British Army

Originally posted by Chris C@Aug 5 2005, 11:46 PM
I trained on LMG's - updated Brens in the 1970's - fantastic accuracy but 30 rounds goes nowhere on a modern (1940's) battlefield let alone 1982! - you need(ed) 1000 + rpm.
I can just see the other members of the squad looking at one another and saying, " a 1000 rounds a minute, just who exactly is going to carry all that bloody ammo"!!! "the Matilda mk II was better than any German tank in the 39-40 period." Great! the major period for tank action was the desert in 41 when it was outclassed!
Not by German armour it wasn't, it was the skillfull use of the 88 anti-tank gun in a supporting role to the panzers that caused the heavy losses to the Matilda's, ie combined arms

 

"It's my understanding that the Bren was prized for its accuracy and dependibilty both, seeing service as late as the Gulf War of 1991 with U.S. special forces. "

To me Gulf War doesn't count - massive disparity of technology & firepower elsewhere.

"As for the MG34 and MG42 they put out tremendous amounts of fire but were also prone to breakdown due to their sophistication, especially in the harsh conditions found on the Russian front. "

Too right - but the British Army didn't fight on the Russian front!

As to the inferiority of British ground weapons, this was partly as a result of the tremendous amount of resources that went into developing and producing the superb weapons that made up the RAF(Mosquito, Lancaster, Bristol Beaufighter etc...). When more modern British equipment became opperational from 1945- such as the Centurion tank it was the equal of any in the world.
[post=37315]Quoted post[/post]
[/quote]

Couldn't agree more but I'm talking about the Army. As for the Cent, absolutely right - but it was after the Comet which was my point.The Cent never met a Tiger 2.

 

Originally posted by Chris C@Aug 6 2005, 11:06 PM
We're AIRBORNE!!
[post=37353]Quoted post[/post]

Oh Gawd! Not another!!! :P

(Did you get down to the AFW the other week? I was disapointed to find the Pegasus closed for refurbishment and the George + Dragon turned into some sort of ... well (politely),...establishment I'd rather not frequent!!! :ph34r: )

Dave.

(Oh, yes...and Ghurkas on the gates of the A.F.Museum denying drunken sods like me access? What's the world coming to?)

 

Originally posted by Chris C@Aug 6 2005, 03:56 PM
Couldn't agree more but I'm talking about the Army. As for the Cent, absolutely right - but it was after the Comet which was my point.The Cent never met a Tiger 2.
[post=37352]Quoted post[/post]

The money to develope new weapons for the Army came out of the same budget that supplied the RN and RAF. As Britain was fighting the Battle of the Atlantic and the air war over Europe it's natural that these two services got priority when it came to resources, and this had a direct effect on the slowness to develope better weapons for the Army. It was only after the British Army began large scale opperations in Europe, that the priority shifted to better meet its needs.

There were also some Allied commanders, mostly in Bomber Command and Eighth Airforce, that felt that Germany could be defeated by the bombing campaign alone. The ground forces(it was believed) would only be needed to go in and occupy Germany after its collpase. This also effected the priority that was given to develope better ground weapons.

 

There were also some Allied commanders, mostly in Bomber Command and Eighth Airforce, that felt that Germany could be defeated by the bombing campaign alone.

Bert Harris was one who thought that bombing could drive the Germans to surrender, he wanted a eight hundred bomber force but never got it.

 

Oh Gawd! Not another!!! :P

Yup!!

"(Did you get down to the AFW the other week? I was disapointed to find the Pegasus closed for refurbishment and the George + Dragon turned into some sort of ... well (politely),...establishment I'd rather not frequent!!! :ph34r: )"

Ahhh, the Pegasus, the Royal Exchange, the Globetrotter...
C

 

What makes you think the American arms and tanks were any good? In fact they were utter rubbish compared with the Germans. Every weapon the Germans had was superior

Oh come on now .....An M1 rifle squad could make mincemeat out of a squad of Germans armed with their standard bolt action KAR. The Tommy gun was also a very fine weapon. To say those weapons were "utter rubbish" is just wrong. <_<

 

I think the point you are failing to miss is the man firing the weapon... Thats what truly makes the difference.

As for US troops making mincemeat of German squads cos they had M1s... Well thats if you could get them to fire at the enemy in the first place... US troops had a very low % of troops who would actually fire at the enemy in a firefight. I would refer you to Doubler's 'GIs In Action'.

As for early German tanks being amazing... Er... No.

Panzer I... armed with an MG.
Panzer II... armed with a 20mm
Panzer III... armed with a 37mm gun
Panzer IV... armed with a short 75mm.

The tanks were just the same or perhaps worst than most others of the period, it was the command and control and the crew motivation and communication that was better.

 

As for US troops making mincemeat of German squads cos they had M1s... Well thats if you could get them to fire at the enemy in the first place... US troops had a very low % of troops who would actually fire at the enemy in a firefight. I would refer you to Doubler's 'GIs In Action'.


You based that opinion on one book?? And in your opinion US soldiers in firefights sat back and smoked cigarettes or cowered in fear while the enemy took potshots at them? I've read hundreds of different books from all sides of the war and I've never heard that GI's wouldn't fire at the enemy, that statement is absolutely ludicrous. Furthermore one book from one author doesn't mean anything, I've read several books that have been so inaccurate I've thrown them in the trash after about 50 pages, I would suggest you do the same with Doubler's 'GIs In Action' because it's obviously bullshit. I find it hard to believe someone with a BA and a MA in your field is dumb enough to believe that tripe.

