Units with stupid weapon choices

[Poopsi]

Large rocks have an extraordinary longevity as weapons, as a matter of fact. And I'd question whether they are obsolete; they fill a niche spot, but are extremely effective and cost-efficient in it.

[Ynglaur]

Rifles can be surprisingly well balanced when it comes to bayonets. Then newer M4 carbines aren't that great, especially when you throw on combat optics, laser sights, flashlights, etc., much less a grenade launcher (M203). But even the now-venerable M16 can have a good combination of blunt and edged attacks, and can be surprisingly nimble.

The problem in trenches in terms of hand-to-hand combat is definitely one of lack of space. I, too, think the Agarthans' use of short swords makes a lot of sense thematically.

[Wrana]

Originally Posted by Ynglaur

Rifles can be surprisingly well balanced when it comes to bayonets. Then newer M4 carbines aren't that great, especially when you throw on combat optics, laser sights, flashlights, etc., much less a grenade launcher (M203). But even the now-venerable M16 can have a good combination of blunt and edged attacks, and can be surprisingly nimble.

The problem in trenches in terms of hand-to-hand combat is definitely one of lack of space. I, too, think the Agarthans' use of short swords makes a lot of sense thematically.

Agree, at least in case of Russian ones!
Actually, long rifles of WWI were well balanced - but they WERE long. And this was an advantage in open field hand-to-hand, but disadvantage in trenches (and after advent of machineguns, the prime reason for their long barrels also lost its necessity - Russian/Soviet army made its primary rifle a shorter "cavalry" version by the time of WWII). Actually, I think that the change from needle bayonets to bladed ones may also be due to that fact rather than humanitarian reasons often quoted...

[Poopsi]

Rocks also have a good combination of blunt and edged attacks, are surprisingly nimble, and can be used in tight places

[Agema]

Thx, but I'll still take the assault rifle with bayonet.

[Agema]

Yeah, sword bayonets were replaced with knife bayonets chiefly because they were too cumbersome for trench warfare. And it's not like troops had to withstand cavalry charges by then either.

[Wrana]

I meant needle ones - such as Russian Mosin-Nagant rifle had. I don't remember any "sword" bayonets except French ones - and these were used in trench warfare quite handily - without affixing them to rifles!
An offtopic question:
Agema, how well current M-16/M-4 plastic details withstand rough handling and/or using them in hand-to-hand? And another one - what are you supposed to do in case when dirt/dust gets into the barrel of any of these? (these appeared in recent off-line discussion with friends)

[Agema]

Originally Posted by Wrana

I meant needle ones - such as Russian Mosin-Nagant rifle had. I don't remember any "sword" bayonets except French ones - and these were used in trench warfare quite handily - without affixing them to rifles!
An offtopic question:
Agema, how well current M-16/M-4 plastic details withstand rough handling and/or using them in hand-to-hand? And another one - what are you supposed to do in case when dirt/dust gets into the barrel of any of these? (these appeared in recent off-line discussion with friends)

Sword bayonets were also standard for the British forces in WWI. They were designed to work as a short sword (or long knife) separate from the gun, they were about 45-60cm (18-24 inches) in length with point and blade. I don't much about needle bayonets to be honest, I assume they were sword bayonets without the blade.

It seems inconceivable to me that the plastic details of assault rifles can't manage rough handling. I don't know about the M4/16, but the British SA-80 can be used fine in melee and bayonet charges and the plastic bits don't fall off. I don't own a gun so I'm not well up on cleaning barrels, but there will be plenty of Googleable sites telling you all about it.

[Wrana]

Originally Posted by Agema

Sword bayonets were also standard for the British forces in WWI. They were designed to work as a short sword (or long knife) separate from the gun, they were about 45-60cm (18-24 inches) in length with point and blade. I don't much about needle bayonets to be honest, I assume they were sword bayonets without the blade.

Thanks, didn't remember this. Needle-types were standart in earlier era but retained their deadliness, of course. Their business part looks like stiletto or epee blade flowing into "neck" joining it with a ring around the barrell:

==========#=
+-------------
(I don't have picture on hand, so you can look it up - plenty of Russian troops photos at both world wars will show these). Ii was forbidden at Hague convention iirc, but main reason, I think, was that they were less useful at trenches than in open field

Originally Posted by Agema

It seems inconceivable to me that the plastic details of assault rifles can't manage rough handling. I don't know about the M4/16, but the British SA-80 can be used fine in melee and bayonet charges and the plastic bits don't fall off. I don't own a gun so I'm not well up on cleaning barrels, but there will be plenty of Googleable sites telling you all about it.

I wanted info from actual user, not from plenty of sites!
As for plastic butts - there were some grumbling on this at least for early M-16s. Still, plastics got better in the interim, so maybe modern ones are all right... (as for inconceivable - one guy who served in Israeli army got his rifle's (M-16) butt break in pieces when it was dropped on the floor! Of course, the rifle wasn't any new so probably it won't matter often.)

[Dragar]

+3 from their beserk