Two Men per Gun in WW1 Russia?

[attackfighter]

Is it true that the Russians could only supply half their army with guns at the outbreak of WW1? I've heard this rumour a lot, but it just doesn't seem possible (a gun is pretty easy to produce, compared to the resources required to transport, cloth, feed, etc. a soldier (even if you do it half assed like the Russians)). I've never heard this rumour from anywhere even partially reliable, so I'm wondering if there's truth to it.

 

[darkedone02]

Is it true that the Russians could only supply half their army with guns at the outbreak of WW1? I've heard this rumour a lot, but it just doesn't seem possible (a gun is pretty easy to produce, compared to the resources required to transport, cloth, feed, etc. a soldier (even if you do it half assed like the Russians)). I've never heard this rumour from anywhere even partially reliable, so I'm wondering if there's truth to it.

from my father, i heard that in world war 1 and 2, half of the russian troops don't got a gun when sent into the battlefield, if they want a gun, they have to stick to the group until someone dies to get the gun, russia is know to be brutal.

 

[civ_king]

from my father, i heard that in world war 1 and 2, half of the russian troops don't got a gun when sent into the battlefield, if they want a gun, they have to stick to the group until someone dies to get the gun, russia is know to be brutal.

or they kill some guy on the other side and nick their gun

 

[Agent327]

from my father, i heard that in world war 1 and 2, half of the russian troops don't got a gun when sent into the battlefield, if they want a gun, they have to stick to the group until someone dies to get the gun, russia is know to be brutal.

It has indeed been reported by men in the field during WW II that men were sent into battle unarmed. (The figure of 2 men per gun however seems like more of a wild guess; obviously no statistics were being kept of such occurrences, so an extrapolation seems the best one can do.)

 

[RalofTyr]

or they kill some guy on the other side and nick their gun

Sure, but the better grab a lot of ammo too. The German 7.92mm won't take 7.62mm; well, maybe, but the accuracy will be horrible.

It has indeed been reported by men in the field during WW II that men were sent into battle unarmed. (The figure of 2 men per gun however seems like more of a wild guess; obviously no statistics were being kept of such occurrences, so an extrapolation seems the best one can do.)

That actually happened in the Battle for Kharkov. They were surrounded and their supply lines were cut. It's widely used in works of fiction, such as the movie, Enemy at the Gates.

 

[Bugfatty300]

The Russian Empire had always lacked a significant arms industry.

In the late-19th and early-20th centuries they imported most of their small arms (mostly from the US) and in relatively small numbers.

During WWI Russia asked US companies to build over 3,000,000 Mosin-Nagant M1891 rifles for their army because there simply wasn´t enough factories and tools in Russia to make them themselves. The orders were of course stopped when the civil war began.

So it´s probably not surprising that there was a severe shortage of arms in Russia during WWI. Whether or not troops were sent foward without them who knows. Seems like a better idea to wait until more guns are around and then send them into battle.

 

[Dachs]

The Russian Empire had always lacked a significant arms industry.

Mmh. Muscovy actually had a more advanced firearms industry than Britain did (something that the English trade representatives remarked on during their first visits to the country in those years - apparently the Russians had better weapons engineering and more factories) during most of the 16th century, easily on a par with the rest of Europe and turning out the weapons that made Ivan Grozny's army so, well, grozny. This was pretty badly damaged by the Time of Troubles though (the extent is usually overrated to help make Pyotr look good, however), and became slightly less consequential with the temporary rise in power of amateur warrior service nobility, but by Pyotr's time things had largely turned around.

...but yeah, by the time of the world wars, munitions and weapons shortages were common for all of the Allies, especially Russia. The 2 girls soldiers 1 gun thing hasn't exactly got the ring of a real statistic, but I wouldn't doubt that many of the Tsarist troops weren't armed going into war.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

It has indeed been reported by men in the field during WW II that men were sent into battle unarmed. (The figure of 2 men per gun however seems like more of a wild guess; obviously no statistics were being kept of such occurrences, so an extrapolation seems the best one can do.)

