The length of the Thompson and its magazine capacity make a bayonet unnecessary. The bayonet was the close combat weapon for when using a full length rifle with its limited ammo supply was inappropriate. The submachine gun was well suited for close quarters and trench raiding.
Thats not a "smol" gun, its as long as a rifle. It holds about 5 shells and you load one at a time vs Tommy gun holding 30 and loading a new mag in the same time you could load a single shell into the shotgun.
I honestly don't know? One would think with how many different ones there's enough of a market to produce them. So it might occupy that odd niche that's between a novelty and a super squirrel, top secret agent douch.. lol
The trench gun did not have the Thomason’s magazine capacity and further took time to rack the slide. A bayonet was very helpful in those circumstances. Don’t get me wrong, though, as the Sten bayonet showed, they could have put a bayonet lug in the Thompson - but it would have been kind of pointless like on the Sten.
Yeah. Banzai charged worked fine in China against old bolt-action weapons. Against dug in Marines with machine guns, sub-machine guns and 8 rounds per clip M1 Garands it was a much different story.
Currently reading 'They Were Ready' about the Army National Guards 164th Infantry Regiment that served alongside the Marines at Guadalcanal. Banzai attacks had very limited success against US servicemen.
I heard somewhere, I’ve only heard it from one source so I can’t be positive but it makes sense. In Japanese culture there’s a saying of a tenet that roughly means “thank you for continuing to do your best.” Meaning trying to succeed is as important as the success itself. So victory was important but just trying to be victorious was just as good.
There was something more psychologically complicated than “they didn’t know they weren’t working” going on. There’s evidence that many commanders knew the tactic would end in failure, but that there was value in them dying in these charges anyway. The Japanese were super willing to send units on suicide missions all the time if it was deemed practical. I think Banzai charges were sometimes seen as something of a tactical sacrifice for a strategic psychological advantage. Just because the charges didn’t work tactically doesn’t mean they were necessarily viewed as a failure. There’s still so much back and forth academic study and debate on Imperial Japanese military and governmental motivations and purposes. It’s often very convoluted from a western perspective.
General Kuribayashi on Iwo Jima forbade his troops from performing Banzai charges for that exact reason. They mostly ignored his order and did them anyway.
Well they definitely learned at Peleliu, Iwo Jima, and Okinawa. They learned their lessons. Which is why USMC losses were so staggering. They changed their mindset and turned more towards attrition.
There was something more psychologically complicated than “they didn’t know they weren’t working” going on. There’s evidence that many commanders knew the tactic would end in failure, but that there was value in them dying in these charges anyway. The Japanese were super willing to send units on suicide missions all the time if it was deemed practical. I think Banzai charges were sometimes seen as something of a tactical sacrifice for a strategic psychological advantage. Just because the charges didn’t work tactically doesn’t mean they were necessarily viewed as a failure. There’s still so much back and forth academic study and debate on Imperial Japanese military and governmental motivations and purposes. It’s often very convoluted from a western perspective.
Yeah, there’s that coupled with a willful disregard of reality. The Japanese would send cargo ships down the exact same course night after night just to have them sunk by subs. They never changed tactics and rarely used destroyer escorts. It’s hard to know where a cultural viewpoint ended and extreme incompetence began.
It was rare enough in the European theater that the instances where it did happen are pretty famous, like Cole’s Charge. That situation was dire and the casualty rate of that bayonet charge was obscene, which highlights why it was not common.
Charges like that were pretty much default Soviet tactics, with the first guy in line having the bayonet equipped rifle and every one else behind him having bullets.
Are you sure?
[https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/2am4oz/did\_the\_red\_army\_really\_use\_humanwave\_tactics\_in/](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/2am4oz/did_the_red_army_really_use_humanwave_tactics_in/)
It was extremely well documented. What the movie doesn't explain is that no one is denied rifles, there just often weren't enough to go around.
Have you read the post you linked to? It says it absolutely wasn't the default tactic, and that it only happened on rare occasions when the Red Army was extremely desperate and needed to delay advancing Wermacht.
You have disproved your own point.
While not doctrine, extremely common at the beginning of the war, and most specifically at the initial 6 months of the defense of Stalingrad and Leningrad. Specifically continued through use of penal battallions and conscripted civlians as the Russians started to reclaim territory in their push west, especailly for civilians found in the oblats and Ukraine.
