Topic Actions

Topic Search

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 17 guests

M-96 ammunition production rate

This fascinating series is a combination of historical seafaring, swashbuckling adventure, and high technological science-fiction. Join us in a discussion!
Re: M-96 ammunition production rate
Post by coldsteel   » Tue Jan 20, 2015 10:30 pm

coldsteel
Lieutenant (Junior Grade)

Posts: 46
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2014 4:57 pm
Location: Tulsa, OK

jgnfld wrote:If I'm calculating right, 220 rounds of the .45 cal ammo they are using is going to weigh in the range of 25 pounds or more and be quite bulky. Today's firepower needs are why we went to the 5.56 in the first place over much better performing calibers. (I still think a 6mm Grendal sort of round would be a better idea, but that would add significantly to weight when carrying a lot of rounds.


When I was a rifleman with the US Army, our basic load was 210 rounds of 5.56. 6 mags in pouches, 1 in the rifle. I personally carried more than double that because as a dismounted squad leader, I carried a M231 instead of a M16 and used 3-5-round tracer bursts to designate targets...
Top
Re: M-96 ammunition production rate
Post by jgnfld   » Wed Jan 21, 2015 9:29 am

jgnfld
Captain of the List

Posts: 468
Joined: Sat Dec 28, 2013 9:55 am

coldsteel wrote:
jgnfld wrote:If I'm calculating right, 220 rounds of the .45 cal ammo they are using is going to weigh in the range of 25 pounds or more and be quite bulky. Today's firepower needs are why we went to the 5.56 in the first place over much better performing calibers. (I still think a 6mm Grendal sort of round would be a better idea, but that would add significantly to weight when carrying a lot of rounds.


When I was a rifleman with the US Army, our basic load was 210 rounds of 5.56. 6 mags in pouches, 1 in the rifle. I personally carried more than double that because as a dismounted squad leader, I carried a M231 instead of a M16 and used 3-5-round tracer bursts to designate targets...


420 45-70's would be around 50 pounds! Certainly would add to the combat load! And that's without considering the bulk.
Top
Re: M-96 ammunition production rate
Post by phillies   » Wed Jan 21, 2015 10:14 pm

phillies
Admiral

Posts: 2077
Joined: Sat Jun 19, 2010 9:43 am
Location: Worcester, MA

Readers may want to look up the shortage of artillery ammunition in World War II, Europe. I am not sure which claims about this are true.

Henry Brown wrote:This is going to be an awkward memo. ;)

To Duke Eastshare:

New recruits needed to conduct target practice as part of their training. Due to this, we were forced to divert your army's monthly ration of cartridges. As a result, we ask that you refrain from combat operations till next month.

Sincerely,

Cayleb Ahrmahk

:lol: :lol: :lol:
Top
Re: M-96 ammunition production rate
Post by saber964   » Wed Jan 21, 2015 11:14 pm

saber964
Admiral

Posts: 2423
Joined: Thu Dec 13, 2012 8:41 pm
Location: Spokane WA USA

phillies wrote:Readers may want to look up the shortage of artillery ammunition in World War II, Europe. I am not sure which claims about this are true.

Henry Brown wrote:This is going to be an awkward memo. ;)

To Duke Eastshare:

New recruits needed to conduct target practice as part of their training. Due to this, we were forced to divert your army's monthly ration of cartridges. As a result, we ask that you refrain from combat operations till next month.

Sincerely,

Cayleb Ahrmahk

:lol: :lol: :lol:

They did have some problems with ammo shortages in the aftermath of the breakout from Normandy because of the speed of the advance.
Top
Re: M-96 ammunition production rate
Post by Captain Igloo   » Thu Jan 22, 2015 10:20 am

Captain Igloo
Captain (Junior Grade)

Posts: 269
Joined: Thu Mar 08, 2012 4:02 pm

saber964 wrote:
phillies wrote:Readers may want to look up the shortage of artillery ammunition in World War II, Europe. I am not sure which claims about this are true.

SNIPP

They did have some problems with ammo shortages in the aftermath of the breakout from Normandy because of the speed of the advance.


