What weapon would you wield?

Either the M1 Carbine or the BAR. The M1 Carbine since it was lighter and more accurate than the Garand and the BAR since its a support gun that isn't heavy as shit like the M1919

 

I have to admit that I'm a sucker for the classic MG 42.
But I also like the M1.

 

Which M1? Could be worse you could have said an M3 ....

 

The M1 Garand.

 

If I had to choose I would choose the German Mauser Karabiner Kar 98k.

 

Earlier in the war either the Suomi M-31 or the Enfield, depends where i have to serve.

 

Browning Automatic Rifle-WWII

Zombie Apocalypse-Knife and Tomahawk

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-BQi0JjY2w

 

Hmmm, a poser.

I'm a short guy and not very muscular, so I can't take a very heavy weapon with a lot of recoil. If I am a US infantryman, I suppose the M1 Garand would be about the heaviest and most powerful thing I could carry. I like the idea of an M2 carbine, because the selective fire feature would compensate some for the light bullet. If I take an SMG it is the M3, not a Thompson. The M3 is lighter, and is easier to control because of the heavier bolt. I would also have a handgun as a backup weapon, particularly if I get sent to the Pacific. The Colt Model M in .380 is tempting, but I might go for a .38 Special Colt Commando or S&W Victory revolver. In the Pacific a fighting knife is a good idea at night, so I would chose a Marine Kabar.

If I am in the British Empire or Commonwealth forces I would probably go for the SMLE (No. 1 rifle). It's slightly less accurate over longer ranges than the No. 4, but is a bit lighter and the Pattern 1907 bayonet makes a useful tool. I'd try to get hold of an American .38 Special Colt or S&W revolver (some did go to the British), but would probably settle for a .380 Webley Mk IV or the aforementioned .380 Colt Model M. For a knife in the Far East I am torn between a khukri (which can double as a machete) or the lighter Fairbairn-Sykes. I don't like the Sten, and while I like the Lanchester it is on the heavy side. Some British units in the Med got the US M3, so I'd try to get hold of one if an SMG was required.

 

MG-42 or Bren.

 

A friend and coworker of my dads was about 5'4" and weighed in at around 130 lbs he was one of the BAR men in his platoon. Bar has less recoil than the Garand I believe. Not sure the M3 would be easier to control than the Thompson either. Mass of the overall weapon and distribution can be important too.

 

Well when I was draft age I was about 5-6 and weighed also about 130. I have shot M-1 Garrands, M-1 and 2 Carbines, O3 Springfields, K-98's, most of the Enfield family (SMLE). a US Army Thompson and given my build I would prefer to have carried a Carbine. Lots of guys my size carried Garrands as issued and of course you carried what you were issued but a question. If you were a enlisted man in the infantry and saw a carbine that had been dropped , etc, could you simply pick it up but then what would you do with your issued weapon? In a squad, platoon or company could you trade with someone ?. On rare occasion I have seen a soldier carrying the enemy's weapon in period photos, ammunition would seem to be an issue. Of course it happens in the movies a lot !!

On this subject, I am assuming this is about WW2, how was a BAR man chosen or a machine gunner (1918-19). I see sergeants in WW2 pictures with Thompsons , Carbines and Garrands, not common , was it by choice or happenstance. Or is my 75 year old brain failing....don't answer if it is !

Were many water cooled 30 cals used by the Allies which was mostly offensive after a time. I seem to recall seeing them in the PTO but not the ETO ?

Who , specifically , got to carry a sidearm ? Was the tanker version of the Garrand issued in any quantity ? They seem to be very rare.

Lots of questions just came to mind !

Gaines

 

Side arms, pistols, were normally carried by officers, communicators, machine gunners, mortar gunners, etc. any job where your primary duty was operating a piece of equipment or coordinating troops. It was intended for personal defense. In some units such as paratroops, both a primary weapon and a side arm were authorized, be it M1 and pistol or Carbine and pistol, usually for company grade officers and NCO's. The carbine when it came along was in most cases a replacement for the pistol, so a radio operator now might have a carbine instead of a pistol, but in many cases, especially RTO's when the carbine came along they were authorized both. I'm not 100% sure, but I'm pretty sure the gunner in a machine gun team still carried a pistol. It would be hard to lug around even a carbine when you're hauling around a gun and it's ammo. Plus, in a fight you really want to get your guns up as quickly as possible, the gunner doesn't need to be plinking away at a target with a carbine when he could be ripping it up with his gun.

