Rifles and Machineguns of WW2

[renrich]

Right, I carried a carbine during our maneuvers in Louisiana in 61-62 and it was a wonderful weapon to carry but I had to qualify with one on the range and felt in a real fight I would be terribly undergunned. Always thought I would trade it off for something more powerful if they sent us against the Warsaw Pact people. I magine there was a decent supply of Garands and bandoliers on that beach in Normandy after the first wave hit.

 

[Matt308]

Unfortunately, yes I suspect there were.

 

[renrich]

Matt, went to a cutting today and had another conversation with the retired rancher who was at Omaha beach. This man really loves good horses. He said as they were finally moving off the beach he spotted a German horse team that had been pulling an artillery piece. One horse was down, killed, the other was still hitched standing there in shock. My friend went over and cut loose the living horse. He said he was so shocked he barely moved. Many people don't realise to the extent that German transport was horse drawn.

 

[Matt308]

Yep. Take a look at old footage and you can see that they relied rather heavily upon traditional calvary for things such as moving artillery pieces. What a dichotomy. The worlds leading technological war machine in so many areas and yet utterly reliant upon WWI types of horse drawn movement in others. Amazing.

 

[renrich]

I remember seeing photos taken of the Falaise Pocket after the Jabos had finshed. There were corpses of horses everywhere. Yes it was a paradox about their use of draft animals. At least they could find feed for the animals probably easier than gasoline.

 

[Woods]

The M-1 Garand #1

 

[trackend]

It is a myth or rather a misconception that most German and indeed allied infantry were mechanized the Germans used vast numbers of horses but the main mode of transport on all sides was a pair of ammo boots or as we say in the UK Shankses pony.

 

[HoHun]

Hi Trackend,

>It is a myth or rather a misconception that most German and indeed allied infantry were mechanized

In the case of the Wehrmacht, this myth was deliberately created by the ministry of propaganda that issued regulations to show only (or predominantly) mechanized transport and tanks in the newsreels.

>or as we say in the UK Shankses pony.

Interesting - the German parallel is "auf Schusters Rappen" (on shoemaker's black horses).

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

 

[drgondog]

Right, I carried a carbine during our maneuvers in Louisiana in 61-62 and it was a wonderful weapon to carry but I had to qualify with one on the range and felt in a real fight I would be terribly undergunned. Always thought I would trade it off for something more powerful if they sent us against the Warsaw Pact people. I magine there was a decent supply of Garands and bandoliers on that beach in Normandy after the first wave hit.

If I recall correctly, the purpose of the M-1 Carbine was to replace the 1911A1 primarily - if so it would put the utility of the weapon in a slightly more favorable light from 50-200 yards.

I didn't bother to verify that old memory so it could easily be wrong

 

[Woods]

I beleive you are correct drgondog. That .30 cal was still kind of under powered though.

 

[lucanus]

You know guys a couple of years ago I bought a Johnson in a Pawn Shop
cause the owner wasn't sure what it was....ran just under 400 bills...
traded for a Valmet from a buddy...I got the best end of that one.

 

[fer-de-lance]

The only defining feature of the M1 Garand was the semi-automatic ability of it. It lacked the stopping power, accuracy and range of standard British and German bolt action rifles.

Care to quote a reference to support a higher wounding potential (stopping power) for the 7.7mm X 56R and 7.92mm X 57 being significiantly higher than the 7.62mm X 63.

It should be remembered that the 7.62mm X 51 NATO round adopted to replace the 7.7mm X 56R was based on the 7.62mm X 63 used in the M1.

Again, do you have references for the SLR giving anything away in "lethality" compared to the "Smelly" or the No.4?

I will guarantee you that a West German 7.62mm X 51 (a downgraded M1 round) would produce a wound destroying more tissue than any 7.7mm X 56R. Has to do with the construction of the bullet itself and certainly run counter to your assumption that the 7.7mm X 56R intrinsically having greater "stopping power" than the full up 7.62mm X 63.

