Jump to content

US infantry ammo load


Recommended Posts

Originally posted by btm:

I don't want to get in the middle of this happy, stupid, little flame war, but I wanted to make a few corrections:

1) The M1918A2 Browning Automatic Rifle used the same ammunition as the M1 Garand, M1903 Springfield, et. al., this being .30-'06, typically M2 ball.

2) Loads for the British .303 are usually slightly less powerful than loads for the U.S. .30-'06. For a real comparison, you would need to compare specific loads, such as M2 Ball or M118 Ball versus a specific .303 load.

Yeah You are right....I made an error with the BAR. Unfortunatly I am unaware of the .303 brit coming in at a load less that 174gr..thats a ball round. The .30-'06 comes in a varity of loads but the standard M-2 ball is 150gr. I don't know if the .303 has a less powerfull load than the .30-'06. The .303 round is bigger but not by much. The .300 series is what separates them. They both still move at more than 2300 fps and have 2300 ftlbs of power. They are comparable at most distance up to 500 yards...

PS I think this all got started over our initial posts...sorry man...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 223
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Originally posted by Dinsdale:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Yes Dinsdale, I know I covered that in a topic somewere above...Its alot of reading,,,sorry.

You touch on it and then continue to make blanket statement that US Marksmen are better.

As a whole, no they were not. Compare specifically Marine marksmen vs Others, and you may get a different result. </font>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

USMC 150m short of the PPCLI

"The U.S. magazine says the Canadian snipers from the Edmonton-based 3rd Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry battle group surpassed their U.S. counterparts, adding "Canuck snipers supposedly had the highest number of confirmed kills in the Shah-i-Kot Valley fight. "A source in Kandahar working with the Canadian sniper teams estimated 'well over 20 confirmed kills at long ranges.'"

The magazine, known for its war-zone reporting, also said there were unconfirmed, but widely circulated reports, of a "2,400-metre kill [chest shot] against the driver of an enemy resupply truck" by a Canadian using a .50 BMG McMillan Long Range Sniper Weapon (LRSW). It said the record for the longest shot by a military sniper in action was 2,250 metres by gunnery Sgt. Carlos Hathcock, USMC, near Duc Pho, South Vietnam, in 1967 with a Browning .50 HMG mounting an eight-power Unertl telescopic sight. The magazine details how a three-man team of Canadian snipers went into the battle of Shah-i-Kot during Operation Anaconda alongside U.S. units, including the 101st Airborne's 3rd Brigade "Rakkasans." "When the American grunts became pinned down, the three Canadians and three accompanying U.S. Army Special Forces shooters armed with M24 Remingtons went to work. "Moving to a vantage point, they began picking off al-Qaeda fighters engaging the 101st infantrymen. For more than an hour they fought it out with heavily dug-in al-Qaeda fighters." The magazine, which interviewed one of the snipers back at his base in Edmonton, said the Canadians attached to the 101st, "received a bit of a culture shock seeing the wealth of gear and support the U.S. Army receives, in contrast to the Canadian Army. They also experienced the U.S. infantryman's unique Hooah attitude and esprit." It said the Canadian skills were well-known. Canadian snipers had won top honours at the U.S. Army Sniper School's first international sniping competition at Fort Benning, Georgia. Canadian snipers learn their skills in the Sniper Cell of the Combat Training Centre's Infantry School at CFB Gagetown in New Brunswick, according to the magazine."

'nuff said

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even Canadian reservists put US reservists in their shadow on occasion.

http://www.calgaryhighlanders.com/161.htm

Opportunities to train with each other have been discussed for many years, and finally became a reality beginning in 2002, when 54 Calgary Highlanders under Commanding Officer Lieutenant Colonel Lee Villiger took part in a training weekend in Yakima, Washington with the 161st (Infantry Regiment, Washington Army National Guard). The Calgary Highlanders ... participated in the US Army Expert Infantry Badge 12 mile speed march ( a distance of 19.3 kilometres). The march was timed, and the fifteen top times were claimed by the Calgary Highlanders, who received specially minted coins from Lieutenant Colonel Levendoski, Commanding Officer of the 1st of the 161st. The US CO also expressed wonder at the fastest time, by Corporal Mike Kotuk, of just two hours and 6 minutes. The Highlanders completed the march carrying an average of 22 kilograms of equipment. Master Corporal Kurtis Sanheim and Captain Kyle Clapperton finished second and third.
Not that this current day pissing match does anything but prove the bankruptcy of Volkov's ideas regarding WW II marskmanship.

