Korea: The Forgotten War...

BattleSchool

Elder Member
Joined
Jan 9, 2010
Messages
4,264
Reaction score
909
Location
Ottawa GMT -5/-4
Country
llCanada
I get positively surprised when film makers go to such trouble to get the kit and tactics right.
Right down to removing the T&E on the M1919A4 (presumaby to allow for greater depression) and reversing the tripod (presumably for greater stability on a downward slope)? This effectively makes it a 3-8 LMG. :)

This is the first time that I have seen this configuration. Are you aware of any photographic evidence of such use?
 

Paul M. Weir

Forum Guru
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Apr 3, 2004
Messages
8,318
Reaction score
3,278
Location
Dublin
First name
Paul
Country
llIreland
Right down to removing the T&E on the M1919A4 (presumaby to allow for greater depression) and reversing the tripod (presumably for greater stability on a downward slope)? This effectively makes it a 3-8 LMG. :)

This is the first time that I have seen this configuration. Are you aware of any photographic evidence of such use?
No, I am unaware.

As for a 3-8? That come back to the old question of MMG vs HMG in ASL. Aside from the 12.7/13.2mm stuff, most nations did not have a separate medium and heavy class, yet do in ASL. The Soviet MG counter art shows a MMG as a M1910 Maxim and the HMG as a SG-43, yet they had the exact same function, the SG-43 replacing the M1910. The ASL distinction is really a design for effect to roughly simulate extra ammo, spare barrels, fancy sights, etc, maybe even an extra good gunner who has had his coffee, cigarette and/or Pervitin that morning. The 4 vs 6 or 5 vs 7 FP is a bit of "it seems about right".

Though the ASL depiction of US MGs do depict the real M1919 vs M1917 split, I would be inclined to give the M1919A4 the benefit of the doubt. It's still on a tripod, not being fired from the hip, so I would retain the 4-10. Indeed before FW came out I expected the M1919A6 to have been done as a 3-8, in line with the German MG-34/MG-42, both being belt fed bipod LMG.
 

Eagle4ty

Elder Member
Joined
Nov 7, 2007
Messages
3,884
Reaction score
1,494
Location
Eau Claire, Wi
Country
llUnited States
Precisely!

Having grown up with a diet of entertaining but dubiously equipped war films (remember 1965 Battle Of The Bulge?), I get positively surprised when film makers go to such trouble to get the kit and tactics right.
By the way, the "Battle Of The Bulge" film DOES have a disclaimer in the credits!:D
 

Eagle4ty

Elder Member
Joined
Nov 7, 2007
Messages
3,884
Reaction score
1,494
Location
Eau Claire, Wi
Country
llUnited States
No, I am unaware.

As for a 3-8? That come back to the old question of MMG vs HMG in ASL. Aside from the 12.7/13.2mm stuff, most nations did not have a separate medium and heavy class, yet do in ASL. The Soviet MG counter art shows a MMG as a M1910 Maxim and the HMG as a SG-43, yet they had the exact same function, the SG-43 replacing the M1910. The ASL distinction is really a design for effect to roughly simulate extra ammo, spare barrels, fancy sights, etc, maybe even an extra good gunner who has had his coffee, cigarette and/or Pervitin that morning. The 4 vs 6 or 5 vs 7 FP is a bit of "it seems about right".

Though the ASL depiction of US MGs do depict the real M1919 vs M1917 split, I would be inclined to give the M1919A4 the benefit of the doubt. It's still on a tripod, not being fired from the hip, so I would retain the 4-10. Indeed before FW came out I expected the M1919A6 to have been done as a 3-8, in line with the German MG-34/MG-42, both being belt fed bipod LMG.
Having fired many MG types (to include the M2 HB, M1919, MG-43 to mention a few), the biggest factor I would attribute the difference between MMG and HMG is the use of the traverse and elevation mechanism (T&E). The simple application of this firing mechanism increases both range and accuracy by roughly a quarter or perhaps better. The M1919 rarely used this adaptation as much by general usage of the MG as opposed to doctrine (where perhaps in a well planned defense it became more common?). On the other hand the M2 (in ground mount mode) and to a degree the MG-43 often employed this mechanism, the German weapon without it downgraded to a MMG by doctrinal usage for use a spaying fire (more accurately a direction of fire and not spraying fire in an ASL sense) weapon system as opposed to the more common field of fire with point targets. Hope this make some sense, but all of you are pretty up to speed and can hopefully see through my feeble attempts to explain a fairly detailed explanation of MG usage in a few short words.:eek:
 

Paul M. Weir

Forum Guru
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Apr 3, 2004
Messages
8,318
Reaction score
3,278
Location
Dublin
First name
Paul
Country
llIreland
Thank you Eagle4ty for that more detailed explanation of some of the factors involved, more pertinent when coming from an actual practitioner. Practice always beats bookish impressions.

The Germans could also fit artillery like sights to their MG-34/42 tripod, as the situation required.

