m1 garand v.s. mauser

Hi there Jaeger,

I believe Celestial is not being biased at all. The Germans infact had the best technology during WWII. If the allies had better technology then for sure, the war would've ended in a year's time and didn't have to prolong for 6 years. Not only that, once war was declared the Germans hardly had anytime of developing something better. Also keeping in mind, the allies constantly disrupted their supply lines making it even more hard to conduct experiments. Not only that, the Versallies treaty imposed on the Germans even played a bigger role. For e.g. According to the treaty, the Germans were only allowed to build 35% of what the British Navy had. So there you have it. I think whatever they built was fantastic considering the time and the situation they were under. Even the Panzers used to easily take out the Shermans, (Sure some tanks must've not worked well and caught on fire, but theres always those exceptional ones) and the Tigers were a whole different matter. And sure I maybe wrong and I'm not being biased, but I asked a couple of Veterans here in the United States and they themselves told me stories about how awful it was facing the Panzer's.

The Enigma was once again a whole different case, and yeah sure the Brit's must've outsmarted the Germans there. But once again, I bet the Germans knew that their machine was blown and thought of something new, but there was too little time. But who really knows? All we can do is give out opinions since the main persons arent here to answer our questions. But I definately think the Germans were most advanced.

With Regards,
Desmond.

 

Wow! Where to start on this...

In most categories, the Germans started with equal or inferior technology and proceeded to fall further and further behind the Allies both in refinement and in quality of product. There were a few areas where the Germans were ahead and even remained ahead; but very few.

Starting with the proposition that the war would have concluded earlier if the Allies had superior technology is in no way provable. The Allies were really fighting a different war from Germany's in many respects. For the US and Britain World War 2 was truly a global war. This was not true for Germany whose war was essentially limited to Europe alone.
The effects of the Treaty of Versailles is at best mixed. For the Kriegsmarine the treaty left them with a clean sheet of paper to begin a new navy largely unburdened by having a fleet of older vessels in service. From this, the leadership of this arm of German service proceeded under Admirals Wagner and Räder to produce a very conservative and traditional fleet wedded to outmoded concepts of naval warfare.
The Luftwaffe, like most other air forces, initially was far more interested in securing its political position in the military hierarchy than in producing particularly good equipment to a coherent doctrine. From there, the leadership remained conservative in their views and doctrinal concepts. Close ground support prior to and in the early portion of World War 2 remained the perview of just a handful of disciples like Richtohfen. The highest levels of the Luftwaffe's command never heartly adopted it as a mission, regardless of the popular view to the contrary.
The Army failed to adopt full motorization. Doctrine was more a success because of innovation from the end of WW 1 than interwar innovation.

On to specifics:

Just a random sample:

Infantry weapons:
The K 98 remained the primary weapon in service. It was state of the art in 1918. By 1939 it was nothing special. The Mp 43 /44 was a true innovation, if crudely executed. The MG 34 / 42 machineguns were excellent innovations. Mortars remained mundane weapons with the adoption of the Soviet 120mm being a point of order on the German failure to innovate in this area.

Uniforms:
The Germans failed to adopt the US and British use of battle dress. The US 1943 layered system of battlefield clothing has become the world standard built on by militaries everywhere since.

Rations: The German ration system remained very much a WW 1 traditional system relying heavily on local sources and fresh items. The US in particular excelled in producing a portable series of rations capable of storage without refigeration for prolonged periods. Again, these became a world standard post war.

Medicine: Sulfa drugs, DDT, and penicillin. Need I say more.