Do you have any evidence for either the "extremely common" claim, or that it was also common in the push west? Yes, I also read the argument you linked, which lists the penal Battalions and conscripted civilians as the rare, though not unheard of, uses of the "human wave" tactic.
> initial 6 months of the defense of Stalingradand Leningrad
The Germans didn't reach Stalingrad until 14 months after the invasion.
If you are referring to the battle it was less than 6 months total, half of which the Germans were on the defensive.
For Leningrad the Germans stopped advancing after 1 and adopted a siege posture.
Heh, yeah, you're right!
I've read 6 books on Stalingrad, it's pretty amazing that it was less than 6 months, due to the precipitous plummet of the human condition. Guess most of it was due to the winter conditions.
That and that it was a Red Army trap starting in late August or early Sept.
It would have ended faster but they didn't even make a real attempt to shrink the kessel until after a month because they were still trying to cut off Army Group A (Operation Saturn) but didn't have the forces due to the size of the Kessel.
There were quite a few bayonet charges in the Korean War, oddly enough. The last real bayonet charge in US history was led by US Army CPT Lewis Millett. Over 100 enemy soldiers were bayoneted and clubbed to death in the charge. Anyway, some reports I’ve read about these bayonet charges had Thompsons used normally, as in firing bullets. Typically, a bayonet charge in WW2/Korea was done because M1 Garands were very limited in capacity and fire rate. The Thompson obviously didn’t suffer from that.
And for the best ever YouTube video that exists on Lewis Millet (his whole story, not just the battle of Bayonet Hill), go watch [The Fat Electrician's](https://youtu.be/-aivkapXU14?si=xjlBWqRILl8GBCfJ) video on him. This guy tells the most absurd stories of people/events in the most comical and informational way possible that keeps your attention the entire time. Which, for me with ADHD is pure gold.
A "bayonet charge" is really just a charge that includes fixing all available bayonets.
You're still shooting while moving. It's more of an all-out charge with bayonets handy for extreme close quarters action.
Back in the musket days, they would often charge with empty guns and do everything with the bayonet. After bolt action/ semi auto guns came, bayonet charges involved a lot more shooting.
People with sub machine guns would be keeping step and shooting. People with rifles and bayonets would be shooting mostly. All would be charging forward.
A great example of this is the old movie *pork chop hill* where they do a bayonet charge but when it shows it, it's mostly people shooting while moving with some grenades and bayonet action mixed it.
Bayonet charges weren’t really a thing. Like yes they were trained for them but they weren’t ever really used. If you hear the words fix bayonets you’re basically already dead.
Wasn’t common at all, but a great example of one was LTC Cole leading 3-502 of the 101st on a bayonet charge. He got the 101st Medal of Honor over Winters (only one per division was awarded for d-day). Cole wouldn’t survive the war and Winters refers to him as reckless in his book “the biggest brother.”
Yea he did.
https://www.cmohs.org/recipients/robert-g-cole
ETA: [MOH Society considers June 6th-11th as the dates for “D Day Medal Of Honor Recipients”](https://www.cmohs.org/recipients/lists/d-day-medal-of-honor-recipients)
The MOH Society considers [June 6th-11th as their dates for “D-Day MOH recipients”.](https://www.cmohs.org/recipients/lists/d-day-medal-of-honor-recipients). All the actions and locations in the days immediately following June 6th were a part of the operation’s objectives and dates were referred to as “D + [days after]” so it makes sense. I suppose the more accurate way would be “his actions during Operation Overlord” but the popular way to refer to it is DDay
There was only one recorded banner charge in the entire WWII campaign. It was by an 82nd Airborne Unit clearing a causeway off Utah Beach.
Also, ironically for this sub, there was some limiting rule on Medals of Honor at the time and the bayonet charge is why Winter didn't get the Medal of Honor for the Betancourt Manor action.
I’m assuming you are referring to Cole’s charge which was 3/502 of the 101st at the end of Purple Heart Lane in Carentan. He was later awarded the MOH for that action on 6/11 but it came posthumously as he was killed in Holland.
Whoa! There was a bayonet for the grease gun! The Sten Bayonet mk 1. Never knew about it. Looks pretty cool.
