13 May 04

Machine Guns and White Men:

On the eve of WWI, British and most other Western military thinking tended to discount the importance of machine guns. Machine guns had been around for decades, starting with Dr Richard A Gatling's multi-barreled device, developed in the 1860s. But, from George Custer on, war planners disliked them, because they thought machine guns were well suited only to the defense, and thus encouraged a "defensive mindset" on the part of infantry and cavalry. The army had to be highly mobile, and machine guns would only slow it down. Curiously, machine guns were considered perfectly appropriate for colonial Africa where they could be (and routinely were) used to great effect in gunning down hoards of charging natives. But, it was generally thought, when employed against armies made of white, Europeans, machine guns would be counterproductive. As with Custer, ethnic arrogance was again to seal the fate of thousands of hapless British and American soldiers.

As late as 1916, British General Douglas Haig had only two machine guns per battalion. He considered them big, bulky, ponderous, ammunition squandering, gimmicks. Hundreds thus sat out the war, gathering dust in warehouses.

Opinions on machine guns changed when everyone finally noticed that Germans were using them to astounding effect, even when on the offensive. Haig's influence gradually weakened, and the British ultimately demanded that their only domestic manufacturer of machine guns, Vickers, instantly quadruple its production. Vickers, of course, could do no such thing on such short notice. Thus, right up to the signing of the 1918 Armistice, British infantry units never had anything close to adequate numbers of machine guns and trained crews. Victims of the same faulty thinking, Woodrow Wilson and the War Department were surprised and saddened to learn that, when America entered the War in 1916, there were only seventeen machine guns in the entire American inventory, and there were no trained crews to operate even them.

Lesson: As is so often the case, aggressive introduction of vital, war-winning equipment was delayed, and delayed, and delayed. Who knows how many brave lives were squandered as a result? The culprit was, as always, timid and fearful men in high positions; men who, on a visceral level, fear change; men who are far more interested in keeping their jobs than they are in doing their jobs. In the private sector it's called "janitorial management."

Boldness, even when ill-timed, is still the sure mark of a victorious army. Among dauntless and courageous men, occasional missteps are, of course, annoying weeds, but their presence is an unmistakable sign of rich soil. Such an army, such a civilization, can never be beaten!

/John

13 May 04

Serious Training:

Last weekend one of our students brought and used a Wilson 1911. It worked fine, but like most possessors of such expensive guns, its owner used downloaded, unjacketed, "practice" ammunition. Smokey, greasy, and underpowered, I consider such ammunition unsuitable for any legitimate purpose. It does not give the user a legitimate impression of what shooting real ammunition is like, in terms of recoil and muzzle flash/blast. Accordingly, I encourage students to use full-powered, "service" ammunition in training, but owners of expensive pistols worry obsessively about "excessive wear" and often use this underpowered crap instead.

The pistol was also equipped with a "recoil buffer," one of Wilson's trademarks. When I inspected the gun, I removed it, to the horror of the gun's owner. He indicated that the pistol was "tuned and set up" for the buffer and that it may not work without it. I told him not to worry and explained that I've seen buffers break into pieces and jam up many pistols. In addition, when equipped with such buffers, pulling back the slide and releasing it may not chamber a round, as the buffer takes up so much room that the slide thus cannot move back far enough to cam down the slide-stop lever. It's a really bad idea on any serious gun.

The Wilson ran just fine without the buffer. It even ran fine with a few rounds of real ammunition we put through it.

Lesson: We all tend to cherish prized possessions, particularly when they are expensive and take a long time to get. However, with serious pistols, we have to remember who is working for whom! Serious guns don't need to be pretty, but they do need to work, not just under ideal conditions, but in the mud, blood, and beer too. And, we need to train with them using real ammunition. In my experience, they can take it, if we just stop babying them and give them a chance!

Rubber recoil buffers are highly not recommended. I've never seen a pistol that did not run better without them.

/John