When they marched into Belgium in 1914, the BEF was the best trained and equipped group of soldiers on the European Continent.
Mad Minute, the Angels of Mons, and so on and so on [zizeksniff]
Mainly Europeans are too busy sipping overpriced wine and doing each other up the ass to become proper soldiers.
Glad to see 100 years later nothing has changed
The best part about Karl being a petty and catty bitch is that it's 300% his own fucking fault for creating that rift, and he did it for absolutely no good reason or purpose. This histrionic idiot never once stopped to consider if his actions had any part in this, and that maybe his actions were ridiculously irresponsible and pointless.
They did have the Webley revolver, which was fast to reload, chambered in the powerful 455 webley, and told mud to go fuck itself, which in WW1, I'm just saying man, I want something a bit more time tested, especially before they got to the 1911. Ian did many videos on all their variants too.
lol the proof loads of .455 Webley are the same pressure as .45 ACP. The Webley was a great revolver, for 1890. By WWI all revolvers were bitch slapped by the Luger and 1911. Which doesn't matter because pistols are pretty much useless in actual combat unless you're Alvin York.
The luger was good yes. But you could easily be issued a Ruby pistol as well. And fuck me if you were Japanese and got a Nambu in that 8mm weakass shit. I'm just saying there were worse things you could get. And while pistol combat wasn't the most common, it did happen. If I was in early war, on the Allied side, personally I'd just want a Webley, its proven, reliable, the manual of arms is well known, but I am also a revolver guy as well. Now on the opposing, give me that sweet luger baby over that Reichrevolver any day of the week.
If pistols actually were pretty much useless in combat, I highly doubt every military worth a single shit for the last century would be so interested in issuing pistols to their soldiers. Yes, they're not useful the majority of the time, but when you need a sidearm during combat, I imagine you very, very much need a sidearm. Of course, I've never been in combat and I am not a military buff, but I can't imagine serious militaries wasting money and materiel on pistols if they were actually that useless.
They aren't totally useless, just almost useless. Look up the study the US did after WWII on the kills of each firearm type and pistols were responsible for a fraction of a percent. Combat isn't fucking CoD with soldiers switching to their sidearms instead of reloading.
Heck look at the US, everyone in the military is getting the Sig now, which has MANY videos on it (Garand Thumb's is pretty good). Sometimes close combat just happens, and your rifle is inconvenient because you're in a building, or in WW1, a trench. Its also good for aircrews and pilots since it's so light
They were low but not non existent. They have their uses, such as guards, urban combat, officers, etc. Hell look at Iraq, pistol use went way up because of how many buildings they were breaching.
I think you're fixating on combat and killing a little too much, when there's a lot more that goes into military tactics and logistics than just pure combat. Just having an armed soldier is a massive deterrent, and ensuring that your soldiers always has a sidearm strapped to their side is going to keep your soldier much more safe than one who is totally vulnerable to anyone with a Saturday Night Special. Also, suppressive fire is very valuable, and having a soldier that is able to send rounds at the enemy is much better than one who is cowering with his dick in his hand, even if he never hits anyone, let alone kills them.
