Blue Duck357
New member
Just curious of opinions. Say the U.S. issued the FAL, AK, Galil or even the MAS 49/56. What differences (if any) do you think it would have made in Desert Storm, Somalia, Vietnam?
Does the type of millitary rifle really affect who wins?
- Thread starter Blue Duck357
- Start date
Depends which conflict ...
In Desert Storm, probably not a lot of difference. As long as we kept the Gunships, A-10 Warthogs, and B-52's
In Somalia, there _Were_ AK's in that one just like around Kuwait, only this time the other side was willing and able to use them...nearly beat us and the rest of the UN too.
Vietnam? I'd have traded my soul for a Galil! (or an M-14)
In Desert Storm, probably not a lot of difference. As long as we kept the Gunships, A-10 Warthogs, and B-52's
In Somalia, there _Were_ AK's in that one just like around Kuwait, only this time the other side was willing and able to use them...nearly beat us and the rest of the UN too.
Vietnam? I'd have traded my soul for a Galil! (or an M-14)
Long term, little difference. Logistics wins wars. The US can outequip anyone on the planet, no matter how expensive, or how many weapons fail, or get lost, or...
short term, better weapons keep grunts alive.
Galil is nice. HK is nice. ARs are nice. I don't personally like FALs---balance, weight and trigger issues. AKs are reliable, but had crappy ammo.
If the design is sound, more depends on the operator than the weapon.
short term, better weapons keep grunts alive.
Galil is nice. HK is nice. ARs are nice. I don't personally like FALs---balance, weight and trigger issues. AKs are reliable, but had crappy ammo.
If the design is sound, more depends on the operator than the weapon.
Jake 98c/11b
New member
I will have to respectfuly disagree with Crimper-D, I don't think the Somalis were poised to beat us, we just became complacent and failed to change our tactics. I will also take issue with their ability to use those AKs, willing yes, able just barely.
I am more in line with madmike I think. When I first read the topic I thought that while it doesn't have a lot to do with determining who wins wars, it certainly can make the difference in who wins engagments. The two big problems I have with some of the more prevalent military rifles is the speed of reloading and the lack of a bolt hold open device to let you know you are dry.
One thing Crimper-D touched on that I certainly do agree with is the ability of your enemy to maintain the will to fight/win. The Somalis had the will to fight the Iraqis did not.
While logistics has been the dominant factor in how we fight wars it shouldn't be. It is costly in every respect and inefficient. We should change from a top down mentality in our training to a bottom up approch.
Just a short editorial, hope you don't mind.
I am more in line with madmike I think. When I first read the topic I thought that while it doesn't have a lot to do with determining who wins wars, it certainly can make the difference in who wins engagments. The two big problems I have with some of the more prevalent military rifles is the speed of reloading and the lack of a bolt hold open device to let you know you are dry.
One thing Crimper-D touched on that I certainly do agree with is the ability of your enemy to maintain the will to fight/win. The Somalis had the will to fight the Iraqis did not.
While logistics has been the dominant factor in how we fight wars it shouldn't be. It is costly in every respect and inefficient. We should change from a top down mentality in our training to a bottom up approch.
Just a short editorial, hope you don't mind.
FireForged
New member
In "CQC" (100 yards or less)I think it comes down to:
1. TRAINING
2. Reliability (under combat condt)
3. Rate of Fire (Bolt action or other)
4. How much ammo you can carry
PS: The bayo on a MAS is one mean looking sucker.
1. TRAINING
2. Reliability (under combat condt)
3. Rate of Fire (Bolt action or other)
4. How much ammo you can carry
PS: The bayo on a MAS is one mean looking sucker.
Basically, no. Unless there is some gross discrepancy (M14s vs flintlocks), small arms make little difference to the final outcome, though they may decide local engagements.
Discipline; training; experience; support, both logistic and combat; morale; leadership; belief in the cause; all are more important than the type of small arms employed. Germany and Japan did not lose WWII because we had the M1 rifle and they had bolt actions; they lost because we had a vastly greater production and logistic capability, and massive air power that destroyed factories and supply channels. (For that matter, England was on the winning side, and THEY had bolt actions.)
The place small arms make a difference is in the morale of the soldier. The individual weapon is the soldier's friend. Soldiers have been quoted as saying, in effect, "The other stuff is the government's, this rifle is mine".
