Some observations on WW II small arms, and bit on artillery.

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

When did those light 50-60mm mortars, the tripod type not the 'knee mortar' type, start to become common? I have come to think of those as pretty dangerous weapons indeed. And the medium 80-90mm mortars too.

 

[Shortround6]

The Germans had come up with the 50mm mortar in the 30s?

Now a lot of people had been using mortars in WW I of all kinds, many being weird and wonderful
British toffee apple mortar

range was about 100yds but it made a big bang when it landed.

The British 3in mortar traces back to the Stokes mortar of 1915.

Wilfred Stokes and an assortment of ammunition.

Again, books have been written just on mortars. The small ones (50mm and under) were usually platoon weapons. the 60mm French/US mortars were usually company level weapons and the 70-90mm mortars were battalion level. Anything bigger was shoved off onto the Artillery. Germans sometimes had a 5th company in a battalion which was a heavy weapons company (heavier than most normal heavy weapons companies) and some times they used 12cm mortars instead of infantry guns.

Part of the problem was ammo supply.
The small bombs went around 1-2lbs (and they needed bomb carriers)
the 60mm were 2lbs plus and the 3in/81mm mortars used 7+ to 10lb bombs. Maybe the 81mm mortar itself only went around 100-130lbs and broke down into 3 loads but unless you had motor or animal transport you couldn't carry enough ammo.

US army table of 1941 shows capacity of a 1/2 ton truck as 12,500 rounds of belted .30 cal, 3,000 round of belted .50 cal., 270 rounds of 60mm mortar, 100 rounds of 81mm mortar and 200 rounds of 37mm AT-gun.

The French/US 60mm would range out close to 1900 yds, which does make it a very useful weapon, most of the 37-50 mortars were good for about 500-600 yds.

German 5cm mortar, according to Wiki they made 22,112,000 rounds of ammunition for it and stopped in 1943.

Mortars often fired smoke bombs for signaling, local smoke screens and sometimes illuminating flares.

Most armies in the 1930s were issuing the 3in/81mm mortars at 2-6 per battalion and gave the battalion commanders some real HE firepower that he didn't have to call back to higher ups for or use carrier pigeons depending on army.

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

The Germans had come up with the 50mm mortar in the 30s?

Now a lot of people had been using mortars in WW I of all kinds, many being weird and wonderful
British toffee apple mortar
View attachment 722213
range was about 100yds but it made a big bang when it landed.

The British 3in mortar traces back to the Stokes mortar of 1915.
View attachment 722214
Wilfred Stokes and an assortment of ammunition.

Again, books have been written just on mortars. The small ones (50mm and under) were usually platoon weapons. the 60mm French/US mortars were usually company level weapons

In WW2, in the US Army circa 1943-44, the 60mm mortar was a platoon level weapon. One mortar 'section' (5 men) per platoon. This gave them some significant extra firepower, if it was used right. The platoon commanders also had radios. They usually carried somewhere between 20 and 90 rounds (20 being airborne units, 90 being armored infantry). Regular leg infantry usually carried 48 rounds IIRC.

and the 70-90mm mortars were battalion level. Anything bigger was shoved off onto the Artillery. Germans sometimes had a 5th company in a battalion which was a heavy weapons company (heavier than most normal heavy weapons companies) and some times they used 12cm mortars instead of infantry guns.

Part of the problem was ammo supply.
The small bombs went around 1-2lbs (and they needed bomb carriers)
the 60mm were 2lbs plus and the 3in/81mm mortars used 7+ to 10lb bombs. Maybe the 81mm mortar itself only went around 100-130lbs and broke down into 3 loads but unless you had motor or animal transport you couldn't carry enough ammo.

US army table of 1941 shows capacity of a 1/2 ton truck as 12,500 rounds of belted .30 cal, 3,000 round of belted .50 cal., 270 rounds of 60mm mortar, 100 rounds of 81mm mortar and 200 rounds of 37mm AT-gun.

The French/US 60mm would range out close to 1900 yds, which does make it a very useful weapon, most of the 37-50 mortars were good for about 500-600 yds.

