Tikirocker
New member
Somebody mentioned the Bren, which to me was the best Automatic Rifle of them all - I say Automatic Rifle however as it was not a machine gun, right along with the BAR.
Tiki.
Tiki.
Who had the best machine guns? America or the Nazis - MOVIE
- Thread starter Amsdorf
- Start date
As much as I love the "Fork-Tailed Devil," this just isn't true.
A single bullet in the right place could take out a liquid-cooled engine (Allison V-1710). And losing an engine (even in a twin-engined fighter) at low altitude was disastrous.
Also, despite the concentrated fire of the P-38, the P-47 was the more stable gun platform at low altitude.
Tikirocker: Are you saying the Bren wasn't a machine gun because it wasn't belt fed?
As far as I can see that's the main functional difference between it and the MG 34.
Would the Japanese type 96 also count as an auto rifle rather than a machine gun?
Fishbed77: My point wasn't which plane was more durable or easier to fly. It only had to do with a planes ability to put rounds on target. I stand by my position.
It was another poster that argued the durability of the P-38.
Because the prototype crash landed after setting a transcontinental speed record, a lot of the planes development was stalled. The most unfortunate problem was not discovering the need for dive brakes until later models. Upgrades were on a ship that was sunk by a Uboat so that delayed improvement to planes already in Europe even further. The result was that several P-38s literally disintegrated during power dives.
Other problems plagued the P-38 all the way through its operating life. Even with these problems it was a heck of a plane. More so when later models were equipped with ten rockets.
As far as I can see that's the main functional difference between it and the MG 34.
Would the Japanese type 96 also count as an auto rifle rather than a machine gun?
Fishbed77: My point wasn't which plane was more durable or easier to fly. It only had to do with a planes ability to put rounds on target. I stand by my position.
It was another poster that argued the durability of the P-38.
Because the prototype crash landed after setting a transcontinental speed record, a lot of the planes development was stalled. The most unfortunate problem was not discovering the need for dive brakes until later models. Upgrades were on a ship that was sunk by a Uboat so that delayed improvement to planes already in Europe even further. The result was that several P-38s literally disintegrated during power dives.
Other problems plagued the P-38 all the way through its operating life. Even with these problems it was a heck of a plane. More so when later models were equipped with ten rockets.
Mike Irwin
Staff
" The best one they had was a copy of a Hotchkiss, and that one was neither belt or box mag fed, it used feed strips."
By far the best Japanese machine gun of the war was their late analog to the Bren gun, the Type 99 chambered in 7.7mm. It wasn't until this gun that the Japanese finally understood the need for slow primary extraction. Their guns prior to that, even their copies of the Hotchkiss guns, didn't have initial extraction, so they had to use either cartridge oiling mechanisms, or they had to have oiled cartridges loaded into the magazines. Horrible set up.
"Would the Japanese type 96 also count as an auto rifle rather than a machine gun?"
Nope. It was, like the Bren and most of the others, used as a squad automatic weapon.
The fact that the Browning Automatic Rifle is called an automatic rifle is really irrelevant because its primary role after World War I's "how the hell are we going to use this thing" head scratching was as a.... squad automatic weapon. Same as the Bren, same as the Types 96 and 99.
"Also, despite the concentrated fire of the P-38, the P-47 was the more stable gun platform at low altitude."
The P-47 was great, the P-38 was interesting....
But if you wanted to REALLY kick some ground ass from the air, you called in a flight of Hawker Typhoons. Four 20mm cannons, 10 Holy Moses rockets, and in some field set ups, a 500-lb bomb slung on the centerline as well (although that apparently was only done on paved or solid runways because it hung a little low to the ground).
By far the best Japanese machine gun of the war was their late analog to the Bren gun, the Type 99 chambered in 7.7mm. It wasn't until this gun that the Japanese finally understood the need for slow primary extraction. Their guns prior to that, even their copies of the Hotchkiss guns, didn't have initial extraction, so they had to use either cartridge oiling mechanisms, or they had to have oiled cartridges loaded into the magazines. Horrible set up.
