View Full Version : If you were a WWII soldier, what would be the coolest aspect of the modern AR?
Tacti-square
06-05-14, 15:54
I was just thinking hypothetically about how if you came from such a different time period and suddenly saw all the modern-day weapons that today has to offer, which aspect of modern weapons would you favor most? I guess we have to focus on the AR, but do you think that would really be their first pick if they suddenly time-traveled forward? Would a different platform altogether be favored?
I think for me the coolest part of the AR would would be the ergonomics and reload speed.
High capacity and selective fire.
I think for me the coolest part of the AR would would be the ergonomics and reload speed.
This may not be the best choice of words for genuinely practical reasons. Also it's fine to ask questions but if you think about it aren't the answers apparent? Are the benefits of a lighter, easier to handle M4 with 30 rounds in a detachable magazine compared to those of an M1 Garand or a even a BAR not easy to discern?
Not looking to make you feel stupid but rather to help you ask better questions. It will happen here after time. :)
I think the AR would be the last pick. Think about it. An M1 Grand with a Bayonet and a wooden stock is still a formidable weapon in hand to hand close in fighting with or with-out ammo. Also wasn't as finicky about ammo,weather and being dirty. You shooting something with a 30 cal. is a lot different than a zippy 22 cal. I don't think they'd like the lighter bullets either. Ever been in hand to hand combat ? Break the buffer tube on an AR and all you have is a short stick with a short frog stabber on the end.
I think the AR would be the last pick. Think about it. An M1 Grand with a Bayonet and a wooden stock is still a formidable weapon in hand to hand close in fighting with or with-out ammo. Also wasn't as finicky about ammo,weather and being dirty. You shooting something with a 30 cal. is a lot different than a zippy 22 cal. I don't think they'd like the lighter bullets either. Ever been in hand to hand combat ? Break the buffer tube on an AR and all you have is a short stick with a short frog stabber on the end.
Tried to be nice about it but sometimes nice guys finish last.
This thread is good as done.
Dont worry about it. Your question has been on my mind once in a while.
I think the weight and magazine fed would be what charms them. I had two uncles who loved their garands but were sold on the M-1 Carbine once they got their mitts on them.
All they could talk sbout was the weight and handiness of the little M-1
Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2
Buffer tube is not likely to break if you are doing a butt-stroke properly (hand on the stock). I never saw any bent tubes or broken stocks on the numerous bayonet assault courses I've run and those targets are less forgiving than a human since they don't move or fall over (the tire portion that is the "head"). It's a sample size of 1, but my former 1SG butt-stroked a dude in Iraq and didn't hurt his M4.
The best modern carbine for hand to hand IMHO is the AK47/74. Stock unlikely to break and it wouldn't stop functioning. Large curved steel magazine locked in 2 places that can be used for striking and trapping. Near 90 deg angle front sight, good for striking and tearing. Slant muzzle for muzzle punches. Oh, and still has a bayonet.
30 low-recoiling rounds in a lighter weapon with an IR laser working in conjunction with night vision would have been a great benefit when jumping into Narmandy.
Many vets of WWII and Korea preferred the M1 carbine over the Garand.
Considering the advantages the M16 & M4 have over the Garand, it would have been popular choice among the troops. However, they would have had to learn new tactics. GIs loved the ability of the 30-06 to shoot through stuff. I don't know how often GIs went out & buttstroked their enemies and the bayonet charge was all but extinct with the end of the Great War. Most vets I knew preferred to shoot their foes. The AR may not be a good weapon for buttstroking but that doesn't mean you can't poke'm good and hard with the barrel end when needed.
All in all, I think the AR FOW would have given our GIs a much appreciated boost in firepower by replacing the Thompson sub-machine gun, the carbine and possibly the BAR but it would not have completely supplanted the Garand until new tactics were learned and adopted
30 low-recoiling rounds in a lighter weapon with an IR laser working in conjunction with night vision would have been a great benefit when jumping into Narmandy.
Modern NODs alone would have allowed our Paratroopers to dominate the battlefield
Dont worry about it. Your question has been on my mind once in a while.