I know I'll get crucified for saying this, but I find that 60mm real handy in certain computer games. especially when there are large numbers of them. If you have say an infantry battalion that's three rifle companies = nine rifle platoons and nine 60mm mortar tubes with a ~2 km range, plus a heavy weapons company with six 81mm (~3 km range). If you have this set up with the chains of commands right and spotters with radios, it can be pretty effective. If it's an armored infantry or lorried infantry battalion it's even more effective because trucks or half-tracks means a lot more ammunition. Those 60mm mortars shoot "20 rpm sustained" according to specs. I don't know how long you can keep shooting before it's going to overheat or something, but I never saw them overheat at the range. Unlike every kind of machine guns (except maybe water cooled) which overheat a lot quicker in real life than in movies or tv or most computer games!

We still had those 60mm mortars when I was in the Army in the 1980s, I don't know if they still have them now, but I was amazed how accurate they were. It's a pain in the ass to carry one (they weigh like 50 lbs, not counting ammunition) but in terms of how lethal they are, it's pound for pound more effective than any machine gun IMO, obviously depending on the situation of course. The rounds they shoot are basically like little hand grenades. So it's like you can throw hand grenades 2 kilometers. [Edit apparently we do still use them]. Apparently the modern one I just looked up (M224) shoots almost 4 kilometers.

View attachment 722215
German 5cm mortar, according to Wiki they made 22,112,000 rounds of ammunition for it and stopped in 1943.

Mortars often fired smoke bombs for signaling, local smoke screens and sometimes illuminating flares.

Most armies in the 1930s were issuing the 3in/81mm mortars at 2-6 per battalion and gave the battalion commanders some real HE firepower that he didn't have to call back to higher ups for or use carrier pigeons depending on army.

I think the mortar is a damn underrated weapon!

 

[Shortround6]

In WW2, in the US Army circa 1943-44, the 60mm mortar was a platoon level weapon. One mortar 'section' (5 men) per platoon. This gave them some significant extra firepower, if it was used right. The platoon commanders also had radios. They usually carried somewhere between 20 and 90 rounds (20 being airborne units, 90 being armored infantry). Regular leg infantry usually carried 48 rounds IIRC.

I maybe misinterpreting that chart but it looks like the mortars are in their own platoon and/or part of the heavy weapons platoon and would be a company asset.
This certainly doesn't stop the company commander from parceling them out to one mortar per platoon if he so wishes. But an organizational chart for that would have the 5 man mortar squad next to/part of the rifle platoon headquarters.

Now I noted above that a 1/2 ton truck could carry 270 60mm bombs and so, if it follows, a 1/4 ton trailer could hold 135 60mm bombs. Which is not far from the 48 (144) bombs you remember.
According to one source the M2 60mm mortar was 42lbs in action with
barrel...............12.8 lbs
Bipod..............16.4 lbs
base plate.....12.8lbs
HE bomb........2.94lbs

and the weight of the bomb does not include carrier/crate.

Modern equivalent calls for 6 bombs per waterproof chip/cardboard/plastic tube and 3 tubes per metal box for 39kg for 18 rounds.
A lot of WW II munitions came in wooden crates.
The US may have used a 10 round wooden crate with fiberboard inner tubes that went 49lbs when full?

Lugging mortar bombs by foot soldier gets expensive in manpower very quickly.

I remember on story that may have taken place in Italy? British unit (?) got one or two mortars up on a mountain and used an entire infantry company to lug one or two rounds apiece up the mountain to the mortar position before opening fire.

The US used a short version of the 60mm mortar without the bipod that was fired like the British 2in mortar. Max range 1000-1200 yds (?)

This was supposed to be the airborne mortar team for the 60mm mortar.
"60mm mortar: Rounds per weapon: 80, each mortar jumped on 3 men. 14 riflemen jump with 1 round each. 3 [other*] mortar squad members jump with 4 each in M6 bag; 54 dropped in bundles and carried in cart (4 carts per company)."

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

I maybe misinterpreting that chart but it looks like the mortars are in their own platoon and/or part of the heavy weapons platoon and would be a company asset.
This certainly doesn't stop the company commander from parceling them out to one mortar per platoon if he so wishes. But an organizational chart for that would have the 5 man mortar squad next to/part of the rifle platoon headquarters.

My understanding is that each "section" was normally assigned to one of the rifle platoons, especially if they were going to be operating at some distance from one another, but sometimes they would put them all together into kind of a miniature 'artillery parrk'.

