Started re-watching Band of Brothers on D-Day....what an incredible series. Anyway, one question keeps bugging me....why do some of the soldiers use semi-automatic rifles (M1 Garland I believe) yet others use a submachine gun (Thompson?).
Did the soldiers get to choose? Did a platoon want a mix of both among the soldiers? I sort of assume the M1 was more accurate and better for distance and the Thompson better for close combat but not 100% sure of that either.
I know we have some WW2 experts here (i.e. Eric)....thanks for any help here to anyone who wants to chime in.
The M1 carbine was standard issue for airborne troops in WW II.
I always thought the M1 carbine (Luz's rifle) was an officer's weapon lighter and fired 30-30 ammo but shorter range than the M1.
Not sure how they determined who carried what. My dad (EM3) carried the BAR in the SeaBees in WW2 and he said he didn't know how he was chosen for it.
Soldiers usually didn't have a choice, but there could be opportunities in battle to pick one up.
What's interesting is the disparity in small arms. In some ways, the Germans were more advanced. The StG 44 was the predecessor to the post-war Russian AK47, but it came too late in the war and in two few numbers. The MG42 was the predecessor to the modern machine gun. But the foundation of the German army was still a bolt-action rifle not too different than what was used during WWI.
The U.S. M1 Garand was was semi-automatic and gave U.S. soldiers a superior rate of fire over the bolt-action rifles.
The submachine guns were better for close-quarter fighting, not something you would want to use at distance.
When I was a teenager, I went to my father’s Army reunion in Colorado Springs. My father was the Company Commander, and introduced me man by man to those in attendance. Most of these guys were well into their 60’s by then. My Dad introduced to s stocky limping Mexican American guy named Ernest Villalobos. As we moved on, my dad told me that “Villalobos was our BAR man. He killed more Japs than most of the rest of us put together.” (Pardon the vernacular, it’s part of the story.)
When I was a teenager, I went to my father’s Army reunion in Colorado Springs. My father was the Company Commander, and introduced me man by man to those in attendance. Most of these guys were well into their 60’s by then. My Dad introduced to s stocky limping Mexican American guy named Ernest Villalobos. As we moved on, my dad told me that “Villalobos was our BAR man. He killed more Japs than most of the rest of us put together.” (Pardon the vernacular, it’s part of the story.)
Outing my age here, when I was a kid, I loved the BAR because it made the coolest sound on the old TV show, "Combat".
The M1 was issued in vast numbers to American soldiers. You are correct about it being a much longer range, and much more accurate weapon than a Thompson. It should be noted that it functionally replaced the 03 Springfield bolt action rifle and also held off the competing Johnson rifle which was not adopted by the US Army but was used some by the Marines.
The Thompson sub-machine gun was engineered to be a "trench sweeper" for WW I, but arrived after that was over, so it is an older design. It fires a 45-caliber pistol round and was engineered for a high rate of fire at close range with little regard to serious accuracy. However, accuracy was improved some when a compensator was fitted to the Tommy gun. This discharged some of the muzzle blast straight upwards and helped to keep the barrel from climbing when firing a burst.
The Thompson lacks the range of the M1 and is much more expensive to build. So it was issued in relatively small numbers, primarily to Sergeants and lower ranking officers. Typical use was suppression of enemy machine gun nests and concentrations of troops. Due to the high cost and extended time of construction (due to a lot of machining), it was functionally replaced by the much lower cost and mostly stamped steel "grease gun" 45-caliber sub-machine gun in the late stages of the war.
Other infantry weapons also had their own particular uses. The 1903 Springfield bolt action rifle was still in wide use at the opening of the war, particularly in the Pacific, and continued to be issued with a scope as a sniper weapon. It was a very accurate weapon, and its lower rate of fire compared to an M1 didn't matter for that role.
The Browning Automatic Rifle, or BAR, was yet another weapon from WWI. This 30-caliber device kind of bridged the gap between the M1 and the Thompson. Hard-hitting and far out-ranging the Tommy gun, the BAR was issued as a light automatic weapon, with typically one or sometimes two to a rifle squad.
The M1 Carbine was a light weight 30-caliber rifle with a larger capacity clip that was developed primarily to replace the M1911 Colt 45 pistol for guys whose primary job was not shooting, in other words more of a self-defense weapon. However, it was also issued with a folding stock as a paratrooper weapon, but it apparently didn't last long in that role.
