Posted on 10/17/2014 7:08:11 AM PDT by C19fan
Thank you. Yes, we the Allies greatly outclassed and out produced the Germans in every type of weapon - and the quality of our troops.
Our stuff worked and we never used slave labor to make them.
I get tired of the glorification of all things German by some of our number. They lost because they weren’t as good as we were - period.
Go ahead and tell me what “measurable ways” that the MG42 outperformed the M1919.
It wouldn’t have helped the Germans one iota to have more Tigers or Panthers: the damn things were maintenance nightmares - and we had air superiority. Between the P-47s and Typhoons (and IL-2s), the Nazi stuff just evaporated as soon as they showed up.
Don’t believe the video games - believe the actual after-action reports from The campaigns in France and Italy and Eastern Europe.
The original M60 was definitely a flawed design, but the latest E6 model appears to fix most of the problems.
This is one of those times when the comments here are much more interesting than the original article.
Don't buy it: the M-60E6 is nowhere near the machine gun that the M240G/E or even the PKM are.
Some background:
In 1995, I took over the Infantry Weapons program for the Marine Corps and found out that my predecessor, Major Jim Nelson, had originally been tasked with repairing the flaws in the M60E3 - it was the latest iteration and it was melting barrels. The army had specified that the latest version of the M60 had to have a thin, wispy barrel so that they could have a "walking fire" capability for their medium machine gun and the Marine Corps was stuck with an MG that shot through sides of its barrels after only 400 rounds of sustained fire.
Major Nelson found out that the army had 5,000 FN-MAG machine guns in storage at Anniston Alabama that they were not using (they were originally bought for the new version of the Abrams) and had them transferred to the Marine Corps facilities at Albany GA. He used half the money budgeted to fix the M60 to alter the M240s from the armored vehicle configuration to the ground configuration (hence the "G" in M240) and suddenly the Marine Corps had the world's finest machine gun for its infantry.
Not so fast. Sen. Cohen of Maine blocked everything in favor of SACO Defense (of Maine). Jim Nelson actually carried one of the M240s to Congress with the Commandant to show Sen. Cohen and explain. They had a shootoff between ten of each type of machine gun and the M240 wiped the ground with the carefully factory-prepared M60s in all categories - so we got the M240G.
The Marine Corps carefully rewarded Major Jim Nelson in its usual way: his superior gave him a lousy fitness report because he really pushed the envelope in contracting and because of all the hate and discontent his move caused and he was passed over for Lieutenant Colonel. Let no good deed go unpunished!
My only role was to read all of this correspondence in my newly acquired desk and then I wrote Jim up for a Meritorious Service Medal, since he had single-handedly ungraded our combat capabilities with that excellent gun. I also got a copy of the citation to the promotion board and he was finally selected for promotion.
Unfortunately, he never got that medal - the Marine Corps gave us a commanding general that wouldn't approve a medal for an action over three years before - but at least Jim got promoted.
The M240G has more than proven itself in combat in Iraq and Afghanistan over and over.
Wish we'd had them in Vietnam. Little B*stards would be voting Republican today.
You are, in the field of firearms history what is known as a BS Artist. Japanese machine guns during the battle of Guadalcanal weren't "crappy". They were odd-looking to Western eyes but they were good, serviceable designs that acquitted themselves well - too well. The Type 92 and the Type 96 "Nambu" in particular were deadly and reliable. Japanese pistols were good designs too but in an ineffective caliber compared to the .45. The Imperial Japanese Army had excellent light howitzers and best of all, the 50mm grenade projector also known as the "Knee Mortar". According to analysis made after the war, it accounted for 60% of all of our infantry casualties against the Japanese in WW II.
Pump shotguns had zero to negligible effect during any of the battles.
The difference was that the US forces seized the key terrain around the airfield and organized effective defenses. The Japanese underestimated the numbers and quality of the US forces and expended their men in futile and wasteful mass attacks. The 37mm canister round was particularly useful during these attacks.
Both sides had high-quality troops but the Americans had the ground and the enemy had to punch through long reaches of very tough terrain to get to our defenses and by the time they reached our perimeters, they were unable to effectively coordinate their actions and breach the defenses. We were also supported by excellent artillery made up of 75mm and 105mm howitzers that were well directed and courageously served. In the end, disease and starvation thinned the rest of them out and we held the field.
Try not to make simplistic statements about weapons - without first doing the research.
Haha, yes, I was just tweakin ya a bit out of context for the statement you made and the general notion of the thread.
I have disagreed with most everybody, so I might as well add you to the pile..
Having more Tigers, Sturmgewehrs, etc. wouldn’t have changed a thing - we had air supremacy and from Normandy on, more highly trained and reliable troops.
The Germans didn’t have a prayer from the moment they attacked the Soviets and declared war on the US.
The ME-262 was a dandy plane but it was armed for bomber interception. The four slow-firing 30mm cannons were poor armament against the more fleeting targets that fighters represent. The Brits had Glister Meteors operational and we had our first P-80s in England by May 1945. Either of those planes matched the 262 and had better fighter-to-fighter armament.
