DOCSLIB.ORG

Machine Gun in World War - 1: Impact on Battle Strategies and Scenario

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Machine Gun in World War - 1: Impact on Battle Strategies and Scenario International Journal of History and Research (IJHR) ISSN (P): 2249–6963; ISSN (E): 2249–8079 Vol. 10, Issue 1, Jun 2020, 7–16 © TJPRC Pvt. Ltd . MACHINE GUN IN WORLD WAR - 1: IMPACT ON BATTLE STRATEGIES AND SCENARIO AMITABH SAH Indian Revenue Service (IRS) Officer Posted in Delhi, India ABSTRACT Among the weapons which made the maximum impact in the combat efforts and outcome, the machine gun can be rated as one whose introduction to the battlefield drastically changed the strategies and tactics used by all militaries in the future. Its biggest and most visible impact was in forcing the armies of all powers into the trenches. Further the supremacy of the cavalry had gone and the impact of scientific and industrial developments had become paramount in conflicts. The machine gun came to represent the use of technology applied to weaponry KEYWORDS: Initial Impact of the Machine Gun & Evolving Impact on the Battlefield Received: Oct 21 2019; Accepted: Nov 11, 2019; Published: Dec 23, 2019 ; Paper Id.: IJHRJUN20202 Original Article Article Original INTRODUCTION The World War I, which started on July 28, 1914 and ended on November 11, 1918 is a landmark war in the history of mankind. It was not just the spread of the war and its ferocity which engulfed the civilian population in an unprecedented scale which made it in a different league from the earlier great conflicts, but for being the symbiosis of military and civilian technology in a holistic manner which defined the progress in technology in a new manner. The soldiers who fought the war in harsh, trench conditions and braved wreckage and carnage so unwaveringly for so long, brought out a different saga of human spirit and resilience. The casualties at the end of the war was a staggering 9 million soldiers dead and 21 million wounded. Among the weapons which made the maximum impact in the combat efforts and outcome, the machine gun can be rated as one whose introduction to the battlefield drastically changed the strategies and tactics used by all militaries in the future. Its biggest and most visible impact was in forcing the armies of all powers into the trenches. Further the supremacy of the cavalry had gone and the impact of scientific and industrial developments had become paramount in conflicts. The machine gun came to represent the use of technology applied to weaponry. Hiram S. Maxim is credited with inventing the first automatic machine gun in the United States in 1884. Maxim’s machine gun was completely self-powered in which multiple bullets would get dislodged as a result the energy released in the firing cartridge with just one pull of a trigger. This was a path breaking technology of that time. It released an initial 600 rounds per minute, which was a damaging number for any opposing army for a great many years to come. The size and weight of the initial machine gun was a limiting factor but that did not stop it from doing its job and doing it well. www.tjprc.org [email protected] 8 Amitabh Sah Initial Impact of the Machine Gun One tends to look at the Franco-Prussian War (1870–71) and the Russo-Japanese war of 1904–05 as the two most significant wars that influenced military theorists in the period preceding the World War -1. In the Russo-Japanese War, the Japanese used the Hotchkiss machine guns in ample numbers and this revealed their impact in the following two ways: • that, if used in defence, the machine guns resulted in the digging of trenches, and • that a far larger offensive force could be decimated with the use of the machine guns. World militaries were aware of these outcomes, but they tended to view the battlefield developments as proof of Russian military weakness and not the result of the inherent defensive power of the machine gun or the inevitability of trench warfare. Machine guns had also, time and again, demonstrated their deadly impact in some colonial clashes around the world. However the European military theorists maintained that “just because machine guns had cut down Zulu Dervish cavalry did not mean they would be effective against naturally “superior” white troops.” They