Frontline troops 'had only five bullets to defend themselves'

Originally posted by browha
That was in Enemy at the Gates :X
it may have been true, not sure

I heard about it from my grandfather before that movie came out.

Fair enough.
Was he Russian? or some other explanation?

Although he was about my age(I'm 19) back then he was far away from the war but he likes to read about history and watch documentaries. I don't really remember how the subject came up.

Edit: forgot to mention that he's not russian, he's canadian.

[Edited on 25-2-2004 by Ranger]

Originally posted by browha
I saw the article, didnt read it. Just saw the title 'My five-bullet war, Soldier says he was sent into action in Iraq with virtually no ammunition'
and the caption o fthe picture, 'Widowed: Sgt Robert's wife Samantha'.
We all make mistakes, if you're gonna get critical then it shows how low you are.

Nope, just wanted to point out how you like to shoot your mouth off without any facts to back it up.

Actually I think I read in history books that the British had a similar problem when fighting the Zulus in South Africa...
If I recall correctly the officer in charge would not dispense to the soldiers ammunition without following all the procedures of filling out forms and such - consequently they were overun by the Zulus and were nearly all masacred including the idiot supply officer...

I wouldnt be surprised to be honest, it was so disciplined at the time....
I'm not sure, but is this the battle where several thousand brit soldiers got slaughtered, and the zulus took rifles off the corpses?
I dunno the battle name, but it was fought on a Ridge I think... you see it in the beginning of the film Zulu..

That was a major reason for a lot of the anger towards the Russian royal family during WWI. A lot of soldiers came home with a bitter taste in their mouth and some were then all for the Russian revolution. Everyone knows what happened next. Some Russian troops not being issued a weapon when going to the front line of WWI is actual historical fact.

I think the British-Zulu situation is correct as well. I seem to remember hearing about the Brits having trouble getting supplies. They were kinda trapped from what I can remember.

even as bad as the dutch you have to know this heared it just on my radio.
soldiers from holland stationed in iraq may not use there riffles. not even for a warning shot.

Nothing like serving for your country as a target that can not defend itself. That's a bad thing when you give up the initiative like that. Can they return fire if fired upon?

Originally posted by Mandalorianwarrior
Nothing like serving for your country as a target that can not defend itself. That's a bad thing when you give up the initiative like that. Can they return fire if fired upon?

I wouldn't care what anyone says. If I was fired upon, I would defend myself and if the officer had a problem with that I'd say "Oh sorry, so you mean I wasn't supposed to save your life from the guy that was just about to shoot you? Don't worry, I won't let it happen again sir!"

ummmm that does sound pretty bad but how does that make sense why would they not even have 1 full clip? I remember learnign that most of the european allied troops in ww2 had only fired 5 shots in all of their combat training, and i also heard all of germanys troops were on steriods

[Edited on 3-3-2004 by JRBlaze26]

Originally posted by JRBlaze26
ummmm that does sound pretty bad but how does that make sense why would they not even have 1 full clip? I remember learnign that most of the european allied troops in ww2 had only fired 5 shots in all of their combat training, and i also heard all of germanys troops were on steriods

[Edited on 3-3-2004 by JRBlaze26]

Because if they didnt have 1 full clip per man, they would split up the ammo and distribute it...
I'd rather 5 bullets than none.

Plus, it's extremely unethical, sending a soldier to a battle without ANY ammo at all.

Reminds me of Russian troops 1941-1943 .