• Omnificer@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    62
    ·
    9 months ago

    I’m still stuck on him suggesting a submachine gun for police use, especially having also criticized submachine guns as promoting inaccuracy.

    • SSTF@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      20
      ·
      edit-2
      9 months ago

      I’m going to posit that he was probably focused on range. He’s right that a PPD is not exactly what you want for taking 300 meter shots with. Suggesting that it would be suitable for police would be from the mindset that police operate entirely at close range.

      This ignores that volume of (reasonably accurate) fire trumps mechanical precision accuracy at long range in infantry fights, and is wrong but his wrongness isn’t unique. The cult of accuracy / cult of the rifleman is a line of thinking that pops up throughout history.

      • vaultdweller013@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        9 months ago

        Wasnt it exactly that type of thinking that delayed the adoption of the M16 as well, even though test units liked even the shoddy prototypes they were given.

        • SSTF@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          edit-2
          9 months ago

          I don’t believe the initial Army issued M16 was well received, owing to a lot of Ordnance Department meddling that did actually create a bad rifle. The XM16E1 quickly solved many of the issues, but by then the reputation of the rifle was stained.

          Before that however, off the shelf AR-15s had caught the eye of both U.S. advisors in very early Vietnam involvement, and in local soldiers in Vietnam.

          There were a lot more dimensions to the drama, but the push between traditionalists and more radical small arms thinking was at play. If you want to follow the drama do a search on “SPIW” and “Project Salvo” regarding thoughts on volume of fire.

          The M14 at the time had the advantage of being perceived as more tried and true, as an evolution of the M1 Garand. It was even supposed to use much of the same tooling as the M1 to save money (this turned out to be a lie and cost a lot of money and time).

          But that is all off the top of my head in an noncredible community, so ya know, double check sources.

  • skillissuer@discuss.tchncs.deM
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    31
    ·
    9 months ago

    oh look, a soviet reformer

    his only saving grace, and the reason he wasn’t purged was probably the fact that he was buddies with stalin

    • SSTF@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      37
      ·
      9 months ago

      There’s no evidence that he was anything other than a very outdated military thinker. He got his military start in 1912, making many of the advancements of the 1940s seem very newfangled. He fought on the side of revolutionaries during the Russian Revolution.

      You can see his outdated military opinions causing problems during the Winter War against the Finns, showing he wasn’t simply pulling punches against the Germans.

      • Track_Shovel@slrpnk.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        9 months ago

        You’re probably right, and I was just shooting from the hip. It’s crazy how the enemy didn’t even need to turn him for him to unwittingly assist them.

        What a dope.