my uncle told me of several incounters with japanese soldgiers at very close range, he and a few other men came out alive and he said it was because of the m1,s 8 fast repeat shots. i ask what he thought the outcome may have been with 03 springfields and he said he didn,t think he would have made it. he was with the 11th airborne in the phillipines. eastbank.
WWII bolt action in the Pacific???
- Thread starter Prof Young
- Start date
- Status
Oh, REALLY?!?
By THAT logic, the P-51 Mustang and F4U Corsair need never have been fielded. The Allies could have won the war by producing huge quantities of Supermarine Spitfires and P-40 Warhawks, and writing off downed airplanes as "acceptable losses". Wanna try and sell THAT to the troops?
The U.S. tried that philosophy with their tanks, producing almost 50,000 M3 Sherman tanks (Known to the armored units as Rossignols, b/c they "lit the first time, every time" when hit by enemy fire), well past their obsolescence. The result was a lot of U.S. tank crews killed by Germans (or Murdered by allied war-planners, take your pick) needlessly, because some desk-bound, pencil-pushing CHAIRborne commando in logistics decided that "good enough" should replace "BESt available", since the former could be made in wholesale quantities. Such a mentality borders on the criminal. If I recall correctly, U.S. tank crews expected to lose 2 M3s for each Panther, 3 M3s for every Tiger I, and FIVE M3s for every King Tiger they defeated. I'm not very sure that someone could get me inside an M3 tank AT GUNPOINT, with odds like that.
The U.S. Army Air Corps had that mindset when they flooded the skies over Germany with B-17s, and German Flak and Fighters sent them down in large numbers, making the "25 Mission Rule" obscenely laughable. If memory serves, it wasn't until Curtis LeMay revamped their bomber TACTICS (note that I did NOT say "LOGISTICS") that bomber crew losses dropped substantially. Further reductions were obtained when P-47s were equipped with drop-tanks, and when said P-47s were replaced with the P-51 Mustangs.
Perhaps professionals DO focus on logistics, but I suspect that none of them worth their pay IGNORES tactics. Not entirely, anyway.
Weren't the BRITS the best professional army in the world, when what would become the U.S.A. fielded a rag-tag unprofessional largely volunteer army against them and won?
Seems I ALSO remember hearing about a southeast asian conflict in which peasants and farmers, equipped with decidedly inferior arms and only the most rudimentary logistical structure sent a certain superpower packing with a focus on small-unit tactics (IN-theater) and propaganda strategy (In U.S.). I'm NOT seeing a great deal of logistical hedgemony attributed to the "comrades", when the conflict is discussed.
.44 AMP, I hope you'll rewatch "Saving Private Ryan" again, especially the part where Captain Miller (Tom Hanks) allegedly takes out the tank with a .45. If you look closely, you SHOULD see an allied fighter airplane soaring over the tank after it explodes, which suggests that the tank was taken out by an aerial bomb (Perhaps a 2.36" rocket? Can't remember).
Lastly, didn't SOME Marine units in the Pacific theater start the war with M1941 Johnson rifles and LMGs (belt-fed), which held 10 rounds of .30-06 in an en-bloc magazine which could be fed from Springfield '03 stripper clips? I've never shot a Johnson rifle, so there may be something I'm missing, but it sure seemed like a better system than the Garand and B.A.R., which shared ammunition and nothing else.
By THAT logic, the P-51 Mustang and F4U Corsair need never have been fielded. The Allies could have won the war by producing huge quantities of Supermarine Spitfires and P-40 Warhawks, and writing off downed airplanes as "acceptable losses". Wanna try and sell THAT to the troops?
The U.S. tried that philosophy with their tanks, producing almost 50,000 M3 Sherman tanks (Known to the armored units as Rossignols, b/c they "lit the first time, every time" when hit by enemy fire), well past their obsolescence. The result was a lot of U.S. tank crews killed by Germans (or Murdered by allied war-planners, take your pick) needlessly, because some desk-bound, pencil-pushing CHAIRborne commando in logistics decided that "good enough" should replace "BESt available", since the former could be made in wholesale quantities. Such a mentality borders on the criminal. If I recall correctly, U.S. tank crews expected to lose 2 M3s for each Panther, 3 M3s for every Tiger I, and FIVE M3s for every King Tiger they defeated. I'm not very sure that someone could get me inside an M3 tank AT GUNPOINT, with odds like that.
The U.S. Army Air Corps had that mindset when they flooded the skies over Germany with B-17s, and German Flak and Fighters sent them down in large numbers, making the "25 Mission Rule" obscenely laughable. If memory serves, it wasn't until Curtis LeMay revamped their bomber TACTICS (note that I did NOT say "LOGISTICS") that bomber crew losses dropped substantially. Further reductions were obtained when P-47s were equipped with drop-tanks, and when said P-47s were replaced with the P-51 Mustangs.
Perhaps professionals DO focus on logistics, but I suspect that none of them worth their pay IGNORES tactics. Not entirely, anyway.
Weren't the BRITS the best professional army in the world, when what would become the U.S.A. fielded a rag-tag unprofessional largely volunteer army against them and won?
Seems I ALSO remember hearing about a southeast asian conflict in which peasants and farmers, equipped with decidedly inferior arms and only the most rudimentary logistical structure sent a certain superpower packing with a focus on small-unit tactics (IN-theater) and propaganda strategy (In U.S.). I'm NOT seeing a great deal of logistical hedgemony attributed to the "comrades", when the conflict is discussed.
.44 AMP, I hope you'll rewatch "Saving Private Ryan" again, especially the part where Captain Miller (Tom Hanks) allegedly takes out the tank with a .45. If you look closely, you SHOULD see an allied fighter airplane soaring over the tank after it explodes, which suggests that the tank was taken out by an aerial bomb (Perhaps a 2.36" rocket? Can't remember).
Lastly, didn't SOME Marine units in the Pacific theater start the war with M1941 Johnson rifles and LMGs (belt-fed), which held 10 rounds of .30-06 in an en-bloc magazine which could be fed from Springfield '03 stripper clips? I've never shot a Johnson rifle, so there may be something I'm missing, but it sure seemed like a better system than the Garand and B.A.R., which shared ammunition and nothing else.
Dragonflydf
New member
I am sure a number of japs were taken by Philippine guerrillas using Krags as we had given them a lot of them.
Dragonflydf
New member
Comparing a 1903 to a Arisaka for pacific fighting, I would take a Arisaka, it was designed for rough use in a hostile to steel environment. It had a chrome lined barrel and it had the strongest receivers of all WWII bolt action rifles. The 7.7 round was no slouch either, being slightly shorter than a 30-06, it was a powerful round.
My older brother was a medic tech sargent in a London hospital ward during WWII. One wing it that ward had German POW's; one of which was a decent fellow and spoke good English. That wounded POW did a signed pencil drawing of my brother wearing his dress khakai's, a copy of that original I still have. My brother related to me that POW's opinions and those of most German troops were that our Garand was "the" weapon to take home. Far better for combat than any shoulder fired rifle the Axis had.
Some good points, Kosh, but the fact is that we fielded the M4 Sherman because we could produce so many of them. We could have built bigger and heavier tanks, but they could not have been lifted onto the ships with the cranes then in use, and would have broken many of the bridges in England and France, things the civilian "expert" never considers. The Germans produced a relatively few very heavy tanks (the Maus is a good example of the extreme) but in the last days, they were almost driving out of the factory into combat, not transporting them three thousand miles.
And yes, given the U.S. production capacity, the Allies could have won the war with Spitfires and P-40's. I did not say it was bad or wrong to want weapons superiority in all areas; I said it wasn't necessary.
Jim
And yes, given the U.S. production capacity, the Allies could have won the war with Spitfires and P-40's. I did not say it was bad or wrong to want weapons superiority in all areas; I said it wasn't necessary.
