WWII bolt action in the Pacific???

Status
Not open for further replies.
My dad was in New Guinea, the Philippines, Oro Boro, Jolo, etc., with the 41st ID. He got drafted before the war and didn't get out until the end. As a combat engineer, he was issued a carbine and ditched it for a Thompson since the Thompson had "knock down power in the jungle." He sent two Arisakas home. One went to his kid brother and the other, along with its bayonet, I now have. I wish that it would have been a Thompson! :D
 
I'm gonna get a bit cranky, politely, but firm, right after I step atop my soap box:

Please don't spell John Garand's great rifle design's military designation incorrectly. I've never seen one with a dash or hyphen between the "M" and the "1" on its receiver. It's an M1, not an M-1.

In contrast, the John Browning design .45 ACP pistol's military designation is never mispelled. Ever seen in print an "M-1911" handgun?

....turning my rant off as I step off of my soap box....
 
the Banzai charges were a very effective Japanese tactic against untrained militias and colonial police, but were not effective against well trained US troops and Marines. Indeed he compared them to an unintentional suicide attack.
Click to expand...

It can also be an effective tactic if you have a large numerical superiority of troops, are facing a better trained and more experienced enemy, and you really don't care if your troops get killed.
 
The Japanese could recognize defeat, but the bastardized versions of bushido held by their militarists would not accept it.

The Banzai charge (suicide attack) was something that was only done when the leadership recognized defeat. Failing to take your objective was a stain on their honor. Going out in a Banzai charge regained that honor (the attempt alone was enough) and if they actually did obtain their objective, no matter the cost, it was seen as a "win/win".

The regular attack, in all its ferocity, with soldiers shouting "Banzai" is often confused with and final "banzai charge", and written and spoken of in our histories as such. Kind of the way our GIs in Europe turned every German tank bigger than a Sherman into a "Tiger".
 
Just re-reading this thread.....

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?
Click to expand...

and another thought occurred to me re: airplane quality vs. tank quantity ....

The guys flying the airplanes were officers, and not viewed as a mass produced commodity ..... tank crew? Just enlisted men ..... there's more where they came from.
 
Once again, Bart, you have cited a source that contradicts your point.....




"It is not the policy of the War Department to train enlisted men in flying aeroplanes
Click to expand...

There may well have been enlisted pilots trained as wartime necessity .... but the mindset that Officers are the Elite Nobility and the enlisted men are a commodity is very evident in the above quote.
 
The Springfield 1903 30.06 was a proven, well trained in the field rifle that was used often as a sniper rifle. My brother has my vertarin dad's Springfield with iron sights...still accurate! I have the 03-A3 Remington, that came later. During the war, the Garand allowed for rapid feed rounds that proved effective from the bolt action 03.
 
Jim, if you read all the sentences in those links, you should remember that many others support my claim. Right?

I cited references to supported my claim, not what some pay grades think of themselves and others. Besides, smart officers know that while they typically decide what happens, it's the enlisted that make them happen.
 
Last edited:
Enlisted pilots in combat were not common in the USAAC and USAAF, though. The Luftwaffe and RAF had many, but most bomber pilots were officers, in part because they were not just pilots but also crew commanders.

In non-combat flying many women flew as ferry pilots for all types of aircraft, including the B-29. One woman, facing a layover in New York and finding the small suitcase that would fit in a P-51 inadequate for all she wanted to carry, put her party shoes in an ammo box. And forgot them. She said she always wondered what some crewman thought when he went to load up the .50 belts and found a pair of black pumps!

Jim
 
During the early part of the war, enlisted pilots were much more common in the Navy and Marine Corps. There were at least one Marine and possibly two Navy enlisted pilots who made ace during the Guadalcanal campaign.

After 43 they about disappear, as nearly all were commissioned by 43. Army enlisted pilots were much more rare, as the Army commissioned nearly all theirs before the start of the war.

Pilots have always been "special", after all it is a demanding task requiring specialized training. And, the "minor accident" almost doesn't exist for an airplane.

Screw up driving a tank, and you get stuck. In a plane, you crash. Slight difference.

The general idea that only officers could fly aircraft didn't become set in stone until after WWII. Several Sgt Pilots that were commissioned during WWII, returned to their Sgt Pilot rank after the war, and some flew combat in Korea as enlisted men.
 
Pilots have always been "special", after all it is a demanding task requiring specialized training. And, the "minor accident" almost doesn't exist for an airplane.

Screw up driving a tank, and you get stuck. In a plane, you crash. Slight difference.
Click to expand...

