US infantry ammo load

[flamingknives]

It seems to me that this is too high: Semi auto weapons must chew through ammunition faster than any bolt-action. They have a higher FP rating, which, since they use a similar round to everyone else, must mean more shots down range. Therefore, each 'shot' should take more ammo. Do the Yanks really carry that much more ammo than everyone else?

BFC fix or do somefink.

[btm]

The short answer is yes, the U.S. G.I. did carry more ammo than his counterparts from other nations.

Typical ammo loadout for a U.S. rifleman included:

10 x 8round en-bloc clips in M1923 Cartridge Belt

1 or 2 x 5 x 8round en-bloc clips in cloth bandolier(s)

And in general, the U.S. infantryman was better supplied and more likely to be carrying a full ammo loadout than infantrymen from other nations.

[Volkov]

Yes they did (and do). In WW2 the standard load in the M-1938 web belt was 80 rounds, BUT each man would carry as many bandoliers as he could. Average was about 4. Each bandolier carried about 8 additional 8rd .30-06 stripper clips. If my math is right that is about 266rds.

Today we carry a standard of 180rds, BUT that's teh minimums. The bandolier concept still carries today. 2-4 bandoliers that hold 4 ,30 rd magazines. Thats about 600 to 1080 rds per man. But we have all carried more...somtimes an entire box of 5.56 in your pack....Water and Ammo,,Water and Ammo is the name of the game.

[Andrew H.]

Remember that the squad ammo loadout is pooled, and thus also includes ammo for the squad lmg - the slightly higher rof for the garand vs. the kar 98 is dwarfed by the much higher rof of the mg 42 vs. the BAR. For a good example of this, look at the russian recon squads with no lmg and an ammo loadout of something like 60 or 65 (I forget exactly). It's not that these guys carry so much more ammo, it's that they expend so much less because they have no fully automatic weapons.

Ideally, of course, ammo would be tracked for each weapon type, so that long-range lmg bursts would not deplete the ammo available to the riflemen, who are presumably not firing. Or so that long-range rifle fire would not deplete the ammo available for smg'ers. But this will have to wait for CM2. (Where, I hope, there will also be some sort of SOP for how often troops fire - i.e., agressive (shoot at anything you can possibly hurt); normal (only fire at targets when you are reasonably certain that the fire will be effective); and conservative (where you wait until you see the whites of their eyes and then just use the bayonet).

But to address the main point - I think that the differences in the ammo loadout have much more to do with the type of lmg the squad has than whether their rifles are full or semi-auto.

[flamingknives]

You'd need to compare a US rifle squad with a British Engineer squad for ammo loadout to compare LMGs etc.

The point is that M1 has more firepower than a Lee-Enfield, but has the same or greater ammo load. People say that US soldiers carry more ammo, but were Commonwealth infantrymen unable to carry as much?

LMG fire not taking rifle ammo isn't necessarily correct, as in most armies they use the same ammo. It's the use of SMG ammo by LMGs that should be addressed.

[Volkov]

Not saying that the UK or anyone for that matter were unable to carry more ammo but the load out for US Soldiers and Marines was dictated by how much could be produced and proliferated. The enfiled rifles although more powerful (but not much more, .303 to 30-.06) only came in 5 rds strippers (as did most WW2 Infantry Weapons) The bandoliers for the .303 britsh has 6 pockets of 2(5) rds stippers,,the UK ammo is heavier than the US. The enfield rifle has more capacity with a 10 rds detachable box magizine, you either replaced the mag (heavier) or loaded the ammo through the top of the breach when the bolt was back(again like most ww2 infantry small arms.) The M-1 only has 8rds in a internal, ejectable clip that's load through the top.

As far as LMGs, The M-1918 BAR is not an LMG, it is a SAW or squad automatic rifle. It fires a .308 caliber round and is not interchangable with the M-1 Garand. The US LMG was the M-1919 series and it fired the .308 as well.

