I feel like this is a question that should be answered by a panel like this. a popular question on this subreddit is why, on the on-set of WWII, America was the only country with a semi-automatic rifle while everyone else were using bolt-action rifles. Is this an accurate depiction of the arsenals of the different sides during the time and if so, why was the bolt-action more popular than the semi-automatic?

@/u/vonadler

My favorite scene in Saving Private Ryan is the part where their mortar tube is destroyed. They take the remaining mortar shells and bash it on a metal plate and then chuck them like grenades, exploding on impact. This seems extraordinarily dangerous to me, if it was even possible. Was this something that actually happened or was possible?

@/u/Rittermeister

The Americans loved their semi-automatic service rifle. Since you have experience with the Americans and British, who the latter if I recall used many variations of a bolt action .303 Enfield, could you explain the ammunition supply differences between the Americans and British? Were Americans expected to carry more ammunition since they were, I would assume, be expending more ammunition in a quicker time frame? Were there any supply shortages experienced by the Americans because of reckless expenditure of ammunition?

@/u/Georgy_K_Zhukov or /u/mosin91

The PPsh-41, how much impact on the Soviet effort would you give this gun? I've heard nothing but praise about this gun, sometimes hearing it called the best submachine gun of the war. Do you hold these same praises for this gun? Also, in the mass conscription that was the Soviet military how was it determined who would get this weapon in a squad rather than a normal Mosin or otherwise? Was it something you opted into?

Hey sorry if my questions are little late, just got off work. Please answer any that you know

1. What was the standard Chinese Battalion organization in regards to to small arms equipment. How did supplies of heavy weapons like Mortars and Machine Guns and their ammunition hold out?
2. What was the quality of Chinese produced small arms compared to the European and American models they were based on?
3. I've read that after D-Day the US Infantry increased Machine Guns in Battalions by adding them into a pool. 6 M1919a4's given to Battalion HQ and 6 B.A.R's to Company HQ. How were they distributed?
4. How often was the Bipod and Flash Hider actually removed from Browning Automatic Rifles?
5. What was the standard Battalion Organization of the Russian's in regards to small arms?
6. Why does the Breda 30 exist. assumably someone would have had to have approved of it at some point?
7. How did the Soviets deploy their M1910 Maxim's into battle. What were the common strategies?
8. The DS-39 spawned the "Machine Gun Drama", how unworkable was this gun?
9. Why did the Soviets choose wheeled mounts for their Machine Guns. The older Maxim I can understand but why the newer SG-43 as well?
10. The British deployed the Vickers Gun at the Division Level instead of in a heavy weapons company, was this an advantageous decision?
11. How often were shotguns employed in WW2?
12. How common was the Type 30 (Browning m1917) compared to the Type 24 (MG 08) in the Chinese Army. How were these guns organized compared to lighter automatic weapons? I also heard that China produced the MG 34, how common was this weapon in the Chinese military.
13. How common was the use of Aircraft Armament in the German Military? I understand that tens and tens of thousands of MG 15's, 17's and 81's were converted into LMG's for ground use after it became apparent that rifle caliber was not effective aircraft armament?
14. How common was the MG 08 and Swarzlose in the German Army? How were these guns used? Also in speaking to left overs how common was the Saint Etienne, Fiat Model 14 and the Colt 1895 Russian.
15. India adopted and produced the Vickers Berthier instead of the Bren, how many were made, how common were they in the army and how did they perform?
16. How widespread was the Vickers K in the the ground combat role?
17. Did the M1919a6 work its way into the regular infantry in WW2 or Korea? I heard it started as an airborn gun but I can't find much on how it was deployed.
18. Close to a half million STG-44's were made, how many reached the front lines. I read an article that said only a third.
19. How were captured French Small Arms used by the Germans? Also what was done with the weapons disarmed from the Italian's.
20. I read that ZB 26's were produced in 6.5mm by Japan in captured Chinese Arsenals. How common was this weapon?

Can anyone tell me a bit about how effective the StG-44 was in combat? Were any captured and then used by the Soviets?

What about the Thompson made it so popular among the allied forces? Were there any major flaws with it?

• What characteristics of small arms did each side of the conflict value and seek out?
• How big was the pool of available weaponry to choose from? Tens of viable choices, hundreds, even more? Any cases of the usage of foreign weaponry (trophy or not)?

I've asked vonadler this but I think it's a fun question, so I would like everyone to answer individually.

If you were to "design" the composition of the standard squad during WWII for your "what-if" country having access to all the worlds weapons at the time (you can mix from different countries, but you have to consider production costs etc for the manufacturing of the weapons) lets say it's 1942, but you can change the date if you think it's more interesting.

• How many members would the squad have?

• What kind of weapons?

• What kind of calibers?

• what would be the tactics/training related to your choices of weapons (e.g Having a semiautomatic rifle such as the M1 Garand so that infantrymen can give their own fire support)

• why do you think this combinations/"design" would be the best? whats your "philosophy"? (and extra thougts if you have any)

• If you'd like; some mentions on platton/company/battalion level. Such as having a heavy focus on artillery that would motivate you choices in the squads weapons.

You get the idea of what I'm asking don't take my questions literally if you would like to answer in a different manner.

I love side notes and small funny facts, so don't scimp on those :)

thanks! It would be very interesting to examine the different answers from you.

So, according to what I've read, Garand originally wanted to chamber his rifle with a smaller, lower-powered .276 Pedersen round rather than the 30-06, and wanted it to have an external magazine too. It seems like, on the whole, compared to the final version, Garand was heading more toward the direction of a modern assault rifle, rather than a battle rifle with full-powered cartridges as the M1 ended up. Is this accurate? If so, was he also planning on making it selective fire, rather than semi-automatic only?

