Pat's Article on SMG's
My favorite article of this months issue. I really enjoyed the historical background and the production research that went into it. I have a question on the data. If I read the numbers right there were more M1 carbines produced than Garands and TSMG's combined? Also I noted some of the Marine Divisions had more carbines than Garands. Was that due to there being more rear-echelon types than grunts in the service, or was the carbine a preffered weapon in the Pacific Theater?
Thanks for the kind words.
Re M1 Rifles Vs M1 Carbines in USMC Divisions. While the composition of the Rifle Squad fluctuated, consider that the M1 Rifle was issued to riflemen. Each fire team within that squad also had one BAR man (total of three BARmen.)
A Plt Commander and Plt Sgt might usually have an M1 Carbine.
However, in the Weapons Company and Weapons Platoons a machine gunner would have an M1911A1 as his TO weapon, but his TE weapon would be an M1919A4. The "A" Gunner would have a carbine because his job wasn't to be a shooter, but rather to be the gunners assistent (carry the gun feed ammo etc) but he could protect the gun/ gunner (with the rest of the section).
Likewise with mortarmen.
Communicators weren't shooters by MOS- therefore carbines went to them.
The logistical tail is always greater then those actually pulling the trigger, and as equipment becomes more sophisticated, more people are needed to service/ support it.
The job of killing bad guys hasn't changed much, and the L/Cpl Grunt of today is doing things pretty much the same today as his grandfather did on Iwo Jima 62 years ago.
The numbers are as accurate as far as i can tell. I am sure that some numbers may wind up being a few more or less by virtue of whos data is believed, but the bottom line is there.
The scmg never was as influential in combat as the screewriters would have us believe...
Pat, what about the British employment of SMG's? They lacked a semiautomatic carbine and rifle- was it more viable for them?
Brit TO's were almost as hard to access as US Korean War TO's.
The majority of UK infantry used rifles. Airborne infantry used a higher percentage of SMG's probably for the same reason that the scmg came about in the first place- rifles that were too long, too heavy, shot a round that was to powerful for the requirement, was too slow to load and too slow to shoot.
As to actual TO&E, i don't have it and the actual numbers of allied/ axis forces using them would have taken up more space in that article then SWAT could afford
Sorry- wish i had more..
Hmmm, I have yet to receive my issue...
My grandfather called the M1 Carbine a "placebo". I remember showing him mine (I got one when I was 18). Rather let some wind out of my sails!
I didn't redeem myself until I showed him my M1 Garand. He had not handled one in 40+ years. He didn't hesitate to rack the action and then he proceeded to detail strip it on the kitchen table. He informed me the weapon would not pass inspection due to some powder residue!
He was genuinely concerned when I got my M1 Thompson. He just couldn't believe it was legal, even though I showed him the ATF forms. He told me he had shot Thompsons before, but the model he used was "different somehow". I think he shot the 1928 version instead of the M1. He commented that he had forgotten how heavy they were.
He fought in the Pacific and he didn't talk much at all about the war. He told me that he wasn't really frightened until they demonstrated the flamethrower. He realized if that is what it was going to take...
Thanks, Pat, I appreciate it.
My pleasure. Wish i had more.
Pat can you enlighten us as to why the Army's units seemed more 'rifle heavy' than the USMC units? Thanks.
Forest- the TO's were living documents, and reflected expectations and then experience.
The Army divisions T/O differed between Infantry, mounted infantry, airborne infantry, glider infantry and mountain infantry.
One major difference was that the Army ran only one BAR per squad, meaning a net increase in rifles per company of 54.
Army squads/platoons and companies were likewise staffed differently.
I imagine that a lot of this information is stored in Leavenworth somplace, but the resources necessary to dig into what can only (for me) be described as minutia is outta' my pay grade.
|Originally Posted By TheRicker:|
Hmmm, I have yet to receive my issue...
Same here. My wife was late in renewing my subscription though, so I probably have a gap in there somewhere.
Pat, thanks for the info. Interesting stuff.
An interesting tidbit is that Jeff Cooper wrote a similar piece with similar conclusions over 25 years ago. Pat Rogers article stands equal to or above the original.
I'm flattered by your kind words. Jeff was a friend and we discussed smg's on several occasions. He also believed they were fun to shoot (go figure)...
Might you have the title/ publication for that article? I'd be interested in reading it.
It's in the December 1980 issue of Soldier of Fortune magazine.
It's listed in the TOC as, "Is the SMG a silly weapon?" and in the article itself as, "Toy Guns for Real Troops?"
I scanned it into a PDF file and emailed it to your 10-8consulting email address. It's a rather large (almost 4MG file) so let me know if it doesn’t make it and I'll retry.
Thanks for all the great articles!
Got it! Thank you so much for that one.
Reading Jeff is always interesting, though not as much as it was listening to him.