WW2 Warfare Discussion thread

[Pac-Fish]

Hey guys. If you've ever seen the movie Enemy at the gates, you know that each Soviet conscript got either a gun or ammo and they charged at the enemy.

My Q is did this really happen . It seems so........unorthodox to me . And if it really did happen how often and when did it stop/start. Was this tactic implemented during the final days of the war

Also did conscripts ever get bayonets? It would seem so much more effecient when charging

In addition why don't soldiers ever leave their bayonets on their rifle. In the movies you always see them fumbling with their knife and then they get beat to death . Why don't they just leave it there ?

[Cranialwizard]

Hey guys. If you've ever seen the movie Enemy at the gates, you know that each Soviet conscript got either a gun or ammo and they charged at the enemy.

My Q is did this really happen . It seems so........unorthodox to me . And if it really did happen how often and when did it stop/start. Was this tactic implemented during the final days of the war

Also did conscripts ever get bayonets? It would seem so much more effecient when charging

In addition why don't soldiers ever leave their bayonets on their rifle. In the movies you always see them fumbling with their knife and then they get beat to death . Why don't they just leave it there ?

Here is what I gather due to reading and hearsay. I wasn't actually in the war so don't quote me

From what I read, yes, at some points the lowest ranking divisions often had to divi up their supply of ammo and guns like you described simply because of lack of arms. It's sort of exemplified in movies more so than I think it actually took place though. (This is the point of Conscripts the 4 men have rifles the others have ammo)

It would have been early war when it had happened. Sieges of Stalingrad and Leningrad often targeted their industries meant for making such weapons and if those are knocked out you have lack of supply.

Bayonets are pictured in propaganda photos: Soviets did not use bayonets.

If it were me and I was on the ground I would try to stab him in the foot before lunging at him with intent to kill. He'd be in a massive amount of pain and he would also find it extremely hard to move if you place your stab right. Then you can finish him off.

[The_Czar]

Well, bayonets proved to be very ineffective in WWI.
I read somewhere that not even half a percent of injuries taken in combat were caused by bayonets in the trenches of 1914-18.

In WWII, they were more often used for parades and as symbols than a real combat weapon (well, in Japanese melee attacks perhaps...)

Think about it, in close combat a rifle with a knife becomes pretty bulky and is repelled easily. You are much more agile with a knife or the good old rusty spade, striking faster and more accurate.

... bayonets look awesome though

[Tico_1990]

From what I've gathered, bayonets were first introduced to give soldiers of the line an effective weapon against charging cavalry. Also, given the nature of the muskets soldiers used back then (think 1700-1850ish) they fought in the packed battle lines we know from the Napoleonic wars and such. When charging such a tight line of soldiers a bayonet will be effective (hell, it's really hard to miss an enemy when your running at a wall of them).
However, when muskets became replaced by rifles, the need for close formations deminished, lowering the effectiveness of hack, slash, and stab weapons like bayonets.

[Sommarkatze]

Its absolutely nothing they did the entire war. Only like wizard said. Early war at desperate times like Leningrad and Stalingrad. Sadly many people get the picture of that this was the tactic of the red army the entire war XD

[Pac-Fish]

I have another q. Why did the US army favor the use of the M1 Garand over the M1 Carbine. Lets compare. Correct me if I'm wrong.

-The M1 Carbine was lighter weight wise. Thus the name Carbine. Some variants even had a foldable stock

-They both used the same .306 ammo so its not like one has a stronger bullet

-I might be wrong byt the Garand my have performed better at long range but not by a significant amount

-The M1 Carbine had a 15 round magazine that could be taken out at any time while the M1 Garand had a 8 round clip that couldn't be removed and made a distinct ping noise, alerting the enemy you're out of ammo or at least you're reloading. That means the M1 had nearly double the ammo. And you could use a strriper clip to reload the same magazine fast

-The Garand might have been more money to make. Not 100% sure

-Both guns were accurate and semi automatic

-Yes the M1 Garand had a butt stock allowing you to hit ppl in close quarters but the M1 carbine could come with one too. The M1 Carbine could come with or w/o a foldable stock if Im correct

