What did smaller soldiers do?

I wouldn't be surprised if, in WWII, stocks were self-shortened to fit shorter soldiers. (Try saying that fast three times.) However, I have no documented information about that. There were lots of M-1s(?) shortened to accommodate Korean soldiers in that war.

(I'd said M-14s, but was corrected)

JP

The M14 came after Korea, only used briefly in Vietnam.

During WW-2 the military did a good job of matching soldiers skills and physical abilities to the job they did. In the European theater only 10% of soldiers were actually in combat. The other 90% were in support roles. In the Pacific only 5% were actually in combat and 95% in support roles. Just a guess, but if a soldier struggled to use one piece of equipment he would probably be assigned to another job. At the time the Air Force wasn't a separate branch. They needed small guys to work as gunners on bombers.

My dad and an uncle were both drafted in 1942 shortly after they graduated HS. My dad worked in a military hospital at a bomber training base in New Mexico for most of the war. Was transferred to infantry in the fall of 1944. He was sent to Belgium as a replacement during the Battle of the Bulge. He was issued a Garand for 1 day, then assigned to a field hospital for the duration of the war. Dad drove an ambulance to the front picked up wounded and brought them back to the hospital.

My uncle was in the Navy and spent the entire war in Seattle loading cargo ships. Never went to sea.

Audie Murphy was 5'5" and seamed to do very well during WW II

Im 5' 6" and never had any problems with an M1/M14, or any of the others for that matter.

Most military rifles are what I call, "combat stocked", and have a LOP of around 13". M1, M16, AK, you name it. About the shortest I can think of was the SKS, which is around 12"-12.5" if I remember right.

As far a weight, the more you carry and handle something, the easier it gets.

The British had 4 different lengths of buttstocks for the No. 4 rifle that could theoretically be adapted to each individual soldier. (Lots of luck getting the "right" one though, given the military logistics system.)

Picher said:

I wouldn't be surprised if, in WWII, stocks were self-shortened to fit shorter soldiers.

Click to expand...

Mutilating one's weapon would be a serious disciplinary problem. Maintaining interchangeability would be important, because somebody else might get your gun if you were a casualty. (The British had an official system in place for buttstock replacement, as noted above.)
Generally speaking, soldiers were supposed to adapt to their issued weapon, rather than the other way around. Note that, in the first place, recruitment parameters were supposed to weed out people who were not "normal." For example, if you were a dwarf, you would be rejected. After that, it wouldn't matter. The heavy BAR was often assigned to the smallest guy in the squad.

I was/am 5'9" back in 1963 and weighed 120 #. I carried a M-1 up and down every hill, I think, at Fort Jackson, SC. Managed to get one of those "Expert" badges when we qualified. I never was cut any slack for my small size, but was yelled at lots of times when I didn't do something right.

Have a blessed day,

Leon

I'm 5'6"" and the Grand stock has always fit me well. I believe they are shorter than what is standard today.
I've always heard it's easier for a tall man to shoulder a short stock than the other way around.

Don't recall the Army I served in 1967-1971 modifying or adapting equipment to fit the soldier, about the only piece of adjustable equipment I remember was the helmet liner and the web belt and suspenders. The Draft Era Army of the 1960s was fairly fussy, it was the Volunteer Army that would pretty much take anybody. I have read that as WWI dragged out the British had what were called "bantam" regiments, the 2-piece stock of the Lee Enfield allowed for some fitting of the rifle to the soldier. Years ago I visited a B-17 which had several WWII AAF veterans present, one told me at 5'10" and 200 pounds I had had been pretty big for the AAF.

The average male back then was about 5'6-5'8 and they dealt with it.

AlexanderA said:

The British had 4 different lengths of buttstocks for the No. 4 rifle that could theoretically be adapted to each individual soldier. (Lots of luck getting the "right" one though, given the military logistics system.)

Mutilating one's weapon would be a serious disciplinary problem. Maintaining interchangeability would be important, because somebody else might get your gun if you were a casualty. (The British had an official system in place for buttstock replacement, as noted above.)
Generally speaking, soldiers were supposed to adapt to their issued weapon, rather than the other way around. Note that, in the first place, recruitment parameters were supposed to weed out people who were not "normal." For example, if you were a dwarf, you would be rejected. After that, it wouldn't matter. The heavy BAR was often assigned to the smallest guy in the squad.

Click to expand...

I think that Koreans were using shortened American rifles...not done by the soldiers, but either government, before they were issued.

George P said:

The average male back then was about 5'6-5'8 and they dealt with it.

Click to expand...

“During World War II, the average body measurements of the over six million male inductees into the U.S. Army was found to be 5 feet, 8 inches tall and 144 pounds in weight...”

https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistori...ere_infantrymen_smaller_and_less_muscular_in/

I am 5'6", not a big difference. I was expected (and did) use long/heavy sniper rifles like theM21 (M14 variant) M24 and SR25, not to mention the M60 and M240 machine gun. I have carried (and jumped) rucksacks with weight approaching 100 lbs. There was a Cpt. in my company that was shorter than me. Not to mention, there are female service members in all branches that are issued and expected to be able to use the same weapons as their male counterparts. And don't forget about other countries like those in Asia, where their average height/build is less than ours. Most colombians and afghans are shorter and smaller than me for example, and they all use "adult sized" weapons and equipment.