"Would the Japanese type 96 also count as an auto rifle rather than a machine gun?"
Nope. It was, like the Bren and most of the others, used as a squad automatic weapon.
The fact that the Browning Automatic Rifle is called an automatic rifle is really irrelevant because its primary role after World War I's "how the hell are we going to use this thing" head scratching was as a.... squad automatic weapon. Same as the Bren, same as the Types 96 and 99.
"Also, despite the concentrated fire of the P-38, the P-47 was the more stable gun platform at low altitude."
The P-47 was great, the P-38 was interesting....
But if you wanted to REALLY kick some ground ass from the air, you called in a flight of Hawker Typhoons. Four 20mm cannons, 10 Holy Moses rockets, and in some field set ups, a 500-lb bomb slung on the centerline as well (although that apparently was only done on paved or solid runways because it hung a little low to the ground).
Yeah, the Hawker Tempest and Typhoon were probably the best attack aircraft the Allies had during WW2. They were so fast that Britain used them to chase down V-1 rockets and shoot them down. They were originally designed as fighters, but it had handling problems and couldn't turn inside Messerschmidts. So the made attack fighters out of them. 4 20mm guns and 2,000lbs of bombs were plenty.And if the pilot ran out of ammo chasing a V-1 he would simply fly next to it and use his wing-tip to tip the V-1 over so it would crash in the sea. Britain continued to use them until 1951.
Shooting down V1s with the big Hawker turned out to be the least preferred option! While the Hawker was faster than the V1, it wasn't that much faster, and many times intercepts couldn't be made.
But when they were, pilots learned that the V1, while it did not maneuver, was a small fast target, and to get hits, you had to be fairly close.
And close turned out to be a bad thing when you shot at a flying bomb! V1s turned out to be able to damage, and even take out their attackers at close ranges, from the massive explosion of the warhead!
So, easing up on one, and edgeing a wingtip under the V1 wing, then flipping it out of control became preferred, and safer for the pilots. But it had to be done over the sea, or open country, not over cities, towns, or villages, for obvious reasons. If caught late, they were shot down, ...carefully.
personally, I'd give the nod for best fighterbomber to the P-47. 8 .50cal Brownings, bombs/rockets, and still a quite capable air superiority fighter, and many, many Messerschmitts and Focke Wulfs found out. A very rugged airframe, and a massive air cooled engine meant Thunderbolts could take a lot of damage and still get home. That was a bit plus, too, and one place where the P-47 was superior to the Hawkers, which used liquid cooled engines.
But when they were, pilots learned that the V1, while it did not maneuver, was a small fast target, and to get hits, you had to be fairly close.
And close turned out to be a bad thing when you shot at a flying bomb! V1s turned out to be able to damage, and even take out their attackers at close ranges, from the massive explosion of the warhead!
So, easing up on one, and edgeing a wingtip under the V1 wing, then flipping it out of control became preferred, and safer for the pilots. But it had to be done over the sea, or open country, not over cities, towns, or villages, for obvious reasons. If caught late, they were shot down, ...carefully.
personally, I'd give the nod for best fighterbomber to the P-47. 8 .50cal Brownings, bombs/rockets, and still a quite capable air superiority fighter, and many, many Messerschmitts and Focke Wulfs found out. A very rugged airframe, and a massive air cooled engine meant Thunderbolts could take a lot of damage and still get home. That was a bit plus, too, and one place where the P-47 was superior to the Hawkers, which used liquid cooled engines.
Mike Irwin
Staff
Over the years I've read a lot about how fighters and other aircraft using liquid cooled engines were a flying crash waiting to happen, and that a well-placed blob of spittle from an angry Nazi Gauleiter would cause a cooling system failure and an immediate engine seizure, followed by a spectacular crash.
