Welcome to the WWII Forums! Log in or Sign up to interact with the community.

USMC gear !

Discussion in 'WWII Books & Publications' started by Erich, Jun 16, 2003.

  1. Erich

    Erich Alte Hase

    Joined:
    May 13, 2001
    Messages:
    14,439
    Likes Received:
    617
    Gentlemen, Bender Publications will be releasing at month's end

    "Grunt Gear" covering the USMC Combat Infantry Equipment in WW 2.
    author : Alec S. Tulkoff. Book has 336 pages, large format, 560 colour pics, 120 + black and white , 90+ drawings, schematics and blueprints and over 2,000 USMC specific rifle and sub-mg gun serial numbers......whoa dudes ! :eek: :D
    A big book.......$ 79.95 plus postage

    ~E
     
  2. C.Evans

    C.Evans Expert

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2000
    Messages:
    25,883
    Likes Received:
    855
    Being I do not collect American stuff---that is a book I can safely say that I will gladly pass on. :D :D :D
     
  3. WW2_USMC_COLLECTOR

    WW2_USMC_COLLECTOR New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2017
    Messages:
    3
    Likes Received:
    1
    Howdy, do any of you guys know if marines were ever issued army cartridge belts in WW2....if anyone knows please respond
     
  4. LRusso216

    LRusso216 Graybeard Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2009
    Messages:
    13,591
    Likes Received:
    2,181
    Location:
    Pennsylvania
    This seems to answer your query.
    USMC infantry at that time used only .45 ACP for handguns and submachine guns and .30-06 for rifles and full-size machine guns. Although the US Army had adopted the semi-auto M1 Garand as early as 1936, the US Marine Corps clung to their bolt-action Model 1903 “Springfield.”
    GUNS OF THE PACIFIC | GUNS Magazine, October 2010
     
  5. USMCPrice

    USMCPrice Idiot at Large

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2009
    Messages:
    4,617
    Likes Received:
    1,656
    Location:
    God's Country
    Unfortunately Lou, that is a poorly written article, and inaccurate:

    "Captured Japanese rice augmented US food supplied, but in regard to ammunition their small arms needs in 1942 were simple in variety if not quantity. USMC infantry at that time used only .45 ACP for handguns and submachine guns and .30-06 for rifles and full-size machine guns. Although the US Army had adopted the semi-auto M1 Garand as early as 1936, the US Marine Corps clung to their bolt-action Model 1903 “Springfield.”
    They considered the ’03 more accurate and reliable than the new semi-auto, despite the fact the M1 could fire eight rounds with a pull of the trigger for each, while the ’03 required bolt manipulation for every one of the five rounds its magazine held. In the close range jungle combat that was more the rule on Guadalcanal, precise accuracy was not as important as firepower, as ordinary Marine infantryman quickly realized. The .30-06’s long-range capability was not needed in the jungle, but its ability to penetrate foliage and even trees was appreciated."


    -First, ".45 ACP for handguns and submachine guns and .30-06 for rifles and full-size machine guns" remained the main ammunition requirement throughout WWII for Marines and into Korea, with the addition of the .30 carbine for the M1 Carbine which only began to be fielded in mid-42 (June) at the time the Guadalcanal Marines had already deployed to the Pacific. Additionally, priority for the M1 carbine production was given to the ETO for . Secondly, how does this ammunition requirement with regards to calibers, differ from a US Army unit of the same period? Had he made the point that the M1 required an enbloc clip he might have a point, but that's not what he's saying.
    -The author doesn't appear to realize, or clumsily stated that .30-06 ammunition was also used in M1 rifle as well as in the .03, BAR, M-1917 BMG, and M-1919 BMG. Note the last line; "The .30-06’s long-range capability was not needed in the jungle, but its ability to penetrate foliage and even trees was appreciated." Further, the M1 had a similar long-range capability to the .03. That was not the issue, in the December 1940 service trials comparing the 03 Springfield, Winchester semi-automatic rifle (eventually scaled down and re-worked to become the M1-carbine), Johnson rifle, and M1 Garand. The M1 was determined to be the best of the semi-auto's, but inferior in reliability to the 03. The gas system was again reworked and the M1 was adopted by the Marine Corps in March 1941 (all US Army M1's delivered prior to the re-work of the gas system were retro-fitted with the improved system). The problem was that the entire US military was expanding and M1 production was insufficient to meet all the needs. The Secretary of War had to intervene and order that the Marine Corps receive 3,000 Garands per month. Accuracy (which is actually similar) was not a determining issue.
    -Here is an accurate account of what the initial reticence towards the new rifle by the Marine Corps was:

