WWII bolt action in the Pacific???

Status
Not open for further replies.
I was at the US Intrepid museum in NYC http://www.intrepidmuseum.org/ many years ago. They have one of the early missile subs.
http://www.intrepidmuseum.org/The-Intrepid-Experience/Exhibits/Growler.aspx
growler.aspx


We met a retired Marine who showed us through the Intrepid and was very informative.

There is a Marine unit that traditionally is only stationed on ship board. Every ship has a contingent and I suspect it was members of this group that landed in North Africa.
 
US Gato-class fleet boats had one very important refinement that most submarines at the time didn't have -- air conditioning.

A/C was critical for the reliability of these boats because it cut down on equipment failures, primarily electrical, caused by massive atmospheric build up of humidity.

It also greatly enhanced livability for the crews in the Pacific.

Japanese submarines never had A/C, and British boats only had A/C introduced mid-war.
 
There is a Marine unit that traditionally is only stationed on ship board. Every ship has a contingent and I suspect it was members of this group that landed in North Africa.
Click to expand...

Not likely. The Marine units that are embarked on a regular type ship are there primarily as security (one exception being aircraft carriers that will sometimes also carry a Marine aviation unit). A Marine invasion force is carried on a different type of ship.
 
"There is a Marine unit that traditionally is only stationed on ship board. Every ship has a contingent and I suspect it was members of this group that landed in North Africa."

Not every ship, only capital ships (cruisers and above).

Shipboard Marines assigned to various ships DID participate in Operation Torch, which was primarily an Army operation.

A Marine detachment from the USS Philadelphia landed at Safi and secured the airport.

Other shipboard Marines landed in Alegeria and seized fixed fortifications in Oran.

That's in keeping with their original intent when founded, Naval Infantry.

The primary role served by shipboard Marines during World War II was to man guns
 
Last edited:
M-1 Garands and/or 1903 Springfield bolt-action rifles could also be found, mainly intended for shooting at floating mines.
Click to expand...

I was aware that many ships had rifles for this use. I was just wondering about priorities, space, ect., for a rifle or two, on a sub, where .30 cal Brownings were also part of the arsenal, as they can dispatch mines (and anything else the same as the rifle can. I'm sure probably a sub, or two that did have a rifle or two onboard, was just wondering if it was part of the standard "kit".

The primary role served by shipboard Marines during World War II was to man guns
Click to expand...

Manning guns (secondarys and AA) very common. Damage control parties, too. Everyone on the ship (every warship) has a assigned place when the ship is in action. Shipboard Marines too. EVERYONE fights the ship. Marines have the additional responsibility of having to be able to fight OFF the ship as well, from landing parties to full scale combat as naval infantry, as Mike pointed out.
 
Since we are nearly completely off the rails for the topic, let me throw a couple things out there because I expect you guys might find them interesting.

This is from the same visit to the Littlefield collection as the Panther photo above. The WW1 Renault FT:

renault_sized.jpg


Interesting thing about it, pointed out by the tour guide, Armor and the metallurgy involved was still young when these were made. As a result, the plates were proofed before being accepted. How do you proof armor plate? Well, you shoot at it of course. Each panel on the tank had dings, top and bottom (and some middle), where it was shot at proof testing the plates. This is the right side plate from the turret (facing left in the photo above):

renault_armor_sized.jpg


Thought that was pretty cool.

And on the subject of shipboard small arms, I was in the Navy in the late 80s, when I had my Petty Officer training (can't remember the exact name, everyone had to go through a class when they made E4) the Instructor was a ~25+ year service Master at Arms Master Chief. He told a story of when he was a junior enlisted, and the destroyer he was on was being decommissioned, and had been in service since WW2 (probably a Allen M. Sumner-class, some of those served into the 70s).

Part of the decommission was the accounting for the small arms, and their transfer to wherever the Navy sent them when no longer needed on a ship that was destined to become razor blades. The guns involved were primarily Thompson SMGs and 1911 pistols. The problem they found, they had twice the number they were supposed to have. They went back through the paperwork, and figured out which serial numbers were originally issued to the ship during WW2, and ended up with a dozen or so guns that were not accounted for in the paperwork.

Long story short, after a bunch of digging, he found all of them were originally assigned to a different destroyer in WW2. That ship got sunk, and it turns out the survivors were rescued by his ship. Apparently when the crew abandoned ship, they took their small arms with them into the rafts, and when they got picked up, they stuck them in the in the arms locker, and there they stayed.

He joked about how tempted he was to take a completely untraceable Thompson home with him, but insisted he did not. I wouldn't be surprised if he and the rest of his group ended up with 1911s that as far as the Navy knows were on the bottom of the Philippine Sea. :D
 
Speaking of Capital Ship Marine Dets; Colonel Cooper cut his teeth as the "Marine Officer" on the USS Pennsylvania during WWII.

His Marines were mainly responsible for manning 5"/38 caliber guns during shore bombardment. He also went ashore on Saipan as a forward observer, carrying a M-1911A1 of course.

Despite being an Army officer, I always thought it would be neat to be the Marine Officer on a capital ship.

