Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Small arms ammunition consumption.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by Emtos View Post
    The reports for deliveries to different units certainly.
    Not so much. Infantry units can have Rifles that can be supplied by Bandolier, or magazined ammo. Automatic Rifles could be resupplied by Bandolier or magazined ammo. Machine guns are also present in Infantry units and they could be given belted ammo or the belts could be refilled from Bandoliers. Even support units could be armed with a mixture of Rifles, Carbines, BAR's and Machine Guns. This is not the old Red Army where they had Battalions formed with the same weapon.

    Pruitt
    Pruitt, you are truly an expert! Kelt06

    Have you been struck by the jawbone of an ASS lately?

    by Khepesh "This is the logic of Pruitt"

    Comment


    • #17
      And ? It doesn't prevents the commanders and logistics to know which type of weapons were issued and how much ammo they used.
      There are no Nazis in Ukraine. Idiots

      Comment


      • #18
        Explain how YOU think that works?

        Pruitt
        Pruitt, you are truly an expert! Kelt06

        Have you been struck by the jawbone of an ASS lately?

        by Khepesh "This is the logic of Pruitt"

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by The Exorcist View Post

          The funny thing about those guns was.... everyone else was using or would use heavy mortars to do the same thing. Much lighter, cheaper and far faster to lay a barrage with once you had the range.

          That might SEEM like the smart way to go, but you can't take a mortar and put it in an assault-gun then go dashing up and blast the bejeezus out of the enemy with direct fire. The Germans did that, with both of those guns, and in large numbers.
          Guess they had the last laugh after all.
          Actually, the US didn't use many mortars. The regimental guns were the M3 105 howitzer.



          The only widely used mortar was the M2 60mm. 81mm mortars were relatively scarce. Usually just 3 at the Battalion HQ Company.

          At company level, the US infantry company usually carried forward as much ammunition as they could manage. In particular, veteran companies had every man carrying 2 60mm mortar bombs for the company mortars. They also used the 7 available jeeps to haul ammo forward whenever possible.

          The 4.2" mortar was only found in chemical weapons battalions, a corps unit that could be attached to divisions.

          Comment


          • #20
            Many Divisions equipped with the M 3 in their 3 Cannon Companies had them grouped together as an ad hoc 4th 105 Battalion.

            Pruitt
            Pruitt, you are truly an expert! Kelt06

            Have you been struck by the jawbone of an ASS lately?

            by Khepesh "This is the logic of Pruitt"

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by Pruitt View Post
              Many Divisions equipped with the M 3 in their 3 Cannon Companies had them grouped together as an ad hoc 4th 105 Battalion.

              Pruitt
              More likely linked into the FA battalion, effectively providing a fourth firing battery, although somewhat limited. Creating a fourth battalion would require an additional battalion staff created out of hide, and grouping three companies from three different regiments into an organization that would likely be operating away from at least two of the regiments due to the short rang of the M3. I've never read of this being done.

              What I've actually read about happing fairly often was putting the regimental cannon company under the fire direction of the direct support FA battalion. Since the FA battalion is set up to control extra firing units, additional structure is not required. And since the FA battalion is operating in support of the regiment, you don't place extra logistical burdens on the regiment to support a geographically separated company.

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by Emtos View Post




                British: 23337629 Vickers .303 VIII Z in Western Europe 44-45
                Thank you ! This is some great stuff. Soviet&German numbers would probably imply some 2-3x greater amount of rifle/mg ammo expended by the Germans though in combat that would be to some degree alleviated by the massive difference in the smg ammo.

                But I have trouble squaring that data with the western allied one. I can buy that the allies expended more, but surely 60 American divisions didn't use 100x more of it than either Soviets or Germans ? Is the latter data in hundreds or is there some coma in the former I'm not seeing ?

                Been also scanning through 21 army group history but didn't find anything beyond artillery numbers:

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by phaze View Post

                  But I have trouble squaring that data with the western allied one. I can buy that the allies expended more, but surely 60 American divisions didn't use 100x more of it than either Soviets or Germans ? Is the latter data in hundreds or is there some coma in the former I'm not seeing ?
                  Seems to be in thousands. So, billions of rounds not millions of rounds.


                  Google found me this:
                  https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets...Amw/edit#gid=0

                  From this discussion:
                  https://forums.spacebattles.com/thre...in-ww2.308559/
                  Wisdom is personal

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by phaze View Post
                    I can buy that the allies expended more, but surely 60 American divisions didn't use 100x more of it than either Soviets or Germans ? Is the latter data in hundreds or is there some coma in the former I'm not seeing ?
                    In thousands. So several billion cartridges expended each year vs less than a billion expended by the ETOUSA in 11 months.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Reading a Finnish paper on this, and it makes it pretty clear that increase artillery numbers and likewise increased calibre of these guns led to decrease in small arms ammo expenditure(even though these grew in number too). Likewise, doctrine changes seem to have had a significant effect as well(fighting tempo increased considerably).
                      Wisdom is personal

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by Artyom_A View Post
                        In thousands. So several billion cartridges expended each year vs less than a billion expended by the ETOUSA in 11 months.
                        Originally posted by Karri View Post

                        Seems to be in thousands. So, billions of rounds not millions of rounds.


                        Google found me this:
                        https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets...Amw/edit#gid=0

                        From this discussion:
                        https://forums.spacebattles.com/thre...in-ww2.308559/
                        That would explain it, thanks. And for the enlightening links also.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          the book "stalin's nemesis" has further statistics and analysis on this topic. The author was interested in such things as well.
                          Zhitomir-Berdichev, West of Kiev: 24 Dec 1943-31 Jan 1944
                          Stalin's Favorite: The Combat History of the 2nd Guards Tank Army
                          Barbarossa Derailed I & II
                          Battle of Kalinin October 1941

                          Comment

                          Latest Topics

                          Collapse

                          Working...
                          X