PokeVideoPlayer v23.9-app.js-aug2025_
0143ab93_videojs8_1563605_YT_2d24ba15 licensed under gpl3-or-later
ImmersiveAmbientModecolor: #dbcace (color 2)
Video Format : 136 (720p) mp4 | h264 | 44100Hz | 2310243 bps
Audio Format: 140 (AUDIO_QUALITY_MEDIUM) m4a | aac | 44100hz | STEREO(2channels)
PokeEncryptID: 50162ee67b109871d9d94a5b1f784b6809248f3c90f8edbbc6cde9f75fbdb7638a74b73bcf59008d6d14ab0fc84b0b92
Proxy/Companion URL : woke-proxy.
Date : 1759956979409 - unknown on Apple WebKit
Mystery text?? : QjVFNnlwVkdieFkgaSAgbG92ICB1IHdva2UtcHJveHkucG9rZXR1YmUuZnVu
143 : true
2,759,951 Views β’ 1 month ago β’ Click to toggle off description
Views : 2,759,951
Genre: Education
License: Standard YouTube License
Uploaded At 1 month ago ^^
warning: returnyoutubedislikes may not be accurate, this is just an estiment ehe :3
Rating : 4.943 (1,093/75,526 LTDR)
98.57% of the users lieked the video!!
1.43% of the users dislieked the video!!
User score: 97.85- Overwhelmingly Positive
RYD date created : 2025-10-08T20:08:54.25257Z
See in json
1,333 Comments
Top Comments of this video!! :3
MOD: "You don't need a self loading rifle"
Soldier: "That's because you're not the one who's going to need one"
7.5K | 36
Cant train the mad minute and argue you dont want your soldiers to shoot quickly.
3.7K | 32
Thinking British soldiers would fire their ammo off to quickly reminds me that's a similar reason why they wouldn't give pilots parachutes in the 1ww.
3.9K | 29
"they'll fire too many of them bullets" the thing that held the US back from adopting a bolt action rifle initially, stopped the British from adopting a self loading rifle, heck it kept the US from adopting a repeater after the Civil War and keeping a single shot weapon instead. And it's never been the correct answer
1.3K | 42
IIRC, the concern about ammo was something drilled into American soldiers as well, where they were taught to only fire when they see the enemy. Once American soldiers got overseas, that has to be drilled out of them because 1) the US Army was typically well-supplied with ammo and 2) spending ammo was a good way to keep the enemy pinned down. The American military became known for their overwhelming firepower just because of the amount of bullets it's soldiers could dispense, as well as the copious amounts of artillery and airpower at their disposal.
132 | 0
Ammo conservation is also the reason why the M16A2 had a three-round-burst mode instead of full-auto. The Americans realized that rookies would panic in combat and just "spray-and-pray" their entire magazine away. Special forces were issued with a modified version that restored the full-auto function, since they were expected to be able to control themselves under fire.
84 | 3
Funny how the "soldiers will just waste the ammo" gets used time and again. It's why single shot rifles lasted so long and why pre-WWI bolt actions had magazine cutoffs. It was an "emergency use only" and to be single shot unless ordered otherwise.
326 | 8
Tbf, the SMLE's weren't terrible bolties at all. I find it interesting that this whole idea of wasting ammo with a rapid fire rifle came back with the introduction of a burst fire mode to post-WW2 rifles.
937 | 30
I mean itβs more unusual that the US did. Germany also had a machine gun focused doctrine.
Ofc Germany also had Gewehr 41/43 and Stg44 but in general the usual German infantry squad was also focused around the machine gun and its support.
10 | 1
It's worth pointing out that the British also had serious concerns about the reliability of automatics in muddy or sandy terrain, concerns shared by the US Marine Corps, who kept the the bolt-action 1903 Springfield in service during WW2 while the Army adopted the Garand. Early self-loading rifles like the French RSC-17 did have serious reliability problems in WW1, but the Garand ended up performing pretty well in bad conditions.
96 | 6
same reason the us Calvary didn't have repeater rifles in the 1870s and 1880s.
209 | 10
"They'll waste their ammo too fast" is an argument that i remember reading about the Russian Empire. It was said that tsar Nicholas II himself said something like this, and that was the reason why, despite having a functional full-auto rifle at time of WW1, it wasn't ever produced and adopted even for semi-elite forces
10 | 0
Iβm not sure what exactly the thoughts were back then. But coming off the back of WWI where a couple a machine gunners can lock down a whole area and then bolt guns picked off stragglers, it kind of makes sense why they went that direction. Of course hindsight is 50/50
3 | 0
My dad was in 2nd Btn Grenadiers from 1939 to 1946. Before he served in tanks 1944 on, as infantry he said the soldiers were allowed 30 rounds when on defence and 60 in attack for his Short Magazine Lee Enfield 303. His first issued rifle was made in 1913.
28 | 0
Same ammo as the bren, so the extra spares would be for both
41 | 1
Big reason was that had trouble producing enough 303 ammo as it was. Even with a billion rounds of 303 from the US, they still were short on ammo.
3 | 0
My father used a Bren Gun during his service in Burma. It gave enhanced concentrated fire power to a platoon or section. It was very accurate and used to keep the enemies' head down either statically or "fired from the hip" when mobile.
129 | 8
It 1890 and you have a column of 100 men marching in the middle of Africa, weeks from resupply and the troops have about 200 rounds each. Men will be fatigued, dehyraded, not thinking straight.
Makes sense to put something in place to conserve the limited supply of ammunition so they don't run out. They can't call in air support or helicopter evacuation...
8 | 0
They didn't want him to blow all his ammo on one target
5 | 0
@Wimbold
1 month ago
The same thinking also initially applied to bolt action rifles, where the soldiers weren't allowed to fire bullets from the internal magazine without permission, since that would've supposedly consumed ammunition too fast, and had to instead load individual rounds into the chamber after each shot.
7K | 86