Worst Military mistake involving guns

[Cromlech]

i vote for "Military changing to the M9." And for the record, i think the L85 is a sweet weapon.

The LA85 A2 revision solved most of the problems, although some are still not happy with it. The fact remains however, that the LA85 A2 (SA80) is one of the most accurate 5.56mm weapons there are.This is due to a longer than average barrel length which is made possible due to the magazine and TMH placement being well behind the pistol grip. I still think they should be using the G36/FAMAS/Steyr Aug.

 

[El Tejon]

The adoption of the US of the M60 instead of a variant of the FN MAG.

Fortunately, we have since corrected this blunder somewhat.

 

[Hutch]

Has any army, since the adoption of rifled arms for the infantry, EVER lost a war due to the inferiority of it's standard infantry weapons? Was it the M1 Garand that defeated the K98? Or the 1919 that defeated the MG42? Or the M16 that defeated the AK (DS 1 or DS 2)? Nope. I submit it's a will to prosecute the war to a victory, and logistics trains that permit an army to do so.

If the Red Ball express of WW II fame had been delivering food, fuel, and ammo for our 1903 Springfield rifles to the front lines, we'd have still defeated the Germans. Look how well our pitiful M4's overwhelmed the less numerous and under-supplied Pzkw IV, V, and VI. Logistics, I tells ya. If there is a case to be made for a superior weapon actually deciding the outcome of a war (not a single battle) between nation-states since the introduction of cartridge firearms, I would like to hear of it.

 

[jungle]

In this case talk of weapons and tactics will always be secondary to logistics. Firstest with the mostest is tough to beat.

 

[Crosshair]

Though PC at the time, the 86 FOPA act had unintended consequences when they closed the NFA registry and allowed no new guns. Most all development of full auto weapons ceased in the US. Now we have to depend on mostly foreign manufacture for automatic weapons. It amounts to a government created military blunder.

Lay that one on your favorite anti

I think Oleg has a new idea for a poster.

 

[bdutton]

If there is a case to be made for a superior weapon actually deciding the outcome of a war (not a single battle) between nation-states since the introduction of cartridge firearms, I would like to hear of it.

Atomic Weapons = Japan guaranteed loss in WWII

 

[Hutch]

Atomic Weapons = Japan guaranteed loss in WWII

I respectfully disagree. We'd have one that one anyway.

Anybody? Buehler? ANYBODY??

 

[KriegHund]

More on the japanese invasion of alaska.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Aleutian_Islands

The L85 is still a poor weapons system, as it is heavier and bulkier than almost every other AR out there.

Accurate, yes, but not a good field rifle. It also apperently has an extremely good sight.

Here is an extremely good read on the SA-80 and L85
http://world.guns.ru/assault/as22-e.htm

 

[bdutton]

I respectfully disagree. We'd have one that one anyway.

Anybody? Buehler? ANYBODY??

I too think we would but there was still enough doubt about the outcome of a full force invasion if we did not use the A-bomb.

Consider estimates of 1 million casualties. A fanatical/religious devotion to the emporer. A land invasion of mainland Japan would have been very costly. Why else would we have allowed Hirohito to remain in a ceremonial position when we had originally compared him (rightfully) as a hitler-esque leader of asia?

 

[ghost squire]

The British don't appear to give a rats ass about their troops considering the equipment issued to them in the last 10-20 years. L85, MOD survival knife etc...

If there is a case to be made for a superior weapon actually deciding the outcome of a war (not a single battle) between nation-states since the introduction of cartridge firearms, I would like to hear of it.

Finnish Winter War, those Suomis were 1000 times better suited to the situation then any rifle. I believe if they had only had bolt action rifles they may well have lost. We're talking about a single submachinegunner mowing down enemies in up to triple digits in a single battle, in quick succession.

