Infantry regiment in the ETO retained bolt action rifles?

[Carl Schwamberger]

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.

The 4th Div was, post 1939. The role of the 2d Div as a test formation goes back deep into the 1930s. I noticed in Gen Krueger biography when he took command of the 2d Div in 1938 it had converted from the "square" to the proposed triangular formation & conducted regiment/division scale manuvers under his command as part of the tests.

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

No, but the opposition was a individual thing, salt crusted lifers & other Marksmanship devotees. There were many of the same in the US Army. The senior commanders saw the value in the Garand, so the Marines carried mostly Garands from 1942. Given the plethoria of fully automatic weapons in comparison to the US Army infantry company it hardly mattered if the Marine riflemen still carried Springfields or Garands. The rifle marksmanship training for either weapon was nearly identical. The Marine platoon & rifle company tactics revolved around the numerous BAR & Browning MMG/HMG.

In his auto biography Ridgeway describes packing a Springfield whenever he was in the battlezone. He also mentions drawing AP ammo to load it with.

[Delta Tank]

I own an 03 Springfield and in my opinion the sights are great for firing in a competition on a rifle range but they are just too "fine" to use in light conditions that are not optimal. In other words the sights are very hard to see. The sights on my Garand are very easy to see, much larger, can be used in less than optimal light conditions. I also have a No 4 Mk 1 and in a lot of ways that rifle has the best sights. It has a very good "battle sight" that has a large rear aperture and if you need to do some very precise rifle fire you can always flip up the micrometer sight. The sights on the K98k are also excellent. If I had to rank the rifles on sights the 03 would be last, the No 4 Mk 1 would be first and the other two would be in the middle. As far as accuracy goes everyone of these rifles can shoot much better than I can hold them! I am surprised at how well they shoot. I also have a Mosin Nagant and it is extremely accurate which really surprised me, the rifle was made in 1943, and they obviously had high standards in that production line.

Carl is correct about old NCOs (Army and USMC) not wanting to get rid of the 03 Springfield. The story I always heard was that who ever won the annual marksmanship competition won a lot of money.

Mike

[Dunnigan]

The 4th Div was, post 1939. The role of the 2d Div as a test formation goes back deep into the 1930s. I noticed in Gen Krueger biography when he took command of the 2d Div in 1938 it had converted from the "square" to the proposed triangular formation & conducted regiment/division scale manuvers under his command as part of the tests.

Very interesting. I have the publication from the Center for Military History on the 1941 maneuvers pitting the square divisions against the triangle divisions. I haven't read the publication in full, but this is getting me interested in the subject.

In his auto biography Ridgeway describes packing a Springfield whenever he was in the battlezone. He also mentions drawing AP ammo to load it with.

Having Ridgway with his Springfield standing next to Gavin with his Garand would have been a great image... young vs. new generation of All Americans.

[Delta Tank]

Dunnigan,

General Ridgway served in the Army from 1917 to 1955 and General Gavin 1924 to 1958. . .both old Army!!

Mike

[Dunnigan]

Dunnigan,

General Ridgway served in the Army from 1917 to 1955 and General Gavin 1924 to 1958. . .both old Army!!

Mike

I meant age-wise in the same old Army: In 1944 Ridgway was 49 and Gavin was 37! I recall Gavin being the youngest general commanding a division in WWII.

[Delta Tank]

Dunnigan,

General Ridgway served in the Army from 1917 to 1955 and General Gavin 1924 to 1958. . .both old Army!!

Mike

I meant age-wise in the same old Army: In 1944 Ridgway was 49 and Gavin was 37! I recall Gavin being the youngest general commanding a division in WWII.

I believe you are correct, Gavin was the youngest division commander in WWII and apparently he spent some time with Marlene Dietrich!!

I ordered the book on Middleton, so we will find out what the next page says!

Mike

[binder001]

It's very interesting that a regimental commander in the Army Ground Forces could wangle a change in TO&E. From my readings LTG McNair and his staff favored standardization of infantry units. Further, as mentioned, it would have required some changes in the ammunition delivery to that ONE regiment. Obviously .30 ball ammo in 5rd strippers was still very much in stock in ETOUSA but that single regiment would have had to receive only 5rd strippers or 20rd boxes and not the 8rd clips that were used by all the other regiments in the ETO. That regiment's "unit of fire" would be different causing supply confusion up and down the chain of supply. That might not be a big problem when the regiment is with its "parent" division, but what about when it, or its elements were cross attached per common US Army practice? The 2nd Division's Robertson was one of the higher rated infantry divisional commanders in ETOUSA, so someone must have made a heck of a case for non-standardization!

As far as the realtive weapons, I agree with the previous poster that most WW2 infantry rifle will shoot further and straighhter than 99% of the men who carried them. The old guys who clung to M1903s had probably developed a "feel" for that rifle. The M1 is wider and "feels" slightly heavier and has different sights, so the old boys thought that the old rifle was "better" because that had a comfort level with it. When you are a new recruit and your crusty old sarge says that the Springfield was "better" that would color your opinion. As far as an M1 jamming due to dirt, sand, etc; no it has no worse track record than any other rifle that is PROPERLY MAINTAINED. Again it's a shooter or training failure, not the rifle's. I have dropped an M1 in a Tennessee creek and shook out the water and the rifle fired perfectly. A good cleaning and oiling followed later and the rifle was no worse for wear.

The US Army has had a "love affair" with the image of the indibvidual rifleman that goes back to Daniel Morgan, and ran through Alvin York. Even though the US Army didn't not raise dedicated snipers per se, they trained each man to be a "sharpshooter". That caused problems on many battlefields where the US soldier or Marine could not see his target. Instead of firing to suppress the enemy they often held back looking for that elusive target. They had to learn the value of shooting TOWARDS the enemy position, not just AT the enemy soldier.

