The firearms of WW2

C

C7AR15

New member
Just wondering if during ww2 if there were GIs who complained about the lack of stopping power with the M1 Garand (30-06)
They were using full metal jacket ammo and wonder if it just zipped through without much damage?

Part 2 .

What about the 1911 .45 pistol, any complaints about its effectiveness in war.?
 
GI's

I consider myself pretty well read concerning WWII, and have read a bit on WWI as well. The .30'06 and the .45 acp were used in both conflicts of course. I have never seen anything in print or stated verbally in interviews with vets concerning a lack of power with the .30 Rifle ball load. The only complaint I've read regarding 1911/.45acp was how some vets had trouble hitting with it. I would expect there were a number of men issued pistols who had little to no experience with same, and marginal training.

I also read some accounts of the 1911 failing in some manner, despite the pistols rather renown reputation for reliability. An account comes to mind during the flag raising on Suribachi. A Japanese soldier charged the scouting, flag raising party with a broken sword. A Marine officer leveled a 1911, which for whatever reason (as I recall the account stated the pistol "jammed") the pistol failed to fire. The volcanic ash on Iwo was tough on actions. The officer was saved by a BAR man.

In another account, in the ETO winter, an ammo bearer for a .30 MG team attempted to fire his 1911 and could not manipulate the slide, he had allowed it to rust shut. The whole team was pretty slack,..... on another occasion, the .30 LMG would not run, they had not cleaned it after the last use. The writer also described ditching ammo while marching in column, believing another GI would eventually pick it up.

Regards '06 ball, I have one account in the ETO where an .30 Rifle round struck multiple German soldiers walking in column, killing every one. In WWI, Alvin York put .30 Ball and .45 Ball to effective use in Medal of Honor action, killing some 25-30 German soldiers, including a number at close range attempting to overrun him and a companion at the last of the firefight.

We tend to dote on one shot stops and the stopping power of expanding ammunition, and there is no doubt that expanding ammo delivers a greater wound than FMJ/ball. No responsible hunter uses FMJ on medium game and in many states it is illegal. Expanding ammo has a a greater wounding effect than ball. But do not doubt that ball ammo, especially full size battle rifle cartridges like the '06, .308, the 8mm Mauser, the 7.62x54R are extremely powerful, lethal rounds that kill and incapacitate well despite using non expanding projectiles.
 
The problem is, as one writer once put it, "the tale grew in the telling"...

Performance becomes legend, and over time legend becomes myth. The .45 round and the M1911A1 have been hugely "enhanced" by generations of stories, BS, barracks yarns, sea stories, and all the other names given to embellishment and enhancement of actual facts.

I have read numerous first hand accounts of how our .45s jammed in combat. OF course, "numerous" stories is still a tiny number compared to the number of pistols in use in combat during the wars.

The .45 got its reputation not, because it was infallible and ustoppable, but because it was noticeably more reliable and resilient than the pistols in use by other nations under the same combat conditions.

And things just grew over time, from there.

When asked about stopping power, most of the WWII vets (and vets of other conflicts) often have the same reply, "I shot him, and he fell down".
That's the only stopping power that matters.
 
Mr. Fink was my customer when I was still gunsmithing some 5 years ago. He was almost 90 years old then. He was in battle of the bulge commanding a tank.

A few things he told me. They had tommy guns inside the tank, but never heard of tanker Garand. They were issued with 1911 in chest holster. He never liked it. Somewhere he got himself a P38 and enough 9mm cartridges. He could have gotten himself in trouble because of that if not for the war. Officers looked the other way. He never had to fire that pistol at any Germans though.

I guess he had no problem with 9mm, let alone the bigger .45 auto rounds. The term "stopping power" probably hadn't been coined when they were stopping the Germans or the Japanese. They couldn't use hunting rounds as the Hague convention was in effect.

I don't know whether Fink is still with us today. I didn't charge him any money for labor although he insisted. To me he had paid.

-TL

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
 
I've read quite a bit and known and talked to quite a few WWII vets and never noticed any complaints about stopping power. About almost everything else, yes, but not stopping power.

