Nick

In some of the debates that appeared from AUG 22-DEC 23 which saw Russian and Ukraine attempt offensives against various levels of hasty or prepared defenses it seemed a lot of US Army analysis was focused on well they didn’t do combined arms and then everyone nodded their head and that was the end

The M1 rifle was arguably the best infantry rifle in the war (everyone else was still using bolt action rifles). The Essex class carriers were the best carriers of the war. US artillery systems were first rate and could easily match anything the Axis could muster

I’ve seen pictures of it done in Vietnam and in Grenada with I’m not sure the exact configuration. Using canteen pouches in place of magazine pouches was also somewhat common at the time. Either way still not a fair comparison.

Also 210 is possible on an M1956 harness because it’s the same amount of magazines. Pretty different from 6 mags to 17.

Obviously it’s informed by how much a person can physically carry. You both have been insisting it’s the only factor and that it’s influenced *lowering* ammo loads at any point in history. Which was the point of the original question I asked which I never got an answer for.

What study says the 30 round mag and 210 rounds is tied to the volunteer force then?

210 rounds w/ 30 rd mags are developed and made standard before the Army is an all volunteer force. You guys are over emphasizing the “someone think about the weak draftees” factor for lack of better terms when the real consideration for the Army historically is squad composition and firepower.

I've been trying to not just dismiss you as having no practical understanding of this topic but cool man thanks for engaging in good faith. You've been throwing words in my mouth and changing the topic this entire time now so I don't really get why I've bothered.

You tell me how you would set up your plate carrier to have 17 mag pouches on it.

And the Army's thinking is flawed; between poor live fire performance by platoons equipped with the M7 and 250, and the fact that infantry engagements often don't take place past 300 meters. 210 might not be ordained by God but no infantryman from WW2 to Ukraine would say give me less ammo.

YouTube video by Battle Order U.S. Army & USMC Ammo Loads (WW2)

They did! Actual ammo load in WW2 was highly variable because most infantrymen carried more than allocated unit of fire. www.youtube.com/watch?v=6TNp...

I'm sorry but the M7 is really dumb because of its decreased UBL specifically and the fact you're saying that 140 (which weigh more) is workable is insane. 110 pound Joe is not making first shot hits with a front heavy M7 if he's not even fit enough to carry 210 rounds of 556.

Massive source needed on that specifically being the reason bc I'm fairly sure the load for an M1 didn't change after the draft. They also had general purpose bags with well over the TO&E amount of clips and grenades, and ammo for the BAR was distributed through other members of squad.

It says the "basic load of ammunition" will be the same regardless of where you are. Basic load is an actual doctrinal term based on the weapon and role of the soldier. Its consistent and when people talk about "lightening soldier load" they aren't talking about reducing the basic load of ammo.

He was implying that basic ammo load would be reduced to cope with less physically capable draftees in WW2. Not only is the study from the 70s but it also explicitly says stuff like basic ammo load won't change, which is what I've been trying to get at.

So not what I was talking about. Cool. And again if you weren't just talking at me at this point you'd see I've been talking about managing soldier load this entire time. bsky.app/profile/kcin...

I've read this before. From page 19 "The weight of the weapon, of the basic load of ammunition, and of the
personnel armor and CW protective items will remain the same in all climatic zones".

That article is the same as the first one.

Then show me where Marshall mandated that the basic ammo load for a rifleman less because the average draftee was weaker.

Show me where the unit-level infantry leaders in World War II deliberately decided “we need to carry less ammo and other necessary equipment because our troops are weak”. Because again, I don’t think @sodrock.bsky.social is saying that nor do I think you understand how that’s a very bad mindset.

There’s lots of writing on this specifically within the Army. But the point isn’t “we need to carry less so more people can be infantry”. That will get people killed. It’s leaders needs to plan better and appropriately physically train their guys. www.benning.army.mil/infantry/mag...

It is. Which is why unit leaders need to understand how to balance risk of not having certain things immediately available in their guy’s rucks (wet weather gear, more than a day of MREs, etc) with the things that they really need like ammo, water batteries, special equipment.

Soldier loads in WW2 were still often between 45-80 pounds. Guys like Audie Murphy were just fine because they went through training that prepared them for it.

Asking with complete sincerity were you infantry bc then you should know things like the basic ammo load or how many quarts of water or when plates are in isn't something you can just change because someone is less physically capable. Making them better is the entire point of physical training.

And no lol a weapon squad will in fact take their spare barrels with them on objective, thats kind of what they're for.

I'm not talking about an assault pack, I said approach march, which if you're gonna try and one up me and talk like I don't know what I'm saying I'm gonna assume you know what that means. Also I've never said anything about women in combat arms, you're putting more words in my mouth.

Taking out plates is something you *can* do but its dependent on how a unit's leadership handles preconfigured soldier loads. You're not gonna just see dudes take out plates unless they're told to. I know this because my unit does this.

Stuff like clothes is put in an A bag that gets moved on company trains. Its adds useless weight but its not what really adds up. That's MREs just for the day (like 3), water, batteries, and extra ammo/equipment especially for weapons squads who have extra rounds, tripods, and spare barrels.

Also, the Marauders literally moved hundreds of miles over land throughout the extent of their campaign through Burma, saying being able to move under load for extended time wasn't important for them is patently false.

I'm very aware of Audie Murphy and the Marauders historically. Again you all are putting words in my mouth. Dismounts don't take ground and push dozens of miles but the *approach march* from some assembly area to an assault position before you can drop rucks and then actually start can be miles.