Backwards MG ammo - a simple question of weight ratios

[Vanir Ausf B]

About the 70 lb thing, I don't know about the typical infantry man, but special forces units routinely carry loads of over 100 lbs when on extended patrol. And they carry them for days on end.

For example, here is a snippet from Andy McNab's Bravo Two Zero talking about his squad's preperation for its insertion into Iraq during Desert Storm:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Besides the tactical considerations behind equal weight distribution, people want and expect equal loads, whether they're 5'2" or 6'3". We have a scale that weighs up to 200 lb, and it showed that we were carrying 154 lbs per man in our bergens and belt kit. On top of that we had a 5-gallon jerrican of water each--another 40 lb. We carried our NBC kit and cache rations, which weighed yet another 15 lb, in two sandbags that we tied together to form saddlebags that could go around our necks or over our shoulders. The total weight per man was therefore 209 lbs, the weight of a 15-stone man...

...Belt kit consists of ammunition and basic survival requisites--water, food, and trauma care equipment, plus personal goodies. For this op we would also take TACBEs in our belt kit, plus cam netting to provide cover if we couldn't find any natural, and digging tools to unearth the cables if necessary...

The best method of moving the equipment proved to be a shuttle service in two groups of four, with four giving the protection, four doing the humping, and then changing around. It was hard work, and I didn't look forward to the 12 mile tab that first night--or maybe two--from the heli drop off to the MSR...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Of course, special ops guys tend to be in very good shape, but the fact remains that a grown man in good condition can carry way more than 70 lbs for considerable distances. He just can't do it quickly.

[JonS]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Vanir Ausf B:

Of course, special ops guys tend to be in very good shape, but the fact remains that a grown man in good condition can carry way more than 70 lbs for considerable distances. He just can't do it quickly.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

They also tend to work in special ways, ways impractical for large bodies of men on or near a continuous FEBA.

Also, we all know what happened to that overloaded patrol, right?

McNabs' RSM advised him to either take vehicles or to lighten the loads, but he wouldn't listen.

[Vanir Ausf B]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JonS:

They also tend to work in special ways, ways impractical for large bodies of men on or near a continuous FEBA.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

But we're not talking about "large bodies of men on or near a continuous FEBA". We're talking about 6 men (MG-42 crew) moving perhaps a few hundered meters (at most) during a typical CM game.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Also, we all know what happened to that overloaded patrol, right?

McNabs' RSM advised him to either take vehicles or to lighten the loads, but he wouldn't listen.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Their problems had little to do with their loads and a lot to do with their radios not working.

Irrelevant anyway, as the point is that they did carry those loads.

[ 08-29-2001: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]

[ASL Veteran]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by tero:

I count only 5 men in the HMG team. IIRC there are 6 men in the HMG team in CM. Which is the historically correct number, 5 by your source or 6 by CM modelling ?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Unless the author's background on the jackets of all his books is a fabrication, then Alex Buchner was a company commander in a German Mountain Division during WW2. I think he would be a trustworthy source for the size of an MG42 crew. You may have noticed that all independent MG crews in CMBO have 6 men for all nations. I'm sure the crew size is an abstraction/convenience. The actual size of a German Infantry Company Command Group would be 10 men not 6 as another example (and yes, I can list them all and their duties as well) - yet all company command groups for all nations in CMBO are 6. No big deal really. I would just hesitate to compare CMBO crew sizes to a published author's listed crew size.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> I make a German HMG section consisted of 2 guns + 12 men (section leader, horse cart driver, 2 gun leaders and 8 gunners). Divide that by two you get 6 men per gun.

Approximation based on an abstraction ? Should the MG42 HMG sold only in pairs (as would be the appropriate OOB) or separate ? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I believe the sixth man in the German HMG crew in CMBO is representative of the crowd noise generated from all the spectators to my PBEM matches. Either that, or the sixth man is in reality one of the horses from the cart. This would then explain the ammo carried by the team, as a horse could carry a great deal of ammo in packs.