This problem reached its nadir during the fall of 1944, when the US artillery in Europe was reduced to strict rationing of ammunition. At one point, the artillery was limited to fewer than twenty 105mm rounds-per-day-per-gun. From 11 October to 7 November 1944, Third Army fired a total of 76,325 rounds of all types (an average of 2,726 per-day), which was less than the number fired on a single day during the Battle of the Bulge. Indeed, at the end of the Battle of the Bulge, ammunition reserves in the ETO were 31 percent of the War Department's planning levels (which were already conceded to be too low). Like the personnel replacement problem, the ammunition shortage was only truly solved by the ending of the war.
Top
Re: M-96 ammunition production rate
Post by Henry Brown   » Sat Jan 24, 2015 2:35 pm

Henry Brown
Commodore

Posts: 912
Joined: Fri Dec 31, 2010 1:57 pm
Location: Greenville NC

Captain Igloo wrote:This problem reached its nadir during the fall of 1944, when the US artillery in Europe was reduced to strict rationing of ammunition. At one point, the artillery was limited to fewer than twenty 105mm rounds-per-day-per-gun. From 11 October to 7 November 1944, Third Army fired a total of 76,325 rounds of all types (an average of 2,726 per-day), which was less than the number fired on a single day during the Battle of the Bulge. Indeed, at the end of the Battle of the Bulge, ammunition reserves in the ETO were 31 percent of the War Department's planning levels (which were already conceded to be too low). Like the personnel replacement problem, the ammunition shortage was only truly solved by the ending of the war.


Interesting. Any idea what was the chief cause of the problem? For example, was it due to: 1. The factories in the United States not being able to make enough shells in the first place, 2. Lack of shipping to get them from the US to the European theatre, or 3. Difficulties with transporting them overland from the channel ports to the front?
Top
Re: M-96 ammunition production rate
Post by Keith_w   » Sat Jan 24, 2015 3:26 pm

Keith_w
Commodore

Posts: 976
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2012 12:10 pm
Location: Ontario, Canada

Henry Brown wrote:
Captain Igloo wrote:This problem reached its nadir during the fall of 1944, when the US artillery in Europe was reduced to strict rationing of ammunition. At one point, the artillery was limited to fewer than twenty 105mm rounds-per-day-per-gun. From 11 October to 7 November 1944, Third Army fired a total of 76,325 rounds of all types (an average of 2,726 per-day), which was less than the number fired on a single day during the Battle of the Bulge. Indeed, at the end of the Battle of the Bulge, ammunition reserves in the ETO were 31 percent of the War Department's planning levels (which were already conceded to be too low). Like the personnel replacement problem, the ammunition shortage was only truly solved by the ending of the war.


Interesting. Any idea what was the chief cause of the problem? For example, was it due to: 1. The factories in the United States not being able to make enough shells in the first place, 2. Lack of shipping to get them from the US to the European theatre, or 3. Difficulties with transporting them overland from the channel ports to the front?

Number 1 is unlikely. The US had been in the war since 1941, and had been supplying ammunition before that, as well as sutley preparing for it's own entry. More likely would be continuing U-Boat activity in the Atlantic, causing the direct loss of ammunition as well as other supplies and personnel and reducing the amount of transportation available, and a lack of Channel port space to receive the supplies as they arrived.
--
A common mistake people make when trying to design something completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools.
Top
Re: M-96 ammunition production rate
Post by RHWoodman   » Sat Jan 24, 2015 4:45 pm

RHWoodman
Captain (Junior Grade)

Posts: 386
Joined: Tue Mar 30, 2010 11:06 am
Location: Columbus, Ohio USA

Captain Igloo wrote:This problem reached its nadir during the fall of 1944, when the US artillery in Europe was reduced to strict rationing of ammunition. At one point, the artillery was limited to fewer than twenty 105mm rounds-per-day-per-gun. From 11 October to 7 November 1944, Third Army fired a total of 76,325 rounds of all types (an average of 2,726 per-day), which was less than the number fired on a single day during the Battle of the Bulge. Indeed, at the end of the Battle of the Bulge, ammunition reserves in the ETO were 31 percent of the War Department's planning levels (which were already conceded to be too low). Like the personnel replacement problem, the ammunition shortage was only truly solved by the ending of the war.