    "The first batch to be received by the Marines were 400 M1’s to come fresh off the line at Springfield Armory early in the first production run. With the majority in the 2,000 through 4,000 serial number range, the new “gas trap” Garands (called such due to their method of “trapping” the discharge of gas to cycle the action) would be put through rigorous field testing. The Marines were quick to pick up on several key flaws of the earliest version of the Garand, most notably a design deficiency that impeded the functioning of the 7th round loaded into each en bloc clip to be chambered, as well as issues with the gas trap system itself. The first test showed promise but the Corps brass would somewhat cool on the rifle until improvements could be made."

    Most people that comment on the initial acceptance by the Marine Corps of the M1 are not aware that there was a design change to the M1, which the Army retrofitted to their Garands. They are also not cognizant that the Marine Corps did have units at the time equipped with the Garand. Early in the war when we were on the defensive, the Marine Defense Battalions were critical in attempting to stop Japan's expansion, they were some of the first units to receive the semi-auto rifle. The 6th Defense Battalion which helped defend Midway were equipped with the M1 during the June 1942 battle. Fortunately, the Naval battle prevented the Japanese landing. The 3d Defense Battalion did land at Guadalcanal armed with the M1 as did several other units.

    [​IMG]

    Members of 3d Defense Bn 07 August 1942 landing at Guadalcanal, note the M1 carried by the Marine in the foreground and the Marine to the far left.

    [​IMG]

    This is a picture of a fighting hole on Edson's Ridge in 3/1's area at the time of the September 12-14, 1942 battle. The first Army unit the 164th Infantry didn't arrive for another month (13 October 1942). Note the M1?

    The reason the infantry regiments were not fully re-equipped was the Marine Corps did not have sufficient numbers of the Garands, insufficient stockpiles of spare parts, insufficient stockpiles of .30-06 in enbloc clip, insufficient unit armorer training with the new weapon, and early deployment of the units overseas due to the strategic situation.
     
  6. LRusso216

    LRusso216 Graybeard Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2009
    Messages:
    13,591
    Likes Received:
    2,181
    Location:
    Pennsylvania
    Bob, not having been a Marine, I'll bow to your expertise. Obviously, your answer is much superior to mine. I'm glad you came around and corrected me. Thanks (and especially for not beating me over the head :happy:)
     
  7. USMCPrice

    USMCPrice Idiot at Large

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2009
    Messages:
    4,617
    Likes Received:
    1,656
    Location:
    God's Country
    You're one my mentors here Lou, and if I ever disrespected you I'd feel I was a lesser man.
     
    CAC likes this.
  8. LRusso216

    LRusso216 Graybeard Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2009
    Messages:
    13,591
    Likes Received:
    2,181
    Location:
    Pennsylvania
    *Blush* Thanks Bob, I'll always bow to your superior knowledge when it comes to Marines.
     
  9. CAC

    CAC Ace of Spades

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2010
    Messages:
    5,920
    Likes Received:
    877
    "The reason the infantry regiments were not fully re-equipped was the Marine Corps did not have sufficient numbers of the Garands, insufficient stockpiles of spare parts, insufficient stockpiles of .30-06 in enbloc clip, insufficient unit armorer training with the new weapon, and early deployment of the units overseas due to the strategic situation."

    I find it amazing that the US was insufficient in ANYTHING in WW2...a mind boggling power house of manufacture...interesting.
     
  10. LRusso216

    LRusso216 Graybeard Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2009
    Messages:
    13,591
    Likes Received:
    2,181
    Location:
    Pennsylvania
    I don't find it so hard to believe. While the US was on a war footing in December 1941, supplies couldn't magically appear. It took a while for supply to catch up with a massive call-up of troops. Plus, with it being a two-front conflict, there were bound to be bottlenecks that led to shortages of various items. Eventually, the shortages were overcome.
     
    USMCPrice likes this.
  11. lwd

    lwd Ace

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2007
    Messages:
    12,312
    Likes Received:
    1,230
    Location:
    Michigan
  12. LRusso216

    LRusso216 Graybeard Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2009
    Messages:
    13,591
    Likes Received:
    2,181
    Location:
    Pennsylvania
    Always good to refer to Hyperwar. These documents go a long way toward explaining the US position in a contemporaneous document. Thanks to you for citing them and to Larry for including them.
     

Share This Page