WWII bolt action in the Pacific???

Status
Not open for further replies.
It is also possible that the length of the BAR (not just the weight) might have been a consideration. The 1919, while heavier is a shorter package. And it certainly tops the BAR when sustained fire is needed.

OR, its just possible that they didn't use the BAR simply because no one put it on the units TO&E. :D
 
I'm thinking that given the loads that they already had to carry, the BAR was omitted because of the sheer weight of ammo in 20 round magazines.

The magazine for a BAR has to weigh around a pound, so say for each 250 rounds of ammo you'd have the weight of the ammo PLUS the weight of each magazine, or about 13 extra pounds.

Not sure what a linked belt of .30-06 weighs in the box, but I suspect that it's a lot less than the same amount of ammo plus 13 pounds.
 
Lots of complaints about the Garand in the early years when it was first issued, IIRC 1936, but by the time the war came on for America, most all of the bugs were worked out. There were those in the Corps who thought the Garand would be a lot more difficult to maintain in the field, especially in the Pacific, but turns out it was not a lot more complicated than the 03. And was about as accurate too. The only reason it didn't get a box magazine was because Ordnance didn't want it digging into the dirt when fired from a prone position.

The main reason for the height on the M-4 was because of a rear engine/front drive system. You have to mount the turret basket above the drive shaft. Chrysler did some experimentation on a new turret mounting the 90MM gun and modified turret from the M-36 TD, but it was decided the M-26 would be in production in the same amount of time. The 76MM upgrade was not a whole lot more effective than the original 75 against tanks unless the tungsten shot AT round was used, and that was in short supply all through the war.

The Sherman was automotively superior to just about any tank fielded in Europe...same driveline as the older M3 so the faults were known and corrected by the time it came into service. The Sherman was never designed to go tank to tank-it was supposed to be used for breakouts in the line caused by infantry/artillery and was to race in behind their interior lines.

The equal from Germany was the Mark 4 and the two were pretty closely matched, with the Mark 4 later models having the long barreled 75 vs the short barrel on the Sherman. The German gun took a 9 pound gun powder charge vs the 4 pound American shell.

The Panther tank was severely hobbled by an understrength driveline and later on by poorly tempered armor and the lack of needed alloys to make gears such as molybdenum. As Germany began losing ground, they lost the raw materials needed.
 
"The main reason for the height on the M-4 was because of a rear engine/front drive system. You have to mount the turret basket above the drive shaft."

All German tanks were also rear engine/front drive.

The true reason for the difference is the type of engine used...

The Lee, which was the basis for the Sherman, was designed around the Wright Continental radial engine, which required a centerpoint drive shaft, and as such had a considerably higher in profile.

German tanks universally used liquid cooled engines, which allowed the drive shafts to sit lower in relation to the turret basket.

You can see the difference if you look at schematics of the two.
 
The true reason for the difference is the type of engine used...

The Lee, which was the basis for the Sherman, was designed around the Wright Continental radial engine, which required a centerpoint drive shaft, and as such had a considerably higher in profile.
Click to expand...

It was not a Wright Continental, both of those are engine manufactures, it was a Continental R-670, the same basic engine as was on the PT-17 Stearman, But that was not the only engine that was fitted to the Sherman in WWII, it had other engines, depending on the version, M4A2 had a GM 6046 twin diesel, M4A3 had a Ford GAA V-8, M4A4 had a Chrysler engine that was 5, 6 cylinder engines around a common crankshaft.
 
It was indeed the Continental R-975, a licensed built Wright which powered the early Sherman tanks. The twin diesel was primarily used for training and also shipped Lend Lease. The US didn't want to throw a diesel on the battlefield when everything else was a gasser. Forgot about the center mount on the radial, Mike. I stand corrected.

The twin GMC's was actually more suited for tanks since they pull more torque at low RPM. The Chrysler must have been a nightmare to tune, and the A6 was maybe the weirdest, using a catapillar diesel radial engine. Probably the best was the Easy 8 which combined the Ford GAA with all the upgrades. The E8 was carried over to the Korean war and was used against the T-34 successfully.

Never did understand the logic of tank destroyers...they are essentially defensive in nature and not enough armor to be fighting offensively. The TD battalions disappeared quickly after the war which is a clue.

