100 Years ago today

[RTH1800]

Kraig,
Ammo is not the issue. The screwed up magazine is. Not on the range, but in combat.
My grandfather used an M1 in the pacific. It had two issues, both very serious. First, when the mag pinged out the japs knew your rifle was empty. Very bad news.
Secondly, there was no practical way to re charge the magazine in battle until it was empty. If you had to assault a position, you might be forced to do so with two rounds in the mag or fire off valuable ammo you might need later wastefully.

 

[sirhrmechanic]

Kraig,
Ammo is not the issue. The screwed up magazine is. Not on the range, but in combat.
My grandfather used an M1 in the pacific. It had two issues, both very serious. First, when the mag pinged out the japs knew your rifle was empty. Very bad news.
Secondly, there was no practical way to re charge the magazine in battle until it was empty. If you had to assault a position, you might be forced to do so with two rounds in the mag or fire off valuable ammo you might need later wastefully.

RTH: Your second point is a pretty good one... but the 'pinging' of an empty magazine was probably more legend than fact. American Rifleman Magazine did an extensive look at that a few years ago... including getting input from veterans, AAR's, etc. And the idea that the 'pinging' mag was audible in combat conditions was pretty much proven to be more legend than fact. That said... Japanese and Germans could certainly count to... 8!

IMHO, the Garand's ammo flaws were far outweighed by its other attributes... especially its reliability. And while the 'clip' had its disadvantages, it had some great advantages over stripper clips or the earlier Krag magazine system. And one can't forget the experience with guns like the French Chauchat which tried to use a detachable magazine and proved disasterous. Not that the Garand was the same... but the conservative folks who procure firearms likely still remembered that weapon and lots of other 'experimental' guns from the 1900's through the 1930's that were far from acceptable... many of which are on display at the Springfield Armory, which shows how the Garand was developed... including displays showing some 'competing' systems like the Pederson device which let 03A3's fire as semi-automatics (egad)... and the Johnson which, frankly, sucked.

On another note, I have the book that started this discussion on order. It'll be an interesting read, but there is no doubt that U.S. did want to focus on marksmanship, not firepower... though I have a hunch that this focus was based on the myth of the American Soldier as a skilled country-boy marksman who could fire a rifle from birth and could hit his target with every shot. The reality is that by the late 19th century, an urbanized America was seeing much of its military coming from areas where rifle marksmanship was unheard of... including both crowded cities and from immigrant populations un-schooled in marksmanship and gun handling.

I just read (and can't remember where) that even in WW1, a huge percentage of recruits/draftees had never fired a gun before reporting to their recruit training depots. It was more than 50 percent. And that was in 1916/7... by WW2, the percentage was likely even higher.

BUT the myth of the American boy as a natural shot... likely permeated both the command, the doctrinal development and the arsenal system which procured the weapons and ammunition. Thus there was a prejudice against automatic weapons in the hands of the infantry... and a belief that automatic weapons were wasteful in an army of marksman. That misconception was reflected both in weapons design, etc. So while the end result was probably bad news for GI's, the idea that there was some conspiracy to kill off soldiers to save ammo sounds like someone trying to sell books w. a controversial theory vs. a balanced historical analysis of weapons procurement policies.

But I'll have to read the book to validate whether my thoughts have any validity... or whether I am merely blowing smoke!

Cheers,

Sirhr

 

[Mike Radford]

Some good points Sirhr. To add, the army was yet to learn the value of "volume of fire" at the outbreak of WW2. They did figure it out in WW2 and unaimed, get their heads down, cover fire was widely used and not frowned upon in most cases. The numbers of round fired per hit went way up, something like 100,000 per hit(WAG as I can not recall the numbers) and went much higher in Nam.

I do think the M14 was quite an improvement in potential for volume of fire. With a selector, even though hard to control on auto, one should be able to exceed an M1s rate of fire pretty easy. The degree of value in that is probably fairly small yet the miltary did decide to replace the M1 with the M14 and they had a few good reasons. Just how many and how valid, I am not certain of. With such a short service life, and quick replacement by the M16, it was probably a waste of tax payer money. Luckily some of the M14s are getting new life as a DM rifle.

 

[RTH1800]

Sir,
I do not know first hand. I do know second hand that my grandfather thought it was a great liability that cost lives. He did not read it as he had no further interest in rifles or shooting once he came home. Simply stated what he observed.

 

[ArmyJerry]

I have rode the Marne region on my Harley, visited my divisional cemetery in Chateau Thierry right on the river, (yes the French maintain it still), the 3rd ID blue and white still embedded in the monument nicely, large cemetery, you can tell its not visited often like Normandy. Still, I had to go see it, the 3rd ID is largely unsung in military folklore but their history is quite amazing with some notable MOH winners with a long and bloody combat record, quite possibly the bloodiest in the 20th century. If you ever get a chance go visit the fields of WW 1 and 2 , its pretty amazing.

 

[Forgetful Coyote]

RTH: Your second point is a pretty good one... but the 'pinging' of an empty magazine was probably more legend than fact. American Rifleman Magazine did an extensive look at that a few years ago... including getting input from veterans, AAR's, etc. And the idea that the 'pinging' mag was audible in combat conditions was pretty much proven to be more legend than fact. That said... Japanese and Germans could certainly count to... 8!

IMHO, the Garand's ammo flaws were far outweighed by its other attributes... especially its reliability. And while the 'clip' had its disadvantages, it had some great advantages over stripper clips or the earlier Krag magazine system. And one can't forget the experience with guns like the French Chauchat which tried to use a detachable magazine and proved disasterous. Not that the Garand was the same... but the conservative folks who procure firearms likely still remembered that weapon and lots of other 'experimental' guns from the 1900's through the 1930's that were far from acceptable... many of which are on display at the Springfield Armory, which shows how the Garand was developed... including displays showing some 'competing' systems like the Pederson device which let 03A3's fire as semi-automatics (egad)... and the Johnson which, frankly, sucked.

On another note, I have the book that started this discussion on order. It'll be an interesting read, but there is no doubt that U.S. did want to focus on marksmanship, not firepower... though I have a hunch that this focus was based on the myth of the American Soldier as a skilled country-boy marksman who could fire a rifle from birth and could hit his target with every shot. The reality is that by the late 19th century, an urbanized America was seeing much of its military coming from areas where rifle marksmanship was unheard of... including both crowded cities and from immigrant populations un-schooled in marksmanship and gun handling.

I just read (and can't remember where) that even in WW1, a huge percentage of recruits/draftees had never fired a gun before reporting to their recruit training depots. It was more than 50 percent. And that was in 1916/7... by WW2, the percentage was likely even higher.

BUT the myth of the American boy as a natural shot... likely permeated both the command, the doctrinal development and the arsenal system which procured the weapons and ammunition. Thus there was a prejudice against automatic weapons in the hands of the infantry... and a belief that automatic weapons were wasteful in an army of marksman. That misconception was reflected both in weapons design, etc. So while the end result was probably bad news for GI's, the idea that there was some conspiracy to kill off soldiers to save ammo sounds like someone trying to sell books w. a controversial theory vs. a balanced historical analysis of weapons procurement policies.