How was his vision similar to/different from mid-century assault rifles like the AK47 or Stg 44?

(I accidentally started a new thread on this before. Now I've deleted and corrected that.)

What's the point of the Krag-Jørgensen design? Is there any truth about German soldiers been surprised by shots fired from unusual distances in Norway?

If a soldier had a choice between his field bolt rifle and a captured bolt action rifle, i.e. has both type of ammunitions available, would he have a reason to take the later like a German would have a reason to take a enemy's PPSh-41s?

A few things that are on my personal list of notes from another forum:

/u/Georgy_K_Zhukov: In my time, I have cleaned up a few dozen swiss K31 rifles, as well as a few hundred Mosin-Nagant and other rifles from that era. The Swiss rifles universally had much more worn and damaged furniture than comparable rifles from other forces. According to wikipedia and a few other written sources say this was due to drill work and the uniform issue hobnailed shoes. Other anecdotes say that it was because the Swiss would secure groups of three of them overnight in a pyramid of sorts with the stock plunged into the earth. Is there any evidence in training manuals or photos or historical sources for either of those theories? Is there any evidence the conscript nature of their army was a factor?

/u/TheAlecDude: Are there any reports of disciplinary action or extra measures being taken to restrict the use of Mark VIII .303 ammunition in infantry rifles? I have read several anecdotes about it being prohibited for use in anything but emergencies (due to bore wear from extra chamber pressure) and as a result it was widely sought for use by the regular infantryman.

/u/Rittermeister: How many different total variants of the Browning 1919 were used across all theaters during WWII? Were there any differences other than just chambering and cyclic rate? How many different factories were producing them?

Thanks!

What was the reasoning behind magazine fed machine guns like the Bren and BAR?

They seem, on the surface, to be vastly inferior to light belt fed guns in terms of how much firepower they can deliver.

Wouldn't a German squad with the MG42 be able to deliver much more fire than a British squad with the Bren?

How were tank crews generally equipped, as far as small arms go? I know the commander was generally issued a pistol, but were the other crew members generally assigned a sidearm?

Additionally, I've heard that many German tank crews were assigned MP40's for use via firing port. Did other countries have the same sort of system with their own SMG's?

Are there any small arms from WWII that could still be used by modern infantry in a pinch? I keep reading stories from Iraq and Afghanistan where coalition / NATO soldiers have captured weapons, some of which are from a bygone era. While one can assume guerrillas have to make do with what they have, is there anything credible that a professional army could still use taken right from WWII?

I have a few questions about the Sten. From what I've heard, it was intended as a cheaply made submachine gun that could even be manufactured by resistance fighters working out of a garage. Were the versions issued to commandos or regular Commonwealth troops any better than the Stens that would be airdropped to partisans? Did soldiers prefer other SMG designs, or were its flaws not noticeable enough to cause major problems?

Any reason why the garand has an overly complicated rotating bolt instead of the much simpler straight push-style of the svt-40? I own both and the garand seems needlessly complex.

A Bibliography of works I've referenced for various answers. I'll update this as needed!

Swiss Magazine Loading Rifles by Joe Poyer

Bolt Action Military Rifles of the World by Stuart Mowbray amd Joe Puleo

German Automatic Rifles 1941–45 by Chris McNabb

Browning Automatic Rifle by Robert Hodges, Jr.

The Mosin-Nagant Rifle by Terence Lapin

M1 Garand by LeRoy Thompson

NoteL I've gone to bed for the night. I will answer any follow ups tomorrow!

Very late to this sorry but a few questions here.

How well did the Aussie Owen gun compare to other smgs, I know it was a bit heavier than the grease gun and mp 44 so it had a bit more punch.

Also did any other dominions or territories create their own unique weapons or just source them from their mother counties (if that is the right way to put it)?

Without requesting an overly detailed answer, how did the process of procuring small arms for their various forces vary between actors in WW2? How was work done to assess their requirements, ensure that the design, quality control and delivery would be managed and so on?

What were the major differences between the Arisaka and M1 garand, and type 100 and thompson m1928?

I've heard that Japanese weapons were mostly copies of European weapons with some changes (some creating inferior and some superior devices). What inspiration did the Japanese take from European small arms in their WWII weaponry? What sort of doctrine did the IJA have for its small arm usage? Were there any innovations that Japanese small arms designers introduced?

EDIT: When I said small arms, I really meant all varieties of infantry weapons and small artillery that Imperial Japan was using in this period.

I have read that Hitler was disinterested in what would become the StG44 because it was labeled as the MP 44, believing that SMGs were inferior to rifles, thus the weapon was renamed to fit Hitler's ideas. Is there any truth to this?

How effective was the G43? and how many would you expect to see in a standard infantry company? I've heard that they were used as sniper rifles and did it have any major advantage over the standard K98 other than being semiautomatic?

Did the Polish-Soviet War inform small arms development of the 1930s?

Why during the war did the US not adopt a weapon such as the Bren to fill the LMG role? Allied nations shared weapons and equipment with the British using the Thompson and Sherman tanks as an example.

The BAR was never designed as an LMG, and by most accounts the Bren was a very effective magazine fed LMG, in fact it was good enough to see action on the Falklands! Any particular reason why the US felt that there was no need to have a dedicated LMG in the squad support role?

Something I was wondering earlier was whether the Soviet troops invading Manchuria were armed and equipped any differently from when the army had been fighting in the West?

How effective was the SVT-40 and how did it compare to other semi-automatic battle rifles?

This would be a question for /u/Rittermeister: I wanted to know a little bit more about the Luger pistol. When did the Germans first adopt the handgun? Is it true that officers were the only ones to carry the weapon, if so, why? Last question would be its over all effectiveness when compared to the allied handguns. Any info would be great, thanks!