# Best WWII Semi-Auto Rifle



## Zniperguy114 (Feb 2, 2010)

Okay, here is a new poll that hopefully will please you guys. You are all right, I did leave out too many good rifles in the last one, so i have decided to change it to a more far game with semi autos only. britian did not have a semi auto of its own( that is, speaking about the origin of a semi auto rifle). So please choose the one of the following rifles you think to be the best.

USSR: SVT-38/40

USA: M1 Garand and M1 Carbine

Germany: G43 (_also known as K43_)

Vote and Have Fun!


----------



## tomo pauk (Feb 3, 2010)

Garand gets my vote - reliable, very good punch, produced early enough in quantity.


----------



## Messy1 (Feb 3, 2010)

M1 Garand. I'd be surprised if this poll was close at all.


----------



## renrich (Feb 3, 2010)

Garand all the way


----------



## Thorlifter (Feb 3, 2010)

Ditto......Garand.


----------



## vikingBerserker (Feb 3, 2010)

Ditto Ditto


----------



## ToughOmbre (Feb 4, 2010)

The M1 Garand is the icon of WW II infantry rifles. 

TO


----------



## Messy1 (Feb 4, 2010)

I'm sensing a trend here!


----------



## Vincenzo (Feb 4, 2010)

all for garand..., 
only to tentative to up discussion, i'm sorry i take the data from wiki...
semi auto rifle
Garand - weight 10.5 lbs, lenght 43.6 inch, MV 2800 fps, rounds 8, ammo 30-06 (7.62x63) 152 gr, production over 5 milions
SVT-40 - weight 8.5 lbs (u), lenght 48 inch, MV 2756 fps, rounds 10, ammo 7.62x54R 185gr, production over 5 milions
G43 - weight 9.7 lbs, lenght 44.5 inch, MV 2328 fps, rounds 10, ammo 7.92x57, 197 gr., production over 400 thousands

M1 carbine - weight 5.2 (u), lenght 35.6 inch, MV 1970 fps, rounds 15/30, ammo 30 carbine (7.62x33) 110 gr, production over 6 milions this is alone with no rifle ammos


----------



## Clay_Allison (Feb 4, 2010)

Only one battle rifle suitable for mass production and general issue as the standard infantry arm. No brainer.


----------



## timshatz (Feb 4, 2010)

I'll break the trend and go with the Carbine. Lighter, larger clip capacity, good enough. 

I own an M1 Rifle and know how they shoot. A lot of fun to blast away with. But the Carbine just seems easier. Have fired that as well. Less kick and does damage.


----------



## Clay_Allison (Feb 4, 2010)

timshatz said:


> I'll break the trend and go with the Carbine. Lighter, larger clip capacity, good enough.
> 
> I own an M1 Rifle and know how they shoot. A lot of fun to blast away with. But the Carbine just seems easier. Have fired that as well. Less kick and does damage.


It's a very good weapon, but if I could only pick one to arm my entire infantry with, gotta go with the Rifle over the Carbine. Make a bigger carbine in .30 Remington (rimless semi-auto capable version of the 30-30) and we'll talk.


----------



## riacrato (Feb 4, 2010)

SVT had problems probably due to relatively poor worksmanship. It's also too long imo. Other than that a good rifle.

G43 is not mature enough, worksmanship is poor and the bolt carrier moving outside of the stock is problematic.

M1 has good to very good worksmanship and is a very mature design. It also has better sights for long range shooting. Clip reloading is inferior to magazine reloading, but the other two others were usually loaded from stripper clips as well.

So all in all: M1 Garand wins by a good margin. If worksmanship was on equal level and the SVT and G43 were actually issued with spare magazines it'd be a little closer. M1 carbine would be a candidate if there were spitzer type bullets for it.


----------



## fastmongrel (Feb 4, 2010)

A rifle which very nearly made it into service but was stopped by the invasion of Poland when the Belgian army decided to concentrate on bolt action rifles was the SAFN. It was produced as the FN model 49 after the war. I have fired one in 30-06 calibre and I thought it was a lovely rifle with a beautiful balance. It would have been introduced into Belgian service in 1940 and I have read that the British Army had a great interest in it.


----------



## Clay_Allison (Feb 4, 2010)

I'm a big fan of the FN 49. If it was indeed the same rifle it would have been very good.


----------



## riacrato (Feb 4, 2010)

Indeed a missed opportunity. Saive fled to Britain in 40. Wonder why he never tried to market the rifle to Enfield or the likes.


----------



## davebender (Feb 4, 2010)

All these semi-automatic rifles were relatively expensive to produce. Which is why nobody except the U.S. produced semi-automatic rifles for general issue. However since we are on the subject you missed a rifle which might have been mass produced if Germany had considered it to be cost effective.

*ZH-29 Rifle.*
Modern Firearms - ZH-29 rifle





Caliber: 7.92x57 mm Mauser, also 7x57 Mauser, .30-06 US, and others 
Action: Gas operated, side-swinging bolt
Overall length: 1150 mm 
Barrel length: 545 mm 
Weight: 4.5 kg 
Magazine capacity: 5, 10 or 25 rounds


----------



## CharlesBronson (Feb 4, 2010)

That was ugly, actually even the italians and japaneses have some kind of semiatuo rifles in development, the Armaguerra 6,5 carcano was fully developed and ready to production as early as 1939 but with no effect. The K-43 was good, but my vote goes to the Garand, is the best definately.


_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F25NarNVzSc_


----------



## Zniperguy114 (Feb 5, 2010)

timshatz said:


> I'll break the trend and go with the Carbine. Lighter, larger clip capacity, good enough.
> 
> I own an M1 Rifle and know how they shoot. A lot of fun to blast away with. But the Carbine just seems easier. Have fired that as well. Less kick and does damage.



I agree. the .30 carbine round (7.62mm by 33mm) was considerably smaller than the .30-06 (7.62mm by 63mm). Also it weighted less than the current standard U.S. M16 rifle, contianed more rounds, had low recoil and thus was alot more controlable than its big brother, the Garand. I not saying the Garand was a bad rifle, because it was great, but the carbine was the future. it was only .30mm away from the german 7.92mm _Kurz_ ( or the 7.92mm by 33mm round) used the the very first assault rifle, the sturmgewehr 44.
So, with that said, if the carbine had a full auto ability, you could consider it an assault rifle. But it still packed a .30 calibre punch and was loved by the troops because of these great traits.(by the way, there was a full auto one built during the Korean war, though it was in a library book that I read a few years back, but there was one none the less if you take the time to look it up.) That is truely why I voted for the carbine, because it was argueably more innovative than the Garand and was a poineer of the american assault rifle.


----------



## B-17engineer (Feb 5, 2010)

From another forum and found it interesting...



