Why did Britain not take up semi-auto rifles?

I too believe that Clint is correct. German doctrine also was that of attacking with all guns blazing. However, talking about soldiers not directly firing at their enemies is a topic of Lt. Col. Dave Gossman's book, "On Killing", and is not germain to this thread.

 

True, but if you think about it...

...it negates many of the advantages the U.S. Army should have enjoyed from it's use of automatic/semi-automatic rifles!

Was this issue known about/recognised officially at the time???

 

I believe that the ratio was about 3 out of 5 who had "qualms" about shooting at another human even if at war in their first exchange. The ratio changed to 1 out of 5 after their first contact and being shot at. American problems with shooting Germans became a bit more of an attempt to restrain our troops from shooting POWs after their surrender. The killing of Germans had gone far into the shadows, both when in combat and when keeping them in containment/surrendered combatants status.

I (myself) think one of the more problematic situations was making American boys/men to stop killing Germans after first contact, and treating them inside the "rules of war". I know from personal verbal intercourse with one of my uncles that he had a real problem shooting at another human, until he had been shot at. After that moment he went directly into the "I'll kill you since you are trying to kill me". It took years for some American troops to get over that response. Some did the change well, some didn't.

 

The killing of POWs was a problem on all sides. Audie Murphy stated that after a while he just stopped taking prisoners. If he saw someone in a German uniform, he killed him no matter if he was surrendering or not. I read that when towards the end of the war, German soldiers who wanted to surrender hid until the American front line troops went by and then they surrendered to the follow-up troops where they had a much better chance of not being executed. Even so, they took the precaution of sending a civilian, often a child, to tell the follow-up troops that they wanted to surrender. Surrendering for a German soldier in 1945 was a very risky business. If the enemy didn't get him, the SS often would.

 

You missed the point I was making, the question was why did Britain not adopt a semi auto rifle and got around to Garand as it was the most developed one in the west, I was pointing out that it is a similar question to why did the US not adopt the 17 pounder for its Shermans and towed TD units. Both were arguably better but they did not fit into the doctrine and tactics that each country were using at the time.

 

That will be this exert from him

@harolds

I have been digging through my books today in reference to your statement that the German troops had an abundance of automatic weapons and therefore firepower.
A standard Infantry section consisted of 9 men NCO with rifle or SMG, Gun Group of 3 men 2 Rifles 2 Pistols 1 MG34 or MG42, 5 men with Rifles. As the war progressed the section usually dropped to 6 or 7 men with the Gun Group losing one, that meant 1 SMG, 1 MG, 2 Pistols, 4 or 5 Rifles. As I also said the vast majority were still equipped with Bolt action Rifles.
Some units did receive Stg 44 etc and they tended to be the best units but it did not really increase their firepower as they had lost manpower in the sections as well.

 

Well now it does, since you didn't expound on your point earlier. It seemed as if you were throwing the 17 pounder question in as if you were taking the original question (and thread name) as a British-bashing theme and not a legitimate question. My apologies friend. Let me know if you start the 17 pounder thread please. It is always good to learn new things.

 

Keine problemo

I was typing when tired so it made perfect sense to me at the time. Not always the best way to do things.

 

"In-depth studies by the U.S. Army after the war showed that between 80 percent and 85 percent of the greatest generation never fired their weapons at an exposed enemy in combat, military psychologist Lieutenant Colonel Dave Grossman reports in Christianity Today.
Many times they had the chance, but could not bring themselves to do it.
They either withheld their fire altogether or else shot into the air, to the side, anywhere but at the fellow human beings — their blood kin in biology, mind and mortality — facing them across the line. "


I am curious if Grossman used the writings of S.L.A. Marshall ("In Depth studies by the U. S. Army...") as the basis for his writing? Marshall's research has been proven to be somewhat suspect.

 

Let's take a platoon as an example: An American platoon officially had, if I remember right, two 1919 Brownings, three BARs, perhaps four Thompson smgs (though experienced NCOs soon realized that the smg marked them as a priority target so opted for a Garand), with the rest having garands.
In the German platoon you had three MG34/42s operating in the lmg role and one or two in the hmg role, four-five smgs and later on perhaps 1-2 StG44s per squad. Clearly, the German MGs could put out far more lead than their BAR/BREN counterparts.

