British/Commonwealth Infantry weapons...poor?

[Username]

Read Foot Soldier. This is an account by a ETO GI.

He specifically cites in a one-on-one shootout with a german, that the semi-auto feature saved his life. The german ducking during his bolt-actions and the author just holding the bead where the german last was. The german popped out again and got one through his helmet. This at close range in a street battle.

Not a bad read. Theres the usual 'Tigers with 88s' syndrome in the book. The author was in a mine-clearing part of an AT company but saw considerable combat.

The author would also use a M1 carbine for scouting, etc but specifically states that the M1 garand was for when he was in battle. He even copped a tommy gun off a dead tanker once but gave it up because it was too heavy and he couldnt get the 45 ammo for it.

But I have to go with the Garand too. In a battle theres whats called fire superiority. Its gain by overmatching the enemies firepower. You can do this with massive suppresion like a MG42 squirting lead at 20 rounds per second, or you can do this with semi-auto aimed fire. The brit rifle could do a trick wher the pinky would pull the trigger when the firer was working the bolt. This psuedo-semi-area fire does not compare to the Garand.

As I said before, the US squad was built on one-man weapons. Garands, Carbine, BAR. These weapons all had very good fire-n-movement capabilities. The US wanted to win the war by moving towards the enemy. The enfield could not match these capabilities. Its something that a plinker would not appreciate at the gun range. Its a combat rifle asset.

Lewis

[lcm1947]

US soldiers at least if not all counties , were, are and will forever be taught to fire at a target. You are taught to fire at a life sized silhouette target. I don't know what people are referring to when they say that troops are taught to spray an area. You aren't taught this, you don't have to be taught this. That comes naturely. If you can hit an object you can spray an area. What's up with this idea some have. I'm not being rude( hopefully anyway ) just don't understand maybe what you mean when you state this. And as far as any shoulder weapon being better then the M1 I disagree 100%. All three of the calibers involved were damn near equal but you have to know that the M1 was by far the best military rifle of WWII. There's no comparison. The Enfield was a fine weapon as the Mauser was but they just weren't even in the same league as the M1 -sorry just isn't true. I mean think about it. A bolt action rifle compared to a semi-automatic rifle for the sole purpose of wounding the enemy? Now if you want to state that you think the cartridge themselves were equal, well that's another subject entirely but not the rifle itself.

[Smack]

ICM1947 you werent bieng rude. I just dont think that it made a huge difference to the performance of the different armies. I think both of them were equal in terms of successes and defeats. So oudvioulsy there was n real difference between the two rifles in the grand scheme of things.

I didnt see any difference in other games like West Front, D-Day or such other such games. The Americans and British armies differed little in such games..Operational art of war also made no real difference between American and Brit infantry

[PiggDogg]

I have not read this whole thread, and I am new to this thread.

At normal infantry combat ranges (50 to 150 meters) and in infantry combat, 'good' bolt action rifles are inferior to 'good' semi automatic or automatic rifles. A small bit of historical war reading and common sense makes this evident.

Without long exposition here, in the present day, what type of infantry weapons are used? Automatic assault rifles, not bolt action rifles.

One would expect (or maybe not) that, with over 50 years of analysis of WW2 and subsequent combat, that present day soldiers would be armed with the best weapons that technnology makes available. These present day soldiers are armed with automatic rifles not bolt action rifles.

This is no slight to the brave soldiers (Brit, German, Japanese, Canadian, Pole, Russian, etc.) who, underarmed by their leaders, faced soldiers who were better armed with semi automatic and automatic weapon/rifles.

Face it, the Brit armed infantry was underarmed in WW2.

Cheers, Richard

[Username]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Richard Cuccia, the PiggDogg:

Without long exposition here, in the present day, what type of infantry weapons are used? Automatic assault rifles, not bolt action rifles.

Face it, the Brit armed infantry was underarmed in WW2.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

To be even more explicit, the M16A2 evolved from full auto to a 3-shot burst. A much better suppression system. Also, by pulling the trigger quickly, near full-auto can be obtained.

I repeat, the brits were weak in rifle firepower and also lacking a belted mobile MG. This left them with an offensive infantry firepower weakness.

Lewis

[Vanir Ausf B]

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

If the counterview that you and the other poster are presenting is true, then I would have to ask what is the point in having riflemen at all in an infantry section? Why not either give all members an LMG or have the section armed with say, 3 LMG's, crewed by three men each?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

First of all, LMGs are crewed by 2 men, not 3. Secondly, the reason for no 3 LMG squads can be summed up in one word: mobility. MGs are heavy. Ammo for MGs is heavier. It's the same reason the US army didn't equip every man with a BAR.