GIs do love to complain, and a smart commander doesn't worry about that, he worries when they STOP complaining...:D

What I have heard (and too often) is complaints about the "stopping power" of the .30 Carbine, in the Korean winter. Specifically, how the carbine would fail to get through the heavy Korean overcoats, and not stop them.

Even heard some stories (almost certainly made up stories) about how the North Koreans would soak their coats in water giving them "ice armor" when they froze. GI's also love to make up crap...:rolleyes:

Did some checking years ago, and the only verifiable times the carbines "failed" in stopping power were mostly when GIs were shoot at them at ranges over 100yds, sometimes as much as 300, and/or at night, and when the Koreans didn't fall down, the carbine was blamed for lack of stopping power.

True? maybe, maybe not, but the word was out, and repeated enough that the Army actually did "something about it", ..sort of.

Friend of mine, guy I worked with for years was a Korea vet. He had been a telephone linesman in Korea, and carried an M1 carbine. He loved it, it was reasonablly light, and as he put it, fortunately he personally, never had to shoot anyone with it.

And he told me what the Army did about the carbine's lack of stopping power. They did something he hated. What they did was, (in his case, anyway) when winter started, they took away his carbine and made him carry an M1 Garand. (MUCH HEAVIER!)

Generally speaking in combat against enemies who are not "Victory or Death" types when soldiers get shot, anywhere remotely serious, they stop attacking until they're at least a little "patched up".
 
Read extensively about WW2.

Most of the complaints were about the M3 Grease Gun. Everyone pretty much agrees it was garbage.

Tankers and crew served weapons were usually not issued rifles like the Garand. It's way too large to store inside a tank. They received grease guns or 1911'2.

Tommy guns were highly prized, and difficult to get.

The M1 carbine was thought to be too weak. Normally an alternative weapon issued to people who were not in the infantry.
 
Viet Nam era tanker I know loved his M3, said he'd never touched a M16. He's not much of a gun guy though, so maybe he didn't know he wasn't supposed to like the M3. The tank was his primary weapon.
 
The M3 Grease gun had some issues. Most notably the cocking handle system could malfunction, jamming the gun solidly. The M3A1 fixed that.

The tankers I've spoken with seldom loved the grease gun, but nearly all preferred it to the Tommy gun, because it was smaller/shorter (vitally important in the cramped interior of a tank) and a bit lighter. and they did work.

Tommy guns were not exactly "hard to get" having been the standard issue for tank crews for the first half of the war and while the M3 was the replacement, some units never did before the war ended. Just FYI, there were some M3/M3A1s still in active duty service in the late 70s (I worked on some). There were no Thompsons, they had long been retired.

The M1 carbine was thought to be too weak. Normally an alternative weapon issued to people who were not in the infantry.
Click to expand...

The idea behind the M1 carbine was that it would be a light rifle, issued to support troops and others whose primary duties made the full size infantry rifle (M1Garand) less than optimal. More powerful than the .45 pistol, with greater range, and because it was a carbine it was easier and faster to train troops to use it acceptably well, compared to the pistol.

The reality is, that once the rifles got to the front lines, many infantry troops grabbed them and held them tight, because they only weighed a bit more than half as much as the Garand or Tommygun, held 15 rounds (almost double the Garand) and worked well enough for closer range combat. They were so popular with the troops that the Army eventually included them as part of the standard weapons mix issue for infantry units as well.
 
Cirdan said:
Read extensively about WW2.

Most of the complaints were about the M3 Grease Gun. Everyone pretty much agrees it was garbage.

Tankers and crew served weapons were usually not issued rifles like the Garand. It's way too large to store inside a tank. They received grease guns or 1911'2.

Tommy guns were highly prized, and difficult to get.

The M1 carbine was thought to be too weak. Normally an alternative weapon issued to people who were not in the infantry.
Click to expand...
"...issued to people who were not infantry."

It is my understanding that some of the paratroopers were issued carbines.
 
