"Killer instinct" & weapons?

[BLUEHAWK]

For those who have experience with military weapons in combat, is there any relationship between the type of weapon a troop is assigned (or ends up carrying) and their tendency to be a more effective fighter?

If so historically, which weapon(s)?

[colmurph]

In my opinion, the more effective the weapon, the more effective the soldier.

[BLUEHAWK]

Originally posted by colmurph In my opinion, the more effective the weapon, the more effective the soldier.

That's kinda what I was thinking.

[Kress]

we couldnt have took germany with nothin but ka-bars... and it wouldnt have done no good to drop rocks on hiroshima

[urbsdad6]

Interesting question. Without a well trained and effective soldier, the best gear in the world is worthless. In a war zone you learn very quickly what works and what doesn't thus in effect making you a more effective soldier and making whatever weapon you carry more deadly because you learn how to use it more effectively and to your opponents disadvantage. I think there is a psychological advantage to having the best weapons, but there is more benefit psychologically for the well trained soldier that can think on his feet and react to a situation without relying on how great his weapon is. In RECON we didn't wash, smoke, use bug juice, go out on a mission freshly showered, cook our food, use WD-40 because smells and sound carry quite far in the jungle. That made us more effective as fighting unit both psychologically and armament wise. One point man on our team used a sawed off shotgun another used a grease gun. They understood instinctively what to do when necessary. A well trained soldier is the best asset of any fighting force regardless of weaponry. They will always have the advantage in a fight because of esprit de corp. Working like a well oiled machine in spite of the weaponry. However, clubs and other hand implements are no match for automatic weapons. Just my opinion.

Doc Urb

[Stick]

One pull, one shell? Miss just about every time.
One pull, one belt. Can't miss.
Noisy but effective.

[colmurph]

I always went for a "First round hit". If you can't hit something with the first round you might not get a chance to get the second round off. Single shot firing is much more accurate than "Full Automatic" and you get to shoot a lot more of the critters you want to put down before you run out of ammo. The guy who wins a shootout isn't the one who sprays the most firepower out. It's the guy who takes an aimed shot and puts one in "Between the Horns".

[exlrrp]

Originally posted by BLUEHAWK For those who have experience with military weapons in combat, is there any relationship between the type of weapon a troop is assigned (or ends up carrying) and their tendency to be a more effective fighter?

If so historically, which weapon(s)?

It depends on what you mean. If you mean by that are troops more effective with more effective weapons, than probably so.
But if you mean that the quality of the troops is dependent on their weapons I'd have to say no.
My experience is that, in "my" war, the other side did us a lot of damage when they were generally carrrying inferior weapons and supplies. I saw a sniper, with a Mauser, froom at least 200 meters hit 5 people inside as many minutes and all of these people were scrambling for cover. That was the best shot I ever saw. We only got him with napalm.
Whatever Wonder Weapon that can be thought up, someone will devise a counter tactic to it.

But tho the M1 was a vastly superior weapon to the Mauser, it didn't make the German troops any less effective, just slower to shoot. But it makes your marksmanship better. It doesn't matter how many bullets you shoot, its only what they hit that counts.
In the lrrps, fire discipline was always in force because you weren't gong to get resupplied. I shot the first magaziine or 2 full auto for effect and then semi auto aimed shots. Well I can't say I ALWAYS did it but it was the SOP.
Spraying rounds behind you full auto while you hatted up was allowed.

[revwardoc]

I saw an interview with a VN vet, part of which included archival footage of him during the Tet Offensive showing him holding his M16 by the clip and firing blindly over a short wall. The interviewer asked him why he didn't just raise up to see what he was shooting at. The guy answered, "They told me to shoot; they didn't tell me I had to see who I was shooting at."

[39mto39g]

2 combatants meting each other on a field of battle hardly ever have the same "combat" experience. So the superior weapon in the hands of a inexperienced person is not a guarantee of victory.
A superior weapon in the hands of a combat harden person is an asset but , again, not a guarantee of victory. Combat experience is much more important than weapon type as long as there is a decent weapon available (AK or M16)
Ron