toivo
Member
That would be my guess: Total number of rounds expended divided by total body count. Not exactly a meaningful statistic.
Bolt Actions for a Modern Army
- Thread starter Mauserguy
- Start date
- Status
More historical points to flog upon this dead horse:
Most casualties in WW1 were inflicted by machineguns being used against men with bolt action rifles forced into charging fixed positions, not by accurate rifle fire traded between adversaries. Oh and add poison gas and literally millions of tons of artillery into the mix.
The Korean War saw human wave attacks that were not stopped by stalwart Brits with bolt action rifles, though they were still in service.
While SMLE had a role in Afghanistan the tide of the war was changed by US made Stinger missles.
The bolt action Mauser saw a lot of action in the balkans as a weapon of terror, along with the man portable mortar. When everything is a target, there is no such thing as precision.
A bolt gun is a specialized weapon long since eclipsed by more modern tactics and technology.
Great choice for a deer hunt, not what I'd pick heading into harm's way.
Most casualties in WW1 were inflicted by machineguns being used against men with bolt action rifles forced into charging fixed positions, not by accurate rifle fire traded between adversaries. Oh and add poison gas and literally millions of tons of artillery into the mix.
The Korean War saw human wave attacks that were not stopped by stalwart Brits with bolt action rifles, though they were still in service.
While SMLE had a role in Afghanistan the tide of the war was changed by US made Stinger missles.
The bolt action Mauser saw a lot of action in the balkans as a weapon of terror, along with the man portable mortar. When everything is a target, there is no such thing as precision.
A bolt gun is a specialized weapon long since eclipsed by more modern tactics and technology.
Great choice for a deer hunt, not what I'd pick heading into harm's way.
Texans in the Boer War
Reply to post #15, posted by LAK
Great story about the Boer War. I never knew that Americans fought in that war.
Quoted material:
These irregular troops of horse might be criticised by martinets and
pedants, but they contained some of the finest fighting material in
the army, some urged on by personal hatred of the Boers and some by
mere lust of adventure. As an example of the latter one squadron of
the South African Horse was composed almost entirely of Texan
muleteers, who, having come over with their animals, had been drawn by
their own gallant spirit into the fighting line of their kinsmen.
http://www.readprint.com/chapter-3731/Arthur-Conan-Doyle
Reply to post #15, posted by LAK
Great story about the Boer War. I never knew that Americans fought in that war.
Quoted material:
These irregular troops of horse might be criticised by martinets and
pedants, but they contained some of the finest fighting material in
the army, some urged on by personal hatred of the Boers and some by
mere lust of adventure. As an example of the latter one squadron of
the South African Horse was composed almost entirely of Texan
muleteers, who, having come over with their animals, had been drawn by
their own gallant spirit into the fighting line of their kinsmen.
http://www.readprint.com/chapter-3731/Arthur-Conan-Doyle
vta33,
I was surprized when I read that as well, but should not have been. South Africa, like many other rapidly developing colonies, had it's influx of foreign labor and expertise. And for a good while from the outset of the war, the British army needed all the help it could get.
Dr. Rob,
Arguably the MG was responsible for causing more casualties during WW1 in the open areas between the trench lines where the "war" consisted of to and fro attempts to breach the lines over enormous stretches of open, if cratered, ground. Overall artillery and mortar fire probably accounted for more.
WW2 was fought over the whole gamut of topography from desert to high mountain and a much better example of general warfare. Modern technology and the specialized kind of warfare fought in places like Iraq against a strictly limited small force with little or no air force is no measure of a full scale conflict against an army of perhaps millions in addition to a modern air force and technology of it's own.
-----------------------------------------------
http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org
I was surprized when I read that as well, but should not have been. South Africa, like many other rapidly developing colonies, had it's influx of foreign labor and expertise. And for a good while from the outset of the war, the British army needed all the help it could get.
Dr. Rob,
Arguably the MG was responsible for causing more casualties during WW1 in the open areas between the trench lines where the "war" consisted of to and fro attempts to breach the lines over enormous stretches of open, if cratered, ground. Overall artillery and mortar fire probably accounted for more.
WW2 was fought over the whole gamut of topography from desert to high mountain and a much better example of general warfare. Modern technology and the specialized kind of warfare fought in places like Iraq against a strictly limited small force with little or no air force is no measure of a full scale conflict against an army of perhaps millions in addition to a modern air force and technology of it's own.
-----------------------------------------------
http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org
Thin Black Line
Member
Such as losing access to Middle East oil?
OldSchooler
Member
Some mentioned tactics over weapon choice. Eschewing artillery, air and armor support for just a moment we come to the root of this discussion - the single soldier and his armament, which leads, by natural correlation, to his employment. For insurgents and those who spend more time hiding than shooting, any gun can do. For the individual soldier in an organized army, much more is possible.
Let's face it, there is plenty to be said for infantry with much maiming ammo on hand (remember, we now employ the philosophy of maim 'em, not kill 'em), multi-use, portable weaponry and mobile, squads tied together with good on-site comm gear.
This is the face of the modern fighting man. The lone rifleman with his well placed shot has value, but as an adjunct to the total picture.
(I thought it interesting to note that even in WWI, 7000 rounds per enemy killed was NOTABLE. Apparently, someone was missing out on how "great" those '03's were.)
Let's face it, there is plenty to be said for infantry with much maiming ammo on hand (remember, we now employ the philosophy of maim 'em, not kill 'em), multi-use, portable weaponry and mobile, squads tied together with good on-site comm gear.
This is the face of the modern fighting man. The lone rifleman with his well placed shot has value, but as an adjunct to the total picture.
(I thought it interesting to note that even in WWI, 7000 rounds per enemy killed was NOTABLE. Apparently, someone was missing out on how "great" those '03's were.)
1911Tuner
Moderator Emeritus
Point/Food for Thought
OldSchooler, all good and valid points.
We may assume that the round count per casualty may have been high in each war due to the large-scale use of automatic weapons. The crew-served machinegun was the weapon that littered No-Man's Land with bodies in WW1...and aerial combat was added in WW2. (Remember that .50 caliber and below was considered smallarms fire.) Ditto for Korea, and finally...the highest count per casualty came with the area saturation tactics in Vietnam...
often with AH1 Cobras and that wicked little 7.62 gatling gun with its maximum rate of 7200 rpms...though most were limited to about 6,000.
I'll repeat a point that I made earlier: If each combat rifleman were to personally kill one enemy soldier, the war would be over quickly. Not one per round...Just one. During the War Between the States, if each man in a skirmish line were to hit one man in the other skirmish line, there would have been no bayonett or glorious cavalry charges, and no hand-to-hand combat because the offensive line would never get there. They'd have been cut down before they reached the halfway point.
OldSchooler, all good and valid points.
We may assume that the round count per casualty may have been high in each war due to the large-scale use of automatic weapons. The crew-served machinegun was the weapon that littered No-Man's Land with bodies in WW1...and aerial combat was added in WW2. (Remember that .50 caliber and below was considered smallarms fire.) Ditto for Korea, and finally...the highest count per casualty came with the area saturation tactics in Vietnam...
often with AH1 Cobras and that wicked little 7.62 gatling gun with its maximum rate of 7200 rpms...though most were limited to about 6,000.
I'll repeat a point that I made earlier: If each combat rifleman were to personally kill one enemy soldier, the war would be over quickly. Not one per round...Just one. During the War Between the States, if each man in a skirmish line were to hit one man in the other skirmish line, there would have been no bayonett or glorious cavalry charges, and no hand-to-hand combat because the offensive line would never get there. They'd have been cut down before they reached the halfway point.
- Status