But I'll have to read the book to validate whether my thoughts have any validity... or whether I am merely blowing smoke!

Cheers,

Sirhr

Would you not agree that the average WW2 soldier/Marine was a better marksman than soldiers from Vietnam and beyond though? I know Belleau Wood is held up in Marine folklore and I doubt Marines today would be as effective at that distance as they were then, though obviously the 5.56 M16/M4 would play a part in that, not being nearly the 1000yd performer the .30-06 was.

I also think theres probably something to the idea that while WW2 troops were good marksman, they were averse to directly/personally killing another human.

Most Vietnam and today`s soldiers seem to actually kill a lot more enemies than back then. Although I never killed anyone, I dont really agree with the idea that killing enemies is the cause for PTSD. I imagine watching your buddies get ripped up is much more devastating, and consequently would make one more mad and desire to "kill some Japs" as Sledge would say.

 

[pmclaine]

I also think theres probably something to the idea that while WW2 troops were good marksman, they were averse to directly/personally killing another human.

Read Col Grossman "On Killing" regarding this.

 

[pmclaine]

I have rode the Marne region on my Harley, visited my divisional cemetery in Chateau Thierry right on the river, (yes the French maintain it still), the 3rd ID blue and white still embedded in the monument nicely, large cemetery, you can tell its not visited often like Normandy. Still, I had to go see it, the 3rd ID is largely unsung in military folklore but their history is quite amazing with some notable MOH winners with a long and bloody combat record, quite possibly the bloodiest in the 20th century. If you ever get a chance go visit the fields of WW 1 and 2 , its pretty amazing.

Read this book awhile ago. Fascinated me what was still out there from WWI

Amazon.com: Back to the Front: An Accidental Historian Walks the Trenches of World War 1 (9780802776181): Stephen O'Shea: Books

Wish I hadnt been so stupid when I lived in Europe/Okinawa and had taken more time to history explore.

The opportunities of service are wasted on ignorant youth.

 

[Dan M]

The American Battle Monuments Commission prepared a guidebook with the title of American Armies and Battlefields in Europe. It was first printed in 1927 as A Guide to the American Battle Fields in Europe , and revised in 1938 (I have a copy of this edition) and reprinted in 1992.

Maj. Dwight D. Eisenhower was one of the contributing authors.

As a guidebook, don't expect significant detail, but the volume gives a nice overview of the battles the AEF participated in. The maps are quite good.

 

[kraigWY]

One of the biggest firearm myths ever to come out: The Ping of the M1 Clip getting soldiers killed because it showed their gun was empty. Any one who has ever been if a firefight knows this is BS. First of you have to assume the soldier is alone and no one else if firing. Or you have to assume everyone in the fireteam/squad ran out of ammo at the same time.

NOT GOING TO HAPPEN. Everyone is shooting, grenades mortars, people screaming, Machine gunners hollering for more ammo. No way in hell are you going to hear the ping of the M1 clip ejecting.

Heck just go to a CMP Garand Match, listen for the ping and going by sound only tell me which shooter is in the process of inserting another clip.

 

[sandwarrior]

One of the biggest firearm myths ever to come out: The Ping of the M1 Clip getting soldiers killed because it showed their gun was empty. Any one who has ever been if a firefight knows this is BS. First of you have to assume the soldier is alone and no one else if firing. Or you have to assume everyone in the fireteam/squad ran out of ammo at the same time.

NOT GOING TO HAPPEN. Everyone is shooting, grenades mortars, people screaming, Machine gunners hollering for more ammo. No way in hell are you going to hear the ping of the M1 clip ejecting.

Heck just go to a CMP Garand Match, listen for the ping and going by sound only tell me which shooter is in the process of inserting another clip.

Not to mention how much firing has been going on and how much hearing is lost because of it. They didn't wear any hearing protection back then.

If it was anything, it was the fact the enbloc clip could jump out of the rifle pretty good. Many a German and Japanese soldier found out how to watch for this. Many also found out the hard way rushing a position if you saw this was quite detrimental to your own health. Because U.S. troops had learned to work in teams with no one firing down to the last without the rest of his team/squad having a full clip. You can as Kraig said, load it right back up pretty quickly. You could also count and when you knew you had the last round in an enbloc magazine, you could have the next one ready.

This mentioned brings up the tactic of saturation or massed/ing firing. Putting so many rounds into an area, the opposing side has no option but to hunker down behind cover and wait until the fire lessens. Giving YOU the chance to maneuver on him. Thus fire and maneuver. Many civilians think the one maneuvering is firing. He's not. His support team is. One man with a semi-automatic could do what five men with 5-shot bolt guns could do and in turn they could do what it took 10 men loading single shots to do. A man with a single shot could do what ten men with a muzzle loader could do. Lever action repeaters probably could have done a world of good had they ever been accepted.

It is well documented that Stanton, and as mentioned above, Ripley had a lot more regard for the ammunition they made than the men they made it for. But at that time, that was not unusual. Class warfare was alive and well. Even as late as VietNam, it was prevalent. What WWI and especially WWII did wake us up to was the fact of how well we could industrialize ourselves.

 

[RTH1800]

Kraig,
You surprise me as I normally think your post are spot on. Combat in the pacific was often small unit action. And often a hell of a lot smaller by the time it was finished. Much of the USMC fighting was initiated by 20 man squads spread out along long lines in the jungle. Due to intensity of combat, ranks thinned quickly. I know of several instances where only one man from the squad returned. One of the things my grandfather mentioned was night actions. The Japs were fond of night infiltrations. They would crawl in and toss grenades into the positions and generally raise hell. As you can imagine, much inaccurate shooting took place. At the sound of the ping, the Japs would rush positions with fixed bayonets. Again, I got this second hand, but have no doubt about it.

 

[kraigWY]

My father also fought in the SP, never talked much about it until I was on leave in route to Vietnam. We had a good long talk about jungle warfare. He was trying to give me an idea what I was getting into.

Yes Japanese probed at night, so did the Vietnamese and so did WE, both during WWII and in South East Asia.

When probing detected you used grenades not rifles which would give away you position.

The Japanese were big on Bonsai attacks, trying to over run positions, in human wave type attacks. You certainly wouldn't hear the ping of an M1 clip. During such attacks flairs were normally used making targeting of the enemy easier.

Again go to a CMP Garand match and see if you can hear the PING of individual rifles.

I heard this "myth" before, I've talked to soldiers who used the Garand in combat, and I haven't found one that confirmed the myth. I've shot the Garand too much to buy it, I've worked with ROK Marines and South Vietnamese who were using the Garand, never though of listening to the "ping' as there was too much other noise going on during firefights. Its not like you're in Indian country alone, there are others firing and the chance of everyone in the squad/fireteam changing clips all at once is nil.
t

 

[Forgetful Coyote]

Read Col Grossman "On Killing" regarding this.

