British/Commonwealth Infantry weapons...poor?

[Spook]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Vanir Ausf B:

Boy, now we're way off topic. Anyone think the Ravens will repeat this year?

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Art Modell can go burn in hell.

[Brian]

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

[QB]I'm a bit bemused by the other Brian's insistence that a bolt action rifle is at least the equivalent of a semi-automatic. It begs the question why armies have abandoned them - including the Australian Army.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

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.

I've never denied that semi-automatic weapons allow a higher rate of fire to be attained. I just question if the M1 Garand is the wonder weapon its portrayed to be by most Americans.

[Marlow]

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

I've never denied that semi-automatic weapons allow a higher rate of fire to be attained. I just question if the M1 Garand is the wonder weapon its portrayed to be by most Americans.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Brian, besides your gratuitous and unfounded bashing of the U. S. Army (which you probably observed at one of its lowest points in history, the mid 70s), the biggest problem with arguing with you is that you constantly change your position, and then insist that you have been consistent all along.

That the SMLE could achieve an effective ROF that is comparable to the Garand is exactly what you were saying initially. I would post the quote, but what's the use, you would just ignore what you said previously. You could post that it was raining one minute, and that it was sunny the next, and see no contradiction.

I see no point in even reading your posts any further, as you have no credibility.

[Tero]

Originally posted by Marlow:

That the SMLE could achieve an effective ROF that is comparable to the Garand is exactly what you were saying initially.

[Spook]

Boy, you seem to be having fun here stirring up the pot, Brian. Another two pages of posts on a thread that the Capt stated earlier to be "talked out." (He'd be right on the matter, though, that nothing new of relevance on rifles has been added since.)

Brian, you still seem to project the view that "aimed fire" from rifles is a decisive means of winning battles & wars.

But instead of providing a valid refutation of the "suppression" concept, now you're drifting over to arguing the relative effectiveness of airpower.

Of course, airpower by itself is not consistently a decisive war-winning means. But look at the Normandy campaign as a key example. Had not the Allied air forces caused a large amount of "paralysis" to the Germans' ability to reinforce & resupply, do you think the end result would've still been the same? For two months prior to D-Day, allied airpower was "setting things up," knocking out bridges, rail centers, depots, etc. That didn't prevent the Germans from moving up reinforcements after the invasion, of course (especially on bad-weather days), but the reinforcements still came up slowly, and often scattered & disorganized. (A study of the German 275th Division's movements to Normandy is one interesting example.) And the Germans' ability to repair rail/bridge damage in France couldn't keep up.

Of course, to accomplish all of this, Allied airpower had to first win control of the air. That had to stretch back even further from the invasion date (back to Feb '44) to guarantee a relative Allied air superiority. It was a bitter, slow-grinding attritional process, but ultimately was won.

Now, what if this all wasn't accomplished? What if German logistics in France were completely unimpeded? What if the rails & bridges were fully intact? What if the Luftwaffe was able to mount sizable raids against the invasion fleet?

Airpower helped guarantee for the Allies in Normandy that they would maintain a logistical & attritional edge over the Germans at the beachhead. It maintained relative safety for the invasion fleet. Could the highly effective Allied artillery been able to support as well, if it didn't have the ammo stocks to draw from?

All of this translated greatly in the "set-up" of the battles in Normandy, in spite of the Germans' demonstrated resilience and advantage in small-unit tactics. So, in operational terms, airpower in Normandy (and the NW Europe theater in general) trumped aimed rifle fire many times over as a means of helping to win wars.

You say earlier, Brian, that you don't mean to denigrate the US Army for its present-day "poor fire discipline" in most of its infantry units. (It may be as you say, anyway.) Well, I don't mean to denigrate aimed rifle fire as being without value on a battlefield either; even effective suppressive fire requires some aiming and fire discipline, not just firing pell-mell in a chaotic way. But compared to airpower, artillery & mortar support, armor support, and suppressive capability from various automatic weapons, aimed rifle fire doesn't rise to the same level even in WWII.

Ironically, however, you still haven't argued to what extent that rifle "firepower" is buggered up in CMBO, or that BTS has applied an "obvious bias" to rifle ratings. Are you wanting the M1 Garand pared down? Or the Enfield pared up?

[manchildstein (ii)]

i wonder how a lever-action 45/70 would have fared.. how about a camp .45?

andy

[Spook]

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

I've never denied that semi-automatic weapons allow a higher rate of fire to be attained. I just question if the M1 Garand is the wonder weapon its portrayed to be by most Americans.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It's hardly a wonder weapon at all in CM scale. In close-range, certain SMG's have the fire value of three M1 Garands. And at mid-range, the German MP44 assault rifle is still comparable.

