sidearms trends(ww2 and beyond)

[ayanami_tard]

modern popular culture always depicts US infantry personnel to have at least these 4 indispensable weapon,that is:

1-primary weapon
2-secondary weapon(usually sidearm)
3-malee(knives,entrenching tool,etc)
4-grenade

(yes i bet you guys know what does this "pop culture" i'm talking about...)

disregarding weapon no. 3 and 4, my question is,is it true?

i mean,i know M1911 is being produced by the million,but does every one of US infantry(army and marine) being issued with a sidearm?

and if yes,would it be more sensible to bring more ammunition for one's rifle(or smg,whatever they used) instead of a sidearm and it's ammunition?

and how about korean and vietnam war?at least in modern times the size rifle round,the magazine design and significant improvement in design of load-carrying rig(not to mention the type of warfare which is more MOUT and CQB-oriented)the sidearm can be carried without some of the restriction in the old days.


thank in advance

[gaijinsamurai]

Normally, only staff NCOs, officers, and soldiers who operate crew-served weapons get pistols.

[Roaming East]

Though it was and remains fairly easy for junior enlisted to get a hold of one...or rather it used to be.

[James]

would it be more sensible to bring more ammunition for one's rifle(or smg,whatever they used) instead of a sidearm and it's ammunition?

The handgun today is generally a back up defensive weapon, to be used in extreme circumstances in which you don't have time to reload your primary (your long gun) or it fails. As such, I'd rather carry a handgun and an extra magazine or two, rather than fore go it for extra rifle magazines.

[USMC29]

Like ganjin said only usually higher ranking enlisted men and officers carry sidearms as well as those who operate a weapon system where carrying a rifle would not be practical.

[deagle]

isn't a sidearm standard issue for modern militaries at the present time ?

[HollywoodMarine]

isn't a sidearm standard issue for modern militaries at the present time ?
Yeah... it is. Which is why Gaijin mentioned it:

Normally, only staff NCOs, officers, and soldiers who operate crew-served weapons get pistols.

[KEEPER0311]

Side arms are issued based on billet held. Within my battalion, Squad Leaders and above were issued M9s.

[Corrupt]

isn't a sidearm standard issue for modern militaries at the present time ?

Not the Brits. Special forces, pilots etc will have them but the average soldier has his rifle and bayonet. No pistol

[tercio67]

isn't a sidearm standard issue for modern militaries at the present time ?

For Dutch troops it is standard on operations now.

[Seek]

From a historical point of wiew the traditional "sidearm" of an infantryman was his bayonet.

[IDF_TANKER]

Not the Brits. Special forces, pilots etc will have them but the average soldier has his rifle and bayonet. No pistol

Same in IDF, except the bayonets.

[bluffcove]

For us, we all had rifles grenades and bayonets (in that order - cant get a bayonet on a GPMG UGL LMG DMR), Pistols were for the first few weeks of tour to ensure you had a decent facebook photo carrying one, then they were relegated to the cupolas of the armoured vehicles, and our marksmen carried them if "god forbid" they were needed to be in an assault pair during fibua.

It was down to personal preference whether people carried them, they inariably got in the way, or got dirty, or risked getting lost which wasnt offset by the one time you might have wanted one.

- as a caveat to that, Officers would carry them to identify themselves as the authority within a patrol, and to ensure some form of weapon could be carried for self defence when it was "socially unaacceptable" to be toting a rifle. IE rifle slung talking to elders, sitting around for tchae, entering locals houses, shura etc .........

[Corrupt]

Pistols were for the first few weeks of tour to ensure you had a decent facebook photo carrying one

Thats exactly what my mate did.

[martinexsquaddie]

they are becoming a lot more common in the British forces.
Although of limited use

[ElHuerta]

And there seem to be situations like this:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11446184

[Laconian]

modern popular culture always depicts US infantry personnel to have at least these 4 indispensable weapon,that is:

1-primary weapon
2-secondary weapon(usually sidearm)
3-malee(knives,entrenching tool,etc)
4-grenade

(yes i bet you guys know what does this "pop culture" i'm talking about...)

disregarding weapon no. 3 and 4, my question is,is it true?

i mean,i know M1911 is being produced by the million,but does every one of US infantry(army and marine) being issued with a sidearm?

Very few US military folks are carrying M1911A1-style pistols and there are some other pistols floating around with the special purpose units, but the standard issue sidearm is the M9 (Beretta 92 FS).


and if yes,would it be more sensible to bring more ammunition for one's rifle(or smg,whatever they used) instead of a sidearm and it's ammunition?

It depends at the ranges you are operating under. At ranges greater than 25 yards you are probably better off fixing/reloading your rifle and getting it back into the fight than transitioning to a pistol. Closer than 25 yards it is probably faster to transition to a sidearm (provided you actually have practiced transition drills). However, most soldiers/Marines are not issued handguns. Usually only officers, senior NCOs and crew served weapons operators get them.


and how about korean and vietnam war?at least in modern times the size rifle round,the magazine design and significant improvement in design of load-carrying rig(not to mention the type of warfare which is more MOUT and CQB-oriented)the sidearm can be carried without some of the restriction in the old days.

Again, the standard rifleman did not carry a sidearm (or it wasn't issued). Stories exist of guys carrying handguns that they picked up in theater or had shipped to them from home, but for the most part, that didn't really happen. One, extra guns are heavy, 1911s are not light. Second, ammo supplies for non-standard rounds is scarce: 9mm, .38 Special, .357 Mag is pretty hard to come by ("Hey, Top, I'm running low on .357 Mag for my Colt Python; pick me up a case or two, will ya."). Third, most soldiers are not taught how to shoot pistols, unless it is assigned to you (or done under a familiarization drill).

[bluffcove]

And there seem to be situations like this:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11446184

I can honestly say it wouldnt have made a difference, any action we took in that case was always going to be reactive, carrying weapons makes the reaction stronger, but it still requires one dead bloke to trigger a response.