Now I noted above that a 1/2 ton truck could carry 270 60mm bombs and so, if it follows, a 1/4 ton trailer could hold 135 60mm bombs. Which is not far from the 48 (144) bombs you remember.
According to one source the M2 60mm mortar was 42lbs in action with
barrel...............12.8 lbs
Bipod..............16.4 lbs
base plate.....12.8lbs
HE bomb........2.94lbs

and the weight of the bomb does not include carrier/crate.

Yes it would break up in pieces. It's 50 lbs when you put it all together. 12-16 lbs doesn't sound like much but when you combine that with rifle ammunition, water, gas mask, LBE, body armor etc. etc., it's a lot. But not that much more than a GPMG and less bulky.

Modern equivalent calls for 6 bombs per waterproof chip/cardboard/plastic tube and 3 tubes per metal box for 39kg for 18 rounds.
A lot of WW II munitions came in wooden crates.
The US may have used a 10 round wooden crate with fiberboard inner tubes that went 49lbs when full?

Lugging mortar bombs by foot soldier gets expensive in manpower very quickly.

Yes but you could distribute a few per squad member. I think that is part of why the 'section' has 5 guys because you don't need five guys to operate that mortar, more like two plus somebody on the radio. The rounds had little pins in them kind of like grenades. I heard a story from a Ranger who was in Somalia who said their trucks got hit by a bunch of these things but the Somali's had either forgotten to pull the arming pins when they shot the mortars or did it on purpose just to scare them instead of killing them. So just a bunch of dents followed by panicked departure.

In WW2 they also sometimes had jeeps with the unit like in the TOE chart to help carry all kinds of stuff, depending on the terrain they were in. Those old WW2 jeeps are like little go-carts, almost like an ATV.

I remember on story that may have taken place in Italy? British unit (?) got one or two mortars up on a mountain and used an entire infantry company to lug one or two rounds apiece up the mountain to the mortar position before opening fire.

yes I think that is typical. Also done with the much bigger rounds like for the 81mm mortars.

The US used a short version of the 60mm mortar without the bipod that was fired like the British 2in mortar. Max range 1000-1200 yds (?)

I think those things are a bit more like a grenade launcher, like the M-79 in Vietnam, or the M203 when I was in.

This was supposed to be the airborne mortar team for the 60mm mortar.
"60mm mortar: Rounds per weapon: 80, each mortar jumped on 3 men. 14 riflemen jump with 1 round each. 3 [other*] mortar squad members jump with 4 each in M6 bag; 54 dropped in bundles and carried in cart (4 carts per company)."

Interesting

 

[Shortround6]

My mistake, the airborne load out was for D-Day. Like a lot of things the standards changed.

Some of the problems with figuring out things like ammo load outs was not only did they change but you have to be careful about what they are describing.

going back to that mid 1941 list and I am making no claim what so ever that they ever used this in combat.

weapon..............................on idividual armed with weapon..............on prime mover or AM truck............on unit Am Tr.................on train of higher unit.............total
Automatic pistol..................................21...........................................................................--.....................................................7..............................................--............................................28
M1 rifle....................................................40...........................................................................--....................................................(F) 192...................................96..........................................328
BAR.........................................................(C) 320....................................................................--....................................................(D)852.................................576........................................1748
60 mm mortar.....................................--..............................................................................60......................................................60.......................................100.........................................220

Now note......
(F) 96 rounds to be issued before combat in 48 round bandoleers. 96 rounds retained in ammunition train as reserve.
(C) 80 rounds by the automatic rifleman (BAR gunner) and 120 rounds by the assistant automatic rifleman and each ammunition carrier, all in 20 round magazines. 40 rounds by each ammunition carrier in 5- or 8-round clips (see ammo for rifle)
(D) 468 rounds to be issued prior to combat___ 120 rounds to each automatic rifleman and 80 to each assistant automatic rifleman in 20-round magazines; 96 to each assistant rifleman in 48-round bandoleers and 192 rounds to each ammunition carrier in 48-round bandoleers; 394 rounds in ammunition train as a reserve.

Now one can see the intended squad makeup and use of the BAR as of June 1941, A three man team of gunner, assistant gunner and ammo carrier but what happened 6 months later????