Any time you change something, people start comparing the new and the old. I remember reading about old soldiers complaining that the 30-40 Krag didn't have the power of the 45-70. Well documented were the complaints leveled against the 38 Colt in the 1892 Army-Navy model in the Phillipines. M1 vs M1 Carbine in Korea too. Is it real or is it "what we're used to"? I don't know.

I read about all the badmouthing of "our guns" vs "their guns" where the enemy's guns always seem to be better than ours. We shoot them and nothing happens, but when they shoot us our guys drop right over. There were documented cases of Germans in WW2 being executed for saying stuff like that, so I guess it didn't get much traction with them. There were cases of Italian soldiers not wanting to use their Carcanos because they didn't seem to kill the enemy. There is lots of scuttlebutt about the 5.56 not killing people, but there are also documented reports of NVA telling their soldiers to stay out of range of the US troops armed with M16s because of the terrific damage they did. At the same time, US GIs were complaining that the Mattel toy wouldn't kill, but the AK was the best in the world. A very cursory reading of the numbers of casualties versus the number of rounds fired will tell you that many shots in battle are misses.
 
A very cursory reading of the numbers of casualties versus the number of rounds fired will tell you that many shots in battle are misses.
Click to expand...

Yep, and that by long established doctrine.

If you look at the numbers of battlefield losses in the modern era (WWI on to today) it is artillery, closely followed by airstrikes, that kills and wounds the most troops. Though its possible that artillery and airstrikes have swapped spots recently, I don't know.

Crew served weapons fire (machine gun) is further down the list, and aimed rifle fire is very near or at the bottom.

Most of the shots fired by individual riflemen (and machinegunners, for that matter) are going to be "misses". This is due to a combination of battlefield conditions, average level of troop training, and doctrine.

Our fundamental doctrine regarding individual riflemen shooting underwent a huge change during WWII. Prewar practice was that riflemen generally only fired when they had a target (the enemy) in sight. Suppressive fire was the job of the belt fed MGs.

This was found to be flawed during the inital island campaigns in the Pacific. Guadalcanal was the first place US troops engaged in offensive ground combat against the enemy in WWII, predating North Africa by several months.

Veterans from the "Canal" began spreading the word about what they found worked better than established doctrine. Further combat backed them up. It took some time, but eventually the stateside training was changed as well.

What those vets discovered was that what was important was NOT to wait until there was an enemy in sight, but to put a few rounds into any and everything that the enemy might be hiding in.

IF the enemy wasn't in that bush, he might be in the one next to it.....if not, all you wasted was a few bullets (always cheaper than blood!) and if he was in that bush or close to it, putting a few rounds in there would result in some kind of response, an that would tell you where the enemy actually was, and where to concentrate fire.

Naturally this lead to an expenditure of more ammo per "kill" but so what?

just as during training, sweat saves blood, in combat, recon by fire saves lives...
Our lives
And the lives of our sons (and today sons and daughters sometimes)
 
They actually keep records on that sort of thing. Last I saw the ratio of shots fired/enemy KIA generally runs around 2,000. Makes sense once you remember basic infantry tactics are fire & maneuver. Suppressive fire is your friend.

Thanks to everyone else for expanding on my post. Didn't mean it to be the whole story and your builds are great.
 
I've read numerous memoirs written by GIs. I don't recall a single incident where a soldier complained about the M-2 cartridge. I do recall some complaints about the M-1 Carbine and why some GIs who were permitted to carry it preferred the M-1 Garand for its bigger bullet. Mind you, National Match competitor John George (Shots Fired in Anger) liked the carbine but he was able to do head shots against onrushing Japanese.

I do recall Charles Henderson's Marine Sniper where Hathcock shot the foe with a 30-06. The enemy charged. He fired another shot into the chest. Still charging. Finally the headshot put the guy down.
 
A very cursory reading of the numbers of casualties versus the number of rounds fired will tell you that many shots in battle are misses.
Click to expand...

Want a good read about a lot of ammo being used which were misses? Battle Hardened.