If the other side has small arms with some real or imagined superiority, the soldier soon begins to wonder why his nation cannot provide him with a better weapon. And that is where morale begins to break down and the loser psychology takes over. If this continues, and spreads into other areas, the war is lost, no matter how objectively "good" or "bad" the soldier's personal weapons are.
Jim
Discipline; training; experience; support, both logistic and combat; morale; leadership; belief in the cause; all are more important than the type of small arms employed. Germany and Japan did not lose WWII because we had the M1 rifle and they had bolt actions; they lost because we had a vastly greater production and logistic capability, and massive air power that destroyed factories and supply channels. (For that matter, England was on the winning side, and THEY had bolt actions.)
The place small arms make a difference is in the morale of the soldier. The individual weapon is the soldier's friend. Soldiers have been quoted as saying, in effect, "The other stuff is the government's, this rifle is mine".
If the other side has small arms with some real or imagined superiority, the soldier soon begins to wonder why his nation cannot provide him with a better weapon. And that is where morale begins to break down and the loser psychology takes over. If this continues, and spreads into other areas, the war is lost, no matter how objectively "good" or "bad" the soldier's personal weapons are.
Jim
In the past it has made a difference in battles. In the wars you mentioned I don't think it would have made any difference. In some of the uprisings that have happend recently I think it could again.
for example a small ethnic area in Russia wants to break away and all they have are Nagant bolt actions and AK armed troops are sent to quell them. In a case like this I think the rifle type would matter. But then again as noted above better logistics and minimal training can still win the day.
In the end I think the rifle type is just one component that adds to the combat effectivness of an army. It takes good equipment and training all across the board to win the wars.
for example a small ethnic area in Russia wants to break away and all they have are Nagant bolt actions and AK armed troops are sent to quell them. In a case like this I think the rifle type would matter. But then again as noted above better logistics and minimal training can still win the day.
In the end I think the rifle type is just one component that adds to the combat effectivness of an army. It takes good equipment and training all across the board to win the wars.
Hi, Steve M,
I can't imagine any area in the former USSR or anywhere around that is not awash in AK-47's. All the M-N's seem to be in the hands of American collectors.
Guerrilla forces can raise much heck and destroy morale, but they usually have poor organization, training, communications, logistics and discipline. They often lose motivation once things get rough and blood starts flowing. If an organized army opposes them, the army will usually win. If an organized foreign army cannot be found to support them, the alternatives for the guerrillas usually come down to fading away to fight another day, perhaps continuing some harassment, or to themselves become an organized army. The Americans in the Revolutionary war did the latter, but also got French support at the critical moment.
Jim
I can't imagine any area in the former USSR or anywhere around that is not awash in AK-47's. All the M-N's seem to be in the hands of American collectors.
Guerrilla forces can raise much heck and destroy morale, but they usually have poor organization, training, communications, logistics and discipline. They often lose motivation once things get rough and blood starts flowing. If an organized army opposes them, the army will usually win. If an organized foreign army cannot be found to support them, the alternatives for the guerrillas usually come down to fading away to fight another day, perhaps continuing some harassment, or to themselves become an organized army. The Americans in the Revolutionary war did the latter, but also got French support at the critical moment.
Jim
riddleofsteel
New member
Respectfully, I feel that it is the nut on the end of the handle that detirmines a combat weapons true worth.
I am sitting here trying to think of a single war in which the type of small arm used by one side or the other made the critical difference in the outcome. Nope can't think of one. Can you?
I am sitting here trying to think of a single war in which the type of small arm used by one side or the other made the critical difference in the outcome. Nope can't think of one. Can you?
Blue Duck357
New member
Well I guess you could give most of the credit to diseases they brought, but didn't the Spanish muskets prove a significant strategic advantage over the Mayans stone hatchets?
Franco-Prussian war.
Prussians (germans nowadays) had breech loading needle guns.
French had muzzle loaders.
Prussians kicked french ass all over the place. Won the war.
The prussians were able to fire shots as fast as they could load the cartridges while lying down.
The french had to stand up to load their muzzleloaders 3 times a minute.
Prussians (germans nowadays) had breech loading needle guns.
French had muzzle loaders.
Prussians kicked french ass all over the place. Won the war.
The prussians were able to fire shots as fast as they could load the cartridges while lying down.
The french had to stand up to load their muzzleloaders 3 times a minute.
The weapon I believe, can the the reason you win or lose a BATTLE. Of course, lose enough important battles and you lose a war. That said, I don't think there was a war that hinged on what type of weapon was used... But from the Japanese accounts I've read, the M1Garand kicked a** in more ways than one...