Hitler would've won the war if. . .

TLAM Strike · 03-25-06, 05:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Type941

Quote:

Originally Posted by TLAM Strike

Quote:

Originally Posted by Type941

A lot in WW2 is about Germany actually having ****ty equipment until it got too late. Really.

Not all of it was ****ty some was just well made junk like all those Bolt Action rifles they used. See why the US really turned the war in Europe around?

With the M1 we could simply shoot way faster, also the Garand was hard to reload with half a clip so troops with them would just expend the remaining rounds so the enemy got a few â€œbonusâ€ rounds shot at them. You just got to love a gun that encourages its shooter to fire more rounds than necessary to hit the target.

Plus that â€˜PINGâ€™ sound the Garand makes when the spent clip is ejected is scientifically proven to hurt the ears of Fascists.

You still can't repute the fact that it took about 2 to 3 allied soldiers to kill a German one. Now that's embarassing.

I'm not quite sure what you mean by that. Do you mean that there was a 3 to 1 kill ratio in favor of the Germans or did the Allied soldiers just gang up on a lone German. A single guy is very hard to elimnate compaired to a group.

Quote:

Also, another fact rarely mentioned in traditional history books, is that a huge majority of casulties in WW2 was NOT caused by bullets. It was caused by shellfire. And germans had their shells somewhat much beter at causing damage.

In WW1, the majority of casulties on contrary, were caused by bullets.

You are forgetting supression fire. A gun with a higher rate of fire allows you to pin your enemy down allowing you to take him out with indirect fire weapons (shells) or CAS.