Jump to content

US infantry ammo load


Recommended Posts

Originally posted by 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.

I couldn't agree more. But this was done by most "Western" armies back in the day.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 223
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Duke i wont argue u r a pathetic man/thing .... i read this on forum its true............ dont argue with idiots they bring to to there level and beat u with experiance....... along them lines .. im not sad enough to read it all again like u may to find it. The End

or will the gimp continue hehe

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Spears:

Duke i wont argue u r a pathetic man/thing .... i read this on forum its true............ dont argue with idiots they bring to to there level and beat u with experiance....... along them lines .. im not sad enough to read it all again like u may to find it. The End

or will the gimp continue hehe

What the HELL does this mean?! Can anyone make sence of this? It's just unfair to have a battle of wits with someone who is unarmed.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Lucho:

But in the same manner general orders where executed on platoon, company and batallion level(e.g.: "Get that hill, no matter how." against "Get that hill, attack frontally, two Coys up, one in reserve!").

Ah! Ok I get you now. The US Army practiced the first part of your statement in the begining until about 1943 I would venture to say. Yet another hard lesson learned.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry Sgt D. Firstly for our young buck. Secondly for my last post. It was fairly misleading in a way. "Junior leader" doesn't just imply section/platoon level leadership as Lucho points out.

But as JonS et al so adeptly explain there are two parts to initiative, the second is the nature of the mission itself. Using the hill example, for the German Coy commander, capturing hill X was just a means to an end, the end being supporting the overall Battalion or maybe even regimental objectives. For the British Coy commander, more often than not hill x was the end. Why? Again I humbly reinterate JonS, because it suited our WW1 inspired doctrine, firm command and control from the top. What Monty excelled at.

Please correct me if I'm wrong. I was under the impression the US army (circa WW2) commanded its companies and battalions in a similar way.

[ May 21, 2004, 07:57 PM: Message edited by: Londoner ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by 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 ? smile.gif

Like the photo op during the Ardennes offensive, where on two pictures in a book I am reading it looks as if the German soldiers are carrying M1 Garands? smile.gif

Originally posted by Tero:

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

Both, but it is just something I picked up, so it is at best anecdotal evidence, and weak one at that. Stories like 'the Stug 44 was always in short supply, but I was an officer, so I had one', or a whole formation kitted out with Italian SMGs with no ammo late in 45.

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.

S.L.A. Marshall rearing his head again. According to him you could also have given the US soldiers Megadeathblastersofdoomâ„¢, or toothpicks, since they were not inclined to use them in any case.

But quite apart from that, your line of reasoning is at variance with the late-war Soviet doctrine of emphasising firepower from support weapons incl. tanks and assault guns. One would assume that the intense Red Army love affair with large-calibre direct fire HE guns would actually reduce the need for high personal firepower, since those 122mm guns are busy shooting you on your objective. Doctrinally speaking.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by SgtDuke6216:

I wonder what would have happend in WW2 if the media was always with troops and information was so instant.

The information—especially getting to the public, which is what I think you mean—was not instant by a long shot. But the reporters, scores if not hundreds of them, were certainly with the forces. They rode the ships, sometimes were on the bombers, and were definitely with the ground forces. Walter Cronkite even parachuted in with the Airborne (101st. I think) in Operation Market-Garden. Alan Moorehead and Ernie Pyle provide additional famous examples of "embedded" reporters.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Michael Emrys:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by SgtDuke6216:

I wonder what would have happend in WW2 if the media was always with troops and information was so instant.

The information—especially getting to the public, which is what I think you mean—was not instant by a long shot. But the reporters, scores if not hundreds of them, were certainly with the forces. They rode the ships, sometimes were on the bombers, and were definitely with the ground forces. Walter Cronkite even parachuted in with the Airborne (101st. I think) in Operation Market-Garden. Alan Moorehead and Ernie Pyle provide additional famous examples of "embedded" reporters.

