British/Commonwealth Infantry weapons...poor?

[Brian]

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

[QB]

The Enfield was a throw back to another era. One where "marksmanship and drill" will carry the day. It had it's place in WWII but it was carrying the torch and handed it off to the future during this conflict.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

"Throwback"? "Remainant" perhaps but as it was originally designed at the end of the 19th century/early 20th as were the 98K and the Springfield, it wasn't out of place.

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

The Garand was a sign of things to come. Firepower as an actual "element" on the battlefield had come into being. Apllication of masses superior fire to win the day was really coming of age.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

How did the .303 SMLE prevent that? 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.

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

If you have a platoon which can put out a hail of gunfire over an area, the enemy will be supressed. Indirect fire, Tank fire or even close assault is then possible. Firepower, properly applied is the essential ingredient to "winning the Firefight". The M1 was far better suited for this job. It put more firepower in the hands of the infantry man so that he could in fact do his primary job..provide protection for major weapon systems. Now infantry don't like to here that but it is essentially the truth. The act of closing with and destroying the enemy and "holding the ground" has become secondary to providing security for the major weapons systems, MGs, Tanks, AT systems and mortars.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

If "holding the ground" has become secondary, whom are the infantry guarding those MGs, Tanks, AT systems and mortars _from_, if not the enemy's infantry? Are you suggesting that the enemy has got it wrong? Appears to me that you've surrendered the initiative and allowed the enemy to dictate to you, how your forces will be employed while you've allowed him free reighn.

The primary role of the PBI has and remains to this day, the "siezing and holding of ground" - it is the only arm which can do it. All other arms exist to support it in its mission.

[Brian]

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

[QB]

You stated:

quote:

Originally posted by Brian:

I admit I don't have numbers but you should note I did not confine my remarks to the "ETO" (European Theatre of Operations?) but

to the "US Army" as a whole.

But earlier you said:

quote:

Originally posted by Brian:

Springfields were never replaced and I'm surprised to see the game has fallen for the Hollywood ideal rather than reality.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually, what I said was:

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

But then, not all of the US Army was armed with M1's, so the point is moot IMO. Springfields were never replaced and I'm surprised to see the game has fallen for the Hollywood ideal rather than reality.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'd recommend that you go back to the original text, rather than relying upon a secondhand, edited version.

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

Since this game is limited to 1944 and 1945 in the ETO, I made the reasonable deduction that you had a problem with M1 use in that theatre and that time. You are now changing your story.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I believe you made an assumption, not a deduction. Again, I recommend that you go back to the original text, where I clearly used the words, "US Army" not "US Army in the ETO". I stand by my statement - "Springfields were never replaced" - they continued in use going by all the information I have available.

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

Also,

quote:

Originally posted by Brian:

Which is all I suggested. Deciding upon whether it was "some" or "most" is an argument I won't get into.

But you said in the original comment:

"US military forces were well known and noted for their profligate over-use of firepower to attempt to solve all tactical problems." (emphasis added).

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Errr, how does that contradict what I said? I suggest you look up the word "attempt" in a dictionary. I believe again, you've made an assumption, based more around what you believe I meant, rather than what I actually said.

[Marlow]

Let me spell it out for you in more detail. You stated:

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

I admit I don't have numbers but you should note I did not confine my remarks to the "ETO" (European Theatre of Operations?) but to the "US Army" as a whole. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This implies that all along you were talking about the Army as a whole, but earlier you said:

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

Springfields were never replaced and I'm surprised to see the game has fallen for the Hollywood ideal rather than reality. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is basically saying that since the "game" does not include M-1903s, they are falling for some sort of "hollywood" version of U.S. forces. Because the game is limited to 1944 and 1945 in the ETO, this would only be mismodeling if, in fact, M-1903s were used in that theatre and that time. Also, while I am going on memory, everything I have read has said that Springfields were already on their way out as the standard infantry weapon by 1941 (although it remained the sniper weapon of choice for some time). By 1944, they were out of service with infantry soldiers in Europe (and probably the Pacific).

