Is it historically accurate to give US infantry firepower bonuses in Bolt Action/Flames of War?

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Do_I_Not_Like_That**

TheCustomLime wrote:
I would consider it justified from '44 onwards. Compared to their German counterparts the US infantryman had more semi-automatic weapons and more rounds to put through them. The idea of the elite Panzergrenadier dismounting from the legions of hanomag halftracks and firing away with his STG44 in Normandy is largely a myth. The Wehrmacht could never supply their soldiers with enough semi-automatic/automatic weapons. But this made a modicum of sense when you consider that German infantry doctrine held that the squad's main weapon was the light machine gun and all other soldiers are there to service it or giving it covering fire. For your average Grenadier the best your squad could hope for was a G43 and even then it was usually one per squad. They were by and large using the same Kar98k their ancestors used when invading poland. The saving grace here is that typically the sarge had an MP40 and there was usually an MG34/42.

There was also supply issues to take into consideration. By the time the allies invaded Normandy Germany had all but expended herself fighting the Soviet Union. She was short on critical resources including metals to make ammunition. The German Landser was short on ammo or even got this shoddy steel ammunition that the reich coated in lacquer that would then horribly jam their rifles. The US had an excellent logistics chain that ensured the GI had plenty of bullets to send down range and into the huns. There were of course times where US forces found themselves cut off but these were exceptional circumstances.

As for comparisons with the British and Soviets? Like others said, I think it more represents the US's ubiquitous semi-automatic rifles and their ability to supply them.

Yeah, you're spot on with German doctrine being about using the MG34 for suppresion/area denial, but I think German supply problems in 44/45 have been largely overplayed IMO. Well at least according the books I've read.

Fuel supply was a chronic problem for the Germans, but MG34 production remained constant, because of the simple sheet metal pressing/stamping mthods of manufacture.
Hell, even up to the last days of the war, German tanks were still rolling out the factories and with Germany retreating to its borders, it had shorter supply lines, so the ammo was getting through.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Silent Puffin? wrote:
LordofHats wrote:
[q and the Germans and the British were organizing themselves more like the Imperial Guard with infantry sections armed with rifles and MP40s and heavier weapons dolled out at the company level.

Britain had it's infantry sections broken into a rifle and a Bren group since at least the Battle of France while German squad level doctrine was centered around light machine guns with supporting riflemen so while the US did have more support weapons its not as if they were the only nation to make use of fire and maneuver.

Personally I don't think that wargame special rules that increase firepower should be allocated unless there are good doctrinal or training reasons. US squad level firepower was high due to the universal use of automatic rifles rather than particularly high training or marksmanship so special rules, if they are included at all, should be attached to the equipment rather than the man.

A sensible compromise.

Because if you made it weapon focused as a rule, then other nations with formations equipped with automatic rifles (Germans and Soviets) could also get the bonus.

Obviously, Germany and the Red Army didn't have automatic rifles on the scale of the USA, but a few lists here and there could get that option.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

CptJake wrote:
Silent Puffin? wrote:
LordofHats wrote:
[q and the Germans and the British were organizing themselves more like the Imperial Guard with infantry sections armed with rifles and MP40s and heavier weapons dolled out at the company level.

Britain had it's infantry sections broken into a rifle and a Bren group since at least the Battle of France while German squad level doctrine was centered around light machine guns with supporting riflemen so while the US did have more support weapons its not as if they were the only nation to make use of fire and maneuver.

Personally I don't think that wargame special rules that increase firepower should be allocated unless there are good doctrinal or training reasons. US squad level firepower was high due to the universal use of automatic rifles rather than particularly high training or marksmanship so special rules, if they are included at all, should be attached to the equipment rather than the man.

But there were substantial differences in doctrine (which in turn made differences in training). US Doctrine called for more movement, to include the BAR using marching fire. German and UK doctrine had their respective squad automatic weapons mainly firing from fixed positions as opposed to firing on the move. The BAR was lighter than the MG34/42 and lighter than the Bren, and as mentioned the US use of semi-auto rifles to increase fire power on the move augmented the BARs.

It's a good point, to an extent, because I've read one or two accounts about the British in Normandy where they use Brens like BARs, as well as a fixed position LMG.

Also, you probably know more on this than me, but from my reading of the Pacific battles, because the US Marines were up against fanatical dug in Japanese infantry, the standard tactics didn't work the same way as say Europe or North Africa.

In a war against Japanese bunkers, it was more flamethrowers, tommy guns, grenades, and hand to hand fighting rather than fire and move. The thick jungle changing the dynamic.

