Battle Rifles of World War Two: Overview

[@CapnDan57]

I liked this theme, Ian. Similar comparisons for pistols, sub-guns, machine guns, sniper rifles, etc. would be both informative and entertaining.

[@tankpiggy]

Definitely agree

[@cattom44]

Agreed also. This is more of what interested me in Forgotten Weapons to begin with.

[@DirkdeJager73]

Hear, hear! I would like to see one on the German police pistol trails in the 70s. So the Walther P5, the SiG-Sauer P6 and the H&K P7. And why the West Berlin police stuck to the P38/P1.

[@jamesjross]

Just got to wait for this company to give away a ww2 pistol and a video will be made.

[@matthewiskra771]

Agree. I was actually expecting Garand vs. Lee Enfield vs. Mosin-Nagant vs. Type-99 until I looked closer at the comparison setup and noticed the distinct SVT silhouette. So maybe an 03 Springfield vs. the other non-autoloading rifles of WW2?

[@carlinglin7289]

One of George C. Marshall's most important decisions was enforcing "Battle Necessity" on US production. You couldn't interrupt production of current equipment unless you could make the case that a new model was absolutely necessary. A whole lot of good enough beat a trickle of the latest thing.

[@Fulcrum205]

The Army branches had boards that had the final say so on whether a particular piece of gear would be adopted. Ordinance could come up with the newest mousetrap but if it didn't pass testing by the Armor Board, Infantry Board, etc. then it wasnt fielded. Army ordinance developed all sorts of things like heavy tanks, wheeled tank destroyers, heavy tank destroyers, etc., that couldn't pass testing. The M26 Pershing was fielded so late was because it couldn't pass Armor Board testing.

[@Activated_Complex]

Then when something new is deemed absolutely necessary, the floodgates open. I was a bit stunned when I heard that there are now 1,000 F-35s out there, and it's on track to be produced in the eye-watering numbers we associate with WWII fighter planes.

[@bravo_cj]

@@Activated_Complex That's actually why the F-35, being inferior to the F-22 in many ways, has become the successor of the F-22. Yes it only has 70% or something of the performance, but you can manufacture them much easier and at a much larger scale. Also the development in information technology and microchips is also an important factor

[@Dell-ol6hb]

@@bravo_cj yea but the program also cost nearly $2 trillion

[@bravo_cj]

​@@Dell-ol6hb True, but from what I've heard about, an F-35 costs millions while an F-22 costs billions. That's quite a lot of difference when you manufacture something like 1000 aircrafts

[@DawidKov]

In 1943, USSR actually did some testing comparing Lend-Lease M1s and SVT-40s. The result was heavily in M1s favour, with M1s suffering 1,75% malfunctions compared to 9.75% on the SVT-40s. Indeed, the issues of quality control were well understood by Soviet experts, but unfortunately you cannot get an experienced industrial base without making mistakes. Consider that just 30 years prior the Russian Empire had a literacy rate of 30%. USSR was beating the odds here. I would like to correct something that Ian said about USSR's adoption and then move away from the SVT. In 1940 the production of Mosin rifles was halted and stopped. The plan was to fully move to the SVT as the standard rifle. Even the sniper variant would be SVT only - the PU scope was developed specifically for the SVT, and it wouldn't be until 1942 that it would be adapted to the Mosin. Mosin used the older PE scope. When Germany attacked, USSR did not have a running Mosin production. In autumn of 1941 the factories were restarted, and the idea of moving to the SVT fell off specifically because it was more expensive to manufacture than the Mosin. And USSR was having to equip tens of millions of men. The submachine guns were considered a good enough substitute for the volume of fire, since they were easier to produce. Had USSR entered the war a year later, perhaps it wouldn't have returned to the Mosin. But with less than a year of production experience on the SVT-40, without having fully scaled it up, it was not practical to push ahead with the semi-auto concept if it meant being unable to provide enough rifles for the army. The Red Army had 30 million people serving throughout the war.

[@gouravduttaroy5238]

Thanks for the information. That's new to me.

[@petesheppard1709]

There is also that Russian proverb; 'The best is the enemy of good enough'--especially with the enemy on your porch.

[@jacp5628]

Comments like this, few and far between as they may be, is why I read comments sections.

[@danielwordsworth1843]

Good take I would also add - SVT was meant for army of skilled men, who would gain from more firepower of the gun than mosin and better accuracy than SMG but war on frontyard meant mobilization of sometimes not even literate men across the whole wilderness of Soviet territory so, cheap mosins were cheap and SMGs were cheap and more chance of hitting target plus, 7,62x25 Tokarev has better distance capabilities than 9x19 Luger

[@AntiPlatitude]

Thanks for taking the time to share that. Very interesting stuff indeed. I wasn’t aware of those details. Cheers.

[@scoutrifle6827]

I think these 'brain dumps' are fascinating, Ian; your knowledge (both depth and breadth) of historic firearms is fascinating, and wonderful to have shared with us.

[@todorkolev7565]

that was my thought exactly, like, we have to appreciate that he did this pretty much in one breath :D

[@theKashConnoisseur]

@@todorkolev7565 Not to take anything away from the information that Ian gives us gratis, but being able to present like this is a skill anyone can develop. Not only do teleprompters exist, but it's also very possible to memorize a script and to perform it live. I used to give research presentations in University of around the same length, and I'd usually only take a day to write and memorize the presentation script to the point that I could perform it live as if I was speaking off the cuff.

[@burnthompson286]

​@@theKashConnoisseur You say anyone can develop it, but mention you went to university. University attendance is a major factor in developing skills like that. Not everyone has the resources or opportunity to attend university

[@theKashConnoisseur]

@@burnthompson286 I'd argue that I developed more of my skills in this area during theater classes in public school that I did in University while presenting research. And sure, you could argue that not everyone has the resources or opportunity to attend public school. But I'd argue that most people in the developed world do.

