Ineffective & deficent Allied equipment

[Carl Schwamberger]

M6 Motor Gun Carriage as a tank destroyer was not the best idea. Even in 1940 it would not have been a viable weapon & in 1942 it was even less.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M6_Gun_Motor_Carriage

[phylo_roadking]

Even in 1940 it would not have been a viable weapon & in 1942 it was even less

Although...to be fair, the Bitish/Commonwealth 2pdr portee had an everso slightly less affective 37mm A/T gun...and still proved a viable weapon for a time.

[Tim Smith]

The M6 Gun Carriage and the 2 pdr portee, due to their great mobility, were ideal weapons to have against enemy armoured cars, tankettes and light tanks, which were often used for reconnaissance and wide flanking movements. So for a light mobile screening force, they were useful weapons.

But if you're in one and you see an enemy medium tank, the best thing to do is to fire a couple of rounds and then withdraw out of range as fast as possible.

[Graham Clayton]

The British Army 18 litre (4 gallon) fuel containers were nicknamed "flimsies". They proved to be extremely unsatisfactory during the North African Campaign and severely hampered the operation of the British 8th Army. The transportation of fuel over rough terrain often resulted in much of the fuel being lost as the containers were easily punctured. The resultant leakages also made the transportation vehicles liable to fuel fires. The 8th Army would instead use captured Afrika Korps jerrycans as a substitute container.

[Mark V]

The 8th Army would instead use captured Afrika Korps jerrycans as a substitute container.

... and Americans put copy of jerrycan to mass-production ASAP and made whole lot of them, rest is history.

[phylo_roadking]

Flimsies were sadly designed to be punctured...at the right time As they didn't come with a screw top or fitting!



They also came in two gallon versions which were more resilient...but thus used more pressed tin and was actually more expensive!

They were ALSO used for carrying water...and of course suffered in the same way...!

[Rob Munch]

What about the CAC Boomerang, a fighter aircraft designed and built in Australia between 1942 and 1945?

This plane came about because the British could not afford to spare any Spitfires, so the Aussies came up with the Boomerang. 250 were made.

It had a low top speed and poor high altitude performance, so was no match for the zero in the Pacific theatre. On the one occasion that one surprised a zero its guns jammed.

It was going to be fitted with a turbo charger to improve engine performance, but these were diverted to other aircraft.

[sunbury2]

What about the CAC Boomerang, a fighter aircraft designed and built in Australia between 1942 and 1945?

This plane came about because the British could not afford to spare any Spitfires, so the Aussies came up with the Boomerang. 250 were made.

It had a low top speed and poor high altitude performance, so was no match for the zero in the Pacific theatre. On the one occasion that one surprised a zero its guns jammed.

It was going to be fitted with a turbo charger to improve engine performance, but these were diverted to other aircraft.

There is a good discussion on the CAC Boomerang at http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 3&t=139009

I agree with the premise that the Boomerang was largely for propaganda purposes as there were numerous US P-40's in Australia even before it was designed. A Wirraway (Havard trainer with some guns) actually shot down one Japanese fighter once, the 250 Boomerangs never achieved even that modest total

[Graham Clayton]

The Soviet AVS-36 automatic rifle had a complicated operating mechanism and a poor muzzle brake which made automatic fire hard to aim and control. Although production had ended in 1938, some did see service in mid-1941, before they were all replaced by the SVT-40.

[fredleander]

On the otherhand some added BAR's. Just as the BAR was not an LMG it the Garand was not an automatic rifle.

No matter what you call it the Garand was a semi-automatic rifle. The BAR was conceived as an "automatic rifle" but is an LMG. No matter what you call it...I believe it originally was meant to be used without a bipod.. ...

Wikipedia:

"A semi-automatic rifle is a rifle that fires a single round each time the trigger is pulled, uses gas, blowforward, blowback, or recoil to eject the spent cartridge after the round has traveled down the barrel, chambers a new cartridge from its magazine, and resets the action; enabling another round to be fired once the trigger is depressed again."

