tahunua001
New member
try saying that to anyone that has spent a year in Iraq kicking in doors... a lot of good tanks, gun ships, helecopters and bombers have done in urban combat environments...
Can someone explain in regards to Germany and WW II . . . .
- Thread starter bedbugbilly
- Start date
SPEMack618
New member
Well, I didn't kick down doors in Iraq, but I did in Afghanistan, and it was nice having the Air Force/Army Aviation over head.
Same goes for MRAPs and Strykers. No tanks over there when I was over there.
That being said, I do agree that it comes down to the man with the rifle.
And the man behind the rifle is far more important than the rifle itself.
Training. Training. Training.
Same goes for MRAPs and Strykers. No tanks over there when I was over there.
That being said, I do agree that it comes down to the man with the rifle.
And the man behind the rifle is far more important than the rifle itself.
Training. Training. Training.
johnwilliamson062
Moderator
I said turn the tide. I'm not convinced that was ever done in Iraq or Afghanistan, let alone by what. The fact that operations were limited as such in order to fight a political war and the results isn't something I would consider contrary to my point. That's at least another thread and probably another forum though.
SPEMack618
New member
Oh, don't worry, I've read on here, and heard at the range, that the reason we aren't "winning" is because we don't use the AK/M-14/M-1/1873 Pattern Musket.
And, by the same token, I've read that my complaints about the M-4 aren't valid because I wear a stetson instead of a girl scout hat.
The rifle is an important tool to the Soldier, yes, and this thread has been vwery interesting, especially for the history to be learnt in reading it, but sometimes, we as the gun culture, and Americans, at least in my opinion, tend to romanticize the rifle a bit more than history bears out.
Hell, I'm guilty of it too.
And, by the same token, I've read that my complaints about the M-4 aren't valid because I wear a stetson instead of a girl scout hat.
The rifle is an important tool to the Soldier, yes, and this thread has been vwery interesting, especially for the history to be learnt in reading it, but sometimes, we as the gun culture, and Americans, at least in my opinion, tend to romanticize the rifle a bit more than history bears out.
Hell, I'm guilty of it too.
Not including wars where industrialized nations slaughtered various brown folk: The Dreyse needle gun made a big difference in the mid-1800s.
Not sure you can say turned the tide but it did make a notable difference.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austro-Prussian_War#Armaments_and_tactics
I've been scanning threw these remarks and all make valid points. I'll make mine! Why didn't Germany switch guns when they were preparing for war? They were preparing for war! Never switch horses when crossing the stream in the words of Abe Lincoln. They weren't across the stream but the channel was rising, the English Chanel. Only one other country in the world had a respectable semi auto, respectable because we won the first round. If it's not broke, why fix it, Browning M2.
The Garand: If it's so horrible and useless then why did Patton love it so much? He went through basic, he knew what a rifle was to a solider, although not a marine he might be able to hit a barn....from the inside of it.......with 9 shots. If you didn't get that your a navy boy.
One last thing: Someone thought it wise to make the comments about how 5.56 and how it's under powered....yadda...yadda. Nobody really cares. The reason for this comment is because they made the remark about "Having our butts handed too us." Well we have never fought a war with the 5.56, our last war fought AND won handily with the M1 Garand. The U.S. has been in 5 wars, arguably loosing The war of 1812 and victory in all others. Another history lesson, Mr Bill Clinton sent Americans into CONFLICT MORE TIMES THAN ANY OTHER PRESIDENT, SOMALIA AND IRAQ INCLUDED.
The Garand: If it's so horrible and useless then why did Patton love it so much? He went through basic, he knew what a rifle was to a solider, although not a marine he might be able to hit a barn....from the inside of it.......with 9 shots. If you didn't get that your a navy boy.
One last thing: Someone thought it wise to make the comments about how 5.56 and how it's under powered....yadda...yadda. Nobody really cares. The reason for this comment is because they made the remark about "Having our butts handed too us." Well we have never fought a war with the 5.56, our last war fought AND won handily with the M1 Garand. The U.S. has been in 5 wars, arguably loosing The war of 1812 and victory in all others. Another history lesson, Mr Bill Clinton sent Americans into CONFLICT MORE TIMES THAN ANY OTHER PRESIDENT, SOMALIA AND IRAQ INCLUDED.