[@burnthompson286]

@@theKashConnoisseurNot every public school offers theater, debate, or public speaking as extracurriculars. Not every child has a supportive home life that allows them to thrive in public school, or allow them energy to take on more than the minimum course load

[@MikeBison_]

It’d be neat to see this kind of three-way analysis between the US, USSR, and Germany’s other weapons, like their sidearms (1911, P38, TT33) or SMG’s (Thompson, MP 40, PPSh)

[@theimmortal4718]

I agree. I prefer the American guns, but I like the comparison

[@Destroyer_V0]

And including weapons used by other nations when they have equivalents.

[@Horgler]

The Thompson definitely wouldn't fare as well in an SMG list as the M1 did in this one.

[@theimmortal4718]

@@Horgler The ergos aren't great, but it's very controllable and 45 hits harder. In the 1949s, I'd much rather carry one than an MP40 or PPsH

[@Stinger420]

​@@theimmortal4718 Hehehe! Exactly how many 1949s were there? LoL, I know, I know, it's a simple '0' typo, but I couldn't help myself 😊

[@jfs1291]

I love history lessons with Ian. He's just so passionate and educated on the topics. I love learning from him.

[@avramnovorra]

I certainly enjoyed this breakdown of these 3 battle rifles, i'd like to see more of these in the future!

[@briangarvey6895]

This sort of semi rambling comparative video is something I enjoyed quite a lot. I would not mind seeing more of this. I have to admit that when he said 'The top three battle rifles of World War II', my first thought was the M1, the SMLE, and the 98k.

[@flavortown3781]

I'd wager most folks would call those bolt action something like "infantry rifle"

[@trooperdgb9722]

I certainly wouldn't. To call a SMLE No1 Mk III and a 98k anything OTHER than a "Battle Rifle" would be quite misleading....@@flavortown3781

[@xenaguy01]

Ditto.

[@dcw56]

I would like to see a LITTLE more of it with proper pronunciation. Yeah?

[@robertbenson9797]

Very interesting episode. My dad brought back a G-43 after WWII. His division, the 99th, was located northeast of Munich, when the war ended. For the next two weeks, almost all Allied divisions in Germany were tasked with disarming the Wehrmacht. Dad had told me that they had a couple of dozer Sherman’s that they used to dig several trenches. As firearms were surrendered, they would be checked and then destroyed. The majority of the firearms turned in were K-98s. The firearms were deposited at the bottom of the trenches and the dozer tanks would run over them and later the trenches were filled in with dirt. Dad was a company commander at this time so he was supervising the destruction of the small arms. He was able to pull a G-43 out of the pile and brought it home. I hadn’t seen the rifle until I was in college, he had loaned it to his younger brother. I was surprised to see that the rifle was not a K-98. I kept it for a few years but decided to donate it to the museum in my hometown after Dad passed away. Thanks for all the information on the rifles.

[@Khan.WrathOf]

You gave up a small fortune.

[@Kaktus965]

Make sure they take care of it. Lots of museums neglect old guns

[@Mike-tw1pi]

Thanks for sharing the story. Where is the museum? Is it still kept on display?

[@TN-dq6eh]

Total waste of the rifle, why not pass it down to your son?

[@robertbenson9797]

The museum is the Grand River Historical Museum located in Chillicothe, Missouri. The rifle is on display there and has been well cared for. My mother and I also donated Dad’s Class A uniform. Dad stayed in the National Guard for 20 years, retiring as a major. The museum rotates different uniforms on display as the display area is not that large.

[@killahurtz6786]

"Comparison" format is excellent, I personally like it id watch more of the type.

[@tsuchinokoz5036]

The comparison and over view is excellent. Something like G3 and FAL comes to mind

[@BerndFelsche]

Putting pressure on Ian NOT to compare his updated G3 to a FAL. If you want to know which is better, you need to exercise each for a week before comparison. Don't be surprised if the opinion of others differs.

[@tsuchinokoz5036]

@@BerndFelsche indeed I’ve had all of the classic hk family and all major variations of the FAL. The answer would be both !

[@darthmartinez]

It's interesting to note that there were several soviet snipers who really like the SVT-40 as a sniper rifle despite the accuracy issues because of the ability to quickly and rapidly follow up shots.

[@bronsonperich9430]

"In Soviet Union if we miss we keep shooting!" But then the greatest snipers of WW2 were from the USSR 😂

[@Bubben246]

@@bronsonperich9430 Except for that one guy who kept shooting them.

[@remarinracoon5309]

​@bronsonperich9430 never forget the white death

[@reliantncc1864]

Good snipers don't need so many follow-up shots. Simho Hayha became the greatest sniper ever, with iron sights, because he was skilled.

[@Daishi0861]

I mean why limit yourself to 'good' snipers, if you can improve the efficacy of 'lesser' snipers with additional capability? seems sorta silly if the end result is the same@@reliantncc1864

[@trooperdgb9722]

The comment about the USA being "technically focused" is absolutely spot on. Reading about the "Great Exhibition" in London (at the "Crystal Palace")in 1851one thing is abundantly clear. The American exhibitors STUNNED Europe with their technical prowess. From nail making machines to Agricultural harvesters, and of course the Colt Revolver, the USA showed...without fanfare, that it was producing machines that were "fantastic" (to use the original meaning of the word), and which ALSO...simply WORKED. Fantastic episode Sir... really enjoyable!

[@bookman7409]

The USA was also the premier place for watch/clock design, back around then, and Europe had to play catch-up there, too. "Good old American knowhow" was a thing much longer ago than most folks realize.

[@josephberrie9550]

@@bookman7409 most of the inventors were european immigrants

[@erik_dk842]

@@josephberrie9550 Maybe, but USA was where they prospered

[@igrim4777]

If it was producing fantastic machines using the original meaning of fantastic as you claim then everybody had to be playing a big game of make-believe. The original meaning of fantastic is "imaginary, existing only in imagination" as in "fantasy story".

[@trooperdgb9722]

Perhaps then "hitherto fantastic"... OK?@@igrim4777

[@armedmage]

3 of the coolest infantry rifles ever made. I'd love to see a similar comparison between the different SMGs of WW2.

[@BasilPunton]

SMG. There are a lot more of them. There are at least 5 countries that had at least 2 SMG. Plus, several that had at least 1. This would really stress (stretch?) Ian out.

[@Lamrett]

@@BasilPunton Hardly. The Q+As are over an hour long. He'd be more stressed about video quality and audience enjoyment than anything else.