[JonS]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Vanir Ausf B:

But we're not talking about "large bodies of men on or near a continuous FEBA". We're talking about 6 men (MG-42 crew) ...[ 08-29-2001: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oh, for goodness sakes! Are you really trying to say that MG teams are completely independant entities, who have no relationship with the batalion around them? That they do not move with, eat with and take orders from the batalion they are co-located with?

When I said "large bodies of men" I was refering to the organisation within which the MG teams work. If you are prepared to say that an MG team isn't part of a large body of men then you must also believe that armies as a whole aren't large bodies of men, but rather small groups, running around with their insignificant 100lb loads, ingnoring everyone, and everything, else around them.

SAS (and other special forces) patrols are on the order of 4-8 men, can be days away from friendly forces, move slowly by conscious choice, answer to the theatre commander, and generally try to avoid contact with the enemy. Of that list I would suggest that none of them apply to MG teams.

[ 08-30-2001: Message edited by: JonS ]

[Vanir Ausf B]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JonS:

Oh, for goodness sakes! Are you really trying to say that MG teams are completely independant entities, who have no relationship with the batalion around them? That they do not move with, eat with and take orders from the batalion... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

What on EARTH are you talking about?

Of course they are part of a larger organsization. What does that have to do with them not being able to grab 100 lbs of ammo and move 50m away to the west? All this babel about eating and sleeping with the battalion has nothing to do with this issue. The whole battalion is not moving 50m to the west. They will still be part of the battalion after they move.

The whole purpose of the SAS example was to show that from a physical standpoint, this can be done. Anything else you have read into it is a product of your own imagination. If the example bothers you that much, go back and reread Marlows weight breakdown on the previous page. He is talking about regular grunts there, which kinda shoots down your whole "its spec ops so it doesn't count" arguement.

[ 08-30-2001: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]

[JasonC]

Vanir continues his "people unclear on the concept" review. He asked -

"How do can you say the MG-42 gets its higher FP per shot for free when the FP per shot rating was half of the equation?"

Simple. Unit A gets 50 fp and 4 shots. Unit B gets 100 fp and 2 shots. Either has a cumulative fp of 200. Does this mean they are equally valuable to their owners in combat? It does not. It means -if- they both get off all of their shots then they will average the same total effect, but in the first case that effect will be spread over a longer time.

The 100x2 unit only needs to get off 2 shots, not 4. It may also shoot more exposed targets on average by picking its shots, if both have enough firing opportunities to use the higher ammo total.

The 100x2 unit suppresses units more deeply, because all of its suppressive effect occurs in a shorter period of time, and recovery from suppression is time dependent.

Cumulative fp is one important measure of the effectiveness of an MG. But higher fp per unit time is an additional benefit. Other things being equal, 100 fp 60 times will be more effective in combat than 50 fp 120 times. It is more likely to get off all 60, or most of them, than the other is to get off all 120 shots. It is more likely to permenantly break its targets and will do so sooner. The casualties it causes will be "front-loaded", reducing the time the men hit had to fire back.

Better fp per unit time is an asset above and beyond cumulative fp. Higher fp ratings are thus a "twofer", compared to merely higher ammo levels. FP gives higher cumulative fp, as higher ammo does. It also has the other advantages mentioned.

The different HMG teams provide about the same level of cumulative fp per point spent (though the M1919 is much lower, and historically much more common). But that does not make their costs equal for the combat power received. The HMG-42 is the bargain of the two, because it gives up essentially nothing in ammoxfp per point (within 5%), and gets something in fp/time per point (26% higher), in return.

[ 08-30-2001: Message edited by: JasonC ]

[JasonC]

Nobody seems to have paid any attention to my direct quote from one of the guys that was there, that what they actually humped in WW II was 60 lbs of stuff, counting clothes, pack, helmet, e-tool, etc.

Nobody accepted my challenge to line up all the ducks, and apply their weight guesses to all the other teams, not just their favorite band of pack mule ubermenschen, the HMG-42 teammembers.

So I will. Now we have people saying "of course ordinary infantrymen can carry 100 lbs, piece of cake". Then they will not object to every US MMG team carrying 100 lbs per man. Generously allowing 50 lbs for the supposed "basic combat load" in people's pet inventories (which I personally think quite a silly figure), that leaves 250 lbs left in the team to carry their gun and its ammo. Which means 209 lbs of ammo. Which means 3500 rounds of 30-06. So, every US MMG deserves 140 ammo points, rather like an M3 halftrack gets.