I call B.S. and say that that "problem" was an overstated issue that was largely a non issue.
In all of the reading I've done on the air war in Europe over the years, I've found many mentions of this "problem," but I've found VERY FEW credible accounts of aircraft being downed because of their cooling systems being drained from battle damage. And in most of those it would appear that even had the cooling system not been damaged the plane still would have gone down simply because of the total damage sustained.
The cooling systems on liquid-cooled aircraft during the war were generally well protected by a combination of armor plate and other systems and in most cases were largely inaccessible to being damaged by bullets. Explosive shells were another matter, but then again, the damaged caused by explosive shells was often enough to bring an aircraft down whether the cooling system was damaged or not.
Many of the war's most successful aircraft used liquid cooled engines, including the Mustang, the Spitfire, the Typhoon, the Tempest, the Lancaster, the Mosquito, etc.
The Mustang, Typhoon, and the Mosquito (as well as the Lockheed Lightning) were well known for their low-level attack and reconnaissance missions.
Had they been as vulnerable to ground fire as is alluded, it's likely that A) their loss rates would have been much higher, and B) they simply wouldn't have been used for those kinds of missions.
I call B.S. and say that that "problem" was an overstated issue that was largely a non issue.
In all of the reading I've done on the air war in Europe over the years, I've found many mentions of this "problem," but I've found VERY FEW credible accounts of aircraft being downed because of their cooling systems being drained from battle damage. And in most of those it would appear that even had the cooling system not been damaged the plane still would have gone down simply because of the total damage sustained.
The cooling systems on liquid-cooled aircraft during the war were generally well protected by a combination of armor plate and other systems and in most cases were largely inaccessible to being damaged by bullets. Explosive shells were another matter, but then again, the damaged caused by explosive shells was often enough to bring an aircraft down whether the cooling system was damaged or not.
Many of the war's most successful aircraft used liquid cooled engines, including the Mustang, the Spitfire, the Typhoon, the Tempest, the Lancaster, the Mosquito, etc.
The Mustang, Typhoon, and the Mosquito (as well as the Lockheed Lightning) were well known for their low-level attack and reconnaissance missions.
Had they been as vulnerable to ground fire as is alluded, it's likely that A) their loss rates would have been much higher, and B) they simply wouldn't have been used for those kinds of missions.
There is some semantic creep in this thread, although perhaps with good reason (not the reason you think). Congress got into the act now and then. In some branches of the service, automatic rifles got called "machine rifles," which follows the logic of "machine pistol" and "machine carbine." And some tanks were called "combat cars" because some people weren't supposed to have tanks. So they got combat cars instead.
Anyone want to talk about "personal defense weapons?"
Anyone want to talk about "personal defense weapons?"
Here's a question;
Could one define a light machine gun (vs automatic rifle) by the crew assigned? It's all a matter of semantics, really, but since they were both used as squad automatics, this gets into tactical doctrine, and each nation used the doctrine and terms they preferred.
Was there an "assistant BAR gunner"? I know other guys in the squad would hump ammo, but was there a designated guy to feed the BAR (other than the BAR gunner?)
Did the Japanese use an assistant gunner for their magazine fed LMGs? Several other nations did, and I know they Japanese did for the strip fed guns.
SO might one not make the dividing line at automatic rifle (crew:1) and LMG (crew:2)?
As to liquid cooled engines in aircraft, they are more vulnerable (one more thing that can go wrong/be damaged). However, I do agree that their vulnerability was much over blown. That being said, there are documented cases of a single bullet bringing down a fighter due to a hit in the cooling system. Rare, but it did happen. When the stars line up the right way, it happens.
IIRC, Combat cars were "tanks" (full tracked, w/turret(s)), but didn't have cannon, only medium (.30cal) and heavy (.50cal) machineguns. Yes, some people got combat cars, because they weren't authorized tanks, and congress, being what they were, would fund "combat cars", because tanks were too expensive....