[@tetraxis3011]

Finally, place where italy can shine and not get clowned on for their terrible weapons.

[@Wintercat1]

This type of video makes great audio-only content, and it provides a broader historical context than normal. I would love more!

[@Jame5man]

Germany when it came to tanks had three major issues: - obsession with shiny new toys - pathological urge to tinker - complete aversion to standardization So basically the same problem they had with guns, planes, trucks, generals and allies

[@cameronnewton7053]

That air vent is on the wrong side of the tank! Restart the entire production run and move it to the other side!

[@brendanliamgill99]

The tank and airplane changes were so spratic that I'm pretty sure that they changed something major in production about every 10 tank and airplane in production or something crazy like that.

[@huntermad5668]

The vid about German Tank production mentioned the tank at the head of the production line would have some differences from the tank being build in the back....😂😂 Most of The changes are so minor that all other nation just slap them on a comprehensive updated model switch. Not Nazi Germany ... They needed to tinker to get 0.5% more efficiency.... Everytime😮

[@towarzyszbeagle6866]

They also suffered from weird idiosyncrasies of design, like a weird aversion to crew periscopes. Even the T-34 had periscopes for the entire turret crew post 1942. Yet supposed bleeding edge tanks like the big cats completely lacked such a basic observation tool.

[@brendanliamgill99]

@@towarzyszbeagle6866 depends on when and where the T-34 was made because the factory that produced the majority of T-34 production had a nasty habit of removing essential steps and parts from the tank blueprints just to save time supposedly. Look up the video lazerpig did on that tank there's at one point a list of parts and process removed from the tank. Including heat treatment of parts in the drivetrain and running gear.

[@JPR3D]

I love the comparisons like these, especially the reasoning (as best can be determined). I remember hearing from many sources that Germany place huge and well-deserved emphasis on producing light machine guns for foot-soldiers and focused their doctrine on the MG as the unit anchor, and that played a big role in why other small arms projects were ecliptic and basically neglected.

[@TheHaighus]

Same for the British- focused on getting Bren guns in service over other small arms.

[@Activated_Complex]

This and other channels have discussed the reliability (and safety) problems of the G43 in long-form videos. It's overgassed, turning parts of the frame that already aren't sturdy enough or heat-treated properly into, constructively, a ticking time bomb. Particularly if it's being run a lot, though the owner of a G43 should probably get, or very likely already has, a Garand to shoot instead on the weekends. Getting a thumb caught in the action being a real trivial problem to have, compared to parts of the weapon in one's face.

[@fgtrbhwerth3w]

the reason why Germans put such emphasis on MGs, was that they were needing firepower: Soviet infantry was widely armed with PPSH and PPS, storming German lines by sheer weight of numbers, spraying bullets everywhere. Therefore, the Germans realized that their standard-issue K98s were hopeless facing these new tactics, and developed infantry weapons which were meant to overwhelm Soviet troops with firepower, such as STG44 and MG42. Things went differently, as we know, for many reasons, including the fact that as German weapons were more and more effective, their soldiers' quality declined. Teen-agers and WWI veterans, even with top-notch weapons, could do little.

[@AntiPlatitude]

20:32 I definitely enjoyed this style of video. Would love to see more. Thanks Ian

[@patrickseaman]

I love hearing the histories as well as the details of the people involved. Please do more of these types of episodes. Maybe next focus on the contemporaries to the M1 Carbine?

[@009013M3]

This isn't meant to sound know-it-all or combative, but I think one of the coolest things about the M1 Carbine are that it had no real contemporaries. It was engineered as a replacement for handguns and submachine guns, neither of which were really suited well at all to the task of PWD. There are some really cool Forgotten Weapons videos on that specific subject, including one very good in-depth interview with the legendary Ken Hackathorn.

[@lonewolftek]

@@009013M3 I'd argue the MP43 / MP44 / StG 44 was a contemporary of the M1 Carbine, and much closer to being a PDW than it is to being 'the first assault rifle' as some would have it. 7.92x33 Kurz is much closer ballistically to .30 Carbine (7.62x33) than it is to later intermediate cartridges like 7.62x39. The StG 44 is much heavier however and so doesn't quite fit into the same category as the M1 Carbine.

[@builder396]

@@lonewolftek StG 44 was designed for a very different role though, that is being an assault rifle, which has a lot more requirements than "light and compact so it doesnt weigh you down or get in the way while you man a gun or whatever else your main job is", which really is a mission statement that only fits one German gun: The infamous Artillery-Luger.

[@lapa8474]

You should make a similar video but about less produced battle rifles like FG42, G41M/W, M41 Johnson, AVS 36

[@Karpaneen]

FG42 stands out like a sore thumb on those guns. While it technically is a battle rifle, it really is it's own thing.

[@darkiee69]

AG42 Ljungman.

[@TylerAavet]

​@@darkiee69 Was just about to comment this; thanks!

[@paranoiia8]

FG42 was not only more like experiment that was used by just small group of soldiers, it was very specialized weapon hard to compare with G41 or avs36, So my list would be more like M1918 Browning, mentioned M41, Prototype of carbine of RSC M1917, and weirdly M1 Garand. I know its weird list but all those weapons where more of ""battle rifles"" like FG42, even if some are heavier, some are rifle-like and some where just weird.

[@lapa8474]

@@darkiee69 didnt include because it wasnt used in WW2, but i guess it could be added to the list since it was developed in 1942

[@Bajirkus]

By most accounts, Stalin never specifically *said* "Quantity has a quality all its own" (obviously not in English), although it's a decent summary of Soviet military production philosophy of the Great Patriotic War (what the Soviets called the Eastern Front, since it was a bit more personal to them). However, one thing Stalin *did* say that ties back into the Quality Control rates, as well as showing the man's command of grand strategy, was the following: "We are 50-100 years behind the advanced countries. We must make good this distance in ten years. Either we do it, or they crush us." He said this on 4 Feburary 1931. 10 years, 141 days later, Operation Barbarossa began.

[@leeham6230]

Thank you for sharing this!

[@NicholasPatton-lu6xy]

Sounds like they made great use of those two 5-year plans. I like the quote you gave. Not to say the quote about quantity is less.

