The Germans' lack of uranium was one of the reasons they invaded the USSR. The bigwigs were actually hoping to get to the Urals, parts of which had large amounts of uranium ore.

This is true, however my point was that the M1 was about the only semi automatic rifle issued as standard to any nation in WWII. Virtually everyone else, including the US Marines in the beginning, were equipped with WWI or earlier bolt action rifles, or weapons which were only a "modernised" version of them.

Personally, I'd have preferred a semi auto over bolt action, and automatic over semi, however that's just me. I know of soldiers who could accurately fire a bolt action rifle faster than could be imagined - around 100+ rpm! (ignoring reloading) My own grandfather was one of them, and he wasn't even infantry.

Despite having a number of advantages over the traditional bolt action rifle, the M1 still has that flaw which, although could be turned to advantage on occasion, was still a significant drawback most of the time when compared with more modern designs.

Bren vs MG42
 

No question, as a tripod mount or emplaced weapon the MG42 is better than the Bren- however, as a squad support weapon the Bren was without peer at the time. Lightweight (for the time, anyway) reliable (just don't put 30 rounds in the magazine) and accurate, usable by one man at a pinch, fairly weatherproof (one of its last frontline uses was with the Royal Marines for Arctic service)- and iconic in appearance.
It is interesting that, after decades of not using LMGs (the MAG/GPMG covering both the LMG and MMG roles) the British Army decided to go back to having a squad support weapon, the L86- not only at the squad level, but issued one per 4-man fireteam. Standard ammo load initially was 6 thirty round mags per rifleman- but 2 of those were reserved for the LSW gunner.

Wait, I'm confused. Where's the bashing? That the USMC developed their own helmet is a statement of fact. Did I miss the post where someone disparaged the efficacy of the USMC's helmet?

I've read a lot of books about the USMC in WWII (& Korea and Vietnam) over the last couple of years and, overall, I am really impressed with its performance. They fought in some of the fiercest, no-quarter combat of the war (Guadalcanal, Tarawa, Peleilu, Saipan, Iwo Jima, and Okinawa, to name a few) and despite often taking heavy casualties, they almost always prevailed.

The Japanese, although tough and determined enemies, were cursed with some of the worst tech of the war. Pretty much all of their weapons systems were inferior to the Western equivalent. The Zero was king for a while, but as soon as allied pilots figured out not to get into a turning/climbing fight with it, it lost a lot of its mystique. Later Allied designs like the Hellcat and Corsair were superior. The Yamato super battleship was impressive and would have been superior in most respects in the age of the battle line, but in the era of naval air, it was a dinosaur.

Japanese infantry weapons were generally crap, across the board. The only major exception was their little "knee" mortars, which could generate impressive close-in indirect fire support. They never had enough artillery, their tanks were crap, and most Japanese infantrymen fought with long, unwieldly bolt-action rifles.

It kind of makes one wonder how the Japanese would have fared with better weapons systems and better leadership.

By the end of the war, yes. At the start, no.

The German policy in 1939 was to ;et a unit drop to a certain level due to attrition, then pull it out of combat for a period of time. New soldiers then joined the unit and were integrated/indoctrinated while the veterans were resting. Then, after a period of time, the unit was sent back into action.

This system probably worked well until the first half of 1943, with Stalingrad, Kursk and the fall of North Africa, and continued to deteriorate the rest of the war.

The US, OTOH, just threw new soldiers arriving at the front into units in combat. Many veterans didn't bother to learn the new guys' names, since they expected them to be dead in 2-3 days. Some wouldn't bother to get to know a replacement until he had survived a couple of weeks.

More accurately, the US did have enough riflemen in the war. Other troop types were generally available in adequate (in some cases abundant) numbers.

For example, if doctrine had allowed the Sherman to be armed so it could hunt and kill other tanks, there really would have been no need for all the independent tank destroyer battalions.

The much-maligned P-40 was actually a good match against the Zero as long as the Allied pilot didn't engage in a low-speed turning dogfight or try to out-climb the Zero.

(At high speeds, the P-40 could actually out-turn the Zero)

Despite looking like an antique, the Japanese 70mm battalion infantry gun was quite effective.

While their tanks had thing armor and weak guns, they were reliable and had good cross-country performance. The main problem was that fighting the Chinese had taught the Japanese the wrong lessons about tank warfare.

IIRC, each infantry rifle was stamped with the Imperial chrysanthemum: this marked the weapon as the Emperor's property, which the soldier was allowed to use on his behalf.

Additionally, the long bayonets the Japanese used were "stand ins" for the katana.

Let's remember other German bits of tech that didn't work right:

(1) The FG 42 tried to pack too much power into too small a package, resulting in terrible recoil in automatic fire. Additionally, the cost to produce one was outrageous.

(2) The Me 163 Komet, a rocket fighter tat killed more of it's own pilots than Allied planes did. And that doesn't include ground crew killed by the toxic fuel.