So why use the M1 Garand Im jusr curious . Not trying to de fame the gun Patton called: "The best military innovation ever devised" Something like that

[Dann88]

I think Garand had better accuracy since it got better mechanism and longer barrel. The structure of a rifle give it easier to aim at long range. Oh! Actually Garand and M1 carbine don't use the same ammo, same caliber but different other specs.
And they aleady produced alot of Garand when the M1 began its production.
This part is my guess: when in close range, a lightly wounded by gun-fire soldier will fight more crazier because of basic instict (fight to live) so M1 carbine sometimes could make things worse. Angry Japanese soldier is the best example.

[Pac-Fish]

If you're crazy at close range and a firing madly at least you'll have more bullets to fire with in the M1 Carbine than M1 Garand . But I see your point

[Pac-Fish]

I have a question. In alot of WW2 movies you see soldiers firing AT guns(like a PAK 40) and for some reason, they dont see to do much damage. In fact they seem to absorb the shot and then shot and destroy the AT gun  . Is this realistic(in that AT guns dont do much damage) or do movies simply do ths in order to be more dramatic

Also did anyone ever figure out why the M1 Carbine didn't replace the M1 Garand

[Mass Killer DL]

More than likely not Fish I think its just to make the scene look more epic.

What film/films?
And what tank?

And as for the M1 Carbine it received mixed views during its usage, apparently it was mainly well praised but in a few battle, after action and even post war investigations some M1's were found to be faulty in various ways such as penetration, and stopping power. This could have been a reason but what I think is more likely is the costs of the rifles, as far as I know the M1 Garand is cheaper to produce than the M1 Carbine.

[Pac-Fish]

Well I was watching the movie Stalingrad and the AT guns didn't penetrate immediately. After like 3 or 4 shots the T-34 was halted. In a video clip from another WW2 movie(not sure what the name was) the guys fired an AT gun at a Panzer III IIRC and it kept moving. And in the movie The Breast Frotress the SU team fired a AT gun twice at the side of a Panzer III and it didn't die. And I think there was 1 more movie where this happened. Then again I haven't watched that many WW2 movies so I wouldn't know if it happened again.

BTW when Tanks take heavy rounds (lets say a Flak 88 shot hit a Sherman), do they explode, or do the just sorta sit there dead. And when shots do penetrate, do they explode inside the tank, smash and destroy something important, or do they act like a large bullet in the tank and kill the crew? I never really understood how rounds killed tanks or their crew.

[Mass Killer DL]

What AT guns are used in the films? Because it would depend on various factors include the Gun, Distance, Round etc.

Well I suppose it would depend on what round it was and where it hit, if it was to ignite the munitions then it would definitely explode much like what happend to Micheal Wittman aka the Black Baron, a round ignited the munitions and blew the entire turret of the Tiger tank right off.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Wittmann_Tiger_007.jpg

Fuel/Munitions would make it explode and of course the type of round.

A Flak 88 round if it penetrated which it more than likely would, would more than likely make the tank explode if it was a HEAT round and possibly if it was an AP round depending on exactly where abouts it hit.

[Pac-Fish]

Honestly I dont know what type of round was used. The soldier in "Stalingrad" didn't specify and the other 2 films were russian . But thank you for responding

Do tanks normally explode or do they just stop ??

Nice photo btw. Any soldiers near that tank must have been surprised

[Mass Killer DL]

I don't know this personally but I think in most cases that the Tank will explode or at least catch fire and burn destroying most of the internal controls, but in other cases the tank will just be knocked out, or abandoned by its crew.

Some tanks were just abandoned after the crew had ran out of munitions. Though they should have really destroyed the tanks to prevent the enemy from capturing them.

[bangalor44]

Hey fish on the rifle thing.the garand shoots a 30 06 round long range heavy round very accurate the carbine fires a 30 cal round lighter weight not as long range.Some sniper rifles used the 30 06  to give you an idea just a little info.