British/Commonwealth Infantry weapons...poor?

[Username]

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

Originally posted by Username:

In the heat of battle, just having a self loading and self ejecting rifle instills confidence.

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

"Bugger - so the M1's better than all the modern SLR's ever mad e that don't "self eject"!

Damn - I knew we were going wrong somewhere!"

Again, for the people that don't fire weapons. The M16, on the last round, locks to the rear. This is a SLR. It does the same function that the garand is performing, it is letting the firer know that the last round has been fired. The garand firer wont be playing with his bolt knobby and loading an invisable round and aiming, pulling the trigger and hearing a click. Niether will an M16 firer.

Its a valid point and your attempt at belittling is not going to make it go away. In fact, the rest of your post is weak too.

Lewis

[David Aitken]

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

The brits had a lack of belted mobile MG firepower and coupled with bolt action rifles couldnt rely on the BREN to save the day.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You can say the British lacked a sufficiently mobile belted machinegun. I can say the US lacked a proper squad automatic. What are you trying to prove? As for the Sten – no-one is arguing that the Sten is a great weapon, any more than the M3 greaser. Most of us are sticking to the facts, whereas you seem convinced that if it's British it's inferior to US or German.

[Stalin's Organ]

And of course the M16 is a paragon of a rifle that everyone loves to death too....NOT!

User let's face it - the bolt action rifle was a perfectly reasonable weapon.

I and many other posters know and have said here that generally an SLR is better, but your over-the-top adoration of the M1 is just as pathetic as those who thnik that every Brit infantryman iwth an SMLE or derivative is a sniper.

Nweitehr of you are in the real world.

[Slapdragon]

do know that the old FNG M16A!s would fail to hold open after the last round because of old magazines, which was a major pain because you would not have been counting your shots and you dry fire the last weapon with a clunk. Then you had to turn the weapon over to the assistant range inspector who held onto it, making sure it was not an hang fire..

[Username]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by David Aitken:

You can say the British lacked a sufficiently mobile belted machinegun. I can say the US lacked a proper squad automatic. What are you trying to prove? .<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I dont have to prove anything! The game agrees with me that the BREN belongs within the squad.

The US, with its air-cooled mgs didnt need a BREN. This platoon level belted MG fire freed up the need for a dedicated belt/clip fed multiman automatic weapons squad-level team.

The whole US squad could then be more mobile and function as an attacking group. The US wanted to get the war over with.

Lewis

[Triumvir]

Slap,

I have had the same problem with M16s too, but did you really turn the rifle over to make sure it wasn't a hang fire? The standard drill for that, at least the one I remember, was to eject the magazine, reload a fresh one and work the action.

Besides, a single misfiring cartridge probably wouldn't be lethal outside of a chamber. The propellant wouldn't be able to send the round any great distance as there's no forcing cone to funnel the gas.

[JonS]

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

I dont have to prove anything! The game agrees with me that the BREN belongs within the squad<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The point, Lewis, that people are trying to make is that in this respect The Game (and you) are wrong

There. I said it.

Regards

JonS

Clarification: Wrong in the sense that the Bren didn't only belong in the squad.

[ 08-22-2001: Message edited by: JonS to clarify]

[ 08-22-2001: Message edited by: JonS ]

[Stalin's Organ]

Tri - I once carried a misfire on teh end of a M-16 bolt about 20 miles from the range back to barracks without knowing it.

this after removing the mag, workign the action and "firing" the "empty" weapon downrange.

You should have seen everyone's faces when I took the bolt out and said "Sarge - whadoIdowiththis?"!

20 yrs ago now, but I still remember it like it was yesterday!

[Triumvir]

Damn... I still remember seeing old, really hokey British training films about the dangers of misfires. I'm surprised you didn't see the misfire when you cleared the range... you never stared down into the chamber, did you?

I learnt a _healthy_ respect for the weapon after

a) seeing a firepower demonstration

and

having someone misfire blanks in the middle of my section.

