Question/ discussion about 03's in combat.....

[Bill Hollinger]

That photo was featured on the Garand photo of the day a few months ago. It was discussed then about the 1903 rifles.

[ABPOS]

Here's a better pic of it.


Also, that didn't really answer my question to RicktheLibrarian. This is not the only evidence that there were 03's in combat. I'm curious about what they had to say in that thread a couple of months ago. I might have even been in on that one. I forget.

I would wonder why you'd need an 03 for Grenade launching when there were Grenade Launchers for the Garand. Was there any upsides to the bolt unit? Maybe the loading of the proper ammo would be easier in the 03. Or, they just didn't have enough Garands for everyone.

[Rick the Librarian]

They did not have an effective grenade launcher for the M1 until nearly the end of the war. I don't remember all the details, but the one they developed earlier in WWII was a pain to use. I have seen several units later in WWII mostly or wholly equipped with M1903s. However, like the picture above, they could have been combat support units, like engineers.

[emmagee1917]

The rear sight of an '03 could be set to fire grenades at " low angle " ( direct fire ) far better than the M1 sight could . Until the M15 sight was available , both rifles used thier slings marked at 30 - 45 - 60 degrees for " high angle " fire and therefore were equal for that use .
Yes , the ammo could be added / changed easier too , and the launcher in WW2 turned the M1 into a manually operated repeater when attached and easily lost when removed.
My own useage gives the nod to the M15 sight if you make your own range chart for all the fine angles you can dial in . The range chart that comes with the M15 really puts a limit on it's effectiveness and is a throw back to the marked sling information. In my limited use of the M15 in low angle fire , I just cannot get my body in the right position to use it well . My left arm blocks the view , and getting it out of the way leads to an awkward , unstable shooting stance. But my arms are shortish and my chest wide , so it may be just my build.
Chris

[ABPOS]

The rear sight of an '03 could be set to fire grenades at " low angle " ( direct fire ) far better than the M1 sight could . Until the M15 sight was available , both rifles used thier slings marked at 30 - 45 - 60 degrees for " high angle " fire and therefore were equal for that use .
Yes , the ammo could be added / changed easier too , and the launcher in WW2 turned the M1 into a manually operated repeater when attached and easily lost when removed.
My own useage gives the nod to the M15 sight if you make your own range chart for all the fine angles you can dial in . The range chart that comes with the M15 really puts a limit on it's effectiveness and is a throw back to the marked sling information. In my limited use of the M15 in low angle fire , I just cannot get my body in the right position to use it well . My left arm blocks the view , and getting it out of the way leads to an awkward , unstable shooting stance. But my arms are shortish and my chest wide , so it may be just my build.
Chris

Thank you for your service and sharing your experience. That must've been something launching those things.

---------- Post added at 03:06 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:04 PM ----------

They did not have an effective grenade launcher for the M1 until nearly the end of the war. I don't remember all the details, but the one they developed earlier in WWII was a pain to use. I have seen several units later in WWII mostly or wholly equipped with M1903s. However, like the picture above, they could have been combat support units, like engineers.

OK. Right. So why the statement before about my Grandpa not having an 03 as a possibility? Were assistant Squad leaders tasked for Grenade launching duties or no? Emmagee, can you answer that part of it? Or should I say "Were they Grenadier's". Hopefully you get what I mean.

[Rick the Librarian]

They had grenade launchers for M1903s but not an effective one for the M1. The usual issuance was a M1903 for grenade launching to the assistant squad leader. That's what the "book" said, but I'm sure it was not "gospel" for all units and situations.

[ABPOS]

Yeah, I got no arguments about that. From everything I read it doesn't always seem to have a rhyme or reason. And sometimes it seems as though the GI himself had a choice in the matter. Which I find interesting.

A book I just finished called "In Death's Dark Shadow", by Cleve Barkley. He wrote this book about his Dad. And his Dad related much of the info to him. Also, he talked to other GI's his Dad served with, to confirm actions etc. And then also used military records. But anyways... His Dad was a "Scout" in the 38th IR, 2nd ID. K Company I think it was. But in Normandy he said he carried a Thompson. He was always first over the hedgerow and that weapon was best for suppressing the Germans on the other side of the hedgerows. As it was all relatively close quarters. He was wounded the same day my Grandfather died. July 26th. But recuperated and made it back to his unit when they reached Germany and a little bit before the Bulge. But he specifically said that his Dad carried a Garand in the more open spaces because it was a better weapon for the terrain. I don't know if he specifically said he chose it. Or his squad leader told him to carry that because of the terrain or what. But the fact is, the claim is he went from one weapon to another, in combat. Which kind of seems interesting and not necessarily by the "book". I would doubt the TOandE says, give a scout a Thompson in "Normandy" and then give him a Garand in Germany.

Anyways.... I still find it a plausible possibility that my Grandfather had an 03 in combat because of the Grenade launching duties sometimes fell to the Assistant Squad leaders. However, as mentioned above, I'm not sure I would want that weapon trying to run from one hedgerow to another. But then again..... I wouldn't know anything about combat. I also agree with you that a carbine would be another plausible possibility. Heck, even a Thompson would be. Maybe. Although it seems like earlier in the war they weren't as prevalent. But I could be all wet about that too. I guess that's kind of the point. I'll never know. And I guess it really doesn't matter. It just would be nice to know.

[ABPOS]

I have to make a correction. I had the MOS wrong. 745 is I think just a rifleman. And that number is next to a lot of the Privates on the lists of the KIA. My Grandpa's number was 653 at the date of his death. Oooops. Sorry to confuse anyone. I'm pretty sure 653 is a squad leader though.

[emmagee1917]

After the first battle , there were a lot of spares of everything scattered around . If it was felt to increase the survival chances of the squad or individual , and not hurt anything in the opinion of the local officers , it was allowed . This is how many squads that had a TOE of one BAR had three. Also , weapon switching between buddies for special ops was common ( Steve borrowing Tom's Thompson for a night patrol , for example ) . Many times a man's assigned weapon was lost or damaged , and he just picked up another and carried on.
ABPOS , thanks , but I never served. Did have a ton of uncles around after the war from both sides of the family that served in every theater and branch in WW2 . They all made it back home , thanks in no small part to the person who taught them how to shoot when they were growing up , at least on one side of the family. The same person who taught me ....my mom.
Chris

[ABPOS]

Thank you for your reply. Your Mom did you all good. For sure. What a special person.