Next I move on to the US 60mm mortar team. Same amount of excess weight available, 208 lbs for shells after the 42 lb mortar. They deserve 67 rounds, ~60 HE and 7 smoke. Dial it in boys. Next, the bazooka team. 100 lbs "left" for the weapon and ammo. The weapon is 15 lbs. The rounds are 3.5 lbs each. So each zook team deserves 24 rounds. Oh, the airborne 3-man MMG. 150 lbs, 41 for the gun, leaves 109 lbs of ammo, or 1800 rounds. That'll be 72 shots please - I'll settle for 70.

So all we have to do to keep the HMG-42 ammo the way it is by merely assuming everyone being able to carry more allows them that many rounds, even after a ROF adjustment to their ammo use, is to increase the ammo of everything else 2 to 3 times. All those screaming "of course they can carry 100 lbs, perfectly ordinary", please chime in with your support for these upward revisions in ammo for everything else. I await with baited breath, to see if you actually believe anything you are saying.

Even with considerably lighter loads than the HMG-42 members are supposedly carrying, because their MG and its ammo alone comes to 61 lbs per man, if you leave them all 95 shots. Not 50 lbs as in the cases above.

[ 08-30-2001: Message edited by: JasonC ]

[Marlow]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JasonC:

Nobody seems to have paid any attention to my direct quote from one of the guys that was there, that what they actually humped in WW II was 60 lbs of stuff, counting clothes, pack, helmet, e-tool, etc.

Nobody accepted my challenge to line up all the ducks, and apply their weight guesses to all the other teams, not just their favorite band of pack mule ubermenschen, the HMG-42 teammembers.

So I will. Now we have people saying "of course ordinary infantrymen can carry 100 lbs, piece of cake". Then they will not object to every US MMG team carrying 100 lbs per man. Generously allowing 50 lbs for the supposed "basic combat load" in people's pet inventories (which I personally think quite a silly figure).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Very nice. Presented with facts, you attack. Pet inventory indeed. Why don't you provide, based on facts an alternative. There were very few items on my list that are not standard fare for an infantryman. You can maybe trim 10 pounds off the list for the total march load, but it will still be way over 70 lbs.

In any event, my whole post has nothing to do with your machinegun crusade, and while it really is not a big deal to me, I tend to agree that the MG 42 has too much ammo. I was only attempting to show that your "70 pound" limit is a myth. Nice in theory, but does not stand up to the actual weight of all the things a soldier needs, nor does it stand up to scrutiny when real world combat loads are examined. Again, this is for modern riflemen, but the issues is not WWII vs. modern, but what is the load a soldier can carry.

As far as the 60 lbs that the WWII vet quoted. Maybe he is right, but your own approximations of what various peices of equipment weighed was low as well. You underestimated what a M 16 with basic ammo load weighed by 20%. Additionally, he was a rifleman. Part of an infantry squad, that in the game moves fast, and has good endurance. We would expect that the load for a rifle squad member would be significantly lower than that of a MG crew. So if his load approached 60 - 70 lbs, how much would a MG crewman be carrying?

[Pak40]

Jason,

In your quest to "line up all the ducks", I'm going to ask you one simple question, and I'd like you to answer it. There is only one right answer to this question, so pay attention. Here it is:

Is it impossible for a soldier to carry 80 pounds of equipment?

[MoatnGator]

AAAAARRRRRRRGGGGGGG !!!!!!!!!!!

Enough bickering !!!! Throw away your damn field manuals and stories. There were many different types of loads. These ranged from over 70+ lb loads carried when moving to base camps to light loads for recon. You would not take your ruck with you when assualting an objective so the whole idea of weight is useless.

YOu would carry ammo, and plenty of it. We had several people whose rucks were over 100 lbs. You ever carry the radio for an infantry squad over 12 miles. How about the M60 with full loads and a ruck with supplies to last two weeks in the field.

