Should soldiers be train using traditional weapons such as sword?
In many country's army, been trained in traditional weapon and as an old fashion army, is just as important as a modern one. In WW2 for example, China struggle to have enough ammo, for soldiers, as a result, per infantry team, got 1 rifleman and 2 swordsman and try force Japanese into melee combat. My dad who served in the army during the 70s told me, the fire power of a modern infantry platoon, is still less then a bronze age battalion, but u can take down many of them, before they kick ur ass.
I don't think swords are really necessary, but there is still bayonet training. I think swords are less effective due to materials used nowadays, but bayonets are more stabbing, and can punch through a bit more. Also, attached to the rifle they still have a pretty good reach, and are fairly simple in technique to learn.
Oddly enough, my first ever hub is about the Marine Dress Sword. Its all ceremonial though, but it is still classified as a weapon.
Good point, my concern is ammo lacking army, in past, such infantry use broad swords as substitution, eg WW2 China, Afgahn soldiers of 70s Afghan Soviet war. modern New Zealand army lack ammo so much (budge cut), they got none even for training.
by peter5657 months ago
What are the best trained soldiers in history?No matter how good your army's technology is, the training of the soldiers is just as important, for example the Zulu and Apache despite been technological significantly...
by alexandriaruthk4 years ago
Pros and cons of allowing women in combat?or should women be allowed in combat?
Copyright © 2018 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.