It's a variation on the "Short, Victorious War" mistake, isn't it?
]]>You can add well over a hundred examples where the USA sent in the Marines to get a first mover advantage. Though usually there were incidents to prompt it, like incidents of civil disorder in which US citizens were hurt or could have been hurt.
Usually things worked out quickly enough that Americans hardly noticed. Sometimes it was harder, and for a few like Vietnam no amount of effort got a result they considered adequate.
]]>The first person to pull out a gun and point it at the other guy has a big advantage. When the other guy's gun is pointing at you, if your own gun isn't already in your hand it might as well be on the moon for all the good it does you.
And of course the first to shoot has a giant advantage.
They might later need to explain it, but the people who carry guns figure they'd rather deal with a trial than get shot.
I haven't had guns pointed at me very often, but in my limited experience if they haven't already shot you then your bargaining position is better than you'd think.
If there are impartial witnesses who can identify the gunman, you might possibly do the following:
It's psychologically harder to shoot somebody in the back while they're walking away. And it's mostly legally indefensible, for what that's worth.
I've never seen anybody anywhere recommend doing this.
]]>Note: The equivalent of catching your enemy whilst he was deploying, which was one of Fredrick the Great's favourite tricks, wasn't it?
]]>This sort of thing depends heavily on whose propaganda you listen to. Egypt was making a big splash for their own internal propaganda, saying what their people wanted to hear but not saying anything like that to the world. Israel publicized Egyptian domestic news. Going by what they did as opposed to what they said, Nasser lied to his own people all the time and it wasn't much indication that he intended war. He did make some troop movements into Sinai but not nearly enough.
Israeli propaganda also points out that Nasser had closed the Suez canal and the strait of Tiran to Israeli shipping which they said was an act of war, so Egupt had no reason not to expect a surprise attack. Neither nation had declared war, but because the canal was closed they were at war.
""Mossad" (or whoever) had determined when they were going to strike & jumped he gun by (IIRC) about 36 hours"
That's the Israeli propaganda. Hard to be sure who to believe. Neither side tells the truth much.
"Not so sure about '73 - didn't the Egyptians actually strike first, that time - can't remember."
Yes. What happened was Egypt and Syria wanted to have peace negotiations. But Israeli officials told the media that arabs couldn't fight so there was nothing to gain by talking about peace with them. Israel did not need peace.
So when Israel refused to discuss peace, Sadat announced there would be war. He said that 1972 would be the year of decision. Only he never attacked in 1972. The Israelis laughed at him.
A couple of times he mobilized his army and the Israelis mobilized theirs. Then he didn't attack. Israel had nothing to gain by crossing the canal and fighting the egyptians west of sinai, so when Sadat demobilized they did too.
The third time he did that they didn't bother to mobilize because they wanted to save on expense. Then he did a surprise attack that they were utterly unprepared for, one that he had announced more than a year ahead of time.
]]>Not necessarily. There was an instance that is recorded in one of my Dead Tree Books in which a police officer empties his revolver at an attacking knife wielder and misses every time whilst the knife man doesn't ..miss that is.
Damn can’t find that book! Not to worry, I'll just feed " pistol against knife " into Google, and, oh wot the hell this will do ..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cGzeyO3pGzw
Gunmen/Gunpersons routinely train by killing the ever so deadly Paper Target that is imprinted with an attacking Bad Guy. Real combat on the street or in a confined space is rather different. Note that the gunman in the video clip is not wearing his pistol underneath a jacket that he has to sweep aside before he can draw his weapon.
Damn ..where did I put that book?
Not to worry I think that the point is that It all depends on situation and training ...
]]>I'm sure there's lots of assumptions and so on (like you actually hit them and kill them first time with the knife, that you're aware of the shooter and able to move freely before the first shoot and so on) and I wonder just how much evidence they have to base it on.
OTOH armies around the world still teach bayonet drill. I assume it's not just for aggression training but that at various points troops around the world still fit bayonets and stick them in people. Maybe not an everyday occurrence any more, but it's still used enough to be taught.
]]>If they are actually ready to shoot you, and they are pointing a gun at you when you make your first quick movement, you will probably get shot. The first one to pull out a gun and aim it has a great big advantage.
Since we're fantasizing about this stuff, I figure if you have a knife and the other guy has a gun aimed at you and he's inevitably going to kill you if you do nothing, then you have little to lose by rushing him and trying to kill him first. There's a chance he'll be so startled he won't shoot at all, though that's less likely if he's inevitably going to kill you.
My problem with this fantasy is that if he's inevitably going to kill you, why hasn't he already shot you? The evidence is that he doesn't want to shoot you right now, because he hasn't. If he's a mafia hitman who wants to intimidate you into going somewhere lonely where he'll shoot you, that's a problem. But usually when people point guns at you you can listen your way out of getting shot. Do you really want to kill him? Enough to risk getting killed?
US statistics claim that somewhere close to 3 million times a year gun owners believe they prevent violence by pulling a gun on somebody. But the total number of gun deaths per year is only around 30,000. That tells me that better than 98% of the time when somebody points a gun at you, you will not be killed.
It's a tremendous rush to point a gun at somebody. Imagine you're in a confrontation, they're angry, they raise their voice, it looks like they might get violent. You point a gun at them and all of a sudden they freeze. Then they start talking placatingly, calmly, like they think you're a dangerous lunatic or something. Talk about immediate reward! You'll probably be telling your friends about all the details for a week. You used your gun to prevent violence. You'll probably look for opportunities to do it again. There are something like 10 million Americans with concealed carry permits and by their own estimate on average they do it only once every few years. Admirable restraint.
But I digress. We were talking about first-mover advantage. The first person to pull out a gun and point it, has a big advantage. The first person to shoot also has a big advantage. It doesn't necessarily mean they will be the survivor, but they have a big first-mover advantage.
]]>Hi Sparks :)
Agreed with most of that, although my experience of airports has been almost universally positive (barring the time BA managed to lose my ammunition and bolt for almost 24 hours).
Martin (PS it was Jon who asked :) )
]]>Although other units did deliver bayonet charges in that conflict, the marines included. Just not at Goose Green as I understand it.
]]>Nope.
Standard practice is to assault a position with bayonets fixed, but that's not a "bayonet charge" (think Camerone as commemorated by the Legion Etrangere) no matter what Wikipedia says :)
Fixing bayonets is sensible practise - relying on them for anything other than immediate action while reloading is lunacy.
]]>