How much of an advantage was the garand ?.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Despite being "raised" on bot action from age 6, I was never as enchanted with that action as my dad was with it but he was biased against semiactions - maintained they were "less safe". Personally, my thinking was "safety" was between the ears of the shooter, not the rifle action.

Consequently, when the '03 Springfield I was inirially issued (which I liked - guns are like girls in that I never met one I couldn't find some likeable characteristics in them) in WWII was replaced with the M1 Garand, I was totally sold!!

However, my favorite semi-auto now is an M1A (semi-auto M14 civilian version) which has the advantage of detachable box magazine, better sights, and easier dissassembly for cleaning. Too bad they chose select fire for the military - I think that went a long way to kill it.

M1A.jpg


M1AXSGHOSTRINGSIGHTS.jpg


I can sure say if I were going into combat today, I'd sure rather carry a rifle that puts a .30 caliber bullet of 168 grains than a .233 caliber bullet at 68 grains in the target - even if the rifle is heavier to carry!!:rolleyes:

:D
 
I love my Springfield, but if combat was looming, I would pick up my Garand first.

German army troops obeyed orders and were hesitant to act independently,
Click to expand...

I must disagree with this. The Germans were noted for their battlefield ingenuity and flexibility. They would constantly probe and counter attack when given the opportunity. Only when strictly ordered to a certain course of action was this flexibility lost.

The Russians probably would have beat Germany by themselves eventually. Maybe by 1947 or1948 or so. I seem to remember reading somewhere that the Russians faced 80% of German military strength and output.

Anyone have any idea why we didn't supply M1s to the Russians?
 
Last edited:
They just bit off more than they could chew. At the start of the war they had plenty of manufacturing capability. They just lost a lot of it because we could bomb the crap out of them. That's why we could build rifles faster. They couldn't touch us. We could bomb the crap out of them. So air superiority could be said to be the reason we won the war. We shouldn't forget that much of what we built is at the bottom of the Atlantic because it didn't make it to Europe.
Click to expand...

Germany's war production actually increased as the war progressed (until right at the very end). Their problem was they tried too build to many different types of weapons. When the war ended, the Allies found one plant still building an engine for a Bismark class battleship. They didn't have any ships under construction to put it in.

The war was over before the US ever landed at Normandy. Russia took 20 million dead (military and civilian), but destroyed the German army in the process.

I heard an interview of a German officer after the war describing fighting the Americans at Normandy. The officer manned an anti-tank gun in the hedgerows just off the beach. When asked why the Germans lost the war he said that every time an American tank entered the hedgerows, his crew destroyed it. Another tank would enter and they would destroy it. Unfortunately, he ran out of shells before the Americans ran out of tanks.
 
There's no doubt that the Russians were the main opponent of the Germans in WWII. The entire allied force on the western front was a fraction of what Russia put together. The Russians had almost as many soldiers killed in one day than the Americans did in the entire war including the ones lost fighting against Japan. At Kursk the Russians had 250,000 killed and another 600,000 wounded. That dwarfs the entire US involvement in the war. The Germans had 100,000 killed that day too BTW.

The US had about 290,000 killed in the entire war with about 670,000 wounded. Think about it. The Russians had almost that many casualties ON ONE DAY! People who think the US was the decisive factor in the war just don't know the story. In fact the US was barely a blip on the radar screen as far as the actual fighting went in Europe. It's no wonder the Russians got ticked when it came time to divide up Germany after the war. The western Allies got 3/4 of the pie but only did about 10% or so of the fighting. I'd be ticked if I was running Russia.

The second front helped as did the N. Africa campaign as did the Italy campaign and the southern France invasion. But by far the Russians bore the brunt of the fighting in WWII in Europe. It's not even close.