> The Garand was a regular rifle round, accurate and deadly well beyond 200 yards which is just about the limit of the .30 caliber Carbine round and barrel length. The Carbine is short range, quick point, low recoil, and less than a "power puncher" with its little 110 grain bullet travelling at only about 1990 feet per second.
> 
> The Garand is every thing the Carbine isn't. Long range, slower point time, higher recoil, and a real "hitter" with its 150 grain bullet travelling at nearly 2900 feet per second.
> 
> The Carbine was the "non-rifleman's" weapon, staff officers, clerk typists, cooks, truck drivers. The paratroops used them but preferred the Garand. The sweet little .30 carbine was an alternative, but to a pistol, not the Garand. If the M2 select-fire and it's 30 round banana magazine had been introduced sooner, with a slightly more powerfull round than the straight walled extended pistol round, America may well have fielded a very successful "assault rifle".


----------



## Zniperguy114 (Feb 5, 2010)

davebender said:


> All these semi-automatic rifles were relatively expensive to produce. Which is why nobody except the U.S. produced semi-automatic rifles for general issue. However since we are on the subject you missed a rifle which might have been mass produced if Germany had considered it to be cost effective.
> 
> *ZH-29 Rifle.*
> Modern Firearms - ZH-29 rifle
> ...



that looks like a decent design, but how many were built? sounds like it wasn't massed produced, so i doubt it made a difference at all. Believe me, its not that i do not now like it, its just that it wasn't a gaint like the well-known ones above. If it was massed produced and became famous, sure i would have added it to the list, just that it didn't and i don't think an experimental rifle should be included with a bunch of well known sucessfully mass produced rifles. But I may be wrong...


----------



## DAVIDICUS (Feb 5, 2010)

Full auto M1 Carbines (M2) were introduced in the latter part of 1944. I don't think the 30rd magazine was introduced during WWII though.


----------



## renrich (Feb 6, 2010)

The main reason the M1 Carbine was liked is because it was easy to carry, which is all that most troops ever did with their weapon. In no way was it a battle rifle. If the US troops had been armed with the 30 Carbine instead of the Garand, their combat ability would have been substantially degraded.


----------



## parsifal (Feb 6, 2010)

The carbine was more a semi automatic pistol than a rifle. 

The Garand is the best workable design for the narrow confines of the poll. however it was outclassed by a rifle that is outside the parameters of the poll, the German STG 44 Assault Rifle. The FG 42 assault rifle also outclassed the Garand, but these weapons arent claassified as semi automatic. If you disregard the full automatic aspects of these guns and just concentrate on their semi automatic aspects, they still outclass the Garand by a mile.


----------



## davebender (Feb 6, 2010)

Axis History Forum • View topic - Armaments of China and Siam to 1949 Part 3: Siam


> 7 x 57mm Mauser or 7.92 x 57mm Mauser?: ZB (Brno) ZH-29 semi-automatic rifle: This advanced rifle was designed by Emanuel Holek ca. 1927-1928, allegedly to meet a Chinese requirement for a semi-auto rifle. China acquired 150 of the rifles in 1929, and several hundred more were purchased through 1932, for a total of between 500 and 600 of these very well made rifles. This rifle was also exported in small quantities to Siam and Ethiopia, and was tested in 1932 by both Romania and Turkey. Several undisclosed South American countries tested the weapon as well.


I'd hazard a guess that total ZH-29 rifle production was well over 1,000. And most of the weapons were actually used in combat. Hence it was not experimental. 

Germany halted production of the ZH-29 during 1939 because the weapon was expensive. But they could have gone the American route, throwing money at the problem and producing semi-automatic rifles by the millions. Instead they opted for the dirt cheap and even better StG44.


----------



## Clay_Allison (Feb 7, 2010)

davebender said:


> Axis History Forum • View topic - Armaments of China and Siam to 1949 Part 3: Siam
> 
> I'd hazard a guess that total ZH-29 rifle production was well over 1,000. And most of the weapons were actually used in combat. Hence it was not experimental.
> 
> Germany halted production of the ZH-29 during 1939 because the weapon was expensive. But they could have gone the American route, throwing money at the problem and producing semi-automatic rifles by the millions. *Instead they opted for the dirt cheap and even better StG44*.



Yeah, 5 years later. That's too little too late.


----------



## davebender (Feb 8, 2010)

I agree. However you've got to consider that Germany had to build their military and supporting industrial complex practically from scratch beginning in 1934. Border defenses and army artillery had the highest priority so they could protect themselves from a threatened Franco-Russian invasion. Germany also needed aerial and coastal defenses.

Replacing the relatively effective Mauser 98 with an assault rifle fell into the "nice to have but not essential" category.


----------



## Clay_Allison (Feb 8, 2010)

davebender said:


> I agree. However you've got to consider that Germany had to build their military and supporting industrial complex practically from scratch beginning in 1934. Border defenses and army artillery had the highest priority so they could protect themselves from a threatened Franco-Russian invasion. Germany also needed aerial and coastal defenses.
> 
> Replacing the relatively effective Mauser 98 with an assault rifle fell into the "nice to have but not essential" category.


In hindsight though, a great rifle is a force multiplier that can be applied millions of times. If the Germans had created a magazine fed, semi-auto assault rifle or battle rifle who knows how that might have affected the defense of Normandy, the battle of the bulge, and Moscow/Stalingrad. Rate of fire can sometimes keep the battle moving forward and prevent offensives from bogging down.

When you think about it, a mag-fed battle rifle fits the concept of blitzkrieg far better than a top loading bolt gun.


----------



## davebender (Feb 8, 2010)

A great machinegun is a bigger infantry force multiplier. Germany nailed that requirement with the MG34 and MG42. Well trained and equipped forward observers to coordinate artillery and air support are also huge infantry force multipliers. Germany nailed that requirement also.

The German Rifle Testing Commission began work on procuring an assault rifle during 1938. The program had a relatively low priority. However they eventually hit a home run with the StG44 and StG45 weapons. Now if money grew on trees in Germany these weapons would almost certainly have entered service sooner.


----------



## Zniperguy114 (Feb 8, 2010)

davebender said:


> A great machinegun is a bigger infantry force multiplier. Germany nailed that requirement with the MG34 and MG42. Well trained and equipped forward observers to coordinate artillery and air support are also huge infantry force multipliers. Germany nailed that requirement also.
> 
> The German Rifle Testing Commission began work on procuring an assault rifle during 1938. The program had a relatively low priority. However they eventually hit a home run with the StG44 and StG45 weapons. Now if money grew on trees in Germany these weapons would almost certainly have entered service sooner.



You're right. After the horrible outcome of trench warfare for germany, it was obviosly smart for german commandos to build the squad not of a rifle, but a GPMG. And that is exactly what they did, of course. The german squad during WWII was to serve a purpose - protect and/or aid the GPMG in anyway possible. And if I'm not mistaken, that statagy worked pretty succesfully if you look at the first part of the war.


