Jump to content

British/Commonwealth Infantry weapons...poor?


Recommended Posts

The recoil of the Garand is not punishing. Rather, it is more like a shove than a kick. I have coached several groups of teenagers firing the Garand, and once proper stock weld is learned, even the smallest framed shooter can handle it.

M-1 thumb, however, is extremely unpleasant. Avoid it at all costs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 277
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I would like to expand a little on a oint brought up by Hanns. A soldier using a bolt action rifle must move his arm around quite a bit to chamber a fresh round. A soldier using a semi-automatic doesn't have to move at all. This can be a critical factor if you are trying to remain concealed while you get off am extra shot or two before being spotted. It's not the whole story by any means, but it is a point to consider.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You guys might be interested in this qoute from Donald Burgetts book The Road To Arnhem, which I HIGHLY recommend.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>As Our First Sergeant, Burley Sizemore, stepped through the gate carrying his personal, highly accurized, bolt -action, 30-06 Springfield rifle, the trooper with the camera took his picture.

Sizemore told me in Aldbourne some time before we kknew we were going to jump in Holland that he'd had his dad send his personal rifle from home.....I told him he would be better off using an M1. It was a hell of a good rifle: semiautomatic, accurate at long distances, carried an 8 round clip, and if he lost it, it would be replaced. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This qoute tells me 2 things:

1) A person with a bolt action can be just as deadly as a semi-auto if he's well trained & familiar with it. This guy obviously loved the Springfield enough to trust it with his life. The gun suits the person.

2) The M1 was highly thought of by the men who used them.

*****************

Two things about the M1 that I didn't see mentioned above:

1) Although it only has 8 shots compared to the Enfield's 10, it was simpler to reload. On the enfield you need to take out the magazine, put a new one in and work the bolt. But, on the Garand all you need to to is drop the new clip in and you're good to go (the old clip was ejected with the last shot). So really that 2 round difference is reduced to maybe 1 or 0.

2) The Garand is a definitly a more powerfull weapon due to the fact that the soldier has a choice: He can take his time and fire acurately like a bolt action OR he can put down a large volume of fire if needed. The Enfield just doesn't have that capability to the degree that the Garand does.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You don't remove the magazine from an Enfield to reload it!! Which makes me wonder how much you erally know about the subject!!

You reload it through the bolt cavity with the bolt open the same way as you do a Garand, using 2 x 5-round stripper clips.

However you push the rounds out of the stripper clip into tha mag, so the strip itself does not go into the magazine as it does on a Garand.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Andrew Hedges:

The Brown Bess musket was great! It was the standard British infantry firearm for 150 years. You have to admire that.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Exactly - it was the weapon of its time, as was the SMLE & it's derivatives. and when they weer outclassed they were replaced with automatic rifles, as you'd expect.

which is why the whole discusion is so bloody daft!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If memory serves, the Enfield was commonly loaded with stripper clips, but the entire magazine could be removed and replaced. The removable magazine was there so damaged magazined could be replaced.

The en-bloc clip of the Garand means that the rifle can't be "topped off" during a lull in the fighting, but the Enfield magazine can be.

I once heard that a magazine has a spring, and a clip doesn't, and that is the technical difference between them. I am sure that there are exceptions to that rule.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well I say that their both equal...I seriously don't think one was better than the other. I dont see a point in giving green troops a Semi Auto Rifle with only 8 rounds. The Reason why Semi Auto's became the mainstay weapon of armies is because they began to have clips of 30 rounds. You must remember that British Infantry was generally known as very good and well armed *cept for the Sten*. To say the US squad had an advantage just because of their service rifle isnt correct. The Enfield was just as good, And The British were drilled to death on Marksmenship. The British troops found fighting in the Hedgegrows adjacent to the American armies difficult, But, The Americans did not do any better than the British in the adjacent sector. Therefore, the Lee Enfield and Garand were oudviously not any better than each other. You guys seem to think that the Enfield wasnt as good as the Garand, yet, It seems amongst the Hedgerows the Americans held no advantage in their rifle. Hence, my conclusion is that no rifle was better, since the Americans didnt do any better in street fighting or Fighing close combat then the British/Commonwealth. So the difference beetwen the rifles in very small.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Pak40:

1) Although it only has 8 shots compared to the Enfield's 10, it was simpler to reload. On the enfield you need to take out the magazine, put a new one in and work the bolt. But, on the Garand all you need to to is drop the new clip in and you're good to go (the old clip was ejected with the last shot). So really that 2 round difference is reduced to maybe 1 or 0.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