As far as the 60mm mortar goes?
I have no idea what the prime mover for the 60mm mortar was

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

LPCs

 

[Frog]

LPCs

The 60 mm mortar equipped a mortar squad in the armored or parachute infantry platoons.
In the infantry, three 60 mm squads were grouped in the mortar section of the heavy weapon platoon of the infantry company (the other section was a light machine gun section with two M1919A4 MGs).
The prime mover was the mortar men who carried them... (the armored infantry mortar squad had a M3A1 half track).
In the cavalry, each reconnaissance section in a mechanized cavalry troop had a 60 mm mortar (three per platoon, a total of nine in the troop).
In the Marines, there was a mortar section with three 60 mm mortars attached to the rifle company HQ.

 

[Shortround6]

Now as we can see, even at the company level, the company commander had a wider selection of weapons and capabilities available in 1940-41 than his equivalent had in 1914 or 1918.

In 1914 the company had to handle anything he was tasked to do with rifles and perhaps a bayonet charge. If he was tasked with stopping an enemy column marching down a road ho had to get his men to where they could score enough hits to stop the column which means it can't be done at long range, unless his troops are very, very good.

Two tripod mounted machine guns at 800-1000yds (with good crews) are more than equal a couple of hundred riflemen.
Having 3-9 LMGs or auto rifles that can engage at 400-600 yds is just that much more. Depending on the mortars available they can drop HE into spots the machine guns can't reach, They can drop smoke to screen a part of his force that may in danger of being cut off on the flank. If it is night the mortars may be to drop flares to prevent moving for a period of time at night. The company commander may have a radio and an FO connected to the artillery net work to help out from time to time (unheard of at the company level in WW I). Ifit gets down to close quarters the 1940-41 force has grenades, the 1914 force doesn't, the 1918 force does.

The 1940-41 force has moved away from the rifle as it's primary form of projecting force/influence on the battlefield, and the rifle, even using the same power cartridge, is becoming a shorter ranged weapon. don't open rifle fire unless you have the support weapons (LMG, MMG, Mortars, remote artillery) in place to support you. In 1914 the other sides infantry didn't much for support weapons of their own and would not be able to surprise you with support fire most of the time. Most artillery had to see you which meant most of the time you could see them and if you couldn't.... they might not be there.
The role of the rifle had changed even though it's actual capabilities had not.

 

[Frog]

Now as we can see, even at the company level, the company commander had a wider selection of weapons and capabilities available in 1940-41 than his equivalent had in 1914 or 1918.

In 1914 the company had to handle anything he was tasked to do with rifles and perhaps a bayonet charge. If he was tasked with stopping an enemy column marching down a road ho had to get his men to where they could score enough hits to stop the column which means it can't be done at long range, unless his troops are very, very good.

Two tripod mounted machine guns at 800-1000yds (with good crews) are more than equal a couple of hundred riflemen.
Having 3-9 LMGs or auto rifles that can engage at 400-600 yds is just that much more. Depending on the mortars available they can drop HE into spots the machine guns can't reach, They can drop smoke to screen a part of his force that may in danger of being cut off on the flank. If it is night the mortars may be to drop flares to prevent moving for a period of time at night. The company commander may have a radio and an FO connected to the artillery net work to help out from time to time (unheard of at the company level in WW I). Ifit gets down to close quarters the 1940-41 force has grenades, the 1914 force doesn't, the 1918 force does.

The 1940-41 force has moved away from the rifle as it's primary form of projecting force/influence on the battlefield, and the rifle, even using the same power cartridge, is becoming a shorter ranged weapon. don't open rifle fire unless you have the support weapons (LMG, MMG, Mortars, remote artillery) in place to support you. In 1914 the other sides infantry didn't much for support weapons of their own and would not be able to surprise you with support fire most of the time. Most artillery had to see you which meant most of the time you could see them and if you couldn't.... they might not be there.
The role of the rifle had changed even though it's actual capabilities had not.

Whatever the weapon used, in the end all wars are infantry wars.
By the way, at the present times the rifles tend to become carbines.

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

The 60 mm mortar equipped a mortar squad in the armored or parachute infantry platoons.
In the infantry, three 60 mm squads were grouped in the mortar section of the heavy weapon platoon of the infantry company (the other section was a light machine gun section with two M1919A4 MGs).
The prime mover was the mortar men who carried them... (the armored infantry mortar squad had a M3A1 half track).
In the cavalry, each reconnaissance section in a mechanized cavalry troop had a 60 mm mortar (three per platoon, a total of nine in the troop).
In the Marines, there was a mortar section with three 60 mm mortars attached to the rifle company HQ.

