What A Platoon Leader Wore To Storm Omaha Beach

Post by Mario
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_vault/2013/06/06/d_day_combat_historian_s_sketch_of_a_platoon_leader_s_equipment_for_the.html

No pack, no food or water, no spare clothing, hardly any ammunition
and grenades held by safety rings?

Phil McGregor

2013-06-07 02:28:49 UTC

Post by Mario
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_vault/2013/06/06/d_day_combat_historian_s_sketch_of_a_platoon_leader_s_equipment_for_the.html

No pack, no food or water, no spare clothing, hardly any ammunition
and grenades held by safety rings?

Um. There is a "haversack" clearly listed, but, being on his *back*,
it isn't really visible.

Maybe "haversack" isn't a common word these days/where you come from?
It's a pack, or backpack, or rucksack or ... whatever ...

Phil

Bill

2013-06-07 13:17:25 UTC

On Thu, 06 Jun 2013 22:28:49 -0400, Phil McGregor

Post by Mario
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_vault/2013/06/06/d_day_combat_historian_s_sketch_of_a_platoon_leader_s_equipment_for_the.html

No pack, no food or water, no spare clothing, hardly any ammunition
and grenades held by safety rings?

Um. There is a "haversack" clearly listed, but, being on his *back*,
it isn't really visible.
Maybe "haversack" isn't a common word these days/where you come from?
It's a pack, or backpack, or rucksack or ... whatever ...

My understanding of the word 'haversack' is a small bag, smaller than
a modern messenger bag.

http://www.militarymart.co.uk/index.php?_a=product&product_id=896

Phil McGregor

2013-06-07 14:24:33 UTC

Post by Bill
On Thu, 06 Jun 2013 22:28:49 -0400, Phil McGregor

Post by Mario
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_vault/2013/06/06/d_day_combat_historian_s_sketch_of_a_platoon_leader_s_equipment_for_the.html

No pack, no food or water, no spare clothing, hardly any ammunition
and grenades held by safety rings?

Um. There is a "haversack" clearly listed, but, being on his *back*,
it isn't really visible.
Maybe "haversack" isn't a common word these days/where you come from?
It's a pack, or backpack, or rucksack or ... whatever ...

My understanding of the word 'haversack' is a small bag, smaller than
a modern messenger bag.
http://www.militarymart.co.uk/index.php?_a=product&product_id=896

Well, according to Dictionary.com it is a single strap bag used to
carry extra clothing or rations.

However, local usage (from my parents generation ... so, say the
1930's on, when they were teenagers ... they grew up mainly in the
country here in Oz) from memory, was that it was used (perhaps
incorrectly ... hence my emphasis on "local usage") interchangeably
with "backpack"

In any case, the "no food or water, no spare clothing" is obviously
wrong whether my memories are correct or not!

;-)

Phil

Bill

2013-06-07 14:34:53 UTC

On Fri, 07 Jun 2013 10:24:33 -0400, Phil McGregor

Post by Bill
On Thu, 06 Jun 2013 22:28:49 -0400, Phil McGregor

Post by Mario
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_vault/2013/06/06/d_day_combat_historian_s_sketch_of_a_platoon_leader_s_equipment_for_the.html

No pack, no food or water, no spare clothing, hardly any ammunition
and grenades held by safety rings?

Um. There is a "haversack" clearly listed, but, being on his *back*,
it isn't really visible.
Maybe "haversack" isn't a common word these days/where you come from?
It's a pack, or backpack, or rucksack or ... whatever ...

My understanding of the word 'haversack' is a small bag, smaller than
a modern messenger bag.
http://www.militarymart.co.uk/index.php?_a=product&product_id=896

Well, according to Dictionary.com it is a single strap bag used to
carry extra clothing or rations.
However, local usage (from my parents generation ... so, say the
1930's on, when they were teenagers ... they grew up mainly in the
country here in Oz) from memory, was that it was used (perhaps
incorrectly ... hence my emphasis on "local usage") interchangeably
with "backpack"
In any case, the "no food or water, no spare clothing" is obviously
wrong whether my memories are correct or not!

The bloke is obviously going to carry food, water, a change of
underwear and more ammunition than a couple of clips for his M1
carbine.

Almost certainly in a back pack of some kind.

That's not really the point I'm making.

What I'm saying is that the drawing is obviously some form of
idealised picture of this man going ashore on D-Day.