See BloodyBucket's above comment about "M1 Thumb". Ya gotta be quick reloading a Garand, or you might loose a digit --- the receiver cover is spring-loaded and likes to bite...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by von Lucke:

You're not seriously comparing the accuracy of a spottlessly balanced match rifle (turned barrel, hand-loaded rounds, expert marksman, etc.) with an off-the-rack piece caked in mud fired by Pvt Joe Snuffy, are you?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, I'm not. I was simply illustrating the utility/functionality/desirability of the Garand here in the new millenium. And the matches I was referring to are shot with stock Garands. But even a caked with mud Garand fired by Pvt. Snuffy is more accurate than a caked with mud Enfield. Having said that, let me just clarify that I think the Enfield is a fine rifle and I hope to own one someday. Check out these cool Enfields at

Gibbs Rifle I think the Enfield is the coolest looking bolt-action ever.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Hanns:

The Enfield (and Springfield) being copies of the Mauser are similiar in their ease of use. The only problem is after each shot you must reacquire your target.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well Hans, I have to disagree with you on this particular point. I don't know about the Springfield (which Chesty Puller preferred over the Garand, BTW) but the Enfield is not a copy of the Mauser, but instead, as a reply to the Mauser. Now, there is nothing wrong with the Mauser action, and in fact, is the more accurate of the two. There is a very good reason that most modern bolt action rifles are noted for using the 'Mauser action'.

The Enfield, however, was developed as an answer to the original Kar98. A quick comparison will reveal some of the results, Mauser used a 5-round stripper clip, Enfield a 10-round box magazine. The Enfield was the first 'short-throw' bolt action, which resulted in it's excellent (for a bolt action) ROF, while the Mauser, using the longer 8mm round, has a lower ROF. The Brits wanted a rifle capable of putting out a good volume of fire and they got what they wanted. The original version of the Enfield actually had a mechanical device to prevent the magazine feeding so it could be used as a single-shot weapon until such time as the extra firepower made available by the box magazine was needed. At the time, the British government was fixated on the price of ammunition, or something. I have never mastered the trick, but some of the lads at the rifle range could crank off the entire magazine and their shooting hand never leaves the trigger!

As far as re-acquiring targets, if you ever watch a good shot shooting at moving targets, he NEVER has to reacquire the target, regardless of the type of weapon used. He focuses, the weapon comes up, the shot goes off, if he misses he cycles the action, but HIS EYES NEVER LEAVE THE TARGET, hence, no need to re-acquire. When I read about the weapon becoming an extension of yourself, these guys prove the point. I have never been, and probably never will be, that good, but it sure is impressive to watch.

OK, enough preaching, otherwise, Hans, you make some good points, but I felt I had to jump in here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stalin's Organ:

You don't remove the magazine from an Enfield to reload it!! Which makes me wonder how much you erally know about the subject!!

You reload it through the bolt cavity with the bolt open the same way as you do a Garand, using 2 x 5-round stripper clips.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

My bad, I thought it was a bottom loading magazine. But do you agree that the Enfield takes longer to reload?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1.) You speak of the "M1 thumb". Do you mean that the receiver cover releases as soon as you have pressed the clip in? Is it not manually released?

The reason I am asking, is that in SPR, before the end-battle, one of the guys loading an M1 clearly *pushes*(??) the receiver cover forward.

Can anyone comment on that please?

2.) Did ammo for the Garand come in ready loaded clips, or did you re-load old clips?

3.) Is the M-14 a new weapon, or did someone simply refine the Garand, by letting it have full-auto option, larger clip... etc?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Stefan-

1. The bolt on the Garand locks back after the last round in the clip is fired, and to reload, you press a new clip down into the action with your thumb while holding the operating rod back with the side of your hand. Sometimes this releases the bolt, sometimes the bolt catches and you need to give the operating rod a shove to get it forward, especially if you were timid about shoving in the clip. M-1 thumb is what happens if you release the bolt with your thumb still down in the action. I have had a rifle hanging from my thumb before, and it hurts!

2. GIs got the clips preloaded in bandoliers. You can load loose rounds in the clip yourself, there is even a method to cross the rounds so that only two at a time are loaded for match shooting.