The M-1917 browning was used in all theaters the US fought in. As more M-1919's became available they were used more frequently because of their weight. The 1917's in the Marine Corps were retained as a reserve guns to be used in the defense, because it's sustained rate was superior. In the Army they were generally replaced in the line companies, but retained in the heavy weapons company. It saw widespread use in Korea and even rarely in Vietnam.



M-1917 Browning in action in Normandy.

Well the individual soldier was issued a weapon based upon the TOE and the serial number of that specific weapon recorded as being issued to him. If the weapon were lost he was in deep do-do. They could pick up a discarded weapon of a different type and I am sure on occasion they did. The movie version where they simply use what they want is also not accurate. Many times you see a soldier in a movie with a carbine and M-1 web gear. Or a Thompson and an M-1 rifle belt, no Thompson pouches. Think about it, if you did swap weapons you'd need to change all the web gear used to hump your ammo.

Well each man had a specific job within the unit and the TOE specified the weapon that the higher ups considered optimal for that job. Unless the unit commander felt the individual soldier would be just as effective with another weapon, allowed him to change, turned his assigned weapon in and was assigned a different type, probably not.



Note the BAR ammo belt that goes with the BAR, it is really not suitable for hauling a different type.



This is a good picture to show an M1 cartridge belt with a .45 caliber ammo pouch, at the far left.



Two of the types of Thompson/M3 pouches, there were several types including a rigger type pouch, three cell 30 round, 5 cell 20 round and 5 cell 30 rounds, (probably more but don't remember off the top of my head.

 

For sustained firepower against infantry, the old water-cooled MGs are hard to beat. Of course their big limitation was weight/mobility. It's a bit ironic that they were phased out at the time armies, including infantry units, were becoming motorized, which offered a solution - except for that last little hump to the firing position.

 

Thanks for the great answers and pictures, I was joking about the movies but truly curious about the real questions. USMCPrice to the rescue again ! I owned a WW2 era carbine for many years and enjoyed shooting it but it roughly 110 grain projectile at near 2000 fps was not in the same class as the Garrand was roughly 168 grains at about 2700 fps, I plead bad memory and did not look it up. Forgot the energy levels. Seems many a WW2 GI was about my size when I was 20 and they carried Garrands successfully.

 

Infantry Structure and Doctrine, WW2.

[SIZE=9pt]THE RIFLE COMPANY (Authorized Strength - 193):[/SIZE]
[SIZE=9pt]Three rifle platoons (1st, 2nd, and 3rd), a weapons platoon (sometimes called the 4th Platoon), and a company headquarters formed an infantry rifle company of six officers and 187 enlisted men, commanded by a captain. The weapons platoon (authorized strength - 1 officer and 34 enlisted men) contained two light machine gun squads and three 60mm mortar squads. (The 60mm mortar could lob a projectile about three times as powerful as a hand grenade out to a range of 2,000 yards. The great benefit of the mortar is that since its trajectory is very steep, it can be used to drop rounds behind hills, houses, etc. where the enemy would be protected from direct fire weapons.) The weapons platoon commander advised the company commander on disposition of the machine guns and mortars, which could be positioned to support the whole company generally, or to reinforce fires in a particular area of concern. Usually, the three mortars were grouped together in a single firing location. The two machine guns were doctrinally employed in “pairs” so that the fields of fire converged to cover as much of the company front as possible -- but this could be done with the machine guns positioned quite some distance apart.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=9pt]The rifle company was the lowest level at which the unit was usually fielded in echelons, with components of the company not in physical contact with others. The rifle company normally operated in three echelons: the three rifle platoons and a portion of the company headquarters, including attachments; the three light, 60mm mortars of the Weapons Platoon, which tended to operate slightly to the rear of the “front line;” and the administrative portion of the company headquarters (cooks, clerks and supply personnel, totaling about 12 men) which usually operated from positions well to the rear.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=9pt]At this level, too, attachment of outside resources was habitual. Routine attachments included platoon aid men for the rifle platoons, one or more heavy machine gun sections from the battalion’s heavy weapons company, a forward observer party (normally a lieutenant and two men) from the supporting artillery battalion, and a forward observer party (one or two men) from the mortar platoon of the battalion’s heavy weapons company. On occasion, antitank guns from the battalion’s antitank platoon or the regimental antitank company might be attached to a rifle company. The rifle company was also the lowest level infantry organization to employ a reserve force, usually one rifle platoon. It was at this level that the doctrine of “two up and one back” began (two thirds of a combat unit engaged and one third in reserve). [/SIZE]