Thats exactly where I got the idea from. Hence our move to human silhouette targets instead of bullseyes, etc.

 

[Badgerord]

Heres a test everyone in the class can try, go out and shoot a Garand with 10 other guys shooting at the same time, THIS IS IMPORTANT! DO NOT wear hearing protection! .....did you hear it ping?

Even bullets flying past you have a nasty crack and prolong exposure as well as heavy volumes of fire will negatively effect your ability to hear.

On a calm night in the rack, with no background noise, my ears ring so loud I don't think I would hear a ping in my bedroom.

How close would you need to be to hear the ping? And how fast can it be reloaded and how fast can the Japanese run? Some one should find out.

Lastly, a Garand can be topped of, its not fast, its not pretty, it takes practice but its doable.

Sand,

Levers did a number on Custer too!

 

[sandwarrior]

Heres a test everyone in the class can try, go out and shoot a Garand with 10 other guys shooting at the same time, THIS IS IMPORTANT! DO NOT wear hearing protection! .....did you hear it ping?

Even bullets flying past you have a nasty crack and prolong exposure as well as heavy volumes of fire will negatively effect your ability to hear.

On a calm night in the rack, with no background noise, my ears ring so loud I don't think I would hear a ping in my bedroom.

How close would you need to be to hear the ping? And how fast can it be reloaded and how fast can the Japanese run? Some one should find out.

Lastly, a Garand can be topped of, its not fast, its not pretty, it takes practice but its doable.

Sand,

Levers did a number on Custer too!

Yes, They also had the very fast reloading bow and arrow. As well as some damn handy hand weapons. It amazes me when I go back and read handed down accounts of the indigenous side of that battle. Accounts that prove out to be very feasible by forensic experts. From what I've been able to discern from the various accounts, Indigenous warriors were only 25% armed with lever guns. But the massed fire at close range handily beats what Custers men were carrying.

Being as how AWESOME TACTICS never fail, a link for good reading:

How the Battle of Little Bighorn Was Won | History | Smithsonian

note: these are lessons that any of us could take to battle.

 

[bogeybrown]

[MENTION=11748]sandwarrior[/MENTION],

Your point on the indigenous weapons gets overlooked quite a bit. I've been reading quite a bit about the 100 Years War as well as Agincourt, and I was positively stunned to realize that until basically WW1, the English war bow would have won against the "modern" weapons centuries later, all the way through at least our Civil War. The volume and accuracy of fire was so far beyond what we think about. They gave up range to crossbows, but the rate of fire (approximately 12 effectively-aimed arrows per minute per archer) were the equivalent of early day machine guns. Keep in mind also that this was 600+ years ago, and those arrows could pierce the best plate armor a knight could afford.
Gunpowder and early canon were already in use by that point, and it took about 500 yrs until weapons on the battlefield out-performed the yew bow of England.

 

[sirhrmechanic]

[MENTION=11748]sandwarrior[/MENTION],

Your point on the indigenous weapons gets overlooked quite a bit. I've been reading quite a bit about the 100 Years War as well as Agincourt, and I was positively stunned to realize that until basically WW1, the English war bow would have won against the "modern" weapons centuries later, all the way through at least our Civil War. The volume and accuracy of fire was so far beyond what we think about. They gave up range to crossbows, but the rate of fire (approximately 12 effectively-aimed arrows per minute per archer) were the equivalent of early day machine guns. Keep in mind also that this was 600+ years ago, and those arrows could pierce the best plate armor a knight could afford.
Gunpowder and early canon were already in use by that point, and it took about 500 yrs until weapons on the battlefield out-performed the yew bow of England.

One should also remember that the yew longbow was a weapon of the 'common' man. It required none of the equipment or supply chain required of the knight. ie. expensive armor, war horses, forage, a coterie of servants to prepare the knight, etc. The yew longbow was used by most able-bodied men in villages and these archers formed clubs, societies, groups...units. And in these units they now had weapons that were superior to those of the knights and their broadswords and lances.

The net result was an armed population which could easily take down the powerful knights and other military elements of the peerage. And in this 'arming of the common man' we see the roots of democracy! The Magna Carta... an inability of the royals to completely oppress the population. Once military power moved to subject (read... citizen?) armies, those armies had to be recognized and catered to by the ruling classes, or they risked overthrow by the very people who protected their sovereign territory.

So in the long-bow, we see the roots of the Second Amendment... and the roots of what we think of now as Jeffersonian Democracy.

Back to Sandwarrior's point... I've walked the battlefield at Little Bighorn. It's an amazing place and folks should definitely go see it. One thing people always ask is "why didn't Custer bring his Gatlings?" Well, having both walked the battlefield... and because I own an 1862 pattern Gatling that weights 300 LBS without limber and carriage... I can say that there is no way his units could have maneuvered in the field with his Gatlings. Besides, he didn't expect the response he got from the Sioux and was running his version of SOP. The only thing different for the 7th was that they were the target that day... and nothing they did would likely have changed that. They were a small unit in what amounted to hostile territory and if it hadn't been on June 26th '76... it would have been another day in another place. It was an event waiting to happen.

Tick Tock heading towards the 100th Anniversary of WW1 going hot. Right about now 100 years ago, the wheels of inept diplomacy were grinding towards the inevitable war. IMHO, if it hadn't kicked off due to a worthless Archduke's assassination, then something else would have kicked it off. It was a conflict destined to happen for NO reason other than it was destined to happen because everyone was getting too big for their britches.

Cheers,

Sirhr

 

[Forgetful Coyote]

One thing that has always been emphasized in my reading was that the English Longbow was a weapon that took years to become an expert with, and a lifetime to master. IMO the same could be said for a rifle but I guess one can attain at least a rudimentary skill on operating it in a short time.



Make sure to catch History Channel on July 28th folks, looks like a good show.

On a sidenote, I just realized they had "A Rifleman Went to War" on gutenberg, so Im reading that currently.


PS: If anyone has or comes across "Rifle Accuracy Facts" by Vaughn, please let me know. I saw one on amazon for 600$ and Im not paying that for a book. Looks like it may be the only option though. Any chance you`ve read Mr Vaughn`s book sirhr? "Rifle Accuracy Facts" is not as well known but from everything Ive read this book is just as good and well-thought out as Dr Mann`s "The Bullet`s Flight" or Col. Whelen`s work. Mr Vaughn tested just about everything relating to or ever thought to relate to a rifle`s accuracy. Unfortunately there arent many out there and the price is way up there due to rarity.

 

[Greg Langelius *]

From Wiki:

A commonly repeated legend claims that the two-fingered salute or V sign derives from a gesture made by longbowmen fighting in the English and Welsh army at the Battle of Agincourt (1415) during the Hundred Years' War. According to the story, the French were in the habit of cutting off the arrow-shooting fingers of captured English and Welsh longbowmen, and the gesture was a sign of defiance on the part of the bowmen, showing the enemy that they still had their fingers, or, as a widespread pun puts it, that they could still "pluck yew".

