US infantry ammo load

[Spears]

It looks as if Volkov has bowed out...and to SPEARS on your way out....don't let the door hit you in the ASS! ("arse if u ain't don't understan-duh")

"opens door" Heard that u fagg

P.S grammer alright for u ........ worm boy.

Goto love abusing yanks .... they always come back for more .......... just ask McD`s. lol

[ May 19, 2004, 09:53 PM: Message edited by: Spears ]

[JonS]

Oh dear god

[SgtDuke6216]

Originally posted by 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.

Still I disagree, this is totally contrary to what I am told by the Vets of WW2. Sgts had control over thier squads, and Platoon Sgts were there for the E-men and to "mold" the butter bars. As the war went on more and more emphasis was place on small unit tactics..Initiative is a MUST when executing such tactics. Look at the US Airborne during Normandy, someone had to have initative to try and get some sort of fighting cohesion. Not just that but every amphibious landing that occured under fire. Sorry boys but the SGT had always been free with initiative in the US Military. And the example given to me about the British Army that doesn't jive with initiative. Maybe I have a different understanding of initaitive but I always thought it was thinking ahead to stay ahead, If something needs to be done then you do it without being told.

[SgtDuke6216]

Originally posted by Spears:

It looks as if Volkov has bowed out...and to SPEARS on your way out....don't let the door hit you in the ASS! ("arse if u ain't don't understan-duh")

"opens door" Heard that u fagg

P.S grammer alright for u ........ worm boy.

Goto love abusing yanks .... they always come back for more .......... just ask McD`s. lol

umm,,,No dip ****, your grammer is not alright.

Next time put a period at the end of the "S", "u" would be "you" and "Goto" would actually be "Got to" ,"Gotta", or have to,,,oh forget it....wouldn't do any good anyway. Besides everyone here knows you just can't polish a turd.

[SgtDuke6216]

Well there were a-lot of senior Sgts leading platoons and in some cases companies in the US military. Granted the T/O and line numbers state whats required, BUT due to the casualties officers weren't always instantly replaced.

[JonS]

Sgt,

Airborne are a special case - there is a good reason that those guys volunteered for it in the first place. Same reason applies to the Rangers and British Commandoes, et al. All those types of units were noted for the amount of initiative shown. Coincidence? I think not. If initiative was such a common trait across the whole army, why are these particular units repeatedly singled out as examples?

Also, 'scope' and 'latitude' are probably the important qualifiers here. In other words, US and UK NCOs and junior officers were expected to show some initiative, but not too much. It is in the comparison with the amount of initiative equivalent German junior leaders were routinely expected to exercise that they (the US and UK) come off not looking so good.

It is interesting that you bring up the example of amphib invasions - look at how badly bogged down OMAHA became when a high proportion of the designated leaders became cas.

Regards

JonS

[JonS]

A specific point:

Originally posted by SgtDuke6216:

Maybe I have a different understanding of initaitive but I always thought it was thinking ahead to stay ahead, If something needs to be done then you do it without being told.

Perhaps you do. What you describe there sounds to me like the kind of administrative role that senior NCOs are expected to carry out: making sure the guys are fed and bombed up; that their feet are dry and weapons are clean; that they are writing home; scrounging extra weapons, ammo, and rations; securing the best accomodation; setting up the sentry watch; etc etc. All those things they should be doing on their own initiative, thinking ahead to stay ahead.

The kind of initiative being talked abnout in this thread is things like: "hmm, we were told to take this hill, and we've done that. But we can't see the bridge that C Coy is supposed to assault in half an hour, so we won't be able to support them. So, saddle up boys, we're moving to a new location" instead of "we were ordered to take this hill, and we've done that. Boys - dig in."

Regards

JonS

[SgtDuke6216]

I'll give you the "special unit" bit, no doubt. The Omaha beach bit, I would say it was both the fact that casualties of the leadership and formost the defenses put up there, all of which were firing down onto a wide open area that was preregistered. (biting tounge about Tarawa, Pelilu, and Iwo,,,CMAK, CMAK, CMAK not CMPTO)all of these factors would slow even the most seasoned units. I ment to add that as far as standard infantry units go, the US 1st Div and 3rd Div were of the better outfits on the ground (US) I never really said that it was a common trait, but that they HAD the freedom for initiative. Not everyone displayed it (oh here we go on self disipline, starting to sound like Sgt's School, the horror, the horror)The problem with the US Army at the time was that they were short men and the ones they had were not so intelligent, so they would never know when and how to use initiative. So the officers would have to control everything and this is what became accepted as the norm. By no means am I saying they were stupid not at all. I am just saying that they were products of thier society. And there were very many diffrent societies in those days.

