- Thread starter kraigWY
- Start date
Just finished "The Guns of August".
I'm so old, I knew 3 WWI vets.
Andrew Stuart, a scot, had been gassed and sent home to Edinburgh to convalesce, when he was in hospital, the Germans raided the town with….. zeppelins.
John Hallam, a U.S. vet, had hairless legs, he claimed it was from wearing puttees for so long.
Thomas Heller, a U.S. vet, called it hell on earth, didn't talk too much about it. Occasionally he would say something would remind him of it. The smell of flesh rotting, thunder in the distance.
I'm so old, I knew 3 WWI vets.
Andrew Stuart, a scot, had been gassed and sent home to Edinburgh to convalesce, when he was in hospital, the Germans raided the town with….. zeppelins.
John Hallam, a U.S. vet, had hairless legs, he claimed it was from wearing puttees for so long.
Thomas Heller, a U.S. vet, called it hell on earth, didn't talk too much about it. Occasionally he would say something would remind him of it. The smell of flesh rotting, thunder in the distance.
Last edited:
I only knew one. He was a friend of the family, after he rented my parents their first place to live after they got married.
Marine in WWI, Was gassed. Lost both legs. Great guy. Drove a hand control Chevy Corvair Monza Spider (turbocharged).
Marine in WWI, Was gassed. Lost both legs. Great guy. Drove a hand control Chevy Corvair Monza Spider (turbocharged).
my granfather was drafted to the WWI at 16yrs._ despite the hunger, diseases and misery of that state, he confessed me that he would goin'back at anytime , in exchange to be again teenager as during "his" wartime_
Last edited:
I knew several older WWI vets when I was a kid. They were all in their '70's and 80's when I could first remember them. I never knew anything about the rifles though. My dad was as anti-Mauser as you could get. And the 1903's while being American "weren't accurate enough to hit the broad side of a barn." Enfields were suspect and probably couldn't hit the broad side of a barn ....from the inside. "Everything older was 'shot out'".
Mosins had not even entered the picture yet.
For him, there were two rifles and two only, that were any good. Those were the Remington 700 and the Remington 722. (In .257 Roberts of course)
I love my dad dearly, but he did not have an open mind when it came to older military rifles. I sure am glad he introduced me to shooting though.
When I get a chance I WILL go out and pop off some 'old' surplus rounds in my 'old' surplus rifles.
Mosins had not even entered the picture yet.
For him, there were two rifles and two only, that were any good. Those were the Remington 700 and the Remington 722. (In .257 Roberts of course)
I love my dad dearly, but he did not have an open mind when it came to older military rifles. I sure am glad he introduced me to shooting though.
When I get a chance I WILL go out and pop off some 'old' surplus rounds in my 'old' surplus rifles.
I have a Springfield. My rifle even fought in both World Wars. Everyone keeps telling me not to fire it.
I think it's awesome you DO shoot it.
It's a low number RIA action. The warnings not to fire it are more about safety than historical value.
I'll admit, per the thread, my take on it was historic not safety.
I was told by someone of, what I would consider to be a knowledgeable and good reputation, that if that rifle had been fired that much, and is not showing any cracks, they are safe to continue to fire. If you have any doubts, download them a bit.
One way or the other, shooting it is the best thing I can see to do with that old rifle. Since there is a way to do it safely I see no reason not to.
From everything I have read about that war and the trench battles they fought it was by far the worst, those guys went through pure hell. Hats off to them all!
My grandfather, a Canadian, went through the whole thing w.out a scratch. A couple of years ago, I posted some pictures from his time overseas as an artillery officer.
http://www.snipershide.com/shooting...per-rifles/112187-some-pictures-trenches.html
There are a number of great WW1 books... and much of modern sniper-craft emerged from that conflict. McBride and Hesketh-Pritcherd (sp) are both outstanding books. Not long ago, I read Pals of the Somme (Wilkinson, 2008) about the "Pals" units which were decimated at the Somme. Pals units were a theory that people would fight better with their friends and neighbors. So whole towns, companies, clubs, school classes, etc. signed up as "Pals" units. And were poorly trained and marched into the Somme Meatgrinder. Towns lost their entire young male populations to machine guns in minutes. Families were wiped out. It was just a tragic waste based on a ludicrous theory.
Today the loss of a few dozen soldiers in a battle is reason for a Congressional hearing. Consider that on the first day of the Somme, the British lost some 58,000 casualties, of which almost 20,000 were killed. In one day. In the full battle of the Somme, which lasted several months, the British/commonwealth took 650,000 casualties including about 150,000 killed. Including Central Powers (German) casualties... almost 1.5 million casualties. In one battle.
Yes, it was a very ugly war in which tactics and strategies had not caught up with the ability of the combatants to industrialize and mechanize warfare.
An apocryphal story, supposedly told by Hiram Maxim, inventor of the machine gun, claimed "In 1882 I was in Vienna, where I met an American whom I had known in the States. He said: 'Hang your chemistry and electricity! If you want to make a pile of money, invent something that will enable these Europeans to cut each others' throats with greater facility." Whether it happened or not, Maxim's invention, used by every side, turned Europe and the Dardanelles and, to a lesser extent, the Trans-Jordan into a killing ground.
The 100th anniversary will soon be upon us... 100 years ago, the wheels of Mobilization were beginning to turn. And the sad part is that none of it had to happen. It was, in essence, just one big stupid accident-waiting-to-happen.
Sirhr
http://www.snipershide.com/shooting...per-rifles/112187-some-pictures-trenches.html
There are a number of great WW1 books... and much of modern sniper-craft emerged from that conflict. McBride and Hesketh-Pritcherd (sp) are both outstanding books. Not long ago, I read Pals of the Somme (Wilkinson, 2008) about the "Pals" units which were decimated at the Somme. Pals units were a theory that people would fight better with their friends and neighbors. So whole towns, companies, clubs, school classes, etc. signed up as "Pals" units. And were poorly trained and marched into the Somme Meatgrinder. Towns lost their entire young male populations to machine guns in minutes. Families were wiped out. It was just a tragic waste based on a ludicrous theory.
Today the loss of a few dozen soldiers in a battle is reason for a Congressional hearing. Consider that on the first day of the Somme, the British lost some 58,000 casualties, of which almost 20,000 were killed. In one day. In the full battle of the Somme, which lasted several months, the British/commonwealth took 650,000 casualties including about 150,000 killed. Including Central Powers (German) casualties... almost 1.5 million casualties. In one battle.
Yes, it was a very ugly war in which tactics and strategies had not caught up with the ability of the combatants to industrialize and mechanize warfare.