Also,

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

Which is all I suggested. Deciding upon whether it was "some" or "most" is an argument I won't get into. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

But you said:

"US military forces were well known and noted for their profligate over-use of firepower to attempt to solve all tactical problems." (emphasis added).

How does this contradict what you said? You made a sweeping generalization that the U.S. used over-firepower to attempt to solve, not "some tactical problems," or "most tactical problems," but "all tactical problems." I am only pointing out that such broad generalizations are usually incorrect.

[Vanir Ausf B]

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

.303 SMLE was expected to be able to fire as many rounds as a less-well-trained soldier with a L1a1 <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

But what if both soldiers are equally well trained? Why do you insist on comparing well trained soldiers using bolt actions with less-well-trained soldiers on the semi-auto?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>No, thats the nature of the American view of combat. There is a profound difference in philosphy between the British and American ideas on the matter.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Had nothing to do with philosophy.

I'll say it again: US soldiers were taught to not fire at a target they could not see. It was through combat expirience that they learned that this was poor tactics. Soldiers who did this ended up not shooting at anything as the enemy was rarely visible.

Suppression is king of the battlefield.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>US military forces were well known and noted for their profligate over-use of firepower to attempt to solve all tactical problems.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The "don't fire 'till you see the whites of their eyes" mentality was obsolete by the turn of the century. It took some longer than others to realize this. Perhaps some still have not.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The Springfield was never fully replaced in the US Army by the Garand. Therefore, attempting to claim that the US Army only utilised or that all units should be modelled as being armed with the Garand is inherently false.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Someone calls you on this and you say you didn't mean the ETO, but you don't say were you did mean.

Its common knowledge that some Springfields were used throughout the war, but mostly as sniper rifles. I have not read anything of frontline units anywhere not using the M1 if available (mid to late war). Saying you've seen some pictures of some GIs carrying Springfields does not prove your case.

[ 08-17-2001: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]

[Marlow]

Also, while we are at it, I stated that veteran recollections are often suspect. To which you replied.

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

My, what an interesting viewpoint you hold

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I am quite frankly amazed that a "historian" needs to be told that eyewitness recollections are often unreliable. Getting an accurate story from veteran accounts requires extensive cross-reference to other witnesses and documentary or physical evidence. Later you state that you did check for corroboration, but that was not apparent in your original post.

[Vanir Ausf B]

Read It

The "U.S. Rifle, Caliber .30, M1 rifle" (or Garand) was the standard-issue rifle for American infantry. Named after its inventor, John C. Garand, it was the first semiautomatic rifle widely used in combat. Although it was adopted by the army in 1936, the Garand was in short supply until 1943, but by the end of the war more than 4 million had been produced. The Garand was easy to disassemble and clean, and its combination of caliber, muzzle velocity, and semiautomatic operation provided superior firepower over bolt-action rifles. Its only weakness was that partially fired clips were so difficult to reload that GIs tended to simply fire off the remaining rounds and insert a new clip.

...

Officially designated "U.S. Rifle, Caliber .30, Model of 1903," it was better known as the Springfield, the Springfield '03, or simply the '03. This bolt-action rifle was adopted by the U.S. army in 1903 and remained the standard issue rifle of America's armed forces until 1936. In 1906, the .30-caliber cartridge was modified and designated the "M1906 Cartridge"; it became widely known as the .30-06. This cartridge was the standard U.S. rifle and machine gun cartridge for the next 50 years. In 1936, the Springfield '03 was replaced by the M1 Garand, but many Springfields saw service in World War II. In the Normandy Campaign, the Springfield was used primarily as a sniper weapon; the vast majority of infantrymen preferred semiautomatic and automatic weapons to the bolt-action rifle. Any advantage the Springfield may have had in accuracy was more than offset by the rate of fire the Garand, M1 Carbine, and Browning automatic rifle offered.

