why bolt-action in WW2?

[kovendel]

Anyone, please, tell me, I'll never understand one thing.

Why was the bolt-action combat rifle design still common in the 1930s, 1940s?

The WW1 prooved, that in close ranges bolt-action dies. In an infantry charge, if the lucky bastard somehow could have reached the enemy trench, he had to use his bayonet, knife, pistol or shotgun (if he had), even spades and swords. It was totally clear, that the bolt-action was not enough.

And I know, that's why the smg came in the game.

But smg is just semisolution, because of its inaccuracy, and having two guns with two ammunition is totally unrealistic.

So the answer was, okay, let's have two roles in the team, we have a guy, who has accuracy, and a guy who has firepower. This concept (as it's proven by the history) is totally unreasonable. As the whole team is complet just with both, if one element falls, operational ability decrease not to 50%, but 0%. In the base of fire and manuvre concept, no team can operate without the other in case of having different weapons.

This led to the ak47, m14, m16, g3, etc.

So let's see the facts:

1. bolt-action rifle couldn't do the job, what was needed in the 20th century battlefield
2. the errors in the semisolutions can be realised by 7 year old kid
3. the working solution is easy (put a rifle and an smg together, and you got the 2 in 1)
4. working examples for solution were given (like the mondragon rifle, EPK pyrkal, 39 m kiraly, AVS 36, etc.)

My question:

Why was the slow, one firing mode bolt-action design chosen in stead of the the fast, selective firing mode autoloading design? (in deed in smaller, poor countries, like Italy or Poland, where simply there were not enough men or producing capacity for the old concept)

Don't tell me the A+ accuracy story. You need outstanding accuracy in sniping or hunting, but everybody knows, the real job is done by suppressing and flanking.

So folks, what don't I see, that everybody does?

Thanx a lot.

 

[jmr40]

Tactics. Reliability, the first autos were not dependable. Technology needed time to develop.

Remember also that just prior WW-I single shots were the most common. A bolt action was a huge improvement in firepower.

 

[ErikO]

Look at the autofire weapons from 1910-1925. Almost all of them with decent cyclic rates were water-cooled or mounted on airplanes. Also, I do beleive that the financial disaster of 1929 that heralded the end of the pause between wars had a fair bit to do with it.

Either retool your standing army or else pass out the weapns that go 'bang' and drop their targets? Look at the Red Army, mostly conscripts and typically one rifle between two of them. many of those rifles are STILL in use, to boot.

 

[Carter]

For Germany, the fact that Hitler LOVED the mauser 98 led to the 98k and being one of their main infantry weapons. Generals and other leaders tend to think the new technology is horrible and want to stick with what they know. For Hitler and others that was the bolt action.

Also, think about how much it takes to entirely rearm an army. Add that to the Great Depression, few practical designs, and smg's becoming more common there wasn't really a "need" or capability to outfit an entire army with a new and unproven rifle.

 

[Kachok]

Automatic rifles were large and very heavy for the most part, reliability was also an issue. Now mind you the Americans and Germans both had automatic rifles but the bolt guns were still popular at the start of the war because that is what they had on hand.

 

[Sam1911]

Analysis and understanding of what really happens in warfare is always 20/20 in hindsight -- and extremely subjective and hotly contested even then.

Tactics, which develop based on that earned understanding are slow to be changed, and are always dependent on which enemy we might face, on what battlefield, and are heavily influenced by what tactics that enemy understands/adopts. And THAT information is always most relevant to the LAST war, not the NEXT one...

Add to that the VERY high cost of completely re-equipping an entire branch of the armed services (let alone several branches) and training all those men in the new technology, and you'll be very fortunate to go from someone developing something "better" to actual implementation of a new platform and the ammo and support structure to make it functional, in only a decade or two.

Considering that, 1) artillery and air power produce 90%+ of the casualties in a war (and even then only those that are due to violent action, actually, which sometimes is less than half the total numbers of casualties), NOT the "boots" on the ground; and, 2) that pure rate-of-fire is not the compelling factor in the lethality of an infantryman, there is very little pressing NEED for an army to be an early adopter of small arms technology developments.