And although you never hear much about them, shotguns were also issued to American troops, particularly for use in the Pacific.
There were other American infantry weapons used in WW II including the grease gun mentioned earlier, the Johnson sub-machine gun which was mostly issued to troops here in the states with the exception of some use by the Marines in the Pacific. There's also the M1911 Colt 45 pistol, some smaller caliber revolvers, the "bazooka" anti-tank rocket launcher, and the trio of Browning machine guns. Each had their specific role to fill.
The Germans had much better equipment including standard issue MG34/42
but I am no expert.
Seems like the ammo needed for an automatic weapon would be exponentially more than semi. And I've also read (in later wars) that soldiers prefer semi-auto to auto because of distance, accuracy and effectiveness in suppressing the enemy being similar.
The other was that it took only a 20 round magazine, making it less effective in the light machine gun role the War Department used it for.
The Germans had much better equipment including standard issue MG34/42
but I am no expert.
Seems like the ammo needed for an automatic weapon would be exponentially more than semi. And I've also read (in later wars) that soldiers prefer semi-auto to auto because of distance, accuracy and effectiveness in suppressing the enemy being similar.
The German squad really was built around ONE MG 34 or 42. The rest of the squad was armed with bolt-action rifles (Karabiner 98k) with possibly a submachine gun (MP40) in the unit.
One of the absolute best things that ever happened to me was that our AP English teach in HS required us to interview a veteran and publish an article about them in our local town paper. When I spoke with my grandfather the stories he told me abut the war were absolutely incredible. My family was all shocked, because he had always refused to talk to them about his time in the war previously. I guess after so many years he was finally able to open up about it.
Watching shows like Band of Brothers and Saving Private Ryan really helps to imagine what he must have went through. Sad that we have so few WW2 vets left....really was an amazing generation.
Not really. The M1 was a superior infantry rifle to the K98. The Browning M1919 was a perfectly good medium machine gun. It was bulky and heavy, but easy to produce in huge numbers and very reliable. The MG 34 was mechanically complex, which made it time consuming and expensive to build and was prone to jamming. You had to keep a Spandau very clean to keep it firing. The MG 42 is justly famous for its high rate of fire, but in practice it hardly mattered. A gunner had to be very disciplined about NOT firing continuously, as this would a)burn through ammunition very quickly and b)cause frequent barrel changes to be needed. Functionally, therefore, the MG 42 didn't really have that big an advantage over the slower-firing Browning that could sustain a maximum rate of fire for longer periods of time. The MG 42 was lighter and easier to carry, though.
And for sidearms, I'd take the ol' reliable M1911 Colt over either the Luger or its putative replacement, the Walther P38.
I also read somewhere that the MG42 actually required 6 men because of all the ammo it used and that even the air cooled Browning .30 cal was easier to service. You go through a lot of ammo at 1200 rounds per minute (7.92 mm) vs 450 rounds per minute (30-06)
In artillery, the United States was way, way, way, way ahead in just about every way. We had better guns, better shells, better gun mounts, better developed use doctrine, better fire control (some of this under development), and better transport. In the case of naval guns, our "heavy" shells carried by the newer Battleships and Cruisers outweighed anything anyone else had for a same size weapon by anywhere from ten to forty percent! They typically packed the hitting power of a gun the next size up. You could write a substantial but quite technical book on the topic of American artillery advantages going into the war.
We also had some very advanced aircraft on the drawing boards in the late 1930s and very early 1940s - designs that were well ahead of anything else in the world but that also had relatively lengthy teething periods. The B-29 bomber would be first here, but the TBF torpedo plane, P-38 Lightning and F4U Corsair fighters, and probably a few others also belong on this list.
One of the absolute best things that ever happened to me was that our AP English teach in HS required us to interview a veteran and publish an article about them in our local town paper. When I spoke with my grandfather the stories he told me abut the war were absolutely incredible. My family was all shocked, because he had always refused to talk to them about his time in the war previously. I guess after so many years he was finally able to open up about it.
Watching shows like Band of Brothers and Saving Private Ryan really helps to imagine what he must have went through. Sad that we have so few WW2 vets left....really was an amazing generation.
When I was a kid in Binghamton, I saw someone fire a 50-caliber Browning at what I am sure was an illegal outside gun range. That thing cut through trees.