Greg

 

[sandwarrior]

[MENTION=11748]sandwarrior[/MENTION],

Your point on the indigenous weapons gets overlooked quite a bit. I've been reading quite a bit about the 100 Years War as well as Agincourt, and I was positively stunned to realize that until basically WW1, the English war bow would have won against the "modern" weapons centuries later, all the way through at least our Civil War. The volume and accuracy of fire was so far beyond what we think about. They gave up range to crossbows, but the rate of fire (approximately 12 effectively-aimed arrows per minute per archer) were the equivalent of early day machine guns. Keep in mind also that this was 600+ years ago, and those arrows could pierce the best plate armor a knight could afford.
Gunpowder and early canon were already in use by that point, and it took about 500 yrs until weapons on the battlefield out-performed the yew bow of England.

Yes, the bow is quite a weapon. and much like the single throw, multiple movement of the 5 shot bolt action, still very much a force to be reckoned with. So much so, we still teach it today. Well, at least in my day. A great silent weapon.

 

[kraigWY]

A bit off topic, but the talk of the Custer Battlefield made me think about it:

I teach a Women's Firearm Safety & SD class. One of my students has a daughter who has been showing up and acting as a sort of tech. advisor. She has a masters in Forensic Firearms Investigation and works for the state crime lab.

When she was working on her Masters, in-stead of a thesis she did a field project. She went to several of the battle fields in Wyoming and Montana. She would take bullets for each site and compare them with bullets from other sights to track the rifles. She matched several bullets to different sites, one rifle she confirmed was used in 4 different battles up to and including the Little Big Horn.

She is suppose to give me a copy of her paper, it should be interesting reading.

Sorry to hijack the thread.

 

[Forgetful Coyote]

A bit off topic, but the talk of the Custer Battlefield made me think about it:

I teach a Women's Firearm Safety & SD class. One of my students has a daughter who has been showing up and acting as a sort of tech. advisor. She has a masters in Forensic Firearms Investigation and works for the state crime lab.

When she was working on her Masters, in-stead of a thesis she did a field project. She went to several of the battle fields in Wyoming and Montana. She would take bullets for each site and compare them with bullets from other sights to track the rifles. She matched several bullets to different sites, one rifle she confirmed was used in 4 different battles up to and including the Little Big Horn.

She is suppose to give me a copy of her paper, it should be interesting reading.

Sorry to hijack the thread.

You think you would be able to post the paper up here for us to read sir? Id love to see it.

BTW, Mr Kraig, did you ever get any pictures at the Vintage Sniper Match? Please sir, next time you attend Id be very grateful if you could post some pics up of the match and the rifles everyone are using.

 

[sirhrmechanic]

A bit off topic, but the talk of the Custer Battlefield made me think about it:

I teach a Women's Firearm Safety & SD class. One of my students has a daughter who has been showing up and acting as a sort of tech. advisor. She has a masters in Forensic Firearms Investigation and works for the state crime lab.

When she was working on her Masters, in-stead of a thesis she did a field project. She went to several of the battle fields in Wyoming and Montana. She would take bullets for each site and compare them with bullets from other sights to track the rifles. She matched several bullets to different sites, one rifle she confirmed was used in 4 different battles up to and including the Little Big Horn.

She is suppose to give me a copy of her paper, it should be interesting reading.

Sorry to hijack the thread.

Not a hijack at all... there was a lot of that going on when I was there in 2010. They are really doing some very scientific work at Little Bighorn and the battlefield archaeologists are changing (for the better) a lot of the 'myth' of what happened using forensic analysis.

Battlefield archaeology is a big thing these days in military history. Very good friend of mine and retired SF officer is now a battlefield archaeologist. He was on the Great Arab Revolt Project in Jordan a couple of years ago and was sending me pictures of car parts to identify, including the sparking plug in the article below. So I had a tiny role in this project... all while working on my T.E. Lawrence thesis. Kind of fun! He was all over the area and was working on some of the railroads that Lawrence's teams blew up and chasing ambush sites all over the area. The "campsite" was a short-term base and maintenance depot for Lawrence and his Rolls-Royce Armored cars ranged out from this site. The mechanics would replace parts on the cars and simply toss the 'used' and worn parts into the desert. The place was littered with armored car bits. For a great read... Sam C. Rolls "Steel Chariots in the Desert" is a fantastic book. A worm's eye look at the Arab Revolt... by Lawrence's driver.

Secret desert camp used by First World War hero Lawrence of Arabia is discovered intact with rum jars and a campfire | Mail Online

The campsite was found using a combination of Google Maps/Earth and some of the old photos. All found and ID'd in a library before the team ever went out. But when they got to the site, it was right on... The resolution of things like Google Earth, combined with period photos is helping a lot with battlefield archaeology.

The forensics component is adding even more to the picture... so very cool, Kraig, to hear a first-hand account of someone who is delving even deeper into adding science to history. It's also one of the interesting trends in history today... more experimental history and more forensic sciences (chemistry, physics, etc.) being applied to confirm narratives. One must remember that narrative histories are fraught with peril. Even from primary sources. The ability to cut through that to some degree and confirm things with more quantitative analysis is changing the face of historical research. It's a neat time for the field.

IMHO, WW1 history, due to the centenary and the renewed interest in the conflict, is going to benefit from these new techniques... and that will help make the discusson here all the more interesting!

Cheers,

Sirhr

 

[Forgetful Coyote]

Not a hijack at all... there was a lot of that going on when I was there in 2010. They are really doing some very scientific work at Little Bighorn and the battlefield archaeologists are changing (for the better) a lot of the 'myth' of what happened using forensic analysis.

Battlefield archaeology is a big thing these days in military history. Very good friend of mine and retired SF officer is now a battlefield archaeologist. He was on the Great Arab Revolt Project in Jordan a couple of years ago and was sending me pictures of car parts to identify, including the sparking plug in the article below. So I had a tiny role in this project... all while working on my T.E. Lawrence thesis. Kind of fun! He was all over the area and was working on some of the railroads that Lawrence's teams blew up and chasing ambush sites all over the area. The "campsite" was a short-term base and maintenance depot for Lawrence and his Rolls-Royce Armored cars ranged out from this site. The mechanics would replace parts on the cars and simply toss the 'used' and worn parts into the desert. The place was littered with armored car bits. For a great read... Sam C. Rolls "Steel Chariots in the Desert" is a fantastic book. A worm's eye look at the Arab Revolt... by Lawrence's driver.

Secret desert camp used by First World War hero Lawrence of Arabia is discovered intact with rum jars and a campfire | Mail Online

The campsite was found using a combination of Google Maps/Earth and some of the old photos. All found and ID'd in a library before the team ever went out. But when they got to the site, it was right on... The resolution of things like Google Earth, combined with period photos is helping a lot with battlefield archaeology.

The forensics component is adding even more to the picture... so very cool, Kraig, to hear a first-hand account of someone who is delving even deeper into adding science to history. It's also one of the interesting trends in history today... more experimental history and more forensic sciences (chemistry, physics, etc.) being applied to confirm narratives. One must remember that narrative histories are fraught with peril. Even from primary sources. The ability to cut through that to some degree and confirm things with more quantitative analysis is changing the face of historical research. It's a neat time for the field.

