DP-8: Reno Forms Skirmish Line

[quincannon]

Sounds like your "good" guys were more squirters than shooters Colt.

Hope you saw the mention above of your old outfit.

[Deleted]

I loved the Grease Gun, too. I could shoot three round bursts with ease and hit at 75 meters. Not a tight group, but enough. Once our troop commander's beret somehow got on top of one of the targets and I blew it to pieces. He was trying but I was a better shot. My squadron commander always knew when I would be firing and would come down and shoot with me, too.

[yanmacca]

So, after all reading these last few really enjoyable posts, was there a difference between the M3 Grease Gun carried by an Infantry despatch rider and the one carried by a tanker?

Ian

[quincannon]

Absolutely there was. The dispatch rider carried ammunition, and we here in Infantryland do not trust tankers enough to give them a loaded gun. Trouble was though there were no Infantry dispatch riders. That's why we invented FM radios, and Mr. Bell was kind enough to lend us a few of those things he called Watson on. Infantrymen are not smart enough to ride motorcycles anyway Ian. They must confine themselves to dispatch running. Don't you know nuttin? They can't spell either.

[yanmacca]

I can’t spell either Chuck, but all dispatch riders (all Company HQs had a couple of these) and truck drivers in the British army in WW2, had a Sten, which is similar to the M3, which was when they only had one Sten per Infantry Section, which I see as rather a waste, as a driver could ride the hell out of danger.
I thought maybe there was a different stock on both models of the M3, similar to the one used on the M1 Carbines, Infantry and Airborne.

[quincannon]

We just call them runners Ian. As far as I know the only motorcycles used by the U S Army in the ETO were used by the Military Police. A company commander's or platoon leader's runner were for the most part men detailed to that duty. Problem was, that there were all too few riflemen available, and priority always went to the rifle platoons. Rarely were rifle companies at full strength, and having someone assigned to be a runner/dispatch rider as a duty assignment (as opposed to detail) was a luxury rifle companies and platoons could not afford. So the makeshift solution was always you, you, and you. What that means though is that the person so detailed carried the weapon he was assigned for his real job.

As far as stocks go, the only stock I have ever seen on a grease gun is a thick rod pull out type affair that always reminded me a little of the charging handle on a caulking gun. In fact when I was a kid I used my dad's caulking gun as my play grease gun. Kind of looks like one too, if there is an (unopened) tube of caulk in it.

The carbine came a couple of ways. The M-1 Carbine had a wooden stock, while the M-2, or paratroopers model had a thick rod skeleton stock that folded back on the weapons right side if I remember correctly. Saw one once, and had a chance to handle it, but it was never an issue item in a straight leg rifle company.

[mac]

Feb 18, 2021 20:28:46 GMT yanmacca said:

I can’t spell either Chuck, but all dispatch riders (all Company HQs had a couple of these) and truck drivers in the British army in WW2, had a Sten, which is similar to the M3, which was when they only had one Sten per Infantry Section, which I see as rather a waste, as a driver could ride the hell out of danger.
I thought maybe there was a different stock on both models of the M3, similar to the one used on the M1 Carbines, Infantry and Airborne.

My Dad spent some time as a dispatch rider in WW2, I have a photo of him on his motorcycle.

Memories.

Cheers

[colt45]

Feb 18, 2021 16:33:15 GMT quincannon said:

Sounds like your "good" guys were more squirters than shooters Colt.

Hope you saw the mention above of your old outfit.

Chuck,

After all that practice burning off that ammo, they (and me) were getting pretty darn good with both the pistol and the grease gun.  Toward the end of the ammo, I setup some fresh targets at the 50 meter point, and we "squirted" 20 rounds out of the grease guns in a single burst.  Out of the 20 round burst from each of the guys, I checked the targets for hits.  We averaged between 13 and 17 hits per target.  Not bad I thought, given 20 round bursts are generally a waste of 20 rounds.

Remember, the objective I had was to burn up 10k in ammo in a short time.  The increased hit rates was a pleasant bonus, albeit a temporary skill increase.

[quincannon]

Colt: I have long maintained that proficiency in arms, long, short, big and small, is sadly lacking in all of our armed forces. We just do not pay enough attention to the fragile nature of the skills involved, and the fact that those skills must be continually practiced to maintain proficiency. In other words just because you fired expert in January does not mean you will have the same measure of skill when you go into combat in March.

I think we who were in the business, have all experienced the "we can't turn this stuff in so lets use it" moments. Burning it up is certainly preferable to dealing with the bean counters at the Post Ammunition Supply Point. That is one thing I hated about being a battalion support platoon leader. Did not much care for being a food taster in each of my five kitchens either, but that is another story.