Grunts carry more than 70+ most of the time and you people who bicker back and forth about 10 lb differences have no clue to reality. Relaity is that your leader throws 600 rounds of 60 ammo to a rifleman and says put that in your ruck. That is not in your field manuals.

**********

Thanks for the coffee threads...they were a much needed laugh amidst all this bickering

************

[JasonC]

"I was only attempting to show that your "70 pound" limit is a myth."

Then your reaction to the actual figure presented by a vet, who was moreover carrying ~400 rounds more than a basic rifleman's load, is a rather weak "maybe so". Some myth; it is only supported by what the men actually carried, as opposed to what peacetime quartermasters dream they might.

The vet in question was carrying ~25 lbs of extra ammo for the BAR and says his total weight was 60 lbs. That leaves 35 lbs for his own kit, including weapon. His personal weapon, ammo belt, and grenades come to 15 lbs more, leaving just 20 lbs of sundries, not 50. Which incidentally and just as a cross-check on the amount of gear it is, is about the weight of sundries men carry on 15 mile road marches when they want to make the distance in 4 hours, in training. It is a light enough load to actual try carrying into combat.

Now, what I have said before about realistic weights for MG and mortar men, the explicit question you asked, is that they could hit the 70 lb limit without carrying extra gear for the larger unit, whereas riflemen typically are under that limit by 15-25 lbs, then use some of that room to carry extra ammo, items needed by the platoon, etc. This vets account fits that perfectly. 15 lbs of personal weapons left room for ~25 lbs of added ammo, in his case.

So, a realistic amount for MG and mortarmen is on the order of 40 lbs. More than that they will move slowly, encumbered. That much they may only achieve medium speed. Less than that they may move rapidly. Some team members are also carrying personal weapons, though some don't (gunners) and some use light loads (carbines, less ammo, few or no grenades). Thus I'd expect ~33 lbs or so to characterize medium speed. I see the upper limit around 50, because that puts the weight with sundries at the 70 lb limit without counting personal weapons, etc. And men with only 15-20 lbs of personal weapons to carry have excess capacity, which means they can carry the extras a squad needs or ditch them as the occasion requires. Those I'd expect to show fast speed.

Let's compare these suppositions of mine with the way CM lays out the speed categories, ignoring the HMG-42 team and the question of its ammo load. A US rifle 44 squad has fast speed. What are the weights carried for the weapons? 9 M-1s and ammo belts for them, a 20-lb BAR and its mags, 1 SMG and its mags, 4 grenades per man except the BAR and his AG with 2, extra BAR ammo for the AG - comes to what? About 250 lbs, or a little over 20 lbs per man. Fast speed, check.

A German Pz Gdr squad with 2 LMG, 1 MP40, 3 MP44 and 4 K-98 has 51 MGs+9 1 spare barrel each+9 MP40 + 10 for 7 mags for it + 30 for 3 MP44 + 42 for 7 mags each + 36 for the K98s and + 21 for 90 rounds each plus 4 grenades for 6 men and 2 for the other 4 (MGs and their AGs), gives 24 lbs each not counting MG ammo.

If they get 40 shots each the MG ammo could easily add 15 lbs per man. Seriously pushing it for fast speed, with so many automatics. At 30 lbs a man for weapons and ammo, you'd have only 60 lbs of MG ammo or ~800 rounds. At 35 lbs per man you'd have 110 lbs of it or enough for 30 CM shot from each LMG. I suggest 35, with 30 shots only for squads that are pure automatics. Along with fast speed, it is generous.

For comparison consider the vanilla rifle 44 squad with 1 LMG, 2 MP40, and 6 K98. The weapon weight before MG ammo is 192 lbs or 21 each. It would rise to 30 lbs with enough MG ammo for 40 shots. A much more realistic weight for fast speed. Is there a reason so many units had total MGs below the 2 per squad ideal TOE, including evidence the FJ had no more than the regular Heer infantry in that respect? Sure looks like it. The vehicle mounted units could haul the LMGs and ammo to the battlefield, but the foot-sloggers probably found 1 LMG per squad could burn through all the MG ammo they could easily maneuver with, in combat.

