British/Commonwealth Infantry weapons...poor?

[Username]

I am literally falling on the floor!!!!!!

I remember reading that too. I enjoyed the seven roads and Currahhee best though.

Funny.

Lewis

[Slapdragon]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Hun Hunter:

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 ]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Damn, I got the same book down ("A Screaming Eagle in Holland") and sure enough, your quotes are on. So I got down the US Army "Fact File" by Colonel Fisher on the screaming eagles. No problem with ammo, no mention of British problems either though (that ammo radar must have been bad). Very interesting.

[Username]

sorry..uh..Christ/GOD..hep me.. uh ... still laughin..hehe..uh

Lewis

[Username]

Maybe if I walked around holding a flaming hot BREN barrel will I stop laughing.. heheh.,.... woo.. heheh HARAHARHAAAARRA..eee...uh..OH GOD!!!.. oohjeez..heehee

nope..god..still laughin

Lewis

[Stalin's Organ]

<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.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I sit corrected.

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

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>

Um, well that's what I meant in general terms... you pull the trigeger and something happens other than what you expected, and that's how you know you're out of ammo..........

[Username]

OK..OK..I am in control now..(heh)..yeah. I am a soldier. Control is the middle name.

(hmm-heh-hmm-hehheh-{heehee}...HA..heehooooo-HAHAHA!!!!)

What was the brit battalion that walked into a german unit that was in crossed linked tunnels? They literally were 3-4 year vets from the eastern front and wiped out the brits while they walked backwards?

OK. That was bad. But who was it?

Lewis

[Slapdragon]

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

Um, well that's what I meant in general terms... you pull the trigeger and something happens other than what you expected, and that's how you know you're out of ammo..........<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

But there is a big difference. With the M16 (and the M1 for that matter) your bolt is held back by the bolt release, which was placed in the way of the bolt by the magazine follower or the ejector spring in the M1. You never shoot and get a click because the hammer is restrained in both weapons and the trigger either limp or tight. Since the hammer is forced back and locked by the bolt, and the trigger is no connected (giving it an odd feel) you never pull it. With the M16 you look yp and the bolt is open. With the Garand it was obvious because the clip just went "splong" across your vision, time to reload. In the M16 you eject a magazine and replace it then hit the bolt release. With the M1 you jamp a en bloc clip in and the weapon automatically rams home a round (and your fingers if you are not fast, but you get used to it and after a while it never bites).

In a bolt action, your last shot is a "plonk" on an empty chamber unless you keep track or keep your eye on the mag well. You now have to manually open the bolt, insert the stripper, strip the stripper in most models (shove down the bullets), ram forward the bolt (in some models you pluck out the stripper, in some like the Mauser the bolt throws it clear). You are now ready to fire again, but it took you at least 3 extra steps and a second or two if you asre fast more than the M16/M1 to complete the action.

[Slapdragon]

Stalin, do they have a shooting range with weapons for rent in NZ? This will make much more sense if you can fire a few different types of weapons.

[Username]

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

In a bolt action, your last shot is a "plonk" on an empty chamber unless you keep track or keep your eye on the mag well. You now have to manually open the bolt, insert the stripper, strip the stripper in most models (shove down the bullets), ram forward the bolt (in some models you pluck out the stripper, in some like the Mauser the bolt throws it clear). You are now ready to fire again, but it took you at least 3 extra steps and a second or two if you asre fast more than the M16/M1 to complete the action.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Even Slappy gets this. You shoot huh slapster?

[Slapdragon]

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

Even Slappy gets this. You shoot huh slapster?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I was born on a farm -- you shoot from about age 6.

[Brian]

Originally posted by Username:

Brian the Brained

[Username]

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

Oh, well, when you have something of substance to say, get back to me, OK?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You havent dropped any sub here in this page either. K?

Lewis

[Richard Morgan]

Dear Hun Hunter,

Who is the publisher of Don Burgett's Road to Arnhem, and is it still in print? I want to get hold of a copy This seems to be a classic case of how two different accounts of the same event can completely contradict each other. The truth (as always) probably lies somewhere in-between. This thread is starting to become rewarding (at last.) If you want me to send you the whole DCLI account complete with map, I would be only too happy to oblige. This battle makes the basis for a very good scenario, only I lack detailed information on the American forces involved and their deployment. Anything that you could do to help in this respect would be greatly appreciated

Cheers,

Richard.

P.S. A couple of comments on M1/Lee Enfield that need making after other posts in the thread. The M1 makes its TIING noise AS the clip is being ejected from the rifle. The dreaded musical note does not happen when the clip hits the ground. With regard to all this counting to 10 business,(Lee Enfield) closing a bolt on an empty rifle has a completely different feel from chambering the next round and is a reliable indication that the weapon is empty. Counting to 10 would still be useful though...

[Tero]

Guys, guys !