3. The M-14 is a refined Garand, some parts interchange. The gas system, detachable magazine and cartridge are different, as is the selective fire option and there is a roller on the oprod to solve problems with poorly lubricated rifles.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Vanir Ausf B:

[QB]

You definitely do have to "reaquire" your target after each shot. I

don't know where you got that from, but the recoil of most

full-power cartridge weapons is more than sufficient to force the

firer to reaquire their sight picture if they are hoping to actually hit

their target.

I didn't mean to suggest that the gun didn't move. So, let me rephrase that: A

semi-auto gun can reacquire the target quicker than a bolt action.

Believe me, I have fired a large number of semi auto and bolt action rifles, both

at stationary targets and at moving ones (i.e. mule deer and elk )

]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

And I was trained as a member of the Australian army to fire both bolt-action and semi-automatic rifles. In reality, there is little difference between the two, as far as losing and re-aquiring sight pictures, between shots. The bolt-action rifle remains into the shoulder whilst the bolt is worked, in exactly the same way as a semi-automatic rifle. You're right that with a semi-automatic rifle you can reaquire your sight picture slightly quicker but you should note that a well-trained soldier with a .303 SMLE was expected to be able to fire as many rounds as a less-well-trained soldier with a L1a1 - the ROF for both weapons was always given as "20 well-aimed rounds a minute". Therefore, from a military viewpoint, there is effectively no difference between the two kinds of weapons as far as firepower is concerned. Where the difference lies in the amount of training that is required to achieve that ROF, as I mentioned.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

Although, as you pointed out, perhaps that wasn't what the US

soldiers sought to do, preferring to hope that throwing enough

rounds down range might mean they hit something, eventually?

Generally, yes. That's the nature of combat.

]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, thats the nature of the American view of combat. There is a profound difference in philosphy between the British and American ideas on the matter.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

Which is when he is aimed at. The Commonwealth training is to

fire at a specific target and, unless ordered to, make each round

count. Section fire is possible but is recognised as usually being an

enormous waste of ammunition for the most part.

That may well have been the way they were trained (same as US soldiers), but

actual combat taught them differently.

]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I would suggest otherwise. Nothing I have read or discussed with veterans of WWII indicates that blazed away in the general direction of the enemy. US military forces were well known and noted for their profligate over-use of firepower to attempt to solve all tactical problems.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

Springfields were never replaced and I'm surprised to see the

game has fallen for the Hollywood ideal rather than reality.

There is a reason why no developed nation in the world still uses bolt action

rifles as its main infantry weapon. And it has nothing to do with Hollywood.

]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Errr, how does that comment negate what I said? The Springfield was never fully replaced in the US Army by the Garand. Therefore, attempting to claim that the US Army only utilised or that all units should be modelled as being armed with the Garand is inherently false. Despite the supposed superiority of the Garand, even the US Army did not believe it was worth arming every soldier with one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Brian:

Errr, how does that comment negate what I said? The Springfield was never fully replaced in the US Army by the Garand. Therefore, attempting to claim that the US Army only utilised or that all units should be modelled as being armed with the Garand is inherently false. Despite the supposed superiority of the Garand, even the US Army did not believe it was worth arming every soldier with one.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

How about some numbers to back this up. By 1944, every front line infantry unit in the ETO was using M1s. Any remaining Springfields were used for special purpose (e.g. sniper). I suppose a few individuals might have kept their 1903s, as there are always a few people who don't like change.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

. US military forces were well known and noted for their profligate over-use of firepower to attempt to solve all tactical problems.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Nice generalization there. Sort of like the "well known" war wearyness of all British troops, or the "well known" use of human wave tactics by all Russians to make up for lack of leadership.

American's used firepower instead of men when it was available. To do otherwise would be criminal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Marlow:

[QB]

How about some numbers to back this up. By 1944, every front line infantry unit

in the ETO was using M1s. Any remaining Springfields were used for special

purpose (e.g. sniper). I suppose a few individuals might have kept their 1903s,

as there are always a few people who don't like change.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I admit I don't have numbers but you should note I did not confine my remarks to the "ETO" (European Theatre of Operations?) but to the "US Army" as a whole. In all the books I have on infantry weapons in WWII, which deal with the US Army's its note that the Springfield remained in general infantry use, throughout the war. This is usually quite often accompanied by pictures, showing the weapon in use. Chamberlain and Ellis's WWII Fact File on "Allied Infantry Rifles" is one such work which springs to mind.

quote:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

. US military forces were well known and noted for their profligate

over-use of firepower to attempt to solve all tactical problems.