LPC is US military acronym slang / joke meaning "leather personnel carriers" aka boots. I.e. soldiers on foot.

 

[Ivan1GFP]

Few things on speed of firing and let's agree, it takes practice, training. Something that most war time soldiers didn't get.

In the use back in 50s through 90s (?) they shot service rifle competitions with bolt guns and M-1s (M-14s) before the AR invasion. Bolt gun catagory was a bit loose, yes you had to use the 30-06 or .308/7.62x51 cartridge. NO it did not have to be a 1903 or 1917 rifle, 11lb Winchester M-70s with very fancy sights and very nice triggers were allowed, just use a 5 round magazine feed by a stripper clip.
The rules allowed 10 more seconds for the bolt guns than for the semi autos.
200 yds rapid 10 rounds sitting was either 50 seconds for the semi-auto or 60 seconds for the bolt guns.
300 yds rapid 10 rounds prone was either 60 second for the semi-auto or 70 seconds for the bolt guns.

Semi autos were loaded with 2 rounds and then reloaded with 8.
Bolt guns were loaded with 5 and 5.
Time started with the targets in the pits (if the ranged was set up for it) and the shooters standing, crouching, or imitating a pretzel.
Shooters had to drop down into their desired position for sitting (or for prone) which often took about 20 seconds to start shooting.
when the initial load of ammo used up the semi auto gunners either stuffed a an 8 round clip into the M-1 or changed boxes on the M-14.
Bolt gunners used a 5 round stripper clip.
This often took another 10 or more seconds.
Good bolt gunners could fire about one shot every 3 seconds.
Semi auto gunners were a bit faster. I was couched to count to 4 between shots. fast count to keep form shooting too fast.

targets changed from the 10in A-5 to the 12in SR target during that time. A5 was a 5 - V scoring system, hit the black and you got the 5. The SR target black included the 9 ring.
This was for 200yds. At 300 yds the SR target was enlarged to 18in but the black now included the 8 ring. The 9 ring was the same nominal 12ins.
Everybody used slings and shooting coats and gloves.

We had better sights (gas guns had their front sights cut down to the exact width of the black instead of being too wide like service sights) and most bolt guns shooters used an aperture front sight. Put the ring around the black.

If you are over about 22 years old trying to use a Mauser, or Japanese or Italian or French rifle is NOT going to work. Trying to use what ever front sight they are using with those little V notch rear sights was too much of a handicap unless you have 20/20 vision (or better). The Enfield No 4 with the good rear sight may be doable.

Now this was target shooting and the good shooters were keeping everything in the black or at least 8-9 shots in the black and perhaps they kept them in tight enough to make up for the one 8 or 7 on the SR target.

We also were shooting on a buff colored target that was over 5 ft tall and close to 4 ft wide with that black dot in the middle, not some soldier trying to hide next to bush or tree or wall in crappy light. We also were at known distance. Not guessing if the target was at 280 yds or 340 yds or????????
Nobody was shooting back either.
If you have crappy sights and poor light you need to take more time with either gun. IF all you want to do is hit that 5ft by 4 ft target you can shoot really fast (although I have seen people only get 5-6 hits on the whole paper when beginning)

What some guy can do on You-tube in a demonstration is not what most people can do, I have been driving for over 50 years, doesn't mean I can drive a race car at over 120mph on an oval track.

Hello Shortround6,
It has been a very long time since I shot in Service Rifle competition, but what I remember differs a bit from what I see here.
First of all, for actual "Service Rifle", the allowed guns were M1 Garand, M14 (or M1A or civilian equivalent), M16 or AR-15. The bolt guns were "Match Rifles" and not Service Rifles. At the time I was doing this (late 1980s, although the AR-15 was allowed, no one used it because it did not perform well at long range (600 Yards). Keep in mind that these were the days when the military was still mostly using the M16A1 with a 1 in 12 inch twist with the M16A2 with a 1 in 7 inch twist just entering service. The 1-12 had no capability of handling long heavy bullets so after 200 Yards, it was not target accurate. The M16A1 sights also were not ideal for adjustments for match target shooting. Elevation was done by using a bullet tip to push down a plunger to lower the Front Sight. Windage was not much better and still needed a bullet to adjust. After the M16A2 came out along with the similar Colt Sporter2 and HBAR, people still debate the ideal rifling pitch for target shooting. Personally, I believe 1-9 was probably better than 1-7.

