Michael Cessna is a former Active Duty United States Marine, a long-time personal protection specialist, security and defense analyst, military subjects instructor, general information researcher and amateur historian. He has been contributing security and defense writing since 2015.
Uniforms are odd. They are not “normal” clothing, in the sense that they are not worn as ‘casual’ or ‘formal’ wear, nor really for most jobs in the workplace. Whether a person works as a mechanic for a shop, a security officer, a store attendant, a delivery driver or what have you, the uniforms that those people wear for their daily jobs are rarely anything those people would wear when stepping out after work. In the civilian job world, a uniform may be practical, but most often functions as an advertisement for the employer.
In contrast, military uniforms are rarely given a second thought, as most people unconsciously associate a uniform with some sort of armed force. While military uniforms certainly do that, their rationale does not necessarily make sense, unless one looks at them more closely.
Representatives of foreign armies, 2007. CCA/5.2.
There are very few verifiable “uniforms”, as we would recognize the term, in antiquity. Most of the references that mention uniform-like garments in armies are very shaky, and are likely confusions with ethnic or tribal dress, which are not “uniforms”, per se. The first recognizable and unequivocal military uniform was that of the Roman state. Down through the centuries, Roman military attire remained remarkably stable, at least compared to modern norms. Until the very late period of the Western Roman Empire, what we think of today as the “classic” Roman uniform remained more or less the standard attire, for parade, general duty or combat.
After the fall of the Western Empire, “standardized” uniforms would not reappear in European armies until roughly the dawn of the 17th Century, during the “Dutch Revolt” against the Hapsburg dynasty of Spain. The Dutch needed a way to identify their own troops; short of money, they first tried long, colored sashes. Because of the problems of the sashes getting too dirty to recognize, the Dutch hit on the idea of wearing smaller versions of the sashes as scarves, and tying them in unique knots. Together with the Croatian mercenaries hired by France – wearing distinctive cravats (thus bringing the word ‘cravat’ into western Europe) – during this period, armies began to realize that some form of standardized uniform was a very useful item, despite the added expense.
Images of military uniforms from 1670 to 1865. Encyclopedia Britannica, 1910. Public Domain.
To many people new to the subject, the military uniforms of the 17th to early 20th Centuries look bizarre. They are certainly highly distinctive, but to the modern mind, appear useless on a battlefield, as they are usually brightly colored and definitely stand out against the backdrop of natural foliage. The reason for the brightly colored uniforms – as with the combat tactic of the rigid firing line, in the open, with no real cover (meaning, protection from bullets) – was dictated by the combat technology of the time, as the smoothboreflintlock musket was notoriously slow to load and unreliable. Because of this, armies were forced to line up their troops, and have groups of them fire in sequence, like a giant shotgun. As should be obvious, this was a dangerous and terrifying experience, and it was felt that clothing the troops in distinct, flashy and (comparatively) expensive uniforms would help improve the morale of the troops.
Attack of Prussian Infantry, Battle of Hohenfriedeberg, June 4th, 1745. Carl Röchling (1913). Public Domain.
Whether troop morale was improved or not during this period is an open question, but the rapid pace of technological development in firearms technology during the 19th Century swiftly dictated that research was desperately needed to help the troops blend into their surroundings, the better to avoid fire from rifles and machine guns. While this trend was firmly established in the aftermath of World War 1, as that war had starkly demonstrated that modern weapons had fundamentally altered the battlefield, creating all the conditions necessary for staggering casualties, with France losing so many troops (well over one million), that large sections of the French Army mutinied in 1917, it had begun well before that war broke out.
World War 1 – Military Dress Uniforms. J.F. Campbell (1920). Public Domain.
US troops dressed in BDU’s during Exercise Peaceshield 2000. Yavoriv, Ukraine, July 16, 2000. US Air Force Photo.
While it should be obvious that a military uniform – whether for combat, day-to-day work or for formal parades – should be “distinctive”, that begs the question: What, exactly, constitutes a “military uniform”?
Remarkably, aside from generally practical notions of being distinctive, and comfortable to move in, there is no hard and fast definition of what constitutes a “military uniform”, aside from the admonishment of the 1949 Geneva Convention (pdf link) to not wear an enemy’s uniform for the purpose of deception.
Boer guerrillas during the Second Boer War, c.1900. Public Domain.
In the final analysis, then, a formally organized military force can essentially design any uniform they want, as long as it is distinct from common civilian attire, and will be protected under the Geneva Convention…
Many times, taking the status quo for granted is the normal mode we all operate in. In this context, when growing up in the 1980’s, if one aspired to study “things military”, you would simply accept the organizational structures of various militaries without question. Studying old – even ancient – military organizations was seen as a good thing for historical research, but really didn’t have much utility in the modern day…
…Or did it?
On New Year’s Day 2023, I had one of those head-slap moments, when I realized something profound: In some four thousand years of recorded military history, only nine organizational units have made it down through history, some of which still exist to this day. Nine. There have been other unit organizations, certainly, but none of them have ever taken hold for any length of time, and none of them are ever seriously considered for resurrection. This is not a merely academic idea, either – trillion-dollar military budgets are largely based on supporting these unit formations (in theory, at least).
Today, we’re going to explore a basic outline of those nine unit types.
The Tribal War Band
The Tribal War Band is the oldest continuously used formation in recorded history. It is an amorphous collection of extended family and clan warriors, hastily assembled to either make a raid, or defend against one, after which it would disperse until needed again. The War Band grew out of familial hunting parties that took advantage of human numbers, communications and cooperative effort to hunt down either game animals, or predators encroaching on the family/tribe’s hunting/foraging grounds. In many parts of the world today, the tribal war band continues, as underdeveloped areas and peoples see no reason for a more formalized organization.
Combat for the old war band was similar to the kind of melee combat popular in modern television shows and movies, being essentially a street or bar brawl, albeit with swords and spears, instead of sharpened bicycle chains and switchblade knives.
“Three Young Ngoni Warriors, Livingstonia Malawi”, ca.1895. Public Domain
The tribal war band, in the modern day, remains dangerous primarily because it is almost impossible to gather meaningful intelligence on them, and thus it is nearly impossible to create plans to counter them by remote study and planning techniques. The only solutions in the “military tool box” are to use massive, overwhelming force and numbers to occupy and saturate an area, or to send in tiny parties on the ground, to locate the tribe[s] in question, and find out more information about them…which is usually vastly more effective – and practical – than simply running the proverbial steamroller over the area.
The Phalanx
The Phalanx was the first regularized tactical unit on record. While we know of armies before the time of Classical Greece – those of Sumer, or Egypt and the Hittites, specifically, as well as armies in China and India – those armies did not leave a record of their formal organizations.
In contrast, the ancient Greeks, as first described by the poet Homer, deployed their armies of citizen-spearmen – the Hoplites – in a rigid, square or rectangular formation, of anywhere from 100 to 500 men, and occasionally more, in files of 16 to 32 troops. These troops were armed with a sword and shield, but their main weapon was the “sarissa”, a type of spear or pike that could be up to twenty feet in length. In combat, the phalanx would try to use its weight and mass to basically “shove” the opposing phalanx off the battlefield. In a contest where the sides were more or less evenly matched, this came down to individual physical strength and stamina, and a willingness to hold out until the enemy got tired, and decided to try and run for it…and, as in most battles before about 1900AD, that would be where the real casualties would happen.
A phalanx fighting the Persians. 19th Century. Public Domain.
The phalanx has disappeared, only being resurrected by pre-gunpowder forces that were unable to organize or train for anything more complex, because the formation had severe and fundamental flaws: it was hard to keep it in formation; it was slow and clumsy to move in anything but a straight line; and it was helpless against lightly armed forces, such as archers, slingers or peltasts (a type of skirmisher that threw javelins).
Agrianian Peltast by Johnny Shumate, [email protected]. Public Domain.
As soon as the phalanx met an infantry formation that was more flexible, it was completely torn apart.
The Contubernium/Section
The next unit is the second-oldest unit overall, and the first of four units still in use to this day, well over two thousand years after its inception: the Contubernium.
Roman Reenactment legionaries about to attack. CCA/3.0
The Contubernium (derived from a Latin term meaning, “tenting together”) was the basic eight-man unit of the Roman Army. It consisted of eight legionaries who lived, trained and fought – and occasionally died – together. Unlike their modern equivalent, the Section, there was little volatility in the Contubernium, as the legionaries within would frequently remain together for up to a decade or more, barring deaths or promotions. The contubernium was the basic building block for the next level up, that being the Century.
Today, the contubernium still exists as the “Section”. The modern Section of eight troops is used in many armies for the same purpose as its ancestor, as the infantry’s basic fighting unit in combat.