The US did bear a big part of the fight against Japan. But there were lots of other countries helping. And the fact is the US dominated Japan after Midway. Japan lost far more soldiers than the US did. They had almost a million more deaths than the US had and many of the US deaths were in Europe. Japan only had about 140,000 wounded which tells you a lot about the Japanese attitude toward life. The US controlled the air after Midway and espeically after the Marianas Turkey Shoot. The US faced green troops and the only real threat from the air was the kamikazes. The war was lost but Japan just refused to lay down and die. So they threw a lot of men to the lions and we killed them. They kept expecting another miracle like the one that stopped the Mongolian invasion of Japan. A cyclone stopped that monster army from taking Japan and the people of Japan expected to see another miracle. They saw a divine wind alright. But it wasn't blowing the right way for them. The shock wave from an atomic blast is a terrible wind indeed.

Also the idea that the Germans weren't effective if they lost their commanders is largely a myth that was created as propaganda during the war. The chain of command was followed closely by German troops so they pretty much always knew who was in charge. And the commanders in the field, even if it got down to a Sgt., had a lot of leeway in how they fought.
 
The biggest down fall was the clip and mag. If you had been in any kind of exchange of fire, how much ammo do you have left? So now you are going to jump up and rush a position with a rifle that you don't have a clue how much ammo is in it? And it isn't the easiest to pull out the ammo that's in the rifle and replace it with a full clip especially while somebody is shooting at you.
Click to expand...

Reloading a garand is a quick, one handed operation. Pull bolt back w/right hand to eject round in chamber, push clip release w/right thumb (one swift motion) and partially loaded clip pops up into your (right)hand. Insert fully loaded clip and you're good to go in much less time than it takes to read the instructions.;)

While the M14 has a 20 round magazine as opposed to the Garand's 8 round clip, the fact remains that you do not necessarily know how many rounds you have left in it either. Clip can be replaced as easily as the magazine and in about the same time frame so about only advantage (other than increased mag. capacity) is that you can replace magazine w/a round still in the chamber on the M14.

The Garand may not be the greatest rifle ever invented, but it was darn close in 1936 when John Garand developed it.:)

Regards,
hps
 
Germany's war production actually increased as the war progressed (until right at the very end). Their problem was they tried too build to many different types of weapons.
Click to expand...

There's no doubt the Germans spent a lot of their manufacturing muscle building their super weapons. From the V1 and V2 to the ME262 they thought they could win the war with their super weapons. And maybe they could have but even the underground manufacturing sites manned by forced labor eventually fell to Allied bombing. And a lot of their super weapons, like the King Tiger, came too late or were unable to be supplied with oil etc..

I've heard the claim before that German arms manufacturing increased during the war. But there were big holes in their production needs on things like gasoline for their tanks. Other raw materials like tungsten were targeted by the Allies and I believe there was a substantial effect on the German manufacturing effort. No doubt the Germans continued to make things during the war and they were very creative in protecting their plants. And after all the bombs of the time were not nearly as accurate as they are now. But IMO the Allied war effort did reduce critical areas of German production which made a difference in the war. And of course we weren't affected at all by such things except for problems shipping war materials to Europe. My statement was that we could build rifles faster by the end of the war and I'll stand by it.
 
Anyone have any idea why we didn't supply M1s to the Russians?
Click to expand...

Only 4,000,000 Garands were made during the war and there were not enough to meet US needs until late 1943. There simply wasn't enough of them to go around. Most of the stuff we supplied to Russia were trucks, jeeps, food (tons of SPAM) and radios.

My statement was that we could build rifles faster by the end of the war and I'll stand by it.
Click to expand...

Most definately our productivity far exceeded that of all other combatants combined in every category.
 
Quote:
I must start this thread by saying that I have no military experience ( and due to my govt's laws I would refuse to serve anyway

WTF

Before it gets too ugly, note that his location shows Australia. He might not be dogging the U.S., and who knows what Australian laws he objects to.
Click to expand...

Exactly right. If my government doesn't trust me with a firearm to protect my family in my own home there's no way in hell I'm fighting for it on the other side of the planet. I would be proud to have served in US miltary and if I were younger would consider it as a way of gaining LAWFUL entry to the USA.
 
