US infantry ammo load

[Big Jim]

Originally posted by SgtDuke6216:

Hey here's one for you all...French Ammo load? I bet the had plenty of it because they sure didn't use much against the Germans.....(oh boy here we go.."Ding" round 5 begins!)

LOL You forgot the Italians.

[Big Jim]

Originally posted by Andreas:

One of his section commanders was of the firm opinion that the MG42, or more precisely the strain it put on ammunition supply for the Germans, lost them the war. One may think that is a bit extreme.

It could also be argued that, as the MG42 came into service in 1942, when Germany was on the defensive, that a highly effective machine gun (improved on the MG34) actually lengthened the war.

German squads don't seem to carry many K98s in the later part of the war- think I'd rather have a StG44 personally.

Just playing QB in Feb 43, and my Panzergrenadier squads (7 rifles, 1 smg, 2 lmg) had 35 points of ammo, where as my recon squads (5 rifles, 1 smg, 2 lmg) had only 25 ammo points. Would this be because recon units carried less ammo? :confused:

[flamingknives]

Fewer men in the squad to carry MG ammo

[SgtDuke6216]

FK is right,,,less guys to carry.

I like CMBB and CMAK ammo "rules" I think it makes it more "realistic" No more "super soldiers" I like the morale feature too. Finally a game that makes the soldiers scared when they come under 150mm fire, and the best part is that it only has to be close! I am playing an online campaign for CMBB, I had a Platoon of SMGs come under serious 150mm fire,,3/4s of the platoon ran for the woods only to be met by VERY vicious MG-34 fire! Those guys were eliminated in about 20 seconds,,,,not cool.

[Londoner]

Sgt Duke,

Your probably right, US army peformance in the ETO was most likely somewhere in between, IMO in spite of infantry leadership and training.

"And the whole German concept of military leadership did not allow much room for initiative."

Hehe now there's a bold statement!

[SgtDuke6216]

Yeah I know,,,No one has bitten yet,,,,There all porbably at the library now looking for rebuttles....LOL!

[SgtDuke6216]

Originally posted by Londoner:

Sgt Duke,

Your probably right, US army peformance in the ETO was most likely somewhere in between, IMO in spite of infantry leadership and training.

I would say you hit it on the head. Were there bad units, YUP! were there good one, absolutly! The same is for everyone,,,(except the french ) OH! there I go again :eek:

[SgtDuke6216]

That's French not the Free French, Atleast they had the balls to escape regroup and return later to fight! :eek: (oh man I am sure I'm asking for it)

[Londoner]

LOL!!

[s3333cr333tz]

After slogging through all 7 pages of this. I believe I have come to one concrete truth. Obviously the british (and snooty wannabe brit canadians) are the best desert fighting force in the world. This is because, by drinking hot tea in 40+ celcius temperatures, they are able to more efficiently regulate their body heat. Making them .0567% less likely to pass out from heat stroke. This .0567 figure was extrapolated from complex algorithims that only the latest and most powerful super computers could possibly manage. In truth the number was calculated to 37 trillion digits, but I have rounded it up to save on time.

What does it all mean you ask? Well, I think that these aforementioned Brits and Canadians would be able to hoof it cross country in the desert for about six more seconds. Those six seconds could be the difference between reaching your foxhole, and passing out ass up in a prostrate position.

[SgtDuke6216]

Just remember, this goes especially for you ground pounders,,its AIRPOWER that makes the differance! He who controls the skies, controls the ground (in WW2 that is, I know all about Vietnam so don't even start! )

I can't wait for the replies....

[SgtDuke6216]

Originally posted by s3333cr333tz:

After slogging through all 7 pages of this. I believe I have come to one concrete truth. Obviously the british (and snooty wannabe brit canadians) are the best desert fighting force in the world. This is because, by drinking hot tea in 40+ celcius temperatures, they are able to more efficiently regulate their body heat. Making them .0567% less likely to pass out from heat stroke. This .0567 figure was extrapolated from complex algorithims that only the latest and most powerful super computers could possibly manage. In truth the number was calculated to 37 trillion digits, but I have rounded it up to save on time.

What does it all mean you ask? Well, I think that these aforementioned Brits and Canadians would be able to hoof it cross country in the desert for about six more seconds. Those six seconds could be the difference between reaching your foxhole, and passing out ass up in a prostrate position.

HOLY SH*T!,, :eek:

LOL!! LOL!!

This has to be the best post here!

GDamn,, man funny stuff, very funny!

[John D Salt]

Originally posted by SgtDuke6216:

[snips]

And the whole German concept of military leadership did not allow much room for initaitive.

But I am sure I will see a post soon saying I am wrong. [snips]

Happy to oblige...

The German (specifically, Prussian) idea of military leadership was specifically intended to permit subordinates the maximum latitude for initiative, and their training aimed at developing the necessary liking for responsibility in junior leaders so that they would act on their own initiative to achieve their commander's intent. The idea of Auftragstaktik has been a commonplace of German military thought since at least 1906 (see "The Art of Command" by Col. von Spohn), but only adopted as official US and UK doctrine in recent decades.

The Nazi idea of the Fuhrerprinzip, on the other hand, is the polar opposite of the traditional German style of command.

All the best,

John.

[flamingknives]

And the whole German concept of military leadership did not allow much room for initiative.

That's probably wrong, but I don't know as much about the Wehrmacht.

One could argue that if the Germans weren't led by a mad man, they wouldn't have gone to war in the first place.

[SgtDuke6216]

I stand corrected. I should have wrote "Nazi"

Thank you for obliging me. And in a professional manner. Truthfully...