A favourite tactic of the Japanese was to creep up on the Marines and launch the Banzi charge, so sometimes American training went out the window and your average American soldier had to improvise...or die...

**Silent Puffin?**

CptJake wrote:

But there were substantial differences in doctrine (which in turn made differences in training). US Doctrine called for more movement, to include the BAR using marching fire. German and UK doctrine had their respective squad automatic weapons mainly firing from fixed positions as opposed to firing on the move. The BAR was lighter than the MG34/42 and lighter than the Bren, and as mentioned the US use of semi-auto rifles to increase fire power on the move augmented the BARs.

Enough to warrant the various wargaming special rules, especially as 'walking fire' is purely about suppression? I personally doubt it.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

Because if you made it weapon focused as a rule, then other nations with formations equipped with automatic rifles (Germans and Soviets) could also get the bonus.

I'd be fine with that, although I don't think that I have seen the option for entire squads with automatic rifles in a wargame (aside from the US of course).

**jhe90**

The true US firepiwer wad the level of intergrationntheybhad with radios so tanks, planes, even naval and land artillary was combined into a combined force.

Also they had a good degree of mechanization ijeeps and half tracks etc.

Though on a single infantry unit level things are less different. Yes the m1 gets more rounds than a bolt action but good training and a bolt action can fire fast too.

Brittish army mad minute training.

**Frazzled**

There was an old joke-if you hear a sound in the woods fire a shot and wait.

*If you get back a buttload of automatic fire, they're German.
*If you get back controlled, aimed fire, they are British.
*If nothing happens for two minutes and then artillery takes out the entire area, they are American.
and Frazzled's addition:
*If a three platoons of T34s appear and overrun your position, they are Russian.

**Silent Puffin?**

Frazzled wrote:
There was an old joke-if you hear a sound in the woods fire a shot and wait.
*If you get back a buttload of automatic fire, they're German.
*If you get back controlled, aimed fire, they are British.
*If nothing happens for two minutes and then artillery takes out the entire neighboring allied platoon, they are American.
and Frazzled's addition:
*If a three platoons of T34s appear and overrun your position, they are Russian.

My addition

**LordofHats**

There is an old saying that Americans have the most dangerous doctrine of all, because they have no idea what their doctrine is

**A Town Called Malus**

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
I totally get the automatic rifle thing. The US army was unique in this, and other nations caught up, but you could argue that well trained infantry firing SMLEs could also crank out a similar amount of rifle fire. And of course, later on in the war, the Soviets and the German army both had either automatic rifles and in Germany's case, troops armed with assault rifles. The Battle of the Bulge being a famous example.

Poland also had a very limited supply (literally only 150 max made before the German invasion) of automatic rifles. So the US was not alone in seeing the potential of automatic rifles before the war, but they had the benefit of not being invaded literally the year after small scale production began

**Vaktathi**

The BAR was only marginally lighter than something like an MG42 or 34 (IIRC 19-25lbs depending on version and loaded magazine vs 23-27 for the German MG's) with dramatically lower ammunition capacitiy and no changeable barrels and a bipod that was...less than ideally functional.

The BAR doctrine of walking fire was the same thing the french Chauchat was based on in WW1 and both were thoroughly obsolete by the end of that war with almost no actual use in the walking fire role as it turned out to be ineffective at hitting anything and extremely limited in ammunition capacity as well.

In practice the BAR and Chauchat ended up being actually used in largely the same way as the German WW2 LMG's, just with less effectiveness. The Fench dropped the concept after WW1 and the US just never developed a proper LMG until the M60.

Likewise, German doctrine was heavily built around fire and maneuver, they just werent trying to fire MG's from the hip while advancing most of the time (though did sometimes happen), and in reality neither were the Americans with their BAR's most of the time. Firing a 21lb rifle off the shoulder gets exhausting quickly, and suppressive fire with a 20 round box magazine from the hip on what typically was a relatively low rate of fire wasnt an astounding tactical success.

This video is on the BAR vs the FG42 so its not quite a direct comparison to the German MG's, but it gives a good overview of the problems with the BAR that I also found the couple times ive shot one.

**Frazzled**

A Town Called Malus wrote:
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
I totally get the automatic rifle thing. The US army was unique in this, and other nations caught up, but you could argue that well trained infantry firing SMLEs could also crank out a similar amount of rifle fire. And of course, later on in the war, the Soviets and the German army both had either automatic rifles and in Germany's case, troops armed with assault rifles. The Battle of the Bulge being a famous example.

