Army equipment that shouldn't have seen service

[Orcbuster]

I have never worn that specific boot, but is there actually anything wrong with the boot itself or is the problem the “oh, we must polish it to a mirror finish” bs that cropped up with it?

Problem is the fact that they and the boots that succeeded them were ankle boots, and that the UK armed forces were the only ones that still issued such boots as primary infantry wear. As infantry you want taller boots, trust me on this.

 

[173rd LRRP]

It is closely related and ammo interchangeable with the 75mm gun the US was mounting on tanks (and early half track tank destroyers). The key difference is the ammo. The US Army developed OK (if uninspired) AP shells for it, the French AT explosive shell captured by the Germans seams not a success. Had the Germans issued a better shell it could have rendered better service, but these guns were all very old and very tired by that point in any case.

Going to 3 round requires sacrificing the ability to go full auto, and worse the mechanism that actually counts how many rounds fire is delicate, made of several very tiny parts (easy to lose when cleaning) and it is an additional possible source of jams/malfunctions (it doesn’t always play nice if for some reason your 3 round burst is interrupted, such as running out of ammo mid burst). Burst fire is always a nice feature in theory, but mechanicals involved are almost never nice on any design (maybe someday a sufficiently reliable digital system with electrically primed ammo?). Teaching how to shoot a controlled burst is a better idea, but that is lots of time, work, and ammo.

I don’t know if the Army ever officially changed the reload drill, but alternatives are certainly known in both military and civilian circles for use of the non-dominant hand. The choice may be related to the SPORTS immediate action drill to clear a jam. The T in the drill is to Tap the forward assist (on the right side) while the other letters including both pulling and releasing the charging handle, my guess is that drill led to using the same hand for both tasks since it is a rapid and sequential drill (though many argue that the simpler “tap (magazine), rack (slide/charging handle), bang” drill is better because it works on nearly any military long arm or sidearm).

Milk, actually.

In the age before refrigeration Hershey developed the Hershey process (still a trade secret) for causing milk to sour in a controlled way in a safe way that was able to survive transport to the chocolate factory. Butyric acid occurs naturally in milk, and somehow the process liberates the butyric acid from whatever it normally binds with or such. Butyric acid is also a notable part of the taste of Parmesan cheese, or also rotten butter, or the odor. Other chocolate makers in the US started adding a bit of butyric acid to try to artificially match the flavor of Hershey, because Hershey had become “the” chocolate in America and it is what people thought high quality (mass market) chocolate should taste like.

Everyone used towed AT guns, and used them reasonably well. It was a universal and logical solution to the AT problem given the various tactical and technical information then available. We should note that non self propelled AT weapons actually remain the norm to the present day for essentially the same reasons as then, but technology offered the better solution of the ATGM type weapons to modern forces (and no, the bazookas and panzer-whatever’s and PIAT were really the RPG of the day, not the ATGM that the AT gun was the analogue of).

Towed AT guns used very low profile, concealment, cover, and ambush/surprise for survival. Retreat could, if well planned, be covered by supporting arms like artillery/mortars, but often the gun was a loss if its position was overrun, crew survival tended to be mixed, sometimes they could abandon the gun and retreat, other times they were killed by counter fire or overrun. You can dig in and hide a 57mm gun far easier than something like an M18 tank destroyer (2,500 produced). The 57mm (US production, 15,000+), however, was primarily an AT gun for issue at the level of infantry/cavalry maneuver regiments and battalions, manned by infantrymen or cavalrymen, to replace the 37mm (18,000+ produced), not generally issued to the Tank Destroyer branch. The great advantages of a cheap towed gun was the ability to give every formation of battalion size or larger some sort of AT gun, and that meant that wherever the enemy decided to attack it would definitely run into some of your AT guns rather than merely squishies with hand weapons.

The self propelled TD doctrine was entirely focused on being held in reserve (at Corps or higher HQ level) in the rear and then once the main line of advance had been identified (by it having broken through the front line of your defense, or at least your recon/scout/screen) then rushing those TDs at top speed to take up a blocking position along that main line of advance before it can break out into your rear. The experience of Torch showed that the self propelled TD would not arrive in time to properly dig in and prepare a defense/ambush, but that the easier to emplace towed AT guns (which were tied into a combined arms system that the TDs were not) had a better chance of actually getting in those crucial first surprise hits and surviving the fight.

