saving private ryan and why no automatics for everyone?

thanks to the posters i learned that only sergeants got automatic rifles while the regular troops got only semiautomatics.

why didn't the army give every soldier an automatic like in vietnam war?

wouldn't that have been smarter? duh?!

# why didn't the army give every soldier an automatic like in vietnam # war? # # wouldn't that have been smarter? duh?!

Duh, manufacturing automatic weapons costs more and takes longer. You couldn't have made enough of them to equip the entire army in time.

says... # thanks to the posters i learned that only sergeants got automatic # rifles while the regular troops got only semiautomatics. # # why didn't the army give every soldier an automatic like in vietnam # war? # # wouldn't that have been smarter? duh?! #

AFAIK the only 'Automatic Rifle' in the US inventory on D-Day was the BAR. Logistics aside, if we'd tried to stick every infantryman with an 18 lb. service rifle and it's basic ammo load there would have been mutiny.

Later,

Dear Barry:

During WWII, the only full automatic shoulder weapons in the US Army were the Thomson submachinegun and the BAR. The Thompson was as heavy as the M-1, but effective only at short range, so was not a good general issue weapon. The BAR was a heavy (18 pounds) squad automatice weapon, usually served by a two man crew, so not suitable for issue to sergeants/officers, or for general issue to every soldier.

Late in the war the full-automatic carbine was developed, but few were issued until the Korean War, when it was a very popular weapon. Unfortunately, carbines are not very accurate in automatic fire, and have limited power and range, although more than a submachinegun. (Despite its limitations, the carbine is a MUCH better personal defense weapon than any handgun.)

It was not until the development of the modern assault rifle ( AK-47, M-16, etc.) that fully automatic shoulder arms suitable for general issue became available. These arms fire lightweight cartridges (soldier can carry more ammo), have less recoil than a battle rifle (so are accurate in automatic fire) and have sufficient power and range to be effective out to the maximum distance most soldiers can hit (about 500 yards).

Regards,

No. It would have made the job of resupplying ammo much harder. In Vietnam we learned soldiers who can often spray without aiming. That is why the 3 shot burst converter was invented.

> ...

#Subject: saving private ryan and why no automatics for everyone? #Date: Sat, 16 Nov 2002 13:43:10 +0000 (UTC)

#thanks to the posters i learned that only sergeants got automatic #rifles while the regular troops got only semiautomatics.

#why didn't the army give every soldier an automatic like in vietnam #war?

#wouldn't that have been smarter? duh?!

1) Few people can effectively use a full-power military cartridge at full auto. The M-14 proved this, which is why the M-16 uses a much lighter round. Even now, the modern M16A1 is generally used in the three roud burst mode.

2) Possibly, the auto you are talking about is the BAR. This is much heavier than the MI carried by most troops and has quite a different use.

3) The Germans thought bolt action rifles were fine in support of a squad machine gun. Which is how the M1 was generally used.

4) The only advantage of full auto over semiauto is suppressive fire ( I.e., to keep the other guys head down.)

5) Full auto weapons were used. It is just that they were submachine guns like the Thompson and the Grease gun, which fire pistol rounds.

#

# # # why didn't the army give every soldier an automatic like in vietnam # # war? # # # # wouldn't that have been smarter? duh?! # # Duh, manufacturing automatic weapons costs more and takes longer. You # couldn't have made enough of them to equip the entire army in time.

Let alone transport enough ammunition to supply them all.