>official TOE for MG ammo is 1 pan mag in the gun, and 3 with the assistant, for 4 mags per squad for a total of only 188 rounds per squad
>distributing spare mags across the rest of the riflemen is seemingly less common than in other armies too
>US squads carries 700 rounds for just the BAR standard just for the gunner and assistant
>british sections carry 1000 rounds of bren ammunition, thanks to every rifleman being issued a spare bren mag for the gunners
>german squads carry 1200 rounds of MG ammo
did having 3-4x as many SMGs as every other army make up for the actually kind of low amount of MG rounds they could fire?

>>63888320 (OP)
>japanese squad carried 500 rounds for the MG
did the soviets just not think ammo was a priority?

>>63888320 (OP)
they also had the sg-43. Not sure how it was handled at the squad/unit level

>>63888444
No the real reason is those mags were finicky pieces of shit and had to be basically hand fitted to the gun.

>The main difference between the Heavy and the Light Rifle Sections was that the Heavy Rifle Sections were to have 2 DP-27 light machine gun teams while the Light Sections were to have 1. As the Soviets at this time were mostly applying fire and maneuver at the platoon level and higher, the Heavy Section could be thought of as the fire support section of the platoon while the Light Sections would be the maneuver sections. It should be noted that in the first "reduced strength" TO&E introduced after the beginning of Operation Barbarossa only 2 of the Rifle Platoon's 4 sections were authorized 1 light machine gun each. This implies that the fire and maneuver was intended to be at the platoon-level as the sections without the machine guns would need support from the machine gun-laden sections to maneuver. However, as typically only 188 rounds were carried per gun (1 magazine in the gun and 3 magazines carried by the assistant) it seems there was much less emphasis on the section's own integral firepower (potentially mitigated by firepower higher up the chain and eventually submachine guns and company-level medium machine guns).

Were the ammo constants realistic numbers for the front line?

>>63888637
the MMG was at the company level and would be assigned to support a platoon

soviets lagged behind here too, since the US and germans both had 2 MMGs per company, so they could reinforce two platoons at a time
so it might really have been up to their SMGs to make up the discrepancy in automatic fire

>>63888320 (OP)
>>63888444
Wait till you learn that gear inventorying of combat units gear regularly show that they had 3-4 working magazines for DP. Other magazines been damaged and lost and there were no replacement.
This is not getting attention but poor magazines supply of Soviet infantry made their firepower very weak

>>63888733
>(potentially mitigated by firepower higher up the chain and eventually submachine guns and company-level medium machine guns).
so really just the SMGs, since they had only a single MMG at the company compared to the 2 most other countries got

the only thing they had that the germans didnt was a pair of company-level mortars, since the germans moved their 8cm mortars up a level after 1944 to the battalion level
but the US trumped the soviets here with 3x 60mm mortars within the company compared to two 50mm ones

>>63888733
>potentially mitigated by firepower higher up the chain and eventually submachine guns and company-level medium machine guns)
It wasn't better at high levels. Their inventorying showed that SG/Maxim MGs had 2-3 working 250 rounds belts in disposal

>tfw still another week before the Soviet company challenge video releases
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s20S-TQVY3w

>>63888726
what was stopping them from making a bar magazine?

>>63888637
bein on a wheeled carriage, it was going to have a hard time keeping up with an advance
especially since they were assigned a draft animal to pull it rather than a truck of any kind

>>63888320 (OP)
>188 rounds for suppressing
how did they hope to have any staying power at all? was infantry combat that much slower paced back then?

>>63889240
>was infantry combat that much slower paced back then?
soviets might have preferred a faster pace, if anything
they had more SMGs than any other army for assaulting positions
germans and brits only had 1 SMG per squad, and more for SLs and PLs to have a short weapon to free up a hand rather than to actually use it
americans actually deleted the SMG from their squad, they were held at the battalion HQ and were only issued on request

soviets had 1 dedicated SMG per squad, enough SMGs to replace an additional 1-2 riflemen with an SMG
and each company had an additional SMG platoon, with each rifleman carrying an SMG

>>63889250
>they had more SMGs than any other army for assaulting positions
And yet I heard a Finnish former army sergeant relate a story from the war on the radio once, where he said that the Soviets would fix bayonets and proceed not to fire a single shot under 50 metres which resulted in retarded casualty numbers

Soviet platoons were built around maneuver to close with the enemy. Heavier weapons rather than relying on a squad-level machine gun would suppress. A mix of genuine doctrine but also probably some logistical shortcomings. They did also have a great deal of SMGs.

Western platoons were more built around the MG and local sustained fire superiority

>>63889692
Yeah I once watched a movie where only every second solider got a gun

>>63889759
the heavy weapons are all the way up at the regimental level, a whopping 4 76mm guns to support 3 battalions
so dispensing with the need for MGs and substituting them with heavy weapons would mean each gun could only cover a single company
this would be an incredibly inflexible arrangement, to say the least

>>63889806
>the heavy weapons are all the way up at the regimental level, a whopping 4 76mm guns to support 3 battalions
Plus a 120mm mortar company and a 45mm gun battery.