I mentioned the M1917 vs M1919A4 split, but forgot a piece of almost amusing trivia. My memory of the details is a little hazy but the bit that stuck in my mind is one of the US MG company organisation's quirks. Whether it was USMC or USA, for each M1919A4 in the company there was also a M1917 held back, IE both a M1919A4 and a M1917 per single MG crew. The idea was to use whichever was most suited to the tactical situation. I suppose in an emergency they could round up some grunts to make up the numbers for the second, but I got the impression there usually was only one allocation of ammo and possibly one tripod for the two guns. I don't know how practical that turned out.
 

Eagle4ty

Elder Member
Joined
Nov 7, 2007
Messages
3,884
Reaction score
1,494
Location
Eau Claire, Wi
Country
llUnited States
Been a while since I delved into my green/black books on MTO&E of US organizations of WW-II, but I find it wierd to imagine that they would have a 1-1 basis exchange for the MGs (not saying it didn't exist-just very strange). I'm sure an energetic supply sergeant (read that as a scrounger/pack-rat) could always come up with an extra tripod mount especially if they'd been in the crap for a while, but hard to imagine he'd lug around 6 extra MGs wherever they went, but stranger things happen in the US military.:eek::nod:
 

Justiciar

Elder Member
Joined
Mar 2, 2008
Messages
5,027
Reaction score
1,592
Location
Within Range
Country
llUnited States
Been a while since I delved into my green/black books on MTO&E of US organizations of WW-II, but I find it wierd to imagine that they would have a 1-1 basis exchange for the MGs (not saying it didn't exist-just very strange). I'm sure an energetic supply sergeant (read that as a scrounger/pack-rat) could always come up with an extra tripod mount especially if they'd been in the crap for a while, but hard to imagine he'd lug around 6 extra MGs wherever they went, but stranger things happen in the US military.:eek::nod:
Plus tripods...were found on vehicles of the era, secured as side equipment or internally, so this too could have been a source even when the supply sergeant could not come through....though in the US supply chain one could imagine, if not count on, a sort of warehouse of kit... Overall, the US did logistics well, for a variety of reasons.
 

JRKrejsa

Elder Member
Joined
Sep 21, 2005
Messages
3,329
Reaction score
666
Location
USA
Country
llUnited States
I was struck by how uniformly the Chinese were armed in the clip. All rifles were Mausers, the LMG vz-somethings, and the larger MG Maxims. This would have been a very fortunate CPVA unit in 1950.

It’s a movie of course...
 

Justiciar

Elder Member
Joined
Mar 2, 2008
Messages
5,027
Reaction score
1,592
Location
Within Range
Country
llUnited States
No not quite. Initial Intervention units did have weapons and even ... SMG like Thompsons and Soviet style PP 43 at this time. And not as trophy weapons for "leaders". There is ample evidence from Chosin (all points of the compass that this was so). So this unit too could have been a well armed one. I do not know the unit/battle well enough. Also at this time the CPVA armed their divisions uniformly, even they knew that bullet X need to go to division X and not division Y because it used bullet Y.
 
Last edited:

JRKrejsa

Elder Member
Joined
Sep 21, 2005
Messages
3,329
Reaction score
666
Location
USA
Country
llUnited States
No not quite. Initial Intervention units did have weapons and even ... SMG like Thompsons and Soviet style PP 43 at this time. And not as trophy weapons for "leaders". There is ample evidence from Chosin (all points of the compass that this was so). So this unit too could have been a well armed one. I do not know the unit/battle well enough. Also at this tie the CPVA armed their divisions uniformly, even they knew that bullet X need to go to division X and not division Y because it used bullet Y.
Makes sense, logistically.

I can remember reading accounts from Marines about the Chosin fighting that talked about how the weapon-o- philes among them had noticed all the different kinds of small arms they encountered. And obviously they were fighting several different Chinese units.

I think FW covers this well, with the rules and counters for the initial intervention units.
 

Yuri0352

Elder Member
Silver Supporting Member
Joined
Nov 21, 2014
Messages
1,714
Reaction score
650
Location
25-30 Hexes
Country
llUnited States
I was struck by how uniformly the Chinese were armed in the clip. All rifles were Mausers, the LMG vz-somethings, and the larger MG Maxims. This would have been a very fortunate CPVA unit in 1950.

It’s a movie of course...
I noticed a few M91/30's being carried by a few of the extras as well.

Still, not too bad for a movie!
 

djohannsen

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2017
Messages
692
Reaction score
522
Location
Within 800 meters.
Country
llUnited States
hether it was USMC or USA, for each M1919A4 in the company there was also a M1917 held back, IE both a M1919A4 and a M1917 per single MG crew.
Currently (well, as of twenty years ago), the HMG platoon in the infantry battalion in the USMC had both the M2HB and Mk19 (40mm grenade launcher) per single MG crew. Again, tactical situation dictated which was used.
 