 

The M16, was normally called the "Jamming Jenny" by the Americans. One reason for the jamming was that the Americans were buying a lot of sub-standard ammo.


Actually the feeder spring in the clip was too weak, only 16-18 rounds were loaded subsequently.

 

Interesting this! Stich..Whoever he may be, has accused me of not being who I say I am. the implication and accusation being that I had not seen action, and that I was KP spud peeler what ever a KP is.

For a start "Stich" we never had any spuds to peel, Now I have invited this "Stich" to have the courage of his convictions and publicly post that personal Message he sent me, in this open forum, for all to see.

Then I shall expect a public apology... for all to see.

Now! I just wonder if this person has the courage to post what he has to say privately?
We shall see?
Sapper.

 

Sorry for being off topic

Sapper,

Personal Messages are just that, for one persons eyes only. Bringing it out on the boards may not be helpful. I have had experiences of many discussion forums and the ONLY way to sort a problem out is to keep it between the individuals concerned. I dont know what was said but surely this doesnt have to go public?


Apologies for being off topic and back to the discussion

 

Well, Ok, lets hear what this "Stich" person has to say first?
Sapper

 

So you were a spud peeler Brian? That is one the most stupid things ive ever read never mind some of the other stuff in this topic.

For one thing I have been and met Brian personally, I have also got a copy of his book which contains memories of several other veterans, who were not spud peelers either. If Brian's claims were fake then why the hell would they agree to put their stories inside along with his.

Going to Brian's home and talking to him and his friend Richard Harris who also was wounded badly in Normandy is one of the things I will always cherish.


Spud peeler indeed!!

Andy

*edit, by the way I took the photo that is first in my signature, which is Brian sat down and his good friend Richard Harris.

 

Originally posted by Gotthard Heinrici@Aug 12 2005, 10:46 PM
Sorry for being off topic

Sapper,

Personal Messages are just that, for one persons eyes only. Bringing it out on the boards may not be helpful. I have had experiences of many discussion forums and the ONLY way to sort a problem out is to keep it between the individuals concerned. I dont know what was said but surely this doesnt have to go public?


Apologies for being off topic and back to the discussion
[post=37649]Quoted post[/post]

I must agree with Gotthard. Personal messages are just that. Not for publication.

"Real Life Experiences" forum can be utilised to respond and discuss without being off topic.

 

Speaking as a moderator,

the posting of personal messages will be deleted and a warning given to both participants.

I am sure stich can give his side of the story without posting the PM

 

Originally posted by Stich@Aug 12 2005, 09:43 AM
The M16, was normally called the "Jamming Jenny" by the Americans. One reason for the jamming was that the Americans were buying a lot of sub-standard ammo.


Actually the feeder spring in the clip was too weak, only 16-18 rounds were loaded subsequently.
[post=37642]Quoted post[/post]

I included in a posting, a quote from a armour sgt who tested the weapon in vietnam. He did find it was the ammo rather than the spring.

 

Originally posted by Stich@Aug 12 2005, 07:16 AM
As for US troops making mincemeat of German squads cos they had M1s... Well thats if you could get them to fire at the enemy in the first place... US troops had a very low % of troops who would actually fire at the enemy in a firefight. I would refer you to Doubler's 'GIs In Action'.


You based that opinion on one book?? And in your opinion US soldiers in firefights sat back and smoked cigarettes or cowered in fear while the enemy took potshots at them? I've read hundreds of different books from all sides of the war and I've never heard that GI's wouldn't fire at the enemy, that statement is absolutely ludicrous. Furthermore one book from one author doesn't mean anything, I've read several books that have been so inaccurate I've thrown them in the trash after about 50 pages, I would suggest you do the same with Doubler's 'GIs In Action' because it's obviously bullshit. I find it hard to believe someone with a BA and a MA in your field is dumb enough to believe that tripe.
[post=37636]Quoted post[/post]

Stitch, I do not moderate this particular forum, but I consider the tone of this post to be out of order and in breach of forum rules. I suggest that you consider using a less abusive tone in future, both in posts and possibly PM's.

Doubler is not the only writer who commented on the number of GIs who would not fire at the enemy and I would refer you in particular to the work of SLA Marshall. I know there are many, particularly in America, who do not accept the validity of his work, but it is not that easily dismissed. And modern US Marine Corps training includes dealing with the problem of getting troops to fire at real living people.

 

Dear Stitch,

And in your opinion US soldiers in firefights sat back and smoked cigarettes or cowered in fear while the enemy took potshots at them?

I have included this from the book, The Scars of War by Hugh McManners, the photos are from the vietnam era but do show American soliders not firing during actual combat. McManners himself saw combat as part of the Special boat Squadron

View attachment 979

“A remarkable photo sequence of US airborne Infantrymen under fire in Vietnam. As the machine gunner(centre) fires back, the solider on the left cringes away from the noise, trying to ignore what is happening.

Then, as the machine gunner is hit (the impact knocking him upwards before he falls forward), the solider on the left, who hasn't moved looks on with studious detachment - despite heavy enemy fire all around him. Such "freezing" is common to most soldiers, particularly when in action for the first time.

(after these photos were taken, the Viet Cong overran the American positions. In escaping, two further men were wounded and the camera was dunked in water during a river crossing)”

In additon, if you look behind the machine gunner, you will see two soliders who appear to be chatting with their weapons off the aim! comment morse1001
View attachment 980


Also, i assume from you comments that you have never be subjected to someone shooting at you?