It's probably been on everyone's mind at one time or another, but then they realized that designs have been adjusted and reformed into far more ideal configurations. And no one loves a Garand more than I but for myself and most the ideal firearm isn't the one that makes the best heavy spear when it runs out of ammunition in a needlessly premature fashion.
Look if you want to talk WWII weaponry it's a topic I also love but this sub-forum isn't the place, that's all. Plus the discussion likely comes off as a bit elementary to some being that they recognize weaponry has evolved for the better in general.
soldier_twiggy
06-05-14, 18:04
Being as this is obviously a hypothetical, I don't feel the need point out anything "stupid" with the question.
I think weight would be the most apparent difference. Soldiers from that era had "high capacity" and full auto, but it was all steel and wood...heavy as a brick.
They also encountered the first assault rifles, the German STG-44. So they saw "the future" as well.
The M4 is newer materials and far more modular, but other than that it's not that different than what was already available. I also doubt that GI's from WW2 would care for the 5.56 over the 06.
essayons
Buffer tube is not likely to break if you are doing a butt-stroke properly (hand on the stock). I never saw any bent tubes or broken stocks on the numerous bayonet assault courses I've run and those targets are less forgiving than a human since they don't move or fall over (the tire portion that is the "head"). It's a sample size of 1, but my former 1SG butt-stroked a dude in Iraq and didn't hurt his M4.
Bet you never saw people in black pajams throwing ladders over the wire,watching RPG's screaming by not to mention the incoming while trying to over run your bayonet assault courses either.:help:
No, but that doesn't change the physics involved. I'm not defending the buffer tube per se, it is a weak point in the system...
I love my Garand, but I would take an M4 over it any day in combat (and have). The M4 can be used to great effect in H2H w/o ever needing to butt-stroke or break any portion of it.
The weight and magazine capacity.
The weight, the magazine capacity, select fire, ease of take down, and the variety of optics.
Imagine what these guys would think using an ACOG or an Aimpoint.
I found a classified video where it happened. 1:40 seconds to see the reaction by the NCO.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dqpHU0oLG2Y
MountainRaven
06-05-14, 20:23
The weight of an M1 Carbine, the MPBR of an M1 Garand, the accuracy of an M1903 Springfield, and the firepower of an M1 Thompson. With a scope more powerful and more useful than that adorning the M1903A4.
My guess is that the Infantry soldier of that time would have been impressed with an M16A2/A4 for many reasons. Ergonomics of the weapon, the overall weight and the magazine capacity. Imagine Normandy or some other battle where you had battalions of personnel armed with an M16 rather than 8 shot Garands or M1 carbines.
On the same note we can also wonder what would have happened had the Germans actually fielded and used the StG44 earlier on without Hitler's bumbling antics.
An M16A4 w/ optic would be a state of the art sniper weapon, at the weight of a personal defense carbine, with the capacity of a machine gun if loaded with a Surefire magazine.
Crap... Fjall beat me to it.
Saving Private Ryan in the bell tower with an M16A4+ ACOG. Would love to see that scene recreated.
An M16A4 w/ optic would be a state of the art sniper weapon, at the weight of a personal defense carbine, with the capacity of a machine gun if loaded with a Surefire magazine.
Crap... Fjall beat me to it.
I think that most of those of the "Greatest Generation Ever" would not have thought very highly of the AR platform at that time in history. Heavy was considered better. As much as I like the AR platform, I think that while storming the beaches during the D Day invasions you would have been better served with the shoulder weapons of that era.
I think the AR would be the last pick. Think about it. An M1 Grand with a Bayonet and a wooden stock is still a formidable weapon in hand to hand close in fighting with or with-out ammo. Also wasn't as finicky about ammo,weather and being dirty. You shooting something with a 30 cal. is a lot different than a zippy 22 cal. I don't think they'd like the lighter bullets either. Ever been in hand to hand combat ? Break the buffer tube on an AR and all you have is a short stick with a short frog stabber on the end.
