Monday, April 25, 2022

Tuesday, April 25, 1922. Events and Gatherings.

Navy Secretary Edwin Denby (center, light suit) with New York City Mayor Francis C. Hyland (to his right) and municipal officials visiting Washington to protest the proposed closure of the New York Navy Yard.




Washington Senators' Bucky Harris sliding, as he successfully steals third base in the 7th inning of a baseball game against the Boston Red Sox; third baseman Joe Dugan watches the ball roll toward left field after a wild throw. Senators shut-out Red Sox 10-0
 
 
Daughters of the War of 1812.

Monday at the Bar: Courthouses of the West: Denver County Courthouse, Denver Colorado.

Courthouses of the West: Denver County Courthouse, Denver Colorado.

Denver County Courthouse, Denver Colorado.

This is the Denver County Courthouse, which houses the district, county and city courts in Denver, Colorado.

 

The downtown courthouse was built in 1902 and is a very impressive structure.  

Sunday, April 24, 2022

The 2022 Election Part VII. The Betrayal Edition.

    Betrayal is common for men with no conscience.

Toba Beta


Brutus and the Ghost of Caesar

And so we enter a primary, and ultimately a general election, that's all about betrayal.

But who is the betrayer, and who is the betrayed?

It is easier to forgive an enemy than to forgive a friend.

William Blake

The Republican Central Committee of Wyoming, and the campaign of Harriet Hageman, among others, claims that Liz Cheney betrayed Wyoming, and its values?  But that claim is based on the concept that she betrayed one man, Donald Trump.  That's not "riding for the brand", it is claimed, which means effectively that the brand is trump.

To me, the thing that is worse than death is betrayal. You see, I could conceive death, but I could not conceive betrayal.

Malcolm X

That concept, loyalty to a man, is an interesting, and a frightening one.  It's happened before, and we can even dare say that various American politicians have risen up with in the past who nearly commanded such dedicated followers, but none have ever taken a swipe at democracy itself before.  Indeed, extreme loyalty to a person, rather than the ideals of a party, is fairly uncommon in U.S. history.

Even my closest friend whom I trusted, the one who ate my bread, has lifted his heel against me.

Psalm 41:9

And in terms of betrayal, the "ride the brand" campaign itself is for a person who was once an opponent of Trump's and a supporter of Cheney's, something that Cheney noted when she accused that candidate, Harriet Hageman, of "tragic opportunism".  In effect, Cheney is asserting that Hageman is the betrayer.

Et tu, Brute? 

William Shakespeare , Julius Caesar

And Cheney's point rests on a larger one, that being that loyalty to an ideal, in this case the United States Constitution, to which public servants take an oath, is a larger loyalty, and that a person cannot support an insurrection and be loyal to that.  That's correct, but it also takes a mind that's willing to analyze, something which a minority of people actually do.

Beware the person who stabs you and tells the world they’re the one who’s bleeding.

Jill Blakeway

And hence the scary situation we are now in.  The Republican Party, locally and nationally, accuses Cheney of betraying a man who betrayed his oath of office, the entire country, and democracy itself.

Betray a friend and you’ll often find you have ruined yourself.

Aesop

How history will judge this is already clear.

February 5, 2022

The Republican National Committee, meeting in Salt Lake City, formally censured Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger for their role in the January 6 Committee, claiming it was persecuting "ordinary citizens". The measure was co sponsored by the head of the Wyoming GOP, Frank Eathorne.

This was referenced yesterday, but it's now an official act.

When Donald Trump was elected, it was predicted here that his impact on the GOP might be so vast, it destroyed it.  That prediction now seems to be coming true.  Republicans did not stand behind Richard Nixon when he committed a lesser offense. Now the national central committee, even at a time at which Trump's actual popularity is waning, has made loyalty to Trump and turning a blind eye to an attempted coup an official part of its platform.

It's widely predicated that the Republicans will gain in November, by default  The party out of power usually gains in an off year election. This may prove, however, to be a bit of a test of that theory, as the GOP nationally has lashed itself to the deck of a Trump ship which may prove to start being a pretty leaky vessel.  Locally, it's gone hardcore to the right.

As noted before, a door here is opening to the Democratic Party at the same time, if it can reconstitute itself along the lines which once existed here, rather than along the lines which currently do.  Indeed, the last time the Wyoming Republican Party really dominated the state's politics, and it was only briefly, was following the Johnson County War, which the electorate regarded as a shocking attack on average people which was conducted with the backing of the Republican Governor.

The degree to which politics has really descended in this country is fully emblematized by this.  Cheney and Kinzinger are participating in an investigation.  That investigation is seeking to reveal the truth.  They were censured for that. Will the voters censure the GOP?

As a sad aside, Leland Christensen, who was one of the Republicans who split the vote against Cheney in her first primary for the House, has passed away due to COVID 19.  He was also receiving treatment for non hodgkins lymphoma.  He had been a member of the Wyoming legislature and a former sheriff.  If only he, or if only Tim Stubson, had run in that race, one of the two would not be Wyoming's Congressman.  While I haven't followed him enough since then to know, if Stubson had one, he'd now be the subject of the same ire directed at Cheney, which is to his credit.

So, whose running right now?

