M1 Garand/US squad tactics

[Angrybk]

Did the most successful battlefield implement ever devised (tm) prove to make a significant difference in squad combat effectiveness (enough to make up for the relatively lackluster BAR and Browning) or would the US Army have been better served with Eastern Front “MG as fire base plus lots of Smgs” type tactics? 

[FALightFighter]

In WW2, the scope and scale meant that the firepower of higher echelons made squad tactics largely irrelevant. Sure, you need infantrymen to occupy ground, but the structure and tactical employment of those squads isn't the key to success. Instead, supporting direct and indirect fires, close air support, and logistics made the details of squad tactics a fait accompli in almost all instances. Even the most highly publicized and well-known small unit actions (such as the 101st Airborne Division's incredible defense of Bastogne, the 82nd at Elsenborn, the 1st FSSF and 10th Mountain Division in Italy, etc) were set in situations at the operational and strategic level that made the outcome a foregone conclusion. The US Army squad could have probably used Trapdoor Springfields, and certainly 30-40 Krags, as its primary individual weapon, and it wouldn't have changed anything in the outcome of the war.

That said, the US Army squad was certainly not LESS effective than contemporary Commonwealth and Russian organizations, and probably not any less effective than the contemporary German organizations, within the spectrum of individual training, fitness, etc. There were differences, but they generally didn't come down to the individual small arm.

[Angrybk]

I don’t usually do this, but bumping this one up! I’m sure members of this grate site have deep thoughts about ww2 small arms composition. 

[17thfabn]

On 1/10/2023 at 11:44 AM, Angrybk said:

Did the most successful battlefield implement ever devised (tm) prove to make a significant difference in squad combat effectiveness (enough to make up for the relatively lackluster BAR and Browning) or would the US Army have been better served with Eastern Front “MG as fire base plus lots of Smgs” type tactics? 

Something better than the BAR would have been helpful. The BAR was a World War I weapon. The Army would have to had start development by the late 1930's to have had a useful replacement. They could have purchased foreign like the Brits did with the Czech design that formed the basis of the BREN.  Perhaps the  Chauchat left a bad taste in the Army's mouth for foreign machine guns.

There is the much maligned M1919A6  .  Work started on it during the war. It was a rush job. adaption of the standard M1919A4.  If design work had started before the war it could have been done better. Ideally lighter, more ergonomic, with a better bi-pod and quick change barrel. I guess it goes back to you can have two out of three,  cheap, quick and good. They got cheap and quick.

http://76thdivision.com/wrf_pics/76th_001start.jpg

Sub-machine guns are okay when in close, but out side of that lose their effectiveness quickly. Also they don't penetrate barriers very well.

http://76thdivision.com/wrf_pics/76th_001start.jpg

Edited March 21, 2023 by 17thfabn

[17thfabn]

On 1/10/2023 at 2:05 PM, FALightFighter said:

In WW2, the scope and scale meant that the firepower of higher echelons made squad tactics largely irrelevant. Sure, you need infantrymen to occupy ground, but the structure and tactical employment of those squads isn't the key to success. Instead, supporting direct and indirect fires, close air support, and logistics made the details of squad tactics a fait accompli in almost all instances. Even the most highly publicized and well-known small unit actions (such as the 101st Airborne Division's incredible defense of Bastogne, the 82nd at Elsenborn, the 1st FSSF and 10th Mountain Division in Italy, etc) were set in situations at the operational and strategic level that made the outcome a foregone conclusion. The US Army squad could have probably used Trapdoor Springfields, and certainly 30-40 Krags, as its primary individual weapon, and it wouldn't have changed anything in the outcome of the war.

There are plenty of times when terrain, supply issues and weather negate supporting firepower such as the Hurtgen Forest or in the Pacific. The U.S. squad and platoon in such situations would want the best weapons.

I'd agree that the U.S. squad was the equal of any other in firepower. 

[FALightFighter]

8 hours ago, 17thfabn said:

There are plenty of times when terrain, supply issues and weather negate supporting firepower such as the Hurtgen Forest or in the Pacific. The U.S. squad and platoon in such situations would want the best weapons.

I'd agree that the U.S. squad was the equal of any other in firepower. 

My point was that, instead of looking at this like some sort of 3-gun match where you're trying to eek every single fraction of an ounce of performance out of the individual equipment, in real life, it doesn't matter nearly as much as the larger system the thing is employed in.

Sure, an Olympic sprinter in specialized running shoes and clothes, on a flat, marked course course, with all the logistics support offered during a race, at the peak of a training cycle is going to get ridiculous times. Put that same person in a group, in the middle of boggy undergrowth, with a fighting load on his back, on day 453 of ∞, with someone shooting at him, and he'll still be faster than average, but the speed is much less relevant.

The entire point of combined arms and large scale operations is NOT to pit a squad against an evenly matched squad, so that the outcome depends on the quality of the squad, writ large (so training, experience, etc), much less to make things so nearly equal that the outcome depends on the use of semi-auto rifle + automatic rifle vs LMG + SMG. If the weapons work in the shitty conditions expected of infantry combat, that's good enough.

