writing an essay

[usmc0311]

One of the classes I'm taking at a "higher education" school is an english comp class. As the final project the class was tasked out to write an essay on the topic of our choosing. I have chosen to write about the M1. Originally I intended to write just about the rifle, but that transformed into how it helped the U.S. win WWII in both Europe and the Pacific. I had to do a bit of apples to oranges by comparing the M1 to the 98k and the Arisaka rifles as the M1s main enemies. I already have its capabilities posted in my essay, but I'm wondering if anyone here has extra input as to how the M1 helped with the war. I have already that its gas operated, clip fed and so on. Any help would be greatly appriciated.

Information

Warning: This is a relatively older thread This discussion is older than 360 days. Some information contained in it may no longer be current.

[jmoore]

Excellent sights, Ease of maintenance as compared to other semi-auto rifles- esp. the SVT40, morale builder (confidence in the weapon), reliability/durability (versus say, again, the SVT40, and the G/K43 or the G41, SVT38-playing catch up, were they?). Don't know how much hard data there is on these subjects though. I do know field stripping an SVT is really much more involved than a Garand!

[paul1440]

Might want to talk about the composition of a US Army versus German infantry squad and the firepower of 10 M1 Garands versus X K98k's. Of course you are taking the BAR and MG42 out of the equation but the point being that the supressive firepower of 10 M1s versus the K98 when the MG is reloading or displacing or after it being knocked out is not trivial. IIRC a trained rifleman can get off 3 clips of aimed M1 fire in the same time it takes to get 2 5-round clips of M1903 fire. And the M1903 is very similar to the K98.

Of course check other sources to make sure I got that right. There was a Mail Call with Lee Ermy on the Garand versus M1903 not all that long ago. Maybe you can find it online somewhere.

Another point is that there were ~4 million M1 Garands produced by the end of WW2 but only 400,000 G43s. Granted the G43 started later and was never the standard infantry rifle, but the Garand was the standard US infantry rifle and that was enabled/supported by industrial output.

[Bob Seijas]

Much easier to train new recruits, which was important as we built a big army. Also far less fatigue from sustained fire. GI's also reported that "walking fire" as they advanced kept the enemy's heads down, reduced casualties. In addition, the M1 will teach you that what you thought was cover was only concealment

[Devil Dog]

I think the recoil factor was important. If you ever fired a '98 Mauser or a 7.7 Arisaka you will know how much nicer it is to shoot a Garand.

[Kirk]

Another point would be production & logistics. One reason Churchill wanted the US in the war was manufacturing capacity. The Us out produced all the Allies & the Axis & was truly the "Arsenal of Democracy". Churchill knew it took time to build capacity & distribution. He was quoted as saying something like " In the first year, a trickle; the second, a river; the third a torrent and the fourth, a flood." The Garand was a factor in winning the war but so was 12,000 B17s, 12 Fleet carrier groups, millions of GIs and two atomic bombs.

[jmoore]

Of course, if you ask a Russian, we just helped add a liitle distraction so that they could REALLY bear down on the Nazis- And they're not TOO far off the mark...Bad mistake on 'Dolph's part, getting Uncle Joe riled up.

Would battles have been lost w/o the Garand? Possibly.

Would the outcome of the war been influenced? Only in the number of US casualities. (And possibly somewhat less enemy, but who knows?)

[Griff Murphey]

One of my favorite quotes that I read "somewhere" was that a U.S. Squad armed with the M-1 could hold a company of Japanese Arisaka-armed infantry.

[dbarn]

The M1 Garand is a fine battle rifle in and of itself. I also believe another advantage however, is that the M1 worked in harmony with another very prolific arm, the M1 carbine. Please understand I'm not comparing the two. The M1 offered far greater penetrating fire power. However I also believe the carbine was a very good supressive and supporting weapon to the M1. If you look at many late WWII ETO photos especially as we close in on Berlin, you will see a fairly large number of GIs carrying the caribne with a mag inserted and two more attached to the butt stock. This gave 45 rds at the finger tips of the GI in a light and handy package. I believe these two mass produced arms worked together in perfect harmony on many occasions given the opposing weapons of our enemies and of the period. JMHO