Republicans for the House:

Liz Cheney:  Cheney really hasn't been in the House long, but she went from junior Republican to GOP leader remarkably fast.  However, she retains a streak of highly conservative independence, and a devotion to democracy, which has caused her to fall from populist favor as she's put the reality of the election ahead of devotion to Donald Trump.  That's the only thing the House race is about.

Harrient Hageman.  Hageman is a former Cheney supporter and Trump opponent who has switched on both in what Cheney has proclaimed as "tragic opportunism".  Her political positions, other than devotion to Trump and a willingness to benefit from the lost election fable, even if not really come out and endorse it, is her only distinguishing present political characteristic.

Hageman comes from a Wyoming political family of long-standing and is the only real candidate left in the race against Cheney, although others hang on.  She's had political ambitions for a while, having previously run for the Governor's office and coming in third behind Foster Freiss, which does show how deep the right wing populist line of thought has become in the party.

Robin Belinsky:  Belinsky is a businesswoman from Sheridan who is billing herself as Wyoming's Marjorie Taylor Greene.  While apparently still running, she has no chance and has been nearly silent for months.

Anthony Bouchard:  Bouchard is a member of the legislature from Goshen County who has been in a lot of local political spats and who is a far right firebrand in the legislature.  Most recently, however, he's been in the news for the revelation that when he was 18, he got a 14-year-old girl pregnant, and the drama that ultimately followed that.  This also revealed that he's originally from Florida, something that was pretty vague before.  His popularity has declined, but interestingly he retains some very loyal followers and has been taking shots at Hageman.

Bryan Eugene Keller:  He's a resident of Laramie County who has registered, but I don't know anything else about him.  We can probably regard him as effectively standing down.

Denton Knapp:  Knapp is a retired U.S. Army Colonel and a current Brig. Gen. in the California National Guard who is still, surprisingly, running.  He's from Gillette originally and claims to be generally fond of the Cheney and to respect her past role in Congress.  It's really difficult to see where Knapp thinks his support is.

Knapp, frankly, would be better off seeking the Democratic nomination and would make an interesting Democratic candidate.  While its wild speculation, I almost wonder if he's still in the race because. . . 

Democrats for the House:

Nobody, yet, yet again

This may prove to be wise.

The Democrats, as we know, have very little chance of winning this election, but they cannot be completely discounted.  Their silence might be an example of party discipline.  If they pick one of the few remaining Democratic leaders in the state or. . . . less likely but still possible. . . if they get an old time centrist Republican to cross over (more possible than might be imagined), and if that person registers late after Hageman and Cheney have spent months ripping each other apart, there's a chance.

That chance grows considerably if Hageman is the nominee, as she'll be associated with populist extremism by default.

Who fits in this category?  Mary Throne?  A cross-over Matt Mead (or his wife)?  We don't know yet, but if this occurs, it'll be interesting.

Denton Knapp?

Constitution Party for the House.

Marissa Selvig: Mayor of Pavilion. The party no longer pulls enough votes to be on the primary ballot automatically, so while she will have its nomination, she's effectively a doomed write-in candidate at this point.

Governor's Race.

Republicans for the Governor's Office.

Mark Gordon:  Gordon is the incumbent.  He's going to get the nomination, and he's going to win the General Election.

Harold Bjork.  Who Bjork isn't really clear, but he's started a Facebook and internet campaign for Governor.  From what little you can tell about him, he's a self-declared "conservative" who is running pretty far to the right of Gordon and who is strongly opposed to the now expired mask mandate.

Aaron Nab:  Nab is a truck driver from Southeastern Wyoming.  It's wroth noting that this is Hageman's base, and he seems to be riffing off of her campaign, but with none of the political background she has, and out of an assumption that Wyomingites remained enraged about the early 2020 mask mandates.

Rex Rammell:  Rammell is a perennial and unelectable candidate who ran last time and will again.  His views can be characterized as being on the fringe right/libertarian side.

Democrats for the Governor's Office.

The Democrats have to run somebody, but so far nobody has shown up.  That person is a sacrificial lamb no matter what, but they have to nominate somebody decent for that role, so whomever they otherwise nominate won't taint their House candidate.

Secretary of State

Nobody has filed.

State Auditor

Nobody has filed.

Superintendent of Public Instruction

Nobody has filed, but the recently selected Brian Schroeder is the presumptive nominee.

Schroeder is already a bit under the gun, however, by Republicans who have become disgusted with the extreme right wing bent of the current party.  He's been the subject of op eds even though out of the three choices for the position, he was the best qualified.  He wasn't the best qualified of the various applicants, however, and its clear that all three of the nominees reflected a hard right Weltanshung that has taken over the party's leadership.  We can, therefore, expect him to have competition in the primary and in the general election.

Indeed, this was a safe seat until the elected occupant resigned.  Now it is not.

February 13, 2022

Wyoming House member Landon Brown stated, on CNN:

I think what's happened here at this point is we've seen a fringe group that is on the far right of our party, has taken over our party, and they are the ones that are pushing this narrative. They've been working behind the scenes to come out and come against Liz Cheney since day one with her support of this January 6th panel, The Republican Party had the opportunity to stand behind her and they left that, and unfortunately that shows too many people across this country that Trump has hijacked the Republican Party,

He further stated:

President Trump has a maximum of four years more in office, and I stand with Liz Cheney that I will do everything in my power to make sure that's not happening as well, At the end of the day, what he did and the way he handled himself on January 6th, it is clear to everybody that he is unfit for office.