Not the Garand...one more war to fight







http://www.tanks-encyclopedia.com/ww2/US/M4_Sherman.php
 
Last edited:
The logic of tank destroyers is easy to understand. They are, essentially a much more mobile version of the towed anti tank gun. And they are very effective when used as such. Tank destroyers are meant to kill tanks, not fight tanks.

The trouble is that they look like tanks. And people tend to think of them AS tanks, and try to use them, as tanks. And for that, they have serious drawbacks.

There were two basic styles of tank destroyers during WWII. A tank killing gun on a halftrack/full track chassis with light armor, (and often open top), and fully armored ones mounting heavier guns than comparable tanks. Usually turretless. Germany and the Soviet Union made extensive use of the assault gun/tank destroyer types.

The US TD (after we got past using halftracks) had turrets. Light armor, but fully rotating turrets, so they looked exactly like tanks to everyone except the TD crews and commanders. This often lead to them being ordered into ..inappropriate roles and situations, where they didn't come off so well.

but every nation has done this, officers not understanding the best use of particular weapons (especially when they are new systems), and because of that, throwing away their advantages.

Such a thing is (perhaps) forgivable when something new is first deployed, (The Germans lost all the first few Tiger tanks they used, because while the crews had learned what you could, and couldn't do with them, the field commanders giving the orders had not, and sent then into swampy forest where they were very restricted to movement, and easily got stuck) but after that, using the wrong tank, plane, etc for the mission is just pig headed ignorance, something which ALL militaries have in abundance. ;)
 
The TD battalions disappeared quickly after the war which is a clue.
Click to expand...

The guys in the tanks in WW II became the leaders after the war. After the war the leadership understood that a tank should be able to kill a tank, and not have to call for help from a TD unit, because they had been there.

And in all fairness, the bulk of the Army disappeared quickly after the war: massive demobilization in the late 40's ..... when Korea kicked off, we were totally unprepared .......again.
 
"It was not a Wright Continental, both of those are engine manufactures, it was a Continental R-670, the same basic engine as was on the PT-17 Stearman, But that was not the only engine that was fitted to the Sherman in WWII, it had other engines, depending on the version"

Yes, I know they were the same engine, with Continental picking up a manufacturing license in, IIRC, February 1942. I meant to type Wright/Continental. My bad.

The fact that other engines were later used in the Sherman doesn't matter one whit.

The basic layout of the Sherman came from the Lee, and early versions shared the same radial engine and thus the same high take off.

It's a LOT easier to fit a different type engine and change the arrangement of the prop shaft than it is to fit a different engine AND lower the entire tank 20 or so inches.

My salient point remains....

The difference between German and American front drive, rear engine tanks was the American radial engine which required a much higher hull presence.
 
An aircraft engineer once told me that in a spec from the USAF for starter motors for planes, there was a requirement for up to 30 minutes continuous cranking time. Since 30 minutes is a long time for a starter motor, his company began to research the reason for such a requirement. It seems that in WWII, when aircraft engines were used in tanks, it was customary to drive the tanks off LSTs using the starter motors without turning on the ignition. The reason was that if the engine was started, the tank could jump out of control and skid into the side of the ship. So they used the starter motor, often for many minutes. Of course by the 1960's, no one was using a radial aircraft engine in tanks, but the requirement continued to be put in all USAF specs for piston engines.

Jim
 
Tank destroyers, at least in American usage, were also seen as a very quick way of getting a mobile gun in place that could deal with German armor on something closer to parity while working with towed-gun anti-tank units.

It would remove the need for US tanks to take on enemy tanks and would thus free them up and return them to their primary role.

It's also interesting to note that the M18 Hellcat was the first US production armored vehicle to use a modified Christie-style suspension with torsion bars.
 
It is not Wright/Continental, or Continental/Wright,
it is Wright or Continental,
Continental built the W-670 aka 225
Lycoming built the R-680
JACOBS built the R755 & R915

Pratt & Whitney did the R-985, 1340, 1830, 2000, 2800, 4360
Wright did the J-4, R-790, R-540, R-760, R-975, R-1510, R-1670, 1300, 1820, 3350

Btw, Ford Built Pratt & Whitneys, Studabaker built Wrights, but they were always referred to as a Pratt or a Wright

I have been wrenching on radials since 1983
 
The / character means either or, as in either a Wright OR a Continental.

Clear now?

The earliest Sherman were fitted with Wrights.

Use of Continental engines didn't start until mid 1942 after they ramped up production.
 