Having said that, the Germans did use squads with 2 LMGs (Panzergrenadier, FJ, VG Heavy SMG). I'm sure they were a bit slower than regular squads, but that is not modeled in CM (unfortunately).

And yes, Guy /Gun is correct about the German philosophy re LMGs and infantry combat. Their view of the roles of the LMG and the individual rifleman were fundamentaly different than the US and British. And it worked well enough that the US eventually adopted it as its own (post war). I know there are grogs on this board who can explain it better than me, but if none of them show up I may do a little write up on it later.

[ 08-18-2001: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]

[Richard Morgan]

There is an old British Army range practice shot with SMLE or No 4 Lee Enfield, known as "The mad minute". You commence in the prone position, rifle unloaded, bolt open with a stack of 5 round clips to hand. WATCH OUT WATCH OUT... Tommy in tin hat target comes up at 200 yds for ONE MINUTE. You are to fire as many rounds as you can at the target in that time... Being SLR/SA80 trained, my score was a measly 13 shots on target. The British Expeditionary Force minumum acceptable standard, as I found out later, was 15 rounds. The record, by a BEF soldier apparently,(and I do not have my source to hand) is something like 41 rounds on target, all bulls or inners - don't ask me how he did it!!!!! I am quite sure however, that I would have been able to get more rounds off and more on target had I shot the mad minute with an M1. I begged 8 shots with one once, in the days when they were still legal over here. Nice weapon, but the TINGGGG that the weapon made as the empty clip was ejected was something that I found very spooky. Imagine that happening with enemy in your immediate vicinity :mad: TINGGGG under those circumstances of course means: "I am touching my toes, prenez moi grand garcon." Did GI's have some kind of buddy buddy procedure worked out to prevent the enemy taking advantage of an empty weapon? I would be genuinely interested to know!

Regards,

Richard.

[Smack]

No The British were not equipped poorly armed at all. To say that goes against all historical fact! If the British were poorly armed then so were the Americans! The lee Enfield bieng a good rifle, better than the German 98k and the Bren gun was a good also. All British or Canadian books I have read say the Enfield was a great weapon, and that The Garand was not something that the Troops wanted. In fact, they liked the TOmmy Gun, but that was it. This Fact has shown up in Games, West Front has British and American infantry platoons equal. The write up on the British infantry platoon says that The Enfield was a extremely good weapon and could be fired at a very High R.O.F. Operational art of war shows no difference between the Americans and British. I think this is a product of where someone lives. In America everyone thinks that the Garand was great, and it was, but 8 rounds was a severe limitation, if it had 30 I could see your point, but 8!! The reason why we have semi auto's today is because of the 30 round magazine, now you CAN blaze away at a target, but with 8 rounds, you'll get yourself killed. It is sad the American government at the time did not fix the garand to stop the ping noise and the 8 round limitation. Alot of good people were probably killed because of this oversight...The Enfield was not a limitation as some of you seem to say, as once again I say the Americans fared no better anywhere than the British did! So how was their weapons a "disadvantage"...oudviously they werent...

[Triumvir]

Vanir,

An LMG can theoretically be crewed by one man, and two men is the norm. The optimal would be three, one to fire and two to carry ammo.

The section organization I had when I was a conscript was:

1 x section commander (M-16)

1 x rifleman (M-16 + Armbrust)

1 x marksman (scoped M-16 + Armbrust)

2 x grenadier (M-16 + M-203)

2 x gunner (Ultimax LMG)

One gunner and grenadier would typically form one group, the marksman and the other gunner would form another, and the section commander would lead the rest.

Everyone was supposed to carry extra ammunition to feed to the MGs, working out to roughly 3 men per MG, and two MGs per squad.

The MG and the grenades do the real killing; infantry is there to hold the ground and give them the chance to kill.

As for bolt-action vs semi-auto, I honestly don't think that, given equal levels of training, there's much point in comparing the two. All things being equal, a semi-auto action is easier to use over the long run than a bolt action.

As an example, on one type of arty piece I was trained on, there was no hydraulic rammer to seat the projectile. We achieved the same rate of fire with that piece as we did with one that had a rammer in the short run; but if we had had to keep firing over hours and hours, the piece with the hydraulic rammer would have clearly been superior.

Mad minutes etc may be illustrative, but are not good bases for comparison.

