Squad level firepower comparisons

[Dili]

In general don't trust any English book about Italian Army. Just a warning.

[Eugen Pinak]

There is some discussion going on about Italian infantry organization here: https://comandosupremo.com/forums/index ... ercito.49/

[Brady]

There is some discussion going on about Italian infantry organization here: https://comandosupremo.com/forums/index ... ercito.49/

Yes, it’s great work

[Duncan_M]

Yes the Swedes, you are correct, I knew that Sweden along with Belgium and Poland used the BAR.
I wasn't sure which one used the belt feed system, should have checked my web site.
But was the other improvements made by Fabrique Nationale, any good? The USA didn't seem to adopt these improvements, even after WW2 they used the same basic BAR in Korea and beyond.

Yan.

Yes, eventually they turned it into the FN MAG, using the MG42 feed system and IIRC trigger system. The US stuck with the legacy BARs with bad improvements unique to US versions because...I'm not exactly sure. Not made here syndrome? They certainly had that problem with the 7.62 NATO/M14. Later though they adopted the FN MAG as the M240 and the FN Minimi as the M249, learning their lesson from previously ignoring quality Belgian small arms developments. John Browning set up in Belgium, so his legacy certainly seemed to have lived on there.

US Army's Infantry branch spent most of their allotted funding for ordnance at the time developing and fielding the M1 Garand and a few other new toys, they went cheap in the BAR. They weren't happy with the original M1918, which was really just an automatic rifle, nor happy with the M1918A1, which had a light weight barrel that couldn't handle sustained fire and what they considered a flimsy bipod. So they beefed up the barrel thickness and the front handguard, added a magazine guide, removed semi auto feature and added a feature to change between fast and slow auto cyclic rate, attached a hinged buttstock shoulder rest, and a large, sturdy (and heavy and unbalancing) bipod, and that became the M1918A2. Thus, the Army could take all existing BAR in the inventory, and there were lots because they'd never stopped manufacturing them, and relatively cheaply convert them all to light support weapons/squad automatic weapons/light machine guns, are whatever name we want to call them. In addition they had full support system already set up, in terms of spare parts, knowledge how to use them, armorers to work on them, magazines, belt pouches, technical and field manuals that only needed to be slightly altered, etc.

Not the best choice, but in 1937 when the decision was made the Army's budget wasnt huge and most of the funding it did get was going to armor, air, signals, or artillery, so it wasn't a horrible choice, at least the BAR was rather reliable. As the war started and progressed there was a desire to replace it but that never progressed because they couldn't develop anything better, funding for infantry was diverted elsewhere, and the BAR was working okay enough, especially as veteran units added an extra BAR per squad and some M1919A6 were added to platoons and some squads. And lastly the priority was low, everyone was realizing anyway that infantry combat was most often decided by artillery or armor or air support.

[Duncan_M]

Further, the whole, LMG suppresses the enemy while the rest of the squad works around the flank, assumes (1) you know where the enemy is and (2) you have a flank to work around. I wonder how often this "textbook" attack was ever used in real life.

A third consideration is time to cross the defensive engagement area while under fire to reach the objective. While enemy rifle and machine gun fire could be devastating, enemy mortars and artillery were even worse, they accounted for the majority of casualties while attacking, troops in the open is a superbly deadly protective posture. And a prime lesson of WW2 infantry combat seems to be that troops that go to ground, whether initially to shoot or just to take cover, will not stand up and advance again without leadership "encouraging" them. This commonly led to TTPs where infantry small unit leaders attempted to keep their troops on their feet, advancing forward, not stopping, because should they stop, or should too many leaders become casualties or themselves become suppressed, than the attack falters and fails. Hence why marching fire tactics, when done in conjunction with other supporting fires like company level LMGs and 60mm mortars, battalion level HMGs and 81mm mortars, regimental cannons, divisional and corps level artillery, tanks, tank destroyers, etc, was often very successful.

[Eugen Pinak]

My attempt on reconstruction of Italian rifle squad organization.

[Brady]

Thanks!

[Eugen Pinak]

Thanks!

