>>10330758No no no and more no. Mad jack was a rare case of an officer pretty much giving the finger to Jerry but as an infantryman it would've ended very poorly.
By WWII combined arms tactics had become pervasive among both sides using everything from walking fire to the creeping barrage as early as WWI in spite of what retards like
>>10330768 would contend. The use of LMG's and HMG's were as well widespread with the MG42 being the poster child for the German wermacht as it could lay down sustained fire AND had an interchangeable barrel for when it gets too spicy. As well the Germans had the STG-44 a remarkable assault rifle that would allow infantry to engage targets at a much longer range than a bow with minimal effort. On top of that the Russians had been fielding "assault rifles" like the Fedorov Avtomat as early as WWI which just like the STG-44 used an intermediate round capable of engaging targets out to 200 meters.
Back to this shithead
>>10330768 contrary to popular belief the use of bayonets was pretty much a last resort and garnered most of the spotlight in places like the Pacific where the Japanese still believed in banzai suicide tactics. SMG technology was ideal for close range engagements where a sword would be used but an SMG would give you precious yards/meters to work with that a sword or bow couldn't effectively handle.
Gonna go back here
>>10330768 to say that even a bolt action rifle would be more effective at engaging the enemy than any bow or sword as you're still putting precious distance between you and the target which is invaluable. A longbow has an effective range of MAYBE 180 meters (200 yards) which even the M1 carbine could reach out and touch you with before you could even nock an arrow. Hell the standard issue M1 Garand would be able to reach out to 457 meters (500 yards) which is well outside of the range of even the hardiest of modern crossbows can barely touch.
tl;dr: No and
>>10330768 this man is retarded.
