U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > History
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 1.5 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Jump to a detailed profile or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Business Search - 14 Million verified businesses
Search for:  near: 
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 07-25-2009, 09:43 AM
 
9,807 posts, read 6,294,138 times
Reputation: 8127

Advertisements

The atomic bomb.

After fighting Japan for 3 1/2 years, the dropping of the A-bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasake brought the war to an end and an invasion by ground troops was avoided.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 07-29-2009, 12:01 PM
 
7,001 posts, read 9,589,641 times
Reputation: 7194
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irishtom29 View Post
I recently read that as the war went on the 88 decresed in effectiveness as an anti-tank weapon because of it's size and high profile (thus difficulty in hiding) and limited mobility. As a result Allied soldiers learned to spot situations where 88s were likely to be placed and acted accordingly. In the end the 75mm PAK 40, much lower and smaller and more mobile, probably did more damage.
It's amazing how each weapon, when introduced, is only great until a countermeasure is introduced. Tanks were countered with antitank planes and artillery and, later, shoulder fired anti-tank weapons.
Cavalry was counted with long pikes. Rifles weapons were countered with small formation platoon tactics. Machine guns were counted with trench warfare.
Horse drawn chariots were considered a unbeatable battle force for a couple hundred hears, but Alexander found tactics to counter them as well.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-04-2009, 05:28 PM
 
Location: West Los Angeles
3,777 posts, read 3,135,288 times
Reputation: 3865
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dd714 View Post
It's amazing how each weapon, when introduced, is only great until a countermeasure is introduced. Tanks were countered with antitank planes and artillery and, later, shoulder fired anti-tank weapons.
Cavalry was counted with long pikes. Rifles weapons were countered with small formation platoon tactics. Machine guns were counted with trench warfare.
Horse drawn chariots were considered a unbeatable battle force for a couple hundred hears, but Alexander found tactics to counter them as well.
How did people counter flaming arrows from a warbow?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-04-2009, 07:30 PM
 
Location: St. Augustine
9,258 posts, read 11,705,333 times
Reputation: 7417
Quote:
Originally Posted by Exitus Acta Probat View Post
How did people counter flaming arrows from a warbow?
Bucket of water usually worked pretty well. Really.

Indians used fire arrows several times attacking British posts during Pontiac's War, only at Fort LeBoeuf did they do any serious damage. At Detroit and Fort Pitt the alert and prepared defenders dealt with them easily enough.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-05-2009, 04:27 PM
 
Location: San Diego CA
925 posts, read 888,876 times
Reputation: 1126
I'll narrow my response down to WW2 small arms. Certainly the M1 Garand should be on the list. The US was the only major combatant to arm its basic infantryman with a semi automatic rifle, everyone else still used bolt action rifles as standard issue. It put a lot of extra firepower into the hands of the rifleman. The old M1 was around for a long time time , I was issued one in Marine Corps boot camp in 1966. For the sake of a good arguement, could one assert that both the BAR and the Thompson , which both predated the MP43-44, were the earliest versions of the assault rifle genre of weapons ? The inventors of both weapons envisioned a weapon with heavy firepower that was light enough for one man to "assault " enemy forces in fixed positions.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-06-2009, 03:46 PM
 
7,001 posts, read 9,589,641 times
Reputation: 7194
Quote:
Originally Posted by Exitus Acta Probat View Post
How did people counter flaming arrows from a warbow?
During the Mongol Hordes invasion of what is now Iran in the 13th century - Iran used an ancient form of napalm in it's missles - Mongols covered their seige towers with water soaked leather to keep them from catching fire.

I've read similiar account from medieval wooden castle gates being covered with soaked animal skins to keep them from catching on fire from flaming arrows.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-06-2009, 03:52 PM
 
7,001 posts, read 9,589,641 times
Reputation: 7194
Quote:
Originally Posted by msgsing View Post
For the sake of a good arguement, could one assert that both the BAR and the Thompson , which both predated the MP43-44, were the earliest versions of the assault rifle genre of weapons ? The inventors of both weapons envisioned a weapon with heavy firepower that was light enough for one man to "assault " enemy forces in fixed positions.
Maybe the Tommy gun, but the browning auto rifle was one heavy cumbersome weapon. I think the creators more envisioned a portable machine gun, to used in a semi-fixed position (it came with a tripod afterall, didn't it?) to fire off a few clips, then move on, rather than a rapid fire rifle that one can use by firing in close quarters from the hip if needed.

Edit/self correction - just read that the BAR was indeed designed by it's creators as a "walking fire" weapon for WW1, although it came out to late in WW1 for full introduction. In WW2 in the Pacific theather it somewhat assumed that role.

Last edited by Dd714; 08-06-2009 at 04:04 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-06-2009, 04:16 PM
 
1,016 posts, read 2,000,219 times
Reputation: 621
I believe the prevailing theory behind the BAR was to have a portable machine gun that a walking soldier could fire--actually, a similar theory to the M60 machine gun. The BAR weighed about twice as much as the m1903, but was considerably lighter than the mounted equivalents. They were initially issued with a shoulder strap so that they could be fired exactly as described--while walking. Both the BAR and the Tommy gun were built around a similar trench warfare theory, basically putting the trench-clearing power of automatic fire in the hands of mobile troops---they were just ballistically complete opposites.

I think the main feature that made the Assault Rifle the overwhelming choice of the world's armies is the addition of the intermediate cartridge. It's way more accurate than the pistol ammo that submachine guns fire, but lighter and less bulky than full-size rifle ammo so each guy can carry more ammo. So, while selective fire and whatnot were around decades before the first "official" assault rifle, I think it's the intermediate cartridge that tied the whole thing together into a militarily ideal "jack of all trades" weapon.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $84,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > History
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 06:55 PM.

2005-2014, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 - Top