Anyone, please, tell me, I'll never understand one thing.
Why was the bolt-action combat rifle design still common in the 1930s, 1940s?
The WW1 prooved, that in close ranges bolt-action dies. In an infantry charge, if the lucky bastard somehow could have reached the enemy trench, he had to use his bayonet, knife, pistol or shotgun (if he had), even spades and swords. It was totally clear, that the bolt-action was not enough.
And I know, that's why the smg came in the game.
But smg is just semisolution, because of its inaccuracy, and having two guns with two ammunition is totally unrealistic.
So the answer was, okay, let's have two roles in the team, we have a guy, who has accuracy, and a guy who has firepower. This concept (as it's proven by the history) is totally unreasonable. As the whole team is complet just with both, if one element falls, operational ability decrease not to 50%, but 0%. In the base of fire and manuvre concept, no team can operate without the other in case of having different weapons.
This led to the ak47, m14, m16, g3, etc.
So let's see the facts:
1. bolt-action rifle couldn't do the job, what was needed in the 20th century battlefield
2. the errors in the semisolutions can be realised by 7 year old kid
3. the working solution is easy (put a rifle and an smg together, and you got the 2 in 1)
4. working examples for solution were given (like the mondragon rifle, EPK pyrkal, 39 m kiraly, AVS 36, etc.)
My question:
Why was the slow, one firing mode bolt-action design chosen in stead of the the fast, selective firing mode autoloading design? (in deed in smaller, poor countries, like Italy or Poland, where simply there were not enough men or producing capacity for the old concept)
Don't tell me the A+ accuracy story. You need outstanding accuracy in sniping or hunting, but everybody knows, the real job is done by suppressing and flanking.
So folks, what don't I see, that everybody does?
Thanx a lot.
Why was the bolt-action combat rifle design still common in the 1930s, 1940s?
The WW1 prooved, that in close ranges bolt-action dies. In an infantry charge, if the lucky bastard somehow could have reached the enemy trench, he had to use his bayonet, knife, pistol or shotgun (if he had), even spades and swords. It was totally clear, that the bolt-action was not enough.
And I know, that's why the smg came in the game.
But smg is just semisolution, because of its inaccuracy, and having two guns with two ammunition is totally unrealistic.
So the answer was, okay, let's have two roles in the team, we have a guy, who has accuracy, and a guy who has firepower. This concept (as it's proven by the history) is totally unreasonable. As the whole team is complet just with both, if one element falls, operational ability decrease not to 50%, but 0%. In the base of fire and manuvre concept, no team can operate without the other in case of having different weapons.
This led to the ak47, m14, m16, g3, etc.
So let's see the facts:
1. bolt-action rifle couldn't do the job, what was needed in the 20th century battlefield
2. the errors in the semisolutions can be realised by 7 year old kid
3. the working solution is easy (put a rifle and an smg together, and you got the 2 in 1)
4. working examples for solution were given (like the mondragon rifle, EPK pyrkal, 39 m kiraly, AVS 36, etc.)
My question:
Why was the slow, one firing mode bolt-action design chosen in stead of the the fast, selective firing mode autoloading design? (in deed in smaller, poor countries, like Italy or Poland, where simply there were not enough men or producing capacity for the old concept)
Don't tell me the A+ accuracy story. You need outstanding accuracy in sniping or hunting, but everybody knows, the real job is done by suppressing and flanking.
So folks, what don't I see, that everybody does?
Thanx a lot.
Last edited: