No Sidearms for IDF Soldiers?

[Leafs22]

Do most Israeli soldiers not carry sidearms? What is reasoning for this?

[Stan187]

Its mission dependent and training dependent. It takes some focus and a lot of time to achieve proficiency with sidearms, and still, they will not be used 98% of time. And for most missions, its not necessary. Why waste the time? Just give the soldiers a couple of extra mags instead. They're also taught combat krav maga and how to wield the rifles like blunt objects.

Its a question of how you structure training. Do you want your soldiers to be really proficient in the basic things they will use often or to know lots of different skills that they will never become proficient in?

[Elemental666]

http://img205.imageshack.us/img205/5828/76657560rf9.jpg

[CombatBoots]

You could ask the same about ooooh so many different armed forces from around the globe. Pretty much the same answer.

[Stan187]

You could ask the same about ooooh so many different armed forces from around the globe. Pretty much the same answer.

EXACTLY!!

Outside of CT, pistols are not used often. Well... even in CT ops pistols are not used often..

[Mofreaka]

Well, in the RL, you only use a pistol if you run out enough money for a sniper, then you buy your deagle and your set until - oh right never mind.

[Leafs22]

I see, is it also because they don't want them snatched from their holster while on patrol? The US army issues sidearms, right?

[Tony Williams]

The US forces seem to be unique in their degree of devotion to pistols. In most other armies, they seem to be mainly officers' badges of rank. Although I have noticed British forces in the Middle East carrying them far more than they used to; whether that's because of an identified need or they're simply copying the Americans I don't know, but I suspect the latter.

There are really only two good reasons why an infantryman would carry a pistol, as far as I can see. One is if the standard rifle is too long for convenient use in room-clearance work and there's no compact carbine/SMG available; the other is if the rifle is too unreliable, so the soldiers feel the need for an emergency backup.

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website (http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk) and discussion forum (http://forums.delphiforums.com/autogun/messages/)

[JJC]

I see, is it also because they don't want them snatched from their holster while on patrol? The US army issues sidearms, right?

Well, pistol disarms are more of a problem to police agencies. I don't think soldiers in combat face a serious threat of being disarmed while on patrol. There are solutions to disarms, like better holsters and knowing your surroundings.

If pistols are not important in armies, why would the U.S. mil invest so much in trying to find a better replacement for the M9? I assume then that pistols do play an important role?

[Rakki]

I've seen some US soldiers with lanyards for their pistols, but this is mainly so they don't drop them somewhere.

I don't think it's common for pistols to be issued to infantry either - officers usually get them, then other troops like MPs, crewmen, pilots.... as for "so much effort", considering the size of the US military there are still large numbers of people who are authorized to carry pistols.

[Rynnäkkökivääri]

Actually it's just because the M9 has shown itself to be a less than perfect pistol time and time again in its military service.

[JJC]

Actually it's just because the M9 has shown itself to be a less than perfect pistol time and time again in its military service.

So why spend so much money on projects, even if they were scrapped, to try find a replacement when they just could have phased out pistols, if they are not so useful in combat roles?

[Tony Williams]

So why spend so much money on projects, even if they were scrapped, to try find a replacement when they just could have phased out pistols, if they are not so useful in combat roles?

I suspect it's a cultural issue more than anything else: Americans just like handguns.

To use a handgun effectively, especially in the stress of combat, is much more difficult than using a rifle, and requires much more training and practice. Even with that, it is only of value at very short range. It's a very inefficient combat weapon, in terms of the effectiveness you get out of it compared with the effort (in training) you have to put into it; a rifle is easily ten times better.

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website (http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk) and discussion forum (http://forums.delphiforums.com/autogun/messages/)

[Basillicus]

At least FDF mostly issues/would issue in war time pistols to people who are not supposed to fire a personal weapon in combat in the first place. It better than going to battle with bare arms but not much. I guess the reasoning is already here. They are difficult to fire and handle effectively and safely, and have very limitted range and effectiveness. Extra weight, added logistics and overall cost are excessive because of very limitted usefulness pistols have.

[henksmoeder]

I suspect it's a cultural issue more than anything else: Americans just like handguns.

To use a handgun effectively, especially in the stress of combat, is much more difficult than using a rifle, and requires much more training and practice. Even with that, it is only of value at very short range. It's a very inefficient combat weapon, in terms of the effectiveness you get out of it compared with the effort (in training) you have to put into it; a rifle is easily ten times better.

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website (http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk) and discussion forum (http://forums.delphiforums.com/autogun/messages/)

American troops are issued handguns because they just like guns? As a matter of fact, where did the premise come from that the US army issues so many handguns? Isn't it the case that only 'people in need' are issued sidearms (i.e. crewmembers, officers, SOF, MP) in the US army, as is the case with the IDF, Dutch army, and probably most other militaries?

[Scrim]

A wise Captain once told me, the only thing a pistol is good for, is to shoot his own Privates when they disobey orders.p-)

[Stan187]

If pistols are not important in armies, why would the U.S. mil invest so much in trying to find a better replacement for the M9? I assume then that pistols do play an important role?

Armies invested in cavalry even after the slaughter of WWI and even after machine guns had rendered offensive cavalry (as opposed to recon) inept. But they still invested, so by your logic, cavalry would still play an important offensive role. Just because there is investment does not mean they are very important in combat. They're important for some jobs in the military, no more no less. Most of those jobs do not involve combat.

[Doe]

To be honest, unless it was extreme CQB/FIBUA. i would rather use the storage space to carry another 4 Rifle magazines. or a boxmag for the support gunner.

Pistols only come into their own in room clearing/stairwells ect. or as a backup for a DMR or Support gunner.

All IMHO

[Breiflabb]

Considering how much harder it is to aim with a pistol than a rifle/carbine, I really don't see the need for it besides at extreme short range (FISH) or as defence when rifle fails.