I can imagine _exactly_ what your squadmates must have looked like... 8)

[David Aitken]

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

I dont have to prove anything! The game agrees with me that the BREN belongs within the squad.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm not sure what you were arguing, but it certainly wasn't that. Anyway, we're back on this topic now.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The US, with its air-cooled mgs didnt need a BREN. This platoon level belted MG fire freed up the need for a dedicated belt/clip fed multiman automatic weapons squad-level team.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Quite, and the British, with their excellent light machinegun, didn't need a highly mobile belted machinegun. It's not as though you can't move the Vickers, and it's not as though you can run for miles with the M1919 either.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The whole US squad could then be more mobile and function as an attacking group. The US wanted to get the war over with.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The whole British squad could be equally mobile, and also conform more closely to the subsequently accepted doctrine that the squad should be based around a machinegun. They were centred around a greater source of firepower than the US squad, rather than having distributed firepower, but still had individual firepower to be reckoned with.

And as for your closing comment... wha? What wavelength are you on? Are you suggesting that British doctrine was intended to prolong the war? We wanted to spread our movement and ammunition over, say, ten years, instead of using it all up in five? Oh never mind.

[Stalin's Organ]

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

Damn... I still remember seeing old, really hokey British training films about the dangers of misfires. I'm surprised you didn't see the misfire when you cleared the range... you never stared down into the chamber, did you?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yep - from behind, and the Sargeant cleared al wwepons from an open bolt before we fired downrange too....so it was eggies all-round!

What had happened was the ejector had sooted up and the round had only cocked over to one side a wee bit. when I held teh bolt back for inspection the round was so far back that a look up the barrel didn't see it.

WE'd been on a yippee - 10 ppl, 5000 rounds of 556 and 1000 rounds of 762 over a weekend - we couldn't get through them all, even firing auto, falling plate and all the other fun stuff we never usually got to do!

I was in the recce pln of the local territorial infantry bn, so we had M-16's and FN MAG's in the SF role (tripod mount).

[Username]

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

You should have seen everyone's faces when I took the bolt out and said "Sarge - whadoIdowiththis?"!

!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Any outfit I was in would have given you a blanket party. Theres no excuse for poor safety anywhere. Weapons safety deals with peoples lives.

[Username]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by David Aitken:

And as for your closing comment... wha? What wavelength are you on? Are you suggesting that British doctrine was intended to prolong the war? We wanted to spread our movement and ammunition over, say, ten years, instead of using it all up in five? Oh never mind.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well heres Aitken maybe 24 hours ago..

"Oh I don't care about the Lee-Enfield vs. Garand debate and I doubt most people here do either. Personally I have no reservations about the British infantry weapons used in the Second World War and I don't feel the need to be defensive about it (see the one post I made to the thread in question, on page six I think). This thread is unrelated to that and concerns the important issue of Commonwealth troops being denied a stand-alone LMG which they had in reality, while all other armies have their equivalent modelled in the game."

Seems you are in a bit of a turnaround. Anyway, noone is saying that the brits dressed like they were in WWI and had nothing to squauk about but a mag fed foriegn designed LMG. Everything else being much the same as the great war.

But you had Yanks (yeah) on the Great Island. Infusing Love and money where it counts (and it wasnt put in the bank let me tell ya).

Lewis

[Stalin's Organ]

.....thanks for the lecture User!

[sARCASM]I'm glad yo were able to tell me that, 'cos I would never have realised it afterwards, and it's good to know that there's someone out there who's so much better than me![/sARCASM]

[Username]

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

.....thanks for the lecture User!

[sARCASM]I'm glad yo were able to tell me that, 'cos I would never have realised it afterwards, and it's good to know that there's someone out there who's so much better than me![/sARCASM]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Someone? Think theres maybe more than one?

