>>64476373
>being poor
It's not just a money problem. It's a manufacturing problem. You need engineers, skilled labour, materials, machine tools, a facility to house them all in, and then a lot of time (thousands of hours most probably) just to get a couple hundred test models into the hands of troops. All of these resources, by the way, could be spent on making more rifles or machineguns, which would simply arm more men. And the vast majority of suitable industry that wasn't otherwise essential was already doing so, making finding the free capacity to spin such new weapons up a bit difficult.
>why was soldiers wasting ammo a problem
See
>>64476453 , on a wider scale a few troops magdumping in blind panic could eventually sap local supply, regional supply, and eventually overall supply. Ammo shortages mean you don't have the resources to mount an effective assault or defence without serious concentration of materiel, which was already being practiced in order to keep offensives fed.
>Were there no highly trained spec ops
No, special forces a we know today originate primarily from WWII and beyond. The closest you had to SOF were simply experienced and ballsy troops willing to do the dangerous jobs such as the Arditi and the Stormtroopers. They were more of a glorified vanguard for offensives and trench raids, reasonably effective, but usually took heavy casualties and likely never undertook anything resembling modern SOF operations.