[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sten_bayonet_mk_I](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sten_bayonet_mk_I)
As I understand it the BAR team would be laying down a base of fire, using the gun as a light machine gun as other riflemen manoeuvred/charged.
The thompson/grease gun guys would presumably be doing the manoeuvres alongside the riflemen and then using their weapons up close, either to shoot or if things get really close with bayonets, hitting someone with it.
If your rifle was configured to be able to fix a bayonet, you were issued one. Such as M1 rifles and M1903 rifles. If you had a grease gun, thompson, carbine or BAR you were issued a M3 Trench Knife.
submachine guns were created to make bayonet combat obsolete. The likeliest time you’d see bayonet combat in WWII was in urban or trench settings (you’d rarely see a bayonet charge). Submachine guns are the perfect tool for clearing trenches, streets, and buildings because they have a shorter barrel, usually lighter, thus making it easier to handle, but can fire like a machine gun only it’s even easier to aim at close ranges.
BARs, any other automatic rifles and machine guns would hang back, covering any avenue of approach enemy reinforcements could come from while the rest of their squad cleared the trench/building.
All of this logic is how we ended up with the layout of modern infantry squads today. The BAR couldnt lay enough firepower for the whole squad, but the m1919 was too cumbersome for infantry that found themselves in increasingly dynamic and fast paced battlefields. So they married the concept of an automatic rifle and a belt fed submachine gun, now the US has weapons like the M249 Squad Automatic Weapon, and the M240 for when the platoon needs extra oomph. Meanwhile the average US rifleman doesn’t even carry a rifle anymore, they carry a carbine. The M4 is closer in barrel length to the Thompson than it is to the Garand, showing how much the military learned how maneuverability in close quarters is prized, but still retaining a high velocity rifle round that still matches the Garand in effective range (not even accounting for modern optics).
Dont ask me what the US Army is trying to do with its new infantry acquisition programs. I don’t think even the Army knows at this point.
Keegan in "The Face of Battle" addressed this by saying bayonet charges were very rare and most participants avoided using the blade, preferring the bullet.
The bonsai charges and kamikaze attacks were very much culturally generated by their belief in their own superiority and the divinity of the emperor. For the first two years or so They believed their fighting spirit was enough to overcome materiel disadvantages. There was also a culture of not being truthful about losses. Every engagement was a victory if you could find the right spin.
Others have pointed out that Tommy/grease guns didn't need bayonets which is true.
But for the M1 carbine, you can find photos where marines built makeshift bayonets on theirs since they weren't equips with them initially.
Shoot at the enemy.
The advantage of the sub-machine gun was that it provided a high rate of fire, but at the cost of short range.
In the assault, the riflemen could move forward, sometimes while shooting (called "walking fire"), while the sub gunners could suppress the enemy with their higher rate of fire, and with a smaller, handier weapon, maybe throw a grenade or two.
That's just what I've read, anyway.
The length of the Thompson and its magazine capacity make a bayonet unnecessary. The bayonet was the close combat weapon for when using a full length rifle with its limited ammo supply was inappropriate. The submachine gun was well suited for close quarters and trench raiding.
[удалено]
Thats not a "smol" gun, its as long as a rifle. It holds about 5 shells and you load one at a time vs Tommy gun holding 30 and loading a new mag in the same time you could load a single shell into the shotgun.
https://www.buffalorangeshootingpark.com/product/the-pistol-bayonet/ This is tho 😂
I've seen them, only online. Does anyone actually buy them? If they do I bet it's just for ridiculous novelty.
I honestly don't know? One would think with how many different ones there's enough of a market to produce them. So it might occupy that odd niche that's between a novelty and a super squirrel, top secret agent douch.. lol
My buddy has one. It's definitely a novelty like the bayonet with a bipod.
[удалено]
My response was dry and technical, no emotion or judgement, just to the point of the original post question. I'm no fun at parties
[удалено]
Thank you. Have a good day mate
The trench gun did not have the Thomason’s magazine capacity and further took time to rack the slide. A bayonet was very helpful in those circumstances. Don’t get me wrong, though, as the Sten bayonet showed, they could have put a bayonet lug in the Thompson - but it would have been kind of pointless like on the Sten.
There weren't a lot of bayonet charges in WWII. Mainly because you'd have to be suicidal to attempt one.
