"US and UK. When did they put a machine gun per squad?" Topic

Substitute section as appropriate :-)

By 1918, each platoon has 1-2 light machine guns. By ww2, every squad has one.

So when did that change in the US and UK militaries?

Cheers

The British adopted the new organisation in their 1936 regulations (which of course took a while to filter down to all units). The US didn't have an LMG, instead using the BAR.

Except the PIR squads had an 'lmg' in the form of the M1919A4 and later A6 version. It was never very light though…

As Leadgend says the change from a four section platoon with two lmg and two rifle sections to aplatoon with three sections, all with a Bren gun, began in 1936.

Infantry Training 1937 said all sections will be trained as rifle and/or lmg sections.

Infantry Section Leading 1938 only refers to sections with Bren guns.

My local TA unit had Bren guns by 1938 (and a couple of Bren Carriers).

|Unofficially from 1918 for the British, with Lewis guns aplenty from WW1 sat in Armouries. Officially from 1936, Lewis guns were issued until replaced by Brens.

Dad's unit didn't have Brens until at least 41.
The arrival of a single Vickers machine gun was something of an event.
Dad went over to see it.
I know that because his sergeant major put him on a charge – he was supposed to be laying barbed wire. When appearing before his CO his initiative was praised and it was suggested he apply for officer training.

If you wanted to get picky… The BAR is an automatic rifle. Bear in mind US and UK platoons were supposed to work in different ways. The US emphasising rifle fire whilst the UK emphasised Bren fire.

You also need to remember the effect of support. US infantry were the least likely to have no support from other weapons outside their immediate organisation. Tanks, lots of vehicles with a machine gun on them, 105s etc etc. Other than exceptions like huertgen the US infantry could usually expect comparatively lavish support.
Bit of a complication if you're doing platoon vs platoon.

For the British, War Establishment II/1931/12B/2 for an Infantry (Rifle) Battalion dated 18th Nov 1936 allowed for one LMG per Rifle Section.

The October 1940 US Army Table of Organization for an Infantry Battalion showed three Rifle Squads (each man with a rifle) and one Auto Rifle Squad (serving two BARs). That wasn't officially superseded till 1st April 1942, with it becoming one BAR per Squad. USMC allowed for one BAR per Rifle Squad, plus a BAR Squad per Platoon from at least Jan 1942.

Gary

For the US you have to go by the unofficial practice of pushing the MGs at the company level down to the squad level – otherwise it is not till after WW2 (perhaps after Korea)

I meant BAR for the US.
thanks guys.

Not what you asked, but my take: US Squad firepower, excellent semi-auto rifles and obsolete BAR = UK section firepower, good Bren LMG + bolt action rifles.

German squad gets edge with belt-fed MG and bolt action rifles.

Now THAT depends how gritty you want to go:
German long-pull bolt-action rifles: one shot, then you have to physically remove the rifle from your shoulder to reload, replace it and reacquire target.
Brit short-pull bolt-action rifles: weapon stays in the firing position, sight picture never breaks, weapon fires as fast as you can cycle the action.

Then again the US MG doctrine comes into play, TOE had them higher up but units in the field often had them parceled out. Same idea for other nationalities.

US Army infantry had 1 BAR per 12-man section and, IIRC, 1 or 2 .30 caliber Browning air-cooled LMGs (low tripod-mounted) per platoon, in the weapons section. Armored infantry had LMGs instead of BARS (on the halftracks, but dismountable). Marines had multiple (2?) BARs per section.

Also Norman, the 10 round magazine in the Lee-Enfield was a big advantage.

"Also Norman, the 10 round magazine in the Lee-Enfield was a big advantage."

Not really.
The primary weapon of the US and German section was the machine gun.
Riflemen were largely ineffective at range.
In theory you ought to be able to hit people at 200 yards with a lee enfield.
In practice that was a rarity.

If they'd recruited Boer marksmen, big game hunters or something then it might have been a different story.
But they didn't and most riflemen just could not be expected to hit an enemy at over 100 yards. Let alone an obscured, crawling or fleeting man.
Usually the enemy were rather inconsiderate and when they weren't outright hiding they were crawling or dashing about in a most un-target-like manner.

For most of your regular riflemen the advantage of the garand was that it was semi auto.
The carbine was preferred by some US infantryman, notably Audie Murphy.
The round has better stopping power than the full rifle sized round.

Intresting

source US Army hand book

T.O.E June 1 1941 Bar 375
T.O.E. August 1942 Bar 567
T.O.E. July 1943 Bar 243
T.O.E. Jan. 1945 Bar 405

Note planning for overlord gave each squad 2 Bars and each platoon 24 more men to overstrenghing unit to sustain losses on the beach. those units kept the bars and the army went to 2 Bars per squad in 1945.

In the pacific the Marines learned with each campain thier TOE went one then two then three Bars per squad per year and they developed the Fire team as a tatic. everyone else used the 1/2 base of fire and the other half as the maneuver element.

Having fired German British and Russain bolt actions, you can fire and reload all from the shoulder maintain sight picture. But give me those extra rounds.