[Andreas]

Originally posted by Big Jim:

German squads don't seem to carry many K98s in the later part of the war- think I'd rather have a StG44 personally.

Well yes, if you could get one. German weapon loadout in CM maybe too generous on the automatics. Certainly some of what I have read about late-war indicates that automatic infantry weapons were not that common.

Also note that Jary's point was not about the weapons, it was about the function of the non-MG crew members of the squad. Whether they were armed with toothpicks, fully automatic railguns, or Intergalacticautomaticnazimegadeathblastersofdoom™ seems not to have mattered.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by flamingknives:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />And the whole German concept of military leadership did not allow much room for initiative.

That's probably wrong, but I don't know as much about the Wehrmacht.

One could argue that if the Germans weren't led by a mad man, they wouldn't have gone to war in the first place. </font>

[SgtDuke6216]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

Germans allowed (and exercised) far more personal initiative than any of the so called "democratic" western allies. [/QB]

What do you mean by this? Especailly the "democratic" part... :confused:

[Londoner]

In short he means that German doctrine dictated and required the use of initiative amongst its junior leaders. On being given a "mission" he had total fredoom of action in deciding how to accomplish his goals. A system that worked very well, which is why we use it today. No so in the "west" circa WW2.

So poor Sgtduke you couldn't be more wrong!

[ May 19, 2004, 05:19 PM: Message edited by: Londoner ]

[SgtDuke6216]

Ok......???? I am not going to totally agree with that.....Here's a big venture for me,,,someone said earlier about the differences in the US services,,,For the Army that may be true to an extent. I will spend the time to rescearch this but I know just from talking with the "old salts" at the VFW initiative was common in US troops...(other services on the other had always prided itself for this, just look at their history)BUT, I will keep it in line with the CMAK ETO, Not Pacific, specifically US Army..blah blah blah.....bit.....I am still baffled by the democratic remark....

[Tero]

Originally posted by Andreas:

Certainly some of what I have read about late-war indicates that automatic infantry weapons were not that common.

So they collected all of them for the photo-op when ever there was a camera around ?

Seriously: is your remark based on the Eastern or the Western Front experiences ?

I would think it could be that in the Western Front the need for semi/full automatic weapons was not that pronounced. Given the make up of the Western Allies platoons, their (especially American) tendency to relegate the automatics to non-essential personel and their reliance on support fire power more than man power on attack would not have necessitated the Western front German formations to be as reliant on personal fire power as they would have been on squad/platoon level fire power. Generally speaking.

[Tero]

Originally posted by SgtDuke6216:

I am still baffled by the democratic remark....

The junior grade officers and NCO's were not PERMITTED as much lattitude or required show initiative in the American and the British army whereas in the German army the junior grade officer and NCO was permitted the latitude he needed in order to fulfill the task at hand and they were EXPECTED to show initiative.

For example in the British army the officers were discouraged from becoming intimate with the subordiantes. If he rose from the ranks he was never ever given a command in his old unit.

[Big Jim]

Originally posted by Andreas:

Well yes, if you could get one. German weapon loadout in CM maybe too generous on the automatics. Certainly some of what I have read about late-war indicates that automatic infantry weapons were not that common.

So they used the 'paper' strength in game for the German squad's weapons, when they were more likely to have old K98s etc.?

I think the 'democratic' business is about that, one would think that in a totalitarian dictatorship such creativity of thought in subordinates would be supressed, whereas in a free democracy, one would expect much more freedom of action for subordinates. It appears it was the other way round however- the Germans favouring the idea that doing anything was better than doing nothing, and catching the enemy with his pants down. Proverbially, of course.

I've got to go and change my sig line now...

[Big Jim]

Originally posted by Tero:

I would think it could be that in the Western Front the need for semi/full automatic weapons was not that pronounced. Given the make up of the Western Allies platoons, their (especially American) tendency to relegate the automatics to non-essential personel and their reliance on support fire power more than man power on attack would not have necessitated the Western front German formations to be as reliant on personal fire power as they would have been on squad/platoon level fire power. Generally speaking.

That would make sense, especially with your earlier observations on the need for such weapons to 'equal the numbers' as it were on the Ostfront.

Thanks for the new sig line, Andreas- I want that weapon for Christmas!

[Michael Dorosh]

German officers were often looked at as "good comrades" by their men. I didn't mean to imply that armies are democracies - they are not. German, British, American, Canadian and Russian officers all led by command, not by vote.

However, as well stated in several recent posts, German officers were more intimate with their men, and guess what - the Germans had a LOT fewer officers. Perhaps 1 in 3 platoons in an infantry company was led by an officer, perhaps, in the late war period, none of them were - but by NCOs instead. unthinkable in the US and CW where 90-day-wonders and one-pip-wonders were the norm as far as platoon commanders went.

The image of the monocled Prussian taskmaster does't hold true in combat units.

Many US and CW officers were on intimate terms with their men also, don't get me wrong - Band of Brothers shows this particularly well, but so do better, primary sources. But there was still that certain rigidity which one can still experience for one's self by signing on, at least in Britain and Canada, which is hard to explain.

The Germans seemed to have allowed much more freedom of thought - which is why it is ironic that the "democratic" armies seemed to be so inflexible. Certainly, Canadian battalions are criticized in official histories for taking objectives and simply stopping to wait for further orders. The British also - the failure to take Antwerp may provide a high level example of that. Not that hindsight isn't 20/20, but one has to believe a German commander would not have let that happen.