Stephen Graham

2013-06-07 16:24:11 UTC

Post by Bill
What I'm saying is that the drawing is obviously some form of
idealised picture of this man going ashore on D-Day.

It's more likely to be a depiction of one of the actual platoon leaders.
After all, the sketcher is a historian directly attached to the division
and there's no shortage of live subjects to depict.

Phil McGregor

2013-06-07 14:25:30 UTC

Post by Bill
On Thu, 06 Jun 2013 22:28:49 -0400, Phil McGregor

Post by Mario
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_vault/2013/06/06/d_day_combat_historian_s_sketch_of_a_platoon_leader_s_equipment_for_the.html

No pack, no food or water, no spare clothing, hardly any ammunition
and grenades held by safety rings?

Um. There is a "haversack" clearly listed, but, being on his *back*,
it isn't really visible.
Maybe "haversack" isn't a common word these days/where you come from?
It's a pack, or backpack, or rucksack or ... whatever ...

My understanding of the word 'haversack' is a small bag, smaller than
a modern messenger bag.
http://www.militarymart.co.uk/index.php?_a=product&product_id=896

Oh, and the Dictionary.com definition, while technically correct, is
wrong for the M1928, which clearly has *two* straps, like a regular
backpack ... indeed, looking at photos of the M1910, *it* has two
straps as well.

So, it looks to me that, while the US Army called it a "haversack" it
was not, technically, one by the Dictionary.com definition ... which
is somewhat strange, as Dictionary.com uses US Dictionaries as its
source.

Maybe usage has changed?

Or, maybe, US Army bureaucrats just got it wrong?

Phil

Rich

2013-06-07 17:18:16 UTC

Post by Phil McGregor
Or, maybe, US Army bureaucrats just got it wrong?

Or, perhaps, they got it exactly right? "Haversack", in the original
German derivation, simply
means "oat bag", i.e. a bag to carry feed/food in, with the method of
it's suspension being
left to the user.

Similarly, for many years, but sadly apparently no longer, the U.S.
Army held the line on
***ponton*** by utilizing the original French spelling and
pronunciation.

Phil McGregor

2013-06-07 14:31:10 UTC

Post by Bill
On Thu, 06 Jun 2013 22:28:49 -0400, Phil McGregor

Post by Mario
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_vault/2013/06/06/d_day_combat_historian_s_sketch_of_a_platoon_leader_s_equipment_for_the.html

No pack, no food or water, no spare clothing, hardly any ammunition
and grenades held by safety rings?

Um. There is a "haversack" clearly listed, but, being on his *back*,
it isn't really visible.
Maybe "haversack" isn't a common word these days/where you come from?
It's a pack, or backpack, or rucksack or ... whatever ...

My understanding of the word 'haversack' is a small bag, smaller than
a modern messenger bag.
http://www.militarymart.co.uk/index.php?_a=product&product_id=896

Further relevant information - Wikipedia is your friend ...

=====

U.S. Army Haversack [edit]

Haversacks were in use during the American Civil War, as recounted in
Grant's memoirs, "In addition to the supplies transported by boat, the
men were to carry forty rounds of ammunition in the cartridge-boxes
and four days' rations in haversacks."[1]

In 1910 the U.S. Army adopted the M-1910 haversack (or M10) as the
standard back pack for all infantrymen. The pack is essentially a
sheet of rugged khaki-colored canvas that folds around its contents
(bedroll, clothing, daily rations, and assorted personal items), and
is held together by flaps and adjustable buckle-straps. The two
shoulder straps are designed to attach to a web belt or suspender
configuration. The exterior of the pack has loops, rings, and grommet
tabs for attaching a bayonet sheath, a "meat can" (mess kit) pouch,
and a canvas carrier for a short-handled shovel (a.k.a. entrenchment
tool).

This pack remained in service, most notably during World War I, until
1928 when it was superseded by the slightly modified M-1928 pack.
However, thousands of surplus M10s were issued during World War II to
compensate for shortages in war-time textile production.

