WWII bolt action in the Pacific???

[James K]

Some good points, Kosh, but the fact is that we fielded the M4 Sherman because we could produce so many of them. We could have built bigger and heavier tanks, but they could not have been lifted onto the ships with the cranes then in use, and would have broken many of the bridges in England and France, things the civilian "expert" never considers. The Germans produced a relatively few very heavy tanks (the Maus is a good example of the extreme) but in the last days, they were almost driving out of the factory into combat, not transporting them three thousand miles.

And yes, given the U.S. production capacity, the Allies could have won the war with Spitfires and P-40's. I did not say it was bad or wrong to want weapons superiority in all areas; I said it wasn't necessary.

Jim

[Doyle]

fielded the M4 Sherman because we could produce so many of them

A secondary reason was because the mechanics of the M4 Sherman so closely mimicked the standard farm tractor that there were tens of thousands of GI's already skilled enough to keep them running.

[SIGSHR]

Yes, the Sherman was designed to fit into existing shipping, something the Germans and the Soviets did not have to worry about. While the heavier German tanks such as the Tiger and King Tiger were largely impervious to Allied anti-tank weapons and could flatten anything in their path they were often mechanically unreliable and when they broke down the Germans had no vehicle to tow them away with. And their maintenance support was poor, they had to ship tanks bach to the Reich for repairs that we would have handled at 2nd or even 1st echeleon The P-51 Mustang was developed to provide long range fighter escort for the heavy bombers, something the P-38 Lightning and P-47 Thunderbolt really couldn't provide.
Also when the specifications for the Sherman were laid down it was just after the Fall of France, it was determined at the time that speed, cross country performance and maneuverability were the crucual characteristics for a tank, whose mission was to drive deep into the enemy's rear, strike at soft targets.
Our doctrine at the time was tank destroyers were to fight and destroy tanks.

[James K]

Another factor that created problems for the Germans was one A. Hitler, who fancied himself a military genius and, when it came to tanks, bought into the "bigger is better" concept. The last extreme, as I said above, was Porshe's PzKW VIII Maus, a huge monstrosity mounting a 128mm gun. None ever reached combat, but it would have been so slow as to be easily avoided until it could be dealt with by artillery. But it was a pet idea of Hitler's abetted by his old KdF Wagen buddy, Porsche, so scarce resources that could have been used to turn out hundreds of smaller but effective tanks were expended on a useless monstrosity.

Jim

[bumnote]

The Marines would take anything they could get their hands on during the early days of WW2.

Johnson M1941's that the Dutch couldn't take delivery of found their way to small numbers of Marines.


Because they could get the number of Thompsons and M1 Carbines they needed the M50 Reising was a short term stop gap measure.

I don't recall seeing any M1941's in the "The Pacific", if you look close you'll see a Reising or two in the early episodes. The series did a decent job of getting an accurate portrayal of the Marines' small arms.

[James K]

One reason the Marines got less in the way of the new weapons was that the political decision was made to concentrate first on the African-European war against Germany, considered by Churchill and Roosevelt as the prime enemy. In August 1942, when the Guadalcanal invasion took place, planning and equipping for Operation Torch was well underway, and the Army units involved got much of the new ordnance, even though pictures of the landings show many soldiers equipped with M1903 rifles, not M1's. Also, since the Marine ranks had not yet been filled out with draftees, the existing units were going with what they had, which was the Springfield.

But it was not all about the Marines being denied the best weapons. While the USMC high command was trying to obtain M1 rifles, many Marine officers and NCO's were preaching the "one shot, one kill" doctrine, as if the Japanese would line up like the targets at Quantico and wait to be shot. The Marines soon learned better.

Jim

[SIGSHR]

Since it's a drama series they used what they could get and probably figured "close enough". I note that for all the fascination with the M1A1 Carbine I have seen exactly ONE picture of a WWII GI holding one.
And with all due respect to Patton, I often wonder how much difference the M-1 Garand really made. The Germans did OK with their M98 Mausers, granted their doctrine was that the riflemen supported the machine gun.

