5 ms·

The Russians in WWII used a submachine gun, copied from the Finns, to great effect in the urban battle of Stalingrad, the Germans reacted by developing the assa

The Russians in WWII used a submachine gun, copied from the Finns, to great effect in the urban battle of Stalingrad, the Germans reacted by developing the assault rifle, later copied by the Russians, and eventually by everyone else. The Tommy Gun was the pre-war glimpse of what was to come. It used pistol ammunition, not rifle ammunition, and thus was suitable for close-in fights. I, for one, am glad that large scale war with millions of human combatants, appears to be diminishing in likelihood.

jacquesm 12y ago
Whenever you see economic sanctions applied think of it as a very low key war or the prelude to a hotter one.
rdl 12y ago
And obviously it's much happier to have large scale war rendered less likely through economic interdependence and development (roughly 1990-now, with no signs of stopping), vs. mutually assured destruction (how large-scale war was largely prevented 1945-1989). I wonder if humanity would prefer more frequent but less severe wars vs. less frequent but more severe; with nuclear weapons the frequency/odds were very low but the severity of any war existential. From a species perspective, there's probably a strong argument for even 10-100x higher "expected deaths" if it removes infrequent complete destruction from the possibilities.
Someone1234 12y ago
> I, for one, am glad that large scale war with millions of human combatants, appears to be diminishing in likelihood. We did have a nice quiet period there, but I suspect China might be a real threat to world peace. Unfortunately China has growing up now a "forgotten" generation of young men who outnumber women their own age over 2:1, and what has history taught us societies do with a bunch of unhappy young men? Kill them in wars. So while China might not be invading India or the US, there still might be a civil war if this bunch of unhappy men decide to turn on the government to force "change." That too would be a threat to world peace, as an unstable China is bad for everyone. I think Russia's recent aggressive stance against Ukraine is worrying. But we'll have to wait and see if this is an "isolated incident" or some part of a USSR-mini-reformation. However the social makeup in that region of Ukraine (where many of the people living their speak Russian and want to be Russian) might be a unique one off rather than a specific change in Russia's overall international stance. Let's also remember ISIL ("ISIS" as the US calls them). A group of mostly young poor men rampaging through multiple states because they feel their own governments have let them down, and are unhappy with the US's interference in the region and or drone strikes (that sometimes kill civilians, often with even an apology or investigation by the US). Yes, there is a religious element to ISIL's increase in popularity, but it is often quite interesting to look at the social economic situation that allowed extremism to bread rather than simply looking at the extremism and pretending it gained popularity in a vacuum. I general I suspect you'll see the US get involved on the ground with ISIL, you'll see the Ukraine situation simmer out with the Russian's holding the occupied land, and you'll see some major national or international incident with China in the next 15-30 years.
- voidlogic 12y ago
  My two cents: 1. Modern nations would find engaging in a large conflict without a many alliance nations economically ruinous. Basically if all (or even some?) of your major trading partners cut you off, it will cripple you. 2. The long range and high precision nature of modern weapons make the idea of maintaining an industrial complex during a 1st world vs 1st world conflict very unlikely. I think this is going to severely limit the length of any such war. >>US get involved on the ground with ISIL Compared to 1st. world vs 1st world conflicts this is a low intensity conflict similar to what has been simmering for the past decade. Just a new face for the enemy. >>you'll see the Ukraine situation simmer out with the Russian's holding the occupied land. Note this supports the previous poster's comment. >>and you'll see some major national or international incident with China in the next 15-30 years. If you are basing this on the "numerous discontent young men" hypothesis you are on sound theoretical ground, but its worth pointing out that China often seems to operate under an alternate sociological law. Its also worth pointing out the immense power disparity between a Chinese civilian and their government is much greater than in say the US; In terms of communications and weapon availability.
  - InclinedPlane 12y ago
    The problem with this analysis is that it's irrelevant. Modern 1st world military capabilities are devastating beyond all reckoning from history. This is easy to forget because in every conflict involving such capabilities they've significantly pulled their punches for one reason or another. But in an all out total war things would be much different. Of course there is the issue of nuclear annihilation, which should not be easily dismissed, and still poses an existential risk for human civilization. Beyond that though, conventional military capabilities are quite potent, and if they were ever leveled intentionally and with ferocity toward, say, civilian populations we would likely be shocked at the outcome. Modern militaries are capable of killing millions per day using only conventional weapons.
    - ctdonath 12y ago
      Example: North Korea maintains its integrity by a viable threat that it could, using conventional (even old) weapons, level Seoul (pop.: 25M) in about a half an hour with a moment's notice.
ctdonath 12y ago
IIRC, the options for ammunition were, at least on a military scale, severely limited. Using the standard .30-'06 ammo would have been impractically heavy and powerful. Lighter rifle ammo suitable for combat was practically nonexistent. That left .45 ACP as the only viable option, hence it's use - not the suitability for close-in fights. Possibly interesting subsequent history... In 1934, USA practically banned sale & possession of machine-guns (a $200 tax (equivalent to $6000 today) on a ~$50 product). In 1986, that became an actual ban (for post-'86 products). As such, the market incentive to develop modern & sophisticated automatic weapons pretty much ended with the M16 (the USA having by far the largest civilian market for firearms). A few non-USA automatics have been designed since (FN P90 and HK MP7 are of note), built around very lightweight ammunition and high capacity magazines in very compact platforms; these point to what could have been developed & available domestically, but was stifled for want of a market to experiment in. Should the bans be lifted, we may see some remarkable developments follow pent-up demand.
- clarkmoody 12y ago
  I think the KRISS Vector is an intriguing modern full-auto weapon. It incorporates an internal counterweight system to vastly reduce felt recoil. Like the Thompson, it is also chambered in .45 ACP (and uses Glock mags at that). http://www.kriss-usa.com/sub-machin-guns/vector-smg-45-acp http://www.kriss-usa.com/sub-machin-guns/vector-smg-45-acp
- CWuestefeld 12y ago
  In 1934, USA practically banned sale & possession of machine-guns. ... As such, the market incentive to develop modern & sophisticated automatic weapons pretty much ended with the M16 Even the M16 (AR-15) is an outlier after the 1934 NFA. And consider that it was designed in 1957. Contrast this with the USSR's AK47, designed in 1947. Taking the small private developers out of the gave seems to be big reason why the Soviets got there a decade before the USA. Thus, it appears to me that the limitations on gun ownership in the USA is a liability in terms of national security. We can debate about how much it handicaps, and how important that is, but the effect is certainly there.
  - 12y ago
noir_lord 12y ago
> Germans reacted by developing the assault rifle The MP44, some of which are supposedly still in use. It was truly the worlds first assault rifle (the name assault rifle is a translation of what Hitler called it when he found out they'd built it despite him ordering them not to). It also looks a lot like an AK47 (though internally very different) though in many ways is much more sophisticated internally. http://youtu.be/4mcx8eR79dQ?t=19s http://youtu.be/4mcx8eR79dQ?t=19s good short history
chokolad 12y ago
> The Russians in WWII used a submachine gun, copied from the Finns, to great effect in the urban battle of Stalingrad, the Germans reacted by developing the assault rifle, later copied by the Russians, and eventually by everyone else. Disc magazine was copied from Finns, PPSH itself was based on earlier PPD designs which were done roughly at the same time as Finns Suomi sub-guns were developed.

