IIRC that’s an especially big deal in Finnish doctrine. Other nations emphasise marksmanship more, although massed fire and suppression always has it’s place. Back when standoffs were too short for concealment and cover to play a major role, I don’t know if it had any parallel.
I guess it could start a route sooner than a known threat, that’s true. It’s a fact that adoption of hand cannons (literally a tiny cannon tied to a straight stick BTW) was minimal, though.
The emphasis on a burst but not necessarily an accurate burst is only for the opening of fire. First few shots. A few seconds. Afterwards you use double-shots, center mass, and make the bullets count as much as you can. But like the time that takes should last longer than it would for you to spook a friend by hiding behind a corner. Or in this case as there’s lots of people, that sort of surprise party shock where eveyone jumps up and shouts “surprise”. But they won’t keep yelling and trying to surprise you after that, you know?
Our services rifles have 150m, 300m and night-sights. Well the newer ones RK95 do I don’t think the 62 had night-sights iirc. I did serve with both but a limited time with the 62. (And got an A for shooting with both in testing, and once with my left side with the 95)
It’s a big deal because the sort of war were most preparing for is a defensive one, where you do often get the drop on the enemy advancing on you. Then you make them shit their pants and then pick off the ones who didn’t make it to cover.
. It’s a fact that adoption of hand cannons (literally a tiny cannon tied to a straight stick BTW) was minimal, though.
Oh yeah I think they would’ve been rather niche. But I can see how they might give an advantage in some situations. But had I been fighting in said armies with my current knowledge, I probably wouldn’t pick one as my go to weapon, that’s fosho. Hell, bows were pretty usable still in the 18th century. Ben Franklin argued for war-bows in 1770. But ofc they became rather redundant, but even to this day in very niche situations a mechanical bowtype weapon might be superior. For silence for instance. Or something else I’m not currently considering. At least they’re rather regulatory free still even in places with somewhat tight firearm laws.
Also also, would you count an airpistol as a firearm or a mechanical weapon? Obviously it’s mechanics compression. But what about when you use airguns with those small co2 cylinders. Then it’s a compressed gas, still, yah, but also there’s technically liquid fuel. As “Fuel is any material—solid, liquid, or gas—that releases energy (usually through combustion or nuclear reaction) to produce heat or power”*, granted it would be more usual if it burned but not necessary by that definition. But eh…
They’re firearms under Canadian law, if they fire reasonably fast or have high muzzle energy, at least. And they can - Lewis and Clarke took them as weapons on their expedition. Before precision machining you would have needed quite the craftsmen to make one, though!
IIRC that’s an especially big deal in Finnish doctrine. Other nations emphasise marksmanship more, although massed fire and suppression always has it’s place. Back when standoffs were too short for concealment and cover to play a major role, I don’t know if it had any parallel.
I guess it could start a route sooner than a known threat, that’s true. It’s a fact that adoption of hand cannons (literally a tiny cannon tied to a straight stick BTW) was minimal, though.
No no, that doesn’t excludes marksmanship at all.
The emphasis on a burst but not necessarily an accurate burst is only for the opening of fire. First few shots. A few seconds. Afterwards you use double-shots, center mass, and make the bullets count as much as you can. But like the time that takes should last longer than it would for you to spook a friend by hiding behind a corner. Or in this case as there’s lots of people, that sort of surprise party shock where eveyone jumps up and shouts “surprise”. But they won’t keep yelling and trying to surprise you after that, you know?
Our services rifles have 150m, 300m and night-sights. Well the newer ones RK95 do I don’t think the 62 had night-sights iirc. I did serve with both but a limited time with the 62. (And got an A for shooting with both in testing, and once with my left side with the 95)
It’s a big deal because the sort of war were most preparing for is a defensive one, where you do often get the drop on the enemy advancing on you. Then you make them shit their pants and then pick off the ones who didn’t make it to cover.
Oh yeah I think they would’ve been rather niche. But I can see how they might give an advantage in some situations. But had I been fighting in said armies with my current knowledge, I probably wouldn’t pick one as my go to weapon, that’s fosho. Hell, bows were pretty usable still in the 18th century. Ben Franklin argued for war-bows in 1770. But ofc they became rather redundant, but even to this day in very niche situations a mechanical bowtype weapon might be superior. For silence for instance. Or something else I’m not currently considering. At least they’re rather regulatory free still even in places with somewhat tight firearm laws.
Also also, would you count an airpistol as a firearm or a mechanical weapon? Obviously it’s mechanics compression. But what about when you use airguns with those small co2 cylinders. Then it’s a compressed gas, still, yah, but also there’s technically liquid fuel. As “Fuel is any material—solid, liquid, or gas—that releases energy (usually through combustion or nuclear reaction) to produce heat or power”*, granted it would be more usual if it burned but not necessary by that definition. But eh…
They’re firearms under Canadian law, if they fire reasonably fast or have high muzzle energy, at least. And they can - Lewis and Clarke took them as weapons on their expedition. Before precision machining you would have needed quite the craftsmen to make one, though!
Yeah well, under the law anything can be anything.
But like if you had to be pedantic and define it.