British/Commonwealth Infantry weapons...poor?

[Vanir Ausf B]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by tero:

Yes. But since this debate is basically Lee-Enfield vs M1 all the refences to MP-44 (or SMG's) must be seen for what they are, for refence only.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Tero, although your logic is difficult for me to follow, it appears that you are attempting to argue that the CM FP rating for the M1 and the Lee Enfield be made the same by proving that US soldiers were less likely to fire their M1s, compared to British soldiers firing their SMLEs, therefore negating the weapons inherent ROF advantage. The problem is that the method you are using to argue this point is flawed.

Specifically, you are arguing half the equation. You're trying to compare Brits and Americans by only talking about the Americans. Won't work.

You repeatedly point out that US soldiers were trained to fire at precise targets, which made them reluctant to fire when no target was visible. What you ignore is that the Brits appear to have been trained basically the same way. Therefore, there is no reason to believe that the typical British soldier in the ETO '44-'45 was any more or less likely to shoot at the enemy than his American counterpart. Unless you can find some convincing evidence to the contrary, I think your argument is doomed to fail.

[Brian Rock]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by tero:

Originally posted by Brian Rock:

[qb]What I've seen are arguments that CM is correct in giving the M1 a marginal increase in effectiveness.

Why is the increase correct ? Because it is an American weapon ? Water cooled HMG's (Vickers) get shafted eventhough they were superior in many respects to the air cooled LMG/HMG hybrids. [ 08-23-2001: Message edited by: tero ][/QB]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It's at times like this that I remember why I usually ignore most of the discussion that occurs on this board.

Tero, I didn't say it was correct. Neither did I say that it was incorrect. What I said, in answer to Brian's allegation that "the M1 Garand is the wonder weapon its portrayed to be by most Americans", was that I hadn't read anybody claiming the M1 was a wonder weapon. I said there were people who believed that there was an argument for it being marginally more effective. Do you dispute that this is true?

If you somehow interpreted this as my saying there was a consensus, that was not my intention. Please note I did not, do not, and have no intention of ever saying that everyone agrees with this. Accusing the CM community of achieving a consensus on anything would be an error only the greenest newbie would make...

I presume from the way you shoehorned the reference to the Vickers, and your comment that the GM1 is judged to be better "because it is an American weapon", is meant to be evidence of a pro-American bias. Whether that is true or not - and for the record I don't think it is - it has nothing to do with what I wrote.

I am intrigued that you and Brian agree the M1 is over-rated for pretty much the opposite reasons. He argues the Americans had poor fire discipline and wasted ammo by blasting away aimlessly, whereas you argue the M1 was underutilised because the Americans would only shoot if they had a target.

Seems to me like a damned it they shoot, damned if they don't argument.

No doubt this will lead to further hair-splitting and mis-interpretations of what I've said, but as the soapboxes are clearly permanent features, it's after midnight, I've had more than a few drinks, and I'm prepared to watch the fireworks with a certain degree of detached amusement, go for it.

[Madmatt]

Guys this thread is getting very close to the maximum limit that we like to have for a single topic.

If you wish to continue I would simply ask that you start a new thread as I am going to lock this one up now.

Madmatt