[@gjfwang]

Even if Stalin didn’t say it, the US sure did.

[@AlexG-xl1cc]

When you murder millions of people to take over you tend to need to produce results fast or meet the same fate. Socialism in One Country wasn't a doctrinal issue for Stalin, it was a matter of survival.

[@Fulcrum205]

Russian industry was an exercise in pragmatism. For example, the Russians could have built something like PE R2800 or a Merlin engine for their aircraft. They loved the R975 in the Sherman for its great power and light weight. They didn't because their fuel industry could produce high octane gasoline those engines required. Welding was used because their facilities for casting large steel items (like tank hulls) were already at max capacity and things like limestone and graded sand were needed for other industries like concrete. Germans were simply terrible at production and acquisition. Acquisitions were plagued by politics and industrialists arguing about who joined the party first and who supported which minister in their rise through the ranks of politics. On the production side they did not optimize designs to share parts and be easily assembled. Entirely too many man hours were wasted hand fitting parts during assembly. American and Soviet manufacturers ruthlessly eliminated such processes out of their designs.

[@Leander_]

A wonderful synthesis of a bunch of your previous videos on these rifles Ian! It really shows the maturity of this channel that you can piece together all of this archival footage to back up your impressive monologue about battle rifles.

[@alephnull3102]

these videos are easily the best part of the channel for me. the contextualization of firearms by their time period by comparison is very nice

[@1boortzfan]

Another great video Ian. Thanks for your attention to detail in your history research.

[@badgerknight5263]

i LOVED this video ian! super information and really fun, i sometimes get a little distracted during the more heavy technical parts of your videos so having something a bit more rambly and purely-historical with a bit of a fun twist on it is just a wonderful viewing

[@BlindProphet413]

This is a fantastic video and I'd love more of these for other categories like SMGs, support weapons, sniper rifles, etc.

[@xmeda]

SVT for me, the sad part that those used to be on 2nd hand market for about 9000czk (cca $450) and now those are very hard to find

[@JohnyX8881]

I remember they were sold of as low as 5000czk. I got mine for 10 000czk. Now they are 3-4 times more expensive. Great rifle. Recoil is very low. I think it provides more firepower than M1 and G43 because of that.

[@petesheppard1709]

Thanks for a fresh perspective on a well-covered field---and CONGRATS on Best Reviewer at the Gundies! This video shows why you deserved it.

[@CeylonMondegreen]

I absolutely would love to see more of this kind of content. I think a breakdown of some of the main submachine guns of WW2 would be really fascinating, and this might just be my wholly own pipe dream, but I would think it was super cool if you could do a compare and contrast between the FG42 and the Johnson LMG at some point. Conceptually those two seem similar enough that I'm surprised they don't get mentioned together all that often.

[@Kiwi0Six]

Definitely enjoyed this, and would like to see some more similar. Keep up the great work! 😊

[@phillims1]

That was perfect! I’ve been wanting to see side by side comparisons of the main players for some time. I would have like to see Japan represented, at least for reference sake. I would love to see the same for M1 carbine category as well as pistol. (Maybe even a quick comparison of bayonets, although I think their usefulness in wwii was limited). I would like to see WWI as well.

[@libraeotequever3pointoh95]

Japan did make a limited number of rifles based upon captured M-1 Garand rifles. I think Ian may have a video about them, already?

[@pikomedia]

Great stuff! Yes, please do more comparative content. I appreciate the pros & cons in your comparative analysis.

[@NomadicHacker.]

This was a great video ( particularly because I just watched C&Rsenal's video on top WW1 rifles) keep up the good work

[@paleoph6168]

I love that the RSC 1917 made it to the Top *0* spot as it was semi-automatic and was actually fielded during the war (albeit late).

[@NomadicHacker.]

@@paleoph6168 lol definitely. It's not really great in any way other than it is technically a semi-auto firearm but because it was the only one actually fielded in any real numbers yes it's technically the best lol.

[@christophersmay4508]

I definitely will watch more lecture/lesson format videos like this if you post them. Fantastic job.

[@michael2636]

An SMG comparison would be fun: M3 vs PPS-43 vs MP-40

[@Activated_Complex]

That Garand is such a work of art. I mean, I'm sure it's been being well cared for, and that's a big part of why. But it looks brand new. Better than brand new, since I don't know that anyone alive today is capable of woodworking like that.

[@denzh6980]

Great video, thank you! I would like too see more comparsions of this kind!!! Very good point from Ian about damaging industrial capacity of Soviet Union by bombing and ocuppation, resources included. Taking to consideration, that Soviets have to evacuate factories and working personel to the East and Ural during first year of war, as Ian shortly mention about relocating, but really, scale of relocating was enourmous... this was HUGE and AMAZING accomplishment by itself, in wartime turmoil and loses of first months to be able to evacuate about 2000 factories and milions people to restart and grow the production!

[@aaronporebski9502]

Big fan of the comparison and discussion format!

[@jamescherney5874]

Still would rather have the Garand. They maybe easy to get but not cheap anymore. I' m glad I got mine from the CMP program when they were $250.

[@MahBones]

Yeah the overview including the period viewpoints and procurement limitations are always interesting. Like learning about why certain tanks and planes were favoured

[@garrettowen961]

This was a fantastic watch, thank you Ian!

[@RyanAlcorn-fw5bz]

Yes, MORE PLEASE! I love the individual firearms breakdowns, but these "high level overviews" are also very useful to put them in historical context.

[@Nick_B_Bad]

Buying a G43 at SOS when it was held that July during Covid was a dream come true for me.

[@StefanGotteswinter]

Very interesting to hear about the bigger picture 🙏

[@jonathantatler]

Particularly great video discussion/comparison format 👍👍👍

[@Fiftyx60]

What an excellent, well reasoned and educational presentation. Nice work.