More Stuff

The Lee Enfield No. 4 was the result of over 30 years of refinement in bolt-action rifle performance. This rifle’s genesis was the Lee Model 1895 rifle, developed by James Lee (a Scotsman who became an American citizen). The Model 1895 fired a high-velocity 6-millimeter (0.236-inch) round; however, its straight-pull bolt proved to be difficult to operate in combat conditions.In 1907, the short-magazine Lee Enfield (SMLE) Mark II was introduced; the SMLE Mark III followed a few years later. These rifles used a rotating (rather than straight) bolt action and were the standard British infantry rifles during World War I. This smoothly operating bolt enabled a trained soldier to fire up to 15 aimed shots per minute.Further simplification of the SMLE design resulted in the Lee Enfield No. 4. Developed in 1928, it was not produced in quantity until 1941 when it became the standard British infantry rifle.

A Little More

The Lee Enfield is a legendary rifle which served with British and Commonwealth military forces from the end of the 19th century, through the course of World War II. It is an accurate, reliable bolt-action rifle, and can still be found in the hands of a number of shooters and collectors. It is still issued to Canadian Rangers, due to its consistent performance in arctic conditions. Average rate of fire is 8-15 rpm.

I'll post more damning evidence as soon as the board's search engine is in the mood to work.

[ 08-17-2001: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]

[The_Capt]

OK to respond to a couple,

Slapdragon,

You point may be true as to a doctrine change but as has been stated by many it was a "de facto" change which happened in combat. The M1 provided for a more accurate and simple (training-wise) volume of fire. Now as to whether that was the reason for making the Garand semi-auto, I do not know. It was on the cusp of new way of thinking.

Brian,

Your choice of words on your first point is much better than my original.

I have issue with the "theoretical rate of fire" of the Enfield. I do not believe that a bolt action weapon can be fired as quickly as a semi-automatic one. It is simple mechanics, the distance a trigger finger has to go is much smaller than the four hand motions required to load the chamber of the Enfield, return it to the shoulder and fire. I simply do not believe it or if it does have any basis it was under testing which seems suspect.

As to the role of the infantry, well don't look at me, I do not run the Army. The current basic rifleman is become a thing of the past. I will speak to Canadian doctrine because it is what I know, someone with American knowledge can interject that doctrine if they wish.

A rifle section of 10 men consists of

1xSect Commander

1XSect 2 i/c

2x Eryx (ATGM crew)

2x C-9 or SAW

1x Grenadier (M203 gernade launcher)

That leaves 3 basic riflemen BUT i fyou saddle the section with a GPMG or .50 Cal 2 more troops are taken up.

So the role of the basic rifleman has changed from primary bayonette point to security.

As to the infantry in general, they now secure and man the weapon systems, which by threat or real firepower "sieze and hold the ground". So how does that relate to the "personal weapon" which started all of this? Well marksmanship means less and less. Supression so that the other weapon systems can do the real killing has become more important.

This is just the start, as weapon systems become more and more complex the "man-in-the-loop" becomes more custodial than an actual player. Which is a bad situation if you ask me but the way things seem to be going.

I am not sure what your "enemy dictating" statement was about, in reality it is th requirement to push the firepower forward which has driven this.

[ 08-17-2001: Message edited by: The_Capt ]

[Spook]

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

As to the infantry in general, they now secure and man the weapon systems, which by threat or real firepower "sieze and hold the ground". So how does that relate to the "personal weapon" which started all of this? Well marksmanship means less and less. Supression so that the other weapon systems can do the real killing has become more important.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

BINGO.

[ 08-17-2001: Message edited by: Spook ]

[Smack]

Then how did the Americans fare no better at Hedgerow fighting or street fighting the the British!!?! Thats because the Germans could suppress better than the British or Americans, and the diffrerence beetwen rifles/section weapons is virtually none. The Americans had no advantage because of thier rifles, this is proven because the fact that the British and Americans facing the same amount of troops in similar conditions fared no better then the British. You all seem to tell me that the Garand was better than the British Rifle at Suppression, yet there is no evidence of that bieng the case. The Americans didnt seemed to fare any better than the British. So I really, where was this advantage...I just dont see it!?

