Do infantry small arms matter?

I wondered how much infantry weapons really matter in modern warfare. What would be the most primitive small arm we could equip the infantry with and still remain at competetive combat strengh. Ordnance as big as a .50cal MGs and up, grenades, RPGs etc. are still good, its all about the bullet shooting stick grunts carry. Do we at least need WW1 or 2 era guns, is gunpowder mandatory or could we regress all the way back to pic related?

Attached: 313.jpg (1800x283, 38K)

Only matters so long as you have a rough equivalent to your enemy's tactical capability.

Dropping the Garand was a mistake.

Yeah, you can't be dropping your rifle, user.

1947 is as far as you can go back

Attached: akms_and_ak-47_dd-st-85-01270.jpg (1486x975, 215K)

Not taking the 267 Pederson for the garand was a mistake

Well, the worse your own infantry is, the more you have to adjust your other arms and your tactics to make up for it. If your enemy knows how to use terrain and infiltration tactics, that could be quite punishing.
It also involves training, skill and leadership of the inferior force. I am reminded of the way japanese or german WW2 forces with their bolt action rifles, MGs and SMGs fought superior armed americans. The japs especially did poorly when they employed poor tactics, but posed quite a problem at iwo jima. Likewise, the germans generally held their own infantry wise... or rather, they found the discrepancy in infantry arms the smallest of their problems. So inferior weaponry can be compensated with tactics, to a certain degree.

>What would be the most primitive small arm we could equip the infantry with and still remain at competetive combat strengh.
M16A1. Going back any further than that would be laughable.

It seems that small arms are the future of warfare
Big vehicles seem to get fucked up quite frequently in modern fights
The future is probably drones, spec ops, and artillery. But small arms is still a big part of that. I don't think we'll see tank on tank battles when some mongoloid with a road side bomb or rocket can disable them without spending millions of dollars on equipment.
Maybe if we got into it with a dictatorship but for insurgents it's more cost effective to send in small teams and rely on air

>276 pederson Garand
>detachable box magazine
>pistol grip and folding stock
The rifle that should’ve won the Cold War.

Remember that even with hyper advanced technologies and munitions you still need people on foot to take and hold positions. Imagine WW1 era equipment on US marines in Fallujah while the enemy has AKs and all that. Or the cases of close (300m or less) ambushes in Afghanistan where they have 1917 Lee Enfields and M1911 and maybe a BAR or two and they have AKs and Dshkas and so on.

No earlier than WW2, really. If you don't limit it to just US equipment (but also exclude the STG because that'd be faggot cheating) then you'd have GPMGs, LMGs, semi-automatic rifles and submachineguns. For that hypothetical Fallujah situation you could probably have done as well if marines had PPSH/Mp40/Grease Gun and MG42/MG34/Bren Gun/that Czech one/M1919A6/Johnson LMG and Garands/Johnson Rifles/SVTs/ect.

Semi-auto and and at least a 5 round mag or 5 round clip, meaning M1 Garand would qualify but not a bolt action.
For pistol - most semi-auto pistols that are reliable and easy to reload meaning no revolvers meaning M1911 would qualify.
For snipers, long range bolt actions are good enough but it is much more better to have a semi-auto rifle meaning any bolt action with a nice accuracy range is good enough.

the first category (the semi-auto and at least a 5 rounder mag or 5 rounder clip) is for the standard issue rifle.

most accurate post

id say the farthest back you can go is 1911, when the best pistol was created, the M1911
for main rifles though, probbably WW2

Attached: 300px-M1911A1.png (300x188, 64K)

Why? Sturmgewehr would be fine as a modern rifle. Not great, but AK competitive. So 1943 if you want modern assault rifles. Earlier if you'll take "missing link" ancestors like the Federov.

The meme that small arms don't matter is just an argument used by extremely butthurt shitposters. There is no need to take them seriously, no matter how often it is said.

>using the first mass-issue assault rifle is cheating
lol what

Faggot cheating would be using one of the WW1 era wacky small-production proto-guns; like the French Ribeyrolles.

With or without carry handle mounted optics?

>Semi-auto and and at least a 5 round mag or 5 round clip, meaning M1 Garand would qualify but not a bolt action.
How about the RSC 1918? It fits your criteria. Or even further back, the Winchester 1907. If we want to be giant fucking niggers and go by the letter of your rules, go back further to double action revolver carbines.

OP, I'd say you can be moderately competitive as an infantry force as long as you have an intermediate cartridge or box magazine, preferably both; and at least semi-automatic or double action. You also need to be able to reload rapidly, which means no revolver carbines. So I'd propose a few "earliest rifles that could still have teeth". Kind of in order, least to most useful.

>Winchester 1907
Intermediate cartridge, 15 round box magazine. Only downside is long recoil action.

>Federov Avomat
It wouldn't be a good assault rifle, but it can be fairly accurately called one (especially in it's earlier, lighter chambering). At least equal to poorly maintained Afghan AKs.

>M1 Garand
ping

>StG
First mass produced weapon to check all our boxes. Large magazine, intermediate cartridge, fairly cheap. Still in the league of cheap AKs, but competitive at the low end.

>AK-47
We know this one works. It's not the best you can get, but wars have been won with it against better guns.

Anything after the 50s tends to be good enough so I won't list it all.

I knew some nigger would come with some gun I didn't think off but if they are reliable they work.
Whats the difference between an RSC 1918 and a M1 Garand except that one has 5 and the other one 8 and also that one is heavier than the other?
What's next you want me to give you every fucking criteria including if it is compatible to have aimpoint sights?

RSC technically uses 5 round clips but it's way more annoying to load than a Garand.