Infantry regiment in the ETO retained bolt action rifles?

Discussions on all aspects of the United States of America during the Inter-War era and Second World War. Hosted by Carl Schwamberger.
Felix C
Member
Posts: 1201
Joined: 04 Jul 2007, 17:25
Location: Miami, Fl

Infantry regiment in the ETO retained bolt action rifles?

#1

Post by Felix C » 19 Jan 2013, 23:08

Reading on the Normandy campaign and found one infantry regiment kept the bolt action Springfield rifle due to the Colonel's insistence. Any information on how this affected their combat performane? Did they retain the Springfiled after the Colonel was replaced?

Carl Schwamberger
Host - Allied sections
Posts: 10056
Joined: 02 Sep 2006, 21:31
Location: USA

Re: Infantry regiment in the ETO retained bolt action rifles

#2

Post by Carl Schwamberger » 20 Jan 2013, 14:50

Which regiment would this have been & what was the Colonels name.


binder001
Member
Posts: 142
Joined: 07 Jan 2010, 18:11
Location: Nebraska, USA

Re: Infantry regiment in the ETO retained bolt action rifles

#3

Post by binder001 » 22 Jan 2013, 17:27

Some infantry units still had a number of M1903-type rifles in 1944. These were used as grenade launchers and some were used by squad leaders. Initially the M1 rifle was in short supply and the squad leader would have an M1903 as it was felt he should be directing the squad versus providing firepower. There were M1903s and even some M1917s showing in photos of support units such as engineers or railroad troops. I have not heard of any unit that retained M1903s at a the insistence of a colonel.

User avatar
RJ55
Member
Posts: 114
Joined: 10 Oct 2012, 10:50

Re: Infantry regiment in the ETO retained bolt action rifles

#4

Post by RJ55 » 22 Jan 2013, 18:07

This is probably not as bad an idea as it sounds. Many inexperienced units tend to panick and use up their ammunition to quickly for little effect. Automatic and semi-automatic weapons makes this problem worse. With a well-trained and experienced unit however, this would be a dumb move.

Delta Tank
Member
Posts: 2512
Joined: 16 Aug 2004, 02:51
Location: Pennsylvania

Re: Infantry regiment in the ETO retained bolt action rifles

#5

Post by Delta Tank » 22 Jan 2013, 20:33

To all,

I would be very surprised if this was true. I doubt if a regimental commander would have the authority to do this, the division commander would have to also approve. Then there is the logistical aspect of the whole ammo (5 round stripper clips vs 8 round block clips), spare parts, spare rifles, etc. And all of his replacements would of been trained on the M-1 rifle.

I am skeptical that this is true!

Mike

Stephan
Member
Posts: 739
Joined: 09 Feb 2003, 21:34
Location: Sweden

Re: Infantry regiment in the ETO retained bolt action rifles

#6

Post by Stephan » 23 Jan 2013, 13:25

RJ55 wrote:This is probably not as bad an idea as it sounds. Many inexperienced units tend to panick and use up their ammunition to quickly for little effect. Automatic and semi-automatic weapons makes this problem worse. .
Another advantages should be, the rifles could shoot effectively at longer distances too than the alternatives.
I presume also, there would be a lesser risk of firebreaks. When you know what happens the first you must jump down into muddy sea water, and later on on your stomach through a sandy beach... The idea of reliable bolt rifles isnt thus so bad. If the rifle got stuck with sand, it is prob easier to clean it up in field conditions than a machine subgun/equivalent.

Dunnigan
Member
Posts: 144
Joined: 30 Jan 2011, 18:59

Re: Infantry regiment in the ETO retained bolt action rifles

#7

Post by Dunnigan » 23 Jan 2013, 22:38

Delta Tank wrote:To all,

I would be very surprised if this was true. I doubt if a regimental commander would have the authority to do this, the division commander would have to also approve. Then there is the logistical aspect of the whole ammo (5 round stripper clips vs 8 round block clips), spare parts, spare rifles, etc. And all of his replacements would of been trained on the M-1 rifle.

I am skeptical that this is true!

Mike

I agree. Whether or not a regimental commander would have the power to demand the supply depot to scrounge up Springfields to equip 3000+ men is silly. There's a reason where there's a TO&E table: it's for standardization and ease of supply, i.e. replacement parts, shipments to keep up a standard quota.