An apocryphal story, supposedly told by Hiram Maxim, inventor of the machine gun, claimed "In 1882 I was in Vienna, where I met an American whom I had known in the States. He said: 'Hang your chemistry and electricity! If you want to make a pile of money, invent something that will enable these Europeans to cut each others' throats with greater facility." Whether it happened or not, Maxim's invention, used by every side, turned Europe and the Dardanelles and, to a lesser extent, the Trans-Jordan into a killing ground.
The 100th anniversary will soon be upon us... 100 years ago, the wheels of Mobilization were beginning to turn. And the sad part is that none of it had to happen. It was, in essence, just one big stupid accident-waiting-to-happen.
Sirhr
On a less somber note... this is from one of my favorite Humor books: The Onion, Our Dumb Century.
Cheers,
Sirhr
Cheers,
Sirhr
Sirhrmechanic,
You have truly earned some snobbiness from that post. It's as good as it gets.
I had to say as well, I've not seen a better personal set of pictures from that war. Thank you for sharing those!
On a somewhat different note, I do wonder as many of you do, as to why people (commanders) thought they can throw bodies in front of bullets and win? This happened a lot in the Civil War, WWI, and in some places WWII. Even Korea and Viet Nam. Yet it took forever, it seemed, to change the tactics.
At some point, someone needs to get the individual giving orders like that to step to the front and lead the men the way he wants it done! I guarantee you, a better solution is quickly found.
You have truly earned some snobbiness from that post. It's as good as it gets.
I had to say as well, I've not seen a better personal set of pictures from that war. Thank you for sharing those!
On a somewhat different note, I do wonder as many of you do, as to why people (commanders) thought they can throw bodies in front of bullets and win? This happened a lot in the Civil War, WWI, and in some places WWII. Even Korea and Viet Nam. Yet it took forever, it seemed, to change the tactics.
At some point, someone needs to get the individual giving orders like that to step to the front and lead the men the way he wants it done! I guarantee you, a better solution is quickly found.
Last edited:
...what a f'k : it's a Springfield, NOT a carcano ! shoot it and be happy (both)
Sandwarrior:
The 'early' days of throwing men against bullets was warfare as practiced by European Gentlemen... it was pageant. It was knights careening against each other, but played out with toy soldiers... (ie. the ranks) who, for the peerage, were little more than the toy soldiers they played with as children. Fortunately, for the toy soldiers (actual, sentient human beings... but not to the kings and potentates), the musketry of the time was inaccurate and short range. You lined up, fired your volleys, ran some bayonet charges and took or lost ground, determining victory. That changed, to some degree, in North America... without manicured fields and wide-open battlefields, a more ruthless (skulking is the term) way of war evolved.
Somewhere in the 19th century... the pageantry, therefore, changed. Moreover, the rifle and, later, the rifled musket with Minie projectile meant that guns were now accurate to hundreds of yards. Lining up for volley fire was suicidal. But the commanders had not figured this out. They still practiced war like it was geometry. The concept of "Total War" was just emerging. Think of the civil war as 18th century war... fought with nearly-20th-century weapons. Then think of WW1 as the late Civil War (particularly Petersburg Campaign which devolved into trench warfare) fought with modern weapons. Machine guns, proximity fuses, mines... Technology was way ahead of tactics in the late industrial revolution.
Those who paid the price were the pawns of commanders who still thought war was a great pageant. And remember, too, that the boys marching off to France and Belgium in August 1914 thought it all a great lark. They'd be back in a few weeks having whipped the hun... ready to return to a fun Edwardian lifestyle. They were wrong.
I have a whole bunch of books I can recommend... I'll post some titles later. WW1 is, to me, the most interesting period of conflict. Everything changed.
In greatest Snobifiry!
Cheers,
Sirhr
A rifleman went to war is a fantastic read. Modern sniper schools are still using much of the doctrine of this book nearly 100yrs later. It's still very relevant to sniping although battlefield tactics have evolved much.
SirHr,
I know that war was a gentlemans game played with others lives. I have to wonder though at what point did commanders ever understand that humans are needed to accomplish objectives and that throwing away a finite resource is not going to accomplish what they set out to do.
I do believe though you answered the question well. As, I may be, answering my own question. They simply don't understand, in all their wisdom, that using up a resource will lose the battle for you in the end. War is, all said and done, a battle of logistics and attrition with a strategy being the goal. Tactics are just one way of tipping the scales of attrition in your favor.
I know that war was a gentlemans game played with others lives. I have to wonder though at what point did commanders ever understand that humans are needed to accomplish objectives and that throwing away a finite resource is not going to accomplish what they set out to do.
I do believe though you answered the question well. As, I may be, answering my own question. They simply don't understand, in all their wisdom, that using up a resource will lose the battle for you in the end. War is, all said and done, a battle of logistics and attrition with a strategy being the goal. Tactics are just one way of tipping the scales of attrition in your favor.
Last edited:
Sandwarrior.... well put!
I did mean to post some worthwhile WW1 titles...
The Guns of August, as mentioned earlier, to me ranks as one of the greats. Of note, one of the profs. I recently chatted with about the subject blew off Tuchman and po-po'd the book because she didn't have a PhD and he claimed she was "all wrong" and that a colleague of his was writing an even more definitive book to correct her. I wanted to dope slap him. Yes, a 1962 book may be dated... but to denigrate an author because she lacks a PhD? I wanted to ask him how many Pulitzers he had won.
The Marne 1914 by Herwig is outstanding.
An odd book is The Great War and Modern Memory by Paul Fussell. He is a great historian and this book is worth a look as it lays out the differences between what happened... and how the war was portrayed.
A rather truncated book is World War 1 by Hanson and Baldwin. A bit dated, but gives a great overview of the major events.
For a look at the Gallipoli campaign, which was really more important than folks give credit... and shaped Churchill's views on how WW2 should be fought, Gallipoli The End of the Myth by Robin Prior is really first rate.
And for some real insight into how the current Middle East got that way... some recent books on T.E. Lawrence and others who shaped the modern Middle East include Scott Anderson's recent Lawrence In Arabia (a first rate read!), and Ronald Florence's Lawrence and Aaronsohn (Aaron Aaronsohn the Zionist agronomist who also plays into Anderson's work) are both great. While WW1 shaped a lot of things in Europe, its effect on the Middle East was, in some ways, more profound.
And I think I mentioned Wilkinson's PALS of the Somme earlier. That is a sobering and revealing look at Kitcheners offensive and the utter waste of that offensive.
For those interested in snipercraft in WW1... McBride's Rifleman Went to War as mentioned above and Sniping in France by Hesketh Prichard are hard to beat. And for a worms-eye view of the war, McBride's other book The Emma Gees is also just an amazing read. Another great technology book is "Treat 'em Rough" which os a first rate book about the early Tank Corps and very revealing about Eisenhower and Patton who were the first two senior Tank Corps Officers. It's just an amazing read. By a Tank officer c. 1990... just before the Gulf war. His name escapes me.