Poland also had a very limited supply (literally only 150 max made before the German invasion) of automatic rifles. So the US was not alone in seeing the potential of automatic rifles before the war, but they had the benefit of not being invaded literally the year after small scale production began

The Soviets also had a semi-automatic rifle, and a good one. Like Poland production was disrupted, plus they just went to the well with their inventory of MNs.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SVT-40

On a trooper basis both Ivan and GI Joe technically outclassed the Landser with his KAR-98.

**LordofHats**

The SVT-40 and it's German equivalent the Gewehr 43 did not see wide use in WWII. The Germans ended up backing the STG44 and the Russians ended up backing the AK47. The US would try to continue using battle rifles like the M1 into the 60s.

**jhe90**

The closest you find to a true LMG was a marine armourers invention...

Called a stinger, he took some left over light aircraft 30 cals.
Mounted new triggers etc and hand protection etc.

By the end they had made a bunch of belt fed lemgs that's a man could carry, fire and use. Lighter as designed for planes and fired even faster.

If I was not on phone id find a link.

**Frazzled**

LordofHats wrote:
The SVT-40 and it's German equivalent the Gewehr 43 did not see wide use in WWII. The Germans ended up backing the STG44 and the Russians ended up backing the AK47. The US would try to continue using battle rifles like the M1 into the 60s.

M14s...yep.

**squidhills**

The magazine release on a BAR is not in an ergonomic location. Changing magazines is a pain to do on the move, and would be easier from a fixed position with the gun's bipod deployed.

But then you get into the hassle of messing with the bipod. Two wing nuts to loosen/tighten to move the bipod struts into the down/up position and two more to alter the length of the struts to control the height of the barrel. The Bren bipod, on the other hand, is easy to deploy.

The result of this is that the BAR is easier to reload and use the bipod from a fixed defensive position, like a light machine gun, which causes you to run headlong into the undeniable fact that the BAR is not actually an LMG, but is really an automatic rifle from an era when anything man-portable and automatic was automatically (ha ha) a light machinegun.

Using the BAR like an automatic rifle, as opposed to an LMG, you can see it's usefulness and desirability (as the USMC did in the Pacific) but then you run headlong into the undeniable fact that the magazine is a mother to change while moving and the blasted thing only holds 20 rounds to begin with, which makes for a pretty gakky automatic rifle.

TL;DR The wargame rule giving US forces a special bonus due to BARs and M1s is perfectly reasonable because the BAR looks so damn sweet.

**Frazzled**

TL;DR The wargame rule giving US forces a special bonus due to BARs and M1s is perfectly reasonable because the BAR looks so damn sweet.

Rule of cool! a time honored tradition.

We should also if we followed FOW matches the Germans would have had 450,000 Tiger 1s and the Americans 8,000,000 M4 Shermans. Russian numbers would have remained the same.

**jhe90**

squidhills wrote:
The magazine release on a BAR is not in an ergonomic location. Changing magazines is a pain to do on the move, and would be easier from a fixed position with the gun's bipod deployed.

But then you get into the hassle of messing with the bipod. Two wing nuts to loosen/tighten to move the bipod struts into the down/up position and two more to alter the length of the struts to control the height of the barrel. The Bren bipod, on the other hand, is easy to deploy.

The result of this is that the BAR is easier to reload and use the bipod from a fixed defensive position, like a light machine gun, which causes you to run headlong into the undeniable fact that the BAR is not actually an LMG, but is really an automatic rifle from an era when anything man-portable and automatic was automatically (ha ha) a light machinegun.

Using the BAR like an automatic rifle, as opposed to an LMG, you can see it's usefulness and desirability (as the USMC did in the Pacific) but then you run headlong into the undeniable fact that the magazine is a mother to change while moving and the blasted thing only holds 20 rounds to begin with, which makes for a pretty gakky automatic rifle.

TL;DR The wargame rule giving US forces a special bonus due to BARs and M1s is perfectly reasonable because the BAR looks so damn sweet.

Historically the Bren was sometimes used with more worn barels as more file with big magazine acurate then a supressing weapon. They where mot bad on accuracy, though that top magazine makes keeping one concealed a headache...

**Prestor Jon**

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
LordofHats wrote:
I would suspect the rule is a more general acknowledgement of how much more bullets a US infantry unit could put down range than its opponents.

The BAR was one of the first squad support weapons to see wide deployment in any military force. While the Germans, Italians, and Japanese had their own designs they either never saw wide distribution or only came out late in the war. The BAR had a lot more mobility than a other similar designs. It was lighter and could be manned by a single soldier. The MG34 was probably a better weapon but I'd suspect the rule is an acknowledgement of a more general factor in the US Army at the time, namely the ability to pour out more bullets than comparably sized opposing forces between BARs and M1s.