M1 v. k98

The M1 had two serious designs flaws and one minor one. The invention of the M14 got rid of the problem with not being able to top up the magazine without either firing till empty or dumping the partial clip. A detachable magazine is now considered a military necessity.

Another flaw was the open hole behind the operating rod where sand could enter and render the piece inoperable...the M14 design did nothing to fix that.

Another major flaw was the weight of the ammo. You can shoot up more ammo than an infantry man can carry in a firefight in a few minutes with either an M1 or M14. Problems with using up too much ammo were noted in the Korean war. Thus the .223 rifle.

Nevertheless, the k98 had too many obsolete features to stand its own against an M1. Suppressing fire would allow a squad of M1 armed soldiers to overcome a German squad when the MG42 barrel had to be swapped for a cool one after several bursts of fire.

In short, the k98 consisted of WWI technology against the best battle instrument of the time.
 
Just to add my two shekels. The OP mentions that the German squad or platoon tactics was for the riflemen to act as support of the light machine gun. To an extent that was true on the defense. Not quite as true on the defense, because even though the MG42 was a "light" machine gun it couldn't keep up with the riflemen in move and shoot situations.
But the statement of Germans working with the MG42 implies that the US depended solely on the Garand. That's very far from the truth. The US had lots of close support weapons. From the 60mm mortar down to the BAR, the American rifleman had more and better man portable support than any of the other soldiers in WWII.

Oh and the .30-06 almost counted as an anti-tank round in the Pacific.
 
Stephen Ambrose wrote that the Germans did not particularly fear our infantrymen. Or our tanks.
Click to expand...
Good point, the Sherman was obsolete before it went into production. The only good things about it were that we could built a ton of them, they were very mobile, and were VERY effective against infantry. When they went against anti-armor anything (Tanks, mines, anti-rank guns, Panzershrecks/Panzerfausts) They tended to get killed quickly. Of course we responded by building more of them, faster than they could destroy them. Sucked though if you were the guy inside the tank.

The same tactic is used in modern RTSG where you build a bunch of cheap units and use them to overrun your opponent. Of course that only works if you can build enough of them.
 
The Russian bore the brunt of the fighting in Russia. Not in Europe. The US provided war materials to half the world while arming our own armies. Then we supplied our allies with massive amounts of material while sending entire air forces, armies, and navies to do a lot of the fighting. If not for the US Europe would still be speaking German. Look at the war from a strategic viewpoint instead of tactical.

Incidentally the M1 is the finest battle rifle ever produced by any country.
 
The early Soviet tanks biggest advantage was their numbers also. The T-26's were modern in many ways but it was their numbers that made them effective. After the deployment of the T-34 the Russian tanks were undoubtedly the best in the war in ability and numbers. In fact the Russians had a tank advantage throughout the entire war largely due to their efforts at upgrading their tanks after the Spanish Civil War and the Finnish Winter War. The result was the turning of the tide against the Nazis in the greatest battleground in the history of mankind. It was the T-26 that initially kept the Germans from capturing Moscow, Stalingrad and Leningrad. Along with the amphibious T-37 and T-38's and the medium size T-28's and early models of the T-34 the line was held at a point where the Germans were forced to face the Russian winter outside the comfort of the Russian cities. The Russian tanks weren't maintained well early in the war or it may have been even easier but by the time the perfected T-34's rolled out of the mountains the outcome of the eastern front was almost assured. It would take a lot of brutal effort and great losses of blood and treasure but the writing was on the wall. And the large number of Soviet tanks had a lot to do with the early victories that held the line against the Wehrmacht.
 
The Russian bore the brunt of the fighting in Russia. Not in Europe.
Click to expand...

The eastern front was fought entirely in Europe. The Germans never reached the Asian parts of Russia. In fact Hitler never even planned on taking any land outside of Europe. His plan was to advance to what was called the A-A Line which was a line drawn between the cities of Arkhangelsk and Astrakhan. If you'll look at a map you'll see both of those cities are in Europe.