Could one define a light machine gun (vs automatic rifle) by the crew assigned? It's all a matter of semantics, really, but since they were both used as squad automatics, this gets into tactical doctrine, and each nation used the doctrine and terms they preferred.
Was there an "assistant BAR gunner"? I know other guys in the squad would hump ammo, but was there a designated guy to feed the BAR (other than the BAR gunner?)
Did the Japanese use an assistant gunner for their magazine fed LMGs? Several other nations did, and I know they Japanese did for the strip fed guns.
SO might one not make the dividing line at automatic rifle (crew:1) and LMG (crew:2)?
As to liquid cooled engines in aircraft, they are more vulnerable (one more thing that can go wrong/be damaged). However, I do agree that their vulnerability was much over blown. That being said, there are documented cases of a single bullet bringing down a fighter due to a hit in the cooling system. Rare, but it did happen. When the stars line up the right way, it happens.
IIRC, Combat cars were "tanks" (full tracked, w/turret(s)), but didn't have cannon, only medium (.30cal) and heavy (.50cal) machineguns. Yes, some people got combat cars, because they weren't authorized tanks, and congress, being what they were, would fund "combat cars", because tanks were too expensive....
Mike Irwin
Staff
Just as there are documented cases of single bullets taking down radial engine aircraft because they blow out the oil intercooler and the engine seizes due to lack of lubrication.
They call those kind of events golden twinkees for a reason...
" I know other guys in the squad would hump ammo, but was there a designated guy to feed the BAR (other than the BAR gunner?)"
To the best of my knowledge, no. The gunner changed the magazines.
I think, though, that you're going to find that there is no single answer to that question that cuts across all armed services.
IIRC the British usually had a team of three assigned to the Bren gun - gunner, assistant, and second assistant who was primarily responsible for protecting the gunner, although per the next paragraph the second assistant may not really have been considered part of the gun crew.
This comes from Wikipedia, so we know it's not true: "The Bren was operated by a two-man crew, sometimes commanded by a Lance Corporal as an infantry section's "gun group", the remainder of the section forming the "rifle group". The gunner or "Number 1" carried and fired the Bren, and a loader or "Number 2" carried extra magazines, a spare barrel and tool kit. Number 2 helped reload the gun and replace the barrel when it overheated, and spotted targets for Number 1."
The Japanese had a completely different view of how these types of guns were to be used. They made provisions to mount bayonets on their light machine guns so that the gunner could use them as a rifleman would use his rifle in a charge. Totally insane, and as I understand it, as often as not, the gunner operated independently and carried his own ammo.
Soviet doctrine usually had teams of two with the Degtyarev, the gunner and another guy who did double duty as ammunition carrier (had a shoulder-slung box with three 47-round pans in it) who was also responsible for protecting the gunner with his PPSh 41.
They call those kind of events golden twinkees for a reason...
" I know other guys in the squad would hump ammo, but was there a designated guy to feed the BAR (other than the BAR gunner?)"
To the best of my knowledge, no. The gunner changed the magazines.
I think, though, that you're going to find that there is no single answer to that question that cuts across all armed services.
IIRC the British usually had a team of three assigned to the Bren gun - gunner, assistant, and second assistant who was primarily responsible for protecting the gunner, although per the next paragraph the second assistant may not really have been considered part of the gun crew.
This comes from Wikipedia, so we know it's not true: "The Bren was operated by a two-man crew, sometimes commanded by a Lance Corporal as an infantry section's "gun group", the remainder of the section forming the "rifle group". The gunner or "Number 1" carried and fired the Bren, and a loader or "Number 2" carried extra magazines, a spare barrel and tool kit. Number 2 helped reload the gun and replace the barrel when it overheated, and spotted targets for Number 1."