[David Aitken]

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

Seems you are in a bit of a turnaround.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I have an ever-diminishing grasp of what you're on about. You use random quotes with no relevance to your topic, and make sudden topic changes with no relevance to the original. I find myself unable to conduct an argument with someone who employs such bizarre logic.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Anyway, noone is saying that the brits dressed like they were in WWI<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm glad, because that is entirely untrue.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>and had nothing to squauk about but a mag fed foriegn designed LMG.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I am the first to admit that the Bren is a Czech design, and have done so previously on this forum. If you get the impression that that's the only thing we had going for us during the war, it's only because you keep denying that it was any good at all, so we have to waste our time trying to hammer the facts into your thick head. As for the Bren being foreign, I would suggest that (1) we had the commonsense to select an excellent LMG for our infantry, and (2) we didn't restrict ourselves to local designs, unlike the US which ended up with a poor squad automatic as a result.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Everything else being much the same as the great war.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Of course Lewis. In your world, I'm sure it makes perfect sense. And yes, I know your statement was in the negative, presumably because your sole intention was to provoke a response, and you have succeeded. Unfortunately I think you believe it though. I see no point in concerning myself further with your bizarre beliefs.

[Brian]

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

Does the brits have an indicator (like the garand kicking out on the last round) so they know they are out of ammo?

Lewis<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

[sarcasm]

Yes, its called the brain. Soldiers count rounds. If they don't then there is another, audible indicator built into the design. The head of the bolt goes forward when the trigger is pulled and it goes "click!"

[/sarcasm]

Perhaps I'm being too harsh but it appears to me that people assume that unless your weapon flashes in letters 10 feet high to you that its empty or holds open its bolt or does wonderful things, the user won't know the magazine is empty or that it needs reloading.

They are trained to know, people. Trained.

[Slapdragon]

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

Slap,

I have had the same problem with M16s too, but did you really turn the rifle over to make sure it wasn't a hang fire? The standard drill for that, at least the one I remember, was to eject the magazine, reload a fresh one and work the action.

Besides, a single misfiring cartridge probably wouldn't be lethal outside of a chamber. The propellant wouldn't be able to send the round any great distance as there's no forcing cone to funnel the gas.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This was just the Camp Blanding range rules in 1985, probably a range officer's rules or the NCOIC. If, at any time, you pulled the trigger and the weapon went "thonk" instead of "bang" you would keep the weapon pointing down range and signal for an assistant range inspector, who would take charge of the weapon. They would wait some amount of time (how much I am not sure) then lock back the bolt, and drop the mag. They also would check the retaining yoke where the hammer strikes and the bolt for any damage. Then you had the weapon returned.

One of the issues was that the weapons were all 1969 issue M16A1 in Guard armories, and they were in pretty rough shape. I am sure the whole disassemjbly bit was because of that.

[Hon John Howard MP LLB]

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

Someone pointed out in another thread that the brit rifle had a fixed magazine. You had to load two seperate 5 round stripper clips into the rifle. This is the last thing I would want to be doing in a battle.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually in WWI the "Old Contemtables" actually carried a second (or more) Magazine to enable rapid change over but then they also were fitted with magazine cut-outs.

Where required aimed single shot or evey volley fire was used (can you guess where this would be used?). When necessary, they could use the magazine and either replace it (but only good for 10 more rounds) or reload with the 5 round (magazine) chargers (please use th correct term - they are not "stripper clips" in the context of BritCom forces). Speed of reloading was about the same.

Oh - by the way you could use single rounds, a five round charger or fully reload (2 x 5 round chargers) - you were not required to load"... two seperate 5 round stripper clips into the rifle...."

By WWII the British had under development a new calibre and a new weapon (a semi-auto) BUT with the demands of war the ability to change courses in mid-stream prevented it.

Unlike the US - they tended to be in the war from the start and no have the luxuary of a a couple of years to prepare......

[Username]

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

[sarcasm]

Yes, its called the brain. Soldiers count rounds. If they don't then there is another, audible indicator built into the design. The head of the bolt goes forward when the trigger is pulled and it goes "click!"

[/sarcasm]

Perhaps I'm being too harsh but it appears to me that people assume that unless your weapon flashes in letters 10 feet high to you that its empty or holds open its bolt or does wonderful things, the user won't know the magazine is empty or that it needs reloading.

