WWII Bayonets, 03's and USMC Snipers

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TDH

The Marines didn't have many M1's at the beginning of the war and the 1st Marines that landed on the Canal didn't have any of them. They did have BAR's and Thompson's and even some Johnson's but no M1's or Carbines. This came from a foreman I had that was in the 1st wave that landed on as he called it the Canal. It is well documented that after the Army came in to relieve them that they had to watch their M1's like hawks or the Marines would have them. The Marines saw the distinct advantage of the M1 Garand over their tried and trusted 03's. BTW most of those 03's were low numbers just like this one

---

I have found no evidence to indicate that most Marine M1903 rifles carried on Guadalcanal were low numbers. Certainly some low number rifles were present. But, I very seriously doubt that their numbers were predominant. Most Marine rifles at the start of WWII were high numbers. And those were rapidly augmented with new Remingtons.

FWIW.

J.B.

The Marine Corps strength in 1916 was 15,578 Marines, all that were armed with rifles were armed with LN 03's. The Marine Corps strength in 1918 was 75,101 Marines with 24,555 in the AEF (only 6,000 in combat), with most armed with 03's between SN 800,000 and SN 900,000. If one assumes 75%, or less, of the Marines were armed with 1903's (the Corps has a low ratio of Officers to Enlisted), they had approximately 50,000 1903's. In 1940, the Marines had 54,000 1903's, of which 4,000 were not serviceable, which agrees with the previous assumption.

In 1940, the Marine Corps strength was 28,345 Marines, which went to 54,539 Marines in 1941 and 142,613 in 1942. They actually hit 75,000 Marines in early 1942 (approved in mid-1942), which means the Marines probably picked up another 25,000 or more HN 1903's prior to the time the Corps had enough M1's to equip the Marines. I would suggest that maybe 15% to 25% of the Marines at Guadacanal were armed with LN rifles. No one will ever know for certain.

I agree with John. Even though famous for their LN Springfields, the WWI and WWII Marines were predominantly armed with HN 1903's.

Jim

Jim,

Here's a statistic you overlook. For logistics purposes, the Army budgeted three rifles for each enlistee. I'm sure the Marines had a similar figure.

FWIW.

J.B.

One added note, the Marine Corps manpower strength is set at 20% of the manpower strength of the Navy. Bear in mind, the Marine Corps is not part of the Navy (before you squeal, check your facts), but an autonomous military force. Marine pay checks do not come from the Navy. By law, only two people can command the Marines, the Secretary of the Navy and the President.

Marines on a Navy ship come under the direct chain of command of the Marine in command on the ship, and not the ship's Captain. A Marine is not subject to Ship's Mast, but is subject to Office Hours (Marines punish Marines). That does not mean Marines can ignore the Captain of any ship (or any other officer or non-com that outranks them), because they must, just as a Marine or Army Private must obey an Air Force General (legal and lawful orders).

Jim

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by John Beard

Jim,

Here's a statistic you overlook. For logistics purposes, the Army budgeted three rifles for each enlistee. I'm sure the Marines had a similar figure.

FWIW.

J.B.

---

Due to the huge surplus of rifles left over from WWI, I doubt the Marines had such a logistical factor between the two wars. If you have 17,000 men and 50,000 rifles, acquisition of rifles would be sparse at best (mostly rifle teams and spare parts).:D I don't know for certain, but I suspect when WWII loomed on the horizen, the Corps was looking for every rifle they could find.:madsmile:

The Corps was already receiving M1's in 1940, but at a rate too slow to arm the entire Corps in time for war. If my memory serves me correctly, they were receiving 350 M1's a month in 1940, and requested that number be raised to 1250 per month.:thup:

Jim:cool:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by John Beard

I have found no evidence to indicate that most Marine M1903 rifles carried on Guadalcanal were low numbers. Certainly some low number rifles were present. But, I very seriously doubt that their numbers were predominant. Most Marine rifles at the start of WWII were high numbers. And those were rapidly augmented with new Remingtons.

FWIW.

J.B.

---

My late foreman never made mention of how many LN's Vs.HN's god rest his soul as he was a good man. BTW his name was Harry Joseph. I know I read it somewhere on the net that they used a large number of LN's. Since I am not going to do seberal days research trying to find it again if it still exists I will bow :bow: to your expertise. On another note and I can't proove it either is that a large portion of their .30 cal MG's were the water cooled. IIRC it was mentioned in the book Guadalcanal Diaries theat they sometimes ran out of water for them.

Yes, It's an M8 grenade launcher.

https://www.milsurps.com/images/imported/deleted.gif

I've read that a lot of GI's simply didn't trust the M1 Garand at first because it was a semi-auto and they trusted the dependability of a bolt action.
- GI's are gonna gripe regardless. :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TDH

I know I read it somewhere on the net that they used a large number of LN's. Since I am not going to do several days research trying to find it again if it still exists I will bow :bow: to your expertise.

---

I've read that same thing on the internet also, vis-a-vis low number Springfields. But, reading it on the internet doesn't necessarily make it true.

Jim Tarleton and I have both done extensive studies of Marine Corps rifles and our studies contradict that statement.

J.B. :wave:

Amen, Brother John.

I started out thinking exactly as TDH, but the facts demonstrate otherwise.

Semper Fi,
Jim

Maybe wanting eggs in my beer, but any idea what the percentage of early Remington M1903s used by the Marines might have been?