Getting from ready position (standing) to sitting really only took about 3-5 seconds if you knew what you were doing. You placed your feet where they were going to be when you sat down so were standing in a cross legged position. If you lined up well, you could have your first aimed shot off in under 10 seconds. If not, a little squirming made for minor adjustments so you wouldn't have to muscle the rifle onto the target.
Getting from ready position to prone is more like about 5-7 seconds in my experience. This is fairly easy because you took the time to line up your shooting matt so that the elbow and knee patches will fit your body alignment when you go prone. I never owned my own shooting matt, but if I did, I would have marked it for which direction my rifle pointed to make lining up the matt and placing my reloads easier.

As for the speed of cycling of a bolt action rifle, it really isn't noticeably slower than for a semi-auto if the operator is skilled. The bolt is cycled during the time the rifle is in recoil and the gun never comes off the shoulder. By the time the shooter recovers from recoil, the gun is ready to fire again.
As for reloads, the slowest in my experience is the M14/M1A. You actually need to pull the spent magazine out before putting in the new magazine which needs hooked and rocked into place. No such issue with M1, M16, or even a stripper clip loaded bolt gun.

One of the problems with many of the military bolt guns even if you are content to be shooting against Match Rifles is that most of them do not have windage adjustments and especially not micrometer adjustments. I personally found this to be an issue during one practice session when I decided to try shooting a M1917 Enfield. The British No.4 Lee-Enfield would be in the same situation. Either gun was more accurate than my M1 Garand at the time, but not so useful if you can't put your shots where you want them.

Such was my experience. YMMV of course.
- Ivan.

 

[Shortround6]

Thank you.

The Rules changed over time. I was shooting more in 70s and early 80s and started before the AR-15/M-16 became legal.
The M-1s and M-14s were not stock, new barrels, fiberglass bedding. National Match sights (windage was 1/2 minute clicks instead of 1 minute) and hood in the back sight that could be flipped for a 1/2 minute change. Things go 'worse' later on as the barrels only had to look stock outside the stock, 12-13lb M1 anyone?
The M-16s started stock (and I knew guys that shot for the state National Guard team so they may have had different rules for the in-service military matches and the civilian DCM matches.) By the 90s I was shooting long range high power and while I knew the guys I wasn't shooting the matches.
the M-16s/Ar-15s morphed into things with fat barrels under the hand guards and weights shove in the butt stock and 'modified sights'. Some guys had modified magazines that took overly long bullets seated longer than normal in single stack set up. Cartridge's went in kitty corner to allow for the slightly longer length.
Obviously the triggers were modified unlike the first few years the military teams were competing where if they took your gun apart and the trigger showed evidence of "work" you would be disqualified.

A local club ran an annual obsolete service rifle match at 200yds for manually operated rifles that were "as issued". If you wanted to win you used a 1903-A4. The No 4 Enfield and the 1917 Enfield were next rung down. Everything else was even lower. remember out of maybe 30-40 guys most were over 40 years old the ability to see the old issue sights was a problem.

Different course of fire than the national match course and it was mostly for fun. The 1873 trap door Springfield was certainly interesting although the guy next to him complained about
the smoke

The Pre WW I British rapid fire standard was hits on a 2 ft X 2 ft area wich is over 4 times what we were doing but we were shooting slower, had more aids (better sling etc) and so on.

The US matches were not really combat matches no matter what the US Army and Marines wanted to believe between the wars.

A friend of my fathers had competed in the US matches at Camp Perry before WW II and they had a 'rattle' battle which was 4 or 5 men with 1903s and one man with a BAR. They started at 400 yds (?) and fired for one minute and then moved closer. I forget the positions but hits long range counted the distance in hundreds of yd (like 4 times 1 at 400 yds) and hits at 100 yds (?) counted 1 point. Guy with the BAR didn't fire much at long range but at the closer two ranges one guy just put his 1903 down and changed magazines for the BAR gunner. Different teams had different strategies as to when the rifleman changed over to BAR loader.

Differences in different lots of issue ammunition can make big differences in where guns hit and wartime ammunition could actually be rather poor stuff compared to modern (1990s) hunting ammo (not even counting match ammo). remember that military ammo was accepted (In the US at least) by test guns that used very heavy barrels (15-18lbs?) in universal receivers bolted down to be heavy if not concrete benches/firing positions. Worst 'acceptable' ammo might be way different performance in actual service rifles.

