Say we for some insane reason decided to fight the war in Iraq using only WWII-era small arms. We’d have all the same tanks, planes, bombs, and ordnance that we have now, and the same technology - but only the small arms that were used in World War II. Squads would be issued Garands, with one man carrying a BAR and the officer with a Thompson.
Would we be better or worse off?
Why on Earth would you assume that U.S. forces would be better off? You’re not one of those weirdos who think weapons were better in the old days, are you?
Well, America went head to head with Germany during World War II. Germany relied heavily on machine guns and artillery, and less on the individual soldier with the rifle. And we were able to more than hold our own against them. The insurgents in Iraq are relying primarily on explosive attacks, suicide bombings and IEDs, and not so much on small-arms. Given that the M-16s issued to our American troops fire just as much, if not more, on semi-automatic mode than on automatic (from what I’ve heard - no cite) and the .30-06 round is widely considered to be superior in ballistics to the 5.56 round fired by our troops currently, it’s not out of the question that the Garand could be an effective rifle in Iraq.
Whether or not weapons were “better” in the old days is up for debate - all my older relatives who fought in Korea or WWII absolutely worship the Garand and would never consider swapping it for an M16 - they insist that the Garand is sturdier, more accurate and more powerful. When the M16 was first issued, it was widely disliked and considered inferior in power to the M14 and the Garand. Some of this is surely old-man stubbornness, but some of the complaints seem warranted.
Funny side-note: a while back, I told my grandpa that I had gotten an SKS. He asked what kind of rifle it was, and I told him it was a semi-automatic, 7.62x39. He was like, “bahhhh, semi-automatic! There’s no skill involved in that! Back in my day when we had the Garand and the Carbine, you pulled the trigger and you got ONE shot! That’s a real rifle. Now you can just hold down the trigger and spray out bullets.”
He thought “semi-automatic” meant “fully-automatic.”
He’s a character, that guy. Imagine Paulie from the Sopranos, mixed with Archie Bunker and that guy who played the NYPD sergeant in Dog Day Afternoon, who was always sweating like crazy.
Worse obviously. I can’t see any pros in trading weapons for something heavier, longer, with more recoil, less ammo capacity and without rail allowing use of night sights. Having more punch in single bullet isn’t really needed - most shooting is at close ranges anyway and most enemies aren’t wearing body armor.
The M16 (or the M4 carbine version) is lighter and uses lighter ammo, which allows soldiers to carry more ammo and move faster. The weaker ammo and the straightline design reduce the effects of recoil, making it easier to fire accurate, repeated shots. I think we’re better off using the modern guns in an urban environment.
…Coalition forces lost about 400 soldiers in the initial invasion of Iraq. According to the Project on Defense Alternatives at Commonwealth Institute, Iraq lost between 7 and 10 000 soldiers defending Iraq. Your proposal simply gives the Iraqi soldier a fighting chance: although Coalition Forces still have the advantage of superior intelligence, tactics and technology.
But was that advantage due more in part to missiles, tanks and air strikes, or small-arms fire?
I’m going to have to rephrase the OP actually, to say, “what would it BE like if we fought Iraq with WWII era small-arms.” I think most people would say we’re better off now.
I’ve found that the question of weight, especially ammo weight, is what seperates civilian gun enthusiasts from military (especially infantry) types. For the former, it’s a fairly minor factor. For the latter, it’s perhaps the single most important one. I’d much rather carry 240 5.56 rounds than 80 .30-06 rounds for the same weight.
Plus, I’d *much * rather use a 29-round magazine than start changing a 5-round clip every 10 seconds.
Look - the military calls these things “assault rifles” because they’re used for assaults, meaning for advancing upon enemy positions while firing. In that type of combat, soldiers fire as much to keep the enemy’s head down and break his morale as to actually hit him, which mean that producing a sufficient volume of fire - and not neccessarily automatic fire; fast aimed semi-auto is usually better, if only because you don’t run through 3 magazines a minute - is crucial. That’s why the actual damage of the bullet is less important. Sure, there’s a greater chance a 5.56 round will wound rather than kill, but anyone you shoot will be down for at least a couple of minutes, and by then you’ll be at his position to close the deal.
There is the question of body armor, though. Up until now, no two armies making extensive use of ceramic plate armor have ever fought a war. If that happens, we may well see a return to heavier ammo - just as the prevelance of plate armor in the late middle ages led to the development of the halberd or warhammer.
…just to clarify for the non-American, when you say “we’re better off” are you talking about the Coalition Troops, the US Troops or the Iraqi Troops?
I’m talking about anyone who’s armed with the M16 or M4 or any variant thereof, firing the 5.56 round.
Alessan’s point is well taken though - the weight is pretty important.
I think if two armies fight each other who are both advanced enough to be using heavy body armor, the war will probably be one where air strikes and ordnance will be more important than infantry combat.
Your grandfather may also be convinced that his 57 Chevy was the greatest car ever build. But it wouldn’t win any competition with a 2008 Toyota.
And to get to the enemy, they had to march 20 miles through snow! Uphill!
Well, that’s probably true.
Snow? Luxury. Why in my day we DREAMED of getting to fight in snow…
Gentlemen, may I present a US-designed and produced WWII-vintage weapon that is still in use, even by Israel, the M1 Carbine. Lightweight, good stopping power up to 200 yards, and available in both semi-automatic and selective fire. The additional range of the .30-06 round isn’t really useful in urban warfare, especially when packaged in a rifle appropriate to its kick, ie: a big honkin’ rifle.
Plus, the M1 Carbine is much better looking than the M16.
I think any squad of U.S. Marines with a mix of M1 Carbines and Thompsons would outmatch any given Iraqi insurgent force armed with AK-47s and variants thereof. The insurgents’ main weapons as I’ve said are explosives, so I think the US could switch from M16s to M1 Carbines and if they still had the same tanks and planes they do now, it would - at the very least - be no better and no worse.
A step backwards to older weapons could, however, cause a drop in morale among some men. Others might actually perform better knowing that they were using the same weapons their ancestors won America’s other wars with. Let’s face it - the M16 made its debut in a war that America ultimately did not win.
This is all complete armchair quarterbacking and speculation mixed with a good dose of alternate-history type imaginative thinking. Any current military personnel in Iraq or elsewhere need not take all this babble as some kind of mockery of their service.
Depends on the competition. I would bet on a '57 Chevy Bel Air vs an '08 Toyota Camry in a demolition derby!
Based on basic training to shoot, I wouldn’t bet against a squad of Marines armed with Springfield Cavalry Carbines and Colt Single Action Army revolvers, both from 1873.
I suppose it’s a separate debate, but it seems to me that there have been few breakthroughs in firearm design since WWII, just finetuning and cheapening of production methods. I have difficulty imagining anybody complaining too much about being issued a Thompson for close-quarter fighting. Sure, its a few grams heavier than an AK-47, but a fine, well made, and accurate (over short distances) weapon. Who could resist making like Al Capone with a Tommy Gun?
If you want lighter and cheaper but still WWII vintage, there’s the M3 submachine gun. Apparently used by some units in the US Army up through Gulf War I.
Can they have Mameluke swords, too?
I’m surprised that no one has brought up the M-2 ‘Ma Deuce’ .50 cal machine gun. When I got out of the National Guard in the late 80’s, our unit had some .50 cals that had seen action in WWII, Korea and Vietnam. Is there any chance some of those are still around?