British Army

Despite what some members think...Oh yes! I have been shot at many times and what is more..I never enjoyed one second of it!

Even had a personal duel with one while I was in a cornfield. I did not enjoy that either. I could never understand why snipers were ever taken prisoner?
By that, I mean those that stay behind and kill, when the front has moved on. for me? No way.
Sapper

 

Thank you angie999 for addressing the issue with stitch and Brian.

Brian has spoke before many groups and organizations whom are not in the practice of receiving fakes. I've read his book, and communicated with him extensively. He has been telling us exactly what we are all on this forum to learn about, and that is the WAY IT WAS. He is the precious link we have to the actual events that took place.

I was raised to respect my elders. I think what stitch did was rude and disrespectful, plain and simple. If he does not agree with Brian, he has every right to do so. But what I do not like is his criticizing and abusive tone. You CAN disagree with someone without calling them names and antagonizing them! And I can't resist saying that we have those rights because of people like Brian!

Brian is my friend. I ask you, stitch or anyone else, please do not disrespect him. If you do not believe in what he says, I am sorry, because it is the truth. He has gotten on here to share his experiences and the very least we can do is shut up and listen.

Just my 2 cents.
Hugs Brian
Brooke

 

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.

I was referring to WWII Combat troops, not Vietnam.......you're comparing apples to oranges.

 

Originally posted by Stich@Aug 14 2005, 12:13 AM
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.

I was referring to WWII Combat troops, not Vietnam.......you're comparing apples to oranges.
[post=37707]Quoted post[/post]

I am giving an example of men under combat conditions showing that they were not firing their weapons.

I could have mentioned the munich olympic disaster, where GSG9 found that most of the marksmen used at the airport could not pull the trigger on a fellow human being.

 

[

 

I am giving an example of men under combat conditions showing that they were not firing their weapons.

I could have mentioned the munich olympic disaster, where GSG9 found that most of the marksmen used at the airport could not pull the trigger on a fellow human being.


And I could mention the absolute failure of the U.K.'s troops in every effort made to breach the European continent until they went in with U.S. troops on D-Day.
Dunkirk, Dieppe, Battle of Norway. So quit with the American troop bashing. <_<

 

Originally posted by Stich@Aug 14 2005, 10:26 AM
I am giving an example of men under combat conditions showing that they were not firing their weapons.

I could have mentioned the munich olympic disaster, where GSG9 found that most of the marksmen used at the airport could not pull the trigger on a fellow human being.


And I could mention the absolute failure of the U.K.'s troops in every effort made to breach the European continent until they went in with U.S. troops on D-Day.
Dunkirk, Dieppe, Battle of Norway. So quit with the American troop bashing. <_<
[post=37710]Quoted post[/post]

Hey Stich,

This is generally a very even handed and informative forum. I agree with some of your comments and disagree with others however you have the right to post them. If your information is correct, I and others would support you. There is no need to go for the jugular.

Facts are facts are facts. If you disagree, discuss it sensibly and you will be supported if you can provide supporting factual data.

Your last statement by the way is incorrect as there was a place called Sicily in 1943 that was invaded with the help of American troops/British/Canadian/Indian/New Zealand/French African etc etc.

The mentioning of Dieppe in that context is also an insult to your Canadian neighbours who fell with honour.

The Americans were instrumental in assisting the outcome of WW2 from Lend Lease to Berlin due to their numbers and industrial might. WW2 was a partnership against evil and was seen to a conclusion by that partnership.

I and others have defended America & Americans and other countries on this forum, however denial of skeletons in the cupboard when everyone can hear the bones rattling is not condusive to sensible debate.

 

When certain of you have done with running your country men down, let me say just this. I have never seen, or heard, any instances of British troops failing to fire at the enemy. The very thought I find quite laughable.

Would it go something like this? Hey Bill there is a bloody great SS man firing at us from that wooded area to our left, dare we fire back at him" That I find absolutely hilarious. One, it shows little understanding of real war. two, has it occured to you that the great majority of pictures are "Staged" No matter how realistic they may seem.

I have seen action with the Americans. Never have I heard that they were scared to fire. In fact from my experience, it was the other way around, the "Yanks" were notorious for "Overcooking their fire on a objective" Sometimes to their own disadvantage, when the "Gung HO" syndrome got the better of them, and they got involved in a bit of "Friendly Fire" And three, It may come as a bit of a surprise for you to learn that the British troops were accorded a great deal of respect by the Americans. They, at least, as comrades in arms knew all about their fighting quality, and the value of the British fighters, and treated us with that respect. There is many hundreds of years of the British military traditions. never take that lightly.
I liked the Americans, Great lads, could not wish for better mates...
Sapper

 

o quit with the American troop bashing.

I am not American bashing, what i am doing is giving specific examples based upon your question quoted below

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 agree that there has been time when troops of all nations have not fired shots at the enemey in a battle at the same time there are many examples of men who fired high or into the ground. I shuld point out that I should not be specific since I would include incidents of Airmen and Matelos notfiring, which is in its self surprising as the latter two have a certain amount of detachment, physically and mentally, in a combat situation

However, what we are dealing with here is basic human nature in times of great stress. As mcmanners said "Such "freezing" is common to most soldiers, particularly when in action for the first time." However, what is important is the effect it has on the outcome .

