The neglected time period - 1870-1920...

[String]

ORIGINAL: Perturabo

ORIGINAL: Vyshka

ORIGINAL: Perturabo

I have noticed that 19th century rifles have pretty crazy effective ranges - like in over 1km without optics. In 20th century effective ranges drop to ~500 metres despite higher muzzle velocities and more aerodynamic projectiles.

Then I have read an article about Chassepot rifle and it wrote that:

Does it mean that 19th century rifles had longer effective range because they were aimed at crowds, not on point targets?

While researching the Stg44 online last week I came across a quote similar to the following:

The rifle was chambered for the 7.92 x 33mm Kurz cartridge, also known as 7.92 mm Kurz
(German for "short"). This shorter version of the German standard (7.92 x 57mm Mauser)
rifle round, in combination with the weapon's selective-fire design, provided a
compromise between the controllable firepower of a submachine gun at close quarters with
the accuracy and power of a Karabiner 98k bolt action rifle at intermediate ranges.
While the StG44 had less range and power than the more powerful infantry rifles of the
day, Wehrmacht studies had shown that most combat engagements occurred at less than 300
meters with the majority within 200 meters. Full-power rifle cartridges were overpowered
for the vast majority of uses for the average soldier.

In the German case at least I think they were moving towards designs that were optimal for engagements at those ranges.

The thing is that it includes practically all the full-powered infantry rifles since Mosin-Nagant. They can fire up to 800+ metres but only with a scope. Effective range without a scope is only 500 metres, while rifles from 10-30 years earlier have an effective range of over 1km without a scope. The only reasonable reason I can think of is that the definition of effective range changed over time.

One should also be very wary about interpreting the results of such tests. Lt. Col. Dave Grossman makes a compelling argument that most soldiers before Vietnam didn't actually fire at their enemies...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_Killing ... nd_Society

[Perturabo]

Here's an equally compelling counterargument:
http://www.journal.dnd.ca/vo9/no2/16-engen-eng.asp

To be honest, I haven't ever heard about the issue of masses of soldiers not firing in combat from any source that wouldn't cite his source. I have never read about anything like this in any soldier's/officer's memoirs.

[String]

ORIGINAL: Perturabo

Here's an equally compelling counterargument:
http://www.journal.dnd.ca/vo9/no2/16-engen-eng.asp

To be honest, I haven't ever heard about the issue of masses of soldiers not firing in combat from any source that wouldn't cite his source. I have never read about anything like this in any soldier's/officer's memoirs.

IIRC he explains it quite well in his book.

edit: What sold me were first hand accounts from Afghanistan, where men who were in their first contact had trouble opening fire. And by first hand I don't mean "first hand which i read over the internet"

[Perturabo]

ORIGINAL: String

ORIGINAL: Perturabo

Here's an equally compelling counterargument:
http://www.journal.dnd.ca/vo9/no2/16-engen-eng.asp

To be honest, I haven't ever heard about the issue of masses of soldiers not firing in combat from any source that wouldn't cite his source. I have never read about anything like this in any soldier's/officer's memoirs.

IIRC he explains it quite well in his book.

edit: What sold me were first hand accounts from Afghanistan, where men who were in their first contact had trouble opening fire. And by first hand I don't mean "first hand which i read over the internet"

But how many men exactly? What kind of trouble did they have? Did they eventually open fire? Why did they have trouble opening fire after being conditioned to kill people by evil movies and computer games for years/decades and by the improved training program?

[redcoat]

ORIGINAL: Grymme

Ok, cool.

Well, one of my scenarios: The Russo-Turkish war is based on a series of boardgame that also include a Franco-Prussian boardgame and a Austrian-Prussian boardgame. So i cant see why it couldnt be done.

http://www.boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/ ... ar-1877-78

I didn’t know there was a S&T game for the Austro-Prussian War (Seven Weeks War):

http://www.boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/ ... ussian-war

[Lieste]

I'd never expect anything much above 50% to fire - this is towards 100% of infantry in a typical formation - if you are getting 90%+ firing then something is screwed up somewhere...

[Perturabo]

In what sense?

[Lieste]

Well, it means your pog's are firing too... and they aren't supposed to be that close to the front line... If you assume the original question only related to 'squad-level' combat troops, then again relatively few are rifle-men - a fair proportion are supposed to be servicing their heavy weapons - if they are using their self-protection weapons then something isn't quite as it should be - enemy too close, ammunition shortages, broken/missing equipment, personnel shortages forcing the voluntary use of non-riflemen in the front-line etc.

As Vietnam (for example) was not a war with front-lines, I'm not at all surprised to see higher usage of personal weapons among troops in an engagement - a more civilised war with front and rear-areas and distinct roles of combat and non-combat troops (although sometimes broken down), and by design the majority never see anyone to fight in the engagement they are part of. The flip-side is that engagements are more general in a large scale conventional war, and intermittent but more unpredictable & fiercer in an irregular war.

Not that I'm saying I agree with the statistics - which do possibly sound a little 'made up' along with 75% of all such data. [:'(]

[Perturabo]

ORIGINAL: Lieste

Well, it means your pog's are firing too... and they aren't supposed to be that close to the front line... If you assume the original question only related to 'squad-level' combat troops, then again relatively few are rifle-men - a fair proportion are supposed to be servicing their heavy weapons - if they are using their self-protection weapons then something isn't quite as it should be - enemy too close, ammunition shortages, broken/missing equipment, personnel shortages forcing the voluntary use of non-riflemen in the front-line etc.