Mainly though, I've always wanted to be the guy that gets to go when the Captain passes the command "Away boarders"

:D
 
Also while on the subject of Marine's embarked on capital ships, modern ships don't have the need to have "manned guns" (I'm talking about large guns in this case - not "small arms). My ship was too small to need a Marine contingent but I served with another officer who had done his first JO tour on a ship that did have one. On that ship, they were typical "security" Marines. However, to keep them happy the ship's captain gave them a .50 machine gun mount to man during General Quarters. They had originally had damage control station duties but complained about not being allowed to fight. They were very happy Marines with that one little machine gun.:)
 
The U.S. produced the Renault FT under license, calling it the Heavy Tractor, Model 1917. 4,400 were ordered but only some 950 received before the Armistice, none of which made it into combat. The U.S. Army used the FT in France.

Jim
 
During the 20s nearly every nation that was interested in tanks had some version of the French Ft-17. Either they bought them from France, or built them at home under license (or possibly in the case of the Japanese, without license). Armed with either a machine gun or a small cannon (and sometimes, both)

The were still in French service at the start of WWII, and captured FT-17s served German forces (rear area, anti partisan work, or training, mostly) until the end of the war.

Many were used as pillboxes on the French coast, either just the turret on a mounting, or the entire tank, dug in and buried up to the turret base.

The idea of the "proof" comes down from the middle ages, and the early use of armor plate. The smith making a breastplate would actually shoot it, providing the "proof" that the armor would withstand the shot.

"Proofed" plate was more expensive, but it was trusted, where unproofed armor was a gamble. Many times a noble would refuse to buy it unless it was proofed, and considering the huge differences in metals and construction in those days, I think it was a rather sensible attitude.
 
Speaking of proofs, and tangentially relating this back to WWII rifles, when Dad was going through Basic for the USAF, they were given M-1 Garands to drill with his.

He related to me that he was super excited to fire his M-1 Garand "for score" because it was a National Match and he had shot M-1s in High School JROTC.

But on range day, they gave them all M-14s.

And once he was in SEA, he used a -1911A1 or a Combat Masterpiece along with a PGO Ithaca 37.
 
Remember a lot of what you think you know about history is actually wrong. Did you know that Johnson rifles were also used in the pacific and favored by the men that used them.
 
Other than the fact you couldn't put a decent bayonet on one? Yes, I knew that.
:)

Also the Johnson LMG, which had some advanced features for its time.
 
I noticed someone posted the 23rd Infantry Regiment, 2nd ID as an example of a "frontline" combat unit (implying they had the best gear) caring M1903s. The reason they were doing that was because their commander, Colonel Hurley Fuller, thought it was a better and more reliable weapon then the M1 Garand. He was later fired, given another shot at Regimental command with the 110th Infantry, 28th ID. At the battle of the Bulge, in the early stages, his regiment was just about wiped out and he was captured. There is a lot of debate as to his ability as a leader.... I've read both sides and I think the part that swings me over his insistance to equip an entire regiment with older weapons, putting them at a firepower disadvantage. I could see maybe SOME, but not ALL.
 
older weapons, putting them at a firepower disadvantage.
Click to expand...

I have to question how much of a firepower disadvantage the 1903 Springfield is, when you are facing guys with Mauser 98ks. Or Arisakas.

At the beginning of WWII, everyone's basic primary infantry rifle (by numbers)was a 5 shot bolt action, save the Brits, who had a 10 shot.

That changed during the war for us, as we eventually had enough Garands for the majority of our troops, although we never did replace all the bolt actions during the war.

Our enemies never got that far. Even at the end of the war, when Germany was producing small numbers of very advanced designs, the Mauser 98k was still the still the main rifle (by the numbers, a staggering majority). The Panzerwaffe got the glory, and was the "mailed fist". Outside of their elite branches, the most modern weapons and mechanization was just a thin skin over a WW I tech level army, who still relied on horse drawn transport for the bulk of their artillery and supplies.

So, considering that, I'd say that deliberately equipping a regiment with 1903 Springfields was failing to use an available advantage (Garand firepower), and not a disadvantage against the other guys bolt actions.

There is more than just the infantry rifle in the mix, and the infantry rifle alone is not the decisive factor in combat. It may be, and often is the decisive factor in the individual soldiers life though. To Military Brass, these aren't the same things.
 
I'm no expert on details from island to island in the Pacific, but weren't mass charges somewhat common on Saipan and Okinawa? We didn't have much of that on Guadalcanal or Iwo Jima, but I've read of some mass charges. I imagine the guys with Garands were glad they weren't stuck with Springfields.

Recommended reading: Ernie Pyle's "Brave Men".
 
From what I understand, tis sometimes difficult to tell a "regular" fanatical Japanese attack and the fanatical "banzai" charge.

Okinawa and Iwo Jima were different from the earlier island campaign. The Japanese Banzai charge (the frequent last ditch attack), was expressly forbidden by the leadership. I gather this was not a popular decision. But during those campaigns, the Japanese leadership deliberately forbid the banzai attack to conserve resources to inflict the maximum damage on us possible.

After cohesive control was lost, many groups did mount banzai charges, doing no little harm, before being wiped out.

or, so I've read..;)
 
FWIW, those dents in breastplates are often passed off as "combat' marks in order to increase the prices. Dents from proof firing are usually low down on the breast plate and have a small stamped mark called (what else) the "proof mark" beside them.

Jim
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top