 

Sure! Courage comes in all shapes and sizes. Then there are men that should neve be in the fighting mobs anyway, but war is a matter of sink or swim. those that fail to come to terms, are soon gone anyway. But the way this is written it suggests that failing to fight was widespread..I dispute that in its entirety.

Shellshocked? Yes lots of that, cowardice? I can say (Thankfully) that I only saw one instance of that, and he came to terms with his fears, and overcame them

But having said all that. It would be a foolish man indeed, if it was expected that a man about to face death, ot horrible wounds, and in the most unpleasant way, would not be scared, That is just plain daft!

I will admit to being scared silly at times, but with all my mates, we did it anyway.
Sapper

 

Originally posted by Stich@Aug 11 2005, 07:46 AM
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.
[post=37601]Quoted post[/post]

Well, in less emotive terms, I agree that the M1 Garand was a fine weapon. It was a first generation semi-auto service rifle at a time when most armies in the world were still equipped with bolt action.

I also agree that the Thompson was a good weapon, bought in quite large numbers by the British and still in service with some British units till the end of the war. It was, however, technically complex, difficult to manufacture and expensive, which is why it was being phased out by both the British and American armies.

To stray a bit farther afield, German tanks were not as good as some people here have suggested. This is especially true of the 1940 period, when some British and French tanks were superior, but during the rest of the war too. The point is that in the panzer division, with tactic air support, the Germans were the first to begin to successfully use the combined arms concept. Of course, it does not alter the fact that throughout the war the bulk of the German infantry walked and the bulk of their artillery and supply was horse drawn. Even in 1940, the BEF had sufficient lorries to transport the infantry, even if these lorries were not actually organically part of the infantry units.

 

I don't know if this is relevant to the discusion, but one of the reasons that Americans were reluctant to fire their weapons is due to the fact they didn't use smokeless powder. It was very easy for German troops to identify where Allied fire was coming from and return fire. The Germans on the other hand used smokeless powder, and the source of their fire was much harder to pinpoint on a noisy battlefield.

 

I've never heard of U.S. soldiers not firing in WWII....ok, so there's a couple of books that say they did? And what does he base this on? How are his facts acceptable?




Hmmmm...

As I may have started something perhaps some relevant sources would help... These are both books and documentary wartime sources.

This comes from the findings of Colonel S. L. A. Marshall...

"in an average experienced infantry company only 15% of soldiers fired their weapons, while the best units under extreme, heavy comabt managed to produce fire from 25% of all soldiers." Taken from 'Men Against Fire'.

This from 12th Army Group, Battle Experiences...

"Actual combat revealed a number of defects in American battlefield performance. New units experiencing their baptism of fire in the ETO failed to follow close behind supporting artillery, tended to slow down upon initial enemy contact, and allowed German indirect fire to pin them down in the open. Tank-Infantry cooperation was poor across the board but improved over time. Commanders put excessive emphasis on protecting the flanks and maintaining contact with adjacent units. Units put too much faith in artillery firepower and often failed to generate enough fire with their own organic weapons. The performance of the individual soldier indicated other training weaknesses. The tendency of soldiers to bunch together under fire was a universal complaint. American troops displayed carelessness in close proximity to the enemy and tended to expose their locations because of poor noise and light discipline".

Lt. Colonel John Hentges, commander of 3rd Divisions 7th Infantry, summed up the view as to why soldiers did not shoot enough...

"Our greatest need in training is to get riflemen to fire their weapons. New men will not fire. This is primarily caused by not wanting to disclose their position and inability to see the enemy or something to aim at. I believe our policy of putting so much of our basic training on known distance ranges where men are cautioned so often on holding, squeezing and marking the target causes this".

A training memo from the 78th Division told its officers...

"new men must be told and re-indoctrinated that aggresive fire keeos the Germans pinned down and allows their own units to advance. Remind the soldiers that the M-1 and BAR throw alot of lead and the unit that keeps firing intelligently can always move on the battlefield".

Some reasonable evidence there...

Now Im not 'Yank-bashing'. Just because I offer some evidence does not mean I am anti-american. But why do people get so upset about such a discussion? If the American military recognised the problem them surely it is worthy of historical debate? American troops fought as hard as anyone, but they didnt win the war on their own... and not every soldier was a superhero so look at it on balance.

 

Still on about the "Firing back"? Reading some of these postings makes me smile!

Why? Well let me describe exactly what it was like in a typical battle situation.

While taking part in the battle of Goodwood near the village of Sannerville, we had harboured in an orchard, damn silly place to stop, for the enemy knew that orchards were favourite stopping places.

After a day or two of very heavy and concentrated enemy fire, we came under a very severe “Stonk” A very severe bashing, with a full salvo of Moaning Minnie’s dropping right in amongst us.

The countryside around us was of wooded copses, dense green hedges. In fact surrounded by typical Norman Bocage type countryside, dense green small fields.