[SgtDuke6216]

Were there you have it. John would I be incorrect in guessing you are English too?

We do have different theroies on initiative. (now I know how the US and Brits felt in the 40's) My definition comes directly from the USMC Guidebook, NCO's Handbook, Sgt's School at HQ MC in Quantico VA, the USMC Battle Leadership course, Cpl's course,,etc etc etc. This was a trait that was hammered into our heads. Second only to integrity. What you wrote in regards to welfare is considered a technique not a trait. I feel that this initiative topic can go no furthure because you will never convince me of "what it is". I may have not written any books or articles on the subject, but you can bet I have studied it thoroughly (spelling?)

Its the very thing that put food on my table. And what is practiced to day is "Mission Accomplishment, then Troop Welfare" (that's why US troops only have hot chow once in awhile,,hot chow and tea=troop welfare )

I am not going to budge on this. I state why in my previous post. Initiative Army wide, no, But it sure wasn't non-existant either.

You know,,I have noticed something....not one positive thing has been written about the US Army in ETO. Mostly negative....you would think that the were non-shooting, cold, starving, lathargic, do nothing until told, ill-equipt, raggle of goons...by reading through these post. And what really amazes me is that everyone here reads and read ,very impressed though, but no-one has served one day in the US Army. Sure were have a couple of nutty Infantryman who are on the extreames and who's grammer needs work, but that's it. I would also deduct that the Canadian Army with the assitance of the British Army won the war by themselves and the US was just in the way. I thought the US had more of a commitment then advertised here. I would say s3333.. hits it on the head and BTM arguement is valid too. But why should I be surprised, Brits and Canadians being critical of the US,,,shutter the thought

[ May 20, 2004, 12:01 AM: Message edited by: SgtDuke6216 ]

[JonS]

Originally posted by SgtDuke6216:

Jon would I be incorrect in guessing you are English too?

Yes, but near enough that it makes little difference

We do have different theories on initiative.

That isn't surprising, and it's nothing to get upset about. It's also the reason I gave the examples in my previous posts.

The point I was trying to make was that initiative was expected to be shown in non-combat/welfare tasks. And in combat too I suppose, but in small scale stuff, covering things like moving men around, application of fire, using cover, etc. Where it wasn't expected - or encouraged - was in command-style decisions. Setting objectives and missions. Modifying orders or missions on the fly, to fit with changing circumstances. Moving companies or battalions around because they aren't doing much in the location they were ordered to. Etc.

... what is practiced today ...

Exacty - 'today'. Quite a lot has changed since the 40's. And it has changed because of what the Germans taught us in combat. And they were able to do that because *tada* they were exercising more initiative

Initiative Army wide, no, But it sure wasn't non-existant either.

Right - except the problem with that is that you end up with the worst of all possible situations. Some units might be showing some intitiative (of the mission/objective kind), others won't. And units that used to show some initiative aren't anymore because they're having a bad day. You end up with unpredictable chaos.

Higher commanders on both sides knew that, and tackled it in different ways.

US & UK commanders (and Montgomery may be the ultimate expression of the approach) decided to avoid the chaos by doing away with the unpredictability - actions were planned in great detail, and each units role was carefully choreographed to fit into the larger picture. In these plans initiative (of the mission/objective kind) was activly discouraged because it could lead to results - both bad and possibly good - that didn't fit within the big picture. You might think of it as a risk minimisation approach: you potential gains might be lessened, but the risks of a serious setback are also reduced.

The Germans, on the other hand, embraced the chaos, but did away with the unpredictability by letting everyone know what the mission was (thinking two up, and all that jazz), and expecting/demanding that they bend all their efforts to acheiving that mission.

But it goes further than that - and touches on something else you mentioned. As I'm sure you know, effectivly applying initiative (of the mission/objective kind) involves much more than just letting people know what the intent two up is. It involves training, culture, expectations, trust, ability, and so on. These things don't develop overnight, as can be seen from it taking some 40-50 odd years it took for the US and UK armies to embrace them.

