In your Opinion...
- Thread starter Clancy
- Start date
It seems as if military doctrine was changing early in the war. With the demand for larger military forces the emphasis on extensive training appears to have been cut back somewhat in certain disciplines of the military. As a result the doctrine of accurate rifle fire became less important since this required a lot of trainging to acheive. The concept of "laying down fire" became readily acceptable in most theatres of operation. Also, the rapid growth of the armed forces meant that the majority of soldiers may not have been well educated, and may have needed more time to bring them up to functional levels.
The light "assault" weapons and submachine guns became popular due to the fact that, generally, they were easy to use. There was less training required with either weapon, and the amount of firepower was dramatically increased. The other factor being the portability of these weapons compared to full size rifles allowed the carrying of not only more ammo but other gear as well. One would have to admit that the light weapons as you mentioned wre not known for great accuracy, but were able to put a lot of fire on a target.
I would not really classifiy the M-1 carbine as an assault weapon, as it was intended to replace the 45 auto pistol, which by it's nature was a difficult firearm to master.
Good question ot consider.
Cheers
The light "assault" weapons and submachine guns became popular due to the fact that, generally, they were easy to use. There was less training required with either weapon, and the amount of firepower was dramatically increased. The other factor being the portability of these weapons compared to full size rifles allowed the carrying of not only more ammo but other gear as well. One would have to admit that the light weapons as you mentioned wre not known for great accuracy, but were able to put a lot of fire on a target.
I would not really classifiy the M-1 carbine as an assault weapon, as it was intended to replace the 45 auto pistol, which by it's nature was a difficult firearm to master.
Good question ot consider.
Cheers
I see SMG's that were produced as well as the M1 Carbine to function between the pistol and the rifle and to be better suited to be used in closer engagements and inside the cities, as static lines of World War 1 were not going to be repeated, and when armies could move alot faster as they were more mechnized the distance of engagements and the locations of engagements changed. As armys could now go from one town to another quickly, and armies using cities and towns as bases urban warfare required something that worked better then a rifle. A SMG will clear a room in a building alot better then a bolt action rifle would or even a semi-automatic rifle.
Assault rifles, are the result of seeing that at times alittle longer range is needed then the SMG's limited range using pistol ammunition so a round in between pistol rounds and rifle rounds was the answer that allowed the rifle to be useful in urban warfare as well as being used in mechanized armies that would bring the troops close into the fight.
Not as much because of accuracy or training involved in my opinion, just being able to shoot your target at 600 yards became less important and being able to take on multipul enemy's that might come at you in a close engagement meant a high rate of fire was simply more important if you wanted your troops to survive the engagement.
Thats my take on it.
Dimitri
Assault rifles, are the result of seeing that at times alittle longer range is needed then the SMG's limited range using pistol ammunition so a round in between pistol rounds and rifle rounds was the answer that allowed the rifle to be useful in urban warfare as well as being used in mechanized armies that would bring the troops close into the fight.
Not as much because of accuracy or training involved in my opinion, just being able to shoot your target at 600 yards became less important and being able to take on multipul enemy's that might come at you in a close engagement meant a high rate of fire was simply more important if you wanted your troops to survive the engagement.
Thats my take on it.
Dimitri
If I am reading your question right, I think the answer is, neccessity.
However, some of the technology was there for a while before WW2 started, and therefore quite of bit before the US decided to enter the war in progress.
I.E. The Thompson sub machine gun was designed circa 1919, and commerically produced starting with the Model 1921.
A lot of the "cheaper" designs were just continuations of earlier designs such as some of the early German subguns, ala MP28, etc. So an extension of some of this like the Sten, wasn't a hard development from that. Just take a good design, well made gun, and make a cheap copy. Voila, gen 2 subgun.
However, some of the technology was there for a while before WW2 started, and therefore quite of bit before the US decided to enter the war in progress.
I.E. The Thompson sub machine gun was designed circa 1919, and commerically produced starting with the Model 1921.
