[Truth?]

I believe the results were in question. D-Day was a tremendous gamble which might have gone horribly wrong; in fact, on some beaches it did go horribly wrong. And the fight to establish a beachhead and capture Caen was even tougher than expected.

Indeed Omaha beach was going so badly there were thoughts of calling it off. One of the reasons Omaha went so bad was because the Ost Front vets of the 352nd ID happened to be running drills to deal with an amphib landing...right when the Americans hit the beach. So they got utterly decimated when the shocked Landsers of the 352nd found that their drill had turned into an actual firefight.

As to Caen that was a bloody mess and far from smooth. Normandy was a bloody campaign when you factor in the 12th SS Hitlerjügend Fanatic defense because they were told that Hitler would be sending reinforcements so those young boys got blown to hell and back while still waiting out for support. In fact it made Kurt "Panzer" Meyer sick that these lads would say things like, "If only the Führer knew." As Meyer said he did but there wasn't much he could do.

[Aught Six]

Hm. Well, until the M-16 came out, even the M-1 was used up through Viet Nam, especially the carbine version used by support personnel.

The M1 rifle and M1 carbine are two very different weapons, not just in design, but with cartridge type as well. The carbine was conceived as a replacement to the issue M1911 sidearm (for those who couldn't shoot straight with a pistol). It is relatively easy to shoot and was very popular among the men, so it stuck around and filled the requirements of those in the support roles you mentioned.

Personally, I'd stick with the the rifle if I were in a combat zone. It gives me pie plate accuracy out to about 300 yards, whereas the carbine can barely stay on target past 100. The proven .30-06 Springfield is a true battle cartridge with excellent external and terminal ballistics; the .30 Carbine round is essentially a light magnum pistol round. The rifle also makes a decent warclub, especially with a bayonet, as it is longer and several pounds heavier.

I think the carbine was a better fit for Vietnam because it was very light and less fatiguing to carry in a hot, tropical theater, had high capacity magazines for more sustained firepower, and was used in an environment in which the enemy presented him/herself at relatively close ranges, particularly in the jungle areas. The M1 and M14 were and are an excellent weapons, but they were also a supreme pain in the ass to haul around Vietnam, along with the necessary ammo.

[Aught Six]

As far as weapons that don't get any attention, how about the FP-45 pistol? This thing was beyong crude, but very cheap and easy to make. We dropped them by the thousands into occupied France and elsewhere for use by the resistance forces, but they saw little use.

[PBVBROOK]

Hm. Well, until the M-16 came out, even the M-1 was used up through Viet Nam, especially the carbine version used by support personnel.

Actually very few M-1s Gsarands were used in Vietnam by US forces. Some sniper rifles and such. The M-14 was common enough with some folks. The Carbine used in Viet Nam was actually the M-2 not the M-1. Some allied troops still had old M-1s and there was some trading but most of the time this was not allowed. Some folks were issued M-2's until the M-16 became available.

Some die hards thought the M-16 was a toy (if its Mattel its swell) and kept their M-14s until someone made them get rid of them. The M-14 was really bad in the wet. The wooden stock sucked. It was also heavy so most people came to like the M-16 especially when the jamming problems were fixed. By my time almost everybody involved in real combat operations had gone to the M-16. We really had no choice. The Army doesn't let soldiers 'shop' for their weapons. Maybe a few folks but damned few.

I agree with Aught Six about the carbines BTW. Those Carbines and postols are generally carried by those who didn't have to shoot anyone. It was popular with a very few guys traveling light and fast, (Hiding.) I knew LRPs who went out with 38 snubbies or 1911's and noting else. They had no intention of shooting anyone on some missions so why carry the weight. Once the M-16 got popular (over its jamming reputation) it was light enough that people came to like it.

The key thing is that soldiers are not usually allowed to use anything other than their issue weapons. By Vietnam the M-1 was a specialty weapon with US troops having been replaced by the M-14. The M-16 was almost universal by the mid 60's.

[Frank_Carbonni]

The flamethrower. It is not as glamorous nor as accepted as the fighter or tank, but you tell me a better way to clear of reinforced concrete bunkers and pillboxes.

[Thunderhawk]

The flamethrower. It is not as glamorous nor as accepted as the fighter or tank, but you tell me a better way to clear of reinforced concrete bunkers and pillboxes.

For the Americans? Anti-tank shell from a tank hunter.
Both were in sufficient quantity in the pacific for it to be a common practice.

[Aught Six]

How about the M3 carbine, the first weaponized night vision system? It has probably ended up on the History Channel at some point, but I don't hear many history buffs talking about it.

http://www.rt66.com/~korteng/SmallArms/m1irsnip.htm

[Torwan]

@Frank:

Flamethrower is a weapon of WW1...

[Thunderhawk]

@Frank:

Flamethrower is a weapon of WW1...

None-the-less, it was a weapon used in WW2, and I would agree that it was understated.

[Tailz]

The humble shovel. Just as important during the second world war as it was during the first. Also there was an evolution of a folding spade or in the case of the britsh a removeable handle. Some germans would sharpen the blade of the shovel for use in hand to hand fighting, while the british found the handle of their cut down shovels made an effective club. The japanese even added holes to the blade of some shovels, so that a solder could use a shovel as a face guard when looking out from a foxhole.