Modern technology. Ever heard of Brown Tip? You have a 600yd gun that weighs 7lbs.
I wonder how much "hand to hand" there would be with reliable 60rd mags and the ability to transition to a secondary weapon (like a Glock with 20+ rounds in it)? Probably not a lot.
Just sayin....
C4
The Army would probably find a reason not to adopt it. Too many rounds, bullets too small, etc.
I don't really think infantry weapons would have made that big of a game changer. Maybe in the East, but the Soviets would have just thrown more dudes at the Germans.
Now modern tanks and UAVs?
crusader377
06-06-14, 11:36
I think the AR would be the last pick. Think about it. An M1 Grand with a Bayonet and a wooden stock is still a formidable weapon in hand to hand close in fighting with or with-out ammo. Also wasn't as finicky about ammo,weather and being dirty. You shooting something with a 30 cal. is a lot different than a zippy 22 cal. I don't think they'd like the lighter bullets either. Ever been in hand to hand combat ? Break the buffer tube on an AR and all you have is a short stick with a short frog stabber on the end.
I disagree, I think most GI would have loved the capabilities and firepower that even a M16A1 or A2 would have offered and that they would be completely blown away by a current M4 with modern optics.
Despite what many think, hand to hand fighting was very rare in the European theater in WWII and I think most soldiers would prefer the high magazine capacity and select fire capability of the M16 over any advantage that the M1 had in a bayonet fight.
Also a soldier with a M16/M4 could easily carry 300-400 rds of ammunition whereas the combat load of a M1 is around 100 rds.
The M1 was a great rifle when it was developed but was already old technology by 1944/45 and we are very lucky that Hitler delayed and overall fumbled the production of the STG44.
Saving Private Ryan in the bell tower with an M16A4+ ACOG. Would love to see that scene recreated.
I wonder what would happen if you shot a rifle bullet down the barrel of a tank with a chambered round?
I wonder what would happen if you shot a rifle bullet down the barrel of a tank with a chambered round?
Try it and report back.
I'm thinking nothing, though. Possibly depends on what type of round is loaded in the main gun.
Err...is it too late to suggest that the MG-42 may actually still be superior to most modern designs? Hope not because I really like that one I do.
I think the AR would be the last pick. Think about it. An M1 Grand with a Bayonet and a wooden stock is still a formidable weapon in hand to hand close in fighting with or with-out ammo. Also wasn't as finicky about ammo,weather and being dirty. You shooting something with a 30 cal. is a lot different than a zippy 22 cal. I don't think they'd like the lighter bullets either. Ever been in hand to hand combat ? Break the buffer tube on an AR and all you have is a short stick with a short frog stabber on the end.
My neighbors father who fought through the Pacific campaigns said the reliability of the Garand has been overstated and that on Iwo many were discarded after stoppages too time consuming to clear. They grabbed the ones from the wounded during a fight.
I would have said, (in a James Cagney voice) "Look Mac! This thing is a poodle shooter, see? It won't even penetrate my winter coat, and is made of plastic! What kind of Buck Rogers crap is the red dot?" And then he would have thrown it into the effing weeds!
(Sorry, had to pay homage to some of the old fat guys that try and teach me about the AR....because they obviously have been there and done that. :) )
I would have said, (in a James Cagney voice) "Look Mac! This thing is a poodle shooter, see? It won't even penetrate my winter coat, and is made of plastic! What kind of Buck Rogers crap is the red dot?" And then he would have thrown it into the effing weeds!
That's exactly what many of the old WWII & Korean War vets said when they first saw the M16
Err...is it too late to suggest that the MG-42 may actually still be superior to most modern designs? Hope not because I really like that one I do.
Considering I see a type of the MG42 (MG3) mounted to vehicles every day, no it's not. The jerrys perfected that. Try explaining that to an AID chick.
That's exactly what many of the old WWII & Korean War vets said when they first saw the M16
Thats kind of what I think. Plenty of WW2 & Korean war vets around in Vietnam.