As to the fire and and maneuver I suspect they're referencing the emergence in the Army of Fireteams during WWII. The initial concept was pioneered by the Germans and the British in WWI, but by the time we get to WWII they're still largely using the basic infantry tactics to develop in the later stages of the First World War. The US Army advanced this concept in the Interwar years through the use of shotguns, the Thompson, and the BAR with the goal to pack as much fire power as they could into as small a unit as they could. For this reason US Army squads in WWII were generally much more heavily armed than those of Germany, Britain, or the USSR. The Army went on to incorporate this concept into platoon composition with each platoon consisting of designated fireteams and each squad member in those fireteams having a role in maneuver warfare, which the other armed forces of the time hadn't quite gotten around to yet.

In terms of Doctrine I'd say the rule is justified. The US Army in WWII focused heavily on what Rommel would call "the winner is the guy who shoots first and shoots hardest." Especially since Germany, Italy, and Japan generally were on the defensive these three enemies developed sophisticated fortification, overwatch, and suppression abilities. The US army in turn ended up developing and using a much more methodical combat scheme if only by the nature of being the aggressor force more often than not.

Well except for the Communist Chinese who kind of had their own thing going on at the time.

At last, a well written post.

But I'll have to disagree with you

For sure, the US produced thousand of BARs compared to Axis weapons production, but the British also produced a similar amount of Bren Guns. I have stats and figures if you want them

I would argue that the Bren is a better weapon than the BAR, and is also portable enough for one man to fire.

Secondly, German units would supplement their firepower with extra MG34s and captured Soviet sub-machine guns, so I would argue that the Germans could krank out a similar level of firepower.

And of course, if you're familiar with the battle of France in 1940, German aggression and small unit tactics were quite impressive.

I take nothing away from the US army. Having recently read a book about the Battle of the bulge, their artillery was something to behold. They amount of shells they fired at the Germans was awesome

But on an infantry Vs. infantry basis, I think there is parity between the nations.

I think it's unwise to consider sub guns as always augmenting firepower in a rifleman squad. Submachine guns are pistol caliber carbines, they're a niche weapon that excels in the proper mission or theater of operations but fares poorly outside those roles. I can shoot my Garand accurately at 300 yards but while a Thompson gets more range out of .45s than a 1911 it would still be a waste of ammo to fire a Thompson at a target more than 50 yards distant.

**feeder**

Prestor Jon wrote:
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
LordofHats wrote:
I would suspect the rule is a more general acknowledgement of how much more bullets a US infantry unit could put down range than its opponents.

The BAR was one of the first squad support weapons to see wide deployment in any military force. While the Germans, Italians, and Japanese had their own designs they either never saw wide distribution or only came out late in the war. The BAR had a lot more mobility than a other similar designs. It was lighter and could be manned by a single soldier. The MG34 was probably a better weapon but I'd suspect the rule is an acknowledgement of a more general factor in the US Army at the time, namely the ability to pour out more bullets than comparably sized opposing forces between BARs and M1s.

As to the fire and and maneuver I suspect they're referencing the emergence in the Army of Fireteams during WWII. The initial concept was pioneered by the Germans and the British in WWI, but by the time we get to WWII they're still largely using the basic infantry tactics to develop in the later stages of the First World War. The US Army advanced this concept in the Interwar years through the use of shotguns, the Thompson, and the BAR with the goal to pack as much fire power as they could into as small a unit as they could. For this reason US Army squads in WWII were generally much more heavily armed than those of Germany, Britain, or the USSR. The Army went on to incorporate this concept into platoon composition with each platoon consisting of designated fireteams and each squad member in those fireteams having a role in maneuver warfare, which the other armed forces of the time hadn't quite gotten around to yet.

In terms of Doctrine I'd say the rule is justified. The US Army in WWII focused heavily on what Rommel would call "the winner is the guy who shoots first and shoots hardest." Especially since Germany, Italy, and Japan generally were on the defensive these three enemies developed sophisticated fortification, overwatch, and suppression abilities. The US army in turn ended up developing and using a much more methodical combat scheme if only by the nature of being the aggressor force more often than not.

Well except for the Communist Chinese who kind of had their own thing going on at the time.

At last, a well written post.

But I'll have to disagree with you

For sure, the US produced thousand of BARs compared to Axis weapons production, but the British also produced a similar amount of Bren Guns. I have stats and figures if you want them

I would argue that the Bren is a better weapon than the BAR, and is also portable enough for one man to fire.

Secondly, German units would supplement their firepower with extra MG34s and captured Soviet sub-machine guns, so I would argue that the Germans could krank out a similar level of firepower.