[bojan]

2 hours ago, FALightFighter said:

...The entire point of combined arms...

This. 

US had OKish squad org, OK plt, decent Co org and great Bn org. The higher you go the better it became. And battles are won by those, not by squads.

[Rick]

6 hours ago, bojan said:

This. 

US had OKish squad org, OK plt, decent Co org and great Bn org. The higher you go the better it became. And battles are won by those, not by squads.

Can you elaborate on the above? It's one of those army things I find mildly interesting as it appears to me most W.W.2 organizations are about the same on the levels you mentioned.

[bojan]

Basically while US squad had so-so firepower (best rifle but subpar LMG, pardon, automatic rifle) the higher up you went there was more support weapons and logistic assets to enable those weapons to function properly. Hence in practice US orgs were excellent because they have concentrated on what really mattered - support weapons and logistics.

Edited March 21, 2023 by bojan

[bojan]

18 hours ago, 17thfabn said:

...

There is the much maligned M1919A6  .  Work started on it during the war. It was a rush job. adaption of the standard M1919A4.  If design work had started before the war it could have been done better. Ideally lighter, more ergonomic, with a better bi-pod and quick change barrel.

To really effectively employ such weapons it would have to be in the squad and squad organized around it. And US simply did not believe in LMG centric squads, and is one of few countries that still does not (hence latest USMC thing with no LMGs at all in the squad...). Basically US never ditched French WW1 idea of LMG/automatic rifle being just support weapon for maneuver elements and not main source of squad's firepower.

[Rick]

2 hours ago, bojan said:

Basically while US squad had so-so firepower (best rifle but subpar LMG, pardon, automatic rifle) the higher up you went there was more support weapons and logistic assets to enable those weapons to function properly. Hence in practice US orgs were excellent because they have concentrated on what really mattered - support weapons and logistics.

Thank you. I do not know enough of this information to have even considered logistics.

[RichTO90]

2 hours ago, bojan said:

To really effectively employ such weapons it would have to be in the squad and squad organized around it. And US simply did not believe in LMG centric squads, and is one of few countries that still does not (hence latest USMC thing with no LMGs at all in the squad...). Basically US never ditched French WW1 idea of LMG/automatic rifle being just support weapon for maneuver elements and not main source of squad's firepower.

It is somewhat curious that arguably the most effective US WW2 squads - Parachute Infantry, Ranger, and USMC - slipped into that realization by default. The M191A6 was specifically intended for the Parachute Infantry squad and as attrition reduced the number of personnel, anecdotally the number of M191A6 were kept up. It was only because of the perceived faults of the M191A6 that the BAR became favored by the Parachute Infantry, oddly enough after combat experience had resulted in changes to the design and build quality that made the M191A6 a reasonably good, if not good, squad LMG. The Rangers simply focused on automatic firepower and used both M1919A6 and BAR, while the Marines famously structured a flexible squad based upon multiple BAR teams, which is probably the way it should have always been.

[Rick]

Could it be that those infantry in the squads you mentioned were "better" to begin with in motivation and abilities?

[bojan]

26 minutes ago, RichTO90 said:

It is somewhat curious that arguably the most effective US WW2 squads - Parachute Infantry, Ranger, and USMC - slipped into that realization by default. ...

That is what happens when real war starts. :) Soviets, who have also avoided LMG-centric squad like a plague realized that in Afghanistan. Yugoslavia was curious case, very LMG centric squad (WW2 experience) then in 1981. org someone decided that is all crap and went to "just a support" with RPKs instead of M53 (MG42), but when shooting started in 1991. went to LMG centric in the heartbeat. British were LMG centric until '80s as well then also replaced proper LMG with HBAR rifle, and went back to LMG centric some years ago due the Afghanistan experience. Ironically, French went LMG centric in the 1920s with adoption of MAC 24/29 and never looked back. One wonders if we would have even heard of all "overmatch" talk about rifles if US used 7.62x51 LMG in the squad. 

Quote

while the Marines famously structured a flexible squad based upon multiple BAR teams, which is probably the way it should have always been.

IIRC terrain issues were a reason for 3-fireteams squad but it is very interesting and nice org... only problem being how do you mechanize such squad.

Edited March 22, 2023 by bojan

[17thfabn]

1 hour ago, bojan said:

To really effectively employ such weapons it would have to be in the squad and squad organized around it. And US simply did not believe in LMG centric squads, and is one of few countries that still does not (hence latest USMC thing with no LMGs at all in the squad...)

Per the TOEs late in the war Ranger, Paratrooper (not sure of Glider-borne) rifle squads had a M1919 A6 . Earlier in the war they used the older M1919A4.

The M1919A6 was used as a substitute for the M1919A4 in the weapons platoons of rifle companies in some infantry divisions. 