Last, John Toland's biography Adolph Hitler... not only about WW1, it shows with amazing fidelity how WW2 was, in essence, simply an extension of WW1. It's 1200 pages of fascinating research conducted by Toland in the 1970's when many of the protagonists were still alive and lucid. Though it focuses on Hitler's WW1 career only for a few dozen pages, it shows the evolution of a defeated Germany through the Versailles punishments and the incompetence of Weimar Germany... and how the WW1 Veterans were so appalled by the descent of their nation that National Socialism could rise as quickly as it did.
There are, literally, 10,000 books about WW1. One can make a career studying just a single offensive, battle or technology. My areas of interest are late industrial revolution technology insertion and, perhaps moreso, the Arab Revolt and the role played by the Imperialists in shaping the modern sandbox. For anyone interested in that area in particular, I can send a really indepth bibliography. One book worth reading is T.E. Lawrence's Oriental Assembly. Getting hard to find cheap, but his 'editorials' on the Middle East which were published in OA... go well beyond his musings in Seven Pillars (which is also an interesting read, but laborious and -- daresay -- overrated as a piece of literature.) Ok I said it.
As I mentioned, this promises to be an interesting thread... with at least 4.5 years of events to discuss, not the least of which will be the August offensive and the Marne... later this summer! I have yet to hear anyone bring up the Schlieffen Plan, but that little topic will keep military historians busy pontificating and pounding tables for days on end. Wind them up and watch them go! It's like Maury Povich having a special on maneuver warfare!
Cheers,
Sirhr
I did mean to post some worthwhile WW1 titles...
The Guns of August, as mentioned earlier, to me ranks as one of the greats. Of note, one of the profs. I recently chatted with about the subject blew off Tuchman and po-po'd the book because she didn't have a PhD and he claimed she was "all wrong" and that a colleague of his was writing an even more definitive book to correct her. I wanted to dope slap him. Yes, a 1962 book may be dated... but to denigrate an author because she lacks a PhD? I wanted to ask him how many Pulitzers he had won.
The Marne 1914 by Herwig is outstanding.
An odd book is The Great War and Modern Memory by Paul Fussell. He is a great historian and this book is worth a look as it lays out the differences between what happened... and how the war was portrayed.
A rather truncated book is World War 1 by Hanson and Baldwin. A bit dated, but gives a great overview of the major events.
For a look at the Gallipoli campaign, which was really more important than folks give credit... and shaped Churchill's views on how WW2 should be fought, Gallipoli The End of the Myth by Robin Prior is really first rate.
And for some real insight into how the current Middle East got that way... some recent books on T.E. Lawrence and others who shaped the modern Middle East include Scott Anderson's recent Lawrence In Arabia (a first rate read!), and Ronald Florence's Lawrence and Aaronsohn (Aaron Aaronsohn the Zionist agronomist who also plays into Anderson's work) are both great. While WW1 shaped a lot of things in Europe, its effect on the Middle East was, in some ways, more profound.
And I think I mentioned Wilkinson's PALS of the Somme earlier. That is a sobering and revealing look at Kitcheners offensive and the utter waste of that offensive.
For those interested in snipercraft in WW1... McBride's Rifleman Went to War as mentioned above and Sniping in France by Hesketh Prichard are hard to beat. And for a worms-eye view of the war, McBride's other book The Emma Gees is also just an amazing read. Another great technology book is "Treat 'em Rough" which os a first rate book about the early Tank Corps and very revealing about Eisenhower and Patton who were the first two senior Tank Corps Officers. It's just an amazing read. By a Tank officer c. 1990... just before the Gulf war. His name escapes me.
Last, John Toland's biography Adolph Hitler... not only about WW1, it shows with amazing fidelity how WW2 was, in essence, simply an extension of WW1. It's 1200 pages of fascinating research conducted by Toland in the 1970's when many of the protagonists were still alive and lucid. Though it focuses on Hitler's WW1 career only for a few dozen pages, it shows the evolution of a defeated Germany through the Versailles punishments and the incompetence of Weimar Germany... and how the WW1 Veterans were so appalled by the descent of their nation that National Socialism could rise as quickly as it did.
There are, literally, 10,000 books about WW1. One can make a career studying just a single offensive, battle or technology. My areas of interest are late industrial revolution technology insertion and, perhaps moreso, the Arab Revolt and the role played by the Imperialists in shaping the modern sandbox. For anyone interested in that area in particular, I can send a really indepth bibliography. One book worth reading is T.E. Lawrence's Oriental Assembly. Getting hard to find cheap, but his 'editorials' on the Middle East which were published in OA... go well beyond his musings in Seven Pillars (which is also an interesting read, but laborious and -- daresay -- overrated as a piece of literature.) Ok I said it.
As I mentioned, this promises to be an interesting thread... with at least 4.5 years of events to discuss, not the least of which will be the August offensive and the Marne... later this summer! I have yet to hear anyone bring up the Schlieffen Plan, but that little topic will keep military historians busy pontificating and pounding tables for days on end. Wind them up and watch them go! It's like Maury Povich having a special on maneuver warfare!
Cheers,
Sirhr
In reference to some of McBride's exploits, "Precision Shooting" magazine had an article some time ago where an American writer found some terrain as described by McBride in his book and located one of his "hides" in a surviving building. Even found some corroded .303 in clips under a layer of dirt.
To help this thread stay alive a while longer, I had to study some of the battles that were fought in WWI. Regarding what we discussed about the tactical mindsets of that war and I was amazed to read about the tactics used in the Dardanelles/Gallipoli campaign. No damn wonder they got pounded.
One of the books I listed above, Gallipoli, the end of the Myth, dissects the mess that was the Dardanelles campaign just brilliantly. First, the whole concept was flawed (threaten the Turks NOT to join the Central Powers...) Then the attack plan was arrived at through argument and compromise... it was basically the one plan that everyone didn't hate as much as the other plans. Then conduct a frontal assault on an elevated peninsula... drive your ships into a mined channel. It was an idiotic concept and the planning/execution was even worse. If you read only one book about Gallipoli... read Robin Prior.
The sad part (and this is part of the fascinating nature of WW1, which begat WW2) is that Churchill's constant pressure to invade Europe from its "Soft Underbelly" in WW2 was arguably his attempting to re-fight the Dardanelles and vindicate his WW1 plan which failed so badly. He was convinced his plan was the one way to end the war early... and thought that the same strategy would work in WW2. As much as I admire Mr. Churchill... he was dead wrong on the Dardanelles and repeating that approach in WW2 would have likely been a bloodbath.
