US infantry ammo load

[Spears]

wow

[Spears]

As for some of the comments above, i think any infantry man like i was....YES not a lie Would take every avaible round he could scrap together even us English (u think we never stole ur kit ?!?!?!?!?) So front line infantry i mean the ones fighting(this means ones killing one another) Not u REMF`s, would have as much as one could carry (i never saw combat but if i did i would of took 10 bandaliers with me..FACT!!!

[Spears]

Point being every 1 would of had about the same (reality check).......or defender usaully lots more (cos they wouldnt have to carry it there )

[SgtDuke6216]

Originally posted by Spears:

As for some of the comments above, i think any infantry man like i was....YES not a lie Would take every avaible round he could scrap together even us English (u think we never stole ur kit ?!?!?!?!?) So front line infantry i mean the ones fighting(this means ones killing one another) Not u REMF`s, would have as much as one could carry (i never saw combat but if i did i would of took 10 bandaliers with me..FACT!!!

I had the pleasure of "combat" twice,, and I can remember taking all I could and putting it anywere I could. I also took the 3qt canteen as well...REMF!!! pish!!!,,,

I can also remember a little saying,,,"If you get killed were dividing up your gear"...

[Big Jim]

So the question remains- is the ammo loadout for US troops in CMAK too good, especially considering low German ammo points?

Don't get me wrong, I enjoy playing as the US troops and getting down and dirty with the infantry- and I must admit, I'd rather have Volkov on my side of no-man's land...

You can actually address the problem manually if you feel strongly about it- for QBs, turn ammo percentages down, and in scenarios you can edit ammo loadout for individual units (v. time consuming).

P.S. edited for spelling mistake

[ May 17, 2004, 06:20 AM: Message edited by: Big Jim ]

[Tero]

Originally posted by Big Jim:

So the question remains- is the ammo loadout for US troops in CMAK too good, especially considering low German ammo points?

This begs for a counter guestion: are the Americans too agile in the game compared to the Germans, considering the ammo load out disparity ?

AFAIK all infantry in the game is rated for experience, not LBE weight distribution.

On the excellence of the US supply system: the US army was the only army to loose considerable amount of men to trenchfoot and other related causes as late as the winter of 1944-45. The Germans had learned their lesson in the winter of 1941 and their supply system was able to handle both ammo and clothing resupply in conditions where the US supply system failed (relatively speaking).

I would hesitate to say the US army was a fair weather army but that idea does rear its head.

[Big Jim]

Originally posted by Tero:

Originally posted by Big Jim:

So the question remains- is the ammo loadout for US troops in CMAK too good, especially considering low German ammo points?

This begs for a counter guestion: are the Americans too agile in the game compared to the Germans, considering the ammo load out disparity ?

AFAIK all infantry in the game is rated for experience, not LBE weight distribution.

On the excellence of the US supply system: the US army was the only army to loose considerable amount of men to trenchfoot and other related causes as late as the winter of 1944-45. The Germans had learned their lesson in the winter of 1941 and their supply system was able to handle both ammo and clothing resupply in conditions where the US supply system failed (relatively speaking).

I would hesitate to say the US army was a fair weather army but that idea does rear its head.

The American supply situation wasn't really a shortage of gear though, just in that case of very bad planning- as some of the Brit troops say of the Americans "All the gear and no idea".

Perhaps they may tire quicker with more ammo, but this would affect the balance of the tiredness system which works pretty well in my opinion- I just see the point that they have a hell of a lot of ammo for the pretty high ROF of their weapons. Not as high as the Germans ROF though... I'm just bitter my German troops keep running out of ammo.

It's always more fun to wait until you see the whites of their eyes though.

[Tero]

Originally posted by Big Jim:

The American supply situation wasn't really a shortage of gear though, just in that case of very bad planning-

Agreed. I still find it inexcuseable to sustain needless casualties due to wet clothing as late as the winter of 1944-45 when all the other players had taken heed of the lessons learned elsewhere.

Perhaps they may tire quicker with more ammo, but this would affect the balance of the tiredness system which works pretty well in my opinion-

So we end up with Ami super-infantry with ample/generous load of ammo which they can haul at the same rate as the Germans haul their scarse load ?

I just see the point that they have a hell of a lot of ammo for the pretty high ROF of their weapons. Not as high as the Germans ROF though...

Aimed fire with semi-auto weapons can not be very accurate if you use your ROF to the max.