US bazooka team, 2 men, 15 lb zook, 8x3.5lb rounds, is 21.5 lbs per man. Add personal weapons and you are above 25 and get a borderline "fast", check. But notice, the weight per man is below what the 2 LMG German infantry is really carrying.

US 60mm mortar team, 5 men, 42 lb mortar, 30 rounds HE 3 lbs each and 3 rounds of 4lb WP smoke, that is 144 lbs, or 29 lbs per man. On the low side of for medium. They might manage 1/3 to 1/2 more ammo and still keep medium speed. Guess what? The airborne 60mm added has the extra ammo, and it was a common field mod to use just 2 mortars with more ammo each instead of 3.

US MMG team with my recommended 90 CM shots is 35 lbs per man. With the CM default 65 it is only 27.7 lbs per man, more like a borderline fast than a medium figure.

The German schreck weighs 25 lbs and its rounds 7 lb each, for 60 lbs of weapons, 30 lb per man. It gets borderline fast speed, but tires more quickly than any other "fast" unit in the game.

The German LMG team with 25 shots would weigh 25.5 for the gun, 4.4 for one extra barrel, plus 625 rounds would come to 38 lbs per man, medium speed, but a bit on the heavy side for that. Might get a bit of a break on that weight by a lot of the ammo being just belted instead of boxed, or from skipping the spare barrel.

Now those are faster squads and team, and they fit a pattern of fast movement for weapon weights in the 20s, medium for weight weights in the 30s. When we move up to the slow teams the weight of the weapons alone rises, obviously. How far?

The Vickers weighs 93 lbs with its tripod, and 125 shots at 25 per is 3125 rounds, or about 188 lbs of ammo. That is 47 lbs per man. Personal weapons will bump that somewhat, but there isn't a lot of room left for them.

An 81mm mortar weighs 136 lbs and its 27 CM rounds weigh 189 lbs more. That gives the heaviest weight, 54 lbs each. So this and the Vickers bracket the 50 lb per man level. Which, in case everybody forgot, gave 74 shots at 40 bullets per ammo point, and is the basis of my 75 ammo recommendation for the HMG-42. Personally, I think ~20 rounds HE and a few smoke would be more realistic for the 81mm.

What about the particularly slow US 50 cal? The gun weighs 128 lbs, and 25 rounds of its ammo weigh about 5 lbs. The total weight at 40 shots is thus 328, or 55 per man, as high as the 81mm mortar. 35 ammo might frankly be more realistic here.

My 75 shot recommendation for the HMG-42 is midway between the weight carried by a 50 cal team and that carried by a Vickers or HMG-1917 team at the default ammo levels. What reason is there to expect it to be different? At 95 shots, it is 30% more weight per man for the weapons and ammo than in a slow Vickers team.

Because they ate their wheaties or something? The obvious reason is because the higher ROF is being counted twice effectively, with 25 round ammo points and 40 rounds worth of fp rating. With spare barrels and that ammo, the load per man is close to that for the Vickers, while well over that for the medium speed MMGs and mortars, with their 30s per man weapons and ammo weight. The reason they are supposedly carrying 61 lbs per man (before their personal weapons, let alone their packs and sundries) is because the ammo portion of the weight has shrunk by 0.625 times. 40 rounds bursts weigh what 25 rounds bursts do. Or 25 round weights shoot like 40 round bursts.

Why this simple and obvious fact is not admitted is by now clear enough. It is simply resented and the change not desired for reasons having precious little to do with competing hypotheses about combat weights, and the "free" portion available for weapon loads within them.

I'd guess the real reasons are three-pronged: (1) anything default was directly written by the finger of God on Mt. Sinai, (2) anything that helps German units is "realistic", (3) I want my ROF two-fers because they fit the way I've learned to "game" the existing costs and capabilities.

Conspicuously not among them is "HMG-42 teams really ought to carry far more weight than Vickers HMG teams because historically they ate their wheaties" or whatever it is supposed to be.

[JasonC]

No it is not impossible for a soldier to carry 80 lbs of equipment. Now, please answer my question about the proper number of shots of an US MMG team.