Perfect defensive countryside. As the shell and mortar fire came in, it shredded the orchard trees so that we were covered in fluttering bits of green leaves. Rather like a green snowstorm. Now I had my Bren with me. We had no idea where the fire was coming from in that dense green 360 degree arc? Should I have opened up with my Bren without a clue where the Spandua’s were?

We were aware that we had some of our infantry in the area trying to take Troan.

Would you have opened fire on an empty space? Given half a chance, there would have been no hanging back, we would have taken out the lot. But there was danger of Friendly fire on our mates. Is this an isolated instance? No on your Nelly mate!
We had enough friendly fires, something the Americans with their “GUNG HO” attitude were very good at.
Sapper

 

I believe the following saying derived from WW2 but it is equally relevant today... When the British shoot the Germans duck, when the Germans shoot the British duck but when the Yanks shoot EVERYBODY ducks.
Lionboxer

 

from my memory mate. It came from the Germans, and it was bomb not shoot.
Sapper

 

Originally posted by TheRedBaron@Aug 16 2005, 09:57 PM
This comes from the findings of Colonel S. L. A. Marshall...

"in an average experienced infantry company only 15% of soldiers fired their weapons, while the best units under extreme, heavy comabt managed to produce fire from 25% of all soldiers." Taken from 'Men Against Fire'.

[post=37798]Quoted post[/post]

While Marshall's work was admittedly very influential in its day in the USA, it is not at all highly regarded these days.

His research methods were highly questionable and the results are almost certainly flawed.

 

Some stuff on Marshall

http://www.warchronicle.com/us/combat_hist...arshallfire.htm

Hey Angie something I agree with you on :P

Andy

 

Here's my take on British weaponry.

Rifle- The Lee-Enfield No.4 and SMLE were and are magnificent bolt-action rifles, but the bolt-action rifle has nowhere near the power of a self-loading rifle. In this case it doesn't matter because the German and Japanese battle rifles were also bolt-action. Compared to the American M1 rifle the Enfields don't stack up but against opposing weaponry the Enfield was quite superior. They were as accurate as a rifle needs to be, had plenty of range and stopping power, and a faster bolt than the Arisaka or Mauser. Definitely a first class weapon.

SMG- The Sten series leaves something to be desired. It was unreliable due to the cheap magazines used by it and it had a low rate of fire (ie 550 rpm). The best thing to be said for it is its incredibly cheap price and ease of manufacture.

LMG- The Bren is the finest LMG of all time. It soldiered on in the British Army until the 1980s giving first rate service from Normandy to the Falklands. Compared to the American M1918 B.A.R. it was much better in the SAW role but was deficient when compared to the MG34 and MG42. As stated previously the MG34 could be unreliable in harsh weather such as cold or extreme heat and sand because of its incredible number of small parts. However, contrary to what was said previously on this forum the MG42 was highly reliable in all climes due to its revolutionary manufacturing process of using many stamped parts instead of meticulously tooled parts. The sheer firepower of these GPMGs could overwhelm any small unit. While the Bren was outclassed by the German weapons it wasn't a bad weapon by any means and was perfectly capable of giving the British squad sufficient suppressing fire.

HMG- The Vickers was an outstanding weapon as well, capable of putting out masses of accurate fire without stoppage. While it didn't have the rate of fire of German MGs, 600 rpm is plenty for an HMG. No problems with this weapon whatsoever.

Tanks- In the early part of the war the Matilda II was an excellent tank, comparable to the way Tigers were used by the Germans in the latter part of the war. Although slow, the Matilda was near impervious to German AT fire excepting the FlaK 88, of course. During the early war the high velocity 2 pdr was easily capable of penetrating the PzKpfw II and III. Mid war the Germans definitely held the upper hand with tanks. The Cruisers and Crusaders were very much outclassed by the PzKpfw IV, V, and VI. The British failed to change the box-like riveted armor structure of earlier tanks, even though sloped armor was proven to be superior. The Churchill, though still using the boxy riveted armor was very hard indeed to knock out, but slow still and lacking in a gun that could reliably knock out German armor. The Sherman Firefly was an excellent design that improved on the American design as much as possible altough the high silhouette could not be fixed. The 17 pdr was a very effective weapon capable of taking on German armor head to head, had the Sherman had thicker armor.

Artillery and Mortars- The 2 pdr mortar was an excellent support weapon and provided highly mobile indirect fire support. The 3 inch mortar was also excellent and equal to the 8cm granatewerfer and American 81mm. During the early part of the war the 3 inch's range was hampered by subpar propellant in the ammunition, but when this was rectified its range surpassed that of the 8cm granatewerfer, though still falling short of the American M1 81mm's 3,008m. When looking at WWII artillery the 25 pdr must be considered one of the greatest artillery pieces of the war. It was light, easily towed, and its carriage could absorb tremendous amounts of punishment. It's circular firing table allowed it to be easily traversed from target to target. Despite being of smaller caliber, it fell short of the German 10.5cm by less than 100m. British fire control was also superb, but fell short of the Americans artillery system. It should be noted however that the U.S. was without equal when using combined arms.

 

Go along with the comments on the Bren, I carried one across France Belgium and Holland. Great weapon.
Sapper