The Firing Line Forums - View Single Post

BlueTrain · July 11, 2012, 04:47 PM

Mr. Old Smoker and Mr. Cannonfire, with all due respect, time marches on. I'm surprised no one suggested bringing back bolt actions. After all, everyone knows they are more accurate and they don't waste actions. But we are overtaken by events. Here I think of two things. One, the lavish use of optical sights for apparently anyone that wants them in the army. My son was a tanker in Iraq for about 15 months and his little carbine had something fancy. Oh, and as tankers, they all had pistols but they turned them in. Everyone got either a carbine (only two had been standard) or a rifle. Of course a tank is festooned with machine guns anyway.

The other is the designated marksman program and again, equipment was lavishly distributed in support of that program and selected personnel were sent off for training. However, my son likewise reported that concept was not a useful fit for a tank unit but they had all the stuff, some of which was passed on to other units. They in particular thought the .50 caliber rifles were, well, not of great value to them.

I do agree with the assessment that the infantry operates with a heavy load but flak vests were in use in Vietnam, too. You might recall that helmets were introduced in WWI because they reduced head injuries. But there might be a place for "light bobs" in the 18th century sense who were select men that were able to operate independently and were very active. At the time they were considered elite troops but they disappeared as militarily distinct troops by the time of the Crimean war except in name, same as "riflemen."

I spent most of my time in the army in Europe and infantry there at the time had full auto M14s, but only some of them and they were the ones with the special stocks. M14A1E1 or something like that.

You like kill ratios? Here's one for you: The total casualties of WWI (both sides) was about 39 million, killed, wounded, missing, according to one source. The most numerous British artillery weapon of that war was the 18-pounder, which had been replaced by WWII with the 25-pounder. There was a grand total of about about 10,000 produced, about 9/10ths being produced in Great Britain. On the Western Front, there were about 99.3 million rounds fired during the war. That makes any talk of small arms ammunition exended per enemy trivial in comparison.

July 11, 2012, 04:47 PM	#92
BlueTrain Senior Member Join Date: September 26, 2005 Location: Northern Virginia Posts: 6,141	Mr. Old Smoker and Mr. Cannonfire, with all due respect, time marches on. I'm surprised no one suggested bringing back bolt actions. After all, everyone knows they are more accurate and they don't waste actions. But we are overtaken by events. Here I think of two things. One, the lavish use of optical sights for apparently anyone that wants them in the army. My son was a tanker in Iraq for about 15 months and his little carbine had something fancy. Oh, and as tankers, they all had pistols but they turned them in. Everyone got either a carbine (only two had been standard) or a rifle. Of course a tank is festooned with machine guns anyway. The other is the designated marksman program and again, equipment was lavishly distributed in support of that program and selected personnel were sent off for training. However, my son likewise reported that concept was not a useful fit for a tank unit but they had all the stuff, some of which was passed on to other units. They in particular thought the .50 caliber rifles were, well, not of great value to them. I do agree with the assessment that the infantry operates with a heavy load but flak vests were in use in Vietnam, too. You might recall that helmets were introduced in WWI because they reduced head injuries. But there might be a place for "light bobs" in the 18th century sense who were select men that were able to operate independently and were very active. At the time they were considered elite troops but they disappeared as militarily distinct troops by the time of the Crimean war except in name, same as "riflemen." I spent most of my time in the army in Europe and infantry there at the time had full auto M14s, but only some of them and they were the ones with the special stocks. M14A1E1 or something like that. You like kill ratios? Here's one for you: The total casualties of WWI (both sides) was about 39 million, killed, wounded, missing, according to one source. The most numerous British artillery weapon of that war was the 18-pounder, which had been replaced by WWII with the 25-pounder. There was a grand total of about about 10,000 produced, about 9/10ths being produced in Great Britain. On the Western Front, there were about 99.3 million rounds fired during the war. That makes any talk of small arms ammunition exended per enemy trivial in comparison. __________________ Shoot low, sheriff. They're riding Shetlands! Underneath the starry flag, civilize 'em with a Krag, and return us to our own beloved homes! Buy War Bonds.