They are trained to know, people. Trained.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Brian the Brained

You arent being harsh but just not quite on top of the discussion.

Its possible that a bolt action weapon can be:

1. cycled discarding the last round

2. not loaded but the bolt put forward

3. aimed

4. "fired"

5. mistake realized

6. Bolt retracted

7. as many strippers as needed put in as quickly as possibly

8. back to business as "training" dictated.

Training survives combat like any good plan survives enemy contact. So your 'advice' isnt based on experience. US weapons were.

The 'brain' and 'counting' is crap. All it would take is a little break between the drill and reality would send the drill on its way. The drill assume that a soldier is going to move around and keep his weapon load in his mind. Absolutely inane firing line BS and laughable. More fodder that the M1 Garand is better.

Lewis

[PJungnitsch]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>By WWII the British had under development a new calibre and a new weapon (a semi-auto) BUT with the demands of war the ability to change courses in mid-stream prevented it.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

"The combination of severe economic problems and vast quantities of standard .303" weapons and ammunition in store after the First World War militated against the adoption of any new calibre. The 1930s rearmament programme therefore saw such weapons as the American Browning aircraft machine gun and the Czech ZB30 (better known in its British incarnation as the Bren Gun) expensively redesigned to fire the rimmed cartridge."

A nice explanation of the progress of British military rifle cartridges

here

[Stalin's Organ]

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

Its possible that a bolt action weapon can be:

1. cycled discarding the last round

2. not loaded but the bolt put forward

3. aimed

4. "fired"

5. mistake realized

6. Bolt retracted

7. as many strippers as needed put in as quickly as possibly

8. back to business as "training" dictated.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It's also possible that the owner of an M1 might not notice the ejection of the loading clip, since I believe that it didn't make much of a sound until it landed, and it might be too close to the face to be noticed in the genral hullabalo of combat.

Also I believe that the clip was known to indicate the empty magazine to the enemy, which surely must be a point against the thing!

Plus of course the failure to feed a round means that an empty bolt action feels different to a full one so it might be picked up befoer the shot was "fired", and it really, erally is NOT that hard to rememer how many rounds you had on board - I used to be able to do it with 20-round magazines firing semi-auto over a period of half an hour or more.

and, lastly, the action you metnion is pretty much the same for the M-16 n'est pas? And didn't you say somewhere that teh M-16 action means that it has an inbuilt indicator to therifleman that his mag's empty? So therefore so does the bolt action rifle!! lol

[Slapdragon]

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

It's also possible that the owner of an M1 might not notice the ejection of the loading clip, since I believe that it didn't make much of a sound until it landed, and it might be too close to the face to be noticed in the genral hullabalo of combat.

Also I believe that the clip was known to indicate the empty magazine to the enemy, which surely must be a point against the thing!

Plus of course the failure to feed a round means that an empty bolt action feels different to a full one so it might be picked up befoer the shot was "fired", and it really, erally is NOT that hard to rememer how many rounds you had on board - I used to be able to do it with 20-round magazines firing semi-auto over a period of half an hour or more.

and, lastly, the action you metnion is pretty much the same for the M-16 n'est pas? And didn't you say somewhere that teh M-16 action means that it has an inbuilt indicator to therifleman that his mag's empty? So therefore so does the bolt action rifle!! lol<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually, you are wrong about the M1. When firing one on the range with lots of other shooters, I never hear the clip but it is totally and immediately obvious that it has come out since it spins in front of your face like an ejected cartirdge only much bigger.

The M16 does not have the same system of telling when it is unloaded as a bolt action. Most bolt actions have no system of telling other than a click instead of a bang (unless you watch your chamber. The M16, unless you mag fails, holds open after the last round like an automatic pistol and the hammer is locked to the rear so the trigger becomes tight. No mistake there at all.

[Username]

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

Actually, you are wrong about the M1. When firing one on the range with lots of other shooters, I never hear the clip but it is totally and immediately obvious that it has come out since it spins in front of your face like an ejected cartirdge only much bigger.