----------



## parsifal (Feb 8, 2010)

Its true that rifles provide a relatively minor component to platoon firepower, though to be fair to both the British and the Americans, they continued to believe that MGs were support elements rather than the focus of the squads firepower. 

Interstingly however, rifles do provide greater defensive potential. The MG can lay down large amounts of firepower, but it also can be the focus of enemy efforts to silence it. Being a single point, rather than eight or ten like the riflemen, the opponent of the MG can concentrate firepower to destroy that MGs resistance.

The Grands alleged firepower advanatages have been discussed and rehashed many times. There is no doubt that the garand did confer additional firepower to the inidividual Infantryman, but for the squad as a whole, the Grand has been estimated as providing only about 20% more firepower to the squad overall. this is because as a a fraction of the squads total firepower potential, the rifle element only adds a relatively small proportion


----------



## Clay_Allison (Feb 9, 2010)

American weapons gave far more mobility than German weapons though. The MG42 with ammo was heavier than the BAR and the 98 Mauser didn't give you a chance to shoot on the move without the bolt cycle slowing you down, the M1 carbines sprinkled in gave even more mobility and ability to sustain fire on the move.

If I was charging up a hill I'd rather be American than German.


----------



## parsifal (Feb 9, 2010)

Your right about firepower on the move, however the manouvre was usually fire then movement. Standard Infantry Assault terchnique is that you have three elements to the assault, the support element, which is laying down the supressing fire. An MG 42 or a Vickers or a 30 cal could do that, Brens, BARs and the like were less effective at the support role, but were more mobile than a 30 cal or a Vickers, but only slightly more mobile than an MG 42 (MG42s were a "modern" design in that they could fulfil the Infantry Support and assault functions under the one design). The support element usually contained the heavy weapons of the platoon....the HMGs, and the mortars....their job was to keep the enemy pinned. Then in a textbook assault ther would be two assault elements, a firing element, and a moving element. The firing element would be digging in and returning fire, to assist the support squad in keeping the enemy formation pinned. Finally there was the moving or assaulting element, which concentrated in getting to a position, rather than waste time in firing while moving. The assaulting and the firing elements of the attack would alternate, as one elment reached its objective and dug in, it would lay down suppressive fire, whilst the original firing element would now assume the role of moving element and begin movement to its intermediate objective, all the while receiving covering fire from the other two elments.

Once the two manouvre elements had reached their final positions, usually on the flanks of the defender, the three elments would then corordinate for the final assault. The support element would lay down smoke and as intense covering fire as was possible, whilst the two mobile elements would fix bayonets (for the riflemen) and use machine pistols to keep the heads of the enemy squad down, until they had either surrendered or died. The semi-automatic rifle did not play as big an improvement to that formula as one might expect, though its effect is undeniable. Being able to fire from the hip might improve the elan of the assaulting troops I suppose.


----------



## Clay_Allison (Feb 9, 2010)

Also the two-element plan doesn't work as well fighting in little cramped european towns and hedgerows.


----------



## renrich (Feb 10, 2010)

Watched an episode last night on the Military Channel, ( which I had seen before.) Was reminded again that you cannot trust any information from the media. This episode was best rifle. The Garand ranked 4th, which was alright with me since length of service played heavily in the rankings. However, they said that a weakness of the Garand was that the noise the clip made when it was ejected told the enemy that the rifle was empty and therefore the enemy soldier would then attack the soldier with the empty rifle. What a crock! They had combat film showing soldiers firing Garands, in Europe and in the Pacific. All the film showed the soldiers behind some cover, a tree, a wall, a trench, etc. along with other soldiers firing the Garands. Now a 3006 round makes a lot of noise and a clip making it's ching noise would be impossible to hear in the din of battle. Now, if two soldiers were stalking one another, in the pitch dark and were within a few yards of one another and it was very quiet, that ching noise might be audible if no other weapons were firing. The episode said that the US soldiers learned to keep an empty clip in their pocket to throw on the ground and fool the enemy. BS! The ching noise occurs when the clip is ejected from the breech, not when the clip hits the ground. When I was in basic, our cadre were almost all Korean War vets and some also WW2 and not one said that the noise of the ejecting clip was a problem. On the range, with a lot of rifles firing at once, one could hear that ching from one's own rifle and maybe the one's on either side sometimes but for an enemy to hear it, he would have to be right next to you. If you see, read or hear it in the media, it is either inaccurate, exaggerated or a damn lie.


----------



## Clay_Allison (Feb 10, 2010)

renrich said:


> Watched an episode last night on the Military Channel, ( which I had seen before.) Was reminded again that you cannot trust any information from the media. This episode was best rifle. The Garand ranked 4th, which was alright with me since length of service played heavily in the rankings. However, they said that a weakness of the Garand was that the noise the clip made when it was ejected told the enemy that the rifle was empty and therefore the enemy soldier would then attack the soldier with the empty rifle. What a crock! They had combat film showing soldiers firing Garands, in Europe and in the Pacific. All the film showed the soldiers behind some cover, a tree, a wall, a trench, etc. along with other soldiers firing the Garands. Now a 3006 round makes a lot of noise and a clip making it's ching noise would be impossible to hear in the din of battle. Now, if two soldiers were stalking one another, in the pitch dark and were within a few yards of one another and it was very quiet, that ching noise might be audible if no other weapons were firing. The episode said that the US soldiers learned to keep an empty clip in their pocket to throw on the ground and fool the enemy. BS! The ching noise occurs when the clip is ejected from the breech, not when the clip hits the ground. When I was in basic, our cadre were almost all Korean War vets and some also WW2 and not one said that the noise of the ejecting clip was a problem. On the range, with a lot of rifles firing at once, one could hear that ching from one's own rifle and maybe the one's on either side sometimes but for an enemy to hear it, he would have to be right next to you. If you see, read or hear it in the media, it is either inaccurate, exaggerated or a damn lie.


I've always found that myth to be ridiculous. The only part that was a little bit plausible is that the clip shooting upward would give away your position visibly to someone looking in that direction, especially a sniper.


----------



## timshatz (Feb 10, 2010)

renrich said:


> Watched an episode last night on the Military Channel, ( which I had seen before.) Was reminded again that you cannot trust any information from the media. This episode was best rifle. The Garand ranked 4th, which was alright with me since length of service played heavily in the rankings. However, they said that a weakness of the Garand was that the noise the clip made when it was ejected told the enemy that the rifle was empty and therefore the enemy soldier would then attack the soldier with the empty rifle. What a crock! They had combat film showing soldiers firing Garands, in Europe and in the Pacific. All the film showed the soldiers behind some cover, a tree, a wall, a trench, etc. along with other soldiers firing the Garands. Now a 3006 round makes a lot of noise and a clip making it's ching noise would be impossible to hear in the din of battle. Now, if two soldiers were stalking one another, in the pitch dark and were within a few yards of one another and it was very quiet, that ching noise might be audible if no other weapons were firing. The episode said that the US soldiers learned to keep an empty clip in their pocket to throw on the ground and fool the enemy. BS! The ching noise occurs when the clip is ejected from the breech, not when the clip hits the ground. When I was in basic, our cadre were almost all Korean War vets and some also WW2 and not one said that the noise of the ejecting clip was a problem. On the range, with a lot of rifles firing at once, one could hear that ching from one's own rifle and maybe the one's on either side sometimes but for an enemy to hear it, he would have to be right next to you. If you see, read or hear it in the media, it is either inaccurate, exaggerated or a damn lie.