Or, on a comapany level the number of machine guns were: German 16, American 11, British: 9. So you can see that the Germans in company level and below had a clear superiority in firepower.

 

A US Platoon according to the FM in 1944 consisted of 3 squads and a command group,
Each Squad had Sgt, Cpl, 3 man BAR squad, 7 rifleman
Command Group consisted of Platoon leader, SGT, Messenger, Guide.
No mention of M1919 LMG's. The Company Weapons Platoon however does have 1 along with a 60mm Mortar.
It also does not mention the SMG referring to the Carbine instead which is possibly more useful in the initial assault and defence stages due to its longer range, I do not know how the stopping power pans out though. But allowing for who would normally carry an SMG or Carbine you would be looking at 4 to 7 weapons (Command group and Squad leaders).

A German Platoon in 1943 consisted of 1 Light Mortar Section, 4 Rifle Sections each armed with 1 LMG, 1 SMG, the remaining 7 with rifles which in the vast majority of the Heer were various bolt action types. Only just over 400000 Stg of all types were made between 1942 and 1945 most of which went to elite units.
By 1943 Germany was suffering a severe manpower shortage which meant most Sections were understrength (6 or 7 men per Section or only 2 or 3 Sections per Platoon) so in reality each Platoon would have less firepower than the TOE states.

British Rifle Platoon 1943

Platoon HQ
Officer with SMG
SGT with Rifle
2 x Riflemen

Platoon 2" Mortar
Gunner, with Mortar and Sten
2 x Riflemen

3 x Rifle Sections each consisting of
NCO, with SMG
4 x Riflemen
3 man Gun Group, with LMG and 2 Rifles.

 

And it was seen at a disadavantage for much the same reasons as the semi auto over the auto. Depending on troop qualitly it could be a real concern in all cases or not.

I think this is pretty clear but ot so will hold off unless you want to start another thread.

You also forgot that the US was having a hard time equipping all of it's forces with them especially early war. I think it could have been chambered for the 303 which would have alleviated some of the concerns above but considering the costs and logistical implications compared to the benefits they made IMO a very reasonable decision.

 

...and don't forget the aforementioned questionable mass-prduction quality of British .303 Would likely have played havoc...

It's worth remembering that the British had already run up against all these issues earlier - in 1914!

They had planned to replace the .303 round in favour of a smaller, lighter round, and beagn experimenting and testing in 1911. But when an actual shooting war loomed, the fact that the Lee Enfield in .303 was in service with colonial armies/units all round the world, and it would have been a HUGE undertaking, running up against all the above concerns, to replace it - they demurred and stayed with old faithful.

 

Perhaps I stand corrected! An American platoon had LESS firepower that I had thought. For some reason I believed the Am. plt. had a weapons squad with 2 MGs in it such as we had in the 1960s. Thus 3 BARs per platoon + 2 1919s would equal 11 as stated by Max Hasting's book, "Overlord".

Assuming that you are correct, which probably you are, in the fact that a German squad had perhaps perhaps 7 men, all the squad would have lost is 2-3 riflemen. The LMG, which produced 80-85% of the squad's firepower would still have been in action. Therefore the loss of 2-3 men would hurt the squad less than if the same thing happened in an American squad.

 

harolds

The US Marine Squad had more firepower than a US Army Infantry Squad, then you also have more than one type of Infantry Section, Basic (which is the version I gave for all three), Motorised/Armoured, Para, Marine. Each have a different TOE.

The German Squad had a real problem with feeding that MG42, 4 men in the section manned it 3 carried the ammo, later on it dropped to two ammo carriers (due to the aformentioned lack of manpower).

A point about less manpower in a Section is that it is less felxible, can cover less arcs of fire and area. If fully manned a British Section had 8 men, German 9 men, US 12 men.
The British Platoon had 3 Sections plus a HQ with Light Mortar, US Platoon 3 Squads plus HQ element, German Platoon 4 Sections, if all fully manned.

The Allies however had more likelihood of heavy support in attack and defence to make up for the lack of Automatic small arms,
Although not as bad as the Germans the Allies also suffered from Infantry shortages at times forcing them to re-role other units such as AA to Infantry.