Henry Brown wrote:Interesting. Any idea what was the chief cause of the problem? For example, was it due to: 1. The factories in the United States not being able to make enough shells in the first place, 2. Lack of shipping to get them from the US to the European theatre, or 3. Difficulties with transporting them overland from the channel ports to the front?

Keith_w wrote:Number 1 is unlikely. The US had been in the war since 1941, and had been supplying ammunition before that, as well as sutley preparing for it's own entry. More likely would be continuing U-Boat activity in the Atlantic, causing the direct loss of ammunition as well as other supplies and personnel and reducing the amount of transportation available, and a lack of Channel port space to receive the supplies as they arrived.


Third Army's problem with ammunition and fuel supply was not due to manufacturing shortages but was due instead to the inability of Allied forces to keep Third Army supplied. Sufficient quantities of ammunition and fuel were stacked up at Normandy, but there was not enough heavy transport to keep Patton supplied. Some supplies designated for Third Army were also diverted to Montgomery's "Operation Market Garden" and could have been better used if sent to Patton. The ammunition and fuel in supply depots in the areas of Northern Europe under may have been sufficient for the entire European theater, but the Allies suffered from inadequate amounts of transport for the supplies they had.

After being forced to halt on September 25, 1944, due to a lack of fuel and ammunition, Patton took advantage of captured enemy weapons to conserve his own ordnance and ammunition. There is an interesting description of what Patton did in the article "Refuel on the Move: Resupplying Patton’s Third Army" by Captain Daniel G. Grassi, published in Quartermaster Professional Bulletin - Summer 1993. You can read the article at http://www.qmfound.com/pol.htm.
Top
Re: M-96 ammunition production rate
Post by jgnfld   » Sat Jan 24, 2015 4:53 pm

jgnfld
Captain of the List

Posts: 468
Joined: Sat Dec 28, 2013 9:55 am

Henry Brown wrote:...

Interesting. Any idea what was the chief cause of the problem? For example, was it due to: 1. The factories in the United States not being able to make enough shells in the first place, 2. Lack of shipping to get them from the US to the European theatre, or 3. Difficulties with transporting them overland from the channel ports to the front?

The U-Boat treat in the North Atlantic was largely eliminated as a real logistical factor by mid 1943. Even earlier, actually.

See Black May by Gannon for a not-too-detailed summary.

http://www.amazon.com/Black-May-Allies-Defeat-U-Boats/dp/1591143047

I also have a feeling this book might provide good pointers for the upcoming battles against Lenny Dets in the Honorverse.
Top
Re: M-96 ammunition production rate
Post by saber964   » Sat Jan 24, 2015 9:10 pm

saber964
Admiral

Posts: 2423
Joined: Thu Dec 13, 2012 8:41 pm
Location: Spokane WA USA

jgnfld wrote:
Henry Brown wrote:...

Interesting. Any idea what was the chief cause of the problem? For example, was it due to: 1. The factories in the United States not being able to make enough shells in the first place, 2. Lack of shipping to get them from the US to the European theatre, or 3. Difficulties with transporting them overland from the channel ports to the front?

The U-Boat treat in the North Atlantic was largely eliminated as a real logistical factor by mid 1943. Even earlier, actually.

See Black May by Gannon for a not-too-detailed summary.

http://www.amazon.com/Black-May-Allies-Defeat-U-Boats/dp/1591143047

I also have a feeling this book might provide good pointers for the upcoming battles against Lenny Dets in the Honorverse.



By Op Overlord the U-boat threat was largely non-existent. Both the USN and RN were protecting convoys with CVE's and were conducting search and destroy missions with CVE DD/DE hunter-killer TG's eg USS Guadalcanal vs U505. It was not uncommon for a convoy in mid 44 to be protected by as many as 4-6 CVE HK TG's. With usually 2 in direct support and 2-4 more sailing ahead to sanitize the area.
Top

Return to Safehold