Agreed. 40 guys shooting M1s, and IF you hear it go "ping", are you gonna know which one is empty or do anything about it. Nah, BS.


----------



## ToughOmbre (Feb 10, 2010)

Couldn't agree more ren about the Garand "ping myth". 

Throwing an en-bloc clip on the ground to fool the enemy?  

People just love to believe in myths, legends and conspiracy theories.

And 99.9999999% of them are pure BS!

TO


----------



## Clay_Allison (Feb 10, 2010)

That's a great idea, give away your position to "fool" the enemy. That's got to be entirely spurious.


----------



## Zniperguy114 (Feb 10, 2010)

renrich said:


> Watched an episode last night on the Military Channel, ( which I had seen before.) Was reminded again that you cannot trust any information from the media. This episode was best rifle. The Garand ranked 4th, which was alright with me since length of service played heavily in the rankings. However, they said that a weakness of the Garand was that the noise the clip made when it was ejected told the enemy that the rifle was empty and therefore the enemy soldier would then attack the soldier with the empty rifle. What a crock! They had combat film showing soldiers firing Garands, in Europe and in the Pacific. All the film showed the soldiers behind some cover, a tree, a wall, a trench, etc. along with other soldiers firing the Garands. Now a 3006 round makes a lot of noise and a clip making it's ching noise would be impossible to hear in the din of battle. Now, if two soldiers were stalking one another, in the pitch dark and were within a few yards of one another and it was very quiet, that ching noise might be audible if no other weapons were firing. The episode said that the US soldiers learned to keep an empty clip in their pocket to throw on the ground and fool the enemy. BS! The ching noise occurs when the clip is ejected from the breech, not when the clip hits the ground. When I was in basic, our cadre were almost all Korean War vets and some also WW2 and not one said that the noise of the ejecting clip was a problem. On the range, with a lot of rifles firing at once, one could hear that ching from one's own rifle and maybe the one's on either side sometimes but for an enemy to hear it, he would have to be right next to you. If you see, read or hear it in the media, it is either inaccurate, exaggerated or a damn lie.



And, if you don't know already, if the ping was a problem, you could just have a squad mate be ready with a full clip to take the enemy out when he pops uphis head and tries to shoot at the soldier with the empty clip anyway. simple prolem solved.


----------



## renrich (Feb 11, 2010)

Another point is that with practise the Garand is very easy and fast to reload. We had a rapid fire exercise in basic on the KD range where we loaded a single round, from the prone position, and upon a signal had 10 seconds ( I think) to fire the single round, reload and get off eight more rounds at the target. Another thing that gets under my skin is authors of historical novels who don't know their weapons. Am reading Jeff Shaara's "No Less Than Victory" a gift, and one of the characters in the book, during the Battle Of the Bulge, obviously is using a Garand. The Garand is mentioned over and over again. The character in the book several times, glances down to see if a clip is loaded in his rifle. I got news for Shaara, as you cannot glance down and see if a clip is loaded. All you can do is look down, pull back the operating rod handle and see if a round is chambered but even then you cannot tell how many rounds are in the rifle without unloading all rounds. If I was going to write a trilogy about WW2, which this book is the third one of that trilogy, I would get me an M1 and become familiar with it, even to the point of firing it. Likewise, if I was writing about the War of Northern Aggression I would get a rifled musket and find out all I could about it. I guess I am just old and crochety.


----------



## Demetrious (Feb 11, 2010)

renrich said:


> t the War of Northern Aggression



Us Yankees call that the "War of H'AINT AFEER'D O NUTHIN." 



> The Grands alleged firepower advanatages have been discussed and rehashed many times. There is no doubt that the garand did confer additional firepower to the inidividual Infantryman, but for the squad as a whole, the Grand has been estimated as providing only about 20% more firepower to the squad overall. this is because as a a fraction of the squads total firepower potential, the rifle element only adds a relatively small proportion



If you're talking about your standard US Rifle squad, which, to my memory, had 10 riflemen, one BAR gunner, and one with a Thompson SMG... are you saying that the single BAR and Thompson outweighed the ten riflemen?


----------



## renrich (Feb 11, 2010)

Demetrious, very good. I have not heard that one before.


----------



## Demetrious (Feb 11, 2010)

renrich said:


> Demetrious, very good. I have not heard that one before.



My cousins live in Georgia (my yankee aunt married an Alabama man,) so my family knows pretty much every one to exist, and we're constantly manufacturing new ones.


----------



## Shortround6 (Feb 11, 2010)

Demetrious said:


> If you're talking about your standard US Rifle squad, which, to my memory, had 10 riflemen, one BAR gunner, and one with a Thompson SMG... are you saying that the single BAR and Thompson outweighed the ten riflemen?



I was thinking the same thing. The composition of the US squads did change during the war with the number of BARs increasing. With other countries the squad automatic/LMG did provide the the majority of the fire power. 8 Grarands do but out more firepower than 8 bolt action rifles but the were few LMG that had less firepower than a BAR. 
Not all early war US squads had Garands, at least in training and initial planning.


----------



## Demetrious (Feb 11, 2010)

Shortround6 said:


> I was thinking the same thing. The composition of the US squads did change during the war with the number of BARs increasing. With other countries the squad automatic/LMG did provide the the majority of the fire power. 8 Grarands do but out more firepower than 8 bolt action rifles but the were few LMG that had less firepower than a BAR.
> Not all early war US squads had Garands, at least in training and initial planning.



Add to that the fact that squad LMGs were just that- squad-based. They maneuvered with the riflemen as an integral part of the unit. The "base of fire" was put down by dedicated MMG or HMG teams that operated as their own units.


----------



## parsifal (Feb 11, 2010)

Demetrious said:


> If you're talking about your standard US Rifle squad, which, to my memory, had 10 riflemen, one BAR gunner, and one with a Thompson SMG... are you saying that the single BAR and Thompson outweighed the ten riflemen?




