M1 Garand. Ahead of it's time?

What would be the number of machine guns used in a "typical" paratrooper platoon? And did you find the M1919 a clumsy weapon? Without a shoulder stock or light weight bipod it looks like a handful to deploy. Were the machine gun crew armed with personal weapons?

 

if it was ahead of its time, it had a rather short tenure.

 

It may have been years head of it's time,any emeny or other allied nations copy you're inventions,must be a great weapon and advantage over any other rifle weapon of that era.

 

I still think the garand was the best weapon ever made It had a grenade launcher which was basicly a standard hand grenade on an adapter bayonet and 8rd capacity advantage or not I think advantage would be a good way to put one rifle grenade will fix anything it,s really just an explosive aspirin it will fix any headache it was also relatively light wieght at just aout 10 pounds yes you would think it,s a major technological advancement that way ahead of it,s time but it,s not more like right on time invented just a few years before world war 2

 

Great innovations often have a short tenure.

That's because everyone sees how much of a difference they make and decide to produce their own. Only they see areas in which a few improvements can be made and soon the original is considered obsolete, even though it showed the way.

That's what happened to the Garand. Even though the original Garand rifle (designed by a Canadian, BTW) was only in service for 21 years, it was replaced by a modified Garand design (the M-14) which is STILL in limited military service with the US military. So the basic design has been in military service for 73 years; not bad for a weapon that was "ahead of it's time".

 

i agree that subsequent 7.62 NATO semi-autos are just improvements over the garand design but these later weapons seemed to have a problem with usage beyond a limited war theater. the british used the L1A1 for more than 25 years before they adopted the bullpup.

i contend that the m-1 garand had little impact in world war 2. remember the crucial 5% finding. and after vietnam, the 7.62mm carbine had real disadvantes in close quarter combat, although it's returning to popularity nowadays in afghanistan and iraq where allied soldiers years for a robust "battle rifle." my contention is this: a smaller-caliber carbine (whether bold ot semi-auto) would have sufficed during WW2. one that weighed less than 6 1/2 pounds bare, with a range of 300 meters. the swedes made a nice 6-pound 6.5mm mauser during the war, the japanese 6.5mm ariska was also a good weapon.

 

What 5% finding?

It's worth noting that the Garand was originally designed in a smaller caliber (6.5mm?).

 

I'm curious about the 5% finding too. But as for WW2, the ammunition had to be more compatible since squad LMGs and heavy weapons platoon HMGs cannot function properly without a full power round.

 

Yes, but an argument could be made that the appearance of the L1A1 was in response to the advent of the M-1 Garand in 1936. besides that there may have been other reasons (cost of adopting a new rifle?) for the supposed "longevity" of the L1A1. Besides, it was used for only a few more years than the Garand and was not a significantly better design than the Garand.

I don't see much evidence for this contention. First, a number of senior WW II ground force officers disagree with you. Secondly, every major belligerent during WW II expended significant resources developing (or trying to develop) a successful full-powered battle rifle like the Garand.

It should be noted that neither the 6.5 Arisaka, nor the Swedish 6.5 Mauser is a reduced power rifle round. I own a 6.5 Swedish Mauser 1894 carbine, and while it is a dandy little weapon that I very much cherish for it's handling qualities, it must be noted that by WW II, it had been around for 45 years without arousing much comment or envy among the armies of the world.

Garand's first semi-auto rifle design, the M1922, was in '30.06 caliber, but trials in 1924 were inconclusive in the Army's view. Further trials in 1927 led to Garand designing the M-1 prototype, but in a .276 caliber (also a full-power rifle round). Garand (and the Army) realized that the .30-'06 was more powerful than was really needed in a battle rifle. But there were more considerations than just how much power was needed in a rifle round. In 1932, General MacArthur, as Army Chief of Staff ordered the .276 version of the M-1 Garand dropped in favor of the .30-'06 caliber version; the reasons given for this decision were that there were millions of rounds of WW I manufactured .30-'06 still in reserve, and that introducing yet another rifle caliber, different from the standard MG caliber, would be costly and increease the Army's logistical burden.

The Army did end up introducing the .30 caliber carbine shortly after, which chambered a true reduced power cartridge (essentially, a pistol round), but it should be noted that there were complaints about the stopping power of the .30 carbine throughout it's service life.

 

The M-1 garand was the best Battle Rifle of WW2 bar none period cut and dry. It remained in service in the military of many allied Nations well into the 70's (Brazil).

In my opinion there is no finer rifle in the world than the M1 and M1A1.

Brad

 

the US army (or the DOD) ran stats for all the wars between 1900 and 2000 and found out two things: 1) small arms fire accounted for only 5% of war casualties and 2) small arms engagements usually occurred at less than 200 meters.

the above points to a semi/selective fire weapon but not one that can kill out to 600 meters, weighing at least 8 pounds bare, and costing more than $2,200 in today's prices. these findings are instrumental to the development of the M-4.

 

I've seen stats (US army in Italy) that showed that German small arms fire hovered at around 20-25 % of US casualties. I think a lot of it depends on terrain and the type of divisions deployed and the level of air power.

In the Eastern front, the fighting was less "explosives" intense per capita so I can assume (and after one would read some memoirs, get the impression) that small arms fire was a bigger casualty causing element.

 

Well the M-4 bare is less expensive; but, by the time you add the necessary optics to compensate for the shorter sight radius then it creeps up close to 2K.