All sides of the war tried different ideas out which failed spectacularly. That's just the price of developing new and wonderful ways of killing the enemy... ;)

I'm reminded of that American bloke who tried to attach incendiary devices to bats.

Or the British idea to detect U-boats by training seabirds to dive on them.

Or the Type 99 machine gun the Japanese had that featured a bayonet lug.

The Japanese loved bayonets more thanthan the USMC did ;)

Or the incidiary-carrying balloons the Japanese unleased against the U.S. west coast.

Those actually worked in tests, in one case blowing up the car of a general observing the test ...

That idea would have worked if it hadn't proved possible to cut out the middle man (bat) and deliver incendiaries straight from the bomb bay to the target.

There was an idea ahead of its time. If the fuel problem could have been solved in early 1944, the Komet would have the been the ultimate interceptor of its day.

Nah the only sentient lifeform that loves bayonets more than the USMC is that crazed species known as the Scottish Highlander.

Or the Australian infantryman. Worse, an Australian infantryman in a kilt! :p
Attachment 1825

mg 42
 

the mg 42 and its ante decessors - the mg 3 etc are - in my humble opinion - far superior to the mag fed Bren. The Bren - or its Czech predecessor the VZ or LK 26 ( or was it 28 ) was the best there was in the early 1930s. I would say that the MG 42 had better versatility and a more credible sustained fire ability. ( Considering squad mobile automatic fire was only starting to be introduced as a concept in those days.)

Thats not to say that the Bren wasnt any good.

there was no bash.

The USMC is one of our times most legendary miltary formations. No one has said anything else in this thread so far.

in fairness for the m1
 

Considering the ranges most firefights took place - and the general din of battle- the M1 was by far better in practical application than any other prolific stsndard issue rifle of the war. The clink at the end of the mag sounds like a possible drawback to alert your enemy that you are empty - as I imagine the frantic swearing of a bolt rifle fireing grunt would be when he runs out..

just my opinion of course

technology vs doctrine
 

I believe that most powers in that horrible war fielded some good - and indeed some bad gear.

Doctrine and leadership were often the most difficult obstacle to utilize the technology to a marked advantage.Lack of foresight in the higher echelons and in some cases lack of political will to commit resources to win come to mind. The Germans didnt start to run their aircraft factories around the clock until a couple of years in for example. The last major war still influenced peoples concepts of ho to fight the present one.

The Germans were quick however to capitalize on their armour and use modern doctrine- but for instance - during the invasion of France and the low countries in 1940 the actual number of German tanks were NOT superior to allied tank power. The allies spread their thinly - the Germans concentrated /manouvered theirs as proved a winning tactic in that combat enviroment.

The Italians believed for the longest time that they did not need to upgrade their airpower / fighters to allied standards. They of course - got clobbered by the Allies overall in the sky. They did make a few good things though such as Beretta MP 38s , and the Beretta service pistol. But they still issued most troops with the questionable Mannlicher-Carcano.

The Japanese had fierce troops with what seemed like unswerving loyalty etc. They opted to issue them with semi obsolete bolt action rifles and tried to win the war without upgrading their infantry gear throughout the war

The Brits fielded the Sten Gun - arguably one of the simplest automatic firearms ever made prolific - but they made good use of it through training their lads and employing tactics that were workable.

Its easy to think that the powers that be in those days cooly calculated their moves - but they made decisions in an enviroment of casualties in the hundreds of thousands and in some cases with enemy arial bombardment actually hitting their place of business / seat of governance.

all in all - the shear economical disparity ( especially after the bombing of the industrial base of Germany) made the Axis chances of winning militarily very slim from mid 42. They could of course hope to get a victory because of a US forfeit , but luckily the US saw it through until the end and in a fashion that at the same time showed stalin that his advance had better halt were it did.

just one guys opinion everybody.

In game terms I find the emergency programs of weapon making that the loosing side and indeed the Soviets ( and to some extent the Brits in 1940) had going highly interesting.The making of field expedient armaments would be a valued skill in T2K I imagine. If you could churn out a few scrap metal/plumbing based SMGs to whatever crate of handgun caliber bullets the village has traded for then you could probably have the best horse, the best-washed wench and the least rotten potatos and the only house with a complete roof in the whole village!

The Bren was a great weapon: don't think otherwise. It was just limited in its roles. The reason why the MG 34/42 was much better was that it was the better weapon in a *lot* of roles.

Your typical '42 infantry squad (section) - 10 guys - typically, on average, and there is always exceptions, would only be equipped with one Bren/BAR, and one SMG. That was how things was formed up. Proper Machineguns was all placed in separate battalions, that was chopped up and parcelled out as need. The US at least had two advantages over the British system: The M1 over the SMLE, and the fact that there was a company level weapons platoon that had 2 belt fed machine guns. As the war went on, you would usually see an additional BAR/Bren, and another 1 or 2 SMG's.

