World War II history appreciation thread - you insensitive clod

[BigG]

Yeah...JFK was (allegedly) shot with a Mannlicher Caecano TS Carbine (M1891)...which was as you say 6.5mm.

Weren't the yank marines still using the Springfield well into the pacific campaign?

Talking of shit service rifles...what do you think of the M1 carbine?....pile of shite by all accounts. Firing a piddling .30 pistol round that was severely underpowered.

I quite liked the M3 (grease gun) which was the yanks attempt at a cheaper sub machine gun along the lines of the stem. Thomson's were far too expensive really and many prefered the M3 as it had the same .45 cal round for stopping power and its slower cyclical rate made it more controllable. Easier to re-index the front sight with a slower rate of fire.

As far as bolt action rifles of the day wasn't the Springfield a blatant copy of the Mauser 98k?....im sure I read that during WW1 the yanks were actually paying the Germans royalties for copying the Mausers action and bolt design while fighting them!!....mad...

 

[Don Luigi]

I don't believe that he was shot with a Carcano. I don't believe much about the official story there. I watched a thing a while ago where Jesse Ventura tried to replicate Oswald's supposed exploits with the Carcano and he couldn't. I've also read that it wasn't a great rifle due to bolt resistance.

Yeah they still used the Springfield throughout the war but I think it was mainly as a sniper. I really just assumed this from playing games so I may very well be wrong. I must have a wee look at production numbers and dates to see.

I always thought that the M1 Carbine was a cute little thing haha. Yeah, very underpowered but it was compact and light for airborne regiments and maybe tank crews (although maybe something like the M3 could perform this role, just sacrificing on range and accuracy), especially after they introduced the variants with the folding stocks.

One thing I find it hard to appreciate, having never fired a real gun, is just how heavy these things are when fully loaded, especially the Thompson. Trying to control one of those bad boys would be a task for the likes of me.

As for the Mauser, it was such a good design that I think there were quite a few nations who either adopted it or just made blatant copies..as we find with so much Germany weaponry.

 

[pill_billy]

Ermm... who says I don't understand WW1? I am far from an expert on it but I am fully aware of the origins of the second world war, which go far beyond the treatment of the Germans at Versailles.



LOL. I'm wrong about what, exactly? I was making a comment about a historical "what-if", so how could I be wrong? :D

Chamberlain certainly did NOT "let" Hitler have Poland, I think you've got your dates wrong. Britain declared war on Germany at the point that they invaded Poland, which was a year after the Munich Agreement you speak of. Chamberlain is not remembered as one of the good guys in Britain; merely as a naive and old-fashioned fool who couldn't see what was happening despite the warnings of others.


But thanks for turning up. Eventually.

ur right it was poorly worded on my part...

but i do know how britian became involved in the war and was meaning not alot was done to stop him from building up his military and not even give him the chance to invade... they did let charles lindbergh come and check out their airforce so it wasnt like it was completly unknown that he was building up a war machine and that something was about to go down (not to mention they were clearly violating the treaty of Versailles) and in that sense nevil was appeasing hitler by not trying to rock the boat and "let" him take poland but like i said it was just poorly worded on my part... and im very aware of nevils legacy

and i didnt mean for it sound like you didnt specifically understand WWI...

neways.... guess il go back to the american side of the site now lol...

 

[BigG]

The JFK thing is a whole thread on ots own. I'm not a big fan of Ventura and his conspiracy theories personally....plus remember Oswald was a marine sharp shooter. The Carcano wasn't s bad little rifle.. I've shot one before on several occasions (well a copy anyway) and its not bad...its basically a Mauser bolt. The internal magazine is by Manlnlicber and the Carcano part is basically the bolt safety system.

The Springfield was used as a sniper rifle in both theatres but the marines in the pacific used it as their primary battle rifle for quite a while before being given the M1 (which mostly went tl Europe and north Africa to begin with).