Aircraft: In engines the Germans produced good if not particularly outstanding engines. Their inline ones were equal if much heavier to British models. The US proceeded to build far better radials and was the leader in super and turbocharging, particularly exhaust driven systems.
In jets, the Germans and British were virtually contemporary in comming up with this technology. The Germans forced theirs into service faster mainly due to their war position. The Allies using their far superior metallugry developments and access to the alloys necessary produced superior aircraft in terms of operational usefulness. The Me 262 might have been a aerodynamic and design tour de force but the Luftwaffe would have been lucky to manage to keep 100 flying given the absolutely horrible operational reliability of the engines and airframe. Practical it was not.
Then there is the Bomber A and B programs. The Germans were very innovative in both but could not turn innovation into an operational success. The US and British had far more success in doing this with superior manufacturing and quality control systems in place.

Ships: Same story. Nothing truly innovative except in submarines. The Type XXI and various Walther boats were very innovative. Again, there was an inability to turn innovation into a useful product.

Automotive and armor:
The Germans innovated with the Pz III and torsion bar suspension. Otherwise, their designs were very conservative in nature. It took the shock of the T 34 to bring sloped armor and an overhanging gun into service. The US was much better in terms of servicability and interchangability of their designs. These areas proved more important than the individual quality of tanks. The Russians likewise innovated far better in tank design than the Germans.
The US 2 1/2 ton truck and Jeep had no equal in German service. The German automotive industry was not even in the same race.

Electronics: Germany started the war about equal to Britain and the US. By 1943 they were no longer in the same race. The US had radios down to platoon level in their ground units. The Germans reliably down to battalion and on an as needed basis to company with infantry.

Artillery: German designs were servicable if staid. They did do better with towed anti tank guns something the Allies increasingly abandoned with introduction of ever larger numbers of self-propelled weapons. The US and Britain by 1943 had completely eclipsed anything the Germans had in a fire control system for artillery use. In the NW Europe campaign Western Allied artillery ruled the battlefield.

In military engineering the Germans were rank amateurs compared to the US. A single US engineering battalion or SeeBee battalion could perform the work of an entire German corps worth of engineers. For example, in early 1945 the 291st US combat engineer battalion bridged the Rhine three times in one days under fire (that is why they did it three times the bridges kept getting blown up), something a German battalion couldn't have done in a week in a training exercise.
The Ledo and ALCAN highways were tasks beyond anything tried by the Germans. Moving entire mobile bases anywhere in the world was a US Navy capability. The Germans assumed that the Allies would be held up in Normandy for months due to the need to build up supplies and that they would be unable to open a port quickly. Cherbourg was cleared by naval salvage units in less than 60 days. The Mullberry harbors were a complete surprise and a huge innovation.

The reason the Allies took so long to win was they planned to win and do it once. As for the Sherman...better take a look at tank battles in detail. The US and British often gave as good as they got even fighting Tigers (a rarity) and Panthers. Superior orgainzation and communications go a long way to making up for individually inferior tanks. It did for the Germans early in the war and for the Allies later on.

 

T.A. Gardner:

The Germans never started with equal or inferior technology. That is just impossible after looking at the situation. First of all, by the time, the Germans got stability back (when the Nazi party came to power and the economics started growing), all those years were of atmost wastage to the Germans (After WWI to the rise of the Nazi party).

Kriegsmarine: In the beginning of the war, the U-boat fleet was so small, hardly 35 or so U-boats were available. And all they did in the beginning of the war were just "pin pricks". Also note* the developing of these U-boats were based on the knowledge of WWI veterans (and there were hardly any), based of their experience (e.g. Karl Doenitz) they actually started forming a new naval development (The U-boat Commander's handbook was then made in 1939 or so). On the contrary, the Brits had all the data they needed pre-WWII, they had information from WWI and developed so many good systems for ex: the asidic. This is just to show that they didnt start on the same levels of technology and this is just one category. And Geographically speaking, Britain is a sea-power. Since the end of WWI Britain had all the time/economy they needed to develop something better then the Germans, which was so obvious. And also, the Brits being a sea power, they had all the space in the altantic they needed for pre-war training, whereas the Germans had a problem for that too which again restricted them for further developments.