Do you suggest it is say 80 lbs of weapons and ammo? Or perhaps 60 lbs. The former would mean 6000 rounds and the latter 4300 rounds of ammo boxed. Or 170-240 CM shots. The level carried by halftracked vehicles.

For the third time, kindly answer my simple question (I address every one of yours, so far you've dodged every one of mine) - how many CM shots for the 5 man MMG and why?

[JasonC]

Fine MoatnGator, engage then and answer the question - how many CM shots do you think a US 5 man MMG team should have, and why?

Incidentally, I think your example of "carry these 600 rounds" is perfectly in keeping with what I've been saying all along. Which is that ordinary riflemen, having excess weigh carrying capacity, get assigned to carry 15-25 lbs of extra ammo for heavy weapons. Just like my actual vet, quoted and not referred to by you, carried ~500 rounds for the BAR and MMGs. Incidentally he did not say he carried 100 lbs, but 60, counting those extras. The rest was left outright or carried by vehicles.

Not in a jungle in SE asia, and not in a training camp road march in peacetime. In the war we are discussing, WW II, in Europe, with a road net. He was there. He says "we carried 60 lbs", and that included such extras as 2 bandoliers of 30 cal ammo and an ammo box for the BAR.

Also, I challenge those advancing the 100 lbs theories to give me URL for photographic evidence of those loads being carried by infantrymen in combat in WW II. I know paras did on drops, and men did in amphib ops like D-day, with no rear area supply yet in either case.

Show me an ordinary infantrymen going into action from WW II, ordinary ops with rear areas in existence etc - with 100 lbs of equipment identifiably strapped to his body. You can't. They flat didn't.

[Marlow]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JasonC:

"I was only attempting to show that your "70 pound" limit is a myth."

Then your reaction to the actual figure presented by a vet, who was moreover carrying ~400 rounds more than a basic rifleman's load, is a rather weak "maybe so". Some myth; it is only supported by what the men actually carried, as opposed to what peacetime quartermasters dream they might.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Please. Peacetime or not, I've carried over 100 lbs in the field for prolonged periods of time. Is it fun? certainly not. I well know the feeling of shouldering a ruck and thinking "how in the hell am I going to carry this thing." But guess what? we did. No myth, just experience. Also, you fail to address my "facts" that in Desert storm and Panama, loads in excess of 100 lbs were carried into combat. Please stop using only the facts that suit you purpose.

Also, you are constantly underestimating weight. For the M 16 you said 12 lbs for rifle and basic ammo load, instead of the accurate figure of 15. Now you say 15 lbs for an M1, ammo, and grenades. The M1 weighs 11 lbs, grenades a pound apiece, and the ammo somewhere around 7 lbs for 100 rounds. So, again you are more than 20% off.

[JasonC]

An M-1 weighs 11 lbs loaded, not empty, and the basic load was not 100 rounds, only 64 plus the ones in the gun, and the rounds are lighter than modern 7.62mm. They commonly carried only 2 frags. That is well within your 20%; at most it might be 2 lbs over.

Please provide me photos of infantrymen going into combat during WW II, not in an airdrop or amphib invasion but ordinary operations with rear areas etc, carrying 100 lbs or more in identifiable equipment.

I've seen thousands of photos of WW II infantry in action, all sides, and I almost never see such loads (except air drops and amphib invasions, as mentioned). The men are often entirely without packs, often carrying 1-2 small rucks slung as low as the hip (occasionally 2-3 of them), plus their helmets, canteens and e-tools, web gear, a handful of items hanging off them, and their weapons and ammo. They are rarely if ever wearing large frame packs as big as themselves (you see those at replacement depots full of fresh meat, men getting off trains, and the like - in transit rather than in action in other words - that is about it). In combat, some of them look like they are carrying barely half the 70 lbs figure.

I am still waiting for even one, just one blessed advocate of 100 lb loads as ordinary schtick, to tell me what ammo loads he recommends for typical weapon teams *besides* the HMG-42. Especially the relatively large and relatively light US medium weapons teams, the MMG-1919 and the 60mm mortar. I want a count in rounds or in CM shots, please. If you believe what you are saying, why won't you provide such estimates?