[SIZE=9pt]The heavy weapons company (authorized strength - 166) was designed to allow the battalion commander to add combat weight to the battalion in general, or to specific companies or parts of the battlefield. In addition to a headquarters cell, the weapons company contained two platoons of heavy machine guns (four .30 caliber water-cooled guns per platoon) and one 81mm mortar platoon of six guns. The 81mm mortar of WWII could lob a 15-lb high explosive projectile to a range of about 3,200 yards. The battalion commander generally apportioned the heavy machine guns to support particular rifle companies as he saw fit for specific situations, but usually retained the mortar platoon under the direct control of the battalion’s command group. [/SIZE]

 

'Carried' and 'authorized' are two different questions, of course. As to the latter:

T/O 7-15 dated 1 Oct 40 authorized 313 pistols for an infantry battalion (46 in each Rifle Co; 152 for the HW Co). In the 1 Apr 42 edition, pistols had plunged to 10 in each Rifle Co and 28 in the HW Co. (total of 60 for the battn). That's an 80% drop. From the best I can calculate from an outline T/O, 82 Rifle Co members in the 1940 version were authorized both a rifle and a pistol. In the 1942 version, nobody was authorized both. That seems to have continued through the end of the war. However, the 1942 drop in pistols was dependent on the carbine, which wasn't ready yet, so these numbers refer to authorized quantities (an expression of policy/plans), not what actually happened.

For a Parachute Rifle Co, the Feb 42 T/O&E shows pistols for every member - plus almost enough long arms for everybody. However, the next revision (Feb 44) totally eliminated the pistol. In a post-Market Garden 'lessons learned' conference, Jim Gavin talks about the practice, stating, "At one time, every parachutist was armed with a .45 cal. pistol. This was later replaced with the carbine." Gavin suggests a 1:1 carbine for pistol substitution during this period, and goes on to explain that when the Griswold bag became available, it allowed paratroopers to carry their Garands with them instead of dropping them in a container, obviating the need for the carbine (except for HW crews). The Feb 44 T/O&E shows carbines for the 8 commissioned officers, the First Sgt, and the mortar and MG crews.

In this 1944 assessment, Gavin recommended a return to issuing pistols to all paratroopers as there was still a brief vulnerable period upon landing (thanks to the lack of a quick release parachute harness), but noted, "Since authority does not now exist for obtaining these pistols, only a few fortunate individuals have been so armed."

So, for 82 AB parachutists at least, pistols were rare (and unauthorized).

On the matter of .30 ca. MGs in the standard infantry battalion - going back through to the Oct 40 T/O, no HMGs ever appeared in the Rifle Cos - only in the HW Co (and no LMGs in the weapons co). HMGs numbered 8 in 1940, and they stayed at 8 through at least until Mar 45. LMGs numbers moved around a bit, starting at 2 per Rifle Co in Oct 40, adding 3 to the BN HQ Co in Mar 43, then dropping those 3 HQ Co LMGs in Feb 44. A Jan 45 T/O&E for the infantry regiment shows 36 LMGs - which may indicate a doubling of Rifle Co total from 2 to 4 (spares like the BARs added in Dec 44?). HMGs were not only useful in defense, but in walling off the flanks in an assault, overhead indirect fire to support an advance, and for harassing/interdiction fire. The HW Co had 20 trucks - the same number as the rest of its battalion (including BN HQ) combined, so they could get pretty close to the action. Had you rather carry a LMG a mile - or a HMG 100 yards? Tough call.