 

[Telekinesis]

You seem to be wanting us to justify the use of bolt actions in today's battlefield as opposed to telling you why thy were used in WW2. The fact that nearly every modern army in the world uses assault rifles of one sort or another shows you that proving the superiority of bolt guns is impossible.

In war, it's the big toys that do the work. Tanks, artillery, bombers, heavy machine guns, not the one guy with a rifle. It's a simple economic solution. You as a country have X resources, what will you use them on? WW2 saw massive advances in all of the fields listed above. And infantry with bolt guns worked just fine against other infantry with bolt guns.

As for the other semi-autos of the era, not all of them were reliable when used in combat (try throwing a hand full of mud in their chambers) and most if not all would have required a complete retooling of ammo factories leaving the current stockpiles useless (actually why the Garand is in 30-06). Add to that the fact that most european governments could see some sort of war coming eventually, and no one wanted to risk being unarmed or under armed which would be required for a complete change in infantry rifle and ammunition.

It's not that the soldiers and governments PREFERRED the bolt action, it just wasn't really worth it to change at that time. Hell, even the isolationist US who didn't even want to be in ANY european war, and could justify the down time still had Marines usig bolt action rifles well into WW2.

Also, your base of fire example isn't exactly right. M16s, AKs etc are not used to make a base of fire. That is left to the real machine-guns like the M240, M2 etc. In fact, current doctrine states that full auto from the assault rifles is really only to be used in a Final Protective Fire situation such as "<deleted> we're about to be over run!"

 

[klutchless]

Beats having a sharp stick.

 

[Carl N. Brown]

Read the history of the development of the Garand rifle in the 1930s or the relative failure in combat of the first Russian and German semiauto battle rifles (Russia and Germany relied on the 91/30 and 98K til the end, despite fielding the SVT-40 and Gewehr 43). Development of a combat ready semi-auto took a lot of testing and development, plus development of manufacturing tools and processes to allow mass production with both quantity and quality. (Garand designed not only the gun itself, but the tools by which it could be fabricated.)

 

[bigedp51]

The M-16/A4 was the first U.S. military rifle not designed and built at the Army's Springfield Armory and the Armory is closed down and has been turned into a museum.

Do you think the M-16/A4 rifle forced on the military by the Sectary of Defense Robert Strange McNamara who had been the CEO of Ford motor company was the "best" automatic rifle for our military.

Do you think the best solution for military weapons is "contracting out" and buying Italian designed Beretta 9mm pistols and Belgium designed SAW machine guns.

No matter the history and type of military weapons, our military now buys weapons based on political pressure, lobbing and payoffs by the military industrial complex.

And last but not least, why are the Israeli's using the Galil and switching over to the newer Tavor assault rifle and we as Americans are still using the controversial M-16/A4. (what did the Israeli's do with all the M-16 rifles we gave them)

Telekinesis
(try throwing a hand full of mud in their chambers)

And what happens to the M-16/A4 with a handful of dirt and sand thrown in the chamber? Why do so many shooter talk about running the M-16/A4 "WET" and yet the Galil was optimized for dirty dusty conditions. Learning from history has nothing to do with greed, corruption and government contracts.

 

[SN13]

Imagine you're Stalin... you have millions of 7.62x54R Mosin Rifles.... Millions of rounds of ammunition... and millions of conscripts.... Millions of items you have are cheaper and more effective than millions of guns you don't have yet.

 

[SN13]

Plus, It's much harder to stick a bolt action over a barricade and shoot blindly at the enemy, than it is with a Select Fire rifle... How many rounds per dead insurgent in Iraq with all our awesome AR rifles? 250,000 rounds to kill one guy? Something along that?

Edited * 250k not 50k

 

[rcmodel]

By & large, there simply wasn't enough time or money to re-equip large army's with unproven weapons prior to WWII.

The U.S. had just come out of the great depression in the mid-30's and was broke.

The standing army totaled about 175,000 men in the mid-30's.
By the summer of 1941 the army had 1,400,000 men.
In less than four years, the army grew to a force of 8,300,000 men.

Everyone couldn't be issued a M-1 Garand, because there weren't that many, and the factories were not in place to make millions of them early in the war.

But there were 03 Springfield's, and capacity to manufacture many more.

