Demise of the Rifle

[Ozz]

Originally posted by Rodgers
If you think of the panic and confusion that is combat - it's abit unrealistic to expect the average 1940s squaddy to take the time and risk of carefully aiming a single shot weapon

Weren't the 1940 Germans in the main also armed with bolt action rifles (Mausers?), Assault rifles came out in 44 i believe.

Modern assault rifles seem more akin to smgs that rifles. True
Rifles seem destined to be like you pointed out a specialist
weapon (sniper).

 

[Rodgers]

Yeah, you're right, as were the Tommies (Lee Enfields) but by the end (when the lessons I mentioned in last post had been learnt) most armies were using smgs and if they'd had resources to do so I bet all jerries would have been using MP44s by the close of play.

 

[Charles XII]

The Rifles Demise was caused simply by the introduction of mass firepower to the battlefield. Which forced the infrantryman to engage his foes at close quaters. With the bayonet displaced by automatic weapons the rifle was an uneeded relic.

 

[FredLC]

Originally posted by Globber

And thats apparently what the US army is doing with the OICW, making a gun capable of support fire, assault, long-range accuracy, and even blowing up stuff with the gren launcher

Maybe i'm way off, but making a good-for-all gun would, in my opinion, create a gun that is useful, but not REALLY good in anything, and at the same time, heavy to carry - after all, making it a combo does not instantly make the multiple parts any lighter.

Regardless of how much development you can give to a gun of multiple uses, it would never be able to match the specs of specialized weaponry IMHO.

I do not even pretend to think that i understand anything of combat situations - perhaps the combat experts can add their perspective - but wouldn't the ideal situation be "combined troops"? Specialized units working together, each one dealing with it's expertise, instead of un-specialized "we play the game in all positions" soldiers?