The M1 military grade rifle is guaranteed to be under 2.5 M.O.A. when using quality match grade ammunition. But for a battle rifle, what the expert marksman (the minority) can achieve is less important than what the average squad / section G.I. / squaddie can do with the rifle.

It is important to remember that the M1 has a much lower recoil than the Lee-Enfield and the Mauser. Firing the same 7.62mm X 63 round, the M1 with its gas operated semi-automatic operation has a markedly lower recoil impulse than the bolt action M1903. Compared to the K98 and any Lee-Enfield, the difference in recoil with the M1 is even more marked.

THAT, I would submit, makes a big difference when the average soldier is doing the shooting.

The clip wasn't small; it carried 8 rounds but it couldn't be reloaded mid-clip.

.

Anyone who has handled an M1 will tell you that you can eject the partially expended clip and replace it with a full one very quickly. Probably more quickly than any bolt action topping up with more than a couple of rounds.

The Lee Enfield Mk.IV was one of the best rifles of the war, it wasn't revolutionary but it was a good solid build and would easily stop someone in one shot

Sure it was good but the M1 fired faster while achieving essentially comparable lethality and accuracy. Oh yeah, the M1 is also very robust.

 

[Matt308]

Agree fer-de-lance. The M1 was "the finest battle implement of the war". Comparisons of wound ballistics are an art at best. For the most part, all major powers fielded battle rifles that had virtually similar wound ballistics. However, the M1 using a high power cartridge comparable to other bolt action rifles, its semi-auto capability, inherent accuracy, and maintainability in battlefield conditions makes this a world class battle rifle. I do have to perhaps, not disagree, but clarify that the M1 was criticized for its 8-rnd enbloc clip. It could not be topped up and was "supposedly" prone to giving a position away with its ejection. While I can sympathize with the first, the latter is likely myth. In the heat of a firefight, you are not going to hear a "sproing" of sheet metal.

Finally, I own both an Enfield MkIII and an M1. The Enfield has a sharp kick that, while not unnerving, is a marked contrast from the Garand. But I do love my Enfield.

Having said all that, if I had to trundle into the thick of it, I would take an Enfield for sheer ability to abuse the &hit out of it and still expect it to fire.

 

[Matt308]

You know guys a couple of years ago I bought a Johnson in a Pawn Shop
cause the owner wasn't sure what it was....ran just under 400 bills...
traded for a Valmet from a buddy...I got the best end of that one.

Then I must assume that the Johnson was a piece of $hit. Otherwise you got taken my friend.

 

[fer-de-lance]

Wasn't suggesting the M1 didn't have its short comings. That darned "ping" when the empty clip was ejected was one of them. Some old hands would toss an empty clip to fool an unsuspecting enemy into believing that there was empty rifle in the middle of a fire fight ...

My Dad could pull a clip out, hold it in his right hand, push back the operating rod with the heel of his hand, push the clip in with his thumb far enough to release the bolt and pull his hand away while the bolt closes to chamber a round. All this in one smooth motion, (without the thumb being caught) - probably faster than most peole can push the magazine release, pull a fresh magazine out, insert it and chamber a round with the M-16 ...

If there was a partially empty clip, the operating rod could be pulled back to extract the chambered round and holding the bolt open, depressing the magazine catch would eject the partially empty clip. All this is done with the right hand, of course (heel on operating rod handle, thumb depressing the catch and catching the ejected clip). A full 8-round clip could then be loaded, usually faster than a bolt action can be "topped up" with loose rounds.

A half empty "Smelly" (SMLE) could be topped up with a 5 round clip ... but then who could count so precisely in the excitment of action!?

Re: wound ballistics, the first study of the 30-06 was done on goats (French and Callender of the US Army, 1935). The amount of devitalized tissue was somewhat exaggerated because the tests did not control for hitting bone(!) Explosive comminution ... Modern tests are done on anesthetized hogs - usually on a hind limb avoiding hitting bone. All WWII FMJ rifle rounds performed pretty much the same according to the publications I've seen.

