How much ammo is issued to active troops?

[Nugilum]

I was asked today "how many loaded en-block clips at one time were given to GI soldiers during WWII?" Surprisingly, I didn't have a clue.

So, how often and how much were WWII soldiers issued for their Garands?

Also, same question for today's soldiers and the 5.56x45 M16A4/M4.

 

[Sumsmartassguy]

The answer, as always...NOT ENOUGH, SARGE!



Of course, being the only madman willing to carry the M-60 & a pack fulla ammo (I don't need no steenking Sleeping bag! Gimme two poncho liners)...they always thought I was a little on the "Sgt Tackelberry" side...

 

[sarduy]

i think today's soldiers carry 6 full mags and one in the weapon 6+1=7x30= 210 rounds in total

but i'm not sure..

 

[easyrider604]

"how many loaded en-block clips at one time were given to GI soldiers during WWII?"

As much as they could carrry?

My GI bandoleer for the M1 Garand has 6 pockets, that's one 8 rd clip per pocket. My guess is two bandoleers per rifleman, at least. So that's a total of 96 rds. Sounds too little though.

Maybe I'll watch Saving Private Ryan again.

 

[Tim the student]

I just got out of the Army after almost 12 years. 210 is the Basic load. Thats what the people that will generally never ever leave the FOB get. If you go out a lot, or on longer missions, you will carry more.

Put it this way - I was a medic, and I carried at least 300 rounds. The chance of going black on ammo is pretty slim, but it does happen. It's usually not a good day for anyone involved, so if guys have more room for extra water and more mags, the space will pretty much always get filled with things that are bad to be low on.

 

[hinton03]

A soldiers basic load is mission dependent and always addressed in the order for the mission. However, unless other wise specified it was six magazines for the combat rifle last time I was in Iraq; this can be unit dependent also.

 

[Pack]

I don't mean to hijack, but I don't see the utility of starting a new thread when we have a couple of recent veterans (thank you, men!) in the mix here...

Did/do the forces ("insurgents", "militia", etc.) you were/are facing generally have access to or employ flak vests, or even actual, proper body armor?

My sister, who is new to guns and to whom I was explaining ARs and their ammunition (5.56mm in this instance), asked me why we're using the M855 as standard issue in Iraq if we're, as she put it, "mostly shooting people in plain clothes, in cities" - the implication being that the M193 might be better suited to the task. She picks up on what she's told pretty fast, so I was pleased.

However, I had no good answer for her. I'm sure there are good reasons, like penetration of cover, etc., but certainly don't know for sure. Even if noone else knows for sure, either, I was wondering if our outstanding fighting men would weigh in on this.

Thanks!

 

[chuckusaret]

In Vietnam I carried two bandoleers, or about 200 rounds, for a "normal" patrol.

 

[Titan6]

My GI bandoleer for the M1 Garand has 6 pockets, that's one 8 rd clip per pocket. My guess is two bandoleers per rifleman, at least. So that's a total of 96 rds. Sounds too little though.

That is correct on all counts however some units issued more, seldom less. Keep in mind this was the first time a large nation had gone to war with a basic issue semi-auto rifle. The load was similar to what was carried in bolt guns of the day.

 

[ilbob]

Keep in mind this was the first time a large nation had gone to war with a basic issue semi-auto rifle. The load was similar to what was carried in bolt guns of the day.

One of the objections some parts of the army had to the Garand was that it inevitably would lead to the use of more ammo. That was a lot more of a problem than you might think because it required a redoing of a lot of logistical and training standards, and when the Garand was being developed the Army was not exactly flush with cash to pay not only for a new rifle but a lot more ammo.

Believe it or not, and I do, the reasons it ended up with a non-detachable magazine have been reported as being to simplify the manual of arms and from fear that soldiers would lose a detachable magazine.

 

[Titan6]

Believe it or not, and I do, the reasons it ended up with a non-detachable magazine have been reported as being to simplify the manual of arms and from fear that soldiers would lose a detachable magazine.

Actually this is quite true. Even though detachable rifle magazines were not uncommon they were mostly designed to remain in the rifle most of the time. Carrying multiple magazines for rifles was not really done till mid war.

 

[steveracer]

I got 11 full mags in Iraq. Then resupply was on strippers in bandoliers.
Steve

 

[possum]

i think today's soldiers carry 6 full mags and one in the weapon 6+1=7x30= 210 rounds in total

but i'm not sure..

that is the by the book basic load for us. i am an infantry man, and i can tell you that i gon't go out on a mission without atleast 12 mags loaded 28rds per mag for my m4, there is a particular reason that i do this aside form the obvious ones.