If they had had bolt rifles and kept the same tactics they would have been overun and probably lost. New tactics suited to bolt rifles and the war would have been prolonged.

http://guns.connect.fi/gow/suomi1.html

On the effectiveness of the 9mm:

"They were formidable opponents. We were urged to kill almost every Siberian twice, and most tough boys still a third time", told many Finnish veterans of wars: "Russian lads, coming against us in closed formation, intoxicated with vodka and singing Le Internationale, were bunny-boys but the Siberians were born soldiers! We met them in February 1940 and we learnt to respect those slant-eyed imps... !" Two bullets were enough for "bunny-boys" but five hits were necessary to dispatch a Siberian "imp". Sometimes they fought back despite ten or twelve wounds from 9 mm bullets.

But look, when youve got 50-70 rounds in the mag and a whole horde is coming after you *** cares right?
Cost of 50 rounds 9mm ball to the Finnish Government during WW2: Pennies
Being able to cut a squad down in seconds without bringing the gun to your shoulder: Priceless

BTW the guys talking about the effectiveness of 9mm ball out of an SMG killed hundreds of men so I think they are qualified to speak about it.

 

[stevekl]

This thread is a nightmare of poor spelling and grammar. What happened to this board exactly? Aren't most of you guys older than the average internet user? Well, act like it! I'm not demanding perfect English, I just wish you people would proof-read your posts sometimes.

For example, did I just read "Mosin-Garant" on the first page? I hope there is an actual rifle called the "mosin-garant" (and google doesn't give much evidence) or else we got a case of crushing dyslexia here.

 

[Tory]

Reality check

“Atomic Weapons = Japan guaranteed loss in WWII”


Really? And how, pray tell, would we GET them there without:

1. The B-29;

2. The airstrips on the islands we captured to launch/land them from; requiring;

3. The CAPTURE of said islands by a series of amphibious assaults and naval battles?

Note that it was the failure to launch the third wave of the sneak attack on Pearl Harbor, which would have destroyed the sub pens, fuel depots and ammo dumps, that allowed us to keep the IJN from pushing farther, faster through the use of fleet submarines while we rebuilt the surface fleet.

Note further that it was our breaking of the IJN “Purple” code which allowed the significant victory at Midway (vitiated by our subsequent incompetence at Savo and the Taffy 15 fiasco Halsey perpetrated in the Phillipines).

Absent those events, Little Boy and Fat Man would have been dressed for the prom, but without a limo...........

“I respectfully disagree. We'd have one that one anyway.”

See above.

 

[Polishrifleman]

Lbmii

You are talking about the Harrington Richardson Reising gun that the US took on instead of the Thompson machine gun because it was cheaper. I believe the model 55 was the full auto version.

 

[another okie]

The SA80 used to be referred to by the troops as "the civil servant rifle" because, they said, you can't fire it and you can't make it work.

 

[Tory]

Incorrect

"You are talking about the Harrington Richardson Reising gun that the US took on instead of the Thompson machine gun because it was cheaper."

In point of fact, the US indeed "took ...the Thompson machine gun" and in fairly large numbers, albeit not quite when Co. Thompson first tried to sell it to our military. The Navy even had its own version made; squad leaders often carried them, as did some paratroopers.

The Reising was supposed to be a cheaper sub-gun, the Tommy gun being VERY expensive and complex by comparison, even after the war-production version (no drum mags, cheaper sights, simplified mechanism) came out.

What killed both was the M3 "grease gun;" a real POS from a craftsman's viewpoint, but cheap, light and very easy to control (MUCH slower rate of fire). It was a glorified zip gun, but it worked reliably, any moron could make it, maintain it and fire it. Sort of a down-home AK, if you will.

 

[Jim K]

Jeff White wrote, "The Germans developed submachine guns, the Americans developed (but never fielded) the Pederson [sic] Device for the 1903 Springfield rifle."

The fact was that the Pedersen device would have been a disaster. The idea was that thousands of American troops would advance, firing their M1903 rifles, then change bolts, insert magazines and deliver rapid semi-auto fire as they marched to make the enemy keep their heads down.