[Pak40]

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

Then how did the Americans fare no better at Hedgerow fighting or street fighting the the British!!?!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

First off, there are many many factors that dictate who is better in combat, not just the main rifle for an Army. Secondly, the Americans did, in the end of Normandy fighting, fare better than the British. The Americans broke out.

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

Thats because the Germans could suppress better than the British or Americans, and the diffrerence beetwen rifles/section weapons is virtually none. The Americans had no advantage because of thier rifles, this is proven because the fact that the British and Americans facing the same amount of troops in similar conditions fared no better then the British.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Really, how was this proven? The only true test of this would have been to pit two equally trained American and British Squads against each other, armed with only the rifles in question.

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

You all seem to tell me that the Garand was better than the British Rifle at Suppression, yet there is no evidence of that bieng the case.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

WHAT?!?!?!? Take a look at your very first post. You state that the Enfield had a rate of fire of 15-20 rounds per minute. Rate of fire, as we all know, is one of the main factors that helps produce suppression. The Garand can EASILY double that in.

They are both good long distance shots and reliable but the Garand has the edge with the rate of fire.

[Chad Harrison]

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

M-1 thumb, however, is extremely unpleasant. Avoid it at all costs.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

i would like to have a moment of silence for all of us poor suckers who had to learn the hard way what a "garand thumb" is. may the tip of their finger rest in peace, and all their curse words be forgotton . . .

[Slapdragon]

One other thing adding to this. I own a Garand. I also own a Mauser action Czech rifle that fires from 10 rd strippers. In shooting pop ups, my "rate of fire" is about twice as much with the Garand as the bolt gun. The Garand is really fast to reload -- I just cannot believe that anyone can believe that a bolt action rifle can fire faster than an autoloader.

Now, I could believe a 3/4 ratio, or something like that in battle, but the Garand still deserve the nod.

Still, from a suppression point of view, the Garand is outclassed by the MP-44. It was never designed as a suppression weapon.

[Slapdragon]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Chad Harrison:

i would like to have a moment of silence for all of us poor suckers who had to learn the hard way what a "garand thumb" is. may the tip of their finger rest in peace, and all their curse words be forgotton . . .<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I learned several interesting Portuguese curse words when I let my wife fire my Garand. She now makes me reload it for her. (She hates its kick also).

[Vanir Ausf B]

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

The Americans had no advantage because of thier rifles, this is proven because the fact that the British and Americans facing the same amount of troops in similar conditions fared no better then the British.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Smack, in the larger scheme of things, the performance difference between the Lee Enfield and the M1 was only one of many factors that effect combat performance. After all, the Lee Enfield is generally considered to be better than the K98k, but that didn't stop the Germans from taking France in 1940.

If we want to focus at the squad level, I would say the lesser suppessive power of the Lee Infield vs. the M1 was made up for by the Bren MG, which was a much better SAW than the BAR.

In fact, you can see this in CM. Take away 2 M1 rifleman from a US 44 rifle squad (so they both have 10 men) and compare firepower to a British rifle squad at 100m. The US has a FP of 91, the Brits 89. Almost the same because the Bren makes up the difference.

[ 08-17-2001: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]

[Doodlebug]

This is one of the few threads I've bothered to read all the way through because it was a topic I've mulled over and I agreed with the original poster. This thread shows the problem that all lengthy discussions have. It's bogged down in an argument over the merits of automatic/semiautomatic weapons over bolt action weapons and has drifted away from the starting point as raised all those pages ago.

I have real problems with the way the rifle heavy squads of the British and Commonwealth troops are represented. It is a foregone conclusion that a British squad of ten men with a firepower of 161 will be mangled in a close combat situation against the 260 odd points of an equivalent German squad. Given that melee is represented by a symbolic close range shoot out then the above outcome is inevitable. Firepower is the determining factor in these situations. Why, then, does the ammo load out diminish at an equal rate for the bolt action armed squad as for the semi and automatic armed troops? I don't see how, at the moment, you can reproduce the exploits of the British Tommies and the like in going and staying toe to toe with Jerry. Arnhem and Monte Cassino are non starters.