The Japanese had a completely different view of how these types of guns were to be used. They made provisions to mount bayonets on their light machine guns so that the gunner could use them as a rifleman would use his rifle in a charge. Totally insane, and as I understand it, as often as not, the gunner operated independently and carried his own ammo.
Soviet doctrine usually had teams of two with the Degtyarev, the gunner and another guy who did double duty as ammunition carrier (had a shoulder-slung box with three 47-round pans in it) who was also responsible for protecting the gunner with his PPSh 41.
Last edited:
I wonder why they didn't ever work at improving on the BAR design, giving it a larger capacity magazine, or some kind of belt feed option, and quick change barrel.
That would definitely have made it a squad automatic weapon, wouldn't it have?
Can't imagine having only a 20 round magazine with that thing on full auto. You'd be doing a ton of mag swaps, no?
That would definitely have made it a squad automatic weapon, wouldn't it have?
Can't imagine having only a 20 round magazine with that thing on full auto. You'd be doing a ton of mag swaps, no?
There are a number of practical reasons, not the least of which is cost. Another factor is legalitites (which also cost), and then it gets into what services think they need, what serves which purpose, best vs good enought, and did I mention, cost?
The BAR was designed, and built like all Browning's other arms, it was made to last. Designed decades before military thought moved to more "disposable" designs, the BAR was made like any sporting and contemporary firearms, built to give a lifetime of service without wearing out the major components just from use.
Other than some handguns, nothing from that era had a quick change barrel in the sense we use it today. Even Browning's designs that did feature a field changeable barrel needed to have headspace and timing set each time the barrel was changed. The modern "yank one out and slap another in" fixed headspace system common today wasn't used, most likely because there was no perceived need.
As to larger magazines, why? Sustained fire is what belt feeds (and specifically water cooled) is for. Also, try to get low prone with a 30rnd mag sticking out the bottom of the gun. Bren guns get bigger mags, but they go in the TOP of the gun.
Belt feed the BAR? OK, sounds good, but then you don't have a BAR anymore. Its not as simple as cutting a hole in the side of the receiver for the belt to go through. Other existing machinegun designs fill the need, so modifying the BAR is a waste of time, and money.
And speaking of money, note that armies buy weapons slowly during peace, budgets are tight, and even modifying existing stocks of arms (cheaper than buying new, usually) is tough to get approval for. And then there is the little legal issue of who owns the design, again, that is money...
When the fighting starts, armies buy guns, in large numbers, and existing designs get a big advantage, because they are already in production. You might have a better gun, in some ways, but if you can't deliver 1,000 next month, you will lose out to the guy who can deliver something that already is known to work.
The BAR, while not the best of all possible designs available at the start of WWII was in inventory, did work, and we could get more, starting tomorrow...
And as to getting something "better" later, well, why? We got all these BARs already....
Personality, both in the military, and in the political side (funding, etc.) also plays a big part. It shouldn't, but it does. History has many examples of someone have a good, possibly even superior design, but because the inventor ticked off somebody (bureaucrat in, or out of uniform) it doesn't get adopted. OR someone's personal prestige becomes part of the process, creating the same result, if for slightly different reasons.
Maybe the new design is just barely better, but not enough to justify the expense of changing. History is full of examples of this, to one degree or another. Even the M1 Garand design had to be modified extensively before the Army would adopt it.
We never seriously considered major changes to the BAR, there was at first, no need, and then, there was no time. And, really while decades later, some people did "built a better mousetrap" in some ways, getting US to adopt it couldn't happen until some fundamental changes in our military philosophy took place first.
Your descriptions of the organizational employment of a light machine gun or squad automataic in infantry units is generally correct, Mr. Irwin. The problem that armies have when actually operational is that casualties tend to wreck such niceties pretty quickly, although they will be adhered to as much as possible. The infantry platoon is where everything happens and is the "sharp end" of the army. I hear tanks get used now and then and they also use mostly the same machine guns. A "burst" to a tanker is at least 25 rounds.