You're welcome!
Some data already had to be corrected, though :\

[Dili]

Italian Infantry Squad 1943, it can answer to your question Eugene

It Inf Squad 43.pdf

(1007.29 KiB) Downloaded 248 times

[Eugen Pinak]

Italian Infantry Squad 1943, it can answer to your question Eugene

It Inf Squad 43.pdf

Thank you very much! This is really a lot of data about squad composition and equipment.

Though I now understand poor performance of Italian infantry. Squad combat order is made, as if somebody deliberately decided to sabotage any attempt of the squad leader to control LMG fire effectively

[Brady]

Two related Questions:

The 50 cal, and its allocation as an infantry support weapon, and the Common Ammo it used in the field, its my understanding it was Ball, and that AP(of any type) was the tracer round, or used only from AFV's ?

The Springfield's were largely absent from 44/45 TOE for front line troops, apart from the Sniper rifles ?

[Gary Kennedy]

The .50-cal didn't feature that heavily in the Inf Regt T/Os until the July 1943 reorganisation. This authorised one .50-cal in the Weapons Pl of each Rifle Co, plus one in the Heavy Co (on a Co HQ vehicle) and two in HQ Co (one each on a 1.5-ton truck in the Atk Pl and the A&P Pl) of the Inf Bn. As with all the 50s in the Regt there was no full time crew allocated. One of the Wpns Pl Jeeps was fitted with an M31 pedestal mount and initially an M3 tripod was shown for ground use. The guns were primarily considered as being for AA defence, though of course they could be used in a ground role with an ad hoc crew.

Figures for late 1943 show the amn for the .50-cal throughout the Inf Regt as 80% AP to 20% tracer.

The M1903 rifle appeared in the 1942 Inf Regt T/Os purely for use with the M1 grenade launcher. The only units still showing standard M1903 rifles in the Inf Div as of 1943 were Ordnance, QM, Signals and MP; Rifle Pls had one M1903A4 apiece.

Gary

[Brady]

Ref- 50 cal: Did the T/O change past July 43 or did that stay pretty much the same till the wars end ?

Did US Para's "drop" with a 50 cal in there Heavy weapons Co. ?

The AP Rounds seam consistent with there intended use against Aircraft

This beg's the Question what was Ball 50 call for, who used it ? ( I had assumed it was the Normal inf round)

Did not the introduction of the Carbine replace the Springfield, for the most part, in the support elements, in 44-45 ?

[Dunnigan]

Ref- 50 cal: Did the T/O change past July 43 or did that stay pretty much the same till the wars end ?

Did US Para's "drop" with a 50 cal in there Heavy weapons Co. ?

The AP Rounds seam consistent with there intended use against Aircraft

This beg's the Question what was Ball 50 call for, who used it ? ( I had assumed it was the Normal inf round)

Did not the introduction of the Carbine replace the Springfield, for the most part, in the support elements, in 44-45 ?

.50 Cal MG's were not in US Parachute Infantry Battalions nor did the battalions have a Heavy Weapons Company. Heavy Weapons Companies were only found in Infantry and Glider Infantry Battalions. Parachute Infantry Battalions carried M1919's in the Squads and M1917's in the HQ Company.

The Carbine didn't replace the M1903 Springfield, it replaced the M1911 Pistol as a better portable small arms for officers and weapons crewmen. The M1903 in the Rifle Squad was replaced by an M1 Garand once the Grenade Launcher adapter was available.

[Gary Kennedy]

Pretty much as Dunnigan outlines (though I've only seen the MG Pls of the Para Inf Bns down as having M1919s, same as the Rifle Pls). The US Glider Inf adopted a slightly revised model of the standard Inf Regt at the beginning of 1945 which is when they got their Wpns Cos.

I did start a thread on the percentage split of .30-cal (30-06) in terms of Ball/AP/tracer, but it hasn't generated a response. Figures for the Inf Regt in late 1943 and late 1945 indicate 100% ball for .45-cal ACP and .30-cal carbine; all the various .30-cal weapons have a mix of 80% AP to 20% tracer, except sniper rifles which are 100% AP. Does make me wonder what happened to .30-cal ball amn.

The Feb44 T/O for the Inf Regt kept the same issue of .50-cal M2s as the Jul43 issues, which stayed the same to the end of the war.

Gary