Let today's episode of "America the Beautiful" recommence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Very Good Article,

I do remember hearing of this while I was in country. But It really couldn't be subtantianted. Sounded good enough to us though. I have no problem with the Canadian Army, just a problem with "buffs" people who play war. I worked with Canadian Troops during MOUT Exercises and I was very impressed. Not one of them spouted the garbage I saw before. I have also worked with the UK's Royal Marines, I have tremendous respect for both nations militaries, I have no respect with those who have not been to the other side, but can resite P.O.S articles and books. I perticuarly enjoy the UK Sniper Rifle, I belive its a .338 round? Nice weight, and good balance, very good action. The points tring to be made were not about SNIPERS though, just the individual soldiers. Heck one of the best snipers in WW2 was a Women in the Soviet Army! Does that mean ALL women are flawless shooters?

I believe that all members were argueing thier own pointless points....(if that makes any sense) Sort of a dog tring to catch its own tail.

BOTTOM LINE.....CM does not account for Web Gear OR Individual ammo load...In my mind that was a minor oversight,,,BUT WE ALL HAVE TO LIVE WITH IT.

And to Michael Dorosh, sorry if I offended you, you make good points and some (I think) bad ones as do I. But I get a little Fired up when someone who doesn't share my experiances and who isn't from my country makes, what I perceive as innacurate statements, about my countryman and their accomplishments and especailly about our beliefs as warriors. Most US veteran would share in my vigor. I mean no disrespect to Canada either....You guys make great beer and I am an avid,AVID hockey player....

[ May 14, 2004, 01:40 PM: Message edited by: Volkov ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

Even Canadian reservists put US reservists in their shadow on occasion.

Geez,, the Boy Scouts of America put US reservists in thier shadow all the time.....The only differnce in the Boy Scout and the US Army Reserve is that the Scouts don't have tanks!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Volkov:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

Even Canadian reservists put US reservists in their shadow on occasion.

Geez,, the Boy Scouts of America put US reservists in thier shadow all the time.....The only differnce in the Boy Scout and the US Army Reserve is that the Scouts don't have tanks! </font>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Sarge Saunders:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Volkov:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

Even Canadian reservists put US reservists in their shadow on occasion.

Geez,, the Boy Scouts of America put US reservists in thier shadow all the time.....The only differnce in the Boy Scout and the US Army Reserve is that the Scouts don't have tanks! </font>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because Most American's Know there is a-lot of missdirection in that assasination. Nothing adds up.....was it, Cuba, Johnson, the CIA, hmmmm...from the book depository, grassy knoll, sewer drain...hmmmm?????

If you want to know about infamous former Marine shooters then look up the one about the University of Texas Sniper Charles Whitman...than ask that question....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

just a problem with "buffs" people who play war. I worked with Canadian Troops during MOUT Exercises and I was very impressed. Not one of them spouted the garbage I saw before.I have also worked with the UK's Royal Marines, I have tremendous respect for both nations militaries, I have no respect with those who have not been to the other side, but can resite P.O.S articles and books.
I'm sorry, but is this directed at me?

If it is, (or even if it isn't, specifically) then I'd just like to make a few points.

I'm not trying to say that any branch of the US military was bad or incapable, but that I don't believe that they had an inherent marksmanship superiority at that time (WWII) in that place (ETO, Specifically NA and Italy).

The article I quoted may disagree with your views, but that doesn't make it incorrect. In fact, as you keep telling me to talk to veterans, that is exactly what I did. Rather than talk to them now - I can't, don't have that resource - I look at what they said then. It isn't some Stephen Ambrose book, waving the flag for the greatest generation, nor is it some revisionist claptrap trying to do the US down. It is a pamphlet containing tips, tricks and observations from soldier fighting the war, published while they were fighting it. The series can be found here

Perhaps you could tell us why you believe other armies were inferior marksmen, and how this might be apparent?

My point is this: There is no evidence that soldiers of the US army were better marksmen than everyone else in the given location and time frame. Therefore, I don't believe that such a thing should be modelled, which you suggested.

You also claim the US logistics meant that they always had and could carry more ammo then anyone else. Can you back this up, or are we to take your word on it as a soldier 40 (?) years removed from the events? The latter course is not a particularly good way to go about historical research, if I may be so bold.

I perticuarly enjoy the UK Sniper Rifle, I belive its a .338 round?
There's two types in service. One is 7.62 NATO and the other, the long range rifle, is .338.

Since we're on the subject, and this is clearly an area where you have direct experience, were you able to use the SA80? If so which version, and what did you think of it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok fine! The US Soldiers we untrained, non straight shooting, starving, gaggle of rats that only carried 80 rounds and were always overrun. And every other troop in the world at that time was a far better shot, better feed, and carried more kit. This is what you want to here so what else can I say. You need to do better research on the US military. AGAIN I SAY READ

"A Soldiers Load and the Mobility of a Nation" The ammo load out is in there. I don't know how to put it any other way. Look at picture of US Soldier in that time the proof is there too. On average they carried more ammo and were better equipt. Havn't you ever seen a pic of a US troop on prior to 6/6/44? or a US Marine on any D-Day 1942-1945. If someone never gets out of there house I could never prove to them that the sun is a shade of yellow. And I am no longer going to arguee this....Me and Dorosh already made up....WTF!