A Wehrmacht infantry Gruppe (Section) armed with the MG 34 light machine gun. Poland, 1941. German Federal Archives.
The Century/Company
The Century was a unit of 80-100 troops (the number varied over time). Their leaders, the Centurions were long-serving, professional officers, and had to be literate, have prior military experience in the ranks (at least in theory, although this was mostly true for most of the era), had to have “connections” (expressed in ‘letters of recommendation’) and had to be able to demonstrate proficiency with all the common weapons of the soldier. The centurions were simultaneously soldiers, officers, disciplinarians, combat commanders, administrators, and occasionally, even jurists or spies.
Roman Centurion (reenactment). Hans Splinter, 2010. CCA/2.0
The modern Company, in contrast, is about one-half to twice the size of the Roman Century. However, that was an evolution, over about three hundred years, because the infantry Company, from before the American War of Independence, was roughly 50-80 men at full strength, until about the time of World War 1, with the advent of more complex weapons and the organizations to support them. However, the organization of the “fighting company” has remained stable at 100-200 troops. There have been attempts at explaining this, but the one theory that has taken hold is that 150 troops is the rough “sweet spot”, where one person can directly lead about 150 people in combat with only a minimal staff.
Soldiers assigned of Alpha Company, 3rd Battalion, 187th Infantry Regiment, 101st Airborne Division, pause near Narizah, Afghanistan, 2002. US Army Photo.
In the Mess, we call that “learning through trial & error”.
The Cohort/Battalion
The next level up from the Century/Company is the Cohort/Battalion. The Cohort was a subset of a Legion (q.v.), which had a total of ten Cohorts. The Cohort, like its descendant, was a collection of centuries. Unlike its descendant, however, the Cohort was generally fixed in size, at about 600 legionaries. The modern battalion, in contrast, can be anything from 300 to 1,200 troops in size, depending on its specific job and organization. (As an aside, some translations of John 18:3 note that it was a “Roman cohort” that arrived to arrest Jesus at Gethsemane.)
“A Roman Legion”, by Marco Dente, c. 1515-1527. Public Domain.
This level of command is typically regarded as both the first “operationally capable” unit that can operate on its own, as it includes its own internal (or, “organic”) support elements, such as a medical staff that offers more than First Aid +, communications, supply, maintenance and a number of other dedicated support elements, is considered to be the basic tactical unit in combat. In Roman times, specialist officers within the Cohort and Legion were assigned drafts of troops for non-fighting tasks such as building roads and entrenchments, or manning artillery pieces.
Group portrait of the Australian 11th (Western Australia) Battalion, 3rd Infantry Brigade, Australian Imperial Force, posing on the Great Pyramid of Giza on 10 January 1915. Public Domain.
The Battalion, like its ancestor, forms the bedrock for larger units.
The Legion/Brigade
Rounding out the “units of history” is the legendary Roman Legion. Composed of ten Cohorts, plus additional troops (mostly cavalry and scouts) and support staff, a Roman Legion at full strength numbered anywhere from five thousand to seven thousand troops in size. The twenty-eight Legions of Octavian Augustus – a force estimated at c.300,000 troops overall – formed the core of a Roman military machine that would maintain the security of the Empire for nearly five centuries.
In the modern day, the basic structure of the Legion continues as the “Brigade”, which is at the core of most modern armies. While the modern-day brigade is a miniature army – effectively mirroring the Battalion albeit much larger in size – this was not always the case, as it evolved from an ad hoc grouping of Regiments (q.v.). With the end of the Cold War, however, most nations ‘downsized’ their militaries, leaving Divisions (q.v.) as mostly administrative commands for their component “maneuver brigades”. With the return of large-scale (if rather desultory) mechanized warfare with the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, many nations are reevaluating their policies of leaving brigades to operate independently, outside the “support umbrella” provided by the Division.
Lightning strikes as Bradley Fighting Vehicles from the 30th Armored Brigade Combat Team prepare to fire TOW missiles during an exercise at Fort Bliss, Texas, in August 2018. (Staff Sgt. Brendan Stephens/Army). Public Domain.
In one of those quirks of history, the modern Brigade has approximately the same “bayonet strength” of troops as a Roman Legion, although it maintains larger support units.
De Re Militari
How is it that the preceding four organizations carried over to the modern day, over a span of some two thousand years? The answer lies in a book, De Re Militari (English translation), written sometime in the early 5th Century AD by a late-Roman author, Publius Flavius Vegetius Renatus. In it, Vegetius reviewed the organization, training and discipline of the old legionary system, attempting to convince the Emperor of the time to return to those methods. While those exhortations apparently had little effect on the Western Empire, copies of the work circulated throughout the misnamed “Dark Ages”, until it received its first printed edition in 1473AD.
A morocco bound copy of the 1494 edition of “De Re Militari”. Public Domain.
Kings and commanders throughout Western Europe tried to emulate various aspects of Vegetius’ work, but social, political and technological limitations hampered anything more than the most basic of his ideas. With the rise of larger, better-organized states in the 15th Century, however, Vegetius’ ideas became viable, and many states – especially after the near-total adoption of firearms as the main personal combat weapon in the various armies – latched onto the book as a template for their new, much larger forces.
The Tercio
The Tercio (from the Spanish term for “a third”) is somewhat unique in this list, as it only really lasted for about one hundred and fifty years, at most, but had an impact out of all proportion to its size and organization. This was because it was the first unit in modern times to show the potential of what infantry was actually capable of, in an arena where the mounted knight had been viewed as the dominant power.
As originally organized, the tercio deployed was split into three more or less equal types of infantry: pikemen, swordsmen and crossbowmen. Rapidly, however, the arquebus replaced the crossbow, and the swordsmen began to dwindle in number, replaced by troops carrying halberds. Eventually, as the arquebus first became cheaper, then evolved into the musket, the swordsmen disappeared entirely. The result was the first real “combined arms” formation since the Roman Legions, a unit of 400-3,000 troops what could operate independently of outside support.
Rocroi, el último tercio. 2011. Augusto Ferrer-Dalmau. CCA/3.0
The tercio revolutionized warfare, and lead directly to the next ‘unit of history’, the Regiment.
The Regiment…and the Bayonet
The Regiment evolved out of the Tercio, as the technology of military firearms advanced. As the arquebus evolved into the musket, it was realized that coordinated firepower was the infantry’s final, real answer to cavalry dominance. However, while the Tercio did have advantages, the use of pikes was increasingly seen as a waste of troops: while the pikes did well in protecting the infantry from cavalry attacks, commanders wanted to somehow combine the pike and the musket into a single weapon.
British infantryman in 1941 with a long WWI sword-type bayonet affixed to his rifle. 1941. Imperial War Museum. Public Domain.
In the late 17th Century, around 1671AD or so, French General Jean Martinet standardized the first practical bayonet (so named for its purported place of invention, the French city of Bayonne), the so-called “plug bayonet”. The plug bayonet was exactly that: it was essentially a type of dagger, fitted with a small, round hilt made of wood, that could be quickly inserted into the muzzle of a musket, turning it into a type of spear, which could be used to fend off cavalry that got too close, a common occurrence, given the limitations of the muskets of the time.
Obviously, though, this type of weapon was not ideal, as it could only be used while the musket was empty. The plug bayonet quickly evolved into the “socket bayonet”, which was fitted over the outside of the muzzle and was offset to one side, allowing the soldier to load and fire his musket while the bayonet was fixed.
It was at this point – in c.1700 – where the Tercio, as such, finally disappeared and was replaced by the Regiment.
The Sikh Regiment marching contingent passes through the Raj path during the 61st Republic Day Parade-2010, in New Delhi on January 26, 2010. GODL-India
This is not a useless digression – by eliminating the pike, military units (at least in Europe) became all-firearm formations, capable of both maximizing firepower, while simultaneously being able to counter direct cavalry shock attack.
The bayoneted musket directly allowed the creation of the Regiment. Nominally a unit of 500-1,000 troops, the regiment was usually organized into ten equal companies, ideally of 50-100 troops each, with a regimental command staff to handle administration, medicine and logistics. The troops could – as their Roman predecessors had been – be assigned to various specialist tasks under the supervision of officers skilled in fortification and road building, although gunpowder artillery was left to specially trained soldiers, given the dangers involved.
The Regiment, in this format, remained the dominant maneuver unit until after World War 1. Although the term was occasionally used interchangeably with the Battalion – even today – the Regiment remains the bridge between the Battalion and the Brigade. In its most basic form, the modern regiment is composed of two to three battalions, with perhaps a battalion’s worth of support units. This organization is the source of some confusion, as it appear to resemble a brigade…however, the main difference between the two units is in the number of support personnel.
Three hundred years on, the Regiment – while evolved in size and organization – is still going strong, and shows no sign of disappearing anytime soon.