IMHO, WW1 history, due to the centenary and the renewed interest in the conflict, is going to benefit from these new techniques... and that will help make the discusson here all the more interesting!

Cheers,

Sirhr

Sirhr, have you read much about the Ross rifle?

Specifically, did the .280 Ross rifle see much action in the Great War?

Also, do you have any details on the action and rifle itself? Ie were all of the Ross rifles a straight-pull bolt action? And how did the Ross rifles fare in the accuracy department?

From what I`ve read, the .280 Ross was a helluva cartridge for its time, basically right at 7mm WSM capacity. With the right bullet, this round would`ve easily outclassed any other rifle chambering in existence during this time period where long range ballistics are concerned. As noted, I dont know what bullets were used, but Id guess a 1400 or 1500 yard supersonic range depending on elevation ASL. Though obviously anything with 7mm WSM performance/case capacity is not gonna go easy on barrels; probably looking at a good 2000 or 3000 round barrel life depending on what the accuracy requirement is. IMO ballistic performance takes a back seat to barrel life in a combat setting if extra barrels and an armorer are not present when needed.


As always thank you for your contributions sirhr, along with sandwarrior and Mr Kraig and everyone else. The vintage forum is absolutely my favorite section here(with the reloading depot and photo section coming in at a close second).
Blake.

 

[997/2man]

Not picking sides, don't hate the colorization, just some footage you don't see every day.

RARE GERMAN WW1 FOOTAGE COLLECTION!! - YouTube

More.

World War 1 and Horrendous Reality of Trench Warfare (Full Documentary) - YouTube

1st Person. They are all gone now.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hXzI5bzcW1U

 

[Steve Garbe]

And yes sir, that was me asking you about Morgan`s rifleman. Kinda strange we dont seem to have much of a blackpowder crowd here as far as muzzleloaders and people who actually shoot them.




Gentlemen,

Reading that comment has prompted me to raise my hand as one of the "blackpowder crowd", intensely interested in the first American sniper rifle aka the Pennsylvania/Kentucky rifle, as well as the cross-patch muzzle loader and black powder cartridge rifle.

Steve

 

[sandwarrior]

A bit off topic, but the talk of the Custer Battlefield made me think about it:

I teach a Women's Firearm Safety & SD class. One of my students has a daughter who has been showing up and acting as a sort of tech. advisor. She has a masters in Forensic Firearms Investigation and works for the state crime lab.

When she was working on her Masters, in-stead of a thesis she did a field project. She went to several of the battle fields in Wyoming and Montana. She would take bullets for each site and compare them with bullets from other sights to track the rifles. She matched several bullets to different sites, one rifle she confirmed was used in 4 different battles up to and including the Little Big Horn.

She is suppose to give me a copy of her paper, it should be interesting reading.

Sorry to hijack the thread.

Kraig,

Rule no. 1....you cannot hijack your own thread. It simply isn't possible. On a side note, simply outstanding thread you've started here.

Added: Steve,

I'm awakening to agree, it seems we haven't gone far enough back in our research to adequately address the effectiveness of the blackpowder genre of firearms. From the very primitive to those you specifically address, the Pennsylvania/Kentucky rifles. They vastly outranged the bow and arrow for accuracy (which I think many a musket was capable of) even if they could not fire as rapidly. Each situational difference of each conflict, whether it be a few men against each other or thousands against same or few, dictates, along with tactics which side would prevail. Tactics also includes choice of weapons and how to use that weapon to it's best advantage. Charging with singleshots that require you stop and focus to load to me seems to guarantee failure. Maybe why so many did... Again though, Steve, a very good point and certainly as relevant and has much evolutionary bearing on the first world war as anything discussed in this thread. Specifically as you mentioned aimed precision fire!

Probabloy most specifically that if we had not built all our tactics and strategies around blackpowder we never would have invented smokeless powder. Which as I mentioned above is what finally brought about the replacement of the bow and arrow and blackpowder rifles.

 

[Forgetful Coyote]

Kraig,

Rule no. 1....you cannot hijack your own thread. It simply isn't possible. On a side note, simply outstanding thread you've started here.

Added: Steve,

I'm awakening to agree, it seems we haven't gone far enough back in our research to adequately address the effectiveness of the blackpowder genre of firearms. From the very primitive to those you specifically address, the Pennsylvania/Kentucky rifles. They vastly outranged the bow and arrow for accuracy (which I think many a musket was capable of) even if they could not fire as rapidly. Each situational difference of each conflict, whether it be a few men against each other or thousands against same or few, dictates, along with tactics which side would prevail. Tactics also includes choice of weapons and how to use that weapon to it's best advantage. Charging with singleshots that require you stop and focus to load to me seems to guarantee failure. Maybe why so many did... Again though, Steve, a very good point and certainly as relevant and has much evolutionary bearing on the first world war as anything discussed in this thread. Specifically as you mentioned aimed precision fire!

Probabloy most specifically that if we had not built all our tactics and strategies around blackpowder we never would have invented smokeless powder. Which as I mentioned above is what finally brought about the replacement of the bow and arrow and blackpowder rifles.

Absolutely, whether its a Pennsylvania rifle or 1874 Sharps, I wouldnt want to be on the receiving end.

As far as bow vs rifle, I`d imagine the injuns at Adobe Walls sure wish they had picked a day when Mr Billy Dixon wasnt there. At 250yd and in, Id prefer to have both a bow and a rifle(provided we`re speaking of muzzleloaders only).

 

[Steve Garbe]

Absolutely, whether its a Pennsylvania rifle or 1874 Sharps, I wouldnt want to be on the receiving end.

As far as bow vs rifle, I`d imagine the injuns at Adobe Walls sure wish they had picked a day when Mr Billy Dixon wasnt there. At 250yd and in, Id prefer to have both a bow and a rifle(provided we`re speaking of muzzleloaders only).

Gentlemen,
The obvious drawback to black powder from the sniping standpoint was/is the smoke revealing the rifleman's position. There are some ways around that, but it put the "one shot and move" rule out in front.

I've shot with and competed against real world snipers who have gotten interested in black powder and are always amazed at what the old guns can do. Black powder silhouette is a fairly good test of how well your rifle/load can keep up sustained accurate fire. In a former life, managing a guest ranch that catered to Washington DC people, the Secret Service guys were amazed at a little shooting display that I put on with a .45-100 Sharps at 600 yards with iron sights. One guy said-"Don't let the government know how well these things work!" Another one ordered a Sharps from Shiloh Manufacturing as soon as he left the ranch.

I'm under no illusions about comparing the old black powder rifles to modern sniper rifles. However...I wouldn't turn my back on one either, especially with a rifleman who knew his business.

Steve

 

[sandwarrior]

Gentlemen,
The obvious drawback to black powder from the sniping standpoint was/is the smoke revealing the rifleman's position. There are some ways around that, but it put the "one shot and move" rule out in front.