The V2s and V1s were useless terror weapons. A 1 ton payload thrown randomly at innocent bystanders. Served no purpose excepted make us angrier and less forgiving when we got done.
We won, they lost. They thoroughly deserved to lose too.
That’s Gloster, not “Glister”. One of these days, I’ll learn to proof better..
The Germans were doomed when they invaded Russia and declared war on the U.S. Our capacity to manufacture and innovate was just too great for the Axis. Which is why we could fight wars on two huge fronts and win. And if everything else failed, we had the atomic bomb.
Yep. And if there hadn't been a screw up at the Oak Ridge facility that caused the first batch of plutonium to be lost, that first bomb would have erased Berlin.
There has been a weird sort of fascination with the Germans in WW II and all of the strange but innovative dead ends they chased - 380mm siege guns, V-2 mostly unguided missiles, "Amerika bombers", even suicide planes. But the truth is that Americans and Brits ruled the technological roost from the get-go (with the Jewish refugees at the forefront). Our ships were better, our aircraft were better, our artillery was better, our radar was better and we had a working proximity fuze long before anyone else. Meanwhile the dimwit Nazis kept an 1898 bolt action rifle as their primary infantry weapon throughout the war. Guess it worked OK on unarmed civilians.
I have long believed that here is no more ferocious enemy to have than the United States of America. We take a while to spool up, but once we're there, kiss your tender parts goodbye.
Rate of fire(triple). Less heavy. Rapid barrel change without tools. Ergonomics that allowed it to be fired on a tripod or a bipod.
It wouldn’t have helped the Germans one iota to have more Tigers or Panthers: the damn things were maintenance nightmares - and we had air superiority. Between the P-47s and Typhoons (and IL-2s), the Nazi stuff just evaporated as soon as they showed up.
Too bad you weren't around to tell the Sherman crews that they were blowing up for no reason. The Panthers and Tigers accounted for large numbers of Shermans and held a significant advantage in kill ratio. 5 to 1 was considered the U.S. Armies requirement to overcome them. As for air superiority, how did that work out for the British trying to push through German armor during operation Market Garden, when the weather was perfectly clear for air support?
Don’t believe the video games - believe the actual after-action reports from The campaigns in France and Italy and Eastern Europe.
Indeed, read them.
Turns out I have other matters to attend to in life. But as you feel slighted, I'll do what I can with your additional statements.
You are, in the field of firearms history what is known as a BS Artist.
Hmmm, I'm starting to feel that you might be an expert on BS artists, with inside perspective. I've been a collector for 20 years, held many positions in organizations dedicated to historical firearms, but I haven't held the BS artist position yet. I'll look into it.
Japanese machine guns during the battle of Guadalcanal weren't "crappy". They were odd-looking to Western eyes but they were good, serviceable designs that acquitted themselves well - too well. The Type 92 and the Type 96 "Nambu" in particular were deadly and reliable.
Being a copy of the French Hotchkiss M1914, I don't know why it would look weird to an army that had used the Hotchkiss 20 years prior. However, like the Hotchkiss, the Type 92 used the stiff clip feed, that hindered its sustained fire role, led to jamming, and required constant attention from another gun handler. It prevented it from being used effectively while on the move, like the MG42 or even the M1919. The Japanese tried to solve the jamming issue by adding an integral oiler that brused each round, something that might work at the range, but only added to problem in a dirty environment.
The Type 96 was an adequate weapon, generally superior to the BAR, but it wasn't a heavy machine gun. Having a box magazine, it was functionally more of a squad automatic weapon.
Japanese pistols were good designs too but in an ineffective caliber compared to the .45.
Hah! That's funny. One of the model 94s more noteworthy failings is an exposed sear release that is prone to firing the pistol when the slide it touched from the side, like holstering it. To say that the chambering was ineffective is to dismiss a primary weaknes and undersells the fact that a heavier chambering would destroy the weak design.
The Imperial Japanese Army had excellent light howitzers and best of all, the 50mm grenade projector also known as the "Knee Mortar". According to analysis made after the war, it accounted for 60% of all of our infantry casualties against the Japanese in WW II.
Artillery always accounted for the lion share of battlefield casualties in WW2. And although light howitzers and mortors are handy in the jungle, the lack of heavy artillery was a major failing, especially on Okinawa.
Pump shotguns had zero to negligible effect during any of the battles.
Nice job mistating was I said. I didn't say they were a major factor in victory. I said that they were one of the few weapons on Guadalcanal that reliably went bang after 3 days in the jungle. If my great uncle were still alive, I'd let him know that you find his personal accounts of U.S. infantry weapons running from Guadalcanal to Okinawa to be video game derived BS.
The difference was that the US forces seized the key terrain around the airfield and organized effective defenses. The Japanese underestimated the numbers and quality of the US forces and expended their men in futile and wasteful mass attacks. The 37mm canister round was particularly useful during these attacks.
The Japanese held it first, and they too defended it. You've stated an outcome, not a strategy or tactic.