The Division
While there has always been a delineation of larger military units into “divisions”, the modern Division (capitalized intentionally) originated during the Napoleonic Wars, as Napoleon reorganized the French Army into Divisions and Corps’.
In the modern day, a division typically consists of three brigades, of three “fighting” regiments/battalions each, with their associated support elements, and a collection of other support units under the direct control of the division headquarters. Numbers-wise, the division can range anywhere from 6,000-25,000 troops, depending on its composition, mission and national military doctrines.
M1-A1 Abrams main battle tanks of the U.S. Army 1st Armored Division, along with two AH-64A Apache helicopters coordinate their fire as they practice at a range in Glamoc, Bosnia and Herzegovina, on April 2, 1998. U.S. Army Photo.
As referenced above, while the Division faded into an administrative grouping in most nations following the end of the Cold War, the current (as of January of 2023AD) war between Russia and Ukraine is causing a serious reconsideration of reviving the Division as an operational combat command among nations fearful of being drawn, once again, into an all-out, conventional (hopefully) slugging match.
Soviet troops of the Voronezh Front counterattacking behind T-34 tanks, 1943. Mil.ru
Conclusion
Why is it important to know these things? Well…that really depends on one’s view of their place in the world: How much do you trust your government to properly inform you of what is happening with your nation’s military? When you see or hear a news story about “military unit X”, what does that mean? Is it a minor issue, or a major one? The popular media rarely, if ever, bother to try and explain it to you, and when they do, they usually get it wrong.
To paraphrase historian Niall Ferguson, in his 2008 series “The Ascent of Money”, not knowing this stuff can seriously affect your life.
For nearly seventy-five years, the military forces of the world have been saddled with “assault rifles”, weapons that use an “intermediate cartridge” – smaller than a “full-power” rifle cartridge, but considerably more powerful than a handgun cartridge.
There is a never-ending controversy in the “gun vs. anti-gun” debate over the term “assault rifle”. While the “pro” side is technically precise in its language, the “anti” side verges on the neurotic in insisting on ignoring anything but the screaming propaganda fed to them.
The “assault rifle”, as such, comes from three distinct and separate strains of “institutional DNA”. The impact of the fusion of those strains on military affairs is our subject, here.
The German Strain
Prior to World War 2, a “rifle” was, well…a rifle. After the introduction of smokeless powder by France in 1884, the world’s militaries settled on rifles with calibers between 6- and 8mm, with bullet weights in the vicinity of 140 to 160 grains. This seemed to be the proverbial “sweet spot”, giving long ranges (as far as c.2200 yards/2000 meters), with acceptable terminal performance at the limit that troops could shoot.
An Indian rifleman with a SMLE (Short Magazine Lee-Enfield) No. 1 Mk III, Egypt, 1940. Public Domain.
And then – 1914 happened.
The First World War brought on (as could be expected) more military innovation in four years than in the previous four decades, radically altering the perception of warfare in all the participating states (whether those states could act to maximize those perceptions is another matter, entirely).
April, 1918 During the German Spring Offensive in Artois two German A7V tanks (Hagen 528) and (Schnuck 504/544) roll towards the Western Front. Public Domain.
The victors of WW1 were content to make a few improvements to their military structures here and there, but the collective sigh of relief at the war’s “conclusion” (because fighting continued for nearly five full years, at least, past 1918) imparted a dangerous wave of “Victory Disease” in those states, whose armed forces, while doing research and making a few alterations to their doctrines, either largely failed to learn the right lessons from the war, or failed to convince their political leadership to fund improvements promptly. This would come back to haunt them twenty years later. What most nations could agree upon, though, was the need for a semi-automatic rifle to replace the universally deployed bolt-action rifles, in models unique to every major nation.
Two of the major combatants in WW1, however, took the exact opposite approach.
While “Imperial Russia” was destroyed and replaced by the Soviet Union, “Russia”, as such, had suffered such a crushing defeat in the war, that the new Communist government immediately launched a long-range plan to create the most advanced armed forces in the world…and largely succeeded, at least on paper. This impressive force would be gutted by Stalin’s Great Purge, and would thus nearly collapse in the early days of its new war with Germany, in 1941…but that is another story.
Soviet tanks on Khalkhyn Gol, 1939. Public Domain.
In contrast, Germany – the leader of the losing faction of World War 1, the “Central Powers” – had the Treaty of Versailles inflicted on it, losing large swathes of territory, being forced into paying crushing war reparations (including the physical seizure of actual industrial plant equipment and machinery) to the victors, and being forced to officially reduce its military forces to a pale shadow of their former size.
While the minutiae of the Treaty are not the subject of this article, it did conclusively show that Germany had been defeated. This caused the remnant of the German military to immediately begin a careful assessment of what it had gotten right – and more importantly, wrong – during the war. This actually began before the war ended, in early 1918, when a certain Hauptmann (Captain) Piderit, part of the Gewehrprüfungskommission (“Small Arms Examination Committee”) of the German General Staff pointed out that infantry rarely fired at enemies further than 870y/800m distant, and that a physically smaller, intermediate cartridge would save on materials and allow for a smaller and lighter Maschinenpistole (submachine gun), while allowing the troops to carry more ammunition (the contradictory irony of his conclusions apparently escaped Hauptmann Piderit).
While these points did have some validity, specifically in regards to the American M1895 Lee-Navy rifle (YouTube link), it contained two fundamental flaws: first, that the General Staff was perfectly satisfied with its MP18 SMG, and second, that Hauptmann Piderit apparently concentrated his study on actions on the Western Front, which is the stereotypical vision of WW1, where most of the war was fought in the hell of the trenches, and largely ignored the much more mobile warfare of the Eastern Front, as well as the mountain warfare on the Italian front. Hauptmann Piderit’s assessment stands as a sterling example of the dangers of relying strictly on sterilized statistics.
A Maschinenpistole 18 (MP 18) in service in Berlin, Germany, 1919. Public Domain.
In any case, Germany – like most nations in the postwar period – recognized the need to adopt a semi-automatic rifle. Unfortunately – or fortunately, depending on one’s view – the Reichswehr (the post-Versailles German army) seemed to have taken Piderit’s study to heart, laying out requirements for a new rifle for the military that would ultimately lead to the StG 44 rifle, developed, manufactured and deployed during 1944, at the height of World War 2. This weapon, formally termed the “Sturmgewehr 44” – or, literally, “Assault Rifle 44” – is the origin of the term “assault rifle” itself.
The German Sturmgewehr 44, found in Iraq by US troops, c.2004. DoD Photo.
Using a cartridge very similar to the later Soviet M43 cartridge, the StG 44 proved a nasty surprise to Allied troops…when it worked. Postwar assessments were not kind to the design, which was made as the German economy and resource base were collapsing under Allied assaults, and which assessments thus overcompensated in dismissing the German “wunderwaffe”.
This flawed development process would continue to lie quietly, fascinating and exciting the minds of leaders and middle managers more enticed with monetary and resource savings than tactical utility.
The Soviet Strain
The Soviet Union’s Red Army, in contrast, was very practical in its approach to the problem of updating its infantry weapons.
Beginning World War Two with the perfectly awful Mosin-Nagant rifle, the Soviets quickly discovered that high-firepower weapons (mainly submachine guns) were the decisive winners in close assaults and urban warfare. Independently (probably), they hit on the idea of an intermediate cartridge for general issue. The first weapon to use this new M43 cartridge was adopted as the SKS (Samozaryadny Karabin sistemy Simonova) rifle, designed by Sergei Simonov. However, the Soviets freely acknowledged that the SKS was a carbine-class weapon…and, shortly after the SKS’s adoption, former tank commander and budding weapons designer Mikhail Kalashnikov perfected the first model of the AK-47, which would go on to become one of, if not the, premier, infantry weapon of the last seventy-five years.
Comparison of AKM and SKS 45. Swedish Army Museum. CCA/4.0
The AK-47 was adopted en masse as soon as it was made easier to manufacture. It seemed to be the very best “middle ground”: the M43 cartridge was suitably powerful; the rifle was accurate to 300-400m; it was lightweight and handy; it could fire in either semi– or full-automatic; it used a detachable 30-round magazine versus the SKS’s fixed, 10-round magazine; and was comparatively compact, even without a folding stock. Additionally, it was both rugged and easy to learn, making it the weapon of choice throughout a “developing world” with terrible levels of education, almost from the time of its creation.
The American Strain
In complete contrast, the United States of America backed into the assault rifle more or less by accident, aided by incompetence, parochialism, destructive pettiness that bordered on the criminal and a failed war.