A German squad built up fully around MP44's and an MG42 would be more effective over any US squad in CMBO. At any range.

[Spook]

<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>

No, I think the more central reason for the abandonment of bolt-action rifles was their relative loss of effectiveness on battlefields as an standard infantry side arm, not due to constraints on training time.

[Andreas]

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

No, I think the more central reason for the abandonment of bolt-action rifles was their relative loss of effectiveness on battlefields as an standard infantry side arm, not due to constraints on training time.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, at the risk of repeating myself, I was trained on the G3 in 1988, and my cousin is now being trained on the G36. Neither of us was trained in suppression firing, but both of us were trained in aimed fire, and that is what was pushed, through awards etc (Schuetzenschnur). On a semi/full auto weapon. Same on the MG3 BTW. You were trained to engage point targets. Granted, I was in the Luftwaffe (so only did basic infantry qualification), and my cousin still has a way to go.

I find it hard to credit that the switch from bolt-action to semi-auto has anything to do with training times in the light of my experience.

[Spook]

Repeat yourself as is necessary, Andreas. Sometimes a key point will get lost in the midst of a posting flurry.

[Brian]

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

Brian, besides your gratuitous and unfounded bashing of the U. S. Army (which you probably observed at one of its lowest points in history, the mid 70s), the biggest problem with arguing with you is that you constantly change your position, and then insist that you have been consistent all along.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually, I observed the US Army during the 1980's. It was, to use a word, very different to how we operated, very.

However, that aside, I have been consistent. One thing I've noted is that all too often people do not read what I have written, rather they reply to what they think I have written.

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

That the SMLE could achieve an effective ROF that is comparable to the Garand is exactly what you were saying initially. I would post the quote, but what's the use, you would just ignore what you said previously. You could post that it was raining one minute, and that it was sunny the next, and see no contradiction.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think you'll find I've been saying that the ROF given for the SMLE is IMO too low whilst that for the Garand is too high.

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

I see no point in even reading your posts any further, as you have no credibility.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Each to their own. Yet another who chooses to attack the messenger rather than the message.

[Brian]

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

Boy, you seem to be having fun here stirring up the pot, Brian. Another two pages of posts on a thread that the Capt stated earlier to be "talked out." (He'd be right on the matter, though, that nothing new of relevance on rifles has been added since.)

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Maybe so, but if someone posts something I enjoy arguing about, I'll argue it.

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

Brian, you still seem to project the view that "aimed fire" from rifles is a decisive means of winning battles & wars.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I've been taught that. I've seen nothing from my reading of military history to suggest otherwise. My own military experience tends to reinforce that viewpoint.

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

But instead of providing a valid refutation of the "suppression" concept, now you're drifting over to arguing the relative effectiveness of airpower.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I did not introduce the red herring but I must admit I'm enjoy discussing it.

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

Of course, airpower by itself is not consistently a decisive war-winning means.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't believe I've ever claim it was, in fact I've been arguing the exact opposite - it has always been the zealots who follow Douhet/Trenchard/Mitchell who believd it could/can.

When reading the history of airpower, one is IMO immediately struck by the extragant claims made for its abilities compared to the actual results which were achieved.

This does not mean it does not/did not contribute to the winning of any war where it was applied in overwhelming strength. Rather all I've done is point out that it has never lived up to IMO the wild claims made about what it supposedly could achieve.

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

You say earlier, Brian, that you don't mean to denigrate the US Army for its present-day "poor fire discipline" in most of its infantry units. (It may be as you say, anyway.) Well, I don't mean to denigrate aimed rifle fire as being without value on a battlefield either; even effective suppressive fire requires some aiming and fire discipline, not just firing pell-mell in a chaotic way. But compared to airpower, artillery & mortar support, armor support, and suppressive capability from various automatic weapons, aimed rifle fire doesn't rise to the same level even in WWII.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Perhaps not. However, all too often, as the record shows, the over-use of firepower failed, like airpower to achieve what its proponents claimed it would - elimination of the enemy/winning of the battle.

Perhaps the British/Commonwealth armies do have too great an emphasis upon individual marksmanship compared to the overall effectiveness of such a doctrine upon the battlefield but it was/is what they do and teach. As they have not lost a major war in the 100 years since they started to teach this doctrine, they must be doing something right IMO.

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

Ironically, however, you still haven't argued to what extent that rifle "firepower" is buggered up in CMBO, or that BTS has applied an "obvious bias" to rifle ratings. Are you wanting the M1 Garand pared down? Or the Enfield pared up?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Perhaps the point is, I'm not arguing that?