 

[Ivan1GFP]

The proper name for the "rattle battle" that you described is the Infantry Trophy Match. I don't know what the course of fire was for the Springfield, but for the M14, it was (I believe) a team of 6 and usually a coach who directed the team to make sure the hits on the multiple targets was more or less evenly distributed. I personally never participated in those because those matches were very abusive to guns. Although the M14 had full auto capability, I don't think anyone ever used that. Even so, 40 aimed rounds in a minute gets the gun pretty hot.

The rules certainly changed a bit after the time I was involved. When the Assault Weapons Ban became law, the post-ban guns became legal almost immediately. At one point, a company called Ohio Ordnance made a semi-auto only version of the BAR and that was added to the allowed Service Rifles. Accuracy was poor as one might expect from a LMG, so I don't think anyone ever actually used one in competition.

Most of the ammunition I used was LC 67 or LC 68 M2 Ball (Vietnam era) and it varied a bit but was usually pretty good stuff. It was loaded to very low power levels (about 2650 FPS instead of the nominal 2800 FPS for some reason. In 7.62, certain countries made much better stuff than others. US was not the best. In 5.56, it was rare to find a lot that would actually group as well as rather poor handloads with commercial bullets. The military M72 Match was quite excellent stuff as was the white box M118 Match. When they switched to brown box M118 Special Ball, quality went down but by then, there was M852 available. I tried loading "Mexican Match" by substituting commercial match bullets for the GI FMJ bullets but never found the increase in accuracy to be worth the time spent.

Regarding the weights of these guns, I have handled but not fired M1 Garands with the heavy barrels. They actually don't balance badly but usually if someone is going to that effort, they also pull out the liner from the front handguard which makes that piece VERY fragile. I leave mine in, so if someone picks the gun up by the forend, nothing is destroyed. The M14 types can come with a GI style, Medium weight match barrel or a Heavy weight match barrel. I don't believe there is much to choose between the Medium and Heavy barrels for accuracy except for a pound of weight. With the Heavy barrel, figure the gun will weigh about 13 pounds with a regular walnut stock or a bit over 14 with a McMillan fibreglas stock. One of the problems with the heavy barrel is that it will NOT clear the fibreglas handguard. The underside of the ridges at the front need to be ground off to clear the barrel. Figure the handguard is only about 1/32 inch thick in places when it doesn't touch the barrel. Figure also that a standard weight Walnut stock will be quite thin in places when it is cleared to not touch the barrel or op-rod guide. I estimate it at about 3/16 which is basically a wooden egg shell. When other places are routed out for glass bedding, the result is a very fragile rifle.

Regarding the M1903 Springfield, I believe the ideal gun would be either the M1903A1 or the M1903. The M1903A4 doesn't make sense because they don't even come with a front sight and often are equipped with two groove barrels which are not necessarily the most accurate with jacketed bullets. I don't think there is such thing as a star gauged two groove barrel. The only problem is that it is hard to zero these guns with the sights centered.

This is getting a bit long, so I will leave off here and comment on AR-15s at some other time.

- Ivan.

 

[Shortround6]

My mistake on the Springfield, it was 1903A3.

The sight may not have been as pretty as the older 1903 sights but it was good enough for combat and a lot better than most.
For us old guys the ability to just look through the rear aperture and focus on the front sight was the advantage
May have been an advantage in combat, assuming that the troops actually used the sights.

I was born in 1951 and my ability to use use post front sights was decreasing in the 90s. The AR-15/M-16 was that much worse with the front sight mounted rather close to the eye (for a target rifle) and I got sort of a double overlapping image front blade. I didn't get special shooting glasses to help correct the problem. I didn't need them for guns with longer barrels and aperture front sights.

AS you have said, many/all of the NM semi-auto guns were rather fragile/sensitive to rough handling and were not guns to be issued to troops in the field

 

[Ivan1GFP]

The M1903A3 does have sights that are easier to use, but has a few issues as well.
The elevation as you can see is not all that precise for match shooting. The barrels on many of the '03A3 are of the two groove type. The trigger guard on many of these guns is stamped steel and is not quite as stable as the earlier solid steel pieces. Another issue which becomes obvious if you have had to shoot these guns is that the actions do not move as slick as the earlier Springfields.
The early M1903 (under about S/N 850,000) were single heat treat guns but some were heat treated badly and had a tendency toward catastrophic failure. From about 850,000 to about 1,200,000, the guns were double heat treated and in my opinion were the best ever made. After 1,200,000, the receivers were built of nickel steel which was quite strong but the bolts didn't operate quite as slick because of the difference in metallurgy. It is very noticeable when cycling these guns; They feel "gummy" even when well lubricated.