Brown, the next day, posted this on his Twitter feed:

Wow!  I stood for my convictions, stated my beliefs, and in return I’ve received the most vile and vicious hateful emails and calls I’ve ever received. Way to show that the Republican Party allows for “legitimate political discourse.” Stay classy.

February 18, 2022

Republcian House Leader endorsed Harriet Hageman over incumbant Liz Cheney in the current Wyoming race.

The extent to which this matters in Wyoming is pretty questionable, but it is extrordinary.

March 2, 2022

Rand Paul is in Wyoming capaigning with Harriet Hageman today at rallies in Cheyenne and Gillette, which I guess puts Paul in the enemies of Cheney camp. Why, exactly, Paul would be allied with either Cheney or Hageman is a bit of a mystery, given that he's really a species of libertarian.

March 8, 2022

Rand Paul did appear at a Cheyenne event with Hageman as noted. They criticized the January 6 committee.

Hageman apparently ended up being asked about Ukraine, which is in interesting in that Cheney has been a consistently strong backer of Ukraine and opponent of Russia that proved to be an early departure point for her from Trump.  Hageman's reply was in the nature of Congress needing to be more involved in the effort against Ukraine, which she indicated she supports, but it was a fairly weak response, which it would nearly have to be as she's effectively joining Cheney in her long held position of opposing Russia. This reflects an ongoing problem that much of the GOP in general has right now as blaming the Biden Administsration for what's occured is problematic, given Trump's relationship with Russia.

March 11, 2022

From the current thread on the 2022 Wyoming legislative session:

March 11, 2022

Anthony Bouchard, the far right populist Senator who made a career out of being controversial in some ways, was censured by the Senate and stripped of his commitee assignments for "using intimidating tactics against members of the Senate and members of the public."

The final straw apparently was when Bouchard indicated to some lobbyiest that he had "film" that pertained to them, but he has a long history of being very aggressive in general.  The Senate leadership noted that decorum had declined in the legislature in recent years and attributed the decline to Bouchard.

Bouchard announced early in his campaign against Cheney, but received a significanat blow when news broke of his early years in Florida.  He nonetheless stayed in and, amazingly in context, retained supporters.  Even more amazing, he continued to retain supporters after Harriet Hageman entered the race against Cheney, although his support much decreased.

This is probably a fatal blow to Bouchard and in more ways than one.  My prediction is that he won't retain his Senate seat should he choose to run again.

This race in general has gotten really quiet, I'd note.  Even the recent Hageman appearance with Rand Paul hasn't really focused much attention on it, in no small part, I suspect, as those in the Hageman camp don't really have very good answers for recent events, Cheney having been proved right on Russia, one of the things her early opponents dissed her on.  Loyalty to Trump, which is what the race is really about, is all that's left, but Trump's star has dimmed a bit due to his association, no matter how much people might wish to deny it, with Putin.

March 15, 2022

The Hageman campaign has launched a dummy Cheney website which is as if she's running for House from Virginia.

This is intersting in that it adopts the nativist position that Cheney isn't from here. That was pointed out the very first time she ran, but the majoritiy of Wyomingites, who also aren't from here (I'm from here) apparently weren't bothered by the fact that she, like they, aren't from here.  It did bother me at the time.

I don't know if it bothered Hageman but Hageman later was a Cheney supporter in any event.  She claimed that Cheney somehow duped her into supporting her, altough how that isn't clear, but Cheney's biography is well known so that her residential history could not have been it.  Hageman, of course, is from here.

Her campaign has principally been based, of course, on Cheney, who voted with Trump 90% of the time, being disloyal to Trump.  90% is quite a track records so that can only be based, really, on one thing, Cheney's loyalty to the Constitution and her conscienced vote to impeach Trump.  That's a bit problematic for Hageman, however, as if loyalty is the test, Hageman isn't being loyal to Cheney, whom she previously supported.  Hageman and Cheney are both lawyers, so neither of them really can claim not to know what the law is here in regard to elections, and Hageman has been careful to never really venture an opinion on Trump's efforts to overturn the election, even while making loyalty to Trump the point of her campaign.

That might be developing into a problem as with recent revelations and the impact of time, hardcore loyalty to Trump, while certainly not gone, seems to be waning at least a bit.  And while the new website apparently attacks Cheney for supporting "forever wars", that exposed Hageman on the war in Ukraine.  Trump never liked Ukraine and had to be forced into supplying it with arms.  He was, moreoever, extremely cozy with Putin.  Loyalty to Trump, therefore, puts you on the Putin train as well as the Trump train.

The forever war line might have been dramed up prior to the currenet war, one in which Cheney's position has proven correct.  Or it might have been due to her opposition to leaving Afghanistan.  That's problematic too, however, as Trump wanted to leave Afghanistan and Biden carried out his wishes.  People have tried to blind themsleves to that aspect of that, but it's a fact and as the current war gets worse and worse in regard to Russain conduct, blaming Biden for carrying out a Trump wish isn't all that convenient anymore.  If we did that here, Putin would probably be holding a victory parade in Kyiv by now.

