Military History Books & Magazines

And why not, Martin!

 

Anyone interested in the history of the International Committee of the Red Cross would do worse than to read these books-volumes 2 & 1 respectively of an official history.
From Sarajevo to Hiroshima: History of the International Committee of the Red Cross: Amazon.co.uk: Andre Durand: Books

From Solferino to Tsushima: History of the International Committee of the Red Cross: Amazon.co.uk: Pierre Boissier: Books

Although they only cover to around 1953, they give a wealth of information on the uphill struggle faced by the organisation to guarantee rights to those taken prisoner or made refugees by war.

 

"Recording Memories from Political Conflict: a film-makers journey’ by Cahal
McLaughlin
Intellect Books, Bristol, 2010
ISBN 9781841503011 £19.95 pbk

Based on work the author has carried out with survivor groups in Northern
Ireland and South Africa, Recording Memories from Political Violence
combines written and audiovisual texts to describe and analyze the use of
documentary film-making in recording experiences of political conflict. A
variety of issues relevant to the genre are addressed at length, including
the importance of ethics in the collaboration between the film-maker and the
participant and the effect of location on the accounts of participants.
McLaughlin draws on the diverse fields of film and cultural studies, as well
as nearly twenty years of production experience, in this informed and
instructive contribution to documentary film-making and post-conflict
studies.
Intellect Books and University of Chicago Press
c.mclaughlin2@ulster.ac.uk"

 

While not exactly books, there are many interesting and historical documents in this collection-
Historical Sources

 

“The World’s Assault Rifles”: Best and Most Complete Book on Military Infantry Assault Rifles (and Battle Rifles) Ever Written? DefenseReview (DR) Highly Recommends It!

 

I wouldnt trust my life to a M4/16...

 

Can't pretend to be an expert on the subject, but it looks a great book.

 

The M4 depends upon what it's being used for, but the M16A2 and A4 versions are as good or better than any battle rifle currently being fielded.

 

I just personally like battle rifles I like the punch they have and extra firepower never hurts.

 

Looks like a good book surely something to consider looking into.

i don't think it really matters what weapon people field, it isn't the weapon after all that wins the battle it is the experience and skill of the men involved, this is clear all thought history.

 

looks good, I have this book, I don't know how it compares..

 

I have one called 'small arms of history' which lists about 1500 small armed weapons from the Boer war all the way to modern weapons. It is certainly full of plenty of information but it is not as indepth as some other books but is definitely a good starting point for research.

 

Nothing wrong with having a personal preference, I also prefer the .308 (7.62x51 NATO) or .30-06 round.
As for punch, yes the bigger round is better. Firepower is, however, another issue, one of the reasons for adopting the 5.56 was the ability to carry an increased ammo load, and reduced recoil, therefore greater accuracy. More small caliber rounds sent accurately downrange is more firepower than fewer larger caliber rounds. There is a point where the number of rounds fired becomes superfluous and wasteful, unless you're trying to supress a target and that's where your machineguns and squad automatic weapons come in. Both the A2 and A4 version of the M16 (and original M4) use a three round burst vs fully auto for this reason, a good feature. If you're a spray and pray type, fully auto is the way to go but, if you're a rifleman the three round burst is sufficient in most cases. As an aside machinegunners are trained to fire in 3-5 round bursts to conserve ammunition and reduce barrel overheating.
The M4 was initially designed for use by troops where a full size rifle was awkward (example: vehicle mounted troops) or for those that would normally be issued a pistol as their personal weapon. The A1 version substituted full auto for three round burst. The U.S. Army for some reason decided to adopt it service wide and for engagements in the 200-300 yard range it is a decent weapon, though it is less reliable than the full size rifle due to modifications to the gas system and greater overheating problems because of the shortened barrel and modified gas system. The shortened barrel/gas system also leads to additional fouling in the reciever because of incompletely burned propellents. Out past 300 yards accuracy and penetration drop off because of the short barrel. The full size rifle barrel is 20" vs 14.5" in the carbine. That extra 38% barrel length allows the propellent to exert energy upon the projectile for a greater period of time and impart additional spin, therefore increasing range and accuracy. The U.S. Army has attempted to alleviate some of the problem with the new 855A1 cartridge that was intended to optimize the M4, it also improves performance in the full size rifle. (The Marine Corps adopted the MK318 Mod 0 SOST round for increased performance. But will probably transition to the M855A1 since this round actually has better performance than the 7.62 x 51 in many areas, including penetration.)

So basically, the M16A4 firing the M855A1 or MK318 Mod 0 will be just as accurate, have similar or better penetration and killing power as a battle rifle firing the 7.62 x 51. You'll have comparable performance against point targets and 80% of the maximum range against area targets. You will also have comparable or better dependability.

 

Well, when I think 'assault rifle', I think.....

'
'

 

Show off!

 

In many instances it does matter. However, the two factors are closely intertwined, and really have to be taken together (soldier and weapon) as a whole. For instance, if I had poorly trained soldiers, insurgents, militia etc. with minimal training I'd go with the AK-47. It's robust, cleaning and maintenance are less critical and because marksmanship training will be rudimentary or non-existant it is unlikely that the majority of the troops would be able to make use of the additional range and accuracy that an M16A4 has. In the hands of disciplined troops with good marksmanship training the M16A4 can effectively engage an opponent at effectively double the range of the AK-47. A big advantage, especially if numbers are not on your side. Disciplined troops will care for their weapons and equipment so maintenance is not an issue because it will be done.

Also many battles are near run things, when the fight reaches a critical point, it doesn't take a lot to tip the scales of victory to one side over the other.
"it is the experience and skill of the men involved" This is true all other factors being equal. There are many times down through history when numbers or terrain or other factors, not the least of which was a less effective weapon, trumped skill and experience.

This portion of the Marine Corps Rifleman's Creed pretty much sums it up.
Without me my rifle is useless. Without my rifle, I am useless. I must fire my rifle true. I must shoot straighter than the enemy who is trying to kill me. I must shoot him before he shoots me. I will.

 

A very, very, nice weapon!!!

 

Me, too! The granddaddy of them all . . . . . .

 

Excellent response mate.

 

Thank you for the compliment sir! It means alot coming from you.
Bob