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

WW2 Semi-Automatics

Discussion in 'The Guns Galore Section' started by dave phpbb3, Dec 2, 2006.

  1. dave phpbb3

    dave phpbb3 New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2004
    Messages:
    1,626
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Bristol, England
    via TanksinWW2
    This has been bugging me for awhile, would small arms development or even the way the war was fought change if every major combatant nation had succeded in producing a semi-automatic rifle.

    What would have happened if the British had introduced the White Rifles?

    Or if the Americans chose the Johnson design over the Garand.

    What would have happened if the CCCP could have issued the AVS-36 in larger numbers or pushed the design of the SVT-40 forward.

    Or if the StG.44 or G41/43 were introduced before the war?

    Or if the FG42 was standarized as an infantry weapon before the war.
     
  2. JCalhoun

    JCalhoun New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2004
    Messages:
    1,911
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Mobile, Alabama- Heart of Dixie
    via TanksinWW2
    More rounds would have been fired. ;) :p
     
  3. lynn1212

    lynn1212 New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2005
    Messages:
    351
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    upstate NY USA
    via TanksinWW2
    why the johnston gun over the M-1?

    please explain why that would make any difference? both shot the same round, one carried 8 rounds and the other 10, the M-1 was faster to reload while the johnston could be topped up. about the only major difference i'm aware of is there was a auto verson of the johnston but like all johnstons it was prone to fire out of battery. [very bad that] the M-1 was by far a more robust weapon and far better for bayonet and striking. i'd like hear your reasoning
     
  4. dave phpbb3

    dave phpbb3 New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2004
    Messages:
    1,626
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Bristol, England
    via TanksinWW2
    Re: why the johnston gun over the M-1?


    I was just curious if it would have effected a riflemans ability with a rifle that though could be topped up more easily as you said was more fragile instead of the M1. I'm not degrading the Garand at all just questioning if an aspect of a riflemans ability would have been hindered if the Johnson had been chosen instead. The Johnson was used by Marine Paras because it was easiers to take apart than the Garand so it did have one thing going for it.
     
  5. Hoosier phpbb3

    Hoosier phpbb3 New Member

    Joined:
    May 11, 2005
    Messages:
    904
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Bloomington, Indiana USA
    via TanksinWW2
    Many of those that trained with the '03 Springfield, weren't convinced the M1 Garand was a riflemans' rifle when they were first issued one.
    They were wrong of course.

    Tim
     
  6. majorwoody10

    majorwoody10 New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2005
    Messages:
    1,898
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    ca.usa
    via TanksinWW2
    lol calhoun....indeed...tim ,, as you know , soldiers are more or less married to their rifles . for a trainee to drop , misplace , allow to get dirty or (god forbid ) to fling away in terror while running is ...well , bad form...you take a mans beloved wife away and say " here... this one is modern ,slimmer , lighter ,newer , faster working ...wait..never mind ,mabey thats not such a good analogy...uh lets just say its often hard to get old soldiers to trade in their trusted weapons for something unknown..
     
  7. Tony Williams

    Tony Williams Member

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2002
    Messages:
    1,006
    Likes Received:
    23
    via TanksinWW2
    I don't think it would have made much difference to the war. IIRC most infantry casualties were caused by artillery+mortars first, MGs second, rifles/SMGs a long way third. If one side had had StG 44s and the other had bolt-actions, that might have affected the outcome of certain small-scale actions, but that's about it. If all sides had autos/semi autos, it might have increased the casualties a bit all round.

    Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum
     
  8. Miller phpbb3

    Miller phpbb3 New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2006
    Messages:
    108
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    California
    via TanksinWW2
    there was only a few...
    M-1 Garand
    M-1Carbine
    G-43
    SVT-40
     
  9. lynn1212

    lynn1212 New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2005
    Messages:
    351
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    upstate NY USA
    via TanksinWW2
    problems with semi's

    the us was the only country to issue large numbers of semi auto rifles. why?
    1 -the M1 garand and the carbine were about the only two that were truely battle worthy for general issue. all the others had some issues that restricted them to special troops. most were like the johnston, rather fragile, required special handling, or had some sort of safety concerns.
    2 - the us was the only country that had such weapons ready at the start of the war and so was tooled up and ready to produce large numbers of proven weapons. everybody else had to go through the whole acceptance process and would have to interfered with the production of current arms which in many cases were already in short supply. only the us had the production facilties needed.
    3- ammo use would have gone up. germany and the ussr already were hard pressed to meet their powder and explosives needs. there would have been futher strain on already overloaded logistic systems also.
    4- a bolt action of the time required less maintance and was simplier to use and care for which was an issue for poorly educated and trained troops such as those of the ussr and some german units. the SKS and the AK47 were designed with this in mind. both will shoot forever with almost no care but they were not available at the time.
    5- full and semi auto rifles that used a full power round have to be heavy to allow controlability in rapid fire. recoil is less a problem with a bolt action since the bolt can be worked while recovering from the recoil.
     
  10. Gunter_Viezenz

    Gunter_Viezenz New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2005
    Messages:
    1,838
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Windsor, Ontario
    via TanksinWW2
    The Siminov SKS was used in Russia and other communists states until 1980s depending on which country you look at some longer than that. True mostly as a weapon for 2nd line troops such as transport but in service nontheless.
     