With the bigger rifle squads the U.S. had in World War II the M1919A6  wouldn't have been too much of a burden. The German rifle squad had three men detailed to be the gun team in their squad. The U.S. squad could've done the same. The M1919A6 was heavier than the German MG 34 or MG 42 but would need less ammunition due to the lower rate of fire. With a 12 man U.S. squad, three men to operate the M1919A6 , 8 in the assault / rifle section plus the squad leader.

[17thfabn]

54 minutes ago, RichTO90 said:

The M191A6 was specifically intended for the Parachute Infantry squad and as attrition reduced the number of personnel, anecdotally the number of M191A6 were kept up. It was only because of the perceived faults of the M191A6 that the BAR became favored by the Parachute Infantry, oddly enough after combat experience had resulted in changes to the design and build quality that made the M191A6 a reasonably good, if not good, squad LMG.

I often see the M1919A6 knocked by those who write about World War II weapons, when it is not just out right ignored. 

I once had a thread on some forum about the M1919A6 about the experience of the men who actually used it, on some site.

No one could find anything referencing the users view of the weapon.  

Not that the M1919A6 was the finest machine gun ever. But it would be a boost in firepower over the BAR. And quicker to get into action than the M1919A4.

 

[RichTO90]

15 hours ago, bojan said:

That is what happens when real war starts. :) Soviets, who have also avoided LMG-centric squad like a plague realized that in Afghanistan. Yugoslavia was curious case, very LMG centric squad (WW2 experience) then in 1981. org someone decided that is all crap and went to "just a support" with RPKs instead of M53 (MG42), but when shooting started in 1991. went to LMG centric in the heartbeat. British were LMG centric until '80s as well then also replaced proper LMG with HBAR rifle, and went back to LMG centric some years ago due the Afghanistan experience. Ironically, French went LMG centric in the 1920s with adoption of MAC 24/29 and never looked back. One wonders if we would have even heard of all "overmatch" talk about rifles if US used 7.62x51 LMG in the squad. 

IIRC terrain issues were a reason for 3-fireteams squad but it is very interesting and nice org... only problem being how do you mechanize such squad.

One of these days I would love to find a copy of the Tactics and Techniques section of the 'A' and 'B' Committee's of the postwar U.S. Army Infantry Conference at the Infantry School, Fort Benning. The various precis I've read are pretty damning considering what has followed for the last 77 years. All agreed that a nine-man rifle squad was ideal in terms of command, control, and resistance to attrition and that it should be built around a purpose-designed LMG.

When mechanizing, perhaps it would be better to design the vehicle around the squad rather than vice versa?

[seahawk]

16 hours ago, Rick said:

Could it be that those infantry in the squads you mentioned were "better" to begin with in motivation and abilities?

And also shorter on support weapons.

[bojan]

1 hour ago, RichTO90 said:

... All agreed that a nine-man rifle squad was ideal in terms of command, control, and resistance to attrition and that it should be built around a purpose-designed LMG.

And then first M15/M14A1 abortion happens, then in the '60/70s US rifle squad went w/o LMG (M60s were Plt asset, "automatic rifleman" had only M16...). Finally Minimi gets adopted... but doctrinally nothing changes. And now there is a search for the solution in abominations like XM5/XM7 for what can be way more easily solved by a proper 7.62x51 LMG (and DMR). Mindboggling.

 

[sunday]

2 hours ago, bojan said:

And then first M15/M14A1 abortion happens, then in the '60/70s US rifle squad went w/o LMG (M60s were Plt asset, "automatic rifleman" had only M16...). Finally Minimi gets adopted... but doctrinally nothing changes. And now there is a search for the solution in abominations like XM5/XM7 for what can be way more easily solved by a proper 7.62x51 LMG (and DMR). Mindboggling.

Post-retirement careers for general officers are difficult to find, you know...

[Rick]

4 hours ago, bojan said:

And then first M15/M14A1 abortion happens, then in the '60/70s US rifle squad went w/o LMG (M60s were Plt asset, "automatic rifleman" had only M16...). Finally Minimi gets adopted... but doctrinally nothing changes. And now there is a search for the solution in abominations like XM5/XM7 for what can be way more easily solved by a proper 7.62x51 LMG (and DMR). Mindboggling.

 

In your opinion, magazine or belt fed squad machine gun?

[bojan]

Belt won the moment Germans made MG-34.

[FALightFighter]

1 hour ago, Rick said:

In your opinion, magazine or belt fed squad machine gun?

Assumes that a squad even needs a machine gun. It is, after all, a rifle squad. Trees have been killed and ink spilled in the discussion of what a squad is and must do- we've even done it here, with electrons. It will continue.

[Angrybk]

So how dId SMGs figure into it? Might be a different thread but I’ve always understood that Germany/USSR were more likely to use them en masse while they were kind of niche weapons for US/Uk. 

[17thfabn]

6 minutes ago, Angrybk said:

So how dId SMGs figure into it? Might be a different thread but I’ve always understood that Germany/USSR were more likely to use them en masse while they were kind of niche weapons for US/Uk. 

USSR used sub machine guns in mass. Not so much Germany, except in the movies.