The Germans, on the other hand, was set with a book value of 12 in a squad. They picked 12 because the assumed that for various reasons, two wouldn't be available, be it sick, lame, lazy, or such like. Each half squad in the Mechanised forces in 42 - and more than a few leg infantry units - had a MG34/42 and a SMG- with the rest of the squad there for the sole reason of protecting the MG, and feeding it. A typical german platoon had more raw firepower than any allied company - and sometimes battalions (Russians anyone?).

The main reason behind the makeup of the platoons is from how they was supposed to be used. The western allies felt that the base of fire from the platoon is aimed fire from the riflemen, while the automatic rifle keeps the bad guys at range, and help deal with the rushes. This isn't a bad idea - its very economical in ammo consumption. But it isn't well suited to mobile combat. The Germans on the other hand looked at it like this: No matter what, we are always going to be outnumbered. We have to find a way to make up for that. So they based each squad on a pair of mutually supporting weapon sections, each with the sole reason for existence of feeding a proper machine gun, with a very high rate of fire (1200 rounds a minute) designed to put as many bullets as possible in a small area in a short time. As one friend put it, "It was meant to be a 600m shotgun."

Funny enough, most armies these days seem to be built on...

2 Fire Sections...

Based around a MG.

Granted, as the war wore on those numbers got all messed up.

But back on point.

The big disadvantage of the MG42 over the Bren/BAR is ammo consumption. After all, the MG42 is only 2 pounds heavier than the Bren, and in my mind, I'm ok with a 2 pound heavier weapon compared to the MG42's biggest advantage over the Bren.

Ammo Consumption.

Yes, its biggest issues and plusses was ammo: It ran through a lot. Speaking from experience, the advantages that a belt fed machine gun gives over a magazine fed automatic rifle is much better than the problem of toting the ammo.

Of course, this is all my opinion, and you know what they say about that. :)

Some of their warship designs, munitions and aircraft were actually quite good throughout the war and highly regarded, but unfortunately they werent as good as what America was producing, nor could they build them in them in anything like the quantities that America could with ease. The Yamato despite it dimensions and the size of its main batteries was a technologicaly inferior battleship to US Navy Iowa Class, and would probably have lost if it had ever encountered an Iowa in battle. The British Vanguard might have taken it out as well.

I forgot to mention the Long Lance torpedo. That was some deadly device.

The P-40 had a slow climb rate and an inferior turn rate to the Zero, but it was actually as fast as the Spitfire 1A and Bf-109E and was slightly quicker than the Zero. The Zero was more maneuverable than the P-40 but it was more maneuverable than every other fighter in 1940/41. The P-40 had good armor, firepower, roll rate, and dive speed, and the Japanese rated it as their most dangerous opponent at low altitude. The P-40 actually had a very good air-to-air combat record, particularly with Chennault Flying Tigers in China against the Japanese, the 325th Fighter Group in Italy and the Royal New Zealand Air Force and was still in use with American forces at the end of the war.

The main problem with the Japanese is that they didn't learn any lessons about tank warfare.

In 1939 the Russian army gave them such a hammering in northern China that Japan refused to even think about attacking Russia even after the German invasion. The Japanese Army continued to use the same outdated tactics and type of weapons throughout the war against the Allies instead of learning how to fight against modern mechanised armies. Little or no attempt was made to ask the German army for their very experienced and competant advice in how to counter Soviet or Western mechanised armies and tactics, or to even license producing modern German tanks to give themselves a fighting chance when they went up against modern Allied tanks. The result was a one sided slaughter and led to the biggest military defeat in the history of the Japanese Army when Stalin send the Red Army back into China in August 1945.

Wait, I'm confused. When did the Marines develop a new helmet? What does it look like?

This is one of the big problems with NTC and JRTC, in my mind. When you lose the game by a couple of runs, you have a serious look at what you can do improve your game. When you lose the game by a dozen runs, you shrug your shoulders and put it behind you. My brigade walked away from NTC with nothing new to talk about because we got taken so thoroughly to the cleaners that we were more interested in forgetting about the experience and salvaging our self-esteem than in investigating why we got pounded so hard. The OPFOR needs to learn how to back off and provide the BLUFOR with a learning experience, not another high-fiving experience for themselves at the downtown establishments. The Japanese got handled so roughly that they turned their backs on all of the lessons they could have learned.

mg 34/42 vs Bren
 

The Bren and the Bar were good squad weapons - probably the best or among the best - until the advent of the MG42 and the German doctrine described by Panther.

So I agree with him - thats not to say that well trained troops didnt make the Bren a potent weapon. The British and others ended up using the Bren far longer than WWII.

That was a bad thing aswell.

We whre caught up on the idea of an LSW style support weapon and in the 80's built the L86 to supplement the L85 when the rest of the world had already realised you needed a proper LMG for squad support.

Wasn't untill after the gulf war we started using the Minimi.

That's exactly the point. There was no bash of the US forces, just an overreaction to a non-event.

god bless you leg.