You know,,I have noticed something....not one positive thing has been written about the US Army in ETO.

Well, I've tried to be carefull about bracketing the UK with my comments about the US here Besides, I think this thread got off to a bad start when your chum tried to tell us that marksmanship was somehow linked to pride, or sumfink. And a bunch of other questionable dogmatic statements It then wasn't helped much by a barely literate British knuckledragger coming in and pissing in the corner

Besides, just wait till you hear some of the Finns banging on about the Mk.IIIa Anti-Tank Toothpicks and stuff. Now THAT is humour, and blind prejudice.

Be cool

JonS

[Tero]

Originally posted by JonS:

Besides, just wait till you hear some of the Finns banging on about the Mk.IIIa Anti-Tank Toothpicks and stuff. Now THAT is humour, and blind prejudice.

You called, sir ?

Since you evoked the Finnish connection I'll bite.

Pertaining the initiative and lattitude of junior leaders and rank and file in general I have a rather graphic example of what was the differences between the Finnish army and the US army. The example is temporally set in the winter of 1939-40 and in the winter of 1944-45.

The initial situation was a mirror image when it comes to the level of supplies. The Finnish army was short on every kind of item you care to mention, the US army had absolutely anything they needed at their disposal.

For all their initiative and opulence the US army junior grade officers and rank and file sustained an embarrassing percentage of casualties to trenchfoot and related causes during the winter of 1944-45. The favourite explanation is the supply system was harnessed to bring up ammo and fuel. Yet even the German army, being at the end of its tether, was apparently able to avoid similarly appaling numbers of casualties of this type. Thanks to their experiences during the winter of 1941-42.

By contrast, the Finnish sustained a negligible amount of casualties to trenchfoot and related causes and the supply system was harnessed to bring up warm food since there was not much in the order of ammo and fuel to move around.

IMO this is the kind of example where the individual initiative and lattitude given to junior grade leaders is fairly compared.

The US army of WWII is said to be the ultimate machine when it comes to adaptability and flexibility. Yet, the only time when they tackled the elements in adverse conditions this supposed high level of individual initiative and lattitude broke down.

Both the Finnish and the US armies were in the same predicament. For example they could have no fires during day light near the front line to dry up clothes and to prepare a hot meal.

Granted, being taught what to do to prevent trenchfoot is not the same knowing what will happen if you do not take care of your personal gear. Since Finnish flesh is as susceptible to trenchfoot as the US flesh there must be some other explanations.

One is the Finnish high command could not afford as many non-combat related casualties as the US army could. Hence the spritit of avoiding needless casualties of any kind was instilled throughout the ranks. If a Finnish soldier became a casualty to trenchfoot it was widely thought it was his own fault. I would hesitate to say it was paramount to shooting yourself in the foot but from what I have read the situation had to be extermely bad if he was not directly blamed for the injury.

[Tero]

Deja vu

[Big Jim]

Originally posted by JonS:

Perhaps you do. What you describe there sounds to me like the kind of administrative role that senior NCOs are expected to carry out: making sure the guys are fed and bombed up; that their feet are dry and weapons are clean; that they are writing home; scrounging extra weapons, ammo, and rations; securing the best accomodation; setting up the sentry watch; etc etc. All those things they should be doing on their own initiative, thinking ahead to stay ahead.

The kind of initiative being talked abnout in this thread is things like: "hmm, we were told to take this hill, and we've done that. But we can't see the bridge that C Coy is supposed to assault in half an hour, so we won't be able to support them. So, saddle up boys, we're moving to a new location" instead of "we were ordered to take this hill, and we've done that. Boys - dig in."

Regards

JonS

Exactly- in the abcense of orders, issuing orders normally issued by superiors in order to meet objectives. Such 'admin' work would not normally need an order from the HQ to carry out.

Of course, today this is hammered into junior leaders- that is how we learn, through the mistakes of the past. Units in US/UK armies today are all elite in comparison to CMAK, if not better, and this would also apply to the command and initiative structure in place. Such latitude also builds confidence in junior grades to take decisions- and if your officers keep dropping like flys, this can be very useful to avert disaster when in contact with the enemy.