The M-1928 haversack (M28) continued to be the standard-issue army
back pack for the duration of World War II. The only exceptions being
officers, engineers, paratroops, and medics who were issued the more
compact M-1936 Musette Bag. The M28 was gradually phased out starting
in 1944 with the introduction of the olive drab M-1944 and M-1945
Canvas Combat Field Pack configuration. This new two-part design,
based on the Marine M-1941 system, used a much smaller back pack (for
rations, clothes, ammunition, and messkit), and a separate Cargo Bag
that attached to the bottom for extra clothes, shoes, and misc. items.
The upper field pack had the same type of grommet tabs and loops as
the M-1928 for attaching a bayonet and entrenchment tool plus straps
for securing a "horseshoe" bedroll.

U.S. Marine Corps Haversack [edit]

The marines carried the M10 and M28 haversack in both world wars, but
they also developed their own exclusive pack system in 1941. The M28
was considered cumbersome and unsuitable for jungle fighting in the
Pacific theater. A more versatile two-part system called the M-1941
Haversack was devised. This comprised an upper "marching pack" for
rations, poncho and clothes, and a lower knapsack for extra shoes and
utilities. The exterior of the upper pack had loops and grommet tabs
for attaching a bayonet, shovel, bedroll, extra canteen, and first-aid
pouch. Originally issued in tan or khaki canvas, a slightly modified
olive drab version was introduced in 1943.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haversack

The following website shows the M1928 two part system mentioned above.

I'd say it would have had about the same capacity as a medium sized
backpack of the era. About what you'd want to carry into an opposed
landing, and no more.

YMMV
=====

So it seems to be much larger and capacious than your estimate.

Phil

Rich

2013-06-07 16:59:04 UTC

Post by Phil McGregor
Further relevant information - Wikipedia is your friend ...

Or, better still, from the horse's mouth, since Wiki is after all
Wiki.... :)

http://www.history.army.mil/html/museums/messkits/Field_Mess_Gear%28upd_Jul09%29.pdf

The Horny Goat

2013-06-09 00:42:10 UTC

Post by Rich

Post by Phil McGregor
Further relevant information - Wikipedia is your friend ...

Or, better still, from the horse's mouth, since Wiki is after all
Wiki.... :)
http://www.history.army.mil/html/museums/messkits/Field_Mess_Gear%28upd_Jul09%29.pdf

Now what was our friend saying about animal feed bags again? (evil
grin)

Don Phillipson

2013-06-07 15:07:42 UTC

Post by Phil McGregor
Maybe "haversack" isn't a common word these days/where you come from?
It's a pack, or backpack, or rucksack or ... whatever ...

My understanding of the word 'haversack' is a small bag, smaller than
a modern messenger bag.
http://www.militarymart.co.uk/index.php?_a=product&product_id=896

The British Army clarifies nomenclature a century ago. The bag pictured
here (that hangs from a single strap) is a Small Pack. The larger one that
requires two shoulder straps is a Large Pack. Job done.

--
Don Phillipson
Carlsbad Springs
(Ottawa, Canada)

a425couple

2013-06-08 16:22:31 UTC

Post by Mario
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_vault/2013/06/06/d_day_combat_historian_s_sketch_of_a_platoon_leader_s_equipment_for_the.html

--- hardly any ammunition -----

I am frustrated by the number of posters both here, and
at that site who seem so positive that this "Platoon Leader"
(presumably an infantry Lieutenant) HAD to have been carrying
much more ammunition.
The drawing and description show him as armed with
the M1 carbine (with magazine in) and wearing on his
belt the standard magazine pouch (holds 2 magazines).
So presumably we see him with 45 rounds.

It is indeed possible that he had some more rounds,
but do not bet on it.

His job is to lead (command, control & communicate)
his infantry platoon (33 to 60 troops). The riflemen
in the platoon are to provide the firepower.
He has been issued a personal weapon for his personal
defence so that he is not totally helpless if everything turns
to poop, but the docterine is, that he normally will not use it.
Even the squad sergeants are discoraged in training
from firing their weapon.