An American battalion had to assault a fortified German position in the woods. They anticipated heavy casualties but one experienced captain took things in hand. On command, they opened up with small arms and the tanks crept forward. The tanks then lay down a suppressive fire to join with that of the infantry. While the Germans kept their heads down, one platoon advanced, then another, then another. This was repeated with the tanks advancing again under cover by infantry small arms. Rinse and repeat with the infantry platoons.

The other companies in the battalion were also firing furiously to maintain domination over the Germans. Of course, few Germans were hit but that's only b/c they were keeping their heads down in their foxholes or pillboxes.

Ammo resupply was numerous and soon the divisional G-4 came up to investigate. He spoke with the captain who explained that they were use using superior and suppressive fire power to capture a heavily fortified German position. His company had flanked the Germans and were methodically rolling up the German line. "Is there an issue, Sir?" "No, but I just want you to know you're used up the division's entire allotment of ammunition." Minimal casulties were suffered in capturing the German position.
 
The only complaint I've read about was 30 carbine and not 30-06.
Click to expand...
My uncle was in the 1st Marine Division during the Korean War and went on the campout to the Chosin Reservoir. He said most Marines liked the M1 Carbine because it was so light and easy to carry. Once the shooting started, they grabbed all the M1 Garands they could lay their hands on because they knew it would reach out and put the enemy down. It wasn't so much about the M1 Carbine being underpowered, it was about hitting the enemy before they got on top of you.
 
It might help give some perspective if you think of the M1 carbine as a .357magnum, only shooting a .30 110gr FMJ instead of the usual .357 slugs. Speed from a .30 carbine is close to .357 from a carbine, but a little less.

Works pretty well out to 100, maybe 150yds or so, but when you stretch the range out 2-300 or more, the 06 is hands down better.

There's no free lunch.

One of my favorite carbine stories came from a friend who was a SeaBee in the Pacific. He told of how him and some buddies were working a dozer on an island to make an airstrip, and while the island was "officially" cleared, there were still a few Japanese around, and so they carried their carbines.

Classic case of sniper in a palm tree, they got shot at. Ducked behind the dozer and shot back. For a while it was back and forth, the sniper didn't actually hit anyone, but was bouncing slugs off the dozer pretty close every now and then, and when they shot at him with their carbines, he ducked behind the tree trunk and they couldn't get him.

After a bit along came a "long, lanky, tobacco chewin' Texan" infantry guy with a BAR. Asks "y'all got a problem??" at that point the sniper pegged off another shot, and the BAR gunner dumped a mag into the top of the tree. Rifle falls to the ground, dead sniper falls to the end of his tether. Problem solved. (BAR gunners tended to favor AP ammo ;))

The M1 Carbine was great at what it did, but there were things it couldn't do. For those, we had other guns. :D
 
My dad served in Europe. According to him the 1911 wasn't particularly well liked. The Garand was.

Based on what I've read the M-1 Carbine was more effective, and better liked in the Pacific where it was used on men of smaller stature, typically at closer range, and not wearing heavy winter clothing.
 
Do note that while the average Japanese was of slightly smaller stature than the average American, some of them were every bit as big as we were. And some of us were small guys, too....

Audie Murphy, who was not a large man, was very partial to the M1 Carbine, and he did fight in Europe.....

Nothing is a perfect fit for everyone, or every condition. I think it was a very smart move on the part of the US to allow for a mixture of weapon types in combat units. Sure, it did complicate supply a bit, but it also allowed that for what ever situation you got into, someone in your group would have weapons best suited for it. Pistols, rifles, carbines, SMGs, and machine guns all working and available TOGETHER is a potent mix.

Even today, when we have blended the carbine and SMG, it is still recognized that sometimes, you need an actual rifle, one with more power and range than lighter arms.

One of the virtually universal "complaints" of soldiers is weight, and WWII guns were not built to be light weight (other than the carbine). Look at any picture of GIs who are "at rest" and you see the vast majority of their long guns have their butts on the ground. :D (and usually so do most of the GI's ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top