The United States entered World War Two with what was arguably the best rifle of the conflict, the famed M1 Garand. Although an Army board had recommended the adoption of a lighter cartridge in 1928, the realities of shrunken postwar budgets precluded any real attempt at a fundamental change in caliber. However, development continued, as the Army searched for a combat-capable semi-automatic rifle. Adopted in 1936, the semi-automatic M1 was big and beefy, weighing 9.5lbs/4.31kg, and being almost 44in/1100mm in length. It fired the full-power .30-06 Springfield cartridge, fully capable of shooting out past 2,000 yards with ease.
M1 Garand rifle and M1 carbine. Public Domain.
As good as the M1 was, however, the US military realized that it needed to stay ahead of the development curve, and began experimenting with a detachable-magazine variant of the rifle as early as 1944, to counter the limitations of the M1’s 8-round “en bloc” clip…
…But we’re getting ahead of ourselves.
The US Army saw the need, as early as 1938, for a ‘light rifle’ to issue to its support troops (clerks, drivers, radio operators, etc), who needed something more powerful than a handgun, but lighter than an M1 Rifle or a Thompson SMG. The result was the somewhat confusingly named M1 .30 Carbine.
The M1 Carbine was about 40% lighter than the rifle (a little over 5lbs/2kg), and its “.30 Carbine” round, although significantly lighter in projectile weight and range, was much easier to handle for its light recoil. The much shorter range of the Carbine (300y/270m) was not seen as a problem, as it was seen as what we would now refer to as a “personal defense weapon”. The M1 Carbine would go on to evolve through several variants, including fully automatic versions, and would continue to serve around the world well into the 1980’s.
None of the Carbine’s development, however, would really have a meaningful impact on postwar rifle development.
After the creation of NATO, and that body’s adoption of the 7.62x51mm cartridge, the US Army would hold a competition in the mid-1950’s that would result in the adoption of the M14 rifle.
U.S. Army Sgt. 1st Class Richard Wiley demonstrates shooting an M-14 rifle in Iraq, 2006. US Army Photo.
While the long list of shenanigans – rising, bluntly, to the levels of criminal incompetence, corruption or both – surrounding that trial series are better left to another discussion, the end result was the adoption of a weapon that was intended to do “everything”: the M14 was supposed to replace the M1 Rifle, the M1918A2 B.A.R., the M3A1 ‘Grease Gun’ SMG and the M1 Carbine…In the end, the M14 only replaced the M1 Rifle, and then for a paltry five years, from 1959 to 1964, although it continued to serve in Vietnam until 1967, and in other limited roles until 1970.
Although the M14 would mature over time, and eventually become an exceptionally good firearm (and was used as a sniper rifle, the M21), the program was initially so plagued with severe development, production and cost-overrun issues that it finally drew the official attention of then-Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara, who overrode the protests of the parochial Army officers who had backed it, and ordered the program to be canceled in 1968…
…To be replaced with the M16…Back to the Fifties…
The original trials, which resulted in the M14, had three participants: the prototype M14, designated the “T44”; a version of the Belgian-designed FN FAL, designated as the “T48”; and the AR-10, from the ArmaLite division of the Fairchild aircraft company, which was a late addition to the trials, and did not receive a “T” designator.
AR10 rifle, with bayonet attached, 2017. CCA/4.0
The AR10 was an incredibly light and compact design for the powerful 7.62x51mm cartridge (which was essentially a scaled-down .30-06), weighing just 6.85lbs/3.11kg empty. Designed by the legendary Eugene Stoner, the AR10 was a huge leap forward in rifle design. Although the disappointingly gory details of the trials are best explained in “The Black Rifle”, by Edward C. Ezell, in the end, the trials guaranteed that the M14 prototype would be the winner.
Disappointed by the trial results, Stoner tried to shop the AR10 to foreign markets, and managed to get a few sales, with the rifles built by the Dutch company “Artillerie Inrichtingen”. Although the rifles received glowing reports from users fielding the rifles in combat, the AR10 never saw the kind of sales that it should have gotten.
Fairchild then decided to try and rework the rifle for the American market, and L. James Sullivan – working with Stoner’s notes, as Stoner had left Fairchild by that time – reduced the AR10 in size and caliber, resulting in the AR15.
From top to bottom: M16A1, M16A2, M4, M16A4. CCA/3.0
After the end of US involvement in Vietnam, in what President Jimmy Carter would call “a national malaise”, there was little incentive in Congress to fund yet another round of service rifle trials, despite there being a completely different,battle-proven weapon system designed by Eugene Stoner, that both the US Army and Marine Corps were seriously interested in. Instead, both services decided that the M16-series was good enough, and focused on acquiring the new “Big Ticket” vehicles and aircraft it wanted for its burgeoning “Active Defense Doctrine” (which would later be replaced by the “AirLand Battle Doctrine” that was the basis of US and Coalition strategy and operation in the 1990-1991 Gulf War) in the desperate attempt to erase the memory of the loss in Vietnam.
Now, some 60-odd years after it was first presented to the US military, the AR15/M16 series of rifles are still the primary infantry rifles for all of the country’s armed services, only now being replaced…
So…what are we to make of all of this wandering down three different avenues, to get to the intersection of today?
As pointed out in Increasing Small Arms Lethality in Afghanistan: Taking Back the Infantry Half-Kilometer, by then-Major Thomas P. Ehrhart, US Army (pdf link), around 50% of infantry engagements in Afghanistan occurred at ranges beyond 500 meters…and the 5.56x45mm ammunition of the M16 and M4 rifles of the US infantry were completely inadequate to meet those challenges. Major Ehrhart’s data, stating the obvious, is one of the drivers that resulted in the Army’s adoption of the XM5 in 6.8x51mm caliber – a caliber of usable size and power, comparable to the 7.62x51mm, but looking “shiny, new and improved”, because they can’t be see to be reverting to “old stuff” by a civilian leadership wholly unqualified to assess the military’s needs.
As the world is moving into more urban-focused combat (YouTube link), rifles firing lightweight projectiles are at an increasing disadvantage. India recognized this, when they opted for a stopgap purchase of almost 140,000 SIG Sauer 716 rifles in 7.62x51mm for its army, when they finally accepted that their native-designed INSAS rifle program had failed.
Indian army soldier armed with a Sig 716i, 2021. GODL-India
Modern infantry combat happens at a variety of ranges, and always has. Whether it is point-blank, on the other side of a door, or takes place at distances where telescopic sights are necessary for accuracy, the infantry battle area is wide – and the infantry needs a weapon that can reach all of those points within a rational distance.
The assault rifle concept was based on a flawed statistical study, a bloodthirsty and unimaginative style of combat operations, and sheer, petty – and possibly criminal – incompetence…and troops of many nations have been paying the price of those flawed policies for nearly eight decades.
It is no admission of incompetence to recognize that an idea has failed, and needs to be corrected.
If India can do it, the rest of the world can, as well.
The Freedomist — Keeping Watch, So You Don’t Have To
In the firearms world, there is a wide array of classifications for various types of weapons. These varying classes and “families” of weapons change over time, as buzzwords come and go; one of the current buzz terms, and one that generates a great deal of controversy, is the “PCC”, or the “Pistol-Caliber Carbine”.
A PCC is best defined as a firearm intended to be used like a rifle, but which fires a projectile and cartridge caliber commonly associated with a handgun. This is not really a “new thing” – the majority of the 19th Century Winchester family (YouTube) of level-action rifles all came in pistol cartridges, at first.
The first true “PCC’s” of the modern era, though, were the German submachine guns of the First World War, closely followed by the Thompson SMG, the famous “Tommy Gun” (a term that comes from WW2). These weapons – while not exactly “carbines”, as they were not “shortened rifles”, as such – showed armies that there was room in their doctrines for a lightweight and compact (comparatively speaking) type of “long-ish” weapon, that was cheaper and easier to produce than more conventional rifles and carbines.
In the United States this would eventually result, in 1942, with the introduction of the M1 Carbine. While using a cartridge considerably more powerful than most handgun cartridges, the .30 Carbine cartridge was far less powerful than a “full-power” cartridge, like the .30-06 used by the M1 Garand Rifle. The M1 Carbine was significantly lighter and handier than the larger and heavier M1 Rifle, and was only really usable out to about 150 yards/138 meters, but that was deemed to be perfectly sufficient for its intended use: giving troops who did not really need a “full-power” M1 Rifle something to defend themselves with that was more accurate and longer-ranged than a handgun.
M1 Garand rifle and M1 carbine. Public Domain.
The “carbine” field became somewhat muddied with the widespread adoption of the “intermediate” cartridge class after World War 2, but eventually settled back to the original idea of a “carbine”, that being a shortened version of a service rifle. One of the side effects of this adoption trend, meanwhile, led to fewer and fewer true “pistol-caliber” SMG’s being developed, as post-war battlefield developments made SMG’s largely redundant. Submachine guns were slowly pushed to the fringes, eventually used only by police or elite and highly specialized military units, primarily for hostage rescue and use in very crowded areas like airport concourses and large entertainment venues, where rifle cartridges – even coming from a shortened barrel – were not satisfactory, due to over-penetration at close-quarters’ range.