HTML: 
The logic of tank destroyers is easy to understand.

Yes it is. Prior to the Americans watched France fall to the German blitz and it was decided to build an AFV which was fast and mobile, kept in reserve to plug gaps that German armor might open in a defensive line. A defensive weapon by concept.

The TD's were seldom used as designed and until the Hellcat were not much faster than Sherman's. Their main gun was not powerful enough until the Jackson and the 90MM late to the party. The TD was quickly retired after WWII and sold off to other nations.

The Christie suspension was first used in America as the T3 medium tank in the 1930s but was a maintenance headache and retired.

The US really didn't have a tank fully capable against Panthers and Tigers until the very end with the Pershing.
 
The Pershing was no world beater. It was barely faster than the Tiger, And while the armor was leagues ahead of the Sherman, its wasn't invulnerable. It did have a good high velocity large bore gun, which counted for a lot.

I have found one instance of a Pershing killing a Tiger. I have also found where "something" killed a Pershing, at night, with what was "estimated to be a 100 mm gun".

One good thing is that the collapse of Germany (thanks in largest part to Allied control of the air) kept German industry from producing the next generation of armor.

The "paper panzers" that mostly never got off the drawing board range from the ridiculous (like the 1200 ton Ratte) to some designs in the E series that would have been very bad news. Imagine a tank in the Panther class, with a 100 caliber 75mm gun (the panther was 70 calibers), and a 1,000hp engine.
Another in the king Tiger class with a 91 caliber 88mm gun (Tiger was 56cal, King Tiger 71 caliber), and the same 1,000 hp engine. versus the 750hp that the Panther & Tiger used. Oh, and stereoscopic range finders and infrared sighting and driving system, too.

Sure, we would have been able to eventually come up with an effective counter, but just think what might have been...
 
1903

Funny I was just posting on an old blog, about low serial numbered 1903's My step dad was in the Okinawa invasion 6th Army I my be wrong about that. But I remember seeing the 1903 in 1966, in SE Asia. Old blood and guts proclaimed the Garand as the finest battle weapon devised. As a boy I hunted with my dad on fort Lewis with a 1903 Sporter. I also attended military school and my sister drill rifle was a liter 1903. Did a lot of demerit walking with sister. I still shoot and own several 1903s including a mark I. It has never failed me all of them have the hatcher hole devised to expell high gasses, If a round should fail. Even my dads old Sporter. I enjoyed the series your watching, those guys went thru hell. My dad was a bad alcoholic but a good father, even when he knocked the fire out of me, I usually deserved it.
 
Airborne BARs

Several years ago I was revisiting the Airborne and Special Ops Museum in Fayettenam, NC.

There was a display of a 101st Trooper depicting action at Bastogne in Dec. 1944. I stared at the display for several minutes noting two items that appeared to be out of character to me. One, the trooper was wearing the ankle strap style "leg" boots. Two, he was carrying a BAR. To my knowledge, he should have been wearing leather Corcoran jump boots, inside rubber galoshes, if he was lucky enough to procure a pair. And I knew that our airborne divisions did not jump into to Normandy with BARs, and wondered why this trooper was so armed.

I was staring so intently that a volunteer docent came up and asked me if everything was OK. I told him about my observations. He said, I'll check. A few minutes later, a very business looking woman approached me and introduced herself as the director of the Museum. We returned to the display and I told her about my observations about the Bastogne display. She shrugged her shoulders and said "come with me and we'll check it out".

She found a TO&E for the 101st Airborne division dated September 1944. The division had been issued BARs before they returned to Europe from post D-Day training and requipping in England. It is not clear that the division jumped with them in Operation Market Garden in the Netherlands in fall,1911. Regarding the boots, she said that no jump boots were issued after D-Day. The trooper in the display was inspired by a photo submitted by a vet. It turns out that he was wounded in D-Day and when released from the hospital was issued the ankle strap boots.

I wish I had asked about the 82d but it slipped my mind.

At this point, I would like to commend the staff at this particular museum for their goal of absolute historical accuracy. A couple of years earlier, I noticed a discrepancy that was corrected in a day or two, and this particular instance when they were concerned enough about points that I raised to research them. ( and satisfy themselves that their Battle of the Bulge display was correct)

As a side note, Machine guns and ammo (and other bulky gear) were bundled up and released from wingpoints or kicked out the door by loadmasters. Neither were very accurate in reaching the stick of troopers that jumped from the same plane.
 