So we have the revived "she isn't from here".  Hageman is. Freiss, the late darling of some on the right, very much was not.  Does a nativist dog hunt?

March 15, 2022

Sentate leaders have asked for a formal investigation into the conduct of Anthony Bouchard.

March 18, 2022

State Auditor Kriti Racines is running for reelection.

Something called the "Protect Freedeom PAC" has endorsed Harriet Hageman and accuses Liz Cheney of being a "RINO".  If Cheney's a RINO, of course, Hageman is too, as the only real distinction politically between the two is loyalty to Trump.

March 20, 2022

Lynette Grey Bull, who ran against Cheney two years ago as a Democrat, has been honored for her work in trauma awareness.  In addition to her political role in the last election, Grey Bull is an activist for the cause of bringing attention to violence against Native American women.

Casey Hardison has entered the race for the U.S. House as an independent.

This is a gadfly campaign as it is based on drug legalization.  Indeed, he has a case on appeal to the Wyoming Supreme Court right now for felony marijuna delivery.

April 12, 2022

Megan Degenfelder, who has an education background but who has been working in the petroleum industry, announced for Superintendant of Public Education.

She was once employed as the department's Chief Policy Officer.

April 19, 2022

Ed Buchanan has announced that he's running for a second term as Secretary of State.

April 22, 2022.

From a related post:

April 22, 2022, cont:

And also this news, from the John F. Kennedy Presidential Library:

DEFENDING DEMOCRACY AT HOME AND ABROAD

For the first time ever, the John F. Kennedy Profile in Courage Award will honor five individuals — President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, U.S. Representative Liz Cheney, Michigan Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson, Arizona Representative Russell “Rusty” Bowers, and Wandrea “Shaye” Moss — each for their courage to protect and defend democracy in the United States and abroad.

Regarding Cheney, they state:

Prior to the election in 2020, Representative Liz Cheney was elected by her colleagues to be chair of the House Republican Conference, making her the third-ranking Republican in the U.S. House of Representatives, and the highest-ranking Republican woman in the history of the House. She has been one of the most conservative members within the Republican Conference.  After the election, however, when President Trump falsely claimed that the election was stolen, she repeatedly called on the President to respect the rulings of the courts and his oath of office, and to publicly support the peaceful transfer of power. When the President instead rejected the lawful, certified outcome of the election, she broke with most in her party, urged fidelity to the Constitution, and stood her ground with honor and conviction. She stood against the lawlessness and violence of January 6th, and voted to impeach President Trump, concluding: "The President of the United States summoned this mob, assembled the mob, and lit the flame of this attack. Everything that followed was his doing.” Cheney received numerous death threats after casting her vote in favor of impeachment, and yet refused to take the politically expedient course that most of her party embraced. Because she would not remain silent or ignore the events of January 6th, Cheney's congressional colleagues stripped her of her leadership position in the GOP caucus. She now serves as the Vice Chair of the Select Committee investigating the January 6 insurrection, and remains a consistent and courageous voice in defense of democracy.

This should add a really interesting element to this.  Being awarded something that is also being conferred upon Ukrainian President Zelenskyy is a pretty signficant message.  Nonetheless my predicition is that there will be howling on Facebook, etc., about how awful this is.

Of note, also today:

In the category of, when you are in public, presume somebody is recording something category, audio has been released demonstrating that Speaker of the House Kevin McCarthy stated after the insurrection that he was going to recommend to Donald Trump that he resign from the Presidency.  McCarthy, through a spokesman, attempted to deny it, but the denials fell flat under the circumstances.

The New York Times, playing the teasing cat, hinted that they have more damaging audio, which probably inspires those like McCarthy who initially wanted the President to step down, to hold their tongues, as they now don't know what the Times has.

Liz Cheney, who can be heard on the tape, has denied being the recording party.

Matt Gaetz has already turned on McCarthy.

April 24, 2022

Fremont County's Sen. Cale Case, a long time Republican conservative, wrote an Op Ed published in the Tribune today going after the State's Central Committee.  He urges Republicans who have left the party to get back in and run for office and precinct positions to reclaim the party.

My prediction is that by the end of the day Case will be branded a "Rino".

Harriet Hageman also has an op ed asserting that her role as an attorney with the New Civil Liberties Alliance in a suit opposing Federally mandated cattle ear tags shows she's advocating for Wyoming, as she has this role while, she asserts, Congressman Cheney has been spending time on the January 6 Committee rather than being on the Resources Committee.

Her point that one represents Wyoming more than the other can fairly obviously be debated on an existensial sense.

And with this entry, we'll close out this edition and go on to Edition VIII.

Last Prior Edition:

The 2022 Election Part VI. The Early Landing Lights Edition

Replacing old weapons where they don't need to be, and making a choice for a new one that's long overdue. Part 2

Okay, we just went on and on about the history of the U.S. service rifle and the adoption of the XM8.

Aren't we going to say anything about the new XM250 Automatic Rifle?

Well, the first thing we'll say is that it isn't an "automatic rifle".  The Army doesn't have an "automatic rifle"

It's a light machinegun.

Okay, other than being super snarky, what's up with that comment, and the XM250.