If you look at this map you'll see the furthest advance of the German army into Russia. Notice that the advance never gets past Moscow which is in Europe. The line at which Europe ends is the Ural Mountains which is where the Russians fell back in order to prepare for their breakout offensive. The Ural's are far to the east of Moscow. There is a map that shows the extent of Europe on this web page. Notice the location of the Black Sea and the Caspian Sea in relation to the extent of the German advance in the other map. Germany didn't get close to Asia in fact.

The US did play a vital role in WWII. But the war was won by Russia. The relative contributions of the two are completely one sided. As I said before Russia lost almost as many men in one day as the US lost in the entire war in both major theaters of operation. Russia lost more people than any two countries combined including Germany and Japan. In fact Russia lost a lot more people than Germany and Japan combined. Any way you look at it the war was between Russia and Germany. Their battleground was by far the largest in the history of mankind. It dwarfs all other wars. Japan for example lost only 2 million while Germany lost about and a half million. Estimates vary on these numbers. Russia lost between 10 and 12 million soldiers and another 10-15 million citizens. The USA lost between 300,000 and 400,000 soldiers in the war. There's no doubt about it. It was a Russian war.
 
The US did play a vital role in WWII. But the war was won by Russia.
Click to expand...
The supplies we sent them kept them afloat long enough to fight off the Germans. They would have had a much harder time without that.
 
Interesting thread

Although a number of posters have expressed what were important factors as absolute truths, which they were not. All factors combined were responsible, although some had a greater visible effect than others.

For the infantryman, the M1 rifle was a large advantage over opponents armed with bolt action rifles. But that advantage did not win the war, nor a single battle by itself.

Another major flaw was the weight of the ammo. You can shoot up more ammo than an infantry man can carry in a firefight in a few minutes with either an M1 or M14.
Click to expand...

This is a flaw, only in light of current military doctrine. Supressive fire was the province of the BAR and the belt fed machine gun, not the individual rifleman. That was the doctrine of the day. Using the experience gained in combat, the US changed its doctrine over time, and the enhanced firepower of the M1 Garand over the bolt action rifle went a long way in helping carryout the new emphasis on supressive fire coming from the individual rifleman as well as the machinegun. Evolving over time, this emphasis has led to the need for smaller lighter cartridges in order to enable the individual infantryman to be able to carry enough ammo to carry this out.

The lack of a large magazine capacity in the M1 Garand may be considered a shortcoming compared to later designs, but I would not call it a flaw. A flaw implies that it does not work, and the M1 Garand most certainly works. A nuance of language perhaps, but that's the way I see it.
 
We did supply Russia examples of the M1 Garand along with other forms of technical (not just material) assistance. Kalashnikov was supposedly very impressed with Garand's design upon inspecting it. They were certainly better than the Russia semi-automatic rifles of that conflict.

As far as Russia being able to win the war all by itself, there are some historians who believe this was possible.

One wonders how possible it would've been if German wartime production increased over the years--as it did--but also without the delays or setbacks in production supplied by American strategic bombing.

Russian bombers were not exactly raining destruction down upon German cities and production facilities.

Were that not the case, then Germany would've enjoyed the same advantages America had. A continent all to themselves, free from the threat of attacks on the means of production.
 
Like many others, I too consider the M1 to be a significant part of and contributor to the allied victory in WWII. I also agree with many who feel that the Wermacht was very capable on a fluid battlefield and had excellent junior leadership. Unfortunately for them, (and fortunately for us) that leadership and the manpower it lead was bled down year after year as the war continued. Many German soldiers fought almost continuously for 5 -6 years if they survived that long. That and the weight of the allied forces and materiel (greatly US manufactured and delivered) ultimately did them in.

BTW, I have read that one of the deficiencies of the MG-42 was that it was difficult to supply it with adequate ammo if not in a fixed defensive position. The MG-34 was often considered a superior weapon (see the M60) but was discontinued because the -42 was chaeper and faster to manufacture.

Jeff B.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top