I recall days when the standard load for combat operations
was 60 rounds. It was only when the lighter weight
(both of weapon & ammo) M-16 came along, that it increased
to 120 rounds.
Weight is a very severe problem, and those who think
troops would want to carry 200 rounds have been playing
too many computer games.

a425couple

2013-06-08 19:10:43 UTC

Post by a425couple

Post by Mario
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_vault/2013/06/06/d_day_combat_historian_s_sketch_of_a_platoon_leader_s_equipment_for_the.html

--- hardly any ammunition -----

I am frustrated by the number of posters both here, and
at that site who seem so positive that this "Platoon Leader"
(presumably an infantry Lieutenant) HAD to have been carrying
much more ammunition.
The drawing and description show him as armed with
the M1 carbine (with magazine in) and wearing on his
belt the standard magazine pouch (holds 2 magazines).
So presumably we see him with 45 rounds.
It is indeed possible that he had some more rounds,
but do not bet on it.
His job is to lead (command, control & communicate)
his infantry platoon (33 to 60 troops). The riflemen
in the platoon are to provide the firepower.
He has been issued a personal weapon for his personal
defence so that he is not totally helpless if everything turns
to poop, but the docterine is, that he normally will not use it.
Even the squad sergeants are discoraged in training
from firing their weapon.
I recall days when the standard load for combat operations
was 60 rounds. It was only when the lighter weight
(both of weapon & ammo) M-16 came along, that it increased
to 120 rounds.
Weight is a very severe problem, and those who think
troops would want to carry 200 rounds have been playing
too many computer games.

I need to be more clear.
Now, with the small & light weight 5.56 round, troops can
get up to carry a standard load out containing 210 rounds.
Current equipment is lighter and more efficient.
But no grunt enjoys those loads
"There is a reason they are called 'grunts'.
That's the sound they make when they have to move!"

In WWII, or prior to 1965, the amount of ammunition
carried was much less.

Mario

2013-06-08 21:11:19 UTC

Post by a425couple
In WWII, or prior to 1965, the amount of ammunition
carried was much less.

However a soldier doesn't carry maps and binoculars and other
stuff.

Anyway I suppose that in every war a soldier had to carry more
weight than an officer...

--
_____
/ o o \
\o_o_o/

a425couple

2013-06-09 04:26:51 UTC

Post by Mario

Post by a425couple
In WWII, or prior to 1965, the amount of ammunition
carried was much less.

However a soldier doesn't carry maps and binoculars and other
stuff.
Anyway I suppose that in every war a soldier had to carry more
weight than an officer...

Well, I've seen indications of it go, the way you imply.
But,,, I know,, I carried a more than full share of 7.62 links,
and/or 60mm mortar rounds,
.
And positively, I know at night in defensive positions,
because of checking our perimeter, I got less sleep than
anyone.

Mario

2013-06-09 23:59:01 UTC

Post by a425couple

Post by Mario

Post by a425couple
In WWII, or prior to 1965, the amount of ammunition
carried was much less.

However a soldier doesn't carry maps and binoculars and other
stuff.
Anyway I suppose that in every war a soldier had to carry
more weight than an officer...

Well, I've seen indications of it go, the way you imply.
But,,, I know,, I carried a more than full share of 7.62
links, and/or 60mm mortar rounds,

I am not an expert in management but I think that an upper rank
(any leader, in fact) is supposed to do more mental work rather
than muscular work.

Post by a425couple
And positively, I know at night in defensive positions,
because of checking our perimeter, I got less sleep than
anyone.

I am not an expert in management but I think that every good
leader always has a good deputy (just in case of...).

Anyway, the Parkinson's Law always works fine...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parkinson's_law

... and Peter's Principle too
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Principle

--
_____
/ o o \
\o_o_o/

a425couple

2013-06-11 17:03:31 UTC

Post by a425couple
In WWII, or prior to 1965, the amount of ammunition
carried was much less.

However a soldier doesn't carry maps and binoculars and other
stuff.
Anyway I suppose that in every war a soldier had to carry
more weight than an officer...

Well, I've seen indications of it go, the way you imply.
But,,, I know,, I carried a more than full share of 7.62
links, and/or 60mm mortar rounds,

I am not an expert in management but I think that an upper rank
(any leader, in fact) is supposed to do more mental work rather
than muscular work.

Well, true, the more important product of a military Lieutenant
or Captain's work is more directly due to their mental abilities,
rather than pure muscle.
However, if the Privates through Sergeants have observed
enough to decide their Lieutentant is a wimp ("A weak and cowardly
or ineffectual person") or slacker,,, tough times are ahead.
He is probably not going to make it to management training.

(Subthought 1)
I do see the "subject" of your thread is "Platoon Leader"
and that is not accidential. I am not aware of any military
that calls that position "Platoon Manager", "Platoon Thinker",
"Platoon Nobility" or "Platoon Planner".
But,,, I do not know all, what is the title in Italian?

