in these pics it shows a bolt action rifle.....well didn't the americans use the m1 grand rifle which was semi auto?


http://gamespot.com/gamespot/filter...7649-62,00.html


http://gamespot.com/gamespot/filter...7649-61,00.html

The pic was the mauser rifle that you can pick up.

you can pick up rifles? well thats cool but i wouldnt pick it up since the m1 was alot more reliable and its semi auto even tho i like the sound of the bolt http://www.pcgamers.net/ubb/smile.gif

mauser is one of the most reliable guns ever

------------------
http://303rdbga.com/303logo2.gif

I would take my trusty Mauser over an M1 anyday! the garand has comparitavly NO stopping power, and I don't have to worry about the mauser not feeding.

Plus, the americans did use bolt action rifles, the M1903 series. Which was the main rifle before the M1 got into circulation in 1942 (although it was officially released in 1941), and was used as a sniper rifle untill it was replaced by remington designs late in Viet-Nam.

------------------
http://www.skalman.nu/third-reich/bi...rop-var-15.jpg
"Victory at any Price!"

SS-Panzergrenadier

Amen H-A!

Well, you don't take 'pot-shots' when using a mauser, or any weapon in the military. You AIM then fire. In WW2, almost 75% of all kills by the german military was as a result of ONE shot! (That is FACT)

------------------
http://www.skalman.nu/third-reich/bi...rop-var-15.jpg
"Victory at any Price!"

SS-Panzergrenadier

Phew, Impressive...

Burgen: What was the other 25% ?
I mean, 2, 3, Bayonettes ? etc

Really ? So they had statisticians on the field with them at all times calculating how many bullets they used up per soldier ?

COME ON.

I won't dismiss it as pure horse shit just yet, but I would like to see the source of this interesting bit of information...

"That is FACT"

Then you will have no problem in providing me with this fun-filled factoid. I highly doubt that three quarters of the german army were capable "snipers" and only needed one bullet per allied soldier. Seems highly unrealistic too me.

------------------
http://3rdInfantry.homestead.com/files/solidus.jpg

Yes, the german military fielded MANY semi -auto rifles. They just weren't in as good of supply as the K98. They Had the K/G43 (some say it is the preqursor to the Russian SKS), they also in 1944 started equiping thier soldiers with the grand-daddy of ALL modern Assault-Rifles, the MP43/StG44. which was selective fire (semi or full auto). But they weren't as cheap and easy to produce and out of only a couple hundred thousand made, less than a third reached the front by the end of the war.

------------------
http://www.skalman.nu/third-reich/bi...rop-var-15.jpg
"Victory at any Price!"

SS-Panzergrenadier

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bürgen:
Well, you don't take 'pot-shots' when using a mauser, or any weapon in the military. You AIM then fire. In WW2, almost 75% of all kills by the german military was as a result of ONE shot! (That is FACT)

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

*Laughs*

The propaganda got em http://www.pcgamers.net/ubb/smile.gif

------------------
http://3rdInfantry.homestead.com/fil.../Captblade.jpg

I'll have to agree with SoLiDUS here. That 75% sounds pretty high... I wonder how in the world have they come up with that number. I mean, it would be nearly impossible to measure the accuracy of a soldier on the battlefield correctly.

------------------
"In God we trust, all others are suspects"

Don't believe everything you read man.
You might be very dissapointed when the
truth comes slamming down on you.


------------------
http://3rdInfantry.homestead.com/files/solidus.jpg

Unlike the US Army which only provides reruits with 2 1/2 weeks of Basic training and 3 weeks of 'advanced infantry training', the German Wehrmacht required 8 weeks (two months), of 'basic', and then 4 months of Infantry training, 4 hours of EACH DAY was spent on the rifle range and you would not graduate unless you earned the Markmanship Lanyard. So in a way, the average german rifle man WAS in many ways equal to an American sniper. Also, German soldiers were trained to engage the enemy at long range in order to take into account the EXCELENT accuracy or the Mauser G/K98, and stay out of range of the deadly allied close range weapons.

------------------
http://www.skalman.nu/third-reich/bi...rop-var-15.jpg
"Victory at any Price!"

SS-Panzergrenadier

[This message has been edited by Bürgen (edited July 27, 2001).]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bürgen:
Unlike the US Army which only provides reruits with 2 1/2 weeks of Basic training and 3 weeks of 'advanced infantry training', the German Wehrmacht required 8 weeks (two months), of 'basic', and then 4 months of Infantry training, 4 hours of EACH DAY was spent on the rifle range and you would not graduate unless you earned the Markmanship Lanyard. So in a way, the average german rifle man WAS in many ways equal to an American sniper. Also, German soldiers were trained to engage the enemy at long range in order to take into account the EXCELENT accuracy or the Mauser G/K98, and stay out of range of the deadly allied close range weapons.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well... IF WE HAD 20 YEARS TO TRAIN OUR SOLDIERS, WE MIGHT BE 'L33T' LIKE THE GERMANS...

