Jump to content

Submachineguns in US squads?


Guest jaja

Recommended Posts

Submachine guns were not often found in US divisions (only a few allocated to rear personal). A US squad consisted of 11 M1s and 1 BAR (though another was picked up as often as possible and two later became part of the official organazation).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In a pure US regiment there were no Thompson Submachineguns (there were carbines).

Also, sometimes it is very annoying not to have tank crews have their submachineguns.

Also, in platoon and company (at least) HQs every man had an M1 or carbine.

[This message has been edited by jaja (edited 11-25-2000).]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Also, sometimes it is very annonying not to have tank crews have their submachineguns.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

A buddy of mine was an M-60 and M-1 TC. He told me once that they had M3's in the tanks with them and were supposed to grab them if they had to bail. He never had to in combat, but siad that whenthey had to bail in training (like after driving over and embankment and putting the thing in the dirt gun first with a tenuous balance... the ehole thing was about to tip over) the last thing he thought of was to grab anything. He didn't like the looks of the greaseguns and didn't think much of them... wouldn't have picked them up anyway, he said, as he thought they were more dangerous to him than to anyone he might be pointing them at.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The M2 Carbine was used by front line squads, Audie Murphy mentions using it by preference in buildings in Italy. Although much maligned in modern times, and thought of as a toy by some, the M2 represented a good counter to the German MP44 when combined with the M1 rifle. It had a longer range than the .45 armed weapons, was handier, had a good ROF, and the1900 fps 130 grain bullet did not waste muzzle energy in over penetration like the .30 ball did.

The problem for the game is that this was all unnofficial, so how do you simulate it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

{The greaseguns} were more dangerous to him than to anyone he might be pointing them at.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

They weren't very dangerous at all. They are so simple in design and operation that they are one of the safest possible automatic weapons (to the shooter). And the design and construction are such that only a very stupid, slow, large, and/or close enemy is seriously endangered by one.

So if you bail from a smoked AFV and remember to take it with you, and then find a lame elephant in your pyjamas who is also a registered voter in Dade county, it's just the ticket. (How he got in Dade county, I'll never know...).

Otherwise they are inexpensive noisemakers which provide a sense of security to vehicle crews. It would be a good thing to have under your cot in a forward area... but who gets cots in forward areas? There is really nothing that the M3 does, which is not better served by some other weapon. IMO. Pity the bastards that had to jump with them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The U.S. Army was still using Greaseguns as of the Gulf war. The Commander of the Bradley I was on traded his M16 for one because it was easier to aim from his hatch and made an impressive amount of noise.

------------------

Nicht Schiessen!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tank crews not carrying their submachineguns when they bail makes sense.

Combat Mission is not designed to simulate all the unofficial equipment changes (though I hope we can customize weapons in units sometime in the future), and squads should, therefore, not have M3s.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mark IV:

They weren't very dangerous at all. They are so simple in design and operation that they are one of the safest possible automatic weapons (to the shooter). And the design and construction are such that only a very stupid, slow, large, and/or close enemy is seriously endangered by one.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Like I said, he didn't like the look of the thing. Thought it would blow up on him... Then again, he was a tanker. Wasn't comfortable without a layer of steel around him anyway!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...