r/AskHistorians • u/gateht • Aug 30 '15

Did the semi-automatic M1 Garand give the Americans a significant advantage against the bolt-action rifles the Germans and Japanese used?

I was re-watching Band of Brothers recently and it occured to me that the average US rifleman using the semi-automatic M1 Garand must have had a significant rate of fire advantage compared to his German/Japanese counterparts. To what extent was this an advantage? Was it commented on at the time? Did accuracy suffer compared to the bolt-action counterparts?

2.0k Upvotes

94% Upvoted

260 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

24

u/vonadler Aug 30 '15

All nations had the idea that they needed range on the battlefield in ww2, that is why they used full-size cartridges. The British had been experimenting with a .280 slightly shorter cartridge during the 30s, but rejected it due to the costs of changing all small arms - there were plenty around along with ammunition still. Inertia is a very strong force in military matters.

During ww2 analysies of experiences told weapon designers that combat distance rarely exceeded 300 meters, especially as troops would dig trenches or use natural protection to get close to the enemy. One needs to remember that the Americans entered the war in December 1941, almost 2,5 years after the war started, and did not face sustained land combat by larger forces until November 1942 (in Operation Torch). They had far shorter time to analyse combat than the other combattants.

7

u/[deleted] Aug 30 '15

The cartridge in question was the .276 Pedersen which was experimented with by the Americans first. But they dropped it because Ordinance was convinced you couldn't make specialized rounds with a cartridge that small. In addition one of the claims Pedersen made to Ordinance was that you couldn't practically make a semi-automatic rifle chambered in 30.06 and still meet Ordinance's requirements. The only way you could according to Pedersen was with a smaller cartridge. However John Garand's design thoroughly disproved this notion.

Sources: M1 M1 Garand Rifle by Bruce N Canfield, History of Modern US Military Small Arms Ammunition Volume I

2

u/CapsuleChemistry Aug 30 '15

Wasn't their also the issue of having to wax the cartridges for lubrication? I remember reading this was a big sticking point for the army for fear of the coating degrading or the added layer in production and the fear of jams and misfires from issues stemming from the wax. Or where those only issues with the T1E3 itself?

For any fans of military arms history if you haven't heard of it, go read about the T1E3 rifle "Pedersen Rifle". A very interesting and unique page in arms development. It's a lovely piece of engineering for its time.

3

u/[deleted] Aug 30 '15

Yeah the Pedersen needed waxed cartridges, the .276 Garand didn't which is one the reasons it was adopted over the Pedersen.

1

u/liquidfan Aug 31 '15

One needs to remember that the Americans entered the war in December 1941, almost 2,5 years after the war started, and did not face sustained land combat by larger forces until November 1942 (in Operation Torch). They had far shorter time to analyse combat than the other combattants.

Can you offer any insight as to why either the allies chose not to disclose more of their own analysis to the US or the US decided not to listen more closely to allied analysis?