Reported by whom? If they could make thousands of tanks a month I think they could churn out enough guns for their troops as well. This smells of complete hogwash.

 

[bombshoo]

The 2 girls soldiers 1 gun thing hasn't exactly got the ring of a real statistic.

Well played sir.

 

[Camikaze]

Me and my friend were awfully surprised to read a while back that in the Civil War, the Union only had 1 gun per 100 soldiers. We then realised what a gun was.

 

[Dachs]

My and my friend were awfully surprised to read a while back that in the Civil War, the Union only had 1 gun per 100 soldiers. We then realised what a gun was.

But going at the very least by Bugfatty's post, you know that the tsarist army had a shortage of small arms, too, not just artillery.

 

[TheLastOne36]

From what i know, each Russian soldier at some battleground was given 2 bullets, and only half of the army got a gun, they had to take a gun from the ground if they came unarmed.

(WWII)

 

[TheLastOne36]

Me and my friend were awfully surprised to read a while back that in the Civil War, the Union only had 1 gun per 100 soldiers. We then realised what a gun was.

I don't get it.

 

[LightSpectra]

I don't get it.

The use of the word "gun" to mean any firearm is a modernism. Guns in the pre-WWII days usually meant artillery and cannons.

Alternatively, there was a civil war within the Civil War (a metacivil war, if you will) whereby the grave casualties from each battle came about by arguments over who got the rifle.

 

[Agent327]

That actually happened in the Battle for Kharkov. They were surrounded and their supply lines were cut. It's widely used in works of fiction, such as the movie, Enemy at the Gates.

That wasn't really what I was thinking of (obviously when surrounded and cut off such things might occur) and there was more than 1 Battle of Kharkov.

Reported by whom? If they could make thousands of tanks a month I think they could churn out enough guns for their troops as well. This smells of complete hogwash.

Men in the field. i.e. serving in the Red Army. Tank production (especially of the T-34) didn't get underway until 1942; during the Battle of Moscow the only reinforcements still available were released from the Japanese border, following the attack on Pearl Harbour and confirmation by intelligence that Japan would not attack in the Far East.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Men in the field. i.e. serving in the Red Army. Tank production (especially of the T-34) didn't get underway until 1942;

Wrong. T-34 entered service in 1940. The Germans only began encountering large numbers of them around the Minsk area because the Russians realized they could not hold the far West if the Germans invaded, and thus did not put their best units there.

during the Battle of Moscow the only reinforcements still available were released from the Japanese border, following the attack on Pearl Harbour and confirmation by intelligence that Japan would not attack in the Far East.

Actually reinforcements began coming West long before that, and the majority of reinforcements during the second half of 1941 were raised from the countryside or the cities directly: Zhukov organized nearly 500,000 new soldiers in only 3 weeks' time, during his preparations for defense around Moscow.Why would they organize units with no firearms, and why, with such huge industry as they had, not be able to arm every soldier and then some? It makes absolutely no sense.

 

[Yeekim]

Reported by whom? If they could make thousands of tanks a month I think they could churn out enough guns for their troops as well. This smells of complete hogwash.

I'll use the rare opportunity to back Cheezy.
It likely happened that shortly after outbreak of Barbarossa, when German advance was really quick and lots of all kinds of supplies and weaponry fell into their hands or simply had to be abandoned or destroyed, that some Soviet units were caught poorly armed and while cut off from their supplies, but were nonetheless not allowed to retreat, but that is all.

 

[RedRalph]

I think what the OP refers to may be a confused impression from the laughable movie Enemy at the Gates

 

[Dachs]

I think what the OP refers to may be a confused impression from the laughable movie Enemy at the Gates

The OP was talking about the First World War.

 

[RedRalph]

The OP was talking about the First World War.

I know but as he admits he is very fuzzy on where he even heard the rumour, I bet it originated form that flick