The US was the only country that by 1943 or so had the majority of its soldiers with a semi-auto rifle. Nations pay close attention to what their potential enemies were using and most of these potential enemies were using bolt-actions. I don't think that countries fielding bolt-action rifles against the M-1Garand/Carbine armed US forces were defeated because they had older technology rifles.
why bolt-action in WW2?
- Thread starter kovendel
- Start date
- Status
Sport45
Member
Didn't we have the M1928 (Thompson SMG) before WWII? Seems we put the M1 Carbine to pretty good use as well. I can't remember the model number, but when did our military start using the "grease gun"?
Those weren't bolt action guns...
Those weren't bolt action guns...
Last edited:
sixgunner455
Member
- Joined
- Aug 25, 2006
- Messages
- 3,052
IIRC, that was the M3 grease gun.
sixgunner455
Member
- Joined
- Aug 25, 2006
- Messages
- 3,052
Big Mo was a battleship, IIRC.
And the US had aircraft carriers before that. Not quite that simple.
And the US had aircraft carriers before that. Not quite that simple.
Ole Humpback
Member
Slight military history detour on this point, but most ships damaged at Pearl were repaired and battle ready within 30 days of the attack. Most of the main US ships of the line were already in dry-dock for overhaul which prevented them from being sunk or destroyed to begin with. The Pennsylvania was hit over 30 times IIRC by 1000lb Japanese AP bombs and was patched up and back in action in 45 days. The West Virginia, which sank in the harbor upside down, was righted and seaworthy within 7 days of the attack and battle ready 40 days later. The Arizona and a few littoral & supply ships were sunk, the main Pacific fleet was down for less than 3 months and fighting the Imperial Navy within 4 months of the attack.
The Japanese failed to destroy our carriers, sub-pens, harbor facilities, and repair facilities when they hit Pearl. They did "cosmetic" (best word I can come up with) damage. It would have been a total loss of the fleet if they had taken out the support structures of Pearl then hit the fleet.
Finprof
Member
bolt action rifles in WW2
During the US Civil War, muzzle loaders were most commonly used even though breech loaders had been developed, albeit during the early part of the war. The patent date for the Henry was 1860, as was the Spencer, but few of either made it to the war.
There were Union regiments still equipped with muskets at the beginning of the war.
Ordnace officers like to work with what they know and don't like to take chances on something new. They might not work out - like the Ross.
During the US Civil War, muzzle loaders were most commonly used even though breech loaders had been developed, albeit during the early part of the war. The patent date for the Henry was 1860, as was the Spencer, but few of either made it to the war.
There were Union regiments still equipped with muskets at the beginning of the war.
Ordnace officers like to work with what they know and don't like to take chances on something new. They might not work out - like the Ross.
wlewisiii
Member
Ole Humpback, you might want to reread about Pearl Harbor and the battleships. As just one example, the West Virginia was not refloated till May 17, 1942 and didn't leave for rebuilding on the west coast until May 7, 1943. She finally sailed to rejoin the fleet on September 14, 1944. Though she did get her revenge at The Battle of Surigao Strait which took place October 25, 1944.
Jonny V
Member
Also keep in mind that on the Eastern front (Russian front), bolt action rifles accounted for about 50 million of the 58 million total casualties of the war. It's one thing to say that the bolt is outclassed by the semi-auto. However, if you consider the total casualty count, the numbers don't bear you out.
We Americans are used to thinking about WWI and II in terms of John Wayne movies where the heroes charge up the hill from Normandy and the nazis collapse. The reality is that our production of material goods (which we supplied to allies all over the world, including the Soviets) won the war. Our combat part was miniscule compared to the Eastern front, we had approx 1% the casualties the Soviets suffered.
As far as lethality goes, the United States armed forces still rely on bolt action sniper rifles, and you can bet that it's not due to management idiocy. The bolt action rifle is lethal, and will be for many more decades to come.
We Americans are used to thinking about WWI and II in terms of John Wayne movies where the heroes charge up the hill from Normandy and the nazis collapse. The reality is that our production of material goods (which we supplied to allies all over the world, including the Soviets) won the war. Our combat part was miniscule compared to the Eastern front, we had approx 1% the casualties the Soviets suffered.
As far as lethality goes, the United States armed forces still rely on bolt action sniper rifles, and you can bet that it's not due to management idiocy. The bolt action rifle is lethal, and will be for many more decades to come.
toivo
Member
What you describe is the failure of infantry tactics to adapt to the presence of machine guns on the battlefield. Tanks and air power were the primary solutions to this problem.
Something that I can add in to this conversation of note.
There is a two pronged aspect of fielding new equipment of any sort, the first is getting the items and support items to the battle field. Any of it. Then there is supporting it with replacements. I don't know how many of the new personally worn equipment pieces we wore out and had to fall back to old stuff because the replacements were not in the system to speak of. The second aspect of this logistical consideration is the training the troops on the new equipment. While you can argue the tactics did not change from bolt to semi auto, there are a lot of stories where they did in fact start to change the face of warfare. The M16's implementation in Nam was an example of poor training followed up by even worse logistical support. While the current generation of that particular rifle is much better, that point still stands.
