Why in the year 2024 do military forces, the whole world over, issue their officers pistols? Rifles are effective at much greater distances, after all.
It isn’t the officer’s job to put rounds downrange, it’s to tell the other guys to put rounds downrange. If an officer needs a rifle, it means something has gone terribly wrong.
Perhaps so, but then what does an officer need a weapon for if their job is to direct others?
An officer on a battlefield (or near a battlefield) probably won’t use their sidearm ~98% of the time, but for the other ~2% they’ll be awfully glad they were carrying it.
If the enemy is close at hand, sure, having any weapon at that moment would be good. One other reason I’ve heard for officers having pistols is the implicit threat they can use it to shoot their own men.
Think of the officer’s pistol as the modern equivalent of the sword.
Sword implies aristocracy to me. It requires a long time to learn to skillfully use a sword and we typically associate them with the upper classes historically. That and horses.
Some of that military aristocracy culture is still very much present with the officer corps. And in formal settings, the sword is still a part of an Officer’s dress uniform in many militaries and military academies.
While I’d agree that the reason -historically- that officers carry pistols is holdovers from the World War eras (officers not fighting in the ranks, but still need to be armed), it has it’s place in the modern battlefield as well.
Makes the point that it’s both useful in CQC (Close quarters combat), enclosed areas where range is limited to non-existent, and useful in semi-hostile situations in which a carried or slung main weapon may not be.
Do I still think that it’s more inertia than need… yes, but it’s not a completely unjustifiable use of time and money.
ETA - and I say this as a pistol owner, who has repeatedly stated that outside of ease of concealment, pistols (while absolutely dangerous!) are the worst choice of firearms when it comes to the stated goal of killing people.
Yeah, if the shit hits the fan hard enough that an officer needs to shoot things, things will likely be up close and personal enough that a pistol will be useful. Also, there will likely be rifles lying around unused at that point, and they can always try to pick up one of those.
Historically, yes, this was one purpose. Modern armies largely don’t do this, with some notable exceptions, like Russia. But as has been mentioned, armies are pretty devoted to traditions. In a lot of wars, surrendering officers were sometimes allowed to retain their sidearms, so as to maintain their symbol of authority over their surrendered troops. How well that worked out depended a lot on the wars in question, and the people on each side of the war.
But ask yourself, in a regular battle situation, what would the officer be doing? If they’re shooting a rifle, that takes up quite a lot of their time and concentration. That means they’re not doing officer-type stuff, like noticing that they’re being flanked, or that they’re moving in the wrong direction, or that they’re about to be targeted by heavy weapons, or seeing that the enemy’s positions have shifted in some important way that affects the battle plan, or any of hundreds of other things they won’t be doing because they’re busy shooting a rifle.
I forget who it was, but one famous general said, “I don’t carry a weapon, the whole unit is my weapon.”
Gen Omar Bradley carried a carbine.
So do I, when I wage war on the Coyotes of Red Mud Flat.
And it’s not as if modern infantry platoon and company commanders will not have an assault rifle or SMG on them to defend themselves with if they’re on the fighting line.
Sometimes those others are reluctant to follow directions.
I think the utility of a mutiny deterrent is being underestimated in this thread. Having a physical threat backing you up while yelling orders at as well as actively disciplining armed subordinates is not just a practical tool, but a psychological one too, for the officers as well as their troops.
Uh, former officer here. Did a little stint in Iraq.
I was issued both a sidearm and an assault rifle.
But as for sidearms in general, the idea of an officer having a dedicated sidearm is, at least within the US military, somewhat of an anachronism (I mean, maybe somewhere there are officers with a dedicated sidearm, but I was never one of them). Outside of Iraq (where I did have both the pistol and the assault rifle issued to me for the duration) I would draw pistol from the armory as needed, such as when standing Officer of the Deck in port, but otherwise I would be unarmed, and it wasn’t even my dedicated pistol. Just whichever one the armorer handed me that day.
Well, I suppose the OP asked about worldwide, so maybe… but not so much within the US military.
A friend of mine was an Army communications officer in Iraq for a deployment. He was saying that there was a rule that everyone had to be armed all the time, and he was glad his unit (CID) issued smaller Sig-Sauer P228/M11 pistols that were considerably more convenient to carry around.
So even though nearly all of his deployment was inside the wire, he still had to carry a weapon of some sort, and a sidearm was the best option.
It isn’t necessarily a rank or service requirement. I think maybe enlisted tank crews are issued pistols? I know aircrews are. The pilots have their sidearms, rifles being a bit unwieldy in the cockpit.
The hot setup is to be a general, if you like this sort of thing. I think they are still authorized to carry pretty much whatever they want, whether a Peacemaker or Colt .45 or something exotic.
At some point someone realized an officer armed only with a pistol was next to useless in a firefight. Back in the 18th century it was an officer’s job to keep soldiers in formation, direct their actions, and make sure they fire in the right direction so they didn’t need a musket. But in a modern battlefield that young LT is expected to contribute from time-to-time by sending a few rounds towards the enemy.
Pretty much covered already. In the US Army anyway y what weapon you are assigned has more to do with your job than your rank. I was a private assigned a pistol because I was aircrew. Later I was a tanker and assigned a pistol. Other positions I was assigned a rifle.
There is an exception. General officers are given personal pistols. Army and Air Force general anyway. They have the option to buy the gun when they retire.