(Subthought 2)
Following the possible line of logic indicated above, it is concievable
that a smart, managerial type Lt. might decide, the best
thing for my platoon is for me to be rested and able to
make 'ideal' decisions, therefore I will not spend/waste
energy in packing my share of the unit's shared ammo
(i.e. a machine gun team often has four warriors, a team leader,
the machine gunner and two riflemen who protect and carry
extra ammo for the machine gun ((in the above instance those
were 7.62 linked rounds)) Those four can not carry enough,
so many others in the platoon carry for that's weapon's shared
defense of everyone. Same with the mortar, everyone helps carry.)
And,,, from there, I suppose the next step for this 'smarty'
is to decide to have some big muscular private carry the
lieutenant's food rations. etc. etc.
Then this smarty/managerial Lt. could decide that he is
too important to have his precious decision making
ability put at risk, so he will stay in camp so he can plan better,
and sent those 'muscles' out on patrol.
Well, some think that 'school of thought' did grow among
one other service in the SEAsia war I was in,
and maybe had something to due with development
of the word and concept of "fragging".

Marines, and pretty much any troops, will put up with
pretty awful conditions if they are well led, and see that
their officers are enduring it just like they are.

(Subthought 3)
It's interesting that some figure that since "mental" is a more
important factor for an officer, that fitness or "muscle work",
would be less in OCS or TBS, than in enlisted boot camp.
That is not true at all in reality. We started with 10%
in our class who were among the best enlisted, they
indeed also had problems and had to further develop
in fitness (or fail). A good capable mind should be in a
capable fit body.
The Marine Platoon Leader must be:
"Mentally Strong and Physically Tough
Imbued with a warrior spirit and able to thrive in a complex and chaotic
environment and persevere despite the obstacles to mission accomplishment.
Possesses the self-discipline to push past preconceived limits."

Post by Mario

Post by a425couple
And positively, I know at night in defensive positions,
because of checking our perimeter, I got less sleep than
anyone.

I am not an expert in management but I think that every good
leader always has a good deputy (just in case of...).
Anyway, the Parkinson's Law always works fine...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parkinson's_law
... and Peter's Principle too
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Principle

"For example, an engineer with great technical skill might
get promoted to project manager, only to discover he lacks the
interpersonal skills required to lead a team."
Yep!

Mario

2013-06-12 18:26:39 UTC

Post by a425couple
In WWII, or prior to 1965, the amount of ammunition
carried was much less.

However a soldier doesn't carry maps and binoculars and
other stuff.
Anyway I suppose that in every war a soldier had to carry
more weight than an officer...

Well, I've seen indications of it go, the way you imply.
But,,, I know,, I carried a more than full share of 7.62
links, and/or 60mm mortar rounds,

I am not an expert in management but I think that an upper
rank (any leader, in fact) is supposed to do more mental work
rather than muscular work.

Hm, I don't know, I never served in our army.
I suppose it is "comandante di plotone" (platoon commander) and
it should be a "tenente" (leutenant).

There was an ancient word for "leader" but for some reason it
fell out of fashion decades ago.
It was "duce".
;-)

Post by a425couple
(Subthought 2)
Following the possible line of logic indicated above, it is
concievable that a smart, managerial type Lt. might decide,
the best thing for my platoon is for me to be rested and able
to make 'ideal' decisions, therefore I will not spend/waste
energy in packing my share of the unit's shared ammo
(i.e. a machine gun team often has four warriors, a team
leader, the machine gunner and two riflemen who protect and
carry extra ammo for the machine gun ((in the above instance
those
were 7.62 linked rounds)) Those four can not carry enough,
so many others in the platoon carry for that's weapon's shared
defense of everyone. Same with the mortar, everyone helps
carry.) And,,, from there, I suppose the next step for this
'smarty' is to decide to have some big muscular private carry
the
lieutenant's food rations. etc. etc.
Then this smarty/managerial Lt. could decide that he is
too important to have his precious decision making
ability put at risk, so he will stay in camp so he can plan
better, and sent those 'muscles' out on patrol.
Well, some think that 'school of thought' did grow among
one other service in the SEAsia war I was in,
and maybe had something to due with development
of the word and concept of "fragging".
Marines, and pretty much any troops, will put up with
pretty awful conditions if they are well led, and see that
their officers are enduring it just like they are.
(Subthought 3)
It's interesting that some figure that since "mental" is a
more important factor for an officer, that fitness or "muscle
work", would be less in OCS or TBS, than in enlisted boot
camp.
That is not true at all in reality. We started with 10%
in our class who were among the best enlisted, they
indeed also had problems and had to further develop
in fitness (or fail). A good capable mind should be in a
capable fit body.
"Mentally Strong and Physically Tough
Imbued with a warrior spirit and able to thrive in a complex
and chaotic environment and persevere despite the obstacles to
mission accomplishment.
Possesses the self-discipline to push past preconceived
limits."

