto rifle; it only makes a difference at extreme ranges. Meanwhile, the inferior rate of fire of a bolt action is a big disadvantage in almost all ranges; most videogames, including BIA downplay this by making the bolt cycling and clip loading animations much faster than they are in real life. There is no magic boost in power to make up for this either; if your idea of a k98's effectiveness is based on playing COD or BIA then you really have no idea. Bolt-action rifles like the k98 are still lethal weapons, but they are considerably disadvantaged against self-loading and automatic rifles, and all countries phased them out as soon as their technology and manufacturing could allow.

SuperSteveX
07-22-2009, 03:58 PM
i just prefure the M1
its a classic and such a smooth weapon

Reddisback
09-04-2009, 12:24 PM
JGnam

JGnam , what you said there is most nonsence. the K98 has the best altime preformances.
Everyone 'loves' or 'likes'the M1 Garand simply by the fact that its American?
the Garand actually had to be putted to together in orfer to fire. the K98 is simply the Finest Rifle that Man Knid created?

the Fact of the Bullest;

IF you've been shot with the 7.92mm Kurz Bullet of the K98, you'll go down, and most likely, Dead.
same goes with the Garands 30-06? Bullets are designed to kill. so they do.

wolfen50
02-21-2010, 12:49 AM
Here is a wake up ... the K98 barrel twist is 1:9.75; remington 700 police sniper is 1:9, mosin nagant is 1:9.75, ruger mark2 308 1:12 (not real accurate)springfield 30-06 is 1:12 and last M16a2 is 1:9. The most accuate weapons have a 1:9 but less than 1:10 barrel twist. Hand load tuning the balistic loads dials in the accuracy of any weapon. That's part of shooting competition winners and loosers.
Skill is in the hands of the shooter. for snipers it is the 1 shot kill. If you light up with semi and autos... you will die... the enemy just follows the smoke and dust you are surrounded by.

oowhitefang
04-01-2010, 07:22 AM
Originally posted by Dori1234: the m1 must be far superior to a k98 because its semi automatic
in what way could it be "FAR" superior?
1. in a 1 vs 1 used on what distance?
ie. long range: the K98 can shot you a precise 3rd nosehole at a range of almost 1 mile so when you come along with your c rappy m1 your dead before you have even seen where it would have been coming from.

2. if the K98 would have been in anyway bad the germans would not have owned all nations in ww2 till 42 (in the begin of ww2 the K98 was the standart for the german soldier). ie the Brits which where useing the semiautomatic Rifle "enfield"

3. in a modern combat?
both guns would be more then useless, modern combat distance is about 50 - 150m Meters/ 55 - 164 Yards and fast paced. Both guns do not fullfil in anyway those needs.[/QUOTE]

this just in: WWII ENDS! AMERICA WINS!
wait a second ***got, you mean the americans FAR SUPERIOR M1 Garand semi-automatic 30-06 powerhouse rifle, and the americans kicked the crout *****es ***? how could this be? oh wait, because its accurate the the same ****in distance and its got a bigger bullet and its more powerful (larger ammunition casing meaning more gunpowder) so it actually travels FARTHER than the 7.92 AND its semi-automatic. most importantly it was american, so how could it be that a superior rifle fired by a better force could make the 3rd reich our *****? oh wait, because of everything i just said. they got their blonde asses kicked, go back to germany and live in delusion you ****.

also apollo 11 did happen