Finally my last observation. Given a close combat situation between a MP40 armed submachine gunner and a Lee Enfield and bayonet armed Tommy who would win? Firepower? Yes if he can riddle him at 20 yards with a dozen rounds. But change the equation slightly. Both have but a single round. Now who?. Miss and you're reduced to swinging your SMG against an opponent with a good yard reach advantage over you and a nasty pointy bayonet just waiting to perforate your belly. That is one hell of an incentive to give up. Where's the close combat adjustment for that or are you firepower fans going to decry that. If you do then bring on Stalingrad sharpened entrenching tools and all.

[jgdpzr]

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

Then how did the Americans fare no better at Hedgerow fighting or street fighting the the British!!?! Thats because the Germans could suppress better than the British or Americans, and the diffrerence beetwen rifles/section weapons is virtually none. The Americans had no advantage because of thier rifles, this is proven because the fact that the British and Americans facing the same amount of troops in similar conditions fared no better then the British. You all seem to tell me that the Garand was better than the British Rifle at Suppression, yet there is no evidence of that bieng the case. The Americans didnt seemed to fare any better than the British. So I really, where was this advantage...I just dont see it!?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

To draw a conclusion such as this is specious. Comparing performance in these conditions is not akin to a laboratory study. Even assuming that the two sides did fight truly equally, distilling this down to the conclusion that their rifles must have been equal is not sound reasoning. There are too many variables involved to think that this proves anything of the sort.

I can't sit here and say I can prove that the Garand is superior to the Enfield. But neither can you say you have proven they are equal. Despite my earlier protestations, this still boils down to subjectivity. However, there is one thing that is undeniable and proveable under laboratory conditions: The M1 provided a greater volume of fire. I would have to argue that most historians would agree that this fact alone provided it with an undeniable benefit. Apparently, you seem to think that this provided no benefit. Most people with any knowledge of combat in WWII would disagree with that. Of that I am sure.

[Spook]

It depends on what "sliding scale" of suppression you're going from, Smack.

If enemy troops were trying to rush me (say, within 50 meters) and I had to choose between a Garand or an Enfield, I'd go with the Garand any time. I'd want something I'd just "point & shoot," even from the hip.

But in that range band, now given the choice between a Garand, Enfield, or some SMG (Thompson or Sten), then give me the SMG. But SMG's are very range-dependent, even at suppression. Beyond 100 meters, then not very effective.

At 100-500 meters, the Garand & Enfield will be comparable at suppressive ability, but still less than assault rifles within 200 meters, and less than MG's further out.

Enfields were effective evolution that took the bolt-action rifle as far as it could go as a standard infantry arm. The Garand, and other semi-auto rifles, were obvious progressions over bolt-actions. But neither bolt-action nor semi-auto rifles are leading-edge in standard infantry arms anymore.

Now, if you want something with NASTY suppressive ability nowadays, add in a Mk 19 autoloading grenade launcher.

[Chad Harrison]

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

I learned several interesting Portuguese curse words when I let my wife fire my Garand. She now makes me reload it for her. (She hates its kick also).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

call me whatever you may, but ive learned the hard way on how to load it safely: with two hands. one hand holds back the action, the other inserts the clip. yes that easy when no one shoots at me, but cans and milk jugs at 100m have never had a clean shot on me.

[von Lucke]

Once the US got rolling in 1941, there was a shortage of M1 Garands, and the 1903A3 model Springfield was put into mass production (because the dies and machine works were already in place) to make up the difference. Granted, most of these bolt-action weapons went into the hands of National Guard and training units, but I've read some accounts that credit regular infantry squads in the ETO still in possession of at least one '03, specifically for use with rifle grenades.

And has anybody heard of the M41 Johnson rifle? Another semi-auto 30.06 rifle (but with only a 5 round mag) issued to some Marine units early in the war. I gather it's rather complicated action made it unpopular with the troops.