And again, this is just one category. Im expressing the technology through the Kriegsmarine is because that's the only field (compared to the others) I most know about. Thank you for the specification of the other categories, I have yet to study them, but all I am saying is: The Allies did have better technology pre--WW2, but what the Germans developed throughout WW2 was just brilliant and that is the reason why the war was prolonged so much. Germany could've easily defeated Britain after the damage the Luftwaffe did, but the problem was Germany never had a strong land ally (compared to America, Russia etc) and enough supplies necessary to have a whole naval invasion. We have to be honest and admit that geographically, The brits had the strategic advantage.

But in the end of the war, the Germans did lose their technology dominance, its because (we have to remember), Germany was fighting against 3 SUPERIOR nations - who had MORE time, MORE resources compared to what they had. While the Germans concentrated on Britain and America, the Russians came up with something good, when they concentrated on Russia, the Brits/Americans came up with something good, whereas they hardly had time to come up with something good and even if they did, the allies would bombard their supply lines causing even more problems... so thats all.

 

You can always count on a German made product to be one quality piece of work. Their craftsman ship an attention to detail is unrivaled by anyone. However my friend owns an M1 and I must say that it is a fantastic gun. It has jammed before but only to bad rounds (he keeps it clean as a whistle). The mauser was more accurate definetly but I would have to pick the M1 if I was sent to fight in WWII. 8 rounds, semi auto. You're good to go. Semi auto can and has saved a number of lives in combat. Bolt-action's are always more accurate than semi-autos but I'd still want the semi auto feature. Patton called the M1 "the greatest battle implement ever devised". You can't count on 1 round to take a person down in combat (unless its to the head). I like the idea of having 8 rounds of business at the tip of my trigger finger. You can put 3-4 rounds in someone in the time it takes to just load another round into the chamber with a mauser.

 

all good arguments id say id would go with the Garand. I have a buddy that owns both a K98 and a Garand.I the semi-auto garand is a beautiful rifle and a sure bet if your in a fire fight. We've never had any problems with the Garand but the extractor on the mauser sometimes sticks.

 

I would take the garand any day. The sheer fact that it is semi-auto is a big factor. If you were in closer proximity of each other, accuracy is second to rof. I also like the fact that the M1 is more powerful. I mean, come on. 6mm of nothing. I don;t know what the germans were thinking when they gave it a cartridge that small.
Now don't get me worng, the K98 is a great gun, I just prefer the M1.

 

Where are people getting the idea that the Mauser 98k is more powerful or accurate than an M1 Garand?
I don't get it.
The 7.92x57IS cartridge has a slight edge over the Cal. .30 M2 round in muzzle energy though not enough to be noticed at combat ranges.
The peep sight of the M1 is much more conducive to accurate shooting than an open sight placed in front of the rifle’s chamber. Take a look at Vintage Rifle match results & see how many winners are using open sights.
“M1 thumb” when it happens is always a result of operator error. It is something which can be eliminated by training & practice.
The only real negatives to the M1 are the weight & that it requires slightly more maintenance than a bolt action.

 

The Germans used the 7.92 cartridge, not a 6mm.

 

From the Garand I owned, the only time it jammed was when I was using surplus ammo, with a touch of powder corrosion on the brass.

I'll use the Garand.

 

The M1 Garand is hands down the better battle rifle.

A more accurate comparison would be between the 1903 Springfield and the K98. Similar technology, similar performance.

When the US did studies prior to adopting the M1 and compared it against the 03 Springfield, one of the biggest advantages was enabling the rifleman to aquire sight picture more rapidly when firing multiple rounds. When working the bolt, the shooter would pull the rifle off target and often slightly shift their aim point by moving their stock weld. This was using expert riflemen, the problem becomes more pronounced the less well trained the shooter.
(Stock weld is the point where the shooters cheek contacts the stock. The shooter should strive to maintain a consistant point so that the distance from the shooters eye to the rear sight remains constant. Any variance forward or back changes the distance and therefore the angle of aim when aligning the front and rear sights, and thereby changes the point of strike of the bullet).