[Delta Tank]

Binder001

The US Army has had a "love affair" with the image of the individual rifleman that goes back to Daniel Morgan, and ran through Alvin York. Even though the US Army didn't not raise dedicated snipers per se, they trained each man to be a "sharpshooter". That caused problems on many battlefields where the US soldier or Marine could not see his target. Instead of firing to suppress the enemy they often held back looking for that elusive target. They had to learn the value of shooting TOWARDS the enemy position, not just AT the enemy soldier.

I have read that in numerous books, that when a replacement got to a unit they had to train them to suppress the objective and that it was rare to see the enemy soldier except at close range, "empty battlefield" is the term I remember to describe it.

Mike

[Carl Schwamberger]

Binder001

The US Army has had a "love affair" with the image of the individual rifleman that goes back to Daniel Morgan, and ran through Alvin York. Even though the US Army didn't not raise dedicated snipers per se, they trained each man to be a "sharpshooter". That caused problems on many battlefields where the US soldier or Marine could not see his target. Instead of firing to suppress the enemy they often held back looking for that elusive target. They had to learn the value of shooting TOWARDS the enemy position, not just AT the enemy soldier.

I have read that in numerous books, that when a replacement got to a unit they had to train them to suppress the objective and that it was rare to see the enemy soldier except at close range, "empty battlefield" is the term I remember to describe it.

Mike

Ii varied widely from one unit to another. Some battalion or division commanders stuck to the sharpshooter ideal. For others it was adhering to the doctrine that the BAR & MG gunners provided suppresive or area fires. Yet others saw the necessity in rifle men doing suppresive area fires when the situation warranted. One of the reasons the Marines added BAR in the rifle companies during the interwar years (16 per company pre 1941) was they found in combat in Hati & Nicaragua how the extra BAR put out enough 'suppresive' fires to gain faster superiority in the critical minutes of a fire fight.

[Carl Schwamberger]

Very interesting. I have the publication from the Center for Military History on the 1941 maneuvers pitting the square divisions against the triangle divisions. I haven't read the publication in full, but this is getting me interested in the subject.

Specifically which 1941 manuvers? There were one or more triangular divisions in the 1940 Army scale manuvers. Lt Generals Kruger & Lear commanded in those. Ike as a lowly colonel was a key staffer in Kruegers HQ. Patton commanded one of the two new half formed armored divisions in that exercise. There were at least two 'Army' size exercises in 1940-41, often refered to as the Louisiana & Carolina exercises. I am unsure if there was a third, and there were quite a few corps size field exercises.

Having Ridgway with his Springfield standing next to Gavin with his Garand would have been a great image... young vs. new generation of All Americans.

Ironic, In 1941 Ridgeway was one of the Young Turks. Along with Ike McNair, Patch, Collins, Ike & about every other post 1941 General. Bree, DeWitt, Drum, Chaffee, Wainright, King, ect... were of the older generation.

[Dunnigan]

Specifically which 1941 manuvers? There were one or more triangular divisions in the 1940 Army scale manuvers. Lt Generals Kruger & Lear commanded in those. Ike as a lowly colonel was a key staffer in Kruegers HQ. Patton commanded one of the two new half formed armored divisions in that exercise. There were at least two 'Army' size exercises in 1940-41, often refered to as the Louisiana & Carolina exercises. I am unsure if there was a third, and there were quite a few corps size field exercises.

The Louisiana-Carolina Maneuvers. I remember in High School reading an MHQ article on these maneuvers and how the judges did their scoring to determine who "won".

http://www.history.army.mil/html/books/ ... index.html

[Carl Schwamberger]

The Louisiana-Carolina Maneuvers. I remember in High School reading an MHQ article on these maneuvers and how the judges did their scoring to determine who "won".

http://www.history.army.mil/html/books/ ... index.html

Thank yew.

The various GHQ manuvers turn up often in the bios of the WWII Generals. A few like Patton or Krueger had top roles in them. Most had low staff or field command roles. Ike was Kruegers CoS in one or another of these.

[Delta Tank]

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

I got the book and on page 204-205 it states: "At one time in World War II he managed to equip his regiment with Springfields - just how, I don't know - but that may give you some idea that Hurley was fairly headstrong."

So, no date when this was done and then undone, but he was in the 2d Infantry Division and I would find it hard to believe that any regiment in the 2d ID landed on Omaha Beach on 7 June were equipped with Springfields.

Mike

[Delta Tank]

To all,

A web site on Col. Fuller: http://www.lonestar-mvpa.org/presentati ... fuller.htm

COL. Fuller was the Commanding Officer of the 2nd Infantry Division, 23rd Infantry commencing on 10/19/1943 and presumably until 07/11/1944 when Lt. COL. Jay B. Loveless took over. He commanded the 23rd Infantry Regiment of the 2nd Infantry Division from 06/06/1944 to 06/16/1944. Not having a military background, this appears to have a date conflict. Information secured from various sources.

Obviously some of the dates above are wrong, but it appears that Col Hurley left command of the 23d Infantry Regiment on 11 July 1944.

Mike

[Carl Schwamberger]

So, no date when this was done and then undone, but he was in the 2d Infantry Division and I would find it hard to believe that any regiment in the 2d ID landed on Omaha Beach on 7 June were equipped with Springfields.

Did the entire division land of 7 June, or were one or more of the infantry regiments remaining afloat until the 8th or 9th?