Wraith
Major
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2006
- Messages
- 6,777
This is the discussion I would like to have - the Lee Enfield was thought to be machine guns at Mons in WW1 so that can't be the answer can it? Was it so different from the American rifle? The Germans had the MP40, MG34/42 and later the assault rifle, the russians changed much of their troops to their SMG.
The Brit section had a 3 man bren group, two with rifles, lead by a lance corporal as the heart of it, plus six rifle armed squaddies and a sten gun armed corporal section leader. All the men carried the same .303" ammo and bren magazines.
The Germans had semi/automatic weapons and rifles in their squads plus an MG42 more like the British, plus integral panzerfaust?I have not managed to find a detailed reference of US Army squad equivalent yet, but thought it was rifle armed and a BAR?
A British Battalion was composed of four rifle companies - 360 men in 12 platoons (30 men?). Each platoon had the sections outlined above plus a PIAT and 2" mortar.
In each battalion there were a further 340 men in supporting and service units. The battalion support company, in 13 bren carriers, provided much of its punch, with Vickers MGs, a 3" mortar platoon with 6 mortars and 6x6pdr AT guns in its AT platoon.
All I could find about the US battalion was that it had 3 rifle companies (cf4), each of three platoons of 36 men (?larger squads but no LMG) with a support company - ? 30 cal MGs and 60mm mortars?
If - and I say 'if' as reported - the US troops were 'borrowing' Thompson SMGs and the like, they must have felt the strain in a firefight? I am no expert in this area - Can anyone help with this discussion???????
Well, OK, I'll give it my thoughts. Whilst never having served in the military, I have had the oportunity to fire plenty of different firearms, both socially and at work (both at bits of paper and wood you understand, I don't make a habit of popping off rounds in the High Street when boredom sets in), so please take my thoughts from someone who has had the luxury of shooting without being shot at.
I have fired the Lee Enfield on a number of occasions, but not the Garand. I have however fired a ot of other rifles, both bolt action and semi automatic and I find the process of firing a bolt action rifle, removing my hand to cycle a new round, getting back on the trigger, aiming and firing, far more time consuming, than with a semi automatic rifle, where I fire, aim, and fire again.
I would therefore say, that the accurate rate of fire with the Garand should be far greater than the Lee Enfield (fine rifle though it is).
As for the Thompson, or any SMG using a pistol round, surely great for close quater work, but a bit of a b***er, if you're trying to shoot at an enemy rifleman a couple hundered yards away, and by the time you've got the rounds going more or less in the direction you want them, you've emptied a 20 or 30 round magazine.
I don't know if the idea for arming with an SMG appealed to the troops at the time, perhaps one of the military / ex-military members could chip in.
Something I've noted is that if you look at all of the D-Day photos of US soldiers, you tend to see plenty of Garands, M1 Carbines, BARs etc and very few SMGs. Presumably, all of these troops would have started off with pretty much a 'clean sheet' of arms and equipment, due to being refitted prior to the invasion. Then if you look at photos of the troops in late 44, early 45, there seems to be a far greater spread of SMGs. I can only presume, that they were popular with the troops, and so replaced their rifles with sub machine guns, as and when the oportunity arose.
Any thoughts from others?
Simon