Germany was never able to meet the demand for assult rifles because by the time they were in a position to make them and the ammo for them, we were in a position to blow the factorys off the map.

Japan tried, but was never able to get a handle on what a semi-auto rifle should even look like!!!

rc

 

[Telekinesis]

bigedp51

I'm actually not a big fan of the M16/AR type of rifles, I much prefer the AK and FAL. I know you can do just about anything to an AK and it'll still run, and you can get close to that with the FAL by pushing mare gas. Also, tha Galil is more of an AK that shoots 5.56 as opposed to a "more reliable AR type platform".

The M-16/A4 was the first U.S. military rifle not designed and built at the Army's Springfield Armory

What about the BAR, the M2, the M1911, Thompson, and Garand? In fact, Most of the US service rifles trace their roots to nongovernmental manufacturers/designers. Of course thy were later picked up by the gov arsenals for masproduction, but that has nothing to do with origins of the design.

And on a philosophical level, I disagree with your view that learning history has nothing to do with "greed, corruption and government contracts". That is basically politics, and history has everything to do with politics. Especially if you view war as a continuation of politics.

 

[KodiakBeer]

Every war is fought (or at least begun) with the weapons of the previous war. It isn't until the new tactics and technology develop or are proven in the field, that the powers begin looking for something to counter them.

Had WWII continued another year, most of the German army would have been carrying the G43 or STG 44 rifles. The Russians were going over to the the SVT 40 rifle. The Americans were already fielding the Garand.

Really, only the British were still stuck on bolt actions.

 

[Float Pilot]

What RC just said....

Time, money, and existing factory capacity has more to do with what you get, versus what you want.

Since the Germans had M-98Ks their tactics were evolved around using those rifles to protect the machine-gunner. The light MG being the primary offensive weapon.

Most Armies at that time used the layered weapons plan of action. Sub-guns and rifles covered their range areas while protecting the real killing assets like the machine-gunners, Mortars, Artillery, tanks, aircraft and so on.

Large quantities of the 1903A3s that were pressed into overseas service by the US were actually designated as Grenade launching rifles. That is way the 1903A3s have the two heavier re-enforcing bolts through the action areas of their stocks. (plus why they kept the straight wrist stock. on them ) M-1 Garand's were known or at least thought to be rather finicky when it came to grenade launching.

 

[Gord]

How many rounds per dead insurgent in Iraq with all our awesome AR rifles? 250,000 rounds to kill one guy? Something along that?

You realize, of course, that those numbers take into account rounds expended for suppressing fire and whatever other uses... right?

 

[Cosmoline]

Why was the slow, one firing mode bolt-action design chosen in stead of the the fast, selective firing mode autoloading design? (in deed in smaller, poor countries, like Italy or Poland, where simply there were not enough men or producing capacity for the old concept)

In a word, money. There were some fantastic semiauto battle rifle designs around prior to WWII. England had a chance to grab up the designs for what became the FN-49/SAFN. A better rifle than the Garand. But the costs of replacing millions of Enfields with new equipment and new ammunition would have been enormous, and every penny mattered at that stage. There is also the issue of retraining men who had been used to the Enfield for generations. Do you risk trying for perfection when you have an excellent bolt action already?

The USSR tried to replace the Mosin-Nagant with the SVT's prior to the war, but production demands were tremendous and they lost whole factories in 1941. The SVT was much more complex and expensive to churn out than the 91/30.

The US did the switch because we had the benefit of having only a small military to arm in the 1930's, and we were comparatively wealthy as a nation even in the middle of the depression.

that those numbers take into account rounds expended for suppressing fire and whatever other uses.

It's even more deceptive than that. The bean counters are literally adding up total ammunition consumption from the General Accounting Office and comparing that to the number of estimated insurgents killed. They aren't adding up the rounds fired in a particular firefight. It's one of the more idiotic statistics that gets tossed around, since it's really just showing that our guys are training a lot more than they used to and that we're giving them the material to do it properly.

This is where the 250,000 nonsense comes from:

John Pike, director of the Washington military research group GlobalSecurity.org, said that, based on the GAO's figures, US forces had expended around six billion bullets between 2002 and 2005. "How many evil-doers have we sent to their maker using bullets rather than bombs? I don't know," he said.