That's the first thought that I get when I hear about the most of soldiers not firing thing. It's similar as with casualty rates. Their percentage seems to be relatively small but then it turns out that units that are actually in combat often suffer over 100% of casualties.

[Lieste]

Wow - that's impressive - more than 100% casualties [X(]

Just joking, I get the meaning

[Perturabo]

An AAR from my age if rifle fantasy mod - Wonderland:
http://www.armoredbrigade.com/forums/vi ... ?f=3&t=298

[martinhudson53]

Thank you so much for the post. It's really informative!

[String]

ORIGINAL: Perturabo

ORIGINAL: String

ORIGINAL: Perturabo

Here's an equally compelling counterargument:
http://www.journal.dnd.ca/vo9/no2/16-engen-eng.asp

To be honest, I haven't ever heard about the issue of masses of soldiers not firing in combat from any source that wouldn't cite his source. I have never read about anything like this in any soldier's/officer's memoirs.

IIRC he explains it quite well in his book.

edit: What sold me were first hand accounts from Afghanistan, where men who were in their first contact had trouble opening fire. And by first hand I don't mean "first hand which i read over the internet"

But how many men exactly? What kind of trouble did they have? Did they eventually open fire? Why did they have trouble opening fire after being conditioned to kill people by evil movies and computer games for years/decades and by the improved training program?

Not many in numbers, but all of whom have either talked about this issue or have answered about it. Most surprising (or perhaps not) was a case of a sniper, who in his first contact failed to fire. He then made it clear for himself that if he also failed to do it in his next contact, he would be putting his unit in danger, and managed to bypass his psychological block.

His reasoning for not firing? "How can I fire at another human being?"

[Perturabo]

ORIGINAL: String

ORIGINAL: Perturabo

ORIGINAL: String


IIRC he explains it quite well in his book.

edit: What sold me were first hand accounts from Afghanistan, where men who were in their first contact had trouble opening fire. And by first hand I don't mean "first hand which i read over the internet"

But how many men exactly? What kind of trouble did they have? Did they eventually open fire? Why did they have trouble opening fire after being conditioned to kill people by evil movies and computer games for years/decades and by the improved training program?

Not many in numbers, but all of whom have either talked about this issue or have answered about it. Most surprising (or perhaps not) was a case of a sniper, who in his first contact failed to fire. He then made it clear for himself that if he also failed to do it in his next contact, he would be putting his unit in danger, and managed to bypass his psychological block.

His reasoning for not firing? "How can I fire at another human being?"

Was the case of that sniper typical (initially not firing but firing later after reminding themselves what's at stake)?

[Perturabo]

I made a new release of my AB mod:
http://www.armoredbrigade.com/forums/vi ... 1922#p1922

[String]

ORIGINAL: Perturabo

ORIGINAL: String

ORIGINAL: Perturabo


But how many men exactly? What kind of trouble did they have? Did they eventually open fire? Why did they have trouble opening fire after being conditioned to kill people by evil movies and computer games for years/decades and by the improved training program?

Not many in numbers, but all of whom have either talked about this issue or have answered about it. Most surprising (or perhaps not) was a case of a sniper, who in his first contact failed to fire. He then made it clear for himself that if he also failed to do it in his next contact, he would be putting his unit in danger, and managed to bypass his psychological block.

His reasoning for not firing? "How can I fire at another human being?"

Was the case of that sniper typical (initially not firing but firing later after reminding themselves what's at stake)?

From what i've heard and seen, yes it happens more often than one thinks.

[Anonymous]

[Deleted by Admins]

[Perturabo]

ORIGINAL: String

ORIGINAL: Perturabo

ORIGINAL: String



Not many in numbers, but all of whom have either talked about this issue or have answered about it. Most surprising (or perhaps not) was a case of a sniper, who in his first contact failed to fire. He then made it clear for himself that if he also failed to do it in his next contact, he would be putting his unit in danger, and managed to bypass his psychological block.

His reasoning for not firing? "How can I fire at another human being?"

Was the case of that sniper typical (initially not firing but firing later after reminding themselves what's at stake)?

From what i've heard and seen, yes it happens more often than one thinks.

My main problem with Grossman is that he's a Jack Thompson wannabe. He's one of the "the TV and video games are turning people into killers" crowd. Instead, even soldiers who are expected to kill people, have trouble with shooting even after experiencing this kind of culture for most of their life.

There's a big difference between not firing in during the first contact but later firing because and consistently refusing to fire for a whole war. I find the latter unbelievable and this idea is based only on claims by one person without any proof to back it up.

[Perturabo]

A new AAR from my age if rifle fantasy mod for Armored Brigade - Wonderland: :
http://www.armoredbrigade.com/forums/vi ... ?f=3&t=309

[Perturabo]

I made a new release of my AB mod:
http://www.armoredbrigade.com/forums/vi ... 2096#p2096

It's a pretty significant update. It has 24 man sections instead of 8 man squads of the old version. Now a human company has just 4 sections instead of 11 squads. There are also whole battalions available as units. It allows fielding up to 8000 soldiers in comparison to 2500 of the old version.