However, the British have in the past century placed a greater premium on marksmanship than the US Army has, and thus the better individual arms training made the Lee-Enfield comparable to the Garand in the field in ETO. Of course, this came at the expense of other things, like private soldiers being trained to call arty fire; but it did make the two comparable _in those circumstances_.

[Vanir Ausf B]

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

An LMG can theoretically be crewed by one man, and two men is the norm. The optimal would be three, one to fire and two to carry ammo.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I knew more than 2 people carry the ammo. I was refering to when the gun is firing (gunner and loader).

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The MG and the grenades do the real killing; infantry is there to hold the ground and give them the chance to kill.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is what I was saying about the German philosophy. They were the first ones to realize this and formally incorporate it into their tactics. The Brits and Amis were still thinking the rifleman was the main killer... until they got into the bocage.

[Triumvir]

Vanir, I disagree. Two men is the norm, and the minimum necessary for any kind of sustained fire. But ideally, you want a third person to do spotting for targets. The GPMG section in the platoon organization I was in was a three man section, even when no tripod was deployed.

Also... I don't think that the Brits and the Amis thought that the rifleman was the main killer; rather, instead of concentrating on infantry, they concentrated on artillery and the logistics to support it. At the infantry level, MGs and grenades do killing, but at the army level, it's always the artillery.

[BloodyBucket]

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

[QB]...However, the British have in the past century placed a greater premium on marksmanship than the US Army has, and thus the better individual arms training made the Lee-Enfield comparable to the Garand in the field in ETO

QB]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Good point. The Brits had the US all beat when it came to marksmanship training, and I believe the situation is the same today. A well trained, well drilled soldier, firing a SMLE properly, gives up very little to a well trained, well drilled soldier with a Garand.

I would guess that as the war went on, training standards in this area went down from the peacetime standards, and that is where the Garand beats the smelly. The Garand is just easier to shoot fast and accurately, and not as much training is required. You could say that the SMLE is a tool for an artist, and the Garand is the tool for a laborer.

The Japanese, who were not noted for high marksmanship standards, and lacked a widely issued SMG, still managed to kill or wound plenty of allied soldiers during WWII. Had they better marksmanship standards or a widely issued gun similar to the Sten or M3 or MP-40, the slaughter might have been greater, but I doubt if the outcome of the war would be changed at all.

I think that the debate between the Garand and the SMLE gains interest because it can be seen as a difference philosophy, The Garand being an American triumph of technology (at the time, good semiauto rifles were hard to make, much less make en mass) and the SMLE being a symbol of the excellence of the training and traditions of the British soldier. Both did what was asked of them.

The Germans used the K98, I have heard, partly because the tooling was there, partly because old Adolph believed that if it was good enough for him in WWI it was good enough for the soldat of WWII, and I would guess partly because German priorities were focused on other weapons.

[Richard Morgan]

Just a general comment, after having read the whole thread. Don't anyone let their judgment be clouded by national sentiment. For the record, as an Englishman with first hand experience of these things, I can catagorically state that the SA80 (our current rifle) is crap, the LSW - SA80 SAW varient - is even worse than the BAR (Close bolt = cook offs, no barrel change + arse about face design = quick mag change impossible. M16's tend to jam after prolonged firing and when they get dirt in them. My weapon of choice would be either an AK47 or an AK74 (totally idiot proof.) However, I digress. If asked to commit myself between an M1 and a No 4 as a service weapon, I would probably favour the M1, although the TINGGGG noise is very off-putting

[Vanir Ausf B]

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

Vanir, I disagree.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm not understanding what we are disagreeing about. You admit 2 is the norm and that is all I was saying.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>At the infantry level, MGs and grenades do killing, but at the army level, it's always the artillery.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I thought the infantry level was what this whole discussion was about.

[Brian]

The more I read of the responses, its increasingly obvious that I am very much of the old school, having first been trained on SMLE's and Brens in the early 1970's and then going onto semi-automatic L1a1's and M60 GPMG and L4a4 LMG's and finishing my service on the F88 Steyr AUG.

Only need 1 or 2 men to crew an LMG? The crew of an LMG used to carry a great deal more than just the weapon itself. They had to carry the spare barrel(s) and ammunition. If a belt fed weapon, that could amount to a 1,000 or more rounds. All that added up to quite a load. Still does. The more the merrier. Which is why MMG and HMG's have as a minimum three in their crew. LMG's a minimum of 2, if a full-power cartridge is in use.