However, in areas that were friendly to private firearms ownership, the first PCC’s began to appear in the 1970’s. At first, these were weapons that mimicked the “look and feel” of SMG’s, but that fired only on semi-automatic. Soon, however, companies began to move away from the “military look”, as hysteria in certain quarters arose, and took on a more “civilian-friendly” look.
M105 Calico .22 carbine (Photo by Oleg Volk)
As the 21st Century dawned, companies in the United States began – after the 2004 sunset of the 1994 “Assault Weapons Ban” – to release PCC’s onto the civilian market. While little regard was given to these weapons at first, closer looks ensued as more an more people bought various types of PCC’s, for everything from recreational shooting to home defense. Inevitably, perhaps, highly raucous debate began as some quarters began to discuss the “tactical” uses of PCC’s…
…And, as in most debates about modern firearms, much hysterical screeching ensued.
The essential point of contention are that PCC’s are more or less useless against modern body armor – which is true…although the numbers of criminals staging “home invasions” at 2AM, while wearing high-grade body armor, is very low. As a result, the PCC is a good choice for home defense instead of a “full power” rifle or carbine, as its projectiles are less likely to leave your home and land a block or two away, in someone else’s home. As well, although there is a net savings on ammunition for practice, “training” (two different things) and recreational shooting, the savings are not that large, overall. One thing PCC’s are demonstrably good at, is acting as introductory weapon to ease new shooters into long-arm use.
Just Right Carbines (JC Carbine) 9mm. CCA/4.0
Do PCC’s have a “military” use? For an established national armies or police forces, the answer is “not really”. Although some arguments could be made that police forces would do better with a PCC than an actual “patrol rifle” (usually a military carbine), any real need for a pistol-caliber long-arm is usually better filled by a submachine gun.
Unlike more high-powered firearms, PCC’s are well suited to “guerrilla factories”, especially using “additive manufacturing” infrastructures, as the tolerances required are considerably less than those required for fully-automatic weapons. Likewise, additive manufacture requires few, if any, of the tools, equipment and supplies needed – and thus more-easily tracked – for more conventional weapons.
Anti-junta rebels in Myanmar, armed with FCG-9 carbines. 2021-2022. Author unknown.
In sum, then, if you are living in a “gun-friendly” location, a PCC is a good tool for both recreation and home defense, while also being a good choice for introducing new shooters to long-arms…and, if things really go sideways, they are a good choice for arming an insurgency or resistance movement, with the intention – as in Myanmar – of using them to capture more powerful enemy weapons.
The only “obsolete” weapon is the weapon that can no longer harm you. You have to work with what you have at hand. Thinking in advance is one of the keys to personal safety and survival.
The Freedomist — Keeping Watch, So You Don’t Have To
Additive Manufacturing – better known as “3D Printing” – has been increasing in popularity and capability, while decreasing in price, for the last thirty years. Today, many very capable printers can be had for well under US$500. The products produced range from simple objects to complex and detailed models, both of mechanical parts, as well as people. As well, 3D printing has begun to expand into using metals, which can be heated after printing to make the printed items strong enough for working applications.
Naturally, as soon as the technology’s capabilities reached a certain, ill-defined threshold, minds in many quarters began studying the possibility of military applications. While many do see “potential”, is that potential actually useful “downrange”?
Military forces have – obviously – changed significantly over the millennia. A soldier of Sargon the Great didn’t really require a great deal in the way of supplies, weapons or equipment. Indeed, in many cases, a soldier of Sargon may likely have been able to make much of their needed weapons and equipment on the spot, if they had the time and resources. All that really needed to be supplied to the soldier was food and water (for both troops and animals), and perhaps some large parts for siege engines.
As time and technology progressed, of course, weapons and equipment became increasingly specialized and difficult to manufacture. But, while troops could still forage for food and water, once the weapons were delivered, they were comparatively uncomplicated to both use and work on, should repairs be required in the field.
By the end of the 20th Century, of course, weapons, ammunition and much of the soldier’s equipment had advanced to the point where the vast majority of troops in all armies had only a nominal idea of how their weapons worked, let alone how to make or repair them.
These were all factors taken into account by those studying additive manufacturing for military purposes.
As is it possible, and relatively easy, to pack a “job shop” or three into shipping containers, along with some raw material stock and possibly parts blanks (although 2- and 3-D pictures, animations and mechanical drawings are far easier with digital reference libraries that can “live” on computers, or even on microfilm archives), making repair parts for many weapons and vehicles are not overly taxing for most units in the field. Plus, there are no questions concerning how strong or durable the field-manufactured parts are…after all, armies are some of the most conservative organizations in history. As a result, there are few specifically military applications, at present, where additive manufacturing can excel over conventional methods…
Mobile Machine Shop truck of the 741st Ord. Co., 41st Inf. Div., at Horanda, New Guinea, 1943. US Army Signal Corps Photo. Public Domain.
Inevitably, someone was going to make a firearm using additive manufacture. While the saga of Defense Distributed is too complicated to wade through here, the point is that – like Britain’s P.A. Luty before them – Defense Distributed proved that making firearms at home was not that complicated a process, if a person could obtain some very basic materials and tools.
Side-view of Defense Distributed ‘Liberator’ 3D-Printed hand-gun.
Now, both the “3-D Printed Gun” from Defense Distributed, as well as Luty’s 9mm submachine gun, were – being charitable – both crude, barely-usable weapons. While Luty’s design is occasionally manufactured by criminal gangs in parts of the world with very strict firearms laws, the fact of these weapons’ existence simply proves the points made by both Defense Distributed and P.A. Luty, that no matter how strictly a state tries to enforce restrictive gun control, people who want firearms will get them somehow, even if they have to make them. But, in the law enforcement and military spheres, 3-D firearms remained crude and barely usable, even if they were dangerous.
This all began to change in 2019, when the FCG-9 appeared, designed by a shadowy German-Kurdish anti-gun control activist known as “JStark1809” (who, incidentally, was tracked down in 2021, using financial transaction records; two days after a raid that found no weapons in his residence, the 28-year-old JStark1809 was found dead in his car of, according to the coroner, a “heart attack”).
Prototype of FGC-9 made by its designer, JStark1809. CCA/4.0
A photo of FGC-9 firearm unassembled components, included in original FGC-9 release files.
The FCG-9 is an altogether different 3-D animal, as it appeared in the hands of a dissident IRA splinter group in a parade during Easter of 2022 and – much more significantly – it is reportedly in use by anti-junta rebel groups in Myanmar, beginning in 2021. Being made of 3-D printed media, with a few steel parts for strength, the 9mm weapon is easy to mass-produce in guerrilla workshops, and is apparently far more reliable and useable than either Defense Distributed’s or Luty’s deisgns, further reinforcing the ridiculous nature of restrictive firearms laws.
Anti-junta rebels in Myanmar, armed with FCG-9 carbines. 2021-2022. Author unknown.
But…How useful is this technology to an army? Well, beyond the obvious utility for guerrilla forces, as mentioned above, the answer is ‘not much’. As also pointed out above, there are far cheaper and more conventional ways to manufacture spare parts for military-grade vehicles and weapons
The Freedomist — Keeping Watch, So You Don’t Have To
Inside the United States, people frequently talk about “exercising their rights”. Most often, this refers the freedom of speech, or the freedom of religion. The most vitriolic discussion of “rights”, however, is that of the right to own and possess “arms”, i.e., the rights of the Second Amendment to the Constitution:
While this is a pretty straightforward statement – for reasonable, rational and at least decently educated people – certain parties insist on hammering this sentence all out of proportion, to make it seem to mean the diametric opposite. In fact, the wholly unconstitutional (see Clauses 15 & 16) creation of the National Guard in 1903 allowed the “several States” to completely and deliberately ignore the maintenance, organization and training of “The Militia of the United States”, to the point of silently accepting the oxymoron of the concept of an “Unorganized Militia” (pages 230 & 231) – a ‘militia’, by definition, is a ‘military force’…which cannot be “unorganized”. This was coupled to a Supreme Court case, Illinois v. Presser (1886), which prevents citizens from forming militia units without the explicit approval of their state governors…and which, ironically, bans virtually all forms of restrictive “gun control” – but a lot of people aren’t ready for that discussion.
As a result, a “military class” has developed in US society, where a tiny percentage of the population volunteers for military service on a generational basis (this author being part of that class), while the vast majority of Americans have little to no contact with “things military,” beyond possibly knowing someone who enlisted or became a commissioned officer; video games don’t count. Coupled to the fact that a decreasing percentage of the US population neither hunts, target shoots nor sport shoots, most American firearms owners have little concept of guns in general, nor of what goes into “military training”.