"If they don't do body counts, how can I? But using these figures it works out at around 300,000 bullets per insurgent. Let's round that down to 250,000 so that we are underestimating."

Pointing out that officials say many of these bullets have been used for training purposes, he said: "What are you training for? To kill insurgents."

http://www.rense.com/general67/bullets.htm

It's much harder to stick a bolt action over a barricade and shoot blindly at the enemy, than it is with a Select Fire rifle.

I've seen that sort of thing from Vietnam era footage. Specifically during the Tet Offensive when rear guard units were having to fight on an unexpected front line. Shooting blindly over the top of barricades is NOT something I've seen happening in any footage from the current conflicts. Our guys appear to be better skilled and have better gun handling than in any previous conflict. Maybe someone who's been in the action can confirm this, but I've been impressed by the discipline. They're not blindly firing, they're professional and methodical. There are also shockingly few of them. Watch "Restrepo" for example. In earlier conflicts ten times as many men would have been used to hold that valley. Fewer troops spread thinner on the front lines mean more rounds fired.

 

[murdoc rose]

Bolt guns are formidable weapons that are still being used in combat along side anything else groups can afford. As for the reason they where so common on ww2 battlefields has to do with money, technology and timing. You can look back now and ask why people weren't armed differently but at the time they used what they had,know, and could afford.

My advise is to pick up a m91/30 and shoot it after you shoot an ar. Only then will you see its effectiveness.

 

[CEOMedic]

I agree with some of what you said but the IDF hasn't used the Galil since the 90's and have been strictly using the M16 platform for the last 10 years. M4's were the mainstay of Israeli infantry brigades in the 2006 and 2008 wars and continue on. The Tavor's are being phased in. Also, the Beretta has gotten a bad rap. I won't start a Beretta discussion but there were definitely better pistols that could be had but the Beretta is far from a shoddy weapon. The M4 continues on today as the preferred weapon platform of the most elite warriors in our country because they are accurate, modular, and RELIABLE. Yes if you throw mud in the chamber it will probably jam. Just don't do such a absurd thing....;-)

 

[Roan]

The question is far more complex than we like to think. The real answer could fill many books and the answers here just barely begin to answer the question.

If you're really curious, I highly recommend you check out "The Gun" by C.J. Chivers. While mostly focused on the AK platform, a good chunk of the book discusses rapid-fire guns all the way back to their beginnings as well as the pressures that caused their development. While I disagree with the author's final assessments in the final chapters, the rest of the book has some really good information and will begin to give you a more comprehensive answer than can be included here.

 

[Quoheleth]

Perhaps this is over-simplistic, but I know I read somewhere that one of the fears of the powers-that-be in the 1930s of the US adopting the Garand was the soldiers' waste of ammunition. With a bolt-action, it was felt, the soldier was more likely to make that shot count instead of "spray and pray" with a semi auto.

Some things never change: "soldiers might waste it, so we better not provide [insert item here]."

Q

 

[rcmodel]

+1

The 1892 Krag and later 1903 Springfield both had magazine cut-off's so you could use them as single-shots and keep the 5-round magazine in reserve!!!
Generals thought solders would waste too much ammo if they were allowed to use a bolt-action with a working 5-shot magazine.

Hows that for progressive thinking by those in charge!

rc

 

[kragluver]

Read the history of the development of the Garand rifle in the 1930s or the relative failure in combat of the first Russian and German semiauto battle rifles (Russia and Germany relied on the 91/30 and 98K til the end, despite fielding the SVT-40 and Gewehr 43). Development of a combat ready semi-auto took a lot of testing and development, plus development of manufacturing tools and processes to allow mass production with both quantity and quality. (Garand designed not only the gun itself, but the tools by which it could be fabricated.)

Concur. Read J.S. Hachter's Book of the Garand. This will answer the OP's fundamental question. We take semi-auto/full auto battle rifles for granted today. The development of a reliable shoulder fired SA battle rifle was not nearly so simple!

 

[sig220mw]

Some people can accurately fire a bolt action rather quickly. I know it's different under the pressure of combat but it can be done. Remember also that those German soldiers with their ancient bolt actions took over most of Europe and they did it rather quickly. Yes they had an air force and tanks too but their main battle rifle was a bolt.