I am unaware of LMG and SMG ammo being the same. Being that most if not all SMGs fire pistol caliber rounds the 2 most prominante are the 9mm para and the .45 cal. The Soviets at the end of the war came up with the 7.62x39 which if fired from the AK and SKS series of weapons. It was one of the best advancements in small arms ever. Even they used interchangable ammo in thier rifles and LMG, MMGs. The 7.62x57R. The oldest "bullet and brass" cartrige still used today.

Hedges is right in stating that CM does not acuratly address the ammo load outs. And I see how flamingknives has an ache with pooling ammo when it includeds LMGs and SMGs. Maybe in CM2 this would be corrected. I liked how it was done in the Steel Panthers series, each weapon system had its own ammo load and the LMG could run out and the squad could still fight with their rifles and pistols.

[Volkov]

As far as individual soldier loads, try to get a copy of "A Soldiers Load and the Mobility of a Nation" Very well written and not to long.

[flamingknives]

I am unaware of LMG and SMG ammo being the same.

That's my point - CM doesn't currently model this which is a real headache when you have a pure SMG/LMG squad, like late war German Volksgrenediers.

So a British Bandolier has 30 rounds per bandolier, which adds to web gear of 50 rounds. Significantly, the Lee-Enfield, despite having the fastest action of any bolt-action rifle in service still can't fire (hence using up ammo) as fast as the M1

[Volkov]

Yeah that Volksgrenediers squad always gives me a headache....again I wish it was more like Steel Panthers in that respect

The bandolier has 60 rds not 30. Two 5 rds strippers per pocket. But yes There is no way its ROF is more. BUT another point that the game doesn't accuratly portray is the US Soldier and Marines basic marksmanship abilities and fire disipline. I guess that would be tougher to model for the game engine though.

[Phantom Captain]

Originally posted by Volkov:

The enfiled rifles although more powerful (but not much more, .303 to 30-.06) only came in 5 rds strippers (as did most WW2 Infantry Weapons)

Not sure if this is true. I have always been under the impression that the .30-06 was substantially more powerful than .303. I'm trying to find the ballistics of each but without the actual grain weight of the bullets used at the time it's kind of pointless.

[flamingknives]

Originally posted by Volkov:

Yeah that Volksgrenediers squad always gives me a headache....again I wish it was more like Steel Panthers in that respect

The bandolier has 60 rds not 30. Two 5 rds strippers per pocket. But yes There is no way its ROF is more. BUT another point that the game doesn't accuratly portray is the US Soldier and Marines basic marksmanship abilities and fire disipline. I guess that would be tougher to model for the game engine though.

Yes, good point, my arithmatic is somewhat worse than it should be.

"US soldier's basic marksmanship and fire discipline"? How is this different to anyone else's?

[Volkov]

US Military personnel (especially the Marines) have always recieved estensive marksmanship training. They learn the science behind it. They also have and had to requal every year. For instance the USMC has been shooting at 500yards w/o the aid of optics since the M-1903 in the early 1900's.

As far as the 30-.06 and the .303 brit goes..I'll save you some research time...I own both the M-1 Garand and a No.4 Enfield. The standard military load was 150gr for the M-1 and about 170gr for the .303 brit. I am also an avid hunter and shooter. The 30-.06 has better balistics all around BUT the .303 is a heavier round that possesses MUCH knockdown power..They have almost the same FPS and muzzle velocity but a .303 travling the same distance will stop with much more kinetic energy...but the trade off is greater bullet drop,,so the 30-06 will have a straighter tragectory...I use 30-06 to hunt and match shoot with,,,but most snipers like the .308 caliber,,,and thats another story....I will continue with this later. I have to run out...I have the balistics at home in my log book..I used to re-load all my own brass too...

[flamingknives]

US Military personnel (especially the Marines) have always recieved estensive marksmanship training. They learn the science behind it. They also have and had to requal every year. For instance the USMC has been shooting at 500yards w/o the aid of optics since the M-1903 in the early 1900's.

Err, newsflash: so did everyone else. The Lee-Enfield, AIUI, is sighted out to almost a mile. That's 1600m with a leaf sight. It was used to devastating effect in WWI in the initial battles around Mons.