Think here for a min... Hitler had all the time he wanted to train his troops.. The US had to train the men,(mind you, we were in the process of demilitarizing our country, until the japs bombed pearl harbor) then send them all the way to the pacific and europe.. that took a lot of time.. The Germans could just train there men and walk out the backdoor and start fighting.. heh..

BTW - There is NO way it could be 75%..

Theres my 2 cents worth...



------------------
http://3rdInfantry.homestead.com/fil.../Captblade.jpg

Don't forget the difference in range, as well, between the Mauser 98k, and the Garand. The Mauser 98k has a much longer reach.

------------------
34th SS-Freiwilligen-Grenadier-Division Landstorm Nederland

"Meine Ehre heißt Treue"

quote; the garand has comparitavly NO stopping power, and I don't have to worry about the mauser not feeding.

The garand does have alot of stopping power, more than a mauser.


[This message has been edited by mikecs18 (edited July 27, 2001).]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Assassin788:
well the axis didnt have any semi auto weapons did they? and i do like the mauser when i play dod so i guess i would use the kar 98k<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
MP38/40
STG44
G43
FG42



------------------
34th SS-Freiwilligen-Grenadier-Division Landstorm Nederland

"Meine Ehre heißt Treue"

So they had a little more training time. So what ? That still doesn't give me FACTUAL evidence they killed in one shot 75% of the time.

You are ASSUMING they did based on their training time and the fact they had to pass an exam (probably shooting at a target standing or lying down - which is fucking easy, mind you).

Haven't you learned the assumption lesson ?
If you ASSUME, you make an ASS of U and ME.
(in case you don't get it, piece ASS, U and ME together: you will get a nifty word)

------------------
http://3rdInfantry.homestead.com/files/solidus.jpg

You guys need to understand something about STOPPING POWER : whether you receive a garand or mauser bullet in the chest or head, you're gone ! There's no such thing as which one will "stop" more ... lol.

Similarly, getting hit in the arm or leg by either weapon wouldn't make much difference:
you'd be suffering as much and would cry your asses off, begging for the pain to go away http://www.pcgamers.net/ubb/smile.gif

Stopping power is only a useful piece of datum in our days because we can talk about how a 9mm or 45 cal. bullet (or whatever) would react on a bullet-proof vest.

They didn't have the pleasure of wearing one back then. (If I'm not mistaken, some people had primitive vests, but that could be a misread)

Well it has some merit, when your talking about whether a bullet hits you, and stops, or hits you, and destroys vital internal organs, and rips through your body, going out the other side. The first wound you might live through, the second one you probably won't...you'll either die from organ failure, or you'll bleed to death.

The Garand is not more powerful than a Mauser 98k. It's simple fact. The muzzle velocity alone, of the Mauser 98k is higher than the M1 Garand.

------------------
34th SS-Freiwilligen-Grenadier-Division Landstorm Nederland

"Meine Ehre heißt Treue"

[This message has been edited by Wolfshook (edited July 27, 2001).]

oh oh, time for my 2 cents!

the germans DID train harder and longer.... as we all know the Hitler Youth were BORN soldiers... born and bred to fire a gun etc etc...

but that is beside the point... hitler WASNT ready for war... he had lots of troops and supplies... but he wasnt ready for HIS expectactions.... when the war started he still had hoped to have quite abit more to work with... so in truth there COULDNT have been a 75% hitrate and kill rate... because well first off... this is humans and in the face of death... sometimes its hard to make the first shot count always...

and second... yes they did send SOME inexperienced and undertrained soldiers into battle... dont you people remember near the end of the war? whole squads and groups of germans comprized of mainly 16 year old boys who just were handed rifles and told to defend a point???

come on... 75% is a bit much... i dont care if you can shoot the nuts off a squirrel... you will still miss alot more then that.

and like they said... did they go out and count the bodies and then do a load of math combined with the bullets left + the bullet holes in the bodys? jesus... its just not statistical to do that in a war.



------------------
----Savour Since 1982----

Finally...

Someone that has common sense http://www.pcgamers.net/ubb/smile.gif

Good Bless you Jesus!

Heh

------------------
http://3rdInfantry.homestead.com/fil.../Captblade.jpg

Well one person could probably hit 50$ of the targets in which he fired at

im reallying getting these weapons wrong.....

himmler got the ss to actually breed men to fight for them

------------------
http://3rdinfantry.homestead.com/files/hellsangel2.jpg

Hehe, Himmler was a complete nutter http://www.pcgamers.net/ubb/biggrin.gif

On the subject of Bolt Action Rifles. Yum. Bolt Action be more powerful and accurate, I'd choose the Kar 98k anyday over the Garand.

In response to Solidus..."You guys need to understand something about STOPPING POWER : whether you receive a garand or mauser bullet in the chest or head, you're gone ! There's no such thing as which one will "stop" more ... lol."