[Pak40]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JasonC:

No it is not impossible for a soldier to carry 80 lbs of equipment. ?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thank you. Now we both agree it is possible for a German HMG team to carry 61 pounds of equipment per person.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JasonC:

For the third time, kindly answer my simple question (I address every one of yours, so far you've dodged every one of mine) - how many CM shots for the 5 man MMG and why?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The ammo for US .30mg and both mortars are just fine the way they are. I never said that they sould be raised to higher levels. Why do you think that every team must have the same weight levels? Can't you accept the fact that some soldiers had greater burdens than other soldiers??? The U.S. Paratrooper had to carry over twice the amount of equipment as a regular infantry. The German MG team had to carry a few more pounds than other infantry/teams. WHY CAN'T YOU ACCEPT THIS FACT? Are you truly this stubborn?

[Pak40]

And another thing. The ammo levels for MG teams and infantry are infinite in CM. Why don't you complain about that while you're at it.

[MoatnGator]

I really don't know enough about WWII too remark to what loads are appropriate. I mention what I can to let people know how things really work in infantry squads and what physical limitations they are exposed to.

As far as limitless ammo, I'd say somone said that this was a result of scrounging for ammo. I like that idea, but stil want them to be able to pick up the weapons and extra ammo off the dead

[Andreas]

Maybe this whole discussion could be quickly knocked on the head if someone could provide the standard ammo load-out according to regulations for the various nations, and any evidence as to whether they regularly deveated from that in the field?

Just a thought.

[Marlow]

Jason, have you even been reading what I have been saying? If you look at my first post:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>While I happen to agree with your basic premise that an MG 42 should go through ammo faster than other MGs because of its rate of fire, I have to disagree with your 70 lb weight limit. It depends on what you mean by "in combat." If you are refering to actions under enemy fire I agree that extra weight (i.e. rucksack) is dumped. But, poor Joe rifleman commonly carries a lot more than that. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I simply find your "70 pound limit" to be false. Of course soldiers drop a significant part of their junk when the bullets start flying, but please don't tell me that 70 lbs is all that a grunt can practically hump, because you are flat out wrong.

As far as photo evidence goes, most pictures are not of guys on road marches. As stated above, the packs get dropped when it gets hot. One that I have seen recently is of troops headed down the road in the Ardennes. At least a few of them have large humps on their backs under their snow camo.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

An M-1 weighs 11 lbs loaded, not empty, and the basic load was not 100 rounds, only 64 plus the ones in the gun, and the rounds are lighter than modern 7.62mm. They commonly carried only 2 frags. That is well within your 20%; at most it might be 2 lbs over.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

OK, so if the basic load for the M1 (being the amount that soldiers actually carried, rather than some "peacetime quartermasters" estimate, why do you have a problem with the current ammo numbers for a U.S. rifle squad (64 rounds) compared to a German SMG squad (210 rounds standard). Well, maybe the REAL standard ammo load for the U.S. rifleman was just a little more than 64 rounds you mention. In any event, I only used the 100 rounds at 7 lbs as an estimate.

BTW, why would 30.06 weigh less than 7.62? Just curious.

[ 08-30-2001: Message edited by: Marlow ]

[JasonC]

So, 61 lbs should be considered perfectly normal for the weight of a weapons team, right? So, various Allied teams ought to have the following ammo loads -

bazooka - 30 rounds

MMG - 175 shots

60mm - 85 rounds

Vickers - 180 rounds

But perhaps it is reasonable to allow the slightly faster ones to carry a whopping 15 lbs less. "Answer me this - surely a man carrying 15 lbs less is less encumbered than one carrying 80 lbs, isn't he?" (Sauce for the goose). So they can have -

MMG - 125 shots and medium

60mm - 60 rounds and medium

And surely a man carrying 25 lbs less would be downright fast, wouldn't he? (2 LMG squads with 40 shots are.) So -

Zook - 16 rounds and fast

US rifle 44 squad - 70 shots and fast

Pak40 wonders, why can't some soldiers carry more than others? To which my answer is, why are all of the soliders carrying so much more than others, German? And using automatic weapons? And using weapons with the highest rates of fire? Is it pure coincidence?

