flamingknives Posted May 14, 2004 Author Share Posted May 14, 2004 US marksman ARE better.Better than who? Prove it. Did the Germans somehow not have rifle ranges? I'm going to ask a Vet am I? I didn't realise there was such a proliferation of US infantry veterans in the UK. I knew two WWII British vets. One, my Grandfather, is now sadly deceased, but he was a small arms instructor. Though he didn't speak much about the war, it's clear that the British had at least one range in Burma. Some more from "Combat Lessons; No.7": "c. Use of the fragmentation grenade, antitank grenade, and bazooka. We give about 25 per cent of the replacements a chance to fire the grenade and bazooka; all of them observe the effectiveness of these weapons." Later Common Failings Says a successful Third Army Rifle Company Commander, ETO: “The following failings are common among replacements. They must be strictly and promptly eliminated if excessive casualties are to be avoided and combat efficiency obtained: “Lack of ordinary discipline (saying ‘Yeah’ instead of ‘Yes, sir,’ etc.). “Jumping at the gound of every outgoing or incoming artillery shell. Unwillingness to use the rifle. (Many have been told never to fire without direct orders for fear of revealing positions.) “Lack of pride in self, organization, work. "Poor physical condition "A tendancy to bunch together when in danger "Freesing under fire. "Slovinliness in care of equipment. "Lack of skill with the rifle and other infantry weapons "Fear of the night "Ignorance of squad formations "Ignorance of field sanitation and of personal hygeine in a combat area (my emphasis) These observations were made at the time by soldiers and officers in the field. To me, with my amateur historian hat on, this source is more likely to be accurate than either the 60 year old memory of a small number of soldiers or your own extrapolation from modern techniques. Claiming that modern USMC techniques apply in full and without restriction to all who fought in the US Army during WWII doesn't make sense. As and when I want to know about modern USMC techniques, then you and the other Marines on the board will be the favoured source. Oh, once the artillery has lifted, that's when tanks, machine guns and mortars come into play. The rifleman has a part to play, but capable infantry don't win the war on their own. There are many factors that are more important. Like artillery. You'll note that the British and US had by far the best artillery of WWII, and better logistics. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flamingknives Posted May 14, 2004 Author Share Posted May 14, 2004 Well I ask why is someone including a point about the battle of the Mons in WW1, how does that have any bering on CMAK.That bit was in response to how the US Army should be better because they had been taught marksmanship since the 1900's. The example was that the British army had also taught marksmanship and used it in battle, though I wouldn't claim that the conscripts of 1916 were anywhere near as capable marksmen as the 1914, professional, BEF. I thought I was being specific with regards to US troops. US Army troops in the ETO, if you are not capable of figuring that out from the context. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Volkov Posted May 14, 2004 Share Posted May 14, 2004 Originally posted by flamingknives: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> Claiming that modern USMC techniques apply in full and without restriction to all who fought in the US Army during WWII doesn't make sense. </font> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flamingknives Posted May 14, 2004 Author Share Posted May 14, 2004 Back to the original topic, It's clear that US soldiers carried more rifle ammo on their web gear, and that allied nations supplemented this with bandoliers. Did US troops commonly carry more bandoliers than anyone else? Shortage of small arms ammunition features in few places in my reading of WWII. Did US Army Soldiers, fighting in the ETO, specifically North Africa and Italy and definately not the PTO, which, AIUI, rules out the Marine Corp, carry ammunition for the BAR? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Volkov Posted May 14, 2004 Share Posted May 14, 2004 Originally posted by flamingknives: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />I thought I was being specific with regards to US troops. US Army troops in the ETO, if you are not capable of figuring that out from the context. </font> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flamingknives Posted May 14, 2004 Author Share Posted May 14, 2004 Originally posted by Volkov: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by flamingknives: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> Claiming that modern USMC techniques apply in full and without restriction to all who fought in the US Army during WWII doesn't make sense. </font> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Volkov Posted May 14, 2004 Share Posted May 14, 2004 Originally posted by flamingknives: Back to the original topic, It's clear that US soldiers carried more rifle ammo on their web gear, and that allied nations supplemented this with bandoliers. Did US troops commonly carry more bandoliers than anyone else? Shortage of small arms ammunition features in few places in my reading of WWII. Did US Army Soldiers, fighting in the ETO, specifically North Africa and Italy and definately not the PTO, which, AIUI, rules out the Marine Corp, carry ammunition for the BAR? Yes US Army Soldiers, fighting in the ETO, specifically North Africa and Itay and definatley not the PTO, Which, AIUI, rules out the Marine Corps, did commonly carry more ammuniton. The ammo came in those steel boxes and wooden crates depending on the amount needed. The bandoliers were already packed and just need to be extracted. Ammo for the BAR was genrally the same. The 782 gear for that that 6 pockets that could hold 2(20) rd magazine per. That 12 magazines or 240 rds. But the price was a-lot of weight between weapon and ammo. Employing that weapon really came down to tactics. It was not used as its portrayed in Hollywood...you know the 5000 rd capacity firing at every target....It was a bit more reserved. And dependent on the squad or platoon. Someone would carry extra BAR ammo and act as an assistant BAR gunner. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Volkov Posted May 14, 2004 Share Posted May 14, 2004 Originally posted by Volkov: The USMC marksman training is MUCH different than that of the US Army. Even in WW2. Again I have experianced these ranges first hand. I did not read about it in some book or take it from some quack on a discussion forum. Well...how about this.... I was refering to my experiences. And as far as KD range goes...It means Known Distance. 100, 300 and 500 yards. The US army shoot only up to 300 yards. The "KD" range was the standard at that time. The US Army today went to a unknow distance range w/ pop up targets but the USMC remained the same. This was (and still is) the incipient stage of marksmanship training. The moving targets and low light targets are apart of the advanced training received..then and now. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Volkov Posted May 14, 2004 Share Posted May 14, 2004 Originally posted by flamingknives: You make no limitations in your statements about how your service means you know what you're talking about. That's where I get the (admittedly slightly hyperbolic) "full and unrestricted" bit. Oh! I forgot to add that I was a PMI or Primary Marksmanship Instructor too! How arrogant am I now! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Dorosh Posted May 14, 2004 Share Posted May 14, 2004 Volkov, I think you are stretching a lot of very basic facts and using modern experiences to cover up gaps in your basic historical knowledge. When I refer to live fire exercises, I don't mean training where machineguns are fired over the heads of troops who are carrying empty weapons themselves, I mean an infantry squad with live ammunition going into an assault and firing ball ammunition into targets as they assault, and being assessed on how well they shoot. If you can point to a source that says that kind of training existed in World War Two, I'd be interested in reading it. That would be the only training really relevant to battlefield shooting. Yes, the principles of marksmanship would apply in the most general sense, but having been on the (military) rifle range myself on several occasions, and also having admittedly limited experience in live fire exercises (on a defensive exercise as a rifleman and an offensive exercise as a cameraman) I have to feel that the marksmanship principles taught on the range really had little bearing on what the riflemen did in action. Flamingknives posts an excellent quote above. I have another from Strome Galloway of the Royal Canadian Regiment (who also commanded a platoon of an Irish regiment in action in Tunisia before going to Sicily and Italy with RCR): To paraphrase - "There were too few rifle ranges ... given the number of men able to effectively use their rifles in action, they might as well have been carrying pitchforks, and in fact, the pitchforks would have been more useful, having three prongs rather than the small spike on the Number Four bayonet"... I'll try and find the exact quote, but if there weren't enough ranges for the Canadians and British, I don't see where any more would magically appear for the US. Flamingknive's quote kind of furthers that supposition. Why would Patton champion "Marching Fire" if individual marksmanship was of such a high standard? The reason the Garand was well liked was because of the volume of fire it could produce, not the accuracy with which it was fired. I'll try and find some more concrete sources over the weekend, but as Volkov says himself, artillery was the prime contributor to battlefield casualties. Add in machineguns, and doing a search on the older debates about SLA Marshall ought to yield a clearer picture of what really happened on the battlefield with respect to the riflemen in any army. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flamingknives Posted May 14, 2004 Author Share Posted May 14, 2004 Web gear for the British was 50 rounds of .303 + 2 Bren magazines, 2 or so grenades, depending on the mission and bayonet, water etc. The Bren gunner and assistant bren gunner typically carried more .303 in box magazines for the Bren. Which leads the question: Does CM model web gear only, or does is account for standard use of bandoliers. Or, does it not take into account typical ammo load, but instead modify it to account for the weapons mix. If it's the latter, is a SA rifle accounted for differently than a BA rifle? If other nationalities carry less ammunition, should they tire more slowly as they carry less weight? Or do they lug bars of lead around to make things fair? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Volkov Posted May 14, 2004 Share Posted May 14, 2004 No CM doen't model web gear and nor does it account for bandoliers. We stated earlier that the ammo is just pooled for points. And unlike other games you can not turn on/off specific weapons. The only thing I have found is that the units experiance plays an important part in the game..(duh) The more experienced units tend to gain more "kills" and not panic as easy. (obviously)..Remember that you can adjust the ammo amount in scenario building. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Jim Posted May 14, 2004 Share Posted May 14, 2004 Originally posted by Volkov: US marksman ARE better. Now I don't know who to believe. The article in Signal said German troops were the most accurate... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Dorosh Posted May 14, 2004 Share Posted May 14, 2004 Originally posted by flamingknives: Web gear for the British was 50 rounds of .303 + 2 Bren magazines, 2 or so grenades, depending on the mission and bayonet, water etc. The Bren gunner and assistant bren gunner typically carried more .303 in box magazines for the Bren. Which leads the question: Does CM model web gear only, or does is account for standard use of bandoliers. Or, does it not take into account typical ammo load, but instead modify it to account for the weapons mix. If it's the latter, is a SA rifle accounted for differently than a BA rifle? British and Canadian soldiers carried rifle ammunition in bandoliers, not in their webbing. The Basic Pouches carried Bren ammunition, grenades, 2 in mortar rounds, etc. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Volkov Posted May 14, 2004 Share Posted May 14, 2004 Yes the US had more ranges! They were every backyard! I stated earlier that a-lot of US troops were farm boys...and spent a lot of time shooting. And the rest were thugs and gangsters. Again the 2nd Amendment! And at every US Army installation there was a rifle range. But of-courese they were not used on a daily basis. Remember that the US had raised close to 200 Divisions. Maybe you boys are missunderstanding me. I have not said that in the US in WW2 everyone was a sniper...NO! Far from it. And please don't tell me that marksmanship training either then or now doesn't mean anything in combat. YES I know you either stand, kneel or are prone when shooting targets..errr..But the priciples are what make you good. Bone support, breath control, eye relief, sight picture, trigger control and reflex,,,THIS TEACHES MUSCLE MEMORY!!!!,,,,when a bad guy is infront of you your reflex and instict kick in so when you place your weapon to your shoulder YOU CAN BET your target will be hit!!!!!!TRUST ME!!!! And further more....most of the time your enemy is seeking defilade as he advances under supporting weapons,,(even in WW2) I rarley ever saw my enemy but I know that when he ducked behind a bush or a burm I could get a farley accurate bead on him,,,I would pop up and down(called chicken peck) And when he appeared I could snap a round or two into him usually upper chest or lower head/neck.... I learned to do this on a rifle range... As far as the US Army goes in North Africa,,,,yes they were inept, I took patton 2 weeks to get of the beach that was defended by French troops that didn't really want to fight the Americans, and in some cases the French Officers would not issuse our ammo to thier troops...If that had happened with Defending German or even Italian force, then Operation Toach would have failed misserably. Anyone that has experience combat will tell you that for the first time it is quite scary!!!!! Usually mother nature take over and you bowls and bladder gain minds of their own!!!! The trick is to accpet that you are going to die or are already dead...