What amazes me is that your folks acquired the skills to keep those grease guns on target without riding up. Used to have a lot of trouble with the automatic version of the M14 on full auto riding up on me, and I never mastered the skill. Good for them.

[colt45]

Chuck,
The temporary skill increase was in some ways a fluke, brought on by the 3+ hours of constant "practice". I guarantee those guys could not have repeated that hit ratio on the next day, if we tried to do so. With the pistol I got good enough to put all rounds in the center mass of the target at 50 meters, shooting gunfighter style with a pistol in both hands. But that was then, due to 3+ hours of almost non-stop shooting. I could not do that again on a bet. Nor could I have repeated that the next day, either.

[colt45]

By the way, we all had a hell of a good time burning that ammo up. And I had two very sore hands the next day.

[quincannon]

I'll bet you did on both counts.

It has been many a year since I have driven by White's Lake at Fort A. P. Hill. It is said that you could start a good sized war with the ammunition dumped on the bottom of that lake, starting in 1942. If they ever drain that lake, it will probably become a hazard zone for the next fifty years. Your post brought back memories, mostly fond.

[yanmacca]

Not trying to cause a flame war here but, do the US army place much emphasis on fire control?
Watching from the news reports, they do seem to send a lot of rounds towards the target but many of these are not even aimed.
The British lads to seem to be guided by their NCOs and deliver more controlled and aimed fire.

As I said, not trying to be disrespectful, but this has been on my mind for years and because I know you all better, I thought I would be okay bringing it up.

[quincannon]

Well Ian, it is a complicated question, that has an equally complicated answer I suppose.

Aimed fire WAS the staple of all our services doctrine since New Orleans. That is especially true of the U. S. Marine Corps, up until they reached Guadalcanal in August of 42. The terrain, and jungle severely limited aimed fire in terms of reaching out and hitting at long range. In addition the Marines on the Canal were still armed with the 03, which is a great rifle for long range shooting, but being bolt action is very limited in putting out a great volume of fire. Subsequently, through the remainder of World War II, on to Korea, then Viet Nam volume of fire has achieved precedence over aimed, more deliberate target selection and kill. Patton referred to what we do in the attack as "marching fire". We, in this day refer to it as suppressive fire, keeping heads down as we advance. In the defense much of the same is true. We feel that volume of fire is the best antidote for keeping the enemy away. If you ever had a chance to view a "Mad Minute" demonstration at Benning, where a rifle company and all its supports including artillery, fire at a maximum rate for 60 seconds, you would not think even a worm could survive.

Now, we are more in the middle ground as far as the doctrine of fires is concerned. We still place great emphasis on volume, but have also come to realize that precision fire is still very valuable and still useful in nearly all situations. That is one reason we have included dedicated sniper teams in our organizations at company and battalion level. I am told we had to bring a lot of wooden stock rifles out of mothballs to equip these folks, at least initially. I think they have some more modern rifles now though. Just not sure. Have not kept up with that, as I should have.

As far as our cousins go. Each army must decide what is best for them, both in organization and doctrine. Remember always that an Army is reflective of the people it serves. For instance a lot of Americans were highly critical of British casualty adversity in World War II. None of those critical Americans though, had seen a generation of their manhood wiped out on the Somme, nor had they endured three years of war before Americans showed up. What the British Army was really doing though was finding their own "work arounds" in getting the same job done as the Americans, but in a different way.

You might also look at what the Germans did as the wars in Europe were drawing to an end. In World War I they invented and refined infiltration or "Sturm" tactics. In World War II, they brought forward weapons that put out a higher volume of fire. Both of these measures were forced on the Germans by a decreasing manpower pool. They had to find ways to do the same thing with less in terms of human resources. 

So the answer lies not in deciding which is better, it is more a matter of finding what is better for you, which may be different from the other guy's better.

There is a book that discusses these matters at length and in depth, that I would highly recommend you obtain it from your local library. It is called "On Infantry" by a Canadian,  Lieutenant Colonel John English, of the Princess Pats. I attended a lecture he gave long ago when the book just came out. Most interesting two hours I ever spent. Always keep that book close at hand.

[Deleted]

There are accounts from our current wars that US fires are much more controlled. The local forces and the insurgents apparently favor the point and spray technique, emptying a magazine with a single burst. In co n trust the U.S. is noted by its single or three round bursts and more precise fires and Afghan and Iraqi units would attempt to mimic them and be more precise.

I cannot verify the tale through personal experience, but if it's not true it should be.