What was the typical firearm composition of a squad during WW2?

>>31056401
faggot

>>31056410
it's a powerful scene and I think it captures human frailty well.

>>31056401
google it bitch

but typically
German squads had 9 men, Americans had 12
one German squad leader would have an Mp40
one would have a MG of some sort and the rest would have Mauser rifles

The American Squad was issued one Thompson, one BAR and the rest of the 10 Men would have Garands, although it was common for a squad to pick up a second Garand along the way,

Thats how it was for the Normandy campaign at least

>>31056471
>*Second BAR along the way

>>31056471
thanks for the response. Is there a reason why the US would use 2 machine guns while Germany only used 1?

>>31056530
Because the BAR was/is shit. Especially compared to German MGs.

>>31056530
The US squad didn't have any machine guns it had 1 or 2 automatic rifles which were not capable of the same level of fire support as a the German machine gun.

>>31056577
okay, i understand it better now. I kept reading that as if the BAR was the M1919 browning for some reason.

what was the ideal squad composition? was it something like what the Germans were using or was the american way better suited for warfare?

I just finished watching saving private ryan for the first time.

>>31056638
>for the first time
Are you 5?

Also, it's important to note that Americans were better at combined arms, it wasn't so much infantry squad level tactics, it was the whole shebang.

>>31056664
the movie never interested be before but now that I own a firearm, I watched it out of interest.

>it's important to note that Americans were better at combined arms, it wasn't so much infantry squad level tactics, it was the whole shebang.

I know but all else being equal, which squad was superior? The Americans dominated the air, armor, and communications, and that's why we won the war ;)

Were snipers also embedded into squads like in saving private ryan?

>>31056471
>The American Squad was issued one Thompson, one BAR and the rest of the 10 Men would have Garands, although it was common for a squad to pick up a second Garand along the way,

Depends on when in the war. Pulling this from memory, expect some errors. This is for US Army only, btw.

1940-to early 42- squad= 1 Thompson SMG, 1 Springfield 03 variant of some flavor, 1 BAR, 9 Garands.

1942 to mid 1944 squad= 1 Thompson SMG, 1 BAR (with sometimes a second, unauthorized, BAR), 10 Garands.

Late 44 to VE day squad= 1 SMG- Thompson or M3, 2 BARs, 9 Garands.

Platoons until 42 were 3 squads and a 10 man HQ element which functioned as a 4th squad, for a total of 46 men. From 42 onward, platoons had 3 squads and a 4 man HQ section.

>>31056571
>Because the BAR was/is shit.
It wasn't shit. It just wasn't a proper LMG. Really the BAR seems more like an automatic battle rifle, which, considering its designation (Browning Automatic Rifle) makes sense.

>>31056767
Thanks for responding. Why didn't they use more thompsons? Was it too costly and the US didn't have the available resources, or was there a different reason?

>>31056746
>Were snipers also embedded into squads like in saving private ryan?
No, US army sniper doctrine was pretty much non existent so a few members of a rifle battalion would be trained to some extent.

>>31056801
They were expensive, heavy, not particularly effective.

>>31056881
why did the Germans use mp40s in such heavy numbers? I read online that Germans would be assigned 3 mp40s per squad?

>>31057076
Light, cheap, easy to use, lots of bullets come out of them.

>>31057076
The allies had cheap smgs too, the Thompson just wasn't one of them

>>31057237
what smgs were cheap that the allies used? owen machine gun?

>>31057468
Grease Gun

>>31057468
Sten, ppsh, Grease Gun. Chicago piano was heavy as dicks where as a sten could be carted with no trouble

>>31057593
No it wasn't sten was heavy.

>>31057606
7lbs.

>>31057606
So, literally the lightest of all those mentioned, dipshit.

Australian.

39 through to 42 North Africa.
Eight SMLE. Bren gun.
42-44 North Africa, Crete, Malta
Eight SMLE Bren.
42-45 pacific
Six SMLE, two Bren, Owen gun or six SMLE, one been and two Owen.

That is doctrine.
One guy I talked to from the rats of Tobruk association told this story.

One battalion landed at Tobruk by destroyer at night.
All we had was our webbing and and blanket roll, all of our other kit was left in Egypt.
We where told that there where new rifles and guns waiting for us at Tobruk snd we had to leave our old rifles for another battalion to train with.
On landing we marched inland to depot where we got shown a pile of captured Italian small arms.
We got told to sort through and find one that was workable, clean it and get to know how it works.
We did, there was plenty of captured ammo as well, enough for a full load of ninty per man and another hundred in a bag for zeroing and practice out near the east lines.
It was not until three weeks later that we where iissued NoIII Mk1s and bren guns.
We repelled two attacks by Italian and German infantry in those weeks using captured weapons.

>>31056401
Upham should have been shot.

>>31056443
lol I thought he was just replying faggot to OP and not about the pic

>>31058133
>ninty per man
>full load

>>31056746
German squads with full ideal composition in 1944 had a greater weight of fire with 2 machine guns per squad.. 1 squad on 1 squad the German army was superior. The Americans had more artillery, planes, tanks and that's why they had sucess.

ps. The Russians won the war.

>Thompson was shit
Surely this is just some recent meme where the earliest untested Thompson is representative of all Thompsons?

>>31058328
how did the m1 garand fair in reliability. I've read that they were actually terrible and their perceived performance is from propaganda. but some people also describe them as highly reliable.

>>31058526
Inrangetv made a mudtest with the garand and it could not fire.
https://www.full30.com/video/a9145047584c659d45aacc4e1392d2e3

Amazing how the US managed to beat the japanese whom had reliable rifles vs the garand.
https://www.full30.com/video/5309802c8ff79140b598f7b2f995ad49

It's also important to remember doctrine. Germans believed the machine gun was the heart of the squad and did all the work, so riflemen were there to carry ammo and protect the gunners. American's focused on the riflemen and the gunners were there to help in manuvering

>>31056767

What about Carbines?

>>31058559
Paratroopers and truck drivers.

File: 1433834293001.png (337KB, 600x903px) Image search: [Google]

337KB, 600x903px

>>31058543
That's because the Japs were defeated by Muhreens with bolters.

>>31058564

So Tom Sizemore in Saving Private Ryan (A Ranger) using a carbine was historically inaccurate?

>>31058543
were there any reliable semi auto weapons in ww2

>>31056746
American proximity fused artillery shells decimated the Germans.

>>31056401
winning side 12 m1 grands and 12 1911 pistil, losing side whatever panzer nambu enfield nagant doesnt matter

>>31058303

>ps. The Russians won the war.

oh fuck off

>>31058543
>inrangetv

opinion discarded

>>31058584
Not really. People have stayed outside the appointed kit for every war.

Something overlooked is that the main reason why German squad philosophy relied on the K98 because that was all they had available for rifleman. They didn't have the time to retool to a new rifle platform and then retrain the whole german army on it. At the end of the war there were stories of warehouses full of sturmgewehr's unissued because the commanders would not issue a firearm to their soldiers without training for it. Had they had the sturmgewehr's in say 1941 at least in SS divisions you could argue that the firepower would have had an additional 1-3x kill ratio but yet again it still would not of mattered in the long run.

File: 35216.jpg (33KB, 500x340px)

33KB, 500x340px

>>31056401 (OP)
>>Germany
http://www.lonesentry.com/articles/ttt09/german-infantry-regiment.htm