were still in the belief formed primarily by the manifestations of the strategies followed in the Franco-Prussian War of 1870–71. This war occurred in Europe and had been won using classic manoeuvre and encirclement tactics. It became the archetype for all of the European powers-particularly France and Germany-on how to conduct a successful military campaign. All European militaries envisaged a highly mobile offensive as the key to success in future battles. However a Polish writer named Jean de Bloch had, in his book “Future War and its economic consequences”(popularised as ‘Is war now impossible”) in 1898 argued that • “New arms technology (e.g. smokeless gunpowder, improved rifle design, Maxims) had rendered maneuvers over open ground, such as bayonet and cavalry charges, obsolete. • A war between the great powers would be a war of entrenchment and that rapid attacks and decisive victories were likewise a thing of the past. • Entrenched men would enjoy a fourfold advantage over infantry advancing across open ground. • Industrial societies would have to settle the resultant stalemate by committing armies numbering in the millions, as opposed to the tens of thousands of preceding wars. An enormous battlefront would develop. A war of this type could not be resolved quickly. • Such a war would become a duel of industrial might, a matter of total economic attrition. Severe economic and social dislocations would result in the imminent risk of famine, disease, the "break-up of the whole social organization" and revolutions from below .” Although his prediction turned out to be remarkably accurate, the professional militaries of the time dismissed his claims, citing once again the importance of troop morale and offensive spirit being of utmost importance in deciding the fate of war. The militaries also tended to undermine the work of Jean de Bloch by arguing that the overall message was bad for morale. The inability to accept his theories meant that the armies learnt by trial and error and the ensuing results were catastrophic and completely unforeseen by the military leadership. Impact Factor (JCC): 4.3084 NAAS Rating: 2.90 Machine Gun in World War - 1: Impact on Battle Strategies and Scenario 9 There is a thinking that the tactical and strategic significance of indirect (e.g., artillery) fire had greater impact in the battlefield in this war; or that the development of the armoured tank and military aircraft had more potential in shaping future battle outcomes. It is known that the machine guns did not cause as many casualties in the war as artillery fire did. But there is no denying the fact that they played a large role in determining the nature of combat, predominantly the trench warfare. The machinegun was perhaps the most potent weapon available to the infantry. Their firepower certainly converted the attacks on organized enemy positions enormously lethal and costly. The rapidity and hail of fire unleashed by Machine guns helped to tilt the balance in favour of the defenders and in this manner fashioned the stalemate of trench warfare. In the last phase of the war, the deadlock of trench warfare was also somewhat broken with the availability of more portable light machine guns as it gave the infantry the ability to cover its own attacks. Thus, both in attack and defence, the employment of machine gun had a large impact on the battle outcomes and lives of the soldiers at the front. How the Machines Evolved When the World War - 1 started, the machine gun was generally a fairly simple device and not the feared one it later became. But even at this time, all the major combatants were aware in fair measure of its lethal prowess and had provided their armies with machine guns on somewhat similar scales of issue. Russia, Germany and Britain used guns based on the Maxim system , while France and Austria-Hungary used indigenous designs – the Model 1907 "St Etienne " and the Schwarzlose respectively. However all these Machine guns were basically very heavy and distinctly unsuitable for use by rapidly advancing infantry troops due to portability issues. The guns generally weighed somewhere in the 30kg-60kg range - frequently without their mountings, carriages and supplies. These were more often than not, positioned on a horizontal plane tripod, and would entail a gun crew