Last edited:
One thing my hobby has taught me over the years is that, when it comes to soldiers and their equipment, the hard and fast rules aren't so hard and fast. Blanket statements about how we, or they "never did this" or "never did it that way" almost always turn out to have exceptions.

Accurate modeling of uniforms and paint schemes can drive you buggy, trying to get it "right", until you realize that in real life it wasn't always "right" or uniform. Especially clothing. Differences in makers (despite standards) and differences in wear and laundering produce an almost infinite range of shades of the "official" color.

Guys wearing the "wrong" boots, or field gear (and for the specific time frame) would be graded as a mistake by the usual modeling judge, until someone turns up a period photo of that exact same combination.

I was pretty confident that the paratroopers didn't jump into France with BARs. I had forgotten the refits when the TO&E was changed to equip them more like standard infantry.

And, of course, there is also the innate ability of the GI to equip himself with whatever he can get, and get away with. Lots and lots of guys "lost" their equipment in combat, and replaced it with something else, whatever they could get (beg, borrow, or steal), and they generally tried to get something they felt was an improvement, if they could.

I knew a fellow who "lost in combat" every rifle they gave him. Oddly enough, when they gave him a carbine, he never lost it.

Kudos to the museum staff and their dedication to accuracy! Always good to know that there are still "experts" who understand that they may not know everything, and are willing to accept questions as something other than a challenge to their expertise. Those are the good ones, no matter what field they are in, there are never enough of them.
 
44 AMP,

I had an experience with the Smithsonian that will curl your toes. I missed a very important meeting of my VN battalion reunion group. In my absence, and because I lived about 5 miles away, I was appointed "technical advisor" to an exhibit that the Museum of American History at the Smithsonian was going to unveil on 4 July, 1990. That month corresponding to the 50th anniversary of Army Airborne and the week that all 'static line' units had their annual reunions. The army send a battalion from each the 82 and 101st to march down Constitution Ave as well as a marching unit from each 'static line' unit. Part of the exhibit was going to be a Viet Nam era paratrooper in period correct kit, a Korean era paratrooper, a D-day paratrooper and a trooper suspended under a canopy hanging from the ceiling from the Grenada/Panama era.

At the appointed time and place, I reported to the curator who was running the show. I knew him by reputation because of the books he had authored on arms and armaments. After 15 minutes he passed me off to an assistant. We went down to visit the exhibit area. I gave her photos of equipment that I could borrow from member of my battalion group and the weapon we would need from them. We discussed placement of the mannakin, the gear that would be displayed and the lighting.

I happened to notice a mannakin in a glass case kitted out like a D-Day paratrooper in harness with chute and reserve. Everything looked authentic and period correct. I could not help but to notice that there were two blue pineapple grenades hung in his suspension line quick releases. I explained to the assistant that the blue color grenades denoted training rounds. If she would send the grenades down to the paint shop and have the painted OD with a 1/8 inch yellow band around the tops that they would appear to be live ordnance and the correct color for a paratrooper jumping into a night DZ.

We met a week later. She was proud that the grenades had been painted correctly but they were still hanging on the quick release mechanism. I explained what a WWII paratrooper grenade bag looked like and drew a sketch for her. Further I explained why quick release devices are not to be encumbered in such a fashion that it would prevent them from working properly and the consequences of being dragged all over a dark DZ. Further, no one in their right mind would hand grenades on their gear, experience the shock of prop blast and rough landings and expect that they would still be there or even worse detonate. I could see a glaze in her eyes.

I came back a week later to finish dressing the VN mannakin. The grenades were still hanging on the quick releases. She explained that "was the way they were going to be displayed".

Among other discrepancies, there was an 18th Airborne Corp patch sewn on in diamond orientation rather than square, a rifle belt was labeled a "pistol belt" and a couple of others.

After I got my gear back and returned it to the owners, I contacted the curator and was told to 'not get overworked' about a few discrepancies. I would note that all the discrepancies could have been remedied 20 minutes with materials already in hand, but no, they were the Smithsonian and they were never wrong.

For years I had utilized the Smithsonians as cheap entertainment and good educaton for my elementary aged children. But now, I get a queasy feeling in my stomach when I think of my experience with the Museum of American History and their lack of attention to historical details.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top