WW2 US Firearms between Europe vs Pacific

Joined
May 12, 2013
Messages
2,672
Likes
6,014
Location
Inman, SC
Feedback: 65 / 0 / 0
I binge watched The Pacific this weekend. I've watched it before and didn't like it as much as Band of Brothers so I haven't watched it in years. My opinion didn't change much during my re-watch, but I picked up on some things that I didn't pay attention to last viewing.
I noticed that during some of the early episodes, a good majority of the US forces were using M1903s. Also saw a large amount of Thompsons, and M1 carbines.

My questions on this would be: Was Europe or The Pacific favored as far as weapon shipments were concerned. Were Thompsons/Carbines preferred in the Pacific due to terrain?


From the M1903 Wiki:
However, the M1903 Springfield remained in service as a standard issue infantry rifle during World War II, since the U.S. entered the war without sufficient M1 rifles to arm all troops. It also remained in service as a sniper rifle during World War II
I know the Pacific was years earlier than Europe, so production picked up by the time D-Day took place, but it got me thinking as to how the USA split shipments.

Anyone have some good reading on this subject?
 
I believe the reason for more 1903s in the Pacific was that the Pacific front got hotter, faster. We didn't get involved against the Germans on land until Torch (and I believe I've seen US troops in Torch footage wearing "doughboy" gear, with the 1903 + WW1-pattern helmet). The Japanese used Pearl Harbor as a preemptive strike.

The Pacific was a US colonial region, like in the Philippines and Guam. Colonial areas don't usually get the best gear first.
 
You put what you have in their hands, and then replace as new weapons make it up the line...

And there were a ton of '03's in the armories. Especially USN and USMC.

Replace the old axiom "Location, Location, Location" with "Logistics, Logistics, Logistics"...
 
And indigenous forces like the Filipinos were given the carbines as they were smaller. And the jungle terrain was tight. Hence the carbines were favored by some.
 
From what I recall, the Army developed the M1 Garand and issued it to their troops. The Marines were slower issuing M1s and a lot, if not most had M1903s for the first year or more of the war. In video footage, it's often hard to tell a Marine from a member of the Army.
 
The Marines and the Army had entirely different procurement processes, priorities, and requirements.

It's pretty much that simple. It was still that way in 1999, when the 26th MEU looked enviously at our M4s while they hauled around A2s. But they like training for hits further out than the Army does, so that's how they explained it to us back then.
 
The Marines and the Army had entirely different procurement processes, priorities, and requirements.

It's pretty much that simple. It was still that way in 1999, when the 26th MEU looked enviously at our M4s while they hauled around A2s. But they like training for hits further out than the Army does, so that's how they explained it to us back then.
Which brings up a point. I've heard of all of the branches drifting back to the A2 in Afghanistan, due to longer distances, while my co-worker who was in Iraq loved the M4 (and wanted a clone) since he was used to using it for clearing tight areas.

Now, back on topic...
 
On Guadalcanal the Marines had 1903's (and there is actually a scene in "The Pacific" where a Marine is seen carrying a Riesing SMG). Garands, Carbines, and Thompsons came later.
 
Although the M1 Garand was adopted in the mid-30's, there were not a lot of them in the inventory when war broke out. I read that some early manufacture Garand's did make it to the Phillipines just before the war broke out and some saw combat there as a result. I'm fairly certain that the 03 predominated in the Marine Corps regiments during the Guadalcanal campaign of the 1st Marine Division in 42-43.

There are a couple of excellent books about the Garand that detail much of this information.
 
The Marines did not want the Garand because they thought the 03 was more accurate and Jarheads would waste ammo from what I was told and read. Guadalcanal changed their thinking.
 
My father was in almost every spot from that series. In the 1ST Marines, even got wounded on Okinawa, and went to that island for recovery.....then back to another hellhole. He carried, or dragged, a BAR. He was only about 160lbs wet, that was a lot of weapon and heavy ammo. He said the 1st one he had was great, so beat up it fired nice and slow. Didn't like the newer one he got after being wounded, said it fired much too quick.
 
Was Europe or The Pacific favored as far as weapon shipments were concerned. Were Thompsons/Carbines preferred in the Pacific due to terrain?

Official US policy, right up to FDR himself, was always "beat Germany first." General Marshall, the Army Chief of Staff, fully agreed with that policy, but Admirals King and Nimitz didn't. They saw the Pacific War as the Navy's war, and understood that the way to beat Japan was to punch back hard and fast. So the European Theater got the first and best of everything the Army had to offer, while the Pacific Theater got the best of everything that floated. The air and land forces in the Pacific Theater became the red-headed stepchild of the US war effort; as 1919Fan said, they were at the end of the supply line and got the leftovers that nobody else wanted. Some of the stories I've read of the supply situation in the Southwest Pacific in 1942 and early 1943 are shocking; it's like a completely different world from the flood of war materiel that flowed to the European Theater.

Why were submachine guns favored in the Pacific? I don't know for sure, but I'd guess that it was because in the Pacific, most of the land fighting was at short range, and the Japanese love of 'human wave' banzai charges meant that their attacks were best countered by massed fire from automatic weapons. The Australian Army even developed a submachine gun of its own - the Owen Machine Carbine - because it needed LOTS of such weapons for the New Guinea campaign, and none were forthcoming from England.
 
Official US policy, right up to FDR himself, was always "beat Germany first." General Marshall, the Army Chief of Staff, fully agreed with that policy, but Admirals King and Nimitz didn't. They saw the Pacific War as the Navy's war, and understood that the way to beat Japan was to punch back hard and fast. So the European Theater got the first and best of everything the Army had to offer, while the Pacific Theater got the best of everything that floated. The air and land forces in the Pacific Theater became the red-headed stepchild of the US war effort; as 1919Fan said, they were at the end of the supply line and got the leftovers that nobody else wanted. Some of the stories I've read of the supply situation in the Southwest Pacific in 1942 and early 1943 are shocking; it's like a completely different world from the flood of war materiel that flowed to the European Theater.

Why were submachine guns favored in the Pacific? I don't know for sure, but I'd guess that it was because in the Pacific, most of the land fighting was at short range, and the Japanese love of 'human wave' banzai charges meant that their attacks were best countered by massed fire from automatic weapons. The Australian Army even developed a submachine gun of its own - the Owen Machine Carbine - because it needed LOTS of such weapons for the New Guinea campaign, and none were forthcoming from England.

One of the few military services in the world to embrace the Thompson before WW2 were the Marines. The Marines used Thompsons extensively during the Banana Wars. So SMGs would've been on the minds of Marine vets from the Banana Wars going into places like Guadalcanal.

Guns of the
 
Thompson sub kits are on gunbroker right now from bowman if anyone is interested in building there own semi
 
It's my understanding that the marines(the only users of the Reising) got rid of them in favor of the Thompson at their earliest opportunity. I had a couple of Reising submachineguns and found them to be lighter and much more accurate than the Thompson. Supposedly the Reising is hand fitted so parts from one won't necessarily work in another and they don't tolerate dirt as well as the Thompson. These are considerations that don't matter to me but probably mattered a great deal to them.
 
Back
Top Bottom