The battalion had organic assets for fire support on top of that.
A machine gun company, a mortar company and a 45mm AT gun battery in each battalion.

>>63889992
yeah, thats pretty inflexible all things considered
since the 120mm gun needs a draft animal to move, the 76mm guns need a draft animal to move, and even the MMGs need a draft animal to move since its wheeled
45mm guns are AT guns and are terrible against soft targets

so they traded all the organic weapons in the platoon for relatively immobile battalion level guns
all this basically means they need to bring the whole battalion to cover each platoon

>>63890129
>yeah, thats pretty inflexible all things considered
Welcome to WW2.
>since the 120mm gun needs a draft animal to move,
>even the MMGs need a draft animal to move since its wheeled
What the hell are you smoking? Both more than capable of being taken into pieces and physically carried by infantry on the march if you have to. Only the 76.2mm guns are too heavy for operationally sensible movement speeds if pushed and pulled along by the artillerymen alone.
>45mm guns are AT guns and are terrible against soft targets
They had ample HE shell loads with them and were very regularly used in direct fire support.
>all this basically means they need to bring the whole battalion to cover each platoon
Which is how WW2 militaries operated. Not a single one of them had independently operating platoons, and each one was built to operate at the battalion level at a minimum.

>>63890176
>Which is how WW2 militaries operated
every other country could maneuver at the platoon level, since each platoon was covered by their guns, an MMG on a tripod and their squad machine guns

but only a single platoon in a soviet company would have been covered by an MMG, since they had only the one and it was wheeled instead of on a tripod which made it slower
45mm sucked in the anti-infantry role and the 76s cant be moved on foot anyways
so that really just leaves their mortars to do all the work, and that really just sounds like the least versatile army unit of the entire war other than the italians

>>63890228
>since each platoon was covered by their guns, an MMG on a tripod and their squad machine guns
Where is this idea from? Your average WW2 platoon had automatic rifles only, with only the Germans operating genuine light machine guns (yes, I know the English language doesn't properly differentiate between the two, but the English language is stupid).
Platoon mortars were here and there, but their capability was severely limited. They were more equivalent to modern rifle grenades within common combat ranges, rather than any larger mortars, and couldn't provide adequate suppression for maneuver. Only advantage is in organic point obscuration.
Medium and heavy machine guns were typically on the company level with the company mortars, the exact same as the Soviets.
Everyone was entirely dependent on higher echelons for relevant fire support.

>but only a single platoon in a soviet company would have been covered by an MMG, since they had only the one
Only one, sometimes more rarely two. Compared to 0 on the German side, two on the American, 0 on the British and 2 on the Japanese and 0 for the Italians. This is average rifle companies.
>and it was wheeled instead of on a tripod which made it slower
The wheeled Maxim / SG43 is faster to set up than a tripod.
>45mm sucked in the anti-infantry role
A 45mm high explosive fragmentation grenade is a 45mm high explosive fragmentation grenade. Put one into a window and the occupants of that room are combat ineffective.

>and the 76s cant be moved on foot anyways
Of course they can. It's just not operationally viable, unless you conscript a bunch of riflemen and have them pull it on a rope like they were serfs pulling a barge.
>so that really just leaves their mortars to do all the work, and that really just sounds like the least versatile army unit of the entire war other than the italians
It sounds like all other WW2 militaries.

>>63890348
>Where is this idea from?
everyone had squad level automatics

>Platoon mortars were here and there, but their capability was severely limited.
only the germans did not have platoon level mortars, and only after 1944
this is perhaps the only real advantage the soviets had over them at this level

>This is average rifle companies.
only the british did not have company level machine guns, since their vickers were operated by independent machine gun battalions at the divisional level

>The wheeled Maxim / SG43 is faster to set up than a tripod.
only if you dont count travel time
but the cumbersome wheeled carriage meant it set up much slower because you had to drag it

>A 45mm high explosive fragmentation grenade is a 45mm high explosive fragmentation grenade.
again, its an AT gun with a relatively ineffectual anti-personnel performance
and having to use a towed gun to support every platoon because the squad machine gunner has barely more rounds than a rifleman is questionable

>It sounds like all other WW2 militaries.
other countries have at least 500 rounds with the squad machine gunner, 1000 rounds in the case of the germans and the brits
so their mortars have to do way less work than the soviet ones

>>63889027
Hard to retool factory production in the middle of a massive continent-scale invasion, when you've just shipped all those factories to the middle of Siberia. The same reason why they started pumping out Mosin Nagants despite not having produced them in years with the aim of issuing the SVT-40 as the standard issue rifle; they still had the facilities at scale to produce millions of Nuggets but didn't have the facilities available to mass produce the same amount of SVTs

>>63890406
>everyone had squad level automatics
But not guns and MMGs, those are on higher levels, in the battalion. The companies only had two MMGs/HMGs at best, which is woefully inadequate for proper maneuver. They would always have to be strengthened or supported from the battalion's support / weapons companies.