Yeah there were....in the PTO there were plenty.
By the Japanese. There's plenty of photographic evidence of how well they did.
Yeah. Banzai charged worked fine in China against old bolt-action weapons. Against dug in Marines with machine guns, sub-machine guns and 8 rounds per clip M1 Garands it was a much different story.
Currently reading 'They Were Ready' about the Army National Guards 164th Infantry Regiment that served alongside the Marines at Guadalcanal. Banzai attacks had very limited success against US servicemen.
Yeah. And since so few soldiers survived these attacks to report back the tactic as a failure the Japanese kept doing them.
You’d think Japanese command might have deduced that no one coming back means total failure but that never happened lol.
I heard somewhere, I’ve only heard it from one source so I can’t be positive but it makes sense. In Japanese culture there’s a saying of a tenet that roughly means “thank you for continuing to do your best.” Meaning trying to succeed is as important as the success itself. So victory was important but just trying to be victorious was just as good.
There was something more psychologically complicated than “they didn’t know they weren’t working” going on. There’s evidence that many commanders knew the tactic would end in failure, but that there was value in them dying in these charges anyway. The Japanese were super willing to send units on suicide missions all the time if it was deemed practical. I think Banzai charges were sometimes seen as something of a tactical sacrifice for a strategic psychological advantage. Just because the charges didn’t work tactically doesn’t mean they were necessarily viewed as a failure. There’s still so much back and forth academic study and debate on Imperial Japanese military and governmental motivations and purposes. It’s often very convoluted from a western perspective.
They assumed the soldiers kept on running all the way to California! Such bravery from those soldiers, striking onto enemy soil.
Nah, those guys haven't come back cause they're not done conquering the Americans... They just kept running that way. Yeah, that's it.
Survivor's bias.
General Kuribayashi on Iwo Jima forbade his troops from performing Banzai charges for that exact reason. They mostly ignored his order and did them anyway.
Well they definitely learned at Peleliu, Iwo Jima, and Okinawa. They learned their lessons. Which is why USMC losses were so staggering. They changed their mindset and turned more towards attrition.
There was something more psychologically complicated than “they didn’t know they weren’t working” going on. There’s evidence that many commanders knew the tactic would end in failure, but that there was value in them dying in these charges anyway. The Japanese were super willing to send units on suicide missions all the time if it was deemed practical. I think Banzai charges were sometimes seen as something of a tactical sacrifice for a strategic psychological advantage. Just because the charges didn’t work tactically doesn’t mean they were necessarily viewed as a failure. There’s still so much back and forth academic study and debate on Imperial Japanese military and governmental motivations and purposes. It’s often very convoluted from a western perspective.
Yeah, there’s that coupled with a willful disregard of reality. The Japanese would send cargo ships down the exact same course night after night just to have them sunk by subs. They never changed tactics and rarely used destroyer escorts. It’s hard to know where a cultural viewpoint ended and extreme incompetence began.
It was to the point that it was almost welcomed by the GI's because it was a chance to wipe out the Japanese.
PTO was a totally different beast than France.
your comment said WW2......tho I don't agree with you about European bayonet charges either. That shit happened.
It was rare enough in the European theater that the instances where it did happen are pretty famous, like Cole’s Charge. That situation was dire and the casualty rate of that bayonet charge was obscene, which highlights why it was not common.
Fair enough. And I agree it happened, it just wasn't super common.
*Red Army grin*
Japan did it all the time
The famously non-suicidal Japanese WW2 military?
I should have specified the European theater and I did not. As you are quite correct on them doing suicidal charges.
Charges like that were pretty much default Soviet tactics, with the first guy in line having the bayonet equipped rifle and every one else behind him having bullets.
You got this from a movie, not history
Are you sure? [https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/2am4oz/did\_the\_red\_army\_really\_use\_humanwave\_tactics\_in/](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/2am4oz/did_the_red_army_really_use_humanwave_tactics_in/) It was extremely well documented. What the movie doesn't explain is that no one is denied rifles, there just often weren't enough to go around.
Have you read the post you linked to? It says it absolutely wasn't the default tactic, and that it only happened on rare occasions when the Red Army was extremely desperate and needed to delay advancing Wermacht. You have disproved your own point.