Or you could just go ask a few. thousands of them still alive. Hell, ask this last year and I would have asked my neighbor for you.
To be honest I think they would have been more impressed with something that mirrored an AK47.
If they were introduced to the AR platform I'm sure this would go over better:
http://i1051.photobucket.com/albums/s424/Rmillerm4/images_zps91yd930d.jpg
Guntrician
06-08-14, 01:40
The weight.
Agree
Moonlight Again
06-08-14, 09:25
No ping after eight.
MountainRaven
06-08-14, 10:18
I think that most of those of the "Greatest Generation Ever" would not have thought very highly of the AR platform at that time in history. Heavy was considered better. As much as I like the AR platform, I think that while storming the beaches during the D Day invasions you would have been better served with the shoulder weapons of that era.
The guys who prefered the M1 Carbine would have disagreed with your 'heavier is better' idea. "Chesty" Puller in particular thought the M1 (and M2) Carbine was an excellent weapon and better for the average Marine infantryman than the M1 Garand. (Until his first winter in Korea, when the Carbine's fragility - even compared to an AR - and unreliability in extreme cold - even compared to an M1 Garand - changed his mind rather rapidly.) Hell, had Chesty lived long enough and been Commandant of the Marine Corps during Vietnam, he might have pushed the Marines to adopt the M16 before Curtis LeMay's Air Force. (Remembering here that those who loved the M16 - like US special forces and advisors - tended to be the same sorts that loved the M1/2 Carbine.)
Of course, given that most of the 'Greatest Generation' spent the conflict making coffee and filing reports, you may be right. A guy who only has to hump a rifle every now and again - and never has to hump the full kit of an American infantryman (something the Germans seemed to get right is that a German infantryman never humped his full kit, or even most of it) - is not going to care how heavy his rifle and its ammunition is.
ETA: And I agree with Safetyhit that the MG42 (and the MG1, MG2, and MG3) is probably one of if not the best GPMG ever developed.
Moonlight Again
06-08-14, 11:08
snip
A guy who only has to hump a rifle every now and again - and never has to hump the full kit of an American infantryman (something the Germans seemed to get right is that a German infantryman never humped his full kit, or even most of it) - is not going to care how heavy his rifle and its ammunition is.
snip
A friend of mine says damn a conversation that can't stand a little digression---I hope this thread is that way.
Did the Germans use platoon or company level separate supply vehicles? Horse drawn? (I've read that the Wehrmacht relied heavily on horse-drawn supply wagons even in WW2.) I'm so used to the American approach of "seventy pounds of gear" that I'm interested to learn more.
A friend of mine says damn a conversation that can't stand a little digression---I hope this thread is that way.
Did the Germans use platoon or company level separate supply vehicles? Horse drawn? (I've read that the Wehrmacht relied heavily on horse-drawn supply wagons even in WW2.) I'm so used to the American approach of "seventy pounds of gear" that I'm interested to learn more.
It's actually the French style, not American. If I recall correctly, Napoleon came up with the idea.
crusader377
06-08-14, 16:10
A friend of mine says damn a conversation that can't stand a little digression---I hope this thread is that way.
Did the Germans use platoon or company level separate supply vehicles? Horse drawn? (I've read that the Wehrmacht relied heavily on horse-drawn supply wagons even in WW2.) I'm so used to the American approach of "seventy pounds of gear" that I'm interested to learn more.
The Germans did extensively use both company and platoon level supply vehicles. With regular German infantry this consisted of one or two horse drawn supply wagons. If a platoon was fortunate to have two, one was a two horse wagon while the other was a single horse cart. German infantry still carried heavy gear but perhaps not as heavy as U.S. infantry and more importantly, the Germans were better armed at the small unit level.
Every German infantry squad was built around a MG34/42 with 1200 rds+ of ammunition. This provided massive fire superiority over most of their opponents. Even more impressive was German Panzer Grenadier and Fallschirmjäger squads had 2 MG 42s per squad. When you look at a standard German vs U.S. Infantry company in 1944 lets say during Normandy the firepower advantage with the Germans is pretty sizable. Here is the comparison between the two
U.S. Infantry company
2 M1918 MGs at Company level
9-12 BARs (3-4 with each platoon)
2 60mm mortars
German Infantry Company
11-14 MG34/42s (3-4 MGs with each platoon and at least 2 at company level.)