Anyone reckon Monty would have fitted in in the Red Army?!

From earlier, the ammo difference makes sense between recon (8 men, 28) and pzgr (10 men, 35) squads- 2 lmgs in each, gives 6 and 8 men to carry ammo respectively- a difference of 1/4, which is reflected in the ammo points. Would this be the case for US squads, which are typically 12 men squads as opposed to 10 men squads for the commonwealth? If 2 men make such a difference in an identically equipped squad, this could be the bone of contention we have been looking for...

*appears with mop and bucket in hand*

Apologies for the knuckledragger- do you reckon he's another Oscar Wilde kind of man?

[SgtDuke6216]

Ok, Thanks JonS and Big Jim, very well put. I know the initiative bit today is much different than in the 40's,,,in the US Army that is. My problem is that I know more about the Pacific Theatre than off the ETO. And I still can not understand why the US Army did the things they did, much of which would have lead to disaster in the PTO. But then I remember the battle of Saipan, were an Army Division moved to slow up the center causing much heart ache for the US 1st Marine Division. I should know better. I can not understand how 2 services from the same country have very different views on training and leadership. Nothing has changed either, its still the same.

As far as the Trench foot goes...Yes the US had abundent supply, but the problem was they had trouble getting from the US to England to France to Belgium then to Germany,,,That's a long distance, much more that "from were ever in Finland to someplace in Finland". Actually ammunition supply was a problem. The Germans expeienced the same, they did have adequte supplies but just couldn't get them to were they needed to be. Also the Fins are more aclimitized to cold weather , were as most US weren't (aren't). I wonder how the Fins would have done in the desert or tropics?

Ok I will TRY to remember that this is not a CMPTO post and when you guys say "US" you are not including the PTO.

And Big Jim, Yes I would agree with the Oscar Wilde bit. On a side note, I was in Afganistan with the 22nd and 24th MEU, can't remember Arty mission though, Granted I was with the ACE and not the GCE but I was not hauling Arty or Arty ammo. I don't know were Speers got the USMC Arty mission from,,,A MEU is only a BLT (1/1 was there)with only about 4-6 tubes of 155mm, And the Bosnia bit, I was there many times between 95-and 00, I am certin that there was no USMC on the ground, a GCE that is, it was Air Power only, flying out of Aviano AB, I don't think there were any FF there, but I can't remember. In Kosovo when the BLT was on the ground, we didn't fire much arty and there were not FF from USMC, but that was a long time ago, and my memory has been hampered (brain is preserved in beer). The biggest problem facing the US Military today is our media and the lay persons perception of combat operations. The "imbeded" reporter thing was a huge blunder. I wonder what would have happend in WW2 if the media was always with troops and information was so instant.

[ May 20, 2004, 09:07 AM: Message edited by: SgtDuke6216 ]

[Big Jim]

Originally posted by SgtDuke6216:

...but that was a long time ago, and my memory has been hampered (brain is preserved in beer). The biggest problem facing the US Military today is our media and the lay persons perception of combat operations. The "imbeded" reporter thing was a huge blunder. I wonder what would have happend in WW2 if the media was always with troops and information was so instant.

If they'd had live feeds from the battle of Monte Cassino I doubt many people would have a stomach for further campaigning in Italy. Bit easier to gloss over things when only censored newspapers feed back information to the public.

Beer, due to its fetching amber colour and many bubbles, has been scientifically proven to preserve brains for longer, but has the unfortunate side effect of causing dog ugly women to materialise overnight in your bed to replace the ravishing beauty from the night before... at least in my experience.

[SgtDuke6216]

Originally posted by Big Jim:

Beer, due to its fetching amber colour and many bubbles, has been scientifically proven to preserve brains for longer, but has the unfortunate side effect of causing dog ugly women to materialise overnight in your bed to replace the ravishing beauty from the night before... at least in my experience. [/QB]

Your right, Where did she go? :eek: Its just not fair.. ...