Your spot on about the M1 carbine with the folding stock being handy for airborne troops but it just seemed a poor comprise to me....i mean sub-machine guns are meant to fire pistol cartridges and rifles and carbines fire rifle rounds...why have a semi-auto carbine with such an underpowered round?. Fair enough for tank crews who won't hardly ever fire it and maybe officers as a weapon with a bit nkre range that a pistol but for front line rifle companies?....im not convinced lol! (the gewehr 43 was a decent carbine though...German of course )

German weaponry was the dogs bollocks though...i think we've discussed the MG42 & MG34 before but what a weapon!...so far ahead of its time for a GPMG.

What about modern weaponry (any preferences?)....the H&K416 seems about as cutting edge as it gets nowadays....an improved version of the M4/CAR15.....Also the G36 is a good assault rifle....for pure innovation and coolness the Styer AUG19 takes some beating though. If I was a soldier though I don't know if id be that comfortable with 5.56....i think id prefer the old FAL....nowt like a 7.62 to stop em dead in their tracks!!!

 

[felix]

ur right it was poorly worded on my part...

but i do know how britian became involved in the war and was meaning not alot was done to stop him from building up his military and not even give him the chance to invade... they did let charles lindbergh come and check out their airforce so it wasnt like it was completly unknown that he was building up a war machine and that something was about to go down (not to mention they were clearly violating the treaty of Versailles) and in that sense nevil was appeasing hitler by not trying to rock the boat and "let" him take poland but like i said it was just poorly worded on my part... and im very aware of nevils legacy

No worries my friend.

You are correct in saying that not a lot (or rather, nothing) was done by Britain to stop the military buildup of the Germans before the war. Or the annexation of Austria, or the re-militarisation of the Rhineland, or the invasion of Sudetenland, or Memel, or anything else. But nothing was done by every single other country in the world too. Do you think Britain had the sole responsibility to "do" something about it all? Bearing in mind the first world war was still in everyone's memory at the time, I can understand the reluctance to get involved in anything.

 

[BigG]

Typical!!....bloody Felix turns up and opens an interesting new line of debate in the most interesting thread on the entire site (IMHO) and its englandz's bed time.....

Felix you utter, utter clod

 

[Don Luigi]

What about modern weaponry (any preferences?)....the H&K416 seems about as cutting edge as it gets nowadays....an improved version of the M4/CAR15.....Also the G36 is a good assault rifle....for pure innovation and coolness the Styer AUG19 takes some beating though. If I was a soldier though I don't know if id be that comfortable with 5.56....i think id prefer the old FAL....nowt like a 7.62 to stop em dead in their tracks!!!

.
Not many preferences in modern small arms as I'm not too familiar with how they perform, except for the main service rifles. I do like bullpup designs but never did like the look of the AUG. I know there's some disdain for bullpup designs, especially with the SA80. The A-91 seems quite good as it's addressed some problems with bullpups (it can be fired easily from either shoulder). With modern weaponry, it's mostly the machines and large munitions that interest me.

No worries my friend.

You are correct in saying that not a lot (or rather, nothing) was done by Britain to stop the military buildup of the Germans before the war. Or the annexation of Austria, or the re-militarisation of the Rhineland, or the invasion of Sudetenland, or Memel, or anything else. But nothing was done by every single other country in the world too. Do you think Britain had the sole responsibility to "do" something about it all? Bearing in mind the first world war was still in everyone's memory at the time, I can understand the reluctance to get involved in anything.

Not only was the war still fresh in their minds, we have to remember that the Great Depression (widely regarded to have been caused by the Wall Street Crash ) effectively prevented an earlier intervention. There wouldn't have been much support for a military build up when economies were still in ruins. France managed to maintain quite high military spending but they felt a great threat, and were committed to the Maginot Line.

 

[pill_billy]

No worries my friend.