Michael </font>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Duke i wont argue u r a pathetic man/thing .... i read this on forum its true............ dont argue with idiots they bring to to there level and beat u with experiance....... along them lines .. im not sad enough to read it all again like u may to find it. The End

or will the gimp continue hehe

I think what he is saying is. He doesnt argue on the internet, because internet arguers will beat you with their experience with the intracacies of their highly refined board warrioring skills. He'd rather argue in real life, where someone with a smug attitude can get a proper dose of reality.

Ive got one thing to add to this discussion since it was missed in my first post. This is a video game forum. A certain number of people on these forums, take this game, and themselves far to seriously. As a result, people are to scared to make a point, or post about anything that isnt totally laymen. The entire forums have degenerated in one giant pissing contest of who can back up their own personal opinions with the most undisputed facts. As a result, you most of the posters walking on egg shells trying not to break the "rules" and get attacked by the "grogs".

I can't even read JasonC threads on anything but in game tactics, because they are one giant overly wordy reach around, going on 50+ paragraphs.

These forums are not scholarly, nor are they required that you can use proper grammar. It is nice when posters have a grasp of grammar, but it is nausiating when people get a little too authoritarian with their facts. What REALLY annoys me, is when people attack other people for their lack of grammar. When you open that can, you open a can of worms. Pot Kettle whatever, cause I can go through just about every single post in this thread and find SOME grammatical errors. That said.

There are alot of knowledgable people here. I've learned alot from some of the posters here. I think people need to chill out, have a sense of humor and not get all worked up or be so anal.

Oh and for the record, my original post was not political, it was a joke based on one of the more entertaining twists this thread has taken. Yes I understand there is an overly nationalistic twist when anyone who is proud of their military looks back on what their military accomplished in ww2. I think I just summed up in one sentence the whole arguement about the US being better marksman, without having to assail anyone with GIVE ME FACTS. We don't need facts because its true. If you don't know that it makes you ignorant.

I am Canadian with American citizenship as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Andreas:

Like the photo op during the Ardennes offensive, where on two pictures in a book I am reading it looks as if the German soldiers are carrying M1 Garands? smile.gif

Are you sure they are not the M43 (?) semi-autos ? ;)

Both, but it is just something I picked up, so it is at best anecdotal evidence, and weak one at that. Stories like 'the Stug 44 was always in short supply, but I was an officer, so I had one', or a whole formation kitted out with Italian SMGs with no ammo late in 45.

Somehow "formation kitted out with PPsh's" would sound better as an example. smile.gif

S.L.A. Marshall rearing his head again.

One of these days I'll get around to actually reading one of his works. smile.gif

According to him you could also have given the US soldiers Megadeathblastersofdoomâ„¢, or toothpicks, since they were not inclined to use them in any case.

IIRC that tendency was written down even in contemporary "Lessons learned" series.

But quite apart from that, your line of reasoning is at variance with the late-war Soviet doctrine of emphasising firepower from support weapons incl. tanks and assault guns. One would assume that the intense Red Army love affair with large-calibre direct fire HE guns would actually reduce the need for high personal firepower, since those 122mm guns are busy shooting you on your objective. Doctrinally speaking.

Doctrinally speaking the Soviet infantry was predominantly full-auto fitted from 1942 on until 1945. The use of big arsed direct support would indicate IMO the Red Army was low on manpower and used to conserve living force in break through and exploitation phase. Since the German platoon was becoming (with the doctrinal shift towards semi/fullauto individual weapons) less reliant on the platoon/section MG in its firepower the Red Army needed to counter that development as well as the actual MG42 firepower.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by s3333cr333tz:

[snips]

We don't need facts because its true.

Riiiight...

Originally posted by s3333cr333tz:

If you don't know that it makes you ignorant.

I think I'm quite happy to remain ignorant of that "fact", just as I am happy to continue in ignorance of the "fact" that salmon are marsupials that live in trees and eat pencils.