of four to six operators. In theory 400-600 small-calibre rounds per minute could be fired. Subsequent advances in technology during the course of the war almost doubled this figure. By this time the rounds of ammunition were fed via a fabric belt or a metal strip. The truth in this matter however was that the machine guns in practice at the beginning of the war had a tendency to rapidly overheat and thus got broken down unless some sort of cooling mechanisms was employed; they were consequently fired in short rather than sustained bursts. Cooling mechanisms usually were of two types: water cooled and, progressively more as the war developed, air cooled. In case of the former Water jackets were provided (which held around one gallon of liquid) and for the latter air vents would be built into the machine gun. Water cooled machine guns would still overheat relatively quickly (sometimes within two minutes), with the consequence that large supplies of water would need to be on hand in the heat of a battle - and, when these ran out, it was not unknown for a machine gun crew to solve the problem by urinating into the jacket.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Pistol in British Military Service During the Great War
    Centre for First World War Studies The Pistol in British Military Service during the Great War A dissertation submitted by David Thomas (SRN 592736) in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of MA in British First World War Studies September 2010 1 Contents Introduction 3 Current Literature Review 3 Questions to be Addressed 5 Chapter One-Use and Issue 6 Chapter Two-Technique and Training 11 Accessories 14 Ammunition 16 Chapter Three-Procurement 18 History 18 Army Procurement 19 Royal Navy Procurement 23 Private Purchase 24 Overall Numbers 26 Conclusions. 26 Bibliography 28 Appendix 33 Acknowledgements 37 All rights reserved. No part of this work may be reproduced in any form or by any means without the written permission of the author. 2 Introduction The British military services made considerable use of pistols during the Great War but it is evident that there is widespread ignorance and poor literary coverage of the weapons and their use. It is proposed to examine the pistol in British military service in the Great War, covering issue and use, technique and training, and procurement. Approximately half a million pistols were procured during the war, making it one of the numerically most widely issued weapons. A number of Corps, including the Machine Gun Corps, Tank Corps, and Royal Flying Corps were issued pistols as personal weapons, as well as extensive distribution in other arms. It is known that pistol use was widespread in trench warfare and critical on occasions. Decorations, including several Victoria Crosses, are recorded as being won by men using them aggressively.
    [Show full text]
  • Machine Guns
    GUN CLASS #4 – Machine Guns Weapon Magazine Fire Recoil ROF Range Reloads Reload Ammo Origin Notes capacity Modes Time Morita 99 FA,SA 2 400 Long 6 10 N/A N/A The Morita is the standard issue gaming gun representing a typical light machine gun from Battlefield Sports. The Morita has been in continuous manufacture since 2002. FN Minimi / M249 200 FA 2 M Long 7 6 5.56x45mm Belgium The Minimi light machine gun features a NATO 200 shot belt, fires fully automatic only, has long range, has 7 spare belts of 5.56mm NATO ammunition, and takes 6 seconds reload. The Minimi light machine gun was developed by FN Herstal. Mass production began in 1982 in Belgium. About the same time it was adopted by the US Armed forces as the M249 Squad Automatic Weapon (SAW). The Minimi is used by many western allied countries. The longer reload time reflects time it takes to let the barrel cool down and then change. M60 GPMG 100 FA,SA 2 550 Long 7 8 7.62x51mm USA The M60 general purpose machine gun NATO features a 100 shot belt, fires both fully automatic and semiautomatic, has long range, has 7 spare belts of 7.62mm NATO ammunition and takes 8 seconds to reload. The M60 machine gun was designed in the late 1940's based on the German MG42. The M60 was adopted by the US military in 1950. .The longer reload time reflects the time it takes to let barrel cool down and the awkward barrel change as well as the general poor reliability of the M60.