Everybody knows the M16 is inferior to the AK47/74 family. Why bring such a crappy piece of hardware up in a debate like this ?

Back on the subject: were the WWII era British/Commonwealth weapons poor ?

If they were, were they poor because of the operating principle, design, deployment or because they were British/Commonwealth weapons ?

[Brian Rock]

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

I'd suggest you need to read what I've already posted a little bit more closely, if you cannot see I've already stated why, at least twice BTW, armies have abandoned the use of bolt-action rifles - training. It is easier to train a soldier to fire a semi-automatic weapon at a high rate than it is to train him to fire a bolt-action weapon. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'd suggest you either learn to form more coherent arguments.

Yes, I read your comments that "the only advantage of the M1 over the Enfield was that you could give a man off the street an M1 and know he could fire 8 rounds a minute, whereas to get to the much higher rate of 20 rounds a minute for a .303 SMLE, you had to put in quite intensive training."

You also indicate that you believe Commonwealth troops were better trained. Indeed, if I take the previous sentence at face value, at least some of these highly trained troops were capable of putting out 250% the amount of firepower, and aimed firepower at that.

So, if you are capable of providing the appropriate levels of training, and that training is producing a superior outcome, then there is no benefit in a faster training cycle. My question still stands: why change?

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

I've never denied that semi-automatic weapons allow a higher rate of fire to be attained… <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Really? Then what do I make of your earlier comment:

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

As I have noted, the theoretical rate of fire for the SMLE was in fact superior to that of the M1. You are basing your views IMO on a spurious idea that the M1 actually had a superior rate of fire to the SMLE, when in reality it did not...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

First you say the M1 didn't have a superior rate of fire, Now you say you've never denied it. I'd suggest you need to read what you've already posted a little bit more closely.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> …I just question if the M1 Garand is the wonder weapon its portrayed to be by most Americans. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This may be true of Lewis - I'll let him answer that. Otherwise there have been no claims that the M1 is a wonder weapon. What I've seen are arguments that CM is correct in giving the M1 a marginal increase in effectiveness. Perhaps you're the one erecting a strawman here.

Now can we stop the pissing contest and simply focus on the issues?

[ 08-23-2001: Message edited by: Brian Rock ]

[Tero]

Originally posted by Brian Rock:

What I've seen are arguments that CM is correct in giving the M1 a marginal increase in effectiveness.

Why is the increase correct ? Because it is an American weapon ? Water cooled HMG's (Vickers) get shafted eventhough they were superior in many respects to the air cooled LMG/HMG hybrids.

People seem to think that because of the semi/full automatic weapons hegemony in the battlefield bolt action rifles fell into virtual disuse and became a liability whereas semiauto rifles like the Garand prevailed. Is this really how it went down ?

The Garand was admittedly a good semiauto rifle, mechanically.

However, the facts pertaining its actual deployment include:

- the prevalent Allied (?) walking fire tactics did not do the job it was supposed to (not even for the US troops armed with Garand )

- US troops were, because of their marksmanship training, predisposed NOT to fire it unless a clear target presented itself.

- US troops clearly felt they needed more ROF and they went for an additional BAR (which is a magazine fed automatic rifle) instead of additional SMG('s) or a belt fed LMG. The British/Commonwealth troops retained pretty much the same basic squad structure throughout the campaign. The changes the Germans made in their formations when they increased the number of full auto capable weapons in a squad was brought on by their experiences in the Eastern Front, not in the Western Front.

- US tactics and doctrine (what about the British ? )in general did not regard the infantryman to be the correct/proper tool for applying suppressive fire on enemy positions. The Garand was an ideal suppressor but was it used as one ? Was some of its potential left unused ?

[ 08-23-2001: Message edited by: tero ]

[Brian]

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

You havent dropped any sub here in this page either. K?

Lewis<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

IYO. IMO, I beg to differ. I know I have quite a few advantages over the majority (with one notable exception) in that I have been taught how to use both the SMLE and the Bren in the correct manner, according to very similar doctrine to that utilised by the British in WWII, within a military environment.

Yet, you appear to believe that is of little or no value in a discussion about British/Commonwealth weapons. I wonder why?

So, exactly what is your experience again, Lewis?

[Fairbairn-Sykes]

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

...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.

Lewis<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

[Stalin's Organ]

Nice photo!

Just goes to show that even with all it's shortcomings as an LMG teh bAR still had more firepower than either a SMLE or a Garand!

Slap and Leis - I've fired an M-16 - several dozen of them when they were standard long arm in hte NZ army, likewise with the FNFAL, FNMAG and L4 Bren LMG.

I've also fired an AK47 (only once tho), SMLE, Mk4 and Moisson Nagant full length and M44 carbine.

The auto weapons were a few years ago now, the SMLE and Moissons were last year in Oklahoma. My neighbour is a hunter with a range of bolt action rifles.