[@WWFanatic0]

Worth noting the USMC elected to not use the M1 early on, well not for infantry units. Guard and garrison units had them as did many of the rear area units. By Guadalcanal they were given enough Garands to equip the then two divisions. They chose not to. You actually had funny instances where the AA and coastal artillery units had M1s while the grunts had M1903s. While there was some original skepticism and around the reliability of the new rifle (it's funny, you can see quotes about the M1 that you'd think were about the M16 in Vietnam) most of it was due to the "rifleman" culture of the USMC and general conservatism of its leadership. They did have to be more mindful about reliability for sure. Compared to the Army they'd be much further away, have to worry about sea-salt and sand as well as mud, and their units were generally lean on logistics being more of a "shock" formation than a balanced one. This is perfectly reasonable as they wouldn't be doing mass maneuver over hundreds of miles like in France, it would mostly be a front loaded action. Still though, the leadership's reluctance to adopt the M1 cost many lives, and the post war spin that it was because the Army got all the rifles was lies and propaganda that would serve to sow divisions (as if Holland Smith didn't do enough of that). They had the M1s. They just refused to issue them to the infantry early on.

[@Ailasher]

The same goes for the SVT. This rifle had a bad reputation in the infantry. But not in the Naval Infantry, because these were write off ships sailors who had more advanced technical skills on average. It's funny how typical "Armed Forces conservatism" can work for and against common sense.

[@wheninironproductions6658]

Great video!

[@dennisandersson5552]

It would be interesting to see how the Swedish AG42 Ljungman stacks up although it wasn't in combat use during WWII..

[@krebgurfson5732]

it's pretty awful before the 50s when it was upgraded

[@MAC702firearms]

I thought the same. It is the clear 2nd place after the American M1. We have 2-3 milsurp matches in Las Vegas every month, and the Ljungmans are some of our favorites in the rotation.

[@4mp3d]

Great video

[@brenm8]

Hello Ian, yes, for the obvious reasons the M1 Garand is a most beloved rifle by the WWII U.S. veterans but I wonder what the other soldiers on both sides of the aisle (Allies or Axes forces) thought about the M1. Like, is there any anecdotal evidence that the German or Soviet or Italian soldier admired the M1 as much? Btw, great video and great audio. Happy weekend! :)

[@WastelandArmorer]

You can find photos of germans rocking M1s. My understanding is they loved them. But obviously its hard to say if that was propaganda, though i dont see why they would not.

[@ohhellothere3217]

Not about the Garand, but there are photos and experience reports of Germans during the battle of the bulge using M1 Carbines, which they seemed to like, although I don't know how widespread this was.

[@alloran0987]

The Japanese were trying to reverse engineer and build copies of the M1 but didn't have the resources or machining to really do anything with it.

[@HunterTN]

The Italians went on to develop the BM-59, which is essentially a full auto magazine fed M1 Tanker in 7.62 so they seem to have enjoyed the platform. For the majority of these enemy forces once they're making sustained contact with US troops fully armed with M-1's they're fighting a defensive war in near constant retreat. There's not a lot of offensive strikes save for the Bulge, so their chances to come across captured US weapons is pretty limited.

[@liamstephenson1686]

@@HunterTNthat was more to do with how many M1’s were in surplus rather than the Italians loving the M1.

[@M_Northstar]

MOAR. I think this video provided something that we (or at least I) struggle to get from discussions of individual guns: an orienting bird's eye view of the context of the weapons, and the conditions and constraints that impacted their development. Very cool.

[@JS-ui5ew]

Yes I'd like to see more higher lvl comparison discussion :) i did enjoy the video

[@Null7Mereel]

definitely a neat concept for the video, thanks Ian!

[@gummibrot4948]

German here. I am older and as a young man I met Stalingrad soldiers and Western Front soldiers at work. Nobody said anything about the Americans having a Whow rifle. The chunky Garant was well made and shot quickly and accurately. For our compatriots it was a piece of America. Large, expensive and not made under wartime conditions. So a Cadillac. But the young German soldiers were hoping for a Porsche. At the end of the senseless war they hoped to stay alive.

[@kenneth9874]

Why a Porsche, did they want something overly complicated and hard to maintain?

[@gummibrot4948]

@@kenneth9874 Porsche should stand for innovation. Like the new Sturmgewehr 44 (Stgw44), which was deliberately not a new high-quality carbine. It was made of stamped sheet metal and had a new cartridge that was weaker than carbine ammunition. But stronger than MP ammunition. That was new. And is standard today. Like Porsche (joke)

[@kenneth9874]

@@gummibrot4948 yeah, like his tiger tank.....

[@c63amgblack]

I love these videos putting famous guns in context with ians endless knowledge.

[@rouserrouse100]

I know you don't want to be another click-baity channel like "Why the M1 Garand is GARBAGE!!" and comparison videos can creep into that arena, this was well done. I think your approach to these rifles was balanced. I appreciate you didn't promote known falsehoods like "They would wait for the M1 ping" type stuff and I still was able to learn a lot. I know these aren't forgotten weapons, but it was nice to hear this summary.

[@AirLancer]

"Don't promote known falsehoods" sounds like it ought to be the bare minimum.

[@andresmartinezramos7513]

@@AirLancer And many still fail

[@estarriol7]

Very much liked this style of video. Thanks Ian.

[@NarcassiticGamer]

To add onto what Ian said about German tank development and production, even when they would begin mass production on a model they would often revise the design again and again and again, the Tiger 1 in particular often saw design revisions every like 14 tanks produced, really limiting the efficiency of their production lines.

[@Gotterdammerung05]

​@@tomhenry897more like German industry at the time is massively overrated and was inefficient compared to most English speaking countries of the day.

[@Gotterdammerung05]

@@tomhenry897 design and testing is part of manufacturing and production...

[@bronsonperich9430]

The Yanks focussed on producing quantity that WORKED.

[@matermacej3579]

With the Tiger II, there were so many small changes made, two tanks assembled on the same day would often slightly differ.

[@AdamantLightLP]

@@bronsonperich9430Good enough is good enough

[@andybelcher1767]

I really like this. It goes into what is going on around production and explains a lot of things that otherwise don't make a lot of sense. Thank you

[@darrellmerino]

On the contrary, Ian, this video felt rushed and could have been 10 minutes longer and more relaxed. Its a great premise! Comparing this narrow aspect of multiple countries, their attitudes, and the production capabilities is brilliant. Looking forward to more like this where you actually take a breath while presenting.