Jim
Yes, the Sherman was designed to fit into existing shipping, something the Germans and the Soviets did not have to worry about. While the heavier German tanks such as the Tiger and King Tiger were largely impervious to Allied anti-tank weapons and could flatten anything in their path they were often mechanically unreliable and when they broke down the Germans had no vehicle to tow them away with. And their maintenance support was poor, they had to ship tanks bach to the Reich for repairs that we would have handled at 2nd or even 1st echeleon The P-51 Mustang was developed to provide long range fighter escort for the heavy bombers, something the P-38 Lightning and P-47 Thunderbolt really couldn't provide.
Also when the specifications for the Sherman were laid down it was just after the Fall of France, it was determined at the time that speed, cross country performance and maneuverability were the crucual characteristics for a tank, whose mission was to drive deep into the enemy's rear, strike at soft targets.
Our doctrine at the time was tank destroyers were to fight and destroy tanks.
Also when the specifications for the Sherman were laid down it was just after the Fall of France, it was determined at the time that speed, cross country performance and maneuverability were the crucual characteristics for a tank, whose mission was to drive deep into the enemy's rear, strike at soft targets.
Our doctrine at the time was tank destroyers were to fight and destroy tanks.
Another factor that created problems for the Germans was one A. Hitler, who fancied himself a military genius and, when it came to tanks, bought into the "bigger is better" concept. The last extreme, as I said above, was Porshe's PzKW VIII Maus, a huge monstrosity mounting a 128mm gun. None ever reached combat, but it would have been so slow as to be easily avoided until it could be dealt with by artillery. But it was a pet idea of Hitler's abetted by his old KdF Wagen buddy, Porsche, so scarce resources that could have been used to turn out hundreds of smaller but effective tanks were expended on a useless monstrosity.
Jim
Jim
The Marines would take anything they could get their hands on during the early days of WW2.
Johnson M1941's that the Dutch couldn't take delivery of found their way to small numbers of Marines.
Because they could get the number of Thompsons and M1 Carbines they needed the M50 Reising was a short term stop gap measure.
I don't recall seeing any M1941's in the "The Pacific", if you look close you'll see a Reising or two in the early episodes. The series did a decent job of getting an accurate portrayal of the Marines' small arms.
Johnson M1941's that the Dutch couldn't take delivery of found their way to small numbers of Marines.
Because they could get the number of Thompsons and M1 Carbines they needed the M50 Reising was a short term stop gap measure.
I don't recall seeing any M1941's in the "The Pacific", if you look close you'll see a Reising or two in the early episodes. The series did a decent job of getting an accurate portrayal of the Marines' small arms.
One reason the Marines got less in the way of the new weapons was that the political decision was made to concentrate first on the African-European war against Germany, considered by Churchill and Roosevelt as the prime enemy. In August 1942, when the Guadalcanal invasion took place, planning and equipping for Operation Torch was well underway, and the Army units involved got much of the new ordnance, even though pictures of the landings show many soldiers equipped with M1903 rifles, not M1's. Also, since the Marine ranks had not yet been filled out with draftees, the existing units were going with what they had, which was the Springfield.
But it was not all about the Marines being denied the best weapons. While the USMC high command was trying to obtain M1 rifles, many Marine officers and NCO's were preaching the "one shot, one kill" doctrine, as if the Japanese would line up like the targets at Quantico and wait to be shot. The Marines soon learned better.
Jim
But it was not all about the Marines being denied the best weapons. While the USMC high command was trying to obtain M1 rifles, many Marine officers and NCO's were preaching the "one shot, one kill" doctrine, as if the Japanese would line up like the targets at Quantico and wait to be shot. The Marines soon learned better.
Jim
Since it's a drama series they used what they could get and probably figured "close enough". I note that for all the fascination with the M1A1 Carbine I have seen exactly ONE picture of a WWII GI holding one.
And with all due respect to Patton, I often wonder how much difference the M-1 Garand really made. The Germans did OK with their M98 Mausers, granted their doctrine was that the riflemen supported the machine gun.
