• PugJesus@piefed.socialOPMEnglish
    30·
    2 days ago

    Explanation: In WW2, Russian troops being underequipped is a pop-culture myth. The Soviets not only had enough rifles, but a surplus of submachineguns as well; the Soviet infantry, for all the other problems their command foisted on them, was not generally lacking for a firearm to point at the enemy.

    … in WW1, on the other hand, many of the called-up Imperial Russian troops were underequipped, with some combat units having a third of their number without rifles as late as 1915.

    Also, in WW1, the Brits, having supplied a relatively small expeditionary force, could afford to equip itself faster than the French could, who fielded roughly double the number of men. This despite the Brits themselves largely using a French-designed gas mask at the time.

    • Cruxifux@feddit.nl
      2·
      1 day ago

      I remember being taught in SCHOOL that the russians in WW1 (or quite possibly 2) had squads where they marched in a straight line and the guy in front had a rifle and they each had a bullet and when the guy in front of you died you picked up the rifle and loaded your bullet. Which when I heard it as a kid I was like “what? No fucking way they did that. That would be idiotic.”

      • PugJesus@piefed.socialOPMEnglish
        3·
        1 day ago

        It’s a common myth about the Soviet Union WW2.

        In WW1 Imperial Russia, they didn’t march in a straight line, but unarmed troops were expected to retrieve (and use) the rifles from casualties, whether dead or just wounded. Ideally, the issue of being unarmed wouldn’t come up - you wouldn’t be sent out on patrol with nothing. But if, say, an attack on your section of the front happens, you might be one of the third sitting twiddling your thumbs (or rather, running other minor tasks) until a rifle is ‘freed up’.