Rather I started out by making the point that according to the information I have, not ever infantryman in the US Army was armed with the M1 Garand, yet the game assumes they were. It also seems to assume that invariably the US Army's firepower was greater than the Commonwealth armies' because the ROF for US weapons was higher than that of Commonwealth ones, and seems to ignore that other factors than just mere ROF determine firepower.

[Spook]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Perhaps not. However, all too often, as the record shows, the over-use of firepower failed, like airpower to achieve what its proponents claimed it would - elimination of the enemy/winning of the battle. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hey, even in the Gulf War, I would concur on the "body count" aspect. Overall Iraqi casualties were about 70-80,000 of which 20,000 were KIA. Regardless, the air campaign fully succeeded in "paralyzing" the Iraqi ground forces from being able to respond effectively to the Allied ground attacks. Iraqi C3I nets, depots, armor reserves, artillery parks were either smashed or disrupted. How many more times would the Allied coalition's casualties had been, than was the actual case, if all of this wasn't first accomplished? On "body count" basis, the Gulf War was one of the most lopsided in humankind's history. And if the overall military objective was to overrun & conquer all of Iraq as a follow-up, this could have been readily achieved too.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Perhaps the British/Commonwealth armies do have too great an emphasis upon individual marksmanship compared to the overall effectiveness of such a doctrine upon the battlefield but it was/is what they do and teach. As they have not lost a major war in the 100 years since they started to teach this doctrine, they must be doing something right IMO.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, the Commonwealth armies did eventually "do things right," but much less due to aimed rifle fire than due to improved tank/infantry combined arms tactics, superb artillery fire access & control, greater effectiveness of airpower in both the interdiction and ground-support roles, and improved logistics & motorization of its troops.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Perhaps the point is, I'm not arguing that? Rather I started out by making the point that according to the information I have, not ever infantryman in the US Army was armed with the M1 Garand, yet the game assumes they were. It also seems to assume that invariably the US Army's firepower was greater than the Commonwealth armies' because the ROF for US weapons was higher than that of Commonwealth ones, and seems to ignore that other factors than just mere ROF determine firepower.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

IIRC, the Commonwealth's Bren LMG in CM rates better than the BAR.

What's kicked up much of the dust, Brian, is that earlier you inferred that BTS was intentionally "biased" about assigning firepower values to weapons. Even constrained to the "rifle" issue, this still hasn't been substantiated. But recall your earlier statement:

......and seems to ignore that other factors than just mere ROF determine firepower.

You see, there might be your problem. You are interpreting the listed weapon values as "absolute" in nature for CM combat resolution. But they are NOT. Unit experience plays a significant factor in modifying "firepower" from a unit, as well as its immediate morale state.

A veteran UK rifle squad in CM, armed with its Enfields & LMG, will typically generate more "firepower" than a green US squad with its M1's and BAR. The "other factors" are there.

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

[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.

[Tero]

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.

Correct me if I am wrong (never happen of course ) but isn't that the way you reload the Garand as well ? From the top by pushing the rounds in ? Also the Mosin-Nagan family of rifles is reloaded with 5 round clips or loose rounds.

This is the last thing I would want to be doing in a battle.

The you should try loading a 70-something round drum magazine for the Suomi/PPSh SMG in the middle of combat. Very tricky even when doing it sitting beside a table just for fun to see how fast you can do it before going to the shooting range.

[Vanir Ausf B]

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

Rather I started out by making the point that according to the information I have, not ever infantryman in the US Army was armed with the M1 Garand, yet the game assumes they were. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Once again, were some 1903s used as sniper rifles throughout the war, but they were not carried by the typical US infantryman in the ETO 1944-45 (period of the war covered by CM and therefore the only one relevant to the game). I have seen no information here to refute this.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>It also seems to assume that invariably the US Army's firepower was greater than the Commonwealth armies' because the ROF for US weapons was higher than that of Commonwealth ones, and seems to ignore that other factors than just mere ROF determine firepower. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

US infantry firepower advantage over British units in the game is mainly due to the larger size of the squads (12 men vs. 10). If you take away 2 riflemen from the US squads and then compare apples to apples, you see that overall firepower is fairly even. The US squad has more at close range (40m), the British has more at long range (200m and up). At 100m they are about the same. I fail to see the problem here.

If the Lee-Enfield were to be given the same FP rating as the M1 Garand, the British squad would actually have more firepower than the US squad on a man for man basis at all ranges (due to the Bren MG). Maybe this is what some people actually want and are unwilling to come out and say it, but I have seen no evidence here to support this.