In addition, there is a world of difference between shooting at a target and shooting at enemy soldiers, who shoot back. Then you have to take into account that the vast majority of soldiers fighting in WWII were conscripted, and very much removed from the 'peace-time' professional soldiers. Some of the US soldiers fighting on the front line in Europe had only handled their weapons in Basic, and in some cases hadn't handled anything other than their personal rifle. SMGs, BARs, MGs and Bazookas were only encountered on the front line.

So how should the marksmanship of green US troops in Tunisia be superior to that of the well trained and battle-hardened Wehrmacht or 8th army?

[Volkov]

Err Newsflash.....I know all to well about shooting and getting shot at. I do not sit around and armchair quarterback.....And wonder what if....Its obvious you have never sat the KD range or a professional school of Infantry. Don't blanket WW2 with the ETO either, there were a few other theaters. Oh an BTW the US, UK and allies did win right? I guess their aim was pretty dead on when it came down to it....No matter what battles they lost,,,US troops were sent to staging areas in the rear were thier training continued before he was sent to the line. And you can bet that every Infantryman knew the weapon systems that he was supposed to know. Newsflash...talk to a US veteran.

As far as the 1 mile sight in w/ leaf sights,,were did you get that info? I am interested in reading up on that. Being that the aveage human eye can not accuratly zero in on a human target at that distance w/o aid of optics. Oh yeah and especially when you have to arc the weapon to line the sites up. Those leaf sites are on early to mid 1900's rifles. They are completely useless and only effective in a highly skilled marksman that can factor in some "Kentucky Windage". May be you should try it out for yourself.....Don't listen to me I only used to do this for a living what the heck do I know........

[Volkov]

Oh gee,, I am sorry, I thought engaging your target at 1600m IS the same a target shooting,,But I guess not, Are you going to tell me next that the ones recieving that fire were vollying back at 1600m standing and advancing? I must admit I have not read of this battle but I can not imagine that it would be difficult to hit a target thats massed ,in line and advancing in the open at any distance. I make this determination based on WW1 tactics.(if thats what you can call them)What was the size of the unit? Regiment(+)?

Here's another tid bit, most infantry combat takes place usually no more than 300m. That is why military sights are set to 300m as standard (BZO or battle sight zero) And again, If you have ever been to a professioanl school of infantry you would know this(yes even in WW2 this stands true, agian just ask a vet) Hence the small size of todays cartidges. The main lesson is speed and accuracy. Being able to engage you target quickly and killing it then moving on to the rest, usually you have about 1-3 seconds to seek out, judge range, aim, and fire and recover.

To answer your "battle hardened German Waffen or 8th Army" question, while the US did blunder in the begining stages of North Africa due to incompetance in leadership and logistics, THEY WERE WINNING in the Jungles of Guadalcanal against a much more "battle hardened" enemy that hadn't lost a ground war in 2500 years, around the same time, (Aug 7, 1942-December 1942). And that was through superior marksmanship and training. Read up on that battle. Than re-ask your question...

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by btm:

And in general, the U.S. infantryman was better supplied and more likely to be carrying a full ammo loadout than infantrymen from other nations.

You have to be kidding.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by flamingknives:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />US Military personnel (especially the Marines) have always recieved estensive marksmanship training. They learn the science behind it. They also have and had to requal every year. For instance the USMC has been shooting at 500yards w/o the aid of optics since the M-1903 in the early 1900's.

Err, newsflash: so did everyone else. The Lee-Enfield, AIUI, is sighted out to almost a mile. That's 1600m with a leaf sight. It was used to devastating effect in WWI in the initial battles around Mons.

In addition, there is a world of difference between shooting at a target and shooting at enemy soldiers, who shoot back. Then you have to take into account that the vast majority of soldiers fighting in WWII were conscripted, and very much removed from the 'peace-time' professional soldiers. Some of the US soldiers fighting on the front line in Europe had only handled their weapons in Basic, and in some cases hadn't handled anything other than their personal rifle. SMGs, BARs, MGs and Bazookas were only encountered on the front line.

So how should the marksmanship of green US troops in Tunisia be superior to that of the well trained and battle-hardened Wehrmacht or 8th army? </font>

[Sergei]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

Somehow, though, I doubt marksmanship mattered much, so the effect it had on battle was probably negligible.