    [Show full text]
  • American Army
    ASSAULT PLATOON AMERICAN ARMY MASSIMO TORRIANI – VALENTINO DEL CASTELLO - Copyright 2013 All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced by any means, including mechanical and/or electronic methods, without the author’s prior written permission. For updates: www.torrianimassimo.it Version December 2013 1 AMERICAN ARMY (1943-1945) BASIC INFANTRY PLATOON The Platoon comprises: 0-1 Infantry HQ Squad (180 points), 2-3 Infantry Squads (370 points each) INFANTRY HQ SQUAD Infantry Unit, HQ Breakpoint: 2 TV: 3 No. Model Weapon Characteristics M1 semi-automatic carbine, Colt 1911A1 pistol, MKII 1 Lieutenant HQ leader Pineapple grenades 1 Second Lieutenant M1 semi-automatic carbine, MKII Pineapple grenades HQ leader 1 Sergeant M1 semi-automatic carbine, MKII Pineapple grenades HQ leader 2 Riflemen Garand M1 semi-automatic rifle, MKII Pineapple grenades INFANTRY SQUAD Infantry Unit Breakpoint: 5 TV: 3 No. Model Weapon Characteristics 1 Sergeant M1 semi-automatic carbine, MKII Pineapple grenades leader 1 Corporal M1 semi-automatic carbine, MKII Pineapple grenades leader 1 Machine-gunner BAR M1918A2 automatic rifle, MKII Pineapple grenades 9 Riflemen Garand M1 semi-automatic rifle, MKII Pineapple grenades SPLITTING UP AN INFANTRY SQUAD Each Infantry Squad can be split up into two Sections: the first comprising a Sergeant and 6 Riflemen (BRK 3) and the other comprising the Corporal, the Machine-gunner and 3 Riflemen (BRK 2). VARIANTS: You can add a radio to the HQ Squad for +10 points. One of the riflemen in the Squad gets the radio characteristic. Leaders can replace their M1 semi-automatic carbines with M3A1 Grease Gun sub-machine guns for free.
    [Show full text]
  • Mg 34 and Mg 42 Machine Guns
    MG 34 AND MG 42 MACHINE GUNS CHRIS MC NAB © Osprey Publishing • www.ospreypublishing.com MG 34 AND MG 42 MACHINE GUNS CHRIS McNAB Series Editor Martin Pegler © Osprey Publishing • www.ospreypublishing.com CONTENTS INTRODUCTION 4 DEVELOPMENT 8 The ‘universal’ machine gun USE 27 Flexible firepower IMPACT 62 ‘Hitler’s buzzsaw’ CONCLUSION 74 GLOSSARY 77 BIBLIOGRAPHY & FURTHER READING 78 INDEX 80 © Osprey Publishing • www.ospreypublishing.com INTRODUCTION Although in war all enemy weapons are potential sources of fear, some seem to have a deeper grip on the imagination than others. The AK-47, for example, is actually no more lethal than most other small arms in its class, but popular notoriety and Hollywood representations tend to credit it with superior power and lethality. Similarly, the bayonet actually killed relatively few men in World War I, but the sheer thought of an enraged foe bearing down on you with more than 30cm of sharpened steel was the stuff of nightmares to both sides. In some cases, however, fear has been perfectly justified. During both world wars, for example, artillery caused between 59 and 80 per cent of all casualties (depending on your source), and hence took a justifiable top slot in surveys of most feared tools of violence. The subjects of this book – the MG 34 and MG 42, plus derivatives – are interesting case studies within the scale of soldiers’ fears. Regarding the latter weapon, a US wartime information movie once declared that the gun’s ‘bark was worse than its bite’, no doubt a well-intentioned comment intended to reduce mounting concern among US troops about the firepower of this astonishing gun.
    [Show full text]
  • The Lewis Gun (Pennsylvania Military Museum, T
    PMM BLOG ARCHIVE August 12, 2020 The Lewis Gun (Pennsylvania Military Museum, T. Gum, Site Admin.) At the start of World War I, American forces relied upon British and French armaments until state-side manufacturing was able to meet demands. One particular arm that would become a viable option for use on land and by air, was the Lewis Gun, better known as the Lewis Machine Gun. Photo of soldier, MM2019.17.26 Pictured here is a member of the 28th Division along the southern border training on a Lewis Machine Gun prior to deploying to France in 1916. Invented by Issac Newton Lewis (COL., US ARMY) in 1911, and mass produced by two companies, the Birmingham Small Arms Company (BSA) and Savage Arms, it is estimated that more than 300,000 were produced from 1913 to 1942. Despite it being realized before WWI broke out, it would take until 1914 for it to be widely produced and dispersed to ally units. Photo of Lewis Machine Gun. Weighing nearly thirty pounds and providing a rate of fire of 500-600 rounds per minute, it is considered a light machine gun being chambered in four possible rounds, two of which being the 30.06 and the British .303. Perhaps its most recognizable features include the aluminum barrel shroud that assisted with cooling, and the large ammunition “pan” on its top. A number of military historians attribute the Lewis not being as broadly used as it could have been by American forces to a number of differences between US military leadership and the gun’s inventor, though it was officially adopted by the US Navy and Marines in 1917.