Also as stated, war is what really tests and defines things out. As we as a collective whole in the United States, as well as other countries see is constant modifications to our equipment. What works great in a rifle range or training situation may not be what the guys carrying and using the rifle will agree with. Many touched on the "Bolt actions are tried and true" which was part of it as well as the fact they just had bolt actions primarily. If you are pressed in to war what are you going to do? Wait for the next big advancement before you fight, or grab what you have in a store room somewhere and go fight?
There is a two pronged aspect of fielding new equipment of any sort, the first is getting the items and support items to the battle field. Any of it. Then there is supporting it with replacements. I don't know how many of the new personally worn equipment pieces we wore out and had to fall back to old stuff because the replacements were not in the system to speak of. The second aspect of this logistical consideration is the training the troops on the new equipment. While you can argue the tactics did not change from bolt to semi auto, there are a lot of stories where they did in fact start to change the face of warfare. The M16's implementation in Nam was an example of poor training followed up by even worse logistical support. While the current generation of that particular rifle is much better, that point still stands.
Also as stated, war is what really tests and defines things out. As we as a collective whole in the United States, as well as other countries see is constant modifications to our equipment. What works great in a rifle range or training situation may not be what the guys carrying and using the rifle will agree with. Many touched on the "Bolt actions are tried and true" which was part of it as well as the fact they just had bolt actions primarily. If you are pressed in to war what are you going to do? Wait for the next big advancement before you fight, or grab what you have in a store room somewhere and go fight?
jmresistance
Member
- Joined
- Jul 15, 2011
- Messages
- 71
I'm not an expert, but I would think that two reasons may have been reliability and ammo conservation.
think it has been explained by several the bolt action was common because thats what they had, no doubt it was a wake up call for alot to equip with sa or full auto weapons, but that takes time and money think the usa may of been better off than most of the other countrys involved.
may ww2 never be forgotten as it was a huge loss of alot of lives to protect the freedom that we have today.
may ww2 never be forgotten as it was a huge loss of alot of lives to protect the freedom that we have today.
Joshua M. Smith
Member
Hello,
I've not read all of these answers.
I believe a large part of it was ammunition and propellant technologies. They just weren't there yet for reliable functioning from a gas system unless that gas system was extremely robust (BAR etc).
Downloaded Garand .30-'06 anyone?
Josh
I've not read all of these answers.
I believe a large part of it was ammunition and propellant technologies. They just weren't there yet for reliable functioning from a gas system unless that gas system was extremely robust (BAR etc).
Downloaded Garand .30-'06 anyone?
Josh
Ole Humpback
Member
Hmm, I don't recall reading that. Then again, its been a while since my Junior High research paper on the subject. More than likely I'm recalling something wrong. I shall have to reread the subject again.
45_auto
Member
Nope, not quite. Actually the Pennsylvania was only hit by one bomb and lightly damaged. The destroyers Cassin and Downes in drydock with her were destroyed.
Pennsylvania sailed to San Francisco for repairs on December 20th, 1941. She was there for repairs and overhaul for about 7 months, arriving back at Pearl Harbor on August 14th, 1942.
About 250 days there.
She returned to San Francisco for another overhaul on October 4th, 1942, lasting until February 5th, 1943.
Her first action against the Japanese was the Aluetian campaign on May 11th, 1943.
About 520 days after Pearl Harbor before she was in action.
Per the original posters question, the majority of armies used bolt actions instead of semi-autos in WW2 for the same reason that they still used prop planes instead of jets, and most armies today use assualt rifles instead of lasers. The technology was still being developed.
Last edited:
HorseSoldier
Member
Money, as others have noted.
But also, it should be noted that the overall effect when you start looking at the firepower a squad can generate as a group kind of flattens any advantage the semi-auto brings to the table. The US fielded the Garand alongside a wholly inadequate light machine gun in the form of the BAR which was just brutally lacking as a base of fire weapon compared to the MG34 or 42 (or the Bren gun for that matter).
The US started the war with the best service rifle of the late 1930s and the best auto rifle/LMG . . . of World War One. The Germans started the war with a decent rifle for 1918 standards and the best light machinegun of the 1930s and 40s.
Given what weapons in the squad actually do most of the killing, the Germans probably made the better call -- though obviously the Garand/BAR or SMLE/Bren combo was good enough to hold their own on the battlefield. (And the war wasn't won by small arms, good or bad, in any case.)
But also, it should be noted that the overall effect when you start looking at the firepower a squad can generate as a group kind of flattens any advantage the semi-auto brings to the table. The US fielded the Garand alongside a wholly inadequate light machine gun in the form of the BAR which was just brutally lacking as a base of fire weapon compared to the MG34 or 42 (or the Bren gun for that matter).
The US started the war with the best service rifle of the late 1930s and the best auto rifle/LMG . . . of World War One. The Germans started the war with a decent rifle for 1918 standards and the best light machinegun of the 1930s and 40s.