However, machines guns are expensive to manufacture and expensive in ammunition to use, as well as being unwieldy, compared to a rifle. Which is why the majority of infantry are armed with rifles, basically. Its also one reason why the US Army moved _away_ from fully-automatic fire towards bursts in the M16a3 - because of the poor fire discipline of most American units, whereas the British and Australian and New Zealand Armies have done the reverse, moving to fully-automatic fire because they feel with good fire discipline ammunition expenditure will not climb through the roof.

And that is another factor which we have not considered - fire discipline. Firepower is of little value unless its directed and the British Army in NW Europe excelled, far and above way over all other combatants in their control and direction of infantry firepower according to all accounts.

[Triumvir]

Vanir, what we disagree on is that two people should crew an LMG. It may be the norm, but it is not optimal. One is the minimum, two is normal, three is pretty much optimal.

As for the topic; I got sidetracked. Mea culpa. 8)

As for fire discipline, I do know that throughout my entire conscription, I was never allowed to use auto fire on my M-16. The only time that was allowed was during FIBUA or trench clearing, and that was what the infantry was for (I was artillery.)

I don't think that categorizing most American units as having poor fire discipline is particularly helpful, especially when it was doctrine to have massive suppressive fire. It's different doctrine from Commonwealth pattern armies, and is bearable because of the incredibly lavish supply train that the US Army has.

Amateurs may scoff at the teeth to tail ratio, but if infantry is the queen of battle and artillery the king, logistics is the chessboard; and if you can keep a unit supplied, then by all means, that unit should use as much ammo as it wants.

If it can't be supplied though...

[Herr Jung]

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

The main point is that if the Enfield was as good as the Garand, then why did both the Germans and the British attempt to copy it during the war? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't know about the Brits, but the Germans?

The Germans were also interested in semi-auto battle rifles long before the American involvement in WWII, and Walter's G41 design won over that of Mauser in 1940/41. G41 had some faults and its bolt mechanism was combined with a Russian Tokarev-style gas system to produce G43 (10 shot magazine) which was made in considerable numbers (402,713 of which 53,435 were for sniper). Of course there were also the fallschirmjaeger specific FG42 (full-auto, semi-auto selective fire, 7.92 X 57 mm) and world's first true assault rifle MP43/44 (full-auto, semi-auto selective fire, 7.92 X 33 mm "Kurz").

No, the Garand did not win the war for the Allies. Despite whatever Patton had to say about the weapon, a rifle is just a rifle, and the enemy is just not going to stand around begging to be shot. The German Army learned the lesson well in WWI, and decided to built its infantry unit based on the machine gun which was to be the main source of firepower. And, the German infantry was generally superior to any of its foes in large part because of the basic superiority of its machine guns.

The G43 was the next generation K98k and MP44 was the next generation MP40 and K98k, and the Germans did not have any reason to revere the Garand used by the Amis whose fighting ability was not regarded to be much by the Germans. Eventually, G43 and MP44 would've replaced the old weapons. And most of the armies went the way of reduced power, selective fire rifle as their predecessor.

Herr Jung

[PJungnitsch]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>And yes, Guy /Gun is correct about the German philosophy re LMGs and infantry combat. Their view of the roles of the LMG and the individual rifleman were fundamentaly different than the US and British. And it worked well enough that the US eventually adopted it as its own (post war).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The writeup I have states:

"In effect, a German infantry squad was just one big machine-gun unit. While the MG-42 gunner blasted away, the other men in the squad spotted targets, provided protection, and of course, carried a lot of ammunition."

However it then goes on to say that when the MP-44 came out the infantry company was reorganized with less men overall, less machineguns, but still a net increase in firepower due to the increased effectiveness of the MP-44 compared to the K98.

[D'arcy Montague]

After having read most of the back biting on this thread, comparing apples with oranges, I had to chip in and support the few sensible souls who emphasized that the rifle, be it bolt action or semi, was not a primary killer.

I've just finished reading "The modern british army" a war dept publication of 1942 and I would highly reccommend it to any cm player. It places very little emphasis on the tactical employment of the SMLE. Rather, it has a great deal to say about the Bren emphasizing it as the primary tool of the infantry section.

The Bayonent (Lord preserve us)is touted as the primary tool of the riflemen! Covering/pinning fire is provided by the Brengun and platoon mortar as the lads manoeveur foward to get to grips with grenades and the bayonet.

All a little too optimistic to stomach easily perhaps, but as a British player I'd rather have my boys within 20m rather than 40m. I've found that the british rifle sections tend to throw alot more grenades than the germans (wouldn't you?).