SIG Sauer photograph of the XM250.

In this instance, let's start with desscribing what the XM250 is.

It's a 6.8x51 light belt fed machinegun of conventional design, but advanced materials, which will replace the M249 "Squad Automatic Weapon" in the Army.  The M249, in the "automatic rifle" role it is slotted in, is issued as follows:


In other words, a current U.S. Army rifle squad is led by a Staff Sergeant, and it is split into two subsquads, each led by a Sergeant.* The entire squad has only two privates,a nd four specialists.  Each subsquad has one M203 grenade launcher, which is a M4/Grenade launcher combo, and one M249.  The subsquads are really built around the M249.

If this sounds vaguely familiar, and maybe it should, it vaguely resembles the concept of the German Army of World War Two, which was based on rifleman support of the squad machinegunner.  It's also vaguely similar to the US Marine Corps squad of World War Two, which also included two automatic riflemen by the war's end.

And now, yes, a little history.  And yes, like many things here, we've dealt with this history here before.

Infantry squads, prior to 1917, were formed by lining men in a company up and counting them out into groups of eight men per squad.  Each squad would have a corporal in charge of it and consist of eight men, including the commanding corporal.  The corporal, in terms of authority, and in reality, was equivalent to a sergeant in the Army post 1921.  I.e., the corporal was equivalent to a modern sergeant in the Army.  He was, we'd note, a true Non-Commissioned Officer.   This basic organization continued on through 1921, when thing were much reorganized.  But the basic structure of the Rifle Company itself was about to change dramatically, in part due to advancements in small arms which were impacting the nearly universal identify of the infantryman as a rifleman.

Colorado National Guardsman with M1895 machinegun in 1914, at Ludlow Colorado.

Automatic weapons were coming into service, but how to use and issue them wasn't clear at first.  The U.S. Army first encountered them in the Spanish American War, which coincidentally overlapped with the Boer War, which is where the British Army first encountered and used them.  The US adopted its first machinegun in 1895.  The 1st U.S. Volunteer Cavalry, which fought as dismounted cavalry in Cuba during the Spanish American War, used them in support of their assault of Kettle Hill, although theirs were privately purchased by unit supporters who had donated them to the unit.   The Spanish American and Boer Wars proved their utility however, and various models came after that.  They were, however, not assigned out at the squad level, but were retained in a separate company and assigned out by higher headquarters as needed.  There was, in other words, no organic automatic weapon at the company level, and certainly not at the squad level.

There also weren't a lot of them.  Running up to World War One, the Army issued new tables of organization for National Guard units, anticipating large formations such as divisions.  Even at that point, however, there were no automatic weapons at the company level at all.  The infantry regiment table provided for a Machine Gun Company, which had a grand total of four automatic rifles. 

M1909 "Machine Rifle".  It was a variant of the Hotchkiss machinegun of the period and was acquired by the Army in very low quantities.  Loved by other armies, the Ameican Army hated it.

Just four.

Most men in a Rifle Company were riflemen.  Automatic weapons were issued to special sections.  Most of the infantry, therefore that served along the border with Mexico during the Punitive Expection, just prior to the Great War, was leg infantry, carrying M1903 Springfield rifles, and of generally low rank.  They didn't have much to do with machineguns.

New York National Guardsmen in Texas during the Punitive Expedition.

At that time, an infantry company had about 100 men, commanded by a captain who had a very small staff.  The entire company, for that matter, had an economy of staff.  Most of the men were privates, almost all of which were riflemen, and most of whose direct authority figure, if you will, was a corporal. There were few sergeants in the company, and those who were there were pretty powerful men, in context.  There were some men around with special skills as well, such as buglers, farriers, and cooks.  Cooks were a specialty and the cook was an NCO himself, showing how important he was.  Even infantry had a small number of horses for officers and potentially for messengers, which is why there were farriers.  And automatic weapons had started to show up, but not as weapons assigned to the company itself, and not in large numbers.

Running up to the war, however, the Army started to make massive changes in organization in order to contemplate largescale warfare in France. Those changes went down to the squad level.  By the time the US committed to the Great War, an infantry platoon was composed of four sections comprised of grenadiers (hand grenades), rifle grenadiers, riflemen, and automatic riflemen. This organization is confusing to those familiar with later developments, as it resembled the later squad, on a much larger organizational scale.  The basic organization was as follows:

4 Rifle Platoons per Company (1 Officer and 58 Enlisted each) 

1 ​Platoon Headquarters

  • 1× Platoon Commander, Lieutenant, armed with 1 pistol/revolver and no rifle, except in reality, he often carried a rifle.

  • 1× Platoon Sergeant, Sergeant, armed with 1 M1903/M1917 rifle and 1 pistol or revolver and no rifle, except. . . . 

  • 4× Runners, Private, armed with 1 M1903/M1917 rifle, theoretically, but often armed with a M1911.
     

​1 Hand Bomber (Grenadier) Section.  Yes, a section of grenadiers.