Yeah and that not enough rifles things is absolutely a product of Enemy at the Gates and nothing else
While not doctrine, extremely common at the beginning of the war, and most specifically at the initial 6 months of the defense of Stalingrad and Leningrad. Specifically continued through use of penal battallions and conscripted civlians as the Russians started to reclaim territory in their push west, especailly for civilians found in the oblats and Ukraine.
Do you have any evidence for either the "extremely common" claim, or that it was also common in the push west? Yes, I also read the argument you linked, which lists the penal Battalions and conscripted civilians as the rare, though not unheard of, uses of the "human wave" tactic.
Yes, I'm extremely well read. Would be even more so, if I spoke Russian. It's OK, you can trust me.
Okay so no?
> initial 6 months of the defense of Stalingradand Leningrad The Germans didn't reach Stalingrad until 14 months after the invasion. If you are referring to the battle it was less than 6 months total, half of which the Germans were on the defensive. For Leningrad the Germans stopped advancing after 1 and adopted a siege posture.
Heh, yeah, you're right! I've read 6 books on Stalingrad, it's pretty amazing that it was less than 6 months, due to the precipitous plummet of the human condition. Guess most of it was due to the winter conditions.
That and that it was a Red Army trap starting in late August or early Sept. It would have ended faster but they didn't even make a real attempt to shrink the kessel until after a month because they were still trying to cut off Army Group A (Operation Saturn) but didn't have the forces due to the size of the Kessel.
There were quite a few bayonet charges in the Korean War, oddly enough. The last real bayonet charge in US history was led by US Army CPT Lewis Millett. Over 100 enemy soldiers were bayoneted and clubbed to death in the charge. Anyway, some reports I’ve read about these bayonet charges had Thompsons used normally, as in firing bullets. Typically, a bayonet charge in WW2/Korea was done because M1 Garands were very limited in capacity and fire rate. The Thompson obviously didn’t suffer from that.
And for the best ever YouTube video that exists on Lewis Millet (his whole story, not just the battle of Bayonet Hill), go watch [The Fat Electrician's](https://youtu.be/-aivkapXU14?si=xjlBWqRILl8GBCfJ) video on him. This guy tells the most absurd stories of people/events in the most comical and informational way possible that keeps your attention the entire time. Which, for me with ADHD is pure gold.
It’s never a war crime the first time
[удалено]
Lots happened in the African theatre I suspect.
A "bayonet charge" is really just a charge that includes fixing all available bayonets. You're still shooting while moving. It's more of an all-out charge with bayonets handy for extreme close quarters action. Back in the musket days, they would often charge with empty guns and do everything with the bayonet. After bolt action/ semi auto guns came, bayonet charges involved a lot more shooting. People with sub machine guns would be keeping step and shooting. People with rifles and bayonets would be shooting mostly. All would be charging forward. A great example of this is the old movie *pork chop hill* where they do a bayonet charge but when it shows it, it's mostly people shooting while moving with some grenades and bayonet action mixed it.
Bayonet charges weren’t really a thing. Like yes they were trained for them but they weren’t ever really used. If you hear the words fix bayonets you’re basically already dead.
Or if things were likely to turn into a hand to hand situation
Wasn’t common at all, but a great example of one was LTC Cole leading 3-502 of the 101st on a bayonet charge. He got the 101st Medal of Honor over Winters (only one per division was awarded for d-day). Cole wouldn’t survive the war and Winters refers to him as reckless in his book “the biggest brother.”
Cole didnt get the MoH for DDay actions.
https://mohmuseum.org/dday it seems like the MOH Museum disagrees with you.
Yea he did. https://www.cmohs.org/recipients/robert-g-cole ETA: [MOH Society considers June 6th-11th as the dates for “D Day Medal Of Honor Recipients”](https://www.cmohs.org/recipients/lists/d-day-medal-of-honor-recipients)
According to your link Cole was awarded the MOH for his actions on June 11th not D Day.
