Unit of Fire

[takata_1940]

Paul

Good catch. Thanks for checking. I had to check and found the proper nomenclature for the BAR is Auto-rifle, M1918. I assumed the LMG was the BAR. My error. But it still makes my point. If you are using an arbitrary numbers for calculations, why give four weapons that use the same ammunition four different UFs? Instead of simplifying the calculations, you have created another layer of complexity by adding another arbitrary variable.

Pista!

Jeff

You just missed what is arbitrary fixed, actually the initial number of rounds which could have been twice or half this number without changing the purpose of the UF system: getting the balanced expenditures between calibers, then making balanced allocations of ammo down to sub-units.

The specific rate of fire is irrelevant (bolt or semi-auto), even the weapon in itself (as it may have different UFs like rifles, MGs and carbines issued to rear units). Only its tactical use from TOEs will give the correct ammount derived from history or staff studies.

Ratio for Rifle Cal.30 ammo based on UF per gun was:
Rifle: 150 -> 1
BAR: 750 -> 7,5
LMG: 2,000 -> 13
MMG: 3,000 -> 20

it will work as well with such figures halved:
Rifle: 75 -> 1
BAR: 375 -> 7,5
LMG: 1,000 -> 13
MMG: 1,500 -> 20

The M1 cal.30 Carbine's UF is 60 in the first case and would be 30 in the second. The US staff prefered the first figures for his computations but the Germans prefered 90 rds per rifle. Beside, many other nations used different UFs values than those used by the U.S. - which would work as fine as theirs - without compromising the UF system because it is based on their specific replenishment system.

Your last remark is just showing how far you are from understanding the purpose of UFs. Just call them DS then. If one is just giving "arbitrary" values to each UFs without taking into account their relative ratio of allocation, how can you make any balanced order? Of course, at the end, one will agregate all the same calibers figures and ask for the equivalent number of standardized caliber packages.

S~
Olivier

[Schpam]

First, Oliver, I had trouble following your last post.

What does, "You just missed what is arbitrary fixed." mean?

Second I think you both are in agreement but maybe stuck on terminology.

I think it would be helpful to see the defintiions of some terms used. I downloaded a copy of FM 9-6 dated 15 June 1944 andd FM 101-10 dated 15 June 1941. I wish they were of the closer in time but I think we'll just have to suffer through.

In FM 9-6 provides definitions...
Day of Supply

Estimated average expenditure of various items of supply per day in campaign, expressed in quantities of specific items or in pounds per man per day. A day of supply for ammunition is expressed in rounds per weapon per day.

Expenditure

An expenditure is the quantity of ammunition used by an organization. For the purpose of reports, small-arms ammunition is usually considered as expended when issued to the troops by unit munitions officers. However, artillery ammunition is normally considered as expended only when it is fired.

Unit of Fire

A unit of measure for ammunition supply within a theater from a tactical point of view, based upon experience in the theater. It represents a specified number of rounds per weapon, which varies with the types and calibers of the weapons. The unit of fire is not synonymous with the term "day of supply" (see (7) above). In general, it represents a balanced expenditure by the various weapons under conditions of normal action. The unit of fire prescribed by the War Department may be modified by theater commanders as necessary for each individual theater.

I think it is important to note what it says for Unit of Fire (UoF). It is a unit of measure for ammunition supply. So it is akin to an inch or a centimeter. It is not arbitrary just as an inch isn't arbitrary. At some point in the history of an inch it meant something physical, but now it is just a unit of measure.

Also note what is say about expenditure. For small arms as soon as the ammo is issued to the user it is considered expended, fired out of the small arm or not, while for large weapons like a 75mm howitzer expended means actually fired.

Here is another interesting section from FM 9-6 para 61.b.(1)

The army commander controls ammunition by directing using units to draw ammunition necessary to maintain
the prescribed unit ammunition level. The prescribed unit ammunition level specifies the quantity of each type of
ammunition each using unit is to keep on hand. The level may be expressed in rounds or in units of fire, and it may
prescribe exact quantities, minimum quantities, maximum quantities, or minimum and maximum limits.

It also goes onto say that the prescribed unit ammuntion level varies with time, unit, combat missions, etc. Further down prescribed loads and unit ammuntion levels are adjusted by "the commanding general". FM 9-6 is very top level it deals with communication zones, theatres, arrmies, corps, division, and regiments. It doesn't get down to the company, platoon, rifleman level.