jacquesm 12y ago

Whenever you see economic sanctions applied think of it as a very low key war or the prelude to a hotter one.

rdl 12y ago

And obviously it's much happier to have large scale war rendered less likely through economic interdependence and development (roughly 1990-now, with no signs of stopping), vs. mutually assured destruction (how large-scale war was largely prevented 1945-1989). I wonder if humanity would prefer more frequent but less severe wars vs. less frequent but more severe; with nuclear weapons the frequency/odds were very low but the severity of any war existential. From a species perspective, there's probably a strong argument for even 10-100x higher "expected deaths" if it removes infrequent complete destruction from the possibilities.

Someone1234 12y ago

> I, for one, am glad that large scale war with millions of human combatants, appears to be diminishing in likelihood. We did have a nice quiet period there, but I suspect China might be a real threat to world peace. Unfortunately China has growing up now a "forgotten" generation of young men who outnumber women their own age over 2:1, and what has history taught us societies do with a bunch of unhappy young men? Kill them in wars. So while China might not be invading India or the US, there still might be a civil war if this bunch of unhappy men decide to turn on the government to force "change." That too would be a threat to world peace, as an unstable China is bad for everyone. I think Russia's recent aggressive stance against Ukraine is worrying. But we'll have to wait and see if this is an "isolated incident" or some part of a USSR-mini-reformation. However the social makeup in that region of Ukraine (where many of the people living their speak Russian and want to be Russian) might be a unique one off rather than a specific change in Russia's overall international stance. Let's also remember ISIL ("ISIS" as the US calls them). A group of mostly young poor men rampaging through multiple states because they feel their own governments have let them down, and are unhappy with the US's interference in the region and or drone strikes (that sometimes kill civilians, often with even an apology or investigation by the US). Yes, there is a religious element to ISIL's increase in popularity, but it is often quite interesting to look at the social economic situation that allowed extremism to bread rather than simply looking at the extremism and pretending it gained popularity in a vacuum. I general I suspect you'll see the US get involved on the ground with ISIL, you'll see the Ukraine situation simmer out with the Russian's holding the occupied land, and you'll see some major national or international incident with China in the next 15-30 years.