While this is not the place to present a ‘full-court press’ for a plan of military training, this is certainly a venue for a brief explanation of what firearms Americans should own, in order to start exercising their Second Amendment rights properly.
The following are the views of the author, and not necessarily those of the Freedomist.
First, the Reader will need to carefully consider the laws of their state and locality of residence. While there are some websites that can help, the reader is strongly advised to check their state and local laws directly, to avoid confusion.
So – now that you’ve checked the state/local laws, what firearms should the you, the Reader, buy?
The next thing to understand is that firearms are expensive – there are plenty of firearms for sale as this article goes to press, which cost more than several cars this author has owned over the years. Just like buying a car, research the specific model of firearms you are thinking about purchasing, before you invest that kind of money in them.
And speaking of money, don’t spend more than about $1,200 on ANY firearm, unless you intend to become a professional sport shooter. Very few people in the world need a $2,000 firearm – what they need, is an $800 firearm, and $1,200 worth of training.
With those concerns addressed, let’s turn to ironmongery.
Every adult in the US who is not a professional shooter should own a number of firearms sufficient to cover the following five areas:
First, buy a handgun. There are plenty of cases where carrying a “long gun”, like a shotgun or a rifle, is simply too inconvenient. Handguns fill that gap. However, unlike movies and video games, handguns take comparatively more practice to master, and are nothing more than a “backup” weapon – in the words of a friend of this author, a handgun is what you use to shoot your way to something better. Handguns are also highly personalized: if you are not in the military, you currently have a wide variety of choices of frame. Visit a shooting range near you that will rent firearms for their in-house range, fire a magazine or two from multiple pistols, and see what you like – don’t let “experts” restrict your choice. Buy what works for you, and train with it.
Buy a firearm in “.22LR”. This can be either a handgun or a rifle. The .22LR is an old design of cartridge (see the image below), that remains in use because of its utility – it is almost the perfect cartridge for practice, small game hunting (like rabbits and squirrels), and just general “plinking”, because it is so lightweight and cheap.
Buy a shotgun, in either 12- or 20-gauge (shotgun gauges increase in size as the gauge number decreases, so a “12-gauge” is larger than a “20-gauge). Shotguns will handle somewhere around 75-80% of what you need a firearm for. While rather short ranged, it is great for home defense and hunting, when loaded with the appropriate ammunition. Shotguns are also some of the cheapest firearms you can legally buy, usually starting somewhere around $250 in most cases.
Buy a hunting riflesuitable for 4-legged varmints. Even if hunting is not your normal gig, the time may come where you need to hunt for food. That’s not being paranoid – that’s being prudent.
Buy a rifle sufficient for two-legged varmints. Yes – that means what you think it does. See #4, above, and consider the events of 2017-2021. You may think you are safe, now, but what happens if things really go sideways? If the statement, “That will never happen here” is rummaging around in your mind right now, why are you still thinking about this subject? Think about the safety of you and your loved ones, and act accordingly.
Now that we have addressed the five areas of firearms, the important takeaway is not necessarily that you need five separate weapons. That may be out of your price range. But, the thing about firearms is that, unless the firearm in question is highly specialized, you can get away with making one weapon cover multiple jobs. For example, a 12- or 20-gauge shotgun is fully capable of taking most game in North America up to the size of a deer, if you can get within 100 yards, and have the right ammunition. Because of the variety of shotgun ammunition (#4 Birdshot, “Double-Aught” [a.k.a., “00 Buckshot”], and Slug are the basic loads) out there, it will also work for hunting birds, as well as defending your home from an attacker. As well, any hunting rifle that can take a deer or a hog (Hogzilla is real…look it up) can also deal with a two-legged varmint – see #5, above.
How much ammunition should you have on hand? In general, 100 rounds per handgun, 100-200 rounds per shotgun, and 100-300 rounds for rifles should be more than sufficient. Note that there is nothing wrong with keeping more on hand, if you can afford it.
Cartridge comparison. CCA/4.0
But remember: You still need to trainwith your firearms. The absolute minimum should be putting at least 100 rounds ‘downrange’ per firearm, per year. If you can afford a professional training course, get that done. Working with a firearm is just like driving a car: it’s easy to learn, but you need to practice, as far as you are able.
It’s your life we’re talking about, after all…as well as those of your loved ones.
It has long been said that, “…the Pen is mightier than the Sword…” While that may be true, having that sword is far more profound and effective of a statement – words on a paper are only that: words on paper. Those words are much more effective, when backed up with a sword.
The Freedomist — Keeping Watch, So You Don’t Have To
There are very few machines in the world, today, that can claim to have been designed over a hundred years ago. There are some railroad engines, for example, that are still run as “living museums”, ferrying the curious around closed rail circuits, allowing modern riders to experience some of the feels and smells of bygone eras. In other places, there are hydroelectric dams that have changed little in the near-century since they were built; Hoover Dam comes to mind, as it nears its own century mark, with only minimal updates to its internal design.
Series of massive electrical generators beneath the Hoover Dam. CCA/4.0
This is equally true of firearms. The Browning Machine Gun, in both .30 and .50 calibers, and the Colt 1911 (also designed by John Moses Browning) all date from over a century ago, yet remain in both first- or second-line service around the world. The Mosin-Nagant rifle, and its 7.62x54mmR cartridge, in contrast, date all the way back to 1891, and while the Mosin rifle may no longer be in common service (aside from a few WW2-era examples turning up in Ukraine), the 7.62x54mmR remains the cartridge of choice for the PKMGPMG, one of the most widely deployed machine guns of the early 21st Century.
7.62 mm PKM machine gun used by Finnish military. 2012. Public Domain.
But one weapon stands apart from all of these: the Maxim Machine Gun.
Swiss Maxim Machine gun Model 1911, cal 7.5 mm. CCA/3.0
First invented in 1884 by an American inventory, Hiram Stevens Maxim, and first offered for sale in 1886, the Maxim Gun has been used in every part of the world, in virtually every conflict of note since that time. The Maxim was the first true “machine gun”, in the mechanical sense that we understand the term today. Unlike most machine guns of today, the Maxim is recoil-operated, meaning that it only uses the recoil impulse of the cartridge firing, to retract, extract, and eject spent cartridges, then chamber and fire a new cartridge. In contrast, most modern automatic weapons use some form of gas-operated piston – very similar to the piston in a car engine – to operate their cycle.
An Australian soldier manning a Vickers machine gun during the Korean War. Date Unknown. Public Domain.
Similarly, the Maxim typically use a large, cylindrical water jacket to cool and protect the barrel from the heat of firing, unlike modern weapons which rely on the flow of air and “quick-change” barrels to accomplish the same task. While very good at cooling barrels, the water jackets were very cumbersome, and prone to damage, both in and out of combat, which could cause catastrophic damage to the weapon if no immediately repaired.
With a cyclic rate of about 600 rounds per minute, the Maxim is – by modern standards – heavy, clunky, and awkward. As well, it is certainly nowhere near to modern standards of reliability in the field…and yet, the gun refuses to quietly disappear into a museum, because it continues to soldier on in the 21st Century.
Twin-mounted Maxim Guns with a modern optical sight. Ukraine. Author Unknown.
The Maxim was tweaked and fiddled with by every state operator who bought copies. But Maxim wasn’t done with his design: in the early 1890’s, he released a much larger version of his machine gun (YouTube link) that fired 37mm explosive shells, at a rate of c.300 rounds per minute, to about 4,500 yards. Versions of this “pom-pom gun” (so-called, because the sound it made while firing) would be used as secondary and tertiary armament on ships, as well as early anti-aircraft weapons, until the end of WW1.
U.S.S. Vixen, Maxim machine gun and gunner Smith. The gun appears to be a Maxim-Nordenfelt 37-mm 1-pounder autocannon, known to the British as a “pom-pom”. Public Domain.
British QF 1 pounder Mk II 37 mm “pom-pom” gun, World War I era, on display at the Imperial War Museum, London. CCA/2.0
The Maxim would be used as a frontline weapon through the war in Korea. By then, though, it was showing its age, as better materials and designs produced lighter, more reliable and more portable weapons. The surviving weapons, around the world, were mostly placed in storage…but the Maxim’s legacy continued: the PKM and its successor, the Pecheneg GPMG, both use ammunition belts that are backwards-compatible with the PM1910, the Imperial Russian version of Maxim’s design, dating from before WW1.
Photo of a 1910 Maxim Machine gun. CCA/4.0
But again – Maxim’s design refuses to gently go into that good night.