The larger, heavier towed 3” AT gun given to the TD branch proved not to have the ease of maneuver or emplacement of its smaller towed cousins, it was too slow to use as a reactive unit, thus it needed to be deployed forward (this presented logistics problems, and more importantly pushed it into the front line with the maneuver forces, which dumped it into the combined arms fight that the TD branch wasn’t as well prepared to participate in, and worse people started trying to use the 3” AT as an assault gun or for offensive AT work, which it obviously sucked at).

The self propelled TD guns had the problems of not being part of combined arms formations, but being pulled into use as assault guns and tanks, which obviously the TD was built with the opposite design philosophy of an assault gun, and so sucked at that compared to a purpose built system.

The saving grace of the TD branch was that their guns, both towed and self propelled, had sights for indirect fire, and so eventually ended up serving as additional indirect fire artillery tied into either division or corps level artillery fire direction centers. As the war went on and more artillery was desired, the TD branch mostly became a field expedient addition to the artillery (and survived by being in the rear, mostly). Meanwhile the TD branch job and purpose was increasingly filled by actual tanks, though TDs being brought forward to play tank or to make a long range shot or confront heavy armor happened off and on to the end.

The towed AT gun wasn’t the problem, the Tank Destroyer doctrine and tactics and the making of the TD corps into a separate branch were the real problems. The 57mm and 75mm were entirely credible as battalion or regiment level AT weapons for the infantry (but issue both AP and HE shells!). The 3” towed AT gun could have formed an additional battalion as part of divisional artillery. The self propelled tank destroyers on tank chassis either should have been more tanks or should have simply been attached as a specialist AT unit to the existing tank units. Ideally no specialized tank destroyer would have been designed or built at all, and instead something like a 76mm upgunned Sherman arrived earlier and in quantity to supplement the 75mm armed tanks.

In my mind the 75mm on half track was the worst offender, it was the same gun being put on tanks, but on a less survivable and less maneuverable vehicle than the tank. Seriously, fighting tanks, on purpose, in a half track? Oh, and the half track had a limited traverse mounting, while the tanks have full traverse turrets, too. The only excuse for those existing (or the other direct fire half tracks) was a desperate need for mobile firepower at a stage in the war when American tank production was still gearing up.

This doesn’t solve the basic doctrinal problem, but if you can build a sufficiently cheap, very low profile self propelled system it might make sense, but I don’t think anyone ever demonstrated a successful design for such. I will grant if someone magically produced a self propelled gun with the profile of a towed gun and cost the same or less resources than the towed gun plus its prime mover it would turn into an appealing offer. More than likely it ends up diverting resources that could have gone to tanks or something else more useful, though, hence my skepticism.

The Scorpion was a very elaborate form of fratricide or suicide (but then again so is jumping out of perfectly good airplanes and it was intended to support the airborne). It looks great on paper but is a disaster in practice, there is a reason it was not long lived or widely issued. Vastly too much gun on far too little chassis. When firing the main weapon nearly qualifies the crew for flight pay something has gone wrong. Down-gun it to a 75mm or 57mm and it probably works for WW II. It certainly has a commendably low profile and reasonable level of simplicity.

Speed is not a form of useful protection, despite what proponents of both battlecruisers and fast tank destroyers believed (though, actually, the fast tank destroyer wasn’t actually supposed to engage on the move by US doctrine, ideally it was supposed to dig in and hide and ambush, but that almost never worked since the American and allied forces were generally the ones advancing, thankfully the turreted ones were taught offensive tactics as a back up).
The self propelled gun is a very big and very obvious target. It isn’t survivable used offensively in the open and it is only survivable defensively used as part of a sensible combined arms team integrated with infantry, artillery, etc.