[@fredmctictac2272]

I’d love the same style of comparison of the primary infantry rifles of the First World War

[@histhoryk2648]

M1 Garand has advantage over the other two rifles, it has better ping

[@philippbohland2420]

Badmm Tsss

[@paleoph6168]

When ping becomes too high though, the war starts to lag.

[@GRAndreas7]

And a better thumb

[@suzuzusu]

M1 garand was the best rifle during ww2.

[@juanzulu1318]

Lol true. 😂

[@andrewcoley6029]

Really interesting on a subject that doesn't get covered in this way very often - thank you.

[@bad74maverick1]

I really enjoyed this breakdown video and I agree. I own all three and you have them judged correctly. My M1's are fantastic and need nothing. So far my SVT has needed nothing, though it does have the rear stock repair behind the receiver same as yours in the video. As for my G43, I had to upgrade the gas piston system to get it to work reliably and not damage the gun, and I had to have the rear of the bolt welded where they are prone to crack. It takes a little extra bit of work to get the G43's to run, but when you put the improved gas system in them, they run just as good as the Garand and the SVT. Also I know it wasn't made in as large of numbers as the other three but was hoping the 41' Johnson would get an honorable mention. Marines loved them and many kept theirs over the Garand and it in a way became more prolific as its basic bolt operating system outlasted all three rifles, becoming the basis for the AR/M16 series rifles to this day.

[@chaosXP3RT]

What happened to German technological superiority? I thought German technology was light years ahead of the USSR and the West?

[@bad74maverick1]

@@chaosXP3RT In some departments they were. Jet technology, advanced weaponry, assault rifle technology, heck the MG42 mechanism alone spawned a dozen different gun designs a lot of which are still used today, like the M60 and the MG3. Roller delayed blowback in fact is a german invention of ww2. Then there's the V2 that ushered in the rocket era that the US used basically as a precursor to NASA, ballistic missiles and stealth technology like flying wings all came from ww2 germany. Not to mention the nuclear bomb and heavy water. That was all started by germany and finished by a lot of their scientists. The problem with things like the G43 was the war had turned and they had to make cuts and rush, and then there was time and material both of which were getting short. Had the G43 been introduced in 1939 it would have certainly been improved to be as capable as both the M1 and SVT. In fact though it had weak points, it was still a capable rifle was it was. Today most G43 owners shoot them reliably with a simple gas system upgrade kit sold online made by a guy who has spent 40 years restoring G43's. My G43 has the gas upgrade kit and will handle any 8mm including the very hot turkish ammo.

[@chaosXP3RT]

@@bad74maverick1 In what departments were they not light years ahead?

[@bad74maverick1]

@@chaosXP3RT Well I would say that they were not light years ahead, during the war that is, in finished results. Their best inventions were superior but weren't able to be tested and corrected, they were thrown into combat and suffered from design flaws. The G43, the STG/MP 43/44, the Tiger tank, the rocket and nuclear programs. All suffered from not having time to work out their problems and suffered. If I had to pick a department they weren't light years ahead I would say their naval program. They didn't have the time or materials to develop their navy. German manufacturing was really above anyone else's but they suffered from time and material. The fact that they were able to manufacture and employ what they did shows this.

[@chaosXP3RT]

@@bad74maverick1 Was there anything the Allies or Soviets did better than the Germans? Like inventions or better manufacturing processes or anything? Was there a reason why the Germans wasted so much materials on the Porsche Tiger?

[@mikedeckard8845]

Enjoyed the comparison video.

[@Velma-And-Scooby]

The G43 is perhaps the worst example of “German Engineering”. The parts were poorly heat treated. I was a range monitor at a shooting range when a guys G43 bolt carrier group exploded. Were it not for his safety glasses he could have lost an eye. The bolt carrier group had poorly designed and heat treated parts.

[@Macgruber161]

Would be an issue with engineering or manufacturing? I figured issues like you describe are results of shortcuts being made during the assembly. T34 was a good design of a tank, but the factories that made em did a shit job of building them until after the war.

[@thezig2078]

Most of G43s were built by slave labourers in concentration camps. They very often sabotaged the rifles on purpose.

[@azimisyauqieabdulwahab9401]

Where's Britain's Battle Rifle?

[@rosshein356]

@@azimisyauqieabdulwahab9401they didn’t have one during WWII

[@Rolfwar]

>mfw Germans are still causing US casualties through malfunctions

[@MichaelDolances]

Great video! Would love to see more of this style. Very informative while being entertaining!

[@powtheory867]

Ian, would you do a video on the WunderWaffe dg-2? I think that ww2 German gun definitely deserves its own video!

[@DilbertDoubloon]

Don't you mean ZEE VOONDERVAFFEN DEE GEE TOO?

[@MrBullethead63]

Excellent overview and comparison. Thanks, Ian!

[@RebinRed21]

Regardless of anything else these 3 rifles are absolutely beautiful

[@beagle536]

Phenomenal breakdown as always. Very much appreciate the technical and historic education versus just range footage and sound bites. These are great videos and we appreciate them.

[@tomfloyd8430]

Thanks for sharing Ian! Loved the side by side look and comments. My Dad was with Patten at the Battle of the Bulge. He wouldn’t talk about it much and usually broke into tears. Talked about the frozen dead, cold, flying wood splinters from artillery, the German 88s. He was in artillery and a lineman who kept the phone lines repaired to the forward observer locations. Bronze Star with Oak Leaf Cluster. I miss him!

[@tonyridestrails]

i love watching this channel. rare to find a channel that gets so cerebral about guns in the way i need

[@vinh7251]

It’s good to hear an American admit that industrially the U.S. benefitted by being free from having their production capacity disrupted by enemy action. Having to relocate facilities and disperse production due to bombing and invasion had a huge detrimental effect to both quality and capacity all over Europe and the Soviet Union which probably isn’t well recognised by those whose cities never were never bombed, shelled or overran with troops. One of the many reasons I enjoy Ian’s content is the academic and analytical approach that he takes to the subject matter.

[@Tesserae]

Let’s not forget Canada 🇨🇦 also manufactured weapons at the Long Branch Arsenal which built Stens, Brens and Lee Enfields and Brens at the Inglis Plant at the Liberty Village. Lancaster bombers were built at Downsview and then flown to Britain.