And of course, if you're familiar with the battle of France in 1940, German aggression and small unit tactics were quite impressive.

I take nothing away from the US army. Having recently read a book about the Battle of the bulge, their artillery was something to behold. They amount of shells they fired at the Germans was awesome

But on an infantry Vs. infantry basis, I think there is parity between the nations.

I think it's unwise to consider sub guns as always augmenting firepower in a rifleman squad. Submachine guns are pistol caliber carbines, they're a niche weapon that excels in the proper mission or theater of operations but fares poorly outside those roles. I can shoot my Garand accurately at 300 yards but while a Thompson gets more range out of .45s than a 1911 it would still be a waste of ammo to fire a Thompson at a target more than 50 yards distant.

Unless, of course, the purpose was to make the target keep it's head down.

**Wyrmalla**

Not to add much those this but: The BAR was a fairly archaic design for its time, not least considering that the version the US went into WWII with was an older version than what the Europeans were using (IIRC the military refused to include any of the improvements due to the perceived cost). Notably, the Germans pushed these modernised BARs (which they had liberated from the Norwegians, along with stuff like M1911s - actually a *really* common handgun in German use) into service themselves.

For the time period its a horrible gun. National rules like that are more for game balance than realism, and gross generalisations. For instance in Bolt Action Germans have a +1 to the number of shots from their MGs, as yes the MG34/42 had a higher rate of fire than many MGs, though also was inaccurate. This discounts the plethora of other MGs the Germans were using at the time...

**Kilkrazy**

Firstly this thread should not be in Off Topic and I am going to move it to the appropriate forum.

Now let's look at the claims about different infantry weapons and their effects on "firepower".

The M1 Garand was the only semi-automatic rifle in late war use except for the various German assault rifles (they had three designs) and the Soviet semi-automatic rifle. The difference here is that the Garand was carried by all US infantry (not Marines, who used a bolt-action rifle) and people with M1 carbines.

The Garand can fire faster than a bolt action rifle for one magazine (8 rounds?), but it needs to be reloaded and in a long battle the ammo carried by the individual soldier becomes more of a constraint on firepower than the cyclic rate of his weapon.

Of course, the western allies usually had better supplies than the Germans or Soviets.

The BAR is lighter than the Bren Gun or the Soviet DP27. The BAR has a smaller magazine, requiring more frequent changes, and doesn't have a changeable barrel, limiting its sustained fire capability. The Bren has a 30 round mag and changeable barrel. The DP27 has a 47 round mag and not a changeable barrel. These factors make it difficult to say which weapon had the most firepower overall.

The German MG of course was heavier but had a higher rate of fire. OTOH the various allies had various heavy MGs such as the Vickers that were very good and reliably threw a lot of lead down range. (The Germans also used ex-WW1 Maxim type HMGs in the early stages of the war.)

Ammo supply, spare barrels and water cooling become factors in extended heavy-machine-gun engagements, complicating the picture.

In terms of artillery, tank, air and naval support, the late war British and Imperials were just as good as the US forces, having similar equipment and doctrines in these areas of combined arms and the same supply advantage.

If you are going for historical simulation accuracy, I don't think the US Army should be given a particular firepower bonus but it is like the various national characteristics in Up Front and makes for a fun game.

**Eumerin**

I can't speak for Bolt Action, but FoW treats the BAR as largely useless.

As a quick tutorial/refresher -

In Flames of War, a squad with one LMG gets two attack dice per team (each team is 4-5 men).
A squad with only bolt action rifles (i.e. no LMGs) gets one attack die for each team.

Obviously, the LMG is providing a nice boost.

Note that those numbers are only for firing while stationary. If you fire while moving, then different numbers are used.

Squads with an LMG roll one unpenalized attack die
Squads with only bolt action rifles still only roll one die, but also get a penalty to hit.

The LMG still provides a boost, but it's much more slight.

When stationary, US squads with their automatic rifles and BAR are treated the same as a squad with bolt action rifles. Obviously, that BAR isn't helping much. But if the US squad fires while moving, it's not penalized. In-game, this is the equivalent of a squad with an LMG. But we already know that BF doesn't view the BAR as being as good as an LMG due to the stationary fire dice. The difference must come from the automatic rifles, which are easier to use on the move.

**Saturmorn Carvilli**

Speaking only for Bolt Action I would agree that the BAR is much better in the game than it has any historical right to be. As an United States player, I think the point cost as well as the ability to make use of the National Trait 'Fire and Maneuver' don't really fit the weapon especially when compared to how Bolt Action treats light/medium machine guns. I would have hoped that 2nd edition toned the BAR down a bit by dropping the Fire and Maneuver bit since points weren't going to be changed.