While I'm not an owner myself I count myself as familiar wit hthe concepts. I had forgotten that the M-16 bolt stays open, but my point remains - there are degrees of everything. Al lweapons tell you when they're empty somehow, even if it's just by not going "bang" - the M1 is actually different from all others in that it does something before you pull the trigger without any ammo on board. In that respect it is better than any other weapon I'm familiar with.

Yet I keep reading that the sound of a clip being ejected was hated by the troops because they thought the enemy could hear it and know they had no ammo left......so how much use was it really?

[Tero]

http://carlisle-www.army.mil/cgi-bin/usamhi/DL/showdoc.pl?docnum=352

Handbook on German Forces (TM 30-410), May 1945, Chaps IV-VII

I. Basic Doctrines

.... Their principal weaknesses in this regard have been their failure to integrate

these new techniques with established arms and tactics - German field artillery, for example, did not maintain pace with German armor - and their devotion to automatic weapons at the expense of accuracy.

Them appels (or oranges depending on your personal tastes) taste a bit queer if all you guys have said about the excellence of the M1 Garand and how it was deployed (as per training manual tactics and doctrine or as per actual combat tactics) are true.

[ 08-23-2001: Message edited by: tero ]

[Slapdragon]

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

http://carlisle-www.army.mil/cgi-bin/usamhi/DL/showdoc.pl?docnum=352

Handbook on German Forces (TM 30-410), May 1945, Chaps IV-VII

I. Basic Doctrines

.... Their principal weaknesses in this regard have been their failure to integrate

these new techniques with established arms and tactics - German field artillery, for example, did not maintain pace with German armor - [qb]and their devotion to automatic weapons at the expense of accuracy.

Them appels (or oranges depending on your personal tastes) taste a bit queer if all you guys have said about the excellence of the M1 Garand and how it was deployed (as per training manual tactics and doctrine or as per actual combat tactics) are true.

[ 08-23-2001: Message edited by: tero ][/QB]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Wonderful Tero! As Vanir pointed out, in your quest to be the ultimate German bigot, you end up proving the opposite you set out to prove.

That TM was written when the US Army was resisting the bringing of automatic weapons into the squad, and was wrong. The US Army was wrong in its entire concept of aimed fire. The soldiers knew it, and the data would later come out in the SPIW, SAWS, and other studies conducted in the 1950s and 1960s.

So, when a stuffed shirt says the Germans were wrong to have squad level automatic weapons over single shots, you are actually seeing the mistake of a military so set in its ways that it would take 20 years to adopt a real autoloading automatic capable rifle.

The M1 was an excellent weapon for what it was. It was the most reliable semi-auto put into service (more reliable than the MP-44) was incredibly durable (equal to the M1903 as set out by its original design specs) and it was fully tested and the bugs worked out by war's start. Compared to a bolt action, it was better at what the soldiers actually did -- that is shoot for suppression because it had a higher rate of fire.

Of course when you consider the MP-44 as an automatic weapon, the M-1 pales since the MP-44 has teh right combination of weight, ability to send lead down range, and large magazine capacity.

[Tero]

Originally posted by Slapdragon:

Wonderful Tero! As Vanir pointed out, in your quest to be the ultimate German bigot, you end up proving the opposite you set out to prove.

Wonderful, Slapdragon. In your quest to best me in debate even once after that one time I proved your facts to be less than 100% accurate you have have managed to become target fixated. You have taken into your sights completely the wrong point.

This debate is about the British/Commonwealth Infantry weapons and if the US weapons (and ultimately their tactics and doctrine) were better than those of the British/Commonwealth forces.

I presented this quote from an official period US Army source which happened to be in conjunction with the German forces. But the quote also clearly brings out the way the US military thought about some fundamental factors that shaped the WWII and how it is seen today.

Should I have omitted all references to the Germans from the quote ? Does it really make me the ultimate German bigot if I happen use a quote that mentions the Germans in the same sentence as the official US military view on the matter of infantry small arms and how they should or should not be used ?

From the debate dynamics POV I fail to see how the Germans can be cathegorically excluded from the debate since both the US troops and the British/Commonwealth engaged them in ETO. And it was the combat actions against the Germans not against each other, that shaped the way in which the respective forces evolved.

That TM was written when the US Army was resisting the bringing of automatic weapons into the squad, and was wrong. The US Army was wrong in its entire concept of aimed fire.

Yes. Did this reflect the US training, tactics and doctrine back then ? How did the US replacement practice influence this development ? Was the basic training altered during WWII to run contrary to the official tactics and doctrine ? Were the replacement troops trained on the latest developments and trends or was it an OJT process that eliminated slow learners ? Did the recruits have time to assimilate what they had learned before they landed in the **** knee deep, but head first ?