Its not valid to compare the BAR to the rifle component, because of the limited magazined ammunition supply in the weapon. This was a criticism levelled at the BAR from its very inception, based as it was on the French concept of firing from the hip to support the advancing Infantry in WWI. The french during the fighting in the great war developed this idea of returning fire while advancing, developing a weapon, the Chaucat, as the weapon to provide that firepower. It was a concept and a weapon that nearly destroyed the French army in 1917. The Chaucat disaster is still remembered as an exemplary example on how not to employ machine huns. Despite this, the BAR was developed to fulfil the same role, as at that time the US army was desperate to pick up any helpful pointers from overseas armies that it felt had more expereince than it. In the finish the BAR was not used in that way, but as a squad support weapon it was still limited by its inherent design

A better comparison would be to compare the firepower generated by the rifle element to that of a true support gun, like the 30 cal or better still, the MG42. The MG 42 can generate up to 1200 rpm of controlled and aimed fire, over a distance of up to 1000 yards or so, though typically this was more like 500 yards. 

I dont know th exact ROF for the Garand, but for the Lee Enfield, the fastest bolt action ever made, typically it was 10 rpm, with a maximum achieved under combat conditions at Mons in 1914, of 15 rpm. Thats aimed fire incidentally. As I said, I dont know the the rof for the garand under combat conditions, but for aimed fire, would estimate that to be about 20 rpm per riflemen. Typical ranges that riflemen can engage under combat conditions are about 250 yards. When you compare that to the typical engaement ranges of the MG42, it becomes apparent that the MG can fire for longer and faster than the riflmen. If the range is ignored, the ten riflemen will get off 200 rounds per minute, combined, to the 1200 rounds per minute of the MG 42. Even the 30 cal, with an ROF of 600rpm, will have three times the firepower of the rifle component. And I am not really taking into account the range advantages for the support guns

The Thompson has the ability to match the 30 cal in terms of rof, though the burst is ,imited by the magazine, and fire from the SMG is going to be only a fraction as accurate. Moreover, in terms of effective range, the Thompson (or any other SMG) is limited by its range. Its a close assault weapon, designed mostly for work in the trenches. It gave Infantry the ability to deliver large amounts of firepower at close range, for a shaort period of time, delivered hopefully at the right time, and in the right place. 

The BAR could never really fulfil that role mostly because of the limited ammunition supply. It was incapable of laying down a continuous stream of fire to support the advanacing (or retreating) Infantry. This was the great strength of the German MG development....what we now call the GPMG, it could fulfil the role of both support and squad based weapons, and gave them an enormous advantage in firepower as a result. For the allies, the idea of a support MG had to be retained as a separate unit, in the case of the British it was the Vickers, in the case of the US it was the 30 cal. Even though the Allied ideas on MGs were not as advanced as the german, the same basic truths still apply, the majority of the firepower for the squad came from its MG support (the fact that the support for the squad was from outside the squad is not that important). The allied squads, as I indicated previously retained an outdated concept that it was the rifle that provided the majority of the firepower for the squad)


----------



## Clay_Allison (Feb 11, 2010)

The BAR is one of the oddest rifle niches of all time, a full auto assault rifle in a full power rifle cartridge. Like an assault rifle for a gorilla rather than a guerilla.


----------



## renrich (Feb 12, 2010)

I understand that the BAR, with a cut down stock was quite effective when used by Clyde Barrow and others. Kidding aside I never quite understood the efficacy of the BAR. It always seemed to me that a skilled rifleman with a Garand could almost equal a BAR because of being more accurate. However, the BAR was still in everyday use in Korea.

In 1959, in basic training, we did an exercise called line of skirmishers. This was a squad in line abreast about five yards apart advancing across a field firing the Garand from the hip. I thought that this seemed like a good way to hunt quail but a good way to get killed in a war if the enemy had cover and automatic weapons. To me, it smacked of War of Northern Aggression tactics. In 1959, we still qualified on the KD range but also fired at pop up targets at indeterminate ranges in what was called Trainfire.


----------



## Clay_Allison (Feb 12, 2010)

renrich said:


> I understand that the BAR, with a cut down stock was quite effective when used by Clyde Barrow and others. Kidding aside I never quite understood the efficacy of the BAR. It always seemed to me that a skilled rifleman with a Garand could almost equal a BAR because of being more accurate. However, the BAR was still in everyday use in Korea.
> 
> In 1959, in basic training, we did an exercise called line of skirmishers. This was a squad in line abreast about five yards apart advancing across a field firing the Garand from the hip. I thought that this seemed like a good way to hunt quail but a good way to get killed in a war if the enemy had cover and automatic weapons. To me, it smacked of War of Northern Aggression tactics. In 1959, we still qualified on the KD range but also fired at pop up targets at indeterminate ranges in what was called Trainfire.



A pair of BARs were with the weapons load that killed Bonnie and Clyde too. One of the Tx Rangers had one, and the Sheriff's Deputy that found out where they'd be had BARs. Machine Gun Kelly also made a name for himself with the weapon. It was great for guys like that because in a gang fight the 30-06 bullets could slice through car bodies that would stop .45 ACP bullets (like those fired by the Thompson).


----------



## timshatz (Feb 12, 2010)

Clay_Allison said:


> Machine Gun Kelly also made a name for himself with the weapon.).



I thought he did it with a Tommy Gun. Heard the guy really didn't deserve the name "Machine Gun Kelly". It was given to him by his girlfriend (who was a real pain in the ass type) as an attempt to make him more than he really was. Guy was more of a talker than a doer.

Something of a Macbeth type character, he wasn't driven, she was.


----------



## Clay_Allison (Feb 12, 2010)

timshatz said:


> I thought he did it with a Tommy Gun. Heard the guy really didn't deserve the name "Machine Gun Kelly". It was given to him by his girlfriend (who was a real pain in the ass type) as an attempt to make him more than he really was. Guy was more of a talker than a doer.
> 
> Something of a Macbeth type character, he wasn't driven, she was.


Might be I was thinking about someone else.


----------



## Shortround6 (Feb 12, 2010)

parsifal said:


> A better comparison would be to compare the firepower generated by the rifle element to that of a true support gun, like the 30 cal or better still, the MG42. The MG 42 can generate up to 1200 rpm of controlled and aimed fire, over a distance of up to 1000 yards or so, though typically this was more like 500 yards.



These were usually company or battalion level weapons. Not really in a discussion of squad or platoon weapons. 

The MG 42 cycled at 1200rpm but the deliverable rate was much closer to 250rpm. It needed a large and complicated tripod to do it and a supply of spare barrels. 

The practical rate of fire for most bolt guns is 10-15 rpm ( it takes 10-15 seconds to reload using a stripper clip. The Enfield is a bit better in some situations, especially for the first minute.

Aimed fire takes about 2-3 seconds a shot, the hang up is in the reloads. the semi-auto is a bit faster in that you don't have to work the bolt but with both you do have to reacquire the sight picture. Non-aimed fire (suppresive?) gives a much bigger advantage to the semi-auto.