Of course the greater the unit, the higher the rank and the
older the commander, the less muscle work is required.

--
_____
/ o o \
\o_o_o/

Shawn Wilson

2013-06-13 18:54:44 UTC

Post by a425couple
I am frustrated by the number of posters both here, and
at that site who seem so positive that this "Platoon Leader"
(presumably an infantry Lieutenant) HAD to have been carrying
much more ammunition.

Because a platoon leader HAD to be carrying kore than two spare
magazines.

Post by a425couple
It is indeed possible that he had some more rounds,
but do not bet on it.

No, betting on it is the only way to go...

Post by a425couple
His job is to lead (command, control & communicate)
his infantry platoon (33 to 60 troops). The riflemen
in the platoon are to provide the firepower.
He has been issued a personal weapon for his personal
defence so that he is not totally helpless if everything turns
to poop, but the docterine is, that he normally will not use it.
Even the squad sergeants are discoraged in training
from firing their weapon.

That is a nicely idealized view of officers that doesn't really apply
to platoon leaders. It *might* apply to company commanders and would
likely apply to battalion commanders and above. A platoon leader's
weapon is a significant part of his platoon's firepower. And 45
rounds for *D-Day* is simply not going to happen. Everyone would
pretty much have been carrying as much ammunition as humanly
possible.

Rich

2013-06-14 13:18:47 UTC

Post by Shawn Wilson
Because a platoon leader HAD to be carrying kore than two spare
magazines.

Um, ***WHY*** is it that he "HAD" to carry "kore"? Because you say
so? 45 rounds was the basic load for the Carbine, M1 - one magazine
in the weapon and a Magazine Pouch, Carbine, M1 with two magazines.
All assault troops in NEPTUNE carried one basic load on their person;
the remaining unit-of-fire authorized was on the vehicles of the
battalion Ammunition and Pioneer Platoon, which was responsible for
ammunition resupply in combat.

Post by Shawn Wilson
No, betting on it is the only way to go...

Why, because of your unsupported, albeit vehement, assertion?

Post by Shawn Wilson
That is a nicely idealized view of officers that doesn't really apply
to platoon leaders. (snip)

Really? Again, why, just because you say so?

FM 7-10, INFANTRY FIELD MANUAL, RIFLE COMPANY, RIFLE REGIMENT, dated 2
June 1942, CHAPTER 5, RIFLE PLATOON, SECTION I, GENERAL

PARAGRAPH 101: DUTIES OF COMMAND GROUP.

The platoon leader is responsible for the training, discipline, control,
and tactical employment of the platoon. It must be trained to accomplish
its combat mission decisively and to function as an effective unit in
the military team.

The platoon sergeant is second-in-command. He assists the platoon leader
in controlling the direction and rate of movement in the advance. During
all operations he takes post as directed by the platoon leader so as best
to assist in the control of the platoon. He replaces the platoon leader
when the latter is not with the platoon or becomes a casualty.

The platoon guide (a sergeant) prevents straggling and enforces orders concerning cover, concealment, and discipline. His position is usually
in rear of the platoon, where he observes the situation on the flanks
and rear. He checks ammunition expenditure and takes advantage of every
opportunity to have ammunition replenished.

PARAGRAPH 102: CONTROL AND COMMUNICATION.

The platoon leader controls the action of the platoon by oral orders or
by arm-and-hand signals. Communication with company headquarters is
usually by messenger.

a425couple

2013-06-19 15:03:29 UTC

Post by Shawn Wilson

Because a platoon leader HAD to be carrying kore than two spare
magazines.

Post by a425couple
It is indeed possible that he had some more rounds,
but do not bet on it.

No, betting on it is the only way to go...

"idealized" ?