[eastbank]

as posted before it made a difference to my uncle, he came home alive and several japanese did not. in the broader sense of ww-2 it may have just been just a blip, but to him it meant a life time after the war. god bless the man who made it possible. eastbank.

[Colt46]

The marines did just fine w/ bolt actions during early fighting. There was a major army outfit that Fielded M-1903's per orders from their commanding officer.
That said, the Garand is a superior weapon.

[Kosh75287]

Another factor that created problems for the Germans was one A. Hitler, who fancied himself a military genius..

No argument, there. Hitler's capricious nature and (probably syphilitic) non-military mind were probably the most unsung allies of the good guys in the whole war.

I've read in more than one text that the British SOE studied a plan to send in teams of snipers to kill Hitler, by basically going in as "sleepers" and hoping to stumble on an opportunity to get him in the cross-hairs (Hitler switched his schedule around like a sugared-up 5 year-old with ADD).

The conclusion of the study was that Hitler would lose the war for Germany faster than if he was replaced by the General Staff (who DID know what they were doing) on his assassination. I have to chuckle every time I read that.

[Kosh75287]

We could have built bigger and heavier tanks, but they could not have been lifted onto the ships with the cranes then in use, and would have broken many of the bridges in England and France, things the civilian "expert" never considers.

We could have used T-34s. They would have been no match for the Tigers, but were on even ground with Panthers (when the Panthers worked) and all tanks previous. They were lighter, lower, faster, better armed, better armored, and had a longer range than the M3. They were, if anything, less mechanically complex than the M3 (I suspect that a mid-century American farm boy was disposed of considerably more mechanical aptitude than a Russian peasant of the same era), and far more survivable in a fight.

I did not say it was bad or wrong to want weapons superiority in all areas; I said it wasn't necessary.

Wasn't necessary to WHOM, exactly? It may not seem necessary to the war-planner sitting comfortably in the Pentagon, that MONUMENT to MURPHY'S LAW, built with four walls, and a spare, but it's life-and-death crucial to the mud-rolling PFC who must live (or die) by the results of the denizen of that pentagon office.

Now, I'll be the first to admit that MY "Military expertise" consists of one 3-hour college Military Science class, so there are VOLUMES of information about it that I'll NEVER know. That said, I DO know that the morale of a fighting force is as critical to its combat efficacy as logistics and planning, if not more so. I also suspect that one of the BEST ways to destroy said morale is to under-equip or ill-equip its combat elements, and tell them to engage a better-armed enemy.

The obstinacy of the war-planners to keep using the M3 and its anemic 75mm gun filled a lot of body bags with dead tankers. It borders on the criminal, if not actually rising to the level of criminality. I'm just very happy to know that they apply the same mentality to the selection of battle rifles for U.S. troops as was used in selecting their tanks.

Not only is it not bad or wrong to want weapons superiority in all areas, it borers on criminal negligence to not aggressively seek out and implement it at every reasonable opportunity.

I'm sorry to have taken this thread so far afield from bolt-action rifles in the pacific, but this needed to be said.

[jimbob86]

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?

Why not, they sold that line to the Allied Tankers:

[davem]

I thought the WWII Marines considered themselves RIFLEMEN. No need to "spray and Pray" with a semi-auto. That's why they were using the 1903 Springfield. An older relative told me two of his buddies set out one afternoon, got into trees, set up a cross fire situation and wiped out 80 Japanese soldiers, all with 1903's.
As a kid, I was told the Marines wanted the 1903. Sort like today with the Corp wanting to go back to the 1911 even if the magazine carries fewer rounds.
God Bless the U.S. Marines.

[jimbob86]

The thing is, you go to war with the Army and equipment you have, not the one you wish you had..... the folks in charge of tank development made mistakes .... and the country was short of rifles ...... they made it work, though for some it was pretty costly.