[Ts9]

The 1st Special Service Force (Devil's Brigade) made use of the Johnson Rifle. I've never suffered a case of M-1 thumb myself, but I've seen fellow re-enactors get

"bitten". I've just always made a habit of riding the op rod forward after inserting a clip. As for the "ping" the Garand makes when the clip ejects, I had a vet tell me once that some guys would carry an empty clip that they would drop on the ground while they still had a few rounds left. Don't know if it ever worked or not. I sometimes doubt if this was really as much of an issue as it is made out to be. I think in the middle of a fire fight I'd have better things to do than listen for a little "ping". I'm not sure that you'd even hear it with a lot of firing going on. I've never noticed it at a re-enactment, but then when I'm firing the BAR I can't hear much of what's going around me anyway. Maybe in a one on one situation it would be a concern.

[Brian]

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

Let me spell it out for you in more detail. You stated:

quote:

Originally posted by Brian:

I admit I don't have numbers but you should note I did not confine

my remarks to the "ETO" (European Theatre of Operations?) but

to the "US Army" as a whole.

Originally posted by Marlow:

[QB]Let me spell it out for you in more detail. You stated:

quote:

Originally posted by Brian:

I admit I don't have numbers but you should note I did not confine

my remarks to the "ETO" (European Theatre of Operations?) but

to the "US Army" as a whole.

This implies that all along you were talking about the Army as a whole, but

earlier you said:

quote:

Originally posted by Brian:

Springfields were never replaced and I'm surprised to see the

game has fallen for the Hollywood ideal rather than reality.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Why do you persist in quoting me out of context? I have supplied you with the full context of that quote already, yet you persist in only addressing half my comment, not that of my whole comment.

I have explained where your assumptions are wrong and again, you still persist with them, why?

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

This is basically saying that since the "game" does not include M-1903s, they

are falling for some sort of "hollywood" version of U.S. forces. Because the

game is limited to 1944 and 1945 in the ETO, this would only be mismodeling

if, in fact, M-1903s were used in that theatre and that time. Also, while I am

going on memory, everything I have read has said that Springfields were

already on their way out as the standard infantry weapon by 1941 (although it

remained the sniper weapon of choice for some time). By 1944, they were out

of service with infantry soldiers in Europe (and probably the Pacific).

[Brian]

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

Brian,

Your choice of words on your first point is much better than my original.

I have issue with the "theoretical rate of fire" of the Enfield. I do not believe that a bolt action weapon can be fired as quickly as a semi-automatic one. It is simple mechanics, the distance a trigger finger has to go is much smaller than the four hand motions required to load the chamber of the Enfield, return it to the shoulder and fire.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think the point is that you have obviously not been trained to fire a bolt-action rifle properly. One does not remove it from the shoulder to chamber the next round. In the military, one is taught to keep it at the shoulder and to simply move the right army.

As to bolt-action rifles equally the ROF for sem-automatic rifles its quite common here in Australia at competition shoots for civilian shooters to equal the rate of fire for semi-automatic rifles. Its not hard, just requires training.

Just as in 1917, the French Army was able to produce gun crews for the famed 75mm cannon which could achieve rates of 100 rpm. Thats all they did but they did it bloody well.

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

As to the role of the infantry, well don't look at me, I do not run the Army. The current basic rifleman is become a thing of the past. I will speak to Canadian doctrine because it is what I know, someone with American knowledge can interject that doctrine if they wish.

A rifle section of 10 men consists of

1xSect Commander

1XSect 2 i/c

2x Eryx (ATGM crew)

2x C-9 or SAW

1x Grenadier (M203 gernade launcher)

That leaves 3 basic riflemen BUT i fyou saddle the section with a GPMG or .50 Cal 2 more troops are taken up.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, downunder we don't carry ATGM's in the section, as we do not face a heavy armour threat. We do have an LMG though, our section is organised as:

1 x scout (Steyr F-88 Carbine)

1 x Sect.Cmd. (Steyr F-88 Carbine)

1 x LMG

1 x 2-i-C (Steyr F-88 Carbine)

1 x Second (Steyr F-88)

4 x Riflemen (Steyr F-88 + 1 x M203).

