Do modern armies need handguns?

>>34607361
no, thats why we give them rifles

>>34607361

Maybe for machine gunners and marksmen who get caught in "oh shit" moments on the rare occasion. Otherwise no.

>>34607361
>need

for officers to shoot the cowards

for pilots to kill themselves to avoid being burned alive

>>34607677
Yes, need. It's a matter of economics. Armies are extremely expensive. I know America is used to having a bottomless pit of taxpayer money to squander, but that's going to change as the federal debt gets higher and higher and entitlements swallow a larger and larger proportion of the budget.

Only if they aren't willing to replace handguns with more expensive options. They serve a smaller role but having a gun that fits in your hand is really useful for some units.

>>34607813
>Implying there will ever be an end to the debt spending, bailouts, and taxes.

>>34607709
>pilots
A good reason to keep making service smgs

>>34607866
Yes, there will be. The US has already had one credit downgrade, and there will be more. Evntually, it will get harder and harder to get public credit. You can only raise taxes so much. Somebody has to pay for all that. As the average age gets higher and higher, retirees will take up so much of the budget that little is left to waste on things like pistols for soldiers.

>>34607911
yeah he can also open the cockpit and strafe the target if he runs out of bombs
pure genius

File: 1476732749109.png (428KB, 558x744px) Image search: [Google]

428KB, 558x744px

>>34608166

>>34607361
Infantry? No

MPs and SOF? Yes.

>need

SHALL

>>34608166
tfw the beginning of ww1 style air combat with pilots manually dropping grenades, shooting each other with pistols and even taking a knife into the flight hoping to cut a blimp is never again

>>34607361
You never need a handgun until you really need one

>>34607361
I'd rather we dial back on the niggbucks before deciding that buying some handguns every couple decades is too expensive.

>>34609185
If you're on the field of battle and need to use your sidearm you are more than likely fucked.

File: drive_me_closer_by_dirkloechel-d3axsog[1].jpg (254KB, 750x574px) Image search: [Google]

254KB, 750x574px

>>34608707
>warfare v0.1 has no place nowada-

>>34609247
You'd be way more fucked without a handgun.

>>34608707
My favorite was the flechettes. Nothing like dropping a box of steel darts onto enemy lines while flying overhead with the wind in your face.

File: Lazy Dog darts.jpg (184KB, 1280x960px) Image search: [Google]

184KB, 1280x960px

>>34609362
Well at least those came back for WWII through Vietnam

>>34609530
No shit? That's great, I never knew. They scaled it up quite well, from the pilot just having a box to dump over the side.

>>34607361
Yes, fuck carrying a rifle around when you spend most of the day running in and out of a tent. Fucker gets in the way all the time.

>>34609285
Precisely the point

>>34607384
>Maybe for machine gunners and marksmen who get caught in "oh shit" moments on the rare occasion. Otherwise no.

Probably more return on investment to just concentrate on maintaining a system of warfare that keeps those "oh shit" moments rare.

>>34607361
Not really, a carbine is vastly more useful in almost any situation outside of a game of twister. Officers, senior NCOs, and MPs should be permitted to carry them if they want to, but should have to but it with their own money and bring their own ammo (though they could choose what they carry).

>>34607361
Two is one and one is none.

>>34609247
>why need it if there is only a 4% chance itll be useful

that is the whole point of carrying numb nuts in case of the 4%

>>34610581
>MPs should be permitted to carry them if they want to, but should have to but it with their own money and bring their own ammo (though they could choose what they carry).


you are retarded upholding law order and good discipline is different from shooting at jihadis dumbass


a side arm will suffice if you need to got Sgt dumbasses house for a domestic and he tries to stab you with a knife

>>34607813
>>34607866
>>34607939
We'll never pay the debt. Trump will do his best to stop it getting worse, but he only has so much power. Eventually we'll end up going to war over the debt, either to kill everyone we owe money to, or because they're all trying to kill us.

>>34607361
In 50 years do you think our grandchildren will be debating if modern armies need rifles?

>>34610733
They'll eventually just run out of people to borrow money from, and that will be the end of it.