I've shot with and competed against real world snipers who have gotten interested in black powder and are always amazed at what the old guns can do. Black powder silhouette is a fairly good test of how well your rifle/load can keep up sustained accurate fire. In a former life, managing a guest ranch that catered to Washington DC people, the Secret Service guys were amazed at a little shooting display that I put on with a .45-100 Sharps at 600 yards with iron sights. One guy said-"Don't let the government know how well these things work!" Another one ordered a Sharps from Shiloh Manufacturing as soon as he left the ranch.

I'm under no illusions about comparing the old black powder rifles to modern sniper rifles. However...I wouldn't turn my back on one either, especially with a rifleman who knew his business.

Steve

Steve,

I'm not under any illusions either. Sometimes you just have to make work what ya brung. Really more of an influence on tactics than ever being able to decide from the rear at initial contact of saying "I'll use this, this, and that, and leave those three things over thar' behind." You don't get that choice. Which is why it's so critical to learn how to reach out and touch first in battle, but if you can't, lure them into your fight. Thus a long range Kentucky would be better than assaulting with them. Even with fire and maneuver technique. You simply can't lay down enough protection to protect the assaulters.

 

[Steve Garbe]

Steve,

I'm not under any illusions either. Sometimes you just have to make work what ya brung. Really more of an influence on tactics than ever being able to decide from the rear at initial contact of saying "I'll use this, this, and that, and leave those three things over thar' behind." You don't get that choice. Which is why it's so critical to learn how to reach out and touch first in battle, but if you can't, lure them into your fight. Thus a long range Kentucky would be better than assaulting with them. Even with fire and maneuver technique. You simply can't lay down enough protection to protect the assaulters.

Sand,

Exactly.

I've no experience in the military and /or sniping but I have done a fair bit of guiding big game hunters and have used my flintlocks in a serious way to keep the freezer full. The difference between them and the modern rifle boils down to fieldcraft. You have one shot and limited range. Within that range and with that one shot they are very deadly. Just my opinion, but modern day "hunters", especially those who have fallen for the mistaken notion that long range game shooting with no attempt at a stalk is actually "hunting", are seriously lacking in fieldcraft and stalking skills. Crawling within flintlock range of a spooky antelope buck in the desert is something that really hones fieldcraft skills. Some folks like the challenge, others don't and prefer to fire away from long distance. Making the first shot count seems to be the basis for all the technique related to successful sniping. Getting within sure range means using fieldcraft.

Of course, before we get too hard on the old flintlock, (in a military setting) if the gentleman with a flintlock gets within range of the guy with the .338 now we have an individual who knows flintlock fieldcraft and is packing a .338. This would be a bad combination to have to go up against, in my opinion.

Steve

 

[sandwarrior]

Sand,

Exactly.

I've no experience in the military and /or sniping but I have done a fair bit of guiding big game hunters and have used my flintlocks in a serious way to keep the freezer full. The difference between them and the modern rifle boils down to fieldcraft. You have one shot and limited range. Within that range and with that one shot they are very deadly. Just my opinion, but modern day "hunters", especially those who have fallen for the mistaken notion that long range game shooting with no attempt at a stalk is actually "hunting", are seriously lacking in fieldcraft and stalking skills. Crawling within flintlock range of a spooky antelope buck in the desert is something that really hones fieldcraft skills. Some folks like the challenge, others don't and prefer to fire away from long distance. Making the first shot count seems to be the basis for all the technique related to successful sniping. Getting within sure range means using fieldcraft.

Of course, before we get too hard on the old flintlock, (in a military setting) if the gentleman with a flintlock gets within range of the guy with the .338 now we have an individual who knows flintlock fieldcraft and is packing a .338. This would be a bad combination to have to go up against, in my opinion.

Steve

Steve,

The situation would be more like going up against one guy with a .338 and three or four more with 7.62x51 or 7.62x67's (.308 and .300 Win mag.) Those probably in multiple repeating firearms to boot. At which point if you scored the first hit on the .338 guy, you would be well within the range of the others. Still it's one down and hopefully you have more guys with Kentucky long guns to cover your retreat to a safe bastion.

That said, it's going to be a retreating fight for you, not an offensive one. Your offense was one shot. If they go on the offense, they clearly have the advantage. So you may get the most important one, but if he did his job right and trained the second-in-command to do his job (like he should have), you would be in a world of hurt. Sometimes though, the opportunity is yours to take because that didn't happen.

Being trained in tactics is like having another tool in the box. Or, the one magical tool that does all, you just have to see it in action. Field-craft, command, discipline, training ....many factors come into play into what you can and can't do. Weapons are only a useless rock if you don't know what to do with them. They can be many things if you do.

But getting to the evolution of weapons and tactics used during WWI this makes a point. The single strike of even a Kentucky rifle would leave a shadow of doubt in the opposing force and make their 'tools' less effective.

 

[sirhrmechanic]

Sand and Steve:

The 'one shot was your offense' was the weakness of Morgan's Riflemen at Freeman's Farm at Saratoga. Though they were devastatingly effective early in the battle by shooting from cover, they eventually moved onto the field where the British quickly negated their advantage by charging with bayonets at the riflemen. I think it was Fraser who led the attack against Morgan's Riflemen who could not load/shoot in the face of British bayonets and were pushed back into the woods.

This was the advantage of the bayonet and the iron discipline of the British colonial troops. They could volley fire and lay a lot of shot into an area using fast loading muskets. The nature of the musket meant you could load it while moving (no rifling or tight patches) and the willingness of the British to play a 'numbers game' by charging at an enemy with bayonets meant they could negate rifle fire relatively quickly. This was the real basis of British field tactics... right into WW1.

And, for one thing, they had seen no need to change their tactics? Since Waterloo, these tactics had remained remarkably effective. And between the early 1800's and the outbreak of WW1, most of the British Army's experience had been in beating ill-equipped natives, Indian insurrections and other 'fuzzy wuzzies' to use the pejorative term. For the most part, these "Small Wars" (to quote Callwell) made the British feel rather invincible and generations of officers believed in iron discipline and bayonet charges... even in the era of the Maxim Gun.

The problems arose when the British, French, Germans, etc... used to their easy victories against colonial triblas started using these same tactics against each other. They found out quite quickly that industrialized nations and Maxim Guns made things like bayonet charges rather insane.

There is a great poem by Hilaire Belloc called the Modern Traveller... it's one I love to quote when discussing the mechanization of the battlefield as it shows how the British were locked in a mindset that 'warfare' was one of their technological prowess against, well, everyone else! I think it sums up the British attitudes towards warfare not only with 'natives' but with everyone on the eve of WW1:

And Sin and I consulted ;
Blood understood the Native mind.
He said : " We must be firm but kind."

A Mutiny resulted.
I never shall forget the way
That Blood upon this awful day
Preserved us all from death.
He stood upon a little mound,
Cast his lethargic eyes around,
And said beneath his breath :

Whatever happens we have got
The Maxim Gun, and they have not."