This is the second time I have posted this information. Hopefully it will be read this time.

[ 08-22-2001: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]

[Vanir Ausf B]

The M1 only has a significant FP advantage vs the Lee-Enfield at faily short ranges (less than 100m) where ROF is most important. At all other ranges there is little or no difference.

Let me repost my little FP table from earlier in the thread, since no one seems to have looked at it the first time (why do I bother?):

...

Lee-Enfield ROF: 15 aimed shots per minute.

M1 Garand ROF: 25-30 aimed shots per minute.

CM firepower rating.

Firepower at: 40m 100m 250m

M1 Garand:___13___7____3

Lee-Enfield:__10___6____3

...

Once again, where is the problem?

[Username]

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

Originally posted by Username:

[qb]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.

Correct me if I am wrong (never happen of course ) but isn't that the way you reload the Garand as well ? From the top by pushing the rounds in ? Also the Mosin-Nagan family of rifles is reloaded with 5 round clips or loose rounds.

[/QB]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Its a 10 round magazine in the brit rifle. This would mean sticking two of the things in wouldnt it? The US is one 8 round stripper clip.

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

Lewis

[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

[Michael Dorosh]

<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>

Brits know how to count to ten.

Far preferable to the alarming CLANG of an ejected M-1 clip.

[Spook]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

Brits know how to count to ten.

Far preferable to the alarming CLANG of an ejected M-1 clip.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Counting to ten wouldn't be so difficult on a firing range.

In the middle of a firefight, though, not something to safely presume. I recall some anecdotal stories from the ACW where a few soldiers, using muzzle-loading rifled-muskets in the midst of a severe battle, had rammed down another bullet & charge without having fired off the previous load.

In essence, one might get distracted even in counting off fired rounds. So, likely the only certain way a soldier knew that he fired out his Enfield is if he got a 'click' on his last trigger pull.

[David Aitken]

Nowadays you get even less indication of an empty magazine. At least with a bolt-action rifle you can look and see whether there's a round in the breech. Andy McNab (not his real name) of the SAS speaks in Bravo Two Zero about switching magazines in his M16 without really knowing how many rounds he has left, all to avoid the "dead man's click". The Steyr AUG has a transparent magazine for this purpose. How soon before we have computer game style LCD displays which tell us the number of rounds left? It wouldn't surprise me if the OICW has that facility.

[Username]

Yes , of course, spook. Seems theres a firing range warrior here.

In the heat of battle, just having a self loading and self ejecting rifle instills confidence. Just knowing that if a gaggle of enemy springs up close to your position, you can squeeze off as many rounds as you have , as quick as you can, can make all the difference in the world. Just knowing that loading once is sufficient is also heart warming. Its nice to know when you are out to.

Next we will be hearing about the amazingly wonderful STEN gun and how it won the war for the free world.

No one in this thread or the other thread 'BRENs: nearly an MG42' want to face facts. 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. Armies that are quickly raising recruits and replacing infantrymen right and left cant train everyone to sharpshooter status. Its hard to BE a sharpshooter when the air is alive with shrapnel and MG fire.

G'day

Lewis

[Username]

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

Nowadays you get even less indication of an empty magazine. At least with a bolt-action rifle you can look and see whether there's a round in the breech. Andy McNab (not his real name) of the SAS speaks in Bravo Two Zero about switching magazines in his M16 without really knowing how many rounds he has left, all to avoid the "dead man's click". The Steyr AUG has a transparent magazine for this purpose. How soon before we have computer game style LCD displays which tell us the number of rounds left? It wouldn't surprise me if the OICW has that facility.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

David

I thought you went on about how you didnt care about this stuff in the other thread.

The M16 definetly lets you know its empty. The bolt stays to the rear. It isnt a click like a firing pin on a empty chamber. The normal recoil is different.

In military weapons, any light, even from an LED is a no-no because of nightfighting. It would be better if there was a physical indicator that would pop-up when the clip was below 3 rounds. An alternative is some sort of slider tab that would come through the mag and a person could physical feel where it is along the banana clip and guage whats left.

I would always flip-over a mag during a lull to be at full-mag level.

Lewis

[Stalin's Organ]

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

In the heat of battle, just having a self loading and self ejecting rifle instills confidence. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

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!

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Just knowing that loading once is sufficient is also heart warming. Its nice to know when you are out to.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ah...so an M1 rifleman only ever needs 8 rounds to defeat the enemy, and again all those modern SLR's are crap because yo have to be able to count!