All the best,

John.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Tero:

Since the German platoon was becoming (with the doctrinal shift towards semi/fullauto individual weapons) less reliant on the platoon/section MG in its firepower the Red Army needed to counter that development as well as the actual MG42 firepower.

I think I'd like to see some evidence based on action, not on numbers of weapons issued or doctrine, before I accept that premise. The implementation of doctrine depends on having the guys on the ground doing it - I have looked at implementation in a different context (environmental regulation) and you maybe surprised about the clash between reality and intention. What is on paper, and what happens in reality, can be two very different things. The question for me is: 'can a barely trained, badly led 18-year old with a Stug 44 bring the same firepower on target as a well-trained, well-led, experienced man with a K98?

There is anecdotal evidence (Jary being the most prominent) against it, and I have a hard time believing that the German squad could rely more on its individual members when these were becoming less and less well trained. My guess would be that you probably could have observed a similar phenomenon as Marshall observed in the US infantry, i.e. that few men really contributed meaningfully. The presence of the MG42 may well exacerbate this, because it is so powerful just on its own that it could provide a good excuse to the aforementioned 18-year old to just keep his head down and pray that the nightmare ends soon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with Andreas. Worthy of note that 16 weeks of basic training for German soldiers in 1939 was shortened to something like 7 by 1944. I would include physical conditioning to the list of deficiencies of German soldiers by that time - recruits were getting younger, and were probably under-developed, which would also tend to effect the way they shot, or their ability to schlep an MG42.

Incidentally, anyone using a non-descriptive screen name of "s3333cr333tz" really doesn't inspire any confidence in either their intelligence or the value of their opinion. So one tends to take posts from them with a grain of salt in any event.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by s3333cr333tz:

Ive got one thing to add to this discussion since it was missed in my first post. This is a video game forum. A certain number of people on these forums, take this game, and themselves far to seriously. As a result, people are to scared to make a point, or post about anything that isnt totally laymen. The entire forums have degenerated in one giant pissing contest of who can back up their own personal opinions with the most undisputed facts. As a result, you most of the posters walking on egg shells trying not to break the "rules" and get attacked by the "grogs".

[snip]

While John Salt said it more eloquently than I will, this is a bunch of garbage. This is a discussion forum; the *point* of having these discussions - for most of the participants - is to learn about real facts. Hence the emphasis on supporting facts. I mean, if there is a discussion on 1942 commonwealth equipment in N. Africa, it would be pointless to participate without facts because it's a factual issue - i.e., "I believe that the South African forces used phasers (and lightsabers for close combat); my opinion is as good as yours, and I don't want to hear any 'facts'" - is just pointless and rightly condemned by people who post to learn stuff. Which is most of the people here.

These forums are not scholarly, nor are they required that you can use proper grammar. It is nice when posters have a grasp of grammar, but it is nausiating when people get a little too authoritarian with their facts. What REALLY annoys me, is when people attack other people for their lack of grammar. When you open that can, you open a can of worms. Pot Kettle whatever, cause I can go through just about every single post in this thread and find SOME grammatical errors. That said.

People aren't routinely attacked here for minor grammatical failings, and lots of non-native speakers of English have numerous grammatical mistakes in their posts that go unremarked. What people object to is the *deliberate* decision to write in some obscure dialect of "leetspeak". People who do that are being rude by making the rest of us try and figure out what they mean, when they are perfectly capable of writing much more coherent sentences. In other words, people are objecting because of the rudeness, not because of the grammar.

[snip]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Andreas:

I think I'd like to see some evidence based on action, not on numbers of weapons issued or doctrine, before I accept that premise.

That bit is ellusive. Do you have any access to numbers of captured semi/full auto small arms taken into use by the German army ?

'can a barely trained, badly led 18-year old with a Stug 44 bring the same firepower on target as a well-trained, well-led, experienced man with a K98?

