Really bad weapons...

[dragoon500ly]

Originally Posted by Morthrai

(Still catching up on things here)
I see the Ross rifle has already been mentioned. I recall my uncle, who was a British tank driver right through WW2, mentioning that he went ashore at Juno Beach on D-Day supporting the Canadians. The weapons that were issued to those tank crews were Ross rifles, the idea being that more No. 4 .303s were freed up for use by the Canadian infantry. During the course of the assault, a couple of .303s and Stens found their way into the tanks and the Ross rifles got left behind before they even had to be used.

As a hunting rifle, the Ross is a fairly decent weapon, the problem with it is that it was never designed for combat use (and how many times have we heard that description?). A lot of stories from WWI tell how the bolt would get so gummed up with dirt/carbon that it would often take two men to work it. So as a combat rifle the Ross is on the list for bad weapons.

Other horrible rifles would include the French Lebel and Berthier rifles. With their 3 round magazines and akward bolt design they are often described as "little more than a musket more useful to hang a bayonet from."

[helbent4]

Originally Posted by dragoon500ly

As a hunting rifle, the Ross is a fairly decent weapon, the problem with it is that it was never designed for combat use (and how many times have we heard that description?). A lot of stories from WWI tell how the bolt would get so gummed up with dirt/carbon that it would often take two men to work it. So as a combat rifle the Ross is on the list for bad weapons.

Other horrible rifles would include the French Lebel and Berthier rifles. With their 3 round magazines and akward bolt design they are often described as "little more than a musket more useful to hang a bayonet from."

Lee,

Outside of the trenches the Ross wouldn't have been too bad at all, and tanks wouldn't have been the worst place for them. The weapon had such a bad rep (not undeserved) that there was no chance soldiers would use it. Those "zipperheads" would probably use captured Mausers and MP40s long before they would have used the Ross!

I can see why the Lebels and Berthiers were crap, French doctrine really did emphasise bayonet use over firepower.

Tony

[dragoon500ly]

I can see why the Lebels and Berthiers were crap, French doctrine really did emphasise bayonet use over firepower.

Considering that their rifles, automatic rifles, most of their machine guns and all of their grenades were obsolete, utter pieces of crap, I can't blame them for resorting to bayonets.

[Abbott Shaull]

Wow learn something new. Didn't realize that M1 when first issued had M16 aboard. Yeah I agree with you that it didn't make sense to take them off the M1A1s.

It one of those things when people who were in charge of planning failed to realized that if the tank was disable and crew survive they would need something to defend themselves with.

Interesting combination of personnel weapons. I totally get the shotgun. Another weapon that seems to never be issued enough.

[Dog 6]

Originally Posted by Abbott Shaull

Wow learn something new. Didn't realize that M1 when first issued had M16 aboard. Yeah I agree with you that it didn't make sense to take them off the M1A1s.

It one of those things when people who were in charge of planning failed to realized that if the tank was disable and crew survive they would need something to defend themselves with.

Interesting combination of personnel weapons. I totally get the shotgun. Another weapon that seems to never be issued enough.

In my M-1A1 we dumped the M-3's and picked up 4 M-16A2's.

[pmulcahy11b]

Originally Posted by Dog 6

In my M-1A1 we dumped the M-3's and picked up 4 M-16A2's.

Are they still using the M3? I thought they were due for replacement by the M4.

[Abbott Shaull]

Originally Posted by pmulcahy11b

Are they still using the M3? I thought they were due for replacement by the M4.

I think it all depends where the unit is based at and where they went. I also heard that some tank units had been issued M4s due to the fact that once over in Iraq, they may be pulling dismounted duty... No it doesn't surprise me that M3 are still in some armories too. It like the M1911 when they replace them with the M9. It one thing to say so on paper and another to actually get to the point where it done....

[Dog 6]

Originally Posted by pmulcahy11b

Are they still using the M3? I thought they were due for replacement by the M4.

the M-4 wasn't around in 1990 as far as i know, a few guys picked up car-15's, close but not the same as M-4's

[dragoon500ly]

Originally Posted by Abbott Shaull

Wow learn something new. Didn't realize that M1 when first issued had M16 aboard. Yeah I agree with you that it didn't make sense to take them off the M1A1s.

It one of those things when people who were in charge of planning failed to realized that if the tank was disable and crew survive they would need something to defend themselves with.

Interesting combination of personnel weapons. I totally get the shotgun. Another weapon that seems to never be issued enough.

It was originally issued for the dismounted OP that tankers put out at night. When it first showed up, there was a lot of confusion about how to stow it, since the manual said strap the M16 this way, but don't load a magazine and remove the sling as they might get caught when the turret was traversed. Me, being a dumbass, slapped a magazine in, wrapped the sling around the barrel and strapped the M16 in so that the magazine faced into the turret (backwards, in other words) and never had a lick of trouble!

And then had several of the transition instructors tell me that what I did was impossible. This was usually followed by my patented blank look followed by a rather pointed glance at what I had done. Gee! Guess you shouldn't have told me that I couldn't do it!

[dragoon500ly]

I checked with a NG tanker buddy of mine and tells me that the ole M-3A1 is still sitting in their arms room, two per M-1A1 and 2 per M-88. The damn thing just won't go away!!!!

[HorseSoldier]

Originally Posted by dragoon500ly

I checked with a NG tanker buddy of mine and tells me that the ole M-3A1 is still sitting in their arms room, two per M-1A1 and 2 per M-88. The damn thing just won't go away!!!!

They just are a really low readiness unit. The 'Guard armored cav unit I was in when I first started out back in the early 90s had a couple M3s for the '88 crew and that was it. The tankers had their one long gun* per track and pistols.

* Initially we were issued M16A1s that had been "upgraded" with A2 hand grips and maybe A2 buttstocks (can't recall on that part), later replaced with a mix of new production M16A2s and remanufactured M16A1s with the 'auto' option on the selector ground off and overstamped with 'burst'. In a Twilight War scenario I suspect they might have installed new 1-7 twist barrels and not even bothered with changing the fire control group, so a lot of NG units and the late war raised USAR divisions might have had a lot of what are essentially M16A3s. (And I'd guess those would be pretty popular with anyone else who could get their hands on them, compared to M16A2s.)