I have already told you why I think that is. It is simple - CM uses an abstract ammo system for infantry type fire that did not correct ammo in shots for the rate of fire, while CM firepower numbers fully reflect higher rates of fire. This has led to an exploitable distortion in CM infantry-fire units.

To wit, wherever a unit has higher ROF infantry-style weapons, it gets a "twofer". Not only does it fire faster, it magically fires more bullets. Mystery multiplying bullets.

When this is pointed out, the partisans of ruthless exploitation of this purely design artifact, insist that the magical mystery multiplying bullets are purely a function of the magical mystery uber-mule nature of the units in question. Who just happen to carry vastly more weight than anybody else, thus more ammo - solely in order to justify this magic "twofer" for ROF.

Why stop there, I wonder? Why not insist that actually, all automatic weapon bullets were guided MIRVs, and hit 40 men each? It would only differ in degree, not in kind, from the 50% or so higher ammo loads presently awarded anyone using higher ROF weapons.

[JasonC]

30-06 M2 ball is a smaller, 152 grain bullet than the full sized, 180 grain NATO 7.62x51mm. The whole cartridge weighs 22.4 grams instead of 27 grams for the 180 grain bullet size. The higher velocity the round achieves (from being lighter - the charge was originally developed for a 174 grain bullet) about makes up for the lighter weight in muzzle energy (M.E.) terms, leaving the 152 grain M2 round with 97% of the M.E. of the German 7.92x57mm (German dimensions). While it weighs only 5/6th as much, in full cartridge terms. It was found to shoot better in the M-1, with a less sharp recoil. Doesn't carry quite as far as a full weight round, it is true, but it is a marginal difference. It is still a true rifle round by any measure, with 3600 Joules of M.E. (vs. 3700 J for the German 7.92 out of the MG or K98, and 1500 J from the shorter MP44 round). I already provided a link that discusses the history of the round. The M2 ball round was officially adopted in 1940. An slightly heavier, 168 grain armor piercing version was also used during the war, especially by and against aircraft. But the overwhelming majority of 30-06 used in the war was M2 ball. You can still buy it today.

[Pak40]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JasonC:

So, 61 lbs should be considered perfectly normal for the weight of a weapons team, right? So, various Allied teams ought to have the following ammo loads -

bazooka - 30 rounds

MMG - 175 shots

60mm - 85 rounds

Vickers - 180 rounds

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, I NEVER said that 61 pounds was perfecly normal. I only PROOVED that it is, was, and always will be POSSIBLE for a soldier to carry 61 pounds of equipment. Why do you keep altering what I've said? Is it a lack of comprehnsion on your part?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Pak40 wonders, why can't some soldiers carry more than others? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I didn't wonder, I PROOVED that some soldiers do carry more.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

To which my answer is, why are all of the soliders carrying so much more than others, German? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oh, I'm sorry, did I forget to mention that U.S. Paratroopers carry well over 60 pounds?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

And using automatic weapons? And using weapons with the highest rates of fire? Is it pure coincidence? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Maybe it's because the German Army relied heavily upon automatic weapons (mainly the MG42), so they ensured that these units had plenty of ammo. Did this thought ever cross your mind? Also, the MG42 HMG was mostly a defensive weapon (especially after D-Day) and didn't need to move much once set up.

[Pak40]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Germanboy:

Maybe this whole discussion could be quickly knocked on the head if someone could provide the standard ammo load-out according to regulations for the various nations, and any evidence as to whether they regularly deveated from that in the field.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Good point. The only source I have that states how much ammo units were issued is the HANDBOOK OF GERMAN MILITARY FORCES, which Jason will probably regard as incorrect because it was published by the U.S Army. Forget the fact that much of the info in this book came from German prisoners, captured weapons, and German documents.

(this is from memory because I don't have the book in front of me)

The handbook lists the German HMG as having over 6000 rounds of ammo issued to it. And, no, this does not include company, battalion, or divisional reserves, those are listed separately.

it also lists the LMG has having over 3000 rounds or over 1200 rounds. The 3000 figure is probably the MG42 as part of a squad where the extra ammo was carried by other members of the squad.