voidlogic 12y ago
My two cents: 1. Modern nations would find engaging in a large conflict without a many alliance nations economically ruinous. Basically if all (or even some?) of your major trading partners cut you off, it will cripple you. 2. The long range and high precision nature of modern weapons make the idea of maintaining an industrial complex during a 1st world vs 1st world conflict very unlikely. I think this is going to severely limit the length of any such war. >>US get involved on the ground with ISIL Compared to 1st. world vs 1st world conflicts this is a low intensity conflict similar to what has been simmering for the past decade. Just a new face for the enemy. >>you'll see the Ukraine situation simmer out with the Russian's holding the occupied land. Note this supports the previous poster's comment. >>and you'll see some major national or international incident with China in the next 15-30 years. If you are basing this on the "numerous discontent young men" hypothesis you are on sound theoretical ground, but its worth pointing out that China often seems to operate under an alternate sociological law. Its also worth pointing out the immense power disparity between a Chinese civilian and their government is much greater than in say the US; In terms of communications and weapon availability.
- InclinedPlane 12y ago
  The problem with this analysis is that it's irrelevant. Modern 1st world military capabilities are devastating beyond all reckoning from history. This is easy to forget because in every conflict involving such capabilities they've significantly pulled their punches for one reason or another. But in an all out total war things would be much different. Of course there is the issue of nuclear annihilation, which should not be easily dismissed, and still poses an existential risk for human civilization. Beyond that though, conventional military capabilities are quite potent, and if they were ever leveled intentionally and with ferocity toward, say, civilian populations we would likely be shocked at the outcome. Modern militaries are capable of killing millions per day using only conventional weapons.
  - ctdonath 12y ago
    Example: North Korea maintains its integrity by a viable threat that it could, using conventional (even old) weapons, level Seoul (pop.: 25M) in about a half an hour with a moment's notice.

ctdonath 12y ago

IIRC, the options for ammunition were, at least on a military scale, severely limited. Using the standard .30-'06 ammo would have been impractically heavy and powerful. Lighter rifle ammo suitable for combat was practically nonexistent. That left .45 ACP as the only viable option, hence it's use - not the suitability for close-in fights. Possibly interesting subsequent history... In 1934, USA practically banned sale & possession of machine-guns (a $200 tax (equivalent to $6000 today) on a ~$50 product). In 1986, that became an actual ban (for post-'86 products). As such, the market incentive to develop modern & sophisticated automatic weapons pretty much ended with the M16 (the USA having by far the largest civilian market for firearms). A few non-USA automatics have been designed since (FN P90 and HK MP7 are of note), built around very lightweight ammunition and high capacity magazines in very compact platforms; these point to what could have been developed & available domestically, but was stifled for want of a market to experiment in. Should the bans be lifted, we may see some remarkable developments follow pent-up demand.

clarkmoody 12y ago
I think the KRISS Vector is an intriguing modern full-auto weapon. It incorporates an internal counterweight system to vastly reduce felt recoil. Like the Thompson, it is also chambered in .45 ACP (and uses Glock mags at that). http://www.kriss-usa.com/sub-machin-guns/vector-smg-45-acp http://www.kriss-usa.com/sub-machin-guns/vector-smg-45-acp
CWuestefeld 12y ago
In 1934, USA practically banned sale & possession of machine-guns. ... As such, the market incentive to develop modern & sophisticated automatic weapons pretty much ended with the M16 Even the M16 (AR-15) is an outlier after the 1934 NFA. And consider that it was designed in 1957. Contrast this with the USSR's AK47, designed in 1947. Taking the small private developers out of the gave seems to be big reason why the Soviets got there a decade before the USA. Thus, it appears to me that the limitations on gun ownership in the USA is a liability in terms of national security. We can debate about how much it handicaps, and how important that is, but the effect is certainly there.
- 12y ago

noir_lord 12y ago

> Germans reacted by developing the assault rifle The MP44, some of which are supposedly still in use. It was truly the worlds first assault rifle (the name assault rifle is a translation of what Hitler called it when he found out they'd built it despite him ordering them not to). It also looks a lot like an AK47 (though internally very different) though in many ways is much more sophisticated internally. http://youtu.be/4mcx8eR79dQ?t=19s http://youtu.be/4mcx8eR79dQ?t=19s good short history

chokolad 12y ago

> The Russians in WWII used a submachine gun, copied from the Finns, to great effect in the urban battle of Stalingrad, the Germans reacted by developing the assault rifle, later copied by the Russians, and eventually by everyone else. Disc magazine was copied from Finns, PPSH itself was based on earlier PPD designs which were done roughly at the same time as Finns Suomi sub-guns were developed.