|
Post by deadwoodgultch on Nov 27, 2015 13:24:45 GMT
Gentlemen, I was just gifted a book. Title "The Last Stand of Fox Company" by Bob Drury and Tom Clavin. It is about a mission handed to Captain William Barber and the 246 men of Fox Company, of the Seventh Marine Regiment. Hold the Toktong Pass, seems to be the thrust of this narrative. I look forward to the read, seems these Marines had more in common with the primary topic of this board than just being the last stand of another 7th regiment!
Regards, Tom
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Nov 27, 2015 15:57:21 GMT
You are in for a very good read Tom. Keep in mind that Barber and Company F, faced much longer odds than Custer. The difference is that they had some time to prepare positions, lay in their guns, and register their mortars.
Something of interest to Ian would be the way Barber positioned his MG's placing them on the natural avenues of approach, one of the reasons I favor the USMC way of organization of supporting weapons over that of the USA.
|
|
|
Post by yanmacca on Nov 27, 2015 16:55:39 GMT
Sounds like a good read, is it along the same lines as Company Commander?
Yan.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Nov 27, 2015 18:17:23 GMT
Yes and no. Company Commander was about nine months of combat seen through one man's, MacDonald's, eyes. Last Stand of Fox is a compressed period of a few days, and you get Barber's viewpoint but also that of the other members of the company.
The emphasis though, like Company Commander, is on Fox until the relief force actions come into play in the latter third of the book.
There were two company actions that stand out in the first phase of the Chosin battles, Easy Seven and Fox Seven. Someday someone will write the definitive story of Phillips and Easy.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Dec 14, 2015 19:20:42 GMT
For Ian: When you next go to a book store look for the new Tom Clancy novel called Commander in Chief. It has only been out about a week.
On page 611 the author describes how a Marine battalion deploys for combat far better, and more understandable than I can, specifically how the weapons company is utilized. Keep in mind when reading that the tank platoon is attached to the battalion from the divisional tank battalion, and the armored recon vehicles are attached from the division light armored reconnaissance battalion
|
|
|
Post by yanmacca on Dec 14, 2015 19:31:38 GMT
Thanks Chuck, I just had a search to see if it was knocking around in "pdf" format but alas no joy, I bet our local library will have number of Clancy's books though, so that would be the place to look.
|
|
|
Post by yanmacca on Jul 23, 2017 11:02:28 GMT
I have been reading a version of the “Staff Officers' Field Manual", FM101-10” which covers the years before the US entered the war [1940-42], and it gives some data on the amount of ammo carried by riflemen in this period;
Here is what I have found;
A rifle man in an infantry platoon [M1 Rifle]: was issued with 40 rounds, he has another 192 rounds with his unit train and another 96 rounds with a higher supply train, which gives him a total of 328 rounds.
Now prior to combat, this soldier is given two bandoliers from his unit train, each containing 48 rounds [96], which means he has another 96 left with his unit train.
So in action this soldier is issued with 136 rounds, with another 96 available in his train, with another 96 left in reserve.
The BAR team carried 200, with the gunner carrying 80 and his assistant 120 [all in magazines], and this total increases to an extra 300 prior to combat, with 100 rounds given to the gunner and 80 rounds given to the assistant [again all in magazines], plus an extra 120 rounds carried by the assistant in bandoliers.
I suppose all this go out of the window in action, and when the US army started fighting this total may have increased, especially from the years 1942-45 [BTW: has anyone got any data on ammo issue after 1942?]
Just show how the amount of ammunition much your standard infantry carried in 1940, compared with what the cavalry carried in 1876, if we say that your average “Joe” took 136 with him in action around 1942, and your average cavalry trooper had around 100 rounds with him in total.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Jul 23, 2017 14:17:48 GMT
Why would a rifleman be issued an ammunition belt as part of his web equipment that holds 80 rounds (10 eight round clips), if he was only to be issued 40 rounds ( 5 eight round clips)?
As a rifleman, in the early 1960's I wore the same ammunition belt, and wore it with all the clip pockets full, for a total of 80 rounds, plus 8 more in my weapon, and if we could get an additional bandolier we hung it over our shoulder.
The BAR belt of the day worn by the gunner carried ten magazines (200 rounds), Post Korea there were no BAR assistant gunners in either the Army or USMC. It was a waste of manpower. The BAR is a one man weapon.
I am suspicious of this reference, plus I think it a leap of faith to assume that the U S Army was equipped with the M-1 Rifle exclusively in 1940-42. Most units still had the Springfield 03.
Nothing contained in that field manual citation makes any sense to me. Forty rounds is ludicrous when you consider the M-1 is a semi-automatic weapons, where 40 rounds would not last two minutes in a good firefight.
Ammunition is generally carried in four places in a forward area, on the rifleman's person, in the company ammunition trailer, in the battalion combat trains, and in the battalion field trains. Resupply of all of these four levels of carry is constant, in an engaged combat situation. Most times in combat the basic load is doubled or tripled, and field manuals are normally not worth the paper they are printed on when you are talking about what real soldiers do in real combat.
|
|
|
Post by yanmacca on Jul 23, 2017 14:52:41 GMT
Hi Chuck, I think I better show you what I saw rather than explaining it; Regards Ian
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Jul 23, 2017 15:25:46 GMT
I don't doubt what you saw. I just doubt the practicality of the figures presented. These tables are used for the calculation of basic load, for a "type" unit. They were formulated prior to any combat experience.
The message here, once again is that you are dealing with American soldiers who after the first shot is fired do what they damned well please, and throw the book in the trash can. They do what works, so any inference as to how many rounds an American soldier carried into combat cannot be made from these tables. The answer to how many, how much, is actually quite simple. They carried everything they could get their hands on and wished for much more.
The FM sited was produced at echelons above reality. It is a planning document only, not one that reflects the realities of combat.
|
|
|
Post by yanmacca on Jul 23, 2017 15:31:03 GMT
Chuck, have you forgotten my name all of a sudden?
Regards Ian.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Jul 23, 2017 18:50:25 GMT
When I write exclusively to you I use your name. When I right addressed at all I use no one's name.
I use the same method for everyone.
|
|
|
Post by yanmacca on Jul 23, 2017 18:54:46 GMT
Oh, ok, its just that I have wrote the post showing the data especially for you, and put your name first. No matter, if you write in this method. I just need to be able to tell the difference that's all, you think I would by now, I mean we have been writing to each other for six or seven years.
|
|
|
Post by deadwoodgultch on Jul 23, 2017 21:12:00 GMT
Gentlemen, we, American soldiers carry what is issued, required, and scrounged for the operation at hand. I would also mention some weapons not issued as long as ammunition is compatible/available. Not just now, but, in the past.
Ian, our management as yours has one goal in mind, the mission, the manual, be damned.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Jul 23, 2017 21:55:36 GMT
Ian: You may address a question or comment to me directly, and I will choose to answer in one of two ways.
If you are the only one I feel that is interested in a answer your name will appear in the first sentence. This goes for everyone here as well.
On the other hand if the question is directed to me by you and I feel that it touches on a subject of general importance to all, I will formulate my response as if it were a question asked by all.
|
|