And with all due respect to Patton, I often wonder how much difference the M-1 Garand really made. The Germans did OK with their M98 Mausers, granted their doctrine was that the riflemen supported the machine gun.
No argument, there. Hitler's capricious nature and (probably syphilitic) non-military mind were probably the most unsung allies of the good guys in the whole war.
I've read in more than one text that the British SOE studied a plan to send in teams of snipers to kill Hitler, by basically going in as "sleepers" and hoping to stumble on an opportunity to get him in the cross-hairs (Hitler switched his schedule around like a sugared-up 5 year-old with ADD).
The conclusion of the study was that Hitler would lose the war for Germany faster than if he was replaced by the General Staff (who DID know what they were doing) on his assassination. I have to chuckle every time I read that.
We could have used T-34s. They would have been no match for the Tigers, but were on even ground with Panthers (when the Panthers worked) and all tanks previous. They were lighter, lower, faster, better armed, better armored, and had a longer range than the M3. They were, if anything, less mechanically complex than the M3 (I suspect that a mid-century American farm boy was disposed of considerably more mechanical aptitude than a Russian peasant of the same era), and far more survivable in a fight.
Wasn't necessary to WHOM, exactly? It may not seem necessary to the war-planner sitting comfortably in the Pentagon, that MONUMENT to MURPHY'S LAW, built with four walls, and a spare, but it's life-and-death crucial to the mud-rolling PFC who must live (or die) by the results of the denizen of that pentagon office.
Now, I'll be the first to admit that MY "Military expertise" consists of one 3-hour college Military Science class, so there are VOLUMES of information about it that I'll NEVER know. That said, I DO know that the morale of a fighting force is as critical to its combat efficacy as logistics and planning, if not more so. I also suspect that one of the BEST ways to destroy said morale is to under-equip or ill-equip its combat elements, and tell them to engage a better-armed enemy.
The obstinacy of the war-planners to keep using the M3 and its anemic 75mm gun filled a lot of body bags with dead tankers. It borders on the criminal, if not actually rising to the level of criminality. I'm just very happy to know that they apply the same mentality to the selection of battle rifles for U.S. troops as was used in selecting their tanks.
Not only is it not bad or wrong to want weapons superiority in all areas, it borers on criminal negligence to not aggressively seek out and implement it at every reasonable opportunity.
I'm sorry to have taken this thread so far afield from bolt-action rifles in the pacific, but this needed to be said.
Last edited:
I thought the WWII Marines considered themselves RIFLEMEN. No need to "spray and Pray" with a semi-auto. That's why they were using the 1903 Springfield. An older relative told me two of his buddies set out one afternoon, got into trees, set up a cross fire situation and wiped out 80 Japanese soldiers, all with 1903's.
As a kid, I was told the Marines wanted the 1903. Sort like today with the Corp wanting to go back to the 1911 even if the magazine carries fewer rounds.
God Bless the U.S. Marines.
As a kid, I was told the Marines wanted the 1903. Sort like today with the Corp wanting to go back to the 1911 even if the magazine carries fewer rounds.
God Bless the U.S. Marines.
At least during the start of WW2 thanks to Lend-Lease, our industrial base was getting onto a war footing.
During WW1, we could only really provide rifles and pistols to our troops. And 75% of those rifle were our modification of the British Pattern 14 rifle, the M1917. Almost every machine gun, artillery piece, plane, and troop transport had to be provided by either the Brits or French...and it took 18 months from our Declaration of War to when the US armed forces were in actual ground combat in force. If I'm remembering correctly I think we were in actual combat for about 6 months during WW1...and lost a huge amount of men in that short time.
During WW1, we could only really provide rifles and pistols to our troops. And 75% of those rifle were our modification of the British Pattern 14 rifle, the M1917. Almost every machine gun, artillery piece, plane, and troop transport had to be provided by either the Brits or French...and it took 18 months from our Declaration of War to when the US armed forces were in actual ground combat in force. If I'm remembering correctly I think we were in actual combat for about 6 months during WW1...and lost a huge amount of men in that short time.
Last edited:
- Status