[bumnote]

At least during the start of WW2 thanks to Lend-Lease, our industrial base was getting onto a war footing.
During WW1, we could only really provide rifles and pistols to our troops. And 75% of those rifle were our modification of the British Pattern 14 rifle, the M1917. Almost every machine gun, artillery piece, plane, and troop transport had to be provided by either the Brits or French...and it took 18 months from our Declaration of War to when the US armed forces were in actual ground combat in force. If I'm remembering correctly I think we were in actual combat for about 6 months during WW1...and lost a huge amount of men in that short time.

[44 AMP]

Tactics is a mixture of what works, in general, and what works with the equipment you have in the field with you.

WWII armor is another hobby of mine, and in general, the comments are correct, but I would make a couple of points...

General Patton himself was involved in the decision not to field a heavier tank than the Sherman. It wasn't a matter of that we couldn't make one, or ship it, it was that we could ship 2 (almost 3) Shermans for the same effort. (no, its not straight math, shipping a 60 ton tank is more work than shipping two 30 ton tanks.) And this decision was made well before we got into ground combat in Europe.

Later, when it became obvious, even to a General that a heavier tank would be needed, we did produce the Pershing, although we only managed to get a handful into combat at the end of the war in Europe.

We "could" have built the T-34, except for the fact that hell would freeze over before the Soviets gave US anything but grief, while taking everything we offered, and denying it helped.

Kosh, I have seen the movie, I was making a joke. And the fighter has the wrong markings for that time & place. And there is a difference between the M3 Lee /Grant and the M4 Sherman.

I was going to recommend Belton Cooper's book, it is a real eye opener. He was featured in a History Channel show several years back.

WWII revealed a LOT of flaws in US pre-war doctrine, in armor, in small arms training, aircraft, a lot of things. We made do, and as better equipment appeared, adapted our tactics to make best use of it.

One classic example is small arms training. What was taught to recruits in the States was classic pre-war doctrine until fairly late in the war. Essentially it was 'a soldier was expected to shoot only when he had a target" (enemy soldier) and suppressive fire was the job of the machine guns.

The first thing combat vets taught new recruits about shooting was, "if you see a bush that might have a Jap in it, shoot it". (or something similar).

I thought that the show "The Pacific" was very well done, having read the books its based on I was impressed. Not sure the sexual adventures of the characters was needed for the story, nor as graphically as portrayed, but that's just me.

[eastbank]

if you or i had close encounters ( some damn near spitting distance) against several combatents as my uncle and others did and we had 03 rifles we would most likely be dead, the m-1 gave the US grunt a chance to live, by being able to shoot 8 shoots faster than the enemy could shot two with a bolt action rifle. making the US grunt less likely to become cannon fodder. eastbank.

[Mike Irwin]

"I note that for all the fascination with the M1A1 Carbine I have seen exactly ONE picture of a WWII GI holding one."

Wow.

Not sure what pictures you're looking at... Or not, as the case may be.

I was watching WW II in Color last night, and the episode on island fighting in the Pacific showed many US troops armed with the Carbine.

[Kosh75287]

We "could" have built the T-34, except for the fact that hell would freeze over before the Soviets gave US anything but grief, while taking everything we offered, and denying it helped.

The T-34 was designed in large part by J. Walter Christie, an American engineer who was the sole developer its suspension system, and those of a host of allied (mainly British) tanks. If the U.S. had REALLY wished to produce a T-34, a way would have been found to do so. In the days when the Sherman was adopted, the Soviets were BADLY on the ropes, and grateful for whatever help we could give them. Had we adopted a T-34-like design, there was little they could have done about it, except pout (for which Stalin RARELY needed good reason).

Kosh, I have seen the movie, I was making a joke. And the fighter has the wrong markings for that time & place.