Both sides had high-quality troops but the Americans had the ground and the enemy had to punch through long reaches of very tough terrain to get to our defenses and by the time they reached our perimeters, they were unable to effectively coordinate their actions and breach the defenses. We were also supported by excellent artillery made up of 75mm and 105mm howitzers that were well directed and courageously served. In the end, disease and starvation thinned the rest of them out and we held the field.
I think you are now making my point.
Try not to make simplistic statements about weapons - without first doing the research.
If you don't own a mirror, purchase one today.
Logistics. We got more stuff on Guadalcanal than they did, and we brought more to the fight at every island after that, as they could not resupply.
In the Pacific campaign, our landing ships were more important than our surface ship gun power. Getting ammo to the guns is more important than the quality of the guns.
Yep, just got to this post of yours. Perfectly stated, nothing to add.
So you are in fact an expert in firearms and firearms history? Great... So let's get cracking.
The Type 92 machinegun had a reputation for being very reliable and the training of the Japanese assistant gunners offset the weakness of using the stiff and short-winded Hotchkiss style clips. The key metrics were that it worked very reliably throughout the war and like any other machine gun that worked well, it was feared. The Type 96 had an almost cult following, with the high-pitched crack of it 6.5mm caliber and the nearly smokeless/flashless powder. It was a favorite souvenir when it could be captured. Once again, it was known to be effective, dependable, and was used throughout the Pacific war.
Japanese pistols were adequate for what pistols do in combat: work as essentially a semiautomatic knife for very close combat. Both the Type 94 and the Type 14 were rugged and reliable pistols. The Type 94 is supremely ugly and usually crude but it works fine. The exposed sear bar doesn't make the pistol "go off when you put it in the holster" - it takes a firm squeeze to fire the pistol using the sear bar which is recessed below the surface of the slide. Pistols don't make very much difference in combat. As the joke goes, they're for officers to use on themselves when they screw up.
You gloss over the role of the Type 98 50mm Grenade Projector - it isn't just part of the artillery and mortar heap you assign it to. It was a squad infantry weapon which used a 50mm HE point detonating projectile accurately out to 300 yards or standard infantry grenades with a small propellant cup out to 120 yards. Each projectile contained almost a pound of TNT and it was an excellent fragmenter - it was a machine gun killer by design. It's employment envelope corresponded exactly to the operating range of most machine guns and had the precision to nail one with a first shot in the hands of an experienced gunner. Like I said before, that particular weapon was the main source of our casualties in the Pacific.
You are incorrect about the Japanese "defending the airfield": they didn't the few combat troops and majority construction troops fled when the 1st MarDiv landed. The Marines seized the airfield immediately and intact including all of the Japanese supplies, facilities and construction equipment and radios and even the icemaker and then set up the first of several defensive perimeters. Once the Marines were in place the Japanese hid in the jungle until the reinforcing forces under Col Ishiki arrived and the Col. Ishiki made the fatal mistake of attacking immediately across the Ilu River and getting his forces annihilated. Primarily by M1919s, by the way.
We could talk for days, I'm sure but we both knew veterans of that fight. I have the additional advantage of having spent decades actually using infantry weapons and supporting arms for real and in training. And some 13 years developing new ones for the Marine Corps.
Blanket statements like "the Japanese machine guns were crappy" attract my attention, every time.
You are now a waste of my time. The worst type of bloviator and everything you are charging others as being.
My previous responses stand as adequate proof to anyone reading this thread, that you are ignorant of the weapons you propose to lecture on. Quickly retreating from stating Japanese pistols were excellent, to stating that pistols don’t matter.
Once again I have better things to do than repeatedly disprove your unsubstantiated assertions. Like the know-it-all at the end of the bar, I’ll leave you to stand in the room alone, declaring that everyone else’s lack of interest makes you the victor.
Nah. High rate of fire was a disadvantage not an advantage. Most machine gun specialist agree that rates of fire between 450-700 rounds per minute are controllable (physics - Newton's Third Law), accurate, and less likely to melt barrels/run you too quickly out of ammo. Machine Guns that run out of ammo become wall displays on the other guy's VFW hall. The MG42 was about 2 pounds lighter than the M1919 but that advantage was probably lost with all the fiddly accessories to Germans added to the Table of Equipment for the "Hitler Saw". Big whoop - our guys were bigger. Ergonomics? really? C'mon - let's talk about war-winning qualities.
The primary war-winning quality of the M1919 was that it always worked, always. A steady stream of M2 Ball, linked w/ one in five tracer annihilated Nazis and Japanese and North Koreans and Chinese in fight after fight. We hated to lose that jewel, particularly to have it replaced by that crummy and indifferent M-60.
The only point I'd agree with you is the barrel change system and we should copy the heck out of that part of the design.
Wrong: you forget that the navy skedaddled almost immediately when things went very badly in the Battle of Savo. All that was left were what had been piled on the beach and when we could use that the Japanese left. The Marines fought with very little food and supplies until the navy finally overcame the Tokyo Express.
Recommend reading Guadalcanal by Richard B. Frank.
I accept your surrender.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.