This is in reference to the military.
Reading something the other night about how the Soviets, especially senior officers, did not much believe in submachine guns before the war, then changed their minds after their experiences with the Finns, made me wonder what we have been doing differently in the last ten years as the result of the army's own wartime experiences. I think it is an interesting subject but I'm much too far from the service to have any hands on knowledge, relying at best on what my son has mentioned. And his were limited to his own experiences at that, of course.
I suppose reading things published by the Infantry School or the Small Arms School would give a better insight but failing that, I can aways draw on the huge base of knowledge right here.
Although the war in Afganistan and especially in Iraq are not perceived as conventional wars, from the soldier's point of view they probably are, just as much as the Vietnam war was. Frankly, the only thing that comes to mind on this topic is the increased use of optical sights for infantry weapons, at least for rifles. I don't know when this trend started and if it was the result of combat experiences with our current enemies or not. Likewise, I also understand the concept of the designated rifleman has come around, possibly as a result of operations being carried out in wide open spaces rather than in the jungles of southeast Asia. I imagine we'll be thinking only in these terms for the next generation or two.
Something else new in the arms room are .50 caliber rifles, though I don't know how they are employed or what the soldiers think of them. Again the result of the wide open spaces?
I know the subject of handguns is hotly debated here and no doubt claims will be forthcoming that the only reason we're not winning is because we aren't using .45 automatics. I don't know about that but my son stated that they (tankers) actually turned in some of their pistols and got carbines instead. I don't think anyone's mentioned this before but it's like the wheel turning full circle, with the army issuing carbines to replace pistols. That happened the last time around 1942, though I wasn't around to see it.
The enemy isn't using anything revolutionary in the way of weapons, other than roadside bombs, unlike the Germans in WWII, so I rather doubt the army and Marines are doing anything differently because of enemy weapons.
What else is going on that you don't read much about in the paper?
Reading something the other night about how the Soviets, especially senior officers, did not much believe in submachine guns before the war, then changed their minds after their experiences with the Finns, made me wonder what we have been doing differently in the last ten years as the result of the army's own wartime experiences. I think it is an interesting subject but I'm much too far from the service to have any hands on knowledge, relying at best on what my son has mentioned. And his were limited to his own experiences at that, of course.
I suppose reading things published by the Infantry School or the Small Arms School would give a better insight but failing that, I can aways draw on the huge base of knowledge right here.
Although the war in Afganistan and especially in Iraq are not perceived as conventional wars, from the soldier's point of view they probably are, just as much as the Vietnam war was. Frankly, the only thing that comes to mind on this topic is the increased use of optical sights for infantry weapons, at least for rifles. I don't know when this trend started and if it was the result of combat experiences with our current enemies or not. Likewise, I also understand the concept of the designated rifleman has come around, possibly as a result of operations being carried out in wide open spaces rather than in the jungles of southeast Asia. I imagine we'll be thinking only in these terms for the next generation or two.
Something else new in the arms room are .50 caliber rifles, though I don't know how they are employed or what the soldiers think of them. Again the result of the wide open spaces?
I know the subject of handguns is hotly debated here and no doubt claims will be forthcoming that the only reason we're not winning is because we aren't using .45 automatics. I don't know about that but my son stated that they (tankers) actually turned in some of their pistols and got carbines instead. I don't think anyone's mentioned this before but it's like the wheel turning full circle, with the army issuing carbines to replace pistols. That happened the last time around 1942, though I wasn't around to see it.
The enemy isn't using anything revolutionary in the way of weapons, other than roadside bombs, unlike the Germans in WWII, so I rather doubt the army and Marines are doing anything differently because of enemy weapons.
What else is going on that you don't read much about in the paper?