Sorry about not catching the humor ingrained in your remark. Context is everything, and I missed it.

And there is a difference between the M3 Lee /Grant and the M4 Sherman.

You could not be more right, and I stand corrected. Duffer's mistake, no question about it.

One classic example is small arms training. What was taught to recruits in the States was classic pre-war doctrine until fairly late in the war. Essentially it was 'a soldier was expected to shoot only when he had a target" (enemy soldier) and suppressive fire was the job of the machine guns.

It seems I remember reading this somewhere, also. Again, this sounds like a logistics and supply specialist who was a grunt in the previous war, using the tactics therefrom to assure that ammunition and supplies at the battlefront were used slowly enough to prevent their exhaustion, rather than making an effort to maximize said items' delivery at higher rates, if needed.

I was going to recommend Belton Cooper's book, it is a real eye opener. He was featured in a History Channel show several years back

The name is certainly familiar to me, and I'm pretty sure I caught all or part of the History Channel feature you mention. Please DO relay the title of his book, and I'll look for it.

[jimbob86]

Cooper's book title is listed right after his name in my quote in post #37......

[kraigwy]

My Father was in the Idaho NG before WWII. 41st IN Div. They were activated and were in route to the Philippines but were diverted when they fell.

They were issued Springfield's which later were replaced by the M1's and Carbines. Since they were fighting in the heavy jungles my father snatched up a carbine, saying they were more effective then either the Springfield or Garand in heavy jungles where you were lucky to see beyond 25 yards.

It was hard to be the Springfield as a sniper rifle with the existing scopes they had back then, with modern scopes they can compete with the M24/M40s used today.

--------------------------------------

Now on another point, I take exception to the pistol not having a valid place in todays infantry. I had one in Vietnam which I found to be most valuable.

Anyone who ever packed an M-60 knows, when you have to have a weapon AT ALL TIMES, its much easier going through the chow line with a M1911 on your hip then a PIG on your shoulder.

[Mike Irwin]

"The T-34 was designed in large part by J. Walter Christie, an American engineer who was the sole developer its suspension system..."

That makes it sound as if Christie was actively working with the Soviets on production and design of the T-34 -- he wasn't.

In the late 1920s the Soviets managed to get hold detailed design drawings and later, two M1931 tanks, through one of their front organizations, and these were the basis for the BT-series of tanks, which later morphed into the T-34.

One thing needs to be said about tank suspensions... The Christie system was certainly innovative and revolutionary, but it wasn't full of God like qualities that made it superior to everything else ever conceived.

The US adopted the volute spring suspension (both vertical and horizontal types), which compared very favorably with the Christie suspension in most ways.

Even more importantly, it was generally easier and faster to repair when damaged.

All of this talk about the US could have had this if it REALLY wanted to is interesting...

The US could have had invisible flying laser tanks if it REALLY wanted to, as well. Just nobody had the foresight or will to make it happen...

Realistically, the Sherman design and production was well under way before the United States even learned about the T-34, and it wasn't until sometime in 1942 that American advisors had a chance to really lay hands on one.

Prior to that the T-34, as most new things were in the Soviet Union, treated as state secrets whose existence was jealously guarded.

The T-34 also had a litany of issues, from unreliable tracks, engines, air filters, and the like to the fact that it was extremely cramped.

Many of these issues were worked out in later models, but some remained almost through the end of production.

[jimbob86]

The US adopted the volute spring suspension (both vertical and horizontal types), which compared very favorably with the Christie suspension in most ways.

The one way that it compared so very unfavorably was it made for a very tall tank...... and that portion of height it added was relatively open and had to be pretty much flat and vertical ..... all this detracted from the tank's survivability.

The T-34 also had a litany of issues, from unreliable tracks, engines, air filters, and the like to the fact that it was extremely cramped.

