|
Sooner or later it has to be replaced, but my point was that to spend as money as we do on EQUIPMENT is not cost-effective and harmful to the economy as a whole.
Side Note: The US Springfield was NOT declared obsolete when the M1 was adopted. The reason for this was the Springfield could do things the M1 could not (Both weapons could launch rifle launched grenades, the Springfield did a better job of it). The Springfield had a longer range when used by a person trained in in that regard (The Rear Sights of the Springfield was and is one of the best, if NOT the best, long range non-optic sights ever developed, at the end of WWI when the US had a choice between the M1903 Springfield and the more plentiful M1917 Enfield the US Army preferred the Springfield do to its better long range sight). Now the M1 Rifle had a better "Battle Sight" i.e. better for 90-95% of combat situation, but for long range shooting the Springfield came out on top. For this reason even as late as 1945 each Rifle Squad was to have at least ONE Springfield (The rest of the Squad had one BAR and 10 M1s). Thus the Springfield was NEVER Obsolete as far as the US Army was concerned.
As to the fully automatic weapons the Germans and Russians carried, most were Sub-machine guns and as such lack range and power. The use of sub-machine guns were a stop-gap in both armies. Such Sub-machine guns could be issued using existing ammunition and increased fire power at close range. The problem was most combat was just outside the range of submachine guns (i.e. 50-300 yards) and thus just out of range of most sub machine guns. The Russians and German's tend to issue them to people who had other jobs, for example Squad leaders. In the US Army and pre-war German and Soviet Armies such squad leaders had the same rifle as the rest of the Squad. As the war went on a shortage of Rifles appeared in both armies and thus most squad leaders, whose jobs was to direct the squad ended up with a Sub Machine gun. Units set for assault tended to have sub machine guns as were units in occupied territories (More do to most resistance attacks were within the range of Sub Machine Guns). The price of the M3 US Grease gun was something like $20, the British Sten was about $15, the Soviet submachine guns were even cheaper (and unlike the British and Americans did NOT follow the first generation of Cheap Machine guns, the German MP38 series with its double stack column, Soviet submachine guns magazines followed traditional Rifle Magazines design since 1900, a staggered double column which eliminated most jams, but the above German, British and American Sub Machine guns used a "True" double column for it was cheaper to make, all were rapidly replaced after WWII). The M1 cost during WWII was about $80 (and that was in a US Government own armory). Yes, the US understood the value of each weapon and was willing to spend four times the money for one M1 Rifle then for four M3 Grease guns.
Toward the end of WWII you had situations where a US squad faced off a German Squad and won even through the Germans had a better Squad Automatic Weapon in its MG42 (Compared to the M1918 BAR) do to the longer range of American M1 rifles over the Sub Machine Guns in use by the Germans. If the war had lasted into the late 1940s, the Germans already had plans to replace all of its Sub Machine Guns and Bolt Actions rifles with the MP44 series of Assault rifles (Some were in use as early as 1942, but production NEVER reach a high enough level to replace the sub machine guns let alone the Bolt Action Rifles).
As to the Soviets, they kept their Submachine guns in use, but slowly replaced them with the SKS in the late 1940s and 1950s (The Russians claim the SKS saw service at the end of WWII but if it did it was in the last months of the War). Even the Russians kept bolt action rifles in forward units as late as the late 1950s (Not enough SKS to replace them, the Sub Machine guns had to go first AND remember, except for the Thompson Submachine gun and the Australian Ownen's sub machine guns, the Russian sub machine guns were much better then any other sub machine gun).
My point is simple, Sub Machine Guns were stop gap weapons. As the War went on more and more Sub Machine Guns were used, but they NEVER replaced the Bolt Action Rifle in any army (And since the US was the only Country with a Semi-automatic in general use, sub machine guns did NOT replace M1 rifles in US Use). Given a choice most troops, would go into combat with a Bolt Action Rifle over a Machine Gun, do to the Sub Machine gun lack of range (Assault Rifles solved this problem for such Assault Rifles can reach out to 300-400 yards). In close in fighting the Sub Machine Gun was preferred, but in most of Europe such fighting was the Exception to the Rule not the rule (My father who participated in the Normandy Campaign looked for a M3 Grease gun for use in the Hedge row country, but once outside of those hedgerows he preferred the BAR he did pick up). He knew the M3 Grease guns value AND its limitation. In the Open Country of the Russian Steeps the limitation became clear to both sides (And another advantage of the Russian Submachine gun was the Russian's Pistol Ammunition was 7.62 Mauser Pistol round, the 7.62 was a terrible pistol round but in Sub Machine guns came into its own with its superior range, but that advantage was NOT enough to permit it to replace the bolt action rifles carried by the Soviet Army).
