Why aren't there rifle grenades for the Brits?
Select messages from
 # through # Forum FAQ
[/[Print]\]
Goto page Previous  1, 2  :| |:
Close Combat Series -> CC5 Gold, Juno, Sword
#21: Ya Author: AT_Stalky,  PostPosted: Sat Apr 07, 2007 10:23 am
    —
Ye

Hi Dima

Dima wrote:
IIRC they have never positioned BAR as LMG in USArmy, it was Automatic Rifle and was almost fully suitable for the infantry tactics doctrine USArmy had during most of WW2.

BAR was never meant to provide sustained fire according USArmy doctrine Smile.

and again it happened only when u try to provide sustained fire with it that was not meant with neither it's design nor doctrine Smile.


After all the American doctrine was made by the Americans with the American weapon in mind..

Nothing would be more surprising to me, than if the American doctrine would not take into account the limitation and advantages of there own weapons.

Spring and summer on the way men!

Stalk

PS: MG34 fit into Ge doctrine.. Even a Mauser K98k actually fits into the doctrine, it don’t mean it was what they wanted nor good; it just mean they have an idea how to use it… Make best use of it..

EDIT, added: Thing is, a doctrine is not the same way as success.. It don’t mean weapons are good just cause it fits doctrine, and it sure don’t mean the doctrine work when face the enemy. It’s just an idea “how to do”... The doctrine may not even be employed, as one meet the enemy and it have failed before, one adopts.. It may just not be workable or applyable to reality as enemy is not what the desk man and the training though it to be.. Stiff rigid minds bash there head in the wall cause the “doctrine say so”, the Americans adapted to reality. Adaptation, more BAR, and more 1919 belt MG was ONE of the results of meeting Germans in Normandy.

Last edited by AT_Stalky on Sun Apr 08, 2007 3:16 pm; edited 1 time in total
#22:  Author: Blackstump, Location: Hunter Valley Australia PostPosted: Sun Apr 08, 2007 7:47 am
    —
Gday Dima just to prove a point (I dont need smiley faces )
This is Enfield No 4 mark 1 and its componets as issued , Made in England date stamped 1943 , it was also issued to Canadian troops ( us Australian, and Indian troops stuck with the better designed No 1 mark 3 and its EY or extra yoke grenade launcher for the duration of ww2) You may notice the energa type grenade launcher (third from the bottom, picture) designed for the No 4 mark 1 and no this isnt your average $200 SMLE from the second hand store( mint condition even the bullets are stamped " 43 ", shiny ar'nt they) So to get back to the original question... yes the British were grenade launcher capable in 44 ( as they were thru out the war ) and the BAR tho stronger in CCV was in reality an inferior weapon then the BREN. The BAR designed as it was used during WW1 to fire from the hip ( it was issued with a leather cup to wear on the hip to receive the weapon ) to keep the enemys head down while troops advanced to the trench ( this to me denotes suppression fire which at some stage much approach sustained fire, US army doctrine aside) was never designed as a LMG, or an assault rifle (not belt fed for a true LMG and to heavy for an assault rifle) That the yanks took it thru to Korea... well they took shermans too.... on the other hand you have the Bren... larger magazine, comparitive weight, capable of fire from the hip, no heat jam problems with the quick change barrel, a bullet designed to (tumble) go through you like a buzz saw, a weapon that could operate as a LMG (ok not belt fed, but with a real bi pod ) an assault rifle ( been used to charge troops on many occasions ) but was also accurate enough to fire as a sniper weapon ( ive fire a 10 inch circle at 300 yards and ive seen 12 inch circles at 600 yards) which is as good as my current target rifle
#23:  Author: ronson, Location: England PostPosted: Sun Apr 08, 2007 12:45 pm
    —
Nice picture Stumpy Smile
As we say here ........'I think that puts the tin lid on it' .....looks like the rifle grenade launcher WAS available in 1944.

I must say that I still prefer the sword bayonet of the No3 to that spike issued with the No4 Very Happy .


Cheers
Ronson
#24:  Author: mooxe,  PostPosted: Sun Apr 08, 2007 1:13 pm
    —
I actually seen a WW1 news clip yesterday of a Canadian soldier firing rifle grenades from a trench.
#25:  Author: Dima,  PostPosted: Thu May 31, 2007 6:59 pm
    —
Hey Blackstump,

sry for late reply - real life consumes me Smile.

Quote:
You may notice the energa type grenade launcher (third from the bottom, picture) designed for the No 4 mark 1

that was not issued during WW2, IIRC first usage Korean War Wink.

Quote:
yes the British were grenade launcher capable in 44 ( as they were thru out the war )

no the British were not grenade launcher capable in 44 (tho they were at least mid 1943).

Quote:
just to prove a point (I dont need smiley faces )

what point did u prove?

Anyway, till now i found only 1 organiational unit (besides Commando) that should have had Rifle Grenades in 1944 according to WE.

Quote:
That the yanks took it thru to Korea... well they took shermans too...

coz they were located in Japan together with Chaffee and were only AVFs they can get to Korea in time...main forces didn't bring Shermans IIRC.
#26:  Author: Dima,  PostPosted: Thu May 31, 2007 7:19 pm
    —
Hi Stalk,

Quote:
EDIT, added: Thing is, a doctrine is not the same way as success.. It don?t mean weapons are good just cause it fits doctrine, and it sure don?t mean the doctrine work when face the enemy.

look, check my early reply, what i meant there that BAR wasn't LMG and that's not fair to compare LMG(BREN) vs Automatic Rifle(BAR).
Yanx had their own LMGs but they've seen their usage different(tho some formations used them as squad-based). And ia sure that if BAR didn't statisfy yanx they've started a production of LMG that would substitute BAR v soon. But in reality they have traded all other Squad LMGs like Jhonson, BREN, etc for a BAR.

Quote:
Stiff rigid minds bash there head in the wall cause the ?doctrine say so?, the Americans adapted to reality. Adaptation, more BAR, and more 1919 belt MG was ONE of the results of meeting Germans in Normandy.

They have adopted more BARs and M1919 coz germans outplayed them in number of rnds per time unit,they have realized that Semi-autos werent enuf vs enemy with bolt-actions but fast firing MGs.
But iam not that sure that latter was due to Normandy lessons as they have plans to increase number of M1919a4 in units in 1943 but they simply didn't have enuf of them to statisfy the needs.
Don't forget the time they issued new weapons to units...looks far beyond Normandy to me.
#27:  Author: Blackstump, Location: Hunter Valley Australia PostPosted: Sat Jun 02, 2007 9:38 am
    —
Gday Dima.. what have i proved?,, two things... you can lead a horse to water but you cant make it drink.. and also that you dont need a long neck to be a goose...
Close Combat Series -> CC5 Gold, Juno, Sword


output generated using printer-friendly topic mod. All times are GMT

Goto page Previous  1, 2  :| |:
Page 2 of 2