As the world exploded in the aftermath of the so-called “Arab Spring”, many citizen rebels and resistance fighters overran government armories, and found Maxim’s old guns in storage crates. Those guns were broken out and cleaned, training and maintenance manuals were sourced from online repositories, and the century-old weapons went back into action. They may no longer be the best guns available, but old and creaky guns are better that harsh words and rocks.
Captured German Maxim machine gun. Malard Wood, 9 August 1918. Imperial War Museums. Public Domain
Firearms – of all categories – are very recent additions to Mankind’s arsenal, as they have been effective combat tools for considerably less than 1,000 years. They are one of the most – if not themost – decisive “force multiplers” in human history. Learning about firearms makes no one “evil”, nor is it “glorifying” weapons – it makes them well informed and productive members of the societies…who should REALLY be wondering just whose side they are really on.
Don’t go gently into the night – because it may not be as gentle of a night as you think it to be.
Disclaimer: The following are the personal views of the author, alone, and do not necessarily represent the views of FreedomistMIA.
In the closing weeks of 2022, it is painfully evident to even the most disinterested observer that the United States is in the throes of the worst political turmoil in generations. Significant blocs have formed within the voting-age population with diametrically opposing political views, views that are for the most part completely disconnected from their perceived opponents. Meanwhile, the majority sits quietly in the middle, struggling with skyrocketing costs of living, while wishing the rest would just be quiet for a little while.
But the populace of the United States is not alone in these views. Around the world, citizens of many nations protest regularly – and sometimes violently – over the same, or much worse, problems as the American electorate: whether those be skyrocketing inflation caused by the staggering incompetence of a disconnect globalist elite, the very real fact of a lack of fuel as winter closes in on Europe, fears of a widening of the Russo-Ukrainian War, the never-ending war on terrorism, and many more.
In short – people around the developed world are frustrated, disappointed, alarmed and very angry at governments in general, and usually their own governments in particular. These facts are enhanced by clear perceptions of corruption and wrongdoing, whether warranted or not. Indeed, “government contract” is virtually a dog-whistle signaling likely corruption being in play.
While your humble author makes no pretension of formal political science education, I have been studying this problem for over almost two decades. The following are my own conclusions, based on my own experience and research.
The fundamental problems are two: Firstly, most people simply lack an understanding of political tidal forces because, secondly, they have never been taught how to think about them.
This is a deliberate policy, because doctrinal public education models and doctrines have for over a century focused not on training students to think critically, but to learn just enough to be useful in the workplace. Thus, when situations accrete together, as they have at the end of 2022, the population cannot understand what is happening, which increases discord exponentially.
In the current realm, the point of the following discussion is to clarify the role of “government” as a generic entity, without delving into political mud slinging.
At the heart of this discussion is a fundamental question: Which is superior – ‘the government’ or ‘the people’?
The idea that the Government is inherently superior to the People is a childish and ridiculous notion, unsupportable in either logic or reason, for the simple fact that governments cannot create themselves – they cannot self-organize. “The People”, however that entity can be described, must decide to institute a governing body to oversee those things that individuals cannot carry out on their own, and retain the right to remove it at will.
And yet, there is a pervasive and festering notion that “government” somehow trumps the body that created it.
This idea comes from a sense of overwhelming intimidation, which has been drummed into the population at large by a scientific community that focuses on the mere mechanical reality of the vastness of Nature and the Universe, while ignoring the far more stunning fact that Humankind is able to consider and act to enhance its knowledge of what it can observe around it.
To attempt a start at a remedy for this condition of “directed circumstance”, I will present the following as an aide to those trying to understand the functions of government. We will focus on “functions” of government, to avoid getting lost in measly and petty political minutiae.
In short, “Governments” have a few critical functions that cannot be easily accomplished by the individual citizen. These were the real reasons why the collectivist rubric of a ruling structure that existed separately from the populace that created it was formed, back to at least the Sumerians, and likely much farther back than that (YouTube link).
Governments, in fact, have precisely eight jobs, and ONLY eight – anything else is automatically suspect, because of the propensity for corruption – and even in these eight functions, below, corruption and mismanagement happen frequently:
Government deals with the barbarians across the river, so that the average Citizen doesn’t have to…Whether this means talking to them or killing them, is immaterial.
There is a pervasive attitude that the individual citizen is perfectly capable of defending themselves without a government to tax them in order to go fight eponymous ‘bad guys’. Since this has been dealt with previously, what I will say is, good luck with that artillery battery that’s in range of your house.
Government establishes uniform weights and measures, to attempt to cut down on graft, theft and corruption by their Citizens, and their friends and neighbors…However, “Caveat Emptor” still applies.
Pretty simple. The legal term “fungible” was coined to describe the nature of an undifferentiated mass of product.
Government establishes a common and uniform medium of exchange, for the same reasons as #2.
See #2. Governments work very hard to keep their currencies from being counterfeited, for reasons that should be obvious.
Government sees to the maintenance of certain lines of communication, so that no area becomes too isolated.
Look around your house – if you didn’t grow it or dig it, every single thing in your house came from somewhere else, and it came over a line of communication (a road, an airport, a railroad or a seaport) that is almost certainly not maintained by you…your tax dollars, however, pay the people who do maintain those lines.
Government enforces only those “mala prohibita” laws sufficient to maintain #’s 1 – 4, and ensures that “mala in se” crimes are adjudicated fairly.
You and a couple of buddies are not “law enforcement officers” – you’re a lynch mob. Careful legal processes exist to adjudicate cases fairly, both for the safety of the community as a whole, as well as for your safety…if that’s a difficult concept, look up “Robespierre”.
Government collects reasonable taxes to make 1 – 5 function properly.
People really get hung up over this. Everyone hates taxes; it’s a thing. But the secret, dirty little truth is, people are happy paying what they see as “reasonable” taxes, if they think that the Government is spending those taxes wisely…As pointed out above, however, many people around the world most definitely do not think that they taxes are being spent wisely.
Government ensures, as far as possible, equality of opportunity…never – ever – equality of outcome.
This is another sticking point that many are encouraged to ignore. Governments can only provide “equality of opportunity”. It cannot give things away “for free”, simply because Government is a net consumer, not a net producer, and never has been. If a government “gives” you something, the government took it from someone else, likely under threat of violence. Even in the days when troops were paid with loot from conquered enemies, the expenditures the Government incurs are never recouped for at least a century…and it is the Citizenry that bears the costs.
Government ensures that monopolies are limited and strictly controlled.
This is Government’s primary failure, especially in the modern day, simply because there is far too much temptation in the amounts of money and potential pot-government sinecures that large businesses can dangle at Government officials…which is a fancy way of saying that “money corrupts”.
Reread the above, as many times as you need to…Then, sit down and read or listen to Sun Tzu – he did the work for you, c.2,500 years ago. The least you could do, is read him for free.
The Freedomist — Keeping Watch, So You Don’t Have To
How the Media lies to the American People – and why that is more dangerous than you think…
As of mid-November of 2022, the American Electorate remains as divided as ever, if not more than at any time since the Civil War. The “mainstream media” continually highlights the chaos of the recent mid-term elections, appearing to inadvertently present the truth of a lie, while trying to ‘spin’ those facts to represent their diametric opposite. Simultaneously, the same body ‘amps up’ hysteria over social media giant Twitter’s impending demise, despite its record growth since being bought out by billionaire businessman Elon Musk, while partisan senators threaten a private business if Musk refuses to bow to their will, regardless of the legality of their claims and threats.
Along with these “amplifications,” the mainstream media leaves unspoken the greater fear: the silence of the armed American public. In a word, America is “too” quiet: in many other countries, actual armed rebellion would have already broken out…but not within the United States. And yet…a quiet, yet palpable tension is building; whispers of a call to arms from a once quiet “American Street” are slowly beginning to grow louder. This is not a potential that should be ignored – unlike most countries in the world, the population of the United States is among the most well-armed in history; the closest analogies in recent times are Yugoslavia and Rwanda.
Let that sink in.
What the media is not talking about, what it is diligently avoiding talking about at all costs, are the massive protests around the world, protests rivaled only by the Russo-Ukrainian War in their potential to destabilize – if not potentially overthrow – the current world order.
In Brazil, the United States’ closest analog in the Western Hemisphere, tens of thousands of protesters have been marching across the country in protest for nearly two weeks over the razor-thin defeat – well within the margins of error – of right-wing President Jair Bolsonaro by disgraced left-wing former President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva. Many of these protesters are calling on the Brazilian Armed Forces to intervene to keep Bolsonaro – who has not conceded defeat – in office, claiming that the elections were rigged. The calls for the military to intervene in the country’s political process are not to be taken lightly – the Brazilian military has done so in the past – four times, in fact – sometimes lasting decades. Such an economic destabilization would threaten a US$280billion export market, at a time when global supply chains have not recovered from the jackhammer blows of Covid-19 and the logjams caused by the grounding of the massive container ship MV Ever Given.