Oh yeah, well if it was negligible, then how come USA won the war?

[Pud]

Originally posted by Sergei:

Oh yeah, well if it was negligible, then how come USA won the war?

"Sits down with a beer, waiting for the fireworks to start"

[flamingknives]

. Don't blanket WW2 with the ETO either, there were a few other theaters.

But being as we're talking about CMAK, and therefore troops in the ETO, what have other theatres have to do with it?

Oh an BTW the US, UK and allies did win right? I guess their aim was pretty dead on when it came down to it...

You do know that the significant proportion of battlefield casualties wasn't caused by small arms fire, much less infantry rifle fire.

From "Combat lessons" a series of pamphlets distributed to US forces in WWII:

"Colonel Harry B. Shermatl, Commanding

Oficer -th Infantry, ITALY: “We have a hard time getting

riflemen to we their rifles; they depend on the artillery

and other supporting weapons too much."

I've yet to see anything to convince me that US marksmanship was in any way different to German or Commonwealth marksmanship, or does your modern experience also tell you exactly how these armies trained?

[Big Jim]

The Enfield had to be recocked or whatever between shots, whereas the Garand could fire eight shots without taking the sights away from the target. This may have had some effect, but I'd just want to get a few shots off and get my head down if I were a grunt...

As for US marksmanship being better, I seriously doubt. No amount of training can surpass 10 minutes of combat experience, as I'm sure anyone on this forum would agree with.

Would splitting your squads into a LMG and SMG section go someway toward addressing the ammo problem?

[Volkov]

As far as my "modern" experiance goes with marksmanship training...The course I fired on had not changes since 1908. The same priciples exist. The range (even then) exists to teach confidence with the weapon. The close order drill teaches disipline (amongst other things). US marksman ARE better. Especially today. I have more than 10 minutes of combat experiance and my marksmanship DID INDEED help. I spent 9 years in the USMC and I was a 9 time Rifle Expert (qualification). I have "been there" , and every USA and USMC rifleman I have come across in my day (I come from a long line of infantrymen) Have said that thier weapons training was invaluable in combat. JUST ASK A VET!

YES Artillery accounted for some 70% of all casualties in the 20th century. But has to be lifted once it become "proximity close". But you all should know that because of the games you all play......errrr

BTW the standard US WW2 infantryman WAS more better equipt and supplied than any other soldier in that time (even today). Just take a-lot at there web gear, (I think you all call it a kit).

As far as the Steven Ambrose "steriod" comment,,,I gave up steriods years ago......

[Volkov]

Oh, to add an answer about the split squad for volks, It still will divide the ammo load out. Its all pooled and genaric. Its just how it is..unfourtunately...

[Volkov]

Also, aside from military training,,,most US troops of that time were "farm boys" and spent thier entire lives hunting, trapping, and fishing. That's how they feed thier families, and even at times clothed. These men went into the military already knowing how to shoot. Which is still the case for American Kids who join the serivce today. God bless the Second Amendment and Sam Colt.

[Volkov]

Yes live fire exercise were conducted (offensive) in those days. Fire and movement as a platoon and squad were conducted on a regular bases while in rear areas. Training was conducted A LOT when in rear areas. I know that this is a CMAK topic that includeds ETO and I am asked why should other theaters be included, well I ask why is someone including a point about the battle of the Mons in WW1, how does that have any bering on CMAK. He was attemoting to make a point to rebut a statement made by myself. Most everyone are making referance to US soldiers and forget that we fought on many front with significant strength. You can not say US Marksmanship training and include all US services. The USMC marksman training is MUCH different than that of the US Army. Even in WW2. Again I have experianced these ranges first hand. I did not read about it in some book or take it from some quack on a discussion forum. So if you want to make referance to US troops than be specific, irregardless of the CMAK topic. The first question was about US ammo load and it was answered with facts. The US ammo load was standard for all the serivces. For you boys who like to read,,,find "A Soldiers Load and a Mobility of a Nation." I think someone above said

"Amateurs study tactics. Professional soldiers study logistics"