Armies have struggled, in a way, with the concept of the rifle squad or section level automatic weapon ever since WWI. They all seem to have tried all variations at one time or another. The US BAR may have been the one in service the longest, with it being used for over 50 years. It and the M1 were still in National Guard units into the 1970s. There may be another that beats that record but I can't think of one.
The basic problems are that, at least at the infantry section level, is the conflicting requirements of mobility and firepower. If firepower were not a requirement, there would be no machine gun in the rifle squad. If mobility were not a requirement, water cooled guns would still be used. So all of these guns represent some form of compromise, just as all the others do. Yet as often as not, the man on the ground, usually with his nose on the ground (literally), will probably think the enemy has better weapons. Doesn't matter which side you're on. Sometimes both sides have exactly the same weapons.
For firepower, belt fed seems to be the way to go but it has disadvantages. Mostly the answer has been to devise some form of magazine for the belt. Where that has been done, the gun stayed. Where it wasn't, it didn't. There were probably other factors but it has always seemed to work out that way unless there were more varieties of machine guns actually used, as was the case in the US Army in WWII. The squad had the BAR, the platoon or company had belt fed light machine guns. The water cooled were at battalion or even higher.
All very interesting but why am I worried about this?
Armies have struggled, in a way, with the concept of the rifle squad or section level automatic weapon ever since WWI. They all seem to have tried all variations at one time or another. The US BAR may have been the one in service the longest, with it being used for over 50 years. It and the M1 were still in National Guard units into the 1970s. There may be another that beats that record but I can't think of one.
The basic problems are that, at least at the infantry section level, is the conflicting requirements of mobility and firepower. If firepower were not a requirement, there would be no machine gun in the rifle squad. If mobility were not a requirement, water cooled guns would still be used. So all of these guns represent some form of compromise, just as all the others do. Yet as often as not, the man on the ground, usually with his nose on the ground (literally), will probably think the enemy has better weapons. Doesn't matter which side you're on. Sometimes both sides have exactly the same weapons.
For firepower, belt fed seems to be the way to go but it has disadvantages. Mostly the answer has been to devise some form of magazine for the belt. Where that has been done, the gun stayed. Where it wasn't, it didn't. There were probably other factors but it has always seemed to work out that way unless there were more varieties of machine guns actually used, as was the case in the US Army in WWII. The squad had the BAR, the platoon or company had belt fed light machine guns. The water cooled were at battalion or even higher.
All very interesting but why am I worried about this?
bedbugbilly
New member
My father-in-law served in the 35th Division (Red Bull) - in North Africa and Italy. He, himself, was his squad's BAR man. He saw a lot and wouldn't talk a whole lot about it. In what conversations I did have with him, he mentioned the M42 and the great "respect" (fear) they had of it. He felt it was a much better machine gun than those the Allies had. I remember being in a mall in Florida with him many years ago where there was a gun store. They had a M42 on display and he spotted it. We walked over and he took a long look at it and mentioned to me the times that they had gone up against them . . . and the carnage they created. He got real quiet and I sensed it brought back a lot of bad memories . . . even though it had been 50 years.
He also mentioned the "88s" and how they blasted the heck out of everything. He'd been caught in a number of incoming barrages . . . especially in Italy. He said that he couldn't even describe what it was like as it was one of the most horrible things that he'd ever experienced . . . the noise, explosions, shrapnel and shaking of the earth was enough to drive a man crazy. They all considered themselves lucky to survive, only to experience it time and time again. A lot of their buddies weren't as lucky.
He only mentioned it once to me and then would never talk about it again. At one time in Italy, while engaged with the Germans, he was sent as a runner to Regimental HQ. As he made his way, several Germans were "trying to dust my a** with machine pistols" as he put it. Upon his return to his squad, he came under fire from a MG43 and dove into a ditch in the area where his squad had been located as he left for HQ. When he hit the ditch, he fell on top of bloddy bodies and quickly realized they were Americans. He said he rolled one over, spotted the division patch and then realized that all of the bodies in the ditch were the members of his squad. They had been cut to shreds by M43s.