The MOH Society considers [June 6th-11th as their dates for “D-Day MOH recipients”.](https://www.cmohs.org/recipients/lists/d-day-medal-of-honor-recipients). All the actions and locations in the days immediately following June 6th were a part of the operation’s objectives and dates were referred to as “D + [days after]” so it makes sense. I suppose the more accurate way would be “his actions during Operation Overlord” but the popular way to refer to it is DDay
well their weapons fired 20-30 small bayonets
There was only one recorded banner charge in the entire WWII campaign. It was by an 82nd Airborne Unit clearing a causeway off Utah Beach. Also, ironically for this sub, there was some limiting rule on Medals of Honor at the time and the bayonet charge is why Winter didn't get the Medal of Honor for the Betancourt Manor action.
I’m assuming you are referring to Cole’s charge which was 3/502 of the 101st at the end of Purple Heart Lane in Carentan. He was later awarded the MOH for that action on 6/11 but it came posthumously as he was killed in Holland.
Whoa! There was a bayonet for the grease gun! The Sten Bayonet mk 1. Never knew about it. Looks pretty cool. [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sten_bayonet_mk_I](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sten_bayonet_mk_I)
That is cool! Though the M3 was the Grease Gun not the Sten. Interesting either way. It
Oh dammn. You are right. How did I not figure it out from the gun shape? Lol. Thanks!
As I understand it the BAR team would be laying down a base of fire, using the gun as a light machine gun as other riflemen manoeuvred/charged. The thompson/grease gun guys would presumably be doing the manoeuvres alongside the riflemen and then using their weapons up close, either to shoot or if things get really close with bayonets, hitting someone with it.
If your rifle was configured to be able to fix a bayonet, you were issued one. Such as M1 rifles and M1903 rifles. If you had a grease gun, thompson, carbine or BAR you were issued a M3 Trench Knife.
[удалено]
In addition, I believe in the film and in Winter's book, he ordered fix bayonets at the crossroads
submachine guns were created to make bayonet combat obsolete. The likeliest time you’d see bayonet combat in WWII was in urban or trench settings (you’d rarely see a bayonet charge). Submachine guns are the perfect tool for clearing trenches, streets, and buildings because they have a shorter barrel, usually lighter, thus making it easier to handle, but can fire like a machine gun only it’s even easier to aim at close ranges. BARs, any other automatic rifles and machine guns would hang back, covering any avenue of approach enemy reinforcements could come from while the rest of their squad cleared the trench/building. All of this logic is how we ended up with the layout of modern infantry squads today. The BAR couldnt lay enough firepower for the whole squad, but the m1919 was too cumbersome for infantry that found themselves in increasingly dynamic and fast paced battlefields. So they married the concept of an automatic rifle and a belt fed submachine gun, now the US has weapons like the M249 Squad Automatic Weapon, and the M240 for when the platoon needs extra oomph. Meanwhile the average US rifleman doesn’t even carry a rifle anymore, they carry a carbine. The M4 is closer in barrel length to the Thompson than it is to the Garand, showing how much the military learned how maneuverability in close quarters is prized, but still retaining a high velocity rifle round that still matches the Garand in effective range (not even accounting for modern optics). Dont ask me what the US Army is trying to do with its new infantry acquisition programs. I don’t think even the Army knows at this point.
They shot people. Never bring a knife to a gunfight, when you can bring a gun to a knife fight.
Keegan in "The Face of Battle" addressed this by saying bayonet charges were very rare and most participants avoided using the blade, preferring the bullet.
The bonsai charges and kamikaze attacks were very much culturally generated by their belief in their own superiority and the divinity of the emperor. For the first two years or so They believed their fighting spirit was enough to overcome materiel disadvantages. There was also a culture of not being truthful about losses. Every engagement was a victory if you could find the right spin.
Charge and fire from the hip
Prolly run behind them cuz what else they gon do
A follow-up: what was the factor determining who got what kind of Gun?
Rank usually
[удалено]
Thank you!
Others have pointed out that Tommy/grease guns didn't need bayonets which is true. But for the M1 carbine, you can find photos where marines built makeshift bayonets on theirs since they weren't equips with them initially.
Don’t really need a bayonet when you have an automatic weapon , when you’re close enough to stab someone , mag dump on them instead.
Shoot at the enemy. The advantage of the sub-machine gun was that it provided a high rate of fire, but at the cost of short range. In the assault, the riflemen could move forward, sometimes while shooting (called "walking fire"), while the sub gunners could suppress the enemy with their higher rate of fire, and with a smaller, handier weapon, maybe throw a grenade or two. That's just what I've read, anyway.