Definitely need to keep this thread going! Cheers,
Sirhr
The sad part (and this is part of the fascinating nature of WW1, which begat WW2) is that Churchill's constant pressure to invade Europe from its "Soft Underbelly" in WW2 was arguably his attempting to re-fight the Dardanelles and vindicate his WW1 plan which failed so badly. He was convinced his plan was the one way to end the war early... and thought that the same strategy would work in WW2. As much as I admire Mr. Churchill... he was dead wrong on the Dardanelles and repeating that approach in WW2 would have likely been a bloodbath.
Definitely need to keep this thread going! Cheers,
Sirhr
Outstanding analysis Sirhr!! I also find it ironic that the "soft underbelly of Europe" was actually never penetrated in WWII, except for France. But in WWII the real breakdown of France was fully initiated and consumated with the initial invasion. The vast majority of the work was done from there. Not the South of France. Backing up to the big picture, Churchill's inadequacies from WWI never materialized in his WWII plans. Others succeeded for him in the tactical aspect. But he succeeded in the overall strategy eventually. Meaning: he got done what he needed, just not how he thought it should have been done.
Along with that, he was overruled in the U.S. about invading Europe vs. N. Africa first. We had to test our mettle, equipment and tactics before we took on the Minotaur. We had to find his weaknesses. See where his chains would break under stress. But, we had to stress them to find out.
Something I find congruently amazing and disgusting is those who tossed men into the meat grinders of WWI and never bothered to take away the lesson of what worked and what didn't and why. Why, so as to have something to bring home and mull over when considering how to teach the next generation how to make decisions in combat. I see that lesson as very important in the U.S. Although, I ran into enough knotheads in my day that thought a one track mind was sufficient to sustain a twenty year career in the U.S. Army (and other branches) My caveat to that is I also met some of the most brilliant minds I had ever met up to that time. I fully understand many people are smarter than I am, but the lack of their experience in certain areas shows an inability to make sound decisions areas relating to the task at hand.
Which of course brings us back to where we were.... Full circle, and let the discussion begin anew.
Last edited:
theres always talk of the ww2 generation being true hardcore warriors, and i agree they were some mean motherfuckers but the ww1 guys are almost getting forgotten it seems. Those guys truly went thru some of the most brutal face to face horror in warfare history, thrown wave after wave into the newly perfected machine gun at 200 yards and less etc etc. I side bit I find fascinating is the air war during ww1, such new technology at its infant stages. Those early airmen climbed in slow moving wood framed contraptions and flew around shooting each other with machine guns at close ranges comparitavley speaking. When not doing that they flew within rifle range above the the trenchlines and hand dropped grenades and what not.
VJJ... Great points about the privations of those soldiers...
Your bringing up aircraft, though, is my real fascination with that war. It was industrialized warfare. Arguably a lot of 21st century technology inserted into 18th century tactics. Utter carnage resulted.
Consider that the whole Schlieffen Plan (how to fight a two-front war) was predicated on a fast swing through France and then a return towards Russia. But it was largely foiled by France's ability to mobilize using the famous "Taxicabs of the Marne" (the taxis got famous... but it was a lot more rolling stock, including railroads...) to move troops just in time to stall the German advance. Something the elder Schlieffen had not contemplated when he drew up the plan... and the General Staff failed to consider when they implemented the plan, decades after it was first created. So from the earliest days of WW1, it was impacted by a brand new technology: The Internal Combustion Engine and, at a more base level, the mass production of interchangeable parts.
For a great book on early arms production and early mass-production, David Hounshell's book From the American System to Mass Production, 1800-1932: The Development of Manufacturing Technology in the United States is an amazing read. It really shows how manufacturing impacted the American Civil War but, more importantly, WW1. I bought my copy at the Springfield Armory National Historical Site... in their great bookstore/gift shop. For anyone in New England, the Springfield Armory museum located in downtown Springfield is amazing. Always open and always empty. The collection is first rate! There is excellent (and safe) parking right at the site.
Cheers,
Sirhr
Your bringing up aircraft, though, is my real fascination with that war. It was industrialized warfare. Arguably a lot of 21st century technology inserted into 18th century tactics. Utter carnage resulted.
Consider that the whole Schlieffen Plan (how to fight a two-front war) was predicated on a fast swing through France and then a return towards Russia. But it was largely foiled by France's ability to mobilize using the famous "Taxicabs of the Marne" (the taxis got famous... but it was a lot more rolling stock, including railroads...) to move troops just in time to stall the German advance. Something the elder Schlieffen had not contemplated when he drew up the plan... and the General Staff failed to consider when they implemented the plan, decades after it was first created. So from the earliest days of WW1, it was impacted by a brand new technology: The Internal Combustion Engine and, at a more base level, the mass production of interchangeable parts.
For a great book on early arms production and early mass-production, David Hounshell's book From the American System to Mass Production, 1800-1932: The Development of Manufacturing Technology in the United States is an amazing read. It really shows how manufacturing impacted the American Civil War but, more importantly, WW1. I bought my copy at the Springfield Armory National Historical Site... in their great bookstore/gift shop. For anyone in New England, the Springfield Armory museum located in downtown Springfield is amazing. Always open and always empty. The collection is first rate! There is excellent (and safe) parking right at the site.
Cheers,
Sirhr
Talk about having balls. it wasn't long after aircraft were introduced and got to being seriously used that aviators found their mounts to be "highly flammable". They covered those wood frames with AA cotton and stiffened that with a wet mixture of 'first cousin to gunpowder'. True story. What they used to stiffen that cotton was so flammable it was literally a death sentence if you were hit with a tracer. Any spark off of a metal fixture in your airframe and up you go.
Both sides knew it and went up anyway.
Added:
To get an idea of how scary this shit is, google: dope and fabric
Last edited:
When getting into the particulars in A&P school, my instructor showed me differently. I don't remember exactly how at this time. However, whether first cousin or "the family tree didn't fork there", the stuff burns like no yesterday. Hitting a plane of that era with a tracer. or anything flammable, sent it down.
The move towards aluminum wasn't motivated by strength, speed and manueverability. It was about not letting the plane burn all the way to the ground. I use a point here I've said often discussing the Japanese Zero. In essence, it was a super advanced WWI aircraft, while the P-40 it was up against was a primitive WWII product. Meaning, the sleek Zero could out-turn anything in the skies. A WWI concept. It could out-turn, zoom climb better, slow roll at low speeds better. The P-40 was faster, but not by much. Unless diving. Then it could pull away in seconds. It could dive at 600+ MPH. And, it was rugged enough to do this. Not only that, but rugged enough to take hits. The Zero was unmatched at WWI speeds. When American pilots figured out what they had as an advantage, it became a one sided match. A couple things the Mitsubishi designers failed to realize was that speeds were to increase and armament in aviation was to increase potential incredibly. A fact they implicitly ignored as they equipped their fighters with 20,30, and 37mm weapons their own aircraft had no chance of sustaining damage on.
