How did America end up with the only sem auto in ww2?

[ClickClickD'oh]

It means quite a lot once you dig into it - it means that marksmanship, but the point of WWII, had become almost non-existent.

NO

IT

DOESN'T

Because you are also counting rounds fired from a PBY circling a U-boat and pumping cases of .30 ammunition at it.

Until you eliminate those rounds expended the number is meaningless in any regards to marksmanship or any other metric regarding individual soldiers.

 

[Goosey]

The reality is that the changes in tactics and weapons changed the rifle from a tool for killing the enemy into at best a tool for scaring the enemy, and at worst a very expensive noise maker.

I always said the Army is looking in the wrong direction for a new service rifle. XM8, SCAR, HK416... they need to get rid of the poodle-shooters and start thinking bolt-action. Canada has the right idea.

 

[yugorpk]

Warfare has evolved. It's very seldom that you get within a few hundred yards of an enemy IF you can even tell who your enemy is by looking at them. THEY don't wear uniforms any more. Even standard ground operations are becoming a thing of the past. Marksmanship is still relevant to a degree but nothing like it was 100 years ago.

 

[crazysccrmd]

It means quite a lot once you dig into it - it means that marksmanship, but the point of WWII, had become almost non-existent. By Vietnam and the current wars (where that number has risen somewhere north of 100,000 rounds/kill) marksmanship can simply be toe tagged and buried.

Have you been in combat? If not, you're opinion frankly doesn't mean anything. It's obvious you don't know how soldiers are trained, their shooting abilities or how fire and manuever tactics work.

 

[Old Fuff]

Ah yes... World War Two. The Old Fuff can still remember.

Prior to the war there was this thing called The Great Depression.

The government cut the military services down to the bone, and appropriated very little funding for any kind of small arms development. Congress-critters generally believed that enough small arms were left over from the 1st. World War to cover any need we might have in the future. Besides President Wilson had already opined that big wars would never happen because disputes between countries would be handled by diplomats and not generals... :banghead:

However besides the M1 they're were BAR's, and M1 Carbines, as well as Browning designed .30 and .50 caliber air-cooled/belt fed machine guns.

And it's also a matter of record that when they tried to separate the jar-heads from their beloved 1903 Springfield's another war almost started.

 

[Ryanxia]

My information comes from The Ultimate Thompson book, which quotes the writings of Theodore H. Eickhoff, chief engineer for Auto-Ordnance who actually designed the gun and was intimate with all the goings on surrounding the gun's development. From where do you get yours? That episode of Tales of the Gun?

I was just going to say that I think his information was on Tales of the Gun. Was that incorrect information?

 

[Llama Bob]

NO

IT

DOESN'T

Because you are also counting rounds fired from a PBY circling a U-boat and pumping cases of .30 ammunition at it.

Until you eliminate those rounds expended the number is meaningless in any regards to marksmanship or any other metric regarding individual soldiers.

So your theory is that .30-06 ammo was primarily consumed by aircraft? Duly noted, and filed where it belongs.

The FACT of the mater is that it took many thousands of rounds to get a single infantry kill in WWII, and that the problem has gotten an order of magnitude worse since then. This is not some oddball observation - the Army has know it for decades. The only people who have a problem with it are those who are attached to a romantic but false view of military marksmanship.

 

[barnbwt]

US had the semis for the same reason they had the jets and stealth bombers in later wars; we had more money/resources to pour into these new technologies than the other guys. It's also why we win those wars when we care to.

TCB

 

[ClickClickD'oh]

So your theory is that .30-06 ammo was primarily consumed by aircraft?

No. And nobody being honest read it that way.

Let's try again. Follow along please

...includes rounds fired from everything in theater, not just soldiers individual small arms.

...also counting rounds fired from jeeps, trucks, tanks, airplanes, ships at sea and everything else under the sun.

So, again, if you still don't get it... You statistic is useless for determining anything in regards to rounds fired from soldiers individual small arms because you have no way of knowing how many of the rounds fired came from small arms versus vehicles, crew served weapons etc. Without knowing that you can't draw any valid conclusions regarding small arms. Or put another way, for any valid conclusions to be drawn from the statistic you would need to tell us how many of the 10,000 rounds fired came from a soldiers individual small arm versus all other types of weapons.

So pretty please, tell us that.

Otherwise your statement is pure conjecture.

 

[ClickClickD'oh]

Let me put it another way Lama, You statement is analogous to saying that the following pictures are proof soldiers have poor marksmanship:







Get why you are wrong yet?

 

[Robert]

Petty bickering and thread drift kills yet another really interesting topic.