[Spears]

Duke since i cant spell or do **** all right i want a PBEM game with u..... or dont u play people u cant spell ??????? JonnyCSpears(a)yahoo.co.uk let me whip ur ass u yanky twat (CMAK)

[SgtDuke6216]

Originally posted by Spears:

Duke since i cant spell or do **** all right i want a PBEM game with u..... or dont u play people u cant spell ??????? JonnyCSpears(a)yahoo.co.uk let me whip ur ass u yanky twat (CMAK)

oh come on dip ****,

I is capitalized, "or do a f... all right", is a run on fragment, "u" is you (x3), and the other "u" whould be who, "ur" is your, "cant" is can't, "yanky" is Yankee, and "twat" is spelled JonnyCSpears(a)yahoo.co.uk.....

[ May 21, 2004, 11:29 AM: Message edited by: SgtDuke6216 ]

[Spears]

drop me a mail if u come to England, im sure id meet u for a lesson on how to spell. u can read what i write u muppett ..... go back to school and dont forget ur dictionary .... u interlectual u ........ god u scare me with ur big words . but obviously u dont get out much. There is a blue sky outside m8 .... have a look at the real world once in a while will u. U obviously want a be a superstar on forum .... sad little man

[ May 21, 2004, 09:02 AM: Message edited by: Spears ]

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Spears:

Duke since i cant spell or do **** all right i want a PBEM game with u..... or dont u play people u cant spell ??????? JonnyCSpears(a)yahoo.co.uk let me whip ur ass u yanky twat (CMAK)

That's the way to show him what a man you are. Beat him at a video game. You go, girl!!

[SgtDuke6216]

Originally posted by Spears:

drop me a mail if u come to England, im sure id meet u for a lesson on how to spell. u can read what i write u muppett ..... go back to school and dont forget ur dictionary .... u interlectual u ........ god u scare me with ur big words . but obviously u dont get out much. There is a blue sky outside m8 .... have a look at the real world once in a while will u. U obviously want a be a superstar on forum .... sad little man

I am sad?!.....you are tring to settle a intelligent arguement between a group of people who respect eachother by means of a video game! What an ass. I am suprised that you know its a blue sky for the shear fact your head is buried so far up your ass. Furthermore I would say due to your lack of "smarts" and ability to provide any viable insight even your country "m8's" would say your a douche bag. You are a disgrace to the English Army and Uniform. You are also an insult to every Englishman that has come before you, and escpecially those who have given thier lives. They say that a man is judged by actions and not words alone...being that you can niether form any words nor thoughts, and you try to carry on with such a brazen cavalier banter by making threats you probaly lack action in real life. May be you should stay inside and learn to read and write, I suggest the "See Spot..." series or some "Barney" sing alongs, while your at it...keep pulling your pudd, someday it will get bigger. I would say its safe to say that most here agree.. YOU are a sad little man. (in some places your probably littler than other)

I await your reply..I have my dictionary in hand.

[Spears]

U obviously want a be a superstar on forum .... sad little man .

yeah im right ......... about the english stuff ill choose to ignore that. Im a bigger man than ull ever be m8 so cartry on with ur clever talk .. u dont impress me ...... or any 1 else but urself. so as i posted above.

P.S what do u do for a living??????

I am sad?!.....you are tring to settle a intelligent arguement between a group of people who respect eachother by means of a video game!

Urrrrm sorry i thought this was a video game forum, sorry i must be wrong. this is the house of commons . what a wanker

[ May 21, 2004, 09:58 AM: Message edited by: Spears ]

[Lucho]

Back to your topic, about German command tactics:

On Squad (Gruppe) level the platoon leader gives the order (for example) to advance through a forest. This order must be executed within limits of time and space (2 hours left; do not leave the forest), but the execution of this order in detail lies in the decisions of the Squad leader himself. If he decides (e.g.)to avoid the narrow street because he thinks that its covered by an enemy MG, then he leads his squad through the bushes...

Often the minor leaders have a better view of things going on the front than superiors which are back away behind some map tables.

[SgtDuke6216]

Originally posted by Spears:

U.

P.S what do u do for a living??????

I am an FDNY-EMT about to be promoted to Firefighter. I work in the South Bronx in NYC. I have worked in Jamacia Queens, SoHo Manhattan, the Lower Eastside of Manhattan, and Harlem. I think I "getout" enough.

BTW "ill" is I'll....that's right ignore the truth.

[SgtDuke6216]

Oh and I forgot, There are way more "superstars" as you put it here. Most of these guys are much more educated than me in WW2 history....or did you miss the posts? They use bigger "wurds" than I, so I wouldn't expect you to thouroughly read what they have written.