[@kenneth9874]

Admit? Everyone knows that, it's not like other nations didn't have remote manufacturing locations as well..and for the others maybe they should have thought of it 🤔

[@johnbruce4004]

Yes please, the analysis is very good and appreciated.

[@joeblowe4300]

Only 1 of those was general issue to all the troops. The M1 Garand. Euros love to brag but they weren't able to do that until years later, America did it mid-war which is pretty impressive imo

[@doozledorf7036]

Europeans brag about everything, I've just learned to ignore them for the most part lol

[@SnowyFinland]

Great video, Ian. More of this type of comparative format video would be welcome. And it sure seems that you enjoy making them. We enjoy watching them.

[@СергейТурутин-ч6г]

As a Russian, I like the SVT 40 more for the following advantages compared to the Garand: 1-A more capacious and detachable box magazine unlike the M1, where pack loading, as far as I remember, the pack for M1 is equipped at the factory and it is impossible to manually insert cartridges into the pack individually and load the rifle. In the SVT 40, you can equip a rifle with a replaceable magazine (according to the regulations, the fighter was supposed to have 2 magazines in the pouch, + 1 on the rifle itself), as well as clips and cartridges in bulk in an additional pouch, e I, a former Red Army reenactor at our events, checked how many cartridges would fit into the pouches according to the regulations (in magizine, in clips and in bulk) it turns out that something in the region of 180 pieces per 1 person. That is, the SVT 40 can be equipped in 2 ways: 1-change the box magazine, 2- equip the top with two clips of 5 rounds each. magazines and clips can be equipped manually with loose cartridges, a 5-round clip is suitable for all turns and carbines of the Red Army, namely: SVT40, SVT38, AVS36, Rifles and Carbines based on the Mosin rifle, which greatly facilitates logistics and the exchange of ammunition in battle with comrades if necessary. The SVT 40 is lighter in weight than the M1 Garand. The G 43 is essentially a recycled copy of the SVT40, but of a rougher design, in particular the bed, since it appeared at the end of the war, and the Germans already made the bed mainly from plywood, which is an ersatz material, there is no bayonet mount on the G43, which is also a slight disadvantage, but it is rather related to the desire to simplify weapons as much as possible, and hand-to-hand fights at the end of the war were already rare. I apologize in advance for my English, as it is not my native language. With respect.

[@randymagnum143]

The enbloc clips can be loaded from loose ammo, but was supplied in clips, so no need. Plywood (laminated) stocks are superior in most every metric.

[@edbecka233]

The en-bloc clip is actually easy and fast to fill. There are even different-capacity clips for specific uses such as the two-round for High-Power matches with their ten-round strings of fire, and the five-round clip for hunting in some states where capacity is limited to five rounds; that one is also handy for handload development using five-round groups.

[@vonschlesien]

Yes more please! These overviews are great background for your deep dives into particular guns.

[@keithplymale2374]

The only thing that would have made the M1 rifle better would have been a 10 round box magazine. During that war troops who got the M1 carbine with it's 15 round magazine really liked the extra firepower and the ease of loading.

[@Mr00Ted]

M1 but it accepts British no.4 magazines and ammo, enabling its adoption across allied forces.

[@dergin38467]

I think they experimented with an m1 that accepted 20rd BAR mags but, it never saw the light of day.

[@BillWilsonBG]

Not really, enblocs are far cheaper to mass produce, were disposable and resupplies in theory were already on clips. Technically SVT and G43 were issues with spare magazines, but often due to shortages they only had one in the rifle and no spare. US production would be better, but not to the point were they could afford to treat them like magazines are today and dropped during a reload. So in practice a retained reload of a 10 round magazine and that of enbloc wouldn't be any real improvement. If they were 20 rounds and 100% for sure issue 3 spares, that would be an improvement, but 10 vs 8 is marginal.

[@RedXlV]

What would've made the M1 Garand better would be if that damned fool MacArthur hadn't insisted that it had to be be chambered in .30-06 instead of .276. The .276 Garand was a full pound lighter and had a 10-round instead of 8-round en bloc clip.

[@keithplymale2374]

@@RedXlV And made the possibility of a 12 to 14 round magazine greater.

[@76_SPZL]

Doing this all in what felt like one take is super impressive. Incredible work Ian.

[@scrubadiver]

"The US didn't focus on making the M1 as a full auto...." M14 enters the chat.

[@FakeAssHandsomeMcGee_]

Didn't that rifle show up after WW2?

[@scrubadiver]

@@FakeAssHandsomeMcGee_ totally. But I was laughing at the irony of "we don't need X feature," to all of the sudden, "OMG, we need X feature!"

[@gameragodzilla]

There were experiments with full auto box fed M1 Garands using BAR mags, though that didn’t work well since the BAR mag wasn’t designed with the higher cyclical rate of a full auto M1. Main reason for wanting that was because US ordnance wanted a single universal gun to replace everything. I can imagine logistics for fielding the Garand, Carbine, BAR, Thompson/Grease Gun, etc. was a nightmare, so a single platform would simplify logistics a lot. But it was also never going to work out well since all these roles are so different that having a single gun try to do everything meant it sucked at doing anything.

[@MolecularDrift]

Hitler was in complete control of what was allowed in pretty much every aspect of German production for much of the war and weapons like the STG44, were produced secretly at risk of severe punishment. For better or worse, Hitler was absolutely like a fly in a cow pasture, unfocused on prioritizing tactical gains vs his own need of propaganda victories. Although the huge siege and wonder weapon enterprises were a huge waste of resources, given Germany’s condition during that time period of the war, areas such as rocketry certainly benefited space exploration and ushered in ICBM’s post war. It’s freakish to realize how much ingenuity was going on during a total war circumstance. I love your channel and your knowledge of these intriguing weapons, you’ve certainly taught me quite a few things!