A lot of that also had to do with education level, too. Most pilot trainees had had at least a year or two of college if not an actual degree. A large percentage of enlisted hadn't finished high school.

Also, and I know bupkiss about tanks, I suspect that tank driving was analogous to operating heavy machinery; a skill many of the enlisted men may have already had.
 
General Chuck Yeager began his illustrous Air Force career as an enlisted pilot.

He entered the flying sergeants program and was later promoted to flight officer (a.a.f. warrant officer) then commissioned a Captain.
 
Last edited:
The 1903 Springfield used in early WW2 was a much better rifle than the Arisaka's. The Type 38 which was carried by a majority of the Japanese at the beginning of the war, was just too long and unwieldly, certainly not the type of rifle to use in a jungle engagement. The things that made the '03 better was the shorter length, and the easier throw of the bolt along with the curved bolt handle. The Type77 was handier, and fired the 7.7mm round, but it still had the same rather harder to cycle action. If I had to choose, I'd take the '03, and that comes from my own personal experience, as I have owned and fired all three. As to the tanks, the US did finally did field what was perhaps the best tank of the war, the Pershing. It was late to the dance, but it was superior to even the Tigers.
 
As to the tanks, the US did finally did field what was perhaps the best tank of the war, the Pershing. It was late to the dance, but it was superior to even the Tigers.
Click to expand...

There is a lot of debate over thing among "tread heads". The Pershing was our "best" in terms of gun and armor, but not so much in other regards.

Arguably the Pershing is the equal of the Tiger tank. Max armor is about the same thickness. And while the Tiger is "notorious" for being underpowered, the Pershing was worse!!! (going by the specs) the Tiger is actually faster than the Pershing. And so is the even heavier King Tiger, which had much thicker (185mm vs. 100mm) armor than the Pershing.

Considering there were only a couple dozen Pershings in combat before the end of the war, combat accounts are sparse, but there are some. A Pershing killed a Tiger tank at short range, and a Tiger killed a Pershing, also at short (for tanks) range. The Super Pershing killed a King Tiger with a shot to the belly as it climbed some debris, after the first shot bounced off the main frontal armor.

With a top speed of only 20mph (the Tigers could hit 23-25) the Pershing was loved for its 4 inches of armor and 90mm gun over the Sherman, but it was soo slow....again, compared to the Sherman, its tough for me to accept that the Pershing was "perhaps the best tank of the war" or "superior" to the Tiger.
 
One consideration is that shaped charge ammo was not available for tank guns until late in WWII, the problem being that it loses effectiveness if spun by rifling. IIRC, the Germans were the first to overcome that problem, using a driving band on roller bearings.

The lack of shaped charge ammo placed more emphasis on high velocity guns and, conversely, on thick armor. (In adopting a 90mm gun, the U.S. followed the Germans in using an anti-aircraft gun for tanks and field artillery; both the 90mm and the famous German 8.8cm (88mm) gun began as AA weapons.

Jim
 
Yes, I am aware this thread is a couple years old, but I stumbled across something a while back that I think a lot of you will enjoy. Since thread has already veered way off topic to discuss WW2 Tanks, and a pretty decent detailed discussion it is, I figured this is the place to put this where my fellow armored vehicle history enthusiasts are likely to see it.

This is a YouTube playlist for a guy who works for the company that made the "World of Tanks" computer game. He is a former tanker, and volunteer for the Littlefield collection, and knows his crap regarding tanks.

He travels around to museums and shoots videos going over the various features and plusses and minuses of a lot of WW2 era (and post war) tanks and other armored vehicles, both outside and inside, with the perspective of a tank officer.

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLYgipOCaRI02K8nhcCBLCL4fOEymXECda

It is a great way to kill a few hours.

Unfortunately the playlist is not in proper order, you need to look around to find videos on a particular vehicle.
 
yeah, this one went way down the rabbit hole.

BTW, I have no idea whether the naby/marine talk was directed strictly at WWII era banter but I would like to clear a few things up.

1. there are no marines on aircraft carriers, they have their own security forces. airwings will sometimes consist of marine aviators, however the pilots are the only marine corps personell and are strictly a part of the airwing, not the ships company.

2. cruisers are not capital ships, at least not anymore. ships today are usually split into two groups, big decks, and small boys. cruisers are considered small boys with crews in the 350-ish range. big decks range from 800 to 3000 for ships company.

3. the only ships that usually carry a marine detachment these days are amphibious strike ships, which to most other nations are often mistaken as aircraft carriers, for superficial appearance and size.

4. something something zombie thread... something something locked soon.
 
While I love to talk WWII, and especially tanks, this thread should have stayed where you found it, and now, will.

Closed.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top