I think the guestion should be "would the Stug 44 (StG ? smile.gif ) be given to that 18-year old or a more seasoned trooper in the platoon in the first place ?"

I would think the MG-42 would be manned by the rookie more likely than a vet, given the way it would attract more attention than a vet would be willing to risk when there are more expendable assets around. Plus hosing down an area with the MG does not require as much skill as rapid aimed fire at point targets with a StG44. smile.gif

We know how the German replacement system worked. How common was it to carry different types small arms within the platoon beyond the Kar98/MP40 combo ? PPsH and other semi/full auto weapons found their way into the inventory. My premise is based on the fact the German front line units tended to increase their FP by what means necessary, including taking up weapons from the enemy, even it was on an ad hoc basis.

There is anecdotal evidence (Jary being the most prominent) against it, and I have a hard time believing that the German squad could rely more on its individual members when these were becoming less and less well trained.

Not individual members. Individual fire power.

Training is indeed an issue but lets not forget how the Soviets solved the equation. They did not have the MG-42 so they handed out the PPsH and other full auto weapons to the raw recruits. Both the Germans and the Soviets were starting to seriously run out of man power by 1944-45. As per your Yassy example way back when the Soviet doctrine was to KO the opposing arty whenever possible. Singling out and dealing with the MG-42 was a natural tactical development. Human wave attacks were a thing of the past.

So, with the arty KO'd or relocating, no human wave to hose down with the MG-42 and the MG becomming a prime target everytime it opened up who was killing the Red Army soldiers ?

My guess would be that you probably could have observed a similar phenomenon as Marshall observed in the US infantry, i.e. that few men really contributed meaningfully. The presence of the MG42 may well exacerbate this, because it is so powerful just on its own that it could provide a good excuse to the aforementioned 18-year old to just keep his head down and pray that the nightmare ends soon.

The Marshall observation is based on a force with abundant indirect firepower at its disposal. Does that correlate well with the German situation most of the time ?

The US Army chose to relegate most of the SMG's to cooks, bakers and drivers instead of front line units for crying out loud. smile.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

I agree with Andreas. Worthy of note that 16 weeks of basic training for German soldiers in 1939 was shortened to something like 7 by 1944. I would include physical conditioning to the list of deficiencies of German soldiers by that time - recruits were getting younger, and were probably under-developed, which would also tend to effect the way they shot, or their ability to schlep an MG42.

How many of the younger recruits had NOT been involved in the Hitler Jugent movement ? Their physique may have been less satisfactory but AFAIK they had had rather extensive weapons training from early on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

tero - they did not have decent infantry training. They may have had decent weapons training, but that is a different matter. Their leaders were not getting better.

For many of the late 44 recruits, the 18 years old guy that I introduced may not have been representative, they had been previously 'UK' status, because of their occupation, so they were factory workers, and a bit older.

The Marshall observation is of course for a different army, but in the German case, an alternative to individual fire was always there, on squad level. It was the MG42. Much more readily available and better to aim then the US indirect assets.

I come back to Jary - when the MG42 went out, the German squad tended to fold. Why is that, if individually they had so much firepower? My suggestion is any or all of bad training, bad leadership, no interest to die for the cause, resulting in a lack of individual drive. Clearly anecdotal, but to me more convincing then a view based on the doctrine. But that is just where my taste lies.

I am also not sure if I would give the squad MG to a rookie. Compared to a vet, he will waste ammo, be less observant, be more likely to jam it, be less effective in bringing fire on target, and be more likely to make any number of mistakes that can get me (never mind him) killed. Rookies make good ammo carriers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Totaly agree mg42 would of been used by an experianced crew who would fire and move there weapon as and where necessary.

Personally i would not want that mg42 crew dead and exposed as the ruskies charged and no way to retrive it. Quick way to die relying on rookies.............