[@PassiveDestroyer]

I feel like the M1 is a better product also due to the en bloc clips. Having used stripper clips on Mausers, Mosins, and Enfields, I think the loading of 8 rounds in a single clip that just pops in and works, versus having to use 2 stripper clips to fill your 10 round magazines on the SVT 38/40 and Gewehr 41/43 is a much more efficient use of time to reload. The Mosin clips are a pain to load into a 91/30, and I can't imagine they'd load into the SVT any better. The Mauser clips are better, but still slow compared to a Mannlicher-style clip. Granted, both the SVT and G43 have detachable box magazines, but magazines are easy to lose. The M1's clips are disposable. Magazines for the SVT or G43 are necessary for function. Maybe I should go find a M1.

[@rob6850]

*ping*

[@jeffkenkel4257]

I think Ian said in the SVT video that Soviet soldiers were only issued two 10 round magazines. So there would be very limited advantage in reality to the detachable 10 round magazines.

[@edbecka233]

Yes, definitely get a Garand before they get inflated to even stupider levels.

[@willborneman5461]

Loved this video. Enjoy comparison videos, especially with general historical context added. 👍

[@model7374]

The Johnson had some use with the Marines early in the war. Have you ever reviewed it?

[@Moondog66602]

He's done several Johnson rifle and lmg videos. Ian's been chugging along since 2011.

[@fidjeenjanrjsnsfh]

Someone's new... yes both the rifle and lmg, and even the Israeli version.

[@robertsaget6918]

Yes, he has videos on the Johnson vs the Garand

[@LD-xt1vo]

@@fidjeenjanrjsnsfh Time for a new man to be initiated into the deep lore of the channel! Always good to see!

[@timmccurdy9194]

Love these comparison episodes. Please do one on WWII Submachine guns!

[@guaporeturns9472]

To be fair the German mg centered squad type tactics worked quite well

[@johnfisk811]

And the British LMG centred section worked very well too.

[@Kaktus965]

To bE fAiR…. Why do you gen-Z’ers have to preface things unnecessarily?

[@WastelandArmorer]

@@Kaktus965ok boomer

[@Kaktus965]

@@WastelandArmorer Put a lot of thought into that original comment, I see. But no, moron. Not by several decades…

[@Kaktus965]

@@WastelandArmorer Wow, such a creative response. But no, clown. You're off by decades

[@tedk2814]

Absolutely enjoyed this video and would love to watch more like this. You have a knack at telling the story which makes it easy to listen to and enjoy. You mentioned things about manufacturing that I haven't even given a single thought to like we, America, weren't bombed so we didn't have to move our factories beyond bomber range. Thanks for all the effort and investigation time you've put into the production of these videos. Ted in Sebastian, Fl.

[@bezimienny_andzej6425]

The thing I hate about G43 the most is that it's a decent design ruined by execution. It basically is ruined by being overgassed and poor manufacturing. Overgassing is ridiculously easy to fix. Poor manufacturing is not "easily fixable" by itself, but it's NOT a fault of design itself. Anyway, I would love to see how non-overgassed, properly made (so "normal" quality) G43 would perform against Garand and SVT.

[@-Zevin-]

It's a rip off of the SVT ironically. Pretty funny considering the reputation of the Soviets being backwards, and the Germans having this amazing engineering, the G43 was a direct response and a reverse engineering of the SVT, and by the time they started being produced in numbers Germany was losing the war, rushing production, using poor quality materials, and lets be honest the rifles didn't need to last that long because the life expectancy of a German soldier with a rifle in 1943 onwards wasn't great...

[@TheCaptNoname]

Well, the poor manufacturing might've been a consequence of this ADHDeutsch design philosophy (at least, partially)

[@-Zevin-]

@@TheCaptNoname Schneller! Schneller! Mehr Pervitin! Mehr Waffen!

[@bezimienny_andzej6425]

@@TheCaptNoname Poor manufacturing was basically the consequence of overal state of German industry where all possible corners were getting cut and there was an ever- changing shortage of machines, parts and material. One day you have access to X quality steel, the other - you don't. One day big machine Y works, the other it's a smoking pile of debris. One day you can get the ball bearing required for production, then the factory gets obliterated. And rifles simply did not have a priority. So I wonder, if these rifles were manufactured to normal wartime production standard of 1942, and were not so horribly overgassed, would they be any good.

[@-Zevin-]

@@bezimienny_andzej6425 Probably decent, may as well get a SVT-40 at that point. As you can tell I'm a fan, but it's honestly under appreciated in the USA, M1 Garand being so iconic and everything and who doesn't love the PING, but the SVT-40was lighter, easier to reload, and even likely inspired the FAL.

[@allanbador7316]

Always enjoy your videos

[@willfrankunsubscribed]

I like this. It's not as in depth as Project Lightening, but very much along the same vein.

[@dthayer1045]

Excellent as always

[@joshuarebennack68]

Describing the Nazi war machine as a series of more and more depressing, "Oh, Squirrel!" moments is about the truest statements ever.

[@robertdipaola3447]

As usual, well done, Ian

[@markfergerson2145]

Yes please, more compare and contrast videos. Pistols, rocket launchers, whatever you’d like to ramble on about. Hell, you could talk about canteens and we would listen raptly. (I notice you left out British, Italian and Japanese rifles. I think we all know why.)

[@LD-xt1vo]

Gaps in the collection. *scowl*

[@shortyyazzie]

I was wondering about the same thing, about other countries' battel rifles. I honestly don't know why, is it because of gaps in the collection, or is it because they didn't have any...?

[@richardthorpe8889]

I for one really enjoyed this. It reminds me of allot of the early stuff you did like the Ross rifle, trench weapons and such. Those were definitely episodes that stand out for me as “ the greatness that started it all” I only got into you in the early KZbin days and hadn’t heard about the forgotten weapons project until then.

[@Lankythepyro]

Great video. I feel the SVT-40 gets seriously overlooked; everyone knows the Mosin Nagant of the White Death and Vasily Zaitsev or handed to every second soldier at Stalingrad, everyone knows about the massively produced PPSh SMGs, but the self-loading rifle really isn't something that comes to mind when thinking of the Soviets in WWII.

[@alanywalany6460]

Handed to every second soldier because the other half got handed PPSh?

[@glitterkommando2060]

Love this video. Plenty of well made practical fact based arguments there and detailed view on things. More of these plz.