As for Fire and Maneuver itself, I think it works well enough with the idea of the United States being a fairly mobile, well supplied force. It just was given a poor name since, as far as I can see, all nations were making use of fire and maneuver tactics and the Americans weren't any better (or worst at least later on) than anybody else. The difference was the Americans could typically waste more bullets especially with the M1's better rate of fire. I would have much rather Bolt Action called this National Trait 'Well Supplied' or something so new players wouldn't think the U.S. was the only one making use of these tactics.

**Snord**

Bolt Action's depiction of US infantry firepower seems to be based more on movies than history. Setting aside the overwhelming artillery support that was available to Allied troops, the sole firepower advantage that a US Army infantry squad had was the Garand. This was clearly superior to the bolt action rifles that equipped most German troops, but by 1944 infantry squads were based around their LMG, and neither the British nor the US had anything comparable to the MG42. Most post-war LMGs were modelled on the MG42, simply because it did the job so much better than weapons like the Bren and BAR. The BAR (which wasn't even an LMG) did have a mobility advantage over weapons like the MG42, but it couldn't lay down the kind of suppressive fire that was needed.

Fire and movement was as much a German tactic as anyone else's. They relied on heavy firepower to suppress enemy troops while they infiltrated forwards. The idea that they just sat there behind an LMG is wrong. However, from mid-1944 the overall quality of German infantry was in steady decline, and you were more likely to come across low-grade troops relying on machine guns firing from fixed positions. That said, in the late war period the proportion of automatic weapons in many German units was higher than it was in British and US units.

Perhaps the firepower advantage in the rules is really just an abstraction aimed at representing the overall firepower advantage enjoyed by US soldiers.

Incidentally, for all talk of LMGs, it was (as someone has mentioned) the German mortars that caused the majority of Allied casualties, at least during the Normandy campaign.

I disagree with the comment about the effectiveness of Japanese assaults. Most Japanese assaults failed, with appalling casualties. Once the initial belief in Japanese invincibility wore off, US Marines consistently held their ground and repelled Japanese assaults with sustained firepower (and artillery support). Japanese attempts to repel landings on the shore with close assaults also failed. Where the Japanese really excelled was in-depth defense - in the siting and camouflaging of their positions, and close co-ordination of all arms to inflict maximum casualties.

**Big P**

With regards US Army firepower at squad and platoon level, Id highly recommend reading Colonel M. Doublers book 'Closing with the Enemy' to get a true appraisal of the issues the US Army faced in the ETO.

It had more to do with rifle training than the ability of the weapon to lay down fire. If you don't train men to make use of a semi-auto rifle and its ability to produce volume of fire - Then they wont. If you train them on the weapon in the same manner you trained them to use a bolt-action rifle, then perhaps the weapons rate of fire is not exploited...

This can be seen from the re-training camps set up in the ETO to re-train arriving Stateside replacements after Normandy, in how to make best use of the firepower available at a personal level and pass on combat lessons that had been learned.

**MrMoustaffa**

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
A while back, I asked this question in the firearms thread, with a focus on comparing the BAR and M1 rifle to other nations' weapons and tactics in WW2.

Some other members questioned if that was the correct thread for such a discussion, and on reflection, they were right.

Although this is focused on two miniature games, this topic also includes weapon comparisons, small unit tactics, and military doctrines of each nation, so I believe the OT forum is the correct place for this.

Of course the Mods can move this elsewhere if they feel it's appropriate to do so.

Anyway, In Bolt Action, the US get a fire and manoeuvre rule as the rulebook notes that American units were equipped with BARs and automatic rifles.

In FOW, they get something similar for having units equipped with BARs and automatic rifles.

IMO, there are two main issues here:

1) Fire and manoeuvre

2) The effectiveness of the BAR compared to weapons of other nations.

I totally get the automatic rifle thing. The US army was unique in this, and other nations caught up, but you could argue that well trained infantry firing SMLEs could also crank out a similar amount of rifle fire. And of course, later on in the war, the Soviets and the German army both had either automatic rifles and in Germany's case, troops armed with assault rifles. The Battle of the Bulge being a famous example.

Next, we have to compare the effectiveness of the BAR. I've never handled a BAR in my life, so feedback from American dakka members is appreciated, but having watched numerous YouTube videos where they are used (forgotten weapons, inrange etc) they don't seem to get a good reputation compared to the Bren Gun, the MG34, or the equivalent Red Army light machine gun.

A common argument is that the US army never bothered to upgrade or adapt the BAR during the wars.

Then we move on to fire and manoeuvre.