As pointed out above, our M1 rifle was superior to the German K98.
It was also used extensively as an anti-aircraft weapon in a quad mount on the back of a half-track, but that saw some use against infantry, too.
Quote:
Most likely the guy who played guard on the football team, not the kicker, would be a candidate to man the BAR.
When I was a teenager, I went to my father’s Army reunion in Colorado Springs. My father was the Company Commander, and introduced me man by man to those in attendance. Most of these guys were well into their 60’s by then. My Dad introduced to s stocky limping Mexican American guy named Ernest Villalobos. As we moved on, my dad told me that “Villalobos was our BAR man. He killed more Japs than most of the rest of us put together.” (Pardon the vernacular, it’s part of the story.)
Outing my age here, when I was a kid, I loved the BAR because it made the coolest sound on the old TV show, "Combat".
Eric--wasn't Kirby the guy who carried the BAR?
Something else I never understood is why we never took out those bunkers on the beach in Normandy prior to D-Day with our planes. I suppose we weren't able to get to them for some reason.
MG42 vs M60 With R. Lee Ermey - ( New Window )
Quote:
In comment 14474585 Crispino said:
Quote:
Most likely the guy who played guard on the football team, not the kicker, would be a candidate to man the BAR.
When I was a teenager, I went to my father’s Army reunion in Colorado Springs. My father was the Company Commander, and introduced me man by man to those in attendance. Most of these guys were well into their 60’s by then. My Dad introduced to s stocky limping Mexican American guy named Ernest Villalobos. As we moved on, my dad told me that “Villalobos was our BAR man. He killed more Japs than most of the rest of us put together.” (Pardon the vernacular, it’s part of the story.)
Outing my age here, when I was a kid, I loved the BAR because it made the coolest sound on the old TV show, "Combat".
Eric--wasn't Kirby the guy who carried the BAR?
Yup.
He pointed out that they were constantly cautioned by their superiors to conserve ammo because its high rate of fire could exhaust what they had on hand so quickly.
All machine guns need a multi-man crew, but the Germans needed to tie up more men to serve an MG-42 than other armies needed for their machine guns.
Given the German's generally short-handed situation and inability to sufficiently supply their troops in many situations, this became a real liability.
On the other side of the coin, the US Army produced a training film specifically to ready our troops to run into this weapon in combat.
The M60 was absolutely based on MG42. The M60 I believe used the breach and receiver of the MG42(almost exactly), the barrel change out of the Bren gun and there was a third component that escapes me now. It was basically a meld of the best of the best.
Quote:
the most accurate aspect of the "Saving Private Ryan" Omaha Beach scene was the rate of fire of the German MG42. It really was that deadly.
Something else I never understood is why we never took out those bunkers on the beach in Normandy prior to D-Day with our planes. I suppose we weren't able to get to them for some reason.
Most likely because back then precision bombing was short on precision.
It weighed too much...plus carrying 7.62x51 ammo belts at 8 lbs per 100 rounds (if my memory of talking with my armed security teams is correct). I think the SAW's 5.56mm weighed half as much.
Hump that crap through the jungles in Nam....
Quote:
In comment 14474611 Eric from BBI said:
Quote:
the most accurate aspect of the "Saving Private Ryan" Omaha Beach scene was the rate of fire of the German MG42. It really was that deadly.
Something else I never understood is why we never took out those bunkers on the beach in Normandy prior to D-Day with our planes. I suppose we weren't able to get to them for some reason.
Most likely because back then precision bombing was short on precision.
FWIW, they bombed Iwo Jima for 6 weeks with naval artillery and bombers.....
"Never forget your weapon was made by the lowest bidder.
- Rules for Soldiers.
Quote:
yet the M60 was a widely hated piece of shit
"Never forget your weapon was made by the lowest bidder.
- Rules for Soldiers.
Nice sounding quote, not necessarily true...
Hump that crap through the jungles in Nam....
Actually, in pure weight the SAW is only a pound lighter ( and the M240 machine gun in current service is actually heavier) but I've read that the M60's design made it awkward to carry and made it seem heavier than it actually was. As far as the rest goes, there's a whole long passage at Wikipedia describing the many issues with the "Pig"
Link - ( New Window )
Nearly 100 years of frontline service.