Paul M. Weir

Forum Guru
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Apr 3, 2004
Messages
8,318
Reaction score
3,278
Location
Dublin
First name
Paul
Country
llIreland
I was struck by how uniformly the Chinese were armed in the clip. All rifles were Mausers, the LMG vz-somethings, and the larger MG Maxims. This would have been a very fortunate CPVA unit in 1950.

It’s a movie of course...
The Civil Wars era Chinese used German Gewer 1888 and their copy the Hanyang 88, the Zhongzheng Type 24 (a copy of the Karabiner 98k's predecessor) and some Karabiner 98k, all in 7.92x57mm.

The standard LMGs were the Czech ZB vz 26 and ZB vz 30 in 7.92x57mm, as well as manufacturing their own. The heavy MG was the Maxim MG 08 and their own production as the Type 24, again in 7.92x57mm.

Though SMG were rare, the commonest would have been the German MP 18 (snail magazine) as well as slightly modified home produced versions in 9x19mm.

The signature pistol of that era was the Mauser C96, usually in 7.63x25 mm, but some in .45" ACP! Some M1932/M712 Schnellfeuer (selective fire) versions of the C96 are likely to have seen Chinese service. Indeed the Chinese have produced the Type 80, a 7.62x25mm (Soviet Tokarev) version of the M712 since 1980, the C96 being such a status symbol.

There would have also been decent numbers of the Mosin-Nagant m91/30 in 7.62x54mm as the Soviets supplied a good chunk of arms to the NRA pre-WW2. Of course the Soviets supplied many post WW2 and the Chinese produced the M44 carbine as the Type 53.
 

JRKrejsa

Elder Member
Joined
Sep 21, 2005
Messages
3,329
Reaction score
666
Location
USA
Country
llUnited States
And, add US weapons that were shipped to the GMD during WW2. M1903 Springfields, Browning Automatic Rifles, and if I remember right, M1911s too. All in their US calibers, .30-06, and .45. (Adding more complications to the CPVA supply situation.)
 

JRKrejsa

Elder Member
Joined
Sep 21, 2005
Messages
3,329
Reaction score
666
Location
USA
Country
llUnited States
The Civil Wars era Chinese used German Gewer 1888 and their copy the Hanyang 88, the Zhongzheng Type 24 (a copy of the Karabiner 98k's predecessor) and some Karabiner 98k, all in 7.92x57mm.

The standard LMGs were the Czech ZB vz 26 and ZB vz 30 in 7.92x57mm, as well as manufacturing their own. The heavy MG was the Maxim MG 08 and their own production as the Type 24, again in 7.92x57mm.

Though SMG were rare, the commonest would have been the German MP 18 (snail magazine) as well as slightly modified home produced versions in 9x19mm.

The signature pistol of that era was the Mauser C96, usually in 7.63x25 mm, but some in .45" ACP! Some M1932/M712 Schnellfeuer (selective fire) versions of the C96 are likely to have seen Chinese service. Indeed the Chinese have produced the Type 80, a 7.62x25mm (Soviet Tokarev) version of the M712 since 1980, the C96 being such a status symbol.

There would have also been decent numbers of the Mosin-Nagant m91/30 in 7.62x54mm as the Soviets supplied a good chunk of arms to the NRA pre-WW2. Of course the Soviets supplied many post WW2 and the Chinese produced the M44 carbine as the Type 53.
I had never heard of the C96 in .45 ACP. I’m surprised no US or foreign manufacturers make a C96 reproduction.45 caliber. I bet they would sell well here...
 

Paul M. Weir

Forum Guru
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Apr 3, 2004
Messages
8,318
Reaction score
3,278
Location
Dublin
First name
Paul
Country
llIreland
I had never heard of the C96 in .45 ACP. I’m surprised no US or foreign manufacturers make a C96 reproduction.45 caliber. I bet they would sell well here...
The .45" ACP was a Chinese only variant as far as I know. It was said that some warlord liked his imported and copied Tommy Guns and wanted the same stopping power for his C96s, so he commissioned his local arsenal to do a heftier version in .45". These Shanxi versions were considerably beefed up and were not just a different barrel and receiver bits.

The Germans did a version in 9x19mm during WW1 as production of the P08 (Luger) was insufficient. The 7.65x25mm as used in the C96 was tweaked into a 7.65x21mm for the original M1900 Luger/Parabellum and the 7.65x21mm was necked out to 9x19mm to suit Imperial German requirements. The 9mm versions of the C96 (M1916) usually had a big "9" burnt into the grip and the "9" painted red. As the round, due to its evolution, was similar in dimensions to the 7.65x25mm, the 9x19mm did not require major redesign/reinforcement that the .45" Shanxi required. I get the impression that not many of the 9mm versions were used by the Chinese.
 

BigAl737

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2011
Messages
977
Reaction score
623
Location
AK
Country
llUnited States
Does the Searchlight truck leave a wreck when eliminated?
 
Top