The engine, by all accounts I have read, was a relatively simple rugged design, and easily maintained in the harshest conditions ..... the tracks were all steel, so the did not last as long as the rubber bushinged tracks the American tanks had .... at least theoretically: very few American tanks in the ETO would have been driven far enough to wear out a set of tracks- they were supposed to be driven on something like 1000 miles with a maintenance inspection every 250 for the T41 ....... and it's only about 600 miles from Omaha Beach to the Elbe ...... In practice, the Shermans were destroyed in most cases before their first scheduled maintenance inspection ....


The Soviets (and Germans, for that matter) OTH .... they had more than twice as far to go, and the front moved back and forth many times- they were locked combat for twice as long ..... if a tank survived the many combats, it would have ample milage to wear out many sets of their all steel tracks, and engines, and guns, and every other system .... (and yes, I understan much of the vast distances on the Eastern Front would be covered on a flat railcar ..... but still ...... ).

....as for the "extremely cramped" spaces ...... I doubt the Sherman crews relished their nice, roomy turret for very long .....

[44 AMP]

Christie offered his designs to the Army, but in those Depression era times, the US simply wasn't buying.

British Cruiser tanks used the Christie type suspension as well. German Panther and Tiger tanks use what looks like a Christie suspension, but isn't. Large road wheels like the Christie design, but the Germans used torsion bars, not springs.

One place where the VVSS and HVSS suspension has a drawback is that when you need to "fix a flat" (replace a wheel). With Christie (and some other) type suspensions, you jack up the wheel or bogie truck or axle. On a Sherman, you have to jack up the whole tank. We can also talk about rolling resistance and other things, but that's too in depth for this discussion.

My point was that the Soviets wouldn't have been willing to provide specs or tooling for us to make the T-34, even had we asked, which we didn't.

Many pre war decisions, made either due to budget restrictions, or doctrinal error (which was only discovered to be in error in combat) shaped the early phases of our involvement in WWII.

I'm sure the P-39 and P-40's combat performance would have been much better, if they had been built with the two stage supercharger that was offered. They weren't. High altitude performance wasn't meant to be their mission. The Flying Tigers proved that using the right tactics, could still prevail over the more nimble Japanese fighters.

If we had spent the money to test our torpedoes with actual live warheads before the war (and so find the flaws that showed up in combat) things would have been a lot different as well.

We ALMOST didn't get the M1 Garand.

It has become axiomatic that democracies are well prepared to fight the last war, and have a learning curve to make in order to fight the current war...

It wasn't that we used the Sherman because we were able to make so many, but rather that we were able to make so many because we used the Sherman. It wasn't numbers alone that won the war, but they certainly did help.

I'm reminded of the old joke, arrogant German tanker captured by GIs, brags how "one of our tanks is worth ten of yours!" GI then says "oh yeah? then how come we're kicking your ass?
German sighs, and answers, "because you alvays haff eleven! "

....as for the "extremely cramped" spaces ...... I doubt the Sherman crews relished their nice, roomy turret for very long .....

Probably not, but if any of those Sherman crews had ever been inside a T-34/76 they would think the Sherman roomy and luxurious.

British evaluation of the Tiger tank described it being cramped, and speculated on how this would lower crew efficiency. Contemporary German accounts from Tiger crewmen talk of how roomy the Tiger was, compared to their previous tanks....

I've also seen British reports talking of how much wasted space there was in US fighter plane cockpits. Like a roomy, empty office.....odd folk, the British...

[davem]

Well time proved that the M1 was plenty accurate. If you had been shooting a 1903 and took your time shooting, then the M1 was better however if you were issued an M1 and rushed your shots, then you get into this situation where you need strong logistic support (guys bringing up more ammo). If you had a platoon with a couple of automatic rifles (BAR) to cover the flanks and everyone else had 1903's plus a 1911 if you got charged and needed lots of fast, close range fire power AND you didn't have good back up with extra ammo- not a bad scenario even today. In fact some national guard units, etc.- might be better off so armed.