I'm no expert on WW2 small unit tactics, but surely every army would practice this approach when attacking an enemy?

When looking at army organisation, all armies would have this set up would they not with regards to squads/sections?

10-12 men led by a corporal or sergeant, most men armed with rifles, 1-2 sub machine guns, and 1 light machine gun like the BAR, Bren, or MG34.

Experienced soldiers may well have included more sub machine guns. But to me, it looks like no real difference between each nation.

By all accounts, the US Army was aggressive in attack, but so were other armies, especially the Germans when they counter-attacked.

So, the question is: is this special rule justified, especially when you compare the BAR to other weapons, and more so when you compare US small unit tactics to other nations' small unit tactics.

Not even the Brits mad minute would be able to keep up with a competently trained American unit with garands. Ignoring the fact that the garand is semi auto compared to the Enfield's bolt action, garands are also far quicker to reload. Reloading a garand is a single fluid motion, whereas a British soldier would need to feed in two 5 round stripper clips and rack the bolt. This amount of firepower cannot be overstated when the majority of your opponents (even the Germans) are still using bolt actions. Also keep in mind that a good portion of WWII involved close quarters firefights. A GI can squeeze off 8 rounds from the hip in the space it's going to take a bolt action soldier to get 2-3 if he's lucky. This means that while yes, some Germans had assault rifles and SMG's, the majority did not, and would've suffered when matched up against the average US rifleman. This is even more apparent against the Japanese, who had a severe lack of SMg's and even LMG's compared to the Americans. Then you throw in the BAR, a fully automatic rifle, which can keep up with the riflemen, and you see why the Americans have this focus in a variety of rulesets.They lack in sustained fire when defending a single spot since GI's never really had a dedicated LMG concept, but on the move their fire wouldn't really suffer because they don't need to deploy an LMG and have a dedicated loader following it.

Also keep in mind the supply situation. The Americans were practically swimming in supplies compared to other nations, which encouraged them to fire more and fire everything they had. Meanwhile America's opponents, be they Japanese, German, or Italian, were all facing supply issues and rampant bombing of key factories, supply lines, and depot's. Yes, some German soldier's had STG 44's and MP 40's, but that doesn't make up for ammo shortages. As to Germans and Russians having semi auto rifles, yes, they did, but these were rifles that were still fed predominately with stripper clips (far slower to reload) and were never widely issued to the degree the garand was. Video games show these being reloaded with magazines but for the most part this wasn't very common. Realistically a unit armed entirely with SVT 40's, G43's, Sth 44's, or MP 40's would be pretty rare, and most would still have regular bolt actions mixed in.

**Silent Puffin?**

MrMoustaffa wrote:
Then you throw in the BAR, a fully automatic rifle, which can keep up with the riflemen, and you see why the Americans have this focus in a variety of rulesets.

This doesn't take into account the relative inaccuracy of firing on the move though (although I would imagine that GI's were trained to take bounding advances but in such circumstances they wouldn't get many more aimed shots off than a trained boltaction rifleman). This is based on my own training where I would be expected to get an aimed shot off every 2 seconds with an SA80 in similar circumstances, British riflemen at least were trained to get an aimed shot off every 4 seconds.

I would be interested in seeing just how much faster a Garand could fire aimed shots compared to a SMLE or a Kar98.

Any special rules would be better focused towards suppressive or defensive fire, perhaps even in CQB, rather than direct fire but i still don't see a real need for them.

**Big P**

Our greatest need in training is to get riflemen to fire their weapon. New men will not fire. This is caused primarily by mot wanting to disclose their position and inability to see their target. I believe our policy of putting so much of our basic weapon training on known distance ranges where men are cautioned so often on holding, squeezing and marking targets causes this.

Lt. Col. Hentges, 7th Inf. 3d Div. ETO rep 481

Marching fire was mainly popular is Third Army and several battalion commanders stated they had never encountered it till joining Third Army. But it's not really about volume of fire.

As Patton commented;

The proper way to advance is to utilise marching fire and keep moving... one round every two or three steps. The whistlebof bullets, the ricochet... have an effect that enemy small arms fire becomes negligible.

US troops swimming in supplies? Well not all the time. They had to make use of captured German artillery at times...

To go back to Patton again, in 1945, he complained of 'inadequate means' to fight a war due to shortages of men and ammunition.

**LordofHats**

Silent Puffin? wrote:

I would be interested in seeing just how much faster a Garand could fire aimed shots compared to a SMLE or a Kar98.