I do think type of weapon and even rate of fire come into play. Here is what Para 87 starts off with:

87. STOCKS IN REGIMENTAL AND UNIT AREAS.
The ideal situation is to place near each machine-gun,
mortar, and field-gun position an amount of ammunition
equal to the daily expenditure for that position, in addition
to the ammunition carried on unit vehicles.

And then Para. 88:

...The munitions officer must determine the number of trucks needed to haul the requested ammunition and he should determine that the number of rounds requested are a multiple of the number packed in boxes or containers.

You can't just order 0.30 cal ammunition it has to come in boxes and a box of .30 cal for a M1917 MG is going to be packaged differently (on belts) than a box of 0.30 cal for the M1 rifle (in enblocs). Also in the allocation forms found on pp. 55-56 items are allocated in quanitities by box and there are boxes for carbines, rifles, MGs, etc.

Way down on page 129 in Appendix 1...
The formatting doesn't comes out right

2. AMMUNITION SUPPLY. a. Computation of the weight of, and items to be included in, the unit of fire for
the command.
b. Requirements. (1) Based on
(a) Tactical plan.
(b) Administrative decisions of the commander and the general staff.
(c) Number of serviceable weapons on hand within the command.
(d) Estimates (including type of fire) of the artillery commander, the antiaircraft officer, and of other staff
officers.
(2) Stated in terms of-
(a) Units of fire.
(b) Complete rounds.
(c) Tons.
(3) Available ammunition in terms of units of fire and rounds.

So it seems to me that UoFs are not arbitrary and is based on expenditure, but it is also more of a supply term at higher (battalion and above all the way to theatre and comm zone) than it is something a platoon or company commander uses. I can't imagine a battaltion supply officer asking a company commander how is level of ammo supply is and the company commander saying, "I have X units of fire and I need Y for tomorrow's action." But I could see regiment talking to division that way. Also it is somewhat based on what fits in boxes and containers, and on trucks capacities.

Hope that helps some and I'll look at FM 101-10 and see what that has to say.

V/R
Paul

[Schpam]

Here's what FM 101-10 says about Day of Supply versus Unit of Fire:
Page 3

Day of supply. Estimated average expenditure of various items of supply per day in campaign, expressed in quantities of specific items, in rounds per weapon, or in pounds per man per day.

Page 6

Unit of Fire. A unit of measure for ammunition supply within a theater, based upon experience in the theater. It represents a specified number of rounds per weapon, which varies with the types and calibers of the weapons. The unit of fire is not synonymous with the term "day of supply." In general, it represents a balanced expenditure by the various weapons under conditions of normal action. It is a term used as a yardstick or a unit of measure for supply purposes within a theater from a tactical point of view. The unit of fire prescribed by the War Department may be modified by theater commanders as necessary for each individual theater.

Sounds to me that you would make your daily/weekly/ monthly supply plan in terms of Units of Fire based on a Day of Supply.

[jwsleser]

Paul

You have the basic outline. The part that is missing is the determination of the requirement.

Headquarters must have a tool to predict consumption so they can ensure enough stockage is on hand to meet demand. Because the consumption/resupply cycle is normally a 24 hour period, the time component is normally a day of consumption. So requirements are normally based on the unit’s need for a 24 hour period.

Actual data is best for predicting future need. But combat isn’t uniform. The six months of the Sitzkrieg provided zero data for combat consumption of Class V for the French planners to use in May 1940. So planners must have tools to program future consumption without current data. This is the reason for all the graphs and tables found in FM 101-10. This data is based on historical usage, modified by current doctrine, tactics, and any other factors deemed to have an effect on consumption. This data is a ‘best guess’ of likely consumption of the various classes of supply. It gives planners something to use to place requirements on the logistical system. This is why the title of FM 101-10 is Staff Officers’ Field manual of Organizational, Technical, and Logistical Data. If given the location of a certain size unit, the unit’s objective, and duration of the operation, the staff officer has enough data in this manual to determine the likely logistical requirements of that unit.

So the planner needs to develop a unit of measurement that allows forecasting of consumption, but can be standardized so the logistical system can convert that into a transportation requirement. So was born the Unit of Fire.

Where Oliver and I disagree is that he states the UF is arbitrary, and that the UF doesn’t have a time component. I state the UF has a specific design, and that it has a time component, which is normally one day.

The specific design is that the UF measures consumption over a set period of time. Because combat varies in intensity, the UF is normally set to reflect moderate combat intensity over a 24 hour period (the likely conditions during a majority of the time of a conflict). Using rifle ammunition as an example, the Army examined historical rates of consumption over an extended period (not just a week or so), and came up with an average daily consumption of rifle amunition. This number was used as the UF (rifles are 150 rounds a day).