A lot of the "cheaper" designs were just continuations of earlier designs such as some of the early German subguns, ala MP28, etc. So an extension of some of this like the Sten, wasn't a hard development from that. Just take a good design, well made gun, and make a cheap copy. Voila, gen 2 subgun.
At the time of the outbreak of the Great War in 1914, you weren't even considered to be a SOLDIER until you had re-upped..... and their first up was for 7 years. This led to the creation of the finest PROFESSIONAL army in the world. Used as the original BEF, this truly professional army disappeared by the end of 1914, and there was, to replace them, only huge numbers of completely untrained volunteers.
There just wasn't the 7 years to train them.
And in WW2 it was far worse, the politicos of the day having been scrapping our military equipment as late as 1937.
It is no wonder that "area fire" tactics with easy-to-use, mass-production weapons became not just fashionable, but utterly necessary.
There just wasn't the 7 years to train them.
And in WW2 it was far worse, the politicos of the day having been scrapping our military equipment as late as 1937.
It is no wonder that "area fire" tactics with easy-to-use, mass-production weapons became not just fashionable, but utterly necessary.
"First we beat 'em on the Marne,
We beat 'em on the Aisne;
They gave us hell at Neuve Chappelle
But here we are again."
Lament for a lost Army, perhaps, but it was one of their songs.
Or...
"Have you seen the old battalion?
We know where they are.
We know where they are,
We know where they are.
Have you seen the old battalion?
We know where they are;
They're hanging on the old barbed wire!"
We beat 'em on the Aisne;
They gave us hell at Neuve Chappelle
But here we are again."
Lament for a lost Army, perhaps, but it was one of their songs.
Or...
"Have you seen the old battalion?
We know where they are.
We know where they are,
We know where they are.
Have you seen the old battalion?
We know where they are;
They're hanging on the old barbed wire!"
NavyShooter
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- XMU Local .303
My thoughts?
Well, why were they built, and used starting in the early part of the war?
1. Every army prepares to fight the war that it just finished, not the one that's coming. So, at the beginning of the war, they mostly had long-guns on hand, KAR-98, #3/#4 Enfields, Springfields, some Garands, etc.
2. Germany kicks butt with their Blitzkreig tactics, and people start to recognize the fire-power boost that having individual machine-guns provides (SMG's, LMGs, etc) (Recall that at the end of WWI, the planned use of the Pedersen device was kept secret, and they ended up destroying them eventually)
3. With the loss of both trained troops, weapons, and equipment, and the shock of the German Blitzkreig, a shift in doctrine to include personal, portable automatic weapons was inevitable.
4. The need to create a LARGE number of weapons in a SHORT period of time led to the mass production of the Sten, M-3, etc type of SMG's, but their limitations were eventually discovered in the crucible of battle in the last year of the war by the allies. (Truly, the allies did not utilize their weapons much until after invading europe in 1944.)
5. The lesson that pistol caliber SMG's are not the best weapon for infantry combat was learned by the Germans in the blitzkreig, and re-inforced in Barbarossa. (This is a lesson that was re-learned by the Israelis with their Uzi....hence the existance of the Galil.)
6. The Germans took those lessons, and created the SturmGewehr.
7. Following the war, the other major powers took a page from the books of Germany's war experience, and headed down similar paths, with varying degrees of success.
So, those are my thoughts....there's a lot more that could be said as to why and how, but there's some of my points that I can come up with off the top of my head.
NavyShooter
Well, why were they built, and used starting in the early part of the war?
1. Every army prepares to fight the war that it just finished, not the one that's coming. So, at the beginning of the war, they mostly had long-guns on hand, KAR-98, #3/#4 Enfields, Springfields, some Garands, etc.
2. Germany kicks butt with their Blitzkreig tactics, and people start to recognize the fire-power boost that having individual machine-guns provides (SMG's, LMGs, etc) (Recall that at the end of WWI, the planned use of the Pedersen device was kept secret, and they ended up destroying them eventually)
3. With the loss of both trained troops, weapons, and equipment, and the shock of the German Blitzkreig, a shift in doctrine to include personal, portable automatic weapons was inevitable.