  • 3× Hand Bomber Teams of:

    • 1× Team Leader, Corporal (2 teams) or Private First Class (1 team), armed with 1 M1903/M1917 rifle and, for Corporal team leaders, 1 pistol/revolver

    • 1× Thrower, Private First Class, armed with 1 M1903/M1917 rifle and 1 pistol/revolver

    • 1× Scout, Private, armed with 1 M1903/M1917 rifle

    • 1× Ammo Man, Private, armed with 1 M1903/M1917 rifle

​1× Rifle Grenadier Section

  • 3× Rifle Grenadier Teams of:

    • 1× Team Leader, Corporal (2 teams) or Private First Class (1 team), armed with 1 M1903/M1917 rifle, 1 VB grenade launcher and, for Corporal team leaders, 1 pistol/revolver

    • 1× Gunner, Private First Class, armed with 1 M1903/M1917 rifle and VB grenade launcher

    • 1× Ammo Man, Private, armed with 1 M1903/M1917 rifle

​1× Automatic Rifle Section

  • 1× Section Leader, Sergeant, armed with 1 M1903/M1917 rifle and 1 pistol/revolver

  • 2× Automatic Rifle Squads of:

    • 1× Squad Leader, Corporal, armed with 1 M1903/M1917 rifle and 1 pistol/revolver

    • 2× Automatic Riflemen [B], Private First Class, armed with 1 M1915 Chauchat automatic rifle [C] and 1 pistol/revolver each

    • 4× Ammo Man, Private, armed with 1 M1903/M1917 rifle each

1× Rifle Section

  • 1× Section Leader, Sergeant, armed with 1 M1903/M1917 rifle

  • 2× Rifle Squads of:

    • 1× Squad Leader, Corporal, armed with 1 M1903/M1917 rifle

    • 7× Riflemen, Private First Class (3 men) or Private (4 men), armed with 1 M1903/M1917 rifle each

If that's a bit confusing, and outside of our normal experiences in this area, the weapons used may be more so.  But to note, this large maneuver element was busted up and deployed as needed, but nowhere near on the downscale that we now find.

Going into the war, the US had two good fully automatic weapons, and one so/so one.

 Model 1904 Maxim .30-06 machine guns in use by U.S. cavalrymen.  Note that these cavalrymen also carry M1911 pistols.  The cavalryman pointing is wearing a holster for the M1911 that was unique to cavalry, as it swiveled.  The machine gun crewmen are wearing the general issue M1911 holster.

The first true machine gun used by the U.S. Army was John Browning's M1895.  Manufactured in a variety of calibers and sold worldwide, in U.S. use it started off in .30-40 and in 6mm Navy Lee.  In spite of the fact that the Army never officially adopted them, they showed up in use more often than a person might suppose as National Guard units often simply bought them, in a variety of calibers.  During the Spanish American War two were given as gifts to the 1st U.S. Volunteer Cavalry by family members of the unit, although oddly those were in 7x57, the cartridge used by Spain.  The unofficial nature of this use in Army hands (Navy and Marine Corps use was official) meant that the gun was still in use in various units as late as 1917 when the United States entered World War one.

 

Machine gun troop in Mexico.

The M1895 was not a bad gun, but it was a very early gun, and it was clearly a pioneering, and therefore not fully satisfactory, weapon.   It was delicate and prone to stoppages.  The experience of the Spanish Civil War showed that another weapon would have to be found, as its operational rate fared poorly in comparison with the obsolete Gatlings.

 

Schematic of the Colt-Browing, "Potato Digger"

Fortunately, there was a ready alternative to the M1895 available, that being the Maxim gun.

 

M1904 Maxim in use in Texas in 1911.

The Maxim gun was a heavy machine gun designed by American-born Hiram Maxim.  A visionary weapon, Maxim first introduced the gun in 1886, shortly after he had relocated to the United Kingdom.  The heavy recoil operated gun would set the standard for heavy machine guns, a position which to some degree it still occupied.  Maxim's gun came right at the end of the black powder era and because of the nature of its design it was suitable for any of the then existing cartridges as well as the smokeless cartridges that were just being invented.  Indeed, the gun was so adaptable that some of the larger variants of it were really automatic cannons due to the virtue of their size.

The Army started testing the Maxim relatively early on, but it was slow to adopt it, perhaps in part as the Army had a hard time figuring out exactly how to deploy machine guns at first.  Indeed, nearly every Army had difficulty in this department.  In 1904, however, the Army adopted the Maxim as the Army's first machine gun.  Production, however, was slow, with initial production taking place in the UK for weapons chambered in .30-03 and remaining production undertaken by Colt.  Only 287 of the guns were made, but as the picture above shows, they were deployed along the border and they were very good guns.  They were also extremely heavy, both because of the heavy weight of the action and because the gun was water cooled. For an introductory weapon, it was excellent, but the Army had already adopted a replacement by the time of the Punitive Expedition.

In the meantime, the Army was also experimenting with light machine guns and adopted a true light machinegun by 1909, as the M1909..

 U.S. Troops firing the M1909 Benét–Mercié machine gun, a variant of the Hotchkiss light machine gun.

The entire story of the M1909 is an odd one, as the gun itself is a legendary weapon, one of the Hotchkiss machine guns. The Hotchkiss machine guns saw service around the globe and were generally well liked by most armies. The U.S. Army ended up not liking the gun.  All in all, the M1909 acquired a bad reputation in the U.S. Army during the Punitive Expedition, even though reports of its use really don't support that feeling, and it was a better gun than the one that would go on to be used in the same role during World War One.