  11. majorwoody10

    majorwoody10 New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2005
    Messages:
    1,898
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    ca.usa
    via TanksinWW2
    if i were a ww2 infantryman i would prefer an m1 rifle to any other inf weapon of any country ...is this a yankee bias ...would any of you chose differently ,and why?
     
  12. smeghead phpbb3

    smeghead phpbb3 New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2006
    Messages:
    1,269
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Melbourne, Orst-Ray-Lia
    via TanksinWW2
    Each army of WW2 had a very different small-arms doctrine... The choice to produce semi-automatic rifles was not a 'better' choice it was just a different one...

    The Americans infanty squad was built aroung the semi-automatic Garand... I've heard that US rifle design was largely based on the experiences from the American Civil War where it proved wise to equip as many soldiers with repeaters as possible... Also saw one guy on the histroy channel say that Americans always romanticized 'the lone sniper' since old western times, and that this influenced their rifle manufacturing somewhat, more with the Springfield and M-14...

    The Germans focused on Machine guns, squads were organised around a squad weapon, usually an AG or AT weapon... A doctrine so successful I believe modern armies imitate it to this day... Wermacht squads often carried extra MG munition at the expense of rifle munition... The riflemen were really just there to cover the MG :)

    The Russians mass produced sub-machine-guns, whose value they learnt of the hard way in the Finnish Winter War... The pah-pah-shas were particularily useful in close quarters urban fighting which the Russians got alot of...

    PS: I'd want an Sturmgewehr 44 :kill:
     
  13. Tony Williams

    Tony Williams Member

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2002
    Messages:
    1,006
    Likes Received:
    23
    via TanksinWW2
    So would I - by far the best all-round rifle of WW2.

    Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum
     
  14. majorwoody10

    majorwoody10 New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2005
    Messages:
    1,898
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    ca.usa
    via TanksinWW2
    in what ways was the sg44 superior to the mi1 rifle? it certainly looks more modern and the magazine is an obvious improvement ...what else....
     
  15. Tony Williams

    Tony Williams Member

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2002
    Messages:
    1,006
    Likes Received:
    23
    via TanksinWW2
    It can fire on automatic as well as semi-automatic, so with its 30-round magazine it does the job of a sub-machine gun as well as that of a rifle. That makes it vastly better than the M1 for urban and other close-quarter fighting (it's shorter too, which helps with that). The greater hit probability of auto fire also makes it superior at normal battle ranges.

    The M1 would only be a better choice at firing distances of over 300m, but that only included some 10% of fire-fights.

    Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum
     
  16. FNG phpbb3

    FNG phpbb3 New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2005
    Messages:
    1,359
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Manchester, UK
    via TanksinWW2
    I wouldn't have thought the average GI could hit anything at 300 meters through iron sights under battle conditions.

    FNG
     
  17. Greg Pitts

    Greg Pitts New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2004
    Messages:
    542
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    DFW Texas
    via TanksinWW2
    "It can fire on automatic as well as semi-automatic, so with its 30-round magazine it does the job of a sub-machine gun as well as that of a rifle. That makes it vastly better than the M1 for urban and other close-quarter fighting (it's shorter too, which helps with that). The greater hit probability of auto fire also makes it superior at normal battle ranges.

    The M1 would only be a better choice at firing distances of over 300m, but that only included some 10% of fire-fights".

    Tony,

    You know as well as I that what you are saying is totally speculative. Who says that an automatic firing weapon has greater hit probability than a semi automatic? If you know any "expert" that really adheres to that philosophy, please give me their mailing address; I have some land just south of Louisiana for sale I'm sure they would be interested in.

    JFC

    - Greg

    :smok:
     
  18. Greg Pitts

    Greg Pitts New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2004
    Messages:
    542
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    DFW Texas
    via TanksinWW2
    And neither can most "experts", if shooting at a moving target.

    "X" marks the spot, and a spirt is a drip under pressure.

    - Greg

    :smok:
     
  19. Tony Williams

    Tony Williams Member

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2002
    Messages:
    1,006
    Likes Received:
    23
    via TanksinWW2
    How about - every army in the world that's bought machine guns, SMGs or assault rifles, instead of relying on semi-automatic weapons (hint: that's all of them). Why do you suppose they would put up with the bigger ammunition expenditure if it didn't increase effectiveness? :roll:

    Tony Williams
    Homepage: http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk
     
  20. Greg Pitts

    Greg Pitts New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2004
    Messages:
    542
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    DFW Texas
    via TanksinWW2
    Hit probability and effectiveness are two different topics altogether.

    Your original post said:

    "The greater hit probability of auto fire also makes it superior at normal battle ranges".

    I find this erroneous as I think automatic fire has a much lower hit ratio than semi automatic fire based on the number of rounds fired.

    As for automatic weapon fire being more effective in certain situations; maybe yes, maybe no, it just depends. Unless you are talking a tripod mounted automatic, one has a tendency to go off target after about 3 rounds. With a semi automatic, I can fire 3 rounds just as effectively, and alsmost as fast as you can with a hand held fully auto weapon.

    In fact, if I use a .22 caliber rifle, my bet is I can put more rounds in the target in a given space of time than you can with a higher powered hand held fully auto rifle.

    As to why all the countries have gone to full auto, I will never understand.

    It is the epitimy of stupidity, in my opinion.

    - Greg

    :smok:
     

Share This Page