Versatile because .50 can is at that threshold of the most firepower you can make a reasonably man portable gun with, and easy mounting on a variety of vehicles.
Just as an aside, how did the best British/Canadian and Soviet rifles rate vs the American/German ones?
BTW - my Dad was drafted a week before Pearl Harbor. All that was available was old Springfield bolt actions who he was in training.
There is a second volume available as well - ( New Window )
Just as an aside, how did the best British/Canadian and Soviet rifles rate vs the American/German ones?
The Brits and Canadians used the Lee Enfield .303 cal bolt action rifle. Excellent rifle, very accurate and very reliable. IIRC they had a 10 round internal magazine.
The Mosin-Nagant was used by the Russian. I believe it was a very accurate rifle and quite reliable with a 5 round internal magazine.
As far as picking your own weapon, NO. Weapons are assigned by position in the squad. The Automatic Fire weapons were generally used to lay down a base of fire so the Infantry Riflemen could maneuver unimpeded. They also had ammo bearers because that ammo is heavy and bulky. It would be very difficult for the Automatic Rifleman to carry all of that equipment with ammo, as well.
Here's a picture of a particularly devastating use of a Browning .50 cal., the quad-50.
The special weapons have always been assigned for special purposed, teams, and missions.. soldiers would also pickup weapons and ammo they'd find along the way.. the ability to ship ammo to the front line wasnt always easy, that's why they used what they had...
Mk 19 - lay eggs all over. Automatic grenade launcher with 40mm grenades..
Also, Red Dog when you spoke about artillery, what about the legendary German 88?
They were used as support for ordinary riflemen. Every American line company had a weapons platoon which included 2 .30 cal teams of two men each. Ordinary rifle platoons did not have M1919s. The BAR was the automatic weapon at the squad level. Earlier in the war there was one BAR team (automatic riflemen, who used it, and the assistant automatic riflemen who carried ammo and assisted with reloading). Since the BAR only had a 20 round magazine, and had to be reloaded frequently, later in the war infantry squad started using 2 BAR teams. The idea was they would alternate firing - when the first reloaded, the second would start firing, so continuous fire would be possible.
Paratroopers were structured a little differently. Since they were created to fight behind enemy lines without much support, they were given more firepower than line companies. Each platoon in an airborne company included an M1919 .30, in addition to the 2 in the weapons platoon.
Has little to do with the thread....
However, it was only one gun in one caliber. Most of the other German artillery weapons, land and sea, were really pretty average. That doesn't preclude them from being deadly weapons, though. The PAK 75 anti-tank gun, a pretty good weapon on its own merits, was probably the best of the rest.
In contrast, the American 155mm gun, popularly called the Long Tom, and the 105mm howitzer were two of the very best land artillery weapons of the war. It would take me a couple hours to explain all the reasons why, and some of it gets pretty technical or pretty boring. The 155mm howitzer was another very good weapon. Note that these are all bigger guns than the 88, too. Even a King Tiger could not stand up to a direct hit from a 155mm shell, and this did happen.
At sea, German naval guns were anywhere from mis-matched to the ship (some of their destroyers were over-gunned which led to poor performance for the ship type) to pretty good.
But they were definitely not in the same league as American naval guns, particularly the 5-inch 38-caliber dual purpose which is universally regarded as the best seagoing artillery weapon of the war, and the awesome 16-inch 50-caliber that had basically the same performance as the Japanese 18.1-inch gun. The limited use 12-inch gun on the Alaska class large cruisers was another really outstanding naval weapon, but only two ships were completed with it and they arrived late in the war.
Again, it would take me a long time to explain all the reasons why, but briefly they include better trainability, higher rates of fire, better fire control, heavier shells in most newer guns of 6-inches or larger, the American exclusive VT proximity fuse which was light years ahead of anything anybody else had, and other factors.
The VT fuse was also used on some land guns, notably the Long Tom, and it absolutely crushed the German infantry at El Guettar in North Africa and in defense of Bastogne during the Battle of the Bulge.
It was a tremendously expensive weapon to make and it cost the Army a lot of money. There were changes over the course of the war to make it simpler and cheaper. Even after all that, it's successor, M3, was half the price.
I'm not a gun guy, but I love this guy's channel.
Thompson 1921: The Original Chicago Typewriter - ( New Window )