But, in order to get soldiers to keep their heads down, they must first know they are being shot at. With the small caliber and almost silent firing of the little .30 bullet, plus the normal noise of the battlefield, the Germans would not even have known the advancing Americans were firing. A few very "unglucklich" Germans might have been hit, but firing from the hip against entrenched troops seems unlikely to produce many casualties.

The Germans would simply have manned their machineguns and slaughtered the Americans who had been misled into thinking they had a super weapon. The idea no doubt sounded good in a briefing for the generals, but it would have done far more harm than good for the American cause.

Jim

 

[Jeff White]

Jim,
I never said the Pederson device was the answer. I was just saying that the need for an intermediate caliber hand held automatic weapon was first recognized in the trenches. Sometimes the technological breakthrough drives the tactics and sometimes the tactics cause the new technology to be developed....

Jeff

 

[Jim K]

Sorry, Jeff, it sounded like you were saying the usual about how the PD would have saved the world if it had only come out in time or would have won WWII in a day if it had not been destroyed. Actually, it was a costly fiasco and, IMHO, could have been worse.

Another detour into silliness involving guns was the "Liberator" pistol. The idea was based on a piece of nonsense in a novel about how oppressed people will rise if given weapons. The romantic writer didn't realize that most people in a conquered country will just want to hunker down and avoid calling attention to themselves.

The guns were never used for their intended purpose, though a few were given to local police in the Philippines after the war, and a few were reportedly used against the Japanese there and in China. The vast majority were destoyed.

If anyone wants to review the history of other nonsense weapons, there is a book called "The Secret War" by Gerald Pawles. It is a combination of funny and sad, because of the sheer waste that went into silly weapons.

Jim

 

[Jeff White]

Jim,
The Army produced an excellent video series called The History of Small Arms Technology. Starts with matchlocks and works it's way up to the M16/AK assault rifles and explains how the development of the weapon drove tactics or a new tactical concept spurred the development of a new weapon.

Things like the Pederson device and the Liberator pistol were not mentioned. They are just footnotes in the history of small arms technology. The US Army distributed pistols very widely in the Infantry in WWI and that was probably a better solution then the Pederson device would have proven to be.

But WWI was the deathnell for the bolt action full caliber rifle even though it soldiered on through another World War in most armies.

I think the US Army's failure to accept the Lewis gun was the biggest small arms mistake of WWI.

Jeff

 

[History Nut]

Jim,
The Army produced an excellent video series called The History of Small Arms Technology. Starts with matchlocks and works it's way up to the M16/AK assault rifles and explains how the development of the weapon drove tactics or a new tactical concept spurred the development of a new weapon.

I think the US Army's failure to accept the Lewis gun was the biggest small arms mistake of WWI.

Jeff

Jeff,

I have seen that series! It is excellent! A friend of mine who was a NG NCO checked it out of the training aids center and borrowed a 3/4" video player and we watched all the episodes. Do you know if it is available for commercial sale on VHS or DVD? If it was, I would buy it almost regardless of cost! Major Alphen's presentation is outstanding.

On the thread topic:

I will go with the U.S. Army's slowness to adopt fair machine gun designs in the late 19th/early 20th Centuries. The Maxim and Lewis were both good designs that worked all over the world but couldn't get sold at home.

I will also agree with the Navy failing to properly test their torpedoes prior to WWII. Had our torpedoes worked properly in 1942/43, the Japanese would have been in trouble a lot sooner in the war.

Regarding the 7th Cavalry at the LBH Battle, I doubt the single-shot Springfield really contributed to his demise. Considering the terrain and tactical situation, even if they had the Spencers, the results would have been the same or similar. In addition, to the comment about the Gatlings being left behind, yes they would have saved Custer and the 7th but not the way you think. Again the terrain and battle plan would have made the Gatlings moot. However, if he had taken them, it might have slowed his march sufficiently to make the 7th arrive on the 26th and with less fatigued horses. Also Terry and his troops arrived late on the 26th so the tribes would have been facing two strong forces instead of Custer's lone divided command. The only problem with the 'trap-door' design was the ammunition being made of copper instead of brass. Ammunition problems decreased the effectiveness of the .45/70 in an 'Twilight Zone' similarity to the early days of the M16 series.