The Radio Telephone Operator disappears from the Parachute Rifle Co in Feb 44. I don't have a detailed T/O&E for a pre-Feb 44 standard Rifle Co, but the '44 version also fails to list an RTO MOS. At regular infantry battalion and regiment HQs in '44, Radio Operators (SSN 740 and 776) and the Telephone and Telegraph Lineman (SSN 641) were authorized Garands, so the 'other duties keeping their hands busy equals carbine' rule of thumb doesn't always apply.

 

With regard to adherence to authorized TOEs, all I can say is that exceptions and evasions of this seem to have been very common in WWII. I know the British and Australian armies best, and as early as the siege of Tobruk the infantrymen of the 9th Australian Division were supplementing their firepower by using every non-TOE weapon they could lay their hands on. Automatic weapons were in special demand, no doubt because of the great volume of fire produced by the opposing MG34 and the relative shortage of the Vickers gun. I have seen photos of Australians in Tobruk using the MP40, Breda M30, and Fiat M14/35, all non-TOE captured weapons. I have seen a great many disciplinary documents from the siege, and I never found a single case of a soldier being disciplined for using a non-TOE weapon. The 9th Division continued this practice at Alamein, using a host of non-standard and captured weapons, including MG34s, Breda M37s, and Browning guns stripped from downed aircraft. In New Guinea and the NEI, the 9th used some Japanese machine guns and mountain guns. Some British troops also made great use of non-standard and captured guns. At Alamein the 2nd Cheshire Regiment, MG battalion of 50th Division, had an entire company armed with the MG34 instead of the Vickers. In Tunisia and Sicily, 50th Divison riflemen used captured examples of the Italian Beretta M38 SMG. In Northwest Europe, troops of the 50th and other British and Canadian divisions used Brownings stripped from derelict tanks, MG42s, MP40s, Walther P38s, and even American M1 Garands to supplement or replace their issued weapons. By late 44, it was common for British rifle sections in NWE to carry two Bren guns even though the TOE still specified just one Bren per section. I am not as familiar with the situation in the US Army or USMC, but the Australians and British learned to supplement or alter their armament as needed whatever their TOEs said.

 

Hey guys, great thanks for all this interesting information. It really is a curiosity of mine. I had suspected the commonwealth took a more "flexible" view on what people carried based on period photos . Logistics must have been, what, "interesting" considering rates of fire.

Personal weapons are interesting to me as they were , well, personal. I imagine some soldiers took a liking to a specific weapon and others probably did not. All this makes me want to go and shoot some. I was spoiled on a farm, few people, much land, lots of places to shoot. I cannot adjust to public ranges, too many of everything. There is a unmonitored range within the Tuskegee National Forest near me. Mid week it can be a great place, few shooters. On weekends all sorts of people with no sense of safety or common sense at all. Waving guns about, a little regulation would be in order.

I digress, I do sincerely appreciate the posts above. The thoughtfulness of pulling a trigger is a meaningful thing to me and clearly to many here.. I thoroughly enjoy reading about what soldiers carried and used in combat and training.. I cannot believe I was once fortunate ton have a 300 yard range virtually to myself but only for a small portion of my life.

Thanks for the nice responses..

Gaines

 

And I'm not as familiar with the British/Commonwealth forces, but common sense would dictate that the practice was not as widespread as it would appear, when it did occur was temporary and was not to the exclusion of the issued TOE weapon (they would not discard it).
Let me explain, I'm a British infantryman, I'm armed with a Lee-Enfield SMLE chambered in caliber .303. My logistical support is set up to supply the .303 round. I kill a German Machine Gunner and capture his MG34 and 400 rds belted, 7.92 x 57 Mauser. I want the additional firepower and do employ the captured weapon in my position. What about when I've expended the 400rds.? Unless my unit has captured a supply dump or we capture additional ammo during the next attack, it's now a 27lb paperweight and likely to be discarded. Loose 7.92 x 57 won't do you much good unless you have the disentegrating metallic links or the machinery to belt them. Hopefully, your captured gun had a drum magazine. Even then you have to capture enough loose rounds to keep it fed. So, you'd keep your SMLE so you weren't disarmed as soon as you blew through whatever ammo you captured with the enemy gun.