The M1 and BAR can't beat the MG-42 in ROF now can they.

[Londoner]

Volkov,

So the US military of WW2 was a well oiled efficient fighting machine. Have you even heard of the "repple depples"?

You really need to catch up on your reading. I'd suggest starting with Martin van Creveld's Fighting Power, German and U.S army performance, 1939-1945. ISBN 0-313-23333-0. Its old but still hugely important.

Oh sorry I forgot, books and articles are all "pieces of ****" right?

[Big Jim]

Originally posted by Tero:

[/QB] Aimed fire with semi-auto weapons can not be very accurate if you use your ROF to the max.

The M1 and BAR can't beat the MG-42 in ROF now can they. [/QB]

Very true on the first point!

The M1 and BAR were developed with different ideas in mind however- the Americans were working toward the assault rifle idea (slowly, and perhaps unknowingly(?)), where as the Germans were into kick-ass machine guns. IIRC, the BAR was a WWI weapon and the M1 was shiny and new, and the Germans had developed the first ever GPMG, the MG34, then the MG42.

The MG42 fired something like 1200rpm! :eek: The idea behind pumping out so many bullets being to hit an enemy who was dashing from cover to cover in the short amount of time he was exposed.

I suppose the counterargument to the 'superamis' is that the troops of other nations eg. Germans had to carry ammunition for the squad LMG, so were weighed down equally by that in the same way Americans had their own M1 ammo.

But even so, maybe the point should be that the Germans don't get enough ammo... although a reliable source informs me American soldiers were more accurate.

[btm]

I read Van Creveld's Fighting Power and was unimpressed.

I've also read the recent refutations of Van Creveld and his school of thought:

Closing with the Enemy by Doubler

The G.I. Offensive in Europe by Mansoor

American Soldiers by Kindsvatter

And then there's When the Odds were Even by Bonn, and Draftee Division by Brown.

So don't pretend that Van Creveld's work, or even S.L.A. Marshall's work are universally accepted or even respected.

Needless to say, the debate is not going to resolved anytime soon. I highly doubt that it will be resolved in this forum, at that.

I suspect that the pervasive anti-American tone will persist in "scholarly" and foreign histories for the forseeable future, just as it always has. In fact, such sentiment is hardly the exclusive domain of military history.

On the other hand, there are significant numbers of Americans who still consider the British to be pompous, tea-swilling bums who had to be pried from their crumpets in order to take the fight to the enemy.

[Londoner]

Steady btm, I never said or even suggested it was universally accepted, just that it was important. Volkov on the other hand did suggest that training and leadership for combat infantry units in the US Army was almost universally good after N africa. Sorry btm I just don't buy that, but heck what do I know. Your USMC years give you and your buddys the clarity and wisdom of mind to dismiss respected acadamics such as Van Creveld I guess.

Anti American?? Jesus man a critical look at something means you dislike it? British army infantry training and leadership during WW2 was hardly ideal, so I'm anti British as well?

Crumpet eating, tea-swilling bums? "Significant numbers of Americans" think this? LOL That is so limp, tempting as it is I'll refrain from a response to that sir!

Fair point, I should have and was going to cite Doublers book as a great counter argument. As you say the debate is on-going. As for Marshall, we all know he cooked his results all that remains is debating how much. Why were you umimpressed with Van Creveld, it didn't fit with your superiority complex?

[btm]

Londoner-

Aye, I am perfectly steady, thanks! I inferred from your previous post that you were suggesting that Van Creveld's work ought to have settled the issue. Apparently, this is not the case, and so I apologize for the aspersion.

I do feel that there is a strong anti-American bias in many supposedly scholarly works. However, that does not mean that I feel that particular actions or aspects of the U.S. are above examination and constructive criticism. On the contrary, I feel that there is tremendous value in examining the past. I am confident that this feeling is shared by most with an interest in the past.

As to the "tea-swilling bums" comment, I did not mean to suggest that the judgement was sound or even shared by me. I meant only to demonstrate that a little information can be dangerous, and lead to erroneous conclusions, ie: the well known story of the XXX Corps armor failing to reach Arnhem due to stopping to brew tea for a proper tea time.

[Big Jim]

Originally posted by btm:

As to the "tea-swilling bums" comment, I did not mean to suggest that the judgement was sound or even shared by me. I meant only to demonstrate that a little information can be dangerous, and lead to erroneous conclusions, ie: the well known story of the XXX Corps armor failing to reach Arnhem due to stopping to brew tea for a proper tea time.