Really the unarmored self propelled AT gun is a solution in search of a problem within this context.
What exactly is the problem it solves?
Being an AT gun that can keep up with the infantry?
If you are fully mechanizing all the support weapons of the infantry with matching road and cross country mobility it would be sensible to include the AT guns in that, but as long as your infantry is mostly fighting on foot with man portable or towed weapons the AT gun doesn’t seem to deserve special treatment. Now if you want to posit an early adoption of an APC based mechanized or armored infantry formation with an AT gun on a common chassis I could get behind that as quite sensible.
However, if you want to use the self propelled AT gun as a poor man’s assault gun or tank, you are better off putting the resources into either of those instead.

I have never worn that specific boot, but is there actually anything wrong with the boot itself or is the problem the “oh, we must polish it to a mirror finish” bs that cropped up with it?

 

[173rd LRRP]

The 173rd Airborne had an armor platoon that deployed to Viet Name with Scorpions in 1965. By the time I got there in July 1966, they had transitioned to M-113s and the Scorpions were lined up along a dirt road and covered with vines

 

[Deleted member 1487]

US experience shows otherwise

During the Bulge, towed AT battalions had a 1:3 win loss ratio, unless the were integrated with an Infantry unit, where it improved to 1.3 to 1
win/loss
First Army has 26% losses among the towed AT units during the Bulge, vs 6-8% going across France

There is a pretty big difference there:
They were attacking across France, they were defending against an offensive in the Bulge.

High recoil is what you get when you put a powerful 75mm gun on a lightweight carriage. Muzzle brake only goes so far
Pak 38 that was of similar performance was 2350 pounds, the slightly heavier 75mm tube added around 300 pounds.

But I'm not seeing why the recoil would be more brutal, given the the ME of the 50mm Pak38 was 1.4M Joules, while the 97/38 was 1.3M Joules, on a heavier piece with a larger muzzle brake

More recoiling mass of the weapon itself, not just the projectile. It wasn't just the tube either, but the entire recoil system.

 

[marathag]

ere is a pretty big difference there:
They were attacking across France, they were defending against an offensive in the Bulge.

It's really hard to offensively use towed AT guns in a tailchase.

When defending, that when you want them to be effective.

 

[Blue cat]

Bullets aren't part of the weapon's CES. Soldiers aren't taught to use bullets for other than shooting at objects/people.

I used to wonder about this when I have read descriptions of cold war era military firearms that were reportedly designed to be field stripped (or in some cases adjusted) by using an un fired cartridge as a tool. Presumably dummy cartridges or tools that would do a similar job would have been issued by services that didn't want to issue live cartridges this purpose.

I have also recently seen this "feature" vis a vis disassembly in a civilian firearm as well.

 

[Deleted member 1487]

It's really hard to offensively use towed AT guns in a tailchase.

True and it was a problem in the pursuit phase, but in the breakout they had their uses, even as direct fire support, much like the M10 ended up getting used for.

When defending, that when you want them to be effective.

Sure, but it is also harder, because the attacker is going to have combined arms to counter AT weapons and they will be the ones attacking at the time and place of their choosing with an advantage of massed supporting fires. Plus when there is a breakthrough a lot of equipment tends to get abandoned by the defender and since that happened in the Bulge I'm willing to bet a lot of the losses of AT guns weren't in direct combat.

 

[marathag]

More recoiling mass of the weapon itself, not just the projectile. It wasn't just the tube either, but the entire recoil system.

A lower amount of Joules acting on a heavier mass will have less movement, that's physics.
a= F/m

 

[Deleted member 1487]

A lower amount of Joules acting on a heavier mass will have less movement, that's physics.
a= F/m

Yet by all accounts I could find there were substantial issues:

7.5 cm PaK 97/38 - Page 4 - Axis History Forum

forum.axishistory.com

 

[marathag]

Yet by all accounts I could find there were substantial issues:

7.5 cm PaK 97/38 - Page 4 - Axis History Forum

forum.axishistory.com

I'm thinking they used worn recuperators, or did the math wrong. There's less energy in the 75 than the 50.

 

[riggerrob]

Bullets aren't part of the weapon's CES. Soldiers aren't taught to use bullets for other than shooting at objects/people.

Again, I ask, what military instructs it's soldiers to strip the trigger group when they are field stripping their rifle?