You are correct in saying that not a lot (or rather, nothing) was done by Britain to stop the military buildup of the Germans before the war. Or the annexation of Austria, or the re-militarisation of the Rhineland, or the invasion of Sudetenland, or Memel, or anything else. But nothing was done by every single other country in the world too. Do you think Britain had the sole responsibility to "do" something about it all? Bearing in mind the first world war was still in everyone's memory at the time, I can understand the reluctance to get involved in anything.

its hard to say what could have been done or should have been done to prevent germanys build up... like with all conflicts it builds up slowly over time before all out war breaks out... But I believe before WWII the US had the 16th largest military, i believe... im not sure who had the largest but britian had to be up there they def had the largest navy... and thinking about it like that, what was the US really suspose to do? germany was an ocean away and they did such a great job of putting on a fake smile for the olympics that they had alot of people convinced that they were a peaceful people only trying to regain what was theres... i remeber seeing something that said had hitler died before the invasion of poland he would have been remembered as one of the greatest leaders in european history...

but your right no one did anything, but i think it was part because germany did such an amazing job of fooling the world, but with all this going on in yalls back yard, you would expect them to be more inclined to act... and as someone else pointed out america was still getting over the great depression (as where alot of other countries) but i think thats why today when something happens its not country A vs country B its a coaliton of nations... anyways ive just always found the prewar politics more interesting then xyz's of any certain battle

 

[felix]

You seem to be jumping to the conclusion that I'm saying the US should have done something about it. The US is so far away (and in most people's minds then, at least, much farther away than it seems nowadays), I'm definitely not saying that. Try not to be so defensive.

Yep, the US's military was pretty tiny back then. But the British Army was too, and (in hindsight) it's no surprise that Dunkirk happened and it took us all until 1944 to actually go over there together mob-handed to sort them out.

I do wonder though, if Pearl Harbour never happened, and Hitler didn't declare war on the US (for the lulz, presumably), how much longer the US would have taken to tool up? Or even if they would have? We shall never know. And don't take that as an insult.

I'm also most interested in the geopolitical aspects of war, as well as social and economic issues. The drier the content, the better. :D

So I have to stay out of these interesting discussions about firearms, because I know relatively nothing (compared to Don and englandz) and I'm not that bothered about the subject.


p.s. englandz: I finally finished Armageddon last night. Great book!

 

[BigG]

Don - on the subject of bullpup rifles, the Israeli TAVOR (especially the M-TAVOR) is an excellent and innovative weapon that seems to have solves many of the issues of bullpup that existed I early models. I personally think the SA80 comes in for a lot of undeserved stick. Yes the A1 model was shite but the A2 is meant to be a fine weapon and very reliable (after a makeover by H&K...those clever Germans!! lol!!).

An interesting point about what would the US have done I Hitler hadn't declared war after Pearl Harbour is that at the end of the war many German POWs askes the GIs why dis the US declare war on Germany?....totally oblivious to the fact that it was the other way round.

Felix - glad you've finishes it mate...it is a damn good read isn't it?...I'll have a look through my bookshelf and see if I have anymore recommendations now I know the sort of stuff you're interested in

 

[felix]

Cheers mate. I would suspect a lot of Allied grunts were slightly fuzzy on some of the details too, but it doesn't surprise me that Germans, after about 15 years of insane indoctrination, would have believed what they were told to believe. After all, Hitler loved to class the US as Jewish Capitalist Imperialists, so it makes perfect sense that they were the bad guys.

Speaking of which: "Are we the baddies?" :D

Bonus extra: New Fuhrer

In other news, I've been reorganising and tidying up my books today, and thought you folks might appreciate this scan. It was taken from an Encyclopaedia from 1952, which was my dad's originally. It's a tatty, old, but very prized possession!

 

[BigG]

^^^^, loved those clips...names like "deaths head division" didn't do them any favours either....lol!

 

[pill_billy]

You seem to be jumping to the conclusion that I'm saying the US should have done something about it. The US is so far away (and in most people's minds then, at least, much farther away than it seems nowadays), I'm definitely not saying that. Try not to be so defensive.

Yep, the US's military was pretty tiny back then. But the British Army was too, and (in hindsight) it's no surprise that Dunkirk happened and it took us all until 1944 to actually go over there together mob-handed to sort them out.

I do wonder though, if Pearl Harbour never happened, and Hitler didn't declare war on the US (for the lulz, presumably), how much longer the US would have taken to tool up? Or even if they would have? We shall never know. And don't take that as an insult.

