How much ammo should a normal Infantryman carry?

[Mick73]

Simon9
We still use mules, they are called diggers!

Maybe we need to keep our Lt Inf to be able to march 80+ Kms, so that our logistic can keep up.

I wonder do the RFSU's use horses at all or is it all RFSV's?

I'm sure in a time of war in our area, we might/could use pack mules/horses.
Or even camel's...maybe we could call one of the new Land121 vehicles "Camel" or "Brumby".

 

[shimmy]

Iraq vs. Korea

I have heard that in Korea the average was 250 rounds per enemy kill while in Iraq it is over 2500 per casualty. Are these numbers correct? If these numbers are correct do they mean that the modern soldier must carry at least ten times as much ammon as the Korean War soldier ?

 

[Tasman]

I have heard that in Korea the average was 250 rounds per enemy kill while in Iraq it is over 2500 per casualty. Are these numbers correct? If these numbers are correct do they mean that the modern soldier must carry at least ten times as much ammon as the Korean War soldier ?

I suspect one reason is that there were more targets in Korea in the form of mass attacks by North Korean and Chinese troops. Soldiers in trenches facing a frontal attack by thousands of troops would, I expect, use less rounds per casualty inflicted than those in Iraq where the enemy seems far more elusive.

Cheers

 

[rickshaw]

I suspect one reason is that there were more targets in Korea in the form of mass attacks by North Korean and Chinese troops. Soldiers in trenches facing a frontal attack by thousands of troops would, I expect, use less rounds per casualty inflicted than those in Iraq where the enemy seems far more elusive.

Cheers

"Elusiveness" is only half the story, I think, Tasman. Fire discipline or the lack of it is another. I've seen numerous videos from Iraq of US troops who appear to blaze away without any fire control from their section/platoon commanders, just as they did in Vietnam. Compare that to Australia's Army where fire control and discipline are at the core of the section/platoon commander's raison de entre. Different approaches like that are a the result of differing logistics systems - the Americans can afford to be profligate in their use of firepower, Australians cannot, so we tend to control our fire much more.

 

[Chino]

Until I've experienced real combat, I wouldn't criticise people for seemingly firing at "nothing".

A lot of times, troops come under fire but is unable to pinpoint, say amongst many houses, exactly where the fire is coming from or how many enemies there are remain hidden.

The enemy is often well concealed behind cover whether urban or jungle. The enemy will pop up for a couple of seconds to fire a shot before taking cover and possibly changing location. (I know I would.)

So in such a situation, I wonder if one should fire in the general direction or just hold your fire until you see something?

The Australians have always been a professional force. But a book I read about their fight in Vietnam reports that a lot of times they sometimes also fire at "nothing" cos the enemy simply cannot be seen in the thick jungle.

 

[rattmuff]

Until I've experienced real combat, I wouldn't criticise people for seemingly firing at "nothing".

A lot of times, troops come under fire but is unable to pinpoint, say amongst many houses, exactly where the fire is coming from or how many enemies there are remain hidden.

The enemy is often well concealed behind cover whether urban or jungle. The enemy will pop up for a couple of seconds to fire a shot before taking cover and possibly changing location. (I know I would.)

So in such a situation, I wonder if one should fire in the general direction or just hold your fire until you see something?

The Australians have always been a professional force. But a book I read about their fight in Vietnam reports that a lot of times they sometimes also fire at "nothing" cos the enemy simply cannot be seen in the thick jungle.

Everyone in the Swedish Army is tought to fire one fast double-burst at anything suspicious and report exactly what he/she saw and where. Every soldier in the group has a specific line-of-fire that depends on formation and movement, thus covering 360 degrees.

But in a thick jungle this gets alot harder. It's hard even in a forest, a soldier covered in grass/pine and make-up in a modern uniform is extremely difficult spot. Not to mention if he/she is lying on the ground.

 

[mickk]

US strategy has been "maximum firepower" for decades. Thousands of rounds all fired without aiming as resupply was never an issue. They just have so many resources.

Mate was in Royal Marines in the Falklands War, ended up carrying 180 pounds of kit as the jeeps and choopers all sank on some container ship. But he is a huge bloke. Bloody amazing effort no matter how you look at it.

Having never fired a shot in anger, we carried 4 x 18 round mags of 7.62 for the SLR in the 80s. We were taught to aim before firing in 4th/19th!

We used all the old Vietnam kit, some of it stamped 1968 etc, still have the webbing, must wiegh 10 kilos by itself, all canvas and brass.