The M16 does not have the same system of telling when it is unloaded as a bolt action. Most bolt actions have no system of telling other than a click instead of a bang (unless you watch your chamber. The M16, unless you mag fails, holds open after the last round like an automatic pistol and the hammer is locked to the rear so the trigger becomes tight. No mistake there at all.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

So there you go.

I have seen many M1 Garands being fired and never is it in doubt when the last round is fired. I have fired plenty of M16 and AR15 and it is very evident when you are out of ammo also.

Stalin you have alot of experience with weapons huh?

Lewis

[Hun Hunter]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Richard Morgan:

The following passage is from an account of an Anglo-American (5 D.C.L.I/ 506 Regimental Combat team - 101st Airborne)assault on the village of Opheusden that took place on Oct 6th 1944.

A little after 4pm, on a prearranged whistle signal given by the American company commander, both forces attacked. On neither side of the road was much opposition met during the first two hundred yards, but thereafter German resistance stiffened and the solid houses that lined the village street made ideal strongpoints. All might have gone well had the Americans not begun to run short of ammunition. They had by now been in battle for several days and while quick-firing automatic weapons permit a tremendous weight of metal to be directed quickly on to a target the problem of maintaining a forward supply of ammunition in the fluid fighting that was now taking place was a very difficult one. There was nothing for it but to carry out an orderly withdrawal back to the mill.

Major E.G. Godfrey M.C. The Duke of Cornwall's Light Infantry 1939-45 Images Publishing (Malvern)Ltd 1994 p-344.

I think that there may be some interesting comparisons to be drawn from this with regard to British and U.S. doctrines and the capabilities of their respective infantry weapons - don't you?

Cheers,

Richard <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is so rich it forced me out of lurk mode......

The name Opheusden rang a bell for some reason so I jerked my copy of The Road to Arnhem (written by Don Burgett 506th vet)off the bookshelf. This battle is covered well from the grunts (Burgett's) viewpoint. At no time does he mention an ammunition shortage but he does have some interesting things to say about the 5th Bn D.C.L.I.

"The British 5th Battalion, Duke of Cornwall's Light Infantry (DCLI), formed up in lines of skimishers to walk shoulder to shoulder across the open fields." (page 159 for those following along at home)

A few lines later (after the Krauts open fire):

"Many of the British went down but still they pressed forward, closing the gaps blown in their lines by the barrage. They marched steadily on, firing their Enfields from the hip, working the bolts, and firing again. The English soldiers were brave to a fault, staying in the line and moving forward through the crush of artillery, machine-gun and small-arms fire. They marched unwaveringly to their deaths. This sort of attack went out with the bloody assaults of our Civil War in the 1800s." (Page 160)

A few lines later about his own unit (1/506th):

"Meanwhile we ran forward in short rushes, diving into ditches, holes and doorways - anyplace that offered cover as we made our way forward. We were suffering casualties, but not like the English."

and then...

"The Germans began sending troops to the right and left around our flanks in an effort to envelop us. We pulled our flanks in and folded them back to protect us there. The British on our left were no more. They had been decimated, leaving us exposed on that flank. Our attack slowed. More mortar rounds rained down on us since they were no longer needed to hit the British lines. Finally our attack came to a stop. The intense artillery pounding we were taking was too much to withstand. We were forced to withdraw." (page 161)

He does go on to complement the DCLI on being brave soldiers a few pages later.

What I learned from this (sarcasm on):

1. Marching fire isn't just for Patton's 3rd Army, everyone can play, even allies!

2. Evidently crack units don't know when they are out of ammunition, only adjacent units do. (Burgett never mentions an ammo problem at all)

3. In an act of treason, many British soldiers did not use aimed fire as instructed (Unless they were such infantry killing machines that they could precisely aim their Enfields from the hip)

(sarcasm off)

Obviously there are two sides (at least) to every story. Also, more importantly, I highly recommend all three of Burgett's books.

Greg

--

edited for spelling (duh..)

[ 08-23-2001: Message edited by: Hun Hunter ]