Did they give the 60 to the rookies in Nam?? i doubt it ... but i wasnt there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Spears:

Did they give the 60 to the rookies in Nam?? i doubt it ... but i wasnt there. [/QB]

good point, I would have to agree with that. My question is, how many "vets" did the Germans have left towards the end? It couldn't be many due to the Volks units and children concripts....
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by SgtDuke6216:

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

Did they give the 60 to the rookies in Nam?? i doubt it ... but i wasnt there.

good point, I would have to agree with that. My question is, how many "vets" did the Germans have left towards the end? It couldn't be many due to the Volks units and children concripts.... [/QB]</font>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by SgtDuke6216:

Originally posted by Spears:

Did they give the 60 to the rookies in Nam?? i doubt it ... but i wasnt there.

good point, I would have to agree with that. My question is, how many "vets" did the Germans have left towards the end? It couldn't be many due to the Volks units and children concripts....

The point is valid. However, the MG team relied on the rookies to spot and cover it and not just haul ammo for the gun. I very much doubt a vet in any army would leave this kind of a vital task to an untrained, unfit, demoralized rookie who could not asses the development of the tactical situation and identify key terrain features.

Besides, the weaponry of the US squad in VN was pretty much what the Germans were aiming for by the end of WWII. Every man in the US squad had a semi/full auto rifle and the SAW was a proper GPMG.

[ May 23, 2004, 01:40 AM: Message edited by: Tero ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Andreas:

they did not have decent infantry training. They may have had decent weapons training, but that is a different matter.

True. But when you know how to operate your piece you have one less thing to worry about. And from what I know about the HJ as an organization the members were familiar with the basic drills when they entered the army. In case of the essential workers being pressed into service, the training issue is indeed valid.

As for the tactical proficiency of the raw recruits, I'd say the German army had it better than most armies as they incorporated the vets with the new comers in a different manner.

Their leaders were not getting better.

Also true. But they did have combat experience.

For many of the late 44 recruits, the 18 years old guy that I introduced may not have been representative, they had been previously 'UK' status, because of their occupation, so they were factory workers, and a bit older.

I was wondering about that. smile.gif

The Marshall observation is of course for a different army, but in the German case, an alternative to individual fire was always there, on squad level. It was the MG42. Much more readily available and better to aim then the US indirect assets.

That does not really correlate with the US Army reports of the performance of the German squads, especially on attack.

I come back to Jary - when the MG42 went out, the German squad tended to fold. Why is that, if individually they had so much firepower? My suggestion is any or all of bad training, bad leadership, no interest to die for the cause, resulting in a lack of individual drive.

Coupled with the will to live and the terror of being captured by the Russians it is understandable the lines crumbeled so spectacularly. Still, the Red Army losses remained high so even when the squads folded when they lost the MG they must have been able to inflict casualties beyond the capabilities of the Kar98.

Clearly anecdotal, but to me more convincing then a view based on the doctrine. But that is just where my taste lies.

smile.gif

I am also not sure if I would give the squad MG to a rookie. Compared to a vet, he will waste ammo, be less observant, be more likely to jam it, be less effective in bringing fire on target, and be more likely to make any number of mistakes that can get me (never mind him) killed. Rookies make good ammo carriers.

Would the vet MG gunner rely on the rookie to spot for him ? He could not do everything himself.

I just realized I have seen very few (if any) photos of German MG gun crews dead beside their gun. There are quite a few photos of dead Red Army MG crews beside their gun.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Tero:

[snips]

I just realized I have seen very few (if any) photos of German MG gun crews dead beside their gun. There are quite a few photos of dead Red Army MG crews beside their gun.

...and this may be a good indication that many more German soldiers owned cameras than did Russian ones.

All the best,

John.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Tero:

I just realized I have seen very few (if any) photos of German MG gun crews dead beside their gun. There are quite a few photos of dead Red Army MG crews beside their gun. [/QB]

hmmm,,,have you ever been the the US National Archives in Washington D.C.?
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...