Not what you asked, but my take: US Squad firepower, excellent semi-auto rifles and obsolete BAR

For an "obsolete weapon" the BAR must have made some impact on the Japanese because they made killing the BAR men a priority. The 82nd and 101st Airborne also scrounged them as fast as they could.

Those BAR figures for 1942 are a little skewed by there being shedloads of them allocated for AA defence, the Apr42 Inf Regt had 81 BARs for Squads and 108 for AA to make the 567 per Div. That dropped to just one per Squad in Jul43, while the Jan45 increase (actually via an amendment from Jun44) came courtesy of adding six unallocated BARs per Rifle Coy rather than a standardised doubling of the Squads to two apiece.

Gary

My mileage varied, AO: the only WWII-era bolt rifles I've fired are Lee-Enfields, (both sporterized) an '03 Springfield and a Moisin-Nagant.
The Enfields were the only ones I could cycle while holding a bead.
(I have fired an M1 – infinitely preferable in terms of ease of use, but I remember thinking that thing was heavy. I wouldn't like to carry one all day.)

"In the pacific the Marines learned with each campain thier TOE went one then two then three Bars per squad per year and they developed the Fire team as a tatic. everyone else used the 1/2 base of fire and the other half as the maneuver element."

Hardly anyone other than elites split squads.
There weren't enough effective leaders and often not enough reliable riflemen.

In theory the British, Germans and US infantry all trained to split squads.
In practice the squad was the lowest level of granularity.
Many British platoons only had 2 effective leaders and operated in 2 groups. One fire support with the brens and the other as assault.

A fair few books like osprey base their research on training manuals.
At least in the British army that isn't even what was taught.
My Dad taught battle drill in 1944. He described platoon maneuver as "the three legged beast". 2 sections cover/overwatch as one (leg)moves. I asked him about splitting sections up and he just laughed. Not so much.
There were the odd exception.
He was in the Chindits and they'd routinely leave someone with a Bren behind at a river crossing.
They did a lot of these and a unit crossing a river makes an easy target. The tail end Charlie was to lay some fire down and run. His main purpose is to warn that a unit is trailing you. Delaying it and causing some casualties were secondary.

Guidebook for Marines (1958) indicates a standard infantry squad as consisting of three distinct fire teams, each with its own BAR, making nine BARs per platoon. The BAR is described as "the most vital weapon in the platoon"; all infantrymen were required to be trained in its use.

B

The round has better stopping power than the full rifle sized round.

What?!?

I own a Garand and my wife owns an M1 Carbine: the .30 Carbine has a 110 grain bullet weight, and 7.62 mm in diameter. While the .30-06 is the same diameter (7.62mm) as the Carbine, it is a heavier projectile at 150 grains, and traveling at a 1000 feet per second faster rate.

The .30 Carbine delivers a 110 grain projectile velocity of 1990 fps, and 967 ft-lbs of energy at the muzzle.

The Garand's standard issue 30-06 round was a 150 grain projectile which delivered a velocity of 2,800 fps with nearly 2,650 ft-lbs of energy at muzzle.

Little known factoid – The US actually produced considerably more M1 carbines during WW2 than M1 Garands.

But I do agree with number4: the carbine cartridge did not have the knockdown power of the full power 30-06 rifle cartridge.

B

The carbine round is (supposed to be ) better at transferring energy.
At least at short range.

But that's when weapons other than the lmg came into their own.
Which is why smg squads managed to be pretty effective.

Hmmm, well the carbine round was less pointy (aerodynamic) than the Garand round, more like a pistol bullet, so maybe it was less likely to just go on through whatever poor sod was on the receiving end -- so, yeah, in that case I suppose it would transfer all of its kinetic energy to the target, whereas the Garand round would carry some of its energy on with it as it kept going. So maybe at close range (say 100 yards?) the carbine might do more damage. It also had a 15-round magazine, compared to an 8-round clip for the Garand.

I've seen an experiment using clay which seemed to offer some substance to the claim.
They compared garand to carbine.
The full power round goes through and makes a hole a bit bigger than the bullet.
The carbine round took a huge channel out the middle.

I found it particularly interesting since some ww2 veterans criticised the carbine for poor stopping power.
But then some special forces seemed to prefer it.

I wonder if the bigger garand had greater psychological effect on it's carrier than the smaller carbine.
Perceived power.

The garand is definitely going to have better penetration – shooting through walls or floors in BUA.
There again, how much of that would the infantryman really do and how significant is it going to be.

Dunno, AO – The carbine was criticized during the Korean War for poor knockdown/incapacitation) ability, even at ranges within 50 yards (SLA Marshall).

Note – I own an original untouched 1943 Inland M1 carbine. It is a sweet thing.

B

YouTube link

M1 Carbine isn't a bad weapon. It's light and packs a decent punch. Not as much punch as a Garand, of course, but what do you want in a 5lb rifle?

Arguably, it's one of the first assault rifles, in the select-fire version.

LitS wrote – "Arguably, it's one of the first assault rifles, in the select-fire version."

….. Quite agree. I have often made that very same argument.

B

Don't think they had the fully-auto option until after WW2, tho, did they? (the M2?)

DL – The M2 carbine was introduced in 1944, but saw little action in WW2. It was not until the Korean War that it was in wide use.

B