In the 1943 TO&E's, there was a M1903 in each squad, not because of the oft-misstated need as a sniper rifle (that obsession with snipers easily explains things), but because it was used by the Assistant Squad Leader for the rifle grenade. At the time, there wasn't a rifle grenade adapter for the M1 Garand, so the M1903 was retained. In 1944 when a rifle grenade adapter was available did most soldier swap them out, and probably readily so by the soldiers.

Joe Balkowski in his "Beyond the Beachhead" stated that there was still a M1903 at the platoon level as a sharpshooter/sniper... this MAY have been the case for the 29th Blue/Gray Division but most likely not universally so for the rest of the infantry divisions, as the US Army didn't have a dedicated sniper program (the term sniper wasn't used by the US Army but instead Sharpshooter) and an M1 Garand could do just about as well as an M1903 in capable hands. Soldiers who retained their M1903's probably personally preferred them or they for some reason couldn't swap them out for M1 Garands.

There is a photo of a Paratrooper in the 101st in Market Garden with an M1903, so they were definitely used, but I've never heard of and am skeptical of their use by an entire regiment of infantry.

Dunnigan
Member
Posts: 144
Joined: 30 Jan 2011, 18:59

Re: Infantry regiment in the ETO retained bolt action rifles

#8

Post by Dunnigan » 23 Jan 2013, 22:42

Stephan wrote:
RJ55 wrote:This is probably not as bad an idea as it sounds. Many inexperienced units tend to panick and use up their ammunition to quickly for little effect. Automatic and semi-automatic weapons makes this problem worse. .
Another advantages should be, the rifles could shoot effectively at longer distances too than the alternatives.
I presume also, there would be a lesser risk of firebreaks. When you know what happens the first you must jump down into muddy sea water, and later on on your stomach through a sandy beach... The idea of reliable bolt rifles isnt thus so bad. If the rifle got stuck with sand, it is prob easier to clean it up in field conditions than a machine subgun/equivalent.
Unfortunately that's a very WWI mindset, and even one that still persisted in the US Army in WWII where individual marksmanship trumped putting more bullets downrange. In a rifleman vs. rifleman shootout between a US rifleman with an M1 Garand vs. any rifleman in any other army with an SMLE, Mauser, Mosin-Nagant, Arisaka, etc., the Garand wielder will win out. BUT, in real combat in WWII, the US rifle squad was badly underpowered in terms of firepower. Commanders who didn't realize that having more automatic weapons in the hands of his troops either would have cost him troops or have his men just lie in a ditch while Germans fired back at them with their MG42's. An M1903, let alone an M1 Garand pales in comparison with more bullets. Granted more ammo, but more cause for suppression to bring down mortar or artillery.

Steve Wilcox
Member
Posts: 185
Joined: 13 Nov 2006, 22:39
Location: Victoria, BC, Canada

Re: Infantry regiment in the ETO retained bolt action rifles

#9

Post by Steve Wilcox » 24 Jan 2013, 00:09

Dunnigan wrote:Joe Balkowski in his "Beyond the Beachhead" stated that there was still a M1903 at the platoon level as a sharpshooter/sniper... this MAY have been the case for the 29th Blue/Gray Division but most likely not universally so for the rest of the infantry divisions, as the US Army didn't have a dedicated sniper program (the term sniper wasn't used by the US Army but instead Sharpshooter) and an M1 Garand could do just about as well as an M1903 in capable hands.
The rifle platoon's M1903A4 was (in theory) standard for the T/O&E 7-17 Rifle Company as of 15 July 1943 until it was (again in theory) replaced by the M1C as of Change 2 of 30 January 1945. When these weapons got into anyone's hands is indeed another question.

User avatar
Keystone
Member
Posts: 67
Joined: 11 Dec 2006, 15:42
Location: Pennsylvania

Re: Infantry regiment in the ETO retained bolt action rifles

#10

Post by Keystone » 24 Jan 2013, 01:16

I believe the situation in question was was the 23rd Infantry Regiment of the Second Infantry Division which landed in Normandy 07 JUNE 1944.
Colonel Hurley Fuller, a WWI veteran, chose for whatever reasons that his regiment to be armed with bolt action rifles.
The other two regiments of the Second Infantry Division, the 9th Infantry Regiment and the 38th Infantry Regiments were primarily armed more conventionally with the M1 Garand, et al..
I also recall that shortly into the campaign that the 23rd was re-armed with the M1 and a new Division Commander was appointed by General Walter Robertson.
I will mention that this information is from memory and can be validated if anyone so desires.