    [Show full text]
  • Small Arms of the Indian State: a Century of Procurement And
    INDIA ARMED VIOLENCE ASSESSMENT Issue Brief Number 4 January 2014 Small Arms of the Indian State A Century of Procurement and Production Introduction state of dysfunction’ and singled out nuclear weapons (Bedi, 1999; Gupta, Army production as particularly weak 1990). Overlooked in this way, the Small arms procurement by the Indian (Cohen and Dasgupta, 2010, p. 143). Indian small arms industry developed government has long reflected the coun- Under this larger procurement its own momentum, largely discon- try’s larger national military procure- system, dominated by a culture of nected from broader international ment system, which stressed indigenous conservatism and a preference for trends in armament design and policy. arms production and procurement domestic manufacturers, any effort to It became one of the world’s largest above all. This deeply ingrained pri- modernize the small arms of India’s small arms industries, often over- ority created a national armaments military and police was held back, looked because it focuses mostly on policy widely criticized for passivity, even when indigenous products were supplying domestic military and law lack of strategic direction, and deliv- technically disappointing. While the enforcement services, rather than civil- ering equipment to the armed forces topic of small arms development ian or export markets. which was neither wanted nor suited never was prominent in Indian secu- As shown in this Issue Brief, these to their needs. By the 1990s, critics had rity affairs, it all but disappeared trends have changed since the 1990s, begun to write of an endemic ‘failure from public discussion in the 1980s but their legacy will continue to affect of defense production’ (Smith, 1994, and 1990s.
    [Show full text]
  • Sample File OP: Observation Post, Also Known As FOO
    page 1 INTRO.1 INTRODUCTION TO THE MICROMARK ARMY LISTS These army list cards do not include points values, which means that they can be used with any rules system, whether or not points values are used with that system. Whilst designed for table top battlegroup games, these lists are also intended as historical reference notes for use in conjunction with reference books that describe battles. Very often in the latter case exact details of forces used in such battles are not given, and these lists are designed to give the user at least some idea of forces available. Also, for those gamers that love fielding hordes of King Tigers, SturmTigers, 150mm guns and flamethrower tanks, which historically were not very common, these lists detail the level and the percentage chance of such heavy equipment being available. ARMY LIST LAYOUT List number DIVISION TYPE Dates Theatre of operations Morale & Training values 1. Teeth Arm This section details the infantry, armoured, and cavalry battalions that form the bulk of the division, as well as the divisional recce battalion. 2. Brigade Support This details the combat elements of the brigade and regiment HQs along with any support platoons and companies held at this level. 3. Divisional Support This details the maximum available support units held at division level, which are normally parcelled out as support to teeth arm units. 4. Notes This details allocation of radios and infantry anti-tank weapons, and any other specific comments relevant to that division. Some lists are called provisional - these lists are based on limited information, such that the number and type of regiments and battalions reportingSample to division are file usually accurate, but lower level details may not be so accurate, but are sufficient for wargaming purposes.