Just Comments on the Weapons of WWII. The British Sten was replaced in the British Army by the very similar Sterling in the 1950s (The Sterling had a staggered double column in place of the Sten's double column magazine) but the .303 Enfield Bolt Action Rifle stayed in service till the 1960s (When it was replaced by the FN FAL). Why? Because the Enfield had the range and reliability needed on most battle fields (The STEN lacked BOTH, the Sterling solved the reliability issue but not the range issue). The FN FAL was technically capable of Automatic Fire, but like the M14 the round it fired was to powerful for effective use as an automatic weapon. When I was in Basic we only fired our M16 in the Automatic Mode at a 25 yard target at night (We never did get to see if we hit anything, qualification was done during daylight and in the semi-automatic mode for that is when you can HIT something with anything other then by LUCK).
Please remember Automatic Fire in anything other then a heavy weapon is hard for a person to control. In Machine guns used with a bi-pod only three rounds is about all you can fire and hope to hit something. 8-10 rounds is all you can fire if you are using a modern General Purpose Machine Gun on a Tripod (Old Fashioned water cooled Machine guns or tripods can do better, as can any weapon as heavy or heavier, i.e. Gatling guns if provide a support such as a tripod to keep the fire level). Submachine guns can fire effectively for about 8-10 rounds, but even then the shooter is firing into the sky (When a person fire an Automatic weapon, other then on a tripod, you will tend to react to each push of recoil as each round is fired, do to this insensitive reaction, each round will go up and to the right (If you are firing right handed, if firing left handed you will go to the left and up). After about three rounds in an AK-47, M16 or WWII era BAR (Or the BAR used in today's army) the upward and rightward motion will take the weapon's fire out of action (i.e. over the head of the people you are shooting at). In Sub machine guns the movement is not as severe (do to the lower recoil of the round being fired) but even in a Sub Machine Gun you are overshooting your target by the time you have fired 8-10 rounds. For this reason AUTOMATIC FIRE IS DISCOURAGED IN ALMOST EVERY ARMY EXCEPT IN LIMITED CIRCUMSTANCES. Remember that when you point out that both the Soviet and German WWII armies as as many "Automatic" Weapons as claimed, did NOT make them more effective units NOR that either army was better equipped then the US Army with its Semi-automatic Rifle, the M1. That was slowly changing. The Germans were on their way to produce the first Assault Rifle (Even through the Russians had decided on a similar course earlier, the German did NOT standardize the round till 1942, the Soviets had done so in 1939). Even Stalin liked the concept of a light round (Through he rejected the AK in favor of the SKS for he seems to have wanted to avoid the use of detachable magazines, saw them as an added expense he could avoid if his troops stayed with Stripper Clips as used on the Mauser Rifles, the Springfield Rifle, The British Enfields, in addition to the Soviet Bolt Action Rifles) and had the SKS in production by 1945 (It is debatable if it was used in WWII, but it was being fielded by that Summer replacing Sub-machine guns and Bolt Action Rifles). Please note the SKS was semi-automatic only, just like the M1 Rifle (Through firing the 7.62x39mm used in the AK series of Rifles starting in 1947).