Carl Schwamberger
Host - Allied sections
Posts: 10056
Joined: 02 Sep 2006, 21:31
Location: USA

Re: Infantry regiment in the ETO retained bolt action rifles

#11

Post by Carl Schwamberger » 24 Jan 2013, 05:57

Keystone wrote:I believe the situation in question was was the 23rd Infantry Regiment of the Second Infantry Division which landed in Normandy 07 JUNE 1944.
Colonel Hurley Fuller, a WWI veteran, chose for whatever reasons that his regiment to be armed with bolt action rifles....
A bit of irony there. The US 2d Div had from the mid 1930s been the experimental formation, field testing new weapons and the new infantry doctrines.
Dunnigan wrote: ... BUT, in real combat in WWII, the US rifle squad was badly underpowered in terms of firepower. .. .
That & the rest of it had something to do with the US Marines having 16 BAR in the rifle company long before WWII, & having 27 BAR & 6 MMG + mortars & assualt weapons sections in the rifle company by 1944.

Dunnigan
Member
Posts: 144
Joined: 30 Jan 2011, 18:59

Re: Infantry regiment in the ETO retained bolt action rifles

#12

Post by Dunnigan » 24 Jan 2013, 16:37

Carl Schwamberger wrote: A bit of irony there. The US 2d Div had from the mid 1930s been the experimental formation, field testing new weapons and the new infantry doctrines.
Interesting, I thought it was the 4th Infantry Division that was experimental, or maybe I'm thinking this because it was trialed as a motorized division.

An entire regiment being equipped with Springfields is too juicy not to look up further. A quick google search revealed nothing. I just placed an order to the NY Public Library for the 2nd Infantry Division and 23rd Infantry Regiment WWII Official Histories. Hopefully something will turn up.

Charles MacDonald served in the 23rd Infantry Regiment as a replacement starting in October(?) and he mentions Garands I believe, but if the comment is that the Springfields were replaced early in Normandy, he wouldn't have known.
Dunnigan wrote: That & the rest of it had something to do with the US Marines having 16 BAR in the rifle company long before WWII, & having 27 BAR & 6 MMG + mortars & assualt weapons sections in the rifle company by 1944.
That's why I voted for the USMC company formation in that Armchair General poll! :milwink:

Felix C
Member
Posts: 1201
Joined: 04 Jul 2007, 17:25
Location: Miami, Fl

Re: Infantry regiment in the ETO retained bolt action rifles

#13

Post by Felix C » 24 Jan 2013, 17:49

I was reading simultaneously a few books on Normandy and recalled the reference because it was unusual. (I read a chapter on one book and then read another chapter from a different perspective in another title.etc)

I did read the USMC did not want to give up their Springfields either in 1942. Urban legend?

Partial reference here in a bio of Troy Middleton.
http://books.google.com/books?id=rPrkse ... ld&f=false
Last edited by Felix C on 24 Jan 2013, 18:14, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Keystone
Member
Posts: 67
Joined: 11 Dec 2006, 15:42
Location: Pennsylvania

Re: Infantry regiment in the ETO retained bolt action rifles

#14

Post by Keystone » 24 Jan 2013, 18:12

Colonel Hurley E. Fuller was relieved as Commander of the 23rd Infantry Regiment 16 JUNE 1944, whereupon the Regiment was issued M1 Garand rifles.

Fuller was later appointed Commander of the 110th Infantry Regiment of the 28th Infantry Division 24 NOV 1944.

Dunnigan
Member
Posts: 144
Joined: 30 Jan 2011, 18:59

Re: Infantry regiment in the ETO retained bolt action rifles

#15

Post by Dunnigan » 24 Jan 2013, 18:55

Keystone wrote:Colonel Hurley E. Fuller was relieved as Commander of the 23rd Infantry Regiment 16 JUNE 1944, whereupon the Regiment was issued M1 Garand rifles.

Fuller was later appointed Commander of the 110th Infantry Regiment of the 28th Infantry Division 24 NOV 1944.
Fuller got the position after Col. Seely was wounded in the Huertgen. He basically begged his old pal Middleton for a position and the 110th was offered to him. He commanded the 110th in the Bulge and given the circumstances, he did quite well. The interesting thing is that Col. Seely had recovered from his wounds and was an "extra" regimental commander in the battle. Both, surprisingly, were captured and according to MacDonald's A Time for Trumpets, the Germans were baffled at this extra regimental commander having already captured Fuller and knowing the commanders of the 109th and 112th, so they guessed that Seely was the CO of 111th Infantry Regiment!

Post Reply

Return to “USA 1919-1945”