Most tripod MGs could only put out 200-250 rpm effectively for more than a few minutes time with the LMGs being good for 100-150rpm. The sturdiness of their mounts did mean that the fire was much more effective however. A squad LMG (not BAR) was good for the same number of rounds per minute as 5-10 riflemen (while only needing 2 men) but it's actual effect was greater. The BAR was good for about 80-100rpm and when you compare that to the higher rates of fire for the semi-auto rifllemen it is easy to see where the US squads fire power was coming from. And thus the Platoon's firepower. 





parsifal said:


> The BAR could never really fulfil that role mostly because of the limited ammunition supply. It was incapable of laying down a continuous stream of fire to support the advanacing (or retreating) Infantry. This was the great strength of the German MG development....what we now call the GPMG, it could fulfil the role of both support and squad based weapons, and gave them an enormous advantage in firepower as a result.


Not really, at the squad level every MG had a limited ammunition supply. In the case of the BAR it was around 800rds carried in Magazines or bandoleers to reload the magazines. In the case of the Bren it was the 750 rounds in the magazines ( or less depending on how the magazines were filled) plus what ever the riflemen would give up to reload magazines. For the Germans at 6lbs per belt of 100rounds or so it was whatever weight of ammunition the squad was willing to carry to support the MG. At 15rps for the MG 34 and 20rps for the MG 42 even 800-1000rounds doesn't last long even fired in bursts and allowing for barrel changes. 

The advantage of the GPMG was that it simplified logistics and training over maintaining two (or three) different guns in the army.




parsifal said:


> For the allies, the idea of a support MG had to be retained as a separate unit, in the case of the British it was the Vickers, in the case of the US it was the 30 cal. Even though the Allied ideas on MGs were not as advanced as the german, the same basic truths still apply, the majority of the firepower for the squad came from its MG support (the fact that the support for the squad was from outside the squad is not that important). The allied squads, as I indicated previously retained an outdated concept that it was the rifle that provided the majority of the firepower for the squad)



The Germans also held an number of tripod mounted MGs in the MG company of the rifle battalion did they not? Provided with larger crews and carts for transport if not motorized these guns had thousands rounds per gun and the equipment for longer ranged support fire. 

The Germans may have held a few tripods at company level for mounting a few of the MGs normally located in the squads for special purposes in defense or attack but then the British were supposed to have a few tripods for the Bren guns at company level also. 
The LMGs that moved with the squads were supposed to add to/ be the core of firepower once the squad had advanced to a new position that the support guns couldn't reach or thicken up a defensive position.


----------



## timshatz (Feb 12, 2010)

Clay_Allison said:


> Might be I was thinking about someone else.



Could be. There were a few criminals who wandered around with BARs (you could buy both the BAR and the Thompson at a hardware store back then) and some of them even knew how to use them (as apposed to John Dilinger who was supposed to be the worst shot in the criminal world). Problem is it was very hard to hide or manuver with. It's a big gun. 

There was a guy, I can't remember his name but it might've been Vern Miller, who was very good with a Thomson or BAR. Was trained by the military and then spent time as a cop before going rogue. Once wiped out a hit squad that was out to kill him. Very good and very brutal guy.


----------



## renrich (Feb 12, 2010)

I think they got some of the weapons by robbing National Guard armories also.


----------



## parsifal (Feb 12, 2010)

_These were usually company or battalion level weapons. Not really in a discussion of squad or platoon weapons. _

True, in the sense of who controlled them, but not true in the sense of those who used them. A squad or platoon would often be given the suport of a 30 cal or Vickers for a given operation. 

_The MG 42 cycled at 1200rpm but the deliverable rate was much closer to 250rpm. It needed a large and complicated tripod to do it and a supply of spare barrels. _

250 rounds per minute is a bit low from what Ive seen and read (ive never see an MG42 firing, but I have seen an M-60, which is based on the German gun.....it has a practical rof much higher than what you are saying). At 1200 rpm it will tear through barrels quickly, if fired at that rate continuously, but not so quickly if there pauses in that fire. Changing a barrel for an MG 42 was an easy and quick operation. 

For the Vickers, from what I have read, and from what vets have told me, it mattered not if the firing requirements were being measured in seconds minutes or hours....the Vickers could keep spewing rounds out continuously no matter what the task.

The Germans could and did use the MG 42, as a support weapon, without the tripod that you referring to. As an improvisation, they would use a second crew member. The bipod at the front would be held by this second crew memeber, to keep the gun more stable. Realistically, the gun would require a minimum of 3 members to function efficiently, but the returns for this investment were well worth it. 

_The practical rate of fire for most bolt guns is 10-15 rpm ( it takes 10-15 seconds to reload using a stripper clip. The Enfield is a bit better in some situations, especially for the first minute._

Most books that I have put the practical rate of fire for the Mauser at 8 rounds per minute, with the Enfield at 15 rounds per minute. I did my small arms gunnery training on the Enfield (partly), and achieving a rate of fire of 10 rounds per minute at a target over 250 yards and achieving the required level of accuracy takes years of practice....a time factor that just isnt available in wartime. For most average shots, achieving accurate aimed fire at those ranges, they might get 2-4 rounds off per minute, and it doesnt matter if the rifle is auto, semi auto, or bolt action. After I progressed to the SLR (FN) I still had difficulty achieving high accuracy at those ranges. If we accept that getting near the target is good enough, and rely on mass fire effect to achieve the objective, the rate of fire does go up, but would still be hard pressed to reach that level of 10-15 rpm. A semi auto rifle like the garand could reach that "semi-accurate" rate much more easily. If the fire excercise is a sustaiined firing excercise (where the rate of the MG fire goes down as you say, and which I agree with, though not to the extent that you are saying) so too does the ROF for the rifle element. 

_Aimed fire takes about 2-3 seconds a shot, the hang up is in the reloads. the semi-auto is a bit faster in that you don't have to work the bolt but with both you do have to reacquire the sight picture. Non-aimed fire (suppresive?) gives a much bigger advantage to the semi-auto._

Agreed, except that a high level of training is needed to achieve accurate aimed fire at normal battle ranges of 250 metres or so. At those ranges, in a battlefield environment, against a moving target, it is very difficult to achieve that ROF 

_Most tripod MGs could only put out 200-250 rpm effectively for more than a few minutes time with the LMGs being good for 100-150rpm. The sturdiness of their mounts did mean that the fire was much more effective however. A squad LMG (not BAR) was good for the same number of rounds per minute as 5-10 riflemen (while only needing 2 men) but it's actual effect was greater. The BAR was good for about 80-100rpm and when you compare that to the higher rates of fire for the semi-auto rifllemen it is easy to see where the US squads fire power was coming from. And thus the Platoon's firepower_. 

Agree with your conclusion, though your numbers are low to me for the MGs 


_Not really, at the squad level every MG had a limited ammunition supply. In the case of the BAR it was around 800rds carried in Magazines or bandoleers to reload the magazines. In the case of the Bren it was the 750 rounds in the magazines ( or less depending on how the magazines were filled) plus what ever the riflemen would give up to reload magazines. For the Germans at 6lbs per belt of 100rounds or so it was whatever weight of ammunition the squad was willing to carry to support the MG. At 15rps for the MG 34 and 20rps for the MG 42 even 800-1000rounds doesn't last long even fired in bursts and allowing for barrel changes. _

I cant say much in relation to this. It appears corect to me, but I can approach the supply issue from slightly different perspectives.