With the UF set at a value, the Army examined peaked and slow periods of consumption (major offensives, sitzkriegs and the like). The historical consumption was converted to UFs (now a common factor of ammo consumption) and expressed into the table in para 93. A planner can now estimate future needs based on anticipated general combat conditions (duration and intensity). The operation officer now turns to the logistician and states “I need four UFs on the ground by X day to launch my attack.

The logistician can now do all the things Oliver discussed. Looking in FM 101-10, he can determine the number of rounds in a UF, convert that into shipping containers, and calculate the transportation requirement.

So a UF has nothing to do transportation, but creates a planned consumption that can be converted into a transportation requirement. Note in the table found in para 90.a that two entries include part of a box. If UFs were a shipping value, only whole boxes would be used (why split a box as it makes shipping harder). The transportation system doesn’t move UFs, it moves numbers of rounds. As the amount of ammunition in a UF changes (remember the commander change these values based on consumption), it doesn’t change the transportation aspects. Once the new UF is established, the logistician will convert these numbers into shipping data.

So Oliver and I only disagree on the start point of the system: how the requirement is generated. But that is the most important part and the reason behind the UF. If we can agree on this, I can discuss Day of Supply and its multiple uses.

Pista!

Jeff

[RichTO90]

Here's what FM 101-10 says about Day of Supply versus Unit of Fire:
Page 3

Day of supply. Estimated average expenditure of various items of supply per day in campaign, expressed in quantities of specific items, in rounds per weapon, or in pounds per man per day.

Page 6

Unit of Fire. A unit of measure for ammunition supply within a theater, based upon experience in the theater. It represents a specified number of rounds per weapon, which varies with the types and calibers of the weapons. The unit of fire is not synonymous with the term "day of supply." In general, it represents a balanced expenditure by the various weapons under conditions of normal action. It is a term used as a yardstick or a unit of measure for supply purposes within a theater from a tactical point of view. The unit of fire prescribed by the War Department may be modified by theater commanders as necessary for each individual theater.

Sounds to me that you would make your daily/weekly/ monthly supply plan in terms of Units of Fire based on a Day of Supply.

Or, to repeat what I posted on 20 Mar 2010 at 15:16, if you want the version more current to NWE in 1944 and 1945 :

FM 101-10, 10 October 1943, p. 321

"The day of supply for ammunition...is the average expenditure per day in [a] campaign expressed in rounds per weapon per day for all weapons in the theater. It is the unit of measure used by the War Department in establishing theater reserve in supplying theaters, and in its procurement.

The Unit of Fire is a tactical unit of measure for ammunition supply within a Theater, based upon experience in the theater. It represents a specified number of rounds per weapon, which number varies with the type and caliber of the weapons, and is intended to approximate the average daily expenditure by that weapon in combat. The Unit of Fire prescribed by the War Department may be modified by the theater commanders as neccessary for each individual theater.

[Note] It must be remembered that the complete unit of fire for a large unit includes fixed quantaties of all types of ammunition for all types of weapons. It is apparent that a complete unit of fire for a large unit, as for example, an infantry division, will not normally be expended in 1 day of fire, nor in any given period of time will the same percentages of all types of ammunition in the unit of fire be fired by any unit."

In practice in the ETO the theater modification to the "prescribed" War Department Unit of Fire were published as periodic "daily ammunition ration" lists. Their strongest effect was on artillery ammunition expenditure, which proved to be the most problematic, due to poor decisions made on ammunition production that occurred in mid 1943 that led to serious supply shortages in 105mm and 155mm rounds by fall of 1944. The Unit of Fire was expected to vary according to the intensity of operations, calculated by tables based upon the type of operation and the exerience in the particular theater.

Note that these are also different from the unit "prescribed load", which was the amount of ammunition (and other basic supplies) carried by personnel and on vehicles of a unit, based on the unit Table of Basic Allowances. Confusingly, it is now often referred to incorrectly as "basic load", which was actually not a term applied at that time to ammunition supply, but rather to the parts and materials carried by ordnance maintenance units as their initial stockage.

[takata_1940]

Hi Schpam,

First, Oliver, I had trouble following your last post.
What does, "You just missed what is arbitrary fixed." mean?
Second I think you both are in agreement but maybe stuck on terminology.