Different weapons are made differently in respect to the way the bullet "tumbles" through the air once it's left the barrel. Some rounds move nice and smoothly through the air, when they penetrate the body and move through the flesh, all their gonna do is put a nice clean hole straight through you (ofcourse make a mess inside), thats the perfect killing weapon. On the other hand, some rounds and the rifling on the barrels make the bullet "tumble". When it does this, when it hits the flesh it's going to rip everything inside you too pieces, most organs in the path of the bullet will be torn to shreds, that is the perfect wounding weapon. That is stopping power. The ability to kill outright, or to mame and dismember and lower the morale of the opposing force.
Yes theres the ballistics side of stopping power, but theres also the soldiers side of stopping power http://www.pcgamers.net/ubb/smile.gif

------------------
http://www.usmedals.com/prodpix/p295.jpg
Blessed be the Lord my strength, which teacheth my hands to War and my fingers to fight.

[This message has been edited by BallisticWookie (edited July 27, 2001).]

well the axis didnt have any semi auto weapons did they? and i do like the mauser when i play dod so i guess i would use the kar 98k

hehehehehehe

------------------
[img]=http://3rdinfantry.homestead.com/files/hellsangel2.jpg]http://3rdinfantry.homestead.com/files/hellsangel2.jpg[/img]

Bah, semi-automatic all the way!

You miss with your bolt action rifle
in front of a man with a garand and
you're practically garanteed a spot
at the closest cemetary http://www.pcgamers.net/ubb/smile.gif

I'll take the slight chance that it would jam or feed improperly over having to cock a weapon manually for every pot shot I would want to take any given day :->

------------------
http://3rdInfantry.homestead.com/files/solidus.jpg

Well won't you look at that.. I'm a first lieutenant now. Ph33r m3 ! http://www.pcgamers.net/ubb/smile.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SoLiDUS:
You still don't get it do you ? Whether I shoot you with a Garand or a Mauser, you'll still fall flat on your fucking face. Geez people wake the hell up !

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's not exactly true, and that's what we are trying to explain. Some weapons do not do that kind of massive damage, on average, and some do.

If you get hit in the head with a mauser or garand, yes your going to die.

We are talking about wounds which do not hit VITAL organs, and what happens next. Some rounds will not cause catastrophic damage, and some will, depending on the weapon it was fired from, and what type of ammunition it is.

That is what we are talking about. A kill shot is a kill shot, you are right. But one which does not instantly kill (the vast majority) is what we are discussing.

Sorry for the mixup.

------------------
34th SS-Freiwilligen-Grenadier-Division Landstorm Nederland

"Meine Ehre heißt Treue"

If you're not talking about vital organs, refer to one of my previous posts on the topic. I knew all of that already.

Yes, some bullet types will shred more than others...
FMJ anyone ?


I understand exactly what you're saying, but the fact is, you could get hit by ANY caliber bullet and you'd still be "disabled" : meaning you'd have a hard time concentrating and continuing the fight adequatly.

I can also understand how a "shredder" type of round could do more damage to the unlucky fellow getting hit..

And ballistic, I wasn't pissed, just in awe http://www.pcgamers.net/ubb/smile.gif
It's all good.

------------------
http://3rdInfantry.homestead.com/files/solidus.jpg

What I meant by FMJ is that it doesn't shred.. just goes right through. Other types of rounds do massive damage in the sense they turn on themselves and assume a position of pointy and fragmented pieces, churning everything...

ok yea whatever...

------------------
"If you risk nothing, you risk everything"

You still don't get it do you ? Whether I shoot you with a Garand or a Mauser, you'll still fall flat on your fucking face. Geez people wake the hell up !

I will digress now : it isn't my responsibility to educate you, but damnit, at LEAST try to understand that even though the stopping power of the mauser was superior (not by that much, mind you) to the garands, it wouldn't matter much : a bullet hitting your sorry ass would disable you coming from either weapon. lol.

I know most of you cower behind neat and fuzzy definitions and believe everything you read down to the last ink drop, so I will shut up and save my saliva.

------------------
http://3rdInfantry.homestead.com/files/solidus.jpg

I reckon it would be cool as the Mauser has more "stopping power" to be able to kill a sniper and attatch a scope to it...Correct me if im wrong, but the Garand couldnt have a scope because the ejecting "end-block" would hit it ?

Hey Solidus, man, settle down http://www.pcgamers.net/ubb/smile.gif hehehe I know a round to the head or chest will leave a gaping wound causing death instantly http://www.pcgamers.net/ubb/smile.gif
I was just stating what I know to be fact.
Sorry to have pissed you off.

------------------
http://3rdinfantry.homestead.com/files/wookie.jpg
Blessed be the Lord my strength, which teacheth my hands to War and my fingers to fight.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Maverick:
ok yea whatever...

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

... ?

State your disapproval Maverick.