Oh and BTW the BUFF statement is a blanket one, They know who they are.

The 7.62 NATO and .338 are the same round. The 7.62 NATO is the .30 caliber family, NATO uses this desigantion to avoid confussion. Just like Jet Fuel "A" or JP-5/8 is called F-44. The .338 is the civilian mesurement. That is why you see 7.62x51, 7.62x58, 7.62x39,,,,they are all in the .30 caliber familiy. The other one is 5.56,,this is the .22 caliber family,,Which included the M-16 series, and the current Brit weapon which is an SA series I think. The little bullpup. No I can not recall firing the SA-80, but I have fired alot of other weapons. I am not to kean on the magazine being fixed in the rear....and anything the fires a 5.56 rd is good enough in my book even for a glorified .22 caliber round thats hoped up on some good street crack.

[ May 16, 2004, 12:42 AM: Message edited by: Volkov ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok fine! The US Soldiers we untrained, non straight shooting, starving, gaggle of rats that only carried 80 rounds and were always overrun. And every other troop in the world at that time was a far better shot, better feed, and carried more kit. This is what you want to here so what else can I say. You need to do better research on the US military. AGAIN I SAY READ

"A Soldiers Load and the Mobility of a Nation" The ammo load out is in there. I don't know how to put it any other way. Look at picture of US Soldier in that time the proof is there too. On average they carried more ammo and were better equipt. Havn't you ever seen a pic of a US troop on prior to 6/6/44? or a US Marine on any D-Day 1942-1945. If someone never gets out of there house I could never prove to them that the sun is a shade of yellow. And I am no longer going to arguee this....Me and Dorosh already made up....WTF!

There are two issues here

The first is ammo load.

I am not disputing the amount of ammo carried by US soldiers. I would like to see some data on how much ammo was typically carried by soldiers of other nations so that we can make a fair comparison. I would also like to know the rationale behind squad ammo allocations in CM.

Second is the US marksmanship are better.

I'm not saying that US marksmanship is worse than everyone else, but I also don't think that US marksmanship is better than everyone elses. I think that military marksmanship was largely equal across all well trained armies involved in the conflict. I also understand that there were problems with replacement training in the ETO.

As an aside, 7.62 NATO is 7.62x51mm. It is a specific full-power rifle round derived from the .308 winchester. This means that a specific round is standardised across the NATO member countries. 5.56mm NATO is 5.56 x 45mm, derived from .223 Remington, although this is currently the SS109, which is heavily modified, although sharing the same dimensions. The current British rifle is the SA80, now in its A2 variant, also known as the L85.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ah, re-reading your post, you didn't say what I thought you did (I thought you said all 7.62 could be referred to as 7.62 NATO, regardless of case length. Doh!) My apologies for being a pedantic and, in this case, an unnecessary so-and-so. I got distracted by the monstrous error of calling .338 a 7.62mm round. redface.gif

As for the rest - I'm not too keen on backing down and can be pretty persistant. It's nothing personal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Volkov:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Big Jim:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Volkov:

US marksman ARE better.

Now I don't know who to believe. The article in Signal said German troops were the most accurate... tongue.gif </font>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oops! Yeah about that 7.62 to .338 stuff...that was a big blunder,,,,I was thinking of the 30/338 Lupa mag, which is in the high end of the .30 cal family. Still have .31 call and 8mm before I get to .338....doh! I was to hot to be thinking right.....What's this 8.6mmx70 lupa? I have only heard of 8.15 x46R is it a 8mm/06? or some custom round?

[ May 16, 2004, 01:01 AM: Message edited by: Volkov ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey Big Jim,,,here's a tip for you go f yourself......That fight was concluded some time ago....Here's another one,,,,instead of always going to libraries try getting to a battlefield,, that's were you will find the pride I speak of....and another thing,,,here's a re-work of your snappy little saying,,,,Amateurs study, Professionals make it happen...I wasn't aware that my spelling was being graded...you obviously got the gist of the body,,,so again, go f off

Link to comment
Share on other sites

lol - what a resoundingly well reasoned position. I think if you swear at a few more people you'll be able to convince folk that you aren't just talking out a hole, and that pride really does have something to do with shooting ability, and that ergo marines are the best shooters ever. Or sumfink.

lol.

* wanders off, shaking head *

[ May 16, 2004, 01:17 AM: Message edited by: JonS ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Volkov:

Oops! Yeah about that 7.62 to .338 stuff...that was a big blunder,,,,I was thinking of the 30/338 Lupa mag, which is in the high end of the .30 cal family. Still have .31 call and 8mm before I get to .338....doh! I was to hot to be thinking right.....What's this 8.6mmx70 lupa? I have only heard of 8.15 x46R is it a 8mm/06? or some custom round?

Have a look at the link posted by John Salt. That contains all the info you're looking for.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...