I'm also most interested in the geopolitical aspects of war, as well as social and economic issues. The drier the content, the better. :D

So I have to stay out of these interesting discussions about firearms, because I know relatively nothing (compared to Don and englandz) and I'm not that bothered about the subject.


p.s. englandz: I finally finished Armageddon last night. Great book!

yea man i didnt mean to come off sounding defensive, i can see how ya took it that way but i was just saying in general what was the US suspose to do? not like well wtf you expect us to do?!?! lol but neways yea declaring war on the US was def not a good move on his part and neither was pearl harbor on japans... but had germany not started with the whole killing all the jews thing and declaring war on the US i think the US would have been content with letting him take over mainland europe and tried to broker a peace between england the USSR and germany, now how that would of played out... and how long it would have lasted are different questions and doesnt even take into account the war in the pacific and how much terrority the US would of let japan keep... cause they def would have still been fighting over the phillipines, cause once japan lost that, they really had no way to support a proper war machine... and no matter what, after japan lost that it was just a matter of time before they were going to be unable to support an army...

but thats the interesting thing about the war is it wasnt just about defeating these countries but jockeying for position afterwards and how it played out over the last 70 some years.... e.g. korean war, vietnam, even the iraq war and all the conflicts in that region had their groundwork laid during WWII...

 

[BigG]

^^^^ very interesting and thoughtful post

 

[felix]

had germany not started with the whole killing all the jews thing and declaring war on the US i think the US would have been content with letting him take over mainland europe and tried to broker a peace between england the USSR and germany

The "whole killing all the Jews thing" :D wasn't really common or accepted knowledge by the Allies in 1941; so I don't think it had any bearing on the US's (or, indeed, anyone's) decision to get involved. Obviously, the mistreatment of the Jews pre-war was known about, but it still wasn't enough to get anyone to give much of a fuck.

And you are no doubt right about that last part.

but thats the interesting thing about the war is it wasnt just about defeating these countries but jockeying for position afterwards and how it played out over the last 70 some years.... e.g. korean war, vietnam, even the iraq war and all the conflicts in that region had their groundwork laid during WWII...

Indeed. This is what I love about history in general. A lot of it for me is to gain a better understanding of today, it's not just about wallowing in the past.

 

[BigG]

I think to have any understanding of the make up of the post war world an understanding of the political wranglings between the "big three" is vital. FDRs total underestimation of Stalin. Churchill's collonial aspirations (I liked Churchill but he was undoubtedly a product of a different age). Stalin's complete untrustworthiness (which I think Churchill recognized).

That Armageddon book that you've just read Felix is one of the better books at explaining just how the communist domination of eastern Europe was an unpleasant but inevitable consequence of the fact that we needed to red army to bleed the Germans to death on the eastern front as we (the western allies) simply couldn't countenance those sorts of loses which were necessary to beat the Germans through attrition. After that sort of sacrifice the soviet domination of the eastern end of the continent just couldn't be denied to them (much as it maybe should have been). All the "proxy wars" of the late 20th century were then an indirect result of that fact.

One of the saddest consequences of this is the fate of the Poles...the plight of which was the whole reason we declared war in the first place....they simply swapped one brutal dictator for another and were subjugated for years to come.....and tragic as it was there was fuck all we could do about it?

 

[Don Luigi]

The Warsaw rising is one tragic example for the Poles, but a very cunning and expected bit of maneuvering by Stalin.

 

[felix]

I reckon Churchill would have been quite happy tooling up with the Americans and heading east in 1945, but by then what he wanted was fucking irrelevant. And thank god for that (I think the Cold War was probably preferable to that.)

 

[BigG]

Its a fact that Churchill wanted to push into the Balkans and Greece purely for his own colonial aims but by that stage in the war what he wanted was as you say irrelevant as the US ruled the show and while they didn't rub our noses in it as such they let it be knon who was in charge in no uncertain terms (and rightly so).

The Warsaw uprising was tragic...the soviets could have stopped the German retaliation at any point but chose not to....they wouldn't even let us land in soviet territory to run arms drops to the Warsaw resistance.. It was however mighty naive of the poles think stalin would have acted in any way other than how he did....as despicable as those actions were

 

[ColtDan]

You're a proper interesting person you are englandgz