Ok. first, English being not my mother tongue, I may accidentally add some unecessary confusion trying to explain the system which is nonetheless basically very simple. Moreover, you should keep in mind that the "Unit of Fire" concept is not specifically U.S. and that it is used by almost every Army in the world from the begining of the last century. So I'm just trying to use a general explanation of what is the purpose of using "Units of Fire" instead of addressing only the U.S. case, even if my examples are taken out of U.S. charts.

Second, I still believe that Jeff and me are basically in disagreement about, not only the terminology, but the whole system definition which, I'm saying, is not related to any specific number of rounds OR any specific amount of time BUT is related to the relationship between both derived from staff studies taking into account a specific combat organisation and its tactical employment: "the proportional expenditures of different calibers considering a given combat organization during a certain amount of time" would fit my generic definition of the system.

I'll answer your question about "arbitrarily fixed" below as you provided me with a very good example of why you may minsunderstand it.

I think it would be helpful to see the defintiions of some terms used. I downloaded a copy of FM 9-6 dated 15 June 1944 andd FM 101-10 dated 15 June 1941. I wish they were of the closer in time but I think we'll just have to suffer through.

We already posted several times those definitions without agreeing on the basis which are not explained in details either in the FM 9-6 or FM 101-10.

I think it is important to note what it says for Unit of Fire (UoF). It is a unit of measure for ammunition supply. So it is akin to an inch or a centimeter. It is not arbitrary just as an inch isn't arbitrary. At some point in the history of an inch it meant something physical, but now it is just a unit of measure.

If I'm telling you that both "inch" and "meter" are arbitrary physical units, would you believe me?
You may still believe that an "inch" is something "real", but at one point, someone decided that an "inch" would be that long... and no more discussion about it. For the meter, there is an "étalon-mètre", which is made of platinium or gold and conserved somewhere in Paris, in case someone would argue about its physical measure.

But both systems of measure, be it imperial or metric, is independent of the physical measure of 1 inch or 1 meter. Those system are describing the relationship between fractions or multiples of this arbitrary picked reference called "unit". This is exactly the same for "Unit of Fire".

Also note what is say about expenditure. For small arms as soon as the ammo is issued to the user it is considered expended, fired out of the small arm or not, while for large weapons like a 75mm howitzer expended means actually fired.

This is unrelated to UFs, its is for administrative simplification, sparing the riflemen to report each round fired, like the artillerymen would do.

I do think type of weapon and even rate of fire come into play. Here is what Para 87 starts off with:

I wonder if I'm always clear about what I'm talking about:
- if the Rifle is a M 1903 or a M1 issued to any IR rifle platoons, its UF won't change because being in one case bolt action or semi-auto in the second case. The same "post" will be allocated the same UF.
- if the same Rifle is issued to some rear construction unit (as they got some), its UF will be different because of its tactical employment.
Consequently, UF is not related to the Rate of Fire nor the type of Rifle, but to the spot occupied by the weapon on the organization tables.

Usually, UFs are compiled per unit (divisions, regiments, battalions) for detailed planning, rather than just "per gun". Or, they are very generic UFs for high level planning and estimates. May be you should get first the general principle before going into the details of ammo supply. Just remember that UFs are used mostly for staff planning where orders placed are by dozen of tons rather than boxes.

S~
Olivier

[Schpam]

Rich: Thanks I missed that or at least forgot about it. You expect me to remember what was written on the 20th? I am not even sure what today is!

Jeff and Olivier: I see what you both are saying. And don't think that you are really disagreeing all that much. Being a unit of measure the terms are somewhat arbitrary, but must have had some basis on physical reality, i.e. an expediture rate.

Regardless, for planning purposes at the theatre, army, division and so on levels there had to be a supply plan and that plan had to have a time component to it. There had to be a way to order supplies based on what is on hand, what you believe you will expend, how long it takes to get the supplies. Therefore the Unit of Fire must have a time component and an expenditure rate. What that time component is, apparently from what Rich as provided, is a day.

What I see know also from what Rich posted is that a DS was for ALL weapons in a theatre, those in the combat zone and those farther back in the communications zone. That's how the numbers drop so much, there are some weapons in combat and some not. Further DS is used for supply to a theatre (such as the ETO or PTO). UF is for supply within the theatre, from the Comm Zone to the Combat Zone.

Thanks all for your replies and the education.

V/R
Paul

[takata_1940]

Jeff and Olivier: I see what you both are saying. And don't think that you are really disagreeing all that much. Being a unit of measure the terms are somewhat arbitrary, but must have had some basis on physical reality, i.e. an expediture rate.

