M1 Garand/US squad tactics

[Angrybk]

Just now, 17thfabn said:

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

Always seemed kinda weird to me that the Japanese didn’t field them in quantity given their tactics. 

[Olof Larsson]

6 hours ago, Angrybk said:

Always seemed kinda weird to me that the Japanese didn’t field them in quantity given their tactics. 

Well, the Japanese had something of a close combat cult going on, with close combat being sword & bayonets. Hence extra-long rifles & bayonets on LMG's. They were also dirt poor & like the US they were hampered by having a pistol calibre, that was ill suited for SMG use. Furthermore, getting feedback from the frontline units was hard, when forces that saw combat vs US forces had the habit of dying to the last man. On top of that it was the issue of getting the first batches to the frontline, without the guns ending up on the bottom of the ocean. By the end, the realised their mistake, but by 1944 it was too late.

[bojan]

9 hours 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. 

Best weapon for close-in defense up the 150m until intermediate caliber ARs came in. IMO, best way for employment was mixed with rifles, about 1:1. That way you could put rifles in the hands of the best shooters, give everyone else SMG for close-in defense/assaults and have them all carry as much LMG ammo as possible.  

2 hours ago, Olof Larsson said:

...They were also dirt poor...

Crown irony being that simple stamped SMG cost only a fraction of the bolt action rifle. there was some tooling involved, but they did not have to go to "crazy intricate German type stamping", they could have gone with USSR style press/bend metal manufacture as for PPSh/PPS.

Edited March 23, 2023 by bojan

[bojan]

11 hours ago, FALightFighter said:

Assumes that a squad even needs a machine gun...

I think it does, and so do most militaries in the world. Of those with even semi-serious combat experience only USMC went w/o in the new org.

Local statistics say that 60-70% of casualties inflicted by rifle squad (8 men) up the 300m came from LMG and DMR. At Plt level more then 50% came from a single MG section (3xMG) and rest from 3 rifle sections (with 3 LMGs combined). LMG/MMG were same, M84/PKM, so I don't know how did they deduce which one inflicted casualties, but that is only statistic I have... So 3 x tripod mounted MGs = 3 x LMG + 3 x DMR + ~25 rifles. And single LMG+DMR were worth about 9-15 rifles in efficiency up the 300m. Over that distance rifle fire was statistically insignificant in the number of casualties, so LMG/DMR were even more important in the environment that was present in 1990s wars.

 

 

[17thfabn]

6 hours ago, Olof Larsson said:

They were also dirt poor & like the US they were hampered by having a pistol calibre, that was ill suited for SMG use.

Why do you believe that the .45 was ill suited for SMG use?

[17thfabn]

3 hours ago, bojan said:

Best weapon for close-in defense up the 150m until intermediate caliber ARs came in.

Crown irony being that simple stamped SMG cost only a fraction of the bolt action rifle. there was some tooling involved, but they did not have to go to "crazy intricate German type stamping", they could have gone with USSR style press/bend metal manufacture as for PPSh/PPS.

150 meters seems optimistic for a SMG. Even for the Finnish Suomi KP/-31 that was said to be better than most SMG for controlability 150 meters seems optimistic.  

[17thfabn]

And another question. Is the balanced fire teams the best way to go? Or would going to a squad split into a fire support section with a M240 or equivalent and DMR and an assault section with assault rifles be a better way to go.

So instead of two light M249 in a squad you would have one heavier M240 and one DMR in the same caliber.  

With the possible introduction of the new XM 5 and XM 250 it will be interesting to see what the U.S. Army does.

[Sardaukar]

31 minutes ago, 17thfabn said:

150 meters seems optimistic for a SMG. Even for the Finnish Suomi KP/-31 that was said to be better than most SMG for controlability 150 meters seems optimistic.  

Well...one *could* get some effect out to 150m, only with single shots, I'd say.

Having shoot Suomi SMG few times, it is heavy but really reliable and accurate. Very controllable too, to extent, because of the weight and design on full-auto. 

[Olof Larsson]

59 minutes ago, 17thfabn said:

Why do you believe that the .45 was ill suited for SMG use?

Mag size, rate of fire/weight/controlabillity & bullet drop.

[Olof Larsson]

47 minutes ago, 17thfabn said:

And another question. Is the balanced fire teams the best way to go? Or would going to a squad split into a fire support section with a M240 or equivalent and DMR and an assault section with assault rifles be a better way to go.

So instead of two light M249 in a squad you would have one heavier M240 and one DMR in the same caliber.  

With the possible introduction of the new XM 5 and XM 250 it will be interesting to see what the U.S. Army does.

I would say it would depend on the terrain the mission & the type of infantry. Light infantry doing COIN in Afganistan has different requirements compared to being mechanized infantry fighting a peer or near peer opponent in mixed terrain. In the later case every squad has a autocannon for long range fire & carrying AT4's, light ATGM's, anti tank mines & so on, leaves less margin for heavier guns & ammo. Especially as small arms fire in that case, is mainly for self defence, & engaging the enemy at short distance. Eighter way a 7,62x51 DMR, is a great partner to every dismounted 7,62x51 MG.

[bojan]

1 hour ago, 17thfabn said:

150 meters seems optimistic for a SMG. Even for the Finnish Suomi KP/-31 that was said to be better than most SMG for controlability 150 meters seems optimistic.  

1 hour ago, 17thfabn said:

Why do you believe that the .45 was ill suited for SMG use?

Answer to both questions:

To explain methodology involved - at each range 20 x 5 rounds bursts were fired, if at least one round from a burst hit target those were considered "hit". Hence 45% hit ratio @ 200m is 9 x 5 rounds bursts out of 20 hit a target with at least one bullet. Compare that with 15% with Thompson.

IOW, decent SMG where bolt did not bottom out firing + flat shooting cartridge had quite a range advantage over others. When SMGs were thing, army used 50 and 150m range for M56 SMG and people relatively regularly managed to make hits on "standing" torso targets with those.

  

1 hour ago, 17thfabn said:

...So instead of two light M249 in a squad you would have one heavier M240 and one DMR in the same caliber....

Problem is that 240 is heavy. If you have PKM, or pay for new FNs lightweight 7.62x51 LMG (either fancy Evolvys or just Mk48 7.62x51 Minimi) it is less than 1kg heavier than 249. Ofc, ammo is much, much heavier...

 

Quote

With the possible introduction of the new XM 5 and XM 250 it will be interesting to see what the U.S. Army does.

IMO biggest improvement form it could be composite metal-plastic cased 7.62x51 ammo.

Edited March 23, 2023 by bojan

[bojan]

35 minutes ago, Olof Larsson said:

I would say it would depend on the terrain the mission & the type of infantry.

Irony is ofc, that infantry that needs LMG the most (light infantry) has most trouble with keeping it fed. While mech infantry basically can carry unlimited quantities of ammo in the vehicle but does not really need to do so.

Quote

Еighter way a 7,62x51 DMR, is a great partner to every dismounted 7,62x51 MG.

Absolutely.

PS. Scoped 5.56 rifles, even if super accurate (a needless complication, DMR role does not require some super accuracy) can not really replace 7.62x51 DMR. They can supplement them in some environments, but overall 7.62x51 DMR is more flexible tool.

 

Edited March 23, 2023 by bojan