Vintage hunter; Very good! BUT as much wood that I burned this winter it would not a feasable way for me to split wood. I'll keep my log splitter powered by grandsons. They love to push the lever!GK
Printable View
Vintage hunter; Very good! BUT as much wood that I burned this winter it would not a feasable way for me to split wood. I'll keep my log splitter powered by grandsons. They love to push the lever!GK
Quote:
Originally Posted by shadycon
Add to the cold the nerve factor of being charged and shot at, then in the dark as well. Even a seasoned soldier's aim could go a little off target.
Nothing is confusing if your criteria is squishy enough. Maybe no one will fall asleep if some basic questions are asked (I'll risk it):Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick H.
1. On the eve of the development of the carbine, would you consider all/most/some of troops in an infantry regiment's service company to be "support troops"? If not, can you come up with a single example of what "support troops" might be? Take a wild guess at how the service company was armed pre-carbine.
2. You ignored the specific case mentioned in the OD letter Brian posted previously, so I'll try again. Are WWII HW company ammo bearers "support troops" or something else?
BTW, independent artillery battalions in WWII were officially classified as "combat support." Now there's a confusing term if I've ever heard one (but maybe not to those blissfully unaware of basic army organizational structure).
WWI T/O&E data is pretty scarce, but since most army decision makers in WWII served in the earlier war, a glance at the organizations they went to war in might be instructive.
A WWI division's organic artillery brigade had 1490 rifles and 3454 pistols. Are those units support troops or combat troops?
A division's machine gun battalions had over 1800 officers and men. The exact number of pistols is not shown, but the one MG battalion serving directly under division control (as opposed to being part of the infantry brigades) had 715 pistols to go with 39 rifles. The MG battalions organic to the infantry brigades had zero rifles.
Meanwhile, back at the ranch, the ammunition train that supplied those artillery batteries had 42 pistols and 587 rifles. Were these guys support or combat?
Using the time honored facts first/opinion last technique, it seems to me that in the context of their WWI experience, WWII senior officers saw that artillerymen and machine gunners needed something with better range than the pistol. If the assumption is that those soldiers are somehow support troops, then your argument might have some logical basis.
I do have to laugh that so many people are enamored with HK MP7 4.6x30mm PDW, and FN P90 5.7x28mm PDW. While nifty weapons, they literally have a fraction of the stopping power of the 7.62x33mm M1 carbine! The M1 carbine round easily penetrates IIIA body armor and Kevlar helmets. The FN P90 weighs 6.3 pounds empty, and is much bulkier than a carbine with a folding stock. The Mp7 is a little better at 4.2 pounds empty, and almost as handy as a carbine.
A classic example of newer isn't necessarily better.
Col. Ola Lee Mize just passed March 12, 2014 R.I.P. A true American hero!
That was mentioned already...another thread.
I wanted to mention it again. Is that ok with you?
Of course it is. I don't think these guys can get enough recognition.Quote:
Originally Posted by PBI
With the three latest recipients last week, there are now 77 living Medal of Honor recipients. Definitely a select group of men.
Then why the comment from the troll?
Come on guys, comments can sometimes be misinterpreted. I am closing this thread as it seems to be heading in the wrong direction.
We are here to learn and share in a friendly environment.