Of course there are some critical physical realities behind those numbers which I had already tried to address in details. The first constraint is the weight of ammunitions and the second one, derived from the first, is the supply chain organisation: how many men and equipment are assigned to ressuply.
The problematic is always the same: to maintain the flow of ammunitions for units engaged in combat as steady as possible. This is causing very serious limitations which are totally unrelated to comparative specific weapon's rate of fire. This last factor would only be decisive if one would fight on the top of a huge supply dump.

S~
Olivier

[takata_1940]

Hi,

Where Oliver and I disagree is that he states the UF is arbitrary, and that the UF doesn’t have a time component. I state the UF has a specific design, and that it has a time component, which is normally one day.

Well Jeff, I never said that it doesn't have a time component. I just underlined that its time component was a variable, as well as the number of rounds, as well as the units considered, as well as the posture considered.

This UF function is only giving the relationship between those four variables based on a constant - the ratio of ammo expenditure between weapons, which is an assesment based on staff studies.

If any of this four variables became a constant (say 1 day), then this is a pure arbitrary choice which result from the decision of the planners but not from the function in itself. You may obtain half-day UFs, daily, weekly as well as monthly or yearly ones using the same basic UF function.

S~
Olivier

[RichTO90]

You can't just order 0.30 cal ammunition it has to come in boxes and a box of .30 cal for a M1917 MG is going to be packaged differently (on belts) than a box of 0.30 cal for the M1 rifle (in enblocs). Also in the allocation forms found on pp. 55-56 items are allocated in quanitities by box and there are boxes for carbines, rifles, MGs, etc.

A (very) minor correction. Small arms ammunition was all "packaged" the same, as unbelted, loose rounds, in boxes. It was prepared by the "end user" and not the issuer in the format required so that, for example, .30 caliber was issued to an infantry rifle battalion M1917 HMG platoon and was belted by them in the canvas and brass ammunition belts they used. It was issued in the same way to an infantry rifle company, who prepared it in en-bloc clips if for theM1 or on stripper clips if for the M1903 and so on (although ISTR the infantry division ordnance maintenance company also had a role in preparing ammunition for the division "end users").

Cheers!

[RichTO90]

A (very) minor correction.

And one for myself...

"Basic load" was used to describe te prescribed load of ammunition as given in the TBA. See appendices II and III in FM 9-20, which has possibly the clearest explanation...maybe.

[jwsleser]

Oliver

I understand that English is not your mother tongue and I commend you for your ability to carry this discussion in English. I have tried to be very careful when reading your posts.

The original question asked in this thread was:

Schpam: So what does the Day of Supply column mean versus the Unit of Fire column?

I offer my discussion, to which you replied and challenged my use of day (24 hours) for a UF. I answered:

Jwsleser: ...So UF traditionally is a day of consumption. Because nothing is certain in war, manuals allow one to modify if there is sufficient reason to do so

So I acknowledged the fact that 24 hour wasn’t fixed and unchanging. What I said was traditionally 24 hours is used. What I did demonstrate is 24 hours was the best ‘arbitrary time unit’ to calculate a UF. So can a UF be set to a different time? Yes. How likely was that? Not very likely.

Oliver: I just underlined that its time component was a variable, as well as the number of rounds, as well as the units considered, as well as the posture considered.

No, a UF is only rounds x time for a particular weapon. The table in FM 101-10 para 93 combines UF with posture. Posture is not part of a UF. If it was, why does the table have duration over posture (x and y axis) to determine number of UFs needed? The unit is not a factor at all, unless you only have one type of unit.

I have worked with the French, German, and UK armies. I understand how they view a UF. Rather than debate this point into the ground, I ask that you find a current French army manual that discusses Unit of Fire. Don’t worry about translating, I can do that. Scan the page and post it here.

Pista!

Jeff

[jwsleser]

Rich

Thanks for the additional information. Unfortunately we are still trying to work through forecasting, so supply rate and transportation is still ahead.

Pista!

Jeff

[Schpam]

You can't just order 0.30 cal ammunition it has to come in boxes and a box of .30 cal for a M1917 MG is going to be packaged differently (on belts) than a box of 0.30 cal for the M1 rifle (in enblocs). Also in the allocation forms found on pp. 55-56 items are allocated in quanitities by box and there are boxes for carbines, rifles, MGs, etc.

A (very) minor correction. Small arms ammunition was all "packaged" the same, as unbelted, loose rounds, in boxes. It was prepared by the "end user" and not the issuer in the format required so that, for example, .30 caliber was issued to an infantry rifle battalion M1917 HMG platoon and was belted by them in the canvas and brass ammunition belts they used. It was issued in the same way to an infantry rifle company, who prepared it in en-bloc clips if for theM1 or on stripper clips if for the M1903 and so on (although ISTR the infantry division ordnance maintenance company also had a role in preparing ammunition for the division "end users").

Cheers!

Really? I was looking at FM 9-6 page 56 Description of Code Items of Ammunition. Granted it is hard to read but there are different codes for 8-round enbloc clips in bandoliers, T1EDV for example, versus 5-round stripper clips in bandoliers versus T1EDP for the .30 MGs. I thought they came that way from the US. I stand corrected.

V/R
Paul

[takata_1940]

I offer my discussion, to which you replied and challenged my use of day (24 hours) for a UF. I answered:

Jwsleser: ...So UF traditionally is a day of consumption. Because nothing is certain in war, manuals allow one to modify if there is sufficient reason to do so

So I acknowledged the fact that 24 hour wasn’t fixed and unchanging. What I said was traditionally 24 hours is used. What I did demonstrate is 24 hours was the best ‘arbitrary time unit’ to calculate a UF. So can a UF be set to a different time? Yes. How likely was that? Not very likely.

And what about the "24Hrs UFs" which are recalculated each time the initial variables - those used to make the reference U.S. table - are changed?
"Average days" over long period of time for "average units" just don't fit with the situation over the time. For you, there will be only one true "24hrs UF" result for this function: it is the one printed on the reference U.S. table para.92. All other results derived from the same function are consequently false "24hrs UFs"?

As you mentioned it yourself serveral times, you need actually another table to recalculate each "24hrs UFs" with 9 different postures:
. 75mm/105mm/155mm.....0.2-2.0 (var. factor 10)
. Small arms...................0.2-1.5 (var. factor 7.5)
. AA.............................0.5-3.0 (var. factor 6)
. AT.............................1.0-1.0 (var. factor 1)

Only one line is fitting exactly the reference table: "Attack of position, succeedings days". Each result once recalculated could be used in place of the "24hrs UFs" value to fill the reference table. Each one will give also a "daily reference UF" to be modified with different variables.

But now, if the Theater Commander is using one settled "reference table UF" as a fixed unit, what will vary will be the duration of each "reference table UF" - not the global size of the daily UF (the number of rounds ordered for 24 hrs).
It is calculated from the same table:
. 75mm/105mm/155mm.....0.5-5.0 (from 0.50 day to 5 days)
. Small arms...................0.66-5.0 (from 0.66 day to 5 days)
. AA.............................0.33-2.0 (from 0.33 day to 2 days)
. AT.............................1.0-1.0 (1 day)

Oliver: I just underlined that its time component was a variable, as well as the number of rounds, as well as the units considered, as well as the posture considered.

No, a UF is only rounds x time for a particular weapon. The table in FM 101-10 para 93 combines UF with posture. Posture is not part of a UF. If it was, why does the table have duration over posture (x and y axis) to determine number of UFs needed? The unit is not a factor at all, unless you only have one type of unit.

Oh yes, I forgot that ONLY one "real" UF could exist per weapon: the number printed on the U.S. field manual 101-10, chart b, para 93. But this is just a reference figure for each UF considering only certain variables; posture is: "Attack of position, succeedings days"; duration is: "daily expenditure"; unit is: "US Infantry Regiment 1941".

As for "units" in the same manual - para.92, table b - UFs values are listed "Per Infantry Regiment". Another quick look at para. 127 and you'll find a listing with different UFs, for the same weapons, in "Armored Force Units".

Actually, I'm correcting myself as I listed only four UF function variables:
1. unit/organization/country
2. time
3. number of rounds
4. posture
While I considered the ratio of expenditure being constant it is not even true as some posture will also modify it. Then at least 5 variables for the same function, and 6 or 7 if one takes into consideration the date and Theater of Operation for the reference charts.

Morality: UF function is like variable-geometry. Before making any comparisons between various country's UFs or various replenishment systems, one need not only read the tables but understand the variables behind them.

I have worked with the French, German, and UK armies. I understand how they view a UF. Rather than debate this point into the ground, I ask that you find a current French army manual that discusses Unit of Fire. Don’t worry about translating, I can do that. Scan the page and post it here.

I don't understand for what purpose I would do that. Feel free to post anything you've got on it.

S~
Olivier