Comments by "COL BEAUSABRE" (@colbeausabre8842) on "Book Review: U.S. Small Arms of World War II by Bruce Canfield" video.

  1. I think that comes under the "fair use" provision, where a reviewer is allowed to quote small portions of a book to make a point relevant to the review
    2
  2. Stinger didn't come in service until it replaced Redeye in the Eighties
    1
  3. Here's the AT Rifle you didn't expect - NOT the Boys. The Cavalry and Airborne wanted something lighter than the 37 mm AT gun so, "In 1940–1941 the US Army considered adopting the Solothurn S18-1000. The weapon was standardized for limited procurement as 20mm automatic gun T3. In spring 1941 the Solothurn was tested against the Colt .90-cal. (23mm) T4 automatic gun, an aircraft gun. Although not as powerful, the Solothurn was less bulky and complicated and was found more suitable for army use. The plans were to acquire 50 pieces, and later to produce the weapon in the US. However, long contract negotiations resulted in abandonment of the purchase"
    1
  4. Might be a Lee-Metford or Lee-Enfield prior to the Short, Magazine, Lee-Enfield This may help https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lee–Enfield
    1
  5. montegomx70 i hope he does a ww1 book too He did They sit side by side on my book shelf alongside Hogg and Week's Military Small Arms of the Twentieth Century and Hogg's Machine Guns, buttressed by some oldie but goodie tomes from Collector Grade that I actually purchased at the Springfield Arsenal bookstore.
    1
  6. The official US Army dividing line between small arms and artillery is 60 caliber (15.2mm). A better title might be "US Infantry Weapons of World War 2" - but it doesn't cover the artillery that armed Regimental Antitank and Cannon Companies
    1