But, if Brazil and the Russo-Ukrainian War (as well as the many ongoing terrorist campaigns and guerrilla wars around the world) were the only issues at hand, those would present only minor disruptions to the world. However, this is very much not the case.
The populations of the “Western World” are extremely unhappy as many, if not most, nations identified as “Western” are seemingly making insanely self-destructive policy decisions, attempting to conform to the pronouncements of the World Economic Forum (WEF). The WEF, founded by German engineer and economist Professor Klaus Schwab, is a self-appointed, international organization of lobbyists who promote the concept of “The Great Reset” and a reformation of the social contract, concepts that are wholly and completely embraced by the administration of Joe Biden. Schwab has alluded to promoting ideas of forcing people to accept controversial Covid-19 vaccines (YouTube link), despite their highly questionable efficacy versus side effects. Criticisms of the WEF are rampant, not least because it is, colloquially speaking, about as transparent as a granite block. One of its main criticisms is the formation of a detached elite, believing themselves to have no national loyalty whatsoever, with some observers going so far as to describe them as a “mafiocracy” of bankers, industrialists, oligarchs, technocrats and politicians.
As a result, it should not be surprising that such detached views lead to the promotion of insane policies by adherent of this hydra that are embedded in national governments to whom they hold to no loyalty. As a result, tens of thousands of Germans are protesting over being forced to turn to firewood as a frigid winter begins to take shape; Frenchmen and Italians march in the tens of thousands against the skyrocketing cost of living in those nations; and many worry that increasing tensions between Greece and Turkey could erupt into an actual shooting war.
Likewise, these economic woes are being exacerbated by government’s toadying to the shrill demands of the globalist “climate change” movement, demanding that draconian climate controls be enforced, regardless of the fact that not a single proposal for alternative energy production such groups have advanced has proven to be in any way viable.
A quick perusal of the sources of the above sources show that the latest substantive results do not come from “first reference” news sources. There are plenty of international news agencies around the world that are outside the mainstream, yet that present quality reporting…Not that you, the Reader, are going to see their stories carried by mainstream outlets. You have to go looking for them.
And that is the point.
There is a war going on, a war – if a certain dramatic license can be allowed – over your minds and bodies. You, personally, as well as your families, are the product and the goal of bodies like the WEF.
But, it is not simply the West that is being battered by the whims of detached billionaires thinking that they can play at being God. In fact, the ongoing low-key holocaust in Africa is also playing its part. The endemic interference – both by First World states and corporations – which keeps generational quarrels oozing blood is contributing to a building tension across the continent, a tension that if it snaps on its own will rival the consequences of the United States “cutting loose.”
The danger lies not in the “Snap” itself. Tensions happen in societies all throughout history. The problem lies in the deliberate nature of forcing ever-increasing tension on a structure that was already stretched to its limits. “Just in time delivery” and “offshore outsourcing” proved economically profitable for the globalist ideal – if catastrophic to local economies – but its cultic devotion to economic efficiency and profitability left the world’s economy unusually vulnerable to supply chain disruption, as was amply demonstrated in 2020-2021. The response of the WEF-elite, however, was not to pause and rethink their strategy. Instead, the WEF and its adherents in various governments have continued to push their agendas forward, despite the wider dangers that are being revealed.
Historians, archaeologists and anthropologists have wondered for decades about a period known as the “Late Bronze Age Collapse”, a period of about 300 years, beginning in c.1100BC, where the advanced civilizations of the Eastern Mediterranean seemed to implode and collapse. Dr. Eric Cline, PhD has described this event as a “systems collapse”, where a highly interconnected system vulnerable to a combination of threats – each individually insignificant, but collectively devastating – collapsed completely (YouTube link), not in a period of centuries, but in a period of one or two decades, at most…in a time when it could take weeks to cross the Mediterranean.
It is a truism, that the speed of communications – via faster ships, aircraft and the internet – have made the world smaller and faster. This being so, when detached, elitist billionaires play with a house of cards that they do not understand, they will not be the only ones who pay the price.
You will.
The Freedomist — Keeping Watch, So You Don’t Have To
Central Europe lies in ruins, smoldering. Cities have been reduced to rubble. Entire urban populations have been massacred, displaced and raped; many survivors cower in hiding in forests, to avoid roving gangs of bandits. Famine and epidemics kill more of the survivors on a daily basis. Armed bands – the “armies” evaporated long ago – meander, too tired to loot and pillage, seeking to provide security in trade for food and shelter.
Thirty percent of the German population is dead. No one is sure how many others have met an untimely demise…
The preceding is not a work of post-apocalyptic fiction. And while it is history, it is neither the aftermath of either “world war”. This was the year 1645 A.D., the end of the Thirty Years War – a war that killed more people, both directly from physical attacks and from the side effects of war, than any event in Europe since the Black Death of the 14th Century. So ruinous and destructive was this war that the surviving rulers of Europe realized that something had to change.
The war had begun as just another petty squabble between even pettier aristocrats, claiming the sanctity of religion as their excuse. But those petty aristocrats had feudal overlords, and when they found themselves in far over their heads, they screamed to their somewhat exasperated overlords for help. And those overlords – who had to keep up appearances – moved to support their minions, the better to display their loyalty to their followers, and maybe grab some advantage over their churlish neighbors.
The reason they were in over their heads, was largely due to a democratization of technology: the first wisps of the Industrial Revolution had begun to waft through Europe, and allowed a resurgence of industrial-scale production of weapons and their accouterments, as well as systematized regimens of food production and storage, allowing a freedom of military action that had been rarely seen in Europe during the preceding five hundred years. This allowed small feudal aristocrats, and even many towns and cities, to equip small “pocket armies” with the latest military hardware.
All of that fed into an ever-increasing spiral of war, where most armies were more or less evenly matched, and the result of battles depended more on the character and skill of the commanders than anything else. Troops largely fought for whatever side paid them on time…and when promised cash was not forthcoming, looting, pillage, torture and murder were the order of the day.
The result was slaughter on a scale not seen again for nearly two hundred years, with the rise of the “popular army” of Revolutionary France, brought to its ultimate expression by Napoleon Bonaparte.
The Thirty Years War was ended by a treaty, signed at Westphalia, in modern-day Osnabrück and Münster, in 1648. One of the key aspects of the Treaty of Westphalia, was to establish what has come to be known as the concept of “Westphalian sovereignty”, or “state sovereignty”, the principle in international law that each state has exclusive sovereignty over its declared territories, and the understanding that other states will not interfere in the internal affairs of other sovereign nations, as outlined by the SwissjuristEmer de Vattel. It also formed the concept of ‘nation-state sovereignty‘ as being based on a defined physical territory.
While it is certainly true that nation-states since the Treaty have committed terrible crimes, it can be argued that Westphalia has tempered more war than it has encouraged.
However, as they say, “The times, they are a-changin’“…
Contingent Sovereignty rationalizes (the idea is not codified in international law) the idea that a duty exists for other states to intervene in the internal/domestic affairs of an otherwise-sovereign state, if that state is “failing”, cannot protect its citizens, and/or is actively making war on its own citizens, thus invoking the principle of a responsibility to protect that nation’s citizens by external states.
While a seemingly noble idea on its surface, the opening for abuse should be plainly apparent: Contingent Sovereignty is a concept aimed at legitimizing neo-colonialism and neo-imperialism, imposed at bayonet-point by wealthy nations on countries too weak to resist, despite the widespread availability of affordable and equalizing armaments.
What the states of the Developed World have failed to realize, is that this sword cuts both ways: as many First World countries seem to be descending into political, economic and social chaos – at least, according to the popular press – as their internal blocs seem to be deliberately devouring their own economies and societies, less economically developed countries – but, countries with a surplus of manpower and cheap weapons – stare at them, remembering that their own states were created by colonial fiat, Contingent Sovereignty gives those “lesser” states all the authority they need to move en masse against the Developed World, making invasions “all nice and legal,” as the saying goes.
And, lest anyone think that this is not a possible fate for many “First World” nations, it must be pointed out that sufficient training and equipment has been provided to many Third World nations to allow them to at least ponder the idea.
All those states need, is a unifying figurehead, in effect, a 21st Century Napoleon Bonaparte.
And, as Napoleon himself is reported to have said, “A revolution is an idea which has found its bayonets.”
The Freedomist — Keeping Watch, So You Don’t Have To
Back FREEDOM for only $4.95/month and help the Freedomist to fight the ongoing war on liberty and defeat the establishment's SHILL press!!
Are you enjoying our content? Help support our mission to reach every American with a message of freedom through virtue, liberty, and independence! Support our team of dedicated freedom builders for as little as $4.95/month! Back the Freedomist now! Click here
