What did smaller soldiers do?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Dave DeLaurant said:
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.
Click to expand...

I'm trying to remember the height limit for a Soviet tanker and I believe it was 5' 6". Soviet tanks were extremely cramped inside and a big man just could not function properly in the tight space. I know that WWII tanks and the cold war era tanks were that way, not sure about the new main battle tanks being used now. The Soviet doctrine stressed low profile tanks as to provide a smaller target profile so interior space is what they cut. The American M-60 tank is 10" 6 1/2" high and the Soviet T-62 is 7' 10", the T-72 is 7' 4" which are the tanks used in that era. Today's M-1 Abrams is 8 feet high.
Added: The T-90 tank is the newest tank used by the Russian army and it it 7' 3" high, still shorter than the Abrams.
 
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...
I saw ARVNs with Garands. Not big people.
 
In one of Jeff Cooper's book, he mentioned that military rifles are often designed with a fairly short length of pull to better accommodate the range of stature of soldiers. How true that is, I don't know. But I'm sure someone could take a few measurements if they felt so inclined.
 
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...
They’d have made you a tanker and given you an M1 carbine lol
 
There are a number of contemporary reports that, in Boot Camp it was common to force the smallest person(s) in the Training Platoon/Company to tote the BAR, as it was a long and heavy beast, especially when carried administratively.
This largely held true in Stateside billets as well, no reason to have to wrestle that heavy old beast around barracks.
Once "in contact" there was a certain amount of "Put Jones on it, he has the most experience." But, once combat losses occurred, the weapon was more important than the man carrying it. (This is also why the dedicated AG BAR belts fell by the wayside, the bandolier was easier to move.)

If a person wound up in a Weapons Squad or Platoon, you toted the TOE that was issued, and your third or fourth of the weapon in question (MG tripod, mortar baseplate, etc.)

War Department went from around 3/4 million in uniform to 7+ million in just two-three years. There was a lot of manpower available.

Army also firmly knew that artillery (and to a lesser extent MGs) did the most killing in war. So, if smaller troops had trouble with a specific weapon, an artillery barrage tended to level that out.
 
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...
You would have done just fine.
Audie Murphy was
5'5"
 
I did basic in 66 with an M-1 Im 5'6"" 150lb.
the medic school made me tote an M-14
Got to the Nam and was issued a POS AR, I hated it!
Grabbed an M1 Carbine from the ARVN. And loved it!
A light weight, 30 cal , that got me to the wounded, protected him and I, and got us out.
A LT tried to give me grief about it.
The battalion C O educated him about not screwing with the medic. The C O was Weldon Honeycutt, he'll of a leader, went on to be 3 star!
 
There was a weedy little chemist in my agency who was one of those issued a BAR. He never told war stories so I don't know if that was in training as CapnMac says or if he fought with it.

We had a tall engineer - a good bit taller than my 6'1" - who was a tanker. His Sherman was hit and he ended up with one arm missing and one leg lamed up pretty bad.

There were lots of veterans there when I was a co-op student and junior engineer. My first two tiers of supervisor were Navy, one on a battleship, one on a seagoing tug.
 
You wouldn't have had to worry about an M-1, they would have dumped a BAR on you!! :what: Ever notice that the smallest guys always seemed to get the BARs???
Garandimal said:
Some great soldiers were small.




GR
Click to expand...
Like Woody? I'm 6'1" and I don' t think Woody is more than 5'3 or 4. Yes, that is the CMH he's wearing. Above and beyond the call on Iwo Jima.
 

Attachments

  • IMG_5349[1].JPG
    IMG_5349[1].JPG
    144.6 KB · Views: 42
George P said:
Mu dad was USN and he was 5'8 and maybe 135
Click to expand...

Dad (USN) got WWII, Korea, and Viet Nam. Dad at the start of things was probably 5’11” 145ish. Dad was 19 and an Ensign at the tail end of WWII. In WWII, he transited the canal and made it to California in preparation for the invasion of Japan before Truman ended things. For Korea, he defended the coastal state of Kansas. For Viet Nam, I am certain he never left Dallas long enough to have made it to Viet Nam, let alone back. For some reason, he got “credit” for all three. Presently interred at the Dallas National Cemetery with Mom.

One brother commissioned into the Marines in 1976. Probably 5’4” and 120 — barely made the cut. Later, he got lectured for intimidating his Marines - go figure. The other brother commissioned into the Marines 1979. Probably 5’10” and 160. I am the black sheep...
 
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...
I came in at 5'6", about 150. By 1987 (when I enlisted) Infantry and other combat arms were expected to move further, faster, and carry more weight than our WW2 counterparts. Sure, the weapons and ammo weighed less than they did in the 40's, so we just carried more of it. Not to mention the improvements in communications abilities (that required more stuff) the eventual addition of body armor, and various other items (100 pounds of lightweight gear) added to the ruck. As more improvements filtered down to the individual soldier, that soldier's load has increased over time. Once weight was "shed' by streamlining or eliminating 1 item, more "space" or "carrying capacity" became "available" to stack more junk in the trunk. And the VA still can't figure out why all of us are still breaking.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

W
  • Locked
All these soldiers with 14 and 16" M4's...I'd ask my CO for a 20" or an AR-10
Replies
8
Views
982
Andrew Wyatt
A
W
  • Locked
M1 - How did they do IT?
2
Replies
37
Views
3K
VG
V
Hokkmike
  • Locked
AR for AK advice...What would you do?
2
Replies
36
Views
2K
Prince Yamato
P
2
  • Locked
A Soldier's story.........................
Replies
6
Views
2K
roscoe
R
3
  • Locked
Ar-15, what is the soldier doing?
2
Replies
49
Views
3K
swampgator
S
Back
Top