>only the british did not have company level machine guns,
The Germans did not have company machine guns for the vast majority of the war. Only in '44 did they put in two HMGs on the organization table at the company level. Until then, they only had company mortars for organic fire support on that level. Heavy machine guns were a part of the battalion, in the heavy companies, leaving them in a similar situation as the Soviets.
>again, its an AT gun with a relatively ineffectual anti-personnel performance
It's a dual-purpose anti tank artillery piece, same as all the other Soviet guns. The 76.2mm ZIS-3s are also anti-tank guns, yet the Soviets used them also as regimental artillery.
The Soviet 45mm was also something the Germans did not have. They did not have any direct fire support guns on the battalion level and had to go to the regiment for their infantry guns. The Americans had similar direct firecapabilities to the Soviets with their 37mms and 57mms.

>and having to use a towed gun to support every platoon because the squad machine gunner has barely more rounds than a rifleman is questionable
Which again, is why, all the WW2 militaries fought primarily on the battalion / battalion sized task force level. A single WW2 company was simply not fit for independent operation as such for most of the war and for most of the parties. Everyone had to rely on higher echelon support to fight effectively.
>other countries have at least 500 rounds with the squad machine gunner, 1000 rounds in the case of the germans and the brits
Organizational ammo loads are never real. Nobody goes into battle with just that amount of ammo, if they can scrounge up any more.

It was only by 44 that the Soviet industry was able to produce the DP-27 in the right quantity. Before that, it was used very little and fought for only a year, and was quickly replaced by the RPD-44, so no tactics were developed with the DP-27.

>>63890348
The term you're thinking of is "machine rifles" for the automatic rifles.

>>63891218
BAR stands for Browning automatic rifle

>>63891283
Yes, but the term for a heavy full auto fire support automatic rifle is a machine rifle.

>>63891292
The US Army used the term 'machine rifle' in WW1 but switched to 'automatic rifle' in WW2. Even today a SAW gunner's proper job title is
'automatic riflemen'.

>>63888888
Ammo supply of Soviet SMGs wasnt better.
Initially they produced 3 drum magazines per PPSH. Then reduced it's number to 2. In the military due to loss send breksge average numbers of magazines per PPSH was .... 1.3. 2 of 3 PPSH had just one drum magazine no spares.

>>63893016
Yes but that's entirely unique to the US army and its stupid because of how generic it is.

>>63893030
didnt they produce a ton more bar mags?
so they would have the drum loaded, with all the spares being bar mags

>>63890348
>The wheeled Maxim / SG43 is faster to set up than a tripod.
«Cтaнoк cиcтeмы Coкoлoвa жeлaтeльнo зaмeнить cтaнкoм-тpeнoгoй типa пyлeмeтa «ДC»… «Oчeнь чacтo oткaзывaлa в дeйcтвии лeнтa, ocoбeннo вo вpeмя дoждливoй и cыpoй пoгoды»… «Oтcyтcтвиe cпeцжидкocти зимoй для зaливки кoжyхa пpивoдит пyлeмёт в бeздeйcтвиe»… «Ha peзкo пepeceчeннoй мecтнocти и ocoбeннo в гopaх пyлeмётныe pacчёты oт пepeдoвых чacтeй oтcтaют и зaчacтyю, идя в бoй, c цeлью oблeгчeния и нe oтcтaвaния oт пeхoты pacчёты бpocaли cтaнки пyлeмётoв и шли в бoй c oдним тeлoм пyлeмётa, тeм caмым кaчecтвo пpицeльнoгo oгня cнижaлocь, a инoгдa pacчёты oтcтaвaли oт cвoих чacтeй и нa пpoдoлжитeльнoe вpeмя тepяли cвoи пoдpaздeлeния»… «Пo кoнcтpyкции, пo yдoбcтвy пoльзoвaния нaибoлee пpиeмлeм пyлeмёт пo типy нeмeцкoгo пyлeмeтa MГ-42»… «Haши лeнты, cдeлaнныe из пoлoтнa, быcтpo pвyтcя, a кoгдa мoкнyт — вызывaют зaдepжки пpи cтpeльбe. Пocлe тoгo кaк пoлoтнянyю лeнтy пpocyшишь — oнa caдитcя и eё oчeнь тpyднo нaбивaть».

>>63890511
>Organizational ammo loads are never real. Nobody goes into battle with just that amount of ammo, if they can scrounge up any more.
Well real Soveit ammo supply of automatic was in practice less than even ToE because of deficit of the magazines and belts for these weapons.

>>63889762
The difference being that that guy had actually been in the shit
The Finnish front didn't get the bulk of the SMG troops obviously so their doctrine was probably way different

>>63893038
No. Sector magazines were produced total at about 1:3 rate to PPSH that went with sector magazines (they all hand fitted to specific SMG btw). In army sector magazines were meet very negatively. PPSH with single drum was kinda viable weapon (for Soviets). PPSH with single sector magazine sbsolynot, and this how many PPSH ended in Soviet logistical and manufacturing reality.