I have understood from before Shawn, that you were
familiar with US Army cavalry, and I would hope that
we can agree that a cavalry unit has more mechanized
transport, while generally infantry have to man carry all their
'stuff'. For infantry, weight becames critically important.

Were you a commisioned officer? A Second or First Lieutenant?
What was your primary MOS? (Was it infantry?)
Were you ever assigned for a significant period of time
(3-6-8 months) the duty of infantry platoon leader or commander?

"significant" ?

Frankly, my mind is somewhat boggled at considering a
platoon (in any TO&E from 1939 to present) that has
gotten so uniquely mauled that while it still has a LT. present and in
charge,
he with his own weapon is a "significant part of his platoon's firepower".

Presumably, we both shared FM7-8.
There are a lot of things for the leader to do & keep on top of.
http://www.shu.edu/offices/upload/FM-7-8.pdf

Shawn Wilson

2013-06-20 00:01:04 UTC

Post by a425couple
"idealized" ?

Yes.

Post by a425couple
I have understood from before Shawn, that you were
familiar with US Army cavalry, and I would hope that
we can agree that a cavalry unit has more mechanized
transport, while generally infantry have to man carry all their
'stuff'. For infantry, weight becames critically important.
Were you a commisioned officer? A Second or First Lieutenant?
What was your primary MOS? (Was it infantry?)
Were you ever assigned for a significant period of time
(3-6-8 months) the duty of infantry platoon leader or commander?

I was an 11B10 for 3 years (in peacetime). I KNOW what the PL
carried. And that wasn't for storming Normandy. Storming Normandy,
you carry everything you can carry.

'We were Soldier's Once, and Young...' mentions PLs carrying over a
thousand rounds. A PL in the shit doesn't get a pass because firing a
weapon at the enemy isn't his primary mission. Running out in battle
is a bad thing.

Rich

2013-06-20 13:00:05 UTC

Post by Shawn Wilson
I was an 11B10 for 3 years (in peacetime). I KNOW what the PL
carried. And that wasn't for storming Normandy. Storming Normandy,
you carry everything you can carry.

You were an 11B10? When? Certainly not circa 0645L 6 June 1944; that
MOS designation did not exist then. So what ***exactly*** does that
have to do with your complete lack of knowledge about what a platoon
leader carried when "storming Normandy"? And how ***exactly*** does
that disprove what the basic load at the time was, what eyewitnesses
at the time described, and what the planning instructions were?

Post by Shawn Wilson
'We were Soldier's Once, and Young...' mentions PLs carrying over a
thousand rounds. A PL in the shit doesn't get a pass because firing a
weapon at the enemy isn't his primary mission. Running out in battle
is a bad thing.

And Civil War memoirs mentions "PLs" carrying bupkis other than a sword
and a pistol....does that prove that they carried the same into NEPTUNE?

"Running out in battle is a bad thing"? No shit Sherlock, but the bleeding obvious isn't the question here. What ***evidence*** do you have to
***prove*** that eyewitness accounts and the accepted planning factors
were routinely - shit, let's make it "ever" - exceeded by participants
in NEPTUNE.. who already had a shitload of stuff to carry. Not what was
carried by you in your garrison Army career, not what was carried in
Vietnam by guys making helicopter assaults carrying weapons capable of
full automatic fire, by THEM guys what actually conducted the assault on
the Norman beaches.

Michael Emrys

2013-06-07 22:36:54 UTC

Post by Mario
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_vault/2013/06/06/d_day_combat_historian_s_sketch_of_a_platoon_leader_s_equipment_for_the.html

What bothers me about that sketch is that it shows the officer wearing
"jump boots". Now my understanding is that jump boots were not issued to
regular infantry but only to the paratroops. That's why they were called
"jump boots". Their design was different, for one thing they did not
have hooks for the laces, which were thought to threaten fouling the
risers to the parachutes. What the standard infantryman wore was the
standard boot with canvas leggings.

Michael

Bill

2013-06-07 23:08:54 UTC

Post by Michael Emrys

Post by Mario
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_vault/2013/06/06/d_day_combat_historian_s_sketch_of_a_platoon_leader_s_equipment_for_the.html

I found that perfectly understandable.

Soldiers, especially infantry soldiers, tend to seek out equipment
that is superior to what they have been issued.

There's a whole industry devoted to supplying this need today.

Rich

2013-06-11 13:21:41 UTC