Originally Posted By: billt460
In WW II we fought on every type of battlefield and condition imaginable. Jungle, (South Pacific). Beach head invasion, (both South Pacific and European). Forest and mountainous terrain, (Europe). Freezing cold, (Europe). High heat, humidity, and rain, (New Guinea). And while we had other weapons in our inventory, just as we do now, we won it all based on a 8 shot semi auto in .30-06, and a 7 shot .45 pistol.
This is a wrong perception. Roy Dunlap was a gunsmith through WWII and wrote a book about it. He wrote how the M1 Carbine (you left out) was highly popular in jungle combat and the Garand more so in open terrain. His company commander kept a more than sufficient supply of weapons so his troops could load out as desired for the mission at hand.
Also war hero Audy Murphy loved firepower and loaded up a Jeep with all kind of full auto weapons including German MG's (because of the higher rate of fire). He wasn't exactly ineffective in combat.
Originally Posted By: billt460
Originally Posted By: HangFire
When in jungle or urban combat, we need higher volume of fire, lower load weights and range is not as important (read: 5.56).
That's exactly the vicious circle we managed to get ourselves into that has created a lot of this. There is no advantage to a, "high volume of fire", regardless of the caliber you're trying to accomplish it with. Especially if it creates a condition that requires a 50,000+ round count to kill anyone. That's insane.
It's not one or another. Tough house to house combat is won with SMG's and snipers (and explosives, but let's stick to small arms). GPMG's are nearly useless except on vehicles to command streets.
Jungle warfare is won with assault rifles.
Assault rifles are nearly useless at long distances and open terrain. Rifles and GPMG's are the weapons of choice.
Trying to reduce one side of the argument to "spray and pray" is just a straw man. Disciplined use of Full Auto has its place in modern combat.