As this pertains to WWI, ( I know, I went off on a tangent there) The design concept was all about manueverabilty with no thought towards pilot safety/retention. This is also a facet of why the Germans fell behind in WWII. While having superior aircraft many times in the aircraft arms race, they didn't have the people teaching the tactics that would make these new weapons effective. Being all about individual accomplishment probably hurt them more than anything. This was hugely prevalent in WWI on both sides.
Added: Exception being the U.S. We wanted our people out after a short time to pick their brains. It didn't sit well with a lot of establishment, both old (who thought like the Axis) and the young pilots (who didn't know what really mattered).
Last edited:
Franz who?
When I become infected with a yen to blang away with something historical, I break out my 91-30's. More fun than a box of shaved and greased monkeys they are; cheap to shoot, and no harm done to the more priceless vintage relics.
My Garand is occasionally fired simply to ensure it is good to go when/if a Main Battle Implement needs to be advanced toward the sound of the gunfire.
In my view, nostalgia is a brief and only mildly harmful malady; best left to the more exuberant and wealthy. Would words like 'eccentric' apply here?
Relax, gents; for clearly I jest....
Greg
PS, Actually, some WWI Aircraft and Zeppelins were painted with a mixture of Iron Oxide and Alumina, over muslin that was doped with Nitrocellulose Lacquers. This produced a coating on the fabric surfaces that was chemically about identical to Gun Cotton and Thermite. When ignited, the fabric burned like a flare. Ever watch the Hindenburg fire?
When I become infected with a yen to blang away with something historical, I break out my 91-30's. More fun than a box of shaved and greased monkeys they are; cheap to shoot, and no harm done to the more priceless vintage relics.
My Garand is occasionally fired simply to ensure it is good to go when/if a Main Battle Implement needs to be advanced toward the sound of the gunfire.
In my view, nostalgia is a brief and only mildly harmful malady; best left to the more exuberant and wealthy. Would words like 'eccentric' apply here?
Relax, gents; for clearly I jest....
Greg
PS, Actually, some WWI Aircraft and Zeppelins were painted with a mixture of Iron Oxide and Alumina, over muslin that was doped with Nitrocellulose Lacquers. This produced a coating on the fabric surfaces that was chemically about identical to Gun Cotton and Thermite. When ignited, the fabric burned like a flare. Ever watch the Hindenburg fire?
Last edited:
Very bad combination there. Hydrogen AANND that incredibly flammable skin covering. All set off because it didn't get properly grounded when it came in to moor. Static electricity set that off.
ADDED:
Another little factoid about WWI aviation. Most of the external moving parts in an aircraft engine were greased, not oiled like in WWII and later. Castor oil was used for the pistons and 'splashed' on internal bearings. Later machining channeled oil internally to the bearings. And pumped it with positive pressure.
Last edited:
The aluminum powder in dope is for a UV protectant.
The only difference between nitrocellulose dope and film base and smokeless powder is the degree of nitration.
BTW the Hindenburg fire was probably the dopes cotton envelope instead of the hydrogen.
The only difference between nitrocellulose dope and film base and smokeless powder is the degree of nitration.
BTW the Hindenburg fire was probably the dopes cotton envelope instead of the hydrogen.
Sandwarrior... castor oil was definitely used on the engines, especially the true "Rotary" engines. On a Rotary, the crankshaft was solidly bolted to the airframe and the cylinders rotated around it. Insane design, but worked well, especially as the spinning aided air cooling. The Bentley BR1 (BR2, later) was probably the best Rotary of the war... and launched the career of W.O. Bentley of LeMans car racing fame... (Note that the Rotary is different from a RADIAL, where the crankshaft turns... but the cylinders are stable). The rotary engines were total-loss lube and sent out a spray of castor oil... in a fine mist... that the pilots ingested at a prodigious rate.
Did I mention Castor oil is a tremendous laxative???
Most WW1 pilots suffered from a constant case of Montezuma's Revenge. It is said that they wore those long scarfs not to be dashing... but to wipe their a**es in flight. Maybe true, maybe not. But the Air Force nickname for flight suits (Poopie suits) is probably not without some historical roots. And it is well documented that most WW1 pilots suffered tremendously from diarrhea.
This, BTW, is a model of a Bentley BR2 built by a friend of mine. It produced several HP and would have chopped a finger without missing a beat. It took him about 1000 hours of machining. Pretty cool, though.
Cheers,
Sirhr
I 'm sitting here completely fascinated by a turning propeller. Go figure.
L
L
[video=youtube;QoCjro11ZQ0#t=77]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QoCjro11ZQ0#t=77[/video]
Here's one on a model airplane...
And for anyone who is really good with a machine shop...
http://www.amazon.com/Bentley-World-Rotary-Aero-Engine/dp/0951936743
This is the book that my friend used to build his...
Cheers,
Sirhr
Here's one on a model airplane...
And for anyone who is really good with a machine shop...
http://www.amazon.com/Bentley-World-Rotary-Aero-Engine/dp/0951936743
This is the book that my friend used to build his...
Cheers,
Sirhr
It's the turning engine that has you mesmerized...
Thanks for those posts sirhr. FWIW, we had a Gnome in the engine shop when I went through the P side. According to the instructor, the class before us had it running.
added: P-factor was horrendous on these
Last edited:
I know where there is a BR2, basically rotting in a shed. Belongs to a 'hoarder/collection.' He won't part with it, even for restoration. Shame.
We are just days away from the opening shots of WW1... has anyone seen the History Channel series that is getting ready to launch? They colorized a bunch of WW1 footage. Seems sort of sacrilegious, but at the same time, might be fascinating. I'll be DVRing it for sure.
Cheers,
Sirhr
We are just days away from the opening shots of WW1... has anyone seen the History Channel series that is getting ready to launch? They colorized a bunch of WW1 footage. Seems sort of sacrilegious, but at the same time, might be fascinating. I'll be DVRing it for sure.
Cheers,
Sirhr
BTW Poopie suit is not the flight suit, but the anti-exposure suit worn for over water flights (flying to Europe). And yes, if you are doing a 12 hour flight and you got to go, you got to go. Also, in WWI, they did not wear a flight suit like we know. They worn a normal uniform.
I have read that WWI pilots flying behind rotary engines were met upon landing with a glass of brandy. Supposedly reduced the effects of the castor oil. Maybe, maybe no, but I am sure after a flight in one of those things, a glass of brandy would be welcome.