Both Somalia and Iraq were adventures started by the first Bush administration. Our troops were already there when Clinton took office.
Not sure how many countries, but the "Global War on Terror" has seen American troops or equipment (drones) in several African and Asian countries.
If we include the "war on (some) drugs" we've had military interventions in dozens of countries for each administration since Nixon.
This list credits Woodrow Wilson with 10 separate interventions in South America. http://www.yachana.org/teaching/resources/interventions.html
This list has Clinton at 10 interventions world wide, but increases Wilson to 15.
http://academic.evergreen.edu/g/grossmaz/interventions.html
I don't think Patton went through Basic, and when he arrived for "Beast Barracks" or whatever they call it at West Point (he graduated in 1909 IIRC) ,the official Army rifle was the M1903, the cadets used Krags for D&C.
Why didn't the Germans develop and adopt a semi-auto rifle? They didn't see the need for one. Speer blames Hitler for being the WWI infantryman clinging to his familiar "carbine". Again, took John Garand about 16 years-1916-1932-to develop the M-1 then another 4 years of work after MacArthur disapproved of the .270 round. Each nation's armament is a result of tactical
doctrines, its industrial base and educational establishment, the whims of its Ruler, its battle experience, etc.
Why didn't the Germans develop and adopt a semi-auto rifle? They didn't see the need for one. Speer blames Hitler for being the WWI infantryman clinging to his familiar "carbine". Again, took John Garand about 16 years-1916-1932-to develop the M-1 then another 4 years of work after MacArthur disapproved of the .270 round. Each nation's armament is a result of tactical
doctrines, its industrial base and educational establishment, the whims of its Ruler, its battle experience, etc.
johnwilliamson062
Moderator
In North and South America Europeans are successful primarily b/c of disease and secondly continuous ?reinforcement? from Europe. 90% casualties before combat makes it difficult to win.
In most of Africa Europeans are held at bay, in this case often quite literally, by malaria until the discovery/invention of quinine in the early 1850s.
In Asia, European dominance was established using seaborn artillery to bombard coastal and river cities. There were very very few times when Europeans had a land army in Asia that could not be easily over run by the Chinese, Japanese, or Koreans.
Zhillsauditor
New member
The last Mughal emperor might disagree. The Duke of Wellington cut his teeth in Asia, fifty years before the Great Rebellion of 1857.
johnwilliamson062
Moderator
"Indian sub-continent," "South Asia," "Indo-Pak," all attempts to categorize an area that looks like part of Asia from space, but culturally and historically doesn't fit as well as a square peg in a round hole. Much like Mexico resulting in the term "Latin America."
I would also say the reason British influence did not extend beyond port cities into the interior of China at the time of the Mughal Empire is because it could not, not because the British were content to limit themselves to India. British endeavors around the globe at that time offer ample support of my point. If there was any confusion as to my point, at any time in modern history at least one of the three countries I listed could have accomplished the task, not all at every time or every smaller nation in the region. Even in WWII it took an Asian power(China), a European power(Russia), an American power(US), and even a bit from Australia to push the Japanese back after they successfully removed all European and American influence with alarming speed and ease. Remember the Japanese, not the Germans, fielded the largest battleships in history. They also engineered a functioning bridge over the River Kwai without any help from British prisoners, who were used for thoughtless manual labor labor(read up on how ticked a lot of both British and Japanese involved in that project were over the movie).
Had China wanted to wipe the British out of the interior of India in 1850 I think they likely could have. The British would have shelled a dozen or so Chinese cities and had the effect of a WWII firebombing though. Historical guesses as to the population of those cities varies widely, but by all accounts they were densely populated, highly combustible, and housed a sizable population. Beijing probably being the only city in the world with over a million residents at the time. Along with the loss of life, the British would have almost certainly been able to blockade every major port and navigable river.