Tactical employment of rifles/carbines in Normandy

[Secondbrooks]

... OR if you assume that SLAM over-egged his pudding to make a point.

SLAM viewed soldiers as binary entities - either they participated fully everytime, or not at all ever. Wigram didn't see or describe that kind of on/off duality, I don't really believe it, and the studies on combat exhaustion don't support it.

I believe SLAM's Korean and Vietnam war's statistics are accurate, and not made up like ww2 statistics. In which there is clear rising pattern (korea 50% Vietnam 75%... or something) in how often soldiers fired their weapons, thanks to improved training. I guess he had point, somekind point atleast.

SLAM was fixated with volume of fire. Soldiers needed to start firing. If they don't they dont' do their job. If they shoot, however unaimed and inaccurate, they do their job. Which is partially good thing and partially bad thing... Depending of point of view. There seems to be lots of claims against SLAM's mentality, because it leads to wasting ammo (which in bolt locked era was pretty big concern) and not being able/willing to much anything else that to fire weapon in stress conditions.

It's juicy subject indeed. But i believe that it's has been barely scratched, and there's lots of variables. One such is gutful guys: Some people seems to suggest that sheeps will also provide also reserves from which gutful men will emerge. Maybe there's social psycological reasons, there's certain amount of alpha-males in human group. If alpha-male is removed some other guy will take his position. Common statement that it's always best who get killed first, yet there's quite often leaders doesnt' seem to run out of determed guys who are able to do their job. Small melted units can reach almost same (if not same!) results as far bigger units. Partially this can be explained by fact that leading processes gets easier, but still unit which had lets say 20 gutful guys should have about 2-4 left (30% casualties which consists large amounts of gutful guys, as they tend to end up KIA/WIA first), based on statistics presented here these kind of units should not be able to shoot at enemy or fight in any determed style... Still quite often these melted units do perform rather well. Some Germans even claims that regiment commander is at his best when is leading batallion sized units (their melted regiments).

[JonS]

I believe SLAM's Korean and Vietnam war's statistics are accurate, and not made up like ww2 statistics. In which there is clear rising pattern (korea 50% Vietnam 75%... or something) in how often soldiers fired their weapons, thanks to improved training. I guess he had point, somekind point atleast.

Or he made up more data to prove that the conclusions and changes resulting from his first data set were correct. Oh what tangled webs we weave, when once we set out to deceive.

Not that it matters though, because ...

SLAM was fixated with volume of fire. Soldiers needed to start firing. If they don't they dont' do their job. If they shoot, however unaimed and inaccurate, they do their job.

... this is pretty much right on the money. Riflemen don't really need to hit much of anything to achieve decisive results. Suppression is more important - and far more achievable - than ballistically induced apertures. It's more important because it's achievable.

Which is partially good thing and partially bad thing... Depending of point of view. There seems to be lots of claims against SLAM's mentality, because it leads to wasting ammo (which in bolt locked era was pretty big concern)

That's what fire control orders and fire discipline is for. Incidentally, I don't understand why it was more important with bolt action than semi- or automatic weapons. I should surely think that working the bolt tends to put a natural brake on the rate of fire?

[Secondbrooks]

Or he made up more data to prove that the conclusions and changes resulting from his first data set were correct. Oh what tangled webs we weave, when once we set out to deceive.

Silly me.

... this is pretty much right on the money. Riflemen don't really need to hit much of anything to achieve decisive results. Suppression is more important - and far more achievable - than ballistically induced apertures. It's more important because it's achievable.

That's what fire control orders and fire discipline is for. Incidentally, I don't understand why it was more important with bolt action than semi- or automatic weapons. I should surely think that working the bolt tends to put a natural brake on the rate of fire?

From where we get to point when suppression isn't suppression but just firing for instinct gained by training. At worst this means unaimed shots done in fashion where guy rises his rifle atop cover, ala African style. Sure it gives sound but that is pretty much what it does. At prolonged contact it generally means that men have shot most of their ammo and are starting to look for escape route. Infantry fights as long as it has ammo. I just wonder how many often men did their unit actual disfavor when they didn't fire their weapons blindly back in ww2?

Thing with bolt locked rifles and typical loads of that era is that there isn't that much ammo distributed to troops. Now days amount of ammo seems to be alot more. Sure fullautomatic firearms can empty magazine just like that, but from what i've gathered men will start to conserve their ammo when they have magazine or two still at their disposal. Which is as much as guys in ww2 probably had initially.