I find it interesting, how we, years later, can watch a movie and then debate the weapons. I'm not being critical . . . that's what happens when we study history. Unfortunatley, the generation of those who experienced it first hand are quickly fading away. My father-in-law has been gone for a number of years. He was lucky . . . he made it home but it affected him for the rest of his life.
He also mentioned the "88s" and how they blasted the heck out of everything. He'd been caught in a number of incoming barrages . . . especially in Italy. He said that he couldn't even describe what it was like as it was one of the most horrible things that he'd ever experienced . . . the noise, explosions, shrapnel and shaking of the earth was enough to drive a man crazy. They all considered themselves lucky to survive, only to experience it time and time again. A lot of their buddies weren't as lucky.
He only mentioned it once to me and then would never talk about it again. At one time in Italy, while engaged with the Germans, he was sent as a runner to Regimental HQ. As he made his way, several Germans were "trying to dust my a** with machine pistols" as he put it. Upon his return to his squad, he came under fire from a MG43 and dove into a ditch in the area where his squad had been located as he left for HQ. When he hit the ditch, he fell on top of bloddy bodies and quickly realized they were Americans. He said he rolled one over, spotted the division patch and then realized that all of the bodies in the ditch were the members of his squad. They had been cut to shreds by M43s.
I find it interesting, how we, years later, can watch a movie and then debate the weapons. I'm not being critical . . . that's what happens when we study history. Unfortunatley, the generation of those who experienced it first hand are quickly fading away. My father-in-law has been gone for a number of years. He was lucky . . . he made it home but it affected him for the rest of his life.
My father also served in Italy. That's where he was captured. He spent twelve months as a P.O.W., just miles from where I was stationed in Germany when I was in the army. His experiences as a POW were not so bad once he finally arrived at the camp, which was in Moosburg. Americans were in the minority at that camp but some prisoners had been there since the fall of France.
He was not a professional veteran and was rather busy living his life in the present. Sometimes the subject would come up but it never occurred to me to ask about anything in particular, no more than I thought to ask other WWII veterans about their experiences. Oddly enough, I have known or met more WWII veterans who served in other armies than in our own. We were friends with a man who served in the last mounted operation conducted by the British in WWII (in Palestine), another who was in the Argylls (A&SH) and yet another who was in the Household Cavalry (2HCR). Most interesting of all, thought the hardest to talk to, was a veteran of the Polish Army who was a cavalryman and had even been in the 1936 Olympics (I met he at the home of another person who rode in the Olympics).
I haven't met him (met his wife, though) but the father of a co-worker here served in Vietnam--in the Korean Army.
It seems like we are surrounded by veterans, yet where I work, only one other guy has been in the service. So maybe there aren't that many veterans after all. No wonder no one worries about wars anymore.
My father did mention the sound of German machine guns, too, come to think of it.
He was not a professional veteran and was rather busy living his life in the present. Sometimes the subject would come up but it never occurred to me to ask about anything in particular, no more than I thought to ask other WWII veterans about their experiences. Oddly enough, I have known or met more WWII veterans who served in other armies than in our own. We were friends with a man who served in the last mounted operation conducted by the British in WWII (in Palestine), another who was in the Argylls (A&SH) and yet another who was in the Household Cavalry (2HCR). Most interesting of all, thought the hardest to talk to, was a veteran of the Polish Army who was a cavalryman and had even been in the 1936 Olympics (I met he at the home of another person who rode in the Olympics).
I haven't met him (met his wife, though) but the father of a co-worker here served in Vietnam--in the Korean Army.
It seems like we are surrounded by veterans, yet where I work, only one other guy has been in the service. So maybe there aren't that many veterans after all. No wonder no one worries about wars anymore.