 

[Matt308]

Wasn't suggesting the M1 didn't have its short comings. That darned "ping" when the empty clip was ejected was one of them. Some old hands would toss an empty clip to fool an unsuspecting enemy into believing that there was empty rifle in the middle of a fire fight ...

My Dad could pull a clip out, hold it in his right hand, push back the operating rod with the heel of his hand, push the clip in with his thumb far enough to release the bolt and pull his hand away while the bolt closes to chamber a round. All this in one smooth motion, (without the thumb being caught) - probably faster than most peole can push the magazine release, pull a fresh magazine out, insert it and chamber a round with the M-16 ...

If there was a partially empty clip, the operating rod could be pulled back to extract the chambered round and holding the bolt open, depressing the magazine catch would eject the partially empty clip. All this is done with the right hand, of course (heel on operating rod handle, thumb depressing the catch and catching the ejected clip). A full 8-round clip could then be loaded, usually faster than a bolt action can be "topped up" with loose rounds.

A half empty "Smelly" (SMLE) could be topped up with a 5 round clip ... but then who could count so precisely in the excitment of action!?

Re: wound ballistics, the first study of the 30-06 was done on goats (French and Callender of the US Army, 1935). The amount of devitalized tissue was somewhat exaggerated because the tests did not control for hitting bone(!) Explosive comminution ... Modern tests are done on anesthetized hogs - usually on a hind limb avoiding hitting bone. All WWII FMJ rifle rounds performed pretty much the same according to the publications I've seen.

Where do you find this $hit.

Your analogies of the M1 versus a bolt action are illogical. The same shortcomings of topping up hold true for the M1 or any bolt action. Ever ejected a partially empty 8-rnd enbloc M1 clip? Yeah, so what happens Enstein?

And regarding the goats, are you referring to the Strausburg tests?

I don't wish to be the @sshole that I am, but you might wish to ease yourself into these subjects to test whether those who are interested are significantly more informed than you are before posting.

 

[fer-de-lance]

Where do I get this from?

Callender GR, French. RW (1935). Wound ballistics – studies in the mechanisms of wound. production by rifle bullets; Milit. Surg., 77:177-201,

Berlin R, Gelin LE, Janzon B, et al: Local effects of assault rifle bullets in live tissues. Acta Chir Scand Suppl 1976; 459: 1-49.

More references on more recent wound ballistics controveries are also available if you care to discuss.

Strasbourg tests (1993 ASLET International Training Conference, Reno, Nevada)? Perhaps I should be asking why you should be bringing this up in when the discussion has been on terminal ballistics of rifle bullets. I've had plenty of time "easing" myself into this field and know the difference between the mechanism for incapacitation by hand gun bullets and the rifle bullets we have been discussing so far.

I don't recall making an "analogy" between the M1 and a bolt action rifle. What is it that you are referring to?

Reference to "Einstein" aside re: where the rounds may go when you eject a partially expended clip from an M1 ... the question I pose is, can the M1 be emptied of the clip and the unexpended rounds in the manner I described and then reloaded with a fresh clip so that you have a full loaded rifle?

 

[Matt308]

f-d-l your references only confirm that you are parroting text from a book. Thus my reason for asking where you find this stuff.

While it may be faster to insert a new clip into an M1 vs topping off 5rds in a bolt action by hand, that is not always the case. Depends on how many rds you need to top up.

And with respect to my question, you must not know then. You eject a partially full enbloc clip in an M1 and you will be spending the next minute with your @ss in the air trying find where those remaining rounds went. When your average soldier did not run around with a can full of loaded enbloc clips, those rds became precious and topping up was not taught as SOP. I'm not knocking the M1, it was and is a fantastic weapon and years ahead of all bolt action battle rifles.

The enbloc clip was deemed to be the failing feature of the M1. And rectified with the M14.

I own them both. Thus my comments do not originate from a text book.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

 

[Matt308]