 

As I recall from previous discussions the US had more maching guns higher up as well. These could be and often were delegated to lower units depending on the mission.

 

Leccyl,

From what I've read, the German squad pretty much all carried a belt of ammo for the MG, just like when I was in infantry training, where we all carried a 250 rd. belt to feed the gun. Therefore, the need for 3 "ammo carriers" became superflous. All the reading I've done from the German side indicates few problems with running out of ammo. Of course the gunners were trained in fire disicipline and not spraying bullets around a la Rambo.

You are correct that that German platoon had a 4th squad. That squad, IIRC, had a heavy MG (MG 34 0r 42 w/tripod and optical sight) and a 50mm light mortar which was phased out after the first part of the war. I'm not sure what it was replaced with perhaps with another HMG or an 80mm "Stummelwerfer". Perhaps your references could shed some light on that.

Remember too that the belts for the German MGs were not canvas or disintigrating, but could easily be reloaded with regular rifle ammo. The belt was designed so that rounds could be pushed in by hand and a clip that dropped into the extractor groove of the cartridge made sure the round was positioned in the belt correctly.

You are also correct that infantry shortages were prevalent in all armies.

"The Allies however had more likelihood of heavy support in attack and defence to make up for the lack of Automatic small arms." I agree! If an American small unit was being supported by a squadron of P-47s, they definitely had a superiority in automatic weapons fire.

 

Leccyl,

From what I've read, the German squad pretty much all carried a belt of ammo for the MG, just like when I was in infantry training, where we all carried a 250 rd. belt to feed the gun. Therefore, the need for 3 "ammo carriers" became superflous. All the reading I've done from the German side indicates few problems with running out of ammo. Of course the gunners were trained in fire disicipline and not spraying bullets around a la Rambo. [/QUOTE]

For a quick breakdown of the basic German infantry platoon rifle section gun group
No1 LMG with 50 rd drum, pistol with 1 mag.
No2 4 x 50 rd drums (2.45kg ea), 1 x 300 rd box (11.53kg ea), pistol
No3 2 x 300 rd box (11.53kg ea), rifle
No4 tripod if carried, rifle

The No 3 and 4 were dropped due to manpower shortages with the rounds being carried by the reduced section. The allies were mostly facing the Germans in defence by late 1942 so ammunition could be stockpiled in positions.

The tripods were issued 2 per platoon for basic infanty but were only really used in the defence, the light mortar was phased out and not replaced although some units kept them and captured ones were often issued to Volks units to make up for lack of artillery.

The British were inclined to call for support if available when meeting stiff opposition (Armour, Arty or Air), I would assume the US troops were likely the same, especially units that had been in combat for a while (studies showed that fresh or green units were often more willing to take risks than those that had been in battle for a while due to various factors).
Personally if I had a Churchill unit near me I would be asking for a bit of help and give them all the support I could at the same time, it's what they were designed to do.

 

If I were an infantryman would I be calling for support? Of course: tanks, ground support aircraft, artillery, etc are all good to keep one's heiny in one piece. However, sometimes those assets weren't there or weather grounded the air support, or the sides were too close to bring in artillery, etc. In such cases the Germans had a clear advantage. Still, it's been a basic tenet of battle since the dawn of time that firepower wins battles. At the company level and below the Germans had a clear advantage. Not only did they have more MGs, they had better ones, IMO. Not only did they fire faster, they were more mobile and versatile.

The source you quoted stated that the gun crew carried 50rd drums. The only drums I know of are the 75 round saddle drums. These were generally used when the gun was being used in the AA mode. However, while that may be what the German manuals say they are suppose to carry, I've never seen a picture of any being used at the infantry level. So, I have to wonder how much they were really used. Have seen many, many pictures of German infantry carrying belts and cans of ammo. I have also seen pictures of infantry squads with more than one MP 38/40 and have read that often companies and platoons had an extra "unauthorized" MG around for extra firepower and quick replacement for lost guns. Therefore, I suspect that TO&Es weren't religiously adhered to in the field.

 

I presume this is the 50-round drum in question...

View attachment 14191

I've seen film of the Heer using it in exercises, firing from the waist (pre-war) and IIRC there's a short clip of a 34 being used like this in The World At War , the part about the Fall of France during the fighting at the Meuse.

View attachment 14192