Just because most engagments take place at less than 300M doesn't mean you shouldn't have a weapon that can reach out and "touch" someone at 500-800M. The ability to cause an attacking force to deploy, or to cause a defender to seek cover, at greater distances is key in land warfare.

In combat "range" is safety.

Brad

 

#1 is potentially a very misleading stat. For instance prior to WWII disease usually caused significantly more casualties than weapons. I suspect frost bite and such were also a significant percentage of casualties in Korea. Then there is the question of where casualties are occuring. Front line casualties for instance especially battle casualties are potentially more important but how to get at these. That also leaves out a number of questions of just how the study was conducted.

#2 can also be dangerous. Saying engagments usually occur at under 200 meters could mean that slightly less than half occur at ranges greater than that. Even if it's only a quarter do you really want your soldiers to be at a serious disadvantage in a quareter of thier engagments. Especially if the enemy can control that percentage to at least some extent?

 

If the US Army ran the numbers for all wars between 1900 and 2000, that would necessarily include a number of engagements that simply hadn't occurred in the early 1930's when Garand was developing his design. And it would also include a number of wars fought largely with smaller caliber weapons (or reduced power cartridges) which obviously limit the range at which battles can be effectively fought. This begs the question; were these battles fought at shorter ranges simply because the weapons used were short-ranged, or are there inherent factors in infantry battles that cause them to be fought at short range, no matter what weapons are used?

Another factor you seem to be ignoring is that much, if not most, of the technology and materials that make the M-4 such a light-weight and attractive infantry weapon, were not available, or had not been perfected for mass production, in 1940. If the Garand could be said to be ahead of it's time, the small-caliber, high-velocity, light-weight carbine you seem to advocate, was totally anachronistic in the WW II era.

However, it needs to be pointed out, that in fact, infantry rifle development has gone both ways in recent decades. Yes, the light-weight, small caliber carbine, firing a miniaturized rifle round, has become commonplace, but the Armed Forces clearly have also identified a need for large-caliber, heavy, long-range weapons, up to .50 caliber, on the same battlefield. Perhaps, this is primarily because today's infantry encounters usually involve asynchronous forces, not the typical WW II regular infantry-on-regular infantry engagements that were envisioned prior to the 1950's.

 

as i mentioned in the other thread, the argument is not over. but the 5% casualty rate and 200-meter exclusion are not hard to believe, really. and both jug and lwd are right, you don't design a weapon seemingly to fit those findings. when lives are at stake, you like excess capacity and maximum redundancy. besides, most people involved in the research still felt that 5% is the crucial 5% in the war.

today's asymmetric war can produce ridiculous situations. a tactical air controller carries nearly 70 pounds of electronic equipment in the field, and he can call in enough air/ground - delivered ordnance to stymey an enemy regiment. but fighting enemy soldiers occurrs viciously close and some air controllers are using sawed-off pump shotguns to fend off talibans.

 

Yeah that would get rather irksome

 

get irked some more. in his memoirs, WW2 veteran lt. hiroo onoda actually hoped his enemies would use carbines. during his 30 years as a straggler in the philippines, night fighting out to 200 yards was common place. you can actually see a carbine slug coming at you. he claimed he once dodged one slug by twisting instinctively. no such luck with a full-powered 0.30 cal slug.

 

Pull my other leg, the first one is about to fall off in your hands!

He could SEE a projectile the size of two pencil erasers coming at him at over 1,270.212 MILES AN HOUR???? (that is what 1990 feet per second works out to). Admittedly at 200 yards it had slowed down to about 1,000 feet per second (700 miles per hour).

Twisting instinctively has nothing to do with a round travelling at over Mach 1, even at 200 yards the projectile would arrive well before the sound, what would he "instintively" twist from? A muzzle flash?

I don't buy the tale, especially if he was "night figthing". What a load of BS. USAF Major General (ret.) Russell L. Violet is my first cousin, and he imparted a bit of interesting information about high speed flight, especially at low altitude. Cousin Russell was a command pilot with more than 3,500 flying hours including 308 Vietnam combat hours in F-100s, F-105s, F-106s, and F-4s.


The little tid-bit of information he imparted to myself was that if a person is flying at 1,000 mph, at under 100 feet off the surface, the image of an object on the ground on which you focus, is three hundred feet behind you before the image appears in your brain. It takes that long for the "signal" to make it from your retina, through your optic nerve to your brain. Example, you focus out the front windscreen, see a tree. When you see the tree, it is now 300 feet behind you and the aircraft at 1,000 mph.

His military decorations and awards include the Legion of Merit, Distinguished Flying Cross, Meritorious Service Medal with oak leaf cluster, Air Medal with four oak leaf clusters and Presidential Unit Citation with "V" device and two oak leaf clusters.

Not a "duffer", nor liar by any stretch of the imagination. I somehow doubt the Japanese fella and his "bullet dodging" night fighting tales somehow.

 

man, even 30-'06 and browning .50 slugs are visible in flight with WIP/tracer rounds. haven't you watched enough dogfighting footage from WW2? onoda's story is not hard to believe. he did wage a guerilla war for almost 30 years. quien sabe, maybe he acquired superhuman instincts after fighting that long. and last time i heare, onoda is still alive. maybe i should write him.

you got it. night fighting is a game of eyes and ears. you see flashes in the distance, you duck. i suppose night tactics weren't so well-developed then (onoda was fighting filipino soldiers, cops, and militia men after the war.) firing at people from a distance to scare them away is a far safer tactic than to try CQC when there're just two of you, armed with bolt rifles. and that's how onoda faught.