But this is just the other side of issue... On other hand your totally right

[MikeyD]

I wonder how the Garand made a difference in use of small arms. Garand was beloved. The G.I.s thought they were carrying the best rifle in the world. Confidence in the rifle may have encouraged to infantry to use it. The M1 carbine may have been a good combat weapon but it didn't exactly inspire confidence. The soldiers felt it was a step down from the Garand instead of a step up from the Colt pistol. I hear it took a lot of combat experience before soldiers started having confidence in the M1 Carbine.

What was the German carbine? The Gewehr 43. A big-bullet gun closer to the Garand in concept, weighed almost twice as much as the M1 Carbine. Manufactured to 'Russian Front' standards - in other words a very rough product.

[LongLeftFlank]

IIRC, SLAM's surveys in Korea indicated that GIs felt the M1 carbine was useless as it lacked range and stopping power. For personal defense, tank and gun crews favoured less bulky grease guns or .45 pistols. However, the carbines, including the fully automatic M2, were issued in large numbers to smaller-statured Asian Allied troops.

On the other hand, SLAM had nothing but praise for the BAR and the BAR gunners. A disproportionate number of combat citations went to BAR gunners, although it's an open question whether this is a function of the weapon or that it tended to be issued to the most reliable guy (i.e. "gutful") guy in the squad as a surrogate for a LMG.

[Battlefront.com]

Actually, fire discipline with automatic weapons is far, far more difficult to achieve than with single, semi-auto, or burst fire weapons. Which is why the US military moved away from full auto to burst fire. Having more ammo on hand doesn't do squat if you can squirt 30 rounds down range in a few seconds. Which is exactly what soldiers tend to do unless VERY well trained.

I think most of us have seen the footage of US soldiers in Vietnam during the Tet Offensive. The footage I'm thinking of involved a tall wall and several soldiers putting their M-16s on the top, OVER their heads, and blowing off a whole clip, sitting down, reloading, and then doing it again. When the interviewer asked him what he was shooting at one of the soldiers said "I don't know". Now, try blowing through 60+ rounds like that with a bolt action rifle and you'll for sure find out what you're shooting at. Either because you see a target or you get shot in the head.

Fire discipline amongst Middle East militaries is notoriously horrible. A US trainer of Iraqi Army soldiers called their behavior "Death Blossom" after the fictional weapon in the movie Last Star Fighter. Basically, it's spraying all of an AK's bullets in a huge arc due to lack of control.

Steve

[MeatEtr]

Fire discipline amongst Middle East militaries is notoriously horrible. A US trainer of Iraqi Army soldiers called their behavior "Death Blossom" after the fictional weapon in the movie Last Star Fighter. Basically, it's spraying all of an AK's bullets in a huge arc due to lack of control.

Steve

Ahh yes, the dreaded death blossom tactic.

What a great movie!

[Secondbrooks]

Actually, fire discipline with automatic weapons is far, far more difficult to achieve than with single, semi-auto, or burst fire weapons. Which is why the US military moved away from full auto to burst fire. Having more ammo on hand doesn't do squat if you can squirt 30 rounds down range in a few seconds. Which is exactly what soldiers tend to do unless VERY well trained.

I think most of us have seen the footage of US soldiers in Vietnam during the Tet Offensive. The footage I'm thinking of involved a tall wall and several soldiers putting their M-16s on the top, OVER their heads, and blowing off a whole clip, sitting down, reloading, and then doing it again. When the interviewer asked him what he was shooting at one of the soldiers said "I don't know". Now, try blowing through 60+ rounds like that with a bolt action rifle and you'll for sure find out what you're shooting at. Either because you see a target or you get shot in the head.

Fire discipline amongst Middle East militaries is notoriously horrible. A US trainer of Iraqi Army soldiers called their behavior "Death Blossom" after the fictional weapon in the movie Last Star Fighter. Basically, it's spraying all of an AK's bullets in a huge arc due to lack of control.

Steve

And SLAM is held responsible for such behaviour because of his fixation with volume of fire and what his effect was in training provided to soldiers.

[Noltyboy]

What was the German carbine? The Gewehr 43. A big-bullet gun closer to the Garand in concept, weighed almost twice as much as the M1 Carbine. Manufactured to 'Russian Front' standards - in other words a very rough product.

Germans didnt have a "carbine" per say except the the G98K is a carbine length rifle anyway. G43 was designed as a rival to rifles such as the Garand and SVT-40.

Germany didnt realy have a "carbine" varient in the M1 carbine sense of the word, the first intermediate cartridge being for designed for an assault rifle (STG44). I think this was more due to the heavy reliance on smg's. Something like the MP41 is the closest you will get to a German "M1 carbine"

Plus the ability of Bolt action rifles to put down fire is slightly underrated, try a tommy with a Lee-Enfield doing a mad minute!