You could have been in WW I and been issued a rifle 51 inches long!!

View attachment 982637

My uncle was 5'10" and he was issued an M-1 .30 Caliber Carbine, however he was attached to a Marine Artillery unit during WWII. I do remember him saying, "that rifle was so small, it was hard to get a grip on it". When he got home, he had A-1 sporterized 06 for deer hunting. I'm sure one of his sons has it now.

Audie Murphy used an M1 Carbine, about half the weight and one-third the muzzle energy of an M1 Garand. Carbine was a great weapon for people who would otherwise be issued a sidearm. Since there were more Carbines made than Garands, if the Garand was too big or heavy, the Carbine was available in all theaters of combat. I recall reading tho' that the Carbine buttstock was modeled on the Garand buttstock as far as length of pull and general feel.

My father was 6' 200lbs, grew up working on the family farm and was working in a saw mill before WWII; he was issued a BAR and would carry a M1 Garand if a BAR was not available. He had a low opinion of the Carbine and Thompson (penetration in the jungles of New Guinea was important to him).

My wife's uncle liked to tell the story that he volunteered for the submarine service in WWII because he heard they had the best food, but was rejected because he was too tall. He was an impressive figure of a man and in civilian life became a firefighter in Kansas City, Missouri.

Smaller frames (nourished on Depression era diets), enlistments for the duration, longer combat deployments, no regular communications back home, 9+ pound battle rifles and even heavier suppression weapons (BAR). A tougher breed went before us. Thank God.

Guessing that if you were 5'5", and thin as a bean pole, that unless you were were a real bad a@@, you weren't in a front line infantry unit in WW2. As a result, you would have probably been issued an M1 Carbine.

I was 6'3" and 210 lbs. in my prime, and ended up humping "the pig", an M60 MG, as part of the QRF while serving in the ROK.

If I am not mistaken, average male height is still only 5 foot and 8 inches or so. I think people have grown much bigger around though. I am thinking they would have made you do push ups and chin ups and sit ups until you could carry the rifle . I am thankful for that generation of people, they were tough, tough on the inside, and that goes a long ways.

5'5" would be a good height for a tank crewman. I have a vague memory of some authority (maybe the Chieftan on YT) mentioning that the Soviets selected smaller-statured men to crew the rather cramped T34.

My thanks to all the vets reading or replying to this thread for their service.

Carl N. Brown said:

Audie Murphy used an M1 Carbine, about half the weight and one-third the muzzle energy of an M1 Garand.

Click to expand...

He was also a dab hand with a pintle-mounted M2 Browning:

https://amhistory.si.edu/militaryhistory/collection/object.asp?ID=421

Hokkmike said:

I am 5' 5" and have little hands. Had I been in WWII instead of being a Viet Nam era serviceman (never went there to be clear) I do not think I could have wielded an M-1 Garand very well at all. So, did they make accommodation with other equipment or did the GI just have to tough it out and deal with an oversized arm for his size? (I suspect that this is probably the case)

Click to expand...

13-1/4" LOP on the M1 rifle.




GR

Sistema1927 said:

Guessing that if you were 5'5", and thin as a bean pole, that unless you were were a real bad a@@, you weren't in a front line infantry unit in WW2. As a result, you would have probably been issued an M1 Carbine.

I was 6'3" and 210 lbs. in my prime, and ended up humping "the pig", an M60 MG, as part of the QRF while serving in the ROK.

Click to expand...

Here are the 1940 requirements for a potential draftee (note that the 1944 requirements were actually reduced further):

Be over 5'0" tall and weigh at least 105 pounds

•Not have flat feet, hernia, or venereal disease

•Be functionally literate

•Have at least 12 teeth

•Have vision correctable with glasses

There is no limit on where they may be placed within the War Department, nor what weapon they were supposed to be equipped with. From 1942 on replacements were supplied on a one-for-one basis with casualties. Thus you could (and did) have small men who were put in the line as rifleman (with an M1) or handed a BAR.

I'm sure someone here will have some data I haven't seen, but from everything I have ever read, weapons were issued based on where in the TOE an individual was placed - officers got pistols or M1 Carbines, NCOs might be issued a Thompson, etc - rather than their physical dimensions.

I have seen plenty of stories and memoirs from regular line units that mention smaller soldiers.

My Dad was an armored infantryman in the ETO during WWII. He was close to 6' tall but skinny as a rail. When they were stateside in Basic Training he shot Expert with the M1 but whenever they went out in the field he usually "traded" it for one of the cook's M1 Carbine for a couple of packs of cigarettes! Overseas he carried his M1 Rifle.

Some great soldiers were small.




GR