 

[PinnedAndRecessed]

I think Hitler's refusal to arm is troops with a semi-automatic rifle would count as one of the major blunders.

If Hitler had known what he had in the jet fighter he could have controlled the skies. There was no way our planes could compete. Chuck Yeager managed to shoot a few fighter jets, but he had to do so as they were taking off or as they were landing.

Hitler, it seemed, was myopic concerning England, and ordered the fighters retrofitted as bombers. Because of that he lost valuable time and we established air superiority. Had he manufactured fighter jets, Germany would have had air superiority, thus prolonging the war. Prolonging it long enough for us to drop a couple of nukes on Berlin.

Concerning our blunders, our airborne troops jumped into Normandy without guns at the ready. Noncoms and officers had sidearms. Others did not. Some paratroops were hanging from trees and steeples, defenseless while the krauts shot them from the ground.

 

[carebear]

Has any army, since the adoption of rifled arms for the infantry, EVER lost a war due to the inferiority of it's standard infantry weapons?

Austro-Prussian War

The Prussian needle rifle and rifled cannon tore the Austrian Napoleonic-era armed army all to hell.

Though it was the railroad use and rapid mobilization that was revolutionary.

 

[Crosshair]

If Hitler had known what he had in the jet fighter he could have controlled the skies. There was no way our planes could compete. Chuck Yeager managed to shoot a few fighter jets, but he had to do so as they were taking off or as they were landing.

Hitler should have also not stoped the attempts to destroy the radar towers as well as bombing allied airfields in the south part of England. Bombing the sh*t out of london probably cost him the BOB.

 

[Strings]

>In defense of the 1911 in the m9/1911 argument. I believe that while the .45 was harder to control and an aging gun, the beretta itself has devolopment and reliability issues. It has a wide ejection port and I never never jammed one. However, it is easily stripped and from what Ive heard is hard to clean. Now, keep in mind, I dont own a beretta or use one daily. My military friends just tell me this stuff. And from what I read, Im inclined to believe them.<

Kinda funny: when I bought my 1991, a military friend told me all KINDS of things that were "wrong' with the design. Almost every problem he mentioned was attributable to the age of the 1911s he was familiar with. That said:

It seems that EVERY battlefield weapon is hated by those required to use it, or those who were trained on it's predecessor. The AR family is a classic example: it is almost the ultimate in infantry weapons. It can be chambered in at least 7 calibers I can think of off-hand, configured to serve in basically EVERY small-arms role necessary to a modern army (infantry rifle, PDW, sniper rifle, squad automatic) while utilizing the same basic manual of arms, and has had around 40 years to have the bugs worked out of the system (they'd probably have the last bug taken care of by using the H&K op-rod system). And with all that said, they want to adopt a new weapon... :banghead:

Personally, I think the biggest weapon mistake is the tendancy for humanity to think they can create a weapon "so terrible that it would make warfare unthinkable". Gatling thought that, so did Maxim (IIRC). And I'm sure the Manhattan folks entertained similar thoughts. But humanity ain't smart enough to back off of such things: we'll wage war no matter HOW terrible the cost will be...


Wow... that was almost deep. Think I'll have another beer...

 

[Crosshair]

The AR family is a classic example: it is almost the ultimate in infantry weapons. It can be chambered in at least 7 calibers I can think of off-hand, configured to serve in basically EVERY small-arms role necessary to a modern army (infantry rifle, PDW, sniper rifle, squad automatic)

The AK is available in several calibers as well:

7.62x39, 5.45x39, 7.62x54R, 7.62x51, 30-06, 5.56x45, 12 gauge, 20 gauge, .410.

In fact the AK is more versitile than the AR in terms of caliber. The AK action can be easily modified for any caliber while in the AR you are limited to the size of the magazine well. I really don't see the AR's ability to use the same lower as much of an advantage for anyone other than civilians.