Given what weapons in the squad actually do most of the killing, the Germans probably made the better call -- though obviously the Garand/BAR or SMLE/Bren combo was good enough to hold their own on the battlefield. (And the war wasn't won by small arms, good or bad, in any case.)
Float Pilot
Member
Jurgen and Fritz work at the rifle development factory spending millions of D-marks trying to come up with a viable assault rifle. and new propellant powders to make the ammunition actually work.
Meanwhile, Tommy flies a Lancaster heavy bomber paid for with the money that was saved by building old style Enfield rifles.
Tommy and his mates burn Jurgen and Fritz's city to the ground every couple of weeks. Their cousin Joe flies B-17s over every couple of weeks as well and blows the rifle factory into small pieces.
Jurgen and Fritz's bosses keep pouring money into goofy projects instead of defensive jet fighters and fuel.
Soon nobody within 20 miles of the rifle factory has a home, food or water. The same holds true for the train stations, roads and petroleum refineries.
Jurgen and Fritz now live in rubble and hope the American tanks get to their town with some food, before the Russian tanks come with flame throwers.
That is how wars are won... The big picture and not the minutia.
Meanwhile, Tommy flies a Lancaster heavy bomber paid for with the money that was saved by building old style Enfield rifles.
Tommy and his mates burn Jurgen and Fritz's city to the ground every couple of weeks. Their cousin Joe flies B-17s over every couple of weeks as well and blows the rifle factory into small pieces.
Jurgen and Fritz's bosses keep pouring money into goofy projects instead of defensive jet fighters and fuel.
Soon nobody within 20 miles of the rifle factory has a home, food or water. The same holds true for the train stations, roads and petroleum refineries.
Jurgen and Fritz now live in rubble and hope the American tanks get to their town with some food, before the Russian tanks come with flame throwers.
That is how wars are won... The big picture and not the minutia.
Last edited by a moderator:
FrankieJames7
Member
this thread is getting interesting, but comrade stalin figured it was to expencive and time consuming to stop major production on the mosin nagant, so they mass produced ammo and mosins, at the later end of the war stalin knew he was going to win the war so thats when he started to make more sks and svt-40s
Float Pilot
Member
Comrade Stalin started pushing for a Semi-Auto rifle for the USSR in the mid 1930s. A Simonov design called the AVS-36 was tried in late 1936. But it was problem prone. There was also a problem with most Soviet soldiers at the time and complicated rifles were just asking for problems.
A Tokarev design came next in the form of the SVT-38. It was still more complicated than the average draftee USSR grunt could handle. It was also long and prone to stoppage. They tried using them during the Winter war against the Finns. (Who also had Swedish Volunteer troops).
After the Finns kicked their butt's, the Finns ended up with around 4,000 captured SVT-38 rifles. (they later captured a 15-16 thousand SVT-40 rifles during the Continuation War.)
The next stage was the improved SVT-40. Of which supposedly 70,000 were made in 1940, with an additional one million made in 1941.
During the German invasion of Russia in 1941, the Germans captured so many SVT-40s that they made up their own operations manual in German and gave it an official designation.
Soviet SVT-40 production decreased, rather than increased as the war continued. Factories which had been making the expensive and complicated rifle were ordered to return to making Mosin rifles or PPsh sub-machine-guns.
While some experimental SKS's (a carbine, not an assault rifle) were supposedly used in combat during the last days of WWII, it was not really adopted until after the war.
Many folks do not know that the rifle which later became the FN-49 was originally designed before the Germans invaded Belgium in 1940. The designer ran with the plans to avoid the Germans.
A Tokarev design came next in the form of the SVT-38. It was still more complicated than the average draftee USSR grunt could handle. It was also long and prone to stoppage. They tried using them during the Winter war against the Finns. (Who also had Swedish Volunteer troops).
After the Finns kicked their butt's, the Finns ended up with around 4,000 captured SVT-38 rifles. (they later captured a 15-16 thousand SVT-40 rifles during the Continuation War.)
The next stage was the improved SVT-40. Of which supposedly 70,000 were made in 1940, with an additional one million made in 1941.
During the German invasion of Russia in 1941, the Germans captured so many SVT-40s that they made up their own operations manual in German and gave it an official designation.
Soviet SVT-40 production decreased, rather than increased as the war continued. Factories which had been making the expensive and complicated rifle were ordered to return to making Mosin rifles or PPsh sub-machine-guns.
While some experimental SKS's (a carbine, not an assault rifle) were supposedly used in combat during the last days of WWII, it was not really adopted until after the war.
Many folks do not know that the rifle which later became the FN-49 was originally designed before the Germans invaded Belgium in 1940. The designer ran with the plans to avoid the Germans.
mortablunt
Member
Military establishments are conservative. Why risk a new, very expensive platform which si of questionable virtue when you have a cheaper one that works? Semiauto was a very new tech, and most new tech doesn't get immediate military adoption. It worked well enough, although the semiauto BR had a very short reign.
Also, try shooting a bolt action of the WW's versus a semiauto of the postwar modern era. The differences are extreme.
Also, try shooting a bolt action of the WW's versus a semiauto of the postwar modern era. The differences are extreme.
Last edited:
- Status