That depends upon how vulnerable the trigger mechanism is to clogging by dirt, sand, powder residue, etc.
A compromise is making a drop-in trigger group that can be removed, brushed, oiled and dropped-in again.

 

[riggerrob]

I used to wonder about this when I have read descriptions of cold war era military firearms that were reportedly designed to be field stripped (or in some cases adjusted) by using an un fired cartridge as a tool. Presumably dummy cartridges or tools that would do a similar job would have been issued by services that didn't want to issue live cartridges this purpose.

I have also recently seen this "feature" vis a vis disassembly in a civilian firearm as well.

Yes, some military weapons are specifically designed to use cartridges to dismantle them. If you use a Spitzer bullet to push out a pin, you risk distorting the bullet tip and ruining accuracy.
OTOH if you use the cartridge rim/base to turn a screw or adjust a gas regulator, it is unlikely to affect function when fired.
Ideally, small arms only need fingers to strip and re-assemble.
The next best compromise is using the wire buttstock as a disassembly and cleaning tool (e.g. M3 Grese Gun SMG).

 

[marathag]

That depends upon how vulnerable the trigger mechanism is to clogging by dirt, sand, powder residue, etc.
A compromise is making a drop-in trigger group that can be removed, brushed, oiled and dropped-in again.

Many drop in triggers are available for the semiautomatic AR15.
But they do cost more, and are better triggers.

 

[Colin Haggett]

Bullets aren't part of the weapon's CES. Soldiers aren't taught to use bullets for other than shooting at objects/people.

Again, I ask, what military instructs it's soldiers to strip the trigger group when they are field stripping their rifle?

I was taught how to precisely once - 1976 during a fortnight of intense Infantry Minor Tactics ( I was a sapper) - the weapon Australian Self Loading Rifle L1A1. Also included stripping the breech block to its individual components. The instructing corporals were all Vietnam veterans. This was not field striping but to be done if necessary once out of the field.

 

[Colin Haggett]

Problem is the fact that they and the boots that succeeded them were ankle boots, and that the UK armed forces were the only ones that still issued such boots as primary infantry wear. As infantry you want taller boots, trust me on this.

I marched into my recruit course as one of only three of 137 without a uniform issue (Australian Citizen Military Force 1975). I was temporarily issued a pair of ammunition boots with leather soles (everybody else had GP (General Purpose) boots with compound soles. The first time I came to a halt on a sloping parade ground I slid forward several centimetres - much to the vocal displeasure of the drill corporal.

 

[WILDGEESE]

The Gamma Goat: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gama_Goat

It's a wonder they didn't license build these babies instead?

The Alvis Stalwart.

It was of the same era.

 

[Rickshaw]

I was taught how to precisely once - 1976 during a fortnight of intense Infantry Minor Tactics ( I was a sapper) - the weapon Australian Self Loading Rifle L1A1. Also included stripping the breech block to its individual components. The instructing corporals were all Vietnam veterans. This was not field striping but to be done if necessary once out of the field.

As you note it is not field stripping. In 10 years in the Australian Army I was never taught how to field strip a rifle beyond what was necessary to clean it. I somehow doubt the US Army taught more than that.

 

[SealTheRealDeal]

As you note it is not field stripping. In 10 years in the Australian Army I was never taught how to field strip a rifle beyond what was necessary to clean it. I somehow doubt the US Army taught more than that.

I think it's worth noting that America has a national passion for recreational firearms ownership. Most of the "tinkerers" in the US army have probably known exactly how to completely disassemble an AR platform since before they were issued one.

 

[marathag]

Most of the "tinkerers" in the US army have probably known exactly how to completely disassemble an AR platform since before they were issued one.

I know of more than a few guys in the Sandbox who had to remove non-GI not-approved AR accessories before inspection, grips, pmags, sights, and so on
Guys liked to tinker

 

[Rickshaw]

That depends upon how vulnerable the trigger mechanism is to clogging by dirt, sand, powder residue, etc.
A compromise is making a drop-in trigger group that can be removed, brushed, oiled and dropped-in again.

Again I ask, which army routinely trains it's personnel to remove the trigger group from their service rifle and to strip and assemble it in the field? Does the US Army? I know the Australian did not for the L1a1 SLR or the M16.