(well that works for some,,,others I could tell you).....And the other is to remember that your enemy is expericancing the same. How in the heck did we get to this groveling....? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Volkov Posted May 14, 2004 Share Posted May 14, 2004 Originally posted by Big Jim: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Volkov: US marksman ARE better. Now I don't know who to believe. The article in Signal said German troops were the most accurate... </font> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Dorosh Posted May 14, 2004 Share Posted May 14, 2004 Originally posted by Volkov: [QB] Yes the US had more ranges! They were every backyard! I stated earlier that a-lot of US troops were farm boys...and spent a lot of time shooting. Bull****. I think you are perpetuated the Stephen Ambrose myth again. You forgot to add that US soldiers had pure hearts and won the war because they had a democratically elected government. The same "backwoods myth" was applied to the Canadian Army in World War I, but again, if you read Vimy by Pierre Burton, it all goes out the window. There is a neat quote about these Canadians who learned to shoot to perfection, first back home, then on the ranges in England, and then during the attack on Vimy Ridge, a rabbit bolts out from its hole during the advance up the ridge, and an entire platoon tries to shoot it at close range, and not a man hit anything! I know that's hardly conclusive of anything, but I thought it an interest bit. And the rest were thugs and gangsters. Again the 2nd Amendment! More bull****. How many "gangsters" were there, really, and if they were such marksmen, why use the Tommy Gun for close range hits? How does using a pistol or shotgun in a stickup qualify you for military service, anyway? And at every US Army installation there was a rifle range. But ofcourse they were not used on a daily basis. Remember that the US had raised close to 200 Divisions. Maybe you boys are missunderstanding me. I have not said that in the US in WW2 everyone was a sniper...NO! Far from it. And please don't tell me that marksmanship training either then or now doesn't mean anything in combat. YES I know you either stand, kneel or are prone when shooting targets..errr..But the priciples are what make you good. Bone support, breath control, eye relief, sight picture, trigger control and reflex,,,THIS TEACHES MUSCLE MEMORY!!!!,,,,when a bad guy is infront of you your reflex and instict kick in so when you place your weapon to your shoulder YOU CAN BET your target will be hit!!!!!!TRUST ME!!!! And further more....most of the time your enemy is seeking defilade as he advances under supporting weapons,,(even in WW2) I rarley ever saw my enemy but I know that when he ducked behind a bush or a burm I could get a farley accurate bead on him,,,I would pop up and down(called chicken peck) And when he appeared I could snap a round or two into him usually upper chest or lower head/neck.... I learned to do this on a rifle range...Not really sure how much weight to give any of this, honestly. I wouldn't call doubt on your individual qualifications or experience, but I also don't see it as too terribly relevant to proving that US soldiers were better shooters in WW II than any other nations' combatants, or that it mattered a whole terrible much. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dinsdale Posted May 14, 2004 Share Posted May 14, 2004 You cannot take Marine Marksmanship and equate it to All US troops. They trained differently, and had different standards. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Dorosh Posted May 14, 2004 Share Posted May 14, 2004 And I'll also add that there were many Russian, French, Austrian, and German "backwoodsmen" who enjoyed hunting for sport and survival. I'm not so sure that I would judge the entire German military on them. It is common knowledge that military shooting is not really a lot like sport shooting; while some backwoodsmen like Alvin York or Audie Murphy may have taken to things like a duck to water, there are also a lot of cases where know-it-all civilians show up at military training and are unable to shoot well at all due to the bad habits they picked up shooting daddy's varmint rifle or critter-gun. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Volkov Posted May 14, 2004 Share Posted May 14, 2004 AAA! A Canadian Eh? How's living in our shadow and filling those big foot prints of the UK? As far as the Gangster coment goes...for those of you who don't know what its like growing up in a big American city....all kids are "gangsters" by proxy. Each block and neighborhood is different. And the kids role around in "gangs" not the "gangs" you people think about or what Hollywood projects....But being that you are Canadian I wouldn't expect you to know that....I forgot about your dry Canadian wit. Any more Canadian referance I think I am going to puke! As far as the other "BS" I am mistaken,,,I was wrong to think a Canadian like yourself who lives in CANADA would know much more about the States and it's people than myself. I forgot it was the Canadian that have written SO MUCH military doctrine......I guess Mr. Ambrouse should have made a movie about the Canadian Army,,Hey you could have even stared in it!!!www.canaian soldiers.com......I guess you feel jilted.... Furthermore I am sorry about NOT metioning about the pure hearts for it was and is true. The Soldiers of then and now believed in each other and about the well being of thier buddies, not about mom, apple pie and the American way. You are VERY MISTAKEN... But I wouldn't expect you to know that either,,,you have proven that through the vile, ignorant, spat that you put on your post. Please don't tell me about MY COUNTIES MILTIARY and thier abilities....you are clueless when it comes to Americans...I have SEEN the "Pure Heart" first hand,,YOU HAVE NOT! I know what its like to see MEN stand and charge a defensive position, while thier buddies,,NO.. Thier BROTHERS Fall next to them...I Have seen the Face of War...Son!.... YOU HAVE NOT! DO NOT QUESTION ME ABOUT MY FELLOW AMERICANS... Also...Listen, don't hear, what vet from the US in WW2 has to say. There are plenty of docs our there about it. The Origins of this post were to quetion US AMMO LOAD...That was established,,,I added a comment in there as a signal of Nationl Pride,,BECAUSE I HAVE "BEEN THERE" I know the capabilites of my countrymen, for I have studied them and put them to practical use! The Standard US Soldier in the 40's is the SAME as the soldier today only the equipments differnt! We are ALL AMERICANS Bound by the same sence of service. YOU SHOULD NOT be questioning this! I answered another members question with Fact in regards to weapons and ammo. Then some YAHOO decided to refute those facts with some garbage about target shooting and combat,,,which does show his lack of personnel knowledge on the issue. I have stated earlier in regards to the priciples. Oh BTW nice uniform sparky....Just remember...Some People Play War, and Others Go to War... [ May 14, 2004, 12:43 PM: Message edited by: Volkov ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Volkov Posted May 14, 2004 Share Posted May 14, 2004 Originally posted by Dinsdale: You cannot take Marine Marksmanship and equate it to All US troops. They trained differently, and had different standards. Yes Dinsdale, I know I covered that in a topic somewere above...Its alot of reading,,,sorry. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergei Posted May 14, 2004 Share Posted May 14, 2004 Dear Volkov, were you born as an idiot or is it something they did to you in the USMC? With love, Sergei 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Volkov Posted May 14, 2004 Share Posted May 14, 2004 Originally posted by Sergei: Dear Volkov, were you born as an idiot or is it something they did to you in the USMC? With love, Sergei It happened in the USMC... With even more love Volkov 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
btm Posted May 14, 2004 Share Posted May 14, 2004 I don't want to get in the middle of this happy, stupid, little flame war, but I wanted to make a few corrections: 1) The M1918A2 Browning Automatic Rifle used the same ammunition as the M1 Garand, M1903 Springfield, et. al., this being .30-'06, typically M2 ball. 2) Loads for the British .303 are usually slightly less powerful than loads for the U.S. .30-'06. For a real comparison, you would need to compare specific loads, such as M2 Ball or M118 Ball versus a specific .303 load. Volkov - Amen, don't let the bastards get you down! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dinsdale Posted May 14, 2004 Share Posted May 14, 2004 Yes Dinsdale, I know I covered that in a topic somewere above...Its alot of reading,,,sorry.You touch on it and then continue to make blanket statement that US Marksmen are better. As a whole, no they were not. Compare specifically Marine marksmen vs Others, and you may get a different result. Get it? I have UsArmy Ammunition Data sheets if someone has Brit/Canadian ones.Everything from .22, .410 shotgun through 30mm Cannon rounds. [ May 14, 2004, 01:05 PM: Message edited by: Dinsdale ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.