Anyway, getting back to the point I was trying to make, every army has gone to war NOT with the equipment it wanted to fight that war with, but with the weapons it has on hand. People can NOT determine HOW the next war will be fought (and often guess wrong based on experience of the last war, this is what happened during WWI with the British Army. The British Army had been butchered by the Boars with their superior Mauser Rifles during the Boar war around 1900. The British were determined to make sure that never happened again, first the British increased rifle training for its troops then in 1913 the British adopted the 1913 pattern Enfield to replace the Lee-Enfield then in use by the British Army. The next year WWI broke out and while the new long range training came into some use in the first months of the war, it was quickly found that such long range opportunities were rare on the Western Front and the replacement by the slower firing, but more accurate M1913 Enfield of the shorter range but more rapid firing Lee-Enfield was canceled (Mauser rifles such as the M1913 Enfield, the M1917 Enfield, the M1903 Springfield's and M1898 Mauser could fire up to 14 rounds per minute, the Lee Enfield do to its rear locking bolt was faster to operate and could fire up to 20 rounds per Minette). Why the mistake of almost replacing what turned out to be a better rifle in France? The Boar war lessons were taken to be universal NOT one restricted to areas where you had huge open areas as opposed to the many farms, fences, towns etc that western Europe is noted for. In Western Europe you do NOT need a long range rifle like the Mauser, a shorter range, but still effective range of 800 yards or less was more then good enough. On the other hand had the British found themselves in another area like South Africa the shortcomings of the Lee-Enfield would have reappeared (When Britain returned to Colonial Campaign after WWI it took along with it the increased use of Machine Guns that had come into general practice during WWI, thus the need for long range never appeared, through when it came to Iraq the US made sure several of its units had M14s available if needed in the early days of the attack on Iraq for it is open land compared to Europe.
The point of the last paragraph was to show you can NOT always prepare for ALL the potential wars you will face. Some wars are more likely then others. Remember how we defeated the Iraqi resistance? (We paid them off, we were slowly losing till we reached an agreement with them as to how much we would pay them NOT to fight us, thus our most effective weapon in Iraq was the Dollar). Between WWI and WWII the British expected to fight another Battleship to Battleship fight like Jutland, but when WWII started it was found that German had NOT built up its Navy enough to even challenge British Naval Power (The Bismark sailing in May 1941 was an attempt to destroy a convoy NOT to engage British Battleships, when the Bismark did face them it was sunk) the British found they had plenty of Battleships (and even Plenty of Carriers) but a lack of Destroyers to attack the growing U-Boat threat. This Lend-lease started out as the transfer of US Destroyers to the British for Anti-U boat duties. Britain had more then enough Battleships and Carriers, it lack Destroyers for Britain had assumed its next war would be like the last, when the threat turned out to be completely different (The Carriers turned in Valuable service, but the Battleships while also providing valuable service, did less then the Destroyers and Carriers did in winning WWII. In simple terms, Britain would have been better off keeping fewer Battleships between the Wars and using that money to build up its economy so it would have had more money to buy want it needed when it was needed. In many ways that is what we need to do, we are wasting money buying equipment that will be replaced before it is ever used in Combat (F-22 and F35 Fighters for example). We could fly the F-16s for the next few decades till we see WHAT is a military threat to the US. We do NOT need F-22s and F-35s to fight Al Queda or the Taliban (A-10s are good enough for that function). If war with China occurs within the Next 20 years the F-16s and F-18s are good enough for such a war (The F-15 is a much better plane then either, but the age of the air frames are such they need to be replaced). I do NOT see a threat to the US where we even need our Nuclear Submarine Force (Both Ballistic missiles and Attack Submarines). I am for keeping those running that we do have, but cut back on improvements and replacements till such time as someone is a threat THAT can be addressed by such submarines. The same with the Carriers. Why do we have to have 12?
Why do we have a 2 1/2 war policy (2 1/2 war policy is the policy that the US shall have the Capacity to fight two OFFENSIVE OPERATIONS and ONE defensive operations at the same time. It was the Policy of the US before Vietnam, but with Vietnam and the oil Embargo the US dropped to a 1 1/2 war policy UNTIL the Soviet Union self-destructed, then to keep up military spending the 2 1/2 war policy was reinstated. Why do we need to have bases all over the world "protect out interests"? So what if someone takes something over, we may have to pay more but we are doing that now with our excessive military spending. Would we NOT be better off if oil is NOT controlled by anyone by US Corporations (Higher price for Gas is one of the cost to solve the energy crisis, the Global Warming Crisis, and even the US trade deficient, so someone taking over the world's oil supply is NOT that much of a threat given who ever gets control still has to sell the oil to someone and that someone tends to be the US). We do NOT need to have the military of the size we have. In a time of crisis much of what we have in the Military will be useless (Designed for the Wrong War at the Wrong Time). In time of crisis, with no preexisting products we could design and built what is really needed NOT what we needed for a different type of war. We can achieve that by cutting back military expenditures to the bone, close the bases over seas and get back to building up the US internally. That is what we need to do, not try to control the world through our military might.
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