    [Show full text]
  • Technology Of
    Technology of War First World War Watch the 3 minute introduction to technology of war Collect your copy of the ‘Technology of War’ booklet and complete a cover page with an appropriate drawing of the Great War – this could be a trench scene, soldier, headstone, a weapon or something else from your imagination! To complete your booklet you will need to collect a Weaponry Fact-File – you need to choose 4 weapons from the 7 that are available and complete each section of your booklet for each of your chosen weapons To help you with your weapon sketch you can use some of the undernoted templates to colour in and stick in your booklet but of course you can choose to draw your own! The following video clips from Dan Snow’s WW1 Uncut series can be used to help you add some extra information to your booklet Gas Machine Gun Planes Rifle Tanks To finish your booklet you need to complete the last page with a statement saying which of your 4 weapons you think was the most effective with at least two supporting reasons Rifle Easy to clean and An infantry The weapons that most repair soldier was British soldiers carried equipped in the trenches was the with 2 basic Lee-Enfield rifle weapons – rifle & bayonet Reloading was time consuming So accurate that it could kill a person almost The average soldier could fire 1400 metres away 15 rounds per minute Light and easy to Bullets were slower carry around then German rifle Killed hundreds Machine Gun of thousands ‘Vickers Machine of men Could overheat Gun’ needed very easily between 4-6 men to move them
    [Show full text]
  • American and German Machine Guns Used in WWI
    John Frederick Andrews Novels of the Great War American and German Machine Guns Used in WWI The machine gun changed the face of warfare in WWI. The devastating effects of well-emplaced machine guns against infantry and cavalry became brutally evident in the 1st World War. It changed infantry tactics forever. The US Marines and Army had several machine guns available during the war. This brief will discuss crew-served machine guns only. Man-portable automatic rifles are discussed in another article. The Lewis gun is mentioned here for completeness. The Marine 1st Machine Gun Battalion, commanded by Maj. Edward Cole trained with the Lewis gun before shipping overseas. The gun had been used by the British with good effect. Cole’s men trained with at the Lewis facility in New York. At that point, the plan was for each company to have an eight-gun machine gun platoon. A critical shortage in the aviation community stripped the Marines of their Lewis guns before they shipped to France. The Lewis Gun weighed 28 pounds and was chambered in the .303 British, .30.06 Springfield, and 7.92x57 mm Mauser. They were fed by a top-mounted magazine that could hold 47 or 96 rounds. Rate of fire was 500-600 rounds per minute with a muzzle velocity of 2,440 feet per second and an effective range of 880 yards and a maximum of 3,500 yards. The infantry model is shown below. John Frederick Andrews Novels of the Great War When the Lewis guns were taken away, the Hotchkiss Model 1914 was issued in its place.
    [Show full text]
  • Museum Firearms Collection
    ANNEX 1 Museum collection 30/03/2020 In Store approx year of type calibre Maker serial no manufacture remarks donated by Pistol 0.25 Colt 54231 1910 once property of Inspector Ogborne Police Pistol 0.38 Colt US Navy WBW 95616 1920 Police Pistol 0.38 Smith & Wesson 326213 1920 Police Pistol 0.38 Smith & Wesson 9070358 1920 Police Pistol 0.38 Webley Mark IV 62345 1942 no firing pin Police Pistol 0.38 Enfield No 2 L747 1940 no firing pin Police Pistol 0.32 Replica Colt 1860 71054 Percussion. Formerly Graeme Beckett Customs Rifle 0.303 Enfield 1900 Modified by Enfield in 1900 Shotgun 12G C G Bonehill 108208 1890 Formerly Graeme Beckett Customs Rifle 0.303 Enfield 18402 1900 Modified by Enfield in 1900 LSA & Co Rifle 7.62 LIAL AD6417067 Police Shotgun 16 bore ? Percussion. Rifle 0.303 Lee Enfield No4 PF25189 Police Rifle 0.303 Lee Enfield No4 PF25188 Police Rifle 0.22 ? 1890 falling block Deactivated or non operational in store Musket 0.5 Tower Musket 0.5 St Etienne Arthur Leo Rifle 0.5 Martini Henry 1898 Shotgun 12G Martini Henry Rifle 0.303 Lee Enfield No4 Rifle 0.303 BSA 12512 part of bolt missing Rifle 0.22 Lee Enfield RAF Model Rifle 0.22 Lee Metford converted Shotgun 9mm 1890 missing block English Stock Rifle ? ? 27734 Stock missing. heavy construction Brian Isaac On display approx year of type calibre Maker serial no manufacture remarks donated by pistol 0.38 Enfield 1940 no firing pin Police pistol 0.38 Webley 1942 no firing pin Police pistol 0.38 Enfield 2474 1940 dismantled Police pistol 0.38 Webley 57886 1942 no firing pin Police