Sounds feasible to me- the Challenger II tank is the only main battle tank in service in the world which comes with a kettle fitted as standard. And what self respecting Englishman could go into battle without a hot brew?

[Londoner]

Fair enough btm, sorry for also misunderstanding you in part.

Unfortunately I can't argue with you, anti-American bias has without a doubt crept into certain "scholarly" works. On the other hand, US historians aren't always objective. Carlo D'Este springs to mind as one of the most significant examples. While in many ways his Decision in Normandy is better than say Keegan's Six Armies, his disdain for Monty clouds the whole work.

[Tero]

Originally posted by Big Jim:

The M1 and BAR were developed with different ideas in mind however- the Americans were working toward the assault rifle idea (slowly, and perhaps unknowingly(?)), where as the Germans were into kick-ass machine guns. IIRC, the BAR was a WWI weapon and the M1 was shiny and new, and the Germans had developed the first ever GPMG, the MG34, then the MG42.

The MG42 fired something like 1200rpm! :eek: The idea behind pumping out so many bullets being to hit an enemy who was dashing from cover to cover in the short amount of time he was exposed.

The Germans realized in the Eastern Front they needed to get the entire platoon into semi/full auto gear if they were to stay in pace with their adversaries.

I suppose the counterargument to the 'superamis' is that the troops of other nations eg. Germans had to carry ammunition for the squad LMG, so were weighed down equally by that in the same way Americans had their own M1 ammo.

Agreed. But the Ami semi-auto ROF advantage in aimed fire situations was not there when compared to the bolt action rifle. And in suppression fire they had to overcome the MG-42 before they could progress.

I so lament the design decision to alter, at the behest of some IMO misguided criteria, the platoon ROF/ammo load out modelling because supposedly the German use of SMG's made the German platoon too powerful when compared to the Allied platoons.

[Tero]

Originally posted by btm:

I do feel that there is a strong anti-American bias in many supposedly scholarly works.

It is not anti-American to not to revere the Americans just because they are Americans.

[SgtDuke6216]

Dead on BTM....

For all to read...

http://www.militaryhistoryonline.com/wwii/usarmy/default.aspx

I'd say this covers both ends of the spectrum

[Big Jim]

Originally posted by Tero:

I so lament the design decision to alter, at the behest of some IMO misguided criteria, the platoon ROF/ammo load out modelling because supposedly the German use of SMG's made the German platoon too powerful when compared to the Allied platoons.

Has the ROF been changed since CMBB then? I suppose the Russkis had SMG squads also... but changing it because squads were too powerful?

Hmmmm.. the disadvantage is reversed when you've got no ammo left! Maybe they were feeling sorry for the Commonwealth infantry in that case- less up close firepower for a fairer game. How very sportsmanlike!

[flamingknives]

It changed from CMBO. All squads had the same ammo load (40) regardless or whether they were carrying SMGs or rifles.

[Big Jim]

Originally posted by flamingknives:

It changed from CMBO. All squads had the same ammo load (40) regardless or whether they were carrying SMGs or rifles.

Ah, thought there was little difference between CMBB and CMAK in that regard. Is it fairer having different levels- SMGs are pretty useless over 100m, and rifles aren't very useful when against SMGs at close range.

But then what would we discuss in the forum?

It probably reflects ammo consumption more accurately... maybe the next patch will sort it out.

[flamingknives]

Oh, I must add. The 'kettle' in the Challenger II (and most British AFVs) is used for making up hot water to add to ration packs, AIUI. Obviously it's primary purpose it to make tea, but I understand that some US liason officers were most impressed by the ability to have hot food under armour.

[SgtDuke6216]

Can't imagine why..??? How does one find the time to eat hot chow in combat?

I know the US used to place thier chow and water in the canteen cup on the engine cowling or buried the rat can in the sand,,,a method that is still used today...MMMMM nothing like the taste of beef stew simmered in Carbon Monoxcide.....

[SgtDuke6216]

Oh and BTW,,,Who the Hell would enjoy drinking HOT tea in the HOT desert????? Not my bag man...But I got a feeling you Brit boys would....

[Other Means]

you do know the Challenger II exists outside the desert?

and even in the desert it gets cold at night.

...i've got a mental image of our poor brave boys living on pot noodles. damn. the things they do for their country.

also, i wish this BB showed the last 3 digits of everyones IP. it would stop me being so damn suspicious.