Also, in WWI, they did not wear a flight suit like we know. They worn a normal uniform.I have read that WWI pilots flying behind rotary engines were met upon landing with a glass of brandy. Supposedly reduced the effects of the castor oil. Maybe, maybe no, but I am sure after a flight in one of those things, a glass of brandy would be welcome.
They wore "leathers". Originally, it was what you had or had made. Then the Army decided they ought to make it a uniform thing. Starting with a leather flying cap then the trenchcoat style flight jacket which morphed shorter and shorter to what we see today as standard.
Edit: They wore their standard uniforms under the leathers. Until such time as the various leather garments were accepted as uniform.
Edit: They wore their standard uniforms under the leathers. Until such time as the various leather garments were accepted as uniform.
If any of you ever get to Kansas City MO, take a day and go the the National Word War One Museum, it is the Official national WW1 museum.
It is very cool, Opened Nov 11 1926, the outside of it is a huge carved stone fresco and the displays are amazing!
https://theworldwar.org/
For some more in-site about the war read the book "Misfire: The Story of How America's Small Arms Have Failed Our Military".
The title is a bit misleading, its about how the US Ordnance dept. tried to let soldiers die to save ammo, an interesting theme that carried from the first repeating firearm through the M16A2.
In 1900 or 1902 John Browning went to Springfield Armory and showed them what would become the M1917 and the BAR, the head of the Armory said that "They had no value on the modern battlefield", Maxim and Lewis would get the same answer and ultimately sell guns to all the other players of the Big One.
When I was a young man we would serve dinner to WW1 Vets on Armistice day at a local church, they were some neat old dudes.
It is very cool, Opened Nov 11 1926, the outside of it is a huge carved stone fresco and the displays are amazing!
https://theworldwar.org/
For some more in-site about the war read the book "Misfire: The Story of How America's Small Arms Have Failed Our Military".
The title is a bit misleading, its about how the US Ordnance dept. tried to let soldiers die to save ammo, an interesting theme that carried from the first repeating firearm through the M16A2.
In 1900 or 1902 John Browning went to Springfield Armory and showed them what would become the M1917 and the BAR, the head of the Armory said that "They had no value on the modern battlefield", Maxim and Lewis would get the same answer and ultimately sell guns to all the other players of the Big One.
When I was a young man we would serve dinner to WW1 Vets on Armistice day at a local church, they were some neat old dudes.
Wow, let soldiers die to save ammo? Im not really understanding that statement, could you go into a bit more detail about? Sounds pretty maddening though.
I could read conversations between sandwarrior and sirhr for days.
By the way, for anyone that knows, I know the Vickers had a stated range of 2000yd, but what is the furthest distance a good crew could expect to hit a single enemy?
Also, sirhr, have you read "Out of Nowhere: History of Snipers"? There is a real good section in there on WW1. I thought it was pretty interesting that some Brits were known to bring in personal dangerous game rifles(ie .416 Rigby or one of the NE double rifles) and use those to punch through armor plates the Germans would use.
Thanks for the compliment! It's a fun thread. And what I think separates SH from a lot of forums and what makes the Vintage section so interesting... there are some serious historians here whose stuff I love to read. It's not just for the tacticool... Many really first rate minds... some of whom also happen to be serious and accomplished marksmen. There's some amazing firearms that folks have shown on this thread from their collections ;-) Particularly some Schuetzen rifles and some interesting and rare precision rifles! For me, this is the best section on SH...
The Vickers could lob rounds a long way... If you want to spend some time studying the little gizmo below from my collection... this is a Vickers Machine Gunners Slide Rule. It works on the same general "vernier" slide principle as a Mil Dot Master. Designed to help set inclination, declination, deflection, wind, dropping rounds BLOS, etc. It's graduated out to 2800 yards, from what I can determine. Should give a good idea of the effective range of a Vickers in the hands of a crew that knew what they were doing. 2800 yds is well over a mile... And with a high rate of fire, one likely had some good hit probabilities out to those ranges.
This unit is WWII Australian. Would be for .303 Ball. It's steel over wood. It would not surprise me if the ballistics on this were pretty close to bolt-action Enfields. Just a neat thing I picked up and thought people might like to see. It goes with my Vickers Belt fed... currently undergoing restoration. And you thought firing a machine gun was easy...
For some great info on MG tactics in WW1, check out McBride's other book The EmmaGees . He walks through some deployment stories and really gets into the doctrine! There is some overlap with Rifleman went to War.... but it's an outstanding book as well. A WW1 classic.
Yes, I have a copy of Pegler's Out of Nowhere. Outstanding book! Been a few years since I read it, but if I remember, it goes all the way back to Morgan and may answer an earlier question in this thread about Morgans' Riflemen's capabilities in the Revolutionary War. Peglar really did a great job researching the history of military precision marksmanship. And in WW1 we find the roots of much in the way of modern military scout/sniper tactics. Lessons that were forgotten (and relearned) for WW2. And forgotten and relearned, again, in Vietnam. As I recall, Pegler also talks about the stigma of military sniper doctrine... and the prejudice against it by conventional military thinkers who think good tactics involves marching Private Cannon Fodder into machine guns in order to gain 10 feet of front. These folks seem to largely regard sniping as somehow unsporting and ungentlemanly. Balderdash...
Cheers,
Sirhr
Last edited:
Ordnance or Supply?
I was doing some reading on rations, and found that during WWII they actually developed a general purpose ration, a tropical ration, and a cold weather ration. Specifically tailored to the nutritional needs for the various climates. Supply Crop would not handle them, as it was to difficult to get the right ones to the right people, so they only went with the general purpose one, whiich reduced the effectiveness of soldiers in tropical or cold climates.
Hmm, I thought the job of Supply was to get the right stuff to the right people at the right time.
Thanks for the compliment! It's a fun thread. And what I think separates SH from a lot of forums and what makes the Vintage section so interesting... there are some serious historians here whose stuff I love to read. It's not just for the tacticool... Many really first rate minds... some of whom also happen to be serious and accomplished marksmen. There's some amazing firearms that folks have shown on this thread from their collections ;-) Particularly some Schuetzen rifles and some interesting and rare precision rifles! For me, this is the best section on SH...
The Vickers could lob rounds a long way... If you want to spend some time studying the little gizmo below from my collection... this is a Vickers Machine Gunners Slide Rule. It works on the same general "vernier" slide principle as a Mil Dot Master. Designed to help set inclination, declination, deflection, wind, dropping rounds BLOS, etc. It's graduated out to 2800 yards, from what I can determine. Should give a good idea of the effective range of a Vickers in the hands of a crew that knew what they were doing. 2800 yds is well over a mile... And with a high rate of fire, one likely had some good hit probabilities out to those ranges.