The soldiers knew it, and the data would later come out in the SPIW, SAWS, and other studies conducted in the 1950s and 1960s.

What about the boot brown bar who replaced the veteran lt who became KIA ? Patton for one seems to have thought walking fire was the best possible tactics. And I would venture to think he was no boot brown bar.

And what happened after WWII is irrelevant anyway. Lets look at it this way: IF the WWII ETO combat tactics evolved beyond the official text book tactics howcome they had to do all the studies in the 50's and 60's ? Why did they not tap into their pool of experienced soldiers right after the war to extract real life combat experiences ?

So, when a stuffed shirt says the Germans were wrong to have squad level automatic weapons over single shots, you are actually seeing the mistake of a military so set in its ways that it would take 20 years to adopt a real autoloading automatic capable rifle.

No. The quote shows the opinion that was prevalent in the US military at the time of WWII. All that happened later is irrelevant. You, as an accomplished scholar, should know that you can not read into facts retroactively things that stand to reason to you but were totally in the dark for the men back then.

The M1 was an excellent weapon for what it was.

I have not denied that at any junction.

Compared to a bolt action, it was better at what the soldiers actually did -- that is shoot for suppression because it had a higher rate of fire.

Ay, there's the rub. All the sources I have so far procured and which even Vanir has brought out indicate most of the time it was NOT shot for suppression.

I think we all agree the bolt action rifle was only poor to adequate as a suppressor. From the archival and oral historical sources I can only conclude that while the M1 could have been a suppressor par excellence it was in fact used most of the time like the other armies used their bolt action rifles. That played down the technical ROF benefit it had.

Of course when you consider the MP-44 as an automatic weapon, the M-1 pales since the MP-44 has teh right combination of weight, ability to send lead down range, and large magazine capacity.

Yes. But since this debate is basically Lee-Enfield vs M1 all the refences to MP-44 (or SMG's) must be seen for what they are, for refence only.

[ 08-23-2001: Message edited by: tero ]

[Hun Hunter]

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

Dear Hun Hunter,

Who is the publisher of Don Burgett's Road to Arnhem, and is it still in print? I want to get hold of a copy This seems to be a classic case of how two different accounts of the same event can completely contradict each other. The truth (as always) probably lies somewhere in-between. This thread is starting to become rewarding (at last.) If you want me to send you the whole DCLI account complete with map, I would be only too happy to oblige. This battle makes the basis for a very good scenario, only I lack detailed information on the American forces involved and their deployment. Anything that you could do to help in this respect would be greatly appreciated

Cheers,

Richard.

P.S. A couple of comments on M1/Lee Enfield that need making after other posts in the thread. The M1 makes its TIING noise AS the clip is being ejected from the rifle. The dreaded musical note does not happen when the clip hits the ground. With regard to all this counting to 10 business,(Lee Enfield) closing a bolt on an empty rifle has a completely different feel from chambering the next round and is a reliable indication that the weapon is empty. Counting to 10 would still be useful though... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Richard,

I agree the truth is somewhere in the middle. I'm glad you got that point and hopefully did not think I was Brit-bashing. My copy of The Road to Arnhem by Donald Burgett is the inexpensive paperback version published by Dell. It is still in print and easy to locate in stores (at least here in the US). Burgett was just a lowly trooper in the 506th. He fought in all three of their major campaigns and through to the end of the war. I believe he wrote his accounts immediately after the war (thought they were not published right away). He does cover this battle in quite some detail, though he may lack a little info on what you may need to make a scenario. At least he seems to be able to tell a Mk IV from a Panther or Tiger. His other books are Seven Roads to Hell (Bulge) and Curahee! (Normandy, with a bit about training). In my opinion you can't go wrong with any of them.

I do find it funny that many people claim combining British and American troops in the same battle is gamey. While not the norm, there are many cases were it happened, especially in NW Europe.

It would be great to get your info on the battle, send it to me at HnsGreg@aol.com , thanks a million.

Greg

[Stixx]

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

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 with an SMLE or derivative is a sniper.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

True. They might not all of been snipers but...All of the regular infantry could place 20 rounds in a 1 foot square target at 100 yards. It was known as the mad minute.

[Simon Fox]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The US Army was wrong in its entire concept of aimed fire. The soldiers knew it, and the data would later come out in the SPIW, SAWS, and other studies conducted in the 1950s and 1960s.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> So how is it that other countries who did listen to their soldiers during WW2 and did adapt their infantry training and doctrine did not come to the same conclusions? I am not trying to be argumentative I just find it interesting. The definition of suppressive fire may differ or even that of 'aimed' fire. I wonder whether for example the US had a more capable squad LMG in WW2 what would have happened then. The whole issue is also clouded by the rather fuzzy distinction between the fundamental capabilities of a weapon and the way it was tactically employed. All in all an interesting subject with varied opinions and even varied "lessons from combat".