The poem is a bit long to post here... but for those so inclined, here it is in its entirety: Full text of "The modern traveller"

For anyone looking to understand why British officers marched their men into machine guns in WW1... I find Belloc's little verse more enlightening than a lot of historical tomes with thick bibliographies. When we keep asking 'how could the officer class do that..." we should look to fields like sociology for answers, not just to military history and the study of dead generals... WW1 was shaped by attitudes, prejudices and hubris more than by a lot of factors one would normally associate with warfare (such as conquest or the idea of war as armed-robbery, writ large.)

Cheers,

Sirhr

P.S. I can't believe I just posted poetry on SH... I'm either in an extra snobby mood today or I need to have my man-card suspended.

 

[Steve Garbe]

Sirhr,

Couldn't agree more. The thing that becomes evident to me in reviewing conflicts from the Revolutionary War to present is that if you are in a numerically challenged position, as well as having difficulties with supply, one has to be "all in" on guerilla warfare. We have had this lesson taught to us several times throughout history and it would seem that maybe we are starting to grasp the concept much better than we did in the Great War. Although it does seem that periodically small groups of dedicated guerilla fighters with a home turf advantage remind us of this truth.

Steve

 

[sirhrmechanic]

Which, sooner or later, will bring us to T.E. Lawrence and the Arab Revolt, Steve! Because that's where today's Sandbox really began.

WW1 changed EVERYTHING. And we still feel the repercussions today. WW2, the Cold War, the Middle East... it all started with Gavrilo Princip and his half-wit anarchist buddies. The funny thing is that if you look at the precepts of the Anarchist movement of the late 19th Century... they more or less got what they wanted. Both in the chaos they fomented, but also in the rise of stateless terror and stateless organizations like Al Qaeda. Princip would likely be happy with what he wrought, though he would probably think that he had work left to do.

It's one of the lessons of warfare... that it's hard to fight an idea. Anarchism was an idea and even though WW1 exploded due to the web of treaties between Europe's main powers, it was the idea of anarchism that kicked it all off -- provided the spark. And 100 years later, we certainly aren't immune from someone like Princip sparking an equally nasty global conflict.

Cheers,

Sirhr

 

[Steve Garbe]

Sirhr and Sand,

An interesting story.

A few years ago, me and a few other sharpshooter buffs held a "Berdan's Sharpshooters Match". Rules were simple- first one had to fire a ten-shot string at 40 rods that would have passed Berdan's requirements for entry into the unit, then one proceeded to a range, carrying what you needed and fired at five targets, undetermined distances, 175-600 yards, no wind flags, no coaching, one shot on each human silhouette target, 4 minutes allowed between shots. Any firearm sight and propellant available prior to 1865, any position. I used an original .38 slug rifle, 330-grain bullet at about 1300 fps, prone with cross stick rest, vintage sights and a loading procedure that allowed me 1 shot per minute. Only shots that stayed within the outline of the silhouette counted for score.

The rifle was exceptionally accurate and nailed all five targets with a center mass hit at 600 yards I was particularly proud of. Until I looked at who was in second place- a gentleman with a .54 Hawken flintlock who stayed right with me till 600 yards. His miss at 600 was about a foot and a half right of center. His shooting put me back in my proper place.

Steve

P.S. Conditions were very good, light breeze from 3:00 and steady. I'm sure if there had been much more wind the scores would have suffered, especially with the round ball rifle.

 

[sandwarrior]

Is there something goofy going on with this thread. I have a post up, but can't seem to get to it on the third page.

 

[sirhrmechanic]

Is there something goofy going on with this thread. I have a post up, but can't seem to get to it on the third page.

Maybe my posting poetry broke Snipers Hide?

Cheers,

Sirhr

 

[sandwarrior]

Maybe my posting poetry broke Snipers Hide?

Cheers,

Sirhr

Could've been you....dunno. Onward we go This is a great thread! So much here has pushed me to look where I had never looked before.

 

[Forgetful Coyote]

"The Diary of Alvin York" by Alvin C. York


The Saga of Sgt York Phony War or Hero.wmv - YouTube

What say the `Hide about this? First Ive heard that there was doubt cast upon Sgt York`s exploits....

 

[Steve Garbe]

Hmmm...the truth is always stranger than fiction.

 

[Dan M]

I couldn't get past the introduction. Dr. Paul Musco must be a proctologist... or perhaps a phrenologist. He couldn't possibly be a historian...he certainly knows jack shit about WW1. Alvin York... the only "soldier" Medal of Honor recipient in WW1? This guy is a clown shoes.

Let me look that up for you, Doc... List of Medal of Honor recipients for World War I - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[sandwarrior]

My first thought on this was it was another 'uninvolved' historian spouting off that what got done could not possibly have been done. These people at least are seeking an ACCURATE accounting of that day in which 16 other members of that patrol also participated and got the recognition they deserve. At least that is what the first speaker says.

I can applaud that.

I don't applaud those who come back 60-70 years later with the full intent of discrediting those participating in actions/campaigns based on "inability to scientifically prove" what happened.
Many of us who have been to combat get both sides of that story and most just want to be left out of the "glory hunt". Which is glory bestowed upon soldiers either by the public, seeking a connection with a soldier (or movie star portraying a soldier), or a higher military command seeking to create a bigger situation out of it for military publicity*. Those who are recognized for their deeds, often feel that is enough. Rarely do we ever see "single-handed" prevail. It is often a team in concert with each other.
In the case of Sgt. York, the military first created the problem, and of course Hollywood expounded upon it. The truth is there were 16 other men on that patrol and they did something. The military recognized them but left it at that, not furthering the WHOLE story. Rather, choosing to let the public opinion grow about the "single-handed onslaught of Sgt. York". All the while not seeing that eventually the bubble would burst. But, I don't discredit Sgt. York's actions that day as well above and beyond the normal call of duty.

*Of note here is that up through Korea, which includes WWI and WWII, we did not have the taxation/tax base we do now and thus had to "sell" each War (added: to the public) to raise money by selling bonds. Thus, publicity was very important to the military.

Also added: Dr. Paul Manusco falls into the category I previously mentioned. Talking like an expert on the subject while never having walked the walk let alone cracked a book on the subject and do a serious study of it.

 

[sirhrmechanic]

Sand... you hit the nail on the head. And this is the difference between history and memory.

York was an amazing guy. He deserved his medal. But likely so did other folks. He happened to be the guy who got it. And the USA needed a post-war hero, and who could be better than a mountain boy who started out as a CO. More importantly is that his congressman was an ambitious guy named Cordell Hull. As York went, so went Hull. Hull promoted York considerably.

That said, he almost certainly deserved the recognition he got. And the fact that a latter day 'historian' recognized an opportunity for publicity by ripping at a great hero is nothing new. Dr. dillweed probably was able to find small anomalies in the story/event and then turn that into an attack on York's accomplishments. And, in the process, he went from third-rater at some community college to a public figure historian whose books would get published and who could get offered a great teaching position at, say, Ball State. Don't underestimate the power of the ambitious historian to attack a hero for publicity or tenure.