This unit is WWII Australian. Would be for .303 Ball. It's steel over wood. It would not surprise me if the ballistics on this were pretty close to bolt-action Enfields. Just a neat thing I picked up and thought people might like to see. It goes with my Vickers Belt fed... currently undergoing restoration. And you thought firing a machine gun was easy...
For some great info on MG tactics in WW1, check out McBride's other book The EmmaGees . He walks through some deployment stories and really gets into the doctrine! There is some overlap with Rifleman went to War.... but it's an outstanding book as well. A WW1 classic.
Yes, I have a copy of Pegler's Out of Nowhere. Outstanding book! Been a few years since I read it, but if I remember, it goes all the way back to Morgan and may answer an earlier question in this thread about Morgans' Riflemen's capabilities in the Revolutionary War. Peglar really did a great job researching the history of military precision marksmanship. And in WW1 we find the roots of much in the way of modern military scout/sniper tactics. Lessons that were forgotten (and relearned) for WW2. And forgotten and relearned, again, in Vietnam. As I recall, Pegler also talks about the stigma of military sniper doctrine... and the prejudice against it by conventional military thinkers who think good tactics involves marching Private Cannon Fodder into machine guns in order to gain 10 feet of front. These folks seem to largely regard sniping as somehow unsporting and ungentlemanly. Balderdash...
Cheers,
Sirhr
Oh wow, you absolutely have to post up a vid of the Vickers when you get done.
And yes sir, that was me asking you about Morgan`s rifleman. Kinda strange we dont seem to have much of a blackpowder crowd here as far as muzzleloaders and people who actually shoot them.
Thanks for replying sir.
And yes sir, "Out of Nowhere" aint the only place Ive read of traditional infantrymen and their commanders somewhat frowning upon snipers. From the way I understand it, they felt that most rifle/MG and arty fire was just random and if you were hit it was just your bad luck. In comparison to snipers who personally select the target they want...
Hell, even as recently as `Nam there were fellow Marines who called Gunny Hathcock and his men "Murder Inc". Sounds like a bunch of hippies IMO.
By the way sirhr, I know a lot of .mil and military historians dislike his stuff, but what do you think Tom Clancy`s work? I know theres quite a few instances where hes made some errors as far as tactics/weapons/etc, but overall his books are pretty well researched from what Ive seen.
Coyote: An interesting question, best answered in a roundabout way...
Military historians... at least most of the ones with PhD's... seem to despise anyone who has actually... succeeded. They want to live in an insular world of arcane papers, picking apart each others' Chicago Manual citations... conventions... and they seem to take pride in the fact that their books are so insular and badly-written that they are now selling for 99 cents on Amazon. As if the only "Serious" military history is only written for other PhD's. I think that may, however, be true for many historical subsets. I can't tell you how many times I have heard profs (of little repute) trashing Stephen Ambrose and Dolores Kearns Goodwin for writing "popular" history... as if its popularity makes it less valuable.
IMHO, if history isn't made approachable, popular and readable, there will be no funding for arcane academic history programs where "historians" debate Marxiant Feminist manifestos... and write papers that are as exciting as watching paint dry. People like Ambrose, Cornelius Ryan, Goodwin, Brinkley, Manchester and others... encourage the study of history by making it exciting. I mean, how many of us would appreciate history if we had not read books that made history exciting? So condemning 'interesting' historical texts that are both readable and accurate... as somehow unworthy is an utterly self-defeating concept.
So as for Clancy... he is a wonderful fiction writer. My second favorite in fact. He weaves history into some stories, especially his early ones. And he has some non-fiction books that are good as well... more on that below. Clancy, who I started reading in 1987, is probably my second favorite fiction writer after Frederick Forsythe. But I also like Jack Higgins, Stephen Hunter, Nelson DeMille... and lots of other novelists who are truly entertaining. So, in short, I think Clancy is awsome! But he is a fiction writer! One who keeps me up at night... and whose books I have read again and again. But he is not really a history writer. Nor is he truly an historical fiction writer... like Kenneth Roberts or C.S. Forester, whose fiction was based on really detailed historical events into which those authors inserted fictional protagonists who told the story. Instead, Clancy used broad historical contexts (the Cold War and, later, the GWOT) to create some fun fiction. One could argue that, for example, Red October had some basis in project Azorian and the attempted defection of Pleskys and the revolt on the Storozhevoy... but realistically, it was simply a wonderful yarn! Similarly, his fiction books like Rainbow Six which 'details' HRT tactics, etc... is amusing and great reading. But fiction.
So that's a long way of saying I love Clancy, but accept him for what he was... one of the best storytellers of our generation and one of my favorite thriller authors. But not an historian.
Cheers,
Sirhr
P.S. Anything Clancy wrote with 'other' authors, such as his Netforce, Op Center, Ghost X-Box, etc. fiction series and a few other later works... were utter tripe. I read a couple and simply tossed the books. Once the "Created by Tom Clancy" genre showed up... no interest in those series. Largely crap. But some of his "non-fiction" such as Shadow Warriors, Special Forces, Airborne, Carrier... were pretty well done as reportage. But were they the works of an historian, or a documentarian? IMHO, great primary sources for the next generation of historians ;-) But not history, per-se. More like imbedded reporting!
Military historians... at least most of the ones with PhD's... seem to despise anyone who has actually... succeeded. They want to live in an insular world of arcane papers, picking apart each others' Chicago Manual citations... conventions... and they seem to take pride in the fact that their books are so insular and badly-written that they are now selling for 99 cents on Amazon. As if the only "Serious" military history is only written for other PhD's. I think that may, however, be true for many historical subsets. I can't tell you how many times I have heard profs (of little repute) trashing Stephen Ambrose and Dolores Kearns Goodwin for writing "popular" history... as if its popularity makes it less valuable.
IMHO, if history isn't made approachable, popular and readable, there will be no funding for arcane academic history programs where "historians" debate Marxiant Feminist manifestos... and write papers that are as exciting as watching paint dry. People like Ambrose, Cornelius Ryan, Goodwin, Brinkley, Manchester and others... encourage the study of history by making it exciting. I mean, how many of us would appreciate history if we had not read books that made history exciting? So condemning 'interesting' historical texts that are both readable and accurate... as somehow unworthy is an utterly self-defeating concept.