Consider that in US an M1, a soldier did not need to remove a hand from the weapon, jostle the bolt to load a new round, and then take hold of the weapon again. It actually probably isn't a significant difference. Less than a second in experienced hands I'd bet. But it doesn't take much to lay down more bullets faster. Plus, the M1 had an 8 round clip, and was faster to reload.

**Snord**

MrMoustaffa wrote:

Not even the Brits mad minute would be able to keep up with a competently trained American unit with garands. Ignoring the fact that the garand is semi auto compared to the Enfield's bolt action, garands are also far quicker to reload. Reloading a garand is a single fluid motion, whereas a British soldier would need to feed in two 5 round stripper clips and rack the bolt. This amount of firepower cannot be overstated when the majority of your opponents (even the Germans) are still using bolt actions. Also keep in mind that a good portion of WWII involved close quarters firefights. A GI can squeeze off 8 rounds from the hip in the space it's going to take a bolt action soldier to get 2-3 if he's lucky. This means that while yes, some Germans had assault rifles and SMG's, the majority did not, and would've suffered when matched up against the average US rifleman. This is even more apparent against the Japanese, who had a severe lack of SMg's and even LMG's compared to the Americans. Then you throw in the BAR, a fully automatic rifle, which can keep up with the riflemen, and you see why the Americans have this focus in a variety of rulesets.They lack in sustained fire when defending a single spot since GI's never really had a dedicated LMG concept, but on the move their fire wouldn't really suffer because they don't need to deploy an LMG and have a dedicated loader following it.

Also keep in mind the supply situation. The Americans were practically swimming in supplies compared to other nations, which encouraged them to fire more and fire everything they had. Meanwhile America's opponents, be they Japanese, German, or Italian, were all facing supply issues and rampant bombing of key factories, supply lines, and depot's. Yes, some German soldier's had STG 44's and MP 40's, but that doesn't make up for ammo shortages. As to Germans and Russians having semi auto rifles, yes, they did, but these were rifles that were still fed predominately with stripper clips (far slower to reload) and were never widely issued to the degree the garand was. Video games show these being reloaded with magazines but for the most part this wasn't very common. Realistically a unit armed entirely with SVT 40's, G43's, Sth 44's, or MP 40's would be pretty rare, and most would still have regular bolt actions mixed in.

I think you're overly influenced by the way combat is depicted in (American) war movies, where every soldier with an M1 or BAR is (apparently) a superb marksman even when shooting on the move. Contemporary accounts do not support any of what you're saying. German troops did not live in fear of US rifle fire; it was artillery and air support that the Germans feared. On the other hand, accounts by Allied troops consistently emphasise the effectiveness of German machine guns - specifically the MG42.

That said, BA is also to a large extent a war movie version of WW2, so maybe that's the real reason why US infantry get a firepower bonus.

As Big P pointed out, it's also a myth that the US Army had unlimited supplies. Supplies of fuel and ammo - and even replacement tanks - often ran low, principally because of the logistics bottleneck caused by a lack of a proper port.

**Silent Puffin?**

LordofHats wrote:

Consider that in US an M1, a soldier did not need to remove a hand from the weapon, jostle the bolt to load a new round, and then take hold of the weapon again. It actually probably isn't a significant difference. Less than a second in experienced hands I'd bet. But it doesn't take much to lay down more bullets faster. Plus, the M1 had an 8 round clip, and was faster to reload.

An aimed shot ever second or less? I have my doubts.

I am not disputing that the M1 has a much higher rate of fire than a bolt action rifle but there is no real point in just wildly firing off rounds in the general direction of the target because it will be ineffective and it will waste ammunition, which is a very precious commodity in combat.

GIs may well have been trained to blat off the entire magazine at once but that definitely should not be translated into increased killing potentially in a wargame.

**LordofHats**

Silent Puffin? wrote:

An aimed shot ever second or less? I have my doubts.

I mean the time it takes to work the bolt action, not necessarily aim. But of course, time you don't spend working your weapon is time you have to aim

I am not disputing that the M1 has a much higher rate of fire than a bolt action rifle but there is no real point in just wildly firing off rounds in the general direction of the target because it will be ineffective and it will waste ammunition, which is a very precious commodity in combat.

Suppressing fire eats bullets, and isn't really done with the intention of hitting anything per se. Most soldiers aren't taking careful shots like snipers in WWII style warfare. Sure they're aiming in a general direction/area, but especially in fire team organization suppressing fire is what's going to eat most of your ammunition and cause you the most reloads, and the M1 beats a bolt actions ass on that front. Who cares if you're not hitting the guy while he's keeping his head down? You'll be close enough to hit him eventually

That's the basic squad tactic of the US Army in WWII. Pin the target. Close distance. Pummel into oblivion.