The M16A1 has another minor front sight issue that is not ideal. It has 5 detents per rotation to raise and lower elevation. Each detent is for 1 MOA adjustment. The problem with 5 detents per rotation is that the sight is a round post which makes it very sensitive to lighting and shadows. This was "fixed" in the A2 by using a square post and using only 4 detents per rotation which means each detent is good for 1.25 MOA. This is not a big deal since the front sight is only used for zeroing the A2 rifle.

The NM M1 and M14 didn't have quite the same problems when issued to troops because those were built a bit differently than civilian guns. The M1C and M1D were not glass bedded and in theory were just selected for accuracy. The M14 NM (or M21) used a wooden stock that was boiled in resin which isn't something we can easily do today. The alternative on more modern M25 guns is to use the McMillan heavy stock which is quite sturdy but not nearly as handy. Other modern M14 types use chassis type stocks which I have no personal experience with.

- Ivan.

 

[BarnOwlLover]

I need to catch up on this thread, but between my overall WWII interests and playing various video games, I have to admit that I'm pretty interested in this section of World War II warfare technology.

 

[BarnOwlLover]

I actually like researching the MTO theater of World War II quite a bit, and I've also watched and read Forgotten Weapons a lot and own a book about World War I and World War II era Italian infantry weapons. Anyone have any thoughts or impressions of Italian armaments (excepting aircraft, which has been discussed quite a bit in the aviation section) for sake of discussion?

 

[Shortround6]

some things may be found in old threads, like ten years old

For a short, snarky take on things, The Italians made very nice submachine guns, and pretty good 81mm mortars. Everything else in the infantry battalion was average at best and crap at the worst.

Italian artillery had a few good modern designs, but they made way too few of them and most of their artillery was WW I left overs. Maybe good in 1917, not good in 1941-43.

Italian tanks? a bit late and got later, way to few and newer designs were way too late.


And then things get interconnected. Like the 8mm heavy machine gun was OK but only OK as a ground gun. Using it as a tank machinegun was bad in a number of ways.
the 24 round boxes in the top either limited depression or called for a higher than needed turret or firing position.
the 24 round boxes also dictated the paired machine gun set up which was wasteful of manufacturing and volume inside the tank. It did NOT increase the fire power of the tank.
Using a co-ax machine gun with a 24 round box in tank with a two man crew added to the burden of the turret crew. In a 3 man turret you have the commander commanding the tank, the gunner aiming and firing and the loader loading the main gun and feeding the machinegun. With a co-ax gun with 50-225 belts the loader doesn't have to reload the machine gun every few seconds. With a two man turret things are that much harder. either the 24 round machine gun doesn't get reloaded or something else isn't getting done.
The gun itself may have been reliable and sturdy and capable of sustained fire it that is all they were doing. But it took up too much time or it got ignored.
Less said about trying to use a 24 round mg as an AA weapon the better.

 

[BarnOwlLover]

IMO, biggest problem with say the 6.5mm Carcano round is that it used a round nosed bullet. Which tended to be pretty stable in soft tissue compared to a spitzer or boattail/spitzer round. With a spitzer round or going with the bullet that the 7.35 Carcano used it could've done a lot more damage, and is similar in ballsitics to what a lot of the 6.5mm-7mm rounds looking to bridge the gap between 5.56mm and 7.62mm NATO/.308 Win. 6.5mm Arisaka was noted for doing a lot of damage when it yawed in tissue.

Another issue is modern shooters of Carcano rifles. A lot of the ammo that's not surplus for 6.5mm is loaded with .264 diameter bullets instead of the .268 the Italians used. 7.35mm is loaded to spec with .300 bullets, but again new ammo tends to be loaded with .308 bullets. That's also a bit of a problem with say 7.65x20mm French pistol ammo (basically the same round as the World War I era Pedersen Device used), as it's an oddball loading.

Not to mention that one issue that Italian surplus Carcano ammo has (in both calibers) is that they're often loaded to varying/indifferent standards, and some of it might not be good anyways due to age.