So as for Clancy... he is a wonderful fiction writer. My second favorite in fact. He weaves history into some stories, especially his early ones. And he has some non-fiction books that are good as well... more on that below. Clancy, who I started reading in 1987, is probably my second favorite fiction writer after Frederick Forsythe. But I also like Jack Higgins, Stephen Hunter, Nelson DeMille... and lots of other novelists who are truly entertaining. So, in short, I think Clancy is awsome! But he is a fiction writer! One who keeps me up at night... and whose books I have read again and again. But he is not really a history writer. Nor is he truly an historical fiction writer... like Kenneth Roberts or C.S. Forester, whose fiction was based on really detailed historical events into which those authors inserted fictional protagonists who told the story. Instead, Clancy used broad historical contexts (the Cold War and, later, the GWOT) to create some fun fiction. One could argue that, for example, Red October had some basis in project Azorian and the attempted defection of Pleskys and the revolt on the Storozhevoy... but realistically, it was simply a wonderful yarn! Similarly, his fiction books like Rainbow Six which 'details' HRT tactics, etc... is amusing and great reading. But fiction.
So that's a long way of saying I love Clancy, but accept him for what he was... one of the best storytellers of our generation and one of my favorite thriller authors. But not an historian.
Cheers,
Sirhr
P.S. Anything Clancy wrote with 'other' authors, such as his Netforce, Op Center, Ghost X-Box, etc. fiction series and a few other later works... were utter tripe. I read a couple and simply tossed the books. Once the "Created by Tom Clancy" genre showed up... no interest in those series. Largely crap. But some of his "non-fiction" such as Shadow Warriors, Special Forces, Airborne, Carrier... were pretty well done as reportage. But were they the works of an historian, or a documentarian? IMHO, great primary sources for the next generation of historians ;-) But not history, per-se. More like imbedded reporting!
Absolutely, didnt mean to imply he was a historian, just wondering. Ive also read a bit of the Op Center series and thought it was writ for the mentally defective.
Also, Idk how much of a game-player you are, but have you played Assassin`s Creed 3? Or any of the AC series? They did some really cool stuff with AC3, basically fiction weaved into the Revolution as a backdrop. Basically all of the games in that series are like that. And from what Ive read, the group that game was based on, the assassins or "hashashins" were a real, albeit mysterious group that existed around the time of the 2nd(or 3rd?) Crusade somewhere around Syria I believe. Obviously I doubt them or the Templars are still around in any capacity though. That is, unless you believe stuff that the "new" History Channel puts out, like Ancient Aliens lol. Still pretty cool games though.
By the way, when does that WW1 show come on History Channel you referred to earlier? I definitely gotta check that out.
Coyote,
It started with the Civil war and repeating rifles, the Ordnance dept said fast loading weapons were a way for soldiers to waste ammo. They believed that if you only had
a limited number of shots available, and that you had to go through a long reloading process you would make better shots. There is a kernel of logic in it, but I want more ammo.
At the beginning of the Civil war there were repeaters available, specifically the Yellow boy and the Spencer. There were a few "well to do" northern commanders
that purchased these rifles for their unites with their own money and used them with great efficacy.
After the war, some southern soldiers were interviewed and mentioned how scary it was when the Yankees with the repeaters would lay down and shoot at them all day with our reloading.
One southern General (can't remember which one) said "If the North started out with repeaters, the war would have not lasted a year".
So this is the beginning of the Gravel-belly, A term coined to describe a soldier, prone, making the shot that will win wars. As we know these fine gentlemen were shredded by Spandau's, Vickers, Lewis guns, BAR's (until they were pulled off the front line because Gen. Pershing was afraid the Germans might capture one) and the 3-5 minutes the Chauchat's ran.
Pinecone,
It was the Ordnance Dept/Springfield Armory, from the Civil war till the M16A2, they constantly whinned about how fast the Soldiers could waste ammo.
We were given a rifle that had no fullauto but a 3 rd burst, instead of training.
It started with the Civil war and repeating rifles, the Ordnance dept said fast loading weapons were a way for soldiers to waste ammo. They believed that if you only had
a limited number of shots available, and that you had to go through a long reloading process you would make better shots. There is a kernel of logic in it, but I want more ammo.
At the beginning of the Civil war there were repeaters available, specifically the Yellow boy and the Spencer. There were a few "well to do" northern commanders
that purchased these rifles for their unites with their own money and used them with great efficacy.
After the war, some southern soldiers were interviewed and mentioned how scary it was when the Yankees with the repeaters would lay down and shoot at them all day with our reloading.
One southern General (can't remember which one) said "If the North started out with repeaters, the war would have not lasted a year".
So this is the beginning of the Gravel-belly, A term coined to describe a soldier, prone, making the shot that will win wars. As we know these fine gentlemen were shredded by Spandau's, Vickers, Lewis guns, BAR's (until they were pulled off the front line because Gen. Pershing was afraid the Germans might capture one) and the 3-5 minutes the Chauchat's ran.
Pinecone,
It was the Ordnance Dept/Springfield Armory, from the Civil war till the M16A2, they constantly whinned about how fast the Soldiers could waste ammo.
We were given a rifle that had no fullauto but a 3 rd burst, instead of training.
Thanks.
But I bet Supply had a say also, as they did not want to have to deliver all that ammo.
Chief of Ordnance Brigadier General James Wolfe Ripley was principally responsible for the Union not employing repeating rifles...the old miser also was against purchasing additional stands of rifle muskets, feeling that existing stands of smooth bore muskets could be successfully rifled.
I don't see that much of an advantage, yes the 308 is a tad lighter then the '06, and the M14 was a tad shorter, but that's it. I don't think in WWII the M14 would have been that much better then the M1.
I've shot both quite a bit, Having gone through basic, AIT and with the 82nd prior to going to Vietnam plus I've shot the M14 in competition getting my Dist. Badge with it. And I've shot the Garand quite a bit in competition and instructed others in its use.
There really isn't that much difference. Yes the M14 has a 20 round mag, vs the 8 for the Garand, but (except for high power shooters who practice rapid fire) for the average soldier, the Garand can be fired as or almost as fast as the M14, because the average soldier wrestles with the mag release to get it out and the next mag locked in. This could be over come with training and practice but it wasn't.
The one advantage of the M14 is that you could re-charge the mag without removing it from the rifle with stripper clips, but again, soldiers don't carry stripper clips with the M-14 even though much of the ammo came in 5 round clips.
With the Garand when one clip flies out you stuff another one.
Try a test. Fire 24 rounds from both guns and see which one can do it faster, Unless you've shot a lot of rapid fire with the M14, there isn't that much difference.
In WWII, I doubt there would have been any difference.
However, Pre-WWII is like now, there was no money for switching ammo, there wasn't even the money to pay the troops, there were pay cuts and such. Mc Arther was right, there simply wasn't the money to re-tool for different ammo. We didn't even have enough ammo at the start of the war to repel an invasion if the Japanese decided to invade the mainland.
I just don't see the advent of a M14 style rifle would have changed much in WWII.