4. The need to create a LARGE number of weapons in a SHORT period of time led to the mass production of the Sten, M-3, etc type of SMG's, but their limitations were eventually discovered in the crucible of battle in the last year of the war by the allies. (Truly, the allies did not utilize their weapons much until after invading europe in 1944.)
5. The lesson that pistol caliber SMG's are not the best weapon for infantry combat was learned by the Germans in the blitzkreig, and re-inforced in Barbarossa. (This is a lesson that was re-learned by the Israelis with their Uzi....hence the existance of the Galil.)
6. The Germans took those lessons, and created the SturmGewehr.
7. Following the war, the other major powers took a page from the books of Germany's war experience, and headed down similar paths, with varying degrees of success.
So, those are my thoughts....there's a lot more that could be said as to why and how, but there's some of my points that I can come up with off the top of my head.
NavyShooter
My understanding was that part of the rational for the MP44 /STG44 was that due to manpower losses, German unit strength was reduced. Companies, platoons and sections were comprised of less men, so greater fire power was used to compensate.
Also extensive German studies revealed that very few targets were engaged beyond 100 meters in combat.
Also extensive German studies revealed that very few targets were engaged beyond 100 meters in combat.
- Location
- WMU248 near Edmonton
Manoeuvre Warfare, that’s why
Tanks lead in the open country and infantry in the close country. Close country and urban fighting was now primary infantry work and the long range stuff was done by the armour. Infantry needed firepower in close quarters.
Now in open ground infantry supported the tanks by defending them from enemy infantry. Infantry could defended on open ground by setting up machineguns to seperate infantry from the tanks then whe the tanks got into the close ground the enemy infantry could get close and destroy them with piat, or panzershrek, or petrol bombs and gernades you get the ideal.
Close country, (urban enviroments, heavy hedgerows, dikes, swamps, forest etc...) is where the infantry would have to clear the way for the tanks and the tanks would support the infantry in the roll of moblie fire support, taking out pilboxes and MG nest etc...
so with the shift from trench warfare (attrition warfare) to manoeuvre warfate there was a shift in weapons systems.
Tanks lead in the open country and infantry in the close country. Close country and urban fighting was now primary infantry work and the long range stuff was done by the armour. Infantry needed firepower in close quarters.
Now in open ground infantry supported the tanks by defending them from enemy infantry. Infantry could defended on open ground by setting up machineguns to seperate infantry from the tanks then whe the tanks got into the close ground the enemy infantry could get close and destroy them with piat, or panzershrek, or petrol bombs and gernades you get the ideal.
Close country, (urban enviroments, heavy hedgerows, dikes, swamps, forest etc...) is where the infantry would have to clear the way for the tanks and the tanks would support the infantry in the roll of moblie fire support, taking out pilboxes and MG nest etc...
so with the shift from trench warfare (attrition warfare) to manoeuvre warfate there was a shift in weapons systems.
"...like the M1 Carbine, Sten Guns, Tommy Guns..." None of these are 'assault weapons'. There was no such thing as an assault weapon until late in W.W. II.
Only the Thompson even existed at the beginning of W.W. II. It was made to get a light, hand held, automatic weapon into W.W. I trench fighting. Too late for W.W. I though.
The STEN was invented to get an SMG built and into service quickly in a war time manufacturing environment. Quality wasn't required.
The M1 Carbine was designed and built because it's easier to train a troopie to shoot a rifle well than it is a handgun. Most draftees or enlistees had never used a firearm of any kind prior to joining a service. Despite the myths.
Only the Thompson even existed at the beginning of W.W. II. It was made to get a light, hand held, automatic weapon into W.W. I trench fighting. Too late for W.W. I though.
The STEN was invented to get an SMG built and into service quickly in a war time manufacturing environment. Quality wasn't required.
The M1 Carbine was designed and built because it's easier to train a troopie to shoot a rifle well than it is a handgun. Most draftees or enlistees had never used a firearm of any kind prior to joining a service. Despite the myths.