"An automatic rifle is a type of magazine-fed rifle that uses either its recoil or a portion of the gas propelling the projectile to remove the spent cartridge case, cock the rifle, load a new cartridge and fire again repeatedly, as long as the trigger is held down or until the magazine is exhausted. Automatic rifles are distinguished from semi-automatic rifles in their ability to fire more than one shot in succession once the trigger is pulled. Most automatic rifles are select-fire weapons which are capable of firing in both full-automatic and semi-automatic."

"A light machine gun is also defined by its usage as well as its specifications: some machine guns - notably general-purpose machine guns - may be deployed either as a light machine gun or a medium machine gun. Deployed on a tripod and used for sustained-fire it is a medium machine gun; if deployed with a bipod with the operator in prone position and firing short bursts it is a light machine gun."

Some US carbines were automatic rifles, the M16 is, the AK's are.

Fred

[LWD]

On the otherhand some added BAR's. Just as the BAR was not an LMG it the Garand was not an automatic rifle.

.... The BAR was conceived as an "automatic rifle" but is an LMG. No matter what you call it...I believe it originally was meant to be used without a bipod.. ...
...

The BAR was originally deployed without a bipod and was intended to be used while advancing. The US used a Browning 30 caliber light machine gun as its LMG. The BAR wasn't used in the same role wiki definitions not withstanding.

[fredleander]

The BAR was originally deployed without a bipod and was intended to be used while advancing. The US used a Browning 30 caliber light machine gun as its LMG. The BAR wasn't used in the same role wiki definitions not withstanding.

I know. In WW2 it was. Was it not? If not which units used it without a bipod in ww2. Would you know?

Fred

http://www.militaryfactory.com/smallarm ... arms_id=58

[LWD]

I think most, if not all, were issued with bipods during WWII. I think I've read that they were removed by some users. I'm not an expert on them though.

[fredleander]

I think most, if not all, were issued with bipods during WWII. I think I've read that they were removed by some users. I'm not an expert on them though.

All were. With other words, a light machine gun. I believe the normal setup of such an MG team was section leader (squad SIC), MG operator and MG 2. We had the same setup in the Norwegian army in the fifties and sixties. One LMG section in each of the rifle squads, fourth squad was support, 2 x .30 Browning MMG (1919 A4 on tripods). The riflemen had Garands.

Interestingly, all the men (except the MG gunners) in the support squad had the MP-40 Schmeisser as personal weapon.

Fred

[LWD]

I think most, if not all, were issued with bipods during WWII. I think I've read that they were removed by some users. I'm not an expert on them though.

All were. With other words, a light machine gun.

NO. That's wiki's definition of what constitutes an LMG. The US Army and USMC considered them automatic rifels not LMGs and I'll go by their defintions just like I go with the German defintions of the twins as battleships rather than battle cruisers or the Alaskas as large cruisers. The M-14 had a bipod too I believe and it wasn't considered an LMG.

I believe the normal setup of such an MG team was section leader (squad SIC), MG operator and MG 2.

That wasn't the way the Marines operated from what I've read. Note in the following referency there is an "automatic rifleman" and an "assistant" but no section leader. From what I've read the main duty of the assistant was to carry more ammo with a secondary task of taking over the BAR if the BAR gunner was incapacitated. I think the army set up was similar.
http://www.leatherneck.com/forums/showt ... n-fireteam
According to:
http://www.jameswebb.com/articles/mcgaz ... eteam.html
late in the war they did go to a fire team concept with more BAR's in the squad.
This goes into a bit more detail:
http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USMC/OO ... TOE-F/#I-1
This one notes that the Army did have two assistant gunners for a BAR in the squad but also notes that typically everyone in the squad carried additional magazines for the BAR.
http://www.ww2f.com/topic/19462-toe-for ... adplatoon/
This one suggest a 4 man team for the US Army BAR team.
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_men_ ... orld_War_2
and notes that the airborne equivalanat carried the M1919 LMG. It's pretty clear that the US Army and USMC considered the BAR as something different from an LMG.