My father did mention the sound of German machine guns, too, come to think of it.
I understand your point about "not being a professional veteran" but I found the tone of your note a bit uncomfortable.
For the men who saw intense and sustained combat over a long period of time, these experiences deeply emotionally wounded and scarred them. They all deal with it as they see best.
But there is not a single one of these men who did not pay the price: physically, emotionally and spiritually for what they went through. Their time of high stress and tension during combat shaped who they are and impacted the rest of their lives.
Just because some choose to remain silent about it, while others speak out, I am no comfortable with the somewhat sneering remark about "not being a professional veteran."
I grew up with a lot of WWII vets and had the chance to speak to literally dozens, each would open up when they were ready.
For what it is worth.
For the men who saw intense and sustained combat over a long period of time, these experiences deeply emotionally wounded and scarred them. They all deal with it as they see best.
But there is not a single one of these men who did not pay the price: physically, emotionally and spiritually for what they went through. Their time of high stress and tension during combat shaped who they are and impacted the rest of their lives.
Just because some choose to remain silent about it, while others speak out, I am no comfortable with the somewhat sneering remark about "not being a professional veteran."
I grew up with a lot of WWII vets and had the chance to speak to literally dozens, each would open up when they were ready.
For what it is worth.
Okay, here's another way to look at it. The US was involved in WWII for less than four years. How long were we in Vietnam (we're going back, I hear). How long have we been in the Middle East?
What I mean by "professional veteran" applies to those whose lives seem to be centered around their military experiences and I include those who converge on Washington for Rolling Thunder, an event I find very embarrasing and irritating. I grew up at a time when motorcyclists were not considered to be nice folks. I suppose times change. Nowadays a Harley is an old persons bike. I'm sorry if my opinions are not politically correct.
Obviously I do not subscribe to the theory that all returning veterans come home with a scarred phyche. If so, maybe we shouldn't be fighting so many wars. Alternatively, perhaps we ought to have more politicians who are veterans. Either way, I also believe veterans have as much trouble with other factors besides any experiences they may have had overseas, such as the simple fact that they went and others did not. All the right wingers that I know or are related to never served in the armed forces. No doubt your experiences and acquaintances are different. None of this is new, of course, and in the post Civil War period, all of these issues were present. In fact, where I live, it has been only recently that people have passed away who grew up in families for which the Civil War was The War.
Thank you, have a nice day. Please drive carefully.
What I mean by "professional veteran" applies to those whose lives seem to be centered around their military experiences and I include those who converge on Washington for Rolling Thunder, an event I find very embarrasing and irritating. I grew up at a time when motorcyclists were not considered to be nice folks. I suppose times change. Nowadays a Harley is an old persons bike. I'm sorry if my opinions are not politically correct.
Obviously I do not subscribe to the theory that all returning veterans come home with a scarred phyche. If so, maybe we shouldn't be fighting so many wars. Alternatively, perhaps we ought to have more politicians who are veterans. Either way, I also believe veterans have as much trouble with other factors besides any experiences they may have had overseas, such as the simple fact that they went and others did not. All the right wingers that I know or are related to never served in the armed forces. No doubt your experiences and acquaintances are different. None of this is new, of course, and in the post Civil War period, all of these issues were present. In fact, where I live, it has been only recently that people have passed away who grew up in families for which the Civil War was The War.
Thank you, have a nice day. Please drive carefully.
Last edited:
Tikirocker
New member
Re the Bren and Crew assigned ... Australia built its own Bren guns out of Lithgow SAF during WW2 and in the field there are many images of Aussie soldiers walking up on Japanese in various actions in Papua New Guinea, firing from the hip and using the Bren as a one man operated unit. This is more often how Aussies deployed the Bren in Jungle Warfare - it was used much like the Brits used the Thompson.
Tiki.
Tiki.