Nice generalization there. Sort of like the "well known" war wearyness of all

British troops, or the "well known" use of human wave tactics by all Russians to

make up for lack of leadership.

American's used firepower instead of men when it was available. To do

otherwise would be criminal.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I note that you snipped my original comment, hence placing it out of context. lets restore what I actually said, shall we?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

Nothing I have read or discussed with [non-US] veterans of WWII indicates that [they] blazed away in the general direction of the enemy. US military forces were well known and noted for their profligate over-use of firepower to attempt to solve all tactical problems.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I served with some of the last WWII veterans serving in the Australian Army. I have spoken to quite a large number of others. I was basing my comments not upon, "well known" "generalisations" but rather upon the memories of soldiers who served alongside the US Army. Are you suggesting that their memories were faulty?

I would suggest that perhaps you need to read a little more widely.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK, I think it may be time to take a look "out of the weeds"

I think we are arguing "apples to oranges" here.

Whether one rifle was better than another it far more complex than Accuracy, Dependability, ROF et al. Trust me, if you were hit by a M1 or an Enfield it probably made little difference to your widow.

It is the impact the use of the weapon on a larger picture has which tells the tale.

The Enfield was a throw back to another era. One where "marksmanship and drill" will carry the day. It had it's place in WWII but it was carrying the torch and handed it off to the future during this conflict.

The Garand was a sign of things to come. Firepower as an actual "element" on the battlefield had come into being. Apllication of masses superior fire to win the day was really coming of age.

If you have a platoon which can put out a hail of gunfire over an area, the enemy will be supressed. Indirect fire, Tank fire or even close assault is then possible. Firepower, properly applied is the essential ingredient to "winning the Firefight". The M1 was far better suited for this job. It put more firepower in the hands of the infantry man so that he could in fact do his primary job..provide protection for major weapon systems. Now infantry don't like to here that but it is essentially the truth. The act of closing with and destroying the enemy and "holding the ground" has become secondary to providing security for the major weapons systems, MGs, Tanks, AT systems and mortars.

Now we see the M16A2 or C-7 as we call it. 30 rounds, feels like a .22 when it fires but can put out a tremendous level of supressive fire. Now what I can't figure out is why we (Canadians) put scopes on the damn things. Ever try to find a sniper with that scope, while being shot at? Not fun! Iron sights and three round bursts are the way to go.

So when comparing the two, do not lose sight of the bigger picture of "how" and "why" they were employed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just to relieve a falacy -- the US Army did not believe in throwing rounds down field, but accurate fire, in WW2. Volume of fire did not arrive as a concept until the 1960, 30 years after Germany first came up with the quantity over quality system of infantry combat.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Brian:

Are you suggesting that their memories were faulty?

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes.

Veteran recolections are often suspect. Something you should know. The idea that the U.S. through around ordinance to cover up defective tactics is true in some cases. In others it was the best tactic for the situation. In Aachen, the Army's tactics were remarkably effective at reducing German defenses, while taking relatively low casualties compared to what they inflicted on the defender.

This involved heavy use of demolition, fire from both direct and indirect artillery, combined with rather sophisticated infantry/armor combined arms tactics.

Was this using too much firepower to cover for tactical defects? I think not.

[ 08-17-2001: Message edited by: Marlow ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Marlow:

[QB]

Yes.

Veteran recolections are often suspect.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

My, what an interesting viewpoint you hold.

The recollections of my veteran friends were usually corroborated by those written by non-participants. Are they wrong as well?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

Something you should know. The idea that the U.S. through around ordinance to cover up defective tactics is true in some cases.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Which is all I suggested. Deciding upon whether it was "some" or "most" is an argument I won't get into.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You stated:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Brian:

I admit I don't have numbers but you should note I did not confine my remarks to the "ETO" (European Theatre of Operations?) but to the "US Army" as a whole. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

But earlier you said:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Brian:

Springfields were never replaced and I'm surprised to see the game has fallen for the Hollywood ideal rather than reality. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Since this game is limited to 1944 and 1945 in the ETO, I made the reasonable deduction that you had a problem with M1 use in that theatre and that time. You are now changing your story.

Also,

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Brian:

Which is all I suggested. Deciding upon whether it was "some" or "most" is an argument I won't get into. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

But you said in the original comment:

"US military forces were well known and noted for their profligate over-use of firepower to attempt to solve all tactical problems." (emphasis added).

[ 08-17-2001: Message edited by: Marlow ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...