The US was also using the Lewis Gun, a truly excellent light machinegun, for the time, leading up to World War One.

The Lewis Gun was introduced by its designer around 1911 and received some use early on.  Unfortunately for the Army, it seems that a dislike on the part of the chief of the Army of the inventor kept it from being adopted by the U.S. Army for a light machine gun, a decision that would have consequences during World War One.  Given the nature of the times, however, the gun was picked up privately by at least one small National Guard unit that was funded heavily by a member, in an era when that sort of thing was still not uncommon.  But Guard units did not cross the border, they only guarded it, during the Punitive Expedition.  The gun would see heavy use by the British during World War One and on into World War Two, and by the U.S. Navy and Marine Corps, but not by the Army during the Great War, even though it was showing up in the Army prior to that.

Marine training with Lewis Gun

Indeed, during the Great War, the Army was armed with the Chauchat, which was a disaster.

The Chauchat was a French designed automatic rifle, not a light machinegun. Designed to be used automatically as its infantryman moved forward, it was supposed to sweep away enemy opposition in front of it.  This was a common concept for automatic rifles at the time, and wholly unrealistic.

U.S. infantrymen training with Chauchat's in 1919 at Ft. Custer, South Dakota.

It's apologist claim that the American .30-06 version of the Chauchat was badly made, and its opponents claim that they all were, but anyway a person looks at it, the jam prone Chauchat was so bad that American infantrymen commonly dropped it and simply picked up a rifle in combat.  Therefore, whatever the TO&E showed, it was providing little support to anyone, no matter how deployed.  

The American solder on the left is equipped with the terrible Chauchat Mle 1918

Backing the infantry up, however, were  British and French heavy machine guns.  By the end of the war native designs had been adopted by the US in the form of the M1917 heavy machine gun, a Browning design, and the M1918 Browning Automatic Rifle.

Val Browning firing an example of his father's M1917 machinegun.

In the late stages of the Great War the M1918 Browning Automatic Rifle, which became the standard light machinegun of the U.S. Army for the next forty plus years.  As its name indicates, it was, however, designed as an automatic rifle, not a light machinegun.  Highly mechanically reliable, however, and not as heavy as the Lewis Gun, it was fairly modern at the time it was adopted, and naturally kept on as the post-war light machinegun for the infantry and cavalry, with the cavalry having its own version termed a "machine rifle".





After the First World War, the Army, based on its experiences in the war and its greater appreciation of what automatic weapons mean, revised the infantry platoon significant and created the infantry squad. At this point, the squad starts to become quite recognizable, smaller and backed up by a light machinegun in the form of hte BAR.  In the cavalry it was similiar, except the cavalry had its own BAR version, which was termined a "machine rifle".

After the First World War, the Army, based on its experiences in the war and its greater appreciation of what automatic weapons meant, revised the infantry platoon significant and created the infantry squad. At this point, the squad starts to become quite recognizable.    By World War Two, the Army's infantry squad looked like this:



When properly constituted, it was led by a Sergeant (E4 at the time, equivalent to the modern Specialist or Corporal in grade), with an assistant squad leader who was a Corporal. Everyone else was a private of some sort. The two NCOs and the riflemen were all armed with M1 Garands.  The Scouts were supposed to be armed with M1903 bolt actions, but were often armed with M1 Garands.  The Automatic Rifleman carried a BAR.

In the Marine Corps, however, the wartime organization developed into a different configuration.  Marine Corps squads were split in half, and two BARs were issued.

In both the Marines and the Army BARs were often stripped of their bipods and used as automatic rifles by default.  This was frankly less than an ideal situation, and it meant that while the US was fortunate to have a weapon that other nations did not, a functioning automatic rifle, it meant they lacked a more important one, a good light machinegun.  A couple of efforts were made to address it, some minor, and one major, influenced by the interwar German development of the General Purpose Machine Gun.

The Germans had never been impressed with the automatic rifle and never bothered with them.  During World War One, they fielded a really heavy light machinegun based on the Maxim 08 and ultimately pioneered the very late war development of the submachinegun.  German infantrymen were backed up by a heavy Maxim.

By Oberfeldarzt Dr. Paul Calwer - Persönlicher Nachlass (abfotografiert vom Originalabzug), CC BY-SA 4.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=80920917

Between the wars, the Germans went to a nine man squad consisting of nine men and one squad leader.  One of the nine men was a machine gunner issued a MG34, or later on a MG42, belt fed weapons that could act as heavy light machineguns or mobile medium guns.  The concept was revolutionary.  All the other men in the squad supported the machine gunner.

By Bundesarchiv, Bild 101I-204-1727-18 / Grah / CC-BY-SA 3.0, CC BY-SA 3.0 de, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=5476452

Everyone facing the Germans was generally impressed with the MG34 and the MG42, even if they didn't adopt the same squad organization.  The US took a run at duplicating the concept, however, with the M1919A6 machinegun, which was simply the M1919 with a bipod and a stock.  It wasn't great, but it was better than nothing.   And for a mediocre weapon, it had a pretty long run.

M1919A6 in the 1950s.

