Yards of ammo (1944)

[Douglas G. Wilson]

"Whole nine yards of ammunition"?

It has been claimed that belted ammunition is/was NEVER referred to by belt
length (i.e., by yardage). Of course "never" is a little bit too strong.
 From Ancestry.com:

----------

"Independent Record" (Helena MT), 29 Nov. 1944: p. 1, cols. 2-4:

<<Pass the Ammunition -- by the Yard>>

[Photo of four men feeding a long belt of what looks like .50-cal. ammo
into an airplane: the visible part of the belt looks to be roughly six
yards long; perhaps there is some more already fed into the plane --DW]

<<Heavy caliber ammunition -- yards of it -- are strung into the lethal
tail of this B-29 Superfortress on Saipan. Heavy links of cartridges
require several crew members to handle them. Jap interceptors attempting a
tail run on this B-29 will have even more difficulties. (Twenty-ninth air
force photo).>>

----------

Exactly the same piece is found in the "Reno Evening Gazette" (Reno NV), 28
Nov. 1944, p. 7. Since the text and photo are identical and neither paper
gives attribution to another nor to a press agency or other source, I
speculate that the caption was composed by some agency of the USAF and
supplied along with the photo ... which would imply that "yards" was
considered reasonable terminology for belted ammo within the USAF (although
perhaps theoretically only in material for civilian consumption).

Each round of .50-cal. is about 0.8 in. in diameter and weighs about 4 oz.,
I think. I would expect the typical belt to have roughly 400 rounds (this
is the only number which I have found specifically cited in a US Government
publication referring to the ammo load for a WW II era bomber's gun), thus
(allowing for links) I would expect roughly 28-30 feet of belted ammo
weighing a little over 100 pounds.

The message here is that USAF belted .50-cal. WW II ammo was sometimes
(maybe seldom, but sometimes) referred to in yards.

I consider the ammo-belt story the most plausible of the 'usual' "whole
nine yards" etymology stories ... although still not proven by any means.

-- Doug Wilson