    [Show full text]
  • Than Just Inventors”: Richard M
    “More Than Just Inventors”: Richard M. Cutts, Richard M. Cutts Jr., and The Ethical Challenge of the Officer-Inventor John A. Sheehan Marine Corps History, Volume 6, Number 2, Winter 2020, pp. 24-44 (Article) Published by Marine Corps University Press For additional information about this article https://muse.jhu.edu/article/796400/summary [ Access provided at 30 Sep 2021 05:47 GMT with no institutional affiliation ] This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. “More Than Just Inventors” RICHARD M. CUTTS, RICHARD M. CUTTS JR., AND THE ETHICAL CHALLENGE OF THE OFFICER-INVENTOR by John A. Sheehan Abstract: This article examines the ethical decisions of two enterprising interwar period Marine officers, Colo- nel Richard M. Cutts and Brigadier General Richard M. Cutts Jr. Known for their development of a muzzle device used on the Thompson submachine gun, the Cuttses have been treated casually by historians as innocu- ous inventors. This article reveals their crucial role in generating interest in their device and energetic advocacy for official adoption of the Thompson submachine gun. Drawing support from other officers in the Marine Corps and allies in manufacturing, they eagerly pursued widespread sales of their device. Pulled by conflicting demands as Marines, inventors, and business partners, this article contends that they engaged in activity that blurred private business matters with their professional duties as Marines. Examination of the Cuttses invites scholars and practitioners to contemplate the ethical challenges faced by Marines past and present. Keywords: ethics, professional ethics, technology, weapons procurement, Richard M. Cutts, Richard M. Cutts Jr., Cutts Compensator, Thompson submachine gun hen asked in an interview about the Ma- son gun.
    [Show full text]
  • Weapons and Warfare
    MAHARSHI DAYANAND COLLEGE GIRLS NCC UNIT ONLINE CETIFICATE COURSE IN • Co-ordinator: -Capt Dr. Mrunalini Kulkarni • Expert advice by: -Lt Col Amit Mohan Sharma COURSE OBJECTIVE: • To provide information about weapons used by Indian Army Infantry in conventional war. INDEX UNIT- I • DEFINITION • IMPACT OF TECHNOLOGY ON WEAPONS • WEAPON TECHNOLOGY WITH TIMELINE UNIT- II • PISTOL • CARBINE • INSAS (INDIAN SMALL ARMS SYSTEM ) • LIGHT AND MEDIUM MACHINE GUNS • SNIPER RIFLE UNIT- III • ANTI TANK GUIDED MISSILE • MORTARS • AUTOMATIC GRENADE LAUNCHER • ROCKET LAUNCHER • ANTI PERSONNEL MINE • ANTI TANK MINE UNIT- I • DEFINITION • IMPACT OF TECHNOLOGY ON WEAPONS • WEAPON TECHNOLOGY WITH TIMELINE Definition of a Weapon Weapon is an instrument used in combat for the purpose of killing, injuring, or defeating an enemy , can be operated by mechanical power (as with the crossbow and catapult), or by chemical power (as with the rockets, missiles, guns, cannons and rifles). Technology and weapons • As technology has developed throughout history, weapons have changed with it. • Major innovations in the history of weapons have included the adoption of different materials – from stone and wood to different metals, and modern synthetic materials such as plastics – and the developments of different weapon styles either to fit the terrain or to support or counteract different battlefield tactics and defensive equipment. • Weapons have changed history and aided in the rise and fall of civilizations. For example, gunpowder, a Chinese invention, led to the development of cannons and guns— revolutionizing warfare in the Middle Ages and beyond. • Historical timeline of the development of modern weapons starting at 1364 with the first recorded use of a firearm and ending in 1892 with the introduction of automatic handguns.
    [Show full text]