 

[JShirley]

210 rounds. When I was out in the middle of nowhere, there were two ammo cans full of loaded M16 mags in the vehicle, in addition to our personal ammo...but we really wanted to be using the .50 or M249 if we had an issue!

John

 

[polekitty]

How do you get your ammo?

Being WWII I guess I'm just naturely prejudiced. I don't to this day think there is anything as good as an M1. Sure, it's not a lightweight (i carried one on more than one 30mi hike!) But, the ammo came in that cute little springy thing, and when you threw out that last round you also threw away that totally disposable magazine, clip, or whatever else you want to call it. You never had to run around policing up your dropped box magazines. And running out of that thing that puts you ammo into you gun, in the middle of a gunfight, is not a good place to be.

 

[steveracer]

polekitty:
There are magazines EVERYWHERE for the M-16/M-4 rifles. EVERYWHERE. There's more than a blue million of them, and getting new ones over there was not a problem. Ammo, too. Easy as pie to get more.
Unless, of course, you happen to be lucky enough to draw a shotgun, in which case, getting 25 rounds is like pulling teeth.

 

[Tim the student]

Indeed, shotgun ammo did seem hard to get. Then again, we really only used them to breech, so they were more of specialty weapon. Course, maybe that was due to the ammo we didn't seem to have.

 

[RyanM]

http://www.i-kirk.info/tales/vnr14.html

This guy carried 21 mags in Vietnam.

No matter what my job in Vietnam, there were certain pieces of equipment I always carried on this belt and harness. Of first importance were canteens and several pouches with field dressings. Two ammo pouches occupied the front. Typical of Army supply philosophy, we were issued M-14 magazine pouches, which were much too large for our smaller M-16 magazines. The three 19-round magazines flopped about in the pouch. On the outside of each pouch, straps held two grenades and secured the handles so they couldn't accidentally come loose (I also carried four grenades suspended from my shoulder straps).

Of course the six magazines these two pouches carried wasn't nearly enough, so I also carried a used Claymore mine bag, with the dividing stitching ripped out, which held fourteen magazines. One magazine in my rifle, six on the belt, and fourteen in the pouch - I carried almost four hundred rounds of M-16 ammunition. And several times I used almost every one!

Excellent collection of memoirs on that site.

 

[Tim the student]

RyanM,
I haven't thought of your tag line since PT formation on Ardennes. I like it!

 

[Wesson Smith]

I have absolutely zero military experience, but it would seem to me that if you got into a bad, protracted firefight that +-200 rds. of ammo would be exhausted pretty quickly. Did experience prove that to be the case?

 

[WardenWolf]

My sister, who is new to guns and to whom I was explaining ARs and their ammunition (5.56mm in this instance), asked me why we're using the M855 as standard issue in Iraq if we're, as she put it, "mostly shooting people in plain clothes, in cities" - the implication being that the M193 might be better suited to the task. She picks up on what she's told pretty fast, so I was pleased.

Just a speculation, but I believe there were several factors involved. One, it is capable of turning light cover into concealment. Two, it is less likely to fragment, a major factor in urban environments where collateral damage is a problem. Iraqis also tend to build structures out of concrete, brick, and stone, not wood as we do. A round that penetrates less and fragments readily would increase the chance of ricochets, and would also fail to penetrate many walls.

 

[Wesson Smith]

Oooops. Sorry 'bout that. RyanM's post kind of answered my question.

 

[GRIZ22]

So, how often and how much were WWII soldiers issued for their Garands?


I read a thing one time where a paratrooper jumping into Normandy said he carried a full ammo belt (80 rds) and 2 bandoliers (96 rds). I always think of this when I read some guy who thinks he needs to have 600 rds in magazines ready at all times. A paratrooper jumping into enemy held territory only carried 176?

In Vietnam I carried about 20 mags in a claymore bag and bandolier usually loaded to 18 or 19 rds. I left the stitching in teh claymore bag. It kept the mags from rattling around a bit but was a little harder to get out. Carried other stuff in the ammo pouches.

 

[CapnMac]

I want to remember Jeff Cooper sharing a factoid that troops on Guadalcanal were issued only 20 rounds per day unless on a line actually facing the Japanese. But, that was long ago, in Col Cooper's under-documented column on the last page of G&A.

 

[LoneRider]

210 rounds in seven magazines. But then again due to the nature of my job I'm mostly a FOBbit.