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

So the role of the basic rifleman has changed from primary bayonette point to security.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Security from what? I would suggest other infantrymen. Therefore you are IMO fooling yourself if you believe the role of the infantry has in fact actually changed as markedly as you believe - it is IMO, still to "sieze and hold ground" as our Pams put it.

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

As to the infantry in general, they now secure and man the weapon systems, which by threat or real firepower "sieze and hold the ground". So how does that relate to the "personal weapon" which started all of this?

Well marksmanship means less and less. Supression so that the other weapon systems can do the real killing has become more important.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This may be your view but it is not the view of the either the British or Australian Armies. In reality, IMO, suppression occurs not so "other weapon systems can do the real killing" but rather that infantry can "seize and hold ground". If another weapon system is capable doing "the real killing" then it won't need the infantry to suppress anybody for it.

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

I am not sure what your "enemy dictating" statement was about, in reality it is th requirement to push the firepower forward which has driven this.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I used the term "enemy dicating how you employ your troops" because you appear to believe your infantry are a defensive weapon. In reality they are the whole purpose why all the other weapons exist. Which is why I referred to them as the "Queen of the Battlefield".

[ 08-17-2001: Message edited by: The_Capt ]

[Smack]

*The Americans broke out because the majority of the Panzer Divisions were on the British/Canadian front, had the Panzer Divisions been on the American front, the Americans woulndt have broken out PAK 40* . Well in the end the difference isnt large. The Fact that the AMericans fared no better than the British proves this fact. If the Garand was superiour, it wasnt by much. All things were equal except for rate of fire. In the end, to say again, the difference wasnt large and no army fared any better than the other...so I think they end up equal..

[Guy w/gun]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>This may be your view but it is not the view of the either the British or Australian Armies. In reality, IMO, suppression occurs not so "other weapon systems can do the real killing" but rather that infantry can "seize and hold ground". If another weapon system is capable doing "the real killing" then it won't need the infantry to suppress anybody for it.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Please, please, please correct me if I'm wrong here, but I though that was what modern warfare was all about. In fact, I thought this change was made in WWII. Your basic rifle-equipped infantry's main purpose was to support the heavy weapons so they could get into a favorable position.

I'm thinking mainly of the Germans using their riflemen to support the squad machine gun. I read or heard somewhere that the one of the duties of the German squad leader was to order the riflemen to support the squad MG while it was moved, set up, barrels changed etc. In other words, the MG was een as the main killing weapon of the squad. I thought the US did something similar where the 3 rifle platoons in a company would serve to support the heavy weapons platoon.

Doesn't this carry over today in US doctrine? Where the assault rifle equiped soldiers support the SAW? Again, I'm no soldier, so please feel free to correct me.

[Brian]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Guy w/gun:

Please, please, please correct me if I'm wrong here, but I though that was what modern warfare was all about. In fact, I thought this change was made in WWII. Your basic rifle-equipped infantry's main purpose was to support the heavy weapons so they could get into a favorable position.

{/QUOTE]

Don't know where thats taught but none of the British or Australian or New Zealand army Pams that I've seen over the years has ever made that point. Infantry act in co-ordinated, inter-supporting groups to mutually support each other onto the objective. It is the infantryman who "seizes and holds ground" not any other arm. What he is armed with is immaterial, using that definition.

The majority of infantrymen are armed with rifles simply because they are cheap and fairly effective. The US Army has been attempting for decades to make each infantryman into a machine gunner, first with its SIW programme and now its OICW programme.

Most other militaries are watching with interest but more because of disbelief I think you'll find than in any real belief its actually going to work.

I'm thinking mainly of the Germans using their riflemen to support the squad machine gun. I read or heard somewhere that the one of the duties of the German squad leader was to order the riflemen to support the squad MG while it was moved, set up, barrels changed etc. In other words, the MG was een as the main killing weapon of the squad.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That may be the view of the Germans but in reality, the role of the LMG is to support the rest of the section onto the objective and to help defend that objective - therefore it is being utilised as part of the role of the infantry to "sieze and hold ground".

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?