IMHO, York's accomplishments were probably less than portrayed in the media (which wants heroes for selling papers and justifying wars), but were utterly worthy of the Medal of Honor. But will we ever know the exact/real/true story? Perhaps not. Because myth eclipsed reality to an extent that we'll never know the actual details.

Everyone interested in history (and the difference between history, myth and memory) should read Carol Reardon's Pickett's Charge in History and Memory. It's less about Pickett's charge than it is about the fallacies of 'history' and how it can be warped to support the zeitgeist of the day and how ever primary sources don't always portray an event properly. It's a game-changing book for the history fan. Because it helps you read/evaluate/think about history in a whole new way. Alvin York fans must read it... not to try and denigrate York and his accomplishments, but to understand how his real accomplishments can get warped through historical memory that is often different from reality.

All that said, I think York deserved his Medal of Honor far more than lots of officers (ie. Wild Bill Donovan) who were awarded it in WW1. Remember that until WW2, the MOH (don't say Congressional, BTW... it's NOT the CMOH) was awarded to lots of senior people who 'showed up' or went to Yale. After WW1 it took on a new meaning and was far more about real field accomplishments. Though quite a few WW2 senior folks got them for staff work... Bet a lot of WW2 GI's who deserved a MOH didn't get one because some Col. back at HQ got it instead. But that's just my opinion... and what do I know...

Cheers,

Sirhr

 

[sandwarrior]

sirhr,

I think not only did you hit the nail on the head regarding the MOH, you sank it in one shot! The medal was originally intended as something like the CIB (now there is also the CAB, thankfully). There are numerous occasions where men from a Union unit got it for re-upping! Think about the casualty rates and then what it took to re-up at a time like that, when 'tacticians' had very little regard for human life. They were literally "cannon fodder". So, it took more than a little courage to put yourself back in that situation.

In today's age, I've seen some very gutsy deeds get unnoticed or given a bronze star, while someone far less deserving gets a higher award. The MOH itself was considered almost 'unattainable' after WWII, unless post-humously. I was very glad to see some members of the service recently get one alive for the deeds they had done.

In regards to a medal for honor I would like to see a standard written and stuck to. The degrees of bravery for some action seem less important, as mentioned, than ones rank during the action. And, I would like to see it less prominent in the promotion process than an overall evaluation of the individual's performance. A heroic feat by an individual does not necessarily make an effective leader.

 

[MAT4-82]

I would propose that rather than " tried to let soldiers die to save ammo"
That the US military in general and particularly its procurement entities are the same as any massive bureaucracy.
They crunch numbers to maintain a balance sheet. The physical impact on the working end of the organization is of minor if any consequence.
The systems they protect had to endure through long periods of peace which were only infrequently interrupted by hostilities. (relatively speaking)
Its like any other big Corp. Get as much from your employees as you can for as little as you have to provide. These people were businessmen in uniforms not soldiers.
Interestingly this has changed somewhat with all the services going in there own directions on equipment. Just smaller bureaucracies!
I do however agree that our small arms procurement has always sucked

If any of you ever get to Kansas City MO, take a day and go the the National Word War One Museum, it is the Official national WW1 museum.

It is very cool, Opened Nov 11 1926, the outside of it is a huge carved stone fresco and the displays are amazing!

https://theworldwar.org/

For some more in-site about the war read the book "Misfire: The Story of How America's Small Arms Have Failed Our Military".
The title is a bit misleading, its about how the US Ordnance dept. tried to let soldiers die to save ammo, an interesting theme that carried from the first repeating firearm through the M16A2.

In 1900 or 1902 John Browning went to Springfield Armory and showed them what would become the M1917 and the BAR, the head of the Armory said that "They had no value on the modern battlefield", Maxim and Lewis would get the same answer and ultimately sell guns to all the other players of the Big One.

When I was a young man we would serve dinner to WW1 Vets on Armistice day at a local church, they were some neat old dudes.

 

[sirhrmechanic]

In part to give this thread a bit of a bump... and in part to shamelessly plug a neat book... I picked up a copy of Chris Kyle's book American Gun. In it, he and co-author William Doyle tell the story of American history through the lens of 10 important firearms. Starting with the Long Rifle... and moving onto the Spencer where I am now, many of the themes covered in this thread have come up. There is a whole chapter on the 1911 and the 03 Springfield, which I am certain will bring some interesting points to our discussion on WW1.

As an historical 'tome' -- it is not. It is fun, readable and well-researched. It makes great use of citations and source notes. While there are likely some academic historians who will blow it off as a 'lightweight' book, it is anything but. In the spirit of Stephen Ambrose and Cornelius Ryan, Kyle and Doyle have written a book that weaves firearms technology, military history and American history into a wonderful tapestry. It makes American History and military history incredibly approachable and does it in a creative way. Any kid who likes to shoot (and any adult who likes vintage sniper rifles...) is going to thoroughly enjoy this book. It is even nicely illustrated and the pictures/photos and most I've never seen before. They dug deep into the archives, rather than printing the same harried pictures again. Yes, some are pretty "standard" but a lot were new to me and that made them interesting for a change1

To specifically talk about some of the 'threads' the authors have touched on from this thread have been Morgan and his performance at Saratoga and Cowpens. The challenges riflemen faced against bayonet charges and the difficulty Lincoln had with Ripley, his procurement officer/General who was strongly opposed to repeating rifles and delayed the adoption of the Henry, Spencer and other repeating firearms.

My favorite little tidbit is that for the section on the Colt SAA is illustrated with a Colt Bisley. Not sure if it was intentional, but that's my favorite of the Colt's. If they went so far as to know what they were doing by using the 'accurized' Colt as their icon... good on them! I love seeing Bisley's.

It's a book worth buying, owning and giving.

Anyway, 100 years ago today, bad things were starting to happen in Europe. Coming up... Taxicabs of the Marne.

Cheers,

Sirhr

 

[Forgetful Coyote]

Anybody watching "Apocalypse: WW1"? Great show! Im pretty surprised at the level of detail they went into with this show.

Sirhr, you cant tell me you are missing this program. If so, put it on American Heroes Channel(formerly Military Channel) right now!

New episodes every Monday @ 10pm East Coast time.

Another that looks friggin awesome is Hardcore Heroes, coming to AHC pretty soon. Gunslingers is one I like as well, also on AHC. They have been knocking it out the park this year with all the good shows theyre coming out with. Putting History Channel and H2 to shame.

 

[sirhrmechanic]

On this day... 100 years ago, Britain declared war on Austro-Hungary. And THAT made it a World War as the empire was sucked in.

Up until that point... it was still isolated to the continent. With England's official entry into the war, everything changed.

BTW, found an interesting Web site for those who want to follow events on a daily basis:

First World War.com - On This Day - August 1914-1919

Gives factoids for every day of the war. That ought to give us some discussion points!

Cheers,

Sirhr