The real military doesn’t make a distinction between direct and indirect orders. I’ve never heard one, at least. I suppose you could make the argument that indirect orders are the ones that start with “AR” or “FM.”
When someone says “a direct order” they imply that they told you to your face what to do, so there is no way you can claim you didn’t know the regulation or didn’t hear the briefing, or whatever other excuse the soldier might come up with.
Not what you were asking, but,
[QUOTE=Russian general Anton Denikin, commander of the Fourth Rifle “Iron” Brigade]
Even rifle shells were rationed. Nearly exhausted regiments repulsed one attack after another with bayonets or, in extreme cases, by firing point blank. I watched as the ranks of my brave riflemen diminished, and I experienced despair as I realized my absurd helplessness.
[/QUOTE]
In the Air Force, a lot of our regs are considered lawful orders (the Air Force Instructions in particular), hence each AFI having a cover letter signed by the SECAF explaining that we’re required to follow what it says. I always assumed the other branches had a similar setup.
The distinction isn’t between direct orders and regulations, or direct orders and indirect orders (whatever they are). There are direct orders and general orders. General orders are permanent orders establishing policy. They do not have to be specifically issued to each individual by those establishing the order. A direct order is an order from a superior to a subordinate. There are no magic words such as “this is a direct order” needed. As long as the order is lawful it must be followed.
In my experience, there’s also a difference between a regular order and “Shut up, stop arguing with me and just do it NOW.”
Another data point for a rifleman’s basic load being 210 rounds of 5.56. The attached .pdf, which was a 2002-2003 DoD logistical study of infantry operations in Afghanistan gives a clue as to why they don’t carry more: look at all of the other crap they have to carry! The basic rifleman’s “fighting load” was found to be 63 pounds. Their approach march load, which is the fighting load + a light rucksack, was almost 96 pounds, and their emergency approach load exceeded 125 pounds. All of the figures were higher if the soldier was a member of a heavy-weapons fire team (e.g., the infamous “poor bastard who had to carry the baseplate”), radioman, or engineer.
Not only can they not carry more ammunition, their bodies really can’t hold up under the loads they have to carry now.
We used to call him the 60mm mortar guy the Ninja Turtle.
Since the current issue M-4s and M-16A4s don’t go to full auto, they’re probably wasting a lot less ammunition then my guys did on full auto.
A good two paragraphs froma good piece in The Strategy Bridge, by an aviator who served in 2003 under our new nominee-for-SecDef-who-needs-to-be-approved. The shorthand quantification I found particularly interesting:
Logistics was going to be an issue. It was a long way to Baghdad from here, and there were a hell of a lot of guys massing on the border. When [General James] Mattis took the boys into Afghanistan, it took 0.5 short tons (a “short ton” is 2000 pounds even, versus a metric or long ton which is closer to 2200 pounds) per Marine deployed. They were expecting that it will be five times that effort—2.5 short tons per Marine—to get a guy to Baghdad. I remembered that General Krulak, our Commandant in the late 1990s, had made his reputation as a logistics wizard in Desert Storm.
Good officers study military history, great officers study logistics. Mattis was a great officer. His “Log Light” configuration for the division was meant to get people north, fast, and not try to shoot our way through every little town on the way. As only he could do, he described it thus: “If you can’t eat it, shoot it, or wear it, don’t bring it.”
A note on SDGQ bibliography (which I seem to care about more than most people):
A simple Google text search of SD for “logistics AND GQ” brought up, as a subject header no less, “Army logistics…”, which was about and oddly enough didn’t drift from the topic of how soldiers shit (“just like the CINC” wasn’t an answer though). So this was a better place, but I seem to remember some good longish GQ threads on “the tip of the spear” where this post perhaps could go, but didn’t come up with anything promising. I do care more about this than perhaps necessary, but in the days before personal computers, for starters, I was a professional indexer who tried to make life easier for the researchers going out of their mind chasing stuff down, one of whom I was soon thereafter, and these things die hard.
I am now involved in novel database designs so nothing changes, really. And, as an even more personal note where none were asked for to begin with, my mother, may her memory be a blessing, was one of the pioneers in indexing research on technology for the vast services (Dialog, Inspec) in use today.
I thought the last US bayonet charge was during the Korean war? Marines, I seem to recall. But you are right, bayonets, boot knives and entrenching tools are usable in a pinch. My WW2 vet dad recalled scrounging ammo off bodies in a couple of encounters. Well, they also took food and uniform parts. German winters got a bit nippy.
Army, actually. Lewis Millett received the Medal of Honor at what was later called Bayonet Hill.
The current issue M4 (M4A1) is full-auto. The Army is in the process of replacing all of it’s M4s and M16s with M4A1s.
I gather that for rifle ammo the average infantryman carries, it quite seldom happens. How about other types of ammo?
Is it common for MGers to run out? .50 cal snipers? Hand grenades? 40mm launched grenades? Shoulder weapons like M72, AT4, RPG-7, Carl Gustaf, SRAW, SMAW?
Hollywood education again, but somehow I thought every soldier carried a pistol. In movies, e.g., rifle jams/runs out, fumble for pistol–end of Full Metal Jacket (a Private); end of Private Ryan (a Sergeant).
When do you get issued one?
It reminds me of what something Alessan can confirm, or update: in the IDF, e.g., toting one of the mini versions (don’t know the name) of an Uzi was a sign of high rank. (Come to think of it, perhaps I read that here from him).
Maybe he just had a finely honed survival instinct.
Driving Ammo trucks doesn’t sound safe, but in a situation where the enemy basically have no Air Attack capability and very limited artillery capabilites that’s probably considerably safer than being a front line combat soldier.
Probably why the Defense department is heavily involved in robotics; they’d love to have a robot mule available to carry supplies.
Officer 1: “What’s Doonesbury doing over there?”
officer 2: “Telling the newbies old war stories about Vietnam, I imagine…”
Officer 1: “That should get them in the spirit!”
…
Newbie: “You mean you shot your own officers??”
Doonesbury: “Just the dumb ones. Mostly lieutenants.”
Can’t find a cite I don’t think this was an isolated incident. British troops in the Falklands were given with what was then the standard issue of ammunition (based on NATO policy of the time) and it proved to be completely inadequate. There were several cases like this (and other where troops had to scavenge ammunition from dead Argentine troops). It led to a change in British (and NATO policy) IIRC.
For *you *nancies, maybe. Her Majesty’s men still kick it old school once in a while. Proper geezers, innit ? 
There’s a lot of talk here about modern NATO-style infantry. But, since the OP mentioned WWII specifically, it’s worth noting that at least one reason that NATO moved to smaller (therefore lighter) caliber rifle ammo was to allow more ammo to be carried.
They wouldn’t have done that if there weren’t many, many situations in WWII where infantry units ran low on ammo and had to retreat/stop advancing. Kind of interesting that the Rangers in Private Ryan were the example, because one thing that veteran/elite troops were typically much better at was fire discipline and not wasting ammo.
I believe running out of ammo was occasionally a problem for tanks too (they only carried so many shells of each kind). Clearly, fighter planes faced the issue, too.