Now I'd buy a unit armed with a lot of Sten Guns swapping them out longer term for the MP40 because they use the same round, and would be supplied to a unit in similar quantities. However, in modern logistics (including WWII) where you're looking for efficiencies it doesn't work. In WWII ammunition was pushed down to the subordinate units in units of fire, a predetermined mix based upon the calibers of the T/O weapons and the expected expenditure of each type. Of course you could request a special resupply of a particular ammo type, for instance if your MG's had been heavily engaged but not your riflemen. For day in, day out, the Army would push supply down to Corps, then they would send to a division it's predetermined mix of ammo (based upon unit type and T/O), division would push it down to the regiments, the regiments to the battalions, and the battalions to the companies. In a US company you'd be getting ammo in .45 cal, boxed loose, .30 carbine boxed loose, 30-06 boxed loose, .30-06 belted, bandolier with .30-06 in enbloc clips, or bandolier with 5rd stripper clips (2 per pocket) (plus .50cal belted if you rated the guns, grenades, mortar rounds, rifle grenades), and you'd be getting them in pre-determined amounts.

"A unit of fire for a company would be the sum of the units of fire for every weapon in the company. This was, in fact, one of the reasons for defining a unit of fire. Instead of a company commander having to request each ammunition type separately after adding up the needs of every weapon in his unit, the company commander could simply request units of fire for his company. He would then receive a precalculated (and often prepackaged) load of ammunition whose composition was a reasonable estimate of the actual expenditures by different weapon types. This greatly simplified managing the ammunition resupply. The down side was that, if a particularly weapon type was being used less than usual due to some peculiarity of the kind of combat being engaged in, the company would gradually accumulate an excess of that ammunition type. The resulting potential for wastage was considered an acceptable tradeoff for simplified logistics."

The US ARMY unit of fire included the following number of rounds per each weapon in the TOE; .30 cal carbine-60, .30 (.30-06) rifle 150, BAR 750, LMG (M-1919) 2000, HMG (M-1917) 3000, .45 cal ACP pistol 7, Submachine Gun 200. (items in parenthesis added by me to clarify) So say Pvt. Joe Schmuckateli decides he'd rather carry a carbine than his garand. His unit rates 10 carbines so they'd be getting units of fire that had 600rds .30 cal carbine, well in order to keep him supplied you'd now be cutting every other man that rates a carbine by a portion of his ammo allotment. The more men you have outside of their TOE weapon the worse the problem becomes. Is Pvt. Schmuckatelli's boot brown bar Lt. going to radio the captain and tell him he needs to get with battalion and adjust his platoons ammo allotment? Not likely.

That being said in the heat of combat you will use whatever is most effective or handy. Your carbine jams, you're not concerned with which or whose weapon you pick up. You could not just go to the armory and request whatever weapon you wanted. That being said and what I was referring to in the earlier post is that when a unit got an upgrade, say from the .45 to the carbine, the unit normally still had the previous weapons in inventory, and while not specified in the TOE, they might still be issued. This would be modified in writing and approved through the appropriate headquarters. By officially modifying the TOE the supply people had the weapons count to calculate and adjust the unit of fire. When the Marine Corps adopted the D Series TOE squad leaders rated the carbine, there was a shortage of carbines and many units still had Thompsons in inventory and allowed the squad leader the option of which weapon to be issued. Then there were cases where due to lack of supply, weapons were issued that were in conflict with the TOE, on a limited standard basis. For instance, the grenadier rates an M1 Garand and launcher M7, there are insufficient M7 launchers to equip the unit so the TOE is modified, and approved by the appropriate headquarters for the grenadier to carry the M-1903 Springfield with launcher M1. The unit of fire would be modified (in writing) in order to adjust, not the number of rounds but the package mix, i.e. fewer enblock clips and more boxed loose/bandolier w/stripper clips.

 

"What about when I've expended the 400rds.? Unless my unit has captured a supply dump or we capture additional ammo during the next attack, it's now a 27lb paperweight..."

Ahh...but as didnt the Australians regularly make forays into enemy camps at night...to blow fuel dumps and ammo dumps...could grab more then...