A German Infantry Division standard ammunition issue for its Infantry Divs was 150 tons. This was a standard 5 day issue of ammnunition (on the basis of moderate daily usage) , which equates to 50 tons per regiment, 15 tons per bn, and so on. In the heat of battle (ie a high rof) , with maximum ROF maintained, the standard ammunition issue could be shot off in less than 6 hours. A single battalion of the 9th Australian division once shot off something like 40-80 tons of ammuntion in less than hour in one of the battles it got engaged in in 1941. From prepared positions, particularly in defence, the ammuntion expenditure rates could be high, but they were also sustainable (from a weapons usage pov), so long as the ammunition could be kept coming

In New Guinea, my father told me that each man in the squad had to carry two loaded magazines of Bren ammunition, whilst the gunner carried either four or six. In a 12 man squad that gave the gun 26 magazines for immediate use. Roughly that means the squad had 520 rounds available, but then there is all the unchambered ammunition to consider. The standard Jungle pack was about 40 lbs, of which more than half was ammuntion (I am told) . How many rounds is 240 lbs? Ive no idea, but its a lot. 

_The advantage of the GPMG was that it simplified logistics and training over maintaining two (or three) different guns in the army_.

I agree, but thats not the only advanatage. If the fire exercise required sustained fire, a belt fed gun could do longer burst, and variable length bursts. A magazine fed weapon is always limited by the size of the magazine, and though they could be reloaded at intervals, in a hot close assault where it was important to keep the enemy's heads down, the brens and BAR type guns were at a disadvantage. In fact they couldnt really do the job as a single weapon. 

_The Germans also held an number of tripod mounted MGs in the MG company of the rifle battalion did they not? Provided with larger crews and carts for transport if not motorized these guns had thousands rounds per gun and the equipment for longer ranged support fire. 

The Germans may have held a few tripods at company level for mounting a few of the MGs normally located in the squads for special purposes in defense or attack but then the British were supposed to have a few tripods for the Bren guns at company level also. 
The LMGs that moved with the squads were supposed to add to/ be the core of firepower once the squad had advanced to a new position that the support guns couldn't reach or thicken up a defensive position._

Agree with all of this, except weapons that you refer to as "bn guns" were always attached to companies platoons or even squads when being used. They were commanded by Bn HQ,in the sense that they would be distributed by them, but used by the subordinate formations. This was applicable to all formations that enjoyed a heavy weapons company, these formations were not kept in a concentrated park in the same sense as artillery was.....they were distributed to the subordinatee formations as needed (with the crewws of course) . With regards to you last statement, that is only partly true. Vickers guns were the least mobile of the support guns, MG 42s were as mobile as a Bren or a BAR, and 30 cals almost as mobile. If the platoon or the squad advanced beyond the range of the support element, it would not be unreasonable to expect the support guns to move up with them. The Russians certainly thought this with their whelled "sokolov mounts" for their heavy maxim support guns


----------



## Shortround6 (Feb 12, 2010)

_250 rounds per minute is a bit low from what Ive seen and read (ive never see an MG42 firing, but I have seen an M-60, which is based on the German gun.....it has a practical rof much higher than what you are saying). At 1200 rpm it will tear through barrels quickly, if fired at that rate continuously, but not so quickly if there pauses in that fire. Changing a barrel for an MG 42 was an easy and quick operation. _ 

While I have fired a single 50 round belt from an MG 42 It doesn't qualify me as a MG expert
However please note that that the MG 42 barrels were plain steel and would wear out much quicker from high fire rates than an M-60s stelite lined barrel. While text book fire rates were often exceeded in combat it was given that the MG-42 should be fired at so many rounds per minute and the barrels changed every few minutes. The barrels were rotated so no single barrel was burned out too quickly. 

Even at one belt (250 rounds) per minute the Vickers started boiling water in just a few belts and then evaporated water at the rate of one pint every belt or so. 

_The Germans could and did use the MG 42, as a support weapon, without the tripod that you referring to. As an improvisation, they would use a second crew member. The bipod at the front would be held by this second crew memeber, to keep the gun more stable. Realistically, the gun would require a minimum of 3 members to function efficiently, but the returns for this investment were well worth it. _

this "expedient" was usually used because of tall grass or some other obstacle that prevented normal use of the bipod. Laying the gun across somebody's back or shoulder while they grab the bipod is no substitute for a tripod. Or if you are referring to placing the bipod on the ground and having somebody try to hold it the results aren't going to be a lot better. the rear end of the gun is unsupported except by the firers shoulder and the recoil of 20shots a second WILL move the point of impact even at 100yds. Short bursts are needed with frequent re-aiming. During my very short exposure to this weapon I never got off less than 7 shots per burst although trained gunners with more experience could get off 3-4 round bursts.

ME"Most tripod MGs could only put out 200-250 rpm effectively for more than a few minutes time with the LMGs being good for 100-150rpm..."

_Agree with your conclusion, though your numbers are low to me for the MGs _

I am trying to use numbers I have seen published as either doctrine or practical. For example the Bren gun was supposed to fired at 4 magazines per minute and barrels swapped every 2 1/2 minutes or 10 magazines in a sustained fire mission. Post war Brens converted to 7.62 NATO often (always?) had chrome lined barrels which stood up to the firing better. 
It is the barrel cooling that limited the practical rates of fire more than anything else. Somebody once fired a French AA 52 for 500rounds using linked belts, According to the story there was no rifling left in the barrel for almost 300mm in front of the chamber. Yes the gun will still fire but any hope of accuracy is long gone. 

As noted, Chrome lining and especially stelite will significantly change the the rate of barrel wear. 
Over heating guns can lead to jams and other problems. Melvin Johnson once wrecked a BAR with about 700 rounds. Gun was fastened down and trigger tied back and magazines changed as fast as possible. For-end was smoking before 400 rounds with visible flames not long after. Gun ceased functioning just over 700 rounds when the mainspring (which had lost it's temper) would not return the bolt forward. Please note that the Russians changed the location of the mainspring on the DP light MG from under the barrel to a tube out the back of the receiver on the DPM. 

Is your German example including artillery ammunition?

