Handguns in rifle squads (and in modern militaries in general)

[simonrichter]

Back in my days, the rule was that sidearms were reserved for officers, machine gunners, grenadiers and medics.

It appears to me that pistols are becoming more ubiquitous on the modern battlefield, pics from Ukraine showing almost every common grunt carrying a leg or shoulder holster (that might be due to the somewhat irregular equipment of the AFU, though...). Still, also French or British rifle squads seem to equip every member with a sidearm nowadays, while in the new U.S. Army layout it's only three out of nine (source: "Battle Order" graphics of infantry squad loadouts). On the other hand, some nations seem to use small SMGs (namely, the MP7) in that role.
Any thoughts or deeper insights into these trends?

 

[Rob228]

Still fairly accurate with the O's, machine gunners grenadiers and medics, but if you look at a group that has a CQB specific mission they'll be carrying handguns as well, the thought being that if your primary goes down you immediately transition to secondary.

Add to that group MPs and gate guards (not always one and the same) and some drivers, etc. Also stateside most units have a Staff NCO or Officer standing overnight duty and that will typically be an armed post. If you don't have an up to date pistol qual instead of signing for the duty pistol and ammo you are walking to the armory and checking out your M-16/M4 for the night. Also if you are pulling onto a stateside installation and the gate guard is carrying a carbine its either an elevated threat condition (they'll still have a sidearm) or like previously mentioned: haven't pistol qualified that year.

 

[44 AMP]

Different nations militaries have different philosophies, the only common thing seems to be the military is all about following their rules, and any benefit to the indifidual soldier has a lower priority than a benefit (real or perceived) to the mission.

What is, and isn't "authorized" varies with the time, place and people in charge you look at.

PERHAPS some militaries have now recognized that an individual carrying a handgun, in addition to their primary weapon isn't automatically the bad thing they previously thought it was, and are now issuing some troops handguns along with their primary arm.

I don't know. It would be nice for the troops, though. I do know that again, depending on who was in charge and how much of a strict "by the book and only by the book" commander they are has always made a difference.

Troops in combat generally have, and should have greater latitude than ones in garrison, and smart commanders will look the other way and not see things that are technical violations outside of combat areas.

The US has a long history of that, from WWII through Viet Nam, and probably afterwards, though I don't have personal experience with what they do today. During the wars, GIs in the front lines that "acquired" a personal handgun, technically in violation of the TO&E issue were generally not harassed about it while on the sharp end. I don't know about now, but in Viet Nam and before, personal, civilian sidearms were often sent to troops overseas, by friends or family, and they often were of great comfort and sometimes lifesaving use, despite not being authorized.

The general unwritten rule was, don't get caught with it during inspection, or when the brass comes around. I can tell you from personal experience that any pistol is a great comfort having when you're in your sleeping bag, or even in a foxhole, ALONG with your rifle. I know of more than a few cases where unauthorized pistols saved people's lives, and became "legacy" in units, where when the owner was rotated, wounded, transferred or otherwise left the unit, the pistol was left behind for someone else to use.

There is an old saying, with more than a degree of truth that, while a pistol won't win a battle, it might just save the life of the soldier that does win the battle.

IF various militaries are finally coming around to the idea that officially allowing a soldier to have a handgun as a personal protection arm, I think that's a good thing.

Ideas change, over time, and with experience, and while official approval of new ideas might be slow in coming, eventually good things do get recognized as useful. And, useless things eventually get discarded. Though that can take a while...

From the 1890s through the 1930s US service rifles featured a magazine cutoff. Good idea on paper, soldiers would fire individual aimed rounds, and the cutoff "saved" the rounds in the magazine for emergency use. Turned out to be a useless idea in combat, and was eventually dropped, after decades of it being a required feature. The brass is slow to learn some things but eventually, they do learn...usually....

In the Ukraine, I think its a matter of they are using (and allowing) everything they can get their hands on, no matter what the official TO&E actually is.

 

[TailGator]

Soldiers often have to deal with other opponents than soldiers, too. My folks had an old friend who fought in several battles in the Pacific theater in WWII. He told a story of his squad killing a snake (a cobra by my recollection) in camp one day, and then he slid into a hammock under a blanket and felt a snake by his feet. His immediate thought was that his buddies had put the snake under his blanket as a prank. Then he saw the blanket start to rise up between his feet. He said he slowly reached behind his head for his 1911 and took care of it, but the report made his buddies jump up pretty quick, too.

I forget the exact numbers, but he said that something in the neighborhood of 2/3 of his unit didn't come home in one piece if they came home at all. The label "Greatest Generation" wasn't far off.

 

[SIGSHR]

When the M-79 grenade launcher was a standard weapon the grenadier carried an M1911A1, when the M-79 was replaced by the M-203 that ended.
There is what I call "Regular Army/pre-war parade ground standard", then there's what troops actually do in action. I read in WWII infantry officers in both theaters would carry rifles since the pistol and the M-1 Carbine identified them as officers to enemy sharpshooters. Recall in "my" days medics were unarmed-"Geneva Convention regulations."

 

[FrankenMauser]

Every unit and mission works out a little differently.
I was a helicopter crew chief. During my time, we were issued M16A2s (and, later, M4s).
But they just got stacked in a pile near (or on) our aircraft and ignored. As aircraft maintenance, we had close to zero chance of needing them.

Those of us that flew got M9s and the A2/M4. But, again, the rifles were really not expected to be used. They were strapped to something as soon as we boarded the helicopter. The general attitude was that if we had to set down somewhere hostile and actually turn to weapons for defense, we could immediately go to the holstered M9s.
If we had the time, we could get the rifles out.
If the helicopter was still running, just not flyable, we had miniguns and/or .50s to buy time.

Ground crew never got an M9 unless they were flight qualified. But you could not fly as crew in a combat zone, without extenuating circumstances, unless you were M9 qualified.

I don't know where it came from, but we had some really weird doctrine for the weapons, as well.
As ground crew in forward bases, we were each expected to have 360 rounds of 5.56 within reach at all times (more than any other branch). Because if we need to turn to the weapons, we might be there for a while (or dead quickly and a good source of ammo for actual soldiers).
But we were only issued one 30-round magazine. People that wanted more magazines had to beg, borrow, horse trade, or steal.

Those of us issued M9s, however, also had to pack it around when there was a chance of flying.
But, in contrast to the weird rifle loadout, we typically only got one magazine and 15 rounds. Additional magazines and a mag pouch would be issued upon request, but usually not the ammo. (see: "beg, borrow, horse trade, or steal".)