Secondly true rapid fire from an SMLE matched the rates from an semi auto. I do remark that true rapid fire has not been demoed on any videos i have seen and most likely i am possibly the only chap left alive who actually knows how it was done. Only because an old commando showed me the muscle memory years ago.
Close in you want to spray bullets and at any distance you want accuracy. So obviously you want nine marksmen and a machine gun , just in case. Anything else adds nasty weight.
Why did the Japanese and the Germans use bolt-action rifles in WWII when they knew it was outdated and useless against the the allied weapons like the M1 Garand? Or maybe they didn't know, but why?
Carl Armstrong ·
Why did the Japanese and the Germans use bolt-action rifles in WWII when they knew it was outdated and useless against the the allied weapons like the M1 Garand? Or maybe they didn't know, but why?”
There’s a saying in the firearms community: “You can’t miss fast enough to win.”
A bolt action is slower firing than a semiautomatic, that’s true, but rate of fire isn’t everything in a fight, hits are unless you’re intent is suppressing fire in which the fear of being hit is. Even then, while a semiauto is more impressive, fire that hits close to you is also effective, and automatic fire even more effective.
That said, you’re missing another factors…
This is an early war US infantry squad’s weapons. You have 1 bolt action rifle (for rifle grenades), 10 semiautos, and an automatic rifle. This is a lot of firepower for the time, but it relies on the mass of fire from the semiautos and one heavy automatic rifle to suppress enemy fire and allow the squad to maneuver.
Here’s the equivalent German formation. We have 7 bolt actions, 2 pistols, a submachine gun, and a light machine gun with at least 2 people packing ammunition for it. Unlike the American Squad, the German squad has a dedicated (machine gun) team to suppress enemy fire and allow the rest of the squad to close the distance to assault them, and it’s a solid gun for doing so with hundreds of rounds available.
Later war, it’s even more of a difference. The dedicated machinegun is still there and they’ve switched out one bolt gun for a semi-auto (used mainly as a marksman’s gun), and 2 more for submachine guns useable mainly at short range.
The Japanese squad has more men (13 vs. 12 US or 9 German) and more bolt action rifles, but there’s that dedicated light machinegun and multiple ammo bearers.
Early war British Army… a submachine gun, 8 bolt action rifles, and a dedicated light machinegun with dedicated ammo bearers.
Overall, another key difference was also tactics. As you see above, most of the non-US forces put a light machine gun team in their squads and also split the squads into a rifle team and a gun team.
The gun team suppresses enemy position to allow the rifle team to advance, ideally close enough to close with the enemy and kill them with short range fire, grenades, or the bayonet. At the platoon level, you fight and advance by sections.
The US has a more homogenous system with each squad being able to split and advance by “fire team” but using rapid semiauto fire to cover, supplemented by point automatic fire from one or more BAR’s, or moving by squad at the platoon level. The only (medium) machine guns in the company being 2 M1919’s and a (jeep-mounted) M2HB in the company weapons platoon.
So, to sum up, the difference in firepower is mitigated in part by the need for accuracy for each shot and the suppressive firepower being supplemented by the other weapons in the squad/platoon. Mostly, these are also impacted by the tactics used. While you can argue the effectiveness in reality (the Germans and the Japanese did lose the war), the concept of a mixed squad with a LMG and bolt-action rifles vs. semiauto and auto rifles in theory works as the Brits successfully used the same basic idea.
No comments:
Post a Comment