I do have some figures for a US infantry regiment in the summer of 1941. I am not claiming that this was ever used in combat but it does show what they were thinking in 1941. EACH BAR was allocated 820-860 rounds (depending on which type of rifle squad it was in) on the "unit ammunition train" in addition to the 320 rounds carried by the solder with the weapon. of the ammunition on the unit Am Tn 468-500 rounds were to issued before combat. Another 540-576 round were carried on the ammunition train of a higher unit. The numbers change because of the ammunition in bandoleers. 60 round bandoleers for Bot rifle equipped troops and 48round bandoleers for M-1 equipped troops. 
The numbers for the Browning 1919 air cooled MG are 3000rounds on the prime mover or or ammunition truck, 2000 more rounds on the unit Am Tn and a further 1000rounds on the train of a higher unit. 6000 rounds total compared to the 1720- 1748 for each BAR. 
The 1917 water cooled Brownings were supplied with 6750 rounds on the prime mover or ammo truck with another 1500 rounds on the higher unit ammo train for total of 8250 rounds.
Granted ammo could be redistributed to cover shortages but obviously the water cooled guns were expected to provide the sustained fire support. 

I think you may have mad a slight error in the ammo available for the Bren gun in New Guinea. Bren gun magazines hold 30 rounds (or often 28 to aid reliability). 25 magazines with 28 rounds apiece is 700 rounds. Yes you can use loose ammo or pull the ammo from stripper clips during lulls in the battle but even at my 120 rounds a minute 700 rounds in magazines is going to last under 6 minutes. How fast can a couple of squadies reload the magazines?

Me"The advantage of the GPMG was that it simplified logistics and training over maintaining two (or three) different guns in the army."

_I agree, but thats not the only advanatage. If the fire exercise required sustained fire, a belt fed gun could do longer burst, and variable length bursts. A magazine fed weapon is always limited by the size of the magazine, and though they could be reloaded at intervals, in a hot close assault where it was important to keep the enemy's heads down, the brens and BAR type guns were at a disadvantage. In fact they couldnt really do the job as a single weapon. _

I don't believe anybody was just holding the trigger back on air-cooled MGs of any description. Even Vickers gunners were taught to fire 4-5 round bursts. They just space the burst a bit closer.

_Agree with all of this, except weapons that you refer to as "bn guns" were always attached to companies platoons or even squads when being used. They were commanded by Bn HQ,in the sense that they would be distributed by them, but used by the subordinate formations. This was applicable to all formations that enjoyed a heavy weapons company, these formations were not kept in a concentrated park in the same sense as artillery was.....they were distributed to the subordinatee formations as needed (with the crewws of course) . With regards to you last statement, that is only partly true. Vickers guns were the least mobile of the support guns, MG 42s were as mobile as a Bren or a BAR, and 30 cals almost as mobile. If the platoon or the squad advanced beyond the range of the support element, it would not be unreasonable to expect the support guns to move up with them. The Russians certainly thought this with their whelled "sokolov mounts" for their heavy maxim support guns._

When guns were detached for use by subordinate units, they were often detached in pairs or platoons of 4. They were often used for long range fire or place to enfilade an enemy position or expected attack route. They would usually be part of a battalion fire plan, either in attack or defense. In some circumstances (thick jungle or woods, city streets, very mountainous terrain) with restricted fields of fire they might be parceled out to small units to use as they see fit but these guns are a very important part of the battalions firepower, for a Major to surrender control of these weapons to Sargent or corporals to do with as each sees fit doesn't seem like the best use.
Be sure not to confuse a squad with a Vickers gun in company and a Vickers gun with a squad in company for local security.

As far as movement and the LMG use, it is precisely why the LMG came into wide spread use. In WW I the Vickers and Maxim guns could not keep up the the attacking troops. The LMGs (Lewis, Chauchat, etc) could be brought forward and provide automatic fire from the new forward positions WHILE they waited for the heavier guns to be brought up. In many cases a fold of ground,a stand of trees or buildings could block the line of fire from where the tripod mounted guns were or the LMG was in a vantage point (just over a low ridge) were it could hit targets the Heavy MGs couldn't even if they were only a few hundred yds away. 

And please do not confuse the LMG version of the MG 42 ( or it's capabilities) with the tripod mounted version. While the LMG could be mounted on the tripod with extreme speed without the tripod and the long range sight it had very little long range capability. Without extra barrels and copious amounts of ammunition the LMG MG 42 cannot perform support fire missions like Vickers guns. 

While Russian troops dragging their "sokolov mounts" at the run in attacks make great propaganda photos they also make great targets for any Germans who can see them. 
The big guns ideally support the attack as the troops move forward, then move forward themselves as the leading waves/s cover the big guns advance (change in firing position) with their lighter automatic weapons and rifles. Repeat as needed until ultimate objective is reached. Vickers guns, Maxim guns and the like do not lead attacks or accompany leading waves except in extraordinary circumstances.


----------



## renrich (Feb 13, 2010)

Just as an aside, according to an article in the "American Rifleman" the US Marines in the Pacific obtained 30 cal air cooled MGs from wrecked(?) planes which had a higher ROF than the A6, equipped them with a shoulder stock and bipod and increased their firepower a great deal. According to Dean, that gun weighed around 24 pounds and had a ROF of 1200 RPM.


----------



## Shortround6 (Feb 13, 2010)

renrich said:


> Just as an aside, according to an article in the "American Rifleman" the US Marines in the Pacific obtained 30 cal air cooled MGs from wrecked(?) planes which had a higher ROF than the A6, equipped them with a shoulder stock and bipod and increased their firepower a great deal. According to Dean, that gun weighed around 24 pounds and had a ROF of 1200 RPM.



My Father (who was in the 6th Marine div.) used to tell a story about a man in his company who did the same thing. The company commander made him get rid of it before they saw action because he claimed they would need an entire platoon to haul ammo for it.


----------



## Maxrobot1 (Mar 3, 2010)

I have owned and fired an FN49 in 7mm and had the pleaseer of owning four M1 Garands with my Dad. We fired them in club matches. Friends of mine have owned and shot SVT's, G43s and yes a VZ29. The FN49 was a tilt bolt locking system and the VZ29 was too but the bolt was cammed sideways. 
In firing all except the M1 the shooter feels and hears the clakety-clak of the bolt and bolt carrier reciprocating. With the M1 it is just Bam! Bam! Bam!
Field stripping the others was not for the faint of heart. The M1 is wonderful. No tools needed.
Rugged, reliable, good sights (with windage too!)and quick to reload - the M1 is my choice for best semi-auto rifle.


----------



## RCAFson (Mar 3, 2010)

parsifal said:


> I dont know th exact ROF for the Garand, but for the Lee Enfield, the fastest bolt action ever made, typically it was 10 rpm, with a maximum achieved under combat conditions at Mons in 1914, of 15 rpm. Thats aimed fire incidentally.



The record for the Lee Enfield was 38 aimed rounds per minute: 

_ "The all time aimed fire record with a bolt action rifle was by Sgt. Snoxall of the British army, 38 hits on a 12" bull at 300 yards in 1 minute. "_

See the comment by T Stahl:

_A week ago I tested myself and my No.4 in a "modified" Lord Roberts match (10cm target at 50m instead of 24" at 300yds). I managed to shoot 19 rounds and score 17 hits. And it was only my second attempt at the "mad minute"._

Rate of fire for bolt action [Archive] - THR


----------