Presumably this keeps jerry's head down long enough to get into hand to hand, where the the British are not at such a marked disadvantage. Having said this, I NEVER charge any german infantry that haven't already been roughed up! That 60-20m stretch is extremely unpleasant. Which brings me to the next point.

Bollocks to Patton and his "finest instrument" my weapon of choice would undoubtedly be the MP44, the weapon which created the ubiquitous term 'Assault rifle'. Have a close look, no prizes for guessing where Kalashnikov got his ideas from.

[Kanonier Reichmann]

WOW! Nobody else seems to have noticed but good ol' Herr Jung is still classified as a Junior Member yet has a membership number of 221! Obviously not the outgoing type.

Regards

Jim R.

[Subvet]

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

I own both a 7mm Mag (Ruger) and a Garrand M-1 (in pretty rough shape). The recoil of the 7mm is far more than the M-1. Part of the reason may be that the 7mm is bolt action, while the Garrand is semi-auto. Although, that said, I wouldn't want to have to fire either rifle for extended periods. Those soldiers in the PTO or Korea that had to fend off human wave attacks must have felt wounded themselves. I rarely put more than a 2 clips through the M-1 at any one time, because it is punishing.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

If you want to see some real recoil click on this

If you want to see some more of these go to this website

Ok, it is somewhat off topic, but I thought the people that would be interested in this thread would get a "kick" out of these movies.

[PiggDogg]

Subvet,

Boy was that some rifle. :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: Lol.

Cheers, Richard

[The_Capt]

Well Brian,

I think we will have to agree to disagree here. I am afraid I do not buy that the volume of fire from a bolt action can equal that of a semi-auto on a large scale. I am sure one or two individuals were capable of astounding feats but it is a case of simple mechanics.

The argument is "apples to oranges" but the reality is that smemi-auto weapons are used today with emphasis being placed on volume of fire.

Your Pams say the same things ours do but they do not reflect reality. The basic rifleman, in the offense and defence is there to provide protection for weapons systems which in large part do the tradition their traditional job. The only exception may be trench clearing but even in that situation the roles are slipping.

Now infantry still control the majority of these crew weapons so they do indeed "sieze and hold the ground" but the basic riflemans job is a dying trade without much prospect for the future. I know many "old soldiers" who find that absolutely distastful but it does not change the facts.

I think it may be time to move on to another topic as this one really has no end or real gain at the end of it.

[Slapdragon]

First off to dispel a few myths.

British and US marksmanship was of similar quality, with Montgomery mentioning to Patton that he wished the average British enlistee had the shooting experience that the average American did when they enlisted. For what it was worth more US soldiers entered the service with shooting experience than British because of the widespread ownership of hunting weapons in the US, weapons that were common only to the upper class.

Marksmanship training was never wasted because it increased how familiar a soldier was with a weapon, but how accurately a soldier could shoot was probably the least important aspect of his training. Gantter in his book "Roll Me Over" puts it into perspective when he tells how surprised he was to have a chance to actually use aimed fire. In 10 months he used it exactly once in combat. Not because he refused to, but because he never had a chance to.

The US and the British designed their squads though around the concept that the rifleman was the guy who did all the damage in modern warfare. The BAR and Bren were designed to be fired by a single man who had ammunition carried by others in the squad. This weapons would suppress the enemy, allowing the squad to close to vantage points that allowed aimed fire. The leader would often carry a SMG to allow retreat and to further supress close in.

The Germans did things exactly opposite. The soldiers in a squad were there to support the LMG. Squad members pointed out targets, kept the enemy off the LMG's back, and were cannon fodder, while the LMG was the main element of the squad. Later, the squad members stopped being cannon fodder when they got SMGs and larger weapons of their own.

As to the issue of support size for automatic weapons. The ARs in the squad were normally 2 man teams, and assistant and a gunner, with the assistant expected to pick up the BAR or Bren in case the gunner was killed.

An LMG team was 2, 3, or 5 people depending on how much sustained fire was needed to give. The two man teams was often called an LMG, the 3 man team an MMG team, and the 5 man team an HMG. The British and the US of course only fielded ARs, not LMG.

[lcm1947]

Subvet, I know what you mean when mentioning the recoil of both these calibers. The 30-06 is certainly less because it it semi-auto and also the amount of powder but certainly is not what I call fun to shoot. The 7mm on the other hand is just plain punishing. I owned one for 2 or 3 months back when I target practiced a lot and sold it due to that reason alone. An outstanding round but damn it hurt. I would shoot maybe 10 to 20 rounds in a given day and just flat couldn't take the recoil.