The 7.92x57 and .30 06 are quite similar ballistically, with the military ball issue round of the .30 06 has about 12% greater muzzle velocity. In this area the two weapons are a wash.

The M1 has a greater magazine capacity.

Accuracy out to 500yds is also a wash. I doubt if there are a handfull of shooters on this forum that can outshoot either rifle out to the weapons normal effective range. The accuracy performance of the two rifles is quite close. Unless you are a ranked competitive shooter or a sniper taking shots at 500+ yards, any lack of the bullet striking where you intend it to, is due to the shooter not the rifle. I'd guess that 90% of shooters can't use the full accuracy potential of either rifle.

 

That's basically the entire argument! We are not talking about a rifle for for plinking at the range, we are taking about a battle rifle! Pick a rifle that does either of the followig to go into battle with: Garand: Bang, bang, bang, repeat 5x, reload. Mauser: Bang. Click, click, click, click,Bang. Repeat 4x, reload. Garand, no contest.

 

Where's the garand's PLING?

 

The pling is a much smaller deal than having to work your bolt at a 50 meter engagement. God forbid one if some poor Laendser was ordered to clear a house with a Mauser--oh wait, it did happen.

 

Just a little joke.But the garand was the better rifle in an army no doubt.
Semi-automatic and more rounds.

 

I'd prefer the m1 i like the sniper variant.

 

If I had to go to war I would probably go Mauser, or any other bolt action they are just more reliable than semi autos I've heared bad things about a rifle jaming in the midle of a fire fight.

There isn't alot if any 30'06 surplus ammo compared to the $99.95 for 340 rounds.
I'm more of a bolt fan myself, but i would give almost anything for a Garand, exceped a prized 1903A4 like what AIMS got

 

I'd stick with the M1 just for firepower, stopping power and heavy enough to break bone.

 

M1 would probably be my choice

 

But while working the bolt of the Mauser you can lose your sight picture,while with the M-1 you can keep it.

 

As a standard GI it would have to be a Garand, there isn't too much noticable ballistic difference between the .30-06 or the 8mm Mauser, perhaps the edge to the 8mm.

Naturally the M1 Garand was semi automatic, which would be hugely comforting in combat to choose the ROF of your weapon (realistically) which with its 8 round capacity is better than a 5 round one in my eyes, the difficulty to top rounds off individually to me personally wouldn't affect me as really lets be honest, if you had a K98k or No4 you would reload singular rounds when you KNEW you were completely safe otherwise you would reload in stripper clips of 5 (Well i would) So to me that counters that point.

The issue of accuracy decrease because of the moving parts in the semi auto system is insignificant as the average GI wouldnt need to make immense range shots with a Garand (thats what snipers are for) and the general close quater nature of combat in WW2 wouldn't neccesarily require the need for said accuracy as much. At the closer distances that matter i believe that the accuracy difference is negligible, and the ease of keeping 'eyes on' target is simpler for a semi auto than a bolt action due to the cycling action

The infamous Garand 'ping', I have mixed opinions on this as some sources say its merely an urban-myth that GIs would throw clips down to lure out combatants and yet some swear blind its true. For me in the chaos of war in large actions the noise of it compared to gunshots, artillery, tanks, mortars, aircraft and the like is so minute that it was literally irrelevant. Although say a small patrol was engaged in a quiet part of the line then maybe the ping would be more significant if theres only say a few men involved.

The M1 certainly has more known cases (that i know of) of jamming than the K98k and i believe this is down to the system that is its main attribute.

Basic overview then

M1 Garand
Semi auto
decent cartridge
decent accuracy
higher capacity
Can Jam

K98k
Slower ROF
Decent cartride
Brilliant accuracy
Lower capacity
Very reliable

As a GI, i would have the Garand. As a recreational shooter i would want the K98k. Although i believe more suitable comparisons would be Garand V G43 and K98k V No4