Today since the hurricane evac was cancelled, I visited the D Day Museum in New Orleans. All in all, it’s a very nice museum, and I left feeling deeply disturbed on account of the massive loss of life on all sides which World War II entailed.
However, there’s one point regarding something I saw in video footage of training in that museum which I was hoping someone could articulate for me.
I saw footage of US soldiers training for urban operations using pistols and submachineguns. Consistiently, I saw the US soldiers in training firing their submachineguns from the hip while standing in what I can only describe as a horse stance. Why were the soldiers specifically being trained to use spray and pray tactics? Can anyone tell me about the training objectives and doctrines of that time?
A lot of WWII troops were taught to shoot from the hip in a crouched stance. The theory is that at close quarters you won’t have time to aim, so you have to use instinctive or ‘point’ shooting. That doesn’t make it ‘spray and pray’ though, short controlled bursts are what you want.
I was taught to shoot from the hip too, in the Australian Army Reserve in the nineties.
The stance probably had more to do with the caliber than anything else. Shooting from the hip can be very effective and is still taught to certain units.
I can’t answer questions about the stance but I do know a little bit about the tactics. The main uses of the Thompson gun in urban operations were for close range combat, suppressing fire and shooting through things. The Thompson had great penetrating power, so if you knew there were a group of germans on the other side of a door (or a flimsy wall), empty the clip into the room, the bullets will still be able to kill just fine. That is basically spray and pray and to an extent so is covering fire, but the close quarters shooting is something else entirely. Inside a building shooting from the hip is the way to go and there you use short controlled bursts as someone else mentioned.
Going over the thread again before posting I noticed that DubhGhaill basically already covered the important stuff so instead of continuing I’ll just agree with him.
Oh one last note for lawdog who was wondering about the recoil. I’ve never fired one but an interesting thing I’ve read is that the single round recoil was barely noticeable. Of course since it could fire 400rpm it was indeed very tricky to control full auto.
I’ve heard the kick from a Thompson was like a mule’s. The way the gun is built, it wasn’t made for accuracy. I guess an equivalent would be like trying to shoulder a SAW.
As for speedball, Angel players spray and pray. I eat them alive with my 99 AC.
i know they trained them to shoot from the hip while they were on the run, so as not to be slowed down trying to get a bead on their target - but from horse stance? dunno - maybe send off an email to a veterans group or historical military sites?
Does your colt 1911 cycle at 1500 rounds per minute?
The early Thompsons had that impressive cyclic rate. I believe it was later reduced to about 800 so as to be more manageable.
I’ve handled the Thompson and it is heavy, and I agree that the recoil would be minimal while shooting semi-auto. However, when your sending 230grain bullets down range at 1500 rounds per minute, there would be a huge difference. I will agree though that contollability might have been more accurate than recoil.
Wounded, the doctrine was taken from the Federal Bureau of Investigation who copied it from the gun writers and other firearms “authorities” at the time.
Quite simply, it was “the style at the time” (I tied an onion to my belt and took the ferry to Shelbyville).
The Thompson: it does not “kick like a mule” as it is very heavy. However, the muzzle does climb after shooting a few rounds on full auto. On semi-auto it is fairly accurate, easy to keep shots on man sized targets out to 100.
The .45ACP, that the Thompson used, was not noted for its penetration. The .45ACP bullet would not penetrate a helmet at very close range. The 9mm that the Germans used in their machine pistols (MP38, MP40) was often hotly loaded and coupled with the smaller projectiles lead to greater penetration, including the “light saber” sea stories/bullshido told by GIs (bullets penetrating buildings, tanks, cutting telephone poles in half, other bullshit).
The BAR: the Browning Automatic Rifle was in caliber .30-'06 for the U.S. military. The FND was produced in several alternate calibers, including 8mm. The BAR was not produced in .50USMG. A water cooled version of the .50USMG was the M1921 and the famous air-cooled version is the M2 which is still in service.
The BAR is/was heavy. I prefer to shoot it from a bipod, however many in WWII took off their bipods and used them as rifles (as John Browning had intended).
Originally posted by El Tejon
The BAR is/was heavy. I prefer to shoot it from a bipod, however many in WWII took off their bipods and used them as rifles (as John Browning had intended).
That doesn’t surprise me. Back in the Reserves, I used work a lot with the F89 Minimi (Aussie variation of the US M249 SAW). For ‘fire and movement’ I’d just leave the bipod up and use it like a rifle. It’s a bastard trying to crawl through scrub with the bipod down. Minimi’s probably a fair bit lighter than the BAR though.