2 81mm mortars (see notes)
(By 1944 the Germans typically held their mortars at BN level but it was quite common for infantry companies to have 2 81mm mortars attached to them because a German battalion had two mortar platoons with one platoon being 81mm and the other platoon having 120mm mortars or additional 81mm if not available.
The M1 Garand was a better rifle than the standard German mauser bolt rifle that equipped the bulk of the regular infantry but even the M1s couldn't compensate for the extensive advantage the Germans had in machine gun firepower.
IMO, the Germans and the USMC were the two organizations in WWII that really did a good job of organizing their infantry to excel at the missions they were given.
If you want to learn more check out this website http://www.bayonetstrength.150m.com/
This site has the small unit organizations of all the major players in WWII.
I disagree and there are some historians who have said that the Germans use of the MKb42(H) as having an impact on allowing German troops to escape the encirclement at Kholm. At the end of the day all wars are won by the infantry clearing out the enemy. I'm not saying that the use of certain weapons would have changed the war (especially with a nutbag at the helm) but the use of certain weapons in combat has made an impact.
The Army would probably find a reason not to adopt it. Too many rounds, bullets too small, etc.
I don't really think infantry weapons would have made that big of a game changer. Maybe in the East, but the Soviets would have just thrown more dudes at the Germans.
Now modern tanks and UAVs?
MountainRaven
06-08-14, 17:53
IMO, the Germans and the USMC were the two organizations in WWII that really did a good job of organizing their infantry to excel at the missions they were given.
Interesting that Marines loaded for amphibious assault had one of the heaviest, if not the heaviest loads of the any infantry of the war, while the Germans had one of the lightest.
all good points above...
however I know 2 WW2 vets, and they love the .30-60 round and mock my AR-15 every chance they get. I honestly think the M16 in that generation would have been looked down upon due to the round it fires. I think they would have enjoyed the M14 much more.
But thats just my experience, my sisters husband USMC, his dad is also a Marine, served in WW2 and he does not shoot or even consider the AR a worthy rifle of himself. He will shoot his M1 and M1A but not ARs.
The second vet I know is my wifes dads friend I enjoy shooting with this old guy, but hes another die hard M1 guy who always mocks the AR.
So I would say that if WW2 vets fast forwarded to now, based upon my experience with them they would choose the M14, .45 caliber HK UMP, or possibly an AR-10. I dont think many due to the time would appreciate the 5.56 and 9mm calibers.
Failure2Stop
06-08-14, 19:27
Once they started dropping bad dudes, I'm sure their opinion would change. I didn't think much of the M16/5.56 when I joined, but it didn't take long in actual combat to discover that if you put the bullets where they belong the bad guys would fall down and stay down pretty consistently.
Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk
Pretty much.
Once they started dropping bad dudes, I'm sure their opinion would change. I didn't think much of the M16/5.56 when I joined, but it didn't take long in actual combat to discover that if you put the bullets where they belong the bad guys would fall down and stay down pretty consistently.
Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk
Once they started dropping bad dudes, I'm sure their opinion would change. I didn't think much of the M16/5.56 when I joined, but it didn't take long in actual combat to discover that if you put the bullets where they belong the bad guys would fall down and stay down pretty consistently.
Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk
Oh yea, I agree with ya. Just my experience with these vets is that you would have to show them first hand, you know how they can be. Love the wood and steel.
But im also with ya, when I joined I didnt think much of the 5.56 cause all i knew was hunting rounds 7mm and 308s. But I quickly learned that the 5.56 could do some damage. I like the 5.56 for what it is, but will always love the 30 cal bullets for what they are.
Moonlight Again
06-08-14, 20:47
Thanks, guys. This thread started off pretty frivolously, but it's turned all educational on me. I appreciate it.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.