What all of this means is that the Army infantry squad of World War Two had one BAR or one M1919A6, and everybody else carried a rifle. The Marine Corps squad started off that way, but by the end of the war, it had two BAR men.

By the Korean War, the Army squad had been reduced to nine men, something that had been contemplated during World War Two.   The war caught the Army off guard, and frankly in a state of neglect by Congress, which had not anticipated future conventional wars occurring. Work was occurring on new weapons, but with vast amounts of weapons left over from the Second World War, this had not been occurring with a sense of urgency.

The Korean War squad, therefore, was sort of a make do affair, but it very clearly pointed the direction that things were headed in. The nine man squad was busted into two subsquads, each of which had one BAR.

After the Korean War, the Army bizarrely increased the size of the squad again, something that developments in World War Two and Korea had pointed against.   The squad was increased to eleven men, rivaling its World War Two size.  It was a bad trend.  Be that as it may, in the mid 1950s, that eleven men squad was eleven riflemen, armed with M1 Garands, and one BAR man or one man armed with a M1919A6.

Selective fire M1 Garand

In the late stages of the Second World War, the Army was experimenting with new squad automatic weapons.  One concept was for a selective fire M1 Garand to replace the BAR in the upcoming invasion of Japan. That was a bad idea that the early end of the war prevented from being introduced.  A better idea was a weapon designed as a GPMG.

M60.  I have some personal expeience with carrying these around.

The Army oddly determined to base its design on the FG42, not the MG42, and introduced an experimental model as early as 1944.  With work on the 7.62 NATO progressing, the design was complete by the late 1950s and in 1957 the new GMPG was introduced as the M60.  Oddly, however, the Army took an extremely conservative approach and determined to also introduce a new light machinegun, the M15, based on the M14 action.



The M15 proved to be an immediate disaster.  It had all the defects of the BAR, including a bottom feeding 20 round magazine, with none of its virtues. The M14 was a great rifle, but it was a lousy machinegun, and the M15 proved to be a failure almost as soon as it was introduced.  Not willing to give up on the concept, the Army reengineered the M14 again for a second attempt, with the M14E2 being the result, the E indicating that the weapon was not yet standardized.



The M14E2 was deployed to Vietnam, but it simply didn't work in its intended role. In the Marine Corps, the decision was to keep the BAR in its existing role, the Marines being big fans of the BAR in the first place.  In the Army, the M14E2 was withdrawn and the M60 simply filled the gap at first, just as the original GPMGs had. 

Early on, the Army in Vietnam went to a fire team approach based on its big squad.  Each squad had two fire teams, and each fire team had a fire team leader, a grenadier armed with a M79 grenade launcher, and an "automatic rifleman" armed with an M60, an assistant gunner. The balance of the squad was made up of three infantrymen who were not permanently assigned.  With the introduction of the M16, an attempt was made to assign one rifleman in each fire team as an automatic rifleman, equipped with a bipod for his M16, but it was an absurd idea.  For the most part, whether the fire team was armed with M14s or M16s, the M60 was the squad automatic weapon.



In the late 1970s, the Army and Marine Corps adopted the M240, which was a legendary Belgian GPMG often called the MAG.  It's a great weapon, but its adoption was wholly unnecessary, as there was nothing wrong with the M60.  The M240, for all its virgues, is a massively bulky weapon and with teh earlier introduction of the M16 it came to be the case that the squad now was carrying longarms that used two different types of ammunition.

Efforts to come up with an effective 5.56 light machingun had been going on since the Vietnam War, and indeed the Navy had deployed one in the form of the Stoner 63 designed by, yes of course, Eugene Stoner.  Work continued after the war, and by the late 1970s the Belgian Minimi had pulled ahead and was ultimately adopted by the US as the M249.

U.S. Navy Seal with a Stoner 63.

And that has been the situation ever since.

Today, the squad is made up as depicted above. The squad automatic weapons are M249s.  No matter what people want to call them, they're machineguns, not "automatic rifles". That's just a bit of talk recalling an earlier era.  U.S. infantrymen have not carried an automatic rifle since the BAR was finally phased out of the National Guard in the late 1970s.


So, what's wrong with that?

Well, the 5.56.

The 5.56 just won't reach out and everybody knows it. That's why the M240 and indeed the M60 are still around. When a real machinegun is required, it's going to be the M240 or the M60. The M240 is issued at the platoon level, so there's not one far away.

With the introduction of the new 6.8 round, a new machinegun for the "automatic rifleman" role is an absolute must.  Riflemen can't be carrying a longer range weapon than their supporting automatic weapon.  And the new SIG design is a good one.

Oddly, however, the M240 will be retained, and for that there's no need.  It ought to go.

And then there's the Marine Corps.

As we've noted, the Marines aren't adopting the 6.8, at leat yet.

And they are dumping the M249.

Their current rifle, the M27, was originally designed to be a true automatic rifle, so by adopting it, the Marines originally intended to take a giant leap backwards towards the BAR.

Which was a mistake.

But it's what they did, replacing the M4 carbine and the M249 with the M27, placing them in a situation which really hasn't existed, in a way, since before World War One.

They do retain the M240.  But they're also openly holding out to adopt SIG's .338 MG 338, a GPMG that shoots the .338 Win Mag.

True, it will really reach out there, but . . . .

Prior and related threads: